Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating agroforestry intercropping systems in contrasted agricultural landscapes: a SWOT-AHP analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agroforestry intercropping systems have been developed as an alternative to conventional monocropping systems to address environmental, social and economic issues in a wide array of agricultural contexts. As research on the biological properties of these systems tends to demonstrate their potential, fostering their integration in agricultural landscapes requires an in-depth understanding of local stakeholders’ perceptions. Our study used the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats approach in combination with the analytical hierarchy process (SWOT-AHP) to investigate the factors influencing local stakeholders’ decision to integrate agroforestry intercropping systems in two Regional County Municipalities and their perception of the relative suitability of three agroforestry intercropping system designs (crop-oriented, tree-oriented and landscape aesthetic-oriented). We conducted focus groups with farmers, farm and forestry advisors, urban planners and local authorities in a very intensive and a very extensive agricultural landscape in Quebec (Canada) and compared the results between stakeholders within and across the areas. Our results show that social factors seem to have more impact than biophysical factors on the decision to integrate agroforestry intercropping systems in intensive and extensive agricultural landscapes. The relative value given to the decision factors varies greatly across stakeholders’ categories and areas. Agroforestry intercropping systems designed to meet crop production needs or landscape aesthetic purposes are perceived as more suitable in both agricultural contexts than the tree-oriented design. Our results highlight crucial issues for agroforestry intercropping system deployment and the development of relevant agroforestry system designs through collective decision-making processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Source: Authors’ compilation

Fig. 5

Source: Authors’ compilation

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aczel J, Saaty TL (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. J Math Psychol 27:93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(83)90028-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O (2004) Funcions, leitbilder, and Red lists—expression of an integrative landscape concept. In: Brandt J, Vejre H (eds) Multifunctional landscapes, vol 1. Theory, values and history. WIT Press, Boston, pp 75–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Boothroyd-Roberts K, Gagnon D, Truax B (2013) Can hybrid poplar plantations accelerate the restoration of forest understory attributes on abandoned fields? For Ecol Manag 287:77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.09.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bürgi M, Hersperger AM, Schneeberger N (2004) Driving forces of landscape change—current and new directions. Landsc Ecol 19:857–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-005-0245-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camilli F, Pisanelli A, Seddaiu G, Franca A, Bondesan V, Rosati A, Moreno GM, Pantera A, Hermansen JE, Burgess PJ (2017) How local stakeholders perceive agroforestry systems: an Italian perspective. Agrofor Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0127-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CANSIM (2011) Table 004-0200—census of agriculture, farms classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) every 5 years

  • De Baets N, Gariépy S, Vézina A (2007) Portrait de l’agroforesterie au Québec. Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Doblas-Miranda E, Paquette A, Work TT (2014) Intercropping trees’ effect on soil oribatid diversity in agro-ecosystems. Agrofor Syst 88:671–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-014-9680-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escribano M, Mesias FJ, Horrillo A, Elghannam A, Gaspar P (2016) Stakeholders’ visions on environmental and economic benefits from dehesa agroforsetry systems: a Delphi approach. Paper presented at the 3rd European Agroforestry Conference, Montpellier, France, 23–25 May, 2016

  • Fagerholm N, Torralba M, Burgess PJ, Plieninger T (2016) A systematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry. Ecol Ind 62:47–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godsey LD, Mercer ED, Grala RK, Grado SC, Alavalapati RR (2009) Agroforestry economics and policy. In: Garrett HE (ed) Norh American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 315–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Grandgirard D, Carre F, Leclercq C, Chemin F, Beauchamp M, Liagre F (2016) Experts’ perceptions of potential ecosystem services from agroforestry and other agro-ecological alternatives. Paper presented at the 3rd European Agroforestry Conference, Montpellier, France

  • Hesse-Biber SN (2010) Mixed Methods research. Merging theory with practices. Guilford Press, New York, 242 p

    Google Scholar 

  • ISQ (Quebec Statistic institute) (2014) General data on Charlevoix-Est. http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/profils/region_03/impr_mrc_03_015.htm. Accessed 26 May 2016

  • Klein AM, Boreux V, Bauhus J, Chappell MJ, Fischer J, Philpott SM (2014) Forest islands in an agricultural sea. In: Kettle CJ, Koh LP (eds) Global forest fragmentation. CABI, Wallingford, pp 79–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurttila M, Pesonen M, Kangas J, Kajanus M (2000) Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis—a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. For Policy Econ 1(1):41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(99)00004-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lacombe S, Bradley RL, Hamel C, Beaulieu C (2009) Do tree-based intercropping systems increase the diversity and stability of soil microbial communities? Agr Ecosyst Environ 131:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.08.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laroche G, Olivier A (2015) Contexte politique québécois et pratique de l’agroforesterie: état des lieux. For Chron 91:524–533. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2015-091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence JH, Hardesty LH, Chapman RC, Gill SJ (1992) Agroforestry practices of non-industrial private forest landowners in Washington State. Agrofor Syst 19:37–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00130093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews S, Pease SM, Gordon AM, Williams PA (1993) Landowner perceptions and the adoption of agroforestry practices in Southern Ontario, Canada. Agrofor Syst 21:159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/Bf00705227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattia CM, Lovell ST, Davis A (2016) Identifying barriers and motivators for adoption of multifunctional perennial cropping systems by landowners in the Upper Sangamon River Watershed. Agrofor Syst, Illinois. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-0053-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan D, Krueger RA (1998) The focus group kit. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, p 109

    Google Scholar 

  • Naveh Z (2000) What is holistic landscape ecology? A conceptual introduction. Landsc Urban Plan 50:7–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00077-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisanelli A, Marandola D, Marongiu S, Paris P, Rosati A, Romano R (2014) The role of Rural Development Policy in supporting agroforestry systems in EU. In: Palma JHN, Chalmin A (eds) 2nd European Agroforestry Conference: integrating science & policy to promote agroforestry practice, Cottbus, Germany, pp 22–25

  • Rivest D, Cogliastro A, Vanasse A, Olivier A (2009) Production of soybean associated with different hybrid poplar clones in a tree-based intercropping system in southwestern Quebec, Canada. Agr Ecosyst Environ 131:51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.08.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivest D, Lorente M, Olivier A, Messier C (2013) Soil biochemical properties and microbial resilience in agroforestry systems: effects on wheat growth under controlled drought and flooding conditions. Sci Total Environ 463(464):51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.071

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rois-Díaz M, Lovric N, Ferreiro-Domínguez N, Mosquera-Losada MR, den Herder M, Graves A, Palma JHN, Paulo JA, Pisanelli A, Smith J, Moreno G, Garcia S, Varga A, Pantera A, Mirck J, Burgess P (2017) Farmers’ reasoning behind the uptake of agroforestry practices: evidence from multiple case-studies across Europe. Agrofor Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0139-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz J, Domon G (2009) Analysis of landscape pattern change trajectories within areas of intensive agricultural use: case study in a watershed of southern Quèbec, Canada. Landsc Ecol 24:419–432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9321-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2010) Principia Mathematica Decernendi. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2001) Models, methods, concepts and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sassenrath GF, Halloran JM, Archer D, Raper RL, Hendrickson J, Vadas P, Hanson J (2010) Drivers impacting the adoption of sustainable agricultural management practices and production systems of the Northeast and Southeast United States. J Sustain Agric 34:680–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2010.493412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saucier JP, et al. (2009) Chapitre 4—Ecologie forestiere. In: OIFQ (ed) Manuel de foresterie Québec, Canada, pp 165–316

  • Sereke F, Dobricki M, Wilkes J, Kaeser A, Graves AR, Szerencsits E, Herzog F (2016) Swiss farmers don’t adopt agroforestry because they fear for their reputation. Agrofor Syst 90:385–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9861-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JRR, Kalmbacher RS (2004) Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: an application of SWOT-AHP method. Agric Syst 81:185–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2003.09.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith J, Pearce BD, Wolfe MS (2011) Reconciling productivity with protection of the environment: is temperate agroforestry the answer? Renew Agric Food Syst 28:80–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174217051100058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tartera C, Rivest D, Olivier A, Liagre F, Cogliastro A (2012) Agroforesterie en développement: parcours comparés du Québec et de la France. For Chron 88:21–29. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2012-007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Burgess PJ, Moreno G, Plieninger T (2016) Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 230:150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valdivia C, Poulos C (2009) Factors affecting farm operators’ interest in incorporating riparian buffers and forest farming practices in northeast and southeast Missouri. Agrofor Syst 75:61–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-008-9129-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank the stakeholders from Charlevoix-Est and Les Maskoutains who participated in the focus groups, Catherine Mercier for her precious help and Professor Tomas L. Saaty for insightful comments and suggestions on the methodology of SWOT-AHP and the data analysis. This research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the Institut EDS of Université Laval.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de phytologie, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

    Geneviève Laroche & Alain Olivier

  2. École d’urbanisme et d’architecture du paysage, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Gérald Domon

  3. Département des sciences du bois et de la forêt, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

    Nancy Gélinas

  4. Département d’économie agroalimentaire et des sciences de la consommation, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

    Maurice Doyon

Authors
  1. Geneviève Laroche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gérald Domon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nancy Gélinas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maurice Doyon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alain Olivier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geneviève Laroche.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Laroche, G., Domon, G., Gélinas, N. et al. Integrating agroforestry intercropping systems in contrasted agricultural landscapes: a SWOT-AHP analysis of stakeholders’ perceptions. Agroforest Syst 93, 947–959 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0191-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0191-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation