Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCampbell, H.en
dc.contributor.authorRosin, Christopheren
dc.contributor.authorHunt, Lesley M.en
dc.contributor.authorFairweather, John R.en
dc.date.accessioned2013-08-20T03:19:15Z
dc.date.issued2011en
dc.identifier.issn0743-0167en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10182/5604
dc.description.abstractOne of the most interesting recent developments in global agri‐food systems has been the rapid emergence and elaboration of market audit systems claiming environmental qualities or sustainability. In New Zealand, as a strongly export‐oriented, high‐value food producer, these environmental market audit systems have emerged as an important pathway for producers to potentially move towards more sustainable production. There have, however, been only sporadic and fractured attempts to study the emerging social practice of sustainable agriculture – particularly in terms of the emergence of new audit disciplines in farming. The ARGOS project in New Zealand was established in 2003 as a longitudinal matched panel study of over 100 farms and orchards using different market audit systems (e.g., organic, integrated or GLOBALG.A.P.). This article reports on the results of social research into the social practice of sustainable agriculture in farm households within the ARGOS projects between 2003‐2009. Results drawn from multiple social research instruments deployed over six years provide an unparalleled level of empirical data on the social practice of sustainable agriculture under audit disciplines. Using 12 criteria identified in prior literature as contributing a significant social dynamic around sustainable agriculture practices in other contexts, the analysis demonstrated that 9 of these 12 dimensions did demonstrate differences in social practices emerging between (or co‐constituting) organic, integrated, or conventional audit disciplines. These differences clustered into three main areas: 1) social and learning/knowledge networks and expertise, 2) key elements of farmer subjectivity – particularly in relation to subjective positioning towards the environment and nature, and 3) the role and importance of environmental dynamics within farm management practices and systems. The findings of the project provide a strong challenge to some older framings of the social practice of sustainable agriculture: particularly those that rely on paradigm‐driven evaluation of social motivations, strong determinism of sustainable practice driven by coherent farmer identity, or deploying overly categorical interpretations of what it means to be ‘organic’ or ‘conventional’. The complex patterning of the ARGOS data can only be understood if the social practice of organic, integrated or (even more loosely) conventional production is understood as being co‐produced by four dynamics: subjectivity/identity, audit disciplines, industry cultures/structure and time. This reframing of how we might research the social practice of sustainable agriculture opens up important new opportunities for understanding the emergence and impact of new audit disciplines in agriculture.en
dc.format.extent129-141en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherElsevieren
dc.relationThe original publication is available from - Elsevier - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.08.003en
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.08.003en
dc.rightsCopyright © 2012, Elsevier.en
dc.subjectorganicen
dc.subjectsustainable agricultureen
dc.subjectmarket audit systemsen
dc.subjectintegrated managementen
dc.subjectsocial dynamicsen
dc.subjectARGOSen
dc.subjectAgricultureen
dc.subjectGLOBALGAPen
dc.subjectAuditen
dc.subjectSustainabilityen
dc.subjectFarm householdsen
dc.subjectARGOS projecten
dc.subjectTransdisciplinarityen
dc.subjectNew Zealanden
dc.subjectGeographyen
dc.titleThe social practice of sustainable agriculture under audit discipline: initial insights from the ARGOS project in New Zealanden
dc.typeJournal Article
lu.contributor.unitLincoln Universityen
lu.contributor.unitAgribusiness and Economics Research Uniten
lu.contributor.unitFaculty of Environment, Society and Designen
lu.contributor.unitDepartment of Tourism, Sport and Societyen
lu.contributor.unitResearch Management Officeen
lu.contributor.unit/LU/Research Management Office/2018 PBRF Staff groupen
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.08.003en
dc.subject.anzsrc1205 Urban and Regional Planningen
dc.subject.anzsrc1604 Human Geographyen
dc.subject.anzsrc1608 Sociologyen
dc.relation.isPartOfJournal of Rural Studiesen
pubs.issue1en
pubs.organisational-group/LU
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Agribusiness & Economics Research Unit
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Faculty of Environment, Society and Design
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Faculty of Environment, Society and Design/DTSS
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Research Management Office
pubs.organisational-group/LU/Research Management Office/2018 PBRF Staff group
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden
pubs.volume28en


Files in this item

Default Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record