FARMERS’ PERCEPTION AND ITS IMPACTS ON ADOPTION OF NEW AGROFORESTRY TREE (Gliricidia sepium) IN MWALA DIVISION, KENYA

WANJIRU BEATRICE NZILU N50/CE/22643/2010

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of the Degree of Master of Science (Environmental Education) in the School of Environmental Studies of Kenyatta University

March 2015

DECLARATION

This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a Degree in any other University or any other award.

Signature:…………………………. Date:………………………...

Wanjiru Beatrice Nzilu (N50/CE/22643/2010)

Department of Environmental Education

SUPERVISORS

We confirm that the work reported in this thesis was carried out by the candidate under our supervision as University supervisors.

Signature:………………….…………….. Date:………………………….

Dr. Samuel C.J.Otor

Department of Environmental Science

Signature:………………….…………….. Date:………………………….

Dr. John Muriuki

Department of Environmental Education

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my family, the Nzilus: Joy, Nathaniel and Samuel for standing by me in and out of season. They were very supportive and encouraged me even when the work became very tough to a point of despair. They held me up with prayers, sacrifice, and patience and with powerful kind words throughout my education. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I sincerely thank the Almighty God for granting me an opportunity to undertake my postgraduate studies at Kenyatta University, His provisions, and His grace that has been sufficient upon my life. He has given me the insight, sound mind, energy, good health and the grace to come this far with this thesis. I sincerely appreciate the people who generously advised and supported me when I was writing this thesis. I am most grateful and would like to thank Dr. Samuel C. J.

Otor and Dr John Muriuki for their supervision, encouragement, guidance and support throughout the period of the research.

Special thanks to Dr. Cecilia Gichuki and Dr. Judy Kariuki for their scholarly guidance, support, criticism and corrections towards the preparation of this thesis.

I owe special gratitude to my family for their prayers, moral and financial support.

God bless you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ...... ii DEDICATION ...... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iv LIST OF TABLES ...... viii LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix LIST OF PLATES ...... x ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... xi ABSTRACT ...... xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Background to the study ...... 1 1.3 Statement of the Problem ...... 4 1.3.1 General Objective ...... 5 1.3.2 Specific Objectives ...... 5 1.3.3 Research Questions ...... 5 1.3.4 Research Hypotheses ...... 6 1.4 Significance of the study ...... 6 1.5 Limitation and Delimitation of the Study ...... 7 1.5.1 Limitation ...... 7 1.5.2 Delimitation ...... 7 1.6 Theoretical and conceptual framework ...... 8 1.6.1 Theoretical framework ...... 8 1.7 Definitions of Terms ...... 10 CHAPTER TWO ...... 12 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 12 2.1 Introduction ...... 12 2.2 Gliricidia sepium: The current status ...... 12 2.2.1 Taxonomy ...... 12 2.2.2 Tree description ...... 12 2.3 Farmers’ perception on agroforestry especially G sepium ...... 13 2.4 Uses and benefits of G sepium tree species ...... 14 2.5 Trends in agroforestry ...... 20 CHAPTER THREE ...... 21 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 21 3.1 Introduction ...... 21 3.2 Research design and locale ...... 21 3.3.1 The study area ...... 22 3.3.2 Climate, vegetation and soils ...... 24 3.3.2.1 Climate ...... 24 3.3.2.2 Vegetation ...... 24 3.3.2.3 Soils ...... 24 3.4 Target Population ...... 25 3.5 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination ...... 25 3.5.1 Sampling Techniques ...... 25 3.5.2 Sample size determination ...... 25 3.6 Research instruments ...... 26 3.6.1 Questionnaire...... 27 3.6.2 Interviews ...... 27 3.6.3 Observations ...... 28 3.7 Data analysis and presentation ...... 28 CHAPTER FOUR ...... 29 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 29 4.1 Introduction ...... 29 4.2 General and Demographic Information ...... 29 4.2.1 General information ...... 29 4.2.2 Findings for Objective, Research Question and Hypothesis one ...... 30 4.2.2.1 Gender of the respondents ...... 30 4.2.2.2 Contingence for association between gender and adoption of G sepium . 31 4.2.2.3 Age bracket of the respondents ...... 31 4.2.2.4 Income generating activities for the respondents ...... 33 4.2.2.5 Education level of respondents ...... 34 4.2.2.6 Respondents’ attendance to training and extension services ...... 35 4.2.2.7 Gender equality of training ...... 37 4.2.2.8 Willingness to attend training ...... 38 4.3 Other factors that influenced the adoption of G sepium in agroforestry ...... 39 4.3.1 Introduction ...... 39 4.3.1.1 Rainfall ...... 39 4.3.1.2 Soil fertility...... 39 4.3.1.3 Soil biodiversity ...... 39 4.3.2 Solutions to soil infertility ...... 41 4.4 Findings for Objective, Research Question and Hypothesis two ...... 42 4.4.1 Introduction ...... 42 4.4.2 Farmers’ level of awareness of the uses and benefits of G sepium ...... 42 4.4.3 Farmers’ level on awareness of G sepium uses and benefits ...... 44 4.5 Findings for Objective, Research Question and Hypothesis three ...... 46 4.5.1 Introduction ...... 46 4.5.2 Socio-economic benefits of adopting G sepium in agroforestry...... 46 4.5.3 Environmental benefits of adopting G sepium in agroforestry ...... 47 4.5.4 Report from observations and interviews on G sepium adoption ...... 48 CHAPTER FIVE ...... 54 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 54 5.1 Introduction ...... 54 5.2 Summary ...... 54 5.3 Conclusions ...... 55 5.4 Recommendations from the study ...... 56 5.4 Suggestions for further research ...... 57 REFERENCES ...... 58 APPENDICES...... 72 Appendix I: Farmers’ questionnaire ...... 72 Appendix II: Semi-structured interview schedule for farmers ...... 77 Appendix III: Observation sheet ...... 80

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Contingence relationship between gender and adoption ...... 31 Table 4.2: Age bracket of the respondents ...... 32 Table 4.3: Willingness to attend training ...... 38 Table 4.4: Factors influencing the adoption of G sepium in agroforestry ..... 40 Table 4.5: Coefficients for Mwala Division ...... 43 Table 4.6: Socio-economic benefits of adopting G sepium in agroforestry ... 46 Table 4.7: Economic benefits of adopting G sepium in agroforestry ...... 47

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: G sepium agroforestry adoption behaviour model ...... 9 Figure 3. 1: A Map of Mwala Study Area ...... 23 Figure 4. 1: Gender of the respondents ...... 30 Figure 4.2: Income generating activities for respondents ...... 33 Figure 4.3: Respondents’ level of education ...... 34 Figure 4.4: Respondents’ attendance to training and extension ...... 36 Figure 4.5: Gender equality of training...... 37 Figure 4.6: Solutions to soil infertility ...... 41 Figure 4. 7: Respondents’ awareness of tree species ...... 45

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 4.1: G sepium cuttings in Mwala Division ...... 51 Plate 4.2: G sepium seedlings in Mwala Division ...... 51 Plate 4.3: G sepium intercropped with cowpeas in Mwala Division ...... 52 Plate 4.4: G sepium trees in Mwala Division ...... 52 Plate 4.5: G sepium flowers in Mwala Division ...... 53

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

CABI Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International. CATIE Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigation y Ensetianza. CRC Cyclic Redundancy Code. FAO Food and Agriculture Organization. GEF Global Environment Fund. ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. ILCA International Livestock Centre for Africa. IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institute NFTA Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association. NGOs Non- Governmental Organizations. SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists. SSA Sub- Saharan Africa. UN United Nations. UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. UNDP United Nations Development Programme. PROSEA Plant Resources of South-East Asia.

ABSTRACT

Mwala Division, Machakos County, suffers from different forms of land degradation which include low soil fertility, soil erosion and loss of soil biodiversity. Traditionally, small-scale farmers in the Division intercropped indigenous agroforestry tree species like Acacia tortilis (Mulaa) and Terminalia brownii (Mukuu) with farm crops in their farming systems as an intervention measure to land degradation. Presently the farmers have started adopting exotic agroforestry tree species especially Gliricidia sepium (Gliricidia) in their farming systems. This study was designed to find out why farmers were abandoning their indigenous farming practice and were shifting to Gliricidia agroforestry which is an exotic practice. To achieve this, farmers’ perception on the adoption of G sepium compared to A tortilis and T brownii tree species and its impacts in this Division was examined. The objectives of this study included the determination of how demographic factors influenced the adoption of G sepium in agroforestry among households, the famers’ level of awareness of the uses and benefits of G sepium compared to A tortilis and T brownii trees and the socio-economic and environmental benefits of adopting G sepium tree species in agroforestry. A descriptive survey design was adopted in which 384 respondents were randomly selected across Mwala Division to collect the required data. The instruments of data collection were observations, interviews and a questionnaire. Data were analyzed using the statistical software SPSS and presented in tables, bar graphs and pie charts. Chi-square (휒2) and Spearman rank order correlation (rho (r)) techniques were also used. This research established that uses and benefits of G sepium had a positive influence on this adoption (휒2 = 2.487, p≤ 0.05, r = 0.7, n = 384, df = 3.702). Factors which include gender (휒2 = 7.277, p = 0.000), age (r = 0.84, p = 0.000, n = 384, df = 382), rainfall (휒2 = 2.605, r = -0.65), soil fertility (휒2 = 3.235, r = -0.52) and loss of soil biodiversity (휒2=3.467, r = -0.350) had a positive influence on farmers’ level of awareness on adoption of G sepium in agroforestry. Other factors which positively influenced this adoption included socio-economic benefits (휒2 =1.630, r = 0.204, p = 0.000), environmental benefits (휒2= -0.691, r = - 0.084, p =0.000) and food security (휒2=1.363, r = 0.183, p = 0.000). These findings justify the reason for farmers shift from indigenous to exotic farming practice for it had impacted positively on their livelihoods. Therefore, G sepium can be an alternative agroforestry tree for use in rehabilitating land besides meeting farmers’ basic needs. Hence it is logical to conclude that, the farmers’ move of shifting from practicing indigenous agroforestry to exotic agroforestry was justified. However, there is need for capacity building to raise farmers’ level of awareness on the new innovation and a common market is necessary for farm resources to optimize farmer’s benefits from this technology. Suggestion for further research areas include: factors influencing value addition on production of G sepium and the impact of its adoption in agroforestry on livelihoods.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction This chapter focuses on the literature review for the research carried out. It states the background to the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, research hypotheses, significance of the study, limitation and delimitation of the study, theoretical and conceptual frameworks and operational definitions of key terms.

1.2 Background to the study

Gliricidia sepium agroforestry is a sustainable agricultural system being widely promoted in the world especially in the tropics of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)

(Thangata and Alavalapati, 2003). G sepium tree species is native to Central America and Caribbean, where it is frequently used as living fences, as shade in coffee plantations, as a generator of biomass and for provision of posts and fuelwood. It is integrated in agricultural farming systems in various parts of the world for its natural valuable multiple products and services. For example, in Mexico and Philippines, it is used as a natural vegetable, pesticide, fungicide, traditional medicine, construction and building material (Young, 1997). In Malawi and Ivory Coast, it is used as a fodder, tree fertilizer for fixing nitrogen (Liyanage, 1987; Gonzal and Raros, 1988) and in Colombia and Sri Lanka as fodder and cover crop (Hawkins et al., 1990;

Vargas et al., 1987). The SSA countries where the tree is grown include Benin,

Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Burkina-Fasso, Kenya, Martinique,

Senegal, Sierra Leone, Zambia, Uganda and Tanzania (CABI, 2004).

G sepium in the family Fabaceae and Sub-family Faboideae, is a fast growing leguminous multipurpose tree species, which has beneficial impact particularly in

2 terms of development issues such as environmental degradation, food insecurity, water inaccessibility, poor health status, high poverty levels, low literacy levels and poor infrastructure, therefore, it has the potential of intervening in a number of these constraints. This is because it is drought resistant and a valuable water conserving tree species. Its products and services have the potential of conserving soil and water in catchment areas, improves soil fertility as green manure, increases soil organic matter and helps to recycle soil nutrients, improves soil aeration, reduces soil temperature and biologically fixes atmospheric nitrogen that replenishes soil fertility (Young,

1997). Hence, it increases farm resources, conserves and reclaims degraded environment, restores climatic equilibrium, improves microclimates besides maintaining natural resource quality in rural environment and restores lost biodiversity (Young, 1997; FAO, 2011; Brown and Wolf, 1985). It provides food, animal fodder, shade and saleable products such as wood, timber, construction and fencing material (KEFRI, 1990; Maudu and Tengnas, 2005) and hence it is important for both ecological and socio-economic benefits. If G sepium tree species is intensively integrated into farming systems, it can fulfill a number of roles for it is thought to offer the best alternatives especially for resource poor small-scale farmers who are financially unable to buy inorganic fertilizers for their farming needs.

