Research Article: Tobin, D., Pfaff, A., Vincent, J. R., Vanamamalai, A., & Karanth, K. K. (2026). Guiding private afforestation to raise public goods provision: Understanding farmers’ multi-dimensional preferences for trees in India. Ecological Economics, 247, 109023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2026.109023
Blog Author: Aishwarya Laghate
Key highlights:
- Farmers are interested in planting trees but prefer options that do not reduce crop space or compete strongly with farming.
- Planting trees along farm boundaries is the most preferred approach.
- On average, biodiversity-friendly planting often requires incentives or external support.
- Farmers have diverse preferences. While some adopt easily, others need encouragement.
- Offering farmers flexibility and choices can improve both participation and environmental benefits.
- Farmers prefer mixed, fruit, and timber tree options over medicinal-only trees, which are least preferred.
Tree-planting is often seen as a simple solution to climate change and biodiversity loss, but what happens when we bring farmers’ choices into the picture? This latest study explores how farmers in India view tree-planting on their own land, and how their choices can help shape more effective tree-planting programs.
Across agricultural farms near Bandipur National Park and Nagarhole National Park in Southern India, researchers found that many farmers already grow trees but usually along the edges of their land. Why? This method allows them to continue farming crops without losing valuable space. Some programs encourage farmers to plant trees in clusters or within their fields to support biodiversity. However, many farmers remain cautious about these options, as they can take up valuable farming space, affect crop production, and in some cases raise concerns about wildlife damaging crops.
Not all trees (or choices) are equal.
The authors conducted a discrete-choice experiment to inform the design of a tree-planting initiative for smallholders in India. Farmers preferred mixed, fruit and timber options over medicinal-only trees. Particularly, over those with less obvious economic value. This suggests that farmers are more likely to adopt tree-planting options that they believe will support their livelihoods.
Interestingly, not all farmers think alike. Some are experimental and open to planting trees within their fields, while others strongly prefer keeping them at the boundaries. Few farmers need substantial support to adopt certain options, while others would need little or none. This diversity in their thinking is actually a strength for designing flexible tree-planting programs that work for everyone.
A better way forward
Tobin, D., Pfaff, A., Vincent, J. R., Vanamamalai, A., & Karanth, K. K. (2026) suggest a hopeful and practical path: instead of a “one-size-fits-all” approach, tree-planting programs should offer farmers choices. By understanding farmers’ needs and providing the right incentives where needed, it is possible to create solutions that benefit both people and the planet. When grassroots-level farmers are involved in decision-making, all stakeholders can work together toward sustainability goals.
To access the original article, click here.
Keywords: Agroforestry, Tree-planting, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Sustainable agriculture, Conservation, livelihoods, Nature-based solutions
