IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i10p5605-d556473.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers’ Participation in Operational Groups to Foster Innovation in the Agricultural Sector: An Italian Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Natalia Molina

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Agri-Environmental Sciences (DISAA), Pisa University, 56125 Pisa, Italy)

  • Gianluca Brunori

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Agri-Environmental Sciences (DISAA), Pisa University, 56125 Pisa, Italy)

  • Elena Favilli

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Agri-Environmental Sciences (DISAA), Pisa University, 56125 Pisa, Italy)

  • Stefano Grando

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Agri-Environmental Sciences (DISAA), Pisa University, 56125 Pisa, Italy)

  • Patrizia Proietti

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economy (CREA), Policy and Bioeconomy Centre, Via Ruggero Bardazzi 19/21, 50127 Florence, Italy)

Abstract

Recently, the interpretation of the innovation process has changed significantly. Its linear model has evolved to a dynamic and ongoing participatory approach where cooperation, oriented to generate co-ownership, is the essence to co-produce knowledge among multiple actors. Farmers’ direct participation in the process is widely accepted since they contribute with first-hand information, perceptions, field experiences, and feedback that are essential for the design and implementation of a project. The European Union encourages their participation through the European Rural Development Policy that promotes competitiveness and sustainability in the agriculture and forestry sectors, building bridges among heterogeneous stakeholders that complement each other to find an innovative solution to a given problem. Thus far, despite participation importance, few details have been provided about producer’s contributions within the process. Consequently, this paper attempts to explore the modus operandi of an Italian Operational Group to get insights about the farmers’ participation and identify the factors that could influence and foster the interactive innovation process. The results, based on a participatory observation, key informants’ interviews, and theory reflection, revealed that farmers are active players in the design and implementation phases. Yet, their participation is not constant throughout the entire process. Empower them to find solutions with different players is a complex challenge as it requires motivation, commitment, trust, and an open communication among different actors.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalia Molina & Gianluca Brunori & Elena Favilli & Stefano Grando & Patrizia Proietti, 2021. "Farmers’ Participation in Operational Groups to Foster Innovation in the Agricultural Sector: An Italian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5605-:d:556473
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5605/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5605/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    2. Lynn Mytelka, 2000. "Local Systems Of Innovation In A Globalized World Economy," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(1), pages 15-32.
    3. Hermans, Frans & Stuiver, Marian & Beers, P.J. & Kok, Kasper, 2013. "The distribution of roles and functions for upscaling and outscaling innovations in agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 117-128.
    4. Dolinska, Aleksandra & d'Aquino, Patrick, 2016. "Farmers as agents in innovation systems. Empowering farmers for innovation through communities of practice," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 122-130.
    5. Skaalsveen, Kamilla & Ingram, Julie & Urquhart, Julie, 2020. "The role of farmers' social networks in the implementation of no-till farming practices," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    6. Gianluca Brunori & Dominique Barjolle & Anne-Charlotte Dockes & Simone Helmle & Julie Ingram & Laurens Klerkx & Heidrun Moschitz & Gusztáv Nemes & Talis Tisenkopfs, 2013. "CAP Reform and Innovation: The Role of Learning and Innovation Networks," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 12(2), pages 27-33, August.
    7. Saint Ville, Arlette S. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Phillip, Leroy E., 2017. "How do stakeholder interactions influence national food security policy in the Caribbean? The case of Saint Lucia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 53-64.
    8. Paul Diederen & Hans van Meijl & Arjan Wolters, 2003. "Modernisation in agriculture: what makes a farmer adopt an innovation?," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(3/4), pages 328-342.
    9. Lalani, Baqir & Dorward, Peter & Holloway, Garth & Wauters, Erwin, 2016. "Smallholder farmers' motivations for using Conservation Agriculture and the roles of yield, labour and soil fertility in decision making," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 80-90.
    10. Kees Swaans & Birgit Boogaard & Ramkumar Bendapudi & Hailemichael Taye & Saskia Hendrickx & Laurens Klerkx, 2014. "Operationalizing inclusive innovation: lessons from innovation platforms in livestock value chains in India and Mozambique," Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 239-257, October.
    11. Newman, Claire & Briggeman, Brian C., 2016. "Farmers’ Perceptions of Building Trust," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(3), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Schmidt, Laura & Falk, Thomas & Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna & Spangenberg, Joachim H., 2020. "The Objectives of Stakeholder Involvement in Transdisciplinary Research. A Conceptual Framework for a Reflective and Reflexive Practise," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    13. Dolinska, Aleksandra, 2017. "Bringing farmers into the game. Strengthening farmers' role in the innovation process through a simulation game, a case from Tunisia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 129-139.
    14. World Bank, 2006. "Enhancing Agricultural Innovation," World Bank Publications - Reports 24105, The World Bank Group.
    15. Jakku, E. & Thorburn, P.J., 2010. "A conceptual framework for guiding the participatory development of agricultural decision support systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(9), pages 675-682, November.
    16. Greiner, Romy & Patterson, Louisa & Miller, Owen, 2009. "Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 86-104, February.
    17. Jonathan Perraton & Iona Tarrant, 2007. "What does tacit knowledge actually explain?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 353-370.
    18. Maria Angeles Diez, 2001. "The Evaluation of Regional Innovation and Cluster Policies: Towards a Participatory Approach," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(7), pages 907-923, October.
    19. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    20. Tepic, M. & Trienekens, Jacques H. & Hoste, R. & Omta, S.W.F. (Onno), 2012. "The Influence of Networking and Absorptive Capacity on the Innovativeness of Farmers in the Dutch Pork Sector," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(3), pages 1-34, September.
    21. Todtling, Franz & Trippl, Michaela, 2005. "One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1203-1219, October.
    22. Cullen, Paula & Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & hUallacháin, Daire Ó & Sheridan, Helen, 2020. "Impact of farmer self-identity and attitudes on participation in agri-environment schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    23. Klerkx, Laurens & Aarts, Noelle & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 390-400, July.
    24. Hanna L. Breetz & Karen Fisher-Vanden & Hannah Jacobs & Claire Schary, 2005. "Trust and Communication: Mechanisms for Increasing Farmers’ Participation in Water Quality Trading," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 81(2).
    25. Joffre, Olivier M. & Poortvliet, P. Marijn & Klerkx, Laurens, 2019. "To cluster or not to cluster farmers? Influences on network interactions, risk perceptions, and adoption of aquaculture practices," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 151-160.
    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. Valentina Cattivelli, 2022. "Delimiting Rural Areas: Evidence from the Application of Different Methods Elaborated by Italian Scholars," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-21, September.
    2. Kinga Biró & Mária Szalmáné Csete & Bálint Németh, 2021. "Climate-Smart Agriculture: Sleeping Beauty of the Hungarian Agribusiness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-15, September.
    3. Bredemeier, Birte & Herrmann, Sylvia & Sattler, Claudia & Prager, Katrin & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Rex, Julia, 2022. "Insights into innovative contract design to improve the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    4. Cronin, Evelien & Fieldsend, Andrew & Rogge, Elke & Block, Thomas, 2022. "Multi-actor Horizon 2020 projects in agriculture, forestry and related sectors: A Multi-level Innovation System framework (MINOS) for identifying multi-level system failures," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. 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.

    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. Maria, Kernecker & Maria, Busse & Andrea, Knierim, 2021. "Exploring actors, their constellations, and roles in digital agricultural innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    2. Pachoud, Carine, 2024. "Conciliation or a confrontation of agricultural visions? A characterisation of the networks and key actors for sustainable agrifood transformations in the Bauges," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 218(C).
    3. Evelien Cronin & Sylvie Fosselle & Elke Rogge & Robert Home, 2021. "An Analytical Framework to Study Multi-Actor Partnerships Engaged in Interactive Innovation Processes in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    4. Souzanchi Kashani, Ebrahim & Roshani, Saeed, 2019. "Evolution of innovation system literature: Intellectual bases and emerging trends," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 68-80.
    5. Cholez, Celia & Pauly, Olivier & Mahdad, Maral & Mehrabi, Sepide & Giagnocavo, Cynthia & Bijman, Jos, 2023. "Heterogeneity of inter-organizational collaborations in agrifood chain sustainability-oriented innovations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    6. Micheels, Eric T. & Nolan, James F., 2016. "Examining the effects of absorptive capacity and social capital on the adoption of agricultural innovations: A Canadian Prairie case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 127-138.
    7. Kathrin Hasler & Hans-Werner Olfs & Onno Omta & Stefanie Bröring, 2016. "Drivers for the Adoption of Eco-Innovations in the German Fertilizer Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, July.
    8. Skaalsveen, Kamilla & Ingram, Julie & Urquhart, Julie, 2020. "The role of farmers' social networks in the implementation of no-till farming practices," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    9. Schut, Marc & Klerkx, Laurens & Rodenburg, Jonne & Kayeke, Juma & Hinnou, Léonard C. & Raboanarielina, Cara M. & Adegbola, Patrice Y. & van Ast, Aad & Bastiaans, Lammert, 2015. "RAAIS: Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (Part I). A diagnostic tool for integrated analysis of complex problems and innovation capacity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 1-11.
    10. Contesse, Maria & Duncan, Jessica & Legun, Katharine & Klerkx, Laurens, 2021. "Unravelling non-human agency in sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    11. Colleen M. Eidt & Laxmi P. Pant & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "Platform, Participation, and Power: How Dominant and Minority Stakeholders Shape Agricultural Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    12. Yang Yang & Shishuai Ge & Xianzhong Cao & Gang Zeng, 2022. "Evolutionary Mechanisms of Ecological Agriculture Innovation Systems: Evidence from Chongming Eco-Island, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, October.
    13. Turner, James A. & Klerkx, Laurens & White, Toni & Nelson, Tracy & Everett-Hincks, Julie & Mackay, Alec & Botha, Neels, 2017. "Unpacking systemic innovation capacity as strategic ambidexterity: How projects dynamically configure capabilities for agricultural innovation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 503-523.
    14. Pedro López-Rubio & Norat Roig-Tierno & Alicia Mas-Tur, 2020. "Regional innovation system research trends: toward knowledge management and entrepreneurial ecosystems," International Journal of Quality Innovation, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, December.
    15. Frederick Robert Peter Edlmann & Sara Grobbelaar, 2021. "A Framework of Engagement Practices for Stakeholders Collaborating around Complex Social Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-35, September.
    16. Menary, Jonathan & Collier, Rosemary & Seers, Kate, 2019. "Innovation in the UK fresh produce sector: Identifying systemic problems and the move towards systemic facilitation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    17. Périnelle, Anne & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Scopel, Eric, 2021. "Combining on-farm innovation tracking and participatory prototyping trials to develop legume-based cropping systems in West Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    18. Yehia Zahran & Hazem S. Kassem & Shimaa M. Naba & Bader Alhafi Alotaibi, 2020. "Shifting from Fragmentation to Integration: A Proposed Framework for Strengthening Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in Egypt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, June.
    19. Xiaoran Zheng & Yuzhuo Cai, 2022. "Transforming Innovation Systems into Innovation Ecosystems: The Role of Public Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-26, June.
    20. Colvin, John & Blackmore, Chris & Chimbuya, Sam & Collins, Kevin & Dent, Mark & Goss, John & Ison, Ray & Roggero, Pier Paolo & Seddaiu, Giovanna, 2014. "In search of systemic innovation for sustainable development: A design praxis emerging from a decade of social learning inquiry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 760-771.

    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:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5605-:d:556473. 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.