IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v21y2022i1p32-39.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socio‐Technical Scenarios as a Tool to Improve Farm Advisory Services

Author

Listed:
  • Héloïse Leloup
  • Ellen Bulten
  • Boelie Elzen
  • Jaroslav Prazan
  • Eleni Zarokosta

Abstract

This article examines the use of the socio‐technical scenarios (STSc) method to explore the future needs of farmers in the adoption of more sustainable farming practices. It also examines the changes needed for advisory services to meet those identified needs. It presents the results from four STSc workshops organised as part of the H2020 AgriLink project. Workshop participants (farmers, advisors, policymakers, researchers), jointly explored future changes towards more sustainable agricultural systems paying special attention to the role of advisory services in these transitions. Despite the diversity of national contexts, common results emerged concerning both the shortcomings of the current advisory systems and directions for improvement. Participants agreed that advising on single aspects would not achieve the required systemic changes; these would require more integrated advisory systems at different levels (improved cooperation and knowledge flow), supported by more consistent policies. We indeed identified discrepancies between policy expectations and the broader innovation context. Policies should facilitate the role of advisors in supporting farmers to adopt sustainable innovations, but more often they also create barriers for such innovations. Participants’ concrete recommendations for more farmer‐centered advisory services illustrate the usefulness of the STSc to explore potential solutions to key problems in contemporary farm advisory systems. Cet article examine l'utilisation de la méthode des scénarios sociotechniques (STS) pour explorer les besoins futurs des agriculteurs dans l'adoption de pratiques agricoles plus durables. Il examine également les changements nécessaires pour que les services de conseil répondent aux besoins identifiés. Il présente les résultats de quatre ateliers STS organisés dans le cadre du projet H2020 AgriLink. Les participants à l'atelier (agriculteurs, conseillers, décideurs de l’action publique, chercheurs) ont exploré conjointement les changements futurs vers des systèmes agricoles plus durables en accordant une attention particulière au rôle des services de conseil dans ces transitions. Malgré la diversité des contextes nationaux, des résultats communs ont émergé concernant à la fois les lacunes des systèmes de conseil actuels et les pistes d'amélioration. Les participants ont convenu que les conseils sur des aspects particuliers ne permettait pas d'obtenir les changements systémiques requis; ceux‐ci nécessiteraient des systèmes de conseil plus intégrés à différents niveaux (amélioration de la coopération et du flux de connaissances), soutenus par des politiques plus cohérentes. Nous avons en effet identifié des écarts entre les attentes des politiques et le contexte plus large de l'innovation. Les politiques devraient faciliter le rôle des conseillers pour aider les agriculteurs à adopter des innovations durables, mais le plus souvent, elles créent également des obstacles à ces innovations. Les recommandations concrètes des participants pour des services de conseil davantage centrés sur les agriculteurs illustrent l'utilité des STS pour explorer des solutions potentielles aux problèmes clés des systèmes de conseil agricole contemporains. In diesem Artikel wird der Einsatz der Methode der soziotechnischen Szenarien (STSc) untersucht, um die künftigen Bedürfnisse der Landwirte und Landwirtinnen bei der Einführung nachhaltigerer landwirtschaftlicher Praktiken zu ermitteln. Des Weiteren werden die notwendigen Veränderungen für die Beratungsdienste analysiert, um diese ermittelten Bedürfnisse zu erfüllen. Es werden die Ergebnisse von vier STSc‐Workshops vorgestellt, die im Rahmen des H2020‐Projekts AgriLink organisiert wurden. Die Workshop‐Teilnehmenden (aus den Bereichen Betriebsleitung, Beratung, Politik und Forschung) untersuchten gemeinsam künftige Veränderungen hin zu nachhaltigeren landwirtschaftlichen Systemen. Sielegten dabei besonderes Augenmerk auf die Rolle der Beratungsdienste bei diesen Übergängen. Trotz der Vielfalt der nationalen Kontexte ergaben sich gemeinsame Ergebnisse sowohl, hinsichtlich der Unzulänglichkeiten der derzeitigen Beratungssysteme als auch, hinsichtlich der Wege zur Verbesserung. Die Teilnehmenden waren sich einig, dass die Beratung zu Einzelaspekten nicht ausreicht, um die erforderlichen systemischen Veränderungen herbeizuführen. Dazu bedarf es integrierterer Beratungssysteme auf verschiedenen Ebenen (verbesserte Zusammenarbeit und Wissensfluss), die durch eine konsequentere Politik unterstützt werden. In der Tat haben wir Diskrepanzen zwischen den Erwartungen an die Politik und dem breiteren Innovationskontext festgestellt. Die Politik sollte die Rolle der Beratung bei der Unterstützung der Betriebe im Hinblick auf die Einführung nachhaltiger Innovationen erleichtern, aber sie schafft auch immer häufiger Hindernisse für solche Innovationen. Die konkreten Empfehlungen der Teilnehmenden für eine stärker auf die Betriebe ausgerichtete Beratung verdeutlichen den Nutzen des STSc für die Erforschung potenzieller Lösungen für zentrale Probleme in den heutigen landwirtschaftlichen Beratungssystemen.

Suggested Citation

  • Héloïse Leloup & Ellen Bulten & Boelie Elzen & Jaroslav Prazan & Eleni Zarokosta, 2022. "Socio‐Technical Scenarios as a Tool to Improve Farm Advisory Services," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(1), pages 32-39, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:21:y:2022:i:1:p:32-39
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12351
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12351
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12351?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. Geels, F.W. & McMeekin, A. & Pfluger, B., 2020. "Socio-technical scenarios as a methodological tool to explore social and political feasibility in low-carbon transitions: Bridging computer models and the multi-level perspective in UK electricity gen," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    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. Odenweller, Adrian, 2022. "Climate mitigation under S-shaped energy technology diffusion: Leveraging synergies of optimisation and simulation models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    2. Cheng Wang & Tao Lv & Rongjiang Cai & Jianfeng Xu & Liya Wang, 2022. "Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transition Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, March.
    3. Christina Gugerell & Marianne Penker, 2020. "Change Agents’ Perspectives on Spatial–Relational Proximities and Urban Food Niches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Flávia Guerra & Yasemin Atalay, 2022. "The Energy Transition and the Changing Nature of Governance: Analyzing Evidence from the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 65(1), pages 54-58, March.
    5. Eftychia Ntostoglou & Dilip Khatiwada & Viktoria Martin, 2021. "The Potential Contribution of Decentralized Anaerobic Digestion towards Urban Biowaste Recovery Systems: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Balint, T. & Lamperti, F. & Mandel, A. & Napoletano, M. & Roventini, A. & Sapio, A., 2017. "Complexity and the Economics of Climate Change: A Survey and a Look Forward," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 252-265.
    7. S. H. A. Koop & C. J. Leeuwen, 2017. "The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 385-418, April.
    8. Veldhuizen, Caroline, 2021. "Conceptualising the foundations of sustainability focused innovation policy: From constructivism to holism," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    9. Jordi Molas-Gallart & Alejandra Boni & Sandro Giachi & Johan Schot, 2021. "A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies [The Need for Reflexive Evaluation Approaches in Development Cooperation]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 431-442.
    10. Naimeh Mohammadi & Hamid Mostofi & Hans-Liudger Dienel, 2023. "Policy Chain of Energy Transition from Economic and Innovative Perspectives: Conceptual Framework and Consistency Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-27, August.
    11. Kuhmonen, Tuomas, 2017. "Exposing the attractors of evolving complex adaptive systems by utilising futures images: Milestones of the food sustainability journey," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 214-225.
    12. Halonen, Maija & Näyhä, Annukka & Kuhmonen, Irene, 2022. "Regional sustainability transition through forest-based bioeconomy? Development actors' perspectives on related policies, power, and justice," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    13. Pedro Macedo & Ana Huertas & Cristiano Bottone & Juan del Río & Nicola Hillary & Tommaso Brazzini & Julia M. Wittmayer & Gil Penha-Lopes, 2020. "Learnings from Local Collaborative Transformations: Setting a Basis for a Sustainability Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    14. Francesco Lamperti & Giovanni Dosi & Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Alessandro Sapio, 2018. "And then he wasn't a she : Climate change and green transitions in an agent-based integrated assessment model," Working Papers hal-03443464, HAL.
    15. Bessi, Alessandro & Guidolin, Mariangela & Manfredi, Piero, 2021. "The role of gas on future perspectives of renewable energy diffusion: Bridging technology or lock-in?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    16. Rauschmayer, Felix & Bauler, Tom & Schäpke, Niko, 2013. "Towards a governance of sustainability transitions: Giving place to individuals," UFZ Discussion Papers 17/2013, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    17. Helgegren, Ida & McConville, Jennifer & Landaeta, Graciela & Rauch, Sebastien, 2021. "A multiple regime analysis of the water and sanitation sectors in the Kanata metropolitan region, Bolivia," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    18. Janina Wittenberg & Maria Gernert & Hamid El Bilali & Carola Strassner, 2022. "Towards Sustainable Urban Food Systems: Potentials, Impacts and Challenges of Grassroots Initiatives in the Foodshed of Muenster, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-17, October.
    19. Nguyen-Tien, Viet & Dai, Qiang & Harper, Gavin D.J. & Anderson, Paul A. & Elliott, Robert J.R., 2022. "Optimising the geospatial configuration of a future lithium ion battery recycling industry in the transition to electric vehicles and a circular economy," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 321(C).
    20. Federico Cuomo & Stefania Ravazzi & Federico Savini & Luca Bertolini, 2020. "Transformative Urban Living Labs: Towards a Circular Economy in Amsterdam and Turin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-19, September.

    More about this item

    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:bla:eurcho:v:21:y:2022:i:1:p:32-39. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.