Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-actor networks and innovation niches: university training for local Agroecological Dynamization

  • Symposium/Special Issue
  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The global environmental and social-economic crises of industrialized agriculture have led to the emergence of agroecology as an alternative approach aiming to increase the ecological, social and economic sustainability of agri–food systems. The ‘multi-level perspective’ is now a widely used framework to understand and promote the upscaling of local innovation niches, such as agroecology, to broader scales (e.g., regional, national, international), thus reconfiguring the dominant socio-technical regimes. Additionally, emergent ‘hybrid forums’ can provide a space between niche and regime where niche innovators can become important actors in scaling up and out emergent innovations. In this paper, we examine a university training program (Postgraduate Diploma in Local Agroecological Dynamization at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), to better understand its role as a ‘hybrid forum’. Our analysis focuses especially on how the program, as an example of a hybrid forum, worked to reconfigure practices, concepts, and tools of local development practitioners. We also assess to what extent the program contributed to transitioning local development institutions toward agroecology. An online survey (n = 46) and in-depth interviews (n = 16) were carried out to determine how the training program has impacted the student’s opinions and their respective institutions. The results show that most of the students consider that they have acquired new theoretical frameworks and useful methods to re-framing their local development projects, that new alliances with multi-actor networks have been perceived, and that some internal changes of the local development practices have taken place. We conclude that the training program, as a hybrid forum, is capable of outscaling niche innovations through linkages with different kind of actors both from the niche and the regime. Political changes in the socio-technical landscape level offer an opportunity to amplify the impact of the innovations which are being generated by those multi-actor networks, but with a limited multi-level impact as far as institutional regime-actors not aligned with agroecological transition keep the most of the competencies on agri–food systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

LAeD:

Local Agroecological Dynamization

MLP:

Multi-level perspective

NGO:

Non-governmental organization

References

  • Altieri, M.A. 1983. Agroecología. Bases científicas para una agricultura sustentable. Montevideo: Nordan Comunidad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M.M., S.E. Lloyd, and C. Vatovec. 2010. Activating the countryside: Rural power, the power of the rural and the making of rural politics. Sociologia Ruralis 50 (3): 205–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S., and McAllister. 2012. Sustainable agriculture through sustainable learning: Applying principles of adult learning to improve educational incomes. Storrs, CT: Northeast SARE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bui, S., A. Cardona, C. Lamine, and M. Cerf. 2016. Sustainability transitions: Insights on processes of niche–regime interaction and regime reconfiguration in agri–food systems. Journal of Rural Studies 48: 92–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunch, R. 1985. Dos mazorcas de maiz: una guía para el mejoramiento agrícola orientado hacia la gente. Oklahoma City: World Neighbours.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. 1994a. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development 22 (10): 1437–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. 1994b. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development 22 (7): 953–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. 1994c. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA)—Challenges, potentials and paradigm. World Development 22 (9): 1437–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuéllar-Padilla, M., and Á. Calle-Collado. 2011. Can we find solutions with people? Participatory action research with small organic producers in Andalusia. Journal of Rural Studies 27 (4): 372–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darnhofer, I. 2015. Socio-technical transitions in farming. Key concepts. In Transition pathways towards sustainability in agriculture. Case studies from Europe, eds. L.A. Sutherland, I. Darnhofer, G. Wilson, and L. Zagata, 17–32. Oxfordshire: CABI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnhofer, I., W. Schneeberger, and B. Freyer. 2005. Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria: Farmer types and their rationale. Agriculture and Human Values 22 (1): 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaz, M., I. Darnhofer, C. Darrot, and J.E. Beuret. 2013. Green tides in Brittany: What can we learn about niche–regime interactions? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 8: 62–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duru, M., O. Therond, and M. Fares. 2015. Designing agroecological transitions; a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35 (4): 1237–1257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domene, E. (coord.). 2016. Agricultura Metropolitana. Agricultura urbana i periurbana a l’àmbit metropolità de Barcelona: beneficis econòmics, socials i ambientals. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Regionals i Metropolitans de Barcelona.

  • Elzen, B., F. W. Geels, C. Leeuwis, and B. van Mierlo. 2011. Normative contestation in transitions ‘in the making’: Animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig husbandry. Research Policy 40: 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elzen, B., B. van Mierlo, and C. Leeuwis. 2012. Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5: 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, J., and A.E. Martin. 1988. Farmer participatory research: A review of concepts and recent fieldwork. Agricultural Administration and Extension 29 (4): 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, C., G. Lieblein, S.R. Gliessman, N. Creamer, R. Harwood, L. Salomonsson, J. Helenius, D.H. Rickerl, R. Salvador, M.H. Wiedenhoeft, C. Flora, S.R. Simmons, M.A. Altieri, and R. Poincelot. 2003. Agroecology. The ecology of agri–food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22 (3): 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francis, C., T.A. Breland, E. Østergaard, G. Lieblein, and S. Morse. 2012. Phenomenon-based learning in agroecology: A prerequisite for transdisciplinarity and responsible action. Agroecology and Sustainable Agri–food Systems 37 (1): 60–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz, N. 2007. Adult education theories: Informing cooperative extension's transformation. Journal of Extension 45 (1). Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2007February/a1.shtml.

  • Freire, Paulo. 1969. ¿Extensión o comunicación? La concientización en el medio rural. Mexico, DF: Siglo XXI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, Paulo. 1975. Pedagogia del oprimido. Madrid: Siglo XXI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, Paulo. 2004. La importancia de leer y el proceso de liberacion. Mexico, DF: Siglo XXI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire, Paulo. 2005. Pedagogía de la esperanza: Un reencuentro con la pedagogía del oprimido. Mexico, DF: Siglo XXI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galli, F., and G. Brunori. 2011. Knowledge brokerage to promote sustainable food consumption and production: Linking scientists, policymakers and civil society organizations. Report of the FOODLINKS project. http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net. Accessed 25 July 2017.

  • Geels, F.W. 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31: 1257–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F.W. 2010. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy 39: 495–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F.W. 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1: 24–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, S.R. 2002. Agroecología: procesos ecológicos en agricultura sostenible. Turrialba: CATIE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, S.R., and M. Rosenmeyer, eds. 2010. The conversion to sustainable agriculture. Principles, processes and practices. Boca Ratón: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • González de Molina, M. 2013. Agroecology and politics. How to get sustainability? About the necessity for a political agroecology. Agroecology and Sustainable Agri–food Systems 37 (1): 45–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guirado, C., N. Valldeperas, and A. Tulla. 2017. L’agricultura social a Catalunya. Desenvolupament local i ocupació per a col·lectius en risc d’exclusió social. Tarragona: Cossetània.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzmán, G.I., M. González de Molina, and E. Sevilla-Guzmán. 2000. Introducción a la agroecología como desarrollo rural sostenible. Madrid: Mundi-Prensa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzmán, G.I., D. López-García, L. Román, and A.M. Alonso. 2013. Participatory action research in agroecology. Building organic food networks in Spain. Agroecology and Sustainable Agri–food Systems 37 (1): 37: 127–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzmán, G.I., D. López-García, L. Román, and A.M. Alonso. 2016. Participatory action research for an agroecological transition in Spain. In Agroecology: A transdisciplinary, participatory and action-oriented approach, eds. V.E. Méndez, C.M. Bacon, R. Cohen, and S.R. Gliessman, 140–160. Boca Ratón: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heleba, D., V. Grubinger, and H. Darby. 2016. On the ground. Putting agroecology to work through applied research and extension in Vermont. In Agroecology: A transdisciplinary, participatory and action-oriented approach, eds. V.E. Méndez, C.M. Bacon, R. Cohen, and S.R. Gliessman, 177–192. Boca Ratón: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helen, N. 2011. Conducting research in conservation. Social science methods and practice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt-Gimenez, E. 2008. Campesino a campesino: Voces de Latinoamérica. Movimiento Campesino para la Agricultura Sustentable. Managua: SIMAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamine, C. 2011. Transition pathways towards a robust ecologization of agriculture and the need for system redesign. Cases from organic farming and IPM. Journal of Rural Studies 27 (2): 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, L., M. Pimbert, and Y.G. Vanloqueren. 2014. Agroecological research: Conforming or transforming the dominant agro–food regime? Agroecology and Sustainable Agri–food Systems 38: 1127–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieblein, G., T.A. Breland, C. Francis, and E. Østergaard. 2012. Agroecology education: Action-oriented learning and research. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18 (1): 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobley, M., A. Butler, and M. Reed. 2009. The contribution of organic farming to rural development: An exploration of the socio-economic linkages of organic and non-organic farms in England. Land Use Policy 26: 723–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López Vargas, G., M. Ardón, and E. Tomás Pérez. 2009. Agroecología práctica. Tegucigalpa: LITHOCOM.

  • Lopez-Garcia, D., and G.I. Guzman Casado. 2014. Metodologias participativas para la transicion agroecologica. Madrid: Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecologica.

    Google Scholar 

  • López-García, D. 2015. Producir alimentos, reproducir comunidad. Redes alimentarias alternativas como formas económicas para la transición social y ecológica. Madrid: Libros en Acción.

    Google Scholar 

  • López-García, D., L. Calvet-Mir, J. Espluga, M. Di Masso, G. Tendero-Acin, and A. Pomar-León. 2015. La dinamización local agroecológica como estrategia para la construcción de soberanías locales. Ecologia Politica 49: 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • López-García, D., P.M. Herrera, N. Alonso, J. Mérida, and J.M. Pérez. 2017. ‘Cities for agroecology’ networks in Europe and Spain. Urban Agriculture 33: 55–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, T., and R. Sonnino. 2008. Rural development and the regional state: Denying multifunctional agriculture in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 24: 422–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meek, D. 2015. The cultural politics of the agroecological transition. Agriculture and Human Values 33 (2): 275–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meek, D., K. Bradley, B. Ferguson, et al. 2017. Agric Hum Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9780-1.

  • Méndez, V.E., C.M. Bacon, and R. Cohen. 2016. Introduction: Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory and action-oriented approach. In Agroecology: A transdisciplinary, participatory and action-oriented approach, eds. V.E. Méndez, C.M. Bacon, R. Cohen, and S.R. Gliessman, 1–22. Boca Ratón: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Méndez, V.E., M. Caswell, S.R. Gliessman, and R. Cohen. 2017. Integrating agroecology and participatory action research (PAR): Lessons from Central America. Sustainability 9 (5): 705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milestad, R., R. Bartel-Kratochvil, H. Leitner, and P. Axmann. 2010. Being close: The quality of social relationship in a local organic cereal and bread network in Lower Austria. Journal of Rural Studies 26 (3): 228–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumeier, S. 2012. Why do social innovations in rural development matter and should they be considered more seriously in rural development research? Proposal for a stronger focus on social innovations in rural development research. Sociologia Ruralis 52 (1): 48–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ota, C., C.F. DiCarlo, D.C. Burts, R. Laird, and C. Gioe. 2006. Training and the needs of adult learners. Journal of Extension 44 (6). Available at http://www.joe.org/joe/2006december/tt5.shtml.

  • Padel, S. 2001. Conversion to organic farming: A typical example of the diffusion of an innovation? Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1): 40–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padel, S. 2008. Values of organic producers converting at different times: Results of a focus group study in five European countries. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 7 (1–2): 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ploeg, J.D., and T. Marsden. 2008. Unfolding webs. The dynamics of regional rural development. Assen, NL: Van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomar-León, A., and G. Tendero-Acín. 2015. Ja Volem el Pa Sencer. Respostes a la pobresa alimentària en clau de Sobirania Alimentària. Barcelona: ASAC!.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, M. 2008. The rural arena: The diversity of protest in rural England. Journal of Rural Studies 24 (2): 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, R.E., and R. Booth. 1982. Farmer-back-to-farmer: A model for generating acceptable agricultural technology. Agriculture Administration 11: 127–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roep, D., and J.S.C. Wiskerke. 2004. Reflecting on novelty production and niche management in agriculture. In Seeds of transition, eds. J.S.C. Wiskerke and J.D. van der Ploeg, 341–356. Assen, NL: Van Gorcum.

  • Rogers, E.M. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Röling, N.G., and M.A.E. Wagemakers, eds. 1998. Facilitating sustainable agriculture: Participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, B.A.A., and A.A.R. Ioris. 2017. Addressing the knowledge gaps in agroecology and identifying guiding principles for transforming conventional agri–food systems. Sustainability 9: 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sevilla-Guzmán, E. 2007. De la sociología rural a la agroecología. Barcelona: Icaria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. 2007. Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 19 (4): 427–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tisenkopfs, T., G. Brunori, K. Knickel, and S. Sumane. 2009. Co-production of rural innovation: Towards an enriched theoretical model. In Innovation processes in agriculture and rural development. Results of a cross-national analysis of the situation in seven countries, research gaps and recommendations, eds. K. Knickel, T. Tisenkopfs, S. Peter, and S. Sumane, 129–159. INSIGHT project. http://www.insightproject.net. Accessed 10 June 2017.

  • Ventura, F., G. Brunori, P. Milone, and G. Berti. 2008. The rural web: A synthesis. In Unfolding webs, the dynamics of regional rural development, eds. J.D. Ploeg, and T. Marsden, 149–174. Assen, NL: Van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villasante, T.R. 2006. Desbordes creativos. Madrid: La Catarata.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogelezang, J., A. Wals, B. van Mierlo, and F. Wijanads. 2009. Learning in networks in Dutch agriculture: Stimulating sustainable development through innovation and change. In Transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food chains in peri-urban areas, eds. K. Poppe, C. Termeer, and M. Slingerland, 93–111. Wageningen, NL: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wezel, A., H. Brives, M. Casagrande, C. Clément, A. Dufour, and P. Vandenbroucke. 2015. Agroecology-territories: Places for sustainable agriculture and agri–food systems and biodiversity conservation. Agroecology and Sustainable Agri–food Systems 40 (2): 132–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, S.A. 2008. What influences agricultural professionals’ view towards organic agriculture? Ecological Economics 65 (1): 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhill, J. 2009. Institutional innovation and stakeholder engagement. Linking transition management in the North with development in the global South. In Transitions towards sustainable agriculture and food chains in peri-urban areas, eds. K. Poppe, C. Termeer, and M. Slingerland, 273–291. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ariadna Pomar-León and Guillem Tendero-Acín, as co-coordinators of the Training Program of Local Agroecological Dynamization, for their unvaluable cooperation for the present paper and in the training program itself. We would also like to thank all interviewees and respondants of the survey for their cooperation with the present research and their daily effort for agroecological transitions in Catalonia and Spain. Lastly, we would like to thank the special issue editors and the anonymous reviewers for their patient and invaluable comments, which really strengthened and enriched the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fundación Entretantos, c/Arzobispo José Delicado 1, 47014, Valladolid, Spain

    Daniel López-García

  2. Internet Interdisciplinary Institute (IN3), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain

    Laura Calvet-Mir

  3. Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambiental, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici ICTA-ICP, carrer de les Columnes s/n, 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain

    Laura Calvet-Mir

  4. Agroecology and Alternative Food Systems Chair, Universitat de Vic-Universitat Central de Catalunya, Carrer de la Sagrada Família, 7, Vic, 08500, Catalonia, Spain

    Marina Di Masso

  5. Facultat de CCPP i Sociologia, Institut de Govern i Polítiques Públiques, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici B, Campus de la UAB, Bellaterra, 08193, Catalonia, Spain

    Josep Espluga

Authors
  1. Daniel López-García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Calvet-Mir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marina Di Masso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Josep Espluga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel López-García.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

López-García, D., Calvet-Mir, L., Di Masso, M. et al. Multi-actor networks and innovation niches: university training for local Agroecological Dynamization. Agric Hum Values 36, 567–579 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9863-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9863-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation