Social actors and unsustainability of agriculture

Bernard, Florence; Noordwijk, Meine van; Luedeling, Eike; Villamor, Grace B.; Sileshi, Gudeta W.; Namirembe, Sara

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.01.002

Cited by 47 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A third conference in Montpellier, France, is planned for 2015 with the following agenda items: discussion key scenarios in agriculture and food systems, identifying priorities for early action and designing a roadmap for moving forward with an action plan. These objectives set the stage for a much stronger emphasis on knowledge-to-action frameworks, capacity-building and the changes in human behaviour and social infrastructure that are necessary for adaptation and resilience [133,152,293]. The momentum that has already built among the science community for CSA forms the foundation for critical engagement by more researchers in fundamental and applied studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: scientific basis for action

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) addresses the challenge of meeting the growing demand for food, fibre and fuel, despite the changing climate and fewer opportunities for agricultural expansion on additional lands. CSA focuses on contributing to economic development, poverty reduction and food security; maintaining and enhancing the productivity and resilience of natural and agricultural ecosystem functions, thus building natural capital; and reducing trade-offs involved in meeting these goals. Current gaps in knowledge, work within CSA, and agendas for interdisciplinary research and science-based actions identified at the 2013 Global Science Conference on Climate-Smart Agriculture (Davis, CA, USA) are described here within three themes: (1) farm and food systems, (2) landscape and regional issues and (3) institutional and policy aspects. The first two themes comprise crop physiology and genetics, mitigation and adaptation for livestock and agriculture, barriers to adoption of CSA practices, climate risk management and energy and biofuels (theme 1); and modelling adaptation and uncertainty, achieving multifunctionality, food and fishery systems, forest biodiversity and ecosystem services, rural migration from climate change and metrics (theme 2). Theme 3 comprises designing research that bridges disciplines, integrating stakeholder input to directly link science, action and governance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: scientific basis for action

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In practice, however, we use a negative ostensive definition of sustainability: from our observation of current practices, we can point out many examples that are evidently not sustainable (Bernard et al 2014). From that negative ostensive definition, we describe pathways towards sustainability.…”

Section: Defining Sustainabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainable intensification in agriculture: the richer shade of green. A review

Struik¹,

Kuyper²

2017

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

275

186

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural intensification is required to feed the growing and increasingly demanding human population. Intensification is associated with increasing use of resources, applied as efficiently as possible, i.e. with a concurrent increase in both resource use and resource use efficiency. Resource use efficiency has agronomic, environmental, economic, social, trans-generational, and global dimensions. Current industrial agriculture privileges economic resource use efficiency over the other dimensions, claiming that that pathway is necessary to feed the world. Current agronomy and the concept of sustainable intensification are contested. Sustainable intensification needs to include clarity about principles and practices for priority setting, an all-inclusive and explicit cost-benefit analysis, and subsequent weighing of trade-offs, based on scientifically acceptable, shared norms, thus making agriculture "green" again. Here, we review different forms of intensification, different principles and concepts underlying them, as well as the norms and values that are needed to guide the search for effective forms of sustainable and ecological intensification. We also address innovations in research and education required to create the necessary knowledge base. We argue that sustainable intensification should be considered as a process of enquiry and analysis for navigating and sorting out the issues and concerns in agronomy. Sustainable intensification is about societal negotiation, institutional innovation, justice, and adaptive management. We also make a plea for at least two alternative framings of sustainable intensification: one referring to the need for "de-intensification" in high-input systems to become more sustainable and one referring to the need to increase inputs and thereby yields where there are currently large yield (and often also efficiency) gaps. Society needs an agriculture that demonstrates resilience under future change, an agronomy that can cope with the diversity of trade-offs across different stakeholders, and a sustainability that is perceived as a dynamic process based on agreed values and shared knowledge, insight, and wisdom.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it is essential to recognise that, in the same way they are embedded in biophysical landscapes, farmer decisions are enacted in a social landscape bounded by other actors, which include extension agents, rural development agents, local authorities or agribusiness (Barnes et al, 2013;Bernard et al, 2014). That is, not only other actors might influence farmers directly (e.g., social pressure) as captured by the social factors, but they can do this indirectly, by voluntarily or involuntarily creating physical (e.g., land appropriation and enclosure) or social structures (e.g., norms) that constrain, or enlarge, farmers' opportunity space (e.g., Scoones, 2009;Bacon et al, 2012;Ilbery et al, 2013;Bernard et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Researching farmer behaviour in climate change adaptation and sustainable agriculture: Lessons learned from five case studies

Feola

Lerner

Jain

et al. 2015

Journal of Rural Studies

159

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding farmer behaviour is needed for local agricultural systems to produce food sustainably while facing multiple pressures. We synthesize existing literature to identify three fundamental questions that correspond to three distinct areas of knowledge necessary to understand farmer behaviour: 1) decision-making model; 2) cross-scale and cross-level pressures; and 3) temporal dynamics. We use this framework to compare five interdisciplinary case studies of agricultural systems in distinct geographical contexts across the globe. We find that these three areas of knowledge are important to understanding farmer behaviour, and can be used to guide the interdisciplinary design and interpretation

show abstract

Social actors and unsustainability of agriculture

Cited by 47 publications

References 40 publications

Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: scientific basis for action

Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: scientific basis for action

Sustainable intensification in agriculture: the richer shade of green. A review

Researching farmer behaviour in climate change adaptation and sustainable agriculture: Lessons learned from five case studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About