4.6 Article

FARMERS' KNOWLEDGE AND PERCEPTION OF AGRICULTURAL WETLAND MANAGEMENT IN RWANDA

期刊

LAND DEGRADATION & DEVELOPMENT
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 363-374

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ldr.1133

关键词

farmers' perceptions; inland valley; reclaimed wetland; wetland agriculture; Rwanda

资金

  1. NUFFIC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most of Rwanda's wetlands are being reclaimed under government schemes with the aim of growing rice as the main crop. In the present study, information on farmers' knowledge and perceptions of agricultural wetland management was collected in Cyabayaga and Rugeramigozi wetlands. The two wetlands were selected as representatives for typical reclaimed wetland agriculture in Rwanda. They provide contrasts in both environmental and social terms. Three tools were used to investigate farmers' knowledge and perception of agricultural wetland management: (i) household survey; (ii) focus group discussions; and (iii) transect walk. The major constraints identified by farmers in the two wetlands were water shortage and lack of availability of improved seeds and high prices of fertilisers. The primary benefits from wetlands for farmers are income generation in Cyabayaga and food security in Rugeramigozi. The most commonly reported concern about the wetlands in the Cyabayaga and Rugerameragozi was that they are a source of malaria. Rice is an important crop in both wetlands, whereas farmers in Cyabahaga wish to continue cultivating rice, Rugeramigozi farmers prefer to grow rice only after it has been tested for its adaptability. Farmers have sufficient knowledge on the causes and the potential solutions to overcome most constraints. They know that soil suitability is closely related to relief. They classify soils by a number of criteria and choose crops accordingly. Any programme designed to address wetland management in the region will have to take account of farmers' knowledge and adopt a holistic view of wetland management. Copyright (c) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据