Volume 9, Issue 1 (2021)
ECOPERSIA 2021, 9(1): 33-41 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghanbari S, Aghai M. The Way Towards Getting Back Financial Benefits from Agroforestry Systems and Improving Food Security (The Case of Arasbaran Biosphere Reserve). ECOPERSIA 2021; 9 (1) :33-41
URL: http://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-42057-en.html
URL: http://ecopersia.modares.ac.ir/article-24-42057-en.html
1- Department of Forestry, Ahar Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tabriz, Iran , ghanbarisajad@gmail.com
2- Center for Sustainable Forestry, University of Washington, Seattle, United States of America
2- Center for Sustainable Forestry, University of Washington, Seattle, United States of America
Abstract: (1146 Views)
Aims: Food security depends on the sustainable use of natural resources. Recently, local communities have started planting sumac (Rhus coriaria L.) as an agroforestry system in Iran's arid and semi-arid regions. The financial benefit of converting sloping lands to the sumac agroforestry system was compared with cropping cereals land-use option based on wheat and barley production. The study site is located in a semi-arid area in the Eastern part of the Arasbaran Biosphere reserve in Hurand county, East Azerbaijan province, Iran.
Instruments & Methods: Data were collected through a combination of socio-economic survey and field inventory. For the household questionnaire survey, 63 samples from four villages were purposively selected. Those who converted low yield croplands to sumac agroforestry system and collected it.
Findings: Results showed that sumac collection varied from 144kg in Mollalu to 776kg in Tabestanagh per household annually. Sumac income contributes about 30-40% to total household income, followed by farming and off-farm activities. The net present value of sumac was 4.6 times higher than cropland. The inclusion of sumac income in total household income calculations considerably reduced income inequality among households by 0.36. The processing operations done on the sumac fruit were cleaning, drying, flouring, and packaging. It increased the processing benefit by 10.5USD per kg. The main marketing constraints were selling in raw form without grading and standardization, unawareness about prices, low marketing information, etc.
Conclusion: expanding the sumac agroforestry systems by increasing the abundance and density of fruit-providing species is an important way of improving livelihood and security in rural areas.
Instruments & Methods: Data were collected through a combination of socio-economic survey and field inventory. For the household questionnaire survey, 63 samples from four villages were purposively selected. Those who converted low yield croplands to sumac agroforestry system and collected it.
Findings: Results showed that sumac collection varied from 144kg in Mollalu to 776kg in Tabestanagh per household annually. Sumac income contributes about 30-40% to total household income, followed by farming and off-farm activities. The net present value of sumac was 4.6 times higher than cropland. The inclusion of sumac income in total household income calculations considerably reduced income inequality among households by 0.36. The processing operations done on the sumac fruit were cleaning, drying, flouring, and packaging. It increased the processing benefit by 10.5USD per kg. The main marketing constraints were selling in raw form without grading and standardization, unawareness about prices, low marketing information, etc.
Conclusion: expanding the sumac agroforestry systems by increasing the abundance and density of fruit-providing species is an important way of improving livelihood and security in rural areas.
