Multifunctional farm advisory services in promoting change in agricultural systems: The case of Campania region of Italy

Marcello De Rosa; Giuseppina Olivieri; Concetta Menna; Ferdinando Gandolfi; Teresa Del Giudice; Marcello De Rosa; Giuseppina Olivieri; Concetta Menna; Ferdinando Gandolfi; Teresa Del Giudice

doi:10.3934/agrfood.2023051

AIMS Agriculture and Food

2023, Volume 8, Issue 4: 962-977. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023051

Previous Article Next Article

Research article Special Issues

Multifunctional farm advisory services in promoting change in agricultural systems: The case of Campania region of Italy

1.
Department of Economics and Law, University of Cassino and Southern Lazio, Via Folcara, 03043 Cassino (FR), Italy
2.
Agricultural Department, University of Naples Federico Ⅱ, Via Università, 80055 Portici (NA), Italy
3.
CREA-Center of Political and Bioeconomy, Centro Direzionale-Isola E5-Viale della Costituzione snc 80143 Napoli (NA), Italy
4.
Campania Region-Department of Agriculture, Via Taddeo da Sessa, 80142 Napoli (NA), Italy

Received: 01 August 2023 Revised: 04 September 2023 Accepted: 21 September 2023 Published: 10 October 2023

Entrepreneurial contexts may be marked by the presence of a 'cultural environment' that stimulates knowledge and innovation adoption, while other contexts may act as barriers toward change and innovation. Moreover, multiple paths of multifunctional agriculture bring about a call for "multifunctional farm advisory services" (MFAS), which consider both private and public goods provided by the farming sector. Set against the background of multiple roles of agriculture, how to identify sound and pertinent knowledge becomes of paramount, to specify the roles of agricultural extensionists and the mechanisms of governance of MFAS within the setting up of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS). Our aim of the study is either to analyze attitudes toward the privatization of extension services within a predominantly public system of regional governance and to identify advisors' profile and their suitability with the modern vision of multifunctional agriculture through the emergence of MFAS. Empirical analysis evidences the presence of a diversified set of advisory services with different degrees of coherence with the multifunctional agricultural model. Also, the more advisory services are oriented towards empowering multifunctional agriculture the less the propensity towards their privatization. The cluster analysis has demonstrated a relatively good advisor's capability to deal with the new demands of multifunctional agriculture. The idea of MFAS has important theoretical implications that the paper tries to excavate through the analysis of the mechanisms of governance (public/private) and the identification of the advisors' profile facing the growing complexity of the farming sector, grounded on multifunctional agriculture. The study tries to fill a gap in the literature, by providing an original contribution to modeling the profile of advisors in charge of supporting the transition towards multifunctionality.
- multifunctionality,
- farm advisory services,
- privatization of extension services,
- probit model, cluster analysis, advisors' profiles
Citation: Marcello De Rosa, Giuseppina Olivieri, Concetta Menna, Ferdinando Gandolfi, Teresa Del Giudice. Multifunctional farm advisory services in promoting change in agricultural systems: The case of Campania region of Italy[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(4): 962-977. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023051

Related Papers:

Abstract

Entrepreneurial contexts may be marked by the presence of a 'cultural environment' that stimulates knowledge and innovation adoption, while other contexts may act as barriers toward change and innovation. Moreover, multiple paths of multifunctional agriculture bring about a call for "multifunctional farm advisory services" (MFAS), which consider both private and public goods provided by the farming sector. Set against the background of multiple roles of agriculture, how to identify sound and pertinent knowledge becomes of paramount, to specify the roles of agricultural extensionists and the mechanisms of governance of MFAS within the setting up of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS). Our aim of the study is either to analyze attitudes toward the privatization of extension services within a predominantly public system of regional governance and to identify advisors' profile and their suitability with the modern vision of multifunctional agriculture through the emergence of MFAS. Empirical analysis evidences the presence of a diversified set of advisory services with different degrees of coherence with the multifunctional agricultural model. Also, the more advisory services are oriented towards empowering multifunctional agriculture the less the propensity towards their privatization. The cluster analysis has demonstrated a relatively good advisor's capability to deal with the new demands of multifunctional agriculture. The idea of MFAS has important theoretical implications that the paper tries to excavate through the analysis of the mechanisms of governance (public/private) and the identification of the advisors' profile facing the growing complexity of the farming sector, grounded on multifunctional agriculture. The study tries to fill a gap in the literature, by providing an original contribution to modeling the profile of advisors in charge of supporting the transition towards multifunctionality.

References

[1]	Van Huylenbroeck G, Vandermeulen V, Mettepenningen E, et al. (2007) Multifunctionality of agriculture: A review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Rev Landsc Res 1: 1–43. https://doi.org/10.12942/lrlr-2007-3 doi: 10.12942/lrlr-2007-3
[2]	Rogers E M (1983) Diffusion of innovations. 3rd Ed., New York: Free Press, 15.
[3]	Hermans F, Klerkx L, Roep D (2015) Structural conditions for collaboration and learning in innovation networks: Using an innovation system performance lens to analyze agricultural knowledge systems. J Agric Educ Ext 21: 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2014.991113 doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2014.991113
[4]	Lioutas ED, Charatsari C, Černič Istenič M, et al. (2019) The challenges of setting up the evaluation of extension systems by using a systems approach: the case of Greece, Italy and Slovenia. J Agric Educ Ext 25: 139–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2019.1583818 doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2019.1583818
[5]	Klerkx L, Van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C (2012) Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis, and interventions, In: Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B (Eds.), Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic, Springer Dordrecht, 457–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20
[6]	Klerkx L, Leeuwis C (2008) Balancing multiple interests: Embedding innovation intermediation in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure. Technovation 28: 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.005
[7]	EU SCAR (2012) Agricultural knowledge, and innovation systems in transition—a reflection paper, Brussels, p.13. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/publications/agricultural-knowledge-and-innovation-systems.html.
[8]	EU SCAR AKIS (2019) Preparing for Future AKIS in Europe.
[9]	Klerkx L (2020) Advisory services and transformation, plurality and disruption of agriculture and food systems: Towards a new research agenda for agricultural education and extension studies. J Agric Educ Ext 26: 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1738046 doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2020.1738046
[10]	Welter F (2011) Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrep Theory Pract 35: 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00427.x
[11]	McElwee G, Smith R (2014) Chapter 14 Researching rural enterprise. In: Fayolle A (Ed.), Handbook of Research On Entrepreneurship: What We Know and What We Need to Know, Edward Elgar Publishing, 307. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857936929.00022
[12]	Labarthe P, Laurent C (2013) Privatization of agricultural extension services in the EU: Towards a lack of adequate knowledge for small-scale farms? Food Policy 38: 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.10.005 doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.10.005
[13]	Davis K (2019) Agricultural Extension and Education for the Future, Closing keynote in 24th European Seminar on Extension and Education. Available from: https://www.google.com/url?sa = t & rct = j & q = & esrc = s & source = web & cd = & ved = 2ahUKEwiRjPnbrJuBAxW3xwIHHVGeA1gQFnoECBAQAQ & url = https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reterurale.it%2Fflex%2Fcm%2Fpages%2FServeAttachment.php%2FL%2FIT%2FD%2F2%25252Fb%25252F2%25252FD.b2f20be86583c28041cc%2FP%2FBLOB%253AID%253D19744%2FE%2Fpdf & usg = AOvVaw0tuNdggviVs-Zu1iIVxlLW & opi = 89978449.
[14]	EU Commission (2012) The future of food and farming.
[15]	ASHBY J (2009) Fostering farmer first methodological innovation: Organizational learning and change in international agricultural research. Farmer First Revisited: Innovation Agric Res Dev 2009: 39–45.
[16]	Sutherland LA, Madureira L, Dirimanova V, et al. (2017) New knowledge networks of small-scale farmers in Europe's periphery. Land Use Policy 63: 428–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.028 doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.028
[17]	EU Commission (2009) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Application of the Farm Advisory System as Defined in Article 12 and 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. Available from: ttps: //eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri = OJ: L: 2009: 030: 0016: 0099: en: PDF.
[18]	Knierim A, Labarthe P, Laurent C, et al. (2017) Pluralism of agricultural advisory service providers—Facts and insights from Europe. J Rural Stud 55: 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.018 doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.018
[19]	Vecchio Y, De Castro P, Masi M, et al. (2021) Do rural development policies really help small farms? A reflection from Italy. EuroChoices 20: 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12338 doi: 10.1111/1746-692X.12338
[20]	van der Ploeg JD, Barjolle D, Bruil J, et al. (2019) The economic potential of agroecology: Empirical evidence from Europe. J Rural Stud 71: 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.09.003
[21]	Birner R, Davis K, Pender J, et al. (2009) From best practice to best fit: A framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide. J Agric Educ Ext 15: 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240903309595 doi: 10.1080/13892240903309595
[22]	Klerkx L, Petter Stræ te E, Kvam G T, et al. (2017) Achieving best-fit configurations through advisory subsystems in AKIS: case studies of advisory service provisioning for diverse types of farmers in Norway. J Agric Educ Ext 23: 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1320640 doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2017.1320640
[23]	Marsden T, Sonnino R (2012) Human health and wellbeing and the sustainability of urban-regional food systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 4: 427–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.004 doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.004
[24]	Landini F, Brites W, Mathot y Rebolé M I (2017) Towards a new paradigm for rural extensionists' in-service training. J Rural Stud 51: 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.02.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.02.010
[25]	OECD (2000) Multifunctionality. Towards an Analytical Framework.
[26]	Wilson G (2008) From 'weak' to 'strong' multifunctionality: Conceptualizing farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways. J Rural Stud 24: 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.010
[27]	Poppe K (2014) The role of the European innovation partnership in linking innovation and research in agricultural knowledge and innovation systems. Agriregionieuropa 10: 37.
[28]	Foti R, Nyakudya I, Moyo M, et al. (2007) Determinants of farmer demand for 'fee-for-service' extension in Zimbabwe: The case of Mashonaland Central province. J Agric Educ Ext 14: 95–104. https://doi.org/10.5191/jiaee.2007.14108 doi: 10.5191/jiaee.2007.14108
[29]	Vanni F (2014) Agriculture and Public Goods: The Role of Collective Action. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7457-5
[30]	Acheson JM (2006) Institutional failure in resource management. Annu Rev Anthropol 35: 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123238 doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123238
[31]	Andrew B (2008) Market failure, government failure and externalities in climate change mitigation: The case for a carbon tax. Public Adm Dev 28: 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.517 doi: 10.1002/pad.517
[32]	Stiglitz J (2009) Government failure vs. market failure: Principles of regulation. In: Balleisen E, Moss D (Eds.), Government and Markets: Toward a New Theory of Regulation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 13–51. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511657504.002
[33]	Randall A (2002) Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture. Eur Rev Agric Econ 29: 289–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurrag/29.3.289 doi: 10.1093/eurrag/29.3.289
[34]	Eastwood C, Klerkx L, Nettle R (2017) Dynamics and distribution of public and private research and extension roles for technological innovation and diffusion: Case studies of the implementation and adaptation of precision farming technologies. J Rural Stud 49: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.11.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.11.008
[35]	Faure G, Desjeux Y, Gasselin P (2012) New challenges in agricultural advisory services from a research perspective: A literature review, synthesis and research agenda. J Agric Educ Ext 18: 461–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.707063 doi: 10.1080/1389224X.2012.707063
[36]	Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2017) Service-dominant logic 2025. Int J Res Mark 34: 46–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.11.001
[37]	Prager K, Labarthe P, Caggiano M, et al. (2016) How does commercialization impact on the provision of farm advisory services? Evidence from Belgium, Italy, Ireland and the UK. Land Use Policy 52: 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.024 doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.024
[38]	Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58: 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845 doi: 10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845
[39]	Pigford AAE, Hickey GM, Klerkx L (2018) Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions. Agric Syst 164: 116–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.04.007 doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2018.04.007
[40]	Van der Ploeg JD, Marsden T (2008) Unfolding webs: The dynamics of regional rural development van Gorcum, Assen.
[41]	Renting H, Rossing WAH, Groot JCJ, et al. (2009) Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. J Environ Manage 90: S112–S123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.014 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.11.014

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)