No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Territorial embeddedness of sustainable agri-food systems: A systematic review
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems
Abstract
The current food systems require an urgent transition toward more sustainable food landscapes. One key discussion arising is on the potential of territorial approaches to foster the sustainability of agri-food systems, for which this paper provides a review. This systematic literature review is based on bibliometric methods which allowed us to identify in a fairly unbiased manner the most impactful authors, papers, and research trends. Three distinctive scientific fronts are identified, revealing research specializations defined by their distinctive social-territorial approach: sustainable agroecosystems at the farm level; agroecological initiatives at the community level; and transformation of the food system and societal values at the regional/national level. We expect this review will trigger and enrich further discussions about future trends and opportunities for enhancing the sustainability of agri-food systems. This is especially urgent since research on these topics is relatively recent, and conflicting approaches are identified for which an overall understanding of potential solutions is largely missing. Reconciling agricultural and biodiversity sustainability stands on top of current political agendas, and thus providing an overall picture of how territorial approaches confront this problem shall prove key in guiding better-informed land policy and management decisions.
... De referir ainda que na apresentação das iniciativas recolhidas (apresentadas no anexo 1) foi utilizada uma tipificação em três categorias, conforme os resultados obtidos no nosso trabalho anterior de revisão de literatura (Duarte et al., 2024). Os projectos estão, assim, agrupados pelas tipologias "agroecossistema" (escala da exploração/parcela), "agroecologia numa perspectiva holística" (escala da paisagem ou comunidade) e "sistema alimentar" (escala regional e nacional). ...
... A maioria dos entrevistados adjectivou invariavelmente de "incipiente" a situação do movimento em terras lusas. A nossa anterior revisão de literatura (Duarte et al. 2024) aponta nesse mesmo sentido, ao não identificar autores de instituições portuguesas com significância na investigação internacional no domínio da agroecologia. Dito isto, convém também relativizar a afirmação. ...
Relatório com o levantamento das experiencias agroecológicas em Portugal (ciência e movimentos sociopolíticos).
This paper addresses the role of an Undergraduate Agroecology Research Fellows Program (UARFP) toward a more critical and equity-oriented agroecology pedagogy. As a model rooted in action, Undergraduate Agroecology Research Fellows (UARF) become members of the Agroecology and Livelihoods Collaborative (ALC) Community of Practice (CoP), at the University of Vermont; a transdisciplinary research and education group that engages in community-based participatory action research (PAR). Through this model, UARFs support undergraduate student engagement in an advanced agroecology course, through which a PAR process centered on soil health takes place with regional farms. This triangulated learning format involves in-class and on-farm lab work, alongside the embedded UARF enrichment program, through which agroecological principles are examined via inter- and transdisciplinary educational lenses. Within this context, the objectives of the pedagogical research presented in this paper were: 1) To analyze the ALC-UARFP perceptions of transdisciplinary co-learning through PAR, and 2) extract key lessons learned for critical pedagogy, through this model in action . Our methodological results illustrate the strength of participatory inquiry to capture stakeholder perspectives, iteratively informing the program's direction, and providing key lessons learned. Parallel to this evaluative strength, the qualitative results suggest that authentic undergraduate engagement in PAR offers great potential for the development of increasingly transformative educational programs. Further, our UARFP model, grounded in reciprocal and transdisciplinary co-learning within an agroecological community of practice, pushes the praxis needle toward a more comprehensive and critical agroecology pedagogy.
Existing scholarship on agroecology and food systems education within U.S. colleges and universities has focused primarily on preparing students to be professionals working in agrifood systems. Developing students' skills and competencies, though vitally important, may not suffice for supporting transformative learning. Transformative learning shifts students' perceptions and awareness and informs future actions, constituting a potential avenue for leveraging education to support transformations toward more socially just and ecologically viable agrifood systems. It is unclear, however, what pedagogies and educational practices enable transformative learning. This paper explores the integration of multiple pedagogical innovations within an advanced agroecology course taught at the University of Vermont. Over a decade, the teaching team has made iterative adjustments to course content and pedagogies with the goal of catalyzing action toward transforming agrifood systems. In this paper, we evaluate our pedagogical approach, asking: (1) How well do course content and pedagogy align with our definition of transformative agroecology as transdisciplinary, participatory, action-oriented, and political? (2) How well does our approach enable transformative agroecological learning, and how is that identified? We present our course evaluation as a case study comprising qualitative analyses of course syllabi, student comments on University-administered course evaluations, and most significant change (MSC) reflections. MSC reflections proved to be a valuable method for identifying and assessing transformative learning. Through a curricular review, we found that substantial changes to course content and evaluative assignments between 2010 and 2020 align with a transformative approach to agroecology. This is validated in students' MSC reflections, which provide evidence of transformative learning. In sharing evaluative results, processes, and insights, we aim to contribute to a broader movement of scholar educators committed to iteratively and collaboratively developing transformative pedagogies within agroecology and sustainable food system education. We contend that reflexive practice among educators is necessary to leverage education for transforming agrifood systems.
With the concept of resilience being increasingly applied in farming systems research, there is general agreement that the resilience theory should be supported by sound assessment methodologies. Yet, in the extant literature, definitions and measures of resilience as a system outcome, a system capability or a process are often conflated, causing conceptual and methodological ambiguities. To overcome these limitations, here we systematically review the literature on assessing the resilience of farming systems and identify patterns, including similarities and differences in underpinning theories and in methodologies. We analyzed 123 papers on how the resilience of farming systems is conceptualized and assessed. From these papers, we identified four theoretical positions (“lenses”): traditional, vulnerability, capacities, and agroecology. These lenses differ and complement each other in terms of the outcome definition of resilience (stability, transformation, and reduced vulnerability), the prominent components of resilience (capacities, practices, and resources), and the perturbations that farming systems are exposed to (shocks, exposure, and sensitivity). Collectively, these lenses offer a novel causality framework with a complementary set of causal links between perturbations, components, and outcomes. This paper suggests for the first time that resilience assessment methodologies can be further developed by drawing from the strengths and complementarities of the different perspectives. Hence, this paper identifies five design choices that need to be made in order to rigorously assess the resilience of farming systems. These concern the choice of system traits, of perturbations, of type of resilience, of contributing factors, and of resilience outcomes that will be considered.
The international and European literature and institutional contexts are fostering agrobiodiversity as the foundation of a new paradigm for localized agri-food system development and sustainability. Accordingly, new systemic and holistic theoretical approaches and conceptual models are needed. This paper aims to identify and apply a new conceptual framework contributing to the understanding of how the restoring and valorization of underutilized or neglected landraces can act as a trigger for sustainable territorial development. A new holistic model was designed for the characterization and analysis of agrobiodiversity-oriented food systems. We consider the model innovative in enhancing the conceptualization of the adoption of a socio-ecological systems approach. We applied the model to a representative case study involving the localized agri-food system of the Valtiberina Red Onion, a threatened plant landrace cultivated in Tuscany, Italy. A participatory action–research approach was followed, involving both public and private stakeholders. As the main outcome of the paper, we demonstrated the capability of our new SES model by identifying and describing the assets, drivers, human action processes and generated beneficial effects concerning the development and reproduction of landrace-based quality valorization virtuous circles. Our research findings highlighted the model as an innovative tool for the analysis of agrobiodiversity-oriented food systems sustainability. Significantly, the model was designed to identify the combined role of public policy and private action in supporting the implementation of coherent management mechanisms and effective governance settings.
In recent years, the transition to sustainability at a food systems’ scale has drawn major attention both from the scientific and political arenas. Agroecology has become central to such discussions, while impressive efforts have been made to conceptualize the agroecology scaling process. It has thus become necessary to apply the concept of agroecology transitions to the scale of food systems and in different “real-world” contexts. Scaling local agroecology experiences of production, distribution, and consumption, which are often disconnected and/or disorganized, also reveals emergent research gaps. A critical review was performed in order to establish a transdisciplinary dialogue between both political agroecology and the literature on sustainable food systems. The objective was to build insights into how to advance towards Agroecology-based Local Agri-food Systems (ALAS). Our review unveils emergent questions such as: how to overcome the metabolic rift related to segregated activities along the food chain, how to feed cities sustainably, and how they should relate to the surrounding territories, which social subjects should drive such transitions, and which governance arrangements would be needed. The paper argues in favor of the re-construction of food metabolisms, territorial flows, plural subjects and (bottom-up) governance assemblages, placing life at the center of the food system and going beyond the rural–urban divide.
Agri-food systems (AFS) have been central in the debate on sustainable development. Despite this growing interest in AFS, comprehensive analyses of the scholarly literature are hard to find. Therefore, the present systematic review delineated the contours of this growing research strand and analyzed how it relates to sustainability. A search performed on the Web of Science in January 2020 yielded 1389 documents, and 1289 were selected and underwent bibliometric and topical analyses. The topical analysis was informed by the SAFA (Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems) approach of FAO and structured along four dimensions viz. environment, economy, society and culture, and policy and governance. The review shows an increasing interest in AFS with an exponential increase in publications number. However, the study field is north-biased and dominated by researchers and organizations from developed countries. Moreover, the analysis suggests that while environmental aspects are sufficiently addressed, social, economic, and political ones are generally overlooked. The paper ends by providing directions for future research and listing some topics to be integrated into a comprehensive, multidisciplinary agenda addressing the multifaceted (un)sustainability of AFS. It makes the case for adopting a holistic, 4-P (planet, people, profit, policy) approach in agri-food system studies.
Agroecology increasingly has gained scientific and policy recognition as having potential to address environmental and social issues within food production, but concerns have been raised about its implications for food security and nutrition, particularly in low-income countries. This review paper examines recent evidence (1998–2019) for whether agroecological practices can improve human food security and nutrition. A total of 11,771 articles were screened by abstract and title, 275 articles included for full review, with 56 articles (55 cases) selected. A majority of studies (78%) found evidence of positive outcomes in the use of agroecological practices on food security and nutrition of households in low and middle-income countries. Agroecological practices included crop diversification, intercropping, agroforestry, integrating crop and livestock, and soil management measures. More complex agroecological systems, that included multiple components (e.g., crop diversification, mixed crop-livestock systems and farmer-to-farmer networks) were more likely to have positive food security and nutrition outcomes.
Agriculture is in crisis. Soil health is collapsing. Biodiversity faces the sixth mass extinction. Crop yields are plateauing. Against this crisis narrative swells a clarion call for Regenerative Agriculture. But what is Regenerative Agriculture, and why is it gaining such prominence? Which problems does it solve, and how? Here we address these questions from an agronomic perspective. The term Regenerative Agriculture has actually been in use for some time, but there has been a resurgence of interest over the past 5 years. It is supported from what are often considered opposite poles of the debate on agriculture and food. Regenerative Agriculture has been promoted strongly by civil society and NGOs as well as by many of the major multi-national food companies. Many practices promoted as regenerative, including crop residue retention, cover cropping and reduced tillage are central to the canon of ‘good agricultural practices’, while others are contested and at best niche (e.g. permaculture, holistic grazing). Worryingly, these practices are generally promoted with little regard to context. Practices most often encouraged (such as no tillage, no pesticides or no external nutrient inputs) are unlikely to lead to the benefits claimed in all places. We argue that the resurgence of interest in Regenerative Agriculture represents a re-framing of what have been considered to be two contrasting approaches to agricultural futures, namely agroecology and sustainable intensification, under the same banner. This is more likely to confuse than to clarify the public debate. More importantly, it draws attention away from more fundamental challenges. We conclude by providing guidance for research agronomists who want to engage with Regenerative Agriculture.
Los cambios experimentados desde mediados del siglo XX, como consecuencia de la industrialización de la agricultura, han favorecido la desconexión entre la producción de alimentos, la naturaleza y la sociedad. Esto nos sitúa frente a una serie de retos socio-ecológicos que necesitan ser resueltos para frenar la crisis de la agricultura de pequeña escala y el deterioro de los agroecosistemas. En contraposición a las lógicas que deslocalizan la producción del consumo y que rompen el vínculo con el territorio, diversas iniciativas están integrando prácticas crecientemente agroecológicas y adaptando sus formas de comercialización hacia modelos más sostenibles y territorializados. Con la necesidad de identificar las estrategias transformadoras en que los agricultores avanzan para crear sistemas alimentarios sostenibles, se analizan dos estudios de caso exploratorios en España (Extremadura y Asturias). Los resultados muestran cómo los enfoques cooperativos, las redes colaborativas enraizadas en el territorio y los acuerdos voluntarios de colaboración que se establecen entre diferentes agentes del sistema agroalimentario son factores clave para permitir a los pequeños productores mejorar su participación y empoderamiento en el sistema agroalimentario, a la vez que se fomentan estrategias sistémicas para cambiar los modos de producción y consumo hegemónicos.
There is increasing interest in agroecology as a way to move toward more sustainable agriculture and food systems. However, the evidence of agroecology's contribution to sustainability remains fragmented because of heterogeneous methods and data, differing scales and timeframes, and knowledge gaps.
Facing these challenges, 70 representatives of agroecology-related organizations worldwide participated in the development of the Tool for Agroecology Performance Evaluation (TAPE), to produce and consolidate evidence on the multidimensional performances of agroecological systems.
TAPE can be used (i) to assess the extent of agroecological transition among agricultural producers in a community or a territory, (ii) to monitor and evaluate projects by characterizing the initial and subsequent steps in an agroecological transition, and/or (iii) to evaluate widely diverse agricultural systems against agroecological elements and how they contribute to the achievement of the SDGs.
Its application can support the transition of all forms of agricultural systems toward more sustainable practices and the formulation of adequate policies to enable this transformation.
Preliminary results from pilot applications show that TAPE can perform in a variety of geographic regions and agroecosystems and that it allows assessment of performances of various criteria that move beyond classic indicators to begin to build a global evidence base for agroecology and support transformation to sustainable agricultural production and food systems.
Agricultural systems need to be more sustainable. Nowadays, the global food production has a remarkable impact in terms of greenhouse gases production, terrestrial acidification, eutrophication and land consumption. Moreover, one of the effects of unsustainable agriculture is depletion of ecosystem services (ES) on which agricultural systems themselves are dependent. Alternative agricultural systems are possible: the aim of this review was to analyze one of these alternative systems, i.e., strong ecological modernization, to understand relevant topics and current state of the art connected with it. As a result that strong ecological modernization can be considered an ecosystem services-based farming system, we focused on the development of topics related to ecosystem services but also to diversification. The review has been conducted applying a bibliometrics approach to recognize the main papers, authors, organization and countries, as well as trend topics and main themes investigated. The results showed that basic research content involves agrobiodiversity, agroecology and diversified farming systems. At the same time, the review revealed a lack about the social and economic dimensions of sustainability that need to be addressed for promoting a true transition to a strong ecological modernization.
There is consensus that the global food system is not delivering good nutrition for all and is causing environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity, such that a profound transformation is needed to meet the challenges of persistent malnutrition and rural poverty, aggravated by the growing consequences of climate change. Agroecological approaches have gained prominence in scientific, agricultural and political discourse in recent years, suggesting pathways to transform agricultural and food systems that address these issues. Here we present an extensive literature review of concepts, definitions and principles of agroecology, and their historical evolution, considering the three manifestations of agroecology as a science, a set of practices and a social movement; and relate them to the recent dialogue establishing a set of ten iconic elements of agroecology that have emerged from a global multi-stakeholder consultation and synthesis process. Based on this, a consolidated list of principles is developed and discussed in the context of presenting transition pathways to more sustainable food systems. The major outcomes of this paper are as follows. (1) Definition of 13 consolidated agroecological principles: recycling; input reduction; soil health; animal health; biodiversity; synergy; economic diversification; co-creation of knowledge; social values and diets; fairness; connectivity; land and natural resource governance; participation. (2) Confirmation that these principles are well aligned and complementary to the 10 elements of agroecology developed by FAO but articulate requirements of soil and animal health more explicitly and distinguish between biodiversity and economic diversification. (3) Clarification that application of these generic principles can generate diverse pathways for incremental and transformational change towards more sustainable farming and food systems. (4) Identification of four key entry points associated with the elements: diversity; circular and solidarity economy; co-creation and sharing of knowledge; and, responsible governance to enable plausible pathways of transformative change towards sustainable agriculture and food systems.
The magnitude and urgency of the challenges facing agriculture and food systems demand profound modifications in different aspects of human activity to achieve real transformative change and sustainability. Recognizing that the inherent complexity of achieving sustainability is commonly seen as a deterrent to decision-making, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has approved the 10 Elements of Agroecology as an analytical framework to support the design of differentiated paths for agriculture and food systems transformation, hence facilitating improved decision-making by policymakers, practitioners and other stakeholders in differing contexts at a range of levels on a number of scales. Biodiversity, consumers, education and governance are identified as promising entry points to build a structured process using visual narratives that rely on the 10 Elements of Agroecology to graphically dissect prospective social-ecological transition trajectories. We illustrate such applications with examples from agroforestry worldwide, public food procurement in Brazil and the United States of America, and agroecology education vis-à-vis secure access to land in Senegal. Nexus approaches are used to highlight and examine salient interactions among different sectors and entry points, and to develop visual narratives describing plausible theories of transformative change towards sustainable agriculture and food systems.
Agroecology calls for a global approach, integrating scientific, practical, and advocacy dimensions, to redesign agricultural systems based on ecological and socio-cultural processes and emphasizing biodiversity. This review is grounded on the results of DIVERSIFOOD, a European H2020 multi-actor research project, and explores the concept of cultivated diversity using various dimensions relevant to foster sustainable organic food systems and agro-ecological transition. From the evaluation of underutilized genetic resources and forgotten crops, DIVERSIFOOD has proposed plant breeding strategies, on-farm experimentation, and statistical tools to create new populations, landraces, and organic cultivars with intra-varietal diversity. The added value of Community Seed Banks and forms of collective seed management in Europe have been described in terms of goals and activities, and their value for improving seed regulations, treaties, and genetic resources management is discussed. In the context of the current agro-food system characterized by standardization, DIVERSIFOOD raised awareness of qualities of ‘biodiverse food systems’ in which all actors have a role to play. It highlighted the critical capacity to preserve a diversity of cultural values embodied in ‘biodiverse products’, thereby involving consumers in collective strategies for reviving diversity, and empowering all actors of organic food systems to really and efficiently implement research within their farms and networks.
In the face of rapidly advancing climate change, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity, it is clear that global agriculture must swiftly and decisively shift toward sustainability. Fortunately, farmers and researchers have developed a thoroughly studied pathway to this transition: agroecological farming systems that mimic natural ecosystems, creating tightly coupled cycles of energy, water, and nutrients. A critical and underappreciated feature of agroecological systems is that they replace fossil fuel- and chemical -intensive management with knowledge-intensive management. Hence, the greatest sustainability challenge for agriculture may well be that of replacing non-renewable resources with ecologically-skilled people, and doing so in ways that create and support desirable rural livelihoods. Yet over the past century, US agriculture has been trending in the opposite direction, rapidly replacing knowledgeable people with non-renewable resources and eroding rural economies in the process. Below, we suggest how US policy could pivot to enable and support the ecologically skilled workforce needed to achieve food security in the face of climate change.
Diversified farms have received considerable attention for their potential to contribute to environmentally sustainable, resilient, and socially just food systems. In response, some governments are building new forms of public support for social-ecological services through the creation of mediated markets, such as targeted public food procurement programs. Here, we examine the relationship between farmer participation in Brazil’s National School Feeding Program and farm diversification and household autonomy, as key indicators of farm household resilience. We hypothesized that two key features of the food procurement program—structured demand for diversified food products, and a price premium for certified organic and agroecological production—would increase farm-level agrobiodiversity and the use of agroecological practices. We designed a comparative study between family farmers who do, and do not, participate in Brazil’s National School Feeding Program in the plateau region of Santa Catarina in Southern Brazil. We used semi-structured surveys to collect data on farm agrobiodiversity, management practices, and farm household autonomy, and we conducted land use history assessments. Here, we suggest for the first time that the National School Feeding Program played a role in driving the following: (1) transitions on family farms from low agrobiodiversity, input-intensive farming systems to diversified farming systems (i.e., horticultural production) and (2) a significant increase in the cropped area under diversified farming systems. This transition was supported by making horticultural production an economically viable alternative to field crops typically linked to volatile, unpredictable markets. The convergence of public policies supporting mediated markets, increased farm household autonomy, and farm diversification represents an integrated mechanism with the potential to enhance food system resilience.
The need to reconnect agriculture, environment, food, and health when addressing agrifood system transitions is widely acknowledged. However, most analytical frameworks, especially in the expanding literature about “system approaches”, rely on impact-based approaches and, thus, tend to overlook ecological processes as well as social ones. This article aims at demonstrating that a territorial approach to agrifood system transitions is more appropriate to tackle the reconnection between agriculture, food, environment, and health than the larger scales (global or national food systems) or the smaller ones (such as those of alternative food systems) usually addressed in the literature. Co-elaborated by a sociologist, an ecologist, and a nutritionist, this article is based on a focused analysis of the literature that has addressed agrifood system transitions in the food and health sciences and in the social sciences and on the reflexive analysis of two past projects dealing with such transitions. It shows that a territorial approach allows including in the analysis the diverse agrifood systems’ components as well the ecological and social processes that may create functionalities for improving agrifood systems’ sustainability. This territorial approach is based on systemic and processual thinking and on a transdisciplinary perspective combining an objectification stance and a pragmatist constructivist one. It should allow actors and researchers to build a shared understanding of the transition processes within their shared territorial agrifood system, despite possibly different and diverging views.
Dominant food systems are configured from the productivist paradigm, which focuses on producing large amounts of inexpensive and standardized foods. Although these food systems continue being supported worldwide, they are no longer considered fit-for-purpose as they have been proven unsustainable in environmental and social terms. A large body of scientific literature argues that a transition from the dominant food systems to alternative ones built around the wider principles of sustainable production and rural development is needed. Promoting such a sustainability transition would benefit from a diagnosis of food system types to identify those systems that may harbor promising characteristics for a transition to sustainable food systems. While research on food system transitions abounds, an operational approach to characterize the diversity of food systems taking a system perspective is still lacking. In this paper we review the literature on how transitions to sustainable food systems may play out and present a framework based on the Multi-Level Perspective on Socio-Technical Transitions, which builds upon conceptual developments from social and natural science disciplines. The objectives of the framework are to (i) characterize the diversity of existing food systems at a certain geographical scale based on a set of structural characteristics and (ii) classify the food systems in terms of their support by mainstream practices, i.e., dominant food systems connected to regimes; deviate radically from them, niche food systems such as those based on grassroots innovation; or share elements of dominant and niche food systems, i.e., hybrid food systems. An example is given of application of our framework to vegetable food systems with a focus on production, distribution, and consumption of low-or-no pesticide vegetables in Chile. Drawing on this illustrative example we reflect on usefulness, shortcomings, and further development and use of the diagnostic framework.
Current patterns of global change are threatening the supply of agrarian ecosystem services on which human well-being depends. Within this context, agroecology has emerged within political and scientific arenas as a socially equitable and ecologically sustainable alternative to conventional agriculture. We performed a systematic literature review to explore how agroecology and the ecosystem services framework have been adopted together in the scientific literature, focusing on studies including empirical data on the effects of agroecological practices on the supply of ecosystem services. In our search, we combined terms related to agricultural practices and terms related to ecosystem services. A total of 179 scientific articles were analyzed. Most of the studies used a biophysical approach to evaluate ecosystem services, with regulating and provisioning services being more frequently analyzed than cultural services. More than half of the analyzed relationships between agroecological practices and ecosystem services were positive. Remarkably, our review showed that many of the ten elements of agroecology defined by the FAO have not been properly addressed in the literature. Finally, we identified research gaps and provided insights on where future research and policies should be focused in order to promote the transition towards sustainable agrarian social-ecological systems that increase the supply of ecosystem services while minimizing environmental impacts.
Organic and low-input food systems are emerging worldwide in answer to the sustainability crisis of the conventional agri-food sector. "Alternative" systems are based on local, decentralized approaches to production and processing, regarding quality and health, and short supply-chains for products with strong local identities. Diversity is deeply embedded in these food systems, from the agrobiodiversity grown in farmers' fields, which improves resilience and adaptation, to diverse approaches, contexts and actors in food manufacturing and marketing. Diversity thus becomes a cross-sectoral issue which acknowledges consumers' demand for healthy products. In the framework of the European project "CERERE, CEreal REnaissance in Rural Europe: embedding diversity in organic and low-input food systems", the paper aims at reviewing recent research on alternative and sustainable food systems by adopting an innovative and participatory multi-actor approach; this has involved ten practitioners and twenty-two researchers from across Europe and a variety of technical backgrounds in the paper and analysis stages. The participatory approach is the main innovation and distinctive feature of this literature review. Partners selected indeed what they perceived as most relevant in order to facilitate a transition towards more sustainable and diversity based cereal systems and food chains. This includes issues related to alternative food networks, formal and informal institutional settings, grass root initiatives, consumer involvement and, finally, knowledge exchange and sustainability. The review provides an overview of recent research that is relevant to CERERE partners as well as to anyone interested in alternative and sustainable food systems. The main objective of this paper was indeed to present a narrative of studies, which can form the foundation for future applied research to promote alternative methods of cereal production in Europe.
The Mediterranean agro-food systems need to be properly managed. A promising pathway is the transition towards more sustainable food systems through agroecology, which represents the ecology of food systems. In this paper, the state-of-the-art of agroecology is described for three representative euro-Mediterranean countries: Italy, Greece, and Spain. The analysis has been partly based on results of a dedicated literature search and partly on grey literature and expert knowledge. After an overview of the history of agroecology, targeted research and education, collective action (political and social), and some agroecological practices in the three countries are presented. These countries share a rather similar use of the term “agroecology”, but they differ regarding (i) the existence/extent of strong civil and social movements; (ii) the type of study/educational programmes, and the relative importance of different scientific disciplines and their evolution; (iii) the development of political support and legal frameworks; and (iv) the elaboration of concepts to rediscover traditional practices and apply new ones, often taken from the organic agriculture sector. Agroecology is an emerging concept for the Mediterranean agricultural sector, with huge potential due to the peculiar socio-cultural, bio-physical, and political-economic features of the region. To boost agroecology in Mediterranean Europe, better networking and engagement of different actors within a coherent institutional framework supporting the transition is strongly needed.
Agriculture in Europe results in the production of food for both the European population and for the export sector. Significant environmental and social problems have emerged with the intensification of European agriculture. These include the loss of biodiversity, the contamination of soils, water, and food with pesticides, and the eutrophication of water bodies. Industrialized agricultural and food systems are also a major contributing factor in the decline of farm numbers, and the high use of antibiotics has led to serious human health problems. In this respect, agroecology can provide insights into important pathways and guide the design, development, and promotion of the transition towards sustainable farming and food systems. An analysis of the major challenges for the amplification of agroecology in Europe was carried out by 310 stakeholders in a World Café exercise and 23 sessions and workshops during the Agroecology Europe Forum 2017. The different challenges that were identified can be grouped into seven categories: (1) definition and concepts; (2) education, training, and knowledge sharing; (3) research approach and funding; (4) policies; (5) productivity and practices; (5) food systems and consumer awareness; and (6) co-optation. To address these challenges, the following key actions are recommended: (1) to develop a common understanding of agroecology; (2) to enhance education in agroecology and knowledge exchange; (3) to invest in agroecological research; (4) to develop policies enhancing agroecology; (5) to support new and existing agroecological practices; (6) to transform food systems; and (7) to strengthen communication and alliances. In this paper we present and discuss these recommendations for pathways and actions to develop sustainable agro-food systems in Europe through agroecology.
Agroecology is considered with different focus and weight in different parts of the world as a social and political movement, as science, and as practice. Despite its multitude of definitions, agroecology has begun in Europe to develop in different regional, national and continental networks of researchers, practitioners, advocates and movements. However, there is a lack of a comprehensive overview about these different developments and networks. Therefore, this paper attempts to document and provide a mapping of the development of European agroecology in its diverse forms. Through a literature review, interviews, active conference participation, and an extensive internet search we have collected information about the current state and development of agroecology in Europe. Agroecological research and higher education exist more in western and northern Europe, but farm schools and farmer-to-farmer training are also present in other regions. Today a large variety of topics are studied at research institutions. There is an increasing number of bottom-up agroecological initiatives and national or continental networks and movements. Important movements are around food sovereignty, access to land and seeds. Except for France, there are very few concrete policies for agroecology in Europe. Agroecology is increasingly linked to different fields of agri-food systems. This includes Community Supported Agriculture systems, but also agroecological territories, and some examples of labelling products. To amplify agroecology in Europe in the coming years, policy development will be crucial and proponents of agroecology must join forces and work hand-in-hand with the many stakeholders engaged in initiatives to develop more sustainable agriculture and food systems.
Transitioning toward more sustainable agricultural development paths requires extensive change and not simply marginal technical adjustments, as suggested by a strong conception of agroecology. To deal with transition, we believe that agroecology can be enriched by a deep analysis of sustainability transition frameworks and, conversely, that preexisting theories can be questioned in light of the specificities of agroecological transitions (AET). We first examine some of the main sustainability transition frameworks (resilience of social-ecological systems, institutional analysis and development of social-ecological systems, and socio-technical transition). We identify their ontologies to question their ability to be combined without deep adjustments. In a second step, we analyze how these frameworks have been used and questioned by researchers from the life sciences or social sciences in four AET studies. We find that each framework is relevant in its systemic and dynamic approach to change, but also that there are limits concerning the balance between the various dimensions. The scales and processes linked to AET must be taken into account, as well as the way to jointly consider ecological, socioeconomic, and technological aspects. Moreover, it is clear that problems in dealing with agency are common to these approaches, which influences the way to model change. More broadly, sustainability transition frameworks need to account better for ecological and technological materialities and processes, the importance of emergent organizations in singular situations, and learning processes and the diversity of knowledge dynamics. Doing so is challenging because it requires regrounding theories in empirical observations as well as questioning disciplinary frontiers and ontologies.
Key words: agroecology; social-ecological systems; socio-technical systems; sustainability transition
The definition of Agroecology as a science, as a movement, and as a practice is widely accepted worldwide. But these three approaches are in fact interrelated elements which cannot be separated one from the others. They rather articulate among them to reflect different mental models and narratives all willing to tackle the unsustainability of food systems. However, this fragmentation, together with the late development of policy proposals to promote agroecology at higher scales (political agroecology), has facilitated the emergence of different narratives in the political area, in a process of resignification of what is agroecology. Through a lexicometric analysis of policy documents from different political actors (civil society, governments, and intergovernmental organizations) which self-claim to promote agroecology, I identify five narratives in the political arena, which put different emphasis on the different dimensions of agroecology and on different scales (from farm to the food system).
There is ongoing debate among stakeholders about the future development of agricultural and food systems to meet the global challenges of food supply, biological and cultural diversity, climate change, and social justice. Among other options, agroecology and organic agriculture are discussed. Both have similar goals and use a systems approach; however, they are recognised and received differently by stakeholders. Here we review and compare principles and practices defined and described in EU organic agriculture regulations, International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM) norms, and agroecology scientific literature. The main finding are as follows: (1) Regarding principles, EU organic regulations mainly focus on appropriate design and management of biological processes based on ecological systems, restriction of external inputs, and strict limitation of chemical inputs. IFOAM principles are very broad and more complete, and include a holistic and systemic vision of sustainability. Agroecology has a defined set of principles for the ecological management of agri-food systems, which also includes some socio-economic principles. (2) Many proposed cropping practices are similar for EU organic, IFOAM, and agroecology, e.g. soil tillage, soil fertility and fertilisation, crop and cultivar choice, crop rotation, as well as pest, disease and weed management. In contrast, the origin and quantity of products potentially used for soil fertilisation and pest, disease, and weed management are different. Additionally, some practices are only mentioned for one of the three sources. (3) In animal production, only a few proposed practices are similar for EU organic, IFOAM, and agroecology. These include integration of cropping and animal systems and breed choice. In contrast, practices for animal management, prevention methods in animal health, animal housing, animal welfare, animal nutrition, and veterinary management are defined or described differently. (4) Related to food systems, organic agriculture focusses on technical aspects, such as food processing, while in agroecology there is a prominent debate between a transformative and conformative agenda. Both agroecology and organic agriculture offer promising contributions for the future development of sustainable agricultural production and food systems, especially if their principles and practices converge to a transformative approach and that impedes the conventionalisation of agro-food systems.
There is increasing recognition in academic circles of the importance of adaptive governance for the sustainability of social-ecological systems, but little examination of specific implications for the 34% of land-use where human activities are pervasive but potentially commensurate with functioning ecosystems: agricultural production systems. In this paper, we argue for the need to view food systems and agro-ecosystems as multi-scalar complex adaptive systems and identify five key challenging characteristics of such systems: multi-causality; cumulative impacts; regime shifts; teleconnections and mismatch of scales. These characteristics are necessary features of multi-scalar adaptive systems, and apply equally to social and natural subsystems. We discuss the implications of these characteristics for agricultural production systems and consider how governance can rise to these challenges. We present five case studies that highlight these issues: pollinator declines; payments for ecosystem services; pest control and pesticide resistance; downstream aquatic systems in Tasman Bay, New Zealand; and riparian buffers in Puget Sound, USA. From these case studies we derive recommendations for managing agricultural systems, both specific and general. Ultimately, adaptive governance of agro-ecosystems will likely hinge upon three paradigm shifts: viewing farmers and ranchers not only as food producers but also as land and water managers; seeking not yield maximization but rather resilient management of food ecosystems; and critically, as it transcends the production-system literature, engaging broad audiences not only as consumers but also citizens.
Literature reviews establish the foundation of academic inquires. However, in the planning field, we lack rigorous systematic reviews. In this article, through a systematic search on the methodology of literature review, we categorize a typology of literature reviews, discuss steps in conducting a systematic literature review, and provide suggestions on how to enhance rigor in literature reviews in planning education and research.
An ecologically sustainable and socially equitable food system, one that restores ecosystem services, enhances human welfare, and promotes community-based economic development, is urgently needed. Applied agroecological research and the development of regional and community food systems are key means through which pressing ecological and social externalities may be mitigated. However, progress in both of these areas has been limited, particularly in the USA, with constraints in each likely holding the other back. In this article, we first review and explore how public investment in agroe-cology research and development has been limited in the USA. We then discuss how agricultural research funds could be shifted to better support the development of more resilient and equitable food systems. Finally, we explore a broader set of structural obstacles to food system change and identify key policies that could work jointly to strengthen a positive feedback cycle of research, policy, education and practice. Such a feedback cycle could work to accelerate a transition to ecological farming and food system norms that enhance natural resources sustainability, equity and resilience.
In most current farming system classifications (e.g. “conventional” versus “organic”) each type of farming system encompasses a wide variety of farming practices and performances. Classifying farming systems using concepts such as “ecological”, “sustainable intensification” or “agroecology” is not satisfactory because the concepts “overlap in…definitions, principles and practices, thus creating…confusion in their meanings, interpretations and implications”. Existing classifications most often focus either on biotechnical functioning or socio-economic contexts of farming systems. We reviewed the literature to develop an original analytical framework of the diversity of farming systems and agriculture models that deals with these limits. To describe this framework, we first present the main differences between three biotechnical types of farming systems differing in the role of ecosystem services and external inputs: chemical input-, biological input- and biodiversity-based farming systems. Second, we describe four key socio-economic contexts which determine development and functioning of these farming systems: globalised commodity-based food systems, circular economies, alternative food systems and integrated landscape approaches. Third, we present our original analytical framework of agriculture models, defined as biotechnical types of farming systems associated with one or a combination of socio-economic contexts differing in the role of relationships based on global market prices and “territorial embeddedness”. We demonstrate the potential of this framework by describing six key agriculture models and reviewing key scientific issues in agronomy associated with each one. We then analyse the added value of our analytical framework and its generic character. Lastly, we discuss transversal research issues of the agriculture models, concerning the technologies required, their function in the bio-economy, their multi-criteria and multi-level assessments, their co-existence and the transitions between them.
Global agriculture is facing growing challenges at the nexus of interconnected food, energy and water systems, including but not limited to persistent food insecurity and diet-related diseases; growing demands for energy and consequences for climate change; and declining water resources, water pollution, floods and droughts. Further, soil degradation and biodiversity loss are both triggers for and consequences of these problems. In this commentary, we argue that expanding agroecological principles, tools, and technologies and enhancing biological diversity can address these challenges and achieve better socioeconomic outcomes. Agroecology is often described as multi- or transdiscplinary, and applies ecological principles to the design and management of agricultural systems through scientific research, practice and collective action. While agroecology has roots in the study of food systems, agricultural land use has many direct and indirect linkages to water and energy systems that could benefit from agroecological insights, including use of water resources and the development of bio-based energy products. Although opportunities from the science and the practice of agroecology transcend national boundaries, obstacles to widespread adoption vary. In this article, we therefore focus on the United States, where key barriers include a shortage of research funds, limited supporting infrastructure, and cultural obstacles. Nevertheless, simply scaling up current models of agricultural production and land use practices will not solve many of the issues specific to food related challenges nor would such an approach address related energy and water concerns. We conclude that a first critical step to discovering solutions at the food, energy, water nexus will be to move past yield as a sole measure of success in agricultural systems, and call for more holistic considerations of the co-benefits and tradeoffs of different agricultural management options, particularly as they relate to environmental and equity outcomes.
Agroecology involves various approaches to solve actual challenges of agricultural production. Though agroecology initially dealt primarily with crop production and protection aspects, in recent decades new dimensions such as environmental, social, economic, ethical and development issues are becoming relevant. Today, the term 'agroecology' means either a scientific discipline, agricultural practice, or political or social movement. Here we study the different meanings of agroecology. For that we analyse the historical development of agroecology. We present examples from USA, Brazil, Germany, and France. We study and discuss the evolution of different meanings agroecology. The use of the term agroecology can be traced back to the 1930s. Until the 1960s agroecology referred only as a purely scientific discipline. Then, different branches of agroecology developed. Following environmental movements in the 1960s that went against industrial agriculture, agroecology evolved and fostered agroecological movements in the 1990s. Agroecology as an agricultural practice emerged in the 1980s, and was often intertwined with movements. Further, the scales and dimensions of agroecological investigations changed over the past 80 years from the plot and field scales to the farm and agroecosystem scales. Actually three approaches persist: ( 1) investigations at plot and field scales, ( 2) investigations at the agroecosystem and farm scales, and ( 3) investigations covering the whole food system. These different approaches of agroecological science can be explained by the history of nations. In France, agroecology was mainly understood as a farming practice and to certain extent as a movement, whereas the corresponding scientific discipline was agronomy. In Germany, agroecology has a long tradition as a scientific discipline. In the USA and in Brazil all three interpretations of agroecology occur, albeit with a predominance of agroecology as a science in the USA and a stronger emphasis on movement and agricultural practice in Brazil. These varied meanings of the term agroecology cause confusion among scientists and the public, and we recommend that those who publish using this term be explicit in their interpretation.
Ecological impacts of industrial agriculture include significant greenhouse gas emissions, loss of
biodiversity, widespread pollution by fertilizers and pesticides, soil loss and degradation, declining
pollinators, and human health risks, among many others. A rapidly growing body of scientific research,
however, suggests that farming systems designed and managed according to ecological principles can
meet the food needs of society while addressing these pressing environmental and social issues. The
promise of such systems implies an urgent need for increasing the scope and scale of this area of research
– agroecology. Notably, agroecological systems have been shown to reduce input dependency and
therefore related research is unlikely to be supported by the private sector. Yet, the amount of federal
funding available for agroecology has remained unclear. To address this gap in knowledge, we identified
projects beginning in 2014 from the USDA Current Research Information System (CRIS) database and
searched key sections of project reports for major components emphasizing sustainable agriculture,
including agroecology. Components were grouped into four levels according to their focus on: improving
system efficiency to reduce the use of inputs (L1), substituting more sustainable inputs and practices into
farming systems (L2), redesigning systems based on ecological principles (L3: agroecology), or
reestablishing connections between producers and consumers to support a socio-ecological
transformation of the food system (L4: social dimensions of agroecology). We identified 824 projects,
which accounted for 294 million of analyzed
funds, 18–36% went to projects that included a L1 component. Projects including components in L2, L3,
or L4 received just 24%, 15%, and 14% of analyzed funds, respectively. Systems-based projects that
included both agroecological farming practices (L3) and support for socioeconomic sustainability (L4)
were particularly poorly funded (4%), as were L3 projects that included complex rotations (3%), spatially
diversified farms (3%), rotational or regenerative grazing (1%), integrated crop-livestock systems (1%), or
agroforestry (<1%). We estimated that projects with an emphasis on agroecology, indicated by those
with a minimum or overall level of L3, represented 5–10% of analyzed funds (equivalent to only 0.6–1.5%
of the 2014 REE budget). Results indicate that increased funding is urgently needed for REE, especially for
systems-based research in biologically diversified farming and ranching systems.
Concerns about the negative impacts of productivist agriculture have led to the emergence of two forms of ecological modernisation of agriculture. The first, efficiency-substitution agriculture, aims to improve input use efficiency and to minimise environmental impacts of modern farming systems. It is currently the dominant modernisation pathway. The second, biodiversity-based agriculture, aims to develop ecosystem services provided by biological diversity. It currently exists only as a niche. Here we review challenges of implementing biodiversity-based agriculture: managing, at the local level, a consistent transition within and among farming systems, supply chains and natural resource management. We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of existing conceptual frameworks developed to analyse farming, social-ecological and socio-technical systems. Then we present an integrative framework tailored for structuring analysis of agriculture from the perspective of developing a territorial biodiversity-based agriculture. In addition, we propose a par-ticipatory methodology to design this agroecological transition at the local level. This design methodology was developed to support a multi-stakeholder arena in analysing the current situation, identifying future exogenous changes and designing (1) targeted territorial biodiversity-based agriculture, (2) the pathway of the transition and (3) the required adaptive governance structures and management strategies. We conclude by analysing key challenges of designing such a complex transition, developing multi-actor and multi-domain approaches based on a combination of scientific and experiential knowledge and on building suitable boundary objects (computer-based and conceptual models, indicators, etc.) to assess innovative systems designed by stakeholders.
This article traces multiple directions in the evolution of agroecology, from its early emphasis on ecological processes in agricultural systems, to its emergence as a multidimensional approach focusing on broader agro-food systems. This review is timely, as agroecology is being increasingly applied within a diversity of scientific-, policy-, and farmer-based initiatives. We contrast different agroecological perspectives or agroecologies and discuss the characteristics of an agroecology characterized by a transdisciplinary, participatory and action-oriented approach. Our final discussion describes the contents of the special issue, and states our goal for this compilation, which is to encourage future work that embraces an agroecological approach grounded in transdisciplinarity, participation, and transformative action.
Intensive agriculture has led to several drawbacks
such as biodiversity loss, climate change, erosion, and pollution
of air and water. A potential solution is to implement
management practices that increase the level of provision of
ecosystem services such as soil fertility and biological
regulation. There is a lot of literature on the principles of
agroecology. However, there is a gap of knowledge between
agroecological principles and practical applications. Therefore,
we review here agroecological and management sciences
to identify two facts that explain the lack of practical applications:
(1) the occurrence of high uncertainties about relations
between agricultural practices, ecological processes, and
ecosystem services, and (2) the site-specific character of
agroecological practices required to deliver expected ecosystem
services. We also show that an adaptive-management
approach, focusing on planning and monitoring, can serve as
a framework for developing and implementing learning tools
tailored for biodiversity-based agriculture. Among the current
learning tools developed by researchers, we identify two main
types of emergent support tools likely to help design diversified
farming systems and landscapes: (1) knowledge basescontaining scientific supports and experiential knowledge
and (2) model-based games. These tools have to be coupled
with well-tailored field or management indicators that allow
monitoring effects of practices on biodiversity and ecosystem
services. Finally, we propose a research agenda that requires
bringing together contributions from agricultural, ecological,
management, and knowledge management sciences, and asserts
that researchers have to take the position of “integration
and implementation sciences.”
Initiatives intended to create alternatives to the conventional, industrialized, global food system are now emerging. Conceptual framings of alternative food systems have been based principally on the reflections of academics and policy specialists rather than on the views of the producers and eaters who constitute the bulk of the food localization movement. At a conference hosted by the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, we explored the attributes of food system sustainability with 125 persons representing a broad cross section of the alternative farm/food community. Dividing into five discussion groups, participants were asked what the characteristics of a sustainable food system would be. From their statements we abstracted a set of attributes. Participants envisioned a sustainable food system as relational, proximate, diverse, ecologically sustainable, economically sustaining, just/ethical, sacred, knowledgeable/communicative, seasonal/temporal, healthful, participatory, culturally nourishing, and sustainably regulated. We explain these attributes and note their complementarities and tensions.
Despite the increasingly widespread use of the term agroecology by farmers, scientists, agrarian social movements, and lawmakers, the definition of the concept is still the object of controversies. Current interpretations range widely, from fully transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary definitions integrating ecological, socioeconomic, and political dimensions of agriculture, to more narrow definitions of agroecology as a discipline bridging ecology and agronomy. No less importantly, few actors have developed criteria and methodologies to identify and evaluate agroecological systems based on both ecological and socioeconomic dimensions. The lack of consistency in the study and application of “agroecology,” resulting from varying definitions for agroecology and the absence of standardized methodologies to identify agroecological systems, is problematic. It limits the recognition of associated benefits and disadvantages of different agroecological systems, as well as the identification of drivers that favor the implementation of agroecological practices. While lessons learned from individual case studies are valuable and showcase the potential of agroecology, results are not always relevant to other contexts. Here, we review existing theoretical and empirical agroecological literature. The major points that emerge are the following: (1) we integrate six historical ecological principles with seven socioeconomic principles to propose an overarching framework for recognizing systems oriented towards agroecology; (2) the implementation of different principles may vary greatly across spatial scales or governance contexts; (3) there are numerous barriers that farmers may face in their transition towards an agroecological “ideal”—this highlights the need for improved recognition of systems in transition, as well as the need for supportive policies to scale up agroecology. The application of two complementary methodological approaches presented in our review has the potential to help practitioners evaluate to what extent a system can be considered as agroecological based on ecological and socioeconomic principles.
Alternative food systems and networks, which have emerged around the world, are often fragmentary, reduced in size and frequently unfold in parallel, hardly linked to each other. Agroecology faces the challenge of scaling up these initiatives to gain size and a significant impact on food production and consumption. Within the agroecological movement, however, diverse conceptions exist of what a sustainable food system should be. It is thus necessary to reach an extensive consensus, from the perspective of agroecology, on the principles guiding the construction of such a system. This paper discusses the principles that would best steer the building of Agroecology-based Local Agri-food Systems (ALAS). To this end, a critical review of the scientific literature on alternative food networks and systems was performed. In so doing, we highlighted the aspects that one could consider as purely agroecological in nature and sought to bring them together to form a coherent proposal. Consequently, the present paper systematizes the main contributions of literature on alternative food networks and systems, taking into account the characteristics of sustainability from an agroecology viewpoint, and identifies the issues requiring further development. Several principles are proposed to define local food systems, based on the four dimensions of sustainability: environmental health, economic viability, social equity and the right to decide what, how and for whom food is produced.
Agroecology, as a science for the study, design and management of sustainable food systems, retakes epistemic, methodological and practical approaches of transdisciplinarity. However, there is not a unanimous understanding of these approaches and few studies investigate its implementation. Transdisciplinarity is defined lato sensu as the practices of collaboration and knowledge integration between non-academic actors and scientists. This approach is at stake in Europe, especially in the field of food systems. Our aim is to analyze the magnitude, conceptions and praxis of works from European agroecologists claiming transdisciplinarity. Based upon a content analysis of publications and interviews with some of their authors, our results show that, although there is a growing literature on transdisciplinarity in Europe, the proportion of publications is low compared to the overall publications in agroecology. Despite the global aspiration of using it as an approach to achieve cognitive justice and horizontal knowledge construction, our typology of transdisciplinarity in practice shows a diversity of patterns. Four clusters were identified, ranging from genuine co-creation of knowledge to uneven collaborations between scientists and stakeholders, thus questioning scholars’ responsibility As a nascent and promising domain, transdisciplinarity in agroecology should be encouraged in European research and experiences capitalized.
It has been widely argued that agroecological science, which originally developed as the application of ecological principles to agricultural systems, should engage with the social and political issues that affect production agriculture, and incorporate knowledge from a variety of sources. In this paper we use techniques from network science and bibliometrics to evaluate the degree to which this transformation has taken place. By creating networks based on over 3,000 agroecology papers and the roughly 160,000 references they cite, we distinguish the sub-fields ("research fronts") that made up agroecology in three time intervals: 1982 - 2004, 2005 - 2013, and 2014 - 2018. We also identify the main disciplines from which the research fronts in 2014 - 2018 drew their supporting knowledge. We suggest that, very broadly, themes in agroecological research include: Ecosystem services; (agro)biodiversity; approaches to agricultural intensification; tropical agroecosystems (particularly coffee); pest and weed management; organic agriculture; cropping systems; system transitions, modeling and design; climate change adaptation; food sovereignty; education; and the nature and purpose of agroecology itself. Some research fronts mainly cite papers in natural science fields such as ecology, environmental science, agriculture, and entomology. However, others draw upon work in social science areas including development studies, environmental studies, and anthropology. The analysis presented in this paper demonstrates that agroecology has indeed evolved to possess many of the characteristics of an "ecology of [the entire] food system". We anticipate that this work will also be of use to those wishing to gain an overview of the field or identify key papers, knowledge gaps and potential collaborations.
As society moves closer to sustainability, recycling becomes one of the core concepts of sustainable behaviors. Recycling behavior research is receiving extensive attention from various disciplines because of the needing increasing prioritization of resource recovery and management by policymakers and industry. Thise article provides a clear view of the progression of publications and research diversification within the domain. The 788 articles which focused on consumers’ or households’ recycling behavior were analyzed using software. Resources, Conservation and Recycling was the top contributing journal, and Stewart Barr was the top contributing author. With the help of citation analysis and bibliographic coupling, the intellectual structure of recycling behavior research was obtained, showing that the research had diversified into seven identifiable clusters. The research in the area was initially more focused on environmental behaviors and their determinants, household recycling behavior and behavioral theories like the Theory of Planned Behavior. Other focused areas that aid in research progression were spillover effects, past behavior, habits and behavior change. These clusters further provided the base for research on recycling behavior towards specific product categories. The content analysis of the lead papers in each cluster further helps in disclosing the foundations of and future directions of research.
The pivotal role of social capital in smallholder agriculture is widely acknowledged. The growth effect of social capital manifests in how networks and trust facilitate access to productive resources and knowledge sharing among farmers. While sub-Saharan Africa is considered a storehouse of rich social capital, recent literature indicates its rapid depletion due mainly to the rise of capitalist agriculture and concomitant reorganization of the relations of production that characterize smallholder agriculture. Agroecology is an alternative approach to agriculture aimed at addressing the adverse impacts of capitalist agriculture, including improving farmer-to-farmer networks. In this paper, we draw on longitudinal data from a five-year participatory agroecology intervention in Malawi using Difference-in-Difference (DID) to compare the social capital endowment of agroecology-practicing households (n = 514) and a control group of non-agroecology households (n = 400). We further employed linear regression to examine the relationship between social capital and agroecology adoption. Results from the DID analysis show a positive and statistically significant change in mean social capital for participatory agroecology households (β = 0.325, p< 0.001) compared to non-agroecology households (β = 0.108) after accounting for theoretically relevant factors. Overall, the average treatment effect of the intervention on social capital was positive (β = 0.217, p< 0.01). We also found a bidirectional relationship between social capital and adoption of agroecology practices (β = 0.12, p< 0.001). These findings reveal the positive inroads of agroecology beyond the farm-level and demonstrate the potential for policymakers to leverage these benefits to promote sustainable agriculture.
The increasing diversity of food networks and initiatives has given rise to a variety of analyses and approaches among which the literature on “Alternative Food Networks” (AFN) and the “quality turn” stand out for the role of European and more specifically French and Italian contributions and the richness of the debates between authors from different horizons. These debates focus especially on the transformative power of alternative and/or quality food networks at the scale of larger agrifood systems and the risks of territorial and social inequity that they may embody, thus raising social justice issues. However, in the AFN literature, the central focus on specific networks (mostly emanating from the civil society) often leads to overlook the effects of possible interactions between different networks and stakeholders, while in the “quality” literature, the central focus on specialty products often leads to a lack of consideration of entire food diets and agrifood systems as well as social justice issues. Based on a focused critical review of these literature, we thus argue for an intertwined approach that aims at assessing food systems as territorial constructions. In this purpose, our approach defines the research object by starting from a hypothesis of territorial assemblage instead of from specific initiatives considered in isolation. This allows taking into account various initiatives, different ambitions and their combined effects in facilitating – or not – just sustainable transitions. We do not base our argument on an optimistic vision of the potentials of hybridisations and combinations, but rather on a critical perspective focused on the effects of the alternative/conventional confrontations (and controversies) in terms of “re-differentiation” processes. Based on two case studies in Southern France and Northern Italy, we demonstrate how this approach can be applied and contribute to wider debates over the key questions related to the AFNs’ transformative power and social justice.
Agroecology potentially offers a sustainable path to agricultural development as it integrates ecological principles and social and economic concerns into agri-food systems. While many descriptive studies have documented the experience of farming communities using agroecological approaches, evidence on social and economic indicators of agroecology is poorly documented in a quantitative sense. The present study aims to build a framework and provide a quantitative overview of the effects of adopting selected agroecological practices at the farm level. A literature review has been conducted in order to identify scientific work addressing the contribution of agroecology to a set of socioeconomic indicators, which affect human, financial and social assets. Data extracted from 17 peer-reviewed papers were analysed using two techniques: vote counting and general linear mixed-effects models on effect sizes. We found preliminary evidence of agroecology's positive contribution to improving financial capital. However, data extracted does not provide meaningful information on other capital endowments (human and social). This is mainly due to the fact that there is a lack of data concerning the socioeconomic impact of agroecology. In addition, qualitative methods (e.g. Q-methodology) should be integrated into further research in order to capture farmer perspectives.
Agricultural developments over the previous half-century have highly increased food, feed and fiber production. Yet, global food output and distribution still falls short of feeding the world with unintended harm to the environment and society. Agriculture requires new approaches that meet the challenges of sustainable and equitable food production. One prevailing alternative, agroecology, is an approach that promotes environmental conservation, ecosystem health and social equality in the global food system. However, the field of agroecology remains disjointed by a number of working definitions and conflicting agendas. Lack of a clear definition of the term can lead to misuse or overgeneralization that hinders effective dialog, collaboration, and development of the discipline.
We conducted a literature review to determine trends in current usage of the term ‘agroecology’ and to offer an approach to developing a unified agroecological framework. Our findings suggests that diverse agendas in agroecology can be unified through the fundamental principles of systems thinking, resilience, biodiversity, and production. We found that the agroecological literature continues to grow at a rapid rate. Agroecological practices are discussed more often than principles, though almost half of publications already use the term systems approach. Biodiversity and resilience are not as well represented in the literature, though resilience is increasingly used in recent papers. The diverse perspectives and agendas encompassed by agroecology are a strength of the discipline when communicated within a clear and open dialog. Improving cohesion among agroecologists through a focus on defining foundational principles will broaden the credibility of agroecology in science and public opinion.
The development of sustainable agricultural and food systems is of significant importance considering the still-growing world population. For this, it is imperative to consider not only quantitative production issues, but also environmental issues such as water pollution, biodiversity loss, and land degradation as well as social and economic issues such as organization of supply chains and communication and coordination among stakeholders. However, the development of sustainable agricultural and food systems is so far almost exclusively proposed either at the scale of specific agricultural systems or for selected supply chains. Still strongly neglected is the development of sustainable systems at a territorial scale. We, therefore, present here the concept of agroecology territories. We define agroecology territories as places where a transition process toward sustainable agriculture and food systems is engaged. Three major domains must to be considered for the transition to take place: adaptation of agricultural practices; conservation of biodiversity and natural resources; and development of embedded food systems. Stakeholder group strategies, developed by those who actively engage in these three domains and are themselves actors in the transition, are integral to agroecology territories.
Diverse, severe, and location-specific impacts on agricultural production are anticipated with climate change. The last IPCC report indicates that the rise of CO 2 and associated " greenhouse " gases could lead to a 1.4 to 5.8 °C increase in global surface temperatures, with subsequent consequences on precipitation frequency and amounts. Temperature and water availability remain key factors in determining crop growth and productivity; predicted changes in these factors will lead to reduced crop yields. Climate-induced changes in insect pest, pathogen and weed population dynamics and in-vasiveness could compound such effects. Undoubtedly, climate-and weather-induced instability will affect levels of and access to food supply, altering social and economic stability and regional competiveness. Adaptation is considered a key factor that will shape the future severity of climate change impacts on food production. Changes that will not radically modify the monoculture nature of dominant agroecosystems may moderate negative impacts temporarily. The biggest and most durable benefits will likely result from more radical ag-roecological measures that will strengthen the resilience of farmers and rural communities, such as diversification of agroecosytems in the form of polycultures, agroforestry systems , and crop-livestock mixed systems accompanied by organic soil management, water conservation and harvesting, and general enhancement of agrobiodiversity. Traditional farming systems are repositories of a wealth of principles and measures that can help modern agricultural systems become more resilient to climatic extremes. Many of these ag-roecological strategies that reduce vulnerabilities to climate variability include crop diversification, maintaining local genetic diversity, animal integration, soil organic management, water conservation and harvesting, etc. Understanding the ag-roecological features that underlie the resilience of traditional agroecosystems is an urgent matter, as they can serve as the foundation for the design of adapted agricultural systems. Observations of agricultural performance after extreme climatic events (hurricanes and droughts) in the last two decades have revealed that resiliency to climate disasters is closely linked to farms with increased levels of biodiversity. Field surveys and results reported in the literature suggest that agroecosystems are more resilient when inserted in a complex landscape matrix, featuring adapted local germplasm deployed in diversified cropping systems managed with organic matter rich soils and water conservation-harvesting techniques. The identification of systems that have withstood climatic events recently or in the past and understanding the agroecological features of such systems that allowed them to resist and/or recover from extreme events is of increased urgency , as the derived resiliency principles and practices that underlie successful farms can be disseminated to thousands of farmers via Campesino a Campesino networks to scale up agroecological practices that enhance the resiliency of agroecosystems. The effective diffusion of agroecological technologies will largely determine how well and how fast farmers adapt to climate change.