# Socio-economic Characterisation of Agriculture Models

Olivier Therond, Thomas Debril, Michel Duru, Marie-Benoît Magrini, Gaël

Plumecocq, Jean-Pierre Sarthou

► To cite this version:

Olivier Therond, Thomas Debril, Michel Duru, Marie-Benoît Magrini, Gaël Plumecocq, et al.. Socio-economic Characterisation of Agriculture Models. Jacques-Eric Bergez; Elise Audouin; Olivier Therond. Agroecological Transitions: From Theory to Practice in Local Participatory Design, Springer International Publishing, pp.21-43, 2019, 978-3-030-01953-2. 10.1007/978-3-030-01953-2_3. hal-04753946

HAL Id: hal-04753946

https://hal.science/hal-04753946v1

Submitted on 25 Oct 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Socio-economic Characterisation of Agriculture Models

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

Olivier Therond, Thomas Debril, Michel Duru, Marie-Benoît Magrini, Gaël Plumecocq, and Jean-Pierre Sarthou

**Abstract** Analyses of transition towards a more sustainable agriculture often identify two different pathways that can be linked to either strong or weak sustainability. In this interdisciplinary work, we aim at overcoming this narrow choice between these two alternatives, by offering a socio-agronomic characterisation of multiple agriculture models that currently coexist in Western economies. We use an agro-nomic typology of farming systems based on the role of exogenous inputs and endogenous ecosystem services in agricultural production, and on the degree of embeddedness of farming systems within local/global food systems. This typology identifies six agriculture models that we analyse in socio-economic terms. We then clarify the structuring principles that organise these models, and the social values underpinning their justification. This analysis enables us to discuss the efficiency conditions of political instruments.

*This chapter is a translation of an article published in French in vol. 363(1) of Economie Rurale. The authors kindly thank the editors of the journal for authorizing the translation and publication of that article in this book.*

O. Therond (✉)

LAE, Université de Lorraine, INRA, Colmar, France

e-mail: olivier.therond@inra.fr

T. Debril

UMR AGIR, Université de Toulouse, INRA, Castanet-Tolosan, France

e-mail: thomas.debril@inra.fr

M. Duru · M.-B. Magrini · J.-P. Sarthou

AGIR, Université de Toulouse, INRA, Castanet-Tolosan, France

e-mail: michel.duru@inra.fr; marie-benoit.magrini@inra.fr; jean-pierre.sarthou@inra.fr

G. Plumecocq

AGIR, Université de Toulouse, INRA, Castanet-Tolosan, France

LEREPS, Université de Toulouse, ENSFEA, Toulouse, France

e-mail: gael.plumecocq@inra.fr
Introduction

The Western societal model, largely grounded in the industrialisation process, has
transformed the nature of agricultural activities and their role in society. Industrial
agriculture is based on intensifying the use of synthetic inputs (pesticides, nitrogen
fertilisers, antibiotics, etc.), mining inputs (oil, potassium, phosphates), and irriga-
tion water. Its mass development has created significant external environmental
damage (Rockström et al. 2009; Gomiero et al. 2011). Society’s awareness of these
impacts along with environmental regulations are driving farmers to change their
relationship to nature (Horlings and Marsden 2011; Duru et al. 2015a, b). The sci-
entific literature often identifies two agricultural evolution pathways to improve
agricultural sustainability. In this sense, starting at the end of the 1990s, Hill (1998)
contrasted “shallow sustainability” with “deep sustainability”; more recently,
Wilson (2008) speaks of “weak versus strong multifunctionality”; Horlings and
Marsden (2011) of “weak versus strong ecological modernisation of agriculture”;
and Levidow et al. (2012) of “life sciences versus an agroecology vision”. These
conceptual dichotomies schematically oppose two different relationships to nature:
one based on technological progress placed in the service of industrialising agricul-
tural production; the other based on the protection or restoration of natural capital
in order to develop associated ecosystem services.

Without denying the importance of such approaches, our research aims to more
closely analyse the diversity of agricultural transformation models (hereinafter
“agriculture models”). The dualisms presented above relate to oppositions that are
often developed from the viewpoint of a single discipline, leading to incomplete
descriptions focused on technicity and science, without exploring the social values
orienting these choices. These analyses are often limited to: (i) inventorying the
negative effects of the dominant model; (ii) presenting a more virtuous alternative
model; and (iii) identifying the barriers and levers to transition from one to the
other. In our opinion, the usefulness of frameworks that distinguish different agri-
culture models in more detail resides in the emphasis placed on the coexistence and
co-evolution of these models, potentially demonstrating how they intertwine with
one another. Yet the few publications that distinguish more than two agriculture
models and include a socio-economic dimension in their analysis (ex. Gliesman
2007) tend to grant moral status only to “deep sustainability” forms (see also Wilson
2008).<fnref n="1" /> We espouse the contrary belief that it is beneficial to develop a better under-
standing of the social value systems on which dominant practices rely in order to
consider how to transform them. While all of this research appears to agree on cer-
tain features of the two main agriculture models, it does not question the social
foundations that legitimise the choices, individual strategies, or practices in each of
them. This research is consequently incapable of accounting for the variety of

<footnote n="1">¹For example, while Sulemana and James Jr. (2014) show that environmental ethics qualify “conservationist” farmers rather than productivist farmers, this does not mean that the practices of the latter are devoid of ethical foundations.</footnote>
agriculture models in our Western economies, of understanding their founding prin-
ciples, and therefore of contemplating both the variety of pathways to transition
toward greater agricultural sustainability, and the mechanisms of coexistence of
these models.

To describe the different Western agriculture models, it is important to qualify
the different moral values and social principles that legitimise and underpin coherent
sets of practices, agricultural technologies, and embeddedness within food systems.
While these principles are general and tacit, they nonetheless remain effective.
This multidisciplinary work, which combines agronomic and socio-economic
approaches, thus emphasises the technical and social rationales underlying current
and emerging farming systems. It enables a reconceptualisation of the coexistence
of agriculture models which, along with the multitude of institutional devices supporting
them – including political devices –, are involved in the agricultural transition
faced with sustainability issues.

The originality of this research lies in the fact that it combines multiple analysis
frameworks to construct a detailed characterisation of the various agriculture mod-
els developing in contemporary Western economies. To this end, we first briefly
present the analysis framework created by Therond et al. (2017), which defines
diverse agriculture models based on: (i) the way that farming systems combine
exogenous inputs (synthetic and biological) and ecosystem services provided to
farmers<fnref n="2" />; and (ii) their level of embeddedness in globalised food systems versus ter-
ritorial dynamics (circular economy, local food system, integrated-landscape man-
agement). This typology was created from an agronomic viewpoint (sensu lato)
based on an extensive literature review. We then characterise these different agricul-
ture models based on their main social features, drawing on the “Economies of
Worth” framework (Boltanski and Thevenot 1991) which allows us to objectify the
correspondence of organisation rules and social norms with the practices described
in the agronomic typology. The result of this interfacing of analysis frameworks
allows us to put to the test the socio-economic consistency of the agronomic descrip-
tion of seven agriculture models currently present in our Western societies, includ-
ing six agriculture models constituting responses to the sustainability issues of
industrial agriculture. By emphasising the variety of agriculture models constituting
alternatives to the industrial model that emerged in the wake of World War II, this
typological analysis is intended to go beyond existing frameworks that are often
reduced to a dichotomy. This research thus provides categories allowing us to anal-
yse the influence of human-technology-nature relations on modes of social organ-
isation, on the practices and uses of nature, as well as on the institutional and
political forms framing them.

Section “Economies of worth and sustainable agriculture” presents the Economies
of Worth socio-economic analysis framework and its usefulness in examining
human-nature relations. Section “Agriculture models at the intersection between

<footnote n="2">²Here, the notion of “ecosystem service” is focused on the services provided to agricultural ecosys-
tem managers (or farmers) corresponding to ecological processes regulating the nutrient cycle,
water, soil structure, and biological regulations (including pollination).</footnote>
farming systems, food systems, and local dynamics” presents the agronomic typology of agriculture models. The latter are then analysed in Section “Socio-economic characterisation of agriculture models”, based on the economies of worth model. Section “The usefulness of characterising sustainable agriculture models for designing public policies” discusses political support mechanisms.

## Economies of Worth and Sustainable Agriculture

The economies of worth socio-economic model (Boltanski and Thevenot 1991) is a framework to analyse the formation and dynamics of collective actions. We will start by presenting its concepts and will then show how this socio-economic approach can put different typologies of agriculture models into perspective.

## From Justification Principles to Organisation Principles

The Economies of Worth model emphasises the fundamental role of social values in establishing and structuring collective actions. These values serve as a basis for the justifications put forward to defend the well-founded nature of an individual choice. The justifications are collectively examined and tested, in particular during conflicts, and may eventually be accepted as legitimate. Boltanski and Thevenot (1991) use the term “higher common principles” to denote this set of collectively-accepted social values. These principles establish spaces of commensurability between individuals and objects (individuals and objects are “qualified” according to this principle) and of ranking (some individuals and objects qualified according to this principle “are acknowledged as being worth” more than others).

Boltanski and Thévenot identify six higher common principles drawn from Western political philosophy that theoretically constitute “cities”, in other words, social orders (cf. columns of Table 1):

* wealth as the basis of a market city,

* efficiency as the basis of an industrial city,

* equity as the basis of a civic city,

* honesty as the basis of a domestic city,

* grace as the basis of an inspired city,

* fame as the basis of an opinion-based city.

Additional research has also sought to demonstrate the existence of other cities, particularly an ecological city based on the principle of good intentions directed at the environment or on the symmetry between humans and nonhumans (Latour 1998 – cf. last column of Table 1). Other authors argue that the theoretical requirements of the model preclude this possibility, primarily because an ecological city would imply that the biotic and abiotic elements of ecosystems can “exercise” their
<table><caption>**Table 1** Overview of the common worlds (or cities) identified in the Economies of Worth model according to Thévenot et al. (2000)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="6">Common worlds (Boltanski and Thevenot 1991), according to different common principles</th><th rowspan="2">Additional common world (various authors)</th></tr><tr><th>Merchant (wealth)</th><th>Industrial (efficiency)</th><th>Civic (equity)</th><th>Domestic (honesty)</th><th>Inspired (grace)</th><th>Opinion (fame)</th><th>Green/Ecological (good intentions)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Evaluation method (magnitude)</th><td>Price, cost</td><td>Technical efficiency</td><td>Collective well-being</td><td>Esteem, reputation</td><td>Grace, singularity, creativity</td><td>Renown, fame</td><td>Symmetry, environmental good intentions</td></tr><tr><th>Test</th><td>Competition</td><td>Competence, reliability, planning</td><td>Equality and solidarity</td><td>Reliability</td><td>Passion, enthusiasm</td><td>Popularity, audience, acknowledgement</td><td>Sustainability, resilience</td></tr><tr><th>Form of proof of admissibility</th><td>Monetary</td><td>Measurable, statistic</td><td>Formal, official</td><td>Oral, personal guarantee, exemplary nature</td><td>Expression, emotional engagement</td><td>Semiotic</td><td>Ecological ecosystem</td></tr><tr><th>Qualified objects</th><td>Market goods or services</td><td>Technical infrastructure, method, plan</td><td>Rules, fundamental rights</td><td>Local heritage, legacy</td><td>Body or emotionally charged object</td><td>Sign, media</td><td>Virgin, wild, natural habitat</td></tr><tr><th>Qualified beings</th><td>Customer, consumer, vendors, merchant</td><td>Engineer, professional, expert</td><td>Citizens, unions</td><td>Authority figure</td><td>Creative being</td><td>Celebrity</td><td>Environmentalist, ecosystem actors</td></tr><tr><th>Time of formation</th><td>Short-term, flexibility</td><td>Long-term, planned future</td><td>Perpetual</td><td>Customary</td><td>Eschatological, revolutionary or visionary moment</td><td>Vogue, trend</td><td>Future generations</td></tr><tr><th>Space of formation</th><td>Globalisation</td><td>Cartesian space</td><td>Detachment</td><td>Local, anchoring in proximity</td><td>Presence</td><td>Communication networks</td><td>Planetary ecosystem</td></tr><tr><th>Qualified nature (Godard 1990)</th><td>Market nature, consent to pay</td><td>Exploited, productive nature</td><td>Freely accessible nature</td><td>Domesticated nature</td><td>Exceptional natural sight, aesthetic value</td><td>Nature capable of mobilising opinion</td><td>Virgin nature, value of existence</td></tr></tbody></table>
“choice” (or their operation) in the city (Lafaye and Thévenot 1993). This impossi-
bility leads to ecological justifications that are legitimised either by qualifying
nature within existing cities (for example, as a source of spirituality or a productive
resource – Godard 1990 – cf. last row of Table 1), or by combining principles from
different cities (Lafaye and Thévenot 1993; Thévenot et al. 2000).

Actors refer to these principles to organise collective action, evaluate and justify the validity of their actions, criticise those of others, and/or build institutional or material devices that frame practices and collective actions. Theoretical “cities” are therefore declined in the “world” (in the sociological sense of the word), that is, in assemblies of objects (whether tangible and/or intangible) and in people.

*Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture Put to the Test
of Economies of Worth*

Creating a typology consists of grouping individuals and/or objects together on the basis of criteria that qualify individuals and objects according to the same register. In this sense, the economies of worth model can contribute both to the creation of the typology (the establishment of equivalence within categories) and to the social relevance of these groupings.

The majority of the research that has studied the variety of sustainable agricul-
ture models or analysed the diversity of transition pathways towards more sustain-
able agriculture presents certain typology problems. For example, the work of
Gomiero et al. (2011), which presents a number of different “philosophical
approaches to agriculture”, or of Féret and Douguet (2001), who analyse various
agricultural governance frameworks that they call “agricultural families”, groups
together types of agriculture (agroecology, organic agriculture, permaculture, inten-
sification, etc. for the former; organic agriculture, peasant agriculture, rational agri-
culture, etc. for the latter) under conventional designations with varying levels of
institutionalisation. These inventories are not the result of typological approaches,
given that the criteria distinguishing these “philosophies”, these “families”, or these
“reference frameworks” are not always explicit. On the contrary, our typology-
based approach demonstrates that some of these “philosophies”, by relating to very
different agricultural practices, are qualified in different sustainable agriculture
models (this is the case in particular for organic agriculture<fnref n="3" /> or conservation
agriculture).

Another line of research stems from the observation of agricultural practices and establishes distinctions based on better-defined criteria (Hill 1998; Gliessman 2007). Without overlooking the role of socio-economic context in these practices,

<footnote n="3">³In reality, organic agriculture relates to various practices (cf. Allaire and Bellon, 2014) described in various sustainable agriculture models (Therond et al. 2017) and justified by very different principles. Therefore, we believe it would be contradictory to acknowledge the diversity of organic agriculture while treating it as a single model (for example, cf. Benoit et al., 2017), whether to evaluate overall performance or to outline practices.</footnote>
this research grants decisive importance to individuals’ decision-making capabili-
ties (see also certain ground-breaking research on agricultural multifunctionality, in
particular Van der Ploeg 1996). It thus tends to consider that different agriculture
models are independent of one another (alternative models are treated like contex-
tual elements for another model). By contrast, the Economies of Worth model
invites us to consider the fundamental role played by other agriculture models in the
internal structure of a given model. This research also tends to attribute ethical or
moral virtues to those models that most radically break with the conventional one.
The Economies of Worth model teaches that even the most self-interested reasons
are underpinned by powerful value (ethics) systems. In this sense, it is consistent
with another body of research that more specifically addresses the problem of the
transition to more sustainable agriculture (Horlings and Marsden 2011; Levidow
et al. 2012). While this research emphasises the aspects structuring contexts (in
particular food systems or territorial dynamics, as well as the practical aspects of
farming systems, it tends to liken one to the other, considering that production prac-
tices (such as agroecological practices) go hand-in-hand with certain territorial
dynamics (in this example, short circuits). However, according to the Economies of
Worth model, these activities can stem from very different principles, which is what
our typology aims to demonstrate.

Lastly, another set of research addresses the multifunctionality of agriculture
(Laurent et al. 2003; Wilson 2008; Renting et al. 2009; van der Ploeg et al. 2009).
For example, the typological approach developed by Laurent et al. (1998) highlights
11 types of agricultural activity model based on the domains in which the activity in
question is embedded, the professional standard systems to which it refers, and the
negotiation bodies mobilised to resolve difficulties related to the agricultural activ-
ity. This typology allows us to discuss three principal social functions of agricultural
activities (providing professional income, insertion within a regime of social trans-
fers, and own consumption and bartering). These functions nevertheless point to the
principles of fairness that delimit and socially justify them. Apart from the implica-
tions for the agricultural sector, shining light on these principles allows us to assess
the societal reach of agricultural activities. We believe that this focus is fundamental
when it comes to considering agricultural sustainability stakes. Research on multi-
functionality has therefore included the environmental function of agriculture.
Some researchers establish “styles of agriculture” based on criteria comparable to
those that we use (for example, Van der Ploeg 1996), but neglect the effects of
supervision (or of authority) driven by productive structures, social structures, and
more generally agro-food activity governance structures. Other multifunctionality
research shows, on the contrary, that different types of agricultural activities (tradi-
tional agricultural logic, capitalist agriculture, agriculture as a structured profession,
etc.) correspond to specific organisational structures with specific goals (agricul-
tural income, increasing equity, subsistence and trade, etc.), the social relations of
which are mediated by different forms of legitimate institutions (Laurent et al. 1998;
van der Ploeg et al. 2009). However, nothing is said about the source of these institu-
tions’ legitimacy or of the principles and values underpinning the organisational
forms described. The Economies of Worth model allows us to describe these social
systems in detail.
# Agriculture Models at the Intersection Between Farming Systems, Food Systems, and Local Dynamics

By considering the classic classifications of types of agricultural transformation (i.e. sustainability or strong versus weak multifunctionality), Therond et al. (2017) developed an analysis framework and a more detailed typology of sustainable agriculture models. These models correspond to types of farming systems that vary in their dependence on exogenous inputs or ecosystem services (y-axis of Fig. 1). They present a varying level of embeddedness in global food systems compared to the territorial dynamics that determine their biotechnical functioning (x-axis of Fig. 1). Each criterion relates to fundamental agricultural sustainability concerns (van der Ploeg 1996; Fraser et al. 2016). In this section, we elucidate these two main dimensions that differentiate sustainable agriculture models.

## Sustainable Farming Systems: Exogenous Inputs and Ecosystem Services

In post-WWII Western economies the industrial development process required an increase in agricultural production. This was achieved primarily by selecting more productive plant species and animal breeds. Farmers also developed farming systems based on the use of exogenous inputs allowing them to control abiotic (water and nutrients) and biotic (the negative effects of pests) factors that could limit or reduce agricultural production (van Ittersum and Rabbinge 1997). The large-scale use of these inputs with a low relative cost enabled farmers to simplify cropping plans and rotations, and therefore led to the specialisation of systems and the standardisation of practices and products. Farmers became accustomed to adopting assurance practices consisting in intensifying the use of these inputs to limit production risks (e.g. pests). To combat the environmental damages caused by the development of these specialised farming systems, farmers can implement three agronomic strategies (Duru et al. 2015a, cf. also Hill 1998).

The first strategy consists in optimising the efficiency of input use considering the space and time needs of plants and animals, thus limiting fertiliser and pesticide use (efficiency optimisation strategy of the ESR model<fnref n="4" />). This strategy requires the best possible evaluation in time and space of the ecosystem services provided by the soil-plant(—animal) system in order to minimise the additional exogenous inputs necessary to reach production goals (Fig. 1, bottom of the y-axis). The development of this type of farming system is based on technological innovations, particularly so-called precision agriculture technologies, and on the use of plant and animal varieties less sensitive to limiting biotic and abiotic factors. Agricultural practices remain standardised and are therefore not well rooted in local knowledge.

<footnote n="4">⁴Efficiency, Substitution, Redesign (Hill, 1998).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Typology of agriculture models</figcaption></figure>

Adapted from Therond et al. 2017. The agriculture models numbered 2 and 3 correspond to alternatives to the historical industrial agriculture model often described as “conventional”, and which can also be configured differently depending on the context (numbered 1). FS means “farming system”. A change from 1 and 2 to 3 indicates a profound change in biotechnical functioning in farming systems (y-axis) shifting from the use of exogenous anthropogenic inputs (1 and 2) to systems based on ecosystem services (3). The letters a, b, and c mainly refer to the relations between farming systems and global food systems or territorial dynamics (x-axis). Certain forms are already well developed; others correspond to niches or represent potential agriculture models in a given region or country. Most often, different forms coexist within a given territory, with one (or several) of them prevailing. Emblematic examples are indicated in italics; conservation agriculture – CA – is used here according to the definition of the FAO. (cf. footnote 5)

The second strategy involves farmers who are more reluctant to use synthetic pesticides and more sensitive to maintaining the health of people and ecosystems. Using a substitution strategy, they seek to develop a farming system that is based as much as possible on the use of organic fertilisers and biocontrol technologies (biopesticides, plant and soil health stimulators, addition of industrially-developed organisms to improve soil quality and biological regulations). However, even though farmers aim to reproduce the ecological operation of diversified agro-ecosystems, their farming systems often remain based on a low level of planned diversity. It is nevertheless possible that these practices (e.g. the use of biostimulants) may promote the development of ecosystem services.

The third strategy is based on managing the planned (domestic) and associated (natural) diversity of ecosystems in order to develop ecosystem services for agriculture (Zhang et al. 2007; Duru et al. 2015b). By redesigning farming systems, it consists in replacing a significant portion of exogenous inputs (whether chemical or
biological) with “natural” regulation services that improve soil fertility (soil structure and nutrient cycle), water storage and restoration, pollination, and pest regulation (Fig. 1, top of the y-axis). Developing ecosystem services beneficial to the farmer requires the diversification of the species farmed/grown over time and in space (e.g. cover crops, extended crop rotations), and promotion of the diversity of semi-natural habitats on the level of the land parcel (the boundaries of fields, fallow land, hedges, and forests) (Bianchi et al. 2006), while limiting mechanical disturbances (Duru et al. 2015b). The properties thus targeted by farmers are based on the ability of ecosystems to: (i) store nutrients, energy, and water when these resources are available and to return them to the plants when necessary; (ii) regulate the dispersal and activity of biological pests; and (iii) provide an appropriate habitat for species that deliver regulation services. At field level, this requires the promotion of soil biological activity, such as through no-till practices and the insertion of cover crops during inter-crops. For animals, this may consist in using alternative livestock farming practices (e.g. low density) to ensure the health and vitality of young and adult animals throughout their life (de Goede et al. 2013). The particularity of this type of farming system is that even though its ecological principles are generic, management practices are fundamentally dependent on production/action situations (Duru et al. 2015a; Giller et al. 2015).

## Sustainable Agriculture Models at the Crossroad Between Farming Systems, Food Systems, and Territorial Dynamics

Food systems consist in all of the institutions, modes of organisation, technologies, and practices that determine the modes of production, transformation, packaging, and distribution of food products. On top of influencing the nature of the products consumed and the way they are produced and traded, they also determine the conditions for accessing foods and their nutritional quality (Capone et al. 2014). Food systems have rapidly globalised over the past decades, resulting in homogenisation of initially different national food systems (Khoury et al. 2014). Farming systems overlap with these global food systems to varying degrees. They can also overlap with territorial dynamics, such as the development of circular economies, local food systems, or collective landscape management approaches (Fig. 1, x-axis).

Simplified farming systems based on the use of exogenous inputs are greatly intertwined with globalised food systems and, as such, constitute the most prevalent agriculture model in Western Europe (Levidow et al. 2012; Marsden 2013). Within these globalised food systems, power is intensely concentrated in the hands of a few companies (Marsden 2013). The economic resiliency of farming systems faced with the variability of prices and the impacts of biophysical hazards are assured by contractual or insurance devices. These assurance tools can lead farmers to maintain or develop simplified cropping systems or even monocultures that would otherwise be too risky without them (Müller and Kreuer 2016). There exist farming systems
based on the use of biological inputs which, like in the previous case, are closely
connected to globalised food systems for the purchase of these inputs and the sale
of agricultural raw materials. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish different ways
of implementing organic agriculture given that replacing chemical inputs with bio-
logical inputs does not always result in a fundamental shift in the mode of
production.<fnref n="5" />

In parallel, farming systems can be embedded within localised socio-economic contexts, such as circular economies (the organisation of which requires the management of input-output flows between activities, locally or regionally), alternative food systems (localised systems or those laying claim to social or environmental features), or even integrated regional development projects. In the latter case, the development of agriculture can be combined with integrated landscape management to promote the development of ecosystem services (Wu 2013; Mastrangelo et al. 2014). Most of these farming systems, which are usually diversified, are designed to address environmental or human health issues (products of biological agriculture, foods rich in omega-3s...) and satisfying consumers' demand for quality products, sometimes produced locally (Murdoch et al. 2000).

Certain farming systems may use local markets to access inputs meanwhile sell-
ing their products on global markets (or vice versa). For example, conservation
agriculture,<fnref n="6" /> agroforestry, integrated crop-livestock systems, or self-sufficient live-
stock systems can permit the development of ecosystem services and therefore, for
certain of these, a reduction in the use of exogenous inputs while continuing to sell
production via globalised food systems when no other solutions are available or
when prices are appealing. Even in this case, certain raw materials can be sold off
in globalised supply chains. Likewise, farming systems based on the use of biologi-
cal inputs can simultaneously be connected to globalised food systems and a local
circular economy. Therefore, global and local markets potentially appear to be
complementary.

By cross-referencing the three biotechnical strategies of more sustainable agri-
cultural production and the strategies for insertion in global food systems and
territorial dynamics, Therond et al. (2017) obtain six sustainable agriculture models
(cf. Fig. 1). The notation (2a, b, c and 3a, b, c) indicates a break between the first
three forms, which are based on efficiency or substitution strate gies, and the last
three forms, which require in-depth redesigning of farming systems. In the follow-
ing section, we detail the socio-economic features of these forms by showing how
each one is distinguished from the others.

<footnote n="5">⁵In particular, this type of biological agriculture does not encompass practices based on the devel-
opment of ecosystem services as an essential mechanism in managing crops.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Various agricultural practices can be described as conservation agriculture. Here, it corresponds to an agriculture based on three key principles: no-till, permanent soil cover, and diversified and long rotations (http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/1a.html). Debates exist surrounding the environmental performance of these practices, in particular because they may include an increase in herbicide use. In any event, to complement or replace the use of these phytosanitary products, these practices require farmers to manage ecosystem services as best they can.</footnote>
# Socio-economic Characterisation of Agriculture Models

Drawing on this typology, in this section we characterise the different agriculture models identified by Therond et al. (2017) in socio-economic terms according to the Economies of Worth grammar. Model by model, we detail the main socio-agronomic features of each one. These features have been selected because they correspond to the main examples of the different sustainable agriculture models. Table 2 presents a more complete overview of these features.

## *The Conventional Productivist Model Based on an Industrial/ Market Compromise*

The industrial agriculture model of Western economies, which we qualify as “conventional” (1) pertains, in the sense of the Economies of Worth model, to a system of practices that are market-based and structured to maximise productivity (in the sense of the industrial principle). These two principles are based on standardising infrastructure, production technologies (machinery, petrochemical inputs, etc.), and end products enabling mass production and distribution. Striving for efficiency and profitability come together in economies of scale and agglomeration, which concentrate production to reduce unit costs. Agricultural practices are essentially oriented at the artificialisation of the environment in order to control or even eliminate the biophysical factors of production variability. For example, the use of chemical pesticides for crop-pest control, or of antibiotics to ensure animal health, are practices minimising the effects of these factors.

This model leads humans to instrumentalise nature by reducing the farming system to a technical economic system: production strategies are rationalised over relatively short time frames (crop season, short crop rotation); the global standardisation of seeds, breeds, production technologies, and products eliminates the local particularities of ecosystems (products are commodities; inputs and technologies are generic), and so on.

## *The Technology-Intensive Model Based on an Industrial Efficiency/Market Profitability Compromise (2a)*

This model is essentially structured around the use of new digital technologies, precision agriculture, and improved varieties or breeds economising the use of industrial inputs, which are massively used in the conventional productivist model (1). In technology-intensive agriculture, the shift in practices in farming systems is driven by the idea that technological mastery can meet environmental requirements, reduce production costs, and thus improve farmers’ incomes. Beyond
<table><caption>**Table 2** Socio-agronomic characterisation of contemporary agriculture models in Western countries</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Historical-conventional system</th><th>Farming systems based on chemical inputs connected to global food systems</th><th>Farming systems based on biological inputs connected to global food systems</th><th>Farming systems based on biological inputs connected to local food systems</th><th>Farming systems based on biodiversity connected to global food systems</th><th>Farming systems based on biodiversity connected to local food systems</th><th>Farming systems based on biodiversity connected to local food systems and multiservices landscape</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Farming systems (Section "The conventional productivist model based on an industrial/ market compromise")</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Agriculture models</td><td>Productivist model (1)</td><td>Technology-intensive model (2a)</td><td>Techno-domestic model (2b)</td><td>Circular model (2c)</td><td>Diversified-globalised model (3a)</td><td>Diversified local model (3b)</td><td>Diversified integrated-landscape model (3c)</td></tr><tr><td>Common worlds involved</td><td>Industrial (productivity) and market (income)</td><td>Industrial (efficiency) and market (profitability)</td><td>Domestic (proximity) and industrial (biotech efficiency)</td><td>Industrial (system efficiency)</td><td>Opinion and industrial (efficiency)</td><td>Opinion, domestic, market...</td><td>Green, domestic, civic...</td></tr><tr><td>Higher common principles</td><td>Independence, food security, product diversity</td><td>Same as in 1 + Efficiency and Well-being at work</td><td>Ethics of nature and human heath</td><td>Overall efficiency at the cluster scale</td><td>Ability to put nature to work and "one health" (farm level)</td><td>Same as in 3a + Value creation (farmer and region level)</td><td>Systemic thought, natural and landscape resources, "one health" (ecosystem level)</td></tr><tr><td>Modes of evaluation (test)</td><td>Productivity of labour and surface area, farm size, balance sheet, production and exports</td><td>Production costs, structure of investments, technological intensity</td><td>Social and environmental costs, sanitary conditions, environmental indicators</td><td>Waste-production balance at the cluster level, recycling rate</td><td>Sustainable use of nature, opinion of peers, income</td><td>Same as in 3a + Embeddedness in the local food system, added value for the region, income</td><td>Systemic (multilevel, multicriteria, multiactor)</td></tr></tbody></table>

(continued)
<table><caption>**Table 2** (continued)</caption><tr><td>Qualified objects</td><td>Exogenous inputs, machinery, standards</td><td>Same as in 1 + Connected and high-tech devices</td><td>Same as in 2a + Biological inputs</td><td>Same as in 2b + Biogas production, waste recycling equipment, co-products</td><td>Natural capital and ecosystem services, petrochemical and biological inputs</td><td>Same as in 3a + Products sold locally</td><td>Same as in 3a + Quality of the landscape and state of natural resources</td></tr><tr><td>Qualified human beings</td><td>Productive farmer, mass consumer</td><td>High-tech farmer/ entrepreneur, mass consumer</td><td>Socially responsible farmer, family, neighbourhood</td><td>Same as in 2b Cluster member</td><td>Agroecologist farmer, agricultural ecosystem</td><td>Same as in 3a + Farmer connected to local consumer, other actors in the local food system, cluster member</td><td>Same as in 3b + Local actors and ecosystems, network member</td></tr><tr><td>Time of formation</td><td>Short economic term</td><td>Same as in 1</td><td>Short- to medium-term biological cycles</td><td>Same as in 2b + Cluster cycles</td><td>Short-, medium- and long-term biological cycles</td><td>Same as in 3a + Institutional cycles</td><td>Short-/-/medium-/-/ long-term biological, social, and institutional cycles</td></tr><tr><td>Key spatial levels</td><td>Linked upstream and downstream of the global industry</td><td>Same as in 1 + Infra-parcel</td><td>Same as in 1 + Socio-environmental neighbourhood</td><td>Local industrial clusters</td><td>Peer communities, ecological environment of the farm</td><td>Same as in 3a + Local market</td><td>Same as in 3b + Local system, social networks</td></tr><tr><td>Mode of regulation</td><td>Contracts, intellectual property rights, incentives and financial support, production standards</td><td>Same as in 1</td><td>Same as in 1</td><td>Same as 1 + Local industrial partnerships</td><td>Peer associations, adaptive field management</td><td>Same as in 3a + Local markets</td><td>Same as in 3b + Local system, adaptive management of landscapes</td></tr><tr><td>Mode of organisation/ coordination</td><td>Global markets and food systems</td><td>Same as in 1 + Technologies shape relationship to nature, new markets</td><td>Same as in 2a</td><td>Circular economy</td><td>Peer communities, global food system</td><td>Same as in 3a + Peer communities, local markets</td><td>Same as in 3b + Polycentric organisation, adaptive governance</td></tr></table>
environmental regulations, the significant economic constraints of markets, both
upstream (increases in input prices) and downstream from farming systems
(increases in price volatility) are encouraging farmers of the conventional model (1)
to increasingly change to this technology-intensive model (2a). As a result, they
often wish to increase the size of their farm to benefit from economies of scale and
increase their ability to invest in Technologies. The quest for efficiency and profit-
ability justifies using these technologies while embedding them within a compro-
mise between the industrial and business worlds. Therefore, like in the conventional
model, human-nature relations remain mediated by technology, although by increas-
ingly sophisticated technologies that require farmers to change their way of creating
and using the environmental information produced (performance maps, representa-
tion of ecological areas, etc.).

The Techno-domestic Model Based on a Local Ethics / Biotechnological Efficiency Compromise (2b)

The techno-domestic agriculture model (2b) is characterised by the use of technolo-
gies derived from the living world (e.g. microbiological treatments based on *Bacillus
thuringiensis*, addition of nitrogen by spreading free nitrogen-fixing bacteria over
carbonaceous residues). The reason for the adoption of these living technologies is
awareness of the health and environmental effects of chemical inputs. These prac-
tices are a response to the belief<fnref n="7" /> that they are able both to improve the productive
capacity of soils and plants (e.g. bio-stimulants of soil activity and plant health) and
to limit the environmental and health impacts of agriculture (less eco-toxicity
among inputs of biological origin). They aim to improve the operation of the agro-
ecosystem without large-scale changes (diversification) in crop or livestock farming
systems and without taking on board more global environmental concerns. They
also aim to reduce the impact of agricultural practices on human health and the
ecosystem. The use of technologies of biological origin (e.g. biocontrol) can make
it necessary to take ecological time frames into account (e.g. the population dynam-
ics of the organisms introduced). As a result, these practices induce a relationship to
nature that is not strictly instrumental. The search for efficient production remains
important in the techno-domestic agriculture model, but farmers' concerns for their
own health, that of their family and neighbours, and for the local ecosystem make
farmers (as well as the consumers qualified in this model) receptive to environmen-
tal ethics, guided by a principle of localness and embedded within a compromise
between the domestic and industrial worlds.

<footnote n="7">⁷Here, the term belief is related to a lack of proof for this sustainable agriculture model, in which actors do not have the means to objectify the achievement of the common good (the effectiveness of their practices). In these situations, the shared belief of doing what is right (adopting environmental ethics) can be enough to sustain this order, but the absence of proof makes it fragile.</footnote>
**The Circular Model Based on a Compromise Between Efficiency and Industrial Ecology (2c)**

Developing the circular economy at local or regional level gives farming systems opportunities to replace chemical inputs by organic materials derived from agricultural activities and other sectors of activity (e.g. organic fertilisers rather than chemical ones), or outlets for their production (biomass for energy production). Agriculture based on the circular economy is developing in some forms of crop-livestock farming combinations on the territorial level (Moraine et al. 2016). This sustainable agriculture model follows the principles of industrial ecology. It is thus essentially based on new ways of organising farmers and other agricultural actors into productive clusters. Geographic proximity plays an important role in developing the exchange of materials and energy at local/regional level. It can also contribute to redefining urban/rural relations. These forms of organisation are possible only if the actors involved in circular economies adopt a concept of production efficiency on the local/regional scale. In this sense, the practices qualified in this form relate to a relationship to nature that is peculiar to the industrial world: natural resources, waste and scraps are seen as resources to be used efficiently in an industrial economy of the environment (both in the use of resources as well as environmental impacts).

**The Diversified-Globalised Model: A Compromise Between Opinion/Bioproduction Efficiency (3a)**

Diversified-globalised agriculture refers to large crop or livestock farming systems that are diversified, and in particular farming systems based on conservation agriculture based on three pillars (no-till, cover crops, and long rotations) or agroforestry. These typical examples of this sustainable agriculture model are characterised by the adoption of production principles based on the “work” of nature (biodiversity at the origin of ecosystem services), without, however, prohibiting the use of synthetic or biological inputs. These practices make it impossible to use the underlying information on which farmers base their choices in type 2 agriculture models, in particular the technical benchmarks for standardised production associated with specialised and artificialised farming systems. To better understand the uncertainty of nature and the effects of biodiversity management practices, farmers organise into peer groups. These groups allow them to communicate and share experiences around nature and the effects of agricultural practices, thus activating social networks as a production resource. These forms of organisation, the main goal of which is to share knowledge and learn situated practices, also have the effect of re-drawing the boundaries of agronomic “standard practices”. This entails redefining what constitutes good cropping practices, what a field is in a good state is like, what acceptable production levels are, or even the criteria for judging efficiency, and so on
(Cristofari et al. 2017). This way of organising knowledge circulation contributes to “valuing” others’ viewpoints while simultaneously enabling the construction of a shared representation of collective values. These peer groups thus establish a test based on opinions, which makes the set of production practices stable and coherent. These practices are supported by the effects of reputation, with a principle of legitimacy resulting from a compromise between the industrial world and the opinion world. Two key characteristics set apart this agriculture model from the three previous models: (i) it institutes new social models for organising and validating practices, and (ii) it leads stakeholders to perceive nature as a place of life and as the main factor in production.

## The Diversified Local Model Based on Opinion/Domestic/ Market Elements (3b)

As with the diversified-globalised model (3a), the environmental sustainability of this model’s agricultural production is based on the development of ecosystem services. However, while the production of the former is essentially sold on global markets, the second distributes agricultural products locally. This enables farmers to sell the products of diversified crops that are more difficult to sell in global food systems (unappealing prices), and to participate in the local economy and development. Two organisational forms exist, supported by two different value sets. The first consists of communities of farmers within which agronomic practices are put to the test (in the sense of the economies of worth model) and socially validated. The other concerns the sale of products within local food systems. It exposes farmers (and their production practices) to consumers’ judgements when evaluating the environmental, organoleptic, and sanitary quality of products (even if a portion of outlets are provided by global food systems). This market test is combined with that of the world of opinion (peer groups). By bringing consumers and producers closer together, this form of organisation answers the needs of the former to reconnect with nature. This requires them to be capable of recognising the specific qualities of the products of this system. In France, for example, *Associations pour le Maintien de l'Agriculture Paysanne*, (AMAP, associations for the maintenance of peasant agriculture) are the most visible alternative food systems today, but other distribution forms also exist (direct producer stores, farmers' markets, and different forms of "short-circuits", such as selling along the road, outdoor markets, local producers supplying retail stores, etc.; cf. Deverre and Lamine 2010). This production world thus broadens the relationship between society and nature, drawing from elements of the worlds of opinion and industry as well as the market, in a relatively loose compromise.
Diversified Integrated-Landscape Agriculture Based on Green/
Domestic/Civic Elements (3c)

