CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Agricultural Innovations and PracticesAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development

Identification and description of relationships between actors involved in crop diversification experiences across Europe

Open access
Cornu, Marie-Aline, Frick, Rebekka, Chongtham, Iman Raj, Iocola, Ileana, Canali, Stefano, Colombo, Luca, Radzikowski, Paweł, Stalenga, Jarosław +5 more·2023·Agronomy for Sustainable Development
DOI 10.1007/s13593-023-00906-8
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Agriculture can benefit from crop diversification to facilitate its transition to more sustainable agrifood systems. However, these practices remain rare in Europe. One major barrier is the existence of sociotechnical lock-ins. To clarify the dynamics at work, we analyzed the relationships between actors involved in 23 crop diversification experiences across 11 European countries. The novelty of this paper lies in the systemic analysis of the network of actors involved in crop diversification experiences. Using data from qualitative interviews and cognitive mapping approaches, we identify and describe the role of actors and the key relationships in crop diversification and detect relationships that are currently missing. Our study shows that in the different European countries, similar relationships act as levers or barriers to crop diversification, with farmers and researchers playing a crucial role. The most important cognitive factors that influence the choice of farmers to diversify are environmental and health concerns and the desire to make profit and innovate. We relate the cognitive factors to organizational, technical, economic, and political factors and suggest levers for crop diversification based on successful crop diversification experiences.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13593-023-00906-8

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. Allmark P (2004) Should research samples reflect the diversity of the population? J Med Ethics 30(2):185-189. https://doi.org/10.1136/ jme.2003.004374, https://jme.bmj.com/content/30/2/185.full.pdf · DOI
  2. Bonke V, Musshoff O (2020) Understanding German farmer's intention to adopt mixed cropping using the theory of planned behavior. Agron Sustain Dev 40(6):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593- 020-00653-0 · DOI
  3. Borremans L, Marchand F, Visser M, Wauters E (2018) Nurturing agroforestry systems in Flanders: analysis from an agricultural innovation systems perspective. Agr Syst 162:205-219. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.01.004 · DOI
  4. Burton RJ, Schwarz G (2013) Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy 30(1):628-641. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2012.05.002 · DOI
  5. Caron P, Biénabe E, Hainzelin E (2014) Making transition towards eco- logical intensification of agriculture a reality: the gaps in and the role of scientific knowledge. Curr Opin Env Sust 8:44-52. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.004, sI: Sustainability gover- nance and transformation Deci EL, Eghrari H, Patrick BC, Leone DR (1994) Facilitat- ing internalization: the self-determination theory perspective. J Pers 62(1):119-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994. tb00797.x · DOI · Paper page
  6. Dedeurwaerdere T, Polard A, Melindi-Ghidi P (2015) The role of network bridging organisations in compensation payments for agri-environmental services under the EU common agricultural policy. Ecol Econ 119:24-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon. 2015.07.025 · DOI
  7. Duru M, Therond O et al (2015) Designing agroecological transitions; a review. Agron Sustain Dev 35(4):1237-1257. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s13593-015-0318-x · DOI · Paper page
  8. ElSawah S, Mclucas A, Mazanov J (2013) Using a cognitive mapping approach to frame the perceptions of water users about managing water resources: a case study in the Australian capital territory. Water Resour Manag 27(9):3441-3456. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11269-013-0357-5 European Comission (2020) · DOI · Paper page
  9. Forney J (2016) Blind spots in agri-environmental governance: some reflections and suggestions from Switzerland. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud 97(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-016- 0017-2 · DOI
  10. Gaitán-Cremaschi D, Klerkx L, Duncan J, Trienekens JH, Huenchuleo C, Dogliotti S, Contesse ME, Rossing WA (2019) Characterizing diversity of food systems in view of sustainability transitions. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 39(1):1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13593-018-0550-2 · DOI
  11. Guerra J, Blesh J, Schmitt Filho AL, Wittman H (2017) Path- ways to agroecological management through mediated markets in Santa Catarina, Brazil. Elem Sci Anth 5. https://doi.org/10.1525/ elementa.248 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Hodson M, Marvin S (2010) Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were? Res Policy 39(4):477- 485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.020, special Section on Innovation and Sustainability Transitions · DOI
  13. Huxham C, Vangen S (2013) Managing to collaborate: the theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge
  14. Jones NA, Ross H, Lynam T, Perez P, Leitch A (2011) Mental models: an interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecol Soc 16(1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268859
  15. Koole B (2020) Trusting to learn and learning to trust. A framework for analyzing the interactions of trust and learning in arrangements dedicated to instigating social change. Technol Forecast and Soc 161:120260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120260 · DOI
  16. Lamprinopoulou C, Renwick A, Klerkx L, Hermans F, Roep D (2014) Application of an integrated systemic framework for analysing agricultural innovation systems and informing innovation poli- cies: comparing the Dutch and Scottish agrifood sectors. Agr Syst 129:40-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.05.001 · DOI
  17. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sus- tainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(1):25-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x · DOI · Paper page
  18. Liu W, Sidhu A, Beacom AM, Valente TW (2017) Social net- work theory, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp 1-12. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0092, https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9781118783764. · DOI
  19. wbieme0092 · DOI
  20. Macken-Walsh Á, Henchion M, Regan Á (2022) 'Come aboard' the systems-based approach: the role of social science in agri-food research and innovation. Irish J Agr Food Res. https://doi.org/10. 15212/ijafr-2020-0146 · DOI
  21. Magrini MB, Anton M, Cholez C, Corre-Hellou G, Duc G, Jeuffroy MH, Meynard JM, Pelzer E, Voisin AS, Walrand S (2016) Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system. Ecol Econ 126:152-162. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.024 · DOI
  22. Marchand F, Cooreman H, Pappa E, Perifanos I, Alexopoulos Y, Debruyne L, Chiswell H, Ingram J, Koutsouris A (2021) Effective- ness of on-farm demonstration events in the EU: role of structural characteristics. J Agric Educ Ext 27(5):677-697. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1389224X.2020.1847151 · DOI
  23. Marette S (2021) Sustainability and consumer willingness to pay for legumes: a laboratory study with lentils. Sustainability 13(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063408 · DOI
  24. Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M et al (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainabil- ity. Curr Opin Env Sust 5(3):420-431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cosust.2013.07.001, open issue · DOI
  25. Messéan A, Viguier L, Paresys L, Aubertot JN, Canali S, Iannetta PP, Justes E, Karley A, Keillor B, Kemper L et al (2021a) Enabling crop diversification to support transitions towards more sustainable European agrifood systems. Front Agric Sci Eng. https://doi.org/ 10.15302/J-FASE-2021406 · DOI
  26. Metzger MJ, Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG et al (2005) A climatic strat- ification of the environment of Europe. Global Ecology and Bio- geography 14(6):549-563. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-822X. 2005.00190.x · DOI
  27. Meynard JM, Charrier F, Le Bail M, Magrini MB, Charlier A, Messéan A et al (2018) Socio-technical lock-in hinders crop diversification in France. Agron Sustain Dev 38(5):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13593-018-0535-1 · DOI
  28. Moller AC, Ryan RM, Deci EL (2006) Self-determination theory and public policy: improving the quality of consumer decisions without using coercion. J Public Policy Mark 25(1):104-116. https://doi. org/10.1509/jppm.25.1.104 · DOI
  29. Montrone É (2015) Étude des démarches des organismes stockeurs visant une agriculture durable. Master's thesis, Terres Inovia, 1 avenue Lucien Brétignières, 78850 Thiverval-Grignon. https:// dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-01259579
  30. Morel K, Revoyron E, San Cristobal M, Baret PV (2020) Innovating within or outside dominant food systems? Different challenges for contrasting crop diversification strategies in Europe. PLoS One 15(3):e0229,910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229910 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Nerlich K, Graeff-Hönninger S, Claupein W (2013) Agroforestry in Europe: a review of the disappearance of traditional systems and development of modern agroforestry practices, with emphasis on experiences in germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012- 9560-2 · DOI
  32. Özesmi U, Özesmi SL (2004) Ecological models based on peo- ple's knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecol Model 176(1-2):43-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel. 2003.10.027 · DOI
  33. Popa F, Guillermin M, Dedeurwaerdere T (2015) A pragmatist approach to transdisciplinarity in sustainability research: from complex sys- tems theory to reflexive science. Futures 65:45-56. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.002, 'Advances in transdisciplinar- ity 2004-2014' · DOI
  34. Reyes-García V, Aceituno-Mata L, Calvet-Mir L et al (2014) Resilience of traditional knowledge systems: the case of agricultural knowl- edge in home gardens of the Iberian Peninsula. Glob Environ Change 24:223-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013. 11.022 · DOI
  35. Rodriguez C, Mårtensson LMD, Jensen ES, Carlsson G (2021) Com- bining crop diversification practices can benefit cereal production in temperate climates. Agron Sustain Dev 41(4):48
  36. Röling N (1988) Extension science, information systems in agricultural development. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom
  37. Schneider F, Buser T (2018) Promising degrees of stakeholder inter- action in research for sustainable development. Sustain Sci 13(1):129-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0507-4 · DOI
  38. Stakias G, Psoras M, Glykas M (2013) Fuzzy cognitive maps in social and business network analysis. Studies in Computational Intel- ligence 444:241-279. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28409- 0-10 · DOI
  39. Stein AJ, Santini F (2022) The sustainability of "local" food: A review for policy-makers. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud 103(1):77-89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-021-00148-w · DOI
  40. Šūmane S, Kunda I, Knickel K et al (2018) Local and farmers' knowledge matters! how integrating informal and formal knowl- edge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. J Rural Stud 59:232-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.020 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Tamburini G, Bommarco R, Wanger TC, Kremen C, Van Der Heijden MG, Liebman M, Hallin S (2020) Agricultural diversification pro- motes multiple ecosystem services without compromising yield. Sci Adv 6(45):eaba1715. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1715 · DOI · Paper page
  42. Vanermen I, Muys B, Verheyen K, Vanwindekens F, Bouriaud L, Kardol P, Vranken L (2020) What do scientists and managers know about soil biodiversity? Comparative knowledge mapping for sustainable forest management. Forest Policy Econ 119. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.forpol.2020.102264 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Vanwindekens FM, Stilmant D, Baret PV (2013) Development of a broadened cognitive mapping approach for analysing systems of practices in social-ecological systems. Ecol Model 250:352-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.11.023 · DOI
  44. Vanwindekens FM, Baret PV, Stilmant D (2014) A new approach for comparing and categorizing farmers' systems of practice based on cognitive mapping and graph theory indicators. Ecol Model 274:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.11.026 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Weituschat CS, Pascucci S, Materia VC, Tamas P, de Jong R, Trienekens J (2022) Goal frames and sustainability transitions: how cognitive lock-ins can impede crop diversification. Sustain Sci 1-17. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01156-5 · DOI
  46. Wezel A, Vincent A, Nitsch H, Schmid O, Dubbert M, Tasser E, Fleury P, Stöckli S, Stolze M, Bogner D (2018) Farmers' perceptions, pref- erences, and propositions for result-oriented measures in mountain farming. Land Use Policy 70:117-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landusepol.2017.10.020 · DOI
  47. Wuelser G, Pohl C, Hirsch Hadorn G (2012) Structuring complexity for tailoring research contributions to sustainable development: a framework. Sustain Sci 7(1):81-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11625-011-0143-3 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cornu, M.-A., Frick, R., Chongtham, I. R., Iocola, I., Canali, S., Colombo, L., Radzikowski, P., Stalenga, J., Viguier, L., Drexler, D., Schneider, A., Stilmant, D., & Vanwindekens, F. M.
Affiliations
  • Walloon Agricultural Research Centre (BE)
  • Forschungsinstitut für Biologischen Landbau (CH)
  • Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SE)
  • Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria (IT)
  • Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca in Agricoltura Biologica e Biodinamica (IT)
  • Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation (PL)
  • Institut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement (FR)
  • Ökológiai Mezőgazdasági Kutatóintézet (HU)
  • Terres Inovia (FR)
Corresponding author
Vanwindekens, Frédéric M.
ORCID
Venue
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2023-10
Volume
43
Issue
5
Pages
67
ISSN
  • 1773-0155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1774-0746
DOI
10.1007/s13593-023-00906-8
OpenAlex
W4387400357
Cited by
6
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Agronomy for Sustainable Development (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Epsilon Open Archive (Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet biblioteket (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)) (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (727482 - DiverIMPACTS - Diversification through Rotation, Intercropping, Multiple Cropping, Promoted with Actors and value-Chains towards Sustainability)
  • Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (17.00092)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Keywords
crop diversification, actor networks, sustainable agri-food systems, farmers, agricultural scientists, cognitive factors, barriers to diversification, agricultural innovation

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