“Nothing great is suddenly created, any more than a bunch of grapes or a fig.If you tell me that you desire a fig,I answer there must be time.Let it first blossom, then bear fruit, then ripen”.(Epictetus, 341-271 BC)
1.1. Background to the SHASEA Project
1.2. Socio-Economic Situation of Wang Jia Watershed, Kelang Village
1.3. The Project Site: Wang Jia Watershed
2. Effectiveness of the SHASEA Project in Relation to Its Own Scientific Objectives
|1||Polythene mulching||Existing technology: but mostly used in tobacco and vegetable production. The Project tested and extended this technology in order to reduce soil erosion and increase corn productivity.|
|2||Straw mulching||Technology new to the area: The Project tested and extended this technology to increase soil quality and corn productivity and reduce soil erosion.|
|3||Irrigation||Existing technology: but with very low access, particularly in upland areas. The Project tested and extended this technology to increase crop productivity, extend the cropping season during drought periods and reduce crop failure during droughts.|
|4||Contour cultivation||Existing technology: but not widely practiced, as traditionally farmers have cultivated using downslope cultivation. The Project tested and extended this technology in order to reduce runoff and soil erosion and thereby conserve soil resources, thus preventing productivity decline.|
|5||Inter-cropping||Existing technology: but adapted by farmers to suit their conditions and needs, which were different to the recommended intercropping practice. The Project tested and extended improved intercropping technology to increase overall crop productivity and economic return.|
|6||Use of grass strips||Technology new to the area: The Project tested and extended this technology on a small scale to reduce runoff and soil erosion and increase organic matter inputs.|
|7||Tree planting||Existing technology: The Project extended this activity as an ecologically and economically suitable alternative in sloping areas where the gradient is >25° (47%).|
- Novel and modified cropping practices have been evaluated, including INCOPLAST, which can increase corn yield by ≤50%, compared to traditional methods.
- Land management plans have been developed to achieve more sustainable agricultural systems in Wang Jia.
- Comprehensive surveys and descriptions of the biophysical characteristics of the watershed have been completed, which have provided a baseline for subsequent change and established the representativity of the watershed in relation to surrounding areas.
- Socio-economic analysis determined the economic and social feasibility of the alternative cropping strategies, the wider implications of the land use changes and the likelihood of subsequent adoption and adaptation of the technologies employed. Moderately long (five years plus) perspectives are needed for investment programs to yield dividends.
- Scientific evaluation of selected cropping practices developed in Wang Jia has been carried out in North Thailand and has demonstrated that these practices are generally as effective as the best practices in use in that region .
- Dissemination and training activities for wider adoption of these practices and associated recommendations have been initiated.
- Scientific training associated with the project outcomes has been achieved through a series of undergraduate, Masters and Ph.D. programs.
- Dissemination of scientific outcomes has been achieved through presentations at several national and international conferences, a scientific tour of the watershed, a provincial workshop held at Yunnan Agricultural University (YAU) and publications and reports.
3. Effectiveness of SHASEA Project Technologies as Perceived by Farmers and Stakeholders at Project Completion
3.1. Contour Cultivation
3.4. Tree planting
4. Effectiveness of Training and Dissemination Activities of the Project
- A farmer in Wang Jia planted prickly ash trees at a very high density (five times more than recommended). In addition, he planted sweet chestnut trees in the gap between two rows. The trees were planted at different times, so the trees were at different growth stages. At first, the farmer planted few trees and found it to be more profitable. Then he planted more trees in the same land exceeding the recommended density many fold.
- A farmer from nearby Mosu village planted sweet chestnut trees at very high density (three times higher than recommended). He was unaware of the improved management technology, so a very poor yield is likely, resulting in economic setback.
- The practice of most farmers for disposing of used polythene was potentially environmentally hazardous. Scope for recycling already existed in Kelang village, as some local merchants were buying used polythene. Farmers’ awareness needed to be increased through training and demonstrations, in order to promote the recycling of used polythene.
5. Overall Perceptions of Stakeholders
- The Project changed farmers’ perceptions about natural resource management and utilization. Farmers understood the benefit of conserving natural resources, which reduced over-reliance and over-use of forest resources. Deforestation had decreased and farmers had now started to plant trees for themselves. They were now aware of the benefits of soil and water conservation and trying to avoid using technologies that lead to increased soil and water losses.
- The check-dam in the gully was very effective in controlling soil and water losses and flood frequency and severity in the village.
- Environmental conditions in the watershed had changed substantially due to Project efforts during the previous three years, particularly due to decreased soil-water losses and flood frequency.
- The Project had introduced scientific technologies and training programs to farmers about improved cultivation practices. In the past, farmers used to practice downslope cultivation over large areas in the watershed. Now farmers knew the benefits of contour cultivation and the area under contour cultivation was increasing.
- Crop productivity in the watershed had increased. The Project mobilized farmers to try improved technologies and consequently farmers were allocating more time to farming activities and investing more inputs, particularly manure and fertilizers. Consequently, crop productivity had increased.
- Kedu Township was planning to extend some Project technologies to similar areas. In particular, the following technologies were being considered for inclusion in extension programs:
- Grass strip technology.
- Tree planting on land with >25° slope (this is also one of the strategies of the Chinese Government to address the problem of soil and water erosion in highlands).
- Contour cultivation technology.
- Polythene mulch technology.
- Construction of dams in gullies within similar watersheds.
- It would be better not to plan and implement long-term initiatives if the Project duration was short. Most stakeholders were concerned about possible damage to the rehabilitating environment, particularly the growing trees. Alternatively a clear plan should be developed for protecting such features after Project completion, which might include the provision of financial resources.
- The stakeholders identified the need for wider dissemination of Project technologies. They also pointed out the need for extension materials, such as pamphlets, posters and radio programs, in order to achieve wider adoption.
- Similarly, stakeholders pointed out the lack of training opportunities for farmers outside the watershed.
6.1. Environmental Impact of Project Activities
6.2. Stakeholders’ Perceptions on the Effects on Environmental Conditions within the Watershed
6.3. Impact on Human Resource Development
6.4. Impact on Women
7. Project Strengths
7.1. Working to the Local Government Agenda
7.2. Working with Existing Local Research and Development Networks
8. Project Weaknesses
8.1. Lack of Participatory Approach
- Farmers’ hidden agenda about irrigation: The irrigation system was not originally planned by the researchers. This activity was added later upon demands from local stakeholders. Group discussion revealed that farmers were happy to have the irrigation system in place, but the use of irrigation was very limited during the entire Project. Subsequent discussion with Key Informants revealed that farmers wanted the system for more profitable crops (tobacco or vegetables), which require irrigation. Better communication and understanding between farmers and researchers would have been established if farmers’ participation had been sought earlier in Project processes and activities.
- Chinese tradition and farmers’ response attitude: Farmers were very hesitant to mention project weaknesses and limitations. Despite requests to identify Project weaknesses (which would provide a basis for future improvement), farmers avoided negative responses, particularly when the matter was discussed in groups (possibly in front of outsiders/foreigners). During group discussions, farmers mentioned only those points they thought researchers would like to hear. For example, farmers said ‘the quality of crops has increased because of irrigation’ although the use of irrigation was very limited. Moreover, the degree of adoption of Project technologies estimated during group discussion was generally greater than estimates made during personal interviews in the household survey. Hence, farmers’ responses during the PRA exercise were more positive than in the household survey and individual discussions. At least some weaknesses of Project’s activities were mentioned in the household survey. This could be due to lack of experience of farmers in participatory approaches. Song  reported that a participatory approach was introduced in rural development projects during the early 1990s in China. However, the concept of participatory action was new to farmers and village officials in Kelang village. Farmers were au fait with the ‘top-down’ approach of the Government. Thus, triangulation (use of information from different sources to draw conclusions) became necessary for information collected in group exercises like PRA. Farmers usually gave credit for production increases to better seed quality, whatever the real reason for increased crop production. This was the traditional way of thinking for the farmers, even though they realized other factors were also responsible for increased productivity.
- Discrepancy between response, commitment and action: Discrepancies in farmers’ responses (in terms of their willingness to adopt or their estimation of future adoption) and actual actions were sometimes observed. For example, farmers highlighted the benefit of irrigation, but few used it. Similarly, farmers praised the Project for protecting the watershed and implementing conservation activities that improved environmental conditions. They also said the Project approach and farmers’ approach to soil and water conservation were similar, but they were quarrying two hilltops in the watershed for rock extraction. This increased the risk of soil erosion and landslides on such steep slopes.
8.2. Appropriateness of Subsidy: Subsidy, Orientation and Farmers’ Attitude
8.3. Unrealistic Ambition
- The delivery of benefits of the international development program to target group(s) remained incomplete, which reduced the effectiveness of the program.
- Farmers experienced the outcomes of the first international development assistance to be implemented in the area. If the environmental condition of the watershed returned to its pre-Project condition and if farmers did not realize any benefits from Project technologies, then they might develop negative perceptions of international development programs. If this happened, it might be difficult to gain their participation and co-operation in future development projects.
9. Issues Related to Adoption of Project Technologies
9.1. Size of Land Holding versus Adoption of Improved Technologies
9.2. Land Security versus Farmers’ Stewardship towards Land Resources
9.3. Awareness versus Adoption
9.4. Project Duration versus Adoption of Project Interventions
10. Effectiveness in Relation to Other Development Projects
10.1. Achievement of Project Objectives
10.2. Effectiveness of Technology Developed
10.3. Dissemination and Scaling Up
11. Overall Success and Failure
- The SHASEA Project was successful in achieving its scientific and technical objectives. Some technologies introduced by the Project were effective in improving crop productivity and reducing soil and water losses. But at the end of the three-year project, it was not clear what the potential long-term benefits would be.
- Other short-duration projects have produced similar outcomes. By contrast, longer duration projects are able to commit more time to dissemination and to follow through to the processes of adoption and adaptation and possibly achieve greater long-term success. Alternatively local systems must be put in place to continue the developments introduced by the project after the main funding period is completed.
- This study investigated the initial uptake of Project technologies by farming communities in Wang Jia Watershed, their perceptions about the usefulness of the technologies and their intentions for future adoption. The study revealed that despite the technical and scientific success of the Project, long-term adoption of many introduced practices will be low, unless considerable incentives are used or much more effective dissemination techniques employed.
- Outcomes would have improved considerably if participatory approaches had been used from the outset, to engage farmers more fully with the project, to ensure that the practices introduced were as appropriate as possible, to achieve greater ownership of objectives and outcomes, leading to higher adoption rates.
- More emphasis should have been given to the dissemination of the outcomes at farmer level outside the study watershed and there should have been more involvement with regional policy- makers and extension officials throughout the program.
- Longer-term improvements in sustainability at the watershed level have not yet been demonstrated. Continued use of contour cultivation and extension of the tree planting schemes may lead to significant improvements in sustainability in the future.
13. Good Practices for the Development, Implementation and Dissemination of Similar Projects in the Future
- Work in accordance with the research and development agenda of local stakeholders. This will help to ensure that project efforts will be effective in alleviating local problems and achieving local needs.
- Work with existing local research and development networks. This is helpful in integrating project outcomes with existing local research and development systems and is important to ensure wider dissemination of research and post-project utilization of project outputs.
- Ensure adequate sharing of project goals with all partners and stakeholders, so that all partners and stakeholders are aware of the project mission and their roles, responsibilities and contributions necessary to achieve project objectives; local ownership of the project is very important.
- Avoid ambitious planning of project activities that cannot be completed within the stipulated time and resources. If any activities are expected to remain incomplete by the end of the project or as a result of limited availability of resources, then continuation strategies for the completion of such activities should be in place. The continuation strategy may include identification of activities to be completed, institutions to be responsible and sources and amount of resources.
- Record baseline information before the start of project interventions, in order to study project progress and effectiveness in the areas of intervention.
- Use farmer participatory approaches in all stages of research and development, i.e., planning, implementation, evaluation and dissemination (scaling-up). Farmers were capable of evaluating environmental conditions in a watershed, identifying suitable indicators and using them during evaluation. Effective dissemination can be achieved by involving farmers in the scaling-up process, as ‘other farmers’ were major sources of information for farmers.
- Ideally, consider technology with the following characteristics: appropriate balance between rapid returns and longer-term benefits; inputs associated with locally available technology, in time and at reasonable cost; the technology should not demand extra labor and costs without the extra returns being clearly identified; and new or modified technologies should be capable of being accommodated within the existing system. Where these ideal conditions are not met, it should be recognized that additional incentives may be required to improve adoption.
- Provide adequate training to increase farmers’ awareness about the longer-term benefits of conservation strategies and thereby achieve more effective dissemination and adoption.
- Provide subsidy or compensation to farmers where additional income from the technology is delayed or remains less than current income for some time. It is necessary to fully discuss the objective and duration of such subsidy or compensation programs with farmers.
- Involve policy-makers at an early stage in the project if policy support is likely to be required to achieve project objectives. This is particularly important when attempting to improve sustainability, which may not be associated with tangible short-term benefits.
- Discuss and agree future (post-project) courses of action with local partners. Ensure that the funding agency’s conditions are fully understood and accepted by all partners. Where possible, sources of on-going local support should be identified while the main project is operational.
14. Suggested Areas for Future Study
- Generation of post-project baseline information would help in monitoring progress in the adoption and impact of project technologies for the future.
- Under researcher-managed plots, the integrated INCOPLAST technology proved successful in both increasing crop productivity and improving soil and water conservation. However, very few farmers adopted the whole package of this technology, while most farmers adopted some components of the system. It is necessary to further investigate the factors, both technical and socio-economic, which limited the adoption of this effective integrated cropping system.
- Low availability was one of the major reasons for poor initial uptake of straw mulch technology. Investigation of ways to increase straw production is necessary to achieve better adoption of this technology by farmers.
- This study presents information about the monitoring of impacts and the early adoption of Project technologies by farmers. Wider adoption of technologies at the time of this study was limited and a much longer monitoring period would be required to draw definitive conclusions on long-term adoption and the wider socio-economic impacts of the development program.
- Farmers were reluctant to use the intercropping system recommended by the Project. Lack of suitable varieties, particularly of the companion crop, was an important reason. Further work is required to develop more appropriate systems for this area.
- Effects of ‘white pollution’ (pollution due to polythene) on the cropping environment should be studied and ways for reducing any adverse effects investigated.
