PARTICIPATORY AGROECOSYSTEM DESIGN: WORKING WITH FARMS TO DEVELOP MULTIFUNCTIONAL LANDSCAPES

A Thesis Presented by Rafter Sass Ferguson to The Faculty of the Graduate College of The University of Vermont

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Specializing in Plant and Soil Science

May, 2011

Accepted by the Faculty of the Graduate College, The University of Vermont, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, specializing in Plant and Soil Science.

Thesis Examination Committee:

_____________________________________ Advisor Ernesto Mendez, Ph.D

____________________________________ Sarah Lovell, Ph.D.

____________________________________ Allen Matthews, M.S.

____________________________________ Chairperson John Todd, Ph. D.

____________________________________ Dean, Graduate College Domenico Grasso, Ph. D

Date: December 9, 2011

ABSTRACT The impact of agriculture on the function and structure of the planets ecosystems has received increasing levels of scientific scrutiny over the past several decades, as the dramatic and negative consequences of industrial agriculture are revealed in the declining health of our ecosystems and its inhabitants (including humans). In contrast, the ecological stewardship of agroecosystems has been shown to provide an array of benefits to ecosystem function and human communities. Farmers are the primary decision makers in agricultural landscapes. If sustainable agriculture is to be supported, farmers are ultimately the agents through which it will be accomplished. Factors affecting farmer involvement in research and development, and barriers to adoption of new technologies, must be identified and accounted for. Key cultural and economic barriers to farmer involvement in the development of sustainable agriculture include lack of working and accessible models, and financial trade-offs between production and ecological functions. This paper proposes an iterative, participatory, agroecosystem design process, which brings farmers into collaboration with designers, and equips designers to substantively reconcile production and conservation functions in agroecosystems. This design framework accomplishes two goals: 1) foregrounding farmer interests and constraints in a way that facilitates participation; and 2) equipping the designer to creatively reconcile multiple goals and functions, embedded in complex spatial relationships. The methodology was tested in case studies with three working farms in Vermont. Case study methodologies, while challenging to relate directly to broader applications, are an ideal scale to examine the detailed process of shifting agricultural practices. The methodology described here is a contribution to the ongoing dialogue on the reconciliation of production and ecological functions in agricultural landscapes, putting farmers and their priorities at the center of the process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without the generous participation of numerous individuals. Many thanks to the hard-working, innovative farmers who participated in testing the design process: John Hayden of The Farm Between, Karl Hammer of Vermont Compost, and Sally Colman and Richard Wiswall of Cate Farm. Their time, insight, and experience enriched this project immensely. It would not have been a worthwhile endeavor without their input. Thank you to my committee for their guidance, time, and critical support: Sarah Lovell, Allen Matthews, Ernesto Mendez, and John Todd. Dr. Lovell must be singled out for special gratitude, as without her insightful criticism during the drafting of this project, it would have been an altogether more lumbering beast. Much of what is of value in this document is credit to their assistance, and none of that which is flawed. This project would not have been possible without funding for a one-year graduate research assistantship from Theme One of the Northeastern States Research Cooperative. Finally, I cannot sufficiently thank my partner Brook. She has eased my crises, tolerated my manias, cheered my victories, and generally made life a gentler and lighter place and all of that twice over during the completion of this project.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. ii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ vi CHAPTER 1: REVIEW OF LITERATURE SUPPORTING ......................................... 1 PARTICIPATORY AGROECOSYSTEM DESIGN ...................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Livelihoods Perspective .......................................................................................... 4 1.3 Agroecology ........................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Multifunctional Landscapes ................................................................................... 8 1.5 Permaculture ......................................................................................................... 10 1.6 Agroforestry.......................................................................................................... 16 1.7 Participatory Action Research .............................................................................. 19 1.8 Case Studies and On-Farm Research.................................................................... 22 1.10 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 25 iii

CHAPTER 2: PARTICIPATORY AGROECOSYSTEM DESIGN ............................. 28 2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 28 2.2 Background ........................................................................................................... 32 2.2.1 Moving Toward Multifunctionality ................................................................. 32 2.2.2 Integration Across Scale .................................................................................. 34 2.2.3 The Case for Design ........................................................................................ 35 2.2.4 Productive Perennial Polycultures ................................................................... 41 2.3 Participatory Agroecosystem Design Process ...................................................... 44 2.3.1 Iteration 1: Characterization and Analysis ...................................................... 46 2.3.2 Iteration 2: Synthesis and Design .................................................................... 51 2.3.3 Iteration 3: Resolution, Evaluation, and Future Activities .............................. 56 2.5 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 58 2.5.1 Challenges and Future Research ...................................................................... 58 2.5.2 Implications for Extension ............................................................................... 61 2.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 62 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 63

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

Table 1: Foundational Texts in Permaculture ................................................................ 11 Table 2: Case Study Farms ............................................................................................ 31

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Desired components of a participatory agroecosystem design framework. ........ 2 Figure 2: Permaculture ...................................................................................................... 37 Figure 3: Design as a Frame for Farm Planning ............................................................... 41 Figure 4: Sequence of the Design Process ........................................................................ 48 Figure 5: Reiteration of Goals........................................................................................... 55 Figure 6: Development of Research Partnerships ............................................................. 57

vi

CHAPTER 1: REVIEW OF LITERATURE SUPPORTING PARTICIPATORY AGROECOSYSTEM DESIGN

1.1 Introduction This chapter offers a review of the literature that is relevant to the development of a new framework for planning and decision-making in agricultural landscapes. Participatory Agroecosystem Design is a methodology for working with farmers to generate spatially explicit plans for the integration of perennial features into agricultural landscapes, to simultaneously perform production and conservation functions. The methodology seeks to achieve two objectives: 1) foreground farmer interests and constraints in a way that facilitates participation in the design process and subsequent interventions in the farm landscape; and 2) give designers the necessary tools to creatively reconcile multiple goals and functions, especially production and conservation, that are embedded in complex spatial relationships.

These goals suggest a desiderata, a set of analytical and methodological components that are necessary for a reasonably rigorous and complete approach to the participatory design of agroecosystems. The task requires an analytical framework that integrates relevant domains across disciplinary boundaries, and spans the scales of processes that are pertinent to agroecosystem functions. More specifically, the framework must have the capacity to account for the priorities, interests, and constraints of farmers and farm livelihoods; the multiple interacting processes of the whole farm landscape; and the 1

relationship between the agroecosystem and the regional landscape. The framework must provide perspective on these domains in the dimensions of culture, ecology, and production, from the scale of the field to the region. The desired components of this framework are represented schematically in Fig. 1.

Figure 1: Desired components of a participatory agroecosystem design framework.

Methodologically, the framework requires a process of investigation that identifies the most salient aspects of the context, across scales, with special attention to a participatory

process that solicits and engages with the perspective of the land manager, the farmer. Finally, the design process must integrate that information, and generate robust and adaptive prescriptions for intervention into the farm landscape.

The participatory design of agroecosystems is a novel endeavor, especially in relation to the scientific literature, so there is not a single field or body of literature that encompasses all, or even most, of the desiderata listed above. Multiple fields of research and practice, in and out of peer-reviewed literature, intersect with different dimensions of the proposed framework. I will discuss several of them in turn, highlighting their relevance and utility to the task of engaging with farmers to support the re-visioning of the farm landscape.

1.2 Livelihoods Perspective

Supporting farmers in developing multifunctional agriculture requires a holistic integration of multiple biophysical and cultural factors, such as that provided by rural development perspective called sustainable livelihoods (McDonald & Brown, 2000). A livelihood consists of all the material and social resources, capacities, and activities involved in making a living (Eldis 2011). A livelihoods perspective, then, is the use of peoples ways of making a living as an organizing venue for conversation and collaboration between development-oriented disciplines (Scoones, 1998). Livelihoods approaches provide a transdisciplinary perspective on the constraints and priorities that constitute farmer livelihoods. This is a crucial perspective for agroecosystem designers, as it is to these factors that designers must substantively respond, in order to prescribe interventions that will be culturally acceptable and financially viable.

At the heart of the livelihoods perspective is the concept of the multiple capitals that together constitute livelihood resources, or the types of resources that people use to make a living: natural, physical, human, social, and financial (Elasha, et al., 2005). The attention to multiple capitals shifts the perspective on development away from narrow productivist models, and toward pathways to economic growth that incorporate types of capital that are often neglected by conventional development, including human, social, and natural capital (Carney, 1999). The site specificity of agroecosystem design makes the Green Revolution style of development inappropriate: instead of top-down, one-size4

fits-all models, the task requires bottom-up, multilinear, place-based developmental processes (Zimmerer, 2007). And in fact, this holistic and flexible framework has been shown to be better suited for fostering farmer adoption of soil and water conservation techniques than a narrow focus on technology transfer (McDonald & Brown, 2000).

1.3 Agroecology Agroecology, defined as the ecology of sustainable food systems (Gliessman, 2007), maintains an emphasis on holistic and place-based developmental processes, but is organized more closely around ecological and production functions at the scale of the field and the farm. This field is rooted, historically and conceptually, in the application of the tools of ecology to the subject matter of agronomy. With methodological roots among scattered scientists since the 1930s, modern agroecology began to emerge in the 1970s, fueled by the converging work of number of scientists with shared concerns about the state, and future, of industrial agriculture (Wezel & Soldat, 2009).

Two fundamental insights have organized the development of the field. One is that agroecosystems should be designed and managed to retain more of the structural and functional components of wild ecosystems, a style of agriculture which will avoid the intensive energy use and ecosystem degradation associated with industrial agriculture (Ewel, 1999; Soule & Piper, 1992). The other is that many traditional, pre-industrial agricultural systems are already being managed this fashion. These two areas of investigation, the application of the dynamics of natural ecosystems to agriculture, and 5

the practices of pre-industrial agricultural, form the basis for the prescriptive components of the agroecological perspective. Themes in the field are summed in principles of agroecosystem design that bear directly on multifunctional agriculture, prescribing a variety of soil, water, and biodiversity conservation strategies, that minimize agrichemical and mechanical inputs, and jointly produce ecological services and goods for human use (Altieri, 2000; Altieri, 2002a; Thomas & Kevan, 1993).

Two major themes within these design principles are the beneficial role of agrobiodiversity on the control of pest and pathogen populations (Altieri, 1999; Altieri, 2002a; Ewel, 1999; Nicholls & Altieri, 2001; Thies & Tscharntke, 1999), and the use of perennial plants (integrated with annual production) to combine production functions with soil and water conservation (Altieri, 2000; Altieri, Letourneau & Davis, 1983; Ewel, 1999; McNeely & Scherr, 2001; Soule & Piper, 1992; Thomas & Kevan, 1993). These principles offer an orienting perspective for multifunctional farm design, suggesting pathways by which to reconcile production and conservation in agroecosystems: minimizing the need for chemical pest control by increasing agrobiodiversity, and integrating perennial systems to steward the soil and water resources on which annual production draws so heavily.

In relation to Fig. 1, agroecology as a field has primarily focused on production and ecological functions at the field and farm scales (Altieri, 2000; Francis, Lieblein, Gliessman, Breland, Creamer, Harwood, 2003; Gliessman, 1998; Gliessman, 2007). The 6

relevance of agroecology, and the farm scale, to the larger landscape depends on the question of whether and how sustainable agroecosystems impact the functionality of the larger landscape. The preponderance of research shows that sustainable agroecosystems do positively impact landscape function, through several channels. First and most obviously, they do this by using alternative management strategies for pest control, fertility, tillage, etc. that avoid negative impacts such as agrochemical pollution, soil erosion and compaction, and high energy costs (Altieri, 1999; Ewel, 1999; Francis et al., 2003; Gliessman, 1998). Secondarily, they do so by creating and maintaining perennial landscape components that functionally integrate the farm with the surrounding landscape matrix - and/or by improving the quality of the matrix itself, as it impinges on farm property (Altieri, 2002b; Altieri et al., 1983; Jose, 2009; McNeely & Scherr, 2001; Smeding & Joenje, 1999; Thies & Tscharntke, 1999).

While these principles dovetail well with prescriptions for landscape functionality at larger scales, as will be shown in the following sections, agroecology itself has not seriously attended to design and integration of landscapes at scales larger than the field and the farm. This is a both a deficit in the field, and an opportunity for integration with other disciplines. This deficit notwithstanding, agroecological principles and the foundation of empirical science from which they are generated, provide a crucial the field-level understanding of ecological and production functions, and the relationship between them. It is this understanding that makes it possible to confidently integrate new

components into the landscape that can simultaneously perform production and ecological functions.

1.4 Multifunctional Landscapes Where agroecology focuses on the field or the farm as a whole system, the landscape multifunctionality perspective sees the farm as a sub-system within the larger landscape. Multifunctionality shares with agroecology a fundamental concern with the reconciliation of production and conservation functions in agricultural landscapes (Jordan & Warner, 2010; Lovell et al., 2010a). According to OFarrell and Anderson, sustainable multifunctional landscapes are landscapes created and managed to integrate human production and landscape use into the ecological fabric of a landscape, maintaining critical ecosystem function, service flows and biodiversity retention (p. 59, 2010).

Multifunctionality offers a foundation to reconcile production and conservation at this larger scale, through planning and policy perspectives on the incorporation of conservation elements into contemporary agricultural landscapes. Literature in the field has largely focused on recommendations for policy and landscape planning, based on examination of the factors influencing the success or failure of decision-making, implementation, and conservation of multifunctional landscapes (Jordan & Warner, 2010; O'Farrell & Anderson, 2010; Waldhardt et al., 2010). In relation to Fig. 1, the field has focused primarily at the scale of farms and landscapes, with particular attention to the

relationship between them, and with some attention to participatory investigation and prescription.

Multifunctionality provides for agroecosystem design a much-needed perspective on the integration of the farm landscape with the regional landscape, especially through the integration of larger stakeholder groups and regional conservation and development priorities. Several groups of investigators examined the efficacy of using scenario-driven participatory process to involve stakeholders in land use planning (Tress & Tress, 2003), and/or to affect policy makers (Waldhardt et al., 2010). While framework proposed in this study is not tested with larger stakeholder groups, participatory agroecosystem design can empower farmers to respond effectively to public conservation priorities set by local, state, or national constituencies, through the selection of new landscape components and their conservation functions. This can assist in the integration of both agroecosystems and farm livelihoods into larger ecological and cultural contexts.

In a discussion of multifunctional landscape planning as an integrated decision making framework, Selman (2002) notes the significance of whole farm planning. Whole farm planning is identified as a remedy for the undesirable scenario in which the integration of conservation features in one part of a farm landscape is concurrent with ecologically deleterious intensification elsewhere in the landscape. Selman advocates for grant-based financial support that hinges on the presence of integrated farm plans as a remedy for that scenario. Participatory agroecosystem design is an alternative remedy: by designing 9

systems that jointly produce good and ecological services (such as those discussed in the section entitled Productive Perennial Polycultures, below), designers assist farmers in the reconciliation of the production/conservation conflict.

Not all of biophysical prescriptions emerging from the multifunctionality framework are relevant to perennial agroecosystem design consist some deal with landscape elements with a primarily cultural functions. Those biophysical prescriptions that are relevant to perennial agroecosystem design dovetail well with the other perspectives reviewed here, generally consisting of the interweaving of conservation features, such as buffers and hedgerows, into the borders and interstitial areas of agricultural landscapes (Frst et al., 2010; Groot et al., 2009; Lombard et al., 2010; Lovell & Johnston, 2009).

1.5 Permaculture Practitioners of permaculture has been advocating for multifunctionality in landscape planning, from outside the academy, since the 1970s. Permacultures design approach provides useful tools for integrating information from multiple domains and scales, and for synthesizing adaptive prescriptions for landscape interventions. Mollison (1978) offers the following definition of permaculture: Permaculture (Permanent Agriculture) is the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of landscape and people providing their food, energy, shelter, and other material and nonmaterial needs in a sustainable way. (p. 1) 10

The term permaculture, a portmanteau of permanent and agriculture, was coined in 1974 by Bill Mollison and his student, David Holmgren. Holmgrens PhD dissertation would eventually be published in 1978 as Permaculture One: A Perennial Agriculture for Human Settlement. Permacultures philosophical and methodological roots can be traced through a variety of texts over the previous century. A partial list of these texts, and their contributions to the permaculture perspective, can be found in Table 1.

Table 1: Foundational Texts in Permaculture

Title Farmers of forty centuries; or, permanent agriculture in China, Korea and Japan. Tree crops: A permanent agriculture.

Author (Year) King, F. H. (1911)

Smith, J. R. (1950)

Contributed a broad historical perspective on sustainability, or permanence, in agriculture systems in Asia. an early and radical proposal for perennial agriculture in the temperate US. an integrated silvopastorallandform system for soil and water regeneration in pasture and rangeland in Australia. a thermodynamic perspective on ecological and social systems, via Odums pioneering work in systems ecology.

The challenge of Yeomans, P. A. landscape: the (1958) development and practice of keyline.

Environment, power, and society.

Odum, H. T. (1971)

11

Title A pattern language.

Author (Year) Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., I Rami, J. R., Jacobson, M., & Fiksdahl-King, I. (1977)

Contributed an approach to the design of human settlement that draws on a global repertoire of effective solutions to design problems that are consistent across cultural contexts.

The climate near the ground.

Geiger, R. (1965)

The one-straw revolution. (Shizen noho wara ippon no kakumei).

Fukuoka, M. (1978) Translated by Chris Pearce, Tsune Kurosawa, and Larry Korn.

to the analysis and use of landscape-driven microclimatic effects to create extremely sitespecific designs. an approach to food production that emphasized the passive use of ecosystem processes and minimizing intervention, Fukuokass Do-Nothing Farming.

Due in part to a paucity of peer-reviewed literature, discussion of the theory and practice of permaculture must be based on a combination of popular sources (cited in text) and personal experience. I have been a participant and observer of the permaculture movement since 2003, and the observations that follow depend largely on this biographical and auto-ethnographic material (Ellis & Bochner, 2000). This lack of hard data is a weakness is discussion about permaculture, as it is in the practice of permaculture. It is nevertheless necessary to address the field in any comprehensive review of agroecosystem design. The case for this necessity is made in the discussion that follows.

12

Permacultures ecosystem-based, human-centered framework for multifunctional landscape design has proven an empowering and effective framework for laypeople and professionals to engage with the complex realities of human settlement. It is based on roughly equal parts on principles derived from systems ecology, observation of traditional agricultural and horticultural systems, and informal experimentation inspired by the dialogue between the two. Practitioners are encouraged to view and understand human settlement through the lens of energy and material flows, and re-imagine and recreate it from first principles. Permaculture trainings often create an effective and even revelatory intervention into the culture of food production and the built environment.

Perhaps the single most important feature of permaculture - from the perspective of its global popular audience - is its transdisciplinary orientation toward ecological design. While frequently conflated with the perennial and woody agriculture systems that are often promoted as permaculture food production strategies, permaculture explicitly concerns itself with all the human-landscape relationships involved in settlement - not only food production. More than any particular one of those disciplines, permaculture is a set of principles and design tools for creating functional relationships between them, and an attendant loosely-defined body of specific techniques and practices of, for example, food production, architecture, waste management, forestry stewardship, animal husbandry, urban planning, et al., that lend themselves to the functional integration of these various domains (Mollison & Slay, 1988).

13

For scientists and academics - in contrast with the popular perspective - the most salient feature of permaculture is often the near-total lack of empirical research carried out in its name. Instead of well-documented empirical research, effort has largely been directed into popular education and grassroots development. This strategic choice was driven at least in part by hostile initial reactions from a disciplinarian academia, and at least in part by an ethic of a bottom-up, decentralized approach to social transformation (Veteto & Lockyer, 2008). It is also widely regarded as having been an effect of the famously contrarian and cantankerous personality of the founder, Bill Mollison.

Permacultures three founding insights can be described as: 1) human settlements, as a whole, must be managed to retain more of the dynamics of functional ecosystems, if civilization is to survive: 2) traditional systems and modern trial-and-error demonstrate that this is a viable strategy to meet human needs: and 3) each individual is charged to take responsibility for a part of this process. As a result of this bottom-up strategy, there is a relatively large international popular recognition of, and identification with, permaculture, and relatively little institutional credibility in the US. There is a correspondingly minimal institutionalization of the design system almost anywhere outside of Australia. There are signs that this cultural constraint may be shifting, with increasing numbers of permaculture courses taught in universities in the US.

The decentralized approach appears to have done an excellent job of helping the permaculture movement grow quickly, but likewise appears to now have become a 14

limiting factor. Permaculture practitioners now seek more influence and credibility within academic and civic institutions. Some late-coming attempts to regulate and certify permaculture instructors have emerged, but so far appear to be of limited effectiveness. Speculatively, it seems as if the founding movement culture of anti-institutional, rugged individualism, disposes permaculture adherents against playing along with attempts to systematize the rhizomatic and informal spread of the movement.

The lack of empirically derived data, the attendant need for thorough documentation of exemplary sites, and systematization and accreditation of professional teachers and designers, together constitute the challenges facing the permaculture movement in the West. These are considerable challenges, and beg the question: does permaculture have any value in the conversation about transitioning to ecological agriculture? There are two aspects of the milieu that warrant consideration in this light.

First, as a language for design, permaculture acts as an integrative framework, providing a venue and a vocabulary in which to understand the relationships between needs, goals, the infrastructure that they require, and the biophysical constraints and opportunities of the landscapes in which they are embedded. It creates a transdisciplinary and accessible conversation into which relevant contemporary science, useful planning/design tools, and proven or promising techniques can be integrated. It does this at a fairly high level of generality, as pattern language (Alexander et al., 1977), which is useful for those at widely varying levels of expertise. 15

Second, as a curriculum: courses organized around the internationally recognized curriculum of the Permaculture Design Certificate Course (PDC) are a potentially transformative and paradigm-shifting experience for laypeople and experts alike. It is the experience of this author, who has trained at the graduate level in ecological sanitation and water system design, ecological landscape design, and agroecology, as well as filled the role of student and teacher in numerous permaculture courses, that the PDC (if done well), constitutes the fastest and most powerful route to ecological design literacy. Together with working models, the permaculture curriculum constitutes the most promising pedagogical tool for shifting from industrial commodity production, including its manifestations in the food system, and toward sustainable and multifunctional landscape management. The permaculture framework, particularly when connected with a strong technical knowledge base, should be a key component in any effort to disseminate, popularize, and support multifunctional farm design.

1.6 Agroforestry Permaculture has been heavily influenced by, and sometimes confused with, the field of agroforestry. Permacultures emphasis on perennial and woody agricultural systems shares a similar conceptual basis with agroforestry, but unlike permaculture, agroforestry has prioritized empirical research and rigorous documentation throughout the history of the field. Agroforestrys approach to the integration of trees and shrubs with field crops and pasture emerged in the 1970s, from progressive tendencies within the development 16

sector. The field is predicated on the idea that: Systems that are structurally and functionally more complex than either crop or tree monocultures result in greater efficiency of resource capture and utilization (nutrients, light, and water), and greater structural diversity that entails a tighter coupling of nutrient cycles. (Nair, 2007)

Agroforestry constitutes a flexible and effective suite of technologies for the integration of perennial systems into working farmland. There are five major forms recognized by practitioners in the US: 1) alley cropping, the cultivation of woody crops in parallel strips alternating with field crops; 2) silvopasture, the integration of woody crops in pastures and rangeland; 3) buffers, the use of linear blocks of perennial plantings to protect riparian areas, increase wildlife habitat, and filter surface runoff; 4) windbreaks, the use of shrubs and trees to protect crops and livestock from wind; and 5) forest farming, the cultivation of multiple crops in the understory of existing woodlots (Garrett, 2006).

Agroforestry systems perform multiple conservation functions. Agroforestry plantings increase the health of resilience and both agroecosystems and the matrix in which they are situated, by increasing wildlife habitat, stabilizing soil, filtering and infiltrating nutrient- and pollutant-rich stormwater, and enhancing landscape heterogeneity, connectivity, and complexity (Altieri, 1999; Benayas et al., 2008; Brandon et al., 2005; Lovell, Mendez, Erickson, Nathan & DeSantis, 2010; Roy & de Blois, 2008). In certain cases, such as in the forest farming of medicinal herbs, agroforestry practices also help to 17

preserve and promulgate endangered species.

Agroforestry practices also positively impact farmer livelihood in a variety of ways, directly and indirectly, including revenue from sale and direct consumption (fruit, nuts, timber, medicinal herbs, mushrooms, decorative floral products), and replacement of infrastructure, labor, and inputs (living fences, nitrogen fixation). Agroforestry systems can also impact livelihood through the enhancement of visual quality, recreational opportunity, and consequently, agrotourism opportunities (Angileri & Toccolini, 1993; Benayas et al., 2008; Cook & Cable, 1995; Nybakk et al., 2009; Weyerhaeuser & Kahrl, 2006).

While much more mature, as a field, than the other perennial polyculture systems discussed in Chapter 2, temperate agroforestry practitioners are still limited by a relative paucity of research and working models in the US. The lack of research and methodological models is especially pronounced in the northeastern region. Northeastern agroforestry is an underexplored niche within the already under-represented domain of temperate agroforestry. In the 2004 World Congress of Agroforestry, only 12% of the 747 presentations dealt with temperate agroforestry systems (Nair, 2007). In the US, research is concentrated in Midwest, the location of the two most active research centers: the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry, and the USDA National Agroforestry Center in Lincoln, NE. There is comparatively little research in the Northeast, though this may be changing (Lovell et al., 2010b). 18

The lack of centers of research and resources in the Northeast parallels the lack of working models on the ground. In conversations with extension agents, farmers, and researchers, the author found no one who was able to point toward working agroforestry systems in the northeast that could serve as an example for education and outreach. The lack of working models (especially on-farm models) is a critical challenge in the development of agricultural multifunctionality in the Northeast.

1.7 Participatory Action Research Of the fields discussed here, agroecology has had the richest historical relationship with participatory research. It has had a strong overlap with multiple participatory methodologies, and makes the most significant contributions to the Participatory Investigation component of the framework described in Fig. 1. Discussion of participation in this framework will therefore consist largely of discussion of participation in agroecology.

Throughout its history, agroecology has been concerned not only with generating knowledge, but also with sharing knowledge and fostering capacity, and thereby improving the lives and livelihoods of small farmers, and increasingly of other food system stakeholders (i.e. society at large) (Dalgaard et al., 2003). This concern has motivated an evolution from an approach on par with the offering of extension-style services to farmers and farm communities, to more participatory methods. This more 19

inclusively participatory, as well as more broadly transdisciplinary, approach appears to be the direction in which the field of agroecology is developing (Bacon et al., 2005).

The development of participatory process in agroecology is shaped by critique of the traditional extension model, which consists of a largely one-way flow of information from researchers, through extension agents, to farmers. This model is considered inadequate to support farmers in shifting away from the highly mechanized and simplified approach of the Green Revolution, toward the more complex, knowledge- and management-intensive practices of sustainable and multifunctional agriculture (Haggar et al., 2001; Jordan & Warner, 2010; Warner, 2008). Key areas of investigation have included farmer involvement in research (Martin & Sherington, 1997), farmer adoption of new techniques and technologies (Reed, 2007), and the acknowledgement and support of farmer innovation (Martin & Sherington, 1997). Participatory Agroecosystem Design is modeled after these methodological approaches that prioritize farmers as not only key decision makers, but active agents in the development of sustainable and multifunctional agriculture.

Participatory Action Research (PAR) is one of the names given to a cluster of methodologies that emphasize principles of transparency, negotiation, and equal exchange between the researcher and the broader research community (Bacon, Mendez & Brown, 2005). PAR focuses on the relationships across the traditional division between researchers and research subjects. The alternative framing of research 20

community includes both the researcher and research partners, and emphasizes the values of transparency, negotiation, and equity in that partnership. PAR has similar ethical concerns to livelihoods perspectives, particularly in terms of the focus on grassroots empowerment. By emphasizing a process of negotiation and transparency, PAR practice brings to light power differences between researcher and host communities. Exposing these power gradients, and making researchers accountable, creates the potential for equity and mutuality in the research community (Dlott et al., 1994). For participatory agroecosystem design, PAR emphasizes the need for transparency and clarity in the solicitation/recruitment phase, and for the articulation and re-iteration of goals and objectives throughout the design process, in order to create a mutually equitable relationship between designers and farmers.

More recently, the agroecological partnership has been proposed as a multi-level framework for research that involves farmers, researchers, and planners in networks of information exchange. Rather than a largely one-way flow of expertise from scientists, or even a two-way exchange, agroecological partnerships are characterized by a high degree of farmer-to-farmer learning (Warner, 2006). This emerging model, in which responsibility for innovation, research, and education, is spread out among farmers, farmer organizations, and researchers, marks a shift toward a holistic pedagogical and research framework (Warner, 2007a; Warner, 2006). This emerging framework is better suited than traditional extension models to support the development of agroecological strategies that optimize ecological and productive functions in the farm landscape (Bacon 21

et al., 2005; Dlott et al., 1994; Wezel & Soldat, 2009).

Yet the problem remains of actually recruiting farmers for involvement in research and development of sustainable practices. The agroecological partnership framework assumes a highly developed network of farmer organizations, researchers, and extension agents. It seems that most participatory frameworks assume a similarly high level of social and human capital (Haggar et al., 2001). Prior to the development of that capital, there is lack of methods for inviting and involving farmers to plan for change in management of the farm landscape, in a way that foregrounds the need, interests, and experience of the farmer, while supporting shifts in land management that increase landscape functionality (Lombard et al., 2010). This study is intended, in part, to fill that gap: to articulate a methodology that can build a foundation for the development of research partnerships, by involving farmers in financially and ecological sustainable innovation, in partnership with extension agents, researchers, or other professionals filling the role of designer. By putting the diverse interests and needs of the farmers first, and attending to the diverse ways in which those needs can be met, participatory agroecosystem design can help create the context in which longer-term research partnerships can emerge, and in which the tools and perspectives of a multiplicity of disciplines can be brought to bear (Scoones, 2009).

1.8 Case Studies and On-Farm Research Developing the paradigm of multifunctional farm design requires on-farm research that 22

incorporates both quantitative and qualitative measures (Golafshani, 2003; Raintree, 1983; Scoones, 2009). The challenges inherent in integrating participatory, site-specific, and qualitative research are well documented. There is a need to translate the epistemological and methodological concepts from quantitative research, such as reliability, validity, and triangulation, that serve to qualitative contexts, in a fashion that adapts to very different research methodologies while carefully and critically maintaining rigor (Golafshani, 2003).

In on-farm research, key questions include the transferability of site-specific research to other sites and contexts, and the availability and use of techniques for data analysis, and the uneven implementation of project evaluation and monitoring (Martin & Sherington, 1997). While challenging, on-farm case studies are the ideal scale to examine the detailed process of shifting agricultural practices (House et al., 2008). The variability and sitespecificity of farm landscapes are precisely the constraints that must shape agroecosystem research, since they are sites where farmers, as land managers in the process of negotiating ecological, cultural, and production goals, can be integrated into the research process (Haggar et al., 2001).

On-farm research appears to be necessary to overcome critical barriers to farmer adoption of new technologies. The presence of champion farmers that model innovative practices, and ambassador farm advisors that assist them, are key factors in determining the regional distribution of these practices (Brodt et al., 2009). By partnering with 23

regional farmers as design/research partners, and using the results of that iterative process to influence the crafting of region- specific decision-support material, researchers and planners can leverage the phenomena of champions and ambassadors to increase the effectiveness of the decision-support material that targets availability and quality of costbenefit information.

Research has shown that a lack of adequate, culturally appropriate, cost-benefit information is among the primary constraints to farmer adoption of agroforestry systems such as hedgerows and riparian buffers (Stonehouse, 1996). When economic return is clearly the first priority, a participatory approach informed by the fields discussed above will push toward site-specific solutions, rather than Get Big or Get Out! style growth (Altieri et al., 1983). Rather than suggesting that farmers go into debt in order to expand, mechanize, and intensify their operations, participatory multifunctional agroecosystem design suggests economic strategies of diversification in time, space, species, and products, along with practices of value adding, direct sale, and other alternatives to industrialized commodity production (Gale, 1997; Nair, 2008).

Throughout history, farms have been the site of experimentation, research, innovation; it is only relatively recently that the available experimental models and statistical tools have made it seem like they are un-suited for that purpose (Dlott et al., 1994). Progressive farmers will continue innovating, whether or not researchers engage them in collaborative opportunities. It is the duty of scientists and practitioners to find those innovators, work 24

with them, and learn from them in a effort to effectively support the transition to a sustainable and multifunctional agriculture (Reed, 2007).

1.10 Conclusion Participatory Agroecosystem Design, as a scaling and transdisciplinary endeavor, does not have a single existing body of literature to draw on. A review of the supporting literature must therefore necessarily synthesize not only of material from across a variety of disciplinary boundaries, but also of pertinent non-academic fields such as permaculture. The components of the desiderata described in the Introduction, and represented in Fig. 1, must be assembled from the complementary and overlapping elements of the fields discussed above.

The site-specific and bottom-up development model of the livelihoods perspective helps orient designers to the complex reality of farm livelihoods, and the multiple dimensions along which sustainability must be assessed for a technology to be truly viable. The empirically grounded principles of field-to-farm scale sustainability offered by agroecology give the designer the tools to effectively combine production and ecological functions, through interventions in the farm landscape. Landscape multifunctionality provides a framework with which the designer can bridge the farm scale with the landscape and regional scale, potentially integrating the farm design process with not only larger-scale vegetation patterns, but also with the concerns of larger stakeholder 25

groups, and regional conservation priorities and planning processes.

Permaculture provides a robust and accessible conceptual toolbox for integrating multiple goals with the constraints and opportunities of the landscape, and synthesizing those goals and constraints in strategically designed landscape interventions. Agroforestry occupies a similar niche in the conceptual framework to agroecology, but brings a concentrated focus to woody perennial systems specifically, which share with other perennial systems a strong and clearly defined capacity to reconcile production and ecological functions, and to help integrate the vegetation structure of the farm with patterns in the larger landscape. The methodologies of participatory research, including Participatory Action Research and Agroecological Partnerships, provide dynamic models for integrating farmer priorities, expertise, and innovation into the research process, and for creating an equitable and mutualistic relationship between researchers, designers, and farmers.

