1. The Non-Operator Landowner and Agroforestry: An Analysis of Factors Associated with Interest in Agroforestry Practices in Missouri J. Gordon Arbuckle Jr., Corinne Valdivia, Andrew Raedeke, John Green, and J. Sanford Rikoon

2. Land Tenure and Agroforestry Adoption  Land tenure a critical factor in adoption & maintenance of agroforestry practices (Mercer 2004; Pattanayak et al. 2003)  Consistently positive relationship between agroforestry adoption and land tenure  Most evidence from tropical countries

3. Land Tenure and Agroforestry Adoption: USA  Is tenure status an important factor in adoption decisions in US?  US: Few adoption studies, little focus on tenure  Conservation practice adoption literature  Kurtz (2000): long-term horizon of AF practices may be incompatible with shorter-term rental relations  Decisions on longer-term practices or those that require landscape modification (AF) likely landowners’ to make

4. The Non-Operator Landowner in the US  AELOS 1999: 1.4 million non-operator landowners own 390 million acres of agricultural land  Non-operator landowners control 42 percent of agricultural land in US  Continuing trend – non-operator landowners have increased in number and landholding over last 30 years

5. Research Objectives  Understand Factors associated with non- operator landowner (NOL) interest in agroforestry  Soil and water conservation adoption literature guided variable selection  Assess relationship between factors related to propensity to adopt conservation practices and NOL interest in agroforestry

6. Study Context  Data gathered in 1999 for EPA-funded research project entitled “The Economic and Social Value of Flood Plain Agroforestry to Rural Development Projects”  Two sites: the Fox Wyaconda watershed (FWW), located in NE Missouri, and Scott County (SC), located in SE Missouri  FWW mix of cropland, pasture and hayland, and forest across both hills and floodplains; SC primarily intensively cultivated rich delta soils

7. Hypotheses  Variables from four general areas will influence NOL interest in agroforestry implementation:  Farming orientation/community  Ownership motivation  Knowledge of agroforestry  Demographic characteristics

8. Farming Orientation/Community Variables  Participation in farming (-)  Family landownership continuity (-)  Percentage of land in row crops (-)  Influence of other farming community actors on decisions (-)  Change agents/info sources (?,+)

9. Farmland Ownership Motivations  Two dimensions of landownership motivation  Environmental/recreational motivation index (+)  Financial motivation index (-)

10. Knowledge of Agroforestry, Demographics  Agroforestry knowledge index (+)  Demographic variables Age (-) Age (-) Education (+) Education (+)

11. Dependent Variable  Overall interest in agroforestry practices  Constructed from respondents’ rating of interest in each practice  Agroforestry interest index variable created by summing the five four-point scales

12. Data Collection and Analysis  Data Collection Sample frame: non-operator landowners in the FWW and SC Sample frame: non-operator landowners in the FWW and SC Mail survey; 46 percent response rate Mail survey; 46 percent response rate Final sample = 239 NOL Final sample = 239 NOL  Analysis OLS regression OLS regression

13. OLS Results bSig. Constant1.36.000 Farming participation (No=0)-.219.007 Years land in family.000.813 Likelihood leave to family-.026.381 Percent of land in crops -.253.047 Influence of other farmers' opinions-.045.251 Influence of potential renters' opinions.029.452 Influence of bank/lender requirements.097.046 Number of field days or demonstrations-.035.336 Number times advice from professional.080.000 Env/rec. reasons for owning index.055.000 Financial reasons for owning index-.025.080 Knowledge of AF.159.012 Age-.004.273 College graduate (No=0).278.001 F-value7.838 Adj. R Square.287 N239

14. Discussion – Farming Orientation/Community  NOLs who were more involved in farming less interested in AF (-.219, p<.01)  Landownership continuity (Not sig.)  NOLs with more land in row crops less interested (-.253, p<.05)  Suggests incompatibility as in Raedeke et al (2003)

15. Discussion – Farming Orientation/Community  Influence of lending institution requirements (.097, p<.05)  Influence of other farmers or potential renters (Not sig.)  Contact with natural resource professionals positively related to agroforestry interest (.080, p<.01)

16. Discussion: Landownership Motivations  Environmental motivations for landownership (.055, p<.01)  Financial motivations (-.025, p<.10)  Results suggest a divide between types of landowner: importance of aesthetic, natural, and recreational values of their land importance of aesthetic, natural, and recreational values of their land importance as an investment or source of income importance as an investment or source of income

17. Discussion: Knowledge and Education  Knowledge of agroforestry (.159, p<.01)  Age (Not sig.)  College graduate (.278, p<.01)

18. Implications  Non-operator landowners do express interest in agroforesty, however…  NOLs with stronger ties to farming and financial motivations: focus on economic performance/ marketing  NOLs with strong environmental motivations – residential/lifestyle farmers, retirees? –potential partners  Contact with natural resource professionals: NRPs not necessarily familiar w/ AF (Workman et al 2003) – increasing knowledge and comfort with agroforestry among NRPs necessary

19. Conclusion  Results suggest that more extensive outreach efforts specifically targeting non-operator landowners may be warranted  Likely that non-operator landowner influence will be significant for decisions involving agricultural practices with longer benefit horizons  Failure to concentrate some research and outreach effort on this group could result in lost opportunities to encourage agroforestry adoption