Abstract
Agroforestry has been suggested to produce an array of ecological and socio-economic benefits that not only reach their adopters, but society as a whole. In spite of strong evidence of the benefits of agroforestry, there is a lack of understanding of the public perceptions of those benefits, which prevents the development of benefit-based promotion strategies of agroforestry products. Thus, this study examines the awareness of these benefits among residents and explores whether perceptions vary across individuals with different socio-demographic characteristics. An on-line platform was used to survey three panels of residents from Missouri, Pennsylvania and Texas. Overall, respondents had a neutral perception of the importance of the ecological and socio-economic benefits that agroforestry farms provide to society when compared to farms employing conventional agricultural practices. These results stress the need to increase public awareness of agroforestry practices and their benefits to more strategically position their products among the final consumer. Gender, education level, and residence location were significantly associated with the perceived ecological benefits produced by agroforestry farms and to a lesser extent with the socio-economic benefits. Results also showed that females and young individuals have a greater awareness of several benefits produced by agroforestry farms. Critical marketing implications to stimulate the purchase of agroforestry products (e.g., berries, nuts) among specific groups of consumers are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barbieri C, Valdivia C (2010a) Recreation and agroforestry: examining new dimensions of multifunctionality in family farms. J Rural Stud 26(4):465–473
Barbieri C, Valdivia C (2010b) Recreational multifunctionality and its implications for agroforestry diffusion. Agrofor Syst 79(1):5–18
Benayas JR, Bullock JM, Newton AC (2008) Creating woodland islets to reconcile ecological restoration, conservation, and agricultural land use. Front Ecol Environ 6(6):329–336
Burel F (1996) Hedgerows and their role in agricultural landscapes. Crit Rev Plant Sci 15(2):169–190
Cable TT (1999) Nonagricultural benefits of windbreaks in Kansas. Great Plains Res: J Nat Social Sci 9:41–53
Caveness FA, Kurtz WB (1993) Agroforestry adoption and risk perception by farmers in Senegal. Agrofor Sys 21:11–25
Chamberlain J, Mitchell D, Brigham T, Hobby T, Zabek L, Davis J (2009) Forest farming practices. In: Garrett HE (ed) North American Agroforesty: an integrated science and practice. America Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 219–254
Erdman TK (2005) Agroforestry as a tool for restoring forest landscapes. In: Mansourian S, Vallauri D, Dudley N (eds) Forest restoration in landscapes: beyond planting trees. Springer, New York, pp 274–279
Fiallo EA, Jacobson SK (1995) Local communities and protected areas: attitudes of rural residents towards conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environ Conserv 22:241–249
Francis C, Bentrup G, Schoeneberger M, DeKalb M (2003) Integration of woody buffers at three levels of spatial scale in the urban/rural interface in Lincoln—Lancaster County, Nebraska. In Sharrow SH (ed) Proceedings of the North American Agroforestry Conference. Corvallis, Oregon, 116–127
Gao J, Barbieri C, Valdivia C (2013) Agricultural landscape preferences: implications for agritourism development. J Trav Res. doi:10.1177/0047287513496471
Garrett HE, McGraw RL, Walter WD (2009) Alley cropping practices. In: Garrett HE (ed) North American agroforesty: an integrated science and practice. America Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 133–161
Gil Arroyo C, Barbieri C, Valdivia C (2013) Defining agritourism: a comparative study of stakeholders’ perceptions in Missouri and North Carolina. Tour Manag 37:39–47
Gold M, Garrett H (2009) Agroforestry nomenclature, concepts, and practices. In: Garrett HE (ed) North American agroforesty: an integrated science and practice. America Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 45–56
Hunter LM, Hatch A, Johnson A (2004) Cross-national gender variation in environmental behaviors. Soc Sci Quart 85(3):677–694
Jose S (2012) Agroforestry for conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Agrofor Syst 85(1):1–8
Kenwick RA, Shammin MR, Sullivan WC (2009) Preferences for riparian buffers. Landsc Urban Plan 91(2):88–96
Kulshreshtha S, Kort J (2009) External economic benefits and social goods from Prairie shelterbelts. Agrofor Syst 75(1):39–47
Lassoie J, Buck L, Current D (2009) The development of agroforestry as an integrated land use management strategy. In: Garrett HE (ed) North American agroforesty: an integrated science and practice. America Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 1–23
Lovell S, Mendez V, Erickson D, Nathan C, DeSantis S (2010) Extent, pattern, and multifunctionality of treed habitats on farms in Vermont, USA. Agrofor Syst 80(2):153–171
Mertler CA, Vannatta RA (2005) Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: practical application and interpretation, 3rd edn. Pyrczak Publishing, California
Mottiar Z, Quinn D (2004) Couple dynamics in household tourism decision making: women as the gatekeepers? J Vacat Mark 40(1):19–26
O’Cass A (2000) An assessment of consumers product, purchase decision, advertising and consumption involvement in fashion clothing. J Econ Psych 21(5):545–576
Pandey D (2007) Multifunctional agroforestry systems in India. Curr Sci 92(4):455–463
Raedeke A, Green J, 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(1):64–86
Savage I (1993) Demographic influences on risk perceptions. Risk Anal 13(4):313–420
Schoeneberger M (2009) Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon on agricultural lands. Agrofor Syst 75(1):27–37
Schultz RC, Isenhart TM, Colletti JP, Simpkins WW, Udawatta RP, Schultz PL (2009) Riparian and upland buffer practices. In: Garrett HE (ed) North American agroforesty: an integrated science and practice. America Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 163–217
Sirrine D, Shennan C, Snapp S, Kanyama-Phiri G, Kamanga B, Sirrine JR (2010) Improving recommendations resulting from on-farm research: agroforestry, risk, profitability and vulnerability in southern Malawi. Int J Agric Sustain 8(4):290–304
U.S. Census Bureau (2007) County and City Data Book: 2007. http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/ccdb07.html. Accessed 25 July 2011
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2009) Agriculture fact book. http://www.usda.gov/documents/usda-factbook-1999.pdf. Accessed 06 July 2013
USDA: NASS (United States Department of Agriculture: National Agriculture Statistics Service) (2007) 2007 Census of Agriculture: U.S. State Level Data. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2011
Wolgast EH (1958) Do husbands or wives make the purchasing decisions? J Mark 23(2):151–158
Xu J, Chen L, Lu Y, Fu B (2006) Local people’s perceptions as decision support for protected area management in Wolong Biosphere Reserve, China. J Environ Manag 78(4):362–372
Acknowledgments
The authors express their gratitude to University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry for partially funding this project. Our thanks are also due to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their thorough suggestions and comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gao, J., Barbieri, C. & Valdivia, C. A socio-demographic examination of the perceived benefits of agroforestry. Agroforest Syst 88, 301–309 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9683-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9683-8