Agroecological transitions: What can sustainability transition frameworks teach us? An ontological and empirical analysis

被引:94
作者
Ollivier, Guillaume [1 ]
Magda, Daniele [2 ]
Maze, Armelle [3 ]
Plumecocq, Gael [2 ,4 ]
Lamine, Claire [1 ]
机构
[1] INRA, ECODEVELOPPEMENT, F-84000 Avignon, France
[2] Univ Toulouse, AGIR, INRA, INP EI Purpan,INPT, F-31326 Castanet Tolosan, France
[3] AgroParisTech, SAD APT, INRA, F-75005 Paris, France
[4] Univ Toulouse 2, Univ Toulouse 1, LEREPS, IEP Toulouse, F-31685 Toulouse, France
来源
ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY | 2018年 / 23卷 / 02期
关键词
agroecology; social-ecological systems; socio-technical systems; sustainability transition; SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS; LOCK-IN; SOCIOECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS; MULTILEVEL PERSPECTIVE; RESILIENCE THINKING; MANAGEMENT; RECONFIGURATION; PATHWAYS; PARADIGM; AGRONOMY;
D O I
10.5751/ES-09952-230205
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
Transitioning toward more sustainable agricultural development paths requires extensive change and not simply marginal technical adjustments, as suggested by a strong conception of agroecology. To deal with transition, we believe that agroecology can be enriched by a deep analysis of sustainability transition frameworks and, conversely, that preexisting theories can be questioned in light of the specificities of agroecological transitions (AET). We first examine some of the main sustainability transition frameworks (resilience of social-ecological systems, institutional analysis and development of social-ecological systems, and socio-technical transition). We identify their ontologies to question their ability to be combined without deep adjustments. In a second step, we analyze how these frameworks have been used and questioned by researchers from the life sciences or social sciences in four AET studies. We find that each framework is relevant in its systemic and dynamic approach to change, but also that there are limits concerning the balance between the various dimensions. The scales and processes linked to AET must be taken into account, as well as the way to jointly consider ecological, socioeconomic, and technological aspects. Moreover, it is clear that problems in dealing with agency are common to these approaches, which influences the way to model change. More broadly, sustainability transition frameworks need to account better for ecological and technological materialities and processes, the importance of emergent organizations in singular situations, and learning processes and the diversity of knowledge dynamics. Doing so is challenging because it requires regrounding theories in empirical observations as well as questioning disciplinary frontiers and ontologies.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 107 条
[1]  
Allison HE, 2004, ECOL SOC, V9
[2]  
Altieri M. A., 1987, Agroecology. The scientific basis of alternative agriculture.
[3]   The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems [J].
Altieri, MA .
AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 1999, 74 (1-3) :19-31
[4]  
Anderies JM, 2004, ECOL SOC, V9
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2008, Reframing Resilience: A Symposium Report, STEPS Working Paper 13
[6]   COMPETING TECHNOLOGIES, INCREASING RETURNS, AND LOCK-IN BY HISTORICAL EVENTS [J].
ARTHUR, WB .
ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 1989, 99 (394) :116-131
[7]  
Berkes F., 1998, Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, DOI DOI 10.5751/ES-00202-040205
[8]   Socio-economic futures in climate change impact assessment: using scenarios as 'learning machines' [J].
Berkhout, F ;
Hertin, J ;
Jordan, A .
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2002, 12 (02) :83-95
[9]  
Beymer-Farris B.A., 2012, RESILIENCE CULTURAL, P283, DOI [10.1017/CBO9781139107778.020, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139107778.020]
[10]  
Bijker Wiebe E., 1987, The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology