Subsistence Farming of Smallholder Agroforestry Systems in Indonesia: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Lindsay Dong and Version 1 by Aris sudomo.

Subsistence farming is defined as self-sufficient farming in which farmers focus on cultivating sufficient quantities of food for their families. However, there are still many cases of poverty among farmers due to a lack of ability to adopt advanced technology. Small land tenure, low literacy rates, and lack of forest maintenance are the main causes of the subsistence of small agroforestry farmers. Another reason is that subsistence-oriented agroforestry practices are considered a strong form of smallholder resilience. To reduce the subsistence level of farmers, government intervention is needed, especially in providing managerial assistance packages, capital assistance, and the marketing of forest products. 

  • agroforestry
  • collaboration
  • farmers
  • subsistence

1. Introduction

Agroforestry has long been practiced in Indonesia. As a sustainable land-use practice [1], it increases overall agricultural productivity by combining woody perennial with food crops, including livestock on the same land [2]. When the concept is practiced appropriately, it can provide economic, ecological, social, and cultural benefits. The crop diversity in intercropping can provide a good income on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis. However, it depends on the agroforestry pattern adopted, such as agrisilviculture (forestry–agriculture), silvopasture (forestry–animal husbandry), agrisilvopasture (forestry–agriculture–livestock), silvofishery (forestry–fisheries), bee-forestry, sericulture (silkworm forestry), or multipurpose forest tree production systems (fusion complex). Ecologically, agroforestry supports soil and water conservation. With multi-strata plants, of course, it can minimize the occurrence of erosion, reduce runoff, and increase the effectiveness of water absorption. The spatial pattern of agroforestry can also function as a windbreak [3,4][3][4].
Sustainable agroforestry is thought to be a future agricultural practice as an alternative to unsustainable conventional agriculture [5]. In conventional agriculture, maximum tillage accelerates the decomposition of organic matter, thereby reducing its presence in the soil, while in the agroforestry pattern, the rate of decomposition of organic matter is slower due to a minimum tillage balance with the input of organic matter from trees as a complementary strategy [6]. Maximum tillage has the potential to reduce mycorrhizal fungi and increase runoff so that soil organic matter is reduced, while conservation tillage, by minimizing soil damage, can increase the presence of mycorrhizal fungi, as well as the absorption of phosphorus and soil aggregates [6,7][6][7]. The conservation agriculture principle is to have minimum soil disturbance and crop rotation while maximizing cover crops to obtain increased yields (30–200%) and labor efficiency (60%) [6]. Conservation agriculture with trees (CAWT) avoids maximum tillage to prevent the negative effects of intensive tillage, such as from ploughing (barren soil, erosion, heating, decomposition of organic matter, and damage to structures and nature) [6]. The top layer of soil, which is responsible for supporting crop life but is also the most susceptible to erosion and degradation, must be protected with particular care [6]. Crop rotations should include legumes, deep-rooted crops, and high-residue crops that have fixed nitrogen in the soil, and their biomass should add nitrogen through decomposition [6]. The litter and roots of tree components continuously add plant nutrients to the soil [8].
The function of trees in CAWT is potentially positive for agricultural crop production [6] and contributes to soil nutrient enrichment and crop production [8]. The function of trees in agroforestry, such as in fertilizer trees, can optimize the supply of native soil N and increase land productivity. The advantage of using fertilizer trees (Gliricidia sp., Calliandra sp., Leucaena sp., etc.) in agroforestry is that they ensure a multifunctional farm that provides wood, fodder, shade, soil improvement, and watershed breeding [9]. As an integrated, tree-based farming system, agroforestry is a reliable system due to its potential to address land degradation with additional environmental and social benefits [10,11][10][11]. In addition, agroforestry supports biodiversity conservation [12] and has higher financial returns than conventional agriculture [13]. Agroforestry also contributes significantly to climate change mitigation by increasing carbon sequestration and storage in the biosphere [14]. Furthermore, in contrast to conventional systems, agroforestry systems can better maintain biodiversity and provide food security, land security, and financial security [15].
Fertilization technology increases food crop production and provides additional income for households through sources such as the selling of tree seeds and firewood [16]. The choice of technology is driven by the size of the landownership, and more benefits are associated with larger landholdings. The adoption of agroforestry in subsistence agriculture is often limited by local social conditions and natural endowments [17].
Economically, agroforestry practices are a part of the livelihood strategies of farmers. In some cases, smallholder forests are the main source of income and even cause land owners to occupy a higher social status. Land size can be one of the factors that affects the economic value obtained from agroforestry systems. The larger the land area, the greater the economic value generated [18]. In addition, the adoption of agroforestry can diversify farmers’ livelihoods and increase their income [19]. Moreover, some agroforestry practitioners adjust to an economic focus while keeping an ecologically sound development orientation. However, they occasionally sacrifice the sociocultural aspect [20].
Agroforestry has numerous advantageous effects on the environment, including on how land is used, which leads to ecological, economic, and social benefits [21]. As a result, its sustainability must be preserved. In the case of food security, smallholder farming with commercial agroforestry systems tends to focus on income production, whereas traditional systems concentrate on the benefits of nutritional diversity. Agroforestry benefits the environment and promotes stability [22]. The mixed garden, the most popular agroforestry pattern in Indonesia, also has the highest carbon stock compared to other tree-crops patterns [23].
In Indonesia, subsistence farmers are accustomed to going into debt to obtain the initial capital for farming, which will then be paid off at the time of harvest. When there is asymmetrical information between farmers and creditors about price knowledge and market access, a debt-bondage system to help farmers with financial capital does not appear to be a viable aid to the farmers [24]. Related to income, interactions in factor markets cause price shocks in these markets, which subsequently allow for essential products to reach subsistence producers. Additionally, this lowers wages and land rentals, boosting household subsistence production. As a result, subsistence households’ real income decreases [25]. However, under certain circumstances, subsistence farming can operate as a stabilizer and benefit all agriculture [26]. From a macroeconomic perspective, an improvement in semi-subsistence agricultural production might boost economic growth overall, lower the trade deficit, enhance household incomes, and boost government revenue [27].
Despite all these advantages, the adoption of agroforestry systems is still low, and the adoption gap remains largely unexplained [17]. There are disincentives for planting trees among the understory, including a lack of knowledge, upfront costs, long periods of time before there is a return, and reduced short-to-medium-term cash flow and/or household food production [28]. For subsistence farmers, the existence of trees will be detrimental to agricultural crop production if soil tillage is carried out as in conventional agriculture. The ability to integrate trees on agricultural land is strongly influenced by the perception and knowledge of farmers [29], where farmer managerial skills in implementing agroforestry are still low [30]. In a limited treatment of trees, the presence of trees can reduce the growth of commercial food crops [31], while no-tillage can produce higher maize and cassava yields than tillage [32]. As a result, farmers who are unable to produce enough food for their livelihood, and who depend on cash income to meet many expenses, engage in irregular, nonagricultural commercial activities to generate income for the provision of food and other necessities [33].
Likewise, the adoption of such promising land-use practices has been slow in terms of achievement [1]. Agroforestry programs should not be considered a poverty alleviation strategy [1]. This is because smallholders may not be able to cope with the initial production losses resulting from the transition from conventional agriculture to agroforestry. Hence, policy interventions are essential in order to involve smallholders in the promotion of agroforestry. Attention and incentives should be given to traditional smallholder agroforestry farmers who have helped to balance between biodiversity conservation and economic growth [8].
Most agroforestry programs in Indonesia prioritize land rehabilitation and are focused on generating long-term economic benefits from a particular crop. Little is known about whether and how poor farmers behave differently from nonpoor farmers in adopting agroforestry practices. To reap the greatest benefits from agroforestry systems, a fundamental understanding of how and why farmers make long-term land-use decisions is required [34].

2. Smallholder Agroforestry Systems in Indonesia

3.1. Development Phase of Agroforestry Practices

2.1. Development Phase of Agroforestry Practices

Historically, there were three phases of agroforestry development, namely, classical, premodern, and modern agroforestry. Classical agroforestry was practiced in approximately 700 BC in the form of slash-and-burn, including shifting cultivation, which was a transformation from a hunting lifestyle and food gathering into plant and animal domestication. Premodern agroforestry, recognized as Taungya, was mainly aimed at producing forest products, and in Indonesia, it was introduced by the colonial government in the form of teak forest development at the end of the 19th century. Attention to agricultural components, farmers, and crop production in the Taungya system was low, but it was designed more to benefit the government’s agenda. This philosophy was intended to mobilize landless and jobless laborers in rural areas to work in state forests, with compensation granting them the right to utilize space among the trees to plant crops. Therefore, rural communities felt fewer benefits from such systems. Several international organizations were generated to provide policy and programs to improve food productivity and environmental conservation, such as Social Forestry (SF) by the World Bank, Forestry for Rural Development (FRD) by the FAO, and the agroforestry research institute ICRAF by the World Agroforestry Centre.

3.2. Existing Conditions of Agroforestry in Indonesia

2.2. Existing Conditions of Agroforestry in Indonesia

The practice of agroforestry in private forests plays a pivotal role in cultivating trees outside the state forest areas, providing a farmer safety net in terms of economic value through production functions [40][35], and serving as the last bastion of biodiversity conservation for flora and fauna amid the accelerated deforestation rate in natural forests [41,42,43,44][36][37][38][39]. Agroforestry has contributed to strengthening smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change in Indonesia by offering 20% more food variety in the traditional pattern and a fivefold income increase in the commercial pattern [22]. Agroforestry systems also provide environmental service benefits, such as increasing soil organic content; improving soil health through nutrient repair and fertility processes; improving soil biological dynamics; improving soil carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation; and improving water quality, climate change mitigation, and adaptation [39,45,46][40][41][42].
Some of the benefits related to soil nutrients and fertility, as well as soil carbon sequestration, can be obtained from minimal or no-tillage practices, even without trees. However, the presence of trees in agroforestry systems can add more benefits. The presence of trees and perennial plants in agroforestry produces the highest aboveground carbon stocks, including belowground carbon stocks, thereby improving carbon sequestration and mitigating climate change [23,39][23][40]. Trees in agroforestry also enhance soil organic content, increase soil nutrients and fertility, and increase soil microbial dynamics, which have a positive effect on soil health [45][41]. Trees improve soil quality in agroforestry through three main processes, namely, increasing input with tree fertilizers (N2-fixing), increasing soil nutrients from the production and decomposition of tree biomass (falling of leaves, branches, twigs), absorption, and the utilization of nutrients from deep tree roots, thus creating a nutrient cycle in the agroforestry system [46][42].
Along with the socioeconomic, cultural, and policy development of rural communities, some agroforestry patterns have also improved from traditional subsistence management to business–commercial management with the selection of several types of commercial or industrial crops, such as coffee [52][43] and porang [53][44], or integration with ecotourism [54][45]. The relative profitability of agroforestry business models can be measured based on the associated risks and timeframes [55][46]. However, the basis of the farmers’ considerations in choosing the type of crop is influenced by economic, occupational, cultural, and educational background [56,57][47][48]. It is common to have a combination of commercial and noncommercial crops to optimize land use in order to fulfill household needs in terms of subsistence or as a source of daily, monthly, and annual financial income [3,4][3][4]. In general, farmer preferences are more biased toward economic benefits and mindfully maintaining the availability of a food supply, but they pay less attention to ecological aspects [19]. Crops that provide instant extra income are more desirable to farmers [58][49].
The main objective of silviculture is to improve timber productivity by applying tree improvement, site manipulation, and plant protection [63][50]. With agroforestry, the science of silviculture is expected to encounter issues beyond timber production [64][51]. Moreover, silviculture treatment on timber-based versus nontimber-based forest products provides a different result for land productivity [22]. Traditional agroforestry practices are usually subsistence and are conducted in a small area of land with minimal silviculture treatments [65,66][52][53]. The recognition to apply agroforestry also arises when the benefits of ancient integrated agricultural systems survive after a series of land problems, such as deforestation, soil degradation, and biodiversity decline [46][42]. This implies that agroforestry contributes to the environment by reducing erosion rates, restoring degraded land, reducing landslide risk, increasing carbon stock, and affecting microclimate and soil moisture [67,68,69][54][55][56]. The agroforestry systems developed in several locations in West Java are able to decrease soil erosion and restore land degradation, while the highest carbon stock is produced from mixed types with a larger number of trees [23]. Agroforestry, which dominates the foothills of volcanic mountains prone to landslides in Java, can reduce landslide reactivation by selecting species of trees and plants with certain ecological functions to reduce surface runoff, water absorption, and soil moisture without compromising the social and economic value of farms [70][57]. A mixture of deep-rooted tree species and grasses with smooth and dense rooting can maintain the stability of riverbanks and high hillsides [71][58]. The diversity of tree root distribution between species can reduce the landslide risk in productive coffee agroforestry systems [71][58]. The agroforestry system is an easy and affordable way to mitigate microclimate instability and soil moisture degradation, and it can be potentially employed as an adaptive strategy to counter extreme climate impacts through shade cover arrangements [72][59]. The transition from subsistence to semicommercial or commercial agroforestry is not a simple process. Problems regarding landownership and access, market opportunities, and farmer regeneration always arise from farmers. It is common knowledge that rural farmers are generally villagers over the age of 50 who need guidance on how to maintain their agricultural businesses, especially in regard to utilizing wireless networks. Currently, few among the young generations want to continue working as farmers. Ironically, most parents who work as rural farmers are also unwilling to pass down the profession [73][60]. The factors that hinder farmer regeneration are the low income generated by the agricultural sector, demanding and laborious work, the perception that farming is only suited to those from a poor background with limited education, and the type of work chosen as the last alternative [74][61]. This results in only 26.67% of farmers’ children having high motivation to become farmers [75][62]. The education level of farmers, according to Statistics Indonesia (BPS), is still dominated by elementary and junior high school levels. Meanwhile, college graduates and diplomas only account for 0.57%. This low education level can affect farmers’ managerial abilities in developing agroforestry. Farmers’ managerial capacity in planning, implementing, and evaluating the application of agroforestry systems is a major factor that influences their motivation to apply technology [76][63]. The low quality of human resources is a drawback in the agricultural sector, which may lower agricultural productivity [77][64].

3.3. Why Subsistence

2.3. Why Subsistence

32.3.1. Subsistence Outlook

Subsistence farming is defined as self-sufficient farming in which farmers focus on cultivating sufficient quantities of food for their families. In addition, subsistence agriculture is characterized by such things as having a wide variety of crops and livestock to eat, and sometimes fiber for clothing and building materials. The decision in determining the type of plant to use usually depends on the type of food that will be consumed in the coming year. It is also determined by market prices, where if the price of a commodity is considered too high, they choose to plant their own [98][65]. Although they are considered to prioritize self-sufficiency for their families, most subsistence farmers also trade a few of their agricultural products, especially for obtaining goods that cannot be produced from the land, such as salt and kitchen equipment. Most subsistence farmers currently live in developing countries. Numerous subsistence farmers grow alternative crops and have agricultural capabilities that are not found in advanced agricultural methods [99][66]. Subsistence refers to those who are periodically food insecure, relying on irregular cash income from diversification into a range of sources [100][67]. Some farmers apply agroforestry systems based on economic considerations rather than social and ecological considerations [30]. This is indicated by the selection of plant species that make up agroforestry with the main objective of utilizing the results to meet the needs of farmer households in the short, medium, and long term. Agroforestry is widely adopted by farmers because this system can increase income while also diversifying their livelihoods [19]. Agroforestry provides income to farmers in the form of weekly, monthly, and annual income [101][68]. Farmers in Wonogiri earn weekly income from cayenne pepper, monthly income from secondary crops, and annual income from timber plantations [101][68]. Farmers apply simple agroforestry by intercropping trees with one or more seasonal crop types. Sengon (Paracerianthes moluccana) is the main crop because it is considered to possess high economic value and is a form of family savings that can be used for certain urgent needs [102][69]. Sengon and salak (Salacca zalacca) agroforestry can meet the daily needs of families and can support a balanced work structure [103][70]. The traditional agroforestry system is carried out to meet daily needs, and some of the surpluses are sold to collectors and weekly village markets, such as palm sugar (Arenga pinnata), banana (Musa paradisiaca), sapodilla (Manilkara sp.), mango (Mangifera indica), avocado (Persea americana), petai (Parkia speciosa), and jengkol (Archidendron pauciflorum) [104][71].

32.3.2. Factors Related to Subsistence in Agroforestry

The subsistence level of agroforestry can be seen from the perceived benefits of the agroforestry system, which are limited to meeting the needs of the family, not for commercial purposes. Two factors influence the agroforestry farming system, namely, internal factors such as farmer experience, motivation, landownership area, number, and type of plants, as well as external factors in the form of support from agroforestry extension institutions and community leaders [106][72]. Likewise, the subsistence of farmers is also influenced by these two factors. Internal factors The internal factors that influence the subsistence of agroforestry farmers are presented in Table 21.
Table 21.
Internal factors that lead to the subsistence of agroforestry farmers.
No Internal Factor Strength (S)Source
Weakness (W)
1.
  • Availability of existing managerial and technical capacity:
    • Smallholder agroforestry has over 10 years of experience [165][99];
    • Traditional agroforestry practices [166][100], silviculture practices [65][52], and soil and water conservation technologies are available to smallholders [167,168][101][102].
  • Recognized social, economic, and ecological benefits of agroforestry practices:
    • Potentially enhancing the resilience of smallholders in disaster-prone areas [165][99];
    • Strengthening social cohesion when sharing with neighbors [
Limited landownership
    • ,
    • 169
    • ][103][104];
    • Contributing positively to productivity and smallholder livelihoods in agroforestry and home garden systems [170,171,172,173][105][106][107][108];
    • Significantly assisting smallholders with climate change adaptation, improved soil fertility and conservation, pest and disease control, income diversification, and offsetting fuelwood [174,175,176][109
[18,107,108][18][73][74]
2. The character of farmers who are less willing to take risks [17]
    • ]
    • [
    • 110
    • ]
    • [
    • 111];
    • Agroforests contribute to maintaining on-farm diversity [48][103].
  • Availability of institutions at the farmers’ level:
    • The existence of community groups that participate in agroforestry practices, such as farmer groups and soil and water conservation groups.
  • Limited landownership:
  • Low education level and poor agroforestry knowledge:
    • Smallholder farmers have low education [18,165][18][99]
    • Farmers’ knowledge about agroforestry is still lacking [101][68];
    • Farmers are reluctant to implement agroforestry due to culture and capacity [178][113].
  • Limited financial capital:
    • Limited capital for the provision of seed and fertilizer production facilities [109][76];
    • Low access to credit/financial assistance [179,180,181][114][115][116].
  • Poor management practices:
    • A lack of awareness regarding the positive influence of proper silvicultural management and limited technical capacity [182][117];
    • Agroforestry is regarded as the second livelihood for some farmers [18,165][18][99];
    • Some farmers do not fertilize trees or only do so during the intensive maintenance of crops [165][99]. Kebun campuran (mixed garden) is not intensively managed [18].
  • Poor perception of agroforestry benefits:
    • Farmers’ understanding of the benefits of agroforestry (income, food, and conservation) is still low [165][99];
    • Farmers’ perceptions of the benefit of agroforestry practices show varying results (high in Central Java [101][68] and East Java [183,184][118][119] but low in Lampung [185][120] and Ciamis West Java [76][63]);
    • Smallholders regard trees as competitors for annual crops/smallholders consider trees to make gardens difficult to be cleared periodically [48][103].
  • Limited market linkage and farmer bargaining:
    • Low volume of trade, limited access to information, and weak market linkage information [182][117];
    • Low bargaining position of smallholder farmers [186,187][121][122].
Opportunity (O) Threat (T) 3.
  • Increasing global interest in local agroforestry practices:
    • Local practices in various parts of the world, especially in the tropics, have become a global interest that is increasingly relevant because of their sustainability on a local-to-global scale [188][123].
  • Increasing global demand for agroforestry products and services:
    • Adaptation to high population growth and a rise in the market economy [48][103];
    • Globalization of food and increases in demand for food security [189][124];
    • Mixed gardens have become international tourist destinations and sources of fresh organic produce for traditional food [18];
    • An important measure to obtain multidimensional benefits as pointed out in the Sustainable Development Goals [190][125] and biodiversity conservation strategy [18].
  • Availability of financial support schemes:
    • Financial support from central and local governments. Central and regional agencies whose main tasks are related to the management of forestry, agriculture, and environmental resources (RHL program with agroforestry and community development [191][126] and social forestry) [192,193][127][128];
    • Finding alternatives to swidden agriculture [178,194][113][129];
    • CDM/carbon trade becomes part of rural development and the availability of incentives that allow for small land and direct payments [195][130].
  • Legal support:
Low education level and poor agroforestry knowledge
    • The availability of regulations on food security
    • [196][131], the sustainable land protection of food agriculture, conservation, environmental, community empowerment, etc.
  • Decreasing tree-based land availability:
    • Population growth and economic pressure lead to increased demand for food production, conventional agricultural land [189][124], housing, and other land uses [18,189][18][124]; on the other hand, it decreases agroforestry land [189,197][124][132];
    • Volcano eruption reduces land area [165][99].
  • Forest and land degradation:
    • Forest and land degradation or conventional farming practices that are not environmentally friendly [198,199,200][133][134][135].
  • Climate change:
    • Climate change affects agroforestry to keep food production [140,156][79][95].
  • Labor shortage:
    • A lack of laborers or family members to do the work and a rise in the wages of agricultural workers [48][103].
  • Market uncertainty:
    • Market uncertainty and low-profit margins of agroforestry products [186,187][121][122];
    • The increasing price of seeds, fertilizers, and medicines; high social burden; high land rent; rising wages for agricultural workers; and imported agricultural products [156][95];
    • The increasing number of imported food products entering Indonesia [156,159][95][98].
  • Poor coordination and technical assistance from the government:
    • Weak coordination between central and local agencies, as well as between regional and cross-regional governments [201][136];
    • Limited extension services [105][137].
 [21,38,101][21][68][75]
4. Limited financial capital [109,110][76][77]
5. Farmer preferences related to gender and cultural identity [108,111][74][78]

External Factors

External factors that affect the subsistence of agroforestry farmers are presented in Table 32.

Table 32.
External factors that lead to the subsistence of agroforestry farmers.
No External Factors Sources
1. Government policies that are not responsive to household interests (increases in the price of seeds, fertilizers, and medicines). [17]
2. Bad weather/climate change. [140,[141,79142]][80][81]
3. Labor shortage. [101][68]
4. Limited market access:  
-
Weak market linkages and poor access to market information;
 [143,144,145][82][83][84]
-
Difficulties imposed related to costs, the management system, and local market constraints;
 [146,147,148][85][86][87]
-
Price instability, poor market information, and poor market infrastructure for the tree products;
 [143,149,150,151][82][88][89][90]
-
Long period of growth;
 [152,153,154][91][92][93]
-
Preference for the near-term benefits.
 [155][94]
5. Food import. [156,157,158,159][95][96][97][98]

3.4. Sustainable Agroforestry Management Strategies for Smallholder Farmers

2.4. Sustainable Agroforestry Management Strategies for Smallholder Farmers

Agroforestry has become a common practice for farmers in Indonesia. The contribution of agroforestry to the household economy of farmers is one of the determining factors for the sustainability of the agroforestry system. Improving agroforestry governance from subsistence to commercial ones requires a comprehensive strategy and involves many stakeholders. Internal and external factors from the farmers’ side are presented in Table 43.
Table 43.
SWOT analysis of smallholder agroforestry in Indonesia.

3.5. Enabling Smallholder of Agroforestry Practices in Indonesia

2.5. Enabling Smallholder of Agroforestry Practices in Indonesia

32.5.1. Selection of Agroforestry Plant Species

The existence of agroforestry outside the state forest area (private forest) is proven to provide great benefits for landowners. Cultivated tree species provide yields for building wood, firewood, animal feed, species, and medicinal plants [212][138]. The use of native species with multiple benefits needs to be encouraged with research and policy interventions because native trees can maintain biodiversity [213][139]. The greater the plant diversity in agroforestry, the greater the value of the forest from the yield variety and the environmental benefits. In rubber plantations, more shrubs will increase soil C and N as well as the infiltration rate from soil pores [214][140].

32.5.2. Integrated Farming (Agrosilvopasture/Livestock and Plants)

Product diversification from agriculture–livestock–forestry (agrosilvopasture), with market access and management efficiency, will result in income stability [215,216][141][142]. In agrosilvopasture, the use of livestock manure (fertilizer) and crop waste (animal feed) residues is an efficiency that can reduce tradeoffs between agriculture and the environment [217][143]. The integration of livestock and crops can increase economic efficiency by 38.4% [218,219][144][145]. The existence of plants for forage can supply animal feed needs during the dry season [220][146]. This system can also maintain the N content in the soil, the bacterial community cycle, and the N cycle process [221][147].

32.5.3. Soil and Water Conservation

The use of trees, especially legume trees, plays a pivotal role in maintaining soil fertility. Tree roots increase the rate of soil infiltration and the availability of water as a reserve during the dry season, thereby reducing plant stress [222][148]. The management of agroforestry plant biomass is a key factor in maintaining soil fertility. Cocoa leaf waste can be decomposed quickly when mixed with gliricidia leaves so that it can maintain soil nutrient input [208][149]. Farmers in mountainous areas need to apply alley cropping as a soil conservation technique. The productivity of annual crops in the tree aisles hanging 48 m and 96 m is still quite high even despite tree canopy cover; however, it still possesses high environmental value [223][150].

32.5.4. Improved Access to Land and Markets

Population growth and economic pressures have caused the availability of agricultural land to be increasingly limited. This has become an obstacle in the development of the agroforestry business in Java, Indonesia. Governments can provide access to forest land, community participation-based planning, and agricultural diversification [105][137]. The Indonesian government has made efforts to distribute access to land resources for the community by granting state forest land management permits through the social forestry program.

32.5.5. Climate Change Adaptation

Adaptation to climate change is required to reduce the risk of failure in crop cultivation. Farmers adapting to climate change will be influenced by farmer institutions, access to finance, information on climate, and extension [211][151]. Farmer adaptation practices to increase land productivity include the application of soil and water conservation techniques, the use of varieties that are resistant to high temperatures/shade, and the use of mulch [227][152]. The use of shade trees in agroforestry patterns is needed to deal with climate change that causes an increase in temperature [228][153]. Agroforestry has proven to be a technique that is suitable for farmers to apply in the era of climate change.

32.5.6. Intensification of Smallholder Agroforestry

Previous research shows that intensive agroforestry practices (with environmental manipulations) result in higher productivity than traditional practices [229,230,231][154][155][156]. Meanwhile, the agroforestry patterns in smallholder forests vary, including border trees, alley cropping, mix patterns, and alternate rows [232][157]. Yard agroforestry and complex agroforestry forms are still focused on experimental forms of intensive silvicultural applications such as fertilization, spacing, and pruning [233,234][158][159]. Both agroforestry forms are associated with the development of private forests with various characteristics on a household scale with limited lands, such as in Indonesia today. As a matter of course, many findings are not necessarily suitable for general application and produce trial/experimental results that are either not suitable or error-prone. Discretion in selecting research recommendations to suit the specific characteristics of private forest development is the key to success.
 

References

  1. Dhakal, A.; Rai, R.K. Who adopts agroforestry in a subsistence economy?—Lessons from the Terai of Nepal. Forests 2020, 11, 565.
  2. Pandey, D.K.; De, H.K.; Geetarani, L.; Hazarika, B.N. Problems and prospects of agricultural diversification in shifting cultivation area of north east India: An empirical study. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2019, 8, 69–73.
  3. Wiyanti, D.T. Agroforestry and mobile local “bank” system (Bank Kuriling) in Cianjur, West Java. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Integrated Microfinance Management (IMM-16), Bandung, Indonesia, 19–22 September 2016; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2016; pp. 131–135.
  4. Wiyanti, D.T. People and agroforestry (the use of non-commercial product of agroforestry). In Proceedings of the International Social Science, Humanity and Education Research Congress (SSHERC-16), Bali, Indonesia, 20–21 July 2016; pp. 41–44.
  5. Hairiah, K.; Ashari, S. Pertanian masa depan: Agroforestri, manfaat dan layanan lingkungan. In Proceedings of the Prosiding Seminar Nasional Agroforestri 2013; Kuswantoro, D.P., Widyaningsih, T.S., Fauziyah, E., Rachmawati, R., Eds.; BPTA-Faperta UB-ICRAF-MAFI: Malang, Indonesia, 2013; pp. 23–35.
  6. Mutua, J.; Muriuki, J.; Gachie, P.; Bourne, M.; Capis, J. Conservation Agriculture with Trees: Principles and Practice a Simplified Guide for Extension Staff and Farmers; World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi, Kenya, 2014.
  7. Kabir, M.H. Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Growth and Yield of Garlic. Master’s Thesis, Department of Horticulture, BAU, Mymensingh, Bangladesh, 2004.
  8. Khan, M.L.; Anukachalam, K. Balancing traditional jhum cultivation with modern agroforestry in eastern Himalaya—A biodiversity hot spot. Curr. Sci. 2002, 83, 117.
  9. Sileshi, G.W.; Mafongoya, P.L.; Akinnifesi, F.K.; Phiri, E.; Chirwa, P.; Beedy, T.; Makumba, W.; Nyamadzawo, G.; Njoloma, J.; Wuta, M.; et al. Agroforestry: Fertilizer trees. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems; Van Alfen, N., Ed.; Elsevier: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; Volume 1, pp. 222–234.
  10. Jose, S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agrofor. Syst. 2009, 76, 1–10.
  11. Budiadi; Jihad, A.N.; Lestari, L.D. An overview and future outlook of Indonesian agroforestry: A bibliographic and literature review. In Proceedings of the E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2021; Volume 305, p. 7002.
  12. Dhakal, A.; Cockfield, G.; Maraseni, T.N. Evolution of agroforestry based farming systems: A study of Dhanusha District, Nepal. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 86, 17–33.
  13. Neupane, R.P.; Thapa, G.B. Impact of agroforestry intervention on soil fertility and farm income under the subsistence farming system of the middle hills, Nepal. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 84, 157–167.
  14. Farage, P.K.; Ardö, J.; Olsson, L.; Rienzi, E.A.; Ball, A.; Pretty, J.N. The potential for soil carbon sequestration in three tropical dryland farming systems of Africa and Latin America: A modelling approach. Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 94, 457–472.
  15. Córdova, R.; Hogarth, N.J.; Kanninen, M. Sustainability of smallholder livelihoods in the Ecuadorian Highlands: A comparison of agroforestry and conventional agriculture systems in the indigenous territory of Kayambi People. Land 2018, 7, 45.
  16. Quinion, A.; Chirwa, P.; Akinnifesi, F.K.; Ajayi, O.O. Do agroforestry technologies improve the livelihoods of the resource poor farmers? Evidence from Kasungu and Machinga districts of Malawi. Agrofor. Syst. 2010, 80, 457–465.
  17. Jerneck, A.; Olsson, L. More than trees! Understanding the agroforestry adoption gap in subsistence agriculture: Insights from narrative walks in Kenya. J. Rural Stud. 2013, 32, 114–125.
  18. Parikesit; Withaningsih, S.; Rozi, F. Socio-ecological dimensions of agroforestry called kebun campuran in tropical karst ecosystem of West Java, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 2021, 22, 122–131.
  19. Nöldeke, B.; Winter, E.; Laumonier, Y.; Simamora, T. Simulating agroforestry adoption in rural Indonesia: The potential of trees on farms for livelihoods and environment. Land 2021, 10, 385.
  20. Ngaji, A.U.K.; Baiquni, M.; Suryatmojo, H.; Haryono, E. Assessing the sustainability of traditional agroforestry practices: A case of Mamar agroforestry in Kupang-Indonesia. For. Soc. 2021, 5, 438–457.
  21. Ruhimat, I.S. Status keberlanjutan usahatani agroforestry pada lahan masyarakat: Studi kasus di Kecamatan Rancah, Kabupaten Ciamis, Provinsi Jawa Barat. J. Penelit. Sos. Dan Ekon. Kehutan. 2015, 12, 99–110.
  22. Duffy, C.; Toth, G.G.; Hagan, R.P.O.; McKeown, P.C.; Rahman, S.A.; Widyaningsih, Y.; Sunderland, T.C.H.; Spillane, C. Agroforestry contributions to smallholder farmer food security in Indonesia. Agrofor. Syst. 2021, 95, 1109–1124.
  23. Siarudin, M.; Rahman, S.A.; Artati, Y.; Indrajaya, Y.; Narulita, S.; Ardha, M.J.; Larjavaara, M. Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in degraded landscapes in West Java, Indonesia. Forests 2021, 12, 714.
  24. Salampessy, M.L.; Febryano, I.G.; Zulfiani, D. Principal agent in tree mortgage system on traditional agroforestry management in Moluccas Indonesia. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2019; Volume 285, p. 12013.
  25. Dyer, G.A.; Boucher, S.; Taylor, J.E. Subsistence response to market shocks. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2006, 88, 279–291.
  26. Kostov, P.; Lingard, J. Subsistence agriculture in transition economies: Its roles and determinants. J. Agric. Econ. 2004, 55, 565–579.
  27. Amoussouga Gero, A.; Egbendewe, A.Y.G. Macroeconomic effects of semi-subsistence agricultural productivity growth: Evidence from Benin and extension to the WAEMU countries. Sci. Afr. 2020, 7, e00222.
  28. Toth, G.G.; Nair, P.K.R.; Duffy, C.P.; Franzel, S.C. Constraints to the adoption of fodder tree technology in Malawi. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 641–656.
  29. Buyinza, J.; Nuberg, I.K.; Muthuri, C.W.; Denton, M.D. Psychological factors influencing farmers’ intention to adopt agroforestry: A structural equation modeling approach. J. Sustain. For. 2020, 39, 854–865.
  30. Ruhimat, I.S. Analisis pengambilan keputusan petani dalam pemilihan jenis tanaman bawah pada kebun campuran. J. Agroforestri Indones. 2020, 3, 111–122.
  31. Deiss, L.; de Moraes, A.; Dieckow, J.; Franzluebbers, A.J.; Gatiboni, L.C.; Lanzi Sassaki, G.; Carvalho, P.C.F. Soil phosphorus compounds in integrated crop-livestock systems of subtropical Brazil. Geoderma 2016, 274, 88–96.
  32. Hulugalle, N.R.; Ndi, J.N. Effects of no-tillage and alley cropping on soil properties and crop yields in a Typic Kandiudult of southern Cameroon. Agrofor. Syst. 1993, 22, 207–220.
  33. Gabrielsson, S.; Ramasar, V. Widows: Agents of change in a climate of water uncertainty. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 60, 34–42.
  34. Pratiwi, A.; Suzuki, A. Reducing agricultural income vulnerabilities through agroforestry training: Evidence from a randomised field experiment in Indonesia. Bull. Indones. Econ. Stud. 2019, 55, 83–116.
  35. Suryanto, P.; Budiadi; Sabarnudin, M.S. Silvikultur agroforestri dan masa depan hutan rakyat. In Hutan Rakyat di Simpang Jalan; Maryudi, A., Nawir, A.A., Eds.; Gadjah Mada University Press: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2017; pp. 45–64. ISBN 9786023862580.
  36. Winara, A.; Widiyanto, A. Keanekaragaman Jenis Pohon pada Sistem Agroforestri di DAS Balangtieng. In Jasa Lingkungan Agroforestri: Belajar Dari Masyarakat DAS Balangtieng Sulawesi Selatan; Rahayu, S., Hasanah, N., Lusiana, B., Eds.; IPB Press: Bogor, Indonesia, 2019; pp. 89–107.
  37. Hani, A.; Suhaendah, E. Diversity of soil macro fauna and its role on soil fertility in manglid agroforestry. Indones. J. For. Res. 2019, 6, 61–68.
  38. Withaningsih, S.; Parikesit; Alham, R.F. Diversity of bird species in the coffee agroforestry landscape: Case study in the Pangalengan Sub-District, Bandung District, West Java, Indonesia. Biodiversitas 2020, 21, 2467–2480.
  39. Imron, M.A.; Campera, M.; Al Bihad, D.; Rachmawati, F.D.; Nugroho, F.E.; Budiadi, B.; Wianti, K.F.; Suprapto, E.; Nijman, V.; Nekaris, K.A.I. Bird assemblages in coffee agroforestry systems and other human modified habitats in Indonesia. Biology 2022, 11, 310.
  40. Baliton, R.S.; Wulandari, C.; Landicho, L.D.; Cabahug, R.E.D.; Paelmo, R.F.; Comia, R.A.; Visco, R.G.; Budiono, P.; Herwanti, S.; Rusita, R.; et al. Ecological services of agroforestry landscapes in selected watershed areas in the Philippines and Indonesia. Biotropia 2017, 24, 71–84.
