Grand Challenges in Sustainable Intensification and Ecosystem Services

Firbank, Leslie George; Attwood, Simon; Eory, Vera; Gadanakis, Yiorgos; Lynch, John; Sonnino, Roberta; Takahashi, Taro

doi:10.3389/fsufs.2018.00007

Cited by 42 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Conceptualizing the Food System Approach: From Theory To (Urmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Proponents of the first approach, commonly known as productivism , are fundamentally concerned with the efficiency of the food production process in a global context of growing population numbers, fast urbanization and increasing competition over resources. From a productivist perspective, scientific and technological innovations are key to achieve the paramount goal of enhancing agricultural productivity while limiting environmental damage (Firbank et al, 2018).Demand-led approaches, by contrast, emphasize a range of issues that constrain people s ability to access healthy and nutritious food. Under these approaches, the main challenge is not food production, but, rather, the persistence of a 1 See https://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/text/ 3 complex metabolism of multi-scaled inequitable relations that encompass the entire political ecology of the food system (Garnett, 2013;Sage, 2013).These two schools of thought have largely failed to extend their views and attention beyond the two extremes of the food system.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The challenge of systemic food change: Insights from cities

Sonnino

Tegoni

Cunto

2019

Cities

Self Cite

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionOne of the most distinctive features of food policy is arguably its fragmentation. Researchers have widely demonstrated that food policies, where they exist, are characterized by a siloed or sector-based) approach that fails to recognize the structural interdependencies between food and other resources (particularly water and energy) and between food and other sectors (e.g., the environment, housing, transportation, waste management, infrastructure, etc.) (Lang and Barling, 2012;Artioli et al., 2017;Mendes and Sonnino, 2018). Part of the problem is that food sits within a global governance context that is also very fragmented, with responsibilities, jurisdictions and priorities often spread across a broad range of organizations and institutionsnone of which has the capacity to address problems holistically (von Braun, 2009;Candel, 2014;McKeon, 2015;Moragues-Faus et al., 2017).The literature has extensively criticized the inconsistencies, overlaps and gaps (Slade et al., 2016: 37) produced by fragmented food policies and governance, calling for enhanced coherence and coordination to ensure that food initiatives contribute to shared goals and outcomes (Misselhorn et al., 2012;Pereira and Ruysenaar, 2012). In all, however, this body of research has failed to become transformative; as Candel (2014: 598) explains, scholarship in this area has remained mostly abstract and normativethat is, it focuses on what an ideal food governance context should look like, rather than how it is actually functioning. In addition to being constrained by the paucity of evidence-based studies, academic debates on food policy tend to be framed within specific disciplinary discourses that emphasize very different threats, priorities and scales of intervention. As Eakin at al. (2017: 760) have recently pointed out, there is relatively little literature that addresses food system sustainability from a truly comprehensive perspective, encompassing the diversity of food system activities, drivers and outcomes .Urban areas are emerging as important empirical contexts to progress debates on the nature and functioning of food systems and to understand the scope for a policy engagement with them. As researchers are beginning to note, multi-actor urban governance coalitions are seeking to enroll pre-existing fragmented initiatives by scaling up food-related activities and advocacy to address broader policy concerns (Mansfield and Mendes, 2013;Cretella and Buenger, 2016). Cities, in other words, are becoming strategic transition nodes that can exploit the policy vacuum created by the absence of comprehensive, coherent and integrated national and supra-national food policies to develop more sustainable food systems. Indeed, academic literature suggests that city governments in both the global North and the global South are imposing themselves as the optimal scale for food policy innovation, often through the adoption of an integrated and systemic approach (Rocha and Lessa, 2009;Sonnino, 2016 andArtioli et al., 2017). To date, however, n...

show abstract

Section: Conceptualizing the Food System Approach: From Theory To (Urmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The challenge of systemic food change: Insights from cities

Sonnino

Tegoni

Cunto

2019

Cities

Self Cite

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These pillars of sustainability are still commonly included in definitions of SI; for example, Gunton et al (2016) consider it to be a process by which productivity is increased without damaging the environment, and where possible, also generating social, and environment benefits. It is also associated with eco-efficiency (Gadanakis et al, 2015), as a trade-off between economic and ecological performance, and may be considered as a goal, a process, or a set of principles (see Firbank et al, 2018). Regardless of its definition, the idea of sustainable intensification is becoming ever more popular in research and policy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an Era of Smart Farming

Rose

Chilvers

2018

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

432

273

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agriculture is undergoing a new technology revolution supported by policy-makers around the world. While smart technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, robotics, and the Internet of Things, could play an important role in achieving enhanced productivity and greater eco-efficiency, critics have suggested that the consideration of social implications is being side-lined. Research illustrates that some agricultural practitioners are concerned about using certain smart technologies. Indeed, some studies argue that agricultural societies may be changed, or "re-scripted," in undesirable ways, and there is precedent to suggest that wider society may be concerned about radical new agricultural technologies. We therefore encourage policy-makers, funders, technology companies, and researchers to consider the views of both farming communities and wider society. In agriculture, the concept of responsible innovation has not been widely considered, although two recent papers have made useful suggestions. We build on these interventions by arguing that key dimensions of responsible innovation-anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness-should be applied to this fourth agricultural revolution. We argue, however, that ideas of responsible innovation should be further developed in order to make them relevant and robust for emergent agri-tech, and that frameworks should be tested in practice to see if they can actively shape innovation trajectories. In making suggestions on how to construct a more comprehensive framework for responsible innovation in sustainable agriculture, we call for: (i) a more systemic approach that maps and attends to the wider ecology of innovations associated with this fourth agricultural revolution; (ii) a broadening of notions of "inclusion" in responsible innovation to account better for diverse and already existing spaces of participation in agri-tech, and (iii) greater testing of frameworks in practice to see if they are capable of making innovation processes more socially responsible. Some would argue that the "fourth agricultural revolution" (Lejon and Frankelius, 2015) or "agriculture 4.0" (Bartmer in Frankelius et al., 2017) has already begun. Each previous agricultural revolution was radical at the time-the first representing a transition from hunting and gathering to settled agriculture, the second relating to the British agricultural revolution in the 18th century, and the third relating to post-war productivity increases associated with mechanization and the Green Revolution in the developing world. While technological innovation is thus not new

show abstract

“…This is in spite of several campaigns and initiatives aimed at promoting the adoption of SI practices in SSA [10]. Farmers must perceive adequate welfare gains from SI uptake before choosing to adopt SI [20]. However, tradeoffs between economic productivity and sustainability often prolong gains from adopting SI [21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of the Adoption of Sustainable Intensification in Southern African Farming Systems: A Meta-Analysis

Guo¹,

Ola²,

Benjamin³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change and environmental degradation are major threats to sustainable agricultural development in Southern Africa. Thus, the concept of sustainable intensification (SI) i.e. getting more output from less input using certain practices such as agroforestry, organic fertilizer, sustainable water management etc. has become an important topic among researchers and policy makers in the region in the last three decades. A comprehensive review of literatures on the adoption of SI in the region identify nine relevant drivers of adoption of SI among (smallholder) farmers. These drivers include (i) age, (ii) size of arable land, (iii) education, (iv) extension services, (v) gender, (vi) household size, (vii) income, (viii) membership in farming organization and (ix) access to credit. We present the results of a meta-analysis of 21 papers on the impact of these determinants on SI adoption among (smallholder) farmers in Southern African Development Community (SADC) using random-effects estimation techniques for the true effect size. While our result suggests that variables such as extension services, education, age, and household size may influence the adoption of SI in SADC, factors such as access to credit is also of great importance. Decision-makers should therefore concentrate efforts on these factors in promoting SI across the SADC. This includes increasing the efficiency of public extension service as well as involvement of private sector in extension service. Furthermore, both public and private agriculture financing models should consider sustainability indicators in their assessment process.

show abstract

Grand Challenges in Sustainable Intensification and Ecosystem Services

Cited by 42 publications

References 36 publications

The challenge of systemic food change: Insights from cities

The challenge of systemic food change: Insights from cities

Agriculture 4.0: Broadening Responsible Innovation in an Era of Smart Farming

Determinants of the Adoption of Sustainable Intensification in Southern African Farming Systems: A Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About