Suchergebnisse

AbstractAlternative Food Networks (AFNs) are often mentioned as a way to reconfigure the link between producers and consumers and build trust in the food system. This article explores the function, configuration and generation of trust in AFNs. The structure is twofold. First we discuss the theoretical underpinnings of trust, in both recent AFN literature and in sociology, and develop a conceptual framework for analysing trust in AFNs. Second, we explore the function, configuration and generation of trust in the Food Communities of Copenhagen and Aarhus (in Danish: 'Fødevarefællesskaberne'). The Food Communities are a network of urban consumers sourcing organic products from regional producers. Empirically, the article demonstrates how trust functions as a mechanism that creates coherency and which facilitates co‐operation in the food network. Furthermore, the Food Communities are characterised by high levels of systemic and personal trust. Several mechanisms, such as managing expectations, establishing trustworthiness, and developing a common normative basis, are employed and contribute to the generation and maintenance of trust.

AbstractThe organic movement has its roots in a critical attitude towards the capitalist development of farming and food systems and constitutes in that sense an alternative to conventional food systems. The article aims at exploring which meaning the notions of 'alternative' and 'conventional' carry, using the historical development of organic food in Denmark as an example. From the 1970s and onwards, organic food networks in Denmark have evolved from being primarily a marginal social movement to becoming included in the market mainstream. The social and spatial settings for organic food networks in Denmark have thus been significantly altered. Using debates on the conventionalisation of organic food systems as the starting point, it is argued in this article that this development in Denmark can be interpreted from a relational perspective as an ongoing process of establishing organisational innovations, which transcends established dichotomies between notions like alternative and mainstream.

Management of Nitrogen (N) losses and the related greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most important environmental issues related to agriculture. This report shows examples of an integrated model tool, developed to quantify the N‐dynamics at the complex interface between agriculture and the environment, and quantify effects of different management practices. Based on results from the EU funded research projects NitroEurope (www.NitroEurope.eu) and MEAscope (www.MEA‐scope.org), examples from the quantification of farm N‐losses in European agricultural landscapes are demonstrated. Applications of the dynamic whole farm model FASSET (www.FASSET.dk), and the Farm‐N tool (www.farm‐N.dk/FarmNTool) to calculate farm N balances, and distribute the surplus N between different types of N‐losses (volatilisation, denitrification, leaching), and the related greenhouse gas emissions, show significant variation between landscapes and management practices. Moreover, significant effects of the nonlinearities, appearing when integrating over time, and scaling up from farm to landscape, are demonstrated. Finally, perspectives for stakeholder involvement is included and general recommendations for landscape level management of farm related nitrogen and greenhouse gas fluxes are made, and discussed in relation to ongoing research in the European research projects.

In 2014, a radical shift took place in Danish water planning. Following years of a top-down water planning approach, 23 regional water councils were established to co-create and provide input to Danish authorities on the development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP). The water councils advised local authorities on the application of measures to improve the physical conditions in Danish streams within a given economic frame. The paper shows the difference the use of water councils (public participation) made by comparing the final water council proposal included in the 2015 RBMP to the RBMPs proposed by the central government (Nature Agency) in 2014. The study concludes that the measures proposed by the water councils will generally deliver better results than the proposed Nature Agency plans, which do not include the same level of participation. Specifically, the water councils with stakeholder involvement proposed a much longer network of streams (3800 km), yielding a better ecological outcome than the shorter stream network (1615 km) proposed by the Nature Agency for the same budget. Having a structured and fixed institutional frame around public participation (top-down meeting bottom-up) can produce cost-effective results, but the results show that cost-effectiveness was not the only deciding factor, and that local circumstances like the practicalities of implementing the measures were also considered when developing the Programmes of Measures. The findings suggest that the use of water councils in water planning has significant advantages, including the fact that the knowledge of local conditions helps to identify efficient solutions at lower costs, which can be useful for administrators, policy-makers, and other stakeholders implementing the Water Framework Directive in years to come.

In 2014, a radical shift took place in Danish water planning. Following years of a top-down water planning approach, 23 regional water councils were established to co-create and provide input to Danish authorities on the development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP). The water councils advised local authorities on the application of measures to improve the physical conditions in Danish streams within a given economic frame. The paper shows the difference the use of water councils (public participation) made by comparing the final water council proposal included in the 2015 RBMP to the RBMPs proposed by the central government (Nature Agency) in 2014. The study concludes that the measures proposed by the water councils will generally deliver better results than the proposed Nature Agency plans, which do not include the same level of participation. Specifically, the water councils with stakeholder involvement proposed a much longer network of streams (3800 km), yielding a better ecological outcome than the shorter stream network (1615 km) proposed by the Nature Agency for the same budget. Having a structured and fixed institutional frame around public participation (top-down meeting bottom-up) can produce cost-effective results, but the results show that cost-effectiveness was not the only deciding factor, and that local circumstances like the practicalities of implementing the measures were also considered when developing the Programmes of Measures. The findings suggest that the use of water councils in water planning has significant advantages, including the fact that the knowledge of local conditions helps to identify efficient solutions at lower costs, which can be useful for administrators, policy-makers, and other stakeholders implementing theWater Framework Directive in years to come. ; In 2014, a radical shift took place in Danish water planning. Following years of a top-down water planning approach, 23 regional water councils were established to co-create and provide input to Danish authorities on the development of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP). The water councils advised local authorities on the application of measures to improve the physical conditions in Danish streams within a given economic frame. The paper shows the difference the use of water councils (public participation) made by comparing the final water council proposal included in the 2015 RBMP to the RBMPs proposed by the central government (Nature Agency) in 2014. The study concludes that the measures proposed by the water councils will generally deliver better results than the proposed Nature Agency plans, which do not include the same level of participation. Specifically, the water councils with stakeholder involvement proposed a much longer network of streams (3800 km), yielding a better ecological outcome than the shorter stream network (1615 km) proposed by the Nature Agency for the same budget. Having a structured and fixed institutional frame around public participation (top-down meeting bottom-up) can produce cost-effective results, but the results show that cost-effectiveness was not the only deciding factor, and that local circumstances like the practicalities of implementing the measures were also considered when developing the Programmes of Measures. The findings suggest that the use of water councils in water planning has significant advantages, including the fact that the knowledge of local conditions helps to identify efficient solutions at lower costs, which can be useful for administrators, policy-makers, and other stakeholders implementing theWater Framework Directive in years to come.

Under the Water Framework Directive, public participation was identified as a key part of water planning. This caused a paradigm shift in Danish water planning. Water councils in River Basin Districts were established to provide public input on how to improve the physical conditions in streams. A study of the water councils found that Denmark has complied with the requirements of making background information available to the public and ensuring consultation. The facilitation of the councils' processes has worked well. However, while they are presented as the 'new governance option' in Danish water planning, this does not accord with reality. The water council processes are limited in scope and controlled by the central government. Their process can be better characterized as expanded stakeholder consultation, officially part of the policy process but involving very little active public involvement. The article concludes by indicating the consequences for participation and collaborative innovation.

Adaption to climate change in the context of agriculture involves collaborative planning and development of practices which is deemed more sustainable than preceeding practices. It is however not given that sustainable development will be the outcome of such efforts. In some cases, even motivated participants experience that despite good intentions, high levels of knowledge, feasible models, appropriate technologies and many other factors present, they still might not succeed bringing about the desired change. The reasons for this can not easily be reduced to just one factor, but is very likely to be the outcome of highly complex interactions between social, technological, institutional, or even personal factors. The report documents attempts to understand the complexities of climate change adaption in a Danish water catchment, Lundgaards Bæk, which is dominated by dairy farming. As part of the EU projects AQUARIUS and MACSUR, a local action group was formed which was composed of local farmers, local agricultural advisors, advisors from the national agricultural advisory service, environmental planners from the local municipality, and environmental planners from the national environmental agency in Denmark. The action group was supposed to develop specific measures, which were supposed to lead to an overall reduction in nitrogen loading of the neighboring fjord, Mariager Fjord. The report addresses three related research themes: (1) how do the stakeholders in question interact during the process of climate change adaption, (2) when do the stakeholders encounter opportunities and barriers during the process, and finally (3) does the adaption process in question lead to the desired outcomes? The empirical background of the report is a detailed process study of dynamics within a group of stakeholders, including farmers and extension officers, who were supposed to develop sustainable management practices in order to reduce nitrogen leaching to the Mariager Fjord. The study is based on the assumption that in order for research and policy to contribute to sustainable practices, deeper understanding of complex dynamics within stakeholder partnerships is needed. Based on a theoretical framework derived from social learning, adaptive co-management and Andrew Pickering's notion of 'the mangle', different in-depth explanations to why sustainable development did not occur, are offered. One explanation concerns social-psychological dynamics of knowledge. Another explanation concerns the mechanisms by which social and material forces affect outcomes of the adaption process. The report concludes by exploring the study's relevance in relation to policy, research and practice, followed by suggestions for further in-depth case studies and experimentation in practice.

Soil quality is in decline in many parts of the world, in part due to the intensification of agricultural practices. Whilst economic instruments and regulations can help incentivise uptake of more sustainable soil management practices, they rarely motivate long-term behavior change when used alone. There has been increasing attention towards the complex social factors that affect uptake of sustainable soil management practices. To understand why some communities try these practices whilst others do not, we undertook a narrative review to understand how social capital influences adoption in developed nations. We found that the four components of social capital – trust, norms, connectedness and power – can all influence the decision of farmers to change their soil management. Specifically, information flows more effectively across trusted, diverse networks where social norms exist to encourage innovation. Uptake is more limited in homogenous, close-knit farming communities that do not have many links with non-farmers and where there is a strong social norm to adhere to the status quo. Power can enhance or inhibit uptake depending on its characteristics. Future research, policy and practice should consider whether a lack of social capital could hinder uptake of new practices and, if so, which aspects of social capital could be developed to increase adoption of sustainable soil management practices. Enabling diverse, collaborative groups (including farmers, advisers and government officials) to work constructively together could help build social capital, where they can co-define, -develop and -enact measures to sustainably manage soils.

Soil quality is in decline in many parts of the world, in part due to the intensification of agricultural practices. Whilst economic instruments and regulations can help incentivise uptake of more sustainable soil management practices, they rarely motivate long-term behavior change when used alone. There has been increasing attention towards the complex social factors that affect uptake of sustainable soil management practices. To understand why some communities try these practices whilst others do not, we undertook a narrative review to understand how social capital influences adoption in developed nations. We found that the four components of social capital – trust, norms, connectedness and power – can all influence the decision of farmers to change their soil management. Specifically, information flows more effectively across trusted, diverse networks where social norms exist to encourage innovation. Uptake is more limited in homogenous, close-knit farming communities that do not have many links with non-farmers and where there is a strong social norm to adhere to the status quo. Power can enhance or inhibit uptake depending on its characteristics. Future research, policy and practice should consider whether a lack of social capital could hinder uptake of new practices and, if so, which aspects of social capital could be developed to increase adoption of sustainable soil management practices. Enabling diverse, collaborative groups (including farmers, advisers and government officials) to work constructively together could help build social capital, where they can co-define, -develop and -enact measures to sustainably manage soils.