Strengthening AKIS Governance: Strategic Insights from a SWOT and SPACE Analysis in Greece ^†

Abstract

This study explores the governance of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in Greece, analysing its internal and external environments and proposing policies to strengthen innovation. A quantitative SWOT analysis and the Strategic Position and Action Evaluation (SPACE) matrix were employed to assess system dynamics. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire from December 2022 to March 2023, involving 61 senior managers across AKIS actors. Findings reveal that opportunities outweigh threats, while weaknesses surpass strengths. The SPACE matrix highlights the need for competitive strategies, offering valuable insights and policy directions for enhancing governance and fostering effective innovation processes within Greek agriculture.

1. Introduction

The European agri-food sector and innovations are currently seen as progressing too slowly toward sustainable agriculture [1]. In recent years, the urgency of accelerating and enhancing innovation has been increasingly emphasised, becoming a central focus of the European Commission’s vision for the future of food and farming [2]. Studies on Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) have highlighted the importance of involving farmers directly in innovation processes. Their participation is vital for identifying effective responses to farm-related challenges and maximising the overall impact of innovations [3]. Through the AKIS system, they can collaborate, share ideas, and transform existing knowledge and research results into innovative solutions that can be more readily implemented in practice.

AKIS is expected to lead the transition toward a more sustainable future by fostering knowledge generation, enhancing collaboration, and supporting innovation [4]. However, its structure and operational mechanisms vary significantly across regions, shaped by distinct institutional and policy frameworks [5]. Despite these differences, AKIS has two fundamental characteristics: first, it functions as a social system designed to facilitate knowledge exchange and promote co-innovation among agri-food stakeholders; second, it is a goal-oriented system that serves not only farmers but also broader societal interests [6].

This research explores ways to improve AKIS in Greece governance by examining its internal and external environments and identifying policy measures to enhance innovation processes.

2. Materials and Methods

This study builds upon our previous work [3], where initial data were collected and preliminary analyses were conducted. In the present study, the data have been reprocessed, further analyzed, and presented with improved clarity and organization, enabling extended strategic analyses, including the SPACE Matrix evaluation.

Initially, a literature review identified the system’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT), which served as the foundation for a structured ad hoc questionnaire. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement using a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represents ‘Strongly Disagree’ and 5 means ‘Strongly Agree.’ Descriptive statistics were used to summarise and present the main findings. The survey was conducted online between December 2022 and March 2023, collecting responses from 61 senior managers representing policy-making bodies, educational institutions, consulting firms, cooperatives, and farmers, following initial phone communications.

The second phase of the research involved examining the SWOT matrix, with a specific focus on assessing both External and Internal Factors (EFE and IFE). Two matrices have been developed incorporating both EFE and IFE, presenting key survey data, including the mean and standard error for each factor.

The objective of the third phase was to select the most appropriate strategy for enhancing the AKIS. To accomplish this, the SPACE Matrix was constructed by comparing the scores of all internal and external factors [7,8,9]. The SPACE Matrix allows for the identification of strategy types emerging from survey participants’ responses. It categorises strategies based on the dominance and interaction of various factors, resulting in four primary strategic approaches: (a) Conservative; (b) Defensive; (c) Competitive; and (d) Aggressive. These strategic categories provide valuable insights into the available pathways for decision-making and policy development.

3. Results and Discussion

Based on the evaluation results of the AKIS internal environment, the primary strength identified is its ability to find new solutions to agricultural challenges (mean: 3.90; SE: 0.12). Nowadays, the AKIS concept is used as a guiding principle for modernising the agriculture sector and ensuring the sustainable management and use of natural resources in the farming sector [3]. The AKIS framework has been embedded in the policy agenda of many countries to explore and analyse solutions to complex agricultural problems [10,11]. The findings also indicate that the main weakness of AKIS is the aging farming population (mean: 3.84; SE: 0.13). Regarding external opportunities, AKIS has significant potential for further development due to emerging opportunities and environmental factors (mean: 4.16; SE: 0.10). Pigford et al. [12] emphasised that a well-structured AKIS fosters innovation through approaches like smart farming and localised food systems. However, the most critical threat to AKIS is the complexity of legal and regulatory frameworks (mean: 4.18; SE: 0.11) (

Table 1. Internal factors evaluation matrix [3].

Internal Factors	Mean *	SE
Strengths
S6: Finding new solutions for agricultural problems	3.90	0.12
S3: Educating farmers to improve their skills	3.75	0.14
S2: Improving farmer’s access to a new, diverse, and growing information system	3.74	0.12
S1: Strengthening of interactive learning through the sharing of different types of knowledge	3.66	0.15
S8: Developing each actor’s new capacities and skills within AKIS	3.64	0.14
S7: Enhancing coordination among AKIS actors	3.57	0.14
S9: Changing farmers’ knowledge, attitude, and strengthening of participatory spirit	3.56	0.14
S4: Boosting productivity and farmers’ income and subsequently improving their standard of living	3.44	0.14
S13: Empowerment of farmers to increase critical thinking skills to be able to analyse situations and determine their main demands	3.43	0.13
S11: Improvement in the responsibility of actors to farmers	3.39	0.13
S5: Increasing and attractive investment	3.33	0.14
S10: Improving farmers’ access to international markets	3.13	0.12
S12: Preventing anti-competitive practice	3.05	0.14
Mean	3.51	0.14
Weaknesses
W1: Aging of the agricultural population	3.84	0.13
W4: Ignorance of poor and marginal farmers	3.82	0.13
W8: Inadequate control and evaluation system by regional authorities	3.82	0.13
W3: Lack of enough development of social capital between farmers	3.80	0.12
W9: Lack of synergies between actors to co-create the appropriate innovation.	3.80	0.12
W2: Lack of focus in dealing with diverse demands that come from different farmers	3.75	0.10
W11: Lack of awareness of possibilities to receive advisor services	3.67	0.12
W10: Inadequate significant organisational capacity of advisors (knowledge and resources to achieve goals)	3.46	0.12
W6: Lack of enough use of new information and communication technologies	3.39	0.14
W7: Insufficient opportunities of education and training programs	3.34	0.13
W5: High costs of advisory service	3.31	0.13
Mean	3.64	0.13
Total Mean	7.15

* Ranking by means in descending order.

and

Table 2. External factors evaluation matrix.

External Factors	Mean *	SE
Opportunities
O3: New opportunities and environmental potential to develop agriculture	4.16	0.10
O1: Farming system to production of high-value products	4.08	0.09
O2: New market information system	3.95	0.11
O5: Development of programs, institutions, and facilities	3.87	0.12
O7: Development of relevant research in the European Union	3.80	0.11
O4: Strengthen policies in the European Union	3.72	0.11
O6: Increasing economic growth rate	3.62	0.12
Mean	3.89	0.11
Threats
Τ1: Complexity of legal and regulatory frameworks	4.18	0.11
Τ4: Adverse environment due to conditions of uncertainty (recession, pandemic, war)	4.10	0.11
Τ7: Unforeseen environmental changes	3.79	0.13
Τ8: Low resilience of agricultural holdings (small average size)	3.79	0.13
Τ6: The lack of financial and government support	3.77	0.14
Τ3: High fluctuations in prices of inputs and outputs	3.72	0.02
Τ5: Most innovations are capital-intensive	3.62	0.13
Τ2: Inadequate balance of supply and demand of products	3.46	0.11
Mean	3.80	0.11
Total Mean	7.69

* Ranking by means in descending order.

), Zahran et al. [11] ranked this complexity as the top barrier to developing the DG-AKIS at 92.2%. Additionally, Kebebe et al. [13] found that policy advocacy hindered Ethiopian stakeholders from leveraging agricultural technology for productivity and profit.

The findings revealed that the strengths of Internal Factors have a mean score of 3.51, while the weaknesses have a mean score of 3.64. Regarding External Factors, the opportunities received a total mean score of 3.89, compared to the threats at 3.80. The total score for external and internal factors was 7.69 and 7.15, respectively. The scores show two important results: the opportunities were greater than the threats, and the weaknesses were greater than the strengths.

The final objective was to define the most effective strategies for improving AKIS governance in the future, using the diagnosis of internal and external factors as a starting point. Based on the findings of the Strategic Position and Action Evaluation Matrix (SPACE), the strategy should focus on addressing weaknesses by leveraging available opportunities. The results indicate that the most suitable approach aligns with competitive strategies, which aim to overcome weaknesses by capitalising on existing opportunities (Figure 1).

4. Conclusions

This study offers new insights into strengthening AKIS in Greece from the perspective of various stakeholders. Its contribution is twofold: first, it provides an in-depth analysis of the internal and external factors affecting AKIS in Greece; second, it enriches the literature by presenting a framework that demonstrates how these factors can improve AKIS governance. Ultimately, defining specific recommendations within the framework of competitive strategies represents the most effective approach, considering both internal and external analyses.