Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Resources 2024, 13, 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources13120170 www.mdpi.com/journal/resources
Article
Impact of Nature Conservation Resources of Agroecology:
Insights from Hungarian Farmers and Consumer Perspectives
Annamária Harkányi and Apolka Ujj *
Department of Agroecology and Ecological Farming, Institute of Rural Development and Sustainable
Economy, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter Károly u.1., 2100 Gödöllő, Hungary;
harkanyi.annamaria@gmail.com
* Correspondence: ujj.apolka@uni-mate.hu
Abstract: This study investigated the implementation of agroecological principles on three organic
farms in Hungary, focusing on four resource-focused, nature conservation-related agroecological
basic elements identified by the FAO: biodiversity, interactions, recycling, and resilience. This re-
search employed a mixed-methods approach, utilising in-depth interviews as a technique to explore
farmers’ practices and a questionnaire survey as a tool to assess consumer perspectives (with 63
respondents). The interviews facilitated a qualitative exploration of how agroecological practices
are applied on farms, providing rich insights into the farmers’ experiences. Meanwhile, the ques-
tionnaire survey served as a structured instrument to measure consumer awareness and motivations
concerning environmentally friendly farming methods. NVivo 12 software was employed for qual-
itative data analysis, assisting in coding and organizing responses to beer understand recurring
themes and paerns. The researchers found that all farms exhibited high biodiversity levels, facili-
tated through practices such as companion planting, crop rotation, and maintaining natural habitat
patches. Agroecological farmers focus on practices suited to the landscape, fostering beneficial or-
ganisms and enhancing interactions between nature and agriculture. Integrating farm components
(e.g., crops, livestock, water) promotes synergies that improve productivity and reduce reliance on
external inputs. Recycling resources (like organic waste) within the farm increases efficiency, while
resilience is strengthened through biodiversity, allowing farms to beer withstand environmental
stress. Direct marketing builds connections between producers and consumers, raising awareness
of conservation practices. Consumer awareness regarding environmentally friendly agricultural
practices was notably high, with findings indicating that health and ecological conservation moti-
vations drive their purchasing decisions. This study highlights the context-dependent nature of
agroecological practices, revealing that while implementation is robust, economic sustainability
constraints may limit the extent to which all elements can be effectively applied. Since this research
has certain limitations due to the limited sample size, expanding the study to include more farms
would strengthen the findings. Nonetheless, these findings underscore the importance of integrat-
ing agroecological principles in organic farming to enhance biodiversity and foster sustainable ag-
ricultural practices.
Keywords: organic farming; agroecology; core elements of agroecology; biodiversity; interactions;
recycling; flexible resistance
1. Introduction
One of the most debated problems of our time is the environmental pressures caused
by industrialised agriculture. Over the past 50 years, the world’s food supply system has
changed radically and become increasingly globalised. Under economic and political
pressure, the food supply system has become dependent on cheap raw materials, machin-
ery, seeds, synthetic pesticides and fertilisers to meet changing consumer demands and
Citation: Harkányi, A.; Ujj, A.
Impact of Nature Conservation
Resources of Agroecology: Insights
from Hungarian Farmers and
Consumer Perspectives. Resources
2024, 13, 170. hps://doi.org/10.3390/
resources13120170
Academic Editor: Benjamin
McLellan
Received: 29 September 2024
Revised: 13 November 2024
Accepted: 22 November 2024
Published: 29 November 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Swierland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Aribution (CC BY) license
(hps://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
Resources 2024, 13, 170 2 of 25
increase yields [1,2]. This system has social and environmental impacts as well: small-scale
farmers and small food businesses are marginalised [3,4]; low quality, hunger and obesity
are also increasing [5]; and the irrational use of chemical products affects soil fertility,
water and air purity, biodiversity and insect pollination [6–8]. The reduced nutrient con-
tent of manufactured foods and chemical residues in foods raise health concerns [9,10].
Maintaining current agricultural practices will deepen problems in the long term despite
the fact that alternative solutions already exist and are gaining ground [11,12].
Agroecology can be understood as a science, agricultural practice, and a social and
political movement; thus, agroecology approaches the problems caused by industrial ag-
riculture and the current prevailing food system from a broad perspective [12–17]. Alt-
hough the concept itself dates back more than a century, it has only been used in Europe
since the 1990s as a concept that contrasts with intensive agriculture. As a social and po-
litical movement, agroecology is now driven by agricultural diversity, social justice, food
sovereignty and making rural life more liveable [16]. From an environmental perspective,
agroecology integrates ecological observations and context-based principles into food
production, aiming to enhance compatibility between agriculture and the environment.
This approach often involves the development of more complex agricultural ecosystems
that are informed by natural processes and can potentially offer benefits to both society
and the economy [18,19].
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) sees agroecology as a key tool in
the fight against hunger, poverty and climate change. On this basis, and with the help of
decision-makers, NGOs, farmers and various experts, FAO has developed the 10 core el-
ements of agroecology in several international symposia [20]. The 10 core elements aim to
support the transformation of agricultural and food systems, raise awareness of globally
sustainable agriculture, eradicate hunger and tackle a myriad of other environmental and
social problems. The core elements can also serve as a tool for analysis and can facilitate
the assessment of the agroecological situation of a country or region. The 10 core elements
provide a framework that decision-makers, practitioners, and stakeholders may use to
inform the planning, management, and evaluation of agroecological systems [11,21,22].
Out of the 10 core elements, the 4 core elements studied here can be summarized as
follows [11,16,22]:
Agricultural diversity, also known as agrobiodiversity, refers to the diversity of
plants, animals and organisms used in agriculture. Agrobiodiversity includes all organ-
isms in the agricultural environment, from soil microbiota to natural enemies of pests.
Biodiversity is essential in agroecology to ensure food security while conserving, protect-
ing and enhancing natural resources. Agroecological diversity increases not only ecologi-
cal but also socio-economic resilience. By creating new market opportunities or animal
and plant diversity, the risk and threat of economic failure due to climate change can be
reduced.
Synergies, or interactions, can be created to strengthen different elements of agricul-
tural systems, improve production and multiply ecosystem services. When there is coop-
eration among components, the whole system becomes more flexible and resilient to ex-
ternal influences, while productivity increases. Agroecology seeks to create diverse agri-
cultural systems, the simplest and best example of which is the conscious use of compan-
ion planting of perennial and annual plants, livestock, aquatic life, trees and other land-
scape elements.
Efficiency can be increased by enhancing biological processes, recycling biomass, nu-
trients and water. Producers can increase profitability by using fewer external resources,
reducing costs and negative environmental impacts.
The link between agroecology and recycling is best illustrated by waste recycling. In
nature, waste as a concept is essentially non-existent, as all organic maer, plant, animal
and microbial remains are recycled by decomposing organisms. The biggest difference
between industrial and agroecological agriculture in terms of recycling is that the former
Resources 2024, 13, 170 3 of 25
is characterized by linear material and energy flows, while the laer is characterized by
circular material flows.
Resilience, or in other words flexible resistance, is an adaptation feature that allows
a system to maintain its basic functions and adapt to new situations in the face of one-off
or repeated stressful events. The success of agricultural production is threatened by many
of these factors, the most important of which are climate change, natural damage caused
by anthropogenic activities, loss of biodiversity, the disappearance of pollinators, the
emergence and spread of invasive pests, loss of soil fertility and increase in arable land.
For all of these reasons, agricultural systems need to acquire the ability to adapt to chang-
ing conditions. Adaptation to climate impacts is best achieved through mixed and diverse
farming systems adapted to local ecological conditions. Diverse agricultural systems are
much more likely to regain their original state and recover from an extreme external
shock.
Our research explores the nature conservation aspects of agroecology from the per-
spectives of both the producer and the consumer. This is important because there is a
general trend in Europe for consumers and consumer organisations to initiate agroecolog-
ical movements—making locally produced healthy food available as a priority [23]. Sev-
eral systems of indicators and tools are already available to assess agricultural perfor-
mance and impacts. Balogh et al. (2022) [24] compared 15 selected tools that use different
indicators along different dimensions and at different depths to examine the food system
and the implementation of basic agroecological elements at the farm level. Most of them
are aimed at assessing sustainability, and some have been developed directly for agroe-
cology.
Accordingly, the internationally recognised SAFA (Sustainability Assessment of
Food and Agriculture Systems) framework, developed by FAO (2014) [25], includes a set
of indicators (SAFA-tools) that are used to assess the environmental, economic, social, and
governance dimensions of agricultural systems.
As agroecology has been identified in recent years as a framework for transforming
the sustainable food system, FAO (2019) [26] has also started to develop a set of indicators
based on the 10 core elements of agroecology for farm-level evaluation (TAPE methodol-
ogy—Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation). Balogh et al. (2022) [24] proposed
that, given the existing tools, it may be more efficient to combine or modify current indi-
cators rather than develop entirely new tools, as agroecological practices are highly de-
pendent on local context. Several of the tools developed address the agri-environmental
(AE) dimension, although not all of them have been tested in a European context. One of
the tools that has been tried and tested in the Hungarian context is Agridiag Dialecte [27],
which examines diversity, synergies, efficiency and recycling from among the AE core
elements. This tool was developed in Hungary on the basis of the French Dialecte tool, but
uses simpler indicators based mainly on quantitative data to support research and profes-
sional consultancy. The other is the CFT (The Cool Farm Tool) [28], a sustainability assess-
ment tool that also looks at the same four core elements of AE, but focuses on GHGs,
biodiversity and water use, and provides farmers with volume-based calculations. This
assessment tool is primarily designed to support farmers’ decisions.
Despite the increasing interest in sustainable farming practices and tools that support
agroecological movements, there is a lack of specific data on the implementation of agroe-
cological principles in Hungarian farm systems. Research on Hungarian farms often lacks
comprehensive studies that address local challenges, such as climate adaptation, biodi-
versity management, and the socio-economic impacts of agroecological transitions. Addi-
tionally, there is a need for more empirical data on how Hungarian farmers perceive and
implement agroecological practices, as well as studies evaluating the effectiveness of these
practices in improving resilience and sustainability in local farming systems. Addressing
these gaps, which this research also aims to do, could provide valuable insights into agroe-
cology’s potential in Hungary and guide more targeted policies and support for farmers.
Resources 2024, 13, 170 4 of 25
The aim of the present research was to collect the forms of implementation of the core
elements of agroecology related to nature conservation at the farm level; to qualitatively
examine them; and to illustrate possible practical solutions and the challenges that hinder
their implementation through three case studies. This research also aimed to confirm or
refute the hypothesis that the primary motivation for consumers choosing the agroecol-
ogy-supported direct sales option is to obtain chemical-free vegetables, while the nature
conservation aspects of agroecology are less important to them. Furthermore, we primar-
ily sought to answer the following questions:
Which of the FAO’s four nature-related basic agroecological elements (biodiversity,
synergies, recycling, resilience) are most effectively integrated into the practices of
the studied farms, and how do they support each other?
How do the four core elements of agroecology contribute to achieving nature conser-
vation goals on diverse, multifunctional farms?
How does direct marketing of agroecological products affect consumer awareness of
biodiversity and conservation practices?
What are consumers’ motivations for purchasing agroecologically produced goods,
and how do these motivations influence their buying decisions?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
Farm 1 operates in Gödöllő and in the surrounding area. Its key value is its cultural
and natural diversity, and its aim is to create an inclusive society in harmony with the
natural environment, and to operate in an economically, socially and ecologically sustain-
able way. Its activities include supporting disadvantaged people through employment,
developing and delivering training courses on ecological and social issues, organising en-
vironmental education events and running a social garden. Following the principles of
organic farming, the farm functions as an educational venue and organises family events,
organic gardening training and volunteer days for the town’s residents.
The garden is managed by the head gardener and 4 employees. The garden of 2500
m2 is cultivated on an area of 1900–2000 m2, in the open air, in a polytunnel and a Dutch
hotbed. Three raised beds have also been created in the garden.
Farm 2 was established in 2011. Agricultural production is carried out on 3 hectares,
in 5 polytunnels and in the open air, using only environmentally friendly methods, in-
cluding biodynamic farming. The main goal of the farm is to produce quality, organic
produce with as lile damage to the environment as possible. All goods produced and
processed on the farm are certified organic products.
Sales are made in two ways. One is the box scheme, whereby boxes of seasonal, lo-
cally grown vegetables are prepared on a weekly basis for customers and delivered to
them through several collection points in 2 cities. Another way of selling their produce is
at the market or in shops. Organic vegetables are sold at the biggest organic market in
Budapest (capital of Hungary), as well as in farmers’ markets and organic shops.
Farm 3 is located and operates in the Central Transdanubia region of Hungary with
7 permanent workers. After 15 years of conventional farming, in 2015, they decided to
beer align with their living space and preserve the ecosystem on their 300 hectares. With
a new generation taking over, they transitioned to organic farming with the goal of pro-
ducing high-quality crops in harmony with nature. Their focus areas include arable crop
cultivation, fruit cultivation, and potato production.
They strive to ensure that the food they produce reaches the consumer at the highest
possible level of processing, preferably directly. This way, they can trace the entire journey
of the food and guarantee the best quality. Their potatoes make their way to the kitchens
of the best restaurants in Budapest. Their cereals are processed with their Astrié stone mill.
Resources 2024, 13, 170 5 of 25
2.2. Methodology of the Farm Survey, In-Depth-Interviews, Consumer Questionnaires and Con-
tent Analysis
The researchers looked at organic farms that apply agroecological conservation prin-
ciples and at the choices of consumers. This research is based on the 10 core elements of
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) agroecology frame-
work [11]. The following 4 of the 10 core elements related to nature conservation were
selected for this study:
biodiversity,
interactions,
recycling,
resilience (flexible resistance).
This research was carried out through in-depth interviews with 3 farmers and a ques-
tionnaire survey with 63 consumers. To evaluate the results of the interviews and the
questionnaire survey, it was necessary to formulate questions that reveal the practical im-
plementation of the 4 selected agroecological core elements. The search functions of eb-
sco.com, pubmed.gov and scholar.google.com were used to extract the relevant literature
and define indicators for the core elements. In the “Abstracts” section of the articles, a
keyword search was used to select the scientific articles that help to define the indicators
for the 4 core elements. Using these platforms, the researchers found 217 scientific articles
related to the selected four core elements and to farm practices.
Finally, 43 scientific studies were used to identify the key terms. Interview/question-
naire questions were assigned to the indicators. The indicators thus identified are pre-
sented by core elements in Table 1 in, and the source literature is presented in the Refer-
ences sections.
Table 1. Questions of the interview and the questionnaire, sources and indicators.
Source Indicator Questions
(for Farmers)
Questions
(for Consumers)
Biodiversity
[29,30] landscape
Do you use the landscape consciously?/What impact do
such activities have on the landscape?/Is biodiversity re-
flected in the scale of the landscape?
Do you think it is important to have
a high level of biodiversity, i.e., as
many natural and diverse elements
as possible on the farm? If so, why?
Is it important to you that farming
practices should be adaptive to the
specific landscape conditions and in
a conscious way?
Do you think it is essential to use
crop rotation? If so, why?
[5,31] genetic diversity How does genetic diversity manifest itself?
[32,33] agrobiodiversity How does agrobiodiversity manifest itself?
[15] companion planting Are there companion plants (companion planting) on
your farm? If so, what are they?
[34] natural enemies of pests Are there natural elements of biodiversity? Do they have
any impact on farming?
[35,36] crop rotation Do you use crop rotation? If so, how and what is its role?
[16,37] mixed farming system Do you keep animals in parallel with crop production?
How are the animals utilised?
[16] small plots How large are the plots? Does plot size have an impact
on diversity?
[38] mosaic land-use Do you apply mosaic land use, and if so, how?
[16,39] natural habitats Are there natural habitats in the agricultural area? If so,
how and what are the results?
[40,41] biodiversity in the soil Are you making a conscious effort to increase soil biodi-
versity? If so, how?
Interactions/Syn-
ergies
[16,42] diverse farming systems How do crops and livestock interact? Do you think it is important to have
livestock on the farm, and if so,
why?
What do you think are the purposes
of companion planting? (you can
tick more than one)
[43] annual/perennial plants
Do you experience interactions between perennial and
annual plants? Do you use such companion planting
consciously?
[44] livestock What role does livestock play on the farm? How do you
choose livestock?
Resources 2024, 13, 170 6 of 25
[16,45] aquatic organisms Are there water-bound organisms? Do they have any ef-
fect on other living organisms?
Why do you think insects are im-
portant?
[43,46] trees What impact do trees have?
[16] water Besides irrigation, what other role does water play?
[40,47] soil
What influences soil fertility? Is it influenced by any liv-
ing organisms?
[38] topography What is the impact of topography?
[48] better resource efficiency
Do the different interactions (synergies) increase re-
source efficiency?
[49] better resilience Do different interactions affect the resilience of animals?
[50] ecosystem services What ecosystem-service interactions have you noticed?
[50] insect pollination How does the type of farming affect insect pollination?
[51,52] grazing Is there any type of grazing on the farm? What does it in-
fluence and what effect does it have?
[16,53] companion planting
Do you use companion planting? Which ones? What ef-
fect do crops have on each other and on their environ-
ment?
[16,54] negative interactions Have you noticed any negative interactions?
Recycling
[55,56] biomass How much biomass is produced? How is it used? How important do you think it is to
use organic fertiliser and/or compost
instead of fertiliser for nutrient re-
plenishment? (1—not important, 6—
very important)
How important is it for you to know
how much waste is produced in ag-
ricultural production? (1—not im-
portant, 6—very important)
How important is it to you how
farmers use water and irrigate the
farm? (1—not important, 6—very
important)
[55,57] compost How do you compost?
[55,58] manure/fertiliser Do you use manure? What kind and how? Where does it
come from?
[40,59] soil life What is typical of soil life?
[55] organic matter How is organic matter replenished?
[16,60] water use How is water used? Is water recycled in any way?
[16,61] external input Do you replenish organic matter from external sources?
[62] buildings, facilities Do you apply recycling in buildings or facilities?
[16,63] tools Do you recycle tools?
Resilience
[40,64] soil What is the soil’s resilience to climatic conditions?
If, due to extreme weather condi-
tions (drought, floods, etc.), the
quantity/quality of agricultural pro-
duction would decrease and the
price of products would increase,
but your financial situation would
not change significantly, would you
continue to buy from the same pro-
ducer?
Do you monitor sustainable agricul-
tural practices in general? (1—not
interested, 6—regularly informed)
How well do you know what the
farmer is doing to maintain soil
health? (1—I do not know what they
do, 6—I am fully aware of what they
do)
[16,65] water
To what extent does agricultural production depend on
water conditions? How does agricultural production de-
pend on rainfall and on rainfall distribution?
[66] drought How resilient is the system to drought?
[66,67] flood Is agricultural production resilient to excessive rainfall
and flooding?
[66] climatic impacts
To what extent does agricultural production depend on
climatic influences? Does climate change have an im-
pact? How does climate change affect agricultural pro-
duction?
[68] ecological features/con-
ditions
What are the ecological conditions on your farm? How
much do they influence resilience?
[66] temperature
To what extent does agricultural production depend on
temperature conditions? To what extent is agricultural
production exposed to climatic conditions and tempera-
ture fluctuations?
[16,69] pests, pathogens To what extent is the system resistant to pests and patho-
gens?
Regarding the methodology of the in-depth interviews, three Hungarian farms (Farm 1,
Farm 2, and Farm 3) were selected purposively as study sites. The selection criteria stipu-
lated that all farm managers should be familiar with and commied to agroecological
principles, and that their farming operations should be market-oriented, utilising direct
marketing channels to customers in various ways. The researchers specifically chose farms
where consumers were responsive to our questionnaires and where the farm owners are
actively engaged in the Hungarian Agroecological Network. Two of the selected farms
operate within the Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) system, while the third farm,
Resources 2024, 13, 170 7 of 25
although employing a different sales channel due to its product types, adheres to the same
agroecological approach. This third farm is considered a potential candidate for future
CSA participation, as they plan to collaborate with other farmers to distribute their prod-
ucts through the CSA system. All three farms exemplify exemplary organic farming prac-
tices. Our primary criteria were the above; due to the limited sample size, we did not aim
to achieve geographical or socio-economic diversity.
The questions for the in-depth interview were designed to help us assess how much
and what kind of emphasis farmers place on the four chosen core elements and how they
put them into practice.
The interviewees of the in-depth interviews are the head gardener on Farm 1 and the
owners of Farm 2 and Farm 3. The head gardener of Farm 1 works as an employee, while
the owners of Farms 2 and 3 manage the farms with their family members and a team of
about 7–10 people. The interviews were audio-recorded with the interviewees’ consent.
The in-depth interviews lasted 60 min on the farm. A total of 44 open-ended questions
were asked, to which respondents could answer freely and explain their answers in detail,
allowing for descriptive content analysis along the indicators.
Regarding the methodology of the consumer questionnaire, the researchers conducted an
online survey among consumers and buyers, using Google Forms. The questionnaire was
sent to the managers of the two farms and we asked them to send it to their regular cus-
tomers. The manager of Farm 2 sent the questionnaire to 90–100 people chosen from
among their regular customers/box buyers. The owner of Farm 1 sent out the question-
naire to 60–70 direct buyers of the farm and also to the buyers of other farms they cooper-
ate with. The questionnaire was designed using the same principles as the in-depth inter-
view with the producers, except that the questionnaire asked consumers to assess their
awareness of the four core elements. The researchers wanted to find out how familiar con-
sumers are with farming practices and what criteria determine their buying decisions in
relation to the four core elements. In the case of Farm 3, although it conducts direct sales,
due to their crops they are not part of the CSA system (Community-Supported Agricul-
ture), so the evaluation of consumer questionnaires is not relevant.
To validate the questionnaire, we conducted pre-testing and an expert review. Before
the farmers distributed the questionnaire, we pre-tested it with 13 consumers in person at
the marketplace of Farm 1. The consumers provided feedback on the clarity and relevance
of the questions. In addition, an associate professor in the relevant academic field evalu-
ated the questionnaire to ensure its validity and proficiency. Following the pre-testing and
the review, 2 of the original 21 questions were removed. The validation process was suc-
cessful, so no data cleaning was needed after the questionnaire was filled out by the re-
spondents. The first four questions of the questionnaire were demographic questions. The
fifth question looked at the general reasons behind consumers’ buying habits. The other
questions were grouped by the core elements, with each group of questions consisting of
three questions, including open-ended (respondents were asked about their opinion) and
closed-ended questions (multiple-choice questions or rating on a scale of 1 to 6). The ques-
tionnaire was designed not to contain too many questions so that it could be completed
quickly and easily by the customers. The technical terms were defined for the customers
so that their responses would not be influenced by a lack of precise knowledge of the
terms (e.g., biodiversity, crop rotation, plant associations).
Regarding the methodology of the content analysis, the NVivo 12 program was used to
analyse the in-depth interviews. This software is especially suitable for the analysis of
qualitative data. It aids in analysing unstructured or qualitative data, such as interviews,
open survey responses, and articles. The program assisted in synthesizing and structuring
information during data analysis. Throughout the data analysis process, we categorized
the theoretical constructions of the respondents into groups, displayed them as codes, and
established a hierarchically structured code system. Coding entailed assigning portions of
the interview text (quotes, paragraphs, etc.) to appropriate codes. The primary categories
(main codes) of the code system were based on the 4 core elements, while subcategories
Resources 2024, 13, 170 8 of 25
(subcodes) were linked to indicators relevant to each core element. The coding system is
visualized in Figure 1. On the one hand, the hierarchy diagram provides an overview of
the structure of the coding system, and on the other hand, the amount of coding can be
compared as well.
Figure 1. The hierarchy chart of the coding system generated by Nvivo software (resized for reada-
bility).
3. Results
In Sections 3.1–3.4, the researchers present their findings on which of the FAO’s four
nature-related agroecological elements are most effectively integrated into the practices of
the studied farms, how these elements support one another, and how they contribute to
achieving nature conservation goals on diverse, multifunctional farms.
3.1. Biodiversity
Farm 1 does not use the landscape consciously, as the farm has been operational in
its current location for two years, not long enough to allow for full monitoring. It is also
difficult to determine the impact of the farm on the landscape environment. The site is not
far from the city centre, but it is located in a park in a more natural, wooded seing, so
there is natural biodiversity.
One of the most important biodiversity-enhancing features of the farm is a pollinator
strip in the middle of the cultivated area. The strip contains a deliberate selection of di-
verse plant species, enriching the genetic diversity. There is a lower genetic or biological
diversity of vegetables. Although the varieties of vegetables vary seasonally, they mostly
use the same tried and tested varieties and do not experiment with their own seeds.
Companion planting and crop rotation are used. For example, shade-tolerant plants
such as basil and celery, as well as different flowering plants that increase biodiversity
and support pollinator species, are planted underneath the tomatoes in the polytunnel.
In open field beds, companion planting is not applied consciously; still, there is a
diversity of species in transitional seasons; for example, tomato seedlings are grown with
spinach. Crop rotation is of great importance on the farm: annual, seasonal and interan-
nual crop rotations are used to help pest control in the soil. Crop rotations are relatively
simplified: ‘heavy-consuming’ plants (such as leaf and root vegetables, pumpkins and to-
matoes) and crops of the same family are not sown in succession in the same area.
The plot sizes are 80 cm × 5 m and 80 cm × 11 m. The same plant species are usually
not grown in adjacent beds, and there is often a diversity of species within a bed. There
are also natural habitat mosaics that provide habitats for different animal and plant
Resources 2024, 13, 170 9 of 25
species, such as the pollinator strip mentioned above, but there are also smaller groups of
shrubs and trees in the garden. This way, the harmful impacts of some insect species (e.g.,
cabbage buerfly—Pieris brassicae) can be reduced.
Farm 2 operates as a micro-farm on 3.5 hectares and aims to transform the landscape
to increase biodiversity. The landscape seing of the farm is mosaic and diverse. Although
there is a lot of agricultural land around the farm and in the surrounding selements,
there are also woodlands, reed beds and wetlands alongside the ploughland.
In addition to vegetable production, there is livestock farming and livestock-related
grazing and mowing. There is also an orchard of about 0.5 hectares with fruit trees of old
land varieties. There are two flowering strips in the garden, with perennial flowering
plants to add diversity and help pollination. The garden also has several areas of native
and non-native tree species, and a small pond in the middle of the garden, which provides
a habitat for aquatic creatures such as frogs and water and grass snakes, but also enriches
the bird and insect species that use the pond as a drinking place.
According to the farmer’s observations, in the 11 years since the garden was estab-
lished, biodiversity at the landscape level has declined dramatically. Intensive agriculture
has resulted in the dominance of maize and sunflower monocultures. No fallow land is
left. The neighbouring farm used to have wetlands with reeds, which have now been
ploughed up. There are fewer birds and insect species. The area of woodland has de-
creased in size in the area, and habitat patches, margins and plant strips of natural vege-
tation left in plough fields have disappeared.
The farm has the following bedding system: there are 12 plots, each with six beds.
The beds are 80 cm wide and 25 long. Within a bed, several crops are grown. Crop rotation
is applied twice a year within the 12 plots, resulting in the production of 24 different plant
varieties a year. The whole farm grows around 70 different plants. Footpaths run between
the beds. These are covered with wood chips of 5 centimetres, which enrich the nutrients
in the soil by decomposing and help insects to colonise.
The farmer told us that if they often used crop rotation, companion planting would
make their work more difficult, too complicated and impractical, so they decided not to
use it.
The area is mosaic, with natural habitat areas, woody and shrubby areas, the orchard
and the composting area. The three elder trees, whose fruits are the favourite food for
most songbirds and small mammal species, and whose flowers aract pollinators and
other insects, have a particularly high biodiversity-enhancing effect. These sites are less
disturbed, the vegetation is more natural, and the area is the most neglected and undis-
turbed, helping to maintain a habitat for a variety of living creatures.
Soil biodiversity and soil conditions are given the utmost aention. The methods
used to enrich life in the soil are mulching, no chemicals, green manure, composting, com-
post tea, crop rotation and continuous mulching. The use of inoculum compost tea facili-
tates the growth of various aerobic fungi and soil microbes.
Farm 3 has 280 hectares in a nature park, where they feel a high responsibility for
farming in a way that does not harm the local soils, wildlife, and landscape.
The crop rotation and intercropping (secondary cropping and green manure crops)
have a significant impact on the biodiversity of the farm. In arable organic crop produc-
tion, the focus is on maintaining a diverse crop rotation, selecting unique varieties, and
implementing appropriate soil cultivation practices. This approach ensures that various
cereals (such as winter wheat, rye, spelt, oats) cover a maximum of 50% of the production
areas, while crops like sunflower and corn cover 25%, and small seeds (such as phacelia,
purple clover, and lucerne) and peas cover an additional minimum of 25% for seed pro-
duction purposes. The secondary crops are integrated into the land to maximize their uti-
lization. The farm places great emphasis on preserving traditional values, which has led
to excellent results with old varieties and ancient grains. In the 20-hectare orchard, apri-
cots, plums, and cherries are cultivated. Farm 3 is currently involved in hosting several
Resources 2024, 13, 170 10 of 25
study projects, including on-farm and small-parcel variety trials, which further enhance
the genetic and agrobiodiversity of the farm.
The plot sizes are typically 5–7 hectares, with several natural, woody, and shrubby
habitats surrounding the arable land, creating a mosaic-like area.
3.2. Interactions
On Farm 1, interactions between perennial and annual plants are not common. Trees
have both negative and positive effects: they regulate the microclimate and allow the cul-
tivation of some leafy vegetables prone to heat stress in the summer heat, but they make
cultivation difficult from early spring to October onwards due to their excessive shading.
Bird baths and drinking troughs are considered habitats with water in the garden. In
addition to bird species, many predatory insects take advantage of these bird baths, which
(based on observation) help to control pests. An example is the ichneumon wasp (Doli-
chomitus imperator), which likes to eat different caterpillars. In addition to drip irrigation,
sprinklers also regulate the temperature, which is essential for the healthy growth of the
plants in the summer heat.
Looking at the topography, the area has a slight slope. Due to this and the high clay
content of some of the soil, the water may run off from higher areas, causing minor erosion
damage. As a result, the crop may not germinate in strips of up to 4–5 m. In these areas,
water shortages are made up for by hose irrigation.
In areas with lower water retention capacity, more compost is spread. This method
is effective because the quality of the crop is also improved. The application of straw as
mulch to cover fresh sowings has proved to be an effective technique because it resulted
in a higher germination rate. Cover crops facilitate water retention capacity and decrease
evaporation. All of these allow for higher resource efficiency. The diversity of flowers and
inflorescences found on the farm helps insect species to interact more actively, and the
maintenance of different insect hotels and natural habitat areas encourages pollination.
Analysing the synergies on Farm 2, very complex connections are found: Animal hus-
bandry also takes place on the farm, so this opens up a wide range of possibilities for
interactions among the components.
Three sheep and one yoke horse are currently kept on the farm. The sheep are Hun-
garian Merino and Ciganya crossbreeds, while the horse belongs to a cold-blooded,
twisted landscape breed. The sheep have no commercial benefit; they are kept for grazing
and manure. The yoke horse is basically a hard-working animal, and its natural lifestyle
has several advantages. Grazing takes place in stages, making sure that no part of the area
is overgrazed. In this way, the number of parasites living in the soil can be reduced. Graz-
ing creates a high degree of grassland mosaicism, and the manure from feeding animals
maintains the organic maer content of the pastures. The presence of animals helps to
increase the number of insects and the species of the insect fauna, but also aracts benefi-
cial insects and different species of birds, which can further reduce the population of
harmful insects by feeding on the insects. By using the manure in the compost and then
spreading it, soil life can be stimulated, the humus content of the soil can be increased,
and the soil’s micro- and macronutrients can be replenished. The animals eat plant waste.
The various annual and perennial plants aract pollinating and predatory insect species
and can also provide soil cover and plant protection. Wooded habitat areas regulate the
microclimate and reduce the damage caused by wind, which is a danger for polytunnels
and causes deflation. Using the right amount of water for irrigation, they take care not
only of the plants, but also of the soil life. In terms of topography, there is a slight slope
on the farm, which plays a role in water movement.
In the case of Farm 3, the orchard not only provides food but also supports pollinat-
ing insects with its early spring flowers, aiding in the pollination of other plants. Fallen
debris and twigs can serve as food for beneficial insects. Placing T-trees on plots infested
with rodents effectively aracts predatory birds like buzzards, wrens, and shrews that
feed on field pests. These birds perch on the T-trees to monitor their surroundings and
Resources 2024, 13, 170 11 of 25
prey on rodents. The deep-rooted systems of alfalfa and other leguminous plants used in
crop rotation, along with earthworms, enhance the soil structure by increasing medium-
sized pores, reducing wind and water erosion. Erosion control is further achieved through
the use of intermediate crops, second seeding, or top seeding. The incorporation of leg-
umes in the crop structure has significantly reduced nitrogen-related issues. Wooded ar-
eas and solitary trees help regulate the microclimate and provide habitats for various or-
ganisms.
3.3. Recycling
On Farm 1, nutrients are replenished by composting. On the one hand, the biomass
used is produced in the garden, but thanks to a community composting unit, the residents
of Gödöllő can also bring straw, green or other compostable waste to the garden. Stable
manure is not used. The reason for this is that they do not have the capacity to keep live-
stock or to purchase manure from external sources.
Composting is accomplished in four ways:
1. Simple compost heaps: the biomass is just piled up in the heap and no further aen-
tion is paid to the heaps; aerobic processes take place by themselves and they are self-
sustaining.
2. Without turning, in composting frames: they consciously layer the substances, pay
aention to the C/N ratio, and also add nutrient-enhancing herbs (black nightshade,
nele, yarrow, etc.). The biomass is not turned.
3. By turning, in composting frames: similar to what is described in ii), but the compost
is turned during compost formation.
4. Worm composting: worms are added to the compost after the thermophase.
The heat released during the composting process also promotes germination in the
polytunnel in late winter and early spring, and 15–18 m3 of compost was produced in one
year.
In order to replenish organic maer, pelleted chicken manure and fermented vegeta-
ble juices are distributed before planting heavy-consuming vegetables.
Water is obtained from a borehole, using an aquifer. Rainwater cannot be collected,
so it is not used.
The frame of the polytunnel is recycled, and many tools are used repeatedly (pots,
seed trays, pallets, etc.) and they ‘rotate in the system’ for a long time.
The manager of Farm 2 also pays aention to the circulation of biomass and tools in
use. Annually, 150–200 m3 of biomass is produced, which is recycled in the form of com-
post.
Composting is accomplished with compost prisms: the organic maer is layered on
pallets, so that pipes of a diameter of approx. 110 mm and of a height of 180 cm are put in
the heap every 60 cm. In this way, the pipe functions as a “chimney”, passive aeration is
achieved, and the pile does not have to be turned (this is a modified Johnson–Su bioreac-
tor).
Solar panels are used on the farm. The tools, crates, planting trays, and pots are re-
used in the system as often as possible, as are the mason jars, packaging materials, etc.
used in sales. The bags used in sales are made of compostable material.
The supply of nutrients in Farm 3 is based on organic manure sourced from an exter-
nal provider. Crop residues are left on the land and incorporated into the soil. Mulching
is also a common practice. Other soil amendments, such as clay minerals or soil microbes,
are used sparingly. To enhance soil life, they have discontinued traditional ploughing and
adopted techniques that minimize soil disturbance. High-demand plants are irrigated
from the farm’s four wells.
3.4. Flexible Resilience
Resources 2024, 13, 170 12 of 25
On Farm 1, climatic conditions have a significant effect on the garden. The farm was
heavily exposed to drought in the summer of 2022, recording significant damage, despite
the fact that it is located in a relatively cooler, shaded environment. Cabbages, for exam-
ple, were completely destroyed by the mass appearance of the flea-beetle. Excessive rain-
fall during the past two years also had a negative effect and the soil was eroded on the
slopes.
In the past, the area was covered with forest. According to the farmer, the soil is high-
quality humic sand. Adverse environmental conditions do not significantly reduce the re-
silience of plants and soil if the right mulch and compost are used.
On Farm 2, according to the farmer’s observations in 2011, when they started farming
in the area, the humus content of the topsoil was 1.5%; according to recent tests, this in-
creased to 3.5%. Thanks to this, the soil’s ability to retain water and air also increased,
thereby improving the resistance of the soil and plants.
Covering the entire cultivation area with plants has greatly contributed to the reduc-
tion of evaporation, and thereby, the resilience of plants and soil health have also been
enhanced. The use of farm animals and compost from livestock makes it possible to pro-
vide nutrients for the soil without external input, thus making the system more resistant
to external influences.
Organic farming is more vulnerable to pests and pathogens because pesticide use is
limited, but if the system as a whole has a relatively high level of resistance due to the
methods listed above, it will provide sufficient resistance to even such adverse effects.
According to the farmer in Farm 3, the effects of climate change can be seen in
droughts, unstable weather, rising average temperatures (mild, wet winters and hoer
summers), more spring frosts and violent thunderstorms. Consequently, a decrease in
yields is observed in the field and in fruit cultivation, among other impacts. To preserve
soil moisture, they employ a reduced tillage method (absence of intensive and deep dis-
turbance) and aim for permanent mulching. The farmer concluded that climate change
leads to additional expenses, reduced income, unexpected damages, and extreme unpre-
dictability, necessitating extra effort to achieve the same crop yield. Climate change con-
sistently presents farmers with extraordinary physical, mental, and existential challenges.
3.5. Consumer Awareness
In this section, we aimed to answer the following questions: How does direct mar-
keting of agroecological products affect consumer awareness of biodiversity and conser-
vation practices? What are consumers’ motivations for purchasing agroecologically pro-
duced goods, and how do these motivations influence their buying decisions?
The evaluation of consumer questionnaires gives an answer to how aware customers
are of environmentally friendly agricultural practices related to the four core elements;
how important it is for them that the farmer uses environmentally friendly methods dur-
ing agricultural production; and which aspects of nature conservation apart from health
awareness motivate them in making their consumer decisions.
The survey was conducted among regular customers of a closed community of the
two farms, 60–70 respondents in the case of Farm 1 and 90–100 respondents in the case of
Farm 2. The consumer questionnaire was filled out by 63 respondents. The managers of
the farm could not provide accurate figures about the number of their customers because
their number (even that of regular customers) changes from week to week.
Of the 63 respondents, 43 were women and 20 were men. The majority of them were
young and middle-aged adults (42.9% of them were 18–30 years old, and 27% of them
were between the age of 31–45 years), and this can be aributed to the fact that older peo-
ple are less willing to fill out online questionnaires. Among them, 53 respondents had a
higher educational degree, and 10 respondents graduated from secondary school (second-
ary grammar school or vocational secondary school).
The distribution of the net monthly income per person of the families was as follows:
38.1% of them earned 900 EUR, 22.2% of them earned 640–900 EUR, 20.6% of them earned
Resources 2024, 13, 170 13 of 25
400–640 EUR, and 19% of them earned 180–400 EUR. From the point of view of this re-
search, age, gender ratio or monthly net income were not decisive and it was more im-
portant that each of the respondents regularly purchased products from the two farms
(Farm 1 and Farm 2).
Figure 2 shows the distribution of the motivational factors that led consumers to buy
from Farm 1 or Farm 2. The figure shows that people were motivated by healthy eating
the most in their purchasing decisions, but they were also highly motivated by good qual-
ity, delicious produce and one person noted that specialty items, such as pak choi or fresh
coriander, were also available, which were either not found in other grocery stores or were
only available in limited quantities. In addition, environmental awareness (e.g., no pack-
aging) and the use of environmentally friendly production methods in cultivation were
very important to consumers (80%). Environmentally friendly sales were less motivating
for customers. It was even less important for them that the product was local or Hungar-
ian, and the survey also found that a personal relationship with the producer was less
important for respondents.
Figure 2. Consumers’ motivating factors.
Responses to questions on biodiversity showed that for the majority of respondents it
is important that their natural environment is diverse, and that this diversity is maintained
on the farm. The following two answers to the questionnaire summarize the positions of
the majority of respondents:
“I believe that nature should be the model for cultivation. So farmers shouldn’t grow
one kind of crop over a large area. Different elements and plants can support each other,
live in symbiosis and have an impact on the whole ecosystem, thus increasing the diver-
sity of other living organisms”.
“I want to see natural and sustainable farming, which is essential to maintain the
natural ecosystem processes. The diversity of species in the area helps us to achieve this”.
The answers to the question about crop rotation revealed that customers are aware
of the fact that crop rotation is essential in preventing one-sided use of nutrients in the
soil, and many are also aware that the proliferation of many pests and pathogens can be
prevented with this agricultural technique. This is a typical answer: “(Crop rotation) is
Resources 2024, 13, 170 14 of 25
important because different plants use different nutrients. They also react to diseases in
different ways”.
One of the core elements in preserving biodiversity is proper landscape management.
Figure 3 shows the answers to this question. The diagram shows what aspects customers
consider important in sustainable and conscious farming. Two respondents highlighted
their own thoughts as follows: “I consider it essential to practice agriculture that aligns
with the current weather conditions and is in harmony with nature (e.g., avoiding plow-
ing during drought, even if the harvest is complete)”. and “It is important that farming
practices are in accordance with the cultural characteristics and human scale of the local
community”.
Figure 3. Consumer positions about conscious production that adapts to the landscape.
It can be concluded that the preservation of biodiversity in the landscape is the most
important for the buyers, but the method of cultivation to maintain soil conditions is sim-
ilarly important. Consumers are less aware of farming adapted to topography and hydrol-
ogy.
The answers to the questions on correlations can only be evaluated in a more complex
way. The answers to the question on animal husbandry, which required a detailed answer,
were diverse: The majority of the respondents (55%) do not see it necessary to have animal
husbandry on the farm; they think that composting is a sufficient source of nutrient supply
and there is no need to use barnyard manure.
Those who believe that it is important to include livestock in the system justify their
views by closed material flows, organic maer supply and biodiversity enrichment.
Resources 2024, 13, 170 15 of 25
Customers are aware of the role played by insects in the ecosystem. Pollination of
plants is considered to be the most important, but knowledge of plant protection, food
sources, food chains, and helping soil life is also important for them.
Figure 4 shows the analysis of the answers related to companion planning. The pro-
tection against pathogens and pests, as well as the positive effect of plants helping each
other to grow, are the most important benefits of companion planning by most of the re-
spondents.
Figure 4. Consumer awareness of companion planting.
The following figures (Figures 5–7) show the positions of consumers about recycling,
nutrient replenishment, waste production and good practice of water use.
Resources 2024, 13, 170 16 of 25
Figure 5. Importance of not using fertilisers by consumers.
Figure 6. Survey of consumers on waste generation.
Resources 2024, 13, 170 17 of 25
Figure 7. Importance of farmers’ conscious water use practices by customers.
It can be seen that customers consider avoiding artificial fertilisers (87.3%), striving
for zero waste (84.1%) and correct water management (77.7%) to be very important, but
there are some for whom these are absolutely not or not so important (3.2% show lile
interest in fertiliser use, 6.4% in waste generation and 6.4% in water use).
Customers’ awareness of flexible resilience is divided. The questionnaire shows that
buyers are basically aware of the importance of the core elements, but the response rates
show that they do not know how farmers apply flexible resilience and what methods they
use to achieve resilience.
The question about extreme weather conditions examined how aware customers are
of agriculture’s exposure to environmental effects and how important they think it is to
support the system’s resilience to adverse environmental effects. The majority (76.2%) of
the respondents see these issues as important and a large percentage of them are aware of
them.
The answers to the questions about general agricultural practices and the farmer’s
activities to maintain soil health are inconclusive; the highest proportion of respondents
(35.9%) for the former (general agricultural practices) and 31.3% for the laer (activities to
maintain soil health), so they have an average knowledge about these issues.
4. Discussion
Agricultural practices based on the principles of agroecology support the functioning
of conservation systems, which is also the case on the three farms studied in this research.
The key to successful agroecological farming is multi-faceted. The results of the surveys
made it clear that on the one hand, a holistic approach to farming and a high level of
Resources 2024, 13, 170 18 of 25
professional knowledge is very important, and on the other hand, commitment and emo-
tional aachment to both nature and more sustainable agriculture are necessary [70]),
which was evident on all three farms. There are elements in the analysed production sys-
tems that need to improve, but our experience shows that farmers are open to these im-
provements and changes in order to be able to meet the realization of the core agroecolog-
ical elements even more stably and widely in the future. The three farms performed well
against the assessment criteria, given their size, structure and potential.
4.1. Findings on Biodiversity
All three farms have high levels of biodiversity. In contrast to conventional farming
practices, Farm 1, Farm 2 and Farm 3 pay great aention to maintaining diversity and to
the methods to enhance diversity. A focus of Farm 1 and Farm 2 is flowering strips, which
directly enhance pollinator/biodiversity. They include perennial and annual plants that
have no specific economic benefit, but greatly enhance biodiversity and genetic diversity
and provide habitat and feeding grounds; thus, they aract many beneficial organisms
[42,71]. All of the farms have natural habitat mosaics, and landscape features such as tree
and shrub communities, which support animal and plant species that would otherwise
not tolerate the disturbed or often disturbed agricultural environment. They take care to
ensure that management practices are appropriate to the landscape; where topography or
soil structure is a problem. Particular aention is paid to preventing or remedying soil
degradation caused by erosion. There is no monoculture in any form, and the use of crop
rotation is of paramount importance. The plot sizes are small (in terms of general arable
land cultivation as well) and there is a high variance among the crops in all three cases.
Keeping livestock on Farm 2 and maintaining water-related habitat fragments on Farm 1
and 2 also increase diversity.
Shortcomings on Farm 1 are the low level of genetic diversity and a lesser emphasis
on breed diversity. Farm 2 shows a deficiency in companion planting, which should be an
important element of biodiversity as well. Farm 3 could improve its agricultural system
by keeping animals, thereby reducing the use of external inputs and making the supply
of nutrients more independent.
The results of this study suggest that in the case of organic farms producing for the
market, the basic elements of agroecology for nature conservation are being implemented.
However, not all indicators can be observed or measured within a farm due to economic
constraints. For instance, market demands must be met, making it challenging to priori-
tize species biodiversity for the cultivated crop species.
4.2. Findings on Interactions/Synergies
The researchers observed a wide range and diversity of interactions among the farms
during the research. The microclimate-regulating properties of trees are exploited. Wet-
land habitats in the case of Farm 1 and 2 aract many species that can be useful in culti-
vation. The professional use of rainwater can also have an effect in regulating temperature
by cooling the environment. They ensure that they help pollinating insect species. Farm 1
uses one of the best ways to exploit natural synergies. Conserving and maintaining natural
habitats not only increases diversity but also supports the establishment of many species
of birds and insects, which strengthens the interaction between the natural and agricul-
tural components of the economy [42]. Parasitoid wasps and ladybugs play a crucial role
in plant protection by naturally controlling pest populations, with wasps targeting insect
larvae and ladybugs feeding on aphids, reducing the need for chemical pesticides.
On Farm 2, sheep and horses elevate the interactions between the elements of the
system. Grazing and mowing are utilized for land management, enhancing the diversity
of grassland species and creating a mosaic of grasslands. Insect and bird species are also
enriched, aiding in the control of harmful organisms. Eurasian blue tits (Cyanistes caer-
uleus) play an important role in pest control by feeding on insect larvae and caterpillars
that harm crops, helping to reduce the reliance on chemical pest control methods.
Resources 2024, 13, 170 19 of 25
Pollinator strips, consisting of flowering plants, are vital for supporting biodiversity by
providing habitat and food sources for pollinators like bees and buerflies. This process
contributes to soil nutrient replenishment through natural animal metabolism and com-
posting.
Farm 3 can serve as a model for how a complex system can be established in arable
cultivation, utilising natural features and resources in harmony with nature. Birds of prey,
such as kestrels (Falco tinnunculus) and owls, help control rodent populations by preying
on small mammals like mice and voles, thereby maintaining a natural balance in ecosys-
tems and reducing the need for rodenticides.
4.3. Findings on Recycling
The production of their own compost is the main form of recycling on Farms 1 and
2. They not only use the ‘excess’ biomass, but also create a closed material loop within the
system [22]. This provides beer conditions for soil-dwelling micro- and macro-organisms
and enriches soil life. On the farms, efforts are also being made to recycle equipment and
facilities and to ensure that they are used as long as possible. Farm 3 utilizes plant residues
that, when incorporated into the soil, act as nutrient supplements.
A weakness is the poor management or absence of rainwater collection, which should
have been crucial during recent years of drought. One of the examined farms currently
utilizes rainwater primarily to provide drinking water for animals. Expanding its use for
irrigation purposes would require significant infrastructural investments, including the
installation of rainwater collection systems, storage facilities, and distribution networks.
These upgrades can be costly and logistically complex, which likely limits their adoption.
Enhancing the system to align more closely with FAO ideals would necessitate targeted
financial support or subsidies to assist farms in covering the upfront costs of these invest-
ments, making rainwater use more feasible for broader irrigation purposes. Maintaining
the farm’s functionality necessitates the farmer to make decisions. Although rainwater
collection is important, it is not a long-term solution for irrigated crops and demands a
labour force. Economic factors might take precedence over adopting fundamental agroe-
cological practices.
4.4. Findings on Resilience
Resilience is maintained at the system level. It is difficult to ensure that each compo-
nent of the farm is fully defensible, but experience has shown that if the elements of the
system support each other, it becomes resilient and negative environmental impacts are
‘tolerated’, so that pests, pathogens, or adverse weather conditions do not fatally affect the
system [11,22]. The soil condition plays a major role in resilience. With this in mind, the
farmers also pay particular aention to reasonable soil management, conscious nutrient
replenishment and water management. Proper crop rotation is also essential to prevent
the spread of pathogens, pests, and other pathogenic organisms. Certain pesticides per-
mied in organic farming are used by farmers in a justified and professional manner, pay-
ing particular aention to the various biological and agrotechnical protections.
Resources 2024, 13, 170 20 of 25
4.5. Evaluation of the Results of Consumer Questionnaire
The results of the consumer questionnaire show that the majority of consumers are
aware of environmentally friendly agricultural practices related to the four core elements,
and that the decision to buy organic products is not only motivated by the demand for
healthy food, but also by nature conservation aspects of farming. It is important to them
that the products they buy are produced using environmentally friendly and sustainable
farming methods. But if more emphasis were placed on increasing knowledge and aware-
ness, and on promoting the aitudes of these buyers and farmers, a broader audience
would be more willing to accept a more environmentally friendly and sustainable food
production. This shift would also steer today’s agriculture towards a more nature-ori-
ented direction.
5. Conclusions
This research examined the nature conservation-related, resource-efficient elements
(4) of the 10 FAO basic elements of agroecology through the operational practices of three
farms. By focusing on specific farms, this research has contributed to understanding how
these four elements, in relation to the farm and its produce, are perceived by both con-
sumers and farmers.
From the results of the research, the following conclusions are drawn:
The four nature-related core elements of agroecology emphasized by the FAO in-
clude agricultural diversity, synergies, efficiency, and resilience. These elements con-
tribute to enhancing biodiversity, creating resilient agricultural systems, increasing
efficiency by recycling resources, and promoting synergy among agricultural com-
ponents. These practices help in maintaining ecological balance and ensuring sus-
tainable agriculture.
Agroecological farmers pay particular aention to farming practices that are appro-
priate to the landscape. Their practices help to colonise many beneficial organisms,
enhancing the interactions between nature and agricultural production on the farm.
Synergies within agroecological farms are created through the integration of various
farm components, such as crops, livestock, and natural elements like trees and water
bodies. These interactions enhance productivity and sustainability by promoting nat-
ural processes like pollination, pest control, and nutrient cycling.
By fostering synergies, farms can optimize the use of natural resources and reduce
dependence on external inputs, such as synthetic fertilisers or pesticides. This inter-
connectedness leads to a more resilient farming system where different elements sup-
port each other, contributing to the overall health and sustainability of the farm.
Recycling is a core principle that enhances the efficiency of resource use on agroeco-
logical farms. Organic waste, such as crop residues and animal manure, is recycled
back into the system as compost or mulch, which improves soil fertility and reduces
the need for external inputs.
By recycling nutrients within the farm, agroecological practices intend to minimize
waste and pollution, leading to a more sustainable and closed-loop system. This con-
tributes to long-term soil health and reduces the environmental footprint of farming
activities.
Resilience in agroecological systems refers to the farm’s ability to withstand and
adapt to various environmental stresses, such as climate change, pests, or economic
fluctuations. Diverse and well-integrated systems are more likely to survive and re-
cover from shocks, ensuring the farm’s long-term viability.
The resilience of agroecological farms is closely linked to their biodiversity. A diverse
range of species and practices creates a buffer against potential risks, making the farm
more adaptable and less vulnerable to external threats.
Direct marketing plays a crucial role in agroecology by establishing a strong connec-
tion between producers and consumers. This direct relationship not only supports a
Resources 2024, 13, 170 21 of 25
circular and solidarity-based economy but also raises awareness about nature con-
servation aspects of agroecology among consumers.
Consumers not only choose to buy directly from the organic farmer in the hope of a
healthy diet—although their primary motivation is to buy chemical-free vegetables—
but they also value the nature conservating agroecological practices of the farmer and
are familiar with the conditions of growing in a way that respects nature.
Depending on the farm’s profile and economic sustainability, not all practical solu-
tions for implementing each agroecology (AE) element can be applied on every farm.
This highlights that the practice of agroecology is highly context-dependent.
These findings are consistent with the agroecological principles outlined by FAO
(2019) [26] and align with the broader body of research on sustainable agricultural prac-
tices [13,14]. Specifically, our study highlights the practical application of agroecology in
enhancing ecosystem health and resource efficiency, which has also been noted in other
regions [24]. Similar studies have demonstrated the key role of biodiversity in maintaining
agricultural resilience [33], reinforcing the importance of diversified farming systems that
integrate crop rotation, natural habitats, and companion planting.
This research adds to the growing evidence that agroecological practices, such as
those explored by [32] on agrobiodiversity, play a crucial role in reducing vulnerability to
climate change and improving soil health. Moreover, the findings on the synergies be-
tween crops and livestock echo earlier works by [44], who emphasized the mutual benefits
of integrated systems in improving productivity and ecological sustainability.
Our study supports the view that recycling organic materials, as shown in the work
of [52], is essential for nutrient cycling and minimizing waste in agroecosystems. This re-
flects the broader consensus in the agroecological literature, which advocates for circular
resource flows as a critical feature of sustainable agriculture [14]. Furthermore, the resili-
ence of agroecological farms in adapting to climatic stresses has been documented in stud-
ies such as those by [66], which demonstrated the enhanced capacity of diverse systems
to recover from environmental shocks.
These results highlight the need for policies that support agroecological practices at
both the local and national levels. Policies could further raise awareness of the benefits of
practices like companion planting, recycling organic waste, and maintaining natural hab-
itats. Even without direct financial incentives, these approaches are in the long-term eco-
nomic interest of farmers, as they enhance biodiversity, reduce dependency on external
inputs, and contribute to the resilience and sustainability of agricultural systems. Our
findings suggest that promoting direct consumer-producer relationships can foster con-
sumer awareness about sustainable practices, which could be supported by educational
campaigns or certifications.
Our findings can be valuable in raising awareness among farmers about agroecolog-
ical practices and encouraging their application, particularly within the Hungarian Agri-
Environmental Scheme (AÖP). This scheme is an annually selectable, voluntary, area-
based programme that can be applied to the entire farm area or to 50% of the farm’s arable
land if specific practices are selected. If chosen, however, it becomes mandatory to adopt
practices valued at 1 or 2 points per category across all land-use types (arable land, other
grasslands, other permanent crops). Future policy frameworks should focus on integrat-
ing agroecological tools like TAPE (Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation) to
measure farm-level sustainability and resilience. Such tools would allow for tailored in-
terventions that reflect local conditions, providing a practical basis for scaling agroecolog-
ical solutions and encouraging farmers to adopt these practices widely.
Furthermore, future research could investigate the factors that drive broader con-
sumer adoption of agroecologically friendly products. This would entail examining the
motivations behind dietary shifts, including environmental awareness, health benefits, so-
cial values, and economic considerations. By understanding these motivations, we can
more effectively inform policy and marketing strategies that promote sustainable con-
sumption paerns and support the growth of agroecological agriculture. In addition,
Resources 2024, 13, 170 22 of 25
within the framework of a targeted project, it would be possible to conduct the research
on a broader scale among the members of the Hungarian Agroecological Network, poten-
tially uncovering geographical correlations, particularly based on consumer responses.
This study acknowledges several limitations that may impact the generalizability of
its findings. Firstly, the research is confined to three organic farms located in Central Hun-
gary and Central Transdanubia, which may not represent the diverse agricultural prac-
tices and consumer aitudes in other regions. Furthermore, due to the limited sample size,
this study is restricted in terms of geographical and socio-economic scope. Additionally,
the focus on farms primarily engaged in vegetable and arable crop production limits the
applicability of the results to other types of organic farming, such as livestock or mixed
systems.
Furthermore, this research did not delve into the practical implementations of other
agroecological basic elements, which could provide valuable insights into consumer be-
haviour. Future studies should aim to include a wider variety of organic farms across dif-
ferent locations and enhance the investigation of diverse agroecological practices to foster
a more comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing consumer purchasing de-
cisions in the organic sector.
Overall, this study acknowledges several limitations, including its limited geo-
graphic scope, small sample size, and focus on vegetable and arable crop farms, which
may not fully represent the diversity of organic farming practices. Future research should
expand to include a broader range of farm types and locations, as well as explore the prac-
tical implementation of additional agroecological practices to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of consumer behaviour in the organic sector.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.U.; methodology, A.U.; software, A.H.; validation, A.H.
and A.U.; formal analysis, A.H.; investigation, A.H.; resources, A.H. and A.U.; data curation, A.H.;
writing—original draft preparation, A.H.; writing—review and editing, A.U.; visualization, A.H.;
supervision, A.U.; project administration, A.U.; funding acquisition, A.H. and A.U. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The research presented in this article was supported by the Research Excellence Pro-
gramme of the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study
because it did not involve sensitive data or interventions that would require formal IRB oversight.
However, all participants provided informed consent, and data confidentiality was maintained
throughout the research.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the
study. Prior to data collection, participants were informed about the purpose of the research, the
voluntary nature of their participation, and the confidentiality of their responses. No identifying
information was collected, ensuring the anonymity of the participants.
Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this research are available on
request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the privacy of the
research participants.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Howard, P.H. Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996–2008. Sustainability 2009, 1, 1266–1287.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/su1041266.
2. Horstink, L. A Global Food Polity: Ecological-Democratic Quality of the Twenty-First Century Political Economy of Food. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal, 2017; 274p.
3. Davidova, S.M.; Thomson, K. Family Farming in Europe: Challenges and Prospects. In-Depth Analysis; European Parliament, Euro-
pean Union: Strasbourg, France, 2014; 65p.
4. Berti, G.; Mulligan, C. Competitiveness of Small Farms and Innovative Food Supply Chains: The Role of Food Hubs in Creating
Sustainable Regional and Local Food Systems. Sustainability 2016, 8, 616. hps://doi.org/10.3390/su8070616.
Resources 2024, 13, 170 23 of 25
5. FAO; IFAD; UNICEF; WFP; WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing Food and Agricultural
Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; 260p. hps://doi.org/10.4060/cc0639en.
6. Mann, R.M.; Hyne, R.V.; Choung, C.B.; Wilson, S.P. Amphibians and agricultural chemicals: Review of the risks in a complex
environment. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 2903–2927. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2009.05.015.
7. Walker, L.; Wu, S. Pollinators and pesticides. In International Farm Animal, Wildlife and Food Safety Law; Springer: Cham, Swier-
land, 2017; pp. 495–513.
8. Barros-Rodríguez, A.; Rangseekaew, P.; Lasudee, K.; Pathom-aree, W.; Manzanera, M. Impacts of Agriculture on the Environ-
ment and Soil Microbial Biodiversity. Plants 2021, 10, 2325. hps://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112325.
9. Brown, K.; Jameton, A. Public Health Implications of Urban Agriculture. J. Public Health Policy 2000, 21, 20–39.
hps://doi.org/10.2307/3343472.
10. Musarurwa, H.; Chimuka, L.; Tavengwa, N.T. Green pre-concentration techniques during pesticide analysis in food samples. J.
Environ. Sci. Health 2019, 54, 770–780. hps://doi.org/10.1080/03601234.2019.1633213.
11. FAO. The 10 Elements of Agroecology. Guiding the Transition to Sustainable Food and Agricultural Systems; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2018;
pp. 1–12.
12. MTVSZ. Agroökológia—Egy új Élelmezési Rendszer Európa Számára; Magyar Természetvédők Szövetsége: Budapest, Hungary,
2015; pp. 3–7.
13. Altieri, M.A. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1996; 448p, pp. 1–6.
14. Wezel, A.; Bellon, S.; Doré, T.; Francis, C.; Vallod, D.; David, C. Agroecology as a Science, a Movement and a Practice. Agron.
Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 503–515. hps://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009004.
15. Balogh, L.; Réthy, K.; Balázs, B. Az Agroökológia Magyarországi Helyzetének és Szereplőinek Feltérképezése; Védegylet Egyesület:
Budapest, Hungary, 2020; pp. 6–9.
16. Réthy, K.F.; Tóth, B. Az Agroökológia tíz Alapelve és Hazai Példái; Védegylet Egyesület Kiadványa; Védegylet Egyesület: Budapest,
Hungary, 2020; pp. 5–47.
17. Rodics, G.; Ujj, A. Bevezetés az Agroökológiába: Kézikönyv Gazdálkodóknak; trAEce (Erasmus+, 2019-1-HU01-KA202-060895); Diver-
zitás Alapítvány: Gödöllő, Hungary, 2022; pp. 12–16, 19–23, 128.
18. Altieri, M.A.; Risch, S.J.; Andow, D. Agro-Ecosystem Diversity and Pest Control: Data, Tentative Conclusions and New Research
Directions. Environ. Entomol. 1983, 12, 625–629.
19. CIDSE. The Principles of Agroecology. Towards Just, Resilient, and Sustainable Food Systems; CIDSE: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; pp. 6–
9.
20. FAO Knowledge Hub. Available online: hps://www.fao.org/agroecology/home/en/ (accessed on 3 June 2024).
21. Altieri, M.A. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture; Westeview Press: Boulder, Colorado, 1995; 433 p.
22. Barrios, E.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Bicksler, A.; Siliprandi, E.; Brathwaite, R.; Moller, S.; Batello, C.; Tionell, P. The 10 Elements of
Agroecology: Enabling transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food systems through visual narratives. Ecosyst. People
2020, 16, 230–237.
23. Agroecology Europe. Agroecology Initiatives in Europe; Agroecology Europe: Corbais, Belgium, 2020; 232p.
24. Balogh, L.; Réthy, K.; Strenchock, L.; Szilágyi, A. Agroecology and Sustainable Yields Thematic Study. Socio-Ecological Indicators of
Agroecology-Systems in the BioEast Countries; BIOEASTsUP EU-funded project; BIOEAST: 2022; 40 p. Available online: hps://bi-
oeast.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/1-Study-Agroecology.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2024).
25. FAO. SAFA: Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems. Guidelines. Version 3.0; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. Available
online: hps://www.fao.org/3/i3957e/i3957e.pdf (accessed on 25 May 2024).
26. FAO. TAPE Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation 2019—Process of Development and Guidelines for Application. Test Version;
FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019.
27. Balázs, K.; Mészáros, D.; Podmaniczky, L.; Sipos, B. Kézikönyv és pedagógiai segédlet a “DIALECTE” agrár-környezeti értékelő
rendszer használatához—Agridiag projekt. In Kézikönyv a “DIALECTE” Agrár-Környezeti Értékelő Rendszer Használatához; Ver-
sion v01; Szent István Egyetem: Gödöllő, Hungary, 2014; 108p. hps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5013458.
28. Kaya, B.; Baroni, G.; Hillier, J.; Lüdtke, S.; Heathcote, R.; Malin, D.; van Tonder, C.; Kuster, B.; Freese, D.; Hül, R.; et al. Cool
Farm Tool Water: A global on-line tool to assess water use in crop production. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 1163–1179.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.160.
29. Batáry, P.; Báldi, A.; Ekroos, J.; Gallé, R.; Tscharntke, T. Biologia Futura: Landscape perspectives on farmland biodiversity con-
servation. Biol. Futur. 2020, 71, 9–18.
30. Sayer, J.; Sunderland, T.; Ghazoul, J.; Pfund, J.L.; Sheil, D.; Meijaard, E.; Venter, M.; Boedhihartono, A.K.; Day, M.; Garcia, C.; et
al. Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 8349–8356. hps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210595110. PMID: 23686581; PMCID: PMC3666687.
31. Gibson, A.K. Genetic diversity and disease: The past, present, and future of an old idea. Evolution 2022, 76, 20–36.
hps://doi.org/10.1111/evo.14395. PMID: 34796478; PMCID: PMC9064374.
32. Gruber, K. Agrobiodiversity: The living library. Nature 2017, 544, S8–S10. hps://doi.org/10.1038/544S8a. PMID: 28445449.
33. Tscharntke, T.; Tylianakis, J.M.; Rand, T.A.; Didham, R.K.; Fahrig, L.; Batáry, P.; Bengtsson, J.; Clough, Y.; Crist, T.O.; Dormann,
C.F.; et al. Landscape moderation of biodiversity paerns and processes—Eight hypotheses. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2012,
87, 661–685.
Resources 2024, 13, 170 24 of 25
34. Gurr, G.M.; Wraen, S.D.; Landis, D.A.; You, M. Habitat Management to Suppress Pest Populations: Progress and Prospects.
Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2017, 62, 91–109.
35. Ciaccia, C.; Armengot Martinez, L.; Testani, E.; Leteo, F.; Campanelli, G.; Trinchera, A. Weed Functional Diversity as Affected
by Agroecological Service Crops and No-Till in a Mediterranean Organic Vegetable System. Plants 2020, 9, 689.
36. Xavier, C.V.; Moitinho, M.R.; De Bortoli Teixeira, D.; André de Araújo Santos, G.; de Andrade Barbosa, M.; Bastos Pereira Milori,
D.M.; Rigobelo, E.; Corá, J.E.; La Scala Júnior, N. Crop rotation and succession in a no-tillage system: Implications for CO2
emission and soil aributes. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 245, 8–15. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.053. PMID: 31136938.
37. Reganold, J.P.; Wachter, J.M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 15221.
38. Jeanneret, P.; Aviron, S.; Alignier, A.; Lavigne, C.; Helfenstein, J.; Herzog, F.; Kay, S.; Petit, S. Agroecology landscapes. Landsc.
Ecol. 2021, 36, 2236–2239.
39. Power, A.G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2959–
2971. hps://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0143. PMID: 20713396; PMCID: PMC2935121.
40. Fenta, A.A.; Tsunekawa, A.; Haregeweyn, N.; Tsubo, M.; Yasuda, H.; Kawai, T.; Ebabu, K.; Berihun, M.L.; Belay, A.S.; Sultan, D.
Agroecology-based soil erosion assessment for beer conservation planning in Ethiopian river basins. Environ. Res. 2021, 195,
110786.
41. van Rijssel, S.Q.; Veen, G.F.C.; Koorneef, G.J.; Bakx-Schotman, J.M.T.T.; Ten Hooven, F.C.; Geisen, S.; van der Puen, W.H. Soil
microbial diversity and community composition during conversion from conventional to organic agriculture. Mol. Ecol. 2022,
31, 4017–4030. hps://doi.org/10.1111/mec.16571. PMID: 35726521; PMCID: PMC9545909.
42. Wood, S.A.; Karp, D.S.; DeClerck, F.; Kremen, C.; Naeem, S.; Palm, C.A. Functional traits in agriculture: Agrobiodiversity and
ecosystem services. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015, 30, 531–539. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.06.013. PMID: 26190137.
43. Leakey, R.R. The role of trees in agroecology and sustainable agriculture in the tropics. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2014, 52, 113–
133.
44. Dumont, B.; Fortun-Lamothe, L.; Jouven, M.; Thomas, M.; Tichit, M. Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for
animal production in the 21st century. Anim. Int. J. Anim. Biosci. 2013, 17, 1028–1031. hps://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112002418.
45. Halwart, M.; Dabbadie, L.; Beveridge, M.C. Agroecology in aquaculture. In FAO Aquaculture News; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; pp.
46–47.
46. Tayleur, C.; Phalan, B. Organic farming and deforestation. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 16098. hps://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.98.
PMID: 27364129.
47. Montgomery, D.R.; Biklé, A.; Archuleta, R.; Brown, P.; Jordan, J. Soil health and nutrient density: Preliminary comparison of
regenerative and conventional farming. PeerJ 2022, 10, e12848. hps://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.12848. PMID: 35127297; PMCID:
PMC8801175.
48. Rösch, V.; Tscharntke, T.; Scherber, C.; Batary, P. Biodiversity conservation across taxa and landscapes requires many small as
well as single large habitat fragments. Oecologia 2015, 179, 209–222. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-015-3315-5.
49. Deaconu, A.; Berti, P.R.; Cole, D.C.; Mercille, G.; Batal, M. Agroecology and nutritional health: A comparison of agroecological
farmers and their neighbors in the Ecuadorian highlands. Food Policy 2021, 101, 102034.
50. Shanahan, M. Honey Bees and Industrial Agriculture: What Researchers are Missing, and Why it’s a Problem. J. Insect Sci. 2022,
22, 14.
51. Giller, K.E.; Hijbeek, R.; Andersson, J.A.; Sumberg, J. Regenerative Agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook Agric. 2021,
50, 13–25.
52. Ghosh, A.; Misra, S.; Bhaacharyya, R.; Sarkar, A.; Singh, A.K.; Tyagi, V.C.; Kumar, R.V.; Meena, V.S. Agriculture, dairy and
fishery farming practices and greenhouse gas emission footprint: A strategic appraisal for mitigation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res.
Int. 2020, 27, 10160–10184. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-07949-4. PMID: 32060824.
53. Wojtkowski, P. Introduction to Agroecology: Principles and Practices; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006.
54. Lappé, F.M. Farming for a Small Planet: Agroecology Now, Great Transition Initiative 2016. Available online:
hps://www.grearansition.org/publication/farming-for-a-small-planet (accessed on 25 May 2024).
55. Geisseler, D.; Smith, R.; Cahn, M.; Muramoto, J. Nitrogen mineralization from organic fertilizers and composts: Literature sur-
vey and model fiing. J. Environ. Qual. 2021, 50, 1325–1334.
56. Kluts, I.N.; Brinkman, M.L.J.; de Jong, S.A.; Junginger, H.M. Biomass Resources: Agriculture. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 2019,
166, 13–26. hps://doi.org/10.1007/10_2016_66. PMID: 28432390.
57. Durrer, A.; Gumiere, T.; Rumenos Guidei Zagao, M.; Petry Feiler, H.; Miranda Silva, A.M.; Henriques Longaresi, R.; Homma,
S.K.; Cardoso, E.J.B.N. Organic farming practices change the soil bacteria community, improving soil quality and maize crop
yields. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11985. hps://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.11985. PMID: 34631309; PMCID: PMC8465994.
58. Sharma, M.; Reynnells, R. Importance of Soil Amendments: Survival of Bacterial Pathogens in Manure and Compost Used as
Organic Fertilizers. Microbiol. Spectr. 2016, 4, 1–6. hps://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.PFS-0010-2015. PMID: 27726763.
59. Lori, M.; Symnaczik, S.; Mäder, P.; De Deyn, G.; Gainger, A. Organic farming enhances soil microbial abundance and activity-
A meta-analysis and meta-regression. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180442. hps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180442. PMID:
28700609; PMCID: PMC5507504.
60. Mainardis, M.; Cecconet, D.; Morei, A.; Callegari, A.; Goi, D.; Freguia, S.; Capodaglio, A.G. Wastewater fertigation in agricul-
ture: Issues and opportunities for improved water management and circular economy. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 296, 118755.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118755. PMID: 34971741.
Resources 2024, 13, 170 25 of 25
61. Bruckner, M.; Wood, R.; Moran, D.; Kuschnig, N.; Wieland, H.; Maus, V.; Börner, J. FABIO-The Construction of the Food and
Agriculture Biomass Input-Output Model. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 11302–11312. hps://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b03554.
PMID: 31479245; PMCID: PMC6805042.
62. Vaarst, M.; Ge Escudero, A.; Chappell, M.J.; Brinkley, C.; Nijbroek, R.; Arraes, N.A.M.; Andreasen, L.; Gainger, A.; De Al-
meida, G.F.; Bossio, D.; et al. Exploring the concept of agroecological food systems in a city-region context. Agroecol. Sustain.
Food Syst. 2018, 42, 686–711. hps://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1365321.
63. Quinio, M.; Jeuffroy, M.H.; Guichard, L.; Salazar, P.; Détienne, F. Analyzing co-design of agroecology-oriented cropping sys-
tems: Lessons to build design-support tools. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 72.
64. Kan, Z.; Liu, W.; Lal, R.; Dang, Y.P.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, H. Mechanisms of soil organic carbon stability and its response to no-till:
A global synthesis and perspective. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2022, 28, 693–710. hps://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15968. PMID: 34726342.
65. Kalboussi, N.; Biard, Y.; Pradeleix, L.; Rapaport, A.; Sinfort, C.; Ait-Mouheb, N. Life cycle assessment as decision support tool
for water reuse in agriculture irrigation. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 836, 155486. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155486.
PMID: 35476952.
66. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I.; Henao, A.; Lana, M.A. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems.
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 869–890.
67. Vári, Á.; Kozma, Z.; Pataki, B.; Jolánkai, Z.; Kardos, M.; Decsi, B.; Pinke, Z.; Jolánkai, G.; Pásztor, L.; Condé, S.; et al. Disentan-
gling the ecosystem service ‘flood regulation’: Mechanisms and relevant ecosystem condition characteristics. Ambio 2022, 51,
1855–1870. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01708-0. PMID: 35212976; PMCID: PMC9200914.
68. Bennet, B.; Carpenter, S.R.; Gordon, L.J.; Ramankuy, N.; Balvanera, P.; Campbell, B.; Cramer, W.; Foley, J.; Folke, C.; Karlberg,
L.; et al. Toward a more resilient agriculture. Solutions 2014, 5, 65–75.
69. Muneret, L.; Auriol, A.; Thiéry, D.; Rusch, A. Organic farming at local and landscape scales fosters biological pest control in
vineyards. Ecol. Appl. 2019, 29, e01818; Erratum in Ecol. Appl. 2019, 29, e01878. hps://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1818. PMID: 30462874.
70. Baldwin, E.; Opi, R. Ready for integrated sustainable agricultural land management? Project Report. Zenodo 2023.
hps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7862421.
71. Tschumi, M.; Albrecht, M.; Colla, J.; Dubsky, V.; Entling, M.H.; Najar-Rodriguez, A.J.; Jacot, K. Tailored flower strips promote
natural enemy biodiversity and pest control in potato crops. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 1169–1176.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
