More Like this

1. Spatial and Ecological Farmer Knowledge and Decision-Making about Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity

   https://doi.org/10.3390/land9100356  

   Kpienbaareh, Daniel; Bezner Kerr, Rachel; Luginaah, Isaac; Wang, Jinfei; Lupafya, Esther; Dakishoni, Laifolo; Shumba, Lizzie (October 2020, Land)

   null (Ed.)

   Amid climate change, biodiversity loss and food insecurity, there is the growing need to draw synergies between micro-scale environmental processes and practices, and macro-level ecosystem dynamics to facilitate conservation decision-making. Adopting this synergistic approach can improve crop yields and profitability more sustainably, enhance livelihoods and mitigate climate change. Using spatially explicit data generated through a public participatory geographic information system methodology (n = 37), complemented by spatial analysis, interviews (n = 68) and focus group discussions (n = 4), we explored the synergies between participatory farmer-to-farmer agroecology knowledge sharing, farm-level decisions and their links with macro-level prioritization of conservation strategies. We mapped farm conditions and ecosystem services (ES) of two village areas with varying knowledge systems about farming. Results of the farm-level analysis revealed variations in spatial perception among farmers, differences in understanding the dynamics of crop growth and varying priorities for extension services based on agroecological knowledge. The ES use pattern analysis revealed hotspots in the mapped ES indicators with similarities in both village areas. Despite the similarities in ES use, priorities for biodiversity conservation align with farmers’ understanding of farm processes and practices. Farmers with training in agroecology prioritized strategies that are ecologically friendly while farmers with no agroecology training prioritized the use of strict regulations. Importantly, the results show that agroecology can potentially contribute to biodiversity conservation and food security, with climate change mitigation co-benefits. The findings generally contribute to debates on land sparing and land sharing conservation strategies and advance social learning theory as it pertains to acquiring agroecological knowledge for improved yield and a sustainable environment. 

   more » « less
2. Capturing Stakeholders’ Challenges of the Food–Water–Energy Nexus—A Participatory Approach for Pune and the Bhima Basin, India

   https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095323  

   Karutz, Raphael; Omann, Ines; Gorelick, Steven M.; Klassert, Christian J.; Zozmann, Heinrich; Zhu, Yuanzao; Kabisch, Sigrun; Kindler, Annegret; Figueroa, Anjuli Jain; Wang, Ankun; et al (May 2022, Sustainability)

   Systems models of the Food–Water–Energy (FWE) nexus face a conceptual difficulty: the systematic integration of local stakeholder perspectives into a coherent framework for analysis. We present a novel procedure to co-produce and systematize the real-life complexity of stakeholder knowledge and forge it into a clear-cut set of challenges. These are clustered into the Pressure–State–Response (PSIR) framework, which ultimately guides the development of a conceptual systems model closely attuned to the needs of local stakeholders. We apply this approach to the case of the emerging megacity Pune and the Bhima basin in India. Through stakeholder workshops, involving 75 resource users and experts, we identified 22 individual challenges. They include exogenous pressures, such as climate change and urbanization, and endogenous pressures, such as agricultural groundwater over-abstraction and land use change. These pressures alter the Bhima basin’s system state, characterized by inefficient water and energy supply systems and regional scarcity. The consequent impacts on society encompass the inadequate provision with food, water, and energy and livelihood challenges for farmers in the basin. An evaluation of policy responses within the conceptual systems model shows the complex cause–effect interactions between nexus subsystems. One single response action, such as the promotion of solar farming, can affect multiple challenges. The resulting concise picture of the regional FWE system serves resource users, policymakers, and researchers to evaluate long-term policies within the context of the urban FWE system. While the presented results are specific to the case study, the approach can be transferred to any other FWE nexus system. 

   more » « less
3. Assessing local perceptions of deforestation, forest restoration, and the role of agroecology for agroecosystem restoration in northern Malawi

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4238  

   Kpienbaareh, Daniel; Luginaah, Isaac; Bezner Kerr, Rachel; Wang, Jinfei; Poveda, Katja; Steffan‐Dewenter, Ingolf; Lupafya, Esther; Dakishoni, Laifolo (March 2022, Land Degradation & Development)

   Deforestation drives climate change and reinforces food insecurity in forest dependent communities. What drives deforestation varies by location and is shaped by livelihood systems. But how locals perceive restoration is crucial for developing restoration policies. Evidence suggests that applying sustainable farming strategies can potentially restore forests and sustain livelihoods. Applying a broad-based conceptualization of deforestation and restoration in policymaking, however, results in missed opportunities for addressing deforestation and restoration. Here, we explore the drivers of deforestation, the perceptions of restoration, and the challenges to restoration among smallholder farmers in northern Malawi and examine how agroecology can contribute to restoring degraded agroecosystems. Participants report agricultural land expansion, charcoal production, climate change, burnt brick production, and government subsidies as the major drivers of deforestation. We observed that although perceptions of forest restoration reflect farmers' traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) to include reclamation of degraded farmlands, reconstruction of native tree species, and replacement of felled trees on farmlands, there are challenges including splitting families to gain access to more subsidized fertilizers and food aid, embedded cultural practices, growing demand for charcoal in cities, and weak ecosystem governance structures that hinder the effectiveness of restoration efforts. We, however, do find that agroecological intensification can increase yield from smaller farmlands and allow for larger and longer-lasting fallows of spare lands which regenerate forests. Key overarching implications of these findings include the need to integrate livelihoods more explicitly into restoration plans, accounting for TEK in restoration policies in forest-dependent communities and encouraging the adoption of agroecology. 

   more » « less
4. Narrow and Brittle or Broad and Nimble? Comparing Adaptive Capacity in Simplifying and Diversifying Farming Systems

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.564900  

   Petersen-Rockney, Margiana; Baur, Patrick; Guzman, Aidee; Bender, S. Franz; Calo, Adam; Castillo, Federico; De Master, Kathryn; Dumont, Antoinette; Esquivel, Kenzo; Kremen, Claire; et al (March 2021, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems)

   null (Ed.)

   Humanity faces a triple threat of climate change, biodiversity loss, and global food insecurity. In response, increasing the general adaptive capacity of farming systems is essential. We identify two divergent strategies for building adaptive capacity. Simplifying processes seek to narrowly maximize production by shifting the basis of agricultural production toward centralized control of socially and ecologically homogenized systems. Diversifying processes cultivate social-ecological complexity in order to provide multiple ecosystem services, maintain management flexibility, and promote coordinated adaptation across levels. Through five primarily United States focused cases of distinct agricultural challenges—foodborne pathogens, drought, marginal lands, labor availability, and land access and tenure—we compare simplifying and diversifying responses to assess how these pathways differentially enhance or degrade the adaptive capacity of farming systems in the context of the triple threat. These cases show that diversifying processes can weave a form of broad and nimble adaptive capacity that is fundamentally distinct from the narrow and brittle adaptive capacity produced through simplification. We find that while there are structural limitations and tradeoffs to diversifying processes, adaptive capacity can be facilitated by empowering people and enhancing ecosystem functionality to proactively distribute resources and knowledge where needed and to nimbly respond to changing circumstances. Our cases suggest that, in order to garner the most adaptive benefits from diversification, farming systems should balance the pursuit of multiple goals, which in turn requires an inclusive process for active dialogue and negotiation among diverse perspectives. Instead of locking farming systems into pernicious cycles that reproduce social and ecological externalities, diversification processes can enable nimble responses to a broad spectrum of possible stressors and shocks, while also promoting social equity and ecological sustainability. 

   more » « less
5. Managing Crop Yield Risk at the Kellogg Biological Station, Hickory Corners, MI (2022 to 2023)

   https://doi.org/10.6073/pasta/b0e1cd7e724c1b5d7579ab2a810c6e8b  

   Swinton, Scott; Loduca, Natalie (January 2025, Environmental Data Initiative)

   Dataset Abstract As farmers adapt to changing climate, they modify practices and technologies to manage evolving risk. Adaptive changes may be as small as adjusting a crop insurance coverage level or as large as investing in an irrigation system. Farmer attitudes toward risk and their subjective perceptions of the evolving probability distributions of crop yields drive adaptation decisions. To understand climate change adaptation behavior by farmers, we undertook the study “Elicitation and Estimation of Risk Preference and Subjective Probabilities to Understand Farmer Decisions on Climate Change Adaptation.” We interviewed 44 Michigan corn and soybean farmers to elicit mathematical expressions of their risk attitudes. During the interviews, each completed two sets of lottery choices, the first using 25 general risky gambles and the second using 18 risky gambles in a crop farming context that enable econometric estimation of risk attitudes (using variants of Expected Utility Theory). Next, they answered questions about corn yield probability distributions over the past ten years and the next ten years (triangular distributions of minimum, most likely, and maximum values) with no water management, irrigation, tile drainage, and drought-resistant seed. After that, they reported on water management investments that they have made in past and intend to make in future. Finally, they provided background information about themselves and their farms. This study (MSU Study ID: STUDY00007871) was submitted to the Michigan State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) by principal investigator Scott Swinton. On July 5, 2022, it was determined to be exempt under 45 CFR 46.104(d) 3(i)(B). Data collection took place during September 2022 through March 2023. Farmer respondents completed the survey instrument on Qualtrics with assistance from graduate students in Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics at Michigan State University at various MSU Extension offices and restaurants around southern Michigan. Respondents received lunch plus $50 for participating and a credit of $40 that could be gained or lost based on the outcome from one of the risky gambles (included to encourage truthful responses [“incentive compatibility”]). original data source http://lter.kbs.msu.edu/datasets/249 

   more » « less