荷兰生态农业的亮点:生态农业实践与收入稳定性的空间分析

IF 6.1 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Loes A. Verkuil , Peter H. Verburg , Christian Levers , Anne Elise Stratton , Catharina J.E. Schulp
{"title":"荷兰生态农业的亮点:生态农业实践与收入稳定性的空间分析","authors":"Loes A. Verkuil ,&nbsp;Peter H. Verburg ,&nbsp;Christian Levers ,&nbsp;Anne Elise Stratton ,&nbsp;Catharina J.E. Schulp","doi":"10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context</h3><p>Agroecological practices are known to reduce environmental pressure of farming systems and increase food system resilience in tropical regions. In contrast, in the temperate climate and industrialized agricultural context of the Netherlands, agroecology use remains limited and its impacts are unknown. As agroecological systems can form a sustainable alternative to conventional farming, it is relevant to study to what extent farmers use agroecological practices in the Netherlands, potentially serving as a model for transition.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study assesses spatial patterns of uptake of agroecological practices and their relationship with income resilience.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using data from 735 Dutch farms, we created a composite Agroecology Index to quantify the extent of use of agroecological practices. The FAO's 10 Elements of Agroecology framework was used to select indicators for the index, by selecting the six of the Elements in this framework for which our dataset contained suitable data. Linear regressions explored underlying factors, such as farm size and farm type. Using an outlier analysis, bright and dark spot farms, exceeding or lagging the Dutch average, were mapped. We evaluated the effects of agroecological practices on income resilience over a 10-year period.</p></div><div><h3>Results and conclusions</h3><p>On a 0–100 scale, agroecology scores ranged from 16.5% to 61.1% (36.6 ± 7.0), with stark contrasts between different Elements of agroecology. Arable farms excelled in Diversity, while livestock farms performed better in Efficiency. Spatial variation was substantial, with both bright and dark spots dispersed across the country. We found highest average scores and the strongest prevalence of bright spots in the province of Flevoland, an area with an exceptional number of organic farmers. Higher agroecology scores were linked to increased income stability, independent of farm size or type.</p></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><p>The methods developed in this study provide an approach to address the growing demand for evidence of the upscaling of agroecology in practice. Also, the relationships between agroecology and social and environmental outcomes from farm to regional scales can be addressed, which can guide developments towards sustainable agriculture.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7730,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Systems","volume":"220 ","pages":"Article 104086"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24002361/pdfft?md5=14a5e8a7052ba9e6701380eab5dd5a3e&pid=1-s2.0-S0308521X24002361-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bright spots of agroecology in the Netherlands: A spatial analysis of agroecological practices and income stability\",\"authors\":\"Loes A. Verkuil ,&nbsp;Peter H. Verburg ,&nbsp;Christian Levers ,&nbsp;Anne Elise Stratton ,&nbsp;Catharina J.E. Schulp\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Context</h3><p>Agroecological practices are known to reduce environmental pressure of farming systems and increase food system resilience in tropical regions. In contrast, in the temperate climate and industrialized agricultural context of the Netherlands, agroecology use remains limited and its impacts are unknown. As agroecological systems can form a sustainable alternative to conventional farming, it is relevant to study to what extent farmers use agroecological practices in the Netherlands, potentially serving as a model for transition.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study assesses spatial patterns of uptake of agroecological practices and their relationship with income resilience.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using data from 735 Dutch farms, we created a composite Agroecology Index to quantify the extent of use of agroecological practices. The FAO's 10 Elements of Agroecology framework was used to select indicators for the index, by selecting the six of the Elements in this framework for which our dataset contained suitable data. Linear regressions explored underlying factors, such as farm size and farm type. Using an outlier analysis, bright and dark spot farms, exceeding or lagging the Dutch average, were mapped. We evaluated the effects of agroecological practices on income resilience over a 10-year period.</p></div><div><h3>Results and conclusions</h3><p>On a 0–100 scale, agroecology scores ranged from 16.5% to 61.1% (36.6 ± 7.0), with stark contrasts between different Elements of agroecology. Arable farms excelled in Diversity, while livestock farms performed better in Efficiency. Spatial variation was substantial, with both bright and dark spots dispersed across the country. We found highest average scores and the strongest prevalence of bright spots in the province of Flevoland, an area with an exceptional number of organic farmers. Higher agroecology scores were linked to increased income stability, independent of farm size or type.</p></div><div><h3>Significance</h3><p>The methods developed in this study provide an approach to address the growing demand for evidence of the upscaling of agroecology in practice. Also, the relationships between agroecology and social and environmental outcomes from farm to regional scales can be addressed, which can guide developments towards sustainable agriculture.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural Systems\",\"volume\":\"220 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104086\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24002361/pdfft?md5=14a5e8a7052ba9e6701380eab5dd5a3e&pid=1-s2.0-S0308521X24002361-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24002361\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Systems","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24002361","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

众所周知,在热带地区,生态农业实践可以减轻耕作制度的环境压力,提高粮食系统的复原力。相比之下,在荷兰的温带气候和工业化农业环境中,生态农业的使用仍然有限,其影响也不得而知。由于生态农业系统可以成为传统农业的可持续替代品,因此研究荷兰农民在多大程度上使用生态农业实践具有重要意义,有可能成为转型的典范。本研究评估了采用生态农业实践的空间模式及其与收入弹性的关系。利用来自 735 个荷兰农场的数据,我们创建了一个综合生态农业指数来量化生态农业实践的使用程度。我们利用联合国粮农组织(FAO)的 "生态农业十要素 "框架来选择指数指标,并在该框架中选择了我们的数据集包含合适数据的六个要素。线性回归探讨了农场规模和农场类型等基本因素。通过离群值分析,我们绘制了超过或落后于荷兰平均水平的亮点和暗点农场图。我们评估了生态农业实践在 10 年内对收入弹性的影响。在 0-100 分的范围内,生态农业得分从 16.5% 到 61.1% 不等(36.6 ± 7.0),不同生态农业要素之间形成鲜明对比。耕地农场在多样性方面表现突出,而畜牧农场在效率方面表现较好。空间差异很大,全国各地既有亮点也有暗点。我们发现弗莱福兰省的平均得分最高,亮点也最多,该地区的有机农户数量特别多。较高的生态农业得分与收入稳定性的提高有关,与农场规模或类型无关。这项研究开发的方法提供了一种方法,以满足对生态农业在实践中不断升级的证据日益增长的需求。此外,本研究还探讨了从农场到区域范围内生态农业与社会和环境成果之间的关系,从而为可持续农业的发展提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Bright spots of agroecology in the Netherlands: A spatial analysis of agroecological practices and income stability

Bright spots of agroecology in the Netherlands: A spatial analysis of agroecological practices and income stability

Context

Agroecological practices are known to reduce environmental pressure of farming systems and increase food system resilience in tropical regions. In contrast, in the temperate climate and industrialized agricultural context of the Netherlands, agroecology use remains limited and its impacts are unknown. As agroecological systems can form a sustainable alternative to conventional farming, it is relevant to study to what extent farmers use agroecological practices in the Netherlands, potentially serving as a model for transition.

Objective

This study assesses spatial patterns of uptake of agroecological practices and their relationship with income resilience.

Methods

Using data from 735 Dutch farms, we created a composite Agroecology Index to quantify the extent of use of agroecological practices. The FAO's 10 Elements of Agroecology framework was used to select indicators for the index, by selecting the six of the Elements in this framework for which our dataset contained suitable data. Linear regressions explored underlying factors, such as farm size and farm type. Using an outlier analysis, bright and dark spot farms, exceeding or lagging the Dutch average, were mapped. We evaluated the effects of agroecological practices on income resilience over a 10-year period.

Results and conclusions

On a 0–100 scale, agroecology scores ranged from 16.5% to 61.1% (36.6 ± 7.0), with stark contrasts between different Elements of agroecology. Arable farms excelled in Diversity, while livestock farms performed better in Efficiency. Spatial variation was substantial, with both bright and dark spots dispersed across the country. We found highest average scores and the strongest prevalence of bright spots in the province of Flevoland, an area with an exceptional number of organic farmers. Higher agroecology scores were linked to increased income stability, independent of farm size or type.

Significance

The methods developed in this study provide an approach to address the growing demand for evidence of the upscaling of agroecology in practice. Also, the relationships between agroecology and social and environmental outcomes from farm to regional scales can be addressed, which can guide developments towards sustainable agriculture.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agricultural Systems
Agricultural Systems 农林科学-农业综合
CiteScore
13.30
自引率
7.60%
发文量
174
审稿时长
30 days
期刊介绍: Agricultural Systems is an international journal that deals with interactions - among the components of agricultural systems, among hierarchical levels of agricultural systems, between agricultural and other land use systems, and between agricultural systems and their natural, social and economic environments. The scope includes the development and application of systems analysis methodologies in the following areas: Systems approaches in the sustainable intensification of agriculture; pathways for sustainable intensification; crop-livestock integration; farm-level resource allocation; quantification of benefits and trade-offs at farm to landscape levels; integrative, participatory and dynamic modelling approaches for qualitative and quantitative assessments of agricultural systems and decision making; The interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural landscapes; the multiple services of agricultural systems; food security and the environment; Global change and adaptation science; transformational adaptations as driven by changes in climate, policy, values and attitudes influencing the design of farming systems; Development and application of farming systems design tools and methods for impact, scenario and case study analysis; managing the complexities of dynamic agricultural systems; innovation systems and multi stakeholder arrangements that support or promote change and (or) inform policy decisions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信