The Potential of Agroforestry to Enhance Rural Livelihoods in Punjab, Pakistan: A Socioeconomic Viewpoint ^†

Abstract

Agroforestry improves the stability and productivity of agro-ecosystems and reduces environmental pressures, making it extremely flexible and useful in a variety of physical and social contexts. This practice is crucial to farmers’ livelihoods on both an ecological and economical level. Using an interview schedule, data were gathered from 170 heads of rural families who were chosen at random. Of the responders, the majority (77.5%) were young (25 to 40 years old). Of those who had completed more than five years of schooling, only 46.7% were literate, while a sizable majority (53.3%) were illiterate. For the vast majority of responders (62.4%), farming was their primary source of income. Given that over 54% of the respondents only owned up to five acres of land, small farming was extremely common. The majority (61.3%) were considered poor with a monthly income of less than PKR 18,000. “good source of fuel wood” was placed at the top (mean = 3.1%) when it came to the effect of agroforestry on the food security of rural households. One of the main obstacles was having a small land holding (mean = 2.52). The majority of respondents believed that the primary benefit of agroforestry was a reduction in soil loss. The amount of land held, income source, and educational attainment all significantly correlated with the perception of poverty. The study found that the best way of sustainably assuring food security in the study area and satisfying rural residents’ needs for food for extended periods of time is to incorporate agroforestry into the current farming system.

1. Introduction

According to research, agroforestry systems are among the best methods for attaining sustainable output without endangering the environment. Because of their complex relationships with ecosystem products and services, biological production is sustained through soil conservation and the adoption of biodiversity-based agroforestry agricultural practices [1,2,3]. The term “agroforestry” refers to a group of practices that are primarily used in tropical and subtropical areas. Food insecurity, livelihood support, poverty reduction, and grassland environments are all impacted by the production of food and fiber on the same land as trees and crops [4]. By minimizing both on-site and off-site effects, ecologically sound agroforestry practices—which are defined by the diversity of plant functional groups on the same plot of land, either in a spatial or temporal sequence through intercropping and mixed arable livestock systems—produce stable production and sustainable agriculture in this context [5]. At the plot or farm scale, agroforestry contributes to the preservation of variability at the habitat and landscape scales [6].

Agroforestry, which involves growing trees and crops on the same piece of ground, is conducted on several bases. Regarding the advantages of agroforestry, [7,8] stated that while planting trees along cropland borders can help farmers make a good living, it also contributes significantly to improving biodiversity, soil fertility, and water quality, all of which lower global warming through carbon sequestration. Additionally, by increasing their income, agroforestry contributes significantly to the sustained improvement of rural people’s quality of life [9,10]. When discussing the advantages of agroforestry for the livelihoods of small landowners and the impoverished people, [11] also mentioned this aspect. Agroforestry techniques can lessen forest cutting, particularly in tropical and subtropical areas, according to research on the anticipated advantages of growing trees alongside crops [12]. Furthermore, agroforestry techniques assist farmers in meeting their fundamental needs while lowering the hazards associated with crop failure and serious animal loss.

Nowadays, it is a custom for people to grow trees on farms in order to meet their needs for fruit, firewood, fodder, and lumber. Agroforestry, which is the simultaneous use of land for horticulture, forestry, agriculture, and animal rearing, is the practice of growing trees alongside agricultural crops on farmlands. The study of how crops and trees interact with one another and with animals on the same piece of land is known as agroforestry [13,14]. Sustainability has been discussed in relation to agroforestry systems’ nutrient recycling and preservation of soil organic matter. Most people believe that agroforestry systems improve soil qualities and are sustainable. One possible production method for increasing output is agroforestry, which involves growing crops or vegetables alongside trees on the same piece of land [15]. Because it is typical for different species to share resources, interactions between trees and crops or animals are at the center of an agroforestry system. One of the oldest and most promising agroforestry methods is farmhouse agroforestry [16].

An important part of Pakistan’s economy is agroforestry. The homesteads’ trees and other woody species are important sources of lumber, firewood, fodder, and food. The majority of the nation’s vegetables are grown and consumed on land used for agroforestry [16]. By enhancing crop security, sustainability, and profitability through balanced soil use and fertility preservation, homestead agroforestry helps farmers’ socioeconomic circumstances. It becomes a steady source of revenue. Farmers may use trees as a source of income if crops fail. Thus, the farmers are not at risk. By absorbing water from deep soil levels, it keeps the microenvironment cooler, increases humidity, and creates a climate that is conducive to precipitation [17].

A major strategy to encourage forest inhabitants to work together to restore degraded forestlands is agroforestry. By integrating trees and woody perennials into farm and rangelands, agroforestry—a dynamic, ecologically oriented natural resource management system—diversifies and maintains output for greater social, economic, and environmental advantages [18]. It was anticipated that agroforestry would improve land productivity, decrease soil erosion, increase vegetative cover, soil quality, and raise farmers’ standard of life through consistent farm productivity [19]. Agroforestry makes up a larger portion of farmers’ annual overall income. Agricultural crops, forestry (timber), and livestock provide this contribution.

Additionally, agroforestry offers a sustainable solution for rural livelihoods. While many people have adopted agroforestry in Pakistan’s Punjab province, it is necessary to evaluate the socioeconomic effects of agroforestry on rural households’ livelihoods. This study was proposed to find the effects of agroforestry system on rural livelihoods, to determine the barriers farmers face in adopting agroforestry, and to sustainably ensure food security.

2. Methodology

2.1. Site

The study was carried out in 2022 in the southern part of the Punjab province. This area of Punjab is less developed than the central and southern regions, and the majority of the population live in rural areas where they face various socioeconomic challenges. The two main issues among these are household-level food insecurity and pervasive rural poverty [20]. Twelve districts make up the administrative division of Punjab’s whole southern region. District/subdistrict Kot Addu and Subdistrict Vihari district Khanewal were specifically chosen as the study region out of all of these districts in Muzaffargarh. Among the districts in Southern Punjab, District Muzaffargarh is the largest [21]. A cross-sectional survey research approach was employed because the current investigation was quantitative in nature. A well-organized interview schedule was created. The group of specialists examined the interview schedule’s content validity. Faculty members from Bahauddin Zakariya University’s Department of Forestry and Range Management in Multan, Pakistan, made up the panel of experts. The interview schedule’s dependability was assessed using SPSS’s Reliability Analysis.

2.2. Sampling Procedure

Both simple and purposive randomization were used in the present study. Purposive sampling was utilized to choose the targeted district as the study area, and multistage simple random sampling was utilized to choose the final research objects, or respondents. Other studies have also used the same method [22,23]. One subdistrict was chosen from each district. A total of 170 agroforestry farmers were interviewed after five villages were chosen at random from each subdistrict.

2.3. Data Analysis and Description

The statistical significance between respondents’ perceived poverty status and several socioeconomic factors, such as their educational status, the income sources of their household heads, and the amount of their land holdings, was determined using the chi-square (χ2) test of independence. With perceived poverty status (PPS) as the dependent variable and three independent variables—educational status (ES), income sources (IS), and land holding (LH)—multiple regression analysis was conducted as well.

3. Results and Discussion

This study examined respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics, including age, education, primary sources of income, farm size, and perceived poverty status. The data pertaining to these characteristics are shown in

Table 1. Respondent socioeconomic characteristics.

Age (Years)	Percentage	Education	Percentage
Up to 25	6.1	Literacy (>5 years)	46.7
25–40	77.5	Illiteracy	53.3
Above 40	15.4
Major income source		Land holding (acres)
Farming	62.4	Up to 5	54
Business	12	5–10	27.6
Job	19.5	Above 10	6.1
Labor	4.3
Poverty status
Poor (PKR < 18,000)	61.3
Better off (PKR > 18,000)	26.1

.

The majority of responders (77.5%) were between the ages of 25 and 40. This indicated that young people made up the majority of the population in the study area. This suggests that the majority of respondents were of working age; those who are of working age are more likely to embrace new technologies and are better equipped to cultivate a wider range of fields. One of the most vital human resources and a crucial component of human existence is education. Any nation’s socioeconomic progress is closely linked to its educational system. No nation can completely achieve sustainable development goals by investing in education. The majority of respondents (53.3%) were illiterate, according to the statistics on respondents’ educational backgrounds. Of the interviewees, only 46.7% had completed more than five years of primary education. This demonstrates the low quality of schooling in Southern Punjab’s rural communities. The majority of responders (62.4%) made farming their source of income. According to 12%, 19.5%, and 4.3% of respondents, respectively, business, employment, and labor were their additional sources of income. This suggests that farming is the primary source of income for the majority of individuals in rural areas. This suggests that Pakistani rural households make money from non-farm sources like labor, jobs, and businesses in addition to farming. In the context of Pakistan, [23] has already addressed the significance of non-farm revenue sources for reducing rural poverty and promoting sustainable rural livelihoods. The majority of respondents (54%) owned up to 5 acres of agricultural land, indicating that modest land holdings are very frequent in the research area, according to data on respondents’ farm sizes shown in Table 1. Just 6.1% of those surveyed owned more than 10 acres of land. The results of the current study are also supported by [24] regarding the tiny land holdings of farmers in Pakistan’s rural districts. Pakistani farmers’ limited land holdings are linked to a number of their socioeconomic issues. One of the main issues with large-scale agroforestry adoption is modest land holding. Regarding the effects of tiny agricultural land on farmers’ livelihoods, [9] came to the conclusion that small farms hinder crop productivity and make it more difficult to generate revenue from large-scale production. Monthly household surveys were used to gauge respondents’ perceived poverty status in the study area. Based on their poverty status (monthly income PKR <18,000 or USD 64.48), the respondents were split into three groups, and the data pertaining to this are summarized in Table 1. The researcher also used the respondents’ monthly revenue and other movable assets, such as their land holdings and the quantity of cattle they had at the time of the interview, to determine the respondents’ poverty status. According to the findings, the majority of respondents (61.3%) thought they were poor. Just 26.1% of those surveyed said they were better off with a monthly income of more over PKR 18,000. The majority of respondents’ low monthly income and small amount of agricultural land were the main causes of their high perceived poverty status.

A three-point Likert scale, with 1 denoting disagreement, 2 neutrality, and 3 agreement, was used to score the effects of implementing agroforestry methods on the livelihoods of rural poor people using the mean (x) value.

Table 2. Agroforestry’s impact on rural household and constraints in adopting agroforestry.

Aspects	Mean (%)	Constraints	Mean (%)
Good source of fuel wood	3.1	Small land holding	2.52
Provision of timber	2.9	Shortage of water for irrigation purposes	2.46
Increased household income	2.71	Pest attacks	2.44
Improved soil fertility/soil conservation	2.5	Soil erosion	2.39
Improved crop yield	2.1	Land fragmentation	2.31
Medicinal use in the household	1.9	Problems with performing agricultural practices	2.1

shows the average and standard deviation of the various effects of agroforestry on the food security of rural households and on overall livelihoods. Because agroforestry is a good source of fuel wood (mean = 3.1%), lumber, higher household income, improved soil fertility, improved crop yield, and household medicinal usage, it has an impact on rural households’ food security. According to this, the majority of farmers saved money by not having to buy fuel or lumber, but they were unaware that agroforestry improved agricultural output and soil fertility since they lacked technical assistance and understanding. We may conclude that the implementation of agroforestry significantly affected the food security of rural households.

A significant majority (mean = 2.52) of the impoverished respondents had up to five acres of land, according to the cross-tabulation above. This suggests that one of the main factors influencing rural poverty is the amount of land held, both in the research area and nationally as a whole. These results demonstrate the importance of land ownership in reducing poverty. Based on this idea, [25] came to the conclusion that one of the main strategies for reducing poverty is having access to land. Numerous studies, such as [26,27], have also documented a positive correlation between an individual’s income and their land holdings. According to the statistics, the majority of respondents (78.5%) felt that impoverished people were employed in the farming industry, suggesting that poverty is mostly experienced by those who viewed the farm economy as their sole source of income. The low amount of agricultural land owned by the majority of respondents is the reason for the high poverty rate among those who once relied on farming for income. It is also a well-established truth that poverty is a rural problem in Pakistan and around the world [24,28,29,30].

The respondents’ poverty condition and educational attainment are significantly correlated. According to the cross-tabulation, 87.1 percent of the impoverished respondents were illiterate. This suggests that poverty in the study area is primarily caused by illiteracy. Regarding illiteracy as a primary source of rural poverty [31,32], it was determined that widespread poverty in Pakistan’s rural areas is caused by both illiteracy and inadequate education. This further demonstrated the value of education in reducing rural poverty. A person who receives education can choose any career to improve their standard of living. People who have more education have greater job prospects. In Pakistan, the relationship between poverty and work was also examined by [33].

Adopting agroforestry practices has numerous benefits according to the respondents. The benefit with the greatest mean among these was the reduction in soil loss. Additional benefits were thought to include increased soil organic matter, carbon sequestration, improved biodiversity, natural fencing, cattle shelters, and means-based revenue-generating activities.

4. Conclusions

Sustainable agricultural methods that are effective from an ecological and socioeconomic perspective are organic farming methods. In terms of how agroforestry affects the food security of rural households, “good source of fuel wood” ranks first with the highest mean (2.95). One of the main restrictions with the highest mean (2.62) is the small amount of land held for agriculture. According to the majority of respondents, the primary benefit of agroforestry was a reduction in soil loss. In addition to creating jobs, increasing soil fertility, and producing timber and wood, planting trees also generates cash. The agricultural practices of farming communities and farming households are significantly altered by improved agroforestry systems. Traditional agroforestry practices are important for reducing poverty, improving livelihoods, conserving biodiversity, improving soil fertility, and sequestering carbon.