For the time being, the existence of diversified farming systems embedded in integrated-landscape approaches is mainly theoretical in Western Europe, even though it is possible to spot its building blocks in reality. It is characterised by local stakeholders (farmers, consumers, local supply chain actors, citizens, etc.) sharing systemic thought and evaluating the effects of their actions at the territorial level. Beyond the adoption of production practices based on the work of nature (biodiversity at the origin of ecosystem services), this form of sustainable agriculture requires agricultural activities to be embedded within integrated approaches of landscape conceptualised as a social-ecological system. In certain respects, in France, the Biovallée project, based on the preservation and valorisation of natural resources in the service of the population's drinking water, food, habitat, health, energy, and leisure needs, is a relevant example of this form (even though some of its aspects borrow much from other forms – cf. Lamine 2012). In the agriculture model, the agricultural practices that contribute to territorial development, such as organising the spatial distribution of cropping systems and semi-natural habitats to develop ecosystem service at the landscape level, are considered legitimate. This is an extreme form of embedding agriculture in the socio-economic context, insofar as its development requires a participatory “landscape design” approach (cf. Nassauer and Opdam 2008) and the collective governance of land use and semi-natural habitats. Consequently, this form of agriculture borrows legitimising elements from the domestic world (a locally-based regime), the civic world (fair treatment of stakeholders within the territorial system), and the ecological world (nature is treated as an organised whole of living beings, whose intrinsic value is recognised). The preferred social organisation in this agriculture model is the network. It establishes the fair treatment of all the members, specific to the civic world and potentially extended to landscape's biotic elements, and has the particularity of not establishing a hierarchy of individuals within a social order. In this sense, but also because it is based on ecological justifications (in the sense of the ecological city), this model lies outside of the axiomatic system of the Economies of Worth model.<fnref n="8" /> It more clearly appears to break with other sustainable agriculture models.

<footnote n="8">⁸The Economies of Worth model is based on an axiomatic system that postulates: (i) the common humanity of beings belonging to cities (which excludes from the outset, for example, considering the possibility of dialogue with beneficial organisms), and (ii) a principle of the ranking of individuals, which defines, for varying durations of time, states of worth (with “worth beings” constituting the individuals who are legitimate to take responsibility for the common good according to certain principles), which the “network” form, in this context, does not do.</footnote>
# The Usefulness of Characterising Sustainable Agriculture Models for Designing Public Policies

Research on the multifunctionality of agriculture (Wilson 2008; van der Ploeg et al. 2009) emphasises the multiple functions of agriculture not only as an economic and social activity, but also in view of its environmental impacts (Laurent et al. 2003). Drawing from this research, characterising the different sustainable agriculture models presented above illustrates how multifunctionality mechanisms can operate on different levels, and what the role of the interconnection between various locally-embedded stakeholders, as well as of consumers and citizens, is (cf. Renting et al. 2009).

By closely describing the specific consistency of the sustainable agriculture models that coexist, our framework provides paths to an improved consideration of the adjustment of policies to the models that they address. For example, the ecological conditionality of Common Agricultural Policy subsidies can shift the practices of conventional farmers towards technology-intensive and techno-domestic sustainable agriculture models (2a and 2b), because this public policy device is compatible with the principle underpinning them. Concretely, farmers primarily motivated by increasing their income are sensitive to monetary signals, including incentives, subsidies, or compensation. On the other hand, these devices do not trigger a transition toward diversified (3a), diversified local (3b), or diversified integrated-landscape (3c) models, because practices that take place in these diversified agriculture models are justified by a will to restore natural capital or to maintain local/regional economic activities. The stakeholders of these diversified models may be more sensitive to political devices seeking to socially animate the local/regional territory or to develop more sustainable agriculture. The effectiveness and efficiency of these public policies thus depend on their adjustment to the sustainable agriculture model that they address, which implies taking into consideration the value system underlying them.

Moreover, considering that the agriculture models are embedded in one (or multiple) specific world(s) and disqualified in others, by supporting certain agriculture models and not others, public policies reveal the extent of their contribution to the reproduction of relations of domination. For example, in France, the maintenance of the intellectual property devices underpinning the technology-intensive model (2a) prohibits seed exchange practices, which constitute an institutional and organisational device (despite operating via informal rules) that addresses the technical problems encountered in models based on adapting crops to local production situations. Likewise, international trade agreements promote the access of national products to global food systems and encourage models that are essentially dependent on outlets on these types of markets, but which discourage the production of products that do not meet their standards. Lastly, environmental services' payment devices, which compensate farmers for maintaining practices that respect the environment, can change the reference frameworks for judging farmers not motivated primarily by financial compensation, and can requalify technological practices (such as in
models 2a and 2b) as producers of environmental services (Froger et al. 2016). Our socio-economic analysis of the agronomic typology thus allows us to show the extent to which a public policy, even when adjusted to the sustainable agriculture model that it addresses, can have harmful effects on other types of practices. In this sense, our analysis draws attention to the variety of lock-in mechanisms – not only those that are technical or cognitive, but also those that are normative and political – driving the stability of technology-intensive (2a) and techno-domestic (2b) sustainable agriculture models. While this stability draws from the ability of public policies to legitimise the practices of these agriculture models, it also resides in the ability to exclude the criticism directed at them, for example, originating from agriculture models with production based on ecosystem services (3a, b, and c).

Ultimately, the success of public policies depends on the agriculture models whose principles are consistent with those they convey, or on their way of arranging the complementarity (potentially on different levels) between various agriculture models. They are therefore potentially unsupportive of, or even antagonistic to, the development of other models, either because they appear to be illegitimate with respect to the principles and values underpinning these policies, or because they produce perverse effects (prohibition or discouragement of practices alternative to the target model), or because they disqualify the criticism that the most radical sustainable agriculture models level at the most conventional ones.

## Conclusion

Our analysis presents the socio-agronomic features of seven agriculture models that currently coexist in Western economies. We have insisted on oppositions between the historical “conventional” model underpinned by industrial and market organisation principles, and six alternative models that provide answers to environmental and social sustainability issues. We have explained how these agriculture models are based on different ways of implementing practices and technologies to organise and regulate agricultural production. We have qualified the ways of doing and acting, with varying levels of incompatibility between models, based on the value system that socially justifies them in terms of sustainability. This research shines light on the complexity of agricultural territories that are composed of different models that coexist and co-evolve to differing degrees and at different levels, and on the multiplicity of transitions to more sustainable agriculture.

This analysis allows us to clarify the conditions under which public policy instruments are effective. First, the mechanisms for implementing policies must be consistent with the agriculture models that they address; in other words, they have to take into account the reasons why the stakeholders of these models act as they do. It is therefore necessary to properly design these policies based on the features of agriculture models and the multiple possible configurations of coexistence and interweaving of these models.
Faced with this complexity, an extension of this research would consist in two complementary directions. The first avenue would specify the socio-economic reality of this typological characterisation by providing quantified data (in terms of agricultural surface area, labour time, agricultural employment, added value, product volume, etc.). The objectives would be to evaluate the representativeness of each of these agriculture models and to better characterise configurations of coexistence and hybridisation between these models in a few developed countries. The second line of research would evaluate, in these countries, the sustainability of these configurations through multi-criteria assessments. These analyses would provide useful information to public decision-makers by allowing them to better adjust the instruments and targets of their policies. For the moment, we believe that adopting a precautionary principle appears to be necessary in order not to hinder the most marginal models' development, especially considering the likely porosity between different agriculture models. While the technical or organisational innovations that develop in minority models can be passed on to the most prevalent agriculture models and thus improve their sustainability, the systemic nature of these transition necessitates, beyond technical changes, profound moral and philosophical shifts in the way that we conceive of our relationship to nature and our food. The different agriculture models present distinct particularities in this respect.

