Using improved understanding of research and extension professionals’ attitudes and beliefs to inform design of AIS approaches

Purpose: This paper seeks to understand what influences research and extension professionals’intentions to use AIS approaches and to explore how this can inform implementation and design of more effective AIS. Methodology: We applied the Reasoned Action Approach through focus groups and structured questionnaires with research and extension professionals from government and non-government organisations in Sierra Leone, where AIS approaches are not widely used although increasingly institutionalised in policy. Findings: Research and extension professionals have surprisingly positive attitudes towards using AIS approaches and associate it with a range of positive outcomes related to food security and inclusive processes. The perceived ability to successfully implement AIS approaches is strongly influenced by funding, organisational culture and dynamics between senior and junior staff. We also found that alongside use of AIS approaches there is a continued adherence to top-down approaches. Practical Implications: This work highlights the enthusiasm and interest among extension and research professionals as a promising start for improving the innovation systems. Practical requirements include training of senior and involvement of junior staff respectively in AIS design, and addressing extension education and organisational culture. Theoretical Implications: This study highlights the importance of socio-psychological theory for understanding attitudes towards AIS approaches. We show how considering both institutional and personal constraints is vital for conceptualising how AIS are evolving. Originality: There has been very little research conducted on research and extension professionals’intentions to use AIS approaches in developing countries that links with personal and systemic preconditions for supporting more effective AIS

Data summarizing monitoring and evaluation for three European environmental policies in 9 cases across Europe

Subject area: Environmental policy. More specific subject area: Monitoring; evaluation; European Policy; Water Framework Directive; Natura 2000; Agri-Environment Schemes. Type of data: Tables and text. How data was acquired: Review and analysis of any publicly-available information on monitoring programs. Data format: Summarized, analyzed. Experimental factors: In 2017 the authors searched for publicly available about monitoring programs associated with 3 policy areas: the Water Framework Directive, Natura 2000 and Agri-Environment Schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy. Authors from each organization searched for information about monitoring in the country or region of the organization where they are based: Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden. Internet searches of grey and academic literature were used: some authors also contacted policy contacts for advice about where this information could be found, but did not use any information that was not already publicly available. Experimental features: Bibliographic information on the information sources was recorded (see reference list below), and each author team searched for and summarized information about monitoring and evaluation according to a standard template (see below). Data source location: Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden. Data accessibility: All of the data are within this article. Related research article: Companion paper to: Waylen, K.A.; Blackstock, K.L.; van Hulst. F.; Damian, C.; Horváth, F.; Johnson, R.; Kanka, R.; Külvik, M.; Macleod, C.; Meissner, C.; Oprina-Pavelescu, M.; Pino, J.; Primmer, E.; Rîșnoveanu, G.; Šatalová, B.; Silander, J.; Špulerová, J.; Suškevičs, M.; Van Uytvanck, J. 2019. Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? Science of the Total Environment, 662: 373–384 [2].Value of the data • The data provide the first overview of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices carried out by a selection European member states and regions, under 3 European environmental policies (the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, and Agri-Environment Schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy). • The data permit comparison across cases as well as across policies, and so provide a baseline for comparative studies. • The source of information used to describe monitoring in each case are provided, thus providing a baseline for researchers seeking more in-depth analyses.The data presented in this DiB article provide an overview of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) carried out for 3 European environmental policies (the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, and Agri-Environment Schemes implemented under the Common Agricultural Policy), as implemented in 9 cases (Catalonia (Spain), Estonia, Finland, Flanders (Belgium), Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Scotland (UK), Sweden). These data are derived from reports and documents about monitoring programs that were publicly-available online in 2017. The literature on M&E to support adaptive management structured the issues that have been extracted and summarized. The data is related to the research article entitled “Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?” [Stem et al., 2005]. The information provides a first overview of monitoring and evaluation that has been implemented in response to key European environmental policies. It provides a structured overview that permits a comparison of cases and policies and can assist other scholars and practitioners working on monitoring and evaluation

Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation : Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?

Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems. Highlights • Policy strongly influences Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) of socio-ecological systems. • We examine M&E of 3 major European policies in 9 regional and national cases. • Policy-driven M&E is imperfect versus ideals of M&E to support adaptive management. • Attention needed to systems, social issues, sharing data, and sharing intended uses. • Examples from across Europe and different policies offer ideas for improvement

Quantification and visualization of cardiovascular 4D velocity mapping accelerated with parallel imaging or k-t BLAST: head to head comparison and validation at 1.5 T and 3 T

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Three-dimensional time-resolved (4D) phase-contrast (PC) CMR can visualize and quantify cardiovascular flow but is hampered by long acquisition times. Acceleration with SENSE or k-t BLAST are two possibilities but results on validation are lacking, especially at 3 T. The aim of this study was therefore to validate quantitative in vivo cardiac 4D-acquisitions accelerated with parallel imaging and k-t BLAST at 1.5 T and 3 T with 2D-flow as the reference and to investigate if field strengths and type of acceleration have major effects on intracardiac flow visualization.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The local ethical committee approved the study. 13 healthy volunteers were scanned at both 1.5 T and 3 T in random order with 2D-flow of the aorta and main pulmonary artery and two 4D-flow sequences of the heart accelerated with SENSE and k-t BLAST respectively. 2D-image planes were reconstructed at the aortic and pulmonary outflow. Flow curves were calculated and peak flows and stroke volumes (SV) compared to the results from 2D-flow acquisitions. Intra-cardiac flow was visualized using particle tracing and image quality based on the flow patterns of the particles was graded using a four-point scale.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Good accuracy of SV quantification was found using 3 T 4D-SENSE (r²= 0.86, -0.7 ± 7.6%) and although a larger bias was found on 1.5 T (r²= 0.71, -3.6 ± 14.8%), the difference was not significant (p = 0.46). Accuracy of 4D k-t BLAST for SV was lower (p < 0.01) on 1.5 T (r²= 0.65, -15.6 ± 13.7%) compared to 3 T (r²= 0.64, -4.6 ± 10.0%). Peak flow was lower with 4D-SENSE at both 3 T and 1.5 T compared to 2D-flow (p < 0.01) and even lower with 4D k-t BLAST at both scanners (p < 0.01). Intracardiac flow visualization did not differ between 1.5 T and 3 T (p = 0.09) or between 4D-SENSE or 4D k-t BLAST (p = 0.85).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The present study showed that quantitative 4D flow accelerated with SENSE has good accuracy at 3 T and compares favourably to 1.5 T. 4D flow accelerated with k-t BLAST underestimate flow velocities and thereby yield too high bias for intra-cardiac quantitative in vivo use at the present time. For intra-cardiac 4D-flow visualization, however, 1.5 T and 3 T as well as SENSE or k-t BLAST can be used with similar quality.</p

Conflict-induced displacement as a catalyst for agricultural innovation: findings from South Sudan

This article explores how conflict-induced displacement influences agricultural innovation processes and systems, and its implications after the return home or permanent resettlement of smallholder farmers. Results show that high rates of agricultural innovation occurred during displacement in the Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005), many of which were maintained afterwards. Respondents cited the need for adaptation to new social and physical circumstances, changed gender roles, and enhanced inter-household communication as contributing to increased opportunities for knowledge exchange, trade, and importantly, the development of new networks, modes of organisation and social norms. Furthermore, returnees to South Sudan have embodied these changes together with new values, habits and expectations. New linkages continued across borders between returnees and non-returnees, facilitating knowledge exchange and access to resources, markets and sources of ideas. A high degree of autonomous innovation capacity was also evident. Further research is required on the dynamics and processes associated with innovation in conflict-induced displacement. It is important for policy makers to encourage approaches that seek to actively tap into and build on the institutional, human and social capital built during displacement

Creating capabilities for sustainable smallholder agriculture: a systems perspective on innovation and the adoption of conservation agriculture in Kenya and Madagascar

In recent years, Conservation Agriculture (CA) has been promoted in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as an alternative farming system for smallholder farmers to address declining soil productivity and climate change. CA is a technology package based on 1) minimum soil disturbance; 2) permanent soil cover; and 3) maximum crop diversity through rotation/association. Claims about the potential benefits of CA for smallholder farmers in SSA are contested, and the (non-)adoption by farmers remains difficult to predict and understand. This research combines different conceptual models to better understand the adoption and promotion of CA in Kenya and Madagascar with a wider relevance for similar practices in SSA. For both countries, the major stakeholders in the innovation systems and their interlinkages are described, with a focus on the position of smallholder farmers. Stakeholders’ ‘theories of change’, narratives and ‘framing’ of the importance of CA, and their perceived legitimation for their involvement in CA, are described. Results show that the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) approach through Innovation Platforms remains difficult to translate into practice; expert-based development approaches remain the norm. It is argued that this is partly the result of an institutionalisation of purposive-rational policy and practice, while the capabilities approach and Habermas’ theory of communicative action explored in this thesis, suggest the need for a counter institutionalisation of more communicative-rational thinking and practice. Communicative action can enable an AIS approach that actually provides sustainable technological and institutional innovation. This research shows that the social-psychological Reasoned Action Approach is a useful heuristic for understanding farmers’ intention to adopt CA practices in terms of attitudes, perceived social norms and perceived behavioural control (PBC), and the respective underlying beliefs. Results show that attitudes and PBC are the main determinants of intentions. It is recommended to promote experimentation and learning, because these influence both PBC and attitudes

Understanding (non-) adoption of conservation agriculture in Kenya using the reasoned action approach

