The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Towards a Better Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural Development: From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches
Open accessAbstract
The role of farming previously dedicated mainly to food production changed with an increasing recognition of the multifunctionality of agriculture and rural areas. It seems obvious to expect that farmers and rural actors adapt themselves to these new conditions, which are innovative and redefine their job. In many regions farmers can increase their income basis as rural entrepreneurs, developing new services and exploring new markets. Often, however, there is a gap between the need for change and farmers’ willingness to adjust, and the insufficient capacities of innovation agencies and advisory services to effectively support changes. In this contribution we discuss the kinds of gaps between present societal demands, the related farm-level adjustments, and the capacities of innovation agencies and advisory services. We explore a conceptual framework that understands innovation processes as the outcome of collaborative networks where information is exchanged and learning processes happen. We argue that technical and economic factors used to analyse drivers and barriers alone are not sufficient to understand innovation processes. The related social and institutional aspects of cross-sector as well as intra-sector processes are explored. Overall, we emphasize that innovation functions as a process where farmers’ and rural entrepreneurs’ knowledge, motivations and values play an important role. We emphasize that institutions, administrations and extension services, whose mission it is to support changes, can become barriers to innovation if they do not acknowledge that the needs of farmers and of society have changed. The paper builds on the conceptual level work carried out in the on-going EU funded IN-SIGHT research programme with multidisciplinary teams from seven European countries.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The dimensions of soil security
McBratney, A., Field, D. J., & Koch, A. (2014) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.08.013 · Cited by 867
Šūmane, S., Kunda, I., Knickel, K., Strauss, A., Tisenkopfs, T., Rios, I. D. I., Rivera, M., Chebach, T., & Ashkenazy, A. (2018) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.020 · Cited by 749
Self-citationDesigning agroecological transitions; A review
Duru, M., Therond, O., & Fares, M. (2015) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-015-0318-x · Cited by 542
Dawson, N., Martin, A., & Sikor, T. (2016) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.008 · Cited by 278
Ingram, J. (2015) · Journal of Rural Studies · doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.06.003 · Cited by 172
Metadata
- Authors
- Knickel, K., Brunori, G., Rand, S., & Proost, J.
- Venue
- The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 131-146
- ISSN
- 1389-224X (ISSN-L)
- 1750-8622
- OpenAlex
- W2165775507
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 34.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Towards a Better Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural Development: From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/13892240902909064
- The paper
- Knickel, K., Brunori, G., Rand, S., & Proost, J. (2009). Towards a Better Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural Development: From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240902909064
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.