Problem Confrontation in the Adoption of Agroforestry Practices in the South- Western Region of...

APPENDIX

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Bangladesh is a developing country with about 0.14 billion

population. Economic status of the country is very poor.

About 0.02 billion educated young people are jobless

(Islam, 2005). If this situation goes for long period of

time, Bangladesh will face a great problem in the nearest

future. To overcome this situation we should utilize our

young people by creating employment opportunities and

alternate earning sources through proper utilization of

their knowledge, technology and labor (B.B.S, 2000). Some

of the problems are vast population, high rate of

population growth, poor occurrence of mineral energy

resources, and uneven distribution of poor forest wealth

and occurrence of frequent natural calamities (Ahmed,

1995).

Over the last decade, heightened concern with energy

supplies, rural poverty, environmental degradation and food

shortages have all contributed to a better awareness of the

magnitude and importance of the contributions that outputs

of forests and trees make directly to the well-being of

rural people in non-industrializes countries (Ludgren,

1982). This increased awareness has led to a growing

concern as to the impact of deforestation on local

availabilities of such needed goods and services of the

forest as fuel wood, fodder, food and protection of

1

APPENDIX

agricultural land. Under pressure of expanding rural

population, increasing areas of forests are being put under

shifting cultivation or cleared for settled agriculture.

Tropical forests are being reduced at the rate of about 7.5

million hectares of closed forest and 3.8 million hectares

of open forest annually (Lanly, 1982).

The distribution of natural forests, plantation forests and

the village groves is not uniform throughout the country.

The central and northern highly populated regions have the

very little natural and plantation forests while the least

populated areas of the eastern, south-western and southern

part have all the natural and plantation forests. The

maximum village groves are in the northern and southern

flood plain regions of the country (Van Den, 1991).

Jessore is the district situated on the south western part

of Bangladesh. Considering the distribution of natural

forests of Bangladesh, there is no natural forest in this

region. In this region there are only 15% percent of

village forests, which is too small to meet the demands of

per capita consumption of timber and firewood for the

population of this region. The population of this area is

increasing day by day. So, to meet the demand of forest

produce for the people of this region agroforestry can be

an important land use system (Vairob, 2002).

2

APPENDIX

Agroforestry can be an appropriate technology in areas with

fragile ecosystems and subsistence farming (Bhuiyan, 1993).

The objectives of agroforestry have ranged from maximizing

total productivity, to create jobs and income in rural

areas, to safeguard sustainability (Brewbaker, 1987).

Agroforestry strengthens also economic security of poor

people in case of disasters and emergencies by selling

trees for cash in the largely predominated freehold land

tenure system (Abedin et al. 1991). Economics of forestry

helps a forester to make better recommendations and

judgments, and to be an intelligent, active and

constructive participant in forestry events so that the

forestry sector contributes its best to the economic well

being of the society (Bentley, et. al 1993).

The greatest research need is to develop farm-level

analyses of the potential economic costs, benefits, and

risks associated with agroforestry practices. This

information is a vital prerequisite to the objective

comparison of both production-and conservation-driven

agroforestry practices with alternative land use options.

Furthermore, attention should be given to evaluations of

future price trends in, regional, national and

international markets for commodities that can be produced

using agroforestry (e.g, hardwood lumber or high-value,

wind-sensitive crops) (Bhuiyan and Ali, 1993). Research on

tree- crop- animal-environment interactions should be

3

APPENDIX

pursued to provide a scientific basis for optimizing

agroforestry designs (Ali and Ahmed, 1993). But therefore

these it is essential to identify there problems and there

extent that retard the adoption of agroforestry practices

considering this points is now the essential study was

conducted with the following objectives.

1.1 Objectives:

Objectives help the researcher to get into the

right track. Meaningful, clear-cut and achievable

objectives are the key to success in all kinds of

research. There is also a need to see how far people are

oriented towards agroforestry practices and promotion in

view of other personal and socio-economic

characteristics. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the

following specific objectives were formulated:

The specific objectives of the study were as follows

To analyze some of the selected characteristics of

the farmers and to give highlights on agroforestry

practices.

To identify the problems confronted by the farmers.

To determine the relationship between the selected

characteristics of the farmers and their problem

confrontation.

4

APPENDIX

The selected characteristics include age, education,

experience in farming, experience in agroforestry

practices, family size, farm size, annual income,

organizational participation, cosmopoliteness, training,

knowledge on agroforestry practices and extension contact.

1.2 Hypothesis of the study:

The following null hypotheses were formulated to

test the relationships between the selected


confrontation. The main null hypotheses for this study are

stated below:

1. There is no relationship between respondents' age and

their problem confrontation.

2. There is no relationship between respondents' education

and their problem confrontation.

3. There is no relationship between respondents'

experience in farming and their problem confrontation.


experience in agroforestry practices and their problem

confrontation.

5. There is no relationship between respondents' family

size and their problem confrontation.

6. There is no relationship between respondents' farm size


7. There is no relationship between respondents' annual

income and their problem confrontation.


5

APPENDIX

organizational participation and their problem

confrontation.


cosmopoliteness and their problem confrontation.

10. There is no relationship between respondents' training



knowledge on agroforestry practices and their problem

confrontation.


extension contact and their problem confrontation.

1.3 Scope and limitation of the study:

The present study was undertaken with a view to have an

understanding of the problems in agroforestry practices

as confronted by the farmers. In order to conduct the

study in a meaningful and manageable way it becomes

necessary to identify some limitations in regard to

certain aspects of the study. Considering the time,

money, labor and other necessary resources available to

the researchers, the following limitations were observed

throughout the study:

1. The study was conducted in the Panisara and

Nirbashkhola unions of Jhikargacha Upazila under

Jessore District.

6

APPENDIX

2. Characteristics of the farmers were many and varied but

only thirteen characteristics were selected for

investigation in this study.

3. Major information, facts and figures supplied by the

respondents were applicable to the situation prevailing in

the locality during the year 2008.

4. Data were collected both from the male and female

respondents since the researchers had to experience

that the rural men as well as rural women are involved

in agroforestry practices during the first phase of the

development of the interview schedule.

5. Population for the present study was kept confined

within the heads of farm families in the study area,

because they were the decision-makers in their

respective families in respect of farming.

6. The present study highlights on a new dimension of

research in the field of agricultural extension in

Bangladesh and so the researchers could not provide

sufficient evidence in equipping the study report with

relevant literature reviews.

The study was conducted in a selected Upazila under

Jessore district of Bangladesh. Thus the findings may

not represent the real scenario of the whole district as

well as the whole country due to the widespread

variation in the nature and distribution of

7

APPENDIX

agroforestry from one place to another and from one social

system to another.

1.4 Assumptions of the Study:

An assumption is the supposition that an apparent fact or

principle is true in the light of available evidence. The

following assumptions were in the mind of the researchers

while undertaking the study:

1. The respondents involved in the sample were capable

of furnishing proper responses of the questions

contained in the interview schedule.

2. The interviewers were well adjusted to the social

and cultural environment of the study area. Hence,

the data collected by them from the respondents would

be any bias free.

3. The responses furnished by the respondents were

reliable and truly expressed all facts concerning

agroforestry practices and their personal, socio-

economic, socio-cultural and psychological

characteristics.

4. Views and opinions furnished by the respondents

were representative of the whole population of the

study.

8

APPENDIX

5. The respondents have given accurate and current

information.

6. The interviewers were able to rate the responses of

the farmers with adequate precision.

7. Identified problems in the study area included

all the sustainability criteria considered by the

researchers and they were contributory to agroforestry and

development.

8. The findings of the study would be useful for

planning and execution of the program in connection with

the development of agroforestry.

9

APPENDIX

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1. Historical background of Agroforestry:

About 15,000 years ago, man used fire for cooking. About

15,000 years ago, man discovered that seeds of certain

grasses could be eaten. To obtain these seeds, he cleared

forests and grew them. Subsequently he cleared larger tract

by felling trees and burning them. It was found that the

productivity went down after sometime and therefore, other

areas were cleared and burnt to grow those seeds. It was

widely believed that the destruction of forests and cutting

of trees created famine conditions, as has been said in one

of the puranas written about 1000 B.C. Throughout the

world, at one period or another in its history; it has been

the practice to cultivate tree species and agricultural

crops in intimate combination. The examples are numerous.

It was the general custom in Europe, at least until the

10

APPENDIX

Middle Ages, to clear-fell derelict forest, burns the

slash. Cultivate food crops for varying periods on the

cleared areas, and plant or sow tree species before, along

with, or after the sowing of the agricultural crop. This

"farming system" is of course no longer popular in Europe.

But it was still widely followed in Finland up to the end

of the last century, and was being practiced in a few areas

in Germany as late as the 1920s & now all over the world

(King 1968).

In tropical America, many societies have traditionally

simulated forest conditions in their farms in order to

obtain the beneficial effects of forest structures. Farmers

in Central America, for example, have long imitated the

structure and species diversity of tropical forests by

planting a variety of crops with different growth habits.

Plots of no more than one-tenth of a hectare contained, on

average, two dozen different species of plants each with a

different form, together corresponding to the layered

configuration of mixed tropical forests: coconut or papaya

with a lower layer of bananas or citrus, a shrub layer of

coffee or cacao, tall and low annuals such as maize, and

finally a spreading ground cover of plants such as squash

(Young, 1989).

In Asia, the Hanunoo of the Philippines practiced a

complex and somewhat sophisticated type of shifting

cultivation. In clearing the forest for agricultural use.

11

APPENDIX

They deliberately left certain selected trees which, by the

end of the nice-growing season, would "provide a partial

canopy of new foliage" to prevent excessive exposure to the

sun "at a time when moisture is more important than

sunlight for the maturing grain". Nor was this all. Trees

were an indispensable part of the Hanunoo farming system

and were either planted or conserved from the original

forests to provide food, medicines, construction wood and

cosmetics, in addition to their protective services

(Sharma, 1947).

Agroforestry is not any one system, but a principle common

to many potential and existing systems which:

Display ecological and economical durability by virtue

of their biological architecture including short-cycle

plants, long-cycle plants and animals.

Warrant social acceptability by breaking up long-term

ecological cycles in a sequence of easy to understand

daily and seasonal activities, module upon local

tradition but conceived so as to increase efficiency.

Aim at complete use of all inorganic resources in all

available niches for useful plants and animals, as

long as recycling of these resources is maximized.

Diminish risks for the individual farmer by means of a

wide variety of useful plant and animal species

12

APPENDIX

enlarging the range of products, providing a self-

protecting system and enhancing the quality of the

daily environment (R.A.A. Oldeman, The Netherlands).

Agroforestry is not a new enterprise since it has been

practiced under different conditions and in diverse

locations for more than a century. The systems are

comprised of tree and non-tree components grown in close

association. Their objective is the maximization of the

long-term yield of desired products. Yield is generally

drawn from both tree and non-tree components, directly or

indirectly via grazing animals, although on occasions one

component, generally the tree, may be included only to

improve the performance of the other. The essential feature

of these systems is the close interaction, competitive or

complementary, between the tree and non-tree components

(Ludgren, 1980).

2.2. Different systems of Agroforestry:

The agroforestry systems can be grouped on the basis of

anyone factor or function of the farming system. Nair

(1984) classified the agroforestry systems on the basis of

structure, function, and socio-economic and ecological

status. The agroforestry systems can be classified on the

basis of the following factors:

13

APPENDIX

2.2.1. Structural classification:

Structure refers to composition, stratification, and

dimension of the crop. The classification of agroforestry

systems on the basis of the nature of composition is widely

recognized and several workers have classified agroforestry

systems on the basis of composition into the followings-

(King, 1978).

2.2.1.1. Agrosilviculture systems:

Agrosilviculture means use of land for the concurrent

production agricultural crops and forest crops.

Agrosilviculture covers all the systems in which land is

used to produce both forest trees and agricultural crops,

simultaneously or alternately (FAO, 1978). Agrosilviculture

also includes growing agricultural tree- crops with forest

trees.

2.2.1.2 Silvipastural systems:

The Silvipastural system means a land management system in

which forests are managed for the production of wood as

well as for rearing of domesticated animals (King, 1989).

It does not include the destructive over grazing as

practiced in Indian forests, grazing lands and pastures. It

also does not include the growing of fodder crops that are

harvested and feed to stalled animals, which is

Agrosilviculture.

14

APPENDIX

2.2.1.3. Agrosilvipastural systems:

This system is a combination of the Agrosilviculture and

silvipasture systems. The land is managed for the

concurrent production of agricultural and forest crops and

for grazing by domestic animals. If a unit of land is

managed under crop rotations or practices, which may

include production of food grains, fodder and wood and has

provision for grazing cattle, the system can be called an

agrosilvipastural system ( Chundawat, 1993).

2.2.1.4. Multipurpose tree plantation systems:

In this system, forest tree species are regenerated and

managed for their ability to produce not only wood, but

also leaves and/or fruits that are suitable for food and/or

fodder. In this system, the forest is managed to yield

multiple products (Muller,1990). In addition to wood, the

trees may yield fruits, flowers, leaves, barks, roots,

gums, honey, medicines, etc., which may be eaten and/or

utilized for other purposes.

The International Council for Research in Agroforestry

(ICRAF), Nairobi, has tried to enlist all agroforestry

systems being followed in different parts of the world. The

important agroforestry systems which are recognized and

prevalent in different parts of the world are classified

and given below- (Nair, 1985; Gholz, 1988).

15

APPENDIX

2.3. Studies on problems confronted by the farmers who

practice agroforestry

Abedin and Quddus (1988) observed that damage by animals is

a major problem for agroforestry plantation. In homesteads,

goats and cattle often damage seedlings. Protection

problems are the common in strip-side agroforestry. Except

the FD's efforts to introduce agroforestry systems to

recover encroached forest lands.

Ali (1989) indicated that upazila afforestation and Nursery

Development Project is a follow up project includes a

target of 3200 ha of agroforestry to be established over

the next four years in the Dhaka-Tangail-Mymensingh sal

(Shorea robusta) forest zone. The agroforestry design and

modules was site specific and utilized the experience

indicated in the prior project. In his project he

identified lack of irrigation facilities, lack of loan

facilities and technical knowledge are the common problems

in agroforestry practice in Bangladesh.

Bhuiyan (1994) explained that knowledge gap in agroforestry

standard module and species selection is one of important

constraints in developing agroforestry in Bangladesh.

Sometimes agroforestry professionals are lacking of

agronomic and sociological knowledge to agroforestry

production system. Irrigation facility is the prime

limiting factor for all types of agroforestry practices.

16

APPENDIX

Lai and Ahmed (1993) stated that though a more recent focus

in Bangladesh involves agroforestry development with

landless families on (1) non-stocked public forest land,

(2) revenue khas land and (3) marginal lands, such as

strips along roads and railways. Both government agencies

and non-government organizations (NGOs) are undertaking

agroforestry research and development activities. He

reported that farm size and lack of capital is the common

problem of agroforestry practice in Bangladesh.

Khan (2003), reported that, the main problems of

agroforestry practice in Bangladesh is lack of appropriate

knowledge on agroforestry, proper choosing of tree and crop

species which have no bad effect ones to another, proper

encouragement of the farmer, lack of capital and education

of the farmer are the main problem in Bangladesh.

Bhaskar (2003) enumerated the effects of trees on crop

performance and concluded that the yield reduction of the

crop was due to soil moisture depletion rather than shade-

effect. Further the performance of crops under agroforestry

systems differs with crops and trees associated.

Dhameri (2003) from Yemen was titled “Agroforestry and Soil

Conservation in Yemen” focused on traditional agroforestry

systems. Yemen, with a desertification area of 97% has

traditionally eight agroforestry systems over various

climatic zones. The distinguished delegate appropriately

17

APPENDIX

brought notice of the participants towards the benefits of

agroforestry in addressing sand dune movement which is a

major constraint with regard to agroforestry practices.

Jaiya (2003) indicated that extensive canal irrigation was

practiced in the districts of Sind and Punjab while the

rest of the area was rain-fed. Those areas have no

irrigation facilities; there has a great lack of

agroforestry practice. So, irrigation problem is the most

common problem of agroforestry practice in Pakistan.

2.4. Studies on relationship between selected


confrontation

2.4.1 Age

Rahman (1995) in his study on constraints faced by farmers

in cotton cultivation found that there was no significant

relationship between age of the farmers and their problem

confrontation in cotton cultivation.

Karim (1996) conducted a study on relationships of selected

characteristics of kakrol growers with their problem

confrontation and found that age had no significant

relationship with their problem confrontation.

18

APPENDIX

Islam and Islam (2004) observed that the age of the farmers

had a positive but non-significant relationship with their

problem confrontation in aromatic rice cultivation.

2.4.2 Educational qualification

Raha (1989) in his study found that education of the

farmers had no significant relationship on their irrigation

problem confrontation. Similar finding was obtained by Ali

(1993) and Rashid (1975).

Rahman (1995) found that the education of the farmers had

significant negative effect on their faced constrains in

cotton cultivation. The findings indicated that the higher

the education of the farmers, the lower was their faced

constrains Mansur (1989). Islam (1987) and Kashem (1977)

also obtained similar findings.

Karim (1996) in his study found that education of the

farmers had negative significant relationship with their

problem confrontation.

Islam and Islam (2004) observed that the education level of

the farmers had a positive but non-significant relationship

with their problem confrontation in aromatic rice

cultivation.

2.4.3 Family size

19

APPENDIX

Islam and Islam (2004) observed that family size of the

farmers had a positive but non-significant relationship


cultivation.

2.4.4 Farm Size

Islam (1987) found that the farm size of the farmer had a

significant negative influence on artificial insemination


Mansur (1989) found a negative significant relationship

between farm size of the farmer’s and their problem

confrontation in feeds and feeding cattle.

Rahman (1995) found that the farm size of the farmer had a

significant negative influence on their faced problems in

cotton cultivation.

Karim (1996) conducted a study and found no relationship

between farm size of the farmers and their problem

confrontation. Rashid (1987) obtained similar finding in

his study.

Islam and Islam (2004) observed that farm size of the



cultivation.

20

APPENDIX

2.4.5 Annual Income

Rashid (1975) in his study found that there was no

relationship between income of the farmers and their

agricultural problem confrontation. Though the relationship

was not significant, relevant data indicated a considerable

negative trend between income of the farmers and their

agricultural problem confrontation of the farmer.

Sarker (1983) in his study found that the income of the

farmers and poultry problem confrontation had no

relationship.

Mansur (1989) found that the income of the farmers had no

significant effect on their problem confrontation in feeds

and feeding cattle. He also found a negative trend among

the relationship.

Raha (1989) found that the income of the farmers had no

significant relationship on their irrigation problem

confrontation, but relationship showed a positive tendency.

Rahman (1995) conducted a study and found negative

significant relationship with their problem confrontation

in cotton cultivation. Similar finding was obtained by

Rahman (1995) and Islam (1987).

21

APPENDIX

Karim (1996) found that the annual income of the farmer had

significant negative relationship with their problem

confrontation.

Islam and Islam (2004) observed that annual income of the



cultivation.

2.4.6 Organizational participation

Karim (1974) found a consistent negative trend between

organizational participation of the Union Assistant and

their problem confrontation, the relationship between the

two variables was not statistically significant.

Mansur (1989) in his study indicated that organizational

participation of the farmers had a significant negative


Raha (1989) and Islam (1987) found that there was no

significant relationship between the organizational

participation of the farmers and their problem

confrontation. Rashid (1975) found similar finding.

Rahman (1995) concluded in his study that there was no

relationship between the organizational participation of

the farmers and their faced problems in cotton cultivation.

22

APPENDIX

Karim (1996) found that organizational participation of the

farmers had significant negative relationship with their


Islam and Islam (2004) observed in his study that

organizational participation of the farmers had a positive

but non-significant relationship with their problem

confrontation in aromatic rice cultivation.

2.4.7 Cosmopoliteness

Ali (1993) found that the cosmopoliteness of the rural

youth had significant positive relationship with their

anticipated problem confrontation in self-employment by

undertaking selected agricultural income generating

activities.

