How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by stakeholders
Silvestre García de Jalón
(1)
,
Paul J. Burgess
(1)
,
Anil Graves
(1)
,
Gerardo Moreno
(2)
,
Jim Mcadam
(3)
,
Éric Pottier
(4)
,
Sandra Novak
(5)
,
Valerio Bondesan
(6)
,
Rosa Mosquera-Losada
(7)
,
Josep Crous-Duran
(8)
,
Joao H. N. Palma
(8)
,
Joana A. Paulo
(8)
,
Tania S. Oliveira
(8)
,
Eric Cirou
(9)
,
Yousri Hannachi
(10)
,
Anastasia Pantera
(11)
,
Régis Wartelle
(12)
,
Sonja Kay
(13)
,
Nina Malignier
(14)
,
Philippe van Lerberghe
(15)
,
Penka Tsonkova
(16)
,
Jaconette Mirck
(16)
,
Mercedes Rois
(17)
,
Anne Grete Kongsted
(18)
,
Claudine Thenail
(19)
,
Boki Luske
(20)
,
Staffan Berg
(17)
,
Marie Gosme
(21)
,
Andrea Vityi
(22)
1
Cranfield University
2 UEX - Universidad de Extremadura - University of Extremadura
3 Agri Food and Biosciences Institute
4 IDELE - Institut de l'élevage
5 FERLUS - Fourrages Environnement Ruminants Lusignan
6 Veneto Agricoltura
7 Crop Production Department, Escuela Politécnica superior
8 Forest Research Centre, School of Agriculture
9 CA 16 - Chambre d'agriculture de Charente
10 Chambres d’Agriculture de Bretagne
11 Department of Forestry and Natural Environment Management
12 Chambre Régionale d'Agriculture de Picardie
13 Agroscope
14 AFAF - Association Française d'Agroforesterie
15 CNPF-IDF - Centre National de la Propriété Forestière
16 BTU - Brandenburg University of Technology [Cottbus – Senftenberg]
17 EFI - European Forest Institute = Institut Européen de la Forêt = Euroopan metsäinstituutti
18 Aarhus University [Aarhus]
19 UMR BAGAP - Biodiversité agroécologie et aménagement du paysage
20 LBI - Louis Bolk Institute
21 UMR SYSTEM - Fonctionnement et conduite des systèmes de culture tropicaux et méditerranéens
22 University of West-Hungary
2 UEX - Universidad de Extremadura - University of Extremadura
3 Agri Food and Biosciences Institute
4 IDELE - Institut de l'élevage
5 FERLUS - Fourrages Environnement Ruminants Lusignan
6 Veneto Agricoltura
7 Crop Production Department, Escuela Politécnica superior
8 Forest Research Centre, School of Agriculture
9 CA 16 - Chambre d'agriculture de Charente
10 Chambres d’Agriculture de Bretagne
11 Department of Forestry and Natural Environment Management
12 Chambre Régionale d'Agriculture de Picardie
13 Agroscope
14 AFAF - Association Française d'Agroforesterie
15 CNPF-IDF - Centre National de la Propriété Forestière
16 BTU - Brandenburg University of Technology [Cottbus – Senftenberg]
17 EFI - European Forest Institute = Institut Européen de la Forêt = Euroopan metsäinstituutti
18 Aarhus University [Aarhus]
19 UMR BAGAP - Biodiversité agroécologie et aménagement du paysage
20 LBI - Louis Bolk Institute
21 UMR SYSTEM - Fonctionnement et conduite des systèmes de culture tropicaux et méditerranéens
22 University of West-Hungary
Silvestre García de Jalón
Connectez-vous pour contacter l'auteur
- Function : Correspondent author
- PersonId : 1070350
Connectez-vous pour contacter l'auteur
Gerardo Moreno
- Function : Author
- PersonId : 847305
Éric Pottier
- Function : Author
- PersonId : 2954
- IdHAL : eric-pottier
- ORCID : 0000-0002-5165-1423
- IdRef : 075883112
Sandra Novak
- Function : Author
- PersonId : 746053
- IdHAL : sandra-novak
- ORCID : 0000-0001-7389-2263
- IdRef : 156259915
Claudine Thenail
- Function : Author
- PersonId : 1203799
Marie Gosme
- Function : Author
- PersonId : 736366
- IdHAL : marie-gosme
- ORCID : 0000-0003-1848-9230
- IdRef : 11286953X
Abstract
Whilst the benefits of agroforestry are widely recognised in tropical latitudes few studies have assessed how agroforestry is perceived in temperate latitudes. This study evaluates how stakeholders and key actors including farmers, landowners, agricultural advisors, researchers and environmentalists perceive the implementation and expansion of agroforestry in Europe. Meetings were held with 30 stakeholder groups covering different agroforestry systems in 2014 in eleven EU countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). In total 344 valid responses were received to a questionnaire where stakeholders were asked to rank the positive and negative aspects of implementing agroforestry in their region. Improved biodiversity and wildlife habitats, animal health and welfare, and landscape aesthetics were seen as the main positive aspects of agroforestry. By contrast, increased labour, complexity of work, management costs and administrative burden were seen as the most important negative aspects. Overall, improving the environmental value of agriculture was seen as the main benefit of agroforestry, whilst management and socio-economic issues were seen as the greatest barriers. The great variability in the opportunities and barriers of the systems suggests enhanced adoption of agroforestry across Europe will be most likely to occur with specific initiatives for each type of system.