CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 103Agricultural Innovations and PracticesAgroforestry and silvopastoral systemsForest Ecology and Conservation

Factors affecting the adoption of agroforestry practices: Insights from silvopastoral systems of colombia

Open access
Jara-Rojas, Roberto, Russy, Soraya, Roco, Lisandro, Fleming-Muñoz, David, Engler, Alejandra·2020·Forests
DOI 10.3390/f11060648
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In Colombia, one-third of the land is devoted to cattle farming, which is one of the main drivers of deforestation, land degradation, loss of biodiversity, and emissions of greenhouses gases. To mitigate the environmental impacts of cattle farming, agroforestry practices have been extensively promoted with mixed results. Despite research and extension efforts over the last 20-year period, agroforestry systems still involve a complex knowledge process among stakeholders that needs to be addressed. To understand the drivers of cattle farmers’ behavior with regard to adopting agroforestry practices, we apply a double hurdle regression for different social, economic and productive information to capture the decision to adopt and the intensity of the adoption as a joint decision of such practices. For this purpose, we use data from a survey (implemented as part of an international project) administered to 1605 cattle farmers located in five agro-ecological regions in Colombia. Our dependent variables are defined by the adoption of four agroforestry practices: scattered trees, trees and shrubs for forage production, forestry plantations, and management of native forest. The adoption decision of agroforestry practices was influenced by the access and use of credit, location, and the implemented livestock system. Herd size and participation in development projects that involved tree planting had a positive influence on the adoption and intensity of agroforestry practices, while the variable associated with presence of water springs tended to boost the intensity of adoption. The diffusion of these technologies might be increased among farmers who have adopted and who are potential adopters, and social capital and networking can play a crucial role in spreading agroforestry as sustainable practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/f11060648

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is an environmental issue due to the replacement of native vegetation for exotic grass species increasing the flammability of degraded forests, as well as creating land degradation, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions.

    “As such, there is an environmental issue due to the replacement of native vegetation for exotic grass species increasing the flammability of degraded forests (Cochrane, 2003), as well as creating land degradation, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions (Jara-Rojas et al., 2020), but there is also a socio-economic transformation advancing with it.”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Jara-Rojas et al., 2020

    Section 2.2 links the establishment of pastures to forest loss and degradation in Colombia, and Section 2.1 describes biodiversity recovery and carbon sequestration through silvopastoral systems. Those passages support the environmental concern, but they do not establish that replacing native vegetation with exotic grasses causes all three cited outcomes, particularly greenhouse gas emissions. The flammability point is attributed to Cochrane (2003), not this source. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. Fleming, A.; O´Grady, A.P.; Medham, D.; England, J.; Mitchel, P.; Moroni, M.; Lyons, A. Understanding the values behind farmer perceptions of trees on farms to increase adoption of agroforestry in Australia. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 39, 9. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Steinfeld, H. Livestock in a Changing Landscape, Volume 1: Drivers, Consequences, and Responses; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
  3. Asner, G.P.; Elmore, A.J.; Olander, L.P.; Martin, R.E.; Harris, A.T. Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2004, 29, 261-299. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Gutteridge, R.C.; Shelton, H.M. Animal Production Potential of Agroforestry Systems. In ACIAR proceedings; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra, Australia, 1994; p. 7.
  5. Foundjem-Tita, D.; Tchoundjeu, Z.; Speelman, S.; D'Haese, M.; Degrande, A.; Asaah, E.; van Huylenbroeck, G.; van Damme, P.; Ndoye, P. Policy and legal frameworks governing trees: Incentives or disincentives for smallholder tree planting decisions in Cameroon? Small-Scale For. 2013, 12, 489-505. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. Lasco, R.; Delfino, R.; Catacutan, D.; Simelton, E.; Wilson, D. Climate risk adaptation by smallholder farmers: The roles of trees and agroforestry. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 6, 83-88. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Mbow, C.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Luedeling, E.; Neufeldt, H.; Minang, P.; Kowero, G. Agroforestry solutions to address food security and climate change challenges in Africa. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 6, 61-67. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  8. Pattanayak, S.K.; Mercer, D.E.; Sills, E.; Yang, J.C. Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor. Syst. 2003, 57, 173-186. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. Knowler, D.; Bradshaw, B. Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 2007, 32, 25-48. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  10. Mercer, D.E. Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: A review. Agrofor. Syst. 2004, 61, 311-328.
  11. Oostendorp, R.H.; Zaal, F. Land acquisition and the adoption of soil and water conservation techniques: A Duration Analysis for Kenya and The Philippines. World Dev. 2012, 40, 1240-1254. [CrossRef] · DOI
  12. Nkamleu, G.B.; Manyong, V.M. Factors affecting the adoption of agroforestry practices by farmers in Cameroon. Small-Scale For. Econ. Manag. Policy 2005, 4, 135-148. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Jera, R.; Ajayi, O.C. Logistic modelling of smallholder livestock farmers' adoption of tree-based fodder technology in Zimbabwe. Agric. Econ. Res. Policy Pract. South. Afr. 2008, 47, 379-392. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Cedamon, E.; Nuberg, I.; Pandit, B.H.; Shretsha, K.K. Adaptation factors and futures of agroforestry systems in Nepal. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 1437-1453. [CrossRef] · DOI
  15. Sabastian, G.E.; Yumm, A.; Roshetko, J.M.; Manalu, J.P.; Martini, E.; Perdana, A. Adoption of silvicultural practices in smallholder timber and NTFPs production systems in Indonesia. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 93, 607-620. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Cuenca, N.; Chavarro, F.; Diaz, O. The bovine cattle in Colombia. Application of time series model to a national inventory. Rev. Fac. Cienc. Econ. 2008, 16, 165-177.
  17. Tocancipá-Falla, J. A report on understanding the coffee crisis: Perspectives and challenges: A roundtable organized by the Cambridge University Colombian Society (CUCS). Camb. Anthropol. 2006, 25, 70-73.
  18. Vergara, W. La ganadería extensiva y el problema agrario. El reto de un modelo de desarrollo rural sustentable para Colombia. Rev. Cienc. Anim. 2010, 3, 45-53.
  19. Nair, P.K.R.; Kumar, B.M.; Nair, V.D. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2009, 172, 10-23. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  20. Gebru, B.M.; Wang, S.W.; Kim, S.J.; Lee, W.K. Socio-ecological niche and factors affecting agroforestry practice adoption in different agroecologies of Southern Tigray, Ethiopia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3729. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Fleming-Muñoz, D.; Preston, K.; Arratia-Solar, A. Value and impact of publicly funded climate change agricultural mitigation research: Insights from New Zealand. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 248, 119249.
  22. Amézquita, M.C.; Ibrahim, M.; Llanderal, T.; Buurman, P.; Amézquita, E. Carbon sequestration in pastures, silvo-pastoral systems and forests in four regions of the Latin American tropics. J. Sustain. For. 2004, 21, 31-49. [CrossRef] · DOI
  23. Mutuo, P.K.; Cadisch, G.; Albrecht, A.; Palm, A.; Verchot, L. Potential of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from soils in the tropics. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosystems 2005, 71, 43-54. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Jose, S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agrofor. Syst. 2009, 76, 1-10. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Bhagwat, S.A.; Willis, K.J.; Birks, J.B.; Whittaker, R.J. Agroforestry: A refuge for tropical biodiversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2008, 23, 261-267. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  26. Fajardo, D.; Johnston-González, R.; Neira, L.; Chará, J.; Murgueitio, E. Influencia de sistemas silvopastoriles en la diversidad de aves en la cuenca del río La Vieja, Colombia. Revista Recursos Naturales y Ambiente 2009, 58, 9-16.
  27. Barragán, W.A. Sistemas silvopastoriles para mejorar la producción de leche y reducir el stress calórico en la Región Caribe Colombiana. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Agronomy, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia, 2013.
  28. Armenteras, D.; Rodriguez, N.; Retana, J. Landscape dynamics in Northwestern Amazonia: An assessment of pastures, fire and illicit crops as drivers of tropical deforestation. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e54310. [CrossRef] · DOI
  29. Dávalos, L.M.; Bejarano, A.C.; Hall, M.A.; Correa, H.L.; Corthals, A.; Espejo, O.J. Forests and Drugs: Coca-Driven Deforestation in Tropical Biodiversity Hotspots. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 1219-1227. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Sanchez-Cuervo, A.M.; Aide, T.M. Identifying hotspots of deforestation and reforestation in Colombia (2001-2010): Implications for protected areas. Ecosphere 2013, 4, 143. [CrossRef] · DOI
  31. Murgueitio, E.; Calle, Z.; Uribe, F.; Calle, A.; Solorio, B. Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. For. Ecol. Manag. 2011, 261, 1654-1663. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Mahecha, L.; Gallego, L.; Pelaez, F. Situación actual de la ganadería de carne en Colombia y alternativas para impulsar su competitividad y sostenibilidad. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu. 2002, 15, 213-225.
