Key factors influencing tree planting decisions of households a case study in pakistan

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND

AND TRAINING

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF FORESTRY
--------------------

PERVEZ KHAN

“KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING TREE PLANTING DECISION OF
HOUSEHOLDS: A CASE STUDY IN PAKISTAN”

Major: Forest Science
Code: 8620201

MASTER THESIS IN FOREST SCIENCE
Supervisor: Dr Le Dinh Hai
Signature:……………………

Hanoi, November 2018


ABSTRACT
Farm forestry as a system of incorporation of commercial tree growing and
managed by farmers into the farming system for the production of both wood and
non-wood products, encouraging sustainable natural resource management and
increasing agricultural productivity. In Pakistan, the importance of farm forestry

was recognized in the late 1970s to provide wood to market and alleviate poverty.
Several provinces started farm forestry projects in their province, but the most
important initiative and momentum came to farm forestry when the United state
Agency for International Development (USAID) launch Forestry planning and
development project from1985 to 1994. Trees on farmland improve the
microclimate protect us, our animals and houses from shining sun and cold winds.
Trees improve soil fertility; enhance soil microbial and enzymatic activity,
decomposition

and

physical

characteristics.

Trees

protecting

watersheds,

maintenance of biodiversity, enhancement of environmental quality, soil erosion
barriers, and the source of timber and non-timber materials include nutrient cycling,
soil formation, oxygen production, carbon sequestration and climate regulation.
Plantations play a significant role in the ecology and economy of countries like
Pakistan, where forests and trees already are scarce and make up only about 5% of
the total land area. I aimed to explored farmer‟s actual decisions about the planting
of trees and the perceptions and attitudes towards tree planting decision. The area
was investigated through stratified random simple sampling technique by
interviewing 120 households. The research investigated and determined 3

significant correlated factors (Education level, Attitude of tree planting and
silviculture knowledge). The full model containing all predictors was statistically
significant, X2 (3, N=120)=53.611, Sig. <.001 indicating that the model was able to
distinguish between respondents who decided or not decided tree planting. The
model as a whole explains between 36% (Cox and Snell R squared) and 48.2 %
(Nagelkerke R Square) of the variance in the decision of tree planting and correctly
classified 72.5 % of cases.
For future restoration of farm forestry, strict laws, increased community awareness,
training program, land tenure security, supports in case of failure, paved road to
field and farmer community group will be focused and needed.

i


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ i
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................. vii
ABBREVIATION ................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1
1.1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ....................................................................1
1.2. CURRENT STATUS OF FOREST IN PAKISTAN ...........................................3
1.3. COMMON FARM SPECIES IN THE STUDY AREA ......................................6
1.4. THE REASON FOR SELECTION OF THIS RESEARCH ...............................6
1.5. GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND RESEARCH QUESTION ...................................7
1.5.1. Goals .................................................................................................................7
1.5.2. Specific Objectives............................................................................................7
1.5.3. Research Questions ...........................................................................................7
1.6. THE SCOPE OF THIS RESEARCH...................................................................7
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................8

2.1. FACTORS AFFECTING/INFLUENCING TREE PLANTING DECISION .....8
2.2. FARM CHARACTERISTICS FACTORS ........................................................10
2.2.1.Land area ..........................................................................................................10
2.2.2.Tenure ..............................................................................................................10
2.2.3.Location of farm and house..............................................................................11
2.3. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS FACTORS ...........................................11
2.3.1. Gender, age and education ..............................................................................12
2.3.2. Silvicultural knowledge and skills ..................................................................12
2.4. SOCIO-ECONOMICS FACTORS ....................................................................13
2.4.1. Production cost, transaction cost and Market .................................................13
2.4.2. Incentives ........................................................................................................14
2.4.3. Capital .............................................................................................................14
2.4.4. Labor ...............................................................................................................16
2.5. BIOPHYSICAL FACTORS ..............................................................................16
2.6. INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS ..........................................................................17
ii


2.6.1. Governance, policies and institutions .............................................................17
2.7. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY ........................................18
2.7.1. Conceptual model............................................................................................20
2.7.1. Socio-economic factors ...................................................................................20
2.7.2. Biophysical factors ..........................................................................................22
2.7.3. Household characteristic factors .....................................................................22
2.7.4. Farm characteristics/resource endowments ....................................................23
2.7.5. Institutional and policy factors ........................................................................24
CHAPTER 3. STUDY METHODOLOGY ..............................................................26
3.1. STUDY AREA...................................................................................................26
3.1.1. History .............................................................................................................26
3.1.2. Description of the area ....................................................................................26

3.1.3. Source of income.............................................................................................27
3.1.4. Demography ....................................................................................................29
3.1.5. Geography .......................................................................................................29
3.1.6. Climate and vegetation ....................................................................................30
3.2. DATA COLLECTION.......................................................................................30
3.2.1. Sampling design and sample size....................................................................30
3.3. DATA SOURCE ................................................................................................32
3.3.1. Primary data ....................................................................................................32
3.3.2. Secondary data ................................................................................................33
3.3.3. Research instrument ........................................................................................33
3.3.4. Questionnaires .................................................................................................33
3.4. DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................33
3.5. VARIABLES USED IN THE STUDY .............................................................36
CHAPTER 4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION ..........................................................39
4.1. CURRENT STATUS OF FARM FORESTRY IN THE STUDY AREA .........39
4.2. COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS IN THE
STUDY AREA..........................................................................................................40
4.2.1. Education level ................................................................................................40
4.2.2. Investment capital ...........................................................................................40
iii


4.2.3. The attitude of tree planting ............................................................................41
4.2.4. Plantation management ...................................................................................41
4.2.5. Knowledge of silviculture ...............................................................................41
4.2.6. Knowing about the forestry program ..............................................................41
4.2.7. Participation in forest program .......................................................................41
4.2.8. Land tenure......................................................................................................41
4.3. CHARACTERISTICS FEATURES OF THE HOUSEHOLDS IN THE
STUDY AREA FOR QUANTITATIVE PARAMETERS ......................................43

4.4. COMPARISON OF THE HOUSEHOLDS CHARACTERISTICS
FORQUANTITATIVE PARAMETER ....................................................................45
4.5.THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND
TREE PLANTING DECISION OF THE HOUSEHOLDS .....................................47
4.5.1. Household wealth ranking...............................................................................48
4.5.2.Ethnicity ...........................................................................................................49
4.5.3.Education level .................................................................................................49
4.5.4.Investment capital ............................................................................................50
4.5.5.The attitude of tree planting .............................................................................51
4.5.6.Plantation management ....................................................................................51
4.5.7.Knowledge of silviculture ................................................................................52
4.5.8.Knowing about the forestry program ...............................................................52
4.5.9.Participation in forest program ........................................................................53
4.5.10.Land tenure .....................................................................................................53
4.6. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TREE PLANTING DECISION OF
HOUSEHOLDS AND QUANTITATIVE PARAMETERS ....................................56
4.7. KEY DRIVERS AFFECTING TREE PLANTING DECISION OF THE
SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS ..................................................................................58
4.7.1. Correlation between surveyed factors and tree planting decision of the
households .................................................................................................................58
4.7.2. Key drivers influencing tree planting decision of the surveyed household ....58
4.7.2.1. Education level .............................................................................................60
4.7.2.2. Silviculture technique...................................................................................61
iv


4.7.2.3. Attitude to word tree planting ......................................................................61
4.8.MAJOR CONSTRAINT/PROBLEMS RELATED TO TREE PLANTING IN
THE STUDY AREA .................................................................................................63
4.9. SUGGESTION/RECOMMENDATION ...........................................................65

4.9.1. Suggestion based on the needfor rigid and incentive oriented policy from govt
...................................................................................................................................65
4.9.2. Suggestion based on rising of education .........................................................67
4.9.4. Suggestion based on silviculture technique ....................................................68
4.10. Limitations and suggestions for future research ..............................................69
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ..................................................................................70
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................72
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................73
APPENDICES...........................................................................................................82

v


LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Crop and vegetable grew in the study area during 2016 .........................28
Table 3.2: Demography information of the study area .............................................29
Table 3.3: Household Sampling in Tehsil Dargai .....................................................31
Table 3.4: Sampling design in Tehsil Dargai ............................................................32
Table 3.5: Variables used in the study ......................................................................36
Table 3.6: List of the independent variables and their description ...........................37
Table 4.1: Status of farm forestry in the study area ..................................................40
Table 4.2: Community characteristics of the household in the study area ..............42
Table 4.3: Characteristics features of the households in the study area for
quantitative parameters .............................................................................................44
Table 4.4: Comparison of the household‟s characteristics for quantitatives
parameter ...................................................................................................................46
Table 4.5: Relationship between the independent variable (qualitative) and tree
planting decision of the household and the Pearson correlation coefficient .............54
Table 4.6: Tree planting decision of household and quantitative parameters...........57

Table 4.7: Model summary for key drivers affecting tree planting decision of the
surveyed household ...................................................................................................59
Table 4.8: Determining the importance of variables in the multiple linear regression
model .........................................................................................................................60
Table 4.9: Major Constraints/ problems faced by farmer related to tree planting in
study area...................................................................................................................64

vi


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Conceptual model for identifying a key factor affecting tree planting
decision......................................................................................................................20
Figure 3.1: Map of the study area Malakand ............................................................27
Figure 4.1: Graph for the mean total age of house head and income of household
head ...........................................................................................................................46
Figure 4.2: Graph for the mean total land area and forest land area .........................47

vii


ABBREVIATION

CIFOR:

Center for International Forestry Research

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organization

KPK:

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

NSW:

