understanding why farmers plant trees in the homestead

8/3/2019 Understanding Why Farmers Plant Trees in the Homestead

1/17

Understanding why farmers plant trees in the homesteadagroforestry in Bangladesh

M. A. SALAM1, T. NOGUCHI2 and M. KOIKE21Department of Statistics, Jahangirnagar University, Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh; 2Department

of Forest Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University, Minamiminowa, Nagano-ken

399-4598, Japan

Key words: decision-making, economic benefit, homestead forestry, tree-planting

Abstract. Because trees cover only 6.4% of the total land area of Bangladesh, while agricul-tural expansion continues to massively deplete the natural forests, a well-managed homesteadforestry practice is vital for reversing the existing trend and promoting the ecological balanceof the country. An understanding of the decision-making process of the farmers who practicehomestead forestry is important in expanding and improving the practice. This paper seeks tocharacterize and analyze factors influencing farmers decisions about tree planting. Logisticand multiple regression analyses were applied to determine the factors that influence the farmerstree-planting decisions. The analyses demonstrate a number of important conclusions: (i) tree-planting increases with the amount of homestead land owned; (ii) farmers whose main sourceof income is non-agricultural are more likely to decide to plant trees in the homestead; (iii)purchasing cost of fuelwood has a positive influence on tree-planting decisions; (iv) number ofmale family member has a positive influence on farmers tree-planting decisions; and (v) knowl-edge of the activities of the forestry extension programs has a positive influence on tree-plantingdecisions. The results of the study demonstrate that, in recent years, farmers decisions of whetheror not to plant trees have been based primarily on economic rather than ecological concerns. It

is concluded that there is substantial potential for the improvement of homestead forestry, andthat properly managed homestead forestry can alleviate the poverty of rural people by increasingoverall household income. To this end, it is suggested that forestry extension workers work moreclosely with the local people in order to implement homestead forestry.

Introduction

Once covered by dense forests, Bangladesh is now almost devoid of forestedland, except in a few selected areas of the country (Giri et al., 1996). Althoughthe Forest Department presently considers 14.6% of the total land area ofBangladesh as forested, in reality, only about 68% of the total land area ofBangladesh merits the term forested (Giri et al., 1996; FAO, 1995). Despite

the presence of a large government Forest Department dedicated to protectingand managing the forests, forest cover in Bangladesh has been shrinkingrapidly both in terms of area and volume. Massive degradation and depletionof natural forest resources created the difficult challenge of balancing pro-duction and consumption of rural fuel energy (Imam, 1991). The high rate ofdeforestation and landscape conversion have led to widespread soil fertilityloss, massive erosion, watershed deterioration, and floods (personal commu-nications).

Agroforestry Systems 50: 7793, 2000. 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.


2/17

The amount of forest land in Bangladesh has already been reduced to alevel far below that necessary to maintain the ecological balance of thecountry. The scope of horizontal expansion of forest area in Bangladesh isnarrow because the majority of officially demarcated forestland in Bangladeshis situated in remote areas in the southwest, southeast, and northeast parts ofthe country. Thus, it would not be possible to meet the ecological needs ofthe country even if total forest cover within the officially demarcated forest-land exceeded 25%.

Substantial potential exists for promoting homestead forests in Bangladeshin terms of both supply and demand. An estimated 13 million homesteads ofthe country encompass about 0.39 million ha of homestead land (personalcommunications). Farmers believe that they have the space to plant more trees

on their land (Leuschner and Khaleque, 1987; personal communications). Onthe demand side, farmers need various farm forestry products, especiallyfirewood, timber, and fodder. This will also reduce pressure on natural forests.Although the homestead forests amount to about 10% of the reserved forests(Hocking and Islam, 1994), this sector has provided 85% of all woodconsumed, including 90% of all fuelwood and 90% of bamboo (personal com-munications), and this statistic is not expected to change substantially in thenear future.

The above discussion clearly demonstrates that promotion of homesteadforestry in Bangladesh offers a practical response to the following: massivedegradation and depletion of forest resources, the rural energy crisis, optimumutilization of already scarce land, and environmental improvement and land-scape enhancement. Thus, the development and encouragement of homesteadforestry should be one aim of the general policy of many government andnon-governmental agencies. Achieving this goal will require attention to manydimensions of forestry, most particularly farmers attitudes and decision-making about the planting of trees. Farmers willingness to grow trees dependson many factors, and if government or non-government organizations intendto convince farmers to grow more trees, these factors must first be understood.This article seeks to investigate the reasons why farmers, under their currentcircumstances, are not planting more trees on their homestead given thehuge benefits in terms of fuelwood and timber. This article also seeks to char-acterize and analyze factors influencing farmers decisions about tree planting.It is argued that understanding the process by which farmers make tree-planting decisions will broaden the general populations perception and lead

to an increase in the volume of timber grown on homesteads. The results ofthe study will provide an effective means for researchers and developmentprofessionals to build an economically viable and ecologically sustainablehomestead agroforestry system that will improve the biological productivityand economic returns of privately owned land.

