Trees on farms: agroforestry

Agroforestry involves a wide range of trees that are protected, regenerated,

planted or managed in agricultural landscapes as they interact with annual
crops, livestock, wildlife and humans.

Photo: Brawijaya University/Kurniatun Hairiah

Suggested citation:
Van Noordwijk M, Coe R, Sinclair FL. 2019. Agroforestry paradigms. In: van Noordwijk M,
ed. Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade.
Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program. pp 1−14.
CHAPTER ONE
Agroforestry paradigms
Meine van Noordwijk, Richard Coe, Fergus L Sinclair

Highlights
• Agroforestry as a word enters its fifth decade, as a practice it is as old as
agriculture
• Definitions of agroforestry have evolved during the first four decades from plot-
to landscape- and policy-level concepts
• Agroforestry can be understood at these three scales as interactions, interfaces
and synergy between agricultural and forestry components
• Agroforestry has its roots in farmer-focused learning loops supported by formal
science

1.1 Introduction

“The existence of large numbers of people in the fragile ecosystems of the

developing world, and the fact that these ecosystems occupy the greater
proportion of the land of the developing economies suggest that means must be
devised which will assist in increasing the productivity of these ecosystems while at
the same time either rehabilitating them or arresting the process of degradation.
Agroforestry is a system of land management which seems to be suitable for these
ecologically brittle areas. It combines the protective characteristics of forestry with
the productive attributes of both forestry and agriculture. It conserves and
produces.“
(King 1978) 1.

In the four decades of its existence 2, agroforestry as a concept has been understood and
defined in multiple ways, often referring to a specific system scale of interest 3,4,5,6,7. Its
potential contribution to ‘restoration’ and ’conservation’ alongside ‘productivity’ of land has
been expressed in many ways, emphasizing soil conservation 8, land degradation 9, food
security 10, land use for integrated natural resource management 11,12, or biodiversity
conservation 13. The range of studies include trees and their domestication 14, tree–soil–crop
interactions at plot level 15, the interactions between land, labour, knowledge and risk at farm
level 16, human livelihoods at landscape scale7, dynamics of tree-cover change in space and

Chapter 1. Agroforestry paradigms | 3

time 17, social-ecological systems at landscape scale12, the multiple value chains that start with
tree, crop and livestock production in landscapes 18, and the policy domains 19 of forestry and
agriculture in the context of sustainable development goals 20, global change and multi-species
agroecosystems21, the role of trees in agro-ecology 22, responsible trade in globalizing
markets 23 and global climate change 24. The inclusion of all these aspects under a single term
may indicate a need for greater clarity on the different system scales involved and their
connections. Figure 1.1 provides a four-level typology of what can be seen as nested
paradigms: mutually compatible but distinct in concepts, methods and implications for
practice and policy. The various definitions that have over time been given for agroforestry
reflect these concepts 25,26.

Figure 1.1 Evolution of what agroforestry is

understood to be in relation to agriculture (A) and
forestry (F): exclusion, by definition, of any
interface (AF0), a collective name for specific
practices involving farmers and trees (AF1),
multifunctional landscapes (AF2) and a domain
for coherent policies for all land uses (AF3)

We will describe the way these concepts evolved in this introduction to a book that in three
sections takes stock of thematic aspects (focussed on understanding components, systems
and their processes of change and feedback), change in context (focussed on ‘theory of place’
or the ways that contextual factors shape current efforts in ‘land restoration’) and on policies
as part of theories of induced change. The latter summarize experience and evidence of the
way constraints at the level of knowledge, understanding, motivation, regulation and
investment can be overcome (in their specific contexts) to let the full spectrum of agroforestry
solutions contribute to rural livelihoods, to sustainable multifunctional landscapes and to
attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals 27 at (inter-) national scales.

1.2 Definitions

Before the term ‘agroforestry’ emerged, agriculture and forestry had been on very different
institutional pathways even though ‘farmers’ and ‘forests’ interacted in the real world in
multiple ways for as long as agriculture existed (ten thousand years or so) 28. From a farmer’s
perspective, forests were both a resource (source of firewood, utility and construction timber,
hunting, fishing and grazing opportunity, protecting water quality, regenerating soil fertility in
swidden/fallow rotations 29) and a threat (wild animals, robbers and, in some environments,
fire). ‘Forest’ as a word and as a concept originated in exclusion, in boundaries and in claims
by sovereigns to reserve access to part of a landscape’s resources. Use of forests for hunting
preceded the relevance of forests for shipbuilding and navies 30. Management of the

4 | Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade

regeneration of forests gradually led to plantation forestry controlled by forest authorities
who inherited an ambivalent relationship with farmers, perceived as the major threat to
forests. Schools for training professional foresters to work as resource managers on behalf of
those in power were set up separate from schools of agriculture, training professionals to
support commercialization and intensification of agriculture through business development,
extension and research. Where agricultural and forestry training became united under a
common umbrella, this difference in culture, science and relationship with rural communities
persisted. As a formal concept, definitions of agriculture tended not to exclude trees and
farmer-managed forests or plantations, but ‘forest’ definitions tried a combination of criteria
based on tree cover and control by forest authorities to set apart some of the area. Statistics
and spatial databases related to this distinction between agriculture and forestry were (and
still are) maintained at national levels and compiled internationally by the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), with challenges to consistency and
comparability that became problematic where international policy instruments emerged 31.

At the start of ‘agroforestry’ as a concept in the late 1970s, critique of the focus of the ‘green
revolution’ on intensified monocultural forms of agriculture added to the recognized failure of
forest authorities to interact with farmers. Existing combinations of trees, crops and livestock
on farms could benefit from a more systems-oriented understanding under a new umbrella
term while social contracts between forest authorities and farmers that had emerged in the
plantation establishment as ‘taungya’ in Myanmar or ‘tumpangsari’ in Indonesia offered hope
for widespread use in restoring deforested and degraded lands. In the first decade of
agroforestry, definitions emphasized that it was a ‘collective name for…’, with specifications of
the components and the ‘deliberate’ management of the combinations. The degree of
‘deliberateness’ was not easily assessed, however, challenging answers to simple questions on
how much agroforestry existed where. The first agenda for agroforestry, indeed, was to prove
that agroforestry exists and that the many practices and land-use systems described under
the umbrella term had properties in common as well as a functional typology and terminology
to differentiate them 32,33.

The definition of agroforestry (Box 1.1) that evolved in the first decade 34 is still the most widely
quoted 35,36.

Box 1.1 AF1 DEFINITION22

Agroforestry is a collective name for land-use systems and technologies where woody
perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos etc) are deliberately used on the same land-
management unit as agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial
arrangement or temporal sequence. In agroforestry systems, there are both ecological and
economic interactions between the different components.

When the ‘honeymoon’ period of discovery of the many forms of agroforestry was over, a
more critical phase emerged in which research became a relevant complement to what was
established as an information-sharing body in a first incarnation as the International Council
for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF). The close interactions between trees and crops that

Chapter 1. Agroforestry paradigms | 5

involved competition as well as opportunities for complementarity became a focus of
biophysical research 37, 38, with associated economic evaluation of trade-offs and risk
analysis 39, 40, 41. This resulted in hypotheses about the functioning of tree-crop combinations
such as ‘Benefits of growing trees with crops will occur only when the trees are able to acquire
resources of water, light and nutrients that the crops would not otherwise acquire’ 42. Active
involvement in genetic selection and improvement of trees with desirable properties became
one of the emphases of agroforestry research 43 although the diversity of trees and
circumstances made it hard to emulate the successes achieved with research into the major
food crops or industrial timber plantations. A balance was sought between compiling
information on any tree of potential relevance anywhere 44 and specific efforts in
‘domestication’ of species of particular value, with science-based support for farmer-driven
efforts 45. Deliberate introduction of alien species became known for its risk of invasiveness 46.

Expectations on benefits of agroforestry practices involving close tree-soil-crop interactions at

plot scale were tempered, despite evidence for many of the hypotheses on positive functions
of trees. Meanwhile, the landscape and livelihood scale gradually emerged, in the early 1990’s,
as a relevant scale for understanding agroforestry, in the AF2 concept. A new definition,
proposed by Leakey 47 emphasized the benefits that can be achieved, but did not make the
term operational in a world where segregated agriculture and forestry concept remained
dominant. He proposed a new definition (Box 1.2).

Box 1.2 AF2 DEFINITION35

Agroforestry is a dynamic, ecologically based, natural resource management system that,

through the integration of trees on farms and in agricultural landscapes, diversifies and
sustains production for increased social, economic and environmental benefits for land
users at all levels.

The lack of recognition of the active interface of agriculture and forestry became the basis for
the AF3 focus, in the late 2000s–early 2010s, on harmonization of regulations and incentives in
order to achieve the higher-level Sustainable Development Goals. Rather than defining
‘agroforestry’ as a separate land-use category that had complex borders with ‘pure agriculture’
and ‘pure forestry’, the central idea became removing bottlenecks to change, which were the
result of the artificial segregation of policy domains. The fuzzy boundary between ‘agriculture’
and ‘forestry’ reflects a continuum that cannot be satisfactorily sliced into two (or three) parts
but needs to be understood and managed as a continuum of functions. Recent analyses of
global tree cover on farms provide a new tool to quantify agroforestry, with a key finding that
more than 40% of agricultural land has at least 10% tree cover 48. Ten percent is the lower limit
of tree cover that countries can, according to international agreements, use in their definition
of ‘forest’, so the overlap of the two sectors is much larger than what is commonly recognized.
In the AF3 paradigm, the definition of ‘agroforestry’ can be simple (Box 1.3) and refer to the
roots of the word. In doing so, it inherits all the complexity of ‘agriculture’ and ‘forestry’,
without having to spell them out.

6 | Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade

 Box 1.3 AF3 DEFINITION14

Agroforestry, a combination of agriculture and forestry, is land use that combines aspects
of both, including the agricultural use of trees.

The three definitions have direct consequences for answers to the simple questions, ‘How
much agroforestry is there in the world?’ and ‘Is it increasing or decreasing?’. To earn a place at
international negotiation tables, the simplest definition (1.3), which shows the largest
relevance, may be preferable 49. To motivate programs to promote agroforestry, the
aspirational aspects of the second definition can open minds and doors. Empirical work on
comparing and improving ‘agroforestry practices’ will likely stay within the first definition (1.1).

1.3. Researchable hypotheses, performance metrics and methods

In the first decade of research, the ‘Diagnose and Design’ framework 50,51 was formulated in
support of regional development planning (Fig. 1.2). However, in the practice of its application
it seemed to have standard answers rather than an ‘evidence-based’ portfolio of potential
solutions on offer. It was short-lived as a method, but the idea of ‘learning loops’ came back in
multiple forms 52.

The gradual development of ‘agroforestry’ as a concept with the need for operational
definitions that allowed agroforestry to be distinguished from non-agroforestry interacted
with efforts to involve the full spectrum of scientific disciplines (biophysical, socio-economic,
integrative geographical, integrative development studies, legal and policy-oriented) in a wider
and wider set of questions (Figure 1.3). The early formulation of ‘hypotheses’ on resource use
in agroforestry did not distinguish between contexts and targeted general statements that
were presumably valid for

Figure 1.2 Representation in 1982 of multi-phase “diagnose and design” (D&D) learning loops and project
cycles38

Chapter 1. Agroforestry paradigms | 7

Figure 1.3 Summary of the evolution of agroforestry concepts and definitions over the last 40 years (MDG
= Millennium Development Goals6; MEA = Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; SDG = Sustainable
Development Goals)

all forms of agroforestry. Examples of validity could be found for each hypothesis in specific
locations but not as generic truths 53,54.

Overall, research methods were derived from this wide range of disciplinary traditions, but the
temporal and spatial scales of trees and landscape-wide interactions called for adjustments.
The initial studies largely described existing land-use practices but in the interpretation the
basic assumption of ‘chronosequences’—that all land had the same initial properties and that
changes were due to land use—became increasingly challenged. Soil science became one of
the fundaments of agroforestry research 55.

The early use of replicated field trials was built on agronomic research traditions but ran into
problems with the lateral expansion of tree roots that defied the treatments imposed and
complicated the analysis. Use of larger plots and active root trenching were seen as answers
but increased the cost and created a need to bring excluded interactions back into
consideration of what happens on small farm plots 56. Explicit attention to ‘lateral flows’
allowed empirical scale transitions by specifying what happens to a variable expressed per
unit area when the scale of observation changes 57,58.

Many of the methods for characterization of tree diversity 59 and landscape functions 60, built
on established ecological rather than agronomic research methods. Agroforestry
productivity estimates should refer to the whole plot, including the border areas, and not
some subjectively selected central area that supposedly represents unit area
productivity 61. It became clear that uncontrolled crop, tree and management
heterogeneity limited extrapolation of early on-farm research results to other farmers'
fields while replicated case studies of ‘best-bet’ technologies (traditional or experimental)
on different farms were preferable to the use of formal experimental designs.

8 | Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade

Although landscape-scale planning of agroforestry in Kenya had been initiated in the 1980s
from a landscape architecture ‘research through designing’ perspective 62,63, the
interdisciplinary study of land-use change—its actors, drivers, consequences and feedback
options—only emerged slowly in the agroforestry world 64, requiring the AF3 conceptualization
to take shape alongside efforts to engage at policy level. Methods for co-location of research
across disciplines in a pantropical comparison led to the Alternatives to Slash and Burn
program of research on active tropical forest margins 65,66. The focus on multi-scale, policy-
relevant issues made this into a prime example of ‘boundary work’ 67. Key to this type of
boundary work was the recognition that science was only one of several knowledge systems
and that clarifying contrasts and overlaps between knowledge systems could contribute to
negotiated solutions in natural resource management conflicts involving the interface of
agriculture and forestry 68.

System research traditions brought to agroforestry a shift from ‘components’ and ‘cause–
effect’ relations to one of feedbacks, buffering and filtering 69. The way ‘process-based models’
and ‘empirical evidence’ informed each other’s progress in agroforestry was constrained by
the disciplinary traditions from which agroforestry researchers continued to be recruited 70.

Performance metrics for agroforestry have evolved over time. Table 1.1 provides some
examples of metrics for each of the three AF paradigms (scales of evaluation). Further details
of these will be discussed in subsequent chapters of this book.

Silvo-pastoral system with native trees - Pacobamba, Apurimac-Peru. Photo: University of Bern,
Switzerland/Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel

Chapter 1. Agroforestry paradigms | 9

Table 1.1 Performance metrics for agroforestry in the contexts of the three AF paradigms

AF1 (plot and farm level)42,43,44

Efficiency in productive use of land: Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) or the sum of relative yields of all
components (with unsatisfied demand) compared to a ‘current practice’ monocultural
production mode (LER values below 1 indicate that specialized (segregated) land use is more
efficient than integrated ones)
Efficiency in use of labour: wage rate at which a Net Present Value calculation for total input and
output accounting of a land-use system yields zero (wage rates below what is considered to be
‘minimum wage’ indicate a drive out of agriculture)
Efficiency in use of capital: Net Present Value (discounted flow of financial equivalents of all inputs
and outputs of a land-use system; dependent on discount rate used) (relevant for capital
investment and creditworthiness)
Flexibility and risk management: maintenance of multiple options in the face of variation in
weather, prices, labour availability, pests and diseases (percent of the years that performance
is satisfactory)
Resource conservation: avoidance of degradation of the resource base beyond the natural
recovery capacity

AF2 (landscape and livelihoods’ level)56,71,72

Landscapes in context of the Sustainable Development Goals: Multifunctionality Land Equivalent

Ratio, sum of relative contributions to all Goals (relative to current shortfalls for each goal)
compared to land uses specialized in a specific function
Above- and belowground terrestrial carbon stocks and net greenhouse-gas emissions
Water flow buffering metrics, such as Flow Persistence, and water quality of streams and lakes
Procedural and distributive equity (over gender, age, social and wealth strata) of landscape-level
resources
Nutritional diversity: fraction of population (or specifically vulnerable groups) with access (physical,
economic) to all key food groups, and relevance of all landscape elements in providing these

AF3 (policy level)40,73,74

Perception of agriculture as threat to forests and of forestry rules as threat to on-farm production
of ‘forest’ resources
Coinvestment and cooperation between traditional agriculture and forestry/conservation agents in
enhancing multifunctionality
Public recognition of ‘trees outside forests’ as providers of regulatory and productive functions
Footprints: area equivalent of all consumption associated with a given lifestyle at current
production efficiencies
Carbon footprint: sum of attributable emissions per unit product or per capita (given lifestyles)

10 | Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade

References

1
King KFS. 1978. Concepts of agroforestry. Nairobi, Kenya: International Council for Research in Agroforestry.
http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/Publications/PDFS/01_Concepts_of_agroforestryv1.p
df
2
King KFS. 1987. The history of agroforestry. In: Steppler HA, Nair PKR, eds. 1987. Agroforestry: a decade of
development. Nairobi, Kenya: International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. pp 1–11.
3
Nair PKR. 1993. An introduction to agroforestry. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
4
Nair PKR. 1998. Directions in tropical agroforestry research: past, present, and future. Agroforestry Systems
38:223–245.
5
Sanchez PA. 1995. Science in agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 30:5–55.
6
Garrity DP. 2004. Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Agroforestry
Systems 61(1–3):5–17.
7
Van Noordwijk M, Hoang MH, Neufeldt H, Öborn I, Yatich T. 2011. How trees and people can co-adapt to
climate change: reducing vulnerability through multifunctional agroforestry landscapes. Nairobi, Kenya:
World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
8
Young A. 1997. Agroforestry for soil management. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
9
Cooper PJM, Leakey RR, Rao MR, Reynolds L. 1996. Agroforestry and the mitigation of land degradation in
the humid and sub-humid tropics of Africa. Experimental Agriculture 32:235–290.
10
Sanchez PA. 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295(5562):2019–2020.
11
Van Noordwijk M, Williams SE, Verbist B, eds. 2001. Towards integrated natural resource management in
forest margins of the humid tropics: local action and global concerns. ASB Lecture Notes. Nairobi,
Kenya: ASB Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins.
12
Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Freeman OE, Mbow C, de Leeuw J, Catacutan D, eds. 2015. Climate-smart
landscapes: multifunctionality in practice. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
13
Schrot G, da Fonseca GA, Harvey CA, Gascon C, Vasconcelos HL, Izac AMN, eds. 2013. Agroforestry and
biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Washington DC, USA: Island Press.
14
Leakey RRB. 2012. Living with the trees of life. towards the transformation of tropical agriculture. Wallingford,
UK: CAB International.
15
Ong CK, Wilson J, Deans JD, Mulayta J, Raussen T, Wajja-Musukwe N, 2002. Tree–crop interactions:
manipulation of water use and root function. Agricultural water management 53(1-3):171–186.
16
Scherr SJ. 1995. Economic factors in farmer adoption of agroforestry: Patterns observed in western
Kenya. World development 23(5):787–804.
17
Dewi S, van Noordwijk M, Zulkarnain MT, Dwiputra A, Hyman G, Prabhu R, Gitz V, Nasi R. 2017. Tropical
forest-transition landscapes: a portfolio for studying people, tree crops and agro-ecological change
in context. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management 13(1):312–
329.
18
Donovan J, Franzel S, Cunha M, Gyau A, Mithöfer D. 2015. Guides for value chain development: a
comparative review. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies 5(1):2–23.
19
Carter S, Arts B, Giller KE, Soto Golcher C, Kok K, de Koning J, van Noordwijk M, Reidsma P, Rufino MC,
Salvini G, Verchot L, Wollenberg E, Herold M. 2018. Climate-smart land use requires local solutions,
transdisciplinary research, policy coherence, and transparency. Carbon Management 9(3):291–301.
DOI: 10.1080/17583004.2018.1457907.
20
Leakey RRB. 2017. Multifunctional agriculture: achieving sustainable development in Africa. Cambridge MA,
USA: Academic Press.
21
Vandermeer J, van Noordwijk M, Anderson J Ong C, Perfecto I. 1998. Global change and multi-species
agroecosystems: concepts and issues. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 67(1):1–22.
22
Leakey RR. 2014. The role of trees in agroecology and sustainable agriculture in the tropics. Annual Review
of Phytopathology 52:113–133.
23
Tscharntke T, Milder JC, Schroth G, Clough Y, DeClerck F, Waldron A, Rice R, Ghazoul J. 2015. Conserving
biodiversity through certification of tropical agroforestry crops at local and landscape
scales. Conservation Letters 8(1):14–23.

Chapter 1. Agroforestry paradigms | 11

24
Verchot LV, Van Noordwijk M, Kandji S, Tomich TP, Ong CK, Albrecht A, Mackensen J, Bantilan C, Anupama
KV, Palm C. 2007. Climate change: linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 12(5):901–918.
25
Van Noordwijk M. 2014. Agroforestry as plant production system in a multifunctional landscape. Inaugural
lecture, special professorship in agroforestry, 16 October. Wageningen, The Netherlands:
Wageningen University.
26
Van Noordwijk M, Coe R, Sinclair F. 2016. Central hypotheses for the third agroforestry paradigm within a
common definition. Working Paper 233. Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Southeast Asia Regional Program. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5716/WP16079.PDF
27
Mbow C, Van Noordwijk M, Prabhu R, Simons T. 2014. Knowledge gaps and research needs concerning
agroforestry's contribution to sustainable development goals in Africa. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 6:162–170.
28
Williams M. 2003. Deforesting the Earth: from prehistory to global crisis. Chicago, USA: University of Chicago
Press.
29
Raintree JB, Warner K. 1986. Agroforestry pathways for the intensification of shifting cultivation.
Agroforestry Systems 4(1):39–54.
30
Evelyn J. 1664. Sylva, or a discourse of forest-trees, and the propagation of timber in His Majesties dominions,
&c. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31
De Foresta H, Somarriba E, Temu A, Boulanger D, Feuily H, Gauthier M. 2015. Towards the assessment of
trees outside forests. Resources Assessment Working Paper 183. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
32
Nair PKR. 1985. Classification of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 3(2):97–128.
33
Sinclair FL. 1999. A general classification of agroforestry practice. Agroforestry Systems 46(2):161–180.
34
Nair PKR. 1985. Classification of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 3(2):97–128.
35
Somarriba E. 1992. Revisiting the past: an essay on agroforestry definition. Agroforestry Systems 19(3):233–
240.
36
Torquebiau EF. 2000. A renewed perspective on agroforestry concepts and classification. Comptes Rendus
de l'Academie des Sciences-Series III-Sciences de la Vie 323(11):1009–1017.
37
Rao MR, Nair PKR, Ong CK. 1998. Biophysical interactions in tropical agroforestry systems. In: Nair PKR,
Latt CR, eds. 1998. Directions in tropical agroforestry research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publishers. pp 3–50.
38
Ong CK, Huxley P. 1996. Tree–crop interactions: a physiological approach. Wallingford, UK: CAB
International.
39
Hoekstra DA. 1987. Economics of agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 5(3):293–300.
40
Swinkels RA, Scherr SJ. 1992. Economic analysis of agroforestry technologies. An annotated bibliography.
Nairobi, Kenya: International Centre for Research in Agroforestry.
41
Franzel, R Coe, P Cooper, F Place, SJ Scherr, 2001. Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry
practices in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems 69(1):37–62.
42
Cannell MGR, van Noordwijk M, Ong CK. 1996. The central agroforestry hypothesis: the trees must
acquire resources that the crop would not otherwise acquire. Agroforestry Systems 34(1):27–31.
43
Wood PJ, Burley J. 1991. A tree for all reasons: the introduction and evaluation of multipurpose trees for
agroforestry. Nairobi, Kenya: International Centre for Research in Agroforestry.
44
Orwa C, Mutua A, Kindt R, Jamnadass R, Simons A. 2009. Agroforestry Database: a tree reference and
selection guide version 4.0. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
45
Leakey RR, Simons AJ. 1997. The domestication and commercialization of indigenous trees in agroforestry
for the alleviation of poverty. Agroforestry Systems 38:165–176.
46
Ewel JJ, O’Dowd DJ, Bergelson J, Daehler CC, d’Antonio CM, Gómez LD, Gordon DR, Hobbs RJ, Holt A,
Hopper KR, Hughes CE, LaHart M, Leakey RB, Lee WG, Loope LL, Lorence DH, Louda SM, Lugo AE,
McEvoy PB, Richardson DM, Vitousek PM. 1999. Deliberate introductions of species: research
needs: benefits can be reaped but risks are high. BioScience 49(8):619–630.
47
Leakey RRB. 1996. Definition of agroforestry revisited. Agroforestry Today 1996(1):5–8.

12 | Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade

48
Zomer RJ, Neufeldt H, Xu J, Ahrends A, Bossio DA, Trabucco A, van Noordwijk M, Wang M. 2016. Global
tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land: the contribution of agroforestry to global and
national carbon budgets. Scientific Reports 6(29987). DOI:10.1038/srep29987.
49
Nair PKR, Garrity D, eds. 2012. Agroforestry: the future of global land use. Advances in Agroforestry vol. 9.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
50
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry. 1982. Concepts and procedures for diagnosis of existing
land management systems and design of agroforestry technology: a preliminary version for comment.
Nairobi, Kenya: International Centre for Research in Agroforestry.
51
Raintree JB. 1987. The state of the art of agroforestry diagnosis and design. Agroforestry Systems 5(3):219–
250.
52
Van Noordwijk M. 2017. Integrated Natural Resource Management as pathway to poverty reduction:
innovating practices, institutions and policies. Agricultural Systems.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.008.
53
Huxley P. 1999. Tropical agroforestry. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
54
Ong CK, Black C, Wilson J, eds. 2015. Tree–crop interactions: agroforestry in a changing climate. Wallingford,
UK: CAB International.
55
Van Noordwijk M, Barrios E, Shepherd K, Bayala J, Oborn I. 2015. The rooted pedon in a dynamic
multifunctional landscape: soil science at the World Agroforestry Centre. Working Paper 200. Nairobi,
Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
56
Van Noordwijk M, Cadisch G, Ong CK, eds. 2004. Belowground interactions in tropical agroecosystems.
Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
57
Van Noordwijk M, Roode MV, McCallie EL, Lusiana B, Penning de Vries FWT, Agus F, Kerr J. 1998. Erosion
and sedimentation as multiscale, fractal processes: implications for models, experiments and the
real world. In: Penning de Vries FWT, Agus F, Kerr J, eds. 1998. Soil erosion at multiple scales:
principles and methods for assessing causes and impacts. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. pp 223–
253.
58
Ranieri SBL, Stirzaker R, Suprayogo D, Purwanto E, de Willigen P, van Noordwijk M. 2004. Managing
movements of water, solutes and soil: from plot to landscape scale. In: van Noordwijk M, Cadisch
G, Ong CK, eds. 2004. Belowground interactions in tropical agroecosystems. Wallingford, UK: CAB
International. pp 329–347.
59
Kindt R, Coe R. 2005. Tree diversity analysis: a manual and software for common statistical methods for
ecological and biodiversity studies. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
60
Rahayu S, Widodo RH, van Noordwijk M, Suryadi I, Verbist B. 2013. Water monitoring in watersheds. Bogor,
Indonesia: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional Program.
61
Somarriba E, Beer J, Muschler RG. 2001. Research methods for multistrata agroforestry systems with
coffee and cacao: recommendations from two decades of research at CATIE. Agroforestry Systems
53(2):195–203.
62
Duchhart I, Steiner F, Bassman JH. 1988. Planning methods for agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 7(3):227–
258.
63
Lenzholzer S, Duchhart I, Koh J. 2013. ‘Research through designing’ in landscape architecture. Landscape
and Urban Planning 113:120–127.
64
Van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B, Villamor GB, Purnomo H, Dewi S. 2011. Feedback loops added to four
conceptual models linking land change with driving forces and actors. Ecology and Society 16(1):r1.
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/resp1/.
65
Minang PA, van Noordwijk M, Kahurani E, eds. 2014. Partnership in the tropical forest margins: a 20-year
journey in search of alternatives to slash-and-burn. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
66
Tomich TP, Timmer DW, Velarde SJ, Alegre J, Areskoug V, Cash DW, Cattaneo A, Cornelius J, Ericksen P,
Joshi L, Kasyoki J, Legg C, Locatelli M, Murdiyarso D, Palm C, Porro R, Perazzo AR, Salazar-Vega A,
van Noordwijk M, Weise S, White D. 2007. Integrative science in practice: process perspectives from
ASB, the Partnership for the Tropical Forest Margins. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 9:269–
286.
67
Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M. Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM, McNie E. 2016. Boundary
work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
DOI:10.1073/pnas.0900231108.

Chapter 1. Agroforestry paradigms | 13

68
Van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B, Leimona B, Dewi S, Wulandari D, eds. 2013. Negotiation-support toolkit for
learning landscapes. Bogor, Indonesia: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Southeast Asia Regional
Program.
69
Van Noordwijk M, Lusiana B. 1999. WaNuLCAS: a model of water, nutrient and light capture in
agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 43:217–242.
70
Luedeling E, Smethurst PJ, Baudron F, Bayala J, Huth NI, van Noordwijk M, Ong CK, Mulia R, Lusiana B,
Muthuri C, Sinclair FL. 2016. Field-scale modeling of tree–crop interactions: challenges and
development needs. Agricultural Systems 142:51–69.
71
Namirembe S, Leimona B, van Noordwijk M, Minang P. 2018. Co-investment in ecosystem services: global
lessons from payment and incentive schemes. In: Namirembe S, Leimona B, van Noordwijk M,
Minang P, eds. Co-investment in ecosystem services: global lessons from payment and incentive
schemes. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
72
Lusiana B, Kuyah S, Öborn I, van Noordwijk M. 2018. Typology and metrics of ecosystem services and
functions as the basis for payments, rewards and co-investment. In: Namirembe S, Leimona B, van
Noordwijk M, Minang P, eds. Co-investment in ecosystem services: global lessons from payment and
incentive schemes. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
73
Van Noordwijk M, Leimona B, Villamor GB. 2018. Pro-poor PES designs? Balancing efficiency and equity in
local context. In: Namirembe S, Leimona B, van Noordwijk M, Minang P, eds. Co-investment in
ecosystem services: global lessons from payment and incentive schemes. Nairobi, Kenya: World
Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
74
Van Noordwijk M, Dewi S, Minang PA, Simons AJ. 2017. Deforestation-free claims: scams or substance? In:
Pasiecznik N, Savenije H, eds. Zero deforestation: a commitment to change. ETFRN Newsletter
58:11–16.

14 | Sustainable development through trees on farms: agroforestry in its fifth decade