Designing for Behavior Change in Agroforestry:

Adoption of Live Fencing in the African Sahel A Barrier Analysis Case Study from rural Matam, Senegal

Corey Dolbeare Peace Corps Masters International

Master of Forest Resources University of Washington

March 11, 2016

Senegal, Agroforestry, Sahel, Matam, Food Security, Agriculture, Natural Resource Management, Sylvopastoral, Behavior Change, Barrier Analysis, Poverty, West Africa,

Subsistence Farming, Peace Corps, Development, Live Fencing, Euphorbia balsamifera

2

Acknowledgements The University of Washington, School of Environmental & Forest Sciences My committee members: Ivan Eastin, Patrick Tobin, & Kern Ewing My professors: Gregory Ettl, Stanley Asah, David Ford, & Darlene Zabowski SEFS staff: Amanda Davis, Michelle Trudeau, & David Campbell Peace Corps Senegal My leaders: Vanessa Dickey, Demba Sidibe, & Cheriff Djitte Staff: M. Sakhir Dia, Mamadou Diaw, & Sidy Toure My counterpart: Amadou Ka My Master Farmer: Amadou Sy DBC Trainer: Bonnie Kittle PCV’s: Heather McGettigan, Matthew Tomlin, Taylor Macy, Casey McMenemy, Jill McIntosh, Sara Stribling, Erika Hooker My UW Peace Corps Masters International cohort: Gwen Stacey, Alia Kroos, Maggie Wilder, Mikhael Kazzi, Kevin Dillon, Peter Gill, Patrick Wauters, & Seth Kammer My UW mentors: Ben Roe, Kaeli Swift, & Colton Miller My Parents: Glenn & Melanie Dolbeare

Euphorbia balsamifera

3

Table of Contents List of Tables & Figures………………………………………………………………………………..3 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………5

Senegal Geography and Climate…………………………………………………………………..6 Agriculture in Senegal……………………………………………………………………………….8 Agroforestry………………………………………………………………………………………….10 Live Fencing in Senegal……………………………………………………………………………11 United States Peace Corps Senegal Agroforestry Extension Program……………………….12 Site Placement and Study Area Demographics…………………………………………………13

Research Objectives…………………………………………………………………………………..14 Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………15

The Designing for Behavior Change Framework……………………………………………….15 1. The Behavior…………………………………………………………………………………16 2. Priority Group and Influencing Groups……………………………………………………16 3. Twelve Determinants of Behavior………………………………………………………….17 4. Bridges to Activities………………………………………………………………………….18 5. Activities………………………………………………………………………………………18

Barrier Analysis……………………………………………………………………………………..18 Data Collection………………………………………………………………………………………22 Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………..23

The Euphorbia Rationale……………………………………………………………………………..24 Results & Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………26 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………….31

Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………….33 Challenges and Limitations………………………………………………………………………..34 Future Research……………………………………………………………………………………35

Literature Cited…………………………………………………………………………………………36 Appendix 1 Barrier Analysis Questionnaire - English……………………………………………….38 Appendix 2 Designing for Behavior Change Framework…………………………………………...42 Appendix 3 Determinants of Behavior………………………………………………………………..43 Appendix 4 Complete Results…………………………………………………………………………44

4

List of Tables Table 1. Priority Group Description for Matam Subsistence Farmers……………………………..16 Table 2. The Twelve Determinants of Behavior……………………………………………………..18 Table 3. Equations employed by the Barrier Analysis Excel Spreadsheet……………………….23 Table 4. Advantage analysis for live fencing types: Euphorbia and thorny tree species………..24 Table 5. Results of the Barrier Analysis for the most important determinants……………………27 List of Figures Figure 1…………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 Figure 2..…………………………………………………………………………………………………..6 Figure 3.……………………………………………………………………………………………………7 Figure 4..…………………………………………………………………………..………………………7 Figure 5..…………………………………………………………………..………………………………8 Figure 6. ..…………………………………………………………………..……………………………..8 Figure 7. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………..……9 Figure 8. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………..……9 Figure 9. ..…………………………………………………………………..……………………………10 Figure 10. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….11 Figure 11. ..…………………………………………………………………..…………….……………12 Figure 12. ..…………………………………………………………………..…………….……………12 Figure 13. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….13 Figure 14. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….13 Figure 15. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….14 Figure 16. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….15 Figure 17. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….21 Figure 18. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….22 Figure 19. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….25 Figure 20. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….25 Figure 21. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….25 Figure 22. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….25 Figure 23. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….30 Figure 24. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….32 Figure 25. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….32 Figure 26. ..…………………………………………………………………..………………………….33

5

Introduction About 41% of the Earth’s surface is categorized as drylands, or water scarce land where plant production is limited by precipitation. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) defines drylands as tropical and temperate areas with an aridity index (AI) of less than 0.65, meaning annual precipitation is less than two-thirds the potential evapotranspiration (MEA, 2005). Although this seems bleak, drylands are relatively fertile ecosystems that, when properly managed, support a plethora of habitats with rich biodiversity, as well as human activities including agriculture and livestock herding. In fact, drylands are home to just over two billion people worldwide, mostly in the developing world. The two major human activities are rangeland herding (59%) (Figure 1) and cultivation (30%) (UNCCD, 2011). Inhabitants of rural dryland areas rely heavily on their natural resources including but not limited to livestock, crops, finite water resources, and fuel wood to support their livelihoods. Croplands account for about 25% of drylands while dryland rangeland supports about half of the world’s livestock (MEA, 2005).

Figure 1. Cattle herd in northern Senegal (November 2013).

Land degradation, deforestation, and desertification are growing threats to dryland peoples and will only be exacerbated by climate change. Land degradation is a composite term with a multitude of definitions but generally refers to the temporary or permanent lowering of the productive capacity of land (UNEP, 1992) potentially induced by extreme weather and/or human activity. Productive capacity can refer to both biological productivity of an ecosystem and resource potential for human consumption. The 2005 Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) estimated with medium certainty that 10-20% of drylands worldwide had already been degraded. The types of land degradation vary greatly and include water erosion, wind erosion, soil fertility decline, salinization, lowering of the water table, aquifer depletion, soil pollution, deforestation, rangeland degradation, and biodiversity decline, among others. Dryland ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to over-exploitation and poor land management (UNCCD, 2011). Poverty, deforestation, overgrazing, inappropriate agricultural practices, politics, drought and unpredictable, sporadic precipitation patterns are some of the major drivers of land degradation. In agriculture-dependent societies, many practices ultimately damage the soils. Over-cultivation and reduced fallow periods strip soil of nutrients. Overgrazing and deforestation clear important vegetation cover whose roots protect soil from water and wind

6

erosion. Social and economic pressures to provide families with subsistence and income lead to these destructive practices in a self-perpetuating cycle. Deforestation also leads to decreased rainfall because of reduced evapotranspiration (Zeng et al, 1999) and may create a positive feedback loop that negatively influences forest cover because forests depend on crucial rainfall (MEA, 2005).

Figure 2. Degraded land in the region of Matam, Senegal in 2014. This area has been severely deforested and is highly vulnerable to wind and water erosion.

Much of the world’s drylands are in the Sahelian region of Africa. The Sahel is the arid ecozone of transition between the Sahara desert to the north and Sudanian savanna to the south, stretching from the west coast of Africa all the way to the east coast. The region is characterized by a hot, tropical climate and low, irregular precipitation. The prominent ecosystems include grassland, savanna, shrub steppe, and woodland. During the 21st century, precipitation has declined in the African Sahel by as much as 20 - 30% (Hulme et al, 2001; Dai et al, 2004) and mean temperature has increased by up to 1.3°C (Hulme et al, 2001). In the last century, there has been a marked decline in vegetation cover throughout the region (Poupon, 1980) (Figure 2). Senegal is one of many countries that falls in the Sahel. Rapid population growth, declining agricultural productivity, and unpredictable precipitation are increasing the demands on the drylands, especially in the north of the country. In Senegal, agriculture constitutes around 77% of the country’s economy (USGS, 2012). More than half of the country’s population resides in rural areas but only 12.5% of land is considered arable for food cultivation (New Agriculturalist, n.d.). Food insecurity is an ongoing threat for millions, especially those in the north where land degradation and climate change may have significant impacts on agriculture. In countries like Senegal, promoting development means combatting climate change, deforestation, and land degradation. Senegal Geography and Climate Senegal is a diverse country with a range of ecosystems from tropical shrub steppe in the north to lush, tropical forest in the south. But rainfall is trending toward decline. Summer rains have been steady for the past twenty years but are about 15% lower than the 1920-1969 average according to the USGS (2012). Most rainfall in Senegal comes between the months of June and September. But because rain systems move up from the south, the north receives considerably less rain. Agriculture in Senegal is predominantly rainfed therefore the implications of

7

decreasing precipitation may result in dire consequences for the 77% of the country’s population who are actively engaged in the agricultural economy (USGS, 2012). Long-term decreases in precipitation have been linked to anthropogenic climate change (Biasutti and Giannini, 2006). In 2012, Gonzalez et al implicated climate change as a driver for tree density reductions and forest species decline in northern Senegal due to increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation. The combination of increasing land degradation and decreasing rainfall and vegetation cover will cause the prevalence of dust storms (Figure 3) to rise along with associated health issues such as asthma, lung infections, and eye infections. I bore witness to the intensity of these dust storms during my two years living in Matam. Trees and crops are covered in coats of dust that reduce photosynthesis and may further increase tree mortality (Figure 4).

