Transformations to regenerative food systems-An outline of the FixOurFood project.

This paper provides an outline of a new interdisciplinary project called FixOurFood, funded through UKRI's 'Transforming UK food systems' programme. FixOurFood aims to transform the Yorkshire food system to a regenerative food system and will work to answer two main questions: (1) What do regenerative food systems look like? (2) How can transformations be enabled so that we can achieve a regenerative food system? To answer these questions, FixOurFood will work with diverse stakeholders to change the Yorkshire food system and use the learning to inform change efforts in other parts of the UK and beyond. Our work will focus on shifting trajectories towards regenerative dynamics in three inter-related systems of: healthy eating for young children, hybrid food economies and regenerative farming. We do this by a set of action-orientated interventions in schools and the food economy, metrics, policies and deliverables that can be applied in Yorkshire and across the UK. This article introduces the FixOurFood project and concludes by assessing the potential impact of these interventions and the importance we attach to working with stakeholders in government, business, third sector and civil society.

Building community resilience in a context of climate change: The role of social capital.

Social capital is considered important for resilience across social levels, including communities, yet insights are scattered across disciplines. This meta-synthesis of 187 studies examines conceptual and empirical understandings of how social capital relates to resilience, identifying implications for community resilience and climate change practice. Different conceptualisations are highlighted, yet also limited focus on underlying dimensions of social capital and proactive types of resilience for engaging with the complex climate change challenge. Empirical insights show that structural and socio-cultural aspects of social capital, multiple other factors and formal actors are all important for shaping the role of social capital for guiding resilience outcomes. Thus, finding ways to work with these different elements is important. Greater attention on how and why outcomes emerge, interactions between factors, approaches of formal actors and different socio-cultural dimensions will advance understandings about how to nurture social capital for resilience in the context of climate change.

Transforming conservation science and practice for a postnormal world.

We examine issues to consider when reframing conservation science and practice in the context of global change. New framings of the links between ecosystems and society are emerging that are changing peoples' values and expectations of nature, resulting in plural perspectives on conservation. Reframing conservation for global change can thus be regarded as a stage in the evolving relationship between people and nature rather than some recent trend. New models of how conservation links with transformative adaptation include how decision contexts for conservation can be reframed and integrated with an adaptation pathways approach to create new options for global-change-ready conservation. New relationships for conservation science and governance include coproduction of knowledge that supports social learning. New processes for implementing adaptation for conservation outcomes include deliberate practices used to develop new strategies, shift world views, work with conflict, address power and intergenerational equity in decisions, and build consciousness and creativity that empower agents to act. We argue that reframing conservation for global change requires scientists and practitioners to implement approaches unconstrained by discipline and sectoral boundaries, geopolitical polarities, or technical problematization. We consider a stronger focus on inclusive creation of knowledge and the interaction of this knowledge with societal values and rules is likely to result in conservation science and practice that meets the challenges of a postnormal world.

Is research keeping up with changes in landscape policy? A review of the literature.

Several innovative directions for landscape policy development and implementation have emerged over recent years. These include: (i) an expansion of scope to include all landscape aspects and landscape types, (ii) an increased emphasis on public participation, (iii) a focus on designing measures appropriate for different contexts and scales, and (iv) encouraging support for capacity-building. In this paper, we evaluate the extent to which these policy directions are reflected in the practice of academic landscape research. We evaluate all research papers published in three leading landscape journals over six years, as well as published research papers relating directly to the European Landscape Convention. The latter, which was adopted in 2000, establishes a framework for landscape protection, planning and management in Europe and is to date the only international legal instrument of its kind. Results indicate that whilst policy innovations do not appear to be a major stimulus for academic research, studies nevertheless address a range of landscape aspects, types and scales (albeit with a slight bias towards bio-physical landscape aspects). However, geographical representativeness of research is weak and dominated by the United States and northern/western Europe, and research capacity likewise appears to be unevenly distributed. Landscape research is also limited in the extent to which it involves stakeholders or develops innovative methods for doing so, notwithstanding that this remains a key challenge for policy-makers. Results point to the potential for landscape research to address areas (topical and geographical) which have received little attention to date, as well as suggesting mutual benefits of stronger links between policy and academia.

Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management.

This paper evaluates the processes and mechanisms available for integrating different types of knowledge for environmental management. Following a review of the challenges associated with knowledge integration, we present a series of questions for identifying, engaging, evaluating and applying different knowledges during project design and delivery. These questions are used as a basis to compare three environmental management projects that aimed to integrate knowledge from different sources in the United Kingdom, Solomon Islands and Australia. Comparative results indicate that integrating different types of knowledge is inherently complex - classification of knowledge is arbitrary and knowledge integration perspectives are qualitatively very different. We argue that there is no single optimum approach for integrating local and scientific knowledge and encourage a shift in science from the development of knowledge integration products to the development of problem-focussed, knowledge integration processes. These processes need to be systematic, reflexive and cyclic so that multiple views and multiple methods are considered in relation to an environmental management problem. The results have implications for the way in which researchers and environmental managers undertake and evaluate knowledge integration projects.

Integrating resilience thinking and optimisation for conservation.

Conservation strategies need to be both effective and efficient to be successful. To this end, two bodies of research should be integrated, namely 'resilience thinking' and 'optimisation for conservation,' both of which are highly policy relevant but to date have evolved largely separately. Resilience thinking provides an integrated perspective for analysis, emphasising the potential of nonlinear changes and the interdependency of social and ecological systems. By contrast, optimisation for conservation is an outcome-oriented tool that recognises resource scarcity and the need to make rational and transparent decisions. Here we propose that actively embedding optimisation analyses within a resilience-thinking framework could draw on the complementary strengths of the two bodies of work, thereby promoting cost-effective and enduring conservation outcomes.