Despite significant effort in Europe and North America, the provision of public goods together with private goods is still not in balance and frequently not sustainable on farm or farm systems level. The key dilemma is how to produce a sufficient amount of public goods while having viable production of private goods securing economic and social sustainability at farm level, which is not too dependent on public funds. The dilemma has specific characteristics in different farming systems. Agroecological approaches are increasingly discussed as an alternative to farming based on chemical inputs as a way to address the dilemma. It is acknowledged that farming systems implementing such approaches generally require more knowledge and labour per hectare in comparison to conventional farming, but there is a need for a better understanding of the socio-economic and policy factors that hinder or enhance transitions towards agroecological farming.
Implementing agroecological transitions requires a wider systems perspective of interconnected processes and organisational levels in social-ecological systems, considering socio-economic, ecological and political settings at a territorial level beyond the farm-level (Duru et al. 2015). More research is needed to enhance the understanding of socio-economic and policy drivers and barriers for further development and implementation of agroecological approaches in European and North American farming systems to identify and facilitate transition processes towards sustainable agriculture and food systems. Three major domains must be considered for the transition to take place: adaptation of agricultural practices; conservation of biodiversity and natural resources; and development of embedded food systems (Wezel et al., 2016).
Our objective is to host a series of interlinked sessions to examine agroecological transitions and related governance issues. We aim for an interdisciplinary approach bringing together experience and expertise from different geographic contexts. We welcome conceptual, theoretical and empirical contributions that explore (but are not limited to):
- the strengths and weaknesses of different concepts and typologies that have been applied in the analysis of agroecological transitions in different geographic contexts;
- contributions theoretical frameworks such as socio-ecological systems, socio-technological systems and political ecology can provide to the discourse and analysis of agroecological farming;
- barriers and drivers of the engagement of farmers’ and other actors of the value chain in agroecological farming and food production;
- the ways in which different collective actions and efforts support or hinder agroecological transition;
- the roles that market incentives, innovative policy instruments (including result-based and cooperative approaches) and institutional arrangements play in fostering cooperation in agroecological transitions;
- the performance and sustainability of agroecological farming at farm and territorial levels.
References
Duru, M., O. Therond & M. Fares (2015) Designing agroecological transitions; A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35, 1237-1257.
Wezel, A., Brives, H., Casagrande, M., Clément, C., Dufour, A. and Vandenbroucke, P. (2016) Agroecology territories: places for sustainable agricultural and food systems and biodiversity conservation, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40:2, 132-144.
View the paper contributions in our sessions here:
Type: Virtual Paper
Sponsor Group(s): Geographies of Food and Agriculture Specialty Group, Human Dimensions of Global Change Specialty Group, Rural Geography Specialty Group
Start / End Time: 4/10/2021 05:00 PM (Central Europe Daylight Time) - 4/10/2021 06:15 PM (Central Europe Daylight Time)
Room: Virtual 12
Organizer(s): Gerald Schwarz, George Vlahos, Katalin Balázs, Andrea Povellato
Chairs: Gerald Schwarz
Presentations:
Daniel Kpienbaareh, Western University; Spatial and ecological farmer knowledge and decision-making about ecosystem services and biodiversity
Marina García Llorente, UAM; SAVIA-Sowing Alternatives for Agro-ecological Innovation
Type: Virtual Paper
Sponsor Group(s): Geographies of Food and Agriculture Specialty Group, Human Dimensions of Global Change Specialty Group, Rural Geography Specialty Group
Start / End Time: 4/10/2021 06:35 PM (Central Europe Daylight Time) - 4/10/2021 07:50 PM (Central Europe Daylight Time)
Room: Virtual 12
Organizer(s): Gerald Schwarz, Tania Runge, Francesco Vanni
Chairs: Francesco Vanni
Presentations:
Tania Runge, Thuenen Institute; Fostering agro-ecological transition though environmental engagement along the value chain – insights from the CONSOLE project
Anne Stratton, University of Michigan; Diversification supports farm profitability and improved working conditions during agroecological transitions
Daniele Vergamini, University of Pisa; The use of online-platforms for environmental collaboration of farmers at landscape level
Kaitlyn Spangler, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University; Assessing structural barriers and bridges to agricultural diversification in the U.S.
Type: Virtual Paper
Sponsor Group(s): Geographies of Food and Agriculture Specialty Group, Human Dimensions of Global Change Specialty Group, Rural Geography Specialty Group
Start / End Time: 4/10/2021 08:10 PM (Central Europe Daylight Time) - 4/10/2021 09:25 PM (Central Europe Daylight Time)
Room: Virtual 12
Organizer(s): Gerald Schwarz, Tania Runge, David Miller, George Vlahos
Chairs: Gerald Schwarz
Presentations:
Colin Anderson, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience at Coventry University; Agroecology Now! Transformations Towards More Just and Sustainable Food Systems
Theresa Eichhorn, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences; Fostering the provision of public goods by agriculture on landscape scale – the advantages of result-based and collective solutions
Type: Virtual Paper
Sponsor Group(s): Environmental Perception and Behavioral Geography Specialty Group, Geographies of Food and Agriculture Specialty Group, Human Dimensions of Global Change Specialty Group
Start / End Time: 4/10/2021 10:30 PM (Central Europe Daylight Time) - 4/10/2021 11:45 PM (Central Europe Daylight Time)
Room: Virtual 12
Organizer(s): Landon Yoder, Kira Sullivan-Wiley
Chairs: Landon Yoder
Description
This session is intended to bring together scholars interested in psychological, social, and institutional dimensions of agri-environmental governance (AEG). AEG refers to the formal and informal institutional arrangements that govern coupled human-natural systems predominantly under agriculture. AEG has been recognized as shaping global environmental changes and challenges related to biodiversity loss, clean water, ecosystem resilience, food production and distribution, and climate change (Foley et al. 2005; Kramer et al. 2017).
Despite the recognized role of agricultural management in shaping the health of our food, water, and atmospheric systems on a global scale, there remain gaps in our understanding of what drives farmer decisions to adopt more pro-environment practices. Programs specifically targeting farmer behavior have seen mixed results in promoting the adoption of conservation practices (Kuhfuss et al. 2016; Carlisle 2016; Ribaudo 2015, Gunningham & Sinclair 2005). The past decades have seen great strides in understanding individual farmer risk perceptions (e.g., Fleming and Vanclay 2009; Maas et al. 2020), the diffusion of new technologies among farmers (e.g., Coughenour 2003), and in the socio-economic factors that contribute to land management decisions (e.g., Helling et al. 2015). Our understanding of individual farmer action has grown, but research on the social and institutional factors shaping farm decisions remains a critical gap (Prokopy et al. 2019, Yoder et al. 2019).
More research is needed on how psychological and social dynamics, institutional arrangements, and policy interventions, such as payments for ecosystem services, motivate or constrain farmers’ environmental behaviors or decision processes. Emerging areas of research that are addressing these concerns include a focus on identity and social norms (Burton 2004, McGuire et al. 2013, Bell et al. 2018), novel program and policy designs that engage collaborative aspects of conservation practices (Del Corso et al. 2017, Narloch et al. 2017, Yoder & Roy Chowdhury 2018), and efforts to measure environmental outcomes from agroecosystem management that can feedback to inform decision-making (Boardman et al. 2017).
Presentations:
Nicholas Magliocca, Department of Geography; Two of a kind? Large-scale land acquisitions and commodity frontier expansion in Argentina’s Dry Chaco
Landon Yoder, Indiana University; Long-Term Agricultural Nutrient Trends in the Florida Everglades: Implications for Governing Diffuse Water Pollution
Aimee Morse, Countryside and Community Research Institute; Developing a framework for the successful facilitation of collaborative agri-environmental management: insights from Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund groups in England
Jenna Davis, Yale University; Understanding Climate Change Perceptions through Assemblages: A case study from Northern and Southern Provinces, Zambia
Kurt Waldman, Dept of Geography; Recent directions in behavioral geography: Agricultural decision making and climate change
Reference list
Bell, A., J. Zavaleta Cheek, F. Mataya, and P. Ward. 2018. Do As They Did: Peer Effects Explain Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Malawi. Water 10 (1):51.
Boardman, J., S. Bateman, and S. Seymour. 2017. Understanding the influence of farmer motivations on changes to soil erosion risk on sites of former serious erosion in the South Downs National Park, UK. Land Use Policy 60:298–312.
Burton, R. J. F. 2004. Seeing through the “good farmer”s’ eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of “productivist” behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2):195–215.
Burton, R. J. F., and U. H. Paragahawewa. 2011. Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies 27:95–104.
Carlisle, L. 2016. Factors influencing farmer adoption of soil health practices in the United States: A narrative review. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 40 (6):583–613.
Coughenour, C. M. 2003. Innovating conservation agriculture: The case of no-till cropping. Rural Sociology 68 (2):278–304.
Del Corso, J.-P., T. D. P. G. Nguyen, and C. Kephaliacos. 2017. Acceptance of a payment of ecosystem services scheme: The decisive influence of collective action. Environmental Values 26:177–202.
Emery, S. B., and J. R. Franks. 2012. The potential for collaborative agri-environment schemes in England: Can a well-designed collaborative approach address farmers’ concerns with current schemes? Journal of Rural Studies 28:218–231.
Fleming, A., & Vanclay, F. (2010). Farmer responses to climate change and sustainable agriculture: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 30(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009028
Foley, J. A., R. DeFries, G. P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S. R. Carpenter, F. S. Chapin, M. T. Coe, G. C. Daily, H. K. Gibbs, J. H. Helkowski, T. Holloway, E. A. Howard, C. J. Kucharik, C. Monfreda, J. A. Patz, I. C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty, and P. K. Snyder. 2005. Global Consequences of Land Use. Science 309:570–574.
Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (2005). Policy Instrument Choice and Diffuse Source Pollution. Journal of Environmental Law, 17(1), 51-81
Helling, A., Conner, D., Heiss, S., & Berlin, L. (2015). Economic analysis of climate change best management practices in Vermont agriculture. Agriculture, 5(3), 879-900.
Kramer, D. B., J. Hartter, A. E. Boag, M. Jain, K. Stevens, K. Ann Nicholas, W. J. McConnell, and J. Liu. 2017. Top 40 questions in coupled human and natural systems (CHANS) research. Ecology and Society 22(2):44.
Kuhfuss, L., R. Préget, S. Thoyer, and N. Hanley. 2016. Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: The role of a collective bonus. European Review of Agricultural Economics 43 (4):609–636.
Leventon, J., T. Schaal, S. Velten, J. Dänhardt, J. Fischer, D. J. Abson, and J. Newig. 2017. Collaboration or fragmentation? Biodiversity management through the common agricultural policy. Land Use Policy 64:1–12.
Maas, A., C. Wardropper, G. Roesch-McNally, and J. Abatzoglou. 2020. A (mis)alignment of farmer experience and perceptions of climate change in the U.S. inland Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change.
McGuire, J., L. W. Morton, and A. D. Cast. 2013. Reconstructing the Good Farmer Identity: Shifts in Farmer Identities and Farm Management Practices to Improve Water Quality. Agriculture and Human Values 30:57–69.
Narloch, U., A. G. Drucker, and U. Pascual. 2017. What role for cooperation in conservation tenders? Paying farmer groups in the High Andes. Land Use Policy 63:659–671.
Prokopy, L. S., K. Floress, J. G. Arbuckle, S. P. Church, F. R. Eanes, Y. Gao, B. M. Gramig, P. Ranjan, and A. S. Singh. 2019. Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 74 (5):520–534.
Ribaudo, M. 2015. The limits of voluntary conservation programs. Choices 30 (2):1–5.
Yoder, L., A. S. Ward, K. Dalrymple, S. Spak, and R. Lave. 2019. An analysis of conservation practice adoption studies in agricultural human-natural systems. Journal of Environmental Management 236:490–498.