IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v18y2026i13p6683-d1980899.html

From Expert Consultation to Shared Consensus: Decision Support Framework for Sustainable Soil Pest Management Using Nematode Control as Example

Author

Listed:
  • Maura Calliera

    (Opera Research Centre, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy)

  • Andrea Minuto

    (Centro di Sperimentazione e Assistenza Agricola (CeRSAA), Regione Rollo n° 98, 17031 Albenga, Italy)

  • Diego Voccia

    (Department for Sustainable Food Process (DISTAS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy)

  • Ettore Capri

    (Opera Research Centre, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy
    Department for Sustainable Food Process (DISTAS), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 29122 Piacenza, Italy)

Abstract

The sustainable management of chemical fumigants in intensive horticulture represents one of the most complex challenges in European agricultural policy, requiring the integration of agronomic knowledge, regulatory frameworks, economic viability, and stakeholder perspectives. This study proposes and tests a multi-phase consultation methodology designed to bridge the gap between individual expert knowledge and collective, evidence-based consensus, moving from qualitative field-based elicitation to structured multidisciplinary engagement and incorporating both scientific data and practical experience. A total of 72 experts were involved across two phases. In phase 1, in-depth face-to-face interviews (n = 18) captured field-level knowledge on integrated pest management strategies, risk perception, and decision-making criteria, including the economic sustainability of production systems, a dimension prioritized in the European Commission’s Vision for Agriculture and Food. Phase 2 consisted of a one-day multistakeholder event (n = 54)—bringing together researchers, regulators, industry representatives, and farmers—to confront qualitative findings with experimental data on operator safety, groundwater protection, and consumer residues. This deliberate transition from individual perception to informed, shared consensus represents the methodological core of the approach and its most distinctive contribution. The phase 1 results showed that the majority of experts considered chemical fumigants currently indispensable, while recognizing complementary strategies—particularly solarization and natural substances—as valuable supporting tools. The phase 2 experimental data confirmed operator exposure below regulatory thresholds, no groundwater contamination under professional application conditions, and the absence of detectable residues in treated crops. The results demonstrate that this structured consultation can generate actionable knowledge for integrated nematode and soil-borne disease management, with a methodology replicable across other complex regulatory and agronomic contexts within the European framework.

Suggested Citation

  • Maura Calliera & Andrea Minuto & Diego Voccia & Ettore Capri, 2026. "From Expert Consultation to Shared Consensus: Decision Support Framework for Sustainable Soil Pest Management Using Nematode Control as Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-24, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:13:p:6683-:d:1980899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/13/6683/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/18/13/6683/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:13:p:6683-:d:1980899. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.