Machine Translated by Google

The plurality of values in sustainable agriculture models: diverse lock-in and

coevolution patterns
Author(s): Gael Plumecocq, Thomas Debril, Michel Duru, Marie-Benoît Magrini, Jean
Pierre Sarthou and Olivier Therond
Source: Ecology and Society , Mar 2018, Vol. 23, no. 1 (Mar 2018)

Published by: Resilience Alliance Inc.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26799066

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26799066?seq=1&cid=pdf
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecology and Society

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Copyright © 2018 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Plumecocq, G., T. Debril, M. Duru, M.-B. Magrini, J. Sarthou, and O. Therond. 2018. The plurality of values in sustainable agriculture
models: diverse lock-in and coevolution patterns. Ecology and Society 23(1):21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09881-230121

Insight, part of a Special Feature on Ecosystem Services for Agroecological Transitions

The plurality of values in sustainable agriculture models: diverse lock-

in and coevolution patterns
1 1 1
Get Plumecocq
1,2
, Thomas Debril , Michel Duru , Marie-Benoît Magrini 1,2
, Jean-Pierre Sarthou 3 and Olivier Therond

ABSTRACT. In Western economies, several agriculture models coexist. For instance, intensive agriculture organization, which has increased
yields while causing major pollution and resource depletion, competes with alternative models, which tackle these sustainability issues and lead
to lower yields. An agronomical typology of current agriculture models in Western societies is proposed that describes multiple sustainability
issues through an agroecological perspective. However, in order to choose between these agroecological pathways, we must understand their
social structure and the principles underlying them. Thus, our purpose is to characterize the institutional aspects of the alternative models using
socioeconomic convention theory. We conducted a series of workshops with specialists in the natural sciences (agronomy, landscape ecology,
and entomology) and social sciences (economics and sociology) to describe sustainable agriculture models. This characterization revealed the
values underlying six different sustainable agriculture models, their forms of organization, and the institutions governing them. We discuss the
implications of the coexistence of these six models in light of sustainable transition issues. From this coexistence perspective, transition (i) refers
to an intertwined process of legitimation and disqualification, and (ii) means seeing pathways as the multiplicity and degree of interconnection
between models. Therefore, we (i) identified the elements in each model that legitimize its mode of organization, and (ii) disqualified the elements
that are incompatible with the principles underlying the model’s practices. Moreover, we emphasize that multiple transition pathways are possible
based on complex, complementary combinations of different models. This revealed the intricate processes of competition and complementarity
involving these models. Finally, our study on the coexistence, interdependence, and coevolution of multiple agriculture models led us to advocate
a precautionary principle so that marginal innovative models are not prevented from emerging.

Key Words: agroecology; convention theory; ecosystem service; farming system; food system; sustainable agriculture; transition

INTRODUCTION of individual strategies and practices. Although these sustainable

The high-yield, conventional agriculture model based on the use of agriculture models are based on different systems of social values,
synthetic inputs (such as pesticides, nitrogen fertilizers, and they currently coexist. Multiple sustainability transitions of agriculture
antibiotics), minerals (potash and phosphates), and water has are then possible, depending on how the values legitimizing these
negative impacts on the natural environment that are well-known models coevolve. Therefore, we need to understand in greater depth
today (Rockström et al. 2009, German et al. 2016). Awareness of the variety of farmers’ motivations for choosing a particular pathway.
these impacts and the ensuing environmental regulations have pushed However, choosing one model may lead to the lock-in of the others.
farmers to change their relationship to nature (Horlings and Marsden Thus, to best adapt public policies for transforming agriculture, we
2011, Duru et al. 2015a, b). Many authors have identified distinct need to examine the underlying principles of these multiple models
pathways that agriculture can take to improve sustainability. In the and their interdependencies. To do so, we build on a fine-grained
late 1990s, Hill (1998) contrasted “shallow” with “deep” sustainability. agronomic typology of Western sustainable agriculture models that
More recently, Wilson (2008) spoke of “weak versus strong was recently developed by some authors of this paper (Therond et al.
multifunctionality,” Horlings and Marsden (2011) of “weak versus
strong ecological modernization of agriculture,” and Levidow et al. 2017). This typology identifies coherent sets of agricultural practices
(2013) of “life sciences versus an agroecology vision.” These and technologies that deal with sustainability issues. We link these
conceptual dichotomies oppose two kinds of agroecological practices practices together with the moral values that legitimize them through
(i.e., two kinds of relationships to nature): one that considers an institutional characterization of each model based on “convention
technological progress as the way to address environmental issues, theory” (see Ponte 2016 for a review of the use of the convention
and another that targets better protection or restoration of natural theory in English agro-food literature). We draw on Boltanski and
capital to increase ecosystem services. Most of the authors of these Thévenot (2006), who provide a framework—the “economies of worth”
dichotomies acknowledge that there is some middle ground. Other model—for qualifying the organizing principles and social values that
authors have attempted to identify provisional models. However, the underlie the institutional features of various legitimate social systems.
rare typologies that identify more than two models of agriculture tend We explicate how practices are embedded into institutional contexts
to either overlook their moral foundations (Therond et al. 2017) or and refer to greater common good (e.g., the use of petrochemicals in
grant moral status only to the “strongest” or “deepest” agroecological conventional farming practices is justified by the “feeding the world”
models (Gliessman 2007). argument). When practices are collectively judged as admissible (i.e.,
when justifications are collectively accepted and draw on conventionally
accepted social values), they provide the basis for collective actions
Thus, while all these studies agree on certain characteristics of
and possibly social systems. Boltanski
agriculture models, they do not question the moral justifications used
to legitimize choices, nor do they question the social aspects

3
INRA, AGIR, University of Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INP-EI PURPAN, Castanet-Tolosan, France, 2LEREPS, University of Toulouse, France,
INRA, LAE, University of Lorraine, Colmar, France

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

and Thévenot (2006) identified six types of common good in political

philosophy in relation to six forms of social organization (i.e., “polities”):
Box 1:

The economies of worth grammar from Boltanski and Thévenot

. equity as the basis of civic forms of organization in the work of
Rousseau (2006)

Higher common principle: “principle of coordination that … is a

. honesty as the basis of domestic forms of organization in
the work of Bossuet convention for establishing equivalence among beings.”

State of worthiness: “Worth beings are guarantors of the higher

. grace as the basis of inspired forms of organization in the work of
common principle.”
Augustine
List of subjects: type of people “most often qualified by their state of
. efficiency as the basis of industrial forms of organization in the
work of Saint-Simon worth (unworthy beings or worthy beings).”

List of objects and arrangements: “when objects, or their combination

. richness as the basis of market forms of organization in the
work of Adam Smith in more complicated arrangements, are arrayed with subjects, in
situations that hold together, they may be said to help objectify the
. fame as the basis of organizations whose form is based on worth of the person involved.”
opinion in the work of Hobbes
Investment formula: “worth also presupposes the sacrifice of the
Traces of these political philosophies can be found in the social world private pleasures associated with a state of lesser worthiness.”
(understood as an internally consistent arrangement of objects and
Natural relations among beings: “these relations … must be in
persons). Particular material arrangements such as technology, or
harmony with the worths of the subjects and objects that they unite
certain institutional ones such as product quality or rules of
according to relations of equivalence and order established by the
organization, then inscribe objects in one of these polities or qualify
polity.”
social functions in regard to one of these common goods. Thévenot
(1984) terms these “investments in form” to designate the various Harmonious figure of the natural order: “the relation of equivalence
instruments listed in a given world (e.g., tools, habits, rules, or diverse can be known only to the extent that it is revealed by a harmonious
material sets of arrangements). distribution of state of worth … in conformity with the investment
formula.”
These investments in form then frame practices and collective actions.
For instance, standards or labels may determine the form of production
Model test: “a situation that holds together … is prepared for a test …
processes that are organized according to principles of equity or
that entails a pure and particularly consistent arrangement of beings
efficiency (Ponte 2016). Yet the complexity of social worlds results
from a single world.”
from the fact that, very often, forms of organization are established as
a compromise between several “pure” polities. Mode of expression of judgment: “characterizes the form in which the
The “investments” made to put practices in a particular form then higher common principle is manifested.”
borrow elements from various polities (see the text box for a list of
Form of evidence: “modality of knowledge appropriate to the world
selected elements that constitute a polity).
under consideration.”
This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we present the
methodology and data. We explain the interdisciplinary method used
for the institutional characterization of these models, which we built on
a typology of sustainable agriculture models. This typology was METHOD AND (TYPOLOGY) DATA
established on farming systems depending on whether they are based
on exogenous input or ecosystem services, and high or low “territorial Method: an interdisciplinary and feedback study
embeddedness.” In Section 3, we analyze this sustainable agriculture This study expanded on a preliminary version of an agronomical
model typology using the economies of worth model and emphasize typology of farming systems that addressed sustainability issues (Duru
their institutional features (e.g., rules of functioning, forms of et al. 2016). At the same time, a socioeconomic characterization of
organization, principles for justifying prevailing practices). This that agronomic typology was also developed.
institutional characterization of sustainable agriculture models provides This work resulted in a fine-grained typology of six sets of
categories for conceptualizing the influence of human–nature– agroecological farming practices embedded in different food systems,
technology relationships on modes of social organization, agricultural which we briefly present in the next subsection (Therond et al. 2017).
practices, and uses of nature, and the institutional and political forms We then conducted a series of workshops involving the two authors
that regulate those practices and uses. Section 4 presents a discussion of the typology (one working in agronomy, the other in landscape
on the coexistence and coevolution of these models, as well as on ecology), an entomologist, a sociologist, an economist, and a
how to support agriculture as it changes to meet the challenges of socioeconomist.
agroecology. Transition, from a coexistence perspective, then (i) refers
During these workshops, natural scientists extensively presented how
to an intertwined process of legitimation and disqualification, and (ii)
they conceived of each of the sustainable agriculture models in the
leads to understanding pathways through the multiplicity and degree
agronomical typology. After each model was presented, social
of interconnection between models. scientists evaluated the extent to which each model could
be described in terms of the economies of worth grammar; e.g.,

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

by asking “who is recognized as dominant in this model?” (i.e., ways in which farmers adapt internal characteristics of their farming
what is the “state of worthiness” in the economies of worth system to account for societal demands for natural resource
grammar), or “how can we know that a figure in this model is preservation. This criterion reflects a wide range of farming system
dominant?” (i.e., what is the “model test” prevailing in this strategies using combinations of inputs that are different in nature
sustainable agriculture model?). (exogenous versus endogenous):
Discussions between natural and social scientists resulted in three . Some farmers try to deal with environmental issues by using
outcomes. First, the agronomical construction of the models was technologies to increase input use efficiency and limit
refined (the socioeconomic descriptions given called for further pollution. One strategy uses agriculture precision technologies
agronomical specifications). Interdisciplinary work then helped the to apply the right product, at the right rate, at the right time
participants reformulate disciplinary questions or issues. and right place (Spiertz 2012). A second practice replaces
Second, discussions led natural scientists to refine the way they chemical inputs with more “environmentally friendly” ones,
described these models to the social scientists (the socioeconomic such as organic fertilizers and exogenous biocontrol
descriptions dissipated misunderstandings in the descriptions). technologies (biopesticides, soil and plant health stimulators,
Third, these exchanges enabled the researchers to settle on the industrially developed organisms involved in soil nutrients,
formal descriptions of the agronomic models in socioeconomic and biological regulation). These two strategies are dominant
terms. The method process is described in Fig. 1. in farming systems 2a and 2b, respectively (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1. Interdisciplinary feedback process. . On the other end of the spectrum, farmers develop and manage
biodiversity to increase ecosystem services to agriculture or
“input services” (Zhang et al. 2007, Duru et al. 2015a). This
practice seeks to replace a large part of synthetic or biological
inputs with natural biological regulators in order to enhance
soil fertility (soil structure and nutrient cycling), water storage,
pollination, and pest regulation. These strategies are dominant
in farming systems 3b and 3c (Fig. 2).

These farming system strategies are not mutually exclusive.

Farming systems that combine endogenous and exogenous inputs
must then accurately assess the level of ecosystem services in
time and space (e.g., nitrogen and water provisioning) in order to
optimize the necessary level of additional anthropogenic inputs
This study is interdisciplinary in nature, meaning that knowledge
required to reach the target production level.
exchange occurred among researchers from different disciplines.
First, social scientists (economics and sociology) acquired a Low versus high territorial embeddedness
background in natural science that helped them grasp the Farming systems are linked to food systems, which have diverse
consistency of the sustainable agriculture models described in sets of institutions, technologies, and practices for producing,
agroecological terms, which they needed in order to understand processing, packaging, distributing, retailing, and consuming food.
them as social systems. Second, the way in which natural scientists They are also involved in other territorial dynamics that determine
(an agronomist, landscape ecologist, and entomologist) described agricultural practices (nature of inputs and outputs, technology
the agricultural models was challenged by the socioeconomic used) depending on their level of “territorial embeddedness” (Sonnino
views. and Marsden 2006). Therond et al. (2017) used the level of farming
systems’ territorial embeddedness as the second criterion for their
The typology of farming systems and agriculture
typology.
models In the typology by Therond et al. (2017), two ways of
characterization were used to define six alternative sustainable First, farming systems may be embedded in industrial, globalized,
agriculture models (Fig. 2). commodity-based food systems that process inputs (e.g., fertilizers,
pesticides), animal feed (e.g., soy bean meal), raw/bulk agricultural
Iconic examples are presented in grey. The number 1 is for
commodities (e.g., wheat), minimally processed foods (e.g., durum
conventional farming systems outside less-favored areas (1 being
wheat semolina), and, increasingly, fractionated raw products in
the current, conventional agriculture model). The main alternative
standardized and often interchangeable components (e.g., sugars,
agriculture models were grouped into two types of alternatives to
oils) and ultraprocessed foods based on these components
reflect the paradigm shift between input-based (type-2) versus
(Marsden 2012, Monteiro et al. 2013, Khoury et al.
biodiversity-based farming systems (type-3).
2014). In these food systems, social relationships are driven mainly
Submodels labeled a, b, and c mainly reflect the relationships
by globalized market prices, and territorial embeddedness of
between farming systems, globalized food systems, and local
farming systems is low. Farming systems 2a, 2b, and 3a are quite
dynamics.
embedded in these globalized food systems.
Exogenous inputs versus ecosystem
Second, some farming systems are involved in place-specific
services The first criterion used to classify sustainable agriculture
approaches (or initiatives), like circular economies (such as in
models is the input used in farming systems. This dimension concerns the
model 3a, Fig. 2), alternative food systems (such as in model 3b,

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

Fig. 2. Main models of agriculture (from 1 to 3b in blue) with farming systems identified based on their varying degrees of use of
ecosystem services versus anthropogenic exogenous inputs (Y-axis) and connected to globalized food systems or local dynamics (X
axis). Iconic examples are presented in grey. The number 1 is for conventional farming systems outside less-favored areas (1 being
the current, conventional agriculture model). The main alternative agriculture models were grouped into two types of alternatives to reflect
the paradigm shift between input-based (type-2) versus biodiversity-based farming systems (type-3). Submodels labeled a, b, and c
mainly reflect the relationships between farming systems, globalized food systems, and local dynamics. (CA:conservation agriculture;
FS:farming system; ICLS:integrated crop livestock systems).

and possibly 2b, Fig. 2), and integrated landscape approaches economies of worth grammar (Boltanski and Thévenot 2006).
(such as in model 3c, Fig. 2). As such, they increasingly meet We begin by presenting each model, detailing its agronomical and
multiple socioeconomic and environmental objectives at the local institutional features, and then qualify it according to its underlying
or regional level. These forms of farming systems’ territorial compromises. The main elements are summarized in Table 1. We
embeddedness can relate either to upstream or downstream then examine the ways in which some models follow the historical-
activities of agro-food chains: a given farming system can be conventional model fairly closely and merely make adjustments to
linked to a globalized food system for its supply (e.g., industrial it, while others were created in opposition to that model as a
inputs or seeds) but linked to local markets for the distribution of radical break from it.
end products. On the contrary, farming systems can also be part
The historical-conventional model based on an industrial/market
of a local production sector, as with the circular economy, but
compromise
retail their end products on global markets.
The historical model of agriculture in Western economies is
INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERIZATION OF strongly based on technological innovations (e.g., chemical
AGRICULTURE MODELS synthesis of soil nutrients, genomic and genetic modification of
In this section, we analyze the institutional characteristics of the seeds and livestock) that increased agricultural production. This
sustainable agriculture models in the typology using the type of farming system is traditionally and hereafter called
“conventional” (1 in Fig. 2). It refers to a system of practices

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

Table 1. Institutional characterization of current Western sustainable agriculture models.

Agriculture models
Historical Technology Biotech model (2b) Circular model (2c) Diversified Relocalized model Integrated-landscape
conventional model (1) intensive model (2a) globalized model (3b) model (3c)
(3a)
Common worlds involved
Industrial/ Industrial/ Domestic/ Industrial/ Opinion/ Opinion/domestic/ Green/
market market industrial/ green industrial... market… domestic/civic…
Higher common principle
Independence, food Same as in 1 Ethic of nature and Overall efficiency at the Ability to put Same as in 3a Systemic thought,
security, product Efficiency and well human heath cluster scale nature to work and Ability to create biodiversity principle,
diversity being at work “one health” (farm value for farmers “one health” (ecosystem
level) and for the region level)
Form of relevant proof (worth)
Labor productivity, Production costs, Extended socio Waste-production Sustainable use of Same as in 3a Systemic (multilevel,
farm size, balance structure of environmental costs, balance at the cluster nature, opinion of Distance to local multicriteria, multi actor)
sheet, production level, investments, high good sanitary conditions, level, recycling rate peers food system, farmer
agricultural exports tech devices environmental indicators income, added value for
the region

Qualified objects
Petrochemical Same as in 1 Same as in 2a Same as in 2b Natural capital and Same as in 3a Same as in 3a
inputs, mechanical Connected and Biological inputs, Biogas production, ecosystem services, Landscape
infrastructures, high-tech devices recycling farm waste recycling petrochemical and heterogeneity
production standards equipment equipment, coproducts biological inputs

Qualified human beings

Productive farmer, High-tech farmer/ Socially responsible Same as in 2b Agroecologist Same as in 3 Same as in 3b Local
mass consumer entrepreneur, mass farmer, family, Cluster member farmer, agricultural Trader farmer, actors and ecosystems,
consumer neighborhood ecosystem consumer network member
committed to local
Time of formation
Short economic Same as in 1 Short- to middle Same as in 2b Short-, middle-, and Same as in 2a Short-, middle-, and
term term biological long-term ecological long-term ecological and
cycles cycles social cycles
Space in which the model is formed
Globalization Same as in 1 Same as in 1 Local industrial Peer communities, Same as in 2a Local Same as in 2b Local
Infra-parcel Socio clusters ecological environment markets system, social networks
environmental of farm
neighborhood
Mode of regulation
Contracts, Same as in 1 Same as in 1 Same as in 1, Local Peer associations, Same as in 2a Local system,
intellectual property industrial partnerships labels, quality Local markets adaptive
rights, incentives and certifications, management of
financial support, adaptive management landscape
production standards, of field
command and control

Mode of organization/coordination
Markets, global Same as in 1 Same as in 2a Industrial ecology Peer communities, Same as in 2a Same as in 2b
food systems Technologies shape organization, loop global food system Peer communities, Polycentric
relationship to nature, backed input output local markets organization,
new markets production adaptive governance

oriented toward, organized around, and institutionalized through needed in a given year to limit risks (such as pests) and to
industrial productivity and market-based considerations. These promote plant growth, or antibiotics to ensure animal health, is
industrial and market principles are based on standardizing traditionally done as an “insurance” practice. This system is
infrastructure, production technology (machinery, petrochemical widespread in areas without strong soil and climate limitations.
inputs), and end products that can be mass-produced and
Production strategies are conceived in terms of relatively short
distributed. Striving for efficiency and profitability comes together
time frames (short crop rotations). The global standardization of
in economies of scale and agglomeration, which concentrate
seeds, breeds, production technologies, and products means
production to reduce unit costs. Agricultural practices are
that the specificities of local ecosystems are not really taken into
oriented mainly toward reducing the unpredictable aspects of
account. This system is based on an instrumental relationship
farming. In this sense, using more synthetic inputs than
with nature and the farming system being highly integrated into

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

the socio-agrotechnical system. Consequently, this conventional The biotech model based on a domestic proximity/
system is fundamentally underpinned by the principle of productivity, industrial efficiency compromise The second sustainable
which institutionalizes and legitimizes the industrial and market- agriculture model (2b in Fig. 2) corresponds to a biological input-
based organization of this system. The common good served by based farming system (which we have termed the biotech model).
this model is national and global food sovereignty; i.e., the idea In this model, farming systems are connected to globalized food
that no one in the world should starve. systems for purchasing biological inputs and selling raw products
to the global composite and bioeconomy markets. Adopting these
The technology-intensive model based on an industrial
“new” biological technologies is motivated by an awareness of the
efficiency/ market profitability compromise The first sustainable
local health (of neighbors and relatives) and environmental effects
agriculture model (2a in Fig. 2) is a chemical input-based farming
of conventional farming practices. Productive efficiency remains an
system (specialized cash crop and livestock farms) embedded in
important goal of these farming systems since they are embedded
industrial, globalized food systems. To reach its (weak) sustainability
in globalized, commodity-based food systems. The common good
objective, the focus is either on developing “smart” agricultural
served in this model is therefore in a state of tension between
technologies (i.e., genetic engineering and precision farming) or health care and environmental preservation at the local scale,
knowledge about landscape features that minimize diffusion of
which makes farmers receptive to environmental ethics, and the
pollutants in aquatic ecosystems (e.g., grassy and riparian buffer
common good of food sovereignty and modernizing agriculture at
strips/zones). Accordingly, we have termed it the technology-
the national or global scale.
intensive model.
In this technology-intensive model, changing farming practices is This tension is a constituent characteristic of this model.
motivated by the idea that technological mastery can meet
Although the efficacy of technologies from the life sciences has
environmental requirements and reduce production costs and thus
been demonstrated for some uses of iconic living inputs, such as
improve farmers’ incomes. By integrating the latest scientific
inoculating Rhizobia into legume cropping systems (Lemanceau et
knowledge in decision support systems, this sustainable agriculture
al. 2015), the actual effects at field level of many ecological inputs
model indeed has the potential to improve agricultural as well as
such as biostimulants have not been conclusively proven.
environmental performance of conventional farming systems
Using these practices is then based on the belief (in the sense of
(reducing pollution in the soil, in water resources, and in the
lack of proof) that they can both improve the productive capacity
atmosphere). Strong economic limitations of markets both upstream
of soils and plants (by stimulating soil activity and plant health) and
(increased cost of inputs) and downstream (market price variability)
limit the environmental and health impacts of agriculture (from the
and environmental regulations also encourage farmers of the
lower ecotoxicity of biological inputs). The health care/
historical-conventional model to increasingly adopt the technology-
environmental value system, therefore, overcomes the lack of
intensive one.
proof to strengthen the idea that the farming practices prevailing in
The economic resilience of this synthetic-input-based farming this model are good practices.
system to price variability and biophysical risks can be supported,
Yet these biological technologies (e.g., biocontrol) require greater
respectively, by contracts and insurance schemes, both provided
consideration of the ecological timescale (for example, when
by globalized food supply chain organizations. These protections
introducing natural enemies). In this model, there are no overall
may lead farmers to increase the share of riskier cash crops,
changes to the production system or broader environmental
thereby resulting in an increased share of monocultures (Müller
concerns (e.g., landscape management). These practices,
and Kreuer 2016). Moreover, as farmers adopt these costly new
therefore, do not result in a strong noninstrumental relationship
technologies, they often increase their acreage to ensure scale
with nature. Organic farming, which has a very different set of
economies. Accordingly, this kind of farming system is often poorly
practices and value systems (see Allaire and Bellon 2014), is
connected with local natural resource management issues and
compatible with this model since the synthetic inputs used in the
strategies, which can lead to conflicts about water shortages due
historical-conventional model and the technology-intensive model
to irrigation, water quality due to pollution, or erosion due to bare
are replaced by biological inputs. However, there is no fundamental
soils (O’Kane 2012).
change in the farming system (e.g., it still uses specialized crop
The search for efficiency and profitability justifies using technology cultures, intensive practices).
by making it part of a compromise between the industrial world
These first two models (technology-intensive and biotech) still
and the market world. Thus, as in the conventional model, human–
follow the conventional model in that the farmers’ primary concern
nature relationships are mediated by increasingly sophisticated
is still to ensure the productive capacity of land and animals by
digital technologies. The common good served by this model is
technologically controlling the uncertainties of farming. Since the
still national and global food sovereignty, but it also involves a
technology-intensive and biotech models do not challenge the
techno-optimistic conception of social progress, which can be
governing values (Argyris and Schön 1996) that shape and give
viewed as an updating of the conventional model. Change with
meaning to the historical-conventional model, they do not require
this type of farming system remains driven mainly by the dynamics
(technological-intensive), or require only minimally (biotech),
of globalized food systems in which power is concentrated in large
rethinking the organizational (market) and institutional forms
retailers (Marsden 2011).
(standardization) that they are based on.
Changes in this model therefore generally require incremental
Instead, these two models make incremental adjustments to the
adaptations of the conventional model (Park et al. 2012). As a
historical-conventional system, which are mainly technological.
result, this sustainable agriculture model is the dominant one in
The depth of these modifications depends on the technology used
Western Europe (Müller and Kreuer 2016).

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

(optimizing synthetic inputs or using biological inputs) and on the equipment and organizational forms to ensure productivity by
scale of production. The legitimate worlds observed (market/ controlling uncertainty. Implementing new practices thus only
industrial compromise in the technology-intensive model 2a and marginally disrupts the tests through which individual practices
domestic/industrial compromise in the biotech model 2b) result and organizations gain legitimacy.
from these changes in practices and technologies, which are not
The diversified-globalized model based on opinion/
morally neutral.
industrial elements The fourth model (3a in Fig. 2)
The circular model based on industrial ecology corresponds to biodiversity-based farming systems developed in
efficiency compromise The third sustainable agriculture socio-technical niches, such as those related to conservation
model (2c in Fig. 2) refers to a biological-input farming system agriculture, agroforestry, integrated crop– livestock systems, and
embedded in both globalized food systems and a local circular self-sufficient, grassland-based livestock systems. When no other
economy. A circular economy aims at protecting and limiting the solution exists or prices are attractive, farmers sell agricultural
use of finite natural resources by the improved closure of material products in globalized commodity-based food supply chains, like
and energy cycles. This is achieved through recycling loops the two first sustainable agriculture models (technology-intensive
between economic agents (e.g., biogas production, recycling). and biotech). We termed this model the diversified-globalized
Circular economies developed in opposition to linear and open model. Yet diversified crops may be difficult to sell in this type of
management of material and energy flows in industrial supply supply chain. They are then fed to animals (on the same farm or
chains, in which downstream pollution and waste emissions are by trading between crop and animal farms), or farmers sell them
spatially separated from upstream production systems. We directly to consumers, which is a form of alternative food system
termed this model the circular model. directly managed by the farmer.
Developing circular economies may require redesigning This diversified-globalized model adopts production principles
production systems, infrastructure, cultural frameworks, or social based on the work of nature, such as ecosystem services,
systems (Ghisellini et al. 2016). Drawing on industrial ecology, without, however, prohibiting the use of synthetic or biological
the circular model is based mainly on new ways of organizing inputs. As with every biodiversity-based farming system (3a, 3b,
farmers and other stakeholders into productive clusters. and 3c in Fig. 2), farmers in the diversified-globalized model have
Geographical proximity is important in developing exchanges of to integrate adaptive management of uncertainties about nature’s
materials, even energy. These organizations may also help functioning and the effects of practices. New upstream
redefine urban/rural relations. Developing local or regional circular organizational forms of local and generic knowledge exchange
economies enables farming systems to increase their territorial are developed by farmers to deal with these uncertainties; e.g.,
embeddedness by short-circuiting globalized supply chains for peer groups for sharing experience on nature and farming
certain locally managed inputs and products. For example, this practices. Such groups reshape the agronomic “rules of the
model can enable farming systems to substitute biological inputs game;” that is, they redefine what constitutes good farming
(e.g., organic matter) for synthetic ones. practices, a “good” state of the field/farm, or the acceptable level
of production. This way of organizing knowledge circulation takes
This new form of organization is recognized as valid by its
advantage of concern about what others think, while at the same
proponents based on an industrial ethic of nature; i.e., on the
time it enables more firm judgments to be made about the
shared idea that the natural organization of ecosystems is
common good. These peer groups thus establish a test based
inherently efficient in allocating throughput of material and energy
on opinions, which makes the set of production practices stable
to the most useful activities at the ecosystem scale. Yet these
and coherent. These practices are supported by the effects of
organizational forms are only possible if the agents involved in
reputation, with a principle of legitimacy resulting from a
these models conceive of productive efficiency at the local level.
compromise between the industrial world and the opinion world.
In this sense, in the circular model, the relationship with nature is
part of the industrial world: waste and scrap are seen as Two key features differentiate this model from the previous three:
resources to be exploited. (i) nature is viewed as the main factor of production and as a
place for humans to live, and (ii) new social forms of organization
Contrary to the two previous models (technology-intensive and
and of validating practices are introduced, not to increase
biotech), the adjustments to the historical-conventional system in
productive efficiency but to reshape modes of production. Due to
the circular model are mainly organizational. However, the use
profound value differences, practices in the diversified-globalized
of technology in the technological-intensive model and the
model may be incompatible with the informational bases on
circular economy in the circular model both seek to address the
which farmers justify their choices in type-2 models; i.e.
same criticisms about the conventional model’s inefficiency
technology intensive, biotech, and circular models (such as the
(environmental and economic) and productivism. In the biotech
technical references for agriculture associated with specialized
and circular models, however, using technology responds to a
farming systems and varieties/breeds).
deeper criticism of the harmful effects of the conventional model
on nature and humans. Yet with all these type-2 models, the The relocalized model based on opinion/domestic/
criticisms of the conventional model do not question the value market elements The fifth model (3b in Fig. 2) is a
system (productivist principle) on which its legitimacy is based or biodiversity-based farming system integrated into alternative food
its relationship to nature (technological mastery of productive systems that seeks to meet local consumer and lifestyle demands
capacity and the uncertainties of nature). In other words, they do for food quality, added value distribution, localization, and
not question the goal to be reached but rather the means of environmental and human health issues. We termed this model
achieving it by questioning the ability of material and technical the relocalized model, where

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

local refers to both farming practices (possibly reinforced by circular (farm) and collective levels. On the one hand, supporting integrated
economy) and the scale of product distribution. landscape approaches requires that people be able to assess and
analyze the trade-offs between objectives (including ecosystem
This model may serve local or regional integrated food-energy
services) and to define the associated compromises (Therond et al.
systems. The objective is then to create synergies between food and
2017). On the other hand, managing multiservice landscapes requires
energy production with potential positive influence on climate change.
clarifying the relative effects of landscape configuration and
Developing integrated food-energy systems requires extending
composition and those of cropping systems (field level) for different
analysis, design, and assessment of agro industrial ecology
ecosystem services (e.g., Duru et al. 2015a, Tamburini et al. 2016).
approaches. Organizing exchanges between economic agents and
local populations raises important governance and social organization
issues. The main concerns are natural resource management, ecological
integrity, landscape multifunctionality, human welfare, and local
The upstream features of this model are the same as those in model
social dynamics. This requires acknowledging the environment and
3a, but while production in the latter is targeted to mass distribution
humanity as common goods. The integrated landscape model is
markets, which requires a certain product standardization, in model
then characterized by systemic thinking at the local level, with
3b, products are distributed through local food systems. For farmers,
landscape considered as a social-ecological system in which land
this is justified by the desire to sell products of diversified crops that
use allocation, resource management (including ecosystem services),
are difficult to sell in globalized food systems (as prices are too low
and well-being are key issues. Adopting systemic thought justifies
for the farmer) and the desire to participate in the development of
not only choosing production modes based on the work of nature
local food systems and the local economy. Two organizational forms
(such as ecosystem services and biodiversity) but also including
that reveal two different types of common goods thus coexist: within
agriculture in a circular economy and in local food systems.
peer communities, agronomic practices are submitted to the test of
what constitutes good practices; and selling products within local
food systems confronts farmers with consumers’ judgments as a test The privileged form of organization for landscape-scale integrated
of the environmental, organoleptic, and environmental and health management is the social network. Public projects are often decisive
quality of the products. This production world thus involves elements in structuring these sorts of collective initiatives.
from the worlds of opinion, industry, and market in a compromise This form of organization establishes the fair treatment of all members
that is continually being recreated and may lead to conflict, even as in the civic world. In this model, socially legitimate agricultural
though the general values are shared (Coq-Huelva et al. 2017). practices are those that contribute to local development. This system
Moreover, this compromise extends the social relationship to nature borrows elements of legitimacy from the domestic world (reconsidering
to a market test that puts producers and consumers face-to-face. the local area as a space in which proximity of socioeconomic
This test fosters informal discussions interactions and the environment are particularly important) and the
civic world (fair treatment of the stakeholders in the local network,
with farmers and provides consumers who are qualified in this model possibly extended to equity between localized societies and
(who want to reconnect with nature via their diet) with the more ecosystems).
ecological and local interactions they seek. It also opens the way for forms of justification from the ecological
world (green polity). In this model, nature is understood as an
However, even in this sustainable agriculture model, some raw
organized ensemble of living beings whose actors recognize its
products from biodiversity-based farming systems may still be sold
intrinsic value as well as its productive value.
through globalized food systems. Local and global markets are then
considered to coexist and be complementary. As a result, this model The relocalized (3b) and integrated-landscape (3c) models
is based on a shaky compromise. fundamentally break with the conventional and type-2 models in
which principles from the industrial world predominate. These two
The integrated-landscape model based on green/domestic/
models (3b and 3c), and to a lesser extent the diversified globalized
civic elements
model (3a), are based on very different relationships to nature, which
An integrated landscape approach (3c in Fig. 2), which combines
can be seen in agricultural products with ambitious Designation of
collective multiservice landscape management and the development
Origin Labels, for example. While in type-2 models nature is viewed
of alternative food systems and circular economies, is the sixth
as an uncertain production vector (which therefore must be
sustainable agriculture model, termed the integrated landscape
controlled), in biodiversity-based farming systems (type-3 models),
model. As with the two previous models (diversified globalized and
agricultural ecosystems are seen as living entities, and putting them
relocalized), this one involves biodiversity-based farming systems.
to work requires diagnostics, listening, and possibly “dialogue.” While
Strongly diversified organic farming systems based on ecosystem
in type-2 models most practices are standardized and removed from
service enhancement and management are characteristic of these
the local context, in type-3 models practices are situated locally and
three models (contrary to the organic systems in biotech model 2b).
based on applying agronomic knowledge and even vernacular or
traditional knowledge (such as suitable cover crops, crop rotations).
To develop this model, local populations seek to address the nexus The (re)construction and testing of the effectiveness of this knowledge
of food/nonfood/natural resources, which determines the local to are done in a pragmatic (in the sense of thinking in action) and
global sustainability of agriculture. Integrating the three drivers of experiential way.
diversification (collective, multiservice landscape management and
the development of alternative food systems and circular economies)
is a major concern for management at both individual

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

DISCUSSION while others are more vulnerable to internal or external shocks or

There are many values used to justify how practices, technologies, and criticisms. More importantly, we have identified the element(s) of social
rules, and the ways of organizing and institutionally regulating agriculture systems that are constitutive of a given model’s evolution.
come together in a stable and coherent model. By taking this into For example, models deeply connected to global food systems are
account, we created a new characterization of the multiple models of qualified by the conventional norms of the historical model (e.g., product
agriculture that currently coexist in Western economies. While this standards or commodity markets), which makes them more stable than
characterization is static, it enables us to discuss the various agricultural other models but also more exposed to external market risks (mostly
challenges of agroecological transitions. The literature in sustainable price and cost variability). Models based on chemicals and technology
transition studies (Geels and Schot 2007, Smith and Stirling 2010, van (2a, 2b, 3a, and, to a lesser extent, 2c) are more vulnerable to hazards
den Bergh et al. 2011), in fact, emphasizes “a set of connected changes, coming from natural external environments because they do not require
which reinforce each other but take place in several different areas, extensive knowledge about the functioning of agroecosystems. The
such as technology, the economy, institutions, behavior, culture, ecology relocalized (3b) and integrated-landscape (3c) models are vulnerable
and belief systems” (Rotmans et al. 2001:16). Certain authors underline because of their internal weakness. In fact, collective actions in these
the uniqueness of approaches that “focus on the socio-cultural context models are downscaled because there is no widely accepted practical
of socio-technical and innovation systems, in contrast to the more test (here, in the sense of the economies of worth; i.e., a setup enabling
economic and market focus of [evolutionary institutional a social ranking of people and practices from the most to the least
economists]” (Borrás and Edler 2014:7). These socio cultural aspects valuable regarding a common good) that objectifies the merits of various
have been considered important but have not yet been described in any practices in regard to common goods.
detail. Thus, studying the value systems that characterize the different
registers of action (see Table 1) helps us better understand the drivers
Legitimation and disqualification also enable us to see how lock in
of change in socio-technical systems. It also enables us to analyze the
works. For example, intellectual property rights play a fundamental role
coexistence and coevolution of multiple agriculture models. We now
in the historical-conventional model, since they encourage private
turn to examine these issues through two fundamental aspects involved
research and development (e.g., bringing to market new seed varieties).
in the dynamics of change: lock-in, which we analyze as a process of
Yet regulating farming practices through intellectual property rights (and
legitimacy/disqualification, and the nature of transitions.
through the markets that result) may discourage certain initiatives that
want to implement practices from the diversified-globalized (3a) and/or
relocalized models (3b). For instance, initiatives for exchanging seeds
are viewed as social and organizational innovations in diversified
Legitimation and disqualification as processes for change and globalized (3a) and relocalized models (3b), in that they address
lock-in numerous criticisms of the historical-conventional model (Pautasso et
The institutional analysis of sustainable agriculture models by Therond al. 2013). Yet in models with technological innovation protected by
et al. (2017) revealed the diversity of ways in which the values mobilized intellectual property rights, such as the technology-intensive model
in those worlds order social relationships. based on efficiency (2a) and the biotech model based on biocontrol (2b),
Classifying and characterizing farming practices in their socioeconomic exchanging seeds is illegitimate.
contexts objectifies the role of social values as principles of justice that
organize collective action. This leads to (i) identifying the elements in
each model (using convention theory) that legitimize the orders of worth
These mechanisms of legitimization and disqualification serve to make
prevailing in that model, and (ii) disqualifying the elements that are
agricultural models a logical whole. While legitimizing and disqualifying
incompatible with the principles underlying the practices. The processes
establish the coherence specific to a given world and ensure efficient
of disqualification can then apply to certain kinds of knowledge, involving
forms of coordination, making a set of arrangements coherent also
a certain way of organizing ignorance (Frickel and Vincent 2007). The
“naturalizes” conventional practices, in that the actors consider those
conventional agriculture model became dominant precisely because its
practices natural or self-evident.
practices and organizational modes were legitimized by referring to
Moreover, this reproduces the modes of collective regulation that occur
principles of justice (the idea that progress benefits the farmer through
within that given model. In this sense, our characterization provides a
higher income, the consumer through reduced purchase price, and rural
richer framework for grasping the resistance to change.
areas by redistributing value) and by referring to certain values (principles
First, it avoids reducing resistance to change to mere lock-in that is
of streamlining and production efficiency). Today, it is precisely by
exclusively technological and disconnected from the social context in
calling on these principles that the historical-conventional model
which that resistance occurs. Second, it does not assume that resistance
disqualifies criticisms from an ecological perspective, namely that the
to change is caused merely by human nature or social structures that
idea of progress embodied in equipment for modernizing agriculture has dictate the behaviors of actors from the
betrayed a different idea, that of human development (Norgaard 1994). outside.
These disqualified criticisms may then become the basis for another
agricultural model (for example, the integrated-landscape model 3c). The plurality of transition pathways: coevolution and
complementarity Our analysis of sustainable agriculture
models also shows how these models can coevolve in transitioning to a
new model such as agroecology. Each model identified is made up of
compromises among values, referring to social orders that vary in
These two symmetrical mechanisms of legitimation and disqualification
stability or fragility depending on their institutional, cognitive, and material
explain the degree of stability and coherence of various agricultural
worlds. Indeed, some models are more stable,

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

sets of arrangements. The historical-conventional model (1) is conventional model. Assuming that the drivers of change are
“conventional” in that it results from a historical process of coherent with the models they seek to change, which is
institutions and organizations aligning with the values that necessary for them to be effective, this second transition path
underlie the main mode of organization in Western economies: has the potential to be revolutionary (Holt-Giménez and Altieri 2012).
industrial and market capitalism. The ways in which the
Finally, our characterization also reveals a third way for change
conventional model responds to criticism from the ecological
(hybridization between models) that questions and complements
world may lead to two types of sustainable transition depending
the “socio-technical transition” identified by Geels and Schot
on whether the criticisms are addressed to the set of
(2007), which they conceive of as “pathways.” These authors
arrangements flowing from the principles of the conventional
argue that the distribution of niches—i.e., networks of actors
model (that is, the principle of justice that underpins it), or, more
that develop outside the dominant regime—is supposed to help
radically, to the principles themselves. Two types of transition
that dominant regime evolve (Geels 2011), yet the conditions
pathways can, therefore, be distinguished according to the kind
of criticism made of the conventional model. Transition is for wide diffusion remain unexplained. Geels and Schot
(2007:402) state that “both niche and regime communities
therefore understood as a matter of intensity of change from
share certain rules that coordinate action,” but they do not
incremental to radical. For example, in the diversified-globalized
explain how those rules can be made compatible, nor do they
(3a) and relocalized (3b) models, it is the principle of opinion in
expand on the importance of moral foundations in rules for
peer groups that ensures the circulation of experiential
collective action. Although the hypothesis of their multilevel
knowledge. Yet this type of knowledge circulation fundamentally
model is that niches are separate spaces where radical
challenges the principle that it should be industry that organizes
innovation occurs, it cannot occur in the dominant regime
knowledge production, diffusion, and even protection through
because it is too locked-in to routines. On the contrary, our
intellectual property rights, as in the technology-intensive model 2a.
analysis offers new avenues for understanding how a new
In the first type of transition (incremental change), the sustainable agriculture model, based on a principle of legitimacy
conventional model requalifies the environmental criticisms that differs from the dominant regime, can spread within that
directed at it by shifting focus to the means (technologies, dominant regime. For example, growing species that improve
practices) used to attain the common good, thereby avoiding diversification (such as grain legumes) and enable rotations to
any discussion of the very foundation or definition of the be lengthened are agricultural practices of the diversified-
common good. The idea is thus to implement the appropriate globalized model (3a). Yet this practice finds a certain legitimacy
means to ensure that productivist objectives continue to be met from the principles of the conventional model since it gives rise
while responding to ecological criticisms. This type of transition to new product outlets that may provide better pay for farmers
for the conventional model is proposed by the technology- (Magrini et al. 2016). The dominant regime can thus rely on,
intensive model based on efficiency (2a), the biotech model and even hybridize, niches that are organized around practices
(2b), and to a lesser extent, by the circular model (2c). The and forms that are, in theory, incompatible. This is because
technological and practical adjustments made to the conventional niches enable the dominant regime to better meet society’s
model thus do not fundamentally call into question the modes demands and to maintain its existence (developing a market for
of organization on which this model is based (Marsden 2012). biological inputs and the biotech model [2b] are such adjustments to the conve
The circular model (2c) constitutes a “new” form of productive
This hybridization between agricultural models based on various
organization that is collectively accepted because it is compatible
registers of action ultimately suggests that the agroecological
with the underlying values of the conventional model (i.e., the
transition of farming systems can be based on a combination of
search for productive efficiency). As a result, the ethical
elements from different models. This complementarity paves
difference in the biotech model (2b) or in the circular model (2c)
the way for a new conceptualization of change in which models
is unlikely to jeopardize the overall organization of the
coevolve by relying on arrangements of varying stability and
conventional model; at most, it helps create an additional
duration. This mode of transition does not relate to intensity, as
market for biological inputs or upscale the way agricultural production is organized.
in the distinction between incremental and radical change, but
The second type of possible transition (more radical change) rather to a change in the nature of transition. Thus, we would
involves a profound challenge to the values underlying the assert that there is a near infinite complexity of the ways in
conventional model (as well as type-2 models). While here, which these models can be combined.
producing value remains an important goal for economic actors
in agriculture, integrating the ways ecosystems work into CONCLUSION
production process implies a different relationship with nature We offer a first attempt at identifying and finely characterizing
and more profound changes in the social values involved. The multiple agriculture models that address sustainability, and do
material, technological, and institutional set of arrangements so in both agronomical and institutional terms. We have
used in conventional and type-2 models are thus challenged, identified the institutional characteristics of seven agriculture
not because they are not productive or cannot improve models initially defined in an agroecological perspective. In
profitability, but because they do not support the value system particular, we have focused on the opposition between the
that makes the diversified-globalized (3a), relocalized (3b), and historical conventional model, based on industrial organization
integrated landscape models (3c) coherent. The nature of this and market principles, and six alternative sustainable agriculture
second transition is different from the more incremental or models that seek to address the challenges of environmental sustainability.
reformist one, since it involves a break with the values, the Moreover, the ways in which these agricultural models use
different
modes of production and organization, and the narrow relationship to nature in practices
the and technologies to organize and regulate

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

agricultural production has been examined, in addition to how each model Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1996. Organizational learning II: theory, method
qualifies ways of doing and acting depending on the value system that and practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
justifies how they implement sustainability in the eyes of society. We have
also drawn attention to the complexity of the agricultural panorama in which
Boltanski, L., and L. Thévenot. 2006. On justifications: the economies of
these models coexist and coevolve to varying degrees, and to the fact that
worth. (French Edition, 1991). Princeton University Press.
multiple transition pathways toward more agroecological agriculture may

emerge. Borrás, S., and J. Edler. 2014. Introduction: on governance, systems and
change. Pages 1–22 in S. Borrás and J. Edler, editors.
Ultimately, this study has implications for effective public policy making.
The governance of socio-technical systems: explaining change.
First, the ways in which policies are implemented must be coherent with the
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. http://dx.doi. org/
agriculture models that they seek to modify or sustain: they must take into
10.4337/9781784710194.00010
account the reasons why actors in those models act and how they act.
Moreover, to be effective, policies need to address the characteristics of Coq-Huelva, D., J. Sanz-Cañada, and F. Sánchez-Escobar. 2017.
models they seek to change and the multiple ways in which these models Values, conventions, innovation and sociopolitical struggles in a local food
may coexist, intertwine, and coevolve over time. For now, we advocate a system: conflict between organic and conventional farmers in Sierra de
precautionary principle so that more marginal models are not prevented from Segura. Journal of Rural Studies 55:112–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
emerging or developing. This would have two advantages. First, as we have j.jrurstud.2017.08.002
suggested, there is some porosity between these models. The practical and
Duru, M., O. Therond, and M. Fares. 2015a. Designing agroecological
organizational innovations in the models that differ most radically from the
transitions: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35:1237–1257.
conventional model can contribute to the more established sustainable
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0318-
agriculture models and improve their sustainability. x

Duru, M., O. Therond, G. Martin, R. Martin-Clouaire, M.-A.

Second, the systemic nature of the agroecological transition requires Magne, E. Justes, E.-P. Journet, J.-N. Aubertot, S. Savary, J.-E.
profound moral and philosophical changes in how we conceive of our Bergez, and J. P. Sarthou. 2015b. How to implement biodiversity based
relationship to nature. This is a unique characteristic of the more marginal agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review.
models. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35:1259–1281. http://dx. doi.org/
10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1
More research is needed to understand in greater detail this characterization
of agriculture models and their transitioning processes. In future studies, we Duru, M., O. Therond, J. Roger-Estrade, and G. Richard. 2016.
intend to pursue the theoretical reflections advanced here by (i) determining Agriculture models at the crossroads of farming systems, food systems and
the proportion of farmers who have adopted each of these models; (ii) territorial dynamics. Pages 12–15 in 12th European IFSA Symposium.
identifying the configurations of coexistence or combinations of these models Edgmond, UK.
in developed countries by analyzing numerical data (agricultural surface
Frickel, S., and M. B. Vincent. 2007. Hurricane Katrina, contamination, and
area, nature of rotations, added-value, product nature and volume, type of
the unintended organization of ignorance.
market(s); and (iii) assessing the sustainability of these configurations using
Technology in Society 29:181–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
multicriteria evaluations.
techsoc.2007.01.007

Geels, F. W. 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions:

responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions 1:24–40. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002
Responses to this article can be read online at:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.
Geels, F. W., and J. Schot. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition
php/9881
pathways. Research Policy 36:399–417. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/
j.respol.2007.01.003

German, R. N., C. E. Thompson, and T. G. Benton. 2016.

Acknowledgments:
Relationships among multiple aspects of agriculture’s environmental impact
This research was conducted as part of the TATABOX project, funded by and productivity: a meta-analysis to guide sustainable agriculture. Biological
the French Research Agency (ANR 13 - AGRO - 0006). Reviews 92:716–738. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/brv.12251
We would like to thank the referees for their insightful comments that helped
improve the paper. We also are grateful to Cynthia J.
Ghisellini, P., C. Cialani, and S. Ulgiati. 2016. A review on circular economy:
Johnson who translated this text into English.
the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic
systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 114:11–32.
LITERATURE CITED Allaire,
G., and S. Bellon. 2014. AB in 3D: Diversity, dynamics and design of organic Gliessman, S. R. 2007. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food
agriculture. Agronomy, Environment and Societies 4:79–90. systems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

Hill, S. B. 1998. Redesigning agroecosystems for environmental Health Nutrition 15:268–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
sustainability: a deep systems approach. Systems Research and S136898001100142X
Behavioral Science 15:391–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)
Park, SE, NA Marshall, E. Jakku, AM Dowd, SM Howden,
1099-1743(1998090)15:5<391::AID-SRES266>3.0.CO;2-0
E. Mendham, and A. Fleming. 2012. Informing adaptation
Holt-Giménez, E., and M. A. Altieri. 2012. Agroecology, food responses to climate change through theories of transformation.
sovereignty, and the new green revolution. Journal of Sustainable Global Environmental Change 22:115–126. http://dx.doi.
Agriculture 37:90–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.716388 org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.003

Horlings, L. G., and T. K. Marsden. 2011. Towards the real green Pautasso, M., G. Aistara, A. Barnaud, S. Caillon, P. Clouvel, O.
revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new T. Coomes, M. Delêtre, E. Demeulenaere, P. De Santis, T. Döring,
ecological modernisation of agriculture that could ‘feed the L. Eloy, L. Emperaire, E. Garine, I. Goldringer, D. Jarvis, H. Joly,
world’. Global Environmental Change 21:441–452. http://dx.doi. C. Leclerc, S. Louafi, P. Martin, F. Massol, S. Mcguire, D. B.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.004 Mckey, C. Padoch, C. Soler, M. Thomas, and S. Tramontini. 2013.
Seed exchange networks for agrobiodiversity conservation. A
Khoury, C. K., A. D. Bjorkman, H. Dempewolf, J. Ramirez Villegas,
review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33:151–175. http://
L. Guarino, A. Jarvis, L. H. Rieseberg, and P. C. Struik.
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0089-6
2014. Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the
implications for food security. Proceedings of the National Ponte, S. 2016. Convention theory in the Anglophone agro-food
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:4001– literature: past, present and future. Journal of Rural Studies 44:12–
4006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313490111 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.019

Lemanceau, P., P.-A. Maron, S. Mazurier, C. Mougel, B. Pivato, Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, FS Chapin,
P. Plassart, L. Ranjard, C. Revellin, V. Tardy, and D. Wipf. 2015. EF Lambin, TM Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, HJ
Understanding and managing soil biodiversity: a major challenge Schellnhuber, B Kykvist, CA de Wit, T Hughes, S van der
in agroecology. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35:67–81. Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, PK Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0247-0 M. Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, RC Corell, VJ Fabry, J. Hansen,
B. Walker, D. Liverman, K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J. A.
Levidow, L., K. Birch, and T. Papaioannou. 2013. Divergent
Foley. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–
paradigms of European agro-food innovation: the knowledge based
475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/461472a
bio-economy (KBBE) as an R&D agenda. Science,
Technology, & Human Values 38(1):94–125. http://dx.doi. Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, and M. van Asselt. 2001. More evolution
org/10.1177/0162243912438143 than revolution: transition management in public policy.
Foresight 3:15–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14636680110803003
Magrini, M.-B., M. Anton, C. Cholez, G. Corre-Hellou, G. Duc,
M.-H. Jeuffroy, J.-M., Meynard, E. Pelzer, A.-S. Voisin, and S. Smith, A., and A. Stirling. 2010. The politics of social-ecological
Walrand. 2016. Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and
systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Society 15(1):11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-03218-150111
Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system. Ecological
Sonnino, R., and T. Marsden. 2006. Beyond the divide: rethinking
Economics 126:152–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.024
relationships between alternative and conventional food networks
Marsden, T. K. 2011. From post-productionism to reflexive in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography 6:181–199. http://dx.
governance: contested transitions in securing more sustainable doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbi006
food futures. Journal of Rural Studies 29:123–134. http://dx.doi.
Spiertz, H. 2012. Avenues to meet food security. The role of
org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.10.001
agronomy on solving complexity in food production and resource
Marsden, T. K. 2012. Towards a real sustainable agri-food security use. European Journal of Agronomy 43:1–8.
and food policy: beyond the ecological fallacies? Political
Tamburini, G., S. De Simone, M. Sigura, F. Boscutti, and L.
Quarterly 83:139–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2012.02242.
x
Marini. 2016. Conservation tillage mitigates the negative effect of
landscape simplification on biological control. Journal of Applied
Monteiro, C. A., J.-C. Moubarac, G. Cannon, S. W. Ng, and B. Ecology 53:233–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12544
Popkin. 2013. Ultra-processed products are becoming dominant
Therond, O., M. Duru, J. Roger-Estrade, and G. Richard. 2017.
in the global food system. Obesity Reviews 14:21–28. http://dx.
A new analytical framework of agriculture model and farming
doi.org/10.1111/obr.12107
system diversities to identify knowledge gaps in agronomy
Müller, B., and D. Kreuer. 2016. Ecologists should care about research: a review. Agronomy for Susainable Development 37:21.
insurance, too. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31:1–2. http://dx.
Thévenot, L. 1984. Rules and implements: investment in forms.
doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.10.006
Social Science Information 23:1–45. http://dx.doi.
Norgaard, R. B. 1994. Development betrayed: the end of progress org/10.1177/053901884023001001
and a co-evolutionary revisioning of the future. Routledge, London,
UK. van den Bergh, JCJM, B. Truffer, and G. Kallis. 2011.
Environmental innovation and societal transitions: introduction
O’Kane, G. 2012. What is the real cost of our food? Implications and overview. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
for the environment, society and public health nutrition. Public 1:1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.04.010

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Machine Translated by Google
Ecology and Society 23(1): 21
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art21/

Wilson, G. A. 2008. From ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ multifunctionality:

conceptualising farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways.
Journal of Rural Studies 24:367–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jrurstud.2007.12.010 Zhang, W., T. H. Ricketts, C. Kremen, K.
Carney, and S. M.
Swinton. 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture.
Ecological Economics 64:253–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2007.02.024

This content downloaded from

110.136.219.82 on Thu, 27 Jan 2022 02:26:12 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms