IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/2rqjd.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mapping the pathways towards farm-level sustainable intensification of agriculture: an exploratory network 3 analysis of stakeholders’ views

Author

Listed:
  • Micha, Evgenia
  • Fenton, Owen
  • Daly, Karen
  • Kakonyi, Gabriella
  • Ezzati, Golnaz
  • Moloney, Thomas
  • Thornton, Steven F

Abstract

Sustainable intensification of agriculture (SIA) has become an important concept to ensuring food security in the context of increasing agricultural production while minimising negative externalities in contemporary agronomic systems. In supporting this, there is a need to establish a decision-making and management system that involves the views and opinions of different stakeholders and unifies the goals of SIA amongst them. The objective of this work is to identify and describe pathways toward farm-level SIA. An explanatory network approach and fuzzy cognitive maps (FCMs) support the analysis of stakeholder views across the three pillars of sustainability: social, economic and environmental. Different stakeholder groups were asked to collectively map the pathways towards farm level SIA in a workshop exercise. The respective groups considered a common set of pre-selected factors as potential descriptors of sustainability and created unique maps by adding their own components and descriptors and identifying causal links between them. While the relative weighting of factors by each group differed, according to their perspectives and interpretation, yield, knowledge transfer, water quality, weather extremes and technology/infrastructure were scored as priority descriptors of farm-level sustainability by all groups in an aggregate analysis. Exploratory analysis of FCMs was found to provide an efficient mechanism to investigate stakeholder views on pathways towards farm-level SIA, by identifying causal relationships and interactions between factors and actors that affect its achievement. The study shows that sustainable intensification is a complex dynamic system that includes institutional structures, personal goals, stakeholder interests and socio-economic factors, and is affected by cognitive beliefs and particular knowledge within stakeholder groups. Our results show how experience, knowledge and beliefs affect the perception of farm-level SIA by various stakeholder groups, and how this knowledge is often fragmented and miscommunicated. The exercise confirmed the hypothesis that farm-level SIA has to be seen as a dynamic process in which farm performance is affected by various factors, with the complexity of the process increasing when different stakeholder interests and beliefs combine for farm management.

Suggested Citation

  • Micha, Evgenia & Fenton, Owen & Daly, Karen & Kakonyi, Gabriella & Ezzati, Golnaz & Moloney, Thomas & Thornton, Steven F, 2019. "Mapping the pathways towards farm-level sustainable intensification of agriculture: an exploratory network 3 analysis of stakeholders’ views," SocArXiv 2rqjd, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:2rqjd
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/2rqjd
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5d77a3d2d7413a001763013a/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/2rqjd?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Areal, Francisco J. & Jones, Philip J. & Mortimer, Simon R. & Wilson, Paul, 2018. "Measuring sustainable intensification: Combining composite indicators and efficiency analysis to account for positive externalities in cereal production," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 314-326.
    2. Ana Serrano & Dabo Guan & Rosa Duarte & Jouni Paavola, 2016. "Virtual Water Flows in the EU27: A Consumption-based Approach," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 20(3), pages 547-558, June.
    3. Sala, Serenella & Ciuffo, Biagio & Nijkamp, Peter, 2015. "A systemic framework for sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 314-325.
    4. Hyland, John J. & Heanue, Kevin & McKillop, Jessica & Micha, Evgenia, 2018. "Factors underlying farmers' intentions to adopt best practices: The case of paddock based grazing systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 97-106.
    5. Daxini, Amar & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Barnes, Andrew & Buckley, Cathal & Daly, Karen, 2018. "Which factors influence farmers’ intentions to adopt nutrient management planning?," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273498, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Carillo, Felicetta & Carillo, Maria Rosaria & Venittelli, Tiziana & Zazzaro, Alberto, 2013. "Aging and succession on Italian farms," Politica Agricola Internazionale - International Agricultural Policy, Edizioni L'Informatore Agrario, vol. 2013(1), March.
    7. van Winsen, Frankwin & de Mey, Yann & Lauwers, Ludwig & Van Passel, Steven & Vancauteren, Mark & Wauters, Erwin, 2013. "Cognitive mapping: A method to elucidate and present farmers’ risk perception," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 42-52.
    8. Latruffe, Laure & Diazabakana, Ambre & Bockstaller, Christian & Desjeux, Yann & Finn, John & Kelly, Edel & Ryan, Mary & Uthes, Sandra, 2016. "Measurement of sustainability in agriculture: a review of indicators," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 118(3), pages 1-8, December.
    9. Gray, Steven & Chan, Alex & Clark, Dan & Jordan, Rebecca, 2012. "Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social–ecological decision-making: Benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 88-96.
    10. R. de Oliveira Silva & L. G. Barioni & J. A. J. Hall & M. Folegatti Matsuura & T. Zanett Albertini & F. A. Fernandes & D. Moran, 2016. "Increasing beef production could lower greenhouse gas emissions in Brazil if decoupled from deforestation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(5), pages 493-497, May.
    11. Tingting Liu & Randall J. F. Bruins & Matthew T. Heberling, 2018. "Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Best Management Practices: A Review and Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-26, February.
    12. Michael A. Levy & Mark N. Lubell & Neil McRoberts, 2018. "The structure of mental models of sustainable agriculture," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(8), pages 413-420, August.
    13. Dim Coumou & Stefan Rahmstorf, 2012. "A decade of weather extremes," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(7), pages 491-496, July.
    14. Daxini, Amar & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Barnes, Andrew & Buckley, Cathal & Daly, Karen, 2018. "Which factors influence farmers’ intentions to adopt nutrient management planning?," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273494, Agricultural Economics Society.
    15. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gómez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodríguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2012. "Consequences of a coexistence policy on the adoption of GMHT crops in the European Union," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 401-411.
    16. Areti D. Kontogianni & Elpiniki Papageorgiou, 2012. "Using Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping in Environmental Decision Making and Management: A Methodological Primer and an Application," Chapters, in: Stephen Young & Steven Silvern (ed.), International Perspectives on Global Environmental Change, IntechOpen.
    17. Fairweather, John, 2010. "Farmer models of socio-ecologic systems: Application of causal mapping across multiple locations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(3), pages 555-562.
    18. Vayssières, Jonathan & Vigne, Mathieu & Alary, Véronique & Lecomte, Philippe, 2011. "Integrated participatory modelling of actual farms to support policy making on sustainable intensification," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 146-161, February.
    19. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Baret, Philippe V. & Stilmant, Didier, 2014. "A new approach for comparing and categorizing farmers’ systems of practice based on cognitive mapping and graph theory indicators," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 1-11.
    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. Evgenia Micha & Owen Fenton & Karen Daly & Gabriella Kakonyi & Golnaz Ezzati & Thomas Moloney & Steven Thornton, 2020. "The Complex Pathway towards Farm-Level Sustainable Intensification: An Exploratory Network Analysis of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Perception," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Castilla-Rho, Juan & Kenny, Daniel, 2022. "What prevents the adoption of regenerative agriculture and what can we do about it? Lessons from a behaviorally-attuned Participatory Modelling exercise in Australia," OSF Preprints asxr2, Center for Open Science.
    3. Daxini, Amar & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Buckley, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2018. "Factors influencing farmers' intentions to adopt nutrient management planning: accounting for heterogeneity," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276183, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Daxini, Amar & Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2019. "Understanding farmers’ intentions to follow a nutrient management plan using the theory of planned behaviour," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 428-437.
    5. Daniel C. Kenny & Juan Castilla-Rho, 2022. "What Prevents the Adoption of Regenerative Agriculture and What Can We Do about It? Lessons and Narratives from a Participatory Modelling Exercise in Australia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-30, August.
    6. Li, Fuduo & Zhang, Kangjie & Ren, Jing & Yin, Changbin & Zhang, Yang & Nie, Jun, 2021. "Driving mechanism for farmers to adopt improved agricultural systems in China: The case of rice-green manure crops rotation system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    7. Jane Musole Kwenye & Xiaoting Hou Jones & Alan Renwick, 2023. "Understanding Land-Use Trade-off Decision Making Using the Analytical Hierarchy Process: Insights from Agricultural Land Managers in Zambia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, February.
    8. Alan Renwick & Robyn Dynes & Paul Johnstone & Warren King & Lania Holt & Jemma Penelope, 2019. "Challenges and Opportunities for Land Use Transformation: Insights from the Central Plains Water Scheme in New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    9. Somjai Nupueng & Peter Oosterveer & Arthur P. J. Mol, 2023. "Global and local sustainable certification systems: Factors influencing RSPO and Thai-GAP adoption by oil palm smallholder farmers in Thailand," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 6337-6362, July.
    10. Wilson Charles Wilson & Maja Slingerland & Frederick P. Baijukya & Hannah Zanten & Simon Oosting & Ken E. Giller, 2021. "Integrating the soybean-maize-chicken value chains to attain nutritious diets in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(6), pages 1595-1612, December.
    11. Okumah, Murat & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Chapman, Pippa J. & Novo, Paula & Cassidy, Rachel & Lyon, Christopher & Higgins, Alex & Doody, Donnacha, 2021. "The role of experiential learning in the adoption of best land management practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    12. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Stilmant, Didier & Baret, Philippe V., 2013. "Development of a broadened cognitive mapping approach for analysing systems of practices in social–ecological systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 352-362.
    13. Daniel K. Maduku & Steven Mbeya, 2024. "Understanding family takaful purchase behaviour: the roles of religious obligation and gender," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 29(2), pages 440-458, June.
    14. Shebanina, Olena & Burkovska, Anna & Petrenko, Vadym & Burkovska, Alla, 2023. "Economic planning at agricultural enterprises: Ukrainian experience of increasing the availability of data in the context of food security," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 9(4), December.
    15. Lhermie, Guillaume & Wernli, Didier & Jørgensen, Peter Søgaard & Kenkel, Donald & Lin Lawell, C.-Y. Cynthia & Tauer, Loren William & Gröhn, Yrjo Tapio, 2019. "Tradeoffs between resistance to antimicrobials in public health and their use in agriculture: Moving towards sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Marie Asma Ben-Othmen & Mariia Ostapchuk, 2023. "How diverse are farmers’ preferences for large-scale grassland ecological restoration? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 341-375, December.
    17. Jessica Rudnick & Mark Lubell & Sat Darshan S. Khalsa & Stephanie Tatge & Liza Wood & Molly Sears & Patrick H. Brown, 2021. "A farm systems approach to the adoption of sustainable nitrogen management practices in California," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 783-801, September.
    18. Pathak, Santosh & Wang, Hua & Adusumilli, Naveen C., 2021. "Quantifying the dynamics of agricultural conservation practices in the Delta region," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313916, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Yang, Xin & Zhou, Xiaohe & Deng, Xiangzheng, 2022. "Modeling farmers’ adoption of low-carbon agricultural technology in Jianghan Plain, China: An examination of the theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    20. Goswami, Rupak & Roy, Kalyan & Dutta, Sudarshan & Ray, Krishnendu & Sarkar, Sukamal & Brahmachari, Koushik & Nanda, Manoj Kr. & Mainuddin, Mohammed & Banerjee, Hirak & Timsina, Jagadish & Majumdar, Ka, 2021. "Multi-faceted impact and outcome of COVID-19 on smallholder agricultural systems: Integrating qualitative research and fuzzy cognitive mapping to explore resilient strategies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:socarx:2rqjd. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.