This document presents the small farm typologies developed from SALSA's sample (n=892) and provides a detailed comparative analysis on the key characteristics and livelihood strategies of each of the types, identifying similarities, differences and trends.
This document presents the set of thirty Food System Regional Reports developed within WP3 of the SALSA project. This is the first out of the three deliverables planned for this WP.
The project Small Farms, Small Food Business and Sustainable Food Security (SALSA) intends to assess the role of small farms and small food business in terms of food production and food security. One important first step in doing this is to test and develop methods and tools able to produce accurate and useful information about small farms.
This deliverable is a report on the main methodological steps implemented in the framework of the Small Farms, Small Food Business and Sustainable Food Security (SALSA) project in task 2.3 of Work Package 2 (WP2) to produce the Output 3, which is a crop type map in small farms context in each reference region (see D.2.4 report pag. 5).
This deliverable is a report of the work done in the framework of the Small Farms, Small Food Business and Sustainable Food Security (SALSA) project in task 2.3 of Work Package (WP2) as defined in the description of work (DOW) of the SALSA project. The title of the task according to the DOW is Task 2.3 - Small farms characterization in the reference regions.
It is clear that any definition of a small farm needs to be based on national and regional realities. Definitions involving only the criterion of farm size have universal appeal as they are relatively easy to apply and allow simple comparisons across countries and world regions. However, they don't capture all the complexities of farming. Definitions involving additional criteria to farm size are more meaningful, particularly those including indicators of the farm economic output, but data availability is often a limitation (Ruane, 2016).
The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use. However, there is no consensus on its meaning: four different ways of using the term can be identified in the literature. Most people simply define it as a type of innovation where value can only be derived when the innovation is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, the term ‘systemic’ refers to the existence of a co-ordinated innovation system.
This paper addresses the under-researched issue of stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions. A concise framework to aid critical reflection in the design and reporting of stakeholder identification and engagement is proposed. This is grounded in a critical-systemic epistemology, and is informed by social identity theory. We illustrate the utility of the framework with an example of a problem structuring workshop, which was part of a green innovation project on the development of a technology for the recovery of rare metals from steel slag.
Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into ‘knowing-that’ and ‘knowing-how.’ We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions.
The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality.