SWOT analysis of ways to introduce innovations into agricultural production practices as a prerequisite for searching for promising areas in the field of agroforestry in the Russian Federation 177DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.2.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. Introduction Agricultural production is the basis for en- suring food security of states (Zhuchenko, A.A. 2004; Dubinok, N.N. 2014; Ponisio, L.C. and Ehrlich, P.R. 2016; UNCTAD, 2017). A threat to ensuring the production of ag- ricultural products in the required volumes and required quality is negative environ- mental changes resulting from the irrational organization of the production process and climate change (Khitrov, N.B. et al. 2007; Challinor, A. et al. 2014; Lal, R. 2015; Kiss, M. 2019; Chaudhuri, S. et al. 2023). The most obvious of these changes in the natural envi- ronment is the loss of soil fertility (Oldeman, L.R. 1991; Pimentel, D. et al. 1993; Foley, J.A. et al. 2005; Imeson, A. 2012; Borrelli, P. et al. 2017; Cherlet, M. et al. 2018; Kertész, Á. and Křeček, J. 2019; Kulik, K.N. et al. 2023). Agroforestry is one of the main types of reclamation. Due to the reclamation effect of woody plants, better conditions are created for the accumulation of humus and the sup- ply of nutrients to plants (Abakumova, L.I. 2004, 2006; Barrios, E. et al. 2012; Kulik, K.N. and Pugacheva, A.M. 2016; Dollinger, J. and Jose, S. 2018; Marsden, C. et al. 2020; Ngaba, M.J.Y. et al. 2024). Important distinguishing features of this type of reclamation are the complex impact on land reclamation objects (Huang, W. et al. 1997; Kulik, K.N. et al. 2012; 1 Federal State Budget Scientific Institution “Federal Scientific Centre of Agroecology, Complex Melioration and Protective Afforestation of the Russian Academy of Sciences”. 400062 Volgograd, Russian Federation. E-mail: tubalovlexa1@rambler.ru SWOT analysis of ways to introduce innovations into agricultural production practices as a prerequisite for searching for promising areas in the field of agroforestry in the Russian Federation Alexey TUBALOV1 Abstract This review aims to collect, analyse and systematize materials on ways to introduce innovations into agricul- tural production practices. Knowledge and understanding of the features of the mechanisms for introducing innovations allow us to evaluate agroforestry research in terms of its completeness. The basis of the research methodology is the methodological techniques of SWOT analysis. The result of the research is: the establish- ment of the main ways of introducing innovations into the practice of agricultural production; identifying the strengths and weaknesses inherent in these mechanisms; analysis of opportunities and threats associated with the implementation of innovations through these methods; assessment of the relationship between these tools. The main methods of promoting innovation in the field of agricultural production are: 1) the establishment of an advisory service, 2) the development and implementation of national and regional target programs, and 3) the creation and maintenance of an agroecological service. The identified ways of introducing innovation complement each other. Agroforestry research requires interdisciplinary research to integrate innovations in agroforestry development of territories into a broader agroecological context. Keywords: method of introducing innovations, agricultural production, sustainable agricultural landscapes, advisory service, regional and national target programs, agroecological service, agroforestry Received September 2024, accepted May 2025. mailto:tubalovlexa1@rambler.ru Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193.178 Trofimov, I.A. et al. 2014; Udawatta, R.P. 2017; Raj, A. et al. 2019; Melikhov, V.V. and Kulik, K.N. 2020; Voskoboynikova, I.V. and Ivonin, V.M. 2023). The properties of agro- forestry, as a type of land reclamation, corre- spond to the trends in the development of ag- ricultural production (Kosolapov, V.M. 2014; Vasilyeva, E.A. et al. 2014; Stavi, I. and Lal, R. 2015; Mansvelt, J.D. and Temirbekova, S.K. 2017; Trofimov, I.A. et al. 2018; USDA, 2019; Belokopytov, A.V. et al. 2022; Kesavan, A. et al. 2022). Agroforestry is a component of state policy in the field of ensuring the sus- tainability of agricultural landscapes (Rulev, A.S. and Koshelev, A.V. 2012; Buttoud, G. et al. 2013; Venna, R. and Burbi, S. 2023). Many publications have been devoted to the current state of development of agro- forestry work (Manaenkov, A.S. 1995, 1999, 2014, 2015; Nesvat, A.P. et al. 2011; Kulik, K.N. et al. 2012, 2015a,b, 2017, 2019, 2020; Kulik, K.N. 2014, 2015, 2018; Trofimov, I.A. et al. 2014; Kulik, K.N. and Pugacheva, A.M. 2016; Melikhov, V.V. and Kulik, K.N. 2018; Melikhov, V.V. and Kulik, K.N. 2020; Kulik, K.N. and Vlasenko, M.V. 2023). These works outline both the main achievements of agroforestry science and the difficulties of its development. The main modern problem, according to most authors, is the issue of a significant reduction in the area of existing protective forests. Many authors associate the reasons for this state of affairs with the transformation of the management system of the reclamation complex that occurred dur- ing the transition from a planned to a market economy (Strumilin, S.G. 1957; Baibakov, N.K. 1971; Nesvat, A.P. et al. 2011; Hruška, V. and Píša, J. 2019). Diving into the problems of formulating future research allowed us to identify two important features of this process. The first feature is that identifying promising research areas is often associated with the perception of development trends at a general, concep- tual level. Examples include such paradigms as adaptive landscape farming, nature-like technologies, zero land degradation, organic farming, smart villages, and others. The sec- ond feature is that an integral part of the pro- cess of searching for priority research areas is understanding the features of existing mech- anisms for introducing innovations into ag- ricultural practice. Methods or mechanisms for introducing innovations into practice are a kind of filter for differentiating theoretical concepts into viable and non-viable. There are quite a lot of studies that reflect conceptual approaches to nature manage- ment. There are significantly fewer works devoted to generalizing existing mechanisms for implementing innovations in agricultur- al production practices. For this reason, the purpose of the study was to search for and generalize, using the SWOT analysis method, the properties of methods for implementing innovations in agricultural production prac- tices. The objectives of the research included generalization of scientific works conducted in the Russian Federation and their com- parison with world practices (European countries, the USA, China, India, Argentina, Brazil, and other countries). Expansion of the geographical coverage of sources involved in the analysis aims to increase the reliability of the identified generalizations. Materials and methods The object of research is published materi- als that describe specific ways to promote or introduce innovations into agricultural pro- duction practices. The achievement of the set goal was carried out in three stages. The basis of the research methodology at the first stage is the methodological tech- niques used when handling scientific and technical information (Korkzhova, A.A. and Dera, V.G. 1985; Blumenau, D.I. 2002; Kushnarenko, N.N. and Udalova, V.K. 2006). The result of the research at the first stage of the ongoing research is the creation of a list of existing methods for introducing innovations into agricultural production. The second stage of the research was a SWOT analysis of the identified mechanisms. SWOT analysis is a widely used method for 179DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.2.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. assessing and structuring information. SWOT analysis is based on the assessment and com- parison of four parameters: the strengths and weaknesses of the assessed object in compari- son with analogous objects and an analysis of the opportunities and threats of the envi- ronment in which the assessed objects op- erate (Russel, J. 2019; Uchitel, Yu.G. 2019; Baghernejad, J. et al. 2023). The third stage of the research is to com- pare the specific features of protective affor- estation with the potential of the identified methods for promoting innovation in agricul- tural production. This comparison is aimed at identifying the preferred methods for pro- moting innovation in the field of agroforestry. Results The literature review is based on 168 sources. The distribution of publications by analysis topics is presented in Table 1. The data in the table allow us to judge the diversity of the areas of scientific research covered by the review. A summary of liter- ary sources made it possible to identify three ways of introducing innovations into the sphere of agricultural production: – creation of a consulting service; – implementation of federal or regional tar- get projects; – creation of a service for monitoring the agroecological condition. Consulting service A large number of scientific articles have been written about consulting services in the agro- industrial complex, the history of their devel- opment, goals, the tasks they solve, the mech- anisms of their organization, legal support, sources of financing and personnel provision (Akkanina, N.V. 2004; Kireeva, O.V. 2004; De- mishkevich, G.M. 2007; Datsyuk, P.V. 2008; Table 1. Geography of publications No. Subject area of research Geography of research (number of sources) Total number of sources 1 Agroforestry Russia (25); China, England, European Union, USA (2–2); France, India (1–1) 35 2 Sustainable development of agriculture and rational use of natural resources Russia (9); European Union, USA (3–3); China, India (2–2);, Czech Republic, England, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, South America [Argentina, Brazil], Spain, Ukraine (1–1) 29 3 Environmental degradation. Climate change. Environmental legislation USA (4); Russia (3); European Union, Hungary, India (2–2); England (1) 14 4 Consulting service, experience in organiza- tion and analysis of functioning European Union (13); Russia (11); Australia (2); England, Germany, India, Italy, Norway, South America [Argentina, Brazil], Ukraine, USA, Zimbabwe (1–1) 35 5 Targeted state programs in the field of nature management, experience of organi- zation and analysis of functioning. Russia (11); European Union (4); Africa, China, USA (3–3); Japan (2); India (1) 27 6 Agroecological service, experience of its organization and analysis of its functioning USA (4); Russia (3); European Union (2) 9 7 Methods of handling scientific and technical information. SWOT analysis. Management. History and philosophy of science. Russia (8); USA (5); European Union, Ukraine (2–2); India, Israel (1–1) 19 8 Number of sources in all topics 168 Source: Author’s own research. Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193.180 Law 2008; Farinyuk, Yu.T. and Glebova, A.G. 2011; Baumgart-Getz, A. et al. 2012; Belyakov, A.M. 2012; Samarkhanov, T.G. 2016; Paschen, J.A. et al. 2017; Ingram, J.A. and Mills, J. 2018; Nayanov, A.V. 2018; Apazhev, A. et al. 2019; Nettle, R. et al. 2021; Turner, J.A. et al. 2021; Ingram, J. et al. 2022; De Rosa, M. et al. 2023). Advisory services are an important way of implementing public policy in the field of agricultural production (Birner, R. et al. 2009; EU Commission 2009; Badmakhalgaev, L.T. and Zverev, V.V. 2012; Curry, N.R. et al. 2012; Yunusova, P.S. 2014; Knierim, A. et al. 2017; Chaudhuri, S. et al. 2021; Ankita, P.V. and Chaudhuri, S. 2022; Kosova, A. 2022). By creating a “cultural environment”, this tool ensures the multi-functionality of agriculture (Van Huylenbroeck, G. et al. 2007; Renting, H. et al. 2009). “Strengths”. Where the interests of the agri- cultural producer coincide with the interests of the state, this tool shows excellent results. An example is the introduction of drought-resist- ant and high-yielding varieties of grain crops. The “weaknesses” of the advisory service include the advisory nature of its activities. Using this tool, it is difficult to implement innovations that do not bring quick profits (Chaudhuri, S. et al. 2023). An example is the creation of protective forest belts. “Possibilities” of the consulting service. The range of work on agroforestry is exten- sive, including inventory of existing protec- tive forest plantations, development of plans for their reconstruction, etc. To popularize a small business in the field of agroecological services, it is important to remember the capa- bilities of the consulting service (Manaenkov, A.S. 1999; Kulik, K.N. 2015; Kulik, K.N. et al. 2015a, 2023). The “threats” of the extension service in- clude the need to maintain impartiality to the results of scientific research. This instrument should be used with caution when introduc- ing controversial innovations. Specialists from different extension services may have differ- ent views on the same problem, entering into conflict with each other (Faure, G. et al. 2012; Eastwood, K. et al. 2017; Compagnone, C. and Simon, B. 2018; Ingram, J. et al. 2022). An ex- ample is the “nautil” technology. Replacing the mechanical method of weed control with a chemical method is not supported by all sci- entists (Pittelkow, C.M. et al. 2015). In some countries, the use of glyphosate, one of the main available herbicides used in this technol- ogy, is banned at the state level (USDA, 2019; Law 2021). An important feature of innovations pro- moted through this mechanism are short cycles between implementation and the re- sult obtained. This factor is explained by the structure of financing consulting services, which is organized on a “fee for service” basis. Knowledge becomes a commodity that can be bought and sold (Foti, R. et al. 2007; Labarthe, P. and Laurent, C. 2013; Prager, K. et al. 2016). Commercialization of this service leads to du- plication and fragmentation of knowledge, the emergence of problems with the dissemina- tion of scientific knowledge (Klerkx, L. and Proctor, A. 2013; Klerkx, L. 2020; Ingram, J. et al. 2022). Overcoming negative aspects in the func- tioning of consulting services is associated with strengthening the role of the public sector as a coordinating entity, developing uniform methods that experts are guided by, standard- izing the training of consultants and their cer- tification (Klerkx, L. et al. 2017; Ingram, J.A. and Mills, J. 2018; Ingram, J. et al. 2022). Federal or regional target programs The program-target approach to the intro- duction of innovations into agricultural pro- duction practice is discussed in a number of scientific papers (Law 1995; Ando, M.A. 2020; Bondarenko, L. 2020; Pryazhnikova, O.N. 2020; Xue, E. et al. 2021; Davydenko, N. 2022; Voroshilov, N.V. et al. 2022). The program-target approach is based on a government contract. This approach is also called the “public goods at public expense” approach (Law 1995; Bondarenko, L. 2020; Voroshilov, N.V. et al. 2022; Venna, R. and Burbi, S. 2023). 181DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.2.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. The history of the development of agro- forestry reclamation work is a clear confir- mation of the use of the program-targeted approach (Kulik, K.N. 2014; Manaenkov, A.S. 2014; Kulik K.N. et al. 2015a,b, 2019). One of the most striking examples of a previously existing target program is the so- called “Stalin’s plan for the transformation of nature” (Kulik, K.N. 2014). This target pro- gram was developed by scientists from the USSR Academy of Sciences. The system of measures was aimed at combating drought, preventing the development of erosion pro- cesses, and preventing the occurrence of dust storms in the southern regions of the USSR. Over the 5 years of implementing this plan, more than 2.3 million hectares of for- est were created, an ecological framework of forest belts was created on agricultural fields, the slopes of gullies and ravines, the banks of reservoirs were planted with trees and shrubs, over 13,000 ponds and reservoirs were created. The implemented measures led to an increase in grain yields by 25–30 per- cent, vegetables by 50–75 percent, and grass- es by 100–200 percent (compared to the yield in unprotected fields). To date, in the territo- ry of the former USSR states, this plan has no analogues either in terms of the complexity of measures or their scale (Kashtanov, A.N. et al. 2001). Modern examples can be national and regional projects (Website a [The Future of Russia, National projects], Website b [Regional Target Program], Website c [Long- term Regional Target Program]). It is important to note numerous striking examples of the implementation of agro- forestry reclamation work from world prac- tice. Thus, targeted state programs for the development of agroforestry exist in the USA (Garrett, H.E.G. and Buck, L. 1997; McClure, B.K. 1998). These strategies were intensively developed under President Franklin Roosevelt, after the phenomenon of “dust storms” (Website d [Storms on U.S.]). Similar targets exist in Europe (Zanchi, G. et al. 2007; Rigueiro-Rodríguez, A. et al. 2009; Smith, J. 2010a,b), in Japan (Fujita, K. and Shaw, R. 2010; Matsushita, K. 2015), in India (Basu, J.P. 2014), in China (Carle, J. and Ma, Q. 2005; Liu, B. et al. 2009; Website e [UN]), in African countries (Goffner, D. et al. 2019; Ksenofontova, N.A. and Grishina, N.V. 2019; Website a [FAO]) and other countries. “Strengths” of the program-target ap- proach. The given examples of previously completed work confirm the broad possibil- ities of this method in solving complex and large-scale problems in the field of nature management. The following features can be attributed to the “weaknesses” of the program-targeted ap- proach to the implementation of innovations: – High cost. The implementation of large- scale plans in the field of agroecology is not always possible (Dubinok, N.N. 2014). – The program-targeted approach is based on the formulation of clear, measurable goals. This tool does not fit well into com- plex formulations and multifaceted con- cepts, such as: changing the nature of na- ture management, achieving sustainable nature management, overcoming irration- al, unsystematic use of pastures. Achieving target measurable indicators, expressed in units of planted trees or hectares of de- veloped territory, does not always imply correction of the processes that led to the emergence of an environmental problem. As a result, situations may arise when the fight is waged not against the cause, but against the effect. An example is a publica- tion dedicated to the thirtieth anniversary of the “master plan to combat desertifica- tion of black lands and pastures of Kizlyar” (Kulik, K.N. et al. 2018). It highlights a chain of events: the emergence of an en- vironmental problem, a surge in public interest, the development and implemen- tation of land reclamation measures, and overcoming the consequences of the envi- ronmental problem. This sequence tends to repeat itself; it is a closed cycle (Kulik K.N. 2014; Kulik, K.N. et al. 2023). – Perhaps the main drawback of the pro- gram-target approach is the fact that this method allows for the accumulation of environmental problems that are obvious Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193.182 within the framework of individual nature management. The fight against negative phenomena begins only when the prob- lems acquire a certain scale. In many ways, this state of affairs is a consequence of the peculiarities of the innovation mechanism under consideration. This method of im- plementation does not cover the local level of management decision-making – the lev- el of an individual agricultural enterprise. “Possibilities” of the program-targeted approach. With regard to agroforestry recla- mation works, the program-targeted method of introducing innovations is the only and non-alternative way to solve a number of is- sues, such as the problem of afforestation of sandy arenas (Manaenkov, A.S. 1999), crea- tion of protective forest plantations along river banks (Kulik, K.N. et al. 2017). The “threats” of the program-targeted ap- proach include the potential overestimation of the capabilities of this method. A world- view based on the belief that any environ- mental problem can be solved incorrectly. There are many examples in human history when anthropogenic destruction of the habi- tat led to the disappearance of civilizations (Diamond, J. 2016). Agroecological service Establishment of a specialized service re- sponsible for monitoring the agroecological state of lands, development and implemen- tation of melioration solutions aimed at in- creasing soil fertility. There is no experience of introducing innovations into agricultural production practices through this tool in Russia and a number of countries. However, in global practice there are striking examples of successful promotion of innovations in the field of soil protection (Bennett, H.H. 1955; Armand, D.L. 1983; Pavlovsky, E.S. 1992; Krasnova, I.O. 1997; Broslavsky, L.I. 2010; Kulik, K.N. et al. 2015a,b). The Natural Resources Conservation Service in the United States is a large gov- ernment agency with approximately 12,000 employees. This service has different names. The Soil Conservation Service originally grew out of the Soil Erosion Control Service, which was founded in 1933. In 1994, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was re- named the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS – see Website f). The official website of the American Natural Resources Conservation Service has been extended by the biography of Hugh Hammond Bennett (see Website g). In the text of this article we will use the name ‘agroecological service’. The main function of the agroecological service is to ensure the achievement of the goal of reproduction of renewable natural resources (primarily soil fertility resources) by involving and stimulating specific agricul- tural producers in environmental protection activities. With the participation of specialists from this service, monitoring of the state of agricultural landscapes is carried out. The re- sult of generalization of the monitoring data is an assessment of the agroecological state of vast territories and identification of agri- cultural enterprises within the boundaries of which the agro-landscapes are characterized by the maximum manifestation of degrada- tion processes. Based on the assessment of the agroecological state of the lands, meliora- tion measures are developed. The introduc- tion of these measures into practice is stimu- lated by tax and credit policies. The system of response measures is diverse. In the event of organizing the fight against the catastrophic development of degradation processes, deci- sions can potentially be made related to the deprivation of property rights or the right to extend the lease of land to owners who do not comply with the instructions of the agroecological service. This service has a hierarchical structure – there is a head organization at the feder- al level and a network of regional branches. The service has the appropriate material and technical support. The material embodiment of the agroecological service (staff, buildings, office equipment, etc.) is only the final stage of its creation. For the successful functioning of such an organization, it is necessary to first 183DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.2.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. create a number of key elements in the areas of legislation, the organization of the provi- sion of services for scientific support for the functioning of sustainable agro-landscapes and the judicial system (Lebedeva, A.N. and Lavrik, O.L. 1993; Bogolyubov, S.A. 2015; Ivanov, A.L. et al. 2022). Improving the legislative framework is one of the prerequisites for ensuring the possi- bility of the emergence and functioning of the agroecological service. An example of a problem subject to legislative regulation is the issue of the need for legislative consol- idation of the responsibility of the user of natural resources for the agroecological state of lands. The responsibility of the agricul- tural producer for the agroecological state of lands is manifested in his obligation to mon- itor the agroecological state of lands owned or leased, and the burden of implementing melioration measures aimed at preventing the development of degradation processes. Many issues that are important to resolve when creating an agroecological monitoring service can be resolved by private licensed enterprises. Such issues include inventory of protective forest plantations, assessment of the state of small hydrological structures, etc. It is important to have modern methodolog- ical recommendations that allow standard- ization of typical work. When organizing the functioning of enterprises providing environ- mental services, it will be useful to take into account the experience of forming the cadas- tral engineer service (Law 2007, 2015, 2016). Judicial system. It is necessary to have courts specializing in resolving disputes between participants in relations in the agroecological sphere (Lebedeva, A.N. and Lavrik, O.L. 1993; Bogolyubov, S.A. 2015). Let us move on to the SWOT analysis of the agroecological service as a way of intro- ducing innovations in the sphere of agricul- tural production. The “strong point” of creating a special- ized service for monitoring the agroecolog- ical state is the ability to organize the fight against degradation processes at the level of an individual agricultural enterprise. Organization of planning and implemen- tation of melioration solutions through the agroecological service can change the nature of nature management in the agricultural sec- tor. It can allow a transition from a scheme for combating consequences to a sequence based on the use of forecasting capabilities and the adoption of preventive measures to prevent the occurrence of degradation pro- cesses and phenomena. The “weaknesses” of a specialized service for monitoring the agroecological state in- clude the absence of such a service in a num- ber of countries. To create it, it is necessary to overcome the disunity of various institutions and departments responsible for the imple- mentation of state policy in the field of nature management. An important circumstance in overcoming the problems of creating an agroecological service is taking into account the trends in the development of science associated with the digitalization of sectors of the national economy (Larichev, O.I. and Petrovsky, A.B. 1987; Saraev, A.D. and Shcherbina, O.A. 2006; Mayer-Schoenberger, W. and Cukier, K. 2014; Rosa Pires da, A. et al. 2014; Prause, G. and Boevsky, I. 2015; Vaishar, A. and Šťastná, M. 2019; Zhang, X. and Zhang, Z. 2020; Chaudhuri, S. et al. 2021; Szalai, Á. et al. 2021). The “opportunities” of agroecological ser- vices lie in the unification of various spheres (scientific research, legislative activity, pro- duction activity and the activity of public administration bodies) within a single in- tegrated cycle or a single production chain (Drucker, P.F. 2008; Adizes, I. 2014; Henry, N. 2014; Kulik, K.N. et al. 2023) of the process of creating sustainable agroforestry land- scapes. As an example of a problem where it is important to build such relationships, we can consider the current “ownerless” legal status of previously created protective for- est plantations. The situation may change. If an agricultural producer carries out its ac- tivities in such a way that the result is the development of degradation processes, then the agroecological service must issue it an Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193.184 order on the need to carry out reclamation work, and also set a deadline for this work. Based on the monitoring results, the agro- ecological service must assess the adequacy of the reclamation measures carried out. The consequence of such an organization of the process will be the interest of agricultural producers in owning melioration structures and managing their condition in the most economical and effective way. “Threats”. Agricultural enterprises are aimed at making a profit. Agroecological service is based on the possibilities of using the state function to ensure compliance with laws. It is extremely important to maintain a balance between the environmental impera- tive and the economic basis of an agricultural enterprise. It is possible that situations will arise when compliance with all environmen- tal requirements will be able to cause bank- ruptcy of an agricultural producer. Discussion The conclusions made in different countries about the properties of the tools for imple- menting innovations in agricultural produc- tion practice are similar. This fact allows us to assume that the main features of the tools for implementing innovations are largely determined by their internal structure or are “inherent to them from birth” and are less related to geography. Socioeconomic factors are certainly important, but they determine the nuances and features of the functioning of advisory services in individual countries, but not their main features. Table 2 provides a summary of the SWOT analysis of methods for introducing innova- tions into agricultural production practices. The analysis of the table allows us to for- mulate the statement that there is no single correct and appropriate way to promote in- novations in agricultural production practice. Each method has its advantages and disad- vantages. The methods considered are not antagonistic, but, on the contrary, comple- ment each other. Successful implementation of innovations can only be achieved by us- ing the entire palette of tools. In this regard, it should be noted that in many countries, including Russia, there is no such tool as an agroecological service. Its creation carries great potential for the implementation of in- novations, including for agroforestry. SWOT analysis of methods for introduc- ing innovations into agricultural production practice allows us to feel the trends in the development of the agricultural produc- tion management system as a whole. When searching for prospects for the development of agroforestry measures, it is important to take into account the trends in the develop- ment of the “supersystem”. Agroforestry is the implementation of a set of melioration measures carried out to improve the properties of lands, including the reproduction of soil fertility, by using the useful functions of agroforestry plantations (Law 2023). Conceptually, the role and place of agroforestry is reflected in the scheme of complex melioration of agricultural lands presented in Figure 1. The “strengths” of agroforestry are relat- ed to the duration of the reclamation effect. The service life of protective forest planta- tions under favourable conditions can reach tens, and in some cases, hundreds of years (Rulev, A.S. and Pugacheva, A.M. 2019). The “weaknesses” of agroforestry are related to the fact that the effect of agroforestry mea- sures begins to appear only 7–10 years after planting trees (Kulik, K.N. et al. 2015a,b). The “strengths” and “weaknesses” of agro- forestry are opposites that are due to one circumstance - the use of woody plants as an ameliorative agent. The categories “Threats” and “Opportunities” are also dialectically related, they are deter- mined by the need for scientific support of agroforestry works. Knowledge and under- standing of the features of the landscape and environmental conditions of the territories – the properties of the soil cover, underlying rocks, geomorphological features of the relief, features of water and wind regimes – is a key condition for the effectiveness of agroforestry measures 185DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.2.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. (Petrov, N.G. 1996; Rulev, A.S. 2007, 2015; Sukhorukikh, Yu.I. et al. 2015). Technologies for designing, assessing forest growing condi- tions, preparing soil for planting tree species, maintaining forest belts, solving problems of creating a forest seed base, variety testing and zoning of tree species and other issues (Kulik, K.N. et al. 2015b, 2017, 2019) can be implement- ed in practice only by creating a supporting in- frastructure. In one case, the need for scientific support is a “problem” – the reduction in the area of protective forest plantations in the con- text of the transition from a planned to a market economy. In another case, it is an “opportu- nity”. Agroforestry specialists are potentially able to solve most of the problems associated with the functioning of the agroecological ser- vice. This statement is a further development of the thesis on the perception of protective forest plantations as an “organizing principle for the use of agricultural lands” (Kulik, K.N. et al. 2017, 95). The idea that a turning point in the de- velopment of agroforestry is taking place is suggested by the broader context of per- ception of the problem of finding promising research directions. Thus, a historical analy- sis of the development of sciences in general (Kovalchuk, M.V. 2012) allows us to identify periods when the subject of research is frag- Table 2. Summary table of SWOT characteristics of ways to introduce innovations into agricultural production practices Method name Advantages Flaws Possibilities Threats Consulting service A good result in re- solving those issues when the interests of the manufacturer co- incide with the inter- ests of the state, when the result is visible in the short term. The proposals of the consulting service are not necessarily of a recommenda- tory nature. A good tool for pro- moting new services and products on the market that have the potential to generate profit. You need to be care- ful when promoting goods and services that cause discus- sions and disputes. Software-targeted approach There are numerous examples o f suc- cessful solutions to complex, large-scale, long-term problems in the field of environ- mental management. The mechanism is capital-intensive, the country’s budg- et does not always have enough funds to finance long-term reclamation activi- ties. The mechanism allows for the ac- cumulation of envi- ronmental damage at the local level. This mechanism has no alternative in a number of cases . Examples are the creation of protec- tive forest plantings in sandy areas and along river banks. A dangerous world- view is one based on the belief that any environmental prob- lem can be solved. The history of the development of a number of civiliza- tions testifies to the opposite. Agroecological service Organization of the fight against degra- dation at the agri- cultural enterprise level. Prevention the destruction of agri- cultural landscape elements is cheaper than restoring them. There is currently no such service in a number of countries. Possibility of unit- ing business, sci- ence, legislative and regulatory activities of government bod- ies within a single production chain aimed at creating sustainable and safe production of agri- cultural products. A double-edged tool. The need to maintain a balance between economic develop- ment and respect for the environmental imperative. Source: Author’s own research. Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193.186 mented and increasingly specialized branch- es of knowledge are formed, and periods when a common subject of research serves as the basis for unifying highly specialized branches of knowledge. Repeating the same meanings, but in other words, can be found in works devoted to the generalization of patterns of system develop- ment (Altshuller, G.S. 2020). As an example, we can consider the rule of system develop- ment: growth of the system occurs to a certain limit, beyond which the system is included in the super system as one of its components, while the development of the system slows down sharply or stops, giving way to devel- opment at the level of the super system. Events that occur in the future will either refute or confirm the conclusions made. The changes that are currently taking place in- spire optimism. In Russia (based on the All- Russian Research Institute of Agroforestry), the Federal Scientific Centre for Agroecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences was created. The Soil Conservation Service in the United States was renamed the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The source and reason for these changes are related to the increasingly broad perception of the mis- sion of these organizations. Conclusions The conducted research allowed to identify three ways of introducing innovations into ag- ricultural production practice. These are meth- Fig. 1. Conceptual diagram of complex reclamation of agricultural land (by Tubalov, A.A. 2007). A = Steppe vegetation area, Gorodishchensky district, Volgograd region, Russia; B = Fragment of the implemented system of forest belts in the steppe zone, Ilovlinsky district, Volgograd region, Russia; C = Semi-desert vegetation area, Chernozemelsky district, Kalmykia Republic, Russia; D = Protective pasture afforestation in semi-desert, Nogai district, Dagestan Republic, Russia; E = Fragment of the agroforestry improvement plan, Kumylzhensky district, Volgograd region, Russia. Source: Authors’ own research and processing. 187DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.2.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. ods such as: creation of consulting services; implementation of national and regional pro- jects in the field of ecology; creation of a state agroecological service. SWOT analysis of these methods allowed to identify their strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. A promising direction of agroforestry re- search in the Russian Federation is the path associated with ensuring the creation and functioning of an agroecological service. This conclusion is associated with the specifics of agroforestry and the need to ensure the integ- rity of the application of existing methods for the introduction of innovations in agriculture. Acknowledgements: This study was funded within the framework of State Assignment No 122020100312-0 “Theory and principles of formation of adaptive agroforestry-melioration complexes of the dry steppe zone in the south of Russia in the context of climate change” to Federal Scientific Centre of Agroecology, Complex Melioration and Protective Afforestation, Russian Academy of Sciences. REFERENCES Abakumova, L.I. 2004. Encyclopedia of Agroforestry. Volgograd, VNIALMI. Abakumova, L.I. 2006. Agroforestry. 5th edition. Volgograd, VNIALMI. Adizes, I. 2014. Life Cycle Management of Corporations. Moscow, Mann, Ivanov and Ferber. Akkanina, N.V. 2004. The Main Concepts of Agricultural Consulting. Moscow, MSHA. Altshuller, G.S. 2020. Find an Idea. Introduction to TRIZ – the Theory of Solving Inventive Problems. Moscow, Alpina Publisher. Ando, M.A. 2020. Critical review of the rural policy development in Japan: The decay and future outlook of rural communities. Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics 22. 41–45. https://doi. org/10.18480/jjae.22.0_41 Ankita, P.V. and Chaudhuri, S. 2022. What do farm- ers don’t know? A generic index to summarize cognitive awareness of groundwater sourced ir- rigation and conservation at grass roots. Ecology Environment and Conservation 28. 179–192. https:// doi.org/10.53550/EEC.2022.v28i01.023 Apazhev, A., Marzhokhova, M. and Khalishkhova, L. 2019. Development of regional information and consulting systems for the agro-industrial complex. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research 47. 844–847. https://doi.org/10.2991/ iscfec-18.2019.207 Armand, D.L. 1983. Geographical Environment and Rational Use of Natural Resources. Moscow, Nauka. Badmakhalgaev, L.T. and Zverev, V.V. 2012. Development of agricultural consulting services: Problems and prospects. Bulletin of ASTU, Economics Series 2. 76–82. Baghernejad, J., Sabouri, M.S., Shokati Amghani, M. and Norozi, A. 2023. Developing strategies for stabilizing the livelihood of smallholder farm- ers through non-farm activities: The application of the SWOT-AHP-TOWS analysis. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fsufs.2023.1199368 Baibakov, N.K. 1971. State planning leadership is the most important condition for the success- ful development of the USSR economy. Planned Economy 2. 5–19. Barrios, E., Sileshi, G.W., Shepherd, K. and Sinclair, F. 2012. Agroforestry and soil health: Linking trees, soil biota and ecosystem services. In Soil Ecology and Ecosystem Services. Eds.: Wall, D.H., Bardgett, E.D., Behan-Pelletier, V., Herrick, J.E., Hefin Jones, T., Ritz, K., Six, J., Strong, D.R. and van der Putten, W.H., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:o so/9780199575923.003.0028 Basu, J.P. 2014. Agroforestry, climate change mitiga- tion and livelihood security in India. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 44. Supplement 1. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1179-5395-44-S1-S11 Baumgart-Getz, A., Prokopy, L-S. and Floress, K. 2012. Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: A meta-analysis of the adoption literature. Journal of Environmental Management 96. (1): 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvman.2011.10.006 Belokopytov, A.V., Moskaleva, N.V., Matveeva, E.E. and Shevtsova, T.P. 2022. Management and rational use of land resources in agriculture. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 979. 012022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/979/1/012022 Belyakov, A.M. 2012. Prospects for the development of agricultural consulting. Scientific and Agronomic Journal 2. 5–6. Bennett, H.H. 1955. Elements of Soil Conservation. New York, McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1097/ 00010694-195504000-00017 Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., Mbabu, A.N., Sielman, D.J., Horna, D., Benin, S. and Cohen, M. 2009. From best practice to best fit: A framework for the design and analysis of pluralistic agricultural extension services around the world. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15. (4): 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240903309595 Blumenau, D.I. 2002. Information Analysis and Synthesis for the Formation of a Secondary Flow of Documents. Moscow, Profession. Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. https://doi.org/10.18480/jjae.22.0_41 https://doi.org/10.18480/jjae.22.0_41 https://doi.org/10.53550/EEC.2022.v28i01.023 https://doi.org/10.53550/EEC.2022.v28i01.023 https://doi.org/10.2991/iscfec-18.2019.207 https://doi.org/10.2991/iscfec-18.2019.207 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1199368 https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1199368 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575923.003.0028 https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575923.003.0028 https://doi.org/10.1186/1179-5395-44-S1-S11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.10.006 https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/979/1/012022 https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-195504000-00017 https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-195504000-00017 https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240903309595 Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193.188 Bogolyubov, S.A. 2015. Implementation of Environmental Policy through Law. Moscow, Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation. Bondarenko, L. 2020. Program-targeted approach to the development of rural areas. AIC: Economics, Management 2. 47–62. https://doi.org/10.33305/202-47 Borrelli, P., Robinson, D.A., Fleischer, L.R., Lugato, E., Ballabio, C., Alewell, C., Meusburger, K., Modugno, S., Schütt, B., Ferro, V., Bagarello, V., van Oost, K. Montanarella, L. and Panagos, P. 2017. An assessment of the global impacts of 21st century land-use change on soil erosion. Nature Communications 8. (1): https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-017-02142-7 Broslavsky, L.I. 2010. US state environmental control. Journal of Russian Law 4. 105–113. Buttoud, G., Ajayi, O., Detlefs, G., Place, F. and Torquebiau, E. 2013. Advancing Agroforestry on the Policy Agenda: A Guide for Decision-makers. Agroforestry. Working Paper No. 1. Rome, UN FAO. Carle, J. and Ma, Q. 2005. Challenges of translating science into practice: Poplars and other species in the three north region of China. Unasylva 221. 31–37. Challinor, A., Watson, J., Lobell, D., Howden, S., Smith, D. and Chhetri, N. 2014. A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adapta- tion. Nature Climate Change 4. 287–291. https://doi. org/10.1038/nclimate2153 Chaudhuri, S., Roy, M., McDonald, L.M. and Emendack, Y. 2021. Reflections on farmers’ social networks: A means for sustainable agri- cultural development? Environment Development and Sustainability 23. (1): 2973–3008. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10668-020-00762-6 Chaudhuri, S., Roy, M., McDonald, L.M. and Emendack, Y. 2023. Land degradation–deserti- fication in relation to farming practices in India: An overview of current practices and agropolicy perspectives. Sustainability 15. (8): 6383. https://doi. org/10.3390/su15086383 Cherlet, M., Hutchinson, C., Reynolds, J., Hill, J., Sommer, S. and von Maltitz, G. (eds.) 2018. World Atlas of Desertification. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. Compagnone, C. and Simon, B. 2018. Cooperation and competition among agricultural extension service providers: The case of pesticide use. Journal of Rural Studies 59. 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jrurstud.2018.01.006 Curry N.R., Ingram, J., Kirwan, J. and Damian, M. 2012. Knowledge networks for sustainable agri- culture in England. Outlook on Agriculture 41. (4): 243–248. https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2012.0106 Datsyuk, P.V. 2008. Industry consulting as a form of promoting innovations in production. Bulletin of Personnel Policy, Agricultural Education and Innovation 1. 25–29. Davydenko, N. 2022. Development of rural areas in Ukraine in the context of decentralization: An empirical study. Sustainability 14. (11): 6730. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su14116730 Demishkevich, G.M. 2007. Formation and develop- ment of a system of information and consulting support for the agro-industrial complex. Bulletin of Personnel Policy, Agricultural Education and Innovation 6. 6–12. De Rosa, M., Olivieri, G., Menna, C., Gandolfi, F. and Del Giudice, T. 2023. Multifunctional farm advisory services in promoting change in agricul- tural systems: The case of Campania region of Italy. AIMS Agriculture and Food 8. (4): 962–977. https:// doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2023051 Diamond, J. 2016. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Moscow, AST. https://doi. org/10.2307/40184705 Dollinger, J. and Jose, S. 2018. Agroforestry for soil health. Agroforestry Systems 92. 213–219. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10457-018-0223-9 Drucker, P.F. 2008. Effective Enterprise Management. Moscow, Dialektika/Williams Publishing. Dubinok, N.N. 2014. Priorities of scientific support for the development of land reclamation. Izvestiya of Timiryazev Agricultural Academy 1. 96–104. Eastwood, K., Klerkx, L. and Nettle, R. 2017. Dynamics and distribution of public and private research and advisory roles for technology inno- vation and diffusion: Case studies of the adoption and adaptation of precision agriculture technolo- gies. Journal of Rural Studies 49. 1–12. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.11.008 EU Commission, 2009. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the ap- plication of the farm advisory system as defined in Article 12 and 13 of Council Regulation. No 73/2009. Luxembourg, Official Journal of the European Union 31.1.2009. https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:030:0016:0099:en:PDF Farinyuk, Yu.T. and Glebova, A.G. 2011. About some problems of creating an agricultural consult- ing service in the Russian Federation (using the example of the Tver region). In Prospects for the Development of Information and Consulting Services in the Agro-Industrial Complex of Russia. Moscow, AgroEcoInfo, 5–250. Faure, G., Desjeux, Y. and Gasselin, P. 2012. New challenges in agricultural advisory services from a research perspective: A literature review, synthesis and research agenda. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18. (5): 461–492. https://doi. org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.707063 Foley, J.A., De Fries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K. and Helkowski, J.H. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309. 570–574. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772 https://doi.org/10.33305/202-47 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02142-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2153 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2153 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00762-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00762-6 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086383 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086383 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.01.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.01.006 https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2012.0106 https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116730 https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116730 https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2023051 https://doi.org/10.3934/agrfood.2023051 https://doi.org/10.2307/40184705 https://doi.org/10.2307/40184705 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&cluster=14993622411607489094&btnI=1&hl=ru https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&cluster=14993622411607489094&btnI=1&hl=ru https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0223-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-018-0223-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.11.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.11.008 https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:030:0016:0099:en:PDF https://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:030:0016:0099:en:PDF https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.707063 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.707063 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772 189DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.2.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. Foti, R., Nyakudya, I., Moyo, M., Chikuvire, T.J. and Miambo, N. 2007. Determinants of farmers’ demand for fee-for-service extension in Zimbabwe: The case of Mashonaland central province. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 14. (1): https:// doi.org/10.5191/jiaee.2007.14108 Fujita, K. and Shaw, R. 2010. Environmental changes and Japan’s forest management. Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management 2. 2153–2178. https://doi.org/10.3850/S1793924009000170 Garrett, H.E.G. and Buck, L. 1997. Agroforestry prac- tices and policies in the United States. Forest Ecology and Management 91. 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0378-1127(96)03884-4 Goffner, D., Sinare, H. and Gordon, L.J. 2019. The Great Green Wall for the Sahara, and the Sahel Initiative as an opportunity to enhance resilience in Sahelian landscapes and livelihoods. Regional Environmental Change 5. (19): 1417–1428 https://doi. org/10.1007/s10113-019-01481-z Henry, N. 2014. Organization as a System. Edwards Deming’s Principles for Building a Sustainable Business. 3rd edition. Moscow, Digital Alpina Publisher. Hruška, V. and Píša, J. 2019. Winning and losing rural localities of the post-socialist economic restructur- ing: Case study of Czechia. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68. (4): 373–389. https://doi.org/10.15201/ hungeobull.68.4.4 Huang, W., Kanninen, M., Xu, Q. and Huang, B. 1997. Agroforestry in China: Present state and future potential. Ambio 26. (6): 394–398. Imeson, A. 2012. Desertification, Land Degradation and Sustainability. London, Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781119977759 Ingram, J.A. and Mills, J. 2018. Are advisory ser- vices “fit for purpose” to support sustainable soil management? An assessment of advice in Europe. Soil Use and Management 35. (1): 1–11. https://doi. org/10.1111/sum.12452 Ingram, J., Mills, J., Black, J.E., Chivers, C.-A., Aznar-Sánchez, J.A., Elsen, A., Frac, M., López- Felices, B., Mayer-Gruner, P., Skaalsveen, K., Stolte, J. and Tits, M. 2022. Do agricultural advi- sory services in Europe have the capacity to support the transition to healthy soils? Land 11. (5): 599. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050599 Ivanov, A.L., Stolbovoy, V.S. and Grebennikov, A.M. 2022. Development of the conceptual framework for soil protection and management in the European Union. Dokuchaev Soil Bulletin 110. 90–113. https:// doi.org/10.19047/0136-1694-2022-110-90-113 Kashtanov, A.N., Pavlovsky, E.S. and Kulik, K.N. 2001. Agroforestry Science in the Twentieth Century. Volgograd, VNIALMI. Kertész, Á. and Křeček, J. 2019. Landscape degra- dation in the world and in Hungary. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68. (3): 201–221. https://doi. org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.3.1 Kesavan, A., Kaur, H. and Chaudhuri, S. 2022. Unpacking Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN), an emerging paradigm to conserve land systems’ sustainability in 21st century? Meta-analysis of challenges and opportunities. Nature Environment and Pollution Technology 21. 91–100. https://doi. org/10.46488/NEPT.2022.v21i01.010 Khitrov, N.B., Ivanov, A.L., Zavalin, A.A. and Kuznetsov, M.S. 2007. Problems of degradation, protection and ways to restore the productivity of agricultural lands. Bulletin Orel GAU 6. 29–32. Kireeva, O.V. 2004. Information and Consulting Services of the Agro-Industrial Complex of Russian Regions: Features of Creation and Work Experience. Moscow, MSHA. Kiss, M. 2019. Emanuel, K.: What We Know about Climate Change. A book review. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 68. (3): 303–305. https://doi. org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.3.7 Klerkx, L. and Proctor, A. 2013. Beyond fragmenta- tion and silos: Knowledge-sharing networks in the English advisory land management system. Land Use Policy 30. (1): 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2012.02.003 Klerkx, L., E. Straete, E.P., Kvam, G.-T., Ystad, E. and Butli Hårstad, R.M. 2017. Achieving best configura- tions with advisory subsystems in AKIS: A case study of advisory service delivery for different farmer types in Norway. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 23. (3): 213–229. https://doi.org/10.108 0/1389224X.2017.1320640 Klerkx, L. 2020. Advisory services and transformation, plurality and disruption of agriculture and food systems: Towards a new research agenda for agri- cultural education and extension studies. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 26. (2): 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1738046 Knierim, A., Labarthe, P., Laurent, C., Prager, K., Kania, J., Madureira, L. and Ndah, T.H. 2017. Pluralism of agricultural advisory service provid- ers – evidence and insights from Europe. Journal of Rural Studies 55. 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jrurstud.2017.07.018 Korkzhova, A.A. and Dera, V.G. 1985. Fundamentals of Scientific and Technical Information. Moscow, Higher School. Kosolapov, V.M. 2014.The priority of agriculture is balanced, sustainable production and rational use of natural resources. Education, Science and Production 2. 33–39. Kosova, A. 2022. Foreign experience of assessment and forecasting the effectiveness of the function- ing of agro-industrial production branches in the conditions of integrated cooperative-integration structures. Agricultural Economics 8. 87–96. https:// doi.org/10.29235/1818-9806-2022-8-87-96 Kovalchuk, M.V. 2012. Convergence of sciences and technologies – a breakthrough into the future. Youth and Society 4. 10–20. Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. https://doi.org/10.5191/jiaee.2007.14108 https://doi.org/10.5191/jiaee.2007.14108 https://doi.org/10.3850/S1793924009000170 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(96)03884-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(96)03884-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01481-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01481-z https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.4.4 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.4.4 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119977759 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119977759 https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12452 https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12452 https://doi.org/10.3390/land11050599 https://doi.org/10.19047/0136-1694-2022-110-90-113 https://doi.org/10.19047/0136-1694-2022-110-90-113 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.3.1 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.3.1 https://doi.org/10.46488/NEPT.2022.v21i01.010 https://doi.org/10.46488/NEPT.2022.v21i01.010 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.3.7 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.68.3.7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.02.003 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1320640 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1320640 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1738046 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.018 https://doi.org/10.29235/1818-9806-2022-8-87-96 https://doi.org/10.29235/1818-9806-2022-8-87-96 Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193.190 Krasnova , I.O. 1997. US Environmental Law: Comparative Legal Studies. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Law. Moscow, Institute of Legislation and Comparative Legal Research. Ksenofontova, N.A. and Grishina, N.V. 2019. Sahel countries: Desertification and countermeas- ures. Asia and Africa Today 12. 64–67. https://doi. org/10.31857/S032150750007659-6 Kulik, K.N. 2014. Development of agroforestry science in Russia. News of the Nizhnevolzhsky Agro-University Complex 3. (35): 1–8. Kulik, K.N. 2015. Agroforestry development of steppe landscapes – a relic of the past or an environmental imperative of our time. In Steppes of Northern Eurasia. Materials of the 7th International Symposium. Moscow, Dimur, 89–96. Kulik, K.N. 2018. Protective forest plantings are the basis of the ecological framework of agricultural territories. Bulletin of Russian Agricultural Science 1. 18–21. Kulik, K.N., Manaenkov, A.S., Rakov, A.Yu., Netrebenko, V.G. and Alentyev, N.G. 2012. Afforestation: Meaning, status, ways out of the crisis. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences 1. 24–27. Kulik, K.N., Barabanov, A.T. and Manaenkov, A.S. 2015a. Forecast for the development of protective afforestation in Russia until 2020. Studies on Russian Economic Development 26. (4): 351–358. https://doi. org/10.1134/S1075700715040073 Kulik, K.N., Dubinok, N.N., Rulev, A.S. and Pugacheva, A.M. 2015b. VNIALMI is the leader of agroforestry science in Russia: A modern concept of protective afforestation. Bulletin of Volgograd State University, Series 11. Natural Sciences 3. 108–114. Kulik, K.N. and Pugacheva, A.M. 2016. Forest reclamation is the basis for creating sustainable agricultural landscapes in conditions of insufficient moisture. Forestry Engineering Journal 3. 29–40. https://doi.org/10.12737/21677 Kulik, K.N., Barabanov, A.T., Manaenkov, A.S. and Kulik, A.K. 2017. Justification of the forecast for the development of protective afforestation in the Volgograd region. Studies on Russian Economic Development 28. (6): 641–647. https://doi.org/10.1134/ S1075700717060053 Kulik, K.N., Petrov, V.I., Rulev, A.S., Kosheleva, O.Yu. and Shinkarenko, S.S. 2018. To the 30th anniversary of the “General Scheme to Combat Desertification of Black Lands and Kizlyar Pastures.” Arid Ecosystems 24. (1): 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1134/ S2079096118010067 Kulik, K.N., Barabanov, A.T., Zhdanov, Yu.M., Kryuchkov, S.N., Kulik, A.K., Manaenkov, A.S., Ostraya, T.I., Pugacheva, A.M., Rulev, A.S. and Semenyutina, A.V. 2019. Strategy for the Development of Agroforestry Work for the Period until 2025. Moscow, Copying and Printing Bureau of the Federal Scientific Centre of Agroecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Kulik, K.N., Manaenkov, A.S., Kuzenko, A.N. and Salugin, A.N. 2020. On the issue of the state of pro- tective afforestation in the Volgograd region. News of the Nizhnevolzhsky Agro-University Complex 1. 3–11. https://doi.org/10.32786/2071-9485-2020-01-02 Kulik, K.N. and Vlasenko, M.V. 2023. Experience in implementing major national projects to combat degradation and desertification in Russia. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering 9. 100583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100583 Kulik, K.N., Belyaev, A.I. and Pugacheva, A.M. 2023. The role of protective afforestation in the fight against drought and desertification of agricultural landscapes. Arid Ecosystems 29. (94): 4–14. Kushnarenko, N.N. and Udalova, V.K. 2006. Scientific Processing of Documents. Kyiv, Knowledge. Labarthe, P. and Laurent, C. 2013. Privatization of agricultural extension services in the EU: Towards inadequate knowledge for smallholder farmers? Food Policy 38. 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodpol.2012.10.005 Lal, R. 2015. Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability 7. (5): 5875–5895. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su7055875 Larichev, O.I. and Petrovsky, A.B. 1987. Decision support systems. Current state and prospects for their development. Results of Science and Technology. Series Technical Cybernetics 21. 131–164. Law 1995. The procedure for the development and implementation of federal target programs and interstate target programs in the implementation of which the Russian Federation participates, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation on June 26, 1995 No. 594 (with subsequent amendments). Available at https:// www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_7 120/0afbd40f2155403cfd3c4df4668b5c74a2d9c6c4/ Law 2007. Federal Law of 24 July, 2007, N 221-FZ (as amended on 24 July, 2023) “On cadastral activities” Available at https://www.consultant.ru/document/ cons_doc_LAW_70088/4f0cd0e3675de3d5bc43364f 0e27155854740ac1/ Law 2008. Order of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation dated 31 March, 2008, No. 183 “On approval of the department’s target program “Creation of a Unified Information Support System for the Russian Agro-Industrial Complex (2008–2010).” Available at https://base.garant.ru/2166953/ Law 2015. Federal Law “On Amendments to the Federal Law “On the State Real Estate Cadastre” and Article 76 of the Federal Law “On Education in the Russian Federation” in terms of im- proving the activities of cadastral engineers” dated 30 December, 2015, N 452-FZ. Available at https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_ LAW_191529/ https://doi.org/10.31857/S032150750007659-6 https://doi.org/10.31857/S032150750007659-6 https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700715040073 https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700715040073 https://doi.org/10.12737/21677 https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700717060053 https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700717060053 https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079096118010067 https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079096118010067 https://doi.org/10.32786/2071-9485-2020-01-02 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2023.100583 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.10.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.10.005 https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055875 https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055875 https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_7120/0afbd40f2155403cfd3c4df4668b5c74a2d9c6c4/ https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_7120/0afbd40f2155403cfd3c4df4668b5c74a2d9c6c4/ https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_7120/0afbd40f2155403cfd3c4df4668b5c74a2d9c6c4/ https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_70088/4f0cd0e3675de3d5bc43364f0e27155854740ac1/%20 https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_70088/4f0cd0e3675de3d5bc43364f0e27155854740ac1/%20 https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_70088/4f0cd0e3675de3d5bc43364f0e27155854740ac1/%20 https://base.garant.ru/2166953/%20 https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_191529/%20 https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_191529/%20 191DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.2.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. Law 2016. Order of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated 13 December, 2016, N 806 “On approval of the theoretical exam program confirming the presence of professional knowledge necessary for carrying out cadastral activities, and on the recognition of the order of the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia dated 28 June, 2016, N 406 as invalid.” Available at https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_ LAW_209605/#dst100011 Law 2021. Mexico publishes decree to ban glypho- sate and GE on corn. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Voluntary report January 2021. Law 2023. Federal Law of 13 June, 2023, N 244-FZ “On Land Reclamation” (as amended and sup- plemented). Available at http://publication.pravo. gov.ru/document/0001202306130071 Lebedeva, A.N. and Lavrik, O.L. 1993. Environmental legislation of developed countries. Ecology: A Series of Analytical Reviews of World Literature 22. 1–360. Liu, B., Gong, V.N. and Song, L.N. 2009. Opportunities and challenges in the construction of the Three- North Shelter Forest Program. Chinese Journal of Ecology 28. 1679–1683. Manaenkov, A.S. 1995. State and problems of land use in forestry of the Volgograd region. In Agro- Landscapes: Problems, Properties, Management and Assessment. Volgograd, VNIALMI, 30–35. Manaenkov, A.S. 1999. Forestry problems of the arid zone. Forestry 3. 32–33. Manaenkov, A.S. 2014. Forest Reclamation of Arid Zone Arenas. Volgograd, VNIALMI. Manaenkov, A.S. 2015. Current problems of science and practice of the forestry sector in the south of Russia. News of the Nizhnevolzhsky Agro-University Complex 2. 59–63. Mansvelt, J.D. and Temirbekova, S.K. 2017. General position of organic agricultural in Western Europe: Concept, practical aspects and global pros- pects. Agricultural Biology 3. 478–486. https://doi. org/10.15389/agrobiology.2017.3.478rus Marsden, C., Martin-Chave, A. and Cortet, J. 2020. How agroforestry systems influence soil fauna and their functions – a review. Plant Soil 453. 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04322-4 Matsushita, K. 2015. Japan’s afforestation policy in the twenty years after World War II. In Precious Forest – Precious Land. Ed.: Zlatic, М., IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/61268 Mayer-Schoenberger, W. and Cukier, K. 2014. Big Data. A Revolution That will Change the Way We Live, Work and Think. Moscow, Mann, Ivanov and Ferber. McClure, B.K. 1998. Desertification policy in the United States. Land Degradation and Development 9. (5): 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099- 145X(199809/10)9:5<383::AID-LDR303>3.0.CO;2-A Melikhov, V.V. and Kulik, K.N. 2018. Strategic direc- tions of scientific research of the Federal Scientific Centre for Agroecology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Irrigated Agriculture 2. 2–7. Melikhov, V.V. and Kulik, K.N. 2020. Protective af- forestation as the main element of complex land reclamation and a factor in the environmental and food security of the Russian Federation. Irrigated Agriculture 1. 6–7. Nayanov, A.V. 2018. Organization and Management of Consulting Activities in the Agro-Industrial Complex. Saratov, Saratov State Agrarian University. Nesvat, A.P., Rodimtseva, A.V. and Babenysheva, N.V. 2011. Current state and prospects for the develop- ment of protective afforestation. News of the Orenburg State Agrarian University 2. 15–17. Nettle, R., Morton, J.M., McDonald, N., Suryana, M., Birch, D., Nyengo, K., Mbuli, M., Ayre, M., King, B., Paschen, J.A. and Reichel, N. 2021. Factors as- sociated with farmers’ use of fee-for-service advisors in a privatized agricultural extension system. Land Use Policy 104. May, 105360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2021.105360 Ngaba, M.J.Y., Mgelwa, A.S. and Gurmesa, G.A. 2024. Meta-analysis unveils differential effects of agro- forestry on soil properties in different zonobiomes. Plant Soil 496. 589–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11104-023-06385-w Oldeman, L.R., Hakkeling, R.T.A. and Sombroek, W.G. 1991. World Map of the Status of Human-Induced Soil Degradation: An Explanatory Note. Wageningen, NL – Nairobi, Kenya, International Soil Reference and Information Centre and UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Paschen, J.A., Reichelt, N., King, B., Ayre, M. and Nettle, R. 2017. Enrolling advisers in governing privatized agricultural extension in Australia: Challenges and opportunities for the research, development and extension system. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 23. (3): 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1320642 Pavlovsky, E.S. 1992. The Concept of Modern Agroforestry. Volgograd, VNIALMI. Petrov, N.G. 1996. Landscape Agroforestry. Volgograd, VNIALMI. Pimentel, D., Allen, J. and Beers, A. 1993. Soil erosion and agricultural productivity. In World Soil Erosion and Conservation. Ed.: Pimentel, D., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 277–292. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511735394.014 Pittelkow, C.M., Linquist, B.A., Lundy, M.E., Liang, X. and van Kessel, C. 2015. When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Research 183. 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.07.020 Ponisio, L.C. and Ehrlich, P.R. 2016. Diversification, yield and a new agricultural revolution: Problems and prospects. Sustainability 8. (11): 1118. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su8111118 Prager, K., Labarthe, P., Caggiano, M. and Lorenzo- Arribas, A. 2016. How does commercialization Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_209605/%23dst100011 https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_209605/%23dst100011 http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202306130071 http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202306130071 https://doi.org/10.15389/agrobiology.2017.3.478rus https://doi.org/10.15389/agrobiology.2017.3.478rus https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04322-4 https://doi.org/10.5772/61268 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-145X(199809/10)9:5%3C383::AID-LDR303%3E3.0.CO;2-A https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-145X(199809/10)9:5%3C383::AID-LDR303%3E3.0.CO;2-A https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/land-use-policy https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/land-use-policy https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105360 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105360 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-06385-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-023-06385-w https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1320642 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511735394.014 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511735394.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.07.020 https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111118 https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111118 Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193.192 affect the provision of farm advisory services? Evidence from Belgium, Italy, Ireland and the UK. Land Use Policy 52. 329–344. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.024 Prause, G. and Boevsky, I. 2015. Smart rural develop- ment. Agricultural Economics and Management 60. (4): 63–69. Pryazhnikova, O.N. 2020. Common agricultural policy of the EU at the present stage. Abstract journal. Social and human sciences. Domestic and foreign literature. Economics 2. 28–33. Available at https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42852861 Raj, A., Jhariya, M.K., Yadav, D.K., Banerjee, A. and Meena, R.S. 2019. Agroforestry: A holistic ap- proach for agricultural sustainability. In Sustainable Agriculture, Forest and Environmental Management. Eds.: Jhariya, M., Banerjee, A., Meena, R. and Yadav, D., Singapore, Springer Nature, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6830-1_4 Renting, H., Rossing, W.A.H., Groot, J.S.J., van der Ploeg, J.D., Laurent, C., Perraud, D., Stobbelaar, D.J. and van Ittersum, M.K. 2009. Exploring multifunctional agri- culture. A review of conceptual approaches and pros- pects for an integrative transition framework. Journal of Environmental Management 90. Supplement 2(1). 112–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.014 Rigueiro-Rodríguez, А., McAdam, J. and Mosquera- Losada, M-R. 2009. Agroforestry in Europe. Cham, Springer Science and Business Media. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8272-6 Rosa Pires da, A., Pertoldi, M., Edwards, J. and Hegyi, F.B. 2014. Smart Specialization and Innovation in Rural Areas. S3 Policy Brief Series No. 09. Seville, Spain, Joint Research Centre – Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Rulev, A.S. 2007. Landscape-Geographical Approach to Agroforestry. Volgograd, VNIALMI. Rulev, A.S. 2015. Geospatial paradigm in landscape forest reclamation. In Anthropogenic Transformation of Geospace: History and Modernity. Volgograd, Volgograd State University, 513–518. Rulev, A.S. and Koshelev, A.V. 2012. Forest reclama- tion is a means of managing agro-landscapes in the south of the Russian Federation. News of the Orenburg Agrarian University (2012) 68–70. Rulev, A.S. and Pugacheva, A.M. 2019. Formation of a new agroforestry paradigm. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences 89. (10): 1044–1051. https://doi. org/10.31857/S0869-587389101044-1051 Russel, J. 2019. SWOT Analysis. Moscow, VSD. Samarkhanov, T.G. 2016. Consulting assistance to agricultural producers and the rural population: Problems and prospects. Your Rural Consultant 1. 7–18. Saraev, A.D. and Shcherbina, O.A. 2006. System analysis and modern information technologies. In Proceedings of the Crimean Academy of Sciences 2006. Simferopol, SONAT, 47–59. Smith, J. 2010а. Agroforestry Policy Review. Newbury, Berkshire, Organic Research Centre. https:// orgprints.org/id/eprint/18248/1/Agroforestry_pol- icy_v1.1.pdf Smith, J. 2010b. The History of Temperate Agroforestry. Newbury, Berkshire, Organic Research Centre. https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/18173/1/History_of_ agroforestry_v1.0.pdf Stavi, I. and Lal, R. 2015. Achieving net-zero land degradation: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Arid Environments 112. (Part A): 44–51. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.01.016 Strumilin, S.G. 1957. Planning in the USSR. Moscow, State Publishing House of Political Literature. Sukhorukikh, Yu.I., Kulik, K.N. and Rulev, A.S. 2015. Landscape planning in protective afforestation. Environmental Planning and Management 2. 18–24. Szalai, Á., Varró, K. and Fabula, Sz. 2021. Towards a multi-scalar perspective on the prospects of the actually existing smart village – a view from Hungary. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 70. (2): 97–112. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.70.2.1 Trofimov, I.A., Trofimova, L.S. and Yakovleva, E.P. 2014. Development of a systematic approach to the study of agroecosystems and agricultural landscapes. Bulletin of Tambov State University 19. (5): 1581–1584. Trofimov, I.A., Trofimova, L.S. and Yakovleva, E.P. 2018. Agriculture, feed production and develop- ment of environmental, adaptive technologies for cultivating agricultural crops. News of the Samara Scientific Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences 3. (2018). 494–503. Tubalov, A.A. 2007. Agroforestry Mapping of Watersheds on the Example of the Right Bank of the Khoper River (within the Volgograd Region). Abstract of a dis- sertation for the title of Candidate of Agricultural Sciences. Volgograd, VNIALMI. Turner, J.A., Landini, F., Percy, H. and Gregolin, M. 2021. Advisor understanding of their roles in the advisory system: A comparison of governance structures in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and New Zealand, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 29. (153): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 89224X.2021.1944233 Uchitel, Yu.G. 2019. SWOT Analysis and Synthesis – The Basis for the Formation of an Organization’s Strategy. Moscow, Librocom. Udawatta, R.P., Clark, G. and Shibu, J. 2017. Agroforestry practices and soil ecosystem services. In Soil Health and Intensification of Agroecosystems. Eds.: Al-Kaisi, M.M. and Lowery, B., Cambridge, MA, Academic Press, 305–333. https://doi. org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805317-1.00014-2 UNCTAD, 2017. The Role of Science, Technology and Innovation in Ensuring Food Security by 2030. New York and Geneva, UNCTAD. https://unctad.org/sys- tem/files/official-document/dtlstict2017d5_en.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.024 https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=42852861 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6830-1_4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.014 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8272-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8272-6 https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869-587389101044-1051 https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869-587389101044-1051 https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/18248/1/Agroforestry_policy_v1.1.pdf https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/18248/1/Agroforestry_policy_v1.1.pdf https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/18248/1/Agroforestry_policy_v1.1.pdf https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/18173/1/History_of_agroforestry_v1.0.pdf%20 https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/18173/1/History_of_agroforestry_v1.0.pdf%20 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.01.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2014.01.016 https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.70.2.1 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1944233 https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1944233 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805317-1.00014-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805317-1.00014-2 https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/dtlstict2017d5_en.pdf https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/dtlstict2017d5_en.pdf 193DOI: 10.15201/hungeobull.74.2.4 Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. USDA, 2019. Agroforestry Strategic Framework. Fiscal Years 2019–2024. Washington D.C., United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Vaishar, A. and Šťastná, M. 2019. Smart village and sustainability. Southern Moravia case study. European Countryside 11. (4): 651–660. https://doi. org/10.2478/euco-2019-0036 Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vandermeulen, V., Mettepenningen, E. and Verspecht, A. 2007. Multi-functionality of agriculture. A review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Reviews in Landscape Research 1. (3): 1–43. https:// doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2007-3 Vasilyeva, E.A., Ryabukhina, E.V. and Nuzhdina, M.V. 2014. Theoretical foundations for the forma- tion of a mechanism for sustainable development in agriculture. Strategy for Sustainable Development of Russian Regions 23. 17–23. Venna, R. and Burbi, S. 2023. Agroforestry policy development in England: A question of knowledge transference. Land Use Policy 134. 106936. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106936 Voroshilov, N.V., Zadumkin, K.A. and Shulepov, E.B. 2022. Program-target method in the development of rural territories of Russian regions. Regionalogy 30. (3): 555–585. https://doi.org/10.15507/2413- 1407.120.030.202203.555-585 Voskoboynikova, I.V. and Ivonin, V.M. 2023. Natural similarity of agroforestry systems. Regional Geosystems 47. (2): 268–281. https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-7443- 2023-47-2-268-281 Xue, E., Li, J. and Li, X. 2021. Sustainable development of education in rural areas for rural revitalization in China: A comprehensive policy circle analysis. Sustainability 13. (13): https://doi.org/10.3390/ su132313101 Yunusova, P.S. 2014. Experience, ways of formation and problems of functioning of information and consulting services in agriculture. Regional Problems of Economic Transformation 8. 125–130. Zanchi, G., Thiel, D., Green, T. and Lindner, M. 2007. Afforestation in Europe. Joensuu, Finland, European Forest Institute. Zhang, X. and Zhang, Z. 2020. How do smart villages become a way to achieves sustainable development in rural areas? Smart village planning and practices in China. Sustainability 12. (24): 1–20. https://doi. org/10.3390/su122410510 Zhuchenko, A.A. 2004. Resource Potential of Grain Production in Russia (Theory and Practice). Moscow, Agroresurs. Other sources Website a. The Future of Russia. National projects. Ecology Project. Available at https://t.me/s/futurerus- sia_gov_ru/71?q=%23%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%B E%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8% D1%8F Website b. Regional Target Program: Preservation and restoration of soil fertility of agricultural lands and agricultural landscapes of the Krasnodar Territory as a national treasure of Russia for 2006–2010. Website c. Long-term Regional Target Program “Environmental protection and rational use of natural re- sources in the Volgograd region” for 2010–2012. (Decree of the administration of the Volgograd region of 28 September, 2009, No. 358-p. Volgograd, 2009). Website d. Storms on U. S. Plains stir memories of the “Dust Bowl” // Reuters by Kevin Murphy. Available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-dust- bowlidUSBRE8BT05720121230 Website e. China’s good practice on implementing the UN strategic plan for forests (2017–2030) – 40-year experi- ence of the Three North Shelterbelt Program (TNSP). United Nations. Available at https://www.un.org/ esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/China- good-practices.pdf Website f. Official website of the American Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available at www. nrcs.usda.gov Website g. Official website of the American Natural Resources Conservation Service. Biography of Hugh Hammond Bennett. Available at https:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/history/brief-history- nrcs/hugh-hammond-bennett-biography Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193. https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2019-0036 https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2019-0036 https://doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2007-3 https://doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2007-3 https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/land-use-policy https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/land-use-policy/vol/134/suppl/C https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106936 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106936 https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.120.030.202203.555-585 https://doi.org/10.15507/2413-1407.120.030.202203.555-585 https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-7443-2023-47-2-268-281 https://doi.org/10.52575/2712-7443-2023-47-2-268-281 https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313101 https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313101 https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410510 https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410510 https://t.me/s/futurerussia_gov_ru/71?q=%23%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%25%20D1%8F https://t.me/s/futurerussia_gov_ru/71?q=%23%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%25%20D1%8F https://t.me/s/futurerussia_gov_ru/71?q=%23%D1%8D%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%25%20D1%8F https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-dust-bowlidUSBRE8BT05720121230%20 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-dust-bowlidUSBRE8BT05720121230%20 https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/China-good-practices.pdf%20 https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/China-good-practices.pdf%20 https://www.un.org/esa/forests/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/China-good-practices.pdf%20 file:///E:/0_CSFK/2025_GeoBull/2/Tubalov/Alap/www.nrcs.usda.gov file:///E:/0_CSFK/2025_GeoBull/2/Tubalov/Alap/www.nrcs.usda.gov https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/history/brief-history-nrcs/hugh-hammond-bennett-biography https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/history/brief-history-nrcs/hugh-hammond-bennett-biography https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/about/history/brief-history-nrcs/hugh-hammond-bennett-biography Tubalov, A. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin 74 (2025) (2) 177–193.194 Alexey TUBALOV: SWOT analysis of ways to introduce innovations into agricultural production practices as a prerequisite for searching for promising areas in the field of agroforestry in the Russian Federation. Hungarian Geographical Bulletin Vol 74 Issue 2 177-193