78


3/17

Data and methodology

Studies in developing nations have highlighted a scarcity of fuelwood as onefactor contributing to farmers willingness to plant trees (Dewees, 1992). InBangladesh, fuelwood shortage is acute in the areas away from the forests.Based on this circumstance, we gathered data for this study from two distinctlocations remote from forests and proximate to forests. The data weregathered from personal interviews in four villages two remote from forestsand two proximate to forests. The villages were (1) Chandrimamatpara ofthe Rajbari district (remote), (2) Durgapur of Dhaka district (remote), (3)Gachabari of Tangail district (near Madhupur Sal Forest), and (4) Jalchara ofSylhet district (near Hill Forest). The survey was supported by limited private

funds. Financial and temporal constraints inhibited randomized selection ofunits. Therefore, the study villages selected were purposively based on thecriteria of our assumption. In this sampling, a sample of four villages wasselected which was considered to be most representative of the population asa whole. If the sampler is experienced and an expert, this approach might leadto more valid and reliable estimates than the approach of using a randomsample in many cases (Levy and Lemeshow, 1991). Moreover, agriculturalactivities and homestead forestry all over Bangladesh are relatively uniform(Leuschner and Khaleque, 1987). Thus, the results of the study can be rea-sonably extrapolated to apply to other regions of the country.

All households in the selected villages were interviewed using a pre-testeduniform questionnaire. In total, 206 households were interviewed via in-homevisit. The heads-of-household were chosen as respondents based on the pre-sumption that they had the widest access to data regarding their farms. If thehead of the household was not present, another adult male from that house-hold would be interviewed. When no adult male was present, a consecutivevisit was scheduled until the interview was secured. The sociocultural contextof rural Bangladesh discourages strangers from talking to female householdmembers. Thus, female respondents were excluded. However, at the time ofthe interview we requested that the wife of the male head of the householdshare her responses, and that the female family members contributed toresponses from approximately one third of the households.

Statistical analysis

To quantify the factors influencing the farmers tree-planting decision, a two-stage regression approach was adopted. In the first stage, a discrete variablelogit assessment of the choice to plant or not was carried out. In this case, a100 percent sample was included in the model because it is a reasonable firstchoice for any farmer. The choice of farmers to plant trees or not can beframed as binary-choice models which assume that individuals are facedwith a choice between two alternatives and the choice depends on identifi-

79


4/17

able characteristics. Let Ti represent a dichotomous variable that equals 1 ifthe farmer planted at least one tree in the homestead over the last year and 0if no tree was planted. The probability of planting choice, Pr(Ti = 1), is cumu-lative density function F evaluated atXi, whereXi is a vector of explanatoryvariables and is a vector of unknown parameter (Johnston and Dinardo,1997). This kind of cumulative density function can be modeled using logisticprobability function, which has the following form:

exp(Xi)Choice to plant three = Pr(Ti = 1) = .

1 + exp(Xi)

The estimation form of the logistic transformation of the probability of

farmers choice to plant tree, Pr(Ti = 1) can be represented as:

Pi(Ti = 1)ln [] = 0 + 1X1 + 2X2 + 3X3 + 4X4 + 5X5 + 6X6 + . . .

1 Pi(Ti = 1)

In order to estimate the parameters of the variables influencing farmers toplant trees, maximum likelihood estimator is used. The estimated model canbe represented by equation (1).

In the second stage, a multiple regression of the same independent vari-ables that were used in the logistic model with a new dependent variablenumber of trees planted was adopted. In this case, sample households ofthose that planted trees were considered. Equation (2) tested for the basic rela-tionships between the number of trees planted on the homestead at that timeand the hypothesized independent variables. Equation (1) and equation (2)adds only household level variables because the household is the sole managerof homestead forestry. The Statistical Package program SPSS for Windowswas used for the analysis.

Variables used in the model

Homesteading is an important part of the still existing traditional agriculturesystem in Bangladesh. Thus, farmers plant trees on the homestead after estab-lishing a dwelling or dwellings, and sufficient space for vegetable productions

and post-harvesting operations. Vegetable production and other agriculturalactivities on the homestead may limit tree planting there (personal commu-nications). Thus, greater land availability is assumed to permit tree plantingwithout the sacrifice of agricultural activities; for this reason, we includedthe amount of homestead land in the model as an independent variable.

Tree planting generally coincides with agricultural activities, the latter ofwhich is naturally a priority. Therefore, rural families who live mainly onincome from agriculture have little time to spend planting trees. Moreover,

80


5/17

compared to most agricultural activities, tree growing is a practice that requiresa sacrifice of immediate earnings for somewhat uncertain long-term benefits.Education may inspire a spirit of self-reliance and the willingness to sacri-fice immediate financial benefits. Thus, we hypothesized that family incomebased on agriculture to be negatively to the farmers tree planting decisions,and thereby included this aspect in the equation as an independent variable.

Tree planting is labor intensive at the initial stage. Households in whichfamily members are allocated to off-farm employment that generates morefamily income than on-farm activities may be less motivated to sacrificefamily labor to plant trees. Some studies have indicated a link between refor-estation and households in which family labor are allocated to off-farmemployment for purposes of increased income (Arnold, 1987; Godoy, 1992;

Thacher et al., 1997). Allocation of family labor to outside work may limitlabor force to plant trees on the homestead. Therefore, the variable repre-senting income earned from non-farm labor as % of total family income isexpected to be negatively associated with the number of trees on the home-stead.

In Bangladesh, there are marked divisions of labor in terms of gender. Inthe case of tree growing, male household members are usually responsibilefor the species selection and planting sites, collection of seedlings and fertil-izer, and planting the collected seedlings (Leuschne and Khaleque, 1987).Female household members are generally involved in caring for the plantedtrees. Therefore, the number of adult male family members is expected to bepositively associated with farmers decisions to plant trees on the homesteads,and we included it as an independent variable in the regression equation.

Almost all homsteaders are affected by a shortage of improved seeldingsof selected species, as well as by a lack of scientific knowledge with regardto tree-growing (personal communications). Forestry extension programs areresponsible for promoting the management of homestead forestry by providingtechnical advice and inputs such as improved seeldings and extension activ-ities. Technical information provided by various organizations is an importantfactor in enhancing farm forestry tree production (Singh and Balooni, 1995).Thus, it is hypothesized that better knowledge of the forestry extensionprograms will be positively related to the number of trees grown on the home-stead, and this is included in the equation as an independent variable.

At the time of the interview, farmers reported that the presence of bambooclumps on their homestead limited the scope of land on which to plant other

trees. In the regression equation, the existence of bamboo clumps on the home-stead is used as dummy variable to control for the existence or nonexistenceof bamboo clump differences that might be statistically significant.

Some studies in developing countries have stressed a scarcity of fuelwoodas one of the key factors to motivate farmers in planting trees (Dewees, 1992).As long as fuelwood could be collected without paying for it, farmers hadlittle incentive to plant fuelwood producing trees (FAO, 1985). Godoy (1992),however, raised the question on the assumption that high fuelwood demand

81


6/17

stimulate tree production, suggesting that this is only the case when there isa fuelwood crisis. Thus, the high purchasing cost of fuelwood may motivatefarmers to plant trees.

Demand for fuelwood is higher in areas remote from forests, and farmersin those areas may plant more trees than do the farmers in areas proximateto forests. Thus, we included a dummy variable representing location (i.e.,remote from or proximate to forest) in order to test whether there is a sig-nificant difference in farmers tree planting decisions between these two areas.

In many situations, plantation policy has a prime objective the contri-bution to rural employment. A considerable proportion of rural householdsin the world generate some of their income from selling forest products(Arnold, 1987). Forest products increasingly provide one of the main sources

of non-farm income to rural households (FAO, 1978). But forestry is charac-terized as a long-term and liquid investment, which produces relatively lowprivate and social returns to capital, primarily because of its low output valuein relation to time-scale of the investment. The long-term nature of forestryand the lack of a regular income flow, coupled with quite limited returns tocapital have made it unattractive for private investment in new planting(personal communications). Thus, it is assumed that the price received fromwood may influence farmers to plant trees.

Model

Given the above hypothesized factors of farmers tree planting decisionmaking, the models to be estimated are:

Pi(Ti = 1)ln [] = b0 + b1(AHL) + b2(SFI) + b3(INL) + b4(KFE)

1 Pi(Ti = 1)+ b5(NMF) + b6(BCE) + b7(LOC) + b8(PFL)

+ b9(POP) + b10(PFI) (1)

NUMT = b0 + b1(AHL) + b2(SFI) + b3(INL) + b4(KFE) + b5(NMF)

+ b6(BCE) + b7(LOC) + b8(PFL) + b9(POP) + b10(PFI) (2)

where

NUMT = Number of trees in the homestead;AHL = amount of homestead land in (ha);SFI = a dummy variable for source of family income as agriculture. If

the main source of income is agriculture, SFI = 1 and 0 otherwise.INL = income from non-farm labor as % of household income;KFE = a dummy variable for the awareness of the activities of the forestry

extension programs;KFE = 1 if the farmer is aware and 0 if not aware;

82


7/17

NMF = number of adult male family members (defined as male aged 14 yearsand above);

BCE = a dummy variable for existence of bamboo clump, BCE = 1 ifbamboo clump exist and 0 otherwise.

LOC = a dummy variable for location of the study village, LOC = 1, iflocated away from the forests and 0 if located near forests;

PFL = purchasing cost of fuelwood per household per month;POP = price of wood production per family per year; andPFI = per capita family income

Results and discussion

Characteristics of the variables included in the model

So as to provide background for interpreting the factors that influence farmerstree planting decisions, the characteristics of the variables included in themodel were first examined; the results can be seen in Table 1. As indicated,approximately 51% of the households had less than 0.08 ha of homestead land,and only 17% of the remaining households had 0.16 ha or more of home-stead land. Thus, a considerable number of farmers possessed a very limitedamount of homestead land. The median amount of homestead land was 0.068ha. Bangladeshs economy and employment are dominated by agriculture, andagriculture was the main source of household income for roughly 57% of thehouseholds. About 37% of the households did not allocate household laborto off-farm activities to generate income, and 24.4% of the households allo-cated all family labor to off-farm work to generate family income. On anaverage, about 50% of family labor was allocated to outside work (off-farmlabor) to generate more family income. Although the government forestryextension program under the scheme of Thana Afforestation and NurseryDevelopment Project was started around 19871988 (personal communica-tions) and there are some current NGOs working for the extension of villageforestry, only about 27% of the farmers were aware of the activities of theforestry extension programs. The number of adult male family members was1 in about 51% of the households, and 2 for 22% of the households. Theaverage number of adult male family members was 1.9. About 48% of thehouseholds had bamboo clump on their homesteads. About 60% of the

surveyed households were located remote from forests. About 11% of thehouseholds had no trees on the homestead, and about 19% of the householdshad 50 or more trees on the homestead. The average number of trees perhousehold was 19. The price of output per farm was about 1238 Taka per yearand the annual purchasing cost of fuelwood per family was about 996 Taka.

83


8/17

84

Table 1. Characteristics of the variables included in the regression models, Bangladesh.

Variable n = 172

Amount of homestead land

< 0.08 ha 51.2%0.080.160 31.4%0.161 and above 17.4%Median 00.068 ha

Source of family income

Agriculture 57.0%Non-agriculture 43.0%

Income from non-farm labor as % of household income

0% 37.2%

150% 12.6%5175% 15.7%7699% 11.1%100% 24.4%Median 50.0%

Farmers awareness of the activities of the forestry extension programs

Aware 26.7%Not aware 73.7%

Number of adult male family members

0 01.7%1 51.2%2 22.1%> 2 25.0%Mean 01.9

Education per family in schooling year0 21.5%< 5 64.0%> 5 14.5%Mean 02.5

Presence of bamboo clump

Present 48.3%Absent 51.7%

Location of the sample villages

Away from the forests 59.9%Near the forests 40.1%

Number of trees on the homestead

0 11.0%110 23.9%

1120 18.0%2130 16.9%3140 06.9%4150 04.7%51 and more 18.6%Median 19.0

Annual price of out put per family (in Taka*) 1238Annual cost of fuelwood per family (in Taka*) 0996

* 1 US$ = 39 Taka (in 1999).


9/17

Evidence from empirical results

Results of the logistic regression and multiple regression analyses are pre-sented in Tables 2 and 3. It is seen from the tables that the coefficient for theamount of homestead land was statistically significant and, as expected, wasa positive influence on the farmers tree-planting decision. The homesteadsin Bangladesh are usually built on mounds in order to raise dwellings abovethe water level during the annual monsoon floods. Farmers use these moundsfor several purposes. In Bangladesh, post-harvesting operations of crops aredone by traditional methods. The homestead is the center of all these opera-tions, requiring a considerable amount of open space, air, and sunshine.Homestead land is also used as a field for vegetable production, mainly for

purpose of household consumption. The use of agriculturally fitted lands totree growing may be an especially serious problem where lack of land hasalready constrained agricultural production (FAO, 1985). When benefits arelong-term, the perceived value is low and market access is not secure, farmersare not willing to allocate productive land to reforestation (Hyman, 1983;Francis and Atta-Krah, 1989). Thus, if the size of the homestead land is small,important trade-offs must be made between trees and vegetable production,as well as between trees and open space for post-harvesting operations.Approximately 27% of the farmers interviewed cited that potential restric-tion on sufficient air and sunlight for post harvesting operations was a con-straint to planting trees on the homestead (Table 4). Thus, homestead forestcan be promoted if available homestead land permits tree production without

85

Table 2. Results of logistic regression analysis for assessing farmers choice to plant trees ornot in their homestead in Bangladesh.

