The role of agroforestry networks in landscape socioeconomic processes: the potential and limits of the contingent valuation method

• Published in: Landscape and urban planning 2001-08, Vol.55 (4), p.239-256
• Main Authors: Franco, Daniel, Franco, Davide, Mannino, Ilda, Zanetto, Gabriele
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Agro-environmental policies; Agroforestry; Agronomy. Soil science and plant productions; Biological and medical sciences; Contingent valuation; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; GIS; Landscape; Landscape preferences and values; Networks; Soil and water pollution; Soil science; WTA; WTP
• ISSN: 0169-2046; 1872-6062
• DOI: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00158-X

Agroforestry networks can be a means to achieve landscape amelioration. Some authorities of the Lagoon of Venice drainage basin (Italy) are planning, amongst other actions to control pollution in the Lagoon, to reintroduce agroforestry by means of a GIS-supported design procedure. The goals of this paper were to assess (i) the contingent valuation (CV) (willingness to pay and willingness to accept) of agroforestry networks and its relationship with socioeconomic and agroforestry role variables, (ii) the coherence between agro-economic policies and farmers expectations, (iii) the relationship between the value of agroforestry as a “shared good” and water quality (non-point source pollution). Respondents associate a positive value/preference to the agroforestry network implementation, although this value is strongly affected firstly by their identity with the landscape and secondly by their income. The motivations of farmers’ evaluation are precise and the agroforestry network is considered not only as an “ethical object” but also as a concrete element of their own cultural and economic world. In this case the contingent value (in particular, in terms of acceptance) increases with the farmer’s economic capacity, and the farmer’s valuation is not linked only to the “good” but also to the “service” offered for implementing it. The expectations of farmers regarding an agroforestry plantation were lower than European Union incentives at the time of survey, and a lack of results in this field is probably linked to poor information and to bureaucratic difficulties. Even if there is general knowledge on water quality, there is little awareness on the non-point source pollution control effect of agroforestry buffer plantations, either in the common people or in those who are environmentally trained (e.g. planning university students). In every case the agroforestry “shared good” evaluation is high enough to permit efficient and supported intervention policies. These results confirm that landscape choices strongly involve issues of identity, perceived rights and evaluation capacity that cannot be simply resolved in terms of preference cost benefit analyses, but a clever use of the CV allows an identification of these same limitations and a partial estimation of them.