Agroforestry-Based Carbon Credits: A Systematic Literature Review

Agroforestry-Based Carbon Credits: A Systematic Literature Review | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Agroforestry-Based Carbon Credits: A Systematic Literature Review Debora Magesa, Jewel Andoh, Felister Michael Mombo This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002747/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Agroforestry offers environmental and economic benefits through carbon sequestration, helping to mitigate climate change. However, there is a lack of information on carbon credits associated with agroforestry in the literature. This study conducted a systematic literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to assess the revenues generated or payments received from agroforestry-based carbon initiatives globally. The study found only 13 published papers between 2005 and 2024 in Web of Science and Scopus. None of the reviewed studies reported actual revenues from carbon credit transactions; all used economic models to estimate potential returns. The review revealed eight agroforestry systems, with tree-crop intercropping showing the highest simulated revenue (€30,000 to €3.4 million annually) and silvopastoral systems the lowest (A $ 184 to A $ 250 per ha). This study underscores the need for more empirical research to generate data on carbon credits in agroforestry, which can inform climate-smart policies and investments. Agroforestry carbon credits systematic review climate change mitigation net present value economic benefits Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction For centuries, agroforestry has demonstrated its potential in contributing to livelihood and ecological benefits to the environment. It is a management system in the land that integrates trees and shrubs with farming practices. This approach brings together agriculture and forestry to create more diverse, productive, and sustainable land-use systems (Brown et al. 2018 ). As a result, it offers multiple benefits to rural communities, mainly small-scale farmers. These benefits include boosting soil fertility, preserving biodiversity, reducing erosion, regulating local climate conditions, and improving water retention (Muchane et al. 2020 ; Quandt et al. 2023 ). On the economic side, agroforestry systems can diversify farm income by producing timber, fruits, feed for livestock, firewood, and medicinal plants (Betemariyamet al. 2020 ; Furo et al. 2020 ). They also improve crop yields by enhancing soil and climate conditions. Agroforestry is not only valuable for its ecological and economic benefits, but also for its significant contribution to addressing global climate change (Tirkey et al. 2024 ).Trees absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) into their biomass and the soil, which helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Stavi and Lal. 2013; Baah-Acheamfour et al. 2017 ). Research by Nair et al. ( 2009 ) suggests that agroforestry systems can sequester between 1.1 and 2.2 petagrams of carbon (PgC) worldwide over 50 years. Montagnini and Nair ( 2004 ) also highlighted the long-term carbon storage benefits of agroforestry systems, especially when compared to annual cropping systems. Agroforestry has become a promising option in the global carbon market, where reducing emissions is turned into a financial opportunity through the creation and trade of carbon credits (Roy et al. 2021 ). A carbon credit is fundamentally a certificate that verifies the removal or reduction of one metric ton of CO₂ or its equivalent. These credits are transacted in carbon markets, which can be classified as either compliance markets, regulated by international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, or as voluntary markets motivated by corporate and individual pledges to mitigate their carbon footprint (Wetterberg et al. 2024 ). The concept of carbon credits originated in the late 1990s as a key element of the Kyoto Protocol, which stipulated that nations agreed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (UNFCCC 1998 ). Mechanisms, such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), enabled developed nations to invest in emission reduction initiatives within developing countries in exchange for certified emission reduction (CER) units (Schneider et al. 2011 ). Since that time, voluntary carbon markets have also experienced significant growth, providing access to private entities to acquire credits from projects that demonstrate verified carbon sequestration or emissions reductions (Kreibich and Hermwille 2021 ). Agroforestry has gained much attention in both compliance and voluntary markets, due to the complementary benefits it provides on ecosystem restoration and socio-economic advancement (Tirkey et al. 2024 ). Currently, a growing body of research is examining how agroforestry can benefit from carbon markets. For instance, Milder et al. ( 2011 ) showed that agroforestry projects in developing countries can greatly improve rural livelihoods while also helping to combat climate change. Moreover, Swallow et al. ( 2007 ) also argued that incorporating agroforestry into carbon market frameworks is crucial for engaging more small-scale farmers. Additionally, Shames and Scherr ( 2010 ) found that linking carbon credits with other ecosystem services, like biodiversity conservation or water management, can boost the market value of agroforestry systems. Although agroforestry is widely recognized for its potential in carbon sequestration and other ecological benefits, while also supporting livelihoods, there is a lack of information on revenues generated or payments received from agroforestry-based carbon initiatives. Many countries have adopted policies to support carbon trading, and numerous projects demonstrate community engagement in the carbon market (Mombo et al. 2018 ). The forestry sector has gotten the most attention. Although communities are actively participating in forest-based carbon trading, the financial returns specifically tied to agroforestry systems are poorly documented. This lack of information hinders widespread adoption and limits stakeholders’ understanding of its economic potential. This study aims to review and assess the revenue generated from agroforestry-based carbon initiatives, with the goal of informing and motivating communities to adopt these systems by highlighting their potential financial benefits. The central question this paper seeks to address is: What are the revenues generated or payments received from agroforestry-based carbon initiatives? Methods This systematic review used scholarly evidence on carbon credits generated from agroforestry systems. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used, as they ensure transparency and reproducibility during the review process (Page et al. 2021 ). The methodology framework had the four essential stages, as detailed below: 2.1.1. Identification of literature The first stage involved conducting a comprehensive literature search to identify peer-reviewed articles related to agroforestry and carbon credit. The databases used were Web of Science and Scopus. The selection of these databases was based on their broad coverage of environmental science, forestry, climate change, and policy-related journals, making them ideal for capturing relevant research across various disciplines. For this search, we used the exact phrase “carbon credits from agroforestry" and limited our results to articles published between 2005 and 2025. The chosen time frame focuses on more recent years and also considers the start of 2005, as it marked the beginning of the active, large-scale implementation of carbon markets (UNFCCC 2005 ). At this stage, 1,000 articles from Scopus and 51 articles from Web of Science were retrieved, totalling 1,051 articles. The articles obtained were exported into Microsoft Excel for organization and further processing. 2.1.2. Filtering In the second step, we systematically filtered the 1,051 articles. This filtering involved several criteria, including the exclusion of duplicate records, book chapters, theses, grey literature, and papers that did not explicitly concentrate on both agroforestry and carbon credits. We included only articles published in English and in peer-reviewed journals that are relevant to the focus topic. As a result of this process, 485 articles were retained and shortlisted for the next stage of screening. 2.1.3. Screening and Eligibility Assessment In the third step, a two-level screening process was involved. The first level was title screening – involved reviewing the titles of each shortlisted paper (485) to assess their relevance to the study topic. All articles that did not address either agroforestry or carbon credit mechanisms were excluded. At this stage, 368 articles proceeded to the next level of screening, which is abstract screening- involved reviewing the abstracts of the 368 articles to ensure that the studies focused on carbon credits within the context of agroforestry systems. Articles that exclusively emphasized agroforestry and carbon sequestration, without referencing carbon credits or market mechanisms, were excluded. This stage resulted in 13 articles eligible for the final stage of analysis. 2.1.4. Data Extraction and Analysis In the final step, data were extracted from the 13 eligible articles to inform the systematic analysis. The information obtained from the eligible papers included specific amounts of revenue generated through agroforestry-based carbon credit schemes which was expressed in monetary terms (Net Present Value) per hectare per year, the country or region where each study was conducted, the year of publication, and the type of agroforestry system associated with carbon markets or payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes, including voluntary and compliance carbon offset programs. This comprehensive information contributed to addressing the central questions of the systematic review. Figure 1 presents a PRISMA flow diagram, highlighting the various processes in selecting the articles for analysis. Results and Discussions Carbon credits play a critical role as an incentive for agroforestry. This study reviewed 13 articles, which is less than 2% of the total papers identified in Scopus and Web of Science. A maximum of 2 papers were published in 2011 and 2016 relating to the subject matter (Figure 2). In all these articles, there were no publications that reported actual, observed monetary earnings that individuals derive from agroforestry-based carbon credits. The reviewed paper utilized simulation or modeling approaches to estimate the potential economic benefits associated with carbon payments in agroforestry systems. These studies employed diverse models with variations in variables reflective of the respective research to evaluate the economic advantages that individuals could realize from agroforestry practices when carbon payments are factored in. Table 1 presents a summary of the 13 articles published in relation to agroforestry-based carbon credits from 2005 to 2025, highlighting the authors, title, year, journal, and DOI. Table. 1 Summary of the 13 studies (2005-2024) conducted relating to agroforestry-based carbon credits. Source: Data was compiled from Scopus and Web of Science databases # Authors Title Year Journal DOI 1 Netter, L; Luedeling, E; Whitney, C Agroforestry and reforestation with the Gold Standard-Decision Analysis of a voluntary carbon offset label 2022 Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10.1007/ s11027-021-09992-z 2 Ferreira, JCS; da Silva, JAA; Ferreira, RLC Economic viability of a silvopastoral system with and without the inclusion of carbon credits 2024 Revista Caatinga 10.1590/1983- 21252024v3711721rc 3 Wise, R; Cacho, O; Hean, R Fertilizer effects on the sustainability and profitability of agroforestry in the presence of carbon payments 2007 Environmental Modelling & Software 10.1016/ j.envsoft.2006.10.002 4 Frey, GE; Mercer, DE; Cubbage, FW; Abt, RC Economic Potential of Agroforestry and Forestry in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley with Incentive Programs and Carbon Payments 2010 Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 10.1093/sjaf/34.4.176 5 Flugge, F; Abadi, A Farming carbon: an economic analysis of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and dryland salinity reduction in Western Australia 2006 Agroforestry Systems 10.1007/ s10457-006-9008-7 6 Wise, RM; Cacho, OJ A bioeconomic analysis of the potential of Indonesian agroforests as carbon sinks 2011 Environmental Science & Policy 10.1016/ j.envsci.2010.12.008 7 Wise, R; Cacho, O Tree-crop interactions and their environmental and economic implications in the presence of carbon-sequestration payments 2005 Environmental Modelling & Software 10.1016/ j.envsoft.2004.08.001 8 Koul, DN; Panwar, P Soil carbon buildup and bioeconomics of different lanuduses in humid subtropics of West Bengal, India 2012 Annals of Forest Research 9 Dumbrell, NP; Kragt, ME; Gibson, FL What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best-worst scaling survey 2016 Land Use Policy 10.1016/ j.landusepol.2016.02.002 10 Abhay Kumar, Virendra Singh, Swati Shabnam, P. R. Oraon Carbon emission, sequestration, credit and economics of wheat under poplar based agroforestry system 2020 Carbon Management 10.1080/ 17583004.2020.1840875 11 Pirjetta Waldén, Markku Ollikainen, Helena Kahiluoto Carbon revenue in the profitability of agroforestry relative to monocultures 2019 Agroforestry Systems 10.1007/ s10457-019-00355-x 12 Jay H. Samek, David L. Skole, Usa Klinhom, Chetphong Butthep, Charlie Navanugraha, Pornchai Uttaruk, Teerawong Laosuwan Inpang Carbon Bank in Northeast Thailand: A Community Effort in Carbon Trading from Agroforestry Projects 2011 Advances in Agroforestry 10.1007/ 978-94-007-1630-8_15 13 Alexandria Sinnett, Ralph Behrendt, Christie Ho, Bill Malcolm The carbon credits and economic return of environmental plantings on a prime lamb property in south eastern Australia 2016 Land Use Policy 10.1016/ j.landusepol.2015.12.023 The study revealed a significant variation in carbon credit revenue generation across different agroforestry systems (Table 2). The Tree-Crop Intercropping system showed the highest carbon revenue potential, ranging from EUR 230,000 to EUR 3.4 million annually, which highlights its significant economic advantage. In contrast, the Silvopastoral system has shown the lowest returns, generating carbon revenue that ranges from A$184 to A$250 per hectare, indicating lower return relative to other systems. Moreover, other agroforestry systems also presented promising figures: the Agri-silvicultural system earned $744.27 per hectare, followed by Hedgerow Intercropping at $456 per hectare, and Homegardens, which generated between $600 and $1385 per 0.2 hectares. These findings effectively demonstrate the economic potential of agroforestry practices. Table. 2 Simulated revenue generation from carbon credit in different agroforestry systems Agroforestry system The carbon revenue Source (DOI) Tree crop intercropping 230,000 and 3.4 million EUR per year 10.1007/s11027-021-09992-z Silvopastoral A$184 to A$250 per ha 10.1007/s10457-006-9008-7 Hedgerow-intercropping $456 per ha 10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.08.001 Agri-silvicultural $744.270 per ha 10.1080/17583004.2020.1840875 Homegarden $600 and $1385 per 0.2 ha 10.1007/s10457-019-00355-x Furthermore, we determined the frequency with which different agroforestry systems were examined for their potential to benefit from carbon credits. The Silvopastoral system emerged as the most frequently studied, appearing in four of the 13 articles (Figure 3). This indicates a strong research interest in its applicability for carbon credit generation. However, the Hedgerow-Intercropping and Agri-silvicultural systems were each covered in two articles. Tree-crop intercropping, Homegarden systems, alley cropping, riparian buffers, and agrihorticulture were each addressed in just one article, reflecting limited exploration. The economic viability of agroforestry is substantially enhanced when carbon credit schemes are integrated, as demonstrated by numerous global studies that employ financial simulation models. The study conducted in Brazil by Ferreira, Silva, and Ferreira (2024) utilized the Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) models to assess the profitability of a silvopastoral system that incorporates Guinea grass, eucalyptus, and native trees. The simulation revealed an NPV of R$4,533.02 per hectare annually and a BCR of 2.54 with the inclusion of carbon credits, implying a robust economic justification for agroforestry within carbon schemes. Also, Kumar et al. (2020) examined the poplar wheat agroforestry system utilizing an economic model that integrated carbon credit estimation and carbon sequestration rates, revealed carbon credit revenues of US$744.27 per hectare and a BCR of 2.12, which further draw attention to the value of carbon financing in agroforestry systems. Other studies have utilized scenario and sensitivity analyses to investigate the revenue generated from agroforestry-based carbon credits by comparing the prices of carbon credits, which typically fluctuate within the carbon market. These studies expose the pivotal role that carbon pricing plays in the profitability of agroforestry. A study conducted by Flugge and Abadi (2006) implemented a dynamic simulation model that incorporates spatial variability and rainfall conditions to determine when agroforestry becomes financially viable in Western Australia. The model suggests that carbon prices must reach A$46/tCO₂-e in low-rainfall areas and A$25/tCO₂-e in medium-rainfall areas for agroforestry to achieve competitiveness, with potential returns estimated between A$184 and A$250 per hectare per year. Wise and Cacho (2011) employed a bioeconomic model that integrates the dynamics of carbon sequestration with economic returns to evaluate Indonesian agroforests. By using a carbon price of US$17.5/tCO₂ and a discount rate of 5%, their simulation yielded a net present value (NPV) of US$498 per hectare. Similarly, Sinnett et al. (2016) applied a real options model to simulate carbon revenue generation and break-even points for environmental plantings on lamb farms located in southeastern Australia. The model demonstrated that carbon prices would need to exceed US$100/tCO₂-e to recover costs within 10 years, while projecting an expected real return of 6%. Moreover, this review identified studies comparing the net revenue generated by agroforestry-based carbon systems with those from monoculture and agroforestry systems, excluding carbon credits. The findings indicated that the agroforestry system yields superior net revenues compared to monocultures, particularly when carbon payments are involved. Waldén et al. (2020) performed a comparative profitability analysis utilizing simulation data from various agroforestry and monoculture scenarios. Their results indicated that agroforestry produced between US$590 and US$870 per 0.2 hectares without carbon credits and up to US$1,385 with them, representing a 73% increase in profit. Frey et al. (2010) employed a spatial economic simulation model to evaluate the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, where agroforestry practices, such as cottonwood alley cropping and hardwood silvopasture, became competitive at carbon prices ranging from US$10 to US$32 per ton of CO₂. These model-based projections highlight the financial advantages of integrated systems, especially when supported by carbon markets. According to the review, a study utilizing community-led approaches has shown promise, particularly when combined with effective financial models. The study by Samek et al. (2011) evaluated the Inpang Carbon Bank in Northeast Thailand, using a community-based carbon accounting model that relied on local monitoring and verification protocols. The study found that a relatively small investment, approximately $30,000, to establish an agroforestry system could be sustained if carbon prices remained above $1.66 per ton of CO₂. The community's monitoring system and benefit-sharing framework ensured transparency and viability, enabling even small-scale farmers to participate in voluntary carbon markets. The model's simplicity facilitated easy replication, while providing a tangible income stream through verified carbon sales. However, other studies, used decision-analysis tools to gain a deeper understanding of the financial performance of carbon-certified agroforestry. For instance, a 2022 study by Netter, Luedeling, and Whitney applied decision analysis models that accounted for uncertainty, including Monte Carlo simulations and scenarios defined by stakeholders, to evaluate reforestation and agroforestry following Gold Standard certification. The simulation yielded a median NPV of €848,000 per project, with more favorable conditions producing up to €3.4 million and an 86% probability of success. Similarly, Wise and Cacho (2005) used an environmental modeling framework to simulate the impact of tree–crop interactions in Ethiopia, analyzing the effects of carbon-sequestration payment schemes. Their findings showed that carbon payments boosted system profitability by 22%, highlighting the value of combining environmental and economic modeling in land-use planning. Conclusion This systematic review highlights the economic potential of agroforestry systems within the global carbon market by pointing out the revenue that could be generated from carbon credits. Eight agroforestry systems were identified as agroforestry-based, including silvopastoral, agri-silvicultural, tree-crop intercropping, homegardens, hedgerow intercropping, alley cropping, riparian buffers, and agrihorticulture, which exhibited various levels of revenue potential as indicated by modeled simulations. The most profitable was identified as tree-crop intercropping, while silvopastoral systems presented the least favorable returns. Nonetheless, no study examined direct evidence regarding the actual revenue earned by landholders and other stakeholders through carbon credit schemes. All financial forecasts were constructed using simulation models or scenario analyses rather than observed market transactions. The limited availability of real-world financial data on revenue from agroforestry-based carbon hinders our understanding of the tangible benefits that agroforestry practitioners derive from participating in carbon markets. To achieve effective integration into climate finance mechanisms and scale for impactful outcomes, future research should focus on documenting actual income generated and payments received. Such evidence is crucial for informing policies, directing investments, and motivating farmers in adopting agroforestry as a viable climate-smart livelihood strategy. Declarations The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Acknowledgement The authors would like to acknowledge the UNDERTEES project under Horizon 2020 for fostering collaboration among the research team. We also extend our sincere thanks to Coventry University’s Centre for Agroecology, Water, and Resilience for facilitating access to essential databases that supported the literature review for this systematic study. Special appreciation goes to Liliane Binego for her valuable assistance in accessing relevant literature for the review. References Baah-Acheamfour, M., Gamache, M., Quideau, S. A., & Thiffault, E. (2017). Soil biochemical properties and microbial communities under agroforestry and monoculture systems in boreal Canada. Applied Soil Ecology, 111, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.12.007 Betemariyam, K., Duguma, L. A., & Worku, A. (2020). Assessing the contributions of agroforestry to food security and income generation in dryland areas of Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems, 94(3), 871–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00446-z Brown, S. E., Miller, D. C., Ordonez, P. J., & Baylis, K. (2018). Evidence for the impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in high-income countries: A systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0123-7 Ferreira, J. C. S., Silva, J. A. D., & Ferreira, R. L. (2024). Economic viability of a silvopastoral system with and without the inclusion of carbon credits. Revista Caatinga, 37, e11721. Flugge, F., & Abadi, A. (2006). Farming carbon: an economic analysis of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and dryland salinity reduction in Western Australia. Agroforestry Systems, 68, 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-5965-y Frey, G. E., Mercer, D. E., Cubbage, F. W., & Abt, R. C. (2010). Economic potential of agroforestry and forestry in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley with incentive programs and carbon payments. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 34(4), 176–185. Furo, D. G., Egbetokun, O. A., & Ilevbaoje, I. E. (2020). Contribution of agroforestry to income generation among rural households in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Forestry Research and Management, 17(2), 14–20. Kreibich, N., & Hermwille, L. (2021). Caught in between: Credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post-2020. Climate Policy, 21(6), 739–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1814042 Kumar, A., Singh, V., Shabnam, S., & Oraon, P. R. (2020). Carbon emission, sequestration, credit and economics of wheat under poplar based agroforestry system. Carbon Management, 11(6), 673– 679. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2020.1830424 Milder, J. C., Majanen, T., & Scherr, S. J. (2011). Performance and potential of conservation agriculture for climate change adaptation and mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. EcoAgriculture Partners. Mombo, F., Muze, M., Katani, J., & Zahabu, E. (2018). REDD+ initiatives and their impacts on forest- based livelihoods: A case of the Kilosa REDD+ project, Tanzania. Climate and Development, 10(3), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1291403 Montagnini, F., & Nair, P. K. R. (2004). Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems, 61–62(1), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029005.92691.79 Muchane, M. N., Sileshi, G. W., Gripenberg, S., Jonsson, M., & Pumariño, L. (2020). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in tropical agroforestry: A systematic review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00631-9 Nair, P. K. R., Kumar, B. M., & Nair, V. D. (2009). Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 172(1), 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200800030 Netter, L., Luedeling, E., & Whitney, C. (2022). Agroforestry and reforestation with the Gold Standard—Decision analysis of a voluntary carbon offset label. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 27(2), 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-021-09980-1 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Quandt, A., Neufeldt, H., & McCabe, J. T. (2023). Agroforestry for livelihoods and climate resilience: Evidence from dryland areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. Climate and Development, 15(2), 187– 198. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2022.2031640 Roy, A., Sathaye, J., Santhosh, K., & Ravindranath, N. H. (2021). Assessment of carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in India: Implications for climate change mitigation. Environmental Science and Policy, 119, 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.01.009 Samek, J. H., Skole, D. L., Klinhom, U., Butthep, C., Navanugraha, C., Uttaruk, P., & Laosuwan, T. (2011). Inpang Carbon Bank in Northeast Thailand: A community effort in carbon trading from agroforestry projects. In B. M. Kumar & P. K. R. Nair (Eds.), Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 263–280). Springer. Schneider, L., Kollmuss, A., & Zhezhernov, D. (2011). Options for baselines of crediting emission reductions from REDD+ activities. Carbon and Climate Law Review, 5(3), 261–273. Shames, S., & Scherr, S. J. (2010). Future directions for investing in watershed services. EcoAgriculture Partners. Sinnett, A., Behrendt, R., Ho, C., & Malcolm, B. (2016). The carbon credits and economic return of environmental plantings on a prime lamb property in south eastern Australia. Land Use Policy, 52, 374–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.019 Stavi, I., & Lal, R. (2013). Agroforestry and biochar to offset climate change: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0081-1 Swallow, B. M., Garrity, D. P., & Van Noordwijk, M. (2007). The challenge of applying empirical economic models to complex agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems, 70(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9023-3 Tirkey, R., Mohapatra, S., & Panda, S. (2024). Agroforestry and climate change mitigation: A policy and practice perspective from India. Environmental Sustainability, 7(1), 45–55. UNFCCC. (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf UNFCCC. (2005). Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf Waldén, P., Ollikainen, M., & Kahiluoto, H. (2020). Carbon revenue in the profitability of agroforestry relative to monocultures. Agroforestry Systems, 94, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457- 018-0273-9 Wetterberg, A., Ellis, P., & Schneider, R. R. (2024). Carbon markets and sustainable development: Aligning voluntary and compliance frameworks for impact. Climate Policy, 24(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2262645 Wise, R. M., & Cacho, O. J. (2011). A bioeconomic analysis of the potential of Indonesian agroforests as carbon sinks. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(4), 451–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.01.006 Wise, R., & Cacho, O. (2005). Tree–crop interactions and their environmental and economic implications in the presence of carbon-sequestration payments. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20(9), 1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.07.005 Wise, R., Cacho, O., & Hean, R. (2007). Fertilizer effects on the sustainability and profitability of agroforestry in the presence of carbon payments. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22(9), 1372–1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.09.004 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7002747","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":482308242,"identity":"d9235c5d-860b-4139-ba50-d4024756e2c1","order_by":0,"name":"Debora Magesa","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sokoine University of Agriculture","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Debora","middleName":"","lastName":"Magesa","suffix":""},{"id":482308243,"identity":"2c8b11c3-b666-437a-90eb-8e1f16527c9d","order_by":1,"name":"Jewel Andoh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"CSIR-Forestry Research Institute of Ghana","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jewel","middleName":"","lastName":"Andoh","suffix":""},{"id":482308244,"identity":"de71e8c1-4ff1-4918-833b-081f531d78c0","order_by":2,"name":"Felister Michael Mombo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Sokoine University of Agriculture","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Felister","middleName":"Michael","lastName":"Mombo","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-29 12:53:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002747/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002747/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":86330254,"identity":"bd3baecb-2458-4c29-9fbe-1b699ed3d46a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-09 11:54:09","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":197329,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlow diagram summary of the articles’ selection process\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002747/v1/6e3b54617de4d4af812462f9.png"},{"id":86330229,"identity":"a7b97e46-f7ca-4ef9-aa8c-2a48f0dc7c7e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-09 11:54:07","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43913,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNumber of articles published by year relating to the topic\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002747/v1/ec11def21d40bb050d5cc8ad.png"},{"id":86330251,"identity":"c227842f-95b8-4e17-8795-565d64e83dfa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-09 11:54:08","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":106716,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAgroforestry systems studied in the 13 articles reviewed\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002747/v1/f0f14109ada67398350fe34e.png"},{"id":90347853,"identity":"d0d4ff72-ccbb-4759-b3cf-39d5b3e0e296","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-01 16:46:37","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":777900,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7002747/v1/ade323b4-0912-4584-98f1-5800d76d862e.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Agroforestry-Based Carbon Credits: A Systematic Literature Review","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eFor centuries, agroforestry has demonstrated its potential in contributing to livelihood and ecological benefits to the environment. It is a management system in the land that integrates trees and shrubs with farming practices. This approach brings together agriculture and forestry to create more diverse, productive, and sustainable land-use systems (Brown et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, it offers multiple benefits to rural communities, mainly small-scale farmers. These benefits include boosting soil fertility, preserving biodiversity, reducing erosion, regulating local climate conditions, and improving water retention (Muchane et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Quandt et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). On the economic side, agroforestry systems can diversify farm income by producing timber, fruits, feed for livestock, firewood, and medicinal plants (Betemariyamet al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Furo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). They also improve crop yields by enhancing soil and climate conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgroforestry is not only valuable for its ecological and economic benefits, but also for its significant contribution to addressing global climate change (Tirkey et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).Trees absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) into their biomass and the soil, which helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Stavi and Lal. 2013; Baah-Acheamfour et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Research by Nair et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e) suggests that agroforestry systems can sequester between 1.1 and 2.2 petagrams of carbon (PgC) worldwide over 50 years. Montagnini and Nair (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) also highlighted the long-term carbon storage benefits of agroforestry systems, especially when compared to annual cropping systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAgroforestry has become a promising option in the global carbon market, where reducing emissions is turned into a financial opportunity through the creation and trade of carbon credits (Roy et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). A carbon credit is fundamentally a certificate that verifies the removal or reduction of one metric ton of CO₂ or its equivalent. These credits are transacted in carbon markets, which can be classified as either compliance markets, regulated by international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, or as voluntary markets motivated by corporate and individual pledges to mitigate their carbon footprint (Wetterberg et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe concept of carbon credits originated in the late 1990s as a key element of the Kyoto Protocol, which stipulated that nations agreed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (UNFCCC \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Mechanisms, such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), enabled developed nations to invest in emission reduction initiatives within developing countries in exchange for certified emission reduction (CER) units (Schneider et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Since that time, voluntary carbon markets have also experienced significant growth, providing access to private entities to acquire credits from projects that demonstrate verified carbon sequestration or emissions reductions (Kreibich and Hermwille \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Agroforestry has gained much attention in both compliance and voluntary markets, due to the complementary benefits it provides on ecosystem restoration and socio-economic advancement (Tirkey et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCurrently, a growing body of research is examining how agroforestry can benefit from carbon markets. For instance, Milder et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) showed that agroforestry projects in developing countries can greatly improve rural livelihoods while also helping to combat climate change. Moreover, Swallow et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) also argued that incorporating agroforestry into carbon market frameworks is crucial for engaging more small-scale farmers. Additionally, Shames and Scherr (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) found that linking carbon credits with other ecosystem services, like biodiversity conservation or water management, can boost the market value of agroforestry systems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough agroforestry is widely recognized for its potential in carbon sequestration and other ecological benefits, while also supporting livelihoods, there is a lack of information on revenues generated or payments received from agroforestry-based carbon initiatives. Many countries have adopted policies to support carbon trading, and numerous projects demonstrate community engagement in the carbon market (Mombo et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The forestry sector has gotten the most attention. Although communities are actively participating in forest-based carbon trading, the financial returns specifically tied to agroforestry systems are poorly documented. This lack of information hinders widespread adoption and limits stakeholders’ understanding of its economic potential. This study aims to review and assess the revenue generated from agroforestry-based carbon initiatives, with the goal of informing and motivating communities to adopt these systems by highlighting their potential financial benefits. The central question this paper seeks to address is: What are the revenues generated or payments received from agroforestry-based carbon initiatives?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis systematic review used scholarly evidence on carbon credits generated from agroforestry systems. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used, as they ensure transparency and reproducibility during the review process (Page et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The methodology framework had the four essential stages, as detailed below:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.1. Identification of literature\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first stage involved conducting a comprehensive literature search to identify peer-reviewed articles related to agroforestry and carbon credit. The databases used were Web of Science and Scopus. The selection of these databases was based on their broad coverage of environmental science, forestry, climate change, and policy-related journals, making them ideal for capturing relevant research across various disciplines.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor this search, we used the exact phrase “carbon credits from agroforestry\" and limited our results to articles published between 2005 and 2025. The chosen time frame focuses on more recent years and also considers the start of 2005, as it marked the beginning of the active, large-scale implementation of carbon markets (UNFCCC \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). At this stage, 1,000 articles from Scopus and 51 articles from Web of Science were retrieved, totalling 1,051 articles. The articles obtained were exported into Microsoft Excel for organization and further processing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.2. Filtering\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the second step, we systematically filtered the 1,051 articles. This filtering involved several criteria, including the exclusion of duplicate records, book chapters, theses, grey literature, and papers that did not explicitly concentrate on both agroforestry and carbon credits. We included only articles published in English and in peer-reviewed journals that are relevant to the focus topic. As a result of this process, 485 articles were retained and shortlisted for the next stage of screening.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.3. Screening and Eligibility Assessment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the third step, a two-level screening process was involved. The first level was title screening – involved reviewing the titles of each shortlisted paper (485) to assess their relevance to the study topic. All articles that did not address either agroforestry or carbon credit mechanisms were excluded. At this stage, 368 articles proceeded to the next level of screening, which is abstract screening- involved reviewing the abstracts of the 368 articles to ensure that the studies focused on carbon credits within the context of agroforestry systems. Articles that exclusively emphasized agroforestry and carbon sequestration, without referencing carbon credits or market mechanisms, were excluded. This stage resulted in 13 articles eligible for the final stage of analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1.4. Data Extraction and Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the final step, data were extracted from the 13 eligible articles to inform the systematic analysis. The information obtained from the eligible papers included specific amounts of revenue generated through agroforestry-based carbon credit schemes which was expressed in monetary terms (Net Present Value) per hectare per year, the country or region where each study was conducted, the year of publication, and the type of agroforestry system associated with carbon markets or payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes, including voluntary and compliance carbon offset programs. This comprehensive information contributed to addressing the central questions of the systematic review. Figure 1 presents a PRISMA flow diagram, highlighting the various processes in selecting the articles for analysis.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results and Discussions ","content":"\u003cp\u003eCarbon credits play a critical role as an incentive for agroforestry. This study reviewed 13 articles, which is less than 2% of the total papers identified in Scopus and Web of Science. A maximum of 2 papers were published in 2011 and 2016 relating to the subject matter (Figure 2). In all these articles, there were no publications that reported actual, observed monetary earnings that individuals derive from agroforestry-based carbon credits. The reviewed paper utilized simulation or modeling approaches to estimate the potential economic benefits associated with carbon payments in agroforestry systems. These studies employed diverse models with variations in variables reflective of the respective research to evaluate the economic advantages that individuals could realize from agroforestry practices when carbon payments are factored in. Table 1 presents a summary of the 13 articles published in relation to agroforestry-based carbon credits from 2005 to 2025, highlighting the authors, title, year, journal, and DOI.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable. 1\u003c/strong\u003e Summary of the 13 studies (2005-2024) conducted relating to agroforestry-based carbon credits. Source: Data was compiled from Scopus and Web of Science databases\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e#\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTitle\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eYear\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJournal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDOI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNetter, L; Luedeling, E; Whitney, C\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgroforestry and reforestation with the Gold Standard-Decision Analysis of a voluntary carbon offset label\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1007/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003es11027-021-09992-z\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFerreira, JCS; da Silva, JAA; Ferreira, RLC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomic viability of a silvopastoral system with and without the inclusion of carbon credits\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2024\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRevista Caatinga\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1590/1983-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21252024v3711721rc\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWise, R; Cacho, O; Hean, R\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFertilizer effects on the sustainability and profitability of agroforestry in the presence of carbon payments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2007\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Modelling \u0026amp; Software\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1016/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ej.envsoft.2006.10.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrey, GE; Mercer, DE; Cubbage, FW; Abt, RC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEconomic Potential of Agroforestry and Forestry in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley with Incentive Programs and Carbon Payments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2010\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSouthern Journal of Applied Forestry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1093/sjaf/34.4.176\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFlugge, F; Abadi, A\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFarming carbon: an economic analysis of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and dryland salinity reduction in Western Australia\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2006\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgroforestry Systems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1007/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003es10457-006-9008-7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWise, RM; Cacho, OJ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA bioeconomic analysis of the potential of Indonesian agroforests as carbon sinks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Science \u0026amp; Policy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1016/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ej.envsci.2010.12.008\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWise, R; Cacho, O\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTree-crop interactions and their environmental and economic implications in the presence of carbon-sequestration payments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2005\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironmental Modelling \u0026amp; Software\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1016/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ej.envsoft.2004.08.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKoul, DN; Panwar, P\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoil carbon buildup and bioeconomics of different lanuduses in humid subtropics of West Bengal, India\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2012\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnnals of Forest Research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDumbrell, NP; Kragt, ME; Gibson, FL\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhat carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best-worst scaling survey\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1016/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ej.landusepol.2016.02.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAbhay Kumar, Virendra Singh, Swati Shabnam, P. R. Oraon\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCarbon emission, sequestration, credit and economics of wheat under poplar based agroforestry system\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCarbon Management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1080/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17583004.2020.1840875\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePirjetta Waldén, Markku Ollikainen, Helena Kahiluoto\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCarbon revenue in the profitability of agroforestry relative to monocultures\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAgroforestry Systems\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1007/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003es10457-019-00355-x\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJay H. Samek, David L. Skole, Usa Klinhom, Chetphong Butthep, Charlie Navanugraha, Pornchai Uttaruk, Teerawong Laosuwan\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInpang Carbon Bank in Northeast Thailand: A Community Effort in Carbon Trading from Agroforestry Projects\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2011\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdvances in Agroforestry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1007/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e978-94-007-1630-8_15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAlexandria Sinnett, Ralph Behrendt, Christie Ho, Bill Malcolm\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe carbon credits and economic return of environmental plantings on a prime lamb property in south eastern Australia\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2016\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLand Use Policy\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1016/\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ej.landusepol.2015.12.023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study revealed a significant variation in carbon credit revenue generation across different agroforestry systems (Table 2).\u0026nbsp;The Tree-Crop Intercropping system showed the highest carbon revenue potential, ranging from EUR 230,000 to EUR 3.4 million annually, which highlights its significant economic advantage. In contrast, the Silvopastoral system has shown the lowest returns, generating carbon revenue that ranges from \u0026nbsp;A$184 to A$250 per hectare, indicating lower return \u0026nbsp;relative to other systems. Moreover, other agroforestry systems also presented promising figures: the Agri-silvicultural system earned $744.27 per hectare, followed by Hedgerow Intercropping at $456 per hectare, and Homegardens, which generated between $600 and $1385 per 0.2 hectares. These findings effectively demonstrate the economic potential of agroforestry practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSimulated revenue generation from carbon credit in different agroforestry systems\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"617\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAgroforestry system\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe carbon revenue\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSource (DOI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTree crop intercropping\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e230,000 and 3.4 million EUR per year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1007/s11027-021-09992-z\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSilvopastoral\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA$184 to A$250 per ha\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1007/s10457-006-9008-7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHedgerow-intercropping\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e$456 per ha\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.08.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAgri-silvicultural\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e$744.270 per ha\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1080/17583004.2020.1840875\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHomegarden\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e$600 and $1385 per 0.2 ha\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.1007/s10457-019-00355-x\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, we determined the frequency with which different agroforestry systems were examined for their potential to benefit from carbon credits. The Silvopastoral system emerged as the most frequently studied, appearing in four of the 13 articles (Figure 3). This indicates a strong research interest in its applicability for carbon credit generation. However, the Hedgerow-Intercropping and Agri-silvicultural systems were each covered in two articles. Tree-crop intercropping, Homegarden systems, alley cropping, riparian buffers, and agrihorticulture were each addressed in just one article, reflecting limited exploration.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe economic viability of agroforestry is substantially enhanced when carbon credit schemes are integrated, as demonstrated by numerous global studies that employ financial simulation models. The study conducted in Brazil by Ferreira, Silva, and Ferreira (2024) utilized the Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) models to assess the profitability of a silvopastoral system that incorporates Guinea grass, eucalyptus, and native trees. The simulation revealed an NPV of R$4,533.02 per hectare annually and a BCR of 2.54 with the inclusion of carbon credits, implying a robust economic justification for agroforestry within carbon schemes. Also, Kumar et al. (2020) examined the poplar wheat agroforestry system utilizing an economic model that integrated carbon credit estimation and carbon sequestration rates, revealed carbon credit revenues of US$744.27 per hectare and a BCR of 2.12, which further draw attention to the value of carbon financing in agroforestry systems.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Other studies have utilized scenario and sensitivity analyses to investigate the revenue generated from agroforestry-based carbon credits by comparing the prices of carbon credits, which typically fluctuate within the carbon market. These studies expose the pivotal role that carbon pricing plays in the profitability of agroforestry. A study conducted by Flugge and Abadi (2006) implemented a dynamic simulation model that incorporates spatial variability and rainfall conditions to determine when agroforestry becomes financially viable in Western Australia. The model suggests that carbon prices must reach A$46/tCO₂-e in low-rainfall areas and A$25/tCO₂-e in medium-rainfall areas for agroforestry to achieve competitiveness, with potential returns estimated between A$184 and A$250 per hectare per year. Wise and Cacho (2011) employed a bioeconomic model that integrates the dynamics of carbon sequestration with economic returns to evaluate Indonesian agroforests. By using a carbon price of US$17.5/tCO₂ and a discount rate of 5%, their simulation yielded a net present value (NPV) of US$498 per hectare. Similarly, Sinnett et al. (2016) applied a real options model to simulate carbon revenue generation and break-even points for environmental plantings on lamb farms located in southeastern Australia. The model demonstrated that carbon prices would need to exceed US$100/tCO₂-e to recover costs within 10 years, while projecting an expected real return of 6%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Moreover, this review identified studies comparing the net revenue generated by agroforestry-based carbon systems with those from monoculture and agroforestry systems, excluding carbon credits. The findings indicated that the agroforestry system yields superior net revenues compared to monocultures, particularly when carbon payments are involved. Waldén et al. (2020) performed a comparative profitability analysis utilizing simulation data from various agroforestry and monoculture scenarios. Their results indicated that agroforestry produced between US$590 and US$870 per 0.2 hectares without carbon credits and up to US$1,385 with them, representing a 73% increase in profit. Frey et al. (2010) employed a spatial economic simulation model to evaluate the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley, where agroforestry practices, such as cottonwood alley cropping and hardwood silvopasture, became competitive at carbon prices ranging from US$10 to US$32 per ton of CO₂. These model-based projections highlight the financial advantages of integrated systems, especially when supported by carbon markets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; According to the review, a study utilizing community-led approaches has shown promise, particularly when combined with effective financial models. The study by Samek et al. (2011) evaluated the Inpang Carbon Bank in Northeast Thailand, using a community-based carbon accounting model that relied on local monitoring and verification protocols. The study found that a relatively small investment, approximately $30,000, to establish an agroforestry system could be sustained if carbon prices remained above $1.66 per ton of CO₂. The community's monitoring system and benefit-sharing framework ensured transparency and viability, enabling even small-scale farmers to participate in voluntary carbon markets. The model's simplicity facilitated easy replication, while providing a tangible income stream through verified carbon sales.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;However, other studies, used decision-analysis tools to gain a deeper understanding of the financial performance of carbon-certified agroforestry. For instance, a 2022 study by Netter, Luedeling, and Whitney applied decision analysis models that accounted for uncertainty, including Monte Carlo simulations and scenarios defined by stakeholders, to evaluate reforestation and agroforestry following Gold Standard certification. The simulation yielded a median NPV of €848,000 per project, with more favorable conditions producing up to €3.4 million and an 86% probability of success. Similarly, Wise and Cacho (2005) used an environmental modeling framework to simulate the impact of tree–crop interactions in Ethiopia, analyzing the effects of carbon-sequestration payment schemes. Their findings showed that carbon payments boosted system profitability by 22%, highlighting the value of combining environmental and economic modeling in land-use planning.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis systematic review highlights the economic potential of agroforestry systems within the global carbon market by pointing out the revenue that could be generated from carbon credits. Eight agroforestry systems were identified as agroforestry-based, including silvopastoral, agri-silvicultural, tree-crop intercropping, homegardens, hedgerow intercropping, alley cropping, riparian buffers, and agrihorticulture, which exhibited various levels of revenue potential as indicated by modeled simulations. The most profitable was identified as tree-crop intercropping, while silvopastoral systems presented the least favorable returns. Nonetheless, no study examined direct evidence regarding the actual revenue earned by landholders and other stakeholders through carbon credit schemes. All financial forecasts were constructed using simulation models or scenario analyses rather than observed market transactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; The limited availability of real-world financial data on revenue from agroforestry-based carbon hinders our understanding of the tangible benefits that agroforestry practitioners derive from participating in carbon markets. To achieve effective integration into climate finance mechanisms and scale for impactful outcomes, future research should focus on documenting actual income generated and payments received. Such evidence is crucial for informing policies, directing investments, and motivating farmers in adopting agroforestry as a viable climate-smart livelihood strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to acknowledge the UNDERTEES project under Horizon 2020 for fostering collaboration among the research team. We also extend our sincere thanks to Coventry University\u0026rsquo;s Centre for Agroecology, Water, and Resilience for facilitating access to essential databases that supported the literature review for this systematic study. Special appreciation goes to Liliane Binego for her valuable assistance in accessing relevant literature for the review.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaah-Acheamfour, M., Gamache, M., Quideau, S. A., \u0026amp; Thiffault, E. (2017). Soil biochemical properties and microbial communities under agroforestry and monoculture systems in boreal Canada. Applied Soil Ecology, 111, 84\u0026ndash;94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.12.007 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBetemariyam, K., Duguma, L. A., \u0026amp; Worku, A. (2020). Assessing the contributions of agroforestry to food security and income generation in dryland areas of Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems, 94(3), 871\u0026ndash;885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00446-z \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, S. E., Miller, D. C., Ordonez, P. J., \u0026amp; Baylis, K. (2018). Evidence for the impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in high-income countries: A systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence, 7(1), 1\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0123-7 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerreira, J. C. S., Silva, J. A. D., \u0026amp; Ferreira, R. L. (2024). Economic viability of a silvopastoral system with and without the inclusion of carbon credits. Revista Caatinga, 37, e11721.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlugge, F., \u0026amp; Abadi, A. (2006). Farming carbon: an economic analysis of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and dryland salinity reduction in Western Australia. Agroforestry Systems, 68, 181\u0026ndash;192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-5965-y \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrey, G. E., Mercer, D. E., Cubbage, F. W., \u0026amp; Abt, R. C. (2010). Economic potential of agroforestry and forestry in the lower Mississippi alluvial valley with incentive programs and carbon payments. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, 34(4), 176\u0026ndash;185.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFuro, D. G., Egbetokun, O. A., \u0026amp; Ilevbaoje, I. E. (2020). Contribution of agroforestry to income generation among rural households in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Forestry Research and Management, 17(2), 14\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKreibich, N., \u0026amp; Hermwille, L. (2021). Caught in between: Credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post-2020. Climate Policy, 21(6), 739\u0026ndash;754. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1814042 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumar, A., Singh, V., Shabnam, S., \u0026amp; Oraon, P. R. (2020). Carbon emission, sequestration, credit and economics of wheat under poplar based agroforestry system. Carbon Management, 11(6), 673\u0026ndash; 679. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2020.1830424 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMilder, J. C., Majanen, T., \u0026amp; Scherr, S. J. (2011). Performance and potential of conservation agriculture for climate change adaptation and mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. EcoAgriculture Partners.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMombo, F., Muze, M., Katani, J., \u0026amp; Zahabu, E. (2018). REDD+ initiatives and their impacts on forest- based livelihoods: A case of the Kilosa REDD+ project, Tanzania. Climate and Development, 10(3), 259\u0026ndash;268. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1291403 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMontagnini, F., \u0026amp; Nair, P. K. R. (2004). Carbon sequestration: An underexploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems, 61\u0026ndash;62(1), 281\u0026ndash;295. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029005.92691.79 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuchane, M. N., Sileshi, G. W., Gripenberg, S., Jonsson, M., \u0026amp; Pumari\u0026ntilde;o, L. (2020). Biodiversity and ecosystem services in tropical agroforestry: A systematic review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40(5), 1\u0026ndash;13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00631-9 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNair, P. K. R., Kumar, B. M., \u0026amp; Nair, V. D. (2009). Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 172(1), 10\u0026ndash;23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200800030 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNetter, L., Luedeling, E., \u0026amp; Whitney, C. (2022). Agroforestry and reforestation with the Gold Standard\u0026mdash;Decision analysis of a voluntary carbon offset label. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 27(2), 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-021-09980-1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePage, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... \u0026amp; Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eQuandt, A., Neufeldt, H., \u0026amp; McCabe, J. T. (2023). Agroforestry for livelihoods and climate resilience: Evidence from dryland areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. Climate and Development, 15(2), 187\u0026ndash; 198. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2022.2031640 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRoy, A., Sathaye, J., Santhosh, K., \u0026amp; Ravindranath, N. H. (2021). Assessment of carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in India: Implications for climate change mitigation. Environmental Science and Policy, 119, 88\u0026ndash;98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.01.009 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSamek, J. H., Skole, D. L., Klinhom, U., Butthep, C., Navanugraha, C., Uttaruk, P., \u0026amp; Laosuwan, T. (2011). Inpang Carbon Bank in Northeast Thailand: A community effort in carbon trading from agroforestry projects. In B. M. Kumar \u0026amp; P. K. R. Nair (Eds.), Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems: Opportunities and challenges (pp. 263\u0026ndash;280). Springer.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchneider, L., Kollmuss, A., \u0026amp; Zhezhernov, D. (2011). Options for baselines of crediting emission reductions from REDD+ activities. Carbon and Climate Law Review, 5(3), 261\u0026ndash;273.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShames, S., \u0026amp; Scherr, S. J. (2010). Future directions for investing in watershed services. EcoAgriculture Partners.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSinnett, A., Behrendt, R., Ho, C., \u0026amp; Malcolm, B. (2016). The carbon credits and economic return of environmental plantings on a prime lamb property in south eastern Australia. Land Use Policy, 52, 374\u0026ndash;381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.019 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStavi, I., \u0026amp; Lal, R. (2013). Agroforestry and biochar to offset climate change: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33(1), 81\u0026ndash;96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0081-1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSwallow, B. M., Garrity, D. P., \u0026amp; Van Noordwijk, M. (2007). The challenge of applying empirical economic models to complex agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems, 70(2), 141\u0026ndash;155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-007-9023-3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTirkey, R., Mohapatra, S., \u0026amp; Panda, S. (2024). Agroforestry and climate change mitigation: A policy and practice perspective from India. Environmental Sustainability, 7(1), 45\u0026ndash;55.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNFCCC. (1998). Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNFCCC. (2005). Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWald\u0026eacute;n, P., Ollikainen, M., \u0026amp; Kahiluoto, H. (2020). Carbon revenue in the profitability of agroforestry relative to monocultures. Agroforestry Systems, 94, 15\u0026ndash;28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457- 018-0273-9 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWetterberg, A., Ellis, P., \u0026amp; Schneider, R. R. (2024). Carbon markets and sustainable development: Aligning voluntary and compliance frameworks for impact. Climate Policy, 24(1), 1\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2262645 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWise, R. M., \u0026amp; Cacho, O. J. (2011). A bioeconomic analysis of the potential of Indonesian agroforests as carbon sinks. Environmental Science \u0026amp; Policy, 14(4), 451\u0026ndash;461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.01.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWise, R., \u0026amp; Cacho, O. (2005). Tree\u0026ndash;crop interactions and their environmental and economic implications in the presence of carbon-sequestration payments. Environmental Modelling \u0026amp; Software, 20(9), 1139\u0026ndash;1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.07.005 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWise, R., Cacho, O., \u0026amp; Hean, R. (2007). Fertilizer effects on the sustainability and profitability of agroforestry in the presence of carbon payments. Environmental Modelling \u0026amp; Software, 22(9), 1372\u0026ndash;1381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.09.004 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Agroforestry, carbon credits, systematic review, climate change mitigation, net present value, economic benefits","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002747/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002747/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eAgroforestry offers environmental and economic benefits through carbon sequestration, helping to mitigate climate change. However, there is a lack of information on carbon credits associated with agroforestry in the literature. This study conducted a systematic literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to assess the revenues generated or payments received from agroforestry-based carbon initiatives globally. The study found only 13 published papers between 2005 and 2024 in Web of Science and Scopus. None of the reviewed studies reported actual revenues from carbon credit transactions; all used economic models to estimate potential returns. The review revealed eight agroforestry systems, with tree-crop intercropping showing the highest simulated revenue (\u0026euro;30,000 to \u0026euro;3.4\u0026nbsp;million annually) and silvopastoral systems the lowest (A\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e184 to A\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e250 per ha). This study underscores the need for more empirical research to generate data on carbon credits in agroforestry, which can inform climate-smart policies and investments.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Agroforestry-Based Carbon Credits: A Systematic Literature Review","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-09 11:53:26","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7002747/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"354cf3d9-0563-4665-92d2-fc62ec9a97df","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 9th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-01T16:38:25+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-09 11:53:26","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7002747","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7002747","identity":"rs-7002747","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}