CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 111Agriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentAgricultural Innovations and PracticesOrganic Food and Agriculture

Innovating within or outside dominant food systems? Different challenges for contrasting crop diversification strategies in Europe

Open access
Morel, Kevin, Revoyron, Eva, San Cristobal, Magali, Baret, Philippe V.·2020·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0229910PMC PMC7067481
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Innovations supporting a shift towards more sustainable food systems can be developed within the dominant food system regime or in alternative niches. No study has compared the challenges faced in each context. This paper, based on an analysis of 25 cases of European innovations that support crop diversification, explores the extent to which barriers to crop diversification can be related to the proximity of innovation settings with dominant food systems. Drawing on a qualitative analysis of interviews and participatory brainstorming, we highlight 46 different barriers to crop diversification across the cases, at different levels: production; downstream operations from farm to retailing, marketing and consumers; and contracts and coordination between actors. To characterise the diversity of innovation strategies at food system level, we introduce the concept of "food system innovation settings" combining: (i) the type of innovative practice promoted at farm level; (ii) the type of value chain supporting that innovation; and (iii) the type of agriculture involved (organic or conventional). Through a multiple correspondence analysis, we show different patterns of barriers to crop diversification according to three ideal-types of food system innovation settings: (i) "Changing from within", where longer rotations are fostered on conventional farms involved in commodity supply chains; (ii) "Building outside", where crop diversification integrates intercropping on organic farms involved in local supply chains; and (iii) "Playing horizontal", where actors promote alternative crop diversification strategies-either strictly speaking horizontal at spatial level (e.g. strip cropping) or socially horizontal (arrangement between farmers)-without directly challenging the vertical organisation of dominant value chains. We recommend designing targeted research and policy actions according to the food systems they seek to develop. We then discuss further development of our approach to analyse barriers faced in intermediate and hybrid food system configurations.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0229910

Cites

7 of 7 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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. [1]Duru M, Therond O, Fares M. Designing agroecological transitions: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2015; 35(4): 1237– 1257.
  2. [2]Gaitán-Cremaschi D, Klerkx L, Duncan J, Trienekens JH, Huenchuleo C, Dogliotti S, et al Characterizing diversity of food systems in view of sustainability transitions. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2019; 39(1): 1 10.1007/s13593-018-0550-2 30881486 PMC6394436 · DOI
  3. [3]Holt-Giménez E, Altieri MA. Agroecology, food Sovereignty, and the new green revolution. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 2013; 37(1): 90– 102.
  4. [6]Altieri MA. Agroecology: a new research and development paradigm for world agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 11 1989; 27(1–4): 37– 46.
  5. [7]Gliessman SR. Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. USA: CRC Press; 1998 394 p.
  6. [9]Lamine C. Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from organic farming and IPM. Journal of Rural Studies. 1 avr 2011; 27(2): 209– 19.
  7. [10]Fernandez M, Goodall K, Olson M, Méndez VE. Agroecology and alternative agri-food movements in the United States: toward a sustainable agri-Food system. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems. 1 Janv 2013; 37(1): 115– 26.
  8. [12]Cowan R, Gunby P. Sprayed to Death: path dependence, lock-in and pest control strategies. The Economic Journal. 1996; 106(436): 521– 42.
  9. [13]Wilson C, Tisdell C. Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs. Ecological economics. 2001; 39(3): 449– 462.
  10. [14]Vanloqueren G, Baret PV. Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural ‘lock-in’ case study. Ecological Economics. 15 Juin 2008; 66(2): 436– 46.
  11. [15]Fares M, Magrini M-B, Triboulet P. Transition agroécologique, innovation et effets de verrouillage: le rôle de la structure organisationnelle des filières. Cahiers Agricultures. 1 Janv 2012; 21(1): 34– 45 (1).
  12. [16]Meynard J-M, Charrier F, Fares M, Le Bail M, Magrini M-B, Charlier A, et al Socio-technical lock-in hinders crop diversification in France. Agron Sustain Dev. 2 10 2018; 38(5): 54.
  13. [17]Rip A, Kemp R. Technological change. Human choice and climate change. 1998; 2(2): 327– 399.
  14. [20]David PA. Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. The American economic review. 1985; 75(2): 332– 337.
  15. [21]Arthur WB. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The economic journal. 1989; 99(394): 116– 131.
  16. [22]Smith A. Green niches in sustainable development: the case of organic food in the United Kingdom. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 2006; 24(3): 439– 458.
  17. [23]Ingram J. Framing niche-regime linkage as adaptation: an analysis of learning and innovation networks for sustainable agriculture across Europe. Journal of Rural Studies. 2015; 40: 59– 75.
  18. [24]Elzen B, Barbier M, Cerf M, Grin J. Stimulating transitions towards sustainable farming systems In: Farming Systems Research into the 21st century: The new dynamic. Springer; 2012 p. 431– 455.
  19. [26]Cohen N, Ilieva RT. Transitioning the food system: a strategic practice management approach for cities. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 2015; 17: 199– 217.
  20. [28]Bui S, Cardona A, Lamine C, Cerf M. Sustainability transitions: insights on processes of niche-regime interaction and regime reconfiguration in agri-food systems. Journal of Rural Studies. 1 Déc 2016; 48(Supplement C): 92– 103.
  21. [35]Lithourgidis AS, Dordas CA, Damalas CA, Vlachostergios D. Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian journal of crop science. 2011; 5(4): 396.
  22. [36]Voisin A-S, Guéguen J, Huyghe C, Jeuffroy M-H, Magrini M-B, Meynard J-M, et al Legumes for feed, food, biomaterials and bioenergy in Europe: a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 1 avr 2014; 34(2): 361– 80.
  23. [37]Zimmer S, Liebe U, Didier J-P, Heß J. Luxembourgish farmers’ lack of information about grain legume cultivation. Agron Sustain Dev. 15 Déc 2015; 36(1): 2.
  24. [38]Zander P, Amjath-Babu TS, Preissel S, Reckling M, Bues A, Schläfke N, et al Grain legume decline and potential recovery in European agriculture: a review. Agronomy for sustainable development. 2016; 36(2): 26.
  25. [39]Therond O, Duru M, Roger-Estrade J, Richard G. A new analytical framework of farming system and agriculture model diversities. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 6 Juin 2017; 37(3): 21.
  26. [40]Francis C, Jones A, Crookston K, Wittler K, Goodman S. Strip cropping corn and grain legumes: a review. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 1986; 1(4): 159– 164.
  27. [42]Martin G, Moraine M, Ryschawy J, Magne M-A, Asai M, Sarthou J-P, et al Crop–livestock integration beyond the farm level: a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 9 9 2016; 36(3): 53.
  28. [43]Moraine M, Grimaldi J, Murgue C, Duru M, Therond O. Co-design and assessment of cropping systems for developing crop-livestock integration at the territory level. Agricultural Systems. 2016; 147: 87– 97.
  29. [46]Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications Inc; 1984 256 p.
  30. [48]Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review. 1989; 14(4): 532– 550.
  31. [50]Lê S, Josse J, Husson F. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of statistical software. 2008; 25(1): 1– 18.
  32. [54]Fares M. Renegotiation design and contract Solutions to the hold-up problem. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2006; 20(5): 731– 756.
  33. [55]Darnhofer I, Lindenthal T, Bartel-Kratochvil R, Zollitsch W. Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from structural criteria towards an assessment based on organic principles. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 1 Mars 2010; 30(1): 67– 81.
  34. [56]Ryschawy J, Martin G, Moraine M, Duru M, Therond O. Designing crop–livestock integration at different levels: toward new agroecological models? Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 2017; 108(1): 5– 20.
  35. [57]Drexler D, Vanwindekens F, Stilmant D, Messéan A. Success and failure factors of crop diversification across Europe [Internet]. Dynamic developments in organic research. Strengthening partnerships across Europe and beyond. 6th International Conference on Organic Agriculture Sciences (ICOAS); 2018; Eisenstadt, Austria. http://icoas2018.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/1_2_Drexler_Meszaros.pdf
  36. [58]Woodhouse P. Beyond industrial agriculture? Some questions about farm size, productivity and sustainability. Journal of agrarian change. 2010; 10(3): 437– 453.
  37. [59]Fischer L-B, Newig J. Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions: a systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability. 2016; 8(5): 476.
  38. [60]De Herde V, Maréchal K, Baret PV. Lock-ins and agency: towards an embedded approach of individual pathways in the Walloon dairy sector. Sustainability. 2019; 11(16): 4405.
  39. [62]Grin J, Rotmans J, Schot J. Transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative change. Routledge; 2010 418 p.
  40. [63]Klerkx L, Aarts N, Leeuwis C. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural systems. 2010; 103(6): 390– 400.
  41. [64]Schön DA. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action [Internet]. Vol. 5126 Basic books; 1983.
  42. [66]Louah L, Visser M, Blaimont A, de Cannière C. Barriers to the development of temperate agroforestry as an example of agroecological innovation: mainly a matter of cognitive lock-in? Land Use Policy. 1 9 2017; 67: 86– 97.
  43. [67]Smith A, Raven R. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research policy. 2012; 41(6): 1025– 1036.
  44. [68]Beus CE, Dunlap RE. Conventional versus alternative agriculture: the paradigmatic roots of the debate*. Rural Sociology. 1 Déc 1990; 55(4): 590– 616.
  45. [69]Rosset PM, Altieri MA. Agroecology versus input substitution: a fundamental contradiction of sustainable agriculture. Society & Natural Resources. 1997; 10(3): 283– 95.
  46. [70]Brives H, Chazoule C, Fleury P, Vandenbroucke P. “Agriculture of the Middle” as a new understanding of Rhône-Alpes agriculture? Économie rurale. 2017; 357-358(1): 41– 56.
  47. [71]Fleury P, Lev L, Brives H, Chazoule C, Désolé M. Developing mid-tier supply chains (France) and values-based food supply chains (USA): a comparison of motivations, achievements, barriers and limitations. Agriculture. 2016; 6(3): 36.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morel, K., Revoyron, E., San Cristobal, M., & Baret, P. V.
Affiliations
  • AgroParisTech (FR)
  • UCLouvain (BE)
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2020-03-12
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
e0229910
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0229910
PMC
PMC7067481
OpenAlex
W3011005101
Cited by
111
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5
FWCI
22.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (72748)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
Keywords
crop diversification, barriers to innovation, sustainable food systems, intercropping, crop rotation, organic farming, conventional farming, value chain, commodity supply chains, local supply chains, strip cropping, farmer cooperation
MeSH terms
Farmers, Crop Production, Farms, Sustainable Development, Animal Husbandry, Diffusion of Innovation, Europe, Humans, Organizational Innovation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Crops, Agricultural, Policy, Spatio-Temporal Analysis

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