Toward thick legitimacy: Creating a web of legitimacy for agroecology
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Policy makers, donors, and scientists generally ask for an objective assessment of the relevance of agroecology.
“Policy makers, donors, and scientists generally ask for an objective assessment of the relevance of agroecology (Montenegro de Wit and Iles 2016).”
From Methodological challenges in assessing the viability of agroecological practices: lessons from a multi-case study in Africa (2025) · cites this paper as Montenegro de Wit and Iles 2016
Most farmers do not define themselves as agroecological practitioners.
“As shown in other studies, most farmers do not define themselves as agroecological practitioners (Montenegro de Wit and Iles 2016).”
From Methodological challenges in assessing the viability of agroecological practices: lessons from a multi-case study in Africa (2025) · cites this paper as Montenegro de Wit and Iles 2016
We need to change perceptions of what is important for whom, giving 'thick legitimacy' to integrated system assessment.
“Hence, we also need to change perceptions of what is important for whom, giving 'thick legitimacy' to integrated system assessment (Montenegro de Wit and Iles 2016).”
From Methodological challenges in assessing the viability of agroecological practices: lessons from a multi-case study in Africa (2025) · cites this paper as Montenegro de Wit and Iles 2016
Cites
Altieri, M. A., & Toledo, V. M. (2011) · Journal of Peasant Studies · doi:10.1080/03066150.2011.582947 · Cited by 1,279 · see citing works
Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science
Jasanoff, S. (2003) · Minerva · doi:10.1023/a:1025557512320 · Cited by 1,004 · see citing works
Jing, X., Sanders, N. J., Shi, Y., Chu, H., Classen, A. T., Zhao, K., Chen, L., Shi, Y., Jiang, Y., & He, J.-S. (2015) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms9159 · Cited by 895 · see citing works
Agroecology as a Transdisciplinary, Participatory, and Action-Oriented Approach
Méndez, V. E., Bacon, C. M., & Cohen, R. (2013) · Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.1080/10440046.2012.736926 · Cited by 438 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Institutionalizing Agroecology in France: Social Circulation Changes the Meaning of an Idea
Bellon, S., & Ollivier, G. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10051380 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Pathways to agroecological management through mediated markets in Santa Catarina, Brazil
Guerra, J., Blesh, J., Schmitt Filho, A. L., & Wittman, H. (2017) · Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene · doi:10.1525/elementa.248 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Harris, J., Anderson, M., Clément, C., & Nisbett, N. (2019) · IDS Bulletin · doi:10.19088/1968-2019.112 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Andrieu, N., Dedieu, B., Girard, P., Scopel, E., Magaju, C., Dembele, C., Mekuria, W., & Coe, R. (2025) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-025-01010-9 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- 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)
- ORCID
- Iles, Alastair
- Venue
- Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene
- Publisher
- University of California Press
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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