From "best practice" to "best fit": a framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide

"The paper develops a framework for the design and analysis of pluralistic agricultural advisory services and reviews research methods from different disciplines that can be used when applying the framework. Agricultural advisory services are defined in the paper as the entire set of organizations that support and facilitate people engaged in agricultural production to solve problems and to obtain information, skills and technologies to improve their livelihoods and well-being... To classify pluralistic agricultural advisory services, the paper distinguishes between organizations from the public, the private and the third sector that can be involved in (a) providing and (b) financing of agricultural advisory services. The framework for analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services presented in the paper addresses the need for analytical approaches that help policy-makers to identify those reform options that best fit country-specific frame conditions. Thus, the paper supports a shift from a “one-size-fits-all” to a “best fit” approach in the reform of public services... Based on a review of the literature, the paper presents a variety of quantitative and qualitative methodological approaches derived from different disciplines that can be applied when using the framework in empirical research projects. The disciplines include agricultural and institutional economics, communication theory, adult education, and public administration and management. The paper intends to inform researchers as well as practitioners, policy-makers and development partners who are interested in supporting evidence-based reform of agricultural advisory services. from Authors' AbstractAgricultural extension work, Pro-poor growth, Capacity strengthening,

A framework for characterising and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental modelling

Environmental modelling is transitioning from the traditional paradigm that focuses on the model and its quantitative performance to a more holistic paradigm that recognises successful model-based outcomes are closely tied to undertaking modelling as a social process, not just as a technical procedure. This paper redefines evaluation as a multi-dimensional and multi-perspective concept, and proposes a more complete framework for identifying and measuring the effectiveness of modelling that serves the new paradigm. Under this framework, evaluation considers a broader set of success criteria, and emphasises the importance of contextual factors in determining the relevance and outcome of the criteria. These evaluation criteria are grouped into eight categories: project efficiency, model accessibility, credibility, saliency, legitimacy, satisfaction, application, and impact. Evaluation should be part of an iterative and adaptive process that attempts to improve model-based outcomes and foster pathways to better futures

Why Simpler Computer Simulation Models Can Be Epistemically Better for Informing Decisions

For computer simulation models to usefully inform climate risk management, uncertainties in model projections must be explored and characterized. Because doing so requires running the model many ti..

Interactive Problem Structuring with ICZM Stakeholders

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is struggling with a lack of science-management integration. Many computer systems, usually known as “decision support systems”, have been developed with the intention to make scientific knowledge about complex systems more accessible for coastal managers. These tools, allowing a multi-disciplinary approach with multi-criteria analyses, are designed for well-defined, structured problems. However, in practice stakeholder consensus on the problem structure is usually lacking. Aim of this paper is to explore the practical opportunities for the new so-called Quasta approach to structure complex problems in a group setting. This approach is based on a combination of Cognitive Mapping and Qualitative Probabilistic Networks. It comprehends a new type of computer system which is quite simple and flexible as well. The tool is tested in two workshops in which various coastal management issues were discussed. Evaluations of these workshops show that (1) this system helps stakeholders to make them aware of causal relationships, (2) it is useful for a qualitative exploration of scenarios, (3) it identifies the quantitative knowledge gaps of the problem being discussed and (4) the threshold for non technicians to use this tool is quite low.Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Problem Structuring, Stakeholder Participation, Cognitive Mapping, Interactive Policy Making

Tools and methods in participatory modeling: Selecting the right tool for the job

© 2018 Elsevier Ltd Various tools and methods are used in participatory modelling, at different stages of the process and for different purposes. The diversity of tools and methods can create challenges for stakeholders and modelers when selecting the ones most appropriate for their projects. We offer a systematic overview, assessment, and categorization of methods to assist modelers and stakeholders with their choices and decisions. Most available literature provides little justification or information on the reasons for the use of particular methods or tools in a given study. In most of the cases, it seems that the prior experience and skills of the modelers had a dominant effect on the selection of the methods used. While we have not found any real evidence of this approach being wrong, we do think that putting more thought into the method selection process and choosing the most appropriate method for the project can produce better results. Based on expert opinion and a survey of modelers engaged in participatory processes, we offer practical guidelines to improve decisions about method selection at different stages of the participatory modeling process

Evaluating Social Innovation

The philanthropic sector has been experimenting with innovative grantmaking in the hopes of triggering significant and sustainable change. FSG's latest research report, collaboratively written with the Center for Evaluation Innovation, challenges grantmakers to explore the use of Developmental Evaluation when evaluating complex, dynamic, and emergent initiatives

Multi-stakeholder development of a serious game to explore the water-energy-food-land-climate nexus: The SIM4NEXUS approach

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.Water, energy, food, land and climate form a tightly-connected nexus in which actions on one sector impact other sectors, creating feedbacks and unanticipated consequences. This is especially because at present, much scientific research and many policies are constrained to single discipline/sector silos that are often not interacting (e.g., water-related research/policy). However, experimenting with the interaction and determining how a change in one sector could impact another may require unreasonable time frames, be very difficult in practice and may be potentially dangerous, triggering any one of a number of unanticipated side-effects. Current modelling often neglects knowledge from practice. Therefore, a safe environment is required to test the potential cross-sectoral implications of policy decisions in one sector on other sectors. Serious games offer such an environment by creating realistic 'simulations', where long-term impacts of policies may be tested and rated. This paper describes how the ongoing (2016-2020) Horizon2020 project SIM4NEXUS will develop serious games investigating potential plausible cross-nexus implications and synergies due to policy interventions for 12 multi-scale case studies ranging from regional to global. What sets these games apart is that stakeholders and partners are involved in all aspects of the modelling definition and process, from case study conceptualisation, quantitative model development including the implementation and validation of each serious game. Learning from playing a serious game is justified by adopting a proof-of-concept for a specific regional case study in Sardinia (Italy). The value of multi-stakeholder involvement is demonstrated, and critical lessons learned for serious game development in general are presented.The work described in this paper has been conducted within the project SIM4NEXUS. This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 689150 SIM4NEXUS

Production of Innovations within Farmer–Researcher Associations Applying Transdisciplinary Research Principles

Small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan West Africa depend heavily on local resources and local knowledge. Science-based knowledge is likely to aid decision-making in complex situations. In this presentation, we highlight a FiBL-coordinated research partnership between three national producer organisations and national agriculture research bodies in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Benin. The partnership seeks to compare conventional, GMObased, and organic cotton systems as regards food security and climate change

Knowledge co-production in the Helge å catchment: a comparative analysis

Addressing sustainability challenges in landscape management requires processes for co-producing usable knowledge together with those who will use that knowledge. Participatory futures methods are powerful tools for attaining such knowledge. The applications of such methods are diverse and understanding the intricacies of the knowledge co-production process is important to further develop these research practices. To improve participatory futures methods and contribute to systematic and critical reflections on methodology, we present a comparative analysis of four research projects that applied participatory futures methods in the same study area. Conducted between 2011 and 2020, these projects aimed to co-produce knowledge about the future provision of ecosystem services in the Helge å catchment area in southern Sweden. For structuring the post-hoc, self-reflexive analysis, we developed a framework dividing the knowledge co-production process into three dimensions: settings, synthesis and diffusion. We based the analysis on documentation from the projects, a two-step questionnaire to each research team, a workshop with co-authors and interviews with key participants. The comparison highlights steps in project decision-making, explicit and implicit assumptions in our respective approaches and how these assumptions informed process design in the projects. Our detailed description of the four knowledge co-production processes points to the importance of flexibility in research design, but also the necessity for researchers and other participants to adapt as the process unfolds