No abstract

Co-production needs to become an integral part of the training and funding of researchers to ensure research meets everyone's needs, argue David Beran and colleagues on 21 February 2021 by guest. Protected by copyright.

Food system sustainability depends, among other aspects, on the resilience of different components of food systems. By resilience, we mean the ability of a food system to withstand stress and shocks, recover, and adapt to change. In this study, we examined he resilience of food systems, firstly, by compiling the risks perceived by different food system actors in the Santa Cruz Department, Bolivia, and the northwestern Mount Kenya Region, Kenya -two regions that are important to their respective national food supply. Secondly, we evaluated whether and under what circumstances these perceptions translate into adaptive or preventive strategies that benefit food system resilience. Among all actors, the most frequently perceived risks relate to production levels. Further, the many (sometimes contradictory) perceptions of risk and uncertainty among different actors groups do not necessarily translate into adaptation strategies. Reasons for this include structural factors as well as the "risk perception paradox", particularly regarding preventive strategies. However, we also observed many implicit strategies illustrating how different actors develop responses within their possibilities. However, most such strategies were insufficient to mitigate, much less to adapt to, the perceived risks. To build resilience, existing innovative policies need to be enforced in both countries. These include disaster risk-reduction programmes and programmes to reduce the vulnerability of marginalized groups who are crucial to food systems, such as smallholder farmers, pastoralists, and food workers.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

This study contributes to the ongoing discussion on how to attribute and evaluate the contribution of transdisciplinary research to sustainable development. As co-created knowledge is a key product of transdisciplinary research, we tested the hypothesis that the extent to which this knowledge is utilized beyond the projects consortia, in different areas-from scientific methods and insights to policy decisions-and across a continuum of geographical scales can be used to identify potential impact pathways. With this aim we developed an analytical framework that links the transdisciplinary process to six possible utilization stages as indicators for usability of co-created knowledge and implemented it using a survey and semi-structured interviews in 22 research projects active in 36 countries. Our results show that even during the implementation of the projects, co-created knowledge is utilized by multiple actors at different stages, in all areas and scales simultaneously, suggesting multiple impact pathways. Utilization of project knowledge was predominantly indicated for national-level policymaking and research partners named co-creation of knowledge with key stakeholders as the most frequently used mechanism for promoting knowledge utilization. Closer analysis showed different understandings of and approaches to knowledge co-creation. These can be linked to weaker or stronger definitions of transdisciplinarity. The analysis shows that when using strong transdisciplinarity approaches researchers need to face challenges in encompassing multiple epistemologies and in facilitating dialogue. Some results suggest that inclusion and collaboration by co-created knowledge can empower actors otherwise excluded. Our research shows that although transdisciplinary projects have non-linear impact pathways, these can be partially assessed using the proposed analytical framework. Further, our results indicate interesting links between usability-through knowledge utilization-inclusion and collaboration regarding knowledge co-creation in transdisciplinary research. We conclude with the observation that transdisciplinarity and its requirements still need to be better understood by actors within and beyond the research community.

Food systems must become more sustainable and equitable, a transformation which requires the transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge. We present a framework of food sustainability that was co-created by academic and non-academic actors and comprises five dimensions: food security, right to food, environmental performance, poverty and inequality, and social-ecological resilience. For each dimension, an interdisciplinary research team—together with actors from different food systems—defined key indicators and empirically applied them to six case studies in Kenya and Bolivia. Food sustainability scores were analysed for the food systems as a whole, for the five dimensions, and for food system activities. We then identified the indicators with the greatest influence on sustainability scores. While all food systems displayed strengths and weaknesses, local and agroecological food systems scored comparatively highly across all dimensions. Agro-industrial food systems scored lowest in environmental performance and food security, while their resilience scores were medium to high. The lowest-scoring dimensions were right to food, poverty and inequality, with particularly low scores obtained for the indicators women’s access to land and credit, agrobiodiversity, local food traditions, social protection, and remedies for violations of the right to food. This qualifies them as key levers for policy interventions towards food sustainability.