Agroforestry Evidence Gap Map

Last modified date: 14 December 2018

We systematically compiled and mapped evidence on agroforestry impacts in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs) according to a framework that included four broad practice types (agrisilvicultural, silvopastoral, agrosilvopastoral, and agroforestry including insects/fish) and six intervention types (farmer capacity development, enhancing access to tree germplasm, community-level campaigning and advocacy, incentive provision, market linkage facilitation, and institutional and policy change) together with the three outcome categories of agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being. Results for studies on practices and interventions are presented separately. The maps include 14 specific agroforestry practices and six specific interventions as well as two agricultural productivity outcomes, three ecosystem services outcomes, and outcomes on six dimensions of human well-being.

We used a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) framework as a basis for inclusion of studies in the EGM. The study population was farms and farming households in L&MICs using practices within the definition of agroforestry. Interventions included studies of the impacts of specific agroforestry practices and studies of the impacts of specific interventions promoting agroforestry. To be included studies needed to have a comparator and describe at least one outcome.