Variable Logistic Standard Waldcoefficients error statistics

Amount of homestead land (AHL) 4.9123** 2.1742 5.1046Source of family income (SFI) 0.2920 0.4351 0.4504Income from non-farm labor

as % of household income (INLHI) 0.5934 0.4389 1.8277Farmers awareness of the activities

of the forestry extension programs (KAFEP) 1.1419** 0.4607 6.1424No. of adult male family member (NAMFM) 0.2587* 0.1524 2.8804Existence of bamboo clump (BCEH) 0.1860 0.4173 0.1986Location of the village (LOCA) 0.5768 0.5110 1.2741Purchasing cost of fuelwood (PFUEL) 0.0028*** 0.0010 7.3347Price of output (POUT) 0.0001 0.00001 0.5354Per capita family income (PFI) 0.0003 0.0005 0.3401Constant 1.8481*** 0.6697 7.6145

Model 2 45.313***

***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10.


10/17

mitigating the immediate benefits of current land use. Since there is littleone can do to change the amount of available homestead land, the gradualtransition from traditional post harvesting operations of crops to modern tech-niques, though a time- and capital-consuming task, may promote homesteadforestry in Bangladesh.

It is shown in Table 3 that agriculture as a main source of income had anegative influence on farmers tree-planting decisions, and the relationshipwas statistically significant. This provides some confirmation of the earlierassumption that agriculture, even in the case that is the main source of familyincome, tends to discourage farmers from planting trees on the homestead.Activities at the initial stage of tree planting are labor intensive, and theseactivities usually coincide with crop harvesting operations (FAO, 1985).Demands for agricultural labor are highest at that time. Farmers motivated to

plant trees are faced with a shortage of available labor for crop production(Hyman, 1983). Thus farmers whose main source of income is agriculturemight be discouraged to allocate family labor for tree planting activities. About41% of the farmers reported that a shortage of family labor to allocate for treeplanting was a constraint to planting trees on their homestead (Table 4).Another fact or is that households having a larger amount of cultivable landdepend mainly on agriculture. Hocking et al. (1996) have highlighted thatlarger-scale farmers tend to plant trees somewhat separated from the home-

86

Table 3. Factors responsible for the existence of the number of trees in the homestead inBangladesh: ordinary least-square regression analysis results.

Dependent variable: Total number of trees existed in the homestead

Variable Coefficienta Standard t-value Elasticityb

error

Amount of homestead land (AHL) 148.337*** 38.15 3.89 5.60Source of family income (SFI) 23.590** 10.01 2.36 0.44Income from non-farm labor

as % of household income (INL) 06.696 09.69 0.69Farmers awareness of the activities of

the forestry extension programs (KFE) 22.529** 10.30 2.19 2.11No. of adult male family member (NMF) 00.607 03.24 0.12

Existence of bamboo clump (BCE) 08.046 09.03 0.89Location of the village (LOC) 016.37 11.18 1.46Purchasing cost of fuelwood (PFL) 00.03 00.02 1.13Price of output (POP) 00.0002 00.0007 0.32Per capita family income (PFI) 00.003 00.009 0.27Constant 21.16 15.72 1.35

R2 00.2015F-value 03.55***

a ***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10.b Percent change in the number of trees for 10% change in the independent variable.


11/17

stead. Moreover, farmers usually compare the expected benefits of treeplanting on their lands with the benefits they can attain by using their land,labor, and capital for the next best use in the farming system (Gregerson etal., 1989). Long-term investment in tree planting is most likely if labor orcapital constraints faced by the farmers inhibit alternative economical viableinvestments (Thacher et al., 1996). For this reason, if the returns to land fromtree growing attained a higher value relative to those of the alternatives, treeplanting could better compete with other agriculture practices (Hocking et al .,1997).

It is seen from both Table 2 and Table 3 that farmers awareness of theactivities of the forestry extension programs, as expected, was positivelyrelated with the farmers tree planting decision and number of trees on thehomestead, and that the relationship was statistically significant. Positive atti-

tudes are directly related and influenced by the quantity of land owned,familys financial status, and/or access to other resources such as seedlingsor technical advice (FAO, 1985). In the case of homestead forestry, farmersbear the complete management responsibility for growing trees on their home-steads. National forestry extension programs are accountable for increasingand sustaining homegarden productivity by combining indigenous knowl-edge and ecological wisdom of the villagers with scientific knowledge, andalso by providing good planting materials. Currently, seedlings are provided

87

Table 4. Farmers opinion on tree-planting in Bangladesh.

Opinion Percentage*n = 172

Reasons for planting trees

Income generation 73.3Household consumption 60.5Savings for emergency cash needs 45.6Maintenance of ecological balance 36.4Shelter from strong wind 15.3No special interests 01.8

Constraints on planting trees

Scarcity of expandable land 47.7

Lack of family member to do planting 40.7Scarcity of financial resources 34.9Restriction of sunshine and air 27.3Did not think to plant 16.3Cattle damaged seedlings 04.7Othersa 03.5

Source of encouragement to plant trees

None 55.2Radio/Television 40.6Forestry professionals/NGO workers 10.5Community members 09.9

a land is lower than flood level, land is not divided among the heirs, due to idleness etc.


12/17

to interested tree growers by the Forest Department within the framework ofthe Thana Afforestation and Nursery Project and by non-governmental orga-nizations under various farm forestry programs. Most of the rural householdsare poor and illiterate. About 97.7% own less than 0.2 ha of land (Dembner,1987). They do not have access to the latest technical information, and havea limited capacity to afford the initial cost of tree growing. About 35% of thefarmers surveyed cited scarcity of financial resources as a constraint on treeplanting (Table 4). Studies demonstrate that unavailability of good seedlingsaffect farmers tree planting decisions (personal communications). The abovediscussion clearly indicates that support from government and non-govern-ment agencies is vital to enhancing homestead forestry.

The dissemination of information through farmers interaction with forestry

extension programs and other organizations can influence the adoption of newtechnologies and forestry practices (Smit and Smithers, 1992; Besley and Case,1993). But the contribution of forestry extension workers or non-governmentorganization workers to encourage farmers in tree planting has been demon-strably poor. The forestry professionals had encouraged only about 11% ofthe farmers interviewed to plant trees (Table 4). Thus, more widespreadknowledge of the activities of the forestry extension programs could have apositive impact on farmers decisions to plant trees. Farmers who are awareof forestry extension programs are more likely to decide to plant trees on thehomesteads.

It is seen from Table 2 that the purchasing cost of fuelwood was positivelyrelated with the farmers tree-planting decisions and the relationship was sta-tistically significant. Wood is the dominant domestic fuel for rural people indeveloping countries (FAO, 1978). Trees provide at least 90% of the energyrequirement in developing countries (NAS, 1980). In Bangladesh, biomassfuel is the principal energy source for household needs and about 49% of thebiomass fuel comes from trees (personal communications). Bangladesh hasfaced a tremendous crisis in fuelwood. The steady disappearance of trees inthe vicinity of the community means increased social hardship. Progressively,more time from household members is devoted to gathering fuel. As thesituation deteriorate further, and the household is forced to purchase its woodfuel, a heavy burden is placed on the household budget. To overcome thisproblem, farmers increase supply of fuelwood from their home garden, iffeasible. Other experiences have suggested that, even where it is recognizedthat fuelwood is in short supply, local people are rarely motivated to grow

trees only for fuel except perhaps where there are markets for it (FAO, 1985).The coefficients of the other variables in the model presented in Table 2

and 3, income from non-farm labor as % of household income, number ofadult male family members, existence of bamboo clumps on the homesteadland, price of output, and location of the village, exhibit the expected rela-tionship with the farmers tree-planting decisions. However, these are notstatistically significant. Thus the nature of their impact on farmers treeplanting decisions cannot be strictly interpreted.

88


13/17

The relative importance of the factors that influenced farmers to plant treeson the homestead was assessed by considering elasticities for each statisti-cally significant variable. Percent change in the number of trees for 10%change in the statistically significant independent variables is presented in thelast column of Table 3. It is seen from this table that the most important factorinfluencing farmers to plant trees on the homestead was the amount of home-stead land, followed by farmers awareness of the activities of the forestryextension programs, and thirdly by the source of family income. The valueof2 statistic in Table 2 and that of F statistic in Table 3 indicate that theselected variables fit the estimated models well. The estimated model formultiple regression was checked for collinearity using a variance inflationfactor and a condition index. Both procedures showed the model to be free

of significant collinearity.

Farmers opinions on the reasons for tree planting

The decision to plant trees is apparently a simple one, at least in terms of theaction itself of planting trees. Nonetheless, homestead farmers plant trees fordifferent reasons. The data on the reasons for, and constraints on, tree-plantingdecisions are presented in Table 4. The farmers planted trees mainly togenerate income (approximately 73.3%) and for purpose of household con-sumption in the form of fruit, firewood, and building materials (approximately60.5%). About 45.6% of the farmers interviewed reported that they plantedtrees for projected income at a time of future crisis. Many studies in devel-oping countries have indicated that fuelwood demand is an important factorin the inducement to plant trees (Dewees, 1992). Although fuelwood is a basicnecessarily for all households in the villages studied, and likely to remainone for a considerable time to come, people are rarely motivated to grow treesespecially for fuelwood. Despite the presence of standing trees, rural peopleseldom use wood for fuel; the primary sources of fuel are crop residues, animalmanure, and bamboo top (Dembner, 1987). This study found that farmerstypically indicated more than one reason for tree planting, and, in each case,economic factors have been of primary consideration, indicating that economicincentive is the most important factor for promoting homestead forestry. Atpresent, homestead income contributes about 10% of the total income offarmers, and the ratio for small-scale farmers is higher than that of large-scalefarmers (personal communications). The development of productive home-

stead forestry can increase overall household income by producing moretimber, fruit, and fuel. The availability of more fuelwood could reduce the useof cowdung and crop residues for fuel, which can be used in the crop fieldsfor improving soil fertility and subsequent crop production. There is a strongemphasis currently at work promoting social forestry in developing coun-tries. Substantive literature on this subject has highlighted the idea thatreforestation projects on individual private landholdings can achieve marked

89


14/17

success when economic benefit is given long-term consideration (Shiva etal., 1985; Singh and Balooni, 1995).

Trees provide numerous benefits such as building materials, food, andfirewood; generate family income; further the ecological circumstances nec-essary for freshwater, wildlife habitats, and ecological balance; and protectagainst soil erosion. To determine the perceived importance of forests, thefarmers interviewed were asked to grade the importance of these eight func-tions of trees. The results are presented in Table 5. As might be expected, theactivities that farmers perceived as most important were related to the directconsumption of forest products, such as supplying building materials, food,and firewood, and generating family income. Thus, the results of Table 5convey similar information as that in Table 4, all of which supports the sup-

position that farmers are motivated to plant trees mainly by economic benefits.In order to keep houses and homes above the water level during the annualmonsoon season, it is necessary to erect dwellings at the highest elevations,especially throughout the floodplain regions. Due to the frequent presence offlood and rain water on this land, soil erosion is a serious and ongoingproblem. Tree-planting could thus serve to protect homestead land againstwater-induced soil erosion by binding the soil (FAO, 1989). Ecologicaldamage is more prevalent in barren areas than in those with timber (Thamanand Clarke, 1993). Yet the majority of the respondents surveyed graded theforest as being somewhat important as a wildlife habitat, a check on soilerosion, and a means of maintaining ecological balance. Although severalprevious studies clearly demonstrated that farmers know the importance offorests and trees and are capable of managing them (Leuschner and Khaleque,1987; Dembner, 1987), it seems that there is still a dearth of knowledge onthe part of farmers, and institutional programs are necessary to facilitatelearning.

90

Table 5. Perceived usefulness of forest function in Bangladesh.

Item Level of importance

Very Somewhat Notimportant important important

Building materials 94.7 05.3 00.0Firewood 92.4 07.6 00.0Family income 87.8 08.7 03.5Food 57.0 27.9 15.1Protection of ecological balance 32.6 62.2 05.2Wildlife habitat 25.0 65.1 09.9Control of soil erosion 20.9 66.3 12.8Maintenance of water supply 03.5 18.0 78.5


15/17

Conclusion

The survey results lead us to conclude that homestead regions in Bangladeshfunction not only as a dwelling place but as a production system. Notably,we found that farmers, in recent years, have been motivated to plant trees formultiple purposes, not just for firewood or timber or fodder. But the majorityof farmers prioritized the financial benefits of trees. A major finding of thisemerging from the informal interviews with farmers is that economic factorsare of primary importance in the decision of whether to plant trees or not. Itappears, therefore, that making tree farming more remunerative is a necessarycondition for increasing the amount of tree growing in these homesteads, i.e.,to successfully compete with other activities. Forestry is an extensive alter-

native land use with the potential to offer an attractive balance between com-mercial viability and environmental enhancement (Bishop, 1992). In somedeveloping countries, such as Nepal, rural people have changed economic andresource management strategies and off-farm income has begun to play a keyrole in individual household economy (Malla, 1997). Adoption of intensifiedagroforestry in Bangladesh would increase overall household income and thepotential benefits of tree planting on the homestead could be 200% relativeto that of arable crops (personal communications). Given the increased aware-ness of farmers regarding the potential economic benefits of tree planting, itshould be possible to harness these positive attitudes to a strategy to alle-viate the poverty of the rural people. To this end, forestry professionals shoulddevelop a sustainable management system appropriate to the local physicaland cultural conditions, rooted in existing local practice and acceptable tolocal users, and for the advancement of multiple objectives recognized bythe people.

It has been made clear that farmers awareness of forestry extensionprograms is slight, and the contribution of forestry workers to motivate farmersto grow trees has been negligible. To maximize the potential of homesteadforestry, forestry professionals and extension workers should broaden theiractivities and work more closely with local farmers. They should dissemi-nate technical information to tree growers, supply quality seedlings suitablefor the area, provide effective institutional support, and arrange for efficientmarketing facilities of the farm forest products so that poor farmers can comeforward to enhance tree production and get proper returns from production.Results of regression analyses also support these notions. Since land avail-

able for tree growing is very limited in Bangladesh due to an increasingpopulation, forestry extension workers should identify all tracts of land fitfor tree planting and take effective measures toward reforestation. Results ofstatistical analysis covey the same information. Adoption of more systematictree planting designs and careful species selection may reduce the difficul-ties of using homestead land for tree planting simultaneous to other uses.

Other important factors that have influenced farmers tree planting deci-

91


16/17

sions supported by statistical analyses are purchasing cost of fuelwood andthe number of male family members.

At present, an organizational model for the commercially oriented man-agement of homestead forestation does not exist. As yet, the process of policyadaptation has not been responsive to the evolving focus on homestead forestryas a component of rural development. A policy formulated to identify anyobstacles clearly and to implement solutions is bound to attain success.

References

Arnold JEM (1987) Economic considerations in agroforestry. In: Steppler HA and Nair PKR(eds) Agroforestry: A Decade of Development, pp 173190. ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya

Besley T and Case A (1993) Modeling technology adoption in developing countries. Am EconRev 83: 396402

Bishop KD (1992) Britains new forests: public dependence on private interests? In: Gilg AW(ed.) Restructuring the Countryside: Environmental Policy in Practice. Avebury Studies GreenResearch, 146 pp

Dembner SA (1987) Forest sector planning in Bangladesh. Forestry Project Profiles No. 3,FAO Forestry Department, Rome

Dewees PA (1992) Social and Economic Incentives for Smallholder Tree Growing: A Case Studyfrom Muranga District, Kenya. Community Forestry Case Study Series No. 5. FAO, Rome,Italy

FAO (1995) Forestry Statistics Today for Tomorrow. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, Rome, Italy

FAO (1989) Forestry and food security. FAO forestry paper 90, Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Rome

FAO (1985) Tree growing by rural people. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations, Rome

FAO (1978) Forestry for local community development. FAO Forestry Paper 7. Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy

Francis PA and Atta-Krah AN (1989) Sociological and ecological factors in technology adoption:fodder trees in southeast Nigeria. Exp Agric 25: 110

Giri C and Shrestha S (1996) Land cover mapping and monitoring from NOAA AVHRR datain Bangladesh. International Journal of Remote Sensing 14: 27492759

Godoy R (1992) Determinants of smallholder commercial tree cultivation. World Development20: 713725

Gregerson H, Draper S and Elz D (eds) (1989) People and Trees: The Role of social Forestryin Sustainable Development. EDI Seminar Series. The World Bank, Washington DC

Hocking D, Sarwar G and Yousuf SA (1997) Trees on farms in Bangladesh: 4. Crop yieldsunderneath traditionally managed mature trees. Agroforestry Systems 35: 113

Hocking D, Hocking A and Islam K (1996) Trees on farms in Bangladesh: 3. Farmers species

preferences for homestead trees, survival of new tree planting, and main causes of tree death.Agroforestry Systems 33: 231247Hocking D and Islam K (1994) Trees in Bangladesh paddy fields and homesteads: participa-

tory action research towards a model design. Agroforestry Systems, 25: 193216Hyman EL (1983) Loan financing of smallholder tree farming in the provinces of Ilocos Norte

and Ilocos Sur, Philipppines. Agroforestry Systems 1: 225243Imam MH (1991) Social forestry perspective and Bangladesh. Asian Profile 19(2): 185192Johnston J and Dinardo J (1997) Economietric Methods. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.,

pp 424426

92


17/17

Leuschner WA and Khaleque K (1987) Homestead agroforestry in Bangladesh. AgroforestrySystems 5: 139151

Levy PS and Lemeshow S (1991) Sampling of populations: methods and applications. JohnWiley & Sons, Inc., 18 pp

Malla YB (1997) Sustainable Use of Communal Forests in Nepal. Journal of World ForestResource Management 8: 5174

National Academy of Science (NAS). 1980. Firewood crops: shrub and tree species for energyproduction. NAS, Washington, DC, USA

Shiva V, Bandyopadhyay J and Jayal ND (1985) Afforestation in India: problems and strate-gies. Ambio 14: 329333

Singh K and Balooni K (1995) Tree Growers Cooperatives: Farm Forestry in India. Journal ofForestry 95(10): 3235

Smit B and Smithers J (1992) Adoption of soil conservation practices: an empirical analysis inOntario, Canada. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation 3: 114

Thacher T, Lee DR and Schelhas JW (1997) Farmer participation in reforestation incentive

programs in Costa Rica. Agroforestry Systems 35: 269289Thaman RR and Clarke WC (1993) Pacific Island agroforestry: Functional and utilitarian diver-

sity. In: Clarke WC and Thaman RR (eds) Agroforestry in the Pacific Islands: Systems forSustainability, pp 1733. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan

93

understanding why farmers plant trees in the homestead

Documents