Resilient food systems: a qualitative tool for measuring food resilience

Tóth, Attila; Rendall, Stacy; Reitsma, Femke

doi:10.1007/s11252-015-0489-x

Cited by 59 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The practices adopted by social enterprises are capable of increasing resilience as well as sustainability. The community building, the increase in flexibility, social networks and trust, and the democratic decision-making resonate with the descriptions of resilient food systems [3,[47][48][49][50]. The resilience-building of social enterprises allows them not only to emerge but also to persist in their urban food systems, while resisting the pressures of globalised markets.…”

Section: Reduction Of Impacts (Food Waste Packagingmentioning

confidence: 85%

Local Action with a Global Vision: The Transformative Potential of Food Social Enterprises in Australia

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an urgent need to make food systems more sustainable and resilient. Such a transformation goes beyond technological innovation and requires economic and social change. Research interest in the transformative potential of community level action has increased. Food social enterprises often operate at the community level and consist of not-for-profit organisations that aim to make a positive contribution to social justice and environmental sustainability. The question addressed in this paper is whether these social enterprises are limited to isolated improvements or have the capacity to transform food systems more widely. This paper uses a multi-dimensional framework (involving the social setting, operational models, governance, and institutional context) to analyse the transformative potential of eight food social enterprises in the Australian cities of Brisbane and Melbourne. The analysis indicates that these enterprises create social networks, pursue agendas aligned with a global vision of transformation, and include a diversity of stakeholders. Their operational models are consistent with the goals of environmental sustainability and social justice. Their governance involves equality, transparency, and flexibility. In the institutional context, support from public policy is limited and there is a need to improve their engagement with governmental actors. While food social enterprises are well placed in the quest to make food systems more consistent with ecological dynamics and social justice, they need to engage in greater advocacy for institutional change in order to maximise their transformative potential.

show abstract

Section: Reduction Of Impacts (Food Waste Packagingmentioning

confidence: 85%

Local Action with a Global Vision: The Transformative Potential of Food Social Enterprises in Australia

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The subjective assessment of resilience was based on farmers' perceptions of (1) the sensitivity of their farming systems to increased salinity intrusion, (2) the capacity of their farming 2014Fixed framing of resilience and standardization of measurements across respondents, easy to compare across households and stratified groups (Jones 2019) Difficult to measure intangible characteristics of resilience (Clare et al 2017), hard to understand the drivers of resilience, risk of using the same set of indicators for resilience measurement of individuals or systems with different cultural background and social-ecological settings (Jones 2019) Explanatory/qualitative research using focus group discussions, indepth interviews, and so forth Toth et al (2016), Ungar (2003) Accounts for the researcher bias in the selection of resilience factors and the specific socio-cultural context in which resilience occurs (Ungar 2003) Methodological looseness, key informant type approaches, difficult to generalize to the whole population (Maxwell et al 2015) Subjective resilience using a household survey Béné et al 2016 2017Bottom-up and participatory approach, removing the external and predefined resilience indicators, reducing the questionnaire burden, improving understanding of determinants of resilience, and enabling cross-cultural comparison of resilience (Clare et al 2017, Jones 2019 Cognitive bias in the answers (Tanner et al 2015, d'Errico et al 2018 and little evidence of their validity and use for policy and practice until now (Beauchamp et al 2019) Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in resilience measurement Beauchamp et al 2019, Ungar and Liebenberg (2011) Depending on the degree of qualitative or quantitative use, a mixed method approach can provide complementary information and improve an understanding of drivers of resilience (Maxwell et al 2015) Challenging to synthesize information into one analysis (Maxwell et al 2015) systems to recover from salinity damage, and (3) the capacity to change their farming systems to other systems if salinity increases in the future. Following the study of Jones and Tanner (2017), a single question with a 5-point Likert scale was asked to address each resilience component: 1To what extent is your farming system affected if salinity intrusion increases?…”

Section: Structured and Semistructured Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience of agricultural systems facing increased salinity intrusion in deltaic coastal areas of Vietnam

Nguyen¹,

Renaud²,

Sebesvári³

et al. 2019

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The resilience concept has provided a new insight and approach to the conventional perspective of agricultural management by emphasizing the need to maintain a diversity of future options to adapt to inevitable and often unpredictable changes. The concept has been taken up by various academic disciplines and development sectors, yet ways to define and operationalize resilience as a measurable concept are still being developed. We contributed to this ongoing effort by implementing a subjective resilience assessment method based on farmers' perceptions of three resilience components: (1) the sensitivity of their agricultural systems to increased salinity intrusion, (2) the capacity to recover from salinity damage, and (3) the capacity to change to other systems if salinity increases in the future. We conducted 27 in-depth interviews with local and national authorities, 11 focus group discussions, and 118 semistructured and 219 structured interviews with farmers in case study villages located along salinity transects in the Mekong Delta and at different distances to sea dikes in the Red River Delta in Vietnam in 2015-2016. Results from the subjective resilience assessment reveal that none of the agricultural systems studied systematically scored higher than the other systems on all three resilience components, implying that an increase in one resilience component by switching agricultural systems would negatively affect others. Agricultural responses to this salinity problem will influence current and long-term adaptability of the systems to future changes in salinity intrusion and other social-ecological developments in the deltas. Improving resilience components, e.g., through policies and interventions, resource allocation, and farming system changes, to sustain agricultural production or facilitate transformation to alternative systems when necessary is critically important for agricultural systems facing stress. Complementing subjective resilience assessments with qualitative data is thus crucial for understanding the drivers of resilience to improve components of resilience for agricultural systems in the respective deltas.

show abstract

“…Food systems are complex socio-ecological systems operating at multiple scales (Toth et al, 2016) and evolve through the choices of society. Agri-food systems describe how their interactions are dynamic and vulnerable to short term situations and long term stresses like climate change (Thompson and Scoones, 2009).…”

Section: Agri-food Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agri-food systems: A regional perspective in innovation capabilities

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Present days, food systems are part of a global network of production, processing, distribution and consumption. Several changes in food consumption patterns boost continuous improvement and development of the food system process and new food system models according to the stage of evolution and size of economies, diversification of rural areas, the efficiency of producer organizations, export orientation and market power of different contexts. The projected human population of nine billion by 2050 has led an ever-growing discussion of the need for increased productivity in agri-food systems. The aim of this paper is analyze the main factors affecting collaboration practices between actors at the institutional level of Agri-food System in Santander Colombia. The research methodology includes techniques of content analysis and structured written questionnaires. The analysis unit consisted of a sample of eighteen actors representing universities, companies, public entities focused on issues of science and technology of the agro and associations of producers, was conducted. The main findings show the most frequent collaboration practice and the main innovation capabilities at the system level. The main recommendations focus on promoting the management of vertical, horizontal and lateral integration and Virtual collaboration.

show abstract

Resilient food systems: a qualitative tool for measuring food resilience

Cited by 59 publications

References 43 publications

Local Action with a Global Vision: The Transformative Potential of Food Social Enterprises in Australia

Local Action with a Global Vision: The Transformative Potential of Food Social Enterprises in Australia

Resilience of agricultural systems facing increased salinity intrusion in deltaic coastal areas of Vietnam

Agri-food systems: A regional perspective in innovation capabilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About