An official website of the United States government
Integrating social equity considerations into analyses of the food-energy-water systems nexus (FEWS) could improve understanding of how to meet increasing resource demands without impacting social vulnerabilities. Effective integration requires a robust definition of equity and an enhanced understanding of reliable FEWS analysis methods. By exploring how equity has been incorporated into FEWS research in the United States and countries with similar national development, this systematic literature review builds a knowledge base to address a critical research need. Our objectives were to 1) catalog analysis methods and metrics relevant to assessing FEWS equity at varying scales; 2) characterize current studies and interpret shared themes; and 3) identify opportunities for future research and the advancement of equitable FEWS governance. FEWS equity definitions and metrics were categorized by respective system (food, energy, water, overall nexus) and common governance scales (local, regional, national, global). Two central issues were climate change, which increases FEWS risks for vulnerable populations, and sustainable development, which offers a promising framework for integrating equity and FEWS in policy-making contexts. Social equity in FEWS was integrated into studies through affordability, access, and sociocultural elements. This framework could support researchers and practitioners to include equity in FEWS analysis tools based on study scale, purpose, and resource availability. Research gaps identified during the review included a lack of studies effectively integrating all three systems, a need for publicly available datasets, omission of issues related to energy conversion facilities, and opportunities for integration of environmental justice modalities into FEWS research. This paper synthesized how social equity has previously been incorporated into FEWS and outlines pathways for further consideration of equity within nexus studies. Our findings suggested that continued exploration of connections between FEWS, equity, and policy development across scales could reduce social risks and vulnerabilities associated with these systems.
more »
« less
The need for more inclusive deliberation on ethics and governance in agricultural and food biotechnology
An inclusive and socially legitimate governance structure is absent to address concerns over new agricultural biotechnologies. Establishing an agricultural bioethics commission devoted to inclusive deliberation on ethics and governance in agricultural and food biotechnology is urgent. Highlighting the social and ethical dimensions of current agricultural bioengineering disputes in the food system, we discuss how a nationally recognized policy forum could improve decision-making and increase public understanding of the issues. We clarify ways the concepts that are used to categorize food and frame governance of food affect consumer choices, and how dissemination of information and the mode of dissemination can contribute to social inequities. We cite the record of medically-oriented bioethic commissions and the history of international bioethic commissions in support of our argument, and end by discussing what such a commission dedicated to agriculture and food issues could reasonably be expected to achieve.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10526846
- Publisher / Repository:
- Taylor and Francis
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Responsible Innovation
- Volume:
- 11
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2329-9460
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This research offers the first use of graph theory mathematics in social network analysis to explore relationships built through an alternative food network. The local food system is visualized using geo-social data from 110 farms and 224 markets around Baltimore County, Maryland, with 699 connections between them. Network behavior is explored through policy document review and interviews. The findings revealed a small-world architecture, with system resiliency built-in by diversified marketing practices at central nodes. This robust network design helps to explain the long-term survival of local food systems despite the meteoric rise of global industrial food supply chains. Modern alternative food networks are an example of a movement that seeks to reorient economic power structures in response to a variety of food system-related issues not limited to consumer health but including environmental impacts. Uncovering the underlying network architecture of this sustainability-oriented social movement helps reveal how it weaves systemic change more broadly. The methods used in this study demonstrate how social values, social networks, markets, and governance systems embed to transform both physical landscapes and human bodies. Network actors crafted informal policy reports, which were directly incorporated in state and local official land-use and economic planning documents. Community governance over land-use policy suggests a powerful mechanism for further localizing food systems.more » « less
-
Abstract Local food systems can have economic and social benefits by providing income for producers and improving community connections. Ongoing global climate change and the acute COVID-19 pandemic crisis have shown the importance of building equity and resilience in local food systems. We interviewed ten stakeholders from organizations and institutions in a U.S. midwestern city exploring views on past, current, and future conditions to address the following two objectives: 1) Assess how local food system equity and resilience were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2) Examine how policy and behavior changes could support greater equity and resilience within urban local food systems. We used the Community Capitals Framework to organize interviewees’ responses for qualitative analyses of equity and resilience. Four types of community capital were emphasized by stakeholders: cultural and social, natural, and political capital. Participants stated that the local food system in this city is small; more weaknesses in food access, land access, and governance were described than were strengths in both pre- and post-pandemic conditions. Stakeholder responses also reflected lack of equity and resilience in the local food system, which was most pronounced for cultural and social, natural and political capitals. However, local producers’ resilience during the pandemic, which we categorized as human capital, was a notable strength. An improved future food system could incorporate changes in infrastructure (e.g., food processing), markets (e.g., values-based markets) and cultural values (e.g., valuing local food through connections between local producers and consumers). These insights could inform policy and enhance community initiatives and behavior changes to build more equitable and resilient local food systems in urban areas throughout the U.S. Midwest.more » « less
-
Abstract As municipalities across the global North highlight urban agriculture as a marker of their ‘greenness’, how can we best understand how the spaces and practices of urban food production are governed? This article develops an analysis of urban agriculture as a complex site of governance in which numerous interests engage. We underscore the politics of governance, through which some actors resist the imposition of a narrowly normative and exclusive notion of urban agriculture and against which they envision and enact alternatives. The article contributes to efforts to transcend the often dichotomous framing of urban agriculture as radical or neoliberal, formal or informal, political or post‐political by employing ‘everyday governance’ and ‘everyday resistance’ as lenses through which to focus on the prosaic practices of engaging with, pushing back against, and stepping beyond the imposition of hegemonic models of urban agriculture. We argue that the co‐constitutive, ‘braided’ nature of urban agricultural governance is revealed through attention to the manifold forms of negotiation and resistance to formal urban agricultural governance. Moreover, our perspective highlights the ways that some practitioners are excluded by, challenge, or re‐vision formal definitions of urban agriculture. We draw on the cases of Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC to illustrate our argument.more » « less
-
Abstract This study investigates how proponents and critics of gene editing in agriculture and food (GEAF) employ expectations—discourses with future‐oriented impacts—as they compete to secure desired futures and mobilise social processes and resources towards their goal of influencing GEAF (re)regulation and agro‐food systems within the EU. We draw on 27 semi‐structured interviews and 53 Euractiv media articles to identify and analyse GEAF proponents’ and critics’ responses to the 2018 European Court of Justice regulatory decision that GEAF will be regulated as genetically modified organisms. Despite similar themes of environmental sustainability, food security and winners and losers in agricultural innovation systems, proponents’ and critics’ discourses reflect divergent expectations of GEAF. We argue that both groups link their expectations with concerns about path dependencies in technological innovations and agro‐food systems, which serve to influence emerging political, public and elite perspectives on GEAF. Although to some extent performative, these concerns offer important insights that should be problematised and engaged within GEAF governance spaces. This study is conceptually framed by the socio‐technical futures, path dependency and political economy of food and agriculture literature.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2024.2304383
