IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v203y2023ics0921800922002841.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnostic, regenerative or fossil-free - exploring stakeholder perceptions of Swedish food system sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Röös, E.
  • Wood, A.
  • Säll, S.
  • Abu Hatab, A.
  • Ahlgren, S.
  • Hallström, E.
  • Tidåker, P.
  • Hansson, H.

Abstract

In an analysis of food system sustainability challenges and solutions among Swedish food system actors using Q-methodology, five perspectives were identified. One of the main three perspectives placed the highest priority on reduced meat consumption, food waste, and climate impact in agriculture, but downplayed strategies highlighted in the national food strategy and social aspects, and can be interpreted as a diagnostic climate mitigation-oriented perspective that does not reflect current negotiated policy processes or ‘softer’ values of food. In an alternative regenerative perspective, industrialized large-scale farming and lack of internalization of external costs were regarded as the main problems, and diversity, soil health, and organic farming as the main solutions. Proponents of a third perspective regarded phasing out fossil fuels, increased profitability of companies, increased meat production, and self-sufficiency as high priorities. These contrasting views can be a major barrier to transforming the Swedish food system. However, a number of entry points for change (i.e. aspects highly important for some and neutral for others) were identified, including focusing on healthy diets and increased production of fruit and vegetables. Focusing on these can build trust among stakeholders before moving to discussions about the larger and more sensitive systemic changes needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Röös, E. & Wood, A. & Säll, S. & Abu Hatab, A. & Ahlgren, S. & Hallström, E. & Tidåker, P. & Hansson, H., 2023. "Diagnostic, regenerative or fossil-free - exploring stakeholder perceptions of Swedish food system sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:203:y:2023:i:c:s0921800922002841
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800922002841
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107623?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Iofrida, Nathalie & De Luca, Anna Irene & Gulisano, Giovanni & Strano, Alfio, 2018. "An application of Q-methodology to Mediterranean olive production – stakeholders' understanding of sustainability issues," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 46-55.
    2. Béné, Christophe & Oosterveer, Peter & Lamotte, Lea & Brouwer, Inge D. & de Haan, Stef & Prager, Steve D. & Talsma, Elise F. & Khoury, Colin K., 2019. "When food systems meet sustainability – Current narratives and implications for actions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 116-130.
    3. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.
    4. Bryngelsson, David & Wirsenius, Stefan & Hedenus, Fredrik & Sonesson, Ulf, 2016. "How can the EU climate targets be met? A combined analysis of technological and demand-side changes in food and agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 152-164.
    5. Bowles, Nicholas & Alexander, Samuel & Hadjikakou, Michalis, 2019. "The livestock sector and planetary boundaries: A ‘limits to growth’ perspective with dietary implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 128-136.
    6. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    7. Pereira, Mariana A. & Fairweather, John R. & Woodford, Keith B. & Nuthall, Peter L., 2016. "Assessing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-8.
    8. Emma Moberg & Hanna Karlsson Potter & Amanda Wood & Per-Anders Hansson & Elin Röös, 2020. "Benchmarking the Swedish Diet Relative to Global and National Environmental Targets—Identification of Indicator Limitations and Data Gaps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, February.
    9. Cees Leeuwis & Birgit K. Boogaard & Kwesi Atta-Krah, 2021. "How food systems change (or not): governance implications for system transformation processes," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(4), pages 761-780, August.
    10. Moreno-Miranda, Carlos & Dries, Liesbeth, 2022. "Integrating coordination mechanisms in the sustainability assessment of agri-food chains: From a structured literature review to a comprehensive framework," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    11. Dorninger, Christian & Abson, David J. & Apetrei, Cristina I. & Derwort, Pim & Ives, Christopher D. & Klaniecki, Kathleen & Lam, David P.M. & Langsenlehner, Maria & Riechers, Maraja & Spittler, Nathal, 2020. "Leverage points for sustainability transformation: a review on interventions in food and energy systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    12. Phil Mount, 2012. "Growing local food: scale and local food systems governance," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 107-121, March.
    13. Hadjikakou, Michalis, 2017. "Trimming the excess: environmental impacts of discretionary food consumption in Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 119-128.
    14. Hermelingmeier, Verena & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2017. "Identifying Five Different Perspectives on the Ecosystem Services Concept Using Q Methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-265.
    15. Hubeau, Marianne & Marchand, Fleur & Coteur, Ine & Mondelaers, Koen & Debruyne, Lies & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2017. "A new agri-food systems sustainability approach to identify shared transformation pathways towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 52-63.
    16. Noori Akhtar-Danesh, 2018. "qfactor: A command for Q-methodology analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 18(2), pages 432-446, June.
    17. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. Robin Curry & John Barry & Andew McClenaghan, 2013. "Northern Visions? Applying Q methodology to understand stakeholder views on the environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(5), pages 624-649, June.
    19. Marco Springmann & Michael Clark & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Keith Wiebe & Benjamin Leon Bodirsky & Luis Lassaletta & Wim Vries & Sonja J. Vermeulen & Mario Herrero & Kimberly M. Carlson & Malin Jonell & , 2018. "Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits," Nature, Nature, vol. 562(7728), pages 519-525, October.
    20. Benjamin T. Phalan, 2018. "What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-24, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leonhardt, Heidi & Braito, Michael & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2021. "Who participates in agri-environmental schemes? A mixed-methods approach to investigate the role of farmer archetypes in scheme uptake and participation level," FORLand Working Papers 27 (2021), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    2. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Späth, Leonhard, 2018. "Large-scale photovoltaics? Yes please, but not like this! Insights on different perspectives underlying the trade-off between land use and renewable electricity development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 429-437.
    4. Heidi Leonhardt & Michael Braito & Reinhard Uehleke, 2022. "Combining the best of two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental scheme uptake," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 217-232, March.
    5. Pierre-Marie Aubert & Baptiste Gardin & Élise Huber & Michele Schiavo & Christophe Alliot, 2021. "Designing Just Transition Pathways: A Methodological Framework to Estimate the Impact of Future Scenarios on Employment in the French Dairy Sector," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Pierre-Marie Aubert & Baptiste Gardin & Élise Huber & Michele Schiavo & Christophe Alliot, 2021. "Designing Just Transition Pathways: A Methodological Framework to Estimate the Impact of Future Scenarios on Employment in the French Dairy Sector," Post-Print hal-03653089, HAL.
    7. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    8. Arturo Zenone & Carlo Pipitone & Giovanni D’Anna & Barbara La Porta & Tiziano Bacci & Fabio Bertasi & Claudia Bulleri & Anna Cacciuni & Sebastiano Calvo & Stefano Conconi & Maria Flavia Gravina & Ceci, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Attitudes about the Transplantations of the Mediterranean Seagrass Posidonia oceanica as a Habitat Restoration Measure after Anthropogenic Impacts: A Q Methodology Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, November.
    9. Bowles, Nicholas & Alexander, Samuel & Hadjikakou, Michalis, 2019. "The livestock sector and planetary boundaries: A ‘limits to growth’ perspective with dietary implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 128-136.
    10. Bredin, Yennie K. & Lindhjem, Henrik & van Dijk, Jiska & Linnell, John D.C., 2015. "Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 198-206.
    11. Elke Stehfest & Willem-Jan Zeist & Hugo Valin & Petr Havlik & Alexander Popp & Page Kyle & Andrzej Tabeau & Daniel Mason-D’Croz & Tomoko Hasegawa & Benjamin L. Bodirsky & Katherine Calvin & Jonathan C, 2019. "Key determinants of global land-use projections," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Louis-Georges Soler & Alban Thomas, 2020. "Is there a win–win scenario with increased beef quality and reduced consumption?," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(1), pages 91-116, October.
    13. Chan, Chin Yee & Prager, Steven & Balie, Jean & Kozicka, Marta & Hareau, Guy & Valera, Harold Glenn & Tran, Nhuong & Wiebe, Keith & Diagne, Mandiaye & Alene, Arega, 2021. "The Future of Food Security, Nutrition and Health for Agri-food Systems Transformation," SocArXiv qgn9u, Center for Open Science.
    14. Vivica I. Kraak & Kim L. Niewolny, 2024. "A Scoping Review of Food Systems Governance Frameworks and Models to Develop a Typology for Social Change Movements to Transform Food Systems for People and Planetary Health," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-22, February.
    15. Nawab Khan & Ram L. Ray & Hazem S. Kassem & Sajjad Hussain & Shemei Zhang & Muhammad Khayyam & Muhammad Ihtisham & Simplice A. Asongu, 2021. "Potential Role of Technology Innovation in Transformation of Sustainable Food Systems: A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-20, October.
    16. Manuela Rozalia Gabor & Nicoleta Cristache, 2021. "Q or R Factor Analysis for Subjectiveness Measurement in Consumer Behavior? A Study Case on Durable Goods Buying Behavior in Romania," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, May.
    17. Katz-Rosene, Ryan & Heffernan, Andrew & Arora, Anil, 2023. "Protein pluralism and food systems transition: A review of sustainable protein meta-narratives," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    18. Dimitra Syrou & Iosif Botetzagias, 2022. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions Concerning Greek Protected Areas Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-23, March.
    19. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin, 2019. "Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Aintzira Oñederra-Aramendi & Mirene Begiristain-Zubillaga & Mamen Cuellar-Padilla, 2023. "Characterisation of food governance for alternative and sustainable food systems: a systematic review," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-32, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:203:y:2023:i:c:s0921800922002841. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.