Fleur Marchand

Learning through stakeholder involvement in the implementation of MOTIFS: an integrated assessment model for sustainable farming in Flanders

Integrated sustainability assessment (ISA) models can trigger change towards sustainable agriculture. This paper reports the implementation of an existing ISA model in Flanders, MOTIFS (Monitoring Tool for Integrated Farm Sustainability), in two cases in dairy farming selected from private/public accountancy/consultancy networks. Interactive learning between model developers (scientists) and model users (farmers and advisers) is examined with two objectives: first, to identify critical success factors (CSFs) for implementation; and second, to suggest improvements for MOTIFS or ways to use MOTIFS. Through a qualitative research methodology, based on open coding of data collected in farmer discussion groups, 10 CSFs are derived that are linked to the various implementation steps. Sufficient attention should be paid to attitude of model users, compatibility, data availability and user-friendliness, particularly when an ISA model is used in existing networks. Improvements in the ISA model and its use are suggested, such as more focus on the organization of the discussion sessions. Training of advisers, enhancement of their facilitation skills, involvement of experts and a thorough planning of sessions are suggested for MOTIFS to become more effective in supporting learning and sustainable farm management.

Key characteristics for tool choice in indicator-based sustainability assessment at farm level

Although the literature on sustainability assessment tools to support decision making in agriculture is rapidly growing, little attention has been paid to the actual tool choice. We focused on the choice of more complex integrated indicator-based tools at the farm level. The objective was to determine key characteristics as criteria for tool choice. This was done with an in-depth comparison of 2 cases: the Monitoring Tool for Integrated Farm Sustainability and the Public Goods Tool. They differ in characteristics that may influence tool choice: data, time, and budgetary requirements. With an enhanced framework, we derived 11 key characteristics to describe differences between the case tools. Based on the key characteristics, we defined 2 types of indicator-based tools: full sustainability assessment (FSA) and rapid sustainability assessment (RSA). RSA tools are more oriented toward communicating and learning. They are therefore more suitable for use by a larger group of farmers, can help to raise awareness, trigger farmers to become interested in sustainable farming, and highlight areas of good or bad performance. If and when farmers increase their commitment to on-farm sustainability, they can gain additional insight by using an FSA tool. Based on complementary and modular use of the tools, practical recommendations for the different end users, i.e., researchers, farmers, advisers, and so forth, have been suggested.

Reflection on the development process of a sustainability assessment tool : learning from a Flemish case

Adoption of sustainability assessment tools in agricultural practice is often disappointing. One of the critical success factors for adoption is the tool development process. Because scientific attention to these development processes and insights about them are rather limited, we aimed to foster the scientific debate on this topic. This was done by reflecting on the development process of a Flemish sustainability assessment tool, MOTIFS. MOTIFS was developed with the aim of becoming widely adopted by farmers and farm advisors, but this result was not achieved. Our reflection process showed success factors favoring and barriers hindering tool adoption. These were grouped into three clusters of lessons learned for sound tool development: (1) institutional embeddedness, (2) ownership, and (3) tool functions. This clustering allowed us to formulate actions for researchers on the following aspects: (1) learning from stakeholders and end users, (2) providing coaching for appropriate tool use, and (3) structuring development of different tool types and exploring spin-offs from existing tools. We hope these normative results evoke other researchers to feed a debate on understanding tool development.

When experts disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of agriculture

Sustainability indicators are well recognized for their potential to assess and monitor sustainable development of agricultural systems. A large number of indicators are proposed in various sustainability assessment frameworks, which raises concerns regarding the validity of approaches, usefulness and trust in such frameworks. Selecting indicators requires transparent and well-defined procedures to ensure the relevance and validity of sustainability assessments. The objective of this study, therefore, was to determine whether experts agree on which criteria are most important in the selection of indicators and indicator sets for robust sustainability assessments. Two groups of experts (Temperate Agriculture Research Network and New Zealand Sustainability Dashboard) were asked to rank the relative importance of eleven criteria for selecting individual indicators and of nine criteria for balancing a collective set of indicators. Both ranking surveys reveal a startling lack of consensus amongst experts about how best to measure agricultural sustainability and call for a radical rethink about how complementary approaches to sustainability assessments are used alongside each other to ensure a plurality of views and maximum collaboration and trust amongst stakeholders. To improve the transparency, relevance and robustness of sustainable assessments, the context of the sustainability assessment, including prioritizations of selection criteria for indicator selection, must be accounted for. A collaborative design process will enhance the acceptance of diverse values and prioritizations embedded in sustainability assessments. The process by which indicators and sustainability frameworks are established may be a much more important determinant of their success than the final shape of the assessment tools. Such an emphasis on process would make assessments more transparent, transformative and enduring.

Exploring participation in a sustainable farming initiative with self-determination theory

ABSTRACT Sustainable farming initiatives (SFIs), which aim to support farmers’ adoption of sustainable practices vary in the degree of farmer participation. In this study, we explored the influence of SFI design characteristics on farmer motivation to participate. Based on self-determination theory, we framed farmer participation by linking participants’ motives and motivational processes, participation context and participants’ perception of that context. Using a mixed-method investigation, we analysed Veldleeuwerik, a Dutch SFI with about 400 members. We observed four motive types, in order of importance: knowledge exchange, business opportunities, sustainability and social contact. By combining them with five types of motivational regulation, our research revealed that motives are directed by a diversity of underlying motivational processes, and that both are influenced by the participation context, or SFI design. Based on these results, we suggest that SFIs who wish to attract farmers who are not autonomously motivated for sustainability, need to rely on characteristics that meet either other motives than sustainability or other motivational processes than autonomous ones. To maintain participation, SFI characteristics should support autonomous motivational processes, by supporting the psychological basic needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. The study illustrates how a socio-psychological perspective adds value to investigating SFI design characteristics for successful farmer participation.

A reflexive assessment of a regional initiative in the agri-food system to test whether and how it meets the premises of transdisciplinary research

In recent sustainability assessments, transdisciplinary approaches have been used to bridge contested normative views among many societal actors, policymakers and researchers. Transdisciplinary research is mainly based on three premises: (1) various perspectives need to be incorporated and discussed to empower actors, (2) the collaboration and co-creation of knowledge between academic and societal actors allows to better grasp the complexity of a real-world problem, and (3) a mutual learning process arises which could increase the legitimacy of decisions and their implementation in practice. Despite many examples of transdisciplinary projects, few assessments have been done that question whether such a project fulfils the premises of transdisciplinary research. Therefore, we report on a reflexive assessment of an initiative set up to foster the transformation of the Flemish agri-food system towards sustainability. The case study involved both scientific and societal actors with different views, making it possible to implement a transdisciplinary process, evaluate the expectations and give suggestions for future processes. Evaluation criteria are linked to context, process and outcomes. Analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data indicates that the initiative did empower the transformation towards sustainability. Furthermore, results show that, in this case, a transdisciplinary approach can fulfil its premises. However, some critical factors are identified, such as the importance of the context specificity and a flexible, adaptive and iterative process.

Communities of practice for knowledge co-creation on sustainable dairy farming: features for value creation for farmers

Communities of Practice (CoPs) are a promising concept for transdisciplinary knowledge co-creation in sustainable agricultural development, but empirical evidence from the farmers’ viewpoint is scarce. This paper contributes to empirical insights on the knowledge creation in CoPs as valued by farmers. Using concepts from CoP theory (domain, community, and practice) and the value creation framework (VCF) developed by Wenger et al. (Promoting and assessing value creation in communities and networks: a conceptual framework. Netherlands Ruud de Moor Center Rapport 18:60, 2011), we examined two cases issuing from a European project on sustainable dairy farming. Results indicate regional differences between the two cases and relate CoP features to value creation cycles (immediate, potential, applied, realized and reframing value). They show how specific features regarding domain, community, and practice development can enhance knowledge creation on sustainable agricultural development. Domain development should be considered consciously taking into account the project duration. The community should include actors with specific competencies, such as farmers with an open attitude, researchers with (practical) domain expertise, and advisors with skills as translators between researchers and farmers. The practice development, or the actual knowledge creation, should unify two equally important types of interaction that contribute differently to value creation in CoPs: individual farmer–researcher–advisor interactions and farmer group–advisor interactions. Our research provides both valuable information for designing and managing knowledge co-creation initiatives and anchors further research on competencies and activities required to foster the two types of interactions for knowledge creation.

Minimising farm crop protection pressure supported by the multiple functionalities of the DISCUSS indicator set

Sustainable crop protection (SCP) has many facets. Farmers may therefore perceive transition to SCP as very complex. The Dual Indicator Set for Crop Protection Sustainability (DISCUSS) can handle this complexity. To provide targeted support throughout the transition to SCP, complexity capture must be synchronised with the time course of on-farm decision-making. Tool use must be tuned to farmer awareness and appropriate level of data in consecutive stages. This paper thus explores the potential functionalities of DISCUSS in relation to both complexity and time. Results from apple and potato crop protection show three potential functions: DISCUSS can be used as (1) a simulation tool for communication and decision support, (2) an assessment and monitoring tool, and (3) a discussion support tool for farmer groups. Analysis of these functionalities using a framework for guiding on-farm sustainability assessment and strategic decision-making shows how each functionality can support the consecutive steps of transition to SCP, i.e. using the right tool functionality at the right time.