Brumer Et Al 2023 Agroecology in Germany and Austria

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/368228604
Development of agroecology in Austria and Germany
Article in Open Research Europe · February 2023

DOI: 10.12688/openreseurope.15431.1
CITATIONS READS
2 381
5 authors, including:
A. Wezel Jens Dauber

ISARA-Lyon Thünen Institute & Technical University Braunschweig
123 PUBLICATIONS 7,371 CITATIONS 157 PUBLICATIONS 6,350 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by A. Wezel on 20 August 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Open Research Europe Open Research Europe 2023, 3:25 Last updated: 16 MAY 2023
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Development of agroecology in Austria and Germany [version

1; peer review: 2 approved]
Anna Brumer1,2, Alexander Wezel1, Jens Dauber3,4, Tor Arvid Breland2,
Baptiste Grard 1
1Agroecology and Environment Research Unit, ISARA, Lyon, 69364, France
2Department of Plant Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Biosciences, Ås, NO-1432, Norway
3Thünen Institute of Biodiversity, Braunschweig, 38116, Germany
4Biodiversity of Agricultural Landscapes, Institute of Geoecology, Technische Universität Braunschweig, Braunschweig, 38106,
Germany
v1 First published: 02 Feb 2023, 3:25 Open Peer Review

https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.15431.1
Latest published: 02 Feb 2023, 3:25
https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.15431.1 Approval Status
1 2
Abstract
Background: Transforming food systems is necessary to address the version 1
global issues of severe biodiversity loss, hunger, and malnutrition as 02 Feb 2023 view view
well as the consequences of the rapidly advancing climate change.
Agroecology as a systemic approach has been recognised as a
1. Felipe Gallardo López, Graduate College
promising path of change exemplified in various case studies
strengthening this transformation. The aim of this study is to get Campus Veracruz (Colegio de Postgraduados
insight specifically for Austria and Germany in providing an overview Campus Veracruz), Veracruz, Mexico
of the advancement in agroecology in both countries and identify
agroecology-related initiatives. 2. Nicola Randall , Harper Adams University,
Methods: 21 interviews with experts were conducted to determine Newport, UK
the recognition, understanding, and development of agroecology in
Austria and Germany in terms of movement, practice, policies, Any reports and responses or comments on the
education, and research. In addition, information about agroecology- article can be found at the end of the article.
related initiatives was collected from interviews with 24
representatives of initiatives and literature analysis. Data was
analysed according to five activity categories under which
agroecology manifest: movement, practice, living lab, science and
research infrastructure, and training and education.
Results: Results show that the term agroecology is not commonly
used in Austria and Germany, where the concept is mainly associated
to a scientific discipline. Practices considered agroecological are
implemented primarily through organic agriculture, which is very
developed in Austria and to a lesser extent in Germany. Many
networks, food policy councils, associations, and scientific projects
related to agroecology exist, each with specific purposes and
ambitions to change farming and food systems. While most selected
initiatives do not explicitly refer to agroecology, all follow certain
agroecological principles and aim at contributing to accelerate the
agroecological transition.
Conclusions: Clarifying the concept of agroecology, overcoming
Page 1 of 20
economic and political barriers as well as fostering participation of a

multitude of stakeholders in the transition is essential for the future
development of agroecology in Austria and Germany.
Keywords
Agroecological practice, living lab, research in agroecology,
agroecology movement, organic agriculture and food system.
This article is included in the Horizon 2020

gateway.
This article is included in the Agriculture, Land

and Farm Management gateway.
Corresponding author: Baptiste Grard (bgrard@isara.fr)

Author roles: Brumer A: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation; Wezel A:
Conceptualization, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review &
Editing; Dauber J: Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing; Breland TA:
Supervision, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing; Grard B: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision,
Validation, Writing – Review & Editing
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information: This research was financially supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
project no 101000478 (Agroecology for Europe [AE4EU]).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Copyright: © 2023 Brumer A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite this article: Brumer A, Wezel A, Dauber J et al. Development of agroecology in Austria and Germany [version 1; peer
review: 2 approved] Open Research Europe 2023, 3:25 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.15431.1
First published: 02 Feb 2023, 3:25 https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.15431.1
Page 2 of 20
Open Research Europe 2023, 3:25 Last updated: 16 MAY 2023
Plain language summary Various challenges to accelerate an agroecological transition

Agriculture in Europe is now facing increasing global chal- have already been identified (Cacho et al., 2018; Gliessman,
lenges such as severe biodiversity loss, hunger, and malnutri- 2019; IPES-Food, 2016; Wezel and Bellon, 2018). These include
tion. This forces our societies to find ways to transform food limited funding for agroecological research, lack of policies
systems to address those global issues. Agroecology as a sys- at the European Union (EU) level as well as weak connec-
temic approach has been recognised as a promising path of tions between science, policymakers, and farmers. A further
change exemplified in various case studies strengthening challenge linked to the latter, is the implementation of the agr-
this transformation. The aim of this study is to get insight oecological principles (HLPE, 2019; Nicholls and Altieri,
specifically for Austria and Germany in providing an overview 2018; Wezel et al., 2020), which alongside systems thinking
of the advancement in agroecology in both countries and iden- need to inform the selection and integration of concrete prac-
tify agroecology-related initiatives. 21 interviews with experts tices within the whole, e.g., a farming system. The need to
were conducted to determine the recognition, understanding, generate, combine and exchange knowledge to reach cogni-
and development of agroecology in Austria and Germany in tive justice, i.e., increase recognition of practice and give access
terms of movement, practice, policies, and research. In addi- to this knowledge (Coolsaet, 2016) also plays a key role in
tion, information about agroecology-related initiatives was the development of farming and food systems according to
collected from interviews with 24 representatives of initiatives agroecological knowledge, principles and approaches (HLPE,
and literature analysis. Data was analysed according to five 2019; Wezel et al., 2020). To overcome the aforementioned
activity categories under which agroecology manifest: move- challenges and accelerate the transition, a long-term vison as
ment, practice, living lab, science and research infrastructure, well as a joint financial effort by the states are needed. A step
and training and education. towards this in Europe is the planned European partnership on
agroecology living labs and research infrastructures (https://
Our study highlights that the term agroecology is not com- research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/research-area/agriculture-
monly used in Austria and Germany, where the concept is forestry-and-rural-areas/ecological-approaches-and-organic-farm-
mainly associated to a scientific discipline. Practices considered ing/partnership-agroecology_en).
agroecological are implemented primarily through organic
agriculture, which is very developed in Austria and to a lesser Transforming food systems requires a series of steps, which
extent in Germany. Many networks, food policy councils, may result in transition levels in increasing agreement with
associations, and scientific projects related to agroecology agroecological knowledge and principles (Gliessman, 2016).
exist, each with specific purposes and ambitions to change Under the umbrella of agroecological systems thinking, the 13
farming and food systems. While most selected initiatives do principles of agroecology defined in the High Level Panel of
not explicitly refer to agroecology, all follow certain agroeco- Experts (HLPE) (2019) report, provide a basis which has to
logical principles and aim at contributing to accelerate the be adapted to the actual context and scale (Wezel et al., 2020).
agroecological transition. These principles range from those pertaining to agroecosys-
tem components and partial perspectives such as soil health
Clarifying the concept of agroecology, overcoming economic and animal health to broader system concepts such as synergy
and political barriers as well as fostering participation of a and connectivity of components and processes within and
multitude of stakeholders in the transition is essential for the across ecological, economic, and social dimensions at various
future development of agroecology in Austria and Germany. scales of farming and food systems. However, as an item-
ised list, they do not alone ensure the holistic, participatory,
Introduction action-oriented systems approach, which forms the conceptual,
Agroecology, understood as the ecology of farming and food ethical and methodological core of agroecology (Gliessman,
systems (Francis et al., 2003), has since the 2000s increas- 2016; Méndez et al., 2016).
ingly been proposed as a useful concept to guide a much needed
transformation of farming and food systems facing global At a national level in the EU countries, agroecology is not wide-
issues such as severe biodiversity loss, hunger and malnutri- spread but actions are currently undertaken regionally and
tion, poor agricultural resilience to the consequences of climate locally, and there is a starting dynamic at EU level. France
change and insufficient livelihood security for farmers (Altieri is an exception, where agroecology has found its way into
et al., 2015; Francis et al., 2003; Gliessman, 2007; IAASTD, legal texts and in public action already since 2014 (Wezel and
2009; Wanger et al., 2020; Wezel et al., 2009). Agroecol- David, 2020). While European countries differ in their approach
ogy addresses environmental, social and economic dimensions to agroecology, it was reported that most conceive agroecol-
(Altieri, 1989; Gliessman, 2018; Olson and Francis, 1995; Wezel ogy firstly as a science, then as a practice and to a smaller
et al., 2009) by a holistic or systems thinking approach needed extent as a movement (Gallardo-López et al., 2018). In this
to understand the complexity and the interconnectedness of regard, several sources or databases on agroecology and
food system elements and processes (Bezner Kerr et al., 2019; agroecology-related initiatives, with different objectives, already
Gliessman, 2016). Through its transdisciplinary, participa- exist. The Agroecology Knowledge Hub (https://www.fao.
tory and action-oriented approach (Méndez et al., 2016), org/agroecology/home/en/), a web platform created by the
agroecology aims to consolidate the links between the diver- FAO, shares relevant knowledge, documents and policies
sity of stakeholders (farmers, producers, researchers, and (AgroecologyLex) on agroecology around the world. In recent
consumers) as well as those between different disciplines years, the importance of mapping and setting up databases on
(ecology, agronomy, social sciences, economy, etc.). agroecology has been recognised, as “mapping has an important
Page 3 of 20
role to play in strengthening processes of transformation” Methods

