A conceptual framework for thinking now (and organising tomorrow) the agroecological transition at the level of the territory
Open accessAbstract
The strong negative impacts of agriculture on the environment, combined with the energy crisis and the slowdown of the productivist model, has led to two forms of regreening of agriculture. One, called "weak ecological modernisation" corresponds to the implementation of good agricultural practices that improve input efficiency. The other, called "strong ecological modernisation" is based on ecosystem services provided by biodiversity. It corresponds to a paradigm shift due to the complexity in designing and implementing it. Strong ecologisation of agriculture requires to deeply revise farming systems, resource management at the territorial/landscape level, and the agrifood chain. After reviewing the principles underpinning this type of agriculture, we analyse the strengths and weaknesses of three conceptual frameworks (farming systems, socio-ecological systems and socio-technical systems) with respect to this goal. We then propose an interdisciplinary multi-level conceptual framework integrating and articulating the three previous ones. It describes the nature of the system affected by this agroecological transition. This framework formalizes a system of actors whose behaviour is determined by formal and informal norms and agreements, interacting via technology, with farms, landscape and agrifood chain resources. This conceptual framework is intended to be used to analyse current agricultural systems at the territorial level and design strongly ecologised agricultural systems or "territorialized agroecological systems." In the following, we analyse the conditions for the implementation of the strong ecologisation of agriculture. We emphasize in particular the diversity of innovations to promote, the diversity of actors to coordinate, and therefore the need to implement a participatory, holistic, transdisciplinary and "localized" (so called "territorialized") design approach of the features of agroecological transition.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 63
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Bonny S, 2011. L'agriculture écologiquement intensive : nature et défis. Cahiers Agricultures 20 : 451-62. doi: 10.1684/agr.2011.0526 · DOI
- Borreani G, Coppa M, Revello-Chion A, Comino L, Giaccone D, Ferlay A, et al., 2013. Effect of different feeding strategies in intensive dairy farming systems on milk fatty acid profiles, and implications on feeding costs in Italy. Journal of Dairy Science 96 : 1-16.
- Brewer MJ, Goodell PB, 2010. Approaches and Incentives to Implement Integrated Pest Management that Addresses Regional and Environmental Issues. Annual Review of Entomology 57 : 41-59.
- Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, et al., 2003.KnowledgeSystemsfor Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100 : 8086-91.
- Cowan R, Gunby P, 1996. Sprayed to death: path dependence, lock-in and pest control strategies. Economic Journal 106 : 521-42.
- Darnhofer I, Bellon S, Dedieu B, Milestad R, 2010. Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of farming systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30 : 545-55.
- David P, Arthur B, 1985. Clio and economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review 75 : 33749.
- Duru M, Fares M, Therond O, 2013. Towards strong ecological modernisation of agriculture: review-based conceptual and methodological frameworks for designing ex ante the agroecological transition. Soumis à Ecological Economics ( deuxième révision ).
- Fares M, Magrini MB, Triboulet P, 2011. Transition agro-écologique, innovation et effets de verrouillage : le rôle de la structure organisationnelle des filières. Le cas de la filière blé dur française. Cahiers Agriculture 21 : 34-45. doi: 10.1684/agr.2012. 0539 · DOI
- Hochman Z, Carberry PS, Robertson MJ, Gaydon DS, Bell LW, McIntosh PC, 2013. Prospects for ecological intensification of Australian agriculture. European Journal of Agronomy 44 : 109-23.
- Jiggins J, Roling N, 2000. Adaptive management: potential and limitations for ecological governance. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 1 : 28-42.
- Klerkx L, Van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C, 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In : Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B, éds. Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: The new dynamic . Dordrecht : Springer.
- Knickel K, Brunori G, Rand S, 2009. Towards a Better Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural Development : From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15 : 37-41.
- Koohafkan P, Altieri M, Gimenez EH, 2011. Green Agriculture: foundations for biodiverse, resilient and productive agricultural systems. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 10 : 1-13.
- Lamine C, 2011. Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from organic farming and IPM. Journal of Rural Studies 27 : 209-19.
- Médiène S, Valantin-morison M, Sarthou JP, 2011. Agroecosystem management and biotic interactions : a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 31 : 491-514.
- Moore KM, 2011. Global networks in local agriculture: a framework for negociation. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information 12 : 23-39.
- Oström E, 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity . Princeton : Princeton University Press.
- Pahl-Wostl C, Hare M, 2004. Processes of Social Learning in Integrated resources Management. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 14 : 193-206.
- Scherr SJ, McNeely JA, 2008. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of '' ecoagriculture '' landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 363 : 477-94.
- Schiere JB, Darnhofer I, Duru M, 2012. Dynamics in farming systems: Of changes and choices. In : Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B, éds. Farming Systems Research into the 21 st century: The new dynamic . Dordrecht : Springer.
- Shennan C, 2008. Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 363 : 717-39.
- Sibertin-Blanc C, Therond O, Monteil C, Mazzega P, 2011. Formal modeling of social-ecological systems . Proceedings of the 7th European Social Simulation Association Conference, 1923 September, Montpellier, in press.
- Vanclay F, 2004. Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural resource management. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44 : 213-23.
- Williams BK, 2011. Adaptive management of natural resources-framework and issues. Journal of Environmental Management 92 : 1346-53.
- Williamson O, 2002. The Theory of the Firm as Governance Structure: From Choice to Contract. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 : 171-95.
- Authors
- Duru, M., Fares, M., & Therond, O.
- Affiliations
- AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires (FR)
- ORCID
- Duru, Michel
- Venue
- Cahiers Agricultures
- Publisher
- EDP Sciences
- Published
- 2014-03
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 84-95
- ISSN
- 1166-7699 (ISSN-L)
- 1777-5949
- OpenAlex
- W1913720539
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 9.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Cahiers Agricultures (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Agriculture and Rural Development Research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
- Keywords
- agroecological transition, social-ecological systems, socio-technical systems, agricultural systems, agri-food supply chains, ecosystem services, biodiversity, good agricultural practices, actor behavior, participatory design, transdisciplinarity, agroecology
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