TRANSLATING THE MULTI-ACTOR APPROACH TO RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE USING A WORKSHOP APPROACH FOCUSING ON SPECIES MIXTURES

Highlights

● Challenges in reconciling multi disciplinarity with clear expressions of single disciplinary concerns.

● Participant involvement was created bridging the gap between academia and practice.

● Collaboration potentials with actor networks to co-produce shared visions were recognized.

● A common language was developed concerning unfounded perceptions of barriers for change.

● The workshop was effective for producing a shared picture of research needs.

Abstract

The EIP-Agri multiactor approach was exemplified during a 3-day workshop with 63 project participants from the EU H2020 funded project “Redesigning European cropping systems based on species MIXtures”. The objective was to share firsthand experience of participatory research among researchers who were mostly not familiar with this approach. Workshop participants were divided into smaller multidisciplinary groups and given the opportunity to interact with representatives from eight actor positions in the value chain of the agrifood cooperative Terrena located in Western France. The four stages of the workshop were: (1) key actor interviews, (2) sharing proposed solutions for overcoming barriers, and (3) developing possible interdisciplinary concepts. Expressions of frustration were recorded serving both as a motivation for group members to become more aware of the scientific concerns and practices of their colleagues, as well as a recognition that some researchers have better skills integrating qualitative approaches than others. Nevertheless, the workshop format was an effective way to gain a common understanding of the pertinent issues that need to be addressed to meet overall multiactor-approach objectives. Working with the actor networks was identified and emphasized as a means to overcome existing barriers between academia and practice in order to coproduce a shared vision of the benefits of species mixture benefits.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

agroecology / codesign / intercropping / knowledge sharing / participatory methods

References

[1] AltieriM A, NichollsC I, HenaoA, LanaM A. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35( 3): 869– 890

[2] GliessmanS, TittonellP. Agroecology for food security and nutrition. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 2015, 39( 2): 131– 133

[3] WezelA, CasagrandeM, CeletteF, VianJ F, FerrerA, PeignéJ. Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2014, 34( 1): 1– 20

[4] AltieriM A. Linking ecologists and traditional farmers in the search for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2004, 2( 1): 35– 42

[5] Vandermeer J H. The Ecology of Intercropping. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989, 237

[6] YuY, StomphT J, MakowskiD, van der WerfW. Temporal niche differentiation increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 2015, 184 : 133– 144

[7] BedoussacL, JournetE P, Hauggaard-NielsenH, NaudinC, Corre-HellouG, JensenE S, PrieurL, JustesE. Ecological principles underlying the increase of productivity achieved by cereal-grain legume intercrops in organic farming. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35( 3): 911– 935

[8] BrookerR W, BennettA E, CongW F, DaniellT J, GeorgeT S, HallettP D, HawesC, IannettaP P M, JonesH G, KarleyA J, LiL, McKenzieB M, PakemanR J, PatersonE, SchöbC, ShenJ, SquireG, WatsonC A, ZhangC, ZhangF, ZhangJ, WhiteP J. Improving intercropping: a synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytologist, 2015, 206( 1): 107– 117

[9] RaseduzzamanM, JensenE S. Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production? A meta-analysis.. European Journal of Agronomy, 2017, 91 : 25– 33

[10] Hauggaard-NielsenH, JørnsgaardB, KinaneJ, JensenE S. Grain legume—cereal intercropping: the practical application of diversity, competition and facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2008, 23( 1): 3– 12

[11] ZhangF, LiL. Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant and Soil, 2003, 248( 1/2): 305– 312

[12] GovindarajM, VetriventhanM, SrinivasanM. Importance of genetic diversity assessment in crop plants and its recent advances: an overview of its analytical perspectives. Genetics Research International, 2015, 2015 : 431487

[13] JoaoA R B, LuzardoF, VandersonT X. An interdisciplinary framework to study farmers decisions on adoption of innovation: insights from Expected Utility Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 2015, 10( 29): 2814– 2825

[14] ToffoliniQ, JeuffroyM, MischlerP, PernelJ, ProstL. Farmers’ use of fundamental knowledge to re-design their cropping systems: situated contextualisation processes. Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 2017, 80( 1): 37– 47

[15] GeelsF W, SchotJ. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 2007, 36( 3): 399– 417

[16] GeertsemaW, RossingW A H, LandisD A, BianchiF J J A, vanRijn P C J, SchaminéeJ H J, TscharntkeT, vander Werf W. Actionable knowledge for ecological intensification of agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2016, 14( 4): 209– 216

[17] Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartman S, Scott P, Trow M. The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 1994, 192

[18] NielsenB S, NielsenK A, OlsénP. From silent to talkative participants: a discussion of technique as social construction. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 1996, 17( 3): 359– 386

[19] NowotnyH, ScottP, GibbonsM. Introduction: ‘Mode 2’ revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva, 2003, 41( 3): 179– 194

[20] Gibbons M. Mode 1, Mode 2, and Innovation. In: Carayannis E G, ed. Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer, 2013, 1285–1292

[21] CampbellL M. Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conservation Biology, 2005, 19( 2): 574– 577

[22] CvitanovicC, HowdenM, ColvinR M, NorströmA, MeadowA M, AddisonP F E. Maximising the benefits of participatory climate adaptation research by understanding and managing the associated challenges and risks. Environmental Science & Policy, 2019, 94 : 20– 31

[23] BruneelJ, D’EsteP, SalterA. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Research Policy, 2010, 39( 7): 858– 868

[24] KooleB. Trusting to learn and learning to trust. A framework for analyzing the interactions of trust and learning in arrangements dedicated to instigating social change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2020, 161 : 120260

[25] MéndezV E, CaswellM, GliessmanS R, CohenR. Integrating agroecology and participatory action research (PAR): lessons from Central America. Sustainability, 2017, 9( 5): 705

[26] AareA K, CooremanH, GarayoaC V, ArrietaE S, BellostasN, MarchandF, Hauggaard-NielsenH. Methodological reflections on monitoring interactive knowledge creation during farming demonstrations by means of surveys and observations. Sustainability, 2020, 12( 14): 5739

[27] Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic. Springer, 2012

[28] FolkeC. Resilience (Republished). Ecology and Society, 2016, 21( 4): 44

[29] Bouchet-Valat M. SnowballC: Snowball Stemmers based on the C Libstemmer UTF-8 Library (Version 0.5-1). 2014. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=SnowballC

[30] Feinerer I, Hornik K. Tm: Text Mining Package (Version 0.7-1). 2017. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tm

[31] PodestaG P, NatenzonC E, HidalgoC, Ruiz ToranzoF. Interdisciplinary production of knowledge with participation of stakeholders: a case study of a collaborative project on climate variability, human decisions and agricultural ecosystems in the Argentine Pampas. Environmental Science & Technology, 2013, 26 : 40– 48

[32] BridleH, VrielingA, CardilloM, ArayaY, HinojosaL. Preparing for an interdisciplinary future: a perspective from early-career researchers. Futures, 2013, 53 : 22– 32

[33] PriaulxN, WeinelM. Connective knowledge: what we need to know about other fields to ‘envision’ cross-disciplinary collaboration. European Journal of Futures Research, 2018, 6( 1): 21

[34] EamesM, EgmoseJ. Community foresight for urban sustainability: insights from the Citizens Science for Sustainability (SuScit) project. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2011, 78( 5): 769– 784

[35] KarlssonJ O, CarlssonG, LindbergM, SjunnestrandT, RöösE. Designing a future food vision for the Nordics through a participatory modeling approach. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2018, 38( 6): 59

[36] HussonO, TranQuoc H, BoulakiaS, ChabanneA, TivetF, BouzinacS, LienhardP, MichellonR, ChabierskiS, BoyerJ, EnjalricF, RakotondramananaN, MoussaF, JullienO, BalarabeB, RattanatrayJ C, CastellaH, CharpentierL. Co-designing innovative cropping systems that match biophysical and socio-economic diversity: the DATE approach to Conservation Agriculture in Madagascar, Lao PDR and Cambodia. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2016, 31( 5): 452– 470

[37] TilmanD, CassmanK G, MatsonP A, NaylorR, PolaskyS. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 2002, 418( 6898): 671– 677

[38] LalR. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 2004, 304( 5677): 1623– 1627

[39] MeynardJ M, JeuffroyM H, LeBail M, LefèvreA, MagriniM B, MichonC. Designing coupled innovations for the sustainability transition of agrifood systems. Agricultural Systems, 2017, 157 : 330– 339

[40] Mbow C, Rosenzweig C, Barioni L G, Benton T G, Herrero M, Krishnapillai M, Liwenga E, Pradhan P, Rivera-Ferre M G, Sapkota T, Tubiello F N, Xu Y. Food Security. In: Shukla P R, Skea J, Calvo Buendia E, Masson-Delmotte V, Pörtner H O, Roberts D C, Zhai P, Slade R, Connors S, van Diemen R, Ferrat M, Haughey E, Luz S, Neogi S, Pathak M, Petzold J, Portugal Pereira J, Vyas P, Huntley E, Kissick K, Belkacemi M, Malley J, eds. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. IPCC, 2019

[41] JensenE S. Grain yield, symbiotic N₂ fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in pea–barley intercrops. Plant and Soil, 1996, 182( 1): 25– 38

[42] GonzalezR A, ThomasJ, ChangM. Translating agroecology into policy: the case of France and the United Kingdom. Sustainability, 2018, 10( 8): 2930

[43] ClancyM S, MoschiniG. Intellectual property rights and the ascent of proprietary innovation in agriculture. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2017, 9( 1): 53– 74

[44] LamichhaneJ R, Dachbrodt-SaaydehS, KudskP, MesséanA. Toward a reduced reliance on conventional pesticides in European agriculture. Plant Disease, 2016, 100( 1): 10– 24

[45] ReganoldJ P, WachterJ M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants, 2016, 2( 2): 15221

[46] LechenetM, DessaintF, PyG, MakowskiD, Munier-JolainN. Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms. Nature Plants, 2017, 3( 3): 17008

[47] JensenE S, Hauggaard-NielsenH. How can increased use of biological N₂ fixation in agriculture benefit the environment. Plant and Soil, 2003, 252( 1): 177– 186

[48] CrewsT E, PeoplesM B. Legume versus fertilizer sources of nitrogen: ecological tradeoffs and human needs. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2004, 102( 3): 279– 297

[49] HerridgeD F, PeoplesM B, BoddeyR M. Global inputs of biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Plant and Soil, 2008, 311( 1−2): 1– 18

[50] JensenE S, BedoussacL, CarlssonG, JournetE, JustesE, Hauggaard-NielsenH. Enhancing yields in organic crop production by eco-functional intensification. Sustainable Agriculture Research, 2015, 4( 3): 42– 50

[51] GliessmanS. Agroecology: growing the roots of resistance. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 2013, 37( 1): 19– 31

[52] WezelA, BellonS, DoréT, FrancisC, VallodD, DavidC. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2009, 29( 4): 503– 515

[53] KillionA K, SterleK, BondankE, DrabikJ, BeraA, AlianS, GoodrichK, HaleM, MyerR A, PhungQ, ShewA M, ThayerA W. Preparing the next generation of sustainability scientists. Ecology and Society, 2018, 23( 4): art39

[54] CerfM, JeuffroyM H, ProstL, MeynardJ M. Participatory design of agricultural decision support tools: taking account of the use situations. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2012, 32( 4): 899– 910

[55] RavierC, JeuffroyM H, MeynardJ M. Mismatch between a science-based decision tool and its use: the case of the balance-sheet method for nitrogen fertilization in France. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 2016, 79( 1): 31– 40

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, a special thanks to the organizers from Terrena, and to the invited actors from the local agrifood value chain who were willing to share their insights, thoughts and experiences. Thanks also to all the participants attending the workshop. The study was funded by the EU Horizon 2020 program grant #727217.

Compliance with ethics guidelines

Henrik Hauggaard-Nielsen, Søren Lund, Ane K. Aare, Christine A. Watson, Laurent Bedoussac, Jean-Noël Aubertot, Iman R. Chongtham, Natalia Bellostas, Cairistiona F. E. Topp, Pierre Hohmann, Erik S. Jensen, Maureen Stadel, Bertrand Pinel, and Eric Justes declare that they have no conflicts of interest or financial conflicts to disclose. This article does not contain any study with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s) 2021. Published by Higher Education Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)