Email this article 
Review on Adoption of Agroforestry Innovation by Farmers’ Social Forestry Program
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Agroforestry can offer a balance between conservation and production in agricultural systems to provide socio-economic and ecological benefits. Agroforestry is a land use system that is applied in the social forestry program. The social forestry program aims to improve community welfare while still paying attention to environmental aspects and sociocultural dynamics. This paper aims to describe the adoption of agroforestry innovations in social forestry programs. The method used in this research is a literature study or review of various research results related to adoption and agroforestry innovation and social forestry from international journals, national journals, international proceedings, and national proceedings. Data analysis was carried out descriptively. The result of the study shows that agroforestry innovations in social forestry are needed by communities to increase benefits and reduce costs. Agroforestry innovation can be applied well in aspects of production/cultivation, such as the selection of plant species, arrangement of growing spaces or cropping patterns, maintenance, as well as in post-harvesting, marketing, and institutional aspects. So far, there have been many agroforestry innovations resulted from the agroforestry-based forest and land management, both innovations derived from local farmers' knowledge and innovations resulted from scientific researches or a combination of them. The agroforestry innovations that are most attractive to the community are agroforestry innovations along the cycle, which provide communities with longer opportunities to use the land. The main factors influencing the adoption of agroforestry innovations that must be considered are economic factors.
Keywords: adoption, agroforestry, innovation, social forestry
Keywords
Full Text:
PDF (Bahasa Indonesia)References
Amare, D., & Darr, D. (2020). Agroforestry adoption as a systems concept: A review. Forest Policy and Economics, 120 (August). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102299
Bell, S. and Morse, S. (2004). Experiences with sustainability indicators and stakeholder participation: a case study relating to a “Blue Plan” project in Malta. Sustain Dev., 12(1), 1–14.
Binam, J.N., Place, F., Djalal, A.A. and Kalinganire, A. (2017). Effects of local institutions on the adoption of agroforestri innovations: evidence of farmer managed natural regeneration and its implications for rural livelihoods in the Sahel. Agricultural and Food Economics., 5(2).
Bocchi, S., Christiansen, S., Oweis, T., Porro, A., and Sala, S. (2012). No. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 7–36.
Bocher, M. (2016). How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making?The RIU model as framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer. Forest Policy and Economics, 68, 65–72.
Bukhari & Febryano, I. (2010). Desain agroforestry pada lahan kritis (Studi Kasus di Kecamatan Indarpuri Kabupaten Aceh Besar. Jurnal Perennial, 6(1), 53–59.
Burgess, P.J., and Rosati, A. (2018). Advances in European agroforestri: results from the AGFORWARD project. Agroforest Syst., 92, 801–810.
Cahyono, E. D. (2019). Participatory communication and extension for indigenous farmers: empowering local paddy rice growers in East Java. In Communicating for Social Change;, 213–233.
Coe, R., Njoloma, J., and Sinclair, F. (2019). Loading the dice in favour of the farmer: reducing the risk of adopting agronomic innovations. Expl Agric., 55, 67–83.
D’emden, F., llewellyn, R., & Burton, M. (2006). Adoption of conservation tillage in Australian cropping regions: An application of duration analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73, 630–647.
Do, T.H., Krott, M., and Böcher, M. (2020). Multiple traps of scientific knowledge transfer: Comparative case studies based on the RIU model from Vietnam, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and Sweden. For. Policy Econ., 114.
Eckstein, E.R., Ballantyne, A.T., and Phillips, P. W. B. (2019). Farming Reimagined: A case study of autonomous farm equipment and creating an innovation opportunity space for broadacre smart farming. NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 90–91.
Eggers, J., Lämås, T., Lind, T., and Öhman, K. (2014). Factors influencing the choice of management strategy among small-scale private forest owners in Sweden. Forests., 5, 1695–1716.
Erbaugh, J. T. (2019). Responsibilization and social forestry in Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics. 109: 1-12., 109, 1–12.
Fatchiya, A., Amanah, S., & Kusumastuti, Y. I. (2016). Penerapan inovasi teknologi pertanian dan hubungannya dengan ketahanan pangan rumah tangga petani. Jurnal Penyuluhan, 12(2), 190–197. http://doi.org/10.25015/penyuluhan.v12i2.12988
Feder, G and Umali, D. L. (1993). The adoption of agricultural innovations: A review. Technol. Forecast. Sot., 43, 215–219.
Firdaus, N., Sudomo, A., Suhaendah, E., Widyaningsih, T. S., Sanudin, & Kuswantoro, D. P. (2013). Status Riset Agroforestri di Indonesia. Ciamis: Balai Penelitian Teknologi Agroforestry.
Fisher, M., Moeliono, M., and Mulyana, A. (2018). Assessing the new social forestry project in Indonesia: recognition, livelihood and conservation? Int. For. Rev., 20, 346–361.
Fisher, M.R., Dhiaulhaq, A., Sahide, M. A. K. (2019). The politics, economies, and ecologies of Indonesia’s third generation of social forestry: An introduction to the special section. For. Soc, 3, 152–170.
Ghadim, A., Pannell, D., & Burton, M. (2005). Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation. Agricultural Economics, 33(1), 1–9.
Goldstone, J.A. (1987). Cultural orthodoxy, risk and innovation: the divergence of east and west in the early modern world. Sociol. Theor., 5, 119–.
Hall, T. (2006). Enhancing agricultural innovation: how to go beyond the strengthening of research systems. Washington, DC, USA.
Hekkert, M.P., Negro, S. (2009). Functions of innovation systems as a framework to understand sustainable technological change: empirical evidence for earlier claims. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 76, 584–594.
Iskandar, D., & Lusiana, B. (2014). Factors influencing the adoption of improved rubber agroforestry system by Rubber Smallholder Farmers in Indonesia. In World Agroforestry Congress. New Delhi.
Julijanti, J., Nugroho, B., Kartodihardjo, H., & Ridho Nurrochmat, D. (2015). Proses operasionalisasi kebijakan Kesatuan Pengelolaan Hutan: Perspektif teori difusi inovasi. Jurnal Analisis Kebijakan Kehutanan, 12(1), 67–88. http://doi.org/10.20886/jakk.2015.12.1.67-88
Kankeu, R.S., Demaze, M.T., Krott, M., Sonwa, D.J., and Ongolo, S. (2020). Governing knowledge transfer for deforestation monitoring: Insights from REDD+ projects in the Congo Basin region. For. Policy Econ.
Kansiime, M.K., Ochieng, J., Kessy, R., Karanja, D., Romney, D., and Sefa, V. A. (2018). Changing knowledge and perceptions of African indigenous vegetables: The role of community-based nutritional outreach,. Development in Practice, 28(4), 480–493.
Keating, B. A., Carberry, P. S., Bindraban, P. S., Asseng, S., Meinke, H. and Dixon, J. (2010). Eco-efficient agriculture: Concepts, challenges, and opportunities. Crop Science., 50, 109–119.
Kiptot, E., Hebinck, P., Franzel, S., & Richards, P. (2007). Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya. Agricultural Systems, 94(2), 509–519. http://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.01.002.
KLHK. (2017). Perhutanan Sosial, membangun kemakmuran dari desa. Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan. Jakarta Indonesia.
KLHK. 2018. Statistik Kehutanan Indonesia tahun 2018. Jakarta Indonesia.
Lybbert, T.J. and Sumner, D. A. (2012). Agricultural technologies for climate change in developing countries: policy options for innovation and technology diffusion. Food Policy, 37(1), 114–123.
Mahendra, F. (2009). Sistem agroforestry dan aplikasinya. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Graha Ilmu.
McDonald, M., & Brown, K. (2000). Soil and water conservation projects and rural livelihood options for design and research to enhance adoption and adaptation. Land Degradation and Development 11, 11, 343–361.
Mercer, D. E. (2004). Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(1), 31–39. http://doi.org/10.1023/B
Minang, P. A., L. A. Duguma, F. Bernard, D. Foundjem-Tita, and Z. T. (2019). Evolution of community forestry in Cameroon: An innovation ecosystems perspective. Ecology and Society., 24(1), 1.
Muktasam, A., Reid, R., Race, D., & Perdana, A. (2019). Extention approaches to promote effective adoption of agroforestri practices : lessons learned from Indonesia. In World Agroforestri Congress,.
Murniati. (2015). Teknologi Agroforestry Komplek-Permanen Berbasis Pangan untuk Mendukung Ketahanan Pangan Nasional. In Seminar Nasional Agroforestry.
Neill, S., & Lee, D. (2001). Explaining the adoption and disadoption of sustainable agriculture: The case of cover crops in Northern Honduras. Economic Development & Cultural Change, 49(793-820).
Padel, S. (2001). Conversion to organic farming: A typical example of the diffusion of an innovation?. Sociol Ruralis. 41(1): 40–61., 41(1), 40–61.
Pannell, D., Marshall, G., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., & Wilkinson, R. (2006). Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Ustralian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46, 1407–1424.
Pek, R., Reiedl, M., and Jarsky, V. (2017). Innovative approaches in forest management - the application of a business model to designing a small-scale forestry strategy. Journal of Forest Science., 63(9), 393–400.
Pramono, I.B., & Wahyuningrum, N. (2009). Model pengendalian run-off dan erosi dengan metoda vegetatif (Studi kasus Sub-DAS Dungwot). In Prosiding Ekspose Hasil Penelitian dan Pengembangan Teknologi pengelolaan DAS dalam Upaya Pengendalian Banjir dan Erosi Sedimentasi. Surakarta.
Rakatama, A. and R. P. (2020). Reviewing social forestry schemes in Indonesia: Opportunities and challenges. Forest Policy and Economics., 111, 1–13.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, Third Edition (Third). New York: Free Press. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203710753-35
Rohadi, D., and Herawati, T. (2014). Agroforestri research in Indonesia: Where to go for the next two decades. In World Agroforestri Congress.
Sarkar, J. (1998). Technological diffusion: alternative theories and historical evidence. J. Econ. Sow., 12, 131–176.
Sirrine, D., Shennan, C., Snapp, S., Kanyama-Phiri, G., Kamanga, B., & Sirrine, J. R. (2010). Improving recommendations resulting from on-farm research: agroforestry, risk, profitability and vulnerability in Southern Malawi. International Journal of Agriculture of Sustainability, 8(4), 290–304.
Supriyanto, B. (2019). Inovasi kebijakan perhutanan sosial untuk keadilan pengelolaan sumberdaya alam dan kesejaheraan masyarakat.
Suryanto, P., Widiyatno, Priyanto, S. D. A., Permadi, D. B., Affianto, A., & Adriana. (2013). Compatibility of private agroforestry management and managing forest with community program in Central Java, Indonesia. Journal of Management and Sutainability, 3(1), 178–185.
Vanclay, J., Haggith, M., and Colfer, C. (2003). Participation and model-building: Lessons learned from the bukittinggi workshop. Small-Scale Forestry, 2(2), 135–154.
Verburg, R., Rahn, E., Verweij, P., van Kuijk, M., and Ghazoul, J. (2019). Review: An innovation perspective to climate change adaptation in coffee systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 97, 16–24.
Wheeler, S. (2014). . Insights, lessons and benefits from improved regional water security in Australia. Water Resources and Economics, 8, 57–78.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20886/jai.2021.4.1.51-60
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2021 Jurnal Agroforestri Indonesia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright Jurnal Agroforestri Indonesia
E=ISSN : 2655-9595
Jurnal Agoforestri Indonesia terindeks di :
