Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114529

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Agro-ecology science relates to economic development but not global

pesticide pollution
Kris A.G. Wyckhuys a, b, c, d, *, Yi Zou e, Thomas C. Wanger f, g, Wenwu Zhou h, Yubak Dhoj Gc i,
Yanhui Lu a
a
State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China
b
Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China
c
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
d
Chrysalis Consulting, Hanoi, Viet Nam
e
Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China
f
Westlake University, Hangzhou, China
g
University of Göttingen, Germany
h
Institute of Insect Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
i
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Bangkok, Thailand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Synthetic pesticides are core features of input-intensive agriculture and act as major pollutants driving envi­
Environmental pollution ronmental change. Agroecological science has unveiled the benefits of biodiversity for pest control, but research
Culturomics implementation at the farm-level is still difficult. Here we address this implementation gap by using a biblio­
Sustainable intensification
metric approach, quantifying how countries’ scientific progress in agro-ecology relates to pesticide application
Agro-biodiversity
EKC hypothesis
regimes. Among 153 countries, economic development does spur scientific innovation but irregularly bears re­
Pesticide regulation ductions in pesticide use. Some emerging economies bend the Environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) – the observed
Nature-based solutions environmental pollution by a country’s wealth – for pesticides and few high-income countries exhibit a weak
Econometrics agro-ecology ‘technique effect’. Our findings support recent calls for large-scale investments in nature-positive
agriculture, underlining how agro-ecology can mend the ecological resilience, carbon footprint, and human
health impacts of intensive agriculture. Yet, in order to effectively translate science into practice, scientific
progress needs to be paralleled by policy-change, farmer education and broader awareness-raising.

1. Introduction
Chemical pesticides concurrently feature as pillars of high-yielding,
intensified agriculture and as major pollutants that drive environ­
mental change (Bernhardt et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2021), compromise
human health and destabilize farm profits (Foley et al., 2011; Lechenet
et al., 2017; Wyckhuys et al., 2020a). Pesticide use is tied to a country’s
economic growth rate, income, foreign capital penetration, export trade
and rural-urban migration (Jorgenson, 2007; Longo and York, 2008).
Specifically, an 1% increase in GDP per capita and agricultural export
intensity corresponds to a respective 1.1% or 0.81% increase in pesticide
use (Longo and York, 2008; Hedlund et al., 2020). Globally, pesticide
use intensity surpasses agricultural output growth nearly two-fold and
herbicide usage levels increase at twice the population growth rate
(Schreinemachers and Tipraqsa, 2012; Hedlund et al., 2020). Yet, cur­
rent pesticide usage levels can be reduced by harnessing on-farm
biodiversity and ecosystem services through agroecological farming
methods (Gurr et al., 2016; Kleijn et al., 2019).
Agro-ecology and its inherent diversification strategies are consid­
ered the required paradigm shift from input-intensive towards more
sustainable crop production (Kleijn et al., 2019; Tamburini et al., 2020;
Wanger et al., 2020). Agroecological principles can be adopted to
resolve endemic and invasive pest problems (HLPE, 2019) and equally
constitute the basis of integrated pest management (IPM; Naranjo et al.,
2020). IPM integrates different control measures to limit pest population
build-up and to minimize pesticide-related risks to human and envi­
ronmental health (Deguine et al., 2021). The core of IPM is made up of
host plant resistance, adequate soil, nutrient and water management,

* Corresponding author. Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, No. 2 West Yuanmingyuan Rd, Haidian District, Beijing, 100193,
PR China.
E-mail address: k.wyckhuys@uq.edu.au (K.A.G. Wyckhuys).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114529
Received 28 September 2021; Received in revised form 7 January 2022; Accepted 14 January 2022
Available online 19 January 2022
0301-4797/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K.A.G. Wyckhuys et al.
crop sanitation and biological control measures. Biological control en­
tails the scientifically guided introduction, conservation or augmenta­
tion of beneficial organisms (i.e., invertebrate, microbial natural
enemies) to keep pest populations at bay (Bale et al., 2008). Over the
past decade, agro-ecology, IPM, and biological control approaches have
been well researched, but public visibility and stakeholder uptake is still
limited (Barratt et al., 2018; Pretty et al., 2018; Kleijn et al., 2019).
The relationship of pesticide use to a country’s economic growth
potentially abides to the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), which
describes the bell-shaped curvi-linear relationship between environ­
mental degradation and economic growth (Grossman and Krueger,
1991) and is commonly used in environmental policies (Dasgupta et al.,
2002; Stern, 2004). The existence of an EKC has been confirmed for
several environmental indicators, including automotive lead emissions,
e-waste, biodiversity decline and agriculture-driven deforestation (e.g.,
Hilton and Levinson, 1998; Boubellouta and Kusch-Brandt, 2020). For
pesticide use, the EKC has been identified with approximately 20% of all
countries above the turning point (Longo and York, 2008) but other
work suggests a monotonical increase of pesticide use with income
(Jorgenson, 2007; Schreinemachers and Tipraqsa, 2012; Hedlund et al.,
2020). Once the existence of an EKC is established, an income threshold
(or ‘turning point’) can be identified at which environmental degrada­
tion shifts towards environmental improvement.
The EKC literature has focused traditionally on atmospheric in­
dicators (Sarkodie and Strezov, 2019), where EKC patterns likely hold
for ambient concentrations of SO2 (Stern, 2004). The exact curvature of
the EKC for those pollutants is determined by three proximate factors:
scale of production, composition (i.e., output mix) and a so-called
technique effect (Grossman and Krueger, 1991), with the latter
comprising shifts in the input mix, production efficiency and
emissions-specific changes. Technique effects targeting emission re­
ductions hereby are the main means to lower emissions and, hence, bend
the EKC (Stern, 2004). The EKC is not shaped exclusively by national
affluence, but further modulated by environmental awareness, trade
openness, institutional capacity or scientific progress (Stern, 2004).
Thus, establishing the general validity of EKC and elucidating its addi­
tional drivers is necessary but limited for several land-based environ­
mental pollutants (Sarkodie and Strezov, 2019; Hedlund et al., 2020).
Overall, the EKC hypothesis and its underlying determinants is little
studied for pesticide use and, hence, its usefulness for agriculture-
related policy making is limited. In principle, techno-scientific ad­
vances in the fields of agro-ecology, IPM, and biological control (here­
after: sustainable intensification terms [SIT]) may counteract pesticidal
pollution and, hence, affect EKC. As per Pretty and Bharucha (2014), SIT
hereby comprise any processes or systems in which crop yields are raised
while avoiding adverse environmental impacts and a further progression
of the agricultural frontier. There is ample evidence in the energy sector
that technological progress can curb pollution levels (Apergis et al.,
2010; Vogt-Schilb et al., 2018). For pesticides in particular, SIT may
underpin the development of clean production technologies and facili­
tate a transition towards sustainable farming schemes (Pretty et al.,
2018; Eyhorn et al., 2019). Yet, it remains to be seen whether SIT sci­
entific progress (i.e., a so-called agro-ecology ‘technique effect’) can
translate in attenuated pesticide use trajectories and in a bending of the
respective EKC. Also, by integrating different levels of SIT abstraction,
one can pin-point how concrete a concept must be defined to be relevant
for policy making.
In this study, we relate global and country-specific pesticide use
trajectories to the respective advances in agro-ecology science. Using
text-mining tools and culturomics approaches (Ladle et al., 2017), we
analyze scientific progress in agro-ecology, IPM, and biological control.
At a global level, we relate a country’s SIT progress to domestic pesticide
use and economic development. Next, for a subset of 18 high-income
and fast-growing middle-income countries, we explore whether pesti­
cide use abides to the EKC hypothesis and explore the relative strength
of an agro-ecology ‘technique effect’. As such, our work provides a
2
Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114529
data-driven assessment of how agro-ecology science can mitigate
pesticide-related risks and attain concrete social-ecological outcomes.
2. Materials & methods
2.1. Data collection
We assessed the country-level relationships between SIT scientific
progress, pesticide-use trajectories and economic development system­
atically (Suppl. Fig. 1). First, we visualized current (single-year) patterns
in synthetic pesticide use and economic development for 153 countries
worldwide. Countries were chosen based upon the availability of rele­
vant data on agricultural input use, production estimates and socio-
economic development metrics. From online databases of the UN Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT, 2020), we extracted all
available information on total pesticide use (tonnes; averaged
2015–2017), agricultural land area (1000 ha; 2017) and agricultural
employment (1000 persons; 2017). Using the online data portal of the
World Bank (WB), we obtained missing data on agricultural employ­
ment (2017) and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ($; 2017). The
above data were used to calculate pesticide use intensity per farmworker
and per unit of farmland globally.
Per country, we further used Google Scholar (GS) and Web of Science
(WoS) to assess the total number of publications in agro-ecology, IPM
and biological control from 1900 to 2017. The general WoS search
strings for biological control, IPM and agro-ecology in a specific country
(‘country’, which is replaced with the country’s name) were defined as
follows: ALL= ((“biological control” OR “biological pest control” OR
biocontrol) AND country), ALL= ((“integrated pest management” OR
“integrated disease management” OR “integrated weed management”
OR IPM) AND country) and ALL= ((“agroecolog*" OR “agro-ecolog*)
AND country). Our query thus retrieved studies which were either
conducted in a particular country or co-authored by scientists from this
country. Both elements sensibly (though distinctively) impact country-
level pesticide application regimes and associated agricultural policies
or legislation. For the United States and the United Kingdom, respective
search strings were built by including “USA, US and United States” or
“UK and United Kingdom”. In addition to the above GS or WoS topical
searches, ‘blank’ searches were also run with sole indication of the target
country. This allowed computing the proportion of total scientific output
(per year and country) that covered any term of SIT. Literature searches
did not specifically account for the country affiliations of authors. The
WoS Core Collection database (1900–2020) was queried using a Uni­
versity of Queensland staff subscription between April 1 and May 15,
2020. Google Scholar searches were run using a Google Chrome browser
from Hanoi (Vietnam), excluding patents or citations. By combining
both interfaces, we reliably captured scientific progress in SIT. At the
time queries were run, Google Chrome represented approx. 71% of the
global search engine market (NetMarketShare, 2020), while the WoS
Core collection constituted a curated body of more than 21,100
peer-reviewed scholarly journals. For topical searches, Google Scholar
outperforms commercial engines (Ciccone and Vickery, 2015).
Next, for a sub-set of large economies, we examined whether pesti­
cide use patterns over time followed an EKC pattern. More specifically,
we used a set of 18 countries that exhibited high pesticide use intensity
(e.g., Schreinemachers and Tipraqsa, 2012), stringent environmental
regulations, and advanced institutional capacity and scientific innova­
tion (Dasgupta et al., 2002; Stern, 2004). The above conditions plausibly
favored SIT scientific progress and enabled a concrete translation of
agro-ecology science into practice. Countries ranked among the world’s
top-50 nations in terms of GDP and further had (near) complete yearly
data on total pesticide use, agricultural employment and economic
development. Twelve (out of 18) countries were high-income nations
belonging to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Devel­
opment (OECD). Further, Brazil and India belong to the BRICs rapidly
developing countries (Brazil, Russia, India, People’s Republic of China
K.A.G. Wyckhuys et al.
and South Africa) while three countries (i.e., Turkey, Colombia, Egypt)
are CIVETS emerging market economies (i.e., Colombia, Indonesia,
Vietnam, Egypt, Turkey and South Africa; Vadra, 2018). Other emerging
economies e.g., Vietnam, China, Indonesia, South Africa, were not
included because of significant gaps or inaccurate reporting in total
pesticide use or agricultural production datasets (see also González
et al., 2021).
2.2. Data analyses
For all 153 countries, we used linear and quadratic regression
analysis to assess the relationship between 2017 GDP per capita, pesti­
cide use (total, usage intensity per farmer or per hectare), and SIT
publication output (as assessed in GS, WoS). As a common practice in
EKC analyses, countries were treated as independent data points irre­
spective of the eventual linkages between countries’ pesticide use and
trade opportunities. Where and when necessary, underlying data were
log-transformed to meet assumptions of normality and hetero­
skedasticity. We used the following model structure for a specific
country:
∑ marginal improvements in curve fit for total pesticide use (F2,150 =
Resp = β1 * GDP + β2 * GDP2 +
With Resp being either “pesticide use” or “SIT publication output”; GDP
and GDP2 representing the respective “2017 GDP per capita” and
squared term; β values being the coefficient estimates for each of the
regressors and ε an error term.
For the subset of 18 countries, time series were constructed for yearly
pesticide use, pesticide use intensity (per worker, per hectare) and sci­
entific output in each of the three SIT fields. Yearly scientific output
measures were obtained from WoS and GS, and converted to the cu­
mulative number of publications over the 28-year time frame or the
annual proportion of publications in a given SIT field (per total scientific
output). Pesticide use intensity was plotted against each of the SIT fields
and linear regression analysis was used to detect statistically significant
patterns.
We used quadratic linear regression for the 28-year time series an­
alyses per country (t for each time-step; Hedlund et al., 2020). Models
were constructed with either total pesticide use or pesticide use intensity
(per area) as dependent variables (Pesticide), and national GDP and one
of the three SITs as explanatory variables (SIT). For SIT we considered
t-2, because the publication effort on SIT would not manifest in the same
year of extraction from the literature and a time-lag of two years was
estimated. The latter term was either an absolute or proportional mea­
sure (i.e., per total scientific output) of the cumulative number publi­
cations in each of the three SIT fields. The above time lag is conservative
and potentially does not capture the highly variable implementation
gaps of environmental policies (Kozluk and Zipperer, 2015). The
following model structure was then used for a specific country:
Pesticidet = β1 * GDPt + β2* GDPt2 + β3 * SITt-2 +
∑ The WoS records for biological control were correlated with IPM
In which β values are the coefficient estimates for each of the re­
gressors (i.e., GDPt and SITt-2) and ε an error term, similar to the pre­
vious model structure. For each statistically valid model, the EKC
hypothesis was confirmed when the non-linear term β2 < 0 and signif­
icant (Sarkodie and Strezov, 2019). For each individual country, we
determined the validity of regression models with and without a SIT
term. The latter term captured the (relative, absolute) scientific progress
in one of three SIT fields, thus reflecting different levels of abstraction
for an agro-ecology ‘technique effect’. We also calculated the overall
mean of the β2 value across all countries based on the random effect
meta-analysis using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) to estimate
the between-country variance. Statistical analyses were conducted in
the R language (v. 3.6.3, R Core Team, 2020) and in the respective
packages “lme 4” and “meta” to perform the regression modelling and
meta-analysis (Schwarzer, 2015).
3
Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114529
3. Results
3.1. Global pesticide use dynamics
For all 153 countries, we examined the relationship between (single-
year) national economic development, scientific progress in all three SIT
terms and pesticide dependency (Suppl. Fig. 1). Multiple high-income
countries or emerging economies exhibited high pesticide dependency,
with China, United States and Brazil using most pesticides i.e., a
respective 1773, 408 and 383 thousand tonnes per year. In terms of
pesticide intensity, Argentina, Paraguay, Canada and Peru exhibited the
highest levels at 2934, 1904, 306 and 280 kg per worker. The island
states of Maldives, Trinidad & Tobago and Saint Lucia ranked highest in
terms of pesticide use per area of farmland, at respective levels of 69, 22
and 18 kg/ha. Among OECD countries, Japan and South Korea exhibited
distinctly high usage intensity (i.e., 12 kg per hectare).
Greater economic development (as GDP per capita) was mirrored in
significant increases of total pesticide use (ANOVA, F1,151 = 20.672, p <
0.001, R2 = 0.120), pesticide use per farm worker (F1,111 = 77.240, p <
0.001, R2 = 0.410) and pesticide use per hectare of farmland (F1,151 =
61.899, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.291) (Fig. 1). Quadratic regression yielded
13.994, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.157, quadratic term β2 = − 2.834) and
pesticide use intensity (per farm worker: F2,110 = 42.811, p < 0.001, R2
= 0.438, β2 = − 1.036; per hectare of farmland: F2,150 = 34.460, p <
0.001, R2 = 0.315, β2 = − 2.291; Fig. 1). Hence, among 153 countries,
(single-year) pesticide use patterns tapered off at higher levels of eco­
nomic development, though only few high-income countries exhibited
low pesticide use intensity (Fig. 1). For WoS records of domestic pub­
lication output, national GDP was positively related to biological control
(F1,151 = 19.679, p < 0.001) and IPM (F1,151 = 28.546, p < 0.001), but
not agro-ecology (F1,151 = 0.128, p = 0.721) (Fig. 2). For GS records,
national GDP predicted biological control (F1,150 = 6.982, p = 0.009),
but not IPM (F1,150 = 2.815, p = 0.095) or agro-ecology (F1,150 = 0.637,
p = 0.426) publication outputs (Fig. 2).
3.2. Agro-ecology science progress
Across all 153 countries, WoS yielded a total of 513.1 ± 131.0 (mean
± SE), 405.2 ± 14.36 and 79.9 ± 14.4 country-level records for bio­
logical control, IPM and agro-ecology, respectively. GS searches resulted
in much higher numbers of 17,455 ± 2,577, 9307 ± 951 and 2718 ± 290
records for biological control, IPM and agro-ecology, respectively, over
the 1900–2017 timeframe. Over this timeframe, WoS logged the highest
number of publications in all SITs and GS logged the highest number of
biological control publications for the United States; India and China
exhibited the highest number of publications in IPM and agro-ecology
(as logged by GS), respectively.
Collinearity was observed between all SIT scientific output variables.
(Spearman Rank ρ = 0.896, p < 0.001) and agro-ecology (ρ = 0.850, p <
0.001). Similarly, the GS records for biological control (ρ = 0.962, p <
0.001) were correlated with IPM (ρ = 0.943, p < 0.001), and agro-
ecology (ρ = 0.883, p < 0.001). Hence, the exact level of SIT abstrac­
tion likely did not compromise our ability to detect a potential technique
effect on pesticide pollution. Given this high level of collinearity at the
level of SIT abstraction and between WoS and GS scientific output var­
iables, further analyses were only conducted using WoS records for
biological control.
WoS scientific output for biological control was highest in countries
that relied extensively upon synthetic pesticides (F1,151 = 109.447, p <
0.001) and exhibited higher pesticide use intensity per worker (F1,111 =
8.747, p < 0.01) and per hectare (F1,151 = 3.910, p = 0.050) (Fig. 3).
Similarly, with higher WoS scientific output for IPM, overall pesticide
use and usage intensity increased (F1,151 = 86.244, p < 0.001; per
worker F1,111 = 5.492, p = 0.021; per hectare F1,151 = 4.826, p = 0.030).
K.A.G. Wyckhuys et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114529

Fig. 1. Pesticide use intensity is shaped by economic development (GDP per capita) for a panel of 153 countries worldwide. Single-year patterns in total pesticide use
(tonnes; primary Y axis) and pesticide use intensity (i.e., volume per farmworker or per hectare of farmland; secondary Y axis) are plotted. All dependent and
explanatory variables are log-transformed. For all variables, best-fit trend lines are generated through quadratic regression. Statistical details are reported in the text.

Fig. 2. Country-level scientific advances in different agro-ecology sub-fields are linked to national affluence (GDP per capita). Web of Science (left) or Google Scholar
(right) interfaces are used to capture the total number of agro-ecology science publications over a 1900–2017 time period, for a panel of 153 countries. Scientific
outputs in the fields of biological control, IPM and agro-ecology are plotted against economic development, with trend-lines depicting statistically significant
regression patterns. Statistical details are reported in the text.

3.3. Time-dependent patterns
For the sub-set of 18 OECD countries and emerging market econo­
mies, pesticide use and SIT scientific output varied considerably over
time (Suppl. Fig. 2). Over 1990–2017, yearly pesticide use ranged from
7254 ± 606 tonnes for Iran to 406,645 ± 3635 tonnes for the United
States. From 1990 to 2017, seven (out of 18) countries lowered total
pesticide use at rates that ranged from − 13% for Egypt, over -34-36% for
the UK and Japan to − 65% for Iran (3-year average). The remaining
countries exhibited increasing usage, ranging from 3% for the United
States to 207%, 557% and 664% for Australia, Brazil and Argentina,
respectively.
The annual number of WoS publications on biological control ranged
from 12.3 ± 2.0 for Colombia to 592.2 ± 47.9 for the United States.
From 1990 to 2017, the cumulative number of biological control
publications increased by a factor 23.9 (Australia) up to a factor 302.5,
379.5 and 986 for UK, Iran and South Korea, respectively. Over the 28-
year time period, the country-specific relationship between agro-
ecology scientific output and pesticide use intensity was mainly posi­
tive (e.g., Mexico, Brazil, Spain, Turkey), but also neutral and in a few
cases negative (e.g., UK, France, South Korea, Iran) (Fig. 4).
Based on a-priori hypotheses that pesticide use follows the EKC hy­
pothesis and that an agro-ecology ‘technique effect’ can explain EKC
patterns, we ran two sets of models. First, for different pesticide use
metrics, quadratic regression models without a SIT term confirmed an
inverse U-shaped relationship in 5–6 (out of 18) countries (Table 1).
Second, upon inclusion of a SIT term, statistical significance of models
increased with 4–6 countries exhibiting an EKC pattern. For models that
were only composed of the economic term (i.e., GDP per capita),
pesticide use intensity patterns of Colombia, Thailand, Japan, Brazil,

4
K.A.G. Wyckhuys et al.
South Korea and the UK followed an inverted U-shape relationship
(Fig. 5). When including a SIT term consisting of the proportional
number of WoS records on biological control, the EKC relationship was
maintained for all the above countries.
4. Discussion
Over the past decades, agro-ecology and related sustainable inten­
sification themes have matured as scientific disciplines and farming
practices (Wezel et al., 2009; Pretty et al., 2018), but sustained behav­
ioral change is lagging in emerging economies and western, developed
nations (González-Chang et al., 2020; Möhring et al., 2020). Though
agroecological practices in se are tailormade to alleviate global pesticide
pollution, low levels of farmer uptake and diffusion can frustrate their
envisioned outcomes. In this study, we show that a country’s affluence is
not mirrored in an alleviation of pesticide pollution. Instead, the bulk of
high- and middle-income countries exhibited a higher dependence upon
synthetic pesticides than low-income nations. Though country-level
progress in agro-ecology science was linked to economic development,
it irregularly bore marked reductions in pesticide use. While affluent
nations such as China and the United States generated a respective
780–7398 and 1658–17,005 SIT publications (per agro-ecology theme;
WoS) over 1900–2017, they currently rank among the top-3 countries
globally in terms of absolute pesticide use. On a temporal basis, the
validity of an environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) was corroborated for
countries such as Thailand and Colombia. Though weak and highly
contextual, an ‘agro-ecology science’ technique effect was noted for 6
out of 18 high-income countries and emerging economies.
Our work shows that in high-income nations with long trajectories in
agro-ecology science such as the United States or Germany, total pesti­
cide use increased by 3–54% over a 27-year time frame. Moreover, at
current application rates of 11.8 kg per hectare, pesticide use intensity
proved to be exceptionally high in Japan and Korea. Even in these
technologically advanced nations, agro-chemical reductions thus
remain distant target goals. Instead, a (near-universal) progressive in­
crease of pesticide use can be observed (Schreinemachers and Tipraqsa,
2012; Bernhardt et al., 2017; Hedlund et al., 2020). Pesticide usage rates
can be reduced through agro-ecological practices without compromising
food and nutrition security (Kerr et al., 2021). By pairing these practices
with resistance priming, (volatile-mediated) mating disruption, micro­
bial agents or resistant crop cultivars, the need for synthetic pesticides
can be virtually removed. Judiciously designed IPM programs can thus
curb pesticide use by 95% while sustaining crop yields (Pecenka et al.,
2021). These schemes, which mobilize ecological approaches for crop
5
Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114529
Fig. 3. Progress in biological control science relates
to domestic pesticide use in 153 countries worldwide.
For each country, the total number of Web of Science
records of biological control generated over
1900–2017 is plotted against pesticide use (tonnes;
primary Y axis) and pesticide use intensity (volume
per worker and per hectare; secondary Y axis). All
variables are log-transformed. Trend-lines only show
statistically significant regression patterns, with sta­
tistical details reported in the main body of the text.
protection, achieved 70–80% pesticide reductions on millions of hect­
ares of United States farmland during the 1970s (Pimentel and Peshin,
2014) and in tropical Asia during the 1990s (Van den Berg and Jiggins,
2007). However, lenient environmental regulation, political change and
industry meddling largely reversed these achievements (Bakker et al.,
2020; Prihandiani et al., 2021). Our findings agree with the existence of
a so-called pesticide treadmill (i.e., total annual volume regardless of
product type, toxicity or environmental specificity), as driven by a
continuous appearance of new toxic compounds, pesticide-induced pest
resurgence and insecticide resistance development (Bakker et al., 2020;
Varah et al., 2020). With an estimated 385 million cases of uninten­
tional, acute pesticide poisoning per year (Boedeker et al., 2020) and
extensive contamination of global ecosystems (Tang et al., 2021), the
trade-offs of pesticide-based agri-food production cannot be neglected.
Irrespective of the hopes that are placed on safe chemicals, progressive
increases in pesticide toxic loading underline how their synthesis re­
mains a daunting task (Schulz et al., 2021).
In 33% of analyzed economies, a weak ‘technique effect’ is observed.
This is encouraging, given that such phenomenon accounts for a 75%
reduction of historic SO2 emission drops in developed nations (De
Bruyn, 1997). Similarly, the environmental footprint of agriculture
could be mitigated either through incremental efficiency gains and input
substitution on conventional farms or (transformative) system redesign
e.g., towards organic or regenerative schemes (Pretty et al., 2018;
Eyhorn et al., 2019). Those measures entail shifts in the input mix (i.e.,
chemical entrant substitution) or comprehensive technological change,
all of which compose a so-called EKC technique effect. Technological
innovations routinely originate and take root in high-income countries,
but inter-country spillovers occur over short time lags (Stern, 2004;
Gallagher, 2006). This is reflected in our study, as German agro-ecology
R&D yields a steady stream of 391–2736 WoS publications per year and
sub-theme. Yet, regardless of the number of SIT innovations tailored to
individual crops or aimed at substitution of certain compounds (Veres
et al., 2020; Wyckhuys et al., 2020a), Germany’s pesticide use intensity
rose with 58–180% (per area or worker) over 1990–2017. Conversely,
we observed a strong EKC or a monotonic decrease in pesticide use in
developing economies with comparatively short agro-ecology science
trajectories, such as Colombia, Thailand and Iran. These nations thus
potentially engage in leapfrogging and benefit from technology spill­
overs (Gallagher, 2006). Though technologically advanced OECD
countries such as Japan and South Korea exhibit some of the world’s
highest pesticide use intensity levels, both Asian nations did lower total
pesticide use over 1990–2017. Hence, despite considerable R&D in­
vestments, consumers in rich societies prove unable to abandon
K.A.G. Wyckhuys et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114529

