Key factors influencing tree planting decisions of households a case study in pakistan

THE SCOPE OF THIS RESEARCH According to the discussion above by searching found no previous research or study that has reviewed the factors that affecting tree planting decision of hous

“KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING TREE PLANTING DECISION OF

HOUSEHOLDS: A CASE STUDY IN PAKISTAN”

Major: Forest Science Code: 8620201

MASTER THESIS IN FOREST SCIENCE

Supervisor: Dr Le Dinh Hai Signature:………

Hanoi, November 2018

ABSTRACT

Farm forestry as a system of incorporation of commercial tree growing and managed by farmers into the farming system for the production of both wood and non-wood products, encouraging sustainable natural resource management and increasing agricultural productivity In Pakistan, the importance of farm forestry was recognized in the late 1970s to provide wood to market and alleviate poverty Several provinces started farm forestry projects in their province, but the most important initiative and momentum came to farm forestry when the United state Agency for International Development (USAID) launch Forestry planning and development project from1985 to 1994 Trees on farmland improve the microclimate protect us, our animals and houses from shining sun and cold winds Trees improve soil fertility; enhance soil microbial and enzymatic activity, decomposition and physical characteristics Trees protecting watersheds, maintenance of biodiversity, enhancement of environmental quality, soil erosion barriers, and the source of timber and non-timber materials include nutrient cycling, soil formation, oxygen production, carbon sequestration and climate regulation Plantations play a significant role in the ecology and economy of countries like Pakistan, where forests and trees already are scarce and make up only about 5% of the total land area I aimed to explored farmer‟s actual decisions about the planting

of trees and the perceptions and attitudes towards tree planting decision The area was investigated through stratified random simple sampling technique by interviewing 120 households The research investigated and determined 3 significant correlated factors (Education level, Attitude of tree planting and silviculture knowledge) The full model containing all predictors was statistically significant, X2 (3, N=120)=53.611, Sig <.001 indicating that the model was able to distinguish between respondents who decided or not decided tree planting The model as a whole explains between 36% (Cox and Snell R squared) and 48.2 % (Nagelkerke R Square) of the variance in the decision of tree planting and correctly classified 72.5 % of cases

For future restoration of farm forestry, strict laws, increased community awareness, training program, land tenure security, supports in case of failure, paved road to field and farmer community group will be focused and needed

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES vii

ABBREVIATION viii

CHAPTER1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1

1.2 CURRENT STATUS OF FOREST IN PAKISTAN 3

1.3 COMMON FARM SPECIES IN THE STUDY AREA 6

1.4 THE REASON FOR SELECTION OF THIS RESEARCH 6

1.5 GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND RESEARCH QUESTION 7

1.5.1 Goals 7

1.5.2 Specific Objectives 7

1.5.3 Research Questions 7

1.6 THE SCOPE OF THIS RESEARCH 7

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.1 FACTORS AFFECTING/INFLUENCING TREE PLANTING DECISION 8

2.2 FARM CHARACTERISTICS FACTORS 10

2.2.1.Land area 10

2.2.2.Tenure 10

2.2.3.Location of farm and house 11

2.3 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS FACTORS 11

2.3.1 Gender, age and education 12

2.3.2 Silvicultural knowledge and skills 12

2.4 SOCIO-ECONOMICS FACTORS 13

2.4.1 Production cost, transaction cost and Market 13

2.4.2 Incentives 14

2.4.3 Capital 14

2.4.4 Labor 16

2.5 BIOPHYSICAL FACTORS 16

2.6 INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS 17

2.6.1 Governance, policies and institutions 17

2.7 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY 18

2.7.1 Conceptual model 20

2.7.1 Socio-economic factors 20

2.7.2 Biophysical factors 22

2.7.3 Household characteristic factors 22

2.7.4 Farm characteristics/resource endowments 23

2.7.5 Institutional and policy factors 24

CHAPTER 3 STUDY METHODOLOGY 26

3.1 STUDY AREA 26

3.1.1 History 26

3.1.2 Description of the area 26

3.1.3 Source of income 27

3.1.4 Demography 29

3.1.5 Geography 29

3.1.6 Climate and vegetation 30

3.2 DATA COLLECTION 30

3.2.1 Sampling design and sample size 30

3.3 DATA SOURCE 32

3.3.1 Primary data 32

3.3.2 Secondary data 33

3.3.3 Research instrument 33

3.3.4 Questionnaires 33

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS 33

3.5 VARIABLES USED IN THE STUDY 36

CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 39

4.1 CURRENT STATUS OF FARM FORESTRY IN THE STUDY AREA 39

4.2 COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSEHOLDS IN THE STUDY AREA 40

4.2.1 Education level 40

4.2.2 Investment capital 40

4.2.3 The attitude of tree planting 41

4.2.4 Plantation management 41

4.2.5 Knowledge of silviculture 41

4.2.6 Knowing about the forestry program 41

4.2.7 Participation in forest program 41

4.2.8 Land tenure 41

4.3 CHARACTERISTICS FEATURES OF THE HOUSEHOLDS IN THE STUDY AREA FOR QUANTITATIVE PARAMETERS 43

4.4 COMPARISON OF THE HOUSEHOLDS CHARACTERISTICS FORQUANTITATIVE PARAMETER 45

4.5.THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND TREE PLANTING DECISION OF THE HOUSEHOLDS 47

4.5.1 Household wealth ranking 48

4.5.2.Ethnicity 49

4.5.3.Education level 49

4.5.4.Investment capital 50

4.5.5.The attitude of tree planting 51

4.5.6.Plantation management 51

4.5.7.Knowledge of silviculture 52

4.5.8.Knowing about the forestry program 52

4.5.9.Participation in forest program 53

4.5.10.Land tenure 53

4.6 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TREE PLANTING DECISION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND QUANTITATIVE PARAMETERS 56

4.7 KEY DRIVERS AFFECTING TREE PLANTING DECISION OF THE SURVEYED HOUSEHOLDS 58

4.7.1 Correlation between surveyed factors and tree planting decision of the households 58

4.7.2 Key drivers influencing tree planting decision of the surveyed household 58

4.7.2.1 Education level 60

4.7.2.2 Silviculture technique 61

4.7.2.3 Attitude to word tree planting 61

4.8.MAJOR CONSTRAINT/PROBLEMS RELATED TO TREE PLANTING IN THE STUDY AREA 63

4.9 SUGGESTION/RECOMMENDATION 65

4.9.1 Suggestion based on the needfor rigid and incentive oriented policy from govt 65

4.9.2 Suggestion based on rising of education 67

4.9.4 Suggestion based on silviculture technique 68

4.10 Limitations and suggestions for future research 69

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 70

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 72

REFERENCES 73

APPENDICES 82

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Crop and vegetable grew in the study area during 2016 28

Table 3.2: Demography information of the study area 29

Table 3.3: Household Sampling in Tehsil Dargai 31

Table 3.4: Sampling design in Tehsil Dargai 32

Table 3.5: Variables used in the study 36

Table 3.6: List of the independent variables and their description 37

Table 4.1: Status of farm forestry in the study area 40

Table 4.2: Community characteristics of the household in the study area 42

Table 4.3: Characteristics features of the households in the study area for quantitative parameters 44

Table 4.4: Comparison of the household‟s characteristics for quantitatives parameter 46

Table 4.5: Relationship between the independent variable (qualitative) and tree planting decision of the household and the Pearson correlation coefficient 54

Table 4.6: Tree planting decision of household and quantitative parameters 57

Table 4.7: Model summary for key drivers affecting tree planting decision of the surveyed household 59

Table 4.8: Determining the importance of variables in the multiple linear regression model 60

Table 4.9: Major Constraints/ problems faced by farmer related to tree planting in study area 64

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Conceptual model for identifying a key factor affecting tree planting decision 20 Figure 3.1: Map of the study area Malakand 27 Figure 4.1: Graph for the mean total age of house head and income of household head 46 Figure 4.2: Graph for the mean total land area and forest land area 47

in such a way that both ecological and economical interaction occurs between them” On the contrary,(NSW, 2003) defined “Farm forestry as a system of incorporation of commercial tree growing and managed by farmers into the farming system for the production of both wood and non-wood products, encouraging sustainable natural resource management and increasing agricultural productivity” Thus farm forestry refers to the large-scale planting of trees on land that was formerly cleared for agriculture Farm forestry incorporates: (i) large-scale plantings

by individual farmers (ii) joint business between farmers and companies and/or governments (iii) plantations that have been established on cleared agricultural land owned and managed by companies

In Pakistan, the importance of farm forestry was recognized in the late 1970s to provide wood to market and alleviate poverty Several provinces started farm forestry projects in their province, but the most important initiative and momentum come to farm forestry when the United state Agency for International Development (USAID) launch Forestry planning and development project from1985 to 1994 This project works for farmers and accepts the nurseries of farmers which were a model for subsequent projects As a result of successful farm forestry interventions,

80 percent of the total fuelwood used in Pakistan was provided by farmland The

provinces of Punjab and KPK have established regular forest circles to deal with forest extension and farm forestry Trees were grown on privately and communal land Ownership rights to trees on private land were clear; the owner of the land owns the trees Many private landowners lease their agricultural land to tenants, with well-defined terms and condition (Simorangkir, 2006)

Trees on farmland improve the microclimate of an area; everyone can realize and feel the cooling effect of the trees on a hot summer day when someone is passing from a plantation area Thus Trees protect us, our animals and houses from shining sun in summer and cold winds in winter(Simons and Leakey, 2004) Trees improve soil fertility, enhance soil microbial and enzymatic activity, decomposition and physical characteristics (Tian et al., 2001) Trees also contribute to economic development by protecting watersheds, maintenance of biodiversity and enhancement of environmental quality (Bukhari, 1997) The plants and soils of forest hold 460-575 billion metric tons of carbon worldwide with each acre of forests storing about 180 metric tons of carbon (Khan et al., 2011) Wind erosion can be stopped by forests, prevent flood intensity along the banks of rivers and canals (Simorangkir, 2006) Forest can also play an important role in Pakistan‟s economy These are the important sources for protection of lands, water resources, particularly prolonging the lives of dams, reservoirs and irrigation network of canals (FAO, 2000)

Mogaka (2001) reported that forests play a crucial role in the lives of communities and nations Apart from being reservoirs of other forms of biodiversity, forests are important in water catchments, soil erosion barriers, and the source of timber and non-timber materials Forests also provide a very important service in the new and growing leisure industry, which involves the „none‟ consumptive use of biological diversity for example eco-tourism Forests also provide very important ecosystem services that are generally considered to be „free‟ Such essential services include nutrient cycling, soil formation, oxygen production, carbon sequestration and climate regulation Forest biodiversity also has a „hidden‟ value locked up in the genetic stock whose potential value is not yet known

Sen et al (2004) stated that the major environmental functions of farm forestry / agroforestry, actual or potential, includes, control of soil degradation, control of desertification, reduction in the pollution of groundwater, increasing biodiversity at the scales of the farming and landscape, reducing pressure on forest margins through on-farm supply of wood and other forest products, finally contribute in the reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses

1.2 CURRENT STATUS OF FOREST IN PAKISTAN

Pakistan is a land of deserts, valleys, low and high hills, alluvial plains, and a long coastline The diversity in climate and soil is reflected in the ecological distribution

of fauna and flora The climate is generally arid subtropical with an average rainfall

of 250 mm, while some of the driest regions receive less than 123 mm annually (Hussain et al., 2003) The country has a narrow forest resource extended over 4.8% (excluding 4.59% farmland plantations) of its area (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2004) Over 40 percent of these forests are coniferous and scrub Most of these forests are found on the northern part of the country (40 percent in kpk, 15.7 percent

in the Northern Areas, and 6.5 percent in the AJK (Nizamani and Shah, 2004)whereas 80% of the population and wood-based industry is located in the southern and central parts of Pakistan (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2004) Pakistan

is a 7th most populous country in the world with a growth rate of 2.1%(GOP 2003) Pakistan's fast-growing population is dependent for its wood and wood products requirement on insufficient forest resource (PNCS, 2006) The per capita forest area

is only 0.0265 ha (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2004-2005), compared to the world average of one hectare Only 1/3rd of the total forest area is productive, while the rest is for environmental and protective value (Anon, 1991)

Pakistan has a poor forestry resource and one of the lowest forest area country in the world (McKetta, 1990).The statistics on the forests of Pakistan indicate that area covered by forests is quite low when compared with 30 percent for the world (FAO, 2001) and 26 percent for the developing countries criteria The country suffers more severe forest scarcities than most countries in South Asia Its natural forest resources are small, with forest area and national land utilization figures ranging

from 3.1 percent(State of World Forestry, 2003) to 3.6 percent of the total land area (Akhtar Hameed Khan Centre for Rural Development, 2002)

Pakistan has lost about 0.21 million hectares of the forest with a deforestation rate

of 2.1%, means it has lost an average of 0.043 hectares of forest annually (FAO, 2001) Regeneration is visibly absent in most of the forests (Khattak, 1994) In addition, the forest trees are slow-growing and demands on its forests and other natural resources are extremely high (Nizamani and Shah, 2004) The forest is insufficient to provide the material needs of the growing population, expanding industry and to retard and arrest the ongoing environmental and ecological degradation process (Pakistan Economic Survey, 2004) It is becoming increasingly difficult to meet the demands of the growing population offuelwood, fodder, agriculture implements and raw material required for wood-based industries (Caviglia and Kahn, 2001).There is no doubt that scanty tree cover is the result of the gross mismanagement of forests in the past The development of modern infrastructure and developmental pressure has further facilitated the destruction of meagre tree cover in the country (Baig et al., 2008) Pakistan is facing timber and firewood shortage of about 29 million cubic meters (Govt of Pakistan, 2005)

Depletion and deforestation are a century‟s long going process(Dove, 1995) Forests are vanishing at an alarming rate Urbanization, increase population, extensive use

of forest wood for burning purpose, furniture, overgrazing, use of wood for fuel, no rigid policies by government, the involvement of government officials in selling timber and dependence of rural population on wood are the major causes of deterioration (Simorangkir, 2006) Other threats are commercial over-exploitation, a number of financial, technical, administrative and political reasons; tree cutting in forests is in excess of replanting and regeneration rates (ERNP, 1999) The rapid decline in forest cover also leads to increased environmental and land degradation, pollution, loss of biodiversity and low agriculture yield (FAO, 2001) The area under public forest cannot be further expanded to keep pace with the population growth rate and increasing demands for forest products It is estimated that state forests contribute 14% of timber and 10% of fuelwood whereas 46% of timber and 90% of fuelwood requirements are being met from farmlands (FAO, 2001b) The

tree cover on farmlands can be expanded up to 10% without harming agricultural crops, which will be a great contribution to justify the needs of rural and urban people (Qureshi, M.A.A., 1998) The farmlands of central Punjab have about 200 million trees of which 95% are in irrigated areas The government approach to farm forestry in Pakistan as an attempt to reassert control over tree resources In order to reclaim the degraded forest lands, ensure sustainable use of marginal lands, protect good quality land, fulfill the rural needs for the economic and non-economic benefits from trees to sustain their livelihood (Khan et al., 2011), tree planting on farmlands is the most feasible and viable solution under the present circumstances

in Pakistan

People‟s participation in farm forestry is low because most social forestry projects have mainly focused on biological and technical concerns and very little or no emphasis was given to understanding the perception of local peoples or potential beneficiaries of the projects (Malik, 1989) Research on factors that encourage and discourage farm forestry in Pakistan has generally focused on social and physical parameters, leading to the ranking of constraints and benefits by respondents (Dove, 1995) (Dove, 1995) stated that „„the most important variables in the development

of farm forestry in Pakistan are human, not physical‟‟ In terms of decision making, however, it is farmers‟ perceptions about these factors which are the primary influence: how they think the nature of their tenure will affect the outcome of a decision to plant trees on their land? If they are tenants, how they think their landlords will react to their desire to plant trees?

A socio-economic study of farmers and their relationship is very important Analyzing the household and farm characteristics can help the process of the effective planning system for farm forestry Sinclair and Walker(1999) indicated that the lack of quantitative and predictive understanding about farmers to grow trees and improvements in existing systems can be designed if characteristics of the farms and farmers in relation to trees growing are studied (Nair and Dagar, 1991)

1.3 COMMON FARM SPECIES IN THE STUDY AREA

The common trees species grown on farmland include Acacia nilotica (kikar), Dalbergia sissoo (Shisham), Bombax ceiba (Simal), Morus alba (Mulberry), Salix spp (Willow), Melia azedarach (Bakain), Populus deltoides, Populus alba, Populus nigra and populous cileata Beside these indigenous spp, some exotic species have also been introduced including, Eucalyptus spp, Robinia pseudocacia, Ailanthus altisima and Frash

1.4 THE REASON FOR SELECTION OF THIS RESEARCH

Montambault & Alavalapati (2005) stated that to assess the economic feasibility of farm forestry systems, factors influencing the adoption of farm forestry, monitor the relevance and effectiveness of investigations, and guide future research, in-depth social and economic analyses are needed Singh (2006) reported the constraints involved in the adoption of farm forestry were mainly poor infrastructure particularly market services, old/traditional way of agriculture practices and poverty suffering farmers Akbar et al (2000) suggested that the limited acceptance is due to the lack of attention given to farmers‟ views of the factors that influence their decisions Arnold and Dewees (1998) argue that strategies to encourage tree planting on farms need to be based on an understanding of farmers tree management

in the context of household livelihood strategies, pointing out that little is known about „„farmers‟ perceptions of the value of trees‟‟ and about the constraints they face in developing tree resources Politics at a local level also has been found to affect the outcomes of farm forestry interventions in Bangladesh (Dove, 2003) The future success of farm forestry in Pakistan will largely depend on assessing and addressing farmers‟ perceptions of the factors affecting farm level tree planting This can be done through improving our understanding of the perceptions and beliefs of the underlying farmers, attitudes towards farm forestry and the relationship of the two in forming an intention to grow trees on farmlands as well as the identification of factors that encourage or discourage tree planting Little research has explored farmer‟s actual decisions about the planting of trees and the perceptions and attitudes towards decision-making That is the reason that I

perceived my thesis on a “key factor which influences three planting decision of household a case study in Pakistan”

1.5 GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND RESEARCH QUESTION

1.5.1 Goals

The Goals of the study is to promote tree planting in the farmlands by households in Tehsil Dargai District Malakand Pakistan

1.5.2 Specific Objectives

This research aimed at

(1) To assess the current situation of tree planting in the farmland of Malakand

(2) To identify factors influencing tree planting decision in farmland in Malakand

(3) To investigate the constraints faced by farmers in tree planting in Malakand

(4) To propose recommendations for the improvement of plantation in the farmlands in Malakand

1.6 THE SCOPE OF THIS RESEARCH

According to the discussion above by searching found no previous research or study that has reviewed the factors that affecting tree planting decision of household in the study area This thesis will provide a base for further study at any location in the perspective of Pakistan This research will cover the gap of knowledge by reviewing the factors that affect tree planting decision of the household in the study area

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

In this study, a diverse, interdisciplinary approach is used in order to detect why or why not farmers decide to plant or not to plant Hence the socioeconomic variables

of the household and the farm, as well as other possible factors influencing tree planting decision used in this study were drawn from a range of previous related studies available literature, documents and related materials have been reviewed, some of the relevant have been given in this chapter

2.1 FACTORS AFFECTING/INFLUENCING TREE PLANTING DECISION

Nkamleu & Manyong, (2005) Identified the following factor influence tree planting activities such as; gender of farmer, household family size, level of education, farmer‟s experience, membership within farmers‟ associations, contact with research and extension, security of land tenure, agro-ecological zone, distance of the village from nearest town, village accessibility and income from livestock Zubair and Garforth (2006) also found that attitudes significantly predicted farmers‟ decisions to tree planting activities Land-use decisions of the farmers can be supported by conservation-oriented land-use practices Changes in land tenure and market economics have been reported responsible for changes in tree planting activities in Bangladesh (Khaleque and Gold, 1993)

Several factors have been used to explain land use decisions including soil quality, farm size, farm labor, level of household education, farming experience, land tenure security, distance to market, farm age, off-farm income, participation, initial wealth status of households, access to credit, and technical knowledge (Browder et al., 2004) In these independent variables, no consistent effects were observed in terms

of relationships between land use and household characteristics

According to Dixon et al (2001), households are diverse in terms of resources and operate within heterogeneous biophysical, policy and institutional environments Pichon (1997) investigate soil fertility, the topographical location of farmland, farm age and household resource endowment significantly influence land use decisions Further, farm household demographic characteristics such as education level of

household head, family and wage labor, and consumer units had significant effects

on land use decisions Security of land tenure also significantly influenced allocation decisions (Ebanyat et al., 2010)

land-Perz (2001) also point out that household demographic variable, the institutional framework, off-farm income, farmer‟s background and belonging to group exerted significant effects on tree planting activities

Browder et al (2004) found only farm size to be important in influencing decisions

on annual and perennial cropping They found no significant effects of household demographic characteristics, gender and age (except total family size) nor of policy, environment factors (access to technical assistance, off-farm incomes) on land use decision

Factors such as soil quality, the slope of farmland, proximity to forest, create conditions more or less favourable to grow and maintain trees (Place and Garrity, 2015) Proximity to markets may also generate incentives to favour certain types of trees, especially those yielding perishable products like fruits (Pattanayak et al., 2003)

Scherr (1995) stated that Smallholders vary greatly in their socio-economic, perceptional (i.e attitudes, beliefs) and motivational characteristics Such variation influences their willingness and ability to engage in certain land-use options and management strategies, including tree planting Several studies in the tropics and sub-tropics have found that socioeconomic factors affect farmers tree planting activities (Emtage and Suh, 2004; Mahapatra and Mitchell, 2001; Simmons et al., 2002), and silvicultural management activity (Walters et al., 2005) In addition, other factors include local knowledge (Redford and Padoch 1992), economic scarcities (Mercer, 2004), geographic location of the plantation (Dewees and Saxena, 1997), socio-political structures, institutions, government policies and incentives (Durst and Enters, 2004) And except that participation in social organizations including farmers‟ groups is recognized as helping farmers to adopt new farming practices (Bebbington, 1997) Other factors found to influence tree

planting and management activity includes access to markets (Scherr, 2004) and environmental factors such as site quality (Jagger et al., 2005)

2.2 FARM CHARACTERISTICS FACTORS

2.2.1.Land area

Tree planting requires land, but the poorest farmers mostly have very little ownership or access to private land, or only very small areas of land, such that they have little choice but to plant staple food crops that provide annual returns, instead

of the relatively slow growing trees (Simmons et al., 2002; Summers et al., 2004) Hence, it is often found that farmers with larger areas of land have a tendency to plant and manage more trees than the farmers with limited land (Summers et al., 2004) Poor farmers with small land areas more dependent on essential forests products (such as fuelwood) due to which they plant high densities of trees on part

of their farms, otherwise scarce (Scherr, 1997) Small-sized land provides small volumes of wood, which can make harvesting and transportation to market uneconomical (Scherr, 2004) Furthermore, as farmers are often highly dependent

on the limited resources produced on their land for their livelihoods, they have an incentive for managing their crops, including trees, in the most sustainable and efficient way (Sen and Das, 1988) Small land areas can also be more easily protected from damage (such as forest fires or diseases) and there is an encouragement to focus on quality production (Scherr, 2004)

2.2.2.Tenure

The often unclear land tenure discourage farmers from planting or managing trees if they cannot ensure the right to use or sell trees (Simmons et al., 2002) Changes to forest governance structures that are strengthening local rights over the land and trees have been occurring (Luttrell et al., 2011) Such changes can empower the farmers, improve their decision making power over their land and resources, and encourage them to plant and manage trees (Kaimowitz, 2003) Land allocated for tree planting is often already used by rural people for other purposes such changes

in land use allocation can negatively impact people‟s livelihoods and cause conflicts and marginalization (Barr et al., 2010) On the other hand, some case studies have

shown that tree planting schemes that require titles over the land have actually helped farmers to be recognized as the legal landowner (Arnold, 1998), so the influence of land tenure is clearly cased specific

2.2.3.Location of farm and house

The location of a farmers land in relation to a range of factors - including their house, natural forest or other sources of forest products, wood industries and markets - can affect the farmers‟ decision whether to plant and manage trees or not (Scherr, 2004; Simmons et al., 2002) For example, in many developing countries, working far from home (temporarily or permanently) is the only option for some groups of people seeking better livelihoods (Rudel, 2009) If a farmer is living and working far from their land, then planting trees is a productive option, and in some cases, it has been known to secure the control over the land whilst they are away (Dewees and Saxena, 1997; Van Noordwijk et al., 2007) On the other hand, farmers often live in or near their farms, enabling them to protect and manage their trees in a more efficient manner (Arnold, 1996)

Furthermore, the presence of trees on the farm reduces the household time spent and labour burden collecting forest products from distant areas, especially if the natural forest is scarce (Arnold and Dewees, 2014) The location of the farm in relation to markets influences tree planting activity, especially when wood is produced for cash sales Remote areas, with a low population density and low levels of physical infrastructure, complicate access to the market Urban areas close to wood consuming industries are more viable, whereby transport costs to the markets are not a constraining factor (Scherr, 2004)

2.3 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS FACTORS

Socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education, and social status can be used as a proxy for farmers‟ preferences for things such as risk tolerance and conservation attitude, factors that are otherwise difficult to measure (Pattanayak et al., 2003)

2.3.1 Gender, age and education

Gender has been found to influence tree planting activity, households with male head or households with more male members found to be more active in tree planting (Pattanayak et al., 2003; Scherr, 1995) In addition, age and education variables are indicators of human capital, which have been found to increase the likelihood of tree planting due to environmental awareness and knowledge of tree planting techniques in some cases (Simmons et al., 2002) In fact, education is often seen as a key issue for all levels of sustainable forestry (Schmidt et al., 1999) and it has been found that there is a positive relationship betweenformal education and tree planting zeal (Mercer, 2004; Thacher et al., 1996)

The influence of farmers‟ age on tree planting activity is unclear In some cases, it has been found that household age can influence the household decision to plant certain crops (Walker and Homma, 1996) Older farmers generally have higher risk-bearing capabilities and are interested in less labour-demanding activities such as planting trees (Thacher et al., 1996) Younger households are generally less established in terms of land areas owned, labour availability and resource requirements Thus, younger households have less capacity to cope with risks, and they need to allocate their limited labour to varying forms of income earning (being more dependent on off-farm work) Having lower land areas, younger households generally need to choose a diversity of crops that can provide regular income and food instead of planting trees (Walker and Homma, 1996).Yet other studies have found that young, well- educated leaders in the village have been the innovative ones, engaging in tree planting (Song et al., 2004) In addition, personal characteristics can influence tree planting activity, as often tree planters come across in the literature as more innovative and courageous (in terms of risk) than non-tree planters (Mahapatra and Mitchell, 2001)

2.3.2 Silvicultural knowledge and skills

Despite a large traditional knowledge on tree planting, there is a general lack of knowledge and skills related to tree planting and management amongst farmers, which is considered to be a major constraint to successful small-scale tree planting

(Cossalter and Pye-Smith, 2003; Pattanayak et al., 2003) Smallholders in Indonesia and other developing countries in the tropics often manage their timber plantations using poor silvicultural practices with low levels of labour inputs, which lead to low quantities and quality of timber (Maturana et al., 2005) Spacing is often irregular, species composition sometimes results of chance rather than a conscious decision, and farmers often lack the technical skills necessary to achieve best practice (Gunasena and Roshetko, 2000) The management activity is often limited to harvesting of wood, while trees are left to grow without any silvicultural management between planting and harvesting (Roshetko et al., 2007) Hence, improved extension activities are commonly recommended in order to improve the success of smallholder tree planting and management (Roshetko et al., 2007;

2.4.1 Production cost, transaction cost and Market

The farmers willing to plant and manage trees are influenced by functional markets (Byron, 2001; Scherr, 2004) Two main factors quantity and quality of wood often make the markets complicate These complicating factors especially apply to farmers with small land areas and poor silvicultural management skills (Arnold, 2001; Byron, 2001) Less plantation area has small volumes which increase harvest and logistic costs, especially if located far from the production plants and markets, making them less attractive for the industries While, farmers that are located near the production plants and local markets, with relatively good infrastructure, have good market conditions for planting and managing trees (Scherr, 2004) Furthermore, the lack of continuous supply from small-scale plantations is a hindrance to the industry

Low and unstable market prices for wood are a major disadvantage for tree planters

over individual farmers production decisions for example, what species to plant or when to harvest The farmers also often lack negotiation power on the prices they receive for the wood, and they often have little choice but to accept the company dictated price (even if it is well below market rates) because of their limited access

to markets, limited market information, and inability to overcome transaction costs (Perdana et al., 2012; Rohadi et al., 2012) The absence or lack of knowledge on price incentives for farmers to produce higher quality products is considered a barrier to improved silvicultural management practices (Perdana et al., 2012; Van Noordwijk et al., 2007) Moreover, the involvement of middlemen (commission agent) often decreases the profits reaching the farmer (Kumar et al., 2003; Perdana

et al., 2012)

2.4.2 Incentives

Incentives can be defined as policy instruments increasing the advantage of forest plantations and thus stimulating investments in plantation establishment (Durst and Enters, 2004) In order to encourage farmers‟ tree planting activities and management, and to maximize their profitability, farmers are provided with different incentives such as land, seeds, seedlings, fertilizers or other planting material, extension services, cash handouts, assistance in harvesting, and guaranteed markets Poor who do not have access to credit or loans for tree planting and management, incentives can be crucial Some authors, however, have criticized loans dependency as it risky if expected outcomes are not reached (Arnold, 1998) Incentives can either have a positive effect on tree planting or the worst situation, can lead to unsustainable tree plantations For example, if the farmer's plant trees to gain the economic incentives (cash) or fertilizers, this is unlikely to lead to good plantation management and quality yields (Thacher et al., 1996) Complicate bureaucracy or unclear land titles can mean that farmers do not always have access

to tree planting incentives, even if they are available in the area (Mead et al., 2001)

2.4.3 Capital

Along the production chain, different demanding objectives are required to produce quality wood, such as seedlings, machinery, fertilizers, herbicides, and harvesting

equipment etc The capital intensity is even higher if more value is added to the production process, for example in the form of transportation, processing and product marketing For poor farmers, a lack of capital is a major constraint for tree planting (Byron, 2001), and it has been found that wealthier farmers, who are more capable of taking risky investments, are more likely to plant trees (Mahapatra and Mitchell, 2001; Scherr, 1995) Furthermore, trees take a long time to grow (depending on species and plantation objectives), making it a long-term investment with little to no intermediate returns The longtime periods involved in tree farming exposes farmers to risks in terms of price fluctuations, tenure insecurity and natural hazards (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003) This long waiting period combined with high risks does not favour poor farmers, who are highly dependent on their limited farm resources for day to day survival (Dewees and Saxena, 1997) Only the farmers with the on-farm food supply, off-farm income sources, or access to affordable loans are able to cope with the extended payback period between tree planting and harvesting (Arnold, 1998) Furthermore, due to the limited access to capital and credit for investing in tree planting, and the financial inability to wait for trees to reach the minimum diameters required by industry, smallholders may also find it difficult to compete with the larger state and private owned plantation companies due to economies of scale (Maturana et al., 2005)

Compared to the cultivation of many other more intensive crops (such as oil palm), establishing and maintaining tree plantation requires relatively low levels of capital investment (Ravindran and Thomas, 2000) This means that tree planting is sometimes chosen over other alternatives simply because of a lack of start-up capital for another cash crop, or because of a lack of capacity to optimize the productivity (Dewees and Saxena, 1997) In addition, tree planting often does not require hired labour, most of the work is done by the farmers themselves (Evans, 1992) Farmers are often even willing to work below the minimum wage if they are building assets on their own farms (Van Noordwijk et al., 2007)

2.4.4 Labor

If labour is a limiting factor, then tree planting can be favoured as a relatively low labour-demanding land use option, whilst the limited labour can be allocated to other on-farm (e.g agriculture) or off-farm activities (industry, other govt jobs) to provide regular incomes (Dewees and Saxena, 1997; Ravindran and Thomas, 2000; Thacher et al., 1996) It has been found that households whose main income is from off-farm sources are more likely to use their land for tree planting than those households contingent on on-farm income (Salam et al., 2000; Thacher et al., 1996) Sometimes, however, households with a large number of working members are positively correlated with tree planting activity (Summers et al., 2004), because, in some remote rural areas in the tropics, few off-farm income options are available for the unskilled poor (Scherr, 2004) Also, farmers do not always have enough capital to use the land for the most profitable crop, due to high establishment or

management costs (Dewees and Saxena, 1997)

2.5 BIOPHYSICAL FACTORS

Biophysical factor includes site quality site condition, soil characteristics, slope aspect, the distance between house and farm etc distance between a field and farmer‟s house is negatively related to tree growth Farmers often live in or near their farms, enabling them to protect and manage their trees in a more efficient manner (Arnold, 1996) The presence of trees on the farm reduces the household time spent and labour burden collecting forest products from distant areas, especially if the natural forest is scarce (Arnold and Dewees, 2014) The location of the farm in relation to markets influences tree planting activity Remote areas, with low levels of physical infrastructure, complicate accessto the market Urban areas close to wood consuming industries are more viable, whereby transport costs to the markets are not a constraining factor (Scherr, 2004)

Site conditions, including the soil characteristics and climatic conditions, affect the success of tree planting Not all sites are suitable for tree planting or for all species

On the other hand, tree planting can often be a feasible option to make a use of marginal lands Tree planting can also have a negative effect on the site, and

degrade the site quality, for example, it decreases the soil fertility or reduces the water availability in the watershed (Cossalter and Pye-Smith, 2003; Evans, 1992) Tree growing is further positively related to fine-textured clayey soils and negatively related to coarse-textured soils (Schuren and Snelder, 2008) Moreover, the climate also influences tree planting Forests sequester carbon is expected to encourage though political interest in climate change led to more state efforts to expand plantations while providing supplemental income for the rural people via payments for environmental services and carbon sequestration (Kallio, 2013) Dinh et al (2017) investigated that soil quality also influences tree planting decision The good quality soil is negatively correlated with tree planting The non-planter household has a higher share of grey soil and greater distance from home to allocated forestland Households tend to plant trees on grey soil, which is the second best soil type in the region after basaltic soil Slope influences positively on tree planting intensity, indicating that forest trees are planted on sloping land, where there is no suitable area for agricultural crops The average distance from home to allocated forestland is negatively correlated with the planting decision This is logical since the higher the distance, the higher the opportunity costs of tree

planting

2.6 INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

2.6.1 Governance, policies and institutions

The government has a significant role to play in making smallholder tree planting more profitable, and can create the right conditions to encourage adequate investment and market development This may be done by clear, consistent and stable policies and regulations, as well as providing a conducive investment climate, incentives, secure land rights, adequate infrastructure and technology In addition, governments can play a significant role in supporting the action of farmers organizations, forest management associations or other institutions that support small-scale wood production and marketing (Durst and Enters, 2004) However, in developing countries, there is a range of potentially major governance-related obstacles to smallholder tree planting including policy failures, institutional

weaknesses, unclear land-use related data and definitions, tenure issues, and the lack of trust towards the government (Barr et al., 2006; Luttrell et al., 2011) The essential pillars of good governance are often lacking, including proper information sharing, transparency, the rule of law, law enforcement, conflict resolution, proper decentralization, and dialogue-decision processes (FAO, 2009) In some cases, the top-down distribution of the tree planting incentives has provided to local government officials take it by self as a corruption (Barr et al., 2006)

There are also a number of government regulations that were designed to conserve and protect natural forests, but controversially, they restrict small-scale tree planting Such regulations include the need for permissions for the farmers to harvest, transport, or sell their wood The permission seeking processes are often complicated, costly or time-consuming for farmers (Perdana et al., 2012; Ravindran and Thomas, 2000) In addition, it is not uncommon that farmers or middlemen have to pay unofficial fees to several officials in the course of transporting their wood to the market Other policy failures that have influenced forest degradation, deforestation and the poor success rates of tree plantation establishment in developing countries include decentralization, uncontrolled logging licenses given

to concessionaires, unsuccessful development – including miss-use of funds of land rehabilitation programs (Nawir and Rumboko, 2007)

2.7 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

Diverse perspectives from the social and economic sciences have been brought together to study the factors influencing farmers‟ decision like tree planting (farm forestry systems) have a diverse range of theoretical and methodological approaches

to studying these factors (Byron, 2001; Mercer, 2004; Pattanayak et al., 2003; Salam et al., 2000; Thacher et al., 1996; Walters et al., 2005) The theoretical framework used in this study is drawn from existing studies related to the socio-economic, Environmental, biological and institutional factors affecting farmers‟ tree planting activity Smallholders vary greatly in their socio-economic, and motivational characteristics, as well as in the land-use related experiences they have Such variation influences their willingness and ability to engage in certain land-use options and management strategies, including tree planting (Scherr, 1995) Several studies in the tropics and sub-tropics have found that socio-economic, and

motivational factors affect farmers‟ tree planting (Emtage and Suh, 2004; Mahapatra and Mitchell, 2001, 2001; Ravindran and Thomas, 2000; Salam et al., 2000; Simmons et al., 2002), and silvicultural management activity (Summers et al., 2004; Walters et al., 2005) Other factors found to influence tree planting activity includes access to markets (Arnold, 2001; Ravindran and Thomas, 2000; Scherr, 2004), Ecological factors such as site quality (Jagger et al., 2005; Kumar et al., 2003), institutional factor like secure property rights to land and tree crops, a viable

production technology and capacity for crop protection (Byron, 2001)

A wide range of factors that influence smallholder tree planting activities is identified As shown by previous studies, it is clear that there is a diverse range of factors influencing farmers‟ tree planting activity The selected socio-economic variables include (Opportunity cost of production, market price, risk and excess, economicincentives) household characteristics consist of (education level, age, household assets size of household, household‟s yearly income and on-farm income for the household), farm characteristics were: (land area owned and planted with trees, initiatives, land availability, planting material, distance to market, existing forest resource etc), biophysical factor comprise (soil type, soil quality, soil nutrients and slope aspect etc), institutional factor contains (property right, secure production right, secure transportation right and land tenure etc) The dependent variable is, therefore, Tree planting decision to plant or not, to plant) among the target people However, the link between the independent and dependent variables may either be strengthened or weakened by the intervening variables

( Opportunity cost of production, input and out price

of market, transactions coast, risk and access to credits, discount rate of economics decision

Biophysical factor:

(Soil quality, soil type, slope of area, distance b/w

farm and house

Farm characteristic factors:(Land

holding size and land availability, planting material and knowledge, total house hold, livestock, crop, access to existing forest resource,

distance to market

Tree planting decision of household

Informal institutions:

Customary, rules, norms and beliefs governing access to land, land security, tree planting and

rights to trees

Formal institutions:

Legal rules conferring

access to land, land

security and rights, to

trees and tree products

Secured property rights to land, trees and tree products

Conceptual framework for identifying key factor affecting tree planting decision modified from

(Hai & Huong, 2018) and (Divine et al., 2012)

classical profit-seeking behaviour The decision to plant trees will thus depend on whether it brings a positive economic return which is higher than a zero return from leaving the land abandoned, assuming no internal or external credit rationing Socioeconomic factors, including the opportunity cost of the various factors of production, access to markets for inputs and outputs, transaction costs, risk and access to credit, and the discount rates of economic decision-making units, need to

be taken into account to identify locations economically as well as ecologically suited to tree growing

Coast of production have a negative relation with tree planting especially low levels

of physical infrastructure, complicate access to market no incentive for production, while urban areas close to wood consuming industries are more viable, whereby transport costs to the markets are not a constraining factor (Scherr, 2004)

Farmers‟ access to credit or loans, influence on tree planting (Scherr, 1997) Production chain required seedlings, machinery, fertilizers, herbicides, and harvesting equipment etc to produce quality wood For poor farmers, a lack of capital is a major constraint for tree planting (Byron, 2001), and it has been found that wealthier farmers are more capable of taking risky investments, are more likely

to plant trees (Mahapatra and Mitchell, 2001; Scherr, 1995) Furthermore, trees take

a long time to grow, long time exposes farmers to risks in terms of price fluctuations, tenure insecurity and natural hazards (Angelsen and Wunder, 2003) This long waiting period with high risks does not favour poor farmers, who are highly dependent on their limited farm resources often for day to day survival (Dewees and Saxena, 1997) Only the farmers with access to affordable loans are able to cope with the extended payback period between tree planting and harvesting (Arnold, 1996) Holden and Yohannes, (2002) report that the investment in tree planting is usually constrained by the limited wealth status of local households and the malfunctioning of rural credit markets Farmers also often lack negotiation power on the prices they receive for the wood, limited access to markets, limited market information, and inability to overcome transaction costs (Perdana et al., 2012; Rohadi et al., 2012)

2.7.2 Biophysical factors

Biophysical factor includes site conditions, soil characteristics and climatic conditions etc, affect tree planting activities Not all sites are suitable for tree planting or for all species On the other hand, tree planting can often be a feasible option to make a use of marginal lands where agricultural crops are not suitable (Cossalter and Pye-Smith, 2003; Evans, 1992) Tree planting can also have a negative effect on the site and degrade the site quality, for example, if it decreases the soil fertility or reduces the water availability in the watershed (Cossalter and Pye-Smith, 2003; Evans, 1992)

2.7.3 Household characteristic factors

Socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, education, and social status can be used an understudy for farmers‟ preferences for things such as risk tolerance and conservation attitude, factors that are otherwise difficult to measure (Pattanayak

et al., 2003) Gender has been found influence tree planting activity, with male households headed or households with more male members being found to be more active in tree planting (Pattanayak et al., 2003; Scherr, 1995) In addition, age and education variables are indicators of human capital, which have been found to increase the likelihood of tree planting due to environmental awareness and knowledge of tree planting techniques in some cases (Simmons et al., 2002) It has been found that there is a positive relationship between formal education and tree planting enthusiasm (Mercer, 2004; Thacher et al., 1996) According to Dinh et al.(2017) education has significant effects on trees planting Another study confirms that tree planting household heads had higher levels of education than the non-tree planters (Etongo et al., 2015) Yet other studies have found that young, well- educated leaders in the village have been the innovative ones, engaging in tree planting (Song et al., 2004)

The influence of farmers‟ age on tree planting activity is unclear In some cases, it has been found that household age can influence the household decision to plant certain crops (Walker and Homma, 1996) Dinh et al (2017) investigated that age

of household heads has no significant effect on planting decision While other

studies clear it that older farmers generally have higher risk-bearing capabilities than a younger farmer (Thacher et al., 1996).Younger households are generally less established in terms of land areas owned, labour availability and resource requirements (i.e high consumption demands relative to labour supply) Thus, younger households have less capacity to cope with risks Younger households generally need to choose a diversity of crops that can provide regular income and food instead of planting trees (Walker and Homma, 1996) The average distance from home to allocated forestland is negatively correlated with the planting decision This is logical the higher the distance, the higher the opportunity costs of tree planting (Dinh et al., 2017)

2.7.4 Farm characteristics/resource endowments

Important farm characteristics/resource endowments include the level of intensification, size of landholding and land availability, total household income, livestock, accessing to existing forest resources, and distance to market Farm size is positively correlated with tree planting decision A study in Bangladesh found out that tree planting increased with the amount of homestead land owned and the farmers whose main source of income was non-agricultural were more likely to decide to plant trees in their homestead (Salam et al., 2000)

Tree planting requires land, but the poorest farmers in the tropics generally have very little ownership or access to private land, or only very small areas of land, such that they have little choice but to plant staple food crops that provide annual returns, instead of the relatively slow growing trees (Kumar et al., 2003; Salam et al., 2000; Summers et al., 2004)

Hence, it is often found that farmers with larger areas of land tend to plant and manage trees more than the farmers with limited land (Summers et al., 2004; Thacher et al., 1996) Furthermore, farmers are often highly dependent on the limited resources produced on their land for their livelihoods, they have an incentive for managing their crops, including trees, in the most sustainable and efficient way (Sen and Das, 1988)

The often unclear land tenure in Indonesia and other areas in the tropics discourage farmers from planting or managing trees if they cannot ensure the right to use or sell trees (Byron, 2001; Pattanayak et al., 2003; Simmons et al., 2002) The often imposed requirement for clear land ownership can even prevent farmers that have unclear land tenure rights from participating in tree planting programs (Hyman, 1983) On the other hand, some case studies have shown that tree planting schemes that require titles over the land have actually helped farmers to be recognized as the legal landowner (Arnold, 1996), so the influence of land tenure is clearly cased specific

The location of the farm in relation to markets influences tree planting activity Remote areas, with low levels of physical infrastructure, complicate access to the market Farmers who are located near production plants and markets, with good infrastructure, have good market conditions for planting and managing trees due to fewer transport costs of markets (Scherr, 2004)

Lack of capital is negatively related to tree planting (Byron, 2001), wealthier farmers are more capable of taking risky investments, in trees planting (Mahapatra and Mitchell, 2001; Scherr, 1995) Holden and Yohannes, (2002) report that the investment in tree planting is usually constrained by the limited wealth status of local households and the malfunctioning of rural credit markets While Dinh et al.(2017) confirmed that household productive assets and loans have positive effects

on planting decision

2.7.5 Institutional and policy factors

Institutional and policy factors comprise land and tree tenure security, extension services, information sources and incentive etc Changes to forest governance structures that are strengthening local rights over the land and trees have been occurring throughout the world (Kaimowitz, 2003; Luttrell et al., 2011) Such changes can empower the farmers, improve their decision making power over their land and resources, and encourage them to plant and manage trees; but on the other hand it can sometimes make it even more difficult for the most vulnerable, landless

poor (marginalized groups) to access the forest resources (Arnold, 2001; Kaimowitz, 2003; Luttrell et al., 2011)

Having rights to land and trees is important in tree planting decision making Land tenure refers to the possession or holding of the rights to use the land Secure tenure provides proper incentives for farmers to make investments in the long-term productivity of their land (Panayotou, 1993) Farmers that have unclear land tenure rights are not participating in tree planting programs (Hyman, 1983) Closely related

to land tenure is the issue of tree tenure Farmers who do not legally own land tend

to feel they cannot possibly own the trees and hence not intend to plant trees The study by Tengnas (1994), found out that in Kenya most farmers find it unacceptable and unattractive to invest in tree production on land that is not legally theirs

CHAPTER 3 STUDY METHODOLOGY 3.1 STUDY AREA

3.1.1 History

Malakand is a division of the province of Khyber Pukhtunkhawa in Pakistan The District was formed in 1970 as a Provincially Administered Tribal Area, It had previously been a tribal area known as the Malakand Protected Area, part of the Malakand Agency From 1970 the district became part of Malakand division

3.1.2 Description of the area

The study area (District Malakand) lies in the northern parts of the Khyber Pukhtunkhawa Province, Pakistan It is located at 34° 35´ North latitude and 71° 57´ East longitude covering an area of 952 square kilometres (94287.66 hectares) Out

of the total reported area i.e 52134 hectares is uncultivated while only 45681 hectares is cultivated (Govt of NWFP, 2003) It is a strategically important position

as it acts as a gateway to Bajaur, Lower Dir, Swat and Bunair It is surrounded by mountains that were overgrown with different kinds of trees in the past, though they have a barren look today Malakand District is bounded on the north by Lower Dir District, on the East by Swat District, on the south-east and south-west by Mardan and Charsadda districts respectively, and on the west by Mohmand and Bajaur Agencies The project area of district Malakand consists of two main Tehsil – Tehsil Dargai and Tehsil Batkhila Tehsil Dargai lies in the foothill of district malakand (District population department 2017)

Figure 3.1: Map of the study area Malakand

(Source:Iqbal et al., 2015)

3.1.3 Source of income

The primary income source of the local population is agriculture The major economic crops of the area include wheat, sugarcane, tobacco, rice and maize Various kinds of vegetables and orchard are also grown in the region Fruit gardens are numerous in the district and the area is known for guava and peaches Wheat and sugar cane is the dominant crop in the project area and occupies a leading part

of the agricultural land

Table 3.1: Crop and vegetable grew in the study area during 2016

(Ha)

Production (tons)

Area (Ha)

Production (tons)

Note: (Rabbi is the crop which grown in summer season e.g July), While Kharif is the

crop grown in winter season e.g Oct)

(Source: Haji Muhammad statistical officer Agriculture department Dargai 2018)

3.1.4 Demography

The total area of Malakand district is 952km2 with a population density of 760 peoples per sq km Literacy ratio in the area is 39.50 % Most of the peoples are Pashtuns speaking Pashto as their mother tongue Some nomadic nation called Gujar also living in the area Agriculture is the major source of income

Table 3.2: Demography information of the study area

Housing Units using Gas for Cooking 2743 (5.56 %)

Therefore the soil requires artificial irrigation Malakand is surrounded by high mountains rich with mineral resources Deposits of chromites iron, china clay and fuller earth have been found in Malakand There are three hydroelectric power generation stations (Malakand I, II and III)

(Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malakand_District)

3.1.6 Climate and vegetation

Malakand is 2705 feet above the sea level The area is characterized by mountains The climate of the area is dry Hottest months are June, July and August The maximum temperature during summer exceeds over 40° C and minimum in winter falls up to 6°C Malakand falls under the subtropical zone, hosting association of Dodonea and Chir pine with a forest cover of 4409 hectares (Khan and Musharaf, 2015)

3.2 DATA COLLECTION

Keeping in mind the objectives of the study, questionnaire was developed through a consultative process The questionnaire was pre-tested so as to avoid the chances of duplication and biases Focusing on available financial resources, heterogeneity of the villages, time and other attributes 120 households out of the whole Tehsil was taken for survey and were interviewed

3.2.1 Sampling design and sample size

District Malakand have 2 nations Pushtuns and Gujars Pashtuns are the permanent residents of the area, while Gujarsare nomads I conducted a household survey of

120 in 10 different villages by following the formula given below based on the rule

of thumb by Green (1991) Stratified random sampling technique method was used Firstly the study area was divided into 10 different strata/villages then in each stratum/village I interviewed 10 households in the village having households numbers above 50, 12 having more than 100 and 15 having household more than

150 respectively, from each village The total number of household in the location (N) constituted the sampling frame and the unit of sampling was the individual households

The formula for the calculation of sample size: n>50 + 8m (1)

In which n: sample size

m: number of independent variables

A sample size of the interviewer was measured by the following formula Interviewees to be sampled = sample size ÷ population size × stratum size

In the table below sample size is 120, the population size is 18878and stratum size is 1535…….2270

Table 3.3: Household Sampling in Tehsil Dargai

Nations Name of villages Household Population No of Interviewed to be