IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v22y2023i2p59-70.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visualised AKIS Diagnosis – an Instrumental Approach to Support AKIS Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Knierim
  • Fanos M. Birke

Abstract

The AKIS (Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System) concept is now widely applied in the EU partly due to latest CAP regulation. Visualisation‐based AKIS diagnosis relies on the iterative elaboration of an AKIS diagram that provides a static picture of what elements of the system are linked through what kind of relations in which socio‐economic contexts and environments. In this article we discuss the implications of using the visualised AKIS diagnosis method based on our empirical assessment of AKIS in 28 European countries. The method involved drafting AKIS diagrams based on targeted desk research, conducting dialogues with experts affiliated with or overseeing prominent knowledge organisations to adjust and refine the diagrams and to analyse actor diversity and linkages. The final diagrams and the background reports on AKIS appraisal were used to deepen the AKIS understanding among various stakeholders in the agriculture sector, as well as an input for the CAP strategic plan preparation in some countries. We conclude that the visualised AKIS diagnosis has a great potential to make complex knowledge infrastructures and exchange processes tangible. However, it also comes with risks, for example, that the snapshot in time may become misleading, through being an outdated or erroneous representation. Le concept de SCIA (Système de connaissances et d'innovation agricoles) est désormais largement appliqué dans l'Union européenne, en partie grâce à la dernière réglementation de la PAC. Le diagnostic des SCIA basé sur la visualisation repose sur l'élaboration itérative d'un diagramme qui fournit une image statique illustrant quels éléments du système sont liés par quel type de relations et dans quels contextes et environnements socio‐économiques. Dans cet article, nous examinons les implications de l'utilisation de la méthode de diagnostic visualisé sur la base de notre évaluation empirique du SCIA dans 28 pays européens. La méthode consistait à établir des diagrammes du SCIA sur la base d'une recherche documentaire ciblée, à mener des dialogues avec des experts affiliés ou supervisant des organisations de connaissances de premier plan pour ajuster et affiner les diagrammes et analyser la diversité et les liens des acteurs. Les diagrammes finaux et les rapports de base sur l'évaluation du SCIA ont été utilisés pour approfondir la compréhension du système parmi les différentes parties prenantes du secteur agricole, ainsi que comme contribution à la préparation du plan stratégique de la PAC dans certains pays. Nous concluons au grand potentiel du diagnostic visualisé du SCIA pour rendre tangibles les infrastructures de connaissances complexes et les processus d'échange. Cependant, cela comporte également des risques, par exemple, que l'instantané puisse devenir trompeur dans le temps, s'il s'agissait d'une représentation obsolète ou erronée. Das Konzept des Wissens‐ und Informationssystems Landwirtschaft (AKIS) findet in der EU inzwischen breite Anwendung. Das ist teilweise auf die jüngste GAP‐Verordnung zurückzuführen. Die auf Visualisierung basierende AKIS‐Diagnose beruht auf der iterativen Ausarbeitung eines AKIS‐Diagramms: Dieses liefert ein statisches Bild davon, welche Elemente des Systems durch welche Art von Beziehungen in welchen sozioökonomischen Kontexten und Umgebungen miteinander verbunden sind. In unserem Artikel erörtern wir, wie sich die Anwendung der visualisierten AKIS‐Diagnosemethode in 28 europäischen Ländern auswirkt. Unsere empirische Bewertung umfasste die Erstellung von AKIS‐Diagrammen auf der Grundlage von gezielter Sekundärforschung. Des Weiteren haben wir Interviews mit Experten und Expertinnen aus Wissenschaftsorganisationen durchgeführt, um die Diagramme anzupassen und zu verfeinern und die Vielfalt der Beteiligten und ihre Verbindungen zu analysieren. Die endgültigen Diagramme und Hintergrundberichte der AKIS‐Bewertung wurden verwendet, um das AKIS‐Verständnis bei den verschiedenen Interessengruppen im Agrarsektor zu vertiefen. Außerdem diente sie in einigen Ländern als Input für die Vorbereitung des GAP‐Strategieplans. Wir kommen zu dem Schluss, dass die visualisierte AKIS‐Diagnose großes Potenzial hat, um komplexe Wissensinfrastrukturen und Austauschprozesse greifbar zu machen. Sie birgt jedoch auch Risiken, zum Beispiel dass die “Momentaufnahme” über die Zeit veraltet oder fehlerhaft wird.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Knierim & Fanos M. Birke, 2023. "Visualised AKIS Diagnosis – an Instrumental Approach to Support AKIS Appraisal," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 22(2), pages 59-70, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:22:y:2023:i:2:p:59-70
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12397
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12397
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12397?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. Grimble, Robin & Wellard, Kate, 1997. "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 173-193, October.
    2. Guy Faure & Andrea Knierim & Alex Koutsouris & Hycenth Tim Ndah & Sarah Audouin & Elena Zarokosta & Eelke Wielinga & Bernard Triomphe & Syndhia Mathé & Ludovic Temple & Kevin Heanue, 2019. "How to Strengthen Innovation Support Services in Agriculture with Regard to Multi-Stakeholder Approaches," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 145-169.
    3. Pretty, Jules N., 1995. "Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(8), pages 1247-1263, August.
    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. Cécile Barnaud & Annemarie van Paassen, 2013. "Equity, power games, and legitimacy: dilemmas of participatory natural resource management," Post-Print hal-01386409, HAL.
    2. 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.
    3. Kenny, Daniel C. & Bakhanova, Elena & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Voinov, Alexey, 2022. "Participatory modelling and systems intelligence: A systems-based and transdisciplinary partnership," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    4. Andrea Pronti, 2020. "The bottom-up approach is teetering. When sustainability does not match public participation: The case of an urban re-greening project in a small town in Northern Italy," RIVISTA DI STUDI SULLA SOSTENIBILITA', FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 0(1), pages 129-157.
    5. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    6. Gillespie, Stuart & van den Bold, Mara, 2015. "Stories of change in nutrition: A tool pool:," IFPRI discussion papers 1494, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Kazadi, Kande & Lievens, Annouk & Mahr, Dominik, 2016. "Stakeholder co-creation during the innovation process: Identifying capabilities for knowledge creation among multiple stakeholders," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 525-540.
    8. Phélinas, Pascale & Choumert, Johanna, 2017. "Is GM Soybean Cultivation in Argentina Sustainable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 452-462.
    9. Silvia Scaramuzzi & Sara Gabellini & Giovanni Belletti & Andrea Marescotti, 2021. "Agrobiodiversity-Oriented Food Systems between Public Policies and Private Action: A Socio-Ecological Model for Sustainable Territorial Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-32, November.
    10. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    11. Anne Hardy & Leonie J. Pearson, 2016. "Determining Sustainable Tourism in Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    12. Yuichiro Amekawa & Surat Hongsibsong & Nootchakarn Sawarng & Sumeth Yadoung & Girma Gezimu Gebre, 2021. "Producers’ Perceptions of Public Good Agricultural Practices Standard and Their Pesticide Use: The Case of Q-GAP for Cabbage Farming in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-25, June.
    13. Barbara Quimby & Arielle Levine, 2018. "Participation, Power, and Equity: Examining Three Key Social Dimensions of Fisheries Comanagement," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, September.
    14. Katharina Löhr & Christian Hochmuth & Frieder Graef & Jane Wambura & Stefan Sieber, 2017. "Conflict management programs in trans-disciplinary research projects: the case of a food security project in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(6), pages 1189-1201, December.
    15. Schouten, Greetje & Leroy, Pieter & Glasbergen, Pieter, 2012. "On the deliberative capacity of private multi-stakeholder governance: The Roundtables on Responsible Soy and Sustainable Palm Oil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 42-50.
    16. Saifi, Basim & Drake, Lars, 2008. "A coevolutionary model for promoting agricultural sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 24-34, March.
    17. Viveros, Hector, 2017. "Unpacking stakeholder mechanisms to influence corporate social responsibility in the mining sector," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 1-12.
    18. Kabiri, Ngeta, 2016. "Public participation, land use and climate change governance in Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 511-517.
    19. Vatn, Arild & Kajembe, George & Mosi, Elvis & Nantongo, Maria & Silayo, Dos Santos, 2017. "What does it take to institute REDD+? An analysis of the Kilosa REDD+ pilot, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-9.
    20. Raphael Hoerler & Fabian Haerri & Merja Hoppe, 2019. "New Solutions in Sustainable Commuting—The Attitudes and Experience of European Stakeholders and Experts in Switzerland," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.

    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:22:y:2023:i:2:p:59-70. 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.