Knowledge sharing in practice: a game-based methodology to increase farmers’ engagement in a common vision for a cheese PDO union

Dernat, Sylvain; Rigolot, Cyrille; Vollet, Dominique; Cayré, Patrice; Dumont, Bertrand

doi:10.1080/1389224x.2021.1873155

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, even though the scientists of the project team, who were the initiators of the spread, tried to balance the groups of stakeholders addressed, their mails seemed to achieve higher priority among science colleagues on their mailing lists. A reason for the poor response rate from non‐scientists, especially farmers, could also be that they do not expect their contribution to lead to concrete changes, either because they believe that decisions will be made elsewhere or because of the expectation (or experience) that their voice will not be heard anyway (Dernat et al, 2022; Fielke et al, 2018; Schulp et al, 2022). Schulp et al (2022) stated that the intrinsic motivation of farmers is crucial for their engagement, which might lack in conceptual discussions about terminology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do we speak one language on the way to sustainable soil management in Europe? A terminology check via an EU‐wide survey

Weninger,

Ramler,

Bondi

et al. 2024

European J Soil Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

European soils are under increasing pressure, making it difficult to maintain the provision of soil ecosystem services (SESs). A better understanding of soil processes is needed to counteract soil threats (STs) and to promote sustainable soil management. The EJP SOIL programme of the EU provides a framework for the necessary research. However, different definitions of soil‐related terms potentially lead to varied understandings of concepts. Furthermore, there are numerous indicators available to quantify STs or SESs. As unclear communication is a key barrier that hinders the implementation of research results into practice, this study aimed to answer the question about whether the terminology of large‐scale initiatives is adequately understood within the soil‐science community and non‐research stakeholders. An online questionnaire was used to provide definitions for 33 soil‐related terms in both scientific and plain language, as well as indicators for seven SESs and 11 STs. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with the definitions and indicators on a seven‐grade Likert scale. The level of agreement was calculated as the percentage of ratings above 4, the neutral position. The survey was available from June to September 2023 and was distributed by a snowball approach. More than 260 stakeholders assessed the survey; 70% of respondents were researchers, and 15% were practitioners. Mean agreement levels for the definitions and indicators were generally high, at 85% and 78% respectively. However, it was apparent that the lowest agreement was found for terms that are relatively new, such as Ecosystem Services and Bundle, or unfamiliar for certain subgroups, such as ecological terms for stakeholders working at the farm scale. Due to their distinct majority, the results of this study primarily reflect the opinions of scientists. Thus, broad conclusions can only be drawn by comparing scientists with non‐scientists. In this regard, the agreement was surprisingly high across all types of questions. The combined outcomes indicate that there is still a need to facilitate communication between stakeholders and to improve knowledge distribution strategies. Nevertheless, this study can support and be used by future projects and programmes, especially regarding the harmonization of terminology and methods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do we speak one language on the way to sustainable soil management in Europe? A terminology check via an EU‐wide survey

Weninger,

Ramler,

Bondi

et al. 2024

European J Soil Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Benefiting from local opportunities allows the preservation of grassland biodiversity while also enhancing farm socio‐economic resilience, and its mitigation and adaptation potential to climate change and other perturbations. These opportunities are enabled by processes such as experimenting, knowledge sharing, farmer networking and cooperating (Klerkx & Begemann, 2020), which are developing in European grassland‐based systems (Dernat et al, 2022) and worldwide (Ruggia et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversification increases the resilience of European grassland‐based systems but is not a one‐size‐fits‐all strategy

Dumont

Franca

López‐i‐Gelats

et al. 2022

Grass and Forage Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diversification of grassland‐based systems is highly valued in agroecology, organic farming and other forms of regenerative agriculture. For lowlands, mountain and Mediterranean areas, we illustrate that diversification of grassland types, livestock species, products and farm labour allows coping with market, climatic and workforce‐related risks. However, diversification is not a one‐size‐fits‐all strategy and the type of diversification strategy should be adapted according to socio‐economic, structural, technical and pedoclimatic conditions of each farm. Farmers' technical skills and ability to re‐organise and monitor the system must be considered to avoid ineffectiveness of the diversified system. Moreover, it is essential to account for site‐specific conditions so that the ecological processes to be optimised can provide the expected benefits. Diversification occurs on different levels, from grassland management to the entire farm activity. There may be trade‐offs among these different levels impairing grassland ecosystem services. For instance, if diversification of farm activities dilutes the workforce, simplified grassland management can lead to the loss of vegetation communities of high ecological value. In contrast, case‐adapted diversification benefits from local opportunities, available resources and external supports to secure the system and favour sustainable resource management. Diversification thereby preserves grassland ecosystem services and enhances farm socio‐economic resilience to withstand perturbations.

show abstract

“…An initial six-stage process that lasted a year, in which serious games played a central role, led to the proposal of 54 actions to develop the PDO by stakeholders: farmers, processors, elected officials, tourism professionals, agricultural advisors, veterinarians, state representatives, teachers of the local agricultural college. This prospective process is detailed by Dernat et al (2021a) and has resulted in co-constructed guidelines that constitute the backbone of a new common vision for the future for the PDO stakeholders (farmers, processors) with a 10 years horizon.…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The guidelines contain four major topics: (i) the internal organization of the PDO and its functioning; (ii) communication focusing on the diversity of the product, reflecting the diversity of production methods and stakeholders, and meeting the different expectations of consumers; (iii) improvement of the product sanitary quality; (vi) an orientation of dairy production toward an agroecological and cultural heritage approach in order to improve economic (higher milk price for farmers) and environmental development of the PDO area (Dernat et al, 2021a).…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second level refers to which participants acquire the intended knowledge, attitude, confidence and commitment based on their participation. These first and second levels have already been assessed in a shortterm assessment (Dernat et al, 2021a): farmers were largely satisfied by the foresight process (level 1: assessed from the debriefing at the end of the collaborative day and at the endof-year general assembly), and have shared and learned many knowledges and engaged themselves through the project (level 2: assessed through interviews and observations during the whole foresight process).…”

Section: Data Collection and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ex-post consequences of participatory foresight processes in agriculture. How to help dairy farmers to face outcomes of collective decisions planning?

Dernat

Etienne

Hostiou

et al. 2022

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The analysis of the consequences of participatory foresight in agriculture over the long term is little studied in the scientific literature. In particular, it questions how farmers deal with the proposed scenarios afterwards and the modalities of their implementation. This article aims to overcome this by proposing an ex-post analysis of a foresight process with New World Kirkpatrick's Model (NWKM) carried out in mid-2018 in the Fourme de Montbrison cheese Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) area in the Massif Central (France). A set of 24 semi-structured interviews was conducted in spring and summer 2020 with the dairy farmers involved. Moreover, collective organization has been investigated through participatory observation and an analysis of project's progress reports until March 2021. The results show that while the engagement of farmers in the collective dynamic remains, it needs to be continuously rebuilt over time, particularly in order to overcome the effects of social risk-taking and insecurity that farmers must face. In addition, the place of stakeholders needs to be clarified. The article proposes a series of guidelines based on the project's experience and the “Monitor and Adjust” approach of the NWKM. It demonstrates the importance of establishing long-term follow-ups to foresight approaches to encourage farmers into action.

show abstract

Knowledge sharing in practice: a game-based methodology to increase farmers’ engagement in a common vision for a cheese PDO union

Cited by 9 publications

References 71 publications

Do we speak one language on the way to sustainable soil management in Europe? A terminology check via an EU‐wide survey

Do we speak one language on the way to sustainable soil management in Europe? A terminology check via an EU‐wide survey

Diversification increases the resilience of European grassland‐based systems but is not a one‐size‐fits‐all strategy

Ex-post consequences of participatory foresight processes in agriculture. How to help dairy farmers to face outcomes of collective decisions planning?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About