Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is livestock producers’ interest in silvopasture related to their operational perspectives or characteristics?

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Livestock producers’ operational perspectives and characteristics are known to be associated with silvopasture adoption, but findings in the literature are mixed and contradictory. To study whether characteristics or perspectives more closely relate to silvopasture interest, 307 livestock producers enrolled in cost-share programs in Virginia, United States of America were surveyed. One hundred and thirty-nine producers responded (rate = 45%). Interest in silvopasture was measured using a Likert-type ordinal scale. Respondents reported the following operational characteristics: size in hectares, type and number of livestock, and primary or secondary occupation. Twelve Likert-type ordinal scales were used to measure the following operational perspectives: financial emphasis, cultural importance, and attitudes pertaining to operational diversification using trees. Multivariate cluster methods were used to group respondents into two classification sets, one based on operational characteristics and the other operational perspectives. Tests for significant differences in silvopasture interest between classifications in each set were conducted using non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis rank sums (α = 0.05). Silvopasture interest differed significantly among classifications based on operational perspectives, but not operational characteristics. Cross-tabulations of the two sets and Cramer’s V test indicated that the two classification sets are unrelated. Findings suggest silvopasture interest cuts across operation type and is more closely tied to producers’ perspectives, particularly views related to diversification. Technical transfer programs and stakeholder engagement should focus on matching perspectives to practice regardless of operational scale and scope.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavalapati JRR, Shrestha RK, Stainback GA, Matta JR (2004) Agroforestry development: an environmental economic perspective. Agrofor Syst 61–62(1):299–310. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029006.64395.72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle JG, Valdivia C, Raedeke A, Green J, Rikoon JS (2009) Non-operator landowner interest in agroforestry practices in two Missouri watersheds. Agrofor Syst 75(1):73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri C, Valdivia C (2010) Recreational multifunctionality and its implications for agroforestry diffusion. Agrofor Syst 79(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9269-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borremans L, Reubens B, Van Gils B, Baeyens D, Vandevelde C, Wauters E (2016) A sociopsychological analysis of agroforestry adoption in Flanders: understanding the discrepancy between conceptual opportunities and actual implementation. Agroeco Sustain Food Syst 40(9):1008–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2016.1204643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calle A, Montagnini F, Zuluaga AF (2009) Farmer’s perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in Quindio, Colombia. Bois Et Forets Des Tropiques, pp 80–94

  • Commender KE, Munsell JF, Ares A, Sullivan BJ, Chamberlain JL (2020) The effects of cost-share participant experience on forest buffer retention. Small-Scale r 2020:1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Cubbage FW, Balmelli G, Bussoni A, Noellemeyer E, Pachas AN, Fassola H, Hubbard W (2012) Comparing silvopastoral systems and prospects in eight regions of the world. Agrofor Syst 86(3):303–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9482-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Current D, Lutz E, Scherr SJ (1995) The costs and benefits of agroforestry to farmers. The World Bank Res Obs 10(2):151–180. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/10.2.151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis RF (2003) Scale Development: Theory and Applications. SAGE Publications, California, USA, p 171p

    Google Scholar 

  • Diday E, Simon JC (1976) Clustering analysis. In: Fu KS (ed) Digital pattern recognition. Springer, Berlin, pp 47–94

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2009) Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

  • Filion FL (1976) Exploring and correcting for nonresponse bias using follow-ups of non respondents. Pac Soc Rev 19(3):401–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey GE, Fassola HE, Pachas AN, Colcombet L, Lacorte SM, Pérez O, Renkow M, Warren ST, Cubbage FW (2012) Perceptions of silvopasture systems among adopters in northeast Argentina. Agric Syst 105(1):21–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9482-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey GE, Comer MM (2018) Annotated bibliography on the impacts of size and scale of silvopasture in the Southeastern U.S.A. SRS-e230. General Technical Report—Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC, USA. USDA Forest Service, p 35

  • Garrett HE, Kerley MS, Ladyman KP, Walter WD, Godsey LD, Van Sambeek JW, Brauer DK (2004) Hardwood silvopasture management in North America. New Vistas in Agroforestry. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 21–33p

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch RL (1974) Factor analysis. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia, p 370

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves RM, Dillman DA, Eltinge JL, Little RJA (2001) Survey nonresponse. Wiley, New York, p 520

    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(2):159–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijer SS, Sileshi GW, Catacutan D, Nieuwenhuis M (2016) Agroforestry and deforestation in Malawi: inter-linkages between attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. Agrofor Syst 90(4):645–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munsell JF, Addlestone BJ, Bukowski CJ, Nkembi L, Kingsly N, Moore EA (2018) Relationships between agroforestry and community development according to practitioners. Agrofor Syst 92(5):1387–1396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orefice J, Carroll J, Conroy D, Ketner L (2016) Silvopasture practices and perspectives in the Northeastern United States. Agrofor Syst 91(1):149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-016-9916-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak SK, Mercer DE, Sills E, Yang JC (2003) Taking stock of agroforestry adoption studies. Agrofor Syst 57(3):173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pent GJ (2020) Over-yielding in temperate silvopastures: A meta-analysis. Agrofor Syst 2020(94):1741–1758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-020-00494-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez E (2006) Caracterización de sistemas silvopastoriles y su contribución socioeconómica a productores ganaderos de Copán, Honduras. MS thesis, CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica

  • Rogelberg SG, Stanton JM (2007) Introduction: Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse. Organ Res Methods 10(2):195–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan RL, Erickson DL, De Young R (2003) Farmers’ motivations for adoption conservation practices along riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed. J Env Plan Manag 46(1):19–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharrow SH, Brauer D, Clason TR (2009) Silvopastoral practices. In: Garrett HE (ed) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 105–131

    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(3):185–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector PE (1992) Summated rating scale construction an introduction. Quantitative applications in the social sciences series, No. 82. SAGE Publications, California, USA, p 80

  • Strong N, Jacobson MG (2005) A case for consumer-driven extension programming: agroforestry adoption potential in Pennsylvania. Small Scale Econ Manag Pol 4(2):215–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-006-0002-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stutzman E, Barlow RJ, Morse W, Monks D, Teeter L (2019) Targeting educational needs based on natural resource professionals’ familiarity, learning, and perceptions of silvopasture in the southeastern US. Agrofor Syst 93(1):345–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0260-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trozzo KE, Munsell JF, Chamberlain JL (2014a) Landowner interest in multifunctional agroforestry riparian buffers. Agrofor Syst 88(4):619–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trozzo KE, Munsell JF, Chamberlain JL, Aust WM (2014b) Potential adoption of agroforestry riparian buffers based on landowner and streamside characteristics. J Soil Wat Cons 69(2):140–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA NRCS (2011) Natural resource conservation service conservation practice standard: silvopasture establishment. 381-CPS-5. 5. USDA, Washington, D.C., USA

  • USDA NASS (2014) 2013-2014 Annual Statistical Bulletin for Virginia. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, Washington, D.C., USA

  • USDA NASS (2020) 2018 Annual Statistical Bulletin for Virginia. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, Washington, D.C., USA

  • Workman SW, Bannister ME, Nair PKR (2003) Agroforestry potential in the southeastern United States: perceptions of landowners and extension professionals. Agrofor Syst 59(1):73–83. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026193204801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkens P, Munsell JF, Fike JH, Pent GJ, Frey GE, Addlestone BJ, Downing AK (2021) Thinning forests or planting fields Producer preferences for establishing silvopasture. Agroforest Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00665-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, Greenville, SC, USA

    Philadelphia Wilkens

  2. Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    John F. Munsell, John H. Fike & Gabriel J. Pent

  3. United States Forest Service, Research Triangle, NC, USA

    Gregory E. Frey

Authors
  1. Philadelphia Wilkens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John F. Munsell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John H. Fike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gabriel J. Pent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gregory E. Frey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John F. Munsell.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilkens, P., Munsell, J.F., Fike, J.H. et al. Is livestock producers’ interest in silvopasture related to their operational perspectives or characteristics?. Agroforest Syst 96, 541–551 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00664-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00664-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation