Form1 (FS→PR)Feasibility Study Report: Proposal for Full Research

�1

FS Title Lifeworlds of Sustainable Food Consumption: Agrifood Systems in Transition

Proposed FR Title Lifeworlds of Sustainable Food Consumption and Production: Agrifood Systems in Transition

Project Category Initiative-based Project

Leader of the Proposed FR

Research Institute for Humanity and Nature Assistant Professor MCGREEVY Steven Robert

Homepage http://www.chikyu.ac.jp/rihn_e/project/FS-25.html

Keywordsagrifood transition, sustainable food consumption and production, foodshed mapping, participatory backcasting, Asian food ethics

Proposed project period

□　3 years Full Research □　4 years Full Research ☑　5 years Full Research

a) Research objectives and background Food is one of the most vital elements of our lives and yet the challenges facing our ability to properly nourish ourselves are increasingly wide-spread and “wicked.” Industrialized, high input, market-oriented farming that has made it very difficult for small-scale family farmers to maintain viable livelihoods in both developed and developing economies is also a major cause of social pressures and environmental harm (Wegner & Zwart 2011). As food systems become more globalized, so too do their impacts on soil fertility, water use, biodiversity impact, pollution, and climate change. On the consumption side, “diseases of affluence” are rising due to diets reliant on processed foods and consumer agency to make better food choices is limited. Loss of food diversity and the homogenization of food culture has resulted in the loss of diversified production, and a reduction in biodiversity and resiliency of food systems. Asia is a hot spot of shifting, interconnected production and consumption patterns with significant implications for future global environmental health. Many areas in rural Asia face a difficult situation as agricultural intensification has resulted in significant water and soil pollution from fertilizer and pesticide overuse. In addition, economic development concentrated in urban areas has depopulated many farming communities, resulting in a loss of agro-biodiversity and traditional agricultural knowledge and lifeways. At the same time, foodstuffs, food culture, and consumption patterns are intermingling more and more: Japanese consumers eat rice from Thailand, Chinese consumers demand more sushi, and Thai consumers eat cup ramen sold from Japan-based convenience stores such as Lawson and Seven-Eleven. These agrifood challenges illustrate an environmental, social, economic, and cultural problem of global proportions. Obviously, changes are needed in three areas: 1) what we produce and the way we produce food, 2) in the governing systems of provisioning, and 3) how we carry out everyday consumption— a sustainable agrifood transition is in order. Taking a bottom-up, action research approach, this project seeks to initiate sustainable agrifood transition through the creation of new communities of social practice and collective action at locations in four developed and emerging Asian countries— Japan, China, Thailand, and Bhutan. Through this process we will effectively combine and advance three particular fields: 1) alternative food network research on the need for production-side systems change and effective agrifood governance, 2) sustainable consumption research on the critical socio-cultural elements that shape human behavior, and 3) socio-technical transition research on the empirical and theoretical parameters of transformative social change. The project will co-design and co-produce knowledge and mechanisms that challenge the logics of the market by valorizing the non-economic qualities and environmental services of food and agriculture that improve quality of life, and engage society in a public debate on our relationship with food and nature that questions shared beliefs and reacclimatizes consumers as citizens and co-producers in the foodscapes around them. This project will provide knowledge relevant to fostering sustainable agrifood transition processes. In order to understand current structures and contexts, the project will conduct foodshed mapping at national, regional, and local scales where appropriate and data from participatory GIS activities will also capture consumer diet and consumption behavior. The data will be modeled to illustrate possible future scenarios and used further in evaluating action plans. “Upstream” and “downstream” agrifood system actors will conduct backcasting to envision new social consumption practices as well as conceive of new pathways for ecologically-oriented producers to maintain and expand their styles of farming into the future and to address problems related to natural resource management. Also, two transition strategies will be employed: 1) engaging social actors in an ethical discussion as part of a concerted social learning effort

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

�2

Project activities as part of a transition process

through strong networking and use of internet technologies and 2) employing tools that allow for greater market transparency, making market logics explicit, and for evaluating and supporting local food systems. The project answers the call for greater understanding of bottom-up agency to change culture, namely the culture of food consumption and culture of agriculture. It also introduces Asian cases and perspectives on sustainable food consumption and production to an international audience, providing a sorely needed space for comparison with literature based on examples from the West. It will augment foodshed mapping and modeling methodologies with high data resolution at smaller scales and establish working sets of methodological protocols and guides for public use. It will also plant deep, long-lasting roots in the communities within which it operates, foster citizen science to monitor and reflect upon local foodscapes, and contribute to the formation of new forms of local agrifood governance.

b) Research methods and organization The project is organized into three broad groupings and further subdivided into teams arranged around particular activities or sets of activities: 1) Foodshed mapping & modeling, 2) Backcasting: Consumption practices, 3) Backcasting: Ecological food provisioning, 4) Food ethics, 5) Local market support tool, and 6) Smartphone app. As the project moves forward through time, research results inform and are reflected upon by multiple teams. Each of the teams is led by two to three co-leaders that share the duties of coordinating among members and stakeholders, research activities on site, analysis, and output production. The project will offer a broad, comparative overview of the dynamic, developing Asian region as well as open a discussion of the linkages, dependencies, and opportunities for creating more resilient agrifood relationships for the future. For example, the concept and action plans of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (www.GIAHS.org ) and their potential impacts on sustainable food systems will be reviewed at GIAHS sites in Japan, China, and Thailand.

c) Achievements to date In the past year and a half, the project has evolved significantly, produced a number of academic socially-relevant outputs, successfully grown the research team with new members to address areas of need, and networked and recruited local stakeholders at research sites. Project members have written papers, edited books, and presented agrifood related research at academic conferences in multiple countries. Extensive fieldwork was performed in Japan and Europe to investigate the ways in which food democracy-oriented experiments and actions leading to sustainable food production and consumption governance and participatory action have been initiated and to begin data collection for a comparative study between European, Japanese/Asian food ethics. Workshops were held in two different countries to further this comparative research as well as to test methodological formats for the future. Three public seminars were organized on the topics of food distribution, fair-trade, food education, local production for local consumption, and Japanese food consumption impacts. We’ve improved project capacities through training workshops, global and national networking, and visioning and transdisciplinary research design exercises.

d) Evidence of the feasibility of full research In addition to the achievements listed above, the project has been particularly sensitive to the comments received from PEC and have responded with a number of fundamental changes that improve project feasibility. The research focus has expanded beyond only consumption to include issues of production. The number and diversity of research sites has increased to include significant locations throughout Asia, while at the same time, the overall number of research teams has been reduced to improve manageability. The perspective and methodology of participatory backcasting is a noteworthy addition, strengthening action research impacts. Short-term (5 year) and long-term-programmatic (30 year-oriented) outputs and outcomes are practical, educational, and integrated in ways to ensure continued relevance to communities over time. The theme of unraveling the binds that constrain consumer agency to change modern food culture and systems of food provisioning is a research goal consistent with RIHN's mission of elucidating the relationship between humanity and nature. The project seeks to establish RIHN as a truly "residential institution" with deep roots in the Kyoto area, throughout Japan, and with key stakeholders in Asia and global community. The perspectives of Future Earth research themes linked to post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have been reviewed and integrated into our research agenda. The project will strive to support the RIHN-Future Earth Asia research agenda through active participation and networking with global research community worldwide, civil society organizations active in food ethics and green consumption, and the UN agencies for the post-2015 SDGs.

�3

Problem setting and background Food is one of the most vital elements of our lives and yet the challenges facing our ability to properly nourish ourselves are increasingly wide-spread and “wicked.” Although the planet is awash in calories — over 13 quadrillion were produced in 2010, 5359kcal daily per capita, essentially doubling the recommended daily caloric intake — nearly a billion people are undernourished, while another two billion are overweight (FAO 2012, FAO/WFP 2010, Patel 2008). This double public health tragedy speaks volumes about the disfunctionality in the ways we provide and consume food. On the production side, the same industrialized, high input, market-oriented farming that has made it very difficult for small-scale family farmers to maintain viable livelihoods in both developed and developing economies is also a major cause of environmental harm (Wegner & Zwart 2011). As food systems become more globalized, so too do their environmental impacts— 30% of global emissions contributing to climate change and 70% of freshwater consumption are the result of agricultural and food production processes (UNEP 2010). Biodiversity loss, pollution of waterways leading to eutrophication and ocean acidification, increasing land degradation and desertification, and losses in soil fertility on the whole are some of the byproducts of eating at the world's table (McIntyre et al. 2009). In addition, the trend toward globalized food has increased agrifood system vulnerability, as global market forces squeeze farming families off the land, resulting in the loss of agro-systems and crop biodiversity, food cultures, and agrifood-related knowledge— all of which are critical resources on a warming planet. On the consumption side, a glut of processed, unhealthy cheap food has saturated markets in countries everywhere, increasing the prevalence of chronic diseases, sometimes referred to as “diseases of affluence,” like cardiovascular-related illness, diabetes, obesity, and cancer (Carolan 2011, Ezzati et al. 2005, ICN2 2014). Access to this kind of food has been made possible by the rise of powerful “Big Food” companies— food and beverage multinationals that hold an overwhelming market concentration— and big grocery retailers (Walmart, Carrefour, Metro Group, Tesco, AEON, etc.) that have contributed in creating uniform scenes of food provisioning in most OECD countries: big box stores and convenience stores alongside stagnant main streets and other traditional food markets (Stuckler & Nestle 2012, Deloitte 2010). There are over 40,000 items in your average supermarket, and since overall food demand is limited (we can only eat so much), advertising, mass-marketing campaigns, and sophisticated branding by retailers influence consumer food choice and reinforce consumeristic values (Food Marketing Institute 2013, Dawson 2013). Urbanization and change of lifestyles as well as limited access to locally produced and diversified food have triggered dependency on supermarkets and traditional diets in many places have shifted to more processed 1

foods and greater intake of protein derived from industrial livestock and wild stocks of marine species, both of which have ramifications for biodiversity and environmental health (Hawkes 2005). 2

Within these global food and agricultural trajectories, Asia is a hot spot of shifting, interconnected production and consumption patterns with significant implications for human health, food culture and future global environmental health. Many areas in rural Asia face a difficult situation as agricultural intensification has resulted in significant water and soil pollution from fertilizer overuse. Industrial livestock operations,

PROPOSAL FOR FULL RESEARCH 1. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND BACKGROUND

Traditional diets are often quite healthy and highly diverse.1

Intensive feedlot operations cause excessive water and soil pollution from runoff of animal wastes. Many global marine fish stocks are highly 2

depleted, including popular varieties such as bluefin tuna, Atlantic salmon, and Atlantic cod.

�4

driven by increased domestic demand for pork and chicken, as well as intensive aquaculture operations are some of the worst offenders (Shen et al. 2012, Sapkota et al. 2008). In addition, economic development concentrated in urban areas has depopulated many farming communities, particularly through male migration, resulting in increased number of households headed by women (FAO 2012), a loss of traditional agricultural knowledge and lifeways (McIntyre et al. 2009). For example, McGreevy’s work with new and incoming farmers identified a number of cultural barriers related to the feasibility of maintaining stocks of local knowledge in upland areas of Japan (2012). Within the region, food trade ties are expanding and are expected to expand further under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. Under these relations, developed countries like Japan will be further reliant upon food imports and put further pressure 3

on already overstressed food-related biocapacity in the region (Iha et al. 2014). Japan and China, two populous and powerful countries in the region, can’t feed themselves. At the same time, foodstuffs, food culture, and consumption patterns are intermingling more and more: Japanese consumers eat rice from Thailand, Chinese consumers demand more sushi, and Thai consumers eat cup ramen sold from Japan-based convenience stores such as Lawson and Seven-Eleven. The agrifood challenges presented here illustrate an environmental, social, economic, and cultural problem of global proportions. Obviously, changes are needed in three areas: 1) what we produce and the way we produce food, 2) in the governing systems of provisioning, and 3) how we carry out everyday consumption— a sustainable agrifood transition is in order. But what exactly does a transition of this nature entail within the irresistible pressures of ever-globalizing agrifood markets? What parameters of sustainability are necessary components for long-lasting agrifood system health? Scholars from varied disciplines have sought to explain those very questions via a number of approaches. To begin with, many focused on the production side of agrifood are interested in alternative food networks (AFN). A research discourse has emerged worldwide (Murdoch & Miele 1999; Renting et al. 2003; Goodman 2004; Constance 2009), with limited work in Asia (Kimura & Nishiyama 2007, Masugata 2008, Sanders 2006, Thapa & Rattanasuteerakul 2011), as a response to intensive, global market-oriented agriculture production and food system oligarchy. AFNs seek to shorten food supply chains, emphasize food quality, safety, and ecologically-friendly production methods, and aim at bringing back the "face" of production behind food provisioning systems for consumers. A vocal subset of experts investigating the political economy of food chains points to the overwhelming power of a few multinational corporations that set the global food agenda, effectively “ruling” the world’s food system from farm to fork, as the primarily barrier to affecting food change (Bonnano et al 1994, Lang & Heasman 2003, Stuckler & Nestle 2012). Building on these realizations, AFN efforts have often congregated with social movements seeking to promote economic fairness, social justice, and food sovereignty in the face of globalization (eg. Fairtrade- Freidberg 2010, Loureiro & Lotade 2005; local food- Hendrickson & Heffernan 2007, Feagan 2007; food democracy- Renting et al. 2012; food citizenship- De Tavenrneir 2012; La Via Campesina- Desmaarias 2007). Another significant branch of inquiry is interested in the preservation of both the traditional knowledge of agricultural production and cultural foodways, or “gastronomica,” as seen in the valorization of Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) and the slow food movement, both of which are threatened by the homogenizing tendency of globalization (Altieri & Koohafkan 2008, Petrini 2004). Another line of inquiry looks to the consumer as a vehicle to elicit change in agrifood systems. Encouraged by international recognition through the UNEP and UN DESA sponsored Marrakech Process, research on sustainable consumption has seen increased visibility in recent years (eg. Spaargaren 2003; Jackson 2005, Vermeir & Verbeke 2006; Seyfang 2006, Spaargaren 2011, Cohen et al. 2013). Dominated initially by economic and psychological inquiry into the ways consumer attitudes and system structures influence behavior and choice (Padel & Foster 2005, Seyfang 2006), scholars have shifted their attention to

The Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, the same body that has set a target of 45% self-sufficiency (caloric-base) by 3

2015, admits that inclusion within TPP could reduce that number to 27% (Cabinet Secretariat Japan 2013)

�5

analyzing social practices, an integrative perspective focusing on the shared “praxis” of human action that is determined not only by individual and systemic factors, but by socio-cultural constructs and lifestyle narratives (Spaargaren 2003, Shove 2003, Wilk 2010). Evidence of a mix of these strategies is evident in the literature on sustainable food consumption, from exploring behavioral determinants (Vermeir & Verbeke 2008, Young et al. 2010), to shaping the choice environment (eg. Wahlen et al. 2012, Lombardic & Lankoskh 2013), and understanding how social practices change over time (Klintman & Bostrom 2012). A third important body of work provides a robust theoretical framework to analyze societal and systems change: socio-technical transition theory (Geels 2002, Geels & Schot 2007) (See Figure 1). Emerging from science and technology studies focusing on the role of technological innovation in making headway on complex and chronic problems, emphasis here too has shifted to the role of human actors and behavior (ie. social practices) as catalysts and enablers of “bottom-up” social change (Grin et al. 2010). Systemic change is seen as a process initiated by new or alternative practices, technologies, and activities at the niche level, the lowest of the theory’s three spatiotemporal levels (landscape, regime, and niche). Niche novelties interact with higher level techno-political structures, established cultures, and power relations, and are constrained or enabled in a process of co-evolution. Over time, durable practices have the potential to reconfigure prevailing regimes (such as political, technological, or market orientations) as well as slow-changing social and cultural institutions. With factors such as growing consumer distrust of agrifood system safety, instability in global food production, and multi-scalar ecological vulnerabilities, agrifood regimes have likely entered a "window of opportunity" ripe for the inclusion of novel approaches, values, and

�6

Figure 1: Multi-level perspective on transition (from Geels & Schot 2007)

practices (Geels & Schot 2007). Mirroring the rise of interest worldwide in organic farming, local production for local consumption, community-supported agriculture, and slow food movement, academic interest in sustainable agrifood transition is also high. Research in the above mentioned domains are now finding areas of mutual interest, as transition theory has been taken up by sustainable diet and production-consumption and agrifood network scholars eager to make sense of enabling change in food and agricultural systems (Spaargaren et al. 2012). The widespread entrenchment of Big Food has sparked calls for deeper inquiry into the conditions, mechanisms, and impacts of civil society actors, new forms of agrifood governance, and other innovative bottom-up activities. Examples of the effectiveness of bottom-up campaigning and consumer-driven actions in eliciting sustainability goal setting from Big Food companies , such as OxFam’s campaign against 4

Walmart and consumer pressure on General Mills last year, have furthered this interest. Emphasis on the role of the consumer in supporting agrifood transition, further research from a "consumer perspective," and work aiming to bridge the disconnects between production and consumption are needed (Pretty et al. 2010; Tregear 2011; Rivera-Ferre et al. 2013). Further catalyzing these efforts is the current trend toward a new mode of science itself, a "context sensitive science" (Gibbons 2000) that includes greater deployment of transdisciplinary methods for participatory stakeholder involvement (eg. Lang et al. 2012; Patel et al 2007). Keeping all of this in mind, we’re offered both a new opportunity to expand and integrate research horizons, as well as a new challenge to see research results have real world impact. Project rationale From the background literature presented, we see a consensus within the academic community building around the potential for bottom-up led sustainable agrifood transition. Sustainable agrifood transition is defined here as a process by which the production, processing, distribution, retail, and consumption practices comprising food systems are changed in a way that ensures environmental health, the wise use of natural and culturally-significant resources, fair and transparent relationships for all involved, and a good quality of life for current and future generations. Instigating social change or transition is fundamentally a question of agency— the capacity of individuals and groups to make decisions that affect social structures, while at the same time being shaped and influenced by the same structures. Structures in this sense refer to both physical or material entities (socio-technical regimes) and cultural factors (tradition, ideology, etc.). Without rehashing the large body of scholarship on agency and structure in determining human behavior (eg. Giddens 1984), we see the problem facing agency in agrifood transition as having systemic and cultural structures that need to be changed. The systems that provide us food, the networks and chains of relationships between producers, processors, retail, and consumers, make up what we call the foodscape— the external food environment (sites, places of business, people, technologies, etc.) we encounter everyday in which food is grown, delivered, and eventually consumed. Following transition theory, foodscapes can be seen as regimes, entrenched in society, embedded in social and political structures, and following certain rules and rationalities that are based on sets of shared values, beliefs, and “narratives” that influence the ways we behave and how we perceive ourselves in the world (See Figure 1). These cultural structures both influence and are influenced by system structures. According to transition theory, challenging these rationalities and values requires experimentation, doing something new or alternative from the bottom up— the employment of new practices. Practices do not emerge from a vacuum— they are socialized behaviors situated in time and space. Sharing similarities with Bourdieu’s praxis, practices are also routinized and difficult to change as they are influenced by the systemic and cultural structures within which they operate— tradition, values, morals, and

Whether or not companies such as Walmart and General Mills will make good on their promises to make their supply chains greener is, at this 4

time, unknown.

�7

collective thought are slow to change. For example, food consumption practices and patterns of behavior, our rhythms of shopping, eating, cooking, and eating out, are difficult to change, seeing as they are quite often “locked-in,” both in terms of the physical and social-economic foodscapes we inhabit and in the ways our minds and bodies have become tuned to habit and taste (Sanne 2002). The sum of these parts—assemblages of social practices, the shared narrative combined with the everyday lived experience of common practices, shared beliefs, values, expectations, and ways of communication—becomes our lifeworld . Lifeworlds are the arena in which new ideas, values, and stories 5

in the form of practices surface and are appraised in everyday contexts— the most contagious ideas take root and have the ability to retell the narratives that hold societies together. As the literature in the background section has revealed, contemporary foodscapes are being remolded according to the logic of globalization and markets over logics that embrace environmental, community, and individual health. These foodscapes intrinsically promote values of mass consumerism in society at large. For example, the narrative of mass consumerism has transformed the way people think of themselves— less so as citizens with a stake in environmental and society health, but more so as consumers with simple economic utility and simple desires for greater material wealth. We’ve now identified the battleground upon which the fight for sustainable agrifood transition will be fought: the reflexive interplay between foodscapes and lifeworlds, the systems logics and cultural ways of valuing and knowing the world. Tackling the the systems logic of globalization and markets and the “narrative” and values of mass consumerism will require robust, new practices that change system structures. A crucial first step for many sites in Asia is to make a conscious effort to question prevailing cultural modes and values . This must occur at all levels of the food system— producers, middlemen, and 6

consumers. An appropriate first question to ask, therefore, might be how do we change the culture of food consumption and the culture of agriculture from the bottom up?

Project objectives Taking a bottom-up, action research approach, this project seeks to initiate sustainable agrifood transition through the creation of new communities of social practice and collective action at locations in four developed and emerging Asian countries— Japan, China, Thailand, and Bhutan. Through this process we will effectively combine and advance three particular fields: 1) alternative food network research on the need for production-side systems change and effective agrifood governance, 2) sustainable consumption research on the critical socio-cultural elements that shape human behavior, and 3) socio-technical transition research on the empirical and theoretical parameters of transformative social change. The justification in choosing the countries listed stems from their rich and diverse agri-food cultures and the degree to which they’ve been influenced by globalization and international markets, from high (Japan), to medium (China and Thailand), to low disturbance (Bhutan). This project embraces an action research approach in which the role of the researcher is as an active contributor to the creation of “communities of practice” oriented toward solving problems (Lave & Wegner 1991). We strive to be both translators of information to societal actors in ways that encourage effective forms of collective action and also as catalysts who employ techniques and tools to initiate a reflective process of social learning. In the case of sustainable agrifood transition, we will co-design and co-

In this sense, we are not referring to Husserl’s phenomenological conception of lifeworld, but emphasize Habermas’s understanding of the way 5

in which lifeworlds are fields of contention that may be “colonized” by systems and outside logics. While similar to Bordeaux’s habitus, we feel that lifeworld brings greater clarity to the collective nature of everyday life, while habitus may characterize individuals or certain groups within society.

Interestingly, international bodies with similar goals, such as UNESCO and the UN’s Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, 6

have embraced the need for including culture as a fourth pillar for sustainability, in line with the traditional elements of economic, environment, and social sustainable development goals (United Nations General Assembly 2014).

�8

produce knowledge and mechanisms that challenge the logics of the market by valorizing the non-economic qualities of food and agriculture that improve quality of life, and engage society in a public debate on our relationship with food and nature that questions shared beliefs and reacclimatizes consumers as citizens and “co-producers” in the foodscapes around them.

The overt objective of this study is to generate the diversity of knowledge necessary in instigating sustainable agrifood transition, facilitating the creation of more sustainable agrifood systems at various sites in Asia. Following Wiek et al. (2011), we see this project providing four different types of knowledge relevant to fostering sustainable agrifood transition processes— 1) knowledge of the current structure, system, and context, 2) visions of sustainable systems, 3) knowledge pertaining to possible future scenarios, 4) and intervention and transition strategies (See Figure 2). The following bullet points provide an overview of the projects activities— please see Figure 4 in the appendix for reference. In many instances, research activities and results are integrated and/or conducted across multiple research teams.

1. Current structure: system & context The first hurdle to agrifood transition is understanding the structure and conditions of the food systems around us in order to answer the question “Who feeds us?” An intriguing technique to achieve these ends is “foodshed mapping.” Based on the concept of watersheds, “foodsheds” delineate the spatial boundaries of an area that provide a food supply for a particular group of people (Kloppenburg et al. 1996, Peters et al. 2009). The project will conduct foodshed mapping at national, regional, and local scales where appropriate and data from participatory GIS activities will also capture consumer diet and consumption behavior. This work will be integrated into intervention activities and future scenario modeling.

2. Visions: sustainable system A vision of the future provides both a goal to strive toward as well as an alternative “story” via which collective action can be oriented. They are images of potential future lifeworlds that motivate and attract social actors. Backcasting is a method for imagining possible future states and systematically tracing pathways of engagement back to the present, highlighting the various barriers, gaps in understanding, and concrete actions necessary in achieving the future state (Dreborg 1996). We will make use of backcasting with both “upstream” and “downstream” agrifood system actors in envisioning new social consumption practices as well as conceive new pathways for ecologically-oriented producers to maintain and expand their styles of farming into the future and to address problems related to natural resource management.

3. Future scenarios: future system Food systems are in a process of constant evolution and change— accurate models that evaluate the potential of scenarios and plausible future states is a necessity. Data from consumer survey and participatory GIS activities will be captured by foodshed models that gauge hypothetical land use, demographic, and consumer behavior scenarios. These models will then serve as material for further discussion in workshops that aim to create concrete action plans. Specifically, deliberations on the scenarios

�9

Figure 2: Relevant knowledge to foster sustainability transition process (From Wiek et al. 2011)

with input from modeling analysis and community & household foodshed mapping exercises will enable tracing those scenarios back through time to the present and identify policy opportunities, research gaps, and educational needs in the form of “transition frameworks.”

4. Intervention and transition strategies For the everyday person, contemporary agrifood systems are a black-box, the places, processes, and people behind our food is largely unknown. Awareness of the environmental and social impacts of food choices is lacking. At the same time, it is also getting harder to answer the question “what should I eat?” because its difficult to tell the difference between “good and bad food” (Goodman et al. 2010). For these reasons, we employ two transition strategies: 1) engaging social actors in an ethical discussion as part of a concerted social learning effort and 2) employing tools that allow for greater market transparency, making market logics explicit, and for evaluating and supporting local food systems.

The research project activities are framed as part of a transition process in Figure 3.

The research sites offer a broad, comparative overview of the dynamic, developing Asian region as well as open a discussion of the linkages, dependencies, and opportunities for creating more resilient agrifood relationships for the future. Within Japan, three key sites will serve as centers of participatory action (Kyoto City and outlying areas, Nagano City, and Akita City), while other sites will be developed as models (Kameoka City, Kyoto; Kashiwa City, Chiba) or venues for round tables and other workshops. In China, foodshed mapping and backcasting will be conducted in two district in northwest Beijing (Haidan and Yayun Cun), while market transparency interventions will take place in the Hung Hom area, Kowloon City District, Hong Kong. Work in Thailand will center in eastern Nakhon Pathom Province, Phutthamonthon District, in and around the subdistrict of Salaya and western Bangkok. Participatory activities will take place in and around the capital of Bhutan, Thimphu, and fieldwork will occur in rural areas in the southwest and east of there. GIAHS sites in Japan, China, and potential sites in Thailand will be incorporated as well.

�10

Figure 3. Project activities as part of a transition process (adapted from Geels & Schot 2007)

Project significance, academic outputs, and real-world impact The project combines innovative participatory methodologies with an action research approach to explore the realities and potential for sustainable agrifood transition at sites in Asia. The project proposes to both analyze existing food system structures, social practices and patterns of food consumption and production and their socio-cultural meanings; and then work with stakeholders within food chains and communities to envision future states, creating and initiating concrete plans, and food democracy-oriented experiments and market-oriented interventions. The project answers the call for greater understanding of bottom-up agency to change culture, namely the culture of food consumption and culture of agriculture (Spaargaren 2011). It also introduces Asian cases and perspectives on sustainable food consumption and production to an international audience desperate to learn more about this critical global region. Work in alternative food networks, sustainable consumption and production, and transition is dominated by cases from Europe and North America and we feel that an Asian perspective would be enthusiastically welcomed by scholars and push these fields into new spaces for analysis. For example, why is it that Asian consumers are largely unreceptive to established eco-labels and notions of animal welfare? Why is trust placed more on human connections than on expert certifying bodies when choosing food in Asia (McGreevy & Akitsu forthcoming). Asian food ethics and perspectives are very different from their Western counterparts and comparative studies are sorely lacking. The project also utilizes and integrates sets of methodologies to map and model food system structures, generate and evaluate future scenarios, and test tools for intervention in everyday contexts. It will provide new foodshed mapping and modeling methodologies with high data resolutions at smaller scales than have previously been developed and establish working sets of methodological protocols and guides for public use. Participatory backcasting methodology is an exciting tool with limited use in envisioning consumption and production practices— we plan on organizing mutual learning sessions between key stakeholders at all sites to share and collaborate on visions of the future with future relevance to the entire region. We also plan on conducting innovative research using chemical tasting equipment to elucidate the social and cultural meanings, perceptions, identities, and boundaries related to the taste of foods (eg. Silva et al. 2014, Goto & Oki 2011). The project will create deep, long-lasting, and meaningful roots in the communities within which it operates. First of all, it will provide an understanding of the food systems upon which people rely that can be used in an evidence-based approach to engage key stakeholders in the participatory work leading to local governance structures. It will provide a space for exploring future possibilities through participatory backcasting that will lead to concrete, long-term action plans. Tools will be made available for the creation of citizen science to monitor and catalog agrifood environments in real-time to continue research-led discussion into more intimate social spheres. Additional educational tools in a variety of media will be developed to assist consumers in the process of choosing “good” food, practicing a sustainable diet, supporting local food systems, and thinking deeply about their relationships with the material that sustains them. Further still, our goal is for this project to be “replicable” in sites throughout the world— that means that guides and workbooks for all participatory activities will be created and made available online. When food consumption becomes a locus of sustainable behavior, it can act as a “gateway drug,” leading to further embracement of sustainable consumption practices in other domains, affecting the routines and everyday experience of our lives (Mikulak 2013, pg. 37). All society-oriented outputs are colored blue on the project overview, Figure 4.

Additional justification for this research theme relates to RIHN’s position as Future Earth Asia secretariat hub, setting an agenda of change and contribution to post 2015 Sustainable Development Goals

�11

(SDGs) which includes “improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture” as the second top SDG 7

goals among the 15 goals.

Research integration The overall research theme and framing synthesizes outcomes and goals of past and current RIHN projects as well as addresses gaps in past RIHN research. Projects E-04, H-02, D-04, and R-09 each deal with the theme of "local resilient agriculture” and speak to the vulnerability and possibility of collapse of agrifood systems from socio-economic, genetic diversity, ecological viewpoints, respectively. We build upon these research themes by bringing them into a transdisciplinary setting where food producers and consumers enhance agrifood systems resiliency by increasing their collective agency. While H-02 detailed the long history of change in agricultural production and calls for agricultural systems to “coexist with nature,” there was little in the way of carrying out this need within contemporary, globalizing food markets. We seek to bring into focus the other side of the agricultural coin, the consumption and intermediary actors, to bring a more realistic outlook on how we can “eat better.” The theme of “post-oil transition” and “life after oil” was touched upon by R-05. The reliance of contemporary agrifood systems on fossil fuels is unsustainable. In redesigning these systems of production, we build on R-05’s theme of post-oil and low-impact subsistence livelihoods and look at the livelihoods of farmers and food lifestyles of consumers in market societies anticipating a post-oil world. Both the consumption and production backcasting exercises will address low-carbon future scenarios. Expanding on E-05 Init’s work with “knowledge translation,” we will further develop transdisciplinary research methods by evolving a methodology focused on social practices to bridge the value-action gap that hampers agrifood transition and is at the root of many consumption side problems related to the environment.

http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgsproposal.html7

�12

The project is organized into three broad groupings and further subdivided into teams arranged around particular activities or sets of activities (refer to Figure 4). The three groupings deal with types of 8

knowledge necessary to foster sustainable transition per Wiek as described in the previous sections (2012). There are six sets of activities: 1) Foodshed mapping & modeling, 2) Backcasting: Consumption practices, 3) Backcasting: Ecological food provisioning, 4) Food ethics, 5) Local market support tool, and 6) Smartphone app. In order to avoid research team isolation and increase integrative, collaborative work, overlapping tasks are built into the scheme and certain activities are the responsibility of more than one activity team. For example, the round table discussions are both part of the Backcasting: Ecological food provisioning and the Food Ethics teams. As the project moves forward through time, research results inform and are reflected upon by multiple teams. For example, backcasting scenarios that emerge from visioning workshops will be evaluated by the Foodshed modeling team and then re-incorporated for more feedback through follow-up workshops. Each of the teams is led by two to three co-leaders that share the duties of coordinating among members and stakeholders, research activities on site, analysis, and output production. Due to research team gaps, time constraints, and appropriateness not all of the research activities will take place at all of the sites— please refer to Table 1 for more details. The scheduling of research activities is indicated in parenthesis in the following sections.

A detailed description of each of the teams follows:

1) Foodshed mapping & modeling This team’s main tasks are to: a) collect consumer eating habit data and b) collect and process data on actual and potential national, regional, and local food supplies, agricultural production, and food consumption to create interactive GIS-based “foodshed maps” useful for planning, modeling, and public education. a) Consumer eating habits and perceptions of food vary widely within Asia— a first step is to review existing data on consumer eating habits in each of the four countries and, where appropriate, conduct surveys to fill in gaps in existing data. The survey format will follow established methods as detailed in the literature and be carried out online. (FR1) b) Foodsheds are concerned with “actual or potential sources of food for a population, particularly those factors influencing the movement of food from its origin as agricultural commodities on a farm to its destination as food wherever it is consumed” (Peters et al. 2009 pg. 2). Embraced widely throughout the US and European countries, foodshed analysis is relatively new to Asia— studies are few in number and tend to be abstract exercises focusing on planning potential food supplies with little recognition of actual local spatial, planning policy, socio-economic conditions, or changes in consumer preference. The question of “minimum food self-sufficiency” for a particular place is paramount for Asia as globalized food flows are unstable and climate change will affect agricultural production. Specifically, national, regional, and city-wide data (where it exists) on land use, agricultural production, food consumption, and food imports and exports will be collected and mapped. Maps will be zoned into land use categories. The maps and data will

2. RESEARCH METHODS, ORGANIZATION AND SCHEDULE

a) Research organizational details, schedule, and methods

The “future scenarios” knowledge types are included within the “systems & context” grouping.8

�13

be accessible online and have an interactive quality to engage the public. ArcGIS and IDRISI Selva are the software to be used for mapping. (FR1-2) When a thorough initial accounting of national and regional food flows has finished (end of FR1), research results will be compiled into a report available to the public as a first, evidence-based step to answering the question “Who feeds us?” The report will bring legitimacy to the project’s intentions at each site and serve as topic of common interest to bring more stakeholders to engage with project activities. The report will serve to recruit persons to engage in participatory GIS actions in their local communities. (Middle of FR2) Participatory GIS mapping is a methodology with a diversity of meanings, uses, and origins. Used primarily in rural development (eg. McCall & Minang 2005) and geography (eg. McCall 2007, Elwood 2008), it has seen its use expand in recent years and has become an important tool for transdisciplinary researchers aiming for community involvement and development (eg. Toderi 2007). For the purposes of this study, participants will be led through an orientation lecture, large and small group mapping exercises of their surroundings on foot, followed by a debriefing and Q&A session. From there, the participants are asked to continue mapping sites of production and consumption around their home, where they frequently shop or dine, and their eating habits as a household. In this regard, both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected. Quantitative collected data will consist of GIS marking of food production and consumption sites in local communities, distances between homes and often used sites, food consumption behavior logs, and household shopping data. In addition, participants will also be asked to include qualitative data in the form of stories, commentary, URL links, photos, videos, and other web 2.0-oriented interfacing. This qualitative data will “tell the story” of foodshed mapping on a very localized, familiar level for participants and make the research results more effective in fostering a sense of collective ownership of the problem of food self-sufficiency. The smartphone app Collector for ArcGIS (Android, iOS) will be used for these exercises. (FR2-ongoing) Finally, foodshed map data will be modeled. (FR 3-5) Modeling will yield a number of hypothetical land use, demographic, and consumer behavior scenarios. Various modifications of the multi-regional input-output model will serve as the backbone to these processes. The models will act as a tool to be explored in depth with stakeholders participating in backcasting scenario workshops. (Middle of FR3) A manual explaining the entirety of the process will be written and shared online for places looking to repeat the process. (FR4-5) The sum of these data will be analyzed and synthesized to produce “sustainable diet guidelines” that take into account the local realities of international, regional, and local food flows, seasonality, and possible future conditions that are plausible via particular eating patterns. We envision sets of dietary guidelines that detail special local and regional sustainable diets, and correspond to personal preferences (for example, the “Kyoto Vegetarian Diet” or the “Beijing Green Meat Eaters Diet”). (FR4-5)

2) Backcasting: Consumer Practices This team is concerned with future visions of food consumption practices and creating viable pathways to make those visions a reality. This will be done through the process of backcasting (Dreborg 1996). Backcasting has increasingly been used in policy visioning and community development to garner collective visions of the future and consensus around transition/action plans (Quist 2007). As the project is attempting bottom-up change, the backcasting process will be participatory. Various downstream actors such as consumer groups, NGO, government officials, restaurants, retail chains, and cooperatives will be invited to participate at each site. New consumption-side practices related to five themes— purchasing food, eating-in, eating-out, dealing with waste, and expanding acceptance for diverse food tastes— have been identified. Backcasting is composed of three phases: a) visioning, b) scenario creation, and the c) co-

�14

production of transition plans/frameworks. a) Visioning: A series of workshops will be held to elicit sustainable visions of future ways of purchasing food (shopping, ordering food), eating-in (alternative kitchens, eating patterns), eating-out (alternative restaurants, street food widely popular in Thailand and China), dealing with waste (packaging, organic refuse) and diversifying tastes (alternative images of food, consumer identities). The workshops provide a chance for diverse ideas to be shared and deliberated on— they may occur more than once until some general patterns or ideas emerge. (FR 1-2.5) b) Scenario creation: This phase requires analyzing the visions and synthesizing them into particular scenarios. This work takes place among research members and will necessitate the input of artists to render the vision scenarios into something visual and easy to understand. The scenarios will then be evaluated by the foodshed modeling team to gauge actual environmental and social sustainability and feasibility within local and regional agrifood contexts— input from modeling analysis and community and household foodshed mapping data will be factored in as well. Once the scenarios have been evaluated, another round of workshops will elicit feedback from the original visioning workshop participants. Here too, a series of workshops may be necessary. (FR2.5-4) c) Transition Plan/Frameworks: From there, a third type of workshop will be held to brainstorm ways in which the scenarios can be made real by tracing necessary steps back in time to the present identifying policy opportunities, research gaps, and educational needs in the form of a transition framework. The transition framework is broken into 5 to 10 year chunks of time in which action goals are arranged, step-by-step, forming a pathway that leads to the realization of the future scenario. We will plan for 30-year transition frameworks. (FR 4) The backcasting process is capped with two innovative outputs: a mutual learning session and kickstarting campaign for entrepreneurs. (FR 5) The mutual learning session invites participants from both the consumption practices and ecological food provisioning backcasting groups to one of the four research locations to learn from each other’s work and collaborate on future actions. Finally, the visions, scenarios and transition frameworks that emerge from the backcasting process will surely inspire actors to create new business and organizational opportunities— new entrepreneurs and their proposals will be organized into local forums for promotion and to attract investment. These entrepreneurial activities will serve as the seeds for the next set of interventions to enact the transition frameworks and serve as a bridge to next 30 years.

3) Backcasting: Ecological Food Provisioning In this team, the future of ecological food provision is the topic of concern. Upstream actors will be engaged in four unique visioning actions: a) envisioning ways that might encourage new farmers and farm successors in rural Japan; b) evaluating “dynamic conservation action plans” at GIAHS sites and envisioning alternatives; c) work with groups promoting green public procurement and the national government in Bhutan to backcast a plan for being the only 100% organic nation in the world; and d) set up two round tables exploring the possibility of a moratorium on eating freshwater eel and other marine species that are severely threatened by overexploitation and the topic of “managing wildlife by eating it” to address the issue of wildlife damage to crops. a) Agricultural self-sufficiency in a major problem for Japan. Japan currently imports about 60% of its food calories, the highest percentage of any other industrialized country and making it first in national food mileage (MAFF 2013, Tanaka 2003). A serious question facing the future of agriculture in Japan is “who will farm?” Existing programs to attract and train new farmers will be surveyed and evaluated and the ways in which these farmers acquire knowledge and skills for “sustainable” farming will be examined. Best practices will be used as a basis from which the backcasting process will begin. Farmer groups, NGOs, and government officials will be gathered to envision ways that might encourage new farmers and farm successors in rural Japan. Scenarios and transition plans will also be generated. (FR1-4)

�15

b) Industrialized agriculture destroys the environment, biodiversity, and lessens the viability of rural areas. On the other hand, the techniques, knowledge, and synergies encapsulated in agro-ecological farming present a viable alternative for ecologically-sound agricultural production. Agro-ecological farming is valorized and preserved at FAO-recognized Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System sites. By forming partnerships with current and potential GIAHS sites in Japan (Noto, Shizuoka), China (Pu-er, Rice-Fish in Zhejiang Province), and Thailand (Kung Kaben Bay, Chantaburi Province), existing “dynamic conservation action plans” and on-site sustainable livelihoods will be forecasted into the future. Land-use scenarios within and around the GIAHS sites will gauge the potential of realizing these plans, alternative visions of the future will be backcasted, and the plans will be evaluated and updated to include greater emphasis on the spreading of GIAHS styles of farming. Special weight will be given to the systems involved with tea production (Shizuoka, Pu-er) and agriculture-fish species interactions (Noto, Rice-Fish in Zhejiang Province), both of which are prototypically Asian agricultural heritages. (FR1-4) c) Farming in Bhutan remains largely an organic agriculture based on peasant labor— the national government has set the goal of being the worlds only nation with 100% organic agriculture. In order to achieve this goal, Bhutan must achieve something no other country has been able to do: improve farmer incomes and livelihoods without high-input, industrialized agriculture. We will form relationships with groups working on green public procurement and the national government to backcast a plan for achieving 9

their goals. International NGOs such as SVN will be engaged to serve as consultant, as they have already had success improving school lunches and promoting local food. (FR1-4) d) Two round table groups will be formed in Japan with appropriate stakeholders to explore two themes related to the management of natural resources used as food. The first theme is the possibility of a moratorium on eating freshwater eel and other marine species that are severely threatened by overexploitation. Japanese consumers are the only group worldwide engaged in the international trade of freshwater eel (unagi), a species under serious threat of extinction. Freshwater eel was never an everyday meal item in Japan, but in recent years it has become ubiquitous, in convenience store bento boxes and fast food restaurants. The current direction for eel management is to solve the problems facing eel aquaculture, but there are no guarantees that this will happen in the near future. The round table gathers stakeholders in the unagi industry and consumer groups, such as the Seikatsu Club Coop, to explore the possibility of a moratorium on eating eel. A second round table will be formed on the topic of “managing wildlife by eating it” to address the issue of exploding deer and boar populations that threaten agricultural production. The Ministry of the Environment is heavily promoting hunting as a leisure outdoor activity to attract young hunters, as well as “gibier” (wild game meat) in prefectures with high numbers of deer and wild boar. Questions remain as to whether or not consumers will embrace these wild game in their everyday diets— the round table sets out understand the current conditions of hunting and gibier industries in Japan and generate ideas for “managing wildlife by eating it.” (FR1-4)

4) Food Ethics What is good food? Answers will invariably differ, but the point remains the same: the ethics of food consumption are matters needing to be discussed. However, within the everyday routines of food consumption, factors such as price, safety, freshness, and image seem to overshadow the ethical and environmental implications of food. Using a series of site-based and theme-based workshops at locations throughout Asia, the project will initiate a public discussion on the ethics of food and aim to establish an Asian perspective to the fields of “food ethics” and “ethical consumption.” In both of these fields, Western scholars and Euro-centric philosophies and viewpoints dominate the discussion— an Asian contribution to these discussions is most welcome. Beyond these academic reasonings, the workshops will engage directly

Bhutan’s national government expenditures represent a third of the nation’s overall GDP.9

�16

with stakeholders at research sites. Ideally, some overlap of participants in these workshops and backcasting workshops will occur. The workshops will try and answer the following questions among others: What is good food? What are Asian notions of food justice and fairness? Why has animal welfare not become a major issue for Asian consumers? In what ways do Asian notions of trust differ from the West? Is it our responsibility to manage wild populations through consumption? What are the ways in which consumers become “co-producers”? Participants at the site-based workshops will be asked to take part in long-term monitoring exercises such as reflective journal writing, surveys, and data collection on shopping and eating habits. This data will be recorded over the course of the workshop schedule to gauge changes in ways of perceiving and if/how those changes translate into action. The workshops will be held first in Japan (FR1-2) and then in Thailand and Bhutan (FR 3-4). Coordination with the round tables on natural resource management and in the development of indicators for justice and rural landscape aesthetics for the local market support tool team. Workshops will be recorded for the purposes of developing a documentary series on “Asian Food Ethics.” A workshop manual will be developed for distribution. (FR 4) The ultimate goal of the team is the creation of governing bodies akin to food policy councils through the dedicated involvement of multiple key community stakeholders including local government. (FR5) Food policy councils, again, have emerged in Europe and North America, and the exact forms in which Asian governing councils will take is still unknown. These councils will be recognized by local authorities, support/promote the transition frameworks conceived through visioning processes, and carry the agrifood transition forward over the long term. 5) Local Market Support Tool As has already been established, the prospects of global food chains continuing into the future is limited by factors such as environmental degradation, dependency on cheap fossil fuels, and the impacts of climate change and natural disasters. If any one of those factors disrupts food supplies, major cities may be without food. Andrew Simms of the UK-based “new economics foundation” writes that we are only “nine meals away from anarchy,” referring to the average volume of food stocks on hand at the typical supermarket (2008). This points to the crucial nature of local food systems as the basis for a resilient food supply. The tendency, however, as the trend toward urbanization sweeps Asia, is the deterioration of rural farming communities, the infrastructure for local farming and local marketplaces, and the livelihoods of farming families. Many working on the revitalization of rural areas are employing a strategy of valorization— adding value to food products by way of geographic indicators or other claims of quality. In Japan, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries has even supported the development of labels to promote local biodiversity characteristics (MAFF 2009). A recent entry into the eco-label scene is COOL VEGE, an ecological labeling scheme that indicates sequestered carbon (in the form of biochar) in agricultural fields from where produce is cultivated (McGreevy & Shibata 2010). This team will try to further develop the COOL VEGE eco-labeling strategy and develop a prototype eco-label that combines environmental, social, and aesthetic indicators to support local food systems. After a thorough review of existing indicators, the team will choose and create their own sets of indicators for inclusion in the eco-label. (FR1-2) The indicators will be tested under field conditions and evaluated by local populations to ensure feasibility and ease of use. (FR3) Model case sites and a manual for reproducing the essentials of the eco-label will serve as outputs beyond the label itself. (FR3-5) Two model case sites in Japan (Kameoka City, Kashiwa City) and one for Hong Kong will be created. The model sites will be evaluated before and after the introduction of the eco-label to gauge environmental, social, and economic impacts.

6) Smartphone App One of the problems consumers face when they go food shopping is that they are unaware of the

�17

backstory of their food— Where are the ingredients grown? How are they cultivated? Are the farmers receiving a living wage? Is the environment or biodiversity threatened by the product? How much energy and water are needed to make the product? What if there was an smartphone application that could answer those questions? The final team focuses on global food chains and their various impacts on the environment, society, and human health through compiling impact assessment data and allowing access to that data via a smartphone app. In this initial stage, we’ve chosen to catalog the products of Lawson convenience stores in Japan and Thailand to bring indirect pressure on the company to reappraise the relationship between convenience and global food impacts. Existing and exploratory life cycle assessment, social, and environmental data on food products will be amalgamated and indexed. (FR1-2) Industry averages for many food products are available through international databases such as the World Food LCA database (Quantis & Swiss Confederation) and the LCA Food Database (Aarhus University). After the basic data has been compiled and a scoring system has been developed (FR 3), the data used for the scoring points goes through deeper and deeper refinement— better data is gathered from food processing companies directly via questionnaires. (FR2-ongoing) The app will also feature interactive elements that allow users to comment, upvote, tell “stories” in the form of article links, reviews, recipes, and photos to provide a space and facilitate a discussion for the public. The app will undergo a beta-testing (FR4) to be released for iOS and Android (FR5).

b) Re-submission changes and justification

After receiving comments from the PEC last March, a number of deficiencies and areas for improvement were identified. Taking these comments to heart, we made a number of changes to the project to strengthen its orientation, potency of argumentation, and overall identity. We’ve added valuable project members to address previous gaps in expertise. Some of the major changes include:

• Focusing on both sustainable consumption and production, not simply consumption. We feel this makes the project stronger and research results more relevant— we’ve tried to link both consumption and production backcasting activities through a mutual learning session format.

• Broadening the sites to including locations throughout Asia. The food economies of Japan, China, and Thailand are increasingly interconnected and yet each country has it’s unique attributes for study. Robust analysis of consumers in each of these countries will be interesting and new. Bhutan is a unique example of an emerging country with lofty goals (gross national happiness, 100% organic farming etc.) that has the potential to be a model for other emerging nations around the world.

• Overall number of research teams were reduced to six— this will make the project more manageable and streamline coordinated activity.

Using some of the PEC comments as a guide, we now summarize additional project changes. • Academic and social outcomes from last year’s project were not clear— the current project has since

conducted a thorough literature review of AFN and sustainable food consumption discourses, and has also heard first-hand current research trends at various conferences and symposia. It has clearly identified areas in which significant contributions can be made including expanding the issue of agency to change culture, further developing the effectiveness of participatory methodologies, and, perhaps most importantly, provides an Asian perspective to the intensely debated academic conversations on food and agriculture. On the social side, stakeholder involvement and mechanisms for long-term transition at the sites being researched has been strengthened. Outputs for society are practical (smartphone app, sustainable diet guides), educational (foodshed mapping and reports, food ethics documentaries), the products of co-designed action (transition frameworks), and geared for replication (manuals and guidebooks). The goal of achieving a sustainable agrifood transition, while ambitious, has been given the frameworks to make step-wise progress over more realistic, but no less relevant timeframes (30 year

�18

horizons). • The “Japanese” or “Asian” features of the project were lacking— We’ve overcome this failing in a

number of specific ways, but in general we’ve made describing the unique features of Asian food culture one of the main goals of the project. The consumer eating habits survey establishes a basic understanding of different consumer sensitivities to food, many of which are quite different from Western habits and vary within Asia as well. We have focused on production issues especially relevant for our sites, including the next generation of farmers, the sustainable production of tea, and the importance of fish and rice production to regional diets. Inclusion of the GIAHS sites has brought deeper attention to unique Asian food culture and tradition. We’ve also set out to elucidate Asian food ethics. Finally, we’ve chosen to work on the issue of convenience store consumerism by looking at chain stores operating in both Japan and Thailand (Lawson).

• Lack of global food producer perspectives/stakeholders— As the project operates from a bottom-up perspective, we anticipate the inclusion of a powerful, multinational corporation in the activities themselves might have detrimental impacts. While their perspectives may be relevant, they are not beholden to local interests. That said, ignoring them completely is not an option. It is partly for these reasons that we have chosen to develop a smartphone app that scores the products of these global food companies to engage with them indirectly. If we find that certain corporations are willing to cooperate by releasing data or by answering questionnaires, we will try and form closer ties. The smartphone app has the potential to be an excellent tool for truly green companies to receive the support they need to grow in prominence.

• Lack of marine sources of food— This is important not only because fish products are so heavily consumed in Japan and elsewhere in Asia, but it addressed the need for effective management of natural resources for food. We’ve included the round table discussion on unagi and also included GIAHS sites that cover marine or freshwater fish species.

�19

The project takes an action research approach to explore the realities and potential for sustainable agrifood transition at sites in Japan, China, Thailand, and Bhutan with significance for the entire region.  The project is interdisciplinary in nature, proposing to analyze patterns of food consumption, social practices and their socio-cultural meanings, consumer & system agency, and infrastructure mapping specific to national, regional, and local contexts and then work with stakeholders to vision plausible futures, and initiate food democracy-oriented experiments and actions. This combination of action research activities combined with co-designed and co-produced research outputs is highly unique. We will provide an Asian perspective to the academic debates raging on sustainable agrifood, bringing new insights and opening new academic space. RIHN has established itself as an institution on the cutting-edge of design science and stakeholder-invested, solution-oriented research for addressing global environmental problems. This project wishes to push RIHN's research mandate to describe "what ought to be" to a new level by tackling two of the fundamental challenges of contemporary modern life: consuming and producing food sustainably. We live with the knowledge of our complicity in supporting the very systems that are undermining planetary health and the longevity of human societies, yet we are largely complacent, purposefully ignorant, or unable to make a change. This paradox lies at the root of humanity's relationship with nature and is confirmed on a daily basis through the medium of food and the affirmation of food culture. Unraveling the binds that constrain consumer agency to change modern food culture and systems of food provisioning is a research goal consistent with RIHN's mission of elucidating the relationship between humanity and nature. One of RIHN’s strengths in the past has been its heavy involvement in fieldwork and participatory-based research. This project follows in this tradition and utilizes new participatory methodologies that may expand current research project’s perceptions of what is possible through action research. In addition, the project would integrate well with the institute’s new role as Asian hub for the Future Earth Secretariat, help to expand its network, and work as an example for a Future Earth-styled, transdisciplinary project. This project is best formulated as an Initiative-based project not only because it builds on past research themes, but because it targets the institution itself as a research subject. As researchers, we’re well aware of the environmental impacts of our consumption practices, but, for some reason, we don’t act. This project will campaign for the institute to reevaluate not only it’s policies regarding food consumption, but every facet of daily operations from energy use, materials use, waste, etc. As an action research project, it will open a discussion on ways RIHN can reduce its footprint. In the end, this project seeks to establish RIHN as a truly "residential institution" with deep roots in the Kyoto area, throughout Japan, and with key stakeholders in Asia. RIHN has sometimes struggled with its identity and "niche" in the greater context of Japanese research institutes and the National Institutes for the Humanities umbrella. If the Futurability Initiatives are sincerely taken to heart, RIHN's presence as a force for inspiring futurability and leading "futurable" societal change, it must first begin in the place where is resides: Kyoto. Kyoto's rich but deteriorating food culture makes a RIHN Initiative-project on transitioning to sustainable agrifood systems and sustainable food consumption and production a perfect starting grounds from which to take a firmer footing as a residential institution in Kyoto and a role-model institute for the rest of the world.

3. CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY TO RIHN OBJECTIVES

�20

We will conduct surveys, interviews, workshops, and collect information containing personal information from various stakeholders in person and using online platforms. Before collecting data, we will receive the consent of the participants. Any and all data collected will be completely confidential and, when used, converted to a form that will ensure anonymity. When collecting this information, we will disclose research purposes, methods, and end-use plans for any acquired data to the persons involved. Maximum care will be taken to protect and respect personal rights and the protection of personal information without exception. We will follow the ethical guidelines of the Japan Sociological Society and the Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology throughout the research process.

4. POLICIES REGARDING HUMAN-RIGHTS AND SECURITY FEATURES

�21

In addition to regular meetings and online communications, preparation for the FR period has consisted of four types of activities listed and detailed below.

1) Networking with research communities and building collaboration • Attended the 9th Meeting of the Institute of Life Cycle Assessment, Japan on March 4-6, 2014. There

were a number of special sessions on consumer behavior and lifestyle, impact assessment, and food LCA. Members were able to network with others interested in food LCA and smartphone application development.

• Attended Global Research Forum on Sustainable Production and Consumption (GRF-SPaC) - Sustainable Consumption Action and Research Initiative (SCORAI) Conference in Shanghai (June 8 - 11, 2014), Fudan University. Networked with members of the Global Footprint Network, SWITCH Asia, and scholars working on sustainable food consumption in China, including Lei Zhang of Renmin University, Beijing.

• Attended the XVIII International Sociological Association World Congress of Sociology in Yokohama, July 13-19, 2014. Presentations from RC40 (Sociology of Agriculture and Food) and RC24 (Environment and Society) were helpful in determining the state of the field for AFN and transition theory discourses. Networked with top scholars in their field. Presentations by Dr. Tachikawa, Dr. Taniguchi, and Ms. Hiraga were well received. Many project members assisted in the management of RC40 activities (Secretariat - Dr. Tachikawa, Session organizer- Dr. Hisano, etc.)

• Participated in SCORAI-Europe Workshop in London, organized by Audley Genus of Kingston University and Maurie Cohen of New Jersey Institute of Technology. Discussed current research trends in sustainable consumption and production and presented work to be included in a book published by Springer in 2015.

• Dr. Sudo attended the Ninth International Life Cycle Assessment of Foods Conference in San Francisco, hosted by the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment. He was able to gain insight into life cycle methodologies, existing international data indexes for use in food LCA, and network with top scholars.

2) Academic progress, output, and capacity building • Project members were gathered for a special meeting in Kyoto (Feb. 1, 2014) designed to bridge

disciplinary divides and improve mutual understanding and interdisciplinary trust. Transdisciplinary research design principles were discussed and reflected on, and a shared research language was partially developed.

• On February 20, 2014, Tamio Nakano was invited to lead a capacity building workshop on the theme of hosting and organizing effective workshops. Project members as well as general RIHN staff attended.

• Project members gathered at RIHN (June 7, 2014) to undergo a mini-workshop on outcome mapping, a tool used in envisioning and organizing collective action. The workshop was hosted by RIHN professor Hein Mallee and generated a project vision, mission, and potential boundary partners.

• Project members gathered in Nagano City for two day meetings, August 17-18, 2014 to evaluate research orientation and plan future work. The meeting was a chance for members to fully introduce their work and their research interests— future plans were organized around some of these interests.

5. PROGRESS IN THE FS PERIOD

a) Evidence of preparation for Full Research

�22

• At the Akita Organic Festa (August 23-24), members from the Food Ethics team organized a participatory workshop on food ethics, mainly to test formatting and procedural issues. The workshop was attended by over 40 people and received positive feedback.

• A group of six members conducted fieldwork in the Netherlands and the UK from Sept. 23 to Oct. 3, 2014. The purpose of the fieldwork was to 1) investigate the ways in which both countries have initiated food democracy-oriented experiments and actions leading to sustainable food consumption governance and participatory action and 2) begin to accumulate data for a comparative study between European and Japanese (Asian) food ethics. In Holland, we met with Dr. Gert Spaargaren, Dr. Peter Oosterveer, and Dr. Han Wiskerke from Wageningen University to introduce our project and discuss ways to coordinate research activities in Asia (particularly in China and Thailand)— we were able to secure their interest and willingness to work together and share networks within the region. We also visited “The Coop” to conduct comparative research on food cooperatives in Europe vs. Japan. Extensive interviews with smartphone app start-up “The Questionmark,” were held to understand the process of app creation, product evaluation, and relations with multinational processing and retail companies— the Questionmark is the premiere smartphone app in the Netherlands for accurate information on environmental, health, energy, water, and animal welfare impacts for food. In London, we investigated the organization “London’s Farmers Markets” and conducted fieldwork at two farmer’s markets. Interviews were conducted with organization managers at their offices and in the field. At their world headquarters in London, we interviewed the Marine Stewardship Council’s Nicolas Gutierrez on the progress of marine eco-labeling in Asia. We learned that much of the MSC’s work in Asia has been to certify fisheries and processors for export to European consumers. We were able to secure Dr. Gutierrez’s cooperation in future research on marine eco-labeling in Asia. We also met with Professor Tim Lang at London City University to introduce our project and learn about his long career working on food policy in the UK. We were able to network with many of this current and past students. We visited the “Food Ethics Council” offices to learn about their work for the comparative study. After traveling to Bristol, we met with representatives of the Bristol Food Policy Council, a multi-stakeholder body that plays an important role in local food governance in Bristol. Their experiences will be valuable as the project sets out to replicate something similar at sites in Asia. Finally, we travelled to Totnes to investigate the Transition Town movement and catalog the ways in which the movement has influenced food consumption and production in the UK.

• During the fieldwork in the UK, members held a workshop with ex-pat Japanese housewives living in London. The workshop’s goals were to explore the ways in which the housewives carry-out their food-related consumption practices in London, how they differ from their experiences in Japan, how their English peer groups conduct their practices, and to pinpoint the ethical differences between Japanese and European consumers. Workshop results are in the process of being compiled for a publication next year.

• Dr. McGreevy and Dr. Akitsu have co-authored a manuscript for publication in a new SCORAI book entitled Sustainable Consumption: Perspectives, Design and Practices, edited by Audley Genus, and published by Springer. The title of the chapter is “Steering sustainable food consumption in Japan: trust, relationships, and the ties that bind” and focused on the enabling and disabling properties of trust in sustainable food consumption activities in Japan.

• Dr. Tachikawa and Dr. Taniguchi edited a book that was published by Minerva Shobo in 2014 entitled Sociology of Food and Agriculture with an emphasis on activities and perspectives in Japan.

3) Networking with site-specific actors Kyoto City • Dr. McGreevy co-hosted an event with Kyoto City officials on November 6th, 2013 exploring the

possibility of establishing a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage System (GIAHS) in Kyoto. Dr.

�23

Parviz Koohafkan was also in attendance. GIAHS recognition is relevant for use in foodshed mapping and ecological food provisioning activities.

• We’ve made contact with NPO Kankyo Shimin and manager Shizuko Shimomura. The NPO has done significant work in the past using an evidence based approach to green consumerism and we have agreed to coordinate our work and networks on food retailers in Japan. NPO volunteers will be used in the gathering of product information at Lawson convenience stores in Japan.

Kameoka City • Dr. Shibata held a stakeholder meeting in Kameoka City, Kyoto to plan and expand activities surrounding

the “COOL VEGE” eco-brand. (September 15, 2013)

Ayabe City • Dr. Akitsu co-organized a seminar with the NPO Satoyama Net Ayabe’s “Satoyama Exchange College” in

Ayabe, Kyoto in January 23, 2014. The seminar’s theme was on stakeholder workshop capacity building and some project members attended.

Nagano City • March 13th, 2014— visited with city officials promoting local production for local consumption (LPLC)

within the city. Was able to gain access to data on actors working toward LPLC and identified areas of missing data that will need to be gathered in order for a proper foodshed map to be conceived.

• Over the past year, Dr. McGreevy has met with colleagues at the Nagano Prefecture Environmental Conservation Research Institute to assist in evaluating biodiversity impacts for use as an indicator in a local eco-label.

• Strong contact has been made with producers from the Suzaka JA and Nagano Prefecture Organic Farmers Research Association, with processing and retail actors St. Cousair’s Winery, Suirin Natural Farm, Kohohanaya (pickles), and with local NPO Kankyo Forum. All groups are willing to work on research activities in Nagano City.

Kashiwa City • March 19th, 2014— members met with officials from Kashiwa City’s Agricultural Policy division and

Environmental Conservation division, as well as officials from Chiba Prefecture, local farmers, and local businesses to discuss the establishment of a Carbon Minus Project (based on carbon-sequestration via biochar and a eco-labeling scheme). We were successful in winning the support of city officials for the project and have made plans to enact community-based efforts, including meetings with farmers, retailers, and local NPOs. The scheme may become a testing ground for the local market support tool label prototype.

4) Science communication events • December 12th, 2013— An expert on food distribution systems in Japan, Asahi Yoshikazu (Mitsubishi

Shokuhin) was invited to conduct a seminar on distribution systems, the history and development of the systems, and how current systems are arranged.

• July 2nd, 2014—Together with NPO Heiwa Kankyo Moiya Net, the FS hosted a seminar entitled “Producers, Consumers, and Intermediary Actors— Towards Fair Trade” (Seisansha, shohisha, soshite baikaisha— Featore-do wo megutte) at the RIHN Lecture Hall. Following the theme of “knowledge production, knowledge consumption,” fair-trade coffee producers from East Timor working with the Japanese NPO Peace Winds Japan were invited to speak about their experiences, along with representatives from Fair-trade Japan and Fair-trade City Kumamoto. The seminar will serve as the basis

�24

from which a deeper inquiry into Asian perceptions of fairness and food justice will be conducted. • February 11th, 2015— A multi-speaker seminar covering the diverse topics of food education in Japan,

mapping local production for local consumption, and Japanese food consumption impacts on the ASEAN region was held at RIHN. Mari Nakamura (Nagoya Bunri University), Kazuaki Tsuchiya (University of Tokyo), and Katsunori Iha (Global Footprint Network) lent their expertise.

One of the main problems we’ve run into is in member disagreement as to the effectiveness of interventions and strategies for inducing change. A certain portion of the project argues that the real problem facing agrifood is market failure and that with proper “corrections,” the global marketplace can accurately, appropriately, and fairly govern agrifood systems for all actors involved. Other members feel that markets will never be completely correct and that practices needed for a real agrifood transition are so embedded in our daily routines that interventions must unfreeze these long-held assumptions and seek deep cultural changes. This debate was first a point of friction within the project, but it has since been embraced and incorporated into the project design itself in that both market transparency and food ethics related interventions are featured.

We do not want to have the facade of interdisciplinary research teams. Integrating research teams in a way that lets them communicate amongst themselves and better understand the goals and progress each team is making can be difficult. We have purposefully built redundancies into the research structure, such as members from different research teams collaborating on action research, data collection, events, and outputs to circumvent this difficulty.

One of the worries of a project of this nature is keeping stakeholder engagement over such a prolonged period of time. We plan on interspersing food related events and experiences that emphasize community building around the activity of sharing meals and food together.

A project of this scale and level of stakeholder engagement will ultimately see research results take root over time periods longer than the five-year FR period— socio-cultural transitions is a slow process. We embrace this reality and have purposely included within the backcasting activities the creation of “transition frameworks” with thirty-year time horizons that identify research, policy, and educational goals at each site in order to make real the collective visions of the future. So, although the project may only last five years, we are putting in place the plans and pathways necessary to grow long-lasting relationships with stakeholders to ensure real-world impacts. In the end, many of us within the project are residential researchers who strongly desire to see the agrifood transition take root and grow in the communities where we live.

The following grants are related to the project. • JSPS Scientific Research Grant (基盤研究S--#22228003): Food risk awareness and risk communication:

Agrifood theory and profession research. Primary Investigator: Dr. Yoko Niyama (Kyoto University). Co-Investigator: Dr. Motoki Akitsu (Kyoto University).

b) Problems encountered and possible solutions

c) Past grants and funds related to the project

�25

• JSPS Scientific Research Grant (基盤研究B--#60425006): Proposal and evaluation of a scheme utilizing

unused biomass as feedstock for carbon-sequestered vegetables to achieve and low-carbon society. Primary Investigator: Dr. Akira Shibata (Ritsumeikan University). Research supporter: Dr. Steven R. McGreevy (RIHN), Terukazu Kumazawa (RIHN), Yusuke Tanabiki (Ritsumeikan University).

• JSPS Scientific Research Grant (基盤研究B--#26292122): Constructing ethical codes of behavior toward

sustainable food systems: the possibilities of a citizen’s participatory approach. Primary Investigator: Dr. Motoki Akitsu (Kyoto University)

The following grant proposals are under review. • JSPS Grants-in-Aid for Young Scientists (若手研究A): How shall we be fed? Participatory foodshed

mapping and backcasting the future of local food systems. Primary Investigator: Dr. Steven R. McGreevy (RIHN)

• RISTEX/JST Future Earth Problem Solving Transdisciplinary Research Feasibility Study: Transitioning toward sustainable foodscapes in Asia. Primary Investigator: Dr. Akitsu Motoki (Kyoto University). Research supporters: Dr. Steven R. McGreevy (RIHN), Masahi Tachikawa (Ibaraki University).

�26

Akitsu, Motoki. (ed.) (2011a) What Kinds of Ethics Support Food Communities?: Intimate and Public Relationships between Farmers and Consumers. Working Papers in Kyoto University Global COE Program for Reconstruction of the Intimate and Public Spheres in 21st Century Asia, Kyoto.

Akitsu, Motoki. (2011b) “Comparative Study on Farmer-Consumer’s Relationship: For Linking Theoretical Approach with Empirical Study, In Motoki Akitsu (ed), What Kinds of Ethics Support Food Communities?: Intimate and Public Relationships between Farmers and Consumers.” Kyoto University Global COE Program for Reconstruction of the Intimate and Public Spheres in 21st Century Asia, Kyoto, Japan. pp. 1-14.

Augustin-Jean Louis and Alpermann Bjoern (eds.). (2014) The Political Economy of Agro-Food Markets in China. A Social Construction of the Markets in an Era of Globalization. Palgrave Macmillan.

Augustin-Jean, Louis, Helene Ilbert, and Neantro Saavedra-Rivano. (2012) Geographical Indications and International Agricultural Trade. Palgave MacMillan.

Cohen, M. J., Szenjwald Brown, Halina, & Philip J. Vergragt. (2103) Innovations in Sustainable Consumption: New Economics, Socio-technical Transitions and Social Practices. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Masugata, Toshiko, Taniguchi, Yoshimitsu, & Masashi Tachikawa. (eds.) (2014) The Sociology of Food and Agriculture (Shoku to nou no shakaigaku). Minerva: Kyoto. (In Japanese)

Tachikawa, Masahi. (2014) “How to capture food and agriculture- agriculture and food security sociology and it’s development” (“Shoku to nou wo dou toraeru ka - nougyou / shokuryo shakaigaku to sono tenkai”). In Masugata, Toshiko, Taniguchi, Yoshimitsu, & Masashi Tachikawa. (eds.) The Sociology of Food and Agriculture (Shoku to nou no shakaigaku). pp. 1-17. Minerva: Kyoto. (In Japanese)

Kumazawa, Terukazu, Takanori Matsui, and Riichiro Mizoguchi. (2011) “Structuring Knowledge in a Resource-circulating Society.” In Tohru Morioka, Keisuke Hanaki and Yuuichi Moriguchi (eds.). Establishing a Resource-circulating Society in Asia: Challenges Opportunities. pp.37-51. United Nations University Press.

McGreevy, Steven R., & Akira Shibata. (2014) “Mobilizing biochar: A multi-stakeholder scheme for climate-friendly foods and rural sustainable development.” In Tomas Goreau, Ronal Larson, and Joanna Campe (eds.) Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, & Reversing CO2 Increase. CRC Press.

McGreevy, Steven R., & Motoki Akitsu. “Steering sustainable food consumption in Japan: trust, relationships, and the ties that bind.” In. Audley Genus (ed) Sustainable Consumption: Perspectives, Design and Practices. Springer (Forthcoming in 2015).

6. SPECIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE

a) Books

�27

McGreevy, Steven R. (2012) Revitalizing Sustainable Socio-ecological Landscapes: An Examination of Organic Farming, Renewable Energy, and Carbon Sequestration Activities in Rural Japan (PhD Dissertation). Kyoto University

McGreevy, Steven R. (2012) “Climate-friendly Farming Production and Biochar: Towards Revitalizing Satoyama and Farming.” In Suzuki, Tatsuya & Hiroya Ushio (ed.) Satoyama Governance. Koyoshobo Publishers, pp.169-181. (in Japanese)

Akitsu, Motoki. and Aminaka, Namie. (2010) The Development of Farmer-Consumer Direct Relationships in Japan: Focusing on the Trade of Organic Produce. Asian Rural Sociology, IV, 509-520.

Augustin-Jean, Louis and Nicolas Baumert. (2013) “Les réactions des consommateurs japonais suite à la contamination nucléaire de mars 2011 et leurs conséquences sur le rapport au territoire” [The Reactions of Japanese Consumers Following the Nuclear Contamination of March 2011 and Their Consequences on the Relationships between Men and Their Territories]. Géographie et Cultures, 86, pp. 49-64 (In French)

Cohen, M. J. (2013) Collective dissonance and the transition to post-consumerism. Futures 52: 42–51.

Guizhen He, Bettina Bluemling, Arthur P.J. Mol, Lei Zhang, Yonglong Lu. (2013) Comparing centralized and decentralized bio-energy systems in rural China. Energy Policy 63, 34-43

Guizhen He, Zhang, Lei, Mol, Arthur P.J., Yonglong Lu, and Jianguo Liu. (2013) Revising China’s Environmental Law. Science 341(6142): 133.

Imaizumi, Aki and Shuji Hisano. (2013) Institutionalisation of Genetic Resource Management with Farmers: Cases of Traditional Vegetables in Japan. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology B, 3: 399-413.

Itsubo, N., Sakagami, M., Kuriyama, K. & Inaba, A. (2012) Statistical Analysis for the Development of National Average Weighting Factors—Visualization of the Variability Between Each Individual’s Environmental Thoughts. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17 (4): 488–498.

McGreevy, Steven R. (2012) Lost in translation: Incomer organic farmers, local knowledge, and the revitalization of upland Japanese hamlets. Agriculture and Human Values, 29, 3: 393-412.

McGreevy, Steven R. & Akira Shibata. (2010) A Rural Revitalization Scheme in Japan Utilizing Biochar and Eco-Branding: The Carbon Minus Project, Kameoka City. Annals of Environmental Science 4: 11-22.

Tanaka, Keiko & Mooney, Patrick. (2010) Public Scholarship and Community Engagement in Building Community Food Security: The Case of the University of Kentucky. Rural Sociology, 75, 4, 560–583.

Sekine K. and Hisano Shuji. (2009) 'Agribusiness Involvement in Local Agriculture as a "White Knight"? A case study of Dole Japan's fresh vegetable business'. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and

b) Academic Papers

�28

Food 16, 2: 70-89

Yagi, E. & Y. Yamanouchi. (2013) Creating the Space for Casual Dialogues on Controversial Issues about Science and Technology- Case Study of a Dialogue Program Development about Biodiversity. Japanese Journal of Science Communication 13: 72-86. (In Japanese)

Hara, Keishiro, Terukazu Kumazawa, Kazutoshi Tsuda, & Michinori Kimura. (2014) Managing regional natural resources in the context of rural-urban partnerships – Case studies of local areas in Japan. The 5th International Conference of the Asian Rural Sociological Association (ARSA), Vientiane, Laos, Sep 2-5, Book of Abstracts, pp. 35.

Fukushi, Yuki, Hein Mallee, and Steven R. McGreevy. (2014) The Future of Rural Societies and Landscapes in East Asia, Work Report. RIHN-Initiative for Chinese Environmental Issues, Exploratory Workshop, July 25th. Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, Kyoto, Japan.

McGreevy, Steven R. (2014) “RIHN-China Exploratory Workshop “The Future of Rural Societies and Landscapes in East Asia.” Tenchijin (RIHN-China Newsletter) 25, Oct, 2014: 2-7.

McGreevy, Steven R. & Itsuki C. Handoh. (2013) Protocol of the RIHN Futurability Initiatives International Workshop on Transdisciplinary Research on Global Environmental Problems. January 21-22, 2013. Kyoto, Japan, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature.

Vilsmaier, Ulli, Steven R. McGreevy, and Daniel J. Lang. (2013) Work Package Report. RIHN Research Development Workshop "Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research: Methods, Processes, and Practical Examples." November 14-15, 2013. Kyoto, Japan, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature.

Motoki Akitsu, (2014) The lifestyle perspective to food and agriculture: succeeding critical theory of agricultural science. Nogyo to Keizai (Agriculture and Economics), 80(4), pp.80-90 (in Japanese).

McGreevy, Steven R. (2010) SATOYAMA: From Japan to the World. Nougyou to Keizai (Agriculture and Economics) 76(10):38-39. (in Japanese)

“2nd International Workshop on Future Earth in Asia” Summary Video. Producer and Interviewer. RIHN, Science Council of Japan, Japan Science Technology Agency, Research Institute of Science and Technology for Society. Feb. 4, 5 2014. Kyoto Royal Hotel & Spa, Kyoto. http://www.chikyu.ac.jp/future_earth/events/events140204.html

c) Reports/Proceedings/Newsletters

d) Newspapers/Magazine Articles

e) Videos/Photographic Works

�29

2006, May - July. Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy. "European Ecovillages and Simple Living Communities." Independent research.

2008-2011. Japan (Nagano, Saitama, Kyoto). "Revitalizing Sustainable Socio-ecologial Landscapes," "Knowledge dynamics in upland hamlets," "Community-based food and energy systems." PhD Research, Kyoto University.

2014, Sept. - 2014, Oct. Holland (Amsterdam, Wageningen) & United Kingdom (London, Bristol, Totnes). “Sustainable Food Consumption in Europe.” Initiative-based FS, RIHN.

Asia-Pacific Biochar Conference 2011. September 15-18, 2011. Kyoto, Japan, Ritsumeikan University. Sub-managing Director.

14th Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons. June 3-7, 2013. Kitafuji, Japan, Fuji Calm. Secretariat.

RIHN Futurability Initiatives International Workshop on Transdisciplinary Research on Global Environmental Problems. January 21-22, 2013. Kyoto, Japan, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. Rapporteur.

RIHN Research Development Workshop. "Transdisciplinary Sustainable Research: Methods, Processes, and Practical Examples." November 14-15, 2013. Kyoto, Japan, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature. Rapporteur.

RIHN Initiative-based FS Lifeworlds of Sustainable Food Consumption: Agrifood Systems in Transition. “Producers, Consumers, and Intermediary Actors— Towards Fair Trade” (Seisansha, shohisha, soshite baikaisha— Featore-do wo megutte). RIHN Lecture Hall. July, 2nd, 2014. Co-Organizer with NPO Heiwa Kankyo Moiya Net.

RIHN-Initiative for Chinese Environmental Issues, Exploratory Workshop. “The Future of Rural Societies and Landscapes in East Asia. RIHN Lecture Hall. July 25th, 2014. Organizer.

Bates, Albert K., Jonathon Dawson, J.T. Ross Jackson, Erich J. Knight, Steven R. McGreevy, Frank Michael, and David Yarrow. “eCOOLvillages.” (2013) 11th International Conference of the International Communal Studies Association, June 26- 28th. Findhorn Community, Scotland. (Retrievable at: http://www.findhorn.org/icsa-conference- outcomes/#.Ujf4EGSQdUs) (POSTER)

Bates, Albert, Akira Shibata, Steven R. McGreevy, Frank Michael, Ronal W. Larson, Erich Knight, Jeffery

f) Field Research

g) Symposia/Conferences/Workshops

h) Individual Presentations

�30

Wallin, D. Nathaniel Mulcahy, and Rob Wheeler. (2011) “eCOOLnomics.” World Conference on Ecological Restoration 2011, 2011/08/21-25, Merida, Mexico. (POSTER)

Imaizumi, Aki & Motoki Akitsu. (2013) What are the moral codes for seed saving? From the interviews with the practitioners in Japan. Presented at APSAFE2013 Food and Agricultural Ethics Conference at Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.

McGreevy, Steven R. & Motoki Akitsu. (2014) “Steering sustainable food consumption in Japan: trust, relationships, and the ties that bind.” SCORAI Europe/Kingston University Sustainable Consumption Workshop. Sept. 30- Oct. 1, Royal Society of Arts, London.

McGreevy, Steven R. (2014) “Comparing the impact of environmental education on worldview, lifestyle choices, and behavior: A survey of graduates from the "Zoo School.”” Japanese Society of Environmental Education 25th Conference, August 1-3, Hosei University, Tokyo.

McGreevy, Steven R. (2014) “Sustainable rural revitalization efforts in Japan: Bridging actors and knowledge.” Global Carbon Project Seminar, March 10th, Tsukuba City, National Institute for Environmental Studies.

McGreevy, Steven R. (2014) “Biochar’s Identity Crisis- A Look at International Discourse.” 2014 Japan Biochar Association Symposium, June 13, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto.

McGreevy, Steven R. (2013) “’Carbon negativity’—responding to the ‘green grab,’ framing biochar battlelines, and mobilizing stakeholder support.” 2013 North American Biochar Symposium, Oct. 13-16, University of Massachusetts- Amherst. http://symposium2013.pvbiochar.org/

McGreevy, Steven R. (2013) “New possibilities for common-pool resource use in rural Japan: Agroforestry, carbon sequestration, and renewable energy.” 14th Global Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons, June 3-7, Kitafuji, Fuji Calm. http://iasc2013.org/en/program.html

McGreevy, Steven R. (2011) Potential for synergizing biochar with the organic agriculture and sustainable landscape management movements. 2nd Asia Pacific Biochar Conference, September 15-18, 2011. Ristumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan.

McGreevy, Steven R. (2011) “Cool Vegetables" in a Critical Countryside: Biochar's Foray into Eco-Branding and Japanese Rural Revitalization (Plenary). Biochar 2010 U.S. Biochar Initiative Conference, June 27-30 2010. Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Taniguchi, Yoshimitsu. (2013) “The 2nd Term Organic Farming Promotion Basic Policy (1): An Overview.” 14th Annual Convention of the Japanese Society of Organic Agricultural Science, December 9th, 2013. Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.

Taniguchi, Yoshimitsu and Hiroshi Hasegawa. (2013) “The Contemporary Significance and Challenges of Organic Agriculture and Self-sufficiency.” 14th Annual Convention of the Japanese Society of Organic Agricultural Science, December 9th, 2013. Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan.

i) Public/Social Activities　�31

RIHN-Rakuhoku High School Super Science School Program. Lecture: “Education, Experience, and Ecoliteracy: Keeping the Earth in Mind.” July, 18, 2013. RIHN Lecture Hall, Kyoto.

Japan-America Student Conference. Lecture: “Envisioning and enacting change from the bottom-up: grassroots initiatives.” August, 5th, 2014. RIHN Lecture Hall, Kyoto.

RIHN Public Seminar, #56. “Let’s ask a hunter: On the state of Kyoto’s mountains and wildlife” (Ryoshisan ni kiku: Kyoto no yama to doubutsu no koto). Interviewer/Host. Feb. 21st, 2014. Heart Pure Kyoto, Kyoto. (In Japanese)

Kyoto City Elementary and Middle School Environmental Education Research Association, Summer Training. Lecture: “Sustainable food consumption and transitioning our agrifood systems— the role of food education.” August 8th, 2014, RIHN Lecture Hall, Kyoto. (In Japanese)

RIHN Public Seminar, #59. “To savor a deeper taste of coffee and chocolate: connecting sites of production and consumption” (Yori koku, co-hi to chocole-to wo, asjiwau tame ni: Seisanchi to shouhichi wo tsunagu). Interviewer/Host. Sept. 9, 2014. Heart Pure Kyoto, Kyoto. (In Japanese)

2014 International Symposium of Comparative Kyoto Studies. “LOHAS relationships between urban and rural areas.” Panelist November 3, 2014. Inamori Memorial Hall, Kyoto Prefectural University. . (In Japanese)

McGreevy, Steven R. (2014) “Biochar in Japan- deep roots, cool landscapes.” International Biochar Initiative Public Webinar Series, #1. Invited Lecture. August 13th (Retrievable at: http://vimeo.com/103722518)

McGreevy, Steven R. Editorial Board, Biochar Journal. (2014~ )

j) Media Interviews/Book Reviews

k) Other Achievements

�32

Altieri, M. A. & P. Koohafkan. (2008) Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallholders and Traditional Farming Communities. Penang: Third World Network.

Bonanno, A., L. Busch, W.H. Friedland, L. Gouviea, E. Mingione (eds.) (1994) From Columbus to ConAgra: The globalization of agriculture and food. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Cabinet Secretariat, Japan. (2013) Nourinsuisanbutsu he no eikyou shisan no keisan houhou ni tsuite (Preliminary calculations on influence on agriculture, fisheries, and forestry products and calculation methods). Available online: http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/tpp/pdf/2013/3/130315_nourinsuisan-2.pdf (Accessed Sept. 12, 2014).

Carolan, M. (2011) The Real Cost of Cheap Food. Routledge.

Cohen, M. J., S. B., Halina, & P. J. Vergragt. (2103) Innovations in Sustainable Consumption: New Economics, Socio-technical Transitions and Social Practices. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Constance, D. (2009) 2008 AFHVS Presidential Address: The four questions in agrifood studies: a view from the bus. Agriculture and Human Values 26: 3-14.

Dawson, J. (2013) Retailer activity in shaping food choice. Food Quality and Preference 28, 1: 339-347.

Deloitte. (2009) Emerging from the Downturn: Global Powers of Retailing 2010. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu: London.

Desmarias, A. A. (2007) La Via Campesina: Globalization and the Power of Peasants. Pluto Press.

Dreborg, K.H. (1996) Essence of backcasting. Futures 28, 9: 813-828.

De Tavernier, J. (2012) Food Citizenship: Is there a Duty for Responsible Consumption? Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics 25, 6: 895-907.

Ezzati M., Vander Hoorn S., Lawes C.M.M., Leach R., James W.P.T., et al. (2005) Rethinking the “Diseases of Affluence” Paradigm: Global Patterns of Nutritional Risks in Relation to Economic Development. PLoS Med 2 5: e133.

FAO. (2012) FAO Statistical Yearbook 2012: World Food and Agriculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO/WFP. (2010) ‘The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Addressing Food Security in Protracted Crises’. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Feagan, R. (2007) The Place of Food: Mapping Out the ‘Local’ in Local Food Systems. Progress in Human Geography 31, 1: 23–42.

Food Marketing Institute. (2013) “Supermarket Facts.” Food Marketing Institute. Retrievable online at: http://www.fmi.org/research-resources/supermarket-facts.

Freidberg, S. (2010) Perspective and Power in the Ethical Foodscape. Environment and Planning A 42, 8: 1868.

Geels, F.W. (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and case-study. Research Policy 31, 8-9: 1257-1274.

Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36, 3, 399–417.

Gibbons, M. (2000) Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Science and Public Policy 27, 3: 159-163.

7. REFERENCES

�33

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Polity Press: Cambridge.

Goodman, D. (2004) Rural Europe Redux? Reflections on Alternative Agro-Food Networks and Paradigm Change. Sociologia Ruralis 44, 1: 3-16.

Goodman, M. (2010). Guest editorial: Ethical foodscapes?: premises, promises, and possibilities. Environment and Planning A 42, 1782–1796.

Goto, K. & Oki, T. (2011) “Consumer food choice standards and expectations related to new display information- an international comparison of Japan, USA, and the UK.” Proceedings from the Food Systems Research Association of Japan, 2011 Conference. Retrievable online at: https://www.fsraj.org/taikai/2011/2011houkoku/?action=common_download_main&upload_id=56. (In Japanese)

Grin, J. Rotmans, J. & Schot, J. (2010) Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. London: Routledge.

Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., & Sonesson, U. (2011) “Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes and prevention.” Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Hawkes C. (2005) The role of foreign direct investment in the nutrition transition. Public Health Nutrition 8: 357–365.

Hendrickson, M.K. & Heffernan, W.D. (2007) Opening Spaces Through Relocalization: Locating Potential Resistance in the Weakness of the Global Food System. Sociologia Ruralis 42, 4: 347–369.

2nd International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) (2014). “Conference Outcome Document: Rome Declaration on Nutrition.” FAO, WHO. Rome, 19-21, November, 2014. Retrievable online at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-ml542e.pdf.

Iha, K. et al. (2014) “Analysis on the Ecological Footprint, Biocapacity, and Trade Links in Southeast Asia.” Global Footprint Network. San Francisco: Global Footprint Network.

Jackson, T. (2005) Motivating sustainable consumption— A review of models of consumer behavior and behavioral change. A Report to the Sustainable Development Research Network. London: Policy Studies Institute.

Kimura, A.H. & Nishiyama, M. (2007) The Chisan-Chisho Movement: Japanese Local Food Movement and Its Challenges. Agriculture and Human Values 25, 1: 49–64.

Klintman M. & M. Bostrom. (2012) “Political Consumerism and the Transition Towards a More Sustainable Food Regime” in G. Spaargaren et al. (eds) Food Practices in Transition: Changing Food Consumption, Retail, and Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity. London: Routledge.

Kloppenburg, J., Hendrickson, J. and Stevenson, G.W. (1996) Coming in to the foodshed. Agriculture and Human Values 13: 33–42.

Lang, D.J., Wiek, A., Bergmann, M., Stauffacher, M., Martens, P., Moll, P., et al. (2012) Transdisciplinary Research in Sustainability Science: Practice, Principles, and Challenges. Sustainability Science 7 (S1): 25–43.

Lang, T. & M. Heasman. (2003) Food Wars: The Global Battle for Mouths, Minds, and Markets. London: Routledge.

Lave, Jean; Wenger, Etienne (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lombardini, C., & Lankoski, L. (2013) Forced Choice Restriction in Promoting Sustainable Food Consumption: Intended and Unintended Effects of the Mandatory Vegetarian Day in Helsinki Schools. Journal of Consumer Policy, 36(2), 159–178.

Loureiro, M.L. & Lotade, J. (2005) Do Fair Trade and Eco-Labels in Coffee Wake Up the Consumer Conscience? Ecological Economics 53, 1: 129–138.

�34

Masugata, T. (2008) Movement of Organic Agriculture and Teikei Networks in Japan. Shinyosha #319. (in Japanese)

Mikulak, M. (2013) The Politics of the Pantry. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF). (2009) Guidebook to Biodiversity Labels (Ikimono no ma-ku gaidobukku). Tokyo: MAFF. (In Japanese)

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF). (2013) FY2012 Annual Report on Food, Agriculture, and Rural Areas in Japan, Summary. Tokyo: MAFF.

McIntyre, B. D. et al. (ed). (2009) International assessment of agricultural knowledge, science and technology for development (IAASTD): global report. Washington D.C: IAASTD .

Murdoch, J. & Miele, M. (1999) 'Back to Nature': Changing ‘Worlds of Production’ in the Food Sector. Sociologia Ruralis 39 (4): 465–483.

Padel, S. and Foster C. (2005) Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour: Understanding why consumers buy or do not buy organic food. British Food Journal 107, 8: 606-625.

Patel R. (2008) Stuffed and starved: The hidden battle for the world food system. Melville House.

Peters, C. J. et al. (2009) Foodshed analysis and its relevance to sustainability. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24, 1: 1-7.

Petrini, C. (2004) Slow Food: The Case for Taste. Columbia University Press.

Pretty, J., Sutherland W. J., Ashby, J., Auburn, J., Baulcombe, D., Bell, M., Bentley, J.,Pilgrim, S. (2010) The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 8(4), 219–236.

Quist, J. (2007) Backcasting for a Sustainable Future: The Impact After 10 Years. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon Academic Publishers.

Rivera-Ferre, M., Pereira, L., Karpouzoglou, T., Nicholas, K.A., Onzere, S., Waterlander, W., et al. (2013) A Vision for Transdisciplinarity in Future Earth: Perspectives From Young Researchers. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 3, 4: 249–260.

Renting, H., M. Schermer, and A. Rossi. (2012) Building Food Democracy: Exploring Civic Food Networks and Newly Emerging Forms of Food Citizenship. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture of Food 19, 3: 289-307.

Renting, H., Marsden, T., J. Banks (2003) Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning A 35: 393-411.

Sanne, C. (2002) Willing consumers — or locked in? Policies for a sustainable consumption. Ecological Economics 42: 273-287

Sanders, R. (2006) A Market Road to Sustainable Agriculture? Ecological Agriculture, Green Food and Organic Agriculture in China. Development and Change, 37(1), 201–226.

Sapkota, A., Sapkota, A. R., Kucharski, M., Burke, J., McKenzie, S., Walker, P., & Lawrence, R. (2008). Aquaculture practices and potential human health risks: Current knowledge and future priorities. Environment International, 34(8), 1215–1226.

Seyfang, G. (2006) Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic food networks. Journal of Rural Studies 22, 4: 383-395.

Shen, Z., Liao, Q., Hong, Q., & Gong, Y. (2012).An overview of research on agricultural non-point source pollution

�35

modelling in China. Separation and Purification Technology, 84, 104–111.

Shove, E. (2003) Comfort, Cleanliness, and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality. Berg: Oxford.

Silva, T. H., et al. (2014) You are What you Eat (and Drink): Identifying Cultural Boundaries by Analyzing Food & Drink Habits in Foursquare. Proceedings of 8th AAAI International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM 2014). pp. 1-10.

Simms, A. (2008) Nine Meals from Anarchy— Oil dependence, climate change, and the transition to resilience. New Economics Foundation, Schumacher Lecture 2008.

Smil V., & Kobayashi K. (2012) Japan’s Dietary Transition and Its Impacts. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Spaargaren, G. (2003) Sustainable consumption: a theoretical and environmental policy perspective. Society & Natural Resources, 16(8), 687–701.

Spaargaren, G. (2011). Theories of practices: Agency, technology and culture, Exploring the relevance of practice theories for the governance of sustainable consumption practices in the new world-order. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 813–822.

Spaargaren, G., P. Oosterveer, & A. Loeber. (eds) (2012) Food Practices in Transition: Changing Food Consumption, Retail and Production in the Age of Reflexive Modernity. London: Routledge.

Stuckler D., Nestle M. (2012) Big Food, Food Systems, and Global Health. PLoS Med 9, 6: e1001242.

Tanaka T. (2003). Shokuryo no souyunyuuryou kyori fu-do maire-ji to sono kankyou ni oyobosu fuka ni kansuru kousatsu (An investigation of imported food volume, distance, and associated environmental burden). Nourinsuisan Seisaku Kenkyuu (Journal of Agricultural Policy Research) 5: 45-59. (In Japanese)

Thapa, G. B., & Rattanasuteerakul, K. (2011) Adoption and extent of organic vegetable farming in Mahasarakham province, Thailand. Applied Geography 31(1), 201–209.

Tregear, A. (2011) Progressing Knowledge in Alternative and Local Food Networks: Critical Reflections and a Research Agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 27, 4: 419–430.

UNEP. (2010) Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production: Priority Products and Materials. A Report of the Working Group on the Environmental Impacts of Products and Materials to the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management. Hertwich, E., van der Voet, E., Suh, S., Tukker, A., Huijbregts M., Kazmierczyk, P., Lenzen, M., McNeely, J., Moriguchi, Y.

United Nations General Assembly. (2014) Culture and Sustainable Development in the Post-2015 Development Agenda. Special Thematic Debate. United Nations Headquarters, New York, 5 May, 2014. Retrievable online at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/68/pdf/culture_sd/Culture%20and%20SD%20Summary%20of%20Key%20Messages_FINAL%20rev.pdf

Vermeir, Iris & Wim Verbeke. (2006) Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer "Attitude - Behavior Intention" Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19, 2: 169-194.

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2008) Sustainable food consumption among young adults in Belgium: Theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Ecological Economics, 64(3), 542–553.

Wahlen, S., Heiskanen, E., & Aalto, K. (2012) Endorsing Sustainable Food Consumption: Prospects from Public Catering. Journal of Consumer Policy 35(1), 7–21.

Wegner, L. & G. Zwart. (2011) Who Will Feed the World? The production challenge. Oxfam Research Report. Oxfam.

Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011) Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework for academic program development. Sustainability Science 6(2), 203–218.

�36

Wilk, R. (2010) Consumption embedded in culture and language: Implications for finding sustainability. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy 6, 2: 38-48.

Young, W., Hwang, K., McDonald, S., & Oates, C. J. (2010) Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustainable Development 18(1), 20–31.

�37

8. PROJECT MEMBERS

NAME AFFILIATION POSITION SPECIALISED FIELDS

DISCIPLINE S: NAT SCI H: SOC

SCI, HUMAN

M: MULTI

PROJECT WORKING GROUP

CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROJECT

CORE MEMBER/LEADER (PUT ○

FOR CORE

MEMBER, PUT ◎ FOR THE LEADER)

MCGREEVY, Steven Robert

Center for Research Development,RIHN

Assistant Professor

Env. sociology; rural sustainable development

M Project Leader, Foodshed mapping, Backcasting Co-Leader

Management, foodshed mapping, workshop organization (Backcasting, Food Ethics), Output coordination

◎

AKITSU, Motoki

Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University

Associate Professor

Sociology, rural economy

H Food Ethics -Group Co-Leader

Workshop organization, output coordination (media), Food Policy Council coordination

○

SHIBATA, Akira

Regional Information Research Center, Ritsumeikan University

Professor Regional policy, marketing

M Local Market Support Tool -Group Co-Leader

Indicator creation, testing, prototyping

○

TACHIKAWA, Masahi

Faculty of Agriculture, Ibaraki University

Professor Sociology of food and agriculture; STS

H Food Ethics -Group Co-Leader

Workshop organization, output coordination (media), Food Policy Council coordination

○

INABA, Atsushi

Faculty of Engineering, Kogakuin University

Professor Life cycle assessment, chemistry

S Smartphone App Group Leader

Indexing, LCA analysis, food coordination app development

○

SUDO, Shigeto

National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences

Research Associate

Soil sciences (emissions), material circulation

S Local Market Support Tool -Group Co-Leader

Indicator creation, testing, prototyping

○

TANIGUCHI, Yoshimitsu

Science and Technology Integration Center, Akita Prefecture University

Professor Sociology of food and agriculture, organic agriculture

H Food Ethics -Group Co-Leader

Workshop organization ○

TAMURA, Norie

Research Institute for Natural Capital

Director, Senior Analyst

Marine resource management, Commons

M Japan Co-Leader, Backcasting, Round Tables

Management, workshop organization, round table coordination

○

ZHANG, Lei

School of Environment and Natural Resources Renmin University of China, Beijing

Associate Professor

Sustainable consumption, environmental policy

H China Leader, Foodshed mapping, Backcasting

Participatory GIS data collection, backcasting workshop (consumption practices)

○

KANTAMATURAPOJ, Kanang

Mahidol University, Thailand

Lecturer Sustainable consumption, environmental policy

H Thailand Leader, Foodshed mapping, Backcasting

Participatory GIS data collection, backcasting workshop (consumption practices)

�38

AUGUSTIN-JEAN, Louis

Department of Applied Social Science, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Associate Professor

Economic sociology

H Local Market Support Tool

Geographical indicator

KOOHAFKAN, Abolghassem Parviz

World Agricultural Heritage Foundation

President Integrated natural resource management

M Backcasting, Foodshed mapping (GIAHS)

Coordination with GIAHS sites, workshop organization, modeling, plans and output writing

○

IHA, Katsunori

Global Ecological Footprint Network

Research Economist

Statistical analysis & modeling

S Foodshed mapping

National, regional, and “local” input-output modeling, GIS data coordination, Ecological footprint (EF) analysis

○

COHEN, Maurie

Department of the Humanities, New Jersey Institute of Technology

Associate Professor

Science, technology & society

H Backcasting (Food Consumption)

Consulting, networking, output writing

JUSSAUME, Ray

Department of Sociology, Michigan State University

Professor International agricultural economics and policy

H Foodshed mapping

Consulting, networking, output writing

TANAKA, Keiko

Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky

Associate Professor

Agriculture and food sociology

H Backcasting (New Entry, Succession)

Workshop coordination, fieldwork

HISANO, Shuji

Faculty of Economics, Kyoto University

Professor International agricultural economics and policy

H Foodshed mapping

Map and modeling evaluation

HOSHINO, Satoshi

Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University

Professor Rural planning M Foodshed mapping

GIS mapping, plan writing

○

TSUJIMURA, Hideyuki

Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University

Associate Professor

Agricultural economics

H Food Ethics Workshop coordination, fieldwork

YOSHIDA, Yoshihiro

Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Section, Kyoto Prefecture

Official (Food safety, education, local prod/con)

Food policy M Food Ethics, Foodshed mapping, Backcasting

Workshop coordination, participatory GIS data coordination, plan writing and evaluation

KATO, Koichi

Seikatsu Club Consumers’ Cooperative Union

CEO Consumer society

M Backcasting, Round tables

Workshop coordination, round table coordination

YAGI, Ekou

Center for the Study of Communication Design, Osaka University

Associate Professor

Science communication, STS

H Backcasting (Food Consumption)

Workshop formating, innovative participatory methodologies

NISHIYAMA, Mima

Graduate School of Horticulture, Chiba University

Associate Professor

Agrifood systems

H Backcasting (New Entry

Workshop coordination, fieldwork

�39

MIZUMACHI, Eri

Science Communication Group, Institute for Integrated Cell-Material Science

Research Associate

Science communication, ecology

M Backcasting (Food Consumption)

Workshop formating, innovative participatory methodologies

IMAIZUMI, Aki

Department of Agriculture, Kyoto University

Post-Doctorate

Agrifood systems

M Food Ethics Management, workshop coordination,

ASHIDA, Yusuke

Humanities Department, Konan Women’s University

JSPS PD-Fellow

Rural sociology H Backcasting (Food Consumption)

Eating-in, Kitchen literacy

HIRAGA, Midori

Graduate School of Economics, Kyoto University

PhD Student Political economy of agrifood

H Foodshed mapping

Sustainable diets output

TANABIKI, Yusuke

Global Innovation Research Organization, Ritsumeikan University

PD-Fellow Social statistics S Food Ethics, Foodshed mapping

Food ethics social data analysis, participatory GIS data analysis

IWAHASHI, Ryo

Graduate School of Agriculture, Kyoto University

PhD Student Geography H Food Ethics Workshop assistance

OGA, Momoe

Department of Policy Science, Doshisha University

PhD Student Policy Science H Food Ethics, Backcasting (Taste)

Workshop assistance, data analysis for “taste for diversity”

KUMAZAWA, Terukazu

Center for Research Promotion, RIHN

Assistant Professor

Environmental planning

M Local Market Support Tool

Social, resource management indicator

TADA, Yohei

Center for Research Promotion, RIHN

Research Associate

Chemical analysis

S Backcasting (Taste)

“Taste for diversity” organizer, experimentation

CHOW, Sungming

Department of Applied Social Science, Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Instructor Community economy, social enterprise, and fair trade

H Local Market Support Tool

Geographical indicator

KOBAYASHI, Mai

Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University

PhD. Student

Agrifood systems

M Foodshed mapping, Backcasting (Organic Bhutan)

Data collection, participatory GIS, backcasting workshops

Kezang Green Public Procurement Bhutan

Project Director

Public procurement policy

H Foodshed mapping, Backcasting (Organic Bhutan)

Data collection, participatory GIS, backcasting workshops

LAMA, Pem

Green Public Procurement Bhutan

Project Officer

Public procurement policy

H Foodshed mapping, Backcasting (Organic Bhutan)

Data collection, participatory GIS, backcasting workshops

SHIMOMURA, Shizuko

Kankyo Shimin, Kyoto

Manager Community development

M Foodshed mapping, Smartphone App

Participatory GIS, app indexing data

SUMOTO, Ed RenEn Consultant Waste, Biomass S Backcasting: Food Waste

Workshop assistance, entrepreneurial linkage

�40

9. FIGURES AND SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

�41

Figure 2: Relevant knowledge to foster sustainability transition process (from Wiek et al. 2011)

(FIGURES AND SUPPLEMENTS, CONTINUED 1)

�42

Figure 3. Project activities as part of a transition process (adapted from Geels & Schot 2007)

(FIGURES AND SUPPLEMENTS, CONTINUED 2)

�43

Figure 4. Project overview— colored boxes indicate society-oriented outputs. (Source: Author)

(FIGURES AND SUPPLEMENTS, CONTINUED 3)

�44

Table 1: Sites and research activities (Source: Author)

Form7-1 (FS→PR)FINANCIAL RESULTS AND PLANNING OF THE PROJECT　

○ Project title：Lifeworlds of Sustainable Food Consumption and Production: Agrifood Systems in Transition○ Project leader：MCGREEVY, Steven Robert

○ Project abbreviation: “Agrifood Project” “食と農” Project

RESULTS　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Unit:1,000JPY

Fiscal Year and Project Stage Total

Breakdown of the Total

Facility and Equipment Supplies Personnel Travel Honorarium Others

FS 4,000 258 200 410 2,830 150 152

PLAN

Fiscal Year and Project Stage Total

Breakdown of the Total

Facility and Equipment Supplies Personnel Travel Honorarium Others

PR 20,000 2,000 500 10,000 5,000 2,000 500

FR1 80,000 10,000 1,000 40,000 15,000 5,000 9,000

FR2 80,000 5,000 3,000 40,000 20,000 5,000 7,000

FR3 80,000 5,000 3,000 40,000 20,000 5,000 7,000

FR4 70,000 4,000 2,000 35,000 20,000 4,000 5,000

FR5 50,000 1,000 1,000 25,000 14,000 10,000 4,000ANNOTATIONS

※If you plan to purchase an instrument/equipment over 10,000,000 JPY, describe the outline of the instrument/equipment and the reason of necessity.