IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i9p5189-d801894.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agroforestry Suitability for Planning Site-Specific Interventions Using Machine Learning Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Raj Kumar Singh

    (World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), New Delhi 110012, India
    Centre for Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India)

  • Mukunda Dev Behera

    (Centre for Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India)

  • Pulakesh Das

    (Centre for Oceans, Rivers, Atmosphere and Land Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India)

  • Javed Rizvi

    (World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), New Delhi 110012, India)

  • Shiv Kumar Dhyani

    (World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), New Delhi 110012, India)

  • Çhandrashekhar M. Biradar

    (World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), New Delhi 110012, India)

Abstract

Agroforestry in the form of intercropping, boundary plantation, and home garden are parts of traditional land management systems in India. Systematic implementation of agroforestry may help achieve various ecosystem benefits, such as reducing soil erosion, maintaining biodiversity and microclimates, mitigating climate change, and providing food fodder and livelihood. The current study collected ground data for agroforestry patches in the Belpada block, Bolangir district, Odisha state, India. The agroforestry site-suitability analysis employed 15 variables on climate, soil, topography, and proximity, wherein the land use land cover (LULC) map was referred to prescribe the appropriate interventions. The random forest (RF) machine learning model was applied to estimate the relative weight of the determinant variables. The results indicated high accuracy (average suitability >0.87 as indicated by the validation data) and highlighted the dominant influence of the socioeconomic variables compared to soil and climate variables. The results show that >90% of the agricultural land in the study area is suitable for various agroforestry interventions, such as bund plantation and intercropping, based on the cropping intensity. The settlement and wastelands were found to be ideal for home gardens and bamboo block plantations, respectively. The spatially explicit data on agroforestry suitability may provide a baseline map and help the managers and planners. Moreover, the adopted approach can be hosted in cloud-based platforms and applied in the different agro-ecological zones of India, employing the local ground data on various agroforestry interventions. The regional and national scale agroforestry suitability and appropriate interventions map would help the agriculture managers to implement and develop policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Raj Kumar Singh & Mukunda Dev Behera & Pulakesh Das & Javed Rizvi & Shiv Kumar Dhyani & Çhandrashekhar M. Biradar, 2022. "Agroforestry Suitability for Planning Site-Specific Interventions Using Machine Learning Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5189-:d:801894
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5189/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/9/5189/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nisar Ahamed, T. R. & Gopal Rao, K. & Murthy, J. S. R., 2000. "GIS-based fuzzy membership model for crop-land suitability analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 75-95, February.
    2. Debabrata Talukdar & Satheesh Seenivasan & Adrian J Cameron & Gary Sacks, 2020. "The association between national income and adult obesity prevalence: Empirical insights into temporal patterns and moderators of the association using 40 years of data across 147 countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Panigrahi, Dwitikrishna & Mohanty, Pradeep Kumar & Acharya, Milu & Senapati, Prafulla Chandra, 2010. "Optimal utilisation of natural resources for agricultural sustainability in rainfed hill plateaus of Orissa," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(7), pages 1006-1016, July.
    4. Cooper, Russell & DeJong, Douglas V. & Forsythe, Robert & Ross, Thomas W., 1996. "Cooperation without Reputation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 187-218, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markus C. Arnold & Eva Ponick, 2006. "Kommunikation im Groves-Mechanismus — Ergebnisse eines Laborexperiments," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 89-120, February.
    2. Giuseppe Attanasi & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Aldo Montesano, 2015. "Bargaining over Strategies of Non-Cooperative Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-26, August.
    3. Christian Hilbe & Moshe Hoffman & Martin A. Nowak, 2015. "Cooperate without Looking in a Non-Repeated Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Kenju Kamei & Louis Putterman, 2018. "Reputation Transmission Without Benefit To The Reporter: A Behavioral Underpinning Of Markets In Experimental Focus," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 158-172, January.
    5. Volker Benndorf & Thomas Große Brinkhaus & Ferdinand von Siemens, 2021. "Ultimatum Game Behavior in a Social-Preferences Vacuum Chamber," CESifo Working Paper Series 9280, CESifo.
    6. Moumita Palchaudhuri & Sujata Biswas, 2016. "Application of AHP with GIS in drought risk assessment for Puruliya district, India," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(3), pages 1905-1920, December.
    7. Vital Anderhub & Werner Güth & Ulrich Kamecke & Hans-Theo Normann, 2003. "Capacity Choices and Price Competition in Experimental Markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 27-52, June.
    8. Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gaechter, 2008. "Heterogeneous Social Preferences And The Dynamics Of Free Riding In Public Good Experiments," Discussion Papers 2008-07, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    9. Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gachter, 2010. "Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 541-556, March.
    10. Charles A. Holt & Monica Capra, 2000. "Classroom Games: A Prisoner's Dilemma," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 229-236, September.
    11. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2014. "Trust, but verify? When trustworthiness is observable only through (costly) monitoring," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 20, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    12. Wu, Steven Y. & Roe, Brian E., 2007. "Discretionary Latitude and Relational Contracting," IZA Discussion Papers 2879, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Tibor Neugebauer & Juan A. Lacomba & Francisco Lagos, 2010. "Modelling structural changes in the volatility process," LSF Research Working Paper Series 10-07, Luxembourg School of Finance, University of Luxembourg.
    14. Antonio Cabrales & Giovanni Ponti, 2000. "Implementation, Elimination of Weakly Dominated Strategies and Evolutionary Dynamics," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 3(2), pages 247-282, April.
    15. Daley, Brendan & Sadowski, Philipp, 2017. "Magical thinking: A representation result," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(2), May.
    16. Giovanni Ponti, 2000. "Splitting The Baby In Two: How To Solve Solomon'S Dilemma When Agents Are Boundedly Rational," Working Papers. Serie AD 2000-08, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    17. Vogt, Carsten, 2000. "The evolution of cooperation in Prisoners' Dilemma with an endogenous learning mutant," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 347-373, July.
    18. Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2004. "Strategic delegation in experimental markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 561-574, April.
    19. Xiaochuan Huang & Takehito Masuda & Yoshitaka Okano & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2014. "Cooperation among behaviorally heterogeneous players in social dilemma with stay or leave decisions," Working Papers SDES-2014-7, Kochi University of Technology, School of Economics and Management, revised Feb 2015.
    20. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:9:p:5189-:d:801894. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.