Theme 2. Landscape and communities

Convenors: Davide Rizzo, Intissar Ferchichi, Myriam Grillot, Tristan Berchoux, Lola Richelle

Rationale

Farming systems extend beyond their role as contributors to diverse production sectors. They operate within specific geographical contexts where farmers' proximity to other actors and local ecological factors significantly influences their choices and practices. These systems shape landscapes and local identities but are also shaped by individual and collective actions, as well as ecological interactions occurring both in the vicinity of and outside agricultural fields. Exploring these dynamics at the landscape level sheds light on how diverse actors—including policymakers, industry representatives, scientists, civil society organisations, and consumers—design the overall management of rural areas. First, this level of analysis allows to describe how farming systems are embedded in dense socio-ecological interactions involving human and non-human entities, which contribute shaping the complexity and specificity of each locally based farming system. Then, it enables to understand and help managing trade-offs in transition pathways, considering that agriculture alone cannot guarantee sustainability despite its central role.

Objectives

Contributions under this theme aim to foster discussions on farming systems beyond the farm level. They will examine how local-based approaches, nexus thinking, and community relations contribute to more sustainable futures, identifying key research challenges concerning interactions between farming systems and local communities and the related trade-offs in transition pathways.

Orientation for papers

Short papers are invited to address a range of topics, which include, but are not limited to, the following sub-themes:

Sub-theme 2.1 Solidarity, contestation, and disruption in rural areas.

Beyond agricultural activities, rural areas are also arenas invested by social and ecological movement contesting biodiversity loss, land grabbing, and water crises. These contestations, particularly through temporary or long-terms occupations, can reshape interactions farmers and local communities. Such disruptive experiences may initiate more sustainable farming systems and foster solidarity among local actors, but they can also exacerbate conflicts over land-use planning and farming perspectives. Case studies and reflexive approaches on the role of science within these societal debates are welcome.      

Sub-theme 2.2 Harmonising agriculture and landscape management.

Green energy communities, agrivoltaism allocation, smart villages, integrated agricultural and natural protection areas, or territorial food planning are examples of rural transition pathways. These often challenge the interplay between spatial planning and the allocation of farming systems due to governance complexity and land-use trade-offs. This calls for interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in research approaches, and social dialogue within the local communities. Are innovative model of integrated landscape management effective in creating spaces for testing and refining policies, technologies, and business models to harmonise with farming system dynamics?

Sub-theme 2.3 Variability and diversity at the farm and landscape-level.

Developing holistic approaches that include variability and diversity is key for supporting locally adapted transition pathways of farming systems. This presents both scientific and transdisciplinary challenges when dealing with soil heterogeneity or agrobiodiversity at farm and landscape-level. There is a need to highlight the specificity and the inventiveness of farmers knowledge involved in local socio-ecological interactions dynamics, as part of farmers’ experiential knowledge to diversify activities and collaborations beyond the farm level. Integrating farmers' knowledge and fostering dialogue among diverse local actors requires sharing alternative epistemological frameworks and experimental methodologies—successfully or not—to learn collectively.

Sub-theme 2.4 Visualisation of socio-technical systems interactions.

Making explicit the often invisible interactions between actors, practices, and landscapes is crucial for understanding the complex dynamics of agricultural transition pathways. These interactions may be tangible and/or intangible. Eliciting them can help pinpoint system vulnerabilities and facilitate the co-design of systemic solutions adapted to local contexts. Methods include participatory and spatially explicit mapping of landscape dynamics and actors interactions. How are these methods used? How do they integrate spatial and/or temporal dynamics?

Sub-theme 2.5 Scale-dependent processes in rural landscapes characterisation.

Characterising rural landscape is essential to unpack the common challenges, processes, and levers of action that shape transition pathways. However, scale-dependent processes challenge the identification of robust landscape typologies. This requires careful consideration of the trade-offs and synergies emerging across different spatial levels and ecological contexts for instance for biodiversity conservation, soil health, and ecosystem resilience. The evaluation of possible trade-offs between productivity, environmental regulation, and social expectations calls for multidisciplinary research that explicitly addresses the visibility and naming of relevant elements at different scales and resolutions to inform multi-level decision-making processes. We invite contributions that advance theory, methods, and applications of multi-scale landscape characterisation, with particular interest in approaches that explicitly foster dialogue with farming system research.