GE5217 Research Proposal Report

November Tan Peng Ting

HT070667L

FEEDING SINGAPORE CONSUMERS:

Environmental Implications of Food Import Choices and Policies

Aims
This research aims to examine the relationship between food consumption in Singapore
and production in Indonesia and Malaysia, specifically with regards to fresh vegetables.
In particular, it aims to assess the impacts, both positive and negative, of food trade,
economy and consumption on agricultural practices and its environmental implications.

Objectives
With these aims in mind, this research has the following objectives:

1. To provide a case study of Singapore and the environmental implications of its

food import on the exporting producing countries regionally, specifically
Malaysia and Indonesia, where Singapore’s consumption has an actual influence
on the countries’ vegetable production industry.

2. Assess the comparative sustainability performance of different types of

agricultural practices within 1) market-regulated and 2) state-regulated industry
based on:
a. Water footprint,
b. Pesticide risk,
c. Fertilizer use, and
d. Agro-landscape management.

3. Using status quo as a benchmark, assess the potential environmental impact of

continued practice of each farming method in the next decade.

4. Derive an assessment matrix of environmental performance of different vegetable

crops produced by different production source and method using the above
indicators.

5. Assess the comparative influence of consumer power versus state intervention on

encouraging sustainable agricultural practices in producing countries.

6. Based on the comparative study of market-regulated or state-regulated production

sources, evaluate the dynamics and effectiveness of improving environmental
performance through changing consumption.

7. Examine the importance of distinguishing production source and method of

vegetable crops based on environmental implications, thus answering the
question, “Does it make a difference where the food comes form?”
Significance
According to the Agri-Veterinary Authority (AVA), Singapore imports 95% of its
vegetable consumption. This exceedingly high food dependency makes Singapore
vulnerable to not only resource politics but also the environmental stability of producing
countries. At the same time, Singapore has a high per capita income and strong
purchasing power, added with the high consumption needs of key industries such as
tourism and the airline and maritime catering services. This results in a significant
demand on the resources of the producing hinterland beyond Singapore’s national
boundaries. Such transboundary impacts needs to be examined as increasing free trade
agreements and global trade of agricultural products is increasing the trend for food
production beyond one’s national boundaries. Previously urban-rural agricultural issues
within a country’s national boundaries have now become a dialogue between global
urban cities and agrarian regions. Singapore being a city-state provides the perfect case
study from both the viewpoint of a highly urbanized city and a nation-state.

Figure 1: Relationship between food import and environmental quality

At the same time, due to the significant contribution of Singapore’s consumption to

specific producing countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, we would be able to
provide a substantiated study of the impact of consumption on agriculture and the
environment. In particular, Cameron Highlands in Malaysia is the top exporter of
highlands vegetables to Singapore who imports 48% of total vegetable consumption from
Malaysia. Any change in import demand would greatly affect the industry in producing
countries and thus industry actors would theoretically respond to demand changes. Thus
the hypothesis is that if there is increased demand for sustainably produced food in
Singapore, this could potentially improve the environmental quality in Malaysia (Figure
1). At the same time, Singapore also has a strong food processing industry, which then re-
export processed food to Malaysia and other countries. However, this study will only be
focusing on the fresh perishable vegetables for direct consumption in Singapore.