New South Wales Agriculture Department

PES:

Pakistan Economic Survey

PNCS:

Pakistan National Conservation Strategy

SPSS:

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

UNEP:

United nation environment program

USAID:

United state Agency for International Development

viii


CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Farm forestry is a new and emerging discipline in devolving countries. It attracts
peoples to get and fulfil their demand for fuelwood, fodder for animals and timber
by planting suitable trees on farmland. Basically farm forestry is a land use system,
which is practised to maximize benefit by cropping forest crop on agricultural
fields. Farm forestry is based on the concept of planting trees in the linear or
compact form on farmlands (Fawad et al., 2017). In order to get multiple benefits
from the same land, farm forestry was used Kalinganire et al, (2007) defined “Farm
forestry as a deliberate integration of woody components with agricultural and
pastoral operation on the same piece of land either in a spatial or temporal sequence
in such a way that both ecological and economical interaction occurs between
them”. On the contrary,(NSW, 2003) defined “Farm forestry as a system of
incorporation of commercial tree growing and managed by farmers into the farming
system for the production of both wood and non-wood products, encouraging
sustainable natural resource management and increasing agricultural productivity”.
Thus farm forestry refers to the large-scale planting of trees on land that was
formerly cleared for agriculture. Farm forestry incorporates: (i) large-scale plantings
by individual farmers (ii) joint business between farmers and companies and/or
governments (iii) plantations that have been established on cleared agricultural land
owned and managed by companies.
In Pakistan, the importance of farm forestry was recognized in the late 1970s to
provide wood to market and alleviate poverty. Several provinces started farm
forestry projects in their province, but the most important initiative and momentum
come to farm forestry when the United state Agency for International Development
(USAID) launch Forestry planning and development project from1985 to 1994.

This project works for farmers and accepts the nurseries of farmers which were a
model for subsequent projects. As a result of successful farm forestry interventions,
80 percent of the total fuelwood used in Pakistan was provided by farmland. The
1


provinces of Punjab and KPK have established regular forest circles to deal with
forest extension and farm forestry. Trees were grown on privately and communal
land. Ownership rights to trees on private land were clear; the owner of the land
owns the trees. Many private landowners lease their agricultural land to tenants,
with well-defined terms and condition (Simorangkir, 2006).
Trees on farmland improve the microclimate of an area; everyone can realize and
feel the cooling effect of the trees on a hot summer day when someone is passing
from a plantation area. Thus Trees protect us, our animals and houses from shining
sun in summer and cold winds in winter(Simons and Leakey, 2004). Trees improve
soil fertility, enhance soil microbial and enzymatic activity, decomposition and
physical characteristics (Tian et al., 2001). Trees also contribute to economic
development by protecting watersheds, maintenance of biodiversity and
enhancement of environmental quality (Bukhari, 1997). The plants and soils of
forest hold 460-575 billion metric tons of carbon worldwide with each acre of
forests storing about 180 metric tons of carbon (Khan et al., 2011). Wind erosion
can be stopped by forests, prevent flood intensity along the banks of rivers and
canals (Simorangkir, 2006). Forest can also play an important role in Pakistan‟s
economy. These are the important sources for protection of lands, water resources,
particularly prolonging the lives of dams, reservoirs and irrigation network of canals
(FAO, 2000).
Mogaka (2001) reported that forests play a crucial role in the lives of communities
and nations. Apart from being reservoirs of other forms of biodiversity, forests are
important in water catchments, soil erosion barriers, and the source of timber and
non-timber materials. Forests also provide a very important service in the new and

growing leisure industry, which involves the „none‟ consumptive use of biological
diversity for example eco-tourism. Forests also provide very important ecosystem
services that are generally considered to be „free‟. Such essential services include
nutrient cycling, soil formation, oxygen production, carbon sequestration and
climate regulation. Forest biodiversity also has a „hidden‟ value locked up in the
genetic stock whose potential value is not yet known.

2


Sen et al. (2004) stated that the major environmental functions of farm forestry /
agroforestry, actual or potential, includes, control of soil degradation, control of
desertification, reduction in the pollution of groundwater, increasing biodiversity at
the scales of the farming and landscape, reducing pressure on forest margins
through on-farm supply of wood and other forest products, finally contribute in the
reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.
1.2. CURRENT STATUS OF FOREST IN PAKISTAN
Pakistan is a land of deserts, valleys, low and high hills, alluvial plains, and a long
coastline. The diversity in climate and soil is reflected in the ecological distribution
of fauna and flora. The climate is generally arid subtropical with an average rainfall
of 250 mm, while some of the driest regions receive less than 123 mm annually
(Hussain et al., 2003). The country has a narrow forest resource extended over 4.8%
(excluding 4.59% farmland plantations) of its area (Pakistan Economic Survey,
2004). Over 40 percent of these forests are coniferous and scrub. Most of these
forests are found on the northern part of the country (40 percent in kpk, 15.7 percent
in the Northern Areas, and 6.5 percent in the AJK (Nizamani and Shah,
2004)whereas 80% of the population and wood-based industry is located in the
southern and central parts of Pakistan (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2004). Pakistan
is a 7th most populous country in the world with a growth rate of 2.1%(GOP 2003).
Pakistan's fast-growing population is dependent for its wood and wood products

requirement on insufficient forest resource (PNCS, 2006). The per capita forest area
is only 0.0265 ha (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2004-2005), compared to the world
average of one hectare. Only 1/3rd of the total forest area is productive, while the
rest is for environmental and protective value (Anon, 1991).
Pakistan has a poor forestry resource and one of the lowest forest area country in the
world (McKetta, 1990).The statistics on the forests of Pakistan indicate that area
covered by forests is quite low when compared with 30 percent for the world (FAO,
2001) and 26 percent for the developing countries criteria. The country suffers
more severe forest scarcities than most countries in South Asia. Its natural forest
resources are small, with forest area and national land utilization figures ranging
3


from 3.1 percent(State of World Forestry, 2003) to 3.6 percent of the total land area
(Akhtar Hameed Khan Centre for Rural Development, 2002).
Pakistan has lost about 0.21 million hectares of the forest with a deforestation rate
of 2.1%, means it has lost an average of 0.043 hectares of forest annually (FAO,
2001). Regeneration is visibly absent in most of the forests (Khattak, 1994). In
addition, the forest trees are slow-growing and demands on its forests and other
natural resources are extremely high (Nizamani and Shah, 2004). The forest is
insufficient to provide the material needs of the growing population, expanding
industry and to retard and arrest the ongoing environmental and ecological
degradation process (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2004). It is becoming increasingly
difficult to meet the demands of the growing population offuelwood, fodder,
agriculture implements and raw material required for wood-based industries
(Caviglia and Kahn, 2001).There is no doubt that scanty tree cover is the result of
the gross mismanagement of forests in the past. The development of modern
infrastructure and developmental pressure has further facilitated the destruction of
meagre tree cover in the country (Baig et al., 2008). Pakistan is facing timber and
firewood shortage of about 29 million cubic meters (Govt of Pakistan, 2005).

Depletion and deforestation are a century‟s long going process(Dove, 1995). Forests
are vanishing at an alarming rate. Urbanization, increase population, extensive use
of forest wood for burning purpose, furniture, overgrazing, use of wood for fuel, no
rigid policies by government, the involvement of government officials in selling
timber and dependence of rural population on wood are the major causes of
deterioration (Simorangkir, 2006). Other threats are commercial over-exploitation, a
number of financial, technical, administrative and political reasons; tree cutting in
forests is in excess of replanting and regeneration rates (ERNP, 1999). The rapid
decline in forest cover also leads to increased environmental and land degradation,
pollution, loss of biodiversity and low agriculture yield (FAO, 2001). The area
under public forest cannot be further expanded to keep pace with the population
growth rate and increasing demands for forest products. It is estimated that state
forests contribute 14% of timber and 10% of fuelwood whereas 46% of timber and
90% of fuelwood requirements are being met from farmlands (FAO, 2001b). The
4


tree cover on farmlands can be expanded up to 10% without harming agricultural
crops, which will be a great contribution to justify the needs of rural and urban
people (Qureshi, M.A.A., 1998). The farmlands of central Punjab have about 200
million trees of which 95% are in irrigated areas. The government approach to farm
forestry in Pakistan as an attempt to reassert control over tree resources. In order to
reclaim the degraded forest lands, ensure sustainable use of marginal lands, protect
good quality land, fulfill the rural needs for the economic and non-economic
benefits from trees to sustain their livelihood (Khan et al., 2011), tree planting on
farmlands is the most feasible and viable solution under the present circumstances
in Pakistan.
People‟s participation in farm forestry is low because most social forestry projects
have mainly focused on biological and technical concerns and very little or no
emphasis was given to understanding the perception of local peoples or potential

beneficiaries of the projects (Malik, 1989). Research on factors that encourage and
discourage farm forestry in Pakistan has generally focused on social and physical
parameters, leading to the ranking of constraints and benefits by respondents (Dove,
1995). (Dove, 1995) stated that „„the most important variables in the development
of farm forestry in Pakistan are human, not physical‟‟. In terms of decision making,
however, it is farmers‟ perceptions about these factors which are the primary
influence: how they think the nature of their tenure will affect the outcome of a
decision to plant trees on their land? If they are tenants, how they think their
landlords will react to their desire to plant trees?
A socio-economic study of farmers and their relationship is very important.
Analyzing the household and farm characteristics can help the process of the
effective planning system for farm forestry. Sinclair and Walker(1999) indicated
that the lack of quantitative and predictive understanding about farmers to grow
trees and improvements in existing systems can be designed if characteristics of the
farms and farmers in relation to trees growing are studied (Nair and Dagar, 1991).

5


1.3. COMMON FARM SPECIES IN THE STUDY AREA
The common trees species grown on farmland include Acacia nilotica (kikar),
Dalbergia sissoo (Shisham), Bombax ceiba (Simal), Morus alba (Mulberry), Salix
spp (Willow), Melia azedarach (Bakain), Populus deltoides, Populus alba, Populus
nigra and populous cileata. Beside these indigenous spp, some exotic species have
also been introduced including, Eucalyptus spp, Robinia pseudocacia, Ailanthus
altisima and Frash.
1.4. THE REASON FOR SELECTION OF THIS RESEARCH
Montambault & Alavalapati (2005) stated that to assess the economic feasibility of
farm forestry systems, factors influencing the adoption of farm forestry, monitor the
relevance and effectiveness of investigations, and guide future research, in-depth

social and economic analyses are needed. Singh (2006) reported the constraints
involved in the adoption of farm forestry were mainly poor infrastructure
particularly market services, old/traditional way of agriculture practices and poverty
suffering farmers. Akbar et al. (2000) suggested that the limited acceptance is due to
the lack of attention given to farmers‟ views of the factors that influence their
decisions. Arnold and Dewees (1998) argue that strategies to encourage tree
planting on farms need to be based on an understanding of farmers tree management
in the context of household livelihood strategies, pointing out that little is known
about „„farmers‟ perceptions of the value of trees‟‟ and about the constraints they
face in developing tree resources. Politics at a local level also has been found to
affect the outcomes of farm forestry interventions in Bangladesh (Dove, 2003).
The future success of farm forestry in Pakistan will largely depend on assessing and
addressing farmers‟ perceptions of the factors affecting farm level tree planting.
This can be done through improving our understanding of the perceptions and
beliefs of the underlying farmers, attitudes towards farm forestry and the
relationship of the two in forming an intention to grow trees on farmlands as well as
the identification of factors that encourage or discourage tree planting. Little
research has explored farmer‟s actual decisions about the planting of trees and the
perceptions and attitudes towards decision-making. That is the reason that I
6


perceived my thesis on a “key factor which influences three planting decision of
household a case study in Pakistan”.
1.5. GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND RESEARCH QUESTION
1.5.1. Goals
The Goals of the study is to promote tree planting in the farmlands by households in
Tehsil Dargai District Malakand Pakistan.
1.5.2. Specific Objectives
This research aimed at

(1) To assess the current situation of tree planting in the farmland of
Malakand.
(2) To identify factors influencing tree planting decision in farmland in
Malakand.
(3) To investigate the constraints faced by farmers in tree planting in
Malakand.
(4) To propose recommendations for the improvement of plantation in the
farmlands in Malakand.
1.5.3. Research Questions
(1) What is the current situation of tree planting in the farmland of
Malakand?
(2) What are the key drivers/factors affecting tree planting decisions of
household in Malakand?
(3) What are the major constraints/problems related to tree planting in
Malakand?
1.6. THE SCOPE OF THIS RESEARCH
According to the discussion above by searching found no previous research or study
that has reviewed the factors that affecting tree planting decision of household in the
study area. This thesis will provide a base for further study at any location in the
perspective of Pakistan. This research will cover the gap of knowledge by reviewing
the factors that affect tree planting decision of the household in the study area.

7


CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
In this study, a diverse, interdisciplinary approach is used in order to detect why or
why not farmers decide to plant or not to plant. Hence the socioeconomic variables
of the household and the farm, as well as other possible factors influencing tree
planting decision used in this study were drawn from a range of previous related

studies available literature, documents and related materials have been reviewed,
some of the relevant have been given in this chapter.
2.1. FACTORS AFFECTING/INFLUENCING TREE PLANTING DECISION
Nkamleu & Manyong, (2005) Identified the following factor influence tree planting
activities such as; gender of farmer, household family size, level of education,
farmer‟s experience, membership within farmers‟ associations, contact with
research and extension, security of land tenure, agro-ecological zone, distance of the
village from nearest town, village accessibility and income from livestock. Zubair
and Garforth (2006) also found that attitudes significantly predicted farmers‟
decisions to tree planting activities. Land-use decisions of the farmers can be
supported by conservation-oriented land-use practices. Changes in land tenure and
market economics have been reported responsible for changes in tree planting
activities in Bangladesh (Khaleque and Gold, 1993).
Several factors have been used to explain land use decisions including soil quality,
farm size, farm labor, level of household education, farming experience, land tenure
security, distance to market, farm age, off-farm income, participation, initial wealth
status of households, access to credit, and technical knowledge (Browder et al.,
2004). In these independent variables, no consistent effects were observed in terms
of relationships between land use and household characteristics.
According to Dixon et al. (2001), households are diverse in terms of resources and
operate within heterogeneous biophysical, policy and institutional environments.
Pichon (1997) investigate soil fertility, the topographical location of farmland, farm
age and household resource endowment significantly influence land use decisions.
Further, farm household demographic characteristics such as education level of
8


household head, family and wage labor, and consumer units had significant effects
on land use decisions. Security of land tenure also significantly influenced landallocation decisions (Ebanyat et al., 2010).
Perz (2001) also point out that household demographic variable, the institutional

framework, off-farm income, farmer‟s background and belonging to group exerted
significant effects on tree planting activities.
Browder et al. (2004) found only farm size to be important in influencing decisions
on annual and perennial cropping. They found no significant effects of household
demographic characteristics, gender and age (except total family size) nor of policy,
environment factors (access to technical assistance, off-farm incomes) on land use
decision.
Factors such as soil quality, the slope of farmland, proximity to forest, create
conditions more or less favourable to grow and maintain trees (Place and Garrity,
2015). Proximity to markets may also generate incentives to favour certain types of
trees, especially those yielding perishable products like fruits (Pattanayak et al.,
2003).
Scherr (1995) stated that Smallholders vary greatly in their socio-economic,
perceptional (i.e. attitudes, beliefs) and motivational characteristics. Such variation
influences their willingness and ability to engage in certain land-use options and
management strategies, including tree planting. Several studies in the tropics and
sub-tropics have found that socioeconomic factors affect farmers tree planting
activities (Emtage and Suh, 2004; Mahapatra and Mitchell, 2001; Simmons et al.,
2002), and silvicultural management activity (Walters et al., 2005). In addition,
other factors include local knowledge (Redford and Padoch 1992), economic
scarcities (Mercer, 2004), geographic location of the plantation (Dewees and
Saxena, 1997), socio-political structures, institutions, government policies and
incentives (Durst and Enters, 2004). And except that participation in social
organizations including farmers‟ groups is recognized as helping farmers to adopt
new farming practices (Bebbington, 1997). Other factors found to influence tree

9


planting and management activity includes access to markets (Scherr, 2004) and

environmental factors such as site quality (Jagger et al., 2005).
2.2. FARM CHARACTERISTICS FACTORS
2.2.1.Land area
Tree planting requires land, but the poorest farmers mostly have very little
ownership or access to private land, or only very small areas of land, such that they
have little choice but to plant staple food crops that provide annual returns, instead
of the relatively slow growing trees (Simmons et al., 2002; Summers et al., 2004).
Hence, it is often found that farmers with larger areas of land have a tendency to
plant and manage more trees than the farmers with limited land (Summers et al.,
2004). Poor farmers with small land areas more dependent on essential forests
products (such as fuelwood) due to which they plant high densities of trees on part
of their farms, otherwise scarce (Scherr, 1997). Small-sized land provides small
volumes of wood, which can make harvesting and transportation to market
uneconomical (Scherr, 2004). Furthermore, as farmers are often highly dependent
on the limited resources produced on their land for their livelihoods, they have an
incentive for managing their crops, including trees, in the most sustainable and
efficient way (Sen and Das, 1988). Small land areas can also be more easily
protected from damage (such as forest fires or diseases) and there is an
encouragement to focus on quality production (Scherr, 2004).
2.2.2.Tenure
The often unclear land tenure discourage farmers from planting or managing trees if
they cannot ensure the right to use or sell trees (Simmons et al., 2002). Changes to
forest governance structures that are strengthening local rights over the land and
trees have been occurring (Luttrell et al., 2011). Such changes can empower the
farmers, improve their decision making power over their land and resources, and
encourage them to plant and manage trees (Kaimowitz, 2003). Land allocated for
tree planting is often already used by rural people for other purposes such changes
in land use allocation can negatively impact people‟s livelihoods and cause conflicts
and marginalization (Barr et al., 2010). On the other hand, some case studies have
10

shown that tree planting schemes that require titles over the land have actually
helped farmers to be recognized as the legal landowner (Arnold, 1998), so the
influence of land tenure is clearly cased specific.
2.2.3.Location of farm and house
The location of a farmers land in relation to a range of factors - including their
house, natural forest or other sources of forest products, wood industries and
markets - can affect the farmers‟ decision whether to plant and manage trees or not
(Scherr, 2004; Simmons et al., 2002). For example, in many developing countries,
working far from home (temporarily or permanently) is the only option for some
groups of people seeking better livelihoods (Rudel, 2009). If a farmer is living and
working far from their land, then planting trees is a productive option, and in some
cases, it has been known to secure the control over the land whilst they are away
(Dewees and Saxena, 1997; Van Noordwijk et al., 2007). On the other hand,
farmers often live in or near their farms, enabling them to protect and manage their
trees in a more efficient manner (Arnold, 1996).
Furthermore, the presence of trees on the farm reduces the household time spent and
labour burden collecting forest products from distant areas, especially if the natural
forest is scarce (Arnold and Dewees, 2014). The location of the farm in relation to
markets influences tree planting activity, especially when wood is produced for cash
sales. Remote areas, with a low population density and low levels of physical
infrastructure, complicate access to the market. Urban areas close to wood
consuming industries are more viable, whereby transport costs to the markets are
not a constraining factor (Scherr, 2004).
2.3. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS FACTORS
Socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education, and social status
can be used as a proxy for farmers‟ preferences for things such as risk tolerance and
conservation attitude, factors that are otherwise difficult to measure (Pattanayak et
al., 2003).

11


2.3.1. Gender, age and education
Gender has been found to influence tree planting activity, households with male
head or households with more male members found to be more active in tree
planting (Pattanayak et al., 2003; Scherr, 1995). In addition, age and education
variables are indicators of human capital, which have been found to increase the
likelihood of tree planting due to environmental awareness and knowledge of tree
planting techniques in some cases (Simmons et al., 2002). In fact, education is often
seen as a key issue for all levels of sustainable forestry (Schmidt et al., 1999) and it
has been found that there is a positive relationship betweenformal education and
tree planting zeal (Mercer, 2004; Thacher et al., 1996).
The influence of farmers‟ age on tree planting activity is unclear. In some cases, it
has been found that household age can influence the household decision to plant
certain crops (Walker and Homma, 1996). Older farmers generally have higher riskbearing capabilities and are interested in less labour-demanding activities such as
planting trees (Thacher et al., 1996). Younger households are generally less
established in terms of land areas owned, labour availability and resource
requirements. Thus, younger households have less capacity to cope with risks, and
they need to allocate their limited labour to varying forms of income earning (being
more dependent on off-farm work). Having lower land areas, younger households
generally need to choose a diversity of crops that can provide regular income and
food instead of planting trees (Walker and Homma, 1996).Yet other studies have
found that young, well- educated leaders in the village have been the innovative
ones, engaging in tree planting (Song et al., 2004). In addition, personal
characteristics can influence tree planting activity, as often tree planters come
across in the literature as more innovative and courageous (in terms of risk) than
non-tree planters (Mahapatra and Mitchell, 2001).
2.3.2. Silvicultural knowledge and skills

Despite a large traditional knowledge on tree planting, there is a general lack of
knowledge and skills related to tree planting and management amongst farmers,
which is considered to be a major constraint to successful small-scale tree planting
12


(Cossalter and Pye-Smith, 2003; Pattanayak et al., 2003). Smallholders in Indonesia
and other developing countries in the tropics often manage their timber plantations
using poor silvicultural practices with low levels of labour inputs, which lead to low
quantities and quality of timber (Maturana et al., 2005). Spacing is often irregular,
species composition sometimes results of chance rather than a conscious decision,
and farmers often lack the technical skills necessary to achieve best practice
(Gunasena and Roshetko, 2000). The management activity is often limited to
harvesting of wood, while trees are left to grow without any silvicultural
management between planting and harvesting (Roshetko et al., 2007). Hence,
improved extension activities are commonly recommended in order to improve the
success of smallholder tree planting and management (Roshetko et al., 2007;
Thacher et al., 1996).
2.4. SOCIO-ECONOMICS FACTORS
Socioeconomics factors include the opportunity cost of production, input and out
the price of the market, transactions cost, risk and access to credits, a discount rate
of economic decision.
2.4.1. Production cost, transaction cost and Market
The farmers willing to plant and manage trees are influenced by functional markets
(Byron, 2001; Scherr, 2004). Two main factors quantity and quality of wood often
make the markets complicate. These complicating factors especially apply to
farmers with small land areas and poor silvicultural management skills (Arnold,
2001; Byron, 2001). Less plantation area has small volumes which increase harvest
and logistic costs, especially if located far from the production plants and markets,
making them less attractive for the industries. While, farmers that are located near

the production plants and local markets, with relatively good infrastructure, have
good market conditions for planting and managing trees (Scherr, 2004).
Furthermore, the lack of continuous supply from small-scale plantations is a
hindrance to the industry.
Low and unstable market prices for wood are a major disadvantage for tree planters
(Scherr, 2004). The lacks of the open market can also give companies influence
13


over individual farmers production decisions for example, what species to plant or
when to harvest. The farmers also often lack negotiation power on the prices they
receive for the wood, and they often have little choice but to accept the company
dictated price (even if it is well below market rates) because of their limited access
to markets, limited market information, and inability to overcome transaction costs
(Perdana et al., 2012; Rohadi et al., 2012). The absence or lack of knowledge on
price incentives for farmers to produce higher quality products is considered a
barrier to improved silvicultural management practices (Perdana et al., 2012; Van
Noordwijk et al., 2007). Moreover, the involvement of middlemen (commission
agent) often decreases the profits reaching the farmer (Kumar et al., 2003; Perdana
et al., 2012).
2.4.2. Incentives
Incentives can be defined as policy instruments increasing the advantage of forest
plantations and thus stimulating investments in plantation establishment (Durst and
Enters, 2004). In order to encourage farmers‟ tree planting activities and
management, and to maximize their profitability, farmers are provided with
different incentives such as land, seeds, seedlings, fertilizers or other planting
material, extension services, cash handouts, assistance in harvesting, and guaranteed
markets. Poor who do not have access to credit or loans for tree planting and
management, incentives can be crucial. Some authors, however, have criticized
loans dependency as it risky if expected outcomes are not reached (Arnold, 1998).

