Adoption of silvicultural practices in

smallholder timber and NTFPs production

systems in Indonesia

Gerhard E. Sabastian, Amirah Yumn,

James M. Roshetko, Philip Manalu,
Endri Martini & Aulia Perdana

Agroforestry Systems
An International Journal incorporating
Agroforestry Forum

ISSN 0167-4366

Agroforest Syst
DOI 10.1007/s10457-017-0155-9

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer
Nature. This e-offprint is for personal use only
and shall not be self-archived in electronic
repositories. If you wish to self-archive your
article, please use the accepted manuscript
version for posting on your own website. You
may further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

1 23
 Author's personal copy
Agroforest Syst
DOI 10.1007/s10457-017-0155-9

Adoption of silvicultural practices in smallholder timber

and NTFPs production systems in Indonesia
Gerhard E. Sabastian . Amirah Yumn . James M. Roshetko . Philip Manalu .
Endri Martini . Aulia Perdana

Received: 26 May 2016 / Accepted: 5 November 2017

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Abstract Many factors influence adoption of small- These findings suggest that when designing extension
holder agroforestry systems as part of the farm programs farm and household factors should be
business. This paper reports farm and household considered by policy makers, researchers and exten-
factors affecting the adoption of timber and non- sion providers.
timber forest product management practices by farm-
ers in Gunungkidul, Sumbawa and Timor Tengah Keywords Adoption  Smallholder farmers 
Selatan districts in Indonesia; and how understanding Silvicultural management  Logistic regression
those factors can facilitate the adoption of silvicultural
practices for enhancing timber and NTFPs production.
The research uses logistic regression models to
identify the significant factors influencing farmers’ Introduction
agroforestry adoption and management decisions.
When considering a total of 16 factors equally, the The forest transition model illustrates that as forest
models confirmed that farmers who have access to resources decline under various pressures, tree plant-
extension services, farmers’ groups and knowledge of ing in various forms begins to restore tree cover and
government policy are more likely to adopt timber and improve rural livelihoods (Snelder and Lasco 2008;
NTFPs production technologies. The probability of Meyfroidt and Lambin 2011). The adoption of tree
management practices increasing with the greater land planting and species’ enrichment becomes widespread
area was due to space for growing more timber and through the establishment of a tree-based agricultural
NTFPs species. Also, the possibility of adopting system practised by smallholder farmers as their
timber and NTFPs management increased as farmers livelihood strategy to produce timber and non-timber
had more income from on- and off-farm activities. products for both subsistence needs and market sale.
Many factors influence adoption of smallholder agro-
forestry systems as part of a farm business (Roshetko
G. E. Sabastian (&)  J. M. Roshetko 
et al. 2007; Manurung et al. 2008; Mwase et al. 2015;
E. Martini  A. Perdana
World Agroforestry Centre, Jalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Mbosso et al. 2015). Bertomeu et al. (2006) pointed
Sindang Barang, Bogor 16115, Indonesia out that planted timber trees produced on-farm were
e-mail: [email protected] able to efficiently supply timber products for local and
national markets. Increasing the value of non-timber
A. Yumn  P. Manalu
Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, forest products (NTFPs) earned by smallholder farm-
Indonesia ers is an incentive to conserve biodiversity and

123
 Author's personal copy
Agroforest Syst

alleviates poverty (Belcher et al. 2005; Tieguhong farmers’ adoption of silvicultural practices, the
et al. 2015). research described in this paper aimed to identify
Adoption is defined as the mental process of (i) the household conditions and farm characteristics
transferring knowledge about, and the use of, a affecting farmers’ adoption of management practices
technological innovation (Rogers 2003). In agricul- for timber and NTFPs; and (ii) understanding how
tural practices, adoption by farmers depends on the those factors can facilitate the adoption of silvicultural
benefits that would arise from the commercial and practices for enhancing timber and NTFPs production
practical application of the innovation. However, that is economically sustainable while conserving the
agroforestry innovation is more knowledge-intensive species of timber and NTFPs.
than most agricultural development packages that are
based on improved seed and mechanical inputs; it is
typically combined with conservation techniques, Materials and methods
such as contour hedgerows, intercropping and biodi-
versity enrichment. Therefore, farmer education, Site description
experimentation and market linkages are key factors
to improve the rate of agroforestry adoption (Mercer The research was conducted in three districts in
2004). Indonesia where the main forestry products are timber
Adoption of silvicultural practices can be effective and NTFPs. The districts—Gunungkidul, Yogyakarta;
as a tool for developing smallholder timber and NTFPs Sumbawa, Nusa Tenggara Barat (NTB); Timor Ten-
production systems. Silvicultural management leads gah Selatan (TTS), Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT)— are
farmers to gain benefits from pruning, thinning, the sites of the Australian Centre for International
germplasm quality, intercropping, and biodiversity Agricultural Research (ACIAR)-supported project
conservation. Knot-free timber from pruning com- (FST/2012/039), Development of Timber and Non-
monly attracts a premium price in appearance grade timber Forest Products’ Production and Market Strate-
markets (Reid 2002); while moderate and heavy gies for Improvement of Smallholders’ Livelihoods in
thinning yields the highest percentage of heartwood Indonesia. Geographic, demographic and agricultural
volume (Perez and Kanninen 2005). Raising aware- characteristics of the districts are shown in Table 1
ness among farmers and policy makers leads to (Statistics of Gunungkidul Regency 2013; Statistics of
improvement in the use of high quality germplasm Sumbawa Regency 2012; Statistics of Timor Tengah
(Nyoka et al. 2014). Kumar et al. (1998) found that Selatan Regency 2014).
intercropping teak with Leucaena leucocephala According to Sabastian et al. (2014), farmers’
improved the diameter growth of teak and modified socioeconomic and farm conditions affect their tree
soil characteristics. Intensified management of natu- planting practices and the function of the trees planted.
rally regenerating wild resources and cultivation of Tree and non-tree crops are grown from natural
NTFPs tended to have higher returns per unit of land regeneration and planted seedlings in fields or along
(Belcher et al. 2005). The contribution of silvicultural the contours in dryland systems (tegalan), home
management to biodiversity improvement is through gardens (pekarangan) and woodlots (hutan rakyat).
species’ enrichment of tree and non-tree crops in alley- These trees serve a number of purposes, including
cropping and the management of tree density includ- timber production, boundary demarcation, shading
ing selection cutting (Torras and Saura 2008; Kalaba understory crops, protection against erosion, shelter
et al. 2010). and insurance during periods of scarcity. The most
Farmers in Java allocated minimum input for common trees grown by smallholders at the three sites
silvicultural management since they had limited were teak (Tectona grandis), mahogany (Swietenia
resources and access to silvicultural information macrophylla), rosewood (Dalbergia latifolia), acacia
(Kallio et al. 2011, 2012; Roshetko et al. 2013). In (Acacia auriculiformis), gmelina (Gmelia arborea),
the Philippines, farmers frequently did not prune or ampupu (Eucalyptus urophylla), casuarina (Casuarina
pruned excessively resulting in reduced tree growth junghuhniana), sesbania (Sesbania grandiflora), can-
and quality (Bertomeu et al. 2011). To provide dlenut (Aleurites moluccanus), avocado (Persea amer-
socioeconomic and ecological perspectives for icana), mango (Mangifera sp), jackfruit (Artocarpus

123
 Author's personal copy
Agroforest Syst

Table 1 Geographical, Characteristics Gunungkidul Sumbawa TTS

demography and agriculture
information of the districts Total area (ha) 148,536 664,398 395,536
Elevation (masl) 0–700 0–1730 0–847
Annual rainfall (mm) 2100.1 1631.1 574.5
Rain days (days) 89 148 34
Population (persons) 680,406 419,989 451,922
Paddy fields (% of total area) 5.3 7.4 0.8
Home garden (% of total area) 17.1 0.9 9.1
Dryland (% of total area) 44.9 14.8
Woodlots (% of total area) 17.2 13.4
State forest (% of total area) 9.2 41.9 40.7

heterophyllus), kapok (Ceiba pentandra), tamarind the total hamlets in each selected village. Two villages
(Tamarindus indica), gnetum (Gnetum gnemon), cof- from each district (Bejiharjo and Karangduwet,
fee (Coffea sp), coconut (Cocos nucifera), cashew Gunungkidul; Pelat and Batudulang, Sumbawa; Bosen
(Anacardium occidentale), citrus (Citrus sp), and and Fatumnasi, TTS) were selected based on the
cacao (Theobroma cacao); common non-tree crops following criteria: (i) area (km2); (ii) distance from
were various bamboos, turmeric (Curcuma longa), hamlet to the forest and market; (iii) land-use pattern;
lemongrass (Cymbopogon schoenanthus), tarum and (iv) the production pattern of timber and NTFPs
(Indigofera tinctoria), rice (Oryza sativa), maize (Nawir 2014).
(Zea mays), peanuts (Arachis hypogaea), cassava
(Manihot esculenta), and soybean (Glycine max). Data analysis and logistic regression model

Research design and data sampling Sixteen explanatory variables of the data were selected
to represent the conditions of farmers’ households and
A household is defined as the decision-making unit for physical characteristics of farms (Table 3). The pro-
land management. A sample of household heads was cess of data analysis was divided into three steps. The
randomly stratified based on three parameters: (i) size first was to compare the means of each explanatory
of farmlands; (ii) distance to market and forest; and variable for two categories of farmer (no timber or
(iii) elevation of farmlands, representing the land- NTFP management; and timber and NTFP manage-
scapes of research regions. The research was designed ment) using a t test. In the t test, Levene’s test was
to compare households involved in the management of conducted to confirm the equality of variances. Next,
timber and NTFPs with households of similar socioe- the direction and strength of associations between the
conomic and farm characteristics not involved in variables were examined for the nonlinear model
timber and NTFP management. Households consid- using Spearman’s rho correlation. The third step was
ered involved in smallholder timber and NTFPs to employ explanatory variables in developing models
management practices were those that grew timber using logistic regression analysis. All data analysis
and NTFP crops using the following silvicultural steps were developed using SPSS 22.0 software.
practices: quality germplasm, pruning, thinning, inter- Logistic regression analysis in this research was
cropping, and harvesting on their land. used to predict significance outcomes of a reasonable
Information and data on the household socioeco- set of household condition and farm characteristic
nomic and farm characteristics were obtained from a variables when the dependent variable (Timber and
household-baseline study of the ACIAR project (FST/ NTFP Management— TNM) is binary. The binary of
2012/039). A total of 459 household heads in the three TNM is categorized as (i) 0: ‘no timber or NTFP
districts were interviewed. The survey targeted 30% of management farmers’; and (ii) 1: ‘timber and NTFP
the total households of each selected hamlet. In total, management farmers’; while a reasonable set of 16
there were 15 selected hamlets, a sample of 30–50% of explanatory variables was selected that reflected

123
 Author's personal copy
Agroforest Syst

Table 2 Contribution (%) of timber, NTFPs and other commodities to on-farm income
Agricultural production Commodity crops Gunungkidul Sumbawa TTS
categories

Timber Teak, Mahogany, Rosewood, Acacia, Gmelina, Ampupu, Casuarina 65 9 38

(Harvested from tree)
NTFPs Sesbania, Candlenut, Wild Honey, Turmeric, Lemongrass, Indigo, 9 54 22
(Harvested from tree & Avocado, Bamboos
non-tree)
Timber & NTFPs Mango, Jackfruit, Kapok, Tamarind, Gnetum 10 12 4
(Harvested from tree)
Agricultural crops Rice, Maize, Peanuts, Cassava, Soybean 14 6 18
Plantation crops Coffee, Coconut, Cashew, Citrus, Cacao 2 19 18

hypotheses for the strongest influence on farmers’ Gunungkidul Sumbawa TTS

decisions to manage their timber and NTFPs by 80.0
implementing silvicultural practices. The logistic 70.0
regression model for each determinant factor utilized
60.0
a natural log of odds and was specified as:
50.0
EðYjX Þ ¼ expða þ bXÞ=ð1 þ expða þ bXÞÞ;
40.0
where EðYjX Þ is the probability (p) of timber and
30.0
NTFPs management (Y [ 0 managing timber trees
and NTFP commodities); a is the intercept term; b for 20.0
b1 , b2 , b3 and bk are the coefficients associated with 10.0
X1, X2, X3 and Xk of a number of explanatory
0.0
variables. Cutting timber Timber harvesting Low quality
Exp (B) value is the Odds Ratio (OR) for each branches germplasm
explanatory variable. The OR represents the change in
odds of being in one of the categories of outcome when Fig. 1 Percentage of household heads who followed silvicul-
tural practices at each site
the value of an explanatory variable increases by one
unit. Maximum likelihood method was used to
estimate the regression coefficients, while the good- crops. In Gunungkidul, the largest contributions to
ness of fit for the regression models was tested with the timber and NTFPs incomes were from bamboo (45%)
Hosmer–Lemeshow using the values of Chi square and teakwood products (34%); while candlenut fruits
with p [ 0.05 (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007; Pallant and wild honey generated 41% and 21% of total timber
2007). and NTFPs incomes in Sumbawa. In TTS, the
contributions of candlenut, tamarind, lemongrass,
and turmeric products to timber and NTFPs incomes
Results were 23, 18, 16 and 10%, respectively.
The level of silvicultural practices of household
Characteristics of the two farmer categories heads was nevertheless low. Figure 1 shows that the
household heads cut branches of timber trees for
On average, the contributions of timber and NTFPs to fuelwood and reducing tree shade on annual crops but
on-farm income in Gunungkidul, Sumbawa and TTS left 10–15 cm branch stubs. Traditional thinning
regions were 84, 75 and 64%, respectively, over three meant harvesting the biggest timber trees. The house-
years (2011–2013) (Table 2). The contributions were hold heads used low-quality germplasm as planting
higher than income from agricultural and plantation material. The percentage of household heads who cut

123
 Author's personal copy
Agroforest Syst

branches, harvested and used low-quality germplasm Relationship between individual explanatory
varied in the districts. The number in Gunungkidul and dependent variables
who cut timber branches was significantly different
from that in other districts; however, most household The strength and direction of the relationship between
heads in Sumbawa and TTS did not do the practice. individual household and farm typical variables are
There were very few who harvested but most used shown in Table 4. Among the household factors, the
low-quality planting material. age of household heads (HA) showed a moderate
On average, household heads were 48 years-old negative correlation with their literacy (HLS) (- 0.35)
and more than 70% of them worked primarily as a and level of formal education (HFES) (- 0.33).
farmer (Table 3). They allocated up to two members Younger farmers had better access to formal education
of their household to agricultural production, inclusive compared with older farmers. There was a moderate
of all categories in Table 2. Most household heads positive relationship between household heads’ job
were literate and had received formal education to the (HJ) and on-farm family labour (OWHM) (0.47).
end of elementary school. The numbers of household Farmers’ experience with extension training (EET)
heads have received extension training and who had positive associations with involvement in farmers’
participated in the farmers’ groups was 40%. Their groups (IFG) (0.37), knowledge of government regu-
knowledge of national regulations on the management lations for timber and NTFPs (KRTN) (0.42) and
and marketing of timber and NTFPs was limited management practices of those commodities (TNM)
(30%), and only 43.3% of them had knowledge of (0.30). Farmers who were actively involved in farm-
product-market specifications for the species. On- ers’ groups tended to have more land parcels (0.34).
farm, including forest-extraction incomes, averaged Their knowledge of regulations (KRTN) was also
IDR 17.9 million/year (USD 1498/year in 2014) and positively correlated with their off-farm income
off-farm activities, such as running small kiosks, (GOFI) (0.31) and the number of land parcels (NLP)
industrialized labour, carpentry and government (0.31) but it was negatively associated with the
employment, contributed to annual incomes by around distance from farm to state forest (DFSF) (- 0.30).
IDR 9.29 million/year (USD 775/year in 2014). Land The total area of land owned (TALO) explained the
area managed by each household was approximately moderately positive correlation with the gross income
0.5 ha, commonly separated into three different farms, of on-farm and forest extraction activities (GONFI)
with each farm planted with 4–5 priority species of (0.39) and market access for timber and NTFPs
timber and NTFPs. The average distance of farms (MATN) (0.38). Furthermore, the correlation between
from state forest was not far, only 3.4 km. market access (MATN) and market specifications of
The means of the sixteen explanatory variables timber and NTFPs (TNMS) was strongly positive
between the two groups of ‘timber and NTFP (0.63). Product market specification of those com-
management’ and ‘no timber or NTFP management’ modities (TNMS) indicated a positive correlation with
farmers were statistically compared and the results in the number of managed species (NMS) (0.31), but the
Table 3 show that (i) household-head literacy skills product market specification variable performed a
(HHLS); (ii) household-head formal education status negative relationship with the gross income of off-
(HHFES); (iii) experience with extension training farm (GOFI) (- 0.33). Total area of land owned
(EET); (iv) involvement in farmers’ groups (IFG); (TALO) and number of land parcels (NLP) variables
(v) knowledge of regulations of timber and NTFPs showed positive and negative relationships, 0.39 and
(KRTN); (vi) number of land parcels (NLP); (vii) 0.31, respectively, with the distance from farm to state
number of managed species (NMS); and (viii) distance forest (DFSF) variable.
from farm to state forest (DFSF) performed significant
differences with a p value less than 0.05 between the Logistic regression models in mixed
two groups. Two other variables differed significantly and individual regions
at the p \ 0.10 levels: (i) on-farm working household
members (OWHM); and (ii) gross off-farm income The goodness of fit for the logistic regression models
(GOFI). in mixed and individual regions valued by the Chi

123
 Table 3 Characteristics of households in 16 explanatory variables of the regions
Explanatory variables Unit Gunungkidul Sumbawa TTS p value

123
No timber or Timber and No timber or Timber and No timber or Timber and
NTFP NTFP NTFP NTFP NTFP NTFP
management management management management management management
farmers (n = 99) farmers (n = 89) farmers (n = 107) farmers (n = 35) farmers (n = 82) farmers (n = 47)

Household conditions
Household-head age Year 55.5 54.2 46.0 41.9 50.6 48.5 0.735
(HA)
Household-head 0: no literacy; 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.010**
literacy skills 1: literacy skills
(HLS)
Household-head job 0: off-farm job; 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.508
(HJ) 1: on-farm job
Household-head 0: informal; 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.024**
formal education 1: formal
status (HFES)
Experience in 0: no 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.000**
extension training experience;
(EET) 1: experience
Involvement in 0: not involved; 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.000**
farmers’ group 1: involved
(IFG)
Knowledge of 0: no 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.000**
regulations for knowledge;
Author's personal copy

timber & NTFPs 1:

(KRTN) knowledgeable
On-farm working Persons 1.5 1.7 2.4 1.9 1.7 1.4 0.062*
household
members
(OWHM)
Gross on-farm, Million IDR/ 9,109,759 8,003,538 34,950,086 45,412,390 3,738,163 6,623,829 0.861
including forest year
extraction, income
(GONFI)
Gross off-farm Million IDR/ 8,243,485 40,083,258 2,528,084 3,647,143 747,866 521,064 0.055*
income (GOFI) year
Agroforest Syst
 Table 3 continued
Explanatory variables Unit Gunungkidul Sumbawa TTS p value
No timber or Timber and No timber or Timber and No timber or Timber and
NTFP NTFP NTFP NTFP NTFP NTFP
Agroforest Syst

management management management management management management

farmers (n = 99) farmers (n = 89) farmers (n = 107) farmers (n = 35) farmers (n = 82) farmers (n = 47)

Market access for 0: no access 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.566
timber & NTFPs 1: accessible
(MATN)
Timber & NTFP 0: no knowledge 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.153
market 1:
specification knowledgeable
(TNMS)
Farm characteristics
Total area of land Hectare 0.1 0.1 0.7 1.3 0.4 0.2 0.741
owned (TALO)
Number of land Farm 2.8 4.0 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.9 0.000**
parcels (NLP)
Number of managed Species/farm 2.7 4.0 2.3 3.5 8.1 7.8 0.009**
species (NMS)
Distance from farm Km 1.1 1.0 7.8 6.6 2.5 1.7 0.003**
to state forest
(DFSF)
** p \ 0.05 and * p \ 0.10
Author's personal copy

123
123
Table 4 Correlation matrix of the explanatory and dependent variables
Variable Household conditions Farm characteristics
HA HLS HJ HFES EET IFG KRTN OWHM GONFI GOFI MATN TNMS TALO NLP NMS DFSF

Household
conditions
HA 1.00
HLS - 0.35* 1.00
HJ 0.02 - 0.03 1.00
HFES - 0.33* 0.70** - 0.02 1.00
EET - 0.01 0.18 0.07 0.09 1.00
IFG 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.37* 1.00
KRTN 0.11 0.13 - 0.08 0.08 0.42* 0.38* 1.00
OWHM 0.06 0.05 0.47* 0.05 0.04 0.03 - 0.02 1.00
GONFI - 0.01 0.17 0.08 0.12 0.23 0.13 0.12 0.07 1.00
GOFI - 0.10 0.23 - 0.29 0.18 0.13 0.17 0.31* - 0.09 - 0.07 1.00
MATN - 0.03 - 0.02 0.17 0.02 0.04 - 0.06 - 0.13 0.01 0.27 - 0.18 1.00
TNMS - 0.12 - 0.03 0.22 0.05 - 0.04 - 0.19 - 0.26 0.04 0.12 - 0.33* 0.63** 1.00
Farm
characteristics
Author's personal copy

TALO - 0.12 0.13 0.17 0.09 0.17 0.00 - 0.00 0.14 0.39* - 0.17 0.38* 0.28 1.00
NLP 0.15 0.11 - 0.01 0.11 0.27 0.34* 0.31* 0.00 0.25 0.14 0.00 - 0.07 - 0.17 1.00
NMS 0.06 - 0.05 0.00 0.04 - 0.01 - 0.04 - 0.17 - 0.16 - 0.06 - 0.15 0.26 0.31* - 0.16 0.20 1.00
DFSF - 0.15 - 0.02 0.12 - 0.01 - 0.10 - 0.24 - 0.30* 0.07 0.10 - 0.17 0.25 0.29 0.39* - 0.31* - 0.08 1.00
Dependent
variable
TNM - 0.01 0.12 - 0.03 0.10 0.30* 0.26 0.26 - 0.09 0.12 0.17 - 0.03 - 0.07 - 0.03 0.28 0.17 - 0.15
**p \ 0.05; *p \ 0.10
Agroforest Syst
 Author's personal copy
Agroforest Syst

Table 5 The goodness of fit for the logistic regression models determining factors affecting timber and NTFPs
of mixed and individual regions management (TNM). This implies that some vari-
Logistic regression models v2 value p value ables—like experience with extension training (EET),
involvement in farmers’ groups (IFG), knowledge of
Mixed regions 4.319 0.827 regulations for timber and NTFPs (KRTN), number of
Gunungkidul 8.473 0.389 land parcels (NLP), number of cultivated species
Sumbawa 9.288 0.319 (NMS) and gross incomes of on-farm, forest extrac-
TTS 4.751 0.784 tion and off-farm (GONFI and GOFI)—are factors
affecting the likelihood of managing timber and
square with p [ 0.05 of the Hosmer–Lemeshow test NTFPs (TNM) (Table 6). The positive B-values of
indicated that the models were able to distinguish those selected variables indicate positive relationships
between those farmers who managed and who did not between the variables and the TNM variable, while the
manage their timber trees and NTFPs (Table 5). Exp (B) designates the magnitude of influences of the
The logistic regression model in mixed regions variables on the TNM variable. A one-unit change in
compiles all variables from the household condition the TNM variable increases the odds (Exp (B)) of
and farm characteristic categories. The model allows obtaining EET, IFG, KRTN, NLP, NMS, GONFI and
selected variables, based on the significance level GOFI by the factors of 2.35, 1.73, 1.84, 1.30, 1.13,
(\ 0.10), to enter the model predicting the 1.00 and 1.00, respectively.

Table 6 Regression models for timber and NTFPs management and the significant variables in mixed and individual regions
Variable Mixed regions Gunungkidul Sumbawa TTS
B-value Exp(B) B-value Exp(B) B-value Exp(B) B-value Exp(B)

Household conditions
Household-head age (HA) - 0.01 0.98 - 0.02 0.97 - 0.01 0.98 0.01 1.01
Household-head literacy skills (HLS) 0.17 1.18 0.35 1.43 0.95 2.60 0.35 1.42
Household-head job (HJ) 0.23 1.26 - 0.14 0.86 - 0.52 0.59 1.13 3.12
Household-head formal education status 0.07 1.07 - 0.27 1.00 - 0.99 0.36 0.08 1.08
(HFES)
Experience in extension training (EET) 0.85** 2.35 0.60 1.82 1.04* 2.83 1.43* 4.19
Involvement in farmers’ group (IFG) 0.54** 1.73 0.51 1.67 0.33 1.39 0.96* 2.61
Knowledge of regulation of timber & 0.61** 1.84 0.49 1.64 0.41 1.50 0.71 2.04
NTFPs (KRTN)
On-farm working household members - 0.17 0.84 0.22 1.24 - 0.56** 0.56 - 0.55** 0.57
(OWHM)
Gross on-farm, including forest extraction, 0.00* 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
income (GONFI)
Gross off-farm income (GOFI) 0.00* 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
Market access for timber & NTFPs - 0.20 0.81 - 0.19 0.82 0.52 1.68 - 1.05* 0.34
(MATN)
Timber & NTFPs market specification - 0.01 0.98 - 1.87 0.15 0.90 2.47 - 0.44 0.64
(TNMS)

Farm characteristics
Total area of land owned (TALO) - 0.03 0.96 1.10 3.00 0.67 1.95 - 0.15 0.85
Number of land parcels (NLP) 0.26** 1.30 0.29** 1.33 - 0.14 0.86 0.34 1.41
Number of managed species (NMS) 0.12** 1.13 0.33** 1.40 0.18 1.20 0.06 1.07
Distance from farm to state forest (DFSF) - 0.00 0.99 - 0.01 0.98 0.05* 1.05 - 0.16 0.84
** p \ 0.05 and * p \ 0.10

123
 Author's personal copy
Agroforest Syst

Differing from the mixed region’s model, the (i) material wealth and financial security; (ii) financial
logistic regression of each individual region confirms gains of environmental protection and enhancement;
a different type of significant variables, with p \ 0.10, (iii) social acceptance; (iv) personal integrity; and
that can be important to understand smallholder (v) balance of work and lifestyle.
management practices in each region. In Gunungkidul In this study, the grouping of farmers into two
region, the number of land parcels (NLP) and managed different categories allowed us to understand the
species (NMS) are the main factors positively encour- heterogeneity among farmers in determining their
aging farmers to engage in management. The pre- household objectives by considering the factors of
dicted odds (Exp (B)) of NLP and NMS variables for household conditions and farm characteristics that
farmers who engaged in management were 1.33 and influence them to adopt smallholder management
1.40 times, respectively, the odds for farmers who did practices of timber and NTFPs. Table 3 indicates that
not. While on-farm working household members the percentage of farmers who have literacy skills,
(OWHM), experience with extension training (EET) formal education, experience and knowledge of
and distance from farm to state forest (DFSF) extension, farmers’ groups and regulations for timber
variables contributed negative and positive relation- and NTFPs were higher for farmers who engaged in
ships with the TNM variable in the regression model management compared with farmers who did not. The
for the Sumbawa region. The odds of OWHM for management farmers tended to have a greater number
farmers who engaged in management were 44% of land parcels, grew more species, and had greater
(0.56–1.00) lower than the odds of the variable for off-farm income; they had less family labour (fewer
farmers who did not, however, the predicted odds of family members), and lived closer to the state forest.
EET and DFSF variables for management farmers Furthermore, although income from the production
were 2.83 and 1.05 times, respectively, the odds for systems shows no difference between the two different
no-management farmers. In the regression model for groups of farmer, but compared to other regions the
the TTS region, the negative relationships between the high on-farm income of Sumbawa is attributed to the
variables of OWHM and market access for timber and contribution of high production of wild honey and
NTFPs (MATN) with the TNM variable prove that the candlenut with good market access for the products.
odds of OWHM and MATN for management farmers Besides this, coffee and teakwood production also
were 43% (0.57–1.00) and 66% (0.34–1.00) lower, contributed to on-farm income from the region.
subsequently, than the odds of both factors for no- McGinty et al. (2008) and Bowman and Zilberman
management farmers, while a one-unit change in the (2013) confirmed that the diversity of farmers in
TNM variable increases the odds of obtaining EET decision-making and adoption of land-use practices is
and IFG by the factors of 4.19 and 2.61, respectively. influenced by household socioeconomic and farm
biophysical factors.
The relationships between the factors can indirectly
Discussion affect the adoption of management practices
(Table 4). Farmers employed their family members
The adoption decisions of smallholder agroforestry for a range of tasks in timber and NTFP production
farmers depend on their livelihood strategies through systems. Sood (2006) found that the adoption of
which they balance household objectives, possibilities agroforestry technologies increased with the number
and constraints in economic, social and environmental of family members available for on-farm labour. In
outcomes (van Noordwijk et al. 2001). In selecting our study, the farmers who attend agricultural training
their livelihood strategies, Ellis (2000), Kragten et al. courses were also members of farmers’ groups and had
(2001) and Byron (2001) explains that farmers con- a good understanding of government regulations for
tinuously optimize their agroforestry systems with the management and marketing of timber and NTFPs.
expected utility of land, trees, family labour, cash and Strong and positive correlation between market access
other resources to meet their household objectives for timber and NTFP products and knowledge of
while at the same time seeking to minimize critical product specifications for those commodities indicates
risk factors. Pannell et al. (2006) added that the goals how market access increases with market-related
and strategies of farm households are related to knowledge. Better market access is associated with

123
 Author's personal copy
Agroforest Syst

larger land holdings and higher on-farm income. As collection of non-timber forest products by farmers,
their knowledge of product specifications was particularly, wild honey in Sumbawa.
enhanced, farmers tended to grow more species of Limited resources and access to technical informa-
timber and NTFPs. According to Manurung et al. tion about silvicultural management resulted in low
(2008), tree species’ selection by farmers is primarily productivity and on-farm incomes of smallholder
focused on (i) market demand and subsistence needs; timber and NTFPs (Table 2 and Fig. 1).Timber trees
(ii) income generation; and (iii) the adaptation without pruning and also with left branch stubs
performance of species to biophysical conditions on reduces the quality and price of future logs by leaving
site. knot timber. Thinning practice that only focuses on the
When the three regions are merged, the adoption of harvesting of the biggest timber trees will not facilitate
management is associated with farmers’ experience the improvement of diameter growth and health of
with, and participation in, agricultural extension remaining stands. Thinning should also be focused on
training and farmers’ groups and also their knowledge the removal of poor form—crooked, forked and basal
of management and marketing regulations for timber sweep—stands so that the remaining trees have more
and NTFPs (Table 6). The availability of training space to grow (Evans and Turnbull 2004). In NTB and
opportunities with more extension services, farmers’ NTT provinces, farmers’ limited capacity to imple-
group facilitation and widespread promotion of reg- ment sustainable management of NTFPs and timber
ulations pertaining to timber and NTFPs management was a critical problem (Sjah and Hakim 2012). The
practices increased the likelihood that farmers would findings of this study demonstrate that the very limited
significantly adopt the technologies of those com- number of farmers who participated in extension
modities. The probability of management practices services and farmers’ group facilitation indicates that
increasing with the land area is due to an increase in most farmers have limited technical capacity to adopt
the space available for growing more timber and silvicultural practices. Therefore, farmers need more
NTFPs species. Also, the possibility of intensifying exposure to, and experience with, silviculture to adopt
timber and NTFPs management increased as farmers those practices and enhance the production of timber
had more income from on- and off-farm activities. In and NTFPs.
Australia, by comparison, the adoption of farm- Farmers’ household and farm characteristics have
forestry practices was influenced by market links and significant roles to facilitate the adoption of silvicul-
development, economic returns of farm-forestry prac- tural practices to achieve production that is econom-
tices, supportive regulatory environments, and dis- ically sustainable and which conserves more timber
semination of information about farm forestry and NTFP species. Improved technical capacity and
(Schirmer et al. 2000). awareness of government regulations acquired
The factors affecting farmers in adopting small- through extension training and strengthened through
holder timber and NTFPs management practices were participation in farmers’ groups will enhance the rate
moderately different between the regions. In Gunung- of adoption of silvicultural practices by smallholders.
kidul, farmers who adopted management were likely The existence and strength of farmers’ social networks
to grow up to 40% more species when they had more and membership in farmers’ organizations show a
land than farmers who did not. The possibility of strong positive association with adoption (Sobels et al.
farmers adopting management practices increased 2001; Kington and Pannell 2003). Sabastian et al.
when the employment of on-farm family labour was (2014) and Abadi Ghadim et al. (2005) found that
lower by 44% compared with the no-management higher on-farm income and access to larger areas of
farmers; however, the likelihood of farmers’ manage- agricultural land provided opportunities for farmers to
ment adoption rose 2-to-4 times when they had greater adopt agroforestry technologies, including higher
access to extension training in Sumbawa and TTS quality germplasm. Pannell et al. (2006) explained
regions; and more participation in farmers’ groups in that when farmers considered a major improvement to
TTS. However, access to their products to market was their farming system, they would seek information
still lower. There was a tendency that a closer distance about relevant issues. The more deliberate the
between farms and state forest lead to an increase in improvements, the stronger the need for information
and for confidence about the outcomes.

123
 Author's personal copy
Agroforest Syst

Strong collaboration among policy makers, simplifying timber and NTFPs trade regulations; and
researchers and extension providers will be required (iii) developing links between farmers—as timber and
to accelerate the adoption of silvicultural practices by NTFP producers—with those commodities’ indus-
smallholders. The approaches should be centred on the tries. Commercialization, cultivation and conservation
livelihoods’ strategies of farmers, linked to their are the challenges facing tree and NTFP resources’
household conditions and farm characteristics, when use, value and management (Dawson et al. 2014).
selecting the intensities of pruning, thinning, and
intercropping and levels of germplasm quality.
Government and research centre investments in Conclusion
research and development of extension services and
farmers’ group facilitation can generate participatory In terms of understanding the adoption of silvicultural
learning to raise awareness and change perceptions of practices for smallholder timber and NTFPs produc-
farmers about silvicultural innovation. The methods tion systems by farmers in Indonesia, a number of
are credible, reliable, legitimate, and suit farmers’ conclusions can be drawn from this study. Household
needs as well as those of extension providers, includ- and farm factors—including extension services, farm-
ing government extension agencies, NGOs and edu- ers’ group facilitation, knowledge of regulations,
cated farmers. Forestry research centres need to species’ selection, number of land parcels and higher
develop various on-farm trials of silvicultural tech- on- and off-farm incomes—significantly influence
niques to provide proof of the innovations and their farmers’ decision-making processes regarding the
impact on profits of timber and NTFP productivity in adoption of timber and NTFP management practices.
the short and long terms. In other words, according to Farmers’ management practices could be intensified to
Pannell et al. (2006), trials should focus on how easily enhance system productivity and income generation
farmers can learn about the trials’ performance and by improving the contribution of the determinant
associated optimal management. Furthermore, gov- factors. Increasing availability and participation in
ernment policies can provide the advantage of encour- training and raising awareness of government,
aging sustainable smallholder timber and NTFP research institutions and extension providers to
production systems’ intensification through intercrop- develop participatory learning methods, including
ping and thus increase the adoption of silvicultural silvicultural on-farm trials and market linkages, will
practices. increase adoption of silvicultural practices, land
The probability of silvicultural practices increases productivity and incomes. This will benefit farmers
when farmers conserve more timber and NTFP and society through more products and healthy
species. Enhancing conservation of those species in systems. In the process of technology adoption,
production systems, including the use of high-quality farmers should be allowed to choose the level of
germplasm, is compatible with the adoption of silvi- technology that best suits their livelihood strategies.
cultural practices intended to increase income from
timber and NTFP production. This study did not focus Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for facilitation
provided by the projects funded by the Australian Centre for
on agro-biodiversity but the compatibility of intensive International Agricultural Research, Development of Timber
management with agro-biodiversity conservation has and Non-timber Forest Products’ Production and Market
been reported in other studies (Manurung et al. 2008; Strategies for Improvement of Smallholders’ Livelihoods in
Akinnifesi et al. 2008; Kalaba et al. 2010). Market Indonesia (FST/2012/039) and Enhancing Market-based
Agroforestry and Forestry Systems in Indonesia (FST/2016/
access can stimulate farmers to conserve agro-biodi-
141), led by the World Agroforestry Centre. We thank other
versity through sustainable management to maintain members of the research team and for their assistance with this
viable income streams. Farmers invest in managing work. We also thank the farmers who participated in this
NTFPs when the product is suitably valuable, land research and Robert Finlayson for editing the paper.
tenure is secure and the market is sufficiently attractive
(Belcher et al. 2005). Perdana et al. (2012) emphasized
the effectiveness of marketing strategies for farmers
through government focusing on (i) providing infor-
mation about log grading and the pricing system; (ii)

123
 Author's personal copy
Agroforest Syst

References activity and stand performance. Forest, trees and liveli-

hoods 21(3):158–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.
Abadi Ghadim AK, Pannell DJ, Burton MP (2005) Risk, 2012.734127
uncertainty and learning in adoption of a crop innovation. Kington EA, Pannell DJ (2003) Dryland salinity in the upper
Agr Econ 33:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j1574-0862. kent river catchment of Western Australia: farmer per-
2005.00433.x ceptions and practices. Aust J Exp Agric 43:19–28. https://
Akinnifesi FK, Sileshi G, Ajayi OC, Chirwa PW, Mng’omba S, doi.org/10.1071/EA01058
Chakeredza S, Nyoka BI (2008) Domestication and con- Kragten M, Tomich TP, Vosti S, Gockowski J (2001) Evaluat-
servation of indigenous Miombo fruit trees for improving ing land use systems from a socio-economic perspective.
rural livelihoods in Southern Africa. Biodiversity ASB Lecture Note 8. World Agroforestry Centre,
9(1–2):72–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2008. Indonesia
9712888 Kumar BM, Kumar SS, Fisher RF (1998) Intercropping teak
Belcher B, Ruiz-Perez M, Achdiawan R (2005) Global patterns with Leucaena increases tree growth and modifies soil
and trends in the use and management of commercial characteristics. Agrofor Syst 42:81–89
NTFPs: implications for livelihoods and conservation. Manurung GES, Roshetko JM, Budidarsono S, Kurniawan I
World Dev 33(9):1435–1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (2008) Dudukuhan tree farming systems in West Java:
worlddev.2004.10.007 How to mobilize self-strengthening of community-based
Bertomeu M, Bertomeu M, Gimenez JC (2006) Improving forest management? In: Snelder DJ, Lasco RD (eds)
adoptability of farm forestry in the Philippine uplands: a Smallholder tree growing for rural development and
linear programming model. Agrofor Syst 68:81–91. https:// environmental services, lessons from Asia. Springer, Ger-
doi.org/10.1007/s10457-006-0005-7 many, pp 99–116
Bertomeu M, Roshetko JM, Rahayu S (2011) Optimum pruning Mbosso C, Degrande A, Villamor GB, Damme PV, Tchoundjeu
intensity for reducing crop suppression in a Gmelina-maize Z, Tsafack S (2015) Factors affecting the adoption of
smallholder agroforestry system in Claveria, Philippines. agricultural innovation: the case of a Ricinodendron
Agrofor Syst 83:167–180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457- heudelotii kernel extraction machine in Southern Camer-
011-9435-y oon. Agrofor Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-
Bowman MS, Zilberman D (2013) Economic factors affecting 9813-y
diversified farming systems. Ecology and Society 18(1):33. McGinty M, Swisher M, Alavalapati J (2008) Agroforestry
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05574-180133 adoption and maintenance: self-efficacy, attitudes and
Byron RN (2001) Keys to smallholder forestry in developing socio-economic factors. Agrofor Syst 73(2):99–108
countries in the tropics. In: Harrison SR, Herbohn JL (eds) Mercer D (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the
Sustainable farm forestry in the tropics: social and eco- tropics: a review. Agrofor Syst 58:311–328. https://doi.org/
nomic analysis and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing 10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029007-85754-70
Limited, Cheltenham, pp 211–214 Meyfroidt P, Lambin EF (2011) Global forest transition: pro-
Dawson IK, Leakey R, Clement CR, Weber JC, Cornelius JP, spects for an end to deforestation. Annu Rev Environ
Roshetko JM, Vinceti B, Kalinganire A, Tchoundjeu Z, Resour 36:343–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
Masters E, Jamnadass R (2014) The management of tree environ-090710-143732
genetic resources and the livelihoods of rural communities Mwase W, Sefasi A, Njoloma J, Nyoka BI, Manduwa D, Nyaika
in the tropics: non-timber forest products, smallholder J (2015) Factors affecting adoption of agroforestry and
agroforestry practices and tree commodity crops. Forest evergreen agriculture in Southern Africa. Environ Nat
Ecol Manag 333:9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco. Resour Res. https://doi.org/10.5539/enrr.v5n2p148
2014.01.021 Nawir AA (2014) Kanoppi project: development of timber and
Ellis F (2000) Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing non-timber forest products‘production and market strate-
countries. Oxford University Press, New York gies for improvement of smallholders’ livelihoods in
Evans J, Turnbull J (2004) Plantation forestry in the tropics, 3rd Indonesia (FST/2012/039). Annual Report April 2013 –
edn. Oxford University Press, New York March 2014. Center for International Forestry Research
Kalaba KF, Chirwa P, Syampungani S, Ajayi CO (2010) Con- (CIFOR)
tribution of agroforestry to biodiversity and livelihoods Nyoka BI, Roshetko J, Jamnadass R, Muriuki J, Kalinganire A,
improvement in rural communities of Southern African Lilleso JPB, Beedy T, Cornelius J (2014) Tree seed and
regions. In: Tscharntke T et al. (eds.) Tropical rainforests seedling supply systems: a review of the Asia, Africa and
and agroforests under global change. Environmental Sci- Latin America models. Small-scale Forestry 13(3):171–
ence and Engineering, Springer, pp. 461-476. https://doi. 191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-014-9280-8
org/10.1007/978-3-642-00493-3_22 Pallant J (2007) SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to
Kallio MH, Kanninen M, Rohadi D (2011) Farmers’ tree data analysis using SPSS for Windows version 15, 3rd edn.
planting activities in Indonesia—case studies in the pro- Open University Press, Milton Keynes
vinces of Java, Riau, and South Kalimantan. Forest, trees Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N, Curtis A, Vanclay F,
livelihoods 20:191–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028. Wilkinson R (2006) Understanding and promoting adop-
2011.9756706 tion of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust J
Kallio MH, Kanninen M, Krisnawati H (2012) Smallholder teak Exp Agric 46(11):1407–1424. https://doi.org/10.1071/
plantations in two villages in central java: silvicultural EA05037

123
 Author's personal copy
Agroforest Syst

Perdana A, Roshetko JM, Kurniawan I (2012) Forces of com- Snelder DJ, Lasco RD (2008) Smallholder tree growing in south
petition: smallholding teak producers in Indonesia. Int For and southeast Asia. In: Snelder DJ, Lasco RD (eds)
Rev 14(2):238–248. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554812800 Smallholder tree growing for rural development and
923417 environmental services, lessons from Asia. Springer, Ger-
Perez D, Kanninen M (2005) Effect of thinning on stem form many, pp 11–12
and wood characteristics of teak (Tectona grandis) in Sobels J, Curtis A, Lockie S (2001) The role of landcare net-
humid tropical site in Costa Rica. Silva Fennica 39(2): works in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of
217–225 social capital. J Rural Studies 17:265–276. https://doi.org/
Reid R (2002) The principles and practice of pruning. AFG 10.1016/S0743-0167(01)00003-1
Special Liftout No.60 Winter 2002 25(2) Sood KK (2006) The influence of household economics and
Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. The Free farming aspects on adoption of traditional agroforestry in
Press, New York western Himalaya. Mt Res Develop 26(2):124–130. https://
Roshetko JM, Lasco RD, Delos Angeles MD (2007) Small- doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2006)26[124:TIOHEA]2.0.
holder agroforestry systems for carbon storage. Mitig CO;2
Adaptatation Strategies Glob Change 12:219–242. https:// Statistics of Gunungkidul Regency, 2013. Gunungkidul in fig-
doi.org/10.1007/s11027-005-9010-9 ures 2013. Katalog BPS: 1102001.3403, Yogyakarta,
Roshetko JM, Rohadi D, Perdana A, Sabastian G, Nuryartono N, Indonesia
Pramono AA, Widyani N, Manalu P, Fauzi MA, Sumar- Statistics of Sumbawa Regency, 2012. Sumbawa in fig-
damto P, Kusumowardhani N (2013) Teak agroforestry ures 2012. Katalog BPS: 1403.5204, Nusa Tenggara Barat,
systems for livelihood enhancement, industrial timber Indonesia
production, and environmental rehabilitation. Forest Trees Statistics of Timor Tengah Selatan, 2014. Timor Tengah Selatan
Livelihoods 22(4):241–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472 in figures 2014. Katalog BPS: 1102001.5304, Nusa teng-
8028.2013.855150 gara Timur, Indonesia
Sabastian G, Kanowski P, Race D, Williams E, Roshetko J Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics,
(2014) Household and farm attributes affecting adoption of 5th edn. Pearson Education Inc, Boston
smallholder timber management practices by tree growers Tieguhong JC, Ingram V, Mala WA, Ndoye O, Grouwels S
in Gunungkidul region. Indonesia. Agrofor Syst 88(1):1– (2015) How governance impacts non-timber forest product
14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9673-x value chains in Cameroon. For Policy Econ 61:1–10.
Schirmer J, Kanowski P, Race D (2000) Factors affecting https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.08.003
adoption of plantation forestry on farms: implications for Torras O, Saura S (2008) Effects of silvicultural treatments on
farm forestry development in Australia. Australian For- forest biodiversity indicators in the Mediterranean. For
estry 63(1):44–51 Ecol Manage 255:3322–3330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Sjah T, Hakim MR (2012) Developing model for small scale foreco.2008.02.013
forest economy dealing with NTFPs for income generating Van Noordwijk M, Tomich TP, Verbist B (2001) Negotiation
of local communities in pilot villages (Rinjani and Mutis). support models for integrated natural resource manage-
Project Technical Report. WWF Indonesia, Project ID: ment in tropical forest margins. Conserv Ecol 5(2):21
018809-0000, ITTO PD 521/08 Rev.3(1)

123