Abstract
Agricultural production occupies large territory extensions, influencing the supply of Environmental Services (ES) and the levels of welfare and utility obtained by rural population. In Uruguay, extensive livestock on native grasslands is the most common form of Land Use and Land Cover, and is related to the conservation of this local ecosystem and its ES. Nonetheless, the emission of greenhouse gases and the animal thermal discomfort are environmental aspects of concern from these production systems. The use of integrated tree-animal-pasture systems, in silvopastoral designs, is a strategy to fulfill these environmental considerations. Besides biophysical aspects, social preferences are important factors influencing the ES from the agroecosystems. The farmers’ preferences for environmental-productive conditions and managements can generate relevant information for land management. This research aimed to assess the valuation of local farmers for the ES of SPS and their willingness to incorporate areas of silvopasture. The hypotheses evaluated were: farmers positively value the ES once certain levels of livestock productivity are obtained; farmers’ willingness to incorporate Silvopastoral Systems (SPS) are related to their farms’ structure and management. The preferences of 27 individuals were assessed using surveys with Discrete Choice (DC) and Contingent Valuation (CV) experiments, including environmental-productive scenarios of silvopasture and conventional extensive livestock. The results of the DC experiment indicated significant trade-offs among the ES, with farmers assigning greater utility levels to animal thermal comfort and livestock productivity. This analysis also indicated a tolerance of farmers to reduce up to 20% of the stocking rate in silvopastoral areas in order to obtain greater animal thermal comfort. The results of the hypothetical CV experiment showed a positive willingness from farmers to participate in a program of economic incentive for silvopastoral production. Their preferences indicated the use of reduced fractions from their properties for incorporating SPS on areas of lower livestock productivity, with lower opportunity costs. The results obtained suggest that SPS can elevate the levels of utility obtained by local farmers and the accomplishment of specific environmental and productive demands from the agricultural sector.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackermann MN, Buonomo M, Muñoz G, Cortelezzi Á, Barboza N, García F (2018) Análisis de las políticas agropecuarias en Uruguay: cuantificación de los apoyos específicos 2014–2016 y su vinculación con las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. Análisis de las políticas agropecuarias. En Uruguay: cuantificación de los apoyos específicos 2014–2016 y su vinculación con las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. https://doi.org/10.18235/0001196
Aguirre J, Garret A (2008) Guía de modelos agroforestales para el Uruguay. MGAP—Ministerio de Ganadería Agricultura y Pesca, Montevideo, pp 1–37
Altesor A (2011) Servicios ecosistémicos de los pastizales naturales. In: Altesor A, Ayala W, Paruelo JM (eds) Bases ecológicas y tecnológicas para el manejo de pastizales. Serie FPTA N° 26, INIA
Baeza S, Baldassini P, Bagnato C, Pinto P, Paruelo JM (2014) Caracterización del uso/cobertura del suelo en Uruguay a partir de series temporales de imágenes MODIS land use/land cover classification in Uruguay using time series of MODIS images. Agrocienc Urug 18(2):95–105
Baeza S, Rama G, Lezama F (2019) Cartografía de los pastizales en las regiones geomorfológicas de Uruguay predominantemente ganaderas. Ampliación y actualización. Bases Ecológicas y Tecnológicas Para El Manejo de Pastizales, May, 27–47
Bardgett RD, Bullock JM, Lavorel S, Manning P, Schaffner U, Ostle N, Chomel M, Durigan G, Fry EL, Johnson D, Lavallee JM, Le Provost G, Luo S, Png K, Sankaran M, Hou X, Zhou H, Ma L, Ren W, Shi H (2021) Combatting global grassland degradation. Nat Rev Earth Environ 2(10):720–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-021-00207-2
Barton DN, Benjamin T, Cerdán CR, DeClerck F, Madsen AL, Rusch GM, Salazar ÁG, Sanchez D, Villanueva C (2016) Assessing ecosystem services from multifunctional trees in pastures using Bayesian belief networks. Ecosyst Serv 18:165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.03.002
Bengtsson J, Bullock JM, Egoh B, Everson C, Everson T, O’Connor T, O’Farrell PJ, Smith HG, Lindborg R (2019) Grasslands—more important for ecosystem services than you might think. Ecosphere 10(2):e02582. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2582
Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12(12):1394–1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x
Boscana MG, Varela FC (2011) Factores que influyen en la incorporación del rubro forestal en predios agropecuarios de los departamentos de florida, flores y durazno. Tesis de Maestría, Montevideo, Uruguay. Facultad de Agronomía. Universidad de la República, p 121
Bussoni A, Juan C, Fernández E, Boscana M, Cubbage F, Bentancur O (2015) Integrated beef and wood production in Uruguay: potential and limitations. Agrofor Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9839-1
Claytor HS, Clark CD, Lambert DM, Jensen KL (2018) Cattle producer willingness to afforest pastureland and sequester carbon. For Policy Econ 92:43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.03.004
Cohen N, Arieli T (2011) Field research in conflict environments: methodological challenges and snowball sampling. J Peace Res 48(4):423–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311405698
Coleman JS (1958) Field methods and techniques relational analysis: the study of social organizations with survey methods. Hum Organ 17:28–36
Cubbage F, Balmelli G, Bussoni A, Noellemeyer E, Pachas AN, Fassola H, Colcombet L, Rossner B, Frey G, Dube F, de Silva ML, Stevenson H, Hamilton J, Hubbard W (2012) Comparing silvopastoral systems and prospects in eight regions of the world. Agrofor Syst. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9482-z
Dade MC, Mitchell MGE, McAlpine CA, Rhodes JR (2019) Assessing ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: the need for a more mechanistic approach. Ambio 48(10):1116–1128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1127-7
Davis J, Rausser G (2020) Amending conservation programs through expanding choice architecture: a case study of forestry and livestock producers. Agric Syst 177:102678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102678
de Oliveira Resende L, Müller MD, Kohmann MM, Pinto LFG, Cullen Junior L, de Zen S, Rego LFG (2020) Silvopastoral management of beef cattle production for neutralizing the environmental impact of enteric methane emission. Agrofor Syst 94(3):893–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-019-00460-x
Faccioli M, Czajkowski M, Glenk K, Martin-Ortega J (2020) Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 174:106600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106600
Frey GE, Fassola HE, Pachas AN, Colcombet L, Lacorte SM, Pérez O, Renkow M, Warren ST, Cubbage FW (2012) Perceptions of silvopasture systems among adopters in northeast Argentina. Agric Syst 105(1):21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.09.001
Goodman LA (1961) Snowball sampling. Ann Math Stat 32(1):148–170. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148
Handcock MS, Gile KJ (2011) Comment: on the concept of snowball sampling. Sociol Methodol 41(1):367–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01243.x
Heckathorn DD (2011) Comment: snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Sociol Methodol 41(1):355–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01244.x
Johnson TP (2005) Snowball sampling. Encycl Biostat. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470011815.b2a16070
Jose S, Garrett HE, Gold MA et al (2022) Agroforestry as an integrated, multifunctional land use management strategy. In: Garret HE, Jose S, Gold MA (eds) North American agroforestry, 3rd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 3–26
Kaplan CD, Korf D, Sterk C (1987) Temporal and social context of heroin-using populations. J Nerv Ment Dis 175(9):566–574
Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD, Adamowicz W (2000) Combining sources of preference data. Stated Choice Methods. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511753831.008
Magagula B, Tsvakirai CZ (2020) Youth perceptions of agriculture: influence of cognitive processes on participation in agripreneurship. Dev Pract 30(2):234–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2019.1670138
Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del Amo DG, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, González JA, Santos-Martín F, Onaindia M, López-Santiago C, Montes C (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS ONE 7(6):e38970. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
Mastrangelo ME, Gavin MC (2012) Trade-offs between cattle production and bird conservation in an agricultural frontier of the Gran Chaco of Argentina. Conserv Biol 26(6):1040–1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01904.x
Mastrangelo ME, Laterra P (2015) From biophysical to social-ecological trade-offs: integrating biodiversity conservation and agricultural production in the Argentine Dry Chaco. Ecol Soc 20(1):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07186-200120
McFadden D (2001) Nobel prize lecture: economic choices. Am Econ Rev 91(3):351–378
MGAP—Ministerio de Ganadería Agricultura y Pesca (2011) Censo general agropecuario 2011 resultados definitivos. Estadísticas Agropecuarias
Muradian R, Corbera E, Pascual U, Kosoy N, May PH (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69(6):1202–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006
Pastorini V, Acosta P, Ligrone A, Polla C, Tamosiunas M, Gravina V, Molina C (2011) Estudio de los factores que explican la adopción de tecnologías que apuntan a la inclusión del rubro forestal en predios ganaderos. Informe Final. Uruguay
Pent GJ, Fike JH, Orefice JN et al (2022) Silvopasture practices. In: Garret HE, Jose S, Gold MA (eds) North American agroforestry, 3rd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 127–162
Peterson CA, Eviner VT, Gaudin ACM (2018) Ways forward for resilience research in agroecosystems. Agric Syst 162:19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.011
Pezzopane JRM, Bernardi ACC, Bosi C, Oliveira PPA, Marconato MH, de FariaPedroso A, Esteves SN (2017) Forage productivity and nutritive value during pasture renovation in integrated systems. Agrofor Syst 93(1):39–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0149-7
Pezzopane JRM, Nicodemo MLF, Bosi C, Garcia AR, Lulu J (2019) Animal thermal comfort indexes in silvopastoral systems with different tree arrangements. J Therm Biol 79:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2018.12.015
Pillar V, Tornquist C, Bayer C (2012) The southern Brazilian grassland biome: soil carbon stocks, fluxes of greenhouse gases and some options for mitigation. Braz J Biol 72(3):673–681. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1519-69842012000400006
Potschin MB, Haines-Young RH (2011) Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Prog Phys Geogr 35(5):575–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133311423172
Raes L, Speelman S, Aguirre N (2017) Farmers’ preferences for PES contracts to adopt silvopastoral systems in southern Ecuador, revealed through a choice experiment. Environ Manag 60(2):200–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0876-6
Rodríguez J, Beard TD, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cork SJ, Agard J, Dobson AP, Peterson GD (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 11:28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01667-110128
Ruto E, Garrod G (2009) Investigating farmers’ preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. J Environ Plan Manag 52(5):631–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560902958172
Sancho L, Arocena I, Ordeig L (2021) Definición, caracterización y cuantificación del área bajo sistemas silvopastoriles, para el seguimiento de las contribuciones establecidas en la Contribución Determinada a nivel Nacional de Uruguay. 66
Schinato F, Munka MC, Olmos VM, Bussoni AT (2023) Microclimate, forage production and carbon storage in a eucalypt-based silvopastoral system. Agric Ecosyst Environ 344:108290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108290
Shrestha RK, Alavalapati JRR (2004) Valuing environmental benefits of silvopasture practice: a case study of the Lake Okeechobee watershed in Florida. Ecol Econ 49(3):349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.01.015
SNRCCV—Sistema Nacional de Respuesta al Cambio Climático (2017a) Política nacional de cambio climático. Ministerio de Ambiente, Uruguay. https://bit.ly/3PrsCjY
SNRCCV - Sistema Nacional de Respuesta al Cambio Climático (2017b) Primera contribución determinada a nivel nacional al acuerdo de París. Ministerio de Ambiente, Uruguay. https://bit.ly/3hrdxSZ
Solorio SFJ, Wright J, Franco MJA, Basu SK, Sarabia SL, Ramírez L, Ayala BA, Aguilar PC, Ku VJC (2017) Chapter 11 - Silvopastoral systems: best agroecological practice for resilient production systems under dryland and drought conditions. In: Ahmed M, Stockle CO (eds) Quantification of climate variability, adaptation and mitigation for agricultural sustainability. Springer, pp 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32059-5
Somarriba E, Beer J, Alegre-Orihuela J, Andrade HJ, Cerda R, DeClerck F, Detlefsen G, Escalante M, Giraldo LA, Ibrahim M, Krishnamurthy L, Mena-Mosquera VE, Mora-Degado JR, Orozco L, Scheelje M, Campos JJ (2012) Mainstreaming agroforestry in Latin America. In: Nair P, Garrity D (eds) Agroforestry - The future of global land use. Advances in Agroforestry, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 429–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4676-3_21
Street DJ, Burgess L (eds) (2007) Factorial designs. In: The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: theory and methods. Wiley-Interscience, pp 15–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470148563
Tamosiunas M (2015) La integración productiva de árboles y ganado en predios familiares: la visión del productor. Agrocienc Urug 19(1):150–157
TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2018) TEEB for agriculture & food: scientific and economic foundations. UN Environment, Geneva
Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Hartel T, Moreno G, Plieninger T (2018) A social-ecological analysis of ecosystem services supply and trade-offs in European wood-pastures. Sci Adv 4(5):eaar2176. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar2176
Torres CMME, Jacovine LAG, Neto SNO, Fraisse CW, Soares CPB, Neto FC, Ferreira LR, Zanuncio JC, Lemes PG (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration by agroforestry systems in southeastern Brazil. Sci Rep 7:16738. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16821-4
Train KE (2009) Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805271
Vieira FM, Pilatti JA, Czekoski ZMW, Fonsêca VFC, Herbut P, Angrecka S, Vismara ES, Macedo V, dos Santos MCR, Pasmionka I (2021) Effect of the silvopastoral system on the thermal comfort of lambs in a subtropical climate: a preliminary study. Agriculture 11(8):790. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11080790
Acknowledgements
I thank the Postgraduate Academic Commission, from Facultad de Agronomía (UdelaR), for the scholarship received during the master degree in which this research was developed.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Schinato, F., Bussoni, A. & Olmos, V.M. Farmers’ preferences and willingness to incorporate silvopastoral systems in Uruguay. Agroforest Syst (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00935-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-023-00935-y