Search

Sustainability-focused research networks and communities of practice have emerged as a key response and strategy to build capacity and knowledge to support transformation towards more sustainable, just and equitable futures. This paper synthesises insights from the development of a community of practice on social-ecological systems (SES) research in southern Africa over the past decade, linked to the international Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (PECS). This community consists of a network of researchers who carry out place-based SES research in the southern African region. They interact through various cross-cutting working groups and also host a variety of public colloquia and student and practitioner training events. Known as the Southern African Program on Ecosystem Change and Society (SAPECS), its core objectives are to: (1) derive new approaches and empirical insights on SES dynamics in the southern African context; (2) have a tangible impact by mainstreaming knowledge into policy and practice; and (3) grow the community of practice engaged in SES research and governance, including researchers, students and practitioners. This paper reflects on experiences in building the SAPECS community, with the aim of supporting the development of similar networks elsewhere in the world, particularly in the Global South.

The United States food system is highly centralized with only three of the fifty states producing more than 75 percent of U.S. fruits and vegetables. The high reliance on long-distance transportation and cold chains undermines the sustainability of the food system and adds to its vulnerability. This was most recently demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic which caused significant disruptions to food supply chains. A promising alternative is a more decentralized and localized food system which reduces the reliance on long-distance transportation and long supply chains. Since such a food system will likely consist of smaller producers, questions have been raised about its economic viability. This precipitated the idea of Food Hubs as market aggregators. The model was first introduced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a way to aggregate the agricultural product of small farms. It has since evolved to imply a more flexible food system that can complement various parts of the food supply chain. This study develops a framework to assess the social and environmental sustainability contributions of Food Hubs and especially of urban Food Hubs, since 80 percent of U.S. food consumers live in urban and metro areas. Using our framework, we conducted a content analysis of publicly available information for 50 Food Hubs in metropolitan areas across the United States. We find that Food Hubs contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing food transportation through sourcing from local farms. They also perform relatively well in contributing to lowering food waste and loss. Their contributions to improving water management and adopting more sustainable food production methods, however, appear to be less strong. Similarly, Food Hubs appear to enhance some of our selected aspects of social sustainability such as improving access to fresh and healthy food to local consumers, and organizations such as schools and hospitals. Only a few of the Food Hubs in our sample, however, address our other aspects of social sustainability such as improving food security. We conclude our study by offering an aggregate ranking of the sustainability contributions of our selected Food Hubs based on our assessment framework.

The actual real-life challenges that research practitioners (and others) face when attempting to work transdisciplinarily are not well documented. To encourage reflection, WUR organised the Wageningen Integration for Impact event in June 2022. Based on an analysis of lessons learned during this event, and a number of subsequent reflection sessions, a group of mostly WUR researchers developed this report. The aim is to identify strategies to overcome often experienced challenges among researchers engaging in transdisciplinary research. We developed a number of recommendations: 1. Embed learning about transdisciplinary research better in the organisational culture. 2. Acknowledge and value the expertise that is required to bring together different types of knowledge. 3. Identify and apply specific selection criteria for project leaders and business developers, so that people are selected based on their expertise in managing transdisciplinary projects. 4. Acknowledge that politics are part and parcel of transdisciplinary research and develop a clear vision on how to navigate knowledge politics as WUR. 5. Lobby for more flexible and longer-term funding; apply this to internal research projects. 6. Strengthen and professionalize transdisciplinary education at BSc, MSc and PhD level, as students are the future. 7. Build on and nourish the positive energy that exists within knowledge institutes among a growing group of researchers who is eager to work transdisciplinarily. The above mentioned suggestions could result in a (WUR) community which, on the longer-term, could contribute significantly to the co-creation of societally relevant solutions but also to bringing the conceptual discussions about transdisciplinarity to a higher level.

The actual real-life challenges that research practitioners (and others) face when attempting to work transdisciplinarily are not well documented. To encourage reflection, WUR organised the Wageningen Integration for Impact event in June 2022. Based on an analysis of lessons learned during this event, and a number of subsequent reflection sessions, a group of mostly WUR researchers developed this report. The aim is to identify strategies to overcome often experienced challenges among researchers engaging in transdisciplinary research. We developed a number of recommendations: 1. Embed learning about transdisciplinary research better in the organisational culture. 2. Acknowledge and value the expertise that is required to bring together different types of knowledge. 3. Identify and apply specific selection criteria for project leaders and business developers, so that people are selected based on their expertise in managing transdisciplinary projects. 4. Acknowledge that politics are part and parcel of transdisciplinary research and develop a clear vision on how to navigate knowledge politics as WUR. 5. Lobby for more flexible and longer-term funding; apply this to internal research projects. 6. Strengthen and professionalize transdisciplinary education at BSc, MSc and PhD level, as students are the future. 7. Build on and nourish the positive energy that exists within knowledge institutes among a growing group of researchers who is eager to work transdisciplinarily. The above mentioned suggestions could result in a (WUR) community which, on the longer-term, could contribute significantly to the co-creation of societally relevant solutions but also to bringing the conceptual discussions about transdisciplinarity to a higher level.

As the United Nations develops a post-2020 global biodiversity framework for the Convention on Biological Diversity, attention is focusing on how new goals and targets for ecosystem conservation might serve its vision of ‘living in harmony with nature’1,2. Advancing dual imperatives to conserve biodiversity and sustain ecosystem services requires reliable and resilient generalizations and predictions about ecosystem responses to environmental change and management3. Ecosystems vary in their biota4, service provision5 and relative exposure to risks6, yet there is no globally consistent classification of ecosystems that reflects functional responses to change and management. This hampers progress on developing conservation targets and sustainability goals. Here we present the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Ecosystem Typology, a conceptually robust, scalable, spatially explicit approach for generalizations and predictions about functions, biota, risks and management remedies across the entire biosphere. The outcome of a major cross-disciplinary collaboration, this novel framework places all of Earth’s ecosystems into a unifying theoretical context to guide the transformation of ecosystem policy and management from global to local scales. This new information infrastructure will support knowledge transfer for ecosystem-specific management and restoration, globally standardized ecosystem risk assessments, natural capital accounting and progress on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Landscape and urban planners, designers, as well as architects, can take up inclusive planning and design processes that acknowledge human needs and dignity, and foster participation in shared decision-making. Underpinning these processes are values of empathy, placation, accessibility, and identity essential to imagining and creating inclusive green cities. This chapter provides a deeper understanding of the different dimensions of an inclusive green city and how social equity is an integral part of any design effort. We begin by exploring our vision and the values necessary for green urban design. A framework for three aspects of equity – recognitional equity, procedural equity, and distributional equity – is presented with selected case studies that serve as evolving good practices for equitable green urban design. From this framework and resulting values, we built on a value-inclusive design canvas and present design principles that planners, designers and architects can adopt as their own.

Local governments, scientists and urban planners need to create a sensitivity to greening initiatives of local citizens and their networks and learn to co-create locally relevant strategies with them, combining communal practices with broader policies and legislation and scientific efforts. We focus on three pathways to enhance this social capital needed for greening cities: communal learning; new types of ownership for citizens’ initiatives; and making the impact of citizens’ activities and practices more explicit. Three cases demonstrate each of these pathways. First, Steenbreek Foundation, an initiative of universities, municipalities and urban ecologists, exemplifies communal learning through local actions. Steenbreek Foundation aims to engage citizens and local municipalities in greening public and private gardens by demonstrating the added value of greening. In 2021 over 140 municipalities and local initiatives joined Steenbreek Foundation. Second, communal ownership is exemplified by the Kaskantine in Amsterdam, an urban farm cafe, where residents of the neighbourhood of Nieuw-West take over management of urban land and water to develop nature-based technologies for off-grid living in the city. Third, communal impact is exemplified by the Doughnut Coalition in Amsterdam, an organisation of residents that develop their own bottom-up measurement technique to measure the social impact of their neighbourhood activities. The three case studies show diverse ways of including communities in urban greening initiatives. Whether through encouraging community learning, creating strategies for communal ownership and management of resources, or through measuring and tracking the impact of community action, these initiatives have demonstrated the potential of civic engagement. The chapter concludes with three principles that local governments and urban planners need to embrace in order to involve communities in their greening strategies.

Normative scenarios for long-term (e.g., 100 years) landscape development can be very inspiring to imagine outside the box landscape futures, without being obliged to define concrete policy objectives for the shorter term. However, it remains challenging to translate such long-term visions into clear transition pathways. We draw upon a landscape-based design approach to local spatial planning to foster a transition to a well-functioning landscape, resilient to various external pressures. Inspired by a national visioning exercise for the Netherlands in 2120, two local case studies at municipal level in the Netherlands are analysed, aiming to identify in what ways the setup of a regional landscape-based design study using future visions can optimise the spatial planning process. Therefore, this comparative case study analysed the cases on the landscape-based approach, the design process, and the future visions formulated. The comparison shows that fostering abiotic differences safeguards sustainable and resilient landscapes; moreover, co-creation relying on representative local actors appears fundamental for shared solutions, while a landscape-based approach guarantees transitions to adaptive and biodiverse landscapes. We conclude that a shared long-term future landscape vision is a crucial source of inspiration to solve today’s spatial planning problems. The constellation of the stakeholder group involved and the methodological setup of a visioning process are determinative for the way a long-term vision is suited to informing spatial planning for a sustainable future.

The common conception of the economy is a throughput model where inputs are converted into useful goods and services. Emissions and waste are the unfortunate by-products of this conversion process. Inputs and emission and waste by-products seemingly come from nowhere and disappear into nowhere. In other words, the common conception is that the economy has no context. As a result, the unintended side effects of economic activity disappear from the purview of economics. Economists refer to these unaccounted side effects of economic activity as ‘externalities’. The deficiencies of this contextless model have long been recognised by ecological and social economists. This chapter outlines a new economic model developed by the lead author called restorative economics. Like the doughnut model developed by Kate Raworth (2012), it places the economy in its social and environmental context and makes long neglected social and environmental impacts of economic activity visible. The restorative economics model, however, makes a further distinction regarding the context of economic activity that makes the model more operational. It distinguishes between sources and sinks. Sinks are the counterpoints to the resources that feed the front end of the economic process. Sinks deal with the tail end of the process. The restorative economics model therefore places value not only on the resources used to produce goods and services and on these outputs of goods and services themselves, but also on the many social and environmental sink factors that absorb emissions, process waste, reduce stress, and alleviate social tension. Restorative economics pays attention to both the resources and the sinks needed to sustain economic activity in the long run. We illustrate the value of these sinks by reviewing several local and regional initiatives from Washington DC, namely the Urban Food Hubs model, the Five Pillars of Economic Development, the Food Connects vision and the ambitious agenda of the Sustainable DC plan. We conclude the chapter by reviewing policies that support a restorative economy.

The relationship between food loss and waste and the environment is a domain that is still understudied and often overlooked. However, placing food lossand waste in a changing environment will open opportunities to deliver valuable new insights and better tailored and targeted interventions. Most of all, it will contribute to a more effective outreach to stakeholders and society In this chapter we will delve into the way(s) food losses and waste link to a changingenvironment and we thereby address three key messages:• do not wait for the future to happen• the uptake of a spatial approach: close to home or a distant reality• work on positive stories that connect and inspire to action

During the rearing period, broiler breeders are feed restricted to prevent the negative impact of fast growth and high body weight on health and reproduction. Feed restriction causes frustration and stress, resulting in stereotypic pecking and hyperactivity. Nutritional strategies have the potential to reduce these welfare issues. Using a 2 × 2 factorial completely randomized block design, pullets were fed with two diet densities and two feeding frequencies during rearing. From 3–23 weeks of age (WOA), pullets received either a standard control diet (CON) or a 16% diluted diet (DIL) containing oat hulls. These diets were provided either once (FO) or twice (FT) a day. After 23 WOA, all pullets received the same standard layer diet once a day. Home pen behaviour was observed by scan sampling at 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 39 WOA over eight observation sessions. Furthermore, pullets were subjected to Novel Food Tests (12 and 17 WOA) and Novel Object Tests (5, 10, 15 and 20 WOA). Minor treatment effects were found for foraging and sitting behaviour that varied with age during rearing. Feeding frequency influenced the behavioural patterns of all home pen behaviours (P < 0.001; object pecking P = 0.034), while diet dilution only affected the expression of foraging behaviour during the day (P = 0.007). In all treatment groups, many pullets were observed standing and walking in anticipation of the first meal. After the first meal and before the second meal, more FT pullets were observed standing and walking, while during and after the second meal more FO pullets were observed sitting and performing comfort behaviour. Feeding twice a day resulted in lower daily peaks in drinking behaviour. In the laying period, when all birds received the same layer diet at the same frequency, those who were fed twice daily during rearing foraged more than those who were fed once (P = 0.028) and birds that received a diluted diet during rearing tended to drink more than birds that received the control diet (P = 0.083). Few treatment effects were found in the Novel Food and Novel Object Tests, indicating that diet dilution and/or feeding frequency, as applied here, did not affect fearful behaviour or the motivation to explore. In conclusion, this study showed that neither diet dilution, twice-daily feeding, or the combination of these, improved broiler breeder welfare during rearing and laying. Some changes in the pattern of home pen behaviour were found that indicated a response to the frequency of food provisioning.

In a rapidly urbanizing world climate change and biodiversity loss are amongst the biggest risks for societies across the globe. In its annual global risks report the World Economic Forum defines these topics as the risks with the largest likelihood and impact for the global economy. A call for action is widely acknowledged, but the way forward and action perspectives are not always clear. These major topics are often placed at the same level compared to other emerging issues and transitions. Current planning practice shows a wide palette of actions, action-oriented programming and rethinking urban and rural design from different angles and perspectives: circular, smart, adaptive, nature inclusive or resilient. Unfortunately, this seldom ends up in a coherent planning strategy and integrated design for a circular, smart, adaptive, nature inclusive and resilient city . This is not unique to the urban tissue but is also common practice in rural areas. Additionally, urban and rural strategies are also still heavily disconnected, although clear relationships and interdependencies across social, economic and natural systems are eminent. Above all, the revaluation of green and blue in both urban and rural areas is moderately moving forward. But a radical rethinking, intertwining the natural basis in all our actions and perspectives as a solid fundament for a sustainable, resilient and prosperous future , is often missing. Do we see and understand the complete picture? Do we embrace diversity and complexity ? And do we really envision an enabling future which combines a long-term perspective with dedicated short-term actions? How do we create a long-term vision for the future in the context of a short-term decision-making practice? Besides reducing negative impacts, a positive impact and future quality in the broadest sense should be enhanced.

The content of this Mansholt lecture came about through a wide science-policy consultation process. Existing ‘seeds of innovation’ in the biodiversity climate-food nexus were collected in a WUR-wide dialogue on 10th May 2022, which involved some 150 interdisciplinary experts. These seeds were collated into interventions for nature-positive futures, in an interdisciplinary workshop of WUR colleagues on 13th May 2022. They were further clustered into five entry points for nature-positive changes to the food system. The resulting entry points and interventions were discussed with several EU policy makers in another workshop in Brussels on 30th June 2022. We thank everyone involved in this process for their input

Cities around the world need to rethink the way they deal with water and develop into water smart cities. This chapter will address a shift in urban water management towards water smart cities using three strategies: (1) restore degraded ecosystems in natural surroundings of cities; (2) implement Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) on a large scale; (3) close the urban water cycle and treat water as a resource. NBS are solutions inspired by, supported by or copied from nature. The Water Smart City approach integrates urban water management on a district, city and catchment scale. Furthermore, innovation and close collaboration between local stakeholders, businesses and research institutes are a key part of this approach, to continuously learn and improve the solutions. By collecting and analysing data, cities can create an evidence base for nature-based adaptation. Case studies presented are Oslo, New Delhi and Ho Chi Minh City. The chapter concludes with a roadmap to become a Water Smart City.

Biodiversity loss is a global threat and biodiversity for food and agriculture is particularly relevant in the context of our food systems. This report discusses the current status and trends of crop, livestock and aquatic genetic diversity, in relation to food systems. The impact of decreasing or enhanced use of crop, livestock and aquatic genetic diversity – within and across species and varieties – is discussed in relation to four different food system dimensions: 1) safe and healthy diets, 2) food security, 3) inclusiveness and equal benefits, and 4) sustainability and resilience. To this end, both a literature review and stakeholder and expert interviews were used. We provide a conceptual framework for assessing trade-offs of different measures and strategies for increased use of crop, livestock and aquatic genetic diversity. We furthermore highlight key topics for future research and policy recommendations in this area. Verlies van biodiversiteit is een wereldwijde bedreiging en met name de biodiversiteit voor voedsel en landbouw is relevant in de context van onze voedselsystemen. Dit rapport bespreekt de huidige status van, en trends in, de genetische diversiteit in gewassen, vee en aquatische soorten, in relatie tot voedselsystemen. De impact van afnemend of toenemend gebruik van genetische diversiteit in gewassen, vee en aquatische soorten – binnen en tussen soorten en variëteiten – wordt besproken in relatie tot vier dimensies van het voedselsysteem: 1) veilige en gezonde voeding, 2) voedselzekerheid, 3) inclusiviteit en gelijke voordelen, en 4) duurzaamheid en veerkracht. Hiervoor is gebruik gemaakt van zowel een literatuuronderzoek als interviews met stakeholders en experts. In dit rapport bieden we een conceptueel kader voor het beoordelen van de wisselwerking tussen verschillende maatregelen en strategieën voor het vergroten van het gebruik van genetische diversiteit in gewassen, vee en aquatische soorten. Verder benoemen we een aantal belangrijke richtingen voor toekomstig onderzoek en beleidsaanbevelingen op dit gebied.

Wageningen University & Research publiceerde eind 2019 een toekomstvisie voor Nederland in 2120. Het toekomstbeeld, gepresenteerd op een nieuwe kaart van Nederland, laat zien hoe Nederland eruit kan zien als de natuur en natuurlijke processen een centrale rol spelen bij de grote transities waar Nederland voor staat. Het verhaal van Nederland 2120 laat het belang zien van een integrale ruimtelijke visie op de toekomst in relatie tot de klimaat- en biodiversiteitsopgaven. Het verhaal heeft een groot publiek bereikt. Dit rapport beschrijft de impact en vervolgstappen van Nederland 2120.

In the wake of the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, cities around the world have been taking the lead in designing their own City Region Food System (CRFS). A City Region Food System aims to foster the development of resilient and sustainable food systems which encompass an urban centre, a peri-urban ring, and the rural areas surrounding a city. This chapter argues that a CRFS must also focus on nature and the context it provides rather than on the social and environmental indicators typically used to describe a city and its context. This includes the nature context of the rural-urban region where a city is located. A CRFS needs to include a wide range of food system actors including those who give expression to the nature context of the region. It must also focus on cooperation, decision-making, learning, and distributive leadership among the various CRFS actors. We discuss examples of emerging CRFSs from Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Washington DC to illustrate these principles.

This chapter guides the reader towards ‘symbiotic thinking’ in the future design of cities. Symbiotic cities are dynamic urban landscapes of beneficial relationships between people and nature. Urban actors can work on these beneficial relationships with nature in many different forms. Assumptions of the symbiotic city are therefore optimism, ecocentrism, inclusion, nature based thinking and the importance of embedded networks. The chapter sets out a three-pronged framework with which to understand the symbiotic city. It differentiates between the foundation, the networks and the symbiotic human practices that build the future symbiotic city. The foundation of the city, composed of biotic and abiotic entities such as soil, water and living organisms, needs to re-enter the networks and human practices of the city to meet the definition of the symbiotic city.

The transformation process needed to achieve the symbiotic city requires a whole subset of transformative changes in cities. These range from re-embedding cities in the biotic and abiotic foundations of water, soil and organisms to building new institutional, technical, circular and socio-ecological networks in the city. Examples of these transformative practices have been described in the previous chapters with case studies in which people express different voices of nature. First, they point to the importance of the agency of urban actors, i.e. their ability to change existing urban practices in symbiotic ones. Second, they stress the importance of new networks, including governance arrangements that favour nature-based thinking. Third, economics needs to be re-embedded into society and ecology, resulting in new economic narratives that embrace nature. Finally, the inclusion of all people and their expressions of the values of nature as well as their heterogeneous knowledge is central to enforcing the transformations. Grouped in six categories of citizens, businesses, NGOs, corporates, municipalities and knowledge organisations, actors can work together on the transformation to make the symbiotic city happen. In this chapter we introduce these actors and we address the challenges that every type of actor can work on starting from tomorrow, from strategic, to tactical, to operational and reflexive activities that can be performed to become a voice of nature in urban transformations.

The relationship between food loss and waste and the environment is a domain that is still understudied and often overlooked. However, placing food lossand waste in a changing environment will open opportunities to deliver valuable new insights and better tailored and targeted interventions. Most of all, it will contribute to a more effective outreach to stakeholders and society In this chapter we will delve into the way(s) food losses and waste link to a changingenvironment and we thereby address three key messages:• do not wait for the future to happen• the uptake of a spatial approach: close to home or a distant reality• work on positive stories that connect and inspire to action

This chapter presents two visions of two different urban areas as symbiotic cities in 2050. Both visions seek to capture the full potential of a symbiotic city that effectively integrates the value of nature into the urban scape and its social, built, and geographic characteristics. We based our visions on a methodology committed to community engagement, thoughtfulness about the process, and the inclusion of multiple small initiatives that constitute the structuring elements of the visions. The first is a vision for a City Region Food System in Washington DC in 2050. The vision focuses on food as the connecting link for a nature-based and socially inclusive urban economy embedded in the larger Washington DC metropolitan region. The eight wards of Washington DC in 2050 value natural resources, social and cultural diversity, and a shared commitment to nature-based innovation. We argue that small, hyperlocal, neighbourhood-based initiatives can become crucial game changers and catalysts of change for entire neighbourhoods, cities, and regions. The second is a vision for a region in the middle of the Netherlands in 2050. The area consists of eight neighbourhoods that all constitute different storylines of nature-based thinking and give space to different values that people attach to natural resources, including water, soils and biodiversity. Both the visions of Washington DC and the Netherlands paint a picture of what is possible in 2050. Further specification is needed to advance the visions toward their implementation. In addition, the visions raise the question of how different actors in the urban innovation ecosystem are crucial for the development of the symbiotic city. This question will be addressed in further detail in the following chapters of this book.

Twee jaar geleden schetste Wageningen University & Research (WUR) een positief toekomstscenario: Nederland 2120 (Baptist et al., 2019). In dat verhaal schetsen we hoe Nederland een gidsland kan zijn voor een groene toekomst. Een land dat vooroploopt in de transitie naar een duurzame samenleving. Die boodschap van hoop bleek enorm aan te slaan. In dit verhaal zoomen we verder in: wat betekent zo’n scenario voor de stad van de toekomst? We nemen Arnhem als voorbeeld, om te laten zien hoe de stedelijke omgeving er over honderd jaar uit zou kunnen zien. Kúnnen, ja, want dit toekomstbeeld is niet in beton gegoten. We schetsen geen blauwdruk, maar een denkrichting. We willen een inspirerend, gedurfd én realistisch verhaal vertellen. Het natuurlijke systeem en het welzijn van de mens zijn daarbij ons uitgangspunt.