Comparative Financial Analysis of Agroforestry Land Uses: Cropland Agroforestry, Homestead Agroforestry and Annual Cropping in R,Used

Comparative Financial Analysis of Agroforestry Land Uses: Cropland Agroforestry, Homestead Agroforestry and Annual Cropping in R,Used

In Stock
SKU: DADAX3659354031
Brand: LAP Lambert Academic Publishing
$98.73 $141.04
Save $42.31
Quantity
Add to wishlist
Add to compare

Processing time: 1-3 days

US Orders Ships in: 3-5 days

International Orders Ships in: 8-12 days

Return Policy: 15-days return on defective items

Payment Option
Payment Methods

Help

If you have any questions, you are always welcome to contact us. We'll get back to you as soon as possible, withing 24 hours on weekdays.

Customer service

All questions about your order, return and delivery must be sent to our customer service team by e-mail at yourstore@yourdomain.com

Sale & Press

If you are interested in selling our products, need more information about our brand or wish to make a collaboration, please contact us at press@yourdomain.com

The primary objectives of the study was to assess the financial values of cropland agroforestry (CAF), homestead agroforestry (HAF) and annual cropping (AC) system at four upazilas/subdistricts (Bagha, Charghat, Puthia and Tanore) of Rajshahi district, Bangladesh. A facetoface interview of 150 smallholder agroforestry (AF) farmers was carried out in the study area. The results indicated that AF practices are financially profitable and viable. Puthia upazila stood the top position regarding the BCR (2.89), NPV (Tk. 392106) and IRR (11.20%) for AC system among the four upazilas. Banana (BCR=3.85) was the most financially profitable annual crop species. The BCR, NPV and IRR of CAF were 10.23, Tk. 1663671 and 16.65% respectively. Bagha was the most financially attractive place for the CAF. Mango was recorded the most planted species which was also (37%) the most financially benefited tree species in HAF. The profitability criterion of HAF was better than the other two systems. The overall average BCR, NPV and IRR of HAF were 12.89, Tk. 880305 and 36.16% respectively. CAF and HAF land use systems were getting popularity day by day at the study area.

⚠️ WARNING (California Proposition 65):

This product may contain chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.

For more information, please visit www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.

Recently Viewed