Recasting alternative agriculture as a management model-The value of adept scaling

This paper identifies the significance of scale considerations as applied to agriculture resource management. Scaling is the act of defining the spatio-temporal level or levels of interest when attempting problem solving. A goal commonly proposed by the diverse interests working toward an alternative agriculture is sustainability. To date, advocates of sustainability have failed to scale meaningfully both their critique of conventional agriculture and the alternatives they represent. Because sustainability is inherently sensitive to changes in analytic context (i.e., is scale-relative), in the absence of explicit scaling, sustainability is unworkable as a measure of system performance. The importance of scale as applied to the concept of sustainability in hierarchical systems has been noted. However, the implications of this finding have not been confronted in the subsequent literature. Going beyond Lowrance et al., this paper describes the error that accompanies improperly scaled assessment of agricultural sustainability, and identifies two important considerations that emerge through explicit scaling: (1) the necessity of consistent and timely integration of local information into upper-level decision-making, and (2) the necessity of recognizing the scalar level of the downside of resource allocation trade-offs and addressing them accordingly. The first of these considerations suggests the need for agricultural systems that are resilient to collapse from unpredictable and potentially fundamental disturbance. Through incorporation of local information, it is possible to maintain coherent strategies aimed at upper-level objectives (e.g., biodiversity conservation) while supporting the integrity of lower-level sub-systems (e.g., community economic vitality). The second consideration that arises from explicit scaling indicates the value of developing systems which are buffered against political paralysis caused by negative impacts of resource allocation decisions. Victims, or losers, result from allocation and reallocation functions. These individuals and/or institutions must be addressed. Recent enthusiasm regarding win-win scenarios in many cases is buoyed by scaling error. Explicit recognition of the implications of necessary trade-offs, both positive and negative, promotes the development of mechanisms to support losers. Failure to confront the fact that losers are consistently produced exaggerates the negative impact they have on system performance. The authors define holistic management as identifying, assimilating, and acting on information in a manner consonant with the contextual spatio-temporal scale of the problem at hand. The fundamental challenge facing agriculture is integration of multiple considerations across levels in the system. Explicitly scaled analysis and action in a holistic setting is proposed as a means by which alternative agriculture can respond to this challenge.