Applied Geography 43 (2013) 171e181

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Geography
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeog

Rebuilding the Brazilian rainforest: Agroforestry strategies for

secondary forest succession
Christine E. Blinn a, *, John O. Browder b, Marcos A. Pedlowski c, Randolph H. Wynne a
a
Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation, College of Natural Resources and Environment,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
b
College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA
c
Laboratório de Estudos do Espaço Antrópico, Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense, Campos dos Goytacazes, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

a b s t r a c t
Keywords: Does the adoption of agroforestry by small farmers in the Brazilian Amazon promote secondary forest
Deforestation succession on the degraded pastures and crop fields? New results from a small-scale farm agroforestry
Development
demonstration project, the Rondônia Agroforestry Pilot Project (RAPP) that began in 1992 are presented
Frontier
Land use
in this paper. In 1992, 242 farmers were surveyed by a stratified random sampling protocol, 50 of whom
Landsat were selected to participate in the RAPP, constituting its experimental group. The remaining 191 farmers
Multi-temporal served as a control group. Farmers from both groups were re-surveyed in 2002 (after 10 years) and again
in 2010 (after 18 years). Annual site visits to the experimental group farms were conducted from 1993
through 2003 to monitor agroforest plot development and management, and changes in pertinent socio-
economic and household demographic characteristics such as household capacity, production systems,
and social participation. Differences in property size, number of people permanently residing on the
property, and social participation were found between the experimental and control group, with the
experimental group having larger properties, more residents, and more participation in mutual aid as-
sociations. Control group farmers were also more reliant on cattle production (based on 2009 sales)
despite having similar amounts of pasture as farmers in the experimental group. Within the experi-
mental group, very few differences were found between farmers based on the type of agroforestry plot:
timber, mixed or non-timber. Remote sensing analyses reveal long-term (10 yearsþ) spectral differences
in terms of the similarity to primary forest of both the agroforestry plots and the entire properties of the
farms in this study. Experimental group farmers with mixed or timber-based agroforestry plots allowed
more secondary forest succession to occur in and around their plots than farmers with non-timber plots.
Although, on average, farm properties have become less spectrally similar to primary forest since 1992,
properties with agroforestry plots tend to have more secondary succession and/or primary forest on their
land in 2011. Several example properties are shown to illustrate the tendency of farmers with agrofor-
estry plots to allow more secondary forest succession to occur on their land.
Ó 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY license.

Introduction and Miller’s (1998) content review of the journal Agroforestry Sys-
tems, spanning 1982 to 1996. Since then this subject has entered
Agroforestry and tropical forest succession into a broader scientific discourse on tropical agroforestry (e.g.,
Chowdhury, 2007; Ehiagbonare, 2006; JIRCAS, 2007; Lieberei &
Socio-economic research articles on the role of agroforestry in Gasparotto, 1998; Meza, Sabogal, & Jong, 2006; Raman, Mudappa,
promoting secondary forest succession were absent from Mercer & Kapoor, 2009; Shono, Cadaweng, & Durst, 2007; Vieira, Holl, &
Peneireiro, 2009). Agroforestry, defined as a “system of land use
in which harvestable trees or shrubs are grown among or around
crops or on pastureland” (Agroforestry, 2011) has evolved in
numerous social and cultural contexts as a managed successional
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 5402315525.
land cover to achieve fallow enrichment, secondary forest cover,
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C.E. Blinn), [email protected] (J.O. Browder), riparian forestland rehabilitation, degraded forest recuperation or
[email protected] (M.A. Pedlowski), [email protected] (R.H. Wynne). recovery, and agro-successional restoration. As a vehicle for

0143-6228 Ó 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY license.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.06.013
172 C.E. Blinn et al. / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 171e181

promoting reforestation through managed secondary forest suc- agroforestry experimentally because of the greater network of
cession, research has also focused on the factors that influence technical information and mutual support such participation
farmers to adopt agroforestry practices (Smith, Dubois, Current, provides.
Lutz, & Clement, 1998; Warner, 1993; Yokota, Martin, & Siki, From these questions and observations the research objectives
2009). Related research has also explored the impacts of agrofor- for this paper, enumerated below, emerged e to assess the poten-
estry and secondary forest succession on nutrient cycles (Sirois, tial impact of agroforestry adoption on secondary forest succession
Margolis, & Camiré, 1998), on biodiversity and wildlife pop- and primary forest conservation.
ulations (Bobo, Waltert, Fermon, Njokagbor, & Mühlenberg, 2006;
Harvey & Haber, 1998; Letcher & Chazdon, 2009; Lozada, de
Objectives
Koning, Marché, Klein, & Tscharntke, 2006; Schulze et al., 2004),
on atmospheric carbon sequestration (Castro, Sanchez-Azofeifa, &
In this paper, both 2010 land owner survey results and
Rivard, 2003; Delaney, 1999; Fearnside & Guimarães, 1996; Lasco,
contemporaneous remote sensing analyses were used to address
Guillermo, Cruz, Bantayan, & Pulhin, 2004; Roshetko, Delaney,
the following research questions:
Hairiah, & Purnomosidhi, 2002; Schroth, D’Angelo, Teixeira, Haag, &
Lieberei, 2002; Takimoto, Nair, & Nair, 2009; Wise & Cacho, 2011),
1) Are there any significant differences in socio-economic char-
and on agroforestry’s contribution to rural household livelihood,
acteristics between:
not being limited to just income generation (Alavalapati & Nair,
a) The experimental group of agroforestry adopters (n ¼ 31)
2001; Barton, 1994; Budowski, 1980; Pattanayak & Mercer, 1998).
and the control group of non-adopters (n ¼ 39) included in
As the research literature on agroforestry and its potential contri-
the 2010 survey?
bution to natural reforestation grows, questions remain regarding
b) The three different sub-groups of agroforestry adopters;
what types of agroforestry systems produce greater positive results
timber, non-timber, and mixed, in the experimental group?
in promoting secondary forest succession in the tropics.
2) Are there any significant spectral differences in land cover in
and around the agroforestry plots between the sub-groups of
Rondônia Agroforestry Pilot Project
agroforestry adopters in the experimental group that might
indicate a positive synergy between agroforestry demonstra-
This paper updates selected findings of the Rondônia Agrofor-
tion plots and subsequent secondary forest succession?
estry Pilot Project (RAPP), an on-farm experimental agroforestry
3) Are there any significant differences in the amount of remnant
demonstration project involving small-scale farmers in the south-
primary forest cover on the properties in the project’s experi-
western Brazilian Amazon state of Rondônia over an 18 year (1992e
mental and control groups that might indicate a potential
2010) period (Browder & Pedlowski, 2000; Browder, Wynne, &
natural forest conservation effect of agroforestry adoption?
Pedlowski, 2005; Summers, Browder, & Pedlowski, 2004). One of
the long-term research questions that the RAPP sought to address
was: Is successful agroforestry a catalyst to secondary forest suc-
cession that might encourage reforestation of degraded lands on Study sites
small farms in the Amazon? And, more specifically, does the type of
agroforestry system (non-timber, mixed, or timber-based) adopted Both control and experimental groups were drawn from the
influence the likelihood that a farmer will manage degraded land same rural population of family farmers who had migrated to
for secondary forest regrowth as previously hypothesized (Browder Rondônia between 1980 and 1985 and settled in the project’s two
et al., 2005)? Furthermore, are there socio-economic household study sites, the municipios (counties) of Nova União and Alto Par-
characteristics that might predict secondary forest succession aiso. The largest proportion of these farmers originated in the South
based on agroforestry? and Southeast regions of Brazil, most having worked as share-
Considerable differentiation in the spectral signatures from croppers and tenant farmers on coffee plantations. With the pro-
satellite images of the RAPP planting sites and their immediate gressive government-sponsored conversion from coffee to soybean
surroundings were noticed over time. In some cases, farmers had production beginning in the mid-1960s this rural population
allowed secondary forest vegetation to subsume their agroforest became progressively displaced from their traditional livelihoods
plots and in others, farmers had more carefully managed their plots and the government actively encouraged their migration to Ron-
sites to minimize secondary vegetation. The spectral differentiation dônia as part of a larger regional development and resettlement
within the experimental group led the principal investigators to program called The Northwest Region Development Plan (POLO-
speculate about socio-economic factors that might influence these NOROESTE) (Browder & Godfrey, 1997; pp. 164e175). The farming
spatial patterns. They hypothesized that three variables, for which strategies pursued by these new homesteaders in Rondônia typi-
household level survey data were available, might contribute to a cally followed a similar pattern: Small-scale forest clearing and
better understanding of these patterns, as follows: (1) Household planting of annual crops (corn, rice, beans) and a small area of
capacity of the control and experimental groups (number of perennial crops (usually coffee and cacao). Small livestock and
working age adults living and working on the farm and the size of eventually milk cattle, then beef cattle were added over time. For
the farm area). The greater the household capacity the more likely a various reasons, several patterns of socio-economic and land use
household might be to pursue a more labor intensive non-timber or differentiation began to emerge leading some unsuccessful farmers
mixed agroforestry experiment. (2) Dominant farming strategy to sell all or part of their properties, whilst more successful
pursued by the experimental farmers (area devoted to perennial neighbors enlarged their holdings (for a more detailed examina-
cropping, annual cropping, and cattle). The more area in perennial tion, see Browder, 1994). The causes of these parallel processes of
cropping the more likely a farmer would exhibit a tendency to property subdivision and enlargement and how they correlated to
manage crops for annual harvest and income leading to a non- changes in land cover, land use, household income, and numerous
timber agroforestry preference. (3) Associational activities of con- other household level socio-economic and demographic charac-
trol and experimental groups (farmer participation in mutual aid teristics within the context of leading theories of frontier expansion
associations and rural workers unions). Farmers more active in are presented elsewhere (Browder et al., 2008). Suffice it to say that
these associations would be more likely to innovate and adopt the study sites and their rural populations surveyed were
 C.E. Blinn et al. / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 171e181 173

representative of the general rural population of Rondônia during (hard and soft-woods). To enhance farm income in the short-term,
the time period of the project. participating farmers were offered a bee-keeping component, an
option which 36% of the original experimental farmers elected.
Methods Seedlings were distributed to participants during the first half of
the rainy season. The farmers used household labor to plant the
The Rondônia Agroforestry Pilot Project (RAPP) e ground-level seedlings according to each farmer’s plot plan. Within six months
analyses of the initial planting each farm was visited, seedling growth was
measured, and problems with plot maintenance were described.
Detailed descriptions of the RAPP study sites and project The project was monitored annually from 1993 to 2001 and then, in
methodology were previously published in Browder and Pedlowski 2002, a 10-year follow-up survey of all 242 farms (by then sub-
(2000) and Browder et al. (2005). In summary, during 1992, 50 divided into 283 farms) was undertaken (Browder et al., 2005;
farms were selected from a stratified random sample of 242 farms Summers et al., 2004). A second follow-up study was conducted
surveyed in two colonization areas of the frontier state of Rondônia, in 2003 of a smaller subset of the original sample, to further
in the western Brazilian Amazon. Farmers self-selected their investigate the tropical forest management and silvicultural prac-
participation in the project based on their responses to the initial tices of this farming population (Summers, 2008). Then in 2010, a
standardized baseline questionnaire, which was administered by third follow-up farm-level survey was completed that revisited all
personal interview by trained Brazilian agronomy and forestry 31 (out of 50) surviving RAPP experimental farms, along with
students. Invited participants were those indicating a predisposi- another 39 farms from the original control group.
tion toward planting trees (for example, did they already plant trees By 2010, three types of experimental farms had emerged: those
on their farm, could they recognize native species in the wild, and that had chosen initial agroforest designs that emphasized long-
the like) and experimenting with innovative agro-silvicultural term commercial timber components (timber-based agroforest
practices in the survey and subsequent open-ended interviews. systems), and had subsequently managed those plots to maximize
Participating farmers were invited to choose from a menu of 20 long-term timber yield; those that opted for faster-growing ground
plant species (all native except for teak e Tectona grandis e an Asian and bush cropping agroforestry systems, without a significant long-
exotic introduced into the Amazon some 20 years before the RAPP) term timber component (non-timber-based agroforest systems);
each producing one or more commodities of local market demand. and those that combined timber and non-timber elements into
Seedlings were produced on local project nurseries using regionally mixed agroforestry systems (Fig. 1). Mean values for each variable
available seed stock. Plots were designed to fit on a 1-ha area of interest from the 2010 survey were calculated for the entire
containing no primary forest vegetation. Each plot consisted of sample, for both the experimental and control groups of farms, and
between 800 and 1000 individuals from between 2 and 18 species. for the three types (timber, non-timber, and mixed) of farms in the
Plot composition typically included a mix of fruit, palm, oil and nut- experimental group, described above. The socio-economic vari-
producing species (with potential to generate revenues in the mid- ables of interest fell into three types of characteristics: household
term (4e5 years), along with various citrus and industrial timbers capacity (property size and number of adults residing on the

Fig. 1. Illustrative agroforest plots of each experimental farm type. Note: The figure shows examples of actual plots developed by RAPP farmers based on their interests (see Browder
& Pedlowski, 2000). Considerable variation exists within each farm type in terms of species composition. All participants were required to include one tree species in their
agroforest plots. Classification Criteria: “Non-timber” based systems incorporated just one tree species but predominantly consisted of perennial ground-covering bush species
producing fruits, seeds for commercial or medicinal purposes; “Timber based” systems usually contained one perennial ground cover crop but predominantly included 2 or more
timber producing tree species; “Mixed” systems consisted of more balanced proportions of elements of both non-timber and timber species.
174 C.E. Blinn et al. / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 171e181

property); production system type (based on annual cropping, for each image, path/row and date, using the common area. Images
permanent cropping, and pasture/cattle); and social participation with the spectral distance from primary forest were then created by
(membership in farmers organizations). calculating the Euclidian distance (ED) between each pixel in an
The AndersoneDarling normality test was used to determine if image and that image’s primary forest mean surface reflectance
the continuous variables of interest were normally distributed and vector using five of the six non-thermal Landsat spectral bands, two
could thus be evaluated with parametric statistical tests. through five and seven.
Nonparametric statistical tests were selected based on the
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
normality test results. Medians between the experimental and u7ðs6Þ
uX
control groups were tested for all continuous variables using the ED ¼ t ðmi  xi Þ2 (1)
ManneWhitney test. While medians between the intra- i¼2
experimental groups were tested using the KruskaleWallis test,
which can accommodate more than two groups. Binomial variables where: i ¼ Landsat band number; mi ¼ mean value for band i; and
were tested with Fisher’s exact test and the chi-square test of as- xi ¼ pixel value for band i. As an example, the ED calculation for a
sociation for comparisons of two or three groups, respectively. All pixel in the 2011 image from 232/67 is illustrated in Table 2.
tests were conducted with MinitabÔ (Minitab Inc., 2012), a statis- Summary statistics were calculated for three buffer zones, 50,
tical software program. 85, and 117.5 m (Fig. 3), around the center location of each agro-
forestry plot using the spectral distance from primary forest im-
Remote sensing analyses ages. These radii were selected to assess the synergistic “spillover”
effect of the agroforest plot on the land cover of its immediate
Two Landsat path/rows, 231/68 and 232/67, contained the study surrounding environment. The mean spectral distance of each
area (Fig. 2). Five image dates (Table 1) at approximately five year agroforestry plot from primary forest was averaged by agroforestry
intervals were acquired from the United States Geological Survey plot type and buffer distance. The mixed and timber plot types
(USGS) for each path/row between 1991 or 1992 and 2011. All im- were combined in the remote sensing analyses because of similar
ages were obtained in the standard level-one terrain-corrected spectral distance trajectories through time (correlation of 0.79). A
format and thus did not require image to image co-registration. forest similarity index, between 0 and 1, was created by subtracting
Each Landsat image was processed through the Landsat each plot’s mean spectral distance from the maximum mean
Ecosystem Disturbance Adaptive Processing System (LEDAPS) spectral distance of all properties and then dividing by the
(Masek et al., 2006) to surface reflectance to minimize differences maximum spectral distance. The forest similarity index was plotted
caused by atmospheric conditions at the time of image acquisition. vs. time by agroforestry plot type and for an example plot where
Similar to Browder et al.’s (2005) methods, calculations were secondary forest succession occurred (Fig. 4). The KruskaleWallis
standardized across image dates and path/row boundaries by using nonparametric test of medians with an alpha of 0.05 was used to
a common area between Landsat scenes. The common area was ten test for the equality of the forest similarity index medians between
thousand pixels in size and contained primary forest in all images. the mixed/timber and non-timber plot types at each time interval.
A mean surface reflectance vector for primary forest was calculated In order to compare farmers that were part of the experimental

Fig. 2. Study area location within Brazil and Landsat path/rows used.
 C.E. Blinn et al. / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 171e181 175

Table 1 considered as outliers in the population, the difference in median

Landsat TM dates used in analysis for each path/row. number of cattle sold between the control and experimental groups
231/68 232/67 is no longer statistically significant. Even though farmers in the
7/25/1992 6/28/1991
experimental and control groups allocated roughly the same
7/20/1996 6/09/1996 amount of land to “productive pasture” (although non-adopters had
8/03/2001 8/10/2001 a larger proportion of their total property in pasture), the control
7/16/2006 6/21/2006 group sold a larger number of cattle in 2009 (median of 23 without
8/15/2011 8/06/2011
outliers removed) than the experimental group sold (median of 6.0)
despite the borderline statistical significance for this variable.
Although both experimental and control groups share similar pro-
group, who had agroforestry plots on their land, with the control
duction systems, the control group was more dependent on cattle
group of farmers, who were surveyed, but did not have agroforestry
production for household livelihood than the agroforestry adopters.
plots, the average forest similarity index of all pixels within each
property boundary was calculated by farmer group (experimental
Social participation
vs. control). This surrogate measure of primary and/or secondary
Differences in social participation rates observed between the
forest retention or regeneration is plotted vs. year and by farmer
experimental and control groups were not statistically significant,
group in Fig. 5 and also tested for equality of medians with the
although agroforestry adopters appear to be more engaged in both
KruskaleWallis nonparametric test.
rural workers syndicates (unions) (77.4% vs. 61.5%) and mutual aid
associations (61.3% vs. 46.2%) for sharing labor among different
Results
households (Table 3b). There is an effect in these findings, associ-
ated with the survey instrument or sample design, since social
The 2010 survey results revealed some statistically significant
participation was one of the original criteria used for experimental
differences in household characteristics between the experimental
group selection. Given that the sample frames were constituted in
group and the control group, but no statistically significant differ-
1992, it is noteworthy that these social participation rates still
ences between the three types of agroforest farm designs adopted
remain higher among agroforestry adopters than the control group
(Tables 3a and 3b). Since all but one of the sample distributions
of non-adopters.
from the continuous variables (Table 3a) were not normally
distributed, nonparametric tests were used to compare medians
Intra-experimental group differentiation: timber vs. non-timber vs.
between and within the groups.
mixed-based agroforest systems

Experimental vs. control group Unlike the differences observed between the experimental
group, as a whole, and the control group, no statistically significant
Household capacity differences were observed between types of agroforest system
Statistically significant differences in median property size and adopters. The lack of statistical significance is likely due to small
household composition between the experimental and control groups sample sizes and thus differences in four of the indicators seem
emerged between the two groups by 2010, although there were no noteworthy. First, a greater proportion of non-timber system
significant differences in either at the time of the 1992 baseline survey households managed perennial crops (84.6%) than either of the
(Browder & Pedlowski, 2000), both having been drawn from the same other two types of agroforest system adopters (Perennial Crops,
initial population (Table 3a). Both median property size and number of Table 3b). The second difference pertains to the number of cattle
permanent property residents were larger for the experimental sold (Cattle, Table 3a). Timber-based system adopters sold more
group, suggesting that farmers participating in the RAPP until 2010 animal units in 2009 (30.4) than either of the other two types of
enjoyed greater capacity for innovation (more land to work with and agroforest system adopters. A third difference pertains to the de-
more workers per farm to work the land). gree of social participation among the 3 groups of agroforest system
adopters (Associations, Table 3b). A larger proportion of timber-
Production systems based system adopters reported participating in mutual aid asso-
While there were no significant differences between the exper- ciations (71.4%) than either of the other two types. Finally, a higher
imental and control groups in terms of percentage producing an- percentage of timber-based system adopters (71.4%) reported
nuals and perennial crops (Table 3b), and number of hectares in obtaining benefits from their agroforest plots than either of the
pasture, there was a statistically significant difference in medians at other two groups (Utilization, Table 3b). Although only one exper-
an alpha of 0.055 in the number of cattle marketed in the previous imental group household sold any produce, participants typically
year (2009) (Table 3a). Three farmers in the control group sold more reported non-timber benefits of occasional game, shade, fresh
than 200 cattle in 2009, with one selling 1200. If these farmers are water, cleaner air, and cooler temperatures associated with the
agroforest plots.
Table 2
Euclidian distance calculation for a pixel in the 2011 image from 232/67 with an
Remote sensing results
ED ¼ 363.398.

Landsat Pixel reflectance Primary forest Difference Twenty eight of the original 50 agroforestry plot locations were
band Vectora (xi) mean reflectance squared (mi  xi)2
analyzed, six timber-based, thirteen non-timber, and nine from the
vectora (mi)
mixed sub-group. A total of 9, 26, and 50 pixels, respectively, were
2 392 313.702 6130.577
contained within the three buffer distances, 50, 85, and 117.5 m,
3 295 244.603 2539.858
4 2852 2525.466 106,624.5 around each agroforestry plot center. Mixed/timber agroforestry
5 1315 1198.933 13,471.55 plots had a decrease in their average forest similarity index be-
7 531 473.630 3291.317 tween 1991/1992 and 1996 (Fig. 4), presumably as a result of land
Sum 132,2057.8 clearing for plot establishment. During this same time period, non-
a
Units are 10,000 times the percent reflectance. timber agroforestry plots had very little change in their average
176 C.E. Blinn et al. / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 171e181

Fig. 3. Example plot with three buffer zones over a Landsat image displayed with a band 4,3,2 (RGB) band combination. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

forest similarity index despite plot establishment activities. Be- The observed changes in the forest similarity index within a
tween 1996 and 2001 mixed/timber agroforestry plots had a large 50 m buffer around each agroforestry plot were very similar to
increase in their average forest similarity index while non-timber the changes within the 85 and 117.5 m plot buffers. At all buffer
plots showed little change or a slight decrease in their average distances, the areas surrounding each agroforestry plot were least
similarity index. From 2001 to 2006, non-timber plots had a similar to primary forest in the non-timber plot type in 2001,
decrease in their average forest similarity index while mixed/tim- 2006, and especially in 2011. Within each plot type, the mean
ber plots had little change in their average forest similarity index. forest similarity index was almost identical for all three buffer
All plot types had decreasing average forest similarity indices be- distances in 1991/1992 and 1996. In 2001, 2006, and 2011, the
tween 2006 and 2011 with non-timber plots having a very large mean forest similarity index decreased slightly with buffer size
drop relative to the mixed/timber plot type. The mixed/timber plots across all plot types. In 2006 and 2011 the mixed/timber plots
had a mean forest similarity index trajectory through time that was had significantly higher median values of forest similarity index
more similar, albeit not identical, to that of a plot where secondary than the non-timber plot types based on the KruskaleWallis test
forest succession occurred (Fig. 4). of equality of medians at the alpha 0.05 level. The KruskaleWallis
 C.E. Blinn et al. / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 171e181 177

Discussion

The RAPP began with utilitarian assumptions: (1) farmers would

allocate effort in direct proportion to benefit; (2) such benefits may
or may not be pecuniary in nature, as even in fully commercialized
farms, some land devoted to subsistence production almost always
occurs; and (3) utility maximization always occurs in a contempo-
rary policy context, which frames the ways costs and benefits are
apportioned in society. No personal welfare maximization model of
behavior can ignore the political economy in which household [land
use] decisions are made. Hypothetically, then, successful experi-
mental group farmers are either: (1) deriving a tangible benefit from
their agroforest plots, monetary or subsistence; or (2) some exoge-
nous factor has shaped the context that either artificially encourages
or dissuades the farmer from continuing in the RAPP.

Socio-economic characteristics: experimental vs. control group

Household capacity
Fig. 4. Mean forest similarity index of pixels within a 50 m buffer of an agroforestry
plot’s center by agroforestry plot type. A plot that was allowed to return to “Secondary
Perz (2005) found that agricultural diversity on small farms in
Forest” is also included for comparison. The first image date was collected in different the Brazilian Amazon tended to be greater for households that were
years, 1991 and 1992, for the two path/rows and is thus labeled 1991/1992. more “asset-rich” with labor being the most important factor. We
similarly expected farmers with larger farms and more adult resi-
dents to have a greater capacity to adopt a potentially risky inno-
test results were not significant for the previous four time vation like an agroforestry experiment. The larger the farm, the
periods. more likely a farmer could take a small area out of normal pro-
Farm boundaries were available for 34 of the farmers in the duction to dedicate it to an experiment without jeopardizing
control group and 28 of the farmers in the experimental group. At household food security. Similarly, the more adult residents present
the farm scale, the average forest similarity index of all pixels on the farm, the more likely a farm household could adopt an
within the properties of farmers in the experimental group did not additional productive activity minimizing the labor reallocation
start to diverge from the average forest similarity index of pixels costs of additional workload within the household. In this study,
within properties of farmers in the control group until 2006 (Fig. 5). the experimental group had larger farms on average and more
The greatest difference between forest similarity indices of the people per farm than the control group (Table 3a), which supports
experimental and control groups occurred in 2011 (Fig. 5) and was our expectations. This finding corresponds with Sydenstricker-
statistically significant at the alpha 0.05 level for this year only. This Neto’s (2012) results showing that diversified agricultural sys-
suggests that farmers in the experimental group are retaining more tems in the Brazilian Amazon are associated with households
primary and/or secondary forest on their properties than farmers in having more labor force and resource access.
the control group. Both groups have moved farther from primary
forest since 1991/1992 with the control group moving at a faster Production system
rate between 2001 and 2011. Since the RAPP was intended to supplement, not substitute,
existing farming practices, no differences in farming systems (mix of
cropping regimes) between adopters and non-adopters were pre-
dicted. Very similar mixes of cropping regimes were found between
the experimental and control groups (Table 3b). The control group
was more dependent on cattle, but this could have been associated
with the fact that they had smaller farms on average (sensu
D’Antona, VanWey, & Hayashi, 2006; Vosti, Witcover, & Carpentier,
2002; Sydenstricker-Neto, 2012). However, the RAPP project design
did hypothesize that farmers adopting agroforestry would either
manage larger secondary forests or retain a larger proportion of
primary forests than non-adopters. We address this in Section 6.3.

Social participation
Rural households can diffuse the risks of adopting innovative
farming practices by pooling their energies in various forms of labor
sharing and social participation (e.g., Pannell & Vanclay, 2011). In
the Brazilian project areas, two forms of farmer organization are
prevalent: rural workers unions (sindicatos de trabalhadores rurais)
and associations of mutual (labor sharing) support (associações de
ajuda mútua). Rural workers unions, although often politicized with
specific partisan affiliations, frequently provide members with
Fig. 5. Mean forest similarity index of all pixels within all properties containing some collective clout of political representation that individual
agroforestry plots vs. control properties without agroforestry plots. A plot that was
allowed to return to “Secondary Forest” is also included for comparison. The first image
farm households usually lack. These can be important for defending
date was collected in different years, 1991 and 1992, for the two path/rows and is thus contested property claims, voicing protests to abusive third party
labeled 1991/1992. marketing practices, and confronting corruption by local officials,
178 C.E. Blinn et al. / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 171e181

Table 3a
Mean and median statistics of continuous socio-economic variables of interest in 2010 by farm and agroforestry plot type groupings.

Size (ha) Size (ha) People People Pasture area Pasture area Cattle (au) mean Cattle (au) median
mean median mean median (ha) mean (ha) median

Control group (n ¼ 39) 57.8 50.6c 3.3 3.0c 34.6 24.1 76.8a (30.1b) 23.0d (20.0b)
Experimental group (n ¼ 31) 75.7 77.1c 6.0 5.0c 30.3 21.7 18.2 6.0d
Timber (n ¼ 7) 74.7 72.3 5.4 5.0 34.4 28.9 30.4 10.0
Mixed (n ¼ 11) 76.0 77.1 6.3 5.0 30.5 19.3 16.7 6.0
Non-timber (n ¼ 13) 75.9 79.5 6.2 5.0 27.9 21.7 12.8 10.0
Overall sample (n ¼ 70) 65.7 68.7 4.5 4.0 32.7 21.7 50.5a 12.0

where:
Size e primary property size in hectares.
People e number of people permanently residing on property.
Pasture Area esize of pasture area in hectares.
Cattle e number of cattle (animal units) sold in 2009.
a
One farmer did not respond to this question and is thus not included in this statistic.
b
Statistic calculated with three outliers (value greater than 200) removed.
c
Statistically significant difference based on the ManneWhitney test at alpha of 0.050.
d
Statistically significant difference based on the ManneWhitney test at alpha of 0.055.

all of which are widely viewed to empower farmers to accept agroforestry systems, so none were predicted and again no sig-
greater risk. Mutual support associations are usually basic labor nificant differences were observed (Table 3b). The slightly greater
sharing activities, where a group of workers spend a few days per proportion of non-timber agroforest adopters growing perennial
month working on one member’s farm in return for reciprocal crops than other adopters (Table 3b) would be expected since
support from the association. Hypothetically, such participation perennial crops constitute a substantial part of non-timber agro-
would reduce the risk of innovation and agroforestry adopters, it forest systems. The same, however, could be said for mixed system
was predicted, would be more involved in such organizations, adopters given that the proportion managing perennial crops is
which is supported by the findings in Table 3b. Perz (2005) also the same as those pursuing timber-based systems. A logical reason
found a positive relationship between production diversity and for the larger number of cattle sold by timber-based system
participation in local organizations. adopters (Table 3a) might be that timber-based system adopters
derive less income from the other components of their farming
Socio-economic characteristics: intra-experimental groups (timber system and are more reliant on cattle. There is no evidence from
vs. non-timber vs. mixed-based agroforest systems) the survey to confirm this possible reason. This difference may be
idiosyncratic to the particular year of the survey, but is notable
Household capacity nonetheless.
There is no particular reason to presume that farm size would be
a factor influencing what type of agroforestry system a farmer Social participation
would adopt: timber, non-timber, or mixed. However, among the The greater social participation of timber-based system adopters
experimental group of farmers adopting an agroforestry system, it in mutual aid associations might have an ambiguous meaning. On
may be argued that those households adopting timber-based sys- the one hand it seems counter-intuitive that households planting
tems could afford to be smaller in number of residents than those trees would require additional non-household labor typically used
adopting either mixed or non-timber systems where regular labor during the harvest periods for perennial crops. On the other hand,
requirements are greater (e.g., in harvesting fruits, nuts, latex, etc.). timber-based system adopters may have more labor time available
Although the differences were small, the timber based agroforestry to share with neighbors in mutual aid associations since they do not
adopters did have slightly fewer people residing on the farm than seasonally harvest any crops from their agroforest plots; their plots
others in the experimental group (Table 3a). are long-term investments, with negligible regular labor re-
quirements. Again, there is no evidence from the survey to support
Production system these speculations. Lastly, the higher percent of timber-based sys-
It is not intuitive that there would be any differentiation in tem adopters reporting utilization of their agroforestry plots may
farming systems resulting from the adoption of different types of be a result of their plots potentially attracting a greater diversity of

Table 3b
Binomial socio-economic variable results from 2010 survey by farm and agroforestry plot type groupings.

Annual crops (%) Perennial crops (%) Syndicates (%) Associations (%) Utilization (%)

Control group (n ¼ 39) 46.2 74.4 61.5 46.2

Experimental group (n ¼ 31) 54.8 77.4 77.4 61.3 58.1
Timber (n ¼ 7) 57.1 71.4 85.7 71.4 71.4
Mixed (n ¼ 11) 54.5 72.7 63.6 54.5 54.5
Non-timber (n ¼ 13) 53.8 84.6 84.6 61.5 53.8
Overall sample (n ¼ 70) 50.0 75.7 68.6 52.9

where:
Annual Crops e percentage of sample producing annual/temporary crops.
Perennial Crops e percentage of sample producing perennial/permanent crops.
Syndicates e percentage of sample participating in rural workers syndicates.
Associations e percentage of sample participating in mutual aid associations.
Utilization e percentage of RAPP experimental group reporting utilization of agroforest plots.
 C.E. Blinn et al. / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 171e181 179

Fig. 6. Boxplot of the mean forest similarity index in 2011 of pixels within a 50 m
buffer of an agroforestry plot’s center by agroforestry plot type.

plant and animal populations than either of the other two more
intensively managed agroforest systems.

Impacts of agroforestry plots on forest cover

Fig. 7. Landsat time series of a farmer’s property with the agroforestry plot, which was
installed between 1992 and 1994, location circled. Only the area in and around the
Buffer zones around each agroforest plot were examined to agroforestry plot has not been converted to pasture or other nonforest uses. Images are
ascertain differences in secondary succession associated with plot displayed with Landsat bands 4, 3, and 2 displayed as red, green and blue, respectively.
maintenance. Circular buffers were used for ease of creation, but (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
the buffers corresponded closely to a 3  3, 5  5, or 7  7 pixel
window around the center of each plot. We hypothesized that the cleared all of his/her property at one point in time or another, has
area outside, but in closest proximity to each plot would be more allowed more than one third of his/her property to return to sec-
influenced by the plot type and possibly managed as secondary ondary forest since the agroforestry plot was installed (Fig. 8).
forest. Secondary forest succession did occur in and around the Ethnographic research activities associated with the RAPP (i.e. in-
mixed/timber agroforestry plot types from 1996 to 2001 based on depth interviews with experimental group participants)
the forest similarity index statistics (Fig. 4). In contrast, the non- confirmed some consciousness of the benefits associated with
timber plots stayed fairly constant through 2001, but became less secondary succession and agroforestry: “We should have started
similar to primary forest between 2001 and 2006 and especially planting trees a long time ago. If we had, we would have money
between 2006 and 2011 (Fig. 4). The significant difference in forest
similarity index medians between mixed/timber and non-timber
plot types in 2006 and 2011, as illustrated in the boxplot in Fig. 6
for 2011, supports the hypothesis that agroforestry plot type in-
fluences the likelihood of secondary forest succession in and
around plots, the plot impact areas. Non-timber agroforestry plots
are less likely to result in secondary forest succession in plot impact
areas. Mixed and timber agroforestry plots followed a spectral
trajectory more similar to secondary forest succession between
1996 and 2001 with a leveling off and slight decrease in forest
similarity index between 2001 and 2011 (Fig. 4) presumably as a
result of increased management and/or utilization of the timber
products produced on the plots.

