|
|
Abstract
C.M. Jolly, D. Shannon,
M. Bannister, G. Fleurantin, J. Lea, A. Bins and P. Lindo. 2007. Income efficiency of soil conservation
techniques in Haiti.
JEMREST 3:01-09
DOI: 10.4029/2007jemrest3no19
Environmental degradation
caused by serious erosion and indiscriminate land use is a serious
environmental problem in Haiti.
In 1999, the annual soil loss due to erosion was estimated at 36 million
metric tons. In 1999, the United States Agency for International Development
implemented a soil conservation project and millions of dollars were spent on
the encouragement of adoption of soil conservation measures; yet the problem
of soil degradation is still menacing food security in Haiti. Hence the need to evaluate
the impact of soil conservation in Haiti is important. A survey of
951 farmers who adopted soil conservation techniques in Haiti was conducted. The survey
participants were composed of 83.6% males and 16.2% females. About 53.3% were
illiterate and 42.9 and 4.0% received up to eight years schooling and primary
education, respectively. The age group range included 8.5% who were less than
30, 30.8% to 32.6% who were between 45
and 60, and 28.1% who were above 60 years old. The results showed that the
soil conservation techniques most commonly adopted by farmers were crop
bands, alley cropping, rock walls, and gully plugs. There was no significant
difference in income per ha for the soil conservation techniques of alley cropping, rock walls, and gully
plugs. The net income per ha for crop bands was superior to that of alley
cropping, rock walls, and gully plugs. All models had a good fit, as shown by
a relatively high adjusted R2 and a low mean square error. The model
results showed, in general, the number of plots, the elevation, the number of
trees greater than 10 cm in circumference, the evaluation of the soil by
farmers as fertile, and the number of crops unique to the soil conservation
technique positively influence the net revenue per ha. The average age of head-of-household
negatively influenced the net income per ha.
|