- Government subsidy on polythene is probably one of the reasons for its widespread use for mulching; however, this subsidy may not continue indefinitely. Further studies should investigate how farmers will respond if the subsidy on polythene is lifted by the Government.
- Farmers perceived that use of contour cultivation on sloping lands increased lodging and weed problems, although published information was unavailable to verify these perceptions. A further study should investigate the relationships between contour cultivation, weed problems and tendency to lodge.
- Brady, N.C. Making agriculture a sustainable industry. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems; Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., House, G., Eds.; Soil and Water Conservation Society: Ankeny, IA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Pretty, J.N. Regenerating Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self-Reliance; Vikas Publishing House Pvt.: New Delhi, India, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Harwood, R.R. A history of sustainable agriculture. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems; Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., House, G., Eds.; Soil and Water Conservation Society: Ankeny, IA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, W. New Roots for Agriculture; Friends of the Earth: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Rodale, R. Breaking new ground: The search for a sustainable agriculture. Futurist 1983, 1, 15–20. [Google Scholar]
- Shepherd, A. Sustainable Rural Development; MacMillan Press: London, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Hurni, H. Soil conservation policies and sustainable land management: A global overview. In Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs: Successes and Failures; Napier, T.L., Napier, S.M., Tvrdon, J., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Rasul, G.; Thapa, G.B. Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives. Agric. Syst. 2004, 79, 327–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rigby, D.; Woodhouse, P.; Young, T.; Burton, M. Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecol. Econ. 2001, 39, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Röling, N. Gateway to the global garden: Beta/gamma science for dealing with ecological rationality. In The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Agriculture; Pretty, J., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Barton, A.P.; Fullen, M.A.; Mitchell, D.J.; Hocking, T.J.; Liu, L.; Wu, B.Z.; Zheng, Y.; Xia, Z.Y. Effects of soil conservation measures on erosion rates and crop productivity on subtropical Ultisols in Yunnan Province, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 104, 343–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fullen, M.A.; Milne, E.; Huang, B.Z. (Eds.) The Red Cloud Tour: Guidebook to the ‘Red Cloud Tour’ of Yunnan Province, China. August 22-28, 2002; Sustainable Highland Agriculture in South-East Asia (SHASEA) Research Group: Wolverhampton, UK, 2002.
- Lu, C.H. A scenario exploration of strategic land use options for the Loess Plateau in Northern China. Agric. Syst. 2004, 79, 145–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rerkasem, K. An assessment of sustainable highland agricultural systems in Thailand. Thailand Develop. Res. Instit. (TDRI) Quart. Rev. 1995, 10, 18–25. [Google Scholar]
- Treitz, W.N. Dimensions and importance of sustainability in a global context. In Evaluation for Sustainable Land Management in the Developing World: Technical Papers; IBSRAM Proceedings No. 12(2); Dumanski, J., Pushparajah, E., Latham, M., Myers, R., Elliott, C.R., Eds.; The International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM): Bangkok, Thailand, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Cai, Y.L.; Zhang, J.L.; Zhu, X. Land Policies, Land Management and Land Degradation in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas-China Study Report; International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD): Kathmandu, Nepal, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, B.Z. Effects of cultivation techniques on maize productivity and soil properties on hillslopes in Yunnan Province, China. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Wolverhampton, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, Z.; Zhou, L. The aggravation of soil erosion in the south-western Region. Sci. Technol. 1988, January. [Google Scholar]
- Shi, D.M. Degradation and conservation of red soils in China. Soil Water Conserv. China 1987, 12, 2–5. [Google Scholar]
- SHASEA. Improving the productivity and sustainability of crop systems on fragile slopes in the highlands of South China and Thailand. Final Report; Sustainable Highland Agriculture in South-East Asia (SHASEA) Research Group: The University of Wolverhampton, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Cornwall, A.; Guijt, I.; Welbourn, A. Acknowledging the process: Methodological challenges for agricultural research and extension. In Beyond Farmer First: Rural People's Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice; Scoones, I., Thompson, J., Eds.; Intermediate Technology Publications: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Kelang Village Authority. Village Record, 2002.
- Fullen, M.A.; Hocking, T.J.; Mitchell, D.J.; Milne, E.; Wilson, M.J.; Cuddy, M.; Steele, S.; McDonough, T.; Bock, L.; Dautrebande, S.; Lacroix, D.; Casse, C.; Vinck, P.; Baudoin, J.G.; Van Caillie, D.; Wu, B.Z.; Liu, L.G.; Li, Y.M.; Huang, B.Z.; Sun, H.Q.; Chen, J.D.; Wang, S.H.; Liu, H.M.; Wang, Y.Z.; Ma, C.Y.; Pu, J.L.; Jin, Z.B.; Ma, S.Y.; Panomataranchagul, M.; Sukkasem, C.; Peukari, S. Multidisciplinary approaches to soil conservation in the highlands of South China and Thailand. In Multidisciplinary Approaches to Soil Conservation Strategies; Helming, K., Ed.; ZALF (Zentrum für Agrarlanschafts- und landnutzungsforschung e.V.): Müncheburg, Germany, 2001; pp. 139–145. [Google Scholar]
- SHASEA. Improving the productivity and sustainability of crop systems on fragile slopes in the highlands of South China and Thailand. Project proposal to the European Union. The University of Wolverhampton: UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Fukuda-Parr, S.; Lopes, C.; Malik, K. Overview. In Capacity for Development: New Solutions to Old Problems; Malik, K., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Uphoff, N. The agricultural development challenges we face. In Agroecological Innovation: Increasing Food Production with Participatory Development; Uphoff, N., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Garforth, C.; Rehman, T.; McKemey, K.; Tranter, R.; Cooke, R.; Yates, C.; Park, J.; Dorward, P. Improving the design of knowledge transfer strategies by understanding farmer attitudes and behaviour. J. Farm Manag. 2004, 12, 17–32. [Google Scholar]
- Rondinelli, D.A. Development Projects as Policy Experiments: An Adaptive Approach to Development Administration, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Subedi, M.; Hocking, T.J.; Fullen, M.A.; McCrea, A.R.; Milne, E.; Wu, B.Z.; Mitchell, D.J. An evaluation of the introduction of modified cropping practices in Yunnan Province, China, using surveys of farmers’ households. Agric. Sci. China 2009, 8, 188–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subedi, M. Effectiveness of an agricultural technology research and development project for increasing sustainability of cropping systems in upland areas of Yunnan Province, China. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Wolverhampton, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Bhatia, K.S.; Choudhary, H.P. Runoff and erosion losses and crop yields from slopy and eroded alluvial soils of Uttar Pradesh in relation to contour farming and fertilization. Soil Conserv. Digest 1977, 5, 16–22. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, G.C.; Gao, M.R.; Zhu, B. The characteristics of overland flow under varied tillage and cropping systems in Sichuan Basin, China. Soil Till. Res. 2000, 54, 139–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milne, E. Soil conservation in relation to maize productivity on sub-tropical red soils in Yunnan Province, China. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Wolverhampton, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Neal, M.E.B. Soil erosion by water, some measures for its control on agricultural lands. In Proceedings of the Open Meeting of the Agricultural Engineering Branch of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy, 1963.
- Poudel, D.D.; Midmore, D.J.; West, L.T. Farmer participatory research to minimize soil erosion on steepland vegetable systems in The Philippines. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 79, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Z.H.; Cai, C.F.; Ding, S.W.; Wang, T.W.; Chow, T.L. Soil conservation planning at the small watershed level using RUSLE with GIS: a case study in the Three Gorge Area of China. Catena 2004, 55, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Keer, K.; Comtois, J.D.; Turkelboom, F.; Ongprasert, S. (Eds.) Options for Soil and Farmer Friendly Agriculture in the Highlands of Northern Thailand; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH: Eschborn, Germany, 1998.
- Fujisaka, S. Thirteen reasons why farmers do not adopt innovation intended to improve the sustainability of upland agriculture. In Evaluation for Sustainable Land Management in the Developing World: Technical Papers; IBSRAM Proceedings No. 12(2); Dumanski, J., Pushparajah, E., Latham, M., Myers, R., Elliott, C.R., Eds.; The International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM): Bangkok, Thailand, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Ruaysoongnern, S. Adoption of sloping land conservation practices by farmers in the northeast of Thailand. In Issues and Options in the Design of Soil and Water Conservation Projects; McDonald, M., Brown, K., Eds.; School of Agriculture and Forest Sciences Publication Number 17, University of Wales: Bangor, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, Y. Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of soil conservation programmes in Hindu Kush Himalayan region. Issues and Options in the Design of Soil and Water Conservation Projects, McDonald, M., Brown, K., Eds.; School of Agriculture and Forest Sciences Publication Number 17, University of Wales: Bangor, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- SHASEA. Improving the Productivity and Sustainability of Crop Systems on Fragile Slopes in the Highlands of South China and Thailand, First Annual Report; Sustainable Highland Agriculture in South-East Asia (SHASEA) Research Group: University of Wolverhampton, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.M. A generic protocol for an integrated land information system in humid subtropical highlands: A case study in Yunnan Province, China. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wolverhampton, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.T.; Yang, J.H.; Gao, W. A study on effects of different water retention treatments. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2000, 20, 46–48, (In Chinese, English abstract). [Google Scholar]
- Wang, S.H. Cultivation practices, maize and soybean productivity and soil properties on fragile slopes in Yunnan Province, China. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wolverhampton, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Barton, A.P. Soil erosion and conservation on arable sub-tropical Ultisols in Yunnan Province, China. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Aina, P.O. Effects of time and duration of mulching on corn (Zea mays L.) in Western Nigeria. Field Crop. Res. 1981, 4, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gajri, P.R.; Arora, V.K.; Chaodhary, M.R. Corn growth responses to deep tillage, straw mulching, and farmyard manure in coarse textured soils of N.W. India. Soil Use Manage. 1994, 10, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lal, R. Soil temperature, soil moisture and corn yield from mulched and unmulched tropical soils. Plant Soil 1974, 40, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, X.M. The study of mulch on soil water and crop growth. Arid Agr. Res. 1990, 4, 92–97. [Google Scholar]
- Garforth, C. Dissemination Pathways of RNR Research, Socio-economic Methodologies, Best Practice Guidelines. Natural Resources Institute: Chatham, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, L.A. Innovation Diffusion: Retrospect and Prospect. Geography 1990, 42, 153–164. [Google Scholar]
- Neupane, H.; Ojha, H.; Garforth, C. Scaling Up of Sustainable Soil Management Practices: Case Studies of Panchkhal and Sanga Villages in Kavre District, Nepal; ForestAction: Kathmandu, Nepal; The University of Reading: UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Garforth, C.; Usher, R. Promotion and uptake pathways for research output: a review of analytical frameworks and communication channels. Agric. Syst. 1997, 55, 301–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Y.; Zhang, Y.Z.; Xie, J.S.; Sun, H. Incorporation of mulberry in contour hedgerows to increase overall benefits: a case study from Ningnan County, Sichuan Province, China. Agric. Syst. 2003, 76, 775–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, X.K.; Yunnan Provincial Bureau of Hydrology and Water Conservancy, Wuhuashan, Kunming, Yunnan Province, PR China. Personal Communication, 2003.
- Garforth, C.J.; Malla, Y.B.; Neopane, R.P.; Pandit, B.H. Socioeconomic factors and agro-forestry improvements in the hills of Nepal. Mt. Res. Dev. 1999, 19, 273–278. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, B.Z.; Yunnan Agricultural University, Yunnan Province, PR China. Personal Communication, 2002.
- Okigbo, B.N. Sustainable agricultural systems in tropical Africa. In Sustainable Agricultural Systems; Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., House, G., Eds.; Soil and Water Conservation Society: Ankeny, IA, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, D.; Farrington, J. Review of the Factors Influencing the Uptake and Impact of a Sample of Twenty-one Renewable Natural Resources Projects. Network Paper 43; Overseas Development Administration: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Garforth, C.; Angell, B.; Archer, J.; Green, K. Fragmentation or creative diversity? Options in the provision of land management advisory services. Land Use Policy 2003, 20, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subedi, A.; Garforth, C. Gender, information and communication networks: Implications for extension. Eur. J. Agr. Educ. Ext. 1996, 3, 63–74. [Google Scholar]
- Joshi, K.D.; Gyawali, S.; Witcombe, J.R. Participatory scaling up of participatory varietal selection. In Breeding Rainfed Rice for Drought-Prone Environments: Integrating Conventional and Participatory Plant Breeding in South and Southeast Asia, Proceedings of a DfID Plant Sciences Research Programme/IRRI Conference, IRRI, Los Banos, Laguna, The Philippines, March 12-15, 2002; Witcombe, J.R., Parr, L.B., Atlin, G.N., Eds.; Department for International Development (DfID) Plant Sciences Research Programme (PSP), Centre for Arid Zone Studies (CAZS) and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI): Bangor and Manila, 2002; p. 104. [Google Scholar]
- Atlin, G.; Witcombe, J.R. Introduction. In Breeding Rainfed Rice for Drought-Prone Environments: Integrating Conventional and Participatory Plant Breeding in South and Southeast Asia, Proceedings of a DfID Plant Sciences Research Programme/IRRI Conference, The Philippines, March 12-15, 2002; Witcombe, J.R., Parr, L.B., Atlin, G.N., Eds.; Department for International Development (DfID) Plant Sciences Research Programme (PSP), Centre for Arid Zone Studies (CAZS) and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI): Bangor and Manila, UK and The Philippines, 2002; p. 104. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, A.K.; Patel, K.K.; Vijaya Sherry Chand, P.G.; Pastakia, A.R.; Suthar, J.; Shukla, S.; Koradiya, D.; Chauhan, V.; Raval, A.; Srinivas, C.; Sinha, R. Participatory research: will the Koel hatch the crow’s eggs? In New Frontiers in Participatory Research, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development, Cali, Columbia, 1996; Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Program (PR/GA), International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT): Cali, Columbia, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Paris, T.R.; Singh, R.K.; Atlin, G.N.; Sarkarung, S.; McLaren, G.; Courtois, B.; McAllister, K.; Piggin, C.; Pandey, S.; Singh, A.; Singh, H.N.; Singh, O.N.; Singh, S.; Singh, R.K.; Mandal, N.P.; Prasad, K.; Sahu, R.K.; Sahu, V.N.; Sharma, M.L.; Singh, R.K.P.; Thakur, R.; Singh, N.K.; Chaudhary, D.; Ram, S. Farmer participatory breeding and participatory varietal selection in Eastern India: Lessons learned. In Breeding Rainfed Rice for Drought-Prone Environments: Integrating Conventional and Participatory Plant Breeding in South and Southeast Asia, Proceedings of a DfID Plant Sciences Research Programme/IRRI Conference, IRRI, Los Banos, Laguna, The Philippines, March 12-15, 2002; Witcombe, J.R., Parr, L.B., Atlin, G.N., Eds.; Department for International Development (DfID) Plant Sciences Research Programme (PSP), Centre for Arid Zone Studies (CAZS) and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI): Bangor and Manila, UK and The Philippines, 2002; p. 104. [Google Scholar]
- Subedi, M.; Hocking, T.J.; Fullen, M.A.; McCrea, A.R.; Milne, E.; Wu, B.Z.; Mitchell, D.J. Use of farmers’ indicators to evaluate the sustainability of modified cropping practices and environmental measures on sloping land: a case study in Yunnan Province, China. Pedosphere 2009, 19, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, P.D. Participatory soil and water conservation in India—Experiences from the KRIBHCO Indo-British Rainfed Farming Project. In Issues and Options in the Design of Soil and Water Conservation Projects; McDonald, M., Brown, K., Eds.; School of Agriculture and Forest Sciences Publication Number 17, University of Wales: Bangor, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Ruaysoongnern, S.; Patanothai, A. Farmers’ perception and adoption of sustainable land-management technologies-Thailand's experience. In Evaluation for Sustainable Land Management in the Developing World: Technical Papers; IBSRAM Proceedings No. 12(2); Dumanski, J., Pushparajah, E., Latham, M., Myers, R., Elliott, C.R., Eds.; The International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM): Bangkok, Thailand, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.Y.; Zuo, C.S.; Tschirley, J.B.; Webb, S.E.; Morton, A. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development in China, Part 1: The Agro-ecosystem and China's Rural Economy; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, B.Z.; Yunnan Beef Cattle and Pasture Research Centre, Xiaoshao, Yunnan Province, PR China. Personal Communication, 2002.
- Ravnborg, H.M. Beyond the farm and within the community: Issues of collective action in participatory natural resource management research. In New Frontiers in Participatory Research, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development; Participatory Research and Gender Analysis Program (PR/GA), International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT): Cali, Columbia, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- D'haeze, D.; Deckers, J.; Raes, D.; Phong, T.A.; Loi, H.V. Environmental and socio-economic impacts of institutional reforms on the agricultural sector of Vietnam: Land suitability assessment for Robusta coffee in the Dak Gan region. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 105, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samoff, J. From funding projects to supporting sectors? Observation on the aid relationship in Burkina Faso. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2004, 24, 397–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, H. Overview of participatory rural development approach: The practice in China. Yunnan Geogr. Environ. Res. 1999, 11, 92–101. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, H.M.; Yunnan Agricultural University, Yunnan, China. Personal Communication, 2002.
- Hudson, N.W. A study of the reasons for success or failure of soil conservation projects. In FAO Soils Bulletin 64; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, H.Q. Land transfer with compensation: experiment and major findings. Chin. Rural Econ. 1992, 37–39. [Google Scholar]
- Fleisher, B.; Liu, Y.H. Economies of scale, plot size, human capital and productivity in Chinese agriculture. Q. Rev. Econ. Financ. 1992, 32, 112–123. [Google Scholar]
- Guang, H.W.; Enjiang, C. A Micro-empirical analysis of land fragmentation and scale economics in rural China. In China's Agriculture at the Crossroads; Yang, Y.Z., Tian, W.M., Eds.; Macmillan Press Ltd: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, C.R. Land policy reform in China: assessment and prospects. Land Use Policy 2003, 20, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanders, S. Is ecological agriculture sustainable in China? In China's Economic Growth: The Impact on Regions, Migration and the Environment; Cannon, T., Ed.; Macmillan Press: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Li, W. An analysis on sustainable development of crop production in China. In Paper for the Fourth European Conference on Agriculture and Rural Development of China; Manchester Business School: Manchester, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Phien, T.; Tu Siem, N. Soil conservation extension in agricultural development in Vietnam. In Soil Conservation Extension: From Concepts to Adoption; Sombatpanit, S., Zobisch, M.A., Sanders, D.W., Cook, M.G., Eds.; Science Publishers: Enfield, New Hampshire, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Subedi, M.; Hocking, T.J.; Fullen, M.A.; McCrea, A.R.; Milne, E.; Wu, B.Z.; Mitchell, D.J. An awareness-adoption matrix for strategic decision making in agricultural development projects: A case study in Yunnan Province, China. Agric. Sci. China. (In Press)
