Abstract
Agroforestry, with its wide range of economic, ecological, and social benefits, provides a sustainable alternative to contemporary agriculture linked today to many environmental and social problems. However, on-the-ground adoption and dissemination of U.S. agroforestry remains limited despite advances in research on its application, benefits, and potential. Few studies have explored factors influencing agroforestry adoption and dissemination bottlenecks in the U.S., and they usually do not cover temporal aspects of agroforestry adoption. A review of the temporal dynamics of agroforestry adoption in the U.S. showed its importance for understanding the innovation-decision process and the complexity of agroforestry practice adoption. An in-depth study was conducted focusing on the timeline of agroforestry adoption by practitioners across the U.S. who have implemented an agroforestry project with the support from the USDA SARE program. Results highlight the importance of personal values and character traits, availability of information and support, and access to land as factors influencing adoption. The long period of agroforestry practice establishment prior to returns on investment results in longer innovation-to-decision periods and implementation-to-confirmation periods. The study suggests using innovation-to-confirmation instead of innovation-to-decision periods to more accurately reflect the adoption dynamics. To better understand agroforestry adoption and dissemination, results point to the need to incorporate temporal aspects and establish longitudinal research on different types of agroforestry practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arbuckle JG, Valdivia C, Raedeke A, Green J, Rikoon JS (2009) Non-operator landowner interest in agroforestry practices in two Missouri watersheds. Agroforest Syst 75:73–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9131-8
Beal GM, Rogers EM (1960) The adoption of two farm practices in a central Iowa community 21.
Brockington JD, Harris IM, Brook RM (2016) Beyond the project cycle: a medium-term evaluation of agroforestry adoption and diffusion in a south Indian village. Agroforest Syst 90:489–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9872-0
Browder JO, Wynne RH, Pedlowski MA (2005) Agroforestry diffusion and secondary forest regeneration in the Brazilian Amazon: further findings from the Rondônia agroforestry pilot project (1992–2002). Agroforest Syst 65:99–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-004-6375-9
Creswell JW (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles
Decré BH (2019) Talking about agroforestry: non-economic motivations and advocacy. Savanna Institute Perennial Farm Gathering, Dubuque, Iowa. Poster presentation.
Gamboa VG, Barkmann J, Marggraf R (2010) Social network effects on the adoption of agroforestry species: Preliminary results of a study on differences on adoption patterns in Southern Ecuador. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 4:71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.484
Gold MA, Garrett HE (2022) Agroforestry nomenclature, concepts and practices, Chapter 2. In: Garrett HE, Jose S, Gold MA (eds) North American Agroforestry, 3rd edn. Agronomy Society of America, Madison, WI (in press)
Harhash ME, Sembokuya Y, Fayed AA, El-Feel KT, Abdlluh GA (2012) Diffusion of corn silage and its prescribing factors in egyptian agriculture. Indian J Agricult Res 46:110–118
Jacobson M, Kar S (2013) Extent of agroforestry extension programs in the United States. J Extension 51, Article 4RIB4.
Johansson K-E, Axelsson R, Kimanzu N, Sassi SO, Bwana E, Otsyina R (2013) The pattern and process of adoption and scaling up: variation in project outcome reveals the importance of multilevel collaboration in agroforestry development. Sustainability 5:5195–5224. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5125195
Keil A, Zeller M, Franzel S (2005) Improved tree fallows in smallholder maize production in Zambia: do initial testers adopt the technology? Agroforest Syst 64:225–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-004-2410-0
Kiptot E, Hebinck P, Franzel S, Richards P (2007) Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya. Agric Syst 94:509–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.01.002
Latika V (2012) Innovation - decision behaviour of tribal women of udaipur district regarding vermiculture technology. Work 5009–5018. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0046-5009
Lawrence JH, Hardesty LH (1992) Mapping the territory: agroforestry awareness among Washington State land managers. Agroforest Syst 19:27–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00130092
Lawrence JH, Hardesty LH, Chapman RC, Gill SJ (1992) Agroforestry practices of non-industrial private forest landowners in Washington State. Agroforest Syst 19:37–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00130093
Mayerfeld D, Rickenbach M, Rissman A (2016) Overcoming history: attitudes of resource professionals and farmers toward silvopasture in southwest Wisconsin. Agrofor Syst 90:723–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9954-7
Mercer DE (2004) Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: A review. Agrofor Syst 61:311–328. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029007.85754.70
Nair PR (2007) The coming of age of agroforestry. J Sci Food Agric 87:1613–1619. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2897
Pattanayak SK, Evan Mercer D, Sills E, Yang J-C (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor Syst 57:173–186. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024809108210
Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice, Fourth, edition. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, California
Rois-Díaz M, Lovric N, Lovric M, Ferreiro-Domínguez N, Mosquera-Losada MR, den Herder M, Graves A, Palma JHN, Paulo JA, Pisanelli A, Smith J, Moreno G, García S, Varga A, Pantera A, Mirck J, Burgess P (2018) Farmers’ reasoning behind the uptake of agroforestry practices: evidence from multiple case-studies across Europe. Agrofor Syst 92:811–828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0139-9
Romanova O (2020) Factors ingluencing practitioner adoption of agroforestry: A USDA SARE case study. (M.S.). University of Missouri--Columbia.
SARE AF projects DB (2020) Index of sustainable agriculture research and education agroforestry grants [WWW Document]. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/resources/usda-programs/sare-agroforestry-grants/index.php (Accessed 4.5.20).
Scherr S, Franzel S (2002) Trees on the farm: assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in Africa.
Stake RE (1995) The art of case study research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Stanek EC, Lovell ST (2019) Building multifunctionality into agricultural conservation programs: lessons learned from designing agroforestry systems with central Illinois landowners. Renewable Agric Food Syst. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170518000601
Stutzman E, Barlow RJ, Morse W, Monks D, Teeter L (2019) Targeting educational needs based on natural resource professionals’ familiarity, learning, and perceptions of silvopasture in the southeastern U.S. Agrofor Syst 93:345–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0260-4
Trozzo KE, Munsell JF, Chamberlain JL, Aust WM (2014) Potential adoption of agroforestry riparian buffers based on landowner and streamside characteristics. J Soil Water Conserv 69:140–150. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.69.2.140
USDA/NASS (2017) 2017 Census of Agriculture [WWW Document]. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/index.php (Accessed 4.16.19).
Valdivia C, Barbieri C, Gold MA (2012) Between forestry and farming: policy and environmental implications of the barriers to agroforestry adoption. Canadian J Agricult Econom/revue Canadienne D’agroeconomie 60:155–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2012.01248.x
Verma P, Bijalwan A, Dobriyal MJR, Swamy SL, Thakur TK (2017) A paradigm shift in agroforestry practices in Uttar Pradesh. Curr Sci 112:509. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v112/i03/509-516
Workman SW, Bannister ME, Nair PKR (2003) Agroforestry potential in the southeastern United States: perceptions of landowners and extension professionals. Agrofor Syst 59:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026193204801
Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods, Fifth edition. ed. SAGE, Los Angeles.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry and USDA/ARS Dale Bumpers Small Farm Research Center, Agreement number 58-6020-6-001 from the USDA Agricultural Research Service. It was also supported by the Institute for International Education through the Fulbright Scholar program. Approval for this research was obtained from the University of Missouri Campus Institutional Review Board. All research participants provided informed consent.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
IRB approval attached.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Romanova, O., Gold, M. & Hendrickson, M. Temporal aspects of agroforestry adoption: SARE case study. Agroforest Syst 96, 659–668 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00708-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00708-5