Show simple item record

Coupled forest zoning and agricultural intervention yields conflicting outcomes for tropical forest conservation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

dc.contributor.authorNackoney, J.
dc.contributor.authorDemol, M.
dc.contributor.authorAkpona, H.A.
dc.contributor.authorBauters, M.
dc.contributor.authorBoeckx, P.
dc.contributor.authorDupain, J.
dc.contributor.authorFacheux, C.
dc.contributor.authorHansen, M.C.
dc.contributor.authorKalemba, J.C.
dc.contributor.authorKehbila, A.G.
dc.contributor.authorPotapov, P.
dc.contributor.authorSenga, A.T.
dc.contributor.authorSix, J.
dc.contributor.authorTurubanova, S.
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, D.
dc.contributor.authorVanlauwe, B.
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-07T11:02:40Z
dc.date.available2022-06-07T11:02:40Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationNackoney, J., Demol, M., Akpona, H.A., Bauters, M., Boeckx, P., Dupain, J., ... & Vanlauwe, B. (2022). Coupled forest zoning and agricultural intervention yields conflicting outcomes for tropical forest conservation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Environmental Research Letters, 17(6), 1-11.
dc.identifier.issn1748-9326
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12478/7493
dc.description.abstractAgricultural intensification and forest conservation are often seen as incompatible. Agricultural interventions can help boost food security for poor rural communities but in certain cases can exacerbate deforestation, known as the rebound effect. We tested whether coupling agricultural interventions with participatory forest zoning could improve food security and promote forest conservation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Simple agricultural interventions led to a >60% increase in cassava yields and a spill-over effect of improved cassava variety uptake in non-intervention zones. Household surveys conducted at the end of the 8 year project implementation period revealed that households that received agricultural interventions had more favorable attitudes toward forest zoning and conservation. The surveys also showed that farmers in the intervention domain practiced less land-intensive field and fallow management strategies compared to those practiced in the non-intervention domain. However, an 18 year time series analysis of Landsat satellite data revealed that agricultural expansion persisted in areas both with and without intervention assistance, and there is risk of a rebound effect. Approximately 70% of the tree cover loss that occurred outside of the agricultural areas was located within a 3 km buffer zone surrounding the outermost edges of the agricultural areas, which suggested that the majority of tree cover loss was caused by agricultural expansion. Within that 3 km buffer, average annual tree cover loss during the post-intervention period was higher in the intervention domain compared to the non-intervention domain (0.17% yr−1 compared to 0.11% yr−1 respectively, p < 0.001), suggesting risk of a rebound effect. The disconnection between household perceptions of zoning adherence and actual behavior indicates the importance of strengthening governance structures for community-based monitoring and enforcement.
dc.description.sponsorshipUnited States Agency for International Development
dc.format.extent1-11
dc.language.isoen
dc.subjectSustainable Development
dc.subjectForest Conservation
dc.subjectRemote Sensing
dc.subjectForest Monitoring and Assessment
dc.subjectAfrica
dc.subjectDemocratic Republic of the Congo
dc.titleCoupled forest zoning and agricultural intervention yields conflicting outcomes for tropical forest conservation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)
dc.typeJournal Article
cg.contributor.crpMaize
cg.contributor.crpRoots, Tubers and Bananas
cg.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Maryland
cg.contributor.affiliationGhent University
cg.contributor.affiliationAntwerp University
cg.contributor.affiliationAfrican Parks Network, South Africa
cg.contributor.affiliationAntwerp Zoo Foundation, Royal Zoological Society of Antwerp, Belgium
cg.contributor.affiliationAfrican Wildlife Foundation
cg.contributor.affiliationStockholm Environment Institute
cg.contributor.affiliationInternational Institute of Tropical Agriculture
cg.coverage.regionAfrica
cg.coverage.regionCentral Africa
cg.coverage.countryDemocratic Republic of the Congo
cg.coverage.hubCentral Africa Hub
cg.researchthemeNatural Resource Management
cg.identifier.bibtexciteidNACKONEY:2022
cg.isijournalISI Journal
cg.authorship.typesCGIAR and developing country institute
cg.iitasubjectAgronomy
cg.iitasubjectFood Security
cg.iitasubjectPlant Breeding
cg.iitasubjectPlant Production
cg.journalEnvironmental Research Letters
cg.notesOpen Access Journal; Published online: 13 May 2022; Pdf too heavy.
cg.accessibilitystatusOpen Access
cg.reviewstatusPeer Review
cg.usagerightslicenseCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 0.0)
cg.targetaudienceScientists
cg.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac6ad8
cg.iitaauthor.identifierbernard vanlauwe: 0000-0001-6016-6027
cg.futureupdate.requiredNo
cg.identifier.issue6
cg.identifier.volume17


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record