Agroecological Adoption Pathways in Europe: Drivers, Barriers, and Policy Implication Opportunities in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Portugal

Abstract

Agroecology offers a transformative pathway toward sustainable food systems by integrating ecological, economic, and social dimensions of farming. While its conceptual and policy foundations are increasingly recognized in European Union (EU) strategies, the practical adoption of agroecological principles at the farm level remains uneven, particularly in socio-economically peripheral Member States. This article investigates the enabling and constraining factors of agroecological uptake in three EU countries—Czech Republic, Hungary, and Portugal, using a mixed qualitative approach that combined literature review, policy mapping, and 42 in-depth farmer interviews conducted in 2020–2021. Data were analyzed through a shared coding framework, iterative team discussions, and a standardized comparative matrix to ensure cross-country validity. The results reveal shared barriers, including limited institutional coordination, subsidy dependency, and structural land inequalities, alongside country-specific dynamics such as farmer-to-farmer learning in Portugal, family-farm identity in Czechia, and trust-based advisory relations in Hungary. The findings underscore that systemic constraints, rather than conceptual gaps, impede agroecological transitions, and highlight the need for context-sensitive policy instruments, advisory reforms, and training programs aligned with agroecological principles. The paper contributes to the literature by providing empirical insight into farmer attitudes and practices in Central and Southern Europe and by offering actionable recommendations for designing policies and training.

1. Introduction

1.1. Global Challenges and Need for Agroecological Transition

There is broad consensus among supranational agencies and conventions on food and the environment (e.g., [1,2,3]) that the global food system is failing. It accounts for 26% of global greenhouse gas emissions, consumes 70% of freshwater, drives deforestation, and causes biodiversity loss [4]. Meanwhile, it continues to fall short in combating hunger and malnutrition, ensuring sustainable livelihoods, and mitigating environmental impacts. Addressing persistent malnutrition, rural poverty, and the growing effects of climate change requires a profound transformation [5]. The European Union recognizes both the food system’s contribution to climate change, water stress, and pollution, and its potential to help reverse these trends. Its sustainability goal is to transform food systems for environmental, health, social, and economic benefits—particularly improving small-scale producers’ incomes and market access. Through the Farm to Fork Strategy, the EU supports the global shift toward sustainable food systems aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [6], enhancing nutrition, food security, and resilience while promoting agroecology. So much the more, beyond environmental pressures, disadvantaged rural regions—where many people depend on agriculture or related activities—remain vulnerable, facing persistent social, economic, and ecological challenges that leave them inadequately prepared to cope with the impacts of climate change and other socio-economic shocks [7].

1.2. Evolution of Agroecology

Agroecology has emerged as an alternative paradigm for transforming food systems [8], evolving over time and across regions—from a scientific discipline to a set of ecological farming practices and, ultimately, to a movement pursuing food sovereignty [9]. It has gained increasing legitimacy through the engagement of diverse social actors, including social movements, farmer organizations, institutions, and academia [10].

According to [11], the application of agroecology has evolved across different scales: initially focused on the plot level (1930s–1960s), later expanded to interactions with surrounding ecosystems (1970s–2000s), and today encompassing the entire food system, defined as the integrative study of its ecological, economic, and social dimensions [12].

The agroecological transition can be interpreted not only as an individual behavioral change, but also as part of a broader socio-technical transition towards sustainability. According to transition theory [13,14], systemic change in agriculture arises from the interaction between innovative niches, existing systems, and overarching landscape pressures. From this perspective, farmers experimenting with agroecological methods represent niche innovations that challenge the dominant agri-food system shaped by technological dependencies, policy incentives, and market structures. National policy frameworks and CAP instruments act as stabilizers of the system, while landscape-level forces such as the EU Green Deal, climate change and changing consumer expectations exert pressure for change. Understanding adoption through this multi-level lens helps explain why agroecological transition depends not only on farmer motivation, but also on institutional coordination, advisory support, and policy flexibility that enable system-level innovation at all levels.

1.3. Theoretical Framework and Definitions of Agroecology

The highly territorial and context-dependent nature of agroecology makes it challenging to establish a single, universal concept that encompasses all ecosystems and social actors where it is applied. Therefore, for this article, the definition developed by Agroecology Europe is used:

Agroecology is considered jointly as a science, a practice, and a social movement. It encompasses the whole food system from the soil to the organization of human societies. It is value-laden and based on core principles. As a science, it prioritizes action research, holistic and participatory approaches, and transdisciplinarity, including different knowledge systems. As a practice, it is based on the sustainable use of local renewable resources, local farmers’ knowledge and priorities, the wise use of biodiversity to provide ecosystem services and resilience, and solutions that provide multiple benefits (environmental, economic, social) from local to global. As a movement, it defends smallholder and family farmers, rural communities, food sovereignty, local and short marketing chains, diversity of indigenous seeds and breeds, healthy and quality food [15].

In the context of the Agroecological Vocational Training for Farmers 2019-1-HU01-KA202-060895 (trAEce) project (see below), the consortium has applied the following definition of agroecology as the most appropriate for partners’ regional context based on a literature review, a geographic background analysis and the combined input of our diverse project team members: “Agroecology is considered jointly as a science with a transdisciplinary, participatory and action research approach to research the farms ecological relationships as well as the sustainability of the whole food system; a practice that nurtures soil ecosystems, nutrients’ recycling, the conservation of energy at all scales and the dynamic management of biodiversity; and a social movement reshaping the relations within the food system, promoting proximity and solidarity between consumers and producers, both challenge and transform power structures in society and thereby fostering food sovereignty leading to self-governing communities loosening corporate control of food.” [16].

This study builds on findings of the trAEce project (2019–2022) which sought to equip farmers and trainers with tools (such as a vocational training program in agroecology) to support the transition of agricultural practices toward agroecological principles and to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and experience across European farming communities. The consortium, consisting of six institutions from five European Union member states (Hungary, Romania, Austria, the Czech Republic, and Portugal) examined farmers’ knowledge, perceptions, and experiences related to agroecology, while also mapping relevant policies, regulations, networks, and practices.

While the theoretical and policy rationale for agroecology is increasingly well-established, its practical adoption across Europe remains uneven and poorly understood. Despite the growing interest in agroecology within international and EU frameworks, empirical research on actual uptake at the farm level—particularly in socio-economically vulnerable and institutionally peripheral EU countries—is still limited. Most existing studies focus on conceptual advances or success stories in Western and Northern Europe, leaving significant knowledge gaps regarding the specific drivers, constraints, and lived experiences of farmers navigating agroecological transitions elsewhere. Furthermore, the role of farmer attitudes, knowledge exchange, and policy support mechanisms in shaping agroecological adoption has received inadequate attention.

This research seeks to generate empirically grounded insights into the enabling factors shaping agroecological adoption in EU contexts, with the objective of informing policy tools and support mechanisms that can strengthen agroecological transitions.

1.4. Agroecology in the European Context with Special Focus on the Three Selected Countries (Czech Republic, Hungary and Portugal)

Agroecology (AE) is increasingly spreading across Europe, as evidenced by numerous examples presented by [17], although its evolution and level of adoption differ by country. The term AE was first used by Russian, German, French, and Italian scientists in the 1920s–1930s [18,19], but it remained largely unknown in Europe until recently [20]. In Eastern Europe, the AE concept became popular in the 1990s.

According to the OEP (Osservatorio Europeo del Paesaggio) report [21], science and practice in agroecology have traditionally developed separately in Europe, though several movements have emerged in recent years, such as the European Coordination of La Via Campesina [22] and Friends of the Earth Europe [23]. Spain plays a leading role, hosting the first School of Agroecology at the University of Andalucia for over 30 years [24]. However, surprisingly, this development has not yet had an impact on other European countries, having only just been initiated in France [25].

The scientific dimension of AE is currently well-recognized in Europe [18]. It is mainly perceived as a science, followed by practice, and less as a movement [9]. Three groups of countries can be distinguished: (1) Romania, Portugal, and the Netherlands, where AE is viewed as a science; (2) Switzerland, Poland, Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom, Austria, and Spain, where it is seen as both science and practice, and limitedly perceived as a movement; and (3) Finland, Slovakia, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Norway, Hungary, Sweden, Italy, and France, where AE is primarily regarded as a practice, followed by science and lastly movement. AE in Europe encompasses diverse agricultural practices developed in response to dependency on external inputs and unequal value distribution in supply chains [26]. Despite differing definitions, cooperation has advanced through networks such as Agroecology Europe [17], which promotes agroecological transition in the continent and fosters interactions among stakeholders and disciplines [27]. As several institutions in Europe conduct research on agroecology, the publication activity has significantly expanded in the last two decades [28], particularly in Western and Northern Europe, where it is more structured and [17]. In Eastern Europe, AE has been expanding since the 1990s, linked to the rise in sustainable and organic farming [29]. National AE programs and policies have emerged mainly in France, Denmark, and Italy, partly due to the absence of an explicit EU strategy [30]. However, the new Common Agricultural Policy framework requires countries to integrate AE aspects into their 2021/2023–2027 CAP Strategic Plans through eco-schemes.

Agriculture remains a significant sector in the Czech Republic, with over half of the land cultivated. However, 89% of arable land is controlled by large industrial farms—mostly under leased—limiting access to land for smallholders and new entrants (access to land, n.d.; [31]). Fragmented ownership, high prices, and insecure tenancy further hinder agroecological adoption. Agroecology has intensified institutional presence since the 1990s, especially in higher education and research institutions. Mendel University in Brno, which has a robust research capacity, offers accredited study programs in agroecology at both the bachelor’s and master’s degree levels, as well as lifelong learning courses such as on sustainable cultivation practices and permaculture. The Czech University of Life Sciences in Prague provides an online master’s program in tropical agroecology. The University of South Bohemia offers an accredited program in agroecology at all degree levels and besides, other programs (e.g., multifunctional agriculture) include courses on sustainable farming practices, organic farming, and agroecological principles. Non-formal initiatives by organizations such as AMPI and PRO-BIO further promote soil health, climate resilience, and sustainable production [32,33].

Policy instruments relevant to agroecology include the CAP Strategic Plan 2023–2027 [6], Agro-environmental–climate Measures (M10), as well as the Rural Development Programme (2014–2020), institutionally supported by the Ministry of Agriculture (MZe), Ministry of Environment (MŽP), as well as Institute of Agricultural Economics as well as Information (ÚZEI) [34]. While these instruments promote sustainable and organic production, no dedicated national agroecology platform exists.

Hungary possesses a rich institutional and research background in agriculture, yet agroecology is still at a developmental stage [35]. AE is often understood narrowly as a scientific or technical discipline, with social and systemic dimensions largely underrepresented [36]. Recent studies confirm this trend: a global bibliometric analysis found that fields such as sociology, public administration, and economics remain insufficiently addressed in agroecology research, despite its inherently interdisciplinary nature [37].

Formal AE education is still fragmented: although no full-degree BSc or/and MSc programs exist, related courses are offered at higher education institutions such as Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE), Universities of Debrecen, Nyíregyháza, Szeged, Pécs, Sopron, István Széchenyi, Pannonia, Budapest Business University, and Edutus University [38]. Promising developments include MATE’s postgraduate programs in Organic Farming and Biological Soil Fertility Management, as well as the design of a specific agroecology-dedicated MSc program. Non-formal and adult education initiatives, often EU-funded, address community-supported agriculture, soil management, and permaculture. Civil organizations such as ESSRG, Védegylet, and Kislépték actively promote agroecology and policy advocacy [16,39].

