We selected a human ecology systems framework (Davila and Dyball, 2018; Dyball and Newell, 2015), because it enables a holistic and comprehensive analysis of complex human- environmental systems and captures the dynamics of change driven by feedback processes (Figure 14, Table 11). Ostrom (2010 p:5) states that the role of broad conceptual frameworks is to ‘organize diagnostic and prescriptive inquiry and provide a general list of variables that should be used in analysis’. Systems oriented frameworks are useful for progressing sustainability science, as they help identify feedbacks between environmental and social variables in a system (Fischer et al., 2015; Newell and Siri, 2016). They are also able to diagnose possible underlying root discourses and institutional structures that inhibit or enable change (Abson et al., 2017; Dyball and Newell, 2015;
Meadows, 2008; Midgley, 2000). As a framework designed to enable transdisciplinary enquiry, human ecology offers a chance to practically explore shared understandings between individuals and groups who are intending to collaborate on common issues, but who come from diverse cultural or sectorial backgrounds (Brown et al., 2010).
Figure 14: The human ecology framework, based on Dyball and Newell (2015)
State of Human
Wellbeing
State of Discourses
State of
Institutions
State of
Ecosystem
7 3 5 6 1 2 4Table 11: Processes in the human ecology framework
Arrow number Process described by the arrows between variables
1 The influence that a dominant discourse has on generating formal and informal decisions amongst individuals or institutions. This includes planning and goal setting resulting in the design and implementation of policies to promote the dominant discourses in society.
2 As formal and informal institutions learn from experiences, they will either reinforce or change the dominant discourse. Dominant discourses may change or resist change, as other institutions might reinforce it. If they were changed, they would influence the formation of new institutions to reflect the new discourse. 3 This link shows the implications of institutional decisions on
individual or community’s physical and psychological wellbeing. 4 As communities and individuals change based on institutional
activities, dominant discourses may shift, eventually creating new institutional interventions. As with L2, these observations may challenge or reinforce core values, depending on circumstances. 5 This includes collective activities promoted or enabled by
dominant social institutions that directly affect the environment. 6 As ecosystems change based on formal and informal institutional
activities, new discourses may emerge or dominant discourses perpetuated.
7 Ecosystems are affected by policies and human behaviour, and as ecosystems change they directly affect human health and
wellbeing.
Human ecology is compatible with other sustainability oriented frameworks and methods. Socio-ecological systems and co-production theories also focuses on human-environment linkages and how knowledge processes take place in different contexts (Fischer et al., 2015; Miller and Wyborn, 2018). In resilience thinking, the focus on quantifiable change and abstract human behaviour enables the study of how human and environmental systems are able to cope and absorb change (Walker and Salt, 2006). Qualitative methods can capture multi-stakeholder designed solutions, and can be coupled with quantitative methods to conduct novel transdisciplinary food systems research (Hammond and Dubé, 2012; Ingram, 2017). Back casting and visioning methods are powerful tools for problem framing and identifying ideal futures that can be worked towards though careful strategy design (Wiek and Iwaniec, 2014; Wiek and Lang, 2016). Human ecology systems methods do not seek to verify or refute specific claims, but rather to see how different groups perceive, understand, and value food systems change. This can guide analysis of how these perceptions align with broader issues debated in food systems policy and research.
We used the framework qualitatively to identify dominant perceptions of food and nutrition security from workshop participants, as they were tasked with drawing systems diagrams of their food system of interest. The systems thinking method creates a visual representation of how a group of experts share the understanding of a particular problem. These visual representations are heuristic devices intended to convey individual and group mental schemas of the problems situation, not to
be working models of it. As such, they are not necessarily verifiable, being neither right nor wrong. They are intended to reveal the different beliefs and priorities and to let participants see ‘where each other are coming from’ and to form the basis for the constructive development of a shared understanding. This shared understanding relates to the extent to which participants share common concepts and meanings through which communication and mutual comprehension is possible and is crucial if coherent collaboration is to be possible (Newell and Siri, 2016). In such circumstances, it is useful to encourage individuals and groups to label variables and processes that are unique to their specific system of interest in terms that are relatively simple and generic. By avoiding highly context-specific terms or technical jargon, people from dissimilar backgrounds are more likely to find common ground for mutual comprehension. This type of framework aids thinking in food related sustainability science, as it captures how different individuals understand the challenges and opportunities in food systems.
The framework involves clustering empirical observations within four major sustainability variables relevant to sustainability challenges (Dyball and Newell, 2015). The four variables and their relevance are:
• State of discourses: This refers to the collective ideas in individuals or groups that influence action. Discourses may not be shared equally (Dryzek, 2007), but the framework draws attention to those that are dominant and most responsible for a system’s behaviour. At the same time, the framework can reveal alternate discourses that are currently marginalized or oppressed but which, if empowered, could set different goals for the system.
• State of institutions: This represents the dominant social institutions that the community has established to govern their collective behaviour. These are the formal and informal rules and institutions that facilitate a community’s actions. Formal institutional rules manifest as policy instruments, such as taxes, regulations, and education programs. Informal institutional rules are those tacit regulations that influence what a community judges to be appropriate conduct in the circumstances (Fischer et al., 2012).
• State of ecosystem: This includes both the natural environment and anthropogenically constructed artefacts, such as agricultural landscapes, buildings, roads, and vehicles. • State of human wellbeing: This captures all physical and psychosocial aspects of what it
means to live well. This includes indicators of good health, such as adequate nutrition. The arrows in Figure 14 are feedback processes or activities that influence, positively or negatively, the meta-variables. The framework offers a way of analysing discussions and diagrams developed in qualitative workshop activities in a way that draws links between variables. The framework also enables researchers to link empirical findings with wider discourses and themes present or missing in the diagrams. The framework is limited by not explicitly outlining issues of power relations, which play an important role in how food is governed. This limitation is remediated by the fact that the framework allows participants to identify how they perceive a system, and when
used analytically, those using the framework can look at what is missing or omitted from the dominant understandings.