School of Sustainability Graduate Culminating Experiences

Often characterized by intense commoditization, heavy ecological footprint, and monopolistic governance mechanisms, the present-day industrialized food system has contributed to a growing distrust among citizens around the world. In response to this, local food initiatives promoting sustainable food and agricultural systems have formed. Little empirical research exists regarding how these local food initiatives think about their experience in relation a relevant conceptual framework. As such, this research entails the development of a conceptual framework based on Schlosberg and Cole’s (2015) sustainable materialist frame and literature regarding how local food initiatives may be characterized. This consists of sustainability values, collective action and political perspectives. Thirteen participants from two local food initiatives in Lüneburg, Germany were interviewed to provide in-depth insights into participant perceptions in relation to the three dimensions. Results indicate that participants exhibit strong values related to sustainability (e.g. knowledge of food origin, environmental concern, etc.), and appreciate the practical, collective work of the initiative. Additionally, a clash was found between initiative goals and participants’ perception of a lack of commitment and strong uniformity in the initiatives. Furthermore, many participants expressed political motivation and even perceived group actions as counter to the mainstream food system, although both initiatives did not identify as a politically motivated. This research sheds light on opportunities and barriers for initiative success and indicates the potential for the developed framework to serve as a lens for understanding other social initiatives aimed toward sustainability transformations.

Institutional factors are rarely examined in disaster risks in the Himalayan region, as much of the focus so far has been on improving the scientific understanding of the natural hazards and risks. This is particularly true for glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs), which are natural hazards endemic to high mountain ranges such as the Andes, Alps, and Himalayas. While these have put mountain communities at risk for centuries, vulnerability is viewed to be increasing due to climate change. While the science behind the causes and characteristics of these hazards is now better understood, there is an absence of research understanding the social, cultural and institutional drivers behind creating effective strategies to mitigate risks from GLOFs. This is more so for the Himalayan region, where institutions have recently started to address this risk, but contention between local communities and external organizations can hinder mitigation efforts. To better understand how people’s perception towards disaster risk, a study conducted by Sherpa et al. (2019) examined the socio-economic and cultural perceptions surrounding GLOF hazards.

This research highlighted gaps in how scientific knowledge is disseminated to local communities, and the resulting distrust in government mitigation projects such as lake lowering and Early Warning Systems. A clear need developed to conduct an institutional analysis of the governance systems responsible for disaster risk management and their interaction with local communities. This study examines the institutional conditions under which mountain communities create effective adaptation strategies to address climate induced hazards. We use a mixed-methods approach, combining: a) quantitative analysis of household surveys collected in 2016-2017 and b) qualitative analysis that maps out the various factors of institutions that influence the success of community-based adaptation efforts. Additionally, GLOF case studies from Nepal are compared to those in Peru, where institutions have a longer history of managing GLOF risks. The research finds that there are several considerations including: lack of cross-scalar communication networks, lack of local knowledge and participation in policy processes, and ineffective interorganizational coordination of knowledge sharing and funding streams for local projects. This disconnect between external versus local and informal institutions becomes an inherent issue in projects where agenda setting by external organizations plays prevalent roles in project implementation.