Jukuri, open repository of the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) 
   

 

   

All material supplied via Jukuri is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. Duplication 
or sale, in electronic or print form, of any part of the repository collections is prohibited. Making electronic 
or print copies of the material is permitted only for your own personal use or for educational purposes.  For 
other purposes, this article may be used in accordance with the publisher’s terms. There may be 
differences between this version and the publisher’s version. You are advised to cite the publisher’s 
version. 

 

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.  

This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. 

 

Author(s): Francisco Alcon, Jose A. Albaladejo-García, Victor Martínez-García, Eleonora S. 
Rossi, Emanuele Blasi, Heikki Lehtonen, Jose M. Martínez-Paz, Jose A. Zabala 

Title: Cost benefit analysis of diversified farming systems across Europe: Incorporating 
non-market benefits of ecosystem 

Year: 2024 

Version: Published version 

Copyright:   The Author(s) 2024 

Rights: CC BY 4.0 

Rights url: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 

 

Please cite the original version: 

Francisco Alcon, Jose A. Albaladejo-García, Victor Martínez-García, Eleonora S. Rossi, Emanuele 

Blasi, Heikki Lehtonen, Jose M. Martínez-Paz, Jose A. Zabala, Cost benefit analysis of diversified 

farming systems across Europe: Incorporating non-market benefits of ecosystem services,Science 

of The Total Environment, Volume 912, 2024, 169272, ISSN 0048-9697, 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169272. 



Science of the Total Environment 912 (2024) 169272

Available online 21 December 2023
0048-9697/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Cost benefit analysis of diversified farming systems across Europe: 
Incorporating non-market benefits of ecosystem services 

Francisco Alcon a, Jose A. Albaladejo-García a,d, Victor Martínez-García a, Eleonora S. Rossi b, 
Emanuele Blasi b, Heikki Lehtonen c, Jose M. Martínez-Paz d, Jose A. Zabala d,* 

a Departamento de Economía de la Empresa, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Paseo Alfonso XIII 48, 30203 Cartagena, Spain 
b Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-food and Forest systems (DIBAF), University of Tuscia, Via San Camillo del Lellis snc, Viterbo 01100, Italy 
c Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, PL 2, 00791 Helsinki, Finland 
d Departamento de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Murcia, Campus de Espinardo, 30100 Murcia, Spain   

H I G H L I G H T S  G R A P H I C A L  A B S T R A C T  

• First insight in global economic perfor
mance of diversified cropping systems is 
provided. 

• Diversified cropping systems are 
assessed in terms of market and non- 
market values. 

• Social gross margins and cost-benefit 
analysis were applied in three Euro
pean regions. 

• Market benefits provide the largest 
contribution to the value of crop 
diversification. 

• Internalising non-market value of agro
ecosystems is key to ensure farm 
sustainability.  

A R T I C L E  I N F O   

Editor: Paulo Pereira  

Keywords: 
Agriculture 
Diversification 
Social gross margins 
Sustainability 
Environmental benefits 

A B S T R A C T   

Crop diversification can enhance farm economic sustainability while reducing the negative impact on the 
environment and ecosystem services related. Despite the market and non-market benefits of crop diversification, 
monocropping is a widely used dominant practice in Europe. In this context, this works aims to assess the overall 
economic impact of several crop diversification systems across Europe and compared it to the monocropping 
system. For this purpose, an economic valuation by integrating market and non-market values for eight case 
studies distributed across three different European pedoclimatic regions (Southern Mediterranean, Northern 
Mediterranean and Boreal) is proposed. The economic valuation was conducted both in the short and medium- 
long term. For the short-term we conducted a social gross margin analysis, while for the medium-long term a 
cost-benefit analysis is developed. The results show an improvement in social gross margins for most of the 
diversification scenarios assessed when environmental and socio-cultural benefits are considered in the short- 
term. In the medium and long-term the transformation of cropping towards a more diversified agriculture is 

* Corresponding author. 
E-mail address: joseangel.zabala@um.es (J.A. Zabala).  

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect 

Science of the Total Environment 

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169272 
Received 22 September 2023; Received in revised form 8 December 2023; Accepted 8 December 2023   

mailto:joseangel.zabala@um.es
www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00489697
https://www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169272
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169272
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169272
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169272&domain=pdf
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


Science of the Total Environment 912 (2024) 169272

2

encouraged by greater economic benefits. These results provide a first insight in global economic performance of 
diversified cropping systems, whose main contribution relies on the integration of market and non-market values 
of ecosystem services from crop diversification. They are expected to be useful for guiding policy makers to 
promote crop diversification practices as a key instrument for building resilience in farming systems for an 
adaptive management to climate change.   

1. Introduction 

The growth of agricultural productivity in Europe in the last two 
decades is mainly related to intensive monocrops, mechanization, and 
dependence on external inputs (Tilman et al., 2011). This has led to 
more simplified, monocropping, agricultural systems with little genetic 
diversity and increased homogeneity of landscapes by cropping only the 
most profitable crops (Franco et al., 2022). 

Despite the high productivity achieved in monocropping systems, the 
intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers has caused significant envi
ronmental impacts on agroecosystems and the provision of ecosystem 
services (Tilman et al., 2011). Also, intensified cropping systems has led 
to the development of numerous negative externalities such as water 
pollution, soil erosion or deforestation that have resulted in the reduc
tion of ecosystem services derived from agriculture (Wezel et al., 2018). 
Consequently, there is a growing awareness that, in addition to food 
production, it is essential to preserve the quality of the environment 
(Weituschat et al., 2022) and the provision of ecosystem services 
(D'Hose et al., 2014). Moreover, it is also important to highlight that this 
intensive agriculture jeopardizes the adaptability of current cropping 
systems to climate change (Purwanto and Alam, 2020) and imply higher 
economic risks for European farmers (Damalas and Eleftherohorinos, 
2011). 

European Commission began in 2020 a transition of European agri
culture from the current external input-based dependent cropping sys
tems to biodiversity-based ones, especially through the Common 
Agricultural Policy and the European Green Deal (Clora et al., 2021). 
Consequently, crop diversification emerges as a strategy capable of 
optimizing the entire agricultural value chain in response to environ
mental, technical, and socioeconomic constraints (Alletto et al., 2022). 

Crop diversification could contribute, through cover crops, inter
cropping, crop rotation or agroforestry (Wezel et al., 2014; Lamichhane, 
2023), to the agro-ecological transition of the European agricultural 
sector by adapting the whole value chain (Nunes et al., 2018). It has 
been shown in the literature that crop diversification can contribute to 
increase food security (Scherer et al., 2018), it provides no negative 
economic returns for farmers (Zabala et al., 2023; De Roest et al., 2018; 
Nilsson et al., 2022; Sánchez et al., 2022) and enhances environmental 
sustainability of farms, as it contributes to the provision of ecosystem 
services such as pest control, biodiversity, erosion control, carbon 
sequestration, rural jobs, cultural heritage, and landscape aesthetics 
(Hunt et al., 2019; Alcon et al., 2020; Francaviglia et al., 2020; Morugán- 
Coronado et al., 2022). Thus, crop diversification can mitigate the ef
fects of climate change (Lin, 2011) and address the social and environ
mental challenges currently facing agriculture (Kremen and Miles, 
2012). Monocropping farmers also recognize the potential role of 
diversified cropping systems in adapting to climate change (Roesch- 
McNally et al., 2018). 

However, despite the evidence of productivity improvements, both 
in economic and environmental terms (Tamburini et al., 2020), mono
cropping systems continue to be dominant across Europe. Questions 
move then to the reasons why farmers apparently choose to continue 
growing under monocropping systems when the environmental benefits 
of crop diversification are well-known, even among monocropping 
farmers. Recent research indicates that the adoption of crop diversifi
cation practices by farmers is mostly hampered by limited access to 
knowledge, lack of technical assistance in the path of adoption, supply 
chain pressures up- and down-stream of the farm, and even the farmers' 

concern about the consistency of policies about the promotion of such 
practices (Lancaster and Torres, 2019; Rodriguez et al., 2021; Brannan 
et al., 2023). Other factors hindering adoption might be that farmers 
have easy access to synthetic fertilizers and pesticides so that the agro
chemical industry benefits from the existence of monocrops (Mortensen 
and Smith, 2020). In addition, the negative externalities associated with 
monocropping systems, such as the reduction of ecosystem services, are 
not usually internalised in agricultural commodities or food prices in the 
markets, thus disincentivizing the adoption of more complex cropping 
systems such as crop diversification (Robertson and Swinton, 2005). 

The adoption of diversification practices by monocropping farmers is 
therefore challenging. This raises the need to provide key studies and 
tools that address the contributions of crop diversification practices to 
society and along the food value chain (Alletto et al., 2022). Economic 
evaluation through cost-benefit analysis (Keck and Hung, 2019) is one of 
the useful tools to compare the benefits of conventional monocropping 
and diversified cropping systems. This provides a better understanding 
of the benefits generated at both market (private benefits) and non- 
market (environmental and socio-cultural benefits) levels, social gross 
margins being appropriate for this purpose. 

Given the differences between monocropping and diversification 
systems, both in terms of market and non-market values, both systems 
must be carefully evaluated to ensure consistent comparison of the two 
systems. Despite the existing differences, there are relatively few studies 
that consider both monocrop and crop diversification in economic 
analysis starting from farms and value chain technical and financial data 
(Martin-Gorriz et al., 2022; Benini et al., 2023; Zabala et al., 2023). 
Moreover, there is a gap in the literature when it comes to integrating 
both market and non-market values in the economic evaluation of 
monocrops and crop diversification. Likewise, no studies exist that make 
a comparative economic evaluation of monocrops and diversification 
between pedoclimatic regions where bio-physical production conditions 
and socioeconomic contexts are different. It is important to understand 
the main factors and reasons for the differences in economic and envi
ronmental performance between monocropping and diversified systems, 
and if the same or different factors explain the differences in various 
regions. The economic comparison and evaluation of cross-case studies 
are needed to assess the impact of diversified cropping systems between 
pedoclimatic regions, using the knowledge provided by all stakeholders 
on the characteristics of their region. 

In this context, this work aims to assess the economic impact of crop 
diversification systems in selected pedoclimatic regions across Europe, 
comparing diversification with the reference monocropping system. For 
this purpose, eight European field case studies under diversified and 
monocropping systems were analysed in the short-term, through the 
social gross margins analysis, and in the medium and long-term, through 
the cost-benefit analysis. It thereby provides first insight in global eco
nomic performance of diversified cropping system. 

The contribution of this work to the scientific literature is twofold. 
First, it integrates market and non-market values into the economic 
evaluation, a novel combination in the literature about crop diversifi
cation. It thereby serves to analyse all the main positive and negative 
impacts of crop diversification by using common monetary terms. This 
provides policymakers, a powerful tool to guide the new horizon of 
agricultural policies in the face of climate change adaptation and miti
gation strategies. The results are also valuable for food chain actors (e.g. 
food industry, retail, farms) when aiming to improve sustainability. 
Second, monocrops and diversifications are examined in three different 

F. Alcon et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Science of the Total Environment 912 (2024) 169272

3

pedoclimatic regions across Europe (South Mediterranean, North Med
iterranean, and Boreal) and by the implementation of different diversi
fication strategies (intercropping, rotation), which allows to delve into 
main diversified systems from an economic point of view, which 
represent a novelty itself. 

We examine the extent to which economic benefits vary through 
crop diversification to answer the following research questions: (1) Is 
crop diversification socioeconomically profitable in the short and 
medium-long-term? (2) How does the inclusion of non-market values of 
the ecosystem services affect the social gross margins of monocropping 
systems and crop diversification? Are non-market values more impor
tant than market values? and (3) Do the social gross margins generated 
for the different European agroecosystems follow the same general 
trend? 

2. Materials and methods 

The material and methods applied for the integrated economic 
valuation of ecosystem services from crop diversification combines field 
results from diversified farming systems, providing the quantification of 
the ecosystem services, with their socioeconomic value both for farmers 
and the entire society. The quantified ecosystem services from crop 
diversification are then translated into economic values through their 
socioeconomic valuation by using market and non-market techniques. 
The market side of the economic value of ecosystem services mostly 
applies to the valuation of provisioning services, namely food provision, 
thereby summarising the farmers' (private) perspective of the economic 
valuation. This is mainly approached by using farm gross margins. On 
the other side, the contribution of non-marketed regulating and cultural 
services is addressed by using non-market valuation techniques, such as 
choice experiment or contingent valuation. This encompasses the value 
of such ecosystem services for the entire society. In sum, the contribu
tion of crop diversification to the provision of ecosystem services is 
economically valued by integrating market and non-market values. In 
addition, such contributions can be different depending on the analysis 
horizon of the benefits obtained by the ecosystem services from crop 

diversification. It is expected a higher change in the provision levels of 
ecosystem services from monocropping to diversified farming systems in 
the long term. Hence, the economic value of ecosystem services is 
determined both in the short and in the long term by using horizon- 
adapted techniques: social gross margins in the short term and cost- 
benefit analysis in the long term. Fig. 1 summaries the methodological 
framework followed, which is applied to each of the case studies 
assessed. 

2.1. Case study 

Field case studies are distributed across Europe in 3 countries, 
covering 3 pedoclimatic regions, and integrating perennial and annual 
crops by using intercropping and rotation strategies for crop diversifi
cation practices. As such, they are distributed among Spain, Italy and 
Finland, in the South-Mediterranean, North-Mediterranean and Boreal 
regions, respectively. Perennial crops are only located in the South- 
Mediterranean region, the same as for intercropping practices. Table 1 
provides a summary of the 8 field case studies under diversified (DX) and 
monocropping systems analysed in this work. 

Most field case studies comprehend only 1 diversification practice, 
perennial intercropping of almond and citrus orchards in the South 
Mediterranean region being an exception with 2 diversified cropping 
systems. Main crop summarises the business as usual, or baseline, situ
ation, mostly referred to as just monocrop (CS1, CS2, CS3, CS4, CS7). 
Some cereal rotations were also included as they represent the con
ventional system for the case study (CS5, CS6, CS8), thereby proposing 
additional rotations with unconventional crops as alternative diversifi
cation practices. Each of these case studies was designed to have a three- 
year crop cycle (2018–2020). More detailed information about the 
experimental case studies can be found in Zabala et al. (2023). 

2.2. Social gross margin analysis 

Gross margin (GM), widely used in farm-level economic assessment 
and management, is the difference between the value of crop production 

Fig. 1. Methodological framework applied for each case study.  

F. Alcon et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Science of the Total Environment 912 (2024) 169272

4

and the (variable or semi-fixed) cost of production, per hectare at a farm. 
GMs are based purely on the financial outcome of different crops pro
duced on farms, without considering the overall costs and benefits that 
diversification practices contribute to the environment and to the soci
eties in which these practices are applied. Diversification practices also 
generate benefits and costs through increased flows of ecosystem ser
vices and biodiversity in the diversified agroecosystems (Beillouin et al., 
2021). These benefits and costs involve regulating and cultural services. 
Hence the value of crop diversification ought to include not only private 
benefits, but also both environmental and sociocultural benefits. 

Regulating and cultural ecosystem services are characterized by a 
lack of monetary value. No active markets exist in which these services 
can be commercialized and reflect their economic value, as is the case 
with provisioning services (Kremen and Miles, 2012). This non-market 
character means that estimating their value becomes challenging, but 
feasible, and so it might be incorporated into the economic analysis of 
crop diversification, together with market values (Latvala et al., 2021). 

The integration of market and non-market values of the ecosystem 
services provided by crop diversification is firstly assessed by social 
gross margins (SGMs). This indicator includes the private and social 
impacts of crop diversification under the scope of the economic evalu
ation. SGM is defined according to Alcon et al. (2013) as follows: 

SGM = GM +Environmental benefits/costs+ Sociocultural benefits/costs
(1) 

GMs are estimated based on crop-specific inputs, crop production 
and price data collected, specifically by crop and cropping system 
(monocropping and diversified). Depending on the inputs considered 
per crop, two levels of costs were identified: variable costs, including 
machinery use (e.g., fuels, lubricants), raw materials (irrigation water, 
fertilizers, pesticides) and labour, and fixed costs, including asset 
depreciation. Data on inputs, yields and farm management practices 
were yearly collected at the crop and plot level, and aggregated by 
cropping system down to the farm level. Technical information, related 
to both variable and fixed costs, was collected directly from the case 
study experimental plots, while market prices and subsidy values were 
obtained from farmers' suppliers and each region's official agricultural 
statistics, respectively. Where unavailable or incomplete data were 
found, gaps were filled by extrapolating average, from surveys of 
farmers in each region. Thus, both farm costs and revenues were ob
tained as the average of the actual costs and revenues for farmers in the 
areas where the case studies were conducted. All the information about 

farm-level economic data and results is available at Lehtonen et al. 
(2020). 

Stated preference methods are non-market valuation techniques 
implemented to estimate the environmental and sociocultural benefits 
of crop diversification. Choice experiment and contingent valuation 
methods were applied to estimate social demand for regulating and 
cultural ecosystem services provided by crop diversification. Both 
methods are based on eliciting economic values directly to individuals 
through surveys simulating hypothetical markets. These hypothetical 
markets assume changes in the provision levels of regulating and cul
tural ecosystem services by which the individuals are willing to pay to 
incentivise (positive changes) or undermine (negative changes) them. 
Such willingness to pay summarises the non-market value of the 
ecosystem service provided to the society. The reliability and validity of 
their results carefully depends on the goodness of the surveys designed. 
As such, their survey-based nature makes these methods become com
plex and costly to develop. The fundaments and limitations of these 
methods can be found in Champ et al. (2017). 

Specifically, the value of environmental and sociocultural benefits 
was derived in specific regions of Spain (Alcon et al., 2020), Italy (Blasi 
et al., 2023) and Finland (Latvala et al., 2021), encompassing CS1, CS2 
and CS3 in the Southern Mediterranean region, CS4, CS5 and CS6 in the 
Northern Mediterranean region, and CS7 and CS8 in the Boreal region. 
Hence, the non-market value of the ecosystem services provided by crop 
diversification is site-specific, with the valued regulating and cultural 
services being of notable significance for each region. Ecosystem ser
vices to be valued were selected based on scientific literature and expert 
consultation in each region. Biodiversity, erosion control, carbon 
sequestration, cultural heritage and landscape aesthetics, were valued in 
the Spanish case studies, while biodiversity, carbon sequestration, water 
pollution risk reduction and landscape beauty were valued in the Italian 
case studies. The scope of regulating and cultural ecosystem services 
valued in the Finnish case studies was broader, including adaptation to 
climate change, reduction of runoff leakage, soil carbon enhancement, 
increased rural employment and maintenance of local food tradition. As 
such, marginal values associated with each of these regulating and 
cultural services were estimated for every pedoclimatic region. All the 
details about the non-market valuation of ecosystem services are avail
able in Alcon et al. (2020) [Spain], Blasi et al. (2023) [Italy] and Latvala 
et al. (2021) [Finland]. 

The economic value of the environmental and sociocultural benefits 
is linked to changes in the flows of regulating and cultural ecosystem 

Table 1 
Summary of case studies.  

Case 
study 

Country Pedoclimatic area Crop type Crop(s) of the reference 
system (MC) 

Type of diversificationa Diversified farming systemb 

CS1 Spain South 
Mediterranean 

Perennial Almond Intercropping D1: Almond/Caper 
D2: Almond/Thyme 

CS2 Spain South 
Mediterranean 

Perennial Mandarin Intercropping (rotation and multiple 
cropping) 

D1: Mandarin/(Vetch & Barley + Fava 
bean) 
D2: Mandarin/(Fava bean + Purslane +
Cowpea) 

CS3 Spain South 
Mediterranean 

Annual Melon Intercropping D1: Melon + Cowpea 

CS4 Italy North 
Mediterranean 

Annual Maize Rotation (intercropping) D1: Tomato + Pea/Tomato + Durum 
wheat 

CS5 Italy North 
Mediterranean 

Annual Durum wheat + barley Rotation (intercropping) D1: Tomato + Pea/Tomato + Durum 
wheat 

CS6 Italy North 
Mediterranean 

Annual Tomato + Durum wheat Rotation (intercropping) D1: Tomato + Pea/Tomato + Durum 
wheat 

CS7 Finland Boreal Annual Barley Rotation D1: Barley + Winter rapeseed + Barley 
CS8 Finland Boreal Annual Barley +15 % grass ley Rotation D1: Barley +30 % grass ley + Barley 

Note: “MC” represents the monocropping system; “D1” represents the diversification 1; “D2” represents the diversification 2. 
a In brackets other type of secondary diversifications also presented in the case study (e.g., in D1 in CS1, multiple cropping of vetch and barley is rotated with fava 

bean as alley crop between mandarin rows, meanwhile they both represent an intercropping system regarding to mandarin, the reference system). Complete 
description of case studies is available in Zabala et al. (2023). 

b “()” integrates annual crops in diversification with perennial crops; “&” indicates multiple cropping; “+” indicates rotation; “/” indicates intercropping. 

F. Alcon et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Science of the Total Environment 912 (2024) 169272

5

services from monocropping to diversified systems. Changes in the 
physical values of regulating ecosystem services and biodiversity were 
obtained from biophysical indicators measured at plot level in each of 
the field case studies (Loczy et al., 2022; Canfora et al., 2022). Land 
erosion index, soil carbon content, bacteria and enzyme biodiversity, 
and presence of inorganic mineral contaminants in soil were used as 
indicators (supplementary material), which were categorised according 
to the attributes and levels used for the economic valuation of the 
ecosystem services. Categorised indicators representing the changes in 
the provision level of ecosystem services between monocropping and 
diversification practices is available in Piccini et al. (2022). Therefore, 
these changes in ecosystem services biophysical flows, measured by 
each case study, are translated into economic values using specific re
sults for each crop diversification and their related marginal economic 
value. The environmental and sociocultural benefits were transformed 
into terms of land use (€/ha year) to be integrated accordingly. 
Furthermore, if there is a reduction in the provision of ecosystem ser
vices due to crop diversification practices, the environmental costs are 
also accounted for. Similarly, monocropping practices can be associated 
with environmental and sociocultural costs. When such costs have been 
socially valued given the disutility they provide, as is the case in the 
Spanish and Italian case studies, environmental and sociocultural costs 
are included for the estimation of the SGMs of monocropping practices. 
Hence, SGMs are understood as a summary of the short-term economic 
value of crop diversification at the regional level. Additionally, all actual 
monetary values are homogenized to the European Union's average 
standard of living using Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) to ensure 
comparability. 

2.3. Cost-benefit analysis 

Cost-benefit analysis is a widely used decision-making tool used to 
assess public investments (Alcon et al., 2013). It serves to comprehen
sively compare the benefits and costs of policy actions or programmes, 
considering their medium and long-term impact. It includes both the 
private benefits and costs for those who develop the actions, together 
with the social benefits and costs implied. As such, cost-benefit analysis 
includes both market and non-market costs and benefits. It addresses 
increases or decreases in social well-being so that intergenerational 
equity and sustainability criteria can be added. 

The application of cost-benefit analysis to the specificities of crop 
diversification requires integrating all the impacts of diversification 
practices in the medium and long term at the regional scale. The private 
component of the cost-benefit analysis comprises the benefits and costs 
to farmers, i.e., revenues and variable and fixed costs, respectively, 
namely GMs. The social component of the cost-benefit analysis includes 
environmental and sociocultural benefits and costs, derived from the 
expected changes in the provision of regulating and cultural ecosystem 
services from diversification in the long term. Predictions for long-term 
indicators include soil organic carbon over the next 30 years and soil 
erosion, when available (Cerasuolo and Begum, 2020; Iserloh and 
Seeger, 2022). Organic carbon and erosion indicator levels were also 
categorised to be homogeneous to the attributes and levels used for the 
economic valuation of ecosystem services. These categorised indicators 
are available in Piccini et al. (2022). Data for the private component of 
the cost-benefit analysis are obtained from economic results at farm- 
level (Lehtonen et al., 2020), while environmental and sociocultural 
benefits and costs apply marginal values of regulating services to the 
predicted changes of their associated biophysical indicators to integrate 
them accordingly. Additionally, all actual monetary values are trans
formed in terms of land use (€/ha year) and homogenized using Pur
chasing Power Parity (PPP). 

To compare the integrated economic performance of diversification 
practices carried out under monocropping and diversification systems, 
the net present value (NPV) and the benefit-cost ratio (B/C ratio) are 
used as profitability indicators. They are defined as follows (European 

Commission (EC), 2015): 

NPV = − K +
∑t

t=1

(
Bt − Ct

(1 + r)t

)

+
∑t

t=1

(
Be

t − Ce
t

(1 + r′)t

)

(2)  

where Bt and Ct represents the private benefits and costs, respectively, 
Be

t and Ce
t the environmental and socio-cultural benefits and costs, r is 

the discount rate, K is the investment cost and t is the period for which 
the NPV of crop diversification is measured. The discount rate of 3.5 % is 
considered for environmental and socio-cultural flows, following 
Almansa and Martínez-Paz (2011). Investment costs are considered only 
for perennial crops (almonds in CS1 and mandarins in CS2), assuming to 
be zero for annual crops. NPV is estimated for a period of 25 years, 
which is considered the lifespan of the assessed perennial crops and 
applied the same period for annual crops to ensure their comparison in 
the long term. 

The B/C ratio is defined according to the equivalent annual cost 
(EAC) and the equivalent annual benefit (EAB). The net present cost 
(NPC) and net present benefit (NPB) are estimated as follows (European 
Commission (EC), 2015): 

B/C ratio =
EAB
EAC

=
NPC r

1− (1+r)− t

NPB r
1− (1+r)− t

(3)  

NPC = − K +
∑t

t=1

(
Ct + Ce

t

(1 + r)t

)

(4)  

NPB =
∑t

t=1

(
Bt + Be

t

(1 + r)t

)

(5)  

where Bt and Ct represents the private benefits and costs, respectively, 
Be

t and Ce
t the environmental and socio-cultural benefits and costs, r is 

the discount rate (3.5 %), K is the investment cost and t is the period for 
which the B/C ratio of crop diversification is measured (25 years). 

3. Results 

3.1. Short-term economic value of crop diversification 

The short-term economic value of crop diversification is measured by 
considering both the financial economic performance of crop diversifi
cation for farmers and the derived non-market benefits and costs. 
Table 2 provides a summary of the SGMs for the field case studies, 
describing their main market and non-market components: GMs, envi
ronmental benefits, sociocultural benefits and SGM. 

Results show an enhancement of the margins for most of the diver
sification practices assessed when environmental and sociocultural 
benefits are considered. This is very relevant in cases with negative GM 
values, such as CS1-D2, where environmental and sociocultural benefits 
turn negative GM into positive SGM. In other words, what a priori may 
be rejected because of its low private profitability, may become desir
able from a social point of view if such benefits are considered. Thus, the 
consideration of non-market benefits makes it possible to increase the 
social profitability of agriculture, mainly for those diversification prac
tices that have positive SGMs. 

While the contributions of environmental and socio-cultural benefits 
are significant, these cannot far outweigh the market outcomes of crop 
diversification, at least in the short term. Only in the case of di
versifications where private GMs are relatively low, the contribution of 
non-market benefits is large enough to outweigh farm-level economic 
outcomes. This is most representative of diversifications within CS1, 
whose private GMs are around 200 €/ha per year in D1, but the envi
ronmental and sociocultural benefits amount to more than 650 €/ha per 
year. 

However, the provision of ecosystem services under diversification 

F. Alcon et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Science of the Total Environment 912 (2024) 169272

6

conditions does not always improve. Although it may be considered 
extraordinary, it does happen in CS2 and CS5 in the short-term for the 
biodiversity indicators in both case studies and soil carbon for only CS5. 
The regulating ecosystem services reduction in the short-term also is 
translated into terms of non-market values, as revealed in Table 2, by 
considering environmental costs (negative sign) instead of benefits. 
Hence, the inclusion of non-market value serves to include the impact of 
human activities on the environment. 

The contribution of monocropping systems to the provision of 
agroecosystem services could be understood, similarly, as environ
mental and sociocultural costs. Thus, the socioeconomic contribution of 
agriculture should be considered as including the non-market value of 
these expected negative contributions. Table 2 shows the environmental 
and socio-cultural costs that monocropping systems can generate for 
society. This can become very significant when the environmental and 
socio-cultural costs transform economic benefits at the farm level into 
negative social outcomes. This is the case of monocrops in CS1 and CS3 
as shown in Fig. 2. The low market profitability of rainfed almond 
monocrops in CS1 and melon monocrops in CS3 is absorbed by the large 
reported environmental and sociocultural costs of monocropping sys
tems in the southern Mediterranean region. This indicates that profit
able cropping systems for farmers may not be a good alternative from a 
social point of view in the short term. 

3.2. Medium and long-term economic value of crop diversification 

Decisions on the adoption of crop diversification must consider both, 
the current impact of cropping systems and the expected medium and 
long-term effects. In this sense, the cost-benefit analysis contributes to 
enhancing decision-making from a policy point of view by integrating 
into a common assessment the expected market and non-market effects 
of diversified and monocropping systems over the next 25 years. Fig. 3 
displays the results of the cost-benefit analysis showing the NPV and B/C 
of the assessed field case studies. 

In the medium and long term, most diversifications perform 
economically better than the expected results of monocrops. The cu
mulative market and non-market benefits of crop diversification are 
derived from a greater increase in the provision of regulating ecosystem 
services (compared to the short-term), along with the expected 
improvement in soil fertility. In contrast to the short-term socioeco
nomic outcomes of crop diversification summarized by SGM, the 
consideration of the long-term effects derived from cropping systems 
encourages the transformation towards a more sustainable agriculture 
that considers the impact, not only for the current generation but also for 
generations to come. 

In this regard, CS1 is one of the most representative case studies 
assessed, given the economic results shown both in absolute and relative 
terms. If only market returns are included in the analysis, rainfed 
almond monocrop (Base MC) is profitable, as it is currently the case in 
the farm in the business-as-usual situation. However, if the negative 
impacts that monocrop can cause to the environment in the long term 
are considered, the positive socioeconomic results become negative. 
This socially undesirable situation could be overcome by adopting 
intercropping in the alleys of the almond orchards, in one of which 
thyme is grown for essential oil. Thus, the intercropping of almonds and 
thyme not only provides benefits at the farm level, but also for the 
environment and the social system. These benefits, measured and inte
grated in common monetary terms, greatly exceed those that could be 
obtained with any of the other cropping systems assessed. The positive 
economic performance of crop diversification over the long term is 
evident in both absolute and relative terms, given the improved NPV and 
B/C ratios of D1 and D2 compared to any other MC estimation. 

Even in the case diversified systems show negative NPV, they 
perform better than monocrops in the medium and long term. The 
environmental and sociocultural benefits associated with crop diversi
fication compensate for the negative market performance of Ta

bl
e 

2 
So

ci
al

 g
ro

ss
 m

ar
gi

ns
 (

SG
M

s)
 a

nd
 th

ei
r 

co
m

po
ne

nt
s 

of
 fi

el
d 

ca
se

 s
tu

di
es

 (
CS

) 
(€

PP
P/

ha
 y

ea
r)

.  

Co
m

po
ne

nt
s 

So
ut

h 
M

ed
ite

rr
an

ea
n 

N
or

th
 M

ed
ite

rr
an

ea
n 

Bo
re

al
 

CS
 1

 
CS

 2
 

CS
 3

 
CS

 4
 

CS
 5

 
CS

 6
 

CS
 7

 
CS

 8
 

M
C 

D
1 

D
2 

M
C 

D
1 

D
2 

M
C 

D
1 

M
C 

D
1 

M
C 

D
1 

M
C 

D
1 

M
C 

D
1 

M
C 

D
1 

M
ar

ke
t v

al
ua

tio
n 

Re
ve

nu
es

 
89

0 
99

3 
98

2 
92

45
 

82
31

 
71

75
 

95
28

 
16

,2
42

 
39

97
 

47
74

 
35

55
 

51
44

 
22

58
 

42
74

 
70

0 
72

5 
24

95
 

24
95

 
Va

ri
ab

le
 c

os
ts

 
26

6 
51

1 
70

8 
32

69
 

59
62

 
54

68
 

88
27

 
11

,3
24

 
25

26
 

29
51

 
26

06
 

33
37

 
25

26
 

33
18

 
51

4 
52

0 
20

58
 

20
06

 
Fi

xe
d 

co
st

s 
14

3 
26

8 
28

0 
12

22
 

11
76

 
11

20
 

44
4 

48
6 

36
0 

37
5 

26
9 

25
7 

0 
0 

48
2 

48
5 

87
8 

87
8 

G
M

 
48

1 
21

4 
−

7 
47

53
 

10
93

 
58

8 
25

7 
44

32
 

11
10

 
11

92
 

68
0 

69
7 

−
26

8 
−

53
0 

−
29

7 
−

28
0 

−
44

0 
−

39
6 

N
on

-m
ar

ke
t v

al
ua

tio
n 

En
vi

ro
nm

en
ta

l b
en

efi
ts

/c
os

ts
 

−
30

2 
35

0 
35

0 
−

30
2 

−
38

 
62

 
−

30
2 

88
 

−
11

7 
81

 
−

11
7 

−
77

 
−

11
7 

81
  

51
  

51
 

So
ci

oc
ul

tu
ra

l b
en

efi
ts

/c
os

ts
 

−
17

4 
31

0 
31

0 
−

17
4 

31
0 

31
0 

−
17

4 
31

0 
−

32
 

41
 

−
32

 
41

 
−

32
 

41
  

46
  

46
 

SG
M

 
4 

87
4 

65
3 

42
77

 
13

65
 

96
0 

−
22

0 
48

31
 

96
2 

13
15

 
53

1 
66

2 
−

41
7 

−
40

7 
−

29
7 

−
18

3 
−

44
0 

−
29

9 

N
ot

e:
 “

M
C”

 r
ep

re
se

nt
s 

th
e 

m
on

oc
ro

pp
in

g 
sy

st
em

; “
D

1”
 r

ep
re

se
nt

s 
th

e 
di

ve
rs

ifi
ca

tio
n 

1;
 “

D
2”

 r
ep

re
se

nt
s 

th
e 

di
ve

rs
ifi

ca
tio

n 
2;

 “
PP

P”
 m

ea
ns

 P
ur

ch
as

in
g 

Po
w

er
 P

ar
ity

. 

F. Alcon et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Science of the Total Environment 912 (2024) 169272

7

monocropping systems. This is of high relevance for Boreal case studies, 
where fodder crops, associated with low GMs, display a significant 
improvement in their economic performance when non-market benefits 
are considered. As such, non-market benefits need to be considered to 
comprehensively understand the overall impact of crop diversification. 

4. Discussion 

The integration of the market and non-market benefits and costs 
associated with crop diversification across different crops, diversifica
tion strategies and European regions has evinced the economic viability 
of crop diversification practices as alternatives for extending 

Fig. 2. Social gross margins (SGMs) of case studies (CS) (€PPP/ha year). Note: “MC” represents the monocropping system; “D1” represents the diversification 1; “D2” 
represents the diversification 2; “PPP” means Purchasing Power Parity. 

Fig. 3. Net present value (NPV), in bars, and benefit cost ratio (B/C Ratio), in points, of field case studies (CS). Note: “MC” represents the monocropping system; “D1” 
represents the diversification 1; “D2” represents the diversification 2; “PPP” means Purchasing Power Parity. MC, D1 and D2 includes market and non-market benefits 
and costs. Base MC comprehends only market benefits and costs. 

F. Alcon et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Science of the Total Environment 912 (2024) 169272

8

monocrops. The results have shown the economic and social sustain
ability of crop diversification along different time spans, which adds to 
and supports the overstudied environmental sustainability (Morugán- 
Coronado et al., 2022; Viguier et al., 2021) and farm-level financial 
profitability (Sánchez et al., 2022; Zabala et al., 2023). The integration 
of environmental, financial, and sociocultural benefits, and costs, by 
using a common unit -monetary values- becomes one of the main nov
elties of the method employed. As such, the overall positive economic 
impact of crop diversification across Europe has been demonstrated for 
the European regions under consideration. Through a social gross 
margin analysis and a cost-benefit analysis, it has been possible to 
answer the three main questions formulated in this work.  

(1) Is crop diversification socioeconomically profitable in the short 
and medium-long-term? 

It has been shown that crop diversification is not just a vestige of the 
past, but a profitable agricultural system that would improve yields. An 
improvement of SGMs for monocropping has been observed in most of 
the diversification scenarios analysed. Perennial crops and vegetables 
reveal better performance when crop diversification is included. Such 
kinds of crops are usually linked to higher farm incomes and more rural 
employment, therefore enhancing economic and social returns of crop 
diversification (De Roest et al., 2018). Despite the greater labour needs, 
crop diversification in vegetables also works as a strategy for farmers to 
reduce market risks and mitigate climate change impacts (Ali, 2015; 
Martin-Gorriz et al., 2022). Thus, the contribution of crop diversification 
to increased food security and nutrition is mostly positive (Feliciano, 
2019). These results are also in line with Beillouin et al. (2019) on the 
overall improvement of the productive performance of cropping systems 
with diversification strategies; and Makate et al. (2016) on the positive 
impact of crop diversification in poorly developed areas. 

Therefore, the promotion of crop diversification to improve agri
cultural sustainability will also allow to maintenance of a sufficient level 
of food production (Bullock et al., 2017). In addition, as argued by Lin 
(2011) and Lenssen et al. (2014), diversified systems can be a solution to 
maintain production levels in more frequent extreme climatic conditions 
(droughts, floods…) and with water resource scarcity as are the case of 
some studies of the Southern Mediterranean analysed in this work.  

(2) How does the inclusion of non-market values of the ecosystem 
services affect the social gross margins of monocropping systems 
and crop diversification? Are non-market values more important 
than market values? 

Non-market values of ecosystem services improve SGMs of crop 
diversification regarding monocropping. The adoption of diversified 
farming systems would improve the ecosystem services and it could be 
considered as a way to conserve land productivity while being envi
ronmentally friendly (Phalan et al., 2011). Also, enhancing diversity 
within agricultural systems could combine food production with envi
ronmental quality (Lemaire et al., 2015). These results are in line with 
Kremen and Miles (2012) and Rosa-Schleich et al. (2019) who highlight 
the positive effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and the 
environment. 

Diversification strategies and crops, together with the management 
of the reference monocropping system determine the value of the non- 
market benefits. Higher values for environmental and sociocultural 
benefits were suggested in South Mediterranean case studies, where the 
changes in the agroecosystems were greater because of diversification 
practices. Intercropping between perennial crops represents a deep 
change in ecosystem services and landscape features, increasing both 
services their provision levels. In contrast, non-market values seem to be 
lower in the Boreal region, where the degree of diversification intensity 
is also lower (diversified farming systems are similar to the reference 
monocropping systems in terms of diversification strategies and crops). 

Hence, it is suggested that the greater the change in the agronomic and 
landscape features regarding the reference system (diversification in
tensity), the greater the impact of diversification, and so the higher their 
non-market values. 

If non-market values were not considered in the economic analysis, 
gross margins from crop diversification would be much lower (Martin- 
Guay et al., 2018). Furthermore, our results showed that non-market 
benefits cannot outweigh market values in the short term, and that 
needs time to be realized. Even so, the non-market benefits are signifi
cant enough to ensure the overall profitability of such practices. 
Therefore, to value the contribution of non-market values of crop 
diversification is essential, especially in the long term when deep 
changes from monocropping to diversified systems are expected, such as 
those presented in this paper. 

The significance of the non-market values here are conditioned to the 
ecosystem services selected and measured for each diversification 
farming system. However, the range of ecosystem services provided by 
crop diversification is wider. Crop diversification practices may also 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase soil fertility, encourage the 
presence of natural pollinators in agroecosystems, increase water 
retention, and enhance other forms of biodiversity, among other 
ecosystem services (Morugán-Coronado et al., 2022; Sánchez-Navarro 
et al., 2023; Marcos-Pérez et al., 2023). Also considering the non-market 
value of such these ecosystem services provides a deeper insight in the 
global economic performance of crop diversification. Therefore, the 
estimations here presented should be understood as a first, and con
servative, approximation of the actual economic value of crop diversi
fication, which is expected to be higher when the global provision of 
ecosystem services is considered and quantified. 

The challenge is to replace the traditional approach based on 
simplifying cropping systems to maximize productivity with a new 
approach based on optimizing benefits considering environmental and 
cultural impacts together with land productivity (Lemaire et al., 2014). 
The higher profitability of diversification compared to monocrops sug
gests the development of agricultural systems based on new agricultural 
practices able to provide socioeconomic and environmental results 
(Franzluebbers et al., 2011) to achieve more sustainable agriculture. 

Additional challenges also need to be addressed, such as knowledge 
transfer and technical assistance regarding diversification practices, 
economic incentives for farmers from agricultural policy, and the 
adaptation of the agrifood value chain (Brannan et al., 2023). Thus, 
applying a multidisciplinary approach could facilitate the understanding 
of a transition from monocropping to diversified systems.  

(3) Do the social gross margins generated for the different European 
agroecosystems follow the same general trend? 

The socioeconomic and environmental performance of crop diver
sification strategies is known to be context-dependent (Duru et al., 
2015). However, the comprehensive economic approach followed in this 
work suggests that diversification practices provide positive impacts on 
both the farm economic performance and the environment, regardless of 
the region assessed. Thus, the trend is clear: SGMs become more positive 
(CS1 and CS3 of the Southern Mediterranean and in CS4 and CS5 of the 
Northern Mediterranean) or less negative (CS6 of the Northern Medi
terranean and in the two cases of the Boreal) considering diversification 
practices, with different NPV results depending on crop types and 
practices used and to climatic and agronomic conditions (Rosa-Schleich 
et al., 2019). This trend suggests the social acceptability of diversifica
tion practices in terms of wellbeing gains, in both the short and long 
term. 

The analyses proposed in this work have provided a better repre
sentation of what agriculture is and what it provides to society, 
compared to an analysis based on short-term market-valued outcomes 
only. Results may have relevant implications for the design of agricul
tural policies and the selection of more appropriate farming practices for 

F. Alcon et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



Science of the Total Environment 912 (2024) 169272

9

farmers and various other actors in value chains. Both policymakers and 
value chain actors may be under pressure or process to find and evidence 
improved sustainability. The results may guide the understanding of the 
subsidies that different European diversified systems may receive. Thus, 
it is advised that crop diversification provides increasing socioeconomic 
benefits, supporting the development of agricultural policies for pro
moting the adoption of crop diversification practices among European 
farmers. For example, policies based on the use of 5-year contracts called 
agri-environmental schemes from the Common Agricultural Policy may 
be relevant in Boreal regions where there are, a priori, farm-level 
financial losses at least at some farms in the case study region. In this 
way, these subsidies can sustain farmers' extrinsic motivation to grow 
crops with diversification practices (Sauquet, 2023). Even if the CAP 
helps to harmonize approaches towards more diversified management 
of agricultural land, the added value of sustainability will have to be 
generated and supported by more engaging relationships between agri- 
food supply chain operators. The reconfiguration of agri-food value 
chains adapted to alternative crop diversification systems should 
consider different policy tools. For example, the combined joining to 
agri-environmental measures and the possibility to access cultivation 
contracts that provide product collection guarantees, direct technical 
assistance to farmers, agri-food chain premiums and/or better man
agement of agricultural risk (through insurance policies) seeking to 
overcome some of the main barriers for its adoption (Pancino et al., 
2019; Rodriguez et al., 2021; Brannan et al., 2023). Traditional agri
cultural economic reasoning recommends such actions providing tech
nical or market-based benefits rather than increased reliance on 
subsidies which lead to some welfare loss (due to reduced market sig
nals). Awareness of farmers on the potential yield gains such as pre-crop 
values in crop rotations, and cost savings due to diversification, may 
already provide significant gains if utilised in farm management (Tzemi 
and Lehtonen, 2022). 

The analysis carried out in this work could be extended in future 
research by considering other European pedoclimatic regions, such as 
the Eastern Mediterranean or Atlantic, other crops and diversification 
strategies, and longer time spans. Results from eight case studies, mostly 
combining rotation and intercropping strategies, might not be enough to 
draw global conclusions, but it does provide a first good insight on the 
expected economic impact of crop diversification. Further regional 
comparisons could be made within each pedoclimatic region with which 
to create a more comprehensive economic assessment framework. 
However, despite the limited number of crops and case studies, simi
larities regarding market values tend to arise when comparing with re
sults of diversified farming systems in other pedoclimatic regions and 
with other crops. As such, Viguier et al. (2021) reveals that, indepen
dently the diversification strategy followed, diversified farming systems 
does not provide different results than conventional farming systems in 
terms of their economic and social performance. They assess the sus
tainability of diversified farming systems in France, Atlantic pedocli
matic region, with cereals, legumes and oil rapeseed as representing 
crops. Also, Zabala et al. (2023) suggested that crop diversification 
practices tend to not provide different financial outcomes for farmers 
than monocropping ones, even considering a wider variety of crops, 
diversification strategies and most pedoclimatic European regions. The 
same applies even to the case of diversification practices in coffee sys
tems (Teixeira et al., 2022). 

The methods here applied, which combines environmental and so
ciocultural benefits, market and non-market valuation, and the consid
eration of different time spans, are expected to be the inspiration for 
integrated economic assessment of agricultural practices independently 
the region where developed. However, this method is not exempt of 
limitations. The use of non-market valuation methods relaying on social 
preferences becomes a source of subjectivity for the results. Besides this, 
some uncertainty about the ecosystem services flows and their economic 
value may arise as long-term values are mostly based on expected out
comes, which also depends on the discount rates employed and time 

span. As such, the approach taken in this study is well suited to sensi
tivity analysis in terms of varying discount rates or time spans. 

5. Conclusions 

The economic evaluation of crop diversification in three European 
pedoclimatic regions has shown the usefulness of such studies in sup
porting farmers and land managers to better understand the benefits of 
implementing these farming practices. 

When environmental and socio-cultural benefits/costs associated 
with crop diversification and monocropping practices are integrated 
into the economic analysis, social gross margins become more positive, 
or less negative, for diversification practices, suggesting the social 
acceptability of diversification practices in terms of ecosystem services 
and well-being gains, in both the short and the long-term. The expected 
long-term economic outcome is also more influenced by the crop 
assessed than by the diversification applied. This acquires greater rele
vance when considering the environmental and sociocultural costs of 
monocrops. 

We can conclude that these results are useful to guide not only 
farmers' decisions on crop choice and cultivation practices but also other 
actors in the value chain and agrifood policies. Sustainable agro
ecosystems and improved ecosystem services provision are increasingly 
appreciated socially (given the relevance of various environmental and 
sociocultural benefits in different regions), could be respected by 
farmers (due to the low impact on farm economic performance) and are 
expected to be supported by policymakers (due to their long-term pos
itive returns). Therefore, while direct market-based economic gains for 
farmers may be small in the short run, diversification practices are 
shown to be a cost-effective instrument to increase the resilience of 
farming systems in the face of climate change, while social well-being is 
enhanced at short, medium and long-term. 

CRediT authorship contribution statement 

Francisco Alcon: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal anal
ysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project admin
istration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – 
review & editing. Jose A. Albaladejo-García: Data curation, Writing – 
original draft. Victor Martínez-García: Data curation, Writing – review 
& editing. Eleonora S. Rossi: Data curation, Writing – review & editing. 
Emanuele Blasi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, 
Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & 
editing. Heikki Lehtonen: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal 
analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project 
administration, Writing – review & editing. Jose M. Martínez-Paz: 
Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Jose A. 
Zabala: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodol
ogy, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. 

Declaration of competing interest 

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial 
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence 
the work reported in this paper. 

Data availability 

Data will be made available on request. 

Acknowledgments 

This work was supported by the AgriCambio project (Grant PID2020- 
114576RB-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033) and 
the European Commission Horizon 2020 project Diverfarming [grant 
agreement 728003]. 

F. Alcon et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

https://doi.org/10.13039/501100011033


Science of the Total Environment 912 (2024) 169272

10

Appendix A. Supplementary data 

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. 
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169272. 

References 

Alcon, F., Martin-Ortega, J., Pedrero, F., Alarcon, J.J., de Miguel, M.D., 2013. 
Incorporating non-market benefits of reclaimed water into cost-benefit analysis: a 
case study of irrigated mandarin crops in southern Spain. Water Resour. Manag. 27, 
1809–1820. 

Alcon, F., Marín-Miñano, C., Zabala, J.A., de-Miguel, M.D., Martínez-Paz, J.M., 2020. 
Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean 
agroecosystems: a choice experiment approach. Ecol. Econ. 171, 106593. 

Ali, J., 2015. Adoption of diversification for risk management in vegetable cultivation. 
Int. J. Veg. Sci. 21 (1), 9–20. 

Alletto, L., Vandewalle, A., Debaeke, P., 2022. Crop diversification improves cropping 
system sustainability: an 8-year on-farm experiment in South-Western France. Agric. 
Syst. 200, 103433. 

Almansa, C., Martínez-Paz, J.M., 2011. What weight should be assigned to future 
environmental impacts? A probabilistic cost benefit analysis using recent advances 
on discounting. Sci. Total Environ. 409 (7), 1305–1314. 

Beillouin, D., Ben-Ari, T., Makowski, D., 2019. Evidence map of crop diversification 
strategies at the global scale. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 (12), 123001. 

Beillouin, D., Ben-Ari, T., Malézieux, E., Seufert, V., Makowski, D., 2021. Positive but 
variable effects of crop diversification on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Glob. 
Chang. Biol. 27 (19), 4697–4710. 

Benini, M., Blasi, E., Detti, P., Fosci, L., 2023. Solving crop planning and rotation 
problems in a sustainable agriculture perspective. Comput. Oper. Res. 159 https:// 
doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2023.106316. 

Blasi, E., Rossi, E.S., Zabala, J.A., Fosci, L., Sorrentino, A., 2023. Are citizens willing to 
pay for the ecosystem services supported by common agricultural policy? A non- 
market valuation by choice experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 893, 164783. 

Brannan, T., Bickler, C., Hansson, H., Karley, A., Weih, M., Manevska-Tasevka, G., 2023. 
Overcoming barriers to crop diversification uptake in Europe: a mini review. Front. 
Sustain. Food Syst. 7, 1107700. 

Bullock, J.M., Dhanjal-Adams, K.L., Milne, A., Oliver, T.H., Todman, L.C., Whitmore, A. 
P., Pywell, R.F., 2017. Resilience and food security: rethinking an ecological concept. 
J. Ecol. 105 (4), 880–884. 

Canfora, L., Orrú, L., Ros, M., Cuartero, J., Nuutinen, V., Dittrich, F., Lwanga, E.H., 
Sánchez-Navarro, V., Zornoza, R., Thiele-Bruhn, S., 2022. D4.3. Report on 
improvements in above and belowground biodiversity by adoption of diversified 
cropping systems, and relationships between biodiversity, functioning and soil 
quality. © 2022 DIVERFARMING Project and Consortium. https://cordis.europa.eu 
/project/id/728003/results/es. 

Cerasuolo, M., Begum, K., 2020. D7.2. Development of routines to simulate C 
sequestration of diversified cropping systems. © 2020 DIVERFARMING Project and 
Consortium. http://www.diverfarming.eu/images/deliverables/D7_2.pdf. 

Champ, P.A., Boyle, K., Brown, T.C., 2017. A Premier on Nonmarket Valuation. Springer 
Nature, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8.  

Clora, F., Yu, W., Baudry, G., Costa, L., 2021. Impacts of supply-side climate change 
mitigation practices and trade policy regimes under dietary transition: the case of 
European agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 16 (12), 124048. 

Damalas, C.A., Eleftherohorinos, I.G., 2011. Pesticide exposure, safety issues, and risk 
assessment indicators. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 8 (5), 1402–1419. 

De Roest, K., Ferrari, P., Knickel, K., 2018. Specialisation and economies of scale or 
diversification and economies of scope? Assessing different agricultural development 
pathways. J. Rural. Stud. 59, 222–231. 

D’Hose, T., Cougnon, M., De Vliegher, A., Vandecasteele, B., Viaene, N., Cornelis, W., 
Van Bockstaele, E., Reheul, D., 2014. The positive relationship between soil quality 
and crop production: a case study on the effect of farm compost application. Appl. 
Soil Ecol. 75, 189–198. 

Duru, M., Therond, O., Fares, M.H., 2015. Designing agroecological transitions; a review. 
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 1237–1257. 

European Commission (EC), 2015. Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects. 
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.  

Feliciano, D., 2019. A review on the contribution of crop diversification to sustainable 
development goal 1 “no poverty” in different world regions. Sustain. Dev. 27 (4), 
795–808. 

Francaviglia, R., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Di Bene, C., Gai, L., Regina, K., Turtola, E., 2020. 
Diversification and management practices in selected European regions. A data 
analysis of arable crops production. Agronomy 10 (2), 297. 

Franco, S., Pancino, B., Martella, A., De Gregorio, T., 2022. Assessing the presence of a 
monoculture: from definition to quantification. Agriculture 12 (9), 1506. 

Franzluebbers, A.J., Sulc, R.M., Russelle, M.P., 2011. Opportunities and challenges for 
integrating North-American crop and livestock systems. In: Grassland Productivity 
and Ecosystem Services, pp. 208–218. 

Hunt, N.D., Hill, J.D., Liebman, M., 2019. Cropping system diversity effects on nutrient 
discharge, soil erosion, and agronomic performance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (3), 
1344–1352. 

Iserloh, T., Seeger, M., 2022. D7.3. Prediction of soil erosion for different scenarios. © 
2022 DIVERFARMING Project and Consortium. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/i 
d/728003/results/es. 

Keck, M., Hung, D.T., 2019. Burn or bury? A comparative cost–benefit analysis of crop 
residue management practices among smallholder rice farmers in northern Vietnam. 
Sustain. Sci. 14, 375–389. 

Kremen, C., Miles, A., 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus 
conventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 17 
(4). 

Lamichhane, J.R., 2023. Knowledge gaps on agricultural diversification. Nat. Food. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00837-3. 

Lancaster, N.A., Torres, A.P., 2019. Investigating the drivers of farm diversification 
among U.S. fruit and vegetable operations. Sustainability 11 (12), 3380. 

Latvala, T., Regina, K., Lehtonen, H., 2021. Evaluating non-market values of 
agroecological and socio-cultural benefits of diversified cropping systems. Environ. 
Manag. 67, 988–999. 

Lehtonen, H., Blasi, E., Alcon, F., Martínez-García, V., Zabala, J.A., de Miguel, M.D., 
Weituschat, S., Deszo, J., Loczy, D., Lopez, E., Frey-Treseler, K., Treseler, C., 
Purola, T., Grosado, M., 2020. D8.3. Farm level economic benefits, costs and 
improved sustainability of diversified cropping systems. © 2020 DIVERFARMING 
Project and Consortium. http://www.diverfarming.eu/index.php/en/repository-2. 

Lemaire, G., Franzluebbers, A., de Faccio Carvalho, P.C., Dedieu, B., 2014. Integrated 
crop–livestock systems: strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural 
production and environmental quality. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 190, 4–8. 

Lemaire, G., Gastal, F., Franzluebbers, A., Chabbi, A., 2015. Grassland–cropping 
rotations: an avenue for agricultural diversification to reconcile high production 
with environmental quality. Environ. Manag. 56, 1065–1077. 

Lenssen, A.W., Sainju, U.M., Jabro, J.D., Iversen, W.M., Allen, B.L., Evans, R.G., 2014. 
Crop diversification, tillage, and management system influence spring wheat yield 
and water use. Agron. J. 106 (4), 1445–1454. 

Lin, B.B., 2011. Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive 
management for environmental change. BioScience 61 (3), 183–193. 

Loczy, D., Martínez-Mena, M., Boix-Fayos, C., Sánchez-Navarro, V., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., 
Lozano-García, B., Parras, L., González-Rosado, M., Farina, R., di Bene, C., 
Lwanga, E.H., Seeger, M., Iserloh, T., Dezso, J., Regina, K., Zornoza, R., 2022. D5.4. 
Benefits and drawbacks of diversified cropping systems to reduce the environmental 
impact and improve the delivery of ecosystem services. © 2022 DIVERFARMING 
Project and Consortium. https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/728003/results/es. 

Makate, C., Wang, R., Makate, M., Mango, N., 2016. Crop diversification and livelihoods 
of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe: adaptive management for environmental 
change. SpringerPlus 5, 1–18. 

Marcos-Pérez, M., Sánchez-Navarro, V., Martínez-Martínez, S., Martínez-Mena, M., 
García, E., Zornoza, R., 2023. Intercropping organic melon and cowpea combined 
with return of crop residues increases yields and soil fertility. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 
43, 53. 

Martin-Gorriz, B., Zabala, J.A., Sánchez-Navarro, V., Gallego-Elvira, B., Martínez- 
García, V., Alcon, F., Maestre-Valero, J.F., 2022. Intercropping practices in 
Mediterranean mandarin orchards from an environmental and economic 
perspective. Agriculture 12 (5), 574. 

Martin-Guay, M.O., Paquette, A., Dupras, J., Rivest, D., 2018. The new green revolution: 
sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Sci. Total Environ. 615, 
767–772. 

Mortensen, D.A., Smith, R.G., 2020. Confronting barriers to cropping system 
diversification. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 564197. 

Morugán-Coronado, A., Pérez-Rodriguez, P., Insolia, E., Soto-Gómez, D., Fernández- 
Calviño, D., Zornoza, R., 2022. The impact of crop diversification, tillage and 
fertilization type on soil total microbial, fungal and bacterial abundance: a 
worldwide meta-analysis of agricultural sites. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 329, 107867. 

Nilsson, P., Bommarco, R., Hansson, H., Kuns, B., Schaak, H., 2022. Farm performance 
and input self-sufficiency increases with functional crop diversity on Swedish farms. 
Ecol. Econ. 198, 107465. 

Nunes, M.R., van Es, H.M., Schindelbeck, R., Ristow, A.J., Ryan, M., 2018. No-till and 
cropping system diversification improve soil health and crop yield. Geoderma 328, 
30–43. 

Pancino, B., Blasi, E., Rappoldt, A., Pascucci, S., Ruini, L., Ronchi, C., 2019. Partnering 
for sustainability in agri-food supply chains: the case of barilla sustainable farming in 
the Po Valey. Agric. Food Econ. 7 (1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-019-0133-9. 

Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A., Green, R.E., 2011. Reconciling food production and 
biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333 
(6047), 1289–1291. 

Piccini, C., Vanino, S., Marchetti, A., Farina, R., 2022. D7.4. Distribution maps for 
thematic variables and territorial data to provide a decision support system for 
policy makers and planners. © 2022 DIVERFARMING Project and Consortium. https 
://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/728003/results/es. 

Purwanto, B.H., Alam, S., 2020. Impact of intensive agricultural management on carbon 
and nitrogen dynamics in the humid tropics. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 66 (1), 50–59. 

Robertson, G.P., Swinton, S.M., 2005. Reconciling agricultural productivity and 
environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Front. Ecol. Environ. 3 
(1), 38–46. 

Rodriguez, C., Màrtensson, L.D., Zachrison, M., Carlsson, G., 2021. Sustainability of 
diversified organic cropping systems—challenges identified by farmer interviews 
and multi-criteria assessments. Front. Agron. 3, 698968. 

Roesch-McNally, G.E., Arbuckle, J.G., Tyndall, J.C., 2018. Barriers to implementing 
climate resilient agricultural strategies: the case of crop diversification in the US 
Corn Belt. Glob. Environ. Chang. 48, 206–215. 

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. 

F. Alcon et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169272
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169272
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0005
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0010
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0015
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0020
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0025
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0030
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0035
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0035
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2023.106316
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2023.106316
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0045
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0045
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0045
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0050
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0055
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0055
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/728003/results/es
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/728003/results/es
http://www.diverfarming.eu/images/deliverables/D7_2.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7104-8
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0075
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0080
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0080
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0085
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0090
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0095
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0095
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0100
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0105
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0110
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0115
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0115
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0120
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0125
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0125
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0125
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/728003/results/es
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/728003/results/es
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0135
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0135
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0135
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0140
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0140
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0140
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00837-3
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0150
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0150
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0155
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0155
http://www.diverfarming.eu/index.php/en/repository-2
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0165
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0165
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0165
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0170
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0170
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0170
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0175
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0175
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0175
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0180
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0180
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/728003/results/es
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0190
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0190
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0190
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0195
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0200
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0200
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0200
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0200
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0205
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0205
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0205
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0210
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0210
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0215
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0215
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0215
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0215
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0220
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0220
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0220
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0225
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0225
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0225
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-019-0133-9
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0235
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0235
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0235
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/728003/results/es
https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/728003/results/es
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0245
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0245
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0250
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0250
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0250
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0255
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0255
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0255
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0260
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0260
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0260
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0265
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0265


Science of the Total Environment 912 (2024) 169272

11

Sánchez, A.C., Karnau, H.N., Grazioli, F., Jones, S.K., 2022. Financial profitability of 
diversified farming systems: a global meta-analysis. Ecol. Econ. 201, 107595 https:// 
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107595. 

Sánchez-Navarro, V., Martínez-Martínez, S., Acosta, J.A., Almagro, M., Martínez- 
Mena, M., Boix-Fayos, C., Díaz-Pereira, E., Temnani, A., Berrios, P., Pérez-Pastor, A., 
Zornoza, R., 2023. Soil greenhouse gas emissions and crop production with 
implementation of alley cropping in a Mediterranean citrus orchard. Eur. J. Agron. 
142, 126684. 

Sauquet, A., 2023. Ex post analysis of the crop diversification measure of CAP greening in 
France. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 50 (2), 717–742. 

Scherer, L.A., Verburg, P.H., Schulp, C.J., 2018. Opportunities for sustainable 
intensification in European agriculture. Glob. Environ. Chang. 48, 43–55. 

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. 

Teixeira, H.M., Schulte, R.P.O., Anten, N.P.R., Bosco, L.C., Baartman, J.E.M., Moinet, G. 
Y.K., Reidsma, P., 2022. How to quantify the impacts of diversification on 
sustainability? A review of indicators in coffee systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42, 62. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00785-5. 

Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., Befort, B.L., 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable 
intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108 (50), 20260–20264. 

Tzemi, D., Lehtonen, H., 2022. The use of pre-crop values to improve farm performance: 
the case of dairy farms in southwest Finland. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 20 (7), 
1333–1347. 

Viguier, L., Cavan, N., Bockstaller, C., Cadoux, S., Corre-Hellou, G., Dubois, S., Duval, R., 
Keichinger, O., Toqué, C., Toupet de Cordoue, A.L., Angevin, F., 2021. Combining 
diversification practices to enhance the sustainability of conventional cropping 
systems. Eur. J. Agron. 127, 126279 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJA.2021.126279. 

Weituschat, C.S., Pascucci, S., Materia, V.C., Tamas, P., de Jong, R., Trienekens, J., 2022. 
Goal frames and sustainability transitions: how cognitive lock-ins can impede crop 
diversification. Sustain. Sci. 17 (6), 2203–2219. 

Wezel, A., Casagrande, M., Celette, F., Vian, J.F., Ferrer, A., Peigné, J., 2014. 
Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 
34 (1), 1–20. 

Wezel, A., Goris, M., Bruil, J., Félix, G.F., Peeters, A., Bàrberi, P., Bellon, S., Migliorini, P., 
2018. Challenges and action points to amplify agroecology in Europe. Sustainability 
10 (5), 1598. 

Zabala, J.A., Martínez-García, V., Martínez-Paz, J.M., López-Becerra, E.I., Nasso, M., 
Díaz-Pereira, E., Sánchez-Navarro, V., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., González-Rosado, M., 
Farina, R., Di Bene, C., Huerta, E., Jurrius, A., Frey-Treseler, K., Lóczy, D., Fosci, L., 
Blasi, E., Lehtonen, H., Alcon, F., 2023. Crop diversification practices in Europe. An 
economic cross-case study comparison. Sustain. Sci. 18, 2691–2706. https://doi.org/ 
10.1007/s11625-023-01413-1. 

F. Alcon et al.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107595
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107595
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0275
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0275
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0275
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0275
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0275
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0280
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0280
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0285
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0285
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0290
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0290
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0290
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00785-5
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0300
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0300
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0305
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0305
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0305
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJA.2021.126279
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0315
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0315
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0315
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0320
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0320
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0320
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0325
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0325
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0048-9697(23)07902-0/rf0325
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01413-1
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01413-1

	Kansilehti_Alcon_etal_2024_ScienceOfTheTotalEnvironment_Cost_benefit
	1-s2.0-S0048969723079020-main
	Cost benefit analysis of diversified farming systems across Europe: Incorporating non-market benefits of ecosystem services
	1 Introduction
	2 Materials and methods
	2.1 Case study
	2.2 Social gross margin analysis
	2.3 Cost-benefit analysis

	3 Results
	3.1 Short-term economic value of crop diversification
	3.2 Medium and long-term economic value of crop diversification

	4 Discussion
	5 Conclusions
	CRediT authorship contribution statement
	Declaration of competing interest
	Data availability
	Acknowledgments
	Appendix A Supplementary data
	References