Perceptions of silvopasture systems among adopters in northeast Argentina

Abstract

Farmers’ perceptions over time of an agroforestry technology can have an important impact on adoption and disadoption. Their perceptions, in turn, may be influenced by the type and scale of farm they own and the social networks they create. We examined the factors underlying producers’ perceptions of silvopasture systems at the time of adoption and perceptions following several years of experience, and the factors explaining discontinuance of systems in Argentina. We found that while most adopters indicated that other people influenced their decision about whether or not to adopt silvopasture, the type of person that influenced them (professionals vs. other farmers) did not affect adopters’ perceptions of the relative benefits and challenges of the system. However, farm scale and farm type did explain farmers’ perceptions to a good degree. Smaller-scale farmers were less likely to see costs and returns as benefits of the system, but more likely to see cash flow properties as important advantages. Farmers’ perceptions after experiencing the system were good predictors of likely discontinuance, but influential people, farm scales, farm type, and perceptions at the time of adoption were not.

Introduction

In many parts of the world, agroforestry adoption has proceeded slowly despite apparent benefits. This has prompted significant research focusing on the factors that affect adoption (Pattanayak et al., 2003). Studies have shown that, in addition to market, biological, and demographic factors, farmers’ subjective perceptions of a technology play a key role in agricultural technology adoption (Rogers, 2003, Fliegel and Kivlin, 1966, Adesina and Baiduforson, 1995, Ajayi, 2007, Khan et al., 2008). Adopters’ perceptions can, in turn, be influenced by their experiences and social networks with other people (Kearns, 1992, German et al., 2006). These might include other farmers in cooperatives, neighbors, and extension agents.

Previous studies of farmers’ views of agroforestry systems have focused almost exclusively on the question of whether farmers adopt a technology or do not adopt it, and have not emphasized their perceptions of the technology after having practiced it. However, as Kiptot et al. (2007) point out, a classification system of only adopters vs. non-adopters is an oversimplification of the way farmers understand a new technology. Discontinuance or disadoption is a very real possibility for a system that does not meet expectations (Parthasarathy and Bhattacherjee, 1998, German et al., 2006, Kiptot et al., 2007). Also, many farmers will test a technology on their fields or wait to see results from neighbors’ fields before deciding fully to adopt. The “testing period” in areas such as information technology may be relatively short (Spiller et al., 2007), but for technologies with long, discrete waiting periods for full benefits to be achieved, such as is the case with a system that includes a tree component grown for timber, testing periods may be longer, perhaps as long as the timber rotation period. Therefore, use of agroforestry technology, even for a number of years, may not necessarily equate with future continuance.

Adopters’ perceptions of an available technology can and will change over time as they learn more about the benefits and challenges it creates (Bhattacherjee, 2001). This change in perception may be one of the key driving forces behind discontinuance, but it has not received consistent treatment in the agroforestry diffusion literature. However, evidence from the information technology adoption literature suggests that initial perceptions (at the time of adoption) can be strong predictors of future discontinuance (Parthasarathy and Bhattacherjee, 1998). Also, whether or not an adopter uses social networks to make the adoption decision or makes the decision independently can help predict discontinuance; those who make the decision alone are more likely to continue than those who make decisions via social networks (Parthasarathy and Bhattacherjee, 1998). These results have not been tested with agroforestry continuance/discontinuance.

Other factors may influence farmers’ perceptions of the agroforestry technology. Pérez (2006) found that while large-, medium-, and small-scale farmers in Honduras manage silvopasture systems in similar ways, their total net revenues and net revenues from forestry vs. livestock were quite different. Agroforestry can play different roles for distinct classes of farms and farm managers.

This research was designed to advance our knowledge about the factors that impact farmers’ perceptions of an agroforestry technology and the factors that explain discontinuance. The primary objective of this study was to investigate the factors that affect the perceptions of different kinds of farmers about a specific agroforestry technology – silvopasture systems in northeastern Argentina. As opposed to previous work on perceptions of agricultural technologies, we do not compare the perceptions of adopters vs. non-adopters, but rather that of different classes of adopters (e.g., small-scale vs. large-scale) at different points in time. We test independent variables such as farm scale, farm type (based on main products produced prior to adopting silvopasture), and the categories of people who were influential in helping with the adoption decision (e.g., extension agents and other farmers) for power in explaining farmers’ perceptions.

A second objective was to model likely discontinuance of the system. While discontinuance has been studied in fields such as information technology adoption, it has largely been ignored in agroforestry adoption literature, with a few notable exceptions (Keil et al., 2005, Kiptot et al., 2007). One reason that discontinuance is not fully investigated in agroforestry is because of time scale. If the trees in the system are eventually to be utilized for timber or some other long-term investment, farmers are unlikely to discontinue in the middle of a rotation because they have invested resources in a relatively high-value future product. While it is possible to leave the standing timber and discontinue the intensive management of the various other components (livestock, crops), there may be a range of management practices of varying intensity, and it is not often a clear distinction to determine that agroforestry has been discontinued unless the trees are cut and not replanted. Furthermore, farmers may purposefully remove the livestock or crop component during a certain portion of the timber rotation; such a system could still be considered agroforestry. For these reasons, discontinuance of agroforestry can be difficult to track without following an entire cycle of the system. Agroforestry research has not always been conducted through a complete timber rotation; in general institutional research programs do not extend that long.

We hope to contribute towards a future framework to understand how perceptions and other factors affect continuance vs. discontinuance among different classes of adopters. Our study uses farmers’ stated likelihood of future continuance or discontinuance of the system as a proxy for what they will actually do once they are able to harvest the timber. While the stated likelihood is not a completely accurate predictor of actual discontinuance, it still provides important information.

Finally, we hope to extend knowledge about the benefits and costs of silvopasture systems. While a few studies have revealed the ways farmers perceive silvopasture, because adoption has not been widespread in many countries, there is a need for a greater understanding of how farmers perceive the system and how those perceptions change over time. We discuss the literature about farmers’ views and opinions of silvopasture in the Americas below.

A study by Shrestha et al. (2004) in Florida, USA, interviewed three relevant opinion leaders for silvopasture and found that the system had the strengths and opportunities of providing a strong sense of stewardship and satisfaction to adopters, aiding in environmental protection, and helping to diversify income. On the other hand, characteristics such as fire hazard, uncertainty about government regulations, and the length of the silvopasture investment were the major weaknesses of and threats to silvopasture adoption (Shrestha et al., 2004). While the method used by Shrestha et al. (2004) of interviewing opinion leaders is beneficial for obtaining a quick assessment of system potential, they note that surveying a larger sample is desirable to gather a more representative view of heterogeneous opinions among adopters or potential adopters.

Pérez (2006) noted the benefits and limitations that silvopasture adopters in Copán, Honduras, perceived, using a sample of 29 adopters. The economic and ecological benefits of silvopasture were perceived as being approximately equally important, and there was no significant difference in the perceptions of the benefits of silvopasture for small-, medium-, and large-scale farmers. In terms of the limitations of silvopasture systems, the lack of the ability to obtain seedlings or cuttings cheaply for tree planting was important, especially for small- and medium-scale farmers. Several silvopasture adopters also lamented the lack of support from agricultural institutions, the amount of labor involved in managing silvopasture, and tree mortality.

Calle (2008) conducted surveys of 28 farmers involved with silvopasture programs in Quindío, Colombia, to investigate farmers’ motivations for adoption, the benefits they presently perceive in silvopasture systems, and the changes in attitudes they underwent after practicing silvopasture. Calle (2008) noted that the principal benefits perceived by silvopasture adopters are private benefits (e.g., reduced used of fertilizer inputs, improved food supplies for cattle), and public environmental benefits (e.g., increased wildlife biodiversity). The primary barriers to silvopasture adoption noted by the adopters were the high cost of establishment and the lack of information and knowledge about the system. Calle (2008) also observed the changes in farmers’ attitudes over time regarding participation in silvopasture extension programs. The study showed that farmers more readily accepted that trees and pasture can coexist in a single plot. More notably, farmers reported gaining a greater understanding of biological/ecological processes, the importance of the environment in general, and sustainable practices.

A legitimate question is: Given these previous studies on perceptions of silvopasture systems in the Americas, can we gain knowledge from one more study of perceptions of silvopasture? We believe that a better understanding of both the factors affecting perceptions and their change over time and also the factors that affect discontinuance of the technology in Argentina can inform other silvopastural practitioners and proponents in other parts of the world. Although Pérez (2006) noted some differences between “small-scale” and “large-scale” farms in Honduras and Shrestha et al. (2004) interviewed a small- and large-scale farmer in Florida, research where silvopastural practices have been widely adopted is rare. Argentina is one of the few places where silvopasture using planted trees has been readily adopted at different scales of farming systems, from small, annual-cropping, semi-subsistence farms up to large, corporate forestry enterprises, and cattle ranches.

There are potential benefits of this study within Argentina. Extension to potential adopters can be strengthened by understanding how more experienced farmers view the technology. Because there are multiple constraints to adoption of silvopasture systems, such as the high front-end investment requirement in capital and labor (Dagang and Nair, 2003, Pagiola et al., 2004), if we are to expect good adoption of agroforestry systems, we should properly understand the motivations and expectations of the farmers who may be adopting them (Dagang and Nair, 2003).