IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i4p2274-d751478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fostering Responsible Innovation through Stakeholder Engagement: Case Study of North Carolina Sweetpotato Stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Khara Grieger

    (Department of Applied Ecology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7617, USA
    Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7565, USA)

  • Sebastian Zarate

    (Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7565, USA
    Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8008, USA)

  • Sarah Kathleen Barnhill-Dilling

    (Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7565, USA)

  • Shelly Hunt

    (Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7625, USA)

  • Daniela Jones

    (Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7625, USA)

  • Jennifer Kuzma

    (Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7565, USA
    School of Public and International Affairs, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8102, USA)

Abstract

Stakeholder and community engagement are critical for the successful development of new technologies that aim to be integrated into sustainable agriculture systems. This study reports on an approach used to engage stakeholders within the sweetpotato community in North Carolina to understand their preferences, needs, and concerns as they relate to a new sensing and diagnostic platform. This work also demonstrates an example of real-time technology assessment that also fosters responsible innovation through inclusivity and responsiveness. Through the conduction of 29 interviews with sweetpotato stakeholders in North Carolina, we found that participants found the most value in detecting external sweetpotato characteristics, as well as the ability to use or connect to a smartphone that can be used in field. They also found value in including environmental parameters and having a Spanish language module. Most participants indicated that they were comfortable with sharing data as long as it benefited the greater North Carolina sweetpotato industry, and were concerned with sharing these data with “outside” competitors. We also observed differences and variations between stakeholder groups. Overall, this work demonstrates a relatively simple, low-cost approach to eliciting stakeholder needs within a local agricultural context to improve sustainability, an approach that could be leveraged and transferred to other local agrifood systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Khara Grieger & Sebastian Zarate & Sarah Kathleen Barnhill-Dilling & Shelly Hunt & Daniela Jones & Jennifer Kuzma, 2022. "Fostering Responsible Innovation through Stakeholder Engagement: Case Study of North Carolina Sweetpotato Stakeholders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2274-:d:751478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2274/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/4/2274/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew Kliskey & Paula Williams & David L. Griffith & Virginia H. Dale & Chelsea Schelly & Anna-Maria Marshall & Valoree S. Gagnon & Weston M. Eaton & Kristin Floress, 2021. "Thinking Big and Thinking Small: A Conceptual Framework for Best Practices in Community and Stakeholder Engagement in Food, Energy, and Water Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Ely, Adrian & Van Zwanenberg, Patrick & Stirling, Andrew, 2014. "Broadening out and opening up technology assessment: Approaches to enhance international development, co-ordination and democratisation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 505-518.
    3. Chambers, Robert, 1994. "Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(9), pages 1253-1268, September.
    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. 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.
    2. Ruiten, Kyra & Pesch, Udo & Rodhouse, Toyah & Correljé, Aad & Spruit, Shannon & Tenhaaf, Antje & Dijkshoorn, Jochem & van den Berg, Susan, 2023. "Drawing the line: Opening up and closing down the siting of a high voltage transmission route in the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    3. Hasmik Hovakimyan & Milena Klimek & Bernhard Freyer & Stefan Vogel, 2021. "Participation in Higher Education Curricula Development in Armenia and Possible Effects for the Labour Market—The Case of an “Organic Agriculture” Master’s Program," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-15, September.
    4. Dean Karlan & Bram Thuysbaert, 2019. "Targeting Ultra-Poor Households in Honduras and Peru," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 33(1), pages 63-94.
    5. Saqalli, M. & Gérard, B. & Bielders, C.L. & Defourny, P., 2011. "Targeting rural development interventions: Empirical agent-based modeling in Nigerien villages," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(4), pages 354-364, April.
    6. Stefani, Gianluca & Lombardi, Ginevra Virginia & Romano, Donato & Cei, Leonardo, 2017. "Grass Root Collective Action for Territorially Integrated Food Supply Chains: A Case Study from Tuscany," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 8(4), October.
    7. Goswami, Rupak & Paul, Malay, 2011. "Using Sustainable Livelihoods Framework for assessing the impact of Extension programmes: An empirical study in the context of Joint Forest Management," MPRA Paper 37793, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Chris Tennant & Susan Howard & Sally Stares, 2021. "Building the UK vision of a driverless future: A Parliamentary Inquiry case study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    9. Garrett M. Broad, 2023. "Improving the agri-food biotechnology conversation: bridging science communication with science and technology studies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 929-938, September.
    10. Sawathvong, Silavanh, 2004. "Experiences from developing an integrated land-use planning approach for protected areas in the Lao PDR," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(6), pages 553-566, October.
    11. Ross, Heather M. & Pine, Kathleen H. & Curran, Sarah & Augusta, Dawn, 2022. "Pathway mapping as a tool to address police use of force in behavioral health crisis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    12. Ebrahim, Alnoor, 2003. "Accountability In Practice: Mechanisms for NGOs," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 813-829, May.
    13. Chatterjee, Ira & Cornelissen, Joep & Wincent, Joakim, 2021. "Social entrepreneurship and values work: The role of practices in shaping values and negotiating change," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(1).
    14. Chilombo, Andrew & Van Der Horst, Dan, 2021. "Livelihoods and coping strategies of local communities on previous customary land in limbo of commercial agricultural development: Lessons from the farm block program in Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    15. Durrant, Rachael & Ely, Adrian, 2022. "Deliberative-analytic approaches to Ecosystem Services as a way forward for the land sparing/sharing debate," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    16. Stefani, G. & Lombardi, G.V. & Romano, D. & Cei, L., 2017. "Green Root Collective Action for Conservation of Agri-Bio Diversity: a Case Study in Tuscany," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2017(1), June.
    17. Zulu, Leo Charles & Adams, Ellis Adjei & Chikowo, Regis & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2018. "The role of community-based livestock management institutions in the adoption and scaling up of pigeon peas in Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 141-155.
    18. Kwayu, Emmanuel J. & Sallu, Susannah M. & Paavola, Jouni, 2014. "Farmer participation in the equitable payments for watershed services in Morogoro, Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-9.
    19. Thompson, John, 1995. "Participatory approaches in government bureaucracies: Facilitating the process of institutional change," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 1521-1554, September.
    20. Gerard Olivar-Tost & Johnny Valencia-Calvo & Julián Andrés Castrillón-Gómez, 2020. "Towards Decision-Making for the Assessment and Prioritization of Green Projects: An Integration between System Dynamics and Participatory Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-23, 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:14:y:2022:i:4:p:2274-:d:751478. 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.