Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Global Sustainability
cambridge.org/sus
Long Form Research Paper
Cite this article: Pretty J et al. (2020).
Assessment of the growth in social groups for
sustainable agriculture and land management.
Global Sustainability 3,e23,1–16. https://
doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Received: 19 February 2020
Revised: 18 June 2020
Accepted: 7 July 2020
Keywords:
collective management; land management;
social capital; social groups; sustainable
agriculture
Author for correspondence: Professor Jules
Press, E-mail: jpretty@essex.ac.uk
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by
Cambridge University Press. This is an Open
Access article, distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution licence
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted re-use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Assessment of the growth in social groups for
sustainable agriculture and land management
Jules Pretty1, Simon Attwood2, Richard Bawden3, Henk van den Berg4,
Zareen P. Bharucha5, John Dixon6, Cornelia Butler Flora7, Kevin Gallagher8,
Ken Genskow9, Sue E. Hartley10, Jan Willem Ketelaar11, Japhet K. Kiara12,
Vijay Kumar13, Yuelai Lu14, Tom MacMillan15, Anne Maréchal16,
Alma Linda Morales-Abubakar17, Andrew Noble18, P. V. Vara Prasad19,
Ewald Rametsteiner20, John Reganold21, Jacob I. Ricks22, Johan Rockström23,
Osamu Saito24, Peter Thorne25, Songliang Wang26, Hannah Wittman27,
Michael Winter28 and Puyun Yang29
1
School of Life Sciences, University of Essex, UK;
2
Bioversity International, Italy;
3
Western Sydney University,
Australia;
4
Wageningen University, The Netherlands;
5
Anglia Ruskin University, UK;
6
Australian National University,
Australia;
7
Kansas State University and Iowa State University, USA;
8
Future of Agriculture (Asia), Ulaanbaatar,
Mongolia;
9
University of Wisconsin–Madison, USA;
10
University of Sheffield, UK;
11
FAO Bangkok, Thailand;
12
Spantrack Consultants, Nairobi, Kenya;
13
Government of Andhra Pradesh, India;
14
University of East Anglia, UK;
15
Royal Agricultural University, UK;
16
Institute for European Environmental Policy, UK;
17
Manila, Philippines;
18
Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) Associate, Bangkok, Thailand;
19
Sustainable Intensification Innovation
Lab, Kansas State University, USA;
20
FAO Rome, Italy;
21
Washington State University, USA;
22
Singapore
Management University, Singapore;
23
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany;
24
Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies, Kanagawa, Japan;
25
International Livestock Research Institute, Ethiopia;
26
Fujian
Agriculture and Forestry University, PR China;
27
University of British Columbia, Canada;
28
University of Exeter, UK
and
29
FAO Rome Italy and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, PR China
Non-technical summary
Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institu-
tions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing
structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the
deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This
restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to
increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits
for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional
policy support.
Technical summary
For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social
cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early
twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many
rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements,
networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and
equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative
groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest man-
agement; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation plat-
forms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the
number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The
area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in
less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working
with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes
and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported
this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups could now support
further transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustainability.
Social media summary
Millions of geographically based new social groups are leading to more sustainable agriculture
and forestry worldwide.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
1. Collective management of natural resources and
agriculture
For as long as people and cultures have managed natural resources,
collective action has produced systems of efficient and effective off-
take, as well as offering potential for sustaining natural capital and
valued flows of ecosystem services (FAO, 2016b;Folkeet al.,2010;
Kelly, 1995;King,1911; Li Wenhua, 2001). A wide range of different
types of more sustainable agriculture and land management have
recently been developed and implemented, most centring on the
notion that making more of existing land by sustainable intensifica-
tion and collective action can result in greater and synergistic
co-production of food and ecosystem services (Benton, 2015;FAO,
2016c; Foresight, 2011; Maréchal et al.,2018;Prettyet al.,2018).
Yet at the same time, agriculture and land management have also
contributed to biodiversity loss, nutrient loading of the biosphere,
climate forcing, depletion of aquifers and surface water and pollution
of air, soil and water (IPBES, 2019; Rockström et al.,2009,2017).
Humans have a long history of developing regimes and rules in
both hunter–gatherer–forager and agricultural communities to
protect and preserve natural resources in a steady state (Berkes,
2020; Cummings et al.,2014; Denevan, 2001; Kelly, 1995).
These diverse and location-specific rule systems form informal
institutional frameworks within communities, legitimated by
shared values. These social frameworks have regulated the use
of private and common property throughout history, such as by
defining access rights and appropriate behaviours (Ostrom,
1990). Where these systems are robust, they can maintain prod-
uctivity and diversity without the need for external legal enforce-
ment: compliance derives from shared values and internal rules
and obligations (Agarwal, 2018; Bagadion & Korten, 1991;
Gunderson & Holling, 2002). In some agricultural systems,
there is evidence that social structures have sustainably governed
resource use over millennia, such as subak irrigation groups in
Bali (Yekti et al.,2017) and irrigation tank groups in Tamil
Nadu (Mosse, 1992). Elsewhere, the structure of farms in land-
scapes has been shown to shape wider social and political partici-
pation, such as in the classic study of small and large farmed
communities in California (Goldschmidt, 1946,1978; Lobao,
1990): social connectedness, trust and participation in community
life were greater when farm size was smaller.
However, many of these inherited and legacy institutions have
been undermined by choices made by the modern agricultural pol-
itical economy: social institutions have been ignored, co-opted,
undermined and deliberately broken (Cernea, 1991;Wade,1989).
The emergence of neoliberal forms of economic development prior-
itized the competitive choices and actions of individuals rather than
cooperation (Dorling, 2020;Uphoff,1992) and framed the
approaches to technology adopted during the green revolution
(Conway & Barbier, 1990). In some cases, state institutions were
imposed on farmers as the price for obtaining modern varieties, fer-
tilizers and pesticides, such as in Malaysia and the Philippines
(Palmer, 1976); in others, local institutions lost power and withered,
such as kokwet water systems in Kenya (Huxley, 1960), warabandi in
Pakistan (Bandaragoda, 1998) and common property resources in
India (Jodha, 1990). The collapse of institutions allowed over-
extraction through the unfettered actions of individuals (e.g., of
groundwater in Gujarat; Shah, 1990). Empty and paper institutions
were also formed by states without local participation, such as for
grazing in China (Ho, 2016)orirrigationinThailand(Ricks,2015).
Furtherchanges to the social structures of communities were fos-
tered by the conditional policies of structural adjustment adopted by
international finance institutions from the 1970s and 1980s resulting
in the destruction of public institutions (Crisp & Kelly, 1999;Forster
et al.,2019), and by the adoption of the Training and Visit (T&V)
system of agricultural extension (Benor et al.,1984). The T&V system
was built on a linear diffusion model (or transfer of technology), first
implemented on the recommendation of the World Bank in 1967,
and resulting in disbursement to 512 projects valued at US$3 billion
over 1977–1992. Structural adjustment brought free-marketpolicies
to 135 countries between 1980 and 2014, causing severe impacts on
inequality (Forster et al.,2019). At the same time, forestry manage-
ment had also become centralized into state and private enterprises
that took little account of existing cultural institutions and norms of
co-management (FAO, 2016b). This era has been called the height of
the “Capitalocene”(Haraway, 2015;Moore,2018).
Concerns over the cost of ignoring local institutions and group
approaches emerged, with project evaluations showing that the
creation of farmer and rural institutions led both to sustained per-
formance after project completion and to more efficient and fair
use of natural resources (Cernea, 1987;Ostrom,1990; Uphoff,
1992). New forms of participatory inquiry and systems of collect-
ive learning and action were field-tested, putting farmer knowl-
edge and capacity to experiment at the centre of practices for
improvement (Chambers, 1989;FAO,2019; Pretty, 1995). By
the mid-1990s, the linear diffusion model was increasingly seen
as ineffective: non-adopters had been termed laggards, extension
staff had become poorly motivated and research systems had been
prevented from becoming learning systems (Antholt, 1994).
Since then, a wide range of new forms of social organization
have been intentionally formed to support transformations in agri-
cultural landscapes. These have sought to build political strength
for land rights, to protect against resource extraction, to increase
market strength and power (such as through formal cooperatives),
to link farmers and consumers through food chains and to
re-establish forms of co-management for natural resources
(Berkes, 2020;Ostrom,1990). All of these structures are forms of
social capital (Coleman, 1990), in which it is recognized that per-
sonal relations of trust, reciprocity and mutual obligation can result
in actions and change that benefit larger numbers of people and
farmers, particularly those ignored or disadvantaged by past
forms of development. In some cases, these have been supported
by novel public policies that reversed decades of state control by
devolving decisions to local communities (Bawden, 2011;FAO,
2016a; Rahman, 2019); in others, they have been organized to pre-
vent the actions of the state (Veltmeyer, 2019).
Here, we assess the emergence of social groups within particular
geographical territories, with a focus on group-based learning and
co-management for integrated pest management (IPM); forest,
watershed and irrigation; and groups and platforms for microfi-
nance, innovation and direct connections with consumers. We
seek to address two key research questions: to what extent have efforts
to form social groups for agriculture and land management within
defined territories resulted in the formation of persistent collective
groups? And do the worldwide numbers indicate improved possibil-
ities for transitions towards sustainableagricultural development that
will lead to improved outcomes for farmers and the environment?
2. The emergence of social groups in support of
sustainability
A wide range of advances in agricultural and land sustainability
have been made in the past two decades, with a range of
2 Jules Pretty et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
terminologies and priorities. These include calls for a doubly
green revolution (Conway, 1997), for alternative agriculture
(NRC, 1989), for an evergreen revolution (Swaminathan, 2000),
for agroecological intensification (Garbach et al.,2017) and for
agroecological movements (Giraldo & Rosset, 2018), for evergreen
agriculture (Garrity et al.,2010), for save and grow agriculture
(FAO, 2011,2016c) and for sustainable intensification (Godfray
et al.,2010; Smith, 2013). All of these have in common a desire
to optimize the use of natural, social, human and financial capital
while also being vigilant about the direct effects of agricultural
and land management practices on these assets. Sustainable
forms of management thus seek to use and enhance these capitals
and reduce the costs of externalities on ecosystems and human
health. Most of these also emphasize outcomes applying to any
size of enterprise and not predetermining technologies, produc-
tion type or particular design components (Weltin et al.,2018).
A recent global assessment of sustainable intensification
(Pretty et al.,2018) indicated that systems of agricultural manage-
ment undergoing fundamental redesign produce beneficial out-
comes over sustained periods of time across differing ecological,
economic, social and political landscapes. Redesign is, however,
as much a social and institutional challenge as it is a technical
one (Gliessman & Rosemeyer, 2009), as there is a need to create
and make productive use of human capital in the form of knowl-
edge and capacity to adapt and innovate and of social capital to
promote landscape-scale change, such as for positive contribu-
tions to biodiversity, water quantity and quality, pest management
and climate change mitigation. As ecological, climatic and eco-
nomic conditions change and as knowledge evolves, so must
the capacity of farmers and communities improve to allow
them to drive transitions through processes of collective social
learning (Hill, 1985).
Social capital has become a term used to describe the importance
of social bonds, trust and reciprocity and collective action through
institutions (Putnam, 1995). It was defined by Coleman as “the
structure of relations between actors and among actors”that
encourages productive activities (Coleman, 1990); by Bourdieu
(1986)as“a durable network of institutional relationships of mutual
acquaintance and recognition …to membership of a group, which
provides each of its members with the backing of collectively-owned
capital”; and by Bhandari and Yasunobu (2009)asa“multifunc-
tional phenomenon comprising stocks of social norms, values,
beliefs, trusts, obligations, relationships, friends, memberships,
civic engagement, information flows and institutions that further
cooperation and collective action for mutual benefits.”
