Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agroforestry development: An environmental economic perspective

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agroforestry systems (AFS) provide a mix of market goods and nonmarket goods and services. We postulate that if nonmarket goods and services can be internalized to the benefit of landowners, the adoption of AFS will increase. Using the theory of externality as a conceptual framework, this paper provides an environmental economic logic for developing incentive policies to internalize environmental services especially in the industrialized countries. Specifically, the paper addresses the following questions with focus on North America in general and southern United States in particular: What is the effect of environmental costs and benefits on the adoption of silvopasture? Do households care for carbon sequestration, water quality improvement, and biodiversity associated with silvopasture? Will they be willing to pay for them? If so, how much? Will ranchers adopt more silvopasture if incentives are provided? Which incentive policy, a price premium or a direct payment, is more effective? It has been found that the profitability of silvopasture would increase, relative to conventional ranching, if environmental services are included. Estimates of public willingness to pay for environmental services associated with silvopasture and estimates of ranchers' willingness to accept for the adoption of silvopasture will provide a scientific basis for policy development.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AdamowiczW., Boxall P., Williams M. and Louviere J. 1998. Stated preference approach for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agr Econ 80: 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavalapati J.R.R. and Nair P.K. 2001. Socioeconomic and institutional perspectives of agroforestry. pp. 71–81. In: Palo M. and Uusivuori J. (eds) World Forests, Society, and Environment-Markets and Policies. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boggess C.F., Flaig E.G. and Fluck R.C. 1995. Phosphorus budget-basin relationships for Lake Okeechobee tributary basins. Ecol Eng 5: 143–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cameron T.A., Poe G.L., Ethier R.G. and Schulze W.D. 2002. Alternative non-market value-elicitation: Are the underlying preference the same? J Environ Econ Manag 44: 391–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clason T.R. 1995. Economic implications of silvipastures on southern pine plantations. Agroforest Syst 29: 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase R.H. 1960. The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3: 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase R.H. 1992. The institutional structure of production. Am Econ Rev 82(4): 713–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper J.C. and Keim R.W. 1996. Incentive payments to encourage farmer adoption of water quality protection practices. Am J Agr Econ 78: 54–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAS 2002. Beef cattle and calf inventory by county: Livestock, dairy, and poultry summary, Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl/.

  • Feather P., Hellerstein D. and Hansen.L 1999. Economic valuation of environmental benefits and the targeting of conservation programs: The case of the CRP. Washington DC, USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 778.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder J. 2001. Coase Thorem 1–2–3. Am Econ 45: 54–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett H.E., Rietveld W.J. and Fisher R.F. (eds) 2000. North American Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, 402 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grado S.C., Hovermale C.H. and Louis D.J.S. 2001. A financial analysis of a silvopasture system in southern Mississippi. Agroforest Syst 53: 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey R. and Havens K. 1999. Lake Okeechobee Action Plan. Lake Okeechobee Issue Team for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, 43 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heimlich R.E., Wiebe K.D., Claassen R., Gadsby D. and House R.M. 1998 Wetlands and agriculture: Private interests and public benefits. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. AER765, Washington DC. 104 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury L. and Boggess W. 1999. An economic analysis of riparian landowners' willingness to participate in Oregon's Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Selected paper for the annual meeting of the Agricultural Economics Association, August 8–11, Nashville, Tennessee. 15 pp.

  • Kuhfeld W.F., Tobias R.D. and Garratt M. 1994. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. J Marketing Res 31: 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lant C.L. 1991. Potential of the Conservation Reserve Program to control agricultural surface water pollution. Environ Manage 15: 507–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohr L., Park T. 1994. Discrete/continuous choices in contingent valuation surveys: Conservation decisions inMichigan. Rev Agri Econ 16: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis J.B., Kent P., Strange L., Fausch K. and Covich A. 2000. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33: 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A. and Swait J.D. 2000. State Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 402 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundgren G.K., Conner J.R. and Pearson H.A. 1983. An economic analysis of forest grazing on four timber management situation. South J Appl For 7: 119–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. pp. 105–142. In: Zarembka P. (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milon J.W., Hodges A.W., Rimal A., Kiker C.F. and Casey F. 1999. Public preferences and economic values for restoration of the Everglades/South Florida ecosystems. Economics Report 99–1, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville. 124 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montagnini F. and Nair P.K.R. 2004. Carbon sequestration: An under-exploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. (This volume).

  • Nair P.K.R. 2001. Agroforestry. In Our Fragile World: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development, Forerunner to The Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, Chapter 1.25: 375–393. UNESCO, Paris, France & EOLSS, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair V.D. and Graetz D.A. 2004. Agroforestry as an approach to minimizing nutrient loss from heavily fertilized soils: The Florida experience (This volume).

  • Peterson E.W.F. 2001. The Political Economy of Agricultural, Natural Resource, and Environmental Policy Analysis. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 373 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D., Harvey C., Resosudarmo P., Sinclair K., Kurz D., McNair M., Crist S., Shpritz L., Fitton L., Saffouri R. and Blair R. 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267: 1117–1123.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Purvis A., Hoehn J.P., Sorenson V.L. and Pierce F.J. 1989. Farmers' response to a filter strip program: Results from a contingent valuation survey. J Soil Water Conserv 44: 501–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribaudo M.O., Horan R.D. and Smith M.E. 1999. Economics of water quality protection from nonpoint sources. USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha R.K. and Alavalapati J.R.R. 2004a. Valuing Environmental Benefits of Silvopasture Practice: A Case Study of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed in Florida. Ecol Econ (in press).

  • Shrestha R.K. and Alavalapati J.R.R. 2004b. Effect of Ranchland Attributes on Recreational Hunting in Florida: A Hedonic Price Analysis J Agr Applied Econ (in press).

  • Stainback G.A., Alavalapati J.R.R., Shrestha R.R., Larkin S. and Wong G. 2004. Environmental Economic Valuation of Silvopasture: A Dynamic Optimization Approach. J Agr Applied Econ (in press).

  • Stainback G.A. and Alavalapati J.R.R. 2004. An Economic Analysis Restoring Longleaf Pine on Ranchlands. Forest Policy Econ (in press).

  • Train K.E. 1998. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ 74: 230–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA 1997. Census of Agriculture: National, state, and county tables. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington DC (http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/).

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian H.R. 1992. Microeconomics Analysis, 3rd Edition, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 364 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Kooten G.C. 1993. Land Resource Economics and Sustainable Development: Economic Policies and the Common Good, UBC Press, Vancouver, 450 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westcott P., Young C.E. and Price J.M. 2002. The 2002 Farm Act: Provision and implications for commodity markets. Washington DC, USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. AIB778. 67 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinkhan F.C. and Mercer D.E. 1997. An assessment of agroforestry systems in the southern U.S.A. Agroforest Syst 35: 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110410, Gainesville, Florida, 32611–0410, USA

    J.R.R. Alavalapati, R.K. Shrestha, G.A. Stainback & J.R. Matta

Authors
  1. J.R.R. Alavalapati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R.K. Shrestha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G.A. Stainback
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J.R. Matta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alavalapati, J., Shrestha, R., Stainback, G. et al. Agroforestry development: An environmental economic perspective. Agroforestry Systems 61, 299–310 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029006.64395.72

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029006.64395.72

Search

Navigation