Games as boundary objects: charting trade-offs in sustainable livestock transformation

References

• Beuchelt, T. D. (2016). Gender, social equity and innovations in smallholder farming systems: Pitfalls and pathways. In F. W. Gatzweiler, & J. von Braun (Eds.), Technological and institutional innovations for marginalized smallholders in agricultural development (pp. 181–198). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Black, L. J., & Andersen, D. F. (2012). Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflict in collaborative model-building approaches. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(2), 194–208. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
   Google Scholar
• Capitani, C., Garedew, W., Mitiku, A., Berecha, G., Hailu, B. T., Heiskanen, J., Hurskainen, P., Platts, P. J., Siljander, M., Pinard, F., Johansson, T., & Marchant, R. (2019). Views from two mountains: Exploring climate change impacts on traditional farming communities of Eastern Africa highlands through participatory scenarios. Sustainability Science, 14(1), 191–203. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0622-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash, D. W. (2001). “In order to aid in diffusing useful and practical information”: agricultural extension and boundary organizations. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 431–453. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., Jäger, J., & Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8086–8091. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, W. C., Kerkhoff, L. v., Lebel, L., & Gallopin, G. C. (2016). Crafting usable knowledge for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17), 4570–4578. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601266113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Cornwall, A. (2004). Spaces for transformation? Reflections on issues of power and difference in participation in development. In S. Hickey, & G. Mohan (Eds.), Participation–from tyranny to Transformation?: Exploring new approaches to participation in development (pp. 75–91). Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, J., & Claeys, P. (2018). Politicizing food security governance through participation: Opportunities and opposition. Food Security, 10(6), 1411–1424. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0852-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enahoro, D., Lannerstad, M., Pfeifer, C., & Dominguez-Salas, P. (2018). Contributions of livestock-derived foods to nutrient supply under changing demand in low- and middle-income countries. Global Food Security, 19, 1–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.08.002
   Google Scholar
• Ensor, J., & Harvey, B. (2015). Social learning and climate change adaptation: Evidence for international development practice. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(5), 509–522. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ensor, J. E., Wennström, P., Bhatterai, A., Nightingale, A. J., Eriksen, S., & Sillmann, J. (2019). Asking the right questions in adaptation research and practice: Seeing beyond climate impacts in rural Nepal. Environmental Science & Policy, 94, 227–236. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.01.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksen, S. H., Nightingale, A. J., & Eakin, H. (2015). Reframing adaptation: The political nature of climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 35, 523–533. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as `Epistemic Objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 07–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608083014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrester, J., Matin, N., Taylor, R., Pedoth, L., Davis, B., & Deeming, H. (2019a). Managing complex systems: The need to structure qualitative data. In H. Deeming, M. Fordham, C. Kuhlicke, L. Pedoth, S. Schneiderbauer, & C. Shreve (Eds.), Framing community disaster resilience: Resources, capacities, learning, and action (pp. 125–138). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Forrester, J., Taylor, R., Pedoth, L., & Matin, N. (2019b). Wicked problems: Resilience, adaptation, and complexity. In H. Deeming, M. Fordham, C. Kuhlicke, L. Pedoth, S. Schneiderbauer, & C. Shreve (Eds.), Framing community disaster resilience: Resources, capacities, learning, and action (pp. 61–75). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Garforth, C. (2015). Livestock Keepers’ reasons for doing and Not doing things which governments, vets and scientists would like them to do. Zoonoses and Public Health, 62, 29–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garnett, T. (2014). Three perspectives on sustainable food security: Efficiency, demand restraint, food system transformation. What role for life cycle assessment? Journal of Cleaner Production, Towards eco-Efficient Agriculture and Food Systems: Selected Papers From the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Food Conference, 2012, in Saint Malo, France, 73, 10–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.07.045
   Google Scholar
• Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23–33. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00320.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gliessman, S. (2016). Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40(3), 187–189. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1130765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonin, A., & Gautier, D. (2015). Shift in herders’ territorialities from regional to local scale: The political ecology of pastoral herding in western Burkina Faso. Pastoralism, 5(1), 7. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-015-0023-z
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action - volume 1 (Translated by T. McCarthy, 1984). Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haggar, J., Lamboll, R., & Nelson, V. (2018). Understanding different perspectives on Sustainable Agricultural Intensification and how it can be achieved (SAIRLA Working Paper No. 1). National Resources Institute, Chatham.
   Google Scholar
• Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2004). Participation–from Tyranny to Transformation?: Exploring new approaches to participation in development. Zed Books.
   Google Scholar
• Ison, R. (2010). Traditions of understanding: Language, dialogue and experience. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice (pp. 73–87). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ison, R., Röling, N., & Watson, D. (2007). Challenges to science and society in the sustainable management and use of water: Investigating the role of social learning. Environmental Science & Policy, Social Learning: An Alternative Policy Instrument for Managing in the Context of Europe’s Water, 10, 499–511. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2007.02.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jakku, E., & Thorburn, P. J. (2010). A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems. Agricultural Systems, 103(9), 675–682. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jean, S., Medema, W., Adamowski, J., Chew, C., Delaney, P., & Wals, A. (2018). Serious games as a catalyst for boundary crossing, collaboration and knowledge co-creation in a watershed governance context. Journal of Environmental Management, 223, 1010–1022. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, P. G., & Thornton, P. K. (2009). Croppers to livestock keepers: Livelihood transitions to 2050 in Africa due to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy. Special Issue: Food Security and Environmental Change, 12, 427–437. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2008.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapoor, I. (2002). The Devil’s in the theory: A critical assessment of Robert Chambers’ work on participatory development. Third World Quarterly, 23(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590220108199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kariuki, R., Willcock, S., & Marchant, R. (2018). Rangeland livelihood strategies under varying climate Regimes: Model insights from Southern Kenya. Land, 7(2), 47. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/land7020047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klerkx, L., van Bommel, S., Bos, B., Holster, H., Zwartkruis, J. V., & Aarts, N. (2012). Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations. Agricultural Systems, 113, 39–49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.07.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 167–195. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lannerstad, M., Ran, Y., Notenbaert, A. M. O., Fraval, S., Morris, J., Pfeifer, C., & Paul, B. K., submitted for review. Cleaned: A rapid ex-ante environmental livestock production assessment framework applied in three low income countries. Ecological Indicators.
   Google Scholar
• Leach, M., Raworth, K., & Rockström, J. (2013). Between social and planetary boundaries: Navigating pathways in the safe and just space for humanity. In World social science report 2013, changing global environments (pp. 84–89). OECD Publishing and UNESCO Publishing. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264203419-10-en
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. P. (2007). Boundary negotiating artifacts: Unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 16(3), 307–339. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-007-9044-5
   Google Scholar
• Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell, B. M., Baedeker, T., Braimoh, A., Bwalya, M., Caron, P., Cattaneo, A., Garrity, D., Henry, K., Hottle, R., Jackson, L., Jarvis, A., Kossam, F., Mann, W., McCarthy, N., Meybeck, A., Neufeldt, H., Remington, T., … Torquebiau, E. F. (2014). Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Climate Change, 4(12), 1068–1072. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, N. (2001). Development sociology: Actor perspectives. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Loos, J., Abson, D. J., Chappell, M. J., Hanspach, J., Mikulcak, F., Tichit, M., & Fischer, J. (2014). Putting meaning back into “sustainable intensification.”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(6), 356–361. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1890/130157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, G. (2015). A conceptual framework to support adaptation of farming systems – development and application with forage rummy. Agricultural Systems, 132, 52–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.08.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehrabi, Z., Seufert, V., & Ramankutty, N. (2017). The conventional versus alternative agricultural divide: A response to Garibaldi et al. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32(10), 720–721. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2017.07.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moll, H. A. J. (2005). Costs and benefits of livestock systems and the role of market and nonmarket relationships. Agricultural Economics, 32(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00210.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muro, M., & Jeffrey, P. (2008). A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3), 325–344. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560801977190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nightingale, A. J. (2015). Adaptive scholarship and situated knowledges? Hybrid methodologies and plural epistemologies in climate change adaptation research. Area, 48(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oswick, C., & Robertson, M. (2009). Boundary objects reconsidered: From bridges and anchors to Barricades and Mazes. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010902879137
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, D. (2016). A conceptual model for knowledge integration in interdisciplinary teams: Orchestrating individual learning and group processes. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(2), 300–312. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0354-5
   Google Scholar
• Pfeifer, C., Morris, J., Ensor, J. E., Ouedraogo, S., Mulatu, D. W., & Wakeyo, M. B., submitted for review. Designing sustainable pathways for the livestock sector: The example of Atsbi, Ethiopia and Bama, Burkina Faso. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., & Williams, S. (2011). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2010.0583
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ran, Y., van Middelaar, C. E., Lannerstad, M., Herrero, M., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2017). Freshwater use in livestock production—To be used for food crops or livestock feed? Agricultural Systems, 155, 1–8. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richards, L. (1999). Using NVIVO in qualitative research. SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Rist, S., Chiddambaranathan, M., Escobar, C., & Wiesmann, U. (2006). “It was hard to come to mutual understanding … ”—The multidimensionality of social learning processes concerned with sustainable natural resource use in India, Africa and Latin America. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 19(3), 219–237. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-006-9014-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmon, G., Teufel, N., Baltenweck, I., van Wijk, M., Claessens, L., & Marshall, K. (2018). Trade-offs in livestock development at farm level: Different actors with different objectives. Global Food Security, 17, 103–112. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2018.04.002
   Google Scholar
• Salvini, G., van Paassen, A., Ligtenberg, A., Carrero, G. C., & Bregt, A. K. (2016). A role-playing game as a tool to facilitate social learning and collective action towards climate smart agriculture: Lessons learned from Apuí, Brazil. Environmental Science & Policy, 63, 113–121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sapsed, J., & Salter, A. (2004). Postcards from the edge: Local communities, global programs and boundary objects. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1515–1534. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604047998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.-L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M., Boedhihartono, A. K., Day, M., Garcia, C., Oosten, C. v., & Buck, L. E. (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), 8349–8356. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210595110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scoones, I.1995). Living with uncertainty: New directions in pastoral development in Africa. Intermediate Technology Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Scown, M. W., Winkler, K. J., & Nicholas, K. A. (2019). Aligning research with policy and practice for sustainable agricultural land systems in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(11), 4911–4916. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812100116
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910377624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, `translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling, A., Ely, A., & Marshal, F. (2018). How do we ‘co-produce’ transformative knowledge? STEPS Centre. Retrieved July 2, 2018, from https://steps-centre.org/blog/how-do-we-co-produce-transformative-knowledge/.
   Google Scholar
• Subrahmanian, E., Monarch, I., Konda, S., Granger, H., Milliken, R., Westerberg, A., & Then-dim group (2003). Boundary objects and prototypes at the interfaces of engineering design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 12(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023976111188
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, A. M., Ellis, E. C., Grau, H. R., Kuemmerle, T., Meyfroidt, P., Ramankutty, N., & Zeleke, G. (2019). Sustainable intensification in land systems: Trade-offs, scales, and contexts. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 38, 37–43. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorburn, P. J., Jakku, E., Webster, A. J., & Everingham, Y. L. (2011). Agricultural decision support systems facilitating co-learning: A case study on environmental impacts of sugarcane production. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(2), 322–333. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2011.582359
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tittonell, P. (2013). Towards ecologically intensive smallholder farming systems: Design, scales and trade-offs evaluation. In B. Vanlauwe, P. v. Asten, & G. Blomme (Eds.), Agro-ecological intensification of agricultural systems in the African Highlands (pp. 132–144). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Trompette, P., & Vinck, D. (2009). Revisiting the notion of boundary object. Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, 3(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.006.0003
   Google Scholar
• Tschakert, P., Barnett, J., Ellis, N., Lawrence, C., Tuana, N., New, M., Elrick-Barr, C., Pandit, R., & Pannell, D. (2017). Climate change and loss, as if people mattered: Values, places, and experiences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 8(5), e476. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.476
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tschakert, P., & Dietrich, K. (2010). Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03335-150211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Udo, H. M. J., Aklilu, H. A., Phong, L. T., Bosma, R. H., Budisatria, I. G. S., Patil, B. R., Samdup, T., & Bebe, B. O. (2011). Impact of intensification of different types of livestock production in smallholder crop-livestock systems. Livestock Science. Special Issue: Assessment for Sustainable Development of Animal Production Systems, 139, 22–29. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.020
   Google Scholar
• van Bruggen, A., Nikolic, I., & Kwakkel, J. (2019). Modeling with stakeholders for transformative change. Sustainability, 11(3), 825. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vlek, P. L. G., Khamzina, A., Azadi, H., Bhaduri, A., Bharati, L., Braimoh, A., Martius, C., Sunderland, T., & Taheri, F. (2017). Trade-Offs in multi-purpose land use under land degradation. Sustainability, 9(12), 2196. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122196
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallis, P. J., Bosomworth, K., Harwood, A., & Leith, P. (2017). Charting the emergence of a ‘knowing system’ for climate change adaptation in Australian regional natural resource management. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences, 84, 42–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walters, R., Kenzie, E., Metzger, A., Baltutis, W. J., Chakrabarti, K., Hirsch, S., & Laursen, B. (2019). A systems thinking approach for eliciting mental models from visual boundary objects in hydropolitical contexts: A case study from the Pilcomayo River Basin. Ecology and Society, 24(2), https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10586-240209
   Google Scholar
• Wynants, M., Kelly, C., Mtei, K., Munishi, L., Patrick, A., Rabinovich, A., Nasseri, M., Gilvear, D., Roberts, N., Boeckx, P., Wilson, G., Blake, W. H., & Ndakidemi, P. (2019). Drivers of increased soil erosion in East Africa’s agro-pastoral systems: Changing interactions between the social, economic and natural domains. Regional Environmental Change, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01520-9
   Google Scholar
• Zeitlyn, D. (2010). Representation/self-representation: A tale of two portraits; or, portraits and social science representations. Visual Anthropology, 23(5), 398–426. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08949460903472978
   Google Scholar