\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[ngerman,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Mobilising farmers to stop land degradation: a different discourse from
Burundi}



\author[1]{Aad Kessler}%
\author[2]{Erik Slingerland}%
\author[2]{Micael Beun}%
\author[3]{Ruben Winne}%
\author[1]{Laura Pol}%
\author[1]{Laurie Reemst}%
\affil[1]{WUR}%
\affil[2]{IFDC}%
\affil[3]{Oxfam Novib}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 07, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
Stopping land degradation is one of the biggest challenges worldwide and
particularly in Burundi, which currently faces unprecedented rates of
soil loss and food insecurity. This paper proposes a different
development discourse on how to stop land degradation, and presents
results and lessons learned of a bottom-up inclusive approach
implemented since 2014 in Burundi: the Integrated Farm Planning approach
(PIP) approach. This approach aims to build a solid foundation for
sustainable change towards enhanced food production and good land
stewardship, based on three foundation principles (motivation,
stewardship and resilience) and three guiding principles (empowerment,
integration and collaboration). Findings from an impact study on the PIP
approach and testimonies of farmers from a qualitative study show
profound changes in land management practices and diversity of
activities on the farm, as well as in the social cohesion in households
and villages. Based on a vision and a plan, nearly 80,000 motivated
households are currently actively involved to stop land degradation and
make their farms more productive, while in all PIP villages concrete
collective action is undertaken for sustainable land stewardship. Given
that these actions are widespread and come along with a change in
mind-set rooted in all three foundation principles, the paper concludes
that the PIP approach is able to effectively build a foundation for
sustainable change. Five key lessons from this experience reveal the key
elements of a different development discourse that actually motivates
and mobilises farmers to stop land degradation.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


Mobilising farmers to stop land degradation:

a different discourse from Burundi

Aad Kessler\textsuperscript{1}, Erik Slingerland\textsuperscript{2},
Micael Beun\textsuperscript{2}, Ruben De Winne\textsuperscript{3}, Laura
Pol\textsuperscript{1} and Laurie van Reemst\textsuperscript{1}

\textsuperscript{1}Wageningen University \& Research, Department of
Environmental Sciences, the Netherlands

\textsuperscript{2}IFDC, National Office Bujumbura, Burundi

\textsuperscript{3}Oxfam Novib, The Hague, the Netherlands

\section*{Abstract}

{\label{abstract}}\par\null

Stopping land degradation is one of the biggest challenges worldwide and
particularly in Burundi, which currently faces unprecedented rates of
soil loss and food insecurity. This paper proposes a different
development discourse on \emph{how} to stop land degradation, and
presents results and lessons learned of a bottom-up inclusive approach
implemented since 2014 in Burundi: the Integrated Farm Planning approach
(PIP) approach. This approach aims to build a solid foundation for
sustainable change towards enhanced food production and good land
stewardship, based on three foundation principles (motivation,
stewardship and resilience) and three guiding principles (empowerment,
integration and collaboration). Findings from an impact study on the PIP
approach and testimonies of farmers from a qualitative study show
profound changes in land management practices and diversity of
activities on the farm, as well as in the social cohesion in households
and villages. Based on a vision and a plan, nearly 80,000 motivated
households are currently actively involved to stop land degradation and
make their farms more productive, while in all PIP villages concrete
collective action is undertaken for sustainable land stewardship. Given
that these actions are widespread and come along with a change in
mind-set rooted in all three foundation principles, the paper concludes
that the PIP approach is able to effectively build a foundation for
sustainable change. Five key lessons from this experience reveal the key
elements of a different development discourse that actually motivates
and mobilises farmers to stop land degradation.



\section*{Key words}

{\label{key-words}}

Land degradation -- Land stewardship -- PIP approach -- Mobilising
farmers -- Burundi

\section*{1. Introduction}

{\label{introduction}}

With globally 33\% of soils considered degraded (UNCCD, 2017), stopping
land degradation while sustainably producing food is one of the biggest
challenges worldwide (Bouma \& McBratney, 2013; Diamond, 2005; Webb et
al., 2017). This challenge is particularly pressing in a country like
Burundi, which depends on subsistence farming on often steep slopes, and
where the population size will double towards 2040. Already at present,
with a population density of 450/km\textsuperscript{2}, high pressure on
the land combined with unsustainable agricultural practices is leading
to wide-scale deforestation, over-exploitation of the land, and soil
erosion (Eggers, 2006). Burundi scores second lowest worldwide on the
Global Food Security Index (2019), with more than 50\% of the population
being chronically food insecure (WFP, 2019) and unable to meet their
dietary needs (Niragira et al., 2015). Although soil erosion and its
effect on crop yields are not new phenomena in this region (Dregne,
1990), current rates and scale of erosion are unprecedented, and urgent
action is required to prevent the permanent loss of ecosystem services
due to land degradation (Blake et al., 2018).

The question is what strategies can reverse land degradation and
declining food security? Burundi has received considerable international
development aid in the past decades, but hardly any progress was made in
alleviating poverty and food insecurity. The underlying reason is that
these interventions were often short-term, top-down and focused on
conflict-resolution or emergency aid (Uvin, 2010). Currently,
development programmes start paying more attention to agricultural
production and land degradation, but approaches often lack essential
elements of sustainability, such as building local ownership, capacities
and motivation. Tackling complex societal issues such as land
degradation cannot be done by top-down interventions or incentive-based
approaches (Hall-Blanco, 2016); because ``Only the self-reliant efforts
of poor people and poor societies themselves can end poverty\ldots{}''
(Easterly, 2006).

Hence, development actors should become facilitators of bottom-up and
community-based development (Abrams et al., 2009), and enable farmers to
tackle land degradation themselves. This article presents such a
bottom-up approach, the Integrated Farm Planning approach, or PIP
approach (in French: ``\selectlanguage{ngerman}\emph{Plan Intégré du Paysan} ''), which proposes
a different development discourse on \emph{how} to tackle land
degradation in complex rural-oriented economies like in Burundi. After
conceptualizing the PIP approach in the next sections, the paper
discusses results and lessons learned, and concludes by reflecting on
the applicability of the PIP approach to stop land degradation and move
towards resilience-based stewardship.

\section*{2. Building a foundation for sustainable
change}

{\label{building-a-foundation-for-sustainable-change}}

Burundi is endowed with abundant rainfall, fertile arable land, and
productive marshlands. With a population growth of 3.3\% and with 87\%
of the population living from small-scale agriculture, plots have
continuously become more fragmented (0.3 to 0.5 ha per household),
driving farmers to further intensify production and deplete soil
fertility to the limit. Farming is mainly rainfed, with staple crops
like maize, beans and cassava cultivated on steep slopes with
unsustainable farming practices. Expansion of farmland and dependence on
wood for fuel, has pushed deforestation, with forests currently covering
only 6.6\% of the territory. Erosion rates in the highlands of Burundi
can reach 100 tons/ha (Ndagijimana, Kessler, \& Asseldonk, 2019),
aggravated by increasingly more frequent torrential rains. The resulting
loss of soil fertility and its effect on food security make better land
stewardship by smallholders a top priority in Burundi.

It is in this context that the PIP approach was first introduced in
Burundi in 2013, aiming to build a solid foundation for sustainable
change towards enhanced food production and good land stewardship. The
PIP approach considers that first investing in the people and the land
they manage - before investing in anything else - is a precondition for
sustainable change. The household level is therefore central to motivate
farmers to invest in their land, but by facilitating farmer-to-farmer
trainings and knowledge exchange, tackling land degradation at community
and landscape level is one of the final goals (Kessler, van
Duivenbooden, Nsabimana, \& van Beek, 2016).

How the PIP approach works can best be visualized as in Figure 1. Just
like a tree that needs fertile soil to grow strong, the PIP approach
builds a foundation for sustainable change based on three principles:
motivation, stewardship and resilience. This foundation, of genuinely
motivated stewards of the land and its natural resources, is essential
for the sustainability of any intervention or action. This is
illustrated by the arrow in the trunk of the tree, which points to
activities such as livestock improvement, reforestation, value chain
development, water projects, and micro-credit schemes. Where this
foundation is lacking, interventions will face limited ownership and
often fail to achieve sustainable results (Easterly, 2006; Oino, Towett,
Kirui, \& Luvega, 2015).

Within the PIP approach `resilience-based stewardship' is a key concept,
in which these three \emph{foundation principles} come together. Based
on (Chapin et al., 2011), who use this concept as a framework for
stewardship strategies that can increase social-ecological resilience,
we define resilience-based stewardship as ``motivated stakeholders who
feel responsible to be good stewards of the land and its natural
resources, and invest in social-ecological resilience of their
landscape''. Furthermore, the blue outer circle of Figure 1 presents the
three \emph{guiding principles} of the PIP approach: empowerment,
integration and collaboration. During implementation of any activity it
is crucial (especially for project staff) to empower people, to foster
integration of activities, and to enhance collaboration to scale-up
faster. This mobilization of farmers to collaborate is essential to stop
land degradation, and is illustrated by the branches of the tree where
the process starts at household level, spreads to community level and
eventually covers a whole landscape.

Creating an Integrated Farm Plan (a PIP) at household level is a key
tool in the approach. This PIP creation, in which family members develop
a vision and an action plan together, is a flywheel for all other
changes that follow. Figure 2 gives an example of a PIP as drawn by a
family, with left the current situation and right the desired future
farm in 3-5 years, including erosion control measures, a diverse
crop-livestock system, compost pits, a vegetable garden, and
agroforestry. By creating a PIP together, awareness grows within
families about the importance of integrated farm planning and limiting
social and intra-household issues. These dialogues on possibilities to
improve, reach attainable goals, and how to define this in a PIP, lead
to better organized households with common objectives. What follows is
motivated action, because a PIP is based on households' own capabilities
and knowledge, and not on project targets or objectives. These PIPs at
household level are the first pieces of the required foundation for
sustainable change, with further upscaling of PIP being essential to
stop land degradation at village and beyond.

At village level, upscaling PIP creation takes about 2 years, with a key
role for Farmer Innovators, who are (fe)male farmers -- chosen by the
community itself -- with a progressive mind-set and spirit to improve.
They are the first to create a PIP, then become PIP trainers, and
through farmer-to-farmer training -- mainly in competitions between
organized groups -- build capacities in the rest of the community; with
ever more households becoming motivated stewards of their land. This is
strengthened by exchange visits and the development of Village Visions,
which are concrete plans for diverse collective activities, better
access to markets, landscape restoration, and organized village
structures. Local institutions and extension workers are closely
involved in all activities, given that their motivation and genuine
engagement are essential for ownership of the key elements of the PIP
approach and for the sustainability of all actions.

\section*{3. Foundation principles of the PIP
approach}

{\label{foundation-principles-of-the-pip-approach}}

This section conceptualizes the three foundation principles of the PIP
approach -- motivation, stewardship and resilience -- and how they are
used and stimulated in the approach to build the foundation for
sustainable change.

\emph{Motivation}

In its most basic form, motivation is an inspiration or impetus to act
(Ryan \& Deci, 2000). Being of pivotal importance for actors in carrying
out tasks, motivation can originate from a variety of sources. A
distinction is often made between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation refers to doing something because it is inherently
satisfying or enjoyable, based on an actor's internal interest (Ryan \&
Deci, 2000). It relates to intrinsic life goals, and is driven by
feelings of autonomy, competence and relatedness (Deci \& Ryan, 2008a).
Extrinsic motivation is characterized by external incentives (e.g.
rewards or avoided punishments) to accomplish something, and may even be
counterproductive to intrinsic motivation (Bhaduri \& Kumar, 2011; Ryan
\& Deci, 2000). Intrinsic motivation is most crucial for sustainable
change, i.e. motivation which is autonomous and leads to ownership and
genuine engagement in an activity (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon,
\& Deci, 2004).

Motivation in the PIP approach is about creating ownership and avoiding
that farmers undertake action because of an external reward (like money
or in-kind incentives). It is stimulated from the start, when during PIP
creation -- based on their needs and aspirations -- families draw their
future vision. Developing a vision provides motivation to act (Greiner
\& Gregg, 2011) and visualizing an attainable future gives people an
increased sense of purpose. This is related to self-reliance, with
people feeling competent to achieve something and actively search for
solutions. This autonomous motivation which comes from internal sources
(Deci \& Ryan, 2008b) is a strong motivator for good stewardship (Ryan,
Erickson, \& De Young, 2003). Furthermore, social capital aspects such
as trust, collaboration and reciprocity have a positive effect on the
motivation of people to manage natural resources collectively (Pretty,
2003), including concrete action to stop soil erosion.

\emph{Stewardship}

Stewardship refers to our responsibility to manage and protect the land
and its natural heritage

(Brown \& Mitchell, 1998), and involves nourishing something for someone
else: for society, nature, a God, or future generations (Worrell \&
Appleby, 2000). Stewardship is therefore essentially different from
traditional management methods, given that the latter are more focused
on efficiency and profitability, while stewardship is more acting for a
benevolent purpose, as a moral duty or responsibility. It is based on
the premise that ``pro-organizational, collectivistic behaviours have
higher utility than individualistic, self-serving behaviour'' (Davis,
Schoorman, \& Donaldson, 1997). Stewardship also refers to shaping
pathways towards ecological resilience, especially in the context of
social-ecological systems such as farming systems (Chapin et al., 2011;
Kofinas \& Chapin, 2009); as such building further on elements of
resilience thinking.

In the PIP approach stewardship is stimulated by creating awareness
about changes in natural resources and our own role, inducing the
responsibility in stakeholders to protect and conserve land, water and
vegetation. This is closely related to awareness about environmental
values, such as prevention of pollution, protection of the environment,
respect for the earth and unity with nature; also referred to as
biospheric values (Steg, Perlaviciute, Van der Werff, \& Lurvink, 2014).
However, stewardship is only valuable when translated into concrete
actions. Hence, in the PIP approach, during a series of workshops where
farmers exchange knowledge and experiences and receive on-demand
trainings, stewardship is further strengthened with capacity building on
good practices related to land and farm management and use of the
commons.

\emph{Resilience}

Resilience is frequently described as the ability of a system to return
to its initial state after a shock or perturbation (Holling, 1973). This
implies the system -- in our case the farm or the village with their
physical and social components -- to be adaptive, subject to change, and
consisting of interacting subsystems (Rammel, Stagl, \& Wilfing, 2007).
Each subsystem directly responds to external shocks or other changes,
but since subsystems interact, one may also respond to modifications of
another subsystem. Resilience thinking thus moves away from
`traditional' analytical assumptions such as linearity and
predictability (Darnhofer, Fairweather, \& Moller, 2010; Scoones et al.,
2007), towards dynamics of complexity within a system. Therefore, a
paradigm shift is required from an emphasis on efficiency or production
of a (farming) system, to adaptability, capacity development and
evidence-based learning (Darnhofer et al., 2010).

Resilience within the PIP approach implies focusing both on physical
aspects of farming, as well as coping capacities of households and
villages. Diversification of crops, income sources and practices are
particularly important, given land scarcity for agriculture and
vulnerability to climatic risks. Including non-farm income sources,
high-quality cash crops and livestock in the farming system as an income
source, is therefore always stressed during PIP creation. Concerning
social resilience, coping strategies and adaptive capacities of families
are particularly crucial, in terms of education, skills, knowledge,
health and organisation (Ellis, 1998; Keck \& Sakdapolrak, 2013). The
PIP approach continuously stresses these elements of social resilience,
and also builds with its activities social cohesion within families and
in villages.



\section*{4. Guiding principles of the PIP
approach}

{\label{guiding-principles-of-the-pip-approach}}

The three guiding principles conceptualized in this section --
empowerment, integration and collaboration -- aim at organisations and
staff involved in the PIP approach, and how they work with local actors.
Rather than extension agents transferring knowledge, PIP staff
are\emph{facilitators} \emph{of change} ; and farmers, rather than
beneficiaries of a project, are \emph{agents of change} . In this
bottom-up process, PIP staff creates a level playing field with other
stakeholders, with the three guiding principles enabling
resilience-based stewardship to become firmly rooted in the foundation.

\emph{Empowerment}

Empowerment is a concept in which individual competencies and proactive
behaviour are linked to social change processes (Perkins \& Zimmerman,
1995; Rappaport, 1981). Empowerment theory stresses the need to increase
personal, interpersonal and political power of communities, as to foster
collective action to improve their environments (Lee, 2011) At the
individual level, empowerment concerns a process in which people gain
control over their lives, develop a sense of self-determination, and
eventually believe in their capability to change their own realities
(Fetterman, 2017; Gutierrez, 1990; Rappaport, 1981). Furthermore, for
actors going through the empowerment process, it entails making
decisions themselves rather than embracing externally raised
recommendations (Friis-Hansen \& Duveskog, 2012). At the collective
level, empowerment means that collaborating with others enables
achieving goals faster.

Empowerment in the PIP approach is therefore related to the concept of
``conscientization'' (Freire, 1972), which is the process of people
becoming aware about their ability to transform reality by conscious
collective action. This is crucial, because creating a vision and a
plan, combined with the on-demand trainings and group dynamics, empowers
farmers to act. Empowerment as a guiding principle in the PIP approach
implies that it is a core attitude of all staff to devolve power to
local actors and enhance their ownership. Hence, PIP staff should always
work on \emph{empowering local actors to do it themselves} .
Furthermore, by empowering local actors, the PIP approach constantly
strengthens the foundation for sustainable action, and builds an
ever-growing movement of actors of change who believe in their ability
to improve their life and the environment; first of all land.

\emph{Integration}

In relation to rural livelihoods, integration refers to an
interdisciplinary system-wide approach in which components of human and
agro-ecological systems are taken into account(Horton et al., 2017).
When used for natural resource management, integration also has a
spatial connotation, by considering the watershed or farm as a system
where `integrated management' is required to optimize synergies and make
the system more robust and resilient. This is crucial also for land
degradation processes, particularly for soil erosion, where bad land
management upstream affects land users downstream. Furthermore,
integration fosters the ability to cope with fluctuations in
environmental or economic circumstances (Gautam \& Andersen, 2016).
Diversification is therefore a crucial element of any integrated
strategy, given that diversified livelihood systems appear more
resilient than undiversified ones (Bosma, Udo, Verreth, Visser, \& Nam,
2005).

Integration is a guiding principle throughout the PIP approach and
particularly during PIP creation, with integration and diversification
of activities and practices in the household and on the farm being
essential. However, integration also works in the social dimension of
the approach, in which people value multi-ethnicity, foster personal
diversity and build social cohesion, while becoming eager to learn from
others. The PIP approach stimulates to continuously seek for diversity,
opportunities and innovations; hence, similarly to empowerment, PIP
staff should have integration present during all their work, and
stimulate farmers and other actors to always learn more, do better, and
experiment with new activities and practices.

\emph{Collaboration}

Given that natural resource conflicts are often related to increased
scarcity of resources, unequal access and off-site effects, they cannot
be solved by strict control (Buckles \& Rusnak, 1999). Collaboration is
therefore crucial in addressing natural resource management issues,
particularly also in relation to climate change. However, collaboration
requires sound processes of governance (Agarwal, 1997), long-term
associations and an atmosphere of trust (Palis, 2006), as well as social
conditions that enable actors to share information and learn from each
other (Schneider, Fry, Ledermann, \& Rist, 2009). Collaboration
therefore refers to joint activities and the exchange of knowledge as
part of strengthening social relations and networks. Bonding social
capital (between people with similar objectives) and binding social
capital (the capacity to link with others) are crucial aspects of
collaboration, and beneficial for joint investments in natural resource
management (Pretty, 2003).

Because of being so fundamental to the PIP approach, collaboration is
stimulated in all activities at all levels: in workshops with the Farmer
Innovators, in each family designing a PIP, in the farmer-to-farmer
group trainings, etc. Similar to the previous two guiding principles,
seeking collaboration with other people and organisations should be a
life attitude of staff working with the PIP approach. Particularly
important is to establish trust and to continuously exchange
information, which are both reciprocal actions built on equal and mutual
connections (Borg, Toikka, \& Primmer, 2015). This again emphasizes the
role of PIP staff as facilitators of a process in which they build a
coalition of actors of change, particularly farmers, to foster PIP and
mobilize people at a large-scale.



\section*{5. Results and impact of the PIP
approach}

{\label{results-and-impact-of-the-pip-approach}}

The PIP approach was first used in 2014 by the SCAD11SCAD project,
financed by RVO and Achmea Foundation from the Netherlands (2014-2017)
project in three provinces. Since 2016 the PAPAB22PAPAB project,
financed by the Dutch Embassy in Burundi (2016-2020) project has
implemented the approach in another six provinces, covering currently
266 villages and nearly 80,000 PIP households. Considerable changes are
noticeable in these villages, not only on the farms and concerning land
stewardship, but also within the PIP households and at village level,
with more social cohesion and intensified collaboration. In order to
better quantify these changes and understand farmers' perspectives, two
studies were conducted in 2018: an impact study' and a qualitative
evaluation. This section presents the main results of both studies.

\emph{Methods}

The impact study covered 202 randomly selected households in villages of
the SCAD project. The sample was taken from four generations of PIP
farmers: the 1\textsuperscript{st} generation are Farmer Innovators
trained by the project in 2014/15; the 2\textsuperscript{nd} and
3\textsuperscript{rd} generations are trained by farmer-trainers in two
consecutive PIP competitions (2015/16); and the
4\textsuperscript{th}generation is from adjacent villages where the PIP
approach was recently scaled-up (2017). A control group (non-PIP) was
taken from villages where the approach was not implemented. Among the
interviewees 60\% were male and 40\% female.

The qualitative evaluation was conducted among 30 PIP farmers who had
started PIP creation in 2016/17 with the PAPAB project, and were
purposively selected to capture a diverse set of opinions and
experiences. The sample was proportionally spread over three generations
of PIP farmers, both sexes, and all six PAPAB provinces. Using the Most
Significant Change methodology, interviews focused on 1) changes in
behaviour, attitude, and way of living; 2) changes in intrinsic
motivation; and 3) changes in collaboration and decision-making within
the household.

\emph{Impact on land and farms}

Land stewardship and implementing better and more diverse conservation
practices is central in the PIP approach. Figure 3 presents for
different PIP generations11Responses of non-PIP farmers on this question
could not be checked in the field and are left out the change in use --
before and after PIP creation -- of four key conservation practices:
compost pits (with a roof, well managed), agroforestry (trees on the
farm), contour trenches (slow-forming terraces with vegetation on the
bund) and mulching (mainly for perennials). Figure 3 shows that most of
the 1\textsuperscript{st}generation PIP farmers currently using all four
practices. This percentage gradually decreases for later generations,
where it is remarkable that the 4\textsuperscript{th} generation adopts
conservation practices very fast after having created their PIP. These
farmers from adjacent villages are often farmers who have heard about
PIP from their fellow farmers in initial PIP villages, and are eager to
start as well.

Particularly important for erosion control are trenches on the contour,
which require considerable effort and labour, but are nevertheless
quickly adopted by almost all PIP farmers. The same applies to the
integration of trees on the farm, which is done by about 30\% of the
farmers before they start with PIP, but currently by more than 90\% of
them. Similar trends of fast uptake by PIP farmers is also seen for
other practices such as contour ploughing, crop rotations, staggered row
planting (especially for banana trees), and the use of vegetable
gardens. This integration of a diversity of conservation practices on a
field is essential for restoring soil fertility and reducing soil
losses, and contributes to farm resilience. Farmers experience these
changes and appreciate the trainings and the knowledge they have gained,
as expressed in the qualitative evaluation by this second generation PIP
farmer:

\emph{``With the PIP approach, I feel able to prepare for my future
because I have received the whole technical package to increase
agricultural production. {[}\ldots{}{]} Even if the project stops today
we will still continue because the knowledge we have received from the
project is sufficient for the implementation of our PIP. The PIP has
developed us a lot, we can't stop.''}

Gaining the technical knowledge to implement and maintain conservation
practices is crucial for sustainable land management. In the PIP
approach this is mainly done from farmer-to-farmer and on the farms,
allowing as such that -- next to agro-technical knowledge -- farmer
trainers exchange their experiences, vision and inspiration. Figure 4
shows how different PIP generations rate the knowledge they have gained
over the past years for a variety of crop and land management practices.
Non-PIP farmers score close to zero for all practices, meaning that even
some basic agricultural practices such as good planning of crop
rotations and contour ploughing seem to be unknown to them. This changes
rapidly after the PIP trainings, with the 1\textsuperscript{st} and
2\textsuperscript{nd} generations affirming to have acquired (much) more
knowledge on all practices, and 3\textsuperscript{rd} and
4\textsuperscript{th} generations scoring just a bit lower. PIP farmers
quickly become eager to learn from others and start actively approaching
farmers who know more (see quote below of a
3\textsuperscript{rd}generation PIP farmer of 65 years old). This
scaling process is driven by the different mind-set of these farmers
after PIP creation and their awareness of land stewardship.

\emph{``At village level, the PIP approach is the basis for
collaboration between community members, and as a third generation PIP
farmer I make household visits to other generations of PIP farmers to
ask them for technical advice. They do so with pleasure, something that
was not done before PIP.''}

Increased diversity on PIP farms is noticed by the number of crops, with
PIP farmers having 16-19 different perennial, annual and vegetable crops
on the farm, while non-PIP farmers have only 12. More vegetables and
some extra perennial crops contribute to this difference, with the
increased use of kitchen gardens as an important driver. Some of the new
crops are cash crops, and income from cash crops has increased by
85-100\% for all PIP generations. Noteworthy too is that PIP farmers, in
particular those working longer with PIP, invest significantly more in
livestock than non-PIP farmers, especially in cows and goats. Livestock
keeping is an important element of farm resilience and is now being more
frequently integrated on PIP farms.

\emph{Impact on people and households}

About 90\% of all PIP farmers in the impact study affirm that they are
more willing to stay in the village than 3 years ago. A similar
percentage considers that living and farm conditions have improved after
having created a PIP, with an income increase not only from cash crops
but also from off-farm activities and entrepreneurial initiatives.
Furthermore, PIP farmers explain in testimonies that due to their new
spirit to develop and invest in their future, they have better access to
financial capital (credits). The assessment of farmers' recent
investments shows that the 1\textsuperscript{st} generation is most
successful in generating more income. However, also other PIP
generations improve their living conditions, as this
2\textsuperscript{nd} generation PIP farmer explains:

``\emph{Currently in my household, following a good climate of
understanding between my wife and children, with the creation of our PIP
we are very healthy. We produce enough, we eat to our satisfaction with
variations {[}\ldots{}{]}. The school fees of 5 children and health care
expenses for all members of my family are covered. We live in a house of
which I have renewed the roof with 30 metal sheets purchased from the
income generated by agriculture and savings groups.''}

Results furthermore show that PIP households are considerably more food
secure than non-PIP farmers in the months after the important
bean-producing season (July-September), and are able to keep their stock
of produce for a longer period. Non-PIP farmers are back on the food
security level of ``we can just manage'' already in September, while
half of the PIP farmers remains until December on the level of ``we have
enough to eat''. The flywheel effect of working with PIP and becoming
more food secure, also through new off-farm activities, is testified by
this 3\textsuperscript{rd} generation female PIP farmer:

\emph{``This small business I started with PIP in addition to farming
has allowed us to increase household incomes and change the diet. For
this reason, the disputes in our household have totally disappeared
because the cause was poverty and the lack of consultation on the
different activities to be done.''}

The previous quote also shows how creating a PIP has changed household
dynamics, and triggers families to start implementing their planned
activities. Results from the impact study indicate that more than 50\%
of the 3\textsuperscript{rd} and 4\textsuperscript{th} generation PIP
farmers are within a year already halfway the implementation of their
PIP. This is above all the result of how motivated PIP farmers with a
different mind-set transmit their passion to others. This is what drives
the scaling-up of the PIP approach, and as such joint efforts stop land
degradation:

\emph{''At the community level, our family has engendered a more
harmonious understanding in other households, after they had heard my
wife's testimony about how she has changed. The other households were
surprised because of this radical change in behaviour. Now she is the
one who is mobilizing other households to adhere to the PIP approach
because she has lessons to share. In fact, the community calls us `the
PIP household'.''} (2\textsuperscript{nd} generation PIP farmer)

In order to assess motivation, responses by farmers on a set of open
questions concerning their future prospects, concrete objectives for the
farm and planned investments, were converted into a ``motivation score''
for each household. Although subjective and based on the what farmers
tell, Figure 5 shows a clear pattern of gradually declining motivation
from the first to the fourth generation, being lowest among non-PIP
farmers. This motivation score was found to correlate with e.g.
diversity of land management practices and crop diversity, which shows
that working on both aspects together (land and people, as the PIP
approach does) is essential.

The qualitative evaluation confirms that the PIP approach has a positive
effect on the intrinsic motivation of PIP farmers, especially on their
sense of competence to implement their PIP and the planned farm/land
practices, as well as on their sense of purpose towards this plan. PIP
farmers also often express that they are proud of what they achieve and
feel more esteemed than before, both within the household and in the
village, resulting in more collaboration and exchange of knowledge. This
is nicely expressed by this 2\textsuperscript{nd} generation PIP farmer:

\emph{``The training I received helped me to start helping my wife. When
I am working with her in the field, not only do labour costs decrease
but my wife is proud of my presence and I manage to provide advice on
the organization of our work.''}

These inter-household improvements in relations between the family
members are definitely a key result of the PIP approach. Good relations
and understanding within a household foster social resilience and are
the basis for developing all kind of activities together. In that sense
the following testimony of a 25-year old lady from the third generation
of PIP farmers expresses clearly what the process of PIP creation is
able to do:

\emph{``With the problem tree, I identified what was wrong in my
household: the lack of dialogue, mismanagement of household assets, lack
of vision and planning, and my husband who loves alcohol a lot and
leaves all activities to me. {[}\ldots{}{]} With the solution tree, {[}I
realize{]} we should improve family dialogue, break the fear of talking
to my husband, and share the new knowledge acquired with him, because
the PIP is not individual, it is a household PIP.''}

\subsection*{6. Lessons learned for a different
discourse}

{\label{lessons-learned-for-a-different-discourse}}

Results from both studies show the enormous potential of the PIP
approach to mobilise farmers to stop land degradation and move towards
resilience-based stewardship. Widespread conservation practices, better
managed farms, enhanced food security, organized villages and farmers
who are motivated to invest in their farm; these are all signs that the
approach works. Results also suggest that the three foundation
principles of the PIP approach -- if developed and given attention from
the start -- mutually reinforce each other, with notably motivation
driving stewardship (Ryan et al., 2003). By envisioning the future,
planning activities together and seeing quick results, farmers realize
that good land stewardship improves yields and food security, and become
more resilient in all respects (knowledge, income, diversity, social
relations, etc.). This change in mind-set and the rapidly growing sense
of responsibility for better stewardship (Brown \& Mitchell, 1998) is
the crux of the PIP approach, and explains why even in the
3\textsuperscript{rd} and 4\textsuperscript{th} generation PIP farmers
-- who only recently created their PIP -- effects are already visible.

Furthermore, the fact that everyone, even poor or illiterate families,
are able to envision, draw, plan and implement practices according to
their needs and capabilities, is an important reason for the fast uptake
of PIP creation. The same applies to women, who are often among the best
Farmer Innovators and trainers. Empowerment is the main guiding
principle during trainings, and makes farmers more self-reliant, creates
ownership and as such drives motivated action. Together with
collaboration, empowerment also works at group and village level,
triggering `conscientization' which is essential in a process of
transformation (Freire, 1972). For instance, only facilitating that
information flows within the group of Farmer Innovators is already
sufficient to start action, as they learn from others, realize that
solutions are within reach, and feel able to do it themselves -- and
even faster with others. This is also observed in the process of Village
Vision development, which is currently on-going in most PIP villages as
a follow-up step to PIP creation at household level. Collectively, all
kinds of action are undertaken to dig trenches, construct roads and
plant trees. This is in high contrast with the usual wait-and-see
mentality in Burundi, which is often due to incentive-based intervention
strategies that undermine the power and initiative of farmers to act.

Working along the guiding principles of empowerment and collaboration is
thus crucial. Farms in Burundi are extremely small, and as farmers
usually don't see any option to make a living from their land, investing
in conservation practices is not a logical choice. This changes when the
so-called `PIP fever' starts spreading in a village, with PIP farmers
telling others -- thanks to enhanced social capital (Pretty, 2003) - how
they have improved their farms and living conditions with their own
means. These farmers have a different mind-set, are proud of what they
have achieved, and are eager to pass the message that good land
stewardship can actually enhance food production with relatively little
extra effort. This attitude, this sense of stewardship and motivation to
improve, are the core ingredients of a different development discourse
on \emph{how} to mobilize the huge number of farmers needed to stop land
degradation at scale.

The third guiding principle, integration, is an inherent aspect of the
PIP approach. The results and testimonies show how PIP farmers currently
understand the importance of integration on their farm, and apply more
diverse land and crop management practices, keep different livestock,
and include cash crops and some income-generating activities. In all
generations does PIP creation result in more diversified and resilient
livelihoods, which is the essence of any integrated strategy (Ellis,
2000). Again, this goes along with enhanced collaboration, within the
household (as many testimonies show) but also within entrepreneurial
groups that have emerged and established market linkages to sell their
produce collectively. That integration is understood and acted on is
also visible in the initiatives that many villages are currently
undertaking to collectively manage whole slopes to stop erosion.

Several lessons learned for a different discourse on how to stop land
degradation in Burundi have already been mentioned in this paper. They
all relate to the importance of the guiding principles for any
intervention strategy, and the need to work simultaneously on all
foundation principles; if not all efforts will be in vain. The five key
lessons learned from the experiences in Burundi over the past six years
can be summarized as follows:

\begin{enumerate}
\tightlist
\item
  \emph{Empowering people drives change} : the PIP approach facilitates
  that people become actors of change, by taking their capacities and
  knowledge seriously, by telling them a different ``story'' than other
  projects, and by changing mind-sets towards motivated action.
\item
  \emph{Development starts at household level} : the PIP approach
  facilitates households to visualize their common vision in a drawing
  and a plan, based on needs and aspirations of all family members, as
  such stimulating equity, togetherness and concrete joint action.
\item
  \emph{Tangible improvements on the farm are key} : the PIP approach
  generates visible effects and short-term gains, by facilitating that
  knowledge flows from farmer-to-farmer, based on better planning and
  integration of practices, as such stimulating good land stewardship.
\item
  \emph{Mobilising people creates impetus} : a crucial asset of the PIP
  approach is its potential to scale-up and mobilise whole villages,
  where collaboration, social cohesion and trust grow, and people
  genuinely participate in PIP activities and collective action.
\item
  \emph{Impact requires engagement at all levels} : in order to achieve
  impact, the PIP principles are equally needed in and applicable to
  staff of (implementing) organisations and (local) authorities, who
  need to become engaged and provide enabling conditions for impact.
\end{enumerate}

\subsection*{7. Conclusions}

{\label{conclusions}}

This paper started with the question how to tackle land degradation at a
wide scale in Burundi, and expressed the need to work from the bottom-up
with an inclusive approach that empowers and mobilizes farmers to
undertake action. A similar plea that ``sustainable soil and water
conservation must not impose models or packages but rather become a
process for learning and perpetual novelty'' was expressed already by
(Pretty \& Shah, 1997), but has hardly been taken into account since
then. If only that had happened, because our findings show that the PIP
approach is able to empower and motivate up till 80\% of the households
in a village to invest in conservation practices on their farms and
collectively at village level. These conservation efforts go hand in
hand with numerous other -- often profound -- changes in villages that
work with the PIP approach, with most PIP farmers having become more
self-reliant, proud, collaborative, and progress-driven. Visualizing a
more resilient and productive future farm in a drawing and planning
actions within the household, has given these families new purpose and a
clear direction for motivated action. Families and entire villages have
changed from being passive and aimless, to being active and motivated; a
clear sign of sustainable change.

Developing the three PIP foundation principles conceptualized in this
paper has driven this change, with motivation -- next to stewardship and
resilience -- being most crucial for creating ownership and genuine
engagement. This requires to refrain from the use of incentives like
cash and food for work, right from the start and at any time. This is a
major challenge for the modus operandi of most (development)
organizations, but in order to achieve sustainable impact they must
become facilitators of change. In Burundi this change started at the
household level, but quickly resulted in collective actions of all sorts
at village level. This potential of the PIP approach to achieve impact
at scale is essential to stop land degradation, with particularly the
farmer-to-farmer exchange of knowledge and passion for PIP creation
being the flywheel. Following Hall\selectlanguage{english}-Blanco (2016), projects and
agricultural extension services must therefore abolish traditional
top-down intervention and incentive-based approaches, and must urgently
join efforts to build a foundation for sustainable action by farmers
themselves.

It is this change in attitude within staff and institutions that
underpins the different discourse on \emph{how} to stop land degradation
that we propose in this paper. The challenge to empower and mobilize the
millions of smallholder farmers to undertake action, can only be tackled
once development organisations, institutional donors and government
agencies act upon this different discourse, and when all of them have a
clear vision about the need to move towards resilience-based
stewardship; from farms, to villages to landscapes. Although just
started, Burundi is on its way to stop land degradation, supported by
ever more institutional stakeholders who see that this is the way
forward. Our final plea is to learn from what is being done in Burundi,
because the core elements of the PIP approach are applicable wherever
there is an urgency to create more stewardship for the Earth and its
natural resources.

\textbf{References}

Abrams, R. W., Anwana, E. D., Ormsby, A., Dovie, D. B., Ajagbe, A., \&
Abrams, A. (2009). Integrating top\selectlanguage{english}-down with bottom\selectlanguage{english}-up conservation
policy in Africa. \emph{Conservation Biology, 23} , 799-804.
doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01285.x

Agarwal, B. (1997). Environmental action, gender equity and women's
participation. \emph{Development and change, 28} , 1-44.
doi:10.1111/1467-7660.00033

Bhaduri, S., \& Kumar, H. (2011). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to
innovate: tracing the motivation of `grassroot'innovators in
India.\emph{Mind \& Society, 10} , 27-55. doi:10.1007/s11299-010-0081-2

Blake, W. H., Rabinovich, A., Wynants, M., Kelly, C., Nasseri, M.,
Ngondya, I., . . . Boeckx, P. (2018). Soil erosion in East Africa: an
interdisciplinary approach to realising pastoral land management
change.\emph{Environmental Research Letters, 13} , 124014.
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaea8b

Borg, R., Toikka, A., \& Primmer, E. (2015). Social capital and
governance: a social network analysis of forest biodiversity
collaboration in Central Finland. \emph{Forest Policy and Economics, 50}
, 90-97. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.06.008

Bosma, R. H., Udo, H. M., Verreth, J. A., Visser, L. E., \& Nam, C. Q.
(2005). Agriculture diversification in the Mekong Delta: farmers'
motives and contributions to livelihoods. \emph{Asian journal of
agriculture and development, 2} , 49-66. doi:10.22004/ag.econ.165780

Bouma, J., \& McBratney, A. (2013). Framing soils as an actor when
dealing with wicked environmental problems. \emph{Geoderma, 200} ,
130-139. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.02.011

Brown, J. L., \& Mitchell, B. A. (1998). Stewardship: a working
definition. \emph{Environments; Waterloo, 26} , 8.

Buckles, D., \& Rusnak, G. (1999). Conflict and collaboration in natural
resource management. In D. Buckles (Ed.), \emph{Cultivating Peace:
Conflict and Collaboration in Natural Resource Management, 1-12. Ottawa,
ON, Canada: IDRC/World Bank} . Ottawa, Canada: International Development
Research Centre.

Chapin, F. S., Pickett, S. T., Power, M. E., Jackson, R. B., Carter, D.
M., \& Duke, C. (2011). Earth stewardship: a strategy for
social--ecological transformation to reverse planetary
degradation.\emph{Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 1} ,
44-53. doi:10.1007/s13412-011-0010-7

Darnhofer, I., Fairweather, J., \& Moller, H. (2010). Assessing a farm's
sustainability: insights from resilience thinking. \emph{International
journal of agricultural sustainability, 8} , 186-198.
doi:10.3763/ijas.2010.0480

Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., \& Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a
stewardship theory of management. \emph{Academy of Management review,
22} , 20-47. doi:10.5465/amr.1997.9707180258

Deci, E. L., \& Ryan, R. M. (2008a). Facilitating optimal motivation and
psychological well-being across life's domains. \emph{Canadian
psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49} , 14.
doi:10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14

Deci, E. L., \& Ryan, R. M. (2008b). Self-determination theory: A
macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. \emph{Canadian
psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49} (3), 182. doi:10.1037/a0012801

Diamond, J. (2005). \emph{Collapse: How societies choose to fail or
succeed} . New York, USA: Penguin Books.

Dregne, H. (1990). Erosion and soil productivity in Africa.\emph{Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation, 45} (4), 431-436.

Easterly, W. R. (2006). \emph{The White Man's Burden} . New York: The
Penguin Press.

Eggers, E. K. (2006). \emph{Historical dictionary of Burundi} (3rd ed.).
Plymouth, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Ellis, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural livelihood
diversification. \emph{The journal of development studies, 35} , 1-38.
doi:10.1080/00220389808422553

Ellis, F. (2000). The determinants of rural livelihood diversification
in developing countries. \emph{Journal of agricultural economics, 51} ,
289-302. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2000.tb01229.x

Fetterman, D. M. (2017). Empowerment Evaluation: Linking Theories,
Principles, and Concepts to Practical Steps. In C. Secolsky \& D. B.
Denison (Eds.), \emph{Handbook on Measurement, Assessment, and
Evaluation in Higher Education} (pp. 529-541). New York, USA: Routledge.

Freire, P. (1972). \emph{Pedagogy of the oppressed} . Hamondsworth, UK:
Penguin Books.

Friis-Hansen, E., \& Duveskog, D. (2012). The empowerment route to
well-being: An analysis of farmer field schools in East
Africa.\emph{World Development, 40} , 414-427.
doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.05.005

Gautam, Y., \& Andersen, P. (2016). Rural livelihood diversification and
household well-being: Insights from Humla, Nepal. \emph{Journal of Rural
Studies, 44} , 239-249. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.001

Global Food Security Index (2019). Global Food Security Index. Retrieved
from https://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Index

Greiner, R., \& Gregg, D. (2011). Farmers' intrinsic motivations,
barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of
policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern
Australia.\emph{Land use policy, 28} , 257-265.
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.006

Gutierrez, L. M. (1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment
perspective. \emph{Social work, 35} , 149-153. doi:10.1093/sw/35.2.149

Hall\selectlanguage{english}-Blanco, A. R. (2016). Why Development Programmes Fail: William
Easterly and the Political Economy of Intervention. \emph{Economic
Affairs, 36} , 175-183. doi:10.1111/ecaf.12174

Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological
systems.\emph{Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4} , 1-23.
doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

Horton, P., Banwart, S. A., Brockington, D., Brown, G. W., Bruce, R.,
Cameron, D., . . . Jackson, P. (2017). An agenda for integrated
system-wide interdisciplinary agri-food research. \emph{Food Security,
9} , 195-210. doi:10.1007/s12571-017-0648-4

Keck, M., \& Sakdapolrak, P. (2013). What is social resilience? Lessons
learned and ways forward. \emph{Erdkunde} , 5-19.
doi:10.3112/erdkunde.2013.01.02

Kessler, A., van Duivenbooden, N., Nsabimana, F., \& van Beek, C.
(2016). Bringing ISFM to scale through an integrated farm planning
approach: a case study from Burundi. \emph{Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems, 105} , 249-261. doi:10.1007/s10705-015-9708-3

Kofinas, G. P., \& Chapin, F. S. (2009). Sustaining livelihoods and
human well-being during social-ecological change. In F. S. Chapin, G. P.
Kofinas, \& C. Folke (Eds.), \emph{Principles of ecosystem
stewardship}(pp. 55-75). New York, USA: Springer.

Lee, J. A. (2011). The empowerment approach to social work practice. In
F. Turner, J. (Ed.), \emph{Social Work Treatment: Interlocking
Theoretical Approaches} . New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

Ndagijimana, M., Kessler, A., \& Asseldonk, M. v. (2019). Understanding
farmers' investments in sustainable land management in Burundi: A
case\selectlanguage{english}-study in the provinces of Gitega and Muyinga. \emph{Land
Degradation \& Development, 30} , 417-425. doi:10.1002/ldr.3231

Niragira, S., D'Haese, M., D'Haese, L., Ndimubandi, J., Desiere, S., \&
Buysse, J. (2015). Food for survival: Diagnosing crop patterns to secure
lower threshold food security levels in farm households of
Burundi.\emph{Food and nutrition bulletin, 36} , 196-210.
doi:10.1177/0379572115587491

Oino, P. G., Towett, G., Kirui, K., \& Luvega, C. (2015). The dilemma in
sustainability of community-based projects in Kenya. \emph{Global
journal of advanced research, 2} , 757-768.

Palis, F. G. (2006). The role of culture in farmer learning and
technology adoption: a case study of farmer field schools among rice
farmers in central Luzon, Philippines. \emph{Agriculture and Human
Values, 23} , 491-500. doi:10.1007/s10460-006-9012-6

Perkins, D. D., \& Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Empowerment theory,
research, and application. \emph{American journal of community
psychology, 23} , 569-579. doi:0091-0627/95/1000-0569507.50/0

Pretty, J. \& Shah, P. (1997). Making soil and water conservation
sustainable: from coercion and control to partnerships and
participation. \emph{Land Degradation \& Development, 8} , 39-58.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-145X(199703)8:1\textless{}39::AID-LDR242\textgreater{}3.0.CO;2-F

Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of
resources. \emph{Science, 302} , 1912-1914. doi:10.1126/science.1090847

Rammel, C., Stagl, S., \& Wilfing, H. (2007). Managing complex adaptive
systems---a co-evolutionary perspective on natural resource
management.\emph{Ecological economics, 63} , 9-21.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.12.014

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of
empowerment over prevention. \emph{American journal of community
psychology, 9} , 121-145.

Ryan, R., \& Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:
Classic definitions and new directions. \emph{Contemporary educational
psychology, 25} (1), 54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryan, R. L., Erickson, D. L., \& De Young, R. (2003). Farmers'
motivations for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in
a mid-western agricultural watershed. \emph{Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 46} , 19-37. doi:10.1080/713676702

Ryan, R. M., \& Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations:
Classic Definitions and New Directions. \emph{Contemporary educational
psychology, 25} , 54-57. doi:doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Schneider, F., Fry, P., Ledermann, T., \& Rist, S. (2009). Social
learning processes in Swiss soil protection---the `from farmer-to
farmer'project. \emph{Human ecology, 37} , 475-489.
doi:10.1007/s10745-009-9262-1

Scoones, I., Leach, M., Smith, A., Stagl, S., Stirling, A., \& Thompson,
J. (2007). \emph{Dynamic systems and the challenge of sustainability} .
Retrieved from Brighton, UK:

Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., Van der Werff, E., \& Lurvink, J. (2014).
The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant
attitudes, preferences, and actions. \emph{Environment and behavior, 46}
, 163-192. doi:10.1177/0013916512454730

UNCCD. (2017). \emph{Global Land Outlook} . Retrieved from Bonn, Germany

Uvin, P. (2010). Structural causes, development co-operation and
conflict prevention in Burundi and Rwanda. \emph{Conflict, Security \&
Development, 10} , 161-179. doi:10.1080/14678800903553944

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., \& Deci, E. L.
(2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: the
synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive
contexts. \emph{Journal of personality and social psychology, 87} , 246.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246

Webb, N. P., Marshall, N. A., Stringer, L. C., Reed, M. S., Chappell,
A., \& Herrick, J. E. (2017). Land degradation and climate change:
building climate resilience in agriculture. \emph{Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, 15} , 450-459. doi:10.1002/fee.1530

WFP (2019). Burundi. Retrieved from
https://www.wfp.org/countries/burundi

Worrell, R., \& Appleby, M. C. (2000). Stewardship of natural resources:
definition, ethical and practical aspects. \emph{Journal of agricultural
and environmental ethics, 12} , 263-277. doi:10.1023/A:1009534214698\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Manuscript-Figure-1/Manuscript-Figure-1}

\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Manuscript-Figure-2/Manuscript-Figure-2}

\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Manuscript-Figure-3/Manuscript-Figure-3}

\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Manuscript-Figure-4/Manuscript-Figure-4}

\end{center}
\end{figure}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Manuscript-Figure-5/Manuscript-Figure-5}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

