"It's a balance of just getting things right"

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. This study was funded by NHS Grampian. FD, LC, JC, and GMcN receive personal support from the RESAS programme of the Scottish Government Nutrition and Health. We would also like to thank Caroline Comerford of NHS Grampian and other members of the research steering group for their advice during the study; the parents for their time and input; the nursery school staff for distributing study packs for parents; Andrea Gilmartin for organising the focus groups and Dr Sandra Carlisle for the helpful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Operationalizing local food: goals, actions, and indicators for alternative food systems

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. Spatial localization, often demarcated by food miles, has emerged as the dominant theme in movements for more socially just and environmentally benign alternative food systems, especially in industrialized countries such as the United States. We analyze how an emphasis on spatial localization, combined with the difficulty of defining and measuring adequate indicators for alternative food systems, can challenge efforts by food system researchers, environmental writers, the engaged public, and advocacy groups wanting to contribute to alternative food systems, and facilitates exploitation by the mainstream players using “localwash” to maintain the status quo. New indicators are urgently needed because research shows that spatial localization in general and minimized food miles in particular are not adequate or even required for most of the goals of alternative food systems. Creating indicators to operationalize goals for alternative, local food systems requires asking the right questions to make sure indicators are not misleading us: What are the goals of alternative food systems? What actions and policies will most effectively achieve those goals? What is the potential of reducing food miles as an action and a policy for achieving goals? What are the best indicators for measuring progress toward goals? We discuss how these questions can be answered for a wide range of alternative food system goals via four categories according to the role of food miles reduction as an action and policy in promoting them: necessary and sufficient, necessary but not sufficient, potentially important, and potentially supportive

Critical Food Pedagogy and Sustainable Development

Edited by Walter Leal, this encyclopedia serves as a tool to support universities across the world to implement sustainable development in higher education in a number of key areas, spread over 5 Sections: 1. Policy-making, visioning, structures, management and strategies 2. Teaching, learning and competencies 3. Research and transformation 4. Campus greening, design, operations and carbon impacts 5. Students and stakeholders´ initiatives and involvement The encyclopedia will be of special interest to administrators and managers at higher education institutions; academic staff (e.g. lecturers, professors, researchers); technical staff and students. Also, other groups working outside higher education, but interested on the theory and practice of sustainable development, will find its contents useful.Food pedagogy is the fusion of food-related content and experiential process as one co-occurrence. Coupled with the critique of, and solutions to food related issues, society forms power relations that serve as the foundational underpinnings of critical theory. The combining of food pedagogy and critical theory equates to critical food pedagogy

Stacking Functions: Identifying Motivational Frames Guiding Urban Agriculture Organizations and Businesses in the United States and Canada

While a growing body of scholarship identifies urban agriculture\u27s broad suite of benefits and drivers, it remains unclear how motivations to engage in urban agriculture (UA) interrelate or how they differ across cities and types of organizations. In this paper, we draw on survey responses collected from more than 250 UA organizations and businesses from 84 cities across the United States and Canada. Synthesizing the results of our quantitative analysis of responses (including principal components analysis), qualitative analysis of textual data excerpted from open-ended responses, and a review of existing literature, we describe six motivational frames that appear to guide organizations and businesses in their UA practice: Entrepreneurial, Sustainable Development, Educational, Eco-Centric, DIY Secessionist, and Radical. Identifying how practitioners stack functions and frame their work is a first step in helping to differentiate the diverse and often contradictory efforts transforming urban food environments. We demonstrate that a wide range of objectives impact how urban agriculturalists practice UA and that political orientations and discourses differ across geographies, organizational type and size, and funding regime. These six paradigms provide a basic framework for understanding UA that can guide more in-depth studies of the gap between intentions and outcomes, while helping link historically and geographically specific insights to wider social and political economic processes