Understanding the values behind farmer perceptions of trees on farms to increase adoption of agroforestry in Australia
Agriculture faces increasing sustainability pressures. Land intensification and degradation, energy use and inputs, complex environmental management, social issues facing farming communities and climate change are just some of the headline sustainability concerns threatening the viability of farming. Simultaneously, there is a need to increase food and fibre production and resource use efficiency. For many of these sustainability issues, increasing the number of trees planted in agricultural systems, or agroforestry, can improve the productivity and sustainability of future rural agricultural landscapes. In many parts of the world, the benefits of agroforestry remain under-realised. To understand the reasons behind this, interviews were conducted with 44 predominantly mixed enterprise farmers and farm advisors in Tasmania, Australia. Discourse analysis identified three groups of values driving perceptions and behaviours relating to agroforestry, trees as an economic proposition, trees as uneconomic and trees as essential regardless of economics. Previous work has identified many complex factors contributing to the lack of tree planting on farms including failures of past reforestation schemes, lack of awareness of the benefits of trees, perceptions of market volatility and risk, or simply a lack of time and money. This is one of the first times the underlying social norms and values creating perceptions of agroforestry have been identified. These new insights allow extension programs to tailor recommendations to identified groups based on perceptions of agroforestry. Evaluating these perceptions also allows new perspectives on opportunities for agroforestry adoption to be created, both in Tasmania and more broadly.
KeywordsFarm forestry Benefits of trees Reforestation Farmer motivations Farmer values Behaviour change Discourse analysis
Ethics approval was granted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s human research ethics committee (103/16). This work was funded through the Commonwealth Government’s Rural Research and Development for Profit grant entitled ‘Lifting farm gate profit through high value modular agroforestry’. We acknowledge the support of our partner organisations, Forest and Wood Products Australia, Dairy Australia, Forico and Greening Australia. Special thanks to all of the farmers and growers interviewed and to Private Forests Tasmania and RMCG for help with data collection.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- ABARES Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (2018) http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/aboutmyregion/tas. Accessed 6 Nov 2018
- Bazeley P, Jacson K (2013) Qualitative data analysis with NVIVO. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Charmaz C (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Chavasse CGR (1982) Management of shelterbelts for wood products. N Z J For 27:189–206Google Scholar
- Cunningham SC, Cavagnaro TR, Mac Nally R, Paul KI, Baker PJ, Beringer J, Thomson JR, Thompson RM (2015) Reforestation with native mixed-species plantings in a temperate continental climate effectively sequesters and stabilizes carbon within decades. Glob Chang Biol 21(4):1552–1566. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12746 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fairclough N (2001) Language and power, 2nd edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
- FAO (2013) Advancing agroforestry on the policy agenda: a guide for decision-makers. In: Buttoud G, Ajayi O, Detlefsen G, Place F et al (eds) Agroforestry working paper, vol 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO, Rome, p 37Google Scholar
- Farm of the Future (2016) http://www.takepart.com/feature/2016/11/28/agroforestry-us-farms. Accessed 5 Nov 2018
- Fleming A, Wilson S, Measham P (2014) Research to practice—a case study in relationship building for successful extension. Rural Ex Innov Syst J 10:1–10Google Scholar
- Fleming A, Jakku E, Lim-Camacho L, Taylor B, Thorburn P (2018) Is big data for big farming or for everyone? Perceptions in the Australian grains industry. Agron Sustain Dev 38(24):23–33Google Scholar
- Klerkx L, van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C (2012) Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. In: Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B (eds) Farming systems research into the 21st century: the new dynamic. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 359–385Google Scholar
- Love, C (n.d.) Evolution of Landcare in Australia: In the context of Australian Government natural resource management policy and programs. Australian Landcare Council http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/natural-resources/landcare/publications/evolution-of-landcare.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2018
- McDonald R, Aljabar L, Aubuchon C, Birnbaum H, Chandler C, Toomey B, Daley J, Jimenez W, Trieschman E, Paque J, Zeiper M (2018) Funding trees for health. The nature conservancy, Virginia, USA https://global.nature.org/content/funding-trees-for-health. Accessed 30 Jul 2018Google Scholar
- Ogilvy S (2015) Developing the ecological balance sheet for agricultural sustainability. Sustain Accoun Manag Policy J 6:110–137Google Scholar
- Powell J (2009) Fifteen years of Joint Venture Agroforestry program - Foundation Research for Australia's tree crop revolution. Canberra, Australia, Rural Industries Research and Development CorporationGoogle Scholar
- Pretty G, Bishop B, Fisher A, Sonn C (2006) Psychological sense of community and its relevance to well-being and everyday life in Australia. The Australian Psychological Society, Victoria https://groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Community-Updated-Sept061.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2018Google Scholar