IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i13p5398-d380139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Methodological Approach to Upscale Toward an Agroecology System in EU-LAFSs: The Case of the Parma Bio-District

Author

Listed:
  • Marianna Guareschi

    (Department of Management and Economic Science, University of Parma, 43121 Parma, Italy)

  • Michele Maccari

    (Department of Economics and Management, University of Ferrara, Via Voltapaletto 11, 44121 Ferrara, Italy)

  • Juan Pablo Sciurano

    (Department of Management and Economic Science, University of Parma, 43121 Parma, Italy)

  • Filippo Arfini

    (Department of Management and Economic Science, University of Parma, 43121 Parma, Italy)

  • Andrea Pronti

    (Department of Economics and Management, University of Ferrara, Via Voltapaletto 11, 44121 Ferrara, Italy)

Abstract

The increasing interest in bio-districts is part of the debate on the capacity to integrate agri-food systems and territory in order to improve the quality of life in rural communities. Considering the goals of developing and promoting an innovative territorial rural development approach, the bio-district can become a process toward a more sustainable model represented by the agroecological agriculture system. The paper presents a case study of the Parma bio-district through the approach of a Localized Agri Food System (LAFS) to verify whether bio-districts can be a tool for scaling up towards agroecology. Stakeholder classification and analysis are conducted using an influence–interest matrix. We identified four groups of stakeholders in relation to their interests and power to influence the process. In the case of the Parma bio-district the role of local institutions in dialogue with consumers and producers’ associations is crucial for success. We conclude that bio-districts can be a tool for a scaling-up towards agroecology since they can facilitate a synergetic relation between organic and agroecological agriculture, spreading organic agriculture more widely around the local area. However, the involvement of a wide variety of different stakeholders means that governance is a key element in facilitating “cross fertilization” and preventing the process from becoming purely formulaic.

Suggested Citation

  • Marianna Guareschi & Michele Maccari & Juan Pablo Sciurano & Filippo Arfini & Andrea Pronti, 2020. "A Methodological Approach to Upscale Toward an Agroecology System in EU-LAFSs: The Case of the Parma Bio-District," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:13:p:5398-:d:380139
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5398/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/13/5398/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alexander Wezel & Stéphane Bellon, 2018. "Mapping Agroecology in Europe. New Developments and Applications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-3, August.
    2. Nam Phong Le & Thi Thu Phuong Nguyen & Dajian Zhu, 2018. "Understanding the Stakeholders’ Involvement in Utilizing Municipal Solid Waste in Agriculture through Composting: A Case Study of Hanoi, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-32, July.
    3. Dave D. White & J. Leah Jones & Ross Maciejewski & Rimjhim Aggarwal & Giuseppe Mascaro, 2017. "Stakeholder Analysis for the Food-Energy-Water Nexus in Phoenix, Arizona: Implications for Nexus Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, November.
    4. Giacomini, Corrado & Mancini, Maria Cecilia, 2015. "Organisation as a key factor in Localised Agri-Food Systems (LAFS)," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Francis Aubert & Marc Guérin & Philippe Perrier-Cornet, 2001. "Organisation et territoire : un cadre d'analyse appliqué aux espaces ruraux," Revue d'économie régionale et urbaine, Armand Colin, vol. 0(3), pages 393-413.
    6. Andrej Lange & Rosemarie Siebert & Tim Barkmann, 2015. "Sustainability in Land Management: An Analysis of Stakeholder Perceptions in Rural Northern Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, January.
    7. Alexander Wezel & Margriet Goris & Janneke Bruil & Georges F. Félix & Alain Peeters & Paolo Bàrberi & Stéphane Bellon & Paola Migliorini, 2018. "Challenges and Action Points to Amplify Agroecology in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-12, May.
    8. Phillips, Robert & Freeman, R. Edward & Wicks, Andrew C., 2003. "What Stakeholder Theory is Not," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 479-502, October.
    9. Belletti, Giovanni & Marescotti, Andrea & Touzard, Jean-Marc, 2017. "Geographical Indications, Public Goods, and Sustainable Development: The Roles of Actors’ Strategies and Public Policies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 45-57.
    10. Pomeroy, Robert & Douvere, Fanny, 2008. "The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 816-822, September.
    11. Jasmine Siu Lee Lam & Wei Yim Yap, 2019. "A Stakeholder Perspective of Port City Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, January.
    12. John Kenneth Galbraith, 1983. "The Anatomy of Power," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(3), pages 26-33, July.
    13. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    14. Giacomo Becattini, 2017. "The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 13-32.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel López-García & Manuel González de Molina, 2021. "An Operational Approach to Agroecology-Based Local Agri-Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.
    2. Božić Jasmina, 2024. "Scaling Up Organic Agricultural Enterprises: An Empirical Study of the Role of Associations of Micro Producers," Business Systems Research, Sciendo, vol. 15(1), pages 253-273.
    3. J. Francisco Rangel-Preciado & Francisco M. Parejo-Moruno & Esteban Cruz-Hidalgo & Francisco J. Castellano-Álvarez, 2021. "Rural Districts and Business Agglomerations in Low-Density Business Environments. The Case of Extremadura (Spain)," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Stefano Poponi & Gabriella Arcese & Enrico Maria Mosconi & Francesco Pacchera & Olimpia Martucci & Grazia Chiara Elmo, 2021. "Multi-Actor Governance for a Circular Economy in the Agri-Food Sector: Bio-Districts," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, April.
    5. Ramazan Çakmakçı & Mehmet Ali Salık & Songül Çakmakçı, 2023. "Assessment and Principles of Environmentally Sustainable Food and Agriculture Systems," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-27, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Morgane Millet & François Casabianca, 2019. "Sharing Values for Changing Practices, a Lever for Sustainable Transformation? The Case of Farmers and Processors in Interaction within Localized Cheese Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-18, August.
    2. Luke Owen & Donna Udall & Alex Franklin & Moya Kneafsey, 2020. "Place-Based Pathways to Sustainability: Exploring Alignment between Geographical Indications and the Concept of Agroecology Territories in Wales," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, June.
    3. Alba Linares Quero & Uxue Iragui Yoldi & Oriana Gava & Gerald Schwarz & Andrea Povellato & Carlos Astrain, 2022. "Assessment of the Common Agricultural Policy 2014–2020 in Supporting Agroecological Transitions: A Comparative Study of 15 Cases across Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-23, July.
    4. Liu, Ta-Kang & Huang, Hsiao-Yin & Hsu, Shao-Liang, 2015. "Saving the critically endangered Chinese white dolphin in Taiwan: Debate regarding the designation of an MPA," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 113-120.
    5. Karalliyadda, S.M.C.B. & Kazunari, Tsuji & Fujimura, Miho, 2023. "Managing rain-fed uplands of cascaded tank village systems: What stakeholders really suggest?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    6. Ruiling Wang & Guo Liu & Jingyang Zhou & Jianhui Wang, 2019. "Identifying the Critical Stakeholders for the Sustainable Development of Architectural Heritage of Tourism: From the Perspective of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, March.
    7. Suškevičs, Monika & Karner, Katrin & Bethwell, Claudia & Danzinger, Florian & Kay, Sonja & Nishizawa, Takamasa & Schuler, Johannes & Sepp, Kalev & Värnik, Rando & Glemnitz, Michael & Semm, Maaria & Um, 2023. "Stakeholder perceptions of agricultural landscape services, biodiversity, and drivers of change in four European case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    8. Melinda Timea FÜLÖP & Mirela-Oana PINTEA, 2014. "Effects Of The New Regulation And Corporate Governance Of The Audit Profession," SEA - Practical Application of Science, Romanian Foundation for Business Intelligence, Editorial Department, issue 4, pages 545-554, July.
    9. Mara Del Baldo, 2012. "Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the experience of some “spirited businesses”," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(1), pages 1-36, February.
    10. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    11. Yang Deng & Tze San Ong & Rosmila Senik, 2024. "Trick or treat? A bibliometric literature review of corporate social responsibility and earnings management," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 4361-4383, September.
    12. Ruben Burga & Davar Rezania, 2016. "Stakeholder theory in social entrepreneurship: a descriptive case study," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    13. Robert E. Till & Mary Beth Yount, 2019. "Governance and Incentives: Is It Really All about the Money?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 605-618, October.
    14. Yuan Ding & Thomas Jeanjean & Hervé Stolowy, 2013. "Accounting for Stakeholders or Shareholders? The Case of R&D Reporting," Post-Print hal-01002936, HAL.
    15. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. Francesco Di Maddaloni & Roya Derakhshan, 2019. "A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, June.
    17. Fracarolli Nunes, Mauro & Lee Park, Camila & Shin, Hyunju, 2021. "Corporate social and environmental irresponsibilities in supply chains, contamination, and damage of intangible resources: A behavioural approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    18. A. Heene & N. A. Dentchev, 2004. "A strategic perspective on stakeholder management," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 04/253, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    19. Yan Li & Xiaohan Zhang & Kaiyue Lin & Qingbo Huang, 2019. "The Analysis of a Simulation of a Port–City Green Cooperative Development, Based on System Dynamics: A Case Study of Shanghai Port, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-20, October.
    20. Engy Mohsen El Hawary & Iman Mamdouh Arafa, 2018. "Studying the Effect of Stakeholders on the Disclosure of Corporate Social Responsibility by Banks: Evidence from Egypt," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 7(4), pages 200-200, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:13:p:5398-:d:380139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.