feasibility study report: proposal for full researchweb).pdf · tavenrneir 2012). similarly,...
Post on 25-May-2020
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Form1 (FS→PR)
Feasibility Study Report: Proposal for Full Research
FS Title Lifeworlds of Sustainable Food Consumption: Agrifood
Systems in Transition
Proposed FR Title Lifeworlds of Sustainable Food Consumption: Agrifood
Systems in Transition
Abbreviated Title Agrifood Project
Project Category Initiative-based Project
Leader of the
Proposed FR
Research Institute for Humanity and Nature
Assistant Professor
MCGREEVY Steven Robert
Homepage http://www.chikyu.ac.jp/rihn/project/FS-2013-09.html
Keywords
Agrifood systems, sustainable food consumption,
value-action gap, consumer agency, participatory regime
design, impact assessment
Proposed project
period
□ 3 years Full Research
□ 4 years Full Research
5 years Full Research
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A) Research Background and Objectives
Despite miraculous increases in food productivity, globalized agrifood systems, comprising
industrialized, high-input production, processing practices, and carbon-intensive distribution
networks, are creating a host of environmental and socio-cultural damages. The eating habits of
developed nations and the agrifood systems of provisioning upon which they rely are negatively
impacting global ecological and earth systems by orders of magnitude over developing and
emerging economies (e.g. Hertwich & Peters 2009; Moomaw et al. 2012). Like many developed
nations, Japan’s impact in this regard is significant, with large volumes of food being imported and
wasted on a daily basis (Nakata 2003, MAFF 2012).
Since everyone must eat, everyone is a stakeholder in the circumstances and outcomes of
agrifood systems. However, consumer agency, their capacity for changing consumptive behaviors
to restructure agrifood systems, is limited by two constraining “disconnects”: 1) a spatio-temporal
disconnect (external) from the broader agrifood system, making consumers largely unaware of the
environmental and social impacts implicit in their food choices; and 2) a socio-cultural and
intellectual disconnect (internal) centering on reconciling everyday patterns of consumptive
behavior with a growing awareness of negative agrifood impacts, sometimes referred to as the
"value - action gap" or "attitude - behavior gap" (Hobson 2002; Vermeir & Verbeke 2006). We
argue that sustainability-oriented food consumption practices can act as a vehicle to elicit changes
in the larger agrifood production – distribution - marketing infrastructure only if we are able to
increase consumer agency by surmounting the disconnects constraining it (see Figure 1).
Standard approaches to change
patterns of consumption, such as
increasing awareness, appealing to
better judgment, or by regulating the
systems of provision in ways that
consumers have no choice but to
behave sustainably, have had limited
success, we argue, because of a lack of
a lifeworld perspective—a sensitivity to
the embedded, contextualized milieu of
daily experiences, routines, and patterns
of behavior (Habermas 1984). Starting
from a lifeworld perspective and by employing a participatory design science, we set out to test
consumer-centered, collective mechanisms for increasing agency and enabling
sustainability-oriented food choices, that, in turn, transition agrifood systems and transform food
culture in the process (Figure 1).
Research activities will position themselves in the service of realizing concrete, society-oriented
outcomes with stakeholders including food producers, distributors, retailers, government officials,
citizen-consumers, and scientists (See Figure 3). The research will primarily focus on three “sites
of consumption” in Japan, including the Kyoto area, as well as multiple international “sites of
production” where food is produced for import to Japan (See Figure 3). In the end, by deeply
embedding research activities in communities over a five-year period, we will be able to monitor
Figure 1:
Conceptual framework
and measure the overall effects of our collective efforts on consumers' food habits, and
comprehensively evaluate their effectiveness in actually transitioning agrifood systems and
reducing environmental harm (e.g. reduction in carbon/water/energy footprint; decreases in food
mileage; increases in availability of locally-sourced foods, etc.).
B) Research Methods and Organization
This research project will test mechanisms for facilitating agrifood transition via three lines of
transdisciplinary research: ① measuring and analyzing the ecological and socio-economic impacts
of various local and global food networks (Food LCA team); ② assess the social consumption
practices related to food (Social Consumption Practices team); and ③ investigate the
socio-technical regimes that characterize agrifood systems of provisioning (Regime Design team).
Research teams are organized into a total of 14 interdisciplinary “task groups” (TG) that work
together with agrifood stakeholders. Teams are co-led and TG membership is overlapping to
ensure integration across disciplines and sites. (See Table 1 and Section 2 for further details)
C) Achievements to Date and Evidence of the Feasibility of Full Research
The project is preparing for full research by meeting together in-person and online, conducting
literature reviews to identify knowledge gaps, beginning discussions on developing integrative
methodologies for assessing agrifood impact, and meeting with stakeholders at “sites of
consumption” in Japan. Fieldwork to establish international research networks at “sites of
production” has also begun for the USA, Canada, China, and Thailand.
The assembled project members and project leader have expertise covering the entire spectrum
of disciplines necessary for a thorough, collaborative inquiry into agrifood system transition and
sustainable food consumption. The project team has deep ties with local farming communities in
Japan, local and regional governments, businesses operating in the "food industry," international
certification bodies, and food consumer groups, and are able to mobilize these networks in an
effective and timely manner.
D) Academic Validity, Research Integration and Scope
The project will conduct innovative scholarship in 1) providing a "consumer perspective" for
agrifood studies, 2) systematically testing mechanisms for realizing consumer agency to change
agrifood structures and transform food culture, and 3) in developing original, dynamic
methodologies, such as a “Food LCA,” and a range of participatory, transdisciplinary tools for
envisioning and realizing agrifood transitions. We incorporate past and ongoing RIHN research
results and themes, such as “local resilient agriculture,” “post-oil transition,” and “transdisciplinary
methods,” and actuate a form of design science that is encouraged at an institute like RIHN.
Unraveling the binds that constrain consumer agency to change modern food culture and systems
of food provisioning is a goal consistent with the Futurability Initiatives’ mission for
design-oriented, solution-oriented research and RIHN's aims for elucidating the relationship
between humanity and nature.
In the end, this project seeks to establish RIHN as a truly "residential institution" with deep roots
in the Kyoto area and with stakeholders in its immediate surroundings. Kyoto's rich and changing
food culture makes a RIHN Initiative project on transitioning to sustainable agrifood systems and
sustainable food consumption a perfect starting grounds from which to take a firmer footing as a
residential institution in Kyoto.
PROPOSAL FOR FULL RESEARCH 1. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND
Problem setting and background
Global food production today is at an all time high-- over 13 quadrillion calories were produced in
2010, which averages to 5359kcal per capita on a daily basis, essentially doubling the
recommended daily caloric intake (FAO 2012). While an amazing feat, this bounty of food
calories has come at great cost. The contemporary, globalized agrifood systems, comprising
industrialized, high-input production, processing practices, and carbon-intensive distribution
networks, that have given us such plentitude, are creating a host of environmental and
socio-cultural damages. A 2010 UNEP report concluded that agriculture and food consumption
were "one of the most important drivers of environmental pressures, especially habitat change,
climate change, water use, and toxic emissions" (UNEP 2010, p. 13). As a global phenomenon,
30% of global emissions contributing to climate change and 70% of freshwater consumption are
derived from agricultural processes and food production practices, while agricultural systems
currently cover 38% of land surfaces-- a number that is increasing as land conversion intensifies
with changes toward diets rich in animal protein (ibid.). Biodiversity loss, pollution of waterways
leading to eutrophication and ocean acidification, increasing desertification, and losses in soil
fertility on the whole are some of the byproducts of eating at the world's table. In addition, the
globalization of the food industry has increased agrifood system vulnerability as global market
forces squeeze farming families off the land, resulting in the loss of crop biodiversity, food cultures,
and agrifood-related knowledge.
If intensive agrifood systems are driving environmental and socio-cultural harm to such a high
degree, we must ask ourselves what is driving this demand for intensification? The uncomfortable
yet simple answer is that we, the food consumer, are complicit in the creation of contemporary
agrifood systems. A deeper look, however, shows that responsibility doesn't rest equally among the
world's food consumers. A number of studies confirm what should be an obvious conclusion in
today's world of hunger amid plenty and widening wealth disparity: the eating habits of developed
nations and the agrifood systems of provisioning upon which they rely are negatively impacting
global ecological and earth systems by orders of magnitude over developing and emerging nations
(e.g. Hertwich & Peters 2009; Moomaw et al. 2012). For example, in 2008, developed nations
consumed 39% and 41% of the world's grain and animal protein respectively, while making up
only 18% of the world's population (Moomaw et al. 2012). It is essential that we target the food
consumption patterns of developed nations for change in order to reduce environmental harm.
As a developed nation, Japan’s impact on global environmental damage via its food consumption
and coupled agrifood systems is significant. Specifically, Japan relies on imported food for
approximately 60% of its caloric needs, resulting in over 900,000 106 t x km national "food miles",
triple that of South Korea, the next closest country (MAFF 2010; Nakata 2003). Tragically, 40% of
all food in Japan, imported and domestic, ends up being thrown away as waste-- 6,000 tons of food
is wasted in Tokyo daily, a volume able to feed 4.5 million people a day (MAFF 2012). At the
same time, such preference toward global food markets (further complicated by the upcoming
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement) has gutted the domestic agricultural industry comprised
mainly of farming families, resulting in a massive decrease in farming households, aging of the
farming population, and socio-economic decline in rural communities (Teruoka 2008).
Two research discourses take up the challenge of rethinking and restructuring agrifood systems and
food consumption practices: alternative food networks and sustainable consumption. Alternative
food networks (AFN) have emerged worldwide (Murdoch & Miele 1999; Renting & Marsden
2003; Goodman 2004; Constance 2009) and in Japan (Kimura & Nishiyama 2007, Masugata
2008) as a response to intensive agriculture by shortening food supply chains, emphasizing food
quality, safety, and ecologically-friendly production methods, and seeking to bring back the "face"
of food provisioning systems for consumers. These efforts often congregate with social
movements seeking to promote economic fairness and social justice (eg. Fairtrade- Freidberg 2010,
Loureiro & Lotade 2005; local food- Hendrickson & Heffernan 2007, Feagan 2007; food
democracy- Renting et al. 2012; food justice- Gottlieb and Joshi 2010; food citizenship- De
Tavenrneir 2012). Similarly, research on sustainable consumption has seen increased visibility in
recent years (Spaargaren 2003; Jackson 2005, Vermeir & Verbeke 2006; Seyfang 2006). The
discourse in sustainable food consumption has surfaced as a major influence in agrifood studies in,
for example, the debate on food mileage (Pretty et al. 2005; Weber & Matthews 2008; Kemp et al.
2010).
Recent agrifood systems literature on research needs and agenda setting would suggest that these
two discourses would benefit from a union able to address the lack of a critical perspective on
AFNs' actual ecological and socio-economic impacts, the need for more inquiry into a "consumer
perspective," and research aligned with bridging disconnects between production and consumption
(Pretty et al. 2010; Tregear 2011; Rivera-Ferre et al. 2013). In order for this merging of discourses,
methods for collaboration among scientists and stakeholders are of paramount importance. The
move toward a new mode of science, a "context sensitive science" (Gibbons 2000), is well
underway and transdisciplinary methods for participatory stakeholder involvement are developing
rapidly (eg. Lang et al. 2012; Patel et al 2007).
Project framework and objectives
Our daily lives and routines revolve around food. We are all stakeholders in the circumstances and
outcomes of agrifood systems. In the end, however, the range of food choices over which
developed world consumers have a reasonable level of control is limited to "what is found on the
shelves" of their neighborhood market, as well as their level of awareness and access to information
regarding food production-processing-distributing regimes. For the most part, modern day food
consumers are spatio-temporal disconnected from the broader agrifood system, largely unaware of
the environmental and social impacts implicit in their food choices. Additionally, they are faced
with a socio-cultural and intellectual disconnect: reconciling their everyday patterns of
consumptive behavior with a growing awareness of negative agrifood impacts, sometimes referred
to as the "value - action gap" or "attitude - behavior gap" (Hobson 2002; Vermeir & Verbeke 2006).
Indeed, the difficulty is in changing such behavioral patterns of food consumption with the
pressures of an entire agrifood infrastructure and modern "food culture" shaping their “space for
response.” The compartmentalized nature of food consumption limits consumer agency in
affecting behavioral change and change in the infrastructure of agrifood systems on the whole.
As the examples above illustrate, food consumption and provisioning systems are interlinked in a
dynamic, reflexive relationship changing over time. We argue that sustainability-oriented food
consumption practices can act as a vehicle to elicit changes in the larger agrifood
production-distribution-marketing infrastructure. However, in order to change current food
consumption practices, we must increase consumer agency, their capacity for change, by
surmounting both the spatio-temporal (external) and socio-cultural/intellectual (internal)
disconnects constraining it (see Figure 1).
The literature identifies two general approaches to bridging these disconnects in seeking changes in
patterns of consumption: 1) increase individuals’ awareness by providing them information and
appealing to their better judgment or morality (eg. Jackson 2005) or 2) by regulating the systems of
provision so that individuals have no choice but to behave sustainably (eg. Van Vilet et al. 2005;
Shove & Walker 2010). These approaches have had limited success—the former option places too
much responsibility on the individual to act while ignoring the interfacing of such information with
actual lifestyles and social routines. It also has no way of combatting the tendency toward
"locked-in" behaviors that result from the very infrastructure of agrifood systems of provisioning,
nor the culturally significant conventions and expectations for food that are largely taken for
granted. The latter option, by contrast, ignores necessary actor input in the co-designing of rules to
regulate systems of provisioning in ways that blend seamlessly into the fabric of everyday life. In
other words, both approaches do not take into account consumer lifeworlds, the embedded,
contextualized milieu of daily experiences, routines, and patterns of behavior.
Expanding on a notion first coined by Habermas (1984), we seek a better understanding of the
fabric of our individual and collective everyday lives –- what Shove (2003) terms the “constitution
of normality”— and how our expectations, habits, and socio-culturally-embedded practices
surrounding food are naturalized, and, more importantly, how they are restructured. In this regard,
effectively eliciting changes in our daily lives may be had by an approach focusing more on
creating collective and communal mechanisms and less on individual motivations.
We contend that by sensitizing a participatory-centered, design science to a lifeworld perspective
we can increase consumer agency to make sustainability-oriented food choices (see Figure 1).
Better food choices drive change in larger agrifood systems of provisioning and also reinforce
sustainability-oriented consumer behavior, which can ultimately enhance food culture and values.
At the same time, changes in agrifood systems of provisioning will inherently reconfigure
infrastructures and regimes, expanding the available range of sustainable food choices, reducing
environmental harm, and, again, enhancing food culture and values. With factors such as growing
consumer distrust of the safety of agrifood systems, instability in global food production, and
multi-scalar ecological vulnerabilities, agrifood regimes have likely entered a "window of
opportunity" ripe for the inclusion of novel approaches, values, and practices (Geels & Schot
2007).
The objectives of this study are to test two hypotheses related to mechanisms enabling agrifood
transition via three transdisciplinary research themes.
Hypothesis 1: Systemic change: “Voting with your dollar (yen)"
1) Sustainability-oriented food consumption practices can act as a vehicle to elicit
changes in the larger agro-food production-distribution-marketing infrastructure, expanding the
available range of sustainable food choices and transitioning agrifood regimes toward greater
sustainability and resilience.
Hypothesis 2: Food culture/consumption change: “Surmounting the dual-disconnect"
2) Raising awareness of the "backstory" of food systems of provisioning and
proactively reconfiguring agrifood regimes and policy can increase consumer agency to change
patterns of food consumption by embedding practices in consumer lifeworlds of experience and
social practice.
The three research themes, as indicated in Figure 1, measure and analyze the ecological and
socio-economic impacts of various local and global food networks, assess the social consumption
practices related to food, and investigate the socio-technical regimes that characterize agrifood
systems of provisioning.
① Food LCA (Life Cycle Assessment): This research thread will ground discussions of
transitioning agrifood systems by informing both the social consumption practices and regime
design research themes with a clear, evidence-based understanding of agrifood ecological and
socio-economic impacts. In particular, we hope to develop a “Food LCA,” a suite of methods that
synthesizes existing impact assessment modeling with "footprinting" elements measuring the
social and cultural ramifications of agrifood-related activities.
② Social Consumption Practices: This research theme seeks to unravel the embedded
contexts and relationships surrounding food-related practices in order to better understand
consumer’s individual and collective “food mind” and alleviate the socio-cultural/intellectual
factors constraining change. We will conduct action research, structured workshops, participatory
co-design, socio-behavioral experiments, and enact other social scientific methodologies to identify
the situated barriers to sustainable food consumption and innovate in the lifeworld to bridge the
"value - action gap." Particular output of note is the creation of a community-based, participatory
eco-labeling and certification scheme and developing a food literacy curriculum.
③ Regime Design: In the co-creation of sustainable agrifood systems, stakeholders
come together to develop re-producible arrangements of the infrastructure and institutions of food
provisioning in theory and in practice, and collaborate on mechanisms to drive agrifood system
transition. This highly-stakeholder driven, action research will aim to conduct visioning
workshops, future scenario planning, foodshed mapping, and establish food policy councils to
develop policy, certification schemes, pilot projects, and transition plans.
These threads of research address the multiple spatio-temporal levels -- landscape-regime-niche --
adopted in transition management theory with certain strategic, tactical, and operational activities in
mind (Geels and Schot 2007; Kemp et al. 2007). Backcasting from a collective vision of a
sustainable agrifood system will provide a structure toward which niche and regime level activities
can realign and transition the entire system (See Figure 2).
The multilevel research activities will position themselves in the service of realizing concrete,
participatory, society-oriented outputs with stakeholders including food producers, distributors,
retailers, government officials, citizen-consumers, and scientists. In the end, by deeply embedding
the research in communities over a five-year period, we will be able to monitor and measure the
overall effects of our collective efforts in consumers' food habits and expectations, and
comprehensively evaluate their effectiveness in actually transitioning agrifood systems and
reducing environmental harm (eg. reduction in carbon/water/energy footprint; decreases in food
mileage; increases in availability of locally-sourced foods, etc.).
The project will also produce innovative scientific outputs centering on 1) understanding the mind
and behavior of consumers toward food, 2) investigating the socio-economic mechanisms that
mobilize collective action for sustainable consumption, 3) developing impact assessment methods
pertaining to ecological and sociological impacts for food provisioning, and 4) telling a fuller story
of food that links landscapes, marketplaces, and the dinner table. In addition, the designs, goals,
and outcomes of the various research teams will be filtered through a co-designed, and
co-produced methodology experimenting with various workshop and mutual learning formats. A
web-based platform for education, networking, and building consensus among citizen-consumer
groups and agrifood stakeholders worldwide is also being conceived. We anticipate these
interactive methodologies to evolve over the course of the project and act as a model for other
solution-oriented environmental research.
Research results will primarily be applicable to developed and emerging economies, as the social
practices related to food fall along similar patterns of consumption. However, we envision overlap
of subject matter and transferable research outcomes to cases in the developing world struggling
with balancing rising rates of consumption with environmental concerns.
Activities themselves reflect the global-yet-local nature of contemporary agrifood systems and will
center on two types of research sites, those dealing primarily with consumption and local food
production (termed “sites of consumption”) and those involved with the production of food for
global markets (termed “sites of production”). There are three sites of consumption, all located in
Japan: the Kyoto area (Kyoto City, Kameoka City, Ayabe City, and Nantan City), the Kanto area
(Chiba Prefecture), and the Shinetsu area (Northern Nagano Prefecture). These sites will provide a
diversity of factors for comparison and allow for a composite picture of agrifood activities and
conditions in Japan as a whole (Kyoto area: mid-high population centers, urban and rural
proximity; Kanto area: peri-urban/sub-urban bordering a megacity; Shinetsu area: largely rural,
upland). Sites of production are defined here as international places where food is produced for
import to Japan. At present, five of some of the highest imported food items per volume and their
geographical origin were identified as sites of production: soybeans - USA, canola - Canada, frozen
vegetables/berries - China, beef - Australia, and seafood - Thailand. Research at these sites will
primarily take the form of commodity supply chain analysis and certification schemes to inform
impact assessment and dynamic eco-labeling (①a Food LCA, ②b Social Consumption Practices).
Research integration
The project leader and members of the project team have expertise covering the entire spectrum of
disciplines necessary for a thorough, collaborative inquiry into agrifood system transition and
sustainable food consumption. Dr. McGreevy has extensive experience in rural Japan and
understands the livelihood issues that face producers and farming communities (McGreevy 2012).
His work with colleague Dr. Shibata to revitalize rural communities via a food eco-branding
scheme has exposed him to the interfaces between food producer, distributor, retailer, and
consumer needs and the requirement of maintaining healthy agroecosystem landscapes and vibrant
local food cultures (McGreevy & Shibata 2010). In 2009, Dr. Akitsu and members of the project
team organized and attended an international workshop entitled “What Kinds of Ethics Support
Food Communities: Intimate and Public Confidence between Farmers and Consumers," Kyoto
University. Scholars from Korea, Thailand, and the USA discussed the relationships between
producers and consumers mainly in organic businesses. We were able to identify inherent, similar
elements across the cases, such as local community bonds and/or unique kinship relationships and
social stratification between farmers and consumers, that effected stakeholder's feelings of "trust"
for food (Akitsu 2011). Dr. Inaba has worked extensively with the Japanese Society for Life Cycle
Assessment on impact assessment methodologies related to agrifood and the development of
"carbon footprint" eco-labeling (Inaba 2012). Dr. Sudo and his colleagues at the National Institute
for Agro-Environmental Sciences have vast experience in the more technical field methodologies
to measure material cycling such as greenhouse gas emissions (NIAES 2003). Dr. Yagi is an
expert on creating synergies and communicating effectively between science and society through
various workshop methodologies (Yagi & Yamanouchi 2013).
Beyond the discussion of academic competencies, the project team has deep ties with local farming
communities, local and regional governments, businesses operating in the "food industry,"
international certification bodies, and food consumer groups and are able to mobilize these
networks effectively, making the project's research objectives feasible. The project team is also
composed of stakeholders from these sectors of practice, including representatives from
government, consumer groups, and NPOs.
The overall research theme and framing synthesizes outcomes and goals of past and current RIHN
projects and follows the aims of two of the Futurability Initiatives.
" Local Resilient Agriculture:” E-04, H-02, and D-04 speak to the vulnerability of agrifood systems
collapse from socio-economic, genetic diversity, ecological viewpoints, respectively. We test and
develop these research themes by bringing them into a transdisciplinary setting where food
producers and consumers increase their local agrifood systems resiliency by increasing their
collective agency.
" Post-oil Transition:” The reliance of contemporary agrifood systems on fossil fuels is
unsustainable. In redesigning these systems, we build on R-05’s theme of post-oil subsistence
livelihoods and look at the livelihoods of farmers and food lifestyles of consumers in market
societies in anticipating a post-oil world.
" Transdisciplinary research methods”: Expanding on E-05 Init’s work with “knowledge
translation,” we will evolve a transdisciplinary methodology focusing on lifeworld-embedded
social practices to bridge the value-action gap that is present to a great degree in research aiming for
socially-oriented solutions to environmental problems.
Oikos—the research addresses the socio-technical systems of food provisioning and their transition
toward greater sustainability for agroecological landscapes and the planet.
Ethos—the research examines the social experience of food consumption and how it can be made
more sustainable. On the whole, the research engages in a transdisciplinary process embracing a
diversity of knowledge traditions and stakeholder perspectives in the social design science of food.
2. RESEARCH METHODS, ORGANIZATION AND SCHEDULE
The research project is organized into three research theme "teams" (indicated as ①, ②, ③),
which are sub-divided into "task groups" (TG) arranged around specific work. In order to avoid
research team isolation and increase integrative, collaborative work, redundancies are built into the
organization of the teams and TGs by including project members on multiple teams and on multiple,
overlapping TGs. As the project moves forward through time, certain TGs’ research results inform
other higher-priority research TGs in a lock-step fashion. For example, case studies on “innovative
consumer engagement” (②e) informs the dynamic eco-labeling and certification TG (②b), and ①
Food LCA team as a whole. Two to three co-leaders from different academic backgrounds lead
research teams to share responsibilities and effectively manage the diversity of TGs.
Please refer to Table 1, "Project organization, schedule, and orientation," Section 8 “Project
Members,” and Figures 1 - 4 in the "Figures and Supplementary Materials" section for further
elaboration.
Research team descriptions
① Food LCA: This team is charged with elucidating the "backstory" of agrifood systems of
provisioning, creating models to represent the interlinked processes of food production, processing,
and distribution, and developing a range of indicators and impact assessment methods to gauge the
ecological and socio-economic impacts of agrifood activities and particular food chains. In this
sense, we are broadening the definition of "life-cycle assessment" to encompass a range of impact
criteria beyond those that are commonly measured in the traditional definition used in industrial
ecology. At the end of the five-year FR period, this group will produce an impact assessment
methodology, referred to generally as a "Food LCA," that is specific to the Japanese context. This
methodology will be applicable at both nationwide and local-regional scales and be made available
to policy makers and communities working toward transitioning agrifood systems in their locations.
The research results from this team inform the other two research themes as they provide a
data-driven backdrop upon which educational and future strategic outputs and discussions can be
based.
Task Groups
a. Food index & indicators identification/methods: After thoroughly exploring existing impact
assessment and life cycle assessment methodologies (e.g. Goedkoop et al. 2013; Roy et al. 2009),
this TG will design and test Japan-specific models and methodologies. It will also produce a guide to
this methodology for public use. Both local food produced in and around sites of consumption as
well as a selection of food commodities imported from international sites of production will be
analyzed. In particular, these outputs will be closely tied with the dynamic eco-labeling and
certification TG (②b) efforts.
b. Food "chains" analysis: This TG will conduct commodity and value chain analysis primarily in sites
of production from which certain food is imported to Japan in high volume (e.g. Hartwick 1998;
Raikes et al. 2000). Soybeans from the USA (Midwestern states Minnesota, North Dakota, Iowa),
canola from Canada (Manitoba), seafood from Thailand (Samut Sakhon, Bangkok), beef from
a) Research Methods and Organization
Australia (South Australia, near Melbourne), and fruit and vegetables from China (Guizhou) are the
five sites to be investigated. Of particular interest is the value pathways and power-structures that
constitute these commodity chains, to what degree parties along these chains benefit or suffer from
current configurations, and to what extent are more sustainable/just reconfigurations of these chains
possible.
c: Farmer livelihood analysis: Will conduct surveys and fieldwork with farmers and farmer
cooperatives and with local authorities working on agriculture and food, primarily around the
Japanese sites of consumption in Kyoto, Kanto, and Shinetsu. This TG understands that sustainable
agrifood systems must be socio-economically sustainable for producers, who are both stewards of
ecologically healthy landscapes and keepers of local food identity and culture. Research results from
this TG will directly inform TG ②b (dynamic eco-labeling and certification) and ③bc (foodshed
mapping, future scenario planning).
d: Agroecological field studies: Charged with developing a field-based methodology for measuring
ecological impacts of farming systems in Japan. These impacts will be used in the team's overall
aims for impact assessment and be reconceived as indicators for use in eco-labeling ②b. Work on
LCA for agroenvironmental systems done at NIAES will be used as a starting point in this effort
(NIAES 2003).
② Social Consumption Practices: The goal of this team's activities are to increase consumer
agency to change their patterns of consumption by first, gaining understanding of the "internal
constraints" and second, devising ways to reconfigure consumers' experience and expectations of
food-related practices (eating, buying, cooking, growing food etc.) in order for them to make better
food choices. The crux of these activities is to effectively translate the "backstory of agrifood
systems" (with help from ① Food LCA) into forms and formats that are highly sensitive to
consumers' lifeworlds of experience (the routines, contexts, patterns of behavior), that allow easy
interfacing, and initiate the reconstruction of food culture. In order to encourage further increases in
consumer agency, consumers must "own" the processes and activities developed in this team, which
necessitates a high degree of participatory engagement and direct feedback.
Task Groups
a. Social psychology experiments: This TG will experiment from a socio-behavioral perspective on
consumer food-related practices to clarify and model the psychological barriers standing in the way
of changing patterns of behavior (e.g. Rozin 1996, Collins 2005, Rozin 2006). Specifically,
experimental designs on notions of individual vs. communal consumption, consumer ideas of trust,
ritual in social practices, food narratives and their influence, and cross-cultural inquiries are planned.
b: Dynamic eco-labeling and certification: Eco-labeling has emerged in recent years in a plethora of
forms with myriad objectives. Food eco-labels, in particular, are plentiful, but can have questionable
meaning, dubious certification procedures, and be downright confusing. The same can be said of
food certification systems in general. Taking what is learned from case studies on participatory
guarantee systems and the results of team ① Food LCA's work, this TG will experiment with
participatory methodology and set out to co-design food eco-labels and certification protocols. The
eco-labels and protocols will be region-based, stakeholder-driven, and have both ecological and
socio-economic indicators. Ultimately, these labels will incorporate a participatory guarantee and
certification system where the consumers are the "authoritative" body. This process will employ
action research (eg. Engel 1997, Reason & Bradbury 2001) and workshops (Kariyado et al. 2012).
These activities will first take place in the Kyoto area, and then, taking into account critical findings,
repeat itself at the Kanto and Shinetsu sites. This TG will also conduct a survey of international
certification schemes to inform ① Food LCA activities.
c: Food literacy curriculum: This TG will work with stakeholders in K-12 and adult education in the
Kyoto area to develop a "food literacy curriculum." A working group will conduct social surveys
gauging consumer food literacy and changes in food choices after a variety of educational
experiences using focus groups and other social survey methods (eg. Kamberelis & Dimitriadis
2011). The TG will develop theories as to the best ways to educate for food literacy. The curriculum
will be published as part of a citizen toolkit for use worldwide.
d: Agrifood media study: The media has an enormous influence over consumer food choice at both a
conscious and sub-conscious level. This TG will explore the interface between communication
theory and media design in affecting and normalizing consumers' experiences with food-related
practices. The impact of online and real world campaigns, contests, and game-ified agrifood media
on consumer behavior will be monitored and measured via surveys and logs. A survey of Japanese
food-themed television programming is also planned.
e: Case studies- "Innovative consumer engagement": This TG will investigate the cutting edge of
innovative technologies/techniques in engaging consumers with agrifood processes. Two case
studies are currently planned: a bar-code scanning smart phone application that provides information
on the ecological and ethical impacts of certain foods in Delft, Holland; and IFOAM's participatory
guarantee system in Latin America.
③ Regime Design: Like Team ②, this team sets out to increase consumer agency to change food
consumption practices, this time by recognizing the structural and regulatory "external constraints"
that affect their ability to make food decisions and then recasting agrifood regimes (the
infrastructures and institutions) in ways that facilitate unpremeditated sustainable food consumption.
Here too, stakeholder's participation is paramount in that it attunes new co-designed agrifood
structures to the everyday lifeworld of experiences, embedded patterns of behavior, and realities of
situated contexts. The key vehicle for regime redesign is a strong, joint vision of a future sustainable
agrifood system from which stakeholders backcast a plan of action (see Figure 2). A "food policy
council" at each of the three Japanese sites will serve as a mediating and motivating body for
policy-related efforts in their regions (see Harper et al. 2009).
Task Groups
a. Case studies- “Alternative innovative food networks:” This TG seeks to learn from innovative
examples of alternative food networks in a variety of geographical and societal contexts. These
insights will inform the entire team's activities. Case studies in the USA (West Coast, Hawaii, New
York), China (Guizhou), Europe (Italy, France, Netherlands), and in Tohoku Japan are planned.
b. Foodshed mapping/analysis: Foodshed mapping has become popular in recent years as a way to
visualize agrifood system status and potential (e.g. Peters et al. 2007, 2009, 2011). We set out in this
TG to couple these techniques with future scenario planning in hopes to develop a powerful
methodological tool able to describe current conditions and predict future states depending on a
variety of stakeholder-driven scenarios. Mapping will take place at each of the three Japanese sites.
An interactive, online foodshed mapping suite using GIS interfaces is also a goal.
c. Future scenario planning: A concrete future vision of a sustainable agrifood system at each of the
Japanese sites is essential in backcasting regime structures and regulatory frameworks. Future
scenario planning with a high degree of stakeholder involvement achieves these ends (Lindgren &
Bandhold 2002, Swart et al. 2004). Large-scale visioning workshops and smaller, focus-group
workshops and interviews will be used to create sets of future scenarios for communities, regions,
and Japan as a nation. Foodshed mapping will be brought in as a tool when necessary to plan out
land use changes (eg. Patel et al. 2007). The TG will synthesize the scenario analyses into a
"Agrifood Transition Blueprint" with step-by-step recommendations for scaling up site-based
scenarios to the national level.
d. Policy development: Local, regional, and national government officers will be involved
throughout research activities as a key stakeholder group in order to co-produce policy sets
appropriate for each Japanese site. For policy recommendation for Japan as a nation, stakeholders
from each of the three sites will participate in a food policy "case-based mutual learning session" at
which stakeholders can share their experiences and learn from a single case in the field (case to be
determined) (e.g. Scholz 2011). The food policy councils at each site will produce a guide for
agrifood policy creation as part of a citizen's toolkit available worldwide.
e. AFN pilot projects: After synthesizing the results from all of the research team's efforts, potential
exists to co-create actual, real-world alternative food networks and agrifood infrastructures. This TG
will coordinate and consult with entrepreneurial groups looking to realize pilot projects. For
example, one topic of alignment for agrifood entrepreneurs today is the utilization of food waste or
unused biomass for producing electricity or other co-generative products (such as biochar).
The project will also create an online networking platform (website) for use in food literacy
education, agrifood media studies, foodshed mapping, and consumer consensus-reaching
worldwide.
The research schedule during the FR period can be broken down into three phases arranged around
specific research questions.
Phase 1 (FR0-1.5) is organized around answering the questions "What is the current state?" and
"What are the possible mechanisms for transforming current practices (from the consumption and
infrastructural sides)?" for all three research teams. It is a heavily co-design oriented phase.
Phase 2 (FR1.5-4) asks research team specific questions: ① Food LCA asks "Where are the critical
linkages/leverage points and possibilities for inducing change?"; ② Social Consumption Practices
asks "How can we make consumers see/understand food choice impacts and change their
behavior?" and ③ Regime Design asks "How can we redesign agrifood infrastructure/
institutions?"
The third and final Phase (FR4-5) focuses on evaluating societal outcomes, producing scientific
outputs, identifying future work, and expanding networks.
Please refer to Table 1 for specific activities per research team and task group for each of the three
phases.
b) Research Schedule
3. CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY TO RIHN OBJECTIVES
RIHN has established itself as an institution on the cutting-edge of design science and
stakeholder-invested, solution-oriented research for addressing global environmental problems.
This project wishes to push RIHN's research mandate to describe "what ought to be" to a new level
by tackling the one of the fundamental challenges of contemporary modern life in the developed
world: consuming sustainably. We live with the knowledge of our complicity in supporting the
very systems that are undermining planetary health and the longevity of human societies, yet we
are largely complacent or purposefully ignorant. This paradox lies at the root of humanity's
relationship with nature and is confirmed on a daily basis through the medium of food and the
affirmation of food culture. Unraveling the binds that constrain consumer agency to change
modern food culture and systems of food provisioning is a research goal consistent with RIHN's
orientation as a National Institute for the Humanities aiming at elucidating the relationship between
humanity and nature.
This project combines a healthy balance of natural sciences in the indexing and indicator creation
for ecological impact assessments, the social sciences in the action-research involved with
stakeholder workshops and co-design processes, and the humanities in understanding the social
and cultural contexts by which consumers navigate agrifood infrastructures in their daily lives. It is
innovative scholarship in that not only does it fill the knowledge gaps for a "consumer perspective"
in agrifood studies, but it systematically tests a hypothesis for realizing consumer agency to change
agrifood structures and culture itself. It also will produce original methodologies such as a
Japan-specific "Food LCA" as well as encapsulate a dynamic, transdisciplinary effort with a high
degree of stakeholder involvement engaging in a host of interlinked and coordinated actions at a
variety of sites. The international dimensions of contemporary agrifood systems are surveyed
accordingly and research results will be applicable and communicated to international academic
and stakeholder audiences. The project design focuses on realizing societal mechanisms as tools
for motivating sustainable food consumption (see Figure 4) and measurable outcomes in society
itself, such as the reduction of food "footprints."
In the end, this project seeks to establish RIHN as a truly "residential institution" with deep roots in
the Kyoto area and with stakeholders in its immediate surroundings. RIHN has sometimes
struggled with its identity and "niche" in the greater context of Japanese research institutes and the
National Institutes for the Humanities umbrella. If the Futurability Initiatives are sincerely taken to
heart, RIHN's presence as a force for inspiring and leading sustainable societal change, it must first
begin in the place where is resides: Kyoto. Kyoto's rich and changing food culture makes a RIHN
Kikan project on transitioning to sustainable agrifood systems and sustainable food consumption a
perfect starting grounds from which to take a firmer footing as a residential institution in Kyoto.
4. POLICIES REGARDING HUMAN-RIGHTS AND SECURITY FEATURES
We will conduct interviews and workshops with various stakeholders and collect information
containing personal information. When collecting this information, uploading personal data to the
website, and publication of research results, we will disclose research purposes, methods, and
end-use plans of said acquired information to the persons involved. Maximum care will be taken
to protect and respect personal rights and the protection of personal information without exception.
We will follow the ethical guidelines of the Japan Sociological Society and the Japanese Society of
Cultural Anthropology throughout the research process. Large-scale surveys will also follow the
above ethical guidelines.
5. PROGRESS IN THE FS PERIOD
Although our FS period is only three and half month old, we've been quite busy preparing for the
Full Research period. Below is a list of activities in detail.
October 6th, 2013 Kick-off meeting: Our first full meeting of the project team saw 15
members attend. We discussed the overall research design, project goals, project
structures, and brainstormed possibilities. We've kept contact via email and a Google
Group.
Literature reviews: A total of five literature reviews are planned during the FS period: a
review of impact assessment methodologies, food "chain" analyses, social psychological
experiments related to food and consumption, food eco-labeling examples and labeling
theory, and participatory future scenario planning methods and examples. Three of the
literature reviews have been taken up by Kyoto University PhD students and paid via FS
monies. The project leader, Dr. McGreevy, is taking up the other two.
Dr. McGreevy, Dr. Sudo, and Dr. Inaba have met to beginning discussions on impact
assessment methodology for food. We've identified possible research partners and
established a schedule for further building the ① Food LCA team.
Dr. McGreevy met with representatives from the Nagano-based food processor and
winery, St. Cousair. We discussed possible collaborations with partners in China
(Guizhou, frozen fruit and vegetable processor) and in the testing and implementation of
dynamic eco-branding.
Dr. Shibata held a stakeholder meeting in Kameoka City, Kyoto to plan and expand
activities surrounding the “COOL VEGE” eco-brand. (September, 2013)
Dr. McGreevy co-hosted an event with Kyoto City officials on November 6th, 2013
exploring the possibility of establishing a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System
(GIAHS) in Kyoto. GIAHS recognition is relevant for use in food literacy and foodshed
mapping activities.
Dr. Shibata and Dr. Sudo are leading a meeting on “Cool Rice,” rice produced in a manner
that is carbon-negative for a LCA-CO2, assessment methodologies and team building.
(November 25, 2013)
Dr. Akitsu conducted fieldwork in Thailand (near Bangkok) to identify research partners
and start the groundwork for an inquiry into commodity chain analysis of Thai seafood.
North America Study Tour and Fieldwork, December 18, 2013 to January 6th 2014: Dr.
McGreevy visited colleagues at the University of Minnesota, including Dr. Jordan, to
a) Evidence of preparation for Full Research
collaborate on research plans involving the "LandLabs" bio-fuels project, to set the
groundwork for conducting commodity chain analysis of soybeans, and also to learn more
about foodshed research there (Southeast Foodshed Planning Initiative). He also made
contact with the University of Manitoba and the Canola Council of Canada to establish ties
necessary for conducting commodity chain analysis of canola.
We are currently planning on the following activities throughout the remainder of the FS period.
Dr. Sudo, Dr. Shibata, and Dr. Nishiyama will hold a multi-stakeholder meeting and
demonstration in Kashiwa City, Chiba to meet with government officials, environmental
consultation companies, and local farmers on setting up a “COOL VEGE” branding
scheme similar to Kameoka City, Kyoto using biochar from orchard clippings.
Project members will meet on February 1st to discuss research designs, schedules, and
planning.
Project members will participate in a capacity building workshop on effective stakeholder
involvement and workshop formats to be held at RIHN and hosted by renowned
workshop trainer Dr. Tamio Nakano of Doshisha University.
Project members will attend the 9th Meeting of the Institute of Life Cycle Assessment,
Japan March 4-6, 2014. There are a number of special sessions on consumer behavior and
lifestyle, impact assessment, and food LCA.
Dr. McGreevy, Dr. Akitsu, Dr. Shibata, and Mr. Yoshida will meet with officials in March
and Kyoto Prefecture to form partnerships for future collaboration.
Dr. Tachikawa is translating "Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned" by Harper et al.
(2009) for a Japanese audience and for use in the project.
It is difficult to speculate here as we’ve only just begun the FS period. But there are a few points of
note.
We still have a few gaps in expertise on the research team, particularly in the area of social
psychology, but we anticipate filling these needs over the course of the FS period.
Integrating research teams in a way that lets them communicate amongst themselves and better
understand the goals and progress each team is making can be difficult. We have purposefully built
in redundancies into the research structure, such as members from different research teams
working on the same task group, to circumvent this difficulty.
b) Problems encountered and possible solutions
One of the worries of a project of this nature is keeping stakeholder engagement over such a
prolonged period of time. We plan on interspersing food related events and experiences that
emphasize community building around the activity of sharing meals and food together.
A project of this scale and level of stakeholder engagement may take longer than the five-year FR
period and so we must position ourselves in a way that enables a more lengthy inquiry through
networking with other academic and societal institutions and stakeholder groups.
The following grants are related to the project.
JSPS Basic Research Grant (基盤研究 S--#22228003): Food risk awareness and risk
communication: Agrifood theory and profession research. Primary Investigator: Dr. Yoko
Niyama (Kyoto University). Co-Investigator: Dr. Motoki Akitsu.
JSPS Basic Research Grant (基盤研究B--#60425006): Proposal and evaluation of a
scheme utilizing unused biomass as feedstock for carbon-sequestered vegetables to
achieve and low-carbon society. Primary Investigator: Dr. Akira Shibata. Research
supporter: Dr. Steven R. McGreevy.
Institute for Renewable Energy & the Environment- University of Minnesota. Xcel
Energy Renewable Development Fund. (RL-0001-13): LandLabs: Developing
sustainable bioenergy systems by integrating technology R&D with policy, economic and
ecological analysis and innovation. Primary Investigator: Dr. Nicholas Jordan.
c) Past grants and funds related to the project
6. SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE
Akitsu, M. (ed.) 2011a. What Kinds of Ethics Support Food Communities?: Intimate and Public
Relationships between Farmers and Consumers, Working Papers in Kyoto University Global
COE Program for Reconstruction of the Intimate and Public Spheres in 21st Century Asia, Kyoto.
Akitsu, M. 2011b. Comparative Study on Farmer-Consumer’s Relationship: For Linking
Theoretical Approach with Empirical Study, In What Kinds of Ethics Support Food
Communities?: Intimate and Public Relationships between Farmers and Consumers, edited by
Motoki Akitsu, Kyoto University Global COE Program for Reconstruction of the Intimate and
Public Spheres in 21st Century Asia, Kyoto, Japan, 1-14.
Augustin-Jean, Louis, Helene Ilbert, and Neantro Saavedra-Rivano. 2012. Geographical
Indications and International Agricultural Trade. Palgave MacMillan.
Kumazawa, Terukazu, Takanori Matsui, and Riichiro Mizoguchi. 2011. “Structuring Knowledge
in a Resource-circulating Society,” in Establishing a Resource-circulating Society in Asia:
Challenges Opportunities. Tohru Morioka, Keisuke Hanaki and Yuuichi Moriguchi, (eds.). United
Nations University Press, pp.37-51.
McGreevy, Steven R. , Akira Shibata. 2013. Mobilizing biochar: A multi-stakeholder scheme for
climate-friendly foods and rural sustainable development. Tomas Goreau, Ronal Larson, and
Joanna Campe (ed.) Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon
Sequestration, & Reversing CO2 Increase. CRC Press. In Press.
McGreevy, Steven R. 2012 Revitalizing Sustainable Socio-ecological Landscapes: An
Examination of Organic Farming, Renewable Energy, and Carbon Sequestration Activities in
Rural Japan (PhD Dissertation). Kyoto University
McGreevy, Steven R. 2012 Climate-friendly Farming Production and Biochar: Towards
Revitalizing Satoyama and Farming. Suzuki, Tatsuya & Hiroya Ushio (ed.) Satoyama
Governance. Koyoshobo Publishers, pp.169-181. (in Japanese)
Akitsu, M. and Aminaka N. 2010. The Development of Farmer-Consumer Direct Relationships in
Japan: Focusing on the Trade of Organic Produce, Asian Rural Sociology IV, 509-520. (refereed)
Hisano, S. 2013. 'What does the U.S. Agribusiness Industry Demand of Japan in the TPP
Negotiations? Problems revealed in the congressional hearings and the USTR public comment
procedures'. Working Paper No.127, Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University. pp.1-23.
Sekine K. and Hisano S. 2009. 'Agribusiness Involvement in Local Agriculture as a "White
Knight"? A case study of Dole Japan's fresh vegetable business'. International Journal of Sociology
a) Books
b) Academic Papers
of Agriculture and Food 16, 2: 70-89
Imaizumi, Aki and Shuji Hisano. 2013. Institutionalisation of Genetic Resource Management
with Farmers: Cases of Traditional Vegetables in Japan. Journal of Agricultural Science and
Technology B 3: 399-413.
Itsubo, N., Sakagami, M., Kuriyama, K. & Inaba, A. 2012. Statistical Analysis for the
Development of National Average Weighting Factors—Visualization of the Variability Between
Each Individual’s Environmental Thoughts. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17
(4): 488–498.
Jordan, N., L. Schulte-Moore, C.L. Williams, D. Mulla, D. Pitt, C. Shively-Slotterback, R. Jackson,
D. Landis. LandLabs: an integrated approach to creating agricultural enterprises that meet the
triple bottom line. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. (In Press)
Kimura, A.H. & Nishiyama, M. 2007. The Chisan-Chisho Movement: Japanese Local Food
Movement and Its Challenges. Agriculture and Human Values 25, 1: 49–64.
McGreevy, S. 2012. Lost in translation: Incomer organic farmers, local knowledge, and the
revitalization of upland Japanese hamlets. Agriculture and Human Values 29, 3: 393-412.
McGreevy, S. & A. Shibata. 2010. A Rural Revitalization Scheme in Japan Utilizing Biochar and
Eco-Branding: The Carbon Minus Project, Kameoka City. Annals of Environmental Science 4:
11-22.
Tanaka, K. and Mooney, P. 2010. Public Scholarship and Community Engagement in
Building Community Food Security: The Case of the University of Kentucky. Rural Sociology,
75(4), 560–583.
Yagi, E. & Y. Yamanouchi. 2013. Creating the Space for Casual Dialogues on Controversial
Issues about Science and Technology- Case Study of a Dialogue Program Development about
Biodiversity. Japanese Journal of Science Communication 13: 72-86. (In Japanese)
McGreevy, Steven R. & Itsuki C. Handoh. 2013. Protocol of the RIHN Futurability Initiatives
International Workshop on Transdisciplinary Research on Global Environmental Problems.
January 21-22, 2013. Kyoto, Japan, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature.
Vilsmaier, Ulli, Steven R. McGreevy, and Daniel J. Lang. 2013. Work Package Report. RIHN
Research Development Workshop "Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research: Methods,
Processes, and Practical Examples." November 14-15, 2013. Kyoto, Japan, Research Institute for
Humanity and Nature.
c) Reports/Proceedings/Newsletters
McGreevy, Steven R. 2010 SATOYAMA: From Japan to the World. Nougyou to Keizai
(Agriculture and Economics) 76(10) :38-39. (in Japanese)
N/A
2006, May - July. Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy. "European Ecovillages and
Simple Living Communities." Independent research.
2008-2011. Japan (Nagano, Saitama, Kyoto). "Revitalizing Sustainable Socio-ecologial
Landscapes," "Knowledge dynamics in upland hamlets," "Community-based food and energy
systems." PhD Research, Kyoto University.
Asia-Pacific Biochar Conference 2011. September 15-18, 2011. Kyoto, Japan, Ritsumeikan
University. Sub-managing Director.
14th Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons. June 3-7,
2013. Kitafuji, Japan, Fuji Calm. Secretariat.
RIHN Futurability Initiatives International Workshop on Transdisciplinary Research on Global
Environmental Problems. January 21-22, 2013. Kyoto, Japan, Research Institute for Humanity
and Nature. Rapporteur.
RIHN Research Development Workshop. "Transdisciplinary Sustainable Research: Methods,
Processes, and Practical Examples." November 14-15, 2013. Kyoto, Japan, Research Institute for
Humanity and Nature. Rapporteur.
Imaizumi, Aki and Motoki Akitsu. 2013. What are the moral codes for seed saving? From the
interviews with the practitioners in Japan. Presented at APSAFE2013 Food and Agricultural
Ethics Conference at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.
Kumazawa Terukazu, Akira Shibata, Ryo Sekiya, Steven R. McGreevy, and Hidehiko Kanegae.
Toward diffusing "Cool Vegetables": Reconstructing rural socio-economic systems in Japan based
on an eco-branding strategy biochar cultivated vegetables. International Biochar Initiative 2010
Conference, 2010,09,12-2010,09,15, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Kumazawa, Terukazu, Akira Shibata, Ryo Sekiya, Steven R. McGreevy, and Hidehiko Kanegae
Analyzing a simple biochar production process. International Biochar Initiative 2010 Conference,
d) Newspapers/Magazine Articles
e) Videos/Photographic Works
f) Field Research
g) Symposia/Conferences/Workshops
h) Individual Presentations
2010,09,12-2010,09,15, Rio de Janeiro.
McGreevy, Steven R. ’Carbon negativity’—responding to the ‘green grab,’ framing biochar
battlelines, and mobilizing stakeholder support. 2013 North American Biochar Symposium, ,
October 13-16, 2013. University of Massachusetts- Amherst.
McGreevy, Steven R. New possibilities for common-pool resource use in rural Japan:
Agroforestry, carbon sequestration, and renewable energy. 14th Global Conference of the
International Association for the Study of the Commons, June 3-7 2013. Kitafuji, Fuji Calm.
McGreevy, Steven R. Potential for synergizing biochar with the organic agriculture and sustainable
landscape management movements. 2nd Asia Pacific Biochar Conference, September 15-18,
2011. Ristumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan.
McGreevy, Steven R. "Cool Vegetables" in a Critical Countryside: Biochar's Foray into
Eco-Branding and Japanese Rural Revitalization (Plenary). Biochar 2010 U.S. Biochar Initiative
Conference, June 27-30 2010. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
Taniguchi, Yoshimitsu. “The 2nd Term Organic Farming Promotion Basic Policy (1): An
Overview.” 14th Annual Convention of the Japanese Society of Organic Agricultural Science,
December 9th, 2013. Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Taniguchi, Yoshimitsu and Hiroshi Hasegawa. “The Contemporary Significance and Challenges
of Organic Agriculture and Self-sufficiency.” 14th Annual Convention of the Japanese Society of
Organic Agricultural Science, December 9th, 2013. Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.
Educational lecture on “Education, Experience, and Eco-literacy: Keeping the Earth in Mind.”
July 5th, 2013, RIHN. Kyoto Prefecture, Rakuhoku High School, “MEXT Super Science School”
i) Public/Social Activities
j) Media Interviews/Book Reviews
k) Other Achievements :
7. REFERENCES
Akitsu, M. (ed.) 2011. What Kinds of Ethics Support Food Communities?: Intimate and Public
Relationships between Farmers and Consumers, Working Papers in Kyoto University Global
COE Program for Reconstruction of the Intimate and Public Spheres in 21st Century Asia, Kyoto.
Collins, R. 2005. Interaction Ritual Chains. Princeton University Press. USA.
Constance, D. 2009. 2008 AFHVS Presidential Address: The four questions in agrifood studies: a
view from the bus. Agriculture and Human Values 26: 3-14.
De Tavernier, J. 2012. Food Citizenship: Is there a Duty for Responsible Conusmption? Journal
of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 25, 6: 895-907.
Engel, Paul G. H. 1997. The social organization of innovation: A focus on stakeholder interaction.
KIT Press: The Netherlands.
FAO. 2012. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2012: World Food and Agriculture. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Feagan, R. 2007. The Place of Food: Mapping Out the ‘Local’ in Local Food Systems. Progress in
Human Geography 31, 1: 23–42.
Freidberg, S. 2010. Perspective and Power in the Ethical Foodscape. Environment and Planning A
42, 8: 1868.
Geels, F. W. & Schot, J. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy
36, 3: 399-417.
Gibbons, M. 2000. Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and
Public Policy 27, 3: 159-163.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Dr Schryver, A., Strujis, J. & va Zelm, R. 2013.
ReCiPe 2008- a Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method Which Comprises Harmonised Category
Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and
Environment (The Netherlands).
Goodman, D. 2004. Rural Europe Redux? Reflections on Alternative Agro-Food Networks and
Paradigm Change. Sociologia Ruralis 44, 1: 3-16.
Gottlieb, R. & A. Joshi. 2010. Food Justice (Food, Health, Environment). The MIT Press.
Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action (T. McCarthy, Tran.). Boston: Beacon
Press.
Hartwick, E. 1998. Geographies of consumption: a commodity chain approach. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space 16, 4: 423-437.
Harper, A. et al. 2009. Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned. Institute for Food and
Development Policy. Oakland, California. 63 pages.
Hendrickson, M.K. & Heffernan, W.D. 2007. Opening Spaces Through Relocalization: Locating
Potential Resistance in the Weakness of the Global Food System. Sociologia Ruralis 42, 4: 347–
369.
Hertwich, E.G. & Peters, G. P. 2009. Carbon footprint of nations: A global trade-linked analysis.
Environmental Science & Technology 43, 16: 6414-6420.
Hobson, K. 2002. Competing discourses of sustainable consumption: does the ‘rationalisation of
lifestyles’ make sense? Environmental Politics 11, 2: 95–120.
Inaba, A. 2012. "Carbon Footprint and the Future of LCA." Presentation given at Carbon
Footprint International Symposium- Overview of CFP Pilot Project, organized by Ministry of
Economy, Trade, and Industry, February 23, 2012. Tokyo, Japan. Available online at:
http://www.cms-cfp-japan.jp/english/event/pdf/CFPSummary2012/2-1.pdf (In Japanese)
Jackson, T. 2005. Motivating sustainable consumption— A review of models of consumer behavior
and behavioral change. A Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network. London:
Policy Studies Institute.
Kamberelis, G. and Dimitriadis, G. 2011. "Focus Groups: Contingent Articulations of Pedagogy,
Politics and Inquiry" in The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Denzin, N. & Lincln, Y.
(eds.),. Sage Publication: Thousand Oaks. 545-562.
Kariyado, T., Saeki, Y. and Takagi K. (eds.) 2012. Workshop and Learning (Three volumes). The
University of Tokyo Press: Tokyo. (in Japanese)
Kemp, K., A. Insch, D. Holdsworth, J. G. Knight. 2010. Food miles: Do UK consumers really
care? Food Policy 35: 504-513.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., and Rotmans, J. 2007. Transition management as a model for managing
processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. The International Journal of
Sustainable Development and World Ecology 14, 1: 78–91.
Kimura, A.H. & Nishiyama, M. 2007. The Chisan-Chisho Movement: Japanese Local Food
Movement and Its Challenges. Agriculture and Human Values 25, 1: 49–64.
Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., et al. 2012.
Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainability Science: Practice, Principles, and Challenges.
Sustainability Science 7 (S1): 25–43.
Lindgren, M. & H. Bandhold. 2002. Scenario Planning: The Link Between Future and Strategy.
Palgrave MacMillan. Great Britian.
Loureiro, M.L. & Lotade, J. 2005. Do Fair Trade and Eco-Labels in Coffee Wake Up the
Consumer Conscience? Ecological Economics 53, 1: 129–138.
MAFF. 2010. FY2009 Annual Report on Food, Agriculture and Rural Areas in Japan, Summary.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries. Tokyo, Japan.
MAFF. 2012. The 87th Statistical Yearbook of Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
(2011~2012). Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries. Tokyo, Japan.
Masugata, T. 2008. Movement of Organic Agriculture and Teikei Networks in Japan. Shinyosha
#319. (in Japanese)
McGreevy, S. 2012. Lost in translation: Incomer organic farmers, local knowledge, and the
revitalization of upland Japanese hamlets. Agriculture and Human Values 29, 3: 393-412.
McGreevy, S. & A. Shibata. 2010. A Rural Revitalization Scheme in Japan Utilizing Biochar and
Eco-Branding: The Carbon Minus Project, Kameoka City. Annals of Environmental Science 4:
11-22.
Moomaw, W., T. Griffin, K. Kurczak, J. Lomax. 2012. “The Critical Role of Global Food
Consumption Patterns in Achieving Sustainable Food Systems and Food for All, A UNEP
Discussion Paper.” United Nations Environment Programme, Division of Technology, Industry
and Economics. Paris, France.
Murdoch, J. & Miele, M. 1999 'Back to Nature': Changing ‘Worlds of Production’ in the Food
Sector. Sociologia Ruralis 39 (4): 465–483.
Nakata, Tetsuya. 2003. An investigation of food import volume, distance, (food mileage) and
environmental burden. Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Policy Research
Journal, 5: 45-59.
NIAES (National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences). 2003. Life Cycle Assessment for
Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture. Working Paper. (In Japanese)
Patel, M. Kok, K. and Rothman, D. S. 2007. Participatory scenario construction in land use
analysis: An insight into the experiences created by stakeholder involvement in the Northern
Mediterranean. Land Use Policy 24: 546-561.
Peters, C.J., Wilkins, J.L. & Fick, G.W. 2007. Testing a Complete-Diet Model for Estimating the
Land Resource Requirements of Food Consumption and Agricultural Carrying Capacity: the New
York State Example. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22, 2: 145–153.
Peters, C.J., Bills, N.L., Wilkins, J.L. & Fick, G.W. 2009. Foodshed Analysis and Its Relevance to
Sustainability. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24, 1: 1–7.
Peters, C.J., Bills, N.L., Lembo, A.J., Wilkins, J.L. & Fick, G.W. 2011. Mapping Potential
Foodsheds in New York State by Food Group: an Approach for Prioritizing Which Foods to Grow
Locally. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 27, 2: 125–137.
Pretty, J.N, Ball, A.S., Lang, T., and Morison, J.I.L. 2005. Farm costs and food miles: An
assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy 30: 1-19.
Pretty, J. et. al. 2010. The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8, 4: 219-236.
Raikes, P., Friis Jensen, M. & Ponte, S. 2000. Global Commodity Chain Analysis and the French
Filière Approach: Comparison and Critique. Economy and Society 29, 3: 390–417.
Reason, P. & H. Bradbury. 2001. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry & Practice.
Sage Publications: London.
Renting, H. & Marsden, T. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of
short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A, 35: 393-411.
Renting, H., M. Schermer, and A. Rossi. 2012. Building Food Democracy: Exploring Civic Food
Networks and Newly Emerging Forms of Food Citizenship. International Journal of Sociology of
Agriculture of Food 19, 3: 289-307.
Rivera-Ferre, M., Pereira, L., Karpouzoglou, T., Nicholas, K.A., Onzere, S., Waterlander, W., et al.
2013. A Vision for Transdisciplinarity in Future Earth: Perspectives From Young Researchers.
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 3, 4: 249–260.
Roy, P., Nei, D., Orikasa, T., Xu, Q., Okadome, H., Nakamura, N., et al. 2009. A Review of Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) on Some Food Products. Journal of Food Engineering 90, 1: 1–10.
Rozin, P. 1996. Towards a Psychology of Food and Eating: From Motivation to Module to Model
to Marker, Morality, Meaning, and Metaphor. Current Directions in Psychological Science 5, 1:
18-24.
Roszin, P. 2006. "The Integration of Biological, Social, Cultural and Psychological Influences on
Food Choice" in The Psychology of Food Choice. Sheperd, R. and M. Raats (eds). CABI.
Scholz, R. W. 2011. Environmental Literacy in Science and Society: From Knowledge to
Decisions. Cambridge University Press. London.
Seyfang, G. 2006. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic
food networks. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 4: 383-395.
Shove, E. 2003. Comfort, Cleanliness, and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality.
Berg. Oxford, UK.
Shove, E. & Walker, G. 2010. Governing Transitions in the Sustainability of Everyday Life.
Research Policy 39, 4: 471–476.
Spaargaren, G. 2003. Sustainable consumption: a theoretical and environmental policy
perspective. Society & Natural Resources 16, 8: 687-701.
Swart, R. J., P. Raskin, J. Robinson. 2004. The problem of the future: sustainability science and
scenario planning. Global Environmental Change 14, 2: 137-146.
Teruoka, Shuzo (ed.) 2008. Agriculture in the Modernization of Japan 1850-2000. New Dehli:
Manohar.
Tregear, A. 2011. Progressing Knowledge in Alternative and Local Food Networks: Critical
Reflections and a Research Agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 27, 4: 419–430.
UNEP. 2010. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority
Products and Materials. A Report of the Working Group on the Environmental Impacts of
Products and Materials to the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management.
Hertwich, E., van der Voet, E., Suh, S., Tukker, A., Huijbregts M., Kazmierczyk, P., Lenzen, M.,
McNeely, J., Moriguchi, Y.
Van Vliet, B., Chappells, H., Shove, E. 2005. Infrastructures of Consumption: Environmental
Innovation in the Utility Industries. Earthscan, London, UK.
Vermeir, Iris & Wim Verbeke. 2006. Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer
"Attitude - Behavior Intention" Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 2:
169-194.
Weber, C.L. & Matthews, H.S. 2008. Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food
Choices in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology 42, 10: 3508–3513.
Yagi, E. & Y. Yamanouchi. 2013. Creating the Space for Casual Dialogues on Controversial
Issues about Science and Technology- Case Study of a Dialogue Program Development about
Biodiversity. Japanese Journal of Science Communication 13: 72-86. (In Japanese)
8. PROJECT MEMBERS
NAME AFFILIATION POSITION SPECIALISED
FIELDS
DISCIPLINE S: NATURAL SCIENCES H: HUMANITIES AND
SOCIAL SCIENCES M: MULTIDISCIPLINARY
STUDIES
PROJECT WORKING
GROUP
CONTRIBUTION TO THE
PROJECT
CORE
MEMBER/LEADER (PUT ○ FOR CORE
MEMBER, PUT ◎ FOR
THE LEADER)
MCGREEVY
Steven Robert
Center for
Research
Development,
RIHN
Assistant
Professor
Environment
al Sociology;
Rural
Sustainable
Development
M Project Leader;
③ Regime Design,
Co-Leader (abcf)
② Social
Consumption
Practices,
Co-Leader; (abcde)
① Food LCA (bc)
Coordination, management,
networking. ③ a. integrate
case study findings, bc.
provide leadership, f.
co-create new AFN pilots; ②
a. Ritual, narrative
experimental designs, b.
co-design participatory
protocol, c. workshop design,
d. provide leadership; ① bc.
conduct studies in field,
analyze
◎
AKITSU
Motoki
Graduate School of
Agriculture, Kyoto
University
Associate
Professor
Sociology, Rural
Economy
H ② Social
Consumption
Practices,
Co-Leader; (ac) ③
Regime Design,
Co-Leader (abcdf)
② a. Individual vs.
communal, trust,
cross-cultural experimental
designs, c. lead workshops,
working group; ③ a. conduct
fieldwork, bc. visioning
workshops, d. manage Food
Policy Council, f. develop
pilot
◎
SHIBATA Akira Regional
Information
Research Center,
Ritsumeikan
University
Professor Regional Policy,
Marketing
M ② Social
Consumption
Practices,
Co-Leader; (bd) ③
Regime Design
(bef)
① Food LCA (ad)
② b. provide leadership,
collaborate with food industry,
d. marketing expertise; ③ be.
provide leadership, f. develop
pilot
① a. food index, d. soil
testing, indicator creation
◎
TACHIKAWA
Masahi
Faculty of
Agriculture, Ibaraki
University
Professor Sociology of
Food and
Agriculture;
Science,
technology, and
society
H ② Social
Consumption
Practices,
Co-Leader (abc)
③ Regime Design
(bcd)
② a. Trust experimental
designs, b. organize
workshops, c. food literacy
surveys; ③ bc. workshops, d.
policy sets
◎
TANIGUCHI
Yoshimitsu
Science and
Technology
Integration Center,
Akita Prefecture
University
Professor Sociology of
Food and
Agriculture,
Organic
agriculture
H ① Food LCA (bc);
② Social
Consumption
Practices (c) ③
Regime Design (e)
① bc. fieldwork, surveys; ②
manage working group; ③
production system
certification
○
INABA Atsushi Faculty of
Engineering
Professor Life cycle
assessment;
Chemistry
S ① Food LCA
Co-Leader (a); ③
Regime Design (de)
① a. food index, impact
assessment methodology,
develop "Food LCA"; ③ de.
contribute expertise
◎
HISANO Shuji Faculty of
Economics, Kyoto
University
Professor International
agricultural
economics and
policy
H ① Food LCA (b);
③ Regime Design
(cde)
① b. international commodity
policy survey; ③ c.
stakeholder workshops; de.
co-design policy
recommendations
○
SUDO Shigeto National Institute
for
Agro-Environmenta
l Sciences
Research
Associate
Soil sciences
(emissions),
Material
circulation
S ① Food LCA,
Co-Leader (ad);
② Social
Consumption
Practices (be)
③ Regime Design
(e)
① a. food index, indicator
creation, d. experiments,
indicators; ② b. indicator
translation for labeling, e.
participatory guarantee
system; ③ e. test certification
◎
YOSHIDA
Yoshihiro
Agriculture,
Forestry, and
Fisheries Section,
Kyoto Prefecture
Official
(Food
safety,
Education,
Local
production /
consumptio
n)
Food policy M ② Social
Consumption
Practices (cd);
③ Regime Design
(bcdf)
② cd. organize workshops; ③
bc. provide expertise, organize
workshops, d. co-design
policy sets, f. create pilot
HOSHINO
Satoshi
Graduate School of
Global
Environmental
Studies, Kyoto
University
Professor Rural planning M ③Regime Design
(bcd)
③ b. GIS, planning expertise,
c. integrate foodshed findings,
d. contribute to policy sets ○
TSUJIMURA
Hideyuki
Graduate School of
Agriculture, Kyoto
University
Associate
Professor
Agricultural
economics
H ① Food LCA (c); ③
Regime Design (ac)
① c. fieldwork, qualitative
survey; ③ a. fieldwork, c.
organize workshops ○
JUSSAUME
Ray
Department of
Sociology,
Michigan State
University
Professor,
Chair
International
agricultural
economics and
policy
H ① Food LCA (bc);
③ Regime Design
(de)
① b. international commodity
policy survey, c.
