Search results

AbstractOne of the most significant and enduring ideas associated with the systems initiatives at Hawkesbury has been the interconnections that were made there between systemic acts of development in the 'concrete world' and the abstract 'epistemic developments' of the actors who participate in them. Each is seen to be constitutive of the other in a profoundly systemic manner, with 'concrete events' being both influenced by and an influence on 'abstract ideas'. The embrace of critical experiential strategies, which themselves are regarded as essentially systemic and reflexive in nature, has been a central feature of the pedagogies, research processes, and engagement strategies that have been designed to better facilitate this interconnection. As calls for more sustainable and equitable forms of development gather momentum across the globe, and the citizenry become increasingly engaged with issues that are seen to pose significant systemic global risks, the need for collective, communicative experiential strategies in the form of systemic discourse becomes evident. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractWith kind permission of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, we are able to publish Professor Richard Bawden's 'Von Bertalanffy Lecture', presented in July 1993, at the 37th Annual Meeting of the Society at the University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury, Australia.

Scenario praxis, critically explored as the theory-informed practice of scenarioing, is proposed as a modality for institutionalising knowing within a systemic governance framework. Framing and institutional considerations associated with a constructivist inquiry-based learning approach that might open capacity for innovation in future scenarioing praxis are outlined to complement and counterbalance positivistoriented evidence-based approaches. Drawing on espoused theoretical and epistemological commitments, background literature, researcher experience, and our framing choices, we describe a heuristic device for use ex post to critically examine accounts of past scenario development, or ex ante to generate scenarios. The heuristic and its process of generation are designed for use in context-sensitive ways suited to the systemic governance of climate change adaptation and similar situations that can be framed as 'wicked' or uncertain.

AbstractHawkesbury's Systemic Development differs from other systemic approaches is that it has a pedagogical, rather than methodological focus, with individual and social learning outcomes, and with ethical as well as instrumental concerns. The paper describes the logic of this approach, particularly the key role of epistemic learning in the development of systemic praxis. The approach is confronting epistemologically, and therefore emotionally, in the face of persistent experiential and conceptual challenges. The Centre for Systemic Development (CSD) was formed to enable a move to occur beyond the academy, and three early examples of its work are described. These illustrate the development of the extra‐mural process of systemic development, that include workshops and 'shop‐work' projects to enable the practice of: experiential and inspirational learning, self and social awareness, systemic methodologies, dealing with issues of complexity and ethics, and of a future orientation for strategic development. The university context proved too rigid for these activities, and therefore an independent Systemic Development Institute (SDI) was established to carry on the development of the ideas through praxis. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Topics for long articles (7500-10000 words each) are: Agricultural, food and environmental science- organization and focus of applied agrifood science, positivism and influence on course of agriculture, Green Revolution -- Agriculture and food technology- as distinct from above, discussion of key technologies including mechanizations, pesticides and biotechnology -- Aquaculture and fisheries- all aspects of fishing, including ocean impact, issues in whaling, fish farming -- Cooking, food preparation and eating- practice of cooking and eating, home and away, dietary rules, gender, ethnicity and ties to popular culture, eating as families, eating in restaurants, with friends -- Farming- to include all aspects of crop production including horiticulture, organization of farm labor -- Food and culture- religion and ethnicity as components of diet, food aesthetics, class, conspicuous consumption -- Grazing and livestock production- extensive and intensive animal production, including lead discussion on animal welfare -- Governance and regulatory policy- food safety, environmental impact and non-state process standards (e.g. sustainability, fair trade) -- Hunger and distributive justice- food security, extent and types of hunger, entitlements and food availability -- Land use - landscapes, conflicts over CAFOs, farmer access to land, zoning, tax policy relating to agriculture, links to forestry, outdoor recreation & conservation, agrarian reforms -- Nutrition, diet and health- principles of nutrition and nutrition policy, obesity, conflicts over healthy diets -- Rural development- agriculture vs. other elements in the contemporary development of rural communities -- Social movements- local food, organic food, fair trade, regionalism, and resistance movements in non-industrialized countries -- The food industry- structure of food industry from farm gate to the plate; industry concentration, industry standards and the impact on food availability, food deserts -- Trade- international trade, influences on agricultural development including export crops, protectionism & multifunctionalism

For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest management; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation platforms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups could now support further transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustainability.

Non-technical summary Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institutions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional policy support. Technical summary For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest management; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation platforms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups ...

For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later 20th and early 21st centuries prioritised unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions toward sustainability and equity. Here we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally-formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on 1) integrated pest management; 2) forests; 3) land; 4) water; 5) pastures; 6) support services; 7) innovation platforms; 8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.5M (at 2000) to 8.54M (2020). The area of land transformed by the 170-255M group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups could now support further transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustainability.

Non-technical summary Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institutions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional policy support. Technical summary For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and many rural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements, networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability and equity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborative groups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest management; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation platforms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that the number of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). The area of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly in less-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers working with scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomes and agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supported this growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups ...

Non-technical summary: Until the past half-century, all agriculture and land management was framed by local institutions strong in social capital. But neoliberal forms of development came to undermine existing structures, thus reducing sustainability and equity. The past 20 years, though, have seen the deliberate establishment of more than 8 million new social groups across the world. This restructuring and growth of rural social capital within specific territories is leading to increased productivity of agricultural and land management systems, with particular benefits for those previously excluded. Further growth would occur with more national and regional policy support. Technical summary: For agriculture and land management to improve natural capital over whole landscapes, social cooperation has long been required. The political economy of the later twentieth and earlytwenty-first centuries prioritized unfettered individual action over the collective, and manyrural institutions were harmed or destroyed. Since then, a wide range of social movements,networks and federations have emerged to support transitions towards sustainability andequity. Here, we focus on social capital manifested as intentionally formed collaborativegroups within specific geographic territories. These groups focus on: (1) integrated pest man-agement; (2) forests; (3) land; (4) water; (5) pastures; (6) support services; (7) innovation plat-forms; and (8) small-scale systems. We show across 122 initiatives in 55 countries that thenumber of groups has grown from 0.50 million (in 2000) to 8.54 million (in 2020). Thearea of land transformed by the 170–255 million group members is 300 Mha, mostly inless-developed countries (98% groups; 94% area). Farmers and land managers workingwith scientists and extensionists in these groups have improved both environmental outcomesand agricultural productivity. In some cases, changes to national or regional policy supportedthis growth in groups. Together with other movements, these social groups could now supportfurther transitions towards policies and behaviours for global sustainability.