CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,941Sustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisPlant and soil sciencesAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development

Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence

Open access
Pretty, Jules·2008·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
DOI 10.1098/rstb.2007.2163PMC PMC2610163
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Concerns about sustainability in agricultural systems centre on the need to develop technologies and practices that do not have adverse effects on environmental goods and services, are accessible to and effective for farmers, and lead to improvements in food productivity. Despite great progress in agricultural productivity in the past half-century, with crop and livestock productivity strongly driven by increased use of fertilizers, irrigation water, agricultural machinery, pesticides and land, it would be over-optimistic to assume that these relationships will remain linear in the future. New approaches are needed that will integrate biological and ecological processes into food production, minimize the use of those non-renewable inputs that cause harm to the environment or to the health of farmers and consumers, make productive use of the knowledge and skills of farmers, so substituting human capital for costly external inputs, and make productive use of people's collective capacities to work together to solve common agricultural and natural resource problems, such as for pest, watershed, irrigation, forest and credit management. These principles help to build important capital assets for agricultural systems: natural; social; human; physical; and financial capital. Improving natural capital is a central aim, and dividends can come from making the best use of the genotypes of crops and animals and the ecological conditions under which they are grown or raised. Agricultural sustainability suggests a focus on both genotype improvements through the full range of modern biological approaches and improved understanding of the benefits of ecological and agronomic management, manipulation and redesign. The ecological management of agroecosystems that addresses energy flows, nutrient cycling, population-regulating mechanisms and system resilience can lead to the redesign of agriculture at a landscape scale. Sustainable agriculture outcomes can be positive for food productivity, reduced pesticide use and carbon balances. Significant challenges, however, remain to develop national and international policies to support the wider emergence of more sustainable forms of agricultural production across both industrialized and developing countries.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2007.2163

Cites

172 of 172 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • No clear-cut empirical evidence has been provided as to which CA principle contributes most to agricultural sustainability in Africa.

    “However, no clear-cut empirical evidence has been provided as to which of the principles of CA contributes most to agricultural sustainability in Africa (36)”

    From The era of sustainable agricultural development in Africa: Understanding the benefits and constraints (2018) · cites this paper as [36]

    Section 1 says that no single configuration of practices is likely to apply widely, and sections 5 and 8 discuss practices such as conservation tillage, rotations, and ground cover. None of the passages found assesses whether empirical evidence identifies which conservation-agriculture principle contributes most to sustainability in Africa. I searched for that comparison and for the individual principles. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 175 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Abramovitz J. Valuing nature's services. In: Brown L, Flavin C, French H, editors. State of the world. Worldwatch Institute; Washington, DC: 1997. [Google Scholar]
  2. Altieri M.A. Westview Press; Boulder, CO: 1995. Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. [Google Scholar]
  3. Avery D. The Hudson Institute; Indianapolis, IN: 1995. Saving the planet with pesticides and plastic. [Google Scholar]
  4. Benbrook C.M. Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center; Ames, IA: 2003. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the United States: the first eight years. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bunch R, Lopez G. Soil recuperation in Central America. In: Hinchcliffe F, Thompson J, Pretty J.N, Guijt I, Shah P, editors. Fertile ground: the impact of participatory watershed management. Intermediate Technology Publications; London, UK: 1999. pp. 32–41. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cato M.P. In: Di Agri Cultura. Hooper W.D, editor. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, MA: 1979. [Google Scholar]
  7. Conway G.R. Penguin; London, UK: 1997. The doubly green revolution. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dalgaard T, Halberg N, Kristensen I.S. Can organic farming help to reduce N-losses? Nutr. Recycl. Agroecosyst. 1998;52:277–287. doi:10.1023/A:1009790722044 [Google Scholar] · DOI
  9. Delgado C, Rosegrant M, Steinfield H, Ehui S, Courbois C. IFPRI brief 61. International Food Policy Research Institute; Washington, DC: 1999. Livestock to 2020: the next food revolution. [Google Scholar]
  10. de Freitas H. Transforming microcatchments in Santa Caterina, Brazil. In: Hinchcliffe F, Thompson J, Pretty J, Guijt I, Shah P, editors. Fertile ground: the impacts of participatory watershed development. Intermediate Technology Publications; London, UK: 1999. [Google Scholar]
  11. Environment Agency (EA) EA and English Nature; Bristol, UK: 2005. Assessment of win–win case studies of resource management in agriculture. [Google Scholar]
  12. EPA. Environmental Protection Agency; Washington, DC: 2001. Pesticide industry sales and usage, 1998 and 1999 market estimates. [Google Scholar]
  13. Eurodiet. The Eurodiet reports and proceedings. Publ. Health Nutr. 2001;4.2:265–436. Special issue. [Google Scholar]
  14. FAO. FAO; Rome, Italy: 2005. FAOSTAT database. [Google Scholar]
  15. Funes F, Garcia L, Bourque M, Perez N, Rosset P, editors. Sustainable agriculture and resistance. Food First Books; Oakland, CA: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  16. Herren H, Schulthess F, Knapp M. Towards zero-pesticide use in tropical agroecosytems. In: Pretty J, editor. The pesticide detox. Earthscan; London, UK: 2005. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hesiod 1988 Theogony, works and days. Oxford World's Classics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  18. Hinchcliffe F, Thompson J, Pretty J, Guijt I, Shah P, editors. Fertile ground: the impacts of participatory watershed development. Intermediate Technology Publications; London, UK: 1999. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kenmore P.E, Carino F.O, Perez C.A, Dyck V.A, Gutierrez A.P. Population regulation of the brown planthopper within rice fields in The Philippines. J. Plant Prot. Tropics. 1984;1:19–37. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lang T, Heasman M. Food wars. Earthscan; London, UK: 2004. [Google Scholar]
  21. McNeely J.A, Scherr S.J. Island Press; Washington, DC: 2003. Ecoagriculture. [Google Scholar]
  22. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) Island Press; Washington, DC: 2005. Ecosystems and well-being. [Google Scholar]
  23. Norse D, Ji L, Leshan J, Zheng Z. Aileen Press; Bethesda, MD: 2001. Environmental costs of rice production in China. [Google Scholar]
  24. NRC. Board on Sustainable development, Policy Division, National Research Council, National Academy Press; Washington, DC: 2000. Our common journey: transition towards sustainability. [Google Scholar]
  25. OECD. OECD; Paris, France: 2001. Environmental outlook for the chemicals industry. [Google Scholar]
  26. Orr D. SUNY Press; Albany, NY: 1992. Ecological literacy. [Google Scholar]
  27. Pretty J.N. The rapid emergence of genetically-modified crops in world agriculture. Environ. Conserv. 2001;28:248–262. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pretty J, editor. The Earthscan reader in sustainable agriculture. Earthscan; London, UK: 2005a. p. 405. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pretty J, editor. The pesticide detox. Earthscan; London, UK: 2005b. p. 291. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pretty J. Earthscan; London, UK: 2007. The earth only endures. [Google Scholar]
  31. Reij C. Centre for Development Cooperation Services, Vrije Univeriseit; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 1996. Evolution et impacts des techiques de conservation des eaux et des sols. [Google Scholar]
  32. Shennan C, Gareau T.P, Sirrine J.R. Agroecological Interventions in the USA. In: Pretty J, editor. The pesticide detox. Earthscan; London, UK: 2005. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sherwood S, Cole D, Crissman C, Paredes M. Transforming potato systems in the andes. In: Pretty J, editor. The pesticide detox. Earthscan; London, UK: 2005. [Google Scholar]
  34. Stout B.A. Energy for agriculture in the 21st century. In: Waterlow J.C, Armstrong D.G, Fowden L, Riley R, editors. Feeding the world population of more than eight billion people. Oxford University Press; New York, NY; Oxford, UK: 1998. [Google Scholar]
  35. Swingland I, editor. Carbon and biodiversity. Earthscan; London, UK: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  36. Terwan P, Ritchie M, van der Weijden W, Verschur G, Joannides J. Reed Business Information; Doetinchem, The Netherlands: 2004. Values of Agrarian landscapes across Europe and North America. [Google Scholar]
  37. UNPD. UN Population Division; New York, NY: 2005. Long-range world population projections: based on the 1998 revision. [Google Scholar]
  38. Uphoff N, editor. Agroecological innovations. Earthscan; London, UK: 2002. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pretty, J.
Affiliations
University of Essex (GB)
Corresponding author
Pretty, Jules
ORCID
Pretty, Jules
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
2007-07-25
Volume
363
Issue
1491
Pages
447-465
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
DOI
10.1098/rstb.2007.2163
PMC
PMC2610163
OpenAlex
W2124217459
Cited by
1,941
References
175
Citations by year
2026: 159 · 2025: 178 · 2024: 180 · 2023: 138 · 2022: 123 · 2021: 140 · 2020: 123 · 2019: 123 · 2018: 101 · 2017: 105 · 2016: 110 · 2015: 80 · 2014: 74 · 2013: 86 · 2012: 76
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant and soil sciences
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Keywords
sustainable agriculture, agroecosystems, natural capital, social capital, human capital, financial capital, physical capital, ecological management, nutrient cycling, system resilience, food productivity, pesticide reduction, carbon balance, farmer knowledge, agricultural policy, environmental goods and services
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Animals, Animal Husbandry, Conservation of Natural Resources, Developing Countries, Environment, Food Supply, Humans, Pesticides, Ecosystem, Crops, Agricultural, Developed Countries

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review