Paramanik (2001) found that the cosmopoliteness of the farm

youth had negative correlation with their crop cultivation,

health and recreational problems.

Islam and Islam (2004) observed that cosmopoliteness of the



cultivation.

2.4.8 Training

Alim(1984) studied on Training Needs of` agroforestry in

Bangladesh. According to him the previous in-service

23

APPENDIX

training exposure of the respondents was most significantly

associated with their training needs in the selected area

of agroforestry problem confrontation.

Islam and Islam (2004) observed that training of the

farmers had a negative but non-significant relationship


cultivation.

2.4.9 Knowledge on agroforestry practices

Karim (1974) found that there was no significant

relationship between technical knowledge of the Union

Assistants and their problem confrontation.

Ali (1978) in his study examined the relationship between

the knowledge and problem confrontation and concluded that

the cattle knowledge of the farmers had a significantly

negative effect on their problem confrontation.

Islam (1987) found that knowledge regarding utility of

artificial insemination of' the farmers is positively

related to their artificial insemination problem

confrontation.

Raha (1989) reported that knowledge in irrigating modern

boro paddy of the farmers had no significant relationship

with their irrigation problem confrontation.

24

APPENDIX

Rahman (1995) in his study found that the knowledge in

cotton cultivation of the farmers had a significant

negative effect on their faced constraints in cotton

cultivation. Similar findings were obtained by Mansur

(1989) and Sarker (1983) in their respective study.

Karim (1996) indicated in his study that agricultural

knowledge of the kakrol growers had significant negative


Islam and Islam (2004) observed that agricultural knowledge

of the farmers showed a positive significant relationship


cultivation.

2.4.10 Extension contact

Farouque (1997) studied on youth and observed that

extension contact of rural youth had a significant negative

relationship with their problem confrontation in selected

issues. Pramanik (2001) findings were similar to that of'

Farouque.

Islam and Islam (2004) observed that extension contact of

the farmers had a positive but non-significant relationship


cultivation.

25

APPENDIX

CHAPTER- III

METHODOLOGY

Research methodology is a systematic way to solve a research

problem. It may be understood as a science of studying how

research is done (Kothari, 1990). A researcher needs careful

considerations before conducting a study. The researcher has

great responsibility to clearly describe as to what sorts

of research design, methods and procedures he would follow

26

APPENDIX

in collecting valid and reliable data and to analyze and

interpret those to arrive at correct conclusion. The

methods and procedures followed in conducting this study

have been discussed in this Chapter.

3.1. Design of the study

The present study is a survey research. It was designed to

study on agroforestry and it’s problems.

3.2 The Locale of the Study

The study was conducted at two (2) Unions of Jhikargacha

Upazila under Jessore district. The researchers

deliberately selected 2 unions from the upazila namely

Panisara and Nirbashkhola. The selected study areas are much

improved in agroforestry practices. An approximate distance

of the Panisara and Nirbashkhola unions is about 6 and 12

km respectively from Jhikargacha Upazila sadar of Jessore

District and the distance of Jhikargacha Upazila from

Jessore District is about 13 km.

3.3 Unit of analysis

The unit of analysis of the study was the farm households of

the two selected unions. The major criteria considered for

selection of farm households from the study area were

The farmers of the area use different fruit’s as

well as timber plant as agroforestry species,

They practice agroforestry in order to fulfill the

national demands of fruits, and

27

APPENDIX

They also practice agroforestry for their economic

development.

3.4 Population and Sampling Design

An up-to date list of all farm households (those who

practice agroforestry) of the selected unions were prepared

with the help of the Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO)

working there in. The list comprised of a total number of

250 farm families (Panisara-110 and Nirbashkhola -140).

Thus, the 250 farm households of the selected Unions of the

Jhikargacha Upazila constituted the active population of

the study. To make a representative sample, 40 percent of

the population was selected following proportionate random

sampling technique. Thus, the sample size so drawn stood as

100. Here the farmers indicate the holder or head of a farm

household. The distribution of the population and sample

including the reserve list is shown in Table 3.1.

Sl.No.

Name ofthe

Upazila

Name of theUnions

Name of thevillages

Totalnumber of

farmhousehold(Agrofore

strypractione

rs)

Number ofsampled

respondentsinterviewedfrom eachof thevillager(40%)

Nirbashkhola

Nowali 35 14Bolla 25 10Sadipur 8 3

Kanairali 20 8

28

APPENDIX

1. Jhikargacha

Ashingri 25 10Nishchantapu

r12 5

Shiordah 15 6Sub-total 140 56

Panisara Panisara 30 12Taura 10 4

Narangali 5 2Borni 5 2

Mohinikathi 23 9Begiatala 30 12

Roghunathnagar

7 3

Sub total 110 44Total

1 2 14 250 100

Table 3.1. Distribution of population and sample of

agroforestry farmers in the study area.

3.5 Instrument for collection of Data

An interview schedule was used as the research instrument in

order to collect relevant information from the respondents.

The interview schedule was carefully designed keeping the

objectives of the study in mind. The interview schedule

contained both closed and open-ended questions. Simple and

direct questions were included in the interview schedule.

Development of the interview schedule involved two phases.

At the initial phase, the interview schedule basically

aimed at a careful minute search of the practices of

agroforestry by the farmers of Jhikargacha Upazila. People

in the study area discussed spontaneously among themselves

and explored out the most viable problems of agroforestry

practices. In addition to that, the researchers visited the29

APPENDIX

whole study area and physically talked to the most

innovative and experienced farmers of the Upazila. This

extensive and laborious survey coupled with the information

accumulated in the initially-constructed interview schedule

helped the researchers to make a list of the name of farmers

of Jhikargacha Upazila. However, before talking final

decision on agroforestry practices, the researchers

consulted with several scientists, academicians,

researchers and Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO) to make

sure whether the identified data were meaningful. After

preparation of the interview schedule, it was pre-tested

with 10 farmers, of the Jhikargacha Upazila. The pre-test

result helped the researchers to examine the suitability of

different statements. Based upon the pre-test experience,

necessary correction and modification were made in the

schedule before it was run for final data collection. During

modification of the interview schedule the researchers

incorporated vulnerable suggestions from their research

supervisor into it.

3.6 Collection of Data

Data for this study were collected by the researchers

themselves through face-to-face interview using an

interview schedule during September 15 to October 12, 2008.

Before going to make an interview, appointments with the

interviewees were made in advance with the help of the

concerned Sub Assistant Agriculture officer (SAAO). All

possible efforts were made to explain the purpose of the

30

APPENDIX

study to the respondents in order to get valid and

pertinent information from them. The agroforestry farmers

of the selected areas helped the investigators greatly in

collecting information. The researchers also obtained

cooperation from the members of the Union Parishad of

respective unions, local leaders and school teachers,

members of different rural youth club during collection of

data. At the beginning of the interview with any

respondent, the researchers took all possible care to

establish rapport with them so that they did not hesitate

to furnish proper responses to the questions and

statements in the schedule. The questions were explained

and clarified whenever any respondent felt difficulty in

understanding properly. Moreover, at the time of data

collection, the researchers were also careful about side

talking and tried to avoid that problem tactfully. After

completion of interview, each statement was checked and

verified to make sure that answer to each item had been

properly recorded. The researchers received full co-

operation from the respondents during the time of

interview. The entire process of collection of data took 28

days.

3.7 Specification and Measurement of the Variables

In survey research the specification and measurement of the

variables constitute an important task. A research

hypothesis contains at least two elements, an independent

variable and a dependent variable. The researchers keeping

31

APPENDIX

all these in mind took adequate care in selecting the

variables of the study. Before the onset of the study, the

researchers visited the study area several times and talked

to the farmers intimately. Moreover, by staying in the

study area for sometime, they were able to observe the

personal, socio-economic, socio-cultural and

psychological factors of the farming community which the

researchers assumed might have influenced on the behavior

pattern of the farmers. Based on this practical knowledge,

side by side an extensive literature review and discussions

with relevant experts and academicians, the researchers

selected thirteen socio-economic characteristics of these

respondents as independent variables and problem

confrontation as dependent variable for this study.

3.7.1 Age

The age of a respondent was measured in terms of actual

years from his birth to the time of interview on the basis

of his statement. A score of one (1) was assigned for each

year of his age. It appears in item no. I in the interview

schedule (Appendix A).

3.7.2 Education

The level of education of a respondent was measured by the

years of schooling. If a respondent did not know how to

read and write, his education score was taken as zero (0).

A score of one was given to that respondent who could sign

his name only. Besides, the respondent got actual score for

32

APPENDIX

his every year of schooling, i.e. 1 for class one, 2 for

class two. Thus the level of education score of a respondent

was determined from response item number 2 in the interview


3.7.3 Experience in farming

The experience in farming of a respondent was measured by

the length covered from his starting year in farming to

the time of interview on the basis of his statement. A

score of one (1) was assigned for each year of his

experience. It appears in item number 3 in the interview


3.7.4 Experience in agroforestry practices

The experience in agroforestry practices of a respondent

was measured by the length covered from his starting years

in agroforestry practices to the time of interview on the

basis of his statement. A score of one (1) was assigned

for each year of his experience. It appears in item number

4 in the interview schedule (Appendix A).

3.7.5. Family size

Family size of a respondent was measured in terms of

number of members of family who live under same roof and

share same kitchen (item no. 5 in the interview schedule;

Appendix A)

3.7.6. Farm size

33

APPENDIX

The farm size of the respondents was computed in hectares

using the following formula:

FS= A1+A2+ 1/2 (A3+ A4) +A5-A6+A7

Where,

FS= Farm size

AI= Homestead

A2= Own land under own

cultivation

A3= Land taken from others on

borga

A4= Land given to others on

borga

A5= Land taken from others on

lease

A6= Land given others on

lease

A7= Others

Farm size is shown in item number 6 in the interview


3.7.7 Total land under farming

Total land under farming means total land under

agroforestry practices or areas under both in ail or in the

field with crops which were computed in hectares. In the

same time the land which is covered only crops and which

34

APPENDIX

are potential for agroforestry practices are also computed

in hectares in the study area.

Total land under farming are shown in item number 7 in the

interview schedule (Appendix A).

3.7.8. Annual income

Annual income of the family of a respondent was measured in

taka on the basis of his total yearly earnings from

agriculture and non-agricultural sources. The yields of all

the crops in the preceding year were noted. Then all the

yields were converted into cash income according to the

prevailing market price. The price of other enterprises

(i.e. cows, goats, poultry, fishes etc.) was also added to

the price. Earnings of each respondent himself and other

members of their family from different sources (like

service, business, and labor) were included in

calculating the income. Yearly earnings of all family

members from farming and non-agriculture sources were added

together to obtain total family income. Data obtained in

response to item no. 8 in the interview schedule were

used to determine the income of the respondents

(Appendix A).

3.7.9. Organizational participation

Organizational participation of a respondent was measured

on the basis of the nature of his involvement in different

organizations found operating in the study area. The

researchers identified 9 organizations in the study area

35

APPENDIX

as shown in item no. 9 in the interview schedule (Appendix

A).

Organizational participation scores were assigned in the

following manner for activities of individual respondents

in each group or organization:

Nature of participation Scores assigned

Not participated 0

Ordinary Member 1

Executive committee member 2

Executive committee officer 3

A respondent could be attached to a number of such

organizations, and thus his score was determined by adding

up the weighted scores for his participation in all the

organizations.

3.7.10. Cosmopoliteness

Cosmopoliteness of a respondent was measured in terms of

his nature of visit to the five different places

(relative or other known persons located outside of his

own village, union parishad office, own/other Upazila sadar,

own/other District sadar and Capital and other cities)

external to his own social system. Following Islam et al.

1996, four point rating scales were used to compute the

cosmopoliteness score as presented below:

Place of visit Nature of visit Weightage

1. Relative or otherpersons located out

Not even once a month 01-2 times a month 1

36

APPENDIX

side of his ownvillage

5-8 times a month 2>9 times a month 3

2. Union parishad office Not even once a month 01-2 times a month 13-4 times a month 25-9 times a month 3

3. Own/ Other UpazilaSadar

Not even once a month 0

1-2 times a month 13-7 times a month 2>8 times a month 3

4. Own/ Other districtsadar

Not even once a year 01-3 times a year 12-3 times a month 26 times a month 3

5. Capital and othercities

Not even once a year 05-7 times a year 18-9 times a year 23 times a month 3

The cosmopoliteness score of a respondent was calculated by

adding together the scores obtained for his visits to each

of the five types of places as shown in item no. 10 in the

interview schedule (Appendix A). The scores of a respondent

could range from ‘0’ to 15 where ‘0’ indicating no

cosmopoliteness and 15 indicating highest cosmopoliteness.

3.7.11. Training

Training score of the respondents was measured depending

on the number of training he had received. For computing

training score (1) was given for receiving 1-3 days

37

APPENDIX

training. Respondents, who had received 4-6, 7-9, 10-12,

and >12days, were assigned a score of 2,3,4,5 respectively.

The added score was noted. The score of zero (0) was

assigned if one did not have any training. It had been

shown in the item number 11 in the interview schedule

(Appendix A).

3.7.12. Knowledge on agroforestry practices

To measure the knowledge of respondent on agroforestry

practices 10 item scale was included in the interview

schedule (item number 12 in the interview schedule, Appendix

A). Each respondent was asked to answer all the 10

questions. Each of the questions was assigned a score of

one irrespective of their hardness or difficulties to

answer by the respondents. Thus the whole questions

comprised of 10 marks. Each respondent was given a

particular number depending on the percentage of

appropriateness of answer to the question. The total score

obtained by a respondent was calculated by summing up the

scores against each of the 10 questions.

3.7.13. Extension contact

In this study, the extension contact score was computed for

each respondent on the basis of the extent of his contact

with selected media as ascertained from his responses to

question no. 13 in the interview schedule (Appendix A). A

number of 16 sources information were included in the

interview schedule. Each respondent was asked to indicate

38

APPENDIX

the extent of his contact with each of the 16 sources. The

frequency of contact was classified into 5 categories such

as regular, frequent, occasional, rare and never and a

weight of 4, 3, 2, 1 and 0 was assigned to these categories

respectively.

3.7.14. Problem confrontation

In this study, problem confrontation score was computed for

each respondent as ascertained from his responses to

question no. 14 in the interview schedule (Appendix A). Each

respondent was asked to indicate his problems on selected

four broad areas (Typologies) related to agroforestry

practices such as (1) Tree- crop competition (2)

Environmental problem (3) Socio- economic problem (4)

Other problem. Each of the four broad areas consists of four

problems statement (item no. 14 in the interview schedule).

Ultimately 16 problems related to agroforestry practices

were included in the interview schedule. Each respondent was

asked to identify the problems he has faced along with the

extent of his problem confrontation against each of the

statements. The extent of problem confrontation was rated

as highly severe, moderately severe, less severe and not at

all and the weights for these rating scales were assigned as

3, 2, 1 and 0 respectively. The problem confrontation score

of a respondent was determined by summing the scores of all

the problems included in item no. 14 in the interview

schedule.

39

APPENDIX

3.7.14.1. Severity of problem

The severity of a problem was determined based on problem

confrontation index (PCI). The PCI was determined by using

the following formula,

PCI = N1 × 3 + N2 × 2 + N3 × 1+ N4 × 0

Where,

N1 = Number of respondents confronted the problems and rated

as highly severe.


as moderately severe.


as less severe.

N4 = Number of respondents did not confronted the problem at

all.

For example, among 100 respondents, 28, 41, 23 and 8

respondents indicated the extent of problem regarding

problem number (A.1.) as highly severe, moderately severe,

less severe and not at all respectively. Thus the PCI for

problem number (A.1.) is

PCI = 28 ×3 + 41 × 2 + 23 × 1 + 8 × 0

= 84+82+23 +0

= 189

The PCI for each problem could range from 0 to 300. Where 0,

1-100, 101-200, 201-300, indicate not at all, less severe,

moderately severe and highly severe problem respectively.

3.7.14.2. Level of occurrence of problem (LOP)

The level of occurrence of a problem was determined by the

40

APPENDIX

number of citation (respondents). The level of occurrence

of a problem could range from 0 to 100 (as the number of

respondent is 100). Where 0 indicate not at all a problem

and 100 indicate most common problem.

3.8 Data processing and analysis

Collected data were compiled, coded, tabulated for

processing and analysis in accordance with the objectives

of the study. For arriving at a meaningful conclusion,

tabular presentation of data was intensively used. The SPSS-

12 computer package program was used to analysis the

data. Descriptive statistics like number, percentage,

range, rank order, mean and standard deviation were used in

describing the selected independent and dependent variables

of the study.

Throughout the study 5 percent (0.05) level of

significance was used for rejecting the null hypothesis.

3.9 Categorization of Respondents

For describing the various independents and dependent

variables, the respondents were classified into various

categories as presented in result and discussion chapter. In

developing categories, the investigators were guided by the

nature of data and general consideration prevailing in the

social system. The procedure and the effect of

categorization of a particular variable have been

41

APPENDIX

discussed while describing the variable in the subsequent

sections of Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Findings of the study have been presented and discussed

under the following sections according to objectives: (1)

characteristics of the respondents, (2) problem

confrontation in agroforestry practices, and (3)

relationship between the selected characteristics of the

respondents and their problem confrontation.

42

APPENDIX

4.1 Characteristics of the Respondents

Behavior of an individual is largely influenced by his

characteristics. The characteristics were age, education,

experience in farming, experience in agroforestry

practices, family size, farm size, annual income,

organizational participation, cosmopoliteness, training,

knowledge on agroforestry practices and extension contact.

4.1.1 Age

The age of the respondents in the study area ranged from 24

to 75 years, the average being 45.59 years with a standard

deviation of 12.19711. Based on the observed age, the

respondents were classified into three categories as it

appears in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Distribution of respondents according to their

age

Categories

Score(years)

Respondents (N=100) Mean StandarddeviationNumber Percentage

(%)Youngaged

Up to 35 32 3245.59

12.19711Middleaged

36-50 35 35

Oldaged

Above 50 33 33

Total 100 100 Min.Max.2475

Data furnished in the Table 4.1 reveal that the majority

(68%) of the respondents were middle to old aged group as43

APPENDIX

compared to 32% young. This leads to the understanding that

the middle to old aged people are more interested in

concerning the agroforestry practices. This also means that

agroforestry practice is an important area of income

generation enterprise for the rural people of the country.

4.1.2 Education

Scores of level of education of the respondents ranged from

‘0’ to 18 with the mean and standard deviation being 7.74

and 4.50, respectively. On the basis of education, the

respondents were classified into five categories as shown

in Table 4. 2.


level of education

Categories Score Respondents (N=100) Mean Standarddeviation

Number Percentage(%)

Illiterate 0 4 4

7.74 4.50

Primary 1-5 25 25Secondary 6-10 53 53HigherSecondary

11-12 6 6

AboveHigherSecondary

>12 12 12

Total 100 100 MinMax 018

44

APPENDIX

Data presented in Table 4.2 demonstrate that the majority

(53%) of the respondents had secondary level of education

followed by primary level (25%) above higher secondary

level (12%) and higher secondary level (6%). Only 4 percent

respondents were illiterate. As it is found that most of

the respondents (96 %) are literate and having primary to

above higher secondary level of education, they are able to

practice agroforestry provided some problems.

4.1.3. Experience in farming

A remarkable variation (1-60 years) was found in the

experience in farming of the respondents having an average

and standard deviation of 24.79 and 12.19675 respectively.

On the basis of experience in farming the respondents were

classified into three categories as shown in Table 4.3.


experience in farming

Categories Score Respondents(N=100)

Mean Standarddeviation


Low experience <16 26 2624.79

12.19675

Mediumexperience

16-35 58 58

High experience >35 16 16Total 100 100 Min.

Max.160

Data presented in Table 4.3 reveal that majority (58%) of

the respondents had medium experience followed by low

experience (26 %). Only 16 percent respondents had high45

APPENDIX

experience in farming. Thus 84 percent have low to medium

farming experience.

4.1.4. Experience in agroforestry practices

The experience of the respondents in agroforestry practices

varied from 1 to 40 years having an average and standard

deviation of 11.06 and 7.64466, respectively. On the basis

of experience in agroforestry practices the respondents

were classified into three categories as shown in Table

4.4.


experience in agroforestry practices

Categories

Score Respondents (N=100) Mean Standarddeviation


Lowexperience

<4 15 1511.06 7.6446

6Mediumexperience

4-15 65 65

Highexperience

>15 20 20

Total 100 100 Min.Max.140

The findings indicate that most (85%) of the respondents

are medium to high experienced in agroforestry practices.

4.1.5 Family size

46

APPENDIX

The family size of the respondents ranged from 2 to 12 with

an average 5.35 and standard deviation was 1.92996. On the

basis of their family size the respondents were classified

into three categories, which are shown in Table 4.5.


family size



Number

Percentage

Small sizedfamily

1-4 43 43

5.35 1.92996

Medium sizedfamily

5-6 36 36

Large sizedfamily

>6 21 21

Total 100 100 MinMax212

It is revealed that more than two-fifths (43%) of the

respondents maintained small sized family compared to

medium (36%). The average family size (5.35) of the

respondents was lower than the national average of 5.6

(BBS, 1999). It means that the people in the study area are

more conscious about their family size and population

growth.

4.1.6 Farm size

Farm size of the respondents in the study area varied from

0.17 to 6.27 ha with an average of 1.5038 ha and standard

deviation of 1.26209. Based on the farm size the

47

APPENDIX

respondents were classified into five categories as

presented in the Table 4.6.


farm size

Categories

Score(ha)

Respondents (N=100) Mean Standarddeviation

Number Percentage

Landless

<0.20 1 1

1.211 1.46004Margina

l0.20-0.40

7 7

Small 0.41-1.0 37 37Medium 1.01-

3.0345 45

Large >3.03 10 10Total 100 100 100 Min

Max0.176.27

Data presented in Table 4.6 show that the highest

proportion (45 %) of the respondents had medium farm as

compared to 37% small farm and 7% marginal and 10% had

large farm. Only 1% respondents were landless.

4.1.7 Area potential for agroforestry practices

Potential area for agroforestry practices of the

respondents in the study area varied from 0.02 to 4.00 ha

with an average of 0.9480 ha and standard deviation of

0.88077. Based on the potential area for agroforestry

practices the respondents were classified into different

categories as presented in the Table 4.7.

48

APPENDIX


area potential for agroforestry practices

Categories Score(ha)


Number Percentage

Smallamount ofland

Up to1.0

68 68

0.9480 0.88077

Mediumamount ofland

1.01-3.03

27 27

Largeamount ofland

>3.03 5 5

Total 100 100 100 MinMax0.024.00

Data presented in Table 4.7 show that majority (68 %) of

the respondents had small amount of land area potential for

agroforestry practices as compared to 27% medium land area

potential for agroforestry practices. Only one-twentieth

(5%) of the respondents had large amount of land potential

for agroforestry practices. Thus most of the respondents

(95%) had small to medium amount of land potential for

agroforestry practices.

49

APPENDIX

4.1.8 Area under agroforestry practices

Area under agroforestry practices of the respondents in the

study area varied from 0.04 to 2.40 ha with an average of

0.4728 ha and standard deviation of 0.46993. Based on the

area under agroforestry practices the respondents were

classified into different categories as presented in the

Table 4.8.


area under agroforestry practices

Categories Score(ha)

Respondents(N=100)

Mean StandarddeviationNumber Percent

ageSmallamount ofland

Up to1.0

89 89

0.4728 0.46993

Mediumamount ofland

1.01-3.03

11 11

Largeamount ofland

>3.03 0 0

Total 100 100 100 MinMax0.042.40

Data presented in Table 4.8 show that most (89%) of the

respondents had small amount of land area under

agroforestry practices as compared to 11% medium land area

under agroforestry practices. None of the respondents

allotted/used large land area under agroforestry practices.

The amount of land used for agroforestry has the similarity

50

APPENDIX

with amount of land potential for agroforestry practices

(Table 4.1.7 and table 8.1.8).

4.1.9 Annual income

The annual income (from agricultural + non-agricultural

sources) of the respondents ranged from 25,000 to 3,00,000

Tk. with the mean and standard deviation of 1,33,550 and

75,101.05, respectively. On the basis of their annual

income, the respondents were classified into three

categories as shown in Table 4.9.


annual income

Categories

Score(Tk.)

Respondents (N=100) Mean StandarddeviationNumber Percentag

eLowincome

<50,000

7 7

1,33,550 75101.05Mediumincome

50,000-1,00,000

36 36

Highincome

>1,00,000

57 57

Total 100 100 Min.Max. 25,0003,00,000

Data furnished in Table 4.9 reveal that most (93 %) of the

respondents belonged to medium to high income group, while

only 7% of the respondent belong to low income category.

Since 93% of the respondents had medium to high income, it

51

APPENDIX

is logical to assume that they had changed their economical

status through agroforestry practices.

4.1.10 Organizational participation

The scores of organizational participation of the

respondents ranged from ‘0’ to 5 with an average of 1.10

and standard deviation of 1.28315. Depending on the

individual participation scores, the respondents were

grouped into the following categories as shown in Table

4.10.


score of organizational participation


Mean StandarddeviationNumber Percenta

geNoparticipation

0 43 43

1.10 1.28315Low 1-

1057 57

Medium 11-20 00 00High >20 00 00Total 100 100 Mi

n. 0

Max. 5

Analysis of data presented in Table 4.10 shows that

majority (57 %) of the respondents had low organizational

participation. However, the rest (43 %) of the respondents

had no organizational participation.

52

APPENDIX

4.1.11 Cosmopoliteness

The computed cosmopoliteness scores of the respondents

ranged from 1 to 12 against possible range of 0-15, with an

average score of 6.94 and standard deviation being 2.44048.

Based on the calculated scores, the respondents were

categorized into four groups as shown in Table 4.11.


score of cosmopoliteness

Categories Score Respondents (N=100) Mean Standarddeviation

Number Percentage

NoCosmopoliteness

0 00 00

6.94

2.44048Low 1-5 33 33

Medium 6-10 59 59High >10 8 8Total 100 100 Min

. 1

Max. 12

The information presented in the Table 4.11 indicates that

majority (59 %) of the respondents had medium

cosmopoliteness as compared to 33% had low cosmopoliteness

and only a few respondents had high cosmopoliteness (8 %).

Cosmopoliteness enhances the opportunity for an individual

to have himself to contact with outside information

sources. It is, therefore, possible that an individual with

substantial cosmopoliteness would have an augmented

53

APPENDIX

possession of accumulated knowledge, experience and

problem-solving means.

4.1.12 Training

Training scores of the respondents ranged from 0 to 5 with

an average of 1.7 and standard deviation of 2.04248.

Depending on the number of training received, the

respondents were grouped into the following four categories

as shown in the table 4.12.


training

CategoriesScore


Number Percentage

Notraining

0 53 53

1.7 2.04248Lowtraining

1-5 47 47

Mediumtraining

6-10 00 00

Hightraining

>10 00 00

Total 100 100 Min.0

Max.5

Majority (53 %) of the respondents had no training whereas

less than half (47 %) of the respondents had low training.

As the greater portion (53 %) of the respondents didn’t

54

APPENDIX

take any training, they might not be aware of problems on

agroforestry practices.

4.1.13 Knowledge on agroforestry practices

The knowledge on agroforestry practices scores of the

respondents ranged from 0 to 10 with a mean and standard

deviation of 7.945 and 1.40866 respectively. On the basis

of their knowledge on agroforestry practices score, the

respondents were classified into three categories as shown

in Table 4. 13.


knowledge on agroforestry practices


Mean StandarddeviationNumber Percent

ageLow knowledge onagroforestrypractices

Up to4

0 07.945

1.40866

Medium knowledgeon agroforestrypractices

4-8 62 62

High knowledge onagroforestrypractices

>8 38 38

55

APPENDIX

Min

4

Max

10

Total 100 100

Data presented in Table 4.13 reveal that majority (62 %) of

the respondents possessed to medium knowledge on

agroforestry practices, while about 38 % of respondents had

high knowledge on agroforestry practices.

4.1.14 Extension Contact

Farmers use various information sources and media to a

different extent in order to receive agroforestry practice

information. Extension contact scores of the respondents

ranged from 10 to 45, with an average of 27.35 and standard

deviation 9.25549. Based on the computed extension contact

score, the respondents were classified into four categories

as shown in Table 4.14.


extension contact

Categories Score

Respondents(N=100)


Number Percentage

No contact 0 00 00

27.35 9.25549Low contact 1-10 1 1Mediumcontact

11-20

31 31

Highcontact

>20 68 68

56

APPENDIX

Total 100 100 Min.10

Max.45

Deliberate analysis of the data presented in Table 4.14

shows that majority (68 %) of the respondents had high

extension media exposure as compared to 31 percent had

medium exposure. Only one farmer had low extension contact.

There was no farmer who had no extension contact. Farmers’

exposure to a variety of information sources usually guides

them to identify problems in different farming practices

like agroforestry.

4.3. Problem Confrontation in agroforestry practices

4.3.1. Identification of Problems in Agroforestry Practices

There are so many problems in agroforestry practices.

However the respondents under study confronted 16 problems

related to agroforestry practices under four broad

typologies (Table 4.15). The findings of the study have the

harmony with findings of several researchers ( Hasan and

Alam 2006; Khisa ,1999; Hibbs,1994).

4.3.2. Severity and level of occurrence of the problem

The severity of the problems was determined based on PCI

while the level of occurrence of problem was determined

based on the number of respondents (citation) faced the

problems.

It is usually assumed that higher is the severity of the

problem, the higher is level of occurrence. The findings of

57

APPENDIX

the study have the harmony with this argument. Because the

findings of the study indicate that the problems under

serial number 12 & 16 are the highly severe as well as the

highly common problems while problems under serial number 4

and 6 are less common as well as less severe. The problems

under serial number 5 and 8 are moderately common as well

as moderately severe.

Provided the harmony of findings with the argument, there

also exist some anomalies between severity of the problem

and level of occurrence of the problem. Though the problems

under serial number 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 14 & 15 are the

highly common problems as it faced by the maximum

respondents but the PCIs do not allow them as the highly

severe problems (Table 4.15, Table 4.16 and Table 4.17).

Considering the typologies of the problems socio-economic

and other problems were the highly common but they were

moderately severe area/typology of problems. Only tree -

crop competition related problems were moderately common as

well as moderately severe (Table 4.15, Table 4.16 and

Table 4.17).

Table 4.15: Problem Confrontation Index (PCI)

Sl.No.

Types of Problems PCI(LOP)

Rank

A Tree-crop competition relatedproblems

102.50(66)

1 Competition for light 189 (92) 4th 2 Competition for nutrient 76(67) 12th

58

APPENDIX

3 Competition for space 112 (77) 10th 4 Competition for moisture 33 (28) 15th

B Environmental problem 99(57.25)

5 Harbor of insect & pest 112(62) 9th

6 Allelopathic effect 28(26) 16th 7 Damaging land by quick growing

roots139 (79) 5th

8 Falling of trees on crops 117 (62) 7th C Socio-economic problem 151.25

(79.5)9 Lack of labor 71 (57) 13th

10 Unavailability of land 113 (76) 8th

11 Low production than mono-crop 191 (96) 3rd

12 Problems of thieves 230 (89) 2nd

D Other problems 144.5(69.75)

13 Lack of marketing facilities 47 (37) 14th

14 Lack of adequate knowledge 105 (72) 11th

15 Unavailability of qualityseedlings

133 (71) 6th

16 Lack of fertilizer, pesticide &fungicide

293 (99) 1st

Note: *The figures in the parenthesis indicate the number

of respondents’ (citation) confronted the problems which

ultimately indicates the level of occurrence.

59

APPENDIX

Table 4.16: Severity of problems based on Problem

Confrontation Index (PCI)

Categories Distribution of problemsIndividual problem Problem typologiesNumber (Serialnumber accordingto Table 4.13)

Percent

Number(typologies)

Percent

Lesssevere (upto 100)

5 (2,4,6,9 and13)

33.25 1 ( B:Environmentalproblem )

25

ModeratelySevere( 101-200)

9 (1, 3, 5, 7,8, 10, 11, 14and 15)

56.25 3 ( A, C & D:Tree-cropcompetition,Socio-economicproblem &Other problems)

75

Highlysevere(>200)

2 (12 and 16) 12.50 N/A 0

Total 16 100 4 100

Table 4.17: Level of occurrence of problems based on number

of respondents (citation)

Categories(Citation)

Distribution of problemsIndividualproblem

Problem typologies

Number(Serial)

Percent

Number(typologies)

Percent

Less common (up to 33)

2 (4 and6)

12.5 N/A 0

Moderatelycommon (34-66)

4 (5, 8, 9 and 13 )

25 A & B ( Tree-cropcompetition &Environmentalproblem )

50

Highlycommon (>66)

10 (1, 2,3, 7, 10,

62.5 C & D ( Socio-economic

50

60

APPENDIX

11, 12, 14,15, & 16)

problem & Otherproblems )

Total 20 100 4 100

4.3.3. Problems confrontation of the respondents

The score of problem confrontation ranged from 9 to 37 with

a mean of 19.93 and having standard deviation of 5.93. The

respondents were categorized into low, medium and high

problem confrontation categories. The distribution appears

in Table 4.18.


score of problem confrontation



Number Percentage

Low problemconfrontation

Up to20

58 58

19.93 5.93Mediumproblemconfrontation

21-40 42 42

High problemconfrontation

>40 00 00

Total 100 100 Min9

Max.37

61

APPENDIX

Data presented in Table 4.18 reveal that majority (58 %) of

the respondents faced low problem & the rest (42%) of the

respondents faced medium problem. None of the respondents

fall into high problem confrontation category.

4.4. Relationship between the selected characteristics of

the respondents and their problem confrontation

The purpose of this section is to examine and describe the

relationship between the dependent variable (problem

confrontation) and the independent variables (the selected

characteristics of the respondents). To explore the

relationship between the selected characteristics of

farmers and their problem confrontation, "Pearson's

Product-Moment Correlation Co-efficient 'r' was used which

has been shown in the Table 4.19.

Table 4.19: Relationship between selected characteristics

of farmer and their problem confrontation

62

APPENDIX

Sl.No.

Independent variable(Selected characteristics)

Dependentvariable

r-value

1 Age

Problemconfrontation

0.0 422 Education -0.1113 Experience in farming 0.0584 Experience in agroforestry

practices0.440**

5 Family size 0.1806 Farm size -0.1547 Area potential for

agroforestry practices-0.196

8 Area under agroforestrypractices

-0.152

9 Annual income -0.218*10 Organizational

participation0.010

11 Cosmopoliteness -0.220*12 Training -0.12513 Knowledge on agroforestry

practices-0.310**

14 Extension contact 0.430**

* = Significant at 5% level

** = Significant at 1% level

Among the fourteen selected characteristics of the

respondents, only experience in agroforestry practices and

extension contact showed a positive significant

relationship with their problem confrontation. It means

that the higher is experience on agroforestry practices and

extension contact the higher is the ability of the

respondents to identify the problems in agroforestry

practices. The age, education, experience in farming,63

APPENDIX

family size and organizational participation of the

respondents showed a positive but non-significant

relationship with their problem confrontation. The three

characteristics like income, cosmopoliteness and knowledge

on agroforestry practices showed a negative but significant

relationship. It means that the higher is the income,

cosmopoliteness and knowledge on agroforestry practices;

the lower is the problem confrontation of the respondents.

The rest five characteristics such as education, farm size,

area potential for agroforestry practices, area under

agroforestry practices and training showed a negative but

non-significant relationship.

The findings indicate that the null hypotheses were

accepted in case of all selected characteristics except

experience in agroforestry practices, income,

cosmopoliteness, knowledge on agroforestry practices and

extension contact.

64

APPENDIX

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

The study was conducted at Jhikargacha upazila under

Jessore district. The researchers deliberately selected 2

unions from the upazila. The selected unions of Jhikargacha

upazila were Panisara and Nirbashkhola. An approximate

distance of the union of Panisara and Nirbashkhola from

65

APPENDIX

Jhikargacha upazila is about 6 and 12 km respectively. An

up-to date list of all farm households of the selected

villages were prepared with the help of the Upazila

Agriculture officer (UAO) working therein. The list

comprised a total number of 250 farm families (Panisara-

110 and Nirbashkhola- 140). Thus, the 250 farm households

of two selected unions of the upazila (Jhikargacha)

constituted the active population of the study. To make a

representative sample, 40 percent of the population was

selected following proportionate random sampling technique.

Thus, the sample size so drawn stood as 100.

Characteristics of the farmers

Personal characteristics

The majority (68 %) of the respondents were middle to old-

aged as compared to 32 percent old. The majority (53 %) of

the respondents had secondary level of education followed

by primary level (25 %), above higher secondary level (12

%) and higher secondary level (6 %). Majority (58 %) of the

respondents had medium experience followed by low level

experience (26 %) in farming. Only 16 percent respondents

had high experience in farming. Most (85 %) of the

respondents are medium to high experienced in agroforestry

practice. Majority (62 %) of the respondents possessed to

medium knowledge on agroforestry, while about more than one

third (38 %) of respondents had high knowledge on

agroforestry practice.

66

APPENDIX

Socioeconomic characteristics

More than two-fifths (43 %) of the respondents’ maintained

small sized family compared to medium (36 %) and high

(21%). The highest proportion (45 %) of the respondents had

medium farm as compared to 37 percent small farm and 7

percent marginal and 1 percent landless. Only 10 percent

respondents had large farm. The annual income (from non-

agricultural + agricultural sources) of the respondents

ranged from 25,000 to 3,00,000 Tk. with the mean income

1,33,550 Tk. Most (93 %) of the respondents belonged to

medium to high income group, while 7% of the respondents

belong to low income category. More than half (57 %) of the

respondents had low organizational participation. However,

the rest (43 %) of the respondents had no organizational

participation. Majority (59 %) of the respondents had

medium cosmopoliteness as compared to 33 percent had low

cosmopoliteness and only a few respondents had high

cosmopoliteness (8 %). Majority (53 %) of the respondents

had no training whereas less than half (47 %) of the

respondents had low training. Majority (68 %) of the

respondents had high extension media exposure as compared

to 31 percent had medium exposure. There was no farmer who

had no extension contact and a very few farmer (1 %) had

low extension media exposure.

Problem Confrontation in Agroforestry Practices

A number of 16 problems under four broad typologies were

identified in agroforestry practices faced by the

67

APPENDIX

respondents in the study area. Among the identified 16

problems, 2 problems were highly severe, 9 problems were

moderately severe and 5 problems were less severe while

highly common problems were 10 in number. Among the rest

problems 2 were less common and 4 problems were moderately

common. Highly common areas of problems (typologically)

faced by the respondents were socio-economic problems and

other problems but from typological consideration none of

the problems (typologies) were highly severe.

Majority (58 %) of the respondents faced low problem & the

rest (42%) of the respondents faced medium problem.

Experience in agroforestry practices and extension contact

showed a positive significant relationship with their

problem confrontation, while annual income ,

cosmopoliteness and knowledge on agroforestry practices

showed a significant but negative relationship.

CONCLUSION

Findings of the study and the logical interpretation of

their meaning in the light of other relevant facts prompted

the researchers to draw the following conclusions:

68

APPENDIX

Among the identified 16 problems in agroforestry practices,

2 problems were highly severe, 9 problems were moderately

severe and 5 problems were less severe while highly common

problems were 10 in number. Among the rest problems 2 were

less common and 4 problems were moderately common. Highly

common areas of problems (typologically) faced by the

respondents were socio-economic problems and other problems

but none of the typologies were highly severe.

Majority (58 %) of the respondents faced low problem & the

rest (42%) of the respondents faced medium problem

confrontation category.

Experience in agroforestry practices and extension contact

showed a positive significant relationship while annual

income, cosmopoliteness and knowledge on agroforestry

practices showed negative significant relationship with

their problem confrontation.

69

APPENDIX

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Policy Implications

Based on the findings and conclusions, the following

recommendations are proposed for maintaining the production

and marketing of agricultural produces:

1. It was revealed that NGO workers and farms of others are

the communication media highly used by the farmers.

Upazila Agriculture Officer (UAO) and sub Assistant

Agriculture Officer (SAAO) had little communication with

the farmers of the locality. Therefore, more activity of

the government employees of the agriculture office can

help the farmers in solving various problems related to

the agricultural production. As farmers depend on the NGO

workers for the tree plantation and other type of

agricultural production related topics, GO-NGO

collaborations may be sought to utilize the agricultural

production issues.

70

APPENDIX

2. The present study has disclosed that most of the farmers

in the study area are almost part-time farmers since they

work for few hours in their everyday farming. Perhaps,

most of them have other earning means in addition to

agroforestry practices. If farmers take agroforestry

practices, as their profession the production of the

agricultural produces will increase considerably.

Therefore, it is recommended that the concerned

authorities should undertake required initiatives for

introducing agroforestry practices as the income

generating activity (IGA) in the study area.

3. Market for agricultural products is an important factor.

Market price of the agricultural products fluctuates as

and often which greatly affects the benefit of the

farmers. Therefore it is recommended that the concerned

authorities should take into active consideration about

local and national market for agricultural products.

Recommendations for further studies

This small piece of study being conducted in a specific

location cannot provide all information for proper

understanding about the problems in agroforestry practices

71

APPENDIX

in Bangladesh. Future studies should be undertaken covering

more dimensions in the related matters. The following

recommendations are suggested in this connection:

1. The present study was conducted in two selected unions of

Jhikargacha upazila under Jessore district. Similar

attempts may be undertaken in other parts of the country

to investigate agroforestry practices and to identify the

related problems and relevant aspects in the light of

agricultural production. Findings of this study need

verification by similar research in other parts of the

country.

2. The present investigation explored the relationships of

some of the selected personal, socio-economic, socio-

cultural and psychological characteristics of the farmers

with their problem confrontation in agroforestry

practices. Further, research should be conducted to

explore relationship of other characteristics of the

farmers with their problem confrontation in agroforestry

practices.

3. Findings indicate that there was no significant

relationship between age, education, experience in

farming, family size, farm size, area under agroforestry

practices, area potential for agroforestry practices,

72

APPENDIX

training and organizational participation. Further

research is necessary to verify such relationships.

REFERENCES

Abedin, M.Z. and Quddus, M.A. 1988. Common Problems of road

side agroforestry practice in Bangladesh . In.

Mellink, W. Rao. Y.S. and MacDicken, K.G. (eds.)

Agroforestry in Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.

Abedin, M.Z. and Quddus, M.A. 1991. Agroforestry systems in

Bangladesh with particular reference to economics and

tenural issues. In. Mellink, W. Rao. Y.S. and

MacDicken, K.G. (eds.) Agroforestry in Asia and the Pacific,

Bangkok. P.13.

Ahmed, F.U. 1995a. Agroforestry concepts. In. Amin, S.M.R.

and Fattah, M.I.M. (eds) Agroforestry Training Courses Module

for Bangladesh. BARC-Win rock International. Dhaka,

Bangladesh. P.1.

73

APPENDIX

Ali, M.O. and Ahmed, F.U. 1993. The Need for Agroforestry

in Bangladesh. In. Ali, M.O. and Ahmed, F.U. (eds)

Agroforestry Research Techniques. Workshop Proceeding

Series-1. BARC- Win rock International Dhaka,

Bangladesh. P.1.

Alim M.O. 1984, Forestry Research In Bangladesh, Problems And

Prospects, BARC, Farmgate Dhaka (Unpublished).

Alim, M.O. 1984, Forestry Research In Bangladesh, Problems in nursery

development project in Dhaka- Tangail- Mymensingh in sal

forest zone. BARC, Farmgate Dhaka. (Unpublished).

B.B.S. 1999. Upazila Statistics, Major crops and

agricultural inputs, Bureau of Statistics, Statistics

Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of

Bangladesh.

B.B.S. 2000. Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh,

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division,

Ministry of Planning, Government of Bangladesh.

Bentley, W.R. (et. al), 1993. Agroforestry in South Asia, Win

rock International, USA & Oxford & IBH Publishing Pvt.

Ltd. India.

Bhaskar. V. 2003 “Agroforestry practices in Bangladesh”

report of the Asia – Pacific Regional Agroforestry

Workshop. Organized by the Ministry of Environment and

Forests, government of India and the United Nations

74

APPENDIX

convention to combat desertification secretariat and

co-hosted by government of Karnataka, Indian Institute

of Science and Karnataka state council of Science and

Technology, Bangalore, India, 17-20 December 2003

Bhuiyan and Ali, A. 1993. Agroforestry Potentials in

Degraded Forestland and Marginal lands. In: Proceed of

Workshop on Agroforestry Training Course Module for

Bangladesh, Feb. 24-4 March, BARC, Dhaka.

Bhuiyan, 1994.. Agroforestry Training Course Module for

Bangladesh. Proceeding of the workshop held at the

Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, Dhaka,

Bangladesh. 4 - 9 June 1994. Training Support Series

3. BRAC-Win rock International, Agroforestry &

Participatory Research and Training Support Program.

Dhaka, Bangladesh, p.162.

Brewbaker, J.1987. Significant nitrogen –fixing 131 treesin

agroforestry systems. In Golz,H.L. (ed.),

Agroforestry: Realities, Possibilities, and

Potentials, pp. 31- 45. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht,

The Netherlands.

Chundawat, Dr. B.S. and Gutam, Mr. S.K. 1993. Textbook of

Agroforestry. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New

Delhi 110001, India, pp. 83-85.

Dhameri, A.A. 2003, “Agroforestry and Soil Conservation in

Yemen” report of the Asia – Pacific Regional

Agroforestry Workshop. Organized by the Ministry of

75

APPENDIX

Environment and Forests, government of India and the

United Nations convention to combat desertification

secretariat and co-hosted by government of Karnataka,

Indian Institute of Science and Karnataka state

council of Science and Technology, Bangalore, India,

17-20 December 2003.

FAO, 1978. China forestry support for agriculture. Rome,

Italy.

FAO, 1978. Forestry for Local Community Development. FAO

Forestry Paper-7, Rome.

Farouque, M.G. 1997. Participation of Female Rural Youth in

Selected Homestead Activities in Two Selected Villages

of Bhaluka Upazila under Mymensingh District.

Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh.

Golz, W.E. 1988. Farm forestry practices for Students of

Vocational Agriculture, State Department of Education,

Columbia, South Carolina.

Hasan, M.H. and Alam 2006. Farmers problems in Agroforestry

Practice in Mymensingh District. An M.Sc. thesis

submitted to Bangladesh Agricultural University,

Mymensingh

Hibs, H. S. and Abrol, I. P. 1986. Salt affected soils and

their amelioration through afforestation. In

“Amelioration of soil by trees: A review of current

concepts and practices” (R. T. Prinsely and M. J.

76

APPENDIX

Swift, Eds.), London: Commonwealth Science Council.

pp. 43-56.

Islam, M.N. 1987. Problem Confrontation of Madhupur Farmers

in Adopting Artificial Insemination. M.Sc. thesis


Mymensingh.

Islam, M.R. and M.T. Islam. 2004. Identification and

Determination of the Extent of Problems Confronted by

Aromatic Rice Growers of Kazir Char Union of Barisal

District. A B.Sc. thesis submitted to Khulna

University, Khulna.

Islam, M.S. 2005. Role of Livestock on Economic Development

and Self-employment Progeny Show 2005. District

Livestock Department, Khulna, pp 9-10.

Jaiya, F.M. 2003 “Agroforestry practices in Pakistan”

report of the Asia – Pacific Regional Agroforestry

Workshop. Organized by the Ministry of Environment and

Forests, government of India and the United Nations

convention to combat desertification secretariat and

co-hosted by government of Karnataka, Indian Institute

of Science and Karnataka state council of Science and

Technology, Bangalore, India, 17-20 December 2003.

Karim, M.A. 1974. Relationships of Selected Economic,

Social and Psychological Characteristics of the Union

Assistants of Mymensingh. An M.Sc. thesis submitted to


77

APPENDIX

Karim, M.L. 1996. Relationships of selected characteristics

of Kakrol growers with their problem confrontation. An

M.Sc. thesis submitted to Bangladesh Agricultural

University, Mymensingh.

Kashem, M.A. Akanda, M.G.R., and M.M. Rahman. 1977.

Problems confrontation of the farmers in mukta (BR-11)

rice cultivation regarding plant protection measures.

Bangladesh Journal of Extension Education, 9 (Special

issue):133-137.

Khan, A.N. 2003, “Agroforestry in Bangladesh” report of the

Asia – Pacific Regional Agroforestry Workshop.

Organized by the Ministry of Environment and Forests,

government of India and the United Nations convention

to combat desertification secretariat and co-hosted by

government of Karnataka, Indian Institute of Science

and Karnataka state council of Science and Technology,

Bangalore, India, 17-20 December 2003.

Khisa, S. K., Shoaib, J. U. M. and Khan, N. A. 1999. The

experience of promoting slope agricultural land

technology for hillside farms in the Chittagong Hill

Tract. In “Farming Practices and Sustainable

Development in the Chittagong Hill Tract” (N. A. Khan

et al ., Eds.), CHTDB and VFFP, Intercooperation, pp.

114-115.

King K. S. F. and M.T. Chandler, 1978. The Wastelands.

ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya. P-85.

78

APPENDIX

King, K. 1989. The history of agroforestry.1 In: Nair,

P.K.R. (ed.), Agroforestry Systems in the Tropics, pp.

3-11. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.

(ed.), ibid., pp. 13-18.

King, K.F.C. 1968. Agri-Silviculture. Bulletin No. 1, Dept.

of Forestry, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

King, K.F.C. 1989. The History of Agroforestry. In. Nair,

P.K.R. (ed) Agroforestry Systems in the Tropics. Kluwer

Academic Publisher. The Netherlands. (P. Singh, P. S.

Pathak and M. M. Roy, Eds.), Vol. 1, Science

publishers, Inc. 52 La Bombard Road, North Lebanon NH

03766, U.S.A. p. 243.

Kothari, S.A. 1990. Samprasaran Bijnan, Dhaka: Bangladesh

Packing Press.

Lai, and Ahmed, F.U. 1993. Traditional Agroforestry Systems

in Bangladesh. Agroforestry News Letter. Oct.1995. Issue

no.5. PP.7-8.

Lanly, J. P., 1982, Tropical Forest Resources, FAO Forestry Paper

No. 30, FAO, Rome.

Ludgren, B.O. and Raintree, J.B. 1982. Sustained

Agroforestry. In. Nestel, B. (ed) Agricultural Research for

Development: Potentials and challenges in Asia. ISNAR,

The Hague. PP. 37-49.

Ludgren, L. 1980. Comparison of surface run off and soil

loss from run off plots in forest and small-scale

79

APPENDIX

agriculture in the Usambara Mountain, Tanzania.

Geografiska Annater. 62a: 113-148.

Mansur, M.A. 1989. Farmers Problem Confrontation in Feeds

and Feeding Cattle in Sonapur Union of Raipur Upazila

under Lakshmipur District. An M.Sc. thesis submitted

to Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh.

Muller E.U., and Scherr, S.J. 1990. Planning 499 technical

interventions in agroforestry projects. Agroforestry

Systems 11: 23-44.

Nair, P.K.R. 1984. Soil Productivity aspect of

Agroforestry. ICRAF, Nairobi.

Nair, P.K.R. 1985. Soil productivity under Agroforestry.

In. Gholz, H. (ed) Agroforestry realities potentials and

possibilities. Martirees Nijhoff, The Hague. PP.21-30.

Paramanik, N.K. 2001. Crop Cultivation Problems of the Farm

Youth in a Selected Block of Muktagacha Upazila under

Mymensingh District. An M.Sc. thesis submitted to


Raha, A.K. 1989. Deep Tube Well Irrigation Problem of the

Farmers in the Cultivation of Modern Variety of Boro

paddy in Two Selected Blocks of Muktagacha Upazila

under Mymensingh District. An M.Sc. thesis submitted

to Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh.

Rahman, M.F. 1995. Problem Confrontation by the Cotton

Growers in a Selected Area of Tangail District. An

80

APPENDIX

M.Sc. thesis submitted to Bangladesh Agricultural

University, Mymensingh.

Rashid, M.H. 1975. Agricultural Problems of the Farmers in

Madhupur Union of Tangail District. An M.Sc. thesis


Mymensingh.

Sarker, G.C. 1983. Relationships of Selected

Characteristics of the Poultry farmers in Tarakanda

Union of Mymensingh District. An M.Sc. thesis


Mymensingh.

Sharma, K.K. 1947. Effect of trees on agricultural crops. Institutional

seminar, FRI.

Vairob, 2002, Krishi Mela Saranika, Agricultural Extension

Department, Jessore.

Van Den Reldt, R.J. and Reed, D. 1991. Research needs,

plans and designs for the Village and Farm Forestry

Project, Bangladesh. SDC, Dhaka.

Young, A. 1989. Agroforestry for soil conservation.ICRAF,

Nairobi, Kenya. 276 p.

81

APPENDIX

APPENDIX AAGROTECHNOLOGY DISCIPLINE

KHULNA UNIVERSITYKHULNA

PROBLEM CONFRONTATION IN AGROFORESTRY PRACTICES IN

JHIKARGACHA UPAZILA UNDER JESSORE DISTRICT

Sample no --------------------------------

82

APPENDIX

Personal information:

Name ---------------------------------------------

Father’s name ------------------------------------------

Village ------------------------------------------

Union --------------------------------------------------------

Upazila -----------------------------------------

District ------------------------------------------------------

1) Age of the respondents: ---------------------------------------Years.

2) Educational qualification:

Please mention your educational qualification

a) Can not read and write -------------------------------.

b) Can sign only -------------------------------------------------.

c) ---------------------------------------------------- class passed.

3) Experience in farming ------------------------------------------------------

year.

4) Experience in agroforestry practices:

-------------------------------------year.

5) Family size:

Please mention the number of your family members

----------------------------.

Sl.No.

Name of the familymembers

Age Relationship withyou

Highestlevel ofeducationalqualificationobtained

12

83

APPENDIX

345

6) Farm size:

Please furnish information about your lands according to

use

SlNo

Use of land Area of land

Local unit Hectare

1 Homestead2 Own land under own cultivation3 Land given to others on borga4 Land taken from others on

borga5 Land given to others on lease6 Land taken from others on

lease7 OthersTotal

7) . a) Total land under farming:

---------------------------------------------ha.

b) Total land under farming (Only

crop) :---------------------------------------------ha.

c) Area potential for agroforestry practices :

----------------------------- ha.

d) Area under agro forestry practices

-------------------------------------------ha.

e) Type of agroforestry practices: Ail _______ ha /

In the field ________ ha.

84

APPENDIX

8) Annual income:

Please furnish information about your family income

(annual) from different sources.

Sl No Sources of income Amount of Taka1 Agriculture2 Business3 Service4 Labour5 OthersTotal

9) Organizational participation:

Are you involved in any organization?

Yes ------------------------------------.

No ----------------------------------------.

If yes, please mention the nature and duration of your

participation in the following organizations.

SlNo

Name oforganizations

Nature of participation (with duration)Ordinarymember

Executivecommitteemember

Executivecommitteeofficer

Notinvolve

1 Farmers’cooperativecommittee

2 School committee3 Mosque/Mondir/

Church/Pagodacommittee

4 Madrashah

85

APPENDIX

committee5 NGO committee6 Union parishad7 Youth club8 Cricket/Football

club9 Others

10) Cosmopoliteness:

Please indicate the number of times you have visited the

following places within the specified period:

SlNo

Place ofvisit

Nature of visitFrequently(3)

Occasionally(2)

Rarely(1)

Not at all(0)

1 Relative orother knownpersonslocatedoutside ofyour ownvillage

5-6times/month

3-4times/month

1-2times/month

0times/month

2 Unionparishadoffice

8-10times/year

5-6 times/year 2-3times/year

0times/year

3 Own/otherUpazilasadar

5-6times/month

3-4times/month

1-2times/month

0times/month

4 Own/otherdistrictsadar

4times/year

3 times/year 1-2times/year

0times/year

5 Capital andother cities

3times/year

2 times/year 1times/year

0times/year

11) Training:

Have you received any training?

86

APPENDIX

Yes -------------------------------------------.

No ----------------------------------------.

If yes, please mention the name of the training with

duration you have received from different organization

SlNo

Title of thetraining

Duration Organization

Venue oftraining

1234

12) Knowledge on agroforestry practices:

SL.No.

Questions TotalMarks

MarksObtained

1 Mention two fruit tree’s planted inthe crop field

1

2 Mention two timber tree’s planted inthe crop field

1

3 Mention two problems of inter-cropping

1

4 Mention two benefits of agroforestry 15 Mention two disease of tree species 16 Mention two disease of crop 17 Mention two insect- pest of tree

species1

8 Mention two insect- pest of crop 19 Mention two inter-cultural operation

of tree species1

10 Mention two inter-cultural operationof crop

1

Total 10

13) Extension contact with information sources:

87

APPENDIX

Please mention the extent of contact with the following

media in respect of various information related to your

farming:

Sl.No.

Sources ofinformation

Extent of contactRegular (4)

Frequent(3)

Occasional(2)

Rare(1)

Never(0)

1 Modelfarmer

1/D 1/W 1/F 1/M N

2 Localleader

1/W 1/F 1/M 1/S N

3 Neighbor 1/D 1/W 1/M 1/S N4 Relatives 1/D 1/W 1/M 1/S N5 Fertilizer

dealers1/W 1/F 1/M 1/S N

6 Seeddealers

1/M 1/S 1/2S 1/Y N

7 Pesticidesdealers

1/F 1/M 1/S 1/Y N

8 Blocksupervisor

1/F 1/M 1/S 1/Y N

9 Farm radioprogram

1/D 1/W 1/M 1/S N

10 Farm T.Vprogram

1/W 1/M 1/S 1/Y N

11 Observingagricultural postaer

1/M 1/S 1/2S 1/Y N

12 Upazillalevelofficer inagriculture

1/M 1/S 1/2S 1/Y N

13 News paper/Magazine/booklet

1/W 1/M 1/S 1/Y N

14 Demonstration/ fieldday

1/M 1/S 1/2S 1/Y N

15 Upazillalevel

1/M 1/S 1/2S 1/Y N

88

APPENDIX

officer inforestrynursery.

16 NGO’s 1/W 1/F 1/M 1/Y N*** D= daily, W= Weekly, F= fortnightly, M= Monthly, S=

Seasonally, Y= yearly.

14) Problem faced:

SL.No.

Type of problem Extent of problem HighlySevere(3)

Moderatelysevere(2)

LessSevere(1)

Not atall (0)

A Tree-Crop competition relatedproblems

1 Competition forlight

2 Competition fornutrient

3 Competition forspace

4 Competition formoisture

B Environmentalproblem

5 Harbor of insect &Pest

6 Allelopathic effect7 Damaging land by

quick growing roots8 Falling of trees on

crops C Socio-economic

problem9 Lack of labour10 Unavailability of

land11 Low production than

mono-crop 12 Problems of thieves

89

APPENDIX

D Other problems 13 Lack of marketing

facilities14 Lack of adequate

knowledge15 Unavailability of

quality seedlings16 Lack of fertilizer,

pesticide & fungicide

(Thank you for your nice cooperation)

-----------------------------------------------

Date: ------------------------------

Signature of data collector

APPENDIX B

PHOTOGRAPHS

Figure: 1

90

APPENDIX

[Fig: (1) Map of Jhikargacha Upazila.

color indicate the study area].

Figure: 2: Real Picture of Cropland Agroforestry(In

the Field)

91

APPENDIX

Figure: 3: Real Picture of Cropland Agroforestry

(Ail)

92

Problem Confrontation in the Adoption of Agroforestry Practices in the South- Western Region of...

Documents

Transcript of Problem Confrontation in the Adoption of Agroforestry Practices in the South- Western Region of...