Search

Your search keyword '"Knowledge Technology and Innovation"' showing total 11 results
Start Over Descriptor "Knowledge Technology and Innovation" Publisher hal ccsd
11 results on '"Knowledge Technology and Innovation"'

1. Deliberative assembling: Tinkering and farmer agency in precision agriculture implementation

Author

Vaughan Higgins, Daniël van der Velden, Noemie Bechtet, Melanie Bryant, Jane Battersby, Melissa Belle, Laurens Klerkx, University of Tasmania [Hobart, Australia] (UTAS), Research Institute for Agricultural, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires (AGIR), Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) (Toulouse INP), Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT)-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), Auteur indépendant, Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), AgriFutures Australia PRJ-009181, European Project: 727577,H2020-RUR-2016-2,AgriLink(2017), and European Project: 818194,DESIRA(2019)

Subjects
Assemblage thinking, Sociology and Political Science, Precision agriculture, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], Geography, Planning and Development, WASS, Development, Tinkering, Agency, Technologie and Innovatie, Digital agriculture, Knowledge Technology and Innovation, Kennis, Kennis, Technologie and Innovatie, Support networks, Agriculture 4.0
Abstract

Assemblage thinking is an increasingly influential approach in critical studies of food and farming, and partic-ularly in research on new agri-food technology such as precision agriculture (PA). This research is important in highlighting the distributed forms of power and agency through which farming worlds are assembled, and what these engender for more sustainable and equitable farming futures. However, to date, there has been limited attention to assembling PA from the perspective of farmers, what Legun and Burch (2021) refer to as 'deliberative assembling'. This paper contributes to knowledge in this area by applying post actor network theoretical work to investigate across case studies in Australia, the Netherlands and France, the forms of tinkering by which farmers attempt to make PA workable, and what these engender for farmer agency. Through our analysis, we show that much of the tinkering by farmers is aimed at holding together their own priorities, routines, and experiences with practices inscribed in PA technology, such as dependence on commercial advice, data-driven knowledge, and commitment to a single technological platform/company. Integral to this tinkering work are support networks that include agronomists, advisors, machinery dealers and/or farmer discussion groups. We argue that whilst these support networks are critical to holding together different practices, and making PA workable, they also play a more diverse and nuanced role in PA implementation than what has previously been recognised. Our case studies provide insights into three key forms of tinkering used by farmers in navigating support networks to make PA workable - disconnection, experimentation and trial-and-error, and trade-offs and compromises - and the specific distributions of agency which these tinkering practices engender. In conclusion, we argue that a tinkering lens provides a valuable approach for enabling agri-food scholars to tease out in greater depth delib-erative assembling practices and how these variously open-up or foreclose options for farmers in making PA workable.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Global Root Traits (GRooT) Database

Author

Jens Kattge, Joseph M. Craine, Lawren Sack, Jasper van Ruijven, Koen Kramer, Franciska T. de Vries, Christopher J. Sweeney, Juli G. Pausas, Catherine Roumet, Josep Peñuelas, Peter M. van Bodegom, Marney E. Isaac, Ina C. Meier, Grégoire T. Freschet, Liesje Mommer, Christian Ammer, Helge Bruelheide, Peter B. Reich, Fons van der Plas, Johannes H. C. Cornelissen, Colleen M. Iversen, Fernando Valladares, Marina Semchenko, Peter Manning, Larry M. York, Vanessa Minden, Nathaly R. Guerrero-Ramírez, Bill Shipley, Thomas W. Kuyper, Vladimir G. Onipchenko, Isabelle Aubin, Oscar J. Valverde-Barrantes, Daniel C. Laughlin, Hendrik Poorter, Eric G. Lamb, Justin P. Wright, M. Luke McCormack, Stuart W. Smith, Bradley J. Butterfield, Jane A. Catford, Nadejda A. Soudzilovskaia, Patrick Weigelt, Rubén Milla, Christian König, Matthias C. Rillig, Alexandra Weigelt, Adam R. Martin, Leho Tedersoo, Joana Bergmann, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Station d'écologie théorique et expérimentale (SETE), Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3), Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées (OMP), Météo France-Centre National d'Études Spatiales [Toulouse] (CNES)-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)-Météo France-Centre National d'Études Spatiales [Toulouse] (CNES)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Oak Ridge National Laboratory [Oak Ridge] (ORNL), UT-Battelle, LLC, Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), Penn State System, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry (MPI-BGC), Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH | Centre de recherche de Juliers, Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft = Helmholtz Association, Leipzig University, Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Oklahoma State University [Stillwater], Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, University of Wyoming (UW), Department of Soil Science of Temperate Ecosystems, Georg August University of Goettingen, Buesgenweg 2, 37077, Goettingen, Germany, Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier 3 - Faculté des Sciences humaines et des sciences de l'environnement ( UPVM UM3 UFR3), Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 (UPVM), University of Manchester [Manchester], Florida International University [Miami] (FIU), Canadian Forest Service - CFS (CANADA), King‘s College London, Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F), Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main-Senckenberg – Leibniz Institution for Biodiversity and Earth System Research - Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung, Leibniz Association-Leibniz Association, Department of Computer Science [University of Toronto] (DCS), University of Toronto, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos [Madrid] (URJC), University of Oldenburg, Centro de Investigaciones sobre Desertificacion (CIDE), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas [Madrid] (CSIC), Norwegian University of Science and Technology [Trondheim] (NTNU), Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Leiden University, Northern Arizona University [Flagstaff], Jonah Ventures, Boulder, CO, USA, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam [Amsterdam] (VU), University of Toronto [Scarborough, Canada], Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, University of Saskatchewan [Saskatoon] (U of S), Lomonosov Moscow State University (MSU), CSIC, Global Ecology Unit, CREAF-CEAB-UAB, Cerdanyola del Vallès, 08193 Catalonia, Spain, Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment [Richmond] (HIE), Western Sydney University, University of California [Los Angeles] (UCLA), University of California, Université de Sherbrooke (UdeS), University of Tartu, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales [Madrid] (MNCN), Duke University [Durham], Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT)-Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées (OMP), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)-Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3), Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Centre National d'Études Spatiales [Toulouse] (CNES)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Météo-France -Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)-Institut national des sciences de l'Univers (INSU - CNRS)-Centre National d'Études Spatiales [Toulouse] (CNES)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Météo-France -Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Oklahoma State University [Stillwater] (OSU), Georg-August-University = Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Universiteit Leiden, University of Toronto at Scarborough, Humboldt University Of Berlin, University of California (UC), Biology, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research, Ecosystem and Landscape Dynamics (IBED, FNWI), Systems Ecology, Station d'Ecologie Théorique et Expérimentale (SETE), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Fédération de Recherche Agrobiosciences, Interactions et Biodiversité (FR AIB), Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (UT3), Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (CEFE), Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 (UPVM)-École Pratique des Hautes Études (EPHE), Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université Paris sciences et lettres (PSL)-Université de Montpellier (UM)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD [France-Sud])-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE)-Institut Agro - Montpellier SupAgro, and Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)

Subjects
0106 biological sciences, Root (linguistics), Biome, Subspecies, computer.software_genre, 01 natural sciences, Field (computer science), ddc:550, publicly‐available database, 2. Zero hunger, Global and Planetary Change, Database, Ecology, Soil Biology, [SDV.BV.BOT]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Vegetal Biology/Botanics, PE&RC, [SDV.BIBS]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Quantitative Methods [q-bio.QM], 550 Geowissenschaften, Level of measurement, Technologie and Innovatie, [SDE]Environmental Sciences, Trait, Knowledge Technology and Innovation, Plantenecologie en Natuurbeheer, Kennis, Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation, Biology, 010603 evolutionary biology, Set (abstract data type), functional biogeography, publicly-available database, macroecological studies, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Bodembiologie, 010604 marine biology & hydrobiology, 15. Life on land, Taxon, Belowground ecology, root traits, Global Root Traits, Data quality, plant form and function, [SDE.BE]Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, Kennis, Technologie and Innovatie, computer, 010606 plant biology & botany
Abstract

[Motivation]: Trait data are fundamental to the quantitative description of plant form and function. Although root traits capture key dimensions related to plant responses to changing environmental conditions and effects on ecosystem processes, they have rarely been included in large-scale comparative studies and global models. For instance, root traits remain absent from nearly all studies that define the global spectrum of plant form and function. Thus, to overcome conceptual and methodological roadblocks preventing a widespread integration of root trait data into large-scale analyses we created the Global Root Trait (GRooT) Database. GRooT provides ready to use data by combining the expertise of root ecologists with data mobilization and curation. Specifically, we (a) determined a set of core root traits relevant to the description of plant form and function based on an assessment by experts, (b) maximized species coverage through data standardization within and among traits, and (c) implemented data quality checks., [Main types of variables contained]: GRooT contains 114,222 trait records on 38 continuous root traits.Spatial location and grain: Global coverage with data from arid, continental, polar, temperate and tropical biomes. Data on root traits were derived from experimental studies and field studies., [Time period and grain]: Data were recorded between 1911 and 2019., [Major taxa and level of measurement]: GRooT includes root trait data for which taxonomic information is available. Trait records vary in their taxonomic resolution, with subspecies or varieties being the highest and genera the lowest taxonomic resolution available. It contains information for 184 subspecies or varieties, 6,214 species, 1,967 genera and 254 families. Owing to variation in data sources, trait records in the database include both individual observations and mean values., [Software format]: GRooT includes two csv files. A GitHub repository contains the csv files and a script in R to query the database., The study has been supported by the TRY initiative on plant traits (http://www.try-db.org). The TRY initiative and database are hosted, developed and maintained at the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany. TRY is currently supported by DIVERSITAS/Future Earth and the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig. Open access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Farmers’ Perceptions as a Driver of Agricultural Practices: Understanding Soil Fertility Management Practices in Cocoa Agroforestry Systems in Cameroon

Author

Syndhia Mathé, Wouter Vanhove, Ken E. Giller, Maja Slingerland, Precillia I. Tata Ngome, Lotte S. Woittiez, Cees Leeuwis, Urcil P. Kenfack Essougong, Philippe Boudes, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA-DRC), International Institute of Tropical Agriculture [Nigeria] (IITA), Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (CGIAR)-Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (CGIAR), Knowledge, Technology and Innovation group, Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Innovation et Développement dans l'Agriculture et l'Alimentation (UMR Innovation), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), Département Environnements et Sociétés (Cirad-ES), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad), Universiteit Gent = Ghent University [Belgium] (UGENT), Institut de Recherche Agricole pour le Développement [Yaoundé] (IRAD), Espaces et Sociétés (ESO), Institut de Géographie et d'Aménagement Régional de l'Université de Nantes (IGARUN), Université de Nantes (UN)-Université de Nantes (UN)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université de Rennes 2 (UR2), Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-AGROCAMPUS OUEST, Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Université d'Angers (UA)-Université de Caen Normandie (UNICAEN), Normandie Université (NU)-Normandie Université (NU)-Le Mans Université (UM), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro)-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), Le Mans Université (UM)-Université de Caen Normandie (UNICAEN), Normandie Université (NU)-Normandie Université (NU)-Université d'Angers (UA)-AGROCAMPUS OUEST-Université de Rennes 2 (UR2), Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Institut de Géographie et d'Aménagement Régional de l'Université de Nantes (IGARUN), and Université de Nantes (UN)-Université de Nantes (UN)

Subjects
0106 biological sciences, Soil fertility management practices, Sociology and Political Science, Tree planting, F08 - Systèmes et modes de culture, Post-harvest, Enquête sur exploitations agricoles, WASS, 01 natural sciences, Soil management, Cocoa, Perceptions, Cameroon, 2. Zero hunger, F07 - Façons culturales, Engrais organique, [SHS.SOCIO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Sociology, Ecology, Agroforestry, 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences, PE&RC, Participation des agriculteurs, Tillage, Geography, Plant Production Systems, Technologie and Innovatie, Centre for Crop Systems Analysis, Knowledge Technology and Innovation, Kennis, Yield (finance), Environmental Science (miscellaneous), Smallholder farmers, Fertilisation, Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous), pratique agricole, systèmes agroforestiers, Fertilité du sol, [SDV.SA.STA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Agricultural sciences/Sciences and technics of agriculture, Post-harvest Perceptions, E50 - Sociologie rurale, Theobroma cacao, business.industry, Sowing, 15. Life on land, Manure, Pest and disease management, Gestion du sol, approches participatives, Agriculture, Anthropology, Plantaardige Productiesystemen, 040103 agronomy & agriculture, 0401 agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, Soil fertility, business, Kennis, Technologie and Innovatie, 010606 plant biology & botany, F04 - Fertilisation
Abstract

In Africa, cocoa yields are low, partly due to soil fertility constraints and poor management. While peoples’ knowledge, aspirations, and abilities are key factors explaining their behaviour, little is known about the rationales that underpin soil fertility management practices (SFMPs) of cocoa farmers. To address this gap, we conducted an exploratory survey in two contrasting regions in Cameroon where cocoa is an important crop: the humid forest and the forest-savannah transition zone. Some 30% of farmers in the transition zone as opposed to 13% in the humid forest expressed concerns about soil fertility. The most relevant soil fertility indicators for farmers were high cocoa yield, dark soil colour, ease of tillage, and floral composition. To enhance and maintain soil fertility, farmers used residues from weeding (100%), planting of trees (42%), mineral fertilisers (33%), compost (16%), and manure (13%). More farmers in the transition zone than the humid forest implemented SFMPs. Our findings suggest that soil fertility perceptions, access to inputs, local practices, and experience influence farmers’ use of SFMPs. The limited use of mineral fertilisers was explained by poor access whereas the use of organic fertilisers and tree planting were mostly constrained by lack of labour and knowledge. Farmers prioritised practices to increase yield and viewed SFMPs to be the least important management practices, although they believe high cocoa yield is an important indicator of soil fertility. To foster sustainable cocoa intensification, it is necessary to enhance farmers’ knowledge on SFMPs, increase access to inputs, and ensure returns on investment while considering farmers’ priorities and practices.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Drivers of decoupling and recoupling of crop and livestock systems at farm and territorial scales

Author

Judson Ferreira Valentim, Julie Ryschawy, Júlio César dos Reis, Anna Victoria N. Garik, Caitlin A. Peterson, Joice Ferreira, Lindsay W. Bell, Rachael D. Garrett, Marc Moraine, Juliana Gil, O. Cortner, Laurens Klerkx, Swiss Federal Insitute of Aquatic Science and Technology [Dübendorf] (EAWAG), AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires (AGIR), Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) (Toulouse INP), Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), CSIRO Agriculture Flagship, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra] (CSIRO), Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), Boston University [Boston] (BU), Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Knowledge, Technology and Innovation group, Innovation et Développement dans l'Agriculture et l'Alimentation (UMR Innovation), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), University of California [Davis] (UC Davis), University of California, Embrapa Agrossilvipastoril, Embrapa Acre, National Science Foundation (NSF) 1415352, Thomas Jefferson Fund Make the Planet Great Again program, Sustainability Science Program at Harvard University, Italian Ministry for Environment, Land and Sea, Global Development Policy Center at Boston University, Rachael D. Garrett, ETH Zürich / Boston University, Julie Ryschawy, Université de Toulouse, Lindsay W. Bell, CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Owen Cortner, ETH Zürich / Boston University, JOICE NUNES FERREIRA, CPATU, Anna Victoria N. Garik, Boston University, Juliana D. B. Gil, Wageningen University, Laurens Klerkx, Wageningen University, Marc Moraine, CIRAD, Caitlin A. Peterson, University of California, JULIO CESAR DOS REIS, CPAMT, and JUDSON FERREIRA VALENTIM, CPAF-AC.

Subjects
Agricultural production, 0106 biological sciences, Natural resource economics, Sistemas agrícolas integrados, Adoção de Inovações, WASS, Transferência de Tecnologia, innovation, integrated crop livestock systems, mixed farming systems, socio-technical transitions, sustainable agriculture, technology adoption, 01 natural sciences, Ecosystem services, Adopción de innovaciones, 0302 clinical medicine, Sustainable agriculture, Biology (General), QH540-549.5, Technology transfer, 2. Zero hunger, [SDV.EE]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Ecology, environment, Ecology, Intensive farming, Circular economy, Integração lavoura-pecuária, 1. No poverty, Produção Agrícola, Sistema de Cultivo, PE&RC, 010601 ecology, Innovation adoption, Plant Production Systems, Technologie and Innovatie, Knowledge Technology and Innovation, Kennis, Livestock, Mixed farming systems, Technology adoption, QH301-705.5, Cropping systems, Agricultura sustentable, 12. Responsible consumption, 03 medical and health sciences, Integrated crop livestock systems, Agricultura Sustentável, Agricultural productivity, Innovation, business.industry, Integrated crop-livestock systems, 15. Life on land, Pecuária, 13. Climate action, Agriculture, Plantaardige Productiesystemen, Sustainability, Socio-technical transitions, business, Kennis, Technologie and Innovatie, 030217 neurology & neurosurgery, Integrated agricultural systems
Abstract

Crop and livestock production have become spatially decoupled in existing commercial agricultural regimes throughout the world. These segregated high input production systems contribute to some of the world's most pressing sustainability challenges, including climate change, nutrient imbalances, water pollution, biodiversity decline, and increasingly precarious rural livelihoods. There is substantial evidence that by closing the loop in nutrient and energy cycles, recoupling crop and livestock systems at farm and territorial scales can help reduce the environmental externalities associated with conventional commercial farming without declines in profitability or yields. Yet such 'integrated' crop and livestock systems remain rare as a proportion of global agricultural area. Based on an interdisciplinary workshop and additional literature review, we provide a comprehensive historical and international perspective on why integrated crop and livestock systems have declined in most regions and what conditions have fostered their persistence and reemergence in others. We also identify levers for encouraging the reemergence of integrated crop and livestock systems worldwide. We conclude that a major disruption of the current regime would be needed to foster crop-livestock reintegration, including a redesign of research programs, credit systems, payments for ecosystem services, insurance programs, and food safety regulations to focus on whole farm outcomes and the creation of a circular economy. An expansion of the number of integrated crop and livestock systems field trials and demonstrations and efforts to brand integrated crop and livestock systems as a form of sustainable agriculture through the development of eco-labels could also improve adoption, but would likely be unsuccessful at encouraging wide-scale change without a more radical transformation of the research and policy landscape. Made available in DSpace on 2020-03-18T14:43:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Drivers-of-decoupling.pdf: 1071766 bytes, checksum: 042134bf5cdd1952a07781e992a5a3d8 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Towards resilience through systems-based plant breeding. A review

Author

Paul C. Struik, Nick van Eekeren, Edith T. Lammerts van Bueren, and Edwin Nuijten

Subjects
0106 biological sciences, Environmental Engineering, Crop Physiology, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], Review Article, 01 natural sciences, Ecosystem services, Ecological resilience, Laboratorium voor Plantenveredeling, Sustainable agriculture, Environmental planning, 2. Zero hunger, Sustainable development, Common good, Entrepreneurial models, Societal resilience, Food security, business.industry, Enterpreneurial models, Breeding, genetics and propagation, Breeding strategies, 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences, 15. Life on land, PE&RC, Seed systems, Agrobiodiversity, Plant Breeding, Sustainability, 13. Climate action, Agriculture, Technologie and Innovatie, Resource use efficiency, 040103 agronomy & agriculture, Knowledge Technology and Innovation, 0401 agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, Kennis, Agricultural biodiversity, business, Social justice, Agronomy and Crop Science, Kennis, Technologie and Innovatie, 010606 plant biology & botany
Abstract

International audience; AbstractHow the growing world population can feed itself is a crucial, multi-dimensional problem that goes beyond sustainable development. Crop production will be affected by many changes in its climatic, agronomic, economic, and societal contexts. Therefore, breeders are challenged to produce cultivars that strengthen both ecological and societal resilience by striving for six international sustainability targets: food security, safety and quality; food and seed sovereignty; social justice; agrobiodiversity; ecosystem services; and climate robustness. Against this background, we review the state of the art in plant breeding by distinguishing four paradigmatic orientations that currently co-exist: community-based breeding, ecosystem-based breeding, trait-based breeding, and corporate-based breeding, analyzing differences among these orientations. Our main findings are: (1) all four orientations have significant value but none alone will achieve all six sustainability targets; (2) therefore, an overarching approach is needed: “systems-based breeding,” an orientation with the potential to synergize the strengths of the ways of thinking in the current paradigmatic orientations; (3) achieving that requires specific knowledge development and integration, a multitude of suitable breeding strategies and tools, and entrepreneurship, but also a change in attitude based on corporate responsibility, circular economy and true-cost accounting, and fair and green policies. We conclude that systems-based breeding can create strong interactions between all system components. While seeds are part of the common good and the basis of agrobiodiversity, a diversity in breeding approaches, based on different entrepreneurial approaches, can also be considered part of the required agrobiodiversity. To enable systems-based breeding to play a major role in creating sustainable agriculture, a shared sense of urgency is needed to realize the required changes in breeding approaches, institutions, regulations and protocols. Based on this concept of systems-based breeding, there are opportunities for breeders to play an active role in the development of an ecologically and societally resilient, sustainable agriculture.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Opening design and innovation processes in agriculture: Insights from design and management sciences and future directions

Author

Gordon M. Hickey, Elsa Berthet, Laurens Klerkx, Sciences pour l'Action et le Développement : Activités, Produits, Territoires (SADAPT), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-AgroParisTech, McGill University = Université McGill [Montréal, Canada], Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), McGill University Internal Social Sciences and Humanities Research Grant, European Project: 267196,EC:FP7:PEOPLE,FP7-PEOPLE-2010-COFUND,AGREENSKILLS(2012), McGill University, and Wageningen University and Research Center (WUR)

Subjects
actor-network theory, Design management, Knowledge management, design reasoning, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], 0211 other engineering and technologies, WASS, 02 engineering and technology, Design science, Interactive design, Participatory design, Co-innovation, Open innovation, 2. Zero hunger, interactive design, 021107 urban & regional planning, 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences, network management, Bioeconomy, Design reasoning, affordance, ComputingMilieux_GENERAL, Food systems, Technologie and Innovatie, Knowledge Technology and Innovation, Kennis, Agricultural innovation systems, Affordances, materiality, Circular economy, Actor–network theory, food systems, Network management, sustainability transitions, 12. Responsible consumption, co-innovation, Boundary objects, Affordance, bioeconomy, business.industry, Actor-network theory, boundary object, circular economy, 15. Life on land, open innovation, Sustainability transitions, Sustainability, 040103 agronomy & agriculture, Materiality, agricultural innovation systems, 0401 agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, Animal Science and Zoology, Business, Agronomy and Crop Science, Kennis, Technologie and Innovatie
Abstract

Research has identified an urgent need to renew agriculture's traditional design organization and foster more open, decentralized, contextualized and participatory approaches to design and innovation. While the concepts of co-design and co-innovation used in agriculture resemble features of open innovation, they may benefit from ‘inbound open innovation’ themselves through cross-fertilization with management studies, design science, science and technology studies, and organization studies. This special issue brings together different streams of research providing novel perspectives on co-design and co-innovation in agriculture, including methods, tools and organizations. It compares empirical experiences and theoretical advances to address a variety of issues (e.g., innovation ecosystems, collective design management, participatory design methods, affordances of system analysis tools and network leadership) that shed new light on co-design and co-innovation in support of sustainable agriculture and more broadly transitions towards a diversity of food systems and a circular bioeconomy. This introductory paper presents crosscutting insights and distills from these three directions for future research and practice in agricultural design and innovation: 1) Further opening design and innovation techniques and tools to better account for visual, auditory, tactile and olfactory expressions in evolving designs and what they afford users; 2) Further opening innovation networks in view of creating and stimulating integrative niches that can foster sustainability transitions, which also requires network managers instilling a reflexive stance of network members and broader awareness of power structures attached to organizational, sector and paradigmatic silos in agricultural systems; and 3) Further opening the range of innovation actors to include non-human actants to better account for the agency of the material and ecological.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. On the movement of agricultural technologies : packaging, unpacking and situated reconfiguration

Author

Glover, Dominic, Venot, Jeanphilippe, Maat, Harro, Gestion de l'Eau, Acteurs, Usages (UMR G-EAU), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)-AgroParisTech-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), and Sumberg, J. (ed.)

Subjects
[SDV.SA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Agricultural sciences, EUROPE, MAROC, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], WASS, ISRAEL, Water Resources Management, [SDE]Environmental Sciences, Knowledge Technology and Innovation, AFRIQUE SUBSAHARIENNE, Life Science, BURKINA FASO, ETATS UNIS, Kennis, Technologie and Innovatie
Abstract

In this chapter, we examine how farming technologies move between places and how they are unpacked and ‘grounded’ in particular spaces and contexts. We argue that a better understanding of how this process occurs helps to shed light on a source of contestation within agronomy. We discuss two farming technologies that have been at the centre of controversial debates among experts, policy makers and the wider public: the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and drip irrigation. We argue that these technologies have been contested partly because important social dimensions have been neglected, which have led to the technologies being configured and appreciated differently in different sites. Here, we use the term sites to include farmers’ fields, experimental stations and laboratories, research and training centres, as well as discursive spaces such as agricultural and natural resource policies and research publications.

Published
2017

8. Learning about interdependencies and dynamics

Author

William's Daré, Jérôme Queste, Raphaèle Ducrot, Raphaël Mathevet, Cécile Barnaud, Guy Trébuil, Erwann Lagabrielle, Annemarie van Paassen, Gestion des ressources renouvelables et environnement (UPR GREEN), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad), Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Dynamiques Forestières dans l'Espace Rural (DYNAFOR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-École nationale supérieure agronomique de Toulouse [ENSAT]-Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) (Toulouse INP), Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées, and University of Port Elizabeth

Subjects
Operations research, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], 0211 other engineering and technologies, WASS, 02 engineering and technology, 010501 environmental sciences, Ecological systems theory, 01 natural sciences, [SHS]Humanities and Social Sciences, E14 - Économie et politique du développement, processus, Comportement humain, media_common, Expérimentation, companion modelling, Management science, 000 - Autres thèmes, 021107 urban & regional planning, Apprentissage, Comportement social, Geography, Dynamics (music), Technologie and Innovatie, Knowledge Technology and Innovation, Kennis, P01 - Conservation de la nature et ressources foncières, Scientifique, Modèle, Méthodologie, Écologie, Process (engineering), media_common.quotation_subject, ecological system, participatory process, Life Science, E50 - Sociologie rurale, C20 - Vulgarisation, groupe, social system, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, Charter, Citizen journalism, individu, Interdependence, approches participatives, Développement durable, Sociologie, U30 - Méthodes de recherche, Kennis, Technologie and Innovatie
Abstract

International audience; As mentioned in previous chapters, the companion modelling approach is based on principles laid down in the ComMod Charter (Collectif ComMod 2005). In this founding document, two fields of application were identified: to produce knowledge on the social and ecological systems under study and to facilitate cooperation between different stakeholders involved in a participatory process.

Published
2014
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. How to capture place brand equity? The case of Sud de France

Author

Sietze Vellema, Mechthild Donner, Fatiha Fort, Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs (UMR MOISA), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro)-Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier (CIHEAM-IAMM), Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes (CIHEAM)-Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes (CIHEAM)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Wageningen University and Research Centre [Wageningen] (WUR), Technology and Innovation group, Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier (CIHEAM-IAMM), Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes (CIHEAM)-Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes (CIHEAM)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro), Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Magdalena Florek, Mihalis Kavaratzis, and Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro)-Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier (CIHEAM-IAMM)

Subjects
marque regionale, Strategy and Management, étude de cas, WASS, marque, case study, 0502 economics and business, 11. Sustainability, Economics, Brand equity, Marketing, International relations, Equity (economics), Conceptualization, Case study sud de france, Regional branding, business.industry, 05 social sciences, Social change, Public diplomacy, capital marque, Brand management, Development strategy, Place brand equity, Technologie and Innovatie, Accountability, marketing, Knowledge Technology and Innovation, stratégie commerciale, Kennis, [SHS.GESTION]Humanities and Social Sciences/Business administration, 050211 marketing, business, Kennis, Technologie and Innovatie, 050203 business & management
Abstract

Within a globalized and highly competitive economy, the development of place brands has become important for cities, regions and countries. However, there is still little evidence about the conceptualization and measurement of their performance. In order to contribute to the current discussion of place brand equity, we analyse the effects of a branding initiative in the South of France. According to the collective aspects of the place brand concept, we propose a multidimensional approach through qualitative interviews with various stakeholders and review of secondary, mainly statistical data. Findings indicate that several factors are crucial for capturing equity of place brands. First, their collective character, involving different stakeholders; second, the fact that they generate economic and non-economic outcomes; third, their dependence on a socio-political and macro-economic context; and fourth, the time they need to establish. All these constituents require a more holistic approach to capture place brand equity than usual brand equity definitions for companies. Results also suggest that if place brands aim at long-term development of places, estimating their overall value can be based on evaluation logics for public development interventions, which are easily feasible, time and cost saving and fulfil the need for accountability for governmental institutions.

Published
2014
Full Text
View/download PDF

10. What does an inventory of recent innovation experiences tell us about agricultural innovation in Africa ?

Author

Henri Hocdé, Joe B. Stevens, Bernard Bridier, Ann Waters-Bayer, Todd A. Crane, Nour Selemna, Simplice D. Vodouhe, Anne Floquet, Bernard Triomphe, Brigid Letty, G. Kamau, Jolanda van den Berg, T. Ng'ang'a, C.J.M. Almekinders, Innovation et Développement dans l'Agriculture et l'Agro-alimentaire (UMR Innovation), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Département Environnements et Sociétés (Cirad-ES), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad), Université d’Abomey-Calavi - Faculté des sciences agronomiques (UAC FSA), Université d’Abomey-Calavi (UAC), Acteurs, Ressources et Territoires dans le Développement (UMR ART-Dev), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Université de Montpellier (UM)-Université de Perpignan Via Domitia (UPVD)-Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 (UPVM), and Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)

Subjects
Economic growth, Knowledge management, Geography, Planning and Development, WASS, South Africa, Resource (project management), E14 - Économie et politique du développement, Economics, Benin, Multiple stakeholders, Analytical framework, media_common, 05 social sciences, Inventory, Agriculture, 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences, [SHS.GEO]Humanities and Social Sciences/Geography, ComputingMilieux_GENERAL, Technologie and Innovatie, Knowledge Technology and Innovation, Kennis, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, LEI NAT HULPB - Milieu, Best practice, media_common.quotation_subject, Smallholders, Agricultural education, Context (language use), Petite exploitation agricole, Education, LEI NAT HULPB - Milieu, Natuur en Landschap, 0502 economics and business, Innovation, business.industry, Timeline, Natuur en Landschap, Innovation system, Kenya, Leerstoelgroep Technologie en agrarische ontwikkeling, Innovation processes, Technology and Agrarian Development, 040103 agronomy & agriculture, 0401 agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, business, Kennis, Technologie and Innovatie, 050203 business & management, Diversity (politics)
Abstract

International audience; Within the context of the FP7 JOLISAA project (JOint Learning in and about Innovation Systems in African Agriculture), an inventory of agricultural innovation experiences was developed in three African countries: Kenya, South Africa and Benin. The main objective was to assess a broad diversity of multi-stakeholder agricultural innovation processes involving smallholders. National teams used literature searches and interactions with a range of institutions and networks engaged in agricultural innovation to identify cases. Interviews with resource persons and field visits were also conducted to supplement the available / accessible documentation. The inventory was made according to a common analytical framework and guidelines inspired by the Innovation System perspective to allow for an analysis across cases and countries. The completed inventory includes 57 documented cases, covering a wide diversity of experiences, in terms of types, domains, scales and timelines of innovation. The 57 cases confirm previously documented features, such as the diversity of stakeholders involved in innovation, the diversity of innovation triggers, or also the frequent occurence of market driven innovation. It also illustrates more original features: the typically long time frames of innovation processes; the common occurrence of "innovation bundles" (a combination over time of technological, social and/or institutional innovations); and an often close relationship between innovation and externally-funded projects. National teams faced several challenges during the inventory process, including a common understanding and consistent use of key innovation-related concepts, and a difficult access to relevant information related partly to restrictions put by several case holders on sharing openly their experience. Out of the inventory, JOLISAA has selected thirteen cases which will undergo a subsequent phase of collaborative assessment. The assessment will strive to assess issues the inventory could not tackle, such as the actual roles and contributions of the various stakeholders, the dynamics of the innovation process, and the influence of the enabling environment on the innovation process and outcome.

Published
2013
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. Assessment and monitoring of the effects of the ComMod approach

Author

Sigrid Aubert, Raphaèle Ducrot, Annemarie van Paassen, William's Daré, Guy Trébuil, Jérôme Queste, Pascal Perez, Natalie A. Jones, ISGI sfax, Université de Sfax - University of Sfax, Gestion des ressources renouvelables et environnement (UPR GREEN), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad), Validation et identification de nouvelles cibles en oncologie (VINCO), Institut Bergonié [Bordeaux], UNICANCER-UNICANCER-Université Bordeaux Segalen - Bordeaux 2-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Communication and Innovation Studies (CIS), Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Institut Bergonié [Bordeaux], UNICANCER-UNICANCER-Université Bordeaux Segalen - Bordeaux 2, and Webcirad, Mada

Subjects
Modèle, Méthodologie, 010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences, Public policy, Recherche, WASS, 010501 environmental sciences, 01 natural sciences, A50 - Recherche agronomique, E14 - Économie et politique du développement, Life Science, Sociology, P10 - Ressources en eau et leur gestion, Reflection (computer graphics), Modélisation environnementale, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, Prise de décision, Management science, Field (Bourdieu), Évaluation de l'impact, Étude de cas, [SDE.BE] Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, approches participatives, Gestion des eaux, Développement durable, Technologie and Innovatie, Knowledge Technology and Innovation, Kennis, P01 - Conservation de la nature et ressources foncières, U30 - Méthodes de recherche, système d'aide à la décision, [SDE.BE]Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, Kennis, Technologie and Innovatie, Relevant information, Cartography
Abstract

The assessment of the effects of companion modelling is currently still a theoretical and methodological field under investigation. However, neighbouring fields of research provide relevant elements of reflection. For example, research on integrated assessments aims to provide public policy decision-makers with relevant information for decision-making.

Published
2011

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results