Article Type: Descriptive & Survey |
Subject:
Rangeland Ecology and Management
Received: 2020/04/14 | Accepted: 2020/06/16 | Published: 2020/10/24
Received: 2020/04/14 | Accepted: 2020/06/16 | Published: 2020/10/24
References
1. Barrett CB. Measuring food insecurity. Sci. 2010;327(5967):825-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1126/science.1182768]
2. Zhang J, He C, Chen L, Cao S. Improving food security in China by taking advantage of marginal and degraded lands. J Clean Prod. 2018;171(10):1020-30. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.110]
3. Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Sci. 2010;327(5967):812-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1126/science.1185383]
4. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The state of food insecurity in the world 2015: meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress [report]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); 2015. Report No.: I4646E/1/05.15. [Link]
5. Pimentel D, Cooperstein S, Randell H, Filiberto D, Sorrentino S, Kaye B, et al. Ecology of increasing diseases: population growth and environmental degradation. Hum Ecol. 2007;35(6):653-68. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s10745-007-9128-3]
6. Richardson RB. Ecosystem services and food security: Economic perspectives on environmental sustainability. Sustainability. 2010;2(11):3520-48. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su2113520]
7. Cruz-Garcia GS, Sachet E, Vanegas M, Piispanen K. Are the major imperatives of food security missing in ecosystem services research?. Ecosyst Serv. 2016;19:19-31. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.04.001]
8. Mahdavi A, Wunder S, Mirzaeizadeh V, Omidi M. A hidden harvest from semi-arid forests: Landscape-level livelihood contributions in Zagros, Iran. For Trees Live. 2019;2:1-18. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/14728028.2019.1571447]
9. Soltani A, Angelsen A, Eid T, Noori Naieni MS, Shamekhi T. Poverty, sustainability, and household livelihood strategies in Zagros, Iran. Ecol Econ. 2012;79:60-70. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.019]
10. Kamanga P, Vedeld P, Sjaastad E. Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Ecol Econ. 2009;68(3):613-24. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.018]
11. Paumgarten F, Shackleton CM. Wealth differentiation in household use and trade in nontimber forest products in South Africa. Ecol Econ. 2009;68(12):2950-9. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.013]
12. Shackleton CM, Pandey AK. Positioning nontimber forest products on the development agenda. For Policy Econ. 2014;38:1-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.07.004]
13. Garg S. Impact of overpopulation on land use pattern. In: Singh RP, Srivastava V, Singh A, editors. Environmental Issues Surrounding Human Overpopulation. Pennsylvania: IGI Global Publishers; 2017. p. 1-19. [Link] [DOI:10.4018/978-1-5225-1683-5.ch008]
14. Beygi Heidarlou H, Banj Shafiei A, Erfanian M, Tayyebi A, Alijanpour A. Effects of preservation policy on land use changes in Iranian Northern Zagros forests. Land Use Policy. 2019;81:76-90. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.036]
15. Dejene T, Lemenih M, Bongers F. Manage or convert Boswellia woodlands? Can frankincense production payoff?. J Arid Environ. 2013;89:77-83. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2012.09.010]
16. Meijer SS, Catacutan D, Ajayi OC, Sileshi GW, Nieuwenhuis M. The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Int J Agric Sustain. 2015;13(1):40-54. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/14735903.2014.912493]
17. United Nations. United Nations decade for deserts and the fight against desertification: The Purpose [Internet]. Bonn: United Nations; 2018 [Cited 2018 May 19]. Available from: https://www.unccd.int/un-decade-deserts-and-fight-against-desertification-purpose [Link]
18. Modarres R, Rodrigues da Silvab VdP. Rainfall trends in arid and semi-arid regions of Iran. J Arid Environ. 2007;70(2):344-55. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2006.12.024]
19. Misra M. Management of Iran's arid lands. Int J Environ Stud. 2009;66(3):287-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/00207230902899529]
20. Drechsel P, Giordano M, Gyiele L. Valuing nutrients in soil and water: concepts and techniques with examples from IWMI studies in the developing world [report]. Gujarat: International Water Management Institute; 2004. Report No.: H035856. [Link]
21. Malagnoux M, Sène E, Atzmon N. Forests, trees and water in arid lands: A delicate balance. Unasylva. 2007;58(229):24-9. [Link]
22. frw.ir [Internet]. Tehran: Forests, Range and Watershed management Organization; 2008 [Cited 2019 February 5]. Available from: frw.ir/02/Fa/default.aspx [Link]
23. Abu-Reida IM, Jamous RM, Ali-Shtayeh MS. Phytochemistry, pharmacological properties and industrial applications of Rhus coriaria L. (Sumac ): A Review. Jordan J Biol Sci. 2014;7(4):233-44. [Link] [DOI:10.12816/0008245]
24. Heubach K, Wittig R, Nuppenau E-A, Hahn K. The economic importance of nontimber forest products (NTFPs) for livelihood maintenance of rural west African communities: A case study from northern Benin. Ecol Econ. 2011;70(11):1991-2001. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.05.015]
25. Kar SP, Jacobson MG. NTFP income contribution to household economy and related socio-economic factors: Lessons from Bangladesh. For Policy Econ. 2012;14(1):136-42. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.003]
26. Angelsen A, Jagger P, Babigumira R, Belcher B, Hogarth NJ, Bauch S, et al. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. World Dev. 2014;64(1):S12-S28. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006]
27. Illukpitiya P, Yanagida JF. Farming vs forests: Trade-off between agriculture and the extraction of nontimber forest products. Ecol Econ. 2010;69(10):1952-63. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.05.007]
28. Mahapatra AK, Tewari DD. Importance of nontimber forest products in the economic valuation of dry deciduous forests of India. For Policy Econ. 2005;7(3):455-67. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.02.002]
29. Mamo G, Sjaastad E, Vedeld P. Economic dependence on forest resources: A case from Dendi District, Ethiopia. For Policy Econ. 2007;9(8):916-27. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2006.08.001]
30. Rodríguez LC, Pascual U, Niemeyer HM. Local identification and valuation of ecosystem goods and services from Opuntia scrublands of Ayacucho, Peru. Ecol Econ. 2006;57(1):30-44. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.022]
31. Fu Y, Chen J, Guo H, Chen A, Cui J, Hu H. The role of nontimber forest products during agroecosystem shift in Xishuangbanna, southwestern China. For Policy Econ. 2009;11(1):18-25. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2008.08.003]
32. Mahapatra AK, Tewari D. Importance of nontimber forest products in the economic valuation of dry deciduous forests of India. For Policy Econ. 2005;7(3):455-67. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.02.002]
33. Sinha A, Bawa KS. Harvesting techniques, hemiparasites and fruit production in two nontimber forest tree species in south India. For Ecol Manage. 2002;168(1-3):289-300. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00747-2]
34. Avocèvou-Ayisso C, Sinsin B, Adégbidi A, Dossou G, Van Damme P. Sustainable use of nontimber forest products: Impact of fruit harvesting on Pentadesma butyracea regeneration and financial analysis of its products trade in Benin. For Ecol Manage. 2009;257(9):1930-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.043]
35. Agri-bank.ir [Internet]. Tehran: Agri-bank; 2019 [Cited 2019 may 8]. Available from: https://agri-bank.ir/ [Link]
36. Haney HL, Hoover WL, Siegel WC, Greene JL, editors. Forest landowners' guide to the federal income tax [Internet]. Washington: Miscellaneous Publication; 2001 [Cited 2018 March 25]. Available from: https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/2207 [Link]
37. Kassioumis K, Papageorgiou K, Christodoulou A, Blioumis V, Stamou N, Karameris A. Rural development by afforestation in predominantly agricultural areas: Issues and challenges from two areas in Greece. For Policy Econ. 2004;6(5):483-96. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S1389-9341(02)00079-5]
38. Sunderlin WD, Angelsen A, Belcher B, Burgers P, Nasi R, Santoso L, et al. Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An overview. World Dev. 2005;33(9):1383-402. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.004]
39. Babulo B, Muys B, Nega F, Tollens E, Nyssen J, Deckers J, et al. The economic contribution of forest resource use to rural livelihoods in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. For Policy Econ. 2009;11(2):109-17. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.007]
40. Saha D, Sundriyal R. Utilization of nontimber forest products in humid tropics: Implications for management and livelihood. For Policy Econ. 2012;14(1):28-40. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.008]
41. Baral H, Keenan RJ, Sharma SK, Stork NE, Kasel S. Economic evaluation of ecosystem goods and services under different landscape management scenarios. Land Use Policy. 2014;39:54-64. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.03.008]
42. Kalu C, Rachael E. Women in Processing and Marketing of Non-timber Forest Products: Case Study of Benin City, Nigeria. J Agron. 2006;5:326-31. [Link] [DOI:10.3923/ja.2006.326.331]
43. Stoian D. Making the best of two worlds: rural and peri-urban livelihood options sustained by nontimber forest products from the Bolivian Amazon. World Dev. 2005;33(9):1473-90. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.009]
44. Adam YO, Pretzsch J, Pettenella D. Contribution of Non-Timber Forest Products livelihood strategies to rural development in drylands of Sudan: Potentials and failures. Agric Sys. 2013;117:90-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.agsy.2012.12.008]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |