No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Transdisciplinary research for food and nutrition security: Examining research-policy understandings in Southeast Asia
Abstract
Interacting human and environmental drivers influence food and nutrition security outcomes. The way food and nutrition security problems and solutions are understood by decision makers and researchers inevitably influences interventions in food systems. One novel way of capturing different and potentially competing understandings of food and nutrition security problems and solutions is transdisciplinary research. In this paper, we examine how Southeast Asian policy and research experts working in food and nutrition security frame challenges and solutions, and the implications of this understanding for their capacity to adopt initiatives from emerging transdisciplinary research in the region. We conducted a workshop with research and policy experts from four countries in Southeast Asia and used a systems based human ecology framework to capture the common understanding participants have of the main challenges in their food systems. The systems exercises revealed similarities in the dominant framing presented by researchers and policy makers, and of the respective agencies of key stakeholders. We found that formal government policy and training was commonly perceived as major drivers of change, with smallholder farmers viewed as passive recipients of knowledge. We also found there is ongoing interest in increasing productivity of key commodities, but there is critical awareness of the environmental consequences of production-oriented agriculture. These dominant understandings have implications for current regional initiatives in transdisciplinary research that seek to build farmer capacity, reduce inequality, and include different stakeholders in research and policy activities. We conclude by arguing that research agencies aspiring to inform policy interventions based on transdisciplinary processes will face challenges given the current dominant frames of food systems in the region. We show how human ecology and systems frameworks can guide transdisciplinary food systems research that aims to improve food and nutrition security.
... Systems thinking has a long history that has evolved across multiple disciplines (Davila et al., 2021;Mahajan et al., 2019;Elsawah et al., 2017). It has been applied in business (Sterman, 2000), food systems and agricultural production (Davila et al., 2018), tourism (Mai and Smith, 2015), and water resource management (Kotir et al., 2016). In ecology, systems thinking have evolved from resilience theory (Holling, 1973) to social-ecological systems (Berkes and Folke, 1998), which recommends understanding the complex and dynamic interactions within and between humans and ecosystems to be able to create and implement better environmental policies. ...
... We build on Mahajan et al. (2019) work by applying systems thinking and the human ecology systems framework (Davila and Dyball, 2015;Dyball and Newell, 2015) to analyse the complex human and environmental interactions and feedbacks that influence governance and management of national parks. The human ecology systems framework, which is grounded on systems thinking, allows us to understand and navigate through complex human and environmental behaviours and identify the dominant discourses that surround a system or any problem situation (Davila et al., 2018;Davila and Dyball, 2015). Discourses are beliefs that motivate people to make certain decisions and actions (Dryzek, 1997). ...
... Taking from Davila et al. (2018) as a methodological approach, we integrated the systems thinking and modelling process (Sterman, 2000) with the human ecology systems framework (Dyball and Newell, 2015) to evaluate the dominant discourse that influences the 'level of resource use and development' inside national parks in using two national parks from the Philippines and Mozambique as case studies (Fig. 1). First, we used Sterman's (2000) systems thinking and modelling process to describe the narratives and create the CLDs for each case study area. ...
Globally, management of national parks has evolved to become more inclusive of stakeholders by incorporating socioeconomic development objectives and shifting from strict protection to resource management. These strategies have worked in some contexts, but have also caused adverse unintended consequences such as ecosystem degradation and overexploitation inside many national parks in developing countries. The causes of these unintended consequences are usually overlooked by management effectiveness tools that fail to consider the governance context that underpins park management. We show that a better approach is to apply systems thinking when evaluating park management. Using systems thinking and the human ecology systems framework, we evaluated governance of two national parks in the Philippines and Mozambique to better understand the contextual factors and dominant discourses that underpin park management in developing countries. We found that our case studies were experiencing rapid environmental decline that was driven by the expansion of tourism, agriculture, and mining. We show that the economic development discourse, and delays in decision-making and responses have allowed these activities to rapidly increase inside and along the borders of both national parks. Furthermore, we show that the system structure is facilitating this pattern of behaviour, undermining management interventions aimed at protecting the environment. This study highlights the multi-dimensional tensions in park management that is applicable to all national parks. Specifically, it highlights the role of economic development policies of governments on national parks, and the importance of regulating human activities in and around national parks to minimise ecosystem degradation.
... This thesis focuses on the human-environment interactions that keep a social-ecological system in an unsustainable and undesirable development condition. Given the interdisciplinarity and complex feedbacks involved in understanding social-ecological traps, human ecology as a 'critical transdisciplinary approach' is well positioned to understand these dynamics and complex interactions (Dyball and Newell, 2015;Davila et al., 2018). One of the key focuses of human ecology is to understand the forms and patterns of human-environment interactions (Boyden and Millar, 1978: 263) that promote sustainability with both human dimensional human outcomes and intact ecosystem services and functions (Glaser et al., 2012a). ...
... The integrative systemsbased human ecology framework has enabled different groups to reveal how they frame issues and perceive interventions (Newell and Siri, 2016). The framework has been applied in some cases and featured in publications on Filipino smallholder food production systems (Davila, 2018;Davila et al., 2018;Amparo et al., 2017a), Australian rangeland goats management (El Hassan, 2019); fisheries ; and commodity food productions in three countries, Australia, Denmark and Japan (Dyball, 2015). Similar to these studies, the framework is used as a heuristic tool to engage different stakeholders to have a potential for action-oriented research, which is one of the focuses of human ecology as a transdisciplinary discipline (Lawrence, 2010). ...
... These major state variables present in any human-ecological situation focus our analysis on how these variables interact to drive change, and hence reveal the overall dynamics, or characteristic behaviour, of the system as a whole (Dyball and Newell, 2015). This framework is relevant in addressing a key gap in the investigation of linkages and feedbacks between ecosystem services and wellbeing for sustainability and improved livelihoods in the global South (Cruz-Garcia et al., 2017), as well as the dynamic role of institutions and dominant cultural paradigms that result in conflicting policies and practices, for example, in modern food production systems (Amparo et al., 2017a;Davila et al., 2018;Dyball, 2015). Fragmented approaches aggravate social-ecological issues by offering compartmentalised interventions (Boyden, 1986), lead to ineffective stewardship and governance systems (Folke et al., 2016;Summers et al., 2012) and undermine intangible benefits from our connections to nature (Haider and van Oudenhoven, 2018). ...
This thesis is focused on understanding human-environment interactions that drive a system into a social-ecological trap, a persistently unsustainable and undesirable social-ecological system. Recent research on social-ecological traps points to some gaps in the conceptualisation and analysis of these resilient yet pathological social-ecological systems. A more social-ecological conceptualisation of a social-ecological trap, which includes path dependence, human agency and external factors apart from the basic normative dimensions commonly invoked of social-ecological traps, was integrated in this research. This thesis is informed by the literature of social-ecological resilience, human ecology and systems thinking. Using complementary frameworks and approaches from each literature provides a more holistic and integrative analysis of social-ecological traps. The thesis aimed to investigate the links between and among ecosystem health, cultural paradigms, human wellbeing and institutions that keep a social-ecological system in an unsustainable and undesirable development path. The specific research questions are as follows: (1) Can the small-scale fisheries in the Philippines be characterised as being caught in a social-ecological trap? (2) What are the characteristics and structure of the social-ecological trap in these fisheries? (3) What are the factors that drive small-scale fishery systems in the Philippines into a social-ecological trap? (4) What are the interventions that could help move the small-scale fishery systems from a social-ecological trap into a sustainable and desirable system? This is a place-based research of selected small-scale fisheries in the Philippines. These critically valuable fishery areas include small-scale fish farming in an inland riverine system, north of Manila; small-scale capture fisheries in Northern Mindanao; and mariculture parks, also in Northern Mindanao, Philippines. Small-scale fisheries in the Philippines contribute to the domestic as well as regional fish production important for food security, sustainable livelihoods and wellbeing of these smallholder fishers and fish farmers. To the best of my knowledge, this research is also the first time that the concept of a social-ecological trap is applied in the Philippines small-scale fisheries. The research followed a case study and integrative research approaches utilising participatory mixed research methods. Data collection included 76 semi-structured interviews, 3 focus groups and 217 household surveys. Research participants included the small-scale fishers and fish farmers, government representatives from various levels, and civil society members concerned with fisheries in the areas. The thesis is divided into four (4) sections. The first section focuses on context setting, followed by the results section, which focuses on the case studies. The third section highlights the current and proposed recommendations to escape the net of social-ecological traps. The last section highlights the research synthesis; key findings; and recommendations in terms of research, practice and policy. This thesis provides theoretical and practical contributions to the literature on social-ecological traps. In spite of the burgeoning research on social-ecological traps, integrating a more social-ecological description of traps also highlights the roles of the temporal, scalar (external and endogenous) and human agentic responses in reinforcing or dampening trap dynamics. The dominant 'productionist' paradigm of modern agro-food systems was found to be a critical reinforcing force in the social-ecological trap process. Aside from unpacking these critical dynamics and factors of social-ecological traps, this thesis moves forward and proposes potential leverage points to break free from the trap's dynamics.
... Systems thinking discerns how parts are interconnected as a whole and give rise to patterns of behavior over time (Meadows, 2008). Systems thinking guides the understanding of a problem by identifying variables as system components and determining the feedbacks between them (Meadows, 2008;Newell and Siri, 2016;Davila et al., 2018), leading to the articulation of mental models about how the system works. It involves being able to explore multiple perspectives, including those that are not obvious and may even be in conflict with preconceived notions, and considers issues thoroughly instead of jumping to conclusions (Arnold & Wade, 2017). ...
... The applications of FGA and the cultural adaptation template are variable − they can be applied to different issues and contexts. For example, the template was employed by Dyball (2015), Davila (2018), Davila et al. (2018) and Dyball et al. (2021) to investigate the complexity and transdisciplinary nature of issues pertaining to food systems, food security and nutrition, and the implications of different paradigms for food productions. Davila (2018) focused on the food systems in the Philippine context, articulating the factors involved in the states of discourses, institutions, ecosystems and human well-being, and the strengths of the feedback links between them. ...
... Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) informed by the theoretical and methodological supports from the Cultural Adaptation Template (CAT) (Dyball and Newell 2015) were chosen as a promising additional method to make inferences about the relationships between food system factors without access to all desired data (Leischow and Milstein 2006), to hypothesise the dynamic relationships between variables (Davila et al. 2018) (expressed as indicators), and to highlight the important role of sociocultural norms (paradigms) (Dyball and Newell 2015) in community level SFS development. ...
... They are illustrated using causal loop diagrams as shown in Fig. 1 (Dyball and Newell 2015). The CAT has been used to study sustainable management of food subsystems (El Hassan 2019), and it has been applied in work with communities to understand and capture structural similarities in food and nutrition discourse, frame worldviews, and identify variables which can be used to analyze the links between the four factors of the CAT (Davila et al. 2018). As such the CAT is helpful to understand the role of communities in contributing to the sustainability of complex socioecological systems (such as food systems), and to identify community-informed variables for assessment. ...
Food systems are not sustainable, and efforts to address this are paralyzed by the complex networks of food system actors and factors that interact across sectoral and geographic scales. Actions at the community level can positively contribute toward globally sustainable food systems (SFS). Assessing such contributions has two central challenges: 1) a lack of methods that support alignment between communities and across scales, balanced against the need to involve the community in developing relevant indicators; and 2) the absence of adequate, fine grained data relevant to the community. Addressing these two challenges, this paper illustrates a proposed procedure that supports community engagement with, and assessment of, their contributions. Engaged by a community of Canadian dietitians, researchers used the Delphi Inquiry method, guided by the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development, to address the first challenge, and causal loop diagrams informed by the Cultural Adaptation Template to address the second. Indicators were developed for dietitian-identified actions and outcomes for SFS. Modeling indicator interactions provide insight into how some actions are influenced by and reinforce the value placed on SFS within the professional cultural paradigm, as well as priority areas for action and measurement. Process-oriented assessment is useful in the context of partial and subjective understandings of a dynamic system, and supports continual adjustment in action. This article offers theoretical and practical insight for community engagement in addressing some of the systemic challenges in food systems. It accommodates community-based knowledge, applies process-indicators, and emphasizes the importance of cultural paradigms as a driving force of community-level actions, and overall system change. Under current conditions, facilitating SFS literacy among dietitians can amplify adaptations for broader SFS development.
... Transdisciplinary research fosters the integration of multiple disciplines and knowledge systems and requires a broad range of stakeholders beyond academia. The process involves reflecting on real-world problems and combines expert facilitation to enable co-designed research that leads to impact (Blythe et al., 2017;Davila et al., 2018;van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2015). Jasanoff (2004) believes that co-constructed new knowledges are a combination of new ways of thinking about problems, manifesting solutions involving new ways of tackling problems. ...
... Bernstein (2015 and Scoones et al. (2018) agree that co-constructed new knowledges are essential for transdisciplinary research, to form creative solutions by involving stakeholders and ensuring socially responsible science results. In this paper, we have outlined a process that reflects on real-world problems and combines expert facilitation to enable co-designed research that correctly applied, engages stakeholders and lifts the probability of impact (Blythe et al., 2017;Davila et al., 2018;van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2015). By co-constructing new knowledge and engaging stakeholders, our approach provides a participatory method for arriving at solutions for the particular issue of creating value from agricultural technology for smallholder farmers (Jasanoff, 2004). ...
Transdisciplinary agricultural research in Lao PDR
Abstract
Transdisciplinary research focussing on improving smallholder farmers’ uptake of technological innovations enables the integration of knowledge systems and the co-design and delivery of creative solutions. In this paper, we illustrate how scientific research can be mobilized within professionally facilitated change management workshops to engage a broad range of stakeholders and co-create knowledge in a rural development context. Multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary and multi-national stakeholders have contributed to finding innovative solutions to challenges experienced by smallholder farmers. By combining different worldviews we were able to assess research priorities, define problems and determine research options based on new hybrid knowledge systems. The outcome of this transdisciplinary process was the co-creation of a Research Discussion Tool and identification of 9 thematic areas which, in combination, enabled obstacles to technology uptake to be overcome and for smallholder farmers to benefit from research-based innovations. The process involved assisting Lao national researchers and extension agents to co-develop solutions, strategies and methods to improve technology uptake by farmers in the lowlands of southern Lao PDR using a series of change management interventions. A complex ecology of factors involving farmers’ decision drivers/motivations and farmers’ decision enablers within farmers’ production systems influence technology uptake. The relative importance of each factor is dependent on the specific technology that is being introduced. Hence, projects that introduce new technologies struggle to address all relevant factors and often do not have the ability to deal with the complex array of factors that are at play. The process of co-construction embeds local knowledge that becomes accessible to projects. The approach we document in this paper also has the potential to harness collaborative exchanges with other projects in similar geographical regions.
Keywords: adoption; technology; knowledge; international development; rural development agriculture; innovation.
... With roots in various fields, systems thinking aids in understanding intricate human and environmental interactions and identifying dominant narratives within a system or issue (Davila, Dyball, & Amparo, 2018). It offers tools like causal loop diagrams, valuable for dissecting significant incidents and evaluating safety culture, mapping the systemic structures that underpin safety culture and pinpointing effective preventive measures for recurring events (Goh, Brown, & Spickett, 2010). ...
Fire hazards present a multifaceted global challenge that endangers human lives and environmental safety. Despite advancements in fire risk management technologies and methods, fires continue to be a prime concern for human security. The Arabian Gulf region, influenced by its climatic and environmental conditions, is especially susceptible to these threats. The Emirate of Sharjah, part of the United Arab Emirates, has made significant progress in reinforcing fire safety measures within residential structures, achieving a decrease in the number of fire-related accidents compared to neighboring Emirates. However, the incidence rate remains relatively high. This study undertook a thorough review and assessment of the existing Fire Management System (FMS) for Sharjah's residential sector, leading to the recommendation of a more robust framework. Through a series of literature reviews, interviews with stakeholders, and surveys, using analytical techniques such as the Delphi method and Failure Mode Effect and Criticality Analysis, vital factors that influence the FMS's effectiveness were pinpointed. The study exposed that the current FMS was largely reactive. In response, a proactive framework incorporating nine essential components was designed to strengthen the Sharjah FMS. These components span across various domains such as fire assurance, assessment of fire risks, management of accidents, evaluation of performance, training programs, research and development initiatives, digital services, monitoring of regulatory compliance, firefighting strategies, automated responses to fires, recovery processes, as well as the use of resilient materials and architectural design considerations. Furthermore, the research introduced two specific fire indexes, the HRBFI and the EFRI. Anchored in the principles of Systems Thinking and Industry 4.0, this proposed framework is aimed at streamlining Sharjah's approach to fire management in dwellings, with the objective of diminishing the frequency of fire incidents yearly. The ultimate aspiration of this framework is to enhance the Emirate's standing in terms of safety and to guarantee a living environment that is safeguarded against the risk of fires..
... This study has demonstrated the value of including stakeholders in problem-framing, policy formulation, and decision-making processes because they are core agents with perfect knowledge of the system. According to Davila et al. (2018), the application of participatory approaches to natural resource management and policy formulation has increased considerably because they allow for important findings to be made and increases the knowledge of the stakeholders about the systems. Integrated water resource management is not a new concept in South Africa, but this study has provided a framework for involving stakeholders directly in the design of the models, which ensures that the models are aiming at the problems and stakeholders can use them. ...
The complex relationship that exists between water resources and agricultural production has been increasing constantly globally. Several factors are interacting to influence the management of water resources making the system complex and dynamic. To increase the understanding of these complex and dynamic systems, relevant tools are needed to identify the causal relationships that exist between the drivers and their influences on the system. Participatory modelling based on the system dynamics approach provides a simplistic and visualisation tool that can improve the understanding of the functioning of a complex and dynamic system. A multi-stage participatory approach was used in this study involving relevant stakeholders in the development of an integrated conceptual system dynamic model using causal loop diagrams. This approach was used because it captures the thought process and mental model of relevant stakeholders in the development of the model, making it a valuable tool for policy and decision making at government and individual levels. The integrated model built in this study used causal loop diagrams to address problems of water management and agricultural sustainability in the Breede River Catchment. The model shows major causal-relationships and feedback loops that determine the functioning of the overall system. The model demonstrates the usefulness of the participatory approach in solving problems related to water management and agricultural development in the catchment.
... The aforementioned systems concepts provide both analytical and practical ways of identifying conflict and commonalities in the groups involved in public policy setting. Systems practice from the management sciences can include different stakeholders to enable shared understandings of different envisioned systems outcomes (Davila et al. 2018, Jacobs et al. 2019. ...
Systems thinking provides a comprehensive range of theories and methods that are useful for understanding and managing sustainability challenges. Biodiversity conservation is riddled with complex interactions between science, society and myriad interacting systems through temporal and spatial scales. This article presents a synthetic analysis of the history of systems thinking from a genealogical perspective, drawing from hard and soft systems thinking, and resilience and social-ecological systems. Using the anchor point of system leverage points and system characteristics (parameters, feedbacks, design and intent), we employ a diversity of examples to illustrate their relevance to multiple biodiversity related problems. We conclude by illustrating the opportunities for systems thinking to bridge epistemic divides with multiple biodiversity actors working towards conservation outcomes. Systems thinking can support more integrative biodiversity interventions, as they provide a pluralistic set of tools for bridging knowledges and disciplines, which can be useful to create new shared understandings of how to conserve biodiversity.
... SD is made up of two generic structures; the causal loop diagrams (CLDs) (qualitative modeling) and the stock and flow diagrams (quantitative modeling) [20]. These models have successfully been applied to various disciplines including natural resource management [61,62], energy consumption [59,63,64], agricultural development [55,65], food security [66,67] water resource management [17,23,[68][69][70], and the water, energy, and food nexus (WEF) [24,53,71]. SD models have been applied to several fields and disciplines beyond those listed in this study but for the context of this study, only the areas listed will be considered. ...
A bibliometric and network analysis was performed to explore global research publication trends and to investigate relevant policy recommendations in the field of sustainability of natural resources, system dynamics, and systems thinking, to solve water resources issues and enhance water resource management. Overall, 1674 academic research articles data were generated from the Web of Science and Scopus databases, from 1981 to 2019. The findings of this study revealed that system dynamics and systems thinking research has significantly increased over the last decade (from 40 to 250 articles). Countries such as the USA (20%), China (18%), the United Kingdom (5%), Canada, Iran, Australia, and India (4% each) have the most publications and strongest collaborative networks. Sterman (2000) and Forrester (1961) had the most co-cited research while Zhang X had the highest citations, respectively. Results also showed that system theory which includes systems thinking and system dynamics were the most used keywords. The Journal of Cleaner Production was found to have published the highest number of systems thinking and system dynamics related studies, perhaps due to scope relevance. Despite the exponential rise in natural resource sustainability research globally, the result of this study shows that developing countries especially in Africa have low numbers of research publications in the field. Thus, the result of this study serves as a signal for policymakers to increase attention on research publications that could enhance natural resource sustainability, particularly in less developed countries in Africa where the application of systems thinking to natural resource management is limited.
... Essentially, there is a mismatch between land use and land use practice and the capacity of the land to sustain those practices. While the development of the instability issues could be classed as a complicated system, system improvement requires different pathways of repair from an altered system by actors that have, in most cases, limited agency to effect repair (Davila, Dyball, & Amparo, 2018). The DSMA contribution to impact is complex. ...
Retrospective (or ex post) evaluation has consistently shown that soil information has value beyond the investment used to produce it. Digital soil mapping and assessment (DSMA) is the new paradigm for soil survey and a key source of soil and land information. It promises increased utility and flexibility for the users of soil information. Does DSMA methodology add value? What are some of the outcomes and emerging impacts? Seven examples from the burgeoning use of DSMA in and near Australia have been explored to determine the nature and extent of outcomes and impact achieved. The analysis began with a workshop of key soil scientists, involved a survey of the use of DSMA and attitudes to impact amongst practitioners of DSMA and looked at each of the seven examples in the context of the systems they seek to influence. There is evidence of progress along impact pathways in each case. In the simpler systems, the products of DSMA are being used as envisaged and change is occurring. In more complex systems, the role of soil information meshes with many other influences and impact is harder to discern. Importantly, we find that few practitioners using DSMA explicitly identify impact pathways and design projects at the outset to optimise the chance of more extensive impact. Thus, an approach to planning for impact in DSMA is proposed that could improve the chance of impact and allow for iteration as our understanding of the systems in which change is expected improves through our interaction with them.
... Food consumption reflects the consumption, utilization and occupation of ecosystem services for anthropogenic production and living activities (Yan et al., 2017;Zhen et al., 2008Zhen et al., , 2009Zhen et al., , 2012, and the actual consumption of ecosystem services is determined by the supply of ecosystem services (Rasmussen et al., 2016). Furthermore, consumer behavior and associative methods respective of food interact with the production activities of residents, which result in a series of regional development problems (Reynolds et al., 2015;Davila et al., 2018;Michler et al., 2019). Local production supply has non-negligible impacts on the formation of food consumption patterns. ...
The issue of Food and Nutrition Security (FNS) in the Philippines has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and persistent social, environmental and agricultural problems. To address this concern, the involvement of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) is explored by reviewing the local policies in the Philippines. Applications and recommendations on how human ecology can address the complex problem of FNS were then noted. This systematic literature review used a framework synthesis approach wherein the Australian National University (ANU) Transdisciplinary Framework was used to check if the stated policies, applications, and recommendations were aligned with the framework components, which are interactive, integrative, change-oriented, systemic, context-based, and pluralistic. This transdisciplinary framework is expected to promote policy change and development related to FNS. After that, 38 articles were included in the review. Upon the review, no local policies fit all of the ANU Transdisciplinary Framework’s components. Nonetheless, these policies mostly separately address food security and nutrition security. However, there are still no established responses to the concern of FNS as an integrated concept of food security and nutrition security. HEIs contribute to developing FNS-related policies by intensifying advocacy for integrating food and nutrition security and improving FNS-related research and programs.
The Filipino agricultural sector is exposed to multiple climatic, economic, and social risks that will likely intensify in the near future. Building agroecological resilience has been proposed to protect small-scale farmers’ livelihoods and improve food security in the context of (unexpected) shocks and disruptions, and slow system changes such as climate change. This paper argues that commons-based seed production, based on collective management and ownership of seeds and varieties, can play a central role in building resilience capacities in smallholder communities. I explore this by applying an indicator-based framework to assess the contribution of the Filipino farmer network Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) to agroecological resilience. I find that the networks’ commons-based seed governance builds agroecological resilience in various ways. By equipping small-scale farmers with the tools to regain control over seed production and breeding, they become stewards of an actively evolving collection of varieties. The in situ maintenance and development of traditional, open-pollinated varieties and a network of diversified trial and backup farms build up buffering capacities and foster agrobiodiversity and local adaptation. A focus on regionally available natural resources reduces vulnerabilities to external factors. Adaptive capacities are strengthened through a high degree of flexibility and responsiveness achieved by self-organization and polycentric organizational structures. Broad participation, shared learning and spaces for experimentation support the development of farmers’ capacities to respond to diverse challenges. Commons-based approaches to seed governance can thus strengthen agroecological resilience and long-term food security in smallholder agricultural systems.
Food systems are influenced by discourses held by individuals and institutions. Market oriented food security and food sovereignty are frequently presented as co-existing discourses in food systems. This paper documents how smallholder farmers embody market food security and food sovereignty discourses in their agricultural practices, and how these discourses prevent new forms of agriculture from developing given socio-political and institutional rigidity. A human ecology systems framework is used to analyse semi-structured interviews with 39 coconut producing smallholder farmers from Leyte, The Philippines. The results document how smallholders perceive market food security discourse as the main way out of food insecure situations, and thus continue to seek institutional support for maintaining a coconut based agricultural system. Farmers also perceive elements of the food sovereignty discourse, notably decision-making agency and agricultural diversification, as parallel strategies to improve their food security. The ongoing support for coconut production and inequitable access to training and knowledge in rural systems traps farmers into an agricultural system influenced by a long history of colonial institutions and social structures. The paper demonstrates that farmers are aware of the interventions required to diversify food systems towards higher value commodities, yet sovereignty is unlikely to be enabled due to maladaptive institutions and the associated access to new training and extension opportunities. The use of human ecology advances food scholarship through embedding a systems analysis into qualitative studies to reveal the influence of food discourses on food systems’ behaviour and outcomes.
Cultivating a more dynamic relationship between science and policy is essential for responding to complex social challenges such as sustainability. One approach to doing so is to “span the boundaries” between science and decision making and create a more comprehensive and inclusive knowledge exchange process. The exact definition and role of boundary spanning, however, can be nebulous. Indeed, boundary spanning often gets conflated and confused with other approaches to connecting science and policy, such as science communication, applied science, and advocacy, which can hinder progress in the field of boundary spanning. To help overcome this, in this perspective, we present the outcomes from a recent workshop of boundary-spanning practitioners gathered to (1) articulate a definition of what it means to work at this interface (“boundary spanning”) and the types of activities it encompasses; (2) present a value proposition of these efforts to build better relationships between science and policy; and (3) identify opportunities to more effectively mainstream boundary-spanning activities. Drawing on our collective experiences, we suggest that boundary spanning has the potential to increase the efficiency by which useful research is produced, foster the capacity to absorb new evidence and perspectives into sustainability decision-making, enhance research relevance for societal challenges, and open new policy windows. We provide examples from our work that illustrate this potential. By offering these propositions for the value of boundary spanning, we hope to encourage a more robust discussion of how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making for sustainability.
Concerns over rapid widespread changes in social-ecological systems and their consequences for biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, food security, and human livelihoods are driving demands for globally comprehensive knowledge to support decision-making and policy development. Claims of regional or global knowledge about the patterns, causes, and significance of changes in social-ecological systems, or 'generalized knowledge claims' (GKCs), are generally produced by synthesis of evidence compiled from local and regional case study observations. GKCs now constitute a wide and varied body of research, yet they are also increasingly contested based on disagreements about their geographic, temporal, and/or thematic validity. There are no accepted guidelines for detecting biases or logical gaps between GKC's and the evidence used to produce them. Here, we propose a typology of GKCs based on their evidence base and the process by which they are produced. The typology is structured by three dimensions: i) the prior state of knowledge about the phenomenon of interest; ii) the logic of generalization underlying the claim; and iii) the methodology for generalization. From this typology, we propose a standardized approach to assess the quality and commensurability of these dimensions for any given GKC, and their ability to produce robust and transparent knowledge based on constituent evidence. We then apply this approach to evaluate two contested GKCs-addressing global biodiversity and large-scale land acquisitions-and in doing so demonstrate a coherent approach to assessing and evaluating the scope and validity of GKCs. With this approach, GKCs can be produced and applied with greater transparency and accuracy , advancing the goal of actionable science on social-ecological systems.
Full chapter is: Davila, F. and Dyball, R., 2018. Food Systems and Human Ecology: An Overview, In Sustainability Science: Key issues (Ed, Koenig, A.) Routledge, London, pp. 183-210.
This chapter reviews recent developments in food systems literature through a human ecology framework. Literature on food agroecosystems, institutions, human well-being are analysed. The food security and food sovereignty discourses revel feedback processes that perpetuate current behaviour of food systems.
Feeding the world sustainably requires balancing social, economic, and environmental concerns. The food systems concept guides the study of social and environmental processes that influence food and nutrition security. Human ecology conceptually offers insights into the social components of a system and its interaction with environmental change. This paper demonstrates how human ecology helps identify the dominant discourses that influence dominant social drivers in food systems. This is done through documenting the historical legacies of agricultural commodity production systems in the Philippines since Spanish colonization, and the human and ecological implications of this history. The analysis shows the presence of a maladaptive system influenced by market oriented food security as a dominant discourse. Alternative discourses focused on sovereignty and participation exist in the Philippines, however these are often marginalised from dominant policy and research programs. The paper discusses how weak feedback processes provide possible intervention points in policy or farmer-led activities to explore alternative pathways to food and nutrition security. The paper concludes with highlighting how human ecology offers useful framework for advancing food systems analysis into social, political, and policy dimensions of food activities. Such analysis can help develop new research and policies that require managing the competing discourses of how to achieve sustainable food and nutrition security
A key aim of transdisciplinary research is for actors from science, policy and practice to co-evolve their understanding of a social–ecological issue, reconcile their diverse perspectives and co-produce appropriate knowledge to serve a common purpose. With its concurrent grounding in practice and science, transdisciplinary research represents a significant departure from conventional research. We focus on mutual learning within transdisciplinary research and highlight three aspects that could guide other researchers in designing and facilitating such learning. These are: “who to learn with”, “what to learn about” and “how to learn”. For each of these questions, we present learning heuristics that are supported by a comparative analysis of two case studies that addressed contemporary conservation issues in South Africa but varied in scale and duration. These were a five-year national-scale project focusing on the prioritisation of freshwater ecosystems for conservation and a three-year local-scale project that used ecological infrastructure as a theme for advancing sustainability dialogues. Regarding the proposed learning heuristics, “who to learn with” is scale dependent and needs to be informed by relevant disciplines and policy sectors with the aim of establishing a knowledge network representing empirical, pragmatic, normative and purposive functions. This emergent network should be enriched by involving relevant experts, novices and bridging agents, where possible. It is important for such networks to learn about the respective histories, system processes and drivers, values and knowledge that exist in the social–ecological system of interest. Moreover, learning together about key concepts and issues can help to develop a shared vocabulary, which in turn can contribute to a shared understanding, a common vision and an agreed way of responding to it. New ways of group learning can be promoted and enhanced by co-developing outputs (boundary objects) for application across knowledge domains and creating spaces (third places) that facilitate exchange of knowledge and knowledge co-production. We conclude with five generic lessons for transdisciplinary researchers to enhance project success: (a) the duration, timing and continuation potential of a project influences its prospects for achieving systemic and sustainable change; (b) bridging agents, especially if embedded within an implementing agency, play a critical role in facilitating transdisciplinary learning with enhanced outcomes; (c) researchers need to participate as co-learners rather than masters of knowledge domains; (d) purposeful mixed-paradigm research designs could help to mend knowledge fragmentation within science; and (e) researchers must be vigilant for three pitfalls in mutual learning initiatives, namely biases in participant self-selection, perceived superiority of scientific knowledge and the attraction of simple solutions to wicked problems that retain the status quo.
Hydropower dam construction is currently focused in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to increase electricity sup- plies, yet the negative environmental and social impacts are extensive. The planned development of 88 hydropower dams in the Mekong River Basin by 2030 is used to explore how to quantify the energy versus food supply trade-offs. We estimate the land and water resources needed to replace the protein and lysine from the lost wild fish supply in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam. Using FAO data, we (1) examine the supply of protein and also lysine, as an example of an essential micronutrients, (2) consider three options for managing loss of wild fish supplies, namely replace with livestock, other fish or crops, and (3) quantify the land use change required in the crop and livestock replacement scenarios. We provide a new index for assessing lysine in food and find that replacing ly- sine from wild fish requires considerable reallocation of land or of fish exports. The options for replacing protein and lysine through domestic production involve significant resource trade-offs and have social impacts. This method of quantifying the links between hydropower (energy) and food policies
at regional and other scales can be used to better inform decisions on sustainable developments across sectors.
Interest in food systems sustainability is growing, but progress toward them is slow. This research focuses on three interrelated challenges that hinder progress. First, prevailing visions lack a concrete definition of sustainability. Second, global level conceptions fail to guide responses at the local level. Third, these deficiencies may lead to conflicting initiatives for addressing sustainable food systems at the community level that slow collective progress. The purpose of this article is to (1) describe the development of a framework for assessing food system sustainability which accommodates local-level measurement in the context of broader national and global scale measures; and (2) to propose a process that supports community determinacy over localized progress toward sustainable food systems. Using a modified Delphi Inquiry process, we engaged a diverse, global panel of experts in describing “success” with respect to sustainable food systems, today’s reality, and identifying key indicators for tracking progress towards success. They were asked to consider scale during the process in order to explore locally relevant themes. Data were analyzed using the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) to facilitate a comprehensive and systematic exploration of key themes and indicators. Key results include a framework of indicator themes that are anchored in a concrete definition of sustainability, stable at national and global scales while remaining flexible at the local scale to accommodate contextual needs. We also propose a process for facilitating community-level planning for food system sustainability that utilizes this indicator framework. The proposed process is based on insights from the research results, as well as from previous research and experience applying the FSSD at a community level; it bears promise for future work to support communities to determine their own pathways, while contributing to a more coordinated whole.
Transdisciplinary (TD) research is increasingly suggested as a means of tackling wicked problems by providing knowledge on solutions that serve as pathways towards sustainable development. In contrast to research striving for generalizable findings, TD research produces insights for a particular case and context. TD researchers, who build on other TD projects’ results, need to know under what conditions knowledge gained from their case can be transferred to and applied in another case and context. Knowledge transfer between researchers and stakeholders is extensively discussed in the literature. However, a more profound understanding and management of the challenges related to knowledge transfer across cases, as it applies to TD research, are missing. We specify the challenges of knowledge transfer in TD research by distinguishing TD research for policy from conventional evidence-based policy, which relies on generalizing findings, such as randomized controlled trials. We also compare the functions that cases fulfil in other types of research that include basic, applied and ideographic research. We propose to conceptualize transferability of knowledge across cases as arguments by analogy. Methodologically, this would imply explicit consideration on whether the cases in question are sufficiently similar in relevant aspects while not dissimilar in other additional relevant aspects. On the one hand, this approach calls for explicit material considerations that are needed to learn about which aspects of cases are relevant. On the other hand, formal considerations on how to weigh perceived relevant similarities and dissimilarities of the cases at hand for transferability of knowledge, are needed. Empirical research on how projects in TD research deal with this problem is called for.
In this essay we highlight issues to consider when reframing conservation objectives and outcomes in the context of global change. We discuss (1) new framings of the links between ecosystems and society; (2) new relationships and roles for conservation science; (3) new models of how conservation links to society and social change and (4) new approaches for implementing adaptation for conservation outcomes. We argue that reframing conservation objectives requires conservation scientists and practitioners to implement approaches that are no longer constrained by discipline and sectoral boundaries, geopolitical polarities, or technical problematisation. We consider that a stronger focus on learning and inclusive co-creation of knowledge, and its interaction with societal values and rules, is likely to result in conservation science and practice that will be able to meet the challenges of a post-normal world.
We review the linkages between food security, nutrition and wildlife conservation in the early 21st century. Declines in wildlife populations and habitats have occurred in parallel with increasing human population and the global emergence of the double burden of under- and over-nutrition. Nutrition-sensitive landscapes and nutrition- and gender-sensitive value chains are key to delivering optimal food and nutrition security and environmental outcomes. Neglected or underutilized crops and sustainable harvest of wild food have the potential to play a number of roles in the improvement of food security that include being: (a) a way to reduce the risk of over-reliance on very limited numbers of major crops and animals; (b) a way to increase sustainability of agriculture through a reduction in the carbon footprint of agriculture and maintenance of biodiversity; (c) a contribution to food quality; and (d) a way to preserve and celebrate cultural and dietary diversity. Dietary diversity and reduced greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of animal-source food produced can be promoted through the consumption of all edible parts of the carcass, including highly nutritious offal. We argue that adopting a nutrition-sensitive landscape approach would improve consumer understanding of food systems, nutrient cycles, ecosystems services and potentially linkages between dietary diversity and biodiversity.
This paper outlines the development of an integrated interdisciplinary approach to agri-food research, designed to address the ‘grand challenge’ of global food security. Rather than meeting this challenge by working in separate domains or via single-disciplinary perspectives, we chart the development of a system-wide approach to the food supply chain. In this approach, social and environmental questions are simultaneously addressed. Firstly, we provide a holistic model of the agri-food system, which depicts the processes involved, the principal inputs and outputs, the actors and the external influences, emphasising the system’s interactions, feedbacks and complexities. Secondly, we show how this model necessitates a research programme that includes the study of land-use, crop production and protection, food processing, storage and distribution, retailing and consumption, nutrition and public health. Acknowledging the methodological and epistemological challenges involved in developing this approach, we propose two specific ways forward. Firstly, we propose a method for analysing and modelling agri-food systems in their totality, which enables the complexity to be reduced to essential components of the whole system to allow tractable quantitative analysis using LCA and related methods. This initial analysis allows for more detailed quantification of total system resource efficiency, environmental impact and waste. Secondly, we propose a method to analyse the ethical, legal and political tensions that characterise such systems via the use of deliberative fora. We conclude by proposing an agenda for agri-food research which combines these two approaches into a rational programme for identifying, testing and implementing the new agri-technologies and agri-food policies, advocating the critical application of nexus thinking to meet the global food security challenge.
This contribution argues that the food sustainability agenda in global food governance arrangements is becoming ‘trade-ified’. It shows that international trade has become normalized in these settings not only as being compatible with, but also as a key delivery mechanism for, food system sustainability. The paper first explains the rationale for this dominant narrative, which revolves around the efficiency gains from trade. Second, it outlines two important critiques of this approach – one that stresses the need to look beyond food as an economic commodity, and one that reveals the internal flaws of trade theory – which together provide important counterpoints to this dominant narrative. Third, the paper offers three interrelated explanations for why trade continues to be presented as a key ingredient to food sustainability despite the weaknesses of the dominant approach: institutional fragmentation in global food governance; the carryover of previous normative compromises regarding trade and the environment in other governance settings; and the influence of powerful interests.
Sustainable intensification (SI) is at the forefront of food security discussions as a means to meet the growing demand for agricultural production while conserving land and other resources. A broader definition of SI is emerging that takes into account the human condition, nutrition and social equity. Next steps require identification of indicators and associated metrics, to track progress, assess tradeoffs and identify synergies. Through a systematic, qualitative review of the literature we identified SI indicators, with a primary focus on African smallholder farming systems. We assessed indicators and metrics for which there is consensus, and those that remain contested. We conclude that, while numerous metrics for evaluating SI systems exist, many often-cited indicators lack strong sets of associated metrics.
Co-production of new knowledge can enhance open and integrative research processes across the social and natural sciences and across research/science, practice and policy interrelationships. Thus, co-production is important in the conduct of research about and for transformations to sustainability. While co-design is an integral part of co-production, it often receives limited attention in the conduct of co-produced research. This paper reports on lessons learned from an early stage of the co-design process to develop research on deliberate practices for transformative change. Key lessons learned are the need to: (1) ensure co-design processes are themselves carefully designed; (2) encourage emergence of new ways of thinking about problem formulation through co-design; (3) carefully balance risks for the participants involved while also enhancing opportunities for intellectual risk taking; (4) facilitate personal transformations in co-design as a way to stimulate and encourage further creativity; and (5) for funders to carefully and constructively align criteria or incentives through which a project or future proposal will be judged to the goals of the co-design, including for instrumental outcomes and objectives for creativity and imagination. Given that co-design necessarily involves a reflective practice to iteratively guide emergence of new thinking about the practices of change, co-design can itself be considered an important deliberate practice for transforming the conduct of research and the contribution of that research to social transformations.
On 25 September, 2015, world leaders met at the United Nations in New York, where they adopted the Sustainable Development Goals. These 17 goals and 169 targets set out an agenda for sustainable development for all nations that embraces economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection. Now, the agenda moves from agreeing the goals to implementing and ultimately achieving them. Across the goals, 42 targets focus on means of implementation, and the final goal, Goal 17, is entirely devoted to means of implementation. However, these implementation targets are largely silent about interlinkages and interdependencies among goals. This leaves open the possibility of perverse outcomes and unrealised synergies. We demonstrate that there must be greater attention on interlinkages in three areas: across sectors (e.g., finance, agriculture, energy, and transport), across societal actors (local authorities, government agencies, private sector, and civil society), and between and among low, medium and high income countries. Drawing on a global sustainability science and practice perspective, we provide seven recommendations to improve these interlinkages at both global and national levels, in relation to the UN’s categories of means of implementation: finance, technology, capacity building, trade, policy coherence, partnerships, and, finally, data, monitoring and accountability.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0383-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
There is an ongoing debate on what constitutes sustainable intensification of agriculture (SIA). In this paper, we propose that a paradigm for sustainable intensification can be defined and translated into an operational framework for agricultural development. We argue that this paradigm must now be defined-at all scales-in the context of rapidly rising global environmental changes in the Anthropocene, while focusing on eradicating poverty and hunger and contributing to human wellbeing. The criteria and approach we propose, for a paradigm shift towards sustainable intensification of agriculture, integrates the dual and interdependent goals of using sustainable practices to meet rising human needs while contributing to resilience and sustainability of landscapes, the biosphere, and the Earth system. Both of these, in turn, are required to sustain the future viability of agriculture. This paradigm shift aims at repositioning world agriculture from its current role as the world's single largest driver of global environmental change, to becoming a key contributor of a global transition to a sustainable world within a safe operating space on Earth.
Modern agroecosystems require systemic change, but new redesigned farming systems will not emerge from simply implementing a set of practices (rotations, composting, cover cropping, etc.) but rather from the application of already well defined agroecological principles. These principles can be applied using various practices and strategies, each having different effects on productivity, stability and resiliency of the target farming system. By breaking the monoculture nature of farming systems, agroecological diversification aims at mimicking ecological processes leading to optimal nutrient cycling and organic matter turnover, soil biological activation, closed energy flows, water and soil conservation and balanced pest-natural enemy populations. All these processes are key maintaining the agroecosystem's health, productivity and its self-sustaining capacity. By enhancing functional biodiversity, a major goal of the conversion process is achieved: strengthening the weak ecological functions in the agroecosystem, allowing farmers to gradually eliminate inputs altogether by relying instead on ecological processes and interactions.
Meeting the demand for food, energy, and water as world population increases is a major goal for the food systems of the future. These future challenges, which are complex, multiscalar, and cross-sectoral in nature, require a food systems approach that recognizes the socio-ecological and socio-technical dimensions of food (Ericksen, 2008; Ingram, 2011; Rivera-Ferre, 2012). The United Nations' Future Earth Program aims to provide a new platform for consolidating the knowledge required for societies to transition to global sustainability (Future Earth Transition Team, 2012). In this paper, we explore how Future Earth could become a vehicle for inspiring the production of new research ideas and collaborations for sustainably transforming the future food system. We do this on the basis of a synthesis of views from 28 young (below 40 years old) food system scientists, representing five continents. Their expertise comes from disciplines including food engineering, agronomy, ecology, geography, psychology, public health, food politics, nutritional science, political science, sociology and sustainability science. This paper begins with an outline of the institutional framework of Future Earth and how it might support innovative transdisciplinary research on food systems, and the position of young scientists within this framework. Secondly, we outline the key insights expressed by the young scientists during the Food Futures Conference in Villa Vigoni, Italy, in April 2013, including the core research questions raised during the meeting as well as some of the challenges involved in realizing their research ambitions within their professional spheres.
Numerous sources provide evidence of trends and patterns in average farm size and farmland distribution worldwide, but they often lack documentation, are in some cases out of date, and do not provide comprehensive global and comparative regional estimates. This article uses agricultural census data (provided at the country level in Web Appendix) to show that there are more than 570 million farms worldwide, most of which are small and family-operated. It shows that small farms (less than 2 ha) operate about 12% and family farms about 75% of the world’s agricultural land. It shows that average farm size decreased in most low- and lower-middle-income countries for which data are available from 1960 to 2000, whereas average farm sizes increased from 1960 to 2000 in some upper-middle-income countries and in nearly all high-income countries for which we have information.
South Asian countries face mounting challenges in meeting the growing demand for food, water, and energy for a rapidly growing population. Countries have provided policy support to increase cereal production, including providing incentives by subsidizing water and energy and guaranteeing rice and wheat prices. While such incentives have increased cereal production, they have also increased the demand for water and energy, led to degradation of the resource base, and contributed to an increase in water-related disease. Despite the inherent interconnections between food, water, and energy production, agencies often work in a fragmented and isolated way. Poor sectoral coordination and institutional fragmentation have triggered an unsustainable use of resources and threatened the long-term sustainability of food, water, and energy security in the region, and also posed challenges to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Free water and subsidized electricity have not only encouraged overexploitation of resources, they have also led to under-investment in water and energy-saving technologies and approaches and hindered crop diversification and broad-based agricultural growth in line with the comparative advantages. Greater policy coherence among the three sectors is critical for decoupling increased food production from water and energy intensity and moving to a sustainable and efficient use of resources. The nexus approach can enhance understanding of the interconnectedness of the sectors and strengthen coordination among them. But it requires a major shift in the decision-making process towards taking a holistic view and developing institutional mechanisms to coordinate the actions of diverse actors and strengthen complementarities and synergies among the three sectors. A framework is suggested for cross-sectoral coordination and managing the nexus challenges.
In the years since publication of the first edition of Food Wars much has happened in the world of food policy. This new edition brings these developments fully up to date within the original analytical framework of competing paradigms or worldviews shaping the direction and decision-making within food politics and policy.
The key theme of the importance of integrating human and environmental health has become even more pressing. In the first edition the authors set out and brought together the different strands of emerging agendas and competing narratives. The second edition retains the same core structure and includes updated examples, case studies and the new issues which show how these conflicting tendencies have played out in practice over recent years and what this tells us about the way the global food system is heading. Examples of key issues given increased attention include:
nutrition, including the global rise in obesity, as well as chronic conditions, hunger and under-nutrition
the environment, particularly the challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, water stress and food security
food industry concentration and market power
volatility and uncertainty over food prices and policy responses
tensions over food, democracy and citizenship
social and cultural aspects impacting food and nutrition policies.
Significance
Given that hunger and malnutrition are still widespread problems in many developing countries, the question of how to make agriculture and food systems more nutrition-sensitive is of high relevance for research and policy. Many of the undernourished people in Africa and Asia are small-scale subsistence farmers. Diversifying production on these farms is often perceived as a promising strategy to improve dietary quality and diversity. This hypothesis is tested with data from smallholder farm households in Indonesia, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Malawi. Higher farm production diversity significantly contributes to dietary diversity in some situations, but not in all. Improving small farmers’ access to markets seems to be a more effective strategy to improve nutrition than promoting production diversity on subsistence farms.
This paper examines the relationship between the development of the dominant industrial food system and its associated global economic drivers and the environmental sustainability of agricultural landscapes. It makes the case that the growth of the global industrial food system has encouraged increasingly complex forms of “distance” that separate food both geographically and mentally from the landscapes on which it was produced. This separation between food and its originating landscape poses challenges for the ability of more localized agricultural sustainability initiatives to address some of the broader problems in the global food system. In particular, distance enables certain powerful actors to externalize ecological and social costs, which in turn makes it difficult to link specific global actors to particular biophysical and social impacts felt on local agricultural landscapes. Feedback mechanisms that normally would provide pressure for improved agricultural sustainability are weak because there is a lack of clarity regarding responsibility for outcomes. The paper provides a brief illustration of these dynamics with a closer look at increased financialization in the food system. It shows that new forms of distancing are encouraged by the growing significance of financial markets in global agrifood value chains. This dynamic has a substantial impact on food system outcomes and ultimately complicates efforts to scale up small-scale local agricultural models that are more sustainable.
This paper examines the literature on how biodiversity contributes to improved and diversified diets in developing countries. We assess the current state of evidence on how wild and cultivated biodiversity in all forms is related to healthy diets and nutrition, and examine how economic factors, knowledge and social norms interact with availability of biodiversity to influence both production and consumption choices. The paper identifies areas where evidence is lacking and ways to build synergies between nutrition-sensitive approaches and efforts to ensure sustainability of food systems and the natural environment.
This paper asks how the social sciences can engage with the idea of the Anthropocene in productive ways. In response to this question we outline an interpretative research agenda that allows critical engagement with the Anthropocene as a socially and culturally bounded object with many possible meanings and political trajectories. In order to facilitate the kind of political mobilization required to meet the complex environmental challenges of our times, we argue that the social sciences should refrain from adjusting to standardized research agendas and templates. A more urgent analytical challenge lies in exposing, challenging and extending the ontological assumptions that inform how we make sense of and respond to a rapidly changing environment. By cultivating environmental research that opens up multiple interpretations of the Anthropocene, the social sciences can help to extend the realm of the possible for environmental politics.
This paper identifies the governance dynamics and the international policy architecture that frame contemporary policy actions in relation to the food supply and elaborates on key governance tensions that policy makers need to address to feed the world's growing population by the mid-21st century. Two main dimensions of governance are examined: the international policy space, composed of nation states collaborating through international regimes with other international actors; and the private corporate led governance of the food supply. At the international levels, policy discontinuities and gaps are identified, for example between international environmental regimes and food security institutions. The so-called Washing-ton Consensus has given way to a post Washington divergence of policy approaches amongst states, reflecting the Bvarieties of capitalism^ thesis, and a more multi-polar international policy space over food and agriculture. In the past decade, policy makers have engaged industry in the international pursuit of sustainability, with a focus on policy actions around achieving sustainable consumption and production of food. The resulting contemporary governance trajectories are providing a disjointed but widespread set of policy guidelines with some evidence of convergence. These governance forms are helping to shape the terms of debate but the reliance on industry mediated food sustainability will need to be augmented by stronger political leadership from the individual nation states. Policy advances will need to build on the more collab-orative and inclusive forms of governance that are being put in place, and continue to improve the balance of sustainable production and consumption of food.
Tackling major environmental change issues requires effective partnerships between science and governance, but relatively little work in this area has examined the diversity of settings from which such partnerships may, or may not, emerge. In this special feature we draw on experiences from around the world to demonstrate and investigate the consequences of diverse capacities and capabilities in bringing science and governance together. We propose the concept of coproductive capacities as a useful new lens through which to examine these relations. Coproductive capacity is " the combination of scientific resources and governance capability that shapes the extent to which a society, at various levels, can operationalize relationships between scientific and public, private, and civil society institutions and actors to effect scientifically-informed social change. " This recasts the relationships between science and society from notions of " gaps " to notions of interconnectedness and interplay (coproduction); alongside the societal foundations that shape what is or is not possible in that dynamic connection (capacities). The articles in this special feature apply this concept to reveal social, political, and institutional conditions that both support and inhibit high-quality environmental governance as global issues are tackled in particular places. Across these articles we suggest that five themes emerge as important to understanding coproductive capacity: history, experience, and perceptions; quality of relationships (especially in suboptimal settings); disjunct across scales; power, interests, and legitimacy; and alternative pathways for environmental governance. Taking a coproductive capacities perspective can help us identify which interventions may best enable scientifically informed, but locally sensitive approaches to environmental governance.
Co-production is one of the most important ideas in the theory and practice of knowledge and governance for global sustainability, including ecology and biodiversity conservation. A core challenge confronting the application of co-production has been confusion over differences in definition and practice across several disciplinary traditions, including sustainability science, public administration, and science and technology studies. In this paper, we review the theoretical foundations of these disciplinary traditions and how each has applied co-production. We suggest, at the theoretical level, the differences across disciplines are, in fact, more apparent than real. We identify several theoretical convergences that allow us to synthesize a strong conceptual foundation for those seeking to design and implement co-production work in programs of global sustainability research and policy.
The emergence of transformation as a core component in sustainability science and practice has opened an exciting space for transdisciplinary research. Yet, the mainstreaming of transformation has also exposed epistemological rifts between diverse research perspectives, presenting significant challenges for transdisciplinary teams. Using coral reef social–ecological systems as an example, we explore how these points of tension may be addressed using a three stage process: Firstly, promoting epistemological transparency, where different kinds of knowledge framings are made explicit; secondly, employing feedbacks as a bridging concept to effectively engage with complex system dynamics from multiple perspectives; and finally, encouraging plurality, rather than the unification of epistemologies, to foster innovative, diverse, and sustainable pathways during this formative moment for global environmental sustainability.
Repeated food crises have resulted in increased recognition of the boundary-spanning nature of governing food systems and in consequent calls for more holistic food governance. An increasing number of governments have followed up on this recognition by initiating or discussing the development of better integrated food policy. However, in spite of the emergence of integrated food policy as a policy paradigm worth pursuing, considerable challenges remain regarding its concrete realization. Drawing upon recent insights from the public policy literature, this policy letter sets out five particularly demanding areas of concern: (i) constructing a resonating policy frame, (ii) formulating policy goals, (iii) involving relevant sectors and levels, (iv) the question of what constitutes optimal policy integration, and (v) designing a consistent mix of policy instruments. Formulating answers to these challenges will enable policymakers and stakeholders to envision the next steps in concretizing integrated food policy.
Through the lens of social practice theories, we consider the emergence of organic food in the Philippines and relate this to sustainable food production and consumption. In particular, we analyse the various practices of groups engaged in “organic” food production and consumption in the capital region, Metro Manila—in a country that has a vibrant organic agriculture movement and which has recently introduced a national law promoting organic food. Using qualitative data, we assess the development of new prescriptions or guidelines, and the tensions that arise between prescriptions and public policies. We argue that as people take on new competencies and meanings in relation to organic produce, social inequalities among consumers are highlighted, affecting the trajectories of organic food.
842 million people worldwide are undernourished, while simultaneously the number of overweight and obese individuals increased to 2.1 billion in 2013. There is growing opinion that addressing the global burden of diet-related disease requires a much more comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach than stand-alone public health nutrition interventions such as nutrition education or food labelling. Instead, we need to develop whole of systems interventions to address the core problem and consider the way we grow, process, distribute and commercialize our food. However, there is little evidence or guidance on how to best achieve this goal. This research aims to develop a whole of food systems approach for public health nutrition research by building on systems methods from other fields of science. Specific objectives are to: 1) identify systems methods that are applicable to public health nutrition research; 2) identify how these systems methods and public health research can best be integrated.
Smallholder engagement with export commodities in Southeast Asia potentially offers a more inclusive development pathway than large-scale plantation production, which has been associated with the phenomenon of land grabs. This raises three questions which we explore in this paper: What are the agro-economic factors favouring or obstructing smallholders relative to plantations? What are the incentives for agribusiness firms to contribute to smallholder production other than by direct control of land? Can smallholder production be broadly inclusive in the face of internal differentiation and encroachment by external investors? We compare smallholder involvement with four cash crops which have experienced strong market demand – rubber, oil palm, cassava and teak – based on fieldwork in six Southeast Asian countries. We conclude that smallholder production can be a viable and inclusive strategy, contingent on the case-by-case confluence of a number of key factors which we enumerate.
We discuss two different strategies to initiate a process of identifying a focused sustainability challenge, and co-defining and co-designing alternative pathways to more sustainable food systems. One strategy was based on working with a relatively closely aligned network of private sector, civil society and academic organisations, whilst the other involved working with a more plural, non-aligned group, ranging from representatives of agricultural social movements, through to the domestic seed industry and government officials, to academic agronomists. This paper reflects on the distinct benefits and challenges involved in each strategy.
Cities are complex adaptive systems whose responses to policy initiatives emerge from feedback interactions between their parts. Urban policy makers must routinely deal with both detail and dynamic complexity, coupled with high levels of diversity, uncertainty and contingency. In such circumstances, it is difficult to generate reliable predictions of health-policy outcomes. In this paper we explore the potential for low-order system dynamics (LOSD) models to make a contribution towards meeting this challenge. By definition, LOSD models have few state variables (≤ 5), illustrate the non-linear effects caused by feedback and accumulation, and focus on endogenous dynamics generated within well-defined boundaries. We suggest that experience with LOSD models can help practitioners to develop an understanding of basic principles of system dynamics, giving them the ability to ‘see with new eyes’. Because efforts to build a set of LOSD models can help a transdisciplinary group to develop a shared, coherent view of the problems that they seek to tackle, such models can also become the foundations of ‘powerful ideas’. Powerful ideas are conceptual metaphors that provide the members of a policy-making group with the a priori shared context required for effective communication, the co-production of knowledge, and the collaborative development of effective public health policies.
Despite substantial focus on sustainability issues in both science and politics, humanity remains on largely unsustainable development trajectories. Partly, this is due to the failure of sustainability science to engage with the root causes of unsustainability. Drawing on ideas by Donella Meadows, we argue that many sustainability interventions target highly tangible, but essentially weak, leverage points (i.e. using interventions that are easy, but have limited potential for transformational change). Thus, there is an urgent need to focus on less obvious but potentially far more powerful areas of intervention. We propose a research agenda inspired by systems thinking that focuses on transformational ‘sustainability interventions’, centred on three realms of leverage: reconnecting people to nature, restructuring institutions and rethinking how knowledge is created and used in pursuit of sustainability. The notion of leverage points has the potential to act as a boundary object for genuinely transformational sustainability science.
The global food system today faces the significant challenge of feeding more people amid dwindling natural resources and a more fragile natural environment. The path toward sustainable food security and nutrition is often riddled with inaccurate and oversimplified beliefs regarding the requirements and impacts of such a strategy. This includes the belief that trade-offs are inevitable when linking environmental sustainability with food security and nutrition strategies—which means that stakeholders have to prioritize one area at the expense of the other. Likewise, policymakers and researchers alike often make inaccurate assumptions about technological innovations, gender, biofuels, and smallholder farming. Such sustainable food security and nutrition “myths” pose a significant challenge to the effective design and promotion of more environmentally-friendly agricultural and food systems.
This paper will explore the myths and realities surrounding the relationship between environmental sustainability, food security, and nutrition. It will focus on debunking some of the common myths that hamper sustainable food security and nutrition efforts and will highlight actions that can mutually reinforce food security, nutrition, and environmental sustainability. Providing the world's growing population with a more secure and sustainable supply of nutritious food is possible but not automatic and requires an accurate and comprehensive understanding of the dynamics surrounding sustainable food security and nutrition pathways.
'. . . an impressive volume, the editors have put together a high quality collection. Research Handbook on International Environmental Law ought to be an invaluable reference source for both teachers and students of international environmental law in the years to come.' © The editors and contributors severally 2010. All rights reserved.
Food security is a concept that features high on the development agenda. The meaning of the concept has evolved considerably over its 40 years' history in policy, practice and scholarly debate. Our focus in this essay is on three sets of interrelated issues. First, we critically examine the academic food security discourse from a historical perspective – from an initial focus on resource scarcity and availability to a multifaceted social framing – and discuss some of the key factors behind the shift in academic thinking and policy focus on the topic. We contend that the food price hike in 2007 and the increased focus on the projected negative effects of climate change have paved the way for a return of a biophysical framing with an emphasis on food production. Second, taking a starting point in a Norwegian government policy document, we explore how policy discourses on food security are currently framed in relation to the historical discourse. We argue that while the prevailing biophysical framing of food security may occur at the cost of other aspects of food security, it nonetheless presents opportunities for a better integration of social and environmental drivers and outcomes of food security. Third, in place of the fragmented nature of current practice, we discuss the potential of adopting a food systems approach as a promising frontier in food security research, policy and practice.
Sustainability science can roughly be differentiated into two distinct research streams – a “descriptive-analytical” and a “transformational” one. While the former is primarily concerned with describing and analyzing sustainability problems, the latter aims at developing evidence-supported solution options to solve these problems. This chapter presents relevant methodological guidelines and requirements as well as five exemplary research frameworks for transformational sustainability research. The frameworks are for (1) complex problem-handling, (2) transition management and governance, (3) backcasting, (4) integrated planning research, and (5) the transformational sustainability research (TRANSFORM framework). The TRANSFORM framework aims at synthesizing key components of the other frameworks. The frameworks provide guidelines for transformational sustainability research; yet, willingness and capacity of academic, governmental, private, and nonprofit organizations to use them for knowledge-generating operations are still fairly low. To truly support sustainability transformations, much more of this solution-oriented sustainability research is needed.
Since this journal was launched in 2006 to provide a platform for the pioneers of sustainability science (Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006), the science has matured in the development of theory and methodologies to address the potentially devastating consequences of the present development paradigm. The gains in research, however, do not mean that sustainability science in its present state will fulfill its promise of transformational change (Van der Leeuw et al. 2012). Hurdles remain, including insufficient engagement with stakeholder groups (Wiek et al. 2012), lack of robust communication and entrepreneurial skills on the part of scientists generally (Baron 2010; Brownell et al. 2013), the need for better support (structural and intellectual) within the academy to attract and maintain committed scholars to the field, and enhanced qualitative and quantitative meta-studies to make better use of experiences and evidence emerging from sustainability science research (Wiek et al. 2012). In sum, these challenges are symptomatic of a disconnect between the nascent science and society. If sustainability scientists are going to contribute to transformative change to achieve sustainable development, they must accept roles that go beyond traditional reflective scientist modes and that are outside of their professional comfort zones. It is clear that a higher level of knowledge integration and greater (tighter) cooperation between the generators and users of such knowledge are needed to overcome barriers to meeting these challenges. (Frodeman et al. 2010; Wiek et al. 2012; Komiyama 2014).