Economic Viability of Smallholder Agroforestry and Beekeeping Projects in Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania: A Cost Benefit Analysis  

作　　者：Willickister R. Kadigi Yonika M. Ngaga Reuben M. J. Kadigi Willickister R. Kadigi;Yonika M. Ngaga;Reuben M. J. Kadigi(Department of Forest and Environmental Economics, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism, Sokoine University of Agriculture, CHUO KIKUU, Morogoro, Tanzania;epartment of Forest and Environmental Economics, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism, Sokoine University of Agriculture, CHUO KIKUU, Morogoro, Tanzania;Department of Food and Resource Economics, School of Agricultural Economics and Business Studies, CHUO KIKUU, Morogoro, Tanzania)

机构地区：[1]Department of Forest and Environmental Economics, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism, Sokoine University of Agriculture, CHUO KIKUU, Morogoro, Tanzania [1]epartment of Forest and Environmental Economics, College of Forestry, Wildlife and Tourism, Sokoine University of Agriculture, CHUO KIKUU, Morogoro, Tanzania [2]Department of Food and Resource Economics, School of Agricultural Economics and Business Studies, CHUO KIKUU, Morogoro, Tanzania

出　　处：《Open Journal of Forestry》2021年第2期83-107,共25页林学期刊（英文）

摘　　要：Agroforestry and beekeeping are widely promoted as prospective Nature-</span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Based Income Generating Activities (NIGAs) to improve livelihoods while at </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the same time enhancing biodiversity conservation in degrading</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> agro-ecologies. These activities can diversify and increase famers’ incomes and support in</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">stinctive biota and fauna resilience. However, evidence to showcase and compare their long-term benefits is scant. We use the case of Uluguru</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> Mountains in Tanzania to evaluate and compare viability of agroforestry and beekeeping projects using the Cost</span></span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Benefit Analysis (CBA) approach. The results of analysis yielded positive NPVs for both agroforestry and beekeeping projects at discount rates not higher than 8.2% and 8.5% respectively. Overall, the comparison of economic viability between agroforestry and beekeeping projects revealed that the former was relatively more profitable than the later in terms of both the NPV and Benefit</span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Cost Ratio (BCR) criteria. However, the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for beekeeping was slightly higher than that of agroforestry. Yet, we underscore the fact that these two projects can jointly be implemented to enhance livelihoods of farmers and support biodiversity conservation in the study </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-famiAgroforestry and beekeeping are widely promoted as prospective Nature-</span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Based Income Generating Activities (NIGAs) to improve livelihoods while at </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the same time enhancing biodiversity conservation in degrading</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> agro-ecologies. These activities can diversify and increase famers’ incomes and support in</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">stinctive biota and fauna resilience. However, evidence to showcase and compare their long-term benefits is scant. We use the case of Uluguru</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> Mountains in Tanzania to evaluate and compare viability of agroforestry and beekeeping projects using the Cost</span></span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Benefit Analysis (CBA) approach. The results of analysis yielded positive NPVs for both agroforestry and beekeeping projects at discount rates not higher than 8.2% and 8.5% respectively. Overall, the comparison of economic viability between agroforestry and beekeeping projects revealed that the former was relatively more profitable than the later in terms of both the NPV and Benefit</span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Cost Ratio (BCR) criteria. However, the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for beekeeping was slightly higher than that of agroforestry. Yet, we underscore the fact that these two projects can jointly be implemented to enhance livelihoods of farmers and support biodiversity conservation in the study </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-fami

关 键 词：Uluguru Mountains Uluguru Forestry Reserve Cost Benefit Analysis Net Present Values Benefit Cost Ratios Nature-Based Income Generating Activities 

分 类 号：O17[理学—数学]