How food production in the city contributes to a sustainable future
21 & 22 October, 2021 [Hybrid Event]
The industrialization of our global food system and growing urbanization not only exacerbate the effects of climate change and accelerate the loss of biodiversity, but also significantly cause the spatial and mental decoupling of food production and consumption.
Against the backdrop of the associated socio-ecological challenges, a “renaissance” of various forms of urban agriculture can be observed worldwide over the last decade, accompanied by the emergence of new multifunctional productive ecosystems in urban spaces. Especially in the Global North, the manifold forms and different dimensions of urban agriculture increasingly show potentials how negative effects along the food value chain can be reduced and how ecological, economic and social added values can be created.
The 14th Weihenstephan Symposium will therefore revolve around a provocative question:
“Urban agriculture – A trend phenomenon or transformative element for the development of resilient cities and food systems?”
To explore this controversial question, the professorship for Urban Productive Ecosystems at Technical University of Munich invites practitioners from science, business, politics and civil society to debate their expertise and experience in the form of keynote speeches and subsequent discussion. Different forms and aspects of urban production – their limits and potentials – will be critically examined and their practical potential discussed from ecological, social and economic points of view.
We invite you to participate in the forum and discuss with us – participation is open to the interested public.
Registration & Participation
Due to the current Covid-19 related regulations, the event will take place hybrid, i.e., with a limited number of participants at TUM Campus Weihenstephan in Freising (Konferenzsaal iGZW, 3G rules apply) and the possibility to participate in the full program via Zoom. Please note that registration for on-site participation is required by October 18 to allow for planning the logistics and catering according to Covid rules. All admitted registrants will receive final information and the access link for Zoom closer to the event. The event will be held partly in German (GER) and partly in English (ENG) with no simultaneous translation. It is open to all and is free of charge.
The 75th anniversary of the Rural Sociology Group also marks another milestone: 100 completed and successfully defended PhD theses. The first PhD graduate was Jan Doorenbos, who successfully defended his PhD thesis entitled ‘Opheusden als boomteeltcentrum‘ (Opheusden as tree-growing centre) on 14 June 1950. His PhD study was supervised by Prof. E.W. Hofstee. The 100th PhD graduate was Lucie Sovová, who successfully defended her PhD thesis entitled ‘Grow, share or buy? Understanding the diverse economies of urban gardeners‘ on 13 October 2020. Her PhD study was supervised by Dr. Esther Veen, Dr. Petr Jehlicka and myself. Below the covers of the 1st and 100th PhD thesis.
In this blog about 100 PhD graduates in 75 years Rural Sociology at Wageningen University, I want to present and reflect on some trends related to these 100 PhD graduates. In another forthcoming blog I will present and reflect on some trends related to the content and focus of these 100 PhD theses.
Trend 1: from less than 1 to close to 4 PhD graduates per year
The 100 PhD theses that were completed in the last 75 years are not evenly distributed over the years, as the figure below shows. In the first 50 years 23 PhD theses were completed, meaning that the average number of PhD graduations was below 1 per year (with no PhD graduations at all in the years 1966-1970 and 1986-1990). This increased to approximately 2 per year in the 1996-2005 period and to almost 4 per year in the last 15 years. There are multiple reasons for this. First, until the 1980s having a PhD degree was not that important for an academic career as it is now. When I did my Masters in Wageningen in the late 1980s and early 1990s a large part of the courses I took were taught by assistant, associate and even full professors without a PhD degree. Nowadays, having a PhD degree is a prerequisite for an academic career. Second, in the early 1980s the Dutch government introduced the so-called ‘Two-phase structure’ for university education, with the second phase referring to a 4 year PhD program. The ambition was that 20% of the MSc graduates would continue with a PhD, and as a result universities created more PhD positions (which were then called assistant-in-training or researcher-in-training positions). Alongside, tenured staff without a PhD degree was also encouraged to write a PhD thesis. While these two reasons may explain the increase from the early 1990s onwards, they do not explain the relative high numbers in the last 15 years, with an average of 3 to 4 PhD graduations per year. These figures are a result of: a) the growth of externally funded research projects in which (part of) the research was/is carried out by PhD students; b) the acquisition of specific PhD programs with multiple PhD projects (NWO-WOTRO, INREF, and EU Marie Curie Training Networks); c) the internationalization of our PhD community (more about this below) with a growing number of PhD scholarships funded by NUFFIC and national governments in Asia (mainly China) and Latin-America. In addition, there has been an internal push for more PhD students due to PhD supervision criteria for RSO staff in Tenure Track. And last but not least, the PhD graduation allowance that we get from the national government (currently approximately € 60,000 per PhD graduate) also implies that there is a financial incentive to have a steady and preferable high inflow of PhD students and outflow of PhD graduates.
Trend 2: The average age at which a PhD degree is obtained remains the same (but becomes more diverse)
The average age at which a PhD degree is obtained has remained fairly stable over the past 75 years (just below 40 in 1950 and just above 40 in 2020), but has become more diverse in recent decades (ranging from 27 to 76 years). When making this overview I had actually expected that the average age at PhD graduation would have shown a downward trend as I assumed that the role of the PhD thesis had changed from someone’s life’s work (a middle- to end-career achievement) to a first stepping stone (an early-career achievement) in an academic career. The latter certainly holds true for a large group that obtained their PhD degree at the age of 35 or younger. However, among the PhD graduates of the last 20 years, the PhD degree has also been an important mid-career stepping stone. Many, in particular international, PhD graduates, who got their PhD degree at the age of 40 to 50, have moved up to senior academic or management positions. And throughout the years we’ve had PhD candidates that embarked on their PhD study more towards the end of their career or even after retirement (with two obtaining their PhD degree at the age of 76). For this relatively small group the PhD thesis has remained a life’s work.
Trend 3: From men only to more gender balance
One aspect that has really changed over the past 75 years is the male/female ratio of PhD graduates. In the past 75 years we’ve had twice as many male graduates as female graduates, as the figure below shows.
However, this 2:1 male-female ratio has not been like that over the past 75 years. In the first 55 years the vast majority of PhD graduates were men (32 men versus 2 women), and this changed considerably in the last 20 years (34 men versus 32 women), as the figure below shows. It clearly reflects the changing male-female ratio of BSc and MSc students at Wageningen University (and most likely also at many other universities in and outside the Netherlands). And this also has had an impact on the gender balance within the current academic staff at the Rural Sociology Group.
Trend 4: From mainly Dutch to ‘all over the world’
Over the past 75 years the PhD community at the Rural Sociology Group has really become international. Although there were a few non-Dutch PhD graduates in the early years, in recent years PhD students come from all over the world: other European countries, Latin America, Africa and Asia (see figures below: Europe refers to all European countries excluding the Netherlands). A large number of the PhD projects of these international PhD students are projects jointly supervised with staff members of the Sociology of Development and Change group, which traditionally has a strong network in Latin America and Africa. The former chair of Rural Sociology, Jan Douwe van der Ploeg, also has a large international network, in particular in Italy, several Latin American countries and China, and this has clearly contributed to the inflow of PhD students from these parts of the world. The aforementioned growing importance of external research funding and international PhD scholarships has also contributed to the internationalization of our PhD community. I also assumed that the international focus and status of Wageningen University, with all its MSc and part of its BSc programs taught in English, would have contributed to the internationalization of our PhD community. However, hardly any of our international PhD students has an MSc degree from Wageningen University.
In addition to looking at the countries/regions where our PhD graduates come from, I have also made a figure of where they are currently residing/working or where they were residing when they retired. This basically shows that the vast majority of PhD graduates is residing/working in the country/region where they originate from. Some have moved to other countries and a few of the international PhD graduates have stayed in the Netherlands.
Trend 5: From government official to academic/researcher
A last topic related to 100 Rural Sociology PhD graduates I want to present is their current or last (in case of retirement) sector of employment. Is a PhD degree really a stepping stone for an academic or research career or does it result in careers in a variety of sectors? This has been summarized in the figure below, which shows that many of the PhD graduates in the early years continued their career in government. To be fair, many of those PhD graduates actually had a government job and were given the time and space to do their PhD research while keeping their job as government official and continued as a government official after obtaining their PhD degree. Since the 1990s the PhD degree seems to have been favorable for a career in academia/higher education or at a research institute. Many of our international PhD graduates now have tenured positions at foreign universities as assistant, associate or full professor or as senior scientist or senior manager at a research institute. Some are self-employed as advisors/consultants and a few ended up working for a NGO or in the private sector (in or related to agriculture or elsewhere). But as the primary aim of our PhD program is to train PhD students to become independent researchers/academics, it is great to see that so many do indeed succeed in building a career in (academic) research (and higher education).
Today, Tuesday April 6 2021, is ‘Alarm Day’; a day on which the teaching and research staff, students, administrators and alumni of all 14 Dutch research universities will be congregating to call on the new government to structurally invest 1.1 billion euros in academic research and education. Since 2000 student numbers have doubled, while government funding per student has decreased by 25%. In addition research funding has not kept up with the growth in student numbers and increasingly has to be obtained via competitive research grant applications. Hence, there is a structural lack of time and financial means for high-quality research and high-quality teaching. As a result of underfunding, students no longer receive the education they deserve, while teaching and research staff are struggling to cope. So on Alarm Day we address this situation and propose to work towards a Normal Academic Standard. For more information, please check https://normaalacademischpeil.nl/ (or https://normaalacademischpeil.nl/english for the English version).
One of the activities the organizers of the Alarm Day ask us to undertake is to share our personal stories. That is what I will do in this blog, thereby also expressing my support for today’s Alarm Day and the call for a structural investment in university research and education.
Why I support Alarm Day and the call for a 1.1 billion Euro structural investment
I was appointed as Chair and Professor of Rural Sociology at Wageningen University in November 2004. Within our university system, being chair means that you are responsible for the financial situation of your chair group. Due to the way the funding of education has been organized at Wageningen University, our education income does largely keep up with growing student numbers. However, the downside is that there is hardly any funding for research. Annually our chair group gets approximately k€ 330 basic university funding (formally labelled as research funding), yet our costs for accommodation, materials, travel and overheads are equal to or exceed that, hence there is no funding for research. So to make sure that the annual operating result of my group is not negative, there are basically two options: we only teach (and make sure that the revenues from teaching plus basic funding cover the salary costs and other costs) or we obtain external funding for research (including PhD projects). We have continuously focused on the latter option (also because the first option de facto means that the key characteristic of academic education, i.e. the link between research and teaching, ceases to exist) and have been quite successful at that, BUT:
Over the years grant schemes have become increasingly competitive, and thus our success rate has gradually declined from approximately 50% 10-15 years ago to less than 25% at present (while the quality, based on evaluation scores, has only improved). This means that an increasing share of our research time is spent on writing proposals that do not get funded.
A lot of the grant writing has to be done in the evenings, weekends and holidays, simply because a) a 40 hour working week is not enough to do everything I need or am expected to do, and b) most deadlines for submitting proposals are just after the Christmas and summer holidays.
Due to the continuous financial pressure of obtaining external research funding I am almost permanently busy with grant writing and actually do not have enough time for the projects I did manage to get funded. And the time I have available is largely spent on project coordination, not on research;
A lot of our research projects are funded by the European Commission. In the EC’s framework programs (e.g. Horizon 2020, Horizon Europe) we see a gradual shift in funding focus from understanding problems and challenges to developing and implementing solutions, in other words from research to innovation and (societal) impact. Funding for curiosity driven and risky research has to come from personal grants (ERC, VENI/VIDI/VICI) or grants for training networks (e.g. Marie Curie Training Networks), and these schemes are even more competitive (with success rates between 2 and 10%).
Until recently I was ‘promotor’ (main supervisor) of >25 PhD projects and it is simply impossible to be sufficiently involved in all. Most of the supervision is done by daily supervisors (assistant and associate professors), who all do a great job at this, but for me PhD supervision was way more interesting when I only had a few PhD students. Yet, for financial reasons it is important that within our group we have 4 to 5 PhD graduations per year. Therefore we still have 25 to 30 PhD students, but as a few colleagues have ius promovendi (the right to award a PhD) I no longer have to be the promotor of all. So this helps to reduce my workload a bit, but doesn’t change the perverse incentive that a steady inflow and outflow of PhD students is important for financial reasons.
Will 1.1 billion Euro of structural funding solve all problems?
Unfortunately the answer is ‘no’. It will certainly help to reduce the reliance on external research funding and reduce work pressure if we can appoint more staff members who can carry out their teaching and research tasks and activities within their work week. But we also need to address a few other issues:
In addition to this structural investment a large share of the research funding that is now distributed via competitive grant schemes (NWO and EU for example) should go directly to academic staff: so less time wasted on proposals that do not get funded, less work pressure and more funded time for curiosity driven research;
A new recognition and reward system that once and for all gets rid of the publish or perish culture (or generally speaking the output performance culture) that has dominated academia in the last 25 years. Especially the current publication and PhD supervision criteria that our Tenure Trackers need to comply with only contribute to more publications and more PhD students to be supervised.
The time and energy consuming bureaucracy that we need to work in and which is largely based on institutionalized distrust, as if endless procedures, evaluation rubrics, assessment forms, and checks and balances will help us to become better lecturers and researchers.
Related to that is the time that we are spending on writing self-evaluation reports (and to that we add mid-term self-evaluation reports) for peer review committees (peer reviews of our BSc and MSc programs or of our research program). Don’t get me wrong, I really value getting feedback from peers if we can also honestly and openly share our struggles and challenges and then get constructive feedback on how to do things better. However what we are actually asked to do is to write marketing brochures to boast about our excellence, so that university management can show to the outside world how many ‘top programs’ and ‘world leading’ research units it has. And this also means that a negative evaluation (which is basically anything below ‘excellent’) will haunt you until the next peer review.
What have I decided to do to reduce my work pressure?
In addition to keep on addressing the structural causes of work pressure I have decided to do the following:
I will not write any project proposal until the current Horizon 2020 project I am coordinating is finished and I have the time and energy to write a new proposal;
I will no longer write research grants for financial reasons, but only because I want to (for curiosity reasons, because it allows me to hire PhD candidates and/or postdocs, because it enables me to collaborate with colleagues in other countries, et cetera).
I will not accept new PhD students until the number I am responsible has dropped below 10 and that will remain the maximum number.
I will publish less and review no more than two papers per paper I have submitted as (co-)author (and review no more than 3 research proposals per proposal I have submitted for review).
I realize that I am in a privileged position (permanent contract, no Tenure Track criteria to comply with and chair of a group that does really well in teaching and research) to take these decisions, but hopefully it is seen as leading by example.
Steeds meer agrarische bedrijven halen hun inkomen uit andere dan pure landbouwactiviteiten. Slechts een derde van de Nederlandse agrarische bedrijven legt zich toe op de primaire productie van bijvoorbeeld melk of varkensvlees en richt zich op de wereldmarkt. Zij proberen tegen zo laag mogelijke kosten te produceren. De overige bedrijven hanteren een veelzijdiger strategie om inkomsten te genereren.
Dat blijkt uit een enquête-onderzoek naar bedrijfsstrategie en toekomstperspectief van uitgeverij Agrio en de leerstoelgroep Rurale Sociologie van Wageningen University & Research. De enquête die deze zomer werd gehouden onder ruim 1200 agrarische bedrijven laat een aanzienlijke verbreding van inkomstenbronnen zien ten opzichte van het laatste grootschalig onderzoek midden jaren negentig naar bedrijfsstrategieën in de landbouw. In 1995 combineerde 22% van de bedrijven landbouw met andere bedrijfsactiviteiten, nu is dat 50%.
Agrarische bedrijven hanteren diverse strategieën om inkomen uit hun activiteiten te genereren. De meest oorspronkelijke route is die van de primaire productie van akkerbouwgewassen, zoals tarwe, en veeteelt, met melk, vlees of eieren als producten. In de afgelopen decennia hebben agrariërs naast akkerbouw en veehouderij ook andere inkomstenbronnen gegenereerd. Tegenwoordig is er een heel scala aan activiteiten zoals agro-toerisme, agrarisch natuurbeheer, een zorgboerderij en activiteiten die geen specifieke agrarische link hebben, zoals energieproductie met zonnepanelen of windmolens. Puur en alleen landbouwproductie komt nog maar bij de helft van de bedrijven voor, terwijl dat in 1995 nog op 78% van de bedrijven het geval was.
Han Wiskerke, hoogleraar Rurale sociologie aan Wageningen University & Research, die het onderzoek begeleidde, noemt de toegenomen diversiteit van strategieën binnen de landbouw onderbelicht. „Het beeld in de media werd het afgelopen jaar vooral gedomineerd door de stroming die zich richt op specialisatie en schaalvergroting. Uit ons onderzoek blijkt dit slechts één van de vele stromingen te zijn.”
Arbeidsmarkt gunstig voor extra activiteiten
De bedrijven die zich richten op verbreding en toegevoegde waarde (zoals eigen productverwerking), genereren opmerkelijk meer arbeid. Daarmee leveren ze een bijdrage aan de werkgelegenheid en de leefbaarheid van het platteland. Volgens Wiskerke zou het goed zijn als overheden zich bewust zijn van het feit dat bepaalde vormen van landbouwontwikkeling ook veel werkgelegenheid creëren. „Ik heb de indruk dat beleid gericht op het behouden en creëren van werkgelegenheid op het platteland zich niet op landbouw maar op andere economische sectoren richt.” Wiskerke plaatst daarbij wel een kanttekening. “De activiteiten die potentieel veel werkgelegenheid creëren doen zich vooral voor nabij steden en in toeristische gebieden (met name langs de kust), omdat daar nu eenmaal de meeste mensen wonen of recreëren en daar dus de meeste consumenten en afnemers van die boerendiensten te vinden zijn.”
Ontevreden over inkomen uit landbouw
Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat boeren die zich richten op specialisatie en productie voor de wereldmarkt op veel fronten afwijken ten opzichte van boeren met een andere strategie. Dat neemt niet weg dat voor alle boeren geldt dat ze ontevreden zijn over de inkomsten uit agrarische activiteiten. Bijna de helft is erg ontevreden of behoorlijk ontevreden. Het minst tevreden over het inkomen uit de landbouw zijn boeren met een bedrijfsstrategie waarbij zij zgn. groenblauwe diensten leveren, zoals beheer van sloten, en verbreding, zoals zorglandbouw of agrotoerisme. Daarentegen zijn deze boeren wel het meest tevreden over hun bedrijfsinkomen. Maar ook voor de boeren die zich richten op specialisatie en productie voor de wereldmarkt is het moeilijk om met alleen landbouw rond te komen, constateert prof. Wiskerke. “Puur van landbouw rondkomen is moeilijk.”
Veranderende regelgeving als belemmering
Als grootste belemmering voor bedrijfsontwikkeling staat bij alle bedrijfsstrategieën met stip op één: steeds veranderende regelgeving. 63 procent van de deelnemers kruiste dit aan. Agrariërs hebben behoefte aan een duidelijke langjarige overheidsvisie. “Daarop kunnen zij hun bedrijfsstrategie, waarbij vaak investeringen gemoeid zijn, inrichten,” licht prof. Wiskerke toe.
Kwart van gezinsinkomen afhankelijk van landbouw
Uit het onderzoek blijkt dat van alle bedrijven in de enquête slechts een kwart voor het gezinsinkomen volledig afhankelijk is van de landbouw. Bij de overige 75 procent bestaat het gezinsinkomen uit landbouw plus andere bedrijfsactiviteiten, een baan buiten het bedrijf of een combinatie daarvan. “Dat kan een teken van bittere noodzaak zijn, omdat ondernemers het met alleen landbouw financieel niet redden”, zegt prof. Wiskerke. “Maar het kan ook een uiting zijn van veranderende opvattingen over wat goed of toekomstbestendig agrarisch ondernemerschap is.” Tien jaar geleden gaf 72 procent van de ondernemers van multifunctionele bedrijven aan dat direct contact met burgers en consumenten de belangrijkste drijfveer was voor verbreding. Ook financiële risicospreiding werd toen door de helft genoemd. “En het kan ook een teken zijn van een verdere emancipatie van de boerin / vrouw van de boer, waarbij de nadruk ligt op een eigen carrière en inkomen buiten het bedrijf of een eigen bedrijfsactiviteit voortkomend uit eigen expertise en interesse. Het zijn toch overwegend vrouwen, veelal met werkervaring buiten de landbouw, die de drijvende kracht zijn achter verbredingsactiviteiten.”
Het onderzoek naar agrarische bedrijfsontwikkeling is een initiatief van uitgeverij Agrio en is in samenwerking met de leerstoelgroep Rurale Sociologie van Wageningen University & Research opgezet. Eind juli en begin augustus voerde marktonderzoeksbureau Geelen Consultancy het onderzoek digitaal uit. Aan het onderzoek namen ruim 1200 boeren deel. Het aandeel biologische boeren (6 procent) en veebedrijven is licht oververtegenwoordigd en tuinbouwbedrijven zijn juist ondervertegenwoordigd.
Persbericht Wageningen University & Research, nr 101, 30 oktober 2020
In September 1946 Evert Willem Hofstee, the founding father of Rural Sociology at Wageningen University, started as Professor and Chair of Social and Economic Geography and Social Statistics.
In the years that followed, the department was reorganized and renamed (e.g. Agrarian Sociology of Western Areas; Sociology) several times, with Rural Sociology being the official name since the late 1990s. Hofstee was also one of the founders and the first President of the European Society for Rural Sociology.
The Rural Sociology Group of Wageningen University will celebrate its 75th Anniversary on the 13th of May 2022. On that day we will organize an international conference at which we will present, discuss and reflect upon the past, present and future of rural sociology in an interactive setting. And we will, of course, also have a party in the evening of the 13th of May 2022 to celebrate 75 years of rural sociology at Wageningen University with current and former staff members, PhD students and graduates, former and current students and colleagues with whom we collaborated in national and international research projects. So SAVE THE DATE if you want participate in our conference and join our party. More details about the conference program will be published on this website soon!
The conference and party will not be the only activity that we will organize to celebrate our 75th anniversary. Starting today, we will arrange a variety of events, activities and outputs leading up to our main festivity on May 13, 2022.
A weekly blog (on this website) about the past, present or future of Rural Sociology. This may be about a specific theory, a research project, an event, or something else;
A seminar series (online or blended) with agrarian, rural and food sociologists from other universities;
A series of rural field trips in the Netherlands, visiting, for example, rural sociology graduates that have become farmers;
A PhD Day with and for PhD graduates and PhD candidates and a PhD Magazine with an overview of all PhD graduates, their PhD thesis and career after completion of their PhD thesis;
An anniversary book about the past, present and future of Rural Sociology in Wageningen.
We are looking forward to a year of celebration activities and events and hope many of our (former) colleagues and students will do so too. And we hope to welcome you at our celebratory event on the 13th of May 2022. So stay tuned to this blog and get to know more about the past, present and future of Rural Sociology in Wageningen in the forthcoming 12 months.
Update (July 8, 2021): due to COVID-19, the celebratory event is postponed from October 24, 2021 to May 13, 2022
Vandaag zijn we samen met Agrio een onderzoek gestart naar de factoren die van invloed zijn op de bedrijfsvoering en -ontwikkeling in de landbouw. Tevens proberen we zicht te krijgen op welke uiteenlopende bedrijfsstrategieën en bedrijfstypen er zijn en waar boeren en boerinnen belemmeringen en kansen zien voor een toekomstbestendig bedrijf. De eerste stap in dit onderzoek bestaat uit een korte enquête, die vandaag is verspreid onder ruim 15000 boeren en boerinnen. Dit deel van het onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd in samenwerking met Geelen Consultancy. De uitkomsten van de enquête zullen in het najaar worden gepubliceerd in de vakbladen van Agrio. Later dit jaar willen we, mede op basis van de uitkomsten van deze enquête, een verdiepend onderzoek doen naar de huidige diversiteit in de Nederlandse landbouw, de kansen en belemmeringen voor bedrijfsontwikkeling en perspectieven voor verduurzaming.
This collection reviews key recent research on developing urban and peri-urban agriculture. The first part of the book discusses ways of supporting urban agriculture, from policy and planning to building social networks for local food supply chains. The chapters in the second part of the book survey developments in key technologies for urban agriculture, including rooftop systems and vertical farming. The book also assesses challenges and improvements in irrigation, waste management, composting/soil nutrition and pest management. The final group of chapters are case studies on urban farming of particular commodities, including horticultural produce, livestock, and forestry.
The book targets a varied audience: academic researchers in agricultural science, urban planning and environmental science specialising in urban agriculture; urban planners and policy makers in local government; national government and other bodies promoting urban agriculture.
Op woensdag 15 mei om 13.30 uur verdedigt Jan P. van Loon in de Aula van Wageningen Universiteit zijn proefschrift getiteld “Door eendrachtige samenwerking: De geschiedenis van de Aardappelveredeling in Nederland, van hobby tot industrie (1888-2018)”. De promotie is live te volgen via WUR TV en kan ook later worden bekeken. Het proefschrift is digitaal beschikbaar na de openbare verdediging. Voor meer informatie over dit proefschrift, zie het nieuwsbericht op de WUR-website of het artikel in Resource.
On Thursday 27 September 2018 Valiz and the Amsterdam Academy of Architecture will host a programme dedicated to the launch of the book entitled ‘Flourishing Foodscapes – Designing City Region Food Systems’.
About Flourishing Foodscapes
Flourishing Foodscapes is a book about the the social and spatial organization of networks and systems of food provisioning. It explores, highlights and discusses strategies and designs for creating future-proof city region food systems by addressing the social, economic, and ecological vulnerabilities and sustainabilities of current and future foodscapes, as well as how the spatial qualities of the rural and urban landscape and its use need to adapt and change. A key argument in the book is that food not only has to do with nutrition, but that it links up with and influences a multitude of domains; from health to (eating) culture and from employment to climate change. It has a major impact on the city (especially on consumption and distribution, and, to a lesser extent, on production) and on rural areas (mainly production), but also the relations between city and countryside, close by as well as far apart. Thinking about food-related problems and challenges is becoming increasingly important. These issues influence our planet and way of life, but also our everyday existence.
Flourishing Foodscapes transcends the field of bottom-up initiatives and private projects. If we really want to design more sustainable food systems, we will have to think more structurally about changing food provisioning at different levels of scale. Flourishing Foodscapes links research, case studies and spatial design and takes a step towards a more comprehensive approach to food issues, building on inspiring practices, projects and designs from all over the world.
Programme Book Launch
The book presentation will take place on Thursday 27 September 2018, from 17.00 to 19.30 at the Academy of Architecture (Waterlooplein 211-213, Amsterdam). The programme is as follows:
17:00–17:05 Opening by moderator Saskia van Stein (director Bureau Europa)
17:05–17:10 Welcome by Madeleine Maaskant (director Academy of Architecture)
17:10–17:30 Introduction to the book by the editors and main authors Han Wiskerke (Professor of Rural Sociology, Wageningen University) and Saline Verhoeven (landscape architect and researcher)
Recently students of the Master programme Organic Agriculture (MOA) of Wageningen University launched the first edition of the MOAgazine entitled ‘Organic Times’. The magazine (Organic times online) is written and edited by MOA students and provides some insights into the programme, study and student activities and a variety of issues linked to MOA, including book reviews and organic recipes. As chair of the MOA study programme committee I have enjoyed reading the Organic Times and am proud of the time and energy the students invested in developing this magazine. It reflects the enthusiasm and commitment of this great and dedicated group of international students as well as the interdisciplinary character of the MOA programme.