Poverty and Environmental Degradation in Southern Burkina Faso: An Assessment Based on Participatory Methods

Daniel Etongo; Ida Nadia S. Djenontin; Markku Kanninen

doi:10.3390/land5030020

Etongo, Daniel;Djenontin, Ida Nadia S.;Kanninen, Markku

2016-06-24 00:00:00

land Article Poverty and Environmental Degradation in Southern Burkina Faso: An Assessment Based on Participatory Methods 1 , 2 1 , 3 Daniel Etongo *, Ida Nadia S. Djenontin and Markku Kanninen Viikki Tropical Resources Institute, Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Latokartanonkaari 7, P.O. Box 27, Helsinki 00014, Finland; markku.kanninen@helsinki.ﬁ or m.kanninen@cgiar.org West Africa Regional Ofﬁce (WARO), Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 06 P.O. Box 9478, Ouagadougou 06, Burkina Faso; I.Djenontin@cgiar.org Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor 16115, Indonesia * Correspondence: daniel.etongobau@helsinki.ﬁ; Tel.: +358-449-151-781; Fax: +358-919-158-100 Academic Editors: Claudia A. Radel and Jacqueline M. Vadjunec Received: 31 July 2015; Accepted: 4 June 2016; Published: 24 June 2016 Abstract: The poverty and environmental degradation vicious circle hypothesis considers the poor as agents and victims of environmentally degrading activities. Despite some studies, however, there still has not been a sufﬁcient empirical examination of the poverty-environment nexus. Based on participatory poverty assessment (PPA) methods with two hundred farm households categorized by wealth status in southern Burkina Faso, six indicators of environmental degradation and a set of land management practices were examined to answer the following questions: (i) Which households (non-poor, fairly-poor, or poorest) are responsible for environmental degradation? (ii) Does poverty constrain adoption of land management practices considered to improve the land? Results indicate deforestation is highest for non-poor farmers, and non-poor and fairly-poor farmers have higher rates of overgrazing. In addition, the entire non-poor group, mainly recent migrants to the area, occupy borrowed lands with tenure perceived as insecure, considered by farmers to be a disincentive for assisted natural regeneration of vegetation. Thus, non-poor and fairly-poor farmers participate most in activities locally identiﬁed as environmentally degrading, and the former contribute more than the latter. On the other hand, adoption of land management practices considered to improve the land is relatively low amongst the poorest farmers. Keywords: poverty; tenure security; deforestation; land management practices; Burkina Faso 1. Introduction Until the last decade, the concept of a vicious circle, fostered by the World Bank [1,2] and related international agencies [3], dominated the debate on poverty–environment linkages. This concept ﬁrst appeared in the Brundtland Report launched by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) [4]. According to this report, “Many parts of the world are caught in a vicious downward spiral: poor people are forced to overuse environmental resources to survive on a daily basis, and their impoverishment of their environment further impoverishes them, making their survival more uncertain and difﬁcult” ([4]; p. 27). Contrary to the assumptions of WCED, later studies [5–7] show that poverty–environment linkages do not conform to a simple downward-spiraling two-way relationship. According to these ﬁndings, existing social networks and institutions that govern access to natural resources mediate the relationships between poverty and environmental degradation and improvement. In addition, the popular portrayal of the vicious circle has treated poverty in uniform and generic ways and thereby caused the broader context behind this poverty to be Land 2016, 5, 20; doi:10.3390/land5030020 www.mdpi.com/journal/land Land 2016, 5, 20 2 of 23 under-represented. Given that the natural resource base constitutes an important source of income in rural developing countries, especially for the poorer groups in society, a better understanding of the poverty–environment relationship can lead to better policies that support the natural resource assets of the poor. Poverty itself is contextualized differently across academic disciplines and regions of the world [8]. It is now generally accepted that human poverty has many dimensions, and it is not just poverty of income or not having things necessary for material well-being. Human poverty also means the deprivation that people suffer throughout their lives which differs among nations. Furthermore, differences occur within developing countries when rural areas are compared to their urban counterparts. The result has been the emergence of different ways of approaching poverty–environmental linkages. On one hand, the state of the environment is increasingly a focus of development practitioners when determining the magnitude of poverty. On the other hand, a major concern for environmentalists is the role of poverty in resource degradation [9]. While the former focuses on the poor state of the environment as a factor in pushing rural households that are dependent on natural resources into poverty, the latter concerns itself with the poor as agents of environmental degradation [10]. Can the potential reinforcing interactions between environmental degradation and poverty provide explanations as to why this relationship is far from being linear? Additional empirical research is needed to further specify the relationship. In addition, the poverty–environment vicious circle hypothesis suggests that economic growth is needed to break the poverty-environment downward spiral. Economic growth policies are expected to reduce poverty while providing incentives for investment in the land [10]. However, a simple generalization of the relationship between poverty and environmental degradation is misleading [9]. This is because economic growth is not always inclusive of the poor and policy instruments often fail to address inequality. On the other hand, previous studies have limited environmental degradation to soil erosion and deforestation at the expense of attention being paid to other environmentally degrading activities such as overgrazing, use of pesticides, etc. [6]. Understanding the environmental entitlements or resource rights of farmers provides valuable information for understanding land-use decision making [11,12]. In Burkina Faso, approximately 70 percent of the population is rural and depends on farming and livestock for their livelihoods [13]. The rural population depends on the natural resource base and adopts different resource management strategies that can either improve or degrade the environment. The study reported here examines the role of different rural wealth groups in contributing to environmental degradation in four rural communities in southern Burkina Faso. Given that many farmers in the Sahel manage complex crop and livestock portfolios [8], expanding the focus to include other environmentally degrading activities aside from soil erosion and deforestation is invaluable for further understanding of the poverty–environment nexus in the Burkina Faso context. Previous Burkina Faso studies identify the cutting and selling of fuel wood [13,14], cotton cultivation [15], and the conversion of forests to croplands [16] as the main drivers of environmental degradation. However, studies on the relationship between individual wealth status and environmentally degrading activities are lacking. For the purposes of this study, environmental degradation is deﬁned as the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources such as air, water and soil, leading to the destruction of ecosystems and the extinction of wildlife [17]. This study focuses on the depletion and degradation of land and forest resources as examples of environmental degradation. In addition to the above cited activities, overgrazing resulting from livestock stocking densities that exceed the available fodder supply is also considered to be a cause of degradation of land and forest resources [18]. Agro-pastoral systems dominate in the Sahel, and livestock numbers have increased signiﬁcantly during the last 30 years in southwestern Burkina Faso [19]. Such increases inevitably lead to increases in rangeland and fodder demand that is likely to affect the management of natural resources and especially forests. Understanding the livelihood activities of farming households characterized by different Land 2016, 5, 20 3 of 23 economic means will provide insight into the natural resource management problems implicit in poverty–environment linkages. These problems are considered to be largely related to agriculture [20] and may be responsible for the depletion of both individual and common-pool resources. Southern Burkina Faso offers greater opportunities for rain-fed agriculture, fuel wood supply, forest and tree products, fodder supply, etc., compared to the country’s central and northern regions, which suffer from periodic drought. The favorable climate and soil conditions attract migrants and agribusiness investors in search of arable land. Increased demand for land has caused land scarcity [21] and resulted in higher competition among different land uses [22], which not only threatens environmental sustainability [16] but also causes deforestation [23,24]. Consequently, previous studies in Burkina Faso [16,23,24] focus on population–environment rather than poverty–environment interactions. Although these studies are important for assessing land degradation, they address only some of the potential causes. This study tests the poverty–environment relationship through the following questions: (i) When households are categorized based on poverty and wealth, which groups are more responsible for environmental degradation? (ii) Does poverty constrain the adoption of land management practices that are considered to improve the land? Understanding the relationship between poverty, wealth, and natural resource management activities leading to environmental degradation is important for prescribing policy measures to mitigate these problems. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Description of Study Area This paper is based on ﬁeld research conducted in four adjacent community forest villages: Cassou, Vrassan, Dao, and Kou, all in the Ziro province, southern Burkina Faso (Figure 1). These villages were chosen under the framework of the Building Biocarbon and Rural Development (BIODEV) project in West Africa. This project was ﬁnanced by Finland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs as an initiative to achieve developmental beneﬁts by building biological and natural carbon resources through improved agroforestry and forest management practices. This area lies within the South-Sudanian climate zone, with annual precipitation of 800–1000 mm. Rains consisting of short intense storms fall over a single wet season lasting for approximately four months from June to September [25]. During the hot season, the average daily temperature stands at 30 C, with peaks of 40 C as a result of hot dry air that blows from the Sahara Desert. The area is characterized by low relief and homogenous soil types including silt-clay cambisols, sandy lixisols, and loamy ferric luvisols [26]. The average population density in the Ziro province was estimated at 28 persons/km in 2006 [27], but this ﬁgure is increasing due to rural–rural in-migration [16]. The population consists of three main ethnic groups: Gourounsi (indigenous), Mossi (originating from the central plateau) and Fulani (originating from the north of Burkina Faso). The farming system is dominated by crops grown under a discontinuous cover of scattered trees that constitutes the so-called parklands. Parklands are considered to be agroforestry systems, but their biodiversity depends on the original vegetation cover, the number and type of trees and shrubs spared during conversion to farmland, the needs of farmers, etc. [20]. Subsistence production includes the cultivation of cereals (such as sorghum, sesame, maize and millet) and tubers (yam and sweet potatoes) and animal husbandry. In addition to the above, a more complex and lucrative production system exists that involves the extraction of fuel wood and non-timber forest products, the cultivation of cash crops (cotton and fruit-tree plantations) and ranching [20]. The natural ﬂora is dominated by perennial grasses such as Andropogon gayanus Kunth, A. ascinodis C.B. Clarke, and Schizachyrium sanguineum (Retz.) Alston [28]. Tree species commonly found in the parklands include Vitellaria paradoxa C. F. Gaertn, Parkia biglobosa (Jacq.) R. Br. ex G. Don., and Tamarindus indica L., amongst others. Forests in the study villages are under one of two management regimes: protected and classiﬁed forest. The classiﬁed forests, or national parks, (25 percent) are strictly protected from livestock and farming activities, Land 2016, 5, 20 4 of 23 Land 2016, 5, 20 4 of 23 while the protected forests (chantiers d’aménagements forestiers—CAF and forêts villageoises) are subject to (chantiers d’aménagements forestiers—CAF and forê ts villageoises) are subject to field expansion ﬁeld expansion and managed by local communities in collaboration with the government [14]. and managed by local communities in collaboration with the government [14]. Figure Figure 1. 1. Study Study area. area. 2.2. Sampling and Data Collection 2.2. Sampling and Data Collection The first step of field data collection consisted of constructing a participatory poverty The ﬁrst step of ﬁeld data collection consisted of constructing a participatory poverty assessment assessment (PPA) based on local indicators developed during a focus group discussion (FGD) in (PPA) based on local indicators developed during a focus group discussion (FGD) in each of the each of the four villages. Although approximately 70 percent of the population in Burkina Faso is four villages. Although approximately 70 percent of the population in Burkina Faso is rural and rural and supported by the informal economy, national poverty assessment is based on income supported by the informal economy, national poverty assessment is based on income criteria [21]. criteria [21]. Use of the money metric criterion [29,30] in such rural communities as in Burkina Faso Use of the money metric criterion [29,30] in such rural communities as in Burkina Faso is misleading is misleading and is not the most adequate and applicable means for assessing poverty. Such a and is not the most adequate and applicable means for assessing poverty. Such a criterion is more criterion is more applicable in urban areas where it is possible to assess income and expenditures applicable in urban areas where it is possible to assess income and expenditures using money as the using money as the unit of assessment. This is not the case in rural areas where banks are not unit of avail assessment. able for moThis ney to is not be depo the case sited, in anrd ural which areas are wher dome ina banks ted by aran e not infor available mal econfor omy money where to be wealth is stored in the form of assets. In rural areas, the informal economy sustains the livelihoods of deposited, and which are dominated by an informal economy where wealth is stored in the form of households through natural resource and land-based economic activities such as farming, logging, assets. In rural areas, the informal economy sustains the livelihoods of households through natural trade, etc. This rural informal sector is highly complex and often rooted in traditional resources and resource and land-based economic activities such as farming, logging, trade, etc. This rural informal land rights [31]. Therefore, the livelihood approach for assessing a household’s wealth in relation to sector is highly complex and often rooted in traditional resources and land rights [31]. Therefore, its asset holdings has been widely applied in rural developing countries [32]. In this approach, the the livelihood approach for assessing a household’s wealth in relation to its asset holdings has been real assets of a household are the unit of measurement, not money. widely applied in rural developing countries [32]. In this approach, the real assets of a household are A total of five participants, including two women and three men from each of the three ethnic the unit of measurement, not money. groups, participated in each FGD. The aim of the FGDs was to develop a poverty profile for the A total of ﬁve participants, including two women and three men from each of the three ethnic study area through a participatory exercise and to identify indicators of environmental degradation. The participants of the FGDs had to satisfy two conditions. Participants had to have lived in the groups, participated in each FGD. The aim of the FGDs was to develop a poverty proﬁle for the community in or before 2003, which coincides with the start of the period used by the study for study area through a participatory exercise and to identify indicators of environmental degradation. assessing deforestation. This time period is considered to be sufficiently long enough for the The participants of the FGDs had to satisfy two conditions. Participants had to have lived in participants to know the level of well-being of other households. Participants were selected to the community in or before 2003, which coincides with the start of the period used by the study represent a cross-section of the community in characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, wealth status, for assessing deforestation. This time period is considered to be sufﬁciently long enough for the and neighborhood. Based on these criteria, participants were selected from among all the participants to know the level of well-being of other households. Participants were selected to represent a cross-section of the community in characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, wealth status, and neighborhood. Based on these criteria, participants were selected from among all the ‘sub-chiefs’ Land 2016, 5, 20 5 of 23 and women leaders of farmer management groups. This is because in Cassou, for example, the Mossi and Fulani ethnic groups live in separate quarters from the indigenous ethnic group (Gourounsi). Each of the ethnic groups has a leader, or sub-chief, who knows all the families in the village within that group. The women leaders were additionally selected because all the sub-chiefs were men. Following Narayan et al. [33], the participants of each FGD were guided during the discussion to: (i) list local indicators used to assess wealth status in the community; and (ii) describe the speciﬁcations of each local indicator and its corresponding wealth category (see Table 1 for indicators). The resulting indicators differed slightly across the villages; therefore, the 20 participants of the four FGDs participated in a ﬁnal meeting in Cassou to agree upon a common list (see the PPA below for more details). Participants also identiﬁed the following as environmentally degrading activities or indications of environmental degradation: ﬁeld expansion (leading to deforestation), cotton cultivation, fuel wood exploitation, overgrazing, soil fertility loss, and local perceptions of tenure insecurity. Local participants identiﬁed tenure security as a factor playing a role in the adoption land management practices such as assisted natural regeneration. Tenure insecurity is likely to act as a disincentive for land management practices with long time horizons [25] compared to the use of practices such as composting, which are more immediately effective [34]. These outputs from the FGDs were reinforced with a literature review to locate corroborating scholarship on the activities identiﬁed by the FGDs as environmentally degrading in the region. These activities were found to be consistent with those identiﬁed in previous studies in Africa and Latin America [6,15,35,36]. A detailed questionnaire was then designed to collect both quantitative and qualitative data related to the environmentally degrading activities and which also addressed a speciﬁc set of land management practices (use of fallows, planting pits, composting, stone bunds, and live hedges) as well as household and farm characteristics (to be used for wealth categorization). With the assistance of local youth leaders, 200 households from the study villages were randomly selected from a list of all households considered to fall within the different wealth status groups. Furthermore, 10 farms from each proposed wealth group were randomly selected for an additional farm survey, for a total of 30 farms. During the farm surveys, ﬁeld sizes were estimated alongside other speciﬁc features of the farming systems such as fallows, evidence of assisted natural regeneration, live hedges, planting pits, stone bunds, use of compost, etc. The purpose of the farm survey was to conﬁrm the interview questionnaire data. 2.3. Analytical Methods: Categorizing Households Based on Local Indicators Derived from Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) As described above, participatory research methods were applied in which community members deﬁned the wealth criteria based on local indicators [6]. Twelve wealth status indicators and their descriptions (Table 1) were identiﬁed during the FGDs. As a part of this process, participants selected a schema of wealth groups, with households categorized based on these indicators. A different set of wealth groups was identiﬁed in each study village, and three wealth groups were adopted for a common list. In Cassou, participants identiﬁed the groups: rich, fairly rich, poor, and poorest; in Dao and Kou: rich, fairly rich, and poor; and in Vrassan: rich and poor. To correct for these differences in income groups across locations, Ravnborg et al. [37] use a mean value, which was adopted in our study as follows: (4 + 3 + 3 + 2)/4 = 3. Thus, the three income groups of non-poor, fairly poor and poorest were numbered 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The next stage in this method was to transform the numbers to scores representing poverty levels. The qualitative rankings were quantiﬁed using the following equation adapted from Ravnborg et al. [37] as follows: S pA 1q{pP 1q 100 (1) where S = Well-being score; A = Income group of the household based on local perception of well-being indicators (Table 1); and P = the total number of wealth groups. The result was multiplied by 100 to avoid operating with decimals, resulting in: Land 2016, 5, 20 6 of 23 Level 1—[(1 1)/(3 1)] 100 = 0, where 0 implies non-poor household Level 2—[(2 1)/(3 1)] 100 = 50, where 50 implies fairly poor household Level 3—[(3 1)/(3 1)] 100 = 100, where 100 implies poorest household During the interviews, data were collected from each household based on the local indicators agreed upon in the common list (Table 1). In addition, data were collected on household resource management strategies self-reported by farmers, based on their perceptions, to capture activities considered environmentally degrading. Each household was assigned a corresponding score for all 12 indicators, which was later averaged by the ﬁrst author to classify the household into its corresponding wealth group. The threshold values were then calculated to define the range of each wealth group based on the MEAN of all 200 household as follows: 0 to 50 (non-poor), 50 to 75 (fairly poor) and 75 to 100 for the poorest. Within these threshold values, it was possible to assign each individual mean to a category. Table 1. Household poverty indicators and scoring system in southern Burkina Faso. Indicator Score Description 0 Owns more than 10 ha of land 50 Owns between 4 and 10 ha of land Access to land 100 Owns less than 4 ha of land 0 Household without a period of food shortage in the last 3 years Food security 50 Experienced a food shortage in the last 3 years that lasted <3 months 100 Experienced a food shortage in the last 3 years that lasted >3 months 0 Capable of paying for the services of a doctor in the district hospital and beyond 50 Capable of paying for doctors’ services limited to the district hospital Healthcare 100 Household is unable to pay for a doctor ’s service and relies on herbal medicine Receives income from the sale of livestock, household shops, owns a truck for transportation Nonagricultural 50 Uses cart to transport crops for income, sells food and non-timber forest products sources of income 100 Household does not have any other source of nonagricultural income 0 Sells more than half of cereals produced while satisfying household needs 50 Selling up to half of cereal produced will lead to a food shortage Sale of crops Does not sell cereals and is not self-sufﬁcient, depends heavily on non-timber forest products (NTFPs) 0 Cultivates the land with tractor and draught ox, owns compost production facilities Agricultural 50 Cultivates with donkeys and is capable of buying compost to use on farm equipment 100 Cultivates the land with hand hoes and cutlasses 0 Owns tree plantations (fruit trees, poles for construction, etc.) 50 Has a few trees on farm and around compound for subsistence and commercial use Tree resources 100 Does not own trees on farm and compound but depends on the forest for NTFPs 0 Owns three or more herds of cattle (a herd is 10 cows) Livestock 50 Owns less than three herds of cattle ownership 100 Does not own any cattle 0 Owns three droves of donkeys, goats, and sheep (a drove is 10 animals) Ownership of 50 Owns less than three droves of donkeys, goats, and sheep other animals 100 Does not own any donkeys, goats, or sheep 0 Owns TV/solar panel, radio/radio-cassette player and Yamaha generator Household gadgets 50 Owns radio/radio-cassette player, uses motor battery to generate electricity 100 Does not own electrical appliances but uses kerosene lamp 0 Owns ¥ 1 car and ¥ 1 motorcycle Transportation 50 Owns a motorcycle and a cart 100 Owns a bicycle and other members of the household often go on foot 0 Has the required collateral security for credit and is capable of paying back 50 Limited collateral for credit and might be unable to pay if externalities arises Institutional credit 100 Lacks collateral for credit and also lacks the potential for repayment Note: NTFPs are goods obtained from the forests without harvesting whole trees. 2.4. Study Variables Indicating Environmentally Degrading Activities The collected activities-related data were used to create variables of two kinds: numeric measurement-based variables and categorical variables (often self-reported). The former variables Land 2016, 5, 20 7 of 23 include mean annual deforestation (2003–2013), cotton cultivation, cutting and selling of fuel wood, and overgrazing based on cattle numbers. Categorical data were gathered through farmers’ self-reported assessments on the following: overgrazing, soil fertility loss, and tenure security as an incentive for assisting natural regeneration. Overgrazing occurs in both categories because both numerical data and self-reported assessments of respondents were recorded. Several variables based on numeric measurement-based data were also converted to additional categorical variables for analyses (see below). 2.4.1. Deforestation Through the interviews, data were collected on changes in farm area between 2003 and 2013. Farm size included areas under shifting cultivation with fallows. A recent study in Burkina Faso ﬁnds that farmers without fallows are more likely to expand their ﬁelds, thereby causing deforestation [38]. The lack of strict monitoring of community forest areas exposes them to encroachment. As such, ﬁeld expansion into protected forest areas has been identiﬁed as the dominant proximate driver of deforestation in Burkina Faso [39,40]. In this study, the cultivation of fallows was not considered to represent deforestation because they represent potential areas for reuse when the rotation cycle is completed or as need arises. Therefore, deforestation in the current study focuses on the expansion of ﬁelds into protected forest. Mean Annual Deforestation pFarm Area in 2013 ha Farm Area in 2003 haq{10 (2) The difference in farm area was calculated as the change in farm area, excluding fallow, between 2013 and 2003. The result was divided by 10 to get the mean annual change value for the 10-year-period. A categorical variable was created in addition to the continuous variable. Households that did not experience a change in farm area were assigned the value 0, while those that cleared forests were assigned the value 1. Jones et al. [41], in an assessment of deforestation driven by farming systems, apply a mean annual area of forest cleared using this methodology. For additional details, see Etongo et al. [38]. Land is not for sale due to customary rules that prevail in these communities, thereby reducing the options for farm expansion. 2.4.2. Cotton Cultivation Aside from the role of cotton as a driver of deforestation in Burkina Faso, where a threefold increase in cultivated area (ha) occurred between 1992 and 2007 [15], the use of pesticides also constitutes a threat to the environment [42]. An increase in the annual rate of pesticide consumption over the last two decades is attributed to the treatment of cotton ﬁelds [43]. The term pesticide covers a wide range of compounds including insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc. A pilot study in Burkina Faso on agricultural pesticide poisoning indicates its effect on the environment, livestock and human health [44]. This study employs both a continuous variable of cotton produced (in kg) and a categorical variable for presence or absence of cotton cultivation at the farm level. 2.4.3. Cutting and Selling of Fuel Wood Fuel wood is a major source of household energy in Burkina Faso and is collected from ﬁelds, fallows, forests, and plantations. The traditional measuring unit is a cart-driven system called a charet. A charet full of fuel wood is estimated at three m . The estimated monthly fuel wood consumption per household in 2013 (for both subsistence use and sale) was recorded in charets and converted to cubic meters. A recent study in Burkina Faso estimates the average rural household’s daily fuelwood consumption to be 0.04 m [45], which is roughly the same as estimated in Kenya [46]. Based on this 3 3 daily estimate, monthly and annual consumption should stand at 1.24 m and 14.88 m , respectively. These estimates provide a guide on household fuel consumption. In addition, information was collected on quantity of fuel wood sales and places of collection. This study employs both a continuous variable of reported monthly fuel wood consumption and a derived categorical variable which assumes fuel wood sales when reported monthly consumption was greater than 1.24 m . Land 2016, 5, 20 8 of 23 2.4.4. Overgrazing Average cattle herd sizes were collected for the last ﬁve years (2009–2013) to assess overgrazing in rangelands and farmlands. Studies on total livestock units (TLUs) in relation to stocking density consider overgrazing to occur when demand for fodder exceeds supply [18,47]. Niemeijer and Mazzucato [47] study total livestock units (TLUs) and arrive at a similar conclusion that overgrazing occurs when stocking density increases without an increase in fodder. Studies in the West African Sahel [19] and eastern Mediterranean [18] ﬁnd that increases in livestock numbers are not consistent with fodder supply, thereby causing overgrazing. Furthermore, another study in Peru reports losses in range species as a consequence of high stocking rates, drought, and the absence of fallow areas [7]. In this study, the number of cattle was used as a continuous variable indicating overgrazing. In addition, a categorical variable was created using the mean value of 9.05 calculated among the 200 respondents, with two categories formulated as follows: households with ¤9 cattle and households with ¥10 cattle. Thus, owning more than the mean number of cattle was deﬁned as indicative of overgrazing. To reinforce the above analysis, farmers also self-reported practices of overgrazing on their own farms in terms of environmental degradation as either low, moderate, and high. 2.4.5. Farmers’ Assessment of Tenure Insecurity on FMNR The role of indigenous tree species in remediating land degradation through farmer-managed natural regeneration (FMNR) is widely acknowledged in the Sahel [48,49]. FMNR fosters tree ownership and land tenure security for farmers. Also known as assisted natural regeneration, FMNR is the protection of indigenous tree species in the Sahel so that they can regenerate naturally to maturity [49]. It provides environmental beneﬁts such as restoration of tree cover, increased biodiversity, climate change adaptation and mitigation, etc. [50]. In the interviews, farmers were asked if they participate in assisted natural regeneration. However, due to the sensitive nature of this line of questioning (as indigenous species are protected by law), this question was asked in the context of other questions to determine farmers’ self-reported assessments of the state of natural regeneration of indigenous trees on their farms, who owns the trees, and how tenure security inﬂuences this practice. For this study, farmers’ assessments of the role of tenure security for FMNR was used because these data were assessed to be the most accurate proxies for determining FMNR practice due to the sensitivity of the issue. Additionally, two studies in the Sahel indicated the importance of FMNR as a land management practice that improve tenure security and also tree cover on farms, thereby reducing environmental degradation [48,49]. 2.4.6. Farmers’ Assessment of Soil Fertility Loss A study in Rwanda ﬁnds that local perceptions of soil fertility align well with soil fertility measured using local indicators such as crop yield, soil softness, indicator plants, and soil color [51]. Karltun et al. [52] also ﬁnd consensus between farmers’ indigenous knowledge and scientiﬁcally validated indicators of soil fertility. Using locally reported soil fertility thus is a viable alternative to direct or indirect measurement. Farmers’ perceptions of soil fertility loss were adopted for this study and assessed at three levels: high, moderate and low. Three levels of soil fertility loss were adopted in the current study because this approach was found in Ethiopia to be effective when using perception-based methods [36]. 2.5. Statistical Analysis In order to compare the indicators of environmental degradation across the households in different wealth categories, we use descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests to analyze the data collected. Speciﬁcally, we applied Chi square to check the relationships between categorical variables. We use one-way ANOVA to compare the variation within the continuous variables across a single factor and determine whether signiﬁcant differences existed among their means [53]. To run the ANOVA, Levene’s test was used as a prior test for homogeneity of variance within the continuous variables. When a signiﬁcant difference was found in the one-way ANOVA test at Land 2016, 5, 20 9 of 23 Land 2016, 5, 20 9 of 23 the 5 percent level, the Scheffe pairwise multiple comparison test was conducted for cases exhibiting the 5 percent level, the Scheffe pairwise multiple comparison test was conducted for cases exhibiting homogenous variance [54]. For variables that exhibited non-homogenous variance, a Welch test homogenous variance [54]. For variables that exhibited non-homogenous variance, a Welch test was was performed to correct the violation; then, Dunnett’s C pairwise multiple comparison test was performed to correct the violation; then, Dunnett’s C pairwise multiple comparison test was applied [55]. The multiple comparison tests highlighted where mean differences varied between pairs of applied [55]. The multiple comparison tests highlighted where mean differences varied between pairs wealth categories for the selected indicators. of wealth categories for the selected indicators. 3. Results and Discussion 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Poverty Level and Households’ Characteristics 3.1. Poverty Level and Households’ Characteristics Based on the results of the participatory poverty assessment (PPA) indicators, developed on the Based on the results of the participatory poverty assessment (PPA) indicators, developed on the basis of local perceptions of poverty, 51.5 percent of the respondents were fairly poor, 32.5 percent basis of local perceptions of poverty, 51.5 percent of the respondents were fairly poor, 32.5 percent were the poorest and 16 percent were non-poor (Figure 2). were the poorest and 16 percent were non-poor (Figure 2). Figure 2. Percentage of farmers in each wealth category in the study area, across poverty levels (N= 200). Figure 2. Percentage of farmers in each wealth category in the study area, across poverty levels (N= 200). The two hundred farm households interviewed were distributed among the Gourounsi, Mossi The two hundred farm households interviewed were distributed among the Gourounsi, Mossi and Fulani ethnic groups as 46 percent, 41.5 percent and 12.5 percent, respectively (Table 2). A majority and Fulani ethnic groups as 46 percent, 41.5 percent and 12.5 percent, respectively (Table 2). A of the non-poor farmers belonged to the Fulani ethnic group followed by the Mossi. None of the majority of the non-poor farmers belonged to the Fulani ethnic group followed by the Mossi. None respondents from the indigenous group (Gourounsi) were considered non-poor. of the respondents from the indigenous group (Gourounsi) were considered non-poor. Table 2. Cross-tabulation results for categorical variables (N=200). Table 2. Cross-tabulation results for categorical variables (N=200). Wealth Categories of Households (%) Chi-Square Tests Wealth Categories of Households (%) Chi-Square Tests Households Total (%) Households Characteristics Total (%) Asymp. Sig. Characteristics Non-Poor Fairly Poor Poorest Value Non-Poor Fairly Poor Poorest Value Asymp. Sig. (2-Sided) (2-Sided) Gourounsi 0.0 48.5 64.6 46.0 Gourounsi 0.0 48.5 64.6 46.0 Ethnic group Mossi 34.4 47.6 35.4 41.5 108.147 0.000 Ethnic group Mossi 34.4 47.6 35.4 41.5 108.147 0.000 Fulani 65.6 3.9 0.0 12.5 Fulani 65.6 3.9 0.0 12.5 No No education 96.9 78.6 87.7 84.5 Level of education 96.9 78.6 87.7 84.5 6.947 0.031 education Level of education Education 3.1 21.4 12.3 15.5 6.947 0.031 Education 3.1 21.4 12.3 15.5 Insecure 100.0 51.5 35.4 54.0 Perceived tenure security 36.595 0.000 Secure 0.0 48.5 64.6 46.0 Insecure 100.0 51.5 35.4 54.0 Perceived tenure security 36.595 0.000 Secure ≤9 0.0 0.0 48.5 85.4 64.6 100.0 46.0 76.5 Number of cattle 128.713 0.000 ≥10 100.0 14.6 0.0 23.5 ¤9 0.0 85.4 100.0 76.5 128.713 0.000 Number of cattle ¥10 100.0 14.6 0.0 23.5 The dominant farming system in Burkina Faso is the crop-livestock system. Livestock constitutes an invaluable asset for household wealth. Non-poor farmers owned more cattle (partly The dominant farming system in Burkina Faso is the crop-livestock system. Livestock constitutes an invaluable asset for household wealth. Non-poor farmers owned more cattle (partly by deﬁnition, as number of cattle was a factor for categorizing households into wealth groups) and some farmers had over 20 head of cattle. Although cattle herding was done by all ethnic groups, it remains the Land 2016, 5, 20 10 of 23 main agricultural activity of the Fulani group that originates from the north. In the FGDs, participants indicated that poor households that owned few cattle are more likely to sell livestock during periods of poor harvest, or for anticipated expenditures such as school fees for children, etc. This ﬁnding differs slightly from another study in which smallholders and poor farmers were more likely to sell land for immediate beneﬁts [18]. The level of education of the household head is likely to inﬂuence their livelihood. Across the wealth categories, 96.9 percent (non-poor), 78.6 percent (fairly poor) and 87.7 percent (poorest) could not read or write and were considered to be illiterate. The respondents who could read and write (were literate) included 3.1 percent (non-poor), 21.4 percent (fairly poor) and 12.3 percent (poorest). The overall level of illiteracy was 84.5 percent, and only 15.5 percent of the respondents were literate, with some education (Table 2). 3.2. Indicators of Environmental Degradation: Differences among Wealth Categories This section presents the descriptive statistics as well as the mean comparisons (one-way ANOVA) among the wealth categories for the four numerical indicators used to quantitatively identify environmental degradation. The results indicate that all of the four numeric indicators of environmental degradation showed a statistical difference at the 5 percent signiﬁcance level among all wealth categories (Table 3). This implies that each wealth category exhibited a different mean for each indicator of environmental degradation considered in the analysis. Table 3. Continuous variables indicating environmentally degrading activities: Descriptive statistics and mean comparison (one-way ANOVA) (N=200). Descriptive statistics One-way ANOVA Variables N Mean Std. Deviation F Sig. Non-poor 32 0.353 0.379 Fairly poor 103 0.274 0.293 Mean annual 4.50 0.012 deforestation (ha) Poorest 65 0.175 0.228 Total 200 0.255 0.295 Non-poor 32 90.313 210.230 103 124.563 205.229 Fairly poor Quantity of cotton 3.70 0.027 produced (kg) Poorest 65 47.692 102.313 Total 200 94.100 181.731 Non-poor 32 2.281 1.039 Fairly poor 103 1.849 0.776 Monthly fuel wood 20.60 0.000 consumption (m ) Poorest 65 1.315 0.429 200 1.745 0.805 Total Non-poor 32 41.500 34.586 Overgrazing Fairly poor 103 4.282 3.197 expressed by the 104.90 0.000 Poorest 65 0.6462 0.694 number of cattle Total 200 9.055 19.897 In addition, categorical variable forms of these indicators were analyzed for association with each wealth category (Table 4). Other indicators expressed as categorical variables also were considered, including farmers’ self-reported assessments of overgrazing, loss of soil fertility and tenure security (as an incentive for long-term investment in the land via FMNR for instance). Thus, the categorical format was used for all of the variables to measure their association to the wealth status. The indicator of overgrazing was assessed twice: ﬁrst as a categorical variable stemming from prior classiﬁcation (owning more than the mean number of cattle), and then according to farmers’ self-reported assessments. Land 2016, 5, 20 11 of 23 Table 4. Activities perceived as environmentally degrading and their relation to wealth categories (N=200). Wealth Categories of Households (%) Chi-Square Tests Indicators of Environmental Total Asymp. Sig. Degradation (%) Non-poor Fairly poor Poorest Value (2-sided) Derived categorical forms from our quantitative collected variables No 1.00 19.50 16.50 37.00 Deforestation 2003-2013 18.30 0.000 Yes 15.00 32.00 16.00 63.00 No 13.00 30.50 25.50 69.00 Cotton cultivation 9.57 0.008 Yes 3.00 21.00 7.00 31.00 No 14.50 27.00 19.50 61.00 Cutting and selling 15.01 0.001 fuel wood Yes 1.50 24.50 13.00 39.00 Overgrazing based on No 0.00 19.00 27.00 46.00 66.67 0.000 owning more than mean Yes 16.00 32.50 5.50 54.00 number of cattle Variables collected in qualitative forms from ﬁeld work Low 0.0% 42.7% 84.6% 49.5% Overgrazing (farmers’ assessments of overgrazing Moderate 6.3% 32.0% 15.4% 22.5% 110.259 0.000 on their own farms) High 93.8% 25.2% 0.0% 28.0% Low 65.6% 49.5% 27.7% 45.0% Soil fertility loss (farmers’ Moderate 28.1% 23.3% 6.2% 18.5% assessments of soil fertility 42.191 0.000 loss on their own farm) High 6.3% 27.2% 66.2% 36.5% Tenure insecurity (farmers’ No FMNR 100.0% 51.5% 35.4% 54.0% assessments of effect of 36.595 0.000 tenure insecurity on farmer-managed Yes FMNR 0.0% 48.5% 64.6% 46.0% natural regeneration) 3.2.1. Deforestation Sixty-three percent of respondents expanded their ﬁelds into forests or cleared new farmland between the years 2003 and 2013, while 37 percent did not (Table 4). Furthermore, the non-poor farmers caused more deforestation than the poorest, with the difference in the changes in farm area during the 10-year period signiﬁcant at the 5 percent level (Table A1). These ﬁndings are contrary to the poverty-induced environmental degradation that is considered to be driven primarily by the poor [1,2]. Some studies show that the poor are not so obsessed with their present and short-term nutritional needs that they completely ignore long-term livelihood security and resource productivity concerns [6,7,9,10]. Instead, poverty constrains farm households from adopting land management practices considered to be sustainable and thereby further intensiﬁes land degradation. 3.2.2. Cotton Cultivation as an Environmentally Degrading Activity Thirty-one percent of respondents cultivated cotton, while 69 percent did not (Table 4). Cotton cultivation is likely to follow the same pattern for fairly-poor and non-poor farmers, as there is no statistical difference between these two groups. Notwithstanding, signiﬁcant differences were identiﬁed between the fairly-poor and poorest farmers (Table A2). This implies that the fairly poor and non-poor produced relatively higher quantities of cotton as a result of larger farm areas under cultivation and contributed more to environmental degradation than the poorest. Cotton cultivation in Burkina Faso requires animal traction and the use of pesticides and is capital intensive [15], which limits the participation of the poorest farmers. According to Ton [56], the expansion of cotton production in West Africa has been driven by households equipped with animal traction, and those with manual tools have been unable to participate effectively in this livelihood activity. Other studies in Burkina Land 2016, 5, 20 12 of 23 Faso determine that cotton cultivation is a driver of deforestation [14,15,57,58]. Here, the resultant pesticide contamination is additionally considered. Agricultural poisoning was identiﬁed as a common problem in the region and attributed to the Land 2016, 5, 20 12 of 23 use of pesticides for the treatment of cotton. During one of our ﬁeld visits in Vrassan village in January 2014, approximately eight cattle were found dead and many more affected (see Figure 3). A report January 2014, approximately eight cattle were found dead and many more affected (see Figure 3). A from the district veterinary ofﬁcer indicated that the cattle had been poisoned by eating fodder from report from the district veterinary officer indicated that the cattle had been poisoned by eating a ﬁeld that had been treated by herbicides used in cotton cultivation. Other studies in Burkina Faso fodder from a field that had been treated by herbicides used in cotton cultivation. Other studies in identify similar cases in which cotton treatment resulted in agricultural poisoning that affected not Burkina Faso identify similar cases in which cotton treatment resulted in agricultural poisoning that only livestock but also human life [43,44]. affected not only livestock but also human life [43,44]. Figure 3. Cattle suffering from agricultural poisoning emanating from cotton treatment in Vrassan Figure 3. Cattle suffering from agricultural poisoning emanating from cotton treatment in village. Vrassan village. 3.2.3. Cutting and Selling Fuel Wood 3.2.3. Cutting and Selling Fuel Wood Sixty-one percent of households did not cut and sell fuel wood, compared to the 39 percent who Sixty-one percent of households did not cut and sell fuel wood, compared to the 39 percent who engaged in this activity (Table 4). Comparisons among wealth categories indicated that the non-poor engaged in this activity (Table 4). Comparisons among wealth categories indicated that the non-poor cut and sell larger quantities of fuel wood than the fairly-poor and poorest households. Likewise, cut and fairlsell y-polar or ger farm quantities ers cut and ofse fuel ll mwood ore fuethan l woothe d tha fair n t ly-poor he poore and st (Ta poor ble est A2).households. Thus, the relLikewise, ative contributions of non-poor and fairly-poor farmers to environmental degradation are higher than fairly-poor farmers cut and sell more fuel wood than the poorest (Table A2). Thus, the relative that of the poorest. The cutting of fuel wood in Burkina Faso is dominated by the use of rudimentary contributions of non-poor and fairly-poor farmers to environmental degradation are higher than that tools such as axe heads, which require the availability of some household work force, the potential to of the poorest. The cutting of fuel wood in Burkina Faso is dominated by the use of rudimentary tools hire labor and the ability to provide better means of transportation. such as axe heads, which require the availability of some household work force, the potential to hire Cutting and selling fuel wood in Burkina Faso is quickly degrading the environment and over labor and the ability to provide better means of transportation. 85 percent of urban and rural populations depend on wood fuel (fuel wood and charcoal) to supply Cutting and selling fuel wood in Burkina Faso is quickly degrading the environment and over household energy [13]. The increasing demand for fuel wood has led to illegal exploitation and 85 percent of urban and rural populations depend on wood fuel (fuel wood and charcoal) to supply unsustainable harvesting that does not allow sufficient time for regrowth and thereby affects wood household energy [13]. The increasing demand for fuel wood has led to illegal exploitation and volume. The poorest households cannot effectively benefit from this source of off-farm employment in the region. As such, poverty as a state of deprivation appears to reduce the chances that the unsustainable harvesting that does not allow sufﬁcient time for regrowth and thereby affects wood poorest in the society engage in certain resource management strategies considered to be volume. The poorest households cannot effectively beneﬁt from this source of off-farm employment in environmentally degrading [35]. The view corroborate our findings in which the poorest household the region. As such, poverty as a state of deprivation appears to reduce the chances that the poorest equipped with relatively little resources (income to hire labor and pay for transportation) limits the in the society engage in certain resource management strategies considered to be environmentally extraction of wood from the forests. degrading [35]. The view corroborate our ﬁndings in which the poorest household equipped with relatively little resources (income to hire labor and pay for transportation) limits the extraction of wood 3.2.4. Overgrazing from the forests. The assessment of overgrazing on their own farms (Table 4) showed that 84.6 percent of the poorest households perceive themselves as experiencing a low level of overgrazing. This 3.2.4. Overgrazing self-perception is not different from our assessment based on the number of cattle owned because The assessment of overgrazing on their own farms (Table 4) showed that 84.6 percent of the poorest we found that the poorest were mostly associated with lower numbers of cattle. This indicator was significantly higher for the non-poor and fairly poor at a 5 percent level of significance (Table A2). households perceive themselves as experiencing a low level of overgrazing. This self-perception is Land 2016, 5, 20 13 of 23 not different from our assessment based on the number of cattle owned because we found that the poorest were mostly associated with lower numbers of cattle. This indicator was signiﬁcantly higher for the non-poor and fairly poor at a 5 percent level of signiﬁcance (Table A2). Furthermore, 15.4 percent of households in the poorest category reported a moderate level of overgrazing, and none of them perceived themselves as experiencing high rates of overgrazing (Table 4). Finally, the fairly poor and the non-poor see themselves as experiencing high level of overgrazing (25.2 percent and 93.8 percent, respectively). These ﬁndings likely reﬂect the non-poor owning larger herds of cattle, which increases demand for fodder and likely causes higher rates of overgrazing. During the FGDs, the Fulani ethnic group was identiﬁed as owning large herds of cattle more often than the Mossi and Gourounsi ethnic groups. Increases in livestock number and a reduction in rangeland through land fragmentation have been identiﬁed as a threat to important fodder trees such as Afzelia africana and Pterocarpus erinaceus [19]. 3.2.5. Perceptions of Soil Fertility Loss A majority of the households reporting soil fertility loss were the poorest farmers, followed by the fairly poor. On the other hand, only 6.3 percent of the non-poor farmers perceived high rates of soil fertility loss (Table 4). Without inputs in the form of fertilizers and the application of land management techniques, soil fertility typically decreases over time. A study conducted in Ethiopia observes declines in soil fertility amongst farm households over time [36]. The lower rates of perceived soil fertility loss amongst the non-poor and fairly-poor farmers may be due to the greater availability of resources for improving the land, for the non-poor and fairly poor in comparison to the poor. Loss of soil fertility continues to be a major problem that affects agricultural activities in different parts of the world, reducing productivity and in some cases causing crop failure [59,60]. Although considered to be a common problem, farmers’ self-reported soil fertility loss is perceived by researchers to affect households differently. This is because knowledge and experience in soil conservation practices varies among different income and social groups within a community [61], a pattern that is consistent in our ﬁndings. Furthermore, impacts on farm households can depend on individual elements in the ecosystem that buffer the effects of anthropogenic and natural disturbances [62]. 3.2.6. Farmers’ Assessment of Tenure Insecurity on Assisted Natural Regeneration Results show that many non-poor (100 percent), fairly poor (51.5 percent), and poorest (35.4 percent) households perceive their land tenure to be insecure (Table 2). Though these ﬁgures are much higher for the fairly-poor farmers (compared to the poorest ones), all the non-poor perceive their own tenure to be insecure (Table 2). Within the context of rural Burkina Faso, rights of limited use are often granted to migrants, while the indigenous groups are granted permanent use rights through inheritance. Land chiefs assign a portion of land to migrants without receiving monetary compensation, and the conditions that govern these land rights are uncertain. Ouédraogo [63] ﬁnds that land tenure types in Burkina Faso include: (i) rights of permanent use granted to the indigenous group; (ii) rights of permanent use acquired by claiming unclaimed forested land; (iii) rights of limited use extended to the indigenous group that might become permanent if held for more than one generation; (iv) rights of limited use granted to “strangers” (non-indigenous people) who are considered borrowers of the land. The ﬁrst three tenure types are associated with indigenous groups, while migrant groups only have limited use rights. Farmers occupying borrowed lands are less likely to participate in FMNR because they lack a full bundle of rights to the land and trees including the right of transfer [63]. However, longer periods of management (approximately 30–40 years) give them some degree of ownership, especially if the land has been improved [39]. Despite these farmers’ perceived sense of ownership, the indigenous population considers land occupied by migrants as borrowed. This is because land allocation is not linked to cash transfers, although borrowers do show gratitude through gifts. Although rights of limited use are granted to migrants, without violation of local rules they can occupy such land as long as desired. One local rule is that they are not allowed to plant economic trees Land 2016, 5, 20 14 of 23 without permission from the land chiefs. Traditionally, loaned lands were not withdrawn unless there was a serious violation of rules of conduct. However, as land reserves are becoming exhausted in the Land 2016, 5, 20 14 of 23 southern region of the country, some cases of withdrawal without violation of local laws have been identiﬁed. This ﬁnding is consistent with an earlier study in Burkina Faso where land withdrawal exhausted in the southern region of the country, some cases of withdrawal without violation of local occurred without violation of local laws [64]. As a result, perceptions of tenure security may be laws have been identified. This finding is consistent with an earlier study in Burkina Faso where changing land w for ithd borr raw owed al occlands, urred w asitsupported hout violatby ionour of lo ﬁndings cal lawsher [64 e. ]. As a result, perceptions of tenure security may be changing for borrowed lands, as supported by our findings here. Based on farmers’ self-reported assessments, the entire non-poor group reported that their own Based on farmers’ self-reported assessments, the entire non-poor group reported that their own insecure tenure affected their practice of assisting the natural regeneration of trees on farms, as did insecure tenure affected their practice of assisting the natural regeneration of trees on farms, as did 51.5 percent of the fairly poor and 35.4 percent of the poorest (Table 4). Farmers with insecure tenure 51.5 percent of the fairly poor and 35.4 percent of the poorest (Table 4). Farmers with insecure tenure are likely not to carry out long-term investments such as fallows, assisted natural regeneration of trees, are likely not to carry out long-term investments such as fallows, assisted natural regeneration of etc. to improve the land. Thus, in-migrants (with insecure tenure due to their status as land borrowers) trees, etc. to improve the land. Thus, in-migrants (with insecure tenure due to their status as land are hesitant to participate in long-term land management strategies. borrowers) are hesitant to participate in long-term land management strategies. However, FMNR is widely promoted in the Sahel because it has proven to foster tree ownership However, FMNR is widely promoted in the Sahel because it has proven to foster tree ownership and land tenure security for farmers. Furthermore, it provides numerous environmental beneﬁts and land tenure security for farmers. Furthermore, it provides numerous environmental benefits such as restoration of tree cover, increased biodiversity that increases resilience to climate change, etc. such as restoration of tree cover, increased biodiversity that increases resilience to climate change, etc. Studies in Burkina Faso [65] and the Sahel [48,49] acknowledge the importance of FMNR in addressing Studies in Burkina Faso [65] and the Sahel [48,49] acknowledge the importance of FMNR in desertiﬁcation and land degradation while providing economic beneﬁts to farmers. Farmers engaged addressing desertification and land degradation while providing economic benefits to farmers. in assisting natural regeneration contribute less to environmental degradation than they would in the Farmers engaged in assisting natural regeneration contribute less to environmental degradation absence of this activity. Thus, tenure security is an incentive for FMNR, a ﬁnding consistent with a than they would in the absence of this activity. Thus, tenure security is an incentive for FMNR, a previous meta-analysis conducted in tropical developing countries [66]. finding consistent with a previous meta-analysis conducted in tropical developing countries [66]. 3.3. Land Management Practices Adopted by Respondents 3.3. Land Management Practices Adopted by Respondents Five common land management practices in the study area were investigated to assess whether Five common land management practices in the study area were investigated to assess whether poverty constrains the adoption of practices considered to protect the environment. These practices poverty constrains the adoption of practices considered to protect the environment. These practices included fallowing, construction of planting pits, composting, use of stone bunds and use of live included fallowing, construction of planting pits, composting, use of stone bunds and use of live hedges (Figure 4). hedges (Figure 4). Figure Figu 4. re Land 4. Land management management practices practiceadopted s adopted by by respondents respondentsacr across oss poverty poverty llevels evels ((N= N= 2200). 00). 3.3.1. 3.3. Fallows 1. Fallows None of the non-poor farmers reported having fallow areas. On the other hand, 16.5 percent of None of the non-poor farmers reported having fallow areas. On the other hand, 16.5 percent of the fairly-poor and 12.3 percent of the poorest farmers practiced fallowing. Improved fallow areas the fairly-poor and 12.3 percent of the poorest farmers practiced fallowing. Improved fallow areas are are considered to be a low-cost practice for improving soil fertility in the Sahel. This is made possible Land 2016, 5, 20 15 of 23 Land 2016, 5, 20 15 of 23 considered to be a low-cost practice for improving soil fertility in the Sahel. This is made possible by by a variety of tree species that regenerate naturally in the study area such as Parkia biglobosa, a variety of tree species that regenerate naturally in the study area such as Parkia biglobosa, Vitellaria Vitellaria paradoxa, etc. Because migrant status is a proxy for insecure tenure to land and trees, the paradoxa, etc. Because migrant status is a proxy for insecure tenure to land and trees, the migrant-status migrant-status of the non-poor may explain why no respondents in this group practiced fallowing. of the non-poor may explain why no respondents in this group practiced fallowing. Aside from soil Aside from soil fertility improvement, fallows are used for other purposes as well, as sources of fuel fertility improvement, fallows are used for other purposes as well, as sources of fuel wood, fodder, etc. wood, fodder, etc. Due to low inputs in agriculture in the study area, farmers without fallows are Due to low inputs in agriculture in the study area, farmers without fallows are more likely to expand more likely to expand their fields into forest areas in order to increase production. Thus, fallows are their impo ﬁelds rtantinto for bo for th est soil ar eas ferti in lity orimpro der tove inc men rease t and production. livelihood Thus, value, fallows a premise are con important sistent with for s bevera oth soil l fertility past stu impr dies c ovement onducted and in t liv he West elihood Afr value, ican Sahe a premise l [67,68] consistent . with several past studies conducted in the West African Sahel [67,68]. 3.3.2. Planting Pits 3.3.2. Planting Pits Also known as zaї, a planting pit is a soil water conservation technique commonly practiced in the Also Sahel. know The n percen as zaï t ,of a r planting espondent pit s who is a soil adopt water ed this conservation practice was technique lowest amcommonly ong the poorest practi (40 ced percent), compared to the non-poor (78.1 percent) and fairly poor (67 percent), for whom the use in the Sahel. The percent of respondents who adopted this practice was lowest among the poorest rates were relatively high. Zaї practice is labor intensive, and a household work force or the ability (40 percent), compared to the non-poor (78.1 percent) and fairly poor (67 percent), for whom the use to hire labor is a prerequisite for its adoption. Two previous studies in Burkina Faso estimated that rates were relatively high. Zaï practice is labor intensive, and a household work force or the ability installing zaї on a hectare of land requires six to twelve weeks of daily work for one person, to hire labor is a prerequisite for its adoption. Two previous studies in Burkina Faso estimated that depending on soil condition [69,70]. installing zaï on a hectare of land requires six to twelve weeks of daily work for one person, depending Despite the labor demand, zaї is a critical practice in Burkina Faso due to the effects of climate on soil condition [69,70]. variability and change on food security and livelihoods. Participants in the FGDs indicated that Despite the labor demand, zaï is a critical practice in Burkina Faso due to the effects of climate water harvested through this technique contributes to assisting natural regeneration in less than four variability and change on food security and livelihoods. Participants in the FGDs indicated that water years. An earlier study in Burkina Faso finds that zaї practice rehabilitates land within three to five harvested through this technique contributes to assisting natural regeneration in less than four years. years [71]. An earlier study in Burkina Faso ﬁnds that zaï practice rehabilitates land within three to ﬁve years [71]. 3.3.3. Composting 3.3.3. Composting Results show that the respondents who apply compost on their farms include non-poor (100 Results show that the respondents who apply compost on their farms include non-poor percent), fairly-poor (47.6 percent) and poorest farmers (7.7 percent) (Figure 4). The FGDs revealed (100 percent), fairly-poor (47.6 percent) and poorest farmers (7.7 percent) (Figure 4). The FGDs that although compost on fields is known to improve soil fertility, its adoption is dependent on the revealed that although compost on ﬁelds is known to improve soil fertility, its adoption is dependent resources available to farmers. Studies in Burkina Faso [60,69] and the Sahel [62] acknowledge the on the resources available to farmers. Studies in Burkina Faso [60,69] and the Sahel [62] acknowledge importance of compost for soil fertility improvement. Compostable material such as crop residues the importance of compost for soil fertility improvement. Compostable material such as crop residues have to be transported to a compost pit and then crushed with additives to produce compost (Figure have to be transported to a compost pit and then crushed with additives to produce compost (Figure 5). 5). To construct and maintain such facilities requires money that the poorest farmers cannot afford. To construct and maintain such facilities requires money that the poorest farmers cannot afford. During During the FGDs it was indicated that the poorest households are more likely than others to make the FGDs it was indicated that the poorest households are more likely than others to make use of use of community compost facilities. Due to the large time requirement for producing compost (2–3 community compost facilities. Due to the large time requirement for producing compost (2–3 months), months), those who use the community facilities have to work together to produce compost and those who use the community facilities have to work together to produce compost and then share it. then share it. Figure Figure5. 5.A A co compost mpost facility facility owned owned by a by a ho household usehold in inKou Vil Kou Village. lage. Land 2016, 5, 20 16 of 23 Land 2016, 5, 20 16 of 23 Most of the non-poor farmers belong to the Fulani ethnic group who own larger herds of cattle than other wealth categories. The dung from these cattle is vital in producing compost. As such, the Most of the non-poor farmers belong to the Fulani ethnic group who own larger herds of cattle household socioeconomic characteristics of farmers are important for adopting this technology and than other wealth categories. The dung from these cattle is vital in producing compost. As such, often constrain poor farmers with little resources at their disposal. A study in Burkina Faso finds that the household socioeconomic characteristics of farmers are important for adopting this technology and socioeconomic factors affect the adoption of compost technology in favor of households with greater often constrain poor farmers with little resources at their disposal. A study in Burkina Faso ﬁnds that available resources [69]. socioeconomic factors affect the adoption of compost technology in favor of households with greater available resources [69]. 3.3.4. Stone Bunds 3.3.4. Stone Bunds The respondents who adopted stone bunds across the wealth categories included non-poor (43.8 percent), fairly-poor (24.3 percent) and poorest farmers (23.1 percent). Among the fairly poor The respondents who adopted stone bunds across the wealth categories included non-poor and poorest farmers, the adoption rates for stone bunds were similar, while for the non-poor farmers (43.8 percent), fairly-poor (24.3 percent) and poorest farmers (23.1 percent). Among the fairly poor and it was relatively high. Stone bunds are a soil conservation technique that involves the laying of poorest farmers, the adoption rates for stone bunds were similar, while for the non-poor farmers it stones on fields (Figure 6) to check runoff and to control soil erosion. This technique traps soil and was relatively high. Stone bunds are a soil conservation technique that involves the laying of stones allows it to accumulate over time. Another study in Burkina Faso indicates that although soil on ﬁelds (Figure 6) to check runoff and to control soil erosion. This technique traps soil and allows it properties did not change significantly over a five-year period due to stone bunds, there was an to accumulate over time. Another study in Burkina Faso indicates that although soil properties did increase in depth of the top layer of soil [70]. Farmers who have stones on their farms need to not change signiﬁcantly over a ﬁve-year period due to stone bunds, there was an increase in depth transport them to areas within the farm where the bunds are to be constructed. In the absence of of the top layer of soil [70]. Farmers who have stones on their farms need to transport them to areas available stones on farmland, households that want to engage in this practice must transport the within the farm where the bunds are to be constructed. In the absence of available stones on farmland, stones from outside. households that want to engage in this practice must transport the stones from outside. Figure 6. Use of stone bunds on farmland in Vrassan Village. Figure 6. Use of stone bunds on farmland in Vrassan Village. 3.3.5. Live Hedges 3.3.5. Live Hedges The poorest farmers had the lowest percentage of adopters (13.8 percent) of live hedges on their The poorest farmers had the lowest percentage of adopters (13.8 percent) of live hedges on their farms. Among the fairly-poor farmers, 16.5 percent adopted this practice, and for the non-poor, farms. Among the fairly-poor farmers, 16.5 percent adopted this practice, and for the non-poor, the the adoption rate was 15.6 percent. Live hedges are also known as living fences and are created adoption rate was 15.6 percent. Live hedges are also known as living fences and are created by the by the planting of trees on part or all of the farm boundaries (see Figure 7). This practice provides planting of trees on part or all of the farm boundaries (see Figure 7). This practice provides a buffer a buffer against wind and water erosion. Two studies in Burkina Faso also report that dense tree against wind and water erosion. Two studies in Burkina Faso also report that dense tree cover buffer cover buffer the effects of wind [72] and rainfall [73] and in turn reduce soil erosion. The relatively the effects of wind [72] and rainfall [73] and in turn reduce soil erosion. The relatively low adoption low adoption rates amongst the non-poor could be related to ﬁndings that all farmers in this wealth rates amongst the non-poor could be related to findings that all farmers in this wealth category category perceived their own tenure to land and trees to be insecure. Aside from reducing the intensity perceived their own tenure to land and trees to be insecure. Aside from reducing the intensity of soil of soil erosion, live hedges are important sources of fodder and fuel wood. Therefore, live hedges erosion, live hedges are important sources of fodder and fuel wood. Therefore, live hedges provide provide both livelihood beneﬁts and environmental beneﬁts to farmers. both livelihood benefits and environmental benefits to farmers. Land 2016, 5, 20 17 of 23 Land 2016, 5, 20 17 of 23 Fi Figure gure 7. 7. Li Live ve he hedge dge iin n C Cassou assou V Village illage with with Azadirachta Azadirachta indica indica.. 4. Limitations 4. Limitations This study faces several limitations. First, as part of the process of grouping households into This study faces several limitations. First, as part of the process of grouping households into different wealth status categories, one of the roles of the FGDs was to identify every household in different wealth status categories, one of the roles of the FGDs was to identify every household in each category. With a total of 900 households in the four villages, having detailed information for all each category. With a total of 900 households in the four villages, having detailed information for all households was challenging. To overcome this limitation, the twenty participants from the four villages households was challenging. To overcome this limitation, the twenty participants from the four agreed on a common list of local indicators to use in categorizing the households. The researchers then villages agreed on a common list of local indicators to use in categorizing the households. The collected interview data from households based on these indicators and later classiﬁed households researchers then collected interview data from households based on these indicators and later into different categories of wealth. Thus, the PPA approach could only be implemented in a limited classified households into different categories of wealth. Thus, the PPA approach could only be way. However, the study maintained the key aspect of participant input into how poverty was deﬁned. implemented in a limited way. However, the study maintained the key aspect of participant input In addition to limitations arising from the application of the PPA, the use of PPA itself introduced into how poverty was defined. a key limitation into the study’s analytical methods and ﬁndings. Both the number of cattle and the In addition to limitations arising from the application of the PPA, the use of PPA itself amount of land held by a household were used as independent variables in the categorization of introduced a key limitation into the study’s analytical methods and findings. Both the number of households into the wealth groups. The use of these variables in wealth categorization is a direct cattle and the amount of land held by a household were used as independent variables in the reﬂection of local deﬁnitions of household wealth and a function of the PPA process. However, categorization of households into the wealth groups. The use of these variables in wealth these variables also play a key role in the analysis of household engagement in environmentally categorization is a direct reflection of local definitions of household wealth and a function of the PPA degrading activities. The study treated number of cattle as a dependent variable to assess overgrazing. process. However, these variables also play a key role in the analysis of household engagement in Furthermore, several of the environmental degradation dependent variables logically correlate with environmentally degrading activities. The study treated number of cattle as a dependent variable to farm size: annual mean deforestation, as measured in hectares, likely reﬂects farm size, as does cotton assess overgrazing. Furthermore, several of the environmental degradation dependent variables production in kilograms. We nonetheless consider our ﬁndings to have merit, precisely because logically