This technology is also economically and ecologically sustainable alternative for increasing food production and protecting the environment in all ecological zones

(Young, 1997). In Kenya, G sepium agroforestry is being widely promoted in the rural marginal areas especially in the arid and semi-arid areas such as Garissa, Kitui,

Machakos and Isiolo Counties to address land degradation, food insecurity and poverty problems that have become a threat to the environment.

3

In Machakos County, this technology is being widely promoted in Mwala Division.

The Division being in a marginal rural area, experiences a semi-arid tropical climate of Agro-ecological Zone 1V with a bimodal pattern of rainfall and it is characterized by frequent crop failures, frequent droughts, frequent landslides, desertification, floods and high temperatures, loss of biodiversity and climatic variations (KARI,

2012).

According to Zobel et al. (1987), most of the exotic agroforestry tree species grow faster, have greater seed availability, are more easily managed, and are better understood by farmers than indigenous tree species whose seeds are difficult to germinate and they do not intercrop well with farm crops due to their wide rooting system.

G sepium is one of the major tropical forage trees because of its high protein content and nutritive value (Panjaitan, 1988). It is a fast growing agroforestry tree species that is easy to propagate. The tree is able to fix nitrogen and produces a lot of litter providing soil with a large quantity of organic matter. The tree is readily incorporated into rural set ups. It has high value products such as food, fodder, fuelwood, construction and fencing materials, medicine for humans and animals and mulch

(Blandon, 1985).

The problems of deforestation and increased fuelwood needs have further put more emphasis on G sepium agroforestry because food and forestry products and sustainability in agricultural farm use are basic requirements for rural communities.

This thesis reports the findings of a study that was carried out in Mwala Division between the month of May and September in year 2013. The farmers’ perception and socio-economic drivers for adoption of G sepium in agroforestry were major

4 concerns. This was because the small-scale farmers were slowly abandoning their indigenous farming practice of intercropping indigenous agroforestry tree species, especially A tortilis and T brownii trees, in favour of exotic ones.

1.3 Statement of the Problem

Mwala Division suffers from different forms of land degradation. It exhibits a high growing population which has put a lot of pressure on agricultural farm resources and water systems (ICRAF, 2007 and KARI, 2012). The farming systems are becoming unsustainable as the population increases and the amount of agricultural land available has also decreased (ICRAF, 2007 and KARI, 2012). It is characterized by frequent droughts, famine and climatic variations which affect both the community’s livelihood and livestock.

According to ICRAF (2007) the community was aware of land degradation and its impacts. Therefore, for a long time farmers practiced indigenous agroforestry particularly intercropping A tortilis and T brownii tree species with farm crops as an intervention measure to land degradation and increase farm produce with an objective of alleviating food insecurity. This intervention measure did not work well so they sought a new method. In recent years there has been an evident shift from A tortilis and T brownii to G sepium tree species since its introduction by ICRAF in the year

2007. Therefore, this study sought to find out the farmers’ perception on the adoption of G sepium tree species and the reasons why the small-scale farmers were abandoning their indigenous farming practice and why they were shifting to exotic agroforestry tree species particularly G sepium. It is envisaged that the famers’ perception, demographic factors influencing G sepium in adoption and its perceived benefits would provide incentive for farmers to plant it. The output of this study

5 would also be expected to offer guidelines for its adoption and strategies for its expansion in future not only in Mwala Division but also in other areas with similar environmental and ecological problems.

1.3.1 General Objective

The purpose of this research was to find out the farmers’ perception on the adoption of G sepium compared to A tortilis and T brownii tree species and its impacts in

Mwala Division.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives were as follows:

1. To determine how demographic factors influenced the adoption of G sepium

in agroforestry among Mwala households.

2. To assess the famers’ level of awareness of the uses and benefits of growing G

sepium compared to A tortilis and T brownii tree species in Mwala Division.

3. To assess the socio-economic and environmental benefits of adopting G

sepium in agroforestry.

1.3.3 Research Questions

In view of the background and problem statement, this study set out to address the following questions:

1. What are the demographic factors that influence the adoption on Gliricidia

sepium in agroforestry?

6

2. What is the farmers’ level on the uses and benefits of Gliricidia sepium tree

species in Mwala Division?

3. Are there socio-economic and environmental benefits of adopting Gliricidia

sepium in agroforesty in the study area?

1.3.4 Research Hypotheses

In an attempt to answer the above questions, the following hypotheses were formulated:

1. There is a significant relationship between demographic factors and adoption

of G sepium in agroforestry among Mwala households.

2. There is a significant relationship between farmers’ awareness of the uses and

benefits of G sepium and its adoption as an agroforestry tree in Mwala

Division.

3. There are significant socio-economic and environmental benefits of adopting

G sepium in agroforestry.

1.4 Significance of the study

The findings of this study have both theoretical and practical implications for the future of adoption of G sepium agroforestry not only in Mwala Division but in Kenya and other countries with related ecological conditions.

Theoretically, the study would be expected to contribute to the advancement of knowledge about G sepium agroforestry in Kenya. It also highlighted the factors that influenced the small-scale farmers positively to adopt G sepium tree in agroforestry.

7

The study had practical significance as it led to the improvement of strategies for the adoption of G sepium in agoforestry by identifying the strengths and constrains in the adoption process. The research had an immediate benefit to the small-scale farmers as it enhanced their perception towards the new exotic agroforestry positively since it improved their livelihoods. The results of this study would enlighten the small-scale farmers on the achievement of optimized socio-economic and environmental benefits from this technology. It would finally form a base on which this technology would be developed, expanded and sustained in future not in the study area but also in other places with similar ecological conditions.

1.5 Limitation and Delimitation of the Study

1.5.1 Limitation

Only three tree species: G sepium, A tortilis and T brownii were examined rather than more species. The low level of education of farmers presented a barrier for majority of the respondents. Therefore an interpreter was required and hence some information might not have been captured. The study aimed to close the gap of knowledge by tapping indigenous knowledge from the farmers who have survived in this environment for long.

1.5.2 Delimitation

The study confined itself to Mwala Division where small-scale farmers were the direct beneficiaries of the G sepium agoforestry technology. Although G sepium seeds were provided freely by Mwala Division Agricultural Officer to small-scale farmers, it is only those who planted them in their farms benefitted from this agroforestry. The

8 study found out that even where the tree was planted, it was not fully being utilized since the farmers’ level of awareness of its uses was still low. This is the gap of knowledge the study attempted to address. The research confined itself to the farmers who were practicing G sepium agroforestry in their farms only. This study found out that the documentation of G sepium agroforestry practice was limited in Kenya.

1.6 Theoretical and conceptual framework

1.6.1 Theoretical framework

As indicated in Figure 1.1, the adoption of G sepium trees in agroforestry is perceived as a viable alternative for rehabilitation of land, soil conservation and increased crop output. It is assumed that documenting the reasons of adopting G sepium tree in agroforestry would help formulate strategies to intensify this technology. The process of adopting G sepium trees in agroforestry is presented in a model by Rogers (1983) and Duvel (1994). In this model adoption is a mental decision which is a function of perception, knowledge and needs. Thangata and Alavapati (2003) observed that adoption is influenced by many factors such as socio-economic, environmental and mental process that are intervened by variables that include knowledge about agroforestry technology, needs and one’s perceptions about methods to acquire these needs. It explains that adoption behaviour is dependent upon intervening variables such as individual’s needs, knowledge about the tree and individual’s perception about methods used in meeting these needs in a specific environment. These intervening variables are dependent on socio-economic variables such as age, level of awareness, extension contact, income, education and household size.

9

1.6.2 Conceptual framework

Human-Environmental Factors Economic-Technical Factors

Dependent Variables Independent Intervening

Consequence of Behaviour Behaviour change change

Needs Socio-economic factors (e.g. age, awareness, Expansion of Adoption of education, Technology Perception G sepium household size, technology extension support, income sources) Knowledge

Figure 1.1: G sepium agroforestry adoption behaviour model

Modified from Duvel, 1994

10

1.7 Definitions of Terms

Agroforestry: is the dynamic, ecologically based natural resource management

system that through integration of trees in the farmland and rangeland

diversifies and sustains production for increased social, economic and

environmental benefits for land users at all levels (ICRAF, 1997).

Desertification: is the degradation of land in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas.

It is caused primarily by human activities and climatic variations (UNCCD,

2011).

Gliricidia sepium: is a medium-sized leguminous multipurpose tree species which has

been integrated into indigenous farming practices to fulfill a number of roles

in smallholder agricultural production systems that include fuelwood, living

fences, animal forage, green manure and soil stabilization. It has a wide-

ranging soil and climatic adaptations (Stewart et al., 1992).

Intercropping: is the growing two or more crops simultaneously with no distinct row

arrangement.

Land degradation: Is the reduction or loss of the biological or economic

productivity and complexity of rain fed cropland, irrigated cropland, or

range, pasture, forest and woodlands resulting from land uses or from a

process or combination of processes including processes arising from human

activities and habitation patterns, such as: soil erosion caused by wind and

/or water; deterioration of the physical, chemical and biological or

economic properties of soil and long-term loss of natural vegetation

(UNCCD, 1996).

11

Perception: is to minimize current and/or future adverse effects of climate change

and take advantage of available opportunities to maximize benefits (Eriksen

et al., 2011; Pouliott et al., 2008; Smitters and Smit, 2009).

Resource: is an input to the process of agricultural production (Hooder and Roger,

1974). Input refers to things which enter the farm system: namely capital,

labour, land, machines and skills.

Socio-economic factors: These refer to education, labour, land tenure, distance,

credits, extension services, family size, farm size, sex ratio, dependency

ratio, farm inputs, mechanization, skills and crop types.

Sustainable agricultural production: is the system that enhances environmental

quality and resource base on which agriculture depends, provides for basic

human food and fibre needs. It is economically viable, socially acceptable

and enhances the quality of life for farmers and the society as a whole.

Technology: is the systematic application of scientific or other organized body of

knowledge to practical purposes (Akubuilo et al., 2007) which includes new

ideas, inventions, innovations, techniques, methods and materials.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Gliricidia sepium tree species belong to the family Fabaceae and Sub-family

Faboideae. It can tolerate an annual average temperature of between 15˚C to 30 ˚C with no frost and an annual average rainfall of between 600-3500mm. The tree species can grow from the semi-arid subtropics to the wet tropics and can thrive on a wide range of soils from pure sand to deep lake-bed deposits. The tree tolerates water logging and a wide range of low fertile soils (Ecocrop, 2009).

2.2 Gliricidia sepium: The current status

2.2.1 Taxonomy

G sepium (Gliricidia) is commonly known as Mexican lilac, mother of cocoa,

Nicaraguan cacao shade, quick stick, St.Vincent plum and tree of iron. It is native to

Central America and possibly Northern South America.

2.2.2 Tree description

Gliricidia sepium tree is a semi-deciduous medium size tree which grows best in tropical, seasonally dry climates, growing up to a height of 10-15 metres (33-50 feet) with a broad light canopy. Its size is usually controlled by regular pruning in cultivated environments. It is a fast growing nitrogen-fixing tree which multiplies quickly and it produces a lot of litter. It is easy to propagate by seed, seedlings and cuttings and hence an easy tree for small-scale farmers which is readily incorporated

13 into rural setups (Simons and Stewart, 1994). Hence G sepium is grown throughout the tropics to provide environmental services which include: agroforestry, boundary, barrier or support, erosion control or dune stabilization, soil stabilization, soil improvement, shade, shelter, revegetation and wind break. It has high value products such as food, green manure, fodder, fuelwood, charcoal, construction and fencing materials, medicine for humans and animals and mulch besides improving degraded land where it is grown as a fallow tree (Blandon, 1985; Withington et al., 1987;

Stewart and Simons, 1994). According to Zobel et al. (1987), exotic agroforestry tree species grow faster than indigenous species; they have greater seed availability, are more easily managed and are better understood by farmers. Conversely, indigenous tree species’ seeds are difficult to germinate and they do not intercrop well with farm crops due to their wide rooting system.

In Africa, G sepium is naturalized or grown on farms in several countries which include: Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Martinique,

Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia,

Cameroon, Chad, Cote d`lvoire, Ghana, Grenada, Guadeloupe and Gambia (CABI,

2004).

In Kenya, G sepium is grown in dry areas which include: Coastal region (Mombasa

County), Garrisa, Isiolo, Kitui and Machakos Counties.

2.3 Farmers’ perception on agroforestry especially G sepium

According to Van den Ban and Hawkins (1988), perception is a process where people receive information or stimuli from their environment to transform physiological awareness. Perceptions are mental images, products, results or interpretations formed

14 in the human mind following the influence of physiological stimuli mediating the sense organs. According to Robbins et al. (2001), perception is a process where individuals organize and interpret their sensory impression in order to give meaning to their environment. Individual’s characteristics such as attitudes, motives, interests, past experiences and expectations influence the perceiver. Lord and Maher (1999) observed that a negative perception can result in failure of any technology to be adopted due to factors which include: being aware or unaware of its advantages or disadvantages. If an innovation is perceived to be beneficial then, it is likely to be adopted, intensified and sustained in future.

FAO (2011) observed that farmers’ perception on tree resources has changed from aesthetic to that of ecological and socio-economic benefits. This is due to the fact that goods and services of trees have the potential of addressing problems of pollution, poverty and energy besides restoring climatic equilibrium and improving microclimates. Farmers’ perception on any technology depends on user’s decision making on the perceived usefulness of the new technology. Eriksen et al. (2011),

Pouliott et al. (2008), Smitters and Smit (2009), defined perception as minimizing current and future adverse effects of climate change and take advantage of available opportunities to maximize benefits and the degree to which one believes that using a particular system would be free from effort.

2.4 Uses and benefits of G sepium tree species

In parts of Asia, G sepium is an extremely useful tree in wider land rehabilitation. It is used to conserve soil, to control erosion and to stabilize soil (Stewart et al., 1996;

Wiersum and Nitis, 1997).

15

In Mexico and Philippines, G sepium leaves and flowers are used as natural vegetable.

They are eaten when boiled or fried (Stewart et al., 1996). When leaves are placed in containers with bananas, they hasten ripening of bananas.

G sepium leaves, seeds or powdered bark with cooked rice or maize, or fermented, are used as a poison for various fungal, insects, rodents, viral, termite, pests and to reduce stem-borer in cereal crops (Standley and Steyer, 1946; Stewart et al., 1996 and FAO,

2009). In Mexico, Sri Lanka and Philippines, its products are used to protect crops from various fungal, insects, rodents and viral and termite pests and reduce stem-borer in cereal crops. In India, it has been found to have positive effect on transmission of aphids that cause rosette disease in groundnuts (Standley and Steyer, 1946; Stewart et al., 1996 and FAO, 2009).

In Mexico, G sepium is a traditional medicine used as a poultice, an antihistaminic, antipyretic, expectorant, diuretic and anti-fungal. It is a remedy for eczema, alopecia, boils, bruises, burns, colds, debility, eruptions, erysipelas, fever, fractures, gangrene, head-ache, itch, prickly heat, rheumatism, skin sore, tumors, ulcers and wounds (Duke and Wain, 1981, Wiersum and Nitis, 1997). In Latin America, generally, the leaf extract is used as an insecticide for bathing animals. Juice of G sepium leaves, bark and roots is used to alleviate itches and wounds in Philippines.

In Central America and Philippines, it is a source of construction and building material, fuelwood, charcoal, posts, railway sleepers, farm implements and furniture

(Kiflu, 2009 and Nyadzi, 2003). G sepium tree produces very hard, heavy, strong and high quality wood for timber and fuel. Its timber is highly durable (termite and fungus resistant) and valued for house construction and corner fence posts (CABI,

2003) and therefore it is used for posts, railroad ties, construction of furniture tool,

16 handles and farm implements (Standley and Steyer, 1946). According to Wiersum and Nitis (1997), G sepium`s heartwood burns slowly producing good ambers and little smoke making the older wood to be a good fuel.

The sale of its products such as seeds, cuttings, seedlings, timber, fuel and honey are a source of income and employment. Its lilac pink flowers are source of nectar for bees and it is an important apiculture in many countries. The flowers are also important for ornamental attraction purposes and tourism attraction (Suri et al., 2009). More diversification of income can reduce farmers’ risk from price fluctuations and crop failure (Challinor et al., 2007, Sanchez et al., 1997).

In Malawi, G sepium is intercropped with farm crops to increase crop yields (Ikerra et al., 1999) because it is a nitrogen fixer that replenishes soil fertility and increases topsoil inorganic nitrogen thereby, increasing crop yields (Young, 1997). Its green manure and mulch is an organic matter which increases soil fertility by increasing soil organic carbon content, bringing soil nutrient near the soil surface, improving soil nutrient efficiency, changing soil physical characteristics and increasing soil moisture conservation (Mbaria, 2006; Syampungani et al., 2010 and Winterbottom, 1992). It’s much leaf litter preserves the organic matter contained in the soil and hence boosts soil fertility. According to Place et al. (2002), its green manure increases crop yields, extends the harvesting season and improves the quality of produce when transferred to growing crops especially vegetables. It improves soil aeration and reduces soil temperature (Kaonga and Coleman, 2008; Sileshi, et al., 2007; Kaonga and Bayliss-

Smith, 2009). As a drought-resistant tree species, it is valuable in water-conservation because it sheds off most of its leaves in dry season, hence reducing water loss through transpiration.

17

In Ivory Coast, it is used to increase crop yields, to reduce time for harvest and to control crops’ competition for light, water and nutrients (Liyanage, 1987; Gonzal and

Raros, 1988).

In Mexico and in Sri Lanka, G sepium is a source of fodder, poultry feeds and bee forage. Its nutrient-rich leaves, branches and barks are used as cattle and goat fodder and are particularly valuable in filling the feed gap that occurs during long periods of dry seasons and therefore can save the farmers from having to buy expensive alternative feeds since it can supplement grass pasture in dry periods (CABI, 2003;

Carew, 1983, Srinivasulu et al., 1999; Keopaseuht et al., 2004 and Ecocrop, 2009). It is a colorant in maize-based diets for laying hens (Fords, 1987). It can increase hens’ dietary production by up to 15 percent and egg production (Ige et al., 2006). Flowers are bee forage. As green season forage, it is given to lactating cows to increase milk production in Colombia and Sri Lanka (Hawkins et al., 1990; Vargas et al., 1987). As feed for rabbits, it increases their weight (Onwudike, 1995). It is used as early morning forage for pigs (Diaz et al., 2005).

G sepium as a shade tree species is able to provide a favourable environment for crops and suppresses light demanding weeds and pests (Sileshi et al., 2007; Sileshi and Mafongaya, 2006a). It buffers the farmers against extreme environmental changes since it modifies temperatures and therefore helps them to adapt to climate changes besides improving crop water use and protecting livestock, crops and homesteads

(Kaonga and Coleman, 2008; Kaonga and Bayliss-Smith, 2009 and Sileshi et al.,

2007).

As a drought resistant tree it is able to counter global warming. It has the potential of reducing atmospheric carbon through carbon sequestration (Kaonga and Coleman,

18

2008; Kaonga and Bayliss-Smith, 2009 and Sileshi et al., 2007). Mbaria (2006),

Syampungani et al., (2010) and Winterbottom (1992) observed that G sepium increases soil fertility by increasing soil organic carbon content brings soil nutrient near the soil surface, improving soil nutrient efficiency, changing soil physical characteristics and increasing soil moisture.

According to Pye-Smith (2008), G sepium tree is used as a green ground cover since its roots bind the soil together and therefore prevent soil erosion. Its green manure and mulch is an organic matter which helps to recycle soil nutrients and to preserve the organic matter contained in the soil and hence boosts its fertility as it produces much leaf litter. It improves soil aeration and reduces soil temperature. It also improves crop productivity in low agricultural potential sites (Mbaria, 2006; Syampungani et al.,

2010 and Pye-Smith, 2008).

As a tree cover, it reduces soil temperature (Orwa et al., 2009). It is important for ecological and economic sustainability of food production systems (Maghembe and

Prins, 1994; Nair et al., 1999). Its shade and cover is important for farm crops since it prevents them from extreme weather conditions and especially in arid and semi-arid regions. It also reduces the farmer’s exposure to seasonal environmental variations and over the long-term maintains and improves soil health.

It also plays a beneficial role in watershed management since it provides cleaner water through reduced nutrient and soil runoff and evaporation, thereby, reducing soil degradation and controlling desertification (Stewart and Simon, 1994).

As a drought-resistant tree, it has the potential of countering global warming and hunger risk since its leaves provide edible vegetables (Stewart, 1996).

19

G sepium is one of the major tropical forage trees in Africa, because of its high protein content and nutritive value. It is either cut by hand and left on the ground for livestock to graze or carried to paddocks or stalls. Chopped forage mixed with grasses or maize and additives such as molasses, sugar cane and formic acid (0.85%) is added to provide fermentable carbohydrates (Wiersum and Nitis, 1992).

In Kenya, G sepium tree species is used as a fodder, living fence, windbreak and fire break and often used for fire belts around forests and farms because it is nearly

"fireproof" when alive. This is because when the tree is used as a live fence, it becomes much easier and cheaper to collect local stakes and plant them as fences and posts, than other fencing materials. It lasts longer and it is economically more attractive because of its production of more fences, fodder and fuelwood

(CABI,2003). As a tree cover, it is of utmost importance for ecological and economic sustainability of food production systems (Brown and Wolf, 1985). It is able to optimize food production and environmental protection and therefore can meet farmers’ food requirements. The tree is a nitrogen fixer and its leaves are valuable for fodder as its bark, roots and seeds are poisonous. The flowers are used for bee forage and are also valuable as mulch. Because it produces good quality timber it can contribute to poverty reduction through increased production of wood and other tree products for home consumption and sale. When grown in farms for fuelwood and charcoal production, it can reduce deforestation pressure on woodlands and forests.

In Kenya, G sepium is integrated into agricultural landscapes to increase diversity and attractiveness of the landscape because of its aesthetic role. Its lilac-pink flowers make it a memorable ornamental tree species and therefore it can be suitable for ornamental use in residential and public landscaping, parking lots, islands and along

20 residential or streets since it has moderate size, clean appearance and colourful flowering.

2.5 Trends in agroforestry

Forest institutions, such as Forest Research Institutes and Agricultural Research

Centres of many countries, today are increasingly developing programmes for agroforestry research, farming and education. This is by integrating agroforestry programmes with conventional silviculture due to the growing knowledge that agroforestry is a practical, low-cost alternative for food production and environmental protection. The significance of agroforestry system which is necessary is one for meeting the rural communities` need for food, fodder, fertilizers and fuel without causing ecological harm which was emphasized by the UN Conference held in

Nairobi in 1977. Since then ICRAF was formed which started producing global professional organization for stimulating and supporting scientific and developmental interest in land management. Other systems which were formed include silvopastoral, silvo-horticultural and agrisilvicultural systems (ICRAF, 1997). ICRAF has since been renamed World Agroforestry Centre.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter deals with the methods which were used to systematically address the research problems. It includes the techniques used to collect data and statistical techniques used in data analysis. Methods that were used to assess accuracy and validity of the research tools are also discussed along the lines described by Kothari

(2004). Its sections cover the following: research design, the study area, target population, sampling techniques, research instruments, data collection procedures and data analysis.

3.2 Research design and locale

This study was carried out in Mwala Division, Machakos County, Kenya. It used a descriptive survey design to collect the survey data on farmers’ perception and its impacts on the adoption of G sepium in agroforestry. A simple random sampling was used to select farmers from various households for study. A random number table was used to sample a total number of 384 names of farmers. In every household, it is only the household head and a specifically famer who was allowed to fill a questionnaire and an interview was conducted immediately on the subject.

22

3.3.1 The study area

The study was conducted in Mwala Division, Machakos County. The selection of this study area was based on purposive sampling because of several reasons. These reasons included: the area has a variety of microclimates which makes it suitable for production of a variety of crops which include food crops and fruits, there were more

G sepium trees planted in farms by farmers as compared to other Divisions in the

County and also for convenience. This area was also suitable for this study due ease of data collection. This was because the dependent variable, the adoption behaviour, was easily intervened upon by variables such as individual’s needs, individual’s perception about methods to acquire these needs and knowledge about the G sepium agroforestry.

The Division lies along longitude 140421 South and latitude 350261East. According to the 2009 census, Mwala Division had seven (7) locations and thirty one (31) sub- locations and a total population of 163,032. The highest population density was 301.9 persons per km2 which is expected to grow at 1.5% annually. However, the high population has put a lot of pressure on land resources and water, which will continue to increase over the years. Therefore, land management programmes need to be aggressively instituted especially G sepium agroforestry which would ensure reduced land degradation and increased agricultural production.

The hill areas of the Division have a high population density because they have fertile soil and receive high rainfall, which is suitable for agriculture. The low plains have sparse settlements where ranching and dairy farming is carried out. Settlement patterns and land use are based on the agro-ecological zones and are influenced mainly by soil fertility and rainfall.

23

Figure 3. 1 A Map of Mwala Study Area

Source: Mwala District Development Plan 2008-2012

24

3.3.2 Climate, vegetation and soils

3.3.2.1 Climate

Mwala Division being a marginal rural area, experiences a semi-arid tropical climate of agro-ecological Zone 1V with a bimodal pattern of rainfall. The annual average rainfall ranges between 250mm and 1300mm. The more reliable short rains come in

October to December and long rains in March to May but it is unevenly distributed and unreliable. This makes the area to experience crop failure and water shortages between these mouths. Temperature ranges from 18˚C to 28˚C throughout the year.

July is the coldest month and October to March is the warmest period prior to the onset of the rains. Dry periods come in February to March and August to September.

3.3.2.2 Vegetation

Vegetation in this area varies with altitude. Dense vegetation is found in the high altitude areas which receive high rainfall and they are more suitable for rain-fed agriculture. The open grassland with scattered Acacia trees is found in plains which receive less rainfall.

3.3.2.3 Soils

The soils have variable fertility. They range from excessively drained, shallow to moderately deep reddish brown friable, sand clay loam and rocky and stony soils.

Soils with increased clay are of moderately low fertility and others are of imperfectly drained land with very deep dark gray to black firm to very firm boundary and stony cracking clay. Some are calcareous and slightly saline.

25

3.4 Target Population

The small-scale farmers in Mwala Division, Machakos County were the target population. The population size which was used for this study was a total of 384 farmers.

3.5 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination

3.5.1 Sampling Techniques

A list of some 384 respondents was randomly selected from the estimated total of 90 percent of small-scale farmers who had been given G sepium seeds to plant in their farms by Mwala Agricultural Officer. This was done by using a simple random sampling out of several lists provided by the Mwala Agricultural Officer. These subjects were drawn from across the seven (7) locations and thirty one (31) sub- locations of Mwala Division which were compiled and they constituted the sampling frame. This was done by use of random number tables and each of the farmer`s name had been assigned a number for ease of sampling. The purpose of using this technique was to ensure that there was no bias in information gathering.

3.5.2 Sample size determination

Prior to data collection, the purpose of the research study was discussed with the

Mwala Division Agricultural Officer. He provided useful information on the number of the farmers who had been given G sepium seeds to plant which was relevant during sampling. Information from the Division Agricultural Office revealed that 90 percent of the population of the estimated above 10,000 farmers had planted G sepium in their farms. Since this population was over 10,000, the following formula was used to determine the sample size as recommended by Mugenda and Mugenda (2003).

26

푧2푝푞 푛 = 푑2

Where: n = the desired sample size

z = the standard normal deviate at the required confidence level

p = estimate of the larger target population with similar characteristics

being measured

q = 1- p

d = the level of statistical significance set

It is assumed that a proportion of 50% of Mwala community use G sepium as a sustainable agricultural system. The proportion with this characteristic is .50, the z- statistic is 1.96 and the desired accuracy (d) at the .05 level, then the sample size is:

n = (1.96)2 (.50) (.50)

(.05)2

= 384

Thus, the study sought a sample of 384 respondents.

3.6 Research instruments

The instruments of data collection were a questionnaire, observations and interviews.

27

3.6.1 Questionnaire

Prior data collection a questionnaire (appendix 1) for household survey was first pre- tested. To pre-test the questionnaire, the researcher visited ten (10) farmers from ten

(10) different sub-locations randomly selected and administered a questionnaire to fill for piloting. Later, necessary amendments were made on the questionnaire. The purpose of pre-testing was done to correct any weaknesses before actual administration of the questionnaire. Then the revised questionnaire was administered to 384 farmers by the researcher assisted by the two enumerators. Each was allowed time to fill and seek clarification if necessary. Use of a questionnaire was appropriate in this study because of its validity and reliability since most of the information gathered formed the main content of this study.

3.6.2 Interviews

Immediately after the questionnaire was filled an interview was conducted on the same farmer and the information obtained was entered in an interview sheet

(Appendix II). During the interviews, specific in-depth information on the reasons why farmers were shifting from practicing indigenous agroforestry especially A tortilis and T brownii tree species to practicing exotic agroforestry particularly G sepium was collected. In addition observations were made to get the social, farm characteristics and land-information on how demographic characteristics of farmers which included gender, age, incomes, training and extension services and the willingness of the household head to attend training correlated with the adoption of G sepium in agroforestry. Information on the level of awareness of uses and benefits of

G sepium tree, its socio-economic and environmental benefits and factors influencing its adoption was also collected.

28

3.6.3 Observations

These provided information about actual social behaviour, farm characteristics and demographic factors of the respondents influencing this adoption.

3.7 Data analysis and presentation

The analysis of survey data for this study was conducted using descriptive statistics,

Chi-square and Spearman rank order correlation (rho (r)). The primary data collected from farmers on socio-demographic information were first examined to ensure that they were filled completely. They were then entered into the SPSS (Statistical

Package for Social Sciences, 2002) version 11.0 computer software and coded. The different variables that were entered were then analyzed to collect descriptive statistics in form of frequency tables, bar graphs, pie charts and figures.

Chi-square was used together with Spearman rank order correlation to test the significance of relationship between socio-economic and environmental benefits and adoption of G sepium in agroforestry. The dependent variable in this study was adoption behaviour which was intervened by variables such as individual’s needs, individual’s perception about methods to acquire these needs in a specific environment and knowledge about G sepium agroforestry.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the findings, interpretations and discussion according to the objectives, research questions and hypotheses.

4.2 General and Demographic Information

This section is based on the first objective which dealt with the demographic information of the respondents. This information helped to establish the relationship between adoption of G sepium in agroforestry and farmers demographic characteristics.

4.2.1 General information

The instruments of data collection were all returned by the respondents. This was possible because the questionnaire was collected immediately it was filled. Then an interview was conducted on the same farmer and the information obtained was entered in an interview sheet (Appendix II). During the interviews, specific in-depth information was gathered regarding the reasons why farmers were shifting from practicing indigenous agroforestry to practicing G sepium agroforestry which was a new technology in the area. In addition observations were made to get the social, farm characteristics and land-information on demographic characteristics of farmers.

30

4.2.2 Findings for Objective, Research Question and Hypothesis one

4.2.2.1 Gender of the respondents

The first task of this study was to determine how demographic factors influenced the adoption of G sepium in agroforestry among Mwala households. In this regard, the respondents were asked to indicate their gender which was aimed at establishing if the study was gender sensitive and to establish the influence of gender on G sepium agroforestry practices. The results in Figure 4.1 reveal that majority (60%) of the respondents were female while male respondents formed the minority (40 %). This implies that women adopted this technology more than men. It could also be attributed to the fact that women are the majority of the residents found in the rural areas.

40% MALE 60% FEMALE

Figure 4. 1: Gender of the respondents

According to Welch et al. (2000), gender affects distribution of work among other issues. Therefore, it is an essential variable in decision making when adopting new

31

agroforestry technologies (Adesina et al., 2001; Doss and Morris, 2001) as women get

more difficulties than men in obtaining labour required for land preparation activities.

Odame et al. (2002) observed that, there is normally a strong association between

perceived changes and gender where women get involved more in agricultural

activities than men.

4.2.2.2 Contingence for association between gender and adoption of G sepium

Table 4.1 shows that G sepium tree species are planted by female (64%) farmers more

than male (36%) farmers. Those who had not planted it were almost the same for both

gender (female (49%) and male (51%). The computed Chi-square (χ2) = 7.277, was

significantly greater than the expected χ2 = 3.8414 at α = 0.05 and df =1. That is,

adoption of this practice was not independent of gender and women were more

positive about it than men. We therefore conclude that there is a significant

association between gender and adoption of G sepium.

Table 4.1: Contingence relationship between gender and adoption

Gender Planted Did not plant Total

Male 100 (36%) 54 (51%) 154

Female 178 (64%) 52 (49%) 230

Total 278 106 384

4.2.2.3 Age bracket of the respondents

The results in Table 4.3 reveal that G sepium was practiced more by middle-aged

farmers (60%, n=230) and elderly farmers (19.5%, n=86). This could be attributed to

32 land ownership by these age groups. There is also a significant difference (p≤0.05) between the age brackets for the farmers in this Division with the majority being in the age bracket 41-50 (60%). Again the correlation test between age of respondents and frequency of adoption of G sepium agroforestry resulted in significant positive correlation (r = 0.84, p = 0.000 and n = 384). This indicated that of the farmers who adopted this practice were about 80% and over 40 years.

Table 4.2: Age bracket of the respondents

Age in years Frequency Percentage (%)

21 - 30 10 2.5

31- 40 58 15.0

41- 50 230 60.0

Above 50 86 19.5

Total 384 100.0

This above was in line with Alavalapati et al. (1995), Adesina et al. (2001), Ajayi et al. (2003) and Doss and Morris, (2001) who observed that age as a factor influences adoption in younger farmers. They are more likely to practice new technologies than older farmers. Hence is necessary to consider different age groups when promoting any new innovation because of their different needs.

33

4.2.2.4 Income generating activities for the respondents

Figure 4.2 reveals that majority of the respondents (65%) derived their income from farming. Farming influenced this adoption positively as it was the main income generating activity in this Division and hence the respondents depended directly or indirectly on agricultural production for their livelihoods. However, the percentage of the respondents who were employed (17.5%) was equal to the percentage of casual workers (17.5%). Farmers with additional sources of income were unlikely to adopt this practice because they could afford to buy farm inputs compared to those with less income.

70.00% 65%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00% Series1 Percentage

20.00% 17.50% 17.50%

10.00%

0.00% Casual worker Farmer Employed Economic activity

Figure 4.2: Income generating activities for respondents

According to Versteeg et al. (1998) and Adesina and Coulibaly (1998), the results from the study area are similar to that of the farming communities in coastal savannah of Bennin and in Cameroon respectively. Further, Versteeg et al. (1998), Adesina and

34

Coulibaly (1998) revealed that farmers’ source of income influences any agroforestry adoption since they measure the farmer’s financial capacity to meet basic needs.

4.2.2.5 Education level of respondents

The education standards in Mwala Division were generally low. This could be attributed to factors which include: low school enrolment, transition, retention and completion rates and poor curriculum implementation. Figure 4.3 reveals that majority of the respondents (50%) had acquired primary school education. However,

27.5 percent had acquired secondary school education while 15 percent of the respondents had no formal education. The respondents who had acquired both primary and secondary education and above in this area formed the literacy group while those who had no formal education formed the illiteracy group. The proportion of the literacy group implies that education level would favour the adoption of new innovations. Therefore, the farmer’s education level has a positive relationship with adoption, impacting positively on the new technological innovations.

60% 50% 50%

40%

30% 27.50% Percentage 20% 15%

10% 7.50%

0% Non Primary Secondary College Academic level

Figure 4.3: Respondents’ level of education

35

The findings confirm the work done by Rogers (1995) and Haggblade et al. (2004) who observed that educated farmers are more innovative. This is because educated farmers can access more information sources, comprehend and benefit more from extension services and usually are more aware about environmental problems. This was found to be the case in Mwala, primarily because of parallel learning, where farmers learn from each other. Normally, farmers’ level of education has a positive relationship with adoption of any new innovation, especially on the decision making process. This is because farmers with higher levels of education are expected to understand the benefits of agroforestry more since school curriculum covered the general principles of agricultural and agroforestry practices and hence would impact positively on its adoption as compared to those with lower education levels.

