Agroecological transitions in the mind

There is extensive argument for the need for fundamental changes in food and agricultural systems, both in larger scale high-input systems and in conventional low-input and smallholder systems. As a result, there has been extensive thought and action under different labels such as agroecology, regenerative agriculture, nature-based solutions, ecological farming, and nature-positive agriculture. While there is a debate on definitions and differences between these food and agricultural system transformations, with agroecology integrating attention to environmental, social and political dimensions, the common elements often include:

• using both scientific and local understanding of ecological processes and natural systems to build systems of “farming with nature,”

• rebuilding, not degrading, the natural resource base,

• reducing external inputs such as agrochemicals and fossil fuel,

• providing decent livelihoods around agriculture and food systems, and

• enabling agency and empowerment of producers and consumers.

A further commonality, and the focus of this commentary, is a concept of environmental responsibility. This means that decisions about food and agricultural systems are influenced by their relationship with natural ecosystems. Agroecology integrates concern and action on environmental, social, political, and economic dimensions of food and agriculture. We chose to focus on the environmental in order to keep the breadth of this commentary manageable and because of the urgency of our common ecosystems crises—climate change, biodiversity and habitat loss, and land degradation. We don’t wish to dismiss the social and political aspects and, most importantly, the integrated holistic nature of agroecology. However, while progressive approaches to food and agriculture have long been concerned with social justice, there is a more recent idea that ecosystems and the natural world are also a responsibility of agriculture and that “conservation” is not something separate or in opposition to food and agriculture.

Many analysts have considered the processes of agroecological transformation and how they occur. For example, Gliessman (2016) describes the 5 levels of agroecological transformation starting with on-farm increases in the efficiency of current farm systems and moving up to global change of food systems. Anderson et al. (2019b) identify 6 domains for transformation that each cut across scales from households to global systems and influence the way food and agricultural systems function, both on-farm and beyond. Barrios (2020) developed an approach for envisioning agroecological transitions using Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO, 2018) 10 elements of agroecology and visual narratives for describing transition pathways.

Alongside, the descriptions of transformations are stories from individuals who have embraced agroecology and are progressing with changing the systems of which they are part. These cases show what people are doing—organizing themselves, engaging in learning and sharing new knowledge, starting to use some new practices, and so on. But what motivates these individuals to pursue this change? If agroecology is to influence local and global food and agricultural systems in a meaningful way, then many more people—farmers, consumers, policy makers, and others—need to “become agroecologists.”

Gliessman (2022) says,

Similarly, when reviewing approaches to framing agroecology, Schnyder (2022) identified “…a frame that …emphasizes the balance between humans and their natural environment, positioning agroecology as part of a harmonious relationship between humans and nature.” It “…frames agroecology as something that is lived, as a ‘life ethic’ that emphasizes the link between the earth and the human being.” Both farmers who have made changes toward agroecological approaches to managing their farms, and researchers who have studied them, emphasize the importance of changes in values, beliefs, motivations, or attitudes about the natural world that go along with, or are precursors to, change in practices. These changes are described in many ways, such as:

• from productionist to multifunctional (Wilson, 2008),

• from mechanical to ecological (Massy, 2017),

• from farm manager to landscape manager (Massy, 2017),

• from anthropocentric to ecocentric (Foguesatto et al., 2019), and

• from a profit focus to a triple focus on profit, land, and people (Perkins, 2020).

All are changes in the beliefs and values, attitudes, and motivations that underlie relationships between people and the natural world. The connection between agroecology and values has not been the subject of extensive research (Caswell et al., 2021). However, the changes in personal beliefs and values that support agroecology have been explored in closely related areas. For example, Gosnell et al. (2019) characterize regenerative agriculture as having 3 spheres of transformation: the practical, the political, and the personal. They say:

O’Brien and Sygna (2013) provide a similar framework, with the personal as the outer of 3 shells (Figure 1). The personal sphere is represented as the outermost because it has an all pervasive, often subconscious impact on the political and practical spheres. This raises questions of which personal attitudes and values, particularly in relation to the natural world, matter for agroecology transitions and how these change in individuals. Why do some people already hold values that are aligned with agroecology, while others do not? What are the motivations and means of shifting personal values so they are supportive of agroecology? These are the things we need to understand if there is to be a transition to agroecology at scale and are the subject of this commentary.

Agroecology is described and defined by principles. In this context, a principle is “…a statement that guides action towards some desired result” (Patton, 2018). There have been many statements of agroecology principles, they have a long history summarized by Wezel et al. (2020), and they are continually being critiqued and revised, so they will continue to evolve (González De Molina and Lopez-Garcia, 2021). Recent examples of sets of agroecology principles include economic, ecological, social, and political dimensions (CIDSE, 2018; Kapgen and Roudart, 2020; Wezel et al., 2020; Dumont et al., 2021). The CIDSE (2018) principles describe the properties or practices of agroecological systems (e.g., recycling). Most of the other sets of principles follow Patton’s definition and are stated as an imperative, namely, “Do [something].” They are typically stated as normative rather than causative, “Do [something] to achieve [result].” Many principles refer to social values, such as co-creation, fairness, or democracy. Examples include, “Build food systems based on the culture, identity, tradition …” and “Support dignified and robust livelihoods for all actors engaged in food systems, especially small-scale food producers, based on fair trade, fair employment and fair treatment of intellectual property rights” (Wezel et al., 2020). FAO (2018) have described agroecology using 10 elements, which, while not stated as principles, provide a similar set of founding concepts for agroecology.

Framing agroecology around principles or elements is powerful because they set out the underlying concepts while allowing adaption to diverse contexts. Hence, processes for implementing these principles have been developed, such as starting by identifying interests of participating farmers and building on them to decide on actions (Caswell et al., 2021). The principles are also used to characterize the agroecological state of systems and monitor transformations (Biovision, n.d.; FAO, 2019). Environmental dimensions of agroecology, the focus of this commentary, feature prominently in each set of principles. They are based on a utilitarian view of the environment—see, for example, the review by Caswell et al. (2021).

However, there is a gap in each of the sets of agroecology principles that we know of. Motivation to pursue agroecological transformations depends on values, but the principles do not address the changes in values needed.

The term “mindset” is a convenient shorthand for values, beliefs, motivations, and attitudes. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines mindset as “a person’s way of thinking and their opinions.”¹ Another useful definition is offered by a recent report by FrameWork Institute (2020): “Mindsets are deep, assumed patterns of thinking that shape how we make sense of the world …” Mindsets underlie decisions we make and actions we take.

Social psychology theory provides numerous models of the connections between the mindset and behavior or action. We chose the Model of Justified Behavior (Figure 2; Goldman et al., 2020) to frame our argument as it was specifically developed in the context of education for responsible environmental behavior or “pro-environmental behavior,” meaning behavior that purposefully supports ecosystem and environmental integrity and avoids degradation and disruption. Even though this is not the only driver of agroecology, it is an important one, and it is the focus of this commentary. The model highlights the complex relationships between the main causal variables determining pro-environmental behavior and the way they come into play.

According to the model, there are 4 domains or variables that influence or explain pro-environmental behavior. These are:

1. Personal motivational factors such as attitudes, values, beliefs, goals, and personal norms.

2. Personal knowledge, skills, and capabilities, which include resources such as time, money, and power.

3. Social factors and processes including social norms, roles, pressures, and group dynamics.

4. Facilitating or inhibiting contextual factors within the social and physical environment, such as available technology, geographic aspects, costs, rewards, policies, laws, and regulations.

These 4 variables shape the formation of intentions. Justification is a crucial process of decision-making that leads from intentions to a “justified” behavior. Habits form from the accumulated effect of past behavior and can be seen as automatic behavior that bypasses the intention–justification process. One immediate consequence of this is that a transformation toward agroecological behavior will involve much more than changes in knowledge, skills, and capabilities.

“Transformation” is defined as “A complete change in character, condition, …” (OED online 2021) and transformative learning leads to transformation of mindsets and frames of reference (Sharpe, 2016). These frames of reference are the personal motivational factors, such as attitudes, values, beliefs, goals, and personal norms, represented in the upper left corner in the Model of Justified Behavior (Figure 2). Central to transformative learning is being challenged to Question 1’s assumptions, both current and prior, which are based on generalizations of past experience and that make up worldviews and frames of reference. Deliberate and planned learning experiences or unplanned life events provide the challenges. The challenges can come in different forms: a deeply touching positive experience that allows one to see the world differently; a crisis that tests one’s abilities to cope and pushes one to look for alternative ways of thinking; a cumulation of experience that leads to feeling something is wrong. These last 2 are described as “disorientating dilemmas” (Sharpe, 2016). Through reflection and critical thinking, these experiences lead to new ideas and possibly new beliefs and attitudes that need to be integrated into past experiences and emotions. The learning experience involves acquiring the needed information, expertise, and knowledge to transform one’s frame of reference, but knowledge alone is not sufficient (Sharpe, 2016).

Transformative learning has been used and studied in connection with agroecology with some common themes recurring including the importance of co-learning, learning from practice, development of critical thought, and more (Francis et al., 2013; Cristofari et al., 2018; Anderson et al., 2019a). A critical education approach gives people the tools to take a principle, such as “fairness,” analyze what is fair and unfair about their situation, and take action to change it. However, in the literature, the emphasis of critical education has been on the social and political aspects of agroecological transformations and less so on the environmental. The interconnectedness of crises in food and agricultural systems is acknowledged, but local and global environmental concerns are rarely seen as drivers. Transformation of attitudes or values, when discussed, rarely touches on values related to ecosystems and our responsibilities toward ecosystem integrity. For example, David and Bell (2018) discuss developing attitudes to multiple knowledge types, and Rossi (2020) examines the development of common attitudes, but neither mention attitudes and values about the natural world.

The situation is somewhat different within environmental education research and practice, in which the aim is catalyzing or promoting pro-environmental behavior. The processes of changing mindsets about the natural world have been central to this field and we have made use of this research.

We have based our commentary on the recent literature on agroecology and environmental education and an earlier review on the effectiveness of environmental education (Soini, 2016). These have led us to the following insights on some of the central elements of the mindset and the change needed. We believe these will provide some avenues that enable agroecology interventions to better respond to the current pressing environmental challenges.

The following sections describe some aspects of mindset that have been shown to be related to choosing to act in pro-environmental ways. Each is followed by some evidence on how and when changes in this aspect of mindset happen. Figure 2 is a reminder of the complexity of behavior, one consequence of which is that there is no certainty a particular aspect or action will lead to pro-environmental behavior. However, all the following have been shown to increase the tendency in that direction.

Connectedness with nature is defined as “a stable state of consciousness comprising symbiotic cognitive, affective, and experiential traits that reflect, through consistent attitudes and behaviors, a sustained awareness of the interrelatedness between one’s self and the rest of nature” (Zylstra et al., 2014). This contrasts with a utilitarian view of nature as the supply of natural resources to be exploited or as a negative force to be countered and “tamed.” Farmers experiencing nature through their farm operations may or may not develop connectedness to nature. A large amount of literature points to the fact that connection with nature is essential for pro-environmental behavior (Mackay and Schmitt, 2019; Whitburn and Linklater, 2019). There are multiple ways of defining and measuring connection with nature (Tam, 2013), but the overall message is clear: connection with nature is a feeling that we are part of the natural world rather than something outside it. This, in turn, means that we care about nature itself, not just its benefits to ourselves—we have an affective relationship with nature (Jax et al., 2018).

“Caring” is closely related to the concepts of empathy, compassion, and love, and while these are not often referred to when looking at agroecology, they are fundamental to choices and behavior, particularly behavior that goes beyond utilitarian. Connection with nature can lead to empathy (seeing from the perspective of others, not only humans), compassion (an instinctive need to help), and actions that are not driven only by moral duty but by the emotional response to providing succor, in this case to ecosystems (Thiermann and Sheate, 2020). Connection with nature can be a spiritual feeling, perhaps anthropomorphized in terms such as “Mother Earth,” or feelings that all things have their role in ecosystems and were placed there for some purpose (Liu et al., 2019). Empathy and sympathy with nature have been shown to influence farmer’s conservation behavior (Reimer et al., 2014). Anthropomorphizing the natural world has been shown to raise the feeling of guilt about degradation, leading to an increase in pro-environmental behavior (Tam, 2019). Love of nature, consisting of passion for nature, intimacy with nature, and commitment to nature, has been identified as the emotional link between connection with nature and pro-environmental behavior (Dong et al., 2020). While such notions can seem distant from the science and practice of agroecology, they can be measured and shown to be predictive of pro-environmental behavior (Perkins, 2010).

Sources of an individual’s sense of connection with nature and routes to changing it all point to experiences of nature being central. These experiences can be of many types and scales (Clayton et al., 2017; Klaniecki et al., 2018). They may be part of formal or planned education and transformation or the results of life’s chances. Childhood experience of outdoors can be profoundly influential (Van Den Born et al., 2018), as are mentors, guides, and role models (Ernst and Theimer, 2011). In this context, role models are people who inspire through personal contact and are perceived as worthy of imitation (Prince, 2017). There is also evidence that brief experiences of nature as an adult, such as eco-tourism activities, can prompt a change in connection with nature though the effect can be short term and needs regular re-enforcement (Wheaton et al., 2016).

“Sense of place” means the attachment and meanings that individuals or groups have for specific locations. If you have a strong sense of place, then it becomes part of your identity and self-description (Kudryavtsev et al., 2012). Sense of place can be associated with pro-environmental behavior influencing that place through understanding and aesthetic appreciation for it. For example, residents who have a sense of place are more likely to notice signs of degradation (Chapin et al., 2012). Sense of place underlies stewardship of a place—the land, ecosystems, and people—which means acting to care for it in the long term through a sense of duty, rather than because it will lead to material benefit (Masterson et al., 2017). An attitude of stewardship has been shown to be associated with the use of conservation agriculture as an example of an agroecological practice (Reimer et al., 2012). However, sense of place may generate an urge to develop the location along any pathway, including high-input industrial agriculture that does not support ecological integrity, so it needs to be combined with other values, such as connection with nature, to support agroecology. The “territory” concept has been used to describe agroecology transitions because it refers to a geographical scale and entity—or place—at which such a change is feasible (Wezel et al., 2016). It can be assumed that people connected to such a territory by sense of place will be those motivated to join in the transition.

Sense of place is generated by experience of the place, either individual or social, based on human interaction with the biophysical environment. Thus, in connection to agroecology, individuals may have a strong sense of place for a family farm and groups for ancestral lands. Developing a sense of place requires time and immersion in the landscape, not a quick visit, and is enhanced by investing effort and labor in that land.

Self-identity is the set of ways that one describes oneself. Individuals’ identities have many different dimensions and these are connected to behavior, including pro-environmental behavior (Udall et al., 2020). Whether one thinks of oneself as a “maize-producer,” “farmer,” “organic farmer,” “land manager,” or “land carer” will influence behavior and decisions. Some of these are more supportive than others of the broad aims of agroecology. Of course, identifying as an “agroecological farmer” should be most strongly aligned with agroecological practice, though actual decisions and practice depend on more than self-identity (Figure 2).

An individual’s group or social identity describes the group (or groups) with shared appraisals, goals, and behaviors to which they feel they belong. Identifying with a pro-environmental group re-enforces pro-environmental values and behavior common to the group, and engaging in activities with the group re-enforces the identity (Fritsche et al., 2018). If the group is founded on environmental or agroecological values, then individual values and behavior in these directions will be strengthened. Individual identity, group identity, and sense of place (also described as place-identity) are closely related and re-enforce each other (Udall et al., 2020). They develop over lifetimes and come between values and behavior. Importantly, farmers may act because of their group identity and its norms rather than their expressed personal values (Gatersleben et al., 2014). Labeling someone by their group identity—for example, “environmentalist,” or perhaps “agroecologist”—strengthens their association with that group and the likelihood of acting according to group expectations (Lacasse, 2016). The desire to be inside a group, and to conform to its norms, can create motivation to practice acts characteristic of that group.

Barth et al. (2021) sum up the role of groups as,

Bottom-up formation of groups through members with common interests coming together leads to strong group identity (Jans, 2021). In the case of agroecology, farmer field schools and farmer-to-farmer networks that exchange learning have been shown to generate group identity and change behavior (Kansanga et al., 2021). Mass movements based on the idea, such as Campesino a Campesino (Miery Teran Gimenez Cacho et al., 2018), are well known, but smaller, less prominent, and less organized networks can also be effective in building group identity (Richardson et al., 2021).

Agroecology has been described as having roots in the practices and world views of indigenous peoples, and that they depend on the sense of place and connections to nature (Toledo, 2022). It is unwise to generalize about the mindsets of indigenous peoples and the extent to which they support agroecology, and we have not explored this further in this commentary.

The desire and knowledge or skills to do something may not lead to action if individuals feel a lack of power, autonomy, or freedom to act—that is, they lack self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, an emotion that influences behavior and does not describe tangible blockages such as lack of skill-based competencies, is known to influence pro-environmental behavior. It can be assumed to apply to agroecology as well (Barth et al., 2021).

Social efficacy is the related feeling about the group to which one belongs and the sense that collectively group members can solve problems or bring about change. Social efficacy increases self-efficacy, a connection that suggests ways of increasing the latter and hence action (Jugert et al., 2016). Achieving something, even something easy, individually or as a group, increases efficacy and prompts action on something more challenging. This is a so-called spillover effect, with the longer term impacts of action being greater than those of the action itself (Jugert et al., 2016). Communication messages that “the problem can be solved collectively” can be enough to increase group and self-efficacy.

A common view of behavior is that every action can be traced back to a self-interest motive. If it is not to gain something material or social status then it must be for some sort of “feel good” reason, such as pride, self-affirmation as an environmentalist or “good person,” congruence with moral convictions and feelings of obligation, or simply the desire to experience a warm glow (Thiermann and Sheate, 2020). The warm glow, or pride and satisfaction in doing “the right thing,” can be another spillover effect. Positive spillover through the warm glow effect is important, and repeated satisfaction can lead to habit forming. There is evidence of the opposite happening as well, when one pro-environmental action leads to a justification for not needing to do more (Meijers et al., 2013).

However, a prerequisite for feeling the warm glow is having knowledge and values that such behavior is desirable, for example, ecologically nurturing. We (the authors) remember a farmer in Ethiopia telling us about the pride—a warm glow—he felt after clearing all the trees from his land with his father. It felt like a great achievement toward development. That was before he understood the valuable role of trees in agroecosystems and adopted pro-environmental values. The ecological mindset and the knowledge need to be in place before the warm glow will support pro-environmental behavior.

There are interactions and feedbacks among the personal motivational factors described above. Gosnell (2021) provides compelling examples of and arguments for the way negative and positive experiences, new knowledge, and social connections lead to changes in the minds of farmers.

The Model of Justified Behavior (Figure 2) reminds us that the personal motivational factors described above are only some of those that influence behavior. Others include personal knowledge and capabilities, social factors and processes, and contextual factors. Literature on agricultural change is often framed around farmers’ assessments of costs, benefits and risks, along with availability of technical knowledge, the resources needed to change practice, supportive institutions, and so on. Numerous examples show how these more tangible dimensions of agroecological change interact with personal motivational traits (e.g., Keshavarz and Karami, 2016; Jambo et al., 2019). Behavioral economics brings psychological traits into the economic theory of decision-making and has been used to explore interactions empirically. For example, Sheeder and Lynne (2011) explored the role of empathy in farmers’ decisions about conservation agriculture. However, this was empathy toward off-farm people—downstream water users in their case—rather than with the natural world.

Glover et al. (2019) describe how framing, or the way that new ideas or practices are presented to farmers, also influences perceptions of them. Farmers’ decisions (Glover’s “dispositions”) are based on weights they implicitly give to many different variables. These variables are determined by what farmers care about and their decisions are based on the trade-offs they make when comparing alternatives. Hence, their values and “the things they care about” are part of those decisions along with many other factors. This means there is no simple causative link between, for example, gaining a sense of place and taking up agroecology. Material disincentives or barriers to use of agroecological practices must be acknowledged, for example, the need to keep the farm running profitably in the short as well as the long term. However, a farmer can choose to take up a new practice because it is profitable, or can choose to take it up because they believe it is right and then find ways of making it profitable. Studying conservation agriculture, Thompson et al. (2015) found 4 clusters of farmer types distinguished by their attitude to business (low to high) and their attitude to stewardship (low to high). These were not alternatives—there were farmers giving high value to both stewardship and the farm as a business.

A study of some well-known examples of agroecology transition identified 8 factors for effective agroecological change at scale (Miery Teran Gimenez Cacho et al., 2018). There are overlaps between these and success in scaling other approaches, such as the importance of favorable policies and markets. Interestingly, at least 4 of their 8 factors relate to the personal motivational factors above: (1) recognition of a crisis that motivates the search for alternatives (which can include transformative learning experiences offered by life events), (2) social organization, (3) constructivist learning processes, and (5) mobilizing discourses.

