Targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes

Simple item page
cg.contributor.crpWater, Land and Ecosystems
cg.creator.identifierTodd Rosenstock: 0000-0002-1958-9500
cg.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.11.011en
cg.identifier.wlethemeDecision Analysis and Information
cg.issn0167-8809en
cg.journalAgriculture, Ecosystems & Environmenten
cg.subject.wleAGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIONen
cg.subject.wleDECISION MAKINGen
cg.volume187en
dc.contributor.authorRosenstock, Todd S.en
dc.contributor.authorMpanda, Mathewen
dc.contributor.authorRioux, J.en
dc.contributor.authorAynekulu, Ermiasen
dc.contributor.authorKimaro, Anthony A.en
dc.contributor.authorNeufeldt, Henryen
dc.contributor.authorShepherd, Keith D.en
dc.contributor.authorLuedeling, Eikeen
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-07T06:26:29Zen
dc.date.available2015-05-07T06:26:29Zen
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/65715
dc.titleTargeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapesen
dcterms.abstractDevelopment programs have typically neglected uncertainty and variability in terms of outcomes and socio-ecological context when promoting conservation agriculture (CA) throughout sub-Saharan Africa. We developed a simple Monte Carlo-based decision model, calibrated to global data-sets and parameterized to local conditions, to predict the range of yield benefits farmers may obtain when adopting CA in two ongoing agricultural development projects in East Africa. Our general model predicts the yield effects of adopting CA-related practices average −0.60 ± 2.05 (sd) Mg maize ha−1 year−1, indicating a near equal chance of positive and negative impacts on yield. When using site-specific, socio-economic, and biophysical data, mean changes in yield were more negative (−1.29 and −1.34 Mg ha−1 year−1). Moreover, practically the entire distributions of potential yield impacts were negative suggesting CA is highly unlikely to generate yield benefits for farmers in the two locations. Despite comparable aggregate effects at both sites, factors such as land tenure, access to information, and livestock pressure contrast sharply highlighting the need to quantify the range of livelihood and landscape effects when evaluating the suitability of the technology. This analysis illustrates the potential of incorporating uncertainty in rapid assessments of agricultural development interventions. Whereas this study examines project-level decisions on one specific intervention, the approach is equally relevant to address decision-making for multiple interventions, at multiple scales, and for multiple criteria (e.g., across ecosystem services), and thus is an important tool that can support linking knowledge with actionen
dcterms.accessRightsLimited Access
dcterms.audienceScientistsen
dcterms.bibliographicCitationRosenstock, T.S., Mpanda, M., Rioux J., Aynekulua, E., Kimaro, A.A., Neufeldt, H., Shepherd. K.D., Luedeling. E. 2014. Targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 187: 47–51en
dcterms.extentpp. 47-51en
dcterms.issued2014-04
dcterms.languageen
dcterms.licenseCopyrighted; all rights reserved
dcterms.publisherElsevieren
dcterms.typeJournal Article

Files

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.75 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Decision Analysis and Information