Adopti
1. Institut
2
3
Abs
Rub
Sou
Inte
and
Xish
inte
sour
sma
mos
and
maj
serv
rece
ion of inte
By
te of Develo
2. Center for
. College of
stract
bber planta
uthern Chin
ercropping i
d economic
huangbanna
ercropping a
rce of incom
all proportio
st frequently
d household
jor factors.
vices who
ently falling
ercropping
Shi Min1, J
opment and Lei
r Chinese A
f Economics
ations have
na. Often th
in rubber pl
risks. Base
a, we dev
at farm and
me for the
on of rubbe
y adopted i
wealth. At p
The finding
want to pr
g rubber pri
g among sm
Jikun Huang
Agriculturaibniz Univer
Agricultural
s and Mana
e been exp
his was ac
lantation is
ed on cros
velop four
d at plot lev
household
er farmers
intercrop. M
plot level th
gs provide i
romote com
ices.
mallholdeChina
g2, Junfei Ba
al Economicrsity Hanno
l Policy, Ch
agement, Ch
panding rap
ccompanied
suggested a
ss section d
r empirical
vel. Results s
in the lowe
have adop
Major facto
he nature of
important i
mplementary
er rubber f
ai3 and Her
cs, Faculty over, Germa
hinese Acade
hina Agricu
apidly in M
d by negativ
as a means
data of som
l models
suggest inte
er income c
ted intercro
ors of adop
f land and t
information
y income s
farmers in
rmann Waib
of Economiany;
emy of Scien
ltural Unive
Mekong Re
ve effects f
of reducing
me 600 rub
to analyze
ercropping
category. H
opping, with
tion are eth
the age of r
for agricul
sources in
n Xishuang
bel1*
ics and Man
ences, China
ersity, Chin
egion inclu
for ecosyst
g environme
bber farmer
e adoption
is an impor
However, on
th tea being
hnicity, alti
rubber trees
ltural exten
the contex
gbanna,
nagement,
a;
na.
uding
tems.
ental
rs in
n of
rtant
nly a
g the
itude
s are
nsion
xt of
1. Intro
Driven b
expande
changes
only has
to a det
2009). I
rubber
Autonom
4.41 mi
Statistic
provided
be furth
The intr
smallho
income
higher th
profoun
Ziegler
For inst
expansio
2009). R
occasion
expansio
and othe
To bala
agrofore
Intercro
1 1 mu=
oduction
by the relati
ed rapidly
s in land us
s led to a de
terioration
In 2004, the
production
mous Prefe
illion mu w
cs of Xishu
d the price
her expanded
roduction of
olders farme
of rubber fa
han average
nd changes
et al., 2009
tance, the l
on in Xishu
Rubber plan
nally the dry
on have pro
er locations
ance the n
estry system
opping is sug
=1/15 Hectare
ive high pro
in Xishuan
se and ecosy
ecline in the
in natural r
ere were 2.5
was abou
cture, 2005
with an annu
uangbanna D
of natural ru
d.
f rubber cul
ers and redu
farmers in X
e per capita
in the land
9;Jane, 2009
losses of bo
uangbanna a
ntations hav
ying up of w
ompted a co
in Southeas
negative sid
ms are propo
ggested as a
e
ofits of natu
ngbanna, So
ystems. The
e traditional
resources li
59 million
ut 168,000
). By 2013
ual total dr
Dai Autono
ubber will s
tivation has
duced pover
Xishuangban
net income
scape have
9) and have
oth natural
are substant
ve also led t
wells (Jane,
ontroversy
st Asia.
de effects
osed as pos
a readily av
ural rubber f
outhern Ch
e conversio
agricultural
ike wildlife
mu1 rubber
tons (Bur
, rubber pla
ry rubber pr
omous Prefe
stay high, th
s contributed
rty (Wu et
nna reaches
in rural are
triggered e
increased v
biodiversit
tial (Xu and
to a reducti
2009). Ove
on sustaina
of rubber
ssible measu
ailable optio
farming, sma
hina. This e
on of forest
l systems in
and fuel w
plantations
reau of Sta
anting areas
roduction o
ecture, 2014
he rubber pl
d to the loca
al., 2001; F
16515.72 Y
eas of Xishu
environment
vulnerability
ty and agro
d Andreas,
ion in the st
erall, the mi
ability of ru
farming, in
ures (Wu et
on to achiev
allholder ru
expansion h
land to mo
n mountain a
wood (Xu et
s in Xishuan
atistics of
s in Xishuan
of over 317,
4). Li et al
lantations in
al economy
Fu et al., 2
Yuan in 201
uangbanna. O
tal degradat
y of livelihoo
o-biodiversit
2004; Li et
tream flow
ixed impact
ubber farmin
ntercropping
t al., 2001;
ve both eco
ubber plantat
has caused
onoculture r
areas, but al
t al., 2005;
ngbanna, an
Xishuangb
ngbanna ha
,400 tons (B
l. (2008) ex
n Xishuangb
, increased
2009). Per
12, almost th
On the othe
tion (Li et
ods (Xu et a
ty due to t
t al., 2007;
of surface
s of rubber
ng in Xishu
g and rubb
Ziegler et a
logical and
tions have
d dramatic
rubber not
lso has led
Fu et al.,
nd the dry
banna Dai
ad reached
Bureau of
xpect that
banna will
income of
capita net
hree times
er hand the
al., 2007;
al., 2005).
the rubber
Fu et al.,
water and
plantation
uangbanna
ber based
al., 2009).
economic
goals o
conduci
biodiver
rubber i
the rubb
Iqbal et
In the tr
Thailand
(Viswan
rubber i
the land
is main
previou
(2009) r
crops in
agrofore
rubber i
another
on the i
found th
ecologic
econom
addition
that cou
In this
Xishuan
smallho
smallho
findings
f rubber fa
ive to wate
rsity (Theva
intercroppin
ber growing
al., 2006).
raditional ru
d, rubber in
nathan and
in China, ru
d is more su
nly grown i
sly recomm
rubber-relat
n rubber pla
estry system
intercropped
study Asaf
interviews w
hat depend
c effects, e
mic conditio
nal research
uld better rep
paper we
ngbanna. Th
older rubber
olders’ incom
s of this stu
arming (Asa
er and soil
athasan and
ng provides
g phase (Ra
ubber grow
ntegrated a
Ganesh, 20
ubber interc
usceptible to
in monocul
mended (Wu
ted agro-for
antations ha
ms such as
d pineapple
f et al. (2010
with 15 exp
ding on altit
e.g. rubber
ons of farm
h on rubber
present the c
employ a
he objectiv
intercroppi
me; 3) to ex
udy will pro
af et al., 20
conservatio
d Gordon, 2
complemen
ajasekharan
wing countri
agroforestry
008). In Hai
ropped with
o soil erosio
lture planta
u et al., 200
restry system
ad been brie
rubber int
had been p
0) analyzed
perts and in
tude and cr
intercroppe
mers in high
intercroppin
conditions i
representati
ves of our
ing in Xishu
xamine the
ovide import
010). In ter
on, can pre
2004; Macha
ntary incom
n andVeerap
ies of South
systems ha
inan provin
h tea is also
on (Guo et a
ations (Liu
01; Ziegler
ms in Xishu
efly present
tercropped
racticed by
rubber inter
n-depth inter
rop choice,
ed tea redu
h altitude.
ng with a la
in Xishuang
ive sample
study are t
uangbanna;
determinan
tant informa
rms of ecol
event land
ado, 2009).
me for rubber
puthran, 200
heast Asia s
ave emerge
nce, which p
o popular in
al., 2006). In
et al., 200
et al., 2009
uangbanna
ted. They f
upland rice
smallholde
rcropping p
rviews of 2
intercropp
uced econo
Prior studi
arger sampl
gbanna.
of 612 ru
threefold: 1
2) to assess
nts of adopti
ation for im
logical aspe
degradation
From an e
r smallhold
02; Herath
such as Indo
ed as relativ
produces th
n the mounta
n Xishuang
06), althoug
9). In the ca
and several
found that s
e, rubber in
rs in Daka o
practices in X
25 farmers i
ping had po
omic uncert
ies serve as
le of smallh
ubber farme
1) to identif
s the contrib
ion of rubb
mproving lan
ects, intercr
n and incre
conomic pe
ers, especia
and Hiroyu
onesia, Mal
vely resilie
he majority
ainous regio
banna, rubb
gh intercrop
ase study of
l typical int
several rubb
ntercropped
of Xishuang
Xishuangba
in two villa
ositive econ
tainty and
s an entry
holder rubbe
ers of 42 v
fy the statu
bution of int
er intercrop
nd use effic
ropping is
ease agro-
erspective,
ally during
uki, 2003;
laysia and
nt system
of natural
ons where
ber to date
pping was
f Fu et al.
tercropped
ber-related
d taro and
gbanna. In
anna based
ages. They
nomic and
improved
point for
er farmers
villages in
us quo of
tercrops to
pping. The
ciency and
reducing
rubber f
The rest
this stu
Section
determin
last sect
2. Data
Data us
order to
Xishuan
by takin
househo
and deta
farmers
experien
survey i
Finally,
the 3 co
farmers
thousan
dominan
In Tabl
Xishuan
intercro
sample
Xishuan
rubber f
g income ri
farming in X
t of this pap
udy and sum
3 presents
nants of rub
tion is summ
and descri
sed in this s
o ensure the
ngbanna, sam
ng into acco
old and plo
ailed rubber
. In additi
nced and ex
instrument.
we totally
ounties of X
is about 4
nds mu), per
nt crop and
le 1 the s
ngbanna is
pping in 20
is only 14
ngbanna is s
farmers in
isk of small
Xishuangban
per is organ
mmarize th
the model
bber intercr
mary and co
iptive statis
study were
samples w
mple select
ount the rub
t level ques
r farming ac
ion, variou
xpected risk
collected 61
Xishuangban
41 thousand
r capita rubb
taken over
ummary st
shown. A
012, the av
4.03%, sug
still low. As
our sample
lholder rubb
nna.
nized as fol
he current
specificatio
ropping. Th
onclusion.
stics
collected in
would as mu
tion was des
bber plantin
stionnaire c
ctivities in o
us farm an
ks as well
12 househol
nna. Results
ds mu, whe
ber planting
the rural eco
tatistics of
Although o
verage prop
ggesting tha
s shown in
e, but only
ber farmers
lows. In sec
situation of
ons and emp
he results ar
n a socio e
uch as possib
signed apply
ng density an
consisting o
one entire pr
nd nonfarm
as details o
ld questionn
show that t
erein almos
area is up t
onomy in th
<Table 1>
our sampl
over 28%
portion of r
at the over
table 1, the
on 328 of
s as well as
ction 2 we
f rubber in
pirical mod
re reported
economic su
ble represen
ying a strat
nd geograph
of informati
roduction p
m activities
of rubber p
naires from
the total land
st 80% are
to 10.57 mu
he rubber pl
>
le of 612
of the hou
rubber land
rall rubber
ere are total
them were
s promoting
describe the
ntercropping
dels employ
and discuss
urvey durin
nt smallhold
ified random
hical locatio
ion on hous
eriod is use
and inco
plantations w
42 villages
d area of 61
planted by
u. Rubber ha
anting regio
smallholder
useholds h
with interc
intercroppi
of 2588 ru
e intercropp
g the sustain
e data sourc
g in Xishu
ed for estim
sed in secti
g March of
der rubber f
m sampling
on. A comp
sehold char
ed to intervi
me source
were includ
in 8 townsh
12 smallhold
y natural ru
as already be
on of Xishua
r rubber fa
have adopte
cropping in
ing adoptio
ubber plots o
ped. Househ
nability of
ce used in
angbanna.
mating the
on 4. The
f 2013. In
farming in
g approach
prehensive
racteristics
ew rubber
s, shocks
ded in the
hips of all
der rubber
ubber (32
ecome the
angbanna.
farmers in
ed rubber
n the total
on rate in
of the 612
holds who
adopted
is 51.34
intercro
intercro
There a
table 2)
65% of
annual c
Fleming
been fou
As show
between
share of
being th
rubber p
tradition
of interc
account
In table
smallho
intercro
can be
income
income,
point of
of rubbe
d intercroppi
4%; at the
pped. This
pping, who
are a limited
. On plot le
the intercro
crops maize
gia macroph
und little ad
wn in table
n planting a
f perennial
he major on
plantation b
nal food cro
crops betwe
t for the ana
e 3, on av
olders with l
ps; but less
shown that
group inte
, while this
f view rubbe
er plantation
ing, the pro
same time
s indicates
se adoption
d number o
evel farmers
ops are peren
e (25.30%) i
hylla merr
doption so fa
e 2, smallh
and harvesti
crops is 60%
ne (68%). M
but decline
op is rarely a
een growing
lysis of rubb
verage inter
lowest propo
than 10 % f
t intercropp
ercropping i
is only 11.4
er intercropp
n, providing
oportion of i
e 49% of t
that altho
intensity lik
of crops wh
s mostly cho
nnial crops,
is the domin
(a plant us
ar (Hammon
holders’ cho
ing phase o
% and incre
Maize is the
s to less th
adopted for
g and harves
ber intercro
rcrops cont
ortion of ha
for smallhol
ping is mor
is the majo
43% for the
ping is imp
g essential co
intercroppin
the 669 rub
ough only
kely is relat
<Table 2>
hich famers
ose a single
wherein tea
nant crop. C
ed in Chine
nd et al., 20
oice of crop
of the rubbe
eases to 80
second mo
han 10 % d
rubber inte
sting phase,
pping.
<Table 3>
tribute abo
arvesting rub
lders with h
e important
or source o
e high incom
ortant for th
omplementa
ng rubber la
bber plots
a small
tive high.
>
choose for
crop to be
a is the mos
Crops promo
ese medicin
015).
p type for
er plantation
% during h
st frequent
during harv
ercropping. G
the stages o
>
out 16.5%
bber, over 2
high proport
t for the po
f income w
me group. I
he poorer fa
ary income.
and area in t
from the 1
part of sm
r intercropp
intercroppe
st frequent o
oted by loca
ne), Rauwol
intercroppin
n. During th
harvesting p
intercrop du
vesting phas
Given the d
of rubber tre
to househo
20% of hous
tion of harve
oorer smallh
with 88.52%
In conclusio
armers and d
.
total rubber
173 househo
mallholders
ping with ru
ed with rubb
one (47.26%
al researche
lfia, Cocoa
ng differs
he growing
phase with t
uring the 1s
se. Upland
differences i
ees must be
old income
sehold incom
esting rubbe
holders. Fo
% of total h
on, from an
during the e
r land area
olds were
s adopted
ubber (see
ber. About
%). Among
ers such as
etc. have
somewhat
phase the
tea always st phase of
rice as a
in the type
taken into
. For the
me is from
er. Also, it
or the low
household
economic
early stage
3. Meth
Numero
using va
1997; L
smallho
2002; H
profit m
while th
farmers
econom
househo
intensity
3.1. Eco
3.1.1. A
Follow t
rubber i
of small
Where i
i=0; the
adopting
indepen
The jth s
the unde
hodology
ous studies h
arious mode
Läpple, 2010
olders’ deci
Herath and H
maximization
he heteroge
(Waibel an
metric model
old and at pl
y of rubber
onometric F
Adoption D
to the rando
intercroppin
lholder rubb
i=1 or 0, wh
ereby and
g. is a
ndent and ran
smallholder
erlying utili
have been c
eling techni
0; Macario a
isions on a
Hiroyuki, 20
n is frequen
eneity in m
nd Zilberma
ls to exami
lot level. Be
intercroppin
Framework
Decision
om utility m
ng depends
ber farmer is
herein i=1 i
d respec
component
ndom comp
r’s decision
ty and
conducted to
iques (Brus
and Manuel,
adopting rub
003; Iqbal et
ntly used as
many ways
an, 2007). I
ine the adop
esides, one
ng at househ
model (Green
on the eval
s assumed a
indicates the
ctively deno
of determ
ponent.
on whether
, therefore
10
o explain far
h et al., 199
, 2013). The
bber interc
t al., 2006; V
the decision
results in
Inspired fro
ption decisi
other model
hold level.
ne, 2008), w
luation of th
as linear form
e jth smallho
ote the utility
minants of
r adopting r
e the observ
rmers’ adop
92; Adesina
ere are only
cropping (R
Viswanatha
n criterion a
differences
om previous
ion of rubb
l is propose
we suppose a
he respectiv
m (Herath a
older adopts
y of adoptin
the jth sma
rubber inter
ved decision
00
ption of agri
a and Jojo,
few studies
Rajasekharan
an and Gane
among adop
s in techno
s studies, h
ber intercrop
ed to further
a smallhold
ve utility. Th
and Hiroyuk
s rubber inte
ng rubber in
allholder’s
rcropping is
n can be exp
icultural tec
1995; Nkon
s have invol
n and Veer
esh, 2008). G
ption of tech
ology choic
here we pre
pping respe
r explore the
der’s decisio
he unobserv
ki, 2003):
ercropping,
ntercropping
utility, and
s made by e
pressed as:
chnologies
nya et al.,
lved to the
raputhran,
Generally,
hnologies,
es among
esent three
ectively at
e adoption
on to adopt
ved utility
(1)
otherwise
g and non-
d is an
evaluating
(2)
Then, th
Assume
value d
adopting
Howeve
intercro
adoption
utility
intercro
Followi
smallho
Also, sm
rubber o
rubber i
Smallho
evaluati
multino
adopting
be expre
he probabilit
e a random c
distribution.
g rubber int
er, in practic
pping techn
n decision o
is the uti
pping. i
ng the sam
older adoptin
mallholders
on the plot
intercroppin
older’s adop
ing the res
mial logit
g the nth (0≤
essed as:
ty of the jth
1
component
Thus, acco
tercropping
ce smallhol
nology in a
of intercropp
ility of the
s determine
me approach
ng intercrop
need to ma
level. Assu
ng, and eac
ption decisi
spective uti
model (Hau
≤n ≤m) crop
smallholder
ording to th
can be furth
1
lders who h
all plots of
ping on the
hth rubber
ed by and
h of the der
pping on the
ake a choice
ume there a
ch rubber p
ion on choo
ilities of ru
usman and
p for intercr
r deciding to
0
which is in
he logit mo
her derived
ave adopted
rubber land
specific rub
plot of th
d a vecto
rivation of
e hth rubber p
e about the
are m kinds
plot only ad
osing crops
ubber plot
McFadden
ropping on
o adopt rubb
ndependent
odel, the pr
as:
d rubber int
ds. Hence, i
bber plot, w
he jth smallh
or of charac
the equatio
plot can be
kind of cro
s of optiona
dopts one t
s for the sp
intercroppi
n, 1984; Gr
the hth rubb
∑
ber intercrop
t and distrib
robability o
tercropping
in order to
we further a
holder who
cteristic fact
on (4), the
derived as f
op crops to
al crops wh
type of crop
pecific rubb
ing various
reene, 2008
ber plot of th
pping is:
buted with a
of the jth sm
do not alwa
model sma
ssume an un
has adopt
tors of the h
probability
follows:
be intercrop
hich are ava
ps for inter
ber plots is
s crops. Ap
8), the prob
he jth smallh
(3)
an extreme
mallholder
(4)
ays utilize
allholder’s
nobserved
ted rubber
hth rubber.
of the jth
(4.1)
pped with
ailable for
rcropping.
made by
pplying a
bability of
holder can
(4.2)
Where
indicate
intercro
(2006),
the resp
rubber p
Equatio
at house
model, m
and
rubber f
and equ
3.1.2. A
In order
further
smallho
expresse
Where
associat
distribut
d
es non-interc
pping in X
here we foc
pective prob
plot can be f
n (4) and eq
ehold level a
modeling th
normall
farmer’s de
uation (4.3) c
Adoption In
r to model
employed
older has an
ed as a linea
is a vect
ted with
ted. Thus, th
denotes the
cropping on
Xishuangban
cus on two t
bability of
further spec
quation (4.1
and at plot l
he adoption
ly are used
cision on ad
can be respe
ntensity
smallholder
(Rajasekha
n underlying
ar function:
tor of expla
; is an
he actually o
utility of in
n the hth rub
nna, in line
types of opt
non-intercr
cified as:
) respective
level; Equat
of intercrop
d to introdu
doption (Ad
ectively esti
rs’ adoption
aran and V
g latent ado
∗
anatory var
independen
observed ad
∗
0
ntercropping
bber plot. G
with the st
tional interc
ropping, int
ely model th
tion (4.3) is
pped crops a
uce a series
desina et al
imated by m
n intensity o
Veeraputhra
option inten
iables, and
nt and iden
doption inten
g crop m on
Given tea is
tudy of Iqb
crops: tea (n
tercropping
he adoption
developed
at plot level
of explana
l., 2000); w
maximum lik
of rubber in
an, 2002).
nsity of rubb
ρ is the a
ntical error
nsity can
∗ 0
n the hth rub
mostly adop
bal et al. (2
=1) and oth
tea and ot
decision of
on the basis
l. In empiric
atory variab
while equatio
kelihood est
ntercropping
Assume th
ber intercro
vector of
term assum
be further s
bber plot; n=
pted crops f
2006) and G
her crops (n=
ther crops o
f rubber inte
s of multino
cal studies,
bles related
on (4), equa
timation.
g, the Tobit
he 0
opping, whi
unknown p
med to be
pecified as:
=0 or m=0
for rubber
Guo et al.
=2). Thus,
on the hth
(4.3)
ercropping
omial logit
the vector
to the jth
ation (4.1)
t model is
ch can be
(5)
parameters
normally
(6)
When
is obser
with ma
adoption
expected
on th
The ma
aspects
adoption
the cond
3.2. Spe
Based o
empirica
rubber f
Based o
rubber
intercro
factors
intercro
consiste
of house
Model 3
from the
intercro
to be d
rubber i
specific
∗ 0, the f
rved. The ad
aximum lik
n intensity,
d adoption
he expected
arginal effec
namely the
n intensity
dition of
ecification of
on the propo
al models to
farming is d
on Equation
intercroppin
pping rubb
influencing
pping at h
ent including
ehold and fa
3 and Mode
e Equation
pping for a
different acr
intercroppin
rubber plo
farmer is ob
doption inten
kelihood est
, and can a
intensity. A
value for
ct of expla
e change in
.
0.
of the Empir
osed econom
o be estimat
dichotomou
n (6), Mode
ng. Adoptio
er land area
g smallhol
household le
g the charac
arm.
el 4 are used
(4.1), whic
specific rub
ross plots.
ng for the s
ot. To test
bserved to a
nsity equati
timation. Th
also be dis
According to
can be exp
0
anatory vari
n probabilit
The later re
rical Models
metric mod
ted. Smallho
s (Model 1)
el 2 is estab
on intensity
a occupying
lder’s adop
evel, the in
cteristics of
d to explore
h is applied
bber plot as
Here, we h
specific rub
this hypoth
adopt rubber
ion (6) can b
he coefficie
saggregated
o McDonald
ressed as:
iables on ru
ty of adopt
eflects the e
s
dels explain
older’s deci
), which can
blished to e
y as depend
g total rubb
ption deci
ndependent
f household
e the adoptio
d to analyze
the adoptio
hypothesize
bber plot ar
hesis, the ex
r intercroppi
be estimated
ents indicat
into the p
d and Moffi
|
ubber interc
ting
effect of o
ed in the pr
sion to adop
n be expres
explore sma
dent variabl
ber land are
sion and
variables
head and th
on decision
e smallholde
n decision o
e that small
e mainly de
xplanatory v
ing; otherw
d using a To
te the direct
probability
fitt (1980), t
0
cropping in
and the ch
on the expec
revious sect
pt or non-ad
ssed as the f
allholders’
le is measu
ea in house
adoption
used in th
he socio eco
at plot leve
ers’ adoptio
of rubber int
lholders’ ad
etermined b
variables in
ise non-inte
obit regress
tion of the
of adoption
the margina
ntensity con
hange of c
cted value o
tion, we sp
dopt intercro
form of Equ
adoption in
ured by the
ehold. To ca
intensity o
hese two m
onomic char
el. Model 3
on decision
tercropping
doption dec
by the natu
n model 3
ercropping
ion model
effect on
n and the
al effect of
(7)
ntains two
onditional
of under
ecify four
opping for
uation (4).
ntensity of
e share of
apture the
of rubber
models are
racteristics
is derived
on rubber
g are likely
cisions on
ures of the
consist of
specific
establish
crops fo
model 3
Table 4
models.
Hiroyuk
characte
4, almo
ethnicity
more re
Further
wealth
thought
Iqbal et
To refle
the stud
farm inc
multiple
(Viswan
off-farm
may fos
househo
agricultu
for adop
For ano
land are
phase, th
the farm
plot variab
hed based o
or rubber int
3.
provides th
Based on
ki, 2003; Iq
eristics of th
st29 % of h
y as a varia
luctant adop
we include
and availab
to play a
al.(2006) su
ect househo
dy of Teklew
come” and
e income so
nnathan and
m income re
ster the adop
old location
ural activiti
ption of tech
other set of v
ea, the num
he proportio
mer) are hyp
bles in addit
on Equation
tercropping
he descripti
earlier adop
qbal et al.,
he househol
household h
able as it is
pters of tech
e a number
bility of dif
significant
uggested th
ld wealth w
wold et al. (
“income fro
ources whi
d Ganesh, 2
educed the l
ption of inte
n in mount
ies (Asaf et
hnologies in
variables at
mber of rubb
on of flat ru
pothesized
tion to the c
n (4.3) to fur
g. The indep
on and sum
ption studie
2006), we
ld including
heads canno
s generally
hnology as c
r of househ
fferent inco
role in indi
hat income h
we opt for th
2013). Inco
om livestoc
ch may hav
008). Espec
likelihood o
ercrops beca
tainous are
al., 2010).
n developing
household
ber land plo
ubber land a
as factors in
control varia
rther exami
pendent vari
<Table 4>
mmary statis
es (Rajasekh
include a s
g age and lit
ot read and
believed th
compared to
hold level s
ome sources
ividual’s ad
has a positiv
he per capit
ome sources
ck”. These v
ve negative
cially it was
of intercrop
ause they ca
as was fou
In addition
g countries (
level, farm
ots, as well
and the prop
nfluencing
ables taken
ine smallhol
iables in mo
>
stics of all e
haran and V
set of expla
teracy of ho
write Chin
hat ethnic m
o the Han m
ocioeconom
s are includ
doption dec
ve effect on
ta values of
are express
variables are
e effects on
s found by I
ping adopti
an serve as
und to be
n, distance is
(Sunding an
information
l as the pro
portion of go
the decision
from mode
lders’ decis
odel 4 are id
explanatory
Veeraputhra
anatory var
usehold hea
nese charact
minorities in
majority.
mic variable
ded. Fundin
ision, for in
adoption of
f all non-lan
sed as dumm
e meant to c
n rubber in
Iqbal et al.
ion. On the
a source of
a key fact
s recognized
nd Zilberma
n such as ru
oportion of
ood rubber
n to adopt r
el 1 and 2. M
ions on the
dentical wit
variables u
an, 2002; H
riables desc
ad. As show
ters. We als
n Xishuang
es such as h
ng constrain
nstance, the
f rubber inte
nd assets, in
my variable
capture the
ntercropping
(2006) that
other hand
f feed. The a
tor for dec
d as a majo
an, 2001).
ubber and n
rubber in h
land (as per
rubber inter
Model 4 is
choice of
th those of
used in the
Herath and
ribing the
wn in table
so include
gbanna are
household
nt is often
e study of
ercropping.
n line with
s for “off-
effects of
g adoption
t access to
d livestock
altitude of
cisions on
or obstacle
non-rubber
harvesting
rceived by
rcropping.
Howeve
Veerapu
For the
quality,
for inte
former a
the effe
simulate
We add
larger a
adoption
4. Resu
4.1. Ado
Results
equation
Compar
adoption
As expe
more lik
adoption
Han peo
very gr
introduc
Other d
and altit
in the p
coefficie
househo
er, prior stu
uthran, 2002
plot level m
slope, the a
rcropping w
and land su
ects of the c
e the dynam
d a variable
areas surrou
n.
lts and Dis
option Decis
for model
ns are signif
ring the tw
n are driven
ected ethnic
kely to adop
n than the e
ople adopt in
oup who h
ced intercrop
drivers of ad
tude. Altho
probability
ent of house
olds with hi
udies showe
2; Herath an
models (3 a
age and den
which are l
ubjective qu
continuous
mics of the
“density of
unding per r
cussion
sion and Int
1 and 2 (
ficantly diff
o models i
n by the sam
city is a maj
pt intercropp
ethnic minor
ntercroppin
had introduc
pping as a s
doption (an
ough the ma
of intercrop
ehold wealth
igher asset
d mixed res
nd Hiroyuki
and 4), we a
sity of rubb
larger and o
uality and sl
variable “t
probability
f rubber tree
rubber tree
tensity of Ad
household
ferent from
it can be sh
me factors.
jor factor o
ping and sh
rities (e.g. D
ng their inten
ced rubber
sustainable r
d its intens
agnitude is s
pping adopt
h is in line w
endowment
sults on the
, 2003; Visw
add a set of
ber trees. We
of better qu
lope of rubb
tree age” on
of intercro
es” defined a
likely resu
doption at H
level) are p
zero, show
hown that t
<Table 5>
of intercropp
how an almo
Dai, Hani, B
nsity of ado
into Xishu
rubber mana
ity) are hou
small, i.e. a
tion of mer
with the stu
ts are more
e effect of th
wanathan an
f plots level
e hypothesiz
uality. Henc
ber plots as
n intercropp
opping with
as the areas
lts in a hig
Household L
presented in
wing that the
the decision
>
ping adoptio
ost 10 % hi
Bulang). Com
option is also
uangbanna s
agement tec
usehold wea
10 % increa
rely 0.35%
udy of Iqbal
likely to a
hese variab
nd Ganesh,
l variables s
ze that smal
ce we inclu
dummy va
ping adopti
the change
surroundin
gher probabi
Level
n table 5.
e equations a
n to adopt
on. Han peo
gher propor
mpared to m
o higher (se
some sixty
chnology lat
alth, the po
ase in wealth
(0.14% ado
et al. (2006
adopt intercr
les (Rajasek
2008).
such as plot
llholders ch
ude plot siz
ariables. By
on, we cou
es of rubber
ng per rubbe
ility of inte
Waldχ2 test
are statistic
and the in
ople are alm
rtion of inte
minority gro
ee table 5). H
years ago
ter on.
ossession of
h leads to a
option inten
6), which su
ropping due
kharanand
t size, soil
hoose plots
ze for the
assessing
uld further
r tree age.
er tree, the
ercropping
t for both
ally valid.
ntensity of
most 18 %
ercropping
oups when
Hence it is
who also
f livestock
an increase
nsity), the
uggest that
e to lower
funding
intercro
rubber
probabil
Distance
their ha
variable
the prob
This res
harvesti
with the
from a
income
adoption
(Rajasek
It is als
reduced
the man
general
Furtherm
househo
which d
Other v
adoption
with the
is positi
4.2. Ado
Table 6
plot-lev
(3a) we
constraint
ps can serv
intercroppin
lity of interc
e to market
arvesting ph
e show that
bability of in
sult could b
ing phase. T
e argument
regional ce
have lower
n which is
kharan and
so interestin
d but there i
nagement ef
labor constr
more, contr
old head lik
does not dem
ariables like
n. This find
e result of V
ively correla
option Decis
6 reports the
vel and hous
e only inc
ts. The sig
ve a source o
ng adoption
cropping ad
, off-farm e
hase are fac
for a 10 %
ntercropping
e explained
The coeffici
of Sunding
enter are le
r probability
due to labo
Veeraputhra
ng to note th
s no signifi
ffort will inc
raints of hou
rary to man
ke age and e
mand a lot o
e farm size,
ding is cons
Viswannatha
ated with ru
sion at Plot
e results of
sehold-level
clude plot-l
gnificant an
of animal fe
n (Asaf et
doption will
employment
ctors that re
increase in
g adopting d
d by the tend
ient for dista
g and Zilbe
ess likely to
y of intercro
or constraint
an, 2002; H
hat if a hou
cant relation
crease signif
useholds in
ny literature
education. T
f formal kno
, rubber and
sistent with
an and Gane
ubber intercr
Level
model 3. In
l variables,
level varia
nd positive
eeds. As exp
al., 2010).
increase by
t of househo
educe the lik
the share o
decreases by
dency for la
ance of the
erman (2001
o adopt new
opping adop
ts and is in
Herath and H
usehold has
nship to the
ficantly with
Xishuangb
es we did n
This is perh
owledge un
d other land
Herath and
esh (2008) in
ropping ado
n order to d
model 3 is
ables, in th
coefficient
pected, altit
For every
y about 10 %
old member
kelihood of
of rubber lan
y about 2.6
abor shortag
household
1) that prod
w technolog
ption. This
line with th
Hiroyuki, 20
s more rubb
e adoption d
h the numbe
anna.
not find any
haps related
nlike pesticid
d are not sig
d Hiroyuki
n India who
ption.
detect the p
implemente
he second
t for livest
tude is posit
100 m inc
% (4% adopt
rs and if rub
f adoption.
nd in harves
% (1.8% fo
ge for rubbe
to the cente
ducers in lo
gies. House
is also true
he results fo
003; Iqbal et
ber plots int
decision. Th
er of rubber
y influence
d to the natu
des or fertili
gnificant for
(2003) in S
o found that
possible col
ed in three s
step (3b)
tock is pla
tively corre
crease in al
tion intensit
bber plantati
Results for
sting phase
or adoption
er plantation
er of county
ocations furt
eholds with
e for the in
found in the
t al., 2006).
tensity of ad
his seems pl
r plots consi
of characte
ure of the te
izer (Xu et a
r rubber inte
Sri Lanka, b
non-rubber
linearity be
steps. In the
we add h
ausible as
lated with
ltitude the
ty).
ions are in
r the latter
decreases
intensity).
ns in their
y is in line
ther away
h off-farm
ntensity of
e literature
doption is
lausible as
dering the
eristics of
echnology
al., 2014).
ercropping
but differs
r land area
etween the
e first step
household
characte
controll
once w
insignifi
plots an
the mod
As show
at the p
(density
increase
econom
increase
which is
a flat pl
adopt in
“Tree ag
the pos
adoption
In terms
are sign
intercro
4.3. Ado
Table 7
three ad
and ado
tea as in
number
decision
eristics varia
ing for hous
we add farm
ficant becau
nd overall qu
del 3 is impr
wn by mode
lot level, na
y) and the ag
es with plo
mies of size.
es the proba
s plausible a
lot is 15.2%
ntercropping
ge” has a n
itive square
n which wa
s of the hou
nificant. The
pped the mo
option of Cr
presents th
doption deci
option with o
ntercrop is
of househo
n of other in
ables and fi
sehold char
m character
use it furthe
uality of plo
roved when
el 3c in Tab
amely the si
ge of rubbe
ot size. Far
The effect
ability of ad
as crop man
% higher than
g on rubber
negative corr
e term. Thi
s calculated
usehold-leve
e negative s
ore rubber p
rops for Inte
he results of
isions at plo
other interc
mainly influ
old character
ntercrops, la
inally we in
racteristics th
istics, the
er specified
ots including
we include
ble 6 there a
ize of the p
er tree. The
rmers prefe
however is
doption by le
nagement is
n on slopin
r plots wher
relation wit
is relationsh
d around 20
el control va
sign of the
plots a hous
ercropping
f model 4 u
ot-level, nam
crops (e.g. M
uenced by t
ristic variab
and size, th
nclude farm
the variable
variable su
in addition
g slope. Als
household
<Table 6>
are four ma
plot, slope (f
probability
er larger pl
only mode
ess than 2 %
easier. The
g land. Furt
re the space
th the adopt
hip suggest
years (see F
<Figure 1>
ariables, the
latter varia
ehold opera
using multin
mely non a
Maize, coffe
the slope of
bles includin
e age of rub
level variab
density of r
ubjective as
nal farm lev
so, we can sh
and farm le
>
ain factors t
flatness), th
y that a rubb
ots for inte
rate, and a
%. Farmers
e probability
thermore fa
e around rub
tion decisio
ts that ther
Figure 1).
>
e altitude, d
able suggest
ates.
nomial logit
adoption, ad
ee, sorghum
f rubber plo
ng ethnicity
bber tree, sp
bles (3c). R
rubber trees
ssessment o
vel variable
how that th
evel variable
that drive in
he area surro
ber plot is u
ercropping
plot size of
also prefer
y that intercr
armers are sl
bber trees is
n but the ef
re is a min
distance, and
ts that a plo
t regression
doption of in
m). As shown
ot, the age o
and altitude
pace around
Results show
s becomes si
of land qua
es such as n
e statistical
es.
ntercropping
ounding a ru
used for inte
because of
f 10 % abov
the plots th
ropping is a
lightly more
s wider. Th
ffect is mod
nimum prob
d the numbe
ot is less lik
. The mode
ntercropping
n in table 7
of rubber tr
e. As for the
d the rubber
w that after
ignificant;
ality turns
number of
quality of
g adoption
ubber tree
ercropping
f possible
ve average
hat are flat
adopted on
e likely to
he variable
derated by
bability of
er of plots
kely to be
el includes
g with tea
, adopting
rees and a
e adoption
r trees are
main dr
significa
the plot
househo
requires
socioeco
Further,
probabil
age and
(rubber
probabil
tea and
years, a
intercro
In Figu
intercro
1000 m
other in
intercro
altitude,
and then
Similarl
outstrip
The sim
introduc
to take
various
rivers at th
ant. Hence t
t level only
old level va
s the design
onomic con
, based on
lity at the m
d altitude on
monocultu
lity of inter
for other c
adoption of
pping tea ex
ure 3 the
pping other
m, smallhold
ntercrops; w
pping tea a
, the probab
n exceeds th
ly when the
the probabi
mulation re
cing rubber
into accoun
altitudes. In
he plot lev
the results i
y tree age
ariables play
n of locatio
nditions of ru
the corres
mean values
n the probab
ure). Result
rcropping te
crops is at a
f other inter
xceeds the p
altitude at
r crops beco
ders most li
while when
and intercr
bility of inte
he probabili
e altitude is
ility of mon
esults emph
intercroppi
nt the age o
n fact in rec
vel. Among
indicate that
is significa
y a role. Th
on-specific
ubber farmi
sponding m
of all expla
bility of ado
ts (figure 2
ea and interc
around the
rcrops is m
probability o
which mo
ome the do
ikely adopt
n the altitu
opping oth
ercropping t
ity of monoc
over 1200 m
noculture rub
hasize the
ing. The ado
of rubber tre
cent years n
g household
t the determ
ant for both
his suggests
extension
ng.
<Table 7>
marginal eff
anatory vari
option of tea
2) show th
cropping oth
24th year. W
more likely,
of intercropp
<Figure 2>
onoculture
ominant stra
monocultur
ude increa
her crops ar
ea exceeds
culture rubb
m the proba
bber plantat
<Figure 3>
need for
option of cr
ee, but also
natural rubb
d level con
minants for t
h types of i
that the pro
strategies w
>
fects of ea
iables, we si
a, adoption
hat the age
her crops is
When the a
at an age
ping other c
>
rubber pla
ategy is sho
re rubber p
se beyond
re approxim
the probabi
ber plantatio
ability of int
tion.
>
location-sp
rops for rub
o must adap
ber has expa
ntrol variab
tea and othe
intercrops w
omotion of
which cons
ch variable
imulate the
of other cro
of rubber
s at their mi
age of rubb
of 12 yea
crops.
antation, in
own. When
plantation, f
1050 m,
mate. With
ility of inter
on at the alti
tercropping
pecific exte
bber intercro
pt the geogr
anded to the
bles only a
er crops diff
while for te
f rubber inte
sider the na
es and the
effects of ru
ops and non
r trees at w
inimum, is
ber tree is le
ars the prob
ntercropping
the altitude
followed by
the probab
further inc
rcropping ot
itude of ove
g other crops
ension strat
opping not
raphical con
e high altitu
altitude is
fer, e.g. on
ea several
ercropping
atural and
predicted
rubber tree
n-adoption
which the
year 6 for
ess than 5
bability of
g tea and
e is below
y adopting
bilities of
creases in
ther crops,
er 1170 m.
s also will
tegies for
only need
nditions of
ude area in
Xishuan
with ser
smallho
most pre
5. Conc
Rubber
the pote
Souther
consequ
intercro
data col
suggest
importa
and du
complem
suggeste
recomm
farming
Finding
the inten
had intr
to adopt
wealth,
intercro
during h
effects o
For the
the spec
and the
ngbanna, ho
riously poten
older rubber
eferred inter
clusion
monocultur
ential incom
rn China, in
uences of
pping adopt
llected from
that althou
ance of inter
uring the e
mentary inc
ed for rubb
mending a m
g should be i
s also show
nsity of ado
roduced rub
t rubber int
the possess
pping; whi
harvesting p
on rubber in
smallholde
cific rubber
areas surrou
owever the p
ntial risk. T
r intercroppi
rcrops by lo
re plantation
me risk for
ntercroppin
rubber mo
tion of smal
m 612 rubbe
ugh currentl
rcrops to ho
early stage
come. In th
ber intercrop
more intens
implemente
w that smallh
option are a
ber into Xis
tercropping
sion of live
le off-farm
phase and th
ntercropping
ers who hav
plot is main
unding a tre
production o
To cope with
ing in the h
ocal smallho
n Xishuang
r smallhold
ng is propo
onoculture.
llholder rub
er smallhold
ly the adopt
ousehold inc
of plantat
his study we
pping by lo
sive and ex
ed.
holder’s dec
affected by
shuangbann
as compare
stock and a
m employme
he distance
g adoption.
ve already a
nly determi
ee. Smallhol
of rubber fa
h the risk, ou
high altitude
olders.
gbanna has l
der rubber
osed as a s
To identif
bber farmers
ders in 42 v
tion rate of
come canno
tion, interc
e find that
ocal research
xtensive pr
cision-maki
the same f
na in sixty y
ed to the nu
altitude posi
ent of hous
of the hous
adopted rubb
ned by the
lder rubber
arming in th
ur results pr
e area of Xis
led to envir
farmers. In
strategy to
fy the fact
s, we conduc
illages in X
f rubber inte
ot be ignore
ropping ca
smallholde
hers and by
omotion of
ing on adop
factors. Han
years ago, an
umerous eth
itively impa
sehold mem
sehold to the
ber intercro
nature of ru
farmers pre
he high altitu
rove that it i
shuangbann
ronmental d
n this study
mitigate so
tors that c
cted a repre
Xishuangban
ercropping
ed. Especial
an be an i
ers seldom a
y governme
f intercropp
ption of rubb
n is China’s
nd this grou
hnic minorit
act smallhol
mbers, the s
e center of
opping, the a
ubber plot, t
efer to adopt
ude area is i
is realistic to
na, while tea
degradation
y in Xishu
ome of the
contribute t
esentative su
nna. Statistic
is relatively
ly for poore
important s
adopt the c
ent extensio
ping crops
ber intercro
s majority g
up is also m
ty groups. H
lders to ado
share of ru
county have
adoption de
the age of ru
t intercropp
inefficient
o promote
a seems is
as well as
angbanna,
e negative
to rubber
urvey with
cal results
y low, the
er farmers
source of
cash crops
on service,
in rubber
pping and
group who
more likely
Household
opt rubber
ubber land
e negative
ecision for
ubber tree
ing on the
relativel
the spec
surround
choice
determin
Finding
adoption
informa
sources,
“Enviro
in recen
approac
of interc
on a sus
ly large, goo
cific plot ap
ding a rubb
of crops fo
nants, which
s of this st
n process
ation for ag
, particular
onmentally f
nt years. As
ch to diversi
cropping m
stainable pat
od and flat
ppears at ag
ber tree wil
or intercrop
h drive the v
tudy not on
of rubber
gricultural e
rly in the
friendly rub
the most im
ify crops in
more efforts
th.
rubber plots
ge of around
l have a hig
pping, we f
variations in
nly have im
intercroppi
extension se
context o
bber plantati
mportant con
rubber plan
seem neces
s. A minimu
d 20 years.
gher probab
find age of
n probabiliti
mportant imp
ing in Xis
ervices who
of recently
ion” in Xish
ntents of th
ntation. How
ssary to brin
um probabil
The rubber
bility of ado
f rubber tre
ies of adopt
plications fo
shuangbann
o want to p
falling ru
huangbanna
is policy, ru
wever, given
ng rubber p
lity of inter
plot with a
opting inter
ee and altitu
ting distinct
or a better
a, but also
promote com
ubber price
a has been
ubber interc
n the curren
production in
cropping ad
a relatively
rcropping. A
ude to be
intercrops.
understandi
o provide
mplementar
es. A poli
started and
cropping is u
ntly low ado
n the Meko
doption on
large area
As for the
the major
ing of the
important
ry income
cy called
promoted
used as an
option rate
ong region
Referen
Asaf, Lbring ecbuildinguncertai
AdesinadeterminAgricult
AdesinatechnoloEconom
Brush SAndean
Bureau agricultuhttp://dq.x
Fu Y., BexpansioDaka, XWorld E
Guo, Zplantatio
Greene,
HausmaEconom
Herath, smallho
HammoAutonomAgrofor http://dx.d
Iqbal, Sdeterminintercro
Jane Q.,
Liu, W.rubber Develop
Li, H., Ahigh div
Li, H., MChina an
nces
L., Aenis, Tcological ang sustainablinty. 9th Eur
a A. A., Mnants of adoture, Ecosys
a, A. A., ogy: eviden
mics, 13(1),
S. B., Taylon potato agri
of Statistiural product
xxgk.yn.gov.cn/Z
Brookfield on and its i
XishuangbanEcology, 16
Z., Zhang, Yons and rub
W., 2008. E
an, J., McFmetrica, 52(5
P. H. Molders in Sri
ond, J., Yi, mous Dai restry Centrdoi.org/10.5716
S. M. M., Ining the depping in Sri
, 2009. Whe
, Hu, H., Mplantations
pment, 26(3
Aide, T. Mversity rain f
Ma, Y., Aidnd the impl
., Grötz, P.nd economice rural futurropean IFSA
Mbila D., Noption of alstems & En
Jojo, B., 1nce from an1-9.
r, J. E., Belculture. Jou
cs of Xishtion in XishZ_M_012/Info_
H., Guo Himpact on lonna, southw(1), 22-29
Y., Deegenber-tea inter
Econometri
Fadden D.5), 1219-124
M. U., HiroLanka: a lo
Z., McLellaPrefecture, e East and C
6/WP14255.PDF
Ireland C. cision of smi Lanka. Ag
ere the rubb
Ma, Y., Li, Hs in Men): 245-253
., Ma, Y., Lforest in SW
de, T. M., Lications for
, Darnhoferc goals togeres: the addA Symposiu
Nkamleu G.ley farming
nvironment,
1995. Farmnalysis in B
llon, M. R, urnal of Dev
huangbannahuangbanna _Detail.aspx?Do
H., Chen J., ocal liveliho
western Chin
n, P., Uibrircropping in
ic Analysis.
, 1984. Sp40.
oyuki T., 2ogit analysis
an, T., ZhaoYunnan P
Central AsiaF
R., Rodrigomallholder fgricultural S
er meets the
H., 2006. Ennglun town
Liu, W., CaW China. Bio
Liu, W., 200carbon dyn
r, I., Grötzeether? The c
ded value ofum, Vienna,
. B., Endamg by farmers80(3), 255-
mers' percepBurkina Fa
1992. Techvelopment E
Dai Auto2013, acces
ocumentKeyID
Chen A., Coods, land una. Internati
ig, H., 200n Hainan, C
Granite Hil
pecification
2003. Factos. Agricultur
o, J., 2015. Province, Cha, Kunming
o V. H. L.farmers to iystems, 87(
e garden. Na
nvironmentanship, sout
ao, M., 2007odiversity a
08. Past, prenamics. Fore
er, M, 2010case of Nab
f systems ap, Austria, 4-
mana D, 200s in the fore265.
ptions and aso and Gu
hnology adoEconomics, 3
nomous Prssed on July=3A7E2A1D5B
Cui, J, 2009use and agronal Journa
06. EconomChina. Agrof
ll Publishers
n tests for
ors determral Economi
Situationalhina. ICRA, China, 201
., 2006. A intercrop: a (3), 296-312
ature.
al and sociothwest Ch
7. Demand and Conserv
esent and fuest Ecology
0. Can interbanhe Naturpproaches in-7 July 2010
00. Economest zone of s
adoption uinea, West
option and b39(2), 365-3
refecture. Sy of 2014 B1C4588A5D6
9. Smallholdrobiodiversital of Sustain
mic analyseforestry Sys
s.
the multin
mining interics, 29(2), 1
analysis reAF Working15. pp. 80
logistic ancase study
2.
oeconomic iina. Moun
for rubber ivation, 16(6)
uture land-usand Manag
rcropping inre Reserve, n times of ch0: 1103-110
metric analysouthwest C
of new agAfrica. Ag
biological di387.
Statistical R
3133E846A41A
der rubber ty: a case s
nable Devel
s of rubbestems, 66(2)
nomial log
rcropping b159-168.
eport: Xishug Paper 19
nalysis of thinvolving r
impacts of intain Rese
is causing t), 1731-174
se in Xishuagement, 255
nnovations China. In
hange and 08
ysis of the Cameroon.
gricultural gricultural
iversity in
Review of
A.
plantation tudy from opment &
r and tea ),117-127.
git model.
by rubber
uangbanna 94. World
he factors rubber–tea
increasing arch and
the loss of 45.
angbanna, (1),16-24.
Läpple, the Irish
MachadWater C
Macariofrom sou
McDonaStatistic
Nkonyafertiliser
RajasekKerala,
Sundingadoption
Thevathtempera268.
Teklewopractice
Viswanasystems13(1), 1
Wu, ZXishuan8(4), 33
Waibel,Advanc
Xu, J., ABiodive
Xu, J., Fland-covEnviron
Xu, H.,adoption
Ziegler
D., 2010. Ah dry stock s
do, S., 2009Conservation
o R., Manueuthern Spai
ald, J. F., Mcs, 318-321.
a, E., Ted, Sr in northern
kharan, P., VIndia: a tob
g, D., Zilbern in a chang
hasan, N. Vate region: e
old, H., Kaes in rural Et
athan, P. Ks: contrastin-14.
., Liu, H.ngbanna, Ch7-345.
H. and Ziles in Impac
Andreas, Wersity& Con
Fox, J., Vogver change
nmental Man
, Huang, Xn of organic
A. D., Fox
Adoption ansector. Journ
9. Does inten, 64(2), 55
el A., 2013n. Land Use
Moffitt R. A
S., David, Nn Tanzania.
Veeraputhrabit analysis.
rman, D., 2ging agricult
V., Gordon, experiences
assie, M., Sthiopia. Jou
K., Shivakong empirica
., Liu, L.,hina. Intern
lberman, D.ct Assessmen
W., 2004. Bioservation, 1
gler, J. B., Zand farmer nagement, 3
X., Zhong, Tc fertilizer fo
J., Xu J., 20
nd abandonmnal of Agric
ercropping h-57.
. Adoption e Policy, 34
A., 1980.The
N., 1997. Fa Journal of A
an, S., 2002Agroforestr
001. The agtural sector.
A. M., 200s from south
Shiferaw, Burnal of Agri
oti, G. P.,al evidence
, 2001. Rnational Jou
, 2007. Intent. CABI.
odiversity im3(5), 959-9
Zhang, P., Fvulnerabilit
36(3), 404-4
T., Chen, Zor saline soi
009. The rub
ment of orgcultural Eco
have a role
of conserva4, 294-300.
e uses of To
actors affecAgricultura
. Adoption ry Systems,
gricultural in. Handbook
04. Ecology hern Ontari
., 2013. Adicultural Ec
2008. Adopfrom the In
Rubber culturnal of Su
ernational R
mpact analy983
Fu, Y., Yangty in Xishua
413
Z., Yu, J., ils. Land Us
bber juggern
ganic farminonomics, 61(
in modern
ation agricu
obit analysis
cting adoptial Economic
of intercrop56(1), 1-11
nnovation pk of Agricult
of tree inteo, Canada.
doption of monomics, 64
ption of rundian conte
tivation andustainable D
Research on
ysis in north
g, L., Qin, Jangbanna p
2014. Chinse Policy, 38
naut. Scienc
ng: an empi(3), 697-714
agriculture?
ulture in oli
s. The Revie
ion of improcs, 48 (1-3),
pping in rub1.
process: resetural Econom
ercropping Agroforestr
multiple su4(3), 597-62
ubber-integrext. Journal
d sustainabDevelopmen
Natural Re
hwest Yunn
J., Leisz, S.refecture in
nese land p8, 541-549.
ce, 324 (593
irical invest4.
? Journal of
ive groves:
ew of Econo
oved maize1-12.
bber smallh
earch and temics 1, 207
systems in ry Systems
ustainable ag23.
rated farm-l of Forest
ble developnt & World
esource Man
nan, southw
, 2005. Lann southweste
policies and
30), 1024-10
tigation of
f Soil and
evidences
omics and
e seed and
oldings in
echnology -261.
the North , 61, 257-
gricultural
livelihood Research,
pment in d Ecology,
nagement:
est China.
nd-use and ern China.
d farmers’
025.
Tables
Table 1: Categori
All sampHousRubbRubb
AdoptersRubbRubb
Data sou Table 2:
Interc
Samples PerenniaTea Coffee PineapplBanana Pomelo Annual cMaize SorghumUpland rCotton Hemp GroundnData sou Table 3: Categori
All samp
TrisectedLow MediumHigh
TrisectedLow MediumHigh
Data sou
and Figure
Summary sties
ples eholds (Num
ber land area ber plots (Nums (173)
ber land area ber plots (Numurces: Author
Crops adoptrcropped crops al crops
le
crops
m rice
nuts urces: Author
Contributionies
ples
d by the prop(P < 7%
m (7%≤ P (P>47%
d by househo(Inc.<47
m (4760≤ (Inc.>15
urces: Author
es
tatistics of sa
mbers) (Unit: mu) mbers)
(Unit: mu) mbers) rs’ survey
ted for rubbeAll sa
Freq. 328
155
45 9 4 2
83 20 5 2 2 1
rs‘ survey
n of intercrop
portion of har%) ≤ 47%)
%) old income(Y760 ) Inc. ≤ 156255625)
rs’ survey
amples and aAll sample
612
32356.32588
8843.5
669
r intercroppiamples
Percent 100.00
47.2613.722.741.220.61
25.306.101.520.610.610.30
ps to househoObs.
173
rvesting rubb58 58 57
Yuan/person/y58
5) 58 57
adoption of rues
adopti
ng Gro
Fre23
93
7
old income Househo
incom(Yuan/per
15154.8
ber in total ru19218.27999.118301.4
year) 1085.37095.837671.6
ubber intercrSamples
ing intercropp
173 4540.1
328
4540.1 328
owing phaseeq. Per37
93 337 1
642
75 312
4121
old me
rson)
Inte(Y
85
ubber land 29 0 41
32 82 62
opping
ping Prad
rcent 100
9.245.612.531.690.84
1.655.061.690.420.840.42
ercrops incomYuan/person
2500.04
4309.61 1568.93 1606.18
960.71 2264.89 4305.66
roportion of sdopting interc
28.27%14.03%12.67%
51.34%49.03%
HarvestingFreq.
91
62 8 3 0 0
8 8 1 1 0 0
me n)
Cont(S
16
22198
883111
samples cropping
% % %
% %
g phase Percent
100
68.138.793.30
00
8.798.791.101.10
00
tribution hares)
6.50%
2.42% 9.61% .78%
8.52% 1.92% 1.43%
Table 4: VariableHousehoSample sHHage HHedu
Ethnic HwealthOff-farmLivestocAltitude DistanceNon-rubRubber lHarvesti
Number Flatland GoodlanPlot leveSample sPlot sizeQuality Slope Tree ageDensity Data sou
Summary stes old level size N
AE(E
Pm Ack A
Me Dber land Pland Png P
r N
Pnd Pel size N
e PPL
e AA
urces: Author
tatistics defin
Number of hAge of houseEducation of(1=Can read Ethnicity of hPer capita vaAccess to offAccess to livMeters aboveDistance to thPer capita otPer capita rubProportion ofrubber land aNumber of ruProportion ofProportion of
Number of ruProportion ofPerceived lanLand slope (Age of rubbeAverage occurs‘ survey
nition of indeDefinitio
households ehold head (Yf household hand write Chhousehold he
alue of housef-farm incom
vestock income sea level (Mhe center of ther land areabber land aref harvesting parea ubber land plf flat rubber f good rubbe
ubber land plf plot area innd quality(1=1=Flat,0=other tree (yearsupying land
ependent varion and descrip
Years) head hinese characead (1= Han,hold assets(1
me (1=Yes,0=me (1=Yes,0=MASL) county(Km)a(Mu/personea(Mu/personphase rubber
lots land in total
er land in tota
lots n total rubber =Good,0=othherwise) ) area of per ru
iables ption
cter,0= Can’t 0=Minority)
1000 Yuan)=Otherwise)=Otherwise)
n) n) r land in total
rubber land aal rubber land
land area herwise)
ubber tree (m
t ) )
l
area d area
m2)
Mean
6147.98
0.71
0.05 69.54 0.31 0.18
756.11 79.31 1.85 10.57
0.49
4.23 0.08 0.32
66
0.26 0.32 0.10 9.96 24.85
Std. Dev
2 10.52
-
- 81.07
- -
160.2746.543.97 11.35
0.37
2.39 0.20 0.45
69
0.20 - -
7.16 85.86
.
Table 5:
Expva
HHage HHedu HHethni Hwealth Off-farm Livestoc
Altitude
Distance Non-rub Rubber l Harvesti Number Flatland Goodlan _cons Sigma Wald χ2 Pseudo RN Note: Ro
Results of ru
planatory ariables
ic
m
ck
e
ber land
land
ng
nd
R2
obust Std. Err
ubber intercrAd
Logit
0.002 (0.010)
0.113 (0.234)
0.818 (0.435)
0.002 (0.001) -0.419
(0.225) 0.535
(0.247)
0.004
(0.001) -0.004
(0.002) 0.002
(0.022) -0.015
(0.012) -1.392
(0.315) -0.002
(0.044) 0.228
(0.493) 0.103
(0.223) -3.016
(0.893)
75.89 0.1227
612 r. in parenthe
opping adopdoption Decis
Maef
* 0 ** 0. * -0 ** 0
*** 0
* -0 *** -0 *** *** eses; Signific
tion decisionsion arginal ffects
0.179
.0005
0.076
0.109
0.001
0.001
0.264
cance level a
n and intensit
Tobit
0.0003(0.004)
0.017(0.093)
0.339(0.157)
0.001(0.0003)
-0.159(0.088)
0.205(0.094)
0.001
(0.0003)-0.002
(0.001)-0.003
(0.007)-0.005
(0.004)-0.620
(0.121)-0.030
(0.018)0.074
(0.208)0.042
(0.087)-1.023
(0.340)0.719
(0.045)108.130.1272
612at *p< 0.10, *
ty of adoptionIntensity o
t Unco
** 0 ** 0 * -0 ** 0
*** 0
* -0 *** -0 * -0 *** ***
**p< 0.05, **
n (model 1 aof Adoption
Marginal efonditional C
0.096
.0002
0.045
0.058
.0004
0.001
0.175
0.008
**p< 0.01
and 2)
ffects Conditional
0.087
0.0002
-0.041
0.053
0.0004
-0.0005
-0.159
-0.008
Table 6: ExplanatPlot size Quality Slope Tree age Tree age Density HHage HHedu HHethni Hwealth Off-farm Livestoc
Altitude
Distance Non-rub Rubber l Harvesti Number Flatland Goodlan _cons Wald χ2 Pseudo RN Note: Ro
Results of rutory variable
e
e
e2
ic
m
ck
e
ber land
land
ng
nd
R2
obust Std. Err
ubber intercrs
2.(0.4
0.(0.1
0.(0.2-0.
(0.00.
(0.00.
(0.0
0.(0.2
550
r. in parenth
opping adop3a
317 *** 438) 326 *
184) 405
282) 158 ***
041) 004 ***
001) 001
001)
235 270) 5.25 ***0.0645
669 heses; Signifi
tion decision
3b 2.026
(0.439)0.339
(0.190)0.469
(0.290)-00.163(0.042)
0.004(0.001)
0.001(0.001)-0.014
(0.008)-0.193
(0.218)0.080
(0.315)-0.001
(0.001)0.048
(0.201)-0.097
(0.212)
0.003
(0.001)-0.005
(0.002)
-0.806(0.788)
73.150.0913
669 icance level a
n at plot-leve
*** 0 (0* 0 (0 0 (0*** -0 (0*** 0 (0** 0 (0.0 -0 (0 -0 (0 0 (0 -0 (0 0 (0 -0 (0
*** 0
(0** -0 (0 -0
(00
(00
(0-0
(0-0
(0-0
(01
(0*** 8
3
at *p< 0.10, *
l (model 3) 3c
0.872 * .516) 0.352 .506) 0.720 * .416) 0.180 ***.044) 0.004 ***.001) 0.001 ** 0003) 0.009 .008) 0.061 .229) 0.202 .319) 0.001 .001) 0.040 .212) 0.168 .214)
0.002 ***
.001) 0.006 ** .003) 0.014 .017) 0.008 .011) 0.363 .312) 0.261 ***.065) 0.748 .618) 0.145 .537) 1.049 .887) 83.56 ***0.1196
669 **p< 0.05, *
Margina0.1
0.1
-0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.0
-0.0
**p< 0.01
al effects 184
152 038
001 003
005
001 055
Explanat
Land siz Quality Slope Tree age Tree age Density HHage HHedu HHethni Hwealth
Off-farm Livestoc Altitude Distance Non-rub Rubber l Harvesti Number Flatland Goodlan _cons Wald χ2 Pseudo RN Note: Ro
T
tory variable
ze
e
e2
ic
m
ck
e
ber land
land
ng
nd
R2
obust Std. Err
Table 7: Resu
s Coe-0.3
(0.670.9
(0.721.1
(0.51-0.0
(0.050.0
(0.00-0.0
(0.00-0.0
(0.010.0
(0.280.8
(0.40-0.0
(0.00-0.2
(0.28-0.1
(0.260.0
(0.00-0.0
(0.00-0.0
(0.020.0
(0.010.4
(0.37-0.4
(0.07-1.8
(0.87-0.4
(0.761.0
(1.14
r. in parenth
ults of adoptIntercr
efficient 03
71) 910 27) 08 **
12) 097 * 52) 003 * 02) 004 08) 009 12) 016 88) 897 ** 06) 001
01) 204 80) 84
63) 003 *** 01) 017 *** 04) 029 24) 023 * 13) 426 78) 446 *** 72) 895 ** 79) 457 63) 034 47)
heses; Signifi
tion of crops rop tea
Marginal ef
0.147
-0.002
0.0002
0.158
0.0003
-0.003
0.004
-0.063
-0.292
icance level a
for intercrop
ffects
2
-
188.54**0.1512
669 at *p< 0.10, *
pping (modelInterc
Coefficient1.906 **
(0.577) -0.298
(0.572) 0.414
(0.485) -0.248 **
(0.055) 0.005 **
(0.002) 0.002 **
(0.001) -0.007
(0.009) -0.057
(0.273) -0.428
(0.396)
-0.001
(0.001) 0.275
(0.256) -0.239
(0.265) 0.002 **
(0.001) 0.002
(0.003) -0.0001 (0.018) -0.019
(0.014) 0.254
(0.398) -0.085
(0.079) 0.082
(0.708) 0.161
(0.615) -0.482
(1.016) **
**p< 0.05, *
l 4) crop other crot Margin* 0
* -0
* 0
* 0.
0.
**p< 0.01
ops nal effects .321
0.035
.001
0005
0002
Figure 1
Figure 2changes
Figure 3the chan
: Non-linear
: Probabilitieof rubber tre
: Probabilitieges of altitud
Pro
babi
lity
Pb
bili
t
r effects of ru
es of intercroee’s age
es of intercrode
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
0
Pro
babi
lity
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0
Intercrop
Pro
babi
lity
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
800
Intercrop
Pro
babi
lity
ubber tree’s a
opping tea an
opping tea an
5
1
p tea
100
tea
age on the pr
d other crops
d other crops
10 15
10
Intercrop ot
00 12
Intercrop oth
robability of r
s as well as m
s as well as m
20 25
Age of rub
20
ther crops
Age of rub
200 1
her crops
A
rubber interc
monoculture
monoculture
30 3
bber tree (Yea
30
Mono
bber tree (Ye
1400
Mono
ltitude (MAS
cropping
rubber planta
rubber planta
5
ars)
culture
ears)
1600
oculture
SL)
ation with
ation with