Social perception and determinants of Ngitili system adoption for forage and land conservation in Maswa district, Tanzania

Basic information

• Case ID: INT-248-1
• Intervention type: Combination
• Intervention description:

  "Ngitili is a silvo-pastoral system that involves retaining an area of standing vegetation (grasses, trees, shrubs and forbs) from the onset to the end of the rainy season. Areas under Ngitili remain closed to live- stock during the rainy season (November to June). Once closed for protection, very little or no management is required. The grazing land is then reopened during the peak of the dry season (July to October) when feed resources are scarce. Ngitili is typically established in private farms of less than 5 ha or communal farms covering up to 50 ha (Shechambo, 2008). In essence, Ngitili is a farmer-led and farmer-managed vegetation restoration practice that has evolved after years of traditional grazing management. In 1986, a large-scale Shinyanga Soil Conservation Program (famously known as Hifadhi Ardhi Shinyanga-HASHI in Swahili) was established in the area. The program aimed to eradicate tsetse ies which transmit trypanosomiasis, a parasitic disease that a ects both humans and cattle. The program promoted the restoration of vegetation in the protected enclosures before it was closed in 2004. At the end of this program, at least 350,000 ha of Ngitili had been restored or estab- lished in 833 villages across the region (UNDP, 2012) On average, households owned 12 ha out of which, 2.2 ha were used for Ngitili. Al- though the restored patches of Ngitili per farmer appear small, their cumulative e ect have sustained, otherwise, the degrading landscapes. "

• Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes

• Climate change impacts	Effect of Nbs on CCI	Effect measures
  Soil erosion	Positive	**No biophysical outcome measures; quantified by mean perceived benefit of the outcome measure (listed below between “ ”) based on a five-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree (therefore high score means strong perceived benefit) then subject to statistical analysis to determine if the intervention had a positive/negative effect on the outcome (i.e. if it explained/contributed to the perceived benefit of the intervention) Soil erosion: “conserves soil”; “controls soil erosion”  positive effect Agricultural production: “Increases returns to livestock production”, “Ensures good supply of animal feed”, “reduces land degradation”  positive effect Wind damage: “Important for wind breaks”  unclear
  Wind damage	Unclear results	**No biophysical outcome measures; quantified by mean perceived benefit of the outcome measure (listed below between “ ”) based on a five-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree (therefore high score means strong perceived benefit) then subject to statistical analysis to determine if the intervention had a positive/negative effect on the outcome (i.e. if it explained/contributed to the perceived benefit of the intervention) Soil erosion: “conserves soil”; “controls soil erosion”  positive effect Agricultural production: “Increases returns to livestock production”, “Ensures good supply of animal feed”, “reduces land degradation”  positive effect Wind damage: “Important for wind breaks”  unclear
  Loss of food production	Positive	**No biophysical outcome measures; quantified by mean perceived benefit of the outcome measure (listed below between “ ”) based on a five-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree (therefore high score means strong perceived benefit) then subject to statistical analysis to determine if the intervention had a positive/negative effect on the outcome (i.e. if it explained/contributed to the perceived benefit of the intervention) Soil erosion: “conserves soil”; “controls soil erosion”  positive effect Agricultural production: “Increases returns to livestock production”, “Ensures good supply of animal feed”, “reduces land degradation”  positive effect Wind damage: “Important for wind breaks”  unclear

• Approach implemented in the field: Yes
• Specific location:

  Maswa district of Simiyu region in north-western Tanzania... ve villages namely Malekano (popu- lation size of 2,364), Mwadila (2,466), Kinamwigulu (2,700), Buyubi (1,806) and Mwakabeya (1,593). These villages are located in the northern part of Maswa district where agro-pastoral activities are more prominent than in the southern part.

• Country: United Republic of Tanzania
• Habitat/Biome type: Montane/Alpine |
• Issue specific term: Not applicable
  

Evidence

• Notes on intervention effectivness: "Effectivness determined by assessing the perceived benefits of the intervention by the local farmers who adopted the practice...""Farmers' perception of the need for Ngitili was measured against fteen deductive arguments. The measurement in- volved the use of a ve-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly dis- agree’ through ‘neither agree nor disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ as pro- posed by Wyatt and Meyers (1987)....Data were also subjected to binary logistic regression analysis. A regression model was tted to identify the determinants of Ngitili adoption...Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed on the fteen factors to re- duce the multidimensionality on restoration of vegetation cover (Ngitili). With this analysis, the underlying cluster of variables or ex- planatory constructs were identi ed. "" Unclear for wind damage: Don't make a conclusion as to the net effect, only that it was less beneficial than others ""Wind break, however, was regarded as the least beneficial attribute associated with Ngitili (3.6), possibly because Ngitili plots were not al- ways closer to home compounds where wind breaks could be most needed."" "
• Is the assessment original?: Yes
• Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
• Compare effectivness?: No
• Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
• Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: No
• Impacts on GHG: Not applicable
• Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
• Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
• Ecosystem measures: "“Environment Protection” **Not a biophysical outcome measure; quantified by mean perceived benefit of the outcome measure (listed above in “”) based on a five-point Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree and 5 = strongly agree (therefore high score means strong perceived benefit) then subject to statistical analysis to determine if the intervention had a positive/negative effect on the outcome (i.e. if it explained/contributed to the perceived benefit of the intervention) “Evidence presented in this section suggests that tree-based land use system has conservation value, and has positive impacts on ecosystem and livelihoods as re- ported in earlier studies”"
• Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
• Impacts for people: Positive
• People measures: "**Same as climate impact measures because all are directly associated with effects on the local farming communities Additional social outcomes not linked to climate: “Important for fuelwood” “Gives higher social status” “Provides construction material” “helps to demark land”"
• Considers economic costs: No
• Economic appraisal conducted: No
• Economic appraisal described:
• Economic costs of alternative considered: No
• Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

• Type of data: Quantitative
• Is it experimental: No
• Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
• Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
• Study is systematic: