Annual Review of Resource Economics

Agroecology for a Sustainable

Agriculture and Food System:
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

From Local Solutions to

Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Large-Scale Adoption
Frank Ewert,1,2 Roland Baatz,1 and Robert Finger3
1
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany;
email: [email protected]
2
University of Bonn, Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Bonn, Germany
3
Agricultural Economics and Policy Group, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023. 15:351–81 Keywords

First published as a Review in Advance on
sustainable agriculture, food system, multiple scales, multiactor approaches,
July 12, 2023
agricultural policy, food policy, agricultural transformation, emerging
The Annual Review of Resource Economics is online at
technologies
resource.annualreviews.org

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-102422- Abstract
090105
Agroecology is often considered as the ultimate and most comprehensive
Copyright © 2023 by the author(s). This work is
solution to the many challenges of the agricultural and food system, also
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License, which permits unrestricted referred to as the agri-food system. This review investigates to what extent
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, agroecology can become the mainstream model for transforming agriculture
provided the original author and source are credited.
toward more sustainable and resilient agri-food systems within the given
See credit lines of images or other third-party
material in this article for license information. economic and political context. We find that enhancing agroecology will
require a fully integrated multiscale systems approach from farm to region
JEL codes: Q1, Q2, Q5
to globe. The approach must consider relevant processes and relationships,
actors and stakeholders as well as drivers, sustainability indicators, and the
respective assessment methods across all scales. Giving specific attention to
drivers related to economy, technology, and policy we point out that agroe-
cology needs to be economically viable for farmers and other food system
actors. In particular, new and emerging technologies related to digitalization
and breeding should be given more consideration in agroecological transfor-
mation. We stress the need for an analytical and operational framework and
adequate multiscale policy design and suggest six areas of needed attention
to support the large-scale adoption of agroecology.

351
 1. INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is facing tremendous challenges, including food security (FAO et al. 2022, HLPE
2020), climate change (IPCC 2022, Ortiz-Bobea et al. 2021, Trnka et al. 2014, Wheeler & von
Braun 2013), loss of biodiversity (Brondizio et al. 2019), environmental pollution and resource
degradation (Campbell et al. 2017, Steffen et al. 2015), as well as increasing price volatility (Chavas
2011) with harmful implications for farmers’ incomes, livelihoods, and rural development. Crises
such as COVID-19 (Barrett 2020, Carducci et al. 2021, Fan et al. 2021) and the Ukraine war
(Behnassi & El Haiba 2022, Osendarp et al. 2022) have posed additional shocks to the resilience
of the agricultural and food system (hereafter agri-food system) (Meuwissen et al. 2019, Nóia
Júnior et al. 2022), with damaging impacts on prices, food security, and social stability.
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

Various concepts for different types of agriculture have been developed to address the complex
challenges facing agriculture and develop and improve the sustainability and resilience of the agri-
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

food system. The most prominent concepts refer to sustainable intensification (Garnett et al. 2013,
Pretty 2008, Struik et al. 2014), organic farming (Muller et al. 2017, Niggli 2015b, Seufert &
Ramankutty 2017), conservation agriculture (Giller et al. 2009, Hobbs et al. 2008, Knowler &
Bradshaw 2007), regenerative agriculture (Francis et al. 1986, LaCanne & Lundgren 2018, Rodale
1983), ecological intensification (Cassman 1999, Tittonell 2014), and agroecology (Altieri 1989,
2002; Francis et al. 2003; Gliessman 2014; Gliessman & Tittonell 2015; Wezel et al. 2009), which
partly overlap with each other but have different characteristics (see, e.g., Giller et al. 2021, IDS
& IPES-Food 2022, Pretty & Bharucha 2014, Struik et al. 2014, Tittonell et al. 2022).
Agroecology has received increasing attention in recent years (Gliessman 2015) and is consid-
ered by its supporters as the ultimate and most comprehensive solution to the many challenges
facing the agri-food system (Gliessman & de Wit Montenegro 2021). It is seen as the foundation
for transforming the agri-food system and achieving sustainability (Gliessman 2021). Agroecology
aims to combine the science on (agro)ecology with agricultural practice and societal interests
(Wezel et al. 2020). In fact, it has become a strong societal movement (Gliessman & Ferguson
2020, Wezel et al. 2020). Based on agroecological concepts, principles, and practices, numerous
local solutions have been developed with the aim of maintaining long-term productivity and food
security, providing ecological benefits, and reducing negative external effects including aspects
of injustice and inequality of the currently predominant conventional agricultural practices
(Atta-Krah et al. 2021, FAO 2018a, HLPE 2019).
Despite the increasing attention being paid to agroecology and the growing number of suc-
cessfully developed practical solutions, it remains an important question to what extent and how
agroecology can be scaled up to become the main approach for a sustainable and resilient agri-
food system (Tittonell 2020). Respective research agendas have been developed (Gascuel-Odoux
et al. 2022), but more insights into the economic viability of agroecological practices and possible
policy interventions for a wide range of farming systems are needed. The adoption of agroeco-
logical practices is voluntary for farmers and other food system actors. Thus, it is relevant to
understand adoption hurdles and enabling factors that can be used to largely increase the uptake
of agroecological practices.
Most successful current examples of mainstreaming agroecology come from smallholder,
family agriculture (Tittonell et al. 2020). Gliessman (2020) estimates that approximately 30% of
(mainly small-scale) farms around the world adopted some agroecological practices or redesigned
their production systems around agroecological principles. For mainstreaming agroecology, con-
sideration of larger farms is also required and new technological opportunities must be embraced
(Tittonell 2020). The importance of new technologies related to digitalization (Asseng & Asche
2019, Basso & Antle 2020, Walter et al. 2017) and breeding (Qaim 2020) is increasingly recog-
nized for agroecology (Bellon-Maurel & Huyghe 2017, Gascuel-Odoux et al. 2022). Moreover,

352 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 effective agroecological practices, favorable markets, and targeted policies have been identified
as key drivers of the process of taking agroecology to scale (Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho
et al. 2018). However, the concept of agroecology is not yet widely addressed in agricultural,
environmental, and resource economics and policy.1
Proponents of agroecology advocate a holistic view and systems approach on agriculture and
food security (Gliessman 2018, Wezel et al. 2020). However, systems analysis supported by model
simulation and assessment is less evident, and effects of change in climate (Asseng et al. 2015,
Rosenzweig et al. 2013), markets (Nelson et al. 2014), management activities (Leip et al. 2008,
van Ittersum et al. 2008), policies (Britz & Hertel 2011) or diets (Willett et al. 2020) and related
feedbacks are rarely quantified for agroecological systems. A few efforts have been made to quan-
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

tify the implications of shifting globally from conventional to organic agriculture (De Ponti et al.
2012, Seufert et al. 2012) but to our knowledge this has not yet been done for agroecology at large.
At the same time, the lack of support from the agricultural research community and established
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

knowledge systems to support agroecological farming has been articulated (Niggli & Riedel 2020).
Embracing the systems approach fully, future agroecology research should include more interdis-
ciplinary and transdisciplinary work and consider multiple entry-points and transition trajectories,
including social, cultural, political, and economic issues (Wezel et al. 2020).
The aim of this review is to examine the potential for agroecology to serve as the model for a
sustainable and resilient agri-food system (Section 5). We review the literature to understand the
current emphasis and future directions in agroecology research. We explore agroecology from
different perspectives, including the food system and economic and policy perspectives, and look
at the potential role of new and emerging technologies related to digitalization and breeding. We
do not aim to compare agroecology with other types of sustainable agriculture, but comparative
examples are used, where useful, to highlight specific characteristics of agroecology.
The remainder of this review is structured as follows. Next, we introduce the concept of
agroecology in Section 2 and subsequently provide a quantitative assessment of the literature on
agroecology (Section 3). In Section 4, we embed agroecology in a food system perspective and in-
vestigate possibilities for performance measurement and stakeholder involvement. In this section,
we also present insights into the economics and policy of agroecology and present perspectives
on the potential of new technologies such as digitalization and new breeding for agroecology.
Section 5 provides a synthesis outlining areas of attention required to scale up agroecology and
concludes with recommendations for policy action.

2. THE CONCEPT OF AGROECOLOGY

The concept of agroecology is dynamic and has different meanings, often referring alternatively
to an inter- or transdisciplinary science, a set of sustainable farming practices, and a social move-
ment (Wezel et al. 2020, Wezel & Soldat 2009). Agroecology has been evolving over many decades
(Wezel et al. 2020, Wezel & Soldat 2009). The original research focus was on the ecological study
of agricultural systems (Altieri 1995, Dalgaard et al. 2003, Gliessman 2004), mainly related to soil
biology and pest management concerns (IDS & IPES-Food 2022) and integrating local knowl-
edge of farmers about ecological processes relevant for managing their agroecosystems (Altieri
& Toledo 2011, Gliessman et al. 1981). Stronger consideration of ecological processes implies a
paradigm shift away from the focus on productivity-driven conventional farming. For example,
utilizing soil biological diversity for plant nutrition may reduce the amount of mineral fertilizer

1 For example, the term agroecology has not been used in titles of papers published in leading journals in the
field of agricultural economics and policy (see Finger et al. 2022 for a journal list).

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 353

 use and improve resistance against plant diseases (Deguine et al. 2023). Agricultural practices and
local solutions and approaches are codeveloped and implemented in close interaction with farmers,
considering ecological processes and ecosystem services (Wezel et al. 2014, 2020).
However, the concept of agroecology has been steadily developing to also include the social
and economic dimensions of the entire food system and across all actors (Francis et al. 2003) and
most recently to consider the integration of research, education, action, and change to all parts
of the food system (Gliessman 2018). Accordingly, agroecology is presently defined as “the inte-
gration of research, education, action and change that brings sustainability to all parts of the food
system: ecological, economic, and social.” In addition, “The approach is grounded in ecological
thinking where a holistic, systems-level understanding of food system sustainability is required”
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

(Gliessman 2018, p. 599). Key features are that agroecology “is transdisciplinary in that it values
all forms of knowledge and experience in food system change,” “is participatory, as it requires to
involve all stakeholders along the food value chain” (from the farm to the table), and “is action-
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

oriented, as it confronts the economic and political power structures of the current industrial food
system with alternative social structures and policy action” (Gliessman 2018, p. 599). The defini-
tion of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) that is often used
refers to “agroecology as an integrated approach that simultaneously applies ecological and social
concepts and principles to the design and management of food and agricultural systems. It seeks to
optimize the interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment while taking into
consideration the social aspects that need to be addressed for a sustainable and fair food system”
(FAO 2018b, p. 1).
The overall aim of transformation to agroecological practices is to reduce negative external
effects in environmental, economic, and social dimensions implied by currently dominating con-
ventional agricultural practices. Agroecology is thus seen as a dynamic and holistic approach to
agriculture that combines science, a set of agricultural practices, and a social movement to sup-
port the transition of agri-food systems toward more sustainable practices and fairer outcomes.
So far, the social movement has been particularly strong in support of small-scale farmers and
indigenous people for developing alternatives to industrial agri-food systems. Much emphasis has
been on building locally relevant food systems supporting the economic viability of rural areas
through safe food production, short marketing chains, and fair trade (Wezel et al. 2020). Beyond
adoption by small-scale farmers, agroecological transformation will require a shift away from a
mainly capital-oriented approach to a more labor-oriented one strengthening the social relations
of production (Niggli et al. 2021, van der Ploeg 2021). The related implications of such shifts for
the economic and political system will likely be considerable.
Along these lines, supporters of agroecology envision it as a suitable concept to lead the trans-
formation to more sustainable agri-food systems (Gliessman & de Wit Montenegro 2021). This
would range from the local farm to the broader landscape and regional scales and up to the global
scale (Dalgaard et al. 2003; Tittonell et al. 2020; Wezel et al. 2009, 2020), including all relevant
interactions and feedbacks in a holistic way.
In order to conceptualize agroecology, five levels of agroecological transition have been dis-
tinguished (Gliessman 2016) in addition to no agroecological integration (level 0) and related to
the agroecosystem (levels 1–3) and food system (levels 4 and 5) as well as to incremental (levels 1
and 2) and transformational (levels 3–5) changes (Figure 1). As a result of a multistakeholder pro-
cess by the FAO, 10 elements of agroecology have been put forward (FAO 2018b) (Figure 1). The
High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) responded to a request
by the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) to report on “agroecological approaches
and other innovations for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and
nutrition” and recommends 13 principles of agroecology (HLPE 2019) (Figure 1).

354 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 5 Gliessman levels 10 FAO elements 13 HLPE principles

LEVEL 5:

FO O D S YS T EM L E V EL S
Rebuild the global food
system, so that it is Participation
sustainable and
Transformational

equitable for all Human and Responsible Land and natural

social value governance Fairness
resource governance
LEVEL 4:
Re-establish connections
between growers and
eaters, develop Social values
alternative food networks and diets
Connectivity
Cocreation Culture and Circular
of knowledge food traditions economy
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

AG ROECOSYSTEM LE VELS

LEVEL 3:
Redesign whole Cocreation of
agroecosystems knowledge
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

LEVEL 2: Economic
Substitute alternative Diversity Synergies Resilience diversification Recycling
practices and inputs
Synergy
Incremental

LEVEL 1:
Increase efficiency Animal
of industrial inputs Biodiversity health
Recycling
LEVEL 0:
Input
No agroecological Soil health
reduction
integration

Efficiency

Figure 1
Levels, elements, and principles of agroecology. Note that links between elements and principles are shown through connecting lines,
whereas the color of the lines refers to the levels on the graph. Figure adapted with permission from Atta-Krah et al. (2021) and Wezel
et al. (2020).

Large international organizations and expert panels have addressed agroecology in strategic
documents such as those by the FAO (2014, 2018a,b), the HLPE (2019), or the UN Food Sys-
tems Summit 2021 (Niggli et al. 2021) complemented by reports from international and national
research organizations (Atta-Krah et al. 2021, Caquet et al. 2020, Snapp et al. 2021) and inter-
national projects and programs related to agroecological research.2 Although there are different
perspectives on agroecology, which are elaborated in Section 4.1, there is also a notable conver-
gence of terms and definitions resulting in the formation of these principles, elements, and levels
of transition brought forward recently with numerous representative examples on the adoption of
agroecological principles across the globe (Atta-Krah et al. 2021, Wezel et al. 2020) (Figure 1).

3. AGROECOLOGY IN THE LITERATURE

Aiming to better understand the dynamics of research conducted on agroecology, we provide a
quantitative analysis of the peer-reviewed publications findable through the Web of Science un-
der the keywords “agroecology” and “agro-ecology.” First, we analyzed temporal changes in the
number of articles published in agroecology. Second, we used quantitative approaches to analyze

2 Also, in preparation for a larger European partnership on agroecology under the EU research framework

programme Horizon Europe, input from two Coordination and Support Actions, ALL-Ready (https://www.
all-ready-project.eu/) and AE4EU (https://www.ae4eu.eu/), and the Standing Committee on Agri-
cultural Research (SCAR) have been provided (https://scar-europe.org/home-scar/news-display/221-
agroecology-partnership-s-sria).

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 355

 patterns and trends of topics. Third, we generated word clouds based on term frequency to iden-
tify the most important terms within the peer-reviewed literature and within recent reports by
large international institutions. For the quantitative analysis, we applied the statistical method of
latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) (Blei et al. 2003, Hoffman et al. 2010), which is available as a
Python library gensim 4.3.1 (https://pypi.org/project/gensim/). The LDA assumes that each
document (here: title, abstract, and keywords) consists of a mixture of hidden topics. Within each
document, each word is associated with a specific topic. The topic distribution is hidden (latent),
and the word distribution is a continuous and multivariate distribution named after Dirichlet. The
LDA iteratively draws a distribution of words from the documents and calculates the probability
distribution based on the random drawing until the convergence criteria are satisfied. A single
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

document can be grouped into one major general topic or into several more specific subtopics
simultaneously. In this review, the LDA was used to identify (a) general topics across the corpus
and (b) more specific but still rather general subtopics.
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Based on our analysis, the number of peer-reviewed scientific publications on agroecology has
increased considerably in the last two decades, from close to zero to nearly 600 articles per year
currently (Figure 2a). Likewise, numbers of publications have also increased for other related

a b
600
Number of articles per year

Number of articles per year

2,500
Agroecology Organic farming
500
2,000 Sustainable intensification
400 Agroecology
1,500
300
1,000
200

100 500

0 0
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year Year

c
Relative importance of topic by year

1.0

0.8 Landscape ecology

Plant health
Genetics and landraces
0.6
Microbiome
Food system
0.4 Landscape hydrology
Crop and soil management
0.2 Farm system

0.0
08 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022
20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Figure 2
The growing importance of agroecology and underlying subtopics in the peer-reviewed literature found in the Web of Science between
1980 and 2021 using the search string “all fields” for “agroecology OR agro-ecology.” (a) Number of articles published per year;
(b) comparison of number of articles published per year on organic farming, sustainable intensification, and agroecology; and (c) the
annual change in relative importance of the eight distinct agroecological subtopics based on all obtained articles between 2008 and
2022. Data from the Web of Science provided by a license to ETH Zürich and ZALF.

356 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 types of sustainable agriculture that overlap with agroecology, such as organic farming or sus-
tainable intensification (Figure 2b). Notably, subtopics have changed over time in their relative
contributions to the overall number of articles published on agroecology (Figure 2c). The number
of articles focusing on the food system with emphasis on systemic change and food system transi-
tions has been steadily increasing since 2008, which indicates a growing focus on food systems in
agroecological research. In contrast, the number of articles on landscape ecology and microbiome
has been declining in relative terms over the same period (Figure 2c).
Analyzing the clustering of topics and subtopics and relationships among these reveals that the
eight identified subtopics cluster into the two main topics “agri-food system” and “crop-soil sys-
tem,” with little overlap among these groups, as visualized by the Sankey diagram (Figure 3a). On
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

the one hand, articles on the “agri-food system” mainly address subtopics, which have a stronger
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

a
Food system

system
Agri-food Farm system

Genetics and landraces

system
Crop and soil management

Landscape ecology
Crop-soil
Landscape hydrology

Microbiome

Plant health

b Crop and soil

management Farm system

Landscape
hydrology
Landscape
ecology

Food system
Plant health

Genetics
Microbiome and landraces
Figure 3
Topics and subtopics of agroecology in the peer-reviewed literature found in the Web of Science. (a) Sankey
diagram visualizing how articles assigned to eight subtopics relate to the two general major topics, the
agri-food system and crop-soil system. (b) The inner product of shared subtopic distributions by document,
visualizing the relationships among the eight subtopics. Data from the Web of Science provided by a license
to ETH Zürich and ZALF.

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 357

 food and farm system perspective, more emphasis on system transitions and socioeconomic as-
pects, and less emphasis on agronomic, crop, and soil science–related subtopics. On the other
hand, articles on the “crop-soil system” relate to subtopics with a stronger environmental research
focus (Figure 3a) and barely address aspects of the food system or system transition. Relationships
among subtopics support this observation (Figure 3b). Strong relationships were found between
the two subtopics “food system” and “farm system” and “crop and soil management” and “farm sys-
tem.” Many smaller subtopics such as “landscape ecology” or “genetics and landrace” were evenly
interconnected with other subtopics but without particularly strong connection (Figure 3b). The
segregation into subtopics with and without system relevance demonstrates which other research
topics contribute to farm and food systems research despite being individual research topics. Re-
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

search topics such as plant health and microbiome play a lesser role than does food and farm
systems research.
Hence, our analysis reveals that there are few, if any, articles that offer a comprehensive system
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

approach including all aspects of agroecological research from plant health to food systems
(Figure 3). This is also evident from a comparison with recent reports by large international
organizations (Atta-Krah et al. 2021; FAO 2014, 2018b), which represent an additional large body
of literature on agroecology often not published in peer-reviewed journals. Across the whole
corpus of peer-reviewed articles in the Web of Science, the most important terms used are “soil,”
“system,” “crop,” “food,” “production,” and “increase,” which are similar to those in the reports
analyzed in Figure 4. The frequency of other terms addressed in this literature review, such as
“policy, “markets,” “innovation,” and “technology,” reaches roughly 10% relative to the most
frequent terms (Figure 4).

4. PERSPECTIVES ON AGROECOLOGY AND PATHWAYS

FOR LARGE-SCALE ADOPTION
4.1. Food System Perspective
The concept of agroecology aims to embrace the whole food system. However, references
to advance agricultural and food systems research interactively with the food system research
community are often lacking. Hence, an explicit effort is made to understand the (agri-food) sys-
tem concept of agroecology in conjunction with concepts and approaches typically used in the
agricultural and food systems science domain.

4.1.1. System concept. While the concept of agroecology has continuously shifted its system
boundaries to include larger organizational structures (from fields and farms to the overall food
system) as well as spatial (local to global) and temporal (within season to decadal) scales, the re-
sulting complexity has prompted the need to consider more drivers (environmental, economic,
policy, and sociocultural) along with additional impacts and perspectives within a more holistic
food system approach. These different perspectives on the complex agri-food system, including
transformation, which agroecology aims to integrate, mainly refer to (a) the three dimensions
of sustainability (environmental, economic, social), (b) the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), (c) levels of organization (from field to farm and regional to global), (d) relevant ac-
tors and stakeholders, (e) food value chain components, ( f ) codesign processes, and (g) activities
(Figure 5a).
Although a systems approach is advocated by agroecology, it is not always clear how this relates
to the system concept of agricultural and food sciences. Briefly, the application of system science
to agriculture (de Wit 1968, Leffelar 1998) has been used to conceptualize, analyze, and assess
agricultural and associated problems of sustainability and sustainable development for European

358 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 a Web of Science (1980–2021) b FAO (2014) c FAO (2018b) d Atta-Krah et al. (2021)

Important terms F Important terms F Important terms F Important terms F

Soil 5,768 System 1,195 Agroecology 1,191 System 587
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

System 5,230 Farmer 761 Food 796 Food 379

Crop 3,712 Soil 732 Farmer 725 Crop 325
Study 3,629 Food 657 System 568 Farmer 294
Food 3,392 Agroecology 522 Need 382 Agroecological 288
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Production 2,937 Production 490 Agroecological 374 Soil 239

Increase 2,907 Crop 474 Sustainable 352 Production 227

Selected other terms Selected other terms Selected other terms Selected other terms
Policy 740 Policy 148 Policy 293 Policy 65
Market 488 Market 152 Market 143 Market 76
Economic 819 Economic 142 Economic 146 Economic 56
Innovation 413 Innovation 66 Innovation 255 Innovation 114
Technology 403 Technology 117 Technology 91 Technology 44
Digitalization 7 Digitalization 0 Digitalization 1 Digitalization 1
Breeding 353 Breeding 24 Breeding 9 Breeding 28
Genetic 495 Genetic 34 Genetic 10 Genetic 43

Figure 4
Word clouds showing the relative importance of terms in agroecological publications. Listed terms show the most important terms and
selected terms addressed in these studies measured by the relative frequency (F) of their occurrence in (a) articles (titles, abstracts, and
keywords) published in the Web of Science, (b) Proceedings of the FAO International Symposium (FAO 2014), (c) Proceedings of the Second
FAO International Symposium (FAO 2018a), and (d) Agroecological Transformation for Sustainable Food Systems (Atta-Krah et al. 2021). Cited
sources are for data only.

(Ewert et al. 2009, van Ittersum et al. 2008) and global agriculture (Rosenzweig et al. 2013) across
various levels of organization (Ewert et al. 2011).
Moving beyond a production-oriented perspective on food security (Ingram et al. 2008), the
agri-food system approach considers agriculture as an integral part of the food system (Clark et al.
2018, HLPE 2017, Ingram 2011, Springmann et al. 2018, Willett et al. 2020). Many efforts have
been made to apply the systems approach and conceptualize the food system considering drivers,
activities, and outcomes (Ericksen 2008, Ingram 2011). An even more elaborate conceptualization
of the food system has been proposed by the HLPE (2017) that considers drivers and impacts,
but also actors, food environment, consumer behavior, diets, and political and institutional action
(Figure 5b). The importance of considering levels of organization and respective spatiotemporal
scales has recently been highlighted (Hertel et al. 2021, von Braun et al. 2021) (Figure 6). von
Braun et al. (2021) also stated that a practical definition of food systems should meet two essential
criteria: (a) suitability for the purpose at hand guiding not only scientific questions but also action
and (b) sufficient precision to define the domains for policy and programmatic priorities but not
exclude larger ambitions such as the dimensions of sustainability. Here, the risk of intellectual bias
toward overly complex mappings of the food system has been noted. At the same time, analyses
of food system behavior and change can be too narrow (von Braun et al. 2021) owing to the
limitations of available operationalized models and tools (Ewert et al. 2015).

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 359

 Stakeholders
SDGs
and actors

a b Nutrition and health

Sustainability Codesign
dimensions Agroecology elements
Integration
perspectives Sustainable
Nature Society
agri-food system
Levels of Value chain
organization components
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

and scales
Activities
Research and innovation
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Agroecology (integration of system perspectives) Sustainable agri-food system (key characteristics)

Sustainability dimensions (environmental, economic, social) Availability - Access - Utilization

SDGs (17 relevant goals) Food supply chain (production–storage and distribution, processing and
packaging, retail and markets)
Levels of organization (field to farm to region to globe)
Drivers (biophysical and environmental, innovation and technology
Food value chain components (production, processing,
and infrastructure, political and economic, sociocultural, demographic)
trading, consumption, waste management)
Food environments (food proximity, affordability, promotion and
Stakeholders and actors (farmers and value chain actors,
information, quality and safety)
policy makers, researchers, civil society)
Consumer behavior and diets (quality, quantity, price, diversity, safety)
Codesign elements (Cocreate, test, evaluate)
Food outcomes and impacts
Activities (research, education, action, change)
Political, program, and institutional actions, SDGs

Figure 5
The concepts of agroecology and the sustainable agri-food system. (a) Agroecology aiming to integrate aspects of the food system from
different viewpoints and (b) the sustainable agri-food system with its interrelated key characteristics (HLPE 2017) and important
surrounding systems. Cited source is for data only.

Hence, the conceptual delineation of the agri-food system investigated, including identification
of important characteristics, relationships among them, and interactions with related systems, will
need to be determined in a context-specific way based on the specific problem to be addressed
(Ewert et al. 2009). This initial step is important for further analysis and assessment of system
performance and change. It will also help to identify important drivers and indicators (Figure 6)
as well as the applied tools, data, and models for assessment. Engagement with key stakeholders is
important for all steps. Links between local and global system elements and respective drivers and
impacts need particular attention for agroecology to overcome segregation into topical research
clusters (see Section 3).

4.1.2. Measuring and evaluating agri-food systems. The agri-food system concept includes
approaches to assess the performance and change of these systems as well as trade-offs and syn-
ergies. Much work has been done to develop integrated assessment frameworks for the agri-food
system, but these are not reviewed here (see Antle et al. 2017, Ewert et al. 2009, Muller et al. 2020,
Rosenzweig et al. 2013, van Ittersum et al. 2008). Due to the complexity of relationships and pro-
cesses, models are typically used to utilize the scientific evidence of the important relationships
and interactions captured by these models. Although model capabilities to capture the complexity
of the agri-food system are still limited (Ewert et al. 2015, von Braun et al. 2021), some models

360 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 Food waste Impact
Drivers Food
chain (indicators)

Supply chain,
Production Consumers
markets, and trade
Levels of
organization

Global
Global Global
Globe consumption
production trading
patterns

Continent/ Co- Test

nation develop
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

Co-
develop Test
Co-
Region/ develop Test
landscape
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Evaluate
Farm

Field/farm/regional Local/regional Local/regional

Field production trading diets

Figure 6
Food value chain with drivers and impacts and local to global interactions considering multiscale actors and
stakeholders in a codesign approach for codevelopment, testing, and evaluations of sustainable agri-food
systems across levels of organization. Note that agroecology thus far has a strong emphasis on local and
regional solutions.

have already made substantial contributions to our understanding of parts of the agri-food system
and their sensitivity to changes in selected drivers. For example, climate change impacts on crops
were quantified using crop growth models and climate change projections (Asseng et al. 2015,
Zhao et al. 2017). By 2050, global economic models coupled to crop growth simulations predict
an impact from climate change on agricultural markets, a decline in total crop yield of 11%, and
a rise in producer prices by 20% (Nelson et al. 2014). Moreover, trade-offs such as those between
production and biodiversity (Seppelt et al. 2021) and policy analysis (Reidsma et al. 2018) have
been conceptualized and evaluated.
In agroecology, only few modeling studies have become available. In a recent study on food
security, key factors of the farm system accounted for 85% of the variation in food security for
several of more than 5,000 farms using an artificial neural network (Benítez et al. 2022). Classical
crop model–based impact assessment studies have been provided for selected crops (Doi et al.
2020). A predictive artificial neural network for food security has been used to identify the most
important factors and their relationships to food security and to account for 85% of variability in
food security (Barba-Escoto et al. 2020). Cognitive maps have been employed to incorporate views
and perceptions from actors across multiple social sectors for better-informed decision making
regarding problems such as soil degradation (Arroyo-Lambaer et al. 2021). Models have also been
used to explore the transition to agroecological systems (Ong & Liao 2020) and the complexity
of agroecology (Vandermeer 2020).
Based on an earlier review by Mottet et al. (2020), a comprehensive tool for agroecology perfor-
mance evaluation (TAPE) was developed with contributions by 70 representatives of agroecology-
related organizations worldwide. In this approach, four steps are distinguished: Step 0 is a
description of the main agri-food systems characteristics (socioeconomic and demographic) and

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 361

 drivers (policy, market, technology, sociocultural, and/or historical drivers); step 1 is the character-
ization of agroecological transitions, based on The 10 Elements of Agroecology adopted by the FAO
(FAO 2018b) and its member countries (Figure 1) assessing the degree of transition based on a
descriptive scale using scores with information from the farm/household and community/territory
scale; step 2 includes the core criteria of performance using indicators relevant to address the re-
spective SDGs; and step 3 is a participatory validation of the results obtained from the previous
steps with the producers and relevant stakeholders.
Indicators are crucial for assessing system change. Comprehensive indicator frameworks
have been developed to measure important features of the agri-food system with respect to the
implications for systems in transition (Alkan Olsson et al. 2009, Mouratiadou et al. 2021). System
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

performance assessments should be based on indicators that measure to what extent the impact
of driver(s) on the system is or is not sustainable (Mouratiadou et al. 2021) (Figure 6). Here,
37 themes, 142 subthemes, and 1,128 metrics were identified to measure and evaluate indicators
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

for sustainable intensification options. For an increasing number of indicators, a good scientific
basis about their preferred targets (or ranges) is available, e.g., for nitrate leaching, greenhouse
gas emissions, climate-neutral agriculture, or farmers’ income. In addition, an increasing number
of these indicators can be modeled and/or monitored. Importantly, digital solutions can be vital
to overcome current limitations (see Section 4.2.3).

4.1.3. Involvement of actors and stakeholders. In agroecology, relevant actors and stakehold-
ers are closely involved in the development and evaluations of the respective systems (Mottet et al.
2020). From an agri-food system perspective, complex mappings and analyses of actors and stake-
holders and their roles have been performed (Doernberg et al. 2016, Gascuel-Odoux et al. 2022,
Schulp et al. 2022). Importantly, most of these analyses have been performed at local and regional
scale, with relatively few applied at global scale. Recently, the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors
of the European Commission has announced that success in transitioning to sustainable food sys-
tems will require bringing together the European, national, regional and local stakeholders in the
food system (Eur. Comm. 2020) (Figure 6).
The proposed participatory approaches will be challenging because stakeholder groups will be
required to interact across organizational levels and likely represent quite different interest groups
and aims. A promising approach to cope with this is the development of living labs (Folstad 2008,
Steen & van Bueren 2017) that can be implemented at landscape and regional levels. Living labs
consider the central role of the user and involve all relevant actors and stakeholders within a local
or regional system. Living labs draw on the concept of cocreation of sustainable solutions for the
respective system (Steen & van Bueren 2017, figure 8). An example of local implementation of the
living lab concept is provided by the network of agroecosystem living labs in Canada (McPhee et al.
2021). An important element of the living lab approach can be on-farm experimentation (Lacoste
et al. 2022). However, for large-scale adoption, the living lab approach will also require the in-
volvement of large-scale actors such as big corporations and governments related to important
drivers of change (economics, policy, and technology) (Figure 6).

4.2. Perspective on Drivers of Large-Scale Adoption

The literature review in Section 3 has revealed that topics that we find important for understanding
the potential for widespread adoption of agroecology have received relatively little attention in the
literature so far. In particular, aspects of economics and agricultural policies and the role of new and
emerging technologies are critically important in this regard and have therefore been specifically
addressed in this article.

362 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 4.2.1. Economics of agroecology. Economic, social, and other implications of agroecology
range from the level of the field to farm and to regional, national, and global levels. Decision
making toward agroecology spans farm households to industry and consumers (Figure 6).
However, a key requirement for the broader use of agroecology globally remains, which is
that farmers take up agroecological practices. We therefore take the level of the farm as a crucial
starting point and embed discussions on the role of markets and different market actors in enabling
the adoption and diffusion of agroecology.
A wide range of possible determinants explains why farmers take up or fail to take up new
production practices and systems as is required to achieve agroecological transformation. For ex-
ample, farmers’ motives, values, perceptions, preferences, and personalities come into play when
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

deciding whether to alter current farming practices (Dessart et al. 2019). However, the implica-
tions for farm and household incomes are also relevant. Farms need to maintain economic viability
to ensure long-term survival (Finger & El Benni 2021). Grovermann et al. (2021, p. 1001) state:
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

“To work for farmers, it [agroecology] needs to make economic sense. . .” Indeed, agroecology
is often assumed to increase value-added and profitability (D’Annolfo et al. 2017, van der Ploeg
2021, van der Ploeg et al. 2019).
Farms adopt agroecological practices (see Section 2) if the change in expected utility induced
by this adoption compared to current conventional farming practices is positive (Mohring &
Finger 2022). One key element is the expected change in profitability. Changes in perceived prof-
its due to the adoption of agroecological practices can be caused by changes in several components
such as yields, prices, costs, and governmental support. In the short run, switching to low-input
production systems and production without or with reduced pesticide use, may imply lower yields
(van der Ploeg et al. 2019). However, switching to agroecological practices may enable produc-
ers to generate higher producer prices (e.g., via labeling or by creating new marketing channels).
Agroecological production also implies changes in production costs. For example, a lower reliance
on external inputs (e.g., fewer pesticides and artificial fertilizer) implies that expenditures for ex-
ternal inputs are also reduced, and this may imply increases in the ratio of value-added and the
gross value of production (van der Ploeg et al. 2019). However, the relevance of different factors
remains very farm and context specific. For example, De Leijster et al. (2020) find for a case study
of almond production in Spain that the long-term profitability of agroecological farming practices
was best explained by differences in yields, not operational costs. However, adoption of agroeco-
logical practices can require changes in the required quantity and quality of labor (van der Ploeg
et al. 2019). For example, switches away from chemical pest management strategies are often as-
sociated with higher labor demand. The availability and costs of labor thus remain critical factors.
Finally, in some countries, the adoption of specific agroecological practices is compensated with
additional governmental support (e.g., direct payments) (see Section 4.2.2).
A switch to agroecological practices may also induce a change in perceived income risks. Reduc-
ing external inputs (e.g., lesser reliance on pesticides) often results in higher perceived production
risks. For example, organic farming is often found to be more risky (i.e., facing a more volatile
income) than conventional farming practices (Iyer et al. 2020, Serra et al. 2008). However, agroe-
cological farms are often more diversified, e.g., by relying on a broader set of farm activities (e.g.,
integrating crop and livestock production) and income sources. This reduces income risks and in-
creases resilience. Agroecology often also relies on more diverse production systems (e.g., with
higher species richness) that often imply lower yield risks and can induce long-term stability
of production and profits (Di Falco & Chavas 2009, Schaub et al. 2020). In a review on agroe-
cology and climate change supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR) and its research program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Secu-
rity (CCAFS), good evidence was found for the impacts of farm diversification on climate change

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 363

 adaptation (Snapp et al. 2021). Moreover, agroecology enables new alliances between producers
and consumers that can imply more stable market environments and thus lower price risks.
The economic implications for profits, input demand, and the risks of switching to agroecolog-
ical practices critically depend on structural characteristics of both farms and farmers, such as the
endowments of the farm with land and labor resources as well as the focus of the farm (e.g., arable
versus mixed production systems). Moreover, switching production systems always induces farm-
specific adjustment costs caused by required changes in knowledge, farm structures, and capital
goods (Gardebroek & Lansink 2004). These adjustment costs can be reduced by tapping into the
cooperative character of agroecology, e.g., by reducing learning costs and sharing technology. For
example, Marton & Storm (2021) find positive spatial spillover effects for the adoption of organic
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

farming in Norway. Colearning and living lab approaches (see Section 4.1.3 and Figure 6) can be
supportive in this regard.
In addition, various behavioral factors are key for farmers’ decisions to adopt agroecological
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

production practices. This comprises, for example, farmers’ risk and time preferences (Iyer et al.
2020). Moreover, Dessart et al. (2019) show that further behavioral factors, e.g., dispositional, so-
cial, and cognitive factors, explain farmers’ uptake of sustainable production practices. Especially
given the characteristics of agroecology (e.g., also being a movement), we expect that farmers’
personalities, motives, values, and social interactions are key elements for the adoption of agroe-
cology, assuming that a minimum economic viability is ensured (see Dessart et al. 2019). This
implies that the profitability of agroecological practices at the farm level is only a necessary but
not a sufficient condition for its uptake. Moreover, to broaden the use of agroecology, incentive
mechanisms need to account for the heterogeneity of farms and farmers, e.g., their behavioral
characteristics.
Several studies synthesize evidence on the overall economic implications of agroecology at
the farm level. For example, van der Ploeg et al. (2019) present a series of illustrative examples
from European agriculture where organic and/or low-input farming systems have been found to
be more economically viable. For example, they show that for a sample of 354 conventional and
170 agroecological grassland-based farming systems in France, the value-added for every €100
produced was ca. 50% higher for agroecological farms compared to conventional farms. Such a
positive effect has also been identified for other regions of the world (Bolwig et al. 2009, Mendoza
2004). D’Annolfo et al. (2017) also show that adoption of agroecological practices resulted in
higher profits in two-thirds (N = 73) of the reviewed studies with global coverage. Grovermann
et al. (2021) study the economic viability of organic dairy farming across 25 European countries
using farm accountancy data from 41,903 dairy farm enterprise observations. They found that
organic production is associated with higher gross margins for dairy farms (in the range of €66–
234 per cow).
A key open aspect in the literature remains the rigorous identification of the economic (as
well as social and environmental) effects of the adoption of agroecological practices. Existing as-
sessments rarely account for possible biases, e.g., due to selected or omitted variables (see, e.g.,
Grovermann et al. 2021 for an exception). For example, farms currently adopting agroecologi-
cal practices may be characterized by systematic differences in resource endowments and skills
(e.g., larger farms and better educated farmers) that would allow them to generate higher profits
and yields than other farms, even in the absence of agroecology. Establishing required causal re-
lationships to guide decision making requires appropriate econometric or experimental research
designs (Wuepper & Finger 2023). Moreover, the economic implications of the widespread use of
agroecology (vis-à-vis being adopted only by few) need still to be identified.
Creating markets that are favorable to agroecology will be necessary to broaden the use of
agroecology and can contribute to ensuring long-term economic viability for many farmers and

