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