Incentives can either have a positive effect on tree planting or the worst situation,
can lead to unsustainable tree plantations. For example, if the farmer's plant trees to
gain the economic incentives (cash) or fertilizers, this is unlikely to lead to good
plantation management and quality yields (Thacher et al., 1996). Complicate
bureaucracy or unclear land titles can mean that farmers do not always have access
to tree planting incentives, even if they are available in the area (Mead et al., 2001).
2.4.3. Capital
Along the production chain, different demanding objectives are required to produce
quality wood, such as seedlings, machinery, fertilizers, herbicides, and harvesting
14


equipment etc. The capital intensity is even higher if more value is added to the
production process, for example in the form of transportation, processing and
product marketing. For poor farmers, a lack of capital is a major constraint for tree
planting (Byron, 2001), and it has been found that wealthier farmers, who are more
capable of taking risky investments, are more likely to plant trees (Mahapatra and
Mitchell, 2001; Scherr, 1995). Furthermore, trees take a long time to grow
(depending on species and plantation objectives), making it a long-term investment
with little to no intermediate returns. The longtime periods involved in tree farming
exposes farmers to risks in terms of price fluctuations, tenure insecurity and natural
hazards (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003). This long waiting period combined with
high risks does not favour poor farmers, who are highly dependent on their limited
farm resources for day to day survival (Dewees and Saxena, 1997). Only the
farmers with the on-farm food supply, off-farm income sources, or access to
affordable loans are able to cope with the extended payback period between tree
planting and harvesting (Arnold, 1998). Furthermore, due to the limited access to
capital and credit for investing in tree planting, and the financial inability to wait for
trees to reach the minimum diameters required by industry, smallholders may also
find it difficult to compete with the larger state and private owned plantation

companies due to economies of scale (Maturana et al., 2005).
Compared to the cultivation of many other more intensive crops (such as oil palm),
establishing and maintaining tree plantation requires relatively low levels of capital
investment (Ravindran and Thomas, 2000). This means that tree planting is
sometimes chosen over other alternatives simply because of a lack of start-up
capital for another cash crop, or because of a lack of capacity to optimize the
productivity (Dewees and Saxena, 1997). In addition, tree planting often does not
require hired labour, most of the work is done by the farmers themselves (Evans,
1992). Farmers are often even willing to work below the minimum wage if they are
building assets on their own farms (Van Noordwijk et al., 2007).

15


2.4.4. Labor
If labour is a limiting factor, then tree planting can be favoured as a relatively low
labour-demanding land use option, whilst the limited labour can be allocated to
other on-farm (e.g. agriculture) or off-farm activities (industry, other govt jobs) to
provide regular incomes (Dewees and Saxena, 1997; Ravindran and Thomas, 2000;
Thacher et al., 1996). It has been found that households whose main income is from
off-farm sources are more likely to use their land for tree planting than those
households contingent on on-farm income (Salam et al., 2000; Thacher et al., 1996).
Sometimes, however, households with a large number of working members are
positively correlated with tree planting activity (Summers et al., 2004), because, in
some remote rural areas in the tropics, few off-farm income options are available
for the unskilled poor (Scherr, 2004). Also, farmers do not always have enough
capital to use the land for the most profitable crop, due to high establishment or
management costs (Dewees and Saxena, 1997).
2.5. BIOPHYSICAL FACTORS
Biophysical factor includes site quality site condition, soil characteristics, slope

aspect, the distance between house and farm etc. distance between a field and
farmer‟s house is negatively related to tree growth. Farmers often live in or near
their farms, enabling them to protect and manage their trees in a more efficient
manner (Arnold, 1996). The presence of trees on the farm reduces the household
time spent and labour burden collecting forest products from distant areas,
especially if the natural forest is scarce (Arnold and Dewees, 2014). The location of
the farm in relation to markets influences tree planting activity. Remote areas, with
low levels of physical infrastructure, complicate accessto the market. Urban areas
close to wood consuming industries are more viable, whereby transport costs to the
markets are not a constraining factor (Scherr, 2004).
Site conditions, including the soil characteristics and climatic conditions, affect the
success of tree planting. Not all sites are suitable for tree planting or for all species.
On the other hand, tree planting can often be a feasible option to make a use of
marginal lands. Tree planting can also have a negative effect on the site, and
16