Land management in rural Burkina Faso: the role of socio‐cultural and institutional factors
Farmers in the Sahel have been acknowledged for reclaiming degraded lands and improving food security by ingeniously modifying traditional agroforestry, water, and soil management practices. Despite the advantages offered by this range of farming techniques, their adoption rate is influenced by seve...
Saved in:
Published in | Natural resources forum Vol. 42; no. 3; pp. 201 - 213 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Oxford, UK
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.08.2018
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Farmers in the Sahel have been acknowledged for reclaiming degraded lands and improving food security by ingeniously modifying traditional agroforestry, water, and soil management practices. Despite the advantages offered by this range of farming techniques, their adoption rate is influenced by several factors. Using multivariate probit models and a correlation coefficient, this article examines the factors influencing the adoption of five land management practices based on 220 household and 40 farm surveys in four adjacent rural communities in southern Burkina Faso. The model results indicate that household labor force, education of household head, land tenure security, livestock holding, and membership in farmers’ groups influence the adoption of zaï practice, composting, improved fallow, stone bunds, and live hedges. However, two of the surveyed factors ‐ number of farms and visit by agricultural extension staff during the 12 months prior to the survey ‐ were not significant. Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between different land management practices, e.g., the decision to practice zaï is significantly linked to that of live hedges and composting. Zaï practice and stone bunds are considered labor intensive, which explains their significant correlations with household labor force at the 1% and 5% levels of significance, respectively. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0165-0203 1477-8947 |
DOI: | 10.1111/1477-8947.12153 |