Aligning research with policy and practice for sustainable agricultural land systems in Europe

Significance Research, policy, and practice should be integrated to understand, guide, and implement the changes necessary to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, from an analysis of research literature, policy indicators, and assessment tools for agriculture in Europe, we find that more than half of the 239 variables identified are currently used by only one of these perspectives. We identify a limited set of 32 variables that all three perspectives share and suggest these can be a starting point for designing future research to more comprehensively analyze trade-offs and identify opportunities for achieving the SDGs. Our method for assessing differences among perspectives in research, policy, and practice is a way to balance and implement sustainability goals for sectors and regions. Agriculture is widely recognized as critical to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but researchers, policymakers, and practitioners have multiple, often conflicting yet poorly documented priorities on how agriculture could or should support achieving the SDGs. Here, we assess consensus and divergence in priorities for agricultural systems among research, policy, and practice perspectives and discuss the implications for research on trade-offs among competing goals. We analyzed the priorities given to 239 environmental and social drivers, management choices, and outcomes of agricultural systems from 69 research articles, the SDGs and four EU policies, and seven agricultural sustainability assessment tools aimed at farmers. We found all three perspectives recognize 32 variables as key to agricultural systems, providing a shared area of focus for agriculture’s contribution to the SDGs. However, 207 variables appear in only one or two perspectives, implying that potential trade-offs may be overlooked if evaluated from only one perspective. We identified four approaches to agricultural land systems research in Europe that omit most of the variables considered important from policy and practice perspectives. We posit that the four approaches reflect prevailing paradigms of research design and data analysis and suggest future research design should consider including the 32 shared variables as a starting point for more policy- and practice-relevant research. Our identification of shared priorities from different perspectives and attention to environmental and social domains and the functional role of system components provide a concrete basis to encourage codesigned and systems-based research approaches to guide agriculture’s contribution to the SDGs.

[1]  John M. Antle,et al.  Evaluating agricultural trade-offs in the age of sustainable development , 2016, Agricultural Systems.

[2]  Sustainability rooted in science , 2015 .

[3]  David W. Archer,et al.  Exploring agricultural production systems and their fundamental components with system dynamics modelling , 2016 .

[4]  K. Nicholas,et al.  A classification to align social-ecological land systems research with policy in Europe , 2018, Land Use Policy.

[5]  H. Haberl,et al.  Challenges for land system science , 2012 .

[6]  Måns Nilsson,et al.  A guide to SDG interactions: From science to implementation , 2017 .

[7]  Jeffrey Sayer,et al.  Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries , 2017 .

[8]  Niels Röling,et al.  Pathways for impact: scientists' different perspectives on agricultural innovation , 2009 .

[9]  Laurens Klerkx,et al.  Affordances of agricultural systems analysis tools: A review and framework to enhance tool design and implementation , 2018, Agricultural Systems.

[10]  Raphaël Mathevet,et al.  Scale sensitivity of drivers of environmental change across Europe , 2013 .

[11]  Patrick Hostert,et al.  Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective , 2015 .

[12]  D. Griggs,et al.  Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals , 2016, Nature.

[13]  Philip K. Thornton,et al.  Livestock, livelihoods and the environment: understanding the trade-offs , 2009 .

[14]  Masaru Yarime,et al.  Polarization and clustering in scientific debates and problem framing: network analysis of the science-policy interface for grassland management in China , 2017 .

[15]  H. Sonmez,et al.  An exploratory analysis of land abandonment drivers in areas prone to desertification , 2015 .

[16]  C. Pacini,et al.  Communicating complexity: Integrated assessment of trade-offs concerning soil fertility management within African farming systems to support innovation and development , 2011 .

[17]  Odirilwe Selomane,et al.  Essential variables help to focus sustainable development goals monitoring , 2017 .

[18]  S. Carpenter,et al.  Global Consequences of Land Use , 2005, Science.

[19]  C. Tyler Wanted: academics wise to the needs of government. , 2017 .

[20]  D. Parsons,et al.  Agricultural systems research and global food security in the 21st century: An overview and roadmap for future opportunities , 2017, Agricultural Systems.

[21]  Un Desa Transforming our world : The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development , 2016 .

[22]  R. Raper,et al.  Drivers Impacting the Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Management Practices and Production Systems of the Northeast and Southeast United States , 2010 .

[23]  Fritz Hani,et al.  RISE, a Tool for Holistic Sustainability Assessment at the Farm Level , 2003 .

[24]  Enli Wang,et al.  Biofuels agriculture: landscape‐scale trade‐offs between fuel, economics, carbon, energy, food, and fiber , 2010 .

[25]  Unai Pascual,et al.  Social-ecological outcomes of agricultural intensification , 2018, Nature Sustainability.

[26]  Karen C. Seto,et al.  Meta-studies in land use science: Current coverage and prospects , 2015, Ambio.

[27]  Patrick Hostert,et al.  Challenges and opportunities in mapping land use intensity globally , 2013, Current opinion in environmental sustainability.

[28]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Key features for more successful place-based sustainability research on social-ecological systems: a Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS) perspective , 2017 .

[29]  Sang Michael Xie,et al.  Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty , 2016, Science.

[30]  P. Mineau,et al.  The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity , 1995 .

[31]  Louise Willemen,et al.  Agricultural ecosystems and their services: the vanguard of sustainability? , 2016 .

[32]  N. Röling,et al.  Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty , 1999 .

[33]  B. Campbell,et al.  Climate Change and Food Systems , 2012 .

[34]  Wolfgang Lucht,et al.  Biomass-based negative emissions difficult to reconcile with planetary boundaries , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[35]  Mark C. Mifsud,et al.  Reinvigorating the sustainable development research agenda: the role of the sustainable development goals (SDG) , 2018 .

[36]  Peter Rodgers,et al.  eulerAPE: Drawing Area-Proportional 3-Venn Diagrams Using Ellipses , 2014, PloS one.

[37]  S. Carpenter,et al.  NONPOINT POLLUTION OF SURFACE WATERS WITH PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN , 1998 .

[38]  V. Dale,et al.  A landscape perspective on sustainability of agricultural systems , 2012, Landscape Ecology.

[39]  P. Murray,et al.  Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty , 2001 .

[40]  J. W. Bruce,et al.  The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths , 2001 .