Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:13:30.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2019

Erik Christian Stanek Open the ORCID record for Erik Christian Stanek [Opens in a new window]  and
Sarah Taylor Lovell Open the ORCID record for Sarah Taylor Lovell [Opens in a new window]
Erik Christian Stanek*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Plant Sciences Lab, 1201 S. Dorner Dr., UrbanaIL61801, USA
Sarah Taylor Lovell
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Plant Sciences Lab, 1201 S. Dorner Dr., UrbanaIL61801, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Erik Christian Stanek, E-mail: estanek2@illinois.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Agricultural conservation programsagroforestryconservation planningdesign processIllinoisinterviewlandownerlandscapemultifunctional
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 313 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adegbidi, HG, Volk, TA, White, EH, Abrahamson, LP, Briggs, RD and Bickelhaupt, DH (2001) Biomass and nutrient removal by willow clones in experimental bioenergy plantations in New York State. Biomass and Bioenergy 20, 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahern, J (2006) Theories, methods and strategies for sustainable landscape planning. In Tress, B, Tress, G, Fry, G and Opdam, P (eds), From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning. Aspects of Integration, Education and Application. Dordrecht, NL: Springer, pp. 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, AW and Vanderever, MW (2003) A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) participants on environmental effects, wildlife issues, and vegetation management on program lands. Biological Science Report, Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center Colorado.Google Scholar
Arbuckle, JG (2013) Farmer attitudes toward proactive targeting of agricultural conservation programs. Society & Natural Resources 26, 625–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atwell, RC, Schulte, LA and Westphal, LM (2009) Landscape, community, countryside: linking biophysical and social scales in US Corn Belt agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecology 24, 791–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atwell, RC, Schulte, LA and Westphal, LM (2010) How to build multifunctional agricultural landscapes in the U.S. Corn Belt: add perennials and partnerships. Land Use Policy 27, 1082–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barraquand, F and Martinet, V (2011) Biological conservation in dynamic agricultural landscapes: effectiveness of public policies and trade-offs with agricultural production. Ecological Economics 70, 910–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, M and Gordon, J (2003) Evaluation of the Agroforestry and Farm Forestry Program: An Assessment of Benefits—Stage 2. Barton, A.C.T: RIRDC.Google Scholar
Cain, Z and Lovejoy, S (2004) History and outlook for farm bill conservation programs. Choices (New York, N Y ) 19, 37–42.Google Scholar
Coppess, J (2017) Historical background on the Conservation Reserve Program. farmdoc daily 7(82). Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of_Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Dosskey, M, Wells, G, Bentrup, G and Wallace, D (2012) Enhancing ecosystem services: designing for multifunctionality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 67, 37A–41A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, GLA (2001) Multifunctional landscapes—towards transdisciplinary research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gold, MA, Cernusca, MM and Jose, S (2013) Creating the knowledge infrastructure to enhance landowner adoption of agroforestry through an agroforestry academy. Proceedings of the 13th North American Agroforestry Conference, June 19–21, 2013, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada:92–96.Google Scholar
Green, TR, Kipka, H, David, O and McMaster, GS (2018) Where is the USA Corn Belt, and how is it changing? Science of The Total Environment 618, 1613–1618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, L (2007) Conservation Reserve Program: environmental benefits update. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 36, 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helms, JD (2003) The Evolution of Conservation Payments to Farmers. Compensating Landowners for Conserving Agricultural Land U.C. Davis Community Studies Extension, Davis, CA. pp. 123–132.Google Scholar
Johnson, KA, Dalzell, BJ, Donahue, M, Gourevitch, J, Johnson, DL, Karlovits, GS, Keeler, B and Smith, JT (2016) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service benefits that exceed land rental payment costs. Ecosystem Services 18, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jose, S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agroforestry Systems 76, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefer, L and Bauer, E (2011) Upper Sangamon River Watershed monitoring data for the USEPA targeted watershed study: 2005–2008. ISWS Contract Report 2011-03.Google Scholar
Landis, DA (2017) Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic and Applied Ecology 18, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lark, TJ, Salmon, JM and Gibbs, HK (2015) Cropland expansion outpaces agricultural and biofuel policies in the United States. Environmental Research Letters 10, 044003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebel, L, Anderies, JM, Campbell, B, Folke, C, Hatfield-Dodds, S, Hughes, TP and Wilson, J (2006) Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J, Dietz, T, Carpenter, SR, Alberti, M, Folke, C, Moran, E, Pell, AN, Deadman, P, Kratz, T, Lubchenco, J, Ostrom, E, Ouyang, Z, Provencher, W, Redman, CL, Schneider, SH and Taylor, WW (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317, 1513–1516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovell, ST and Johnston, DM (2009) Creating multifunctional landscapes: how can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, ST, Dupraz, C, Gold, M, Jose, S, Revord, R, Stanek, E and Wolz, KJ (2018) Temperate agroforestry research: considering multifunctional woody polycultures and the design of long-term field trials. Agroforestry Systems 92, 1397–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattia, CM, Lovell, ST and Davis, A (2018) Identifying barriers and motivators for adoption of multifunctional perennial cropping systems by landowners in the Upper Sangamon River Watershed, Illinois. Agroforestry Systems 92, 1115–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montagnini, F (2018) Integrating Landscapes: Agroforestry for Biodiversity Conservation and Food Sovereignty, 1st Edn.Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Morefield, PE, LeDuc, SD, Clark, CM and Iovanna, R (2016) Grasslands, wetlands, and agriculture: the fate of land expiring from the Conservation Reserve Program in the Midwestern United States. Environmental Research Letters 11, 094005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, K and Bentrup, G (2017) Agroforestry resources. Agroforestry: Enhancing resiliency in U.S. agricultural landscapes under changing conditions. Gen. tech (Report WO-96). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.Google Scholar
Naidoo, R, Balmford, A, Ferraro, PJ, Polasky, S, Ricketts, TH and Rouget, M (2006) Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 681–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nassauer, JI and Opdam, P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landscape Ecology 23, 633–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, J and Kuethe, T (2015) Changing landscape of corn and soybean production and potential implications in 2015. farmdoc daily 5(42). Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Oliver, DM, Fish, RD, Winter, M, Hodgson, CJ, Heathwaite, AL and Chadwick, DR (2012) Valuing local knowledge as a source of expert data: farmer engagement and the design of decision support systems. Environmental Modelling & Software 36, 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Opdam, P, Nassauer, JI, Wang, Z, Albert, C, Bentrup, G, Castella, J-C, McAlpine, C, Liu, J, Sheppard, S and Swaffield, S (2013) Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecology 28, 1439–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osteen, C, Gottlieb, J and Vasavada, U (eds) (2012) Agricultural resources and environmental indicators. USDA-ERS Economic Information Bulletin No. 98. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2141408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pannell, DJ, Marshall, GR, Barr, N, Curtis, A, Vanclay, F and Wilkinson, R (2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46, 1407–1424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, R (2017) Developing farmer and community capacity in Agroforestry: is the Australian Master TreeGrower program transferable to other countries? Agroforestry Systems 91, 847–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, A (2015) Ecological modernization in U.S. agri-environmental programs: trends in the 2014 farm bill. Land Use Policy 47, 209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, A and Prokopy, LS (2014) Farmer participation in U.S. farm bill conservation programs. Environmental Management 53, 318–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rogers, E (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edn.New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Schirmer, J, Dovers, S and Clayton, H (2012) Informing conservation policy design through an examination of landholder preferences: a case study of scattered tree conservation in Australia. Biological Conservation 153, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoeneberger, MM (2009) Agroforestry: working trees for sequestering carbon on agricultural lands. Agroforestry Systems 75, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selman, P (2009) Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 5, 45–52.Google Scholar
Stanek, E. 2018. The design and implementation of multifunctional woody polycultures: landowner preferences and pathways to improve agricultural conservation (Master's Thesis). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M (2014) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): status and issues. Congressional Research Service Report No. 42783. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Thomas, DR (2006) A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation 27, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tress, B and Tress, G (2003) Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning—a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning 64, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Udawatta, RP and Jose, S (2012) Agroforestry strategies to sequester carbon in temperate North America. Agroforestry Systems 86, 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA (2017) Archived USDA budget summaries. Office of Budget and Program Analysis. Available at: https://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/budget_summary.html (Accessed 27 April 2018).Google Scholar
USDA FSA (2017 a) Conservation Reserve Program Monthly Summary—September 2017. Available at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/September2017Summary.pdf (Accessed 21 April 2018).Google Scholar
USDA FSA (2017 b) CRP (Acres) by County, as of January 2017. Available at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Conservation/Excel/CRP_COUNTY_PRACTICE.xlsx (Accessed 11 April 2018).Google Scholar
USDA FSA (2018) CRP practices library. Available at https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/crp-practices-library/index (Accessed 11 April 2018).Google Scholar
USDA NASS (2012) Census of agriculture: Quick stats. Available at https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov (Accessed 27 April 2018)Google Scholar
USDA NRCS (2011) USDA NIFA Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) fact sheets. Available at http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/publications/NIFACEAP/Factsheet_3.pdf (Accessed 17 April 2018).Google Scholar
USDA NRCS (2014) National Planning Procedures Handbook (NPPH), Edition 1. Available at https://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=36483.wba (Accessed 11 April 2018).Google Scholar
USDA NRCS (2016) Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) farm bill report (FY 2009 through FY 2016). Available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS_RCA/reports/fb08_cp_eqip.html (Accessed 16 April 2018).Google Scholar
USDA NRCS (2017) Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) | Report (FY 2005 through FY 2017) | NRCS. [Internet]. Available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS_RCA/reports/srpt_cp_cta.html.Google Scholar
USDA NRCS (2018) National Conservation Practice Standards. nrcs.usda.gov. Available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/technical/cp/ncps/ (Accessed 11 April 2018).Google Scholar
Valdivia, C, Barbieri, C and Gold, MA (2012) Between forestry and farming: policy and environmental implications of the barriers to agroforestry adoption. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 60, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanclay, F (2004) Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, BK and Brown, ED (2014) Adaptive management: from more talk to real action. Environmental Management 53, 465–479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolz, KJ, Branham, BE and DeLucia, EH (2018) Reduced nitrogen losses after conversion of row crop agriculture to alley cropping with mixed fruit and nut trees. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 258, 172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar