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

References

• Achard, F., Boschetti, L., Brown, S., Brady, M., DeFries, R., Grassi, G., Herold, M., Mollicone, D., Mora, B., Pandey, D.N., & Souza, C.M. (2012). A sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals associated with deforestation, gains and losses of carbon stocks in forests remaining forests, and forestation. http://www.gofcgold.wur.nl/redd/sourcebook/GOFC-GOLD_Sourcebook.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Aryal, D. R., Gómez-González, R. R., & Hernández-Nuriasmú, R. (2019). Carbon stocks and tree diversity in scattered tree silvopastoral systems in Chiapas, Mexico. Agroforesty System, 93(1), 213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0310-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonatti, M., Sieber, S., Schlindwein, S. L., Lana, M. A., de Vasconcelos, A. C., Gentile, E., Boulanger, J.-P., Plencovich, M. C., & Malheiros, T. F. (2016). Climate vulnerability and contrasting climate perceptions as an element for the development of community adaptation strategies: Case studies in Southern Brazil. Land Use Policy, 58, 114–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.06.033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, A., Dijk, S. V., & Grulke, M. (2016). Upscaling silvopastoral systems in South America. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) publication. https://publications.iadb.org/en/publication/17180/upscaling-silvopastoral-systems-southamerica
   Google Scholar
• Calle, A., Montagnini, F., & Zuluaga, A. F. (2009). Farmers’ perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in Quindío. Colombia, 300(2), 79–94. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284763306_Farmer's_perceptions_of_silvopastoral_system_promotion_in_Quindio_Colombia
   Google Scholar
• Castrillón, D. (12 de Julio, 2013). INFORME: ¿Ganadería en trópico alto o bajo? Decisión clave para el negocio. Revista Contexto Ganadero. https://www.contextoganadero.com/ganaderiasostenible/informeganaderia-en-tropico-alto-o-bajo-decision-clave-para-el-negocio
   Google Scholar
• Castro-Nuñez, A., Mertz, O., & Sosa, C. C. (2017). Geographic overlaps between priority areas for forest carbon storage efforts and those for delivering peacebuilding programs: Implications for policy design. Environmental Research Letters, 12(5), 054014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6f20
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coomes, O. T., Grimard, F., Potvin, C., & Sima, P. (2008). The fate of tropical forests: Cows or carbon? Ecological Economics, 65, 207–212. http://biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/potvin/articles/coomes_etal_08.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dagang, A. B. K., & Nair, P. K. R. (2003). Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: Recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agroforestry Systems, 59, 149–155.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. (2002). Land tenure and rural development - FAO land tenure studies 3. ISBN 92-5-104846-0.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. (2006). The new generation of watershed management programmes and projects. 4. Enabling conditions, 63–75
   Google Scholar
• Frey, G. E., Fassola, H. E., Pachas, A. N., Colcombet, L., Lacorte, S. M., Pérez, O., Renkow, M., Warren, S. T., & Cubbage, F. W. (2012). Perceptions of silvopasture systems among adopters in northeast Argentina. Agricultural Systems, 105(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IDEAM (2018). Estrategia Integral de Control a la Deforestación y Gestión de los Bosques. Bosques-territorios de vida.
   Google Scholar
• Imas, L. G. M., & Rist, R. C. (2009). The road to results – designing and conducting effective develpoment evaluations. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Jose, S., & Dollinger, J. (2019). Silvopasture : A sustainable livestock production system. Agroforestry Systems, 93(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00366-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• López-Vigoa, O., Sánchez-Santana, T., Iglesias-Gómez, J. M., Lamela-López, L., Soca-Pérez, M., Arece-García, J., & Milera-Rodríguez, M. d. l. C. (2017). Los sistemas silvopastoriles como alternativa para la producción animal sostenible en el contexto actual de la ganadería tropical. Pastos y Forrajes, 40(2),83-95. [fecha de Consulta 17 de Septiembre de 2020]. ISSN: 0864-0394. Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=2691/269158172001
   Google Scholar
• Mahecha, L. (2003). Importancia de los sistemas silvopastoriles y principals limitantes para su implementación en la ganadería colombiana. Revista Colombiana de Ciencias Pecuarias [en linea] 2003, 16 (Marzo-Sin mes). http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=295026121002
   Google Scholar
• Manuel, R., Eugenia, M., Zebadúa, V., Nahed, J., & Martínez Tinajero, J. J. (2016). Adopción de sistemas silvopastoriles y contexto sociocultural de los productores: Apoyos y limitantes, Revista mexicana de ciencias pecuarias, 7(4), 471–488. Recuperado en 27 de mayo de 2019, de. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-11242016000400471&lng=es&tlng=es
   Google Scholar
• Masera, O. R., Bocco, G., & Vandermeer, J. (2009). Neotropical forest conservation, agricultural intensification, and rural out-migration : The Mexican experience. BioScience, 59(10), 863–873. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.8
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, D. E. (2004). Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: A review. Agroforestry Systems, 61, 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029007.85754.70
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montagnini, F. (2018). Integrating landscapes: agroforestry for biodiversity conservation and food sovereignty (pp. 11–45).
   Google Scholar
• Morales, L. (2017). Peace and environmental protection in Colombia proposals for sustainable rural development, (January).
   Google Scholar
• Murgueitio, E., Calle, Z., Uribe, F., Calle, A., & Solorio, B. (2010). Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. Forest Ecology and Management, 261(2011), 1654–1663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.09.027
   Google Scholar
• Nature Sustainability. (2020). Make the most of qualitative research. Nature Sustainability, 3, 73. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0482-0
   Google Scholar
• Ndah, H. T. (2014). Adoption and adaptation of innovations - assessing the diffusion of selected agricultural innovations in Africa, (September). https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2452.9285
   Google Scholar
• Orefice, J., Carroll, J., Conroy, D., & Ketner, L. (2017). Silvopasture practices and perspectives in the Northeastern United States. Agroforestry Systems, 91(1), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9916-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prokopy, L. S. (2011). Agricultural human dimensions research: The role of qualitative research methods December 2010. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 66(1), 9A–12A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.66.1.9A
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rami, J., Alavalapati, R., Shrestha, R. K., Stainback, G. A., Foundation, E., & Matta, J. R. (2004). Agroforestry development: An environmental economic perspective Agroforestry development : An environmental economic perspective, (July). https://doi.org/10.1023/B
   Google Scholar
• Rioux, J. (2012). Opportunities and challenges of using agroforestry for climate change mitigation: A case-study of the MICCA (mitigation of climate change in agriculture) -Tanzania Pilot Project. Nature and Fauna, 26(2), 63–68. http://www.fao.org/climatechange/36653-0d7b3e802032f0279b368b3536cf5c3ee.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (Fifth ed.). Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sahin, I. (April 2006). Detailed review of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory and educational technology-related studied based on Rogers. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology – TOJET. 5 (2), 14–23. 1303-6521. Article 3. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1102473.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Tomaš, S. M., Janković, D., & Cvijanovic, D. (2014). Applicability of diffusion of innovation theory in organic agriculture. Economics of Agriculture, 2014(61), 2, 517–531. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/175298
   Google Scholar
• UPRA. (2015). INFORME DE GESTIÓN PLAN DE ACCIÓN 2015 SEGUNDO SEMESTRE. https://www.upra.gov.co/documents/10184/40597/Informe+de+Gesti%C3%B3n+2015+versi%C3%B3n+publicaci%C3%B3n.pdf/c204814a-a98c-4eb9-81af-20ceef307a46
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, G. A. (2008). From ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ multifunctionality: Conceptualizing farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zabala, A. (2015). Motivations and incentives for pro-environmental behaviour: the case of silvopasture adoption in the tropical forest frontier (Doctoral thesis). https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.16432
   Google Scholar