





































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 5 (1): 5-14, January 2022 

COMMENTARY 

Would Indian Agriculture Benefit from a Stewardship 
Model? 

Ravi Prabhu* 
 
Abstract: Indian agriculture perpetuates – and therefore must reckon with – 

numerous threats to ecological, economic and social sustainability. These arise for 

the most part from the commodification of nature and the reliance on external 

inputs into increasingly industrialized forms of agriculture. Low external input 

agriculture like agroforestry, regenerative agriculture, and the like, are viable 

alternatives that are more likely to deliver outcomes suitable to the structure of 

Indian agriculture. However, they too depend on the commodification of nature as 

the sole source of economic framing. An alternate framing, the Stewardship 

Economy, would build on stewardship, a ‘duty of care’ that values monetized and 

non-monetised products and services within the framing of rewards, framed as 

stewardship dividends, to farmers and other stewards of land and landscapes. 

Developing a stewardship economy as the framework for Indian agriculture would 

lead to a more resilient, equitable and optimistic future for Indian agriculture. 

Agriculture in India is a success story—never have more people been fed 
nor more food been produced than right now. This success has come at a 
great cost: farmer indebtedness has mounted to unprecedented levels (NSO 
2021); environmental and human health costs have been enormous (Dangar 
et al. 2021; Nelson et al. 2019); the annual rate of soil loss now far exceeds 
replacement rates (Sharda and Ojasvi 2016); and nutrition targets have been 
missed. Global trends are similar (Bene et al. 2019; Benton and Baily 2019; 
IPCC 2019; IPBES 2019). Building on Liebig’s agricultural chemistry 
(Marchesi 2020), the Green Revolution model, hailed for consecutive 
successful harvests (Pingali 2012), sowed the seeds of the crises we face 
today.  

 
* Deputy Director General (Research) at the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) in Kenya, 

r.prabhu@cgiar.org  

Copyright © Prabhu 2022. Released under Creative Commons Attribution © 

NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v5i1.612  

mailto:r.prabhu@cgiar.org
https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v5i1.612


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [6] 

 

The need for more food grows with the human population. Some routes 
out of the food and agrarian crises depend on refined versions of the high-
input agricultural models that characterized the Green Revolution. These 
include sustainable intensification (Royal Society 2009), precision agriculture 
(McBratney et al. 2005), and various other reforms (Chand 2020) that would 
likely intensify forms of industrialized agriculture.  

If India continues to “industrialize” agriculture, creating “factories in the 
field” as McWilliams (1939) called them, social, environmental, and 
economic problems currently afflicting Indian agriculture will likely 
increase, as in the United States where small family farms are struggling, 
environmental issues abound, and industrialized farm labour faces social 
equity challenges (Costa and Martin 2019). In India, agriculture provides 
livelihoods for over half the population, and a shift to factory farming 
would likely result in a massive loss of livelihoods and social disruption. 
Formerly resilient landscapes, which are already degrading, will find 
themselves headed towards a dystopian future of accelerated vicious cycles 
of degradation with poorer livelihoods; concomitant erosion of local power, 
control, and democratic institutions; and uncertain land and tenure rights.   

Industrialized agriculture’s productivity and profitability model focuses 
almost entirely on efficiency gains and cost optimization, while the 
sustainability of input “sources” (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, or water) or 
waste “sinks” (e.g., atmosphere, groundwater, or rivers) usually receives 
inadequate attention. Alternatives to factory farming models exist (TEEB 
2018; IPCC 2019). In general, these are more explicit in their consideration 
of ecological principles and of the importance of natural and social capital, 
particularly at the local level (HLPE 2019). Framed as sets of principles, 
they offer a “low external/synthetic input” model that is likely to be more 
sustainable when measured against comprehensive metrics. There is now 
ample evidence that “low external input” approaches and practices such as 
agroforestry, natural farming, organic farming, and regenerative agriculture, 
along with the strengthening and upgrading of value chains, can improve 
incomes and environmental values in smallholder agriculture (ARASG 
2021).  

As we explain in this paper, reliance on the commodification of nature as 
the pathway to finding sustainable solutions is unlikely to succeed on its 
own. By “commodification”, we mean focusing on nature’s role solely as a 
provider of products or services that can be bought or sold in a market.  

Adopting a “duty of care” relationship towards nature would reduce or 
reverse the commodification of nature without jeopardizing our ability to 
feed and sustain a burgeoning global population. Prabhu et al. (2021) 



[7] Ravi Prabhu 

propose the “stewardship economy” as the pathway to achieve this. They 
see stewardship as a deliberate and informed combination of solicitude, 
foresight, and skill—a marriage of practice and ethics, often born of 
experience and embedded in culture—that has visible and tangible impacts 
on landscapes and at the forest, farm, and community levels. Stewards, i.e., 
farmers, pastoralists, forest users, and fisherfolk are responsible for the 
commodities they produce while also exercising a duty of care towards the 
full range of services we derive from land and landscapes. They are both 
holders of rights and users of land and water resources. In short, stewards 
exercise and provide expression to a “duty of care” towards natural 
resources. In doing so, they also seek to influence policies equitably, fairly, 
and democratically, and similarly approach consumption patterns and 
behaviours that condition utilitarian relationships with nature.  

Many of the possible instruments for facilitating an economic transition to 
stewardship are familiar in form. For instance, certification schemes such as 
those for timber, e.g., the Forest Stewardship Council, have been quite 
successful in recognizing stewardship, though less so in rewarding it, 
especially for smallholders. Payments for environmental services schemes 
have seen success, particularly with respect to water resources. Debt for 
nature swaps also encourages stewardship at larger scales. We can also add 
ecological fiscal transfers (EFTs) to this incomplete list; in 2015, India 
established the largest EFT scheme (Busch et al. 2020).  All these schemes 
implicitly or explicitly aim to reward good stewardship, where the duty of 
care towards one service or product that is monetized is expected to deliver 
multiple co-benefits across others that are not monetized or commodified.  

Prabhu et al. (2021) define a stewardship economy as “an equitable system 
of exchange that rewards those managing land sustainably for the goods 
and services we derive from those landscapes without disrupting the rights 
of people to food, nutrition, health, voice and decent livelihoods”. Such an 
economy operates both within and outside markets as we know them, 
connecting stewards, direct and indirect, in nested and interacting 
landscapes. In a stewardship economy, as we understand it, there is a need 
to step beyond rewarding good management of produced commodities, as 
described above, to also considering the needs and welfare of the stewards. 
This implies, for instance, that the welfare of stewards in landscapes 
providing important but lower-priced commodities is not disadvantaged 
when compared to those producing higher-priced commodities, conditional 
to the value of cumulative services from those landscapes being 
comparable. 

Framing land as a fixed asset as the market economy and balance sheets 
demand leads inevitably to the unsustainable outcomes we have now 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [8] 

 

because market mechanisms are insufficient on their own, as Pigou and 
others have argued successfully in other contexts (Coase 1960). A reductive 
view of land and nature, reliance on commodification, and the consequent 
treatment of “externalities” drive the outcomes we see today. Let us 
consider the welfare of stewards in an agricultural commodity–dominated 
landscape, e.g., producing staples. Currently, markets have no realistic way 
of pricing staples so that they bear the true or full cost to the environment 
of unsustainable production. Any attempt to load the full costs of 
sustainable production onto staples within a purely market-driven solution 
would cause price rises that would likely affect the food-insecure poor 
disproportionally, causing more to go hungry, as Jayne et al. (2010) have 
shown for smallholder maize in Sub-Saharan Africa. As a result, in this 
example, the welfare of stewards in low-priced commodity landscapes is 
held hostage to the welfare of the urban poor and is therefore 
compromised. Markets for premium commodities offer more hope in this 
regard but tend to be far too “thin” to offer change at meaningful scales, as 
the degradation of shade coffee landscapes in the Western Ghats shows 
(Gaucherel et al. 2017). Considering poverty traps that can arise in the 
farming of renewable natural resources (forests, soils, water, and wildlife), 
Barrett (2008) suggests that “…intervention is essential if people are to 
escape and avoid persistent poverty” (36), as markets alone are inadequate. 
Beyond commodity and service markets, in many countries, and especially 
in forest-reliant communities, insecure or unclear property and tenure rights 
can additionally act as deterrents to investments in stewardship (Chopra and 
Gulati 1997; Reid et al 2005). 

The commodification of nature often proceeds as an intensifying cycle—
extensive agriculture yields to mixed systems that in turn are replaced by 
monocultures as farmers seek market benefits from bulking and aggregation 
to improve their welfare. Losses in ecosystem services, resilience, and 
sustainability ensue because markets are neither intrinsically structured to 
ensure that a duty of care is exercised nor for the realization of equitable 
welfare outcomes. Recent reform efforts have sought to change this by 
pricing social and environmental goods more effectively, but with mixed 
results (Polasky et al. 2019). 

If we are to reward farmers, forest users, and other “landscape actors” fairly 
for contributing to sustainable futures, we will need to look beyond markets 
as we know them today. Our search for a stewardship economy, as we 
propose here, leads us to suggest the need for “stewardship dividend”, 
which would make up the difference between market-based income and the 
total income a steward needs to pursue their duty of care toward essential 



[9] Ravi Prabhu 

non-commodified products and services and simultaneously achieve 
equitable welfare outcomes. 

Further, if producing an agricultural commodity without any negative 
externalities is taken at its full or true cost, and the price we can 
advantageously achieve in the market at which poor consumers can still 
affordably have access to essential commodities such as staples is its fair 
price, then in the case of most agricultural commodities, the true cost would 
exceed the fair price by a considerable margin. We postulate that the 
difference between the true and fair price of these commodities would 
approximate the “delta” that ensures nature remains resilient in the 
landscapes where these commodities are produced because stewards are 
investing efforts and knowledge in ensuring that key non-commodified 
ecosystem services are still being delivered without compromising their 
access to equitable welfare. The existence of “delta” or the stewardship 
dividend can therefore be postulated for any commodity or any agricultural 
landscape. 

How would such a stewardship dividend be determined? Most efforts at 
determining the economic value of nature or ecosystem services depart 
from their perceived environmental importance (Dasgupta 2021; Polasky et 
al. 2019); while necessary, this is not sufficient to understand the true value 
of stewardship. Consider that nature exists as we find it because the people 
living there have so shaped it (Fletcher et al. 2021; Davis and Douglass 
2021), and where it is “healthy”, it is because stewards have left it so. This 
implies that our departure point for the determination of the stewardship 
dividend must simultaneously be based on 1) the needs and aspirations of 
the stewards, i.e., the incentives needed to support current behaviours or 
catalyse changes to it if necessary; 2) any economic value attributed to non-
commodified products and services, from an environmental goals’ 
perspective; and 3) the fair price of a commodity in the market. 
Consequently, it is not enough to focus on a farm or farming household as 
the unit of analysis, as ecosystem services are frequently emergent 
properties of larger geographical and temporal scales; thus, simultaneously 
considering landscape scales, decadal trends, and the collective action of 
people in those landscapes would be important. This will require more 
comprehensive metrics than those we currently use in agriculture so that 
stewardship performance is assessed fully. The availability of digital 
technologies—remote sensing through to social media—makes it possible 
now to track changes in key slow (e.g., soil erosion – Vagen and 
Winowiecki 2019) and fast (e.g., consumer preferences – Taylor 2019) 
variables at multiple, nested scales reliably and inclusively. This suggests that 
we can affordably estimate stewardship dividends, assess the performance 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [10] 

 

of stewards against agreed metrics, and efficiently disburse rewards, e.g., as 
conditional cash transfers. 

To pay for a transition to a stewardship economy, as a first step, we could 
reform and repurpose subsidies shown to have perverse impacts 
(Ramaswami 2019; Chand 2020) in addition to investments to replace or 
compensate for the loss of ecosystem infrastructure due to agriculture. In 
India, Ramaswami (2019) has estimated that 21% of farm income is derived 
from subsidies alone, already a substantial financial corpus for this purpose. 
Additionally, investments in replacing or compensating for ecological 
infrastructure (e.g., Chakrabarti et al. 2019; Chand 2017) along with those 
facilitating green development would greatly increase the financial latitude. 
Conservatively, these funds could offer each farming household practising 
stewardship an annual stewardship dividend equivalent to at least one-third 
of their income, before income gains of adopting better farm and land 
management are added. Significant improvements to welfare while 
transitioning to sustainable agriculture are therefore eminently possible for 
Indian farmers in a stewardship economy. Challenges remain such as 
ensuring that these transfers reach those they are intended for efficiently 
and effectively. This will likely include securing and clarifying rights 
including common property or communal rights that are essential to the 
effective exercise of stewardship responsibilities. 

While much of the understanding and many of the tools required to 
transition to a stewardship economy already exist in some form, there is still 
a need for more work. For instance, innovative finance, investment, and 
performance management arrangements will need to be developed—
capable of reaching through complex social organizations and networks in 
time.  The design process for this renaissance of Indian agriculture must be 
inclusive, equitable, and democratic to lead to the behaviour and attitude 
changes sought.  

We need a more resilient, equitable, and optimistic future for Indian 
agriculture. Accepting that a duty of care must pervade all of agriculture, 
forest, and land management is the key step in this direction. India’s 
agricultural sector is crying out for this kind of innovation and reinvention. 
Nature is more than products; it also provides immeasurable services. 
People are not just producers; they are also carers. It is high time we 
recognize, build on, and reward this. 

 

 

 



[11] Ravi Prabhu 

REFERENCES 

ARASG. 2021. "Regenerative Agriculture: An Opportunity for Businesses and 
Society to Restore Degraded Land in Africa." Africa Regenerative Agriculture 
Study Group. 
https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/regnererative_agriculture_in_africa_report_
2021.pdf  

Barrett, Christopher B. 2008. "Poverty Traps and Resource Dynamics in 
Smallholder Agrarian Systems." In Economics of Poverty, Environment and 
Natural Resource Use, edited by A Ruijs and R Dellink, pp 17-40. Verlag: Springer. 

Béné, Christophe, Peter Oosterveer, Lea Lamotte, Inge D Brouwer, Stef de Haan, 
Steve D Prager, Elise F Talsma, and Colin K Khoury. 2019. "When Food Systems 
Meet Sustainability: Current Narratives and Implications for Actions." World 
Development 113: 116-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011.  

Benton, Tim G and Rob Bailey. 2019. "The Paradox of Productivity: Agricultural 
Productivity Promotes Food System Inefficiency." Global Sustainability 2. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.3  

Busch, Jonah, Avani Kapur, and Anit Mukerji. 2020. "Did India's Ecological Fiscal 
Transfers Incentivize State Governments to Increase Their Forestry Budgets?" 
Environmental Research Communications 2 (3): 031006. 
https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ab817c  

Chakrabarti, Suman, Mohammed Tajuddin Khan, Avinash Kishore, Devesh Roy, 
and Samuel P Scott. 2019. "Risk of Acute Respiratory Infection from Crop Burning 
in India: Estimating Disease Burden and Economic Welfare from Satellite and 
National Health Survey Data For 250 000 Persons." International Journal of 
Epidemiology 48 (4): 1113-1124.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz022  

Chand, Ramesh. 2017. "Doubling Farmers Income." Indian Journal of Agricultural 
Economics 72 (1). 

Chand, Ramesh. 2020. "Addressing Agrarian Distress: Sops Versus Development." 
In Planning in the 20th Century and Beyond: India's Planning Commission and the 
NITI Aayog, edited by Santosh Mehrotra and Sylvie Guichard, 110-131. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859448.006 

Chopra, Kanchan and Sumeet Gulati. 1997. "Environmental Degradation and 
Population Movements: The Role of Property Rights." Environmental and 
Resource Economics 9: 383-408. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026455024293. 

Coase, Ronald H. 1960. "The Problem of Social Cost." The Journal of Law and 
Economics 3 (1): 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1086/466560  

Costa, Daniel and Philip Martin. 2019. "OECD Highlights Temporary Labor 
Migration. Almost as Many Guestworkers as Permanent Immigrants." Economic 
Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/blog/oecd-highlights-temporary-labor-
migration-almost-as-many-guestworkers-as-permanent-immigrants/.  

https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/regnererative_agriculture_in_africa_report_2021.pdf
https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/regnererative_agriculture_in_africa_report_2021.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.011
https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.3
https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ab817c
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz022
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108859448.006
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026455024293
https://doi.org/10.1086/466560
https://www.epi.org/blog/oecd-highlights-temporary-labor-migration-almost-as-many-guestworkers-as-permanent-immigrants/
https://www.epi.org/blog/oecd-highlights-temporary-labor-migration-almost-as-many-guestworkers-as-permanent-immigrants/


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [12] 

 

Dangar, Swarup, Akarsh Asoka, and Vimal Mishra. 2021. "Causes and Implications 
of Groundwater Depletion in India: A Review." Journal of Hydrology 596: 126103. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126103  

Dasgupta, Partha. 2021. "The Economics of Biodiversity." The Dasgupta Review. 
London, UK: HM Treasury. 

Davis, Dylan S and Kristina Douglass. 2021. "Remote Sensing Reveals Lasting 
Legacies of Land-Use by Small-Scale Foraging Communities in the Southwestern 
Indian Ocean." Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.689399/full.  

Dorin, Bruno. 2021. "Theory, Practice and Challenges of Agroecology in India", 
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability: 1-15. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2021.1920760  

Fletcher, Michael-Shawn, Rebecca Hamilton, Wolfram Dressler, and Lisa Palmer. 
2021. "Indigenous Knowledge and the Shackles of Wilderness." Proceedings of the 
National Academy of Sciences 118 (40): 2022218118. 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022218118  

Gaucherel, Cedric, Julie Alet, and Claude A Garcia. 2017. "Coffee Monoculture 
Trends in Tropical Agroforested Landscapes of Western Ghats (India)." 
Environmental Conservation 44 (2): 183-190. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000394  

HLPE. 2019. "Agroecological and Other Innovative Approaches for Sustainable 
Agriculture and Food Systems that Enhance Food Security and Nutrition." A 
Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the 
Committee on World Food Security. Rome: FAO. 
http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf.  

IPBES. 2019. "Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on 
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy 
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services." Sandra Díaz, Josef Settele, 
Eduardo Brondizio, Hien T Ngo, Alexander Pfaff, Stephen Polasky, John Agard, 
Almut Arneth, Patricia Balvanera, Kate A Brauman, et al. (eds). Bonn, Germany: 
IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb6019  

IPCC. 2019. "IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land 
Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas 
Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems." Summary for Policymakers. The 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In press. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/  

Jayne, TS, David Mather, Elliot Mghenyi. 2010. "Principal Challenges Confronting 
Smallholder Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa." World Development 38 (10): 
1384-1398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.06.002  

Marchesi, Greta. 2020. "Justus von Liebig Makes the World: Soil Properties and 
Social Change in the Nineteenth Century." Environmental Humanities 12 (1): 205-
226. https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-8142308  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126103
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.689399/full
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2021.1920760
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2022218118
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892916000394
http://www.fao.org/3/ca5602en/ca5602en.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb6019
https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.06.002
https://doi.org/10.1215/22011919-8142308


[13] Ravi Prabhu 

McBratney, Alex, Brett Whelan, Tihomir Ancev, and Johan Bouma. 2005. "Future 
Directions of Precision Agriculture." Precision Agriculture 6: 7-23. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-005-0681-8  

McWilliams, Carey. 1939. Factories in the Field. The Story of Migratory Farm 
Labor in California. Reprint 2000. California, USA: University of California Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520925182  

Nelson, Ann Raeboline Lincy Eliazer, Kavitha Ravichandran, and Usha Antony. 
2019. "The Impact of the Green Revolution on Indigenous Crops of India." 
Journal of Ethnic Foods 6 (1): 8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-019-0011-9   

National Statistical Office (NSO). 2021. "Situation Assessment of Agricultural 
Households and Land Holdings of Households in Rural India, 2019." New Delhi: 
National Statistics Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 
Government of India. 
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1753856 

Pingali, Prabhu L. 2012. "Green Revolution: Impacts, Limits, and the Path Ahead." 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (31): 2302-12308. 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912953109  

Polasky, Stephen, Catherine L Kling, Simon A Levin, Stephen R Carpenter, 
Gretchen C Daily, Paul R Ehrlich, Geoffrey M Heal, and Jane Lubchenco. 2019. 
"Role of Economics in Analyzing the Environment and Sustainable Development." 
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (12): 5233-5238. 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1901616116  

Prabhu, Ravi, Steven Lawry, and John Colmey. 2021. "Creating a New Relationship 
with Nature Through a 'Stewardship Economy'." Forests News. 
https://forestsnews.cifor.org/74803/creating-a-new-relationship-with-nature-
through-a-stewardship-economy?fnl=en.  

Ramaswami, B. 2019. "Agricultural Subsidies." Study Prepared for the XV Finance 
Commission. New Delhi: Indian Statistical Institute. 

Reid, Walter V, Harold A Mooney, Doris Capistrano, Stephen R Carpenter, 
Kanchan Chopra, Angela Cropper, Partha Dasgupta, Rashid Hassan, Rik Leemans, 
Robert M May, et al. 2005. "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and 
Human Well-being." Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. 

Royal Society. 2009. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable 
Intensification of Global Agriculture. London, UK: Royal Society. 
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/reaping-benefits/  

Sharda, Vishwa N and Prabhat R Ojasvi. 2016. "A Revised Soil Erosion Budget for 
India: Role of Reservoir Sedimentation and Land-Use Protection Measures." Earth 
Surface Processes and Landforms 41: 2007-2023.  
https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3965  

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). 2018. "Scientific and 
Economic Foundations Report." TEEB for Agriculture & Food: Scientific and 
Economic Foundations. Geneva: UN Environment. http://teebweb.org/our-
work/agrifood/reports/scientific-economic-foundations/.  

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-005-0681-8
https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520925182
https://doi.org/10.1186/s42779-019-0011-9
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1753856
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0912953109
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1901616116
https://forestsnews.cifor.org/74803/creating-a-new-relationship-with-nature-through-a-stewardship-economy?fnl=en
https://forestsnews.cifor.org/74803/creating-a-new-relationship-with-nature-through-a-stewardship-economy?fnl=en
https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2009/reaping-benefits/
https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.3965
http://teebweb.org/our-work/agrifood/reports/scientific-economic-foundations/
http://teebweb.org/our-work/agrifood/reports/scientific-economic-foundations/


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [14] 

 

Taylor, Bradley. 2019. "Understanding Consumer Preferences from Social Media 
Data." NIM Marketing Intelligence Review 11 (2): 48-53. 
https://doi.org/10.2478/nimmir-2019-0016  

Vågen, Tor-Gunnar and Leigh Ann Winowiecki. 2019. "Predicting the Spatial 
Distribution and Severity of Soil Erosion in the Global Tropics using Satellite 
Remote Sensing." Remote Sensing 11 (15): 1800. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11151800.  

 

https://doi.org/10.2478/nimmir-2019-0016
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11151800

