IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i5p726-d820779.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agroforestry Extent in the United States: A Review of National Datasets and Inventory Efforts

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew M. Smith

    (USDA National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA)

  • Gary Bentrup

    (USDA National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA)

  • Todd Kellerman

    (USDA National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA)

  • Katherine MacFarland

    (USDA National Agroforestry Center, Burlington, VT 05405, USA)

  • Richard Straight

    (USDA National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, NE 68583, USA)

  • Lord Ameyaw

    (Nebraska Forest Service, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68503, USA)

Abstract

A comprehensive understanding of agroforestry adoption across a landscape is critical for effective agroforestry planning. The objectives of this study are to identify the sources of agroforestry data that can be used in the United States (U.S.) for national inventory purposes, discuss the possible uses and nuances of the datasets, synthesize the data to create regional maps, and provide recommendations for improving future agroforestry inventory efforts. To accomplish this, we queried multiple government databases containing agroforestry inventory data and spoke with agency representatives with in-depth knowledge of each dataset. Data from federal conservation programs were found to be useful for assessing practice-level adoption through a conservation program but not for general inventory use, since agroforestry systems can be established without federal assistance. For inventory purposes, the 2017 U.S. Census of Agriculture was found to be the most comprehensive dataset, with 30,853 farm operations reporting agroforestry use, representing 1.5% of all U.S. farms. However, this value is likely an underestimate, due to respondent unfamiliarity with agroforestry terminology. We propose several strategies to improve the accuracy of future agroforestry surveys, since a greater understanding of agroforestry adoption will influence decisions related to agricultural policies, technical assistance, and planning of these integrated systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew M. Smith & Gary Bentrup & Todd Kellerman & Katherine MacFarland & Richard Straight & Lord Ameyaw, 2022. "Agroforestry Extent in the United States: A Review of National Datasets and Inventory Efforts," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:5:p:726-:d:820779
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/726/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/5/726/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lisa Mølgaard Lehmann & Jo Smith & Sally Westaway & Andrea Pisanelli & Giuseppe Russo & Robert Borek & Mignon Sandor & Adrian Gliga & Laurence Smith & Bhim Bahadur Ghaley, 2020. "Productivity and Economic Evaluation of Agroforestry Systems for Sustainable Production of Food and Non-Food Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-9, July.
    2. Ranjan, Pranay & Wardropper, Chloe B. & Eanes, Francis R. & Reddy, Sheila M.W. & Harden, Seth C. & Masuda, Yuta J. & Prokopy, Linda S., 2019. "Understanding barriers and opportunities for adoption of conservation practices on rented farmland in the US," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 214-223.
    3. Smith, Matthew M. & Bentrup, Gary & Kellerman, Todd & MacFarland, Katherine & Straight, Richard & Ameyaw, Lord, 2021. "Windbreaks in the United States: A systematic review of producer-reported benefits, challenges, management activities and drivers of adoption," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    4. Davis, James & Rausser, Gordon, 2020. "Amending conservation programs through expanding choice architecture: A case study of forestry and livestock producers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    5. Del Rossi, Gemma & Hecht, Jory S. & Zia, Asim, 2021. "A mixed-methods analysis for improving farmer participation in agri-environmental payments for ecosystem services in Vermont, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    6. Johnson, Kris A. & Dalzell, Brent J. & Donahue, Marie & Gourevitch, Jesse & Johnson, Dennis L. & Karlovits, Greg S. & Keeler, Bonnie & Smith, Jason T., 2016. "Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands provide ecosystem service benefits that exceed land rental payment costs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 175-185.
    7. Bigelow, Daniel & Claassen, Roger & Hellerstein, Daniel & Breneman, Vince & Williams, Ryan & You, Chengxia, 2020. "The Fate of Land in Expiring Conservation Reserve Program Contracts, 2013-16," Economic Information Bulletin 301138, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    8. Luke Bergmann & Luis Fernando Chaves & Carolyn R. Betz & Serena Stein & Brian Wiedenfeld & Ann Wolf & Robert G. Wallace, 2022. "Mapping Agricultural Lands: From Conventional to Regenerative," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-41, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zhigao Wu & Kangning Xiong & Dayun Zhu & Jie Xiao, 2022. "Revelation of Coupled Ecosystem Quality and Landscape Patterns for Agroforestry Ecosystem Services Sustainability Improvement in the Karst Desertification Control," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-27, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew B. Rosenberg & Bryan Pratt, 2024. "Land use impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program: An analysis of rejected offers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(3), pages 1217-1240, May.
    2. Youngho Kim, 2024. "Payments for Ecosystem Services Programs and Climate Change Adaptation in Agriculture," Economics Series Working Papers 1054, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    3. Raelin Kronenberg & Sarah Lovell & Bhuwan Thapa & Christine Spinka & Corinne Valdivia & Michael Gold & Sougata Bardhan, 2023. "Survey of Missouri Landowners to Explore the Potential of Woody Perennials to Integrate Conservation and Production," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-17, October.
    4. Thiesmeier, Alma & Zander, Peter, 2023. "Can agroforestry compete? A scoping review of the economic performance of agroforestry practices in Europe and North America," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    5. Tianjiao, Feng & Dong, Wang & Ruoshui, Wang & Yixin, Wang & Zhiming, Xin & Fengmin, Luo & Yuan, Ma & Xing, Li & Huijie, Xiao & Caballero-Calvo, Andrés & Rodrigo-Comino, Jesús, 2022. "Spatial-temporal heterogeneity of environmental factors and ecosystem functions in farmland shelterbelt systems in desert oasis ecotones," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 271(C).
    6. Gori Maia, Alexandre & Eusebio, Gabriela dos Santos & Fasiaben, Maria do Carmo Ramos & Moraes, Andre Steffens & Assad, Eduardo Delgado & Pugliero, Vanessa Silva, 2021. "The economic impacts of the diffusion of agroforestry in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    7. Matthew C. LaFevor & Alexandra G. Ponette-González & Rebecca Larson & Leah M. Mungai, 2021. "Spatial Targeting of Agricultural Support Measures: Indicator-Based Assessment of Coverages and Leakages," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Viviana Ferrario, 2021. "Learning from Agricultural Heritage? Lessons of Sustainability from Italian “Coltura Promiscua”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-13, August.
    9. Emmanouil Tziolas & Stefanos Ispikoudis & Konstantinos Mantzanas & Dimitrios Koutsoulis & Anastasia Pantera, 2022. "Economic and Environmental Assessment of Olive Agroforestry Practices in Northern Greece," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, June.
    10. Hérivaux, Cécile & Grémont, Marine, 2019. "Valuing a diversity of ecosystem services: The way forward to protect strategic groundwater resources for the future?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 184-193.
    11. Byungyul Park & Roderick M. Rejesus & Serkan Aglasan & Yuyuan Che & Stephen C. Hagen & William Salas, 2023. "Payments from agricultural conservation programs and cover crop adoption," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 984-1007, June.
    12. Yadira Vargas-Tierras & Alejandra Díaz & Carlos Caicedo & Julio Macas & Alfonso Suárez-Tapia & William Viera, 2021. "Benefits of Legume Species in an Agroforestry Production System of Yellow Pitahaya in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.
    13. Saad, Sandra I. & Mota da Silva, Jonathan & Ponette-González, Alexandra G. & Silva, Marx Leandro Naves & da Rocha, Humberto R., 2021. "Modeling the on-site and off-site benefits of Atlantic forest conservation in a Brazilian watershed," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    14. Yang, Qi & Zhu, Yueji & Liu, Ling & Wang, Fang, 2021. "Land tenure stability and adoption intensity of sustainable agricultural practices: Evidence from banana farmers in China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315254, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Bussoni, Adriana & Cubbage, Frederick & Alvarez Giambruno, Jorge, 2021. "Silvopastoral systems and multi-criteria optimization for compatible economic and environmental outcomes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    16. Burnett, J. Wesley & Szmurlo, Daniel & Callahan, Scott, 2024. "Farmland Rental and Conservation Practice Adoption," Economic Information Bulletin 341821, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    17. Ping Lei & Ram Kumar Shrestha & Bing Zhu & Suju Han & Hongbin Yang & Shaojun Tan & Jiupai Ni & Deti Xie, 2021. "A Bibliometric Analysis on Nonpoint Source Pollution: Current Status, Development, and Future," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-14, July.
    18. Palm-Forster, Leah H. & Taylor, Mykel & Banerjee, Simanti & Xie, Lusi, 2023. "Factors influencing enrollment of leased cropland in the Conservation Stewardship Program in Kansas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    19. Sawadgo, Wendiam & Zhang, Wendong & Plastina, Alejandro, 2019. "What drives landowners’ conservation decisions? Evidence from Iowa," ISU General Staff Papers 201905230700001082, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    20. Yan, Haiming & Yang, Huicai & Guo, Xiaonan & Zhao, Shuqin & Jiang, Qun'ou, 2022. "Payments for ecosystem services as an essential approach to improving ecosystem services: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:5:p:726-:d:820779. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.