Figure - uploaded by Olivier Therond
Content may be subject to copyright.
From domain-based analytical frameworks to an integrated framework developed to structure analysis of local agriculture and design the agroecological transition at the local level
Source publication
Concerns about the negative impacts of productivist agriculture have led to the emergence of two forms of ecological modernisation of agriculture. The first, efficiency-substitution agriculture, aims to improve input use efficiency and to minimise environmental impacts of modern farming systems. It is currently the dominant modernisation pathway. T...
Similar publications
Learning-by-doing strategies allow for inherent uncertainty in the management of complex social-ecological systems. Adaptive management epitomises learning-by-doing, an iterative process based on incremental, experiential learning within adaptive management cycles. This learning is supported by strategic monitoring of, and feedback from the impacts...
Citations
... From a food system perspective, many causes of sustainability challenges find their origin in problematic connectivity between different types of system components. For instance, there is often a disconnect between food production and local and regional environmental conditions, resulting in pollution and biodiversity loss (Dubey et al., 2021;Duru et al., 2015;Gomiero et al., 2011). We also often observe a disconnect between food and feed production locations, leading to deforestation, climate change, and food insecurity (Heron et al., 2018;Schwarzmueller & Kastner, 2022;Zinngrebe et al., 2024). ...
Food systems need to be transformed in order to effectively deal with huge challenges related to biodiversity loss, climate change, health, and food security. More diversity in food system components and interconnections offers a valuable approach to food system sustainability. More diversity relates, among other things, to diversity in crops at field and farm level, to contribute to biodiversity and resilience; diversity in diets for enhanced human health; and diversity in actors and actor connections to enable food system transformation. Governing towards more sustainable food systems through more diversity, however, is challenging, because regimes that regulate food systems are highly resistant to change. More scientific research is needed to better understand (a) the roles that key actors play and under which conditions they can be stimulated to more actively contribute to food system transformation; (b) the formation (or absence) of actor coalitions for food system transformation; (c) how current governance arrangements for food system sustainability work and can be enhanced; and (d) resistance to change in food system regimes and how to overcome it.
... Horlings and Marsden (2011) thus distinguished two forms of environmental innovation in agriculture. On the one hand, 'Efficiency/substitutionbased agriculture' (ESBA; Duru, Therond, Martin, et al., 2015;Duru, Therond, & Fares, 2015), in line with the dominant agro-industrial regime, is based on sophisticated machines, biotechnologies and large scale engineered processes, and aims to increase resource use efficiency in order to decrease the financial costs and environmental impacts of agriculture (Horlings & Marsden, 2011). ESBA relies on so-called best practices, recycling, genetic improvement, substitution by biological inputs and 'precision-agriculture' technologies. ...
... Innovators are mainly entrepreneurs and investors (startups and farmtechs) along with researchers and agricultural advisers providing top-down recommendations. On the other hand, 'biodiversitybased agriculture' (BBA; Duru, Therond, Martin, et al., 2015;Duru, Therond, & Fares, 2015), also known as 'ecologically intensive agriculture' (Kremen & Miles, 2012) or 'eco-functional intensification' (Levidow et al., 2012), aims to create a disruption with the existing industrial model, by enhancing the ecosystem services provided by agrobiodiversity, from farm to landscape level. BBA seeks to diversify farming systems to increase resilience and provision of ecosystem services, with the aim to reduce anthropogenic inputs (see Duru, Therond, and Fares (2015) for a review around BBA and the challenges to implement it). ...
... On the other hand, 'biodiversitybased agriculture' (BBA; Duru, Therond, Martin, et al., 2015;Duru, Therond, & Fares, 2015), also known as 'ecologically intensive agriculture' (Kremen & Miles, 2012) or 'eco-functional intensification' (Levidow et al., 2012), aims to create a disruption with the existing industrial model, by enhancing the ecosystem services provided by agrobiodiversity, from farm to landscape level. BBA seeks to diversify farming systems to increase resilience and provision of ecosystem services, with the aim to reduce anthropogenic inputs (see Duru, Therond, and Fares (2015) for a review around BBA and the challenges to implement it). In this article, we will refer broadly to the integration of biodiversity into farming practices as any kind of practices that intentionally involve the action of biodiversity into the decision making. ...
As for any innovation, integrating farmland biodiversity into agricultural practices is a complex process, leading to decisions made under uncertainty, due to the difficulty of foreseeing the consequences of decisions. This uncertainty comes under many different forms, depending among others on the type of environmental innovation in agriculture, in a continuum from Efficiency/Substitution‐Based Agriculture (ESBA) to Biodiversity‐Based Agriculture (BBA). To handle this uncertainty, new knowledge production tools, some of which rely on citizen science on farms (CSOF), are developed. They aim to support decision‐making by collecting large databases but also by enabling knowledge production ‘on the field’, directly by farmers. Yet, the ability of CSOF to actually meet these challenges has little been studied. It is now necessary to understand how new biodiversity knowledge production tools are designed and used.
Using a user‐centred approach, we analysed a CSOF monitoring scheme, the Farmland Biodiversity Observatory (FBO), wherein farmers monitored biodiversity in their fields (3558 fields, from 2011 to 2023, still ongoing). As insiders in the research group, and using an exploratory approach based on 32 interviews, we observed an operational limitation of the scientific knowledge produced, which fails at producing technical recommendations to protect biodiversity locally. While this led to a difficulty to offer prescriptive practices, some participants shifted to non‐prescriptive knowledge, that is, they accepted high uncertainty and used FBO to gain knowledge and navigate through this uncertainty.
As a theoretical result, we witnessed that shifting to high uncertainty due to the complexity of ecological processes consists in accepting a leap into the unknown. Farmers must trust the action of biodiversity, making themselves ‘vulnerable’ with respect to the possible responses of the ecosystems to a change in farming practices. We identified several factors likely to favour this trust towards biodiversity.
As a practical outcome, our results show that, to work with biodiversity, farmers must move from reduction and control of uncertainty to acceptance and reliance on trust towards biodiversity. The ensuing management recommendation is to favour a clinical and contextual production of knowledge, emerging from individual experience, over a controlled, standardised and statistical production, inherited from industrialization.
Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
... Salembier et al. 2020). This approach focuses on minimising environmental impacts and maximising productivity through precision technologies and substituting chemical inputs with organic or genetically modified alternatives (Spiertz 2012;Rains et al. 2011;Singh et al. 2011;Godfray et al. 2010;Duru et al. 2015b). It has, however, been questioned whether the use of sensors is indeed necessarily aligned with specific agricultural paradigms or whether and how sensors might be able to support biodiversity-based strategies towards an agroecological vision of agriculture, which is based on a radical reduction and eventual elimination of exogenous inputs through high biological diversification and intensified ecological interactions to enhance fertility, productivity, and resilience (Kremen et al. 2012;Bellon and Hemptinne 2012;Malézieux 2012;Duru et al. 2015a). ...
While sustainability in farming is increasingly recognised, practical implementation faces obstacles, including knowledge gaps that hinder farmers’ effective adaptation. Agricultural sensors have emerged as tools to assist farmers in offering real-time monitoring capabilities, which can provide information to support decision-making towards sustainable crop production. However, critical analyses point out that innovation in agricultural equipment predominantly focuses on optimising the dominant intensification model, while sensors might also facilitate biodiversity-based strategies toward agricultural sustainability, which aim to replace chemical inputs through intensified ecological interactions. In this article, we examine the intricate relationship between technology and practice, recognising that the functionality of sensors is contingent upon the user, manner of use, and implementation context. We employ social practice theory to examine farmers’ current sensor usage and broader sensing practices in farming system strategies that align either more with efficiency/substitution-based or with biodiversity-based approaches toward agricultural sustainability. Through this approach, we elucidate how sensors and sensing practices contribute to knowledge production and management in both farming systems. Drawing on 11 semi-structured interviews with Dutch farmers, we identify diverse sensing practices that can enable different types of knowledge: oversight—enabling farmers to optimise the efficiency of production—and insight—offering a holistic and long-term understanding of ecological relations and how they affect production. We conclude by discussing the implications of these sensing practices and types of knowledge for strategies for agricultural sustainability.
... Meek (2016) takes a complementary approach, viewing AETs as influenced by cultural politics, where social actors with differing cultural meanings and practices engage in conflicts. Duru, Therond, and Fares (2015) focus on the integration of ecological principles to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services, aiming for a reduction in chemical inputs. Lastly, Vizuete, Oteros-Rozas, and García-Llorente (2024) identify AETs as a multifaceted process driven by neo-rural movements, highlighting the importance of social engagement and the pursuit of greater autonomy and sustainability. ...
... AETs bring both challenges and benefits, impacting communities diversely yet universally striving toward sustainability and resilience. A common challenge identified by Ollivier et al. (2018) and Duru, Therond, and Fares (2015) is the resistance to change, necessitating the balancing of ecological, socioeconomic, and technological dimensions, alongside the integration of diverse forms of knowledge and managing complexities at various scales. This is echoed by Teixeira et al. (2018), who add the adaptation to diverse social and bio-physical conditions and the integration of varied agricultural practices as hurdles. ...
... Ollivier et al. (2018) and Teixeira et al. (2018) observe benefits such as the sustainability of agricultural systems, resilience of rural communities, fostering of new social relationships, and the creation of sustainable, equitable food systems. Meek (2016) emphasizes the potential for increased sustainability and political participation, while Duru, Therond, and Fares (2015) note the ecological benefits of increased biodiversity, improved soil health, and enhanced resilience against climate change. Vizuete, Oteros-Rozas, and García-Llorente (2024) conclude with the revitalization of rural areas, promotion of sustainable practices, and fostering of social innovation. ...
... By applying social and ecological concepts to agricultural systems in an integrative approach, agroecology is increasingly recognized and promoted as a pathway towards sustainability. The transition towards agroecological systems benefits from the involvement of stakeholders and attention to their specific context (Duru et al. 2015;Côte et al. 2022). Indeed, participation of stakeholders aims at increasing credibility, saliency, and legitimacy of the propositions emerging during the design process (Cash et al. 2003) and helps to tailor innovations to farmers' objectives and constraints (Falconnier et al. 2017;Périnelle et al. 2021). ...
... Indeed, participation of stakeholders aims at increasing credibility, saliency, and legitimacy of the propositions emerging during the design process (Cash et al. 2003) and helps to tailor innovations to farmers' objectives and constraints (Falconnier et al. 2017;Périnelle et al. 2021). Turning generic scientific knowledge into context-specific farmer knowledge is a critical challenge for agricultural knowledge and innovation systems (Duru et al. 2015;Coquil et al. 2018). Farmers, researchers, and advisory services are constrained by their different understanding of the issues at stake when trying to define shared objectives. ...
Contextualization of generic scientific knowledge to context-specific farmer knowledge is a necessary step in farmers’ innovation process, and it can be achieved using crop and farm models. This work explores the possibility to simulate a large number of scenarios based on farmers’ descriptions of their environment and practices in order to contextualize the discussion for each participating farmer. It presents a novel framework consisting of six actions divided in three phases, namely, phase I—reaching out to the farmers’ world: (i) project initialization; (ii) determination of the agronomical question anchored in farmers’ context; (iii) characterization of the environment, the management options, and the indicators to describe the system under consideration; phase II—within researchers’ world: (iv) crop model parametrization; (v) translation of model outputs into farmer-proposed indicators; and phase III—back to farmers’ world: (vi) exploration of contextualized management options with farmers. Two communication tools are created during the process, one containing the results of simulations to feed the discussions and a second one to create a record of it. The usefulness of the framework is exemplified with the exploration of soil fertility management with manure and compost applications for sorghum production in the smallholder context of Sudano-Sahelian Burkina Faso. The application of the framework with 15 farmers provided evidence of farmers’ and agronomists’ understanding of options to improve cropping system performance with better organic amendment management. This approach allowed farmers to identify and relate to the scenarios simulated, but highlighted interrogations on how to adapt the crop model outputs to particular situations. Though applied on issues related to tactical change at field level, the framework offers the opportunity to explore broader issues with farmers, such as farm reconfiguration.
... However, the literature suggests that there are more factors than just these two and that local differences may explain different diffusion dynamics. Indeed, as cereal-legume intercrops are considered an agroecological practice (Altieri et al., 2015;Duru et al., 2015), we hypothesise that they are more likely to be adopted on farms involved in agroecological initiatives (e.g. Ha et al., 2023). ...
CONTEXT
Cereal–legume intercropping is a diversification practice that offers many advantages, especially in low-input systems. However, its adoption remains low on European farms, as technical and economic barriers hinder its development. In recent years, an increase in the proportion of arable land cultivated with cereal–legume intercrops has been observed in France. Three areas in particular – in Western, Eastern and Southern France – seem to be particularly dynamic.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed (i) to identify the main farm characteristics associated with the presence of cereal–legume intercrops at the national level in France and (ii) to highlight more specific characteristics that could explain the particular dynamics observed in each focus region.
METHODS
We analysed data from the 2020 French Agricultural Census for 43,968 farms representative of the French arable crop, livestock, and mixed crop–livestock farming systems. Through a literature review, we identified key factors linked to the presence of cereal–legume intercrops and related them to 42 variables in the census. At the national level, the most important of these variables were identified and interpreted using a balanced random forest and a classification and regression tree (CART). We tested the CART obtained at the national level in the Western, Eastern, and Southern areas and conducted a random forest analysis for each area to identify local particularities.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
At the national level, the presence of cereal–legume intercropping was strongly linked to organic farming and the presence of livestock, especially ruminants. These intercrops were prevalent on farms with high feed autonomy for the cattle and sheep. Additionally, they were commonly observed on farms with grain storage, possibly indicating feed autonomy, on-farm transformation, or marketing outside of agricultural cooperatives. The belonging to a farm machinery cooperative was also strongly associated with cereal–legume intercropping, likely because these cooperatives give farmers access to specific machinery and provide opportunities for knowledge exchange regarding their practices. Similar characteristics were identified at the local level; organic farming was pivotal in the Western and Eastern areas, followed by feed autonomy for cattle. In the Southern area, however, on-farm grain storage capacity was dominant, likely due to longstanding efforts to achieve feed autonomy.
SIGNIFICANCE
This exhaustive study on French farms identified key farm characteristics strongly linked to cereal–legume intercrops adoption. This insight is critical for promoting this practice, whether through national public policies or local farming support services. The methodology proposed can be easily reproduced to investigate other farming practices at different spatial scales.
... However, the complexity of transition processes is not fully addressed in binary visions that oppose multiplication and institutionalization of experiences, nor to the role given to the state and public policy (Ferguson et al. 2019;López-García and González de Molina 2020). The territorial dimension of the transitions has been identified as a key element in shaping specific transition paths, as well as its reach, regarding actors' heterogeneity and the related indetermination (Duru, Therond, and Fares 2015;Lamine, Magda, and Amiot 2019;Wezel et al. 2016). As the territorial scale rises, the social and political aspects of the transition gain centrality in agroecological research (Sachet et al. 2021). ...
... Participatory Action-Research (PAR) is a key element for promoting transformative agroecological transitions at different spatial scales (Francis et al. 2003;Guzmán et al. 2013;Mendez et al. 2016). PAR applied to agroecology is supposed to combine the creation of both place-based, practical knowledge and scientific knowledge; and at the same time empowerment of local and marginalized communities (Cerf 2011;Duru, Therond, and Fares 2015;Maughan and Anderson 2023;Méndez et al. 2017). Such empowerment of local actors is the main tool that makes participatory processes become transformative of the unbalanced power relations in the food system (Mendez et al. 2017;Anderson et al. 2019;Busse et al. 2023;González de Molina and Guzmán 2017;Sachet et al. 2021;Val et al. 2019), which are at the basis of its socio-ecological unsustainability (Guzmán et al. 2022). ...
... Iterative cycles of collective reflection and concrete actions -cycles of action-reflection-action (Duru, Therond, and Fares 2015;Freire 1975;Kindon et al. 2007) -de facto constitute steps in the agroecological transitions. Such cycles deliver both tangible, material changes -e.g. ...
Participatory processes of agroecological transitions at territorial scales are becoming a widespread practice. However, systematic research based on empirical processes remains scarce. In this paper, we systematize the experiences of five cases of co-design for agroecological transitions in Spain, in different territorial contexts and scales, applying the framework of Local Agroecological Dynamization. The systematization has involved professional facilitators of each project and is based on the primary and secondary data they provided. The systematization describes a sequence of milestones to walk through to implement transformative, participatory processes of transitions and suggests some principles for the design of such processes. The paper highlights two elements that define the transformative character of the cases: the activation of social creativity based on the material and relational features of the territory, and the strengthening of local socioeconomic actors in the framework of a plural social subject to promote the transition. More empirical , action-oriented research is needed, in different territorial contexts and long-term processes, to deepen the understanding of such issues.
... Scenarios, either qualitative or quantitative, emerge as central tools in foresight studies and associated frameworks such as transition management (Dendoncker et al., 2018;Duru et al., 2015;Loorbach, 2010). In particular, quantitative scenarios do so by presenting numerical data through tables and graphs. ...
This study reviews and categorises 36 quantitative food system scenario studies. • A typology of four scenario types is proposed based on scenarios' purpose and design process. • Two scenario types are more normative and two are more exploratory. • Methodological choices are vast and have implications for interpretation. • Different types of scenarios can be useful in different contexts and purposes. A B S T R A C T CONTEXT: Quantitative scenarios have become common tools to explore the evolution of agricultural and food systems and their necessary transition towards greater sustainability. Yet, despite the diversity in methods and questions explored, a notable gap remains in methodically categorizing such scenarios. OBJECTIVES: Through reviewing a broad range of studies, this paper aims to address this gap. It pursues two main objectives: (1) proposing a comprehensive typology classification of distinctive scenario types; (2) delving into the practical implications that diverse scenario designs bring to the forefront. METHODS: Based on a snowball sampling method, 36 quantitative food system scenario studies were included in the sample and reviewed. A coding process allowed to characterize each scenario based on a set of variables focused on the scenarios' design process (e.g. purpose of the scenarios, number of scenarios tested, scale of analysis, consideration of production systems, sectors of interest, considered sustainability dimensions, etc.). Typology identification involved two iterative rounds of discussion among the authors, based on variables deemed pivotal for distinguishing scenario types. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The paper proposes four scenario types of quantitative food system scenarios, centered on the scenarios' purpose and design process. Scenario types A and B are more normative as they seek to demonstrate the feasibility of a specific scenario or frame the conditions for its feasibility, differing in the number of scenarios tested (respectively one and many). Scenario types C and D are more exploratory as they aim to assess the consequences of different scenarios, differing in the number of scenario variables being explored (respectively one and many). 2 considerations related to scenario design (e.g. the consideration of multiple sustainability dimensions, the adoption of participatory approaches, etc.). SIGNIFICANCE: This paper contributes to enhancing coherence across food system foresight studies and helps to ensure that quantitative scenarios are utilized effectively for their intended purposes, such as assessing the feasibility of achieving a goal or evaluating different options.
... The second alternative refers to bio-diversified agriculture, or diversified farming systems (Kremen, Iles, and Bacon 2012), which are based on the multi-functionality of agriculture and ecosystem services, and thus are inevitably linked to a low dependence on manufactured or industrial inputs. It has also been termed as "biodiversity-based agriculture," "ecologically intensive agriculture," or "eco-functional intensification" (Duru, Therond, and Fares 2015). This approach relies upon a "place-based eco-economy" materialized through a variety of practices, community projects, farmers' initiatives and is supported by "agri-ecologic approaches" (Horlings and Marsden 2011) in which precision farming can also be useful (Rains, Olson, and Lewis 2011). ...
... However, general attention is lately increasing for the biodiversity-based approach (Migliorini and Wezel 2017), with a key leverage point happening in 2009 with the publication of two reports (IAASTD and DeSchutter) that brought agroecology to the forefront of political arenas (Altieri, Funes-Monzote, and Petersen 2012;Méndez, Bacon, and Cohen 2013;Rivera-Ferre 2018). In fact, there is increasing scientific evidence showing the need for implementing alternative agrifood systems based on agroecological principles that adopt holistic approaches favoring diversified multifunctional agriculture (Yacamán-Ochoa and García-Llorente 2020) while also enacting multi-level and multi-domain approaches that are operationalized at the local level (Duru, Therond, and Fares 2015). This paradigmatic shift considers that under a holistic perspective, agricultural systems must be viewed in close relation to the human settlements and the social relations within which they arise (Yacamán-Ochoa and García-Llorente 2020). ...
The current food systems require an urgent transition toward more sustainable food landscapes. One key discussion arising is on the potential of territorial approaches to foster the sustainability of agri-food systems, for which this paper provides a review. This systematic literature review is based on bibliometric methods which allowed us to identify in a fairly unbiased manner the most impactful authors, papers, and research trends. Three distinctive scientific fronts are identified, revealing research specializations defined by their distinctive social-territorial approach: sustainable agroecosystems at the farm level; agroecological initiatives at the community level; and transformation of the food system and societal values at the regional/national level. We expect this review will trigger and enrich further discussions about future trends and opportunities for enhancing the sustainability of agri-food systems. This is especially urgent since research on these topics is relatively recent, and conflicting approaches are identified for which an overall understanding of potential solutions is largely missing. Reconciling agricultural and biodiversity sustainability stands on top of current political agendas, and thus providing an overall picture of how territorial approaches confront this problem shall prove key in guiding better-informed land policy and management decisions.
... A segunda linha de pensamento, diametralmente oposta, aponta para uma agricultura baseada na biodiversidade, remetendo para a recuperação de modos ancestrais de utilização da paisagem onde a multifuncionalidade agrícola e a utilização dos serviços de ecossistema são características basilares (Duru, Therond & Fares, 2015). Esta abordagem obriga a pensar numa bio-economia baseada no lugar e que se pode materializar em práticas distintas e adaptadas (Horlings & Marsden, 2011 (Schutter, 2010). ...
Relatório com o levantamento das experiencias agroecológicas em Portugal (ciência e movimentos sociopolíticos).
