将农业发展与社会愿景进行比较的方法

IF 6.4 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRONOMY
Julian Helfenstein, Vasco Diogo, Matthias Bürgi, Peter H. Verburg, Beatrice Schüpbach, Erich Szerencsits, Franziska Mohr, Michael Siegrist, Rebecca Swart, Felix Herzog
{"title":"将农业发展与社会愿景进行比较的方法","authors":"Julian Helfenstein,&nbsp;Vasco Diogo,&nbsp;Matthias Bürgi,&nbsp;Peter H. Verburg,&nbsp;Beatrice Schüpbach,&nbsp;Erich Szerencsits,&nbsp;Franziska Mohr,&nbsp;Michael Siegrist,&nbsp;Rebecca Swart,&nbsp;Felix Herzog","doi":"10.1007/s13593-021-00739-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There is broad agreement that agriculture has to become more sustainable in order to provide enough affordable, healthy food at minimal environmental and social costs. But what is “more sustainable”? More often than not, different stakeholders have opposing opinions on what a more sustainable future should look like. This normative dimension is rarely explicitly addressed in sustainability assessments. In this study, we present an approach to assess the sustainability of agricultural development that explicitly accounts for the normative dimension by comparing observed development with various societal visions. We illustrate the approach by analyzing farm- and landscape-scale development as well as sustainability outcomes in a Swiss case study landscape. Observed changes were juxtaposed with desired changes by Avenir Suisse, a liberal think tank representing free-market interests; the Swiss Farmers Association, representing a conservative force; and Landwirtschaft mit Zukunft, an exponent of the Swiss agroecological movement. Overall, the observed developments aligned most closely with desired developments of the liberal think-tank (72%). Farmer interviews revealed that in the case study area farms increased in size (+ 57%) and became more specialized and more productive (+ 223%) over the past 20 years. In addition, interpretation of aerial photographs indicated that farming became more rationalized at the landscape level, with increasing field sizes (+ 34%) and removal of solitary field trees (− 18%). The case study example highlights the varying degrees to which current developments in agriculture align with societal visions. By using societal visions as benchmarks to track the progress of agricultural development, while explicitly addressing their narratives and respective systems of values and norms, this approach offers opportunities to inform also the wider public on the extent to which current developments are consistent with different visions. This could help identify mismatches between desired and actual development and pave the way for designing new policies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7721,"journal":{"name":"Agronomy for Sustainable Development","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13593-021-00739-3.pdf","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An approach for comparing agricultural development to societal visions\",\"authors\":\"Julian Helfenstein,&nbsp;Vasco Diogo,&nbsp;Matthias Bürgi,&nbsp;Peter H. Verburg,&nbsp;Beatrice Schüpbach,&nbsp;Erich Szerencsits,&nbsp;Franziska Mohr,&nbsp;Michael Siegrist,&nbsp;Rebecca Swart,&nbsp;Felix Herzog\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13593-021-00739-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There is broad agreement that agriculture has to become more sustainable in order to provide enough affordable, healthy food at minimal environmental and social costs. But what is “more sustainable”? More often than not, different stakeholders have opposing opinions on what a more sustainable future should look like. This normative dimension is rarely explicitly addressed in sustainability assessments. In this study, we present an approach to assess the sustainability of agricultural development that explicitly accounts for the normative dimension by comparing observed development with various societal visions. We illustrate the approach by analyzing farm- and landscape-scale development as well as sustainability outcomes in a Swiss case study landscape. Observed changes were juxtaposed with desired changes by Avenir Suisse, a liberal think tank representing free-market interests; the Swiss Farmers Association, representing a conservative force; and Landwirtschaft mit Zukunft, an exponent of the Swiss agroecological movement. Overall, the observed developments aligned most closely with desired developments of the liberal think-tank (72%). Farmer interviews revealed that in the case study area farms increased in size (+ 57%) and became more specialized and more productive (+ 223%) over the past 20 years. In addition, interpretation of aerial photographs indicated that farming became more rationalized at the landscape level, with increasing field sizes (+ 34%) and removal of solitary field trees (− 18%). The case study example highlights the varying degrees to which current developments in agriculture align with societal visions. By using societal visions as benchmarks to track the progress of agricultural development, while explicitly addressing their narratives and respective systems of values and norms, this approach offers opportunities to inform also the wider public on the extent to which current developments are consistent with different visions. This could help identify mismatches between desired and actual development and pave the way for designing new policies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agronomy for Sustainable Development\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13593-021-00739-3.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agronomy for Sustainable Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-021-00739-3\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRONOMY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agronomy for Sustainable Development","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-021-00739-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

人们普遍认为,农业必须变得更加可持续,才能以最低的环境和社会成本提供足够的负担得起的健康食品。但什么是“更可持续”?通常情况下,不同的利益相关者对更可持续的未来应该是什么样子有着相反的意见。可持续性评估很少明确涉及这一规范层面。在这项研究中,我们提出了一种评估农业发展可持续性的方法,通过将观察到的发展与各种社会愿景进行比较,明确说明了规范维度。我们通过分析农场和景观规模的发展以及瑞士案例研究景观的可持续性结果来说明这种方法。代表自由市场利益的自由派智库Avenir Suisse将观察到的变化与期望的变化并置;代表保守势力的瑞士农民协会;以及瑞士农业生态运动的倡导者祖昆夫特的Landwirtschaft。总体而言,观察到的发展与自由派智囊团的预期发展最为一致(72%)。农民访谈显示,在案例研究中,农场的规模有所增加(+ 57%),并变得更加专业化和高效(+ 223%)。此外,对航拍照片的解释表明,随着田地面积的增加,农业在景观层面变得更加合理(+ 34%)和移除单独的田间树木(− 18%)。案例研究的例子突出了当前农业发展与社会愿景的不同程度。通过将社会愿景作为跟踪农业发展进展的基准,同时明确阐述其叙述以及各自的价值观和规范体系,这种方法也为广大公众提供了机会,让他们了解当前的发展在多大程度上符合不同的愿景。这可能有助于识别预期发展与实际发展之间的不匹配,并为制定新政策铺平道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An approach for comparing agricultural development to societal visions

There is broad agreement that agriculture has to become more sustainable in order to provide enough affordable, healthy food at minimal environmental and social costs. But what is “more sustainable”? More often than not, different stakeholders have opposing opinions on what a more sustainable future should look like. This normative dimension is rarely explicitly addressed in sustainability assessments. In this study, we present an approach to assess the sustainability of agricultural development that explicitly accounts for the normative dimension by comparing observed development with various societal visions. We illustrate the approach by analyzing farm- and landscape-scale development as well as sustainability outcomes in a Swiss case study landscape. Observed changes were juxtaposed with desired changes by Avenir Suisse, a liberal think tank representing free-market interests; the Swiss Farmers Association, representing a conservative force; and Landwirtschaft mit Zukunft, an exponent of the Swiss agroecological movement. Overall, the observed developments aligned most closely with desired developments of the liberal think-tank (72%). Farmer interviews revealed that in the case study area farms increased in size (+ 57%) and became more specialized and more productive (+ 223%) over the past 20 years. In addition, interpretation of aerial photographs indicated that farming became more rationalized at the landscape level, with increasing field sizes (+ 34%) and removal of solitary field trees (− 18%). The case study example highlights the varying degrees to which current developments in agriculture align with societal visions. By using societal visions as benchmarks to track the progress of agricultural development, while explicitly addressing their narratives and respective systems of values and norms, this approach offers opportunities to inform also the wider public on the extent to which current developments are consistent with different visions. This could help identify mismatches between desired and actual development and pave the way for designing new policies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 农林科学-农艺学
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
8.20%
发文量
108
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Agronomy for Sustainable Development (ASD) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal of international scope, dedicated to publishing original research articles, review articles, and meta-analyses aimed at improving sustainability in agricultural and food systems. The journal serves as a bridge between agronomy, cropping, and farming system research and various other disciplines including ecology, genetics, economics, and social sciences. ASD encourages studies in agroecology, participatory research, and interdisciplinary approaches, with a focus on systems thinking applied at different scales from field to global levels. Research articles published in ASD should present significant scientific advancements compared to existing knowledge, within an international context. Review articles should critically evaluate emerging topics, and opinion papers may also be submitted as reviews. Meta-analysis articles should provide clear contributions to resolving widely debated scientific questions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信