As part of Singapore’s food security policy, AVA seeks to diversify the food sources for
Singapore and in doing so, has invested SGD$20 million in the Riau Vegetable Project in
Pekanbaru, the capital of Riau province in Indonesia. This project seeks to introduce
sustainable farming methods while providing jobs for farmers in the area. At the same
time, when the major supermarket chains in Singapore sought alternative to Cameron
Highlands in Brastagi, Indonesia, the vegetable production industry in Malaysia was also
severely impacted. This shows that despite Indonesia being only the 3rd largest source of
vegetable supply, behind China, the Singapore consumption has a significant impact on
Indonesia’s production while a less significant one on China.
Through this comparison between the consumer-driven, market-regulated Malaysian
industry versus the regional policies-influenced Indonesian industry, we can better
understand the relationship between consumption and the environmental implications of
food production. Particularly, if changing consumption demand patterns will really
influence more sustainable practices in farmers or if regional state intervention and
policies are more effective. However, as income and purchasing powers increase,
consumers also demand for higher food safety standards (Southgate et al, 2007), which
may in turn also affect food regulation policies and effectively apply direct pressures on
farmers to adopt more sustainable practices. Thus through this in-depth understanding of
Singapore’s food system and regional food networks, an evaluation of strategies would
enable advocacy groups and government agencies to better address the sustainability of
Singapore’s food supply. In light of increasing impacts of global environmental change,
there is a growing need for greater consumer responsibility in ensuring the environmental
and food security of producing countries. The Johor flood in 2006 has illustrated the need
to not only address a diversification of food supply but also the need to safeguard the
environment of the food producing countries. There is also a greater need for awareness
and knowledge in addressing the alienation and subsequent ambivalence of urban
populations to their food sources.

Vegetables comprise the essential Asian diet and are consumed by all regardless of
religious and cultural taboos. There is also a strong push for vegetarianism as a reaction
to industrial meat production. However, a vegetarian diet is not viable if the vegetables
are not grown sustainably. Recent vegetable contamination scares in Malaysia has also
raised the attention of consumers to the high chemical use in vegetable production. At the
same time, the high use of water in farm irrigation brings up implication of the water
footprint of Singapore’s consumption, which has often overlooked. While the country
claims to be water sufficient and secure without importing drinking water from Malaysia
or Indonesia, we are importing virtual water through our consumption of food grown
mainly in these countries. Virtual water is defined as the volume of water required to
produce a commodity or service (Chapagain, 2006). As such, Singapore continues to tap
into the water supply of these countries as 70% of water use in each country is generally
dedicated to its agricultural industry. By examining the water footprint of key crops
exported to Singapore, we would get a clearer picture of the vulnerability of urban food
security in Singapore.

Research Questions
It is not the intention of this research to provide an in-depth understanding to each of
these research questions. However, as a collective whole, addressing these questions
would provide a holistic understanding of the regional food system for Singapore.

1. What are the crops and current farming methods practiced on the farms that
export to Singapore?

2. What are both the known and potential environmental impacts of current farming
practices in case study areas?
 3. What are both the positive and negative impacts Singapore’s import consumption
has on the environment of the case studies region?

4. How does existing environmental, political and cultural conditions influence

agricultural practices and in turn alter the environmental quality of the study
areas?

5. Would an increase in sustainably grown food result in a change in environmental

quality in producing countries?

6. Would changing consumption directly influence a change in agricultural

production practices?

7. Does stricter state regulations have more influence than changing demand for
more sustainably produced food in improving environmental performance of
farms?

8. What are the motivating factors for farmers when considering investing in long-
term sustainable practices?

9. Do Singapore consumers demand for more sustainably grown produce from

Malaysia and Indonesia?

10. Should it concern consumers where the food in Singapore comes from and how it
was produced?

11. What are the vegetable products that perform well in terms of environmental
sustainability?

12. How does encouraging sustainable agriculture contribute to long-term

environmental security in exporting regions and in turn addressing urban food
security vulnerability in Singapore?

13. How successful is Singapore’s investment in encouraging sustainable agricultural

practices in Indonesia?

14. Does the Riau Vegetable Project increase awareness in farmers in competing
exporting regions to the demand for sustainably produced vegetable products?

Literature Review
Food system studies crosses many disciplines and include literature from economics,
physical and human geography, agricultural studies, biological sciences, sociology as
well as rural studies and policy analysis. The whole spectrum is a result of the diverse
realms and disciplines which food systems encompasses and straddles (Figure 2).
 Figure 2: Components of a food system (Source: GECAFS)

In mainstream economic reviews of food systems such as Southgate et al (2007),

environment does feature in terms of environmental trade-offs and environmental
deterioration versus agricultural development. This is often associated with
intensification and extensification of conventional agricultural practices since the Green
Revolution. In terms of consumption, these are limited to examining economic behaviors
of demand and supply interactions with implicit references to environmental implications
but not in concrete terms. A large concern in food system studies is addressing the issue
of food security but this is often associated with trade and increased technological inputs
such as genetically modified seeds and often in a deterministic manner (Southgate et al,
2007; Chern et al; 2000).

However, at the same time, there is a fast rising camp of proponents for alternative food
systems (Maye et al, 2007; Wilk, 2006), which emphasize on the importance of
supporting local food systems instead of the global food system and trade. Issues
addressed involve concerns for nutrition and health, food safety, reconnecting with
consumers, fair trade and food localization for fairer distribution of food. They often
focused on strategies to create local food system from a business, political, sociological
or human perspective. However there is a lack of focus on improving the sustainability of
farming practices across borders using consumption and leverage of regional and global
trade.

Of course, there are also many studies done on the physical environment and the impact
of agriculture. There are studies of agriculture and soil erosion (Morgan, 2005) and
watershed implications such as sedimentation and runoff from agricultural land use
(Graaff, 1996). Likewise, Midmore et al (1996) did a study of the environmental impact
of vegetable production in Cameron Highlands. However, these studies address only the
environmental impacts of the land use activity and do nothing to address the consumption
aspect, which could potentially provide a solution. In contrast, literature like Stern et al
(1997) highlights the environmental significance of consumption but only suggest
possible research directions such as examining drivers and tracking energy flow. In fact
much of the physical quantification of environmental impacts are done in terms of energy
flow and carbon or greenhouse gases emission (Blanke and Burdick, 2005) especially
with the world’s attention on climate change right now.

Studying the impact of consumption on the environment is problematic as consumption is

a very general term and includes a wide variety of products. In Jorgenson (2003), while
the research focuses on consumption and environmental degradation, it looks at per
capita consumption across the nation. Such analyses are common in ecological footprint
studies, made famous from Wackernagel and Rees work in 1996. While they are useful in
quantifying impact of consumption on the environment, it is a generalized indicator and
does not provide specific details in finding solutions.

Naturally in recent years, there has been increasing research done on the environmental
impacts of agriculture but many of which focused on the industrialized production of
meat (Morris and Kirwan, 2007; Goodland, 1997). There is also increasing attention on
the linking agriculture and conservation especially in agro-ecology studies (Bignal and
McCracken, 1993). Within Geography there is also more interest in food-environment
linkages and integrating perspectives (Morris, 2002). Especially of interest is the
quantification of environmental impact of different dietary choices (Reijnder and Soret,
2003).

Emerging concepts such as “foodshed” made popular by Kloppenburg et al. (1996) helps
to give a more holistic perspectives to the connection between food production and
consumption, similar to watershed management. Other concepts such as the water
footprint and virtual water trade were introduced by Hoekstra in 2002 and Tony Allan in
1993 respectively (Chapagain, 2006). These help to quantify the impact of agriculture
and consumption of agricultural products on the environment. In this case, specifically
water resources. It brings to attention the hidden environmental cost often overlooked in
economics and even by environmentalists, as it is often an invisible environmental impact
(Chapagain, 2006).

Despite these developments, Zimmerer (2007) calls for more locale-specific case-study
methodology in research on agriculture, resource use, livelihoods and conservation in the
face of globalization of food systems.

“This locale-specific scale is crucial to the spatial framing of the studies, for the
processes of globalization – agricultural and environmental, among others –
often ‘reflect local framing and practices contained within societies and scientific
networks … with important differences and insights at the local level’”
(Zimmerer, 2007: 10)
Bearing this in mind, a recent paper was published based on a case study of New York
State, USA by Peters et al (2007) that examines the amount of land resource needed for
particular diet and concluded that a mixed diet is better than vegetarianism pushed by
many environmental advocates. Such locale-specific case-studies help improve the
complexities and differentiation in food systems from varying cities, states, countries and
regions. Unfortunately, in the examination of alternative food systems, most are centered
on OECD and western countries. Even in developing countries, most are focused on the
Sub-Sahara region and the African continent. In Asia, much of the food research is based
on India, Japan and China. Literature on Southeast Asia is sorely lacking and needs to be
addressed. Research conducted in Singapore focuses narrowly on local farms or on food
security and trade while studies in Malaysia and Indonesia focuses on product marketing,
agricultural practices and environmental impacts.

As such, there is opportunity for furthering the scientific understanding of the food
system in Singapore and its regional Southeast Asian food network. Particularly focusing
on the relationship between urban food security and influencing environmental
conservation through changing food consumption patterns and “alternative” agricultural
practices. By integrating perspectives between food trade and economy together with
consumption and environmental impacts of agriculture, we will be able to present a case-
specific study that is current lacking within available literature.

Assumptions
This research assumes that vegetable production in the producing countries has a
significant impact on the environment in the study area above other industries and
contributing sources. It also assumes that the majority of farmers in the study area are
producing for Singapore’s consumption and thus Singapore has a significant impact on
the environment of the areas. It is also assumed that there are generalities between the
individuals farms surveyed within each type of agricultural practices such as the amount
of water use or types or pesticides and fertilizers use. Finally, it is assumed that all the
farms studied produce only fresh vegetable products for immediate human consumptions
and does not contribute to the processed food or animal feed industries.

Methodology
The methods adopted for this study spans methodologies commonly used in both human
and physical geography. In order to provide a full picture of the food system in Singapore
and its regional networks, the research will be divided into 2 sections – consumption and
production – and all its associated actors. The following list provides a clear illustration
of the actors involved.

Consumption Production
Consumers Farmers
Retailers Transportation Companies
Wholesalers & Distributors Agricultural Input (seeds, fertilizer, pesticide)
Industrial Procurement Government Agencies (Agriculture, River, Forest, Health)
Government Agencies Processing, Packaging and Waste Disposal
Consumption
In understanding the consumption, the following will be carried out:

1. Interview with consumers, particularly household decision makers in charge of

purchasing food produce.
2. A survey of minimum 100 respondents at supermarkets and wet markets of
varying demographic representations will be conducted. The survey will aim at
finding out consumer attitudes towards food safety, food production methods and
country of origin. The survey aims at finding out latest consumption trends and if
consumers believe they have powers to influence production methods. Finally, a
list of factors influence consumption choices is listed.
3. A survey of the different types of vegetables imported to Singapore from
Malaysia and Indonesia would be done through customs statistics, survey of retail
outlets as well as interviews with wholesalers, importers, distributors and
retailers.
4. Interviews with the vegetable importers, wholesalers and retailers on the list and
quantity of crops imported from Cameron Highlands, Brastagi and Pekanbaru in
particular. Calculate this quantity as a percentage of total from the country. Also
get a list of farms that export to Singapore.
5. Distinguish between the different farms that export to specific buyers in
Singapore from the farms that sell in the open wholesale market.
6. Interviews with the Agri-Veterinary Authority officials to understand the types of
checks and regulation in place to control food production practices both at the
customs and also in the country of origin.
7. Interviews with the Agri-Veterinary Authority officials in charge of the Riau
Vegetable Project to find out details of the collaboration, different capacity
building projects and motivations behind the project.
8. Establish the ownership and affiliation between producers, distributors and
retailers through interviews.

Figure 3: Indicators for determining environmental performance of agricultural practices

 Production
Field work in Indonesia and Malaysia meets different objectives – one of which is to
learn the impact of government interventions while the other examines the market forces
in influencing agricultural practices and subsequently the environment. Thus there will be
different methods and objectives in both places. However, the standardized method of
acquiring a basis of comparisons between the two countries is to determine the
environmental performance of the different agricultural practices. This is achieved
through examining the 4 indicators as recommended by OECD Environmental Indicators
for Agriculture (1999) as illustrated in Figure 3.

These indicator variables will be measured as follows:

1. Water Use
The virtual water content of crops is calculated using the methodology suggested by
Chapagain (2006) where the virtual water content of a crop c (m3/ton) is calculated as the
ratio of total volume of water used for crop production, Uc (m3), to the total volume of
crop produced, Yc (ton).

Uc
Vc =
Yc
Total volume of water used for crop production Uc is calculated as:

U c = Rc " Ac
!
where Rc is the crop water requirement (m3/ha) for the entire growth period of a crop c
and Ac is the total harvest area of crop c in the region studied.
!

Figure 4: Schematic Diagram of calculation of virtual water content of a crop

(Chapagain, 2006)
In addition to what is proposed by Chapagain (2006), this research will also consider the
water use during packaging and processing. This can be done through examining the
machinery requirements for water in machine manuals, added with total amount of time it
is operated each day. The amount of water used per ton of crop is calculated by dividing
this use of water by the amount of crops the machines process.

In the case of farming of aquatic vegetation such as watercress, water use is calculated by
the volume of ponds created to farm these vegetation, multiplied by the number of times
the water is changed or added by the amount of water pumped in each day, depending on
the farming practice. Calculations will be made for total amount of water use per harvest.

This information will be gained through field observation of farming practices, interviews
with farmers, and water use data from manuals.

2. Nutrient Use
This refers mainly to the type of fertilizers used to enrich the soil. Field observations and
interview with farmers regarding their farming practices related to fertilizer use will be
conducted. Commercial fertilizers will have nutrient composition available in product
description and websites as well as existing studies. Organic fertilizers will be analyzed
according to process in which the fertilizer was created as well as content. Potential
impact on environment is assessed together with frequency of irrigation and application
of fertilizer to the soil.

In the event of non-soil cultivation, where fertilizers is applied directly to the crop
through a sterile medium, the implication of nutrient use is the disposal of these sterile
medium after a period of use and contamination where it cannot be reused anymore. The
nutrient will be accumulated in the medium that will need to be reused or disposed.
Improper disposal near water sources will lead to leakage into water supply.

Existing abiotic conditions such as soil properties and topography will also be examined
so as to analyze the appropriateness of fertilizer use to stimulate growth. The frequency
of harvest per year and intensity of growth along with type of crops grown, practice of
crop rotation and other factors affecting nutrient content in soil will also be examined.
These will have implications for frequency and appropriateness of fertilizer use.

3. Pesticide Use
Again, through field observations and interviews with farmers, attain a list of insecticides
pesticides, fungicides and herbicides used in the farms studied. Correlate the list to
existing data and literature such as Kundstadter (2007) on each of the pesticides
regarding threshold of acceptable use, potential impacts, side effects to human health,
environmental health, health of applicators as well as consumers. In addition to type of
pesticides used, frequency of use as well as amount of pesticide use per application is
also recorded. Total pesticide use is then recorded per harvest.

This is then assessed according to the WHO pesticides standards and specifications for
pesticides used in public health under the WHO Pesticides Evaluation Scheme
(WHOPES). At the same time, the use of pesticides is correlated to the amount and
frequency of irrigation so as to examine the pesticide’s propensity to leach into
groundwater and other runoffs. The WIN-PST (Windows Pesticide Screening Tool), a
pesticide risk indicator will also be used. WIN-PST is a qualitative type of indicator that
ranks a pesticide’s potential to leach and runoff. These ranks are then combined with
pesticide toxicological information from humans and aquatic life to arrive at final hazard
potentials. The WIN-PST database is available free for download and maintained by the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
Services. However, its application may not be suitable to a Southeast Asian context.
While assuming that most farms will have similar types of pesticides use within a
classification of farming practice, however, if specific type is unavailable, other
generalities will have to be established such as average level of toxicity.

4. Farm Management
Beyond the more quantitative indicators as presented above, this section covers the more
qualitative assessment of the agricultural practices. These include:
1) waste management
2) landscape alterations
3) conservation investment
4) adherence with government regulations
5) certifications
6) energy and water sources
7) ownerships
8) transportation
9) post-harvest handling
10) health of surrounding environment

These will primarily be gathered through observation on site and interviews with the
farmers, owners and workers. In addition to the standard examination of agricultural
inputs such as water, pesticides and fertilizers, a large concern of agriculture is the
alteration to landscape done by the farmers. How these were done, and how regularly
they are maintained as well as any soil conservation methods adopted will be critical in
examining the sustainability of the farm. Waste management is especially important with
regards to the proper disposal of organic and inorganic waste. This could potentially
impact the water supply and result in externalities often overlooked in production costs.
Conservation investment would indicate a farmer’s motivation and initiatives in taking a
pro-active interest in ensuring the environmental health of the farms. Adherence with
government regulations is a basic benchmark for evaluating farmers as often the
regulation in practice is below what should be enforced and implemented. Likewise,
farms certified for good agricultural practices or as a certified organic farm would be
expected to score better in terms of environmental performance.

Beyond production, farms can only exist with effective marketing, post-harvest
processing, packaging and transporting of their products. All of these have a significant
impact on the environment. As such, it is important for the record the type of water and
energy sources used by the farm as well as the type of transportation used to access the
wholesale markets. A rapid assessment of the surrounding environment such as the
waterways and hill slopes for any obvious signs of degradation such as sedimentation;
improper waste; and landslides or gullies would point out obvious signs of poor farm
management. Finally, the ownership model of the farms as well as financial subsidies,
investors and funding sources would give an idea of linkages within the production and
consumption network.

Surveying method
As there are about 3000 farms in Cameron Highlands alone, a stratified thematic
surveying method will be employed. At least 5 farms satisfying each theme will be
chosen for survey to aid comparative studies. The data will then be extrapolated
accordingly.

The themes include:

* Organic Farms
* Conventional Farms
* Ferticulture (High-Tech) Farms
* Aquatic Vegetation Farming
* Seasonal Food Crops
* Niche Food Crops
* Exporting Producers
* Domestic Producers
* Farms certified with GAP (good agricultural practices)
* Farms funded by Singapore government
* Farms targeting different ethnic consumer markets
* Small farms which do not own their own transport
* Large farms which own other agricultural input companies

Size of farm is determined by total number of farms owned as well as investment in

agricultural input businesses and other infrastructure such as transport in addition to
physical size.

Data Representation
In order to meet the objectives of the research, the data collected will be presented in
several different ways.

1. In order to answer both the questions of environmental impacts of different

farming practices as well as whether an increase in sustainably grown food would
result in change in environment quality, the following is proposed. An assessment
of the sustainability performance of different type of farming methods using the
above indicators would be measured against the benchmark of current status quo.
Using a projection of possible positive (!) or negative (") impacts to the
environment in 10 years time, assuming continued practice without change, a
matrix can be derived from this assessment (Figure 5)
Farming Method Water Use Pesticide Use Nutrient Use Farm Management
Conventional " " " "
Figure 5: Sample matrix for environmental assessment of farming methods

2. The question of the importance of distinguishing between where different food

come from can be addressed by comparing the performance of specific vegetable
crops grown in different countries or under different methods of production. A
tick (#) will be given at each category to denote a perceived good performance in
the area. In addition to the above 4 indicators, subcategories under farm
management such as post-harvest processing and packaging practices and food
miles should be highlighted as individual categories for better consumer choices.
The evaluation will be substantiated with qualitative and quantitative results.
However, the final product should be a simple to understand matrix for easy
reference by consumers and other stakeholders. While environmental
performance is important, the productivity of each farming practice should also be
considered to give a fair assessment.

This matrix is illustrated in Figure 6:

Water Pesticide Nutrient Farm Food Post-

Product Productivity
Use Use Use Mgmt Miles Harvest
Tomatoes
(Conventional #
Farming; MY)
Tomatoes
(Organic # #
Farming; MY)
Tomatoes
(Ferticulture; # #
MY)
Tomatoes
(Conventional #
Farming; ID)
Tomatoes
(Organic # # #
Farming; ID)
Figure 6: Sample matrix of environmental performance of different vegetable products

3. Having placed an emphasis on the importance of case studies at the beginning of

this report, it is not surprising that part of the representation of data will be in the
qualitative description and analysis of specific examples.

4. An evaluation of the Riau Vegetable Project is also given in qualitative analysis.

The final evaluation of the comparative influence of consumers versus state
intervention is given in qualitative descriptive form as well.
Timeline
September 2007 Recce Field Site in Malaysia (Cameron Highlands)
December 2007 Submit Institutional Review Board Forms
January 2008 Begin research on consumption aspects in Singapore
March 2008 Recce Field Sites in Indonesia (Pekanbaru and Brastagi)
June 2008 Begin fieldwork research in Malaysia
August 2008 Begin fieldwork research in Indonesia
November 2008 Compile and analyze data
January 2009 Begin writing dissertation
May 2009 Complete first draft
June 2009 Submit final draft

References

Bignal E and McCracken D (1993) “Nature Conservation and Pastoral Farming in the
British Uplands” British Wildlife Issue 4 pp 367-376

Blanke MM and Burdick B (2005) “Food (miles) for Thought: Energy Balance for
Locally-grown versus Imported Apple Fruit” Environmental Science Pollution Research
12(3) pp. 125-127

Chapagain AK (2006) “Globalisation of Water: Opportunities and Threats of Virtual

Water Trade” Taylor & Francis: UK

Chern WS, Carter CA, Shei SY (2000) “Food Security in Asia” Edward Elgar: UK

Dauvergne P (1997) “Shadows in the Forest: Japan and the Politics of Timber in
Southeast Asia” MIT Press: USA

Goodland R (1997) “Environmental Sustainability in Agriculture: Diet Matters.”

Ecological Economics Issue 23 pp. 189-200

Graaff JD (1996) “The Price of Soil Erosion: An Economic Evaluation of Soil

Conservation and Watershed Development” Wageningen Agricultural University:
Netherlands

Jorgenson AK (2003) “Consumption and Environmental Degradation: A Cross-National

Analysis of the Ecological Footprint” Social Problems 50(3) pp.374-394

Kloppenburg JJ, Hendrickson J and Stevenson GW (1996) “Coming in to the Foodshed”

Agriculture and Human Values 13(3) pp. 33-42

Koc M, MacRae R, Mougeot LJA and Welsh J eds. (1999) “For Hunger-Proof Cities:
Sustainable Urban Food Systems. International Development Research Centre: Canada
Kunstadter P (2007) “Pesticides in Southeast Asia: Environmental, Biomedical and
Economic Uses and Effects” Silkworm: Thailand

Maye D, Holloway L and Kneafsey M eds (2007) “Alternative Food Geographies:

Representation and Practice” Elsevier: UK

Midmore DJ, Jansen HGP and Dumsday RG (1996) “Soil Erosion and Environmental
Impact of Vegetable Production in the Cameron Highlands, Malaysia” Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 60(1) pp. 29-46

Morgan RCP (2005) “Soil Erosion and Conservation” Blackwell Publishing

Morris C (2002) “Exploring Food-Environment Linkages within the Alternative Food

Economy: The Case of Food Labelling Initiatives” Paper presented at the Alternative
Food Economy: Myths, Realities, Potential Conference, Institute of British Geographers,
London 6 March 2002

Morris C and Kirwan J (2007) “Is Meat the New Militancy? Locating Vegetarianism
within the Alternative Food Economy” in Maye et al (eds.) Alternative Food
Geographies: Representation and Practice pp. 133-148

OECD (1999) “Environmental Indicators for Agriculture” Paris : Organisation for

Economic Co-operation and Development

Reijnders L and Soret S (2003) “Quantification of the Environmental Impact of Different

Dietary Protein Choices” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Issue 78 pp. 664S-
668

Southgate D, Graham DH and Tweeten L eds (2007) “The World Food Economy”
Blackwell Publishing: UK

Stern et al. eds. (1997) “Environmentally Significant Consumption: Research Directions”

Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Commission on Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National
Academy Press

Wackernagel M and Rees WE (1996) “Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human

Impact on the Earth” New Society Publishers: Canada

Wilk R ed (2006) “Fast Food / Slow Food: The Cultural Economy of the Global Food
System” Altamira Press: UK

Zimmerer KS (2007) “Agriculture, Livelihoods, and Globalization: The Analysis of New

Trajectories (and Avoidance of Just-So Stories) of Human-Environment Change and
Conservation” Agriculture and Human Values 24(9) pp. 9-16