|
|
Kjeldsen, C. (2015). An approach to sustainability management within partnerships between heterogeneous actors – example from a Danish water catchment, dominated by dairy farms (Vol. 5).
Abstract: In this paper we present an approach to sustainability management within partnerships between heterogenous actors. This multi-disciplinary approach is also relevant for the assessment of climate change adaptation and mitigation in the context of www.macsur.eu; and especially in areas with dairy farming hot-spots. Established approaches within this field such as Adaptive Co-Management and Social Learning focus on social-material interactions, feedback mechanisms, knowledge integration and institutional change as drivers in sustainable development. However, the role of micro-scale power dynamics as part of these processes have received less attention. In a case study of land-water management in a Danish water catchment, dominated by dairy farms, we analyze how dynamics of power within knowledge integration processes interacts with institutions at different scales. Thereby, we show ways in which power-knowledge dynamics shape development outcomes. Finally, we propose how increasing reflexivity of power-knowledge dynamics might contribute to institutional change and sustainable development. No Label
|
|
|
|
Kjeldsen, C., Sørensen, A. - M. L., Dalgaard, T., & Graversgard, M. (2015). Report on cross-cutting approaches for the assessment of climate change adaption on selected EU sites or hotspots and potentials for adaption and mitigation in the dairy sector (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Adaption to climate change in the context of agriculture involves collaborative planning and development of practices which is deemed more sustainable than preceeding practices. It is however not given that sustainable development will be the outcome of such efforts. In some cases, even motivated participants experience that despite good intentions, high levels of knowledge, feasible models, appropriate technologies and many other factors present, they still might not succeed bringing about the desired change. The reasons for this can not easily be reduced to just one factor, but is very likely to be the outcome of highly complex interactions between social, technological, institutional, or even personal factors. The report documents attempts to understand the complexities of climate change adaption in a Danish water catchment, Lundgaards Bæk, which is dominated by dairy farming. As part of the EU projects AQUARIUS and MACSUR, a local action group was formed which was composed of local farmers, local agricultural advisors, advisors from the national agricultural advisory service, environmental planners from the local municipality, and environmental planners from the national environmental agency in Denmark. The action group was supposed to develop specific measures, which were supposed to lead to an overall reduction in nitrogen loading of the neighboring fjord, Mariager Fjord. The report addresses three related research themes: (1) how do the stakeholders in question interact during the process of climate change adaption, (2) when do the stakeholders encounter opportunities and barriers during the process, and finally (3) does the adaption process in question lead to the desired outcomes? The empirical background of the report is a detailed process study of dynamics within a group of stakeholders, including farmers and extension officers, who were supposed to develop sustainable management practices in order to reduce nitrogen leaching to the Mariager Fjord. The study is based on the assumption that in order for research and policy to contribute to sustainable practices, deeper understanding of complex dynamics within stakeholder partnerships is needed. Based on a theoretical framework derived from social learning, adaptive co-management and Andrew Pickering’s notion of ‘the mangle’, different in-depth explanations to why sustainable development did not occur, are offered. One explanation concerns social-psychological dynamics of knowledge. Another explanation concerns the mechanisms by which social and material forces affect outcomes of the adaption process. The report concludes by exploring the study’s relevance in relation to policy, research and practice, followed by suggestions for further in-depth case studies and experimentation in practice. No Label
|
|
|
|
König, H. J., Helming, K., Seddaiu, G., Kipling, R., Köchy, M., Graversgaard, M., et al. Stakeholder participation in agricultural research: Who should be involved, why, and how?.
Abstract: Research in sustainable agricultural management requires appropriate participatory processes and tools enabling efficient dialogue and cooperation to allow researchers and stakeholders to co-produce knowledge. Research approaches that encourage stakeholder participation are in high demand because they allow a better understanding of human-nature interactions and interdependencies between actors. Participatory approaches also support multiple goals of agricultural management: improved productivity, food security, climate change adaptation, environmental conservation, rural development and policy decision making. Approaches to stakeholder engagement in the field of agricultural management research are manifold. Therefore, selecting the “right” approach depends on the specific purpose and contextualized issues at stake. We analyzed ten stakeholder approaches and propose a new framework with which to identify and select appropriate approaches for stakeholder engagement. The framework consists of three components: whom to engage (i.e., stakeholder type and mandate), why to engage (i.e., research purpose: consult, inform, collaborate), and how to engage (i.e., different methodological approaches). We identified different stakeholder groups (who?): farmers, agricultural actors, land users, and policymakers; different purposes (why?): facilitate engagement process, inform stakeholders, and obtain stakeholder perceptions; and different types of engagement methods (how?): participatory field experiments, desk simulations, interviews, panel discussions and different types of workshops. The framework was applied to arrange these approaches, organize them to improve understanding of their main strengths, weaknesses and supports for identifying and selecting an appropriate approach. We conclude that understanding the different facets of available approaches is crucial for selecting an appropriate stakeholder engagement approach. ;
|
|
