Constraints encountered by teak growers in adoption of teak cultivation practices

Prediction of agroforestry adoption among farming communities of Kashmir valley, India: A logistic regression approach

“…Likewise, the positive significant correlation between social participation and agroforestry adoption can be explained by the facts that this variable paves the way for the farming people to share their views and experiences with other members of the organization (Bijalwan et al, 2011), to clarify their doubts and get opinion from diverse people and enrich their knowledge (Sood et al, 2008). Farmers with nuclear families have taken up independent decisions conveniently to adopt agroforestry (Zerihun et al, 2014) and further, larger sized families were having more labour force and opportunities resulting in higher agroforestry adoption (Khandagale et al, 2012). The positive significant correlation of family composition with agroforestry adoption confirms this articulation.…”

“…Despite effective extension and motivation efforts agroforestry adoption is slow and the adoption gap remains largely unexplained and underrepresented (Islam et al, 2012;Jerneck and Olsson, 2013). The decision making process to adopt agroforestry depends on external factors such as the socioeconomic characteristics and internal factors like knowledge, attitudes and aspirations simultaneously (Khandagale et al, 2012;Mwase et al, 2015). The farmer's socioeconomic variables affect adoption process overwhelmingly, then, these external factors influence internal factors like knowledge and aspirations, which in turn affect farmer's attitudes about whether or not to adopt agroforestry (Pant, 2011;Glover et al, 2013).…”

Perceptions, attitudes and preferences in agroforestry among rural societies of Kashmir, India

“…Direct integration of people's perceptions, attitudes and preferences in the decision making process is an important aspect of sustainable agroforestry management, because it can increase the social acceptance of the decisions and reduce differences among stakeholders (Islam et al, 2005;Dagar, 2012). Perceptions of agroforesty values build up enduring concepts of what is good and desirable, or conversely, bad and undesirable, about agroforestry (Banyal et al, 2011;Khandagale et al, 2012;Palett et al, 2013). Agroforestry values can be divided into two categories: material (economic and life supporting) and non-material (socio-cultural, ethical, spiritual, and aesthetic).…”

“…Assessing local people's attitudes, taking into account their needs, aspirations and respecting their opinions should become an adoption and management priority (Kareemulla et al, 2009;Macura et al, 2011). The favourable attitudes of people assure agroforestry promotion and development while unfavourable attitudes create agroforestry non-adoption and failure (Khandagale et al, 2012;Ratsimbazafy et al, 2012). The attitudes influence human behaviors towards agroforestry acceptance and encouragement (Pant, 2011).…”

Public Assessment for Socioeconomic and Environmental Services of Agroforestry Networks in Kashmir Himalaya, India

“…The socioeconomic inequalities and disparity in environmental attributes in farming communities play significant differential role in agroforestry promotion and development (Jamala et al, 2013). To promote agroforestry development, a deeper understanding of socioeconomic and environmental influences among rural communities is necessary for better agroforestry planning and implementation (Khandagale et al, 2012;Jacobson and Kar, 2013). Hence, it is necessary to identify and measure the range of benefits accrued to the rural people which are not well documented so far.…”