## References

Allaire G, Bellon S (2014) L'AB en 3D : diversité, dynamiques et design de l'agriculture biologique. Agron Environ sociétés 4:79-90

Benoît M, Tchamitchian M, Penvern S et al (2017) Potentialités, questionnements et besoins de recherche de l'Agriculture Biologique face aux enjeux sociétaux. Économie Rural 361:49-69

Bianchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:1715-1727. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3530

Boltanski L, Thevenot L (1991) De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur. NRF Essais, Paris

Capone R, El Bilali H, Debs P et al (2014) Food system sustainability and food security: connecting the dots. J Food Secur 2:13-22. https://doi.org/10.12691/jfs-2-1-2

Cristofari H, Girard N, Magda D (2017) Supporting transition toward conservation agriculture: a framework to analyze the learning processes of farmers. Hungarian Geogr Bull 66:65-76. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.66.1.7

de Goede D, Gremmen B, Rodenburg TB et al (2013) Reducing damaging behaviour in robust livestock farming. NJAS – Wageningen J Life Sci 66:49-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2013.05.006

Deverre C, Lamine C (2010) Les systèmes agroalimentaires alternatifs. Une revue de travaux anglophones en sciences sociales. Économie Rural Agric Aliment Territ 317:57-73. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.2676

Duru M, Therond O, Fares M (2015a) Designing agroecological transitions; a review. Agron Sustain Dev 35(4):1237-1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0318-x

Duru M, Therond O, Martin G et al (2015b) How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:1259-1281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1
Féret S, Douguet JM (2001) Agriculture durable et agriculture raisonnée: quels principes et quelles pratiques pour la soutenabilité du développement en agriculture? Nat Sci Sociétés 9:58-64

Fraser E, Legwegoh A, Kc K et al (2016) Biotechnology or organic? Extensive or intensive? Global or local? A critical review of potential pathways to resolve the global food crisis. Trends Food Sci Technol 48:78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.11.006

Froger G, Méral P, Muradian R (2016) Controverses autour des services écosystémiques. L'Économie Polit 69:36-47. https://doi.org/10.3917/leco.069.0036

Giller KE, Andersson JA, Corbeels M et al (2015) Beyond conservation agriculture Front Plant Sci 6:870. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00870

Gliessman SR (2007) Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture, Second edn. Lewis Publishers (CRC Press, Second edition), Boca Raton

Godard O (1990) Environnement, modes de coordination et systèmes de légitimité : analyse de la catégorie de patrimoine naturel. Rev économique 41:215-242. https://doi.org/10.3917/reco.p1990.41n2.0215

Gomiero T, Pimentel D, Paoletti MG (2011) Is there a need for a more sustainable agriculture? CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci 30:6-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2011.553515

Hill SB (1998) Redesigning agroecosystems for environmental sustainability: a deep systems approach. Syst Res Behav Sci 15:391-402. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1743(1998090)15:5<391::AID-SRES266>3.0.CO;2-0

Horlings LGG, Marsden TKK (2011) Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimension of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that couls “feed the worl.”. Glob Environ Chang 21:441-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.004

Khoury CK, Bjorkman AD, Dempewolf H et al (2014) Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:4001-4006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313490111

Lafaye C, Thévenot L (1993) Une justification écologique ? Conflits dans l'aménagement de la nature. Rev française Sociol 34:495-524

Lamine C (2012) Changer de système: une analyse des transitions vers l'agriculture biologique à l'échelle des systèmes agri-alimentaires territoriaux. Terrains Trav 20:139-156

Latour B (1998) To modernize or to ecologize? That's the question. In: Castree N, Willems-Braun B (eds) Remaking reality: nature at the millenium. Routledge, London/New York, pp 221-242

Laurent C, Cartier S, Fabre C et al (1998) L'activité agricole des ménages ruraux et la cohésion économique et sociale. Économie Rural CN - Z5 244:12-21. https://doi.org/10.3406/ecoru.1998.4996

Laurent C, Maxime F, Maze A, Tichit M (2003) Multifonctionnalité de l'agriculture et modèles de l'exploitation agricole. Economie Rurale 273(1):134-152

Levidow L, Birch K, Papaioannou T (2012) Divergent paradigms of European agro-food innovation: the knowledge-based bio-economy (KBBE) as an R&D agenda. Sci Technol Hum Values 38:94-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243912438143

Marsden T (2013) From post-productionism to reflexive governance: contested transitions in securing more sustainable food futures. J Rural Stud 29:123-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.10.001

Mastrangelo ME, Weyland F, Villarino SH et al (2014) Concepts and methods for landscape multi-functionality and a unifying framework based on ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol 29:345-358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9959-9

Moraine M, Grimaldi J, Murgue C et al (2016) Co-design and assessment of cropping systems for developing crop-livestock integration at the territory level. Agric Syst 147:87-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.06.002

Müller B, Kreuer D (2016) Ecologists should care about insurance, too. Trends Ecol Evol 31:1-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.10.006

Murdoch J, Marsden T, Banks J (2000) Quality, nature, and embeddedness: some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector*. Econ Geogr 76:107-125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2000.tb00136.x
Nassauer JI, Opdam P (2008) Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landsc Ecol 23:633-644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9226-7

Renting H, Rossing WAH, Groot JCJ et al (2009) Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. J Environ Manag 90:S112-S123

Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472

Sulemana I, James HS (2014) Farmer identity, ethical attitudes and environmental practices. Ecol Econ 98:49-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.011

Therond O, Duru M, Roger-Estrade J, Richard G (2017) A new analytical framework of farming system and agriculture model diversities. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 37:21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0429-7

Thévenot L, Moody M, Lafaye C (2000) Forms of valuing nature: arguments and modes of justification in French and American environmental disputes. In: Lamont M, Thévenot L (eds) Rethinking comparative cultural sociology: repertoires of evaluation in France and the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 229-272

van der Ploeg JD (1996) Styles of farming: an introductory note on concepts and methodology. In: van der Ploeg JD, Long A (eds) Born from within. Practices and perspectives in endogenous rural development. Van Gorcum, Assen, pp 7-30

van der Ploeg JDD, Laurent C, Blondeau F, Bonnafous P (2009) Farm diversity, classification schemes and multifunctionality. J Environ Manag 90:S124-S131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.022

van Ittersum MK, Rabbinge R (1997) Concepts in production ecology for analysis and quantification of agricultural input-output combinations. F Crop Res 52:197-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(97)00037-3

Wilson GA (2008) From ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ multifunctionality: conceptualising farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways. J Rural Stud 24:367-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrstud.2007.12.010

Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol 28:999-1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9894-9

Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C et al (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64:253-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>