(Milgroom et al., 2019). Different agroecology-related initiatives, Ethical statement
constituting examples of successful practices in farming and For each interview – of key and initiative informant - the inter-
food systems in nine European countries, are presented by viewee received in advance an informed consent form as
Moraine et al. (2016), who also analysed their performance well as information document with all relevant information.
(production, economic, farm autonomy, work management, All interviewees were asked to sign consent forms prior to the
inputs self-sufficiency, domestic biodiversity, and landscape interview. If necessary, relevant information were explained
diversity). A special journal issue around the manifestation of orally at the beginning of the interview. No relevant ethical
agroecology in Europe (Wezel and Bellon, 2018) gave a first issues were identified by AE4EU project regarding human inter-
insight into what is happening in different countries. This vention in the proposal. For the collection of personal data,
includes a first analysis for Mediterranean countries (Migliorini detailed information on the procedures for data collection,
et al., 2018), eastern Europe (Moudrý et al., 2018), and Bel- storage, protection, retention, and destruction, and confirma-
gium (Stassart et al., 2018) It was followed by a report of tion that they comply with national and EU legislation are
Agroecology Europe (2020), which mapped initiatives in 11 described in the deliverable D8.2 submitted in March 31,2021
European countries. Subsequent publications provided analy- and accepted by the EU Commission. The project Ethics com-
ses of the current state of agroecology-informed initiatives and mittee, consisting of the project coordinator, the data pro-
a mapping of such initiatives in Hungary (Balogh et al., 2020) tection and management officer, as well as representative of
and in the West Balkans (Šeremešić et al., 2021). These pub- selected partners of the Ethics work package validated the
lications show that a multitude of initiatives and projects questionnaires used in the surveys of this study. Written
exist with different approaches on various themes such as informed consent was also obtained from participants to the
education, commercialisation, production and food sovereignty. surveys to use their answers and quotations for research and
However, most of them do not cover all relevant elements publication.
and dimensions of the agroecosystem, let alone take a holis-
tic, systems- and action-oriented approach in the pursuit of Manifestations of agroecology
overall food system sustainability (Wezel et al., 2009). We investigated the historical development and current occur-
rence and status of agroecology as manifested in the following
This study was part of the Horizon2020 Agroecology for activity categories: movement, practice, living lab, science and
Europe (www.ae4eu.eu) project aiming to map European ini- research infrastructure, and training and education (Figure 1).
tiatives and development in agroecology in different countries Associations, civil society stakeholders, non-governmental
in Europe. The aim of the study was to map initiatives linked organisations (NGOs), and farmers’ unions promoting the appli-
to agroecology and analyse their current state in two Euro- cation of agroecology were considered as movements. Practices
pean countries: Austria and Germany. The term mapping is included farmers or any stakeholder that develop and imple-
understood here as a collection of information on existing ment agroecology. Research projects and programmes, univer-
initiatives, e.g., examples of innovative projects or associations sities and institutions doing agroecology-related research were
pursuing the improvement of agriculture. Analysing state considered for the science category. Training and education is
here means assessing their main area of action (movement, an activity area that is often integrated into science, however,
practice, living lab, science and research infrastructure, and it was considered here as a separate category as it also includes
training and education) and stage of development. Having an trainings that are done outside of academic settings and research
updated analysis of the current state of agroecology-related infrastructures, for example, by NGOs. Finally, living labs fol-
initiatives in Austria and Germany in terms of recognition, low the definition of being open innovation networks involv-
understanding, and implementation will provide an overview ing a multitude of actors (Dekker et al., 2020; Leminen, 2015),
that can serve European policies for developing sustainable beyond the farm scale, and implementing and developing
food system. Favourable policies are key drivers to scale out agroecological principles. These types of initiatives are often
practical manifestations of agroecology (Cacho et al., 2018). very recent and may represent an important supporting pathway
The objective of this study was to answer the following for an agroecological transition in Europe.
questions:
1 What is the current recognition and understanding of Methodological steps of the interview-based research
agroecology, in movement, practice, living lab, sci- The five methodological steps used to map manifestations
ence and research infrastructure, and training and of agroecology in Austria and Germany are summarised in
education in Austria and Germany? Figure 2. The first step consisted of a literature review regard-
ing the historical development and current status of agroecology
2 How are existing initiatives contributing to the in the two countries and of collecting current information
implementation and development of agroecology in on agroecology in both countries by searching on government
Austria and Germany? and initiatives websites.
To answer these questions, experts and representatives of The literature review and an analysis of academic publica-
relevant initiatives were interviewed, and online research tions in Austria and Germany was undertaken on the ‘Web
and a literature study were conducted. of Science’ platform, using the keywords i) agroecology and
Page 4 of 20
Figure 1. The five activity categories mapped in Austria and Germany for manifestations of agroecology (AE).
agroecological farming, ii) organic agriculture, organic farm-

ing, organic horticulture, organic livestock and biodynamic,
iii) agroforestry, silvopasture, and silvoarable, iv) regenera-
tive agriculture, regenerative farming and permaculture, and
v) agroecology territories related keywords such as food jus-
tice, food systems, food sovereignty, and rural development.
The country name was also included in the topic search to
investigate the number of published articles where one of the
contributing authors was a researcher in Austria or Germany,
and second, the number of published articles where the arti-
cle focuses on research carried out inside the respective
country. Articles between 1990 and April 2021 were consid-
ered. All scientific articles in German and/or English found
were included in the analysis. Each article was read and cat-
egorized per year of publication and according to key words
category (see Figure 3 and Figure 4).
In the internet search for current information, we used the

words “agrar(-)ökologie” and “biologischer Landbau” or “ökol-
ogischer Landbau”. We included organic agriculture into the
search, as organic agriculture, at least ideally, reflects agroeco-
logical knowledge, worldview and methodological approaches
Figure 2. Main methodological steps for mapping
to systems development and selection of practices (IFOAM,
agroecology in European countries. 2019; Migliorini and Wezel, 2017). This data collection was
Page 5 of 20
Figure 3. Publications from 1990 to 2021 with Austrian and German authors involved using five themes and related keywords
as a topic: 1) agroecology, 2) organic farming, 3) agroforestry, 5) regenerative agriculture, and 6) food system. The columns
represent the total number of articles per topic and the data colours indicate that the country was included in the topic. Darker yellow or
blue concern the study regarding including Germany and Austria as a topic.
Figure 4. Publications from 1990 to 2021 with Austrian and German authors involved using five themes and related keywords
as a topic: 1) agroecology, 2) organic farming, 3) agroforestry, 5) regenerative agriculture, and 6) food system. The columns
represent the total number of articles per topic and the data colours indicate that the country was included in the topic. Darker yellow or
blue concern the study regarding including Germany and Austria as a topic.
Page 6 of 20
complemented by data from a first screening of European agr- interview of key informants (Grard et al., 2023) started with
oecology livings labs and research infrastructure initiatives a question about how often the key informants used the
launched by the DG-Agri in 2020 (https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/ term agroecology and what their definition of it was. This
runner/FirstScreeningAELLRI2020). Based on this, a first was followed by a series of questions on their knowledge of
selection of key informants and initiatives was established. initiatives within the five activity areas. The last part of the inter-
view consisted of questions on awareness, policies, practices
The second step consisted of interviewing key informants, used, and barriers as well as opportunities for the development
from an initial listing of step 1 and expert knowledge, with a of agroecology. Key informants’ interviews lasted between
semi-structured questionnaire (see the description below). The 30 to 70 minutes. Each interview was recorded and key
selection of further key informants and initiatives was based findings transcribed into a database (Grard et al., 2023). In
on the interviews with the initial key informants. Some key the database, key informants were associated with a number
informants were also involved in initiatives; in such cases, (key-informant 1, 2, 3 etc.) to anonymise the data collected.
the interview continued collecting information about the
initiative. In interviews with the selected initiatives, a second semi-
structured questionnaire was used (Grard et al., 2023). It
In the third step the obtained data was analysed and finally in included questions on starting year, involved stakeholders and
the fourth step a country report was produced which includ- future plans of the initiative as well as funding sources and
ing a description of the different initiatives, which is not regional–national representation. Those interviews lasted 30–45
part of the present paper. minutes. Each interview was recorded and key findings tran-
scribed into a database (Brumer et al., 2023) frame according
Selection and interviews of key informants and to interview question.
initiatives
Key informants were selected based on their knowledge on agr- Data analysis
oecology within one or more of the five activity categories Data from the interviews (Brumer et al., 2023) were analysed
(Figure 1) and representing different institutions and organi- to establish an overview of the current state of agroecology-
sations. These included individuals having participated in related initiatives in the respective country within the five activity
national gatherings or conferences about agroecology, in pre- categories presented in Figure 1). This included the aware-
vious mapping projects, or being researchers at universities ness within the civil society, the level of integration in
or institutes with a focus on agroecology. Representatives of political directives at national and regional level, the existing
NGOs and civil society organisations active in agroecol- educational programmes and research projects, and the sup-
ogy and food sovereignty, as well as members of chambers porting factors, challenges, and barriers for the development of
of agriculture (e.g., in the organic farming sector) were also initiatives informed by agroecology in the country. Data were
selected, in addition to those identified in the DG-AGRI survey. summarised and analysed using a standardised excel data base
Key informants were also asked to name other experts. The also used for mapping agroecology initiatives in other European
initiatives were then selected according to the following countries. The transcripts of the interviews with key
criteria: being named by more than one key informant and hav- informants were also analysed with a statistical tool from
ing objectives in line with at least one of the 13 principles R-4.1.0 (https://www.r-project.org/) for extracting the frequency
of agroecology (HLPE, 2019). They further had to be viable of relevant keywords using the “tm” tool.
and have existed for at least three years (with possible excep-
tion for outstanding initiatives and recently created living Results
labs). Interviews were carried out with a total of 21 key informants and
24 initiatives: 13 key informants and 15 initiatives in Germany,
As agroecology is not a term that is commonly used in Aus- and eight informants and nine initiatives in Austria, respec-
tria and Germany, most initiatives selected did not label them- tively. Interviews were held between March and June 2021. In
selves specifically as agroecological, but all were using one of Austria, half of the key informants were working at chambers
the keywords used to find relevant publications for the lit- of agriculture (Table 1) in different regions. In Germany, the
erature review and web search. A further selection criterion majority of key informants were working at universities or
was the localisation; an effort was made to find initiatives in research organisations (Table 1).
different regions of both countries.
We first present here the historical development of agroecol-
Interviews ogy-related initiatives and terminology, the key informants’
The interviews followed a semi-structured questionnaire in view on agroecology and its definition, existing policies and
English developed for mapping manifestations of agroecol- practices related to agroecology, and we then present data
ogy in Europe. The questionnaire was developed by AE4EU about publications on agroecology-related topics since 1990.
partners between January to March 2021, based partly on a This is followed by a section focusing on existing initiatives
previous study carried out by Agroecology Europe (2020). within the five activity categories described above. Τhe last sec-
It was internally translated to German for this study, but two tion describes the barriers and opportunities for the further
interviews were, nevertheless, conducted in English. The development of agroecology-related initiatives.
Page 7 of 20
Table 1. Key informants interviewed in Austria and surface area and according to EU classification (Art. 32(2),
Germany. Regulation 1305/2013) they are considered as disadvantaged
regions. Austria has the largest area of organic farmland in
Number of Type of Dimension of the EU and third worldwide (Steinwidder and Starz, 2016).
Country Over 25% of the agricultural land in Austria is farmed organi-
interviewees structure agroecology
cally (as of 2019), and 22 % of farms are certified organic
Chamber of
4 Practice (BMLRT, 2020).
agriculture
Science, living lab, Germany has a similar development of organic agriculture as

Research
1 education and Austria, but with a smaller share of organic land and farms.
organisation
training
In 2019, around 10% of the farmland in Germany was farmed
Austria Movement, practice, organically (BMEL, 2021) and 12.9 % of the farms were
1 NGO
science certified organic. For Germany, the position paper “Agrar-
Education and ökologie stärken — Für eine grundlegende Transformation der
1 University Agrar- und Ernährungssysteme” (INKOTA, 2019), called
training, science
the German federal government to take a series of measures
Ministry of
1 Practice, science supporting agroecology-related initiatives. These include spe-
agriculture
cific financial support as well as the development of farmer-
Education and led research, principles of co-creation of knowledge used in
4 University
training, science research and the publication of a progress report every two
1 NGO Movement years. The report of Haller et al. (2020) outlines develop-
ment perspectives for organic farming and how organic and
Science, education conventional agriculture could be optimised.
and training, living
Research lab (only one key
4 In Austria and Germany, organic agriculture often goes well
Germany organisation informant)
beyond the European organic standard, as expressed in many
Science established association guidelines such as Demeter, Bioland,
Ministry of Naturland, and BioAustria. All key informants in Austria agreed
2 Science
agriculture that in their principles and practices, they see a close rela-
tion between organic agriculture and agroecology, whereas in
Chamber of
2 Practice Germany agroecology was often seen as a broader subject
agriculture
and approach but in close agreement with the principles of
organic agriculture.
Historical development and current occurrence of Definitions, perceptions, and development of

agroecology-related initiatives and terminology in agroecology
Austria and Germany Definitions. In Austria, only one out of eight key informants
Historically, Austria is a pioneer country in organic farming, reportedly use the term agroecology very often, three often,
starting with the development of biodynamic agriculture by and five rarely in their respective work. In Germany, five out
Rudolf Steiner in 1924. Τhe first biodynamic farms were cre- of 13 reported using it very often while four often, and four
ated in 1925 in Carinthia, and the first organic association rarely.
(which later became Demeter) was established in 1932
(Steinwidder and Starz, 2016). Organic agriculture was pro- When asked about their definitions of agroecology, most key
moted by the Bio-Aktionsprogramm 2015–2020 (action pro- informants (five) in Austria defined it as a practice for sus-
gramme for organic farming), promoting key measures to tainable production, meaning not negatively impacting the
further develop organic farming (Rech, 2015), which has environment. Three defined it as a scientific discipline
been prolonged until 2022. Another element of this pro- studying the interactions and relationships in an ecosystem
gramme is the high allowance payments to organic farms in of which two added that it is also a political movement. For
less favoured areas and the “Biobonus” (i.e., higher subsi- Germany, key informants mainly defined the concept as a sci-
dies for organic farming). The Austrian agri-environmental ence (10), with four also mentioning it being considered as
programme Österreichisches Programm für Umweltgerechte a social movement and three using the threefold definition
Landwirtschaft (ÖPUL), supports amongst others water con- by Wezel et al. (2009). Some key informants argued that it
servation measures, biodiversity conservation, integrative pest is a holistic and systemic approach (two in Austria, four in
management, and organic agriculture (over 40% of its budget Germany).
goes to organic agriculture). It can therefore be considered as
a programme promoting the implementation of agroecological Organic farming was also mentioned in the definitions, with
knowledge, worldview and approaches in practice. A specificity two key informants in Austria specifying that organic farm-
of Austria is that mountainous areas make up 70% of its ing is the implementation of agroecology and two informants in
Page 8 of 20
Germany stating that agroecology is based on the principles Implementation of practices and farming systems. To get
of organic farming or includes organic farming. Three inform- an overview of the implementation in both countries of prac-
ants in Germany also insisted on the notion that agroecology tices that may be compatible with agroecological knowledge,
represents a transformative process towards a sustainable food worldview and approach, the key informants were asked
system. to name examples of the most commonly used practices.
While some are clearly defined practices, a few, such as
Agroecology-related terms mentioned by the interviewees. organic farming, refer to a production system which includes
Not counting the words agroecology and initiative, the most a conglomerate of practices. Other practices mentioned were
repeated words during the key informants’ interviews in Austria, linked to agri-environmental measures, such as flower strips,
were farms (“Betriebe”), agriculture (“Landwirtschaft”), farmer which can be established for different purposes, e.g., support-
(“Landwirt”), organic agriculture (“Biolandbau”), organic (“biol- ing natural enemies in order to reduce the application of insec-
ogisch”), and measures (“Maßnahmen”). In Germany, they were ticides. Crop rotation and organic farming for Austria and
agriculture (“Landwirtschaft”), measures (“Maßnahmen”), farmer flower strips and organic farming for Germany were the most
(“Landwirt”), biodiversity (“Biodiversität”), transformation mentioned practices. All interviewees could not give any
(“Transformation)”, and organic farming (“Ökolandbau”). estimate to the frequency of use of these practices. One inform-
ant specified that while flowering strips are very common,
The word ‘measures’, frequently repeated in both countries, was they probably only represent 1% of agricultural surfaces in
most often linked to agri-environmental measures but some- Germany when comparing it to the amount of organic cer-
times also to nature or climate protection measures. “Consumer”, tified agricultural surfaces, which is 10% of agricultural
“society” and “research” were also repeatedly mentioned by surfaces; “organic farming is by far the most common
the key informants in Germany to play an important role in practice” (Key informant 12 – Germany; Grard et al., 2023).
food systems. In Austria, “BioAustria” and “ÖPUL” were fre-
quently repeated, showing the importance of the organisation
Science and publications
and agri-environmental programme for the development of
When looking at published articles (in English) with key-
sustainable food systems.
words related to agroecology, the highest number employ the
Policies related to agroecology. In Austria, key informants, concept of organic agriculture. 1,080 articles using organic
referring to the ÖPUL stated that there are already policies agriculture as a topic were published during the last 30 years
helping the implementation of agroecology in practice. Other with at least one author from an Austrian or German research
policies mentioned were the EU organic regulations (EG - institution or organisation. 209 articles with agroecology
Nr. 834/2007 and Nr.889/2008), the common agricultural pol- as a topic were published by authors working in either coun-
icy (CAP - specifically the agri-environmental schemes in the try, which is less than the 303 articles related to food sys-
2nd pillar) and the association guidelines from BioAustria, tems. For Germany, a very high number of articles related to
Demeter, or Bioland. BioAustria, which represents two thirds agroforestry were published (671).
of all organic farmers in Austria, has guidelines going beyond
the organic farming regulations. For example, all produce of The number of articles also including the country as a topic
a farm needs to be organic to have the BioAustria label. Other (Figure 3 and Figure 4) is noticeably lower in all five
major differences to the EU organic regulations and label are selected terms for both countries, showing that the experi-
on animal welfare requirements. There are also requirements ments or focus are either based outside of Austria or
that are not mentioned in the EU regulations on packaging, Germany or that possible articles are not based on empirical
horticultural production, communication and education. data. Articles on organic farming represent 29% of the papers
published on agriculture in Austria and 21% in Germany
The response to the existing policies regarding agroecology in during the period from 1990 to 2021. During the last five years,
Germany varied. Half of the key informants answered nega- they represented 27% for Austria and 20% for Germany.
tively to the question if there are any policies helping the imple-
mentation of practices according to agroecological principles,
The first scientific article (in English) on agroecology in
either by saying not at all or not really. Most agreed that the
Germany was published in 1993, for Austria it was in 2000
focus of existing policies was not on agroecology. On top
(Figure 4). The publication of articles on agroforestry and
of the CAP and EU organic regulations, different strategies
food system in Germany has increased in the last ten years.
and policies such as the Biodiversity Strategy (“Biodiver-
An increasing trend can also be seen for the articles on agr-
sitätsstrategie”), livestock strategy (“Nutztierstrategie”), arable
oecology in Austria since 2018. At least one article on organic
farming strategy (“Ackerbaustrategie”), the fertiliser regulation
agriculture in Austria and Germany was published every year
(“Düngeverordnung”) as well as the recent insect protection law
starting from 1996 and 1999, respectively. Only one article
(“Insektenschutzgesetz”), and the nature conservation agree-
on the topic of regenerative agriculture in Austria was pub-
ment (“Naturschutzvertrag”) were mentioned in Germany. These
lished so far (in 2004), whereas two were published for
strategies and policies have some goals and practical measures,
Germany (in 2018 and 2020).
e.g., limiting the amount of fertilizer and protecting specific spe-
cies, that are agroecologically favourable. In an agroecological
perspective, though, they require a holistic systems approach Initiatives in Austria and Germany
to be integrate with other measures taken in the pursuit of The aim and general characteristics of the 24 selected initiatives
overall ecological, economic and social sustainability. are summarised in Table 2.
Page 9 of 20
Table 2. Agroecology-related initiatives in Austria and Germany.
In Austria:
Founded Related activity

Initiative name Scale Stakeholders Aim
in category
Feld - association of the use of unused Reducing food waste by transforming unsold
Local Civil society, farmers 2014 Movement
(“Verein von Nutzung von Ungenutztem”) food
Movement,
Preservation and development of the diversity
Arche Noah International Civil society 1989 education and
of cultivated plants
training
Movement,
Vienna Food Policy Council Relocating – food system and decision
Local/National Civil society 2018 education and
(“Ernährungsrat Wien”) making processes in Vienna
training
Results oriented nature conservation Practice, education
National Farmers, advisors 2012 Result based nature conservation planning
(“Ergebnisorientierter Naturschutzplan”) and training
Organic Innovations along three themes: soil health, Living lab, practice,
Grand Farm Local Farmers, researchers
since 2006 agroforestry, market gardening science
Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) National Researchers, farmers 2002 Long term ecological research plots Living lab, science
Biodiversity monitoring with farmers Farmers monitoring biodiversity in
Education and
(“Biodiversitätsmonitoring mit National Farmers, researchers 2007 agricultural landscapes, changing practices to
training, practice
LandwirtInnen”) promote biodiversity
Organic agricultural school (14–17 years old Education and
Bioschool Schlägl (“Bioschule Schlägl”) Local Students 2002
students) training
Permaculture Academy (PIA – “Permakultur Education and
National Civil society 2004 Teaching permaculture (all ages)
Akademie im Alpenraum”) training
In Germany:
Founded Related activity
Initiative name Scale Stakeholders Aim
in category
Movement,
Aktion Agrar National Civil society 2014 Actions for agricultural turnaround education and
training
German professional association Civil society, farmers,
National 2019 Promote agroforestry in Germany Movement
agroforestry (DeFAF) researchers
Movement, practice,
Food PolicyCouncil Frankfurt Promote regional, fair and ecological food
Local/National Civil society 2017 education and
(“Ernährungsrat Frankfurt”) supply, involve civil society
training
Model eco-regions (“Ökomodellregionen Civil society, farmers, Increase organic production, create regional
Regional 2014 Practice
Bayern”) advisors value chain
Researchers,
Grassland biotope network
Regional farmers, advisors, 2017 Create and maintain biotopes in grassland Practice
(“Biotopverbund Grasland”)
civil society
Support cultivation and processing of beans
Demonstration network for pea and bean Practice, living lab,
National Farmers, researchers 2016 and peas in Germany, linking demand and
(“DemoNet Erbse Bohne”) science
supply
Network for animal wellbeing (“Netzwerk Animal welfare, environmentally friendly and Practice, living lab,
National Farmers researcher 2019
Fokus Tierwohl”) sustainable livestock farming science
Network for stock protection (“Vorratschutz
National Researchers, farmers 2019 Sustainable post-harvest protection Practice, living lab
Netzwerk, Vsnet”)
Biodiversity model farmsin North-Rhine Implementation and adaptation of agri-
Regional Farmers, advisors 2015 Practice, living lab
Westphalia (“Leitbetriebe Biodiversität”) environmental measures
Increase agricultural diversification by
patchCROP Regional Researchers, farmers 2019 temporal and spatial approaches at the Living lab, science
landscape level
Implementing effective biodiversity Science, practice,
F.R.A.N.Z. National Researchers, farmers 2016
promoting measures living lab
Regional/ Fundamental ecological research in selected
Biodiversity Exploratories Researchers, farmers 2006 Science, practice
National large-scale areas
Agriculture management and biodiversity Education and

National Students 2018 Master course for future biodiversity advisors
(“Agrarmanagement und Biodiversität”) training
Development of suitable seminars and Education and

