Unmasking the commodity chain
In: Peace review: peace, security & global change, Band 16, Heft 2, S. 193-198
ISSN: 1469-9982
38 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Peace review: peace, security & global change, Band 16, Heft 2, S. 193-198
ISSN: 1469-9982
In: Peace review: peace, security & global change, Band 15, Heft 1, S. 99-103
ISSN: 1469-9982
In: Teaching sociology: TS, Band 30, Heft 2, S. 264
ISSN: 1939-862X
In: Teaching sociology: TS, Band 30, Heft 2, S. 262
ISSN: 1939-862X
In: Rural sociology, Band 85, Heft 2, S. 545-574
ISSN: 1549-0831
AbstractOnce reliant on year‐long periods of unvegetated fallow, dryland farmers are reaping environmental and economic benefits by replacing fallow with a crop, a practice called cropping system intensification. However, in the U.S. High Plains, transitions to intensified cropping systems have been slow relative to other regions, and cropping systems have stratified into varying degrees of intensity. Prior attempts to explain the wave of cropping system intensification have largely focused on simple economic rationales, and thus we lack a critical understanding of the social dynamics underlying the revolution in semi‐arid cropping systems. We examined the motivations, perceptions, and social interactions of dryland farmers that practice different levels of cropping system intensity in Colorado and Nebraska. Building on Carolan's application of Bourdieusian social fields to agriculture, we identify overlapping fields expressed among interviewees. While these fields are reflected in farms' different degrees of intensification, they can be used to help identify and locate farmers associated with the emerging soil health (or regenerative agriculture) movement. The paper concludes by identifying strategies for change, some which would serve to reshape social fields, and others which leverage existing social positions and relationships to enable farmers to overcome the barriers constraining cropping system intensification.
Includes bibliographical references (pages 8-10). ; The growing interest in incentivizing sustainable agricultural practices is supported by a large network of voluntary production standards, which aim to offer farmers and ranchers increased value for their product in support of reduced environmental impact. To be effective with producers and consumers alike, these standards must be both credible and broadly recognizable, and thus are typically highly generalizable. However, the environmental impact of agriculture is strongly place-based and varies considerably due to complex biophysical, socio-cultural, and management-based factors, even within a given sector in a particular region. We suggest that this contradiction between the placeless generality of standards and the placed-ness of agriculture renders many sustainability standards ineffective. In this policy and practice review, we examine this contradiction through the lens of beef production, with a focus on an ongoing regional food purchasing effort in Denver, Colorado, USA. We review the idea of place in the context of agricultural sustainability, drawing on life cycle analysis and diverse literature to find that recognition of place-specific circumstances is essential to understanding environmental impact and improving outcomes. We then examine the case of the Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP), a broad set of food-purchasing standards currently being implemented for institutional purchasing in Denver. The GFPP was created through a lengthy stakeholder-inclusive process for use in Los Angeles, California, USA, and has since been applied to many cities across the country. The difference between Los Angeles' process and that of applying the result of Los Angeles' process to Denver is instructive, and emblematic of the flaws of generalizable sustainability standards themselves. We then describe the essential elements of a place-based approach to agricultural sustainability standards, pointing toward a democratic, process-based, and outcome-oriented strategy that results in standards that enable rather than hinder the creativity of both producers and consumers. Though prescription is anathema to our approach, we close by offering a starting point for the development of standards for beef production in Colorado that respect the work of people in place.
BASE
Includes bibliographical references (pages 8-10). ; The growing interest in incentivizing sustainable agricultural practices is supported by a large network of voluntary production standards, which aim to offer farmers and ranchers increased value for their product in support of reduced environmental impact. To be effective with producers and consumers alike, these standards must be both credible and broadly recognizable, and thus are typically highly generalizable. However, the environmental impact of agriculture is strongly place-based and varies considerably due to complex biophysical, socio-cultural, and management-based factors, even within a given sector in a particular region. We suggest that this contradiction between the placeless generality of standards and the placed-ness of agriculture renders many sustainability standards ineffective. In this policy and practice review, we examine this contradiction through the lens of beef production, with a focus on an ongoing regional food purchasing effort in Denver, Colorado, USA. We review the idea of place in the context of agricultural sustainability, drawing on life cycle analysis and diverse literature to find that recognition of place-specific circumstances is essential to understanding environmental impact and improving outcomes. We then examine the case of the Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP), a broad set of food-purchasing standards currently being implemented for institutional purchasing in Denver. The GFPP was created through a lengthy stakeholder-inclusive process for use in Los Angeles, California, USA, and has since been applied to many cities across the country. The difference between Los Angeles' process and that of applying the result of Los Angeles' process to Denver is instructive, and emblematic of the flaws of generalizable sustainability standards themselves. We then describe the essential elements of a place-based approach to agricultural sustainability standards, pointing toward a democratic, process-based, and outcome-oriented strategy that results in standards that enable rather than hinder the creativity of both producers and consumers. Though prescription is anathema to our approach, we close by offering a starting point for the development of standards for beef production in Colorado that respect the work of people in place.
BASE