4.5 Article

A social-ecological perspective on harmonizing food security and biodiversity conservation

期刊

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 1291-1301

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10113-016-1045-9

关键词

Brazil; Cerrado; Food sovereignty; Food security; Land sparing; Land sharing; Sustainable intensification; Yield gaps

资金

  1. National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC)-National Science Foundation [DBI-1052875]
  2. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  3. National Science Foundation (IRFP) [1064807]
  4. European Research Council
  5. Div Of Biological Infrastructure
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences [1052875, 1639145] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Office Of The Director
  8. Office Of Internatl Science &Engineering [1064807] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The major challenges of improving food security and biodiversity conservation are intricately linked. To date, the intersection of food security and biodiversity conservation has been viewed primarily through an agricultural production lens-for example, via the land sparing/sharing framework, or the concept of sustainable intensification. However, a productionist perspective has been criticized for being too narrow, and failing to consider other relevant factors, including policy, equity, and diversity. We propose an approach that conceptualizes rural landscapes as social-ecological systems embedded within intersecting multi-scalar processes. Based on such a framing, empirical research can be more clearly set in the context of system properties that may influence food security, biodiversity conservation, or both. We illustrate our approach through a description of contrasting agricultural systems within Brazil's Cerrado region. We emphasize the need for new empirical research involving systematic comparisons of social-ecological system properties in landscapes threatened by food insecurity and ecosystem degradation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据