Targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes
Development 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 parameter...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | Inglés |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2014
|
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/65715 |
| _version_ | 1855536051347521536 |
|---|---|
| author | Rosenstock, Todd S. Mpanda, Mathew Rioux, J. Aynekulu, Ermias Kimaro, Anthony A. Neufeldt, Henry Shepherd, Keith D. Luedeling, Eike |
| author_browse | Aynekulu, Ermias Kimaro, Anthony A. Luedeling, Eike Mpanda, Mathew Neufeldt, Henry Rioux, J. Rosenstock, Todd S. Shepherd, Keith D. |
| author_facet | Rosenstock, Todd S. Mpanda, Mathew Rioux, J. Aynekulu, Ermias Kimaro, Anthony A. Neufeldt, Henry Shepherd, Keith D. Luedeling, Eike |
| author_sort | Rosenstock, Todd S. |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | Development 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 action |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | CGSpace65715 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publishDateRange | 2014 |
| publishDateSort | 2014 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| publisherStr | Elsevier |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace657152025-01-24T14:20:23Z Targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes Rosenstock, Todd S. Mpanda, Mathew Rioux, J. Aynekulu, Ermias Kimaro, Anthony A. Neufeldt, Henry Shepherd, Keith D. Luedeling, Eike Development 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 action 2014-04 2015-05-07T06:26:29Z 2015-05-07T06:26:29Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/65715 en Limited Access Elsevier Rosenstock, 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: 47–51 |
| spellingShingle | Rosenstock, Todd S. Mpanda, Mathew Rioux, J. Aynekulu, Ermias Kimaro, Anthony A. Neufeldt, Henry Shepherd, Keith D. Luedeling, Eike Targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes |
| title | Targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes |
| title_full | Targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes |
| title_fullStr | Targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes |
| title_full_unstemmed | Targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes |
| title_short | Targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes |
| title_sort | targeting conservation agriculture in the context of livelihoods and landscapes |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/65715 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rosenstocktodds targetingconservationagricultureinthecontextoflivelihoodsandlandscapes AT mpandamathew targetingconservationagricultureinthecontextoflivelihoodsandlandscapes AT riouxj targetingconservationagricultureinthecontextoflivelihoodsandlandscapes AT aynekuluermias targetingconservationagricultureinthecontextoflivelihoodsandlandscapes AT kimaroanthonya targetingconservationagricultureinthecontextoflivelihoodsandlandscapes AT neufeldthenry targetingconservationagricultureinthecontextoflivelihoodsandlandscapes AT shepherdkeithd targetingconservationagricultureinthecontextoflivelihoodsandlandscapes AT luedelingeike targetingconservationagricultureinthecontextoflivelihoodsandlandscapes |