Together this patchwork of conceptual and methodological approaches can be integrated into the broad, flexible, and transdisciplinary perspective that is needed in order to integrate the perspective of working farmers with empirical research on the production, culture, and ecology of agroecosystems, landscapes, and regions, and to respond to that integration with the prescription of adaptive interventions at the scale of the farm. In turn, the literatures of case study-based qualitative research, and on-farm research, provide a theoretical and methodological framework for testing the Participatory Agroecosystem 26

Design process on working farms, as will be discussed in the following chapter.

27

CHAPTER 2: PARTICIPATORY AGROECOSYSTEM DESIGN

2.1 Introduction The impact of agriculture on the function and structure of the planets ecosystems has received increasing levels of scientific scrutiny over the past several decades, as the consequences of human activities are revealed (Altieri, 1998; Horrigan et al., 2002; Kimbrell, 2002; MacCannell, 1988). In contrast, the ecological stewardship of agroecosystems has the potential to reduce these negative impacts, and even provide an array of benefits to ecosystem function and human communities (Altieri, 2002a; Jordan et al., 2007; Lovell et al., 2010a; McNeely & Scherr, 2001; Smeding & Joenje, 1999). There exists, however, an apparent conflict between commodity production and ecological functionality in agricultural landscapes - ecological management is widely perceived to require a reduction in yields, reducing the financial viability of agricultural enterprise (Bills & Gross, 2005; Groot et al., 2009; House et al., 2008). This conflict must be reconciled for global civilization to continue to prosper in the coming century.

Many scientists are calling for agricultural practice and policy that supports the joint production of commodities and ecological services (Bills & Gross, 2005; Boody et al., 2005; Jordan & Warner, 2010; Jordan et al., 2007; McNeely & Scherr, 2001; O'Farrell & Anderson, 2010). This approach to reconciling production and conservation functions in agricultural landscapes is referred to as multifunctional agriculture (Brunstad, Gaasland & Vardal, 2005; Lovell & Johnston, 2008; Naveh, 2001; O'Farrell & Anderson, 2010; 28

Otte, Simmering & Wolters, 2007; Selman, 2009). Historically in the US, however, policy support for on-farm conservation has often reflected and reinforced the dichotomy between production and conservation. For example, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), run by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the best-funded and oldest US program supporting conservation activities in agricultural land. The CRP mandates that nothing may be harvested from land enrolled in the program, enforcing the distinction between production and conservation (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/crp/) even as it supports on-farm conservation.

In contrast, the more recent USDA/NRCS Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) has the potential to ameliorate this conflict, by recognizing and supporting a variety of activities that can jointly perform production and conservation functions. CSP financially supports the development of multifunctional agriculture in the US, by rewarding farmers who have historically practiced good land stewardship on their farms, and encouraging farmers to expand their on-farm conservation activities (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/new_csp/csp.html). The program does not, however, provide support for farmers in the complex task of planning conservation activities and their spatial integration with the farm landscape. Long-lived and potentially productive perennial features including, but not limited to, buffers, hedgerows, and wetlands (all of which are supported by the CSP), require a thoughtful and informed design process to maximize multifunctionality. Little assistance is available to farmers to guide this 29

process. The training of extension agents does not traditionally include whole farm design, and traditional technology transfer-style extension programs are ill suited for the development of multifunctional landscape plans (Jordan & Warner, 2010; Warner, 2008). In short, while there is an emerging theoretical and policy framework that calls on farmers to practice multifunctional agriculture, there is also distinct lack of support for the actual design and planning that multifunctionality requires of farmers.

This paper proposes an iterative, participatory, agroecosystem design process, to serve as a guide for designers and planners in working with farmers to develop multifunctional agriculture. Agroecosystem design is defined here as the spatially explicit integration of perennial features into agricultural landscapes, to simultaneously perform production and conservation functions. This design framework is structured to support two goals: 1) foregrounding farmer interests and constraints to facilitate participation in conservation activities; and 2) giving designers the necessary tools to creatively reconcile multiple goals and functions, including production and conservation, that are embedded in complex spatial relationships. The methodology was tested in case studies with three working farms in Vermont. The participating farms, and key themes that emerged from the case study process, are described in the table and figures that follow.

30

Table 2: Case Study Farms

Cate Farm is a 22 acres organic farm in Plainfield, VT. It is farmed by Sally Colman and Richard Wiswall. They sell their farm products, including bedding plants, vegetables, and specialty and medicinal herbs, at farmers markets, directly to consumers, to restaurants, stores, and wholesalers, to other farmers, and through their website. Richard Wiswall works as a consultant with other farmers, on issues of business planning and profitability. In 2009 he published a book through Chelsea Green Publishing, entitled The Organic Farmer's Business Handbook: A Complete Guide to Managing Finances, Crops, and Staff-and Making a Profit.

www.catefarm.com

Karl Hammer is the founder and owner of Vermont Compost Company, in Montpelier, VT. Vermont Compost produces high-quality compost and growing media, which are approved for use in organic crop production. Local institutions pay tipping fees to dump waste at dumped at the top of the 3.5 acre terraced slope that is dedicated to intensive compost production. The compost is mixed and recombined with other materials as it is moved down the slope, aided by gravity. Other income accrues from vegetable production. Hammer uses Permaculture as a reference point to describe his management practices. John Hayden is the primary farmer of The Farm Between, in Jeffersonville, Vermont, which produces produce fruit, vegetables, herbs, non-certified organic beef, pork, chicken, and rabbit, on 18 acres. The style of farm management is a model of agroecological and Permaculture principles: mixed annual and perennial systems, animal power, no heavy machinery, composting of agricultural wastes, all on-farm fertility management (no mineral fertilization), complex crop rotations, fallow & cover crops, minimal tillage and no-till trials, modest riparian buffers, hedges and buffer strips, biological pest control, and minimal- to-zero chemical pest control. Hayden uses Permaculture as a reference point to describe his farming practices.

www.vermontcompost.com

ww.seedsofselfreliance.org

31

2.2 Background The following section includes a review of literature on selected fields and themes that relate directly to participatory agroecosystem design. The fields of agroecology and multifunctional landscapes are reviewed, as both address sustainability in agricultural systems: the former from the scale of the farm, and the latter from the scale of the landscape. The section also includes arguments for a design approach to agroecosystem planning, and the use of productive perennial polycultures as a key technology in the development of multifunctional agriculture.

2.2.1 Moving Toward Multifunctionality Agroecology is defined as the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems (Gliessman, 1998). One of the founding insights of agroecology is that agroecosystems should be designed and managed to retain more of the structural and functional components of wild ecosystems, a style of agriculture which will avoid the intensive energy use and ecosystem degradation associated with industrial agriculture (Ewel, 1999; Soule & Piper, 1992). The other is that many traditional, pre-industrial agricultural systems are already being managed this fashion. These two areas of investigation, the application of the dynamics of natural ecosystems to agriculture, and the practices of pre-industrial agricultural, form the basis for the prescriptive components of the agroecological perspective. Themes in the field are summed in principles of agroecosystem design that bear directly on multifunctional agriculture, prescribing high levels of agrobiodiversity, reduction of off-farm inputs, 32

integration of perennial with annual systems, and a variety of other soil, water, and biodiversity conservation strategies (Altieri, 2000; Altieri, 2002b; Thomas & Kevan, 1993). Agroecological principles, and the foundation of empirical science from which they are generated, provide the field-level understanding of ecological functions and production functions, and the relationship between them, that makes it possible to integrate new components into the landscape that can simultaneously produce yields and perform ecological services.

Where agroecology focuses on the field or the farm as a whole system, the landscape multifunctionality perspective sees the farm as a sub-system within the larger landscape. Multifunctionality shares with agroecology a fundamental concern with the reconciliation of production and conservation functions in agricultural landscapes (Jordan & Warner, 2010; Lovell et al., 2010a). According to OFarrell and Anderson, sustainable multifunctional landscapes are landscapes created and managed to integrate human production and landscape use into the ecological fabric of a landscape, maintaining critical ecosystem function, service flows and biodiversity retention (p. 59, 2010).

Landscape multifunctionality offers a foundation to reconcile production and conservation at this larger scale, through planning and policy perspectives on the incorporation of conservation elements into contemporary agricultural landscapes. Literature in the field has largely focused on recommendations for policy and landscape planning, based on examination of the factors influencing the success or failure of 33

decision-making, implementation, and conservation of multifunctional landscapes. Selman (2002) proposes Multi-Function Landscape Plans as a consolidated and integrated decision-making framework. Mcalpine et al. (2010) outline a formal problemsolving approach for integrating landscape ecology with long-term adaptive management strategies. Multifunctionality provides, for agroecosystem design, a much-needed perspective on the integration of the farm landscape with the regional landscape, especially through the integration of larger stakeholder groups and regional conservation and development priorities.

2.2.2 Integration Across Scale The different scales that agroecology and multifunctionality focus should be viewed as grounds for a complementary synthesis. A growing number of researchers focus their attention specifically on relationships across the scale of the farm and the scale of the landscape. Smeding and Joenje (1999) propose the Farm-Nature Plan as a methodology for reconciling vegetation patterns at the landscape scale (10-1000 ha) and biodiversityenhancing components at the farm scale (10-100 ha). McNeely and Scherr (2003) promote an approach they call ecoagriculture, investigating and supporting farming strategies that incorporate an assortment of biodiversity conservation features, including hedgerows and buffers.

Lovell et al. (2010a) directly address the integration of agroecology and multifunctionality, by proposing a framework for agroecosystem analysis and design that 34

synthesis the perspectives and tools of each. Lovell et al. assess the sum of the distinctions between the two fields, including scale, and propose an analytical tool, built on geospatial analysis and farmer survey, to assess the multifunctionality of agroecosystems. The framework and tool discussed therein, discussed in more detail later, constitute an important initial step in the theoretical and analytical integration of the two fields. In that light, this paper is intended to build on the theoretical and analytical integration of landscape-scale multifunctionality and field-to-farm scale agroecology, by providing the beginnings of a functional integration in the form of a participatory design process.

2.2.3 The Case for Design A workable framework for decision-making and planning multifunctional agriculture must be specifically oriented toward mediating between the often-conflicting goals of production and conservation. The traditional extension model of technology transfer, consisting of a largely one-way flow of information from researchers, through extension agents, to farmers, is not adequate for the task. The re-visioning of the farm landscape that is required by multifunctional agriculture requires rich and interactive participation from farmers in order to succeed (Warner, 2006). Extension agents that are trained only in technology transfer to support the highly mechanized and simplified approach of the Green Revolution, will be ill prepared to support more complex, knowledge- and management-intensive practices (Haggar, et al. 2001). 35

Participatory design provides a suitable framework for the quality of interaction and creative reasoning required for this task. Nassauer and Opdam (2008) define design as any intentional change of landscape pattern for the purpose of sustainably providing ecosystem services while recognizably meeting societal needs and respecting societal values (p. 633). This definition hints at the unique transdisciplinary role of design in landscape planning, by juxtaposing pattern, or spatial relationships, with multiple goals in ecological and social domains. The significance of spatial configuration in landscapes, and thus in landscape planning, is well established (Ahern, 1999; Forman, 1990). Design involves critical and creative spatial reasoning, as well as a integrative analysis, that distinguishes it from other scientific pursuits. While elements of transdisciplinarity and creativity are present in other kinds of science, design specializes in and relies upon this kind of thinking. It focuses on the creative resolution of complex spatial relationships, while thinking simultaneously at different scales and in different domains (Cross, 2007). The role of the farm designer is to reconcile multiple goals across different dimensions productive, ecological, and cultural - all of which are embedded in spatial relationships in the physical landscape. Furthermore, each of the functions that meet these goals may constrain or amplify one another, depending on a given configuration. This nesting of functions and goals in interacting spatial relationships is best captured in the design principles of permaculture, a systems approach to ecological design that is science-based, popular, and non-academic (Holmgren, 2002). (See sidebar Permaculture.)

36

Permaculture is an ecological design system, founded in the 1970s in Australia, by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978). The system synthesizes indigenous agricultural and architectural practices with systems ecology, offering principles and techniques for the design of sustainable human settlement. While the permaculture approach has received little recognition from research institutions in the US, it represents a useful resource as a popular, accessible, and powerful vocabulary for agroecosystem design. For example, the permaculture principle of Relative Location instructs designers to prescribe spatial relationships that maximize functional interconnection between landscape components, such as siting material sources (water, fertility sources, etc.) upslope from material sinks (crop fields, buffers, etc.), whenever possible, in order to minimize the energy of transport and unplanned flows of materials (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978). The principle of Zones of Use encourages the siting of landscape components according to distance from the residence, or center of activity, relative to the components frequency of use and maintenance (Mollison et al., 1991). An example scenario, in order of distance from the residence, might be: kitchen gardens, livestock, field crops, orchards, managed timber, and unmanaged woodlots. In the design process, these two principles inevitably affect each other, through trade-offs and synergies in spatial relationships, which are ultimately arbitrated by the goals of the land user and designer (Mollison & Slay, 1988). In the domain of agriculture, the permaculture perspective has always emphasized perennial and woody systems - making it a logical precedent of contemporary perennial agroecological design (Mollison et al., 1991) Its utility has been limited, however, by its lack of standing within the scientific community. There is an almost complete lack of empirical research associated with the term (Veteto & Lockyer, 2008). Anecdotal evidence suggests that is has an extremely uneven reputation with those scientists and educators that are aware of it - ranging from critical appreciation to overt hostility. Regardless of its historic standing within institutional research, advocates for agroecosystem design may benefit from familiarizing themselves with the framework. Farmers from all three of the case studies showed positive recognition of the term. Two of the farmers, John Hayden of the Farm Between and Karl Hammer of Vermont Compost, explicitly identified with the permaculture perspective, and used the language of the framework to explain their farm management strategies. The cultural capital that permaculture has with innovative farmers attests to its value as an integrative framework, providing an accessible vocabulary in which to understand the relationships between human goals, the infrastructure that they require, and the biophysical constraints of the landscape.
Figure 2: Permaculture

37

Design is also gaining acceptance - or at least awareness - as a methodology of scientific investigation, as illustrated by Nassauer and Odpams call that landscape ecology include design as a method and as a product to increase the saliency and legitimacy of scientific knowledge (p. 641, 2008). Nassauer and Opdam have championed the integration of design with landscape ecology. In the above work, they position the design process and the effects of landscape interventions as a way of gaining empirical knowledge about landscape function. This view of design as a research methodology is very much aligned with the participatory tradition in agroecology. In both arenas it serves as a method of technology transfer and a venue in which scientists can examine the validity and relevance of ecological theory for the larger populace. A related development is the approach of designed experiments (Felson & Pickett, 2005), promoted specifically for the study of urban ecosystems. This approach involves collaboration between urban design professional and researchers, embedding research questions into designed urban landscapes. While framed by Felson and Pickett for use in cities, the designed experiments approach is well suited for adaptation to other land uses, especially those that have been strongly impacted by human activity, such as agricultural landscapes.

Multi-functional farm design poses a unique and complex set of interrelated challenges, spanning social, ecological, and production dimensions. The difficulty in soliciting farmer participation in agroecosystem design is the first challenge. Farmer knowledge of, and interest in, multifunctionality is highly variable and often limited (Brodt et al., 2009). 38

Financial viability is a logical top priority, and farmers are justified in perceiving economic trade-offs in managing their farm ecosystems to incorporate ecological and cultural functions (Bills & Gross, 2005). This conflict between production and ecological functions is one of the fundamental challenges facing multifunctional farm design. Stated simply: if conservation were profitable, farmers would do it (Pannell, 1999). If farmers are to remain the primary decision-makers in agricultural landscapes, then conservation must become profitable. While multifunctionality could have positive implications for the economic profile of the farm, particularly as it relates to resiliency, there is a general lack of consideration of diversification as a key economic strategy (Bills & Gross, 2005).

Another challenge of multifunctional farm design is a complex cultural legacy of productivism. The history of Green Revolution-era extension services that encouraged many farmers toward debt-driven intensification and industrialization has left many farmers justifiably wary of the institutions that were responsible for promoting those methods for many years (Warner, 2008). A Vermont farmers quote from the mid-1900s pithily captures the spirit of this legacy (quoted in Magdoff, 2000): Used to be anybody could farm. All you needed was strong back... but nowadays you need a good education to understand all the advice you get so you can pick out whatll do the least harm.

Multifunctional farms are extremely site-specific, unlike industrialized agriculture. Productive functions of a farm design must strategically respond to both the biophysical 39

potential of the site and its economic and cultural context in order to make a positive impact on farmer livelihood. There is no one package of solutions for every context (Rocheleau, 1994). The biophysical constraints of the farm site, and its relation to the greater landscape, can be counted on to present a unique set of opportunities and constraints. This is likewise true of the characteristics of the farmers or farm family, and the character of the surrounding community, markets, and available business models.

The design of ecological functions faces similar challenges. Like other land uses, in order for agriculture to have a significant positive impact on landscape-scale function and quality, there needs to be some higher-level spatial integration among farm planning processes (Tscharntke et al., 2005). In the US, this is especially difficult, as the planning decisions are made primarily at the landholder and town level (Bills & Gross, 2005). Farmland Protection programs that might have an impact at broader scales are unevenly supported and implemented, and those that exist are largely oriented toward restricting the development of former agricultural land, rather than protecting working farms (House et al., 2008). The need for spatial integration across the farm-landscape scale remains largely unmet.

40

In the US, the term "design" does not have a strong historical association with farm planning. This may present a cultural barrier to farmer participation in an agroecosystem design process. The farmer from one of the three case studies was initially very skeptical about the use of design as an approach to decision making in the farm landscape, and even of the legitimacy of design as a professional activity. It behooves advocates of agroecosystem design, as a participatory methodology, to be prepared to respond to the variety of potential reactions to design as a framework for farm planning. The use of design as a frame for this methodology serves two functions. First, to emphasize the spatially explicit component of the planning process, which is frequently neglected in conventional farm planning. Second, to foster a consultative relationship between the designer and the farmer, in which the farmer's interests, priorities, and constraints are situated firmly in the foreground of the process (Biggs 1987). In the case study referred to above, the farmer's interest in perennial polycultures overcame his skepticism about the process. He reported finding the process useful, and of all three case studies, has the most immediate and concrete plans for implementation of the design outputs from the project.
Figure 3: Design as a Frame for Farm Planning

2.2.4 Productive Perennial Polycultures A type of system that would be highly appropriate for multifunctional farm design is the productive perennial polyculture. These systems are able to combine production and ecological functions when strategically integrated with farm landscapes (Jordan & Warner, 2010; McNeely & Scherr, 2001). Jordon and Warner suggest that there is mounting evidence that such [perennial] agroecosystems, integrated in a well-designed landscape, can produce agricultural commodities abundantly and profitably while producing nonmarket public goods and services more effectively than annual systems

41

(p. 61, 2010). Several specific systems offer examples of productive perennial polycultures that might be designed into agroecosystems to support multifunctionality agroforestry, perennial biofuel plantings, perennial grain crops, and managed wetland. Agroforestry. Agroforestry is the integration of tree and shrub crops with field crops and pasture. There are five major forms recognized by practitioners in the US: 1) alley cropping, the cultivation of woody crops in parallel strips alternating with field crops; 2) silvopasture, the integration of woody crops in pastures and rangeland; 3) buffers, the use of linear blocks of perennial plantings to protect riparian areas, increase wildlife habitat, and filter surface runoff; 4) windbreaks, the use of shrubs and trees to protect crops and livestock from wind; and 5) forest farming, the cultivation of multiple crops in the understory of existing woodlots (Garrett, 2006). Agroforestry plantings have been shown to enhance wildlife habitat; stabilize soil; filter and infiltrate nutrient- and pollutant-rich stormwater; and enhance landscape heterogeneity, connectivity, and complexity (Altieri, 1999; Benayas et al., 2008; Brandon et al., 2005; Lovell et al., 2010b; Roy & de Blois, 2008). They have direct financial impact through the potential production of fruit, nuts, timber, medicinal herbs, mushrooms and decorative floral products. Agroforestry is most fully realized, documented, and supported of the perennial systems described in this section. Perennial Biofuel Systems. Tilman et al., in their much-cited 2006 paper, demonstrated that a diverse polyculture of native prairie species, grown on degraded land, with minimal irrigation and fertilization, can produce a fuel yield competitive with the corn ethanol. These systems also provide net sequestration of carbon and the probable performance of 42

multiple conservation functions. Milder et al., 2008, found that biofuel production has the greatest potential to enhance rural livelihoods and provide conservation functions at the landscape scale, when produced in small-scale plots on degraded and/or interstitial agricultural land. This finding dovetails well with spatial recommendations for buffers and hedgerows that emerge from the field of multifunctional agriculture (Frst et al., 2010; Groot et al., 2009; House et al., 2008).

Perennial Grain Crops. The Land Institute, in Salinas, Kansas, has been pioneering work in the development of perennial grain crops. Substituting polycultures of domesticated prairie species and perennial domestic grains for monoculture grain cultivation would dramatically reduce soil erosion and agrochemical pollution, conserve biodiversity, decrease energy inputs to cereal production, and sequester carbon (Cox et al., 2006). This long-term project, integrating ecology and plant breeding (DeHaan et al., 2005) represents an incredible potential for joint production of commodities and ecological functions. This approach, called Natural Systems Agriculture by its founder, Wes Jackson (2002), has the distinction of being both revolutionary in its perspective and implications, and grounded in peer-review and sound empirical methodology (Glover et al., 2010). Managed Wetlands. While the focus of this study is on land use strategies that directly combine production and ecological functions, it is worthwhile to mention managed wetlands. The primary product of managed wetlands is nutrient absorption from agricultural runoff (Hey et al., 2005). Unlike the other productive perennial polycultures discussed here, managed wetlands require entirely new markets for environmental service 43

credits in order to be considered productive in a financially meaningful sense. This author has found no published research on the seemingly promising combination of wetland crop production, such as rice (Oryza spp.) and wild rice (Zizania spp.), with nutrient absorption.

Perennial productive polyculture encourages us to approach the analysis and design of agroecosystems through a lens of fine-grained multifunctionality, acknowledging and supporting land uses that simultaneously perform ecological and production functions (Nair, 2007). In this view, multifunctionality is generated both between and within landscape components. This provides contrast to the course-grained perspective on multifunctionality that implicitly regards every landscape component as performing either production or ecological functions (Smeding & Joenje, 1999). In the latter perspective, multifunctionality occurs as a relationship between patches in the landscape, but not within them. Involving farmers in agroecosystem design demands an understanding of multifunctionality as something that occurs at multiple scales. Finegrained multifunctionality allows designers to make more nuanced and site-specific prescriptions for farm landscapes, and to thereby soften the dichotomy between production and conservation by producing commodity and non-commodity goods and services in the same patch (Jordan & Warner, 2010).

2.3 Participatory Agroecosystem Design Process Agroecosystem designers have a crucial role in the promotion of farm multifunctionality. 44

The incorporation of productive perennial polycultures in farm landscapes entails a novel set of research questions and planning challenges, involving the integration of landscape ecology, conservation, farmer livelihoods, and cultural values. The optimization and reconciliation of these sets of often-conflicting goals and functions requires interdisciplinary knowledge, technical facility, and creativity. In the following sections, I outline an iterative agroecosystem design process as a framework for assisting farmers in developing multifunctional agriculture, primarily through the use of productive perennial polycultures. This approach is novel for operationalizing the emerging theoretical integration of multifunctionality and agroecology, in the context of participatory design practice. I acknowledge and take inspiration from existing design approaches such as permaculture, Ecological Landscape Design, and the many contributions to multifunctional landscape planning, as well as participatory design and research methodologies from the agroecology and agroforestry milieus. This approach is not intended to supplant any of these predecessors, but to bring sustained focus to the goal of involving farmers in transitioning to multifunctional agriculture, through the assistance of designers who are well equipped to facilitate an agroecosystem design process.

The design process consists of three iterations: characterization and analysis; design and scenario building; and resolution, evaluation, and planning for future activities (see Fig. 4). Each iteration swings between the work of the designer, operating initially as a consultant, and interaction with the farmer(s) and/or other stakeholders as clients. When appropriate, the three iterations described and tested here can also be understood as a 45

single, preliminary phase of activity within a longer process of developing agroecological research partnerships.

2.3.1 Iteration 1: Characterization and Analysis Regional analysis. The process of characterizing the landscape begins with the determination of key questions about the larger-scale landscape. Conservation features must respond to regional issues and priorities in order for the farm to be functionally integrated with the landscape. The researcher determines the nature of these regional conservation priorities. Primary among these questions is that of the landscape matrix: what is the dominant historical vegetation pattern of the farm and the region? What is the present day dominant vegetation pattern? The answers to these questions help the researcher determine what type of productive perennial polyculture to focus on in the invitation to farmers, with the preference being toward perennial polycultures that mimic the historical matrix. Given the varying history of forest cover in many parts of the country, the identification of the historical matrix itself will be shaped by regional conservation priorities.

Performing this process first assumes that the project is regionally situated at its inception. If this is not the case, then regional analysis should come after the following step, Solicitation/Recruitment.

46

47

Figure 4: Sequence of the Design Process

48

Solicitation / Recruitment. The work begins with finding farmers who wish to take part in the process. If the designer is an independent consultant or university researcher, rather than an extension agent, he/she should carefully consider the institutions and networks through which they may contact potential partners. A good starting place is to work with Natural Resource Conservation District offices and Cooperative Extension county offices to identify farmers who have historically shown a strong interest in innovation and conservation. These institutions can also help identify farmer-led organizations and networks. Working through farmer-organized institutions may assist in reaching potential farmer partners that are not well known to professionals in state and federal agencies.

Outreach to prospective farmers should be organized by two priorities. The first is the need for transparent communication between the farmer and the designer, considering the nature, scope, and limitations of the project in terms of the demands that will be made on the farmers resources, as well as the services that the farmer can expect to receive in return. A second priority should be to immediately foreground a concern for farmer livelihood. These priorities help communicate the clear and frank concern for farmer well being that is a necessary precondition for farmer involvement in agroecosystem design. Once a partner or partners is identified, the designer should schedule an initial site visit.

Preliminary Mapping. The agroecosystem design assessment tool, described by Lovell et al. (2010a), is well suited for integration with the next several phases of this design process: preliminary mapping, interview, site analysis, and spatial analysis. The main 49

component of this assessment tool is functional mapping of the agroecosystem. In the first of two steps in the functional mapping, GIS imagery of the site is subject to land use classification, which divides the site imagery into vector polygons corresponding to salient land use categories. In the second step, each landscape component is rated jointly by the farmer and an expert for production, ecological, and cultural functionality. In the context of farm design, this process provides farmers and designers a richer picture of multifunctionality throughout the agroecosystem than might otherwise emerge through the interview and analysis process.

In preparation for the first site visit, the designer should produce, at minimum, a largeformat map of the farm property and immediate surroundings, which can serve as an orienting perspective for the interview. Gathering and analyzing spatial data sets on cadastral boundaries, land use, soils, hydrology, contour, winds, sun exposure and shade, and any other information relevant to the agroecosystem, provide the basis for a base map of the site.

Interview. The purpose of the initial meeting is to gather and share information with the farmer. The designer gathers information needed to form a picture of the opportunities and challenges inherent in the social and ecological characteristics of the farm. Semistructured interviews can be used in combination with surveys, questionnaires, or other instruments, depending on the research questions that the designer is bringing to the process. Whatever the questions or types of instruments used, it is necessary that semi50

structured interviews are part of the process. They maximize the chances that farmers key concerns about the process and about their farms will emerge in the interview, regardless of the extent to which their specific concerns relate to those of the designer (Haggar et al., 2001). The interview can also be integrated with the functional mapping component of the agroecosystem design assessment tool referenced above.

Site Analysis. The interview, including preliminary statements about farmer priorities, continues in a field walk with the farmer. Data gathering in the form of field sampling, species identification and logging, photo or video documentation, GPS/GIS tracking, can be carried out at this time. At the conclusion of the site visit, the designer should briefly articulate their understanding of the farmers goals back to the farmer, in order to validate their own understanding. It is important to move into the next phase of the process with reasonable confidence that the exploratory and prescriptive aspects of the design work are informed by an accurate assessment of farmer priorities.

2.3.2 Iteration 2: Synthesis and Design Synthesis. Following the site visit, the designer formulates a statement of goals, succinctly articulating the farmers objectives and ranking them by priority. The accuracy of the goals statement should be confirmed with the farmer before proceeding further, as the goals will substantively inform the following phases. The designer synthesizes the results of the interview and site analysis, and integrates the spatial components of the interview and site analysis of the farm landscape into the base map. Integration of spatial 51

analysis with surveys and semi-structured interview provides a valuable multiperspectival picture of the socio-ecological system of the farm and its environment (Lovell et al., 2010a).

Two general objectives inform interpretation of the site analysis. The designer is seeking opportunities to situate perennial plantings in order to intercept and utilize unplanned flows of energy and materials across the site, including water, soil, and nutrients, which otherwise represent losses to, or potential degradation of, the agroecosystem. At the same time, the designer identifies interstitial, underused, and degraded areas in the site, which represent opportunities to use perennials to regenerate ecological function and/or produce yields from otherwise unproductive areas.

Gathering Background Information. The dialog between the regional conservation priorities, farmer goals and interests, and the site analysis, should now suggest potential locations for perennial polycultures, needed ecological functions in the landscape, and crops of interest to the farmer. The designer interprets this information to determine potentially appropriate system types and management practices for the farm. Perennial systems can then be identified on the basis of multiple criteria, including the ability to perform needed ecological functions, adaptedness to site conditions in opportune areas, to mimic the historical matrix in the greater landscape, on the basis of farmer interest, and/or in response to local market opportunities. In this phase, the designer reviews the current understanding of the ecological functionality and best management practices for 52

the perennial polyculture systems of interest. This involves review of the scientific and technical literature, including grey literature, consultation with extension agents, practicing farmers, and other professionals in the field. This background information assists the designer in determining whether given systems and species are appropriate for the site, how they might be adapted to better match site constraints and farmer goals, and what potential ecological and production services they can reasonably expected to perform under a given management regime.

Design and Scenario Building. The designer prepares rough schematic designs, in single or multiple scenarios. The schematic designs consist of graphic and narrative components, which collectively accomplish three goals: 1) to propose systems of interest - the types of perennial polyculture systems which best fit the farm; 2) to populate those systems with species of interest - the suites of potential crops that could be produced in the proposed systems; and 3) to spatially situate the above in a site master plan.

Resolving conflicts and optimizing synergy between production, cultural, and ecological functions in the landscape is a crucial and complex aspect of multifunctional farm design. This process, which is the heart of the design process, demands focused attention. An emphasis on the spatiality of goals and functions in the landscape helps to shift attention from a narrow focus on technical concerns, onto the broader set of relationships, which form the context and foundation for the resolution of these concerns. Multiple design tools can be brought to bear in this part of the planning, including Smedings Farm53

Nature plan (1999), which outlines a specific step-by-step protocol for integrating the surrounding matrix with on-farm conservation features; computer models that use sophisticated genetic algorithms to optimize among multiple goal values (Groot et al., 2009); and various approaches from agroecology, agroforestry, and permaculture (Altieri, 2000; Garrett 2006; Mollison & Slay, 1988). Whatever approach or tools are used, they should act as a support, rather than substitute, for the design process. The qualitative and intuitive aspect of design work is fundamental to the process, and should not be replaced via a strict protocol or automation.

Scenario Evaluation and Output Selection. The schematic designs, as a single or multiple scenarios, are brought back to the farmer in a second site visit. Support materials are generated or collated and left with the farmer. These include large-format maps that reflect the site analysis from the previous iteration and the schematic designs, a document containing the synthesized goal statement and a description of each proposed system, as well as reports on potential new crops, and extension or other grey literature on types of systems proposed in the schematic design.

Reviewing these materials with the farmer while viewing a large-format site-plan, as well as during a site walk, allows the designer to assess the degree to which they have been able to hear and understand the farmers priorities, as well as the degree to which their proposals are perceived as appropriate responses to those priorities. The farmer is asked to revisit the goals statement with the designer, to articulate any changes in their priorities 54

since the statement was written, and respond on the extent to which the design proposal responds to each goal. Finally, the designer works with the farmer to determine what kind of outputs the farmer would like from the design process. Types of documentation can include enterprise budgeting, management plans, detailed patch designs or modular patch designs, and sourcing information for plant and other materials.

The design methodology proposed here emphasizes the repeated solicitation and validation of farmer goals. The Vermont Compost case study illustrated the importance of this process. The project was halted prematurely when, during the second site visit, it became apparent that the farmer was actually looking for a landscape design for the road frontage. The goals for this section of the property were weighted more toward aesthetics than either production or conservation. It became clear that production-style perennial polycultures were no longer an objective for the farmer, and the project ended amicably for all involved. It was never clarified whether the project had been an inappropriate match for farmer interest all along, or the farmer's goals had shifted, or previously inchoate objectives had solidified over the intervening months to become incompatible with the study goals. Whichever scenario may have been the case, this development highlighted the critical need for designers to revisit and re-articulate goals and objectives throughout the design process, for the sake of avoiding misguided and needless work that serves neither the farmer nor the designer.
Figure 5: Reiteration of Goals

55

2.3.3 Iteration 3: Resolution, Evaluation, and Future Activities Partner Evaluation. In the final iteration, the designer generates the outputs that the farmer has requested, evaluates those outputs with the farmer, and discusses potential future partnership activities. In the meeting with farmer, the designer reviews the outputs with the farmer, and solicits feedback on whether they meet the farmers needs and expectations. This discussion of outputs also provides an opportunity to evaluate the partnership. With the outputs in hand, how does the farmer regard the process as a whole? Was his or her investment of time, attention, and/or finances rewarded? Was the design process effective in foregrounding farmer priorities, and adapting conservation goals to them? What is the farmers timeline for implementation, if any? Are there opportunities for future research?

Ecological Evaluation. The complement to the above evaluation is the question of whether the designer has successfully interested the farmer in landscape components that drive ecological functions to meet conservation goals. The designer may attempt to answer this question in his or her own off-site evaluation. The outputs requested by the farmer are taken to specify a future scenario for the landscape: what is the status of that future landscape? Have indicators of ecological functionality improved? If possible, landscape modeling and analysis are be used to as input to discussion of the scenario. The depth of analysis depends on the resources available to the designer or design team. The agroecosystem design assessment tool referenced above (Lovell et al., 2010a) can be used to compare the existing conditions with the proposed future condition. 56

Future Activities: Integrating Research and Outreach. At this point, depending on interest and resources, planning for any ongoing involvement and future iterations can begin. Farmer interest continues to play a primary organizing role in discussion of future involvement. Possible research opportunities can now enter the discussion, sharing priority with farmer goals. If the farmer interest and institutional resources permit, discussion should include the potential of on-farm research to evaluate system performance, economically and ecologically.

The agroecological partnership has been proposed as a multi-level framework for research that involves farmers, researchers, and planners in networks of information exchange (Warner 2006; Warner 2008). This approach combines on-farm research with extensive farmer-to-farmer education, both of which are important components in the development and adoption of agricultural innovation (Reed, 2007; Martin & Sherington, 1997). The relationships developed during the participatory agroecosystem design process may serve as the foundation for other kinds of collaboration, including agroecological partnerships. Farmers at all three case study sites had already been involved in some kind of farmer-to-farmer education activities, in the context of professional consultation, international aid and development, extension work, and/or as writers and speakers. Incorporation, by the farmers, of aspects of agroecosystem design into future educational activities is certainly plausible. One farmer, Richard Wiswall of Cate Farm, specifically expressed interest in taking part in future collaborative research activities. These included, but were not limited to, modifying perennial planting plans (prior to implementation) in order to accommodate experimental designs, performing additional monitoring and documentation duties, and incorporating agroforestry into future farmer-to-farmer education. This offers tentative confirmation that participatory agroecosystem design can create the conditions for the development of agroecological partnerships.
Figure 6: Development of Research Partnerships

57

2.5 Discussion Farmers must be provided with appropriate assistance, if they are to respond to the emerging cultural, market, and policy structures that call for multifunctional agriculture. Lack of information, lack of examples, and uncertainty about financial impact, are primary barriers to farmer adoption of new technology (Bills & Gross, 2005; Pannell, 1999). By putting farmer priorities in the foreground, and providing tools by which to meaningfully reconcile production and ecological functions in the farm landscape, the design process helps overcome some of the primary barriers to farmer adoption and innovation. By integrating farm planning into a spatially explicit visual framework, the design process provides a valuable dimension of information that is not usually offered to farmers in the planning process (Bentrup, 2005).

2.5.1 Challenges and Future Research The farmers examined in the case studies are classic early adopters of new and/or sustainable agricultural practices (Martin & Sherington, 1997). They are successful, financially comfortable, richly networked, and already innovative. Working with them has not necessarily shed any light on the feasibility of this methodology for working with more conservative or more economically vulnerable farmers. Although early adopters are a necessary pre-condition for second-wave adoption, both logically and in practice, a methodology tested on such early adopters may have to be re-written for use with farmers in different economic and cultural conditions.

58

Fine-grained multifunctionality recognizes landscape systems and components, such as productive perennial polycultures, that simultaneously perform significant production and ecological functions. The multifunctionality paradigm will be strengthened by embracing a fine-grained understanding of function, utilizing perennial polycultures to functionally integrate the scale of farm fields with the scale of agricultural landscapes. The question remains of how to evaluate the trade-offs that land managers are inevitably making between production and ecological functions. While there is a rich emerging literature on ecological and production functions in agroforestry systems, it is nevertheless a young science. This is especially true for other productive perennial polyculture systems. Shifting focus from trade-offs between functions at the patch level, to optimizing functions at the landscape level, will help organize the development and application of new tools for designing and evaluating landscape multifunctionality.

The question of cost-benefit looms large. Research has shown that a lack of adequate, culturally appropriate, cost-benefit information is among the primary constraints to farmer adoption of agroforestry systems such as hedgerows and riparian buffers (Stonehouse, 1996). While this methodology serves to involve farmers in designing shifts in the agroecosystem they manage, it does not in and of itself contribute to an understanding of the tools needed for financial planning for productive perennial polycultures. Successful innovators may be willing to implement a system without a rigorous cost-benefit forecast, but other farmers are likely to wait and see whether it is profitable before following suit (Pannell, 1999). 59

Perennial polycultures demand a different kind of financial planning than other farm enterprises. Perennial systems have very different temporal features than the annual systems around which the existing tools of farm enterprise planning are structured. Perennial systems will generally require years, and in some case decades, before producing a harvestable crop. In addition, different yields may mature over the life of the system. For example, a black walnut agroforestry system may produce a nut crop after 10-12 years, reach peak nut production in 20-30 years, produce harvestable sawlogs in 30-35 years, or more valuable veneer-quality logs in 40-50 years, or continue peak nut production until 80-100 years (Barkley & Brusven, 2007). It is much more difficult to predict yields from such long term systems, and this challenge is compounded by the difficulty of predicting market behavior over the same time frame. New tools are needed to assist farmers in this kind of long-term financial planning.

A better understanding of the process of optimizing between functions will require rich input from farmers, as the primary land managers in agroecosystems (Dlott et al., 1994). The process will also make participation more attractive to farmers, as researchers and designers are able to bring more concrete and predictive planning tools to the design of agroecosystems (Raintree, 1983; Valdivia & Poulos, 2009). Involving farmers in farm design can act as the thin end of the wedge in the development of research partnerships (Warner, 2008). If farmers know that researchers are committed to maintaining and enhancing farm viability while also advancing sustainable practices, some of the barriers 60

to early adoption can be lowered, and implementation of models becomes more likely. The increasing abundance of working models in turn lowers barriers to second-wave adopters, and creates the foundation for farmer-to-farmer learning, or agroecological partnerships (Warner, 2007b) as well as more traditional research partnerships (Martin & Sherington, 1997).

2.5.2 Implications for Extension The professionals most obviously situated to productively apply this methodology are those who already work with farmers in an advisory context as a matter of course: county extension agents. The extension system as it currently exists is designed specifically to occupy a position between scientists and agriculturalists (Warner, 2007a). A modest amount of training in the agroecosystem design process described here would equip extension agents with a powerful toolset for engaging farmers in innovative practices. By leveraging that position to deploy an agroecosystem design process, extension agents could help support a more participatory and multidirectional flow of information, breaking away from the technology transfer paradigm, and supporting the development of agroecological partnerships (Bacon et al., 2005; Dlott et al., 1994; Wezel & Soldat, 2009).

61

2.6 Conclusion As we move further into the 21st century, the conflict between the services we expect from agricultural landscapes intensifies. This conflict is sharpest between production and ecological functions, but is true of cultural functions as well. This conflict is doubtless among the most serious and elemental challenges that humanity faces, now and in the coming century. The methodology described here is a contribution to the ongoing dialogue on the reconciliation of these services and functions - both in terms of how it can be done, and by implication, whether it can be done at all.

The contemporary focus on farmers as land managers makes clear that whatever we ask of agricultural landscapes, we are asking of farmers themselves. Working farmers will be the agents of the reconciliation of production and conservation in agricultural landscapes, or no one will. Advocates for agricultural multifunctionality will either develop methods for engaging with farmers and prioritizing the constraints of farmer livelihoods, or will find themselves irrelevant. Productive perennial polycultures will be a key technology in this process, in light of their ability to perform both production and conservation functions. But perennial systems, even more than other agricultural innovations, require a site-specific and spatially integrated planning process, for which conventional extension models remain inadequate. Multifunctional farm design has a critical role to play in engaging and supporting farmers in the spatially integrated planning process required by perennial systems, and thus helping to shift the management of agroecosystems in the direction of joint production of commodities and ecological services. 62

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahern, J. (1999). Spatial concepts, planning strategies, and future scenarios: A framework method for integrating landscape ecology and landscape planning. Landscape Ecological Analysis: Issues and Applications, 400, 175-201. Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., i Rami, J. R., Jacobson, M., & FiksdahlKing, I. (1977). A pattern language. Oxford Univ. Pr. Altieri, M. A. (1998). Ecological impacts of industrial agriculture and the possibilities for truly sustainable farming. Monthly Labor Review, 121(7), 60-71. Altieri, M. A. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 74(1-3), 19-31. Altieri, M. A. (2000). Agroecology: Principles and strategies for designing sustainable farming systems. Retrieved June, 24, 2004. Altieri, M. A. (2002a). Agroecological principles for sustainable agriculture. Agroecological Innovations; Earthscan, London, UK. Altieri, M. A. (2002b). Agroecology: The science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment, 93, 1-24. Altieri, M. A., Letourneau, D. K., & Davis, J. R. (1983). Developing Sustainable Agroecosystems. Bioscience, 33(1), 45-49. Angileri, V. & Toccolini, A. (1993). The assessment of visual quality as a tool for the conservation of rural landscape diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 24(1-4), 105-112. Bacon, C., Mendez, V. E., & Brown, M. (2005). Participatory action research and support for community development and conservation: Examples from shade coffee landscapes in nicaragua and EI salvador. Center research brief#6. Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz. Barkley, Y. C. & Brusven, A. (2007). Black walnut. [Pamphlet]University of Idaho College of Natural Resources. Benayas, J. M. R., Bullock, J. M., & Newton, A. C. (2008). Creating woodland islets to reconcile ecological restoration, conservation, and agricultural land use. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(6), 329-336. 63

Bentrup, G. (2005). Visualizing agroforestry alternatives or pixel this!. In AFTA 2005 conference proceedings. . Biggs, S. (1989). Proposed methodology for analysing farmer participation in the ISNAR OFCOR study. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper, 17. Bills, N. & Gross, D. (2005). Sustaining multifunctional agricultural landscapes: Comparing stakeholder perspectives in New York (US) and England (UK). Land Use Policy, 22(4), 313-321. Boody, G., Vondracek, B., Andow, D. A., Krinke, M., Westra, J., Zimmerman, J., et al. (2005). Multifunctional agriculture in the United States. Bioscience, 55(1), 27-38. Brandon, K., Gorenflo, L. J., Rodrigues, A. S. L., & Waller, R. W. (2005). Reconciling biodiversity conservation, people, protected areas, and agricultural suitability in mexico. World Development, 33(9), 1403-1418. Brodt, S., Klonsky, K., Jackson, L., Brush, S. B., & Smukler, S. (2009). Factors affecting adoption of hedgerows and other biodiversity-enhancing features on farms in california, USA. Agroforestry Systems, 76(1), 195-206. Brunstad, R. J., Gaasland, I., & Vardal, E. (2005). Multifunctionality of agriculture: An inquiry into the complementarity between landscape preservation and food security. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(4), 469. Carney, D. (1999). Approaches to sustainable livelihoods for the rural poor. Cook, P. S. & Cable, T. T. (1995). The scenic beauty of shelterbelts on the great plains. Landscape and Urban Planning, 32(1), 63-69. Cox, T. S., Glover, J. D., Van Tassel, D. L., Cox, C. M., & DeHaan, L. R. (2006). Prospects for developing perennial grain crops. Bioscience, 56(8), 649-659. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49-55. Dalgaard, T., Hutchings, N. J., & Porter, J. R. (2003). Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agriculture, Ecosystems, & Environment, 100(1), 39-51. DeHaan, L. R., Van Tassel, D. L., & Cox, T. S. (2005). Perennial grain crops: A synthesis of ecology and plant breeding. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(01), 5-14.

64

Dlott, J. W., Altieri, M. A., & Masumoto, M. (1994). Exploring the theory and practice of participatory research in US sustainable agriculture: A case study in insect pest management. Agriculture and Human Values, 11(2), 126-139. Elasha, B. O., Elhassan, N. G., Ahmed, H., & Zakieldin, S. (2005). Sustainable livelihood approach for assessing community resilience to climate change: Case studies from sudan. Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations of Climate Change . Eldis - Livelihoods Connect. (n.d.). Eldis - livelihoods connect. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from http://www.eldis.org/go/livelihoods/ Ellis, C. & Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 733-768. Ewel, J. J. (1999). Natural systems as models for the design of sustainable systems of land use. Agroforestry Systems, 45(1-3), 1-21. Felson, A. J. & Pickett, S. T. A. (2005). Designed experiments: New approaches to studying urban ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(10), 549556. Forman, R. T. T. (1990). Ecologically sustainable landscapes: The role of spatial configuration. Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York, 261-278. Francis, C., Lieblein, G., Gliessman, S., Breland, T. A., Creamer, N., Harwood, R., et al. (2003). Agroecology: The ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 22(3), 99-118. Fukuoka, M. (1978). The one-straw revolution.(Shizen noho wara ippon no kakumei). Translated by Chris Pearce, Tsune Kurosawa, and Larry Korn. Emmaus: Rodale Press. Frst, C., Davidsson, C., Pietzsch, K., Abiy, M., Volk, M., Lorz, C., et al. (2010). Pimp your landscape--an interactive land-use planning support tool. Ecology and Society, 15(3). Gale, F. (1997). Direct farm marketing as a rural development tool. Rural Development Perspectives, 12, 19-25. Garrett, H. E. (2006). Training manual for applied agroforestry practices (2006 ed.). University Of Missouri. Geiger, R. (1965). The climate near the ground. Cambridge, Mass. 65

Gliessman, S. (1998). Agroecology: Ecological process in sustainable agriculture. AnnArbor: AnnArbor Press. Gliessman, S. (2007). Agroecology: The ecology of sustainable food systems. CRC. Glover, J. D., Reganold, J. P., Bell, L. W., Borevitz, J., Brummer, E. C., Buckler, E. S., et al. (2010). Agriculture. Increased food and ecosystem security via perennial grains. Science (New York, N.Y.), 328(5986), 1638-9. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8(4). Groot, J. C. J., Jellema, A., & Rossing, W. A. H. (2009). Designing a hedgerow network in a multifunctional agricultural landscape: Balancing trade-offs among ecological quality, landscape character and implementation costs. European Journal of Agronomy. Haggar, J., Ayala, A., Daz, B., & Reyes, C. U. (2001). Participatory design of agroforestry systems: Developing farmer participatory research methods in mexico. Development in Practice, 11(4), 417-424. Hey, D. L., Urban, L. S., & Kostel, J. A. (2005). Nutrient farming: The business of environmental management. Ecological Engineering, 24(4), 279-287. Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture: Principles and pathways beyond sustainability. Hepburn: Holmgren Design Services. Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110(5), 445. House, A. P. N., MacLeod, N. D., Cullen, B., Whitbread, A. M., Brown, S. D., & McIvor, J. G. (2008). Integrating production and natural resource management on mixed farms in eastern Australia: The cost of conservation in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 127(3-4), 153-165. Jackson, W. (2002). Natural systems agriculture: A truly radical alternative. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 88(2), 111-117. Jordan, N. & Warner, K. D. (2010). Enhancing the multifunctionality of US agriculture. Bioscience, 60(1), 60-66.

66

Jordan, N., Boody, G., Broussard, W., Glover, J. D., Keeney, D., McCown, B. H., et al. (2007). Sustainable development of the agricultural bio-economy. Science 316(5831), 1570-1. Jose, S. (2009). Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: An overview. Agroforestry Systems, 76(1), 1-10. Kimbrell, A. (2002). The fatal harvest reader: The tragedy of industrial agriculture. Island Pr. King, F. H. (1911). Farmers of forty centuries; or, permanent agriculture in china, korea and japan. Mrs. FH King. Lombard, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Vlok, J. H. J., & Fabricius, C. (2010). Designing conservation corridors in production landscapes: Assessment methods, implementation issues, and lessons learned. Ecology and Society, 15(3), 7. Lovell, S. T. & Johnston, D. M. (2008). Creating multifunctional landscapes: How can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(4), 212-220. Lovell, S. T. & Johnston, D. M. (2009). Designing landscapes for performance based on emerging principles in landscape ecology. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 44. Lovell, S. T., DeSantis, Nathan, Olson, Mendez, Kominami, et al. (2010a). Integrating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in Vermont: An evolving framework to evaluate the design of agroecosystems. Agricultural Systems. Lovell, S. T., Mendez, V. E., Erickson, D. L., Nathan, C., & DeSantis, S. (2010b). Extent, pattern, and multifunctionality of treed habitats on farms in vermont, USA. Agroforestry Systems, 80, 153-171. MacCannell, D. (1988). Industrial agriculture and rural community degradation. In Agriculture and community change in the US: The congressional research reports. (p. 15). Westview Pr. Magdoff, F., Van Es, H., & Network, S. A. (2000). Building soils for better crops. Sustainable Agriculture Network. Martin, A. & Sherington, J. (1997). Participatory research methods--implementation, effectiveness and institutional context. Agricultural Systems, 55(2), 195-216. McAlpine, C. A., Seabrook, L. M., Rhodes, J. R., Maron, M., Smith, C., Bowen, M. E., et al. (2010). Can a problem-solving approach strengthen landscape ecologys contribution to sustainable landscape planning? Landscape Ecology, 25, 1-14. 67

McDonald, M. & Brown, K. (2000). Soil and water conservation projects and rural livelihoods: Options for design and research to enhance adoption and adaptation. Land Degradation & Development, 11(4), 343-361. McNeely, J. A. & Scherr, S. J. (2001). Common ground, common future. How ecoagriculture can help feed the world and save wild biodiversity. Washington: International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). McNeely, J. A. & Scherr, S. J. (2003). Ecoagriculture: Strategies to feed the world and save wild biodiversity. Island Pr. Milder, J. C., McNeely, J. A., Shames, S. A., & Scherr, S. J. (2008). Biofuels and ecoagriculture: Can bioenergy production enhance landscape-scale ecosystem conservation and rural livelihoods? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 6(2), 105. Mollison, B. & Holmgren, D. (1978). Permaculture one. Morebank, NSW Australia: Transworld Publications. Mollison, B. & Slay, R. M. (1988). Permaculture: A designers' manual. Tyalgum, N.S.W: Tagari Publications. Mollison, B. C., Slay, R. M., & Jeeves, A. (1991). Introduction to permaculture. Tagari Publications. Nair, P. K. (2007). The coming of age of agroforestry. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87(9), 1613-1619. Naveh, Z. (2001). Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57(3-4), 269-284. Nicholls, C. I. & Altieri, M. A. (2001). Manipulating plant biodiversity to enhance biological control of insect pests: A case study of a northern california organic vineyard. Agroecosystem Sustainability: Developing Practical Strategies, 29-48. Nybakk, E., Crespell, P., Hansen, E., & Lunnan, A. (2009). Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. Forest Ecology and Management, 257(2), 608-618. Odum, H. T. (1971). Environment, power, and society. O'Farrell, P. J. & Anderson, P. M. L. (2010). Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: A review to implementation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1-2), 59-65.

68

Otte, A., Simmering, D., & Wolters, V. (2007). Biodiversity at the landscape level: Recent concepts and perspectives for multifunctional land use. Landscape Ecology, 22(5), 639-642. Pannell, D. J. (1999). Social and economic challenges in the development of complex farming systems. Agroforestry Systems, 45(1), 395-411. Raintree, J. B. (1983). Strategies for enhancing the adoptability of agroforestry innovations. Agroforestry Systems, 1(3), 173-187. Reed, M. S. (2007). Participatory technology development for agroforestry extension: An innovation-decision approach. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 2(8), 334341. Rocheleau, D. E. (1994). Participatory research and the race to save the planet: Questions, critique, and lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values, 11(2), 4-25. Roy, V. & de Blois, S. (2008). Evaluating hedgerow corridors for the conservation of native forest herb diversity. Biological Conservation, 141(1), 298-307. Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis. Institute of Development Studies Brighton. Scoones, I. (2009). Livelihoods perspectives and rural development. Journal of Peasant Studies, 36(1), 171-196. Selman, P. (2002). Multi-Function landscape plans: A missing link in sustainability planning? Local Environment, 7(3), 283-294. Selman, P. (2009). Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Smeding, F. W. & Joenje, W. (1999). Farm-Nature plan: Landscape ecology based farm planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 46(1-3), 109-115. Smith, J. R. (1950). Tree crops: A permanent agriculture. Washington, DC: Island Press. Soule, J. D. & Piper, J. K. (1992). Farming in nature's image: An ecological approach to agriculture. Washington, DC: Island Press. Stonehouse, D. P. (1996). A targeted policy approach to inducing improved rates of conservation compliance in agriculture. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne D'agroeconomie, 44(2), 105-119. Thies, C. & Tscharntke, T. (1999). Landscape structure and biological control in agroecosystems. Science, 285(5429), 893. 69

Thomas, V. G. & Kevan, P. G. (1993). Basic principles of agroecology and sustainable agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 6(1), 1-19. Tilman, D., Hill, J., & Lehman, C. (2006). Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass. Science 314(5805), 1598-600. Tress, B. & Tress, G. (2003). Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning-a study from Denmark. Landscape and Urban Planning, 64(3), 161-178. Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005). Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity--ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 8(8), 857-874. Valdivia, C. & Poulos, C. (2009). Factors affecting farm operators interest in incorporating riparian buffers and forest farming practices in northeast and southeast missouri. Agroforestry Systems, 75(1), 61-71. Veteto, J. R. & Lockyer, J. (2008). Environmental anthropology engaging permaculture: Moving theory and practice toward sustainability. Culture & Agriculture, 30(1), 4758. Waldhardt, R., Bach, M., Borresch, R., Breuer, L., Diektter, T., Frede, H. G., et al. (2010). Evaluating today's landscape multifunctionality and providing an alternative future: A normative scenario approach. Ecology and Society, 15(3), 30. Warner, K. D. (2006). Extending agroecology: Grower participation in partnerships is key to social learning. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 21(02), 84-94. Warner, K.D. (2007a). Agroecology in action : Extending alternative agriculture through social networks. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Warner, K. D. (2007b). The quality of sustainability: Agroecological partnerships and the geographic branding of california winegrapes. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(2), 142155. Warner, K. D. (2008). Agroecology as participatory science: Emerging alternatives to technology transfer extension practice. Science, Technology & Human Values, 33(6), 754. Weyerhaeuser, H. & Kahrl, F. (2006). Planting trees on farms in southwest china. Mountain Research and Development, 26(3), 205-208. Wezel, A. & Soldat, V. (2009). A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline of agroecology. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY, 7(1), 3-18. 70

Yeomans, P. A. (1958). The challenge of landscape: The development and practice of keyline. Sydney, NSW: Keyline Pub. Pty. Zimmerer, K. S. (2007). Agriculture, livelihoods, and globalization: The analysis of new trajectories (and avoidance of just-so stories) of human-environment change and conservation. Agriculture and Human Values, 24(1), 9-16.

71