Ecological Sensitivity within Human Realities Concept for Improved Functional Biodiversity Outcomes in Agricultural Systems and Landscapes

Human-natural environment interactions in agricultural landscapes often simplify ecosystems for ease of management, strongly shaping biodiversity outcomes. Agricultural expansion and intensification contribute to deforestation and land degradation, with landscape context modulating effects. While biodiversity is variably defined and frequently included in agricultural systems, such inclusion does not always ensure ecological function or long-term productive stability. The paper argues for consistent ecological considerations alongside human factors to achieve functional biodiversity, defined as biodiversity that maintains productivity and natural system regulation via ecological interactions and processes. The article introduces the Ecological Sensitivity within Human Realities (ESHR) concept to guide assessment of and future human–environment interactions in agricultural landscapes with the objective of improving functional biodiversity outcomes. Using coffee farming as an example, it pursues the research aim of presenting a specific concept that balances generalizability with sufficient detail to guide implementation, answering: how can a more specific concept improve consistency in functional biodiversity outcomes in agricultural systems and landscapes? The ESHR focuses on two linked aspects: (I) ecological interactions and processes across farm and landscape scales; and (II) human realities—tangible (e.g., capability, access to resources) and intangible (e.g., interests, perceptions)—that influence decisions and practices. The article outlines methods (grounded ethnography and integrated narrative review), presents the concept and coffee-specific illustrations, and compares ESHR to related concepts to establish novelty and relevance.

The integrated narrative review synthesizes insights from grounded ethnography (fieldwork in Cuba and Costa Rica, 2014) with targeted literature (primarily 2013–2018) and conceptual cogitation. A dedicated search examined how coffee shade, groundcover, and biodiverse coffee systems are represented in scholarly literature (search terms, criteria and quantified results provided in Supplementary Information s3), highlighting variability in definitions and emphasis that justify the ESHR’s focus on functional biodiversity and ecological processes. Additional targeted searches supported a comparative discussion situating ESHR among socio-ecological niches, sustainable intensification, ecological intensification, and ecosystem services, as well as broader notions of biodiversity, societal considerations, and landscape ecology (summaries in Tables 4–5 and Supplement s6). Figures, photos, and tables (e.g., Tables 1–3; Figs. 1–3) illustrate human realities, ecological structure/heterogeneity, and conceptual positioning of ESHR relative to other frameworks.

The study employs an integrated narrative review to conceptually introduce and explain the ESHR concept, combining grounded ethnographic development with literature synthesis and reflective triangulation. Grounded ethnography: Fieldwork in coffee landscapes in Cuba and Costa Rica (2014) provided ongoing observations, interviews, and reflections that were iteratively triangulated with literature. Six field-based observations guided concept development and literature strategy: (1) ecological conditions for biodiversity outcomes; (2) cross-scale ecological conditions; (3) roles of shade and groundcover; (4) links between biodiverse systems and community/societal issues; (5) definitions of crop quality vis-à-vis market value and biodiversity; and (6) accommodation of human capability in biodiverse systems. Literature integration: Selected literature (2013–2018) was reviewed and woven through results and discussion. A specific search assessed how shade/groundcover and biodiverse coffee farms are represented in the literature by frequency/definition (search terms and criteria in s3), supporting rationale for ESHR’s emphasis on functional biodiversity (tiered rationale) and ecological processes. Comparative mapping: A simple, targeted review and cogitation situated ESHR alongside four specific concepts (socio-ecological niches, sustainable intensification, ecological intensification, ecosystem services) and three general concepts (biodiversity, societal considerations, landscape ecology), with summaries in Tables 4–5 and visual comparison in Fig. 3. The work is conceptual (no framework implementation in this article), aiming to define the concept rather than empirically test outcomes.

Results present and define the Ecological Sensitivity within Human Realities (ESHR) concept and demonstrate its application to coffee farming landscapes. Core elements: (1) ESHR objective—functional biodiversity: agricultural systems and landscapes that maintain productivity and robust ecological function via ecological interactions and processes at farm and landscape scales. Rationale offered in four tiers: persistence of productivity while disregarding environment; variable definitions of biodiverse agricultural systems; inconsistent integration of ecological considerations; and limited adoption of organic approaches despite growing comparisons with conventional systems. (2) Ecological sensitivity—distinct from other uses, here meaning the proactive, preventive and responsive human control over ecological considerations to avoid or resolve dysfunction, complementing but differing from resilience (sensitivity reduces the need for resilience to human-driven pressures). (3) Human realities—two intertwined aspects: intangible (interests, perceptions, aesthetics/maintenance/harvest preferences) and tangible (capability, access to resources), both influencing and influenced by ecological design and management. Coffee-specific illustrations: Table 1 details common human realities within farmer control (interest, productivity-yield vs biodiversity, aesthetics/maintenance/harvest preferences; access to resources; capability) and factors beyond farmer control; Table 2 contrasts Cuba and Costa Rica on market interaction and access to plant/crop varieties; Figs. 1–2 and Table 3 compare two farms (a shaded monoculture with leaf-litter groundcover vs a traditional polyculture with living groundcover), demonstrating functional output, ecological complexity, and distinct human realities/management implications. Ecological considerations include farm and landscape ecology, spillover, movement ecology, and plant/crop selection and heterogeneity, emphasizing structural/functional design (edge effects, ecotones, succession) for natural pest/disease regulation and pollination support. Comparative positioning: ESHR integrates strengths and addresses gaps among socio-ecological niches, sustainable intensification, ecological intensification, and ecosystem services, by making functional biodiversity the explicit objective, requiring farm- and landscape-level ecological process integration, and explicitly incorporating human realities (notably capability and reframing profitability) to guide consistent practice. Expected outcomes: more consistent, context-appropriate, and comprehensive increases in functional biodiversity across agricultural landscapes, with improved alignment of productivity (yield quantity and quality) and ecological function.

The discussion situates ESHR in the context of competing stakeholder interests and tendencies to simplify agroecosystems for productivity, noting that concepts can guide practice when balancing detail and simplicity. While ecological interactions/processes and socio-ecological thinking are not novel, they are inconsistently and variably applied in agricultural practice. ESHR’s value is to consistently integrate ecological processes across scales with explicit human realities, making functional biodiversity the objective. Conceptual clarifications show ESHR’s distinctiveness: unlike sustainable intensification, ESHR explicitly targets functional biodiversity within and across all landscape patches; unlike ecosystem services, ESHR prioritizes system function and implementation capability rather than primarily value framing; compared to ecological intensification and socio-ecological niches, ESHR specifies functional biodiversity and emphasizes coupled farm- and landscape-scale processes with explicit human realities. Landscape ecology principles (e.g., patch–corridor–matrix, flows of organisms/nutrients/energy) are embedded in ESHR, but ESHR treats biodiversity as an outcome of functional system/landscape ecology, not merely a sphere or principle. The human realities lens exposes heterogeneity in stakeholder interests, power dynamics, and the interdependence of intangible (interest/perception) and tangible (capability/resources) factors, highlighting capability and reframed profitability as often-overlooked levers. Sensitivity is framed as a proactive, human-controlled approach that can prevent or reduce the need for resilience to human-induced pressures while still recognizing the necessity of resilience to natural pressures. Overall, ESHR offers improved specificity and integrative potential for research and practice to achieve consistent, context-sensitive functional biodiversity.

The article introduces ESHR as a conceptual guide for improving functional biodiversity outcomes in agricultural systems and landscapes. Novel contributions include: (1) framing sensitivity to ecological conditions as within human control; (2) structuring human factors as interdependent intangible and tangible realities; (3) emphasizing reciprocal benefits between ecological conditions and human realities (including sustained commercial production); (4) making functional biodiversity the objective reliant on ecological interactions/processes across farm and landscape scales; (5) explicitly considering spatial scales rather than only system-level processes; (6) promoting sensitivity as prevention and as a resilience strategy to human-induced pressures; and (7) encouraging consistent, context-aware consideration of both ecological and human realities over time. For practice, ESHR can enhance existing concepts by embedding detailed ecological-process requirements and human realities (capability, resources, interest) to secure long-term outcomes. For research, proposed directions include: (I) empirically assessing how ESHR-aligned systems address human realities and long-term productivity relative to conventional systems; (II) testing whether ESHR understanding increases farmer/stakeholder interest and uptake; (III) determining when biodiversity outcomes provide direct vs. indirect human value; (IV) improving biodiverse systems that have struggled to function long-term; and (V) demonstrating how ecological sensitivity within human realities can prevent issues and reduce the need for resilience. The authors stress the need for clear, context-specific methods to assess intangible and tangible human realities, moving beyond superficial observations to inform assessment, design, and implementation.

The study is conceptual and does not implement or empirically test the ESHR framework or its outcomes; it provides no quantitative evaluation of biodiversity or productivity impacts. The literature component is an integrated narrative review (not a systematic review), and comparisons to other concepts rely on targeted, basic literature summaries and author cogitation. The examples and field insights are context-specific to coffee landscapes in Cuba and Costa Rica (2014), which may limit generalizability without further testing in other crops and regions. Supplementary materials contain additional detail, but some empirical specifics (e.g., quantified effects of ESHR adoption) remain to be established in future studies.