Advertisement

For Systemic Approaches to Permaculture: Results and Opportunities for Thinking About Sustainable Development

  • Gaëtan Bourmaud
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 825)

Abstract

Permaculture seeks to organise and facilitate appropriate interactions between ecosystem components. In the wake of previous research on a different work situation, we aimed to identify the resource systems that people use in context. Drawing on the analysis of one permaculture farmer’s activity, we discuss his/her practices from a twofold systemic angle, in terms of (1) the systemic principles of permaculture: to each plant’s primary or intrinsic functions, must be added those of its contribution to the overall farming system, positive or otherwise; crop beds themselves forming systems, just as much as sub-systems in the growing zone as a whole, etc.; (2) resource systems proper to the permaculture farmer: material (diverse tools) and immaterial (knowledge) artefacts; criteria and values (workload generated by a cultivation sequence, plans to sell to the general public, or induced consumption of water, etc.); etc. This study could also form the basis for broader research that goes beyond permaculture. It aims to suggest methods of analysing criteria and value systems that relate to sustainable development, guiding the way people mobilise resources.

Keywords

Sustainable development Systemic approach Permaculture 

References

  1. 1.
    Mollison B (2002) Introduction to permaculture. Tagari Publications, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holmgren D (2002) Permaculture: principles and pathways beyond sustainability. Holmgren Design Services, Hepburn, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mollison B, Holmgren D (1978) Permaculture one: a perennial agriculture for human settlements. Tagari Publications, TasmaniaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rabardel P, Bourmaud G (2003) From computer to instrument system: a developmental perspective. Interact Comput 15(5): 665–691Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bourmaud G (2006) Les systèmes d’instruments: méthodes d’analyse et perspectives de conception. Thèse de Doctorat d’Ergonomie, Université Paris 8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bourmaud G (2007) L’organisation systémique des instruments: méthodes d’analyse, propriétés et perspectives de conception ouvertes. In: Colloque de l’Association pour la Recherche Cognitive-ARCo 2007: Cognition-Complexité-Collectif, pp 61–76Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thatcher A, Yeow PHP (2016) A sustainable system of systems approach: a new HFE paradigm. Ergonomics 59(2):167–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Béguin P, Pueyo V (2011) Quelle place au travail des agriculteurs dans la fabrication d’une agriculture durable? Perspectives interdisciplinaires sur le travail et la santé (13–1)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cerf M (2016) Ergonomie et transition vers une agriculture plus durable. In: Actes du 51ème Congrès de la SELF. MarseilleGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Theys J (2010) Le développement durable: quelles articulations micro-macro? Une approche institutionnaliste. In: Theys J, Du C, Rauschmayer TF (eds) Le développement durable, la seconde étape. Éd. de l’Aube, pp 65–119Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Millenium Ecosystem Assessment https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2018
  12. 12.
    Ferguson RS, Lovell ST (2014) Permaculture for agroecology: design, movement, practice, and worldview. Rev Agron Sustain Develop 34(2):251–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morel K (2016) Viabilité des microfermes maraîchères biologiques. Une étude inductive combinant méthodes qualitatives et modélisation. Thèse de Doctorat de Sciences agronomiques, Université Paris SaclayGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Costanza R, d’Arge R, De Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon, B, Raskin RG et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630): 253–260Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rabardel P (1995) Les hommes et les technologies. Approche cognitive des instruments contemporains. Paris, Armand ColinGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bourmaud G (2014) From use analysis to the design of artifacts: The development of instruments. In: Falzon P (éd) Constructive ergonomics, pp 157–170. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Créno L, Cahour B (2015) Triangulation des méthodes pour une analyse écologique de l’expérience vécue de gestion des emails chez des cadres surchargés. Psychologie Française 2(60):129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Paris 8, Paragraphe (EA 349)Saint-DenisFrance
  2. 2.AXErgonomieGrisy-les-PlâtresFrance

Personalised recommendations