Multi-Actor Partnerships for Agricultural Interactive Innovation: Findings from 17 Case Studies in Europe
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Analytical Framework
2.1. Multi-Actor Partnerships for Innovation and Leadership
2.2. Innovation Networks: Composition and Ties
2.3. Actor’s Role, Innovation and Knowledge
2.4. Social Network Analysis (SNA)
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Case Study Selection
3.2. Data Collection in the Case Studies
- Interaction 1: Funding Mechanisms. This interaction is related to funding mechanisms of the innovation initiative. The actors identified in this interaction are related to the grant awarding process (e.g., actors involved in writing proposal), the provision of funding (e.g., funder, co-funder, etc.) and its management.
- Interaction 2: Core of multi-actor partnership. This interaction is related to the core of multi-actor partnership and the creation of the innovation initiative. The actors included in this interaction are considered the “core” of the initiative and have actively participated in the co-creation of the innovation initiative, assuming diverse and complementary roles.
- Interaction 3: Networking with external actors. This interaction relates to the network of actors external to the core of the innovation initiative. The actors included in this interaction know the innovation initiative and have contributed in a specific way from their expertise. They have not participated in the whole process of “co-creation” of the innovation initiative; however, their contributions have contributed to its development.
- Interaction 4: Interaction with the context. This interaction is related to the context in which the innovation initiative takes place. The actors identified have been influenced or influence the innovation initiative but are not aware of it and have not been directly involved in it.
- Administrative bodies: any governmental agency or organisation charged with managing and implementing regulations, laws, and government policies (e.g., local municipality, regional government, national government, ministries, departments, EU institutions, etc.)
- Civil society: citizens who individually or collectively carry out activities independently of governmental structures, political parties, businesses, and religious institutions (e.g., NGOs, local community groups, LEADER groups, etc.)
- Educational institutions: institution primarily engaged in educating others, through the process of teaching—learning and disseminating knowledge, e.g., primary education, (agricultural) schools, universities in their role as educator, etc.
- Farmers: a farmer is a person engaged in agriculture, who raise living organisms (plants or animals) for food or raw materials (e.g., pioneer farmer, organic farmer, etc.).
- Market actors—demand side: persons, institutions, or organisations—that demand the goods and services related to the innovation initiatives, e.g., business, processing or marketing SME, processing or marketing producer organisation, retailers, consumers and their organisations, other companies, etc.
- Market actors—supply side: persons, institutions, or organisations—that offer goods and services related to the promoted innovation initiatives, e.g., business, suppliers, manufacturers, service providers, etc.
- Research entities: institutes or universities primarily engaged in research related to agricultural issues, in their role of research institution.
- R&D departments in companies: areas of companies dedicated to R & D & I activities for the development of innovations in the agricultural field with a market approach.
- Support organisations: persons or institutions that provide the necessary resources for the effective and efficient operation of innovation initiatives, e.g., management advisors, financial actors (banks, venture capital, business angels), network organisations, etc.
- Others: any type of actor that does not fit with the types from above.
- Administrative manager: responsible for operational and support activities. Maintains communication with the different partners.
- Advisor: provides specific advice to the innovation initiative (networking, accounting issues, market issues, certifications, among others).
- Case study field workers: provides practical knowledge in the innovation process. Applies innovation proposals in the field and provides feedback on them, based on their application and experience.
- Civil servant: manages and implements government regulations, laws, policies, and programmes that affect the context in which the proposed innovation takes place.
- Co-funder: it provides smaller financial resources for the implementation of the innovation initiative. It can also provide valued resources (e.g., infrastructure, human resources, etc.).
- Communication and dissemination: disseminate the results of the innovation initiative.
- Competitor: offer on the market a good and/or service, similar to the one developed by the innovation initiative.
- Coordinator: leads the innovation initiative. Coordinates the work and communication between the different partners of the innovation initiative.
- End-user: individuals or institutions/organisations who ultimately use or are intended to use a product or service.
- External supervisor: it externally monitors the implementation of policies and instruments for the proper management of the innovation initiative.
- Funder: it provides increased financial resources for the implementation of the innovation initiative.
- Funding management body: manages financial resources on behalf of the funding organisation ensuring compliance with relevant regulations.
- Technician expert: provides theoretical knowledge in the innovation process. Participate during the implementation of innovation proposals in the field in order to check their validity and make the necessary modifications.
- Supplier: provides goods and/or services necessary for the implementation of innovation initiatives.
3.3. Data Analysis
3.4. Data Visualisation by SNA
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Geographical Concentration of Resources
4.2. Composition and Ties
4.2.1. Partnerships Led by Research Entities
4.2.2. Partnerships Led by Farmers
4.2.3. Partnerships Led by Others
4.3. Types of Organisations and Roles
4.3.1. Analysis by Type of Organisation and Roles at Global Level
4.3.2. Analysis by Type of Organisation and Roles According to Type of Interactions
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
CS | Description | Group | Location (Countries) | Dimension | Specific Topic | Principal Funds | Leader | Types of Actors in the “Core” of Multi Actor Partnership |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CS01 | Farmers to plant and sell hemp nuts and straw | Atlantic/North Sea | Germany | Local | Agriculture: hemp | CAP-RDP | Farmers | 4 types Farmers Market actor—supply side Support organisation Other |
CS02 | Optimise the processing of hops and providing the best quality to local (regional) breweries | Atlantic/North Sea | Belgium | Local | Agriculture: hops farming | CAP-RDP | Farmers | 2 types Farmers R&D departments in companies |
CS03 | Innovative beehive system | Baltic, Danube, Balkan | Bulgaria | Local | Agriculture: apiculture equipment | Private financing | Market actor—supply side | 4 types Market actor—supply side Civil society Farmers Research entity |
CS04 | Re-introduction of traditional pasture management strategies for biodiversity conservation | Baltic, Danube, Balkan | Bulgaria | Sub-national | Agriculture: grassland management | Life | Civil society | 3 types Civil society Farmers Others |
CS05 | Design and disseminating of home-made machinery for small-scale agriculture | Mediterranean | France | Local | Agriculture: agricultural machinery | Misscellaneous | Farmers | 1 type Farmers |
CS06 | Production cluster and dairy farmers’ research | Baltic, Danube, Balkan | Poland | Sub-national | Agriculture: wheat production and processing | CAP-RDP | Research entities | 5 types Research entities Farmers Support organisationsMarket actors—supply side Administrative bodies |
CS07 | Production cluster and dairy farmers’ research | Baltic, Danube, Balkan | Estonia | Sub-national | Agriculture: dairy farming | CAP-RDP | Research entities | 6 types Research entities Farmers Support organisationMarket actors—supply side Market actors—demand side Others |
CS08 | Water management and use of smart irrigation technology | Atlantic/North Sea | Switzerland | Sub-national | Agriculture: irrigation | Public financing | Research entities | 3 types Research entities Educational institutions Administrative bodies |
CS09 | Sustainable production and marketing of wines at regional level | Mediterranean | Portugal | Sub-national | Agriculture: viticulture and processing | Misscellaneous | Support organisation | 4 types Support organisationsResearch entities Farmers Administrative bodies |
CS10 | Business support, knowledge exchange, advice and training for farmers and foresters | Atlantic partners—focus IE/UK and Scandinavia | United Kingdom | Sub-national | Agriculture: support network | CAP-RDP | Farmers | 4 types Farmers Research entities Support organisationsAdministrative bodies |
CS11 | Research network for organic and sustainable agriculture | Baltic, Danube, Balkan | Hungary | Sub-national | Agriculture: support network | Misscellaneous | Research entities | 6 types Research entities Farmers Educational institutions Administrative bodiesCivil society Support organisations |
CS12 | More efficient irrigation technology, specifically adopted to needs of local irrigation communities | Mediterranean | Spain | Sub-national | Agriculture: irrigation | Public funding | R&D departments in companies | 2 types Farmers R&D departments in companies |
CS13 | Pathways to phase-out contentious inputs from organic agriculture in Europe | Atlantic/North Sea | Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Norway, Poland, Sweeden, Turkey, United Kingdom | Multinational | Agriculture: organic agriculture | H2020 | Research entities | 1 type Research entities |
CS14 | Improve profitability of dairy farms changing the cow feed | Atlantic/North Sea | France, Belgium | Multinational | Agriculture: livestock feed | Interreg | Research entities | 2 types Research entities Support organisations |
CS15 | Innovative solutions to reduce food losses in the food supply chain | Atlantic/North Sea | Netherlands, Belgium, France, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany | Multinational | Agriculture: food waste solutions | Interreg | Farmers | 6 types Research entities Farmers Support organisationsMarket actors—supply side Civil society Administrative bodies |
CS16 | Waste recycling and valorisation of agricultural waste co-products and bio products | Atlantic partners—focus IE/UK and Scandinavia | Ireland, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Greece, Croatia, United Kingdom, China. | Multinational | Agriculture: agricultural waste solutions | H2020 | Research entities | 3 types Research entities Support organisations Market actors—supply side Civil society |
CS17 | Sustainable precision agriculture: research and knowledge | Mediterranean | Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece | Multinational | Agriculture: learning in precision agriculture | Erasmus + | Research entities | 4 types Research entities Farmers Support organisationsMarket actors—supply side |
References
- Tödtling, F.; Trippl, M. One Size Fits All?: Towards a Differentiated Regional Innovation Policy Approach. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 1203–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Lancker, J.; Mondelaers, K.; Wauters, E.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. Technovation The Organizational Innovation System: A Systemic Framework for Radical Innovation at the Organizational Level. Technovation 2015, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD; Eurostat. Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation; OECD: Paris, France; Eurostat: Luxembourg, 2018.
- Alimirzaei, E.; Hosseini, S.M.; Hejazi, Y.; Movahed Mohammadi, H. Executive Coherence in Iranian Pluralistic Agricultural Extension and Advisory System. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2019, 21, 531–543. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Innovation Management and the Knowledge-Driven Economy; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2004.
- EU SCAR. Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems in Transition—A Reflection Paper; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2012; pp. 23–46.
- Fieldsend, A.F.; Cronin, E.; Varga, E.; Biró, S.; Rogge, E. ‘Sharing the Space’ in the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System: Multi-Actor Innovation Partnerships with Farmers and Foresters in Europe. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2021, 27, 423–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EIP-AGRI SP. Horizon 2020 Multi-Actor Projects. Bruss. EIP-AGRI Serv. Point 2017, 27. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/default/files/eip-agri_brochure_multi-actor_projects_2017_en_web.pdf (accessed on 15 September 2022).
