Abstract
In this paper, we used TRIZ to resolve the existing contradictions between agriculture and the environment, which would make agriculture sustainable. Through the identification of strategic types of agriculture and their goals, we formulated ideal final result for agriculture. This formulation includes all the contradictions that exist between the strategic types. We proposed a strategy for the balanced development of agricultural technologies, which aims to realize the ideal final result for agriculture by resolving all contradictions between all the strategic types of agriculture. The balanced development means that in the resulting system of agriculture, the goals of all the strategic types of agriculture are achieved simultaneously. Regarding the issue of making agriculture sustainable, in accordance with the TRIZ methodology, administrative, technical and physical contradictions arising between agriculture and the environment were stated and examined. Some solutions to the physical contradictions were proposed. Based on these solutions, two main factors of making agriculture sustainable were determined: 1) making green technologies highly productive; and 2) the humane control of the growth of the world population.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
According to FAO data, the share of land used in agriculture in the total land area of all countries increased from 34.3% in 1961 to 36.7% in 2019 (the maximum of 37.6% was reached in 2001, and the minimum for this period was in 1961). Continued growth of the world's population will contribute to the expansion of farmland and will require a constant increase in agricultural productivity. Agriculture is considered one of the main causes of biodiversity loss [1, 2] and changes in terrestrial and freshwater natural ecosystems [1].
- 2.
About a quarter of the global greenhouse gas emissions come from land clearing and agriculture, with 75% of them coming from animal husbandry [1, p. XXXII].
- 3.
In [3], it was found that 64% of the agricultural land in the world (about 24.5 million km2) is at risk of pesticide pollution, and 31% is at high risk.
- 4.
According to experts [5, p. 52], globally, the loss of soil is 24 billion tons per year.
References
IPBES: Global assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn (2019)
Kehoe, L., Romero-Muñoz, A., Polaina, E., Estes, L., Kreft, H., Kuemmerle, T.: Biodiversity at risk under future cropland expansion and intensification. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 1129–1135 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0234-3
Tang, F.H.M., Lenzen, M., McBratney, A., Maggi, F.: Risk of pesticide pollution at the global scale. Nat. Geosci. 14, 206–210 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00712-5
Kopittke, P.M., Menzies, N.W., Wang, P., McKenna, B.A., Lombi, E.: Soil and the intensification of agriculture for global food security. Environ Int 132, 105078 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105078
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification: Global land outlook. 1st edn. Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, Bonn (2017)
Altshuller, G.S.: Creativity as an Exact Science: The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems. Gordon and Breach Publishers, Amsterdam (1984)
Petrov, V.: TRIZ Theory of Inventive Problem Solving: Level 1. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04254-7
Buzuku, S., Shnai, I.: A systematic literature review of TRIZ used in eco-design. J. Eur. TRIZ Assoc. 4, 20–31 (2017)
Mishra, U.: Understanding secrets of sustainability through TRIZ philosophy (2014). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2421392. Accessed 19 June 2022
Bogatyrev, N., Bogatyreva, O.: BioTRIZ: a win-win methodology for eco-innovation. In: Azevedo, S.G., Brandenburg, M., Carvalho, H., Cruz-Machado, V. (eds.) Eco-Innovation and the Development of Business Models. GINS, vol. 2, pp. 297–314. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05077-5_15
Sunding, D., Zilberman, D.: The agricultural innovation process: research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector. In: Gardner, B., Rausser, G. (eds.) Handbook of Agricultural Economics, vol. 1, pp. 207–261. Elsevier, Amsterdam, New York (2001)
Mazzucato, M.: Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism. Harper Business, New York (2021)
Altshuller, G.S.: The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity, 2nd edn. Technical Innovation Center Inc, Worcester (2007)
Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N.D., Coad, L., Balmford, A.: A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. PNAS 116(46), 23209–23215 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908221116
Beyer, R.M., Hua, F., Martin, P.A., Manica, A., Rademacher, T.: Relocating croplands could drastically reduce the environmental impacts of global food production. Commun Earth Environ 3, 49 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00360-6
Chakraborty, A.C.: Pre- and post-harvest losses in vegetables IVI. In: Singh, B., Singh, S., Koley, T.K. (eds.) Advances in Postharvest Technologies of Vegetable Crops: Postharvest Biology and Technology, pp. 25–87. Apple Academic Press, Waretown, NJ : Apple Academic Press, 2018. | Series: Postharvest biology and technology (2018). https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315161020-2
Sawicka, B.: Post-harvest losses of agricultural produce. In: Filho, W.L., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Özuyar, P.G., Wall, T. (eds.) Zero Hunger, pp. 654–669. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95675-6_40
Frey, S., Barrett, J.: Our health, our environment: the ecological footprint of what we eat. In: International Ecological Footprint Conference. BRASS, Cardiff University, Cardiff (2007)
Lidicker, W.Z., Jr.: A scientist’s warning to humanity on human population growth. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 24, e01232 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01232
Xu, X., et al.: Global greenhouse gas emissions from animal-based foods are twice those of plant-based foods. Nat. Food 2, 724–732 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00358-x
Bongiovanni, R., Lowenberg-Deboer, J.: Precision agriculture and sustainability. Precis. Agric. 5, 359–387 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PRAG.0000040806.39604.aa
Majumder, D., et al.: Precision input management for minimizing and recycling of agricultural waste. In: Bhatt, R., Meena, R.S., Hossain, A. (eds.) Input Use Efficiency for Food and Environmental Security, pp. 567–603. Springer, Singapore (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5199-1_19
Komissarov, M.A., Klik, A.: The impact of no-till, conservation, and conventional tillage systems on erosion and soil properties in Lower Austria. Eurasian Soil Sc. 53, 503–511 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1134/S1064229320040079
Ogle, S.M., et al.: Climate and soil characteristics determine where no-till management can store carbon in soils and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Sci. Rep. 9, 11665 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47861-7
Krauss, M., et al.: Reduced tillage in organic farming affects soil organic carbon stocks in temperate Europe. Soil Tillage Res. 216, 105262 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105262
Nadeem, F., Nawaz, A., Farooq, M.: Crop rotations, fallowing, and associated environmental benefits. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.197. Accessed 19 June 2022
Coria, J., Sterner, T.: Natural resource management: challenges and policy options. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 3, 203–230 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-083110-120131
Peake, L., Robb, C.: Saving the ground beneath our feet: establishing priorities and criteria for governing soil use and protection. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 201994 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201994
Hrustek, L.: Sustainability driven by agriculture through digital transformation. Sustainability 12, 8596 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208596
Hasan, M., Ahmad-Hamdani, M.S., Rosli, A.M., Hamdan, H.: Bioherbicides: an eco-friendly tool for sustainable weed management. Plants 10, 1212 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10061212
Chakraborty, T., Thakur, B.K.: Ecological footprint and sustainable development: a two-way approach. In: Filho, W.L., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Salvia, A.L., Wall, T. (eds.) Affordable and Clean Energy, pp. 303–311. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95864-4_41
Siegel, F.R.: The Earth’s Human Carrying Capacity: Limitations Assessed, Solutions Proposed. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73476-3
Franck, S., von Bloh, W., Müller, C., Bondeau, A., Sakschewski, B.: Harvesting the sun: new estimations of the maximum population of planet Earth. Ecol. Modell. 222(12), 2019–2026 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.03.030
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Korotchenya, V. (2022). Ideal Final Result for Agriculture: Striving for Sustainability. In: Nowak, R., Chrząszcz, J., Brad, S. (eds) Systematic Innovation Partnerships with Artificial Intelligence and Information Technology. TFC 2022. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 655. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17288-5_34
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-17288-5_34
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-17287-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-17288-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)
