Development of an integrated assessment framework for agroforestry technologies: assessing sustainability, barriers, and impacts in the semi-arid region of Dodoma, Tanzania

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location Map of the study area.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework, integrating MESMIS and ScalA. Source: Own illustration.

Table 1. Comparison between ScalA tool and MESMIS.

Analysis criteria	ScalA tool (Crewett et al., 2006)	MESMIS (López-Ridaura et al., 2002)
Type of assessment	Sustainability, adoption, and scale-up (Jha et al., 2021)	Sustainability (López-Ridaura et al., 2002)
Type of sustainability assessment	Rapid sustainability assessment (RSA) (Marchand et al., 2014)	Full sustainability assessment (FSA) (Marchand et al., 2014)
Sustainability dimension	Environmental, economic, and social	Environmental, economic, and social
Indicator development approach	Top-down Pre-determined and numbers restricted (Schindler et al., 2015)	Bottom-up Not pre-determined, and numbers are not restricted (Schindler et al., 2015)
Stakeholders involvement	High stakeholder involvement during tool application (Sieber et al., 2018)	High stakeholder involvement during tool development and application (Schindler et al., 2015)

Table 2. Focus group participants’ demographics.

Village names	Main crops (Staple and cash crops)	Perennial trees (vernacular and scientific names	Land holding size (ha)		Age (years)		Number participants
			Range	Average	Range	Average	Female	Male
Ilolo	Maize, sorghum, millet, ground nuts, cowpeas	Baobab (Adansonia digitata), Mpera (Psidium guajava), Mpapai (Carica papaya), Griclicidia sepium	0.8–2	1.7	33–77	50	5	6
Laikala	Sorghum, maize, cassava, pigeon pea, sun flower, Bambara nut	Mpera (P.guajava), Mtalawanda (Markhamia platycalyx, Mkole (Grewia), Mkungugu (Acacia tortilis), G. sepium,	0.8–2	1.4	30–57	54	4	6
Mlali	Maize, sorghum, groundnuts, pigeon peas, sunflowers, cowpeas, legume plants	Miguruka (Securidaca longipedunculata,) Mkungugu (A.tortilis), Mkerewila (Grevillea robusta,), G.sepium	1.2–2	1.5	34–73	48	5	5
Molet	Maize, sorghum, groundnuts, sunflower, cowpeas, legume plants	Mkerewila (G.robusta,), Mkungugu (A.tortilis), Mmelia (Melia azedarach), Baobab,(A.digitata), G.sepium	0.8–2	1.8	19–72	45	4	6
Nghumbi	Sorghum, maize, cassava, sunflower	G.sepium, Baobab (A.digitata), Mkungugu (A.tortilis)	1.6–2	1.4	36–65	46	4	7

Table 3. Sustainability attributes driven from MESMIS principles.

Attributes	Description
Productivity	The ability to provide the required level of goods and services.
Stability	The ability to maintain a constant level of productivity under normal circumstances.
Reliability	Maintaining productivity near equilibrium levels under normal conditions of environmental disturbance.
Resilience	Return to equilibrium or levels of productivity similar to the initial level after serious disturbance.
Adaptability	The ability to find new levels of balance or to continue to offer benefits for long-term changes.
Equity	The ability of the system to distribute intra- and intergenerational benefits and costs in a fair manner.
Self-sufficiency	The ability of the system to regulate and control external interactions.

Table 4. Main agroforestry technologies identified in Ilolo, Laikala, Mlali, Molet, and Nghumbi villages.

Technologies	Description
Tree intercropping	This is a technology that deliberately integrates trees to create an agroecosystem with crops on the same land management unit (e.g. G. sepium + maize/ sorghum/ cassava).
Tied-ridges + tree intercropping	This is a form of conservation tillage where farmers build ridges or raised beds to harvest surface water runoff to conserve soil moisture in farmer's fields for optimizing crop production. When the ridges are blocked with earth ties every 0.5–1.0 m, it is called ‘tied ridges’ (e.g. Tied ridges + Maize + G. sepium).
Contour planting + tree intercropping	This is a landscape-based technology that controls soil erosion. It adopts the principles of contour farming and adds the planting of trees/shrubs on the ridges (e.g. Contour planting + G. sepium) and crops (e.g. maize, sorghum, sunflower, etc.) grown in the area between contours.
Chololo pits + tree intercropping	These are planting basin pits similar to Zai pits in West Africa. The practice is named after the Chololo village, where it was first promoted in Tanzania. The pits hold the runoff and retain soil moisture during cropping. The Chololo pits-G. sepium intercropping (e.g. Chololo-Maize-G. sepium intercropping in Laikala-) is a variant of the planting basin pits that integrated the benefits of in-situ rainwater harvesting and fertilizer tree intercropping to enhance crop production and agroecosystem resilience (Liingilie, 2019).
Farmer-Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR)	Consists of a set of practices used by farmers to promote the regeneration and growth of indigenous trees on agricultural land. FMNR relies on regrowth from live stumps (e.g. A.tortilis and A.digitata) (Moore et al., 2020; Weston et al., 2015).
Boundary trees	A living fence or barrier planting involves planting trees along all farm boundaries (e.g. G. sepium & G. robusta).
Woodlots	Refers to a cluster of trees grown together to produce timber or fuel wood and support other systems like bee-keeping (e.g. A.tortilis and G. sepium).

Figure 3. Comparative sustainability assessment of agroforestry technologies under evaluation. The bars show farmers’ votes (%) for a specific sustainability factor accumulated from the five villages. N = 54; The 17 guiding questions are driven from ScalA tool.

Figure 4. Combined sustainability analysis results for the five villages (Ilolo, Laikala, Nghumbi, Molet, and Mlali). The diagram shows farmers’ perception of sustainability based on the total number of votes (%) (N = 54). The number represents the cumulative percentage resulting from the 17 guiding questions and is summarized into the three sustainability dimensions.

Figure 5. An integrated framework to assess sustainability, adoption, and scaling-up of agroecosystems. Source: own compilation.

Table 5. Indicators developed from FGD and literature (Crewett et al., 2006; Loehr et al., 2022).

Sustainability dimension	Attributes	Strength and weakness	Indicator
Economic	Productivity	Crop productivity	Yield
		Profitability	Cost-benefit ratio
		Efficiency	Labour productivity
		Profitability	Income variation with rainfall
	Stability, Reliability, Resilience	Diversity	Number of income-generating activities
Environmental	Stability, Reliability, Resilience	Shortage of rainfall	Water availability, soil moisture
		Soil erosion	Level of soil erosion, soil fertility
		Diversity	Number of species in the same agricultural land
		Pests and diseases	Presence of pests and diseases
Social	Stability, Reliability Resilience	Work-life balance	Quality of life
	Adaptability	Innovation capability	Capacity to adapt to changes (e.g. to introduced technologies)
		Lack of traditional knowledge	integration to indigenous knowledge
	Equity	Distribution	Equitable access to agricultural supply
		Gender equity	Women's participation (e.g. labour distribution by gender)
		Income distribution	Equal division of income
	Self-reliance	Self-sufficiency	Number of farmers receiving external inputs (e.g. pesticides, fertilizer, and seeds)
Institutional	Adaptability	Accountability (Illegal grazing and theft)	Existed by-laws and implementation
		Extension services	Access to institutions and their services
		Boundary conflicts	Collective actions
		Credit access	Availability of credit associations

Crewett, W., Bringe, F., & Sieber, S. (2006). Scaling up of good agricultural practices. The operational assessment tool (ScalA tool handbook); research, L. Leibniz-Center for Agricultural Landscape Research, Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).

 Google Scholar

López-Ridaura, S., Masera, O., & Astier, M. (2002). Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecological Indicators, 2(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00043-2

 Google Scholar

Jha, S., Kaechele, H., & Sieber, S. (2021). Factors influencing the adoption of agroforestry by smallholder farmer households in Tanzania: Case studies from Morogoro and Dodoma. Land Use Policy, 103, 105308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105308

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marchand, F., Debruyne, L., Triste, L., Gerrard, C., Padel, S., & Lauwers, L. (2014). Key characteristics for tool choice in indicator-based sustainability assessment at farm level. Ecology Society, 19(3), https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06876-190346

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Schindler, J., Graef, F., & König, H. J. (2015). Methods to assess farming sustainability in developing countries. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(3), 1043–1057. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0305-2

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sieber, S., Amjath-Babu, T. S., Reidsma, P., Koenig, H., Piorr, A., Bezlepkina, I., & Mueller, K. (2018). Sustainability impact assessment tools for land use policy advice: A comparative analysis of five research approaches. Land Use Policy, 71, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.11.042

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liingilie, A. S. (2019). Effects of grilicidia sepium intercropping, rainwater harvesting and planting times on maize performance in Kongwa District, Tanzania. MSc Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture.

 Google Scholar

Moore, E., van Dijk, T., Asenga, A., Bongers, F., Sambalino, F., Veenendaal, E., & Lohbeck, M. (2020). Species selection and management under farmer managed natural regeneration in Dodoma, Tanzania. Frontiers in Forests Global Change, 3, 563364. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.563364

 Google Scholar

Weston, P., Hong, R., Kaboré, C., & Kull, C. A. (2015). Farmer-managed natural regeneration enhances rural livelihoods in dryland West Africa. Environmental Management, 55(6), 1402–1417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0469-1

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Loehr, K., Morales-Muñoz, H., Rodriguez, T., Lozano, C., Rio, M. D., Hachmann, S., Bonatti, M., Pazmino, J., Castro-Nuñez, A., & Sieber, S. (2022). Integrating the concept of peacebuilding in sustainability impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 95, 106803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106803

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar