Abstract
Sustainable intensification (SI) has been proposed as a solution to meeting the challenge of feeding a growing global population under increasing land pressure. This paper explores the level of ambivalence felt towards SI and towards experts promoting SI based solutions to meet food security. A web-based experiment was conducted with 600 respondents who had varying degrees of knowledge about food security issues. We found a diversity of public ambivalence towards sustainable intensification and a high level of felt ambivalence towards experts promoting SI as a solution to global food security. High levels of ambivalence towards experts seemed to influence how messages on global food security were accepted. Moreover, within the respondents here sustainable consumption and greater equity ranked higher than production based sustainable intensification solutions. This paper represents the first application of the psychological construct of ambivalence applied to the topic of sustainable intensification and we argue this helps to localise the debate around SI as it offers the opportunity to capture or disentangle responses towards food security issues.
Highlights
The political agenda towards food production has coalesced around securing supply in the face of future projected pressures on land availability from population growth and climate variability (Gregory et al 2005; Godfrey et al 2010; Geraldo et al 2012)
Within the UK a research platform has been established by Defra on sustainable intensification’ (SI), and a significant tranche of funding for the UK Agri-Technology strategy is centred on the goal of sustainable intensification (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2013)
I have both negative and positive attitudes towards this statement^). In relation to both items, 18 % (105 respondents) of those who completely agreed with the expert statement were highly conflicted, a further 18 % (106 respondents) who were unsure of the statement were highly conflicted, and a further 6 % (47 respondents) who completely disagreed with the statement were highly conflicted
Summary
The political agenda towards food production has coalesced around securing supply in the face of future projected pressures on land availability from population growth and climate variability (Gregory et al 2005; Godfrey et al 2010; Geraldo et al 2012). A range of studies has argued that the pursuit of SI will lead to trade-offs in economic, ecological and social dimensions of food production and consumption (Godfrey et al 2010; Pretty et al 2011; Conway 2011; Barnes 2012; Franks 2014; Barnes and Thomson 2014; McDonagh 2015; Godfray and Garnett 2014; Gadanakis et al 2015). The search for a technological fix has led opponents to argue that this does not address the inefficiencies within the supply chain and would have negative redistributive effects on the primary sector (Tomlinson 2013; McDonagh 2015) or have even tended to refer to sustainable intensification as an oxymoron (Marsden 2010; Lewis-Brown and Lymbery 2012)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