- Muhammad, S.; Garforth, C.; Almas, K. Adoption of recommended agricultural technologies by farmers as an indicator of effective communication by extension field staff. Int. J. Agr. Biol. 2001, 3, 13–15. [Google Scholar]
- Kassioumis, K.; Papageorgiou, K.; Christodoulou, A.; Blioumis, V.; Stamou, N.; Karameris, A. Rural development by afforestation in predominantly agricultural areas: Issues and challenges from two areas in Greece. Forest Policy Econ. 2004, 6, 483–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sidibe, A. Farm-level adoption of soil and water conservation techniques in northern Burkina Faso. Agric. Water Manage. 2005, 71, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations; The Free Press of Glencoe: New York, NY, USA, 1962. [Google Scholar]
- Enters, T. The token line: Adoption and non-adoption of soil conservation practices in the highlands of northern Thailand. In Soil Conservation Extension: from Concepts to Adoption; Sombatpanit, S., Zobisch, M.A., Sanders, D.W., Cook, M.G., Eds.; Science Publishers Inc.: Enfield, New Hampshire, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Cruz, E.B. The adoption of hedgerows as a soil conservation measure in The Philippines. In Soil Conservation Extension: From Concepts to Adoption; Sombatpanit, S., Zobisch, M.A., Sanders, D.W., Cook, M.G., Eds.; Science Publishers Inc.: Enfield, NH, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Subedi, M.; Fullen, M.A.; Hocking, T.J. Agro-environmental project duration and effectiveness in South-East Asia. Outlook Agric. (In Press)
- McDonald, M.; Brown, K. (Eds.) Issues and Options in the Design of Soil and Water Conservation Projects; School of Agriculture and Forest Sciences Publication Number 17, University of Wales: Bangor, UK, 1999.
- Saguiguit, G.; Garcia, J.N.; Cramb, R. Promotion of soil conservation measures in The Philippines: The ISF Project in Sitio Domang. In Issues and Options in the Design of Soil and Water Conservation Projects; McDonald, M., Brown, K., Eds.; School of Agriculture and Forest Sciences Publication Number 17, University of Wales: Bangor, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- SUAS. Chinese-Swedish Soil Conservation Project 1987-1990: Final Report; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SUAS), International Rural Development Department: Uppsala, Sweden, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- AusAID. Targeting poor farmers: Contributions to rural development in Thailand. In Quality Assurance Series No. 16; The Australian Government's Overseas Aid (AusAID) Programme: Canberra, Australia, 1999. Available online: http://www.ausaid.gov.au/publications/pdf/qas16_thailandfarmers.pdf (accessed September 14, 2009). [Google Scholar]
- TG-HDP. TG-HDP Human Resources Development Study. Thai-German Highland Development Programme. Internal Paper No. 188. Open Database. 1999. Available online: http://www.mekonginfo.org/HDP/Lib.nsf/0/3C32065B4E2AD3998025683400046CE6/$FILE/FULLTEXT.html. (accessed September 14, 2009).
- Dirksen, H. Considerations and Lessons from Implementing the Thai-German Highland Development Program (TG-HDP) in Northern Thailand. Thai-German Highland Development Program (TG-HDP), OpenDatabase. 2001. Available online: http://www.gtz-asia-online.org/hdp/frame.htm?lib.nsf? (accessed May 14,2005).
- Dirksen, H. 18 years of the Thai-German Highland Development Program—has it been a success story? German Technical Co-operation (GTZ). 2002. Available online: http://www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-dirksen-02.pdf. (accessed September 14, 2009).
- SUAS. Evaluation of the Chinese-Swedish Soil Conservation Co-operation Project, Working Paper No 147; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SUAS), International Rural Development Department: Uppsala, Sweden, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- AusAID. Growing rice and protecting forests: An evaluation of three food production projects in SE Asia. In Quality Assurance; The Australian Government’s Overseas Aid Programme (AusAID): Canberra, Australia, 1999; Series No. 15. [Google Scholar]
- AusAID. Developing rural communities in marginal and rainfed areas: Contributions of agricultural projects in The Philippines. In Quality Assurance; The Australian Government’s Overseas Aid Programme (AusAID): Canberra, Australia, 2000; Series No. 23. [Google Scholar]
- Riley, J. Indicator quality for multidisciplinary systems. Novart. Fdn. Symp. Series 1999, 220, 178–190. [Google Scholar]
- Turkelboom, F.; van Keer, K. (Eds.) Land Management Research for Highland Agriculture in Transition: Research Highlight of the Soil Conservation Project (1989-1995); Mae Jo University, Thailand and Catholic University of Leuven: Leuven, Belgium, 1996.
- Pretty, J. Social and human capital for sustainable agriculture. In Agroecological Innovation: Increasing Food Production with Participatory Development; Uphoff, N., Ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
© 2009 by the authors; licensee Molecular Diversity Preservation International, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).