meta-analysis; ③ de. provide
recommendations
○
JORDAN
Nicholas
Department of
Agronomy and Plant
Genetics, University
of Minnesota- Twin
Cities
Professor Weed
management
science; Local
food systems
S ① Food LCA (bcd);
③ Regime Design
(f)
① bcd. provide expertise; ③ f. biomass/food waste to
energy system designs,
assessments
○
AUGUSTIN-JE
AN Louis
Department of
Applied Social
Science, The Hong
Kong Polytechnic
University
Associate
Professor
Economic
sociology
H ① Food LCA (bc);
② Social
Consumption
Practices (bc)
① bc. fieldwork, indicator
development; ② b.
geographic indicator labeling,
c. food literacy curriculum
○
TANAKA
Keiko
Department of
Sociology,
University of
Kentucky
Associate
Professor
Agriculture and
Food sociology
H ① Food LCA (bc);
② Social
Consumption
Practices (c)
③ Regime Design
(af)
① bc. fieldwork; ② c.
cross-cultural food literacy
survey; ③ a. fieldwork, f.
pilot project ○
KATO Koichi Seikatsu Club
Consumers'
Cooperative Union
CEO Consumer
society
M ② Social
Consumption
Practices (abcde)
② abcd. interface with
consumer groups, test
labeling, e. fieldwork
YAGI Ekou Center for the Study
of Communication
Design, Osaka
University
Associate
Professor
Science
communication,
Science,
technology, and
society
H ② Social
Consumption
Practices (cd); ③
Regime Design (c)
② cd./③ c. workshop format,
participatory format design;
communicate results to public;
evaluation analysis
○
HIRAI Yasuhiro Environment
Preservation
Research Center,
Kyoto University
Associate
Professor
Material
circulation
S ① Food LCA (a);
③ Regime Design
(ef)
① a. impact assessment
methodology; ③ e. provide
expertise, f. biomass/food
waste to energy pilot
MIZUMACHI
Eri
Science
Communication
Group, Institute for
Integrated
Cell-Material
Science, Kyoto
University
Research
Associate
Science
communication,
Ecology
M ② Social
Consumption
Practices (cd); ③
Regime Design (c)
② cd./③ c. workshop format,
participatory format design;
communicate results to public;
evaluation analysis
IMAIZUMI Aki Department of
Agriculture, Kyoto
University
PhD
Candidate
Food systems M ① Food LCA (bc);
② Social
Consumption
Practices (ad)
① bc. fieldwork, survey on
genetic diversity of seeds; ②
a. trust experimental design, d.
campaign design workshops
ASHIDA
Yusuke
Department of
Agriculture, Kyoto
University
PhD
Candidate
Rural sociology H ① Food LCA (bc) ① bc. fieldwork, farming
cooperatives/business survey
HIRAGA
Midori
Graduate School of
Economics, Kyoto
University
PhD Student Political
economy
H ② Social
Consumption
Practices (be);
③ Regime Design
(de)
② b. literature review,
participatory interface, e.
fieldwork ③ de. co-design
policy recommendations
SUMOTO
Edward
Graduate School of
Global
Environmental
Studies, Kyoto
University
Masters
Student
Business
innovation
M ① Food LCA (a); ②
Social Consumption
Practices (be);
③ Regime Design
(f)
① a. food index/indicator
feasibility; ② b. participatory
and technical (IT) interface, e.
survey innovative consumer
engagement methods; ③ f.
biomass/food waste to energy
pilot
TANABIKI
Yusuke
Global Innovation
Research
Organization,
Ritsumeikan
University
Post-Doc Social statistics S ② Social
Consumption
Practices (ab);
③ Regime Design
(c)
② a. statistical design and
analysis, b. marketing
analysis; ③ c. stakeholder
workshop surveys
KUMAZAWA
Terukazu
Center for Research
Promotion, RIHN
Assistant
Professor
Environmental
planning
M ② Social
Consumption
Practices (b);
③ Regime Design
(bd)
② b. workshops; ③ b. future
scenario integration, d.
coordinate "Food policy
MLS"
YAMADA
Harumi
NPO: Rethinking
the disposable age
Board
member
Water quality
monitoring
S ① Food LCA (ac);
③ Regime Design
(c)
① a. indicator development, c.
farmer survey; ③ c. interface
with consumer groups,
consumer surveys
NISHIYAMA
Mima
Graduate School of
Horticulture, Chiba
University
Associate
Professor
Food systems,
Rural sociology
H ① Food LCA (b); ②
Social Consumption
Practices (b)
① b. farmer livelihood
analysis; ② b. fieldwork,
interfacing with stakeholders
OGA
Momoe
Graduate School of
Policy and
Management,
Doshisha University
PhD Student Policy Science,
NPO
Management,
Qualitative
Methods
H ② Social
Consumption
Practices (c); ③
Regime Design
(bcd)
② c. workshop facilitation,
interviews; ③ bc. workshop
facilitation, d. policy
development
9. FIGURES AND SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS
Figure 1: Conceptual framework (circled numbers indicate research teams) (Source: author)
Figure 2: Transition management: Backcasting via multilevel activities (adapted from Geels &
Schot 2007 and Kemp et al. 2007)
Figure 3: Project structuration-- uniting research themes, stakeholders, and sites (Source: author)
Figure 4: Testing a diversity of societal mechanisms to address a diverse food consumption
lifeworld
Teams FS FR 0-1.5 年 FR 1.5-4 年 FR 4-5 年
① Food LCA ②③ 日本 LCA 学会研究発表会に参加 Establish "Food LCA" IAM
a. Food index & indicators identification/methods
Lit. review
Assess existing IAM Design Japan-specific IAM
Test IAM Guide to understanding IAM
b. Food “chains” analysis; “Production Sites”
Lit. review, 勉強会: “日本食流通シ
ステム”; Soy (USA); Canola (Canada); Seafood (Thai)
Commodity chain analysis: Soy (USA); Canola (Canada); Seafood (Thai); Beef (Australia); Fruit and Vegetables (China)
c. Farmer livelihoods analysis Surveys, fieldwork for indicators ②b, ③bc
d. Agro-ecological field studies Carry out experiments, fieldwork for indicators②b
② Social Consumption Practices WS facilitation capacity building Stakeholder recruitment workshops
a. Social psych. experiments Lit. review Individual vs. Communal consumption; Trust; Ritual; Narrative; X-cultural exp. designs
Conduct experiments
b. Dynamic eco-labeling and certification
Lit. review Design workshops, Marketing analysis Participatory protocol Identify tentative indexes to be certified according to ①
Design workshops, Marketing analysis Build and test labeling Build and test certification protocols
Establish participatory, dynamic labeling and certification system
c. Food literacy curriculum Survey, discussions w/ 京都府 Form Food Literacy working group Draft and test curricula③d Publish curricula (Citizen Toolkit)
d. Agrifood media study Online scoping, Science communication consulting
Consumption campaign design workshops Campaign - behavior log Evaluate campaign Make plans for future
e. Case studies: “Innovative consumer engagement”
Netherlands: Delft (App) ①, ②b Participatory guarantee systems (IFOAM) ②b
③ Regime Design Visioning workshops③c
Establish Food Policy Council Visioning workshops③c Establish Food Policy Council
a. Case studies: “Alternative innovative food networks,”
USA: San Francisco, Hawaii, New York China: Guizhou Europe: Italy, France, Netherlands Japan: Tohoku ③c, ③e
b. Foodshed mapping/analysis U. of Minnesota- examples, methods
GIS mapping (current) GIS mapping (future scenario) GIS mapping (current, future scenarios)
Online, participatory GIS mapping (current future scenario)
c. Future scenario planning Lit. Review Stakeholder WS (policy, industry, consumers) Define future scenarios
Stakeholder WS (policy, industry, consumers) Define future scenarios
Agrifood Transition blueprints
d. Policy development Discussions with 京都府・市 Identify potential policy space
Workshops with policy, industry, consumers "Food Policy MLS"
Policy set creation (Citizen Toolkit)
e. AFN pilot projects Discuss potential with ①c, ②c, and ③c groups Test and realize project(s)
Networking Platform Website Identify partners, needs Develop and test designs Web-platform goes live
Period goals & driving questions
-Building team -Recruiting stakeholders -Identifying knowledge gaps in the research
Co-designing ① ② ③ What is the “current state?” What are the possible mechanisms for transforming current practices (production & consumption)?
Co-producing ① Where are the critical linkages/ leverage points? Possibilities for △? ② How can we make consumers see/ understand food choice impacts and △? ③ How can we redesign agrifood infrastructure/institutions?
-Evaluating societal outcomes -Producing scientific outputs -Identifying future work -Expanding networks
= "informs" IAM = impact assessment methods = Kyoto area; = Kanto site; = Shinetsu site Task groups = high priority research
Table 1: Project organization, schedule, and orientation
Form7-1 (FS→PR)
FINANCIAL RESULTS AND PLANNING OF THE PROJECT ○ Project title:Life-worlds of Sustainable Food Consumption: Agrifood Systems in Transition
○ Project leader:MCGREEVY Steven Robert
○ Project abbreviation: “Agrifood Project” “食と農プロ”
RESULTS Unit:1,000JPY
Fiscal Year and Project
Stage Total
Breakdown of the Total
Facility and Equipment Supplies Personnel Travel Honorarium Others
FS 5,000 600 313 380 3,030 364 313
PLAN
Fiscal Year and Project
Stage Total
Breakdown of the Total
Facility and Equipment Supplies Personnel Travel Honorarium Others
PR 20,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 10,000 2,000 1,000
FR1 80,000 15,000 3,000 24,000 25,000 10,000 3,000
FR2 80,000 10,000 3,000 24,000 25,000 10,000 8.000
FR3 80,000 10,000 3,000 24,000 20,000 15,000 8,000
FR4 70,000 5,000 3,000 24,000 15,000 15,000 8,000
FR5 50,000 0 2,000 24,000 15,000 5,000 4,000
ANNOTATIONS
top related