Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How local stakeholders perceive agroforestry systems: an Italian perspective

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a study conducted in Italy, within the AGFORWARD (2014–2017) project, aimed at promoting innovative agroforestry practices in Europe. Agroforestry offers a means for maintaining food production whilst addressing some of the negative environmental effects of intensive agriculture. This study aims to elicit the positive and negative points of view and perceptions of local stakeholders in Italy in relation to three types of agroforestry systems. The Participatory Research and Network Development was implemented in three workshops conducted in Sardinia, Umbria, and Veneto regions, and applied adopting a common methodological protocol. Qualitative data were obtained using open discussions with stakeholders on key issues, challenges and innovations. Quantitative data were obtained from stakeholders completing questionnaires during the workshops. A statistical analysis was applied to elicit the differences in stakeholders’ positive and negative perceptions in relation to production, management, environment and socio-economy aspects. Although the participants in the study came from different geographical and socioeconomic contexts with varied educational and cultural backgrounds, the different professional groups (farmers, policy-makers and researchers) and the three workshops generally shared similar perceptions of the benefits and constraints. The effects of agroforestry on production and the environment were generally perceived as positive, whilst those related to management were generally negative. The process of bringing the groups together seemed to be an effective means for identifying the key research gaps that need to be addressed in order to promote the uptake and maintenance of agroforestry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aliotta G, Aceto S, Farina A, Gaudio L, Rosati A, Sica M, Parente A (2004) Natural history, cultivation and biodiversity assessment of Asparagus. In: De Cortes Sanchez-Mata M, Tardio J (eds) Research advance in agriculture and food chemistry, vol 5. Global Research Network, Kerala, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri C, Valdivia C (2010) Recreation and agroforestry: examining new dimensions of multifunctionality in family farms. J Rural Stud 26:465–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benincasa P, Tei F, Rosati A (2007) Plant density and genotype effects on wild asparagus (Asparagus acutifolius L.) spear yield and quality. HortScience 42(5):1163–1166

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernués R, Ruiz A, Olaizola D, Villalba I, Casasús L (2011) Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: synergies and trade-offs. Livest Sci 139:44–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown LD, Tandon R (1983) Ideology and political economy in inquiry: action research and participatory research. J Appl Behav Sci 19:277–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess PJ, Morris J (2009) Agricultural technology and land use futures: the UK case. Land Use Policy 26S:S222–S229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess PJ, Crous-Duran J, Den Herder M, Dupraz C, Fagerholm N, Freese D, Garnett K, Graves AR, Hermansen JE, Liagre F, Mirck J, Moreno G, Mosquera-Losada MR, Palma JHN, Pantera A, Plieninger T, Upson M (2015) AGFORWARD project periodic report: January to December 2014. Cranfield University, AGFORWARD, Cranfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32005R1698&from=en. Accessed 29 May 2017

  • De Sousa XAM, De Belém Costa FM, De Sousa Fragoso RM (2015) Management of Mediterranean forests. A compromise programming approach considering different stakeholders and different objectives. For Policy Econ 57:38–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupraz C, Burgess PJ, Gavaland A, Graves AR, Herzog F, Incoll LD, Jackson N, Keesman K, Lawson G, Lecomte I, Mantzanas K, Mayus M, Palma J, Papanastasis V, Paris P, Pilbeam DJ, Reisner Y, van Noordwijk M, Vincent G, van der Werf W (2005) SAFE (Silvoarable Agroforestry for Europe) Synthesis Report. SAFE Project (August 2001–January 2005). http://www1.montpellier.inra.fr/safe/english/results/final-report/SAFE%20Final%20Synthesis%20Report.pdf. Accessed 17 October 2016

  • Eichhorn MP, Paris P, Herzog F, Incoll LD, Liagre F, Mantzanas K, Mayus M, Moreno G, Papanastasis VP, Pilbeam DJ, Pisanelli A, Dupraz C (2006) Silvoarable systems in Europe—past, present and future prospects. Agrofor Syst 67:29–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franca A, Sanna F, Nieddu S, Re GA, Pintus GV, Ventura A, Duce PP, Salis M (2012) Arca B (2012) Effects of grazing on the traits of a potential fire in a Sardinian wooded pasture. Options Mediter Ser A 103:307–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibon A (2005) Managing grassland for production, the environment and the landscape. Challenges at the farm and the landscape level. Livest Prod Sci 96:11–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graves AR, Burgess PJ, Palma JHN, Herzog F, Moreno G, Bertomeu M, Dupraz C, Liagre F, Keesman K, Van der Werf W, Koeffeman de Nooy A, Van den Briel JP (2007) Development and application of bio-economic modelling to compare silvoarable, arable and forestry systems in three European countries. Ecol Eng 29:434–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanloua N, Peter E (2005) Participatory action research: considerations for ethicalreview. Soc Sci Med 60:2333–2340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin BB (2011) Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive management for environmental change. Bioscience 61:183–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz K, Rattan L (2014) Soil organic carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. A review. Agron Sustain 34:443–454

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin A, Sherington J (1997) Participatory research methods–implementation, effectiveness and institutional context. Agric Syst 55(2):195–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno G, Franca A, Pinto Correia MT, Godinho S (2014) Multifunctionality and dynamics of silvopastoral systems. Options Méditer Ser A 109:421–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Nair PKR (1993) An introduction to Agroforestry. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Shawalter JM (2010) Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Adv Agron 108:237–3017

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Palma JHN, Graves AR, Bunce RGH, Burgess PJ, De Filippi F, Keesman KJ, Van Keulen H, Liagre F, Mayus M, Moreno G, Reisner Y, Herzog F (2007) Modeling environmental benefits of silvoarable agroforestry in Europe. Agr Ecosyst Environ 119:320–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park P (1993) What is participatory research? A theoretical and methodological perspective. In: Park P, Brydin-Miller M, Hall BL, Jackson T (eds) Voices of change: participatory research in the United States and Canada. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, CT, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisanelli A, Perali A, Paris P (2012) Potentialities and uncertainties of novel agroforestry systems in the European CAP: farmers’ and professionals’ perspectives in Italy. L’Italia For Montana/Italian Journal of Forest and Mountain Environ. doi:10.4129/ifm.2012.3.07

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisanelli A, Marandola D, Marongiu S, Paris P, Rosati A, Romano R (2014) The role of development policy in supporting agroforestry systems in EU. In: Book of abstracts of the 2nd EURAF Conference, Cottbus (Germany) 4–6 June 2014. ISBN: 978-972-97874-4-7, pp 22–25

  • Ponisio LC, M’Gonigle LK, Mace KC, Palomino J, de Valpine P, Kremen C (2015) Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc R Soc B 282:20141396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rapanà F (2005) Metodologia di ricerca partecipata Educazione alla cittadinanza e interculturalità. Il Trentino come laboratorio di cittadinanza attiva e differenziata. IPRASE TRENTINO Istituto Provinciale per la ricerca, l’aggiornamento e la sperimentazione educativi. Università degli Studi di Trento, Dipartimento di Scienze della Cognizione e della Formazione

  • Reason P, Bradford H (2008) The Sage handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. SAGE Publications Ltd., New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Riedel JL, Casasús I, Bernués A (2007) Sheep farming intensification and utilization of natural resources in a Mediterranean pastoral agro-ecosystem. Livest Sci 111:153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripoll-Bosch R, Díez-Unquera B, Ruiz R, Villalba D, Molina E, Joy M, Olaizola A, Bernués A (2012) An integrated sustainability assessment of mediterranean sheep farms with different degrees of intensification. Agric Syst 105:46–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosati A, Caporali S, Paoletti A (2009) Olive, Asparagus and animals: an agroforestry model for temperate climate in developed countries. In: Proceedings of the III OLIVEBIOTEQ (For a renovated, profitable and competitive Mediterranean olive growing sector), Sfax, Tunisia, 15–19 December 2009. ISBN: 978-9938-9513-0-1, pp 229–233

  • Rossetti I, Bagella S, Cappai C, Caria MC, Lai R, Roggero PP, Martins da Silva P, Sousa JP, Querner P, Seddaiu G (2015) Isolated cork oak trees affect soil properties and biodiversity in a Mediterranean wooded grassland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 202:203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Mirazo J, Robles AB, González-Rebollar JL (2009) Pastoralism in Natural Parks of Andalusia (Spain): a tool for fire prevention and the naturalization of ecosystems. Changes in sheep and goat farming systems at the beginning of the 21st century. Options Méditerranéennes A no. 91,

  • Ruiz-Mirazo J, Robles AB, González-Rebollar JL (2011) Two-year evaluation of fuelbreaks grazed by livestock in the wildfire prevention program in Andalusia (Spain). Agric Ecosyst Environ 141:13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seddaiu G, Porcu G, Ledda L, Roggero PP, Agnelli A, Corti G (2013) Soil organic matter content and composition as influenced by soil management in a semi-arid Mediterranean agro-silvo-pastoral system. Agr Ecosyst Environ 167:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith B, Wolf J, Martin P (2013) Reconciling productivity with protection of the environment: is temperate agroforestry the answer? Renew Agric Food Syst 28:80–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sluijs JP, Amaral-Rogers V, Belzunces LP, Bijleveld van Lexmond MFIJ, Bonmatin J-M, Chagnon M, Downs CA, Furlan L, Gibbons DW, Giorio C, Girolami V, Goulson D, Kreutzweiser DP, Krupke C, Liess M, Long E, McField M, Mineau P, Mitchell EAD, Morrissey CA, Noome DA, Pisa L, Settele J, Simon-Delso N, Stark JD, Tapparo A, Van Dyck H, Van Praagh J, Whitehorn PR, Wiemers M (2015) Conclusions of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on the risks of neonicotinoids and fipronil to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2015(22):148–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge support from the European Commission through the AGFORWARD FP7 research project (contract 613520). The views and opinions expressed in this report are purely those of the writers and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. We express our gratitude to Dr. Agnese Panzera and Dr. Chiara Camerota of the Dept. of Statistics, Informatics, Applications “Giuseppe Parenti” of the University of Florence for their support in statistical analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Biometeorology, National Research Council, Via Caproni 8, 50143, Florence, Italy

    Francesca Camilli

  2. Institute of Agro-Environmental and Forest Biology, National Research Council, Viale Marconi 2, 05010, Porano, TR, Italy

    Andrea Pisanelli

  3. Department of Agriculture Sciences, Sassari University, Viale Italia 39, 07100, Sassari, Italy

    Giovanna Seddaiu

  4. Institute for the Animal Production System in the Mediterranean Environment, National Research Council, Traversa La Crucca, 3 - Localita’ Baldinca, 07040, Sassari, Li Punti, Italy

    Antonello Franca

  5. Veneto Agricoltura, Regional Agency for Agriculture, Forestry and Agrifood Sectors, Viale Dell’Università, 14, 35020, Legnaro, PD, Italy

    Valerio Bondesan

  6. Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l’Analisi dell’Economia Agraria, Centro di Ricerca per l’Olivicoltura e l’Industria Olearia, CREA OLI, Via Nursina, 2, Spoleto, PG, Italy

    Adolfo Rosati

  7. Forestry School, University of Extremadura, Avd. Virgen Del Puerto, 10600, Plasencia, Spain

    Gerardo Marcos Moreno

  8. Department of Forestry & N.E.M, TEI of Central Greece, Hellas, Greece

    Anastasia Pantera

  9. Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Nordre Ringgade 1, 8000, Aarhus C Aarhus, Denmark

    John E. Hermansen

  10. Cranfield University, College Road, Cranfield, Bedfordshire, MK43 OAL, UK

    Paul J. Burgess

Authors
  1. Francesca Camilli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Pisanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giovanna Seddaiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antonello Franca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Valerio Bondesan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Adolfo Rosati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gerardo Marcos Moreno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anastasia Pantera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. John E. Hermansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Paul J. Burgess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesca Camilli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Camilli, F., Pisanelli, A., Seddaiu, G. et al. How local stakeholders perceive agroforestry systems: an Italian perspective. Agroforest Syst 92, 849–862 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0127-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0127-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation