|
Todd L. Cherry
1, 2, *
and Hanne Sæle
3
|
| 1 CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway |
| 2 Appalachian State University, North Carolina, USA |
| 3 Department of Energy Systems, SINTEF Energy Research, Trondheim, Norway |
| * Corresponding author |
|
Roland Ebel
|
| Department of Health and Human Development, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA |
Today, agroecology is more than a science; it is a movement that advocates for a sustainable redesign of the global food system. Some of its acknowledged protagonists plead for a redesign based on the support of and for small-scale farming because small farms are considered more sustainable than large farms. The present review explores the arguments that leading agroecologists use for justifying their preference for small (frequently peasant) farms. In this review, small farms are defined as possessing a mean agricultural area of maximum two hectares, being family-owned, emphasizing outdoor production, and annually producing at least two different crops or livestock. Peasant farms are defined as subsistent small farms in developing countries. The review includes an overview of the current state of small farms and their most severe challenges. Agroecological publications of the last thirty years were scanned for arguments that sustain the hypothesis that small farms are more sustainable. It was found that there are no studies that directly compare the sustainability of farms based on their size. Instead, most studies cited to confirm the sustainability of small farms compare farms that differ in terms of both, size and farm management. Hence, it is likely that the reason for the advanced sustainability of small farms is their management, not their size. The assertion that small farms are a priori more sustainable than large ones is not supportable. Misleading use of the term “small farms” may impede the efforts of agroecology to stimulate sustainable food production.
|
Oliver Gerald Schrot
1, *
,
Hanna Krimm
2
and Thomas Schinko
3
|
| 1 Faculty of Geo- and Atmospheric Sciences, Institute of Geography, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria |
| 2 alpS GmbH, Innsbruck, Austria |
| 3 Risk and Resilience Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria |
| * Corresponding author |
This paper recognises that particularly early career climate change and sustainability researchers are exposed to both the claim for and practical challenges of inter- and transdisciplinarity. For a first qualitative investigation of Austrian early career researchers’ preparedness for conducting participatory research with societal stakeholders, this study examines perspectives of twelve early career researchers participating in a young scientists' workshop.
Using a pre-post survey and analysing data by content, our findings indicate that workshop participants have to manage stakeholder processes directly after graduation and, due to a lack of methodological training, only use a small fraction of existing social science methods and participatory settings for stakeholder collaboration. To support other early career researchers and future students in Austria in developing strong inter-and transdisciplinary research skills, we highlight the added-value of integrating hands-on workshops with societal stakeholders, regular exchange of lessons learned and transdisciplinary lectures into university education. Offering more practice-oriented transdisciplinary learning activities during undergraduate education, like excursions and mini-projects in which students can develop and train participatory methods together with stakeholders under guidance, is believed to be a fruitful strategy in this context.