Similarly, exemplar farms and landscapes that act as “agroecology lighthouses” have been identified as a pathway to amplifying agroecology. They are often the centers of farmer-to-farmer networking through training and thus provide knowledge but also build group identity and efficacy (Nicholls and Altieri, 2018). And they provide a platform for transformative learning as they question the status quo by demonstrating alternative practices and inspiring change.

Gliessman’s statement that “The idea of farming with nature rather than against her is a foundational component of how we as agroecologists think” determines our roles and responsibilities in agriculture and requires a mindset, the essence of which is captured well by Homo ecologicus, proposed by Becker (2006). This is a distinct change from the Homo economicus mindset that is behind almost every development strategy promoted or adopted at any scale, from international to individual farm enterprises. Becker says,

If actors in agriculture systems have such a mindset, then Characteristic (1) would mean managing food and agricultural systems in ways that are empathetic to and minimize negative impacts on natural systems. Characteristic (2) would mean looking to natural systems for inspiration and information for problem solving. Characteristic (3) suggests ways of acquiring the ecological mindset, which are aligned with the pathways we noted above.

We started this commentary by reviewing the agroecological principles and we noticed a gap. The principles do not address the changes in mindsets needed to achieve agroecological transformations. Multiple changes in mindset may be required for an integrated agroecological transformation. The ecological mindset described above is needed to purposefully support ecosystem and environmental integrity and avoid degradation and disruption. To acquire such a mindset, it needs to be actively cultivated. Thus, we propose an additional principle of agroecology of actively building these ecological mindsets among those engaged in food and agriculture systems (Box 1).

This principle is aligned with guidelines for useful principles (Patton, 2021), it is relevant across and adaptable to different contexts, and it is phrased similarly to other recent sets of agroecology principles. Patton says that principles should be: guiding and useful, and our proposal suggests actions; developmental, meaning adaptable to contextual complexity, and our proposal can be followed in many different ways; evaluable, meaning it is possible to evaluate whether it is being used and its effect, and we have means of eliciting values and hence tracking if they change; and inspiring—which we cannot judge. Pathways for putting this principle into operation will be as diverse as the contexts within which agroecological transitions are pursued. The key motivational factors identified above—connection with and caring for nature, sense of place, group and individual identity, and self- and social efficacy—together with using role models and agroecology lighthouses, provide focus on how transitions in the minds happen and can be achieved by transformational learning. They are well aligned with ideas of learning for agroecological transformations that are already being used. However, bringing about change in mindset is not like teaching composting for which understanding some basic concepts, learning some skills, and getting some practical experience maybe sufficient to change practices. Changing mindsets will require specific investment and sustained effort. It needs to be all pervasive in all stages of the way agroecology is promoted or taught, not one more module in a course, since the personal sphere in O’Brien and Sygna’s (2013) framework (Figure 1) impacts the political and practical spheres.

One example of what this can mean is provided by Schnyder (2022) who looked at the way agroecology is framed in 12 training institutes. She expected and found 3 different frames, namely, profit, community, and stewardship frames for agroecology. However, a fourth frame that emerged, which she labeled “humanist,” is a frame that is close to Homo ecologicus. The proposed new principle is partially fulfilled in the stewardship frame and more fully in the humanist frame, a frame that underlies the whole reason for and approach to agroecology in those institutes that adopted it.

There is some evidence that the process of learning about and starting to practice agroecology can bring about the mindset change (Botelho et al., 2016; Giagnocavo et al., 2022). A farmer, or other agricultural system actor, can be attracted to using agroecological practices while not holding agroecological values if those practices help them meet other objectives. For example, agroecological approaches to soil management can be attractive to farmers who do not have access to or cannot afford inorganic fertilizers. However, building of an agroecological mindset among such farmers will still be needed if they are to transform their systems more broadly and not switch back to conventional systems when conditions such as prices and access change.

Using the principle will lead to a change in the basic concept of “ecosystem” as sometimes used in agroecology. Caswell et al. (2021) say “With agroecological approaches, the basic unit of analysis is the agroecosystem—any place of production, or farm, is seen and studied as an ecosystem.” However, taking an agroecological view aligned with the new principle means seeing the farm and farmers as part of an ecosystem. It means caring about the ecosystems of the farm and beyond the farm, up to global systems and the planetary boundaries, and allowing those to impinge on local farm-based decision-making. Farmers’ perceptions of the scope of their responsibility, from farm-level to global issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, or plastic pollution, are part of their mindset.

An implicit assumption in much development thinking, particularly rural development in the global south, is based on some version of a human needs pyramid (Maslow, 1943), implying that priorities must be given to basic needs before pursuing higher levels. However, our current understanding of global and local social and environmental systems makes it clear that we cannot meet even basic needs such as food security, sustainably, and in the long term without systems thinking that integrates ecological mindsets. The ecological mindset is, in fact, a precursor to reaching desired basic needs goals, and it is relevant to all those engaged in visioning, planning, and guiding the development of food and agriculture systems, a group much broader than farmers.

Including the new principle as part of the vision of agroecological transformation has implications for monitoring and tracking changes. Values and attitudes to ecosystems will need to be added to schemes used to assess agroecological change, such as TAPE (FAO, 2019).

At the start of this commentary, we noted that agroecology is not only concerned with environmental dimensions of agriculture but integrates social and political aspects along with production. Therefore, changes in social and political mindsets are also needed, and additional principles should be developed to prompt such changes. As one reviewer of this commentary suggested, these may possibly be formulated into one holistic vision of the mindset that support agroecology. We hope that this commentary starts a process of developing comprehensive mindset principles for agroecology. Perhaps, one principle of agroecology principles is that they are never complete but need re-examination and revision as we continually increase understanding of what agroecology transitions mean.

Agroecologists believe their approach, defined by principles, provides a pathway to solutions for the multiple interacting crises of our food and agricultural systems. But why would anyone—farmer or other actor—look at the agroecology path (or other environmentally sustainable systems, such as regenerative agriculture, nature-based solutions, ecological farming, and nature-positive agriculture) rather than the business-as-usual alternatives that dominate policy and practice in most of the world? The answer must be because their values and beliefs, frames of reference, and the things they care about—their mindsets—mean they find those alternatives inadequate. Hence, building such mindsets among all those involved in food and agricultural systems is necessary for wider agroecological transitions and must be a guiding principle of agroecology. Such a mindset alone is naturally not sufficient to ensure transition to agroecology—knowledge, skills, resources, and support are still needed—but it is necessary and hence needs deliberate attention.

The ideas and evidence summarized in this commentary come from many sources and contexts. The factors described are universal human characteristics explaining pro-environmental behavior and are thus relevant, applicable, and practically adaptable in differing individual, cultural, and natural world settings. It is likely that there are still other important factors—maybe locally or situationally applicable—that motivate farmers or anyone else influencing the food and agricultural system to choose an agroecology path. Operationalizing the principle proposed will include understanding the mindsets at work, the context, and adapting the routes to change. More importantly, when the proposal that mindset change be included in agroecology principles is accepted by the agroecological community, then it should start a long process of developing more inclusive versions through research, proposing models, trying them out in practice and updating.

In his very personal book on regenerative agriculture, Massy (2017) describes how childhood experience on a farm and its surroundings immersed him in the natural world through hunting, fishing, trapping birds, and collecting butterflies. His farming practice was learned from his father and agricultural school. He says,

Through crises of severe drought, land degradation, and likely financial ruin, he was prompted to re-examine his basic assumptions. He realized that the “…farm was instead a complex living entity of dynamic cycles, energy flows and networks of self-organizing functions and coevolved nebulous systems beyond imagining.” His mindset evolved into one of care for the land through ecological understanding. He concludes by saying,

This is what we are calling for in this commentary—the recognition of the importance of transitioning to an ecological mindset.

RC has been greatly influenced by interactions with colleagues at CIFOR-ICRAF and in the Collaborative Crop Research Programme of the McKnight Foundation. We thank anonymous reviewers and the editor for challenging comments that helped us improve this article.

The authors have no competing interests.

All stages of conception, drafting, review, and approval: ESC, RC.

How to cite this article: Soini Coe, E, Coe, R. 2023. Agroecological transitions in the mind. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 11(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2022.00026

Domain Editor-in-Chief: Alastair Iles, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

Guest Editor: Colin Anderson, Plant & Soil Science Department and Environmental Program, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

Knowledge Domain: Sustainability Transitions

Part of an Elementa Special Feature: Principles-Based Approaches in Agroecology