Agroforestry transitions: The good, the bad and the ugly (2024)

Ollinaho, O. (2021). Agroforestry transitions: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Rural Studies, 82, 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016

Ollinaho, Ossi ; Kröger, Markus. / Agroforestry transitions : The good, the bad and the ugly. In: Journal of Rural Studies. 2021 ; Vol. 82. pp. 210-221.

@article{775ef650fc824c2eadfb07b51622d41a,

title = "Agroforestry transitions: The good, the bad and the ugly",

abstract = "This article canvasses the current definitions and framings of “agroforestry” in different academic literature and policies. Three key framings of “agroforestry” are identified in the scholarship and explored for their differences. The findings suggest that the distinct schools of research on “agroforestry” focus on distinct points of departure, and these baseline situations from which transitions to what is called “agroforestry” occur vary in distinct ways from monoculture plantations to primary forests. Political-economic analysis is used to scrutinize three key “agroforestry” transition categories: agroecological, agribusiness, and forest degradation, which the article identifies as agroecoforestry (the good), agrobizforestry (the bad), and agrodeforestry (the ugly) transitions, respectively. Examples of each type are provided based on field research in Brazil, and the results are put into a global perspective. The categories are helpful in identifying the “agroforestry” transitions that are currently marketed as good solutions but might also have negative impacts and in highlighting the agroecological agroforestry transitions that would help simultaneously increase global food production, adapt to and mitigate the climate crisis, and achieve equity and social justice.",

keywords = "5141 Sociology, 1172 Environmental sciences, 4111 Agronomy, 4112 Forestry, 5171 Political Science, 512 Business and Management, 5203 Global Development Studies, Agroforestry, Agroecology, Sustainable development, Deforestation, Rural transitions, Political economy",

author = "Ossi Ollinaho and Markus Kr{\"o}ger",

year = "2021",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016",

language = "English",

volume = "82",

pages = "210--221",

journal = "Journal of Rural Studies",

issn = "0743-0167",

publisher = "Elsevier Scientific Publ. Co",

}

Ollinaho, O 2021, 'Agroforestry transitions: The good, the bad and the ugly', Journal of Rural Studies, vol. 82, pp. 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016

Agroforestry transitions: The good, the bad and the ugly. / Ollinaho, Ossi; Kröger, Markus.
In: Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 82, 02.2021, p. 210-221.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Agroforestry transitions

T2 - The good, the bad and the ugly

AU - Ollinaho, Ossi

AU - Kröger, Markus

PY - 2021/2

Y1 - 2021/2

N2 - This article canvasses the current definitions and framings of “agroforestry” in different academic literature and policies. Three key framings of “agroforestry” are identified in the scholarship and explored for their differences. The findings suggest that the distinct schools of research on “agroforestry” focus on distinct points of departure, and these baseline situations from which transitions to what is called “agroforestry” occur vary in distinct ways from monoculture plantations to primary forests. Political-economic analysis is used to scrutinize three key “agroforestry” transition categories: agroecological, agribusiness, and forest degradation, which the article identifies as agroecoforestry (the good), agrobizforestry (the bad), and agrodeforestry (the ugly) transitions, respectively. Examples of each type are provided based on field research in Brazil, and the results are put into a global perspective. The categories are helpful in identifying the “agroforestry” transitions that are currently marketed as good solutions but might also have negative impacts and in highlighting the agroecological agroforestry transitions that would help simultaneously increase global food production, adapt to and mitigate the climate crisis, and achieve equity and social justice.

AB - This article canvasses the current definitions and framings of “agroforestry” in different academic literature and policies. Three key framings of “agroforestry” are identified in the scholarship and explored for their differences. The findings suggest that the distinct schools of research on “agroforestry” focus on distinct points of departure, and these baseline situations from which transitions to what is called “agroforestry” occur vary in distinct ways from monoculture plantations to primary forests. Political-economic analysis is used to scrutinize three key “agroforestry” transition categories: agroecological, agribusiness, and forest degradation, which the article identifies as agroecoforestry (the good), agrobizforestry (the bad), and agrodeforestry (the ugly) transitions, respectively. Examples of each type are provided based on field research in Brazil, and the results are put into a global perspective. The categories are helpful in identifying the “agroforestry” transitions that are currently marketed as good solutions but might also have negative impacts and in highlighting the agroecological agroforestry transitions that would help simultaneously increase global food production, adapt to and mitigate the climate crisis, and achieve equity and social justice.

KW - 5141 Sociology

KW - 1172 Environmental sciences

KW - 4111 Agronomy

KW - 4112 Forestry

KW - 5171 Political Science

KW - 512 Business and Management

KW - 5203 Global Development Studies

KW - Agroforestry

KW - Agroecology

KW - Sustainable development

KW - Deforestation

KW - Rural transitions

KW - Political economy

U2 - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016

DO - 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016

M3 - Article

SN - 0743-0167

VL - 82

SP - 210

EP - 221

JO - Journal of Rural Studies

JF - Journal of Rural Studies

ER -

Ollinaho O, Kröger M. Agroforestry transitions: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Rural Studies. 2021 Feb;82:210-221. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.01.016