Multiple anthropogenic challenges threaten nature's contributions to human well-being. Agricultural expansion and conventional intensification are degrading biodiversity and ecosystem functions, thereby undermining the natural foundations on which agriculture is itself built. Averting the worst effects of global environmental change and assuring ecosystem benefits, requires a transformation of agriculture. Alternative agricultural systems to conventional intensification exist, ranging from adjustments to efficiency (e.g., sustainable intensification) to a redesign (e.g., ecological intensification, climate smart agriculture) of the farm management system. These alternatives vary in their reliance on nature or technology, the level of systemic change required to operate, and impacts on biodiversity, landscapes and agricultural production. Different socioeconomic , ecological and political settings mean there is no universal solution, instead there are a suite of interoperable practices that can be adapted to different contexts to maximise efficiency, sustainability and resilience. Social, economic, technological and demographic issues will influence the form of sustainable agriculture and effects on landscapes and biodiversity. These include: 1) the sociotechnical-ecological architecture of agricultural and food systems and trends such as urbanisation in affecting the mode of production, diets, lifestyles and attitudes; 2) emerging technologies, such as gene editing, synthetic biology and 3D bio-printing of meat; and 3) the scale or state of the existing farm system, especially pertinent for smallholder agriculture. Agricultural transformation will require multifunctional landscape planning with cross-sectoral and participatory management to avoid unintended consequences and ultimately depends on people's capacity to accept new ways of operating in response to the current environmental crisis.

A failure to address social concerns in biodiversity conservation can lead to feelings of injustice among some actors, and hence jeopardize conservation goals. The complex socio-cultural and political context of the Calakmul Biosphere Reserve, Mexico, has historically led to multiple biodiversity conflicts. Our goal, in this case study, was to explore perceptions of justice held by local actors in relation to biodiversity conflicts. We then aimed to determine the following: 1) people's definitions of their feelings of justice; 2) the criteria used in this assessment; 3) variability in the criteria influencing them; and 4) implications for environmental management in the region and beyond. We worked with five focus groups, exploring three examples of biodiversity conflict around forest, water and jaguar management with a total of 41 ranchers, farmers and representatives of local producers. Our results demonstrated that people constructed their feelings of justice around four dimensions of justice: recognition (acknowledging individuals' rights, values, cultures and knowledge systems); ecological (fair and respectful treatment of the natural environment), procedural (fairness in processes of environmental management), distributive (fairness in the distribution of costs and benefits). We identified a list of criteria the participants used in their appraisal of justice and sources of variation such as the social scale of focus and participant role, and whom they perceived to be responsible for resource management. We propose a new framework that conceptualizes justice-as-recognition and ecological justice as forms of conditional justices, and procedural and distributive justices as forms of practical justice. Conditional justice allows us to define who is a legitimate source of justice norms and if nature should be integrated in the scope of justice; hence, conditional justice underpins other dimensions of justice. On the other hand, procedural and distributive address the daily practices of fair processes and distribution. We propose that the perception of justice is a neglected but important aspect to include in integrative approaches to managing biodiversity conflicts. Addressing demands of justice in environmental management will require us to consider more than the distribution of costs and benefits among actors. We also need to respect the plurality of fairness perspectives and to recognize the benefits of dialogical approaches to achieve more successful environmental management.

No abstract

No abstract

Conservation focuses on environmental objectives, but neglecting social concerns can lead to a feeling of injustice among some actors and thus jeopardise conservation aims. Through a case study on a biodiversity conflict around jaguar management in the Calakmul region of Mexico, we explored actors' feelings of injustice and their associated determinants. We employed a novel framework distinguishing four dimensions of justice: recognition, ecological, distributive and procedural. By conducting and analysing 235 interviews with farmers and ranchers, we investigated what might drive their feeling of injustice, namely their perceptions of the injustice itself (i.e. location, intentionality, stability), individual characteristics (i.e. socioeconomic status, motivation, environmental identity), and interactions with their environment (i.e. natural and social). We also asked the participants to choose one statement for each of the 10 pairs of statements that we presented to them, from 18 statements that characterized their feeling of justice toward jaguar management based on different criteria. Using a pioneering statistical analysis, BTLLasso, we showed the complexity of the drivers of feeling of justice. Self-interest assumptions were not upheld; feelings of fairness were only weakly influenced by experience of jaguar attacks. Feelings of justice were influenced mainly by factors related to actors' intra-and inter-group relationships (e.g. perception of collective responsibility, coherence perceived in the group to which they identified). Our analyses also allowed us to compare the effects of different factors on the assessment of criteria by diverse actors. For example, it revealed that differences in the organisations and groups perceived as being responsible for jaguar management modify a participant's perception of fairness. This nuanced understanding of how people build their 2 perception of justice can inform practitioners who seek fairer and more effective conservation approaches. Whilst details will be context specific, it emerged that supporting relationship building and enabling debate over ecological responsibilities are important and conservation efforts should go beyond merely offering financial compensation for livestock depredation. We conclude that perception of justice is a neglected but important aspect to include in integrative approaches to managing biodiversity conflicts, and that novel mixed methods can advance both conceptual and applied understanding in this area.

Global processes manifesting as activities in local places have led to an increase in documented conservation conflicts. Conservation conflicts are sometimes labelled human-wildlife conflict, focusing only on the direct negative impact of species (usually wildlife) on humans or vice versa. However, many authors now recognize that conservation conflicts arise between people with diverse views, when one party acts against the interests of another. They are thus human-human conflicts and not merely an impact on or from conservation. Conflict is not always directly correlated with impact because perceptions of risk, levels of tolerance and conservation values influence human responses. This review aims to define the concept of ‘conservation conflict hotspots’ and explore its practical applications in conservation. We propose that the interaction of impact, risk perception, level of tolerance in a context of conservation values can be mapped at a local scale, with spatial visualization assisting the prediction, understanding and management of such hotspots. The term conservation value incorporates measures of indigeneity, endemicity and demography along with emotional or cultural attachment to species or places. The umbrella terms of risk perception and tolerance capture many of the aspects of attitude, values and individual demographics that can influence people’s actions, enabling contextualization of relevant social factors at local scales. Spatially mapped layers enable us to plan and target conservation efforts towards human as well as ecological factors. The concept of ‘conservation conflict hotspot’ emphasizes the need for transdisciplinary research to understand underlying drivers of conflict and for dialogical and peace-building approaches to facilitate trust and cooperation amongst actors. We can thus address conflicts and achieve sustainable outcomes.

Food systems are changing through various socioeconomic and policy processes. For example, in France, following concerns over the effects of pesticides on ecosystems and health, the French government launched the “Ecophyto II+” plan in 2019 that aims for a 50% reduction in the use of pesticides by 2025. This top-down food system transformation is leading to conflicts between stakeholders over how to enact such a policy, and its implications for farmers and their practices. By adopting a transdisciplinary research approach, we explore conflicts linked to food system transformations in the context of three case studies in France. The case studies revolve around conflicts over pesticide use and reduction in three agricultural settings in Bourgogne Franche-Comté, namely (a) water management near Auxerre, (b) apiculture-agriculture relations in the Jura, and (c) viticulture-local resident relationships near Macon. We use four innovative transdisciplinary techniques to integrate inclusively the viewpoints of diverse stakeholders with the aim of generating actionable responses to transform food systems. First, the Community Voice Method (CVM) includes filmed semi-structured interviews and integrates a number of opportunities for participation and successive rounds of data analysis. Second, the interviewees were asked a “miracle question” that encouraged them to step back from conflicts and practices toward their ideal vision of agriculture and food systems. Third, the CVM resulted in the production of four films that relate the visions and perception of each case study interviewees in their own words and in their own setting. Finally, Transformation Labs (T-Labs) conveyed the main results of the CVM knowledge synthesis through the films produced and opened a dialogue toward the development of solutions. We review the four techniques, how they were implemented in the three case studies, and with which outcomes. Thus the aim of this paper is to offer reflections and lessons learnt from different transdisciplinary processes as a means of strengthening their application in other contexts. We argue that such methodologies, whilst resource-consuming, are essential to fully understand the complexity of food system transformations from the often-conflictual perspectives and competing knowledge claims of the multiple actors involved. In addition, we highlight the role of these techniques in building long-term trust between researchers and other stakeholders, and the benefits in terms of opening up dialogue and developing long-term solutions, as determined by the stakeholders themselves.

No abstract