IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/fcndbr/160.html

The impact of agroforestry-based soil fertility replenishment practices on the poor in Western Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Adato, Michelle
  • Hebinck, Paul
  • Mary Omosa
  • Place, Frank

Abstract

"This case study explores the relationships between agroforestry-based soil fertility replenishment (SFR) systems (improved fallows and biomass transfer) and poverty reduction in rural western Kenya. It further examines the role that different dissemination approaches play in conditioning which segments of society gain access to information to the technologies and then uses them. The study made use of many different qualitative and quantitative data collection methods and samples from both pilot areas where researchers maintained a significant presence and nonpilot areas where farmers learned of the technologies through other channels. Adoption processes were analyzed quantitatively using almost 2,000 households while changes in impact indicators were measured for just over 100 households. Qualitative methods included case studies for 40 households, where researchers lived in the villages for six months, and focus group discussions involving 16 different groups. The findings showed that poverty is rampant among households and appeared to worsen during the study period. The poor were reached by many different information providers and liked certain aspects of almost all types of organizations, from government extension to community group-based methods. Access to information is mediated by social relationships of wealth, gender and status; nevertheless, poor farmers acquired a significant amount of knowledge about soil fertility management. Adoption rates are not outstanding but they are encouraging, with about 20% of all farmers using the technologies on a regular basis, and a sizable percentage of farmers newly testing. Unlike some agricultural technologies historically, SFR was found not to be biased toward people controlling and managing resources above a certain threshold. The study also found that the poor were using the agroforestry technologies to a much greater extent than they were fertilizer (about 33% of farmers not using any other soil fertility practice were trying the new systems). The technologies were almost always at least doubling yields of maize. Despite these promising signs, the systems were not found to be linked to improved household-level food security or poverty indicators, primarily because the size of the fields under the agroforestry systems was, on average, quite small." Authors' Abstract

Suggested Citation

  • Adato, Michelle & Hebinck, Paul & Mary Omosa & Place, Frank, 2003. "The impact of agroforestry-based soil fertility replenishment practices on the poor in Western Kenya," FCND briefs 160, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
  • Handle: RePEc:fpr:fcndbr:160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/publications/fcnbr160.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adato, Michelle & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth S., 2002. "Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework," EPTD discussion papers 89, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    2. Hughes, Karl & Morgan, Seth & Baylis, Katherine & Oduol, Judith & Smith-Dumont, Emilie & Vågen, Tor-Gunnar & Kegode, Hilda, 2020. "Assessing the downstream socioeconomic impacts of agroforestry in Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    3. John M. Antle, 2007. "Book Review of Ruttan (2)," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(3), pages 616-619, April.
    4. nan, 2007. "Agricultural research, livelihoods, and poverty: Studies of economic and social impacts in six countries," IFPRI books, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), number 978-0-8018-8721-6 edited by Adato, Michelle; Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela.
    5. Sarah E. Castle & Daniel C. Miller & Pablo J. Ordonez & Kathy Baylis & Karl Hughes, 2021. "The impacts of agroforestry interventions on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well‐being in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), June.
    6. Place, Frank & Adato, Michelle & Hebinck, Paul, 2007. "Understanding Rural Poverty and Investment in Agriculture: An Assessment of Integrated Quantitative and Qualitative Research in Western Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 312-325, February.
    7. Kiptot, Evelyne & Hebinck, Paul & Franzel, Steven & Richards, Paul, 2007. "Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 509-519, May.
    8. Michael Jacobson & Cori Ham, 2020. "The (un)broken promise of agroforestry: a case study of improved fallows in Zambia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 8247-8260, December.
    9. Razafindratsima, Onja H. & Kamoto, Judith F.M. & Sills, Erin O. & Mutta, Doris N. & Song, Conghe & Kabwe, Gillian & Castle, Sarah E. & Kristjanson, Patricia M. & Ryan, Casey M. & Brockhaus, Maria & Su, 2021. "Reviewing the evidence on the roles of forests and tree-based systems in poverty dynamics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    10. Dereje Guteta & Assefa Abegaz, 2016. "Factors influencing scaling up of agroforestry-based spatial land-use integration for soil fertility management in Arsamma Watershed, Southwestern Ethiopian Highlands," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(10), pages 1795-1812, October.
    11. Morgan, Seth & Baylis, Kathy, "undated". "Where Trees Grow, Expenditures Grow: Applying Spatial Matching to Evaluate Agroforestry’s Household Welfare Impacts in Kenya," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258257, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Adato, Michelle & Hebinck, Paul & Mary Omosa & Place, Frank, 2003. "The impact of agroforestry-based soil fertility replenishment practices on the poor in Western Kenya," FCND briefs 160, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    13. Akinola, Adebayo A. & Alene, Arega D. & Adeyemo, Remi & Sanogo, D. & Olanrewaju, A.S. & Nwoke, C. & Nziguheba, G., 2010. "Determinants of adoption and intensity of use of balance nutrient management systems technologies in the northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 49(01), pages 1-21.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:fpr:fcndbr:160. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.html .

    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.