- Ingram, J.; Maye, D.; Kirwan, J.; Curry, N.; Kubinakova, K. Interactions between Niche and Regime: An Analysis of Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture across Europe. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2015, 21, 55–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Hoffman, V. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2007, 13, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuñez Espinoza, J.F.; Olivares Rosas, N.M.; López Díaz, N.M. Mecanismos De Resiliencia Social En Micro, Pequeñas Y Medianas Empresas Rurales. Una Propuesta Metodológica, Para Después De Tiempos De COVID-19. Textual 2021, 77, 51–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Richard, R.A.; Rodriguez, F. Recursos humanos especializados y cambios tecnológicos en la vitivinicultura de la provincia de Mendoza (Argentina), 1890–1920 Ciclos en la historia, la economía y la sociedad. Ciclos En Hist. Econ. Soc. 2013, 20, 25–50. [Google Scholar]
- Levy, M.A.; Lubell, M.N. Innovation, Cooperation, and the Structure of Three Regional Sustainable Agriculture Networks in California. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2018, 18, 1235–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gava, O.; Favilli, E.; Bartolini, F.; Brunori, G. Knowledge Networks and Their Role in Shaping the Relations within the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in the Agroenergy Sector. The Case of Biogas in Tuscany (Italy). J. Rural Stud. 2017, 56, 100–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rockenbauch, T.; Sakdapolrak, P.; Sterly, H. Do Translocal Networks Matter for Agricultural Innovation? A Case Study on Advice Sharing in Small-Scale Farming Communities in Northeast Thailand. Agric. Hum. Values 2019, 36, 685–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spielman, D.J.; Davis, K.; Negash, M.; Ayele, G. Rural Innovation Systems and Networks: Findings from a Study of Ethiopian Smallholders. Agric. Hum. Values 2011, 28, 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skaalsveen, K.; Ingram, J.; Urquhart, J. The Role of Farmers’ Social Networks in the Implementation of No-till Farming Practices. Agric. Syst. 2020, 181, 102824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, A.; MacDonald, A. Outcomes to Partners in Multi-Stakeholder Cross-Sector Partnerships: A Resource-Based View. Bus. Soc. 2019, 58, 298–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lambrecht, E.; Crivits, M.; Lauwers, L.; Gellynck, X. Identifying Key Network Characteristics for Agricultural Innovation: A Multisectoral Case Study Approach. Outlook Agric. 2018, 47, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Romeiro, P.; Costa, C. The Potential of Management Networks in the Innovation and Competitiveness of Rural Tourism: A Case Study on the Valle Del Jerte (Spain). Curr. Issues Tour. 2010, 13, 75–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, J.A.; Klerkx, L.; Rijswijk, K.; Williams, T.; Barnard, T. Systemic Problems Affecting Co-Innovation in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System: Identification of Blocking Mechanisms and Underlying Institutional Logics. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2016, 76, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzo, G.; Gabbriellini, S.; Roux, V.; M’Mbogori, F.N. Complex Contagions and the Diffusion of Innovations: Evidence from a Small-N Study. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 2018, 25, 1109–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leeuwis, C.; Van den Ban, A. Communication for Rural Innovation; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Esparcia, J. Innovation and Networks in Rural Areas. An Analysis from European Innovative Projects. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 34, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz-José, J.; Rendón-Medel, R.; Govaerts, B.; Aguilar-Ávila, J.; Muñoz-Rodriguez, M. Innovation Diffusion in Conservation Agriculture: A Network Approach. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2016, 28, 314–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, M.B.; Johnson, B.; Lorenz, E.; Lundvall, B.Å. Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 680–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klerkx, L.; Proctor, A. Beyond Fragmentation and Disconnect: Networks for Knowledge Exchange in the English Land Management Advisory System. Land Use Policy 2013, 30, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klerkx, L.; Van Mierlo, B.; Leeuwis, C. Evolution of Systems Approaches to Agricultural Innovation: Concepts, Analysis and Interventions. In Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 1–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bourne, M.; Gassner, A.; Makui, P.; Muller, A.; Muriuki, J. A Network Perspective Filling a Gap in Assessment of Agricultural Advisory System Performance. J. Rural Stud. 2017, 50, 30–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borgatti, S.P.; Martin, G. Everett; Johnson, J.C. Analyzing Social Networks, 2nd ed.; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Woodland, R.H.; Mazur, R. Examining Capacity for “Cross-Pollination” in a Rural School District: A Social Network Analysis Case Study. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 2019, 47, 815–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronin, E.; Fosselle, S.; Rogge, E.; Home, R. An Analytical Framework to Study Multi-Actor Partnerships Engaged in Interactive Innovation Processes in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development Sector. Sustain. Switz. 2021, 13, 6428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, F.G. Social Network Analysis. Theory and Applications; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Salamati, P.; Soheili, F. Social Network Analysis of Iranian Researchers in the Field of Violence. Chin. J. Traumatol. Engl. Ed. 2016, 19, 264–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeman, L. Centrality in networks conceptual clarification. Soc. Netw. 1979, 1, 215–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wasserman, S.; Faust, K. Análisis de redes sociales. Métodos y Aplicaciones, 1st ed.; Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas: Madrid, España, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Brandes, U.; Kenis, P.; Raab, J. La Explicación a Través de La Visualización de Redes. Redes Rev. Hisp. Para El Análisis Redes Soc. 2005, 9, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermans, F.; Sartas, M.; Van Schagen, B.; Van Asten, P.; Schut, M. Social Network Analysis of Multi-Stakeholder Platforms in Agricultural Research for Development: Opportunities and Constraints for Innovation and Scaling. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fieldsend, A.F.; Cronin, E.; Varga, E.; Biró, S.; Rogge, E. Organisational Innovation Systems for Multi-Actor Co-Innovation in European Agriculture, Forestry and Related Sectors: Diversity and Common Attributes. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2020, 92, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboal, D.; Rovira, F.; Veneri, F. Knowledge Networks for Innovation in the Forestry Sector: Multinational Companies in Uruguay ☆. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 97, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuglie, K.; Gautam, M.; Goyal, A.; Maloney, W. Harvesting Prosperity: Technology and Productivity Growth in Agriculture; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lamb, J.N.; Moore, K.M.; Norton, J.; Omondi, E.C.; Laker-Ojok, R.; Sikuku, D.N.; Ashilenje, D.S.; Odera, J. A Social Networks Approach for Strengthening Participation in Technology Innovation: Lessons Learnt from the Mount Elgon Region of Kenya and Uganda. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2016, 14, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balfour, B.; Alter, T.R. Mapping Community Innovation: Using Social Network Analysis to Map the Interactional Field, Identify Facilitators, and Foster Community Development. Community Dev. 2016, 47, 431–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Element | Definition |
---|---|
Node | Any individual, organisation, or other entity of interest. |
Tie | Links between nodes, which denote interactions. |
Network | Graphical representation of relationships that displays points as nodes and lines ties; also referred to as a graph. |
Centrality | Structural attribute of nodes in a network determined by their position in the network; centrality measures include degree, closeness, and betweenness. |
Degree | Number of ties a node has to other nodes (strategic access to net information). |
Indegree | A number of ties going into a node (social legitimacy). |
Core | Cohesive subgroup within a network in which the nodes are connected to the maximum. |
Periphery | Nodes that are only loosely connected to the core and have minimal or no ties among themselves. |
Items | Nr. | % | Case Studies |
---|---|---|---|
Actors | 40–47 | 12% | CS15, CS16 |
32–39 | 29% | CS01, CS05, CS07, CS10, CS13 | |
24–31 | 12% | CS11, CS17 | |
16–23 | 18% | CS04, CS09, CS12 | |
8–15 | 29% | CS02, CS03, CS06, CS08, CS14 | |
Type of organisations of multiactor partnership | 11 | 6% | CS15 |
10 | 18% | CS01, CS10, CS13 | |
9 | 6% | CS05 | |
8 | 18% | CS08, CS11, CS16 | |
7 | 24% | CS06, CS07, CS12, CS17 | |
6 | 24% | CS02, CS03, CS04, CS09 | |
4 | 6% | CS14 | |
Type of organisations of “core” multiactor partnership | 6 | 18% | CS07, CS11, CS14 |
5 | 6% | CS06 | |
4 | 29% | CS01, CS03, CS09, CS10, CS17 | |
3 | 18% | CS04, CS08, CS16 | |
2 | 18% | CS02, CS12, CS15 | |
1 | 12% | CS05, CS13 |
Leader/Interactions by Type of Organisation | Administrative Bodies (%) | Civil Society (%) | Educational Institutions (%) | Farmers (%) | Market Actors—Demand Side (%) | Market Actors—Supply Side (%) | Others (%) | R&D Departments in Companies | Research Entities (%) | Support Organisations (%) | Total % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Research entities | 14.5 | 4.2 | 6.9 | 19.3 | 2.1 | 13.6 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 24.5 | 11.2 | 100 |
CS06 | 27.3 | 0.0 | 4.5 | 13.6 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 13.6 | 22.7 | 100 |
CS07 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 48.1 | 2.5 | 26.6 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 8.9 | 10.1 | 100 |
CS08 | 24.1 | 3.4 | 20.7 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 6.9 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 24.1 | 13.8 | 100 |
CS11 | 26.3 | 21.1 | 10.5 | 13.2 | 0.0 | 5.3 | 2.6 | 0.0 | 15.8 | 5.3 | 100 |
CS13 | 14.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 10.0 | 8.0 | 4.0 | 14.0 | 0.0 | 34.0 | 4.0 | 100 |
CS14 | 21.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 48.5 | 24.2 | 100 |
CS16 | 8.5 | 4.3 | 4.3 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 25.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 40.4 | 12.1 | 100 |
CS17 | 18.2 | 0.0 | 21.2 | 15.2 | 0.0 | 6.1 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 18.2 | 18.2 | 100 |
Farmers | 17.7 | 9.7 | 4.0 | 18.6 | 5.8 | 8.4 | 5.3 | 2.2 | 8.8 | 19.5 | 100 |
CS01 | 24.0 | 8.0 | 2.0 | 14.0 | 8.0 | 14.0 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 22.0 | 100 |
CS02 | 5.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 35.3 | 11.8 | 5.9 | 0.0 | 23.5 | 0.0 | 17.6 | 100 |
CS05 | 14.9 | 4.3 | 6.4 | 31.9 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 6.4 | 0.0 | 6.4 | 25.5 | 100 |
CS10 | 22.0 | 8.0 | 6.0 | 12.0 | 2.0 | 10.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 16.0 | 20.0 | 100 |
CS15 | 14.5 | 19.4 | 3.2 | 12.9 | 9.7 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 1.6 | 12.9 | 12.9 | 100 |
Market actor—supply side CS03 | 9.5 | 9.5 | 0.0 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 28.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.3 | 9.5 | 100 |
Civil society CS04 | 36.0 | 24.0 | 0.0 | 16.0 | 0.0 | 4.0 | 8.0 | 0.0 | 12.0 | 0.0 | 100 |
Support organisations CS09 | 17.5 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 22.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 37.5 | 15.0 | 100 |
R&D departments in companies CS12 | 12.5 | 12.5 | 0.0 | 34.4 | 0.0 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 28.1 | 6.3 | 0.0 | 100 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Guerrero-Ocampo, S.B.; Díaz-Puente, J.M.; Nuñez Espinoza, J.F. Multi-Actor Partnerships for Agricultural Interactive Innovation: Findings from 17 Case Studies in Europe. Land 2022, 11, 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101847
Guerrero-Ocampo SB, Díaz-Puente JM, Nuñez Espinoza JF. Multi-Actor Partnerships for Agricultural Interactive Innovation: Findings from 17 Case Studies in Europe. Land. 2022; 11(10):1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101847
Chicago/Turabian StyleGuerrero-Ocampo, Susana B., José M. Díaz-Puente, and Juan Felipe Nuñez Espinoza. 2022. "Multi-Actor Partnerships for Agricultural Interactive Innovation: Findings from 17 Case Studies in Europe" Land 11, no. 10: 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101847
APA StyleGuerrero-Ocampo, S. B., Díaz-Puente, J. M., & Nuñez Espinoza, J. F. (2022). Multi-Actor Partnerships for Agricultural Interactive Innovation: Findings from 17 Case Studies in Europe. Land, 11(10), 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11101847