Next Article in Journal
Temporal–Spatial Synergistic Restructuring of Eco-Economic Value in Xinjiang Oasis from Multi-Objective Optimization Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Does ESG Disclosure Matter for the Tax Avoidance–Firm Value Relationship? Evidence from an Emerging Market
Previous Article in Special Issue
Predicting Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture in the Southwest United Kingdom
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Integrating Green Infrastructure into Sustainable Agriculture to Enhance Soil Health, Biodiversity, and Microclimate Resilience

by
Matthew Chidozie Ogwu
1,* and
Enoch Akwasi Kosoe
2
1
Goodnight Family Department of Sustainable Development, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC 28608, USA
2
Department of Environment and Resource Studies, Simon Diedong Dombo University of Business and Integrated Development Studies, Wa XW-1147-8901, Ghana
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(9), 3838; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093838
Submission received: 15 March 2025 / Revised: 12 April 2025 / Accepted: 17 April 2025 / Published: 24 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Development of Agricultural Systems)

Abstract

:
While green infrastructure (GI) offers numerous benefits, its implementation in low-resource settings remains constrained by limited policy support and upfront costs, highlighting the need for context-sensitive strategies. This paper highlights the value of integrating GI within sustainable agricultural systems and the effectiveness of various GI techniques in improving soil microbial communities and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The transition to sustainable agricultural systems requires innovative strategies that balance productivity, environmental conservation, and resilience to climate change. Sustainable agriculture increasingly leverages technological innovations in GI to enhance productivity, biodiversity, and microclimate resilience. Green infrastructure has found direct application in agroforestry, conservation buffers, precision agriculture, soil health monitoring systems, and nature-based solutions such as regenerative soil management. These applications are crucial in enhancing soil health, water retention, and biodiversity, while mitigating microclimatic impacts. Precision agriculture tools, like IoT sensors, drones, and AI-driven analytics, allow farmers to optimize water, nutrient, and pesticide use, boosting yields and efficiency while minimizing environmental impact. Simultaneously, advanced soil health monitoring technologies track soil moisture, nutrients, and biological activity in real time, informing practices that maintain long-term soil fertility and carbon sequestration. This integrated approach yields practical on-farm benefits, such as higher crop stability during droughts and enhanced habitats for beneficial species. In conclusion, there is a need for supportive frameworks, like subsidies for GI adoption, application of precision tools, incentives for improving soil microclimate, development of innovative GI programs, and knowledge-sharing initiatives, to encourage farmer adoption.

1. Introduction

The increasing pressures from climate change, rapid urbanization, and the growing demand for food necessitate a reevaluation of agricultural ecosystems. Traditional farming practices often prioritize production at the expense of environmental health, leading to losses in soil quality, biodiversity, and resilience against climate factors. Integrating green infrastructure (GI) within sustainable agriculture is a viable solution to these challenges. This integration promises enhancements in soil health and biodiversity and offers a pathway toward improved microclimate resilience.
Green infrastructure refers to a network of natural and semi-natural areas designed to provide ecosystem services, such as water purification, air quality improvement, and biodiversity enhancement, functioning harmoniously with urban structures and agricultural landscapes [1,2,3]. The escalating incidence of environmental degradation necessitates that agricultural practices incorporate these strategies to bolster ecological health while maintaining productivity. For example, studies have shown that wildlife-friendly farming can increase crop yields, demonstrating a viable pathway toward ecological intensification that stays in harmony with nature [4,5,6,7]. Green infrastructure in agriculture encompasses practices that utilize natural processes and ecosystems to support agricultural productivity and sustainability. This includes integrating hedgerows, buffer strips, cover crops, and increased crop diversity, all of which play crucial roles in enhancing ecological interactions within agricultural systems [8,9]. For instance, the work of Rodríguez et al. [10] demonstrated that the use of cover crops protects against soil erosion and enhances soil fertility and moisture retention, which are pivotal aspects of sustainable farming. Moreover, localized agri-food systems that incorporate traditional practices can elevate biodiversity while ensuring production sustainability [11,12,13,14].
Sustainable agriculture aims to create a balanced approach to farming that preserves the environment, supports socioeconomic equity, and ensures food security. The concept is underpinned by the need to use natural resources judiciously and reduce dependency on synthetic inputs. Bulut and Filik [15] opined that techniques such as crop rotation, conservation tillage, and organic farming practices are fundamental. Furthermore, agricultural biodiversity—ranging from crop varieties to traditional farming methods—is critical for sustainable food production systems, enhancing resilience against pests, diseases, and microclimate variability [16,17]. The degradation of soil health undermines agricultural productivity and ecosystem functionality. Intensive farming practices have resulted in soil compaction, loss of organic matter, and reduced microbial diversity [10,18]. Consequently, integrating GI that promotes soil health, such as conservation agriculture, is imperative. These practices enhance the physical and biological properties of soil and support important nutrient cycling processes essential for sustainable crop yields [10,13,16]. Moreover, enhancing biodiversity within agricultural systems bolsters ecosystem services crucial for long-term agrarian success. Diverse cropping systems provide natural pest control, improved pollination, and nutrient cycling, which are increasingly vital in pest resistance and environmental change [19,20]. Additionally, microclimate resilience can be promoted by adopting GI that buffers agricultural systems against disturbances manifested through climate change, including erratic weather patterns and extreme events [21,22,23].
This paper examines how GI practices contribute to sustainable agriculture by enhancing soil health, biodiversity, and microclimate resilience, focusing on theoretical foundations and practical applications. It highlights GI techniques to mitigate environmental degradation and improve agricultural productivity. Green infrastructure fosters soil microbial diversity, optimizes resource use through technology-driven solutions and strengthens ecosystem resilience against climate change. While GI offers numerous benefits, its implementation in low-resource settings remains constrained by limited policy support and upfront costs, highlighting the need for context-sensitive strategies. This paper discusses the socioeconomic incentives and policy frameworks necessary for widespread adoption. It will contribute to understanding how GI adoption provides multidimensional benefits and serves as a multifunctional tool to bridge ecological conservation with food security and climate adaptation strategies. This review also offers insights into scalable solutions that align agricultural productivity with long-term environmental stewardship by addressing research gaps and practical challenges.

2. Conceptual Frameworks for Linking Green Infrastructure and Sustainable Agriculture

The increasing application of GI practices within sustainable agriculture is driven by a conceptual framework that aligns principles of agricultural sustainability with the provision of ecosystem services, enhancing biodiversity and climate resilience. Together, these conceptual frameworks converge on a systems-based understanding that GI is not merely a set of isolated practices but a core strategy for resilient, sustainable agricultural landscapes that balance environmental conservation with food security goals. Central to these frameworks is recognizing that agrarian landscapes are multifunctional systems, providing food and fiber and vital ecosystem services, including water filtration, carbon sequestration, soil fertility enhancement, and biodiversity conservation [24,25]. Each GI practice is characterized by specific structural features contributing to ecological functions such as erosion control, biodiversity enhancement, climate regulation, and water management (Box 1).
Box 1. Agricultural green infrastructure practices and their ecological functions.
PracticeFeaturesPrimary Function
HedgerowsLinear plantings of shrubs or trees along field edgesWindbreaks and wildlife corridors
Cover CropsPlants grown between cropping seasonsSoil cover and nutrient cycling
Riparian BuffersVegetated zones along waterwaysWater filtration and erosion control
AgroforestryIntegrating trees with crops or livestockBiodiversity and microclimate moderation
TerracingShaping sloped land into stepsErosion control and water retention
Grassed WaterwaysChannels planted with grass to convey waterRunoff control and sediment capture
WetlandsConstructed or natural depressions with water-tolerant plantsWater storage and biodiversity support
Windbreaks/ShelterbeltsRows of trees or shrubs planted to protect fields from the windReducing wind erosion and improving microclimate
Perennial Field BordersUndisturbed strips of permanent vegetation along crop fieldsPollinator support and soil stabilization
Bioswales/Rain GardensLandscaped areas designed to capture and filter runoffWater infiltration, pollution control
One foundational framework is the agroecological systems approach, which emphasizes the design of agricultural systems that mimic natural ecosystems to enhance resilience and reduce reliance on synthetic inputs [26]. Agroecology incorporates elements of GI, such as agroforestry, riparian buffers, and hedgerows, highlighting how landscape-level planning enhances ecological functioning and promotes nature-based solutions for climate adaptation [27]. The Ecosystem Services Framework offers a complementary perspective, which explicitly values the ecological benefits of GI in agricultural landscapes. This framework has been instrumental in quantifying the economic value of natural capital and advocating for policy incentives that reward farmers for maintaining or enhancing ecosystem services through GI practices [28,29]. More recent frameworks, such as climate-smart agriculture (CSA), integrate GI into strategies for increasing productivity, enhancing resilience, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions [30]. CSA promotes adaptive strategies such as cover cropping, conservation tillage, and agroforestry, emphasizing their dual roles in improving soil health and enhancing carbon sequestration. The CSA framework was developed to address the intertwined challenges of food security and climate change by increasing agricultural productivity, enhancing resilience (adaptation), and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation). An empirical study by Lipper et al. [30] showed that CSA interventions, such as conservation tillage and agroforestry, can significantly improve soil organic carbon and reduce vulnerability to climate variability. However, adoption remains uneven due to institutional, economic, and informational barriers, particularly among smallholder farmers. CSA practices align closely with the principles of regenerative agriculture, such as incorporating organic amendments, maintaining soil cover, and minimizing soil disturbance. They contribute to climate resilience and support long-term soil fertility, microbial diversity, and carbon storage.

2.1. Principles of Sustainable Agriculture—Agroecology

Sustainable agriculture is founded on principles prioritizing ecological balance, economic viability, and social equity. This paradigm encapsulates practices designed to preserve natural resources while ensuring food security and supporting community livelihoods [31]. Fundamental principles include crop rotation, agroforestry, minimal soil disturbance, and organic farming methods, collectively contributing to maintaining soil health, enhancing biodiversity, and reducing reliance on chemical inputs [32]. For instance, covering crops and green manures can improve soil structure, enhance nutrient cycling, and increase organic matter content, which is critical for maintaining long-term soil productivity and ecosystem health [22,23]. Adopting GI strategies in sustainable agriculture can engender synergies that amplify these principles. By incorporating natural buffers, wetlands, and tree-lined waterways, agriculture will mitigate soil erosion and runoff and bolster habitats for various species, thus enhancing agricultural biodiversity [29,33]. Sustainable agriculture extends beyond productivity; it encapsulates a holistic view that integrates environmental stewardship with socioeconomic benefits, making agriculture more resilient to external shocks such as climate variability and market fluctuations [31].

2.2. Ecosystem Services and Agroecosystem Functionality

Ecosystem services are the myriad benefits of healthy ecosystems, and their integration into agroecosystems is paramount for achieving sustainability [34]. These services can be categorized into four main types: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services [35]. Provisioning services encompass food, fiber, and biomass production, essential for human sustenance. Regulating services include climate regulation, flood mitigation, and pest control—all critical in sustaining agroecosystem functionality [36]. For instance, enhancing soil organic matter through GI practices improves soil fertility and contributes to carbon sequestration, thus mitigating climate change impacts [37]. Moreover, cultural services, such as agricultural landscapes’ aesthetic and recreational values, significantly contribute to community well-being and encourage public engagement with agricultural systems [38]. Identifying and promoting these ecosystem services can foster a deeper appreciation for sustainable practices among farmers and consumers, encouraging implementation of GI strategies that yield multiple benefits [35].
Enhancing agroecosystem functionality through ecosystem services also contributes to resilience against climate change. Supported by GI practices, healthy ecosystems produce robust landscapes capable of withstanding extreme weather events, thereby protecting agricultural investments and livelihoods [29,33]. For instance, implementing GI, such as rain gardens and vegetated swales, can effectively manage stormwater, reduce soil erosion, and improve water quality—integral components in sustainable agricultural practices [32]. These GI practices can catalyze public participation in agricultural systems by creating tangible, place-based interventions that communities can engage with directly. These spaces invite collaborative stewardship, foster local ecological knowledge, and strengthen the social fabric around land management. These participatory dimensions of GI are closely linked to sustainable agricultural development by supporting biodiversity, enhancing ecosystem services, and promoting equitable land use practices. Furthermore, GI contributes to climate change mitigation and adaptation through improved carbon sequestration, water regulation, and resilience to extreme weather events, thus aligning environmental action with inclusive social engagement.

2.3. Climate Resilience and Nature-Based Solutions

Climate resilience refers to the capacity of agricultural systems to absorb, recover from, and adapt to climate-related stresses [39]. Nature-based solutions (NbS) typically leverage ecosystem services to address societal challenges and are pivotal in enhancing climate resilience in agriculture [31]. This includes practices such as agroforestry and the creation of wildlife corridors that contribute to biodiversity conservation and strengthen landscapes against the adverse effects of climate change, such as drought and flooding [40]. According to Frem et al. [41], the deployment of NbS is vital for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture while promoting carbon sequestration through improved land management and restoration of degraded landscapes. As agriculture accounts for a substantial proportion of global greenhouse gas emissions, integrating NbS can lead to significant mitigation outcomes alongside enhanced food productivity [42]. The review by Monteiro et al. [43] suggests that community-centric initiatives incorporating local knowledge and participation foster adaptive capacity, ensuring that agricultural systems remain viable despite climatic uncertainties.
While agroecology, ecosystem services, and climate resilience through nature-based solutions share the goal of integrating ecological integrity into farming systems, they approach this from different perspectives (Box 2). Sustainable agriculture emphasizes practices and social equity, ecosystem services offer a valuation lens for ecological benefits, and NbS frame these strategies within climate adaptation (Box 2).
Box 2. Comparative overview of key approaches to sustainable farming.
StrategyMain FocusGoalsTypical Practices
AgroecologyEcological balance and food systemsLong-term productivity and resilienceCrop rotation, agroforestry, and cover crops
Ecosystem ServicesBenefits of healthy ecosystemsSupport agroecosystem functionalityPollination, soil fertility, and pest control
Nature-Based SolutionsClimate adaptation using ecosystemsBuild resilience and reduce greenhouse gasesAgroforestry, wetlands, and wildlife corridors

3. Key Components of Green Infrastructure in Agricultural Systems

Integrating GI into agricultural systems is essential for fostering sustainable practices that enhance soil health, biodiversity, and climate resilience. Table 1 highlights some components of GI in agricultural systems and key benefits that illustrate their contributions to sustainable development and climate resilience. Agroforestry systems combine agricultural production with tree cultivation, resulting in synergistic benefits for crops and the surrounding environment. These systems have been shown by Fenster et al. [44] to improve soil structure and fertility by adding organic matter from leaf litter, roots, and decomposing biomass. Incorporating trees within agricultural systems enhances biodiversity by providing habitats for various faunal species, leading to improved pest management and pollination services. Furthermore, agroforestry practices increase resilience against climate change impacts by enhancing microclimates, reducing soil erosion, and improving carbon sequestration [45]. Studies have demonstrated that agroforestry systems significantly enhance microbial diversity and biomass in the soil, which are critical indicators of soil health [46,47]. The interaction between trees and crops can improve water retention and nutrient cycling, supporting better crop yields. In addition to ecological benefits, agroforestry can provide economic advantages by diversifying income sources for farmers through timber, fruits, nuts, and other non-timber forest products, thus reducing the financial risks associated with conventional monoculture systems [47].
Conservation buffers and riparian zones are crucial components of GI, as they protect water bodies from agricultural runoff and enhance water quality in adjacent ecosystems. These areas, characterized by a vegetated strip of land near water bodies, play a significant role in filtering sediments, nutrients, and pollutants before they enter aquatic systems [48]. Their integration into agricultural landscapes also contributes to the stabilization of soil, reducing the likelihood of erosion during heavy rains and safeguarding soil health and agricultural productivity [49]. Research indicates that vegetation in riparian zones enhances biodiversity by providing critical habitats for wildlife, particularly aquatic organisms, and pollinators [50]. Additionally, these buffers support ecosystem resilience by acting as ecological corridors that facilitate the movement of species in response to environmental changes. The multifunctionality of conservation buffers—from enhancing biodiversity to improving water quality—demonstrates their integral role in sustainable agricultural practices.
Regenerative soil management practices are pivotal in enhancing soil health and fostering sustainable agricultural productivity. These practices emphasize building soil organic matter, restoring soil biodiversity, and promoting nutrient cycling through minimal disturbance techniques, cover cropping, and crop rotations [51]. Research shows that regenerative practices, such as applying organic amendments like composted manure, significantly contribute to increases in microbial biomass and diversity, which are essential for soil fertility and physical structure [52]. For instance, studies have highlighted that regenerative agriculture leads to improved soil enzyme activities, which correlate with enhanced nutrient availability for crops [53,54,55]. Adopting these practices addresses soil degradation from conventional agricultural methods and improves carbon sequestration capabilities, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation. Furthermore, a diverse cropping system under regenerative management enhances resilience against disease and pest outbreaks, thus reducing dependence on chemical inputs and fostering a healthier agroecosystem [56,57].
Wetlands and constructed ecosystems represent another crucial component of GI, providing multiple benefits for agricultural systems. Natural and constructed wetlands can be integrated into farmlands to facilitate natural water filtration, improve water retention, and support biodiversity by creating unique habitats for various species [58,59]. These ecosystems offer significant ecosystem services, such as flood regulation, sediment trapping, and nutrient cycling, which are essential in maintaining the health of agricultural landscapes [60,61]. Studies have shown that integrating wetlands into agricultural systems enhances resilience to climate variability by serving as buffers against extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts [47,62,63]. Furthermore, constructed wetlands can be designed to treat agricultural runoff, thereby improving water quality and providing a habitat for wildlife. Such integration of wetlands in farming landscapes exemplifies a nature-based solution that aligns agricultural production with ecological conservation, making it a key strategy for fostering sustainable farming practices.
One of the most promising approaches involves deploying smart agricultural systems, where wireless sensor networks, drones, real-time data platforms, and the Internet of Things (IoT) enable farm machinery to work in concert to create data-driven, adaptive farming ecosystems (Figure 1) [64]. These systems allow farmers to monitor soil health, crop conditions, and environmental variables in real time, enabling precision interventions that optimize input use while minimizing ecological impacts. Figure 1 demonstrates the dynamic interactions between ground-based sensors, aerial drones, networked communication infrastructure, and centralized data processing systems. Together, these components exemplify how digital technologies can enhance the functions of GI, improving water management, soil conservation, biodiversity enhancement, and climate adaptation. This approach will strengthen the environmental and economic sustainability of agricultural systems and empower farmers with real-time insights, fostering adaptive management practices essential for navigating climate uncertainties [64,65,66,67].
Table 1. Green Infrastructure in Agricultural Systems.
Table 1. Green Infrastructure in Agricultural Systems.
ComponentApplication Scenario ExamplesKey BenefitsReferences
Agroforestry SystemsIntegration of woody perennials (trees, shrubs) with crops and/or livestock.Silvopasture, alley croppingEnhances carbon sequestration, improves soil structure, diversifies income sources, and promotes biodiversity.[68,69]
Riparian BuffersVegetated zones along streams, rivers, or wetlands intercept pollutants and reduce erosion.Grass buffers, forest buffersReduces nutrient runoff, enhances water quality, stabilizes streambanks, and supports wildlife habitat.[70]
Cover CroppingUse of non-commodity crops to protect and enhance the soil between cash crop cycles.Legumes, grasses (e.g., clover and rye)Adds organic matter, fixes nitrogen, prevents erosion, suppresses weeds, and supports microbial diversity.[71,72]
HedgerowsPlanted rows of shrubs, trees, or native plants bordering fields.Native hedgerowsServes as a habitat corridor, supports beneficial insects and pollinators, and provides wind protection.[73]
Conservation TillageMinimal disturbance tillage to preserve soil structure and biological activity.No-till, strip-till systemsReduces erosion, conserves soil moisture, promotes soil microbial activity, and enhances carbon storage.[74,75,76]
Wetland RestorationRe-establishing or creating wetlands within agricultural landscapes to enhance ecosystem services.Floodplain restoration, farm pondsImproves water filtration, enhances flood resilience, sequesters carbon, and supports wetland biodiversity.[77,78]
Grass WaterwaysGrassed channels that convey surface runoff while preventing soil erosion.Native grass channelsFilters sediment and nutrients, reduces gully formation and promotes infiltration and aquifer recharge.[79]
Perennial Vegetation StripsLong-term vegetative buffers (native grasses, shrubs, etc.) are established within or between fields.Prairie stripsEnhances biodiversity, supports soil stability, provides habitat for beneficial species, and reduces runoff.[80]
Rainwater HarvestingCapture and storage of rainwater for irrigation or recharge of soil moisture.Farm ponds, rooftop collectionReduces reliance on groundwater, enhances drought resilience, and improves water access for crops/livestock.[81,82]
Bioswales and Buffer StripsLandscaped depressions designed to slow, capture, and filter stormwater runoff.Filter strips, vegetated swalesReduces nutrient and sediment runoff, enhances water infiltration, and supports aesthetic and functional landscapes.[83,84]
WindbreaksRows of trees or shrubs are planted to protect fields from wind erosion.Tree shelterbeltsPrevents wind erosion, reduces crop damage, creates microclimates, and provides habitat for birds and pollinators.[85]
Composting SystemsIncorporation of organic farm and household waste into soil fertility practices.On-farm composting, vermicompostingImproves soil organic matter, enhances microbial activity, reduces dependence on synthetic fertilizers, and supports the circular economy.[86,87]
Pollinator HabitatDesignated areas are planted with pollinator-friendly species.Pollinator gardens, flowering bordersEnhances pollination services, supports biodiversity, and promotes ecosystem resilience.[88,89]
Terracing and Contour FarmingReshaping and cultivating land along contours to prevent erosion.Bench terraces, contour strip croppingReduces surface runoff, improves soil water retention, minimizes slope erosion, and supports long-term soil health.[90]
Green Roofs and Living FencesUse of vegetated roofs and biologically active fences for agricultural infrastructure.Green barns, living fencesProvides insulation, reduces stormwater runoff, enhances farm aesthetics, and supports habitat connectivity.[91,92]
Constructed WetlandsEngineered wetlands are designed to treat agricultural runoff and wastewater.Integrated wetland treatmentFilters nutrients and contaminants, provides wildlife habitat, and promotes water reuse.[93]
Solar-Powered Water SystemsUse of solar energy to power water collection, pumping, or irrigation systems.Solar pumps, drip irrigationReduces fossil fuel dependence, increases water efficiency, and supports off-grid farming systems.[94,95]
Biological Pest Control AreasHabitat zones for beneficial insects that naturally control pests.Beetle banks, insectary stripsReduce pesticide use, enhance biological pest suppression, and promote beneficial insect populations.[96,97]
Permeable Pavements in FarmyardsPorous surfaces that allow rainwater infiltration, reducing runoff.Gravel, permeable concreteEnhances groundwater recharge, reduces surface runoff, and mitigates flooding risks.[98,99]
Crop–Livestock IntegrationIntegrated systems combine crops and livestock to cycle nutrients and enhance soil health.Rotational grazing, crop grazingReduces waste, enhances nutrient cycling, improves soil organic matter, and diversifies farm income.[100]
Renewable Energy InstallationsOn-farm renewable energy infrastructure is linked to sustainable farming operations.Solar arrays, wind turbinesReduces carbon footprint, provides energy resilience, and supports climate-smart farming practices.[101,102,103]

4. Soil Health Enhancement Through Green Infrastructure

Green infrastructure enhances soil health by promoting natural processes that restore soil structure, fertility, and biological activity. Cover cropping, agroforestry, buffer strips, and no-till farming improve soil organic matter content, reduce erosion, and enhance water retention capacity. These nature-based solutions foster microbial diversity and create conditions for beneficial soil organisms to thrive, enhancing nutrient cycling and plant health. Additionally, GI techniques help sequester soil carbon, providing climate mitigation benefits and improving soil resilience to extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods. Integrating composting systems, bioswales, and constructed wetlands into agricultural landscapes further aids in filtering contaminants and promoting soil remediation.
Soil microbial communities play a critical role in maintaining soil health through their involvement in organic matter decomposition, nutrient recycling, and pathogen suppression. Adopting GI has been shown to enhance microbial diversity and abundance, which are essential characteristics of healthy soils [104]. For example, urban green spaces incorporating various vegetation types can significantly influence soil microbial communities’ composition and functional diversity, promoting ecological processes that directly benefit agricultural production [105]. Research indicates that different types of GI, such as green roofs, rain gardens, and bioswales, can create microhabitats that support diverse microbial populations. These environments enhance ecosystem functionality by promoting nutrient cycling and organic matter decomposition, ultimately improving soil fertility [104,106]. Moreover, the establishment of vegetative buffers around agricultural lands protects water resources and fosters richer microbial ecosystems, supporting sustainable land management practices [84,104,107]. Understanding and leveraging these biological processes are crucial for enhancing soil health and promoting agricultural biodiversity within GI frameworks.
The structural integrity of soil is fundamental for its viability and functionality. Green infrastructure improves soil structure by promoting soil aggregation and reducing compaction [108]. Techniques such as cover cropping and applying organic amendments (e.g., compost) bolster soil structure and enhance organic matter content, which is vital for sustaining soil health [109]. Increased organic matter improves soil porosity, aeration, and water retention, facilitating more effective nutrient cycling [110]. Notably, the integration of biochar—a form of carbon-rich organic material—into agricultural soils has shown promising results in enhancing soil fertility and structure. Studies indicate that biochar application can improve soil’s physical properties, enhance nutrient retention, and reduce nutrient leaching, thereby promoting better plant growth and productivity [37,42]. Additionally, the cycling of nitrogen and phosphorus is significantly enhanced in soils treated with organic amendments, as these inputs support microbial populations that play a key role in nutrient mobilization and availability [109,110]. Therefore, by implementing various forms of GI, soils can achieve a higher quality of structure and organic matter, leading to improved nutrient cycling and long-term sustainability in agricultural settings [109].
Effective water management is crucial for sustainable agriculture, particularly in light of changing climatic conditions that lead to increased variability in precipitation patterns. Green infrastructure mitigates water-related challenges by enhancing the hydrological performance of agricultural landscapes through improved water retention and reduced soil erosion [32]. The design of permeable systems, such as bioswales and rain gardens, facilitates rainwater infiltration into the soil, effectively reducing surface runoff and promoting groundwater recharge [111,112]. Research has shown that these GI systems significantly decrease the risk of soil erosion by stabilizing soil by establishing deep-rooted vegetation that binds the soil structure, reducing the velocity of surface water flow [113]. This is particularly critical in agricultural contexts where soil loss can directly impact crop productivity and ecosystem health. Moreover, the role of GI in managing stormwater helps prevent flooding and limits nutrient runoff, thereby protecting water quality in adjacent water bodies [32,114].
Figure 2 highlights how various GI elements—ranging from bioretention cells and bioswales to green roofs, urban agriculture, and wetlands—contribute to critical soil-related ecosystem functions [115]. The ecosystem services covered include regulation, provisioning, and cultural services. Stormwater management, water pollution control, biodiversity enhancement, and carbon sequestration emerge as dominant regulating services that most GI types provide, particularly bioretention cells, bioswales, and permeable pavements [116,117]. These infrastructures directly influence soil infiltration, pollutant filtration, and nutrient cycling, showcasing their importance in maintaining soil quality and hydrological balance (Figure 2). Urban agriculture, community gardens, and brownfields stand out for providing food and soil fertility services, directly linking soil health to food production and local food systems [118]. Moreover, certain GI types, like green walls and wetlands, also raise awareness, aesthetics, and health and well-being, underscoring the multifunctionality of GI beyond purely ecological functions [65,119]. Figure 2 also reveals research gaps in attention to soil-related services, such as nutrient cycling, metal pollution control, and noise regulation in some GI types, indicating further research and design optimization opportunities [115].

5. Biodiversity Conservation in Agricultural Landscapes Using Green Infrastructure

Agricultural intensification, habitat fragmentation, and climate change pose significant threats to biodiversity, particularly in regions where agriculture dominates land use. Green infrastructure strategies create multifunctional landscapes that balance production with ecological health by establishing habitat networks, enhancing ecological connectivity, and providing refuge for native species. These nature-based approaches conserve pollinators, beneficial insects, and soil microbes, improve resilience to climate change, and support long-term agricultural productivity. Table 2 highlights key GI components and their biodiversity benefits, offering practical examples for enhancing species richness, ecosystem functionality, and overall landscape health in agricultural settings. Green infrastructure is a critical tool for enhancing biodiversity conservation within agricultural landscapes by creating habitat networks, ecological corridors, and refuge areas for native species. Practices such as hedgerows, riparian buffers, agroforestry systems, and cover cropping improve soil health and water quality and support pollinators, beneficial insects, birds, and soil microbial diversity. These multifunctional landscapes enhance connectivity between natural habitats, fostering gene flow and species migration while mitigating the fragmentation caused by intensive agriculture. By integrating biodiversity-friendly design into farms, GI promotes ecological resilience. It can also help ensure that agricultural landscapes sustain production goals and ecosystem services, ultimately supporting long-term sustainability and climate adaptation [120].

5.1. Pollinator Habitats and Beneficial Insects

Pollinators, such as bees and butterflies, are indispensable for reproducing many crops and wild plants. The decline in their populations has raised significant concerns over food security and ecosystem functioning [136]. Green infrastructure interventions can create and enhance habitats that support these vital insects. Research indicates that diverse floral resources in agricultural landscapes increase the abundance and diversity of pollinators, particularly in the face of habitat degradation [137]. For example, retaining native plant species and providing supplementary forage can alleviate habitat degradation, thereby enabling populations of wild pollinators like bumblebees to thrive [138]. The establishment of pollinator-friendly habitats, such as wildflower strips and hedgerows, can bolster the resilience of pollinator communities against the impacts of agricultural intensification. Studies have noted that habitat corridors connecting semi-natural environments with crop fields facilitate the movement and foraging behavior of pollinators, thus enhancing their effectiveness in agricultural pollination services [139,140]. Furthermore, addressing pesticide use and enhancing landscape diversity is crucial for improving the health of pollinator populations, confirming that the conservation of natural habitat fragments is essential for supporting pollinators’ nesting and foraging needs beyond crop flowering seasons [138].

5.2. Agroecological Networks and Habitat Connectivity

Agroecological networks incorporating natural elements into agricultural planning play a significant role in biodiversity conservation. These networks enhance habitat connectivity, allowing pollinators and other beneficial organisms to navigate through fragmented landscapes efficiently [138,141]. Preserving semi-natural habitats, such as grasslands and forest edges, within agricultural settings is vital for maintaining species richness and ecological functions. Research highlights that landscapes characterized by high structural complexity and greater habitat diversity foster increased populations of wild pollinators [20,142]. This complexity can include a combination of cultivated lands, natural habitats, and strategic plantings that create microhabitats conducive to various insect species. Utilizing such networks helps mitigate the adverse effects of agricultural intensification, which can otherwise lead to biodiversity loss [143]. For instance, maintaining hedgerows or shelter belts provides a habitat for beneficial insects and also aids in keeping microclimates favorable and reducing soil erosion [144]. Developing strategies for creating interconnected landscapes, such as implementing buffer strips and establishing pollinator corridors, can foster resilience within these ecosystems, ensuring that pollinator services are sustained and enhanced over time [20,140].

5.3. Role of Cover Crops and Perennial Vegetation in Biodiversity

Cover crops and perennial vegetation are critical components of GI within agricultural landscapes, enhancing soil health while providing habitats for many organisms [145]. Cover crops, such as clover or rye, can improve soil structure and fertility while offering pollinators food sources during critical times of the year, particularly when main crops are not blooming [146,147]. Their use supports beneficial insects by providing diverse flowering plants that contribute to agricultural biodiversity. Moreover, incorporating perennial vegetation into agricultural systems creates stable ecosystems that support a wider range of species than annual cropping systems. Perennial plants enrich floral diversity and foster habitats for various insects, including essential pollinators [148,149]. Studies suggest that agroforestry systems, which integrate trees with crops, enhance plant diversity and create insulated environments where insect populations can thrive, leading to improved ecosystem services such as pollination and pest control [150,151]. Incorporating a wide variety of native perennial species in agricultural settings can also buffer against the impacts of climate change by providing resilience to fluctuations in weather patterns, ensuring that critical pollination services can persist [137,143]. Adopting cover crops and promoting perennial vegetation are synergistic strategies to enhance biodiversity within agricultural landscapes, leading to more sustainable farming practices.
Biodiversity-focused GI offers substantial ecological and agricultural benefits, yet its implementation requires some trade-offs [20,28]. A key challenge is land competition, as dedicating farmland to features like hedgerows, flower strips, or riparian buffers can reduce space for food production—particularly in land-scarce settings such as smallholder farms. These interventions also increase labor demands for tasks like planting native species, managing diverse cropping systems, and ongoing maintenance. For many farmers, especially in the Global South, the cost of establishing and maintaining such systems can be prohibitive without subsidies or external support [40,60]. Additionally, biodiversity-enhancing practices often take time to produce tangible benefits, which may delay economic returns and discourage adoption. Acknowledging these constraints is crucial for designing GI strategies that are both ecologically effective and socioeconomically viable.

6. Climate Resilience and Mitigation Benefits of Integrating Green Infrastructure into Agriculture

Integrating GI into agricultural practices presents dual benefits: enhancing climate resilience and contributing to climate change mitigation through various ecological mechanisms. One of the primary climate mitigation benefits of integrating GI in agriculture is its capacity to sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Agricultural soils can be significant carbon sinks, and practices such as cultivating cover crops and perennial vegetation can enhance soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks [152,153,154]. Cover cropping, for instance, captures atmospheric CO2 during the growing season, effectively replacing bare fallow periods, which typically result in carbon release [155]. Meta-analyses suggest that adopting cover cropping can increase SOC significantly, thereby compensating for anthropogenic GHG emissions and improving the overall carbon balance of agricultural ecosystems [156,157]. Moreover, agroforestry practices enhance carbon sequestration in tree biomass and soil [158,159]. Trees integrated into agricultural landscapes contribute to carbon storage within the soil through increased root biomass and organic matter inputs, which improve soil structure and nutrient availability [156,157]. Evidence indicates that agroforestry systems can sequester more carbon than conventional farming approaches that often focus on monoculture practices [68,156,157]. The deployment of these carbon-absorbing practices is critical for meeting national and global climate goals. With agriculture contributing an estimated 14% of GHG emissions worldwide [158], pursuing strategies incorporating GI to bolster carbon sequestration is beneficial and necessary for combating climate change. Returning agricultural residues and straws to fields can enhance soil organic matter content and reduce nitrous oxide emissions, further benefiting carbon sequestration efforts and economic development [159,160,161,162].
Integrating GI within agricultural systems also bolsters adaptive capacity, enabling farms to manage climate risks effectively. Climate-smart agriculture encompasses strategies to increase farm productivity and enhance resilience against climate-related shocks [163]. By diversifying cropping systems through implementing GI, farmers can mitigate risks of crop failure due to climate variability by embracing polycultures and specialty crops better suited for changing conditions [164,165]. Research highlights that agroecological practices, including soil conservation and biodiversity promotion through GI, create more resilient farming systems. For example, regions adopting no-tillage practices within GI frameworks have demonstrated increased soil moisture retention and reduced vulnerability to drought conditions [164,165]. The resilience provided by implementing diverse and integrated farming systems parallels efforts to sustain yields against increasing climate anomalies and extreme weather events. Community engagement and exposure to climate education further enhance adaptive capacity, empowering farmers to adopt practices that will sustain their livelihoods amid climate challenges [166]. These multifaceted adaptations underline the importance of a holistic approach, where GI enhances productivity and contributes to the socioeconomic stability of agricultural communities [163].
Innovative practices among local farmers—such as establishing agroforestry systems, using cover crops, and integrating organic farming techniques—have significantly improved soil health and strengthened community resilience against climate variability [167,168]. In Ghana, farmers increasingly adopt agroecological practices that work synergistically with the local ecosystem to combat land degradation and improve productivity. For instance, the use of organic fertilizers in combination with cover cropping has enhanced soil fertility while reducing dependency on synthetic inputs [169]. Soto et al. [50] also assessed the impact of regenerative agriculture practices on soil quality in Mediterranean dryland and found improved physical (e.g., aggregate stability), chemical (e.g., nutrient content), and biological (e.g., microbial activity) soil properties without compromising crop nutritional status. These practices support higher crop yields and enhance SOC levels, highlighting a win–win scenario for climate mitigation and food production. Moreover, initiatives focused on community-based restoration, such as restoring degraded land through sustainable practices, demonstrate how vulnerable communities can adapt to changing climatic conditions while improving their agricultural output [167]. These efforts align with global objectives to enhance food security amid increasing climate risks while contributing to national commitments to reduce GHG emissions. Overall, the experiences of farmers demonstrate the viability of integrating GI into agricultural practices as a pathway to achieving adaptive capacity and climate resilience, thereby paving the way for sustainable development in the face of climate change [170,171].
CSA represents an integrated approach that combines technological, ecological, and knowledge-based innovations to enhance the sustainability and resilience of agricultural systems in the face of climate change. CSA operates across multiple dimensions—weather-smart, water-smart, carbon-smart, nutrient-smart, energy-smart, and knowledge-smart interventions—each tailored to address specific vulnerabilities and opportunities within farming landscapes (Figure 3) [172]. CSA fosters adaptive capacity by incorporating GI, such as real-time weather advisories, precision irrigation systems, conservation tillage, renewable energy solutions, and farmer-to-farmer learning networks while minimizing environmental impacts [173]. These interventions collectively enhance soil health, optimize water use, sequester carbon, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and empower farming communities with climate literacy and decision-making tools. CSA is vital to GI strategies, ensuring agricultural landscapes sustain food production and contribute to broader ecological resilience and climate adaptation goals [170,174].
Implementing CSA presents context-specific challenges that vary significantly between smallholder and industrial farming systems [174]. Smallholder farmers often face constraints such as limited access to climate-resilient seeds, financial resources, extension services, and reliable weather forecasts, which can hinder the adoption of CSA practices. In contrast, industrial farmers may have better access to resources, but encounter challenges related to the scale and complexity of transitioning from conventional, high-input systems to more sustainable models [20]. For example, integrating agroforestry or diversified cropping into large-scale monocultures requires significant restructuring of operations, logistics, and market systems.

7. Farmer Adoption of Green Infrastructure and Socioeconomic Considerations

The conceptual framework presented in Figure 4 illustrates the multifaceted factors influencing the adoption of GI in agricultural systems. It outlines key barriers, incentives, and enabling conditions essential for designing inclusive and effective strategies that facilitate GI adoption, particularly among smallholder and resource-constrained farming systems. The adoption of GI in sustainable agriculture is influenced by various barriers and incentives, and the role of extension services and farmer knowledge networks. Farmers often face several barriers to adopting sustainable agricultural practices and GI. Key obstacles include high initial costs, insufficient knowledge and training, and perceived risks associated with new practices [175,176]. Financial constraints can significantly hinder adoption, as many farmers are reluctant to invest in new technologies or practices that do not yield immediate economic benefits. Research has shown that adopting sustainable practices is often impeded by a lack of access to credit or financial resources, so investing in green technologies seems untenable [175,176,177,178]. Conversely, various incentives can promote the adoption of GI. For instance, economic incentives, such as subsidies, grants, or tax benefits for implementing sustainable practices, can alleviate some economic pressures farmers face [179]. Social incentives, such as recognition within communities or access to new markets for sustainably produced goods, can also encourage farmers to transition to more sustainable practices [180]. When farmers perceive that their peers or local cooperatives are successfully adopting these practices, they are more likely to follow suit due to social pressure and the dissemination of positive experiences [179,180]. Furthermore, implementing collective strategies within communities often improves the adoption of GI practices [181]. Cooperative membership has significantly boosted the likelihood of adopting sustainable practices, as cooperation enables shared resources, knowledge, and risks among farmers [179]. Thus, while barriers to adoption are significant, targeted strategies that leverage community involvement and economic incentives can effectively facilitate the transition toward sustainable agriculture.
Extension services and farmer knowledge networks are critical in disseminating sustainable agricultural practices and GI information. These services provide farmers with access to research, training, and resources that enhance their understanding of sustainable practices and the environmental benefits they offer [182]. Effective extension programs can facilitate the transfer of technology and knowledge from research institutions to farmers, promoting adoption through education and hands-on demonstrations [183]. Moreover, the role of technology and the internet in connecting farmers to critical information and resources cannot be underestimated. In contemporary agricultural systems, using digital platforms and social media can enhance communication and the sharing of best practices among farmers, thus creating robust knowledge networks [184,185]. These platforms enable farmers to access real-time information on climate conditions, market trends, and best practices in sustainable agriculture, facilitating informed decision-making [186]. However, it is essential to acknowledge that extension services must be tailored to local contexts and farmer needs. Research has highlighted how culturally sensitive approaches, which consider the unique socioeconomic circumstances of farmers, significantly increase the effectiveness of extension programs [183,187]. Training extension agents to understand and promote sustainable practices is crucial for successful implementation [188]. Providing continuous education and resources to support farmers in adapting to new technologies and practices is fundamental for realizing the long-term benefits of GI.
Integrating GI into agricultural systems yields substantial socioeconomic benefits, ultimately enhancing the resilience of rural livelihoods. Sustainable farming practices contribute to improved soil health, increased crop yields, and reduced costs associated with chemical inputs, ultimately boosting farmers’ incomes [189]. Furthermore, the diversification of crops and practices within GI frameworks creates new market opportunities and income streams for farmers, enhancing their overall economic stability. In addition to direct financial benefits, sustainable practices ensure reliable food production in the face of climate change, thereby contributing to food security for farming families [190]. Livelihood resilience is also supported through capacity-building initiatives, which empower farmers to manage risks associated with climate variability and market fluctuations. Research shows that farmers who adopt sustainable practices enjoy enhanced resilience against environmental stressors, ensuring sustained income and food availability even amid adverse conditions [191]. Moreover, adopting GI practices can foster community stability and social cohesion, as farmers often collaborate on shared challenges related to sustainable agriculture [179,192]. This sense of community promotes knowledge-sharing and collective problem-solving, further bolstering the resilience of local agricultural systems [193]. Additionally, investment in sustainable practices can improve environmental quality, resulting in healthier ecosystems supporting community livelihoods over the long term.
Implementing GI is not without challenges, despite the economic and ecological benefits. Limitations include land-use trade-offs, where space allocated for biodiversity elements such as riparian buffers or hedgerows may reduce available farmland—particularly critical in densely cultivated or land-scarce regions (Box 3). GI also requires ongoing labor and financial investment for maintenance, monitoring, and adaptation, which may pose barriers for smallholder farmers. Furthermore, the benefits of GI, such as improved soil health or enhanced biodiversity, often take time to materialize, potentially limiting short-term incentives for adoption. However, integrating GI with new technologies offers promising avenues for future development. Precision agriculture tools, remote sensing, and geospatial analytics can optimize the placement and management of GI elements. Digital platforms and smart sensors can also monitor ecological indicators in real time, improving efficiency and informing adaptive management strategies. These synergies can make GI more scalable, data-driven, and attractive to agricultural stakeholders.
Box 3. Limitations of agricultural green infrastructure and opportunities for integration with emerging technologies in sustainable agriculture.
Limitations of Green InfrastructureTechnological Integration for Future Development
Land-use trade-offs (e.g., reduced arable land)Use of geographic information system and spatial modeling to optimize GI placement without compromising yield
High labor and maintenance demandsDeployment of automated systems like IoT sensors for irrigation and vegetation monitoring
Delayed realization of benefitsUse of predictive modeling and machine learning to estimate long-term GI impacts
Financial constraints for smallholdersBlockchain-enabled platforms for accessing microfinance, green subsidies, and credits
Lack of real-time ecological dataRemote sensing and drone technology for monitoring vegetation cover and water cycles
Difficulty in assessing performance and return on investmentAI-driven dashboards to visualize and analyze environmental and productivity indicators

8. Policy Implications of Incorporating Green Infrastructure into Agricultural Systems and Governance Frameworks

Incorporating GI into agricultural systems is imperative for achieving sustainable development goals, particularly improved soil health, biodiversity conservation, and climate resilience. The involvement of policy frameworks plays a crucial role in facilitating the adoption and implementation of GI practices [194,195]. Integrating GI into agricultural policies involves creating enabling environments supporting the transition toward sustainable farming practices. Policymakers must recognize the multifaceted benefits of GI, which include environmental health improvements and enhanced economic resilience in farming communities [47]. Establishing a clear regulatory framework that encourages the adoption of GI involves setting standards for sustainable land use practices, providing technical guidance, and aligning agricultural policies with broader environmental and social objectives. Emerging frameworks prioritize the inclusion of GI in land-use planning, reflecting a shift towards recognizing the critical role that natural resources play in agricultural productivity and climate adaptation [49]. For instance, developing policies that mandate vegetative buffers around agricultural fields can protect water quality while increasing habitat availability for beneficial organisms [196]. Incentivizing farmers to adopt these practices can reinforce their integration into existing agricultural frameworks. Education and awareness-raising initiatives are essential to inform stakeholders—from farmers to local government officials—about the benefits of GI [197]. This can be accomplished through policy-led programs that facilitate collaboration between agricultural departments and environmental agencies, ensuring that policy objectives align with practical implementation at the ground level.
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) offers a financial mechanism through which farmers can receive compensation for maintaining or enhancing ecosystem services through GI practices. PES schemes encourage sustainable land management by rewarding farmers for their practices’ environmental services, such as carbon sequestration, improved water quality, and biodiversity conservation [31]. These programs can significantly influence the economic viability of adopting GI, offering financial incentives that offset initial costs related to transitioning to sustainable practices. Studies have demonstrated that designing PES programs can improve environmental outcomes while enhancing farmers’ livelihoods [31,198]. For instance, contracts for maintaining buffer zones or implementing agroforestry systems can provide farmers with additional income streams, thereby incentivizing investment in sustainability [199]. Additionally, offering training and technical assistance as part of the PES framework can further enhance adoption rates. Educating farmers about GI practices’ financial and ecological benefits encourages their participation in these programs, ultimately leading to long-term sustainability [200]. Costa Rica’s national PES program has supported reforestation and agroforestry, resulting in a 21% increase in forest cover between 1986 and 2013 and improved ecosystem service delivery, including water regulation and soil stabilization [201,202]. The Common Agricultural Policy in Europe incorporates agri-environmental schemes that reward farmers for implementing GI practices, such as buffer strips, hedgerows, and cover crops. Studies across EU member states have shown positive environmental outcomes, including enhanced biodiversity, improved water quality, and carbon sequestration [203,204]. These examples demonstrate how well-designed policy instruments can effectively reduce financial barriers, encourage ecological stewardship, and mainstream GI practices in industrial and smallholder farming systems.
A successful approach to implementing GI in agriculture requires collaboration among various stakeholders, including governmental agencies, agricultural associations, non-governmental organizations, and local communities. Multistakeholder engagement ensures that the policies designed to support GI are inclusive and reflect the diverse needs and perspectives within agricultural landscapes [61]. Regional policy examples illustrate how collaborative approaches can yield positive outcomes. For instance, successful case studies in urban areas demonstrate how integrating community gardens and urban green spaces has improved local food security and resilience against climate change while providing recreational areas that promote community health [205,206]. In rural agriculture, incorporating stakeholders in decision-making processes ensures that policies are grounded in the realities farmers face. Furthermore, effective governance frameworks that align local, regional, and national policies are paramount for scaling up GI practices [207]. Such frameworks facilitate knowledge sharing, improve resource allocation, and promote best practices that lead to more resilient agricultural landscapes. Ensuring that policy instruments consider GI practices’ long-term sustainability and adaptability will be crucial for their success.

9. Future Directions and Research Gaps

As the integration of GI in sustainable agriculture progresses, several future directions and research gaps emerge, warranting attention from researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. Monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of GI in agricultural systems is critical for understanding its impacts on soil health, biodiversity, and climate resilience. There is a pressing need for innovative methodologies that leverage remote sensing and spatial modeling to evaluate changes in land use and ecosystem services provided by GI [208]. Such technologies enable researchers to identify shifts in vegetation cover, assess microclimatic changes around urban GI, and evaluate their effects on local biodiversity [209]. Further research is essential in developing standardized indicators and metrics for assessing the multifunctionality of GI, particularly regarding its role in providing ecosystem services [210]. Creating a comprehensive set of urban GI indicators can aid cities in measuring sustainability benefits, and incorporating economic, environmental, and social dimensions [210]. Employing big data analytics and citizen science initiatives can also enhance monitoring efforts, maximizing participation and fostering local stewardship [211]. Moreover, randomizing experimental designs in field assessments can deepen our understanding of how specific GI practices influence agricultural outcomes. This, combined with participatory approaches, can help adapt practices based on the local context and feedback from the farming communities [212]. Ultimately, advancing assessment and monitoring frameworks will facilitate evidence-based decision-making for policy and practice in sustainable agriculture.
Scaling GI practices across diverse agroecosystems presents unique challenges. Different agricultural systems—ranging from smallholder farms in the Global South to large-scale industrial operations—vary in their ecological and socioeconomic contexts, requiring tailored approaches for scaling [213]. Research should focus on identifying the conditions under which GI practices thrive, assessing factors such as land tenure, labor availability, and resource access that influence implementation success [214]. Innovative implementation strategies should be evaluated for scalability, such as integrating GI practices into existing agricultural subsidies or providing technical assistance for farmers in diverse settings [215]. Collaborative frameworks involving local governments, agricultural organizations, and community groups can enhance support for farmers adopting GI by providing necessary resources, training, and knowledge-sharing networks [215]. Furthermore, understanding cultural perspectives and social acceptance of green infrastructural changes is essential for successful scaling [216]. By integrating insights from local communities and valuing traditional agricultural practices, more inclusive and effective approaches can be developed for advancing GI in agricultural landscapes.
Integrating traditional and indigenous knowledge systems with modern scientific practices presents an essential avenue for enriching the implementation of GI in agriculture. Indigenous communities often possess valuable knowledge regarding local ecosystems, adaptive practices, and sustainable management strategies developed over generations [217]. Collaborative research approaches that fuse this knowledge with scientific analysis can yield innovative solutions for enhancing soil health, biodiversity conservation, and climate resilience [211]. Current research highlights the need to appreciate indigenous agroecological systems in policy frameworks and agricultural practices [208]. This can be achieved by engaging indigenous farmers in research initiatives, ensuring that their insights inform the development of sustainable agricultural practices. Additionally, ethnobotanical studies and participatory action research can facilitate knowledge exchange between scientists and indigenous communities, fostering more holistic and culturally appropriate approaches to sustainable agriculture [218]. Encouraging recognition of indigenous practices, such as seasonal land management and habitat conservation strategies, can enhance the adaptability of agricultural systems while promoting biodiversity [219]. Bridging these knowledge systems supports the preservation of cultural identity and contributes to building climate resilience in agricultural landscapes. The future of integrating GI into sustainable agriculture hinges upon addressing key research gaps and exploring innovative methodologies. This encompasses enhancing monitoring and assessment tools, scaling GI across diverse agroecosystems, and bridging traditional and indigenous knowledge with scientific insights. By addressing these areas, researchers and practitioners can better understand the intricate dynamics of GI in agriculture, paving the way for more effective policies and practices that contribute to sustainable agricultural systems globally.

10. Conclusions

Integrating GI into agricultural practices presents a multifaceted strategy for enhancing soil health, biodiversity, and climate resilience. This approach addresses the immediate challenges faced by agricultural systems and aligns with broader sustainability goals essential for future generations. The future of agriculture must recognize the importance of these natural interactions and focus on sustaining natural resources while enhancing food production. The key components of GI—agroforestry systems, conservation buffers and riparian zones, regenerative soil management practices, and wetlands—are integral to enhancing soil health, biodiversity, and climate resilience within agricultural systems. By fostering a holistic approach to agricultural practices incorporating these elements, farmers can achieve sustainable production that aligns with ecological principles and supports long-term food security. As agriculture faces mounting challenges from climate change, integrating GI components will prove essential in cultivating resilient landscapes that produce food sustainably while preserving and restoring ecosystem integrity. The strategic implementation of GI within agricultural landscapes significantly promotes biodiversity conservation. Enhancing pollinator habitats, nurturing beneficial insect populations, establishing agroecological networks that facilitate habitat connectivity, and leveraging cover crops alongside perennial vegetation are all essential roles GI plays in supporting biodiversity. Collectively, these practices demonstrate how integrating ecological principles into agricultural systems can foster resilience, bolster ecosystem services, and contribute to the long-term sustainability of food production systems. Integrating GI into agricultural systems yields substantial climate resilience and mitigation benefits. GI proves essential for fostering sustainable agricultural practices, from carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reduction to enhancing adaptive capacity and risk management. Ultimately, the continued implementation and refinement of these strategies are vital for confronting the challenges of climate change and securing the future of global food production. Integrating GI into sustainable agriculture presents multiple layers of complexity concerning farmer adoption and socioeconomic impacts. Addressing barriers while providing targeted incentives, enhancing extension services, and fostering collaborative knowledge networks are all essential for promoting the adoption of these practices. Furthermore, the socioeconomic benefits of integrating GI into agriculture create pathways for boosting livelihoods and enhancing resilience against climate variability. Fostering cooperation among stakeholders—including farmers, extension services, and policymakers—is paramount to achieving sustainable agricultural transformations that benefit both people and the planet.

Author Contributions

M.C.O. developed the concept, conducted the literature search, and wrote the first draft of the paper. E.A.K. contributed to the literature search and co-wrote sections of the paper. Both M.C.O. and E.A.K. reviewed and edited the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kabakchieva, D.; Vasileva, V. Green infrastructure-the smart interpreting of natural capital. Acta Sci. Nat. 2023, 10, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jacob, D.E.; Nelson, I.U.; Oluwafemi, O.J.; Izah, S.C.; Ogwu, M.C. Environmental Stewardship: Safeguarding Biodiversity in Protected Landscapes and Recreational Parks Using Biosecurity. In Biomonitoring of Pollutants in the Global South; Izah, S.C., Ogwu, M.C., Hamidifar, H., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Jacob, D.E.; Nelson, I.U.; Izah, S.C.; Ukpong, E.; Akpan, U.U.; Ogwu, M.C. Bioindicators in Recreational Planning and Development: Balancing Nature and Human Activities. In Biomonitoring of Pollutants in the Global South; Izah, S.C., Ogwu, M.C., Hamidifar, H., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pywell, R.; Heard, M.; Woodcock, B.; Hinsley, S.; Ridding, L.; Nowakowski, M.; Bullock, J. Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: Evidence for ecological intensification. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 282, 20151740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Imarhiagbe, O.; Ogwu, M.C. Sacred Groves in the Global South: A Panacea for Sustainable Biodiversity Conservation. In Biodiversity in Africa: Potentials, Threats and Conservation, Sustainable Development and Biodiversity; Izah, S.C., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; Volume 29, pp. 525–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Imarhiagbe, O.; Onyeukwu, I.I.; Egboduku, W.; Mukah, F.E.; Ogwu, M.C. Forest Conservation Strategies in Africa: Historical Perspectives, Status and Sustainable Avenues for Progress. In Biodiversity in Africa: Potentials, Threats and Conservation, Sustainable Development and Biodiversity, Vol. 29; Izah, S.C., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 547–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Evivie, S.E.; Ogwu, M.C.; Ebabhamiegbebho, P.A.; Abel, E.S.; Imaren, J.O.; Igene, J.O. Packaging and the Nigerian food industry: Challenges and opportunities. In Food Technology and Culture in Africa; Ogunlade, C.A., Adeleke, K.M., Oladejo, M.T., Eds.; Reamsworth Publishing: Ibadan, Nigeria, 2020; pp. 28–99. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ogwu, M.C.; Izah, S.C. One Health Implications of Agrochemicals and their Sustainable Alternatives; Sustainable Development and Biodiversity; Ramawat, K.G., Ed.; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2023; Volume 34, 826p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pulleman, M.; Boer, W.; Giller, K.; Kuyper, T. Soil biodiversity and nature-mimicry in agriculture; the power of metaphor? Outlook Agric. 2022, 51, 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rodríguez, B.; Zuazo, V.; Soriano, M.; Tejero, I.; Ruíz, B.; Tavira, S. Conservation agriculture as a sustainable system for soil health: A review. Soil Syst. 2022, 6, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bele, B.; Norderhaug, A.; Sickel, H. Localized agri-food systems and biodiversity. Agriculture 2018, 8, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ikhajiagbe, B.; Ogochukwu, O.F.; Ogwu, M.C. Shelf life, fruit quality and safety of banana fruits ripened through traditional ripening techniques in Nigeria. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2021, 21, 66–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Osawaru, M.E.; Ogwu, M.C. Collecting West African Okra (Abelmoschus caillei (A. Chev.) Stevels) germplasm from traditional agriculture in parts of Southwestern Nigeria. Bioscientist 2013, 1, 171–181. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ogwu, M.C.; Osawaru, M.E. Traditional Methods of Plant Conservation for Sustainable Utilization and Development. In Biodiversity in Africa: Potentials, Threats and Conservation, Sustainable Development and Biodiversity; Izah, S.C., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; Volume 29, pp. 451–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bulut, M.; Filik, G. The future of innovative agriculture: Bioeconomy and sustainable agriculture. Turk. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 12, 1110–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sharrock, S.; Cherfas, J.; Hodgkin, T. Agricultural biodiversity is essential for a sustainable improvement in food and nutrition security. Sustainability 2011, 3, 238–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Diyaolu, C.; Folarin, I. The role of biodiversity in agricultural resilience: Protecting ecosystem services for sustainable food production. Int. J. Res. Publ. Rev. 2024, 5, 1560–1573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ogwu, M.C.; Osawaru, M.E. Soil characteristics, microbial composition of plot, leaf count and sprout studies of cocoyam (Colocasia [Schott] and Xanthosoma [Schott], Araceae) collected in Edo State, Southern Nigeria. Sci. Technol. Arts Res. J. 2015, 4, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Redlich, S.; Martin, E.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. Sustainable landscape, soil and crop management practices enhance biodiversity and yield in conventional cereal systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 2021, 58, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kremen, C.; Miles, A. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Anderson, V.; Gough, W. Harnessing the four horsemen of climate change: A framework for deep resilience, decarbonization, and planetary health in Ontario, Canada. Sustainability 2021, 13, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Anderson, V.; Gough, W. Nature-based resilience: A multi-type evaluation of productive green infrastructure in agricultural settings in Ontario, Canada. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Anderson, V.; Gough, W.; Agic, B. Nature-based equity: An assessment of the public health impacts of green infrastructure in Ontario, Canada. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lovell, S.T.; Johnston, D.M. Creating multifunctional landscapes: How can the field of ecology inform the design of the landscape? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Keesstra, S.D.; Bouma, J.; Wallinga, J.; Tittonell, P.; Smith, P.; Cerdà, A.; Montanarella, L.; Quinton, J.N.; Pachepsky, Y.; van der Putten, W.H.; et al. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of the United Nations 571 Sustainable Development Goals. Soil 2016, 2, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Altieri, M.A. Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  27. Wezel, A.; Casagrande, M.; Celette, F.; Vian, J.-F.; Ferrer, A.; Peigné, J. Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Power, A.G. Ecosystem services and agriculture: Trade-offs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2959–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Borrelli, P.; Robinson, D.A.; Fleischer, L.R.; Lugato, E.; Ballabio, C.; Alewell, C.; Meusburger, K.; Modugno, S.; Schütt, B.; Ferro, V.; et al. An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Lipper, L.; Thornton, P.; Campbell, B.M.; Baedeker, T.; Braimoh, A.; Bwalya, M.; Caron, P.; Cattaneo, A.; Garrity, D.; Henry, K.; et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Change 2014, 4, 1068–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Singh, A.; Pandey, A.; Santhosh, D.; Ganavi, N.; Sarma, A.; Deori, C.; D, S. A comprehensive review on greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture and evolving agricultural practices for climate resilience. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Change 2024, 14, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hoover, F.; Hopton, M. Developing a framework for stormwater management: Leveraging ancillary benefits from urban greenspace. Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 22, 1139–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Borrelli, P.; Robinson, D.A.; Panagos, P.; Lugato, E.; Yang, J.E.; Alewell, C.; Wuepper, D.; Montanarella, L.; Ballabio, C. Land use and climate change impacts on global soil erosion by water (2015–2070). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 21994–22001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Szutu, D.; Papuga, S. Year-round transpiration dynamics linked with deep soil moisture in a warm desert shrubland. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 5679–5695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shackleton, C. Urban green infrastructure for poverty alleviation: Evidence synthesis and conceptual considerations. Front. Sustain. Cities 2021, 3, 710549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Houlden, V.; Weich, S.; Albuquerque, J.; Jarvis, S.; Rees, K. The relationship between greenspace and the mental wellbeing of adults: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0203000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Huang, X.; Niu, R.; Huang, X.; An, Y.; Li, J.; Li, M.; Garg, A. Influence of sustainable biochars produced from kitchen waste, pig manure, and wood on soil erosion. Water 2021, 13, 2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Betz, C.; Ament, M.; Hurley, S.; Roy, E. Nitrogen removal performance in roadside stormwater bioretention cells amended with drinking water treatment residuals. J. Environ. Qual. 2023, 52, 1115–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kazak, J.; Chruściński, J.; Szewrański, S. The development of a novel decision support system for the location of green infrastructure for stormwater management. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shanahan, D.; Astell–Burt, T.; Barber, E.; Brymer, E.; Cox, D.; Dean, J.; Gaston, K. Nature–based interventions for improving health and wellbeing: The purpose, the people and the outcomes. Sports 2019, 7, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Frem, M.; Nigro, F.; Medawar, S.; Moujabber, M. Biological approaches promise innovative and sustainable management of powdery mildew in Lebanese squash. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhu, H.; Huang, Y.; Song, H.; Chen, J.; Han, S.; Mazumder, T.; Garg, A. Exploring the combination of biochar-amended soil and automated irrigation technology for water regulation and preservation in green infrastructure. Deep Undergr. Sci. Eng. 2023, 3, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Monteiro, R.; Ferreira, J.; Antunes, P. Green infrastructure planning principles: An integrated literature review. Land 2020, 9, 525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fenster, T.; Oikawa, P.; Lundgren, J. Regenerative almond production systems improve soil health, biodiversity, and profit. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 664359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kenne, G.; Kloot, R. The carbon sequestration potential of regenerative farming practices in South Carolina, USA. Am. J. Clim. Change 2019, 8, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Singh, I.; Hussain, M.; Manjunath, G.; Chandra, N.; Ravikanth, G. Regenerative agriculture augments bacterial community structure for a healthier soil and agriculture. Preprint 2022, 5, 1134514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Derkzen, M.; Teeffelen, A.; Verburg, P. Green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation: How do residents’ views on climate impacts and green infrastructure shape adaptation preferences? Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 157, 106–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kondo, M.; Sharma, R.; Plante, A.; Yang, Y.; Burstyn, I. Elemental concentrations in urban green stormwater infrastructure soils. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Otero-Durán, L.; Torres, A. Trees and sidewalks: Toward an infrastructure protection approach. Front. Sustain. Cities 2024, 6, 1336472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Soto, R.; Martínez-Mena, M.; Padilla, M.; Vente, J. Restoring soil quality of woody agroecosystems in Mediterranean drylands through regenerative agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 306, 107191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hoover, F.; Price, J.; Hopton, M. Examining the effects of green infrastructure on residential sales prices in Omaha, Nebraska. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 54, 126778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. John, D.; Babu, G. Lessons from the aftermaths of the Green Revolution on food system and health. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 644559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Senes, G.; Ferrario, P.; Cirone, G.; Fumagalli, N.; Frattini, P.; Sacchi, G.; Valé, G. Nature-based solutions for stormwater management—Creation of a green infrastructure suitability map as a tool for land-use planning at the municipal level in the province of Monza-Brianza (Italy). Sustainability 2021, 13, 6124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hermans, S.M.; Lear, G.; Case, B.S.; Buckley, H.L. The soil microbiome: An essential, but neglected, component of regenerative agroecosystems. iScience 2023, 26, 106028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ramkumar, D.; Marty, A.; Ramkumar, J.; Rosencranz, H.; Vedantham, R.; Goldman, M.; Meyer, E.; Steinmetz, J.; Weckle, A.; Bloedorn, K.; et al. Food for thought: Making the case for food produced via regenerative agriculture in the battle against non-communicable chronic diseases (NCDs). One Health 2024, 18, 100734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Newton, A.C.; Creissen, H.E.; Erreguerena, I.A.; Havis, N.D. Disease management in regenerative cropping in the context of climate change and regulatory restrictions. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2024, 62, 337–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kumar, S.; Honnappanavar, M.; Hn, S. Impact of in-situ green manuring on soil properties and fertility under regenerative farming: A case study of Akshayakalpa Farm in Tiptur, India. Int. J. Res. Agron. 2024, 7, 112–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, X.; Shuster, W.; Pal, C.; Buchberger, S.; Bonta, J.; Avadhanula, K. Low impact development design—Integrating suitability analysis and site planning for reduction of post-development stormwater quantity. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2467–2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chen, R.Z.; Wong, M.H. Integrated wetlands for food production. Environ. Res. 2016, 148, 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Shirgir, E.; Kheyroddin, R.; Behzadfar, M. Developing strategic principles of intervention in urban green infrastructure to create and enhance climate resilience in cities—Case study: Yousef Abad in Tehran. J. Clim. Change 2019, 5, 61–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Demuzere, M.; Orru, K.; Heidrich, O.; Olazabal, E.; Geneletti, D.; Orru, H.; Faehnle, M. Mitigating and adapting to climate change: Multi-functional and multi-scale assessment of green urban infrastructure. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Iyiola, A.O.; Izah, S.C.; Morya, S.; Akinsorotan, A.; Ogwu, M.C. Owalla Reservoir in South-western Nigeria: Assessment of Fish Distribution, Biological Diversity, and Water Quality Index. Indones. J. Agric. Res. 2023, 6, 106–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ogwu, M.C.; Pamela, B.O.; Dare, A.F.; Ovuru, K.F.; Iyiola, A.O. Traditional and Conventional Water Treatment Methods: A Sustainable Approach. In Water Crises and Sustainable Management in the Global South; Izah, S.C., Ogwu, M.C., Loukas, A., Hamidifar, H., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rehman, A.; Saba, T.; Kashif, M.; Fati, S.M.; Bahaj, S.A.; Chaudhry, H. A Revisit of Internet of Things Technologies for Monitoring and Control Strategies in Smart Agriculture. Agronomy 2022, 12, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Coutts, C.; Hahn, M. Green Infrastructure, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 9768–9798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Neethirajan, S. Innovative Strategies for Sustainable Dairy Farming in Canada amidst Climate Change. Sustainability 2024, 16, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dhawi, F.; Aleidan, M.M. Oasis agriculture revitalization and carbon sequestration for climate-resilient communities. Front. Agron. 2024, 6, 1386671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Castle, S.E.; Miller, D.C.; Merten, N.; Ordonez, P.J.; Baylis, K. Evidence for the impacts of agroforestry on ecosystem services and human well-being in high-income countries: A systematic map. Environ. Evid. 2022, 11, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fahad, S.; Chavan, S.B.; Chichaghare, A.R.; Uthappa, A.R.; Kumar, M.; Kakade, V.; Pradhan, A.; Jinger, D.; Rawale, G.; Yadav, D.K.; et al. Agroforestry Systems for Soil Health Improvement and Maintenance. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ghimire, S.R.; Corona, J.; Parmar, R.; Mahadwar, G.; Srinivasan, R.; Mendoza, K.; Johnston, J.M. Sensitivity of Riparian Buffer Designs to Climate Change-Nutrient and Sediment Loading to Streams: A Case Study in the Albemarle-Pamlico River Basins (USA) Using HAWQS. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Abdalla, M.; Hastings, A.; Cheng, K.; Yue, Q.; Chadwick, D.; Espenberg, M.; Truu, J.; Rees, R.M.; Smith, P. A critical review of the impacts of cover crops on nitrogen leaching, net greenhouse gas balance and crop productivity. Glob. Change Biol. 2019, 25, 2530–2543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Fernando, M.; Shrestha, A. The Potential of Cover Crops for Weed Management: A Sole Tool or Component of an Integrated Weed Management System? Plants 2023, 12, 752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Morandin, L.A.; Kremen, C. Hedgerow restoration promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to adjacent fields. Ecol. Appl. 2013, 23, 829–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Engell, I.; Linsler, D.; Sandor, M.; Joergensen, R.G.; Meinen, C.; Potthoff, M. The Effects of Conservation Tillage on Chemical and Microbial Soil Parameters at Four Sites across Europe. Plants 2022, 11, 1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sadiq, M.; Rahim, N.; Tahir, M.M.; Alasmari, A.; Alqahtani, M.M.; Albogami, A.; Ghanem, K.Z.; Abdein, M.A.; Ali, M.; Mehmood, N.; et al. Conservation tillage: A way to improve yield and soil properties and decrease global warming potential in spring wheat agroecosystems. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1356426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Li, Y.M.; Wang, Y.M.; Qiu, G.W.; Yu, H.J.; Liu, F.M.; Wang, G.L.; Duan, Y. Conservation tillage facilitates the accumulation of soil organic carbon fractions by affecting the microbial community in an eolian sandy soil. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1394179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Meli, P.; Rey Benayas, J.M.; Balvanera, P.; Martínez Ramos, M. Restoration enhances wetland biodiversity and ecosystem service supply, but results are context-dependent: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Prasanya, J.; Kanmani, S.; Senthil Kumar, P. A review of the wetland’s restoration mechanisms and its economic and social benefits. Water Pract. Technol. 2024, 19, 4355–4377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fiener, P.; Auerswald, K. Effectiveness of grassed waterways in reducing runoff and sediment delivery from agricultural watersheds. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 927–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Schulte, L.A.; Niemi, J.; Helmers, M.J.; Liebman, M.; Arbuckle, J.G.; James, D.E.; Kolka, R.K.; O’Neal, M.E.; Tomer, M.D.; Tyndall, J.C.; et al. Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from corn-soybean croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 11247–11252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Rahman, S.; Khan, M.T.; Akib, S.; Din, N.B.; Biswas, S.K.; Shirazi, S.M. Sustainability of rainwater harvesting system in terms of water quality. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 721357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Feng, N.; Huang, Y.; Tian, J.; Wang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, W. Effects of a rainwater harvesting system on the soil water, heat and growth of apricot in rain-fed orchards on the Loess Plateau. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 9269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Lu, L.; Johnson, M.; Zhu, F.; Xu, Y.; Ruan, T.; Chan, F.K.S. Harnessing the runoff reduction potential of urban bioswales as an adaptation response to climate change. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 12207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dunn, R.M.; Hawkins, J.M.B.; Blackwell, M.S.A.; Zhang, Y.; Collins, A.L. Impacts of different vegetation in riparian buffer strips on runoff and sediment loss. Hydrol. Process. 2022, 36, e14733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sun, Q.; Zheng, B.; Liu, T.; Zhu, L.; Hao, X.; Han, Z. The optimal spacing interval between principal shelterbelts of the farm-shelter forest network. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2022, 29, 12680–12693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Almaramah, S.B.; Abu-Elsaoud, A.M.; Alteneiji, W.A.; Albedwawi, S.T.; El-Tarabily, K.A.; Al Raish, S.M. The Impact of Food Waste Compost, Vermicompost, and Chemical Fertilizers on the Growth Measurement of Red Radish (Raphanus sativus): A Sustainability Perspective in the United Arab Emirates. Foods 2024, 13, 1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lim, S.L.; Wu, T.Y.; Lim, P.N.; Shak, K.P. The use of vermicompost in organic farming: Overview, effects on soil and economics. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 1143–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Katumo, D.M.; Liang, H.; Ochola, A.C.; Lv, M.; Wang, Q.F.; Yang, C.F. Pollinator diversity benefits natural and agricultural ecosystems, environmental health, and human welfare. Plant Divers. 2022, 44, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Daniels, B.; Jedamski, J.; Ottermanns, R.; Ross-Nickoll, M. A “plan bee” for cities: Pollinator diversity and plant-pollinator interactions in urban green spaces. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0235492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rutebuka, J.; Munyeshuli Uwimanzi, A.; Nkundwakazi, O.; Mbarushimana Kagabo, D.; Mbonigaba, J.J.M.; Vermeir, P.; Verdoodt, A. Effectiveness of terracing techniques for controlling soil erosion by water in Rwanda. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 277, 111369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Todeschini, C.C.; Fett-Neto, A.G. Life at the Top: Extensive Green Roof Plant Species and Their Traits for Urban Use. Plants 2025, 14, 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Shahmohammad, M.; Hosseinzadeh, M.; Dvorak, B.; Bordbar, F.; Shahmohammadmirab, H.; Aghamohammadi, N. Sustainable green roofs: A comprehensive review of influential factors. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2022, 29, 78228–78254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Almuktar, S.A.A.A.N.; Abed, S.N.; Scholz, M. Wetlands for wastewater treatment and subsequent recycling of treated effluent: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2018, 25, 23595–23623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Habib, S.; Liu, H.; Tamoor, M.; Zaka, M.A.; Jia, Y.; Hussien, A.G.; Zawbaa, H.M.; Kamel, S. Technical modelling of solar photovoltaic water pumping system and evaluation of system performance and their socio-economic impact. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Jones, L.E.; Olsson, G. Solar Photovoltaic and Wind Energy Providing Water. Glob. Chall. 2017, 1, 1600022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Bale, J.S.; van Lenteren, J.C.; Bigler, F. Biological control and sustainable food production. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 761–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Hyder, M.; Li, Y.; Raza, M.F.; Zhang, M.; Chen, J.; Mao, J.; Bukero, A.; Zhang, L. Enhancing Coccinella Beetle Biological Pest Control via a Floral Approach in Cucumber Greenhouse. Life 2023, 13, 2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Sousa, M.; Dinis Almeida, M.; Fael, C.; Bentes, I. Permeable Asphalt Pavements (PAP): Benefits, Clogging Factors and Methods for Evaluation and Maintenance—A Review. Materials 2024, 17, 6063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Razzaghmanesh, M.; Borst, M. Long-term effects of three types of permeable pavements on nutrient infiltrate concentrations. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 670, 893–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Bansal, S.; Chakraborty, P.; Kumar, S. Crop-livestock integration enhanced soil aggregate-associated carbon and nitrogen, and phospholipid fatty acid. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Ullah, F.; Zhang, X.; Khan, M.; Mastoi, M.S.; Munir, H.M.; Flah, A.; Said, Y. A comprehensive review of wind power integration and energy storage technologies for modern grid frequency regulation. Heliyon 2024, 10, e30466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Acosta-Silva, Y.J.; Torres-Pacheco, I.; Matsumoto, Y.; Toledano-Ayala, M.; Soto-Zarazúa, G.M.; Zelaya-Ángel, O.; Méndez-López, A. Applications of solar and wind renewable energy in agriculture: A review. Sci. Prog. 2019, 102, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Bathaei, A.; Štreimikienė, D. Renewable Energy and Sustainable Agriculture: Review of Indicators. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Gill, A.; Purnell, K.; Palmer, M.; Stein, J.; McGuire, K. Microbial composition and functional diversity differ across urban green infrastructure types. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Luketich, A.; Papuga, S.; Crimmins, M. Ecohydrology of urban trees under passive and active irrigation in a semiarid city. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0224804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Li, J.; Sun, Y.; Liu, Z. Pollutant accumulation and microbial community evolution in rain gardens with different drainage types at field scale. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Gene, S.M.; Hoekstra, P.F.; Hannam, C.; White, M.; Truman, C.; Hanson, M.L.; Prosser, R.S. The role of vegetated buffers in agriculture and their regulation across Canada and the United States. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 243, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Guevara-Ochoa, C.; Masson, I.; Cazenave, G.; Vives, L.; Amábile, G. A novel approach for the integral management of water extremes in plain areas. Hydrology 2019, 6, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Montgomery, J.; Klimas, C.; Arcus, J.; DeKnock, C.; Rico, K.; Rodriguez, Y.; Williams, A. Soil quality assessment is a necessary first step for designing urban green infrastructure. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Eden, M.; Gerke, H.; Houot, S. Organic waste recycling in agriculture and related effects on soil water retention and plant available water: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Scharenbroch, B.; Morgenroth, J.; Maule, B. Tree species suitability to bioswales and impact on the urban water budget. J. Environ. Qual. 2016, 45, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. BenDor, T.; Shandas, V.; Miles, B.; Belt, K.; Olander, L. Ecosystem services and U.S. stormwater planning: An approach for improving urban stormwater decisions. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 88, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Šarapatka, B.; Bednář, M. Rainfall erosivity impact on sustainable management of agricultural land in changing climate conditions. Land 2022, 11, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Wang, J.; Pauleit, S.; Banzhaf, E. An integrated indicator framework for the assessment of multifunctional green infrastructure—Exemplified in a European city. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Minixhofer, P.; Stangl, R. Green infrastructures and the consideration of their soil-related ecosystem services in urban areas—A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Golden, H.E.; Hoghooghi, N. Green infrastructure and its catchment-scale effects: An emerging science. WIREs Water 2018, 5, 1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Berland, A.; Shiflett, S.A.; Shuster, W.D.; Garmestani, A.S.; Goddard, H.C.; Herrmann, D.L.; Hopton, M.E. The role of trees in urban stormwater management. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2017, 162, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Dorr, E.; Hawes, J.K.; Goldstein, B.; Fargue-Lelièvre, A.; Fox-Kämper, R.; Specht, K.; Fedeńczak, K.; Caputo, S.; Cohen, N.; Poniży, L.; et al. Food production and resource use of urban farms and gardens: A five-country study. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 43, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Nguyen, P.Y.; Astell-Burt, T.; Rahimi-Ardabili, H.; Feng, X. Green Space Quality and Health: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Scherr, S.J.; McNeely, J.A. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: Towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 363, 477–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Pokharel, S.S.; Yu, H.; Fang, W.; Parajulee, M.N.; Chen, F. Intercropping Cover Crops for a Vital Ecosystem Service: A Review of the Biocontrol of Insect Pests in Tea Agroecosystems. Plants 2023, 12, 2361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Ganser, D.; Mayr, B.; Albrecht, M.; Knop, E. Wildflower strips enhance pollination in adjacent strawberry crops at the small scale. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 11775–11784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Mitchell, M.E.; Newcomer-Johnson, T.; Christensen, J.; Crumpton, W.; Richmond, S.; Dyson, B.; Canfield, T.J.; Helmers, M.; Lemke, D.; Lechtenberg, M.; et al. Potential of water quality wetlands to mitigate habitat losses from agricultural drainage modernization. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 838, 156358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Mkenda, P.A.; Ndakidemi, P.A.; Mbega, E.; Stevenson, P.C.; Arnold, S.E.J.; Gurr, G.M.; Belmain, S.R. Multiple ecosystem services from field margin vegetation for ecological sustainability in agriculture: Scientific evidence and knowledge gaps. PeerJ 2019, 7, e8091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Dilts, T.E.; Black, S.H.; Hoyle, S.M.; Jepsen, S.J.; May, E.A.; Forister, M.L. Agricultural margins could enhance landscape connectivity for pollinating insects across the Central Valley of California, U.S.A. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0267263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Schütz, L.; Wenzel, B.; Rottstock, T.; Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, S.; Golla, B.; Kehlenbeck, H. How to promote multifunctionality of vegetated strips in arable farming: A qualitative approach for Germany. Ecosphere 2022, 13, e4229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Gill, K.A.; Cox, R.; O’Neal, M.E. Quality over quantity: Buffer strips can be improved with select native plant species. Environ. Entomol. 2014, 43, 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Udawatta, P.R.; Rankoth, L.; Jose, S. Agroforestry and Biodiversity. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Borges, F.; Glemnitz, M.; Schultz, A.; Stachow, U. Assessing the habitat suitability of agricultural landscapes for characteristic breeding bird guilds using landscape metrics. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017, 189, 166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Lucchetta, M.; Romano, A.; Alzate Zuluaga, M.Y.; Fornasier, F.; Monterisi, S.; Pii, Y.; Marcuzzo, P.; Lovat, L.; Gaiotti, F. Compost application boosts soil restoration in highly disturbed hillslope vineyard. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1289288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Bertola, M.; Ferrarini, A.; Visioli, G. Improvement of Soil Microbial Diversity through Sustainable Agricultural Practices and Its Evaluation by -Omics Approaches: A Perspective for the Environment, Food Quality and Human Safety. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Moor, H.; Bergamini, A.; Vorburger, C.; Holderegger, R.; Bühler, C.; Bircher, N.; Schmidt, B.R. Building pondscapes for amphibian metapopulations. Conserv. Biol. 2024, 38, e14165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Littlefair, M.; Scheele, B.C.; Westgate, M.; Lindenmayer, D. The ecological and biodiversity conservation values of farm dams: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0303504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Buckley, B.R.; Lituma, C.M.; Keyser, P.D.; Holcomb, E.D.; Smith, R.; Morgan, J.J.; Applegate, R.D. Effects of grazing strategy on facultative grassland bird nesting on native grassland pastures of the Mid-South USA. PeerJ 2022, 10, e13968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Zhou, W.; Arcot, Y.; Medina, R.F.; Bernal, J.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L.; Akbulut, M.E.S. Integrated Pest Management: An Update on the Sustainability Approach to Crop Protection. ACS Omega 2024, 9, 41130–41147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Mandelik, Y.; Winfree, R.; Neeson, T.; Kremen, C. Complementary habitat use by wild bees in agro-natural landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 2012, 22, 1535–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Saifuddin, M.; Jha, S. Colony-level variation in pollen collection and foraging preferences among wild-caught bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Environ. Entomol. 2014, 43, 393–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Fijen, T.; Scheper, J.; Boom, T.; Janssen, N.; Raemakers, I.; Kleijn, D. Insect pollination is at least as important for marketable crop yield as plant quality in a seed crop. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 1704–1713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Walston, L.; Hartmann, H.; Fox, M.; Macknick, J.; McCall, J.; Janski, J.; Jenkins, L. If you build it, will they come? Insect community responses to habitat establishment at solar energy facilities in Minnesota, USA. Environ. Res. Lett. 2023, 19, 014053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Carvalheiro, L.; Seymour, C.; Veldtman, R.; Nicolson, S. Pollination services decline with distance from natural habitat even in biodiversity-rich areas. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 810–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Jeanneret, P.; Aviron, S.; Alignier, A.; Lavigne, C.; Helfenstein, J.; Herzog, F.; Kay, S.; Petit, S. Agroecology landscapes. Landsc. Ecol. 2021, 36, 2235–2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Holzschuh, A.; Dainese, M.; González-Varo, J.; Mudri-Stojnić, S.; Riedinger, V.; Rundlöf, M.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. Mass-flowering crops dilute pollinator abundance in agricultural landscapes across Europe. Ecol. Lett. 2016, 19, 1228–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Kennedy, C.; Lonsdorf, E.; Neel, M.; Williams, N.; Ricketts, T.; Winfree, R.; Kremen, C. A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 2013, 16, 584–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Clough, Y.; Ekroos, J.; Báldi, A.; Batáry, P.; Bommarco, R.; Gross, N.; Smith, H. Density of insect-pollinated grassland plants decreases with increasing surrounding land-use intensity. Ecol. Lett. 2014, 17, 1168–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Koneri, R.; Nangoy, M.; Wakhid, W. Richness and diversity of insect pollinators in various habitats around Bogani Nani Wartabone National Park, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biodiversitas J. Biol. Divers. 2021, 22, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Graham, M.; Ateş, S.; Melathopoulos, A.; Moldenke, A.; DeBano, S.; Best, L.; Higgins, C. Partial shading by solar panels delays bloom, increases floral abundance during the late-season for pollinators in a dryland, agrivoltaic ecosystem. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 7452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Rahimi, E.; Barghjelveh, S.; Dong, P. Using the Lonsdorf model for estimating habitat loss and fragmentation effects on pollination service. Ecol. Process. 2021, 10, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Aslan, C.; Haubensak, K.; Grady, K. Effective and feasible mechanisms to support native invertebrate pollinators in agricultural landscapes: A meta-analysis. Ecosphere 2022, 13, e3982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Pisanty, G.; Mandelik, Y. Profiling crop pollinators: Life history traits predict habitat use and crop visitation by Mediterranean wild bees. Ecol. Appl. 2015, 25, 742–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Lichtenberg, E.; Kennedy, C.; Kremen, C.; Batáry, P.; Berendse, F.; Bommarco, R.; Crowder, D. A global synthesis of the effects of diversified farming systems on arthropod diversity within fields and across agricultural landscapes. Glob. Change Biol. 2017, 23, 4946–4957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Bieng, M.; Delgado-Rodríguez, D.; Vílchez-Mendoza, S.; López-Sampson, A.; García, E.; Sepúlveda, N.; Somarriba, E. Tree diversity in a tropical agricultural-forest mosaic landscape in Honduras. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 18544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Poeplau, C.; Don, A. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops—a meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 200, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Ogwu, M.C.; Izah, S.C. Air Pollution and the Sustainable Development Goals. In Sustainable Strategies for Air Pollution Mitigation; Ogwu, M.C., Izah, S.C., Eds.; The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Ogwu, M.C.; Lori, T.; Aliu, O.O.; Febnteh, E.B.; Izah, S.C.; Abdelkhalek, S.T. Agricultural Air Pollution: Impacts, Sources, and Mitigation Strategies. In Air Pollutants in the Context of One Health; Izah, S.C., Ogwu, M.C., Shahsavani, A., Eds.; The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, vol 134; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Schön, J.; Gentsch, N.; Breunig, P. Cover crops support the climate change mitigation potential of agroecosystems. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0302139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Király, É.; Keserű, Z.; Molnár, T.; Szabó, O.; Borovics, A. Carbon sequestration in the aboveground living biomass of windbreaks—Climate change mitigation by means of agroforestry in Hungary. Forests 2023, 15, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Tirkey, A.; Kumar, R.; Prasad, R.; Malakar, A. Agroforestry for carbon neutrality: An effective pathway to net zero. J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol. 2024, 27, 591–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Bremer, L.L.; McGuire, G.; Hastings Silao, Z.; Kurashima, N.; Ticktin, T.; Crow, S.E.; Giardina, C.P.; Winter, K.B.; DeMaagd, N.; Trauernicht, C. Carbon benefits through agroforestry transitions on unmanaged fallow agricultural land in Hawai‘i. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 5097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Sanderman, J.; Baldock, J. Accounting for soil carbon sequestration in national inventories: A soil scientist’s perspective. Environ. Res. Lett. 2010, 5, 034003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Tang, Z.; Zhang, X.; Chen, R.; Ge, C.; Tang, J.; Du, Y.; Zhang, C. A comprehensive assessment of rice straw returning in China based on life cycle assessment method: Implications on soil, crops, and environment. Agriculture 2024, 14, 972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Ogwu, M.C.; Izah, S.C.; Merritt, H.; Wise, R.D.; Jintrawet, A. Sustainable Bioeconomy Development in the Global South: Volume I Status and Perspectives; Springer: Singapore, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Ogwu, M.C.; Izah, S.C.; Vazquez-Arenas, J.G.; Feleke, S.T.; Wei, X. Sustainable Bioeconomy Development in the Global South: Volume II Bioeconomy Techniques; Springer: Singapore, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Campbell, B.; Thornton, P.; Zougmoré, R.; Asten, P.; Lipper, L. Sustainable intensification: What is its role in climate-smart agriculture? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 8, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Mores, G.; Abbade, E.; Kawano, B.; Silva, R.; Cugnasca, C. An overview of the main topics on no-tillage research. Rev. Agronegócio Meio Ambiente 2016, 9, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Dossou-Yovo, E.; Brüggemann, N.; Ampofo, E.; Igué, A.; Jesse, N.; Huat, J.; Agbossou, E. Combining no-tillage, rice straw mulch, and nitrogen fertilizer application to increase the soil carbon balance of upland rice fields in northern Benin. Soil Tillage Res. 2016, 163, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Winans, K.; Whalen, J.; Rivest, D.; Cogliastro, A.; Bradley, R. Carbon sequestration and carbon markets for tree-based intercropping systems in southern Quebec, Canada. Atmosphere 2016, 7, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Siarudin, M.; Rahman, S.; Artati, Y.; Indrajaya, Y.; Narulita, S.; Ardha, M.; Larjavaara, M. Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in degraded landscapes in West Java, Indonesia. Forests 2021, 12, 714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Ling, J.; Xue, Y.; Yang, C.; Zhang, Y. Effect of farmers’ awareness of climate change on their willingness to adopt low-carbon production: Based on the TAM-SOR model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 20, 619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Liang, T. Organic fertilizer regulates soil carbon, nitrogen balance, and greenhouse gas emissions in the tobacco production system. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2021, 25, 1339–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Baffour-Ata, F.; Atta-Aidoo, J.; Said, R.O.; Nkrumah, V.; Atuyigi, S.; Analima, S.M. Building the resilience of smallholder farmers to climate variability: Using climate-smart agriculture in Bono East Region, Ghana. Heliyon 2023, 9, e21815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Awuni, S.; Adarkwah, F.; Ofori, B.D.; Purwestri, R.C.; Huertas Bernal, D.C.; Hajek, M. Managing the challenges of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in Ghana. Heliyon 2023, 9, e15491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Balasundram, S.K.; Shamshiri, R.R.; Sridhara, S.; Rizan, N. The role of digital agriculture in mitigating climate change and ensuring food security: An overview. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Saran, A.; Singh, S.; Gupta, N.; Walke, S.C.; Rao, R.; Simiyu, C.; Malhotra, S.; Mishra, A.; Puskur, R.; Masset, E.; et al. Interventions promoting resilience through climate-smart agricultural practices for women farmers: A systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2024, 20, e1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Muriithi, C.; Mwongera, C.; Abera, W.; Chege, C.G.K.; Ouedraogo, I. A scalable approach to improve CSA targeting practices among smallholder farmers. Heliyon 2023, 9, e20526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Akella, G.; Wibowo, S.; Grandhi, S.; Mubarak, S. A systematic review of blockchain technology adoption barriers and enablers for smart and sustainable agriculture. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2023, 7, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Barbosa, M.; Pinheiro, E.; Sokulski, C.; Huarachi, D.; Francisco, A. How to identify barriers to the adoption of sustainable agriculture? A study based on a multi-criteria model. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Lina, Z. Towards sustainable financial management in green economic growth through big data technology innovation: Case study in China. Heliyon 2024, 10, e35517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Houssam, N.; Ibrahiem, D.M.; Sucharita, S.; El-Aasar, K.M.; Esily, R.R.; Sethi, N. Assessing the role of green economy on sustainable development in developing countries. Heliyon 2023, 9, e17306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Li, D.; Dang, H.; Yu, J. Can participation in cooperatives promote the adoption of green production techniques by Chinese apple growers: Counterfactual estimation based on propensity score matching. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 1026273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Johnson, D.; Parker, L.; Pathak, T.; Crothers, L.; Ostoja, S. Technical assistance providers identify climate change adaptation practices and barriers to adoption among California agricultural producers. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Ji, O.; Chukuigwe, O.; FY, U. Effect of adoption of sustainable agricultural practices among plantain farmers in Yenagoa agricultural zone of Bayelsa state, Nigeria. Int. J. Sci. Res. Arch. 2022, 5, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Sulaiman, N.; Misnan, S. Environmental sustainability through agriculture: Perspectives of extension agents on adoption of sustainable practices. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 1082, 012024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Hameed, T.; Sawicka, B. Role of agricultural extension in adoption of sustainable agriculture practices. Anbar J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 21, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Zeng, J.; Li, D.; Ma, C.; Wang, B.; Gao, L. The impact of different uses of the Internet on farmers′ adoption of soil testing and formulated fertilization technology in rural China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 20, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Malau, A.; Malau, A.; Simanjuntak, M. Innovating sustainable agriculture: Perspectives from economy and biology professionals. J. Pendidik. Biol. Indones. 2024, 10, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Wu, Q.; Gao, S.; Wang, X.; Zhao, Y. Research on the impacts of information capacity on farmers’ green prevention and control technology adoption. Ecol. Chem. Eng. S 2022, 29, 305–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Lamm, A.; Warner, L.; Martin, E.; White, S.; Fisher, P. Enhancing extension programs by discussing water conservation technology adoption with growers. J. Agric. Educ. 2017, 58, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Kumbhar, M.; Sheikh, S.; Mughal, S.; Channa, M. Perception of the extension agents regarding information sources of sustainable agriculture in Sindh province of Pakistan. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2021, 8, 334–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Valbuena, D.; Erenstein, O.; Tui, S.; Abdoulaye, T.; Claessens, L.; Duncan, A.; Gérard, B.; Rufino, M.C.; Teufel, N.; van Rooyen, A.; et al. Conservation agriculture in mixed crop–livestock systems: Scoping crop residue trade-offs in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Field Crops Res. 2012, 132, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Adedibu, P. Ecological problems of agriculture: Impacts and sustainable solutions. Sci. Prepr. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Adesida, I.; Nkomoki, W.; Bavorová, M.; Madaki, M. Effects of agricultural programmes and land ownership on the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in Nigeria. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Grover, S.; Gruver, J. ‘Slow to change’: Farmers’ perceptions of place-based barriers to sustainable agriculture. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2017, 32, 511–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Ma, W.; Abdulai, A. IPM adoption, cooperative membership and farm economic performance. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2018, 11, 218–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Laksono, P.; Irham; Mulyo, J.H.; Suryantini, A. Farmers’ willingness to adopt geographical indication practice in Indonesia: A psycho-behavioral analysis. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Bastidas-Orrego, L.M.; Jaramillo, N.; Castillo-Grisales, J.A.; Ceballos, Y.F. A systematic review of the evaluation of agricultural policies: Using PRISMA. Heliyon 2023, 9, e20292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Nash, C.; Clough, J.; Gedge, D.; Lindsay, R.; Newport, D.; Ciupala, M.; Connop, S. Initial insights on the biodiversity potential of biosolar roofs: A London Olympic Park green roof case study. Isr. J. Ecol. Evol. 2016, 62, 74–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Tajudeen, Y.A.; Oladunjoye, I.O.; Adebayo, A.O.; Adebisi, Y.A. The need to adopt planetary health approach in understanding the potential influ-ence of climate change and biodiversity loss on zoonotic diseases outbreaks. Public Health Pract. 2021, 2, 100095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Albert, C.; Haaren, C. Implications of applying the green infrastructure concept in landscape planning for ecosystem services in peri-urban areas: An expert survey and case study. Plan. Pract. Res. 2014, 32, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Vargas-Hernández, J.; Zdunek-Wielgołaska, J. Urban green infrastructure as a tool for controlling the resilience of urban sprawl. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 23, 1335–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Herreros-Cantis, P.; McPhearson, T. Mapping supply of and demand for ecosystem services to assess environmental justice in New York City. Ecol. Appl. 2021, 31, e02390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Sánchez-Azofeifa, G.A.; Pfaff, A.; Robalino, J.A.; Boomhower, J.P. Costa Rica’s payment for environmental services program: Intention, implementation, and impact. Conserv. Biol. 2007, 21, 1165–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Arriagada, R.A.; Sills, E.O.; Ferraro, P.J.; Pattanayak, S.K. Do Payments Pay Off? Evidence from Participation in Costa Rica’s PES Program. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0131544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Bartkowski, B.; Beckmann, M.; Bednář, M.; Biffi, S.; Domingo-Marimon, C.; Mesaroš, M.; Schüßler, C.; Šarapatka, B.; Tarčak, S.; Václavík, T.; et al. Adoption and potential of agri-environmental schemes in Europe: Cross-regional evidence from interviews with farmers. People Nat. 2023, 5, 1610–1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Cole, L.J.; Kleijn, D.; Dicks, L.V.; Stout, J.C.; Potts, S.G.; Albrecht, M.; Balzan, M.V.; Bartomeus, I.; Bebeli, P.J.; Bevk, D.; et al. A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57, 681–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Clarke, M.; Davidson, M.; Egerer, M.; Anderson, E.; Fouch, N. The underutilized role of community gardens in improving cities’ adaptation to climate change: A review. People Place Policy Online 2019, 12, 241–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Mosler, S.; Hobson, P. Close-to-nature heuristic design principles for future urban green infrastructure. Urban Plan. 2021, 6, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Afata, T.; Derib, S.; Nemo, R. Review of blue-green infrastructure in some selected countries. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2022, 18, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Tessema, T.; Mortimer, D.; Gupta, S.; Mallast, U.; Uzor, S.; Tosti, F. Urban green infrastructure monitoring using remote-sensing techniques. In Proceedings of the Earth Resources and Environmental Remote Sensing/GIS Applications XV, Edinburgh, UK, 16–19 September 2024; Volume 13197, pp. 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Ge, M.; Huang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Kim, M.; Cui, X. Examining the microclimate pattern and related spatial perception of the urban stormwater management landscape: The case of rain gardens. Atmosphere 2023, 14, 1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Tudorie, C.; Gielen, E.; Vallés-Planells, M.; Galiana, F. Urban green indicators: A tool to estimate the sustainability of our cities. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodyn. 2019, 14, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Prudencio, L.; Null, S. Stormwater management and ecosystem services: A review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 033002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Mahmood, S.; Sun, H.; Iqbal, A.; Alhussan, A.; El-Kenawy, E. Green finance, sustainable infrastructure, and green technology innovation: Pathways to achieving sustainable development goals in the Belt and Road Initiative. Environ. Res. Commun. 2024, 6, 105036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Ferreira, J.; Monteiro, R.; Silva, V. Planning a green infrastructure network from theory to practice: The case study of Setúbal, Portugal. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Tóth, A. Planning and designing green infrastructure across landscapes and scales. Acta Hortic. Regiotect. 2022, 25, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Fernández-Pablos, E.; Vázquez, A.; Zaldívar, Ó.; Díez, R. Periurban areas in the design of supra-municipal strategies for urban green infrastructures. Forests 2021, 12, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Kryshtal, H.; Tomakh, B.; Ivanova, T.; Metelytsia, V.; Yermolaieva, M.; Panin, Y. Eco-innovative transformation of the urban infrastructure of Ukraine on the way to post-war recovery. Financ. Credit Act. Probl. Theory Pract. 2024, 2, 391–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Liu, T.; Chen, P.; Chou, N. Comparison of assessment systems for green building and green civil infrastructure. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Lenné, J. Current agricultural diversification strategies are already agroecological. Outlook Agric. 2023, 52, 273–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Wang, M.; Chen, F.; Zhang, D.; Rao, Q.; Li, J.; Tan, S. Supply–demand evaluation of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) based on the model of coupling coordination. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 14742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Smart Green Infrastructure and Precision Agriculture: Integrating IoT, Drones, and Sensor Networks for Sustainable Farm Management. Source: Rehman et al. [64].
Figure 1. Smart Green Infrastructure and Precision Agriculture: Integrating IoT, Drones, and Sensor Networks for Sustainable Farm Management. Source: Rehman et al. [64].
Sustainability 17 03838 g001
Figure 2. Soil-Related Ecosystem Services Provided by Different Types of Green Infrastructure. Source: Minixhofer and Stangl [115].
Figure 2. Soil-Related Ecosystem Services Provided by Different Types of Green Infrastructure. Source: Minixhofer and Stangl [115].
Sustainability 17 03838 g002
Figure 3. Integrating multidimensional smart interventions for resilient and climate-smart agricultural systems. Source: Balasundram et al. [172].
Figure 3. Integrating multidimensional smart interventions for resilient and climate-smart agricultural systems. Source: Balasundram et al. [172].
Sustainability 17 03838 g003
Figure 4. Conceptual framework for the adoption of GI in agricultural systems.
Figure 4. Conceptual framework for the adoption of GI in agricultural systems.
Sustainability 17 03838 g004
Table 2. Agricultural green infrastructures and their biodiversity conservation benefits.
Table 2. Agricultural green infrastructures and their biodiversity conservation benefits.
Green Infrastructure ComponentBiodiversity BenefitsExamples of ImplementationReferences
Hedgerows and WindbreaksProvide habitat and corridors for wildlife, support pollinators, and enhance genetic connectivityPlanting native shrubs, grasses, and trees along field edges[73]
Riparian BuffersProtect aquatic biodiversity, filter runoff, and create habitats for amphibians and riparian speciesEstablishing vegetated strips along streams and rivers[84]
Agroforestry SystemsEnhance habitat diversity, promote multi-tiered vegetation, and increase habitat complexityIntegrating trees with crops or livestock systems[68]
Cover CroppingSupports soil microbial diversity, attracts pollinators, and enhances beneficial insect populationsPlanting clover, vetch, or other legumes between cash crops[72,121]
Pollinator StripsDirectly supports pollinators such as bees and butterflies and enhances crop pollinationEstablishing wildflower strips within or around fields[122]
Wetland RestorationProvides critical habitat for aquatic species, birds, and amphibians, and improves water qualityRestoring natural wetlands within farms or adjacent areas[77,123]
Multifunctional Field MarginsEnhance biodiversity while providing ecosystem services such as pest control and erosion preventionCreating diverse margins with native plants[124,125]
Perennial Grassy BuffersSupports ground-nesting birds, small mammals, and beneficial insectsPlanting perennial grasses along contour strips[126,127]
Tree Corridors and ShelterbeltsFacilitates species movement, provides nesting sites, and supports biodiversity across fragmented landscapesConnecting habitat patches with tree-lined corridors[128,129]
Compost and Organic AmendmentsEnhances soil microbial biodiversity and promotes soil food web complexityApplying compost or farmyard manure to fields[130,131]
Habitat PondsProvides habitat for amphibians, insects, and birds while enhancing local biodiversityCreating small water bodies on farmland[132,133]
Rotational Grazing AreasPromotes diverse vegetation and supports insect and bird populationsRotating livestock through diverse pasture areas[134]
Integrated Pest ManagementEnhances beneficial predator populations, reduces pesticide use, and promotes balanced ecosystemsUsing natural predators, trap crops, and biological controls[135]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ogwu, M.C.; Kosoe, E.A. Integrating Green Infrastructure into Sustainable Agriculture to Enhance Soil Health, Biodiversity, and Microclimate Resilience. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3838. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093838

AMA Style

Ogwu MC, Kosoe EA. Integrating Green Infrastructure into Sustainable Agriculture to Enhance Soil Health, Biodiversity, and Microclimate Resilience. Sustainability. 2025; 17(9):3838. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093838

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ogwu, Matthew Chidozie, and Enoch Akwasi Kosoe. 2025. "Integrating Green Infrastructure into Sustainable Agriculture to Enhance Soil Health, Biodiversity, and Microclimate Resilience" Sustainability 17, no. 9: 3838. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093838

APA Style

Ogwu, M. C., & Kosoe, E. A. (2025). Integrating Green Infrastructure into Sustainable Agriculture to Enhance Soil Health, Biodiversity, and Microclimate Resilience. Sustainability, 17(9), 3838. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093838

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop