The Agroecological Transition of Farms in the Ecuadorian Andes Through the Lens of the Main Agroecological Structure

Bibliographic Data

ID21649656
AuthorsGabriel Saenz‐Lituma (0000-0002-8268-0315, Dipartimento Ingegneria Civile Edile e Ambientale ICEA Università degli Studi di Padova Ecuador, corresponding author)
Year2025
Volume36
Issue2
Pages424-440
Publication date2025-01-30
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLand Degradation and Development (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1085-3278 • E-ISSN: 1099-145X
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/ldr.5368
OpenAlexW4404093426
LanguageEN
References cited53

Many sectors of society have urged a transition from modern conventional agriculture to more sustainable alternatives. One of the most frequently mentioned is agroecology, due to its potential to improve soil health, promote agrobiodiversity, food sovereignty, and regenerate ecosystem functions. However, complex systems such as farms demand the transformation of a broad set of characteristics and practices for its transition. These factors are, in turn, conditioned by social, educational, economic, and political factors. Therefore, a clear understanding of the main drivers behind the management of farms is vital for supporting an effective transition. This research applied the main agroecological structure (MAS) methodology, which employs 10 indicators (5 biological, 5 cultural) to evaluate the degree of connectivity of a farm with the landscape, the agrobiodiversity present in living fences and crops, and the practices employed by farmers to support and preserve it. Finally, the MAS methodology gives farms a score from 0 to 100, understood as the degree of development of its agroecological structure, or as the “resilience” of a system in agroecological transition. Measurements were performed in 20 farms with different degrees of agroecological transition, in five locations of the northern‐central Andean region of Ecuador. The farms had a moderately developed structure on average (71.05 over 100), and MAS variation was not correlated to the size of the farm, nor with its degree of connectivity with the surrounding landscape. It was rather significantly related to the geographic location of the study site. One of the main differences between study sites was a more extended prevalence of cooperation and development programs, suggesting a strong connection between the development of agroecological practices and capacity building processes. For this reason, the author proposes that MAS measurements should be complemented with deeper analyses of the capacity‐building background of each site. This study aims to establish a baseline of the MAS in Ecuador, and to provide new tools for monitoring and supporting agroecological transition

Agriculture · Agroecology · Agroforestry · Archaeology · Geography · Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact · Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development · Environmental Science

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access