Adoption potentials and barriers of silvopastoral system in Colombia: Case of Cundinamarca region

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Source: Author’s own illustration

Figure 2. Study area

Table 1. Visited Farms with any kind of SPS in study area

Region	Total number of farms	With any kind of SPS	Visited farms	% of visited farms with any SPS
Bogotá	4,912	577	10	6 (1.03%)
Suesca	3,519	280	8	2 (0.71%)
Chipaque	3,767	303	9	3 (0.99%)
Total	12,198	1160	27	11 (0.95%)

(Source: DANE—Agricultural Consensus, 2014)

Table 2. Summary of respondents’ characteristics

Category	Variables	No. of farmers	% in total
Gender	Male	17	63%
	Female	10	37%
Age	Less than 40 years old	5	18%
	Older than 40 years old	22	82%
Working period of cattle farming	Less than 10 years	5	19%
	More than 10 years	22	81%
Farm ownership	Own property	17	63%
	Family member’s property	4	15%
	Rented land with farmer’s own cattle	2	7%
	Employed	4	15%
Farm size	1–10 ha	21	77%
	10–50 ha	2	7%
	50–100 ha	4	15%
Production type	Milk production	14	52%
	Meat production	1	4%
	Double-purpose production	9	33%
	Other	3	11%
Production unit	Average number of cattle per ha	2.98
	Average milk production quantity per cattle (litter/day)	12–13

Source: Author’s own calculation

Table 3. Number of adopters and nonadopters of SPS practices

Decision-making categories	Nonadopters		Adopters	Total
	Before knowledge	Decided not to adopt	Decided to adopt in low level
Number of farmers	10 (37%)	6 (22%)	11 (41%)	27 (100%)

Source: Author’s own calculation

Table 4. Number of adopted SPS practices

Practices of SPS	Living fences	Windbreaker	Dispersed trees in paddocks	Fodder bank
Number of farmers	11	3	5	0

Source: Author’s own calculation

Table 5. Categories and rate of responses for farmers’ perceptions of SPS

Category	Perception (+: positive, -: negative)		Rate of response (%)
			Adopters	Nonadopters
Cost	+	Availability of seeds from local trees	45%	.
		Trees donated by previous projects	36%	.
		Trees are not costly	.	16%
	-	High financial investment	36%	33%
		High cost of facilities for maintenance	18%	.
Benefit	+	More humidity on farm	55%	.
		Shade effect for cattle	55%	33%
		Improved soil quality	27%	.
		Provision of additional animal feed	27%	.
		Provision of timber	18%	16%
		Beneficial for environment in general	18%	16%
		Improved forage quality and quantity	18%	.
		Helpful for bee/honey production	9%	.
	-	Huge benefits not perceived	.	16%
Time to get benefit	+	Does not require much time depending on the tree species	36%	.
	-	Require a lot of time to obtain benefits of SPS	64%	67%
Complexity	+	Little complexity for constructing living fences	45%	16%
		Little complexity for planting and managing trees	36%	16%
	-	More complexity for fodder bank/windbreaker	36%	67%
		Difficult maintenance of trees due to climatic conditions	27%	33%
		Difficult to obtain seeds for trees	.	33%
		Protection of trees from the cattle	27%	16%
Compatibility	+	Not demanding much labor and time of farmer	36%	33%
	-	Much more labor and time needed	64%	16%
		Space for cultivation	.	16%
		Neighbors disturbance	.	16%
Risk	+	No high risk with farmers’ efforts	36%	33%
	-	Climate conditions incurs high risk	73%	33%
		High risk depending on some tree species	18%	.
		Demotivation by long term process	9%	.
Observability of change in farm	+	Animal (cattle) well-being	55%	null
		More birds and insects in the farm	45%
		Visual change of farm	36%
		More humidity on farm	27%
		Higher quality and quantity of pasture	18%

Source: Author’s own calculation

Table 6. Net perception of adopters and nonadopters for each characteristic of SPS

Category	Net perception mean percentage
	Adopters	Nonadopters
Cost	27%	−16%
Benefit	227%	50%
Time to obtain benefit	−27%	−67%
Complexity	−9%	−116%
Compatibility	−27%	−16%
Risk	−64%	0
Observability of change in farm	182%	null

Source: Author’s own calculation