correlate with farm size: annual mean deforestation, as measured in hectares, likely reflects they highlight the role of wealth, as deﬁned locally, as a driving force in environmentally degrading farm size, as does cotton production in kilograms. We nonetheless consider our findings to have activities at this research site. merit, precisely because they highlight the role of wealth, as defined locally, as a driving force in Next, self-reported assessments by farmers can be biased, especially if the issue under environmentally degrading activities at this research site. investigation is considered sensitive. Such data can only be gathered indirectly because a direct Next, self-reported assessments by farmers can be biased, especially if the issue under question might be too sensitive and can affect the engagement of respondents. Because parkland investigation is considered sensitive. Such data can only be gathered indirectly because a direct tree species are protected by law, farmers are likely not to provide information if such species are question might be too sensitive and can affect the engagement of respondents. Because parkland tree fast degrading on their farmlands. Also, unequal and small sample sizes might not effectively reveal species are protected by law, farmers are likely not to provide information if such species are fast differences between groups. Finally, applying a uniﬁed list of indicators across multiple villages degrading on their farmlands. Also, unequal and small sample sizes might not effectively reveal requires careful consideration of potential differences in the socio-cultural settings. In our case, it was differences between groups. Finally, applying a unified list of indicators across multiple villages easier because these villages are close to each other and share ethnicity and culture. requires careful consideration of potential differences in the socio-cultural settings. In our case, it was easier because these villages are close to each other and share ethnicity and culture. Land 2016, 5, 20 18 of 23 5. Conclusions This case study of the poverty–environment nexus not only reveals that the relationship between wealth or poverty status and environmentally degrading activities is site speciﬁc in general, as well as activity speciﬁc; it also provides insights into resource management practices across different wealth groups at this site. The current study reveals that non-poor and fairly poor farmers engaged more often in environmentally degrading activities compared to the poorest farmers. Approximately 93 percent of non-poor and 22 percent of fairly-poor farmers experienced high rates of overgrazing, while none of the poorest farmers experienced high rates of overgrazing. This is because the non-poor and fairly-poor farmers possess the available resources to own large herds of cattle. This study in fact categorized households into wealth status groups in part based upon number of cattle owned. Equipped with capital, the non-poor and fairly-poor farmers engaged more effectively in the cutting and selling of fuel wood and cotton cultivation than did the poorest farmers. Based on farmers’ self-reported assessment of the role of their tenure security in relation to assisting natural regeneration of indigenous tree species, tenure insecurity constitutes a major constraint on FMNR. FMNR is known to reduce environmental degradation, and due to their perceived inability to participate in this practice, the non-poor contribute more to environmental degradation. Parklands in the Sahel have existed for centuries because of the regeneration of indigenous tree species that provide multiple livelihood and environmental beneﬁts. Furthermore, deforestation through ﬁeld expansion proved to be signiﬁcant for the fairly-poor and non-poor households. Cotton cultivation, which can motivate ﬁeld expansion and lead to heavy pesticide use, is capital intensive. The lack of available resources among the poorest farmer limits their effective participation in this practice. Other activities considered environmentally degrading, such as the cutting and selling of fuel wood, are dominated by the fairly poor and non-poor farmers. On the other hand, self-reported assessment of soil fertility loss was highest among the poorest farmers. In addition, the adoption rates of land management practices considered to improve the land (and help ameliorate soil fertility loss) were relatively low for the poorest households. Some of these land management practices, e.g. planting pits, use of compost and stone bunds, are both labor and capital intensive, which may explain the low rates of adoption among the poorest farmers. Therefore, the results of our study indicate that the non-poor and fairly-poor farmers contribute toward environmentally degrading activities relatively more, while poverty constrains the adoption of sustainable land management practices for the poorest farmers. Further research is needed in the following areas: (i) a comparison of natural resource management strategies for in-migrant farmers versus indigenous farmers; (ii) the relationship among ethnicity, poverty, and environmental degradation; (iii) the role of tenure security, land quality, and land fragmentation on sustainable land management; and (iv) the factors inﬂuencing FMNR in Burkina Faso. Acknowledgments: This work was supported by WP3 (National Policies and Capacity Strengthening) of the Building Biocarbon and Rural Development in West Africa Project (BIODEV) funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland. We also thank the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) for providing funding for this research. We thank Oumarou Bognini for his assistance during the ﬁeld work and the people of the local communities who developed the local indicators for poverty. We are thankful to Mr. Rabdo Abdoulay for producing a map for the study area. Author Contributions: Daniel Etongo conceived the paper rationale and carried out data collection. Daniel Etongo and Nadia Djenontin analyzed the data. Daniel Etongo wrote the general draft and Nadia Djenontin and Markku Kanninen edited and contributed to the interpretation of results and discussion. All authors participated in the ﬁnal draft. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. Land 2016, 5, 20 19 of 23 Appendix Table A1. Multiple comparison Scheffe Test for variables for which homogeneity of variance is assumed (N=200). 95% Conﬁdence Interval Mean Difference Dependent Variable Sig. Std. Error (I–J) Lower Bound Upper Bound Fairly poor 0.08 0.06 0.40 0.07 0.22 Non-poor Poorest 0.17 * 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.33 Non-poor 0.08 0.06 0.40 0.22 0.06 Annual average Fairly poor Poorest 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.21 deforestation Non-poor 0.17 * 0.06 0.01 0.33 0.02 Poorest Fairly poor 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.21 0.01 * The mean difference is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level. Table A2. Multiple comparison Scheffe Test for variables for which homogeneity of variance is not assumed (N=200). Mean 95% Conﬁdence Interval Std. Dependent Variable Difference Sig. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound (I–J) Fairly poor 37.22 * 2.82 0.000 30.27 44.17 Non-poor Poorest 40.85 * 3.01 0.000 33.44 48.27 Non-poor 37.22 * 2.82 0.000 44.17 30.27 Fairly poor Scheffe Poorest 3.64 2.20 0.259 1.80 9.07 Non-poor 40.85 * 3.01 0.000 48.27 33.44 Poorest Fairly poor 3.64 2.20 0.259 9.07 1.80 Number of cattle Fairly poor 37.22 * 6.12 22.15 52.28 Non-poor Poorest 40.85 * 6.11 25.80 55.90 Non-poor 37.22 * 6.12 52.28 22.15 Fairly poor Dunnett C Poorest 3.64 * 0.33 2.86 4.41 Non-poor 40.85 * 6.11 55.90 25.80 Poorest Fairly poor 3.64 * 0.33 4.41 2.86 Fairly poor 0.43 * 0.15 0.016 0.06 0.79 Non-poor Poorest 0.97 * 0.16 0.000 0.57 1.36 Non-poor 0.43 * 0.15 0.016 0.79 0.06 Fairly poor Scheffe Poorest 0.53 * 0.12 0.000 0.25 0.82 Non-poor 0.97 * 0.16 0.000 1.36 0.57 Poorest Fairly poor 0.53 * 0.12 0.000 0.82 0.25 Monthly fuel wood consumption (m ) Fairly poor 0.43 0.19 0.06 0.92 Non-poor Poorest 0.97 * 0.19 0.49 1.44 Non-poor 0.43 0.19 0.92 0.06 Fairly poor Dunnett C Poorest 0.53 * 0.09 .31 0.76 Non-poor 0.97 * 0.19 1.44 0.49 Poorest Fairly poor 0.53 * 0.09 0.76 0.31 Fairly poor 34.25 36.29 0.641 123.77 55.27 Non-poor Poorest 42.62 38.73 0.547 52.90 138.14 Non-poor 34.25 36.29 0.641 55.27 123.77 Fairly poor Scheffe Poorest 76.87 * 28.40 0.027 6.79 146.94 Non-poor 42.62 38.73 0.547 138.14 52.90 Poorest Fairly poor 76.87 * 28.41 0.027 146.94 6.79 Quantity of cotton produced (kg) Fairly poor 34.25 42.31 137.58 69.08 Non-poor Poorest 42.62 39.27 53.78 139.02 Non-poor 34.25 42.31 69.08 137.58 Fairly poor Dunnett C Poorest 76.87 * 23.87 19.95 133.79 Non-poor 42.62 39.27 139.02 53.78 Poorest Fairly poor 76.87 * 23.87 133.79 19.95 * The mean difference is signiﬁcant at the 0.05 level. Land 2016, 5, 20 20 of 23 References 1. Bojö, J.; Bucknall, J.; Hamilton, K.; Kishor, N.; Kraus, C.; Pillai, P. Environment Chapter, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers’ Source Book; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. 2. Bosch, C.; Hommann, K.; Rubio, G.M.; Sadoff, C.; Travers, L. Water, Sanitation and Poverty Chapter, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers’ Source Book; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. 3. Mabogunje, A.L. Poverty and environmental degradation: Challenges within the global economy. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2002, 44, 8–19. [CrossRef] 4. World Commission for Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987. 5. Moseley, W.G. Environmental degradation and the “poor” smallholders in the West African Sudano-Sahel: Global discourses and local realities. In African Environment and Development: Rhetoric, Programmes, Realities; Moseley, W.G., Logan, B.I., Eds.; Ashgate Publishing: Aldershot, UK, 2004; pp. 41–62. 6. Ravnborg, H.M. Poverty and environmental degradation in the Nicaraguan Hillsides. World Dev. 2003, 31, 1933–1946. [CrossRef] 7. Swinton, S.M.; Quiroz, R. Is poverty to blame for soil, pasture and forest degradation in Peru’s Altiplano? World Dev. 2003, 31, 1903–1919. [CrossRef] 8. Gray, C.L.; Moseley, W.G. A geographical perspective on poverty-environmental interactions. Geogr. J. 2005, 171, 9–23. [CrossRef] 9. Duraiappah, A.K. Poverty and environmental degradation: A review and analysis of the nexus. World Dev. 1998, 12, 2169–2179. [CrossRef] 10. Angelsen, A. The poverty of the environment and the environment of poverty. In Poverty and the Environment, Proceedings of the CROP/ADIPA/UNCTAD workshop, Sabah, Malaysia, October 1995; Angelsen, A., Vainio, M., Eds.; Comparative Research Programme on Poverty (CROP) Publications: Bergen, Norway, 1998; pp. 2–18. 11. Boyce, J.K. Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecol. Econ. 1994, 11, 169–178. [CrossRef] 12. Leach, M.; Mearns, R.; Scoones, I. Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-Based Natural Resource Management. World Dev. 1999, 2, 225–247. [CrossRef] 13. Forest Investment Program. REDD Preparation Plan; Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development: Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 2012. 14. Kambire, H.W.; Djenontin, I.N.S.; Kabore, A.; Djoudi, H.; Balinga, M.P.B.; Zida, M.; Assembe-Mvondo, S. La REDD+ et l’Adaptation aux Changements Climatiques au Burkina Faso: Causes, Agents et Institutions; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2015. 15. Kaminski, J.; Headey, D.; Bernard, T. The Burkinabe cotton story 1992–2007: Sustainable success or sub-saharan mirage? World Dev. 2011, 39, 1460–1475. [CrossRef] 16. Ouedraogo, I.; Savadogo, P.; Tigabu, M.; Cole, R.; Odén, P.C.; Ouadba, J.M. Is rural migration a threat to environmental sustainability in Southern Burkina Faso? Land Degrad. Dev. 2009, 20, 217–230. [CrossRef] 17. Johnson, D.L.; Ambrose, S.H.; Bassett, T.T.; Bowen, M.L.; Crummey, D.E.; Isaacson, J.S.; Johnson, D.N.; Lamb, P.; Saul, M.; Winter-Nelson, A.E. Meanings of environmental terms. J. Environ. Qual. 1997, 26, 581–589. [CrossRef] 18. Abu Hammad, A.; Tumeizi, A. Land degradation: Socioeconomic and environmental causes and consequences in the eastern Mediterranean. Land Degrad. Dev. 2012, 23, 216–226. [CrossRef] 19. Mortimore, M. The Future of Family Farms in West Africa: What Can We Learn from Long-Term Data?; Drylands Issue Paper No. 119; IIED: London, UK, 2003. 20. Belem, M.; Bayala, J.; Kalinganire, A. Deﬁning the poor by the rural communities of Burkina Faso: Implications for the development of sustainable parkland management. Agrofor. Syst. 2011, 83, 287–302. [CrossRef] 21. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human Development Report 2006—Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): New York, NY, USA, 2006. 22. Chomitz, K. At loggerheads? Agricultural Expansion, Poverty Reduction, and Environment in the Tropical Forests; World Bank Policy Research Report; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. Land 2016, 5, 20 21 of 23 23. Ouedraogo, I.; Tigabu, M.; Savadogo, P.; Compaoré, H.; Odén, P.C.; Ouadba, J.M. Land cover change and its relation with population dynamics in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Land Degrad. Dev. 2010, 21, 453–462. [CrossRef] 24. Paré, S.; Söderberg, U.; Sandewall, M.; Ouadba, J.M. Land use analysis from spatial and ﬁeld data capture in Southern Burkina Faso, West Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 127, 277–285. [CrossRef] 25. Ingram, K.T.; Roncoli, M.C.; Kirshen, P.H. Opportunities and constraints for farmers of West Africa to use seasonal precipitation forecasts with Burkina Faso as a case study’. Agric. Syst. 2002, 74, 331–349. [CrossRef] 26. Driessen, P.; Deckers, J.; Spaargaren, O. Lectures Notes on the Major Soils of the World; FAO World Soil Resources, Report-94; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2001. 27. Institut National des Statistiques et de la Démographie (INSD). Résultats Préliminaires du Recensement Général de la Population et de l’Habitat de 2006; Institut National des Statistiques et de la Démographie (INSD), Direction de la Démographie: Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 2007. 28. Fontes, J.; Guinko, S. Carte de Végétation et de l’Occupation du sol du Burkina Faso; Projet Campus; UPS: Toulouse, France, 1995. 29. Balen, J.; McManus, D.; Yue-Sheng, L.; Zheng-Yuan, Z.; Li-Ping, Y.; Utzinger, J.; Williams, G.M.; Li, Y.; Ren, M.Y.; Liu, Z.C.; et al. Comparison of two approaches for measuring household wealth via an asset-based index in rural and Peri-urban settings of Hunan province, China. Emerg. Themes Epidemiol. 2010, 7, 7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 30. Laderchi, C.R.; Saith, R.; Stewart, F. Does it matter that we do not agree on the deﬁnition of poverty? A comparison of four approaches. Oxf. Dev. Stud. 2003, 31, 243–274. [CrossRef] 31. Weng, X. The Rural Informal Economy: Understanding Drivers and Livelihood Impacts in Agriculture, Timber and Mining; IIED Working Paper; IIED: London, UK, 2015; Available online: http://pubs.iied.org/16590IIED. html?r=p (accessed on 15 March 2016). 32. Booysen, F.; van der Berg, S.; Burger, R.; van Maltitz, M.; de Rand, G. Using an asset index to assess trends in poverty in seven sub-Saharan African countries. World Dev. 2008, 6, 1113–1130. [CrossRef] 33. Narayan, D.; Chambers, R.; Shah, M.K.; Petesch, P. Voices of the Poor: Crying out for Change; Oxford University Press USA for the World Bank: New York, NY, USA, 2000. 34. Ouedraogo, I.; Mbow, C.; Balinga, M.; Neufeldt, H. Transitions in land use architecture under multiple human driving forces in a semi-arid zone. Land 2015, 4, 560–577. [CrossRef] 35. Swinton, S.M.; Escobar, G.; Reardon, T. Poverty and environment in Latin America: Concepts, evidence and policy implications. World Dev. 2003, 31, 1865–1872. [CrossRef] 36. Teshome, A.; de Graaff, J.; Ritsema, C.; Kassie, M. Farmers’ perceptions about the inﬂuence of land quality, land fragmentation and tenure systems on sustainable land management in the north western Ethiopian Highlands. Land Degrad. Dev. 2014. [CrossRef] 37. Ravnborg, H.M.; Escolán, R.M.; Guerrero, M.P.; Méndez, M.A.; Méndoza, F.; de Páez, E.M.; Motta, F. Developing Regional Poverty Proﬁles Based on Local Perceptions; CIAT Publication No. 291; Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT): Cali, Colombia, 1999. 38. Etongo, D.; Djenontin, I.N.S.; Kanninen, M.; Fobissie, K.; Korhonen-Kurki, K.; Djoudi, H. Land tenure, asset heterogeneity and deforestation in Southern Burkina Faso. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 61, 51–58. [CrossRef] 39. Gray, L.C. What kind of intensiﬁcation? Agricultural practices, soil fertility and socioeconomic differentiation in rural Burkina Faso. Geogr. J. 2005, 171, 70–82. [CrossRef] 40. Reenberg, A.; Oksen, P.; Svendsen, J. Land use Changes vis-à-vis agricultural development in Southeastern Burkina Faso: The ﬁeld expansion dilemma. Geogr. Tidsskr. Dan. J. Geogr. 2003, 103, 57–69. [CrossRef] 41. Jones, D.W.; Dale, V.H.; Beauchamp, J.J.; Pedlowski, M.A.; O’Neill, R.V. Farming in Rondomia. Resour. Energy Econ. 1995, 17, 155–188. [CrossRef] 42. Ouédraogo, M.; Tankoano, A.; Ouédraogo, Z.T.; Guissou, I.P. Etude des facteurs des risques d’intoxications chez les utilisateurs de pesticides dans la region cotonnière de Fada N’Gourma au Burkina Faso. Environ Risque Santé 2009, 8, 343–347. 43. Toe, A.M.; Kinane, M.L. Les pesticides au Burkina Faso/ Pesticide in Burkina Faso, Dakar-Fann. Available online: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9154884 (accessed on 26 July 2015). 44. Toe, A.M.; Ouedraogo, M.; Ouedraogo, R.; Ilboudo, S.; Guissou, P.I. Pilot study on agricultural pesticides poisoning in Burkina Faso. Interdiscip Toxicol 2013, 6, 185–191. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Land 2016, 5, 20 22 of 23 45. Brocard, D.; Lacaux, J.P.; Eva, H. Domestic biomass combustion and associated atmospheric emissions in West Africa. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycle 1998, 12, 127–139. [CrossRef] 46. Kituyi, E.; Marufu, L.; Huber, B.; Wandiga, S.O.; Jumba, I.O.; Andreae, M.O.; Helas, G. Biofuel consumption rates and patterns in Kenya. Biomass Bioenergy 2001, 20, 83–99. [CrossRef] 47. Niemeijer, D.; Mazzucato, V. Soil degradation in the West African Sahel: How serious is it? Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 2002, 44, 20–31. [CrossRef] 48. Larwanou, M.; Saadou, M. The role of human interventions in tree dynamics and environmental rehabilitation in the Sahel zone of Niger. J. Arid Environ. 2011, 75, 194–200. [CrossRef] 49. Place, F.; Binam, J.N. Economic Impacts of Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration in the Sahel: End of Project Technical Report; Free University, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD): Amsterdam, NY, USA, 2013. 50. Weston, P.; Hong, R.; Kaboré, C.; Kull, C.A. Farmer-managed natural regeneration enhances rural livelihoods in dryland West Africa. Environ. Manag. 2015, 55, 1402–1417. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 51. Nabahungu, N.L.; Visser, S.M. Farmers’ knowledge and perception of agricultural wetland management in Rwanda. Land Degrad. Dev. 2013, 24, 363–374. [CrossRef] 52. Karltun, E.; Lemenih, M.; Tolera, M. Comparing farmers’ perception of soil fertility change with soil properties and crop performance in Beseku, Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2013, 24, 228–235. [CrossRef] 53. Morgan, G.A.; Leech, N.L.; Gloeckner, G.W.; Barrett, K.C. SPSS for Introductory Statistics: Use and Interpretation, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004. 54. Hilton, A.; Armstrong, R.A. Is one set of data more variable than another? Microbiologist 2006, 7, 34–36. 55. Field, A.P. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: And Sex and Drugs and Rock’n’roll, 4th ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2013. 56. Ton, P. Cotton Production and Rural Livelihoods in West Africa; Oxfam: Oxford, UK, 2001. 57. Bonnassieux, A. Filière coton, émergence des organisations de producteurs et transformations territoriales au Mali et au Burkina Faso. Les Cahiers d’Outre-Mer 2002, 220, 421–434. [CrossRef] 58. Sawadogo, L. Adapter les Approches de l’Aménagement Durable Des Forêts Sèches Aux Aptitudes Sociales, Economiques et Technologiques en Afrique; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2006. 59. Ndiaye, O.; Zoungrana, P. Techniques de maintien de la fertilité des sols: Une Revolution Silencieuse de l’Agriculture. Available online: http://www.inter-reseaux.org/auteur/philippe-zoungrana (accessed on 30 December 2014). 60. Ouédraogo, E.; Mando, A.; Zombré, N.P. Use of compost to improve soil properties and crop productivity under low input agricultural system in West Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 84, 259–266. [CrossRef] 61. Reij, C.; Tappan, G.; Belemvire, A. Changing land management practices and vegetation on the Central Plateau of Burkina Faso (1968–2002). J. Arid Environ. 2005, 63, 642–659. [CrossRef] 62. McClintock, N.C.; Diop, A.M. Soil fertility management and compost use in Senegal’s Peanut Basin. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2005, 3, 1473–5903. [CrossRef] 63. Ouédraogo, M. Land Tenure and Rural Development in Burkina Faso: Issues and Strategies; Issue Paper No. E112; International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED): London, UK, 2002; Available online: http://www.iied.org/ (accessed on 4 June 2014). 64. Bai, Z.G.; Dent, D.L.; Olsson, L.; Schaepman, M.E. Proxy global assessment of land degradation. Soil Use Manag. 2008, 24, 223–234. [CrossRef] 65. Lenhardt, A.; Glennie, J.; Intscher, N.; Ali, A.; Morin, G. A Greener Burkina: Sustainable Farming Techniques, Land Reclamation and Improved Livelihoods; Development Progress Case Study Report; Overseas Development Institute: London, UK, 2014; Available online: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/ﬁles/odi-assets/ publications-opinion-ﬁles/9153.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2015). 66. Robinson, B.E.; Holland, M.B.; Naughton-Treves, L. Does secure land tenure save forest? A meta-analysis of the relationship between land tenure and tropical deforestation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 29, 281–293. [CrossRef] 67. Ajayi, O.C.; Franzel, S.; Kuntashala, E.; Kwesiga, F. Adoption of improved fallow technology for soil fertility management in Zambia: Empirical studies and emerging issues. Agrofor. Syst. 2003, 59, 317–326. [CrossRef] Land 2016, 5, 20 23 of 23 68. Kenta, I.; Shinjo, H.; Tanaka, U.; Tobita, S.; Funakawa, S.; Kosaki, T. Fallow Band System, a land management practices for controlling desertiﬁcation and improving crop production in the Sahel, West Africa, Effectiveness in desertiﬁcation control and soil fertility improvement. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2011, 57, 573–586. 69. Somda, J.; Nianogo, A.J.; Nassa, S.; Sanou, S. Soil fertility management and socio-economic factors in crop-livestock systems in Burkina Faso: A case study of composting technology. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 43, 175–183. [CrossRef] 70. Zougmore, R.; Gnankambary, Z.; Guillobez, S.; Stroosnijder, L. Effects of stone lines on soil chemical characteristics under continuous sorghum cropping in semiarid Burkina Faso. Soil Tillage Res. 2002, 66, 47–53. [CrossRef] 71. Kaboré, D.; Reij, C. The Emergence and Spreading of an Improved Traditional Soil and Water Conservation Practice in Burkina Faso; EPTD Discussion Paper No. 114; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; Available online: http://www.ifpri.org/publication/emergence-and-spreading-improved- traditional-soil-and-water-conservation-practice-burkin (accessed on 31 December 2014). 72. Leenders, J.K.; Sterk, G.; van Boxel, J.H. Wind erosion reduction by scattered woody vegetation in farmers’ ﬁelds in northern Burkina Faso. Land Degrad. Dev. 2014. [CrossRef] 73. Grimaldi, S.; Angeluccetti, I.; Coviello, V.; Vezza, P. Cost-effectiveness of soil and water conservation measures on the catchment sediment budget—The Laaba watershed case study, Burkina Faso. Land Degrad. Dev. 2013. [CrossRef] © 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Land Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/poverty-and-environmental-degradation-in-southern-burkina-faso-an-Ed2S3np5FA

Poverty and Environmental Degradation in Southern Burkina Faso: An Assessment Based on Participatory Methods

Loading next page...

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
ISSN: 2073-445X
DOI: 10.3390/land5030020
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Poverty and Environmental Degradation in Southern Burkina Faso: An Assessment Based on Participatory Methods

Poverty and Environmental Degradation in Southern Burkina Faso: An Assessment Based on Participatory Methods

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Poverty and Environmental Degradation in Southern Burkina Faso: An Assessment Based on Participatory Methods

Poverty and Environmental Degradation in Southern Burkina Faso: An Assessment Based on Participatory Methods

References

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies