Food systems and environmental management

The coincidence of three articles on food waste being available for this issue has prompted us to consider the environmental implications of food systems for this editorial. The production, processing, distribution, consumption and waste disposal of foods each involve environmental impacts and hence are an important opportunity for environmental management. The complexity of diets and food distribution systems connects the impacts nationally and internationally. Meanwhile each type of food has different environmental impacts, and these can vary by location.

What do we mean by a ‘food system’?

A food system is a complex adaptive system. That is, it is complex in its many interacting parts, and adaptive in that the system reconfigures, as changes in some parts of the system affect other parts (Nayak and Waterson 2019). In one of the most useful frameworks for analysing food systems, the international High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) (2020) describes the sub-systems that comprise a food system. These include the systems that support food production, such as ecosystems (for soil and water, for example), farming and its associated social and cultural systems, energy systems and economic systems. Food supply or value chains feature all stages of activity through production, processing, transportation, retail and consumption. We would add that these entail storage and waste issues at all stages. The HLPE (2020) explains how production and supply chains, and consumer behaviour occur within physical, economic, socio-cultural and policy conditions that influence preferences, access and affordability, and food safety. Individual and collective consumer decisions affect diets, and hence nutrition and health, implicating health systems. This results in a variety of environmental, social, economic, health and nutrition outcomes. All of these sub-systems are influenced by ‘drivers’. These include environmental (e.g. natural resource degradation, climate change); technology and economic influences such as the organisation of firms and markets. Political influences such as governance frameworks and institutional support for food production, distribution and access are also of great importance. Demographic drivers such as urbanisation and rural population movement; and socio-cultural factors including norms and traditions, social stratification and women’s empowerment all affect a food system. Each of these behave in complex ways in themselves, and set off ‘ripple effects’ (Béné 2020) as the parts of the system reorganise. The system is therefore very dynamic, and changes constantly rather than returning to any ‘steady state’ or equilibrium.

Food systems can be disrupted by a range of external influences such as the conflict in Ukraine, migration of refugees, and floods and drought due to climate change. We saw disturbance of food system behaviour through the various stages of COVID-19.¹ Early in the pandemic, in Australia and elsewhere, consumer ‘panic buying’ set off food shortages which caused pressures on supply chains and the retail outlets to meet the increased demand. Meanwhile restaurants and caterers were unable to open due to lockdowns. Those who supplied them tried to switch to supply to retail outlets, but the need to change to smaller packaging sizes made this difficult. Meanwhile restrictions on movement of temporary workers from overseas, and social distancing requirements on farms and in picker accommodation caused a crisis in farm labour, affecting supply and causing much food waste from unpicked fruit and vegetables. More recently, as COVID-19 spread rapidly through the population after Australia ‘opened up’ (Grass, Batáry, and Tscharntke 2021), supermarkets and other parts of the supply chains have reported labour shortages of 10–20 per cent at any time, disrupting operations. Throughout this, participants in the system tried to adapt by online ordering and delivery and inviting local communities to pick fruit on farms. While not perfect or widely adopted, trial and error provided learning for adapting.

Environmental management

Our interest here, however, is to draw attention to the links between food systems and environmental management. Addressing the environmental impacts of the many facets of our food systems, and organising to do better, requires sound environmental information and management strategies (Clark et al. 2022). Many of the issues are very well known, especially to those with food and environmental knowledge. Land clearing for agriculture (including livestock) and water allocation (for broadacre crops) has profound effects on species abundance and biodiversity, soil degradation and waterway contamination. Policy and legislation changes, for instance to manage land clearing, and consumers demanding socially and environmentally responsible land management (social licence) help to drive change. However, especially with a changing climate, there remains much to learn about how to retain native plant species and provide animal habitat within farming systems: the so-called ‘land sparing’ and ‘land sharing ideas’ (Grass, Batáry, and Tscharntke 2021). In Australia, programs such as Landcare can foster social learning and offer opportunities to better understand how food production can be coupled with land management and conservation through research and practice (Grass, Batáry, and Tscharntke 2021).

Agriculture and food impacts on greenhouse gas emissions are well documented globally though the proportions differ by country, and between industrialised and developing countries. Crippa et al. (2021) assess that food systems account for just over a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Within this, 32 per cent comes from land use change, such as deforestation, cultivated soils and drainage and burning of soils including peatlands. Thirty-nine per cent comes from agricultural production, including emissions from fertiliser application, methane from cattle and rice, manure and pasture management, fuel use in farm and fisheries machinery, and burning of agricultural wastes. Ritchie and Roser (2020), basing figures on Crippa et al. (2021), assess that supply chains, including food processing, transport, retail and packaging account for 18 per cent of food emissions. Because transport is a small proportion of food-related emissions, buying locally produced foods does not contribute as significantly as people believe. That leaves a smaller yet important proportion, 11 per cent, in consumer food preparation and wastes. There is some progress in addressing these through increasing government, community and business initiatives in composting and recycling. The high reliance on plastics throughout supply chains is a major environmental issue in its own right, since they incorporate fossil fuels. Ritchie and Roser argue that durable packaging, refrigeration and food processing can also reduce food waste.

Food-by-food statistics on greenhouse gas emissions show that beef production exceeds lamb and mutton, dairy production then other livestock, followed by dairy, grains and plant foods (Ritchie and Roser 2020). A limitation of environmental impact summaries by broad food type is that most processed food products contain numerous ingredients (Clark et al. 2022). Recognising this, Clark et al. (2022) examined a range of processed and fresh foods found in the UK, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water stress and eutrophication potential. This analysis provides a useful foundation for assessing where environmental impacts can be improved, for instance through dietary change.

While global and country-based estimates are informative and help to highlight priorities, world estimates are not fully reliable, owing to data sources. Further there are country to country differences in agricultural practices, affecting resource consumption such as energy and water, and environmental impacts. Generalised world and national figures also obscure the many achievements and opportunities for different farming systems, including no till farming and conservation tillage, and regenerative agriculture. The focus on negative environmental impacts of food production obscures a number of opportunities, for instance for carbon sequestration in soils and vegetation on the large amounts of land involved. Consideration of options for farming systems and environmental practice is a major area for further analysis.

What are other implications and opportunities for the environmental management profession? Somewhat surprisingly, an Australian government analysis of those holding an environmental manager job title does not mention food industries, although it is possible that some are hidden in the large category of ‘other’ industries (Government 2021; Australian Government Labour Market Insights 2021) or involve peripheral fields such as freshwater hydrology.

The responsibilities and opportunities for reducing the environmental impacts of food production, distribution, consumption and waste require a whole of system view to identify areas needing attention, involving those throughout the entire food system. Farmers and fishers, at the upstream end of supply chains, have major responsibilities to manage natural resources as part of their work. Both Australia and Aotearoa-New Zealand encourage farm environmental management plans, fostered by both government and non-government organisations such as Landcare New Zealand and Regional Councils in Aotearoa-New Zealand, Australia’s regional bodies for Natural Resource Management, Landcare, many of Australia’s state governments, and the variety of organisations involved in the management of the Great Barrier Reef. The companies engaged in supply chains and logistics probably already employ a number of environmental or sustainability managers, and we foresee opportunity for more. Large and smaller retail companies are in a position to drive sustainability initiatives back along their food and beverage supply chains. For instance Australia’s two largest supermarket chains, which together account for almost two thirds of food retail (Hughes 2021), advertise a range of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions within their operations and those of their supply chains, to reduce food waste, source foods responsibly and reduce the use of plastic. Some supply chains are introducing brands such as carbon neutral beef, creating a demand for efficient ways of measuring carbon neutrality and other indicators of sustainability. In Australia, the beef and dairy industries have introduced sustainability frameworks. Since farming and food industries are highly associated with privately owned land and private companies, the opportunities for policy influence are fewer, however there is consumer pressure for large operations to demonstrate a social licence (Baldwin 2011). Governments show leadership and coordination through regulation of land clearing and water allocation for irrigation as well as strategies, such as the Australian government’s National Food Waste Strategy and National Waste Policy Action Plan. Hitherto, regulation has mainly focused on food safety, while public health authorities are interested in nutrition. Environmental NGOs have been active worldwide, pressing many of the regulatory changes, disseminating information, and advocating for public awareness and behaviour change. NGOs such as Food Bank in Australia have emerged to reduce food waste while bringing food to people who would otherwise go hungry. Nevertheless international food organisations such as UN World Food Programme highlight food distribution (often in partnership with NGOs) in order to reduce hunger, but are challenged when addressing environmental considerations in food distribution.

While many of these examples focus on the needs and opportunities for large corporations to change, HLPE (2020) identified that small-scale producers are vital providers of food and food security in much of the less industrialised world (where there are tight value chains and every resource counts). The HLPE suggests that we should be encouraging a commitment to sustainable fresh food production in peri-urban areas that are close to markets. Policy and planning support to retain these areas in agricultural production over the long term can provide environmental benefits, but they rely on expert advice. A recent study of land use in Noosa Biosphere Reserve in Queensland, for example, demonstrated how the hinterland has changed to a multi-functional landscape where more than 60 per cent of rural landholders are pursuing a type of sustainable farming including permaculture and regenerative agriculture and reforestation. The close relationship between farms and urban area is illustrated by restaurants in the Noosa tourist centre recycling their waste through compost as input to growing food on their own farms (Baldwin and Hamerlinck 2018).

All this highlights many roles and opportunities involved in the complex adaptive Australian and Aotearoa-New Zealand food systems, and their many linkages within the global food system. We see scope for expanding employment of environmental managers in making food systems more sustainable. Meanwhile environmental managers, and those participating in food systems under other job designations, could benefit from adopting food system perspectives to identify and seek ways to address environmental concerns and opportunities.

Articles in this issue

As the lead into this editorial indicated, three articles on food waste show the complexity of food systems at and approaching the ‘downstream’ consumer end of supply chains. Food waste in this part of the system involves connections between individual consumers and their households, retailers and consumers, restaurants and other food services and their consumers, and the assumptions, logistics and behaviour of each of these taken separately. Ananya Bhattacharya; Ambika Zutshi and Daniel Prajogo examine these issues, taking a triple bottom line – environmental, social (including ethical) and economic – approach. The findings highlight the complex interactions involved in food marketing, food purchasing and use, and how economic and social dimensions can take priority over the environmental considerations. The authors propose a range of interventions to improve food wastage, many of them involving collaborations among the key parties at the downstream end of food supply chains.

Effective behaviour change programs should be based on theory and evidence. Jaewon Kim, Kathy Knox and Sharyn Rundle-Thiele conducted a systematic literature review on the extent to which behaviour change programs to reduce household food waste are based on theory. They found that only nine of a total of over 3500 studies they considered were explicitly based on a theory. In eight of these, a theory was mentioned but its association with the program strategies adopted was unclear. This is concerning. The authors conclude there is much room for improvement in applying theory to household food waste production programs, and documenting how it is applied. Within their study Kim et al. differentiate ‘deterministic’ from ‘stochastic’ bodies of theory. Deterministic theories assume rational persuasion can drive behaviour change. One of the most common of these is the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Stochastic theories acknowledge heterogeneity, including in thinking and feeling, system behaviour, and numerous random effects, so take a different approach to modelling and behaviour change. The authors classify nudge theory, and systems theory, as examples of stochastic theory. Their review suggests both can be effective, but we need more information on stochastic approaches. Lastly, there is a need for valid and reliable impact measures in the field of household waste behaviour change.

Monika Kansal explores cultural differences in amenability to food waste reduction campaigns, studying three South Asian societies that have high populations in Australia: Indian, Bangladesh and Sri Lankan. Through focus groups, she found both similarities and differences in perspectives and behaviour. Current Australian food waste minimisation campaigns did not appeal to the participants because they could not relate to the images (including faces) and menus shown, the messages and moral points. There are cultural similarities among the three South Asian populations in relation to frugality, backgrounds in food insecurity and religious values such as considering throwing food away to be a sin. There are also interesting differences in what might appeal. For instance Indians are open to messages about care of family, and through intergenerational care of family, relate to sustainability. Bangladeshis are not likely to respond to a campaign about leftovers but are open to opportunities to save money through promotions and discounted prices. Sri Lankan perceptions about food saving as low status could be addressed through a campaign. Thus differentiated approaches are needed.

Much of the research on the quantities and consequences of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere focuses on carbon dioxide. Sakiru Solarin, Lorenzo Bermejo and Luis Gil-Alana document the less known effects of nitrous oxides through the analysis of 270 years of historical data on the OECD countries. They focus particularly on persistence of nitrous oxides in the atmosphere after a shock. This is important in identifying the outcomes of policy interventions to reduce emissions. If former levels return some time after an intervention, it has not been sufficiently effective. There are notable differences among countries. The authors argue that there is a need for strategies that concentrate on long-term trends rather than short-run targets. Continuous technological progress is needed, and the more technologically capable countries should assist the less capable, alongside those countries developing their own technologies.

Breda McCarthy and Hongbo Lui point out that installation of solar panels is a critical ‘change point’ or a window of opportunity to encourage behaviour change in electricity usage. They studied consumer viewpoints on rooftop solar energy and electricity conservation, in Townsville Australia. They found that while people are willing to invest in rooftop solar, this is not linked with a willingness to reduce their daily electricity consumption. Indeed, there may be a ‘rebound effect’, whereby efficiency gains (in this case through installation of solar panels) lead to the increased consumption of a resource, in this case electricity. Thus, the authors argue it is important to communicate with purchasers of rooftop solar about the need for electricity conservation, including avoiding peak load usage, the use of smart meters and careful use of air conditioners. Home owners should also be reminded that energy consumption takes place during the evening and at night-time when their solar system cannot generate energy.

Ian Thomas has been conducting primary research and reviews on tertiary education for the environment profession and sustainability for close to 25 years (de la Harpe and Thomas 2009; Lang, Thomas, and Wilson 2006; Olsson and Thomas 1998; Thomas 2019; Thomas et al. 2007). Here, he considers and reviews other work on changes in Australian universities, some exacerbated by changes to teaching arrangements to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, and by the reductions in university finances. He lists expectations for future graduates in all fields, and the capabilities expected of environmental professionals, in the context of these pressures on the universities. He then considers implications for the education of environmental processionals, including the efficacy of relying more on online learning. Here evidence is equivocal. He raises doubts about the universities’ abilities to maintain the experiential and learner-led approaches that are important in environment and many other fields. He suggests the profession cannot rely entirely on the universities to support their staff in providing appropriate curricula, and repeats past calls for the profession to be involved in developing and delivering curricula, through EIANZ and individuals. University managers need to be convinced of the importance of supporting environmental and sustainability capabilities, for direct and indirect benefits.

AJEM news

Annual award for the best publication in AJEM

This year, the Eric Anderson Award for the best article published in this journal in 2021–2022 has been awarded to Michael Joy, Douglas Rankin, Lara Wöhler, Paul Boyce, Adam Canning, Kyleisha Foote and Pierce McNie (2022) for their article ‘The grey water footprint of milk due to nitrate leaching from dairy farms in Canterbury, New Zealand’ which appeared in the June 2022 issue.

The judging panel commented:

This is a remarkable and well conducted study. The methods and findings are very important.

The paper is very well written. The findings are persuasive, and are of relevance nationally and globally.

The article has received excellent attention, with 2901 views, and over 200 mentions in news and social media.

The judges also highly commended:

Julia Talbot-Jones and Bennett (2022), for ‘Implementing bottom-up governance through granting legal rights to rivers: a case study of the Whanganui River, Aotearoa New Zealand’; Katie Meissner and Everingham (2021) for ‘Information control and competence: participant experience of public participation in EIA for proposed mining projects in Queensland’, and Elsayih, Datt, and Tang (2021) for ‘Corporate governance and carbon emissions performance: empirical evidence from Australia’.

We thank the panel, Claire Freeman, Pierre Horwitz and Paul Eagles, and Bill Carter for assisting with the process.

New impact factor

AJEM’s impact factor continues to rise in the Thomson Reuters (ISI Web of Knowledge) listing, reaching a very pleasing 2.62 for 2021, an increase of 0.78 on the previous year. The impact factor is an indicator of the journal’s influence. Other indicators are CiteScore, which is based on average number of citations over a four year period (3.4 for AJEM), placing it in the second quartile of journal citescores internationally, the source normalised impact per paper, which shows the number of citations per paper in the journal relative to citation potential in the field (0.8 for AJEM). Most pleasing of all is that our publisher, Taylor & Francis, records 55 thousand annual downloads or views for this journal.

Honours for members of the editorial team

We congratulate Claudia Baldwin, longstanding associate editor and book review editor of this journal, and an editorial Board member from the journal’s inception, on being appointed as a Fellow of the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand. She joins Helen Ross as one of the select group of Institute Fellows. Claudia is also a Fellow of the Planning Institute of Australia. Appointment to this status in two fields is a particularly significant achievement, and also indicates the alignments possible between planning and environmental management.

Meanwhile Helen Ross, Managing Co-editor of this journal for nearly 18 years, has been made an Honorary Life Member of the Institute, the highest form of distinction awarded by the Institute. The award is made to individuals who have made an outstanding contribution to the environment profession, as demonstrated through their service to the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand. Helen’s service includes completion of 18 years as managing co-editor at the end of 2022, alongside Institute committee roles such as Board member of the Qualifications Accreditations Scheme and member of the Indigenous Engagement Working Group.

Thanks to editors taking leave

Prof. R.W, (Bill) Carter, Co-editor since 2007, needs to take extended leave from his role for personal reasons. Bill has worked closely with Helen Ross to bring the journal to its current high standing, looking after the ecological content matter among many other themes. He has contributed particularly to the high level of editing, manages the annual prize selection, and brings his keen eye to the choice of annual cover design. Associate Editor Jasmyn Lynch, who began with the journal as Editorial Assistant in 2005 and moved to Associate Editor in 2015, is also stepping aside owing to other commitments. We thank Bill and Jasmyn for their many years of contribution to the journal and hope to continue our associations as their circumstances permit.

Special issue on the Great Barrier Reef, human dimensions, and climate change

Claudia Baldwin and Angela Dean are guest editing a special issue on this topic. They seek submissions of abstracts on new perspectives, recognising good policy, practice and innovation in marine science and management, as well as social dimensions related to the Great Barrier Reef. Please contact Claudia Baldwin at [email protected] or Angela Dean at [email protected] for full details, and to submit an abstract.

Vale Dr Ronnie Harding, FEIANZ

We record our appreciation of the life and contributions of Dr Ronnie Harding, who passed away during 2022. Ronnie was a Fellow of the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand, longstanding member of this journal's editorial board, member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, and held many other significant advisory board roles. In her capacity as an academic then former director of the Institute of Environmental Studies, University of New South Wales, she was recognised for her leadership in developing the field of environmental education and environmental reporting in Australia, sustainability policy, and particularly the precautionary principle.

AJEM reviewers in 2021–2022

The editors thank all those who reviewed articles in late 2021 and 2022. The names of those willing to be acknowledged publicly will be placed on the Taylor & Francis website, at the list of authors (Supplementary Information). This impressive number of reviewers, some of whom reviewed more than one manuscript, and many of whom had to review two or more versions, attests to the enormous amount of voluntary work contributed by academics and professionals to raise the quality of publishing.

Notes

1 See Jones et al. (2022) for an analysis of Australia’s food system and its adaptations in the first year of the pandemic.

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2022.2150461