Abstract
Land tenure has long been considered a critical factor in determining the adoption and long-term maintenance of agroforestry practices. Empirical evidence from non-US settings has consistently shown that secure land tenure is positively associated with agroforestry adoption. In the US, over 40% of private agricultural land is farmed by someone other than the owner. Given the importance of land tenure in agroforestry decisions in other countries and the magnitude of non-operator landownership in the US, there has been surprisingly little focus on land tenure in the temperate agroforestry literature. Using data from a 1999 survey in Missouri, this study explores factors associated with non-operator landowner interest in agroforestry. Results suggest that differences in farming orientation are linked to interest in agroforestry. Closer ties to farming, stronger financial motivations for landownership, and higher proportion of land planted to row crops were negatively related to interest in agroforestry among non-operator landowners. Environmental or recreational motivations for landownership and contacts with natural resource professionals were positively associated with interest in agroforestry. These results, consistent with earlier qualitative research suggesting that farm operators who have a strong “conventional farming identity” were less interested in agroforestry, point to a divide between landowners for whom environmental and recreational values play an important role in ownership motivation and those for whom financial considerations take precedence. The findings imply that agroforestry development programs in the US should take non-operator landowners and their farming and ownership orientations into account when designing research and outreach efforts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
α = 0.715.
α = 0.840.
α = 0.814.
For silvopasture agroforestry, a third image was included of cattle grazing in a forested area with the note: “Cows grazing in a forested area without any intentional management of the trees is not considered silvopastoral.” For forest farming, photos of ginseng and mushroom cultivation were accompanied by the note: “Examples of forest farming: growing ginseng and shiitake mushrooms.”
No information about potential benefits of agroforestry, either environmental or financial, was provided to respondents.
References
Allen JC, Bernhardt K (1995) Farming practices and adherence to an alternative-conventional agricultural paradigm. Rural Sociol 60:297–309
Clearfield F, Osgood BT (1986) Sociological aspects of the adoption of conservation practices. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC
Constance DH, Rikoon JS, Ma JC (1996) Landlord involvement in environmental decision-making on rented Missouri cropland: pesticide use and water quality issues. Rural Sociol 61:577–605
Economic Research Service (2003) Agricultural resources and environmental indicators. Washington, DC
Featherstone AM, Goodwin B (1993) Factors influencing a farmer’s decision to invest in long-term conservation improvements. Land Econ 69:67–81
Feder G, Umali DL (1993) The adoption of agricultural innovations: a review. Technol Forecast Soc Change 43:215–239
Fliegel FC (1993) Diffusion research in rural sociology: the record and prospects for the future. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT
Fraser EDG (2004) Land tenure and agricultural management: soil conservation on rented and owned fields in southwest British Columbia. Agric Human Values 21:73–79
Gold MA, Godsey LD, Josiah SJ (2004) Markets and marketing strategy for agroforestry specialty products in North America. Agroforest Syst 61:371–382
Koontz TM (2001) Money talks-but to whom? financial versus nonmonetary motivations in land use decisions. Soc Nat Resour 14:51–65
Kurtz WB (2000) Economics and policy in agroforestry. In: Garrett HE, Reitveld WJ, Fisher RF (eds) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI
Lockeretz W (1990) What have we learned about who conserves soil? J Soil Water Conserv 45:517–523
Mercer DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: a review. Agroforest Syst 61:311–328
Mercer DE, Miller RP (1998) Socioeconomic research in agroforestry: progress, prospects, priorities. Agroforest Syst 38:177–193
National Agricultural Statistics Service (2001) Agriculture economics and land ownership survey (1999). Washington, DC
Newton RR, Rudestam KE (1999) Your statistical consultant: answers to your data analysis questions. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
Nowak PJ, Korsching PF (1998) The human dimension of soil and water conservation: a historical and methodological perspective. In: Pierce FJ, Frye WW (eds) Advances in soil and water conservation. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI
Pannell DJ (1999) Uncertainty and adoption of sustainable farming systems. University of Western Australia, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Nedlands, Australia
Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills EO, Yang J (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agroforest Syst 57:173–186
Raedeke AH, Dunn EG, Rikoon JS, Nilon CH, Kurtz WB (1998) Human dimensions of ecosystem management: a case study of landowner decision making in Brush Creek watershed. University of Missouri College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural Resources, Columbia, MO
Raedeke A, Green JJ, Hodge S, Valdivia C (2003) Farmers, the practice of farming, and the future of agroforestry: an application of Bourdieu’s concepts of field and habitus. Rural Sociol 68:64–86
Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York
Salamon S, Farnsworth RL, Bullock DG, Yusuf R (1997) Family factors affecting adoption of sustainable systems. J Soil Water Conserv 52:265–271
Soule MJ, Tegene A, Wiebe KD (2000) Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. Am J Agric Econ 82:993–1005
Traore N, Landry R, Amara N (1998) On-farm adoption of conservation practices: the role of farm and farmer characteristics, perceptions, and health hazards. Land Econ 74:114–127
Workman SW, Allen SC (2004) The practice and potential of agroforestry in the Southeastern United States. Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, FL
Workman SW, Bannister ME, Nair PKR (2003) Agroforestry potential in the Southeastern United States: perceptions of landowners and extension professionals. Agroforest Syst 59:73–83
Acknowledgements
This work was funded through the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry under cooperative agreements 58-6227-1-004 with the ARS and C R 826704-01-2 with the US EPA. The results presented are the sole responsibility of the authors and/or the University of Missouri and may not represent the policies or positions of the EPA. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the US Department of Agriculture.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arbuckle, J.G., Valdivia, C., Raedeke, A. et al. Non-operator landowner interest in agroforestry practices in two Missouri watersheds. Agroforest Syst 75, 73–82 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9131-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9131-8