Abstract
Agroforestry systems (AFS) provide a mix of market goods and nonmarket goods and services. We postulate that if nonmarket goods and services can be internalized to the benefit of landowners, the adoption of AFS will increase. Using the theory of externality as a conceptual framework, this paper provides an environmental economic logic for developing incentive policies to internalize environmental services especially in the industrialized countries. Specifically, the paper addresses the following questions with focus on North America in general and southern United States in particular: What is the effect of environmental costs and benefits on the adoption of silvopasture? Do households care for carbon sequestration, water quality improvement, and biodiversity associated with silvo-pasture? Will they be willing to pay for them? If so, how much? Will ranchers adopt more silvopasture if incentives are provided? Which incentive policy, a price premium or a direct payment, is more effective? It has been found that the profitability of silvopasture would increase, relative to conventional ranching, if environmental services are included. Estimates of public willingness to pay for environmental services associated with silvopasture and estimates of ranchers’ willingness to accept for the adoption of silvopasture will provide a scientific basis for policy development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Adamowicz W., Boxall P., Williams M. and Louviere J. 1998. Stated preference approach for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agr Econ 80: 64–75.
Alavalapati J.R.R. and Nair P.K. 2001. Socioeconomic and institu-tional perspectives of agroforestry. pp. 71–81. In: Palo M. and Uusivuori J. (eds) World Forests, Society, and Environment–Markets and Policies. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Boggess C.F., Flaig E.G. and Fluck R.C. 1995. Phosphorus budget-basin relationships for Lake Okeechobee tributary basins. Ecol Eng 5: 143–162
Cameron T.A., Poe G.L., Ethier R.G. and Schulze W.D. 2002. Alternative non-market value-elicitation: Are the underlying preference the same? J Environ Econ Manag 44: 391–422.
Clason T.R. 1995. Economic implications of silvipastures on south-ern pine plantations. Agroforest Syst 29: 227–238.
Coase R.H. 1960. The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3: 1–44.
Coase R.H. 1992. The institutional structure of production. Am Econ Rev 82 (4): 713–719.
Cooper J.C. and Keim R.W. 1996. Incentive payments to encourage farmer adoption of water quality protection practices. Am J Agr Econ 78: 54–64.
FAS 2002. Beef cattle and calf inventory by county: Livestock, dairy, and poultry summary, Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. The USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl/.
Feather P., Hellerstein D. and Hansen.L 1999. Economic valuation of environmental benefits and the targeting of conservation pro-grams: The case of the CRP. Washington DC, USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 778.
Felder J. 2001. Coase Thorem 1–2–3. Am Econ 45: 54 – 60.
Garrett H.E., Rietveld W.J. and Fisher R.F. (eds) 2000. North Amer-ican Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, 402 pp.
Grado S.C., Hovermale C.H. and Louis D.J.S. 2001. A financial ana-lysis of a silvopasture system in southern Mississippi. Agroforest Syst 53: 313–322.
Harvey R. and Havens K. 1999. Lake Okeechobee Action Plan. Lake Okeechobee Issue Team for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, 43 pp.
Heimlich R.E., Wiebe K.D., Claassen R., Gadsby D. and House R.M. 1998 Wetlands and agriculture: Private interests and pub-lic benefits. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. AER765, Washington DC. 104 pp.
Kingsbury L. and Boggess W. 1999. An economic analysis of riparian landowners’ willingness to participate in Oregon’s Con-servation Reserve Enhancement Program. Selected paper for the annual meeting of the Agricultural Economics Association, August 8–11, Nashville, Tennessee. 15 pp.
Kuhfeld W.F., Tobias R.D. and Garratt M. 1994. Efficient experi-mental design with marketing research applications. J Marketing Res 31: 545–557.
Lant C.L. 1991. Potential of the Conservation Reserve Program to control agricultural surface water pollution. Environ Manage 15: 507–518.
Lohr L., Park T. 1994. Discrete/continuous choices in contingent valuation surveys: Conservation decisions in Michigan. Rev Agri Econ 16: 1–15.
Loomis J.B., Kent P., Strange L., Fausch K. and Covich A. 2000. Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem ser-vices in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecol Econ 33: 103–117.
Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A. and Swait J.D. 2000. State Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 402 pp.
Lundgren G.K., Conner J.R. and Pearson H.A. 1983. An economic analysis of forest grazing on four timber management situation. South J Appl For 7: 119–124.
McFadden D. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. pp. 105–142. In: Zarembka P. (ed.) Frontiers in Econo-metrics. Academic Press, New York.
Milon J.W., Hodges A.W., Rimal A., Kiker C.F. and Casey F. 1999. Public preferences and economic values for restoration of the Everglades/South Florida ecosystems. Economics Report 99–1, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville. 124 pp.
Montagnini F. and Nair P.K.R. 2004. Carbon sequestration: An under-exploited environmental benefit of agroforestry systems. (This volume).
Nair P.K.R. 2001. Agroforestry. In Our Fragile World: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development, Forerunner to The Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, Chapter 1.25: 375– 393. UNESCO, Paris, France & EOLSS, UK.
Nair V.D. and Graetz D.A. 2004. Agroforestry as an approach to minimizing nutrient loss from heavily fertilized soils: The Florida experience (This volume).
Peterson E.W.F. 2001. The Political Economy of Agricultural, Nat-ural Resource, and Environmental Policy Analysis. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 373 pp.
Pimentel D., Harvey C., Resosudarmo P., Sinclair K., Kurz D., McNair M., Crist S., Shpritz L., Fitton L., Saffouri R. and Blair R. 1995. Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Science 267: 1117–1123.
Purvis A., Hoehn J.P., Sorenson V.L. and Pierce F.J. 1989. Farm-ers’ response to a filter strip program: Results from a contingent valuation survey. J Soil Water Conserv 44: 501–504.
Ribaudo M.O., Horan R.D. and Smith M.E. 1999. Economics ofwa-ter quality protection from nonpoint sources. USDA/Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C.
Shrestha R.K. and Alavalapati J.R.R. 2004a. Valuing Environmental Benefits of Silvopasture Practice: A Case Study of the Lake Okeechobee Watershed in Florida. Ecol Econ (in press).
Shrestha R.K. and Alavalapati J.R.R. 2004b. Effect of Ranchland Attributes on Recreational Hunting in Florida: A Hedonic Price Analysis J Agr Applied Econ (in press).
Stainback G.A., Alavalapati J.R.R., Shrestha R.R., Larkin S. and Wong G. 2004. Environmental Economic Valuation of Silvopas-ture: A Dynamic Optimization Approach. J Agr Applied Econ (in press).
Stainback G.A. and Alavalapati J.R.R. 2004. An Economic Analysis Restoring Longleaf Pine on Ranchlands. Forest Policy Econ (in press).
Train K.E. 1998. Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Econ 74: 230–239.
USDA 1997. Census of Agriculture: National, state, and county tables. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington DC (http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/).
Varian H.R. 1992. Microeconomics Analysis, 3rd Edition, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 364 pp.
van Kooten G.C. 1993. Land Resource Economics and Sustainable Development: Economic Policies and the Common Good, UBC Press, Vancouver, 450 pp.
Westcott P., Young C.E. and Price J.M. 2002. The 2002 Farm Act: Provision and implications for commodity markets. Washington DC, USDA Economic Research Service, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. AIB778. 67 pp.
Zinkhan F.C. and Mercer D.E. 1997. An assessment of agroforestry systems in the southern U.S.A. Agroforest Syst 35: 303–321.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alavalapati, J.R.R., Shrestha, R.K., Stainback, G.A., Matta, J.R. (2004). Agroforestry development: An environmental economic perspective. In: Nair, P.K.R., Rao, M.R., Buck, L.E. (eds) New Vistas in Agroforestry. Advances in Agroforestry, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2424-1_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2424-1_21
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6673-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2424-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive