Cited by 91Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentOrganic Food and AgriculturePlant and soil sciences

Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology

Open access
Montenegro de Wit, Maywa, Iles, Alastair·2016·Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

Abstract

Legitimacy is at the heart of knowledge politics surrounding agriculture and food. When people accept industrial food practices as credible and authoritative, they are consenting to their use and existence. With their thick legitimacy, industrial food systems paralyze the growth of alternative agricultures, including agroecology. Questions of how alternative agricultures can attain their own thick legitimacy in order to compete with, and displace, that of industrial food have not yet attracted much scrutiny. We show that both agroecological and scientific legitimacy grow out of a web of legitimation processes in the scientific, policy, political, legal, practice, and civic arenas. Crucially, legitimation often comes through meeting what we call ‘credibility tests’. Agroecologists can learn to navigate these co-constituted, multiple bases of legitimacy by paying attention to how credibility tests are currently being set in each arena, and beginning to recalibrate these tests to open more room for agroecology. Using a schematic of three non-exclusive pathways, we explore some possible practical interventions that agroecologists and other advocates of alternative agricultures could take. These pathways include: leveraging, while also reshaping, the existing standards and practices of science; extending influence into policy, legal, practical, and civic arenas; and centering attention on the ethical legitimacy of food systems. We conclude that agroecologists can benefit from cons…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.12952/journal.elementa.000115

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Montenegro de Wit, M., & Iles, A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management U.C. Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
Venue
Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene
Published
2016-01-01
Volume
4
ISSN
2325-1026 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2503141107
Cited by
91
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 2
FWCI
27.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Elementa Science of the Anthropocene (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant and soil sciences
Keywords
agroecology, legitimacy, industrial food system, alternative agriculture, politics of knowledge, legitimation processes, science education standards, food policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review