Social Sustainability and Collaborative Learning

Author(s): Helena Nordström Källström and Magnus Ljung

Source: AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 34(4):376-382. 2005.
Published By: Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.376
URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.376

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological,
and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books
published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.
Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of
BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.
Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial
inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder.

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions,
research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.
Helena Nordström Källström and Magnus Ljung
Social Sustainability
and Collaborative Learning
The social dimension is central to sustainable develop-
ment of agri-food systems. If farmers are not satisfied
with their situation or motivated to continue farming, many
of today’s environmental goals will be impossible to
achieve. Between 1997 and 2003, several case studies
were carried out on social sustainability, the importance
of recognition in the farming system, and the potential
role of increased collaboration between actors. The main
hypothesis was that improved recognition is a basis for
sustainable social conditions. Our findings show that
many farmers today perceive an impoverished social
situation. They believe they lack control over decisions,
which hinders their ability to continue farming. Public
images and political decisions show a lack of respect for
farmers’ skills and knowledge. However, increased col-
laboration among actors is believed to be one important
way forward, creating stronger relationships and net-
works, as well as a stronger identity for farmers. Our
findings emphasize the need for authorities and other
organizations to support farmers and to facilitate collab-
orative learning and decision-making processes for socio-
ecological sustainability.
INTRODUCTION
The social dimension of farming is a crucial part of sustainable
development of Swedish agriculture. It is clear that the agri-
food system faces some important social challenges:
– Strengthening social conditions for farmers (e.g. improving
social services and working conditions for farmers and other
rural workers, enabling participation in civic discourse,
creating a sense of community and place).
– Supporting both diversity in rural lifestyle (i.e. the aesthetics
of a diverse landscape, and the cultural aspects of biological
diversity; that is, preserving the cultural heritage).
– Balancing the negative effects of ongoing size and structural
rationalization caused by economic pressure and decreasing
viability of farms, largely in regions of Sweden far from
densely populated areas.
Among the objectives of the research program Food 21, the
many social aspects are summarized in a perspective arguing
that farmers need to be content with their social situation, as
well as not unnecessarily exposed to hazardous substances or
risk of injury.
Sustainable development is a moving target. The complex
networks of institutions and stakeholders in society easily create
a sense of incomprehensibility and lack of control. Policy-
makers and other decision-makers emphasize that there is no
single expert or actor with the definitive answer to what con-
stitutes a sustainable agri-food system or the necessary means to
achieve it. Instead, collaborative, community-based, and trans-
disciplinary learning, dialogue, and deliberation have been
described as desirable or even necessary approaches to today’s
situation (1–3). This may be seen as a rational conclusion based
on findings in many fields—ideas about participatory de-
mocracy (4); the importance of local knowledge in sustainable
natural resource management (5); the processes of experiential
376 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
learning, adaptive management, and institutional change (6);
critical discourse in environmental sociology (7); and so on.
Together, these insights create a strong foundation for an
emerging new paradigm that emphasizes the need for partici-
pation, systemic thinking and action, critical assessment of
existing social order, and especially how we organize and
interact within the agri-food system.
Role of Farmers
At the very core of sustainable development of agri-food
systems is the farmer. Farmers’ perspectives and actions will
ultimately enable or hinder society in the implementation of
methods for sustainable development of agriculture and the
larger agri-food system. But what motivates farmers to act in an
environmentally friendly way? What keeps farmers farming and
in good health? What basic needs have to be fulfilled in order
for farmers to be content with their work and life situation?
Farming is as much a way of life as it is a business. Farming is
a social activity, although farming is seldom described in such
words. The unique life-form and the social aspects of farming
have implications on farmers’ decision-making, and thus on the
possibility of realizing sustainable development, including its
ecological dimensions.
Today, the average age of farmers is relatively high, the vast
majority of those working on farms are men, and the physical
distance between farm units is growing. Our hypothesis is that
the ongoing changes in the Swedish farming system are not
sustainable from a social point of view, and that this
unsustainable social development within the farming commu-
nity will prevent society from achieving its environmental and
welfare goals. One field of potential measures is associated with
farmer participation and involvement. It appears there are at
least three strong arguments for farmers’ involvement in
decision-making processes (8). First, farmers have important
knowledge when developing management strategies adapted to
site-specific conditions. A high degree of farmer participation
enables this potential to be utilized. The best way for society to
learn from the ecosystems’ responses to new management
techniques is to let citizens with a thorough knowledge of local
circumstances provide feedback, communicate their findings,
and fine-tune the recommended approaches. Large bureaucra-
cies operating according to standard procedures will never be
able to achieve this efficiently enough to be sustainable (9).
Second, farmers must feel motivated (i.e. they must perceive it
as meaningful) to change their practices, something that can be
reinforced by a higher degree of social interaction and public
appreciation. Third, it is the human and democratic right of
farmers to be able to participate in decisions that will affect
their future.
Aim of the Paper
The aim of this paper is twofold: to conceptualize and describe
important social conditions for Swedish farmers, and to identify
the potential of collaborative processes in improving these
conditions. Core research questions concerned the role of
farmers’ social relations, how farmers are perceived both by
Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005
significant others and by society at large, and how recognition
contributes to identity creation, which involves a personal
commitment and willingness to learn more about and strive for
sustainable development.
THEORY
Social Sustainability
Sustainable development is a quality of resilient social-ecological
systems (10). Although the social dimension of farming is
necessary to conceptualize an integrated whole, it could
particularly be described as the living and working conditions
of farmers (11). This should include strong social relations;
individual satisfaction with work tasks; the potential to discuss
and share responsibility with other people; and confidence in the
future and experience of recognition from family, friends, and
society. However, the social dimension could also be described
using more universal social-psychological concepts (i.e. fulfill-
ment of basic human needs; for instance, protection, freedom,
understanding, participation, creativity, affection, etc.) (12).
The analytical model applied was relational and aggregated
in its approach. Figure 1 summarizes the different components
that contribute to the social situation of farmers in Swedish
agriculture. Our theoretical model aims to give an integrated
view of the social conditions in agriculture as experienced by the
farmer. The model also captures different dimensions of relating
to the world, and thus the potential for both social learning (13)
in which farmers can be involved, and experiential learning (14),
which involves processes of learning-by-doing in both the social
and ecological environment. Figure 1 focuses on the farmers’
relationships, emphasizing that both meaning and action are
relational, but also that some specific actions contribute toward
fulfilling certain dimensions of social sustainability, while others
tend to do the opposite.
By participating in decisions regarding the future conditions of
farming such as regulations and incentives, and by taking part in
the public debate, day-to-day farming becomes more meaningful
(15). Through collaborative activities together with colleagues,
neighbors, and others within the local community, social iden-
tities are strengthened and a relational network is built that is of
high importance in both good times and bad. Finally, the unique
relationship and interaction with the physical world, animals, and
the land enables a stronger sense of self-in-place (16), which is
important for the development of self and a personal identity.
Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
Many farmers perceive themselves as marginalized in society
(11). Their relative power in society is decreasing, both from
economic and cultural points of view. On the other hand,
farmers tend to value their personal skills and consider them
relevant for the development of functional management
strategies in farming and for rural development (8). Such
experiential knowledge originates from farmers’ daily interac-
tion with the environment when managing the natural
resources. Nevertheless, creating opportunities for participation
is not enough. Designing the processes in such a way that
farmers’ experiences are integrated and that they feel involved
and empowered is also necessary, and their engagement must
have an impact on decisions made [what Senecah (17) calls
voice, standing, and influence]. This is a process of social and
collaborative learning (18) in which farmers become part of the
wider community and develop new knowledge together.
Recognition
Central to our theoretical perspective and analytical model is
the notion of recognition as important for social well-being as it
was developed by Honneth (19) and Taylor (20)]. Our model
describes three levels of recognition, how recognition affects
identity, and the effects of nonrecognition.
Identity and recognition. A person’s identity can be defined as
one’s perception of who he or she is and what characteristics he or
she has as a human being. Personal or group identity develops in
the complex interrelationship between self/individuality and
culture/society. Identity is thus influenced by the amount of
recognition the person or group receives from other people or
other groups (20). Our identity is partially created by both recog-
nition and the absence of recognition. The absence of recognition
could be a form of oppression and could cause great damage,
forcing people into a false, distorted, and narrow way of life. To
develop a strong personal identity, or a positive relationship to
oneself, one needs multidimensional recognition from others.
Individuals need to be able to refer to themselves from the per-
spective of approving and encouraging significant others (i.e.
a friend or partner) and generalized others [i.e. politicians and
consumers (21)]. Recognition affects people’s identity by leading
to a disparaging image of people and groups. The image of in-
feriority gets internalized within the group or individual identity:
‘‘Due recognition is not only a courtesy we owe people, it is a vital
human need,’’ according to Taylor (20). Without recognition,
farmers might develop a weak personal and social identity.
Figure 1. Relationships that con-
tribute to the social dimension in
sustainable development of
Swedish agriculture.
377

Figure 2. The three levels of recognition and their effect on the
individual (19, cit. 22).
Three levels of recognition. Recognition can be found in
three independent modes (19). The three different levels of
recognition are as follows (Fig. 2):
i) The individual is recognized as a person whose needs and
desires are of unique value to another person. This mode of
recognition is often referred to as love or care and implies
a conditional care for the well-being of the other for his or her
sake. Love and care build a person’s self-confidence.
ii) The individual is recognized as a person who is ascribed the
same moral accountability as every other human being. This
kind of recognition has the character of universal equal
treatment and is often referred to as moral respect. It implies
the moral duty to recognize the accountability of all others. The
experience of moral respect builds a person’s self-respect.
iii) The individual is recognized as a person whose capabilities are
of constitutive value to a specific community. This kind of recog-
nition has the character of particular esteem and is often referred
to as solidarity or loyalty. It implies the conditional care for the
well-being of the other for the sake of our common goals. The
experience of solidarity or loyalty builds a person’s self-esteem.
The three dimensions of recognition present us with moral
obligations and duties. In the context of sustainable development
of agriculture, this implies that we have a moral obligation to
emotionally care for farmers from the perspective of the first level
of recognition. We also have the moral obligation to treat farmers
equally from the perspective of the second level of recognition.
And finally, we have the moral obligation to show solidarity,
interest, and commitment to farmers’ work and activities in the
light of the third level of recognition. If so, farmers, as all people,
will develop a strong personal and social identity.
The consequence of nonrecognition. What happens when
persons and groups lack recognition on one or more levels?
Here are examples of violations on the three different levels of
recognition:
i) On the first level, the lack of love and care deprives us of the
feeling of security that derives from physical well-being. A
person can lose trust in the value of his own needs from the
point of view of others. This might happen if one perceives
oneself as being exposed to the will of other people or if one
lacks close, affectionate relationships.
ii) There are several acts of moral violation in which a person’s
moral accountability is disregarded. A person’s perception of
self-respect can be damaged if people do not recognize the value
of his or her judgment. The feeling of betrayal could be created
by violations of trust (such as broken promises), by deprivation
of one’s human rights (such as social welfare and democratic
rights), or by the lack of ability to influence decisions that are
crucial to one’s future (not having control of one’s destiny or
lost autonomy).
iii) Moral violations of the third level of recognition could arise
when farmers perceive that their skills and efforts are not
378 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
respected. This damages the feeling of being socially valuable
within a larger community. Examples of such violations are forms
of cultural degradation and could include everything from not
being greeted in personal encounters to extreme cases of
stigmatization (i.e. generalizations about farmers in the media).
From the perspective of sustainable agriculture, social
disrespect must be seen as the mental equivalent of physical
illness. Symptoms of social disrespect could be negative
emotional reactions ranging from shame and indignation to
anger and projection of guilt (22). Within both cognitive and
moral points of view lies an expectation of being recognized by
others. It is the disappointment prompted by the lack of
recognition in relation to these expectations that causes damage
to the identity of a person or a group. The response might be
what Honneth (19) describes as a struggle for recognition.
Recognition is undoubtedly important when elaborating
social sustainability and it involves basic human needs, which
both emerge and are fulfilled through interactions and relation-
ships. In what ways are farmers’ social needs not being recog-
nized today? How can such an understanding be transformed
into policy recommendations for sustainable development of
agriculture? Collaborative processes (i.e. shared learning and
decision-making processes between actors) might be one way
forward. Perhaps this is a new potential or role of collaboration.
Collaboration among Farmers
Collaborative approaches for sustainable development empha-
size systems and discovery learning in natural resource
management (23). Such learning processes can be organized
both through vertical and horizontal collaboration within the
agri-food system (24, 25). Gray (26) defines collaboration as ‘‘a
process through which parties who see different aspects of
a problem can constructively explore their differences and
search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of
what is possible.’’ It is an instrumental but innovative process,
in which new perspectives develop when people learn together.
In Sweden during recent years, we have worked primarily
with subsystems for food production (27) such as horticulture,
local food markets, and agricultural machinery. These processes
have been practiced and studied, and are working well to
accomplish their objectives, such as an increase in locally
consumed agricultural products or lower costs for agricultural
machines at the farm level. However, these processes also have
a social impact. Collaborative processes contribute to the
establishment of new and sustainable relationships among
actors in the countryside. Local food systems in particular
(28) and other forms of innovative collaboration between actors
could be favorable when creating social networks and partner-
ships, thus keeping financial resources in a region and enabling
sustainable rural livelihoods. Collaborative processes might also
be important for strengthening an individual farmer’s social
conditions. Furthermore, collaboration is a way to achieve
participation in decision-making, and it can serve as a venue for
increased input to policymakers and authorities.
The economic possibilities of collaboration between farms
have recently been studied in three master’s theses (29–31). The
studies show that farmers choose to work together partly
because of economic advantages, but also because of the
loneliness and isolation they perceive. Reasons such as wanting
to share important decisions with other people or wanting to
have a working companion are frequent in the three studies.
Working and learning together is a social activity and has social
implications for farmers and the rural community. These studies
support our hypothesis that collaboration in the agri-food
system has an important social potential, connecting people
Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005
with people and improving the level of recognition and thus
self-confidence, self-respect, and self-esteem.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
The research presented in this paper is empirically grounded in
10 case studies conducted between 1997 and 2003. Each was
chosen to reflect different responses to new social-ecological
demands on the Swedish farming system. According to Yin
(32), a case study is defined as:
– An empirically grounded study used to elaborate contem-
porary phenomena, appreciating that there is a context that
put forward the need for methodological pluralism.
– A research method that is especially good in which many non-
measurable variables need to be managed simultaneously.
Consequently, rather than a specific method, case-study
research is more of a research strategy in which the empirical
data are collected from many sources and by applying several
methods (i.e. a multimethodological approach). One might
describe the overall research design as iterative. Every new case
study has a function and purpose, but it is never fully possible to
predict the outcome. The 10 case studies enabled an elaboration
of similarities (literal replication), as well as differences or
contradictions in the material (theoretical replication). More
specifically, the methods used were semistructured interviews (in
total, approximately 130 farmers were interviewed), focus group
interviews, participant observations, and facilitated workshops.
This was an action-oriented case-study approach (8).
The purpose of each case study was to add to our total
understanding of the measures that might be taken to create
more sustainable development of the Swedish agri-food system.
Together, the cases provided a deeper insight into the individual
responses among farmers, and into how structures and
institutions influence both the content and forms of social
development. The collected data were analyzed qualitatively
using a pluralistic and multimethodological approach. Each
case study resulted in separate evaluation reports. In this paper,
the findings are aggregated.
Although the studies had different contexts and focuses, three
main themes were common to all: i) in-depth interviews with
farmers regarding their relationships and social conditions,
ii) farmers’ perception of how society at large regards them and
values their efforts, and iii) the potential of collaborative
learning processes when trying to create sustainable development
of the Swedish agri-food system from a social point of view.
Social Conditions on Farms and their Influence
on Decisions Made
In a case study conducted in autumn 2001 (11), in-depth
interviews were carried out with 30 farmers in three marginal
areas of Sweden, with questions that covered the main
conditions for farming in those areas. One area was in Småland,
in southern Sweden, and two areas were in Lappland, in the
north. Ten farmers were chosen in each of the three areas.
Strategic sampling was applied with the aim of obtaining
different perspectives of being a farmer. With the help of local
farmers’ federation members, farmers of different ages, genders,
and production specializations were selected.
The responses given by the farmers showed that they
experience a lack of quality of life that they feel is a matter of
course for other people. They compared themselves with other
people in other professions. The interviews covered lack of
vacation and leisure time compared with that of normal people,
bearing in mind that the average person in the countryside
today is not a farmer. Figure 3 summarizes the prescriptive
Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
norms that farmers perceived as influencing their decision-
making, and the main qualities of farm life they valued and to
which they related these societal norms.
The management of conflicts between societal norms and
what farmers define as quality of life sometimes has radical
consequences. Some of the farmers interviewed chose to quit (old
age is a contributing factor), while others converted from dairy
production to beef production. Still other farmers expanded
their production in order to improve profitability and create less
constrained economic circumstances for private consumption.
The study clearly illustrated that farmers’ definitions of life
quality and social sustainability are related to public images of
farming and the recognition they receive from family, colleagues,
the local community, and society at large.
Farmers’ Perception of Societal Recognition
The interviews showed that farmers see themselves as margin-
alized by society. They perceive that they lack control over their
own future and that they are dependent on the goodwill of
politicians and decision-makers, often far away (i.e. the
European Commission in Brussels). Preconditions for farming
are created by an abstract context, without knowledge about or
a relation to the place where farmers live their daily lives.
Regardless of these views, the reasons farmers gave for
continuing to farm included enjoying their autonomy, having
a deep interest in what they do (animals, crops, technology,
etc.), and feeling obliged to steward what they have inherited
from their parents, and which they want to preserve for the next
generation. Farmers thus have a long-term perspective,
grounded in a need for continuity and a sense of self-in-place.
Therefore, when external pressure increases on farms, it is not
only the viability that is threatened, but also the self-identity as
a farmer (the ‘‘who am I’’). The perceived lack of societal
recognition affects the personal identity, and thus both the self-
respect and self-esteem.
Our studies show that from the farmers’ perspective:
– Recognition is valued as positive—it motivates farmers to
keep up what they perceive as good work.
– External pressures (i.e. the specific administrative and
economic instruments used by society) are perceived to be
the real expression of recognition from society. Media and
other views are added to this, but it is what is actually
decided and implemented that is counted as important.
– Recognition, or the lack of recognition, from one actor
might be very important, while it might be irrelevant to
another actor. Thus the importance of recognition is
connected to the unique relationship between two actors.
– It is especially important to be recognized by significant
others (i.e. those who, to a larger extent, build up the
individual farmer’s life-world), and such recognition often
motivates the farmer to continue farming.
– Interaction with consumers or citizens is perceived as some-
thing positive, but today it is believed to be an interesting
potential rather than an existing foundation for stronger self-
respect and self-confidence within the farming community.
One specific area, elaborated in five case studies in 1997–
1999, is the development of environmental management and
quality assurance systems in Swedish agriculture. The compo-
nents in quality and environmental management systems
stimulate good management practice, and enhance the de-
velopment of more environmentally friendly agriculture. The
use of quality and environmental management systems supports
the farm manager’s work by fulfilling different conditions and
requirements, from his most personal aspirations to environ-
mental legislation. Systems such as these have been imple-
379

mented in most production systems in Swedish agriculture
today. Nonetheless, farmers seldom perceive that they get credit
for the measures they take. Consumers continue buying
imported food products, the legislative restrictions become
stronger, and the viability of many farms is decreasing, many
farmers argue. To farmers, the gap between society’s demand
for high environmental and quality standards and the actual
political and consumer actions taken is an expression of
society’s lack of recognition. Recognition is expressed only
rhetorically. Consequently, farmers perceive that they get their
basic support from family, colleagues, and close neighbors. The
relative importance of these relationships is thus growing, so
a parallel process of deterioration of the life-world of farmers
(such as loneliness in peripheral areas) leaves them very exposed
from a social point of view.
Simultaneously, and partly as a response, farmers have
started to interact directly with consumers through new
entrepreneurial activities. They argue that people who know
more about what farmers are striving for and doing, and the
reason for this, and with whom they have a personal relation-
ship, are less negative than others. Such consumers recognize
farmers’ skills and efforts as well as the changes made in
production. These networks and emerging recognition perhaps
also represent a growing potential from a social point of view,
a potential that might counteract some of the problems of
unsustainable social development in the Swedish farming
community. New venues might contribute toward an improved
social situation, as well as toward managing the environment in
a more sustainable way.
The Potential of Collaborative Processes
Due to factors such as the deteriorating social situation on
farms, Ljung (8) argues that an urgent need exists to develop
venues for collaborative learning—meeting places where farm-
ers are able to collaborate with their colleagues, rural citizens,
and other stakeholders within the agri-food system. Ljung
proposes using collaborative learning as a model for managing
environmental problems in Swedish agriculture. Most studies of
collaboration are made for similar purposes (i.e. managing
a physical or administrative problem such as an agri-environ-
mental issue), or getting better financial conditions. Our
hypothesis was that the effects that collaboration might have
on social conditions, such as network-building, positive
380 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
Figure 3. How norms of society and qualities
of farm life contribute to changes at farm level.
feedback, and better relationships with colleagues, are equally
important from the perspective of sustainable development.
However, it is important to remember that collaboration is
nothing new—it has a long history and tradition within the
farming community.
Based on experiences obtained from traditional forms of
social networking and nonformal learning among Swedish
farmers [i.e. the study circle tradition, in combination with new
insights from shared and social learning initiatives around the
world (13, 18, 24, 25, 33–38)], several collaborative learning and
decision-making processes were initiated within the FOOD 21
research program (8, 39). The aim was twofold: to improve the
management of an environmental dilemma and to create strong
social relationships between actors involved in a complex
situation. In these processes, farmers were the key actors,
regardless the composition of the groups.
We found the following [grounded primarily in the results
reported by Ljung (8)]:
– Building on self-directed and shared learning activities is
familiar to farmers, and fits well with the experiences
obtained within existing study circles, so using such a context
increases the implementation rate of new participatory
methods.
– Understanding the importance of interdependence between
actors in the agri-food system creates momentum for action
and increased social and personal responsibility. Further-
more, it enables a collective identity to emerge within the
group.
– Farmers highly value meeting other actors and hearing their
views on their own production and products, and are
prepared to fulfill the demands of other stakeholders. They
are interested in knowing the perspective of others, in order
to reflect on their own situation and world view.
– If facilitated successfully, collaborative learning groups
enable each individual to have voice (to have a say), standing
(to be respected for what you say), and influence over the
outcomes. This becomes a concrete expression of solidarity
between participants, and a strong foundation for self-
respect and self-esteem for the farmer.
– The strength of a collaborative process comes from its
combination of reflection and action. Trust between actors is
reinforced by the experience that one takes practical
responsibility for one’s verbal commitments.
Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005
 Collaboration might potentially help the actors improve
a fuzzy environmental situation and lead to individual self-
realization, an individual process that has social and relational
origins. Being recognized by others in a collaborative process
strengthens the identity of participants—both as a person and
as a group. Basic social needs among farmers might therefore be
partly met in such activities (although finding a life-companion
more seldom happens in such organized venues).
Main Findings
To summarize our findings, the interviews and participant
observations showed that Swedish farmers perceive their way of
life as unsatisfactory in terms of working hours and financial
position, but also in terms of social conditions (8, 11, 40). Some
conclusions concerning the social conditions are as follows:
– Farmers perceive an impoverished social situation with few
contacts with other farmers and with the consumers of their
produce. Decreasing interaction with other farmers derives
from long working hours, many farmers living alone on the
farm (without a family), and farms shutting down, leaving
only a few large farms in the countryside. Lack of contact
with consumers derives from the dominance of large-scale
retailers and to some extent from ongoing specialization at
the farm level.
– Farmers sense that they have too little influence on decisions
that affect their farm business. Farmers also sense that they are
in an exposed position regarding authorities and consumers.
They feel controlled and under suspicion from authorities who
handle regulations and subsidies, as well as powerless and
undesired by consumers who, via the news media, complain
about farmers not caring for their livestock or polluting the
environment. Farmers today perceive a great distance exists
between them and policymakers and consumers.
– Farmers believe that new initiatives such as collaboration
regarding local agri-food systems might be one way to in-
crease society’s recognition of farmers and their products.
However, this places a high demand on the quality of collab-
orative processes. A physical meeting alone is not sufficient;
the interaction taking place must be characterized by some
specific qualities, preconditions, and enabling structures.
Altogether, these deficiencies contribute to a perceived
unsatisfactory quality of life and make many farmers retire
from farming or leave the countryside. Simultaneously, our
findings support the hypothesis that initiating collaborative
processes might be one way to manage some of these
deficiencies and to improve the social sustainability in the
Swedish agri-food system. Motivating farmers to stay in
farming is a most important measure if society takes ecological
and cultural objectives seriously. It is necessary to define
sustainable agriculture as a social-ecological system and to act
accordingly.
tion are unsatisfactory, they must be improved separately on
each particular level. Being recognized as an individual, as an
equal member of society, and as a member of a particular group
or as someone with particular skills is the foundation of human
existence. The themes from the interview results are illustrated
below to clarify the impact on the farmer (Fig. 4).
Collaborative learning among farmers, between farmers and
consumers, and within local agri-food systems can provide
conditions for increased contact between consumers and
farming colleagues. It can also, to a certain extent, reduce
loneliness. In the process of collaboration, it is also possible to
influence political decisions and improve unfair treatment of
farmers in comparison to other people. Even more important is
the effect on the feeling of being treated unjustly. Collaborative
learning can help a farmer improve the image of farming and
also discover the consumers’ appreciation of the farmer’s work.
Collaborative learning is a process in which the collaborating
actors learn about each other, themselves, the actual issues
(such as local food production and consumption), and the
procedure of collaboration itself. In this learning process,
people develop new images of the other actors that become the
new foundation for appropriate recognition. For instance,
consumers recognize farmers and, therefore, have the satisfac-
tion of recognizing the producers of the food they consume.
Consequences for Policy and Action
The results of this discussion can be summarized in two basic
conclusions, which might form the basis for action:
i) The farmer perceives both the public image of farming
activity and the politics implemented as negative. This
perception tells the farmer that the general public of Sweden
does not appreciate him and what he produces. This is not
necessarily an accurate interpretation of the public opinion, but
it is what the farmer perceives through the media. Working on
public education, partly through the media, is probably
important in the long run.
ii) Collaboration that involves farmers and consumers, such as
local agri-food systems, provides an opportunity for improved
contacts between participants and gives them an opportunity to
discover each other’s perspective and to develop a better
understanding and shared identity. It is about raising the
knowledge level and showing each other one’s doubts,
appreciations, or values. Collaborative learning is necessary if
we are to create sustainable agri-food systems.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Social Relations and Recognition

The case studies show that the experience of recognition is
important for motivation. Honneth (19) even suggests that it is
crucial to survival. Some farmers lack recognition on all three
levels. Loneliness is one level; other levels are equal rights and
respect for agricultural production and their way of life. A farmer
may be very lonely and lack recognition from family or friends
(love/care), may feel unjustly treated in relation to his equal
rights as a member of society (moral respect), and he may not
receive appreciation for his work or products from consumers Figure 4. Nonrecognition from different actors in society has
and society (solidarity/loyalty). If these three levels of recogni- a negative impact on the farmer’s social situation.

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 381
http://www.ambio.kva.se
 Farmers lack contact with consumers and citizens. Much
could be gained by establishing closer connections between
citizens and farmers, especially on a local level. In the notion of
recognition lies also the duty to show appreciation, respect, and
care for others. This duty, if carried through, gives satisfaction
to those showing it (citizens, consumers, and society) and
renders recognition to those receiving it (in this case the
farmers).
We believe that agriculture needs different processes of
collaborative learning to manage the problems of sense of lack
of respect and nonrecognition at different levels. Collaboration
is needed among farmers and between farmers and other actors.
Collaboration between businesses can produce food on a local
level, but can also act on a larger scale, together, when it comes
to buying supplies, delivering products, and coping during times
of heavy workload. Hence collaboration provides measures for
strengthening the local economy and keeping control of
resources within the region in order to create sound rural
development. This is especially useful in regions not suitable for
large-scale agriculture.
It is crucial to appreciate that social issues are equally
important to sustainable development when it comes to
decisions at the farm level, which is why established institutions
such as advisory services ought to focus more on these
dimensions in the future. Authorities, advisory organizations,
and other important actors should be made aware of their
twofold roles: they have the task of supporting farmers’
learning, but they can also take responsibility for creating
arenas for collaboration. This means putting the pedagogic
dimension more in focus. Many actors need to cooperate in
order to change today’s development, but we would argue that
advisors can play an especially important role by recognizing
farmers as qualified professionals with unique skills in these new
arenas for dialogue, and by developing their own pedagogic and
facilitative skills. Focusing on the advisors, and not solely the
farmers, might be an important mission for future action-
oriented research.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Milbrath, L. 1989. Envisioning a Sustainable Society. Learning Our Way Out. State
University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
2. Bell, M.M. 1998. An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. Pine Forge Press, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
3. Wondolleck, J. and Yaffee, S. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from
Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, DC.
4. Moote, M., McClaran, M. and Chickering, D. 1997. Theory in practice: applying
participatory democracy theory to public land planning. Environ. Manage. 21, 877–889.
5. Warburton, H. and Martin, A. 1999. Local people’s knowledge in natural resources
research. In: Socio-Economic Methodologies Best Practice Guidelines. Natural Resource
Institute, University of Greenwich, London.
6. Lee, K. 1993. Compass and Gyroscope: Integrating Science and Politics for the
Environment. Island Press, Washington, DC.
7. Irwin, A. 2001. Sociology and the Environment. Polity Press, Cambridge.
8. Ljung, M. 2001. Collaborative Learning for Sustainable Development of Agri-Food
Systems. Doctoral thesis, Agraria 308, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
9. Dryzek, J. 1997. The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
10. Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke, C. (eds.). 2002. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems.
Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
11. Nordström Källström, H. 2002. Att vara lantbrukare eller inte: En studie av
förutsättningar för livskraftigt lantbruk i tre nedläggningsdrabbade områden i Sverige.
Jordbruksverkets rapport nr 10-2002. SJV, Jönköping, Sweden.
12. Max-Neef, M., Elizalde, A., Hopenhayn, M., Herrera, F., Jataba, J. and Weinstein, L.
1989. Human scale development: An option for the future. Development Dialogue 1, pp. 5-
81. Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Uppsala.
13. Leeuwis, C. and Pyburn, R. (eds.). 2002. Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs. Social Learning in
Rural Resource Management. Koninklijke van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands.
14. Kolb, D. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
15. Ljung, M. and Sonnvik, P. 2005. Miljöarbete och Arbetsmotivation i Lantbruket—en
Studie av Erkännandets Psykosociala Effekter. Final report for the SLO project. SLU,
Uppsala, Sweden.
16. Cantrill, J. and Senecah, S. 2001. Using the ‘sense of self-in-place’ construct in the
context of environmental policy-making and landscape planning. Environ. Sci. Policy 4,
185–203.
17. Senecah, S. 2001. The Trinity of Voice, Legitimacy, and Influence: The Role of Practical
Theory in Evaluating and Planning for the Effectiveness of Environmental Participatory
Processes. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial Conference on Communication and
Environment, 27-31 July 2001 at University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
18. Daniels, S. and Walker, G. 2001. Working through Environmental Conflicts: The
Collaborative Learning Approach. Praeger, Westport, CT.
382 Ó Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005
http://www.ambio.kva.se
19. Honneth, A. 2000. Erkännande. Praktisk-Filosofiska Studier. Daidalos, Göteborg,
Sweden.
20. Taylor, C. (ed.). 1999. Det Mångkulturella Samhället och Erkännandets Politik. Daidalos,
Göteborg, Sweden.
21. Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society—From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
22. Heidegren, C.-G. 2002. Antropologi, Samhällsteori och Politik. Radikalkonservatism och
Kritisk Teori. Gehlen – Schelsky – Habermas – Honneth – Joas. Daidalos, Göteborg,
Sweden.
23. Meppem, T. and Gill, R. 1998. Planning for sustainability as a learning concept. Ecol.
Econ. 26, 121–137.
24. Cerf, M., Gibbon, D., Hubert, B., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., Paine, M., Proost, J. and Röling,
N. (eds.). 2000. Cow up a Tree: Knowing and Learning for Change in Agriculture. Case
Studies from Industrialised Countries. INRA, Versailles, France.
25. Leeuwis, C. (ed.). 1999. Integral Design: Innovation in Agriculture and Resource
Management. Bakhuys Publ., Mansholt Studies 15, Leiden, The Netherlands.
26. Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco, CA.
27. Eksvärd, K. 2003. Tillsammans kan vi Lära och Förändra: Deltagardriven Forskning för
Svenskt Lantbruk. Centrum för uthålligt lantbruk, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
28. SLU. 2000. Lokal Livsmedelsförsörjning och Regional Mat. Fakta och Råd för Fortsatt
Utveckling. SLU Kontakt 10. SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
29. Blad, F. 2003. Ekonomisk Analys av Driftsamverkan mellan Växtodlingsföretag. Master’s
thesis no. 45, Department of Economics, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
30. Samuelsson, J. 2003. Samverkan mellan Mjölk—och Spannmålsproducenter—vilka
Ekonomiska Incitament Föreligger? Master’s thesis no 48,. Department of Economics,
SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
31. Skargren, P. 2003. Riskattityder och Förhandlingsstyrka i Optimala Mellangårdsavtal.
Master’s thesis no 34, Department of Economics, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
32. Yin, R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, London.
33. Assouline, G. and Just, F. 2000. Making Agriculture Sustainable (MAS): The Role of
Farmers’ Networking and Institutional Strategies. Final report of the European research
project ENV4-97-0443 within the Environment and Climate Programme, DG XII.
34. Doppler, W. and Koutsouris, A. (eds.). 2000. Rural and Farming Systems Analyses:
Environmental Perspectives. Proceeding of the 3rd European Symposium of the
Association of Farming Systems Research and Extension, 25–27 March 2000.
Weikersheim Margraf Verlag, Hohenheim, Germany.
35. King, C. 2000. Systemic Processes for Facilitating Social Learning: Challenging the
Legacy. Doctoral thesis, Agraria 233, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
36. Paine, M. and Tarbotton, I. 1998. The Study Group Process: A Group Learning Approach
to the Alignment of Production and Resource Management Goals. AgResearch, Ruakura,
New Zealand.
37. Proost, M.D.C. and Vogelzang, T. 1996. The Role of Farmers’ Study Groups in the
Acceptance and Implementation of Sustainable Agriculture. Report No 3 from the EU
SEER-project ‘Incentives and obstacles to the implementation of more sustainable methods
in agriculture in Denmark, the Netherlands and Spain’. Landbouw Universiteit
Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
38. Röling, N. and Wagemakers, A.M. (eds.). 1998. Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture:
Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
39. Westberg, L. 2003. Aktörssamverkan i livsmedelskedjan. Det handlar om att ge och ta.
Fakta Jordbruk 7-2003. SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
40. Nordström Källström, H. 2002. How Changes in Farmers’ Views of Quality of Life bring
about Structural Changes: The Case of Farming in Three Marginal Areas of Sweden. In:
Cristovão, A. and Zorini, L.O. (eds.). Proceedings of the 5th IFSA European
Symposium Farming and Rural Systems Research and Extension: Local Identities and
Globalisation, 8–11 April 2002, at Agenzia Regionale per l’Innovazione e lo Sviluppo in
Agricultura Regione Toscana, Florence, Italy.
41. Acknowledgments: The research presented in this article was made possible with the
financial support of Mistra, and its research program, Food 21. Additional funding was
provided by the SLO fund, KSLA, supporting research on farmers’ working conditions.
Magnus Ljung is an extension officer, researcher, and lecturer
affiliated with the Department of Landscape Planning Ultuna,
and with the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
(SLU). His research involves agricultural extension, environ-
mental communication, and processes of collaborative learn-
ing for sustainable development. His address: SLU, External
Relations, P.O. Box 234, SE-532 23 Skara, Sweden.
magnus.ljung@omv.slu.se
Helena Nordström Källström is a PhD student at the De-
partment of Landscape Planning Ultuna at the Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). Her research
focuses on the social dimension of sustainable development
of Swedish agriculture, and the role that locally produced food
or increased diversity in production can play. Her address:
Department of Landscape Planning Ultuna, SLU, P.O. Box
7012, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
helena.nordstrom@lpul.slu.se
Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4–5, June 2005