Search for: All records

Solving the wicked problems of food system sustainability requires a process of knowledge co-production among diverse actors in society. We illustrate a generalized workflow for knowledge co-production in food systems with a pair of case studies from the response of the meat and dairy production sectors in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first case study serves as an example of a scientific workflow and uses a GIS method (location allocation) to examine the supply chain linkages between meat and dairy producers and processors in Ohio. This analysis found that meat producers and processors are less clustered and more evenly distributed across the state than dairy producers and processors, with some dairy processors potentially needing to rely on supply from producers up to 252 km away. The second case study in California adds an example of a stakeholder workflow in parallel to a scientific workflow and describes the outcome of a series of interviews with small and mid-scale meat producers and processors concerning their challenges and opportunities, with the concentration of processors arising as the top challenge faced by producers. We present a pair of workflow diagrams for the two case studies that illustrate where the processes of knowledge co-production are situated. Examining these workflow processes highlights the importance of data privacy, data governance, and boundary spanners that connect stakeholders. 

The COVID-19 crisis has revealed weaknesses and placed great stress on the agri-food system in the U.S. Many believe that it could be a catalyst event that leads to structural changes to improve the food system’s resilience. We use a sample of 220 articles published in prominent national newspapers and agricultural trade journals from March to May 2020 to explore the extent to which farmer responses to COVID-19 covered in the media represent examples of resistant, adaptive, or transformative strategies. The pandemic disrupted the U.S. food system and impacted farmers by reducing access to markets, lowering commodity prices, restricting access to farmworker labor, and shifting consumer demand. Media coverage of farmer responses to these stressors were coded into three alternative pathways: (i) reactive or buffering responses, (ii) adaptive responses; and (iii) transformative responses. Most news media coverage focused on the pandemic’s disruptive impacts on the U.S. food system, related negative impacts on farmers, and short-term responses by institutional actors, including policy-makers and food supply chain industry actors. Farmer responses to pandemic stressors were mentioned less frequently than farmer impacts and responses by institutional actors. The most common examples of farmer responses highlighted in the media reflected farmer reactive and buffering behaviors, which were mentioned significantly more frequently than adaptive or transformative responses. National newspapers were more likely to cover farmer responses and present examples of adaptive and transformative strategies compared to agricultural trade journals. Our findings suggest that news media coverage in the early months of the pandemic largely characterized the event as a rapid onset ‘natural’ disaster that created severe negative impacts. Media devoted more attention to short-term policy responses designed to mitigate these impacts than to farmer responses (in general) or to discussion of the deeper structural causes of and potential solutions to the vulnerabilities revealed by the pandemic. In this way, both national newspaper and agricultural trade journal coverage seems to promote frames that reduce the likelihood of the pandemic becoming the seed of a more resilient system. 

Abstract Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research–practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among ‘on-the-ground’ practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes. 

With growing urban populations and climate change, urban flooding is an important global issue, even in dryland regions. Flood risk assessments are usually used to identify vulnerable locations and populations, flooding experience patterns, or levels of concern about flooding, but rarely are all of these approaches combined. Furthermore, the social dynamics of flood concerns, exposure, and experience are underexplored. We combined geographic and survey data on household‐level measures of flood experience, concern, and exposure in Utah's urbanizing Wasatch Front. We asked: (1) Are socially vulnerable groups more likely to be exposed to flood risk? (2) How common are flooding experiences among urban residents, and how are these experiences related to sociodemographic characteristics and exposure? and (3) How concerned are urban residents about flooding, and does concern vary by exposure, flood experience, and sociodemographic characteristics? Although floodplain residents were more likely to be White and have higher incomes, respondents who were of a racial/ethnic minority, were older, had less education, and were living in floodplains were more likely to report flood experiences and concern about flooding. Flood risk management approaches need to address social as well as physical sources of vulnerability to floods and recognize social sources of variation in flood experiences and concern.