Fig. 4. Agro-ecology science affects pesticide use intensity to varying extent for a sub-set of 18 large economies. For each country, annual pesticide use intensity (per
hectare) is plotted against the number of biological control publications (relating to this country) over 1990–2017. Scientific output is assessed though Web of
Science. Trendlines refer to linear relationships as obtained through locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS), while grey areas delineate the respective
confidence intervals.

pesticide-intensive agri-food production (Cushing et al., 2015; Land­
rigan et al., 2018). Thus, while technological innovation is crucial to
enhance input use efficiency in farming systems and to mend
agro-chemical dependencies, a suite of socio-technical factors obstruct
real-world change (Zhang et al., 2015; Flor et al., 2021).
By solely recording scientific publication output, our analysis
imperfectly captured the pace of technological change towards ecolog­
ically based farming. Regarding pollution mitigation, technological
change entails innovation, diffusion and optimal agency control (Milli­
man and Prince, 1989). In order to take agro-ecological practices to
scale, one needs to consider social-ecological aspects of agriculture and
engage multiple stakeholders e.g., farmers, consumers, food industry
actors or policy makers (Pretty et al., 2018; Poore and Nemecek, 2018;
Nyström et al., 2019; Möhring et al., 2020). Yet, despite their impor­
tance, the socio-economic, political or institutional dimensions of pest
control are habitually overlooked (Schut et al., 2014; Naranjo et al.,

6
K.A.G. Wyckhuys et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114529

Table 1 expectations from incumbent technology producers (Flor et al., 2021;

Validity and key parameter estimates of quadratic regression models that assess Deguine et al., 2021). One also needs to simultaneously account for
the economic and techno-scientific drivers of pesticide use. Patterns are shown landscape-level interactions, on-farm management practices and the
for a panel of 18 countries (top-50 GDP). Dependent variables are either total (above- or below-ground) ecological processes that occur within indi­
pesticide use or pesticide use intensity, while the ‘agro-ecology science output’ vidual fields (Kleijn et al., 2019; Tamburini et al., 2020; Tscharntke
variable is either composed of the absolute or relative (proportional) number of
et al., 2021). Holistic ‘systems’ perspectives are equally required to
scientific publications in two agro-ecology subthemes, i.e. biological control
establish agro-ecology innovation networks and to pursue broader food
(BICO) or IPM. Models with significant and negative β2 values abide to the EKC
hypothesis. system transformations (Klerkx and Begemann, 2020). Third, reliable,
ground-truthed data on pesticide trade and use, environmental
Dependent Science Agro- Model Overall
contamination or human exposure are essential to inform policymaking
β2
output ecology significance <0 Mean ± SE
term sub-theme and help tailor remediative measures to local contexts (Landrigan et al.,
2018; González et al., 2021; Valbuena et al., 2021). Newly designed
Total No – 8a 5b − 93.3 ±
pesticide 186.5
protocols permit an accurate detection of insecticide residues in human
use Yes BICO 8 4 13.7 ± breast milk (Lachat and Glauser, 2018), common fruits and vegetables
absolute 13.3 (Craddock et al., 2019) or soil from public parks (Zhou et al., 2018).
BICO 7 5 − 123.3 ± In the end, a bundle of policy interventions can synergistically
relative 196.8
facilitate the uptake of agro-ecological measures and rule out unsus­
IPM 5 3 − 7.9 ±
absolute 195.3 tainable practices e.g., irrational pesticide use (Eyhorn et al., 2019;
IPM relative 5 3 5.9 ± 9.4 Garibaldi et al., 2019). Indeed, well-designed policies can strengthen
Pesticide use No – 10 6 − 0.003 ± positive feedbacks between research, education and practice (Miles
intensity 0.0027
et al., 2017), account for target group heterogeneity (Pedersen et al.,
Yes BICO 10 6 − 0.002 ±
absolute 0.0018
2020) and help to achieve pesticide reduction goals (Möhring et al.,
BICO 10 6 − 0.002 ± 2020). These can involve soft policy measures such as certification
relative 0.0022 schemes, crop insurance packages and (e.g., food safety, footprint)
IPM 7 4 − 0.001 ± labelling. Hard policy options or “command and control” measures
absolute 0.0017
involve conditional financial assistance to farmers, pesticide taxes or
IPM relative 7 4 0.0002 ±
0.0012 even chemical product bans (Möhring et al., 2020). A Pigouvian tax for
a
pesticide-intensive farming can hereby fund awareness-raising efforts
Number of country-specific models (out of 18) that are statistically signifi­
(Schreinemachers and Tipraqsa, 2012; Vatn et al., 2020) or help with the
cant (p < 0.05).
b scaling of green solutions within conventional agriculture (Rauscher,
Number of non-linear terms (out of 18 models) that are significant and
negative. 2010). Pesticide sales further need to be decoupled from farm-level
advisories, as to ensure farmers’ full access to impartial information.
All these measures, when taken in concert, can achieve concrete re­
2015). In order to bring about ‘real-world’ change, action is needed on
ductions in pesticide use and thus deliver desirable social-ecological
multiple fronts to better communicate science, mend public perceptions,
outcomes.
shift agri-food production priorities or tighten regulations (Schreine­
machers and Tipraqsa, 2012; Poore and Nemecek, 2018). Such a
5. Conclusions
multi-pronged approach can deliver net positive societal outcomes, as
exemplified by the removal of gasoline lead additives in the United
Our work unveils how economic growth favors scientific progress in
States automobile industry which -in turn-raised children’s cognitive
agro-ecology but is habitually mirrored in a chemical intensification of
development and generated benefits up to $319 billion/year (Grosse
agriculture. Technologically advanced nations that effectively bend the
et al., 2002). Agro-ecology science carries real potential:
pesticidal Kuznets curve exist, but they are few. This is counter-intuitive,
UN-orchestrated IPM training programs during the 1990s shrunk agri­
as the pesticide-induced loss of ecological resilience (Dainese et al.,
culture’s environmental impacts by 39% while lifting farmer profits by
2019), health hazards (Wyckhuys et al., 2020a), energy consumption
19% (Waddington et al., 2014). Similarly, concerted efforts to restore
(Poore and Nemeck, 2018; Schramski et al., 2020), and (often) forgone
the agro-ecological balance among Asia-Pacific countries annually yield
farm profits (van der Ploeg et al., 2019) likely all put a drag on the
up to $20 billion (Wyckhuys et al., 2020b), and diversification tactics
economy. Given the global state of agro-ecology science, those unde­
can stabilize crop yields and farmer income in the face of climate change
sirable impacts are not unavoidable nor is there any indication that
(Redhead et al., 2020). Yet, to tap its full potential at a macro-scale,
far-reaching pollution control harms the economy (Landrigan et al.,
hurdles are to be faced and strategic interventions are needed in
2018). Instead, agroecological measures constitute relatively low-cost
various socio-technical domains.
solutions for environmental protection and sustainable ‘green’ growth
Three specific challenges need to be overcome to mainstream agro-
e.g., as compared with abatement options such carbon-capture or clean
ecological crop protection. First, one must refute the dominant
power plants (Vogt-Schilb et al., 2018). Agro-ecology science fits
discourse that pesticide-free farming is ineffective or unprofitable;
seamlessly within a new paradigm in which agriculture enhances envi­
instead, fast-accruing evidence of the opposite provides a basis for
ronmental services, but needs to be paired with enabling policies, farmer
proper dialogue (LaCanne and Lundgren, 2018; van der Ploeg et al.,
education and broad awareness-raising at local, national and interna­
2019). Meanwhile, one needs to recognize that agro-ecological measures
tional levels (Miles et al., 2017; Poore and Nemeck, 2018; Möhring et al.,
occasionally fail to translate into heightened pest suppression (Begg
2020). Agro-ecology needs to be driven by interdisciplinary ‘systems’
et al., 2017; Karp et al., 2018; Albrecht et al., 2020) and that continued
approaches, attuned to growers’ aspirations and informed by open,
scientific progress is key to raise its odds of success. To further steer
unbiased data on pesticide use, environmental release or human expo­
public discourse, a systematic cost-benefit accounting of agro-ecological
sure. Quantifying the ‘real-world’ outcomes of agroecological methods
versus chemical control options could be rewarding (Rosa-Schleich
is crucial to steer public discourse and to craft the necessary policy le­
et al., 2019; González-Chang et al., 2020; Pecenka et al., 2021). Second,
vers. A formal endorsement of agro-ecological practices clearly can be
interdisciplinary approaches are crucial to resolve farmers’ path de­
justified through their anticipated societal benefits (Rasmussen et al.,
pendencies (Cowan and Gunby, 1996) and to anticipate the impacts of
2018; Eyhorn et al., 2019). Indeed, high- and low-income nations alike
biophysical factors, markets, user preferences and uncertainty, or
stand to gain if only they can effectively translate agro-ecology science

7
K.A.G. Wyckhuys et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114529

Fig. 5. Conformity with the EKC hypothesis and relative contribution of agro-ecology science in pesticide mitigation among a subset of 18 large economies. For each
country, sign and value of the β2 regression coefficient is shown for models without (panel a) and with (panel b) inclusion of a ‘agro-ecology science’ output term.
Values are shown for a quadratic regression model with pesticide use intensity (per area) as dependent variable, and with the proportional number of WoS records for
biological control. Red points refer the ground mean over the 18 countries. Error bars represent 95% CI. Statistical significance of each individual (country) model is
indicated with an asterisk (*: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the
Web version of this article.)

into practice. Apergis, N., Payne, J.E., Menyah, K., Wolde-Rufael, Y., 2010. On the causal dynamics
between emissions, nuclear energy, renewable energy, and economic growth. Ecol.
Econ. 69 (11), 2255–2260.
Data availability Bakker, L., van der Werf, W., Tittonell, P.A., Wyckhuys, K.A.G., Bianchi, F.J., 2020.
Neonicotinoids in global agriculture: evidence for a new pesticide treadmill? Ecol.
Soc. 25 (3).
All data underlying the analyses will be made available upon request Bale, J.S., Van Lenteren, J.C., Bigler, F., 2008. Biological control and sustainable food
by the study authors. production. Phil. Trans. Biol. Sci. 363 (1492), 761–776.
Barratt, B.I.P., Moran, V.C., Bigler, F., Van Lenteren, J.C., 2018. The status of biological
control and recommendations for improving uptake for the future. BioControl 63 (1),
Author statement 155–167.
Begg, G.S., Cook, S.M., Dye, R., et al., 2017. A functional overview of conservation
biological control. Crop Protect. 97, 145–158.
KAGW conceived and designed the experimental approach; KAGW
Bernhardt, E.S., Rosi, E.J., Gessner, M.O., 2017. Synthetic chemicals as agents of global
performed trials and collected the data; KAGW and YZ analyzed the change. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15 (2), 84–90.
data; KAGW, YZ, TCW, WZ, YDGC and YL co-wrote the paper. Boedeker, W., Watts, M., Clausing, P., Marquez, E., 2020. The global distribution of acute
unintentional pesticide poisoning: estimations based on a systematic review. BMC
Publ. Health 20 (1), 1–19.
Boubellouta, B., Kusch-Brandt, S., 2020. Testing the environmental Kuznets Curve
Declaration of competing interest hypothesis for e-waste in the EU28+ 2 countries. J. Clean. Prod. 277, 123371.
Ciccone, K., Vickery, J., 2015. Summon, EBSCO Discovery Service, and Google Scholar: a
comparison of search performance using user queries. Evid. Base Libr. Inf. Pract. 10
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
(1), 34–49.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Cowan, R., Gunby, P., 1996. Sprayed to death: path dependence, lock-in and pest control
the work reported in this paper. strategies. Econ. J. 106 (436), 521–542.
Craddock, H.A., Huang, D., Turner, P.C., Quirós-Alcalá, L., Payne-Sturges, D.C., 2019.
Trends in neonicotinoid pesticide residues in food and water in the United States,
Appendix A. Supplementary data 1999–2015. Environ. Health 18 (1), 1–16.
Cushing, L., Morello-Frosch, R., Wander, M., Pastor, M., 2015. The haves, the have-nots,
and the health of everyone: the relationship between social inequality and
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. environmental quality. Annu. Rev. Publ. Health 36, 193–209.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114529. Dainese, M., Martin, E.A., Aizen, M.A., et al., 2019. A global synthesis reveals
biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci. Adv. 5 (10), eaax0121.
Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Wang, H., Wheeler, D., 2002. Confronting the environmental
References Kuznets curve. J. Econ. Perspect. 16 (1), 147–168.
De Bruyn, S.M., 1997. Explaining the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Structural Change
Albrecht, M., Kleijn, D., Williams, N.M., et al., 2020. The effectiveness of flower strips and International Agreements in Reducing Sulphur Emissions. Environment and
and hedgerows on pest control, pollination services and crop yield: a quantitative Development Economics, pp. 485–503.
synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 23 (10), 1488–1498.

8
K.A.G. Wyckhuys et al.
Deguine, J.P., Aubertot, J.N., Flor, R.J., Lescourret, F., Wyckhuys, K.A.G., Ratnadass, A.,
2021. Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities. A review. Agron.
Sustain. Dev. 41 (3), 1–35.
Eyhorn, F., Muller, A., Reganold, J.P., et al., 2019. Sustainability in global agriculture
driven by organic farming. Nat. Sustain. 2 (4), 253–255.
FAOSTAT, 2020. October 1-31, 2020. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/.
Flor, R.J., Tuan, L.A., Hung, N.V., et al., 2021. Unpacking the processes that catalyzed
the adoption of best management practices for lowland irrigated rice in the Mekong
Delta. Agronomy 11 (9), 1707.
Foley, J.A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K.A., et al., 2011. Solutions for a cultivated
planet. Nature 478 (7369), 337–342.
Gallagher, K.S., 2006. Limits to leapfrogging in energy technologies? Evidence from the
Chinese automobile industry. Energy Pol. 34 (4), 383–394.
Garibaldi, L.A., Pérez-Méndez, N., Garratt, M.P., Gemmill-Herren, B., Miguez, F.E.,
Dicks, L.V., 2019. Policies for ecological intensification of crop production. Trends
Ecol. Evol. 34 (4), 282–286.
González, P.A., Parga-Dans, E., Luzardo, O.P., 2021. Big sales, no carrots: assessment of
pesticide policy in Spain. Crop Protect. 141, 105428.
González-Chang, M., Wratten, S.D., Shields, M.W., et al., 2020. Understanding the
pathways from biodiversity to agro-ecological outcomes: a new, interactive
approach. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 301, 107053.
Grosse, S.D., Matte, T.D., Schwartz, J., Jackson, R.J., 2002. Economic gains resulting
from the reduction in children’s exposure to lead in the United States. Environ.
Health Perspect. 110 (6), 563–569.
Grossman, G.M., Krueger, A.B., 1991. Environmental Impacts of a North American Free
Trade Agreement. NBER working paper 3914, Cambridge, NBER.
Gurr, G.M., Lu, Z., Zheng, X., et al., 2016. Multi-country evidence that crop
diversification promotes ecological intensification of agriculture. Nat. Plants 2 (3),
1–4.
Hedlund, J., Longo, S.B., York, R., 2020. Agriculture, pesticide use, and economic
development: a global examination (1990–2014). Rural Sociol. 85 (2), 519–544.
Hilton, F.H., Levinson, A., 1998. Factoring the environmental Kuznets curve: evidence
from automotive lead emissions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 35 (2), 126–141.
HLPE, 2019. Agroecological and other innovative approaches for sustainable agriculture
and food systems that enhance food security and nutrition. In: High Level Panel of
Experts (HLPE), UN Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO, Rome, Italy.
Jorgenson, A.K., 2007. Foreign direct investment and pesticide use intensity in less-
developed countries: a quantitative investigation. Soc. Nat. Resour. 20 (1), 73–83.
Karp, D.S., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Meehan, T.D., et al., 2018. Crop pests and predators
exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 115 (33), E7863–E7870.
Kerr, R.B., Madsen, S., Stüber, M., Liebert, J., Enloe, S., Borghino, N., Parros, P.,
Mutyambai, D.M., Prudhon, M., Wezel, A., 2021. Can agroecology improve food
security and nutrition? A review. Global Food Secur. 29, 100540.
Kleijn, D., Bommarco, R., Fijen, T.P., Garibaldi, L.A., Potts, S.G., van der Putten, W.H.,
2019. Ecological intensification: bridging the gap between science and practice.
Trends Ecol. Evol. 34 (2), 154–166.
Klerkx, L., Begemann, S., 2020. Supporting food systems transformation: the what, why,
who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems. Agric.
Syst. 184, 102901.
Kozluk, T., Zipperer, V., 2015. Environmental policies and productivity growth: a critical
review of empirical findings. OECD J.: Econ. Stud. 1, 155–185.
LaCanne, C.E., Lundgren, J.G., 2018. Regenerative agriculture: merging farming and
natural resource conservation profitably. PeerJ 6, e4428.
Lachat, L., Glauser, G., 2018. Development and validation of an ultra-sensitive
UHPLC–MS/MS method for neonicotinoid analysis in milk. J. Agric. Food Chem. 66
(32), 8639–8646.
Ladle, R.J., Jepson, P., Correia, R.A., Malhado, A.C., 2017. The power and the promise of
culturomics. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15 (6), 290–291.
Landrigan, P.J., Fuller, R., Acosta, N.J., et al., 2018. The Lancet Commission on pollution
and health. Lancet 391 (10119), 462–512.
Lechenet, M., Dessaint, F., Py, G., Makowski, D., Munier-Jolain, N., 2017. Reducing
pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms.
Nat. Plants 3 (3), 1–6.
Longo, S., York, R., 2008. Agricultural exports and the environment: a cross-national
study of fertilizer and pesticide consumption. Rural Sociol. 73 (1), 82–104.
Miles, A., DeLonge, M.S., Carlisle, L., 2017. Triggering a positive research and policy
feedback cycle to support a transition to agroecology and sustainable food systems.
Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 41 (7), 855–879.
Milliman, S.R., Prince, R., 1989. Firm incentives to promote technological change in
pollution control. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 17 (3), 247–265.
Möhring, N., Ingold, K., Kudsk, P., Martin-Laurent, F., Niggli, U., Siegrist, M., Studer, B.,
Walter, A., Finger, R., 2020. Pathways for advancing pesticide policies. Nat. Food 1
(9), 535–540.
Naranjo, S.E., Hellmich, R.L., Romeis, J., Shelton, A.M., Velez, A.M., 2020. The role and
use of genetically engineered insect-resistant crops in IPM systems. In: Kogan, M.,
Heinrichs, E. (Eds.), Integrated Management of Insect, Mite and Nematode Pests in
Agriculture. Vol 2: Current and Future Developments in IPM. Burleigh Dodds Science
Publishing, Cambridge, UK, pp. 283–340.
Naranjo, S.E., Ellsworth, P.C., Frisvold, G.B., 2015. Economic value of biological control
in integrated pest management of managed plant systems. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 60.
NetMarketShare, 2020. https://netmarketshare.com. (Accessed 7 December 2020).
Nystrom, M., Jouffray, J.B., Norstrom, A.V., Crona, B., Jørgensen, P.S., Carpenter, S.R.,
Bodin, O., Galaz, V., Folke, C., 2019. Anatomy and resilience of the global
production ecosystem. Nature 575 (7781), 98–108.
9
Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114529
Pecenka, J.R., Ingwell, L.L., Foster, R.E., Krupke, C.H., Kaplan, I., 2021. IPM reduces
insecticide applications by 95% while maintaining or enhancing crop yields through
wild pollinator conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 118 (44)
e2108429118.
Pedersen, A.B., Nielsen, H.Ø., Daugbjerg, C., 2020. Environmental policy mixes and
target group heterogeneity: analysing Danish farmers’ responses to the pesticide
taxes. J. Environ. Pol. Plann. 22 (5), 608–619.
Pimentel, D., Peshin, R. (Eds.), 2014. Integrated Pest Management: Pesticide Problems,
vol. 3. Springer, New York.
Poore, J., Nemecek, T., 2018. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers
and consumers. Science 360 (6392), 987–992.
Pretty, J., Bharucha, Z.P., 2014. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann.
Bot. 114 (8), 1571–1596.
Pretty, J., Benton, T.G., Bharucha, Z.P., et al., 2018. Global assessment of agricultural
system redesign for sustainable intensification. Nat. Sustain. 1 (8), 441–446.
Prihandiani, A., Bella, D.R., Chairani, N.R., Winarto, Y., Fox, J., 2021. The tsunami of
pesticide use for rice production on Java and its consequences. Asia Pac. J.
Anthropol. 22 (4), 276–297.
Rasmussen, L.V., Coolsaet, B., Martin, A., Mertz, O., Pascual, U., Corbera, E., Dawson, N.,
Fisher, J.A., Franks, P., Ryan, C.M., 2018. Social-ecological outcomes of agricultural
intensification. Nat. Sustain. 1 (6), 275–282.
Rauscher, M., 2010. Green R&D versus end-of-pipe emission abatement: a model of
directed technical change, Beiträge zur Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik
2010: Ökonomie der Familie - Session: Endogenous Growth, No. C14-V2, Verein für
Socialpolitik. M, Frankfurt a.
R Core Team, 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Version
3.6.3. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Redhead, J.W., Oliver, T.H., Woodcock, B.A., Pywell, R.F., 2020. The influence of
landscape composition and configuration on crop yield resilience. J. Appl. Ecol. 57
(11), 2180–2190.
Rosa-Schleich, J., Loos, J., Mußhoff, O., Tscharntke, T., 2019. Ecological-economic trade-
offs of diversified farming systems–a review. Ecol. Econ. 160, 251–263.
Sarkodie, S.A., Strezov, V., 2019. A review on environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis
using bibliometric and meta-analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 649, 128–145.
Schramski, J.R., Woodson, C.B., Brown, J.H., 2020. Energy use and the sustainability of
intensifying food production. Nat. Sustain. 3 (4), 257–259.
Schreinemachers, P., Tipraqsa, P., 2012. Agricultural pesticides and land use
intensification in high, middle and low income countries. Food Pol. 37 (6), 616–626.
Schulz, R., Bub, S., Petschick, L.L., Stehle, S., Wolfram, J., 2021. Applied pesticide
toxicity shifts toward plants and invertebrates, even in GM crops. Science 372
(6537), 81–84.
Schut, M., Rodenburg, J., Klerkx, L., van Ast, A., Bastiaans, L., 2014. Systems approaches
to innovation in crop protection. A systematic literature review. Crop Protect. 56,
98–108.
Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J.R., Rücker, G., 2015. Meta-analysis with R, vol. 4784.
Springer, Cham.
Stern, D.I., 2004. The rise and fall of the environmental Kuznets curve. World Dev. 32
(8), 1419–1439.
Tamburini, G., Bommarco, R., Wanger, T.C., Kremen, C., van der Heijden, M.G.,
Liebman, M., Hallin, S., 2020. Agricultural diversification promotes multiple
ecosystem services without compromising yield. Sci. Adv. 6 (45), eaba1715.
Tang, F.H., Lenzen, M., McBratney, A., Maggi, F., 2021. Risk of pesticide pollution at the
global scale. Nat. Geosci. 14 (4), 206–210.
Tscharntke, T., Grass, I., Wanger, T.C., Westphal, C., Batáry, P., 2021. Beyond organic
farming–harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36 (10),
919–930.
Vadra, R., 2018. After BRICS, CIVETS as emerging markets. J. Int. Econ. 9 (2), 2–12.
Valbuena, D., Cely-Santos, M., Obregón, D., 2021. Agrochemical pesticide production,
trade, and hazard: narrowing the information gap in Colombia. J. Environ. Manag.
286, 112141.
Van den Berg, H., Jiggins, J., 2007. Investing in farmers—the impacts of farmer field
schools in relation to integrated pest management. World Dev. 35 (4), 663–686.
van der Ploeg, J.D., Barjolle, D., Bruil, J., et al., 2019. The economic potential of
agroecology: empirical evidence from Europe. J. Rural Stud. 71, 46–61.
Varah, A., Ahodo, K., Coutts, S.R., et al., 2020. The costs of human-induced evolution in
an agricultural system. Nat. Sustain. 3 (1), 63–71.
Vatn, A., Kvakkestad, V., Steiro, Å.L., Hodge, I., 2020. Pesticide taxes or voluntary
action? An analysis of responses among Norwegian grain farmers. J. Environ.
Manag. 276, 111074.
Veres, A., Wyckhuys, K.A.G., Kiss, J., et al., 2020. An update of the Worldwide Integrated
Assessment (WIA) on systemic pesticides. Part 4: alternatives in major cropping
systems. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 27, 29867–29899.
Vogt-Schilb, A., Meunier, G., Hallegatte, S., 2018. When starting with the most expensive
option makes sense: optimal timing, cost and sectoral allocation of abatement
investment. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 88, 210–233.
Waddington, H., Snilstveit, B., Hombrados, J., Vojtkova, M., Phillips, D., Davies, P.,
White, H., 2014. Farmer field schools for improving farming practices and farmer
outcomes: a systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 10 (1), i–335.
Wanger, T.C., DeClerck, F., Garibaldi, L.A., et al., 2020. Integrating agroecological
production in a robust post-2020 global biodiversity framework. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4
(9), 1150–1152.
Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., David, C., 2009. Agroecology as a
science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29 (4), 503–515.
Wyckhuys, K.A.G., Aebi, A., van Lexmond, M.F.B., et al., 2020a. Resolving the twin
human and environmental health hazards of a plant-based diet. Environ. Int. 144,
106081.
K.A.G. Wyckhuys et al.
Wyckhuys, K.A.G., Lu, Y., Zhou, W., Cock, M.J., Naranjo, S.E., Fereti, A., Williams, F.E.,
Furlong, M.J., 2020b. Ecological pest control fortifies agricultural growth in
Asia–Pacific economies. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4 (11), 1522–1530.
Zhang, X., Davidson, E.A., Mauzerall, D.L., Searchinger, T.D., Dumas, P., Shen, Y., 2015.
Managing nitrogen for sustainable development. Nature 528 (7580), 51–59.
10
Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114529
Zhou, Y., Lu, X., Fu, X., Yu, B., Wang, D., Zhao, C., Zhang, Q., Tan, Y., Wang, X., 2018.
Development of a fast and sensitive method for measuring multiple neonicotinoid
insecticide residues in soil and the application in parks and residential areas. Anal.
Chim. Acta 1016, 19–28.