In recent years, Conservation Agriculture has been promoted in sub-Saharan Africa as an alternativefarming system for smallholder farmers to address declining soil productivity and climate change. CAhas to be tailored to the agro-ecological and socio-economic context of smallholder farmers to achieveimpact. But even if there is a ‘perfect fit’, the farmer still has his or her own reasons to choose whether toswitch to CA or not. This paper explores the reasons why farmers choose for CA or conventional farming,using the Reasoned Action Approach. Based on findings from a recent study in Kenya among CA farmerfield school members and their neighbours, the farmer’s decision making is analysed by distinguishingthree elements in the decision-making process: the farmer’s attitude towards CA, the farmer’s perceptionof the social norms towards CA, and the farmer’s perceived behavioural control (PBC) over practicing CA.Strong evidence was found that attitude and PBC are contributing to intentions to adopt CA practices. It isconcluded that experimentation and learning are key to support intentions and adoption of CA, becausethey contribute both to realistic attitudes towards CA and an improved perceived behavioural control

Does our current environmental monitoring support adaptive management?

European environmental and rural development policies require programmes of statutory monitoring using prescribed parameters - for example water quality parameters are monitored by all countries that implement the Water Framework Directive. These data are a significant resource that could potentially be used for adaptive (co-)management and governance. These approaches not only require the use of multiple forms of information to learn and update resource management, but can also imply a more holistic and participatory approach. We have studied the monitoring regimes entailed for Water Framework Directive, Natura 2000 Directives and Agri-Environmental Schemes of the CAP Rural Development Programme across nine European cases in 6 member states and 3 regions. Building on established principles for monitoring socio-ecological systems (see Waylen et al. 2016), expert colleagues from across Europe have analysed published documents to see if the current monitoring schemes supported a move to the new paradigm of holistic, participatory and systemic management approaches.  Overall, data are focused on a narrow set of indicators that in turn enable only a partial perspective on ecosystem management. This matters because policy-driven monitoring may be the main source of information that can be used for formal statutory management. For example, social aspects or drivers of the socio-ecological system are nearly never monitored and incorporated into evaluation, particularly for older policies. The monitoring continues to describe the state of the environment -with great for some aspects - rather than assessing how an intervention has contributed to conservation or allowed sustainable use. This means we will struggle to understand socio-ecological systems, and learning from the effects of management actions. Furthermore, whilst the implementation of WFD, N2K and AES has evolved, there is no documented link to the use of the data in this process of change i.e. it is unknown if and how the monitoring programmes have influenced changed management. There were also positive findings - some member states offer open access to data; are working on integrated monitoring and reporting; and use citizen science to both monitor trends and engage people in learning about their environment. Reappraising what is monitored could lead to a rebalancing of monitoring that could greatly assist future adaptive management. Many European policy-driven monitoring processes could be tweaked to make them more fit to improve ecosystem management. Our framing positions the work differently to the more conventional  'fitness' checks conducted recently: we can reflect on how our work contributes to these institutional evaluations in the discussion. References: Waylen, K.A. &amp; Blackstock, K.L. In press. Monitoring for adaptive management or modernity? Lessons from recent initiatives for holistic environmental management Environmental Policy and Governance, DOI: 10.1002/eet.1758peerReviewe

Climate change, natural capital and adaptation in Scotland's marginal lands

The boundary between productive land and hill land in Scotland has moved over time, in response to climate and also to market demand. Scotland’s climate is changing, and this will mean changes for those areas of Scotland that sit on the margins of productive agriculture. In this context sustainable soil management is a specific challenge as Scotland adapts to a changing climate. This report examines the four dominant ways that farmers will adapt to climate change, and their impact on different services

Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation : Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems?

Inadequate Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is often thought to hinder adaptive management of socio-ecological systems. A key influence on environmental management practices are environmental policies: however, their consequences for M&E practices have not been well-examined. We examine three policy areas - the Water Framework Directive, the Natura 2000 Directives, and the Agri-Environment Schemes of the Common Agricultural Policy - whose statutory requirements influence how the environment is managed and monitored across Europe. We use a comparative approach to examine what is monitored, how monitoring is carried out, and how results are used to update management, based on publicly available documentation across nine regional and national cases. The requirements and guidelines of these policies have provided significant impetus for monitoring: however, we find this policy-driven M&E usually does not match the ideals of what is needed to inform adaptive management. There is a tendency to focus on understanding state and trends rather than tracking the effect of interventions; a focus on specific biotic and abiotic indicators at the expense of understanding system functions and processes, especially social components; and limited attention to how context affects systems, though this is sometimes considered via secondary data. The resulting data are sometimes publicly-accessible, but it is rarely clear if and how these influence decisions at any level, whether this be in the original policy itself or at the level of measures such as site management plans. Adjustments to policy-driven M&E could better enable learning for adaptive management, by reconsidering what supports a balanced understanding of socio-ecological systems and decision-making. Useful strategies include making more use of secondary data, and more transparency in data-sharing and decision-making. Several countries and policy areas already offer useful examples. Such changes are essential given the influence of policy, and the urgency of enabling adaptive management to safeguard socio-ecological systems