Bridging generations in agroecology National Farmers, students 2020
courses on agroecology for farmers training
Acker e.V. – Vegetables academy Students (pre-school, Strengthening awareness of the importance Education and
International 2014
(“GemüseAckerdemie”) school) of nature and the appreciation of food training, practice
Page 10 of 20
Movements. The concept of agroecology has been used by dif- farmers and researchers co-designed the experiment, whereas
ferent movements in both countries, even if the term itself for the model farms the agri-environmental measures are
is not always explicitly used. Movements are often linked to proposed by the advisors and then implemented by farmers.
food sovereignty (e.g., ÖBV-via Campesina Austria, Nyéléni
Austria) and Community Supported Agriculture (e.g., CSA, Other initiatives included in the practice and living labs activ-
Solidarische Landwirtschaft in both countries). Over 40 ity category as a main area of action include initiatives such
initiatives of CSA have been listed in Austria (https://www.och- as the “Biotopverbund Grasland” (https://www.gruenlandzentrum.
senherz.at/solidarische-landwirtschaft-in-oesterreich-2/) and over org/projekte/biotopverbund-grasland/), “DemoNet Erbse Bohne”
362 in Germany (https://www.solidarische-landwirtschaft.org/ (https://llh.hessen.de/pflanze/eiweissinitiative/demonstration-
solawis-finden/karte#/). snetzwerke/demonstrationsnetzwerk-erbse-bohne/), “Netzwerk
Fokus Tierwohl” (https://fokus-tierwohl.de/de/) and “Vorats-
Another type of citizen-led movement is the emergence of food chutz Netzwerk” (https://www.netzwerk-vorratsschutz.de/vsnet/
policy councils aiming to involve citizens in decision proc- de/home). They could also be considered as living labs, as these
esses in food systems (Sieveking, 2019), and thereby creating a networks link many different stakeholders to a common objec-
new appreciation for food and its producers, promoting local, tive of increasing biotope connections, animal welfare and
sustainable and fair food supply. The Vienna food policy reducing the synthetic inputs for the post-harvest protection.
council (https://ernaehrungsrat-wien.at) follows sociocratic The motivation behind the creation of these networks is not just
principles in decision making processes, meaning that every the demonstration of different practices but the adaptation and
member can express their ideas and opinions on specific pro- idea exchange on the different practices, which is subsequently
posals, and decisions are taken in groups. Around 40 people are assessed by scientists before being disseminated nationally or
active in the different projects including the development of a regionally through guidelines or policies.
food strategy (named “Ernährungsstrategie”) with the city of
Vienna and an urban field (called “WeltTellerFeld”) represent- Science, education, and training. The science of agroecology
ing the yearly food consumption per person and the neces- integrates a multitude of subjects and is often fragmented in dif-
sary surfaces of arable land and pasture needed to provide all ferent research areas in Austria and in Germany (Table 3 and
food products. The food policy council in Frankfurt (https:// Table 4). The most often stated universities were the University
ernaehrungsrat-frankfurt.de) has a similar structure and has of Life Science (BOKU) in Vienna, University of Göttingen
several working groups on education and awareness raising, and University of Hohenheim in Germany. The BOKU and the
production and marketing, zero waste and permaculture. The University of Hohenheim offer together with other European
number of people actively involved is fluctuant. Currently partners a joint Master of Science (MSc) in Organic agricul-
about 150 people are involved. Both food policy councils fol- ture and food systems (EUR-Organic), and at Hohenheim
low agroecology principles (HLPE, 2019) such as recycling also as single degree with the same name and at BOKU as
(food waste), co-creation of knowledge, social values and diets, Agroecology-Organic agriculture. The other universities listed
connectivity and participation. Their work is based on volun- in Table 3, have all groups or departments working on agr-
teers. A difficulty mentioned by both initiatives is the lack of oecology-related subjects and offer various related courses, but
recognition and financial support by governments. they are rarely named agroecology and they focus on specific
topics such as soil health, animal health and wellbeing. Other
Practice and living labs. In Austria and Germany different regions research institutions and research infrastructures were also
have been labelled as ‘organic model regions’, their common mentioned by key informants, some are federal institutions.
objective is to increase the production of organic food and cre- Only the Institut für Agrarökologie und Biodiversität (IFAB)
ate short supply chains with the involvement of municipalities in Mannheim focuses specifically on agroecology while oth-
and different stakeholders of the food system. The “Ökoregion ers like Bioforschung Austria and Research Institute of Organic
Kaindorf”, the BioRegion “Mühlviertel” in Austria, and the Agriculture (FiBL), concentrate their research on organic
different “Öko-Modelregionen” in Bavaria and Hessen, as well farming.
as the “Öko-Musterregionen” in Baden Württemberg, were
considered as examples of implementation of agroecology. Future development of agroecology
Key informants were asked to identify the barriers and oppor-
Four living labs, identified in the DG-AGRI survey and inter- tunities to further develop agroecology-informed initiatives
viewed for the purpose of this study are: the Grand Farm (https:// in Austria and Germany.
grandfarm.at), the long-term field experiments of the AGES
(Austrian Agency for Health and Food Security), patchCrop Barriers. For both countries, economic barriers were the
(https://comm.zalf.de/sites/patchcrop/SitePages/Homepage.aspx) first and most mentioned barriers for future development of
and the Biodiversity Model Farms in Nordhrein-Westfalen agroecology. These included the inadequate funding schemes,
(https://www.landwirtschaftskammer.de/landwirtschaft/natur- which do not really promote the implementation of agr-
schutz/leitbiodiversitaet/index.htm). All involve different stake- oecology, the insufficient remuneration of farmers, and high
holders (farmers, advisors, researchers) and aim at transforming labour costs. Stakeholders in Germany mentioned that there
or adapting practices. They differ regarding the process of is a lack of cost/benefit analyses demonstrating that agroecol-
co-creation of knowledge. Indeed, in the patchCrop project the ogy is not only key to handle many environmental problems
Page 11 of 20
Table 3. List of universities with a department or a research group or unit related to

agroecology in Austria and Germany.
University Research topic
Austria
Sustainable agricultural systems (agroecology and organic

BOKU - Vienna
agriculture)
Innsbruck Agricultural and regional sociology
Germany
Göttingen Agroecology; Functional Agrobiodiversity
Hohenheim Ecology of Tropical Agricultural Systems; Landscape ecology
Kassel - Witzenhausen Organic agricultural sciences
Freiburg Nature conservation and landscape ecology
München - Weihenstephan (TUM) Life science systems
Humboldt - Berlin Agricultural and food policy
Animal ecology
Giessen
Landscape ecology
Kiel Landscape ecology
Economics of Sustainable Land Use and Bioeconomy;

Bonn
Agroecology and organic agriculture
Lüneburg Ecosystem functioning and services lab
Greifswald Landscape Ecology and Ecosystem Dynamics
Münster Applied landscape ecology and ecological planning
Koblenz - Landau Ecosystem analysis
Organic pest management;

Cottbus-Senftenberg (BTU)
Social science environmental issues
Table 4. List of research institutions and infrastructures in Austria and

Germany carrying out research related to agroecology.
Country Research institutions and research infrastructure
Bioforschung Austria
HBLFA Raumberg-Grumpenstein - Higher federal

Austria
teaching and research institute for agriculture
AGES - Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety
Thünen Institute
UFZ Helmholtz - center for environmental research
ZALF - Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research

Germany
JKI - Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants
Biodiversity exploratories
IFAB - Institute for Agroecology and Biodiversity
Both countries FiBL - research institute of organic agriculture

Page 12 of 20
but also an approach that may provide economic benefits formed by nature conservationists and farmers. The last
in the long term. A further barrier mentioned was the influ- recommendation concerned the further development of organic
ence of the agribusiness lobby. Economic barriers are closely agriculture and the risk of developing agroecology in par-
linked to political barriers, with a lack of incentive to develop allel when it is in fact compatible to the notion of organic
and implement biodiversity-promoting measures, and to consider agriculture (AT key informant). For Germany, key inform-
farms, farmers and the environment, including the consumers, ants addressed the fear that agroecology as it is not clearly
as an interconnected whole. The administrative burden is per- defined and understood could weaken the high standards of
ceived as a discouraging factor for the implementation of organic farming and further play into the confusion of consum-
agroecology-informed production systems. ers. The most considerable opportunity for agroecology is to
link food system stakeholders and to foster cooperative and
The third type of barriers is linked to the awareness and edu- bottom-up movements.
cation of civil society, including farmers. Food prices were
recognised as being too low in both countries as they do not Discussion
account for the environmental externalisation of costs. In order Recognition and understanding of agroecology in
to change this, some key informants argued that consumers Austria and Germany
need to become aware and ready to pay true costs, whereas The concept of agroecology is only recognised by few stake-
others claimed that more financial means from the states or holders in Germany and Austria, and it is understood differ-
the EU could change this. While the conflict between nature ently among the interviewees of the present research. Finding
conservation organisations and farmers was mentioned by key informants and initiatives proved to be difficult, as the
most key informants in Germany, only one referred to this as word itself (“Agrarökologie”) is not commonly used. Agree-
being a barrier for the development of agroecology-related ing on a definition of agroecology remains a key task for
initiatives. For Austria, two key informants believed that the its recognition in Germany where it is still mainly seen as a
biggest hurdle is the land use, as it becomes more profitable to science as discussed by Wezel and Soldat (2009). The defini-
use the land for energy production than food production and tions given by key informants reflected their work, researchers
land pressure is rising because of soil sealing. Another barrier and professors always defined agroecology as a science
mentioned, was the gap between scientific knowledge and while advisors in the chamber of agriculture focused on the
implementation. Two informants pointed out that scientific practice.
knowledge is missing to allow a proper and practical imple-
mentation of agroecology. The definition of agroecology as Another explanation for the lack of recognition of agroecol-
being perceived by key informants remains unclear and very ogy is the historical development of organic agriculture in
broad. Key informants for Germany see it as the first barrier to both countries, which is the current alternative to conventional
be overcome. Finally, one key informant stated that the main bar- agriculture embracing a systemic approach to food systems
rier is the difficulty to completely change the system and get out (as stated by proponents, whereas regulations do not include
of lock-ins to truly accelerate the transition to agroecologically this approach strongly). Attempts to implement the agroecol-
sound, more sustainable farming and food systems. ogy worldview in practice, which is at the core of its systemic
orientation, are recognised under the label of organic farming.
Opportunities. The majority of key informants agreed that the Studies have shown the positive impacts in both countries
time is ripe for practical manifestations of agroecology and (Darnhofer, 2005; Schafer et al., 2009). In Germany, the focus
that there is a real momentum in both countries. The trend of of policies is mainly on organic farming (Lampkin et al., 2020)
consumers asking for local and sustainable products has been as key informants pointed out for both countries. Neither
accentuated during the COVID-19 pandemic. More and more agroecology nor organic agriculture can be summarised by a
people become aware of the climate change threat and the loss series of practices alone. Creating specific regulations for agr-
of biodiversity. This leads to a certain change of consump- oecology remains very questionable and is debated currently,
tion habits and a readiness to more strongly support farmers, as these would build on principles already adopted by organic
e.g., those practicing organic agriculture. Bottom-up move- agriculture and might open for greenwashing for larger food
ments are increasing and the notion of living labs was seen as sector companies.
very promising by the few key informants who already familiar
with the concept. Different ideas for the development of A possible resolution of the differences in interpretation of
agroecology-informed practice(s) were raised, starting with the the concept of agroecology might be to raise the awareness
improvement of the image of agriculture, reconnecting con- of the knowledge–practice and the whole–parts dimensions.
sumers to producers and the need to demonstrate the viability Agroecology understood as “the ecology of food systems”
of farming and food systems based on agroecology. Another (Francis et al., 2003) and “a transdisciplinary, participatory
proposition was the recognition of the ‘production of biodi- and action-oriented approach” (Méndez et al., 2016) would
versity’ as an agricultural branch, similar to the energy pro- then primarily be a field of knowledge, including normative
duction branch developed in recent years. A recommendation principles and methodological approaches for describing,
was the necessity to include all farmers, organic and analysing and improving situations in practice. Agriculture,
conventional, and promote cooperation with all stakeholders including certified organic agriculture, then obviously is prac-
involved in a territory, to remedy the too often opposing tice in variable agreement with agroecological knowledge,
Page 13 of 20
principles and approaches. Agroecology, by definition, pertains (Almirall et al., 2012). However, this was not the case of all self-
to (agroeco)systems, which are wholes that express situation- and proclaimed living labs but was found in other initiatives. As the
site-specific emergent properties because of their combination concept of living labs, particularly in relation to agroecology,
of interacting parts and, consequently, requires a “flickering” is not yet clearly defined (McPhee et al., 2021), the examples of
between focus on the whole and its parts to be understood and the highlighted diverse initiatives represent an opportunity for
improved (Bland and Bell, 2007). stakeholders to assimilate the concept and discuss it in the light
of agroecology.
Agroecology in science and practice
The importance of organic farming is also reflected in the Overall, the initiatives found in this work rarely called them-
number of published articles. There are more articles published selves an agroecology initiative, only four initiatives did.
(in English) in the last 30 years on organic agriculture than on The others did not refute the term and when asked, identified
agroecology. More papers using the term agroecology and food with the agroecological worldview. This is likely due to their
systems appeared in the last ten years, and there seems to be understanding of what agroecology is (often not seen as a
an emerging trend on the topic of agroforestry in Germany. movement or in the broader sense pertaining to whole food
Agroecology and organic agriculture regulations (EU regula- systems) and the specific focus on one aspect of the initiatives
tions and IFOAM norms) have many common principles but (e.g., food waste). However, all follow several agroecologi-
diverge in some principles and practices (Migliorini and Wezel, cal principles, the most common ones being the co-creation of
2017). For the moment there are no agroecology regulations knowledge and the participation principle. Indeed, almost all
or norms at the European level. Instead of creating more regu- initiatives interviewed create and share knowledge and aim to
lations, INKOTA (2019) argue that the focus should be on transform food systems. The previous mapping of Austria pre-
the cessation of harmful policies. sented the main movement initiatives recognising and using
the term (ÖBV-via Campesina Austria, Nyéléni Austria)
Throughout the interviews, all key informants mentioned organic (Agroecology Europe, 2020).
agriculture, either when referring to initiatives or when talk-
ing about implemented practices. Practices that have been The initiatives selected in this study, similarly to the ones in
listed were mostly practices defined as agroecological by previous mapping efforts, encounter different barriers for their
Wezel et al. (2014). But flower strips and organic farming, further development. Indeed, the question of continuity is
most frequently mentioned by key informants, are not prac- key for lasting change. Projects are often limited in time and
tices but, respectively, an agri-environmental measure which by the implication of people. Furthermore, financial means
on its own is not sufficient and has to have a specific purpose was often presented as a limiting factor by initiative representa-
linked to field and landscape management such as support- tives, as was also often mentioned in previous mapping report
ing the presence of natural enemies; and a concept and type all over European initiatives. For example, the salary of the
of agriculture linked to a set of practices. In both countries, manager coordinating an “Öko-Modellregionen” in Bavaria
the integration of agroecological practices in the agricultural is financed by the state of Bavaria for the first five years and
landscapes could not be quantified, and most key inform- then it goes through a regressive phase, which can lead to a
ants expressed the necessity to determine their integration. different prioritisation of objectives (focus on local produc-
The potential of these practices in terms of broad implementation and less on environmentally friendly production). Food
tion and promotion of sustainability should also be (re)assessed. policy councils could be considered as living labs with their
As found in the previous mapping of Austria and for other purpose to democratise food systems, through horizontal
countries such as Ireland, farmers have adopted different prac- governance, and aim to increase connectivity. At the moment,
tices labelled as agroecological but do not name them this one of the limitations of the food policy councils studied here is
way (Agroecology Europe, 2020). In order to render farming the integration of farmers in these processes and recognition by
systems more resilient, a holistic approach is needed, meaning authorities.
that practices need to be combined (implementing one cannot
be considered as sufficient), assessed and adapted to local Development of agroecology
context. Economic and political barriers were the most commonly
identified hurdle for the development of agroecology, along with
Previous mapping in Austria (Agroecology Europe, 2020) the missing recognition and awareness. These findings concur
showed that regional differences (unfavourable conditions for with many other studies (Aare et al., 2021; Ferrando et al.,
intensification) and pioneers favoured the emergence of 2021; Miles et al., 2017). The failures of the current politi-
initiatives. In comparison to other European countries, farm- cal framework have led scientists to propose ten action
ing in Austria is still small-scale but similarly to in other points to completely change the CAP (Pe’er et al.,
countries, farm numbers are decreasing while size is increasing. 2020). True cost accounting could be used to overcome the
barrier of too low food prices, which are a consequence
Diversity of agroecology initiatives of externalisation of costs to the environment and society
A new aspect of this study is the inclusion of living labs and (Benton and Bailey, 2019; HLPE, 2019). Even though the bar-
the mapping of non-scientific training on agroecology in com- riers are numerous and difficult to overcome, the recent crises
parison to previous mapping projects (Agroecology Europe, (COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine) and climate change
2020; Balogh et al., 2020). A key feature of living labs are playing a key role in awareness raising and changing
is “involving users as co-creators on equal ground” of consumption habits. Last year, the European Committee of
Page 14 of 20
the regions adopted an opinion on agroecology (Cros, 2021) needed. So far, research remains within disciplines, and a
as “the answer to Europe’s agricultural, social and environ- transdisciplinarity systems approach is broadly lacking when it
mental challenges”. This still needs to be echoed in policies, comes to assessing the potential of agroecological approaches
especially in the national strategic plans of the new CAP. as the basis for the needed transformation of present agricultural
and food systems.
Methodological considerations
This study gives an overview of some of the existing In both countries, initiatives that work toward changing the
initiatives and a partial view of the current state of agroecol- food system according to agroecological principles have been
ogy in Austria and Germany as based on the key informants’ developed. The emergence of initiatives is contingent to the
knowledge and readiness to respond. The information gath- geographic, economic, and political context. These initia-
ered from the key informants is based on their perceptions and tives have very specific focus, different ambition levels, and
interpretations, not necessarily on documented facts. This is are at different levels of development. All can serve as exam-
a clear limitation of these kind of studies aiming to character- ples for others and should be further evaluated in terms of
ise the state of agroecology in terms of movement, policies, their impacts and compliance with agroecological knowledge,
practices and research. A complementary approach for assess- principles, and methodological approaches. In both coun-
ing the implementation of practice could have been to gather tries, movements are using the term agroecology often linked
data from publications and look at the EU and state subventions to food sovereignty, seed preservation, or specific practices
for specific measures similar to the method used for estimating like agroforestry. Living labs are also being developed to
the silvopasture extent by Rodríguez-Rigueiro et al. (2021). link different stakeholders and develop together processes to
reach a common goal.
The interviews allowed to form a non-exhaustive yet illustra-
tive list of initiatives showing that agroecology is gaining rec- Comparing the state of agroecology-related initiatives in differ-
ognition, and that existing initiatives all work towards raising ent countries and establishing clear criteria for assessing such
awareness going beyond Gliessman’s transition levels 1 and initiatives will be crucial in the next years. In the last years,
2 (Gliessman, 2007). Even though their impact is limited by European countries have further developed the implementation
their scale, their concrete goals promote the transformation of agroecology-related initiatives. The European ‘Partnership
and long-term success of the agroecological transition. In this on agroecology living labs and research infrastructure’, if
study, the designation of agroecology initiatives was based on funded by the EU commission and European countries, will
the information given by key informants. The initiative selec- contribute to the urgently needed transition in the current
tion was not very strict as they only had to follow at least agricultural system.
one agroecological principle to be considered. Agroecological
principles give a framework within which the possible applica-
tions are very diverse, and it remains a challenge to properly Data availability
fit the concept of agroecology to all kind of different initia- Underlying data
tives. Furthermore, the purpose of this study was not to evaluate Zenodo: Dataset - mapping of Agroecology in Austria and
the initiatives. This could be done in a further step using Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7524270. (Brumer et al.,
other methodology such as the one developed by Dumont 2023).
et al. (2021).
The project contains the following underlying data:
Conclusion • Brumer-et-al_Database_Austria-Germany.xlsm. (Ano-
Agroecology in Austria and Germany is recognised by few nymised responses for German and Austria interviews).
stakeholders, and the definition is subject to various interpreta-
tions. The use of the term is increasing, and different movements Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons
aim to spread the concept. In Austria and Germany, different Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
policies promote organic farming and implicitly the implemen-
Extended data
tation of agroecology. However, these are few and supported
Zenodo: AE4EU - Mapping questionnaire for key informant
with insufficient funds. In both countries the research is too
and initiative. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7520262. (Grard
often fragmented, leading to very few advances in the develop-
et al., 2023).
ment of agroecological practices. The effectiveness of specific
practices and their interactions have to be tested in the three This project contains the following extended data:
sustainability dimensions, i.e., their ecological, economic, and
• Grard-et-al_AE4EU_Questionnaire_Key-inform-
societal impacts.
ant_FV.pdf. (Blank English and German questionnaire
used in this study).
The interviews showed that a clear understanding of the con-
ceptual focus of agroecology, which in its essence is a holistic Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons
operationalisation of its principles in practice, is urgently Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Page 15 of 20
Acknowledgments information provided. This study has received funding from the
We thank all the participants of this study for their willing- European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation pro-
ness to contribute, the time allocated, and the highly valuable gramme under grant agreement No101000478.
References
Aare AK, Egmose J, Lund S, et al.: Opportunities and barriers in diversified systems. J Sustain Agric. 2003; 22(3): 99–118.
farming and the use of agroecological principles in the Global North - The Publisher Full Text
experiences of Danish biodynamic farmers. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2021; Gallardo-López F, Hernández-Chontal MA, Cisneros-Saguilán P, et al.:
45(3): 390–416. Development of the Concept of Agroecology in Europe: A Review.
Publisher Full Text Sustainability. 2018; 10: 1210.
Agroecology Europe: Agroecology initiatives in Europe. Corbais, Belgium, Publisher Full Text
2020; 232. Gliessman SR: Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. CRC
Reference Source Press, Taylor & Francis, New York, USA. 2007; 384.
Almirall E, Lee M, Wareham J: Mapping Living Labs in the Landscape of Reference Source
Innovation Methodologies. Technol Innov Manag Rev. 2012; 2(9): 12–18. Gliessman S: Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecol Sustain
Publisher Full Text Food Syst. 2016; 40(3): 187–189.
Altieri MA: Agroecology: A new research and development paradigm for Publisher Full Text
world agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1989; 27(1–4): 37–46. Gliessman S: Defining Agroecology. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2018; 42(6):
Publisher Full Text 599–600.
Altieri MA, Nicholls CI, Henao A, et al.: Agroecology and the design of climate Publisher Full Text
change-resilient farming systems. Agron Sustain Dev. 2015; 35: 869–890. Gliessman S: Making the transition away from industrial agriculture: using
Publisher Full Text agroecology to promote food systems transformation. Agroecol Sustain Food
Balogh L, Réthy K, Balázs B, et al.: Mapping agroecology in Hungary. Sys. 2019; 43(2): 121–122.
Védegylet Egyesület, ESSRG. 2020. Publisher Full Text
Reference Source Grard B, Wezel A, Gkisakis V: AE4EU - Mapping questionnaire for key
informant and initiative (Version 1) [Data set]. Zenodo. 2023.
Benton TG, Bailey R: The paradox of productivity: agricultural productivity
http://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7520262
promotes food system inefficiency. Glob Sustain. 2019; 2: e6.
Publisher Full Text Haller L, Moakes S, Niggli U, et al.: Entwicklungsperspektiven der
ökologischen Landwirtschaft in Deutschland. Umweltbundesamt. 2020.
Bezner Kerr R, Rahmanian M, Owoputi I, et al.: Agroecology and nutrition:
Reference Source
transformative possibilities and challenges. 2019; 53–63.
Publisher Full Text HLPE (High Level Panel of Experts): Agroecological and other innovative
approaches for sustainable agriculture and food systems that enhance
BMEL: Ökologischer Landbau in Deutschland 32. 2021.
food security and nutrition, A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on
Reference Source
Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome
BMLRT: Grüner Bericht 2020 (No. 61). Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, (No. 14). 2019.
Regionen und Tourismus. 2020. Reference Source
Reference Source
IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and
Bland WL, Bell MM: A holon approach to agroecology. Int J Agric Sustain. 2007; Technology for Development): Agriculture at a crossroads. International
5(4): 280–294. assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for
Publisher Full Text development. Synthesis report: a synthesis of the global and sub-global IAASTD
Brumer A, Wezel A, Grard B: Dataset - mapping of Agroecology in Austria reports. Eds.: McIntyre, B.D. Herren, H.R. Wakhungu, J. Watson, R. T. Island
and Germany (Version 1) [Data set]. Zenodo. 2023. Press, Washington, DC. 2009.
http://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7524270 Reference Source
Cacho MM, Giraldo TG, Aldasoro OF, et al.: Bringing agroecology to scale: IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements): Position
key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2018; 42(6): paper on agroecology. Organic and agroecology: working to transform our
637–665. food system. 2019.
Publisher Full Text Reference Source
Coolsaet B: Towards an agroecology of knowledges: Recognition, cognitive INKOTA: Positionspapier Agrarökologie stärken: Für eine grundlegende
justice and farmers’ autonomy in France. J Rural Stud. 2016; 47: 165–171. Transformation der Agrar- und Ernährungssysteme. 2019.
Publisher Full Text Reference Source
Cros CG: Opinion Factsheet [WWW Document]. 2021. (accessed 1.11.22). IPES-Food: From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial
Reference Source agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. International Panel of
Darnhofer I: Organic Farming and Rural Development: Some Evidence from Experts on Sustainable Food systems. 2016.
Austria. Sociol Rural. 2005; 45(4): 308–323. Reference Source
Publisher Full Text Lampkin N, Schwarz G, Bellon S: Policies for agroecology in Europe,
Dekker R, Contreras JF, Meijer A: The Living Lab as a Methodology for building on experiences in France, Germany and the United Kingdom.
Public Administration Research: a Systematic Literature Review of its Landbauforsch · J Sustainable Organic Agric Syst. 2020; 70(2): 103–112.
Applications in the Social Sciences. Int J Public Adm. 2020; 43(14): 1207–1217. Publisher Full Text
Publisher Full Text Leminen S: Q & A What Are Living Labs? Technol Innov Manag Rev. 2015; 5(9):
Dumont AM, Wartenberg AC, Baret PV: Bridging the gap between the 29–35.
agroecological ideal and its implementation into practice. A review. Agron Publisher Full Text
Sustain Dev. 2021; 41: 32. McPhee C, Bancerz M, Mambrini-Doudet M, et al.: The Defining
Publisher Full Text Characteristics of Agroecosystem Living Labs. Sustainability. 2021; 13(4):
Ferrando T, Claeys P, Diesner D, et al.: Commons and commoning for a just 1718.
agroecological transition: the importance of de-colonising and Publisher Full Text
de-commodifying our food system. Resourcing an Agroecological Urbanism: Méndez V, Bacon C, Cohen R, et al.: Agroecology: a transdisciplinary,
Political, Transformational and Territorial Dimensions. 2021; 61–84. participatory and action-oriented approach. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2016;
Reference Source 37(1): 3–18.
Francis C, Lieblein G, Gliessman S, et al.: Agroecology: the ecology of food Publisher Full Text
Page 16 of 20
Migliorini P, Wezel A: Converging and diverging principles and practices of Schafer M, Nolting B, Engel A: Organic agriculture as a new player in
organic agriculture regulations and agroecology. A review. Agron Sustain sustainable regional development? Case studies of rural areas in Eastern
Dev. 2017; 37: 63. Germany. Int J Agric Resour Gov Ecol. 2009; 8(2–4): 158–179.
Publisher Full Text Publisher Full Text
Migliorini P, Gkisakis V, Gonzalvez V, et al.: Agroecology in Mediterranean Šeremešić S, Jovović Z, Jug D, et al.: Agroecology in the West Balkans:
Europe: Genesis, State and Perspectives. Sustainability. 2018; 10(8): 2724. pathway of development and future perspectives. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst.
Publisher Full Text 2021; 45(8): 1213–1245.
Miles A, DeLonge MS, Carlisle L: Triggering a positive research and policy Publisher Full Text
feedback cycle to support a transition to agroecology and sustainable food Sieveking A: Food Policy Councils as Loci for Practising Food Democracy?
systems. Agroecol Sustain Food Syst. 2017; 41(7): 855–879. Insights from the Case of Oldenburg, Germany. Politics Gov. 2019; 7(4): 48–58.
Reference Source Publisher Full Text
Milgroom J, Andersen CR, Chapell MJ: A guide to mapping for food system Stassart PM, Crivits M, Hermesse J, et al.: The Generative Potential of
change. Coventry University. 2019. Tensions within Belgian Agroecology. Sustainability. 2018; 10(6): 2094.
Reference Source Publisher Full Text
Moraine M, Lumbroso S, Poux X: A comprehensive outlook on the diversity Steinwidder A, Starz W: Landwirtschaft 2030 - Herausforderungen für die
of Agroecological initiatives in Europe, TYFA. EFNCP, IDDRI. 2016. Biologische Landwirtschaft in Österreich. 2016; 15–20.
Reference Source Reference Source
Moudrý J, Bernas J, Moudrý J, et al.: Agroecology Development in Eastern Wanger TC, DeClerck F, Garibaldi LA, et al.: Integrating agroecological
Europe—Cases in Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and production in a robust post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Nat Ecol
Slovakia. Sustainability. 2018,10: 10(5): 1311. Evol. 2020; 4(9): 1150–1152.
Publisher Full Text PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
Nicholls C, Altieri M: Pathways for the amplification of agroecology. Agroecol Wezel A, Bellon S: Mapping Agroecology in Europe. New Developments and
Sustain Food Syst. 2018; 42(10): 1–24. Applications. Sustainability. 2018; 10(8): 2751.
Olson RK, Francis CA: A hierarchical framework for evaluating diversity Wezel A, Bellon S, Doré T, et al.: Agroecology as a science, a movement and a
in agroecosystems. In: R Olson, C Francis, S Kaffka (eds) Exploring the Role of practice. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2009; 29: 503–515.
Diversity in Sustainable Agriculture. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Publisher Full Text
Society of America, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin. 1995; Wezel A, Casagrande M, Celette F, et al.: Agroecological practices for
5–34. sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2014; 34: 1–20.
Pe’er G, Bonn A, Bruelheide H, et al.: Action needed for the EU Common Wezel A, David C: Policies for agroecology in France: implementation and
Agricultural Policy to address sustainability challenges. People Nat impact in practice, research and education. Landbauforsch · J Sustainable
(Hoboken). 2020; 2(2): 305–316. Organic Agric Syst. 2020; 70(2): 66–76.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Publisher Full Text
Rech T: Das Bio-Aktionsprogramm 2015-2022, Bundesministerium für Land- Wezel A, Gemmill Herren B, Bezner Kerr R, et al.: Agroecological principles
und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft. 2015. and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food
Reference Source systems. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2020; 40: 40.
Rodríguez-Rigueiro FJ, Santiago-Freijanes JJ, Mosquera-Losada MR, et al.: Publisher Full Text
Silvopasture policy promotion in European Mediterranean areas. PLoS One. Wezel A, Soldat V: A quantitative and qualitative historical analysis of
2021; 16(1): e0245846. the scientific discipline of agroecology. Int J Agric Sustain. 2009; 7(1): 3–18.
PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Publisher Full Text
Page 17 of 20
Open Peer Review

Current Peer Review Status:
Version 1
Reviewer Report 16 May 2023
https://doi.org/10.21956/openreseurope.16682.r31143
© 2023 Randall N. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Nicola Randall
Department of Agriculture and Environment, Harper Adams University, Newport, England, UK
There is a comprehensive background, that introduces the concept of agroecology and differing
approaches, together with some existing sources. The background introduces the purpose of the
project, with clear objectives.
Methods:
Literature review:
It is good to see the keywords that were used in the methods. It would be useful to state on what
dates these searches were carried out, & also whether any test searches were carried out (eg to
see if adding Germany & Austria to the topic searches restricted the results or not). The last line
before the subheading 'interviews' states that an effort was made to find initiatives in different
regions, but it is not clear how this was carried out.
Interviews:
It is useful to see the underlying questionnaires.
Results & conclusions:
The results are primarily based on the interviews with a brief overview of the literature review
findings. From what I can see, the summaries of key points from the interviews are clear, with
some specific examples, and these lead to logical conclusions.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and does the work have academic merit?
Page 18 of 20
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Agroecology. Evidence synthesis
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Reviewer Report 20 February 2023
https://doi.org/10.21956/openreseurope.16682.r30798
© 2023 Gallardo López F. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
Felipe Gallardo López

Graduate College Campus Veracruz (Colegio de Postgraduados Campus Veracruz), Veracruz,
Mexico
In general:
The document makes a good contribution to current scientific, practical and discursive state in
relation to different manifestations of agroecology in Austria and Germany. It identifies its
limitations to achieve the agroecological transition. The results are useful for the design and
application of the policy in these two countries. The document raises the need to evaluate
initiatives related to agroecology with clear criteria. In this sense, I would propose to evaluate
them from the perspective of agroecological principles in their design, in their practice and in the
speeches of their actors to find dissonances or consonances, as well as distances in compliance
with the principles. It is suggested to better define the general and particular objective and
describe it only once in the introduction and in the summary. It is suggested to improve the
description of the methodology.
Specific observations:
Page 19 of 20
The description in the text of figure 2 indicates that there were 5 steps. However, only four are
shown in the figure. I think that the fifth is missing and I recommend that it be in contrast to the
two countries analysed.
The document shows the objectives in four moments. One in the summary, and three in the
introduction, considering that the answers to the questions raised are objective. Although, in the
approaches of these four moments they are not exclusive, it is not clear what the central and
particular objective is. I suggest building a single general one and perhaps some particular ones if
necessary, but that it be raised only once in the introduction and once in the summary. A
particular objective addressed was to identify the constraints for the agroecological transition and
they are not included in the objectives, I suggest including it.
Describe the methodological approach synthetically (in the summary) and broadly in the
methodology section in the same order as in Figure 2.
The first paragraph of results is practically methodology.
Remove the last paragraph of conclusions which refers to the financing of living laboratories.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and does the work have academic merit?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Agroecosystem
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Page 20 of 20
View publication stats

Brumer Et Al 2023 Agroecology in Germany and Austria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brumer Et Al 2023 Agroecology in Germany and Austria

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brumer Et Al 2023 Agroecology in Germany and Austria

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Development of agroecology in Austria and Germany

Article in Open Research Europe · February 2023

A. Wezel Jens Dauber

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Development of agroecology in Austria and Germany [version

v1 First published: 02 Feb 2023, 3:25 Open Peer Review

economic and political barriers as well as fostering participation of a

This article is included in the Horizon 2020

This article is included in the Agriculture, Land

Corresponding author: Baptiste Grard (bgrard@isara.fr)

Plain language summary Various challenges to accelerate an agroecological transition

role to play in strengthening processes of transformation” Methods

agroecological farming, ii) organic agriculture, organic farm-

In the internet search for current information, we used the

Science, living lab, Germany has a similar development of organic agriculture as

Historical development and current occurrence of Definitions, perceptions, and development of

Table 2. Agroecology-related initiatives in Austria and Germany.

Founded Related activity

Agriculture management and biodiversity Education and

Development of suitable seminars and Education and

Table 3. List of universities with a department or a research group or unit related to

University Research topic

Sustainable agricultural systems (agroecology and organic

Innsbruck Agricultural and regional sociology

Göttingen Agroecology; Functional Agrobiodiversity

Hohenheim Ecology of Tropical Agricultural Systems; Landscape ecology

Kassel - Witzenhausen Organic agricultural sciences

Freiburg Nature conservation and landscape ecology

München - Weihenstephan (TUM) Life science systems

Humboldt - Berlin Agricultural and food policy

Kiel Landscape ecology

Economics of Sustainable Land Use and Bioeconomy;

Lüneburg Ecosystem functioning and services lab

Greifswald Landscape Ecology and Ecosystem Dynamics

Münster Applied landscape ecology and ecological planning

Koblenz - Landau Ecosystem analysis

Organic pest management;

Table 4. List of research institutions and infrastructures in Austria and

Country Research institutions and research infrastructure

HBLFA Raumberg-Grumpenstein - Higher federal

AGES - Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety

UFZ Helmholtz - center for environmental research

ZALF - Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research

IFAB - Institute for Agroecology and Biodiversity

Both countries FiBL - research institute of organic agriculture

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Report 16 May 2023

It is useful to see the underlying questionnaires.

Results & conclusions:

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Agroecology. Evidence synthesis

Reviewer Report 20 February 2023

Felipe Gallardo López

The first paragraph of results is practically methodology.

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?