Forest species richness has fallen in northwest Senegal by 33% from 1945 to 1993 (Gonzalez, 2001). Mesic tree species die-off in parts of Senegal (Gonzalez, 2001) and degraded forest cover (Poupon, 1980) are well-documented trends. Through personal communications with my counterpart, a local Senegalese man born and raised in the region of Matam, I learned that forest cover and species decline, especially of non-thorny species,

were visible trends that occurred in the area over his lifetime. The severe drought of 1968-1973

significantly impacted this trend (Poupon, 1980). Senegal has lost more than half of its forests in the past 40 years (Tappan et al 2004). Land has degraded remarkably (UNCCD 2011, USGS 2012) and Senegalese farmers are experiencing much greater difficulty meeting their

Figure 3. A dust storm rolls through Goudoude Diobe, Matam, Senegal (June 2014).

Figure 4. Acacia tortillis ssp raddiana stand covered in dust on a windy day in Mbolo Aly Sidy, Senegal.

8

subsistence needs. Families, mostly women and children, must go further and further into the bush to retrieve fuel wood and thorny branches for protecting crop fields. Many have resorted to burning dried cow manure to cook with in the absence of fuel wood. Population growth and the lack of corresponding increases in agricultural technology improvement have led to increased pressure on arable lands. Organic matter in the north almost exclusively returns to the soil in the form of manure. Because of the extensive dry season, the limited leaf litter that is produced is foraged by starving grazing animals and is rarely left to breakdown and enter the soil. To reverse the damages done to soil conditions, farmers will actively have

to alter land management practices. Grouzis & Akpo (1995) demonstrated that trees improve microclimatic conditions and soil nutrient composition. I saw a similar correlation between soil fertility and tree proximity in Senegal with Balanites aegyptiaca at the farm where I worked in Matam. Underneath and around the trees or stumps, the crops grown were visibly more robust compared to others farther away. Zahringer (2010) observed that sylvopastoral tree density, species richness and diversity, and canopy cover were significantly higher in areas under sustainable land management practices than those under conventional land management practices. She also found that tree regeneration was reduced under conventional land management practices. The only tree species regenerating where I lived in Senegal for two years was Balanites aegyptiaca. Acacias and Ziziphus mauritiana were often grazed to death if they even found the right conditions for germination. The current trends in land degradation and the benefits of better land management practices make it clear that specific action is needed to aid Senegal’s landscapes in regeneration. Agriculture in Senegal Senegal is an agriculture-dependent country. When there are no jobs and no money to buy food, people depend on subsistence farming for survival. Constraints of agriculture include inadequate rainfall, poor soils, insufficient climate, lack of labor and machinery, lack of access to improved seeds, lack of irrigation, lack of money to buy necessary materials, and lack of

Figure 5. Farmers prepare a field for millet planting.

Figure 6. Sorghum field in the Wallo.

9

transportation. Major cash crops in Senegal include peanuts, millet, sorghum, corn, sugarcane, rice, cashews, cotton, and cowpeas. Peanuts and cotton are the country’s two major exports. In the north, farmers depend on their annual production of local varieties of millet and sorghum. The typical subsistence farmer works a field that is about one hectare in size (Figure 5). During the rainy season, northern subsistence farmers grow millet locally around their villages (Figure 7). During the dry, cool season, many farmers migrate and create temporary settlements where they grow sorghum by the Senegal River (Figure 6). However, the production from both seasons is not enough to get some families through the year. Many families depend on imports of cheap rice from southeast Asia making Senegal a net importer of food. Monoculture productions have led to the degradation of soils throughout the country. Shortened fallow periods, the clearing of forest for new agricultural space, and improper fertilizer use are results of decreasing agricultural production. Common practice is to add cow manure to soil to boost nitrogen but some farmers add goat, sheep, horse, and donkey manure, which are associated with bringing termites. Compost is not in widespread use in the north where organic matter is limited; it is expensive to purchase and not locally available. To improve the state of agriculture, environmental stewardship and better land management solutions are crucial.

Figure 8. Balanites aegyptiaca stumps are left after branches were cut to produce this dead fence for a millet field in Goudoude Diobe. Some stumps can be seen regenerating.

Figure 7. Millet field near Goudoude Diobe.

10

Agroforestry Agroforestry promotion is one of several approaches Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) are using to help local agriculturalists address land degradation and improve food security. Agroforestry is a land use system that incorporates trees/shrubs, crops, and animals on the same unit of land to improve yields, enhance production, increase profits, and maximize biodiversity in a sustainable way (Peace Corps, 2013). There are five major agroforestry technologies promoted in Senegal including live fencing, windbreaks, alley cropping, wood lots, and fruit tree management. These techniques promote diversification of agricultural products and resources, which may reduce the sensitivity of agriculture to drought and the vulnerability of subsistence farmers to climate change (Simonet & Jobbins, 2015). Peace Corps Senegal is one development group working throughout Senegal to improve food security by promoting agroforestry adoption. I served as an agroforestry extension agent in the northeast region of Matam where agroforestry practice is quite low. During my time there, I focused specifically on live fencing and the barriers to adoption by local farmers. Live fencing is a technique where trees are planted around the periphery of agricultural spaces to create a dense, impenetrable hedge or thicket that often incorporates thorny or unpalatable species. In the arid north, climatic conditions limit the growth of preferential grasses and vegetation for livestock causing many animals to feed on crop fields. The result is poor yields, food insecurity, and increased human conflict, especially between farmers and herders. A physical barrier is a necessity for

agriculture in this region however, many farmers cannot afford chainlink fencing or other types of expensive construction to enclose their fields. Most farmers resort to cutting and piling up branches of thorny trees including Acacias spp and Balanites aegyptiaca high enough to exclude grazing cows. Although the species used for this form of dead fencing are coppicable (Figure 8), tree mortality and deforestation are inevitable. Some farmers have been proactive in their adoption and maintenance of live fencing and they are experiencing the benefits. Live fencing helps reduce trends in land degradation by protecting crop fields from livestock, reducing soil erosion (Figure 9), and increasing carbon sequestration while reducing cutting and subsequent deforestation.

Figure 9. Extensive soil erosion is the result of a heavy rain causing large potholes in fields and wiping away dead fences. This field had already been planted when the rains came and all the seeds were washed away.

11

Live Fencing in Senegal Many farmers use Euphorbia balsamifera to create live fences (Figure 10). Euphorbia is an unpalatable, woody shrub with toxic sap that can be propagated easily with vegetative cuttings. Lignified sections of the plant can be cut to a length of 20cm, planted in an upright orientation during the dry season, and left to be watered by the rains in June or July. Although Euphorbia survival rates are unknown, many farmers who applied this technique claimed the majority of the cuttings survive. The cuttings are planted at 5-10cm spacing to prevent livestock from passing through. To encompass a single hectare field, farmers would need about 4,000 cuttings. Because of the limited distribution of Euphorbia and labor constraints, planting this type of live fence is carried out incrementally each season. Four to five years is an estimate for the time it may take farmers to complete a robust live fence using Euphorbia cuttings.

Figure 10. A farmer assesses his Euphorbia live fence in Hamarabe, Matam, Senegal. He placed some thorny branches near the bottom for reinforcement. But he has greatly reduced the amount of cutting he must perform each season to protect his field.

An alternative method to producing live fencing is to plant thorny species purchased from or grown in a nursery. Thorny species with strong potential for live fencing in Senegal include Acacia senegal, Acacia nilotica, Acacia mellifera, Acacia tortillas, Acacia seyal, Faidherbia albida, Bauhinia rufescens, Parkinsonia aculeata, and Prosipis juliflora. Unlike Euphorbia, these species offer secondary benefits including animal fodder, fuel wood, pole wood, potential shade, and medicine. Thorny species are planted at 30cm spacing and require about 1,200 – 1,300 trees to enclose single hectare field. Each year, the trees are pruned to stimulate low branching and to prevent the tree from assuming the typical structure of a tall trunk and umbrella-shaped crown. Some trees may be left to take that form to provide shade and windbreaks as the other trees form a thorny hedge in between. The disadvantages to this type of live fencing are the labor required to prune the trees to achieve the appropriate shape, the low survival rates of the saplings after planting, and the immediate need for protection for two to three years until the plants are robust enough to withstand grazing. This type of fencing must also be planted at the

12

start of the rains, which conflicts with field crop activities. For individuals producing their own nursery trees, the sowing process must be completed at the right time for the trees to be ready to outplant with the rains. Many farmers lack the capacity to protect outplanted trees or trees growing in a home nursery, making this type of live fencing less appealing to a highly risk adverse population. Access is a major issue for

farmers looking to create live fencing with thorny species because tree sacks for nursery production are not locally available and the amount of trees needed to enclose a field is too expensive for an individual farmer to purchase. United States Peace Corps Senegal Agroforestry Extension Program Peace Corps Senegal is a volunteer program designed to provide the country of Senegal with trained professionals to work with local people in areas of development including agriculture, agroforestry, health, and community economic development. The agroforestry program specifically places agroforestry extension volunteers in rural areas for two years to work hands-on with subsistence farmers to help them better understand and adopt agroforestry

technologies. The ultimate purpose of the agroforestry program is to improve the state of food security in Senegal. Food security is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO, 1996) as when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life. To do this, volunteers work to extend best practices in agroforestry including live fencing (Figure 13), windbreaks, alley cropping, wood lots, fruit tree management (Figure 12), and permaculture.

The volunteer spends much of the first year networking and learning as much as possible about his/her community, culture, language, climate, and current practices. The second year is when the majority of trainings, small grants, activities and projects are completed to address local problems related to agriculture and agroforestry. Volunteers guide their work using the agroforestry program’s own framework. The three major goals are 1.) to enhance capacity for agroforestry technology dissemination 2.) to improve farm productivity through appropriate agroforestry technology adoption and 3.) to increase the availability to nutritious foods.

Figure 12. Teaching fruit tree pruning.

Figure 11. A traditional fence made of sticks in Goudoude Diobe.

13

Figure 13. Planting Euphorbia cuttings during a Peace Corps training session. These segments have been planted in a berm to help reduce soil erosion. Once watered, the cuttings will produce roots below ground and help hold the soil in place.

Site Placement & Study Area Demographics As an agroforestry extension agent working for the United States Peace Corps, I was stationed in a small, semi-sedentary village of about 1,000 people called Goudoude Diobe in the northeastern region of Matam. I learned to speak Pulaar, a Fulfulde dialect predominantly spoken throughout the north of Senegal. The ethnic group I lived with are Fulbe who are known for their tradition of herding sheep, goats, and cattle (Figure 14). Many Fulbe however, actively engage in subsistence farming of millet and sorghum (Figure 15), which they grow in the rainy and cold seasons respectively. Because the landscape is saturated with livestock at all times, having a physical barrier to keep livestock out of crop fields is crucial to agriculture in this area.

Figure 14. Fulbe guide their herds across a shallow branch of the Senegal River in the Wallo, the area contiguous to the river that seasonally floods.

14

Fulbe families are extensive with large numbers of children. Family bonds often extend beyond the western concept of nuclear family with households clustered together in compounds. Fulbe depend on their natural resources for a number of uses including cook fuel, shade structures, dead fencing, tooth sticks, animal fodder, medicine, and poles for construction. In Fulbe culture, livestock serve as a living bank system. When a family needs money, they bring livestock to the local market to sell. Otherwise, livestock consumption is reserved only for important celebrations and religious ceremonies. Matam may be one of the poorest regions in Senegal, however census data is sometimes confounded by cultural taboos because people do not count their resources, possessions, animals, or children out of fear of losing them.

Figure 15. A millet field during the cold season in Hamarabe mostly enclosed by a live fence of Euphorbia.

Throughout Matam there are small, scattered group of ethnic Wolofs. They are predominantly agriculturalists, but many have adopted agropastoral land use systems. The Pulaars have a higher social resilience to stresses induced by climate change and ecological crises than the Wolofs. They are better able to adapt land exploitation practices in times of environmental stress and desertification (Bradley & Grainger 2004). The majority of farmers interviewed in this study were Pulaar speakers including both Fulbe and Haalpulaar groups. Research Objectives To better understand the behavior of subsistence farmers in Matam, Senegal with regard to the adoption of agroforestry technologies- specifically the live fence. To use the barrier analysis and the DBC framework to understand motivators for live fencing adoption. Why are some farmers producing live fencing and others are not? To help Agroforestry Extension Agents working for the Peace Corps and other NGO groups better understand farmer attitudes toward live fencing and to help them better design extension activities that optimize farmer adoption of live fencing.

15

Methodology In January 2015, Peace Corps Senegal hired an independent consultant, Bonnie Kittle, of the Food Security and Nutrition Network to teach a two week program called Designing for Behavior Change (DBC). The training provided an approach to development with an angle focused on human behaviors and a methodology to help shape targeted behaviors. Although designed for use with larger groups, especially NGOs who work in teams and have funding and resources at their disposal, DBC was adapted for Peace Corps volunteers and their counterparts. I attended this two-week training with my community counterpart, Amadou Ka. Together, we learned how to use the DBC framework as well as how to perform a Barrier Analysis, which is a questionnaire tool that investigates individuals’ perceptions of problems based on twelve determinants of behavior. To tackle the problem of crop damage by livestock, Amadou and I adapted the barrier analysis questionnaire to focus on the behavior of adoption of live fencing. We translated the survey from English to Pulaar to use in our community and the region of Matam with the help of a

language and cross-culture facilitator, Mamadou Sakhir Dia. After obtaining IRB exempt status from the University of Washington, I travelled across the region of Matam to interview 90 farmers from April to October of 2015 from eleven villages (Figure 16, 17). Half of the interviewees were farmers who adopted or attempted live fencing (doers) and the other half had not (non-doers). The barrier analysis employs both qualitative and quantitative methods. After coding responses pertaining to the determinants of behavior, I used a pre-existing excel spreadsheet specifically designed for Barrier Analysis to look for significant differences in the responses between the two groups. The Designing for Behavior Change Framework The DBC curriculum was developed by the Core Group Social and Behavioral Change Working Group (Kittle, 2013). The program was modified in 2012 by members of the Food Security and Nutrition Network Social and Behavioral Change Task Force for multiple sectors including agriculture, natural resource management, health, and nutrition. Built upon the original BEHAVE framework (2004), DBC addresses development workers’ need for a practical behavioral framework that strategically aids project planning for maximum effectiveness. The framework consists of five major sections:

Figure 16. Interviewing farmers for the Barrier Analysis.

16

1. The Behavior A behavior is an action that is specific, observable, measurable, and feasible. The promoted behavior must get to the root of an actual problem to be successful. The more infrequent a particular behavior is performed, the more difficult it will be to change. After a targeted behavior is identified, a behavior statement is written in the present tense and must mention who needs to perform the behavior with details including quantity, frequency, and duration if applicable. Behavior statement: Targeted farmers plant a live fence around the entire periphery of their crop fields. 2. Priority Group & Influencing Group(s) The priority group refers to the body of people whose behavior is targeted for change. The influencing group is the body of people with the most influence on the priority group’s capacity for adoption of a particular behavior. I was able to identify my priority group easily through observations and discussions because I lived and worked in the community promoting agroforestry for two years. No influencing group was identified for adoption of live fencing. Table 1. Priority Group Description for Matam Subsistence Farmers

Demographics ● subsistence farmers ● planting ~1 hectare fields ● food insecure ● ages 25 - 70 ● mostly illiterate ● mostly males ● Muslim ● supported by remittances ● live in Matam region ● live in rural villages ● farm millet/sorghum/beans

Daily/Habitual Activities ● Friday holy day, no work ● weekly market ● youth in schools mon-fri/sat ● 1pm - 4/5pm is lunch/rest time, no work daily ● pray five times daily

Common Desires ● support their families ● reduce work and tiredness ● make more money ● want to be healthy ● want kids to be in school

Common Barriers ● limited access to tree nurseries, seeds ● limited financially ● limited education & technical skills

17

● lack of machinery & equipment ● illiteracy ● lack of health & energy & strength ● frequent celebrations (weddings, naming ceremonies) ● lack of time

Feelings on the Behavior ● trees are important but most tree planting projects fail, limited confidence

● know people will not water trees planted, must wait for rainy season, limited to rainfed agriculture/projects

● if live fence stands, will reduce future work, may reduce deforestation and cutting of tree branches

● needs help/labor to make one, cannot do it alone ● might reduce land conflict, delineate fields ● many do not know how to plant one, or where to get

materials ● there is not enough time to plant an entire live fence in a

season, must be done incrementally ● people come and steal dead fence branches for fuel

wood, might cut down trees ● trees might bring birds, insects, or other pests ● live fence might keep animals out and keep a field cooler,

provide some shade, can sit underneath it

Stage of Change Pre-Awareness--Awareness--Preparation--Action--Maintenance most people recognize the threat of livestock entering fields protected by dead fencing and many recognize the environmental damage from cutting trees down

Gender Roles

Men Women

-control household finances -agriculture -fence construction -plowing/tilling -seeding/harvesting -physical labor -raising/herding livestock -politics

-cooking & cleaning -household maintenance -child rearing -laundry -seeding/harvesting -vegetable gardening -sourcing water -firewood collection

3. Twelve Determinants of Behavior The determinants represent an individual’s perceptions, feelings, beliefs, or other elements within the local environment that support engagement in a behavior, or conversely prevent a behavior from being done. The barrier analysis attempts to discover what these factors are for a particular behavior by asking questions referring to these twelve determinants.

18

Table 2. The determinants are the factors that motivate the behaviors.

Determinant Description

Perceived Self-Efficacy An individual’s belief that he or she can do a particular behavior given their current knowledge and skills; the set of knowledge, skills or abilities necessary to perform a particular behavior.

Perceived Social Norms Perception that people important to an individual think that s/he should do the behavior; norms have two parts: who matters most to a person on a particular issue, and what s/he perceives those people think s/he should do.

Perceived Positive Consequences

The positive things a person thinks will happen as a result of performing a behavior.

Perceived Negative Consequences

The negative things a person thinks will happen as a result of performing a behavior.

Access The degree of availability (to a particular audience) of the needed products or services required to adopt a given behavior. This also includes an audience’s comfort in accessing desired types of products or using a service.

Perceived Action Efficacy The belief that by practicing the behavior one will avoid the problem.

Cues to Action/Reminders The presence of reminders that help a person remember to do a particular behavior or remember the steps involved in doing the behavior. This also includes key powerful events that triggered a behavior change in a person.

Perceived Susceptibility/Risk A person’s perception of how vulnerable they feel to the problem.

Perceived Severity The belief that the problem (which the behavior can prevent) is serious.

Perceived Divine Will A person’s belief that it is God’s will (or the gods’ will) for her/him to have the problem; and/or to overcome it.

Politics Laws and regulations that affect behaviors and access to products and services.

Culture The set of history, customs, lifestyles, values, and practices within a self-defined group.

19

4. Bridges to Activities A Bridge to Activity is the link between significant determinants found during the formative research process (Barrier Analysis) and the future activity development workers will design to address the identified problem through promotion of the targeted behavior. The statement begins with a directional term (increase, decrease, improve, reduce, reinforce) and provides a specific description of a planned change for the determinant. There is usually one Bridge to Activity for each determinant found to be important to the chosen behavior. 5. Activities An activity is the set of tasks that when implemented together will address a bridge to activity. Development workers and program implementers plan, organize, and conduct activities with the priority group and/or influencing groups to achieve behavior change. There are three main criteria each activity must have to ensure the highest level of adoption of a targeted behavior: Feasibility: the activity is capable of being implemented within the ecological and geographical context by most of the people in the priority group. Receptivity of the Priority Group: the activity is appropriate within the cultural and social context. Relevance to the Bridges to Activities: the activity directly addresses the bridges to activities. Barrier Analysis A barrier analysis is a survey that identifies the particular determinants involved in blocking the priority group from engaging in a behavior. The questionnaire is anonymous and broken down into two sections: control questions and research questions. The control questions are designed to ensure the interviewee falls appropriately within the priority group. The 17 research questions address the determinants. I created a series of three control questions to screen for the appropriate participants for the live fencing Barrier Analysis:

1. Are you a farmer? 2. Is your field enclosed by a physical barrier? 3. What materials do you have currently surrounding your field?

If the respondent was not a farmer, he or she was not interviewed. To be considered a “doer,” the farmer had to have living materials (trees/shrubs) planted around the periphery of the field. Although not included in my questionnaire, I asked extra questions to determine if the trees were intentionally planted or already existing before the barrier was ‘constructed.’ I make this important distinction because although a living tree already growing with a fence of any sort completed around it could fit the definition of a living barrier, I wanted to screen specifically for

20

those individuals who had actively engaged in the planting process- using cuttings for vegetative propagation or outplanting trees from a nursery. A true doer is an individual that has gone through the process of taking plant material from elsewhere and transported it to a new location to create a barrier. It was rare that an individual had a live fence planted around his entire field. Because the barrier analysis calls for 45 doers and 45 perfect live fences may not exist in the region, the definition of a doer for live fencing needed to be modified. This is called relaxing the behavior. For this survey, the behavior was relaxed so that doers would include farmers who had actively planted trees or cuttings to create a partial barrier. No length or percentage of field enclosed was specified. This limitation reflects the lack of live fencing adoption in the region. The research questions must always include the four most important determinants- perceived self-efficacy, social norms, and positive and negative consequences. Each one of these involves an open-ended question designed to dig for information about the interviewees’ perceptions, feelings, beliefs, and experiences. Often times, it was necessary to probe on the close-ended questions to determine whether a response fit into the Yes, No, or Maybe category. Perceived Self-Efficacy

○ Now, with the money, knowledge, and skills you have, do you think you could plant a live fence around your field? (Yes, No, Maybe)

○ What could make it easier for you to plant a live fence around your field? ○ What could make it difficult for you to plant a live fence around your field?

Perceived Social Norms

○ Will most people you know accept if you plant a live fence around your field? (Yes, No, Maybe)

○ What people approve of you planting a live fence? ○ What people disapprove of you planting a live fence?

Perceived Positive Consequences

○ What is the utility/benefit of planting a live fence around your field? Perceived Negative Consequences

○ What is a disadvantage of planting a live fence around your field? In a true Barrier Analysis, all twelve determinants are included. The other eight determinants are represented by close-ended questions: Perceived Access

o How difficult is it for you to get the trees you need to make a live fence? Cues to Action

o How difficult is it to remember how to make a live fence?

21

Perceived Susceptibility/Risk o How fearful are you that destructive animals will get into your field?

Perceived Severity

o If destructive animals get into your field, how big of a problem would that be? Perceived Action Efficacy

o If you plant a live fence around your field, how can that be to reduce the disadvantages affecting your field?

Perceived Divine Will

o Do you think God is responsible for destructive animals entering your field? Policy

o Are there rules or regulations governing the practice of using live fencing? Culture

o Does your culture accept the practice of using live fencing? Note: the questions listed above are in the present tense and asked to doers only. These same questions are asked to the non-doers in the present unreal conditional form (see Appendix 1).

Figure 17. Interviewing a farmer one-on-one in Hamarabe and discussing issues associated with live fencing.

22

Data Collection I began the data collection process in April thinking that I would complete all 90 questionnaires before the rainy season started in July. My intention was to use the data to design live fencing activities to address the appropriate determinants just as the first rains came. I did not want the earliest questionnaires and discussions I had with farmers to be forgotten when the time came for optimal planting activities. Several unforeseen challenges prevented the timely completion of this survey including limited transportation and farmer availability. Because I struggled to find doers, I was forced to travel throughout the region of Matam in search of participants (Figure 18). One community I included, Doundoji, was found just outside the region of Matam, around Linguere, although the ecozone was the same. The disadvantages were the time and cost to complete the survey, but the advantage was that I was able to obtain a diverse sample. The majority of farmers interviewed were ethnic Pulaars; in some mixed communities, Wolof farmers were interviewed and included.

Figure 18. Map of Matam, Senegal showing the sites where farmers were interviewed for the Barrier Analysis.

23

Data Analysis After completion of all 90 surveys, the results of the questions were compared between those who have done the behavior (doers, n=45) and those who have not (non-doers, n=45). I coded the responses given by the entire sample into categories of like responses. Using a pre-existing excel spreadsheet provided by the Core Group, I compared the responses between the doers and non-doers for each code to look for statistical differences. The Core Group spreadsheet for the Barrier Analysis calculates an odds ratio (OR), standard error (SE), confidence intervals (CI), estimated relative risk (ERR), and P-value using a hypergeometric test for each code in the binomial distribution (Table 3). I altered the provided CI equation by replacing the critical t value (t*) for infinite degrees of freedom (df) at 1.96 to match my sample size (45 per group) with t*=2.015 for df=44. A significant difference between the groups is indicated by a P-value<0.05. The ERR provides a measure for determining how likely one group is over the other to provide the given response. Table 3. Equations employed by the Barrier Analysis Excel Spreadsheet Odds Ratio (OR) =(De*Nn)/(Dn*Ne) Standard Error (SE) =POWER(1/De+1/Ne+1/Dn+1/Nn,1/2) Confidence Intervals (CI) =EXP(LN(OR+2.015*SE))) Estimated Relative Risk (ERR) =[E*De/45]/[(E*De/45)+((1-E)*Ne/45)]

[E*Dn/45]/[(E*Dn/45)+((1-E)*Nn/45)] P-value =(kCx)((N-k)C(n-x))/(NCn) De = Doers + Experience (ex. Doers who said, “Yes, I can build a live fence”) Dn = Doers – Experience (ex. Doers who said, “No, I cannot build a live fence”) Ne = Non-doers + Experience (Non-doers who said, “Yes, I can build a live fence”) Nn = Non-doers – Experience (ex. Non-doers who said, “No, I cannot build a live fence”) E = estimated prevalence of the behavior (assumed 10%) k = total success in population (ex. Total Doers and Non-doers who answered, “Yes”) x = successes in sample (ex. Doers who said, “Yes” or Non-doers who said, “Yes”) N = population size = 90 n = sample size = 45 The ERR value represents the likelihood that one group will give a particular response over the other group. When the doers are the more likely group to provide an answer, the ERR value shows up in the table. When the non-doers are the more likely group, the ERR shown in the table is less than one and must be transformed by this equation: 1/#. The estimated prevalence of the behavior, E, is factored into the equation to control for the likelihood of individuals participating in the behavior. E adjusts for the condition where although not all non-doer farmers know how to plant live fences, some non-doer farmers do know how but do not engage in the behavior.

24

The Euphorbia Rationale Table 4. Advantage analysis for live fencing types: Euphorbia and thorny tree species. Euphorbia Hedge Thorny Thicket Cost Cuttings can be obtained for free. Need to purchase trees or tree sacks

and water to maintain a home nursery.

Access Many villages have some growing where cuttings can be obtained.

Tree sacks are not locally available.

Seeds are not always locally available. Once cuttings are obtained, they can

easily be propagated. Nursery trees can be expensive to purchase. Fencing to protect nursery and outplanted saplings is expensive.

Labor Requirement Must obtain cuttings and transport to field. Cuttings are hardier for transport.

Must transport trees to field site. One hectare field require about 1,200-1,300 trees to enclose.

One hectare field requires 4,000 cuttings to enclose.

If no fencing is present, saplings must be protected. High initial input.

Timing Can be planted in the offseason. Planted with the rains at the same time as tilling & seeding activities. Nurseries must be prepared three months in advance.

Water Requirement Rainfed. Does not require watering. Needs to be watered upon outplanting.

Survival Moderate to high survival. Low survival. Roots can be easily damaged during outplanting decreasing survival.

Maintenance Occasional gaps must be replanted but easier with cuttings.

Occasional gaps must be replanted.

No pruning necessary. Trees must be pruned for the first few years to produce the correct shape and stimulate low branching. Otherwise, low gaps will form.

Protection Does not require protection. Unpalatable.

Requires protection from livestock for the first three years.

Efficacy Highly effective. Highly effective. Secondary Benefits Soil erosion control. Soil erosion control.

Carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration. Low-level windbreak. Low-level windbreak. Considerably less secondary benefits.

Provides animal fodder. Source of pole wood.

Source of wood fuel. May produce medicine. May produce some shade.

Miscellaneous Sap is toxic and unpleasant. Tree sacks produce waste. *Advantages appear in green. Disadvantages appear in red.

25

The three main disadvantages of using Euphorbia include the lack of secondary benefits, the high number of cuttings needed to enclose a field, and the toxic, unpleasant sap. But when compared with the use of thorny trees to create an impenetrable thicket (Figure 20 and 21), Euphorbia is the easier choice (Figure 22). The cuttings are more cost effective and accessible, require less water, protection, and maintenance (Figure 19), have a higher survival rate, and do not conflict with labor constraints associated with crucial growing season activities.

Figure 19. A thorny tree species nursery. Tree sacks are filled with a mixture of sand, aged cow manure, and wood ash, and then seeded. The seeds are pre-treated with a hot or cold water soak to stimulate germination and watered twice daily. One goat can ruin this in a few seconds.

Figure 20. Outplanted trees must survive a period of drought stress and competition with weeds and grasses for light, water , and nutrient resources. Nursery trees are ready for outplanting when they reach 30cm in height. These trees need to be watered every other day.

Figure 22. Farmers practice planting Euphorbia cuttings at a training in Ogo. The hardy cuttings have terminal buds that may help the cuttings produce new growth more quickly. These can be planted faster than nursery trees, which require careful handling.

Figure 21. Women outplant nursery trees at 30cm spacing to create a thorny live fence in their women’s garden. They have dug a trench and holes to plant the trees and are careful to protect the dirt clod containing the sensitive roots when outlanting.

26

Results & Discussion Among all the farmers interviewed, there were a number of common responses with no significant differences between the two groups that speak to a set of general conditions most of the participants experience. Although these responses do not implicate differences for specific determinants to address to improve adoption of live fencing among non-doers, the feedback provides important information about farmers’ awareness of their problems. Large numbers of respondents in both groups spoke of labor and water constraints when asked about their capacity to plant a live fence (Appendix 4). The lack of labor is a general constraint that applies to many agricultural activities. Farmers are lucky if they have children who may help out, however children are usually in school during the day. Some farmers cluster their fields so that they can produce one giant fence around the periphery and each person has a share in protecting a side. This way, the boundary between adjacent fields does not need to be protected and farmers can reduce the burden. Water availability is another limiting factor for many agricultural ambitions, especially in northern Senegal where the majority of agricultural practices are exclusively rainfed. Both groups had high numbers of respondents who claimed the lack of water for farming made it difficult to do activities like planting a live fence. The Euphorbia technique addresses both of these issues by reducing the labor input of producing a nursery and by requiring no watering. Farmers were unanimously aware of the problems current livestock management practices impose on the prospect of agriculture. Not only were they aware of the high risk of livestock entering their fields and the high severity of damage those livestock could cause, farmers of both groups widely expressed their belief that live fencing was a technique with strong efficacy in reducing livestock break-ins. When asked about the positive consequences of planting a live fence, 36 respondents said the technique could protect their fields while 78 respondents recognized live fencing could prevent livestock from entering their fields (Appendix 4). This puts the non-doers in the awareness stage of change. The next step is to adopt an appropriate solution. Several determinants presented no barrier to adoption of live fencing at all. Most farmers did not suggest any potential negative consequences of the technique. A few farmers in each group feared the attraction of pests including birds, termites, snakes, and caterpillars. But the highest response rate for perceived attraction of a particular pest was three responses from the doers who thought live fencing might bring caterpillars to their fields (Appendix 4). Furthermore, the respondents did not implicate social norms, cultural norms, policies, or divine will as presenting problems for planting live fencing. To understand the factors involved in progressing live fencing adoption, we need to look at the determinants with the greatest differences between groups. Perceived self-efficacy, perceived positive consequences, and access were the three main determinants with the most significant differences between the doer and non-doer groups. But only perceived self-efficacy and access are implicated for addressing the adoption of live fencing among the non-doers. This survey focused on the behavior of planting a live fence and

27

does not take into consideration what type of live fencing is adopted. Therefore, differences in the perceptions of live fencing between the groups impact the responses provided. Table 5. Results of the Barrier Analysis for the most important determinants.

Response Doers Non-Doers ERR P-Value Likelihood Self-Efficacy: Can you plant a live fence? Yes 34 11 7.37 <0.001 Doers are 7.4 times more likely to

respond “yes.” No 7 34 0.08 <0.001 Non-doers are 12.4 times more likely to

respond “no.” Self-Efficacy: What makes it easier to plant a live fence? Easy to plant 16 2 6.751 <0.001 Doers are 6.8 times more likely to give

this response. Cuttings/trees accessible*

12 6 2.116 0.093* Doers are 2.1 times more likely to give this response.

Having time 5 0 11.125 0.028 Doers are 11.1 times more likely to give this response.

Self-Efficacy: What makes it difficult to plant a live fence? Lack of health or strength

1 7 0.137 0.029 Non-doers are 7.3 times more likely to give this response.

The work is difficult/ tough

9 3 2.875 0.059* Doers are 2.9 times more likely to give this response.

Not having time

9 1 6.000 0.008 Doers are 6.0 times more likely to give this response.

Lack of money 5 11 0.416 0.083* Non-doers are 2.4 times more likely to give this response.

Not knowing how

0 9 0.000 0.001 Non-doers are significantly more likely to give this response.

Positive Consequences: What is the benefit of planting a live fence? Reduce land disputes

4 0 10.878 0.058* Doers are 10.9 times more likely to give this response.

Obtain secondary products

4 12 0.294 0.026 Non-doers are 3.4 times more likely to give this response.

Reduces heat 2 11 0.161 0.007 Non-doers are 6.2 times more likely to give this response.

Access: How difficult is it for you to obtain the materials needed to plant a live fence? Very difficult 19 38 0.180 <0.001 Non-doers are 5.6 times more likely to

give this response. Not difficult 25 4 7.971 <0.001 Doers are 8.0 times more likely to give

this response. *Rows in blue represent responses not significant between groups at α = 0.05. Farmers who have never planted a live fence were 12.4 times more likely than farmers who have to perceive they were incapable of producing live fencing with their current means (Table 5). The strong significant difference between group responses (P<0.001) indicates that self-efficacy will need to be addressed by activities targeting live fencing adoption. To increase the perception that farmers do have the means and skills to produce live fencing becomes one of the bridges to activities that will help improve live fencing adoption. Farmers expressed many reasons for their capacity or incapacity to plant a live fence but five responses emerged more

28

prevalently between the groups. Those responses are 1) ease of planting, 2) knowing how, 3) trees and cuttings accessibility, 4) lack of health and strength, 5) having time. Ease of Planting The doers were 6.8 times more likely than the non-doers to suggest that planting a live fence was feasible because of how easy the process is. This may be influenced by the type of live fence farmers are creating. The majority of farmers interviewed were planting live fences using Euphorbia cuttings. They are easy to plant because they can be cut to a length of 20cm, planted without water toward the end of the hot season, and left to be watered by the rains. Although this type of fencing requires a much higher number of cuttings to plant because the spacing must be close (5-10cm apart), the labor requirement is less than producing a tree nursery and

the planting can be done at a time that does not overlap and compete with growing season activities. The effort to propagate the cuttings is minimal and farmers carry this out incrementally each season. Euphorbia cuttings are hardy and can be left out for weeks after being cut before being planted. The longer the cuttings are left unplanted may reduce survival

rates. The non-doers, not having experience planting a live fence, may not realize how easy and simple the process is with Euphorbia. They may be imagining a live fence with thorny species, which would require purchasing trees or growing a home nursery and that could be interpreted as a lot of work. Also, outplanting nursery trees is more complicated. The saplings are susceptible to snapping and grazing, and the root clod must be protected during the outplanting process. Nursery trees must be appropriately hardened off prior to planting and watered. Fields are often far from the village and it would not be feasible to transport the necessary amount of water to aid the outplanting process. To reinforce the perception that planting a live fence with Euphorbia is easy becomes a bridge to activity that will address this response. Knowing How The non-doers were significantly more likely than the doers to admit they did not know how to plant a live fence (P<0.001). The ERR cannot be calculated because the number of doers with

this response is zero (Table 5). Many farmers said they had seen live fencing but had never learned how to plant one themselves. Those farmers not knowing how to plant a live fence might not realize how easy it is to propagate species like Euphorbia, especially if they do not have that species growing in their area or an example of others demonstrating

the process locally. If the perception is that thorny tree species are needed to plant a live fence, the non-doers might not know how to grow trees on their own or how to obtain trees or materials needed to make a nursery. That may also explain why non-doers gave this answer. To increase knowledge of how to plant a live fence becomes another bridge to activity that will address the determinant perceived self-efficacy.

“It’s easy. You put them in the ground. When the rains come, they go!”

-Hamarabe farmer

“I can’t plant a live fence because I don’t know how. I’ve never been trained.”

-Hamarabe farmer

29

Trees and cuttings accessibility The doers were 8 times more likely than the non-doers to claim that they did not have difficulty accessing the materials they needed to plant a live fence (P<0.001) when asked specifically about access (bottom of Table 5). Again, this may have to do with the type of live fencing farmers are producing. Those working with Euphorbia typically had access to cuttings in their communities. Important aspects in Senegalese culture include hospitality and sharing where people are inclined to provide each other more freely with resources they have available to them regardless of familial relationships. Farmers working with Euphorbia often mentioned how they could ask someone else who had Euphorbia plants for cuttings and they would be offered for free. Farmers with the plant also said they would be willing to offer other farmers cuttings for free. During discussions with non-doers, I often got the sense they perceived producing a live fence required trees from a nursery. Considering that non-doers were significantly more likely to not know how to plant a live fence, many may not have been aware of the possibility for Euphorbia cuttings. Acquisition of nursery trees presents an access problem in the region of Matam. To produce a nursery at home would require tree sacks, which were not available locally. Fencing to protect the nursery and water are financial obstacles many struggled with. And purchasing trees from local nurseries is also too expensive. Lack of health and strength The non-doers were 7.3 times more likely than the doers to suggest that lack of health and strength played a role in the difficulty of producing a live fence (P=0.029). In rural Senegal, people do not record their ages, but I would estimate that many of the farmers responsible for maintaining their families’ fields were between the ages of 50 -70 years old. Without help, it would be strenuous for many farmers to produce a live fence by either method. Having time While the doers were 11.1 times more likely than the non-doers to say that having time to plant the trees or cuttings made it easier for them to establish a live fence (P=0.028), they were 6 times more likely to respond that not having time made it difficult to produce a live fence (P=0.008). These two responses suggest that overall the farmers who have participated in producing live fences are more aware of the time requirements. Efforts to increase adoption of live fencing should focus on reinforcing the perception that live fencing does not involve a long time commitment and can be done quickly with Euphorbia. Two responses with differences between the doers and non-doers that were not significant at α= 0.05 but are worth discussing are the difficulty of the work (P=0.059) and lack of money (P=0.083) (Table 5). The doers are almost three times as like to suggest that planting a live fence is difficult because the labor is hard. They are aware of the effort that must be put forth in

“I got some cuttings from my friend. I planted them in my field. Now if I need some, I can get them from my field.”

-Galoyabe farmer

“I’m too old to do this now. I need my sons to help.”

-Danthiady farmer

“Right now I don’t have the time to do this. I’m a mason. I have other work.”

-Thiehel Sebe farmer

30

the planting process. The non-doers have not recognized strenuous labor as a barrier for producing a live fence, therefore I would not focus on this aspect in addressing adoption by the non-doers. Lack of money is the second response brought up more times by the non-doers. This alludes to the perception that planting a live fence requires money. Since Euphorbia can be obtained and planted for free, this suggests non-doers are unaware of the Euphorbia option or think they may have to buy cuttings from another farmer. Addressing the perception that live fencing is a costly undertaking may help reduce this barrier to adoption. Perceived positive consequences is another determinant where there were significant differences between doers and non-doers (Table 5). Although non-doers were significantly more likely than the doers to recognize the benefits of obtaining secondary products (P=0.026) and reduction of heat (P=0.007) as benefits to producing live fencing, they are the group that has not produced live fencing. Reduction of heat refers to lowering the temperature in the local environment as well as providing important sources of shade. This is culturally important in this agricultural society because many farmers spend long periods of time out in the fields. Again, this speaks to the differences in live fencing types. Farmers using Euphorbia do not gain secondary products such as fuel wood, animal fodder, food, or medicine, whereas those who have not produced live fencing may be perceiving the use of thorny species that provide those benefits. If the non-doers are not producing live fencing, it seems unlikely that the

prospect of these benefits is a major motivator. In 1993, Caveness and Kurtz performed a similar study using an approach that examined barriers to adoption of agroforestry technologies in the Koumpentoum area in the region of Tambacounda, Senegal. They found that land ownership and labor availability were the two most important factors that influence adoption. Land ownership was a problem for only a small handful of farmers participating in my study. Although both doer and non-doer groups mentioned lack of labor in my study, there was no significant difference between them (see results Appendix 5). Farmers who still did not have extra labor- their children, family members, or hired laborers- were trying live fencing by themselves anyway, or found a way to do it. The lack of difference between the groups does not implicate the need to address lack of labor to increase adoption among the non-doers, although both groups could benefit from extra hands. The difference in the findings between these two studies indicates how adoption influences may

Figure 23. A mature Euphorbia live fence in Hamarabe.

31

vary by region. Caveness and Kurtz (1993) proposed that adopters appeared more willing to take risks as demonstrated by higher wealth indicators and could better absorb losses from unsuccessful practices such as a failed live fence. This interpretation may generally be true, but I believe that confidence, knowledge, and access play a distinct role in adoption of live fencing specifically in the region of Matam based on the significant determinants in this Barrier Analysis. Conclusions I observed that adoption of agroforestry technologies, particularly live fencing, appeared lower in the region of Matam compared with other regions I traveled to in Senegal including, Thies, Diourbel, Kaolack, Fatick, Kaffrine, Tambacounda, and Kolda. Several farmers in Matam alluded to the idea that this may have something to do with the presence of NGO groups. Some farmers admitted to waiting for NGO groups to come in and help by guiding the work and bringing trees. Several farmers had planted live fencing when these groups came in but had not done anything since. If you make it easy for farmers to do a behavior, they will try it, especially if it is feasible and beneficial. If not, there are few motivated individuals who will try to perform the behavior on their own. I had to travel across the entire region to find doers to interview. Of those doers, only a few had live fences that were close to completion. When NGO help disappears, many farmers stop trying to produce live fencing. This is both a self-efficacy and an access problem and indicates the need to provide farmers with an easy, feasible way to create live fencing. The climate in Matam is tough for agriculture and planting. There is high risk in putting money, water, and energy into tree planting when survival is so low, therefore people usually avoid tree planting behaviors in general. Whether the non-doers were unaware of how to produce a live fence or the best way to produce one, they were much more likely than the doers to answer ‘no’ to the first question- right now, can you produce a live fence? Lack of confidence in combination with a high level of risk aversion is a strong barrier to overcome. Farmers are well aware of the threat of livestock. All the farmers interviewed recognized the risk posed by grazing animals (see results Appendix 4). The Fulbe know that thorny species are browsed by livestock and that livestock roam the landscapes freely. Furthermore, herders let their starving animals into fields to eat in the middle of the night without permission. For this reason, many farmers sleep in their fields during the growing season in an effort to dissuade herders from that destructive behavior. Unfortunately, Senegalese culture is very non-confrontational and executive authority does not reach the rural village level. Village chiefs and important locals are left to decide punishment for bad behavior if the culprits are even caught. Agroforestry adoption must be feasible, practical, and beneficial and must be perceived this way. Everything is about perception, and perceptions are greatly influenced by the information that is available to the priority group. To increase the adoption of live fencing, agroforestry development groups must focus on the best intervention possible. In northern Senegal, a species that is easy to plant, free to obtain, and unpalatable is the way to go. That species is Euphorbia. Increasing confidence, access, and knowledge of Euphorbia should help boost the adoption of this technology.

32

I chose to focus on live fencing (Figure 24) because I believe it is the most important agroforestry technology for the region. Having a physical barrier is a necessary prerequisite for farming or gardening of any kind. Furthermore, farmers were unanimously aware that they needed protection for their fields and live fencing could be advertised as a technology that provided farmers with that security (Figure 25). A behavior holds the greatest potential for adoption when perceived to fix a known problem. Depending upon the species used, live fencing could also be marketed to have extra environmental benefits such as reduction of soil erosion, reduction of crop desiccation and wind damage as a low-level windbreak, fodder for livestock, food if planted with Ziziphus mauritiana, soil remediation and nitrogen fixation, etc. People could sell products and help delineate their fields to reduce land conflicts. Euphorbia live fencing does not provide many secondary benefits but could serve as a prerequisite barrier for planting other useful species at a later time. Farmers could plant thorny species on the inside and cut the Euphorbia out once the thorny species establish and form a dense, impenetrable hedge.

Figure 25. The Euphorbia live fencing on the left is standing and protecting a field while the dead fencing on the right is breaking down and full of holes where animals can enter.

Live fencing requires a substantial amount of labor to initiate but sharply reduces the work required to protect a field in the long run because of plants’ capacities for self-regeneration. Oppositely, dead fencing requires high labor inputs each year as farmers go out to cut, drag, and pile thorny branches. The risk for injury to hands and feet is high and the environmental impacts are severe. Sometimes, children are responsible for obtaining branches and will strip trees of all of their branches to reduce the distance they must travel. They are not aware of the damage and mortality they cause. In this way, deforestation is unintentional but inevitable. The reduction of long-term labor is another benefit to adoption of live fencing. Euphorbia is a species that many people know can produce a live fence and many farmers are already planting this type of live fencing (Figure 26). Yet even in communities where lots of

Figure 24. Providing Euphorbia cuttings to farmers at a live fencing training.

33

farmers were planting Euphorbia, there were groups of non-doers. Why is Euphorbia not more widespread? How can we make it more widespread? To answer this I provide several recommendations following the DBC framework.

Figure 26. Interviewing a farmer about the live fencing in his field in Galoyabe.

Recommendations After collecting and analyzing the data from the Barrier Analysis, I developed four main Bridges to Activities to address the adoption of live fencing and propose suggested Activities for each. 1. Reinforce the perception that live fencing production is easy. (Perceived Self-Efficacy) 2. Increase the knowledge of how to produce a live fence. (Perceived Self-Efficacy) 3. Increase the access to live fencing materials. (Access) 4. Decrease the perception that planting a live fence requires money. (Access) Here, I focus on the promotion of Euphorbia as opposed to outplanting thorny trees for several reasons. Euphorbia is the easiest option for producing a live fence because of its simplicity. Use of cuttings eliminates the need for tree sacs, watering, and protection from livestock. Cuttings can be obtained for free, require less time to outplant per plant, and do not produce waste like tree sacs. Finally, cuttings can be planted at the end of the hot season when planting season activities do not compete for labor.

34

To address the determinant, perceived self-efficacy, steps need to be taken to make sure farmers know how to plant live fencing and to reinforce confidence in self-capacity. In my discussion groups, farmers exchanged ideas about the best ways to plant Euphorbia cuttings. A standardized planting methodology that provides farmers with the easiest, most efficient way to plant cuttings could be promoted and disseminated. Using simple visuals showing how to plant the cuttings could help illiterate farmers. This material could be made available at local Eaux et Forets offices (Senegal’s water and forestry ministry) as well as be distributed by Peace Corp volunteers and other NGO groups working in agriculture. Eaux et Forets could also source Euphorbia in addition to thorny species produced at their nurseries to address access issues. Agroforestry and agriculture volunteers in Senegal should also encourage farmers to develop a network for agriculture related information sharing. Farmer to farmer testimonials may help encourage those who are less confident in live fence planting that the process is easy, feasible, and beneficial. This may also help farmers identify where local examples of live fencing can be observed and where to source cuttings. Challenges & Limitations Throughout the Barrier Analysis process, I ran into several challenges. My community counterpart was not always available to help me carry out the interviews, and I was limited in part by my Pulaar language skills. Sometimes I experienced difficulty in understanding the interviewees or interpreting the meaning and cultural nuances behind some of their responses. I did not have the means to finance a translator or work with a partner from a local NGO. Many farmers took the discussions off-topic. In recognizing that I was foreign and connected to a development agency, some people were looking to see what they could get from me while others turned the conversations to other topics they thought were more pressing such as their field crops or their children. It was difficult to keep the conversation limited to agroforestry and live fencing interventions. Because some of the non-doers had little to no concept of what a live fence was, it was difficult for them to answer some of the questions. And because of my limited language skills, it was difficult to find ways to reword the questions in an effort to help farmers understand without guiding them to a biased answer. Often times, I would get the sense that many people were giving me the answers they thought I wanted to hear, so I had to probe and turn some questions into discussions to get a better sense of how to understand their answers. Many farmers would give one-word answers or very simple, short answers, which made the interviews a process in accessing the provided answers in the proper context. Transportation was extremely limited. I had to rely on public transportation, which was often unreliable and made planning and accessing remote sites very difficult. I lived in a remote village 10 kilometers from the main road and the only way out of village was to flag down someone’s horse cart. There were only a few doers in my village/area so I needed to travel to find the rest to meet the required sample size of 45.

35

Differences in culture made things challenging. There are certain blocks of time throughout the day where people are available and other blocks where people rest and do not work. Weddings and birth ceremonies are frequent. Sometimes, after organizing a date and time to come interview farmers, the communities would back out. Or I would simply find out upon calling the day of to confirm that the farmers were not available due to other community activities. When the rains came, farmers were not available. Future Research To increase the adoption of live fencing using Euphorbia, agroforestry extension agents should focus research efforts on the following areas: 1. Euphorbia’s current distribution Euphorbia is not present in many of the villages I traveled to and worked in during my service. Farmers in those areas may not know about Euphorbia or may have difficulty obtaining cuttings because of this. Transportation and free time limitations might prevent some farmers from being able to get cuttings needed to produce live fencing. Knowing the current Euphorbia distribution and the farmers who have access to the plant will help agroforestry extension agents create a plan to increase Euphorbia growth in the region by introducing the plant to villages where none is currently growing. This may help eliminate access issues farmers are currently experiencing. 2. Local knowledge of Euphorbia and use for live fencing Farmers will not be able to produce strong and effective live fences with Euphorbia if they do not understand how to propagate the plant. Gathering local knowledge of Euphorbia and the use of cuttings for live fencing will help volunteers target areas where trainings would be the most beneficial means for bringing understanding to Euphorbia’s applicability for live fencing. 3. Survival rates and optimal planting time by propagation with cuttings The best Euphorbia planting technique with cuttings has not yet been defined for this region of Senegal. To optimize survival rates and pinpoint the optimal planting time, volunteers may want to begin setting up experiments to learn these factors. This evidence will help support live fencing adoption via Euphorbia propagation by providing farmers with confidence in the planting technique. 4. Labor Cost-Benefit Analysis One of the biggest reasons to promote live fencing is to reduce the amount of labor and time that goes into producing a barrier designed to protect field crops. Dead fences must be created (or significantly reinforced) each year. To promote adoption of live fencing, a quantitative analysis showing the labor and time requirements needed for live fencing versus dead fencing over a five year period may help demonstrate the efficiency of this agroforestry technology. Volunteers will have to come up with a method to quantify labor, time, and resources input for each type of fencing. Post-data collection, the use of graphic visuals in trainings may help improve live fencing adoption by addressing problems associated with farmers’ lack of time during the growing season and the difficulty with rebuilding a barrier each growing season.

36

5. Attitudes toward Euphorbia use. Although only a few farmers suggested that Euphorbia may bring birds, snakes, or other pests to their fields, it may be important to know the general attitudes farmers in different areas have toward the use of Euphorbia. It only takes one person at a training to tell everyone that Euphorbia brings snakes to shake the other attendees’ confidence and question the use of the plant. Being prepared to address those attitudes and demonstrate the improbability of those issues will be important in encouraging live fencing adoption with this technique.

37

Literature Cited Biasutti, M. and Giannini, A. 2006. Robust Sahel drying in response to late 20th century forcings. Geophysical Research Letters, 33. Bradley, D. and Grainger, A. 2004. Social resilience as a controlling influence on desertification in Senegal. Land Degradation & Development, 15(5), 451-470. Caveness, F.A. and Kurtz, W.B. 1993. Agroforestry adoption and risk perception by farmers in Senegal. Agrofor Syst, 21: 11-25. Dai, A., Lamb, P.J., Trenberth, K.E., Hulme, M., Jones, P.D., Xie, P., 2004. The recent Sahel drought is real. International Journal of Climatology 24, 1323e1331. Gonzalez, P. 2001. Desertification and a shift of forest species in the West African Sahel. Climate Research,17(2), 217-228. Gonzalez, P., Tucker, C.J., and Sy, H. 2012. Tree density and species decline in the African Sahel attributable to climate. Journal of Arid Environments, 78, 55-64. Grouzis, M. and Akpo, L. E. 1997. Influence of tree cover on herbaceous above- and below-ground phytomass in the Sahelian zone of Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments, 35(2), 285-296. Hulme, M., Doherty, R., Ngara, T., New, M., Lister, D., 2001. African climate change: 1900-2100. Climate Research 17, 145-168. Kittle, Bonnie. 2013. A Practical Guide to Conducting a Barrier Analysis. New York, NY: Helen Keller International. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being Synthesis. Available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf New Agriculturist. N.D. Senegal: Country Profile. Retrieved February 7, 2016. Available at: http://www.new-ag.info/en/country/profile.php?a=530 Poupon, H. 1980. Structure et Dynamique de la Strate Ligneuse d’une Steppe Sahélienne au Nord du Sénégal. Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer, Paris. Simonet, C. and Jobbins, G. 2015. Understanding patterns of climate resilient economic development, Senegal. Overseas Development Institute. Tappan, G. G., Sall, M., Wood, E. C., & Cushing, M. 2004. Ecoregions and land cover trends in Senegal. Journal of Arid Environments, 59(3), 427-462.

38

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. 2011. Desertification: a visual synthesis. Bonn: UNCCD Secretariat. Available at: www.unccd.int/knowledge/docs/Desertification-EN.pdf UNEP. 1992. The Status of Desertification and Implementation of the United Nations Plan of Action to Combat Desertification, Nairobi: UNEP. USGS. 2012. A Climate Trend Analysis of Senegal. Famine Early Warning Systems Network – Informing Climate Change Adaptation Series. World Health Organization. 1996. World Food Summit. Available at: http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/ Zahringer, J. 2010. Documentation, Evaluation and Impact Assessment of Sustainable Land Management Technologies on Vegetation Cover in Senegal Two Case Studies from a silvopastoral and an agropastoral land use system. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich. Zeng, N., Neelin, J.D., Lau, K.M., Tucker, C.J. 1999. Enhancement of interdecadal climate variability in the Sahel by vegetation interaction. Science 286, 1537-1540.

39

Appendix 1 English Group: [_] Doer [_] Non-Doer

Barrier Analysis Questionnaire Live Fencing for Farmers of Field Crops

The Behavior Targeted farmers plant a live fence to enclose their crop fields Demographics Interviewer Name___________________________________________ Questionnaire No______ Community_______________________________________________ Date_____/_____/______ Scripted Introduction Hello, my name is____________; I am a volunteer working with Peace Corps Senegal as part of an agricultural development program. My work is to study some of the practices of local farmers. If you have time and are willing, I would like to discuss with you about your field and farming practices. You are not required to participate in this study. If you do participate, you will not receive payment of any form. Your answers are anonymous and I will not be recording your name. Do you wish to participate? Section A. Control Questions 1. Are you a farmer? [_] A. Yes [_] B. No [_] C. Unknown --> End Interview 2. Think about your field. Is your field enclosed by a physical barrier? [_] A. Yes [_] B. No [_] C. Unknown--> End Interview 3. Tell me about the materials you have currently surrounding your field. [_] A. Living trees [_] B. Anything else

40

[_] C. Unknown --> End Interview Classification Table Doer Non-Doer Do Not Interview Question 1. A B C Question 2. A B C Question 3. A B C .

Group: [_] Doer [_] Non-Doer Section B. Research Questions (Perceived Self-Efficacy) 1. Now, with the money, knowledge, and skills you have, do you think you could plant a live fence around your field? [_] a. Yes [_] b. Maybe [_] c. No [_] d. Unknown (Perceived Self-Efficacy) 2a. Doer: What could make it easier for you to plant a live fence around your field? 2b. Non-Doer: What would make it easier for you to plant a live fence around your field? (Probe with “What else”) (Perceived Self-Efficacy) 3a. Doer: What could make it difficult for you to plant a live fence around your field? 3b. Non-Doer: What would make it difficult for you to plant a live fence around your field? (Probe with “What else”) (Perceived Positive Consequences) 4a. Doer: What is the utility/benefit of planting a live fence around your field? 4b. Non-Doer: What could be the utility/benefit of planting a live fence around your field? (Probe with “What else”) (Perceived Negative Consequences)

41

5a. Doer: What is a disadvantage of planting a live fence around your field? 5b. Non-Doer: What could be a disadvantage of planting a live fence around your field? (Probe with “What else”) (Perceived Social Norms) 6a. Doer: Will most people you know accept if you plant a live fence around your field? 6b. Non-Doer: Would most people you know accept if you plant a live fence around your field? [_] a. Yes [_] b. Maybe [_] c. No (Perceived Social Norms) 7a. Doer: What people approve of you planting a live fence? 7b. Non-Doer: What people would approve of you planting a live fence? (Probe with, "Who else?") (Perceived Social Norms) 8a. Doer: What people disapprove of you planting a live fence? 8b. Non-Doer: What people would disapprove if you planted a live fence? (Probe with, "Who else?") (Perceived Access) 9a. Doer: How difficult is it for you to get the trees you need to make a live fence? 9b. Non-Doer: How difficult would it be for you to get the trees you need to make a live fence? [_] a. Very difficult [_] b. Somewhat difficult [_] c. Not difficult (Cues to Action) 10a. Doer: How difficult is it to remember how to make a live fence? 10b. Non-Doer: How difficult would it be to remember how to make a live fence? [_] a. Very difficult [_] b. Somewhat difficult [_] c. Not difficult (Perceived Susceptibility/Risk) 11. How fearful are you that destructive animals will get into your field? [_] a. A lot

42

[_] b. A little scared [_] c. Not scared at all (Perceived Severity) 12. If destructive animals get into your field, how big of a problem would that be? [_] a. Huge problem [_] b. Small problem [_] c. No problem (Perceived Action Efficacy) 13. If you plant a live fence around your field, how can that be to reduce the disadvantages affecting your field? [_] a. Very Useful [_] b. Somewhat useful [_] c. Not useful at all (Perceived Divine Will) 14. Do you think God is responsible for destructive animals entering your field? [_] a. Yes [_] b. Maybe [_] c. No (Policy) 15. Are there rules or regulations governing the practice of using live fencing? [_] a. Yes [_] b. Maybe [_] c. No (Culture) 16. Does your culture accept the practice of using live fencing? [_] a. Yes [_] b. Maybe [_] c. No

Now, I am going to ask you a question unrelated to the topic. (Universal Motivators) 17. What do you want to do or have in your life more than anything?

Thank you very much

43

Appendix 2 Designing for Behavior Change Framework*

Behavior1

Priority Group or Influencing Group

Description2

Determinants3

Bridges to Activities4

Activities5

To promote this behavior:

Among this audience: Priority Group: Influencing Groups:

We will research these determinants: *these can only be determined after conducting research studies

And promote these bridges to activities (priority benefits and priority barriers) 1. 2. 3.

By implementing these activities 1. 2. 3.

1 What is the specific, feasible behavior to promote?

2 Who are the Priority Groups and Influencing Groups? (Describe in seven ways)

3 What are the most powerful determinants affecting this behavior with this group? (Perceived

Self-efficacy/skills, Perceived Social Norms, Perceived Positive and Negative consequences, Access, Perceived Action Efficacy, Cues for Action, Perceived Susceptibility, Perceived Severity, Perceived Divine Will, Policy, Culture) 4

What Bridges to Activities need to be promoted? 5

What activities will be implemented to address the Bridges to Activities?

44

Appendix 3 The 12 Determinants of Behavior

The Four Most Powerful Determinants listed below should always be explored in formative research on determinants (e.g. Barrier Analysis or Doer-Non Doer studies) 1. Perceived Self-Efficacy/Skills: an individual’s belief that he or she can do a particular behavior given their current knowledge and skills; the set of knowledge, skills or abilities necessary to perform a particular behavior 2. Perceived Social Norms: perception that people important to an individual think that s/he should do the behavior; norms have two parts: who matters most to a person on a particular issue, and what s/he perceives those people think s/he should do 3. Perceived Positive Consequences: what positive things a person thinks will happen as a result of performing a behavior 4. Perceived Negative Consequences: what negative things a person thinks will happen as a result of performing a behavior Other Key Determinants: 5. Access: The degree of availability (to a particular audience) of the needed products or services required to adopt a given behavior. This also includes an audience’s comfort in accessing desired types of products or using a service. 6. Cues for Action/Reminders: The presence of reminders that help a person remember to do a particular behavior or remember the steps involved in doing the behavior. This also includes key powerful events that triggered a behavior change in a person. 7. Perceived Susceptibility/Risk: a person’s perception of how vulnerable they feel to the problem. 8. Perceived Severity: belief that the problem (which the behavior can prevent) is serious. 9. Perceived Action Efficacy: The belief that by practicing the behavior one will avoid the problem. 10. Perceived Divine Will: a person’s belief that it is God’s will (or the gods’ will) for her/him to have the problem; and/or to overcome it. 11. Policy: laws and regulations that affect behaviors and access to products and services. 12. Culture: the set of history, customs, lifestyles, values, and practices within a self-defined group.

45

Appendix 4 Complete Results

46

47