农业粮食系统转型的政策中介:来自中欧、澳大利亚和美国的粮食政策团体

IF 5.2 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Friederike Elsner , Christian Herzig , Carola Strassner
{"title":"农业粮食系统转型的政策中介:来自中欧、澳大利亚和美国的粮食政策团体","authors":"Friederike Elsner ,&nbsp;Christian Herzig ,&nbsp;Carola Strassner","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Food policy groups (FPGs) are locally grounded approaches that engage with agri-food policy and challenge unsustainable practices. Thereby, FPGs intermediate between actors at the interface of civil society, science, policy and practice. As transition intermediaries, FPGs hold the potential to advance sustainability transitions. Yet, both their policy-related functions and the factors shaping their activities warrant closer investigation. Through the prism of transition intermediary research, we investigate the functions, policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government that constitute the policy intermediation of FPGs across three geographical contexts. Based on survey data of FPGs (n‎ = 260) across United States, middle Europe (mainly Germany) and Australia, we conduct a mixed-methods analysis, applying qualitative coding and statistical measures. We find that FPGs primarily intermediate in processes of social innovation, characterized by changing practices and social relations, rather than in the facilitation of technological innovations. We identify nine intermediary functions that remain similar across the three geographical contexts but differ from the functions typically associated with intermediation around technological innovations. FPGs engage in empowerment processes, network-building and work towards achieving collective goals. Due to FPGs’ nature as multi-actor platforms, they are conflict-ridden and arbitrate between distinct agri-food actors. The policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government differ across the three geographical contexts and thus seem to be context dependent. A stronger linkage to government does not appear to be associated with the policy priorities an FPG focusses on, suggesting that even FPGs with strong connections to government retain their independence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"173 ","pages":"Article 104227"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Policy intermediation for agri-food system transition: food policy groups from middle Europe, Australia and United States\",\"authors\":\"Friederike Elsner ,&nbsp;Christian Herzig ,&nbsp;Carola Strassner\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Food policy groups (FPGs) are locally grounded approaches that engage with agri-food policy and challenge unsustainable practices. Thereby, FPGs intermediate between actors at the interface of civil society, science, policy and practice. As transition intermediaries, FPGs hold the potential to advance sustainability transitions. Yet, both their policy-related functions and the factors shaping their activities warrant closer investigation. Through the prism of transition intermediary research, we investigate the functions, policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government that constitute the policy intermediation of FPGs across three geographical contexts. Based on survey data of FPGs (n‎ = 260) across United States, middle Europe (mainly Germany) and Australia, we conduct a mixed-methods analysis, applying qualitative coding and statistical measures. We find that FPGs primarily intermediate in processes of social innovation, characterized by changing practices and social relations, rather than in the facilitation of technological innovations. We identify nine intermediary functions that remain similar across the three geographical contexts but differ from the functions typically associated with intermediation around technological innovations. FPGs engage in empowerment processes, network-building and work towards achieving collective goals. Due to FPGs’ nature as multi-actor platforms, they are conflict-ridden and arbitrate between distinct agri-food actors. The policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government differ across the three geographical contexts and thus seem to be context dependent. A stronger linkage to government does not appear to be associated with the policy priorities an FPG focusses on, suggesting that even FPGs with strong connections to government retain their independence.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"173 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104227\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125002436\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125002436","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

粮食政策小组(FPGs)是基于当地的方法,参与农业粮食政策并挑战不可持续的做法。因此,FPGs是介于民间社会、科学、政策和实践之间的角色。作为过渡中介,fpga具有推进可持续性转型的潜力。然而,它们与政策有关的职能和影响其活动的因素都值得进一步研究。通过过渡中介研究的棱镜,我们研究了构成三种地理背景下FPGs政策中介的功能、政策优先事项、组织形式和与政府的关系。基于美国、中欧(主要是德国)和澳大利亚的FPGs (n = 260)的调查数据,我们采用定性编码和统计方法进行了混合方法分析。我们发现,FPGs主要是社会创新过程的中介,其特征是改变实践和社会关系,而不是促进技术创新。我们确定了九种中介功能,它们在三种地理环境中保持相似,但与技术创新中介的典型功能不同。fpg参与授权过程、网络建设和实现集体目标的工作。由于fps作为多参与者平台的性质,它们充满了冲突,并在不同的农业食品参与者之间进行仲裁。政策重点、组织形式和与政府的关系在三个地理环境中有所不同,因此似乎与环境有关。与政府的紧密联系似乎与FPG关注的政策优先事项无关,这表明即使与政府有紧密联系的pg也会保持其独立性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Policy intermediation for agri-food system transition: food policy groups from middle Europe, Australia and United States
Food policy groups (FPGs) are locally grounded approaches that engage with agri-food policy and challenge unsustainable practices. Thereby, FPGs intermediate between actors at the interface of civil society, science, policy and practice. As transition intermediaries, FPGs hold the potential to advance sustainability transitions. Yet, both their policy-related functions and the factors shaping their activities warrant closer investigation. Through the prism of transition intermediary research, we investigate the functions, policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government that constitute the policy intermediation of FPGs across three geographical contexts. Based on survey data of FPGs (n‎ = 260) across United States, middle Europe (mainly Germany) and Australia, we conduct a mixed-methods analysis, applying qualitative coding and statistical measures. We find that FPGs primarily intermediate in processes of social innovation, characterized by changing practices and social relations, rather than in the facilitation of technological innovations. We identify nine intermediary functions that remain similar across the three geographical contexts but differ from the functions typically associated with intermediation around technological innovations. FPGs engage in empowerment processes, network-building and work towards achieving collective goals. Due to FPGs’ nature as multi-actor platforms, they are conflict-ridden and arbitrate between distinct agri-food actors. The policy priorities, organizational forms and relationships to government differ across the three geographical contexts and thus seem to be context dependent. A stronger linkage to government does not appear to be associated with the policy priorities an FPG focusses on, suggesting that even FPGs with strong connections to government retain their independence.
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
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信