Over the past decade, research has intensified on how to evaluate and manage these ES to minimize environmental impacts of business and everyday life. [8] Concepts such as civic ecology, [9] sustainable development, [10][11][12] and the bioeconomy [13,14] are being rapidly operationalized and often integrate ecological practices into their implementation strategies, by way of how we interact with nature. In this regard, philosopher and scientist Aldo Leopold wrote in the mid-20th century: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." [15] Similarly, the paradigm of civic ecology [9] is founded in subjective philosophy, which aims to expand our awareness of the natural world and the systems in place.One of the fundamental practices in civic ecology is systems thinking, with the idea that individuals should form a relation to nature, like they do to a human community. Further, systems thinking is frequently used in science to understand how individuals interact with the system. For instance, an ecosystem shares this attribute, where a dynamically evolving system is influenced by interacting, individual elements including air, water, soil, microbes, plants, and animals. Unfortunately, this notion is often ignored, because the provisioning The current geological epoch is characterized by anthropogenic activity that greatly impacts on natural ecosystems and their integrity. The complex networks of ecosystem services (ESs) are often ignored because the provision of natural resources, such as food and industrial crops, is mistakenly viewed as an independent process separate from ecosystems and ignoring the impacts on ecosystems. Recently, research has intensified on how to evaluate and manage ES to minimize environmental impacts, but it remains unclear how to balance anthropogenic activity and ecosystem integrity. This paper reviews the main ESs at farm level including provisioning, regulating, habitat, and cultural services. For these ESs, synergies are outlined and evaluated along with the respective practices (e.g., cover-and intercropping) and ES suppliers (e.g., pollinators and biocontrol agents). Further, several farm-level ES trade-offs are discussed along with a proposal for their evaluation. Finally, a framework for stakeholder approaches specific to farm-level ES is put forward, along with an outlook on how existing precision agriculture technologies can be adapted for improved assessment of ES bundles. This is believed to provide a useful framework for both decision makers and stakeholders to facilitate the development of more sustainable and resilient farming systems.