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