Laroche, G.

English

Universidade Técnica de Lisboa

Integrating agroforestry intercropping systems in intensive agricultural landscapes: a SWOT-AHP analysis of stakeholders perceptions

UTL Repository

3rd European Agroforestry Conference  Montpellier, 23-25 May 2016 How to assess the performance of agroforestry systems? (oral)  384  INTEGRATING AGROFORESTRY INTERCROPPING SYSTEMS IN INTENSIVE AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPES: A SWOT-AHP ANALYSIS OF STAKEHOLDERSPERCEPTIONS  Laroche G1 linas N2, Doyon M3, Domon G4 and Olivier A1 *  *Correspondence author : alain.olivier@fsaa.ulaval.ca  (2)  n,    Introduction In recent years, agroforestry intercropping systems combining trees and crops have been introduced in Quebec as an alternative to monocropping systems. Landscape trajectory theories have identified physical and human interactions as key driving forces of land use change (Ruiz and Domon 2009). Within the scope of human interactions, local stakeholders  are likely to play a crucial role in landscape dynamics (Place et al. 2012). In this context, our study pursued agroforestry intercropping systems implementation, 2) assess the potential of three agroforestry intercropping system alternatives according to these driving forces, and 3) compare the answers across various categories of stakeholders.  Methodology The study was conducted in the Les Maskoutains regional county municipality. Located in the St. Lawrence lowlands, Les Maskoutains has 86 148 inhabitants and benefits from a mean annual temperature of 5,0-  of 850-1050 mm. From the 1 310 km2 it covers, 1 257 km2 (96%) are dedicated to agricultural purposes. In 2011, Les Maskoutains had 1 060 farms (CANSIM 2011), including oil seed and grain, hog and pig farming and dairy cattle  and milk production. Les Maskoutains has a forest cover of 16%, 98% of which is on private land. In February 2015, 10 stakeholders from five different categories (farmers, forestry advisors, farm advisors, urban planners and local authorities) were recruited using a purposive sampling method to participate in a focus group. Following the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Analytical Hierarchy Process approach (SWOT-AHP) (Saaty 2010), the participants were first asked to identify, by consensus, three local strengths, three local weaknesses, three external opportunities and three external threats impacting their decision to integrate agroforestry intercropping systems in their landscapepairwise comparisons using a rating scale. Finally, they compared three agroforestry alternatives developed by the research team (Table 1) on their relative potential to exploit each strength and opportunity and their relative potential to bypass each weakness and threat.  Table 1: The agroforestry intercropping system alternatives No pictures were shown to participants to limit visual bias. The computer software Excel 2013 was used to analyze data generated from pairwise comparisons and ratings.   Crop  alternative  Tree  alternative  Landscape  alternative Main objective Crop yields Tree production Landscape aesthetics Possible crops Cereals  Forage Pasture  Forage Cereals Pasture Forage Crop management intensity High Low Medium Tree row spacing Wide (25-40m) Narrow (15-20m) Wide (25-40m) Trees Deciduous Deciduous Conifers Deciduous Tree products Timber (main) Nuts (marginal)  Pulp (main) Paper (main) Timber (marginal)  Nuts (main) Fruits (main) Timber (marginal) Establishment sites Cultivated plots or Abandoned plots Tree plantations or Abandoned plots Create sight lines Hide disturbing features 3rd European Agroforestry Conference  Montpellier, 23-25 May 2016 How to assess the performance of agroforestry systems? (oral)  385  Results  The stakeholders identified the biophysical conditions, the presence of human resources and the local interest in ecological services provision as the three major local strengths (Table 2). The main weaknesses are the use of very intensive agricultural practices, the negative perception of trees on farms and the lack of knowledge on agroforestry systems. The presence of a research network, the social pressure towards the use of conservation practices and ongoing pilot trials in nearby areas are seen as the most influential opportunities. The short-termed agricultural support programs, the agrochemical lobby pressure towards immediate productivity and the uncertain profitability of the agroforestry systems stand as the main threats.   Table 2: SWOT decision factors for local stakeholders in Les Maskoutains Strengths Weaknesses Sa : Conducive biophysical conditions. Wa : Intensive agricultural systems and habits. Sb : Human and organizational resources         availabilty. Wb : Negative perceptions on the role of trees  on          farm. Sc : Local interest in landscape aesthetics        and provision of ecological services. Wc : Lack of knowledge on agroforestry          intercropping systems. Opportunities Threats Oa : Research network and expertise. Ta : Incompatibility with most agricultural support        programs  Ob : Social acceptability of conservation         practices. Tb : Lobby pressure towards high productivity.  Oc : Pilot trials generating trustable results. Tc : Lack of knowledge on economic viability   Table 3 shows the relative weight of each decision factor according to stakeholders. Globally, the most important decision factor is the incompatibility of agricultural support programs with agroforestry intercropping systems (0,140) followed by the biophysical conditions of their area (0,116) and the presence of intensive agricultural systems and habits (0,103). However, strong differences appear between stakeholder groups when the three most important factors for each group are considered. For instance, the farmers (a conventional gain grower and an organic vegetable grower) were the only group to identify the social acceptability of conservation practices (0,169) as one major driving force. The ranking of the agroforestry intercropping system alternatives shows also major differences between stakeholders  (Fig. 1). While farmers and forestry advisors chose the   planners and local authorities   Discussion According to all stakeholders, external opportunities and threats would have, globally, more influence on the decision to integrate agroforestry intercropping systems in the landscapes than local strengths and weaknesses. Human factors such as negative perceptions of trees, social pressure or concerns and agricultural habits also appear to have a strong influence in the decision-making process. These results support previous findings on the importance of the global context and human interactions in agricultural landscape changes (Ruiz and Domon, 2009).  The relative priority given to the agroforestry alternatives reveals major differences between stakeholders  planners and local authorities, farmers and forest advisors gave the best relative score to the ape . This apparent paradox might be explained by the divergences in the priority given to the decision factors by stakeholders and by the perception that agroforestry intercropping and profitable as conventional production systems.     3rd European Agroforestry Conference  Montpellier, 23-25 May 2016 How to assess the performance of agroforestry systems? (oral)  386  Table 3: Overall priority of factors by stakeholder category in Les Maskoutains Note. Numbers in bold are scale parameters (values) of each SWOT group and numbers underlined are the highest three factors under respondent categories. The max consistency ratio calculated was 0,26.  a The scale parameters were calculated using the relative importance given to each SWOT category by participants using the five-intensity scale. b Refer to Table 2 for the signification of abbreviations.     Figure 1: Agroforestry intercropping systems alternatives  relative priority score for each stakeholder category and for all stakeholders in Les Maskoutains.   0,0000,1000,2000,3000,4000,5000,600All Stakeholders Farmers Farm Advisors ForestryAdvisorsUrban Planners Local authorities Relative priority sccore Crop alternative Tree alternative Landscape alternative Overall priority of factors by stakeholder category  All stakeholders n=10 Farmers  n=2 Farm advisors n=3 Forestry advisors n=2 Urban  planners n=2 Local authorities n=1 Strengths 0,243a 0,271 0,209 0,213 0,291 0,254 Sa b 0,116a 0,062 0,137 0,108 0,143 0,062 Sb 0,058 0,102 0,037 0,034 0,099 0,023 Sc 0,070 0,107 0,035 0,071 0,049 0,169 Weaknesses 0,221 0,205 0,256 0,223 0,153 0,281 Wa 0,113 0,164 0,124 0,024 0,063 0,210 Wb 0,048 0,019 0,097 0,047 0,011 0,054 Wc 0,061 0,023 0,036 0,151 0,079 0,016 Opportunities 0,291 0,328 0,244 0,333 0,278 0,298 Oa 0,111 0,105 0,120 0,053 0,079 0,232 Ob 0,088 0,169 0,064 0,115 0,048 0,033 Oc 0,093 0,055 0,060 0,165 0,151 0,033 Threats 0,245 0,196 0,291 0,231 0,278 0,167 Ta 0,140 0,100 0,153 0,149 0,102 0,115 Tb 0,073 0,082 0,119 0,018 0,118 0,031 Tc 0,032 0,014 0,019 0,064 0,057 0,020 3rd European Agroforestry Conference  Montpellier, 23-25 May 2016 How to assess the performance of agroforestry systems? (oral)  387  Conclusion In the Les Maskoutains intensive agricultural area, the decision of integrating agroforestry intercropping systems in landscapes seems to be mostly encouraged by conducive local biophysical conditions and strongly limited by agricultural policies and social perceptions. Stakeholders involved in the study do not give the same importance to these decision factors and do not share the same vision regarding which system might be the best to integrate in their specific context. These results, although based on a small sample, urge further development in presenting agroforestry systems as productive ones to facilitate their integration in this specific agricultural landscape.  References:  CANSIM (2011) Table 004-0200 - Census of Agriculture, farms classified by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) every 5 years (number). Available at http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/ [accessed 05-04-15]. Place F, Ajayi OC, Torquebiau E, Detlefsen G, Gauthier M, Buttod G (2012) Improved Policies for Facilitating the Adoption of Agroforestry. In Kaonga M (ed). Agroforestry for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services  Science and Practice pp. 113-128.  Ruiz J, Domon G (2009) Analysis of landscape pattern change trajectories within areas of intensive agricultural use: case . Landscape ecology 24: 419-432. Saaty TL (2010) Principia Mathematica Decernendi. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 561 pp.  

https://www.repository.utl.pt/bitstream/10400.5/17552/1/EURAFIIIConf_Laroche_G_et_all_page_384_387.pdf

Integrating agroforestry intercropping systems in intensive agricultural landscapes: a SWOT-AHP analysis of stakeholders perceptions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Universidade Técnica de Lisboa

UTL Repository