, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 593–604 | Cite as

Partnering with cattle ranchers for forest landscape restoration

  • Alicia CalleEmail author
Research Article


Transforming Latin America’s extensive grazing systems is critical for forest landscape restoration (FLR) but conservation initiatives rarely make efforts to include cattle ranchers. Engaging ranchers requires understanding their perceptions about how improved management and conservation practices fit into their overall production strategy. To assess ranchers’ motivations and limitations for adopting conservation-friendly practices, I surveyed 191 ranchers and extension agents participating in a silvopastoral project in Colombia. I found that ranchers are integrating multiple practices they perceive as complementary for achieving their goals: practices aimed at improving productivity are motivated by utilitarian values, while practices targeting environmental degradation and climate change are driven by stewardship and identity values. Input costs and labor shortages currently limit the expansion of conservation-friendly practices, but in-kind support and small cash payments could potentially alleviate these barriers. Silvopastoral ranchers can be instrumental partners in FLR provided that initiatives are designed with their perspectives in mind.


Climate change Conservation-friendly agriculture Extension agents Forest landscape restoration (FLR) Payments for ecosystem services Silvopastoral systems 



I am thankful to all the ranchers and extension agents who participated in this study. I also thank Karen Holl, Josie Lesage, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback to improve this manuscript. This research was supported by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the University of California’s Research and Innovation Fellowship for Agriculture (RIFA) Fellowship. Logistical support was provided by CIPAV and Proyecto Ganadería Colombiana Sostenible.

Supplementary material

13280_2019_1224_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1541 kb)


  1. Amézquita, M.C., E. Murgueitio, M.A. Ibrahim, and B. Ramírez. 2010. Carbon sequestration in pasture and silvopastoral systems compared with native forests in ecosystems of tropical America. Grassland Carbon Sequestration: Management, Policy and Economics 11: 153–161.Google Scholar
  2. Asner, G.P., A.J. Elmore, L.P. Olander, R.E. Martin, and A.T. Harris. 2004. Grazing systems, ecosystem responses, and global change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 29: 261–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayanlade, A., M. Radeny, and J.F. Morton. 2017. Comparing smallholder farmers’ perception of climate change with meteorological data: A case study from southwestern Nigeria. Weather and Climate Extremes 15: 24–33. Scholar
  4. Brain, R.G., M.E. Hostetler, and T.A. Irani. 2014. Why do cattle ranchers participate in conservation easement agreements? Key motivators in decision making. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38: 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broom, D.M., F.A. Galindo, and E. Murgueitio. 2013. Sustainable, efficient livestock production with high biodiversity and good welfare for animals. Proceeding of the Royal Society B: Biological Science 280: 20132025. Scholar
  6. Calle, A., F. Montagnini, and A. Zuluaga. 2009. Farmers’ perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in Quindío, Colombia. Bois et forets des tropiques 300: 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calle, Z., E. Murgueitio, J. Chará, C.H. Molina, A.F. Zuluaga, and A. Calle. 2013. A strategy for scaling-up intensive silvopastoral systems in Colombia. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 32: 677–693. Scholar
  8. Chan, K.M.A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Gould, N. Hannahs, et al. 2016. Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113: 1462–1465. Scholar
  9. Chan, K.M.A., E. Anderson, M. Chapman, K. Jespersen, and P. Olmsted. 2017. Payments for ecosystem services: Rife with problems and potential—for transformation towards sustainability. Ecological Economics 140: 110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clearfield, F., and B.T. Osgood. 1986. Sociological aspects of the adoption of conservation practices, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Soil Conservation Service.Google Scholar
  11. Dagang, A.B.K., and P.K.R. Nair. 2003. Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent findings and recommendations for future directions. Agroforestry Systems 59: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeMartino, S., F. Kondylis, and A. Zwager. 2017. Protecting the environment: For love or money? The role of motivation and incentives in shaping demand for Payments for Environmental Services programs. Public Finance Review 45: 68–96. Scholar
  13. Elum, Z.A., D.M. Modise, and A. Marr. 2017. Farmer’s perception of climate change and responsive strategies in three selected provinces of South Africa. Climate Risk Management 16: 246–257. Scholar
  14. Falk, A., and E. Fehr. 2002. Psychological foundations of incentives. European Economic Review 46: 687–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO. 2006. Livestock report Subdirectorate of policies and support in electronic publishing. Rome: FAO. (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  16. Farmer, J.R., D. Knapp, V.J. Meretsky, C. Chancellor, and B.C. Fischer. 2011. Motivations influencing the adoption of conservation easements. Conservation Biology 25: 827–834. Scholar
  17. Fedegan, 2013. Analysis of the Colombian livestock inventory. Behavior and explanatory variables. Bogotá DC: Fedegan. (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  18. Frey, G.E., H.E. Fassola, A.N. Pachas, L. Colcombet, S.M. Lacorte, O. Pérez, M. Renkow, S.T. Warren, et al. 2012. Perceptions of silvopasture systems among adopters in northeast Argentina. Agricultural Systems 105: 21–32. Scholar
  19. Garbach, K., M. Lubell, and F.A.J.J. DeClerck. 2012. Payment for Ecosystem Services: The roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 156: 27–36. Scholar
  20. Garen, E.J., K. Saltonstall, M.S. Ashton, J.L. Slusser, S. Mathias, and J.S. Hall. 2011. The tree planting and protecting culture of cattle ranchers and small-scale agriculturalists in rural Panama: Opportunities for reforestation and land restoration. Forest Ecology and Management 261: 1684–1695. Scholar
  21. Gibbs, H.K., A.S. Ruesch, F. Achard, M.K. Clayton, P. Holmgren, N. Ramankutty, and J.A. Foley. 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 16732–16737. Scholar
  22. Graesser, J., T.M. Aide, H.R. Grau, and N. Ramankutty. 2015. Cropland/pastureland dynamics and the slowdown of deforestation in Latin America. Environmental Research Letters 10: 1–10. Scholar
  23. Greiner, R., and O. Stanley. 2013. More than money for conservation: Exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31: 4–10. Scholar
  24. Greiner, R., L. Patterson, and O. Miller. 2009. Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agricultural Systems 99: 86–104. Scholar
  25. Harvey, C.A., O. Komar, R.L. Chazdon, B.G. Ferguson, B. Finegan, D.M. Griffith, M. Martinez-Ramos, H. Morales, et al. 2008. Integrating agricultural landscapes with biodiversity conservation in the Mesoamerican hotspot. Conservation Biology 22: 8–15. Scholar
  26. Hayes, T.M. 2012. Payment for ecosystem services, sustained behavioural change, and adaptive management: Peasant perspectives in the Colombian Andes. Environmental Conservation 39: 144–153. Scholar
  27. Hecht, S.B. 1993. The logic of livestock and deforestation in Amazonia. BioScience 43: 687–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hinds, J., and P. Sparks. 2008. Engaging with the natural environment: The role of affective connection and identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IUCN, and WRI. 2014. A guide to the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology (ROAM): Assessing forest landscape restoration opportunities at the national or sub-national level. Edited by WRI and IUCN. Gland, Switzerland: Working paper (road-test edition), IUCN.Google Scholar
  30. Kammin, L.A., P.D. Hubert, R.E. Warner, and P.C. Mankin. 2009. Private lands programs and lessons learned in Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 973–979. Scholar
  31. Kosoy, N., M. Martinez-Tuna, R. Muradian, and J. Martinez-Alier. 2007. Payments for environmental services in watersheds: Insights from a comparative study of three cases in Central America. Ecological Economics 61: 446–455. Scholar
  32. Lamb, D. 2014. Large-scale forest restoration. 1st ed. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Latawiec, A.E., B.B.N. Strassburg, P.H.S. Brancalion, R.R. Rodrigues, and T. Gardner. 2015. Creating space for large-scale restoration in tropical agricultural landscapes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13: 211–218. Scholar
  34. Latawiec, A.E., B.B.N. Strassburg, D. Silva, H.N. Alves-Pinto, R. Feltran-Barbieri, A. Castro, A. Iribarrem, M.C. Rangel, et al. 2017. Improving land management in Brazil: A perspective from producers. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 240: 276–286. Scholar
  35. Lerner, A.M., T.K. Rudel, L.C. Schneider, M. McGroddy, D.V. Burbano, and C.F. Mena. 2015. The spontaneous emergence of silvo-pastoral landscapes in the Ecuadorian Amazon: Patterns and processes. Regional Environmental Change 15: 1421–1431. Scholar
  36. Mansourian, S., and D. Vallauri, ed. 2005. Forest restoration in landscapes: Beyond planting trees. Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Mcadam, J.H., A.R. Sibbald, Z. Teklehaimanot, and W.R. Eason. 2007. Developing silvopastoral systems and their effects on diversity of fauna. Agroforestry Systems 70: 81–89. Scholar
  38. Meyfroidt, P., T.K. Rudel, and E.F. Lambin. 2010. Forest transitions, trade, and the global displacement of land use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 20917–20922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Murgueitio, E., and M. Ibrahim. 2008. Cattle ranching and the environment in Latin America. In Cattle ranching for the future: Research for development, ed. E Murgueitio, C. Cuartas, and J. Naranjo, 19–39. Cali, Colombia: CIPAV, Fundación.Google Scholar
  40. Murgueitio, E., Z. Calle, F. Uribe, A. Calle, and B. Solorio. 2011. Native trees and shrubs for the productive rehabilitation of tropical cattle ranching lands. Forest Ecology and Management 261: 1654–1663. Scholar
  41. Pagiola, S., and A. R. Rios. 2013. Evaluation of the impact of Payments for Environmental Services on land use change in Quindío, Colombia. PES Learning Papers. Washington DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  42. Pattanayak, S.K., S. Wunder, and P.J. Ferraro. 2010. Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 4: 254–274. Scholar
  43. Ramankutty, N., A.T. Evan, C. Monfreda, and J.A. Foley. 2008. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 22: 1–19. Scholar
  44. Sorice, M.G., J.R. Conner, U.P. Kreuter, and R.N. Wilkins. 2012. Centrality of the ranching lifestyle and attitudes toward a voluntary incentive program to protect endangered species. Rangeland Ecology & Management 65: 144–152. Scholar
  45. Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, and C. De Haan. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental issues and options. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  46. Stern, M.J., and K.J. Coleman. 2015. The multidimensionality of trust: Applications in collaborative natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 28: 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strassburg, B.B.N., A.E. Latawiec, L.G. Barioni, C.A. Nobre, V.P. da Silva, J.F. Valentim, M. Vianna, and E.D. Assad. 2014. When enough should be enough: Improving the use of current agricultural lands could meet production demands and spare natural habitats in Brazil. Global Environmental Change 28: 84–97. Scholar
  48. Swann, E. 2016. What factors influence the effectiveness of financial incentives on long-term natural resource management practice change? Evidence Base. Scholar
  49. van Oosten, C. 2013. Restoring landscapes-governing place: A learning approach to Forest Landscape Restoration. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 32: 659–676. Scholar
  50. Vatn, A. 2010. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 69: 1245–1252. Scholar
  51. Wilcove, D.S., and J. Lee. 2004. Using economic and regulatory incentives to restore endangered species: lessons learned from three new programs. Conservation Biology 18: 639–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Studies DepartmentUniversity of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations