IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i5p4177-d1080400.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural Interventions in the Bhutanese Context for Sustainability—A Documentary Analysis Using a Thematic Conceptual Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Kinley Dorji

    (School of Environmental and Rural Science, Faculty of Science, Agriculture, Business and Law, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia)

  • Judith Miller

    (School of Education, Faculty of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences and Education, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia)

  • Shubiao Wu

    (School of Education, Faculty of Humanities, Arts, Social Sciences and Education, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2350, Australia)

Abstract

Innovation contexts and associated elements determine the type of innovation and adoption. This study aimed at the understanding of the innovation policy and intervention mechanism within the Bhutanese Department of Agriculture (DoA). We developed a conceptual model from the themes and the OECD evaluation criteria based on the conceptual model. The national issues and opportunities related to the agriculture and forestry of Bhutan were defined, and policy gaps were identified between the national plan and the institutional programs that were implemented. A total of 67 government documents from the relevant agencies were collected, of which, 33 documents were included, based on the inclusion criteria that matched with the conceptual, thematic analytical model. Our results from the document analysis show that the institutional innovative interventions appeared relevant to the Bhutanese context; however, inadequate coherence (mapping and alignment) of the institutional intervention programs with the national issues and goals suggested the need for the Bhutanese agricultural innovation system to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the program results. Similarly, coordination and collaboration were found to be necessary to extract the synergistic impact of the innovative interventions at the various levels of administrative hierarchy. Institutional accountability and interventional coherence at different organisational levels needs reviewing in order to achieve the sustainability of the outcome in Bhutanese agricultural research.

Suggested Citation

  • Kinley Dorji & Judith Miller & Shubiao Wu, 2023. "Agricultural Interventions in the Bhutanese Context for Sustainability—A Documentary Analysis Using a Thematic Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4177-:d:1080400
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4177/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/5/4177/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hall, Andy, 2007. "Challenges to Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems: Where Do We Go From Here?," MERIT Working Papers 2007-038, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Harlan Koff & Antony Challenger & Israel Portillo, 2020. "Guidelines for Operationalizing Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) as a Methodology for the Design and Implementation of Sustainable Development Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-25, May.
    3. Sonam Wangyel Wang & Belay Manjur & Jeong-Gyu Kim & Woo-Kyun Lee, 2019. "Assessing Socio-Economic Impacts of Agricultural Subsidies: A Case Study from Bhutan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Autio, Erkko & Kenney, Martin & Mustar, Philippe & Siegel, Don & Wright, Mike, 2014. "Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1097-1108.
    5. Mohamed Rafik Noor Mohamed Qureshi & Ali Saeed Almuflih & Janpriy Sharma & Mohit Tyagi & Shubhendu Singh & Naif Almakayeel, 2022. "Assessment of the Climate-Smart Agriculture Interventions towards the Avenues of Sustainable Production–Consumption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-24, July.
    6. Karma Ura & Randy Stringer & Erwin Bulte, 2009. "Managing Wildlife Damage to Agriculture in Bhutan: Conflicts, Costs and Compromise," Natural Resource Management and Policy, in: Leslie Lipper & Takumi Sakuyama & Randy Stringer & David Zilberman (ed.), Payment for Environmental Services in Agricultural Landscapes, chapter 12, pages 255-274, Springer.
    7. Liu, Xielin & White, Steven, 2001. "Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application to China's transitional context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1091-1114, August.
    8. Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation Policy: Rationales, Lessons And Challenges," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 497-512, April.
    9. Klerkx, Laurens & Aarts, Noelle & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 390-400, July.
    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. Pedro López-Rubio & Norat Roig-Tierno & Francisco Mas-Verdú, 2022. "Assessing the Origins, Evolution and Prospects of National Innovation Systems," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 161-184, March.
    2. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    3. Fagerberg, Jan, 2018. "Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1568-1576.
    4. Davies, Jocelyn & Maru, Yiheyis & Hall, Andy & Abdourhamane, Issoufou Kollo & Adegbidi, Anselme & Carberry, Peter & Dorai, Kumuda & Ennin, Stella Ama & Etwire, Prince Maxwell & McMillan, Larelle & Njo, 2018. "Understanding innovation platform effectiveness through experiences from west and central Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 321-334.
    5. Hall, Andy & Dijkman, Jeroen & Sulaiman, Rasheed, 2010. "Research Into Use: Investigating the Relationship between Agricultural Research and Innovation," MERIT Working Papers 2010-044, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    6. Jan Fagerberg & Gernot Hutschenreiter, 2020. "Coping with Societal Challenges: Lessons for Innovation Policy Governance," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 279-305, June.
    7. Shi, Xianwei & Liang, Xingkun & Luo, Yining, 2023. "Unpacking the intellectual structure of ecosystem research in innovation studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    8. Aalto, Eero & Gustafsson, Robin, 2020. "Innovation Promotion Rationales and Impacts – A Review," ETLA Reports 99, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    9. Julien Lamontagne-Godwin & Peter Dorward & Irshad Ali & Naeem Aslam & Sarah Cardey, 2019. "An Approach to Understand Rural Advisory Services in a Decentralised Setting," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-18, March.
    10. Sartas, Murat & Schut, Marc & Proietti, Claudio & Thiele, Graham & Leeuwis, Cees, 2020. "Scaling Readiness: Science and practice of an approach to enhance impact of research for development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    11. Sabine Neuberger & Helmut W Saatkamp & Alfons G J M Oude Lansink & Dietrich Darr, 2021. "Can differences in innovativeness between European cross-border regions be explained by factors impeding cross-border business interaction?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-16, November.
    12. Jan Fagerberg & Håkon Endresen Normann, 2022. "Innovation policy, regulation and the transition to net zero," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20220531, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    13. Zhe Cao & Xianwei Shi, 2021. "A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 75-110, June.
    14. Genowefa Blundo-Canto & Bernard Triomphe & Guy Faure & Danielle Barret & Aurelle de Romemont & Etienne Hainzelin, 2019. "Building a culture of impact in an international agricultural research organization: Process and reflective learning," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 136-144.
    15. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    16. María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías & David Rodeiro-Pazos & Sara Fernández-López & Manuel Ángel Nogueira-Moreiras, 2021. "The effect of regional resources on innovation: a firm-centered approach," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(3), pages 760-791, June.
    17. Cheng, Cheng-Feng & Chang, Man-Ling & Li, Chu-Shiu, 2013. "Configural paths to successful product innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(12), pages 2561-2573.
    18. Evelien Cronin & Sylvie Fosselle & Elke Rogge & Robert Home, 2021. "An Analytical Framework to Study Multi-Actor Partnerships Engaged in Interactive Innovation Processes in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.
    19. Catalin Gradinaru & Sorin-George Toma & Stefan Catana & Zainea Loredana Nicoleta, 2020. "The National Entrepreneurship Context Index In The Period 2018-2020: An Overview," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 5, pages 222-227, October.
    20. Bentivoglio, Deborah & Bucci, Giorgia & Belletti, Matteo & Finco, Adele, 2022. "A theoretical framework on network’s dynamics for precision agriculture technologies adoption," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 60(4), January.

    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:15:y:2023:i:5:p:4177-:d:1080400. 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.