4.6 Article

The development and application of a sustainable diets framework for policy analysis: A case study of Nepal

期刊

FOOD POLICY
卷 70, 期 -, 页码 40-49

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.05.005

关键词

Sustainable diets; Policy analysis; Climate change; Sustainable development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objectives of this study were to 1) develop a policy analysis framework for examining the components of a sustainable diet and 2) to apply its use to three relevant national polices in Nepal. We developed a policy analysis framework using existing literature and applied the framework to three Nepalese policies: Nepal's Multisectoral Nutrition Plan (MSNP) 2013-2017, Agricultural Development Strategy (ADS) 2015-2035 and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) 2014-2020. Each policy was coded independently by two researchers to examine whether the different components of the sustainable diets framework were mentioned and if they had associated policy actions. We then used a health policy analysis tool to examine the overall quality of each policy. The ADS mentioned the most (89%) components of the sustainable diets framework as compared to the NBSAP (58%) and the MSNP (70%). If all three policies were fully implemented they would address all but one of the components of a sustainable diet, with the potential to deliver for health and the environment. However, there was a lack of clarity regarding how the resources to accomplish the policy objectives would be obtained as well as insufficient detail regarding the policies' monitoring and evaluation frameworks. The sustainable diets framework developed in this study enables the identification of gaps where policies need to broaden their focus in order to incorporate a more holistic view of the food system. This will become increasingly important as climate change continues to persist and the need for more resilient food systems becomes more recognized. (c) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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