A review of social and economic performance of agroecology

ABSTRACT

Agroecology potentially offers a sustainable path to agricultural development as it integrates ecological principles and social and economic concerns into agri-food systems. While many descriptive studies have documented the experience of farming communities using agroecological approaches, evidence on social and economic indicators of agroecology is poorly documented in a quantitative sense. The present study aims to build a framework and provide a quantitative overview of the effects of adopting selected agroecological practices at the farm level. A literature review has been conducted in order to identify scientific work addressing the contribution of agroecology to a set of socio-economic indicators, which affect human, financial and social assets. Data extracted from 17 peer-reviewed papers were analysed using two techniques: vote counting and general linear mixed-effects models on effect sizes. We found preliminary evidence of agroecology’s positive contribution to improving financial capital. However, data extracted does not provide meaningful information on other capital endowments (human and social). This is mainly due to the fact that there is a lack of data concerning the socio-economic impact of agroecology. In addition, qualitative methods (e.g. Q-methodology) should be integrated into further research in order to capture farmer perspectives.

KEYWORDS:

• Agroecology
• agroecological practices
• sustainable livelihoods framework
• socio-economic
• sustainable agriculture
• quantitative analysis

Acknowledgements

The authors thank two anonymous reviewers who provided excellent feedback to improve the quality of this manuscript. Moreover, many thanks to Prof. Mariacristina Piva and Prof. Emanuele A. Vendramini for their support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Raffaele D’Annolfo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3002-210X

Barbara Gemmill-Herren http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4991-640X

Benjamin Graeub http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8070-9612

Lucas A. Garibaldi http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0725-4049

Notes

1. Relevant Farm/Community-level indicators have been identified in this study.

2. http://www.scopus.com/ (accessed January and February 2015).

3. The practice use of compost or organic matter was searched as follow: ‘use of compost’ or ‘organic matter’. Small-scale water-conserving irrigation was searched using the keyword ‘water use efficiency’.

4. Articles appearing multiple times in the ranking were considered only once.

5. Based on a Scopus database analysis conducted on 21 May 2015. Cumulative results are from 1995–2015.

6. Composition: 25 kg N (farmyard manure) + 25 kg N (urea) + 25 kg P (phosphorus) per hectare.

7. The study compares the adoption of integrated nutrient management and biological N fixation with chemical fertilizers. We considered agroecological treatments those that have less chemical an increased quantity of compost or organic matter (e.g. farmyard manures) compared to those considered conventional.

8. Compositions: 50% recommended NPK corresponds to 10 kg (N) + 30 kg (P) + 20 kg (K) per hectare; 100% recommended NPK corresponds to 20 kg (N) + 60 kg (P) 240 kg (K) per hectare.

9. Organic manures (10 t ha⁻¹).

10. Currencies are given in Indian Rupees.

11. A compost prepared through heap method out of 40% cactus and crop residue, 10% vegetable and fruit peels (avocado, mango and vegetable skins), 20% animal manure, 10% ash, 5% soil, and 15% cattle urine.

12. The price premiums reflect consumers’ willingness to pay for attributes and additional production costs associated with organic foods, such as organic certification and the lack of pesticides during production.

13. Currencies are given in Bangladeshi Taka.

14. Currencies are given in Chinese Renminbi.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Doctoral School on the Agro-Food System (Agrisystem) of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Italy) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO.