IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i19p14271-d1248752.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interactive Approach for Innovation: The Experience of the Italian EIP AGRI Operational Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Arzeni

    (CREA—Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Francesca Giarè

    (CREA—Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Mara Lai

    (CREA—Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Maria Valentina Lasorella

    (CREA—Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Rossella Ugati

    (CREA—Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00187 Rome, Italy)

  • Anna Vagnozzi

    (CREA—Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00187 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

The interactive approach implies that a heterogeneous group of actors cooperates to identify, develop, and introduce innovative solutions on the ground. Twenty-year studies have shown this approach to be the most suitable to support innovation and knowledge sharing in the agri-food system. The present study aims to analyse how the interaction process works in the implementation of OGs in Italy, and its effectiveness, given the relevance assigned to EIP AGRI as a driver for innovation in the past and the current CAP programming periods. An online survey submitted to 270 OGs and 10 in-depth case studies were used to analyse the interaction process and verify whether a common implementation pattern can be identified. The results show that the implementation of OGs in Italy helped capture the real issues of farmers/rural entrepreneurs and support the creation and strengthening of relationships between partners. However, low levels of internal and external communications and the lack of efforts to disseminate the results reduced the effectiveness of the groups. The study showed how complex it is to describe the processes triggered by the interactive approach, being that it is influenced by the type of relationships existing between partners and by other external factors. The implementation of the next generation of OGs could be strengthened by improving their capacity to address the issues of large groups of farmers, promoting the presence of intermediaries to dialogue between partners and facilitating the active participation of advisors.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14271-:d:1248752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14271/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14271/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Kieran Harrahill & Áine Macken-Walsh & Eoin O’Neill & Mick Lennon, 2022. "An Analysis of Irish Dairy Farmers’ Participation in the Bioeconomy: Exploring Power and Knowledge Dynamics in a Multi-actor EIP-AGRI Operational Group," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-39, September.
    3. Klerkx, Laurens & Leeuwis, Cees, 2008. "Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 260-276, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Hermans, Frans & Geerling-Eiff, Floor & Potters, Jorieke & Klerkx, Laurens, 2019. "Public-private partnerships as systemic agricultural innovation policy instruments – Assessing their contribution to innovation system function dynamics," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 88, pages 76-95.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. Richard Lynch & Maeve Henchion & John J. Hyland & José A. Gutiérrez, 2022. "Creating a Rainbow for Sustainability: The Case of Sustainable Beef," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-24, April.
    4. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    5. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Torres-Avila, Angelica & Aguilar-Ávila, Jorge & Santoyo-Cortés, Vinicio Horacio & Martínez-González, Enrique Genaro & Aguilar-Gallegos, Norman, 2022. "Innovation in the pineapple value chain in Mexico: Explaining the global adoption process of the MD-2 hybrid," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    8. Sergio Ochoa Jiménez & Gimena Vianey Cervantes Hurtado & Carlos Armando Jacobo Hernández & José Guadalupe Flores López, 2020. "Knowledge and Innovation in Mexican Agricultural Organizations," Economies, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-12, November.
    9. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    10. 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.
    11. Čikić, Jovana & Petrović, Živojin, 2013. "Diffusion Of Knowledge And Innovations In Serbian Agriculture," Agri-Food Sector in Serbia: State and Challenges, Serbian Association of Agricultural Economists, number 157553 edited by Škorić, Dragan & Tomić, Danilo & Popović, Vesna, December.
    12. Eligio Malusà & Ewa M. Furmanczyk & Małgorzata Tartanus & Gerjan Brouwer & Claude-Eric Parveaud & François Warlop & Markus Kelderer & Jutta Kienzle & Evelyne Alcazar Marin & Teun Dekker & Radek Vávra , 2022. "Knowledge Networks in Organic Fruit Production across Europe: A Survey Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, March.
    13. Mónica Ramos-Mejía & Alejandro Balanzo, 2018. "What It Takes to Lead Sustainability Transitions from the Bottom-Up: Strategic Interactions of Grassroots Ecopreneurs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.
    14. Ramírez-Gómez, Carlos Julián & Rodríguez-Espinosa, Holmes, 2022. "Local public-private partnerships to promote innovation in agricultural value chains: the case of cocoa in Colombia," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 60(4), January.
    15. Matt, M. & Colinet, L. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P.B., 2015. "A typology of impact pathways generated by a public agricultural research organization," Working Papers 2015-03, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    16. Labarthe, Pierre & Laurent, Catherine, 2013. "Privatization of agricultural extension services in the EU: Towards a lack of adequate knowledge for small-scale farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 240-252.
    17. Leonidou, Erasmia & Christofi, Michael & Vrontis, Demetris & Thrassou, Alkis, 2020. "An integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship development," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 245-258.
    18. Labarthe, Pierre & Coléno, François & Enjalbert, Jérôme & Fugeray-Scarbel, Aline & Hannachi, Mourad & Lemarié, Stéphane, 2021. "Exploration, exploitation and environmental innovation in agriculture. The case of variety mixture in France and Denmark," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    19. Christina-Ioanna Papadopoulou & Efstratios Loizou & Fotios Chatzitheodoridis & Anastasios Michailidis & Christos Karelakis & Yannis Fallas & Aikaterini Paltaki, 2023. "What Makes Farmers Aware in Adopting Circular Bioeconomy Practices? Evidence from a Greek Rural Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, April.
    20. Aidan R. Vining, 2016. "What Is Public Agency Strategic Analysis (PASA) and How Does It Differ from Public Policy Analysis and Firm Strategy Analysis?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-31, December.

    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:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14271-:d:1248752. 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.