Ecological Intensification: Bridging the Gap between Science and Practice

D. Kleijn*, Riccardo Bommarco, T.P.M. Fijen, Lucas A. Garibaldi, Simon Potts, W.H. van der Putten

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

There is worldwide concern about the environmental costs of conventional intensification of agriculture. Growing evidence suggests that ecological intensification of mainstream farming can safeguard food production, with accompanying environmental benefits; however, the approach is rarely adopted by farmers. Our review of the evidence for replacing external inputs with ecosystem services shows that scientists tend to focus on processes (e.g., pollination) rather than outcomes (e.g., profits), and express benefits at spatio-temporal scales that are not always relevant to farmers. This results in mismatches in perceived benefits of ecological intensification between scientists and farmers, which hinders its uptake. We provide recommendations for overcoming these mismatches and highlight important additional factors driving uptake of nature-based management practices, such as social acceptability of farming.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)154-166
JournalTrends in Ecology and Evolution
Volume34
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

food production
pollination
ecosystem service
management practice
farmers
agriculture
ecosystem services
farming systems
uptake mechanisms
profits and margins
recommendation
environmental cost
science
profit

Cite this

Kleijn, D. ; Bommarco, Riccardo ; Fijen, T.P.M. ; Garibaldi, Lucas A. ; Potts, Simon ; van der Putten, W.H. / Ecological Intensification: Bridging the Gap between Science and Practice. In: Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 2019 ; Vol. 34, No. 2. pp. 154-166.
@article{d715f5219269489e845f18a154a622d1,
title = "Ecological Intensification: Bridging the Gap between Science and Practice",
abstract = "There is worldwide concern about the environmental costs of conventional intensification of agriculture. Growing evidence suggests that ecological intensification of mainstream farming can safeguard food production, with accompanying environmental benefits; however, the approach is rarely adopted by farmers. Our review of the evidence for replacing external inputs with ecosystem services shows that scientists tend to focus on processes (e.g., pollination) rather than outcomes (e.g., profits), and express benefits at spatio-temporal scales that are not always relevant to farmers. This results in mismatches in perceived benefits of ecological intensification between scientists and farmers, which hinders its uptake. We provide recommendations for overcoming these mismatches and highlight important additional factors driving uptake of nature-based management practices, such as social acceptability of farming.",
author = "D. Kleijn and Riccardo Bommarco and T.P.M. Fijen and Garibaldi, {Lucas A.} and Simon Potts and {van der Putten}, W.H.",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.002",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "154--166",
journal = "Trends in Ecology and Evolution",
issn = "0169-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

Ecological Intensification: Bridging the Gap between Science and Practice. / Kleijn, D.; Bommarco, Riccardo; Fijen, T.P.M.; Garibaldi, Lucas A.; Potts, Simon; van der Putten, W.H.

In: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2019, p. 154-166.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ecological Intensification: Bridging the Gap between Science and Practice

AU - Kleijn, D.

AU - Bommarco, Riccardo

AU - Fijen, T.P.M.

AU - Garibaldi, Lucas A.

AU - Potts, Simon

AU - van der Putten, W.H.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - There is worldwide concern about the environmental costs of conventional intensification of agriculture. Growing evidence suggests that ecological intensification of mainstream farming can safeguard food production, with accompanying environmental benefits; however, the approach is rarely adopted by farmers. Our review of the evidence for replacing external inputs with ecosystem services shows that scientists tend to focus on processes (e.g., pollination) rather than outcomes (e.g., profits), and express benefits at spatio-temporal scales that are not always relevant to farmers. This results in mismatches in perceived benefits of ecological intensification between scientists and farmers, which hinders its uptake. We provide recommendations for overcoming these mismatches and highlight important additional factors driving uptake of nature-based management practices, such as social acceptability of farming.

AB - There is worldwide concern about the environmental costs of conventional intensification of agriculture. Growing evidence suggests that ecological intensification of mainstream farming can safeguard food production, with accompanying environmental benefits; however, the approach is rarely adopted by farmers. Our review of the evidence for replacing external inputs with ecosystem services shows that scientists tend to focus on processes (e.g., pollination) rather than outcomes (e.g., profits), and express benefits at spatio-temporal scales that are not always relevant to farmers. This results in mismatches in perceived benefits of ecological intensification between scientists and farmers, which hinders its uptake. We provide recommendations for overcoming these mismatches and highlight important additional factors driving uptake of nature-based management practices, such as social acceptability of farming.

U2 - 10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.002

DO - 10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.002

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 154

EP - 166

JO - Trends in Ecology and Evolution

JF - Trends in Ecology and Evolution

SN - 0169-5347

IS - 2

ER -