Is Sustainable Intensification Pro-Poor? Evidence from Small-Scale Farmers in Rural Tanzania

Show simple item record

dc.identifier.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.15488/4803
dc.identifier.uri https://www.repo.uni-hannover.de/handle/123456789/4846
dc.contributor.author Bruessow, Kathleen
dc.contributor.author Fasse, Anja
dc.contributor.author Grote, Ulrike
dc.date.accessioned 2019-05-16T13:32:40Z
dc.date.available 2019-05-16T13:32:40Z
dc.date.issued 2017
dc.identifier.citation Bruessow, K.; Fasse, A.; Grote, U.: Is Sustainable Intensification Pro-Poor? Evidence from Small-Scale Farmers in Rural Tanzania. In: Resources 6 (2017), Nr. 3, 47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030047
dc.description.abstract The transition of farming systems to higher levels of productivity without overusing natural resources is of rising interest especially in African countries, where population growth has often been larger than past productivity increases. This paper aims to contribute to the debate on whether environmentally friendly agricultural practices are compatible with economic interests. In the context of small-scale farm households in Tanzania, the analysis focuses on Conservation Agriculture (CA) at different levels of agricultural output, as CA is a promising toolbox for sustainable intensification. The results are based on a household survey conducted in 2014 with 900 randomly selected small-scale farmers in rural Tanzania, i.e., in semi-arid Dodoma and in semi-humid Morogoro region. We find that mulching is most frequently applied, followed by crop rotation, fallowing, intercropping and tree planting. Logit regressions show that CA adoption is influenced by socio-economic factors, farm characteristics and the regional context. Quantile regressions explain different levels of agricultural output through variables related to the extent of using CA. They indicate that marginalized farmers have the strongest crop income effect from an increased use of mulching. With increasing levels of agricultural output, the use of mulching remains beneficial for farmers, but the effect appears less pronounced. eng
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Basel : MDPI Publishing
dc.relation.ispartofseries Resources 6 (2017), Nr. 3
dc.rights CC BY 4.0
dc.rights.uri https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject Conservation Agriculture CA eng
dc.subject Southern Africa eng
dc.subject West-Africa eng
dc.subject Adaption eng
dc.subject Adoption eng
dc.subject Poverty eng
dc.subject Systems eng
dc.subject.ddc 330 | Wirtschaft ger
dc.title Is Sustainable Intensification Pro-Poor? Evidence from Small-Scale Farmers in Rural Tanzania
dc.type article
dc.type Text
dc.relation.essn 2079-9276
dc.relation.doi https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6030047
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue 3
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume 6
dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPage 47
dc.description.version publishedVersion
tib.accessRights frei zug�nglich


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s):

Show simple item record

 

Search the repository


Browse

My Account

Usage Statistics