These aspects of social infrastructure act as resources for indi-
viduals to realize personal and community interests. As social
capital lowers the costs of working together, it should facilitate
cooperation. Individuals have the confidence and the means to
invest in collective activities, knowing that others will do so too.
They are also less likely to engage in unfettered private actions
that result in resource degradation, though this is no guarantee
that tragedies of the commons will not occur (Wade, 1989).
Social capital can also have a ‘dark side’, with exclusion and
elite capture resulting in non-democratic outcomes for some
(Putzel, 1997; Reddy & Reddy, 2005; Verma et al.,2019). It
may also be deployed deliberately to offset the existing structures
of states and international institutions (Forssell & Lankowski,
2015). The literature emphasizes the importance of building rela-
tions of trust, reciprocity and exchange, agreeing common rules
and sanctions and developing connectedness through groups
(Pretty, 2003; Veltmeyer, 2019).
Social capital is thus generally seen as a prerequisite for the
sustainable management of resources and for the development
of approaches and methods across all geographical territories
(Agarwal, 2018; Leisher et al.,2016; Waddington et al.,2014). It
does not, however, guarantee sustainable outcomes. It is common
for fishing communities to want to believe that fish stocks are not
being eroded, even though the evidence might indicate otherwise.
Not all farmers know that the application of insecticides harms
populations of beneficial natural enemies. In The Netherlands,
farmers recently organized a backlash to demonstrate against
environmental objectives and the addressing of climate change
by farm policy (van der Ploeg, 2020). It is also true that not all
transformation towards sustainability requires the formation of
local social capital: a simple intervention heuristic in Vietnam
(“no-spray in first 40 days of rice cultivation”) contributed to
farmers cutting pesticide use on rice (Escalada & Heong, 2004);
and the aerial releases of parasitoid wasps (Anagyrus lopezi)in
Africa to control cassava mealybug did not require active farmer
involvement (Wyckhuys et al.,2018).
Many forms of social capital have emerged in support of tran-
sitions towards greater sustainability and equity. These include
transnational farmer movements, such as La Vía Campesina
with 200 million families represented worldwide (Martínez-
Torres & Rosset, 2014), national land rights and anti-land-grab
movements, such as Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sen
Terra and the resettlement of 0.37 million families on 7.5 Mha
over 10 years (Veltmeyer, 2019), national rural unions (Welch
& Sauer, 2015) and agroecology and social movements
(Veltmeyer, 2019). In some cases, these have led to active conflict
and ‘peasant wars’(Giraldo & Rosset, 2018; Levien et al.,2018).
At the same time, organization around food has advanced in
the form of food sovereignty and justice movements (Edelman
et al.,2014; McMichael, 2013) and alternative food networks
(AFNs) and alternative food movements (AFMs), particularly
from urban food production landscapes, and with many involving
consumers as well as growers/farmers (Desmarais & Wittman,
2014; Forssell & Lankowski, 2015; Hoey & Sponseller, 2018;
Plieninger et al.,2018; Saulters et al.,2018;Siet al.,2015).
Our focus here is on a subset of this social capital, specifically
social groups within defined geographical territories (Flora &
Delaney, 2012; Ostrom, 1990). We use numbers of established
groups as a proxy for social capital within communities, as each
provides the context for innovation, negotiation and experimenta-
tion, bringing together individuals with different skills and knowl-
edge. Such groups also require forms of engagement by
professionals (researchers, extensionists, advisers) largely different
from those dominant in the previous era of transfer of technology.
The concept of system redesign implies the establishment of
new knowledge economies for agriculture and land (MacMillan
& Benton, 2014). It is clear that the technologies and practices
increasingly exist to provide both positive food and ecosystem
outcomes: new knowledge needs to be co-created and deployed
in an interconnected fashion, with an emphasis on ecological
and technological innovation (Willyard et al.,2018). There have
been many adaptations in terminology for these systems of
co-learning: farmer field schools (FFSs), learning labs, science
and technology backyard platforms (STBs), science field shops,
junior life schools, innovation platforms, farmer-led councils,
agro-ecosystem networks, farmer cluster networks, joint liability
groups, landcare groups and epistemic communities. What is
common to these social innovations has been an understanding
that individual farmers, scientists, advisors and extensionists
Global Sustainability 3
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
also undertake a transformative journey. Their worldviews are
challenged and change, resulting in the formation of broader epi-
stemic communities of common interest (Norgaard, 2004) that
utilize, synthesize and apply knowledge and skills from many
sources. For sustainable outcomes, cognitive social capital in the
form of beliefs and worldviews also changes.
3. Assessment methods
For this assessment of territory-based social groups, we have ana-
lysed agriculture and natural resource systems worldwide, drawing
upon both published literature and the knowledge and networks
of the co-authors. We searched online research platforms for
published literature in Agricola (USDA National Library; https://
agricola.nal.usda.gov), Agris (UN FAO; http://agris.fao.org/agris-
search/index.do), CAB Abstracts (https://www.cabi.org/products-
and-services/publishing-product/online-resources), Google Scholar
(https://scholar.google.com) and Google (https://www.google.co.
uk), Scopus (https://www.scopus.com/home.uri)andWebof
Science (https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-
of-science) for published records over the past 10 years, and we
drew on the collective knowledge of the assessment team and their
personal contacts regarding further unpublished material from
government and non-government initiatives. Projects and pro-
grammes in all countries were eligible. We selected terms for
searches drawn from our knowledge of programmes in the field:
social + capital; sustainable + agriculture; sustainable + intensifica-
tion; joint/participatory + forest+ management; agroforestry +
groups; integrated+ pest + management; farmer + field + schools;
watershed + management; conservation + agriculture; irrigation +
management; water + user + groups; pasture/grazing + manage-
ment; microcredit/microfinance+ groups; innovation + platforms;
participatory + methods/approaches; farmer + organisations/insti-
tutions. A number of international analyses were drawn upon
(e.g., of farmer fields schools: FAO, 2019; van den Berg et al.,
2020b; of community forestry: FAO, 2016b).
We organized the findings into eight functional categories of
redesign, each with different types of enabling social intervention
(Table 1). We report on data gathered from 122 initiatives in
55 countries across 6 continental regions, and we have applied
no lower limit to the number of groups reported per initiative.
Of the 55 countries, 13 were in industrialized countries and 42
in less-developed countries.
i
We gathered data on numbers of social groups, numbers of
farmer members and numbers of hectares under interventions
for co-management. We have excluded data on groups where
there is evidence of misreporting or the phenomenon of paper
or empty groups –those reported to meet political targets but
that do not exist on the ground (Ho, 2016; Ravindranath &
Sudha, 2004; Ricks, 2016; Ricks & Arif, 2012). An unintended
outcome of positive policy support for group formation has led
to some inaccurate reporting to meet targets in some locations,
such as for participatory irrigation management and forest
co-management. We have also not made assumptions about
intended adoption: for example, an EU Directive (2019)now
requires all farms to use IPM, but preparations for implementa-
tion have not yet led to significant uptake of agricultural practices
that significantly benefit ecosystem services (Buckwell et al.,
2014). We have not included reporting of area of land under
co-management where group data do not exist, such as for
large tracts of forest now under community-based forestry
(FAO, 2016b).
As indicated above, we also did not include here analysis of
non-territorial social capital in the form of cooperatives, farmer
organizations, federations and movements. Many rural and agri-
cultural cooperatives (focusing on milk processing, input supply,
collective marketing and sales) are not geographically based. In
the USA, there are 2047 rural cooperatives (though down from
10,040 in 1950) (USDA, 2018), in Brazil there are 1620 (with
1 million members) (Dias & Teles, 2018), in China there are
2.2 million (MARA, 2019) and in the UK there are 420 rural
cooperatives (6% of UK farm market share by value; market
shares by farm cooperatives are higher in The Netherlands
(68%), France (55%) and Spain (45%)) (Cooperatives UK,
2018). In a number of countries, dispersed clusters of farmers col-
laborate on common research interests, but they may not result in
natural capital improvements within whole territories. In India,
there are >3000 farmer producer organizations with 0.3 million
members, but these tend not to be geographically based (SOIL,
2017; Verma et al.,2019). Federations, food networks and move-
ments are also effective at transforming agriculture and food sys-
tems across and within countries, working at both national and
international levels, such as in Canada (Desmarais & Wittman,
2014; Levkoe, 2014), in the European Union (EU) and in Japan
(Plieninger et al.,2018). La Vía Campesina works across 81 coun-
tries (182 member groups; La Vía Campesina, 2020) and the
International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative works across
71 countries (258 member groups; Kozar et al.,2019). These
forms of social capital are not included in this assessment, but
they comprise a rich field of study for further work on transitions
towards sustainability in agriculture and land management.
Layers of federations can be important in ensuring local priorities
reach upwards to influence policy and practice. In Andhra Pradesh,
for example, the 830,000 women’s self-help groups (SHGs) are
organized into village-level federations (of 15–30 SHGs) each,
and these are organized into distinct federations of 40–60 village
organizations (Bharucha et al.,2020; Kumar, 2017). In Japan,
1000 teikei purchasing groups are linked to organic and natural
farming and have organized into federations, with some leaders
coming to be elected as members of parliament (iPES-Food,
2016; Kondoh, 2015).
This assessment of social group formation also does not imply
that numbers of farms and hectares are fixed: on the ground, there
will be a flux in numbers resulting from both adoption and dis-
adoption. This may arise from farmer choice and agency, but
equally from the actions of vested interests, input companies,
the consolidation of small farms into larger operations, changes
in agricultural policy or shifts in market demand and discrepan-
cies between on-paper claims and what farmers have implemen-
ted. We have excluded data on groups formed during the
assessment period but since abandoned by changes in develop-
ment assistance funding and/or national priorities. In the 1990s,
for example, 4500 catchment groups were formed in Kenya by
the Ministry of Agriculture; the catchment approach ended in
2000 and evolved into a National Agriculture and Livestock
Extension Programme with common interest groups, but since
then the focus has changed away from these groups (Pretty
et al.,2011). In Southeast Asia, some recorded participatory irri-
gation groups later also become ineffective (Ricks, 2015,2016).
4. Outcomes: group numbers
We organized the findings into eight categories of agricultural and
land management intervention that are contributing to the
4 Jules Pretty et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
emergence of new knowledge economies (Table 1). Across the
eight categories and 122 distinct initiatives, we recorded 8.54 mil-
lion intentionally formed social groups worldwide. These com-
prise groups collectively managing 299 Mha of agricultural and
non-agricultural land. This represents growth in these types of
groups from 0.005 million at the end of the 1980s (primarily in
participatory irrigation management) to 0.48 million in 2001
(Pretty, 2003; Pretty & Ward, 2001), and now to 8.54 million
by 2020 (exponential fit: R= 0.982). Figure 1 shows the marginal
increase between 2000 and 2020 in the groups in each of the eight
categories.
Most social groups surveyed contain 20–25 members (range
15–30), with occasional numbers progressing towards 100 (e.g.,
for microfinance groups). Group sizes have remained constant
over time. Small groups provide for more effective communicative
interactions and permit the agreement of common goals and
practices, the sharing of planning and evaluation and the agree-
ment with norms and rules that work for all. As groups progress
to larger sizes, they are generally more effective if divided and
then federated. Small groups of approximately 25 members are
generally able to survive with the presence of small numbers of
free-riders (those that do not actively contribute to collective
Table 1. Eight categories of social group interventions for sustainable agriculture and land management.
Category Social intervention types
(1) Integrated pest management (IPM) Farmer field school (FFS), push–pull systems of IPM, IPM clubs and FFS alumni groups
(2) Forest management Joint forest management (JFM), community-based forestry (CBF), participatory forest management (PFM),
agroforestry
(3) Land management Watershed and catchment management, conservation agriculture (CA), integrated biodiversity, farmer clusters
(4) Water management Participatory irrigation management (PIM), water user groups (WUGs), farmer water schools, farmer-led
watersheds
(5) Pasture and range management Management-intensive rotational grazing groups (MIRGs), veterinary groups, dairy groups, agropastoralist field
schools
(6) Supporting services Microfinance groups, multifunctional farmer and non-farmer groups, farmer business schools
(7) Innovation platforms Research platforms, co-production groups, science and technology backyard platforms (STBs), field science
labs, joint-liability groups
(8) Intensive small-scale systems Community-supported agriculture groups, biogas–pig–vegetable groups, aquaculture
Note: Previous assessments of social capital used 5 categories (mapping here onto (1)–(4) and (6)) (Pretty & Ward, 2001). A global assessment of sustainable intensification used seven
categories (mapping here onto (1)–(5), (7) and (8)) (Pretty et al.,2018).
Fig. 1. Increase in numbers of social groups in
eight categories of sustainable agriculture and
land management (2000–2020).
Global Sustainability 5
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
outcomes but benefit from these outcomes) (Dannenberg et al.,
2015). Using the mean membership of 20–30 people per group,
this assessment suggests that there are 170–255 million members
of social capital groups providing both private and public benefits.
Though not all of these are farmers (e.g., non-landowners with
rights to jointly managed forests), a midpoint (assuming mem-
bership of 25 per group) represents 39% of all 570 million
farms worldwide (Lowder et al.,2016). The distributions of
groups and areas are shown in Table 2 and Figures 2 and 3.
The majority of groups have been formed in less-developed coun-
tries (98.2%), as is the majority of the area (93.6%). The distribu-
tion of groups across six continental regions is shown in Figure 2.
5. Outcomes: documented impacts
Across all of the literature, there is considerable evidence of
improvements within agroecosystems, landscapes and farm
household economies as a result of the formation of intentional
social capital within geographical areas (Agarwal, 2018; Cernea,
1991; Leisher et al.,2016; Ostrom, 1990; Uphoff, 1992;
Waddington et al.,2014). Comparisons have been made between
projects/programmes working with groups compared with indivi-
duals, with prior degraded natural systems (e.g., forest or eroded
landscapes), with prior agroecosystems harmed by compounds
used in agriculture (e.g., harmful pesticides) and with agroecosys-
tems with legacies of low productivity (e.g., that have not seen
productivity improvements in recent decades).
The overwhelming evidence from the field and reported in the
published literature is that collective management of resources can
lead to redesign and also result in net increases in system product-
ivity. There have been few counterfactual examples, such as where
groups could have been formed to increase resource exploitation
or extraction (e.g., water or forest capture). In Malawi, for
example, where village management committees were imposed
without taking account of existing institutional arrangements
for resource management, this resulted in the clearance of trees,
heightened conflict within communities and the destruction of
existing institutions (Kamoto et al.,2013). There are also other
institutions, corporations and groups of individuals engaged in
resource depletion to serve private and generally short-term
interests.
It is also clear that any social capital established in the form of
groups can lead to suboptimal outcomes for certain population
subgroups. By definition, groups comprise members, and those
outside of the groups may be excluded from the benefits of mem-
bership. This phenomenon of ‘the dark side of social capital’
(Coleman, 1990; Putzel, 1997) has seen both elite capture (the
already wealthy or more powerful individuals using groups to
strengthen personal benefit at the expense of others), exclusion
(group membership restricted to only some members of a popu-
lation or location) and negative selection (where individuals are
actively excluded). Nonetheless, the majority of the literature
points to the benefits of social capital to (1) individuals and
groups/communities, (2) agricultural systems and (3) wider land-
scapes and ecosystem services.
(1) To individuals and groups/communities: evidence of changes
to personal capabilities and growth, to worldviews and locally
generated resource availability:
•Emergence of new leaders of groups, especially by women
(Agarwal, 2018), and changes in the relationships between
women and men (Westerman et al.,2005).
•Positive role of women leaders in group effectiveness and
conflict resolution over common resources (Coleman &
Mwangi, 2013).
•Changes in the worldviews of farmers (Campbell et al.,
2017; van den Berg et al.,2020b) and of scientists and
extensionists working with farmers in novel innovation
platforms (Zhang et al.,2016).
•Increases in the savings and repayment rates of members of
microfinance groups (BRAC, 2019; Rahman, 2019).
(2) To agricultural system net farm productivity: evidence of
increased system outputs and reduced input needs:
•Increases in crop productivity, such as by FFSs on all crops
(Chhay et al.,2017;FAO,2019), and in grazing and pasture
productivity (NRC, 2010).
•Increases in tree and agroforestry cover on farms (Bunch,
2018; Garrity et al.,2010; Reij et al.,2008).
•Reductions in the use of pesticides in IPM (Pretty &
Bharucha, 2015; Yang et al.,2014).
•Adoption of organic and zero-budget systems (Bharucha
et al.,2020; Reganold & Wachter, 2016).
(3) To natural capital and key ecosystem services: evidence of
increased productivity and reductions in the use of harmful
or potentially harmful compounds and releases:
•Increases in irrigation water availability and efficiency of use
(Ricks, 2016; Zhou et al.,2017).
•Improvements in forest productivity of wood, forage and sec-
ondary products (FAO, 2016b; Ravindranath & Sudha, 2004).
•Increases in carbon sequestration in soils by conservation
agriculture (CA) (FAO, 2011; Lal, 2014).
•Reductions in surface water flows and soil erosion (Reij
et al.,2008).
6. Key findings for the eight functional categories
6.1. Category 1: integrated pest management
There are 1.045 million FFS and IPM groups covering 25 Mha
(FAO, 2016a,2019; van den Berg et al.,2020a,2020b). Notable
country leads include Indonesia, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Sri
Lanka, China and Vietnam. IPM is the integrated use of a
range of pest (insect, weed or disease) control strategies in a
Table 2. Social groups and land area across eight categories of agriculture and
land management (2020).
Categories
Social groups
(millions)
Area
(Mha)
Integrated pest management 1.045 24.98
Forest management 0.459 150.39
Land management 0.015 38.03
Water management 0.214 50.16
Pasture and range
management
0.294 2.08
Supporting services 6.105 23.41
Innovation platforms 0.273 8.51
Intensive small-scale systems 0.131 2.08
Total 8.536 299.63
6 Jules Pretty et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
way that reduces pest populations to non-economically important
levels, minimizes risks to human and animal health and can be
sustainable and non-polluting. Inevitably, sound application of
IPM is a more complex and knowledge-intensive process than
relying on spraying of pesticides: it requires a high level of
human capital in the form of field observation, analytical and eco-
system literacy skills and understanding of agro-ecological princi-
ples; it also benefits from cooperation between farmers.
FFSs (also ‘schools without walls’) centre on groups of up to
25 farmers meeting weekly during the entire crop season to
engage in experiential learning (Braun & Duveskog, 2009). The
roots of FFSs are in adult education using discovery-based learn-
ing, particularly drawing on the work of Freire (1970): the aims
are thus co-learning and experiential learning so that farmers’
innovative capacity is improved. FFSs are not only an extension
method, but also increase knowledge of agroecology,
Fig. 3. Social groups formed across six continen-
tal regions (122 initiatives, 55 countries): disc
area = Mha.
Fig. 2. Social groups formed in categories of agri-
cultural and landscape redesign (122 initiatives,
55 countries): disc area = Mha.
Global Sustainability 7
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
problem-solving skills, group building and political strength. Over
the years, the FFS has evolved to include crops, livestock, agrofor-
estry and fisheries. Meta-analyses and in-country-level analyses
have shown increases in farm productivity, reductions in pesticide
use and improvements in ecological literacy (Pretty & Bharucha,
2015; Settle & Hama Garba, 2011; van den Berg et al.,2020a;
Waddington et al.,2014; Yang et al.,2014). Other innovations
in IPM using close farmer engagement in groups include push–
pull redesign in East Africa, with 130,000 farmer adopters
(FAO, 2016c; Khan et al.,2016). In Cambodia, 270 FFSs produced
a range of innovations to increase both wet and dry season rice
yields (Chhay et al.,2017). Nonetheless, it is difficult to overcome
the fears many farmers have: that insects always cause harm and
so banned compounds are sprayed at night (Hoi et al.,2016; Palis
et al.,2006).
6.2. Category 2: forest management
There are 4000 Mha of forests globally, with 28% now reported to
be under various forms of community management (FAO,
2016b), variously termed participatory conservation, joint forest
management, community forestry, forest user cooperatives, forest
user groups, forest farmer cooperatives (FFCs) and forest protec-
tion councils. All are designed to increase the role of local people
in governing and managing forest resources, including drawing on
inherited indigenous practices as well as the more recent
government-led management. Only those locations where num-
bers of groups can be identified have been included here: this cat-
egory contains 0.41 million groups covering 150 Mha and
includes a number of initiatives involving the redesign of
agro-ecosystems with trees and shrubs (Garrity et al.,2010).
Significant country innovations include the establishment of for-
est protection committees in India and Nepal following key policy
changes in 1990 and 1993, respectively (Fox, 2018; Paudel, 2016).
In both China and Vietnam, land-use certificates have been issued
to 250,000 FFCs, and these are now managing 73 Mha of local
forest. Some 30,000 forest user groups have been formed in
Mexico. Other countries with significant uptake of community-
based forestry include Tanzania, Niger, Burkina Faso, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia, together with
fertilizer tree groups in Malawi and Zambia.
Where successful, positive outcomes include increased forest
cover on landslide-risk slopes, fewer patches and greater margins
of forest cover, reduced incidence of fire and use of slash and
burn, more wood value, better incomes for households (Pagdee
et al.,2006; Sundar, 2017) and improved health and wider social
benefits (Tirivayi et al.,2018). Increased tree cover in the Sahel
has amended local climate, increased wood and tree fodder avail-
ability and improved water harvesting (Bunch, 2018; Sendzimir
et al.,2011). Elsewhere, there is evidence of forest departments,
such as in some Indian states, seeking to maintain control over
local groups, including examples of rent-seeking (Behera &
Engel, 2006). Nonetheless, despite difficulties, old attitudes have
changed, as foresters came to appreciate the regeneration potential
of degraded lands and the growing satisfaction of working with,
rather than against, local people (Ravindranath & Sudha, 2004).
6.3. Category 3: land management
This category has seen the establishment of 0.015 million groups
on 37.2 Mha, and it includes the largest national initiative in
industrialized countries (Landcare in Australia; Campbell et al.,
2017) and the mobilization of social capital in watersheds above
New York City to ensure the production of clean drinking
water, resulting in savings of foregone engineering costs (Pfeffer &
Wagenet, 2011). Following decades of limited success with often
enforced soil and water conservation technologies, governments
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from the late
1980s came to realize that the protection of whole watersheds
or catchments could not be achieved without the engagement of
local people. This led to an expansion in programmes focused
on micro-catchments: areas of usually no more than several
hundred hectares in which people can trust each other. Where
successful, programmes report public benefits in the form of
groundwater recharge, reappearance of springs, increased tree
cover and microclimate change, increased common land revegeta-
tion and benefits for local economies. A number of integrated
watershed development programmes did, however, turn to
enforcement or payment for participation or led to the greater
extraction of groundwater (Bharucha et al.,2014; Blomquist &
Schlager, 2005).
CA, using zero tillage to improve soil health, has grown to
cover over 180 Mha worldwide (Pretty et al.,2018), and it now
covers >50% of cropland in Australia and southern Latin
America and 15% of cropland in North America. A number of
countries have built territory-based social capital (e.g., in the
maize mixed-farming system of East and Southern Africa and
in the rice–wheat farming systems of South Asia), though more
often regional and national networks have been the vehicles for
engagement and spread. In the UK, 452 catchment-based projects
have delivered collaboration across farms, citizen scientists, wild-
life experts and water companies, resulting in the engagement of
28,000 people, the reduction of pollution, riverbank restoration
and habitat creation and the removal of fish barriers (CaBA,
2018). In the USA, a number of farmer-led watershed councils
are advancing redesign, each usually with small numbers of farm-
ers (FLWC, 2015), and in the UK, 120 Farmer Clusters have been
formed to address landscape-scale transformations in order to
improve biodiversity (GWCT, 2019).
6.4. Category 4: water management
This category has seen the establishment of 0.213 million water
user associations (WUAs), participatory irrigation management
groups, water user schools and farmer-managed irrigation sys-
tems on 48.7 Mha worldwide. Notable country examples include
the Philippines (3100 groups managing 82% of irrigated area;
Bandyopadhyay et al.,2009), Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Mexico,
Turkey, China and Vietnam (Rap, 2006; Uphoff, 1992; Yildiz,
2007). Once again, experiments in participatory irrigation man-
agement and the establishment of water user groups and associa-
tions began in the 1980s, with many building upon existing legacy
systems (De los Reyes & Jopillo, 1986). Without regulation or col-
lective control, water tends to be overused by those who have
access to it first, resulting in shortages for tail-enders, conflicts
over water allocation and waterlogging, drainage and salinity pro-
blems. The same challenge exists for watersheds crossing national
boundaries (e.g., the Mekong). Where social capital is well devel-
oped, then groups with locally developed rules and sanctions are
able to make more of existing resources than individuals working
alone or in competition.
Where effective groups operate, there emerged good evidence
of increases in rice yields, higher farmer contributions to the
design and maintenance of systems, changes in the efficiency
8 Jules Pretty et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
and equity of water use, decreased breakdown of systems and
fewer complaints to government departments. In China, a quarter
of all villages have WUAs, and these have reduced maintenance
expenditure whilst improving the timeliness of water delivery
and fee collection. Farm incomes have improved whilst water
use has fallen by 15–20% (Zhang et al.,2013; Zhou et al.,
2017). WUAs have become the primary vehicle for local water
management in Mexico, where 2.0 Mha of the 3.2 Mha of
government-managed systems have been transformed by
WUAs; half of the systems in Turkey have been turned over to
local groups, increasing cropping intensity and yields by 53%
(Groenfeldt, 2000; Uysal & Atış,2010). In India, WUAs cover
15 Mha, but still only 12% of the irrigated area, even though
they lead to increases in area under irrigation, greater equity
(improved benefits for tail-enders) and greater recovery of water
charges (a measure of improved yields) (Sinha, 2004). Some are
thought to exist only on paper, and in some areas they have
been subject to variable performance, elite capture and irrigation
department control (Reddy & Reddy, 2005). In some contexts,
rights’transfers to landowners and tenant farmers have led to
landless and fisher families losing access to wild foods.
Water user groups have been subject to direct political interfer-
ence, such as in Indonesia, or have seen low implementation suc-
cesses where irrigation departments have been unable to devolve
decision-making to farmers: in Thailand, official records indicate
the presence of 13,000 water user groups, but most exist only on
paper (Ricks, 2015). Elsewhere, elite capture and continued irriga-
tion department control continue to restrict success, such as in
India, as well as a lack of involvement of women, and there is
selection bias in the tendency to research those groups that
work (Meinzen-Dick, 2007). WUAs and water user groups have
been taken up in Central Asia, such as in Azerbaijan, Tajikistan
and Uzbekistan, but farmer numbers tend to be large per social
group (>2000 and 76, respectively), and thus the large coverage
(1.5 Mha) may not be matched by effective social capital at the
local level (Balasubramanya et al.,2018).
6.5. Category 5: pasture and range management
Notable pasture examples of social capital include the establish-
ment and spread of management-intensive rotational grazing
groups (MIRGs), which require new thinking and methods for
grazing practices, diversification of cropping, including organic
agriculture, and new approaches for agropastoralism. In Brazil,
redesigned Brachiaria forages in maize–rice and millet–sorghum
systems have increased net productivity and have led to large
increases in all-year forage, used both for livestock and as a
green manure (FAO, 2016c). MIRGs use pasture redesign centred
on short-duration grazing episodes on small paddocks or tempor-
arily fenced areas, with longer rest periods that allow grassland
plants to regrow before grazing returns (NRC, 2010).
Well-managed grazing systems have been associated with greater
temporal and spatial diversity of plant species, increased carbon
sequestration, reduced soil erosion, improved wildlife habitat
and decreased input use (Sprague et al.,2016).
Group innovations have occurred in Uganda with the develop-
ment of agropastoral field schools (APFSs) and with the training
of a large pool of facilitators and trainers (FAO, 2016a). The pri-
mary aim has been to build resilience for communities subject to
recurrent hazards such as droughts, flooding and animal diseases,
some of which are accentuated by climate change. Some
4400 APFSs have been deployed, with the training of 850
facilitators and master trainers. Agropastoralists enhance their
livelihood resilience by increasing the number of intervention
options, including pest and disease management, tree nurseries,
watershed management, group marketing, vegetable production,
improved seeds and livestock nutrition. In Kenya and Uganda,
volunteer farmer trainers have helped facilitate >300 diary produ-
cer groups (Kiptot & Franzel, 2019). As in all categories, there are
examples of empty social groups having been formed by states
(Ho, 2016).
6.6. Category 6: supporting services
A significant social innovation has been the emergence of infor-
mal microfinance systems emerging from local collective action,
particularly for groups of poor families without access to formal
capital and collateral. These have been enablers for agricultural
and land transformations, such as for index-based insurance for
livestock herders in the face of climate change (Amare et al.,
2019). The largest numbers of groups have been formed in
Bangladesh (1.80 million groups), India (4.16 million groups)
and Pakistan (0.12 million groups). Many groups or programmes
begin with microfinance and evolve to become multifunctional
groups representing the specific needs of members at their loca-
tions. A major change in thinking and practice occurred when
professionals began to realize that it was possible to provide
microfinance to poor groups and still ensure high repayment
rates. When local groups, in particular of women, are trusted to
manage financial resources, they can be more effective than
banks. The systems work on trust, and payback rates typically
reach 98% (Rahman, 2019). In Cambodia, IPM farmers’clubs
have become SHGs, with members putting in their own money
via savings funds to help members access financial assistance
instead of borrowing from other sources that charge high interest
rates (FAO, 2018). The microcredit and microloan programmes in
industrialized countries, such as in the USA, are not included in
this analysis.
Three leading innovative institutions are from Bangladesh: the
Grameen Bank, the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee
(BRAC) and Proshika (BRAC, 2019; Grameen Bank, 2019;
Proshika, 2019). All of these groups work primarily with women,
and the members of groups save every week in order to create
the capital for relending. Grameen Bank has 8.9 million members
in 1.38 million groups spread over 81,000 villages: 97% of its
members are women. BRAC has 5.4 million members in
108,000 groups, and it takes a deliberately integrated approach to
poverty pockets, especially in wetlands, on riverine islands and
for indigenous populations. Through a single platform, they pro-
vide agricultural and skills support, education, legal services,
healthcare, and loans. More than 130 of its women members
have been elected into government structures. BRAC has also
diversified into social enterprises for artisans, livestock insemin-
ation services, cold storage for potato farmers, milk processing, ser-
vices for fish farmers, tree seedlings, iodized salt and sericulture.
6.7. Category 7: innovation platforms
This category centres on the co-production of technologies to
advance the sustainable management of agriculture and land.
There are a growing number of successful platforms for such
engagement, including in West Africa, China, Bangladesh, Cuba,
India and Indonesia (Agarwal, 2018; Winarto et al.,2017). Most,
though, remain at a small scale. Innovation platforms in West
Global Sustainability 9
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Africa have resulted in increased yields and incomes for both
maize and cassava systems (Jatoe et al.,2015). Farmer collectives
have put agroecological and cultural objectives higher than just
productivity in China (Zhou et al.,2017), and in Bangladesh, simi-
lar platforms have led to the adoption of directly seeded rice and
early-maturing varieties that have changed patterns of both wet
and dry season farming, increasing incomes by US$600 per hec-
tare and substantially reducing labour costs (Malabayabas et al.,
2014). In all of the successful cases, there have been facilitators
curating the redesign.
The concept of STBs was established in China’s Quzhou
County (Zhang et al.,2016). This is an innovation deployed to
increase the sharing of knowledge and skills between scientists
and farmers. STBs bring agricultural scientists to live in villages
and use field demonstrations, farming schools and yield contests
to engage farmers in externally and locally developed innovations.
Reflections of success centre more on in-person communications,
sociocultural bonding and the trust developed amongst farmer
groups of 30–40 individuals. In Cuba, the Campesino-a-
Campesino movement has developed an approach to agroecologi-
cal integration that is redesigning systems (Rosset et al.,2011). It
is also centred on Freirian social communication, in which farm-
ers spread knowledge and technologies to each other through
peer-to-peer exchanges, teaching and cooperatives. There are
100,000 peasant farmer members of Campesino-a-Campesino
in Cuba.
Social groups have been formed in industrialized countries
to develop cooperative approaches towards sustainable practices,
and they include concept-orientated research clusters and
Groupement Agricole d’Exploitation en Common in France
(Agarwal & Dorin, 2019; Caron et al.,2008), Practical Farmers
of Iowa (2019), No-Till on the Plains (2019) in Kansas and the
Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (2019). Across all of
the EU, 900 EIP Agri-Operational groups have been formed to
aid farmer innovation (EIP Agri-Operational Groups, 2019);
and within 10 countries, 34 projects investigated as part of the
PEGASUS project have been engaged in rehabilitating orchards,
wilding headwaters, improving groundwater quality, creating bio-
sphere reserves, developing IPM and creating new haymilk sys-
tems for upland farmers, with the aim of achieving persistent
improvements in natural capital by engaging in social action
within defined geographical areas (Maréchal et al.,2018).
6.8. Category 8: intensive small-scale systems
Social capital has been formed to aid with the intensive use of
small patches of land and water, particularly for the cultivation
of vegetables and for rearing fish, poultry and small livestock. It
has also been developed to link farmers directly to consumers,
particularly through community-supported agriculture (CSA)
farms and Japanese teikei in industrialized countries (Urgenci,
2016). Across the EU, there are 2800 CSA farms directly linked
to consumer members. Further examples include allotments,
community gardens, urban farms and vertical and hydroponic
farms. In less-developed countries, small patches are often located
in gardens, at field boundaries and in urban and rural landscapes.
Patch intensification for aquaculture ponds and tanks has been
shown to raise protein production, reduce nitrogen requirements
for crops and positively impact agricultural productivity
(Brummett & Jamu, 2011). Raised beds for vegetables in East
Africa have been beneficial for large numbers of women, home-
stead garden production has spread in Bangladesh and in China
redesign has been exemplified by the development of integrated
vegetable and fruit, pig and poultry farms with biogas digesters:
farm plots are small (0.14 ha), yet farmers recycle wastes, produce
methane for cooking and reduce the burning of wood and crop
residues, with implementation on 50 million household plots
(Gu et al.,2016). In Brazil, the government’s food purchase pro-
gram (Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos; PAA) and Fome
Zero project supports 364,000 family farmers in groups through
direct purchase for schools, religious projects, hospitals, munici-
pal departments and jails (Wittman & Blesh, 2017), and in
Cuba, urban organopónicos have contributed substantially to the
effectiveness of food systems (Cederlöf, 2016).
7. Securing sustainability
We have shown that over the past two decades a variety of novel
social infrastructure has created platforms for collective transi-
tions towards greater sustainability of agriculture and land man-
agement amongst rural communities across the world. These
have led to greater flows of knowledge and technologies and
built trust amongst individuals and agencies. The cumulative
increase in numbers of social groups from 0.5 million to 8.5 mil-
lion over two decades implies that there have been transforma-
tions in capacity and personal benefit combined with improved
environmental outcomes for agricultural landscapes.
The marked difference in implementation and uptake of social
capital between industrialized and less-developed countries is
striking. In industrialized countries, farmers have also tended to
be self-organized into value chain-based groups of common inter-
est rather than into groups within specific geographical territories,
though this could change with growing interest in policy support
for landscape-scale change to deliver public goods, such as in the
UK’s 25 Year Environmental Plan (Defra, 2019). The latter needs
facilitation and support, a particular challenge where investments
in extension are small or where public extension systems no
longer exist. Nonetheless, where geographically based groups are
formed, both productivity and natural capital outcomes can be
substantial (Maréchal et al.,2018).
This shift towards sustainable redesign in agriculture and land
management has been successful where individual worldviews
have changed, emerging from the processes of co-production
embedded in groups. Many programmes have built on the princi-
ples of adult learning, social ecology, liberation education and epi-
stemic change. Social capital can provide a supportive context for
transformations, both in practices (behaviours and choices) and
personally (the inner journey) (Bawden, 2011; Norgaard, 2004).
Through experiences in the world, each person comes to see
and know it from a particular epistemic position that reflects a
set of assumptions about reality. These assumptions and world-
views shape the way each person chooses to act and behave.
Such epistemic change is called for in turbulent times, as there
is an inseparable interconnection between cognition and action
(Fear et al.,2006). It has previously been argued that social
groups, movements and campaigns comprise an ‘immune system’
for the planet (Hawken, 2007), in that they offer platforms for col-
lective action and larger-scale action towards greater sustainability
and equity.
Social media and mobile platforms for information will play
complementary roles in information access and exchanges, as
well as in helping to keep people connected (FAO, 2019). The
term ‘sustainable’suggests an incorporation of the need for
improvement (e.g., to well-being, food production and natural
10 Jules Pretty et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
capital), and thus it requires the need to change the way individuals
think about and come to know about the world (Norgaard, 2004).
To date, epistemic communities and networks of social capital have
been established in many locations and could build distributed
expertise and trust over time (de Bruijn & Gerrits, 2018;Granjou
&Arpin,2015), particularly where there is a greater number and
diversity of engaged actors (Grêt-Regamany et al.,2019;Hazard
et al.,2018). Social capital in a variety of forms could help to
open up science to innovation, particularly where problems are
complex and solutions unknown and where the values of all actors
are salient (Richardson et al.,2018).
Nonetheless, there will be constraints and countervailing pres-
sures. Land tenure and secure rights are preconditions to local
people making long-term investments in natural and social assets.
When Burkina Faso and Niger granted rights to individuals to use
their own trees as they wished (mid-1980s), this resulted in an
increase in tree cover as there were now incentives for the long-
term rather immediate resource extraction (Godfray et al.,2010;
Sendzimir et al.,2011).
Though state and international organizations have contributed
to the advance in numbers of social groups, the evidence for posi-
tive actions from the private sector is weak, with many not match-
ing up to their own statements on corporate social responsibility
(Elder & Dauvergne, 2015). There is evidence (from the field) that
pesticide companies have promoted and run FFSs precisely to sell
more product, and thus not to develop forms of IPM that reduce
negative impacts on the environment and human health. It has
been argued that big retail power will not be interested in social
groups in rural areas unless they serve their own purposes, and
thus that the ‘dance of the supply chain’(Freidberg, 2020) cannot
produce progressive outcomes. At the same time, apparent
inflows of foreign direct investment into poorer countries may
continue to lead to outflows of capital in profits and returns on
investments (Veltmeyer, 2019).
We have found that social groups have emerged from both
government and non-government contexts. Some have required
critical changes to policy or regulation, often being more effective
at the state or district level. Changes to water rights allowed for the
emergence and spread of participatory irrigation; changes to for-
est and tree use rights were essential platforms for joint and par-
ticipatory forest management programmes to be established and
devolve decision-making to local people; changes to lending
assumptions allowed banks to lend to NGOs and social groups,
which then provided security rather than individuals. Further pol-
icy changes and support will be important to help these projects
spread. Extension systems, for example, will need to adopt more
cooperative models rather than seeking only to work with compli-
ant individuals (Clark et al.,2017).
It will be important to be mindful of the past failures of state
organizations that have undermined, ignored or suffocated local
resource-based institutions (Levien et al.,2018; Jodha, 1990;
Palmer, 1976) or have created paper or empty institutions (Ho,
2016). Many members and activists in social and agroecological
movements would also argue that it is the structures of the
world economy (and its capitalism) that prevent effective trans-
formations towards sustainability and equity (Giraldo & Rosset,
2018; Moore, 2018). Nonetheless, as social groups federate into
higher-level structures, they too are able to act to deliver greater
agricultural and natural capital benefits, as well as returns to farm-
ers (Kondoh, 2015). Though we were unable to gather data on the
gender mix between and within social groups, it is clear that
mixed groups of women and men are more effective (in terms
of farm and/or forest productivity) than single-gender groups,
and groups of women are more effective than groups just consist-
ing of men (Agarwal, 2018; Leisher et al.,2016; Westerman et al.,
2005). Programmes seeking to form social groups will thus need
to be aware of how to ensure full and proper participation by
women.
A separate but important evidence base points towards the
health and well-being effects of the greater trust and reciprocity
that inhere when social capital is high. Social capital is known
to have positive effects on well-being (Holt-Lunstad et al.,2017)
and on life satisfaction and longevity (Graton & Scott, 2016;
Layard, 2020). Though not part of the recorded benefits of
these social groups, it can reasonably be assumed that members
will be receiving personal benefits over and above the functional
improvements to farm productivity and income. The socially con-
nected live longer and are happier (Holt-Lunstad et al.,2017), and
countries with higher levels of trust in other people are happier
(WHR, 2019,2020). Volunteers who contribute to the well-being
of others and to the quality of lived environments tend to have
healthier lifestyles, lower incidence rates of mental ill health and
to live longer (Anderson et al.,2014; Borgonovi, 2008; Layard,
2020). On the other hand, net well-being across populations is
reduced by growth in inequity (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009,
2018), breakdown of social structures and support (Piketty &
Saez, 2014) and lack of access to natural and green spaces
(Mitchell & Popham, 2008; Mitchell et al.,2015).
This platform of 8.5 million social groups distributed across
55 countries, but comprising 3% of the world’s population,
could comprise an opportunity to consider greater challenges,
such as advances towards meeting the Sustainable Development
Goals and addressing climate change. If different worlds are to
be brought forth as a function of a quest to transform the way
we live and consume, we will need to modify the epistemes that
have come to dominate modern consumption cultures (Bawden,
2011). Some social capital is already influencing global systems,
resulting, for example, in mitigations of climate change, biodiver-
sity loss and air pollution, as well as increases in net food produc-
tion. Platforms of groups, for example, could engage in the
co-production of new patterns of material consumption and
ways of living within global boundaries and limits (Dorling,
2020; Jackson, 2009; Pretty, 2013). Some argue that large-scale
advances in sustainability and equity are impossible if capitalism
and class are ignored (Levien et al.,2018).
It is clear that considerable changes will be required worldwide
to limit the advance of the climate crisis, both in individual
choices and behaviours and in the policies developed by all coun-
tries. An era of ‘degrowth’may be needed (Gerber, 2020), and cer-
tainly of green restructuring of economies directly to reduce
material consumption and substitute it with sustainable or
green alternatives (Ivanova et al.,2020). There may be, in short,
possibilities of the good life within planetary boundaries
(Dorling, 2020; Layard, 2020;O’Neill et al.,2018). We have not
analysed the political philosophies or aims of these social groups.
Clearly, individuals will have many reasons for organizing and
taking collective action, and given the context for these changes,
it is likely that many individuals will continue to support sustain-
ability and equity outcomes. But there is no guarantee that such
values will remain unchanged.
Can these groups survive and flourish? Threats to these groups
will come from external and internal sources. External sources
could include major social and economic disruption (e.g., following
the COIVD-19 pandemic), climate-driven forced abandonment of
Global Sustainability 11
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
farms and territory, policy changes in support of land grabs and
large commercial monoculture operations (e.g., for oil palm) and
state support for only empty or non-credible groups. Internal dis-
ruptors could include stresses arising from benefit capture by indi-
viduals, gender imbalances in benefits and farm abandonment in
favour of employment in urban areas. Nonetheless, many advan-
tages have been found in the sharing economies of connected
food systems where goods and services are pooled (Miralles
et al.,2017), such as a more even distribution of power, increased
collaborative consumption, higher trust and more efficient use of
resources. Agricultural transformations will be critical in the com-
ing years both for contributing to reducing climate forcing and for
mitigating negative effects. Some have called for adventurous food
futures (Carolan, 2016). It would appear that social groups and
movements have already created opportunities for individual and
collective transformations.
8. Concluding comments
This assessment has shown growth in the numbers of groups
engaged in platforms of innovative and sustainable management
within geographical territories of engagement over the past two
decades. These groups deliver individual and public benefits,
improve well-being and natural capital and provide platforms
for wider progress towards sustainability. These groups provide
the basis for further progressive change towards sustainable pol-
icies and behaviours, with opportunities to help mitigate the
advance of some global environmental challenges. We further
note this social infrastructure has already changed worldviews
and capacities to redesign towards sustainability and increased
net productivity of agricultural and land systems.
Attention will need to be paid to ensuring that access to groups
is equitable and that there is further research on the causative
links between all forms of social capital and the emergence of
more sustainable practices. In a number of contexts, social groups
exist only on paper to meet policy objectives, and any increase of
this phenomenon will undermine the wider goals of seeking fur-
ther social capital formation. At the same time, some wider pol-
itical and economic structures will make the formation of social
groups harder to sustain. Nonetheless, the redesign of all agricul-
tural and land management remains a critical global challenge,
and though the growth in the number of groups has been substan-
tial, in many cases supported by novel policies and regulations
within countries, more support is needed to ensure best practice
is spread to aid the transitions towards more sustainable and
equitable forms of farmed and managed landscapes worldwide.
Acknowledgements. We wish to thank the following for their helpful input,
advice and personal communication on groups and impacts in specific loca-
tions: Margarida Ambar, Michael Bell, Jessica Brooks, Allan Buckwell,
Theodor Friedrich, Adrien Guichaoua, Sarah Hargreaves, Shoaib Sultan
Khan, Alastair Leake, Roberto Peiretti, Steve Swaffar and Yunita Winarto.
Two anonymous reviewers gave constructive advice and guidance on an earlier
version of this paper.
Author contributions. JP contributed the underlying theory of change and
research design. All 29 authors contributed to data collection and analysis;
all authors contributed to writing, editing and reviewing the paper.
Financial support.
There is no financial support to report on this research and paper.
Conflict of interest.
The authors declare there are no competing interests in this paper, as defined as financial
and non-financial interests that could directly undermine, or be perceived to undermine,
the objectivity, integrity and value of a publication, through a potential influence on the
judgements and actions of authors with regard to objective data presentation, analysis
and interpretation.
Note
i
There is no completely acceptable terminology for the grouping of types of
countries. Terms relate to past stages of development (developed, developing,
less developed), state of economy or wealth (industrialized, affluent, G8, G20),
geographical location (Global South or Global North) or membership (OECD,
non-OECD). None are perfect: China has the second largest economy measured
by gross domestic product (which does not accurately measure all aspects of
economies, environments and societies), yet might be considered to be still devel-
oping or less developed; the USA has the largest economy by gross domestic
product, yet has nearly 50 million hungry people. Here, we have simply used
industrialized and less developed, and we acknowledge the shortcomings. We
use the term pesticide to cover all forms of insect, weed and disease control com-
pounds; similarly, integrated pest management is taken to cover insect, weed, dis-
ease, mammal and bird management. We use extensionist to describe agricultural
extension workers or service providers, as it is in common use in the sector; here,
we suggest that the role has greater effectiveness when centred on engagement
and the co-production of knowledge, rather than simply on knowledge transfer.
References
Agarwal, B. (2018). Can group farms outperform individual family farms?
Empirical insights from India. World Development, 108,57–73.
Agarwal, B. & Dorin, B. (2019). Group farming in France: Why do some
regions have more cooperative ventures than others? Environment and
Planning A: Economy and Space, 51(3), 781–804.
Amare, A., Simane, B., Nyangaga, J., Defisa, A., Hamza, D. & Gurmessa, B.
(2019). Index-based livestock insurance to manage climate risks in Borena
Zone of Southern Oromia, Ethiopia. Climate Risk Management, 25, 100191.
Anderson, N. D., Damianakis, T., Kröger, E., Wagner, L. M., Dawson, D. R.,
Binns, M. A., …Cook, S. L. (2014). The benefits associated with volunteer-
ing among seniors: a critical review and recommendations for future
research. Psychological Bulletin,140(6), 1505.
Antholt, C. H. (1994). Getting Ready for the Twenty-First Century. Technical
Change and Institutional Modernisation in Agriculture. World Bank
Technical Paper 217. World Bank.
Bagadion, B. U. & Korten, F. F. (1991). Developing irrigators’organisations; a
learning process approach. In: M. M. Cernea (ed.), Putting People First, 2nd
edition (pp. 73–112). Oxford University Press.
Balasubramanya, S., Price, J. & Horbulyk, T. (2018). Impact assessments with-
out true baselines: assessing the relative effects of training on the perform-
ance of water user associations in Southern Tajikistan. Water Economics
and Policy, 4, 1850007.
Bandaragoda, D. J. (1998). Design and Practice of Water Allocation Rules:
Lessons from Warabandi in Pakistan’s Punjab (Vol. 17). IWMI.
Bandyopadhyay, S., Shyamsundar, P. & Xie, M. (2009). Transferring irrigation
management to farmer’s associations: evidence from the Philippines. Water
Policy 12(3), 444–460.
Bawden, R. J. (2011). Epistemic aspects of social ecological conflict. In
D. Wright, C. Camden-Pratt & S. Hill (eds), Social Ecology: Applying
Ecological Understandings to Our Lives and Our Planet (pp. 52–63).
Hawthorn Press.
Behera, B. & Engel, S. (2006). Institutional analysis of evolution of joint forest
management in India: a new institutional economics approach. Forest Policy
and Economics, 8(4), 350–362.
Benor, D., Harrison J. Q. & Baxter M. (1984). Agricultural Extension: The
Training and Visit System. World Bank.
Benton, T. (2015). Sustainable intensification. In B. Pritchard, R. Ortiz &
M. Shekar (eds), Routledge Handbook of Food and Nutrition Security (pp.
113–127). Routledge.
Berkes, F. (2020). Advanced Introduction to Community-Based Conservation.
Edward Elgar.
12 Jules Pretty et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Bhandari, H. & Yasunobu, K. (2009). What is social capital? A comprehensive
review of the concept. Asian Journal of Social Science, 37(3), 480–510.
Bharucha, Z. P., Mitjans, S. B. & Pretty, J. (2020). Towards redesign at scale
through zero budget natural farming in Andhra Pradesh, India.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 18,1–20.
Bharucha, Z. P., Smith, D. & Pretty, J. (2014). All paths lead to rain: explaining
why watershed development in India does not alleviate the experience of
water scarcity. Journal of Development Studies 50(9), 1209–1225.
Blomquist, W. & Schlager, E. (2005). Political pitfalls of integrated watershed
management. Society & Natural Resources, 18(2), 101–117.
Borgonovi, F. (2008). Doing well by doing good. The relationship between for-
mal volunteering and self-reported health and happiness. Social Science &
Medicine, 66(11), 2321–2334.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In P. Bourdieu, & J. G. Richardson
(eds). Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education ( pp.
241–258). Richardson.
Braun, A. and Duveskog, D. (2009). The Farmer Field School Approach –
History, Global Assessment and Success Stories. IFAD.
BRAC (2019). BRAC homepage. Retrieved from www.brac.net
Brummett, R. E. & Jamu, D. M. (2011). From researcher to farmer: partnerships
in integrated aquaculture–agriculture systems in Malawi, Ghana and
Cameroon. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1), 282–289.
Buckwell, A., Nordang Uhre, A., Williams, A., Polakova, J., Blum, W. E. H.,
Schiefer, J., …Haber W. (2014). The Sustainable Intensification of
European Agriculture. RISE Foundation.
Bunch, R. (2018). Restoring the Soil, 2nd edition. Canadian Foodgrains Bank.
CaBA (2018). Catchment Based Approach: Monitoring and Evaluation.
Retrieved from https://catchmentbasedapproach.org
Campbell, A., Alexandra, J. & Curtis, D. (2017). Reflections on four decades of
land restoration in Australia. Rangeland Journal, 39, 405–416.
Carolan, M. (2016). Adventurous food futures: knowing about alternatives is
not enough, we need to feel them. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(1),
141–152.
Caron, P., Reig, E., Roep, D., Hediger, W., Cotty, T., Barthelemy, D., …
Sabourin, E. (2008). Multifunctionality: epistemic diversity and concept
oriented research clusters. International Journal of Agricultural Resources,
Governance and Ecology, 7(4), 319–338.
Cederlöf, G. (2016). Low-carbon food supply: the ecological geography of
Cuban urban agriculture and agroecological theory. Agriculture and
Human Values, 33(4), 771–784.
Cernea, M. M. (1987). Farmer organisations and institution building for sus-
tainable development. Regional Development Dialogue, 8,1
–24.
Cernea, M. M. (1991). Putting People First, 2nd edition. Oxford University
Press.
Chambers, R. (1989). Farmer First. IT Publications.
Chhay, N., Seng, S., Tanaka, T., Yamauchi, A., Cedicol, E. C., Kawakita, K. &
Chiba, S. (2017). Rice productivity improvement in Cambodia through the
application of technical recommendation in a farmer field school.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15,54–69.
Clark, J. K., Bean, M., Raja, S., Loveridge, S., Freedgood, J. & Hodgson, K.
(2017). Cooperative extension and food system change: goals, strategies
and resources. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(2), 301–316.
Coleman, E. A. & Mwangi, E. (2013). Women’s participation in forest manage-
ment: a cross-country analysis. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 193–205.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press.
Conway, G. R. (1997). The Doubly Green Revolution. Penguin.
Conway, G. R. & Barbier, E. (1990). After the Green Revolution. Earthscan.
Cooperatives UK. (2018). The Cooperative Economy 2018. Retrieved from
reports.uk.coop/economy2018
Crisp, B. F. & Kelly, M. J. (1999). The socioeconomic impacts of structural
adjustment. International Studies Quarterly, 43(3), 533–552.
Cummings, V., Jordan, P. & Zvelebil, M. (eds) (2014). The Oxford Handbook of
the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter–Gatherers. Oxford University
Press.
Dannenberg, A., Löschel, A., Paolacci, G., Reif, C. & Tavoni, A. (2015). On the
provision of public goods with probabilistic and ambiguous thresholds.
Environmental and Resource Economics, 61(3), 365–383.
de Bruijn, E. & Gerrits, L. (2018). Epistemic communities in urban self-
organization: a systematic review and assessment. Journal of Planning
Literature, 33(3), 310–328.
De los Reyes, R. & Jopillo, S. G. (1986). An Evaluation of the Philippines
Participatory Communal Irrigation Program. Institute of Philippine Culture.
Defra (2019). A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment.
Defra.
Denevan, W. M. (2001). Cultivated Landscapes of Native Amazonia and the
Andes. Oxford University Press.
Desmarais, A. A. & Wittman, H. (2014). Farmers, foodies and First Nations:
getting to food sovereignty in Canada. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41,
1153–1173.
Dias, M. de O. & Teles, A. (2018). Agriculture cooperatives in Brazil and the
importance for economic development. International Journal of Business
Research and Management, 9(2), 72–81.
Dorling, D. (2020). Slowdown. Yale University Press.
Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (2019). EFAO homepage. Retrieved
from https://efao.ca
Edelman, M., Weis, T., Baviskar, A., Borras Jr, S. M., Holt-Giménez, E,
Kandiyoti, D. & Wolford, W. (2014). Introduction: critical perspectives
on food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41(6), 911–931.
EIP Agri-Operational Groups (2019). European Commission, Brussels. Retrieved
from https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/my-eip-agri/operational-groups
Elder, S. D. & Dauvergne, P. (2015). Farming for Walmart: the politics of cor-
porate control and responsibility in the Global South. Journal of Peasant
Studies, 42(5), 1029–1046.
Escalada, M. M. & Heong, K. L. (2004). A participatory exercise for modifying
rice farmers’beliefs and practices in stem borer loss assessment. Crop
Protection, 23,11–17.
EU (2019). EIP-AGRI Service Point ‘Agricultural Productivity and
Sustainability’. European Union EIP-AGRI Network. Retrieved from www.
eip-agri.eu
EU Directive (2019). Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/sustainable_use_pesticides/ipm_en
FAO (2011). Save and Grow: A Policymaker’s Guide to the Sustainable
Intensification of Smallholder Crop Production.FAO.
FAO (2016a). Farmer Field School Guidance Document.FAO.
FAO (2016b). Forty Years of Community-Based Forestry.FAO.
FAO (2016c). Save and Grow: Maize, Rice and Wheat –A Guide to Sustainable
Crop Production.FAO.
FAO (2018). Beyond farmer field schools, Cambodia. Retrieved from http://
www.fao.org/cambodia/programmes-and-projects/success-stories/beyond-
ffs/en
FAO (2019). Farmers Taking the Lead. Thirty Years of Famer Field Schools.
FAO.
Fear, F. A., Rosean, C. L., Bawden, R. J. & Foster-Fishman, P. G. (2006).
Coming to Critical Engagement. University Press of America.
Flora, C. B. & Delaney, M. (2012). Mobilizing civil society for environmental
protection in a context dominated by industrial agriculture. In S. Sjöblom,
K. Andersson, T. Marsden & S. Skerratt (eds), Sustainability and Short-
Term Policies: Improving Governance in Spatial Policy Interventions (pp.
201–216). Ashgate.
FLWC (2015). Getting started with farmer-led watershed councils. Retrieved
from https://blogs.ces.uwex.edu/wflcp/files/2015/12/FLWC-GettingStarted.
pdf
Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T. & Rockström, J.
(2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and trans-
formability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20.
Foresight (2011). The Future of Global Food and Farming. Government Office
for Science London.
Forssell, S. & Lankoski, L. (2015). The sustainability promise of alternative
food networks: an examination through ‘alternative’characteristics.
Agriculture and Human Values, 32(1), 63–75.
Forster, T., Kentikelenis, A. E., Reinsberg, B., Stubbs, T. H. & King, L. P.
(2019). How structural adjustment programs affect inequality: A disaggre-
gated analysis of IMF conditionality, 1980–2014. Social Science Research,
80,83
–113.
Global Sustainability 13
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Fox, J. (2018). Community forestry, labor migration and agrarian change in a
Nepali village: 1980 to 2010. Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(3), 610–629.
Freidberg, S. (2020). Assembled but unrehearsed: corporate food power and
the ‘dance’of supply chain sustainability. Journal of Peasant Studies, 47
(2), 383–400.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Penguin.
Garbach, K., Milder, J. C., DeClerck, F. A., Montenegro de Wit, M., Driscoll, L.
& Gemmill-Herren, B. (2017). Examining multi-functionality for crop yield
and ecosystem services in five systems of agroecological intensification.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 15(1), 11–28.
Garrity, D. P., Akinnifesi, F. K., Ajayi, O. C., Weldesemayat, S. G., Mowo, J. G.,
Kalinganire, A., Larwanou, M. & Bayala, J. (2010). Evergreen agriculture: a
robust approach to sustainable food security in Africa. Food Security, 2,
197–214.
Gerber, J. F. (2020). Degrowth and critical agrarian studies. Journal of Peasant
Studies, 47(2), 235–264.
Giraldo, O. F. & Rosset, P. M. (2018). Agroecology as a territory in dispute:
between institutionality and social movements. Journal of Peasant Studies,
45(3), 545–564.
Gliessman, S. R. & Rosemeyer, M. (eds) (2009). The Conversion to Sustainable
Agriculture: Principles, Processes, and Practices. CRC Press.
Godfray, H. J. C., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D.,
Muir, J. F., …Toulmin, C. (2010). Food security: the challenge of feeding
9 billion people. Science, 327, 812–818.
Goldschmidt, W. (1946). As You Sow: Three Studies into the Social
Consequences of Agribusiness. Allanheld, Osmunn and Co.
Goldschmidt, W. (1978). Large-scale farming and the rural social structure.
Rural Sociology, 43(3), 362.
Grameen Bank (2019). Grameen Bank homepage. Retrieved from www.gram-
een.com
Granjou, C. & Arpin, I. (2015). Epistemic commitments: making relevant sci-
ence in biodiversity studies. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 40(6),
1022–1046.
Graton, L. & Scott, A. (2016). The 100-Year Life. Bloomsbury.
Grêt-Regamany, A., Huber, S. H. & Huber, R. (2019). Actors’diversity and the
resilience of social-ecological systems to global change. Nature Sustainability,
2(4), 290–297.
Groenfeldt, D. (2000). Introduction: a global consensus on participatory irriga-
tion management. In Case Studies in Participatory Irrigation Management
(pp. 1–2). World Bank Institute.
Gu, L., Zhang, Y. X., Wang, J. Z., Chen, G. & Battye H. (2016). Where is the
future of China’s biogas? Review, forecast, and policy implications.
Petroleum Science, 13(1), 604–624.
Gunderson, L. H. & Holling, C. S. (eds) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding
Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press.
GWCT (2019). Farmer clusters. Retrieved from https://www.farmerclusters.
com
Haraway, D. (2015). Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene,
Chthulucene: making kin. Environmental Humanities, 6(1), 159–165.
Hawken, P. (2007). Blessed Unrest. Penguin.
Hazard, L., Steyaert, P., Martin, G., Couix, N., Navas, M.L., Duru, M., Lauvie, A.
& Labatut, J. (2018). Mutual learning between researchers and farmers during
implementation of scientific principles for sustainable development: the case
of biodiversity-based agriculture. Sustainability Science, 13(2), 517–530.
Hill, S. (1985). Redesigning the food system for sustainability. Alternatives 12,
32–36.
Hoi, P. V., Mol, A. P., Oosterveer, P., van den Brink, P. J. & Huong, P. T.
(2016). Pesticide use in Vietnamese vegetable production: a 10-year study.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 14(3), 325–338.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Robles, T. F. & Sbarra, D. A. (2017). Advancing social con-
nection as a public health priority in the United States. American
Psychologist, 72(6), 517.
Ho, P. (2016). Empty institutions, non-credibility and pastoralism: China’s
grazing ban, mining and ethnicity. Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(6),
1145–1176.
Hoey, L. & Sponseller, A. (2018). ‘It’s hard to be strategic when your hair is on
fire’: alternative food movement leaders’motivation and capacity to act.
Agriculture and Human Values, 35(3), 595–609.
Huxley, E. (1960). A New Earth. An Experiment in Colonialism. Chatto and
Windus.
IPBES (2019). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on bio-
diversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele,
E. S. Brondízio, H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, …C. N. Zayas (eds.).
IPBES Secretariat, 56 pp.
iPES-Food (2016). From Uniformity to Diversity. International Panel of
Experts on Sustainable Food Systems.
Ivanova, D., Barrett, J., Wiedenhofer, D., Macura, B., Callaghan, M. W. &
Creutzig, F. (2020). Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation
of consumption options. Environmental Research Letters. DOI: 10.1088/
1748-9326/ab8589.
Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth. Earthscan.
Jatoe, J. P. D., Lankoandè, D. G. & Sumberg, J. (2015). Does sustainable
agricultural growth require a system of innovation? Evidence from Ghana
and Burkina Faso. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 13,
104–119.
Jodha, N. S. (1990). Rural Common Property Resources: A Growing Crisis. IIED
Gatekeeper Series 24. IIED.
Kamoto, J., Clarkson, G., Dorward, P. & Shepherd, D. (2013). Doing more
harm than good? Community based natural resource management and
the neglect of local institutions in policy development. Land Use Policy,
35, 293–301.
Kelly, R. L. (1995). The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter–Gatherer
Lifeways. Smithsonian.
Khan, Z. R., Midega, C. A. O., Hooper, A. & Pickett, J. A. (2016). Push–pull:
chemical ecology-based integrated pest management technology. Journal of
Chemical Ecology, 42(7), 689–697.
King, F. H. (1911). Farmers of Forty Centuries. Rodale Press.
Kiptot, E. & Franzel, S. (2019). Stakeholder planning of the institutionalization
of the volunteer farmer–trainer approach in dairy producer organizations in
Kenya: key steps and supporting mechanisms. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability, 17(1), 18–33.
Kondoh, K. (2015). The alternative food movement in Japan: challenges, lim-
its, and resilience of the teikei system. Agriculture and Human Values, 32,
143–153.
Kozar, R., Galang, E., Alip, A., Sedhain, J., Subramanian, S. & Saito, O. (2019).
Multi-level networks for sustainability solutions: The case of the
International Partnership for the Satoyama Initiative. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 39, 123–134.
Kumar, V. T. (2017). Zero-Budget Nature Farming. Department of Agriculture,
Government of Andhra Pradesh.
La Vía Campesina (2020). La Vía Campesina homepage. Retrieved from
https://viacampesina.org/en
Lal, R. (2014). Abating climate change and feeding the world through soil
carbon sequestration. In D. Dent (ed.), Soil as World Heritage (pp. 443–
457). Springer.
Layard, R. (2020). Can We Be Happier? Pelican.
Leisher, C., Temsah, G., Booker, F., Day, M., Samberg, L., Prosnitz, D., …
Sunderland, T. (2016). Does the gender composition of forest and fishery
management groups affect resource governance and conservation out-
comes? A systematic map. Environmental Evidence, 5(1), 6.
Levien, M., Watts, M. & Yan, H. (2018). Agrarian Marxism. Journal of Peasant
Studies, 45, 853–883.
Levkoe, C. Z. (2014). The food movement in Canada: a social movement net-
work perspective. Journal of Peasant Studies, 41, 385–403.
Li, W. (2001). Agro-Ecological Farming Systems in China. Man and the
Biosphere Series Volume 26. UNESCO.
Lobao, L. M. (1990). Locality and Inequality: Farm and Industry Structure and
Socioeconomic Conditions. SUNY Press.
Lowder, S. K., Skoet, J. & Raney, T. l. (2016). The number, size, and distribu-
tion of farms, smallholder farms, and family farms worldwide. World
Development, 87,16–29.
MacMillan, T. & Benton, T. (2014). Engage farmers in research. Nature,509,
25–27.
Malabayabas, A. J. B., Kajisa, K., Mazid, M. A., Palis, F. G. & Johnson, D. E.
(2014). Impacts of direct-seeded and early-maturing varieties of rice on
14 Jules Pretty et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
mitigating seasonal hunger for farming communities in northwest
Bangladesh. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 12,459–470.
MARA (2019). Farmer cooperatives have become the backbone for rural vital-
ization. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, China. Retrieved from
http://www.moa.gov.cn/ztzl/70zncj/201909/t20190916_6327995.htm
Maréchal, A., Baldock, D., Hart, K., Erjavec, E., Rac, I., Vanni, F. & Mantino, F.
(2018). Policy Lessons and Recommendations from the PEGASUS Project.
Deliverable 5.4, PEGASUS project. IEEP.
Martínez-Torres, M. E. & Rosset, P. M. (2014). Diálogo de saberes in La Vía
Campesina: food sovereignty and agroecology. Journal of Peasant Studies,
41(6), 979–997.
McMichael, P. (2013). Food Regimes and Agrarian Questions. Fernwood.
Meinzen-Dick, R. (2007). Beyond panaceas in water institutions. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,104(39),
15200–15205.
Miralles, I., Dentoni, D. & Pascucci, S. (2017). Understanding the organization
of sharing economy in agri-food systems: evidence from alternative food
networks in Valencia. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(4), 833–854.
Mitchell, R. J. & Popham, F. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment
on health inequalities: an observational population study. Lancet, 372
(9650), 1655–1660.
Mitchell, R. J., Richardson, E. A., Shortt, N. K. & Pearce, J. R. (2015).
Neighborhood environments and socioeconomic inequalities in mental
well-being. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(1), 80–84.
Moore, J. W. (2018). The Capitalocene part II: accumulation by appropriation
and the centrality of unpaid work/energy. Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(2),
237–279.
Mosse, D. (1992). Community management and rehabilitation of tank irriga-
tion systems in Tamil Nadu: a research agenda. Presented at GAPP
Conference in Participatory Development,9–10 July, London.
Norgaard, R. B. (2004). Learning and knowing collectively. Ecological
Economics, 49(2), 231–241.
No-Till on the Plains (2019). No-Till on the Plains homepage. Retrieved from
http://www.notill.org
NRC (1989). Alternative Agriculture. National Academies Press.
NRC (2010). Towards Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century.
Committee on Twenty-First Century Systems Agriculture. National
Academies Press.
O’Neill, D. W., Fanning, A. L., Lamb, W. F. & Steinberger, J. K. (2018). A good
life for all within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability, 1(2), 88–95.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for
Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y. S. & Daugherty, P. J. (2006). What makes community for-
est management successful: a meta-study from community forests through-
out the world. Society and Natural Resources, 19(1), 33–52.
Palis, F. G., Flor, R. J., Warburton, H. & Hossain, M. (2006). Our farmers at
risk: behaviour and belief system in pesticide safety. Journal of Public
Health, 28(1), 43–48.
Palmer, I. (1976). The New Rice in Asia: Conclusions from Four Country
Studies. UNRISD.
Paudel, D. (2016). Re-inventing the commons: community forestry as accumu-
lation without dispossession in Nepal. Journal of Peasant Studies, 43(5),
989–1009.
Pfeffer, M. J. & Wagenet, L. P. (2011). Communities of interest and the nego-
tiation of watershed management. In Pathways for Getting to Better Water
Quality: The Citizen Effect (pp. 109–119). Springer.
Piketty, T. & Saez, E. (2014). Inequality in the long run. Science, 344(6186),
838–843.
Plieninger, T., Kohsaka, R., Bieling, C., Hashimoto, S., Kamiyama, C., Kizos,
T., …Saito, O. (2018). Fostering biocultural diversity in landscapes through
place-based food networks: a ‘solution scan’of European and Japanese
models. Sustainability Science, 13, 219–233.
Practical Farmers of Iowa (2019). Practical Farmers of Iowa homepage.
Retrieved from https://practicalfarmers.org
Pretty, J. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World
Development, 23(8), 1247–1263.
Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources.
Science, 302, 1912–1915.
Pretty, J. (2013). The consumption of a finite planet: well-being, convergence,
divergence and the nascent green economy. Environmental and Resource
Economics, 55(4), 475–499.
Pretty, J. & Bharucha, Z. P. (2015). Integrated pest management for sustainable
intensification of agriculture in Asia and Africa. Insects, 6(1), 152–182.
Pretty, J. & Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World
Development, 29(2), 209–227.
Pretty, J., Benton, T. G., Bharucha, Z. P., Dicks, L., Butler Flora, C., Hartley, S.,
…Wratten, S. (2018). Global assessment of agricultural system redesign for
sustainable intensification. Nature Sustainability, 1, 441–446.
Pretty, J., Toulmin, C. & Williams, S. (2011). Sustainable intensification in
African agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9,
5–24.
Proshika (2019). Proshika homepage. Retrieved from www.proshika.org
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal
of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
Putzel, J. (1997). Policy arena: accounting for the ‘dark side’of social capital:
reading Robert Putnam on democracy. Journal of International
Development: The Journal of the Development Studies Association, 9(7),
939–949.
Rahman, A. (2019). Women and Microcredit in Rural Bangladesh: An
Anthropological Study of Grameen Bank Lending. Routledge.
Rap, E. (2006). The success of a policy model: Irrigation management transfer
in Mexico. Journal of Development Studies, 42(8), 1301–1324.
Ravindranath, N. H. & Sudha, P. (2004). Joint Forest Management in India:
Spread, Performance and Impact. Universities Press.
Reddy, V. R. & Reddy, P. P. (2005). How participatory is participatory irriga-
tion management? Water users’associations in Andhra Pradesh. Economic
and Political Weekly, 40, 5587–5595.
Reganold, J. P. & Wachter J. M. (2016). Organic agriculture in the 21st century.
Nature Plants,2(2), 15221.
Reij, C. P. & Smaling, E. M. A. (2008). Analyzing successes in agriculture and
land management in Sub-Saharan Africa: is macro-level gloom obscuring
positive micro-level change? Land Use Policy,25, 410–420.
Richardson, L., Durose, C. & Perry, B. (2018). Coproducing urban governance.
Politics and Governance, 6(1), 145–149.
Ricks, J. I. (2015). Pockets of participation: bureaucratic incentives and partici-
patory irrigation management in Thailand. Water Alternatives, 8(2), 193–
214.
Ricks, J. I. (2016). Building participatory organizations for common pool
resource management: water user group promotion in Indonesia. World
Development, 77,34–47.
Ricks, J. I. & Arif, S. S. (2012). Local success in encouraging participatory irri-
gation management: policy lessons from Indonesia. Journal of International
Development, 24(7), 946–949.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F.,
…Foley, J.A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461
(7263), 472–475.
Rockström, J., Williams, J., Daily, G., Noble, A., Matthews, N., Gordon, L., …
Smith, J. (2017). Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human pros-
perity and global sustainability. Ambio, 46,4–17.
Rosset, P. M., Machín Sosa,B., Roque Jaime, A. M. & Ávila Lozano, D. R. (2011).
The Campesino-to-Campesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba:
social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agri-
culture and food sovereignty. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38, 161–191.
Saulters, M. M., Hendrickson, M. K. & Chaddad, F. (2018). Fairness in alter-
native food networks: an exploration with midwestern social entrepreneurs.
Agriculture and Human Values, 35(3), 611–621.
Sendzimir, J. C. P., Reij, C. & Magnuszewski, P. (2011). Rebuilding resilience in
the Sahel: regreening in the Maradi and Zinder regions of Niger. Ecology
and Society,16(3), 1.
Settle, W. & Hama Garba, M. (2011). Sustainable crop production intensifica-
tion in the Senegal and Niger River Basins of francophone West Africa.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,9(1), 171–185.
Shah, T. (1990). Sustainable Development of Groundwater Resources, India.
ODI Irrigation Management Network Paper 90/3d. ODI.
Si, Z., Schumilas, T. & Scott, S. (2015). Characterizing alternative food net-
works in China. Agriculture and Human Values,32(2), 299–313.
Global Sustainability 15
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Sinha, P. (2004). Status of Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) in
India. Presented at National Convention of Presidents of Water Users
Associations, Ministry of Water Resources India NPIM, New Delhi.
Smith, P. (2013). Delivering food security without increasing pressure on land.
Global Food Security, 2(1), 18–23.
SOIL (2017). State of India Livelihoods. Sage Publications.
Sprague,R.,Boyer,S.,Stevenson,G.M.&Wratten,S.D.(2016).Assessing
pollinators’use of floral resource subsidies in agri-environment schemes:
an illustration using Phacelia tanacetifolia and honeybees. PeerJ, 4,
e2677.
Sundar, B. (2017). Joint forest management in India –an assessment.
International Forestry Review, 19(4), 495–511.
Swaminathan, M. S. (2000). An evergreen revolution. Biologist,47(2), 85–89.
Tirivayi, N., Nennen, L., Tesfaye, W. & Ma, Q. (2018). The benefits of collect-
ive action: exploring the role of forest producer organizations in social pro-
tection. Forest Policy and Economics, 90, 106–114.
Uphoff, N. (1992). Learning from Gal Oya: Possibilities for Participatory
Development and Post-Newtonian Science. Cornell University Press.
Urgenci (2016). Overview of Community Supported Agriculture in Europe.
Retrieved from http://urgenci.net/the-csa-research-group
USDA (2018). The State of the Co-Op Economy. USDA.
Uysal, Ö. K. & Atış, E. (2010). Assessing the performance of participatory irri-
gation management over time: a case study from Turkey. Agricultural Water
Management, 97(7), 1017–1025.
van den Berg, H., Ketelaar, J. W., Dicke, M. & Fredrix, M. (2020a). Is the
farmer field school still relevant? Case studies from Malawi and
Indonesia. NJAS –Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 92, 100329.
van den Berg, H., Phillips, S., Dicke, M. & Fredrix, M. (2020b). Impacts of
farmer field schools in the human, social, natural and financial domain: a
qualitative review. Food Security. DOI: 10.1007/s12571-020-01046-7.
van der Ploeg, J. D. (2020). Farmers’upheaval, climate crisis and populism.
Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(3), 589–605.
Veltmeyer, H. (2019). Resistance, class struggle and social movements in Latin
America: contemporary dynamics. Journal of Peasant Studies, 46(6), 1264–
1285.
Verma, S., Sonkar, V. K., Kumar, A. & Roy, D. (2019). Are farmer producer
organizations a boon to farmers? The evidence from Bihar, India.
Agricultural Economics Research Review, 32, 123–137.
Waddington, H., Snilstveit, B., Hombrados, J., Vojtkova, M., Phillips, D.,
Davies, P. & White, H. (2014). Farmer field schools for improving farming
practices and farmer outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a sys-
tematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 10,1–335.
Wade, R. (1989). Village Republics. Cambridge University Press.
Welch, C. A. & Sauer, S. (2015). Rural unions and the struggle for land in
Brazil. Journal of Peasant Studies, 42(6), 1109–1135.
Weltin, M., Zasada, I., Piorr, A., Debolini, M., Geniaux, G., Perez, O. M., …
Schulp, C. J. (2018). Conceptualising fields of action for sustainable intensi-
fication. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 257,68–80.
Westerman, O., Ashby, J. & Pretty J. (2005). Gender and social capital: the
importance of gender differences for the maturity and effectiveness of
natural resource management groups. World Development, 33(11), 1783–
1799.
WHR (2019). World Happiness Report 2019. J. F. Helliwell, R. Layard &
J. D. Sachs (eds). Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
WHR (2020). World Happiness Report 2020. J. F. Helliwell, R. Layard,
J. D. Sachs & J.-E. De Neve (eds). Sustainable Development Solutions
Network.
Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2009). The Spirit Level. Penguin.
Wilkinson, R. & Pickett, K. (2018). The Inner Level. Allen Lane.
Willyard, C., Scudellari, M. & Nordling L. (2018). Partners in science. Nature,
562,24–28.
Winarto, Y. T., Stigter, C. J. & Wicaksono, M. T. (2017). Transdisciplinary
responses to climate change: institutionalizing agrometeorological learning
through Science Field Shops in Indonesia. Austrian Journal of South-East
Asian Studies, 10,65–82.
Wittman, H. & Blesh, J. (2017). Food sovereignty and Fome Zero: connecting
public food procurement programmes to sustainable rural development in
Brazil. Journal of Agrarian Change 17,81–105.
Wyckhuys, K. A., Wongtiem, P., Rauf, A., Thancharoen, A., Heimpel, G. E., Le,
N. T., …Palao, L.K. (2018). Continental-scale suppression of an invasive
pest by a host-specific parasitoid underlines both environmental and
economic benefits of arthropod biological control. PeerJ, 6, e5796.
Yang, P. Y., Zhao, Z. H. & Shen, Z. R. (2014). Experiences with implementa-
tion and adoption of integrated pest management in China. In Integrated
Pest Management (pp. 307–330). Springer.
Yekti, M. I., Schultz, B., Norken, I. N., Gany, A. H. A. & Hayde, L. (2017).
Learning from experiences of ancient Subak schemes for participatory irri-
gation system management in Bali. Irrigation and Drainage, 66(4), 567–576.
Yildiz, M. F. (2007). Participatory irrigation management: a case study from
Turkey. In Agricultural Water Management: Proceedings of a Workshop
in Tunisia (pp. 97–110). National Academies Press.
Zhang, L., Heerink, N., Dries, L., & Shi, X. (2013). Water users associations
and irrigation water productivity in northern China. Ecological
Economics, 95, 128–136.
Zhang, W., Cao, G., Li, X., Zhang, H., Wang, C., Liu, Q., …Mi, G. (2016).
Closing yield gaps in China by empowering smallholder farmers. Nature,
537(7622): 671–674.
Zhou, Q., Deng, X., Wu, F., Li, Z. & Song, W. (2017). Participatory irrigation
management and irrigation water use efficiency in maize production: evi-
dence from Zhangye City, Northwestern China. Water, 9(11), 822.
16 Jules Pretty et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 69.165.7.107, on 07 Aug 2020 at 13:41:53, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
