Acta Sil va e et Ligni 132 (2023), 39–51 39 Original scientific article / Izvirni znanstveni članek UNDERST ANDING COMMITMENT TO AGROFORESTRY: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY OF A SAMPLE OF NIGERIAN FARMERS RAZUMEVANJE ZAVEZANOSTI KMETIJSKO-GOZDARSKIM SISTEMOM: PRESEČNA RAZISKAVA VZORCA NIGERIJSKIH KMETOVALCEV Fausat Motunrayo IBRAHIM 1 , Adebayo Samson ADEOYE 2 , Adenike Olubunmi AJANAKU 3 , Bukola Hannah UGEGE 4 , Olajumoke Celinah ODEYALE 5 , Olabode Oluseye OLAYEMI 6 , Oluwole Olalekan OKE 7 (1) Federal College of Forestry, Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria, Department of Agricultural Extension and Management, fausatibrahim@gmail.com (2) Federal College of Forestry, Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria, Dep. of Agr. Ext. and Man., saadeoye06@gmail.com (3) Federal College of Forestry, Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria, Dep. of Agr. Ext. and Man., aanikkyd24@gmail.com (4) Federal College of Forestry, Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria, Dep. of Agr. Ext. and Man., bukolasfavour@yahoo.com (5) Federal College of Forestry, Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria, Department of Forestry Technology, jumoceline81@gmail.com (6) Federal College of Forestry, Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria, Dep. of Agr. Ext. and Man., bodecrespo1@yahoo.co.uk (7) Federal College of Forestry, Forestry Research Institute of Nigeria, Dep. of Agr. Ext. and Man., woleok@yahoo.com ABSTRACT Agroforestry plays a vital role in reconciling food production with forest biodiversity conservation. There is a need for a sy- stematic investigation into the benefits and ecological considerations that underlie the commitment of smallholder farmers to agroforestry systems. This study therefore aims to investigate the relative importance of farmers' attitudes towards forest loss and the perceived benefits of agroforestry in influencing their commitment to agroforestry. The research was conducted among a group of farmers in Oyo State, southwestern Nigeria, using a cross-sectional survey in which structured questionnai- res were administered to 400 crop farmers selected through clustered purposive sampling. Respondents’ agreement with sets of relevant statements was elicited and used to assess variables. The independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to examine the significance of the difference in respondents’ commitment to agroforestry across sub-groups of gender and age/education, respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between variables. The results show that 57.8% of respondents exhibited a ‘high’ commitment to agroforestry. Gender, age, and education had significant effects on commitment (p < 0.05). There was no significant relationship between attitude towards forest loss and commitment to agroforestry (r = 0.038, p > 0.05), whereas perceived benefits showed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.426, p < 0.05). Being male, middle-aged, and poorly educated are predisposing factors for a lower commitment to agroforestry among farmers. Furthermore, the ecological benefits or forest restoration potential of agroforestry have a limited influence on the mo- tivation to commit to agroforestry in the study area. The importance of ecologically sustainable agriculture or the restorative potential of agroforestry appears to be poorly recognized by farmers in the study area. Key words: forest loss, attitude, perception, agroforestry, commitment IZVLEČEK Kmetijsko-gozdarski sistemi imajo strateško vlogo pri usklajevanju pridelave hrane z ohranjanjem biotske raznovrstnosti gozdov. Nujno je metodološko transparentno raziskati koristi in ekološke vidike, ki so temelj zavezanosti malih kmetovalcev kmetijsko- gozdarskim sistemom. Ta raziskava je zato poskus analize relativnega pomena percepcije kmetov do izgube gozdov in koristi kmetijsko-gozdarskih sistemov v kontekstu zavezanosti kmetov kmetijsko-gozdarskim sistemom v populaciji kmetovalcev v dr- žavi Oyo na jugozahodu Nigerije. Študija je presečna raziskava, v kateri je bilo med poljedelci, izbranimi z namenskim vzorčenjem v skupinah, opravljenih 400 strukturiranih intervjujev. Za analizo spremenljivk je bilo ocenjeno strinjanje anketirancev s sklopi trditev. Za preverjanje značilnosti razlik v zavezanosti anketirancev kmetijsko-gozdarskim oblikam med podskupinami glede na spol in starost/izobrazbo sta bila uporabljena t-test neodvisnih vzorcev in enosmerna ANOVA. Pearsonov korelacijski koeficient je bil uporabljen za preučevanje razmerja med spremenljivkami. Rezultati kažejo, da je 57,8 % anketirancev izrazilo »visoko« zaveza- nost kmetijsko-gozdarski obliki gospodarjenja. Spol, starost in izobrazba so imeli vpliv na zavezanost (p < 0,05). Med odnosom do izgube gozdov in zavezanostjo kmetijsko-gozdarski obliki gospodarjenja ni pomembne povezave (r = 0,038, p > 0,05), to pa velja za povezavo z zaznanimi koristmi (r = 0,426, p < 0,05). Biti moški, srednjih let in slabo izobražen, bistveno močneje določa manjšo za- vezanost kmetijsko-gozdarski obliki gospodarjenja. Na preučevanem območju skorajda ni ekološko povzročenih vzgibov oziroma motivacije za bodisi kmetijsko-gozdarsko obliko gospodarjenja bodisi obnovo gozdov. Zdi se, da je ekološko ‚pametno‘ kmetijstvo ali obnovitvena vloga kmetijsko-gozdarske oblike gospodarjenja med kmeti na preučevanem območju slabo uveljavljeno. Ključne besede: izguba gozdov, odnos, zaznava, kmetijsko-gozdarski sistemi, zavezanost GDK 26(669.1)(045)=111 Received / Prispelo: 23. 03. 2022 DOI 10.20315/ASetL.131.1 Accepted / Sprejeto: 20. 07. 2023 40 Ibr ahim F . M., Adeo y e A. S., Ajanak u A. O ., Ugege B. H., Ode y al e O . C., Ola y emi O . O ., Ok e O . O .: Understand ing c ommi tment ... 1 INTRODUCTION 1 UVOD The importance of agroforestry cannot be over- stated in modern society. Agroforestry is the combina- tion of crop/livestock and tree/shrub production and management (Martinelli et al., 2019). Intensive agri- cultural production poses the greatest threat to forest biodiversity (The State of the World’s Forests, 2020). It is responsible for about 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions and the highest utilization of fresh water (Fraser and Campbell, 2019). The provision of food for human survival is a primary driver of biodiversity loss (Erisman et al., 2016; Chaudhary et al., 2016; Dudley and Alexander, 2017; Lanz et al., 2018). As Chaudhary et al. (2016: 3928) assert, “ Anthropogenic land use to produce commodities for human consumption is the major driver of global biodiversity loss”. From 2000 to 2010, for instance, 40% of tropical deforestation was attributed to commercial agriculture, and 33% to sub- sistence agriculture (The State of the World’s Forests, 2020). Balancing food production and forest biodiver- sity conservation is a pressing challenge for humanity, which can range from “land-sparing” to “land-sharing” approaches. The former relies on technologies to pro- mote high-yielding agriculture that spares land for conservation, while agroforestry is a land-sharing ap- proach that combines production and conservation in land use (The State of the World’s Forests, 2020). Agroforestry is an indigenous agricultural prac- tice in Africa (Gonçalves et al., 2021). Cardinael et al. (2018) and Rosenstock et al. (2019b) identified sever- al categories of agroforestry, including silvopasture, al- ley cropping, windbreaks, agrisilviculture, parklands, fallows, multistrata, and hedgerows. Agroforestry is ecologically important because it can contribute to the restoration of degraded forest. Africa has experi- enced the highest rate of forest loss, with 3.94 million hectares of forest area lost from 2010 to 2020 (The State of the World’s Forests, 2020). Globally, 4.74 mil- lion hectares were lost in the same decade (The State of the World’s Forests, 2020). Halting forest loss is essential for conserving forest biodiversity, enhanc- ing human adaptation to the environment and ensur- ing environmental sustainability (Mori et al., 2017). Unfortunately, the environment has been profoundly transformed by various forms of human-caused, anti- environmental activities. For instance, forest lands are indiscriminately cleared in favour of agricultural pro- duction. Croplands now cover one third of the earth’s surface (Rosenstock et al., 2019a). Agricultural produc- tion increases the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, increasing the occurrence and intensity of extreme weather events (Climate Change, 2014). The attitude of farmers towards forest loss is, therefore, of particular interest. This attitude is suggestive of the evaluation of the importance of forest as a land-use op- tion, which is ideally a motivator for agroforestry. For- est conservation is a key priority in our time, as losing forests is tantamount to losing lifelines. About 75% of new infectious diseases originate from human-animal interactions, which are often associated with increas- ing forest loss (Austin, 2021; The Global Forest Goals Report, 2021). Deforestation can also contribute to the development of infectious diseases that raise pub- lic health concerns (Brock et al., 2019; Guégan et al., 2020; Ellwanger et al., 2020). Some authors even argue that the current COVID-19 pandemic is linked to forest loss (Brancalion et al., 2020; Austin, 2021; The Global Forest Goals Report, 2021). Furthermore, 25% and 80% of modern medicines in advanced and developing countries, respectively, have a plant-based origin (The Global Forest Goals Report, 2021). The commitment of resource-poor smallholder farmers to agroforestry offers numerous benefits. Agroforestry enables the diversification of income, improvement of yields, and therefore the mitigation of poverty in developing countries (Pandey, 2007; Quinion et al., 2010; Pratiwi and Suzuki, 2019). More importantly, agroforestry provides ecosystem services such as enhancing air and water quality, mitigating cli- mate change, and promoting biodiversity (Duguma et al., 2019; Chapman et al., 2020). Noordwijk (2020: 1) describes agroforestry as “an interface of specific con- cerns of ‘ Agriculture’ and ‘Forestry’ with wider per- spectives on rural and peri-urban livelihoods and land- scapes as reflected in all 17 Sustainable Development Goals”. Farmers’ commitment to agroforestry repre- sents a tangible gain in sustainable development. The adoption of agroforestry is a decision-making process that is informed by the interaction of complex factors, including the perceived benefits of agroforestry and the perceived importance attributed to forest as a land-use option. These variables can act as barriers or facilita- tors to adoption, necessitating a systematic investiga- tion to optimize agroforestry practices. It is argued that farmers’ commitment to agroforestry depends on the extent to which they perceive its benefits and their pro- forest conservation attitudes. The motivations for agro- forestry span ecological and non-ecological gains and reflect individuals’ evaluation of the ecological impor- tance of agroforestry. Understanding these motivations is crucial for understanding the complexity of farmers’ decisions to commit to agroforestry. This study there- fore aims to examine the relative importance of farm- Acta Sil va e et Ligni 132 (2023), 39–51 41 ers’ attitudes towards forest loss and perceived ben- efits of agroforestry in shaping their commitment to agroforestry in southwestern Nigeria. The influence of socio-demographic variables on this commitment was also examined. These variables are represented in the conceptual framework in Fig. 1. The research questions addressed in this study are as follows: • What are the respondents’ attitudes towards forest loss and their perceptions of the benefits deriving from agroforestry? What is their level of commit- ment to agroforestry? • What is the influence of gender, age, and education on the respondents’ commitment to agroforestry? • What is the correlation between pairs of attitudes to forest loss, perceived benefits of agroforestry, and commitment to agroforestry among respon- dents in the study area? 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS 2 MATERIALI IN METODE 2.1 Study areas / research design 2.1 Območja raziskave / zasnova raziskave The Oyo West and the Oyo East Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Oyo State, southwestern Nigeria con- stituted the study areas (see Fig. 2). Nigeria is a vast West-African country in sub-Saharan Africa, covering an expansive area of 923,773 km 2 , which is about 14% of the total land area of West Africa. Nigeria’s popula- tion currently exceeds 200 million and is projected to surpass 300 million by 2050 (Ogbonnaya et al., 2019). The southwestern region is one of Nigeria’s six geopo- litical zones and the ancestral homeland of the Yorùbá people. Oyo state is one of the six states that make up the southwestern region. There are 33 geopolitical units known as Local Government Areas (LGAs) in Oyo state. Ibadan is the capital city of the state and com- prises 11 LGAs: five urban and six peri-urban LGAs. The remaining 22 LGAs exhibit predominately rural characteristics, although certain areas display features of semi-urban areas (Gbadegesin and Olorunfemi, 2012). Oyo West and Oyo East LGAs are representative of the remaining 22 LGAs. The total land area of Oyo West and Oyo East is 526 km 2 and 144 km 2 , respective- ly. Their coordinates are 7°56’29.65”N 3°49’18.48”E and 7°52’43.61”N 4°01’16.75”E, respectively. There are 10 and 9 political wards in the Oyo West and Oyo East LGAs, respectively. According to the latest Nige- rian census of 2006, the population of Oyo West and Oyo East LGAs was 136,236 and 123,846, respectively (National Population Commission, s.a.). Farming is the dominant occupation of the residents of the study area. The research employed a cross-sectional survey de- sign, targeting crop farmers in the study area, provid- ing a snapshot of the prevailing conditions at a specific point in time. 2.2 Sampling procedure 2.2 Vzorčenje The Oyo West and Oyo East Local Government Ar- eas (LGAs) of Oyo State, southwestern Nigeria, were purposely selected in the initial phase of sampling. The population of Oyo West and Oyo East (136,236 + 123,846 = 260,082) was projected to estimate the 2021 population of the study area using the following equation: Fig. 1: Conceptual framework of the study Slika 1: Konceptualni okvir raziskave 42 Ibr ahim F . M., Adeo y e A. S., Ajanak u A. O ., Ugege B. H., Ode y al e O . C., Ola y emi O . O ., Ok e O . O .: Understand ing c ommi tment ... Where P is the final population, P 0 is the initial pop- ulation, e is the exponential function, r is the growth rate, and t is the time interval (15 years). The projected 2021 population was 384,136. This figure was consid- ered the total population (N) since farming is the prin- cipal occupation in the study area, and there was no available population-level statistics regarding people’s occupation in the study area. N was used to calculate the required sample size using a modified version of the Cochran formula as follows: Where n is the required sample size, N is the popu- lation = 384,136, p is the assumed proportion of the population exhibiting the sentiment of interest (50% = 0.5), q is 1–p, z is obtained from the 95% confidence level the on z table (1.96), and e is the precision level (i.e., the margin of error) set at 5% or 0.05. The re- quired sample size was initially determined to be 384, but this was increased to 400. Four wards were ran- domly selected from each of the chosen LGAs. In Oyo West, Iseke, Isokun, Ajokidero, and Fasola/Soku were selected. In Oyo East, Alaodi/Modeke, Oke Apo, Ajagba, and Apaara were randomly selected. Villages and com- munities within these wards were identified, and two villages/communities were selected from each ward. Hence, in Oyo West, Obanoko, Oloya, Apogidan, Ogun- da, Soku, Ejemu, Orowole, and Fasola were selected. In Oyo East, Jakan, Ogbagba, Imeleke, Obede, Ago-ana, Onsa, Gudugbu-orile, and Abu were selected. Data col- lection took place in the 16 villages/communities. The help of farmer associations was sought in the random selection of respondents. Lists of members were ob- tained and used as sampling frames. The systematic random sampling principle informed the sampling in- tervals (k) for selecting respondents. In a few instances where prospective respondents were unavailable, they were replaced with willing but unselected respon- dents. In each of the 16 communities, 25 copies of the questionnaire for the study were administered. 2.3 Means of data collection – variables and measures 2.3 Zbiranje podatkov – spremenljivke in meri- tve The questionnaire was used to collect data and was administered to respondents via a structured inter- view. A version of the questionnaire in the Yorùbá lan- guage was developed to facilitate communication with respondents who did not speak English. The response rate was 100% when data collection took place in Au- gust/September 2021. Attitude towards forest loss was operationally defined as a respondent’s assessment of the favourability or unfavorability of reduction in for- est cover. It was measured with an author-developed Fig. 2: Map showing the study areas Slika 2: Karta območij raziskav Acta Sil va e et Ligni 132 (2023), 39–51 43 list of 6 statements linked to a Likert scale with pos- sible responses “strongly agree” (4), “agree” (3), “dis- agree” (2), and “strongly disagree” (1), resulting in a possible total score for all statements ranging from 6 to 24. A higher score indicated a more pro-forest con- servation attitude towards forest loss. The scale was found to be reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha score of 0.901. The perceived benefit of agroforestry is a re- spondent’s evaluation of the advantages of engaging in agroforestry. It was assessed with an author-devel- oped list of 13 statements, and response categories in- cluded “strongly agree” (4), “agree” (3), “disagree” (2), and “strongly disagree” (1). The total score could range from 13 to 52, with a higher score indicating a more advantageous perception of the benefits of agroforest- ry. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.735. Commitment to agro- forestry is the extent to which farmers are dedicated to the practice of agroforestry. This commitment was measured using an author-developed list of 8 state- ments. Response categories also included “strongly agree” (4), “agree” (3), “disagree” (2), and “strongly disagree” (1). Respondents could score from 8 to 32, with a higher score indicating a stronger commitment to agroforestry. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.884. See Table 2 for all author-developed statements. 2.4 Data analysis 2.4 Analiza podatkov The distributions of the socio-demographic charac- teristics of the respondents were assessed by means of descriptive statistics (absolute and relative frequen- cies). The summary of items in the scales of attitude towards forest loss, perceived benefits of agroforestry, and commitment to agroforestry were examined by calculating means and standard deviations. Univari- ate analyses of variables were conducted by using the mean of data to categorize respondents into two groups. Those who scored below the mean were con- sidered to have a weak attitude, weak perception, and low commitment. Conversely, those who scored at or above the mean were considered to have a strong at- titude, strong perceived benefit, and high commitment. The Kolmogorov Smirnov test was used to assess the normality of distributions of variables, and the results indicated that the distributions were normal (p > 0.05). The independent samples t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to examine the significance of the difference in respondents’ commitment to agroforestry across sub-groups of gender and age/education, respectively. Levene’s test was used for examining the homogene- ity of variance across sub-groups of gender, age, and education. A post-hoc multiple comparison test (Tukey HSD) was used to identify homogenous means. A lin- earity test was conducted, and its output determined whether Eta and eta 2 or R and R 2 were used to exam- ine effect size. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to examine the relationship between pairs of at- titudes towards forest loss, perceived benefits of agro- forestry, and commitment to agroforestry. The Statisti- cal Package for Social Sciences (version 24) (SPSS) was used for data analyses. 3 RESUL TS 3 REZUL T ATI 3.1 Socio-demographic characteristics of re- spondents 3.1 Socio-demografske lastnosti anketirancev Male and female respondents constituted 77% and 23% of the sample, respectively. The age distribution of respondents closely resembles a normal distribu- tion. The highest proportion of respondents (34.5%) fell within the age range of 36 to 45 years, indicat- ing that farmers in the study area are predominately middle-aged individuals. The mean age of respondents was 43.1, ranging from 16 to 80 years. The distribu- tion of the highest educational qualification shows that about one in every three (33.8%) respondents had no formal education. Furthermore, respondents who completed primary (27.0%) and secondary school (23.8%) comprised the second and third highest pro- portions, respectively. Higher education is rather un- common among the respondents: those who had post- secondary education (8.5%), a first degree (4%), or a postgraduate degree (3%) were rather marginally rep- resented in the sample. There is a limitation of formal educational achievement among respondents in the study area. The distribution of the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents is shown in Table 1. 3.2 Analyses of items 3.2 Analiza trditev Table 2 presents the means and additional statis- tics for the items in the assessment scales. Respon- dents expressed strong agreement with the six items on the scale of attitude towards forest loss, with mean scores ranging from 3.65 to 3.79. These means gener- ally signify a high level of negative (pro-forest conser- vation) attitude towards forest loss. On the perceived benefits scale, items affirming that agroforestry “alle- viates climate change” (mean = 3.81) and “enhances rural dwellers’ quality of life” (mean = 3.77) received the highest level of agreement. Respondents also showed significant agreement with the positions that agroforestry “enables income diversification” (mean = 44 Ibr ahim F . M., Adeo y e A. S., Ajanak u A. O ., Ugege B. H., Ode y al e O . C., Ola y emi O . O ., Ok e O . O .: Understand ing c ommi tment ... 3.67), “increases total farm income” (mean = 3.66), and “protects the environment” (mean = 3.62), all of which were comparably high. The means of the scores for the premise that agroforestry “increases soil quality” and “enhances the diversity of agricultural products” (3.46) were also similar and relatively high. Respon- dents’ assessment of agroforestry’s ability to “provide recreational opportunities” (mean = 3.30), “enhance the scenic beauty of the environment” (mean = 3.31), and “maximize the use of agricultural lands” (mean = 3.33) was also quite high and very similar. However, their evaluation of agroforestry’s potential to “increase resilience against pests” (mean = 2.48), “reduce the overall use of chemicals” (mean = 2.20), and “reduce farm odours” (mean = 2.19) was less favourable. These means serve as proxy indicators of the areas in which farmers have the least confidence in agroforestry. When assessing the commitment to agroforestry scale, respondents’ evaluations of the eight items were very similar, with mean scores ranging from 3.41 to 3.58. These means strongly suggest a high level of dedica- tion to agroforestry among farmers in the study area. 3.3 Analyses of the attitude towards forest loss, perceived benefits of agroforestry, and com- mitment to agroforestry 3.3 Analiza odnosa do izgube gozda, koristi kmetijsko-gozdarskih sistemov in zavezano- sti kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam The mean ±SD for attitude towards forest loss is 22.2±2.2 (min = 18, max = 24). This mean score is close to the maximum score, indicating that respondents, on average, obtained high scores on the attitude scale. As depicted in Fig. 3a, 69% (276) of respondents strongly agreed with the negative aspects of forest loss, dem- onstrating a “strong” pro-forest conservation attitude. Notably, 124 respondents (31%) held a “weak” attitude, which represents a noticeable deviation from the pre- vailing pro-forest conservation attitude towards forest loss in the study area. The mean ±SD for the perceived benefits of agroforestry is 42.3±4.0 (min = 33, max = 52), reflecting a relatively high mean score. Fig. 3 also illustrates that 227 (56.8%) respondents had a “strong” perception of the benefits of agroforestry, while 173 (43.3%) had a “weak” perception. Hence, about 6 of ev- ery 10 respondents in the study area held robust per- ceptions of the benefits of agroforestry. The mean ±SD of commitment to agroforestry is 27.8±3.3 (min = 21, max = 32). This level of commitment is also quite high, with 231 (57.8%) respondents exhibiting a “high” com- mitment to agroforestry. Meanwhile, 169 (42.3%) dem- onstrated “low” commitment. Commitment to agrofor- estry is palpable in the study area, with nearly 6 of every 10 respondents displaying a high level of commitment. 3.4 Effects of gender, age, and education on com- mitment to agroforestry 3.4 Vpliv spola, starosti in izobrazbe na zaveza- nost kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam The summary of results from the bivariate analyses of socio-demographic characteristics and commitment to agroforestry is presented in Table 3. Men displayed a stronger commitment (mean = 28.1) compared to their female counterparts (mean = 27.1). This difference in Socio-demographic characteristics Sub-groups Frequency Percentage Gender Male 308 77.0 Female 92 23.0 Age* 16-25 34 8.5 26-35 81 20.2 36-45 138 34.5 46-55 87 21.7 56-65 41 10.3 66-above 19 4.8 Education No formal education 135 33.7 Primary education 108 27.0 Secondary education 95 23.8 Post-secondary education 34 8.5 Bachelor’s degree 16 4.0 Postgraduate education 12 3.0 *The mean ±SD of age was 43.13 ± 12.95, minimum = 16, maximum = 80. Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents (N = 400) Preglednica 1: Socio-demografske lastnosti anketirancev (N=400) Acta Sil va e et Ligni 132 (2023), 39–51 45 mean scores was significant (p < 0.05), and there was homogeneity of variance between gender sub-groups (p > 0.05). Eta was 0.126, and eta 2 was 0.016. Hence, gender explains only 1.6% of the variance in commit- ment to agroforestry. The degree of commitment to agroforestry initially appeared to increase with age, but there are limita- tions to this trend: commitment was lowest among respondents aged between 16 and 25 (mean = 25.9), while it was very high and comparable among those aged between 26 and 35 (mean = 28.0), 46 and 55 (mean = 28.3), and 56 and 65 (mean = 28.5). The ANOVA revealed that means across sub-groups of age were significantly different (p < 0.05). Levene’s test confirmed the validity of this significant difference by indicating homogeneity of variance across age sub- groups (p > 0.05). The result of the posthoc multiple comparison test shows that the 16-25 y. sub-group is significantly different from the 26-35 y. sub-group (p = 0.001), the 36-45 y. sub-group (p = 0.002), the 46-55 y. sub-group (p = 0.000), the 56-65 y. sub-group (p = 0.001), but not the 66-above y. subgroup (p = 0.274). This implies that the manifestation of commitment to agroforestry across age sub-groups resembles an inverted U distribution that is low at the extremes of age sub-groups and high for the age sub-groups in be- tween. The effect of age on commitment deviated from linearity (F = 3.454, p = 0.009). Eta is 0.208, while eta 2 is 0.043. Hence, 4.3% of the variance in commitment is explained by age. Table 2: Descriptive statistics of respondents’ level of agree- ment with statements on forest loss, benefits of agroforestry, commitment to agroforestry, and reliability indicators Preglednica 2: Opisna statistika ravni strinjanja anketi- rancev s trditvami o krčitvah gozda, koristih kmetijsko- gozdarskih sistemov, zavezanosti kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam, ter ocen zanesljivosti statistik Attitude Towards Forest Loss Mean ±SD Min Max Cronbach’s alpha Human progress is hampered when forests are lost 3.70±0.46 3 4 0.901 Losing forests is catastrophic for the human race 3.65±0.48 3 4 Losing forests endangers human health 3.70±0.46 3 4 Future generations will suffer if we continue to lose our forests 3.69±0.46 3 4 Losing forests is one of the worst things that can happen to our environment 3.71±0.45 3 4 A society that loses its forests loses its treasure 3.79±0.43 1 4 Perceived Benefits of Agroforestry (The planting of trees along with crops) Increases soil quality 3.46±0.50 3 4 0.735 Enhances diversity of agricultural products 3.46±0.50 3 4 Increases resilience against pests 2.48±0.98 1 4 Alleviates climate change 3.81±0.40 2 4 Protects the environment 3.62±0.51 1 4 Reduces farm odours 2.19±0.91 1 4 Reduces the overall use of chemicals 2.20±0.95 1 4 Enhances the scenic beauty of the environment 3.31±0.53 2 4 Maximizes the use of agricultural lands 3.33±0.63 2 4 Provides recreational opportunities 3.30±0.55 2 4 Enhances rural dwellers’ quality of life 3.77±0.42 3 4 Increases total farm income 3.66±0.47 3 4 Enables income diversification 3.67±0.74 3 4 Commitment to Agroforestry I would be very happy to spend the rest of my farming career planting trees along with crops 3.58±0.62 2 4 0.884 I enjoy discussing the planting of trees along with crops with people who are not even farmers 3.45±0.51 2 4 I feel as if the problems that are usually encountered in the planting of trees along with crops are my own 3.44±0.66 2 4 I wish many more farmers would plant trees along with crops 3.41±0.50 3 4 Planting trees along with crops has a great deal of personal meaning for me 3.47±0.59 2 4 I could take a loan to ensure the success of planting trees along with crops 3.47±0.51 2 4 It is important for farmers to prioritize the planting of trees along with crops 3.49±0.51 2 4 I take a lot of pride in the planting of trees along with crops 3.54±0.50 3 4 46 Ibr ahim F . M., Adeo y e A. S., Ajanak u A. O ., Ugege B. H., Ode y al e O . C., Ola y emi O . O ., Ok e O . O .: Understand ing c ommi tment ... The extent of commitment to agroforestry among respondents who had no formal education (mean = 28.2), primary education (mean = 28.0), and second- ary education (mean = 28.3) is high and very similar. The mean commitment score among respondents who held a bachelor’s degree was 26.4. Respondents who held post-secondary education (mean = 25.9) and a postgraduate degree (mean = 25.8) had the lowest commitment. Means across sub-groups of education were significantly different (p < 0.05), and homogene- ity across sub-groups of education was confirmed (p > 0.05). Hence, education has an effect on commitment to agroforestry. The separation of means revealed that the non-formal education sub-group is not significantly different from the primary (p = 0.648) and the second- ary (p = 0.839) sub-groups. However, the non-formal education sub-group is significantly different from the post-secondary (p = 0.000), first degree (p = 0.031), and postgraduate degree (p = 0.011) sub-groups. The effect of education on commitment was linear (F = 14.084, p = 0.000). R was -0.183 while R 2 was 0.034. These indicate an inverse relationship between educa- tion and commitment to agroforestry, and 3.4% of the variance in commitment is explained by education. Fig. 3: Dimensions of attitude towards forest loss (a), per- ceived benefits of agroforestry (b), and commitment to agro- forestry (c) Slika 3: Razpon odnosa do izgube gozda (a), zaznanih koristi kmetijsko-gozdarskih sistemov (b), in zavezanosti kmeti- jsko-gozdarskim praksam (c) Acta Sil va e et Ligni 132 (2023), 39–51 47 3.5 Relationship between attitude towards fo- rest loss, perceived benefits of agroforestry, and commitment to agroforestry 3.5 Odvisnosti med odnosom do izgube gozda, koristmi kmetijsko-gozdarskih sistemov in zavezanosti kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam The result of the bivariate correlation in Table 4 shows that the relationship between attitude towards forest loss and commitment to agroforestry is positive, very weak, and insignificant (r = 0.038, p > 0.05). In contrast, the relationship between the perceived ben- efits of agroforestry and commitment to agroforestry is positive, quite strong, and significant (r = 0.426, p < 0.05). The stronger the perceived benefits of agro- forestry, the stronger the commitment to agroforestry. Incidentally, there is a positive and insignificant rela- tionship between the attitude towards forest loss and the perceived benefits of agroforestry. 4 DISCUSSION 4 RAZPRAVA The generally high means observed in the item analysis of attitudes signify a pro-forest conservation attitude towards forest loss among the respondents. This is in line with the findings reported by Meijer et al. (2015: 59), who asserted that their respondents, a group of farmers in Malawi, “generally have negative attitudes towards cutting down trees from the for- est”. Meijer et al. (2015) further reported that their respondents generally believed that people in their communities disapproved of tree cutting. The indirect- ly relevant report of Ansong and Røskaft (2011) also showed that forestry stakeholders in Ghana generally held positive attitudes towards forest management. The current attitude towards forest loss indicates that pro-forest conservation is popular among respondents in the study area. This is likely related to the cultural importance of forests to the people of the study area. Ibrahim (2021: 497) asserted that “the forest is a clas- sical locale of traditional culture among many peoples, including the Yorùbá of southwestern Nigeria”. The generally strong perceived benefit of agroforestry in the current study is similar to the findings reported by Ruheza et al. (2012). They reported that 87% of their respondents in the Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania, be- lieved that agroforestry has various benefits. Elbakidze et al. (2021) similarly reported that 81% of their re- spondents selected agroforestry landscapes as their fa- vourite environments because of their belief that agro- forestry enhances the quality of life. Awazi and Avana- Tientcheu (2020) also reported that 100%, 98%, 86%, and 76% of their respondents, a group of farmers in Cameroon, believed that agroforestry was beneficial with regard to food, fuelwood, building materials, and shade, respectively. Krčmárová et al. (2021) also reported that 79%, 75%, 58%, and 36% of a group of Czech farmers anticipated that agroforestry enhances environmental beauty, reduces erosion, improves the Socio- demographic variables Sub-groups Mean±SD Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances Independent samples t-test ANOVA Eta Eta 2 R R 2 Levene’s statistic p value t statistic p value F statistic p value Gender Male 28.1±3.3 0.664 0.416 2.54 0.012 - - 0.126 0.016 Female 27.1±3.1 Age 16-25 25.9±3.3 1.330 0.249 - - 3.549 0.004 0.208 0.043 26-35 28.0±3.3 36-45 27.9±3.3 46-55 28.3±3.2 56-65 28.5±3.0 66- above 26.9±2.6 Education Non-formal 28.2±3.3 1.330 0.250 - - 5.050 0.000 - - -0.183 0.034 Primary 28.0±3.2 Secondary 28.3±3.2 Post-secondary 25.9±2.7 Bachelor's 26.4±3.2 Postgraduate 25.8±2.1 Table 3: Effects of gender, age, and education on commit- ment to agroforestry through testing equality of means and assessment of effect sizes Preglednica 3: Vpliv spola, starosti in izobrazbe na zave- zanost kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam s testiranjem enako- sti srednjih vrednosti in oceno vpliva velikosti učinka 48 Ibr ahim F . M., Adeo y e A. S., Ajanak u A. O ., Ugege B. H., Ode y al e O . C., Ola y emi O . O ., Ok e O . O .: Understand ing c ommi tment ... microclimate, and helps diversify income, respectively. The current study and these findings generally sup- port the idea that farmers perceive agroforestry as beneficial, which can be leveraged in interventions to promote its adoption. Item analysis also strongly indicates a high level of dedication to agroforestry among farmers in the study area. While studies ad- dressing farmers’ commitment to agroforestry appear to be scarce, related findings support the high level of commitment reported in the current study. Meijer et al. (2015) reported that a group of Malawian farmers generally maintained a positive attitude towards tree planting. Islam et al. (2021) also reported that 76.25% and 68.7% of their respondents, a group of farmers in the Coastal Belt of Sundarbans, Bangladesh, affirmed that they liked agroforestry and held a favourable at- titude towards it, respectively. However, Olagunju et al. (2020) reported that only 41% of their respondents, a group of farmers in Kaduna state, northern Nigeria, held favourable attitudes towards agroforestry. Borre- mans et al. (2016) also reported that only 55% of the farmers they studied in Flanders, the northern region of Belgium, were familiar with agroforestry. Borre- mans et al. (2016) further reported that the attitude of respondents towards agroforestry was poor (mean = 2.95, minimum = 1, maximum = 7). The current find- ings support the notion that farmers are generally dedicated to agroforestry, which is encouraging for the widespread adoption of agroforestry in the study area. Gender has a significant effect on commitment to agroforestry, with men showing stronger commitment compared to women. This discrepancy may reflect so- cio-cultural structures that typically favour men over women in decision-making related to agroforestry. For example, a study on gender and power dynam- ics in farming households conducted by Kalanzi et al. (2020) in the eastern highlands of Uganda indicates that men typically wield more power in agroforestry- related decision-making compared with their female counterparts. The strong manifestation of commit- ment to agroforestry among middle-aged respondents suggests that middle-aged farmers are significantly more predisposed to engage in agroforestry. Middle- aged farmers appear to be a valuable resource for agroforestry expansion in the study area. Commit- ment to agroforestry is significantly high among farm- ers with no or poor education, while it is significantly lower among farmers with post-secondary education or higher. This is somewhat counter-intuitive since education typically predisposes individuals too hold and exhibit responsible positions. Further research is needed to better understand this relationship between education and commitment. The lack of correlation between attitude towards forest loss and the extent of a farmer’s commitment to agroforestry is contrary to expectations. While related findings are seemingly limited, indirectly relevant find- ings support this result. Borremans et al. (2016) re- ported that the farmers they studied in Flanders were quite confident about the positive effects of agrofor- estry, but believed that adopting and maintaining agro- forestry would be difficult. Another indirectly relevant finding suggests that the expectation that attitude to- wards forest loss would be significant for commitment to agroforestry might not hold. Rahman et al. (2017) questioned whether the adoption of agroforestry re- duces pressure on forests by comparing the liveli- hood activities of swidden agriculture practitioners and agroforestry practitioners. Swidden agriculture, also known as slash-and-burn farming or shifting cul- tivation, is associated with high rates of deforestation and forest degradation and is therefore unsustainable. Rahman et al. (2017) reported that among the farm- ers they studied in west Java, Indonesia, those practic- ing swidden agriculture and agroforestry cleared 0.29 hectares and 0.09 hectares of forest area, respectively, Attitude towards forest loss Perceived benefits of agroforestry Commitment to agrofo- restry Attitude towards forest loss R 1 0.033 0.038 p value - 0.505 0.450 Perceived benefits of agroforestry R 0.033 1 0.426* p value 0.505 - 0.000 Commitment to agroforestry R 0.038 0.426* 1 p value 0.450 0.000 - *Significant correlation Table 4: Relationship between (pairs of) attitude towards forest loss, perceived benefits of agroforestry, and commit- ment to agroforestry Preglednica 4: Odvisnosti med (pari) odnosov do izgube gozda, zaznanimi koristmi kmetijsko-gozdarskih sistemov in zavezanostjo kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam Acta Sil va e et Ligni 132 (2023), 39–51 49 in the five years before their study. The former group also collected 33 kg of firewood from the forest, while the latter collected only 5.65 kg in the month before the study. The findings of Rahman et al. (2017) sug- gest that practicing agroforestry resulted in a reduced extent of forest-degrading behaviour. Overall, the cur- rent findings suggest that the relationship between forest conservation/forest loss and agroforestry is not well-understood in the study area. However, they also indicate that the stronger the perceived benefits of agroforestry, the stronger the commitment to agrofor- estry. A related report supports this finding, as Meijer et al. (2015) reported that the attitude of a cohort of Malawian farmers towards agroforestry was generally positive and that this attitude significantly influenced tree planting. 5 CONCLUSIONS 5 ZAKLJUČKI Gender, age, and education are significant socio- demographic variables influencing farmers’ commit- ment to agroforestry. Women, younger and older indi- viduals, and highly educated farmers tend to exhibit a significantly lower commitment to agroforestry. While attitude towards forest loss does not significantly im- pact commitment to agroforestry, the perceived ben- efits of agroforestry are associated with an increased commitment to agroforestry among the farmers in the study area. This study supports the expectation that farmers are more likely to commit to agroforestry depending on the extent to which they recognize the benefits it offers. Therefore, emphasizing these bene- fits when promoting the widespread adoption of agro- forestry is crucial. On the other hand, the expectation that farmers’ commitment to agroforestry would align with their pro-forest conservation attitudes to forest loss is not supported by this study. There is a lack of a strong ecological or forest restoration motivation for agroforestry in the study area. Hence, environmental interventions should highlight the importance of agro- forestry in restoring lost forests as a motivating factor for its adoption. 6 SUMMARY 6 POVZETEK Človeštvo se spoprijema s potrebo po iskanju ravnovesja med proizvodnjo hrane in ohranjanjem biotske pestrosti gozdov v prizadevanju, da bi se za- gotovila okoljska trajnost. To se lahko giba med pris- topom »varovanja površin« do pristopov »delitve zemljišč«, kot dvema skrajnima možnostma. Prvi temelji na tehnologijah za spodbujanje visoko donos- nega kmetijstva, da se preostala zemljišča prihranijo v prahi. Nasprotno pa so kmetijsko-gozdarski sistemi pristop k delitvi zemljišč, saj se pri rabi zemljišč pred- videva združevanje proizvodnje in varstva. Kmetijsko- gozdarski sistemi zajemajo hkratno pridelavo poljščin oziroma živinoreje ter gojenje dreves/grmovnic. So strateško pomembni pri usklajevanju pridelave hrane z ohranjanjem biotske pestrosti gozdov. Treba je metodično raziskati vidike koristi in ekološke nujnosti, kar je lahko podlaga za ozaveščanje malih kmetov, ki se zavežejo kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam. Ta razis- kava je zato poskus analize relativnega pomena odnosa kmetov do izgube gozdov in do koristi kmetijsko-goz- darskih praks v kontekstu zavezanosti kmetov kmeti- jsko-gozdarskim sistemom v skupini kmetov v državi Oyo na jugozahodu Nigerije. Ta študija je presečna raziskava, ki temelji na in- tervjujih s strukturiranimi vprašalniki med 400 polje- delci, ki so bili izbrani v lokalnih upravnih območjih (LGA) Oyo West in Oyo East v državi Oyo na jugoza- hodu Nigerije. Stopnje strinjanja z različnimi trditvami so ključen vhodni podatek za analizo. Za testiranje ra- zlik zavezanosti kmetijsko-gozdarskim sistemom med različnimi skupinami anketirancev sta bila uporablje- na t-test za neodvisne vzorce in enosmerna ANOVA. Pearsonov korelacijski koeficient je bil uporabljen za preučevanje razmerja med spremenljivkami. Rezultati kažejo, da je 57,8 % vprašanih poka- zalo »visoko« zavezanost kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam. Moški so bolj zavezani (povprečje = 28,1) v primerjavi z ženskami (povprečje = 27,1). Zave- zanost je bila najnižja med anketiranci, starimi od 16 do 25 let (povprečje = 25,9), vendar je bila zelo vi- soka in primerljiva med tistimi, starimi od 26 do 35 let (povprečje = 28,0), od 46 do 55 let (povprečje = 28,3) in od 56 do 55 let (povprečje = 28,5). Stopnja zavezanosti kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam med an- ketiranci brez formalne izobrazbe (povprečje = 28,2), z osnovnošolsko (povprečje = 28,0) in srednješolsko izobrazbo (povprečje = 28,3) je visoka in zelo podobna. Povprečna stopnja zavezanosti med anketiranci, ki so imeli dodiplomsko izobrazbo, je bila 26,4. Anketiranci, ki so imeli višješolsko izobrazbo (povprečje = 25,9) in podiplomsko izobrazbo (povprečje = 25,8), so imeli najnižjo stopnjo zavezanosti. Spol, starost in izobrazba so imeli vpliv na zavezanost (p < 0,05). Med odnosom do izgube gozdov in zavezanostjo kmetijsko-gozdars- kim praksam ni pomembne povezave (r = 0,038, p > 0,05), kar pa ne velja za zaznane koristi (r = 0,426, p < 0,05). To, da so moški, srednjih let in slabo izobraženi, bistveno določa manjšo zavezanost kmetijsko-gozdar- skim praksam. 50 Ibr ahim F . M., Adeo y e A. S., Ajanak u A. O ., Ugege B. H., Ode y al e O . C., Ola y emi O . O ., Ok e O . O .: Understand ing c ommi tment ... Spol, starost in izobrazba so pomembne socialno- demografske spremenljivke pri zavezanosti kmetov kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam: ženske, najmlajši in najstarejši ter visoko izobraženi kmetje so bistveno manj zavezani kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam. Mo- tivacije za kmetijsko-gozdarske sisteme skorajda ni v ekološkem kontekstu ali v smislu obnove gozdov. Zdi se, da je povezava med ohranjanjem / izgubo gozdov in kmetijsko-gozdarskimi sistemi v obravnavanem območju slabo razumljena. Ekološko smotrne kmeti- jske prakse ali obnovitvena vloga kmetijsko-goz- darskih sistemov med kmeti pa so na preučevanem območju slabo uveljavljene. Na drugi strani zaznane koristi kmetijsko-gozdarskih praks med kmeti pozi- tivno vplivajo na zavezanost kmetijsko-gozdarskim praksam. Na podlagi zaznanih koristi kmetijsko-goz- darskih praks, lahko predvidevamo zavezanost kmetov tem praksam. Poudarjanje teh koristi pri spodbujanju širšega uresničevanja kmetijsko-gozdarskih sistemov je zato zelo ključno. REFERENCES VIRI Ansong M., Røskaft E. 2011. Determinants of attitudes of primary stakeholders towards forest conservation management: a case study of Subri Forest Reserve, Ghana. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 7, 2: 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2011.613411 Austin K.F. 2021. Degradation and disease: ecologically unequal exchanges cultivate emerging pandemics. World Development, 137, 105163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105163 Awazi N.P ., Avana-Tientcheu M.L. 2020. Agroforestry as a sustainable means to farmer–grazier conflict mitigation in Cameroon. Agro- forestry Systems, 94, 6: 2147–2165. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10457-020-00537-y Borremans L., Reubens B., Van Gils B., Baeyens D., Vandevelde C., Wauters E. 2016. A sociopsychological analysis of agroforestry adoption in Flanders: understanding the discrepancy between conceptual opportunities and actual implementation. Agroeco- logy and Sustainable Food Systems, 40, 9: 1008–1036. https:// doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2016.1204643 Brancalion P .H., Broadbent E.N., De-Miguel S., Cardil A., Rosa M.R., Almeida C.T ., ... Almeyda-Zambrano A.M. 2020. Emerging threats linking tropical deforestation and the COVID-19 pandemic. Per- spectives in Ecology and Conservation, 18, 4: 243–246. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2020.09.006 Brock P .M., Fornace K.M., Grigg M.J., Anstey N.M., William T ., Cox J., ... Kao R.R. 2019. Predictive analysis across spatial scales links zoonotic malaria to deforestation. Proceedings of the Ro- yal Society B, 286, 1894, 20182351. https://doi.org/10.1098/ rspb.2018.2351 Cardinael R., Umulisa V., Toudert A., Olivier A., Bockel L., Bernoux M. 2018. Revisiting IPCC Tier 1 coefficients for soil organic and bio- mass carbon storage in agroforestry systems. Environmental Re- search Letters, 13, 12, 124020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/aaeb5f Chapman M., Walker W.S., Cook-Patton S.C., Ellis P .W., Farina M., Gri- scom B.W., Baccini A. 2020. Large climate mitigation potential from adding trees to agricultural lands. Global Change Biology, 26, 8: 4357–4365. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15121 Chaudhary A., Pfister S., Hellweg S. 2016. Spatially explicit analysis of biodiversity loss due to global agriculture, pasture and forest land use from a producer and consumerperspective. Enviro- nmental science & technology, 50, 7: 3928-3936. https://doi. org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06153 Dudley N., Alexander S. 2017. Agriculture and biodiversity: a review. Biodiversity, 18, 2-3: 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/1488838 6.2017.1351892 Duguma L.A., Minang P .A., Kimaro A.A., Otsyina R., Mpanda M. 2019. Shinyanga: Blending old and new agroforestry to integrate deve- lopment, climate change mitigation and adaptation in Tanzania. In: Van Noordwijk M. (Ed.). Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade. Bogor, World Agroforestry (ICRAF): 139–151. Elbakidze M., Surová D., Muñoz-Rojas J., Persson J.O., Dawson L., Pli- eninger T ., Pinto-Correia T . 2021. Perceived benefits from agro- forestry landscapes across North-Eastern Europe: what matters and for whom? Landscape and Urban Planning, 209, 104044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104044 Ellwanger J.H., Kulmann-Leal B., Kaminski V.L., Valverde-Villegas J., Veiga A.B.G., Spilki F.R., ... Chies J.A. B. 2020. Beyond diversity loss and climate change: Impacts of Amazon deforestation on infec- tious diseases and public health. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 92, 01.https://doi.org/10.1590/00013765202020 191375 Erisman J.W., Eekeren N.V., Wit J.D., Koopmans C., Cuijpers W., Oer- lemans N., Koks B.J. 2016. Agriculture and biodiversity: a better balance benefits both. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 1, 2: 15–-174. https://hdl.handle.net/1887/3209879 The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and pe- ople. 2020. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization and Uni- ted Nations Environment Programme (FAO and UNEP . 2020). https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8642en Fraser E.D., Campbell M. 2019. Agriculture 5.0: reconciling producti- on with planetary health. One Earth, 1, 3: 278–280. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.022 Gbadegesin N., Olorunfemi F. 2012. Assessment of rural water supply management in selected rural areas of Oyo state, Nigeria. (ATPS Working Paper Series No. 49). Nairobi, African Technology Stu- dies Network. Gonçalves C.D.B.Q., Schlindwein M.M., Martinelli G.D.C. 2021. Agrofo- restry systems: a systematic review focusing on traditional indi- genous practices, food and nutrition security, economic viability, and the role of women. Sustainability, 13, 20, 11397. https://doi. org/10.3390/su132011397 Guégan J.F., Ayouba A., Cappelle J., De Thoisy B. 2020. Forests and emerging infectious diseases: unleashing the beast within. Environmental Research Letters, 15, 8, 083007. https://doi. org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8dd7 Ibrahim F.M., Osikabor B., Olatunji B.T ., Ogunwale G.O., Aluko O.J. 2021. Forest in the context of social change: traditional orienta- tion and forest mystification in a Nigerian forest-reserve setting. Changing Societies & Personalities. 5, 3: 496–520. https://doi. org/10.15826/csp.2021.5.3.147 Climate Change 2014: synthesis report: contribution of working Groups I, II and II to the Fifth assessment report of the inter- governmental panel on climate change. Geneva, IPCC. https:// archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/ (January 10, 2024). Islam M.A., Aktar L.A., Jubair S.R., Dey T ., Biswas R. 2021. Addressing farmer’s perceptions-attitudes and constraints to adopt agrofo- restry adjacent to the coastal belt of Sundarbans, Bangladesh. European Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 3, 4: 78–88. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejfood.2021.3.4.304 Acta Sil va e et Ligni 132 (2023), 39–51 51 Kalanzi F., Isubikalu P ., Kyazze F.B., Orikiriza L.J., Kiyingi I., Assefa H. 2020. Intra-household decision-making among smallholder agroforestry farmers in the eastern highlands of Uganda. Inter- national Journal of Agricultural Extension, 8, 2: 97–111. https:// doi.org/10.33687/ijae.008.02.325197 Krčmářová J., Kala L., Brendzová A., Chabada T . 2021. Building Agro- forestry Policy Bottom-Up: Knowledge of Czech Farmers on Trees in Farmland. Land, 10, 3, 278. https://doi.org/10.3390/ land10030278 Lanz B., Dietz S., Swanson T . 2018. The expansion of modern agri- culture and global biodiversity decline: an integrated asses- sment. Ecological Economics, 144: 260–277. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.018 Martinelli G.D.C., Schlindwein M.M., Padovan M.P ., Gimenes R.M.T . 2019. Decreasing uncertainties and reversing paradigms on the economic performance of agroforestry systems in Brazil. Land Use Policy, 80: 274–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landuse- pol.2018.09.019 Meijer S.S., Sileshi G.W., Catacutan D., Nieuwenhuis M. 2015. Farmers and forest conservation in Malawi: the disconnect between atti- tudes, intentions and behaviour. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 25, 1: 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2015.108788 7 Mori A.S., Lertzman K.P ., Gustafsson L. 2017. Biodiversity and eco- system services in forest ecosystems: a research agenda for applied forest ecology. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 1: 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12669 National Population Commission. www.nigerianstat.gov.ng. (June 9, 2012). Noordwijk M.V. 2020. Agroforestry as nexus of sustainable deve- lopment goals. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmen- tal Science, 449, 1, 012001. https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1755- 1315/449/1/012001 Ogbonnaya C., Abeykoon C., Damo U.M., Turan A. 2019. The current and emerging renewable energy technologies for power genera- tion in Nigeria: a review. Thermal Science and Engineering Pro- gress, 13, 100390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2019.100390 Olagunju O.E., Ariyo O.C., Emeghara U.U., Olagunju O.S., Olafemi S.O. 2020. Determinants of farmer's attitude to plant agroforestry trees in Kaduna State, Nigeria. Advances in Research, 21, 10: 155–166. https://doi.org/10.9734/AIR/2020/v21i1030262 Pandey D.N. 2007. Multifunctional agroforestry systems in India. Current Science, 92: 455–463. Pratiwi A., Suzuki A. 2019. Reducing agricultural income vulnerabili- ties through agroforestry training: evidence from a randomised field experiment in Indonesia. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 55, 1: 83–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/00074918.201 8.1530726. Quinion A., Chirwa P .W., Akinnifesi F.K., Ajayi O.C. 2010. Do agrofore- stry technologies improve the livelihoods of resource-poor far- mers? Evidence from Kasungu and Machinga districts of Malawi. Agroforestry Systems, 80, 3: 457–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10457-010-9318-7. Rahman S.A., Jacobsen J.B., Healey J.R., Roshetko J.M., Sunderland T . 2017. Finding alternatives to swidden agriculture: does agrofo- restry improve livelihood options and reduce pressure on exi- sting forest? Agroforestry Systems, 91, 1: 185–199. Rosenstock T .S., Dawson I.K., Aynekulu E., Chomba S., Degrande A., Fornace K., … Steward P . 2019a. A planetary health perspective on agroforestry in Sub-Saharan Africa. One Earth, 1, 3: 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.017 Rosenstock T .S., Wilkes A., Jallo C., Namoi N., Bulusu M., Suber M., ... Wollenberg E. 2019b. Making trees count: Measurement and re- porting of agroforestry in UNFCCC national communications of non-annex I countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 284, 106569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.106569 Ruheza S., Tryphone G.M., Mbwambo J.S., Khamis Z.K., Swella G., Mu- shobozy D.K. 2012. Studies on the influence of tree tenure on the adoption of agroforestry practices in Uluguru Mountains, Tan- zania. International research journal of agricultural science and soil science, 2, 5: 170–178. The Global Forest Goals Report 2021. 2021. United Nations Forum on Forests Secretariat. https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wp- content/uploads/2021/04/Global-Forest-Goals-Report-2021. pdf (December 4, 2021).