Abstract
The aim of this paper is to answer the question of whether the Greek AKIS system can contribute to the different requirements of the new trends in agriculture according to its main functions. A SWOT analysis has been applied to examine the internal and external environment. Data were collected from 61 experts/representatives of organizations (policy, education, research, consulting, agricultural cooperatives, credit, private companies, and farmers). The data were analysed using Excel spreadsheets and the Statical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS V.28). Based on this method, dominant strengths and weaknesses as well as opportunities and threats of AKIS were identified as a starting point, as well as useful guidance for decision makers, local authorities, and the other actors in Greece.
1. Introduction
In our era, the agri-food sector has faced a huge challenge: to boost production with increasing demands and constraints placed on it [1]. In the future, feeding nine billion people with continuous pressure on the Earth’s natural resources, health, climate, and welfare for both humans and animals is a big challenge for sustainable agriculture. There is an increasing demand for innovative solutions through the continuous renewal of products, processes, and services [2].
The goals related to innovation are increasing their emphasis on encouraging healthy, high-quality products, and environmentally sustainable production methods, including organic production, renewable materials, and biodiversity protection [3]. New social, technical, and economic solutions are needed for farming and rural areas [4]. Innovation is considered one of the key drivers for competitive and sustainable agriculture [5]. In the conventional view, innovation is mainly embodied in technological artifacts (new knowledge and equipment technologies, improved seeds, vaccines, breeding techniques, fertilizers and pesticides, and other agricultural inputs), and its successful application is related to the capacity of the users to learn to ‘adopt’ them, according to given guidelines. However, in the new network’s view, innovation occurs when the network of production changes its way of doing things, so innovation is mainly related to the resulting pattern of interaction between people, tools, and natural resources [4]. Innovation processes are increasingly conceptualized as the outcome of collaborative networks, where information is exchanged and learning processes happen and lead to an expanded knowledge system, including a wide range of stakeholders who innovate and those who benefit (or suffer) from innovation [4]. The combination of technological innovation, improved skills, and an increased capacity of farmers and their organizations [6], and the effective cooperation between the people who produce the knowledge and the end users who utilize it, are optimal solutions for dealing with the above challenges [2].
In recent years, AKIS studies agreed on the importance of the direct involvement of farmers in the innovation processes to identify the best response to farm issues and improve innovation effectiveness [7,8,9]. Direct involvement means an interactive and practical collaboration of all actors (scientific, institutional, business, and civil society) using appropriate tools for the target [10], allowing partners to verify the activity carried out and contribute to the change process. Through the AKIS system, they are given the opportunity to collaborate, share their ideas, and turn existing knowledge and research results into innovative solutions that can be more easily implemented in practice [11].
The main aim of this research is to answer the question of whether the Greek AKIS system can contribute to the different requirements of the new trends in agriculture by evaluating the strengths and weaknesses in terms of its internal environment, as well as the opportunities and threats that come from the external environment.
2. Material and Methods
First, a literature review was carried out with the aim of understanding the internal factors of AKIS operations (strengths and weaknesses), where the participating agencies have a greater capacity for action and control, and then the external elements (opportunities and threats), where their actions are quite limited, but which can significantly influence the situation. SWOT analysis allows an assessment of the parameters of the application of AKIS. To analyse the situation of Greek AKIS, the questionnaire consisted of four sections including strengths (13 factors), weaknesses (11 factors), opportunities (7 factors), and finally threats (8 factors). The surveyed actors were asked to identify if they agreed or disagreed on the typical 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Data were collected through a survey of 61 expert representatives (mainly senior managers) from all participating bodies (Ministry, Region, Chamber, NGO, ELGO-Dimitra, Research Institutes, Educational Institutions, private consulting companies, supply of inputs, manufacturing companies, cooperatives, credit institutions, and farmers). Data were collected during December 2022 and March 2023 using an online survey tool after an initial phone communication. Descriptive statistics indicators (mean scores, standard deviations, and standard errors) were used to describe and present the main results.
3. Results
Based on the AKIS internal environment evaluation results, the main strength was finding new solutions for agricultural issues (mean: 3.90; SD: 0.98 and SE: 0.12). The findings revealed that the main weakness of AKIS is the ageing population of farmers (mean: 3.84; SD: 1.05 and SE: 0.13). In terms of external opportunities, AKIS has the potential to develop further, due to new opportunities and environmental factors (mean: 4.16; SD: 0.76 and SE: 0.10). However, the most significant threat to AKIS is the complexity of legal and regulatory frameworks (mean: 4.18; SD: 0.82 and SE: 0.11) (Table 1 and Table 2)
Table 1.
External factors evaluation matrix.
Table 2.
Internal factors evaluation matrix.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
This research focuses on the question of whether the Greek AKIS system can contribute to the different requirements of the new trends in agriculture, according to its main functions such as the guidance of search, knowledge development, network formation and knowledge diffusion, entrepreneurial activities, market formation, resource mobilization, and formation of legitimacy [12,13]. The actors supported that the existing AKIS develop new knowledge for solving agricultural problems, mobilize resources for educating farmers to improve their skills, and strengthen the farmers’ access to communication information technologies (agreed by 60–75%). The ageing and ignorance of poor and marginal farmers were considered the main inhibiting factors for its operation (agreed by 65%). The existence of agricultural systems such as integrated farming management, organic farming, and precision agriculture were considered opportunities for the development of AKIS (agreed by 84%). On the other hand, the actors support that the complexity of legal and regulatory frameworks is a threat to the system (agreed by 80%). The analysis presents a starting point and useful guidance both for decision makers and the other actors for the enhancement of AKIS.
Author Contributions
A.M. writing—original draft preparation, visualization, supervision, project administration, writing—review and editing; E.A. Conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) under the third call for HFRI PhD Fellowships, grant number 6422.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Data will be made available upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Panetto, H.; Lezoche, M.; Hernandez, J.E.; Alemany, M.M.E.; Kacprzyk, J. Special issue on Agri-food 4.0 and digitalization in agriculture supply chains—New directions, challenges, and applications. Comput. Ind. 2020, 116, 103188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Union-Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (EU SCAR). Preparing for Future AKIS in Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- European Council Presidency Conclusions–Goteborg European Council (15–16 June 2001). Available online: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/00200-r1.en1.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2023).
- Knickel, K.; Brunori, G.; Rand, S.; Proost, J. Towards a Better Conceptual Framework for Innovation Processes in Agriculture and Rural Development: From Linear Models to Systemic Approaches. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2009, 15, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arzeni, A.; Ascioue, E.; Borsotto, P.; Carta, V.; Castelloti, T.; Vagnozzi, A. Analysis of farms characteristics related to innovation needs: A proposal for supporting the public decision-making process. Land Use Policy 2021, 100, 104892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems for Rural Development (AKIS/RD): Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Botha, N.; Turner, J.A.; Fielke, S.; Klerkx, L. Using a co-innovation approach to support innovation and learning: Cross-cutting observations from different settings and emergent issues. Outlook Agric. 2017, 46, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fielke, S.; Nelson, T.; Blackett, P.; Bewsell, D.; Bayne, K.; Park, N.; Rijswijk, K.; Small, B. Hitting the bullseye: Learning to become a reflexive monitor in New Zealand. Outlook Agric. 2017, 46, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ingram, J.; Dwyer, J.; Gaskell, P.; Mills, J.; Wolf, P. Reconceptualising translation in agricultural innovation: A co-translation approach to bring research knowledge and practice closer together. Land Use Policy 2018, 70, 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barcellini, F.; Prost, L.; Cerf, M. Designers’ and users’ roles in participatory design: What is actually co-designed by participants? Appl. Ergon. 2015, 50, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feo, E.; Mareen, H.; Burssens, S.; Spangle, P. The Relevance of Videos as a Practical Tool for Communication and Dissemination in Horizon2020 Thematic Networks. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermans, F.; Klerkx, L.; Roep, D. Structural conditions for collaboration and learning in innovation networks: Using an innovation system performance lens to analyze agricultural knowledge systems. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 2015, 21, 35–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahran, Y.; Kassem, H.S.; Naba, S.M.; Alotaibi, B.A. Shifting from Fragmentation to Integration: A Proposed Framework for Strengthening Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in Egypt. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 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/).