Agroforestry is a climate-resilient land use technique that increases biodiversity and intensifies various ecosystem services (Raj et al., 2024). According to Kumar et al. (2024), the agroforestry system is the most effective way for India to meet its net zero carbon emissions target. The agroforestry has become recognized as a holistic use of agricultural land that preserves natural assets (Dmuchowski et al., 2024). The promotion of agroforestry systems necessitates a multifaceted approach that considers the social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainable development. The agroforestry system has been recognized as a critical ecosystem service provider because to its ability to improve biodiversity, soil conservation, carbon sequestration, and water control (Giri et al., 2024). Adoption of agroforestry technologies is critical to addressing the ongoing degradation of forest resources and improving farmers' livelihoods (Alemayehu & Simeneh 2024; Pattanaik and Priyadarshini 2023). Agroforestry would alleviate poverty, promote food security, generate income, and empower tribal and rural communities (Bhattacharya, 2024).

Agroforestry is one of the finest options for crop diversification and economic upliftment in the Indian Himalayan regions (Garima et al., 2021). Agroforestry is a climate-smart multifunctional system that has traditionally contributed to enhancing climate resilience (Sharma and Pant 2017) and is considered a primer for concealing the ill effects of climate variability (Sharma et al., 2022). Such multifunctional systems are more complex due to augmented intra and interspecific competition amongst the diverse components that regulate its functional processes (Verma et al., 2023). Therefore, in-depth knowledge of various interacting processes in agroforestry systems is essential (Saneinejad et al., 2014). Agroforestry has the potential to improve the socio-ecological and socio-economic conditions of Indigenous peoples while also improving mountain ecosystem services. Traditional agroforestry practices reported in the North-Western Himalayan region include Agrisilviculture, Agrihorticulture, Agrisilvihorticulture, Agrihortisilviculture, Hortisilviculture, Silvipastoral, Pastoralsilviculture, Agrisilvipastoral and Pastoralsilvihorticulture (Sharma et al., 2022). The land use systems in the state are undergoing upheaval as a result of fast changes in farmers socio-economic position, industrialization, climate change, and government regulations. There has been little research into the influence of climate change on agroforestry resources, socio-economic conditions, mitigation, and adaptation. Therefore, accurate estimation of economic productivity in the different agroforestry systems is the focus of current research. The present investigation was carried out to examine how the prevalent agroforestry systems impact economic productivity in Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh.

The present study was conducted during 2021-2023 in Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh along the altitudinal range between 1500 m amsl to above 2500 m amsl. Shimla district is located in the western part of Himachal Pradesh between latitudes 32°45' and 31°44' and longitudes 77°00' and 78°19'. The climate in Shimla district is predominantly cool during winter, moderately warm during summer which fall under high hill wet temperate agro-climate zone of Himachal Pradesh. Temperature typically ranges from 4.0°C to 31.0°C over the course of year. The average temperature during summer is 19.0°C and 28.0°C, and in winter 1.0°C and 10.0°C. Monthly precipitation varies from 15.0 mm in November to 434.0 mm in August. It is typically around 45.0 mm per month during winter and spring, 175.0 mm in June. The average total precipitation is 1575.0 mm which is less than other hill stations. Snowfall in this region occurs in the months of December to February.

A. Cost of cultivation

Cost of cultivation is the total amount of expenditure (variable and fixed cost) done on producing yield.

B. Gross return

The utilizable biomass of each functional unit in a system was given the current market value for estimating total return from a system.

C. Net returns

Net Return = Gross return – Production cost

(i) Benefit: Cost ratio 

Benefit: cost ratio of the system was calculated by dividing total discounted benefits with total discounted costs of the system.

A. Cost of cultivation (Rs hā¹yr̄¹)

(i) Altitudinal Zone-I. Data on effect of farmers categories on the cost of cultivation incurred for various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-I of Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh has been presented in Table 1. Considering the different farmers categories, cost of cultivation for different farmers categories were observed highest semi-medium farmers category (Rs 3,50,036 hā¹ yr̄¹) followed by small farmers category (Rs 3,35,214 hā¹ yr̄¹) and marginal farmers category (2,92,787 hā¹ yr̄¹). Within agroforestry systems, the highest cost of cultivation (Rs 5,42,163 hā¹ yr̄¹) were incurred for the hortiagriculture system, while the minimum (Rs 23,654 hā¹ yr̄¹) cost of cultivation were observed for pastoralsilviculture system. In terms of interaction, the cost of cultivation was highest (Rs 6,02,010 hā¹ yr̄¹) for the hortiagriculture system under the small farmers category, while the minimum (Rs 20,180 hā¹ yr̄¹) was observed for the pastoralsilviculture system under the marginal farmers category.

(ii) Altitudinal Zone-II. The information presented in Table 1 indicates that the cost of cultivation incurred for various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-II. Among the different farmers categories, the maximum cost of cultivation (Rs 4,64,397 hā¹ yr̄¹) were observed under the semi-medium farmers category, while the minimum (Rs 4,07,827 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found for the marginal farmers category. For all agroforestry systems, the highest cost of cultivation (Rs 6,36,897 hā¹ yr̄¹) were incurred for the hortiagriculture system, which was statistically at par with the cost of cultivation for hortipastoral system (Rs 6,35,725 hā¹ yr̄¹) and the minimum cost of cultivation (Rs 34,808 hā¹ yr̄¹) were observed for pastoralsilviculture system. Regarding interaction, the cost of cultivation was highest (Rs 6,98,220 hā¹ yr̄¹) for the hortiagriculture system practiced by small farmers category, while the minimum (Rs 31,170 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found for the pastoralsilviculture system under the marginal farmers category.

(iii) Altitudinal Zone-III. The data presented in Table 1 revealed that the cost of cultivation incurred for various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-III. For different farmers categories, the highest cost of cultivation (Rs 6,22,575 hā¹ yr̄¹) were observed under the semi-medium farmers category and the lowest (Rs 5,65,387 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found for the marginal farmers category. Among various agroforestry systems, the highest cost of cultivation (Rs 8,05,658 hā¹ yr̄¹) were incurred for the hortiagriculture system which was statistically at par with the cost of cultivation for hortipastoral system (Rs 8,00,680 hā¹ yr̄¹) while the minimum cost of cultivation was found for pastoralsilviculture system (Rs 38,547 hā¹ yr̄¹). In terms of interaction, the cost of cultivation was highest (Rs 8,65,775 hā¹ yr̄¹) for the hortiagriculture system under the small farmers category, while the minimum (Rs 35,060 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found for the pastoralsilviculture system under the marginal category.

Table 1: Cost of cultivation (Rs ha ̄¹yr ̄¹) of prevalent agroforestry systems among different farmers categories in Shimla district (H.P.)

*Where, AH-Agrihorticulture, HA-Hortiagriculture, AHS-Agrihortisilviculture, HAS-Hortiagrisilviculture, HP- Hortipastoral, PS- Pastoralsilviculture

B. Gross Returns (Rs ha ̄¹yr ̄¹)

(i) Altitudinal Zone-I. Upon reviewing the data presented in Table 2 showed that the gross returns obtained from the various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-I in Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh. Midst of the different farmers categories, the maximum gross returns (Rs 8,41,500 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found under the semi-medium farmers category, while the minimum (Rs 6,87,971 hā¹ yr̄¹) were observed for the small farmers category. Among various agroforestry systems, the maximum gross returns (Rs 14,09,347 hā¹ yr̄¹) were obtained for the hortiagriculture system, while the minimum gross returns (Rs 75,995 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found for pastoralsilviculture system. In terms of interaction, gross returns were highest (Rs 15,47,166 hā¹ yr̄¹) for the hortiagriculture system under the small farmers category, while the minimum (Rs 65,005 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found for the pastoralsilviculture system under the marginal farmers category.

(ii) ltitudinal Zone-II. The information presented in Table 2 suggests that the gross returns obtained from various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-II. Considering different farmers categories, the maximum gross returns (Rs 12,38,066 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found under the semi-medium farmers category and the minimum (Rs 10,56,072 hā¹ yr̄¹) were observed for the marginal farmers category. Among all the agroforestry systems, the maximum gross returns (Rs 18,35,231 hā¹ yr̄¹) were obtained for the hortiagriculture system and the minimum gross returns (Rs 1,10,258 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found for pastoralsilviculture system. In terms of interaction, gross returns were highest (Rs 20,24,838 hā¹ yr̄¹) for the hortiagriculture system practiced by small category farmers, while the minimum (Rs 96,627 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found for the pastoralsilviculture system under the marginal category farmers.

(iii) Altitudinal Zone-III. The data presented in Table 2 indicates that the gross returns obtained from various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-III. For different farmers categories, the gross returns were found highest in semi-medium (Rs 17,16,875 hā¹ yr̄¹) followed by small (Rs 16,25,333 hā¹ yr̄¹) and marginal (Rs 14,53,291 hā¹ yr̄¹) farmers categories. For different agroforestry systems, the maximum gross returns (Rs 24,02,464 hā¹ yr̄¹) were recorded for the hortiagriculture system, while the minimum gross returns were found for pastoralsilviculture (Rs 120224 hā¹ yr̄¹). In terms of interaction, gross returns were highest (Rs 26,05,983 hā¹ yr̄¹) for the hortiagriculture system under the small farmers category and the minimum (Rs 1,06,582 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found for the pastoralsilviculture system under the marginal farmers category. 

Table 2: Gross Returns (Rs ha ̄¹yr ̄¹) of prevalent agroforestry systems among different farmers categories in Shimla district (H.P.)

Where, AH-Agrihorticulture, HA-Hortiagriculture, AHS-Agrihortisilviculture, HAS-Hortiagrisilviculture, HP- Hortipastoral, PS- Pastoralsilviculture 

C. Net Returns (Rs ha ̄¹yr ̄¹)

(i) Altitudinal Zone-I. The analysis of the data presented in Table 3 revealed that the net returns obtained from various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-I in Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh. Considering different farmers categories, the semi-medium farmers category resulted in maximum net returns (Rs 4,91,464 hā¹ yr̄¹), while the minimum (Rs 3,95,185 hā¹ yr̄¹) was observed for the marginal farmers category. Among the different agroforestry systems, the maximum net returns (Rs 8,67,184 hā¹ yr̄¹) were obtained from hortiagriculture system and minimum net return (Rs 52,341 hā¹ yr̄¹) were obtained from pastoralsilviculture system. In terms of interaction, net returns were highest (Rs 9,45,156 hā¹ yr̄¹) for the hortiagriculture system practiced by small farmers, while the minimum (Rs 44,825 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found for the pastoralsilviculture system in the marginal farmers category.

(ii) Altitudinal Zone-II. The information presented in Table 3 indicates the net returns obtained from various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-II. For different farmers categories, net returns were found in the order of semi-medium (Rs 7,73,670 hā¹ yr̄¹), small (Rs 7,41,655 hā¹ yr̄¹), and marginal (Rs 6,48,245 hā¹ yr̄¹) farmers category. Taking into consideration all the agroforestry systems, the maximum net returns (Rs 11,98,335 hā¹ yr̄¹) were obtained from the hortiagriculture system which was statistically at par with hortipastoral system (Rs 11,40,625 hā¹ yr̄¹) and the minimum net returns (Rs 75,449 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found from pastoralsilviculture system. In terms of interaction, net returns were found maximum (Rs 13,26,618 hā¹ yr̄¹) for the hortiagriculture system practiced by small category farmers and the minimum (Rs 65,457 hā¹ yr̄¹) was observed for the pastoralsilviculture system under the marginal farmers category. 

(iii) Altitudinal Zone-III. The data presented in Table 3 showed that the net returns obtained from various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-III. Among the different farmers categories, net returns were found highest in semi-medium (Rs 10,94,300 hā¹ yr̄¹) farmers category which was statistically at par with small (Rs 10,20,410 hā¹ yr̄¹) farmers category and minimum was in marginal farmers category (Rs 8,87,904 hā¹ yr̄¹). Among the different agroforestry systems, the maximum net returns (Rs 15,96,806 hā¹ yr̄¹) were recorded for the hortiagriculture system, while the minimum net returns (Rs 81,677 hā¹ yr̄¹) were found for pastoralsilviculture system. For the interaction, net returns were found maximum (Rs 17,40,208 hā¹ yr̄¹) for the hortiagriculture system under the small farmers category and the minimum (Rs 71,522 hā¹ yr̄¹) was observed for the pastoralsilviculture system under the marginal farmers category.

Table 3: Net Returns (Rs ha ̄¹yr ̄¹) of prevalent agroforestry systems among different farmers categories in Shimla district (H.P.).

Where, AH-Agrihorticulture, HA-Hortiagriculture, AHS-Agrihortisilviculture, HAS-Hortiagrisilviculture, HP- Hortipastoral, PS- Pastoralsilviculture

D. Benefit: Cost Ratio

(i) Altitudinal Zone-I. Upon reviewing the data presented in Table 4 revealed that the benefit-to-cost ratio for various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-I in Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh. Considering different farmers categories, the highest benefit: cost ratio was recorded for the semi-medium farmers category (2.48) which was statistically at par for the small farmers category (2.42) and lowest was recorded for the marginal farmers category (2.39). Among the different agroforestry systems, the maximum benefit: cost ratio (3.21) was incurred for the pastoralsilviculture system, while the minimum benefit: cost ratio was found for agrihorticulture system (1.57). For interaction effects, the benefit: cost ratio was found maximum (3.24) for the pastoralsilviculture system practiced by semi-medium farmers category and the minimum benefit: cost ratio (1.46) was observed for the agrihorticulture system by marginal farmers category.    

(ii) Altitudinal Zone-II. The information presented in Table 4 showed that the benefit: cost ratio for various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-II. The benefit: cost ratio varied among different farmers categories, with the maximum ratio of 2.70 observed under the semi-medium farmers category, and the minimum ratio of 2.60 found for the marginal farmers category. Among all the agroforestry systems, the maximum ratio of 3.16 was observed for pastoralsilviculture system, indicating that this system generated relatively higher benefits compared to its costs. On the other hand, the minimum benefit: cost ratio of 1.80 was found for hortiagriculture system. For interaction, the maximum benefit: cost ratio (3.21) was found in the pastoralsilviculture system practiced by semi-medium farmers category, while the minimum ratio (1.76) was observed in the agrihorticulture system under the marginal farmers category.

(iii) Altitudinal Zone-III. Table 4 data revealed that the benefit: cost ratio for various prevalent agroforestry systems in altitudinal zone-III. Among the different farmers categories, the highest benefit: cost ratio was recorded for the semi-medium farmers category (2.79) followed by the small farmers category (2.69) and the marginal farmers category (2.59). Within the different agroforestry systems, the maximum benefit: cost ratio (3.11) was obtained for the pastoralsilviculture system and the minimum benefit: cost ratio was found for agrihorticulture system (1.85). For interaction, the benefit: cost ratio was found maximum (3.19) for the pastoralsilviculture system under the semi-medium farmers category and the minimum (1.78) was observed for the agrihorticulture system under the marginal farmers category.

Table 4: Benefit: Cost ratio (BCR) of prevalent agroforestry systems among different farmers categories in Shimla district (H.P.)

Where, AH-Agrihorticulture, HA-Hortiagriculture, AHS-Agrihortisilviculture, HAS-Hortiagrisilviculture, HP- Hortipastoral, PS- Pastoralsilviculture

The cost of cultivation of the prevalent agroforestry systems among the different farmers categories along the altitudinal zones of Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh was found the highest under the semi-medium farmers category (Rs 6,22,575 hā¹yr̄¹) in altitudinal zone-III and lowest under the marginal farmers category (Rs 2,92,787 hā¹yr̄¹) in altitudinal zone-I (Table 4). The maximum cost of cultivation under semi-medium farmers category may be due to farmers might have invest more in machinery, labour, and inputs to manage their larger farms efficiently. The semi-medium farmers may employ more intensive farming practices, such as higher usage of fertilizers, pesticides, and modern agricultural technologies, to maximize their yields. These inputs come with a cost, contributing to the higher cost of cultivation. Similar results observed by Singh (2019); Janju (2021). The cost of cultivation was found significantly affected by the different agroforestry systems being practiced with maximum cost of cultivation (Rs 8,05,658 hā¹yr̄¹) recorded under hortiagriculture system in altitudinal zone-III. The horticultural crops often require more intensive management which includes activities such as regular pruning, irrigation, pest and disease management, fertilization, and harvesting. Labor costs associated with these activities can be substantial. Horticultural crops may require specialized inputs such as specific fertilizers, pesticides, and growth regulators tailored to their needs. These inputs can be more expensive.  The horticultural crops mainly the apple is high-value crop, while apple yield higher profits per unit area compared to field crops, the initial investment and ongoing costs associated with their cultivation can also be higher. The results align with the observations made by Singh (2019); Chisanga et al. (2013) in the altitudes of Himachal Pradesh. However, among all the agroforestry systems, pastoralsilviculture system resulted in minimum cost of cultivation (Rs 23654 hā¹yr̄¹) due grasses and tress not required any inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides compared to horticultural and field crops. Trees can naturally enhance soil fertility and provide some degree of pest control, reducing the need for external inputs. The tree component in pastoralsilviculture systems help to prevent soil erosion by stabilizing the soil with their root systems and providing canopy cover. This can reduce the need for costly erosion control measures required in conventional crop production. The findings of Sharma (2022), are in line with results of the Shimla district. The cost of cultivation under agroforestry systems in the Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh followed the order hortiagriculture > hortipastoral > hortiagrisilviculture > agrihortsilviculture > agrihorticultre > pastoalsilviculture. Along the different altitudinal zones, the cost of cultivation was found to have increased with the increase in altitude. The various studies (Chisanga et al., 2013; Singh, 2019; Sharma et al., 2022) also reported the trend of increasing cost of cultivation along altitude in Himachal Pradesh. With increase in altitude often have harsher climates and rugged terrain, which can make cultivation more difficult and expensive in mountainous regions, terracing may be necessary to create flat surfaces for cultivation, which requires significant investment in infrastructure such as retaining walls, irrigation systems, and drainage channels. These structures add to the overall cost of cultivation. Farmers may need to invest in crop varieties that are adapted to the specific conditions of higher elevations, which can be more expensive. Labor costs may be higher at higher elevations due to the challenging working conditions, including steep slopes, thinner air, and colder temperatures. Farmers may need to pay higher wages or provide additional incentives to attract and retain workers. Farmers may need to invest in protective measures such as hail protection systems or insurance coverage to mitigate these risks, adding to the overall cost. 

Gross returns data showed in the Table 2 revealed that the prevalent agroforestry systems among the different farmers categories along the altitudinal zones of Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh was found the highest under the semi-medium farmers category (Rs 17,16,875 hā¹yr̄¹) in altitudinal zone-III and lowest under the marginal farmers category (Rs 68,79,721 hā¹yr̄¹) in altitudinal zone-I. Similarly, Net returns was found the highest under the semi-medium farmers category (Rs 10,94,300 hā¹yr̄¹) in altitudinal zone-III and lowest under the marginal farmers category (Rs 3,95,185 hā¹yr̄¹) in altitudinal zone-I (Table 3). The semi-medium categories farmers have more resources, and infrastructure which allow them to produce more and achieve economies of scale. Semi-medium category farmers often have better access to resources such as credit, technology, seeds, fertilizers, and irrigation facilities. These resources enable them to enhance productivity, improve crop yields, and ultimately increase their gross and net income compared to marginal category farmers who may have limited access to these resources. Semi-medium farmers may have more financial capacity to invest in modern farming equipment, technology, and infrastructure improvements, which can lead to increased efficiency and productivity, ultimately resulting in higher gross as well as net incomes. These results consistent with the other researchers (Singh, 2019; Janju, 2021). The gross returns were found significantly affected by the different agroforestry systems being practiced with maximum gross returns (Rs 24,02,464 hā¹yr̄¹) recorded under hortiagriculture system in altitudinal zone-III. Likewise, highest net returns (Rs 15,96,806 hā¹yr̄¹) recorded under hortiagriculture system in altitudinal zone-III of Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh. The horticultural crops typically fetch higher prices in the market compared to crops grown in other agroforestry systems. Horticultural crops harvesting every year allows for more opportunities to generate income compared to crops with longer gestation periods, such as timber or perennial tree crops, which may only be harvested every few years. Farmers engaged in horticulture may have better access to information, training, and technology, enabling them to improve productivity, quality, and market competitiveness, ultimately leading to higher gross as well as net returns. Along the different altitudinal zones, the gross and net returns was found to have increased with the increase in altitude. The overall of gross returns varies from 75,995-24,02,464 Rs hā¹yr̄¹ and net returns ranging between 52,341-15,96,806 Rs hā¹yr̄¹. The various researchers (Chisanga et al., 2013; Singh, 2019; Sharma, 2022) also reported the trend of increasing gross returns and net returns along altitude in Himachal Pradesh. The altitude often leads to cooler temperatures, which can extend the growing season or create more favorable conditions for certain crops mainly for apple, cherry and pear crops. This longer growing season can result in increased yields and higher returns. Higher elevations may receive more precipitation or have access to water sources such as rivers or streams, which are crucial for irrigation. Elevation can influence the prevalence of pests and diseases. Higher elevations may experience fewer pest and disease pressures due to cooler temperatures or other environmental factors, resulting in lower production costs and higher returns. Some crops are better suited to higher elevations due to specific environmental requirements such as cooler temperatures or lower humidity. 

Benefit: Cost Ratio data showed in the Table 4 revealed that the prevalent agroforestry systems among the different farmers categories along the altitudinal zones was found the highest under the semi-medium farmers category (2.79) in altitudinal zone-III and lowest under the marginal farmers category (2.39) in altitudinal zone-I of Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh. The semi-medium farmers typically operate on a larger scale than marginal farmers. Semi-medium farmers often have better access to resources such as finance, land, technology, and information compared to marginal farmers. Diversification allows them to spread risks across multiple enterprises, reducing the impact of crop failures or market fluctuations. Additionally, they may have better access to insurance or other risk management tools, further enhancing their resilience and profitability. Semi-medium farmers typically have more financial capacity to invest in their farms compared to marginal farmers. These results consistent with the other researchers (Singh, 2019; Janju, 2021). The Benefit: Cost Ratio were found significantly affected by the different agroforestry systems being practiced with maximum (3.21) recorded under pastoralsilviculture system in altitudinal zone-I of Shimla district of Himachal Pradesh. Pastoralsilviculture diversification can lead to multiple revenue streams, such as income from livestock products (meat, milk, wool) as well as from timber, non-timber forest products, and ecosystem services. In the pastoralsilviculture system grasses and tress not required any inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides compared to horticultural and field crops.  Additionally, trees contribute to soil fertility, water retention, and erosion control, thus improving overall land productivity for both forestry and pastoral purposes. Pastoralsilviculture system are often designed with sustainability in mind, balancing economic benefits with environmental and social considerations. Chisanga et al. (2013); Singh (2019); Sharma (2022) also reported the trend of decreasing benefit: cost ratio along altitude in Himachal Pradesh.

The future scope of studying the economic productivity of agroforestry systems in Shimla district includes enhancing income through diversified crops and tree species, improving climate resilience, and promoting sustainable land use in hilly areas. Integration of modern technologies, value addition, and policy support can further boost productivity and livelihoods. Agroforestry also holds potential for carbon sequestration, eco-tourism, and long-term environmental sustainability in the region.

Dinesh Kumar, K.S. Pant and Prem Prakash (2025). Economic Productivity of the Agroforestry Systems in Shimla District of Himachal Pradesh, India. Biological Forum, 17(6): 87-95.