Multidimensional and multiscale assessment of agroecological transitions. A review
Assessing benefits and limits of agroecological transitions in different contexts is of foremost importance to steer and manage agroecological transitions and to feed evidence-based advocacy. However, assessing agroecological transitions remains a methodological challenge. The objective of this rese...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2023.2193028 |
| _version_ | 1797680408911937536 |
|---|---|
| author | Maryline Darmaun Tiphaine Chevallier Laure Hossard Juliette Lairez Eric Scopel Jean-Luc Chotte Adeline Lambert-Derkimba Stéphane de Tourdonnet |
| author_facet | Maryline Darmaun Tiphaine Chevallier Laure Hossard Juliette Lairez Eric Scopel Jean-Luc Chotte Adeline Lambert-Derkimba Stéphane de Tourdonnet |
| author_sort | Maryline Darmaun |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Assessing benefits and limits of agroecological transitions in different contexts is of foremost importance to steer and manage agroecological transitions and to feed evidence-based advocacy. However, assessing agroecological transitions remains a methodological challenge. The objective of this research was to investigate to what extent existing multiscale and multidimensional assessment methods were suitable to assess agroecological transitions. We used a literature review to identify and select 14 existing multiscale and multidimensional assessment methods related to sustainable or resilient agriculture. We then analyzed these 14 methods according to five evaluation criteria that reflected key requirements for assessing agroecological transitions: 1) be adaptable to local conditions, 2) consider social interactions among stakeholders involved in the transitions, 3) clarify the concept of agroecology, 4) consider the temporal dynamics of the transitions to better understand barriers and levers in their development and 5) use a participatory bottom-up approach. The methods adopted different approaches to consider each evaluation criterion, but none of them covered all five. The two evaluation criteria most often employed were the adaptability to local conditions (used by 13 of the methods) and the consideration of social interactions (used by all 14 of the analyzed methods). To be adaptable, methods mobilized generic guidelines with flexible content and/or included a contextualization phase. For social interactions, most methods mobilized social-related indicators, and two included stakeholder mapping. Two methods clarified the agroecological concept by mobilizing different sets of principles. Two other methods considered temporal dynamics of the transitions, mobilizing a trajectory of change to understand barriers and levers in their development. Finally, seven methods adopted a bottom-up participatory approach, involving stakeholders in both their development and use. To balance the existing trade-offs between the evaluation purpose, the time requirement and the level of participation in the different approaches adopted by the 14 methods studied, we suggest combining some of the approaches in a complementary mode to cover all 5 criteria and therefore improve the assessment of agroecological transitions. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T23:29:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-3b869a2116924ca79f8cf0cb915b65fd |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1473-5903 1747-762X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T23:29:35Z |
| publishDate | 2023-12-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability |
| spelling | doaj.art-3b869a2116924ca79f8cf0cb915b65fd2023-09-20T10:18:01ZengTaylor & Francis GroupInternational Journal of Agricultural Sustainability1473-59031747-762X2023-12-0121110.1080/14735903.2023.21930282193028Multidimensional and multiscale assessment of agroecological transitions. A reviewMaryline Darmaun0Tiphaine Chevallier1Laure Hossard2Juliette Lairez3Eric Scopel4Jean-Luc Chotte5Adeline Lambert-Derkimba6Stéphane de Tourdonnet7Association CARI – Centre d’Actions et de Réalisations InternationalesUMR Eco&Sols, IRD, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro-MontpellierUMR 0951 InnovationCIRAD-AIDA Agroécologie et Intensification Durable des cultures Annuelles (AIDA)CIRAD-AIDA Agroécologie et Intensification Durable des cultures Annuelles (AIDA)UMR Eco&Sols, IRD, CIRAD, INRAE, Institut Agro-MontpellierAssociation CARI – Centre d’Actions et de Réalisations InternationalesUMR ABSYSAssessing benefits and limits of agroecological transitions in different contexts is of foremost importance to steer and manage agroecological transitions and to feed evidence-based advocacy. However, assessing agroecological transitions remains a methodological challenge. The objective of this research was to investigate to what extent existing multiscale and multidimensional assessment methods were suitable to assess agroecological transitions. We used a literature review to identify and select 14 existing multiscale and multidimensional assessment methods related to sustainable or resilient agriculture. We then analyzed these 14 methods according to five evaluation criteria that reflected key requirements for assessing agroecological transitions: 1) be adaptable to local conditions, 2) consider social interactions among stakeholders involved in the transitions, 3) clarify the concept of agroecology, 4) consider the temporal dynamics of the transitions to better understand barriers and levers in their development and 5) use a participatory bottom-up approach. The methods adopted different approaches to consider each evaluation criterion, but none of them covered all five. The two evaluation criteria most often employed were the adaptability to local conditions (used by 13 of the methods) and the consideration of social interactions (used by all 14 of the analyzed methods). To be adaptable, methods mobilized generic guidelines with flexible content and/or included a contextualization phase. For social interactions, most methods mobilized social-related indicators, and two included stakeholder mapping. Two methods clarified the agroecological concept by mobilizing different sets of principles. Two other methods considered temporal dynamics of the transitions, mobilizing a trajectory of change to understand barriers and levers in their development. Finally, seven methods adopted a bottom-up participatory approach, involving stakeholders in both their development and use. To balance the existing trade-offs between the evaluation purpose, the time requirement and the level of participation in the different approaches adopted by the 14 methods studied, we suggest combining some of the approaches in a complementary mode to cover all 5 criteria and therefore improve the assessment of agroecological transitions.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2023.2193028agroecologyevaluationtoolmethodframework |
| spellingShingle | Maryline Darmaun Tiphaine Chevallier Laure Hossard Juliette Lairez Eric Scopel Jean-Luc Chotte Adeline Lambert-Derkimba Stéphane de Tourdonnet Multidimensional and multiscale assessment of agroecological transitions. A review International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability agroecology evaluation tool method framework |
| title | Multidimensional and multiscale assessment of agroecological transitions. A review |
| title_full | Multidimensional and multiscale assessment of agroecological transitions. A review |
| title_fullStr | Multidimensional and multiscale assessment of agroecological transitions. A review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Multidimensional and multiscale assessment of agroecological transitions. A review |
| title_short | Multidimensional and multiscale assessment of agroecological transitions. A review |
| title_sort | multidimensional and multiscale assessment of agroecological transitions a review |
| topic | agroecology evaluation tool method framework |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2023.2193028 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marylinedarmaun multidimensionalandmultiscaleassessmentofagroecologicaltransitionsareview AT tiphainechevallier multidimensionalandmultiscaleassessmentofagroecologicaltransitionsareview AT laurehossard multidimensionalandmultiscaleassessmentofagroecologicaltransitionsareview AT juliettelairez multidimensionalandmultiscaleassessmentofagroecologicaltransitionsareview AT ericscopel multidimensionalandmultiscaleassessmentofagroecologicaltransitionsareview AT jeanlucchotte multidimensionalandmultiscaleassessmentofagroecologicaltransitionsareview AT adelinelambertderkimba multidimensionalandmultiscaleassessmentofagroecologicaltransitionsareview AT stephanedetourdonnet multidimensionalandmultiscaleassessmentofagroecologicaltransitionsareview |