4.7 Article

Can soil-less crop production be a sustainable option for soil conservation and future agriculture?

期刊

LAND USE POLICY
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 102-105

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.014

关键词

Agro-ecology; Consumer preferences; High-tech production; Land sharing; Land sparing; Naturalistic fallacy; Naturalness; Soil-less production; Sustainable intensification; Vertical farming

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation SNSF through the National Research Programme Sustainable Use of Soil as a Resource [NRP 68]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Agriculture faces huge challenges regarding sustainable use of soils and its sustainability performance in general. There are three different approaches to sustainable agricultural production commonly proposed, namely intensification, agro-ecological approaches and high-tech industrial approaches. Often, some propose that only agro-ecological approaches are truly sustainable options, with particular benefits for soil protection, while others argue that intensification or high-tech perfonns better through land sparing. In this viewpoint, we scrutinize the notion of sustainable agricultural production and the role these approaches may play for such, in particular addressing the controversy of naturalness versus artificiality in production systems. Consumers often perceive agriculture as natural, but agriculture today thrives always on strong human intervention. We posit that agriculture is linked to soils and natural processes, but that this provides little guidance on what sustainable agriculture should be. Being natural need not be an aspect of being sustainable. If it is, arguments for this need to be provided. Furthermore, revealed consumer preferences may much less frequently posit being natural as a central criterion for food consumed than usually assumed. By all this, we do not want to promote any of those three approaches uncritically. We rather argue for enlarging the option space for sustainable agriculture in an unprejudiced way.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据