Introduction

Agroforestry can deliver important ecosysUK Governmenttem services (England et al. 2020) while having the potential to enhancing farm productivityFootnote 1 (UK Government 2024; Amadu et al. 2020; Castle et al. 2021). Agroforestry systems can improve farm animal welfare (Broster et al. 2017), provide flood defence (Carroll et al. 2004), increase the number of breeding farmland birds (Whittingham et al. 2009), and create habitats for pollinators and other species (Krčmářová et al. 2021). Agroforestry can also help with farm income diversification and increase the farm’s resilience to uncertain climate conditions (Woodland Trust 2022). Given its environmental and climate benefits, agroforestry is an important part of the UK government’s net-zero strategy. The Committee on Climate Change (2020) has recommended that agroforestry should be implemented on at least 10% of arable land and grassland by 2050 to meet the net-zero targets. Policies and incentive schemes (e.g. the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) and the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI)) have been introduced to encourage tree planting on English farms (Westaway et al. 2023). However, the uptake of agroforestry in the UK has been low at 3.3% of land cover (den Herder et al. 2017). To achieve the UK government’s net-zero target, it has been estimated that approximately 21% of agricultural land needs to be devoted to tree planting, agroforestry and the extension of farm hedges (Abdul-Salam et al. 2022; Westaway et al. 2023).

A potential expansion of agroforestry will cause land use and landscape changes. Understanding public preferences for such changes and engaging the public on landscape decisions can increase public support for policies and ensure sustainable and equitable land use management (Rust et al. 2021; Stewart-Knox et al. 2024; Tindale et al. 2023).

There is a body of literature which has considered farmers and landowners’ attitudes towards agroforestry and their preferences for different incentive schemes attributes (Felton et al. 2023; Haile et al. 2019; Jerneck and Olsson 2013; Chia et al. 2024; Cyamweshi et al.2023). The barriers to adoption have also been studied (Tranchina et al. 2024). A small literature is available studying the views of different stakeholders including policy makers, agricultural advisors, researchers and environmentalists regarding agroforestry implementation and associated policies (Camilli et al. 2018; García de Jalón et al. 2018). However, public attitudes, views and preferences remain relatively under-researched (Cole et al. 2024). While some research has considered public preferences for future farm landscapes (e.g., Rust et al. 2021), where it was reported that the UK public prefers diverse landscapes that combine trees with free-ranging livestock, research into public attitudes towards agroforestry in general, and UK agroforestry in particular, is sparse. There is evidence that UK consumers are interested in agroforestry products and are willing to pay a premium for agricultural products grown in agroforestry systems (Cole et al. 2024). Otter and Langenberg (2020) conducted research into the German public’s support for agroforestry schemes. They found that taxpayers associate positive benefits with agroforestry systems, and the majority (65.1%) was willing to financially contribute to schemes aiming to increase agroforestry uptake. Fagerholm et al. (2016) found that agroforestry landscapes in Spain (the Dehesa) are perceived to offer a number of ecosystem services. Access to rural landscapes was found to be important for well-being (although not specifically associated with agroforestry). Gaspar et al. (2016) also looked at perceived the benefits of Dehesa agroforestry systems. Citizens mainly perceived agroforestry systems as suppliers of high-quality food products and were less familiar with the other ecosystem services which these systems delivered. Gao et al. (2014) examined public perceptions of agroforestry benefits in the US. The respondents did not associate more ecological and socio-economic benefits with agroforestry farming compared to conventional agricultural practices. The authors stress the need to increase public awareness of the benefits of agroforestry practices. The literature further finds that people associate important relational values (identity, sense of place) to agroforestry landscapes (Elbakidze et al. 2021).

While there is a limited literature which has focused on public attitudes to agroforestry specifically, research has considered tree planting in rural locations. For example, Nijnik and Mather (2008) reported that the Scottish public supports policies aiming to promote tree planting (native trees) in rural areas. Similarly, Iversen et al. (2022) examined the attitudes and emotions held by different stakeholders towards woodland creation in upland regions in the UK. The results indicated diverse stakeholder views; while some groups supported woodland creation for environmental (intrinsic motivation) or financial (extrinsic motivation) reasons, others were concerned about its impact on the landscape and people’s way of living within rural communities (e.g. in relation to existing farming practices).

Given the UK government’s aim to promote tree planting in the countryside, understanding people’s perceptions and values associated with tress in rural landscapes can offer useful insights to help the design of new schemes that reflect public preferences and maximize the social benefits. In this paper, we report the results of a study that included focus group discussions with residents in two regions in England to study attitudes towards trees in the countryside and public support for the implementation of agroforestry practices. Public acceptance of policy is predicated on public attitudes, including in relation to agriculture, such that people are more likely to comply with policy measures, or accept policy outcomes, if they hold positive attitudes towards the latter (Jin et al. submitted). Attitudes are formed on the basis of emotional responses or “affect”, and sometimes on the basis of beliefs or cognitions (e,g, see Eagly and Chaiken 1993). This exploratory research aimed to understand which affective responses and/or beliefs and cognitions, were relevant to attitude formation in relation to agroforestry, in order to inform the development of a structured theoretical model in future research.

Materials and methods

Case study sites

Two locations in England were included in the research: the Northeast (NE) of England (Tyne and Wear/Northumberland) and the South-East (SE) of England (Thames Valley). The landscape, topography and agricultural systems in these areas are contrasting. The Thames Valley represents a diverse landscape, where many land uses compete for space. It is characterised by “urban and suburban settlements, infrastructure networks, fragmented agricultural land, historic parks, commons, woodland, reservoirs and extensive minerals workings” (Natural England 2025a). Northumberland/Tyne and Wear is a larger, less densely populated area characterised by hills, ridges and enclosed river valleys, and low-lying coastal planes. At its northern limit the area is a “sparsely populated upland plateau, with long-distance views and a strong sense of remoteness” and includes widespread conifer afforestation (Natural England 2025b), with urban settlement and industry combined with agricultural land in the southern areas (Natural England 2025c). In the NE, average farm sizes are the largest in England, and permanent pasture predominates farmed land use, with 40% of the farmed area being rented (Statistics 2024a). In the SE, farm (primarily arable) sizes are the fourth smallest in England, with 31% of the farmed land being rented (Statistics 2024b). Land values in the SE are considerably more expensive (Strutt and Parker 2024).

Research methodology

We used a focus group methodology to collect data given the inherently exploratory nature of this research. Specifically, this paper adds to a very limited literature evaluating people’s perceptions and attitudes towards trees on farmland in the UK. The results of this study can therefore provide useful initial insights into public views and attitudes and can inform the design of future research into public support for agroforestry. The focus group methodology represents a suitable tool for the exploratory research (Gaspar et al. 2016). We conducted online focus groups as they have the advantages of cost-efficiency and convenience, (Stewart and Shamdasani 2017) although group size, the discussion process, and the lack of control of the discussion environment may represent challenges (Hinkes 2021).We recruited participants from the NE and the SE of England by promoting the focus groups online using social media channels, e-mails and groups (e.g. residents’ groups and community pages) in the case study areas. To be eligible to participate, respondents had to live in the case study areas (Thames Valley area or Northumberland/Tyne and Wear), be over 18 years old, and be residents in the UK for more than 2 years. A short pre-selection survey identified key participant characteristics to ensure focus groups with a mix of age and gender, and according to residential location, including rural/urban (self-defined as living in a city, town/suburbs, or village/rural location). Farmers and farm workers were excluded because we needed to exclude participants with an “expert” knowledge about both agroforestry, farming practices and farming policy, as the focus of this research was to explore the views of the general public in the absence of expert or specialist knowledge about agricultural policy. A grocery voucher (£25.00) was offered as compensation for the participants’ time.

Ethics approval was provided by the Newcastle University ethics committee on 26th January 2023 (reference 28,794/2022). A pilot focus group was conducted with NE participants (in-person) on 5th July 2023 consisting of 13 people. Six online focus groups were then formed between 15th August and 4th September 2023 with 5–7 people in each group. In total 32 people participated. The demographic characteristics of the participants are summarised in Table 1. Table 1 shows four focus groups were conducted with NE residents and two with SE residents. Data saturation was observed after running both the NE groups (which were run first) and the SE groups and no further data were collected. Five groups consisted of urban residents and one of rural residents (from the NE). Again, saturation was achieved. The focus groups were conducted via Zoom, and most interactions were via audio and video. Some participants chose to engage via the ‘chat’ function, typing their responses. The audio transcription and the ‘chat’ were analysed for each focus group.

Table 1 Focus group participant demographics (%)
Full size table

During the focus group (supplementary materials Table S1) discussions, participants expressed their views on the connection between people and trees in the countryside; on planting more trees in the countryside in the future as well as on agroforestry and its benefits, challenges, management and effect on experience of the countryside. No prior knowledge of agroforestry was assumed. To introduce the topic, participants were asked about their understanding of the term agroforestry. They were then shown a series of images and given a short description of the most common types of agroforestry systems in the UK, i.e. silvoarable and silvopastoral systems as well as hedgerows, shelter belts and riparian plantings (images available from corresponding author on request).

The focus group transcripts and chat files were uploaded to the software package NVivo 12 Pro (QSR-International-Pty-ltd 2018) and analysed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2012). Open coding was applied to identify cross-cutting themes (Flick 1998; Strauss 1987). Coding was completed when no new themes emerged (Esterberg 2002). Anonymised transcripts are available from the corresponding author on request.

Results and discussion

Connections to trees and benefits of trees in the countryside

Participants referred to multiple positive connections with trees in the countryside, including their ‘love’ for trees, as a meaningful feature of the landscape. Emotive and imaginative language was used to describe trees as “magnificent entities, creatures” (MA, NE_U3)Footnote 2 and “wonderful things” (GL, NE_U3). People appreciated the variety of trees, their size, their beauty, and the artistic quality of corpses and isolated trees in landscapes. Trees were seen to enhance the appearance of rural landscapes.

Frequent reference was made to nature through different conceptualisations. These included trees as being embedded in the concept of nature, by “adding to the beauty of nature” (RN, SE_U1); by being “very significant part of nature” (AS, SE_U2); and because “nature is not complete without trees” (YN, SE_U1). They further referred to trees’ ability to create habitats and enhance biodiversity. The participants enjoyed the presence of birds and butterflies near or in trees, noting that the “nature in trees” (NY, NE_R3) was important, and that “trees are the main platform for nature” (NY, NE_R3), and “the keystone” (GL, NE_U3) for wider habitats.

Connections with trees were linked to wellbeing, mental and physical health. People talked about the way that trees “do a lot for us”, they “keep us alive and healthy” (GL, NE_U3) and “support our life” (SL, NE_U2). Spending time walking through or sitting under trees provoke feelings of calmness, peace and the ability to “relax your mind” (SL, NE_U2) or “ease a stressful mind” (O, NE_U2). Colourful leaves and changing seasons were perceived as “good for your mind” (IR, NE_R3). The sound of leaves rustling was an important connection, allowing people to “get connected to my inner self” (RT, SE_U1). Trees were seen as a place to go “whatever mood you are in” (YN, SE_U1), including when feeling lonely, as the sound of leaves can be “the tree communicating” (HN, SE_U2), helping with meditation or reflection.

Yeah, I feel really connected to trees, because, I feel like, when I visit the countryside [and] sit around the trees I feel like I'm connected because it feels like the trees are actually speaking to me […] when the wind […] makes those rustling sounds and things like that….it actually makes me very calm…. (LN, SE_U1)

Other sensory connections were also mentioned:

“…my connection is sensory in that, you know, the smell of a woodland when you walk through it, kicking up the leaves, touching the bark. I have a very sensory and emotional attachment to trees...” (M, NE_U3)

People further discussed social, emotional, and cultural connections. Trees were seen as a place to meet, to recreate and to facilitate learning for children. Some people explained how connections with trees allowed them to reflect on their lives by for example comparing the life stages of a tree, particularly fruit-bearing trees, to the stages of human life. The changing seasons gave a sense of progression and milestones through life. The temporality of trees in relation to “being there a long time” (IR, NE_U1) and their link to “mythology and history” (IR, NE_U1) was a significant cultural connection. The physicality of trees was described in relation to coming from small seeds, and as “fascinating […] as we only see what's going on the surface, but trees are much more than that” with “a great network of roots working underground” (EE, NE_U3). People also referred to evolving relationships with trees over time:

I think as I've gained more awareness of who I am as a person trees represent solitude to me, and I think by being in a space where there is solitude that makes me feel more comfortable, more [at] home than being in busy city lives. So, trees represent solitude and peace. (A, NE_U3)

The physical qualities of trees were perceived as important for forming these connections. The shade provided by trees created a “cool environment” (SL, NE_U2) and provided the protection needed to sit, relax, reflect, feel peaceful, and “enjoy the summer” (YD, NE_U2). The “cool breeze” (NR, NE_U1), “special ventilation” (SS, NE_U1) and “fresh air” (NR, NE_U1) were mentioned as important services supported by trees.

The respondents further referred to the regulating and provisioning ecosystem services provided by trees. They stressed the importance of trees for “purifying the air” (O, NE_U2) by removing carbon dioxide and for helping climate change mitigation given the “great issue of global warming that has a whole lot of side effects” (YD, NE_U1). Trees were also considered valuable as wind breaks during heavy winds and storms.

Views on tree planting in the countryside

The participants acknowledged the potential environmental benefits of tree planting in the countryside. However, some participants were also concerned about the management of tree planting. They stressed the need to ensure that the “right trees” (NY, NE_R3) and “most appropriate trees” (IR, NE_U1), are being planted and that the trees are “well-spaced” (YD, NE_U2) as “you don’t want to cover everywhere” (NR, NE_U1). People felt that “diversity is key” (AS, NE_U3), and they opposed to monocultures.

“I wouldn't like to see just plantations of monocultural pines blanketing the landscape. I like…sort of natural woodland assembly, the ancient woodland. So, the right trees, in the right place, for the right purpose…..” (NY, NE_R3)

Monocultures were seen not to have the same “feeling or, kind of, emotional connection and sensory connection there [compared to] when I'm walking through, like, a native broadleaf woodland” (GL, NE_U3).

The need for balance in the landscape was emphasised.

“ …I think where we live in Northumberland we're very rich in trees… it's a very different area compared with the South of England, and I think up here certainly, you don't have to go very far, and you can find woodland and places you can walk. And I mean we will see a change in landscape in the future, because there will be more trees built [planted], that's for sure, but like everything in this world, there is a balance, and it's getting that balance right.” (IR, NE_R3)

The participants had a positive view on tree planting recognising the importance of trees for climate change mitigation. Society “can help fight global warming and climate change if we had more trees and less deforestation” (EE, NE_U3). Citizens further referred to the important role of the government in devising policies and initiatives that could help achieve the tree planting targets. The government was seen to have “[a] chance to teach awareness to the public” (SL, NE_U2) including on “the importance of trees” (SS, NE_U1). Tree planting should be prioritised in “erosion prone areas” (YD, NE_U2) and could be linked to house building (“one house, one tree, or two trees” (RT, SE_U1)). A “national strategy for replacing trees” (IR, NE_U1) that are cut down or damaged in storms and the provision of support to farmers to effectively grow trees were also deemed important. The tree planting targets need to be “long term” (NY, NE_R3), “well planned and purposeful” (YD, NE_U2).

Some people expressed concerns about planning and the impact that unregulated tree planting could have on culturally important landscapes. “Planting monocultures just to tick a box of 1 billion trees”, would lead to questioning “what is the real value of what we have created there?” (GL NE_U3). Unregulated tree planting was perceived as detrimental to existing valuable landscapes:

“Yeah, I think targets are a kind of dangerous tool, because, as has been shown in other industries, targets without regulation will lead to poor results and poor outcomes. So, for example, other habitats other than woodland are very, very valuable - upland peatlands, for example. We wouldn't want forest planted on upland peatland.” (M, NE_U3)

This participant also provided some examples of past schemes and their negative impact on the landscape:

“For example, in Scotland, where you've got these bizarre blocks of forest in the middle of nowhere, because that was a money-making scheme in the eighties…..people were just ploughing money into planting trees with no [care] as to the impact visually on a ……natural landscape.” (M, NE_U3)

Agroforestry: benefits, concerns and preferences

Most people were familiar with the concept of ‘agroforestry’ or could discuss what the practice involves. After being shown images of different types of agroforestry systems (see supplementary material) participants discussed perceived benefits, negatives, and challenges to implementation. Benefits included a mix of intrinsic environmental and social benefits. The participants referred to aesthetic benefits for personal enjoyment which can also attract visitors.

“It beautifies the forest” (ER, NE_R3)

“it's very attractive. I think a lot of people want to come and learn from this” (YD, NE_U2)

“I've always felt like it's actually a very nice idea, like it's something very, very beautiful to see […] I feel like it's also something very nice for sightseeing.” (LN, SE_U1)

Benefits for ecosystems, where trees offer additional habitats for wildlife and landscape protection, were also recognised as important.

“The waste products could be used as new, natural manure for the trees and the shrubs, in the area.” (DN, SE_U2)

“I think, the positives are the overall impact on the ecosystem. I mean, I've done tree planting for the charity, the Tyne Rivers trust, and along water courses to help protect migratory fish. So it's nice to see that it's that's part of the agroforestry and the whole environmental system” (NY, NE_R3)

“…tree planting is so much more nature friendly […]. If we had good line of tree planting at the side of the river, I think that would not only provide the carbon […?] the trees provide, but it could also reduce the pollution in the rivers, which would be good.”

Some participants indicated that increased productivity, or an increase in productivist ecosystem services, would result from agroforestry, due to the multiple ways in which products can be derived.

“It increases productivity” (O, NE_U2)

“[It] increases the production […] Maybe we [will] be able to sell [products] and get some money. They [will] be able to feed us, or maybe having cows, getting some milk and some meat, which I think will impact positively on our society” (YS, SE_U2)

“The land […] does make money for farmers who also provide us with food.” (M, NE_U3).

Together with increased farm productivity, improvement in livestock wellbeing was identified as a benefit of agroforestry implementation. Wildlife was also perceived by participants to benefit.

“I think broadly that [what was shown in] the images would improve the whole biomass. That's all animals, not just the cultivated animals, if you like.” (M, NE_U3)

“Happier, less stressed animals provide a higher quality meat which has health benefits for humans as well.” (GL, NE_U3)

“It provides shade to the animals and enables [an] environment for grazing” (RY, NE_R3)

“I'm all for trees around the edges of fields. And it's nice to see them.,,,, And when it's a hot day, like this today, you'll find sheep and cattle shelter under them” (IR, NE_R3)

The delivery of other ecosystem services was also considered to be important. These included carbon sequestration and soil protection.

“We all know that trees capture the carbon, and, …..that they are good for soil” (IR, NE_R3)

as well as protection from droughts and improvement in air quality.

[There are] multiple benefits, for instance, in nutrient cycle benefit and potential for mitigating droughts” (NE, NE_U1)

“I think it's very nice and especially those [places where] the trees [provide a] wind break situation” (YD, NE_U2)

“[Agroforestry] is a very positive idea because with it we can have more trees which would help purify the atmosphere” (EE, NE_U3).

Nevertheless, participants also expressed concerns around the impact of agroforestry on land productivity. Some participants assumed that agroforestry would take land out of production, counter to the purpose of agroforestry. This demonstrates the need to better communicate the benefits and potential impact of agroforestry to the public.

“We are starting to see prime agricultural land, which is good arable land, or livestock land, being taken out of production for agroforestry. […] That's probably one of my biggest concerns. (IR, NE_R3)

“I imagine there'd be difficulties with farmers saying that the amount or the area of their fields were being reduced, because presumably the bits that are in shade from trees won't grow as well or won't grow at all, and the same with pasture, and I imagine that you know, animals will have less grass to feed on because of the amount of space the trees take up” (IR, NE_U1)

“The country is being told, you know, the government have been warned that we need to be self-sufficient, and there will be shortages, but when they offer big incentives to plant trees again. It's a difficult one, you know.” (IR, NE_R3)

Concerns were also expressed in relation to the long timescales associated with tree planting, and to irreversible land use changes.

“Agroforestry is never a quick fix because trees, unlike crops, take a long time to mature before they can really fulfil their purpose in the system.” (XK, NE_U2)

“Once you start to plant trees, you change the landscape forever. And those trees, once they're planted and they're established, I'm not saying there's no going back but, you know, they are then a permanent feature. […] [Particularly if trees are planted in uniform swathes] it's kind of messing with the landscape. A lot.” (IR, NE_R3)

The need for agroforestry to be designed for disease resistance was also mentioned.

“If [there is] disease amongst the trees, you know, like, if you get the, is it the Dutch Elm disease back, and things like this, you know, it's choosing the right trees and disease resistance.” (IR, NE_R3)

Some participants argued that the agroforestry schemes should be community-based and have benefits for the community. There was concern among participants that agroforestry could benefit wealthy individuals and landowners, and not the wider society.

“You want to see it being much more community focused community based. I mean, there's lots and lots of community schemes going on. And perhaps a more democratic kind of land use system which included forestry, [e.g. collecting firewood]. All those simple things, would be a better path forward.” (M, NE_U3)

“I wouldn't like to see just public money being funnelled in the landowners because of the …targets.” (NY, NE_R3)

“I have a real big cynicism and concern with this, especially in the UK. I see it as an opportunity for money to be, kind of, pushed towards landholders who already have a lot of land, and therefore their objective or their priorities isn't necessarily say rewilding or ecosystem rehabilitation, or, you know, resilience. (GL, NE_U3)

In terms of planting implementation, participants expressed a preference for planting to be “natural” rather than in “straight lines”, or for trees to be planted on the margins of farms or situated in parkland.

“I prefer natural planting” (RN, SE_U1)

“If I'm looking at landscape scenes, I think natural ones tend to fit in better [than] straight lines” (GN, SE_U1)

“I like seeing [trees] in a proper old-fashioned parkland.” (IR, NE_R3).

The application of agroforestry as a hedgerow was also mentioned positively.

“I do see a real opportunity in hedgerows. The trees to be put there because they add strength to it.” (G, SE_U1)

Final, some participants were in favour of reducing (the intensity) of livestock production in the context of agroforestry.

“Definitely less livestock and more trees would be okay.” (RT, SE_U1)

Agroforestry and the experience of the countryside

Citizens also discussed how increased agroforestry adoption may affect their experience of the countryside. Some people indicated that having more agroforestry would not change their experience of the countryside. They indicated that they would continue visiting and moving around the countryside in the way they liked e.g., taking pictures, being around animals, trees, and crops, and enjoying nature.

“I feel like it wouldn't change the way I feel about [the] countryside, because I'm not there to criticise. I feel like I go there to have […] peace..” (LN, SE_U1)

Some people felt that agroforestry would improve their experience of the countryside because it would change the landscape “for the better” (EE, NE_U3) and “enhance it” (GN, SE_U1). Furthermore, having more trees in the countryside is “how it’s meant to look” (NE, NE_U1). Accessible agroforestry land would make the countryside a “nicer place to walk” (M, NE_U3) and a “more pleasant experience” (M, NE_U3). Some were interested in seeing “the different ways it was done” (GN, SE_U1), “watching [the trees] growing”, and “enjoying the wildlife that would be produced by having them there” (GN, SE_U1). Moral and emotional benefits were also identified, even if access is not allowed:

“it would bring me benefit on kind of like a moral, kind of emotional level to know that we had more diverse countryside, that, therefore, was home and host to more animals, more wildlife. Even if I couldn't access them, just knowing that […] would be of benefit to me…...” (GL, NE_U3)

Wider benefits to society were seen to be linked to new, “blended” (NY, NE_R3) landscapes that might bring opportunities for local people, including jobs. There was an assumption that a blended landscape would be less “uniform” and less “fenced off” (NY, NE_R3) compared to other landscapes. The need for “meaningful community level participation” (GL, NE_U3) in agroforestry schemes was also mentioned as a way to ensure benefits for the local people.

Governance and public access to agroforestry landscapes

The management of agroforestry landscapes was also discussed in the focus groups. Some participants believed that agroforestry schemes (both related to the establishment and management of agroforestry) should be government-funded, helping to “push the agenda forward” (YD, NE_U2). The schemes should focus on helping “to save the environment, or to make better use of the environment, or to make better use of land” (YD, NE_U2) and on meeting existing goals and timelines, including the net-zero target. A “balance to be able to choose between trees and feeding the nation” (IR, NE_R3) was seen as important. Participants further argued that farmers should be able to choose “his or her best practice that he or she thinks might keep production high” (SL, NE_U2). Training on how to manage agroforestry might be needed as “there will not be many farmers who are used to […] managing woodland” (IR, NE_U3). Animal welfare should also be an important consideration. Respondents stressed the need to consider “how the animals tend to survive in that setting” (LN, SE_U1) and to use “natural fertilisers” (GN, SE_U1) so that animal welfare is protected. There were mixed views on whether agroforestry landscapes should be made accessible to the public. Some people believed it would not be appropriate to access agroforestry land:

“Now you don't go and walk through fields that are in full crop, because for various reasons, you can damage the crop and all this kind of stuff. And it's private land. […] Just because there’s trees planted in mixed use farmland, doesn't necessarily mean it's appropriate for me to be in there….” (GL, NE_U3)

Emphasis was put on the need to educate people on how to behave in the countryside without causing damage, by not “[letting] their dogs go through [fields] […] basically destroying food […having] no appreciation […] because they have never been taught that” (M, NE_U3). Agroforestry schemes were thought to be “easier to adapt for more people to access the land without damage” (M, NE_U3), particularly if there were “educational targets” set, not only “agroforestry targets” (M, NE_U3). It was acknowledged that agroforestry sites would develop over time, and “with time, necessary procedures will ensure its safety for usage generally” (DN, SE_U2). Access was seen to be appropriate through volunteering schemes, but that a “more open, engaging volunteer context” (GL, NE_U3) was needed.

The governance of the tree planting schemes was also discussed. It was emphasised that targets require monitoring and regulation and should not be “arbitrary targets for landowners to hit [in order] to get certain grants or certain funds” (NY, NE_R3), particularly if it is “public money” (NY, NE_R3).

Some people believed that the government “shouldn’t be wholly responsible for planting trees” (IR, NE_R3) and policies would improve if diverse knowledges and expertise were included, e.g. from communities and those outside of (national) government. Local governments were seen as the appropriate scale of decision-making and “whilst not perfect, are going to understand the nuances […] of a specific local area better than say, just a national imposed target” (GL, NE_U3). Tree planting was seen to need “the help of citizens around the countryside” (NR, NE_U1). Local involvement would also help people “understand that they should continue maintaining trees around them” (NR, NE_U1). To be effective, targets need to be “very, very well informed by local level, community level input, and community level needs and surveys, and data, and information” (GL, NE_U3).

Multiple stakeholders should therefore be involved in agroforestry design:

“I think it's gonna be a bottom-up approach, and it's gonna come from the landowners, the farmers, the charities, the wildlife trust, everything that has a stake in the countryside and for us to work [together]. And if it just comes down from the government saying we're gonna do this, this, this, I don't think it will work. It has to be a collective.” (NY, NE_R3)

Discussion and Implications for Agroforestry

Overall, the analysis of the focus group discussions indicated that people have strong connections with trees and associated a wide range of values with established trees in the countryside, beyond instrumental values. They stressed the significance of trees for providing a wide range of ecosystem services and for supporting physical and mental well-being. They further referred to important spiritual and cultural values associated with trees and people’s interaction with them. The results are in line with previous studies pointing to important relational values associated with woodlands and trees (O’Brien et al. 2024; Marquina et al. 2023).

The focus group participants had a positive attitude towards agroforestry acknowledging the practice’s potential to provide social and environmental benefits. The increase in tree cover would not generally change people’s experience of the countryside. However, people indicated that they preferred agroforestry landscapes when the planting is “more natural”. The discussions around connection to trees also showed that people connect more with natural and diverse woodland as opposed to regimented monocultural planting. Much in-field silvoarable agroforestry is planted linearly to allow space for farming machinery and harvesting of crops or silage (Palma et al. 2007). Silvopastoral and orchard planting may be more scattered and less uniform (depending on the choice of the farmer). Our results suggest that the latter is preferred by the public and should be addressed when planning land use changes which involve agroforestry. While more irregular tree arrangements may increase public acceptance of agroforestry, they may hinder farm machinery access and impact on farm operations. The tree density and placement are also important for farm productivity (Scordia et al. 2023; García de Jalón 2018). Different farmers may therefore have different views on whether the visual aesthetic of new planting on farms is important and this may reflect individual farmer identities (Leduc and Hansson 2024). The type of agroforestry adopted may also depend on the location of the farm. Regional differences may therefore be noticed. Linear planting, either in the form of in-field planting or by incorporating more trees into hedgerows, is more common in arable farms. More "natural" tree planting is going to be easier in areas that already apply mixed farming methods, such as in NE England. Current advice from agroforestry funding schemes is that those considering agroforestry in grazing systems, particularly upland grazing systems, may consider more irregular or random tree arrangements (UK Government 2024). However, some farmers prefer the ‘tidy’ features of landscapes such as straight lines, as it represents skilled farming to them (Burton 2012). Historically, landscape preferences associated with being a "good farmer" have been seen to be in juxtaposition with the requirements of management practices within agri-environment schemes (Burton 2004). More recently, farmers have been seen to lose cultural and social capital through environmental negligence (Cusworth 2020). The desire for farmland tidiness as an important determinant of social acceptability of farming decisions is therefore being eroded (Cusworth and Dodsworth 2021). Decisions about the optimal planting layouts for agroforestry may be more open to influence from public preferences if the desire and business goals of the farmer align.

It should be noted that often people referred to established or ancient woodland or trees. However, agroforestry landscapes require a number of years until they become well-established. As a result, there is an interim period during which the trees will still be saplings, and therefore many of the benefits may not be realised immediately. The time needed for a landscape to be established may also influence peoples’ perceptions and acceptance of it, as people may trade off the short-term loss of existing landscapes against the benefits of agroforestry which will be realised after a long period.

Public access was considered important by the public. Participants accepted that access to agroforestry systems that combine crops and livestock may be difficult. At the same time, some participants suggested that planting marginal trees around agroforestry areas could allow access (and the associated benefits to the public) without impacting agroforestry practices. This could increase people's “connection to nature”. Access to agroforestry should be considered in future incentive schemes.

The participants did not express a preference for past, and historical landscapes (nostalgia for previous rural aesthetics), which were more wooded, nor was there interest in taking action to revert to how the countryside looked historically, suggesting that people see agroforestry as a new form of land use rather than the recreation of historical land uses (Hall 2010).

Finally, participants referred to the importance of the governance and management of agroforestry schemes. Some participants stated a desire for a more open and community-based decision process for planning agroforestry landscapes. The benefits of the schemes can be increased when they are co-designed with farmers and landowners. The sustainability of agroforestry landscapes is more likely to be guaranteed when all stakeholders, including the public, are part of the decision-making process. Stakeholder involvement and co-designing of policy interventions can lead to more effective and equitable decision-making and more sustainable outcomes (Urquhart et al. 2023). Understanding different stakeholders’ preferences and values is also important to avoid conflict when designing interventions that can impact on the appearance of culturally important landscapes (Holmes et al.2022).

Our results suggest that planting trees in farmland can provide important public benefits. To encourage wider agroforestry adoption in UK farms, the UK and devolved governments offer financial incentives to support farmers to design, plant and maintain trees in their farms (eg. the agroforestry plan, the Sustainable Farming Incentive funding for in-field agroforestry) (UK Government 2025). Nevertheless, the adoption is low (3.3% of the UK farmland excluding hedgerows (den Herder 2017)) as there are several barriers discouraging tree planting (Venn and Burbi 2023). Financial constraints (capital and maintenance costs), concerns about profitability and financial returns, lack of knowledge on how to establish and maintain agroforestry systems and tenancy agreements are barriers often mentioned by farmers (Tranchina et al. 2024; Soil Association and Woodland Trust 2018; Venn and Burbi 2023). Future policies and incentive schemes should address these barriers to increase agroforestry in the UK and the environmental, climate and social benefit that it provides.

Limitations

We used social media for recruitment and as a result self-selection bias may be present with people with a stronger interest in agroforestry, trees, or the rural environment being more likely to participate. This may have also led to a demographic bias as participants were younger than would be expected in relation to the English population overall. There is little evidence to suggest that online or in person focus groups hold specific advantages or disadvantages in terms of the data produced and the resources required (Jones et al. 2022). However, we note that on-line focus groups will exclude those who are less digitally literate, and future research might usefully conduct a comparative analysis comparing online and in person methods of data collection. Furthermore, while the online format helped with recruitment and offered more ways to contribute during the discussions (chat, audio), the responses via the chat function were shorter with fewer opportunities to engage in a dialogue. Finally, the focus groups were held during the summer, so participants may have been thinking about the benefits and their connections to trees in warmer weather and with more leaf canopy. Further research might explore if seasonal variation impacts participants'perceptions of trees and forests, and agroforestry practices.

Conclusions and future research

Agroforestry can enhance farm productivity and deliver environmental and climate benefits. The UK government has introduced incentive schemes aiming to increase agroforestry adoption in the UK in order to increase the overall tree cover and achieve its net-zero goals. As agroforestry can impact on landscapes, understanding people’s preferences and values is important to design incentive schemes that are supported by the public. Farmers’ preferences and barriers to adoption have been explored in the literature. However, knowledge of taxpayers’ attitudes and preferences for agroforestry is limited (Cole et al. 2024). In this exploratory study we aimed to address this gap by presenting the results of focus group discussions with citizens in the NE and SE of England.

Our results suggest that people have positive attitudes towards agroforestry and identify a number of social and environmental benefits resulting from the integration of trees in farmland and the increase of the tree cover in the countryside. In line with previous studies (Marquina et al. 2023; Faccioli and Bateman 2018; Grammatikopoulou and Vačkářová 2021), people referred to instrumental and relational values linked with trees and woodlands. They referred to the importance of trees for physical and mental well-being and for forming meaningful relationships with nature and people. They also referred to the value of trees for providing habitats and supporting biodiversity, helping with climate change mitigation and protecting against flooding.

The public supported the UK government’s tree planting policies but stressed the need to ensure that the right tree is planted at the right place as unregulated planting can impact on culturally important landscapes. They further referred to the benefits of tree diversity and opposed to monocultures. The public also preferred natural to linear planting. Monitoring was perceived to be important to ensure that public money is used effectively. The participants further stressed the need to take into account different sources of knowledge and expertise (including input from local communities) when tree planting schemes and targets are designed.

Our results suggest that people are overall positive towards agroforestry and perceive a number of benefits associated with the increase in the number of trees in the countryside. However, it is important that the schemes and targets are carefully designed to ensure diverse and naturally looking landscapes and avoid monocultures and more structured layouts. To maximize the environmental and social benefits of agroforestry, the incentive schemes should be co-designed with different stakeholders so that they reflect their preferences and values. Respondents also stressed the importance of accounting for local knowledge and different stakeholder preferences at the planning stage to ensure that the schemes reflect public and farmer preferences and maximize the environmental and social benefits. Previous research has also found that understanding different stakeholder perspectives is important when designing woodland creation policies as conflict can hamper their successful implementation (Iversen et al. 2022). Accounting for diverse values held by different stakeholders in the decision-making process can in turn lead to more sustainable and equitable outcomes (Pascual et al. 2023).

The results of this exploratory study have been used to inform the design of a large survey to be administered to a representative sample of the UK population. The survey will look at attitudes and preferences towards agroforestry as well as the determinants of these preferences in relation to affect, beliefs and cognition. Regional and demographic differences in preferences, perceptions and views will be also explored.