INRA, UMR 1048 SADAPT, F-75231 Paris, France; AgroParisTech, UMR 1048 SADAPT, F-75231 Paris, France.
INRA, UMR 1048 SADAPT, F-75231 Paris, France; AgroParisTech, UMR 1048 SADAPT, F-75231 Paris, France.
J Environ Manage. 2015 Feb 1;149:138-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.020. Epub 2014 Nov 7.
Two scientific communities with broad interest in sustainable agriculture independently focus on multifunctional agriculture or ecosystem services. These communities have limited interaction and exchange, and each group faces research challenges according to independently operating paradigms. This paper presents a comparative review of published research in multifunctional agriculture and ecosystem services. The motivation for this work is to improve communication, integrate experimental approaches, and propose areas of consensus and dialog for the two communities. This extensive analysis of publication trends, ideologies, and approaches enables formulation of four main conclusions. First, the two communities are closely related through their use of the term "function." However, multifunctional agriculture considers functions as agricultural activity outputs and prefers farm-centred approaches, whereas ecosystem services considers ecosystem functions in the provision of services and prefers service-centred approaches. Second, research approaches to common questions in these two communities share some similarities, and there would be great value in integrating these approaches. Third, the two communities have potential for dialog regarding the bundle of ecosystem services and the spectrum of multifunctional agriculture, or regarding land sharing and land sparing. Fourth, we propose an integrated conceptual framework that distinguishes six groups of ecosystem services and disservices in the agricultural landscape, and combines the concepts of multifunctional agriculture and ecosystem services. This integrated framework improves applications of multifunctional agriculture and ecosystem services for operational use. Future research should examine if the framework can be readily adapted for modelling specific problems in agricultural management.
两个对可持续农业有广泛兴趣的科学共同体分别关注多功能农业或生态系统服务。这些共同体之间的互动和交流有限，而且每个团体都根据独立运作的范式面临研究挑战。本文对多功能农业和生态系统服务的已发表研究进行了比较性回顾。这项工作的动机是为了改善沟通，整合实验方法，并为两个共同体提出共识和对话的领域。对出版物趋势、思想和方法的广泛分析得出了四个主要结论。首先，两个共同体通过使用“功能”一词紧密相关。然而，多功能农业将功能视为农业活动的产出，并倾向于以农场为中心的方法，而生态系统服务则将生态系统功能视为服务的提供，并倾向于以服务为中心的方法。其次，这些共同体对共同问题的研究方法有一些相似之处，整合这些方法将具有很大价值。第三，两个共同体有可能就生态系统服务的捆绑和多功能农业的范围，或者就土地共享和土地节约进行对话。第四，我们提出了一个综合概念框架，区分了农业景观中的六组生态系统服务和不服务，并结合了多功能农业和生态系统服务的概念。这个综合框架改进了多功能农业和生态系统服务在实际应用中的应用。未来的研究应该检验这个框架是否可以很容易地应用于农业管理中具体问题的建模。
