Factors Affecting Farm Operators’ Interest in Riparian Buffers and Forest Farming Corinne Valdivia – University of Missouri MU Center for Agroforestry Christine Poulos - Research Triangle Institute

Introduction Missouri top 1/3 in agricultural commodities though only 11% farmers list ag. as main or sole source of income. Multiple sources of income and household objectives: profits, quality of life, future, environment. Agroforestry strategy to diversify the household portfolio. The practice or field of farming is known to farm operators. Riparian buffers and forest farming belong to the field or practice of agroforestry.

Objective Understand what factors increase the likelihood of farm operators’ interest in agroforestry. Explore the concepts of Habitus (the values and perceptions) - and Field (the social processes and structures, the rules of the game) (Pierre Bourdieau); along with traditional variables used in studies of adoption. Focus: northeast and southeast Missouri farm operators.

Interest in agroforestry… Instruction: show a picture of the practice “Please indicate how interested you might be implementing the following practices on the land you own” (6 were mentioned, we focus on two)  Riparian/Stream bank plantings  Forest farming 4=very interested 3=moderately interested 2=slightly interested 1=uninterested 99=not applicable Interest = 1 if 4 or 3; =0 otherwise

Riparian Buffer or Streamside Plantings Planting rows of trees, shrubs and grasses along waterways

Forest farming Growing crops under the Shade of trees in the forest

NE Fox- Wyaconda Watershed SE Scott Co. Site Selection Requirements  in the Mississippi River floodplain  ecological/cultural diversity  accessible  local resource professionals support The Sites and Sample: 365 farm operators

From the literature on adoption A review of conservation, new technologies, and agroforestry summarized in the paper. Models address issues of perception and interest, as well as the importance of economics when the land is the main source of livelihood. The literature also highlights the need to analyze adoption including factors such as biophysical characteristics and risk and uncertainty.

A proposed model on factors affecting interest in new practices Interest Individual HH Economic Environment Physical Structure Institutions Field Attitudes Habitus

The Model Logistic regression applied to a dichotomous variable, being interested 1 or not 0 on agroforestry on the land you own. A Maximum Likelihood estimation: Ln (Odds) = a +B 1 X 1 +B 2 X2 2 +B 3 X 3 +B 4 X 4 +B 5 X 5 Odds = Prob/(1-Prob) ; Prob (event)= e Z /(1- e Z ) Independent Variables:  X 1 INDIVIDUAL  X 2 ECONOMIC  X 3 PHYSICAL  X 4 FIELD  X 5 HABITUS

Independent Variables Individual: Age of Head of Household (Life Cycle); Education other than formal education- magazines, knowledge through groups Economic: diversity index of the household economic portfolio Structure: involvement in farming (full/part-time); CRP payment Physical: trees on land, frontage without trees, bank erosion (high, very high) Attitudes/Habitus: trees important to future generations, trees important for scenic beauty, knowledge of agroforestry (FF, RB)

Interest in Riparian Buffers: Logic Estimation Results Individual Age Magazines Coef Z Value P>|Z| Odds Economic HH Diversity I Structure/Field CRP $ Constant term N = 336 LRchi2 = P> chi2 =0.0000

Interest in Riparian Buffers: factor coefficients and significance Physical Bank Erosion Frontage WOT Location Coef Z Value P>|Z| Odds Habitus/Attitudes Trees Future G. Trees Scenic B. Knowledge RB Pseudo R2 =

Interest in Forest Farming: Logit Estimation Results Individual Age Member Inf. G. Coef Z Value P>|Z| Odds R Economic HH Diversity I Structure/Field Part time farm Constant term N = 296 LRchi2 = P> chi2 =0.0000

Interest in Forest Farming: Logit Estimation Results Physical Trees on the land Coef Z Value 1.67 P>|Z| Odds Habitus/Attitudes Trees Future G. Trees Scenic B. Knowledge FF Pseudo R2 =

Model of Interest Findings Attitude variables are significant in both practices, those that believe that trees are important to future generations and for scenic beauty are more likely to be interested in agroforestry Knowledge of the practice has the strongest positive effect indicating that farm operators familiar with the field of agroforestry are more likely to be interested The physical characteristics of farm operator’s land (bank erosion; trees) increase the likelihood of interest in the practices Economic variables, diversification of the portfolio and part time farming, and CRP payments have no effect on the likelihood of being interested

Conclusions/Implications Economics: on the one hand for most operators land is not the only source of livelihood which may explain why it is not significant in interest. It may be significant when estimating actual adoption. On the other, several variables were correlated, so further work on proxies for economic and field/structural variables. The findings on the positive effect of knowledge point to the importance of information delivery networks. Knowledge reduces uncertainty and risk about new technologies (Pattanayak et al).

Implications/further research In this particular case knowledge pertains to the field of agroforestry, not traditional farming. The habitus concept appears to be useful in understanding interest. The significance of physical characteristics indicates these should be included in the information provided to farm operators with the practices. Further research using ecological characteristics to identify the sample frame as well as formulate interest questions will be tested.

Thank you! Questions, suggestions.

Literature review of adoption: Agriculture and Agroforestry Interest in new technologies when “awareness, feasibility, in line with objectives” (Pannel) Attitudes strongest effect on decision to adopt (Matthews) Familiarity with practice stronger than education (Matthews) Type of operation, age, gender, and size No Effect (M) Economic: monetary and non monetary significant when livelihood depends on land (Koontz); length of returns relevant in case of trees (Raintree); competitive uses of land significant (Alig et al) Institutions: Up front costs in RB significant, cost share important (Lyn and Brown) Services of AFP: Aesthetics, shade, wildlife, soil conservation (perceived benefits) (Workman et al)

The Literature on Adoption: Conservation Study of perceptions, decision to use, effort, phases in the adoption process (Ervin and Ervin; Cooper and Keim; Konyar and Osburn; Skaggs et al; Jansen and Grebemicael; Hagan)  Personal: education and attitudes (Ervin and Ervin; Clearfield and Osgood); age and education (Konyar and Osburn)  Physical: soil erosion (E&E); perception of erosion (C&O) (K&O)  Economic: returns, debt free assets; off-farm; risk (E&E;K&O); farm structure (K&O;C&O); income from farming (H); returns, competition among different activities (Johnson et al)  Institutions: Level of incentives (C& K); reverting to farming (S) technological assistance/extension; government cost share; level of incentives (E&E;C&O; C&K; J&G)  Non monetary motivations a driving force in adoption when the practice is not the main or sole source of income (Koontz)

Attitudes Disposition to change (Schucksmith)  Bourdeau’s habitus and field: accumulators, conservatives, disengagers Attitude toward agroforestry: paths within the field of farming (windbreaks and riparian buffers) and in the field of agroforestry (forest farming, alley cropping) (Raedeke et al) Attitudes shaped by awareness, willingness to take risks, and physical characteristics

Literature Review Adoption of Agroforestry (Pattanayak et al) Farmer preferences: education, age, gender, socio- cultural status Resource endowments: income, assets, labor, livestock, credit/savings Market incentives: potential income gain, distance to market, price effect Bio-physical factors: soil quality, slope, plot size, irrigation Risk and uncertainty: tenure, experience, extension and training, membership Need to increase the studies focusing on bio- physical and on risk and uncertainty

Interest in Riparian Buffers Results Individual: Age was significant (P<0.1) and had a negative effect, while education captured by magazines had no effect. Physical: Bank erosion was positive and significant (P<.01) while other variables had no effect. Habitus/attitude: Knowledge of Riparian Buffers had the strongest positive effect (P<.01). Trees for future generations and scenic beauty had both a positive and significant effect (P<0.05) Economic and structure variables had no effect on interest in establishing riparian buffers in their land.

Interest in Forest Farming Results Individual characteristics, age has a negative and significant (P<.10) effect on interest in forest farming Physical characteristics, trees was significant and positive (P<.10) Habitus/attitude, highly significant (P<.001) if they believe trees are important for future generations; and significant (P<.10) for those stating that trees are important for scenic beauty Knowledge of Forest Farming has the strongest positive effect (P<.001) on likelihood of being interested Economic and structure/field variables had no effect on the likelihood of being interested in forest farming