Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 27–36 | Cite as

Mapping the territory: agroforestry awareness among Washington State land managers

  • J. H. Lawrence
  • L. H. Hardesty


There is growing interest in research to develop potential agroforestry models for temperate climates. In Washington State, recent studies and anecdotal information suggest that agroforestry is already employed by land managers, and if so, this experience should inform future research efforts. Because this population is not well defined, a mail survey was designed to: 1) Assess Washington land manager awareness of agroforestry, 2) assess perceptions of agroforestry as a land management tool, 3) assess the perceived potential opportunities or obstacles for land managers to practice agroforestry, and 4) identify landowner groups believed to be practicing agroforestry in Washington State.

Three groups of land managers were surveyed: employees of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Washington State University Cooperative Extension Service (WSUCE) and OTHER, consisting of university faculty, private land managers, State and Federal land managers and owners of small natural resource businesses.

Agroforestry was not a new concept for most (94%) respondents, further 55% of those familiar with agroforestry were practicing agroforestry or providing advice to landowners who were practicing agroforestry. ‘Use in (government mandated) soil conservation plans’ on farmland (100% of all respondents) was the most frequently cited potential application for agroforestry in the state followed by ‘range and pasture land’ and ‘managing non-commercial forest land’ (both 84%), use on ‘commercial forest plantation’ (83%) and ‘fruit and nut orchards’ (61%).

‘Diversifies land use’ (25%), ‘enhanced productivity’ (18%), ‘aesthetics’ (13%) and ‘income diversity’ (13%) were the four most frequently cited potential advantages to practicing agroforestry. ‘Lack of information’ (28%), ‘lack of technical assistance’ (18%), ‘establishment costs’ (14%) and ‘not an established practice’ (14%) were the most frequently identified potential obstacles to practicing agroforestry. Respondents suggested there is great potential for application of agroforestry throughout the state, and non-industrial private forest land owners were selected for future study of this potential.

Key words

North America Pacific Northwest agroforestry practices survey methodology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Blatner KA, Baumgartner DM and Quackenbush LR (1991) NIPF use of landowner assistance and education programs in Washington State. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 6 (4): 90–94.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dillman DA (1978) Mail and telephone surveys; the total design method. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Force JE and Lee HW (1991) Nonindustrial private forest owners in Idaho. Journal of pplied Forestry (In press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilless K, Lee R, Lippke B and Sommers P (1990) Three-State impact of spotted owl conservation and other timber harvest reductions: a cooperative evaluation of the economic and social impacts. Institute of Forest Resources, #69Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    GoldMA and Hanover JW (1987) Agroforestry systems for the temperate zone. Agroforestry Systems 5: 109–118Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Granatstein D (1982) Tree crops. Land and people: Options of Okanogan Agriculture, pp 61–65 (Xerox copy)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halloin L (1991) Plantation grazing: a feasibility review. Department of Natural Resources, Forest Land Management Division Olympia, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanley DP and Baumgartner DM (1990) Forest and forest products data: Washington State. EB 1557, Washington State Cooperative Extension, Pullman,Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris GA and Chaney M (1984) WashingtonState grazing land assessment. Washington State University Cooperative Extension, Pullman, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lawrence JH (1991) The agroforestry practices of non-industrial private forest land-owners in Washington State. Unpublished Manuscript, Washington State University, Pullman Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    MacDicken KG and Vergara NT, eds, (1990) Agroforestry: classification and management. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Microsoft (1989) Microsoft: Excell 2.2. Microsoft, Seattle, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mollison B (1988) Permaculture. Tagari Publications, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nair PKR (1985) Classification of agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 3: 97–128Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nair PKR (1987) Agroforestry systems inventory. Agroforestry Systems 5: 301–317Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Task Force on Conservation and Management of Natural Resources (1990) Task Force Report: Conservation and management of natural resources. Washington State University College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, Washingtonm, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korn L, Snyder B and Musick M, eds, (1982) The Future Is Abundant: A Guide to Sustainable Agriculture. Tilth, Arlington, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    USDA Forest Service (1982) An Analysis of the timber situation in the United States — 1952–2030. Forest Resources Report, No 23Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weatherhead DJ, Chapman RC and Kelso WH (1982) Characteristics of NIPF land-owners o Spokane Country, Washington. Research Bulletin XB 0928, Agricultural Research Center, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wetton CE (1988) A survey of private forest land owners in British Columbia. FRDA, Report 044, Forest Resource Development Agreement, Victoria, British Columbia, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wood PJ (1990) The scope and potential of agroforestry. Outlook on Agriculture, 19: 141–146Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. H. Lawrence
    • 1
  • L. H. Hardesty
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Natural Resource SciencesWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations