This article discusses the economic dimensions of agroecological farming systems in Europe. It firstly theoretically elaborates the reasons why, and under what conditions, agroecological farming systems have the potential to produce higher incomes than farms that follow the conventional logic. This theoretical exposition is then followed by a presentation of empirical material from a wide range of European countries that shows the extent to which this potential is being realized. The empirical data draw upon different styles of farming that can be described as 'proto-agroecological': approaches to farming that are agroecological by nature, but which may not necessarily explicitly define themselves as agroecological. The empirical material that we present shows the huge potential and radical opportunities that Europe's, often silent, 'agroecological turn' offers to farmers that could (and should) be the basis for the future transformation of European agricultural policies, since agroecology not only allows for more sustainable production of healthier food but also considerably improves farmers' incomes. It equally carries the promise of re-enlarging productive agricultural (and related) employment and increasing the total income generated by the agricultural sector, at both regional and national levels. While we recognise that agroecology is a worldwide and multidimensional phenomenon we have chosen to limit this analysis to Europe and the economic dimension. This choice is made in order to refute current discourses that represent agroecology as unproductive and unprofitable and an option that would require massive subsidies.

The paradox of multifunctionality is that, on the one hand, the specialized functionalities of agriculture only arise because of the functional differentiation of social systems and scientific disciplines and, on the other hand, multifunctionality can only enter as a way to mediate between conflicts, interests and fragmented knowledge when different functions and observations of functions combine. The aim of this paper is to contribute to a theoretical and methodological platform for multidisciplinary research on multifunctional farming. With the notions of polyocular cognition and polyocular communication we introduce a second order, interdisciplinary communication process that can meet the challenge of creating a shared view on multifunctional farming. Polyocular communication must be based on other rules than the rules of the involved disciplines. Whereas disciplinary communication is about providing consistent, efficient and precise knowledge in the context of a sharply delimited research world, polyocular communication is about extending a multidimensional space of understanding.

The highly complex knowledge of scientific disciplines makes nuanced analysis and modelling possible. However, the information produced often does not reach farmers because it is presented in a way that does not correspond to the way their work is carried out in practice. The decision support system Crop Protection Online is widely used by advisors and as a learning tool for students. Although the system has been validated in many field trials over the years and has shown reliable results, the number of end‐users among farmers has been relatively low during the last 10 years (approximately 1000 farmers). A sociological investigation of farmers’ decision‐making styles in the area of crop protection has shown that arable farmers can be divided into three major groups: (a) system‐orientated farmers, (b) experience‐based farmers and (c) advisory‐orientated farmers. The information required by these three groups to make their decisions varies and therefore different ways of using decision support systems need to be provided. Decision support systems need to be developed in close dialogue and collaboration with user groups.

Bourdieu's (1986) General Theory of the Economy of Practices assumes that people perpetually transform tangible and intangible forms of capital according to certain 'laws of conversion'. On this background, and combining sociology and micro-economics, we analyze specific strings of capital conversion in time and space. More specifically, we raise the question: How do private entrepreneurs transform local social capital into economic capital? We combine in-depth interviews with four private entrepreneurs in rural Denmark with Prisoner's Dilemma game theory. Thus each of our cases illustrates one of the outcomes in the PD matrix. In this way we explain why only one of the four entrepreneurs succeeds in capitalizing social capital.

Organic farming is expected to contribute to conserving national biodiversity on farms, especially remnant, old, and undisturbed small biotopes, forests, and permanent grassland. This objective cannot rely on the legislation of organic farming solely, and to succeed, farmers need to understand the goals behind it. A set of indicators with the purpose of facilitating dialogues between expert and farmer on wildlife quality has been developed and tested on eight organic farms. ''Weed cover in cereal fields,'' was used as an indicator of floral and faunal biodiversity in the cultivated land, and ''uncultivated biotope area'' on the farm was used as a general measure of wildlife habitats. Functional grouping of herbaceous plants (discriminating between ''high conservation value'' plant species and ''competitive''/ ''ruderal'' species) and low mobility butterflies were used as indicators of conservation value, especially focusing on the few sites left with considerable remnant conservation value. The dialog processes revealed that the organic farmers' ideas and goals of conservation of wildlife quality were not necessarily the same as for biologists; the farmers expressed very different opinions on the biological rooted idea, that wildlife quality is related to the absence of agricultural impact. However, farmers also stated that the information given by the indicators and especially the dialogue with the biologist had influenced their perception and awareness of wildlife. We conclude that, combined with a dialogue process, using these indicators when mapping wildlife quality could be an important key component of a farm wildlife management advisory tool at farm level.