While Hungary’s past programs (e.g., the National Agri-environmental Program, VP AKG1 and AKG2) supported organic and ecological practices, AE is still not explicitly recognized in national policy. The Agro-ecological Program, launched in 2023 under the CAP 2023–2027, introduces eco-schemes that could incentivize agroecological practices [40]. Hungary is among the six Member States (with the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Slovakia) that adapted a multi-dimensional eco-scheme offering a package of options. The Hungarian eco-scheme is points-based, similar to the Dutch model, rewarding farmers according to the environmental impact of their practices. This adds nuance and also assigns importance on proper scoring and outreach to farmers [41]. Its effectiveness will depend on accurate scoring, outreach, and farmer engagement [41,42,43].

The creation of the Hungarian Agroecology Network in 2020—with over 60 active members including farmers, researchers, and NGOs—marks a significant milestone in promoting agroecological transition [31]. The 2023 Agroecology Europe Forum in Hungary further strengthened its visibility and collaboration potential.

Portugal’s agricultural sector exhibits significant structural imbalances: even though 71.5% of farms are smaller than 5 hectares, they account for only 9.1% of the total agricultural land, while farms larger than 50 hectares represent just 4.2% of farms, yet cover 66.9% of the total area [44]. This disproportion, together with the demographic challenges of an aging population and the erosion of traditional agroecological knowledge, is hindering agroecological transitions [45,46]. Nevertheless, small-scale family farming with ancestral practices can still be observed [47], while an increasing number of young adults, both Portuguese and foreign, are returning to rural areas to start agroecological projects [47,48]. After Portugal’s accession to the EU in 1986 and the financial crisis of 2008–2013, many smallholders returned to farming, reviving interest in sustainable models [49,50].

Although a unified agroecology movement is still nascent, several grassroots initiatives have gained momentum. The CNA (Confederação Nacional de Agricultura), which represents small-scale farmers and is affiliated with La Via Campesina, has embraced agroecology in the context of food sovereignty [51]. The AMAP (Community Supported Agriculture) movement also promotes agroecology as one of the foundational principles of this community-supported agricultural model [51]. In 2023 and 2025 two major civil society events called “Confluências pela Agroecologia” (Confluences for Agroecology) marked initial steps towards establishing a much-needed national agroecology network to accelerate the transition in Portugal [52].

Public education related to agroecology is mainly offered at polytechnic institutes. In 2024, the Polytechnic Institute of Viseu hosted the 10th International Agroecology Congress, the first held outside of Spain.

An emerging institutional framework is also taking shape: In 2018, the Family Farming Statute was approved in the National Parliament (Decree 64/2018) and in 2020 the Council of Ministers passed the National Organic Farming Strategy and the Innovation Agenda for Agriculture 2020–2030 (Resolution No. 86/2020). Within the latter Agenda, a public structure, the CECAFA—Centro de Competências para a Agricultura Familiar e Agroecologia (Competence Center for Family Agriculture and Agroecology) was set up in 2021. In spite of the fact that this was a governmental initiative, it does not receive dedicated funding or institutional backing [53]. Recent legislation, such as the 2023 amendment to Law 151/2016, established the Agricultural and Forestry Advisory System (SAAF) to support the integration of agroecology into agricultural advisory services [54]. But while these policy instruments recognize AE principles, they lack robust implementation mechanisms.

Agroecology is progressively emerging across the three countries through academic programs, grassroots networks, and some policy instruments. However, widespread adoption remains constrained by structural land inequalities, limited institutional coordination, and the persistence of conventional farming paradigms. Nonetheless, farmer-led initiatives and civic engagement provide an important foundation for further agroecological transformation.

1.5. Policy Context for Agroecology

Although there is no unified legal framework explicitly defining agroecology at the EU level, the concept is increasingly referenced in EU strategic documents and funding mechanisms as a tool for sustainable agricultural transformation [55,56,57]. Agroecology is mentioned in a limited number of secondary legal acts, such as Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, where it is framed as a specific best practice addressing societal demands on food and health and contributing to climate and environmental goals.

The European Green Deal, adopted in 2019, seeks to make the EU climate-neutral by 2050. Central to this goal is the transformation of the food system, as outlined in the Farm to Fork Strategy, which promotes reduced pesticide use, lower antimicrobial dependency, increased organic farming (targeting 25% of agricultural land by 2030), and biodiversity restoration [58]. Agroecology aligns strongly with these priorities, offering a systemic approach to integrating ecological, economic, and social dimensions in food systems [5,59,60,61].

The CAP 2023–2027 includes environmental sustainability objectives that resonate with agroecological principles, particularly within its so-called “green architecture.” In Pillar I there are mandatory and voluntary measures as well. According to Article 12 of 2021/2115/EU a conditionality was introduced. The latter means that Member States shall include in their CAP Strategic Plans a system of conditionality under which farmers are subject to an administrative penalty if they do not comply with the statutory management requirements (SMR) under the good agricultural environmental conditions (GAEC) standards. These conditions, established in the CAP Strategic Plans, relate, among others, to the climate and the environment, including water, soil, and biodiversity of ecosystems.

Another essential novelty in the new green architecture is the so-called eco-scheme, a voluntary element within Pillar I, which, however, Member States are obliged to develop and offer to farmers as an option. It is a payment to farmers who implement practices beneficial to the environment and climate [62]. At least 25% of direct payments are to be allocated to these schemes [40]. Pillar II offers longer-term agri-environment-climate commitments, which fund voluntary practices that go beyond statutory requirements [62].

Despite these policy openings, most Member States—including Hungary and Portugal—have incorporated only fragmented agroecological elements into their CAP Strategic Plans [42]. According to the current EU regulation ‘Member States shall establish, and provide support for voluntary schemes for the climate, the environment and animal welfare (‘eco-schemes’)’ and these schemes shall cover at least two areas of actions for the climate, the environment, animal welfare and combatting antimicrobial resistance. In Hungarian practice a so-called agroecology program was established. Farmers can apply for additional financial support, similar to the first pillar basic income support, if they undertake practices beyond the mandatory conditionality practices. The packages of practices are available to everyone in all three land use categories: arable land, plantation and grassland. Among the optional elements there are progressive practices, such as mulching, crop diversification, field size limitation and biodiversity protection or even the use of no-tillage techniques. However, the experience of the past three years since the launch of the program shows that farmers tend to choose practices that are less costly and easier to implement. As a result, the program has not led to a significant change in their attitudes [63].

The regulatory flexibility granted to Member States means that support for agroecology remains inconsistent and often marginal relative to conventional agriculture. Furthermore, structural support mechanisms continue to favor large-scale industrial farms, limiting access to CAP resources for smaller, agroecology-oriented operations [30,64].

Since 2018, there has been some progress in integrating agroecology into EU policy—for example, the EU officially launched the Agroecology Partnership in 2024, fostering Living Labs, research infrastructures, and coordinated funding mechanisms. While some countries—such as France, Italy, and Denmark—have taken initial steps to formalize agroecology in national frameworks, other Central and Eastern European countries still lack strong legal recognition, dedicated national programs, or targeted support, meaning that much of agroecology’s integration remains aspirational [5,29,65].

Consequently, although the EU’s evolving policy environment offers potential pathways for agroecological adoption, the lack of a coherent legal definition, consistent implementation, and institutional support continues to pose significant barriers across much of Europe.

1.6. Objectives of the Study

This study aims to:

• Identify the institutional, socio-economic, and attitudinal drivers and barriers influencing agroecological adoption at the farm level in three EU Member States: the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Portugal.
• Provide empirical insights into the perceptions and experiences of farmers with regard to agroecology.
• Compare national policy contexts and their alignment with agroecological principles.
• To provide evidence-based insights for the development of supportive policy tools enabling agroecological transitions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Objective of the Interviews

The purpose of the personal consultations with farmers presented below was to assess their perceptions of agroecology and the local conditions influencing its adoption. The questions explored farmers’ general understanding of agroecology, which elements of AE they apply in practice, their motivations and barriers, and their development needs. Accordingly, the research team members conducted 42 in-depth interviews (17 Hungarian, 13 Portuguese, and 12 Czech). The interview preparation and data collection period took place between November 2020 and April 2021. By analyzing the interview summaries, it was possible to identify strengths and weaknesses in farmers’ approaches and attitudes, as well as their development priorities.

2.2. Sampling and Interviewee Selection

To answer the research questions, in-depth qualitative interviews were chosen as the primary research tool, as this method is particularly effective for exploring personal motivations, the reasons behind actions and behavioral drivers [66]. Qualitative interviews are recognized as a sensitive and powerful technique for understanding individual experiences, allowing participants to articulate their perspectives in their own words [67,68].

Interviewees were selected through stratified purposive sampling to ensure diversity of farm types, sizes, and production systems. The aim was to engage with a broad group of farmers to obtain a comprehensive view of differing conceptual approaches to farming, levels of professional knowledge, and openness to new practices. This diversity also supported thematic saturation, which was reached after 42 interviews, indicating that new interviews no longer generated substantially new themes.

The study did not focus exclusively on organic farmers, since organic farming is often identified with agroecology in many countries, and its four principles—health, ecology, fairness, and care—are already reflected in agroecological practices. Special attention was given to conventional farmers to better understand attitudes toward agroecology among those not necessarily familiar with its concepts or practices.

The interview sample included arable crop producers, vegetable and fruit growers, livestock farmers, and mixed-farm operators. Farms of different scales were represented (less than 75 ha; 75–200 ha; and more than 200 ha).

The interviews were conducted by the authors of this paper with academic backgrounds in agricultural sciences and rural sociology, all experienced in qualitative fieldwork and farmer engagement.

2.3. Interview Design and Scope

The interview guide was structured into four main sections:

• Farm and demographic profile—5 mixed (open-ended and multiple-choice) questions
• Attitudes toward agroecology—17 open-ended questions
• Knowledge and learning—29 open-ended questions
• Skills and practices—9 open-ended questions

To illustrate the scope and focus of the interviews, a few representative questions from each section are presented below:

Farm and demographic profile: “What and for what purpose do you produce (e.g., food, feed, energy production, industrial raw material)?” and “Do you consider farming as a job, a profession, or a lifestyle?”

Attitudes toward agroecology: “Do you use technologies and processes designed to ensure the long-term fertility of the land and the protection of the surrounding ecosystems?” and “What impact does climate change have on your farming?”

Knowledge and learning: “What knowledge do you consider important in agricultural production and sustainable resource management?” and “How do you rate your knowledge in areas such as soil conservation, water protection, and biodiversity?”

Skills and practices: “Where do you get information on production, management, grants, and regulations?” and “How do you make and share decisions within the farm?”

This structure ensured a balanced exploration of background factors, values, competencies, and daily practices. Some questions were adapted to the farm type (e.g., large >200 ha arable farms, ≤20 ha vegetable farms, medium-sized 50–150 head pig farms, etc.).

Interview duration ranged from 45 to 90 min, depending on the openness and agroecological awareness of participants. While a set of baseline questions guided all interviews, the level of detail varied according to the interviewee’s engagement and the interviewer’s style. Before launching the main phase of data collection, three pilot interviews were conducted to test the clarity, flow, and relevance of the questions. The aim was to identify possible redundancies and assess whether the questions were self-explanatory and could be answered without additional guidance. Feedback from the pilot interviews confirmed that the interviewees understood the questions as intended and that the wording was appropriate for different farm contexts. Minor adjustments were made to improve wording and eliminate overlaps before implementing the final interview guide.

2.4. Evaluation Aspects

The responses were evaluated according to the following aspects:

• Agricultural activity, sustainable farming practices, and sustainability challenges
• Self-perceived attitudes, knowledge and skills of the farmer, and their presence and application in daily practice
• Agroecological attitudes, knowledge, and skill elements considered important by the farmer
• Needs and ideas for further improvement

These dimensions formed the analytical framework for interpreting farmers’ perceptions and identifying areas for targeted capacity development.

2.5. Data Analysis

A structured content analysis was performed, using a hybrid approach combining inductive (data-driven) and deductive (theory-based) coding. The interview summaries were entered into a shared Excel matrix, in which predefined categories were aligned with four analytical dimensions:

• Agricultural activities and sustainability practices
• Self-perception, knowledge, and skills
• Agroecological orientation
• Desired and suggested improvements

Statements were organized into rows and coded into thematic categories in columns. Presence/absence analysis was applied, meaning that the occurrence of a theme was recorded once per interview regardless of frequency, to capture representativeness without overemphasizing repetition. This provided a consistent framework for comparing responses across interviewees and countries.

Coding was performed manually by researchers, and new or ambiguous themes were discussed in weekly team meetings to ensure consistent interpretation and uniformity. To avoid overrepresentation of recurring ideas, only newly formulated statements were entered into the matrix. Instead of counting frequency, presence/absence analysis was used. Reliability was ensured through iterative consensus discussions rather than statistical measures, following established standards of qualitative content analysis. Diverging interpretations were resolved collectively during team debriefings, ensuring methodological rigor and shared understanding across researchers. The risk of researcher bias was minimized by team discussions and the use of standardized protocols during data collection, coding, and interpretation.

The cross-country comparison was structured around four integrated dimensions: (1) Knowledge and Institutional Support Systems, (2) Social Capital, (3) Market Integration, and (4) Structural Enablers. These dimensions synthesize core socio-technical and institutional factors identified in the transition and agricultural innovation literature as critical for sustainability transformations. In line with the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions, agroecological change is shaped by interactions between niche innovations, regime institutions (e.g., advisory systems, markets, subsidy frameworks), and broader landscape pressures [13].

2.6. Ethical Consideration and Editorial Note

All interviewees participated voluntarily after being informed about the study’s purpose, scope, and use of data. Oral consent was obtained prior to each interview, and participants were assured that their responses would remain anonymous. Verbal statements were provided to guarantee confidentiality and to ensure that no interviewee could be identified from the summaries or quotations used in the analysis. The research was conducted in accordance with general ethical standards for qualitative research, respecting participants’ autonomy and data protection principles.

Concerning the paper writing, we used OpenAI ChatGPT (GPT-5 version, OpenAI, San Francisco, CA, USA) solely to improve linguistic clarity and readability. All conceptual design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation were conducted independently by the authors, who verified all AI-assisted text to ensure factual accuracy and scientific integrity.

3. Results

3.1. Hungary—Strengths in Farming Practices and Farmers’ Attitudes

Hungarian farmers exhibit a growing openness to continuous learning, particularly through practice-oriented training formats. Interviewees expressed a clear preference for concise, in-person training sessions that include field demonstrations, provided these align with seasonal agricultural schedules. Respondents articulated an interest in skill development not only for managerial effectiveness but also for enhancing the economic viability of their farms. As reflected in one farmer’s account, “I try to learn from other farmers and events, especially on minimal tillage. It helps me improve both soil quality and economic results.”

Knowledge transfer is primarily facilitated through professional advisory services and consultants, whom farmers generally trust and are willing to remunerate. While advisory relationships are seen as effective in disseminating best practices, and advisory services are generally trusted, yet their capacity to foster agroecological innovation remains underdeveloped.

A noteworthy attitudinal strength among respondents is their expressed commitment to land stewardship, particularly among landowner-operators. This includes an intergenerational ethic focused on preserving soil health and the broader agroecosystem. As highlighted by another respondent, “Farming is not only about production—it’s about taking care of the land so that the next generation can also live from it.” Farming is frequently conceptualized not merely as an economic activity but as a lifestyle with socio-cultural dimensions. Farmers acknowledged the importance of their role as exemplars for younger generations and as contributors to local development. A nascent interest in peer cooperation and local impact was also observed, albeit limited by structural and relational constraints.

3.2. Hungary—Weaknesses in Agroecological Adoption and Farmers’ Attitudes

Agroecology remains a relatively novel and fragmented concept within the Hungarian agricultural sector. Decision-making continues to be driven predominantly by short-term economic considerations, particularly among larger and more intensively managed operations. Many respondents indicated that while they are aware of the principles underlying agroecology, they are hesitant to adopt these practices due to perceived risks to yields and efficiency. Rather than reducing external inputs, there is a tendency to compensate for technological or environmental challenges with increased chemical usage. As one farmer underlined, “Technological deficiencies should not be fixed with chemicals.”

A further limitation is the underutilization of rural development programs aimed at fostering social benefits through agriculture. Farmer participation in cooperative structures or professional networks remains low, constrained by both limited institutional support and a lack of interpersonal trust. Advisory services, while generally respected, are not uniformly perceived as accessible or tailored to local needs. Older farmers in particular tend to express skepticism toward new practices and innovations.

3.3. Desired Improvements as Articulated by Hungarian Farmers

Interviewees identified a range of areas where improvements in knowledge, skills, and attitudes could facilitate a shift toward more sustainable practices. While farmers themselves emphasized the need for reconciling profitability and sustainability, the synthesis of findings points to deeper systemic needs. Increased awareness of the often-hidden externalities associated with conventional farming was seen as crucial. Respondents emphasized the value of diversifying activities, applying systems thinking, and enhancing the social relevance of farming through local employment and community engagement.

The development of risk-sharing partnerships was also seen as a priority to lower barriers to experimentation and support innovation adoption. Farmers emphasized the need for accessible, field-based learning structures and more integrated support services.

3.4. Hungary—Proposed Improvements Based on Synthesis

Beyond the improvements identified by farmers themselves, the synthesis of findings suggests that future agroecological programs should cultivate farmers’ intrinsic motivation for ecological and social performance alongside technical advancement. Training initiatives must not only provide technical knowledge but also promote a holistic, ethics-based understanding of sustainability.

It is imperative to strengthen the role of advisory systems in promoting soil conservation, input rationalization, and overall resource efficiency. These achievements should be sequenced in a way that fosters progressive engagement, requiring both openness and long-term commitment. A curriculum targeting practicing farmers should embed principles of continuous learning, ecological resilience, and community-based innovation.

3.5. Czech Republic—Strengths in Farming Practices and Farmers’ Attitudes

Respondents in the Czech Republic predominantly operate family farms, which they view as advantageous due to the autonomy, responsibility, and regional embeddedness such structures afford. A strong sense of identity with the land, landscape, and livestock was evident across responses. Many interviewees emphasized their pursuit of management specialization and reported confidence in their own competence, particularly in domains where they felt well-trained. As one Czech farmer noted, “I have a high level of expertise in soil management and its protection, and I constantly rely on new knowledge from the university and the Academy of Sciences to improve my practices.”

Organic producers highlighted the dual benefits—economic and environmental—of their farming systems. The sample was largely composed of younger, formally educated farmers with significant practical experience. Many reported a relatively high application rate of organic fertilizers, particularly on arable land, as a perceived strength of their operations.

3.6. Czech Republic—Weaknesses in Agroecological Adoption and Farmers’ Attitudes

The low degree of cooperation and dependency on subsidy schemes reflects a structural path dependency that hinders the systemic integration of agroecological practices. One of the more significant issues pointed out with criticality through interviews is that there is little cooperativeness among farmers, which implies lower opportunities for information sharing. Despite being independently engaged in agricultural activities, there is considerable dependency on national and EU subsidies on the part of the interviewees, implying that there is significant economic lock-in. The economic policy incentives are largely aligned with market-oriented agricultural crops to maximize productivity, thus suggesting adherence to a short-term economic rationality tradition.

Short rotation crops and a non-diversified rotation scheme continue to represent a weakness because these issues have structural causes. The goal of feed self-sufficiency cannot be met with small amounts of land available for agricultural purposes. Absence of processing capacity in the regions hampers agricultural independence because farm produce is left with no choice but to rely on middlemen. This leads to reduced agricultural gain. The shortage of time available represented a constraint for participation in any innovation networks or formal policy by interviewees. It can be argued that there is little absorptive capacity for agricultural change. Land tenure arrangements via lease exacerbate financial instability while increasing competition for land rights. This hampers agricultural change with short-term planning that does not suit agricultural transition on agro-ecological terms.

3.7. Desired Improvements as Articulated by Czech Farmers

Institutional simplification: Interviewees underscored the necessity of alleviating bureaucratic constraints and enhancing the transparency and predictability of support programs. Many described the administrative system as excessively complex and time-consuming, with smaller farms finding compliance especially difficult. As one respondent noted, “I think that the regulations for nature protection in the Czech Republic (EU) are relatively strict and even bureaucratic.” Streamlined procedures and clearer communication with authorities were seen as essential steps toward a more enabling policy environment.

Market fairness: Interviewees emphasized equal market terms, with greater emphasis on supporting direct farm sales and processing. Selling through intermediaries was viewed as inefficient and disadvantageous, limiting both profit margins and autonomy. Farmers stressed that improving access to infrastructure financing and ensuring equitable trading relationships would be crucial to enhancing farm viability.

3.8. Czech Republic—Proposed Improvements Based on Synthesis

Structural constraints—including land access, processing infrastructure, and unbalanced competition—limit the viability of small family farms. Greater support is needed to rebalance market structures and safeguard farmers’ positions within land, product, and capital markets. Policy instruments should not only address productivity but also contribute to rural development, demographic retention, and the continuity of rural traditions. Agroecological adoption in this context is contingent upon structural reform and institutional support that enables family farms to thrive as agents of sustainable landscape management.

In Czechia, the alignment of policy frameworks with the realities of family farming is critical for enabling agroecological practices to contribute to both environmental and rural regeneration.

3.9. Portugal—Strengths in Farming Practices and Farmers’ Attitudes

Portuguese respondents articulated a holistic, regeneration-oriented worldview, embedding agroecological practices within broader efforts to combat climate change and restore socio-ecological systems. Practices such as tree planting, landscape rehabilitation, and reductions in fossil fuel use were seen not only as agronomic strategies but as moral imperatives aligned with intergenerational responsibility. As one farmer explained, “Agroecology means respecting the territories/landscape and ancestral knowledge. Organic farming is that which has always been done, and ancestral agriculture is permaculture.”

Interviewees demonstrated strong identity-based motivations and conceptualized agriculture as a cultural and communal act. Peer-to-peer knowledge exchange—facilitated by networks, associations, and civil society—was widespread and considered highly effective. Collaboration extended to universities, municipalities, and activist groups, indicating a broad multi-actor engagement.

Market orientation was food-centric, focused primarily on domestic and local consumption. Some respondents also engaged in value-added processing and maintained traditional labor practices (e.g., manual harvesting) to reinforce cultural continuity and local employment.

3.10. Portugal—Weaknesses in Agroecological Adoption and Farmers’ Attitudes

Time constraints curtailed formal training; collective arrangements were rare, with limited neighbor cooperation and continued reliance on agri-environmental and young-farmer subsidies. As one farmer noted, “In the summer I organise pedagogical and touristic visits to my farm, but we don’t have formal collective training.” A divide persists between commercially oriented farmers pursuing economic–ecological balance and “lifestyle” regenerative farmers whose off-farm income enables symbolic rather than systemic influence. As the same interviewee explained, “I mainly learn and get information about practices through my informal network.” Nevertheless, over time, this symbolic contribution helps transform the rural world through the example neo-agrarians set, their openness to communities, and their uptake of traditional practices; by settling in areas facing rural depopulation, they also spur territorial dynamics, for instance by enrolling their children in local schools [69].

3.11. Desired Improvements as Articulated by Portuguese Farmers

Respondents emphasized the need to strengthen relationships between producers and consumers in order to enhance trust and support the expansion of short food supply chains. Both farmers and stakeholders highlighted the importance of recognizing farmers as central actors in food system transformation and ensuring fair compensation for their efforts.

Key actors called for improved cooperation among farmers, underlining the importance of collective action for achieving transparency, fair pricing, and mutual accountability throughout the value chain. Consumer education was also identified as essential for raising awareness about the environmental and social dimensions of food production.

The co-development of agroecology training programs—jointly designed by municipalities, cooperatives, farmer associations, and vocational institutions—was proposed as a mechanism to support adoption and skill development.

3.12. Portugal—Proposed Improvements Based on Synthesis

Portuguese farmers must be equipped to recognize farming as an interconnected activity influencing biodiversity, soil health, climate change, food security, and local livelihoods. Agroecology should be framed not only as a technical alternative but also as a systemic paradigm encompassing ethics, equity, and place-based development.

Most if not all respondents believe that food must be treated as a common good rather than merely a commodity, reflecting an emerging shift toward food-sovereignty principles within Portuguese agroecology. The case of Portugal highlights the potential of cause-based social networks and civic engagement to drive the agroecological transition—provided these grassroots efforts are matched by economic fairness and institutional recognition. Building trust-based farmer–consumer relations is essential to scale alternative markets, and farmers require tools and training to make networking and cooperation more efficient. Finally, broader societal recognition of farmers as ecosystem stewards and providers of public goods is crucial to elevate the professional and economic status of agroecological farming.

Comparative Analysis

Agricultural innovation systems emphasize the importance of knowledge infrastructures, actor networks, market linkages, and institutional arrangements in facilitating or constraining the diffusion of sustainable practices [14,70]. Collective action and trust-based cooperation play a central role in extending agroecology beyond individual farms [8,71], while secure land tenure, viable market access, and openness to experimentation determine farmers’ ability to invest in long-term agroecological strategies [72,73]. Building on these foundations, the four dimensions used in our comparative framework (Table 1) show how knowledge flows, institutions, social relations, economic strategies, and structural conditions collectively influence the pathways to agroecology adoption in the three countries studied.

Table 1. Comparative synthesis of agroecological adoption in Hungary, Czechia, and Portugal.

Dimension	Hungary	Czechia	Portugal
1. Knowledge and Institutional Support Systems	Farmers express strong interest in short, practice-oriented training and field demonstrations. Advisory services are generally trusted and farmers are willing to pay for them, but their capacity in agroecology and organic topics is limited. Agroecology is still viewed mainly as a technical rather than systemic innovation.	Advisory and institutional systems are established but often fragmented and bureaucratic. Farmers perceive limited access to tailored information and excessive administrative burden. Advisory focus remains on conventional production, slowing the diffusion of ecological practices.	Learning is highly network-driven: farmers rely on associations, civil society organizations (CSOs), and collaborations with universities. Peer learning and experimentation are widespread, although formal advisory systems are inconsistent and under-resourced.
2. Social Capital	Cooperation among farmers is weak and mainly transactional. Social awareness and interest in community benefits are growing, yet collective initiatives and producer groups remain rare. Advisory and local extension networks have limited outreach.	Collaboration between farms is low; competition for land and markets dominates. Few strong cooperatives or advocacy organizations exist to represent smallholders. Farmers acknowledge the value of cooperation but face trust deficits and lack of institutional support.	A vibrant culture of collaboration exists through CSOs, producer associations, and informal networks. Farmers often participate in solidarity-based initiatives such as community-supported agriculture or cooperative processing. Peer-to-peer knowledge exchange strengthens agroecological learning.
3. Market Integration	Farm decisions are largely profit-driven, with widespread reliance on subsidies and tax benefits. Risk aversion limits adoption of input-reducing or biodiversity-enhancing practices. Value-added processing and short food chains are still marginal.	The sector remains oriented toward intensive market crops. Narrow rotations and dependence on intermediaries reduce flexibility and margins. High transaction costs and limited processing capacity weaken small farms’ competitiveness.	Many agroecological farms focus on local and territorial food systems, often processing part of their produce. Short food supply chains are expanding, though financial sustainability remains fragile. Lifestyle-oriented regenerative farmers coexist with commercially oriented ones.
4. Structural Enablers	Land is often leased; owner-operators show stronger stewardship values. Elderly farmers are cautious toward innovation, while younger ones are more open but capital-constrained. Generational renewal and secure tenure are key challenges.	Land concentration and insecure tenancy create structural lock-ins. Small family farms struggle with access to land, finance, and markets. Although many farmers feel attached to their regions, perceived agency to influence systemic change is low.	Despite structural inequalities between many small farms and a few large estates, new entrants demonstrate high motivation and openness to experimentation (e.g., agroforestry, soil regeneration). Some depend on off-farm income, but strong identity and perceived agency drive innovation.

The operational definitions and a summary table about the results can be found in Appendix A.

Across all three contexts, agroecological adoption is shaped less by conceptual awareness than by structural, institutional, and relational factors. While Hungarian farmers show openness to advisory learning, Czech farmers’ structural dependency and Portugal’s civic engagement represent contrasting yet complementary entry points for supporting transition pathways in diverse EU contexts.

4. Discussion

In all three investigated countries, farmers expressed their commitment to responsible farming and their openness to learning, but their ability to put this into practice was influenced by the specific paths taken by each country.

Hungarian farmers rely heavily on professional advisors for knowledge transfer, reflecting a “knowledge broker” model in which application depends on the credibility and capabilities of the intermediaries [74].

This suggests that the advisory infrastructure in Hungary is both a strength and a bottleneck: while trust in advisors promotes learning, limited advisory capacity on agroecological practices hinders their adoption. This finding is consistent with studies examining the importance of advisory activities in shaping behavioral change [14,75]. Future implementation depends on whether advisory services extend to agroecological expertise and risk-sharing demonstration platforms.

In the Czech Republic, family farms demonstrate flexibility and commitment to land management, but face systematic barriers in market structures, bureaucratic frameworks, and land tenure systems. Farmers are constrained by narrow crop rotation patterns, heavy reliance on subsidies, and dependence on intermediaries. These findings are consistent with the literature on “constraints” [76], where institutional and structural dependencies restrict transitions even when individual motivation exists. Policy interventions that reduce administrative burdens and restore power balances in land and product markets are therefore essential for implementation. Without structural reforms, family farms risk being marginalized in an agricultural sector dominated by large-scale, input-intensive enterprises.

Portuguese farmers embed agroecology in a broader cultural and regenerative identity, emphasizing intergenerational responsibility, food as a public good, and collaboration through networks and civil society. This dynamic reflects a path of “networked transition,” where adoption is driven not only by technical practices but also by values, identities, and social movements [77]. The presence of experimental centers (e.g., agroforestry) indicates a willingness to innovate despite the risks, facilitated by peer-to-peer learning and civic engagement. However, dependence on subsidies and the continuing divide between subsistence-oriented and “lifestyle-oriented” regenerative farmers highlight the tensions between symbolic and systemic transformation. Even if grassroots networks are strong, agroecology may remain marginal without institutional embeddedness and formal support structures.

Unlike the three countries analyzed in this study, France and Denmark illustrate how stronger institutional frameworks can accelerate agroecological transitions. France’s 2014 national policy provided long-term state commitment, advisory structures, and monitoring tools, enhancing coherence across research and farmer support [78]. Denmark’s participatory knowledge systems and innovation networks foster systemic learning for sustainable agriculture [79]. These cases highlight the importance of institutional maturity shaping adoption pathways.

Taken together, these national experiences reveal both shared and context-specific dynamics shaping agroecological transition. Rather than stemming from farmers’ lack of awareness, barriers to agroecological adoption across Hungary, Czechia, and Portugal are rooted in systemic constraints. In Hungary, farmers trust professional advisors, but advisory systems lack agroecological specialization. In Czechia, family farmers face bureaucratic and structural lock-ins, such as land market concentration and policy asymmetries. Portugal’s grassroots networks promote identity-driven transitions, but these remain marginal without institutional support. These variations illustrate that national agroecological pathways are shaped by the interplay of advisory infrastructure, structural conditions, and sociocultural dynamics.

These findings resonate with the literature on socio-technical transitions [13,14], which emphasizes that sustainability adoption is shaped not only by actor intentions but by institutional regimes, innovation systems, and multi-level governance dynamics. Advisory bottlenecks and policy misalignments observed in Hungary and Czechia exemplify such systemic inertia, while Portugal’s example aligns with scholarship on civic-led food system innovation [8].

One-size-fits-all EU policies risk missing these national dynamics. Instead, interventions should be designed around country-specific adoption pathways, strengthening advisory capacity in Hungary, reducing lock-ins in Czechia, and consolidating networked movements into institutional frameworks in Portugal. While much of the existing literature emphasizes conceptual advances or Western European cases [16,75], our findings contribute an empirically grounded understanding of adoption in less-represented EU contexts. This study provides a comparative lens that can guide both scholarship and policy design across diverse European settings.

These findings underscore the importance of aligning EU-level frameworks, such as CAP eco-schemes, with national institutional realities to ensure that agroecology becomes a feasible rather than symbolic policy goal.

These findings directly reflect the objectives set out in this study. First, they shed light on the institutional and socio-economic drivers and barriers to agroecological adoption at the farm level across three diverse EU Member States. Second, they provide empirical insight into farmers’ lived experiences and attitudes. The comparison of national trajectories and their alignment with agroecological principles demonstrates that state-led, civic-driven, or hybrid institutional frameworks yield different transition dynamics. Finally, the study offers evidence-based implications for tailored policy interventions.

Like all qualitative studies, this research has limitations. The relatively small sample (42 interviews across three countries) and reliance on subjective perceptions may affect generalizability. Additionally, the country teams followed a shared coding matrix, but interviewer backgrounds and national contexts may have introduced interpretation bias. Furthermore, the study reflects a specific temporal window of agroecological development, which may evolve rapidly with changing policies or market conditions. While triangulation through policy mapping and literature review enhanced validity, future research could use mixed methods or longitudinal data to confirm and extend these insights. Recognizing these limitations helps frame the findings as exploratory yet valuable contributions to understanding agroecological transitions in underrepresented EU contexts.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights that agroecological transition in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Portugal is not primarily constrained by farmer attitudes, but by systemic factors (advisory capacity, structural lock-ins, and the degree of institutional support for grassroots networks). Each country demonstrates a distinct adoption pathway: advisory-dependent in Hungary, structurally constrained in Czechia, and network-driven in Portugal.

These findings suggest that EU-level policies must account for national diversity. One-size-fits-all instruments may fail to engage local realities or support small and medium-scale farms. Instead, tailored strategies that enhance advisory services, remove institutional barriers, and integrate civic networks into formal frameworks are essential for a transition.

Conceptually, the study contributes by introducing a three-pathway typology of agroecological adoption rooted in institutional contexts. Future research should explore how these pathways evolve over time, whether they apply in other regions, and how institutional innovation can accelerate meaningful transformation toward more sustainable food systems.