Developing farmer and community capacity in Agroforestry: is the Australian Master TreeGrower program transferable to other countries?

Reid, Rowan

doi:10.1007/s10457-016-0039-4

Cited by 18 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Major agroforestry initiatives in high-income countries include the USDA Agroforestry Strategic Framework Plan (FY 2011-2016) in the United States [16], the European Commission's AGFORWARD program in Europe (FY 2014-2017) [21], Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Agroforestry Development Centre in Canada [44], and the Farm Forestry National Action Statement and the Master TreeGrower Program (supported by the Australian Agroforestry Foundation) in Australia [45]. In Japan, the Satoyama Initiative includes agroforestry concepts, though it covers a broad range of practices [46].…”

Section: Why This Systematic Map Is Important To Do For High Income Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for the impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in high-income countries: a systematic map protocol

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Agroforestry bridges the gap that often separates agriculture and forestry by building integrated systems that address both environmental and socioeconomic objectives. Agroforestry can improve the resiliency of agricultural systems and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Existing research suggests that integrating trees on farms can prevent environmental degradation, improve agricultural productivity, increase carbon sequestration, generate cleaner water, and support healthy soil and healthy ecosystems while providing stable incomes and other benefits to human welfare. Although these claims are becoming more widely accepted as the body of agroforestry research increases, systematic understanding of the evidence supporting them remains lacking for high-income countries. This systematic map will address this research need by providing a tool for identifying and visualizing the existing evidence demonstrating the impacts of agroforestry practices and interventions on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being. The results will be useful for informing policy decisions and future research by making the evidence easily accessible and highlighting the gaps in knowledge as well as areas with enough evidence to conduct systematic reviews. Methods: This systematic map will identify, collect, display, and describe available evidence on the impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in high-income countries. The search strategy will cover 5 primary databases and 24 organizational websites using a pre-defined search string designed to capture studies relating agroforestry practices and interventions to outcomes in high-income countries. The searches will all be conducted in English. We will screen the identified studies for inclusion or exclusion in stages, first on title and abstract and then on full-text. We will collect data from studies included at the full-text stage to form the map and associated database. For inclusion, the study in question must assess the impacts of the deliberate promotion and/or actual integration of woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos, etc.) on the same land management unit as agricultural crops and/or animals.

show abstract

Section: Why This Systematic Map Is Important To Do For High Income Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for the impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in high-income countries: a systematic map protocol

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Agroforestry is a system of integrated land use. It combines the land-based plant trees/wood and crop at the same time or shifting that turns simultaneously to have the function of ecological, economic, social and cultural rights (Mbolo et al 2016;Reid 2016;Lasco et al 2015;Wijayanto and Hartoyo 2015). Based on the study conducted by Iskandar et al (2016), the community tends to succeed in developing swidden farming into a sustainable traditional agroforestry system, despite population growth, forest depletion, and intensive market penetration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How trust influence social capital to support collective action in agroforestry development?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Qurniati R, Febryano IG, Zulfiani D. 2017. How trust influence social capital to support collective action in agroforestry development ?. Biodiversitas 18: 1201?. Biodiversitas 18: -1206. Trust is an important factor for strengthening social capital. Trust in forest community is achieved through collective action in small scale agroforestry. It was challenging process regards the low on social capital in communities. This study intended to analyse and explain how trust influences social capital in encouraging collective action in agroforestry development. The study conducted in Sidodadi and Sumur Kumbang Lampung Province, from October-December 2016. The area was selected based on disparities of sea level of villages. The data collected through in-depth interviews with several members of farmer group who responsible for agroforestry. The research found that trust between farmer group member remains high. However, trust as a source of social capital was not supported collective action since farmer group institution is weak. Therefore, to support agroforestry development, social capital should be increased through the development of good networks (bridging) to reach collective goal i.e. community welfare and sustainable forest management.

show abstract

“…There are notable examples, though, of programs that have taken on the challenge of working with and educating landowners, conservationists and planners on multifunctional landscape planning using agroforestry. Two such programs that should be considered useful case studies relevant to this research are Australia's Master Tree Grower program (Bauer and Gordon, 2003; Reid, 2017) and the University of Missouri's Agroforestry Academy (Gold et al ., 2013).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Echoing the findings of other studies (Valdivia et al ., 2012; Mattia et al ., 2018), these suggestions indicate landowners’ desire for more information and collaboration. The information needs described by landowners can be delivered through a variety of sources such as tours, classes and informational materials; they should be offered early in the learning process to help landowners decide the suitability and makeup of potential practices (Reid, 2017). Providing these supports will require more resources and money dedicated to conservation, but the supports may pay for themselves.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building multifunctionality into agricultural conservation programs: lessons learned from designing agroforestry systems with central Illinois landowners

Stanek

Lovell

2019

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1985, land retirement has been the primary approach used by the federal government for environmental protection of agricultural landscapes, but increasingly it is being supplemented by conservation initiatives on working lands. This shift logically supports agroforestry and other multifunctional approaches as a means to combine production and conservation. However, such approaches can be complex and difficult to design, contributing to the limited adoption in the USA. To understand and improve the integration of multifunctional landscapes into conservation programs, we worked with 15 landowners in a collaborative design process to build unique conservation plans utilizing agroforestry. We interviewed participants before and after the design process to examine the utility of a personalized design process, applicability of agroforestry to conservation programs and pathways to improve conservation policy. We found that landowners strongly preferred working in person for the design process, and being presented a comparison of alternative designs, rather than a single option, especially for novel systems. Agroforestry was seen as a viable method of generating conservation benefits while providing value to the landowners, each of whom stated they were more inclined to adopt such practices irrespective of financial assistance to do so. For conservation programs, landowners suggested reducing their complexity, inflexibility and impersonal nature to improve the integration of multifunctional practices that appeal directly to the practitioner's needs and preferences. These findings are valuable for conservation policy because they complement previous research theory suggesting the value of working collaboratively with landowners in the design of multifunctional landscapes. Personalized solutions that are developed based on the unique characteristics of the local landscape and the preferences of the individual landowner may be retained beyond a specified payment period, rather than being converted back into annual crop production.

show abstract

Developing farmer and community capacity in Agroforestry: is the Australian Master TreeGrower program transferable to other countries?

Cited by 18 publications

References 10 publications

Evidence for the impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in high-income countries: a systematic map protocol

Evidence for the impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being in high-income countries: a systematic map protocol

How trust influence social capital to support collective action in agroforestry development?

Building multifunctionality into agricultural conservation programs: lessons learned from designing agroforestry systems with central Illinois landowners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About