IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v103y2016icp119-126.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to make Participatory Technology Assessment in agriculture more “participatory”: The case of genetically modified plants

Author

Listed:
  • Tavella, Elena

Abstract

This paper suggests a framework, based on Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH), to guide the organisation and management of expert-facilitated and participatory processes that allow for stakeholders' different interests, concerns, and values to be included in the assessment and policy making of GM plants. The framework is particularly useful for stakeholders, such as governments, foundations, and researchers, who attempt to facilitate inclusive and democratic processes to assess GM plants. The use of the framework is illustrated by evaluating the report from a citizen jury carried out to assess the cultivation of new GM plants in Denmark. Furthermore, through this illustration, the term Participatory Technology Assessment (PTA) is redefined, thereby suggesting two additional aspects to assessing new technologies – following and evaluating policy making – to be considered in the conduct of PTA.

Suggested Citation

  • Tavella, Elena, 2016. "How to make Participatory Technology Assessment in agriculture more “participatory”: The case of genetically modified plants," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 119-126.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:103:y:2016:i:c:p:119-126
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162515003108
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.10.015?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. White, Douglas S. & Labarta, Ricardo A. & Leguia, Efrain J., 2005. "Technology adoption by resource-poor farmers: considering the implications of peak-season labor costs," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 183-201, August.
    2. W. Hartley Furtan, 2007. "Environmental Costs and Benefits of Transgenic Crops," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(3), pages 268-426, September.
    3. Jacquelin Burgess & Jason Chilvers, 2006. "Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(10), pages 713-728, December.
    4. Jagtap, S. S. & Abamu, F. J., 2003. "Matching improved maize production technologies to the resource base of farmers in a moist savanna," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 1067-1084, June.
    5. Pringle, M. J. & McBratney, A. B. & Whelan, B. M. & Taylor, J. A., 2003. "A preliminary approach to assessing the opportunity for site-specific crop management in a field, using yield monitor data," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 273-292, April.
    6. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    7. John Durant, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 313-319, October.
    8. Gotsch, Nikolaus & Bernegger, Urs & Rieder, Peter, 1993. "Impacts of Future Biological-Technological Progress on Arable Farming," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 20(1), pages 19-34.
    9. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Smith, Patricia & Martin, Elisabeth & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2003. "Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 239-251, July.
    10. White, Leroy & Bourne, Humphrey, 2007. "Voices and values: Linking values with participation in OR/MS in public policy making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 588-603, October.
    11. Elizabeth Nolan & Paulo Santos, 2012. "The Contribution of Genetic Modification to Changes in Corn Yield in the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1171-1188.
    12. Bowman, P. J. & Wysel, D. A. & Fowler, D. G. & White, D. H., 1989. "Evaluation of a new technology when applied to sheep production systems: Part I--Model description," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 35-47.
    13. Smyth, Stuart J. & Gusta, Michael & Belcher, Kenneth & Phillips, Peter W.B. & Castle, David, 2011. "Environmental impacts from herbicide tolerant canola production in Western Canada," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(5), pages 403-410, June.
    14. Jussi Lankoski & Markku Ollikainen & Pekka Uusitalo, 2006. "No-till technology: benefits to farmers and the environment? Theoretical analysis and application to Finnish agriculture," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(2), pages 193-221, June.
    15. Hu, Ruifa & Cao, Jianmin & Huang, Jikun & Peng, Shaobing & Huang, Jianliang & Zhong, Xuhua & Zou, Yingbin & Yang, Jianchang & Buresh, Roland J., 2007. "Farmer participatory testing of standard and modified site-specific nitrogen management for irrigated rice in China," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 331-340, May.
    16. Ahlgren, S. & Baky, A. & Bernesson, S. & Nordberg, Å. & Norén, O. & Hansson, P.-A., 2009. "Tractive power in organic farming based on fuel cell technology - Energy balance and environmental load," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 102(1-3), pages 67-76, October.
    17. Katherine Barrett & Elisabeth Abergel, 2000. "Breeding familiarity: Environmental risk assessment for genetically engineered crops in Canada," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 2-12, February.
    18. Harris, D. & Pathan, A. K. & Gothkar, P. & Joshi, A. & Chivasa, W. & Nyamudeza, P., 2001. "On-farm seed priming: using participatory methods to revive and refine a key technology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 69(1-2), pages 151-164.
    19. Simon Joss, 1998. "Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 2-22, February.
    20. Sharmistha Self & Richard Grabowski, 2007. "Economic development and the role of agricultural technology," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(3), pages 395-404, May.
    21. Griffith, G. R. & Vere, D. T. & Bootle, B. W., 1995. "An integrated approach to assessing the farm and market level impacts of new technology adoption in Australian lamb production and marketing systems: The case of large, lean lamb," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 175-198.
    22. Pampolino, M.F. & Manguiat, I.J. & Ramanathan, S. & Gines, H.C. & Tan, P.S. & Chi, T.T.N. & Rajendran, R. & Buresh, R.J., 2007. "Environmental impact and economic benefits of site-specific nutrient management (SSNM) in irrigated rice systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 93(1-3), pages 1-24, March.
    23. Mushtaq, S. & Maraseni, T.N. & Reardon-Smith, K., 2013. "Climate change and water security: Estimating the greenhouse gas costs of achieving water security through investments in modern irrigation technology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 78-89.
    24. Leonhard Hennen, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment: A response to technical modernity?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 303-312, October.
    25. Loehman, E. & Yu, Z. & Ngambeki, D. S. & Deuson, R., 1995. "Measuring yield risk effects of new technologies with on-farm trials: A case study in north Cameroon," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 223-240.
    26. K. S. Mann & C. V. Moore & S. S. Johl, 1968. "Estimates of Potential Effects of New Technology on Agriculture in Punjab, India," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 50(2), pages 278-291.
    27. Cronin, Karen & Midgley, Gerald & Jackson, Laurie Skuba, 2014. "Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 145-158.
    28. Hijmans, R. J. & Condori, B. & Carrillo, R. & Kropff, M. J., 2003. "A quantitative and constraint-specific method to assess the potential impact of new agricultural technology: the case of frost resistant potato for the Altiplano (Peru and Bolivia)," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 895-911, June.
    29. Per Pinstrup-Andersen, 1979. "Modern agricultural technology and income distribution: The market price effect," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 6(1), pages 17-46.
    30. Torkamani, Javad, 2005. "Using a whole-farm modelling approach to assess prospective technologies under uncertainty," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 85(2), pages 138-154, August.
    31. Ulrich, Werner, 1987. "Critical heuristics of social systems design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 276-283, September.
    32. Zaher, U. & Stöckle, C. & Painter, K. & Higgins, S., 2013. "Life cycle assessment of the potential carbon credit from no- and reduced-tillage winter wheat-based cropping systems in Eastern Washington State," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 73-78.
    33. Sheikh, A. D. & Rehman, T. & Yates, C. M., 2003. "Logit models for identifying the factors that influence the uptake of new `no-tillage' technologies by farmers in the rice-wheat and the cotton-wheat farming systems of Pakistan's Punjab," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 79-95, January.
    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. Kraus, Sascha & Kumar, Satish & Lim, Weng Marc & Kaur, Jaspreet & Sharma, Anuj & Schiavone, Francesco, 2023. "From moon landing to metaverse: Tracing the evolution of Technological Forecasting and Social Change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Takeuchi Ayano, 2021. "A survey of methods for evaluating mini-publics," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, February.
    3. Keishiro Hara & Iori Miura & Masanori Suzuki & Toshihiro Tanaka, 2023. "Designing research strategy and technology innovation for sustainability by adopting “imaginary future generations”—A case study using metallurgy," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3-4), September.
    4. Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Auditing the ‘Social’ of Quantum Technologies: A Scoping Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-38, March.
    5. Diego F. Uribe & Isabel Ortiz-Marcos & Ángel Uruburu, 2018. "What Is Going on with Stakeholder Theory in Project Management Literature? A Symbiotic Relationship for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    6. Rochelle Deloria & Gregor Wolbring, 2019. "Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses as Stated in Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-32, August.
    7. Maywa Montenegro de Wit, 2022. "Can agroecology and CRISPR mix? The politics of complementarity and moving toward technology sovereignty," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 733-755, June.
    8. Zhang, Hao & Daim, Tugrul & Zhang, Yunqiu (Peggy), 2021. "Integrating patent analysis into technology roadmapping: A latent dirichlet allocation based technology assessment and roadmapping in the field of Blockchain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    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. Janssen, Sander & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: A review of bio-economic farm models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 622-636, June.
    2. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    3. Gregor Wolbring, 2022. "Auditing the ‘Social’ of Quantum Technologies: A Scoping Review," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-38, March.
    4. Morgan, Te Kipa Kepa Brian & Fa`aui, Tumanako Ngawhika, 2018. "Empowering indigenous voices in disaster response: Applying the Mauri Model to New Zealand's worst environmental maritime disaster," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 984-995.
    5. Le Gal, P.-Y. & Dugué, P. & Faure, G. & Novak, S., 2011. "How does research address the design of innovative agricultural production systems at the farm level? A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(9), pages 714-728.
    6. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    7. Sydelko, Pamela & Midgley, Gerald & Espinosa, Angela, 2021. "Designing interagency responses to wicked problems: Creating a common, cross-agency understanding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 250-263.
    8. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2018. "Spontaneous emergence of Community OR: Self-initiating, self-organising problem structuring mediated by social media," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 809-824.
    9. Gerald Midgley & Erik Lindhult, 2021. "A systems perspective on systemic innovation," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 635-670, October.
    10. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Midgley, Gerald & Hodgson, Anthony M., 2020. "Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 321-340.
    11. Tozer, Peter R., 2009. "Uncertainty and investment in precision agriculture - Is it worth the money?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 100(1-3), pages 80-87, April.
    12. Rochelle Deloria & Gregor Wolbring, 2019. "Neuro-Advancements and the Role of Nurses as Stated in Academic Literature and Canadian Newspapers," Societies, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-32, August.
    13. Helfgott, Ariella & Midgley, Gerald & Chaudhury, Abrar & Vervoort, Joost & Sova, Chase & Ryan, Alex, 2023. "Multi-level participation in integrative, systemic planning: The case of climate adaptation in Ghana," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(3), pages 1201-1217.
    14. A. Russell & Frank Vanclay & Janet Salisbury & Heather Aslin, 2011. "Technology assessment in Australia: the case for a formal agency to improve advice to policy makers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 157-177, June.
    15. Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2010. "Mapping the changes in management science: A review of 'soft' OR/MS articles published in Omega (1973-2008)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(1-2), pages 46-56, February.
    16. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Livingston, Michael J. & Mitchell, Lorraine & Wechsler, Seth, 2014. "Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," Economic Research Report 164263, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    17. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    18. Jabbar, Mohammad A. & Admassu, Samuel A., 2009. "Assessing consumer preferences for quality and safety attributes of food in the absence of official standards: the case of beef in Ethiopia," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50120, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Phogat, V. & Cox, J.W. & Šimůnek, J., 2018. "Identifying the future water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in the Murray-Darling Basin, South Australia," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 107-117.
    20. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.

    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:eee:tefoso:v:103:y:2016:i:c:p:119-126. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.