Agroecological practices increase farmers' well-being in an agricultural growth corridor in Tanzania.

Millions of people rely on nature-rich farming systems for their subsistence and income. The contributions of nature to these systems are varied and key to their sustainability in the long term. Yet, agricultural stakeholders are often unaware or undervalue the relevance of those contributions, which can affect decisions concerning land management. There is limited knowledge on how farming practices and especially those that build more strongly on nature, including agroecological practices, may shape farmers' livelihoods and well-being. We aim to determine the effect that farmer perception of contributions from nature, socioeconomic conditions, and farming practices, have on outcomes related to food security and human well-being. We conducted 467 household surveys in an agricultural growth corridor in rural Tanzania, which is also essential for nature conservation due to its high biodiversity and its strategic location between several protected areas encompassing wetland, forest, and grassland habitats. Results show that implementing more agroecological practices at farm scale has a positive effect on farmer well-being in the study landscape. Results also indicate that higher awareness of benefits from nature, as well as engagement with agricultural extension services, are associated with higher number of agroecological practices applied in the farm. This research confirms the relevance of capacity-building initiatives to scale up the uptake of agroecological practices in the tropics. It also shows, using empirical evidence, that farming practices taking advantage of nature's contributions to people can positively affect food security and human well-being, even when those practices complement conventional ones, such as the use of synthetic inputs. Understanding the impact of agroecological farming on the well-being of smallholder farmers in the tropics paves the way for policy and program development that ensures global food demands are met in a sustainable way without compromising the well-being of some of the world's most vulnerable people.

A systems approach framework for evaluating tree restoration interventions for social and ecological outcomes in rural tropical landscapes.

The science guiding design and evaluation of restoration interventions in tropical landscapes is dominated by ecological processes and outcomes and lacks indicators and methods that integrate human wellbeing into the restoration process. We apply a new systems approach framework for tree restoration in forest-agricultural landscapes to show how this shortcoming can be addressed. Demonstrating 'proof of concept', we tested statistical models underlying the framework pathways with data collected from a case study in Tanzania. Local community perceptions of nature's values were not affected by levels of self-reported wildlife-induced crop damage. But mapped predictions from the systems approach under a tree restoration scenario suggested differential outcomes for biodiversity indicators and altered spatial patterns of crop damage risk, expected to jeopardize human wellbeing. The predictions map anticipated trade-offs in costs and benefits of restoration scenarios, which we have started to explore with stakeholders to identify restoration opportunities that consider local knowledge, value systems and human wellbeing. We suggest that the framework be applied to other landscapes to identify commonalities and differences in forest landscape restoration outcomes under varying governance and land use systems. This should form a foundation for evidence-based implementation of the global drive for forest landscape restoration, at local scales. This article is part of the theme issue 'Understanding forest landscape restoration: reinforcing scientific foundations for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration'.

The role of participatory scenarios in ecological restoration: a systematic map protocol.

BACKGROUND: The scale of land degradation worldwide has led the UN to declare the Decade of Ecosystem Restoration and movements such as the Bonn Challenge ( https://www.bonnchallenge.org/ ), have placed ecological restoration on the global policy agenda. Achieving such ambitious policy targets and restoration goals will necessitate complex trade-offs against limited time, competing knowledge, costs, resources, and varying societal preferences among different stakeholders. Participatory scenarios are a tool to navigate uncertainties surrounding future trajectories and simultaneously incorporate different stakeholder perspectives. They can provide a path to identify collaborative solutions best suited for the local cultures and societies they are tied to. However, there is no systematic understanding of how participatory scenarios are being used in ecological restoration planning to navigate trade-offs in restoration outcomes. We will fill this research gap by mapping the existing evidence from participatory restoration scenarios to answer the primary research question 'How are outcomes explored in participatory ecological restoration scenarios?'. This will be done through five sub-questions focussing on characteristics of the evidence base, types of study design, how outcomes and trade-offs in those are explored, and an examination of the role of participants in the scenario process and outcome determination. METHODS: This protocol outlines the methods for a systematic map to identify studies that have used participatory scenarios in restoration planning. A comprehensive and reproducible search strategy will be undertaken across bibliographic databases, web-based engines, and targeted searches in organisational online libraries. Searches will be done online in English, but results in all languages will be screened. Search results will go through a two-step screening process of against pre-determined criteria of inclusion and exclusion, for title and abstract and then full-text. Data will be extracted from eligible studies using a standardised data extraction spreadsheet where details on study characteristics, design and outcomes will be recorded. A searchable database of studies and mapping outcomes will be available upon completion of the work. The aim is to inform how scenarios can be better used as a decision-making tool to increase stakeholder participation and account for trade-offs in restoration outcomes across social, ecological, and economic dimensions.

Parents' and pupils' causal attributions for difficult classroom behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Studies of causal attributions for difficult pupil behaviour in schools have tended to focus on the perspectives of teachers. AIMS: The present study examines the causal attributions made by parents for difficult behaviour in classrooms. It reveals the structure of these attributions and serves as a direct comparison to a previous study of pupils' attributions (Miller, Ferguson, & Byrne, 2000) and, more indirectly, with the teacher studies. SAMPLE: The participants were 144 parents (106 mothers and 38 fathers) whose children all attended the same inner city school. METHOD: A questionnaire was constructed following three initial small group interviews with parents to identify the wide range of factors they viewed as potential causes of difficult classroom behaviour. This was then administered to all the parents of children attending the same inner-city primary school. RESULTS: Factor analysis indicated that parents' attributions for misbehaviour were best represented by three factors: (1) 'fairness of teachers' actions', (2) 'pupil vulnerability to peer influences and adverse family circumstances', and (3) 'differentiation of classroom demands and expectations'. While there were no differences between parents in terms of gender or ethnicity, they did see the first two factors as more significant contributors to pupil misbehaviour than the third. CONCLUSION: There is both agreement and conflict between parents' attributions and those made by pupils and by teachers. The implementation of policy initiatives, such as home-school agreements and Pastoral Support Programmes, risk exacerbating tensions and difficulties if these differences in attributions are not acknowledged and acted upon.