Three perspectives on motivation and multicriteria assessment of organic food systems

Læssøe, Jeppe; Ljungdalh, Anders Kruse; Alrøe, Hugo Fjelsted; Noe, Egon; Christensen, Tove; Dubgaard, Alex; Olsen, Søren Bøye; Kærgård, Niels; Kastberg, Peter

doi:10.5751/es-06397-190307

Cited by 7 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, clarification of the autopoietic closure of scientific perspectives involved in, e.g., sustainability assessment and other crossdisciplinary research activities and the characteristics of their conditions for observation can help point out issues of incommensurability and complementarity between these perspectives (the notion of incommensurability will be discussed later). Examples show that an explicitly perspectivist framework can help to reveal the perspectives in play and how they determine the observations made (Alrøe and Noe 2014b, Laessøe et al 2014, Thorsøe et al 2014). …”

Section: Complementarity and Perspectivismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sustainability assessment and complementarity

Alrøe¹,

Noe²

2016

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Sustainability assessments bring together different perspectives that pertain to sustainability to produce overall assessments, and a wealth of approaches and tools have been developed in the past decades. However, two major problems remain. The problem of integration concerns the surplus of possibilities for integration; different tools produce different assessments. The problem of implementation concerns the barrier between assessment and transformation; assessments do not lead to the expected changes in practice. We aim to analyze issues of complementarity in sustainability assessment and transformation as a key to better handling the problems of integration and implementation. Based on a generalization of Niels Bohr's complementarity from quantum mechanics, we have identified two forms of complementarity in sustainability assessment, observer stance complementarity and value complementarity. Unlike many other problems of sustainability assessment, complementarity is of a fundamental character connected to the very conditions for observation. Therefore, complementarity cannot be overcome methodologically, only handled better or worse. Science is essential to the societal goal of sustainability, but these issues of complementarity impede the constructive role of science in the transition to more sustainable structures and practices in food systems. The agencies of sustainability assessment and transformation need to be acutely aware of the importance of different perspectives and values and the complementarities that may be connected to these differences. An improved understanding of complementarity can help to better recognize and handle issues of complementarity. These deliberations have relevance not only for sustainability assessment, but more generally for transdisciplinary research on wicked problems.

show abstract

Section: Complementarity and Perspectivismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Noe and Alrøe 2011, Laessøe et al 2014). In a relational perspective, value relations are primary entities that belong neither to the subject nor to the object (Pirsig 1999, Barad 2007.…”

Section: Value Complementaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Sustainability assessment and complementarity

Alrøe¹,

Noe²

2016

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The papers in this Special Feature differ in the weight they put on these two challenges, from papers that emphasize the role of assessments in enhancing the knowledge basis for making decisions toward sustainability transformation through better tools and tool choices , Peano et al 2014, Schader et al 2014, to papers that emphasize different approaches to exposing the value basis (Thorsøe et al 2014, Alrøe andNoe 2016) and working with the value basis for taking actions toward sustainability transformation in form of value http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss1/art38/ communication (Kastberg 2015), motivation (Laessøe et al 2014), and trust (Freyer et al 2014, Rittenhofer andPovlsen 2015). However, none of the papers explicate this difference between working with better knowledge or stronger values in the development of methods and tools for sustainability transformation.…”

Section: Prospects For Future Sustainability Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To assist participation and enable sustainability transformation there is a need for awareness of the importance of different perspectives and values and the complementarities connected to these differences. Laessøe et al (2014) consider motivation to be a key issue in determining how a multicriteria assessment tool should be designed to facilitate reflections, communication, and decision making in relation to organic food systems. They compare three research perspectives on motivation, economic, psychosocial, and relational, using the example of a consumer assessing and choosing products in the supermarket.…”

Section: Multicriteria Assessment and Sustainability Transformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This theme involves fundamental considerations on the conception of values in different assessment perspectives (Thorsøe et al 2014), the role of complementarity in sustainability assessment (Alrøe and Noe 2016), and the role of motivation (Laessøe et al 2014), communication (Kastberg 2015), and trust (Freyer et al 2014, Rittenhofer andPovlsen 2015) in organic food systems. The benefits of bringing in different research perspectives, and the problems and methodological issues in doing so, characterize most of the papers in this theme.…”

Section: Multicriteria Assessment and Sustainability Transformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Opportunities and challenges for multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability

Alrøe¹,

Møller²,

Læssøe³

et al. 2016

E&S

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The focus of the Special Feature on "Multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability" is on the complex challenges of making and communicating overall assessments of food systems sustainability based on multiple and varied criteria. Four papers concern the choice and development of appropriate tools for making multicriteria sustainability assessments that handle built-in methodological conflicts and trade-offs between different assessment objectives. They underscore the value of linking diverse methods and tools, or nesting and stepping their deployment, to help build resilience and sustainability. They conclude that there is no one tool, one framework, or one indicator set that is appropriate for the different purposes and contexts of sustainability assessment. The process of creating the assessment framework also emerges as important: if the key stakeholders are not given a responsible and full role in the development of any assessment tool, it is less likely to be fit for their purpose and they are unlikely to take ownership or have confidence in it. Six other papers reflect on more fundamental considerations of how assessments are based in different scientific perspectives and on the role of values, motivation, and trust in relation to assessments in the development of more sustainable food systems. They recommend a radical break with the tradition of conducting multicriteria assessment from one hegemonic perspective to considering multiple perspectives. Collectively the contributions to this Special Feature identify three main challenges for improved multicriteria assessment of food system sustainability: (i) how to balance different types of knowledge to avoid that the most wellknown, precise, or easiest to measure dimensions of sustainability gets the most weight; (ii) how to expose the values in assessment tools and choices to allow evaluation of how they relate to the ethical principles of sustainable food systems, to societal goals, and to the interests of different stakeholders; and (iii) how to enable communication in such a way that the assessments can effectively contribute to the development of more sustainable food systems by facilitating a mutual learning process between researchers and stakeholders. The wider question of how to get from assessment to transformation goes across all three challenges. We strongly recommend future research on the strengths, weaknesses, and complementarities of taking a values-based rather than a performancebased approach to promoting the resilience and sustainability of coupled ecological, economic, and social systems for ensuring food security and agroecosystem health in the coming millennium.

show abstract