Systems Research and Behavioral Science Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2 0 0 8) Published online inWiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI:10.1002/sres.854

& Research Paper

Community Resilience and Contemporary Agri-Ecological Systems: Reconnecting People and , and People with People

Christine A. King* School of Natural and Rural Systems , The University of Queensland (Gatton Campus), Gatton, Queensland, Australia

Alternative agricultural systems that emphasize ecological and resilience provide a bridge between traditional and natural management. These can be referred to as agri-ecological systems and include systems such as Organic Agri- culture, Biodynamics, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), , Farmers Markets and Community Gardens. This paper reports on current research by the author to explore a range of these systems and how they contribute to agri-ecological and com- munity resilience. For example, resiliency can be seen as a system’s ability to adapt and respond to external impacts on a system, and farmers markets show resiliency to sudden market changes (such as price or preferences toward organics, through direct sale and the involvement of a range of consumers and producers offering a broad range of organic produce). That is, this paper reviews these alternative approaches to food production in relation to key concepts from ecological systems thinking, such as ecological resilience, and holism. More specifically, the paper explores how agri-ecological systems contribute to more sustainable and resilient communities, through community development processes such as relationship building, genuine participation, inclusive- ness, resource mobilization and creating space for knowledge sharing. The paper con- cludes by comparing ecological systems models to agri-ecological systems, and suggests how ecological systems theories and concepts might contribute to thinking about the future of community-based agri-ecological resilience. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords agricultural systems; ecological systems; food systems; community resilience;

* Correspondence to: Dr Christine A. King, School of Natural and Rural , The University of Queensland (Gatton Campus), Gatton, Queensland, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Received XX XXXX Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted XX XXXX RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

INTRODUCTION lead in developing agri-ecological systems that address today’s environmental and social justice Alternative agricultural systems that emphasize imperatives. These approaches often require ecological and community resilience provide a more systemic change, as well as a shift from bridge between traditional agriculture (e.g. broad an economic paradigm to an ecological one. scale mono-cropping rotations) and natural Figure 1 provides a conceptual diagram to help (e.g. maintaining pristine locate agri-ecological systems in relation to environments). These can be referred to as traditional agriculture and natural resource agri-ecological systems and include systems such management. as Organic Agriculture, Biodynamics, Com- munity Supported Agriculture (CSA), Permacul- ture, Farmers Markets and Community Gardens. Government agencies, private industries (and to Background some extent Universities) primarily focus on traditional agricultural systems. Where sustain- The Green Revolution was a turning point in ability and community health issues are con- terms of how agricultural systems were managed sidered, the usual emphasis is on how these to support livelihoods through food and fibre traditional systems might be adapted or mana- production. From systems that would today be ged to reduce environmental or health impacts referred to as organic and locally owned, came (within the current economic and production systems that required high technological and paradigm). Communities however, are taking the chemical inputs that eventually expanded into

Figure 1. Locating agri-ecologcal systems in relation to traditional agriculture and natural resource management

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres 112 Christine A. King Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER highly industrialized and commercial enter- farmers, leaving them with limited to prises. The Green revolution at the time was seen compete with large industry players monopoliz- as an alternative (and superior) way to reduce ing the market or to respond to large market price after the Second World War economic fluctuations (McMichael and Lawrence, 2001). crisis, by increasing agricultural production through the use of chemicals such as , and fertilisers (Coutts, 1997). MANAGING SYSTEMS FOR RESILIENCE Although the immediate response to this alternative was dramatic increases in production The increasing decline in capital has levels and improved varieties, it did not take long presented urgency for new ways of managing for people to realize that this was a short-term agricultural and natural systems. Particularly solution. The revolution converted rich farmers prominent in the natural systems domain, is into richer agro-industrial entities through access managing systems to increase system resilience. to bank loans and bulk products purchased at Underlying these different ways of management discount prices, such as , chemicals, are different assumptions about the properties of irrigation systems and machinery. Poor or small ecological systems. That is, there are different farmers, however, were being increasingly perspectives of ecosystem resilience, and each squeezed out of the sector. Environmental degra- perspective assumes a different course of action dation was associated with these intensive in management. These can be represented as agricultural farming enterprises and associated models and three models commonly in use (at practices, destabilizing the ecosystem and carry- least theoretically) are described below. ing consequences such as an increased number of insect plagues in crops, soil salinity, soil and water contamination and loss of biodiversity. Model 1—Engineering Resilience Gunderson and Pritchard (2002) describe the ways in which loss of ecological resilience (and This definition of resilience focuses on efficiency loss of ecosystem capital) can occur, including and assumes constancy and predictability. From mining, , modifying key ecosys- this perspective, systems exist close to a stable or tem relationships and homogenizing temporal equilibrium steady state, and a system’s resili- and spatial variability, all of which can result ence is measured by to from intensive agriculture. and the speed of return to the steady state Ecologically, intensive agriculture produced a following a perturbation (King and Powell, 2000). ‘no-win’ dilemma—farmers either had to (i) This type of resilience focuses on maintaining increase at the cost of long term efficiency of function and can be aligned with sustainability (resulting in ecological destruction 20th-century economic theory (Gunderson and of the resource base on which their livelihood Pritchard, 2002). Researchers explore system depended) or they could try to (ii) maintain behaviour near a known stable state (i.e. ecological diversity at the cost of short-term near-equilibrium behaviour) and operate deduc- higher yields that were necessary to keep them in tively in the tradition of mathematical theory that farming. Today, a global agriculture is emerging, imagines simplified, untouched ecological sys- defined by market liberalization and a regulatory tems. This model also draws on the engineering regime, supported by most countries around the discipline which is motivated to design single world. The markets theoretically are self operating systems (i.e. optimal design). regulated, operating without (direct) govern- This model is grounded within a positivist ment interventions such as subsidies, border epistemology, where scientists aim to develop an and other market interventions, but it is objective understanding about an ecological difficult to say whether this globalized approach system. An objective understanding implies a achieves sustainability objectives. For example, number of assumptions in terms of managing for globalization has increased financial pressure on sustainability. The first assumption is that a

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres Agri-Ecological Systems and Resilience 113 RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res. system can be known and one ‘truth’ exists, sug- gesting one best management option. Second, objectivity also suggests that people are separate from nature, and often the way people interact with nature is unsustainable. Third, sustainabil- ity is viewed as something that can be ‘reached’ and is often goal describing. Gunderson and Pritchard (2002) suggest that this model is ‘certainly consistent with the engineer’s desire to make things work—and not to intentionally make things that break down or suddenly shift their behaviour; but nature and human society are different’.

Figure 2. Holling’s Figure-Eight Model of system dyna- Model 2—Ecological Resilience mics (Holling, 1987) dynamic, not static and is said to give a better This model of resilience focuses on persistence, representation of complex systems. The model despite changes and unpredictability. In terms of suggests that a system moves cyclically between ecological resilience, it assumes conditions far four domains: conservation, release, exploitation from any stable steady state, where instabilities and reorganization (Figure 2). As the system shifts can shift or flip a system into another regime of between the different domains, conventional behaviour to another stability domain (Berkes notions of sustainability are challenged on two and Folke, 1998). Resilience is measured by the fronts (King and Powell, 2000). First, the degree magnitude of disturbance that can be absorbed of coupling, connectedness or linearity between before the system is restructured with different impacts and the system is shown to be domain controlling variables and processes. This focuses dependent. At a second level, the earlier on maintaining existence of function. Research- definition of sustainability, which speaks of ers search for alternative stable states, the ‘maintaining capital constant and undimin- properties of the boundaries between states, ished’, is contested. In the Figure-Eight Model and the conditions that can cause a system to the degree of stored capital is once again domain move from one stability domain to another. This dependent. In fact the model suggests that, if the model has its tradition within applied math- release of capital from the system is suppressed ematics and applied resource , and aligns (by remaining in the conservation domain for an more with contemporary economic theory which extended period), then its release will have has identified multi-stable states (Gunderson and catastrophic consequences (King and Powell, Pritchard, 2002). As with the first model, manage- 2000).1 ment is aimed at achieving system stability, is This model is grounded in a constructivist often system-prescribing, and therefore can be epistemology. From this, understanding is sub- equated with conventional notions of sustain- jective and people cannot be separated from ability.

1A number of authors have revised Holling’s conceptual Figure-Eight Model 3— Resilience Model to align it with data based on actual observation, suggesting that the original model makes the assumption that the amount of before a destructive event and during the renewal of the This model addresses the management of un- system is equivalent, where in reality this is not often the case. For stable states or non-equilibrium systems. example, Kay (1994) changed the model so that the loop consisting of phases 2 and 3 is larger in size than the loop consisting of phases 1 and Non-equilibrium systems are often associated 4. Hansell and Bass (1998) also revised the model to more accurately with the work of Clarence Holling and his represent the linkages between biodiversity and . Nevertheless, Holling’s original model provides a good conceptual popular Figure-Eight Model (Holling, 1973; model in which to understand the main assumptions behind Model 3 1987). This model represents systems as and ecosystem dynamics.

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres 114 Christine A. King Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER nature, but are a part of nature. In fact, there are a sis is on maintaining continuing capacity to number of case studies which show that if people generate options and scenarios. Research involves are removed from nature (or uncoupled from shared identification of and learning about key nature) the system is likely to be less sustainable variables, relationships and processes and the (Russell and Ison, 1993). Sustainability is also a opportunities for influencing these variables, term that has many meanings and is part of an relationships and processes. on-going process of shared learning. Here, Table 1 provides a summary of these three measurement of resilience is undertaken in terms models of resilience in terms of a range of of a coupled system’s capacity to learn (evolve) characteristics and associated assumptions for co-dependently. This third model allows the each model. The three models imply different possibility of managing a coupled system in ways in which systems can be managed for terms of plasticity, of function, structure and resilience. process. King and Powell (2000) highlight that this model recognizes (i) the need to reduce uncertainty in order for governance to function, APPLYING THE CONCEPTS OF (ii) the precautionary principle as the justification RESILIENCE TO AGRI-ECOLOGICAL for action (rather than, as it is sometimes taken to SYSTEMS be, a rationale for blocking action) and (iii) there will be bad decisions with serious, perhaps Due to the social, environmental and health irreversible consequences. Thus, here the empha- problems caused by globalization and conven-

Table 1. Assumptions behind different characteristics of the three models of resilience Characteristics Engineering resilience Ecological resilience Resilience as adaptive capacity

Focus Efficiency Persistency Plasticity Tradition Engineering and traditional Applied mathematics Non-equilibrium mathematical theory and applied resource systems (Holling) ecology Assumption Constancy and predictability Changes and Changes and unpredictability unpredictability; structural coupling Focus Equilibrium behaviour The conditions that can Co-evolving, learning cause a system to move from one stability domain to another Measure Speed of return to steady state Magnitude of disturbance Coupled systems that can be absorbed capacity to co-evolve Research Search for characteristics of Search for alternative stable Search for alternative system behaviour near a known states and properties of dynamic states and (optimal) stable state boundaries between states properties of boundary patterns between states Measure Speed of return to steady state Magnitude of disturbance Coupled systems capacity that can be absorbed to co-evolve Management Maintaining efficiency of function Maintaining existence of Managing cyclical patterns function and non-linear processes with multi-stakeholders Sustainability Goal describing System prescribing Negotiated and co-evolving Governance Governance of function by Governance of function by Reduce uncertainty in deducing certainty (reactive) reducing uncertainty order for governance to (cautionary) function (precautionary)

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres Agri-Ecological Systems and Resilience 115 RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res. tional industrialized agriculture, communities all the system’ (FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius over the world have been developing alternative Commission, 2007). agri-ecological systems that are more sustainable. Today, it is generally accepted in the wider com- Below are six systems that are becoming increa- munity that food grown organically is healthier, singly popular in Australia. They are presented not only because it does not contain chemical here, to provide a brief overview of each system residues, but because it may also be higher in and to compare the system’s underlying assump- nutritional value (e.g. Goldstein, 2000; King and tions with the models of resilience previously Pahl, 2003) and promote . A discussed. study by Bengtsson et al. (2005) compared organic and conventional farms by analyzing Organic Agriculture published reports and concluded that usually increases on Organic agriculture can be simply defined as average 30% and also of organisms by agricultural systems that rely on ecosystem 50%. Although organic agriculture is gaining development rather than conventional agricul- acceptance, it has been criticized for not necess- tural inputs such as synthetic fertilizers and arily being a more sustainable option or holistic chemicals. The demand for organic produce has enterprise, where the elimination of chemicals been steadily growing in recent years for three has led to an increase in other practices that main reasons, including health, environment contribute to environmental degradation (e.g. and/or . A study by Woodward- increased mechanization). For example, in Aus- Clyde (2000) highlights that there has been an tralia, research has showed generally lower overall decline in public confidence in modern yields on organic farms stemming from low- farming and processing methods, and an increas- phosphorous soils, having several implications ing consumer awareness of food-borne hazards for sustainability such as reducing such as pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and efficiency and the ability of a system to respond artificial ingredients. The expansion of organic in a flexible manner to problems such as dryland sales over the last two decades has increased salinity (Davidson, 2005). However, organic worldwide to around US$20 billion and growing agriculture does keep redefining itself, and in 20–50% per annum. In Australia the value of 2005 the International Federation of Organic organic production has expanded 10-fold Agriculture Movement (IFOAM) defined organic between 1990 and 2000, and is currently valued agriculture as a whole system approach based upon a at around AUD$250 million, of which about $80 set of processes resulting in a sustainable ecosystem, million worth is exported (Palaszczuk, 2000). It is safe food, good nutrition, animal welfare and social expected that by 2013, 30% of Australian food justice. Davidson (2005) suggests that organic will be organic (GRDC, 2003). In 1999, the FAO/ production today is more than a system of WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission used the production that includes or excludes certain following definition: inputs (Davidson, 2005). ‘Organic agriculture is a holistic production which promotes and enhances agro-, including biodiversity, Biodynamics biological cycles and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in Biodynamics has its foundations in Anthroposo- preference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into phy, a spiritual movement created by Rudolf account that regional conditions require locally Steiner. Anthroposophy was designed as a adapted systems. This is accomplished by using, ‘spiritual science’ to renew and transform human where possible, agronomic, biological and mechan- activity and society through increasing human ical methods, as opposed to using synthetic cognitive capacity, based on a reunion of science, materials, to fulfil any specific function within art and religion (Lorand, 2001). Central to an

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres 116 Christine A. King Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER understanding of anthroposophy is the evol- versity .... It was a kind of cultural philosophy. utionary concept: that all of life is in a process of I’ve often thought that was a scathing indictment of change, transformation and metamorphosis. university learning from one who had seen the best Lorand (2001) describes successful biodynamics universities in the world! Yet, to go back to an as a true daughter movement of anthroposophy earlier stage of development was never a goal for with identical goals and methods, simply applied to Rudolf Steiner. Always he sought to develop, out of agriculture, however, suggests that we have hidden an older form, something entirely new. He did not these realities about biodynamics to avoid being contemplate a return to the feudal system out of seen as fanatical. Advocates of biodynamics see it which the peasantry came, nor did he wish to ignore as a more purposeful process than organics, the gains of agricultural science or a scientific suggesting that although organic agriculture education. He wanted farmers, scientists and rightly wants to halt the devastation caused by commercial interests to form new relationships humans; organic agriculture has no cure for the ailing and for farmers to develop new faculties of Earth (Wildfeuer, 1995). consciousness. Perhaps most importantly, he did Wildfeuer (1995) describes biodynamics as not think that food grown on increasingly a science of life-forces, a recognition of the basic impoverished soil could provide the inner suste- principles at work in nature, and an approach to nance that is needed for spiritual activity’. agriculture which takes these principles into account to bring about balance and healing. Comparing biodynamics to conventional and organic agricultural systems, biodynamics is an ongoing Community Supported Agriculture path of knowledge rather than an assemblage of methods and techniques. Some of the basic prin- CSA is a recent idea that originated in Japan and ciples of biodynamics reported by Wildfeuer Switzerland around the 1960s, which is based on include (i) the broadening of our perspective on a partnership between farmers and consumers agriculture, (ii) careful observation of the who share the risks and benefits in food dynamics (e.g. seasons and soil types) and production (Hawkins et al., 2003). Through this language of nature, (iii) applying an under- process, consumers expect to benefit by receiving standing of cosmic rhythms to agricultural safe food and farmers benefit through feasible practices (e.g. sowing, cultivating), (iv) recog- ways of commercialization. Consumers make an nition of the interconnections between plant life arrangement to support the farm during the and soil life (e.g. building up of humus through season assuming the operational costs and risks, composting), (v) chemically free production that and purchase the crop at reasonable prices. In the aims for quality (that stimulates human vitality), same way, farmers offer good quality, healthy (vi) the use of biodynamic preparations in the and environmentally friendly produce following field based on seasonal rhythms and life forces sustainability principles (and are generally (e.g. enhancing the capacity for a plant to receive organic). light), (vii) a self-sufficient farm that seeks to The CSA movement was born in the Biody- preserve, recycle, produce what is needed and namic movement and is spreading rapidly. CSAs provide learning opportunities to imitate nature reflect the culture of the community they serve, (viii) an based on the knowledge of the capabilities of the CSA and the farmers who farming bringing together producers and con- manage it. Therefore CSAs are not likely to be the sumers for mutual benefit (e.g. CSA). Wildfeuer same and tend to be dynamic as community (1995) provides some insights into Rudolf needs vary and change over time. However, we Steiner’s motivations and grounding for biody- can categorize the CSAs into four different types, namic systems: namely (i) farmer managed, (ii) shareholder/ subscriber, (iii) farmer cooperative and (iv) ‘Yet it was wonderfully significant; you could learn farmer/shareholder cooperative (Wilkinson, far more from peasants than from the Uni- 2001).

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres Agri-Ecological Systems and Resilience 117 RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

The supportive relationship between farmers Central to permaculture is its ‘inter- and the community helps to create an on-going disciplinarity’ where disciplines such as ecology, learning relationship which increases consu- landscape planning, architecture and agrofores- mers’ awareness about the implications of try are integrated both conceptually and practi- producing food that meets certain criteria (e.g. cally, to help people create an approach and way seasonality, choices in management practices, of living that is both productive and sustainable. cost of production) and increases farmers aware- It is inter-disciplinary (as opposed to multi- ness about consumers’ preferences. That is, the disciplinary) because its focus is on the relation- relationship enables purposeful feedback and ships between the disciplines; the whole becom- adaptation. The CSA itself (as an organization) ing greater than the sum of its parts. In addition, a has the potential to serve a range of other key aspect of Permaculture is the development of functions, such as exploring alternatives and a person’s capacity to recognize universal distributing information to all its stakeholders patterns and principles (through critical aware- about a range of issues such as innovations in ness and observation) of natural system and food technology, environmental impacts of apply these in practice in their own context. different food production systems and how to Holmgren (2006) provides a more current improve their management system through definition of permaculture, which reflects the sourcing information about other CSAs (Diaz expansion of focus implicit in Mollison and Vera, 2005). In addition, advanced agreements Holmgren’s earlier book (i.e. Permaculture One) can help improve the economic viability of small where the aim of permaculture is ‘consciously scale organic producers and encourage conven- designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and tional farmers to try and test other more relationships found in nature while yielding an sustainable options over the season. abundance of food, fibre and energy for provision of local needs’. Its underlying processes are high- lighted in the following description by Perma- culture International (2006): Permaculture Permaculture (permanent agriculture) is the Permaculture is a design system which aims to conscious design and maintenance of agricultu- create sustainable food, resource and community rally productive which have the systems by following nature’s patterns. The word diversity, stability and resilience of natural ‘permaculture’, was coined by Australians Bill ecosystems. It is the harmonious integration of Mollison and David Holmgren during the 1970s, landscape and people providing their food, energy, who started to develop ideas that they hoped shelter and other material and non-material needs could be used to create stable agricultural in a sustainable way. Without permanent agri- systems (Mollison, 1988). Although they coined culture there is no possibility of a stable social the term ‘Permaculture’, they were inspired by a order. Permaculture design is a system of number of earlier people and concepts (e.g. assembling conceptual, material and strategic Odum’s work focused on system ecology; Yeo- components in a pattern which functions to benefit man’s observation based approach to life in all its forms. The philosophy behind and keyline design, 1973, Permanent Agriculture permaculture is one of working with, rather than of Franklin King, 1937; Pattern language of against, nature; of protracted and thoughtful Christopher Alexander). observation rather than protracted and thoughtless The permaculture concept has evolved over action; of looking at systems in all their functions, time and is difficult to define. Today permacul- rather than asking only one yield of them; and ture can best be described as an ethical design allowing systems to demonstrate their own system applicable to food production and land evolutions. From a philosophy of cooperation with use, as well as community building (Holmgren, nature and each other, of caring for the earth and 2006). people, permaculture presents an approach to

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres 118 Christine A. King Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER

designing environments which have the diversity, farmers’ markets in Australia suggesting that stability and resilience of natural ecosystems, to they are: regenerate damaged land and preserve environ- a real alternative to export markets which force ments which are still intact. Australian farmers to over produce, overuse chemical inputs and which pay them lower and Permaculture is a broad-based and holistic lower prices. At a farmers’ market, farmers from a approach that has many applications. At the local area sell their food direct to the public. Buying heart of permaculture design and practice is a food from a farmers’ market means that is locally fundamental set of ‘core values’ including Earth- produced, and the money goes straight to the person care (Earth is the source of all life and we are a who grew it. It guarantees farmers a decent income, part of the Earth, not apart from it); Peoplecare encourages face to face interaction, creates com- (supporting each other and developing healthy munities and avoids destructive efforts of the global societies); and Fairshares (or placing limits to trading system. (Global Trade Watch—Farmers consumption and ensuring equitable use). Per- Markets in Australia (www.tradewatchoz.org/ maculture is however, human centric. It has its localfood/)). origins in the search for an alternative food production system where people could break Farmers’ markets not only show benefits for their reliance on industrialized agriculture. In farmers and purchasers at the markets, but there this context, it stressed the importance of low- are also advantages for local retailers, processors inputs and diversity as opposed to high-inputs and restaurant owners (RIRDC, 2006—New (e.g. fossil fuel technology) and monocropping. Generation Farmers’ Markets in Rural Commu- This resulted in an increasing number of small nities which was launched at the 2nd Australian scale market and home gardens for food Farmers’ Market Association Conference) show- production. To reduce inputs, permaculture ing the ability for farmers’ markets to impact and has a basic principle of adding value to a crop enhance wider systems. This report was in alternative ways such as mixed cropping for launched by Senator Colbeck at the Conference, multiple outputs or exchanging crops for labour who stated that markets cultivate direct interaction (e.g. LETS scheme). Importantly, it seeks to between growers and consumers, creating fertile address problems that include the economic ground for new product innovation (Organic question of how to either make money from Gardener, 2005/2006). The report also found growing crops or exchanging crops. Each final that farmers’ markets (i) are complementary to design therefore should include economic con- existing businesses, (ii) effectively showcase local siderations as well as giving equal weight to produce and help educate customers about local maintaining ecological balance. food, (iii) provide and opportunity for radical change in production and marketing, (iv) pro- vide a forum for communities interested in fresh food, its source, and ideas for new products, (v) Farmers Markets provide an opportunity for business and personal growth, (vi) require a high level of Farmers markets are becoming increasingly passion, imagination, perseverance and skill by popular, with now more than 80 farmers markets the market manager to be successful (RIRDC, across Australia. Research presented at the 2nd 2006). National Australian Farmers’ Markets Confer- Farmers’ Markets enhance consumer interest ence, held at Albury–Wodonga in August 2005 in local produce and this can lead to a willingness showed that farmers markets are now producing by urban communities to support the local more than $80 million worth of economic benefit farming community. They show potential in across the host communities in Australia reconnecting urban consumers with food, as well (Organic Gardener, 2005/2006). The Global trade as people from the rural community. In this watch website (2006) highlights the benefits of sense, Farmers’ Markets help to break down the

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres Agri-Ecological Systems and Resilience 119 RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res. well-known ‘rural–urban divide’. In Australia, munity gardens improved the environment, the concept of farmers’ markets has moved into benefited the wider community and led to e-business, producing the on-line farmers market political empowerment. Community gardeners, website. This site tries to connect people with however, emphasized personal and psychologi- food and people with people (i.e. consumers and cal benefits, but never environmental benefits or producers) through a virtual community, by political effects. What these two groups did agree providing local farm directories to access locally on, however, were the beneficial effects on grown food and products, and promoting income and food consumption. regional food groups that supply a variety of Crabtree (1999) draws on ecological theory to different from their regions. highlight the use of permaculture in community gardens. Two concepts are seen as particularly important, including the role of edges and the Community Gardens role of replication. Crabtree (1999) explains how community gardens enhance resilience by using Community Gardens are becoming more and (i) ‘edges’ within both physical design (e.g. more prominent in Australia. The Australian keyholes, spirals) and social organization (e.g. Community Gardens Network (2006) website enhancing areas of ) and (ii) provides a useful historical account of com- ‘replication’ at the physical and social levels, munity gardens in Australia, stating that com- where it is desirable to have each required function munity gardens have their origin in the 1970s, a fulfilled by numerous components and each time that was characterized by increasing con- component fulfilling multiple functions. In cern over environmental conditions, greater addition, she suggests that such concepts create leisure time and changing recreational activities space for education and community development. (Australian Community Gardens network, 2006). In terms of community development, Gelsi (1999) In the mid 1990s, in response to the growing illustrates that community gardening has ‘shown number of community gardens, the Australian itself to have potential as an effective tool for civil Community Gardens Network was established. society ...as places where people come together, grow Gelsi (1999) compares the number of community fresh food, improve local environments and contribute to gardens in Australia, with other industrialized humane, liveable cities’. Wider system benefits are countries, suggesting that Agricultural activity also illustrated in a quote by Gelsi (1999): within cities, compared to formal rural agricul- ‘Community gardening may seem another of many ture, is minuscule. They account for this by the ‘‘leisure’’ activities for very few people, and thus of marked economic, social and cultural differen- little relevance to problems that perturb govern- tiation between city and country in Australia. ments and policy makers. But, when viewed within Although the number of community gardens the broader context of the development of capitalist recorded in 1996 was 38, this number has been social relations, the culture of consumption and the growing at an ever increasing rate over the last rise of environmentalism, community gardening decade. may be one way in which small groups of people try Reported benefits of community gardens are to redefine consumption by addressing those social, diverse, including physical and psychological ecological and moral issues ignored by the well being, providing community spaces for consumer ideology of ‘‘more is better’’’. learning and shared decision making, relation- ship building, and community development (Australian City Farms and Community Gardens SUMMARY Network, 2006). Curran (1993) found that com- munity garden organizers and community gar- The examples of alternative agri-ecological sys- deners have different opinions about the benefits tems above can be compared with the three of community gardening. This research showed models of resilience. Table 2 illustrates each system that community organizers believed that com- and corresponding resilience model. As each of the

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres 120 Christine A. King Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER

Table 2. The predominant resilience model for each agri-ecological system and how each system contributes to ecological and community resilience Agri-ecological Predominant Contribution to Contribution to system resilience model ecological resilience community resilience

Conventional I High input and low Reduced community agriculture output over time health and well being (negative contribution) (negative contribution) Organics II Low input and high Community health and output over time well being Biodiversity Biodynamics III Low input and high Enhanced adaptive capacity output over time and consciousness Biodiversity Self-sufficiency Adaptive capacity Deliberate learning CSAs II Shared risk and pre-season Creating networks across agreements enables farmers rural–urban interface to try more sustainable options Co-learning Permaculture III Self-sufficiency and produce Maintaining networks for exchange reduces demand for exchange less sustainable options Enhances biodiversity Self-sufficiency Deliberate learning Small business niche market opportunities Farmers markets II Reduced risk and higher prices Creating networks across enables farmers to carry out more rural–urban interface sustainable practices Fast feedback mechanisms for Co-learning changing market demands Small business niche market opportunities Community gardens III Self-sufficiency and produce Enhancing space (edge) for exchange reduces demand for less communication, information sustainable options sharing, deliberate co-learning; Creating flexible social institutions systems may have characteristics that could sit each system that contribute to both ecological and within more than one model, the predominant community resilience. model is presented. That is, the model and its underlying assumptions which show most sim- CONCLUSIONS ilarity to a particularly system (in its ‘ideal’ sense) is presented, although it is understood that there Communities are taking a lead role in developing are variations of the different systems in ‘reality’. agri-ecological systems that address today’s The table also highlights some key processes in environmental and social justice imperatives.

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres Agri-Ecological Systems and Resilience 121 RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

There are many similarities between ecological  It is linkages and connectivity across time and (model II) and adaptive capacity (model III) among people that helps navigate transitions resilience models developed through exploring through periods of uncertainty to restore the resilience of persistent natural ecosystems and resilience. alternative agri-ecological systems developed by communities through relationship building and These key findings provide some guidance for collective learning, as well as learning with the future strategies in designing, managing and scaling- environment. Resilience models also show up of alternative agri-ecological systems. For promise in helping guide the design of alterna- example, it would seem that to allow for future tive agri-ecological systems that are an alterna- unpredictability and surprise, no one system is tive to conventional agriculture. ‘best’; and a variety of agri-ecological systems One common question asked by researchers of that enable diversity of function at multiple more sustainable agricultural systems is ‘which scales would enhance ecological and community system is best?’ Some key findings from Gun- resilience. From a constructivist perspective, we derson and Pritchard (2002) who draw upon their would perhaps progress into reconnecting understanding of adaptive capacity resilience people with food, and people with people and help to address this question. They highlight the leave the notion of a ‘best’ system behind. That is, following: there needs to be a deliberate intention to  When a system has shifted into an undesirable facilitate systemic ways of approaching the stability domain, the management alternatives change needed and this may lie in communities are to (i) restore the system to a desirable imagining novel human (activity) systems which domain, (ii) allow the system to return to a take organic/biodynamic/permaculture/CSAs desirable domain on its own, or (iii) adapt to and whatever else ‘concepts’ and ‘practices’ the changed system because changes are and build and learn their way towards resilient irreversible; (rather than stable or optimal) linkages.  Resilience is maintained by focusing on (i) Conventional industrialized agricultural sys- keystone structuring processes that cross tems have persisted over the past 150 years. This scales, (ii) source of renewal and reformation, resilience has been heavily grounded in an and (iii) multiple sources of capital and skills. economic paradigm and a resilience that has No single mechanism can guarantee mainten- been maintained (and buffered) through regula- ance of resilience; tions, subsidies, trade negotiations, policies and  In ecological systems, resilience lies in the other ‘blockages’. These systems are contributing requisite variety of functional groups and however, to an ever increasing loss in ecosystem accumulated capital that provides sources resilience. Perhaps an understanding of the for recovery. Resilience within a system is different models of resilience will help design generated by destroying and renewing sys- strategies to breakdown, transform and renew tems at smaller, faster scales; these conventional systems. That is, a knowledge  Ecological resilience is re-established by the of resilient systems may not only provide ways of processes that contribute to system ‘memory’, moving forward and transformation—but pro- those involved in and renewal vide processes to strategically deconstruct cur- that connect that systems’ present to its past rent conventional systems and the political and to it neighbours; institutions in which they are nested.  Resource systems that have been sustained Capra (1997) provides a conceptual framework over long periods of time increase resilience by for the link between ecological communities and managing processes at multiple scales; human communities. He calls for a people to be  In economic systems, multiple technologies ‘ecoliterate’ and states that being ecoliterate add resilience in the face of shifts in demand means understanding the principles of organiz- and factor prices and availability; and ation of ecological communities (i.e. ecosystems)

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres 122 Christine A. King Syst. Res. RESEARCH PAPER and using those principles for creating sustain- Gelsi EJ. 1999. Gardening in the Street: Sociality, able human communities. Community-based Production And Consumption in Northey Street agri-ecological systems seem to provide oppor- City Farm. University of Queensland thesis www. cityfarmer.org/brisbane.html. tunities to reconnect people with people and Global Trade Watch. 2006. Farmers Markets in Australia people with food, opening up spaces for www.tradewatchoz.org/localfood/ ‘ecoliteracy’ to develop through shared and GRDC. 2003. Organic Produce—Full Reports. Grains reflective learning. Research and Development Coorporation http:// www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/org.html Gunderson LH, Pritchard L. 2002. Resilience and the Behaviour of Large-Scale Systems. Island Press: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Washington. Hansell R, Bass B. 1998. Holling’s Figure-Eight Model: The author acknowledges the valuable com- a technical re-evaluation in relation to climate ments provided by Professor Nadarajah Sriskan- change and biodiversity. Monitoring and Assessment 49: 157–168. darajah (Dept. of Urban and Rural Development, Hawkins T, Davies D, Lyons K, Thompson V. 2003. SLU) who helped to focus and make improve- Towards a Community Supported Agriculture. Friends ments to the paper. of the Earth: Brisbane, Australia. Holling CS. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23. REFERENCES Holling CS. 1987. Simplifying the complex: The para- digms of ecological function and structure. European Australian Community Gardens Network. 2006. www. Journal of Operational Research 30: 139–146. communitygarden.org.au Holmgren D. (2006). What is Permaculture? Permacul- Bengtsson J, Ahnstrom J, Weibull A. 2005. The effects ture International Website http://www.permacul- of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abun- tureinternational.org/whatispermaculture.htm dance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Kay JJ. 1994. The Ecosystem Approach, Ecosystems as 42: 261–269. Complex Systems and State of the Environment Berkes F, Folke C. 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Reporting. North American Commission for Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms Environmental Cooperation, State of the North for Building Resilience. Cambridge University Press: American Ecosystem Meeting, Montreal, 8–10 Cambridge, UK. December, 1994. Capra F. 1997. The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind King CA, Pahl L. 2003. What is the ‘Ideal’ Environ- and Matter. Flamingo: London. mental Certification System? Perspectives from Coutts J. 1997. Changes in Extension—an Australian Industry, Conservation and Consumer Groups. Pro- Perspective, The coming of age of extension, Con- ceedings of the Australian Farming Systems Conference. ference Proceedings (Volume 1) The Australasian Pacific Toowoomba, Australia, September 2003. Network Conference: Managing change – building King CA, Powell N. 2000. Informing Participatory knowledge and skills, November, 1997, Albury. Action Research (PAR) with the principles of eco- Crabtree LA. 1999. Sustainability as Seen from a Veg- logical systems. Proceedings of the 5th Action Learning, etable Garden. Macquarie University thesis,NewSouth Action Research and Process Management (ALARPM) Wales http://www.thirdangel.com/sustainability/ Conference, Ballarat, 2000. Curran JA. 1993. We Grow People: Community Gar- Lorand A. 2001. The biodynamic movement: the com- dening Programs as Solutions to the Problems of plexity of being both esoteric and exoteric. Biody- Low Income Neighbourhoods. Unpublished paper. namics 234: (March/April). Rutgers University. McMichael P, Lawrence G. 2001. Globalising agricul- Davidson S. 2005. Going Organic. Ecos, Oct-Nov, 2005. ture: structures of constraint for Australian farming. Diaz Vera JS. 2005. Values and Beliefs of FoodConnect In Rurality Bites The Social and Environmental Trans- (CSA) Stakeholders. Master Thesis (for partial fulfill- formation of Rural Australia, Lockie S, Bourke SL ment of Master of Agribusiness). School of Natural and (eds). Annandale: Pluto Press. Rural Systems Management. The University of Mollison B. 1988. Permaculture: A Designers’ Manual. Queensland. Tagari Publications: Tyalgum Australia. FAO/WHO Codex Alimetarius Commission. Organic Gardener. (2005/2006). Farmers’ markets 2007. FAO/WHO Food Standards http://www. starting a revolution. Australian Broadcasting Com- codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp mission, Summer 2005/2006.

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres Agri-Ecological Systems and Resilience 123 RESEARCH PAPER Syst. Res.

Palaszczuk H. 2000. Organic Food Focus for Queens- RL, Russell DB (eds). Cambridge University Press: land Farmers. Queensland media Statement from Cambridge, UK. the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries Wildfeuer A. 2007. An Introduction to Biodynamic and Rural Communities, 2 July. Farming. Stella Natura. Biodynamic Farming and Permaculture International. 2006. Permaculture Inter- Gardening Association (BDA), US. national Ltd Website www.permacultureinternational. Wilkinson J. 2001. Community Supported Agriculture. org Office of Community Development, Technote 20: RIRDC. 2006. New Generation Farmers’ Markets in United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Rural Communities. RIRDC, 2006 www.rirdc.gov.au http://www.ocdwed.sc.egov.usda.gov/technotes/ Russell DB, Ison RL. 1993. Proc. IVth International Range- tn20.pdf land Congress, Montpellier, 1991. Vol. 3, pp. 1047–1054. Woodward-Clyde. 2000. International Green Market Russell DB, Ison RL. 1998. In Agricultural Extension and Signals. Woodward-Clyde (NZ) Limited http:// Rural Development: Breaking Out of Traditions, Ison www.smf.govt.nz/results/6117_final.pdf

Copyright 2008 JohnWiley & Sons,Ltd. Syst. Res. 25, 111^124 (2008) DOI:10.1002/sres 124 Christine A. King