This article canvasses the current definitions and framings of “agroforestry” in different academic literature and policies. Three key framings of “agroforestry” are identified in the scholarship and explored for their differences. The findings suggest that the distinct schools of research on “agroforestry” focus on distinct points of departure, and these baseline situations from which transitions to what is called “agroforestry” occur vary in distinct ways from monoculture plantations to primary forests. Political-economic analysis is used to scrutinize three key “agroforestry” transition categories: agroecological, agribusiness, and forest degradation, which the article identifies as agroecoforestry (the good), agrobizforestry (the bad), and agrodeforestry (the ugly) transitions, respectively. Examples of each type are provided based on field research in Brazil, and the results are put into a global perspective. The categories are helpful in identifying the “agroforestry” transitions that are currently marketed as good solutions but might also have negative impacts and in highlighting the agroecological agroforestry transitions that would help simultaneously increase global food production, adapt to and mitigate the climate crisis, and achieve equity and social justice.

中文翻译：

---

农林业转型：好的、坏的和丑陋的

本文探讨了不同学术文献和政策中“农林业”的当前定义和框架。该奖学金确定了“农林业”的三个关键框架，并探讨了它们的差异。研究结果表明，不同的“农林业”研究流派侧重于不同的出发点，从单一栽培种植园到原始林，向所谓“农林业”过渡的基线情况以不同的方式变化。政治经济分析用于仔细审查三个关键的“农林业”转型类别：农业生态、农业综合企业和森林退化，本文分别将其识别为农林业（好的）、农林业（坏的）和农林业（丑陋的）转型。 。每种类型的示例均基于巴西的实地研究，并将结果置于全球视野中。这些类别有助于确定目前被宣传为良好解决方案但也可能产生负面影响的“农林业”转型，并强调生态农林业转型将有助于同时增加全球粮食产量、适应和缓解气候危机，并实现公平和社会正义。