38 Agroforestry is defined by the International Centre for Research on Agroforestry (ICRAF) as "a land-use system that integrates trees with crops and/or animals, simultaneously or sequentially, to achieve higher productivity, higher economic returns, and better social and ecological benefits on a sustained yield basis than is attainable from monoculture on the same unit of land, particularly under conditions of low levels of technological inputs and on marginal sites". Agroforestry is a deliberate endeavor to mix and manage forest and agricultural resources on the same land. This intermediate land use system is essential for long-term forestry and agriculture (Kiyani et al., 2017). Farmers may combine productivity and profitability with environmental care using agroforestry practices, resulting in healthy, long-term agricultural systems that can be passed down to future generations. Pressure to fulfill rising demand for food, fodder, fuel, and other commodities, as well as global challenges such as climate change, are putting strain on agricultural and other land natural resources. This has resulted in a "perfect storm" of poverty and food insecurity throughout the Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2, 2023 Pp 38‒48https://doi.org/10.3126/banko.v33i2.59094 Status, opportunities, and challenges of agroforestry practices: perspectives from Terhathum district, Nepal Tree cultivation in agricultural and public spaces serves as an alternative to fulfill the rural population's demand for forest products. However, agroforestry practices in Nepal, categorized by agro-ecological areas, lack sufficient documentation and improvement. The current investigation, undertaken in the Myaglung Municipality of Terhathum district in Nepal, aimed to examine the current practices and preferences related to agroforestry. The study also sought to uncover potential opportunities and challenges inherent in agroforestry while gauging the local community's perceptions regarding agroforestry. The primary data collection employed household interviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and direct field observations while the secondary data were gathered from various public and unpublished sources. The farmers' preferences were evaluated using a five-point Likert Scale. In the study region, seven agroforestry systems, mainly employed for subsistence, were identified. The popular timber species in agroforestry included Alnus nepalensis, Schima wallichii, Castanopsis hystrix, C. tribuloides, and Pinus roxburghii. The favored fodder species were Ficus roxburghii, F. nemoralis, Artocarpus lakoochaa, Litsea monopetala, and Morus alba. On the other hand, the top fruit choices were Citrus reticulata, C. limon, Musa paradisica, Mangifera indica, and Litchi chinensis. The key barrier for agroforestry growth was the lack of technical knowledge in cultivating, managing, and harvesting agroforestry species, requiring attention for future agroforestry development in the region. Keywords: Agroforestry, farmland, fodder, preference, fruit, timber G. Regmi1 and U. Thapa2* Received: 5, October 2023 Revised: 14, December 2023 Accepted: 4, February 2024 Published: 26, February 2024 1 Forest, Environment & Disaster Management Section, Mai Municipality, Ilam 2 Division Forest Office, Dhankuta, Ministry of Tourism, Forests and Environment, Koshi Province. *Email: utsabthapa@gmail.com https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Kiyani https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7806-2170 https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5308-9619 Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 39 Regmi & Thapa world. Nair (1979) characterizes agroforestry as a method of land management integrating trees, crops, and animals in a manner that adheres to scientific principles, promotes environmental health, ensures economic feasibility, and meets the social preferences of farmers. Integrating trees onto agricultural land has been practiced for millennia by cultures throughout the world (Regmi & Garforth, 2010). Nepal has a wide range of physiographic and biological characteristics within a span of around 200 kilometers from south to north and 885 kilometers from east to west. Nepal's diverse biodiversity reflects its unique geographical position, shifting elevation, and temperature. Nepal is positioned in a biogeographic transition zone, sandwiched between two biogeographic realms: the Palaearctic on the north and the Palaeotropics on the south (Udvardy, 1975). Forests cover 45.31% of Nepal's land area (FRTC, 2022). Aside from trees in forest environments, many tree species are protected on farms as part of subsistence farming systems. These trees play an important role in ensuring the sustainability of agricultural output, and the value of traditional farming practices for crop diversification has been recognized since time immemorial. The promotion of agroforestry species in private agricultural lands in Nepal's hills has been one of the primary causes of the recent rise in forest cover (Pandit & Kumar, 2010). The Nepalese economy is strongly reliant on natural resources, notably farmland, forests, marshes, and rangelands, with forestry and agriculture still employing more than 70% of the population and contributing to over 35% of the total GDP (CBS, 2011). The land is still a crucial resource in underdeveloped nations like Nepal, where more than 90% of the population relies on it to meet basic needs such as food, fodder, fuel, fiber, and timber (LRMP, 1986). Buffers made of trees work as a transition zone, allowing agriculture and communities to "reconnect", resulting in a more functioning and sustainable environment. The act of planting trees on agricultural land can contribute to forest preservation by enhancing farmer access to forest resources such as firewood and fodder. Additionally, it aids in the restoration of soil fertility by mitigating soil erosion, enriching the soil through the decomposition of leaf litter and nitrogen fixation, recycling nutrients leached into the soil, and facilitating the breakdown of subsoil nutrients through extensive root systems (Shrestha, 2002). Agroforestry systems are supposed to be more profitable than forestry or agriculture alone (Lehmann et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2018). While numerous environmentally and economically beneficial agroforestry methods exist, comprehensive documentation of these techniques for dissemination to potential beneficiaries is still lacking (Atreya et al., 2021). Despite the presence of various legislative frameworks, policy statements, and strategic plans—such as the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (1989), Agriculture Development Strategy (2015–2035), Agriculture Policy (2004), Forest Act (2019), Forest Regulation (2022), Forest Strategy (2016), Forest Policy (2019), National Agroforestry Policy (2019), and periodic plans—that emphasize rural development through sustainable natural resource management, agroforestry, and other agricultural practices, the current initiatives fail to prioritize the interests of local farmers and other stakeholders. There has been very little effort put into creating programs that promote and reproduce effective agroforestry methods (Atreya et al., 2021). Most agroforestry systems in Nepal are traditional, and despite tremendous socioeconomic and ecological benefits, little progress has been made in the deliberate management of trees, crops, and cattle as an integrated and dynamic agro- ecosystem. This study tried to find out the status, opportunities, and challenges of agroforestry initiatives in the mid-hill range of eastern Nepal. Specifically, this study tried to document different types of agroforestry practices, determine people's tree preferences, and investigate people's perceptions toward agroforestry at the study site. https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Regmi10 https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Udvardy https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#FRTC https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#FRTC https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Pandit https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#CBS11 https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#LRMP https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#LRMP https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Lehmann https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Liu https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#atreya https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#atreya Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 40 Regmi & Thapa Materials and methods Study area The study was carried out in the Myanglung Municipality of Terhathum district from January to April 2022. Myanglung, the district headquarters of Terhathum district, is located between 26°66' - 27°30' N latitudes and 87°15' - 87°45' E longitudes. The location of the terrain ranges from 322m to 2,200m above the mean sea level, and covers an area of 100.21 km2 (38.69 sq. miles). The municipality borders with Phedap Rural Municipality on the east, Laligurans Urban Municipality on the west, Chhathar Rural Municipality and Paanchthar district on the south, and Menchhyayem Rural Municipality and Sankhuwasabha district on the north. Subtropical to temperate climate predominate in this municipality. Most of the land has a slope ranging from 15 degrees to 30 degrees. The municipality's average lowest temperature is 15° C, with a high temperature of 30° C and a minimum temperature of 4.70° C. It has a population of 19,078 people with 9,347 men and 9,731 women and with a population density of 200 people per square kilometer and a total household population of 4,163 (CBS, 2021). Data collection Reconnaissance surveys, key informant interviews, questionnaire surveys, formal and informal conversations, focus group discussions, and direct observation were used to collect the primary data. To conduct household interviews, the questionnaires underwent a pre-testing phase in select households during the preliminary survey. They were then refined based on feedback received from the relevant forest officials before finalization. Household interviews were conducted in 121 households. The authors visited all the households for the purpose of data collection. A simple random sampling method was used to select the sample population. At least 10 households from each ward were selected from the 10 wards of the municipality. Altogether 136 respondents (121 from household interviews and 15 from key informants’ interview) were questioned for acquiring the desired information for the purpose of the study, out of which 57% were female. Questions related to demographics, livestock, landholdings, adopted agroforestry systems, energy sources, forest products’ demand and supply, NTFP availability, cultivation practices, sale of forest products, market availability, market accessibility, problems/challenges faced in agroforestry practices, preferred timber, fodder & fruit species, and farmers’ perception towards agroforestry practices were asked to the respondents. Figure 1: Location of the study area in the map of Nepal Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 41 Regmi & Thapa Agriculture was found to be the most common employment among the respondents, followed by service, and small enterprises. Open and close- ended questions related to family composition, land and livestock holding, cropping pattern, preferred tree species, source of energy, source of income, ways of selling their products, services, and facilities received from the government institutions, and future perspective were asked to the respondents. Key informant interviews were conducted separately with the concerned divisional forest officer, sub-divisional forest officers; chief of the district-level (Terhathum) unit of the federation of community forest users Nepal, model farmers, community school teachers, village elders, and social workers. Open-ended questions related to demography, institutions involved in agroforestry promotion, role of social organization in agroforestry development, services provided by the Division Forest Office (DFO) and the Agriculture Knowledge Centre, Terhathum, and so on were asked. Further, problems faced by the farmers in implementing agroforestry practices, and measures to improve and develop agroforestry production and productivity were also sought from the key informants. Focus group discussions were held for three separate interest groups: model farmers, women's groups, and disadvantaged groups. Besides, on-farm observation was conducted in the households interviewed for the survey. All the tree species and their numbers were counted with the help of the local farmers on their farmlands or private lands. Main emphasis was given to counting and identifying tree species and their distribution on farmlands/private lands. Secondary data were collected from a variety of sources and records, including reports published by the Division Forest Office, Agriculture Knowledge Centre Dhankuta (Branch Office, Terhathum), municipal office, NGOs/INGOs, libraries, journals, magazines, internet, etc. Previous research papers, dissertations, journals, both published and unpublished articles, as well as other literature released by the Ministry of Forests and Environment (MoFE), Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MoALD), United States Development Agency (USDA), International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF), DFO Terhathum, Nepal Agroforestry Foundation, etc. were also reviewed to collect relevant information on the status, issues, policies, and priorities of agroforestry development. Data analysis The collected data were transferred into MS- Excel. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and analyze the socioeconomic traits of the respondents. The information collected/ obtained from the field survey were presented in bar-diagrams and tables. Chi-square test was done to determine the associations between economic class and household’s perception towards agroforestry at 5% level of significance. The opinions/attitudes of the respondents towards agroforestry practices were analyzed using a Likert Scale which is a type of scale used to measure people’s perceptions (Bryman, 2016). Mathematically, it is expressed as: Where, WM = Weighted Mean; wi = no. of respondents; and 𝑥i = value of strongly agree to strongly disagree. Similarly, for the preference of tree species, preference value ranking (Chhetri, 2018) was used. Mathematically, it is expressed as: Where, PV = Preference Value, 𝑥 = choice of species in order (1-5), f = frequency of respondents, and n = total no. of respondents. Results Types of agroforestry systems practiced in the study area Traditional agroforestry systems have been consistently practiced over an extended period Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 42 Regmi & Thapa without significant modifications in the study area. A thorough overview of the most preferred agroforestry systems practiced by the respondents' households in the study area are presented in Figure 2 and Table 1 below: Figure 2: Agroforestry systems practiced in the study area Table 1: Agroforestry systems practiced in the study area Agroforestry systems Major agroforestry practices Agrisilviculture • Cardamom under Alder (Alnus nepalensis) and Rudrakshya (Elaeocarpus sphaericus); • Ginger, Turmeric, Nepali broom-grass (Thysanolaena maxima), etc. under Chilaune (Schima wallichii), A. nepalensis, and fodder species; • Maize, millet, and seasonal vegetables under multipurpose fodder species. Hortisilvipastoral • Fruit, fodder, and timber species along with livestock; • Grasses planted in terrace along with fruit and fodder species. Agrisilvipastoral ‐ T. maxima and grasses along with fodder trees and livestock. Homegarden • Seasonal vegetables along with fodder and fruit species. Agrisilvihorticulture • NTFPs along with fodder and fruit species, e.g. cardamom, cinnamon along with E. sphaericus and Musa paradisiaca. Silvopastoral • Fodder and grasses along with livestock. Agrihorticulture • Maize, millet and seasonal vegetables under mango, orange, litchi, etc. trees and banana plants; • Cardamom, ginger, turmeric, and so on under mango, orange, litchi, etc. trees. Preference ranking of agroforestry tree species in the study area While choosing the preferred tree species for timber, fodder, and fruits, the respondents assigned the values of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 as per their choices of order: I, II, III, IV, and V in their agroforestry practices. Table 2 below highlights the rankings of the ten preferred tree species for timber, in agroforestry, on the basis of their preference values. The five most preferred timber species were found to be Uttis (Alnus nepalensis) followed by Chilaune (Schima wallichii), Patle Katus (Castanopsis hystrix), Khote Salla (Pinus roxburghii), Katus (C. tribuloides), and Asna (Terminalia alata) in order of priority. Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 43 Regmi & Thapa Similarly, the ten preferred agroforestry tree species for fodder, in agroforestry, based on their preference values are presented in Table 3. Nimaro (Ficus roxburghii), Badhar (Artocarpus lakoocha), Kutmiro (Litsea monopetala), Dudhilo (F. nemoralis), and Kimbu (Morus alba) were the most preferred five fodder tree species in order of priority. Table 3: Preference of fodder species in agroforestry S. N. Species Local/ Common name No. of respondents choosing the order of choices Preference value Ranking I II III IV V 1. Ficus roxburghii Nimaro 35 25 8 9 7 2.68 I 2. Artocarpus lakoocha Badhar 29 16 14 3 6 2.17 II 3. Litsea monopetala Kutmiro 20 18 19 9 5 2.08 III 4. F. nemoralis Dudhilo 9 13 13 9 13 1.38 IV 5. Morus alba Kimbu 9 10 14 11 15 1.36 V 6. Bauhinia purpurea Tanki 8 11 9 11 16 1.23 VI 7. Leucaena leucocephala Ipil-Ipil 4 7 12 20 8 1.09 VII 8. F. auriculata Khanyu 2 9 12 9 9 0.90 VIII 9. F. lacor Kabhro 1 5 9 14 13 0.77 IX 10. B. variegata Koiralo 4 3 5 12 7 0.64 X Likewise, the ten preferred plants for fruits, in agroforestry, based on their preference values are presented in Table 4. Mandarin orange (Citrus reticulata) followed by Banana (Musa paradisica), Kagati (Citrus limon), Aamp (Mangifera indica), and Litchi (Litchi chinensis) were the five most desired fruit-yielding plants in order of priority. Table 2: Preference of timber in agroforestry S. N. Species Local/ Common name No. of respondents choosing the order of choices Preference value Ranking I II III IV V 1. Alnus nepalensis Uttis/ Nepalese Alder 33 37 3 4 4 2.76 I 2. Schima wallichii Chilaune 21 31 11 8 5 2.34 II 3. Castanopsis hystrix Patle Katus/ Chinkapin 11 9 27 13 8 1.70 III 4. Pinus roxburghii Khote Salla/ Chir Pine 14 6 21 19 6 1.66 IV 5. C. tribuloides Katus/ Chinkapin 9 2 20 12 9 1.21 V 6. Terminalia alata Asna, Saj/ Indian Laurel 5 8 6 15 17 1.01 VI 7. Michelia champaca Champ/ Champak 11 3 5 13 12 0.99 VII 8. Rhododendron spp. Gurans 5 6 8 5 19 0.84 VIII 9. Prunus cerasoides Painu/ Himalayan Wild Cherry 6 5 7 7 9 0.78 IX 10. Melia azedarach Bakaino/ Chinaberry 4 4 6 9 17 0.74 X Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 44 Regmi & Thapa Table 4: Preference of fruit species in agroforestry S. N. Species Local/ Common name No. of respondents choosing the order of choices Preference value Ranking I II III IV V 1. Citrus reticulata Suntala/ Orange 31 13 15 11 6 2.31 I 2. Musa paradisiaca Kera/ Banana 19 16 14 19 13 2.08 II 3. C. limon Kagati/ Lemon 17 19 16 4 5 1.83 III 4. Mangifera indica Aamp/ Mango 12 17 15 12 13 1.74 IV 5. Litchi chinensis Litchi 9 12 16 12 11 1.45 V 6. Pyrus pyrifolia Naspati/ Asian Pear 11 12 9 14 12 1.40 VI 7. Actinidia spp. Thekifal/ Kiwifruit 7 9 12 13 6 1.15 VII 8. Psidium guajava Amba/ Guava 5 8 9 17 20 1.14 VIII 9. Carica papaya Mewa/ Papaya 5 8 10 7 9 0.91 IX 10. Prunus persica Aaru/ Peach 5 4 5 4 16 0.66 X Perception of respondents towards agroforestry Respondents assessed their attitude towards various aspects of agroforestry through seven statements, rating them on a Likert Scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The tabulated results are presented in Table 5. The "Statement 3" (Agroforestry conserves soil and water) is found to be in highest rank with the mean of 4.46. Similarly, the "Statement 7" (Agroforestry improves surrounding environment) came to be in second rank with the mean of 4.36. Likewise, the "Statement 6" had the third ranking with the mean of 4.34. The "Statement 4" (Trees in agroforestry reduces crop yield) had the lowest ranking with the mean of 2.54. Table 5: Respondents' perception towards agroforestry S. N. Statement No. of respondents choosing the order of choices Preference value Ranking AttitudeI II III IV V SA A N D SD 1. Agroforestry is suitable for poor farmers 31 5 11 28 40 2.58 VI Poor 2. May not take long time to get outcome 42 12 16 22 25 3.09 IV Good 3. Agroforestry conserves soil and water 81 24 13 2 0 4.46 I Excellent 4. Trees in agroforestry reduces crop yield 30 5 21 17 43 2.54 VII Poor 5. Agroforestry increases the income of HH 40 10 7 25 38 2.87 V Good 6. Agroforestry supplies substantial need for HH consumption 81 22 7 5 3 4.34 III Excellent 7. Agroforestry improves surrounding environment 78 26 8 5 0 4.36 II Excellent Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 45 Regmi & Thapa Note: SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, N = Neutral, D = Disagree and SD = Strongly Disagree; HH = Household. Chi-square test A significant association exists between economic class and the perception on "Agroforestry is suitable for poor farmers" at 5% significance level (x2=28.62; df=6; & p=0.000004). Additionally, there is a statistically significant association between the scale of agroforestry and the perception that "Trees in agroforestry reduces crop yield" at 5% significance level (x2=9.98; df=4, & p=0.04), specifically indicating that subsistence-scale agroforestry practices have a significant impact on crop-yield. Challenges affecting agroforestry development in the study area Respondents reported that the foremost challenge in agroforestry development in the study area was due to the lack of technical skills (86%, Figure 3). According to them, other barriers for agroforestry development in the study area included: insufficient capital (84%), lack of qualified seeds (77%), absence of irrigation facilities (72%), labor shortages (71%), and lack of accessible markets for selling products (68%). Figure 3: Challenges for agroforestry development in the study area Discussion Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents The most prevalent type of farming in the study area is traditional agriculture which is centered on the production of cereals. The future of this farming, however, is in doubt given the labor shortage—a substantial portion of which is now seeking employment mainly in Gulf nations— which has significantly reduced farming activity in Nepal (Khanal, 2018). The average family size in the study area was 4.4 in 2012, which is comparable to Nepal's national average of 4.6 people (MoHP, 2012). A household's size affects the amount of labor that is available, and more working members increase the likelihood that agroforestry will be adopted, as noted by Ghadim (1999). Studies conducted in the past in western Kenya (Kindt et al., 2004) and Mexico (Blanckaert et al., 2004) further support the idea that having more family members may result in more labor being provided for home gardening, as well as a greater variety of plants and animals being grown. The average amount of agricultural land owned by each household in the study area was 18.06 Ropani (0.92 ha), which is comparable to Terhathum district's average of 19.26 Ropani (0.98 ha) (CBS, 2021). Agroforestry systems practiced in the study area The purpose of this study was to investigate the current agroforestry techniques used in the study area. Fifty seven percent of the local populace are mostly involved in agriculture. The study findings identified seven primary agroforestry systems operated by the local farmers, with home garden being found to be the most significant and widely used agroforestry system. This statement agrees with the findings of Amatya (1994) from the Terhathum district kindly check, where home garden was found to be the most popular and commonly practiced one among the other agroforestry systems practiced. However, the makeup of the home gardens varied according to the socioeconomic situations and ecological zones of the localities. Seasonal vegetables were often planted alongside horticultural crops like banana, orange, chilly, ginger, and turmeric in most household gardens in the mid-hills (Amatya et al., 2018). Intensive cultivation of cereals, vegetables, and spices, as well as fuel, fruit, and fodder species, was done within the home gardens in the study area. To fulfill their dietary needs and not for economic gain, these items were solely https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Khanal https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#MoHP https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Ghadim https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Kindt https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#blanck https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#CBS21 https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Aamatya1994 https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Aamatya2018 https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Aamatya2018 Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 46 Regmi & Thapa meant for household consumption. The purpose of a home garden agroforestry system was to satisfy the owners' demands for sustenance as well as to provide aesthetic and ornamental advantages (Amatya et al., 2018). Preference of agroforestry species Sixty agroforestry tree species were recorded from the farmer’s fields. These trees ranged from fruit trees to fodder trees to fuelwood & timber trees to multipurpose trees. The trees were found to be grown on the homesteads as well as scattered on the farms. The trees were preferred for the purpose of fodder, shade, and medicinal use together with ornamental and religious values. The study concluded that the five most preferred timber species were Uttis (A. nepalensis) followed by Chilaune (S. wallichii), Patle Katus (C. hystrix), Khote Salla (P. roxburghii) and Musure Katus (C. tribuloides). Farmers preferred A. nepalensis as it is a fast- growing plant with significant economic value. Similar to the findings of Osti (2016), Nimaro (F. roxburghii) was the most chosen species for fodder, followed by Badahar (A. lakoochaa), Kutmiro (L. monopetala), Dudhilo (F. nemoralis), and Kimbu (M. alba). Farmers favored these species because of their flavor, availability, and protein content. On the other hand, the five most popular fruit species were Orange (C. reticulata), Banana (M. paradisica), Lemon (C. limon), Mango (M. indica), and Litchi (L. chinensis), which were like those mentioned in the district profile of Terhathum (2016). Local farmers' perception towards agroforestry practices The five-point Likert Scale was used to measure the perceptions/attitudes of the local farmers towards the agroforestry practices in the study area. The attitudes of different levels of respondents were measured from strongly agree (1-5) to strongly disagree (1-5). Altogether, six statements were drawn from the respondents and asked about their perception. From the Likert Scale analysis, the people's perception regarding the statements: "Agroforestry is suitable for poor farmers" and "Trees in agroforestry reduces crop yield" were found to be poor. In the contrary, the respondents strongly believed that trees in agroforestry reduced crop yield. They held the opinion that agroforestry was only appropriate for the people with substantial landholding capacities since it ensured food security and required the allocation of some land for agroforestry being a long-term investment. According to them, the farmers who had access to more acreage tend to be less risk- averse and more open to experimenting with new technology. The adoption of agroforestry, as claimed by (Dhakal & Rai, 2020), was found to be influenced by the farmers' land holding capacity, and the farmers who used the conventional agroforestry practices felt that trees lowered agricultural yields. According to (Barakoti et al., 1999), alley cropping of mixed tree species (A. lakoocha, B. purpurea, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Leucaena latisiliqua, and Madhuca latifolia) in the Terai region had a favorable impact on agriculture crop production. This indicated that the farmers in the present study area were not aware that the right crop combinations might boost instead of decreasing the agricultural productivity. However, the farmers had a positive outlook on the notion that agroforestry might not take long to provide results and might boost household income, which seemed desirable. Likewise, the farmers showed excellent attitude towards the statements: "Agroforestry conserve soil & water" and "Agroforestry supplies substantial needs (food, fuel, fodder, timber, and fruits) for household consumption". Most of the farmers strongly agreed on both of these statements. The farming system in the study area was found to be traditional, and they knew the purpose of growing species on the farm. They had good indigenous knowledge about species which conserved soil and water in a proper manner. Aryal et al. (2019) also argued that the agroforestry practice in rural areas had mostly supposed to produce fodder and fuelwood along with agricultural crops which coincided with the findings of our study. Nevertheless, the farmers were found to be completely unaware of the multiple benefits (social, ecological, and economic) of agroforestry. https://d.docs.live.net/53b7d0704c629fe8/Desktop/ongoing.docx#Aamatya2018 Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 47 Regmi & Thapa Conclusion The adoption of agroforestry systems stands out as a promising alternative to address pressing issues such as biodiversity loss, food security, and the scarcity of forest products. Seven different agroforestry practices, mostly concentrated for subsistence purposes, were observed within the study area. A total of 63 agroforestry tree species were recorded from the study area; the most preferred ones being A. nepalensis, F. roxbourghi, and C. reticulata for timber, fodder, and fruits, respectively. Lack of technical knowledge among the farmers was observes as the major challenge for agroforestry development in the study area. Gaps between policy makers, researchers, extension workers, and farmers should be reduced as far as possible. Some policy reforms and institutional strengthening are necessary to promote agroforestry in the study area. Furthermore, improvisation, commercialization, and modernization are necessary in agroforestry practices for its sustainability in the study area. Author Contribution Statement G. Regmi: Data collection, analysis, draft writing. LBT: Conception and design, manuscript revision. U. Thapa: Conception and design, manuscript, result interpretation, manuscript revision, supervision. Data Availability The data used in this study are accessible upon request to the corresponding author. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Amatya, S. M. (1994). Agroforestry Systems and Practice in Nepal. Forest Research and Survey Centre. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Babarmahal, Kathmandu, Nepal. Amatya, S. M., Cedamon, E., & Nuberg, I. (2018). Agroforestry systems and practices in Nepal. Revised Edition. Agriculture and Forestry University. Aryal, K., Thapa, P. S., & Lamichhane, D. (2019). Revisiting agroforestry for building climate resilient communities: a case of package- based integrated agroforestry practices in Nepal. Emerging Science Journal, 3 (5): 303–311. Atreya, K., Subedi, B. P., Ghimire, P. L., Khanal, S. C., Charmakar, S., & Adhikari, R. (2021). Agroforestry for mountain development: prospects, challenges and ways forward in Nepal. Archives of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 6 (1): 87–99. https://doi. org/10.26832/24566632. 2021.0601012 Barakoti, T. P., Sapkota, M., & Thapa, F. (1999). Effect of multipurpose trees and Cassia green leaf manure on maize yields under agroforestry systems. Proceedings of the 3rd National Conference on Science and Technology, Royal Nepal Academy of Science and Technology (RONAST), Kathmandu, Nepal. Blanckaert, I., Swennen, R. L., Flores, M. P., López, R. R., & Saade, R. L. (2004). Floristic composition, plant uses and management practices in home gardens of San Rafael Coxcatlán, Valley of Tehuacán-Cuicatlán, Mexico. Journal of Arid Environments, 57 (2): 179-202. Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press. https://ktpu.kpi.ua/ wp-content/ uploads/2014/02/social-research- methods-alan-bryman.pdf CBS. (2011). National Population and Housing Census 2011. Kathmandu: National Planning Commission, Nepal. CBS. (2021). National Population and Housing Census 2021. National Planning Commission, Kathmandu, Nepal. Chhetri, R. (2018). Perspective of Farm Gate Agroforestry Production in the Emergency of the Chepangs Community: a case study on mega earthquake of central Nepal. International Journal of Scientific Research and Management, https://doi.org/10.26832/24566632 https://doi.org/10.26832/24566632 https://ktpu.kpi.ua/wp-content / https://ktpu.kpi.ua/wp-content / Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 48 Regmi & Thapa 6 (3): 19–38. Dhakal, A. & Rai, R. K. (2020). Who adopts agroforestry in a subsistence economy?— Lessons from the Terai of Nepal. Forests, 11 (5): 565. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11050565 FRTC. (2022). National Land Cover Monitoring System of Nepal. Forest Research and Training Centre, Kathmandu, Nepal. p. 15. Ghadim, A. K. A. (1999). A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation. Agricultural Economics, 21 (2): 145–154. https:// doi.org/10.1016/s0169-5150(99)00023-7 Khanal, U. (2018). Why are farmers keeping cultivatable lands fallow even though there is food scarcity in Nepal? Food Security, 10 (3): 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018- 0805-4 Kindt, R., Simons, A. J., & Van Damme, P. (2004). Do farm characteristics explain differences in tree species diversity among western Kenyan farms? Agroforestry Systems, 63 (1): 63–74. https://doi. org/10.1023/b:agfo.0000049434.54654.97 Kiyani, P., Andoh, J., Lee, Y., & Lee, D. K. (2017). Benefits and challenges of agroforestry adoption: a case of Musebeya sector, Nyamagabe district in southern province of Rwanda. Forest Science and Technology, 13 (4): 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1 080/21580103.2017.1392367 Lehmann, L. M., Smith, J., Westaway, S., Pisanelli, A., Russo, G., Borek, R., Sandor, M., Gliga, A., Smith, L., & Ghaley, B. B. (2020). Productivity and economic evaluation of agroforestry systems for sustainable production of food and non-food products. Sustainability, 12 (13): 5429. https:// doi.org/ 10.3390/su12135429 Liu, C. L. C., Kuchma, O., & Krutovsky, K. V. (2018). Mixed species versus monocultures in plantation forestry: development, benefits, ecosystem services and perspectives for the future. Global Ecology and Conservation, 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00419 LRMP. (1986). Land Capability Report. Land Resource Mapping Project, Kenting Earth Science, Canada and Department of Topography, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. MoHP. (2012). Nepal 2011 Demographic and Health Survey: key findings. Ministry of Health & Population, New ERA, and Inner City Fund (ICF) International. Nair, K. (1979). In defense of the irrational peasant: Indian agriculture after the Green Revolution. University of Chicago Press. Osti, N. P. (2016). Multipurpose fodder species. National Feed Technology, 5 (1). National Agriculture Research Council, Animal Feed Division, Khumaltar, Lalitpur. Pandit, B. H. & Kumar, C. (2010). Factors influencing the integration of non-timber forest products into field crop cultivation: a case study from eastern Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 29 (6-8): 671–695. https://doi. org/10.1080/10549811003741599 Regmi, B. N. & Garforth, C. (2010). Trees outside forests and rural livelihoods: a study in Chitwan district, Nepal. Agroforestry Systems, 79 (3): 393– 407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-010-9292-0 Shrestha, R. K. (2002). Various patterns of retaining trees in indigenous agroforestry practices in the mid-hills of Nepal. Banko Janakari, 12 (1): 35–41. Udvardy, M. (1975). A Classification of the Biogeographical Provinces of the World. Se- mantic Scholar. https://www.semanticschol- ar.org/paper/A-classification-of-the-biogeo- graphical-provinces-Udvar dy/28fa76d9cb- 735d5358ad6d1401f4186fc3aad104 https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/ https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-classification-of-the-biogeographical-provinces-Udvar d https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-classification-of-the-biogeographical-provinces-Udvar d https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-classification-of-the-biogeographical-provinces-Udvar d Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 1 Regmi & Thapa Annex 1: Respondents' preferences for timber species S. N. Timber species Frequency of response Preference valueScientific name Local name I II III IV V 1. Alnus nepalensis Uttis/ Nepalese Alder 33 37 3 4 4 2.76 2. Schima wallichii Chilaune 21 31 11 8 5 2.34 3. Castanopsis hystrix Patle Katus/ Chinkapin 11 9 27 13 8 1.70 4. Pinus roxburghii Khote Salla/ Chir Pine 14 6 21 19 6 1.66 5. C. tribuloides Katus/ Chinkapin 9 2 20 12 9 1.21 6. Terminalia alata Asna, Saj/ Indian Laurel 5 8 6 15 17 1.01 7. Michelia champaca Champ/ Champak 11 3 5 13 12 0.99 8. Rhododendron spp. Gurans 5 6 8 5 19 0.84 9. Prunus cerasoides Painu/ Himalayan Wild Cherry 6 5 7 7 9 0.78 10. Melia azedarach Bakaino/ Chinaberry 4 4 6 9 17 0.74 11. Albizzia lebbeck Kalo Siris 1 2 3 3 5 0.27 12. Bombax ceiba Simal 1 1 1 3 3 0.17 13. Fraximus floribunda Lankuri 0 2 1 2 2 0.14 14. Pinus wallichiana Gobre Salla 0 1 0 3 2 0.10 15. P. patula Patle Salla 0 1 1 2 1 0.10 16. Engelhardia spicata Mauwa 0 1 0 2 2 0.08 17. Eucalyptus camaldulensis Masala 0 1 1 1 0 0.07 18. Semecarpus anacardium Bhalayo 0 1 0 0 0 0.03 Total 121 121 121 121 121 - . Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 2 Regmi & Thapa Annex 2: Respondents' preferences for fodder species S. N. Fodder species Frequency of response Preference valueScientific name Local name I II III IV V 1. Ficus roxburghii Nimaro 35 25 8 9 7 2.68 2. Artocarpus lakoocha Badahar 29 16 14 3 6 2.17 3. Litsea monopetala Kutmiro 20 18 19 9 5 2.08 4. F. nemoralis Dudhilo 9 13 13 9 13 1.38 5. Morus alba Kimbu 9 10 14 11 15 1.36 6. Bauhinia purpurea Tanki 8 11 9 11 16 1.23 7. Leucaena leucocephala Ipil-Ipil 4 7 12 20 8 1.09 8. F. auriculata Khanyu 2 9 12 9 9 0.90 9. F. lacor Kabhro 1 5 9 14 13 0.77 10. B. variegata Koiralo 4 3 5 12 7 0.64 11. Melia azedarach Bakaino 0 0 3 6 3 0.20 12. Albizia lebbeck Kalo Siris 0 1 0 2 9 0.14 13. Brassaiopsis hainla Chuletro 0 0 2 3 4 0.13 14. Saurauia napaulensis Gogan 0 1 0 3 4 0.12 15. Prunus cerasoides Paiyu 0 1 1 0 2 0.07 16. Senegalia catechu Khari 0 1 0 0 0 0.03 Total 121 121 121 121 121 - Banko Janakari, Vol 33 No. 2 3 Regmi & Thapa Annex 3: Respondents' preferences for fruit species S. N. Fruit species Frequency of response Preference valueScientific name Local name I II III IV V 1. Citrus reticulata Suntala/ Orange 31 13 15 11 6 2.31 2. Musa paradisiaca Kera/ Banana 19 16 14 19 13 2.08 3. C. limon Kagati/ Lemon 17 19 16 4 5 1.83 4. Mangifera indica Aamp/ Mango 12 17 15 12 13 1.74 5. Litchi chinensis Litchi 9 12 16 12 11 1.45 6. Pyrus pyrifolia Naspati/ Asian Pear 11 12 9 14 12 1.40 7. Actinidia spp. Thekifal/ Kiwifruit 7 9 12 13 6 1.15 8. Psidium guajava Amba/ Guava 5 8 9 17 20 1.14 9. Carica papaya Mewa/ Papaya 5 8 10 7 9 0.91 10. Prunus persica Aaru/ Peach 5 4 5 4 16 0.66 11. Citrus sinensis Junar/ Sweet Orange 0 3 0 0 0 0.10 12. Persea americana Ghiuphal/ Avocado 0 0 0 3 3 0.07 13. Malus spp. Syau/ Apple 0 0 0 1 4 0.05 14. Vitis spp. Angur/ Grapes 0 0 0 1 0 0.02 15. Choerospondias axillaris Lapsi 0 0 0 0 3 0.02 16. Punica granatum Anar/ Pomegranate 0 0 0 1 0 0.02 17. Juglans spp. Dante Okhar 0 0 0 1 0 0.02 18. Diospyros kaki Haluwaved/ Persimmon 0 0 0 1 0 0.02 Total 121 121 121 121 121 - Aamatya1994 Aamatya2018 aryal atreya barakoti blanck Bryman CBS11 CBS21 Chhetri Dhakal FRTC Ghadim Khanal Kindt Kiyani Lehmann LRMP Liu MoHP Nair79 Osti Pandit Regmi10 Shrestha Udvardy