Property level impacts

Fig. 5 shows that properties in both the control and experi-

mental group are on average becoming less spectrally similar to
primary forest through time. The rate of this change has increased
since 2001, especially on properties in the control group, which
were significantly different from the experimental group at the
alpha ¼ 0.05 level in 2011. To visually illustrate the observed
changes, a Landsat time series of images for one farmer in the
experimental group is shown in Fig. 7. This particular farmer
cleared a majority of his/her entire property at one point in time or Fig. 8. Landsat time series of a farmer’s property with the agroforestry plot, which was
another, but has allowed both the agroforestry plot and the sur- installed between 1992 and 1994, location circled. More than one third of the property
has been allowed to return to a forested condition. Images are displayed with Landsat
rounding area to regenerate into secondary forest, which is in stark bands 4, 3, and 2 displayed as red, green and blue, respectively. (For interpretation of
contrast to the rest of the property which was all pasture in 2011 the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
(Fig. 7). Another farmer in the experimental group, who also has of this article.)
180 C.E. Blinn et al. / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 171e181

from that right now” (personal communication, author’s trans- the Rondônia agroforestry pilot project (1992e2002). Agroforestry Systems,
65(2), 99e111.
lation) (johnobrowder.wordpress.com).
Budowski, G. (1980). The place of agroforestry in managing tropical forests. In
Paper presented at the international symposium on tropical forests: Utilization and
Conclusions conservation, New Haven, CT.
Castro, K. L., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A., & Rivard, B. (2003). Monitoring secondary
tropical forests using space-borne data: implications for Central America. In-
Despite an overall land cover trend on small farms in the Bra- ternational Journal of Remote Sensing, 24(9), 1853e1894.
zilian state of Rondônia towards less forest cover, the practice of Chowdhury, R. R. (2007). Household land management and biodiversity: secondary
succession in a forest-agriculture mosaic in southern Mexico. Ecology and So-
timber-based agroforestry appears to encourage landowners to
ciety, 12(2). art. 31.
allow secondary forest succession to occur on their lands at least for Delaney, M. (1999). Field test of carbon monitoring methods for agroforestry in the
the short-term (11e15 years). The type of agroforestry imple- Philippines. In Field tests of carbon monitoring methods in forestry projects (pp.
mented by farmers matters, with more forest succession occurring 28e32). Arlington, VA: Winrock International.
D’Antona, Á. O., VanWey, L. K., & Hayashi, C. M. (2006). Property size and land cover
on properties with timber or mixed agroforestry plots. Landowners change in the Brazilian Amazon. Population and Environment, 27(5e6), 373e396.
with larger properties and more people residing on their farms Ehiagbonare, J. E. (2006). Effect of Taungya on regeneration of endemic forest tree
were more likely in this study to try innovative systems that species in Nigeria: Edo State Nigeria as a case study. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 5(18), 1608e1611.
included agroforestry. Participants in this agroforestry research Fearnside, P. M., & Guimarães, W. M. (1996). Carbon uptake by secondary forests in
project were also less dependent on cattle (based on 2009 sales), Brazilian Amazonia. Forest Ecology and Management, 80(1e3), 35e46.
although timber-based agroforesters appear to rely more on cattle Harvey, C. A., & Haber, W. A. (1998). Remnant trees and the conservation of
biodiversity in Costa Rican pastures. Agroforestry Systems, 44(1), 37e68.
sales for household income than do non-timber agroforesters. The JIRCAS. (2007). Agroforestry approach to the rehabilitation of tropical lands by using
experimental group was also more involved in mutual aid associ- nurse trees. Tsukuba, Japan: Japan International Research Center for Agricultural
ations than the control group, probably because such participation Sciences. vii-70.
Lasco, R. D., Guillermo, I. Q., Cruz, R. V. O., Bantayan, N. C., & Pulhin, F. B. (2004).
enables access to more extensive information networks and labor
Carbon stocks assessment of a secondary forest in Mount Makiling Forest
sharing support than non-participation. Reserve, Philippines. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 16(1), 35e45.
These findings would support the policy recommendation that Lieberei, R., & Gasparotto, L. (1998). Agroecological profile of plants used as pro-
duction factors and as management components in tropical polyculture sys-
timber-based agroforestry on small family farms holds some
tems. In Proceedings of the third SHIFT-workshop, manaus, March 15e19 (pp.
promise as an intermediate degraded tropical forest land-use 307e312). Bonn, Germany: BMBF.
rehabilitation strategy. The secondary forest succession that Letcher, S. G., & Chazdon, R. L. (2009). Rapid recovery of biomass, species richness,
timber-based agroforestry appears to promote has potentially and species composition in a forest chronosequence in northeastern Costa Rica.
Biotropica, 41(5), 608e617.
synergistic implications for carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat Lozada, T., de Koning, G. H. J., Marché, R., Klein, A. M., & Tscharntke, T. (2006). Tree
restoration, and long-term economic benefits for property owners, recovery and seed dispersal by birds: comparing forest, agroforestry and
who will eventually harvest the mature timber elements of the abandoned agroforestry in coastal Ecuador. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evo-
lution and Systematics, 8(3), 131e140.
agroforest plots, as some apparently have after 10 years. Important Masek, J. G., Vermote, E. F., Saleous, N. E., Wolfe, R., Hall, F. G., Huemmrich, K. F., et al.
questions regarding the long-term impacts of timber-based agro- (2006). A Landsat surface reflectance dataset for North America, 1990e2000.
forestry on land cover cannot be answered in a longitudinal study IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 3(1), 68e72.
Mercer, D. E., & Miller, R. P. (1998). Socioeconomic research in agroforestry: prog-
that extends less than 20 years. The evidence gained at this junc- ress, prospects, and priorities. Agroforestry Systems, 38(1e3), 177e193.
ture provides some encouragement for those seeking to rebuild Meza, A., Sabogal, C., & Jong, W. (2006). Rehabilitation of degraded forest lands in the
tropical forests through agroforestry. Peruvian Amazon: Review of experiences and lessons learned. Bogor, Indonesia:
Center for International Forestry Research.
Minitab Inc. (2012). Minitab (Version 16.2.3) (Software).
Acknowledgements Pannell, D., & Vanclay, F. (2011). Changing land management: Adoption of new
practices by rural landholders. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.
Pattanayak, S., & Mercer, D. E. (1998). Valuing soil conservation benefits of agro-
The authors acknowledge the support of the John and Teresa forestry: contour hedgerows in the Easter Visayas, Philippines. Agricultural
Heinz Charitable Trust and the Landsat Science Team (USGS con- Economics, 18(1), 31e46.
tract number G12PC00073). Perz, S. G. (2005). The effects of household asset endowments on agricultural di-
versity among frontier colonists in the Amazon. Agroforestry Forum, 63(3), 263e
279.
References Raman, T. R. S., Mudappa, D., & Kapoor, V. (2009). Restoring rainforest fragments:
survival of mixed-native species seedlings under contrasting site conditions in
Alavalapati, J., & Nair, P. K. R. (2001). Socioeconomic and institutional perspectives the Western Ghats, India. Restoration Ecology, 17(1), 137e147.
of agroforestry. In M. Palo, J. Uusivuori, & G. Mery (Eds.), World forests, markets Roshetko, J. M., Delaney, M., Hairiah, K., & Purnomosidhi, P. (2002). Carbon stocks in
and policies 2001 (pp. 71e81). Dordrecht, Netherlands. Indonesian homegarden systems: can smallholder systems be targeted for
Agroforestry. (2011). In The American heritage dictionary of the English language (5th increased carbon storage? American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 17(3),
ed.). Retrieved from http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html? 138e148.
q¼agroforestry. Sirois, M. C., Margolis, H. A., & Camiré, C. (1998). Influence of remnant trees on
Barton, D. (1994). Indigenous agroforestry in Latin America: A blueprint for sustainable nutrients and fallow biomass in slash and burn agroecosystems in Guinea.
agricultures?. In NRI socio-economic series 6: Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Agroforestry Systems, 40(3), 227e246.
Institute (NRI). Schulze, C. H., Waltert, M., Kessler, P. J. A., Pitopang, R., Shahabuddin, Veddeler, D.,
Bobo, K. S., Waltert, M., Fermon, H., Njokagbor, J., & Mühlenberg, M. (2006). From et al. (2004). Biodiversity indicator groups of tropical land-use systems:
forest to farmland: butterfly diversity and habitat associations along a gradient comparing plants, birds, and insects. Ecological Applications, 14(5), 1321e1333.
of forest conversion in southwestern Cameroon. Journal of Insect Conservation, Schroth, G., D’Angelo, S. A., Teixeira, W. G., Haag, D., & Lieberei, R. (2002). Conver-
10(1), 29e42. sion of secondary forest into agroforestry and monoculture plantations in
Browder, J. O. (1994). Surviving in Rondônia. Studies in Comparative International Amazonia: consequences for biomass, litter and soil carbon stocks after 7 Years.
Development, 29(3), 45e69. Forest Ecology and Management, 163(1e3), 131e150.
Browder, J. O., & Godfrey, B. J. (1997). Rainforest cities: Urbanization, development, Shono, K., Cadaweng, E. A., & Durst, P. B. (2007). Application of assisted natural
and globalization of the Brazilian Amazon. New York: Columbia University Press. regeneration to restore degraded tropical forestlands. Restoration Ecology, 15(4),
Browder, J. O., & Pedlowski, M. A. (2000). Agroforestry performance on small farms 620e626.
in Amazonia: findings from the Rondônia agroforestry pilot project. Agroforestry Smith, N., Dubois, J., Current, D., Lutz, E., & Clement, C. (1998). Agroforestry experi-
Systems, 49, 63e83. ences in the Brazilian Amazon: Constraints and opportunities. Brasilia, Brazil:
Browder, J. O., Pedlowski, M. A., Walker, R., Wynne, R. H., Summers, P. M., Abad, A., World Bank.
et al. (2008). Revisiting theories of frontier expansion in the Brazilian Amazon: Summers, P. M. (2008). The post-frontier land use and social change in the Brazilian
a survey of the colonist farming population in Rondônia’s post-frontier, 1992e Amazon (1992e2002). Blacksburg, VA: University Libraries, Virginia Polytechnic
2002. World Development, 36(8), 1469e1492. Institute and State University.
Browder, J. O., Wynne, R. H., & Pedlowski, M. A. (2005). Agroforestry diffusion and Summers, P. M., Browder, J. O., & Pedlowski, M. A. (2004). Tropical forest man-
secondary forest regeneration in the Brazilian Amazon: further findings from agement and silvicultural practices by small farmers in the Brazilian Amazon:
 C.E. Blinn et al. / Applied Geography 43 (2013) 171e181 181

recent farm-level evidence from Rondônia. Forest Ecology and Management, Vosti, S. A., Witcover, J., & Carpentier, C. L. (2002). Agricultural intensification by
192(2e3), 161e177. smallholders: from deforestation to sustainable land use. Research Report 130.
Sydenstricker-Neto, J. (2012). Population and deforestation in the Brazilian International Food Policy Research Institute.
Amazon: a mediating perspective and a mixed-method analysis. Population and Warner, K. (1993). Patterns of farmer tree growing in Eastern Africa: A socioeconomic
Environment, 34(1), 86e112. analysis. Oxford, UK,: Oxford Forestry Institute. Tropical Forestry Papers, 27.
Takimoto, A., Nair, V. D., & Nair, P. K. R. (2009). Contribution of trees to soil carbon Yokota, Y., Martin, R. A., & Siki, R. (2009). Potentiality of local communities
sequestration under agroforestry systems in the West African Sahel. Agrofor- participation in agroforestry program. JIRCAS Working Report, 60, 94e97.
estry Systems, 76(1), 11e25. Wise, R. M., & Cacho, O. J. (2011). A bioeconomic analysis of the potential of
Vieira, D. L. M., Holl, K. D., & Peneireiro, F. M. (2009). Agro-successional restoration as a Indonesian agroforests as carbon sinks. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(4),
strategy to facilitate tropical forest recovery. Restoration Ecology, 17(4), 451e459. 451e461.