  33. Alavalapati, J.R.R.; Luckert, M.K.; Gill, D.S. Adoption of agroforestry practices: A case study from Andhra Pradesh, India. Agrofor. Syst. 1995, 32, 1-14. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Adesina, A.A.; Mbila, D.; Nkamleu, G.B.; Endamana, D. Econometric analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the forest zone of southwest Cameroon. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 80, 255-265. [CrossRef] · DOI
  35. Neupane, R.P.; Sharma, K.R.; Thapa, G.B. Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal: A logistic regression analysis. Agric. Syst. 2002, 72, 177-196. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. Lapar, M.L.A.; Ehui, S.K. Factors affecting adoption of dual-purpose forages in the Philippine uplands. Agric. Syst. 2004, 81, 95-114. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. Cragg, J.G. Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods. Econometrica 1971, 39, 829-844. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Newman, C.; Henchion, M.; Matthews, A. Infrequency of purchase and double-hurdle models of Irish households' meat expenditure. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2001, 28, 393-419. [CrossRef] · DOI
  39. Gebremedhin, B.; Swinton, S.M. Investment in soil conservation in northern Ethiopia: The role of land tenure security and public programs. Agric. Econ. 2003, 29, 69-84. [CrossRef] · DOI
  40. Asfaw, S.; Shiferaw, B.; Simtowe, F. Does Technology Adoption Promote Commercialization? Evidence from Chickpea Technologies in Ethiopia. In CSAE 2010 Conference on Economic Development in Africa; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2010; pp. 21-23.
  41. Wooldridge, J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.
  42. Roco, L.; Engler, A.; Bravo-Ureta, B.; Jara-Rojas, R. Farm level adaptation decisions to face climatic change and variability: Evidence from Central Chile. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 44, 86-96. [CrossRef] · DOI
  43. Evans, J. Plantation Forestry in the Tropics: Tree Planting for Industrial, Social, Environmental, and Agroforestry Purposes; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1992.
  44. Kim, S.A.; Gillespie, J.M.; Paudel, K.P. The Effect of Economic Factors on the Adoption of Best Management Practices in Beef Cattle Production. In Proceedings of the SAEA Annual Meeting, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 14-18 February 2004; Volume 18.
  45. Rahelizatovo, N.C.; Gillespie, J.M. The adoption of best-management practices by Louisiana dairy producers. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2004, 36, 229-240. [CrossRef] · DOI
  46. Sood, K.K.; Mitchell, C.P. Identifying important biophysical and social determinants of on-farm tree growing in subsistence-based traditional agroforestry systems. Agrofor. Syst. 2009, 75, 175-187. [CrossRef] · DOI
  47. Patiño, M.; Moreira, V.; Echeverria, R.; Nahuelhual, L. Factores que determinan la adopción de prácticas de conservación del agua en sistemas ganaderos de la cuenca alta del Río Guarinó (Caldas, Colombia). Rev. Colom. Cienc. Pecua. 2012, 25, 46-55.
  48. Bottaro, G.; Roco, L.; Pettenella, D.; Micheletti, S.; Vanhulst, J. Forest plantations' externalities: An application of the analytic hierarchy process to non-industrial forest owners in Central Chile. Forests 2018, 9, 141. [CrossRef] · DOI
  49. Roco, L.; Poblete, D.; Meza, F.; Kerrigan, G. Farmers' options to address water scarcity in a changing climate: Case studies from two basins in Mediterranean Chile. Environ. Manag. 2016, 58, 958-971. [CrossRef] · DOI
  50. Lee, D.R. Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: Issues and policies for developing countries. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87, 1325-1334. [CrossRef] · DOI
  51. Manning, A.D.; Fischer, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Scattered trees are keystone structures-implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 132, 311-321. [CrossRef] · DOI
  52. Thacher, T.; Lee, D.R.; Schelhas, J.W. Farmer participation in reforestation incentive programs in Costa Rica. Agrofor. Syst. 1996, 35, 269-289. [CrossRef] · DOI
  53. Adesina, A.A.; Chianu, J. Determinants of farmers' adoption and adaptation of alley farming technology in Nigeria. Agrofor. Syst. 2002, 55, 99-112. [CrossRef] · DOI
  54. Armenteras, D.; Rodriguez, N.; Retana, J.; Morales, M. Understanding deforestation in montane and lowland forests of the Colombian Andes. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2011, 11, 693-705. [CrossRef] · DOI
  55. Ayuk, E.T. Adoption of agroforestry technology: The case of live hedges in the Central Plateau of Burkina Faso. Agric. Syst. 1997, 54, 189-206. [CrossRef] · DOI
  56. Calle, A.; Montagnini, F.; Zuluaga, A.F. Farmers' perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in Quindío, Colombia. Bois et Forets des Tropiques 2009, 300, 79-94. [CrossRef] · DOI
  57. Navas, A. Importancia de los sistemas silvopastoriles en la reducción del estrés calórico en sistemas de producción ganadera tropical. Rev. Med. Vet. 2010, 19, 113-122. [CrossRef] · DOI
  58. Dagang, A.B.; Nair, P.K.R. Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: Recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agrofor. Syst. 2003, 59, 149-155. [CrossRef] · DOI
  59. Bandiera, O.; Rasul, I. Social networks and technology adoption in Northern Mozambique. Econ. J. 2006, 116, 869-902. [CrossRef] · DOI
  60. Mekoya, A.; Oosting, S.J.; Fernandez-Rivera, S.; Van der Zijpp, A.J. Farmers' perceptions about exotic multipurpose fodder trees and constraints to their adoption. Agrofor. Syst. 2008, 73, 141-153. [CrossRef] · DOI
  61. Thangata, P.H.; Alavalapati, J.R.R. Agroforestry adoption in southern Malawi: The case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidia sepium and maize. Agric. Syst. 2003, 78, 57-71. [CrossRef] · DOI
  62. Valdivia, C.; Barbieri, C.; Gold, M.A. Between forestry and farming: Policy and environmental implications of the barriers to agroforestry adoption. Can. J. Agric. Econ. 2012, 60, 155-175. [CrossRef] · DOI
  63. Pagiola, S.; Agostini, P.; Gobbi, J.; de Haan, C.; Ibrahim, M.; Murgueitio, E.; Ruíz, J.P. Paying for biodiversity conservation services: Experience in Colombia, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua. Mt. Res. Dev. 2005, 25, 206-211. [CrossRef] · DOI
  64. Johnson, R.J.; Doye, D.; Lalman, D.L.; Peel, D.S.; Curry Raper, K.; Chung, C. Factors affecting adoption of recommended management practices in stocker cattle production. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2010, 42, 15-30. [CrossRef] · DOI
  65. Boron, V.; Payán, E.; MacMillan, D.; Tzanopoulos, J. Achieving sustainable development in rural areas in Colombia: Future scenarios for biodiversity conservation under land use change. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 27-37. [CrossRef] · DOI
  66. Furumo, P.R.; Lambin, E.F. Scaling up zero-deforestation initiatives through public-private partnerships: A look inside post-conflict Colombia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2020, 62, 102055. [CrossRef] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jara-Rojas, R., Russy, S., Roco, L., Fleming-Muñoz, D., & Engler, A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Universidad de Talca, Talca 3460000, Chile
  • Universidad de Talca (CL)
  • Austral University of Chile (CL)
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
Corresponding author
Roco, Lisandro
ORCID
Venue
Forests
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-06-06
Volume
11
Issue
6
Pages
648
ISSN
1999-4907 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/f11060648
OpenAlex
W3033524293
Cited by
103
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3
FWCI
15.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Forests (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Agroforestry and silvopastoral systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Forest Ecology and Conservation
Keywords
agroforestry adoption, silvopastoral systems, cattle farming, adoption intensity, double hurdle model, scattered trees, forest plantations, native forest management, access to credit, herd size, water springs, social capital, technology diffusion, livestock production systems, Colombia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review