Cited by 9Agricultural Innovations and PracticesAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentIndigenous Knowledge Systems and Agriculture

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Supporting transition toward conservation agriculture: a framework to analyze the learning processes of farmers

Open access
Cristofari, Helene, Girard, Nathalie, Magda, Daniele·2017·Hungarian Geographical Bulletin

Abstract

Conservation agriculture (CA) is based on 3 principles, namely reduced soil disturbance, permanent soil cover, and more complex and legume-rich rotations; and multiple studies have shown its positive impacts. Because CA relies on a variety of ecological processes, it is more deeply rooted in a specific ecological context than conventional agriculture. The complexity of these processes makes it difficult to elaborate general recipes to be applied by farmers, who therefore need to learn to make their own choices adapted to their own agroecosystem. Consequently, helping farmers to move toward CA requires supporting them in learning to develop their own practices. Farmers’ learning remains poorly investigated at the individual level, with in particular very little work focusing on learning in CA. We hypothesize that the processes involved in learning to practice CA may differ from those involved in conventional agriculture: for instance, the current lack of detailed reference documents may induce farmers to experiment more. Against this background, we here aimed at describing how farmers experienced in CA learn, by qualifying their learning mechanisms and processes. To do so, we conducted five comprehensive interviews with farmers experienced in CA, and then inductively analyzed the data to explore the diversity of learning mechanisms involved, i.e. the elementary actions or cognitive activities which, organized together, constitute a learning process. We, thus, propose a descriptive framework of non-ordered and non-obligatory learning mechanisms that appear to be mobilized by farmersexperienced in conservation agriculture, as a first step toward a deeper analysis of their learning processes. We further emphasize the often unintentional aspect of learning, as well as the importance, for farmers who wish to implement CA practices, of developing new standards of comparison. A better understanding of these learning processes would help improving extension services and training for farmers.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15201/hungeobull.66.1.7

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • Such an advisory approach strengthens horizontal knowledge structures and enhances the development of farmer skills to solve complex problems arising in their specific context, which makes it more effective.

    “Such an advisory approach strengthens horizontal knowledge structures (Anderson et al. 2019a, Bourne et al. 2021) and enhances the development of farmer skills to solve complex problems arising in their specific context (Cristofari et al. 2017, Charatsari et al. 2019, Bourne et al. 2021, Krafft et al. 2022), which makes it more effective (Ataei et al. 2019, Anderson et al. 2019a).”

    From A heuristic framework to portray agroecological transition initiatives in reflexive arrangements, illustrated with a conservation agriculture network in Denmark (2025) · cites this paper as Cristofari et al. 2017

    In “The different learning sources” (page unavailable), the paper says farmers use peers’ input for specific local problems and scientific input to adapt practices to their own systems. “Practical implications” proposes using these insights to improve extension and training, but does not show that an advisory approach enhances farmers’ problem-solving skills. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Basch, G., Friedrich, T., Kassam, A. and Gonzalez- Sanchez, E. 2015. Conservation Agriculture in Europe. In Conservation Agriculture. Eds.: Farooq, M. and Siddique, K.H.M. Springer International Publishing, 357-389.
  2. Darnhofer, I., Bellon, S., Dedieu, B. and Milestad, R. 2010. Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of farming systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30. (3): 545-555.
  3. Dordas, C. 2015. Nutrient management perspecti- ves in conservation agriculture. In Conservation Agriculture. Eds.: Farooq, M. and Siddique, K.H.M., Springer International Publishing, 79-107.
  4. Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14. (4): 532-550. FAO 2012. Conservation agriculture. http://www.fao. org/ag/ca/fr/.
  5. Farooq, M. and Siddique, K.H.M. 2015. Conservation Agriculture. Springer International Publishing.
  6. Hobbs, P.R., Sayre, K. and Gupta, R. 2008. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. Biological Sciences 363. (1491): 543-555.
  7. Ingram, J. 2010. Technical and Social Dimensions of Farmer Learning: An Analysis of the Emergence of Reduced Tillage Systems in England. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 34. (2): 183-201.
  8. Kilpatrick, S. and Johns, S. 2003. How farmers learn: different approaches to change. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 9. (4): 151-164.
  9. Millar, J. and Curtis, A. 1997. Moving Farmer Knowledge beyond the Farm Gate: An Australian Study of Farmer Knowledge in Group Learning. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 4. (2): 133-142.
  10. Toffolini, Q. 2016. Produire des connaissances action- nables pour la re-conception pas-à-pas de systèmes de culture vers l'agroécologie. PhD Thesis, Paris, AgroParisTech.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cristofari, H., Girard, N., & Magda, D.
Affiliations
Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse (FR)
Venue
Hungarian Geographical Bulletin
Published
2017-03-31
Volume
66
Issue
1
Pages
65-76
ISSN
  • 2064-5031 (ISSN-L)
  • 2064-5147
OpenAlex
W2604143868
Cited by
9
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Hungarian Geographical Bulletin (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-15-CE21-0006)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Development › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Agriculture
Keywords
conservation agriculture, farmer learning, learning mechanisms, permanent soil cover, agricultural extension, farmer training, comparison standards

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