Keck, Markus

English

Hintergrund: Im Anschluss an die Erwerbszeit gestaltet sich das Gesundheitsverhalten bei Menschen im Ruhestand unterschiedlich. Doch welche Möglichkeiten bestehen aus Sicht der Betroffenen, um gesundheitsrelevante Veränderungsabsichten leichter umzusetzen? Und wie können daraus neue Gewohnheiten etabliert werden? Methodik: Im August 2020 erfolgte die Datenerhebung im Rahmen einer qualitativen Forschung durch Face-to-face-Interviews mit deduktiv ausgewählten Personen in der nachberuflichen Lebensphase. Das gewonnene Material wurde systematisch und regelgeleitet auf Basis der qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse nach Mayring ausgewertet. Zur Orientierung diente ein Kodierleitfaden in Anlehnung an das HAPA-Modell (Health Action Process Approach model). Ergebnisse: Die Aussagen der Befragten deuten auf eine starke Absichtsbildung als bedeutendsten Vorhersagewert für eine längerfristige Durchführung von gesundheitsfördernden Handlungen hin. Weitere Verstärker zeigen sich in der selbstbestimmten Schaffung neuer Gewohnheiten, der Visualisierung von Vorteilen, einem Barrierenmanagement, Erfolgserlebnissen, Ersatzbefriedigungen und individuellen Handlungsplänen, die auch Freude bereitende Aspekte beinhalten. Schlussfolgerung: Unter Beachtung mehrerer beeinflussender Faktoren könnten die Erfolgsaussichten bei selbstgesteckten Gesundheitszielen wirksam erhöht werden. In Eigenregie oder gemeinschaftlich erstellte Konzepte würden dabei als Verstärker wirken. Zu diesem Zweck könnte ein niedrigschwelliges Seminarangebot unterstützend zur Verfügung gestellt und ggf. in Kooperation mit Ärzt*innen, Krankenhäusern oder Rehabilitationseinrichtungen forciert werden. Auch situative Einflüsse scheinen die Absichtsbildung zu beeinflussen und sollten daher in das HAPA-Modell (Health Action Process Approach model) integriert werden

Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (hbz)

Sustainability in agri-food systems: transformative trajectories toward the post-Anthropocene

OPUS Augsburg

Vol.:(0123456789) Sustainability Science (2021) 16:717–719 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00947-6ANNOUNCEMENTSustainability in agri‑food systems: transformative trajectories toward the post‑AnthropoceneMarkus Keck1Published online: 12 April 2021 © The Author(s) 2021BackgroundCurrent agri-food systems cause severe environmental, soci-oeconomic, and health-related problems. The ways how food and other agricultural goods are produced, marketed, con-sumed, and disposed of are leading drivers of environmen-tal degradation and climate change (Campbell et al. 2017; Weis 2010). At the same time, large-scale profit-oriented agri-food corporations exploit economically underprivileged workers and thus help intensifying socioeconomic divides and deprivation in our societies, accompanied by increas-ing rates of malnutrition and ill-health through unbalanced diets (Gordon et al. 2017; Lindgren et al. 2018; Winson and Choi 2017). Against this background, business as usual is no longer an option. Change is needed, and this change must necessarily be based on bold theoretical thinking and practi-cal economic transformation.This Special Feature gathers scholars from a wide range of academic disciplines and provides them a space for pre-senting innovative empirical case studies and critical theo-retical reflections that together help rethinking how sustain-ability in agri-food systems can be achieved. The essential idea is to illustrate possibilities of creating agri-food systems that foster biodiversity, provide involved practitioners with prestigious jobs and decent income, and enable consumers to access healthy diets at reasonable prices while reduc-ing society’s material and energy footprint. The presented papers will advance existing conceptual approaches, debate innovative practical solutions and stimulate new forms of thinking and doing to extend the debate about sustainability and to open up routes out of the Anthropocene as “human dominated geological epoch” (Lewis and Maslin 2015: 171).Aims and scopeWe start from the proposition to understand the Anthropo-cene as both a set of physiological phenomena and an exis-tential crisis of modernity (Reisman and Fairbairn 2020). On the one hand, we are aware of the rapid rise in water use, fertilizer contamination, deforestation, and greenhouse gas emissions to be increasing the risk that self-reinforcing feed-backs push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent the stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and lead to a much higher global average temperature than in any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years (Steffen et al. 2007, 2015, 2018). On the other hand, we understand that attributing global change to a universalized human “Anthropos” risks ignoring the role of structural inequalities along the lines of class, race, gender, and geography in producing these changes (Malm and Hornborg 2014). Singling out a species as irreversibly dominant might inhibit political action by naturalizing eco-logical crises, normalizing narratives of control as progress, institutionalizing human mastery, and reifying a false divi-sion between humans and the biophysical world of which they are a part (Moore 2017; Simpson 2020; Swyngedouw and Ernstson 2018). Against this background, we see the need to examine existing socio-technical imaginaries of how to solve the challenges of the Anthropocene (Jasanoff 2015; Nightingale et al. 2019) and to reflect upon possible other futures (Gibson-Graham 2008; Koretskaya and Feola 2020) to re-politicize future making and to open it up to public contestation (Knappe et al. 2019).This special feature consists of papers that address at least one of the following questions:1. How can we attain to a more context-sensitive under-standing of socio-technical regime shifts and sustain-ability transitions (Geels 2018), which takes the indi-viduality of particular niche-regime interactions into account and accentuates the agency of involved actors  * Markus Keck  markus.keck@uni-koeln.de1 Global South Studies Center, University of Cologne, Classen-Kappelmann-Str. 24, 50931 Cologne, Germany718 Sustainability Science (2021) 16:717–7191 3as well as underlying power relations (Bui et al. 2016; Feola 2020; Ingram 2018)?2. How can we put the concept of circular economy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2013; Kirchherr et al. 2017) into action and what knowledge gaps remain to be bridged before we can think of “closing material loops” to ulti-mately decouple agri-food systems from finite resource consumption (Giampietro 2019; Koppelmäki et al. 2021; Zink and Geyer 2017)?3. How can we practically gain from approaches that pro-vide more fundamental critique of current agri-food sys-tems, such as the concept of degrowth, which explores alternative forms of organizing economies beyond growth and capital accumulation (Demaria et al. 2019; Gerber 2020; Kallis et al. 2018), or more-than-human-ism, which invites us to embracing the idea of convivial-ity and to horizontalizing the relations between humans, biota, and abiota (Beacham 2018; Krzywoszynska 2019; Sarmiento 2017)?4. How can specific methods to quantitatively assess pro-duction and consumption systems, such as life cycle assessments (Cucurachi et al. 2019; Green et al. 2020; Notarnicola et al. 2017), be turned into practical use for building more sustainable agri-food systems?To participate in the planned special feature, please send an abstract of maximum 300 words until Friday, 2 April 2021 to markus.keck@uni-koeln.de. Deadline for the sub-mission of final papers is Friday, 30 July 2021. The spe-cial feature is scheduled to be published in issue 2 or 3 in 2022. Prior publication of accepted articles as Online First is possible.Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.ReferencesBeacham J (2018) Organising food differently: towards a more-than-human ethics of care for the Anthropocene. Organization 25(4):533–549. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13505 08418 777893Bui S, Cardona A, Lamine C, Cerf M (2016) Sustainability transitions: Insights on processes of niche-regime interaction and regime reconfiguration in agri-food systems. J Rural Stud 48:92–103. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jrurs tud. 2016. 10. 003Campbell BM, Beare DJ, Bennett EM, Hall-Spencer JM, Ingram JSI, Jaramillo F, Ortiz R, Ramankutty N, Sayer JA, Shindell D (2017) Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol Soc 22(4):8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5751/ ES- 09595- 220408Cucurachi S, Scherer L, Guinée J, Tukker A (2019) Life cycle assess-ment of food systems. One Earth 1(3):292–297. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. oneear. 2019. 10. 014Demaria F, Kallis G, Bakker K (2019) Geographies of degrowth: Nowtopias, resurgences and the decolonization of imaginaries and places. Environ Plan E Nat Space 2(3):431–450. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 25148 48619 869689Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Towards the circular economy: economic and business rationale for an accelerated transition. https:// www. ellen macar thurf ounda tion. org/ assets/ downl oads/ publi catio ns/ Ellen- MacAr thur- Found ation- Towar ds- the- Circu lar- Econo my- vol.1. pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2021Feola G (2020) Capitalism in sustainability transitions research: time for a critical turn? Environ Innov Soc Trans 35:241–250. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eist. 2019. 02. 005Geels FW (2018) Socio-technical transitions to sustainability. In: European Environment Agency (ed) Perspectives on transitions to sustainability. EEA Report. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp 45–69Gerber J-F (2020) Degrowth and critical agrarian studies. J Peasant Stud 47(2):235–264. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2019. 16956 01Giampietro M (2019) On the circular bioeconomy and decoupling: Implications for sustainable growth. Ecol Econ 162:143–156. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ecole con. 2019. 05. 001Gibson-Graham JK (2008) Diverse economies: performative practices for ‘other worlds.’ Prog Hum Geogr 32(5):613–632. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 03091 32508 090821Gordon LJ, Bignet V, Crona B, Henriksson PJG, Van Holt T, Jonell M, Lindahl T, Troell M, Barthel S, Deutsch L, Folke C, Haider LJ, Rockström J, Queiroz C (2017) Rewiring food systems to enhance human health and biosphere stewardship. Environ Res Lett 12:100201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1088/ 1748- 9326/ aa81dcGreen A, Nemecek T, Chaudhary A, Mathys A (2020) Assessing nutritional, health, and environmental sustainability dimensions of agri-food production. Glob Food Secur 26:100406. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. gfs. 2020. 100406Ingram J (2018) Agricultural transition: Niche and regime knowledge systems’ boundary dynamics. Environ Innov Soc Trans 26:117–135. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eist. 2017. 05. 001Jasanoff S (2015) Future imperfect: science, technology and the imagi-nations of modernity. In: Jasanoff S, Kim SH (eds) Dreamscapes of modernity: sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power. University of Chicago Press, London, pp 1–33Kallis G, Kostakis V, Lange S, Muraca B, Paulson S, Schm-elzer M (2018) Research on degrowth. Annu Rev Environ Resour 43(1):291–316. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev- envir on- 102017- 025941Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114 definitions. Resour Conserv Recycl 127:221–232Knappe H, Holfelder A-K, Löw Beer D, Nanz P (2019) The politics of making and unmaking (sustainable) futures: introduction to the special feature. Sustain Sci 14(4):891–898. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 019- 00704-wKoppelmäki K, Helenius J, Schulte RPO (2021) Nested circularity in food systems: a Nordic case study on connecting biomass, nutrient 719Sustainability Science (2021) 16:717–719 1 3and energy flows from field scale to continent. Resour Conserv Recycl 164:105218. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. resco nrec. 2020. 105218Koretskaya O, Feola G (2020) A framework for recognizing diversity beyond capitalism in agri-food systems. J Rural Stud 80:302–313. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jrurs tud. 2020. 10. 002Krzywoszynska A (2019) Caring for soil life in the Anthropocene: the role of attentiveness in more-than-human ethics. Trans Inst Br Geogr 44(4):661–675. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ tran. 12293Lewis SL, Maslin MA (2015) Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519(7542):171–180. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ natur e14258Lindgren E, Harris F, Dangour AD, Gasparatos A, Hiramatsu M, Javadi F, Loken B, Murakami T, Scheelbeek P, Haines A (2018) Sustain-able food systems—a health perspective. Sustain Sci 13:1505–1517. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11625- 018- 0586-xMalm A, Hornborg A (2014) The geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative. Anthr Rev 1(1):62–69. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 20530 19613 516291Moore JW (2017) The Capitalocene, part I: on the nature and origins of our ecological crisis. J Peasant Stud 44(3):594–630. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 03066 150. 2016. 12350 36Nightingale AJ, Eriksen S, Taylor M, Forsyth T, Pelling M, Newsham A, Boyd E, Brown K, Harvey B, Jones L, Bezner Kerr R, Mehta L, Naess LO, Ockwell D, Scoones I, Tanner T, Whitfield S (2019) Beyond technical fixes: climate solutions and the great derange-ment. Clim Dev 12(4):343–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17565 529. 2019. 16244 95Notarnicola B, Sala S, Anton A, McLaren SJ, Saouter E, Sonesson U (2017) The role of life cycle assessment in supporting sustain-able agri-food systems: a review of the challenges. J Clean Prod 140(2):399–409. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2016. 06. 071Reisman E, Fairbairn M (2020) Agri-food systems and the Anthropo-cene. Ann Am Assoc Geogr Online First. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 24694 452. 2020. 18280 25Sarmiento ER (2017) Synergies in alternative food network research: embodiment, diverse economies, and more-than-human food geographies. Agric Hum Values 34:485–497. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10460- 016- 9753-9Simpson M (2020) The Anthropocene as colonial discourse. Environ Plan D Soc Space 38(1):53–71. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02637 75818 764679Steffen W, Crutzen PJ, McNeill JR (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? AMBIO J Hum Environ 36(8):614–621. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1579/ 0044- 7447(2007) 36[614: taahno] 2.0. co;2Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, Gaffney O, Ludwig C (2015) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. Anthr Rev 2(1):81–98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 20530 19614 564785Steffen W, Rockström J, Richardson K, Lentond TM, Folke C, Liver-man D, Summerhayes CP, Barnosky AD, Cornell SE, Crucifix M, Donges JF, Fetzer I, Lade SJ, Scheffer M, Winkelmann R, Schellnhuber HJ (2018) Trajectories of the earth system in the Anthropocene. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115(33):8252–8259. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 18101 41115Swyngedouw E, Ernstson H (2018) Interrupting the Anthropo-obScene: immuno-biopolitics and depoliticizing ontologies in the Anthropocene. Theory Cult Soc 35(6):3–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02632 76418 757314Weis T (2010) The accelerating biophysical contradictions of industrial capitalist agriculture. J Agrar Change 10(3):315–341. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1471- 0366. 2010. 00273.xWinson A, Choi JY (2017) Dietary regimes and the nutrition transition: bridging disciplinary domains. Agric Hum Values 34(3):559–572. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10460- 016- 9746-8Zink T, Geyer R (2017) Circular economy rebound. J Ind Ecol 21(3):593–602. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jiec. 12545Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

https://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/files/90322/Keck2021_Article_SustainabilityInAgri-foodSyste.pdf

Sustainability in agri-food systems: transformative trajectories toward the post-Anthropocene

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hochschulbibliothekszentrum des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (hbz)

OPUS Augsburg