4.2.2.6 Respondents’ attendance to training and extension services

Figure 4.4 shows that the majority of the respondents (62%) in Mwala had attended some training and extension services on agroforestry practices while minority (38%) had not. This means that many respondents were able to make informed choices on what to plant in their farms.

Those who had attended training reported to have had already gained some knowledge and acquired some skills which had helped them to become better farmers.

This implies that regular extension contact and training for farmers is necessary because it motivates, exposes, cultivates interest and creates positive attitude towards adoption of agroforestry innovations. It also had helped them to gain knowledge and information on the benefits and uses of new technology. This that with conviction and persuasion, adoption of Gliricidia intercropping is likely to increase in the study area.

36

Further, all the farmers interviewed had attended some training and received extension services. Training and extension services have a positive relationship with

G sepium adoption in agroforestry. This is because education and training programmes empower farmers to adopt agroforestry technologies. Training prepares the people for knowledge dissemination whenever they are made available. Promoters require to be trained in organizational and negotiation skills so as to have a two-way communication. However, farmers require more information and training for future sustainability and expansion of this technology in the study area.

Attended Did not attend

Figure 4.4: Respondents’ attendance to training and extension

Factors, such as extension services (Doss and Morris, 2001; Omoregbee, 1998;

Adesina et al., 2001; Boahene et al., 1999; Ghadim and Pannell, 1999), education and training levels (Haggblade et al., 2004 and Rogers, 1995) are likely to influence adoption of any new innovation especially on the decision making process. Phiri et al. (2004) and Keil et al. (2005) revealed that farmers who have more involvement in

37 on-farm extension with extension officers are more likely to adopt than non- participants. Keil et al. (2005) also noted that knowledge and information about technology are key factors to adoption of innovations, especially those associated with ecological benefits.

4.2.2.7 Gender equality of training

Figure 4.5 indicates that training was gender biased because the number of women trained was more (60%) than for men (5%). Training of both men and women was

35%. This means that there was little sharing of ideas between men and women in such training and extensions.

Percent 70% 60% 60%

50%

40% 35%

30%

Percent Percentage 20%

10% 5%

0% Equal More for men More for women Gender equality

Figure 4.5: Gender equality of training

However, favourable training opportunities for women on agroforestry systems was right because most agricultural farming and food activities are carried out by women in Kenya. Women also are the majority in the rural areas because men go to urban

38 centres in search of employment or conducting businesses (Adesina et al., 2001; Doss and Morris, 2001).

4.2.2.8 Willingness to attend training

Results from Table 4.4 reveal that all (100%) of the respondents expressed their willingness to attend training. This implies a high degree of positive perception towards adoption of G sepium in agroforestry. It can be concluded that the farmers perceived this innovation to be a beneficial, viable, effective and sustainable agricultural system capable of reducing poverty, besides meeting basic needs of their families and communities to create food security, fodder, fertilizers, fuelwood, timber and construction material without causing any ecological harm while at the same time conserving the environment.

Table 4.3: Willingness to attend training

Willingness Frequency Percentage (%)

Willing 384 100

Not willing 0 0

Total 384 100

According to ICRAF (2007), this innovation is able to address poverty, hunger and environmental conservation and transform lives and landscapes both locally and globally.

39

4.3 Other factors that influenced the adoption of G sepium in agroforestry

4.3.1 Introduction

Adoption of G sepium in agroforestry was also influenced by other factors in Mwala study area. These included: the amount of rainfall, low soil fertility, soil erosion and loss of soil biodiversity.

4.3.1.1 Rainfall

Results in Table 4.5 reveal that, the amount of rainfall has a positive and significant influence (p≤0.05) on the adoption of G sepium in agroforestry. Areas receiving more rainfall tend to have higher rate of adoption in the study area.

4.3.1.2 Soil fertility

Results in Table 4.5 indicate that soil fertility has a positive and significant influence

(p≤0.05) on the adoption of G sepium in agroforestry. Areas with low soil fertility had little adoption compared to areas with high soil fertility. It can be concluded that adopting G sepium in agroforestry could be a solution to soil infertility problem because the tree grows in sands and clays and freely draining soils with a range of pH between 5.0- 8.5. The tree is able to conserve soil because as a ground cover tree, since its roots bind soil particles together preventing soil erosion. It also emerged that areas with high soil erosion had little adoption in the study area.

4.3.1.3 Soil biodiversity

Results in Table 4.5 show that loss of soil biodiversity has a negative significant influence (p≤0.05) on this adoption. The increase in loss of soil biodiversity decreases the adoption of G sepium in agroforestry.

40

Therefore, there was significant correlation between the frequency of adoption of G sepium and rainfall, soil fertility and loss of soil biodiversity but not with soil erosion.

All these factors jointly accounted for 40.5% of the variation in the G sepium adoption frequency.

Table 4.4: Factors influencing the adoption of G sepium in agroforestry

Independent variables Coefficients P value

Constant (r) 0.00

Amount of rainfall .65 0.05

Soil fertility .52 0.05

soil erosion -.068 NS

Loss of soil biodiversity -.350 0.05

NS- Not Significant

According to Barrios et al. (2008) and FAO (2012), climate change and variability, especially rainfall remains a major constraint to agricultural productivity not only in

Mwala Division but also in the entire SSA. This is because it leads to production instability and poor incomes in the developing World. According to Young, (1997) G sepium tree species has the potential of solving a number of these constraints because it increases soil organic matter, biologically fixes nitrogen that replenishes soil fertility and hence it increases farm resources, conserves and reclaims degraded environment and restores soil biodiversity.

41

4.3.2 Solutions to soil infertility

Figure 4.6 presents measures to improve soil fertility which include: adding livestock manure (33%), adding inorganic fertilizer (30%), mixing both livestock and inorganic fertilizer (28%) adding Gliricidia organic manure or practice Gliricidia agroforestry

(9%). The low percentage of G sepium organic manure or its agroforestry practice implies lack of understanding of the needs perceived by the farmers and knowledge of their socio-economic status. G sepium being a fertilizer tree species has the potential of sustainably helping the small-scale farmers to build soil organic matter.

Respondents in the area reported that land shortages had forced them to continuously cultivate the same piece of land over the years leading to soil fertility depletion.

However they had established some measures in response to their critical problems of low soil fertility.

Solutions to soil fertility 35% 33% 30% 30% 28%

25%

20%

15% Percentage 9% 10% Series1

5%

0% Inorganic Livestock Gliricidia Livestock and fertilizer manure organic organic manure Soil fertility solution

Figure 4.6: Solutions to soil infertility

42

4.4 Findings for Objective, Research Question and Hypothesis two

4.4.1 Introduction

The section assesses the famers’ level of awareness of the uses and benefits of growing G sepium compared to A tortilis and T brownii tree species in Mwala

Division.

4.4.2 Farmers’ level of awareness of the uses and benefits of G sepium

Table 4.6 presents the correlation coefficients and Chi-square results for Mwala

Division. The results are based on the objective addressing the famers’ level of awareness of the uses and benefits of G sepium compared to A tortilis and T brownii trees in the Division. It is also based on the reasons why farmers were shifting from indigenous agroforestry practice to G sepium agroforestry. The results reveal that the level of awareness of G sepium agroforestry among the farmers is significantly high (r

= 0.7; r2 = 46.1; adjusted r = 33.6; f =3.702, p≤0.05). All the factors jointly explained that 46% of the variations in the frequency of responses were about adoption of

Gliricidia. Therefore, it can be concluded that the small-scale farmers perceived the exotic agroforestry to be more beneficial than the indigenous farming practice. It was perceived to be more useful as a low-cost alternative for food production ensuring food security and for environmental protection and conservation besides meeting farmer’s basic needs.

43

Table 4.5: Coefficients for Mwala Division

P- 휒2 −

Independent variables Coefficients(r) value values

Constant -2.512

Fitted land size (Ls) .339 0.01 2.605**

Fitted household size (Hs) .426 0.01 3.235**

Gender of the household head -.078 NS -.625

Awareness of uses and benefits of .320 0.01 2.487** G sepium

Food production and planting of -.241 0.05 -1.809* G sepium

Awareness and planting A tortilis -.049 NS -.361 and T brownii trees

Socio-economic benefits .204 0.0I 1.630**

Environmental benefits -.084 NS -.691

Awareness and Food security .183 NS

r = 0.7; r2 = 46.1; adjusted r = 33.6; f = 3.702 **Significant at 5 percent:

* Significant at 10 percent

NS- Not significant

44

4.4.3 Farmers’ level on awareness of G sepium uses and benefits

Figure 4.7 reveals that farmers’ level of awareness of uses and benefits of G sepium tree had a positive and a significant influence in Mwala Division (p≤0.05). Majority of the respondents (82%) were aware of A tortilis and T brownii as compared to 60 percent who were aware of G sepium tree species. This could be attributed to the newness of G sepium agroforestry in the study area. Again, majority (40%) of the respondents were not completely aware of G sepium at all while the minority (18%) was completely unaware of A tortilis and T brownii. Farmers who had planted both exotic (G sepium) and indigenous tree species (A tortilis and T brownii) reported to have benefited more from exotic than the indigenous species. So G sepium tree species was more preferred than the others species as it was a very fast growing tree and its products were easy to harvest. Therefore it can be concluded that the more the farmers were getting aware of the uses of G sepium the more it was planted and the less of the A tortilis and T brownii trees. This implies a high degree of its acceptance by the farmers which is a clear indicator of its adoption potential by farmers in future.

This result also shows that there is a significant relationship between family size and food production (p≤0.05). The larger the families the more they are likely to adopt this agroforestry technology because they have more persons who can provide labour force as compared to smaller families.

45

Awareness of tree specis 90% 82% 80%

70% 60% 60%

50% 40%

40% Gliricidia Percentage 30% Brownii & Acacia 18% 20%

10%

0% Aware Not aware Awareness

Figure 4. 7: Respondents’ awareness of tree species

This finding is consistent with a study carried out by Ikerra et al. (1999) who found out that the awareness of the uses and benefits of G sepium in Malawi had made the farmers to intercrop G sepium with farm crops to increase crop yields. This is because G sepium is a nitrogen fixer that replenishes soil fertility and increases topsoil inorganic nitrogen, thereby, increasing crop yields (Young, 1997 and Kort, 1988). Its green manure and mulch are organic fertilizers for crops. In Ivory Coast, it is used to increase crop yields, to reduce time for harvest and to control crops’ competition for light, water and nutrients (Liyanage, 1987; Gonzal and Raros, 1988).

46

4.5 Findings for Objective, Research Question and Hypothesis three

4.5.1 Introduction

This section deals with the socio-economic and environmental benefits of adopting G sepium in agroforestry. Most of the information on this adoption was obtained through interviews and observations.

4.5.2 Socio-economic benefits of adopting G sepium in agroforestry

Table 4.7 reveals that 35 percent of the respondents reported that by practicing G sepium agroforestry, had their crop yields improved which had resulted in improved food security and increased income. 26 percent of the respondents had their soil fertility improved and 17 percent were using the tree as traditional remedy (medicine) for hair loss, boils, bruises, burns, colds, cough, fever, fractures and wounds.

However 15 percent of the respondents were not aware of its socio-economic benefits.

Table 4. 6: Socio-economic benefits of adopting G sepium in agroforestry

Benefits Frequency Percentage (%)

Not aware 59 15

Medicinal 68 17

Soil fertility 101 26

Improved crop yields 137 35

Rehabilitant 19 5

Total 384 100

47

4.5.3 Environmental benefits of adopting G sepium in agroforestry

Table 4.8 shows that 24 percent of the respondents were not aware of the economic benefits of this technology. 22 percent of respondents who had planted G sepium tree reported that their agricultural farms had been rehabilitated and agricultural production had increased. 19 percent of the respondents reported that the tree had become an animal habitat while 16 percent reported that the tree had contributed to climate moderation.

Table 4.7: Economic benefits of adopting G sepium in agroforestry

Benefit Frequency Percentage (%)

Not aware 92 24

Soil fertility 26 7

Soil cover 30 8

Animal habitat 73 19

Rehabilitant 84 22

Climate moderation 62 16

Wind break 17 4

Total 384 100

These results were in agreement with Young (1989) and Phiri et al. (2003) who observed that G sepium this tree species contributes to increased farm resources as it conserves and reclaims degraded environment, restores climatic equilibrium, improves microclimates and restores the lost soil biodiversity.

48

4.5.4 Report from observations and interviews on G sepium adoption in agroforestry

The respondents who were interviewed reported that G sepium is a fast growing tree compared to other indigenous tree species especially A tortilis and T brownii tree species. It was of great help to them because it had become a source of fuelwood, posts and timber which had really been scarce to them as a community. This implies that respondents had a positive perception towards this tree as it had reduced their time for fuelwood collection and costs especially by women and girls since fuelwood is currently readily available. This confirms a case reported by Kiflu, 2009 and

Nyadzi, 2003 in Central America and Philippines. Its woodlots also supplied them with fuelwood which had helped to alleviate the demand from natural forests thereby reducing deforestation (Sileshi et al., 2007).

Results from both observations and interviews revealed that this technology had contributed to improved household income and wealth through the saleable of tree products which include seedlings, cuttings (Plate 4.1 and Plate 4.2), fuelwood, posts and timber which was in line with Suri et al. (2009) findings.

Five farmers reported that by coincidentally planting G sepium tree in a place which was inhabited by cogon grass (Imperata cylindrica) which had become stubborn to them for a long period of time, had dried out completely implying that this tree species is able to reclaim waste lands. Other two farmers reported that when they incidentally planted cowpeas, green grams and beans in portions of land under the canopy of this tree which had been abandoned for some time due to its poor productivity, they harvested higher yields compared to those harvested away from this tree (Plate 4.3). This confirms a study done by ICRAF (2007) that practicing this

49 technology has the potential of rehabilitating degraded land, reclaiming waste lands, conserving soil and increasing crop yield productivity.

The tree was reported to be a drought resistant tree species. It was also observed that it forms a light canopy which had helped to buffer the farmers against extreme temperature changes and that its shade was a shelter for livestock during dry periods

(Plate 4.4). It had also helped to shelter crops from strong wind and hence increased crop yields as reported by Kort (1988). It acted as windbreak tree species and therefore had helped farmers to adapt to climate changes besides improving crop water use and protecting livestock, crops and homesteads which confirmed work done by Kaonga and Coleman, 2008; Kaonga and Bayliss-Smith, 2009 and Sileshi et al.,

2007.

Other reports indicated that by planting G sepium in farms had helped farmers to curb the problem of soil erosion. This could have been attributed to the fact that the root system of G sepium trees has the potential of holding soil particles together. Soils which were previously polluted were also reported to have improved. This confirms the work done by Zhang et al., 2010; Mbaria, 2006; Mutegi et al., 2008; Sanchez et al., 1997 who reported that this tree has the potential of rehabilitating polluted soils through capturing nutrients and pollutants. This implies that the tree had enhanced soil nutrient pulls and turnover which had reduced the farmers’ reliance on external inputs.

Other reports further indicated that, G sepium tree was also being used as a green ground cover. This was attributed to the fact that its roots bind the soil together and therefore prevented soil erosion which agrees with work done by Pye-Smith, 2008. It was also observed that its green manure and mulch had boosted soil fertility since

50 crop productivity was reported to have improved confirming work done by

Syampungani et al., 2010; Pye-Smith; 2008 and Mbaria, 2006.

The tree can also as act as green house gas abatement since it had the potential for carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide mitigation. Its leaf litter was able to supplement nitrogen application and recycled nitrogen to adjacent crops which could replace inorganic nitrogen additions and therefore could reduce nitrogen oxide emissions

(Brown, 1985), and hence contributing to reduced environmental pollution. The tree was observed to have reduced pollution from crops and grazed pastures, when planted adjacent to water courses, thereby reducing non-point source water pollution from land by reducing surface runoff from fields, filtering surface runoff, ground water runoff and stream water and reducing bank erosion.

G sepium was observed to have attractive, diverse moderate size, clean appearance and had colourful lilac-pink flowers (Plate 4.5). This qualified it to be memorable ornamental tree species which could be suitable for ornamental use in residential and public landscaping, parking lots, islands, along residential streets. It could also provide meeting points for cultural and tradition perception pass laws and customs besides creating financial opportunities through ecotourism. The shade available or around fields from this tree improved the working conditions of farmers besides increasing the productivity of animals, especially in open fields in very hot weather because its light canopy was be to shield them from incidental radiation from the sun.

51

Plate 4.1 G sepium cuttings in Mwala Division

Researcher: 22/2/2015

Plate 4.2: G sepium seedlings in Mwala Division

Researcher: 22/2/2015

52

Plate 4.3: G sepium intercropped with cowpeas in Mwala Division

Resarcher: 22/02/2015

Plate 4.4: G sepium trees in Mwala Division

Researcher: 22/02/2015

53

Plate 4.5: G sepium flowers in Mwala Division

Researcher: 22/02/2015

54

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

The purpose of this study research was to find out the farmers’ perception on the adoption of G sepium compared to A tortilis and T brownii tree species and its impacts in Mwala Division. It was geared towards finding out the reason why the small-scale farmers were shifting from practicing indigenous agroforestry to practicing G sepium agroforestry which was a new innovation in the study area. A descriptive survey design was adopted in which 384 respondents were randomly selected across Mwala Division to collect the required data. The instruments of data collection were observations, interviews and a questionnaire. Data were analyzed using the statistical software SPSS and presented in tables, bar graphs and pie charts.

Chi-square (휒2) and Spearman rank order correlation (rho (r)) techniques were also used.

5.2 Summary

From the findings of the study, the following emerged as the main factors which positively influenced the farmers to adopt G sepium in agroforesrty Mwala Division study area. These factors include: gender (휒2 = 7.277, p = 0.000), age (r = 0.84, p =

0.000, n = 384, df = 382), rainfall (휒2 = 2.605, r = -0.65), soil fertility (휒2 = 3.235, r =

-0.52), loss of soil biodiversity (휒2=3.467, r = -0.350) uses and benefits of G sepium

(휒2 = 2.487, p≤ 0.05, r = 0.7, n = 384, df = 3.702). Other factors which positively influenced this adoption included socio-economic benefits (휒2 =1.630, r = 0.204, p =

55

0.000), environmental benefits (휒2= -0.691, r = - 0.084, p =0.000) and food security

(휒2=1.363, r = 0.183, p = 0.000).

5.3 Conclusions

This study has resulted in four (4) Main conclusions as follows.

Firstly, there was a positive significant correlation between demographic factors and adoption of G sepium in agroforestry. G sepium tree species had the potential of solving a number of development issues which include food insecurity, high poverty levels, low education enrolment, low literacy levels, water inaccessibility, poor health status and environmental degradation.

Secondly, the farmers’ level of awareness of G sepium agroforestry was significantly high. Therefore, G sepium agroforestry was perceived to be more beneficial than the indigenous farming practice. Again it was perceived to be more useful as a low-cost alternative for food production and for environmental protection and conservation besides meeting farmer’s basic needs.

Thirdly, the farmers’ level of awareness of uses and benefits of G sepium tree species was significantly high. Being a very fast growing tree, its products were easy to harvest and therefore it had a higher preference than A tortilis and T brownii trees.

The more the farmers were getting aware of the uses of G sepium the more it was planted and the less of the A tortilis and T brownii trees. This implied a high degree of its acceptance by the farmers which was clear indicator of its adoption potential by farmers in future.

56

Fourthly, there was a positive significant correlation between socio-economic benefits, environmental benefits and food security and G sepium adoption in agroforestry.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the farmers’ move of shifting from indigenous agroforestry practice to G sepium agroforestry practice was justified.

5.4 Recommendations from the study

Based on the findings of study, the following recommendations were formulated:-

(i) There is need for capacity building to raise farmers’ level of awareness of the

new innovation.

(ii) There is need for proper documentation of G sepium as an agroforestry tree

species in Kenya which would help formulate strategies to intensify this

technology.

(iii)Infrastructure such as G sepium tree seeding nurseries should be created in all

the seven (7) locations and thirty one (31) sub-locations of Mwala Division

which would be required for a broader adoption of this technology and

disseminating the agroforestry innovations to rural communities. Farmers also

need to be supplied with seeds and seedlings and other farm inputs, for

instance farm tools.

(iv) The information obtained from this innovation should be transferred to the

field to enhance involvement and participation of the local population and

other farmers with similar conditions in growing and managing G sepium tree

in their farms and ensure ways of its expansion and for its innovative

sustainability.

(vii) These innovations should be properly disseminated since it can lead to

57

sustainable land use with increased permanence and open more markets

for increased farm products which would improve the economy and

livelihoods of farmers and that of future generations.

(viii) The information obtained from this study should help policy makers make

informed and wise decision on appropriate management of the G sepium

agroforestry resources.

5.4 Suggestions for further research

Further research can be done on the following:-

i) The factors that would influence value addition on production of G

sepium.

ii) The impact of adoption of G sepium agroforestry on livelihoods.

58

REFERENCES

Aboh, C.L. and Akpabio, I.A. (2008). Gender and Analysis of Common Agroforestry

Practices in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria, Agricultural Journal, Vol.3 (3) pp.

185-89.

Adesina, A. A., Mbila, D., Nkamleu, G. B., Endamana, D. (2001). Econometric

analysis of the determinants of adoption of alley farming by farmers in the

forest zone of southwest Cameroon.Agric. Eco-syst. Environ. 80, 255-265.

Adesina, A. A., Coulibaly,O. N. (1998). Policy and competitiveness of agro forestry-

based technologies for maize production in Cameroon: an application of

policy analysis matrix. Agri. Econ. 19, 1-13.

Adger, W. N.,Hug, S. ,Brown, K., Conway, D. and Hume, M. (2003). Adaptation to

Climate Change in Developing World. Progress in Development Studies,

3(3),179-195.doi:10.1191/1464993403ps060oa,

htt://dx.doi.org//o.1191/1464993403ps060oa.

Ajayi, O. C., Akinnifesi, F.K., Sileshi, G. And Chakeredza, S. (2006). Adoption of

renewable soil fertility replenishment technologies in the southern African

region: Lessons leant and the way forward. Natural Resources Forum, 31 (4),

306-317.

Ajayi, O. C., Franzel, S., Kuntashula, E., and Kwesiga, F. (2003). Adoption of

improved fallow technology for soil fertility management in Zambia:

Empirical studies and emerging issues. Agroforestry Systems, 59(3), 317-326.

59

Akubuilo, C. J., Umebali, E.E., Mgbada, Ugwu, D.S., Egwu, W. E. and Awoke, M.U.

(2007) Readings in Agricultural Economics and Extension Computer Edge

Publishers, Enugu. Pp. 45-89.

Alavalapati, J.R.R., Luckert, M.K. and Gills, D.S., (1995). Adoption of agroforestry

practices: a case study from Andhra Pradesh, India. Agrofor. Syst. 32, 1-14.

Barrios, S. Quattara, B. and Strobl, E. (2008). The impact of climate change on

agricultural production: Is it different for Africa? Food Policy 33 (2008) 287-

298.

Boahene, K., Snijiders, T.A.B. and Folmer, H., (1999). An integrated socioeconomic

analysis of innovation adoption: the case of Hybrid cocoa in Ghana. J.Policy

M.odel 21, 167-184.

Blandon, P. (1985). Agroforestry and portfolio theory. Agroforestry Systems 3: 239-

245.

Brown, L.R. and Wolf, E. (1985).Reversing Africas decline. World Watch Paper 65,

Washington, D.C.

CABI (2004). Proceedings of a workshop held in Accra, Ghana, 9-11 March 2004.

CABI (2003). Forestry Compendium Global Module, rev. CAB International, Oxon,

UK.

Carew, B.A.R. (1983) G.S. as sole feed for small ruminants. Grasslands Tropic17,

181-184.

60

Challinor, A. J, Wheeler, T. R., Garforth, C., Craufurd, P. and Kasam, A. (2007).

Assessing the vulnerability of food crop systems in Africa to climate change.

Climate Change 83 (3): 381-99.

