Agri-food systems in sustainability transition: a systematic literature review on recent developments on the use of the multi-level perspective

Abstract

A sustainability transition (ST) of the agri-food system (AFS) is necessary due to manifold environmental and social exigencies. Scholars widely refer to the multi-level perspective (MLP) in the analysis of those transitions. The fast pace of articles covering AFS transitions, the evolving research on spaces between the three levels, and the consisting unclear conceptualization of MLP levels call for a systematic update on literature utilizing MLP in AFS articles covering ST. As a basis for reporting, this systematic literature review uses the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The search was conducted on the database Scopus encompassing the period from 2018 to 2022. After the selection procedure, 58 articles were included in the review. We extracted data based on a combination of a concept-driven and data-driven coding scheme. Qualitative research approaches outweigh and interrelated activities within the AFS are being analyzed, predominantly in the agricultural sectors. The focus lays on ongoing transitions. The concept of sustainability and its direction is considered as given (e.g., through the case lens), without further elaborations. The niche constitutes the most prominent object of study and scholars refer to rather socially innovative activities than technological innovations, providing distinct views on radicality and strategies to breakthrough. A space between niche and regime is being presented, with slightly distinct conceptualisations. Actors from both levels collaborate and exert transformative power. The regime is presented as static but also more vividly evolving views on the regime are demonstrated. The landscape receives the least attention and the focus lays on immaterial characteristics. Combinations of MLP with other frameworks have proven useful, for instance, regarding elaborations on the agency on the landscape level. Generally, an unclear conceptualization of regime and landscape persists, lacking a theoretical elaboration. Further research applying MLP should aim for a deeper examination of its theoretical construct, especially in terms of regime and landscape. More quantitative or mixed-methods research could supplement the current dominating qualitative approaches by testing and validating qualitatively constructed theories and phenomena.

Bottom‐up dynamics in circular innovation systems: The perspective of circular start‐ups

“…The dominant frameworks to conceptualize IS and sustainability transitions-technological innovation systems (TIS), strategic niche management (SNM), and multi-level perspective (MLP)-are mostly applied to scrutinize changes to one type of technological innovation (Geels, 2002(Geels, , 2011Hekkert et al, 2007;Schot & Geels, 2008). Studies that go beyond one technological solution focus on solutions related to a technological regime or domain such as food security, transport, and low-carbon energy (El Bilali, 2019;Elsner et al, 2023;Geels, 2014;Hess, 2016;Hoogma et al, 2002;Kivimaa, 2014;Raven, 2007;Smink et al, 2015). The dominant niche-regime dichotomy in MLP and SNM is contested and described as too rigid to capture multi-faceted innovation dynamics (Raven et al, 2016;Ruggiero et al's, 2021).…”

Toward a sustainable agricultural system in China: exploring the nexus between agricultural science and technology innovation, agricultural resilience and fiscal policies supporting agriculture

“…On the one hand, the demand for food and other essential ecosystem services provided by agriculture is on the rise, creating a complex scenario exacerbated by the mounting pressure on underlying agricultural production potential. On the other hand, factors such as climate change and soil degradation exacerbate pressures on agricultural systems, making the provision of private and public goods increasingly difficult and costly (Borrelli et al, 2020;Ortiz-Bobea et al, 2021;Elsner et al, 2023). At the same time, societal factors such as market shocks, pandemics, and wars intertwine to create a situation of uncertainty and instability that weakens the resilience of the agricultural sector.…”