364 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 other food system actors. For example, organic producer and related certification is often charac-
terized by higher prices (Grovermann et al. 2021, Ssebunya et al. 2019), but nonorganic production
schemes can also be compensated with higher prices. Mohring & Finger (2022) report that low-
pesticide and pesticide-free, but nonorganic, crop production in Switzerland is compensated with
higher prices. However, the capacity of markets to enable such price markups (whether certi-
fied or not) is often limited (Munoz et al. 2021). For example, Bottazzi & Boillat (2021) report
that only a small share of the population in Senegal can afford the large price markups for or-
ganic food so that organic production generating price markups for producers remains a niche
market. Thus, to overcome limited market access, alternative food networks can be created, e.g.,
by building food citizenship through the participation of producers and consumers and building
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

reciprocal arrangements such as solidarity networks (Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al. 2018,
Vicente-Vicente et al. 2021). To broaden the widespread use of agroecology globally, however,
a better integration in traditional markets must be achieved, e.g., using certification schemes
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

(as proven relevant for organic or fair-trade production) (Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho et al.
2018).

4.2.2. Agroecology in agricultural policies. To broaden the use of agroecology, its concepts
and approaches need to be translated and implemented in governmental thinking and finally in
actual policies. Agroecology is represented by inclusive innovation technologies that aim to find
solutions that are appropriate in the regional and local context (Pereira et al. 2018). Thus, new
policy measures may also be needed. In contrast to the support or regulation of specific production
methods and technologies, a policy framework and process are needed to develop, enable, and
support solutions that are locally appropriate.
However, because agroecology aims to reduce the negative external effects of current agricul-
tural practices (e.g., due to reduced input use), contribute to the provision of ecosystem services
(e.g., improved resource use efficiency and soil quality, reduced erosion and greenhouse gas emis-
sion, and increased yields and stability), and enhance biodiversity, it already benefits from currently
existing policy measures, even without being explicitly mentioned. For example, payments for par-
ticipation in agri-environmental schemes aiming to reduce pesticide use or increase the uptake
of organic farming as well as payments for ecosystem services can incentivize farmers to adopt
agroecological practices (De Leijster et al. 2020).
In recent years, agroecology has become increasingly institutionalized (Doré & Bellon 2019)
and promoted by international organizations [e.g., FAO, International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)–Organics International]. Thus, it is also an essential element of
international policy agreements (Loconto & Fouilleux 2019). The long-term implications of these
steps still need to be revealed and emphasize the need for respective monitoring and assessment
(see Section 4.1.2).
Policies to support agroecology can range from being producer-oriented, consumer-oriented,
and market-/trade-oriented, or they may be oriented toward creating an enabling environment
representing cross-cutting approaches (see, e.g., Place et al. 2022 for examples and reviews). Al-
though only a few countries have integrated an orchestrated, broad, and significant policy shift
in all of these dimensions, various countries have started addressing agroecology in recent policy
steps (e.g., Lampkin et al. 2020, Place et al. 2022).
Agroecology is of increasing relevance in European policies. For instance, in France, agroecol-
ogy is a crucial element in policy documents, e.g., in reference to organic farming and agroforestry
and the reduction of phytosanitary products (Lampkin et al. 2020). Moreover, policies were in-
troduced, enabling the explicit promotion of collective action. In the United Kingdom, there has
been increasing discussion of agroecological perspectives as part of the debate over leaving the

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 365

 European Union. Yet, there was only limited recognition in the agriculture bill debated in the UK
Parliament in 2020 (Lampkin et al. 2020).
Lampkin et al. (2020) state that Germany is actively promoting organic agricultural practices.
Indeed, the formulated goals for the expansion of organic agriculture in Germany go beyond the
EU goals (i.e., 30% instead of 25%, as formulated by the European Union by 2030). Beyond
the promotion of organic farming, agroecology is increasingly employed in German agricul-
tural policy. An example is a position paper published by 59 organizations (INKOTA 2019)
calling for agroecological farming and a commitment to implementing agroecological principles
in agricultural policy (Lampkin et al. 2020).
In Switzerland, the government placed agroecology in their research concept for agriculture
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

and food in 2021–2024. It states that agroecology is a pathway to transform today’s agricultural and
food systems in accordance with the SDGs (BLW 2020). In its report on future directions of agri-
cultural policy, the Swiss government explicitly refers to agroecology, its principals, and its holistic
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

approach (Bundesrat 2022). Thus, future developments of agricultural policy in Switzerland will
be guided by agroecology, but the actual implementation steps still need to be established.
In contrast, agroecology is currently of lesser relevance to agricultural policies in Canada
(Isaac et al. 2018) and the United States (Miles et al. 2017). Clapp (2021) reports that only a
small share of public sector agricultural spending in the United States is currently directed to
agroecology initiatives.
More prominently, agroecology is considered as a key concept and opportunity for policies in
developing countries.3 For example, Pereira et al. (2018) argue that developing countries in par-
ticular present opportunities to showcase alternative pathways for agricultural development that
ensure environmental and social sustainability and ethical responsibility. Agroecology is the “legit-
imate innovation pathway within agricultural research systems that is more sustainable” (Pereira
et al. 2018, p. 9). Yet, Gliessman (2020) states that most governments in developing countries do
not foster agroecology sufficiently.
To broaden the use of agroecology in development contexts, public investment in agroecolog-
ical research but especially the policy environment that enables the development and support of
agroecology is suggested. However, Gliessman (2020) reports that, for example, only a fraction
of agricultural research funding in Africa is being used for agroecology. He reports that 13% of
projects by Kenyan research institutes are agroecological. Along these lines, Bottazzi & Boillat
(2021) state that the dynamic advocacy for agroecology in Sub-Saharan Africa so far has had
little influence on public policy, and large-scale success of agroecology is still limited. However,
the authors also show that there are emerging developments, such as alternative food networks
in Senegal, that open up new opportunities for agroecological transformations. These networks,
often created by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), for example, establish cooperatives
to purchase products from farmers and distribute them to special marketplaces. In general, the
promotion of agroecology in many developing countries is facilitated by intermediary organiza-
tions. For example, Iyabano et al. (2022) show that farmers’ organizations in Burkina Faso act as
intermediary actors to support farmers’ adoption of agroecological innovation processes.
There are also important policy developments elsewhere in the Global South. For example,
Coq et al. (2020) and Pereira et al. (2018) show that, in Latin America, agroecology is driven by

3 Note that there are also critical perspectives on major policies aimed at agroecology. For example, Mugwanya

(2019, p. 113) claims that the narrow concepts are often too restrictive to meet the transformational need of, for
example, African agriculture. The author makes particular reference to the observation of an “anticorporate,
anti-industrial sentiment informing the arguments of agroecology.”

366 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 social movements that have promoted the integration of agroecology into public policies. They
conclude, however, that the few implemented policies remain fragile, and a broader support from
farmers, consumers, and policy makers is needed. Place et al. (2022) provide other policy examples
in Indonesia, Chile, Nicaragua, and India.
Development policies often are a key leverage point toward long-term sustainable transitions of
agri-food systems globally, such as by financing the research and implementation of agroecology
(Dethier & Effenberger 2012). For example, Gliessman (2020) reports that more than 50% of
Swiss-funded projects in Africa have agroecological components. Furthermore, international trade
policies can offer opportunities to increase sustainability (Baylis et al. 2021). De Schutter (2011)
and Fakhri (2021) also discuss trade and agroecology.
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

During the recent UN Food Systems Summit 2021 (https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-

summit), the importance of agroecology and food affordability in the Global South was
intensively discussed. The need for urgent and coherent action was emphasized to ensure healthy
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

diets and sustainably produced, safe food for all, and new coalitions such as the School Meals
Coalition and the Healthy Diets Coalition were announced.4 As for agroecology, limited repre-
sentation has been criticized (IDS & IPES-Food 2022), and several regional and international
organizations, mainly NGOs, aiming to represent marginalized rural groups of the Global South
organized the Global People’s Summit on Food Systems in 2021. Among other concerns, the
summit addressed the control of the global food system by powerful nations and big corporations.
This shows the huge challenges in integrating food system–related activities, including actors and
policies from local/regional scales to international/global scales.
Clearly, agroecology has been adopted by international organizations and international policy
agreements and introduced in various national policies, ranging from producer- or consumer-
oriented policies to larger-scale (e.g., market-oriented) policies. However, coherent and large
policy shifts as well as multinational policy frameworks are still rare. Along these lines, new policy
approaches that acknowledge the principles of agroecology, e.g., those that allow stakeholders to
develop and support solutions that are locally appropriate, are not yet widely implemented. It re-
mains unclear how much existing policy instruments focusing on more sustainable (economically,
socially and environmentally) and resilient agriculture can be adjusted to support agroecology, and
to what extent novel policy instruments dedicated explicitly to agroecology are needed.
4.2.3. Agroecology and new and emerging technologies. A wide range of new approaches,
production systems, and technologies may contribute to more sustainable and resilient agri-food
systems (Pretty et al. 2018, Rose & Chilvers 2018, von Braun et al. 2021). These approaches could
also support the widespread adoption and diffusion of agroecological principals and approaches
but are rarely considered in the agroecological literature as a viable part of the solutions.
4.2.3.1. Digital technologies. Digital technologies (e.g., remote and proximal sensing, artificial
intelligence methods of data analysis, modeling and robotics) are increasingly seen to be part of
a fourth revolution of agriculture (Walter et al. 2017). Smart farming technologies can enable
higher efficiency of input use (e.g., by using inputs such as fertilizer and pesticides in more tar-
geted ways), better animal welfare, and increased profits for farmers and along the value chain
(Basso & Antle 2020, Finger et al. 2019). Digital technologies can also contribute to redesigning
agricultural landscapes and systems for sustainability (Basso 2021, Basso & Antle 2020, Walter

4 New coalitions were announced at the UN Food Systems Summit 2021 to increase access to healthy
diets from sustainable food systems (https://www.who.int/news/item/23-09-2021-new-coalitions-
announced-at-the-un-food-systems-summit-to-increase-access-to-healthy-diets-from-sustainable-
food-systems).

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 367

 et al. 2017). Providing data-driven insights from multiple data sources (sensing and model fore-
casting) in the inherent variability of agricultural production systems (e.g., regarding climate, soil,
topography, and pest damage) allows policy makers to improve decisions on land allocation, pro-
duction practices, technology use, crop variety choice, and input use at various levels, from the
field to the farm and from the landscape to regional scale. Thus, land allocation and production
decisions can be tailored to fundamentally redesign agricultural systems so that the root causes
of problems are avoided (Gliessman 2016) and critical inputs such as pesticides are reduced. The
use of digital technologies can improve crop diversification, biodiversity, and other ecosystem ser-
vices, often summarized as precision conservation (Basso 2021, Basso & Antle 2020, Northrup
et al. 2021). For example, digital technologies can support farmers to design cropping systems in
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

new field arrangements (Donat et al. 2022, Hernández-Ochoa et al. 2022) and allocate resources
in a way that production and biodiversity outcomes are optimized at the same time, implementing
a high-resolution land sparing concept (Basso 2021).
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Digital technologies can also enable improved exchange among farmers, extension services,
authorities, and other upstream and downstream actors in the food system (Ehlers et al. 2021,
2022; Finger et al. 2019; Walter et al. 2017). Digital technologies can thus contribute to supporting
transformation in food system levels (Figures 1 and 6).
Yet, the great potential of digital technologies for agroecology is largely underexploited and
sometimes even considered to be controversial (Bellon-Maurel & Huyghe 2017). For example,
Ditzler & Driessen (2022) claim that automating agroecology is possible by using advances in
agricultural robotics. Along these lines, Pappalardo & Andrade (2022) illustrate the role of low-
cost and open-source drone applications for agroecology and organic farming in improving both
the efficiency of agroecosystems and the empowerment of local farmers. A more connected agri-
culture can also be seen as an opportunity to promote agroecological agriculture by providing
technologies to better implement, share, and distribute it.
Leveau et al. (2019) present various examples of how digital technologies could be used to sup-
port agroecological practices, including digital pest prevention strategies, new tools to facilitate
biodiversity improvements, and knowledge exchange and learning platforms. Bellon-Maurel &
Huyghe (2017) show that digital technologies contribute through various levers to the agroeco-
logical transition because they allow efficacy, substitution, and redesign, e.g., by helping the farmer
to achieve flow loop closing and take advantage of biodiversity. Beyond their use in farm agroe-
cology, digital technologies can contribute to reestablishing connections between producers and
consumers as well as enable and strengthen global networks across the entire food system and its
actors (Walter et al. 2017).
Key areas of conflict and tension in the use of digital technologies might arise from the market
power possibly associated with new technologies. For example, who owns the data, who makes
decisions, and who has the locus of discretion in a digital agricultural system? These are key ques-
tions that must be addressed (Ehlers et al. 2021, 2022; Walter et al. 2017). Moreover, there might
be fundamental mismatches between digitalization and agroecology, for example, because digital
technologies could imply increases in the use of nonrenewable resources such as energy (Leveau
et al. 2019). Giraldo & Rosset (2022, p. 821; emphasis in original) state that focusing on technolo-
gies without also adjusting other axes of change would result in “fake or junk agroecologies.” Yet,
these concerns may be more related to how the technology is implemented, managed, and used,
as well as to how new technological opportunities are embedded in a larger picture of agroe-
cological transformations rather than reflecting a fundamental contradiction. Bellon-Maurel &
Huyghe (2017, p. 1) state that “. . .it is absurd, as it is sometimes read, to oppose agroecology and
technology.” Likewise, Leveau et al. (2019) report that information and communication technolo-
gies can be used in agroecological agriculture to support the application of its different principles

368 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 without distorting them and that a responsible perspective should be taken, without taking the
decision-making power away from the farmers (Bellon-Maurel et al. 2022).
4.2.3.2. Breeding technologies. New plant breeding technologies that include genetically mod-
ified and gene-edited crops5 offer large potential for sustainable agriculture and food security
(Qaim 2009, 2020). For example, new breeding technologies can contribute to improved crop
yields, lower application of fertilizers and pesticides, and an increased resilience of crops to ex-
treme climate events. Important breeding goals to increase pest and disease resistance will lower
the need for pesticides and reduce yield variability (Bailey-Serres et al. 2019, Qaim & Zilberman
2003). A further focus is on developing crops with increased nutrient use efficiency so that fertil-
izer use (and its losses to the environment) can be reduced while maintaining or increasing crop
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

yields (Bailey-Serres et al. 2019, Miao & Khanna 2020). New breeding technologies may also con-
tribute to increasing diversity in agri-food systems. For example, it can be used to domesticate new
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

and/or neglected crops and wild plants more rapidly than with traditional breeding technologies
(Fernie & Yang 2019). Instead of focusing breeding activities on a small number of crops, new
breeding technologies thus may allow efficient expansion of this scope, which would contribute
to enhancing agrobiodiversity and dietary diversity (Qaim 2020). With the increasing diversity
of crops and cropping systems, breeding for lower-input systems, and a range of different crop
systems (intercropping and mixed, strip, or relay cropping, etc.), challenges for crop breeding will
increase (Wuest et al. 2021).
Major obstacles in public and policy debates regarding new breeding technologies include the
perceived risks to biodiversity, the environment, and human health associated with new plant va-
rieties. This may derive from the breeding process itself and/or be related to the particular traits
developed (Grossniklaus et al. 2020, Kearns et al. 2021, Qaim 2020). Synthesis studies do not in-
dicate clear differences with other breeding technologies (Leopoldina 2019, NAS 2016). Further
concerns are related to the feasibility of coexistence with organic and genetically modified–free
agriculture and aspects of transparency within value chains and labeling (Eur. Comm. 2021, Qaim
2020). Another crucial aspect is the risk of the “disappearance of some conventional food pro-
duction” (Lemarie & Marette 2022, p. 38). Moreover, the economic implications of (or different
regulations of ) new breeding technologies and distribution of economic rents across actors remain
crucial aspects of public and policy debates (Purnhagen & Wesseler 2019, Wesseler et al. 2019).
Also, questions of intellectual property rights are a key element of discussions ( Jansen 2015). The
European Commission (Eur. Comm. 2021, p. 57) points out that “stakeholders have different and
often opposing views on these aspects.”
The regulation of new breeding technologies differs substantially across countries and is highly
dynamic (Buchholzer & Frommer 2022, Qaim 2020). Whereas Europe is more restrictive, coun-
tries in the Americas, for example, already use new breeding technologies. More specifically, the
United States, Canada, and some South American countries have classified genome-edited crops
(as long as they do not contain foreign DNA in the end product) as equivalent to conventional
breeds (Buchholzer & Frommer 2022).
Despite their potential for agroecology, new breeding technologies are often seen as false
solutions (see also Giraldo & Rosset 2022). Stassart et al. (2018, p. 3) even comment that the
development of agroecology in Belgium is actually “rooted in public opposition to GMOs as the
crystalization of the neo-productionist paradigm.”
To address this, Niggli (2015a, p. 149), among others, calls for “a comprehensive culture of
innovation” in organic agriculture and agroecology that also embraces technological innovations

5 See, e.g., Buchholzer & Frommer (2022), Leopoldina (2019), NAS (2016), Grossniklaus et al. (2020) for

definitions.

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 369

 such as breeding technologies (see also Andersen et al. 2015). Moreover, Lotz et al. (2020, p. 21)
conclude that “genetic engineering and agroecology certainly have synergy,” especially owing to
the opportunities of facilitating integrated pest management practices by making crops less vul-
nerable to pests and diseases. Similarly, Lemarie & Marette (2022) call for a coherency check of
how the regulation of new breeding technologies can be integrated coherently to also contribute
to goals in the Farm to Fork Strategy (see also Purnhagen et al. 2021). Recently, the European
Commission concluded that new breeding technologies “have the potential to contribute to sus-
tainable agri-food systems in line with the objectives of the European Green Deal and Farm to
Fork Strategy” (Eur. Comm. 2021, p. 2).
Future debates should disentangle the question of new breeding technologies from specific
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

agricultural practices, intellectual property rights, and distribution of economic rents. de Wit
Montenegro (2022, p. 733) asks whether “agroecology and CRISPR can mix?” and discusses vari-
ous reasons why agroecology and new breeding technologies do not integrate well. They suggest
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

a push toward technology sovereignty (de Wit Montenegro 2022),6 so that the use of new (breed-
ing) technologies is clearly centered in farmers’ preferences and local communities. In this way,
“people’s rights to make decisions about and cocreate technologies” (de Wit Montenegro 2022,
p. 750) can be reflected and communities’ collective knowledge and power can be used (which may
not imply perfect harmonization of divergent epistemologies and ontologies). New breeding tech-
nologies may contribute to democratizing the breeding of improved crops, e.g., via participatory
breeding (Colley et al. 2021).

5. SYNTHESIS OF PERSPECTIVES TO ENHANCE AGROECOLOGY

AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
The challenge of developing sustainable agri-food systems is immense. However, agroecology is a
promising approach to contribute to this ambition. It has gained much attention in recent decades
with an increasing number of examples of its positive effects on agri-food systems. In this review,
we have tried to understand to what extent agroecology can be scaled up to become the global
model for sustainable agriculture and food production (Figure 7a).
Revisiting the conceptual development and definition of agroecology, we point to its gradu-
ally expanding scope embracing the entire global food system. This includes economics, policy,
the governance of transformation, and an increasing number of perspectives to capture system
complexity, such as scales, SDGs, and sustainability dimensions, but also activities and codesign
approaches. However, we also see convergence and agreement regarding the understanding of
agroecology, but a concise definition effectively integrating its different perspectives, elements,
and principles is pending. The term agroecology, which has not changed despite a widening of its
scope, may also need attention.
Through a comprehensive literature analysis, we found that overarching publications address-
ing the full scope of agroecology, including its implementation, are largely missing. Instead, most
peer-reviewed publications cluster into two main groups focusing on either the crop-soil system
and related practices or the larger agri-food system. Further clustering shows that eight subgroups
identified fall in either one or the other cluster, with little overlap among these, and show different
dynamics regarding increasing or decreasing numbers of publications in recent decades. We also
identified topical areas that received relatively little attention so far and that we have addressed
here in more detail.

6 More specifically, de Wit Montenegro (2022) outlines six principals for technology sovereignty: It (a) focuses

on technology for people, (b) values food providers as tech providers, (c) localizes tech systems, (d) puts control
locally, (e) builds knowledge and skills, and ( f ) works with nature.

370 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 ge
n
a

an
Sustainable

atio
Sustainable agri-food systems

ch
agri-food systems

iliz

nd
t, a
t
s, u
• Food system approach?

c
pa
ces
• Economies and markets?

im
s
act

, ac
• Policies?

rs,
Agroecology imp

ive
ility
• New and emerging technologies?
and

Dr
es

ilab
om
utc

ava
o do
Fo

d
nt

Foo
nme
enviro
d
Foo
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

b SDGs
Stakeholders
and actors ain
alue ch
Food v
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Sustainability Codesign
dimensions Agroecology elements Consumer behavior and diets
Integration
perspectives

Levels of Value chain

organization components
and scales
Activities

Sustainable agri-food systems

c
Agroecology Agroecology
enhanced

Codesign Full multiscale

approaches in food system approach
living labs

Comprehensive Adequate multi-

multiscale actor scale policy designs
involvement

Utilization of new Develop modeling

technologies and assessment tools

Figure 7
Agroecology for sustainable and resilient agriculture and food systems. (a) Scope of this review with important perspectives addressed,
(b) the demand for integrating system perspectives of agroecology and food system characteristics (see also Figure 5), and (c) important
areas of attention for enhancing agroecology to support the development of sustainable agri-food systems.

We noted that research on agroecology and food system science are not yet well integrated
(Figure 7b). A comprehensive food system approach including an analytical framework compris-
ing local to global processes of ecosystem dynamics, value chains, markets, policies, and related
codesign processes is also largely missing. Developing links to other research communities in
food system research, economics, and policies could be beneficial in this regard. Jointly devel-
oping available monitoring, modeling, and assessment tools will be essential for agroecology to
further develop its scientific basis, considering its widened scope.
Our analysis reveals that the consideration of new and emerging technologies such as digital-
ization and new breeding technologies can complement other steps to facilitate an agroecological
transformation and contribute to more sustainable and resilient agriculture. However, important
critical points and open questions remain.

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 371

 We show that economic considerations of agroecology and the identification of its potential
benefits for all agri-food system actors are key elements to broaden its use. Here, systematic assess-
ments and further evidence are needed across different scales, farming systems, and agro-climatic
zones. Moreover, we identify enabling and limiting factors that currently hinder broadening the
use of agroecology along entire food value chains globally.
We identify the important role of policies. Although many countries have started considering
agroecology in theory, national policy frameworks, large policy shifts, and multinational policy
frameworks are still rare. Policy support is usually motivated by the assumption that agroecology
can effectively and efficiently contribute to developing sustainable, resilient, and fair agri-food
systems. However, such policy efforts should be embedded in broader policy perspectives and
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

approaches. For example, these would comprise a focus on a holistic food system policy, address-
ing the role of different food system actors and a shift to healthy diets and a fair food system
(De Schutter et al. 2020). Policies can create an enabling environment for innovation of solu-
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

tions that are appropriate in the regional and local context (Pereira et al. 2018), ideally based on
sustainability indicators. This also comprises the support of farmer-to-farmer networks and the
improvement of farmers’ access to knowledge (Lampkin et al. 2020). Policies can also create an en-
abling environment to integrate new technological opportunities in sustainable agri-food systems
with agroecology such as digitalization and new breeding technologies. Finally, national policies
need to account for implications for other countries, e.g., consequences of leakage and the tele-
coupling effects of policies. Overall, we identify six areas of needed attention in order to further
enhance agroecology as a global model of sustainable agri-food systems (Figure 7c).

1. Full multiscale food system approach: This would link local and regional solutions to global
relationships determining the food system dynamics and interactions with related systems
(Figure 6). This integration should consider relevant processes, relationships, actors,
stakeholders, drivers, sustainability indicators, and the respective assessment methods
across all scales.
2. Comprehensive multiactor involvement: This would consider all relevant actors and stake-
holders at all relevant levels of organization and scales. This includes policy makers, food
producers, upstream companies, retailers, and consumers as well as insurance companies
and related industries and researchers avoiding inequalities and power asymmetries ( Jacobi
et al. 2021).
3. Codesign approaches in living labs: Living labs would facilitate such joint development,
evaluation and testing of policies, innovations including new production systems and food
networks, and new technologies considering all relevant actors and stakeholders at multiple
levels of organization.
4. Monitoring, modeling, and assessment tools: These would monitor and assess the sustain-
ability of agroecology-related system changes representing all dimensions of sustainability
(environmental, social, and economic) at multiple scales. These will also require developing
comprehensive data infrastructures and data management, modeling, and assessment
capabilities.
5. Openness to and utilization of new and emerging technologies: Such utilization would
untap the full potential of agroecology to support the transformation toward sustainable
agri-food systems and engage all relevant actors and stakeholders.
6. Adequate policy design: This would support a full multiscale food system approach based on
a holistic food system policy framework that integrates local/regional policies with national
and global policies for more sustainable agri-food systems.

372 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 From a research perspective, we see an important need to support the development and im-
plementation of an overarching analytical framework for agroecology, integrating food system
components, levels of organization and scales, dimensions of sustainability, and more specifically,
SDGs with the respective indicators to measure system impact and change. This can provide im-
portant evidence on possible contributions to bigger policy goals as well as benefits, costs, and risk.
Such an overarching framework needs to be developed together with approaches for its implemen-
tation and operationalization. For this, it will be necessary to develop and use new or available
monitoring networks, models, data infrastructures, impact assessments, and scenario analysis ca-
pabilities to support the development of and transformation toward sustainable agri-food systems.
Successful development and implementation of this framework will require new research modes
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

with diverse actors, including practitioners and policy makers, working together with researchers
in a codesign process.
Although agroecology represents a promising approach to support the development of sus-
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

tainable agri-food systems, other types of agriculture have a similar goal, such as organic farming,
sustainable intensification, and regenerative agriculture. Given the complexity of these goals and
the ever-limited scientific understanding of this complexity, different paths and a diversity of ap-
proaches from these different types of agriculture to reach the same goals may be possible, but
they will require clarity and transparency about terms and approaches (IDS & IPES-Food 2022).
Therefore, such diversification in agricultural approaches could offer colearning benefits in the in-
terest of the overall goal of developing sustainable and resilient agri-food systems. This will require
a culture of open engagement and exchange where scientific evidence should play an important
role.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
F.E. acknowledges support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; German Research
Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy–EXC 2070–390732324. We thank the editor
and two anonymous reviewers for valuable feedback on an earlier version of this review.

LITERATURE CITED
Alkan Olsson J, Bockstaller C, Stapleton LM, Ewert F, Knapen R, et al. 2009. A goal oriented indicator frame-
work to support integrated assessment of new policies for agri-environmental systems. Environ. Sci. Policy
12:562–72
Altieri MA. 1989. Agroecology: a new research and development paradigm for world agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 27:37–46
Altieri MA. 1995. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 2nd ed.
Altieri MA. 2002. Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal
environments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 93:1–24
Altieri MA, Toledo VM. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food
sovereignty and empowering peasants. J. Peasant Stud. 38:587–612
Andersen MM, Landes X, Xiang W, Anyshchenko A, Falhof J, et al. 2015. Feasibility of new breeding
techniques for organic farming. Trends Plant Sci. 20:426–34
Antle JM, Basso B, Conant RT, Godfray HCJ, Jones JW, et al. 2017. Towards a new generation of agricultural
system data, models and knowledge products: design and improvement. Agric. Syst. 155:255–68

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 373

 Arroyo-Lambaer D, Uscanga A, Piña Tejeda VM, Vázquez-Barrios V, Reverchon F, et al. 2021. Cognitive
maps across multiple social sectors: shared and unique perceptions on the quality of agricultural soils in
Mexico. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:448
Asseng S, Asche F. 2019. Future farms without farmers. Sci. Robot. 4:eaaw1785
Asseng S, Ewert F, Martre P, Rötter RP, Lobell DB, et al. 2015. Rising temperatures reduce global wheat
production. Nat. Clim. Change 5:143–47
Atta-Krah K, Chotte JL, Gascuel C, Gitz V, Hainzelin E, et al. 2021. Agroecological transformation for sustainable
food systems: insight on France-CGIAR research. Rep. 26, Agropolis Int., Montpellier, Fr.
Bailey-Serres J, Parker JE, Ainsworth EA, Oldroyd GED, Schroeder JI. 2019. Genetic strategies for improving
crop yields. Nature 575:109–18
Barba-Escoto L, van Wijk MT, López-Ridaura S. 2020. Non-linear interactions driving food security of
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

smallholder farm households in the western highlands of Guatemala. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:51
Barrett CB. 2020. Actions now can curb food systems fallout from COVID-19. Nat. Food 1:319–20
Basso B. 2021. Precision conservation for a changing climate. Nat. Food 2:322–23
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Basso B, Antle J. 2020. Digital agriculture to design sustainable agricultural systems. Nat. Sustain. 3:254–56
Baylis K, Heckelei T, Hertel TW. 2021. Agricultural trade and environmental sustainability. Annu. Rev. Resour.
Econ. 13:379–401
Behnassi M, El Haiba M. 2022. Implications of the Russia–Ukraine war for global food security. Nat. Hum.
Behav. 6:754–55
Bellon-Maurel V, Huyghe C. 2017. Putting agricultural equipment and digital technologies at the cutting
edge of agroecology. Oilseeds Fats Crops Lipids 24:D307
Bellon-Maurel V, Lutton E, Bisquert P, Brossard L, Chambaron-Ginhac S, et al. 2022. Digital revolution for
the agroecological transition of food systems: a responsible research and innovation perspective. Agric.
Syst. 203:103524
Benítez M, Rosell JA, Perfecto I. 2022. Editorial: mathematical modeling and complex systems in agroecology.
Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:829551
Blei DM, Ng A, Jordan MI. 2003. Latent Dirichlet Allocation. J. Mach Learn. Res. 3:993–1022
BLW (Bundesamt Landwirt.). 2020. Forschungskonzept Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft 2021–2024. Rep., Swiss
Fed. Off. Agric. (FOAG), Bern, Switz.
Bolwig S, Gibbon P, Jones S. 2009. The economics of smallholder organic contract farming in tropical Africa.
World Dev. 37:1094–104
Bottazzi P, Boillat S. 2021. Agroecological farmer movements and advocacy coalitions in Sub-Saharan Africa:
between de-politicization and re-politicization. In The Palgrave Handbook of Environmental Labour Studies,
ed. N Räthzel, D Stevis, D Uzzell, pp. 415–40. Cham, Switz.: Springer Int.
Britz W, Hertel TW. 2011. Impacts of EU biofuels directives on global markets and EU environmental quality:
an integrated PE, global CGE analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 142:102–9
Brondizio ES, Settele J, Díaz S, Ngo HT. 2019. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the
Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Rep., IPBES Secr., Bonn,
Ger.
Buchholzer M, Frommer WB. 2022. An increasing number of countries regulate genome editing in crops.
New Phytol. 237:12–15
Bundesrat. 2022. Zukünftige ausrichtung der agrarpolitik. Rep., Schweiz. Eidgenoss., Bern, Switz.
Campbell BM, Beare DJ, Bennett EM, Hall-Spencer JM, Ingram JSI, et al. 2017. Agriculture production as a
major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol. Soc. 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES-09595-220408
Caquet T, Gascuel C, Tixier-Boichard M. 2020. Agroecology: Research for the Transition of Agri-Food Systems and
Territories. Versailles, Fr.: Quae
Carducci B, Keats EC, Ruel M, Haddad L, Osendarp SJM, Bhutta ZA. 2021. Food systems, diets and nutrition
in the wake of COVID-19. Nat. Food 2:68–70
Cassman KG. 1999. Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: yield potential, soil quality, and
precision agriculture. PNAS 96:5952–59
Chavas JP. 2011. Agricultural policy in an uncertain world. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 38:383–407

374 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 Clapp J. 2021. The problem with growing corporate concentration and power in the global food system. Nat.
Food 2:404–8
Clark M, Hill J, Tilman D. 2018. The diet, health, and environment trilemma. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
43:109–34
Colley MR, Dawson JC, McCluskey C, Myers JR, Tracy WF, van Bueren ETL. 2021. Exploring the emergence
of participatory plant breeding in countries of the Global North—a review. J. Agric. Sci. 159:320–38
Coq J-FL, Sabourin E, Bonin M, Gresh SF, Marzin J, et al. 2020. Public policy support for agroecology in
Latin America: lessons and perspectives. Glob. J. Ecol. 5:129–38
Dalgaard T, Hutchings NJ, Porter JR. 2003. Agroecology, scaling and interdisciplinarity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
100:39–51
D’Annolfo R, Gemmill-Herren B, Graeub B, Garibaldi LA. 2017. A review of social and economic
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

performance of agroecology. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 15:632–44

De Leijster V, Verburg RW, Santos MJ, Wassen MJ, Martinez-Mena M, et al. 2020. Almond farm profitability
under agroecological management in southeastern Spain: accounting for externalities and opportunity
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

costs. Agric. Syst. 183:102878

De Ponti T, Rijk B, Van Ittersum MK. 2012. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture.
Agric. Syst. 108:1–9
De Schutter O. 2011. Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. United Nations Gen. Assemb.,
Hum. Rights Counc., UN Doc. A/HRC/16/49, Dec. 20. http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/
officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf
De Schutter O, Jacobs N, Clement C. 2020. A ‘common food policy’ for Europe: how governance reforms
can spark a shift to healthy diets and sustainable food systems. Food Policy 96:101849
Deguine J-P, Aubertot J-N, Bellon S, Côte F, Lauri P-E, et al. 2023. Agroecological crop protection for
sustainable agriculture. In Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 178, ed. DL Sparks, pp. 1–59. Cambridge, MA:
Elsevier
Dessart FJ, Barreiro-Hurle J, van Bavel R. 2019. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable
farming practices: a policy-oriented review. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 46:417–71
Dethier J-J, Effenberger A. 2012. Agriculture and development: a brief review of the literature. Econ. Syst.
36:175–205
de Wit K. 1968. Theory and model. Inaugural address, Univ. Wageningen, Neth.
de Wit Montenegro M. 2022. Can agroecology and CRISPR mix? The politics of complementarity and
moving toward technology sovereignty. Agric. Human Values 39:733–55
Di Falco S, Chavas JP. 2009. On crop biodiversity, risk exposure, and food security in the highlands of Ethiopia.
Am. J. Agric. Econ. 91:599–611
Ditzler L, Driessen C. 2022. Automating agroecology: How to design a farming robot without a monocultural
mindset? J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 35:2
Doernberg A, Zasada I, Bruszewska K, Skoczowski B, Piorr A. 2016. Potentials and limitations of regional
organic food supply: a qualitative analysis of two food chain types in the Berlin Metropolitan region.
Sustainability 8:1125
Doi T, Sakurai G, Iizumi T. 2020. Seasonal predictability of four major crop yields worldwide by a hybrid
system of dynamical climate prediction and eco-physiological crop-growth simulation. Front. Sustain.
Food Syst. 4:84
Donat M, Geistert J, Grahmann K, Bloch R, Bellingrath-Kimura SD. 2022. Patch cropping—a new
methodological approach to determine new field arrangements that increase the multifunctionality of
agricultural landscapes. Comput. Electron. Agric. 197:106894
Doré T, Bellon S. 2019. Les Mondes de l’Agroécologie. Versailles, Fr.: Quae
Ehlers MH, Finger R, El Benni N, Gocht A, Sorensen CAG, et al. 2022. Scenarios for European agricultural
policymaking in the era of digitalisation. Agric. Syst. 196:103318
Ehlers MH, Huber R, Finger R. 2021. Agricultural policy in the era of digitalisation. Food Policy 100:102019
Ericksen PJ. 2008. Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Glob. Environ.
Change 18:234–45
Eur. Comm. 2020. Towards a sustainable food system. Rep., Eur. Comm., Brussels. https://research-and-
innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/c8e97599-e5f5-43d8-a962-d9a0116960df _en

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 375

 Eur. Comm. 2021. Study on the status of new genomic techniques under Union law and in light of the Court of Justice
ruling in Case C-528/16. Work. Doc. Comm. Staff, Eur. Comm., Brussels. https://food.ec.europa.eu/
document/download/5135278b-3098-4011-a286-a316209c01cd_en?filename=gmo_mod-bio_
ngt_eu-study.pdf
Ewert F, van Bussel L, Zhao G., Hoffmann H, Gaiser T, Specka X, et al. 2015. Uncertainties in scaling-
up crop models for large-area climate-change impact assessments. In Handbook of Climate Change and
Agroecosystems: The Agricultural Model Intercomparison Project (AgMIP), ed. C Rosenzweig, D Hillel,
pp. 262–77. Singapore: World Sci. Publ.
Ewert F, van Ittersum MK, Bezlepkina I, Therond O, Andersen E, et al. 2009. A methodology for enhanced
flexibility of integrated assessment in agriculture. Environ. Sci. Policy 12:546–61
Ewert F, van Ittersum MK, Heckelei T, Therond O, Bezlepkina I, Andersen E. 2011. Scale changes and
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

model linking methods for integrated assessment of agri-environmental systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
142:6–17
Fakhri M. 2021. A trade agenda for the right to food. Development 64:212–19
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Fan S, Teng P, Chew P, Smith G, Copeland L. 2021. Food system resilience and COVID-19—lessons from
the Asian experience. Glob. Food Secur. 28:100501
FAO (Food Agric. Organ. United Nations). 2014. Agroecology for Food Security and Nutrition: Proceedings of the
FAO International Symposium. Rome: FAO
FAO (Food Agric. Organ. United Nations). 2018a. Scaling up Agroecology to Achieve the Sustainable Development
Goals. Proceedings of the Second FAO International Symposium. Rome: FAO
FAO (Food Agric. Organ. United Nations). 2018b. The 10 elements of agroecology: guiding the transition to sus-
tainable food and agricultural systems. Rep., Food Agric. Organ. United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.
org/3/i9037en/i9037en.pdf
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO. 2022. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World. Repurposing
Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable. Rome: FAO
Fernie AR, Yang JB. 2019. De novo domestication: an alternative route toward new crops for the future. Mol.
Plant 12:615–31
Finger R, Droste N, Bartkowski B, Ang F. 2022. A note on performance indicators for agricultural economic
journals. J. Agric. Econ. 73:614–20
Finger R, El Benni N. 2021. Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on measurement and
implications for policy evaluation. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 48:253–65
Finger R, Swinton SM, El Benni N, Walter A. 2019. Precision farming at the nexus of agricultural production
and the environment. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 11:313–35
Folstad A. 2008. Living Labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology:
a literature review. Electron. J. Organ. Virtualness 10:99–131
Francis CA, Harwood RR, Parr JF. 1986. The potential for regenerative agriculture in the developing world.
Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1:65–74
Francis CA, Lieblein G, Gliessman S, Breland TA, Creamer N, et al. 2003. Agroecology: the ecology of food
systems. J. Sustain. Agric. 22:99–118
Gardebroek C, Lansink AGJMO. 2004. Farm-specific adjustment costs in Dutch pig farming. J. Agric. Econ.
55:3–24
Garnett T, Appleby MC, Balmford A, Bateman IJ, Benton TG, et al. 2013. Sustainable intensification in
agriculture: premises and policies. Science 341:33–34
Gascuel-Odoux C, Lescourret F, Dedieu B, Detang-Dessendre C, Faverdin P, et al. 2022. A research agenda
for scaling up agroecology in European countries. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42:53
Giller KE, Hijbeek R, Andersson JA, Sumberg J. 2021. Regenerative agriculture: an agronomic perspective.
Outlook Agric. 50:13–25
Giller KE, Witter E, Corbeels M, Tittonell P. 2009. Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in
Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crops Res. 114:23–34
Giraldo OF, Rosset PM. 2022. Emancipatory agroecologies: social and political principles. J. Peasant Stud.
50:820–50
Gliessman S. 2015. Agroecology: a growing field. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 39:1–2

376 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 Gliessman S. 2016. Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 40:187–89
Gliessman S. 2018. Defining agroecology. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 42:599–600
Gliessman S. 2020. Investing in agroecology in Africa. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 44:1253–54
Gliessman S. 2021. Agroecology and the transition to sustainability in West African food systems. Agroecol.
Sustain. Food Syst. 45:157–58
Gliessman S, de Wit Montenegro M. 2021. Agroecology at the UN food systems summit. Agroecol. Sustain.
Food Syst. 45:1417–21
Gliessman S, Ferguson BG. 2020. Keeping up with the agroecology movement: priorities for agroecology and
sustainable food systems. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 44:1–2
Gliessman S, Tittonell P. 2015. Agroecology for food security and nutrition. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 39:131–
33
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

Gliessman SR. 2004. Integrating agroecological processes into cropping systems research. J. Crop. Improv.
11:61–80
Gliessman SR. 2014. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 3rd ed.
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Gliessman SR, Garcia RE, Amador MA. 1981. The ecological basis for the application of traditional
agricultural technology in the management of tropical agro-ecosystems. Agro-Ecosystems 7:173–85
Grossniklaus U, Messmer M, Peter R, Romeis J, Studer B. 2020. Pflanzenzüchtung—von klassischer Kreuzung
bis Genom-Editierung. Factsheet 15, Swiss Acad., Bern, Switz. https://zenodo.org/record/3696456
Grovermann C, Quiedeville S, Muller A, Leiber F, Stolze M, Moakes S. 2021. Does organic certification
make economic sense for dairy farmers in Europe?–A latent class counterfactual analysis. Agric. Econ.
52:1001–12
Hernández-Ochoa IM, Gaiser T, Kersebaum KC, Webber H, Seidel SJ, et al. 2022. Model-based design of
crop diversification through new field arrangements in spatially heterogeneous landscapes. A review.
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42:74
Hertel T, Elouafi I, Tanticharoen M, Ewert F. 2021. Diversification for enhanced food systems resilience. Nat.
Food 2:832–34
HLPE (High Level Panel Experts Food Secur. Nutr. Comm. World Food Secur.). 2017. Nutrition and food
systems. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on Food
Security and Nutrition, Rep., HLPE, Rome
HLPE (High Level Panel Experts Food Secur. Nutr. Comm. World Food Secur.). 2019. Agroecological and
other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition.
Rep. 14, HLPE, Rome
HLPE (High Level Panel Experts Food Secur. Nutr. Comm. World Food Secur.). 2020. Food security and
nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030. Rep., HLPE, Rome
Hobbs PR, Sayre K, Gupta R. 2008. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. B 363:543–55
Hoffman MD, Blei DM, Bach F. 2010. Online learning for latent Dirichlet allocation. In Advances in Neu-
ral Information Processing Systems 23 (NIPS 2010), ed. J Lafferty, C Williams, J Shawe-Taylor, R Zemel,
A Culotta, pp. 1–9. San Diego: NeurIPS
IDS & IPES-Food. 2022. Agroecology, regenerative agriculture, and nature-based solutions: competing framings of
food system sustainability in global policy and funding spaces. Rep., IPES-Food, Brussels
Ingram J. 2011. A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global
environmental change. Food Secur. 3:417–31
Ingram JSI, Gregory PJ, Izac AM. 2008. The role of agronomic research in climate change and food security
policy. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 126:4–12
INKOTA. 2019. Strengthening agroecology for a fundamental transformation of agri-food systems. Posi-
tion Pap., INKOTA, Berlin. https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/position-paper-strengthening-
agroecology/
IPCC (Intergov. Panel Clim. Change). 2022. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. H-O Pörtner,
DC Roberts, M Tignor, ES Poloczanska, K Mintenbeck, et al. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Isaac ME, Isakson SR, Dale B, Levkoe CZ, Hargreaves SK, et al. 2018. Agroecology in Canada: towards an
integration of agroecological practice, movement, and science. Sustainability 10:3299

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 377

 Iyabano A, Klerkx L, Faure G, Toillier A. 2022. Farmers’ Organizations as innovation intermediaries for
agroecological innovations in Burkina Faso. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 20:857–73
Iyer P, Bozzola M, Hirsch S, Meraner M, Finger R. 2020. Measuring farmer risk preferences in Europe: a
systematic review. J. Agric. Econ. 71:3–26
Jacobi J, Valdez GVV, Benabderrazik K. 2021. Towards political ecologies of food. Nat. Food 2:835–37
Jansen K. 2015. The debate on food sovereignty theory: agrarian capitalism, dispossession and agroecology.
J. Peasant Stud. 42:213–32
Kearns P, Dima O, Nowak A, Napiorkowski M, Magan J, et al. 2021. White Paper on the Regulation of Genome
Editing in Agriculture. Brussels: Re-Imagine Europa
Knowler D, Bradshaw B. 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent
research. Food Policy 32:25–48
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

LaCanne CE, Lundgren JG. 2018. Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and natural resource
conservation profitably. PeerJ 6:e4428
Lacoste M, Cook S, McNee M, Gale D, Ingram J, et al. 2022. On-farm experimentation to transform global
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

agriculture. Nat. Food 3:11–18

Lampkin N, Schwarz G, Bellon S. 2020. Policies for agroecology in Europe, building on experiences in France,
Germany and the United Kingdom. Landbauforsch. J. Sustain. Organic Agric. Syst. 70:103–12
Leffelar PA, ed. 1998. On Systems Analysis and Simulation of Ecological Processes. Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
Academic
Leip A, Marchi G, Koeble R, Kempen M, Britz W, Li C. 2008. Linking an economic model for European
agriculture with a mechanistic model to estimate nitrogen and carbon losses from arable soils in Europe.
Biogeosciences 5:73–94
Lemarie S, Marette S. 2022. The socio-economic factors affecting the emergence and impacts of new genomic
techniques in agriculture: a scoping review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 129:38–48
Leopoldina. 2019. Towards a scientifically justified, differentiated regulation of genome edited plants in the EU.
Statement, Natl. Akad. Wissensch. Leopoldina, Halle, Ger. https://www.leopoldina.org/uploads/
tx_leopublication/2019_Stellungnahme_Genomeditierte_Pflanzen_web.pdf
Leveau L, Bénel A, Cahier J-P, Pinet F, Salembier P, et al. 2019. Information and communication technol-
ogy (ICT) and the agroecological transition. In Agroecological Transitions: From Theory to Practice in Local
Participatory Design, ed. J-E Bergez, E Audouin, O Therond, pp. 263–87. Cham, Switz.: Springer
Loconto AM, Fouilleux E. 2019. Defining agroecology: exploring the circulation of knowledge in FAO’s
Global Dialogue. Int. J. Soc. Agric. Food 25:116–37
Lotz LAP, van de Wiel CCM, Smulders MJM. 2020. Genetic engineering at the heart of agroecology. Outlook
Agric. 49:21–28
Marton TA, Storm H. 2021. The case of organic dairy conversion in Norway: assessment of multivariate
neighbourhood effects. Q. Open 1:qoab009
McPhee C, Bancerz M, Mambrini-Doudet M, Chrétien F, Huyghe C, Gracia-Garza J. 2021. The defining
characteristics of agroecosystem living labs. Sustainability 13:1718
Mendoza TC. 2004. Evaluating the benefits of organic farming in rice agroecosystems in the Philippines.
J. Sustain. Agric. 24:93–115
Meuwissen MPM, Feindt PH, Spiegel A, Termeer CJAM, Mathijs E, et al. 2019. A framework to assess the
resilience of farming systems. Agric. Syst. 176:102656
Miao RQ, Khanna M. 2020. Harnessing advances in agricultural technologies to optimize resource utilization
in the food-energy-water nexus. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12:65–85
Mier y Terán Giménez Cacho M, Giraldo OF, Aldasoro M, Morales H, Ferguson BG, et al. 2018. Bringing
agroecology to scale: key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 42:637–65
Miles A, DeLonge MS, Carlisle L. 2017. Triggering a positive research and policy feedback cycle to support
a transition to agroecology and sustainable food systems. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 41:855–79
Mohring N, Finger R. 2022. Pesticide-free but not organic: adoption of a large-scale wheat production
standard in Switzerland. Food Policy 106:102188
Mottet A, Bicksler A, Lucantoni D, De Rosa F, Scherf B, et al. 2020. Assessing transitions to sustainable
agricultural and food systems: a tool for agroecology performance evaluation (TAPE). Front. Sustain.
Food Syst. 4:579154

378 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 Mouratiadou I, Latka C, van der Hilst F, Müller C, Berges R, et al. 2021. Quantifying sustainable intensification
of agriculture: the contribution of metrics and modelling. Ecol. Indic. 129:107870
Mugwanya N. 2019. Why agroecology is a dead end for Africa. Outlook Agric. 48(2):113–16
Muller A, Schader C, Scialabba NEH, Bruggemann J, Isensee A, et al. 2017. Strategies for feeding the world
more sustainably with organic agriculture. Nat. Commun. 8:1290
Muller B, Hoffmann F, Heckelei T, Muller C, Hertel TW, et al. 2020. Modelling food security: bridging the
gap between the micro and the macro scale. Glob. Environ. Change 63:102085
Munoz EFP, Niederle PA, de Gennaro BC, Roselli L. 2021. Agri-food markets towards agroecology: tensions
and compromises faced by small-scale farmers in Brazil and Chile. Sustainability 13:3096
NAS (Natl. Acad. Sci. Med.). 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects.
Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Sci. Med.
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

Nelson GC, Valin H, Sands RD, Havlík P, Ahammad H, et al. 2014. Climate change effects on agriculture:
economic responses to biophysical shocks. PNAS 111:3274–79
Niggli U. 2015a. Incorporating agroecology into organic research—an ongoing challenge. Sustain. Agric. Res.
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

4:149–57
Niggli U. 2015b. Sustainability of organic food production: challenges and innovations. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 74:83–
88
Niggli U, Riedel J. 2020. Agroecology empowers a new, solution-oriented dialogue. Landbauforschung 70:15–20
Niggli U, Sonnevelt M, Kummer S. 2021. Pathways to advance agroecology for a successful transformation to
sustainable food systems. Food Syst. Summit Brief, United Nations Food Syst. Summit, New York
Nóia Júnior RD, Ewert F, Webber H, Martre P, Hertel TW, et al. 2022. Needed global wheat stock and crop
management in response to the war in Ukraine. Glob. Food Secur. Agric. Policy Econ. Environ. 35:100662
Northrup DL, Basso B, Wang MQ, Morgan CLS, Benfey PN. 2021. Novel technologies for emission re-
duction complement conservation agriculture to achieve negative emissions from row-crop production.
PNAS 118:e2022666118
Ong TWY, Liao W. 2020. Agroecological transitions: a mathematical perspective on a transdisciplinary
problem. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:91
Ortiz-Bobea A, Ault TR, Carrillo CM, Chambers RG, Lobel DB. 2021. Anthropogenic climate change has
slowed global agricultural productivity growth. Nat. Clim. Change 11:306–12
Osendarp S, Verburg G, Bhutta Z, Black RE, de Pee S, et al. 2022. Act now before Ukraine war plunges
millions into malnutrition. Nature 604:620–24
Pappalardo S, Andrade D. 2022. Drones for good: UAS applications in agroecology and organic farming.
In Drones and Geographical Information Technologies in Agroecology and Organic Farming Contributions to
Technological Sovereignty, ed. M De Marchi, A Diantini, SE Pappalardo, pp. 122–48. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press
Pereira L, Wynberg R, Reis Y. 2018. Agroecology: The future of sustainable farming? Environment 60:4–17
Place F, Niederle P, Sinclair F, Carmona NE, Guéneau S, et al. 2022. Agroecologically-conducive policies: a re-
view of recent advances and remaining challenges. Work. Pap. 1, Transf. Partnersh. Platf. Agroecol., Bogor,
Indones. https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf _files/WPapers/TPP-WP-1.pdf
Pretty J. 2008. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 363:447–65
Pretty J, Benton TG, Bharucha ZP, Dicks LV, Flora CB, et al. 2018. Global assessment of agricultural system
redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat. Sustain. 1:441–46
Pretty J, Bharucha ZP. 2014. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann. Bot. 114:1571–96
Purnhagen KP, Clemens S, Eriksson D, Fresco LO, Tosun J, et al. 2021. Europe’s farm to fork strategy and its
commitment to biotechnology and organic farming: Conflicting or complementary goals? Trends Plant
Sci. 26:600–6
Purnhagen KP, Wesseler JHH. 2019. Maximum versus minimum harmonization: what to expect from the
institutional and legal battles in the EU on gene editing technologies. Pest Manag. Sci. 75:2310–15
Qaim M. 2009. The economics of genetically modified crops. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 1:665–94
Qaim M. 2020. Role of new plant breeding technologies for food security and sustainable agricultural
development. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 42:129–50
Qaim M, Zilberman D. 2003. Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science
299:900–2

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 379

 Reidsma P, Janssen S, Jansen J, van Ittersum MK. 2018. On the development and use of farm models for policy
impact assessment in the European Union—a review. Agric. Syst. 159:111–25
Rodale R. 1983. Breaking new ground: the search for a sustainable agriculture. Futurist 1:15–20
Rose DC, Chilvers J. 2018. Agriculture 4.0: broadening responsible innovation in an era of smart farming.
Front Sustain. Food Syst. 2:87
Rosenzweig C, Jones JW, Hatfield JL, Ruane AC, Boote KJ, et al. 2013. The Agricultural Model In-
tercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agric. For. Meteorol.
170:166–82
Schaub S, Buchmann N, Luscher A, Finger R. 2020. Economic benefits from plant species diversity in
intensively managed grasslands. Ecol. Econ. 168:106488
Schulp CJE, Komossa F, Scherer L, van der Zanden EH, Debolini M, Piorr A. 2022. The role of different types
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

of actors in the future of sustainable agriculture in a Dutch peri-urban area. Environ. Manag. 70:401–19
Seppelt R, Arndt C, Beckmann M, Martin EA, Hertel TW. 2021. Deciphering the biodiversity-production
mutualism in the global food security debate. Trends Ecol. Evol. 35:1011–20
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Serra T, Zilberman D, Gil JM. 2008. Differential uncertainties and risk attitudes between conventional and
organic producers: the case of Spanish arable crop farmers. Agric. Econ. 39:219–29
Seufert V, Ramankutty N. 2017. Many shades of gray—the context-dependent performance of organic
agriculture. Sci. Adv. 3:e1602638
Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA. 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture.
Nature 485:229–32
Snapp SS, Kebede Y, Wollenberg EK, Dittmer KM, Brickman S, et al. 2021. Agroecology & climate change rapid
evidence review: performance of agroecological approaches in low- and middle-income countries. Rep., CGIAR,
Paris
Springmann M, Clark M, Mason-D’Croz D, Wiebe K, Bodirsky BL, et al. 2018. Options for keeping the food
system within environmental limits. Nature 562:519–25
Ssebunya BR, Morawetz UB, Schader C, Stolze M, Schmid E. 2019. Group membership and certification
effects on incomes of coffee farmers in Uganda. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 46:109–32
Stassart PM, Crivits M, Hermesse J, Tessier L, Van Damme J, Dessein J. 2018. The generative potential of
tensions within Belgian agroecology. Sustainability 10:2094
Steen K, van Bueren E. 2017. Urban living labs: a living lab way of working. Rep., AMS, Amsterdam
Steffen W, Richardson K, Rockstrom J, Cornell SE, Fetzer I, et al. 2015. Planetary boundaries: guiding human
development on a changing planet. Science 347:736–47
Struik PC, Kuyper TW, Brussaard L, Leeuwis C. 2014. Deconstructing and unpacking scientific controversies
in intensification and sustainability: why the tensions in concepts and values? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
8:80–88
Tittonell P. 2014. Ecological intensification of agriculture—sustainable by nature. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
8:53–61
Tittonell P. 2020. Assessing resilience and adaptability in agroecological transitions. Agric. Syst. 184:102862
Tittonell P, El Mujtar V, Felix G, Kebede Y, Laborda L, et al. 2022. Regenerative agriculture—agroecology
without politics? Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 6:844261
Tittonell P, Piñeiro G, Garibaldi LA, Dogliotti S, Olff H, Jobbagy EG. 2020. Agroecology in large scale
farming—a research agenda. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4:584605
Trnka M, Rotter RP, Ruiz-Ramos M, Kersebaum KC, Olesen JE, et al. 2014. Adverse weather conditions for
European wheat production will become more frequent with climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 4:637–43
van der Ploeg JD. 2021. The political economy of agroecology. J. Peasant Stud. 48:274–97
van der Ploeg JD, Barjolle D, Bruil J, Brunori G, Costa Madureira LM, et al. 2019. The economic potential
of agroecology: empirical evidence from Europe. J. Rural. Stud. 71:46–61
van Ittersum MK, Ewert F, Heckelei T, Wery J, Alkan Olsson J, et al. 2008. Integrated assessment of agri-
cultural systems—a component-based framework for the European Union (SEAMLESS). Agric. Syst.
96:150–65
Vandermeer J. 2020. Confronting complexity in agroecology: simple models from Turing to Simon. Front
Sustain. Food Syst. 4:95

380 Ewert • Baatz • Finger

 Vicente-Vicente JL, Doernberg A, Zasada I, Ludlow D, Staszek D, et al. 2021. Exploring alternative path-
ways toward more sustainable regional food systems by foodshed assessment—city region examples from
Vienna and Bristol. Environ. Sci. Policy 124:401–12
von Braun J, Afsana K, Fresco LO, Hassan M. 2021. Food systems: seven priorities to end hunger and protect
the planet. Nature 597:28–30
Walter A, Finger R, Huber R, Buchmann N. 2017. Smart farming is key to developing sustainable agriculture.
PNAS 114:6148–50
Wesseler J, Politiek H, Zilberman D. 2019. The economics of regulating new plant breeding technologies—
implications for the bioeconomy illustrated by a survey among Dutch plant breeders. Front. Plant Sci.
10:1597
Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, Francis C, Vallod D, David C. 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29:503–15

Wezel A, Casagrande M, Celette F, Vian JF, Ferrer A, Peigné J. 2014. Agroecological practices for sustainable
agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34:1–20
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Wezel A, Herren BG, Kerr RB, Barrios E, Gonçalves ALR, Sinclair F. 2020. Agroecological principles and
elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agron. Sustain.
Dev. 40:40
Wezel A, Soldat V. 2009. A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of the scientific discipline of
agroecology. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 7:3–18
Wheeler T, von Braun J. 2013. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 341:508–13
Willett W, Rockstrom J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, et al. 2020. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-
Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393:447–92
Wuepper D, Finger R. 2023. Regression discontinuity designs in agricultural and environmental economics.
Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 50. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbac023
Wuest SE, Peter R, Niklaus PA. 2021. Ecological and evolutionary approaches to improving crop variety
mixtures. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5:1068–77
Zhao C, Liu B, Piao S, Wang X, Lobell DB, et al. 2017. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major
crops in four independent estimates. PNAS 114:9326–31

www.annualreviews.org • Agroecology for Sustainable Systems 381

RE15_FrontMatter ARjats.cls August 16, 2023 17:15

Annual Review of
Resource
Economics

Contents Volume 15, 2023

Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

Autobiographical
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Sir Partha Dasgupta: Meeting the Challenges of Environmental

and Development Economics
Partha Dasgupta, Gordon C. Rausser, and David Zilberman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1

Agricultural Economics

Economics of Crop Residue Management

Vijesh V. Krishna and Maxwell Mkondiwa p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p19
Food Losses in Agrifood Systems: What We Know
Luciana Delgado, Monica Schuster, and Maximo Torero p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p41
Inferential and Behavioral Implications of Measurement Error
in Agricultural Data
Kibrom A. Abay, Tesfamicheal Wossen, Gashaw T. Abate, James R. Stevenson,
Hope Michelson, and Christopher B. Barrett p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p63
Food Fraud: Causes, Consequences, and Deterrence Strategies
Konstantinos Giannakas and Amalia Yiannaka p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p85

Environmental Economics

The Economics of Nutrient Pollution from Agriculture

Gemma Del Rossi, Mohammad Mainul Hoque, Yongjie Ji, and Catherine L. Kling p p p p 105
The Market Stability Reserve in the EU Emissions Trading System:
A Critical Review
Simone Borghesi, Michael Pahle, Grischa Perino, Simon Quemin,
and Maximilian Willner p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 131
Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics of Environmental Values
Phoebe Koundouri, Barbara Hammer, Ulrike Kuhl, and Alina Velias p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 153

xiii
RE15_FrontMatter ARjats.cls August 16, 2023 17:15

Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: What Does the Evidence

Tell Us?
Wayne B. Gray, Ron Shadbegian, and Ann Wolverton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 177
Competition Policy and the Environment
Roman Inderst and Stefan Thomas p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 199
The Effects of Temperature on Labor Productivity
Wangyang Lai, Yun Qiu, Qu Tang, Chen Xi, and Peng Zhang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 213
A Review of the Financial Sector Impacts of Risks Associated
Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

with Climate Change

Fujin Zhou, Thijs Endendijk, and W.J. Wouter Botzen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 233
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Development Economics

Do Different Estimation Methods Lead to Implausible Differences in the

Size of Nonobserved or Shadow Economies? A Preliminary Answer
Friedrich Schneider p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 257
Food Insecurity in the United States: Measurement, Economic Modeling,
and Food Assistance Effectiveness
Travis A. Smith and Christian A. Gregory p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 279
Social Protection and Rural Transformation in Africa
Juan Sebastian Correa, Silvio Daidone, Benjamin Davis, and Nicholas J. Sitko p p p p p p p p 305

Resource Economics

Economics of Ecosystem Restoration

Alisher Mirzabaev and David Wuepper p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 329
Agroecology for a Sustainable Agriculture and Food System: From Local
Solutions to Large-Scale Adoption
Frank Ewert, Roland Baatz, and Robert Finger p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 351
The Role and Use of Mathematical Programming in Agricultural,
Natural Resource, and Climate Change Analysis
Chengcheng J. Fei and Bruce A. McCarl p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 383

Health and Nutrition Economics

A New Wave of Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Taxes: Are They Meeting

Policy Goals and Can We Do Better?
Kristin Kiesel, Hairu Lang, and Richard J. Sexton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 407

xiv Contents
RE15_FrontMatter ARjats.cls August 16, 2023 17:15

Heterogeneous Effects of Obesity on Life Expectancy: A Global

Perspective
Sangeeta Bansal and Yanhong Jin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 433
Advances in Causal Inference at the Intersection of Air Pollution
and Health Outcomes
Dylan Brewer, Daniel Dench, and Laura O. Taylor p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 455

Research and Development

Access provided by 2806:2f0:4041:b397:24bb:3862:b986:6b21 on 10/18/23. See copyright for approved use.

Slow Magic: Agricultural Versus Industrial R&D Lag Models

Julian M. Alston, Philip G. Pardey, Devin Serfas, and Shanchao Wang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 471
Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2023.15:351-381. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

The Rigor Revolution: New Standards of Evidence for Impact

Assessment of International Agricultural Research
James R. Stevenson, Karen Macours, and Douglas Gollin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495

Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Resource Economics articles may be
found at http://www.annualreviews.org/errata/resource

Contents xv