4.7 Article

The need for policy to address the food system lock-in: A case study of the Finnish context

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 140, 期 -, 页码 933-944

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.171

关键词

Food system; Lock-in; Increasing returns; Co-evolutionary system; Nitrogen; Phosphorus

资金

  1. Green Growth Program of Tekes - The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation [2650/31/2011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The introduction of synthetic fertilizers transformed the food system into the one we know today in the Western world. The present paper argues that this transformation has become an irreversible self feeding process referred to as food system lock-in, which threatens planetary boundaries of nitrogen and phosphorus, hence the food security in the future. A system in a lock-in state can undermine its own existence by deteriorating the capacity to cope with upcoming crises of resource scarcity and environmental instability. In this paper, the roots of lock-in are explored and empirically grounded in the historical narrative of the food system transition in Finland in the past 60 years. The theoretical framework builds on socio-technical studies and the economic theory of increasing returns. The aim of the paper is to identify, through an evolutionary analysis, the processes of increasing returns that have become path inefficient and have reinforced the lock-in in the food system. Three separate but interdependent processes in the production, in the policy and institutions, and in the supply chain create systematic resistance towards sustainability transition. These findings indicate that more attention should be paid at the public policies that are currently too narrow in their scope and do not effectively bridge the entire system, from food production to consumption. Public intervention is critical for the unlocking, but individuals in the various parts of the food system are those who create new paths. (C) 2016 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

4.7
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