Diaz, C.; Dominguez, H.;Macias, M.; Ramirez,M.;Gonzolez, C. and LY, J. (2005).

Acceptability and pattern of feed intake in pigs fed sugarcane molasses type

B mixed with graded levels of Gliricidia sepium forage. Archives

Latinoamericanos de Production Animal, 13 (3): 81-86.

Doss, C. R. and Morris, M. l. (2001). How does gender affect the adoption of

agricultural innovations?: The case of improved maize technology in Ghana.

Agricultural Economics, 25(1), 27-39.

Duke, J.A.and Wain, K. K. (1981). Medicinal plants of the world. Computer Index

with more than 85, 0000 entries.3 vols.Ford, L.B. (1987) Experiences with

Gliricidiasepium in the Caribbean. In: G.S.(Jacq.) Walp: Management and

Improvement, Proceedings of a workshop at CATIE, Turialba, Costa

Rica.NFTA Special Publication 87-01, pp.3-7.

Duvel, G.H. (1994). A model for adoption behavior: Analysis in situation surveys.

Journal of Extension Systems 10 (1): 1-32.

Ecocrop (2009). Ecocrop database. FAO.

Ericksen, S., Aldunce, P., Bahinipati, C.S., Martins, R.D., Molefe, J.I., Nhemachena,

C., Obrien, K., Olorunfem, F., Park, J., Sygna, L. and Ulsrud, K. (2011).

When not every response to climate change is a good one: Identifying

principles for sustainable adaptation. Climate and Development, 3, 7-2o. doi:

10.3763/ldev. 2010.0060, htt://dx. Doi. Org/10. 3763/ldev.2010.0060.

61

Eswaran, H., Reich, P. and Beinroth, F. (2006). Land degradation: An assessment of

the human impact on global land resources. Proceedings of the 18th World

Congress on Soil Science July 9-15, 2006-Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

FAO (2012). Towards the future we want, end hunger and make the transition

Sustainable Agricultural and food systems, Rome.

FAO (2011). The state of the World`s land and water resources for food and

agriculture - Managing systems at risk. Rome and Earthscan, London.

FAO (2009). Grassland Index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes.

FAO.

Fords, L.B. (1987) Experiences with Gliricidia sepium in the Caribbean. In: G.S.

(Jacq.) Walp: Management and Improvement, Proceedings of a workshop at

CATIE, Turialba, Costa Rica. NFTA Special Publication 87-01, pp. 3-7.

Gonzal, D.G. and Raros, R.S. (1988). Effects of G.S mulch on upland rice yield and

soil fertility.In: Multipurpose Trees Species for small Farm Use Proceedings

of workshop, Pattaya. Thailand.Winrock International, USA. PP.261264.

Ghadim,A.K. and Pannell, D.J., (1999). Saharan Agri. Syst. 69, 37-62.Gonzal, D.G.

and Raros, R.S. (1988) Effects of G.S mulch on upland rice yield and soil

fertility.In: Multipurpose Trees Species for small Farm Use Proceedings of

workshop, Pattaya. Thailand.Winrock International, USA. pp. 261264.

Haggblade, H., Tembo, G. and Donovan,C. (2004). Household level financial

incentives to adoption of conservation agricultural technologies in

62

Africa.MichiganStateUniversity Food Security Research project working

paper no. 9, Lusaka, Zambia.

Hawkins, R., Sembinng, H., Lubis, D. and Suwardjo, H. (1990). The potential of

alley cropping in the uplands of East and Central Java: A review-Upland

Agriculture and Conservation Project, Farming Systems, Research, Agency

for Agricultural Research and Development, Dept of Agriculture, Indonesia,

71 pp.

Hoekstra, D.A. (1987). Economics of Agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 5: 293-300.

Hooder, B.W. and Roger, L. (1974). Economic Geography: Methuen and Co. Ltd.

London.

ICRAF (2007). Farm research to impact. Retrieved 24 May 2007, 2007, from

http://www.worldagro forestrycentre. Org/ar2005/impact_02.asp.

ICRAF, (1997) Annual Report. International Centre for Research in Agro forestry,

Nairobi, Kenya.

Ige, A.O.; Odunsi, A.A.; Akinlade, J.A. and Ojedapo, L.O.; Akinlade, J.A. and

Ojedapo, L.O. (2006). Gliricidia leaf meal in layers diet: effect on

performance, nutrient digestibility and economy production. J. Anim.Vet

Adv., 5 (6): 483-486.

Ikerra, S.T., Maghembe, J.A., Smithson, P.C. and Buresh, R.J. (1999). Soil nitrogen

dynamic and relationship with maize yields in a Gliricidia-maize intercrop

inMalawi. Plant and Soil 211, 155-164.

63

Kaonga, M. L. and Bayliss-Smith, T. P. (2009). Carbon pools in tree biomass and the

soil in improved fallows in eastern Zambia, Agro forestry Systems, 76, 37-

51.

Kaonga, M. L. and Coleman, K. (2008). Modelling soil organic carbon turnover in

improved fallows in eastern Zambia using the RothC-26,3 model. Forestry

Ecology and Management, 256(5), 1160-1166.

Doi:10,1016/j.foreco.2008,06,017.

KARI, (2012). Enhancing Agricultural Productivity in the Dryland areas, Katumani

Research Centre, Kenya (1988). BeLeakey, R.R. B. (1996). Definition of

agro forestry revisited. Agro forestry Today, 8(1), 5-7.

KEFRI, (1990). A guide to tree planting in Kenya / Kenya Forestry Research Institute

(KEFRI) - Nairobi, Kenya.

Keopaseuht, T.;Ty, C.; Bouahom, B. and Preston, T.R. (2004). Effect of method of

offering forages of Gliricidia sepium and stylosanthes quanensis CIAT 184

(Stylo) to goats on intake and digestibility. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 16 (5).

Keil, A., Zeller, M., and Franzel, S. (2005). Improved fallows in smallholder maize

production in Zambia; do initial tesers adopt the technology? Agroforestry

Systems, 64, 225-236.

Kiflu (2009). Woodfuel demand and sustainability of supply in South-Western

Ethiopia. Research Journal of Forestry 3(2): 29-43.

Kort, J. (1988). Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage crops. Agri Ecosyst

Environ 22/23: 165-190.

64

Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Technologies (Second

Revised Edition). New age International (P) limited, publishers New Delhi.

Kuntashula, E., Mafongoya, P.L., Sileshi, G. and Lungu, S. (2004). Potential of

biomass transfer technologies in sustaining vegetable production in the

wetlands (dambos) of eastern Zambia. Experimental Agriculture, 40, 37-51.

Liyanage, L.V.K. (1987). Traditional uses of Gliricidia in Sri Lanka.In: Withington,

D, Glover, N. and Brewbaker,J Turrialba.L. (eds,G.S. (Jacq.)Walp:

Management and Improvement, Proceedings of a workshop at CATIE, Costa

Rica. NFTA Special Publication 87-01, pp.92-94.

Lord, R.G. and Maher, L. (1999). Leadership and information processing. Linking

perceptions and performance. London: Routledge.

Maghembe, J.A. and Prins, H. (1994). Performance of multipurpose trees for agro

forestrytwo years after planting at Makoka, Malawi. For. Ecol. Manag. 64,

171-182.M

Maudu, P. and Tengnas, B. (Eds) (2005). Useful trees and shrubs for Kenya. World

Agroforestry Centre. Technical Hand book No. 35. ISBN 9966-896-70-8.

Mbaria, J. (2006). Improved land management in the Lake Victoria basin: Final report

on the TransVic project. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre. Report No. 7.

Muchena, F.N. (2008). “Indicators for Sustainable Land Management in Kenyas

Context.” GEF Land Degradation Focal Area Indicators, ETC-East Africa.

Nairobi, Kenya.

65

Mugenda, O. M. and Mugenda, A. G. (2003). Research Methods: Quantitative and

Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: Acts Press.

Mutegi, J.K., Mugendi, D.N., Verchot, L.V. and Kung`u, J.B. (2008). Combining

napier grass with leguminous shrubs in contour hedgerows controls soil

erosion without competing with crops. Agroforestry Systems 74 (1): 37-49.

Mwala District Development Plan, 2008-2012.-R.O.K., Government Printer.

Nair, P.K.R., Buresh, R.J., Mugendi, D.N. and Latt, C.R. (1999). Nutrient cycling in

Tropical Agro forestry System, Myths and Science, in.Buck, L.E Lassoie J.P.

Fernandez E. C.M (Eds.), Agroforestry in Sustainable Agriculture

Systems.CRC Press, Boca Raton FL, pp. 1-31.

Nyadzi, G.J. (2003). Rotational woodlot technology in Northwestern Tanzania: tree

species and crop performance. Agroforestry Systems 59: 253-63.

Odame, H.H., Hafkin, N., Wesseler, G. and Boto, I. (2002). Gender and Agriculture

in the Information Society. International Service for National Agricultural

Research Briefing Paper No. 55. The Hague. The Netherlands: ISNAR.

Omoregbee, F. E., (1998). Communication of improved farm practices to rural

women farmers in Benue State, Nigeria. Outlook on Agric 27, 53-56.

Onwudike, O.C. (1995). Use of the legume tree crops Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena

leucocephala as green feeds for growing rabbits. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 51

(1-2).

66

Orwa, C.; Mutua, A.; Kindt, R.; Jamnadass, R. and Anthony, S. (2009).

Agroforestree Database: a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0.

World Agroforestry Centre, Kenya.

Panjaitan, M. (1988). Regional Evaluation of tree legume species in Indonesia. M. Sc.

Thesis (Rural Science), University of New England, Armidale, Australia,

138pp.

Phiri, D., Franzel, S., Mafongoya, P. L., Jere, I., Katanga, R., and Phiri, S. (2004).

Who is using the new technology? The association of wealth status and

gender with the planting of improved tree fallows in Eastern Province,

Zambia. Agricultural Systems, 79(2), 131-144.

Phiri, E. Verplancke, H. Kwesiga, F. and Mafonyoga, P. (2003). Water balance and

maize yield following Sesbania sesban fallow in eastern Zambia. Agro

forestry Systems, 59(3):197-205.

Place, F., Ssenteza, J. and Otsuka, K. (2002). Customary and private land

management in Uganda. In K. Otsuka and F. Place, eds. Land tenure and

resource management: a comparative study oa agrarian communities in Asia

and Africa, pp. 195-233, Baltimore, USA. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Pouliott, M., Ouedraogo, B., Smith-Hall, C. and Simonsen, H.L. (2008). Household-

level Studies of forests and poverty in Burkina Faso: Contextual information,

methods and preliminary results. Forest and Landscape Working paper no.

47, Copenhagen, Denmark.

67

Pye-Smith, C. (2008). Farming trees, banishing hunger: how an agroforestry program

is helping smallholders in Malawi to grow more food and improve their

livelihoods. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre.

Robbins, M.L., Levesque, D.A., Redding, C.A., Johnson, J.L., Prochaska, J.O., Rohr,

M.S. and Peters, T.G. (2001). Assessing family members’ motivational

readiness and decision making for consenting to cadaveric organ donation.

Journal of Health Psychology. Press.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (Fifth ed.). New York, USA: The Free

Press

Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press. New York. 442pp.

Saito, A.K. (1994). “Raising the productivity of women farmers in Sub-Saharan

Africa.” World Bank Discussion Papers. Africa Technical Department Series,

No. 230. Washington D.C.

Sanchez, P.A., Sherpherd, K.D., Soule, M.J., Place, F.M. and Izac, R.J. (1997). Soil

Fertility Replenishment in Africa: An Investment in Natural Resource

Capital. In: Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa, Buresh, R.J., Sanchez, P.A.

and Calhoun, F. (Eds.). SSA and ICRAF, Madison, USA., pp: 1-46.

Shaxson, T.F., Tiffen, M., Wood, A. and Turton, C. (1997). Better Land Husbandry:

Re-thinking Approaches to Land Improvement and the Conservation of

Water and Soil. ODI Natural Resource Perspective, No.19.

68

Sileshi, G., Matakala, P. W., Akinnifesi, F. K. and Ajayi, O. C. (2007). Environmental

services of agro forestry in Southern Africa: lessons, challenges and future

directions. World Agro forestry Centre.

Sileshi, G. and Mafongoya, P.L. (2006a). Variation in macrofauna/ communities

under contrasting land-use systems in eastern Zambia. Applied Soil Ecology,

33, 49-60.

Smitters, J and Smit, B. (2009). Human Adaptation to Climatic Variability and

Change. In L. E. Schipper and I. Burton (Eds.), Adaptation to climate change

(pp. 15-33). London: Earthscan.

Standley, P.C. and Steyer, J.A. (1946) Flora of Guatemala: Leguminosae, Fieldiana

Botany 24 Part V, pp.264-266.

Stewart, J.L., Allison, G.E. and Simons, A.J. (eds.) (1996). Gliricidia sepium Genetic.

Resources for farmers. Oxford Forestry Institute, University of Oxford,

Oxford UK.

Stewart, J.L and Simons, A.J. (1994). Gliricidia sepium: a multipurpose forage tree

legume. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and H.M. Shelton (eds.). Forage Tree Legumes

in Tropical Agriculture. CAB International, Oxon, UK.

Stewart, J.L., Dunsdon, A.J., Hellin, J.J. and Hughes, C.E. (1992) Wood Biomass

Estimation of Central American Dry Zone Species. Tropical Forestry Paper

26, Oxford Forestry Institute, 83pp.

69

Srinivasulu, C.; Reddy, M.R. and Reddy, G.V.N. (1999). Nutritive value of Gliricidia

(Gliricidia maculata) leaves in sheep and goats. Indian J.Anim. Nutr., 16 (1):

44-47.

Suri, T. Tschirley, D., Irungu, C. Gitau, R. and Kariuki, D. (2009). Rural incomes,

inequality and poverty dynamics in Kenya. Tegerneo Institute of Agricultural

Policy and Development. Working Paper 30.

Syampungani, S., Chirwa, P.W., Akinnifesi, F.K. and Ajayi, O.C. (2010). The

potential of using agroforestry as a win-win solution to climate change

mitigation and adaptation and meeting food security challenges in Southern

Africa. Agricultural Journal 5 (2): 80-8.

Teklewold, H. (2013). “Gender Play, a key role for sustainable farming in Africa.”

EU news and policy debates- across languages. http:

//www.euractiv.com/development-policy/researcher-en-aid-education-afri-

interview-517158, Accessed on 1st May 2013.

Thangata, P.H. and Alavalapati, J.R.R. (2003). Agroforestry adoption in Southern

Malawi: the case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidia sepium and maize.

Agricultural Systems, 78(1), 57-71.

Thangata, P.H. (1996). Resource Poor Farmers Perception of Agroforestry Practices-

A Case Study of Malawi. MSc dissertation University of Edinburgh,

Scotland, UK. (unpublished).

UNCCD (2011). Desertification. [Online]

http://www.fao.org/desertification/intro_txt/desert.htm [Accessed: 2011_11-

16].

70

UNCCD (1996). Desertification. [Online]

http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/events/Future_events/Climate_LandDeg.pdf

[Accessed: 2011-08-30].

UNDP (2012). Africa Human Development Report 2012.

Van den Ban, A.W. and Hawkins, H.S. (1988). Agricultural extension Victoria:

Longman.

Vargas, B., Hugo, E., Pablo, G. and Elviras, S. (1987). Composicionquimica,

digestibilidady consume de leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala), Madre de

cacao (Gliricidia sp.) y Caulote (Guazumaultuifolia). In: Washington, D.

Glover, N. and Brewbaker.J.l. (eds).G.S (Jacq.) Walp: Management and

Improvement Proceedings of a workshop at CATIE.Turrialha, Costa

Rica.NFTA Special Publication 87-10, pp. 217-222. (In Spanish)

Versteeg, M.N., Amadji, F., Eteka, A., Gogan, A. and Koudokpon, V. (1998).

Farmers adoptability of Mucuna fallowing and agro forestry technologies in

the Coastal Savanna of Benin. Agric. Syst. 56, 269-287.

Welch, C.J. Alemu, B, Msaki, T., Sengendo, M. Kigutha, H. and Wolff, A. (2000).

Improving Household Food Security: Institutions, Gender and Integrated

Approaches. USA: Basis Management Entity.

Wiersum, K.F. and Nitis, I. M. (1997). Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) kunth ex

Walp..Record from Proseabase. Mannetie, L.t and Jones, R.M.; (Editors).

PROSEA (Plant Resources of South-East Asia). Foundation, Bogor,

Indonesia.

71

Winterbottom, R. (1992). Intergrated rersource management systems-definition and

assessment. In: Kindal CV and Pimentel D (Eds). Integrated resource

management: agroforestry for development San Diego: Academic Press Inc.

Withington, D., Glover, N. and Brewhaker, J.L. (eds), (1987) GS (Jacq.) Walp.

Management and Improvement Proceedings of a workshop at CATIE,

Turrialba, Costa Rica. NFTASpecial Publication 87-01,255pp.

Young, I. (1997) Agro forestry for Soil Conversation.CAB International, Oxford, UK

276.

Young, A. (1989). Agro forestry for Soil Conservation. Oxford, United Kingdom:

CAB International.

Zhang, Y.G., Nearing, M.A., Zhang, X.C., Xle,Y. and Wel, H. (2010). Projected

rainfall erosivity changes under climate change from multiscenario

projections in Northeast China. Journal of Hydrology 384: 97-106.

Zobel, B., van Wyk, G. and Stahl, P. (1987). Growing Exotic Forests. John Wiley and

Sons, New York.

72

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Farmers’ questionnaire

Section A: Household Profile a) Indicate your age: a. 20 to 30 ( ) b. 30 to 40 ( ) c. 40 to 50 ( )

d. Above 50 ( ) b) Indicate your gender: Male ( ) Female ( ) c) What is your occupation? ______d) What are your other income generating activities? ______e) What is your level of formal education? A. Non b. Primary c. Secondary d.

College e. University (please tick one) f) What is your household composition?

(a) Between 1to 4 ( ) (b) Between 5to 8 ( ) (c) Between 9 to 12 ( )

(d) Between 13 t0 16

Section 2: Family food security and nutrition

1. Is your own food production enough for family for the year? a. Yes ( ) b. No ( )

If no, please rank the main reasons? Reasons: a. Limited land ( ) b. No land

( ) c. Low productivity ( ) d. Infertile land ( ) e. Poor agricultural water supply ( ) f. No funds to buy inputs ( ) g. Big family size ( )

73

2. How do you manage to meet your food needs during deficit months? Please rank a. Buying from market ( ) b. Borrowing money to buy food ( ) c. Borrowing grain ( ) d. Eat fewer meals ( ) e. Eat different foods ( ) f. Harvest wild plants ( ) g. Migrate for work ( )

3. Do you have difficulties in managing your food needs? a. Not a problem ( ) b. Relatively difficult ( ) c. Very difficult ( )

Section 3.Farm characteristics and production

1. Do you own land? Yes ( ) No ( ). If yes, Please tick one:

a. Inherited ( ) b. Bought ( ) c. Borrowed ( ) d. Rented ( ) e. Other ______

2. (i) Which of the following tree(s) are you aware of? (a) Gliricidia sepium

(Gliricidia) (b)Terminalia brownii (Muuku) (c) Acacia tortilis (Mulaa) trees

(ii) Which one (s) have you planted in your farm? (a) Gliricidia sepium (Gliricidia)

(b) Terminalia brownii (Muuku) (c) Acacia tortilis (Mulaa).

3. List down the uses and benefits of the trees mentioned in (2) above in your community.

Gliricidia sepium (Gliricidia): ______

Terminalia brownii (Muuku):______

Acacia tortilis (Mulaa):______

74

4. List down the socio-economic and environmental benefits of Gliricidia trees to

your community.

a. Socio-economic benefits______

b. Environmental benefits______

According to your understanding, which tree is more beneficial? Planting:

(i)Gliricidia sepium______

(ii)Terminalia brownii ______

(iii) Acacia tortilis______

What farming practices do you carry out in your farm? Please fill the table below.

Activity/Practice Y=Yes N =No If yes, reasons If no, reasons

for practicing for not

practicing

1.Intercropping agroforestry trees with crops

2. Reduced tillage

3. Weed control

4. Soil cover crops and mulching

5.Fertilizer application

6.Pest management

75

Section 4. Soil fertility practice

1. Do you have a problem of soil infertility in your farm? Yes ( ) No ( )

2. If yes, what do you do to increase soil fertility in your farm?

3. Add inorganic fertilizer ( ) b. Add livestock manure ( ) c. Add Gliricidia

organic manure or practice Gliricidia agroforestry ( ) d. Mix both livestock

and inorganic fertilizer ( ) e. Add other tree species manure ( ) f. Mix both

livestock and other tree species manure ( ). Please rank them in order of your

use.

4. Do you apply any measures to control soil erosion and to improve soil fertility

in your farm? Yes ( ) No ( )

5. If yes, specify what measures? ______

6. If no, what are the major constraints to the adaption of soil conservation

measures? ______

Section 5. Training and extension

1. Did you or any member of your family attend any training, workshop over the

last one year? Yes ( ) No ( )

2. If no, are you willing to attend a farmers training? Yes ( ) No ( )

3. If no, what is the reason? ______

4. Please comment on the availability of training and extension activities for

men and women in your community. Equal for men and women ( ) More for

men ( ) More for women ( ) others (specify)

5. What do you think is the most effective promotion strategy for Gliricidia

sepium farming technology? a. Farmer to farmer sharing of knowledge during

community meeting ( ) b. Seminar or training ( ) c. Radio ( ) d. Agriculture

76 farmers’ day ( ) e. House to house or field visit ( ) f. Demonstration farm ( ) g.

Printed materials ( ) h. Farmers’ exchange visit ( )

77

Appendix II: Semi-structured interview schedule for farmers

Code ………………………….. Date……………………..

Interviewer Name……………………………

Location………………………………. Sub-location…………………

Gliricidia sepium uses and management

Niche No. of Year Height Site Tree species

(where trees when (m) description associated

planted) planted with (give

names)

(1)Where did you get the Gliricidia sepium seeds/seedlings for planting in your farm?

(a) Division agricultural office / Agriculture dept. nursery. (b) Forestry dept.

nursery. (c) NGOs nursery. (d) CBOs nursery. (e) Neighbours. (f) Own farm.

(g) Forest. (h) Specify.

(2) How did you decide on the site where Gliricidia sepium was to be planted in the farm? (3) How many Gliricidia sepium trees do you have in your farm?

78

(4) i) What is the trend in the number of Gliricidia sepium in your farm?

(a) Increasing? (b) Decreasing? ii) If increasing, what are the reasons? 1………2……..3…………. iii) If decreasing, what are the reasons 1…….2………….3…………

(5) What problems do you experience when growing Gliricidia sepium?

(i)Nursery (ii) Managing (iii) Harvesting (iv) Selling Gliricidia sepium products

(v) Others (specify).

(6) What are the effects of Gliricidia sepium on adjacent crops?

(a) None …………… (b) Shade ………….(c) Others specify…………

(7) Are you planning to plant or add Gliricidia sepium on your farm next year?

If Yes, how many?

(8) In your opinion what can be done to enhance conservation of Gliricidia sepium?

Market /Business skills

Who are your Name of Amount of Amount of Income from

customers tree each product each product the sale of

products consumed sold/month products

sold

1=Private

individuals

2=Projects

3=NGOs

4=GOs

5=Companies

6=Others

(Specify)

79

Aspirations/Quality questions

What are some important things that you inspire to achieve in the sustainable management of your farm?

Issues Please tick

Soil improvement and erosion prevention

Diversification of farm products

Integrate trees in farm to improve farm nutrient

Integrate trees in farm to improve income

Reduce Weeds

Reduce insects, pests and diseases

Adequate food year-round

Adequate money for children’s education

Improved health and health care

Improved livestock keeping

Training on sustainable farm cultivation techniques

Thank you

80

Appendix III: Observation sheet

(a) Is it true that farmers have planted Gliricidia sepium trees in their farms?

(i) Yes (ii) No

(b) Does the farmer live in permanent or semi-permanent house?

(i) Yes (ii) No

(c) Where are the trees located? (i) In the home compound

(ii) In the farm (iii). In both home compound and farm

(d) Is it true that Cogon grass which had grown near the stems of Gliricidia

sepium trees had dried up? (i) Yes (ii) No

(e) Is it true that Gliricidia sepium is fodder for livestock and forage for bees ?

End