Allotment and AFN praxes have been discussed above (Sections 2.5-2.7), through a political ecology perspective of activities, relations and governance using the capital assets framework (Figure 2.6). This section lays the grounding for the fourth objective of this research (Chapter 8), on how systems
approaches help to define relations between allotments and AFNs, and so understandings of their respective impacts on resilience and sustainability for urban populations (e.g. Sonnino and Marsden 2006, Sherriff 2009).
‘Systems thinking’ (Emery 1969, Von Bertalanffy 1972, Capra 1996) has been suggested for research topics where the impossibility of controlling all variables is recognised (e.g. Skolimowski 1994, Meadows 2008; see also Chapter 3). A systems approach is taken in this research to broaden and clarify network approaches as it better enables the unpicking of the different dimensions (of capitals). The concept of linked social-ecological systems also lies at the root of much academic research on sustainability and resilience (Adger 2000, Folke 2006, Ostrom 2007, Wilson 2012; see Figure 2.3 above).
Although research on characteristics of social-ecological systems is widespread, not much attention has been given to defining their (multidimensional and
81
multilevel) boundaries in relation to AFNs or allotments. A definable social- ecological system is where new and emergent properties result from relations between constituent and nested systems (‘holons’). The research focus is on the patterns of relations between system constituents rather than on objects, as in ‘relational geographies’ (e.g. Bodin and Crona 2009) and network/assemblages (Latour 2005). This focus on relations necessarily involves defining contexts and interfaces, as well as ‘feedback and control’ mechanisms. As described by Capra (1996: 6-7):
"… seeing the world as an integrated whole rather than a dissociated collection of parts. It may also be called an ecological view, if the term ‘ecological' is used in a much broader and deeper sense than usual. Deep ecological awareness recognizes the fundamental interdependence of all phenomena ...”
Thus, a multilevel system is where discernible (albeit fuzzy) boundaries exist to patterns of interdependent relations or diverse links between actants with
shared norms (Lambin 2005). The resultant ‘emergent’ systems are suggested
to be ‘self-organizing’ and evolving (Smith and Stirling 2008, Longstaff 2009).
The concepts of sustainability and resilience (see e.g. Pretty 1995, Folke 2006, Walker et al. 2012, Wilson 2012) are widespread in policy debates on food security (Defra 2010c; see Chapter 1), amongst ‘transition towns’ on post-fossil- fuel futures (Hopkins 2008), and in academic literature (Jansson and Polasky 2010). Urgency is expressed especially over future food security for urban populations, with Fiksel (2006:15) stating that:
82
“The question of urban system resilience is particularly urgent. By 2030 over 60% of the world’s population will live in cities. ... It is important to develop and implement policies for enhanced resilience, since trends suggest greatly increased complexity for future urban systems”
Carpenter and Brock (2008: 39) suggested that “resilience is a broad, multifaceted, and loosely organized cluster of concepts, each one related to some aspect of the interplay of transformation and persistence”. Despite contention that the concepts of sustainability and resilience are hard to define, let alone measure (Tobin 1999), it is suggested here that the framework of social-ecological systems helps in understandings of the impacts of allotments and AFNs.
As with literature on sustainability (O’Riordan and Voisey 1998, Eriksen 2008a, 2008b), many different frameworks exist that elucidate features that contribute to the resilience of social-ecological systems (SES) in the face of change.
According to Carpenter and Brock (2008: 40), resilience is taken to have three key characteristics:
(1) the amount of change the system can undergo and still retain the same controls on function and structure, (2) the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization, and (3) the ability to build and increase the capacity for learning and adaptation.
Bristow (2010: 153) further suggests that “Resilience is defined as the region’s ability to experience positive economic success that is socially inclusive, works within environmental limits and which can ride global economic punches.”
83
Comparisons are made between homeostasis and allostasis; the latter being where a system adjusts its state in order to fit to new endogenous or exogenous circumstances (Forrester 2007: 40). Other literature describes features that affect resilience of social-ecological systems to include flexibility and diversity, as well as level of sensitivity and exposure to internal/external changes (‘robustness’) and the ability for rapid change, i.e. “the capacity to meet priorities and achieve goals in a timely manner” (McDaniels et al. 2008: 312). All these considerations can inform current understandings on allotments and AFNs, and claims that they provide niches that could expand to ‘fill the gaps’ if supplies through current food systems were disrupted (Fraser 2006, Renting and Wiskerke 2010).
Rockstrom et al. (2009) explore the amount of change a system can
accommodate through the concept of ‘planetary boundaries,’ or ‘distance to threshold’. The distances to several of these thresholds are seen to have reduced significantly since the 1950s, with some even breached (see Fig 2.9 below), again underlining the sentiment of urgency expressed by Fiksel (2006) above.
84
Figure 2.9 Planetary boundaries: A safe operating space for humanity
(Source: Rockstrom et al. 2009, courtesy Azote Images/Stockholm Resilience Centre,
http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/research/research-programmes/planetary-boundaries.html)
As Figure 2.9 shows, food supplies for humans are implicated in the boundaries calculated to be already ‘breached’, on the parameters of nitrogen and
biodiversity. The other boundaries where ‘distance to threshold’ has decreased significantly since the 1950s are all areas in which human food provisioning is implicated: phosphorous, climate change, freshwater consumption, agricultural land use and ozone depletion15. Further, chemical pollution is a key parameter
on which conventional agriculture is critiqued (e.g. Pretty et al. 2005), but is not
15 Although not often associated with food production, Methyl Bromide is widely used as a fumigant and depletes
stratospheric ozone at rates up to 8 times that of the CHCs which were regulated by the Montreal Protocol (see Miller 1996).
85
yet assessed in the planetary boundary model. However, there are many uncertainties due to human intent and actions that can deliberately avoid or engineer the crossing of actual and perceived thresholds, and these are informed by values and social context (Adger 2006).
The fourth objective of this research is then to assess potential impacts on the food security, resilience and sustainability of urban populations of allotments and AFNs in the study area by reference to the boundaries that are deemed to be already close or breached (e.g. biodiversity). It determines how these food networks represent social-ecological systems with characteristics of: (i) flexible and diverse links, and (ii) learning (feedback and evolutionary adaptations).
Hassanein (2003) proposes that community food security requires an integrated and coordinated approach which brings together public and private sector groups that otherwise do not collaborate. The levels, diversity and
characteristics of the links between allotments and AFNs in urban areas (for example school and community gardens) remain to be detailed and can contribute to understandings of their combined potential impact on the resilience of urban populations.
The capacity for learning is enhanced through information and feedback. Meadows et al. (2004) contend that systems can be stabilised and sustained through recognising ‘overshoot’ and improving feedback. Thus, the production
86
and communication of information plays a key role in system resilience. Folke et
al. (2005) suggests four important interacting aspects for ‘adaptive governance’,
as being to: (a) build knowledge and understanding of resource and ecosystem dynamics; (b) feed ecological knowledge into adaptive management practices; (c) support flexible institutions and multilevel governance systems; and (d) deal with external perturbations, uncertainty and surprise. They conclude that:
“Such governance connects individuals, organizations, agencies, and institutions at multiple organizational levels. Key persons
provide leadership, trust, vision, meaning, and they help transform management organizations toward a learning environment.” (ibid: 441)
Network actants with influence are suggested to be significant denominators in the ability to manage environmental challenges (Bodin and Crona 2009; and see 2.7 above), and organizational psychology research into leadership, team-
building, and decision-making increasingly also draws on systems perspectives (e.g. Melville 2010). In Gladwell’s (2000) terms, successful initiatives often result from ‘super-connectors’, or people with the ability to bring in others, and to attract resources.
Two main perspectives in future-oriented discussions of resilience and sustainability are those of active adaptive management and structured scenarios. Folke et al. (2002: 437) contend that adaptive co-management requires and facilitates
“… a social context with flexible and open institutions and multi-level governance systems that allow for learning and increase adaptive capacity without foreclosing future development options.”
87
Drawing on evolutionary concepts of variation, selection and heredity, Folke et
al. (ibid.) contend the need for attention to slowly-changing fundamental
variables that create memory, legacy, diversity and the capacity to innovate in both social and ecological aspects of systems. These variables are suggested to increase the range of surprises which the system can cope with and so helps to avoid problems of path-dependence or ‘lock-in’ (Grabher 2009).
Olsson et al (2007: 1) contend that the challenge lies in synchronising
governance systems that are often fragmented and compartmentalized, and that “The ability to create the right links, at the right time, around the right
issues in multilevel governance systems is crucial for fostering responses that build social-ecological resilience.”
The capacity for fostering responses that build sustainability and resilience of urban populations (through allotment and AFN praxes) are suggested here to require capital assets (initial starting conditions) as enablers of material, social and psychological functions. The fourth objective of this research, to explore these interactions between AFNs and allotments, thus involves discussion of ‘starting conditions’ (assets) and ‘potential’ (capacities) of the material, social and psychological functions involved.
The material function of social-ecological systems represented by allotments and AFNs involves the ‘starting conditions’ of current levels of provision and
88
the ability to enrol further assets into the (allotment and AFN) system. Identifying patterns and levels of asset flows between allotments and AFNs can help to clarify their role in resilience and sustainability of food supplies for urban populations.
The psychological function of allotment and AFNs towards resilience of social- ecological systems (urban populations) is considered through the lenses of place attachment (e.g. Birkeland 2008), cohesion (Uzzell et al. 2002), and branding (Fainstein 2001, Higgins et al. 2008). The role that local food projects play in enhancing a sense of community has been documented (Seyfang 2006), and the role of allotment communities in creating social capital discussed in 2.5 above. Further exploration of the links between AFNs and allotments within their localities will help to identify the potential to impact social capital and place identity, with implications for resilience and sustainability of urban populations.
The social dimension of AFNs and allotments can be viewed through the literature on social movements, spatial justice and on communities of interest, variously formed and connected through the common concepts of ecological and social justice. Hence:
“Social and environmental outcomes are produced as actors seek to speak on behalf of themselves or others and mobilize resources in and across boundaries … [they] … represent a form of networked or hybrid governance, an amalgam of neo-liberal and third way politics advocating individual rights, market mechanisms, collective
responsibilities, civic co-operation and public engagement at scales ranging from local to global to address environment and sustainability problems.” (Harrington et al 2008: 201)
89
The dominant actors in food systems speak through narratives of ‘sustainable intensification’, ‘comparative advantage’ and ‘economies of scale’, within the ‘meta-discourses’ of a Malthusian tragedy of the commons (see 2.2 above). Conversely, actants within new (AFN/food) and historical allotment social movements draw on narratives of an ethos of agro-ecological food production as well as social and/or environmental justice.
Literature on social movements (Escobar 1998, Ruggiero and Montagna 2008) highlights how people choose to engage in different ways, and that a variety of organisational arrangements can enable this. Seyfang (2008) proposes that initial intentions in engaging with AFN initiatives are transcended over time and result in a wider awareness of environmental issues. However, the relative
commitments seen within allotments and AFNs to the principles of social justice (Hassanein 2003), and ecological justice (Kovel 2008), remain to be explored.
In summary, the literature on social-ecological systems suggests the need for links, learning and adaptive co-management that enable asset/capacity-building in material, psychological and social functions in order to enhance food security, resilience and sustainability for urban populations. Applying these
understandings implies the need for a diverse range of means of access to food, and can be illustrated by allotments and other constituent systems of AFNs.
90