Agroforestry and beekeeping are widely promoted as prospective Nature-</span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span...Agroforestry and beekeeping are widely promoted as prospective Nature-</span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Based Income Generating Activities (NIGAs) to improve livelihoods while at </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the same time enhancing biodiversity conservation in degrading</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> agro-ecologies. These activities can diversify and increase famers’ incomes and support in</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">stinctive biota and fauna resilience. However, evidence to showcase and compare their long-term benefits is scant. We use the case of Uluguru</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> Mountains in Tanzania to evaluate and compare viability of agroforestry and beekeeping projects using the Cost</span></span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Benefit Analysis (CBA) approach. The results of analysis yielded positive NPVs for both agroforestry and beekeeping projects at discount rates not higher than 8.2% and 8.5% respectively. Overall, the comparison of economic viability between agroforestry and beekeeping projects revealed that the former was relatively more profitable than the later in terms of both the NPV and Benefit</span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Cost Ratio (BCR) criteria. However, the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for beekeeping was slightly higher than that of agroforestry. Yet, we underscore the fact that these two projects can jointly be implemented to enhance livelihoods of farmers and support biodiversity conservation in the study </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-fami展开更多
文摘Agroforestry and beekeeping are widely promoted as prospective Nature-</span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Based Income Generating Activities (NIGAs) to improve livelihoods while at </span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">the same time enhancing biodiversity conservation in degrading</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> agro-ecologies. These activities can diversify and increase famers’ incomes and support in</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;">stinctive biota and fauna resilience. However, evidence to showcase and compare their long-term benefits is scant. We use the case of Uluguru</span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> Mountains in Tanzania to evaluate and compare viability of agroforestry and beekeeping projects using the Cost</span></span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Benefit Analysis (CBA) approach. The results of analysis yielded positive NPVs for both agroforestry and beekeeping projects at discount rates not higher than 8.2% and 8.5% respectively. Overall, the comparison of economic viability between agroforestry and beekeeping projects revealed that the former was relatively more profitable than the later in terms of both the NPV and Benefit</span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-family:""> </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Cost Ratio (BCR) criteria. However, the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for beekeeping was slightly higher than that of agroforestry. Yet, we underscore the fact that these two projects can jointly be implemented to enhance livelihoods of farmers and support biodiversity conservation in the study </span></span></span><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"><span style="font-fami
