Submitted:
08 July 2024
Posted:
09 July 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
1.1. Socioeconomic Aspects of Agroforestry
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Methods
2.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis & Reliability of Instruments
3. Results
3.1. Demographic Characteristics
3.2. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Agroforestry Communities in Khost Province
3.4. Comparison of Satisfaction Level Across Forest Products And Vegetable Farming
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
6. Limitations
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- ,Ahmad, S., Xu, H., & Ekanayake, E. M. (2023). Socioeconomic determinants and perceptions of smallholder farmers towards agroforestry adoption in northern irrigated plain, Pakistan. Land, 12(4), 813. [CrossRef]
- Ahmadzai, M. R., Zaki, P. H., Ismail, M. H., Bawon, P., & Karam, D. S. (2022). The Societal and Economic Impact of Reforestation Strategies and Policies in Southeast Asia—A Review. Forests, 14(1), 1. [CrossRef]
- Amare, D., & Darr, D. (2020). Agroforestry adoption as a systems concept: A review. Forest Policy and Economics, 120(August), 102299. [CrossRef]
- do Carmo Martinelli, G., Schlindwein, M. M., Padovan, M. P., & Gimenes, R. M. (2019). Decreasing uncertainties and reversing paradigms on the economic performance of agroforestry systems in Brazil. Land Use Policy, 80, 274-286. [CrossRef]
- Do, H., Luedeling, E., & Whitney, C. (2020). Decision analysis of agroforestry options reveals adoption risks for resource-poor farmers. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40, 1-12. [CrossRef]
- Gonçalves, C. D., Schlindwein, M. M., & Martinelli, G. D. (2021). Agroforestry systems: a systematic review focusing on traditional indigenous practices, food and nutrition security, economic viability, and the role of women. Sustainability, 13(20), 11397. [CrossRef]
- Hamidazada, M., Cruz, A. M., & Yokomatsu, M. (2019). Vulnerability factors of Afghan rural women to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 10(4), 573-590. [CrossRef]
- Hoekstra, D. A. (1987). Economics of agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems, 5(3), 293-300. [CrossRef]
- Kassie, G. W. (2016). Agroforestry and land productivity: Evidence from rural Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 2(1), 1259140. [CrossRef]
- Kassie, G. W. (2018). Agroforestry and farm income diversification: synergy or trade-off? The case of Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research, 6, 1-14. [CrossRef]
- Kay, S. , Graves, A., Palma, J. H., Moreno, G., Roces-Díaz, J. V., Aviron, S.,... Herzog, F. (2019). Agroforestry is paying off–Economic evaluation of ecosystem services in European landscapes with and without agroforestry systems. Ecosystem services, 36, 100896. [CrossRef]
- Kiptot, E., Franzel, S., & Degrande, A. (2014). Gender, agroforestry and food security in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 6, 104–109. [CrossRef]
- Kouassi, J. L. , Gyau, A., Diby, L., Bene, Y., & Kouamé, C. (2021). Assessing land use and land cover change and farmers’ perceptions of deforestation and land degradation in South-West Côte d’Ivoire, West Africa. Land, 10(4), 429. [CrossRef]
- Leakey, R. R. (2017). The Intensification of Agroforestry by Tree Domestication for Enhanced Social and Economic Impact. Multifunctional Agriculture, 7(December), 375–376. [CrossRef]
- Lehmann, L. M. , Smith, J., Westaway, S., Pisanelli, A., Russo, G., Borek, R.,... Ghaley, B. B. (2020). Productivity and economic evaluation of agroforestry systems for sustainable production of food and non-food products. Sustainability, 12(13), 5429. [CrossRef]
- Maia, A. G. , dos Santos Eusebio, G., Fasiaben, M. D., Moraes, A. S., Assad, E. D., & Pugliero, V. S. (2021). The economic impacts of the diffusion of agroforestry in Brazil. Land use policy, 108, 105489. [CrossRef]
- Mir, M. R. , Khan, I. L., Baqual, M. F., Banday, M., Raja, R., & Khursheed, S. (2019). Mulberry-Based Agroforestry System: An Effective Way of Maintaining Livelihood Security and Climate Change Mitigation. In Agroforestry and Climate Change (pp. 299-318). Florida: Apple Academic Press.
- Mukhlis, I. , Rizaludin, M. S., & Hidayah, I. (2022). Understanding socio-economic and environmental impacts of agroforestry on rural communities. Forests, 13(4), 556. [CrossRef]
- Nagar, B. , Rawat, S., Pandey, R., Kumar, M., & Alatalo, J. M. (2022). Fuelwood and fodder consumption patterns among agroforestry-practicing smallholder farmers of the lower Himalayas, India. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(4), 5594-5613. [CrossRef]
- Notaro, M., Collado, C., Depas, J. K., Dumovil, D., Denis, A. J., Deheuvels, O., . . . Gary, C. (2021). The spatial distribution and height of associated crops influence cocoa tree productivity in complex agroforestry systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 41(5), 60. [CrossRef]
- Paul, C. , Weber, M., & Knoke, T. (2017). Agroforestry versus farm mosaic systems–Comparing land-use efficiency, economic returns and risks under climate change effects. Science of the Total Environment, 587, 22-35.
- Quandt, A. , Neufeldt, H., & McCabe, J. T. (2019). Building livelihood resilience: what role does agroforestry play? Climate and Development, 11(6), 485-500. [CrossRef]
- Raj, A. , Jhariya, M. K., Yadav, D. K., Banerjee, A., & Meena, R. S. (2019). Agroforestry: A Holistic Approach for Agricultural Sustainability. In Sustainable agriculture, forest and environmental management (pp. 101-131). Singapore: Springer.
- Santiago-Freijanes, J. J. , Mosquera-Losada, M. R.-D., Ferreiro-Domínguez, N., Pantera, A., Aldrey, J. A., & Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A. (2021). Global and European policies to foster agricultural sustainability: agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems, 95(5), 775-790. [CrossRef]
- Siles, P. , Cerdán, C. R., & Staver, C. (2022). Smallholder coffee in the global economy—A framework to explore transformation alternatives of traditional agroforestry for greater economic, ecological, and livelihood viability. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, 808207. [CrossRef]
- Staton, T. , Breeze, T. D., Walters, R. J., Smith, J., & Girling, R. D. (2022). Productivity, biodiversity trade-offs, and farm income in an agroforestry versus an arable system. Ecological Economics, 191, 107214. [CrossRef]
- van Noordwijk, M. (2021). Agroforestry-Based ecosystem services: Reconciling values of humans and nature in sustainable development. Land, 10(7), 699. [CrossRef]

| Construct | Factor extracted | Explained variances % | α value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction with Residence & Infrastructure | Satisfaction with Basic Facilities | 52.08% | 0.754 |
| Satisfaction with Advanced Facilities | 13.97% | 0.864 | |
| Knowledge of Land Use Change & Impacts | Knowledge of Land Use Change & Impacts | 61.13% | 0.868 |
| Factors of Land Use Change | Natural Factors | 53.52% | 1.000 |
| Artificial Factors | 20.28% | 0.833 | |
| Impact of Land Use Change | Negative Impact of Land Use Change | 54.05% | 0.907 |
| Positive Impact of Land Use Change | 14.54% | 0.917 |
| Variables | Categories | Frequency | Percentage |
| Age | 15-24 years | 243 | 35.4% |
| 25-34 years | 244 | 35.5% | |
| 35-44 years | 119 | 17.3% | |
| 45-54 years | 67 | 9.8% | |
| 55-64 years | 12 | 1.7% | |
| 65 years and above | 2 | 0.3% | |
| Gender | Male | 629 | 91.6% |
| Female | 58 | 8.4% | |
| Marital Status | Single | 206 | 30.0% |
| Married | 471 | 68.6% | |
| Divorced | 10 | 1.5% | |
| Race | Pashtun | 672 | 97.8% |
| Tajik | 4 | 0.6% | |
| Hazara | 4 | 0.6% | |
| Others | 7 | 1.0% | |
| No. of Household Members | 1-4 | 82 | 11.9% |
| 5-9 | 151 | 22.0% | |
| 10-14 | 183 | 26.6% | |
| 15-19 | 71 | 10.3% | |
| 20 and above | 200 | 29.1% | |
| Member of any Association | Yes | 179 | 26.1% |
| No | 508 | 73.9% |
| Variables | Categories | Frequency | Percentage |
| Education Level | No Formal Education | 158 | 23.0% |
| Primary School | 90 | 13.1% | |
| Secondary School | 228 | 33.2% | |
| College/University | 165 | 24.0% | |
| Master | 44 | 6.4% | |
| Ph.D. | 2 | 0.3% | |
| Job/Employment | Self-Employed | 346 | 50.4% |
| Working at NGOs | 90 | 13.1% | |
| Working at a farm | 78 | 11.4% | |
| Government Servant | 106 | 15.4% | |
| Others | 67 | 9.8% | |
| Working Experience | 1-5 years | 337 | 49.1% |
| 6-10 years | 186 | 27.1% | |
| 11-15 years | 125 | 18.2% | |
| 16 years and above | 39 | 5.7% | |
| Monthly Work Income | AFG 5000 and below | 289 | 42.1% |
| AFG 6000 – AFG 8000 | 165 | 24.0% | |
| AFG 9000 – AFG 10000 | 118 | 17.2% | |
| AFG 11000 – AFG 15000 | 73 | 10.6% | |
| AFG 16000 and above | 42 | 6.1% | |
| Monthly Household Income | AFG 15000 and below | 306 | 44.5% |
| AFG 16000 – AFG 20000 | 133 | 19.4% | |
| AFG 21000 – AFG 25000 | 55 | 8.0% | |
| AFG 26000 – AFG 30000 | 73 | 10.6% | |
| AFG 31000 – AFG 35000 | 48 | 7.0% | |
| AFG 36000 – AFG 40000 | 43 | 6.3% | |
| AFG 41000 and above | 29 | 4.2% |
| Satisfaction with Level of Facilities and Infrastructure | Knowledge of Land Use Change & Impacts | Factors of Land Use Change | Impact of Land Use Change | ||
| MANOVA F (p-value) |
Univariate ANOVA F (p-value) |
MANOVA F (p-value) |
MANOVA F (p-value) |
||
| Intercept | 3444.89 (< 0.001)*** |
1149.04 (< 0.001)*** |
3463.16 (< 0.001)*** |
4508.02 (< 0.001)*** |
|
| Herbs | 0.49 (0.614) | 3.27 (0.004)*** | 1.93 (0.147) | 2.69 (0.070) | |
| Mushrooms | 1.45 (0.238) | 3.15 (0.005)** | 4.60 (0.011)* | 1.92 (0.149) | |
| Fruits | 3.61 (0.028)* | 1.00 (0.424) | 0.61 (0.542) | 0.57 (0.568) | |
| Pine Nuts | 0.53 (0.588) | 2.08 (0.056) | 1.33 (0.267) | 6.24 (0.002)** | |
| Berries | 3.56 (0.030)* | 2.02 (0.063) | 15.13 (< 0.001)*** |
14.55 (< 0.001)*** |
|
| Wild Animal | 0.51 (0.599) | 3.13 (0.006)** | 4.22 (0.016)* | 3.84 (0.023)* | |
| Food Crops | 0.92 (0.402) | 1.18 (0.316) | 0.09 (0.913) | 0.26 (0.771) | |
| Decorative Material for Craft | 0.19 (0.825) | 1.35 (0.236) | 0.64 (0.525) | 1.77 (0.172) | |
| Timber | 0.20 (0.818) | 1.80 (0.099) | 2.84 (0.060) | 4.23 (0.016)* | |
| Oils | 0.24 (0.791) | 3.25 (0.004)** | 2.64 (0.073) | 1.14 (0.322) | |
| Wood | 2.46 (0.088) | 5.05 (< 0.001)*** | 0.04 (0.960) | 2.20 (0.113) | |
| Honey | 0.28 (0.754) | 3.81 (0.001)*** | 1.39 (0.251) | 2.52 (0.083) | |
| * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. | |||||
| Satisfaction with Level of Facilities and Infrastructure | Knowledge of Land Use Change & Impacts | Factors of Land Use Change | Impact of Land Use Change | ||
| MANOVA F (p-value) |
Univariate ANOVA F (p-value) |
MANOVA F (p-value) |
MANOVA F (p-value) |
||
| Intercept | 4314.99 (< 0.001)*** |
9144.35 (< 0.001)*** |
4662.12 (< 0.001)*** |
5169.44 (< 0.001)*** |
|
| Zucchini | 0.23 (0.791) | 2.39 (0.122) | 0.06 (0.942) | 2.93 (0.054) | |
| Yellow Pumpkin | 1.11 (0.330) | 0.10 (0.750) | 2.36 (0.095) | 0.580 (0.451) | |
| Lettuce | 1.62 (0.198) | 0.52 (0.472) | 0.07 (0.936) | 1.23 (0.293) | |
| Pepper | 0.13 (0.883) | 0.03 (0.862) | 2.41 (0.091) | 3.06 (0.048)* | |
| Potato | 2.19 (0.113) | 1.13 (0.288) | 2.54 (0.080) | 1.33 (0.265) | |
| Onion | 0.70 (0.496) | 0.11 (0.742) | 2.33 (0.098) | 2.96 (0.053) | |
| Pumpkin | 1.89 (0.153) | 0.25 (0.617) | 0.85 (0.427) | 0.90 (0.406) | |
| Turnip | 0.20 (0.822) | 2.42 (0.120) | 0.28 (0.754) | 0.46 (0.632) | |
| Okra | 2.26 (0.106) | 4.02 (0.045)* | 0.76 (0.467) | 2.96 (0.053) | |
| Garlic | 1.85 (0.158) | 0.03 (0.855) | 1.06 (0.347) | 0.19 (0.830) | |
| Eggplant | 2.26 (0.105) | 9.30 (0.002)** | 6.10 (0.002)** | 1.81 (0.165) | |
| Carrot | 1.92 (0.148) | 5.73 (0.017)* | 4.39 (0.013)* | 1.26 (0.285) | |
| Watermelon | 1.83 (0.161) | 0.67 (0.415) | 0.63 (0.532) | 0.39 (0.676) | |
| Melon | 0.67 (0.513) | 0.52 (0.472) | 1.10 (0.334) | 0.34 (0.713) | |
| Cucumber | 4.13 (0.017)* | 0.12 (0.728) | 4.58 (0.011)* | 1.63 (0.197) | |
| * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. | |||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).