Management of farm woodlots and windbreaks: Some psychological and landscape patterns.
ABSTRACT This article reports on the relationship between measures of farmers' conservation attitudes and motivations on the one hand, and their self-reported and observed management of windbreaks and woodlots on the other. The study was conducted on historic farms where tenureship is, on average, over four generations. A survey instrument assessed farmers' attitudes about farming, the benefits of using trees on farms, the aesthetics of the rural landscape, motivation and their self-reported conservation practices. An analysis of landscape patterns on respondents' farms was conducted by analysis of aerial photography. Findings suggest that a conventional, externally motivated approach to farming results in reduced use of farm woodlots and windbreaks. In contrast, an approach based upon aesthetic and intrinsic forces is predictive of increased use and maintenance of woodlots and windbreaks. It is suggested that the promotion of conservation practices on farms may benefit from subtle, non-economic interventions as well as from financial and regulatory approaches.
- SourceAvailable from: G.M.J. Mohren[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The development of farm woodlots as an alternative source of livelihood for smallholder farmers in diverse biophysical and socio-economic conditions is a challenging issue in developing countries, such as Rwanda, where the majority of the population relies on subsistence farming. There is a need to understand why and when farmers decide to grow trees and woodlots on their farms. The objective of this study was to analyse the determinants and the purposes that enhance the propensity to grow woodlots in low, medium and high altitude regions of Rwanda. Necessary information for this study came from a survey of 480 households across these regions. The results showed regional variations in the determinants of woodlot farming, demonstrating the importance of not extrapolating the results between regions. Pooled data across regions indicated that age of the householder, number of salaried household members, farm size, travel distance to fuelwood sources and household location in medium forest cover region had positive significant effects on the propensity to grow farm woodlots. In contrast, household location in low forest cover region, ownership of livestock and monthly frequency of purchasing fuelwood were inversely related to the presence of farm woodlots. Many households planted eucalyptus woodlots for economic reasons, not for environmental purposes. Livestock and crop production were more attractive to rural households than woodlot farming. The findings of the study can be used by policymakers and extension services in order to promote sustainable land use practices by focusing on the challenges of competing land uses, farm size, unemployment, dependence on forests for fuelwood supply and subsistence farming.Agroforestry Systems 87(4). · 1.37 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The use of voluntary programs targeting resource conservation on private land has become increasingly prevalent in environmental policy. Voluntary programs potentially offer significant benefits over regulatory and market-based approaches. This article examines the factors affecting landowner participation in voluntary forest conservation programs using a combination of parcel-level GIS and remotely sensed data and semi-structured interviews of landowners in Monroe County, Indiana. A logistic regression model is applied to determine the probability of participation based on landowner education, membership in other non-forest voluntary programs, dominant land use activity, parcel size, distance from urban center, land resource portfolios, and forest cover. Both land use activity and the spatial configuration of a landholder's resource portfolio are found to be statistically significant with important implications for the design and implementation of voluntary programs.Environmental Management 08/2009; 44(3):468-84. · 1.65 Impact Factor