IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i1p378-d304692.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder Perspectives to Prevent Soil Organic Matter Decline in Northeastern Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Nicola Dal Ferro

    (Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

  • Carlo Camarotto

    (Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

  • Ilaria Piccoli

    (Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

  • Antonio Berti

    (Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

  • Jane Mills

    (Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester GL2 9HW, UK)

  • Francesco Morari

    (Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Italy)

Abstract

A transition from conventional to more sustainable soil management measures (SMMs) is required to reverse the current soil organic matter (SOM) losses in the agroecosystems. Despite the innovations and technologies that are available to prevent SOM decline, top–down knowledge transfer schemes that incentivize a certain measure are often ineffective. Here, we discuss relevant outcomes from a participatory approach where researchers, farmers, practitioners and government officials have discussed opportunities and barriers around SMM application to prevent SOM decline. Within a series of workshops, stakeholders identified, scored, and selected SMMs to field-tests and evaluated the benefits and drawbacks from their application. Results showed that the stakeholders recognized the need for innovations, although they valued the most promising SMM as already available continuous soil cover and conservation agriculture. In contrast, more innovative SMMs, such as biochar use and the variable rate application of organic amendments through precision farming, were the least valued, suggesting that people’s resistance to new technologies is often governed by the socio-cultural perception of them that goes beyond the economic and technological aspects. The valuation of benefits and drawbacks by stakeholders on trialed measures emphasized that stakeholders’ perspective about soil management is a combination of economic, environmental, and socio-cultural aspects, thus corroborating the need for transdisciplinary bottom–up approaches to prevent SOM depletion and increase soil rehabilitation and SOM content.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicola Dal Ferro & Carlo Camarotto & Ilaria Piccoli & Antonio Berti & Jane Mills & Francesco Morari, 2020. "Stakeholder Perspectives to Prevent Soil Organic Matter Decline in Northeastern Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-18, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:1:p:378-:d:304692
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/1/378/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/1/378/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scholten, Lisa & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter & Lienert, Judit, 2015. "Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 243-260.
    2. Glenk, Klaus & Shrestha, Shailesh & Topp, Cairstiona F.E. & Sánchez, Berta & Iglesias, Ana & Dibari, Camilla & Merante, Paolo, 2017. "A farm level approach to explore farm gross margin effects of soil organic carbon management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 33-46.
    3. Agnieszka E. Latawiec & Jolanta B. Królczyk & Maciej Kuboń & Katarzyna Szwedziak & Adam Drosik & Ewa Polańczyk & Katarzyna Grotkiewicz & Bernardo B. N. Strassburg, 2017. "Willingness to Adopt Biochar in Agriculture: The Producer’s Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, April.
    4. Andreas Neef & Dieter Neubert, 2011. "Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(2), pages 179-194, June.
    5. Ingram, Julie & Dwyer, Janet & Gaskell, Peter & Mills, Jane & Wolf, Pieter de, 2018. "Reconceptualising translation in agricultural innovation: A co-translation approach to bring research knowledge and practice closer together," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 38-51.
    6. Rob Burton, 2012. "Understanding Farmers' Aesthetic Preference for Tidy Agricultural Landscapes: A Bourdieusian Perspective," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 51-71.
    7. Gudrun Schwilch & Tatenda Lemann & Örjan Berglund & Carlo Camarotto & Artemi Cerdà & Ioannis N. Daliakopoulos & Silvia Kohnová & Dominika Krzeminska & Teodoro Marañón & René Rietra & Grzegorz Siebiele, 2018. "Assessing Impacts of Soil Management Measures on Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-26, November.
    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. Snapp, Sieglinde, 2022. "Embracing variability in soils on smallholder farms: New tools and better science," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    2. Adityawarman Adil & Rizal Syarief & Widiatmaka & Mukhamad Najib, 2022. "Stakeholder Analysis and Prioritization of Sustainable Organic Farming Management: A Case Study of Bogor, Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-16, December.

    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. Aurélie Cardona & Cristiana Carusi & Michael Mayerfeld Bell, 2021. "Engaged Intermediaries to Bridge the Gap between Scientists, Educational Practitioners and Farmers to Develop Sustainable Agri-Food Innovation Systems: A US Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-13, October.
    2. Luján Soto, Raquel & Cuéllar Padilla, Mamen & de Vente, Joris, 2020. "Participatory selection of soil quality indicators for monitoring the impacts of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    3. Otte, Pia Piroschka & Vik, Jostein, 2017. "Biochar systems: Developing a socio-technical system framework for biochar production in Norway," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 34-45.
    4. Bentivoglio, Deborah & Bucci, Giorgia & Belletti, Matteo & Finco, Adele, 2022. "A theoretical framework on network’s dynamics for precision agriculture technologies adoption," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 60(4), January.
    5. George Cusworth & Jennifer Dodsworth, 2021. "Using the ‘good farmer’ concept to explore agricultural attitudes to the provision of public goods. A case study of participants in an English agri-environment scheme," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 929-941, December.
    6. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    7. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    8. Ion Lucian Ceapraz & Fatma Fourati & Loïc Sauvée, 2023. "Prospects For The Transfer Of Innovation In The Rural World €“ The Case Of The Innovation Platform €Œchamps D’Innovation†In Normandy Region, France," Romanian Journal of Regional Science, Romanian Regional Science Association, vol. 17(1), pages 83-108, June.
    9. Saskia Keesstra & Saskia Visser & Margot De Cleen, 2021. "Achieving Land Degradation Neutrality: A Robust Soil System Forms the Basis for Nature-Based Solutions," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-4, November.
    10. Andrea Arzeni & Francesca Giarè & Mara Lai & Maria Valentina Lasorella & Rossella Ugati & Anna Vagnozzi, 2023. "Interactive Approach for Innovation: The Experience of the Italian EIP AGRI Operational Groups," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-24, September.
    11. Crudeli, Luca & Mancinelli, Susanna & Mazzanti, Massimiliano & Pitoro, Raul, 2022. "Beyond individualistic behaviour: Social norms and innovation adoption in rural Mozambique," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    12. Fieldsend, Andrew F. & Varga, Eszter & Biró, Szabolcs & Von Münchhausen, Susanne & Häring, Anna Maria, 2022. "Multi-actor co-innovation partnerships in agriculture, forestry and related sectors in Europe: Contrasting approaches to implementation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    13. Iwona Gruss & Jacek P. Twardowski & Agnieszka Latawiec & Jolanta Królczyk & Agnieszka Medyńska-Juraszek, 2019. "The Effect of Biochar Used as Soil Amendment on Morphological Diversity of Collembola," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-13, September.
    14. Katharina Helming & Katrin Daedlow & Bernd Hansjürgens & Thomas Koellner, 2018. "Assessment and Governance of Sustainable Soil Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, November.
    15. Chalhoub, Maha & Gabrielle, Benoit & Tournebize, Julien & Chaumont, Cédric & Maugis, Pascal & Girardin, Cyril & Montagne, David & Baveye, Philippe C. & Garnier, Patricia, 2020. "Direct measurement of selected soil services in a drained agricultural field: Methodology development and case study in Saclay (France)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    16. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Haddad, M. & Sanders, D. & Tewkesbury, G., 2020. "Selecting a discrete multiple criteria decision making method for Boeing to rank four global market regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.
    18. Mardani, Abbas & Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras & Khalifah, Zainab & Zakuan, Norhayati & Jusoh, Ahmad & Nor, Khalil Md & Khoshnoudi, Masoumeh, 2017. "A review of multi-criteria decision-making applications to solve energy management problems: Two decades from 1995 to 2015," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 216-256.
    19. Lienert, Judit & Duygan, Mert & Zheng, Jun, 2016. "Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 746-760.
    20. Ricart, Sandra & Gandolfi, Claudio, 2017. "Balancing irrigation multifunctionality based on key stakeholders’ attitudes: Lessons learned from the Muzza system, Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 461-473.

    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:1:p:378-:d:304692. 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.