  41. Dollinger, J.; Jose, S. Agroforestry for soil health. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 213–219.
  42. Nair, P.K.R. Agroforestry systems and environmental quality: Introduction. J. Environ. Qual. 2011, 40, 784–790.
  43. Herwanti, S.; Febryano, I.G.; Zulfiani, D. Economic value analysis of community forest food products in Ngarip Village, Ulu Belu Subdistrict, Tanggamus Regency (A case from Indonesia). For. Ideas 2019, 25, 314–328.
  44. Hermudananto, H.; Permadi, D.B.; Septiana, R.M.; Riyanto, S.; Pratama, A.A. Adoption of agroforestry-porang model for land utilization under teak stands. J. Pengabdi. Kpd. Masy. Indonesian J. Community Engag. 2019, 5, 416–436.
  45. Hakim, L.; Rahardi, B.; Guntoro, D.A.; Mukhoyyaroh, N.I. Coffee Landscape of Banyuwangi Geopark: Ecology, Conservation, and Sustainable Tourism Development. J. Trop. Life Sci. 2022, 12, 107–116.
  46. Applegate, G.; Freeman, B.; Tular, B.; Sitadevi, L.; Jessup, T.C. Application of agroforestry business models to tropical peatland restoration. Ambio 2022, 51, 863–874.
  47. Paembonan, S.A.; Millang, S.; Dassir, M.; Ridwan, M. Species variation in home garden agroforestry system in South Sulawesi, Indonesia and its contribution to farmers’ income. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2018; Volume 157, pp. 1–6.
  48. Desmiwati, D.; Veriasa, T.O.; Aminah, A.; Safitri, A.D.; Hendarto, K.A.; Wisudayati, T.A.; Royani, H.; Dewi, K.H.; Raharjo, S.N.I.; Sari, D.R. Contribution of agroforestry systems to farmer income in state forest areas: A case study of Parungpanjang, Indonesia. For. Soc. 2021, 5, 109–119.
  49. Diniyati, D.; Achmad, B.; Santoso, H.B. Analisis finansial agroforestry sengon di Kabupaten Ciamis (Studi kasus di Desa Ciomas Kecamatan Panjalu). J. Penelit. Agrofor. 2013, 1, 13–30.
  50. Soekotjo. Teknik Silvikultur Intensif (SILIN), 1st ed.; Gadjah Mada University Press: Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2009; ISBN 979-420-694-6.
  51. Achim, A.; Moreau, G.; Coops, N.C.; Axelson, J.N.; Barrette, J.; Bédard, S.; Byrne, K.E.; Caspersen, J.; Dick, A.R.; D’Orangeville, L.; et al. The changing culture of silviculture. Forestry 2022, 95, 143–152.
  52. Sabastian, G.E.; Yumn, A.; Roshetko, J.M.; Manalu, P.; Martini, E.; Perdana, A. Adoption of silvicultural practices in smallholder timber and NTFPs production systems in Indonesia. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 93, 607–620.
  53. Maryudi, A.; Nawir, A.A.; Sekartaji, D.A.; Sumardamto, P.; Purwanto, R.H.; Sadono, R.; Suryanto, P.; Soraya, E.; Soeprijadi, D.; Affianto, A.; et al. Smallholder farmers’ knowledge of regulations governing the sale of timber and supply chains in Gunungkidul District, Indonesia. Small-Scale For. 2017, 16, 119–131.
  54. Silvianingsih, Y.A.; Hairiah, K.; Suprayogo, D.; van Noordwijk, M. Kaleka agroforest in Central Kalimantan (Indonesia): Soil quality, hydrological protection of adjacent peatlands, and sustainability. Land 2021, 10, 856.
  55. Suárez, L.R.; Suárez Salazar, J.C.; Casanoves, F.; Ngo Bieng, M.A. Cacao agroforestry systems improve soil fertility: Comparison of soil properties between forest, cacao agroforestry systems, and pasture in the Colombian Amazon. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 314, 107349.
  56. Masebo, N.; Menamo, M. A review paper on: The role of agroforestry for rehabilitation of degraded soil. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2016, 6, 128–135.
  57. Purwaningsih, R.; Sartohadi, J.; Setiawan, M.A. Trees and crops arrangement in the agroforestry system based on slope units to control landslide reactivation on volcanic foot slopes in Java, Indonesia. Land 2020, 9, 327.
  58. Hairiah, K.; Widianto, W.; Suprayogo, D.; Van Noordwijk, M. Tree roots anchoring and binding soil: Reducing landslide risk in Indonesian agroforestry. Land 2020, 9, 256.
  59. Lin, B.B. Agroforestry management as an adaptive strategy against potential microclimate extremes in coffee agriculture. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2007, 144, 85–94.
  60. Susilowati, S.H. Fenomena penuaan petani dan berkurangnya tenaga kerja muda serta implikasinya bagi kebijakan pembangunan pertanian. Forum Penelit. Agro Ekon. 2016, 34, 35–55.
  61. Nugroho, A.D.; Waluyati, L.R.; Jamhari, J. Upaya Memikat Generasi Muda Bekerja Pada Sektor Pertanian di Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. JPPUMA J. Ilmu Pemerintah. dan Sos. Polit. Univ. Medan Area 2018, 6, 76.
  62. Prawesti, N.; Witjaksono, R.; Raya, A.B. Motivasi anak petani menjadi petani. Agro Ekon. 2010, 17, 11–18.
  63. Ruhimat, I.S. Tingkat motivasi petani dalam penerapan sistem agroforestry. J. Penelit. Sos. Dan Ekon. Kehutan. 2015, 12, 131–147.
  64. Sandy BPS Sebut Tingkat Pendidikan Petani Masih Rendah. Available online: https://www.idxchannel.com/economics/bps-sebut-tingkat-pendidikan-petani-masih-rendah (accessed on 15 March 2022).
  65. Waters, T. The Persistence of Subsistence Agriculture: Life Beneath the Level of the Marketplace; Lexington Books: Lanham, MD, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0739107683.
  66. Miracle, M.P. “Subsistence agriculture”: Analytical problems and alternative concepts. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1968, 50, 292–310.
  67. Morton, J.F. The Impact of Climate Change on Smallholder and Subsistence Agriculture; National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; Volume 104, pp. 19680–19685.
  68. Hudiyani, I.; Purnaningsih, N.; Asngari, P.S. Hardjanto Persepsi Petani terhadap Hutan Rakyat Pola Agroforestri di Kabupaten Wonogiri, Provinsi Jawa Tengah. J. Penyul. 2017, 13, 64–78.
  69. Madyantoro, A.; Muttaqin, Z.; Lidiawati, I. Kajian kontribusi sistem agroforestri terhadap pendapatan petani (Studi kasus: Desa Cibatok Dua, Kecamatan Cibungbulang, Kabupaten Bogor, Provinsi Jawa Barat). J. Nusa Sylva 2015, 15, 11–16.
  70. Szulecka, J.; Obidzinski, K.; Dermawan, A. Corporate-society engagement in plantation forestry in Indonesia: Evolving approaches and their implications. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 62, 19–29.
  71. Iskandar, J.; Iskandar, B.S.; Partasasmita, R. Responses to environmental and socio-economic changes in the Karangwangi traditional agroforestry system, South Cianjur, West Java. Biodiversitas 2016, 17, 332–341.
  72. Saputra, A.; Itta, D. Asysyifa Peran agroforestri karet terhadap pendapatan petani karet di Desa Maburai Provinsi Kalimantan Selatan. J. Hutan Trop. 2021, 9, 244–251.
  73. Abdurachman, D.; Andung Rokhmat, H.; Setiawan, H.I. Hubungan luas garapan hutan rakyat dengan pendapatan petani (Kasus pada Kelompok Tani Alam Raya Desa Pamedaran Kecamatan Ketanggungan, Kabupaten Brebes). J. Agrijati 2015, 28, 35–44.
  74. Iskandar, B.S.; Iskandar, J.; Partasasmita, R. Strategy of the Outer Baduy community of South Banten (Indonesia) to sustain their swidden farming traditions by temporary migration to non-Baduy areas. Biodiversitas 2018, 19, 453–464.
  75. Suryanto, P.; Widyastuti, S.; Sartohadi, J.; Awang, S.A. Budi Traditional knowledge of homegarden-dry field agroforestry as a tool for revitalization management of smallholder land use in Kulon Progo, Java, Indonesia. Int. J. Biol. 2012, 4, 173–183.
  76. Achmad, B.; Simon, H.; Diniyati, D.; Widyaningsih, T.S. Persepsi petani terhadap pengelolaan dan fungsi hutan rakyat di Kabupaten Ciamis. J. Bumi Lestari 2012, 12, 123–136.
  77. Wijaya, K.; Budidarsono, S.; Roshetko, J. Socioeconomic Baseline Studies: Agro-Forestry and Sustainable Vegetables Production in Southeast Asian Watershed; ICRAF Southeast Asia: Bogor, Indonesia, 2007.
  78. Sari, R.R.; Saputra, D.D.; Hairiah, K.; Rozendaal, D.M.A.; Roshetko, J.M.; Noordwijk, M. Van Gendered species preferences link tree diversity and carbon stocks in Cacao agroforest in Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. Land 2020, 9, 108.
  79. Ghosh-Jerath, S.; Kapoor, R.; Ghosh, U.; Singh, A.; Downs, S.; Fanzo, J. Pathways of climate change impact on agroforestry, food consumption pattern, and dietary diversity among indigenous subsistence farmers of Sauria Paharia tribal community of India: A mixed methods study. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 1–16.
  80. Martini, E.; Dewi, S.; Janudianto; Setiawan, A.; Roshetko, J. Strategi penghidupan petani agroforest dalam menghadapi perubahan cuaca yang tidak menentu: Contoh kasus di Sulawesi Selatan dan Sulawesi Tenggara. In Proseding Seminar Nasional Agroforestri; Kuswantoro, D.P., Widyaningsih, T.S., Fauziyah, E., Rachmawati, R., Eds.; BPTA-Faperta UB-ICRAF-MAFI: Malang, Indonesian, 2013; pp. 604–609.
  81. Thorlakson, T.; Neufeldt, H. Reducing subsistence farmers’ vulnerability to climate change: Evaluating the potential contributions of agroforestry in western Kenya. Agric. Food Secur. 2012, 1, 15.
  82. Rahman, S.A.; Rahman, M.F.; Sunderland, T. Causes and consequences of shifting cultivation and its alternative in the hill tracts of eastern Bangladesh. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 84, 141–155.
  83. Arocena-Francisco, H.; de Jong, W.; Doanh, L.; de Guzmn, R.S.; Koffa, S.; Kuswanda, M.; Lawrence, A.; Pagulon, A.; Rantan, D.; Widawati, E. External factors affecting the domestication of agroforestry trees (economics and policy). In Domestication of Agroforestry Trees in Southeast Asia; Forest, Farm and Community Tree Research Reports; Winrock International: Morrilton, AR, USA, 1999.
  84. Hammett, A.L. Developing community-based market information systems. In Proceedings of the Marketing Multipurpose Tree Species in Asia, Baguio City, Philippines, 6–9 December 1993; Raintree, J.B., Francisco, H.A., Eds.; Winrock International: Bangkok, Thailand, 1994; pp. 289–300.
  85. Cortner, O.; Garrett, R.D.; Valentim, J.F.; Ferreira, J.; Niles, M.T.; Reis, J.; Gil, J. Perceptions of integrated crop-livestock systems for sustainable intensification in the Brazilian Amazon. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 841–853.
  86. Garrett, R.D.; Niles, M.T.; Gil, J.D.B.; Gaudin, A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Assmann, A.; Assmann, T.S.; Brewer, K.; de Faccio Carvalho, P.C.; Cortner, O.; et al. Social and ecological analysis of commercial integrated crop livestock systems: Current knowledge and remaining uncertainty. Agric. Syst. 2017, 155, 136–146.
  87. Gil, J.D.B.; Garrett, R.; Berger, T. Determinants of crop-livestock integration in Brazil: Evidence from the household and regional levels. Land Use Policy 2016, 59, 557–568.
  88. Asian Development Bank and Government of Bangladesh. Second Chittagong Hill Tracts Rural Development Project (CHTRDP-2); Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2016.
  89. Perdana, A.; Roshetko, J.M. Survival strategy: Traders of smallholder teak in Indonesia. Int. For. Rev. 2015, 17, 461–468.
  90. Roshetko, J.M.; Kurniawan, I.; Budidarsono, S. Smallholder Cultivation of Katuk (Sauropus androgynus) and Kucai (Allium odorum): Challenges in Sustaining Commercial Production and Market Linkage; Susila, A.D., Purwoko, B.S., Roshetko, J.M., Palada, M.C., Kartika, J.G., Dahlia, L., Wijaya, K., Rahmanulloh, A., Raimadoya, M., Koesoemaningtyas, T., et al., Eds.; World Association of Soil and Water Conservation (WASWAC): Bangkok, Thailand, 2012; pp. 215–230. ISBN 978-974-350-655-0.
  91. Arvola, A.; Brockhaus, M.; Kallio, M.; Pham, T.T.; Chi, D.T.L.; Long, H.T.; Nawir, A.A.; Phimmavong, S.; Mwamakimbullah, R.; Jacovelli, P. What drives smallholder tree growing? Enabling conditions in a changing policy environment. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 116, 102173.
  92. Kang, B.T.; Akinnifesi, F.K. Agroforestry as alternative land-use production systems for the tropics. Nat. Resour. Forum 2000, 24, 137–151.
  93. Rahman, S.A.; de Groot, W.T.; Snelder, D.J. Exploring the agroforestry adoption gap: Financial and socioeconomics of litchi-based agroforestry by smallholders in Rajshahi (Bangladesh). In Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services: Lessons from Asia, Advances in Agroforestry; Snelder, D.J., Lasco, R.D., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 227–243. ISBN 978-1-4020-8261-0.
  94. Hosier, R.H. The economics of smallholder agroforestry: Two case studies. World Dev. 1989, 17, 1827–1839.
  95. Abidin, M.Z. Dampak kebijakan impor beras dan ketahanan pangan dalam perspektif kesejahteraan sosial. Sosio Inf. 2015, 1, 213–230.
  96. Utomo, S. Dampak impor dan ekspor jagung terhadap produktivitas jagung di Indonesia. J. Etikonomi 2012, 11, 158–179.
  97. Hasibuan, A.I.R.S. Kebijakan pangan pasca ratifikasi Agreement on Agriculture (AoA)-WTO. J. Kaji. Polit. Dan Masal. Pembang. 2015, 11, 1633–1644.
  98. Maramis, A.Y. Dampak impor cabai dari Tiongkok terhadap perekonomian Indonesia tahun 2010–2015. Jom Fisip 2018, 5, 1–15.
  99. Rozaki, Z.; Rahmawati, N.; Wijaya, O.; Mubarok, A.F.; Senge, M.; Kamarudin, M.F. A case study of agroforestry practices and challenges in Mt. Merapi risk and hazard prone area of Indonesia. Biodiversitas 2021, 22, 2511–2518.
  100. Sinclair, F.L.; Walker, D.H. A utilitarian approach to the incorporation of local knowledge in agroforestry research and extension. In Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems; Buck, L.E., Lassoie, J., Fernandes, E.C.M., Eds.; Lewis Publishers Inc.: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999; pp. 245–275. ISBN 1566702941.
  101. Nugroho, H.Y.S.H.; Basuki, T.M.; Pramono, I.B.; Savitri, E.; Purwanto; Indrawati, D.R.; Wahyuningrum, N.; Adi, R.N.; Indrajaya, Y.; Supangat, A.B.; et al. Forty years of soil and water conservation policy, implementation, research and development in Indonesia: A review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2972.
  102. de Graaff, J.; Aklilu, H.A.; Bodnar, F.; Posthumus, H.; Tenge, A.J.M. Adoption of soil and water conservation measures. In Proceedings of the EFARD Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, 27–29 April 2005.
  103. Okubo, S.; Parikesit, P.; Harashina, K.; Muhamad, D.; Abdoellah, O.S.; Takeuchi, K. Traditional perennial crop-based agroforestry in West Java: The tradeoff between on-farm biodiversity and income. Agrofor. Syst. 2010, 80, 17–31.
  104. Rahman, S.A.; Foli, S.; Al Pavel, M.A.; Al Mamun, M.A.; Sunderland, T. Forest, trees and agroforestry: Better livelihoods and ecosystem services from multifunctional landscapes. Int. J. Dev. Sustain. 2015, 4, 479–491.
  105. Acheampong, E.; Insaidoo, T.F.G.; Ros-Tonen, M.A.F. Management of Ghana’s modified taungya system: Challenges and strategies for improvement. Agrofor. Syst. 2016, 90, 659–674.
  106. Boffa, J.-M.; Kindt, R.; Katumba, B.; Jourget, J.-G.; Turyomurugyendo, L. Management of tree diversity in agricultural landscapes around Mabira Forest Reserve, Uganda. Afr. J. Ecol. 2008, 46, 24–32.
  107. Kabir, M.E.; Webb, E.L. Can homegardens conserve biodiversity in Bangladesh? Biotropica 2008, 40, 95–103.
  108. Moreno-Calles, A.I.; Casas, A.; García-Frapolli, E.; Torres-García, I. Traditional agroforestry systems of multi-crop “milpa” and “chichipera” cactus forest in the arid Tehuacán Valley, Mexico: Their management and role in people’s subsistence. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 84, 207–226.
  109. Carlson, M.J.; Mitchell, R.; Rodriguez, L. Scenario analysis to identify viable conservation strategies in Paraguay’s imperiled Atlantic forest. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 8.
  110. Lasco, R.D.; Delfino, R.J.P.; Espaldon, M.L.O. Agroforestry systems: Helping smallholders adapt to climate risks while mitigating climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2014, 5, 825–833.
  111. Mbow, C.; Smith, P.; Skole, D.; Duguma, L.; Bustamante, M. Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 6, 8–14.
  112. Kurniasih, H.; Ford, R.M.; Keenan, R.J.; King, B. The evolution of community forestry through the growth of interlinked community institutions in Java, Indonesia. World Dev. 2021, 139, 105319.
  113. Rahman, S.A.; Sunderland, T.; Roshetko, J.M.; Basuki, I.; Healey, J.R. Tree culture of smallholder farmers practicing agroforestry in Gunung Salak Valley, West Java, Indonesia. Small-Scale For. 2016, 15, 433–442.
  114. Rahman, S.A.; Rahman, M.F.; Sunderland, T. Increasing tree cover in degrading landscapes:‘Integration’and ‘Intensification’of smallholder forest culture in the Alutilla Valley, Matiranga, Bangladesh. Small-Scale For. 2014, 13, 237–249.
  115. Roshetko, J.M.; Nugraha, E.; Tukan, J.C.M.; Manurung, G.; Fay, C.; van Noordwijk, M. Agroforestry for Livelihood Enhancement and Enterprise Development. 2007. Available online: https://www.worldagroforestry.org/ (accessed on 13 June 2022).
  116. Tomich, T.P.; de Foresta, H.; Dennis, R.; Ketterings, Q.M.; Murdiyarso, D.; Palm, C.; Stolle, F.; Suyanto, S.; van Noordwijk, M. Carbon offsets for conservation and development in Indonesia? Am. J. Altern. Agric. 2002, 17, 125–137.
  117. Roshetko, J.M. Smallholder Tree Farming Systems for Livelihood Enhancement and Carbon Storage. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013.
  118. Purnomo, A.S.; Laili, S.; Zayadi, H. Persepsi masyarakat tentang agroforestri di Desa Sumberejo Poncokusumo Malang. Biosaintropis (Biosci.-Trop.) 2022, 7, 9–14.
  119. Hidayat, A.S.; Laili, S.; Zayadi, H. Studi persepsi masyarakat tentang agroforestri tanaman kopi di Desa Patokpicis Kecamatan Wajak, Kabupaten Malang. Biosaintropis (Biosci.-Trop.) 2021, 6, 1–7.
  120. Susanti, Y.; Wulandari, C.; Kaskoyo, H.; Safe’i, R.; Yuwono, S.B. Persepsi masyarakat terhadap pengelolaan agroforestri di Tahura Wan Abdul Rachman, Bandarlampung. J. Hutan Trop. 2021, 9, 472–487.
  121. Kurniawan, I.; Roshetko, J.M. Market’s risk and production uncertainty: Drivers of agroforestry land use diversification of smallholder teak grower in Gunungkidul District, Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 2 World Congress of Agroforestry: Agroforestry-The Future of Global Land Use, Nairobi, Kenya, 24–28 August 2009.
  122. Rohadi, D.; Herawati, T. Agroforestry research in Indonesia: Where to go for the next. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Agroforestry, New Delhi, India, 10–14 February 2014; pp. 1–13.
  123. Sood, K.K.; Mitchell, C.P. Identifying important biophysical and social determinants of on-farm tree growing in subsistence-based traditional agroforestry systems. Agrofor. Syst. 2009, 75, 175–187.
  124. Abdurachman, A.; Dariah, A.; Mulyani, A. Strategi dan teknologi pengelolaan lahan kering mendukung pengadaan pangan nasional. J. Litbang Pertan. 2008, 27, 43–49.
  125. Anderson, V. Deep Adaptation: A Framework for Climate Resilience, Decarbonization, and Planetary Health. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2018.
  126. Anisykurlillah, R.; Domai, T.; Hermawan, R. Community empowerment efforts in private forest development of Malang Regency, Indonesia. Russ. J. Agric. Socio-Econ. Sci. 2019, 11, 252–256.
  127. Pambudi, A.S. The development of social forestry in Indonesia. JISDeP J. Indones. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2020, 1, 57–66.
  128. Rakatama, A.; Pandit, R. Reviewing social forestry schemes in Indonesia: Opportunities and challenges. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 111, 102052.
  129. Rahman, S.A.; Jacobsen, J.B.; Healey, J.R.; Roshetko, J.M.; Sunderland, T. Finding alternatives to swidden agriculture: Does agroforestry improve livelihood options and reduce pressure on existing forest? Agrofor. Syst. 2017, 91, 185–199.
  130. Hadi, Y.S.; Saleh, M.B. Strategy for the implementation of CDM and carbon trade in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the Workshop Forests for Poverty Reduction: Opportunities with Clean Development Mechanism, Environmental Services and Biodiversity, Seoul, Korea, 27–29 August 2003; Sim, H.C., Appanah, S., Youn, Y.C., Eds.; FAO of the UN Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok, Thailand, 2004; pp. 89–98.
  131. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 18 Tahun 2012 Tentang Pangan 2012. Available online: https://luk.staff.ugm.ac.id/atur/UU18-2012Pangan.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2022).
  132. Tan, Z.; Lal, R.; Wiebe, K.D. Global soil nutrient depletion and yield reduction. J. Sustain. Agric. 2005, 26, 123–146.
  133. Kubitza, C.; Krishna, V.V.; Urban, K.; Alamsyah, Z.; Qaim, M. Land property rights, agricultural intensification, and deforestation in Indonesia. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 147, 312–321.
  134. Olson, J.M.; Berry, L. Land Degradation in Java, Indonesia: Its Extent and Impact; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
  135. Sitorus, S.R.P.; Pravitasari, A.E. Land degradation and landslide in Indonesia. Sumatra J. Disaster Geogr. Geogr. Educ. 2017, 1, 61–71.
  136. Nurrochmat, D.R.; Pribadi, R.; Siregar, H.; Justianto, A.; Park, M.S. Transformation of agro-forest management policy under the dynamic circumstances of a two-decade regional autonomy in Indonesia. Forests 2021, 12, 419.
  137. Rahman, S.A.; Sunderland, T.; Roshetko, J.M.; Healey, J.R. Facilitating smallholder tree farming in fragmented tropical landscapes: Challenges and potentials for sustainable land management. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 198, 110–121.
  138. Legesse, A.; Negash, M. Species diversity, composition, structure and management in agroforestry systems: The case of Kachabira district, Southern Ethiopia. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06477.
  139. Lelamo, L.L. A review on the indigenous multipurpose agroforestry tree species in Ethiopia: Management, their productive and service roles and constraints. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07874.
  140. Wu, J.; Zeng, H.; Zhao, F.; Chen, C.; Liu, W.; Yang, B.; Zhang, W. Recognizing the role of plant species composition in the modification of soil nutrients and water in rubber agroforestry systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 138042.
  141. Asante, B.O.; Ennin, S.A.; Osei-Adu, J.; Asumadu, H.; Adegbidi, A.; Saho, M.; Nantoume, H. Performance of integrated crop-small ruminant production systems in West Africa. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 93, 989–999.
  142. Atangana, A.; Khasa, D.; Chang, S.X.; Degrande, A. Definitions and classification of agroforestry systems. In Tropical Agroforestry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 35–47.
  143. Dene, A.B.N.; Diogo, R.V.C.; Houehanou, T.D.; Paul, B.K. Improving forage productivity for increased livestock production using biochar and green manure amendments. In Proceedings of the 20th Australian Agronomy Conference, Toowomba, Australia, 18–22 September 2022; pp. 1–5.
  144. Hairiah, K.; van Noordwijk, M.; Suprayogo, D. Interaksi Antara Pohon—Tanah—Tanaman Semusim: Kunci Keberhasilan atau Kegagalan Dalam Sistem Agroforestri; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia: Bogor, Indonesia, 2016; pp. 19–42. ISBN 978-979-493-415-9.
  145. Tesema, T. Determinants of allocative and economic efficiency in crop-livestock integration in western part of Ethiopia evidence from Horro district: Data envelopment approach. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07390.
  146. Duan, C.; Shi, P.; Zong, N.; Wang, J.; Song, M.; Zhang, X. Feeding solution: Crop-livestock integration via crop-forage rotation in the southern Tibetan Plateau. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 284, 106589.
  147. Portilho, I.I.R.; Savin, M.C.; Borges, C.D.; Tsai, S.M.; Mercante, F.M.; Roscoe, R.; de Carvalho, L.A. Maintenance of N cycling gene communities with crop-livestock integration management in tropical agriculture systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 267, 52–62.
  148. Udawatta, R.P.; Gantzer, C. Soil and water ecosystem services of agroforestry. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2022, 77, 5A–11A.
  149. Kaba, J.S.; Yamoah, F.A.; Acquaye, A. Towards sustainable agroforestry management: Harnessing the nutritional soil value through cocoa mix waste. Waste Manag. 2021, 124, 264–272.
  150. Swieter, A.; Langhof, M.; Lamerre, J.; Greef, J.M. Long-term yields of oilseed rape and winter wheat in a short rotation alley cropping agroforestry system. Agrofor. Syst. 2019, 93, 1853–1864.
  151. Antwi-Agyei, P.; Wiafe, E.A.; Amanor, K.; Baffour-Ata, F.; Codjoe, S.N.A. Determinants of choice of climate change adaptation practices by smallholder pineapple farmers in the semi-deciduous forest zone of Ghana. Environ. Sustain. Indic. 2021, 12, 100140.
  152. Adeagbo, O.A.; Ojo, T.O.; Adetoro, A.A. Understanding the determinants of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder maize farmers in South-west, Nigeria. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06231.
  153. Ranjitkar, S.; Lawley, B.; Tannock, G.; Engberg, R.M. Bacterial succession in the broiler gastrointestinal tract. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 2399–2410.
  154. Cardinael, R.; Mao, Z.; Prieto, I.; Stokes, A.; Dupraz, C.; Kim, J.H.; Jourdan, C. Competition with winter crops induces deeper rooting of walnut trees in a Mediterranean alley cropping agroforestry system. Plant Soil 2015, 391, 219–235.
  155. Dufour, L.; Gosme, M.; Le Bec, J.; Dupraz, C. Does pollarding trees improve the crop yield in a mature alley-cropping agroforestry system? J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2020, 206, 640–649.
  156. Fletcher, E.H.; Thetford, M.; Sharma, J.; Jose, S. Effect of root competition and shade on survival and growth of nine woody plant taxa within a pecan alley cropping system. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 86, 49–60.
  157. Suryanto, P.; Tohari; Sabarnurdin, M.S. Dinamika sistem berbagi sumberdaya (resources sharing) dalam agroforestri: Dasar pertimbangan penyusunan strategi silvikultur. Ilmu Pertan. 2005, 12, 165–178.
  158. Bazié, H.R.; Bayala, J.; Zombré, G.; Sanou, J.; Ilstedt, U. Separating competition-related factors limiting crop performance in an agroforestry parkland system in Burkina Faso. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 84, 377–388.
  159. Dilla, A.M.; Smethurst, P.J.; Huth, N.I.; Barry, K.M. Plot-scale agroforestry modeling explores tree pruning and fertilizer interactions for maize production in a Faidherbia parkland. Forests 2020, 11, 1175.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback