Summary
This rapid systematic review consolidates evidence from over 13,000 publications to assess the socio-economic performance of agroecological practices at a global scale. The analysis reveals that agroecological practices are associated with positive outcomes in approximately half of cases, with financial metrics showing favourable results (53% positive) but human capital metrics demonstrating more mixed outcomes (46% negative) owing to increased labour demands. Results vary substantially by agroecological practice type, with agroforestry showing stronger positive socio-economic performance (53%) compared to cropping system diversification (35%).
UK applicability
These global findings may be partially applicable to UK farming contexts, particularly regarding the trade-offs between financial gains and labour intensification in agroecological transitions. However, UK-specific analysis would be needed to account for distinct labour costs, market structures, policy support mechanisms, and climate conditions.
Key measures
Socio-economic outcomes categorised by capital type (financial capital, human capital); outcome directions (positive, negative, neutral, inconclusive); practice-specific performance (agroforestry, cropping system diversification); labour productivity; income; revenues; productivity; efficiency
Outcomes reported
The rapid review synthesised evidence from over 13,000 publications to evaluate socio-economic outcomes of agroecological practices globally, measuring impacts across financial capital, human capital, and labour productivity metrics. Results indicate that agroecological practices were associated with positive outcomes in 51% of cases, with substantial variation by practice type.
Topic tags
Dig deeper with Pulse AI.
Pulse AI has read the whole catalogue. Ask about this record, its theme, or how the findings apply to UK farming and policy — every answer cites the underlying studies.