ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS
OF AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS: AN ON ONLINE
SURVEY IN ITALY
Camilli F1*, Marchi V1, Pisanelli A2, Seddaiu G5, Paris P2, Franca A3, Rosati A4
(1) Institute of Biometeorology, National Research Council, Florence, Italy (2) Institute of Agro-environmental and Forest Biology, National Research Council, Porano (TR); Italy (3) Institute for the Animal Production System in the Mediterranean Environment, National Research Council, Sassari, Italy (4) Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l'analisi dell'economia agraria, Centro di ricerca Olivicoltura, Frutticoltura e Agrumicoltura, Spoleto (PG), Italy (5) Dept.
of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy *Corresponding author: f.camilli@ibimet.cnr.it
Abstract
This work reports the preliminary results of an online survey on the perceptions/opinions of Italian stakeholders on the environmental and socio-economic benefits of agroforestry systems stakeholders (SHs) show positive opinions regarding the environmental benefits of AFS and think also that they can benefit the farmer image and the landscape (socio-economic benefits). More uncertain opinions seem to regard the positive influence of AFS in preventing fires and in as well as a focus on other target categories surveyed are needed.
Keywords: agroforestry; environment; farmers; socio-economy; stakeholders
Introduction
Agroforestry is a plethora of land use systems integrating trees (and other woody vegetation), crops and/or grazing animals on the same management unit. Agroforestry is not a novelty in Italy, as it has been long adopted and managed over time, until the advent of modern industrialized agriculture (Perali 2004). In Italy, the combinations of trees and crops and/or livestock have been progressively decreasing during time, especially in some areas of the country, as a consequence of socio-economic dynamics and industrialized agricultural practices (Paris et al. 2001).
Nowadays, such combinations, that can be embodied by agroforestry systems (AFS), are back to the attention of research and policy institutions because of their multifunctional role in providing relevant ecosystem services, such as conservation of biodiversity, protection of soil and water, diversification of productions and maintaining the rural landscape (FAO 2017). As AFS are complex systems, many stakeholders (SHs) should be involved in supporting them. The EIP-AGRI Focus Group on Agroforestry has recently identified, among others, the available knowledge and skills as key factors to enhance the adoption of agroforestry practices in the EU (EIP-AGRI 2017). Recent studies at European and Italian level (García de Jalon et al. 2017; S. For this reason, it is important to use participatory approaches and methods which help all SHs involved, in particular farmers, to better understand how to effectively design and manage agroforestry systems.
This work presents the results from an online survey conducted in Italy on the perceptions/opinions on AFS of different categories of SHs, focusing on AFS environmental and socio-economic issues. The work compares the responses of farmers (the main actors directly involved in agro-environmental activities) with those of the other SHs included in the sample.
397 4th European Agroforestry Conference Agroforestry as Sustainable Land Use
Materials and methods
The survey was performed, as part of the European FP7 AGFORWARD project (2014-2017), between April and June 2016 through an online questionnaire sent to a wide sample of population, grouped according to the following target categories: farmers, agronomy and forestry advisors, extension services, land-use and landscapes planners, policy makers, researchers, tourist operators. The questionnaire was distributed through research institutional websites and other platforms such as the National Rural Network. It was also sent by email all over Italy to several mailing lists of the above cited categories (a mailing list of about 20,000 email addresses was developed) involving: individuals, companies, public authorities, agricultural consortia, national and regional parks, conservation areas, etc. The survey received the approval of the Commission for ethics in research and Bioethics of the National Research Council.
(sex, age, education etc.) while the second one was focused on their perceptions/opinions on AFS. The second part was designed following the Likert-type test scheme (Likert 1932), according to which agreement or disagreement are expressed along with a five-value scale:
- Atkinson and Flint 2004) was also applied to
make the first respondents to the questionnaire indicate other SHs, in order to get a ripple effect. A descriptive analysis allowed to define the characteristics of the total sample and those of each target category. In order to evaluate the representativeness of the sample, data on farmers obtained by the survey and agricultural census (ISTAT 2010) were compared. Here only some indicators are reported. It has to be underlined that the sample is likely to be biased as farmers working with conventional/intensive agriculture may be underrepresented, being less interested in the topic under investigation. Additionally, people not familiar with email and internet did not receive the questionnaire.
Results
A total number of 654 responses to the questionnaire was obtained: the total of responses by farmers (farmers and agritourism farmers) were 202. The percentages of men and women on the whole sample was 72% and 28%, respectively (Table 1). In Table 1 also the comparison between the ranges of ages are reported. 68% of farmers declared to have AFS in their farms. 57% of farmers, who do not have AFS, claimed to be interested in introducing AFS in their farms.
Table 1: Percentages of women and men in agriculture from the survey and the ISTAT data (2010) and age of farmers from the survey and the ISTAT data (2010).
Survey sample (2016)
Agritourism farmers % Farmers % Total %
Women 22 30 35 27 57 28 Men 51 70 94 73 145 72 Total 73 100 129 100 202 100 All famers Age 20-35 36-65 >65 % 18 77 5 100
2010 Agricultural Census - ISTAT
Women 7,262 35 371,000 23 378,262 23 Men 13,212 65 1,250,000 77 1,263,212 77 Total 20474 100 1,621,000 100 1,641,474 100 All famers Age <39 40-64 > 65 % 18.10 61.50 20.40 100
Regarding the opinion of farmers on the environmental benefits of AFS (Figure 1), the highest percentages of positive answers
concerned the effects of AFS on the soil fertility, the improvement on carbon sequestration and the water quality.
farmers. The opinions of farmers and other SHs on the effects of AFS on fire risk tended to be more neutral.
As for socio-economic issues (Figure 2), the answers on the farm image and the landscape are quite positive (both for farmers and the other SHs) but the opinions on commercial and job opportunities, and on tourism, tended to be less positive.
Figure 1
399 4th European Agroforestry Conference Agroforestry as Sustainable Land Use
-economic benefits of agroforestry systems (AFS).
Discussion
This work shows some preliminary data obtained from an online survey on the opinions of different categories of Italian SHs on the environmental and socio-economic benefits of AFS focusing, in particular, on the category of farmers. Firstly, sex and age of
were analyzed. Percentages of women and men are coherent with the data from the Italian 2010 census in agriculture. A higher percentage of women in the agritourism sector can be highlighted, a trend confirmed also by the ISTAT survey (2016) showing that one out of three agritourism farms is run by women. Farmers' age also seems to be representative, even though not all age ranges considered correspond. Farmers over 65 could have been underestimated in our sample, probably because, being less familiar with email, they have not been reached. It is interesting to notice that among those who declare to have no AFS, a quite high percentage (43%) does not seem to be interested in applying AFS in the future. The reasons behind this choice should be investigated. While all the environmental issues showed positive responses of both farmers and other SHs, the responses on fire risk seemed to be less clear. This can be due to the fact that the effects on fires are perceived to a greater extent in cases where AFS coincide with agro-silvopastoral systems, mixed farming systems with crops and livestock (Franca et al. 2012).
The positive responses on environmental benefits of AFS are a relevant result. In fact, as agriculture is a major cause of multiple types of environmental degradation (Clark and Tilman 2017) and farmers are the main actors of this sector, their awareness of the environmental benefits of AFS is an important basis to further promote the leading role of farmers in preserving the environment. Such awareness, if properly worked out, could also be one of the premises to develop effective means for upgrading AFS, the environment and the marketing of AFS products.
However, looking at the responses on socio-economic issues, it seems that, while the answers on farm image and landscape are positive (both for farmers and the other SHs), the opinions on commercial and job opportunities, as well as those on tourism, tend to be less sharply outlined. The more uncertain opinions can be explained by the fact that, despite the positive opinions on the benefits of AFS on farm image and landscape aesthetics, the effects on business
opportunities are not perceived as obvious. The reasons why farmers have positively evaluated AFS (see also Graves et al. 2008) should be investigated, if we consider that the application to Agroforestry measures of the Rural Development Plan is very poor (Pisanelli et al. 2014). Are the granted systems not properly chosen by the local administrations? Are the grant levels insufficient for farmers to overcome their economic uncertainties concerning AFS?
The results could suggest the need to better support farmers and other SHs, in particular farm consultants, policy makers, and land planners, in exploiting AFS strengths and opportunities for farm and spatial planning in order to make them effective instruments for products marketing, place branding and promotion.
References
Atkinson R, Flint J (2004) Snowball sampling. In: Lewis-Beck M, Bryman A, Liao T (eds) Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 1044 1045.
Camilli F, Pisanelli A, Seddaiu G, Franca A, Bondesan V, Rosati A, Moreno GM, Pantera A, Hermansen JE, Burgess PJ (2017) How local stakeholders perceive agroforestry systems: an Italian perspective. Agrofor Syst DOI10.1007/s10457-017-0127-0
Clark M and Tilman D (2017) Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice Environ. Res Lett 12 064016.
EIP-AGRI Focus group (2017) Agroforestry: introducing woody vegetation into specialized crop and livestock systems. https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/publications/eip-agri-focus-group-agroforestry-final-report. (accessed 23/04/2018).
FAO (2017) Agroforestry for landscape restoration. http://www.fao.org/3/b-i7374e.pdf (accessed 23/04/2018).
ISTAT 6° Censimento gene (2013) Caratteristiche tipologiche delle aziende agricole. ISBN: 978-88-458-1800-4
ISTAT (Istat Italian National Institute of Statistics) (2016) https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/agricoltura (accessed 23/04/2018).
Franca A, Sanna F, Nieddu S, Re GA, Pintus GV, Ventura A, Duce PP, Salis M, Arca B (2012). Effects of grazing on the traits of a potential fire in a Sardinian wooded pasture, Options Mediterraneennes, Series A: Mediterranean Seminars 103: 307-312.
García de Jalon S, Burgess PJ, Graves A, Moreno G. McAdam J Pottier E, Novak S, Bondesan V, Mosquera-Losada R, Crous-DuranJ, Palma JHN, Paulo JA, Oliveira TS, Cirou E, Hannachi Y, Pantera A,Wartelle R, Kay Sonja, Malignier N, Van Lerberghe P, Tsonkova P, Mirck J, Rois M, Kongsted AG, Thenail C, Luske B, Berg S, Gosme M, Vityi A (2017) How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by stakeholders. Agrofor Syst DOI 10.1007/s10457-017-0116-3
Graves AR, Burgess PJ, Liagre F, Pisanelli A, Paris P, Moreno G, Bellido M, Mayus M, Postma M, Schindler B, Mantzanas K, Papanastasis VP, Dupraz C (2008) Farmer Perceptions of Silvoarable Systems in Seven European Countries. In Rigueiro-Rodríguez A, McAdam J, Mosquera-Losada MR (eds) Agroforestry in Europe: Current Status and Future Prospects. Springer Netherlands, pp. 67-86.
Likert R (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Arch Psychol 140: 1 55.
Paris P, Buresti E, Cannata F (2001) Agroforestry in Italy. Tradition of the practice and research indications on new models. Sino-Italian workshop forestry and agroforestry for environmental protection and rural development. Perali A (2004) Dissertation thesis: Evoluzione e situazione attuale dei sistemi agroforestali in Italia (con inventario degli
impianti monitorati su Cd-rom). Dipartimento di arboricoltura e protezione delle piante. University of Perugia Pisanelli A, Marandola D, Marongiu S, Paris P, Rosati A, Romano R (2014) The role of Rural Development Policy in
