Intensity and Biodiversity: The ‘Green’ Potential of Agriculture and Rural Territories in Poland in the Context of Sustainable Development
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- Indicator of winter vegetation cover of arable land. This is a synthetic indicator of land resources assessment and natural resources protection, and it shows to what extent the sustainable production system has been implemented in agriculture and thus reflects the state of ecosystem balance. It is assumed that for this indicator the threshold value reflects the area of plant cover, which in a holding should be at least one third of the cultivated area.
- The share of cereals in the sowing structure. This measure is key in the crop rotation and influences the degree of biodiversity of the agrocenosis on the arable land. The share of cereals should not exceed two-thirds of the reference value of the area.
- Diversity and number of different types of crop groups. The number of crop groups cultivated on arable land is an indicator which complements the information contained in the above indicators and provides information on the possibilities for crop rotation management. It is a way of reducing pests, weed infestation and related losses. According to the guidelines for a correct crop rotation, three crops should be cultivated out of the following: cereals, root crops, leguminous and papilionaceous plants, and industrial crops, and it is also important to use grass sown on arable land.
- Soil organic matter balance on arable land. This reflects a proper crop rotation resulting in enrichment of the soil with humus. The reference value should be above zero [31].
- Stocking density on agricultural land. This measure provides information about the level of livestock intensity and also indicates the scale of the environmental impact of natural fertilizer. Stocking density should not exceed 2 LU/ha.
- NPK measure. The gross balance of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) in the soil is a consequence of production intensity and efficiency measured by the level of mineral fertilization, stocking density and crop yields. The optimal level of NPK balance is regionally diversified [36]. In the case of fertilization, 2007 and 2016 data were used. In 2005, the scope of FSS research did not take into account fertilization.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Biomas Production Potential and Environmental Sustainability of Poland’s Agriculture
3.2. Environmental Sustainability of Poland’s Agriculture and Farms
3.3. High-Nature-Value Farmland (HNVf)
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Patil, S.; Hugar, L. Agricultural Sustainability: Strategies for Assessment; SAGE: New Delhi, India; Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Pretty, J. Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 447–465. [Google Scholar]
- Mauerhofer, V.; Hubacek, K.; Coleby, A. From polluter pays to provider gets: Distribution of rights and costs under payments for ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fritsche, U.R.; Iriarte, L. Sustainability criteria and indicators for the bio-based economy in Europe: State of discussion and way forward. Energies 2014, 7, 6825–6836. [Google Scholar]
- Food Security and Nutrition: Challenges for Agriculture and the Hidden Potential of Soil. A Report to the G20 Agriculture Deputies. 2018. Available online: http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2018/ois_report_-_food_security_and_nutrition_challenges_for_agriculture_and_the_hidden_potential_of_soil.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2021).
- D’Adamo, I.; Falcone, P.M.; Martin, M.; Rosa, P. A sustainable revolution: Let’s go sustainable to get our globe cleaner. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4387. [Google Scholar]
- Garibaldi, L.A.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; D’Annolfo, R.; Graeub, B.E.; Cunningham, S.A.; Breeze, T.D. Farming Approaches for Greater Biodiversity, Livelihoods, and Food Security. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2017, 32, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piedra-Muñoz, L.; Galdeano-Gómez, E.; Pérez-Mesa, J.C. Is sustainability compatible with profitability? An empirical analysis on family farming activity. Sustainability 2016, 8, 893. [Google Scholar]
- Bojnec, Š.; Fertő, I. Are new EU member states catching up with older ones on global agri-food markets? Post-Communist Econ. 2015, 27, 205–215. [Google Scholar]
- Chmieliński, P.; Karwat-Woźniak, B. Changes in population and labour force in family farming in Poland. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2015, 117, 140–146. [Google Scholar]
- Gorzelak, G. Social and Economic Development in Central and Eastern EUROPE: Stability and Change after 1990; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Hinrichs, C.C. Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. J. Rural. Stud. 2000, 16, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giuntoli, J.; Robert, N.; Ronzon, T.; Sanchez Lopez, J.; Follador, M.; Girardi, I.; Barredo Cano, J.; Borzacchiello, M.; Sala, S.; M’Barek, R. Building a Monitoring System for the EU Bioeconomy; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Baldock, D.; Beaufoy, G.; Bennett, G.; Clark, J. Nature Conservation and New Directions in the EC Common Agricultural Policy: The Potential Role of EC Policies in Maintaining Farming and Management Systems of High Nature Value in the Community; Institute for European Environmental Policy: Brussels, Belgium, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- APHA. Toward a Healthy Sustainable Food System; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
- Wrzaszcz, W. Changes in farms’ environmental sustainability in Poland—Progress or regress. AgBioForum 2018, 21, 107–126. [Google Scholar]
- Zegar, J.S. Long-term strategy for sustainable development of agriculture in Poland. Zagadnienia Ekon. Rolnej 2021, 367, 16–30. [Google Scholar]
- Sullivan, C.; Moran, J. High nature value farmland management: Innovative approaches to sustainability of HNV grassland systems in Ireland. In Grassland Resources for Extensive Farming Systems in Marginal Lands: Major Drivers and Future Scenarios; CNR-ISPAAM: Sassari, Italy, 2017; p. 428. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. The Mid-Term Review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Henle, K.; Alard, D.; Clitherow, J.; Cobb, P.; Firbank, L.; Kull, T.; McCracken, D.; Moritz, R.F.; Niemelä, J.; Rebane, M. Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe—A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 124, 60–71. [Google Scholar]
- Stoate, C.; Baldi, A.; Beja, P.; Boatman, N.; Herzon, I.; Van Doorn, A.; De Snoo, G.; Rakosy, L.; Ramwell, C. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe—A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 91, 22–46. [Google Scholar]
- Jadczyszyn, J.; Zieliński, M. Assessment of farms from high nature value farmland areas in Poland. Ann. Pol. Assoc. Agric. Agrobusiness Econ. 2020, 2020, 108–118. [Google Scholar]
- Strohbach, M.W.; Kohler, M.L.; Dauber, J.; Klimek, S. High nature value farming: From indication to conservation. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 557–563. [Google Scholar]
- Benedetti, Y. Trends in High Nature Value farmland studies: A systematic review. Eur. J. Ecol. 2017, 3, 19–32. [Google Scholar]
- Gardi, C.; Visioli, G.; Conti, F.D.; Scotti, M.; Menta, C.; Bodini, A. High nature value farmland: Assessment of soil organic carbon in Europe. Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 47. [Google Scholar]
- Trisorio, A.; Archinto, D. Monitoring biodiversity: Challenges in High Nature Value farming identification. Ital. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2019, 74, 43–52. [Google Scholar]
- Zomeni, M.; Martinou, A.F.; Stavrinides, M.; Vogiatzakis, I.N. High nature value farmlands: Challenges in identification and interpretation using Cyprus as a case study. Nat. Conserv. 2018, 31, 53–70. [Google Scholar]
- Stiffler, M. Practices to Identify, Monitor and Assess HNV Farming in RDPs 2014–2020; Working Document; The European Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development: Brussels, Belgium, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Technical Handbook on the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of the Common Agricultural Policy 2014–2020; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Doxa, A.; Paracchini, M.L.; Pointereau, P.; Devictor, V.; Jiguet, F. Preventing biotic homogenization of farmland bird communities: The role of High Nature Value farmland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 148, 83–88. [Google Scholar]
- Zegar, J. Zrównoważenie Polskiego Rolnictwa. Powszechny Spis Rolny 2010 (Sustainability of Polish Agriculture. 2010 Agricultural Census); GUS: Warsaw, Poland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Goraj, L.; Bocian, M.; Cholewa, I.; Nachtman, G.; Tarasiuk, R. Współczynniki Standardowej Produkcji “2007” dla Celów Wspólnotowej Typologii Gospodarstw Rolnych (Standard Outputs ‘2007’ for the Purposes of the Community Typology of Agricultural Holdings); Instytut Ekonomiki Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej-Państwowy Instytut: Warsaw, Poland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kuś, J. Możliwości zrównoważonego rozwoju specjalistycznych gospodarstw rolnych. Probl. Inżynierii Rol. 2006, 14, 5–14. [Google Scholar]
- Harasim, A. Przewodnik do Oceny Zrównoważenia Rolnictwa na Różnych Poziomach Zarządzania; Wydawnictwo IUNG-PIB: Puławy, Poland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Liebig, M.A. Agricultural Sustainability: Strategies for Assessment. Crop Sci. 2006, 46, 1839. [Google Scholar]
- Wrzaszcz, W.; Kopiński, J. Gospodarka Nawozowa w Polsce w Kontekście Zrównoważonego Rozwoju Rolnictwa (Fertilizers Management Poland in the Context of Sustainable Agriculture Development); IERiGŻ-PIB: Warszawa, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Krasowicz, S. Cechy rolnictwa zrównoważonego. In Koncepcja Badań nad Rolnictwem Społecznie Zrównoważonym; Zegar, J.S., Ed.; IERiGZ-PIB: Warsaw, Poland, 2005; Volume 11, pp. 11–24. [Google Scholar]
- Clark, J.; Beaufoy, G.; Baldock, D. The Nature of Farming: Low Intensity Farming Systems in Nine European Countries; Institute for European Environmental Policy: Brussels, Belgium, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Paracchini, M.L.; Petersen, J.-E.; Hoogeveen, Y.; Bamps, C.; Burfield, I.; van Swaay, C. High nature value farmland in Europe. In An Estimate of the Distribution Patterns on the Basis of Land Cover and Biodiversity Data; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2008; Volume 23480. [Google Scholar]
- Bignal, E.M.; McCracken, D.I. The nature conservation value of European traditional farming systems. Environ. Rev. 2000, 8, 149–171. [Google Scholar]
- EEA. Updated High Nature Value Farmland in Europe; European Environment Agency (EEA): Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Poczta, W.; Sadowski, A. Bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe i oddziaływanie środowiskowe rolnictwa w europejskich krajach transformacji ustrojowej. Wieś I Rol. 2018, 2, 133–150. [Google Scholar]
- Kopiński, J. Porównanie grup gospodarstw rolnych o różnych kierunkach produkcji w aspekcie rozwoju zrównoważonego [Comparison of farm groups of with different types of production in the context of sustainable development]. Zesz. Nauk. AR Wrocław Ser. Rol. 2006, 540, 235–240. [Google Scholar]
- Czyżewski, A.; Florianczyk, Z.; Gruda, M.; Henisz-Matuszczak, A.; Krasowicz, S.; Niewęgłowska, G.; Niezgoda, D.; Staniszewska, M.; Wagner, K.; Wilk, W. Koncepcja Badań nad Rolnictwem Społecznie Zrównoważonym; Instytut Ekonomiki Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej-Państwowy Instytut: Warsaw, Poland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hünig, C.; Benzler, A. Das Monitoring der Landwirtschaftsflächen mit hohem Naturwert in Deutschland; Bundesamt für Naturschutz: Bonn, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Benzler, A. Drawing on national experience for identifying HNV farmland at European scale: HNV farmland monitoring in Germany. In Proceedings of the Expert Workshop Revising the JRC/EEA EU-Level HNV Farmland methodology, Vienna, Austria, 12 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Trisorio, A.; Povellato, A.; Borlizzi, A. High Nature Value Farming Systems in Italy: A Policy Perspective; National Institute of Agricultural Economics (INEA): Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Sullivan, C.A.; Finn, J.; ÓhÚallacháin, D.; Green, S.; Matin, S.; Meredith, D.; Clifford, B.; Moran, J. The development of a national typology for high nature value farmland in Ireland based on farm-scale characteristics. Land Use Policy 2017, 67, 401–414. [Google Scholar]
- Andersen, E.; Baldock, D.; Brouwer, F.; Elbersen, B.; Godeschalk, F.; Nieuwenhuizen, W.; van Eupen, M.; Hennekens, S. Developing a High Nature Value Farming Area Indicator. 2004. Available online: https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/3918 (accessed on 25 October 2021).
- Bignal, E.M.; McCracken, D.I. Low-intensity farming systems in the conservation of the countryside. J. Appl. Ecol. 1996, 33, 413–424. [Google Scholar]
No. | Country | Farm Number | Labour Inputs (AWU) | Utilized Agricultural Area (Hectare) | Farms with Livestock (Number) | Standard Output (Euro) | Live Bovine Animals (Heads) | Live Swine (Heads) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Belgium | 36.89 | 55.35 | 1354.25 | 25.44 | 8,037,986.42 | 2503.14 | 6178.98 |
2 | Bulgaria | 202.72 | 255.52 | 4468.50 | 134.97 | 3,842,891.03 | 626.24 | 638.41 |
3 | Czechia | 26.52 | 103.27 | 3453.04 | 18.68 | : | 1409.77 | 1542.21 |
4 | Denmark | 35.05 | 49.48 | 2614.60 | 20.67 | 10,062,442.04 | 1568.29 | 12,383.00 |
5 | Germany | 276.12 | 502.61 | 16,715.32 | 184.69 | 49,249,020.56 | 12,354.88 | 28,652.96 |
6 | Estonia | 16.70 | 19.88 | 995.10 | 6.96 | 801,547.06 | 258.11 | 279.87 |
7 | Ireland | 137.56 | 160.74 | 4883.65 | 126.59 | 6,324,900.70 | 7222.12 | 1603.90 |
8 | Greece | 684.95 | 457.15 | 4553.83 | 238.52 | 7,574,803.91 | 619.70 | 769.13 |
9 | Spain | 945.02 | 822.37 | 23,229.75 | 216.70 | 38,365,605.15 | 6090.59 | 23,946.46 |
10 | France | 456.52 | 708.17 | 27,814.16 | 247.57 | 61,343,138.67 | 19,024.06 | 13,599.22 |
11 | Croatia | 134.46 | 160.46 | 1562.98 | 91.47 | 2,034,939.13 | 418.44 | 944.88 |
12 | Italy | 1145.71 | 897.09 | 12,598.16 | 154.68 | 51,689,024.31 | 6114.51 | 8375.52 |
13 | Cyprus | 34.94 | 18.74 | 111.93 | 9.98 | 616,692.17 | 53.71 | 265.04 |
14 | Latvia | 69.93 | 76.86 | 1930.88 | 44.97 | 1,221,341.01 | 434.67 | 361.09 |
15 | Lithuania | 150.32 | 148.35 | 2924.60 | 95.30 | 2,226,207.56 | 739.99 | 627.31 |
16 | Luxembourg | 1.97 | 3.50 | 130.65 | 1.54 | 365,008.40 | 201.42 | 92.31 |
17 | Hungary | 430.00 | 394.41 | 4670.56 | 261.54 | 6,532,474.66 | 847.52 | 2978.84 |
18 | Malta | 9.31 | 5.34 | 11.18 | 2.74 | 98,016.86 | 14.72 | 41.64 |
19 | Netherlands | 55.68 | 147.20 | 1796.26 | 36.96 | 23,087,034.10 | 4251.46 | 12,478.59 |
20 | Austria | 132.50 | 101.73 | 2669.75 | 93.92 | 6,141,561.46 | 1932.66 | 2883.86 |
21 | Poland | 1410.70 | 1649.40 | 14,405.65 | 718.24 | 25,005,635.42 | 5951.33 | 10,982.81 |
22 | Portugal | 258.98 | 313.83 | 3641.69 | 172.35 | 5,144,206.85 | 1566.64 | 1875.11 |
23 | Romania | 3422.03 | 1640.12 | 12,502.54 | 2567.43 | 12,105,491.80 | 1849.28 | 4142.79 |
24 | Slovenia | 69.90 | 82.39 | 488.40 | 56.58 | 1,158,773.47 | 486.01 | 273.36 |
25 | Slovakia | 25.66 | 47.19 | 1889.82 | 16.12 | 1,931,433.53 | 452.46 | 483.98 |
26 | Finland | 49.71 | 81.63 | 2233.08 | 16.61 | 3,514,583.72 | 909.02 | 1234.86 |
27 | Sweden | 62.94 | 55.94 | 3012.64 | 34.29 | 5,158,678.85 | 1488.90 | 1354.29 |
28 | United Kingdom | 185.06 | 284.94 | 16,673.27 | 138.05 | 25,403,447.34 | : | : |
Specification | Farms Number (Thous.) | Agricultural Land (Thous. ha) | Labour Inputs (Thous. AWU) | Livestock Density (Thous. LU) | Farms with Livestock (Thous.) | Standard Output (Mln EUR) | Standard Gross Margin (Thous. ESU) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | 1723.90 | 13,060.60 | 2035.20 | 6430.30 | 1247.60 | 20,824.10 | 9963.86 |
2016 | 1398.10 | 13,181.40 | 1617.00 | 5923.50 | 712.60 | 21,824.30 | 9283.38 |
difference in units | −325.80 | 120.80 | −418.20 | −506.80 | −535.00 | 1000.20 | −680.48 |
difference in % | −18.90 | 0.92 | −20.55 | −7.88 | −42.88 | 4.80 | −6.83 |
Farms’ Structure (%) According Farm’s Area and Standard Output | |||||||
Specification | 1–5 ha | 5–25 ha | 25–50 ha | 50–100 ha | ≥100 ha | ||
2005 | 56.9 | 38.7 | 3.4 | 0.8 | 0.3 | ||
2016 | 53.7 | 39.4 | 4.6 | 1.6 | 0.7 | ||
difference in units | −3.2 | 0.7 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 0.4 | ||
Specification | <8 thous. € | 8–25 thous. € | 25–50 thous. € | 50–100 thous. € | ≥100 thous. € | ||
2005 | 62.8 | 25.1 | 8.2 | 3.0 | 0.9 | ||
2016 | 65.1 | 21.0 | 7.7 | 4.1 | 2.1 | ||
difference in units | 2.3 | −4.2 | −0.5 | 1.1 | 1.2 |
Specification | Agricultural Land (ha) | Labour Inputs (AWU) | Livestock Heads per Livestock Farm (LU) | Livestock Density on Average Farm (LU) | Livestock Density on Livestock Farms (LU) |
2005 | 7.58 | 1.18 | 5.15 | 0.49 | 0.61 |
2016 | 9.43 | 1.16 | 8.31 | 0.45 | 0.77 |
difference in units | 1.85 | −0.02 | 3.16 | −0.04 | 0.16 |
difference in % | 24.44 | −2.04 | 61.28 | −8.16 | 26.23 |
Specification | Standard Output (Thous. EUR) | Standard Gross Margin (ESU) | Standard Output per Agricultural Land (Thous. EUR/ha) | Standard Gross Margin per Labour Inputs (ESU/AWU) | |
2005 | 12.08 | 5.78 | 1.59 | 4.90 | |
2016 | 15.61 | 6.64 | 1.66 | 5.74 | |
difference in units | 3.53 | 0.86 | 0.07 | 0.84 | |
difference in % | 29.22 | 14.88 | 4.40 | 17.14 |
Specification Concerning Area | Root Crops | Fodder Corn, Vegetable, Strawberry | Cereal and Industrial Crops | Soil-Improving Crops | Catch Crops | Winter Crops |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2005 | 815.78 | 455.88 | 7841.33 | 548.10 | 297.76 | 4292.44 |
2016 | 460.09 | 775.33 | 7548.32 | 826.68 | 1139.55 | 4198.52 |
difference in units | −355.69 | 319.45 | −293.02 | 278.58 | 841.79 | −93.93 |
difference in % | −43.60 | 70.07 | −3.74 | 50.83 | 282.71 | −2.19 |
Specification concerning crop share | Root crops | Fodder corn, vegetable, strawberry | Cereal and industrial crops | Soil-improving crops | Catch crops | Winter crops |
2005 | 8.44 | 4.71 | 81.08 | 5.67 | 3.08 | 44.38 |
2016 | 4.79 | 8.06 | 78.51 | 8.60 | 11.85 | 43.67 |
difference in units | −3.65 | 3.35 | −2.58 | 2.93 | 8.77 | −0.72 |
Average Value of Environmental Sustainability Criterion for the Sector | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. | Specification * | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
1 | 2007 | 51.00 | 75.43 | x | 0.12 | 0.49 | 43.78 | 5.73 | 8.24 |
2 | 2016 | 53.00 | 70.44 | x | 0.23 | 0.45 | 32.97 | −0.38 | −0.45 |
3 | difference in units | 2.00 | −5.00 | x | 0.11 | −0.04 | −10.81 | −6.11 | −8.69 |
4 | difference in % | 3.92 | −6.62 | x | 91.67 | −8.16 | −24.69 | x | x |
Percentage of Farms Fulfilling Environmental Sustainability Criteria (% of Farms in Total) | |||||||||
No. | Specification * | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
1 | 2007 | 63.39 | 27.65 | 34.15 | 55.32 | 98.63 | 8.52 | 9.66 | 3.73 |
2 | 2016 | 61.08 | 29.92 | 19.75 | 71.76 | 97.76 | 5.46 | 7.14 | 2.45 |
3 | difference in units | −2.30 | 2.26 | −14.40 | 16.44 | −0.86 | −3.06 | −2.52 | −1.28 |
Municipalities with HNVf Areas | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
of Moderate Natural Value and Their Contribution: | of High Natural Value and Their Participation: | of Exceptionally High Natural Value and Their Contribution: | ||||
Up to 25% | Above 75% | Up to 25% | Above 75% | Up to 25% | Above 75% | |
Average farm area | 11.9 | 9.5 | 11.4 | 12.1 | 11.2 | 12.3 |
Share of permanent grassland in UAA (%) | 19.3 | 33.9 | 20.6 | 37.3 | 21.5 | 34.8 |
Share of forests in total area (%) | 24.6 | 42.2 | 26.8 | 50.7 | 27.5 | 52.3 |
Share of waters in the total area (%) | 2.0 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 4.9 |
Stocking density per 1 ha UAA | 0.49 | 0.45 | 0.49 | 0.37 | 0.5 | 0.34 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chmieliński, P.; Wrzaszcz, W.; Zieliński, M.; Wigier, M. Intensity and Biodiversity: The ‘Green’ Potential of Agriculture and Rural Territories in Poland in the Context of Sustainable Development. Energies 2022, 15, 2388. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072388
Chmieliński P, Wrzaszcz W, Zieliński M, Wigier M. Intensity and Biodiversity: The ‘Green’ Potential of Agriculture and Rural Territories in Poland in the Context of Sustainable Development. Energies. 2022; 15(7):2388. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072388
Chicago/Turabian StyleChmieliński, Paweł, Wioletta Wrzaszcz, Marek Zieliński, and Marek Wigier. 2022. "Intensity and Biodiversity: The ‘Green’ Potential of Agriculture and Rural Territories in Poland in the Context of Sustainable Development" Energies 15, no. 7: 2388. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15072388