Factors influencing participation dynamics in research for development interventions with multi-stakeholder platforms: A metric approach to studying stakeholder participation
Autoři:
Murat Sartas aff001; Piet van Asten aff003; Marc Schut aff002; Mariette McCampbell aff001; Moureen Awori aff003; Perez Muchunguzi aff003; Moses Tenywa aff004; Sylvia Namazzi aff005; Ana Sole Amat aff003; Graham Thiele aff006; Claudio Proietti aff006; Andre Devaux aff007; Cees Leeuwis aff001
Působiště autorů:
Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
aff001; International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Kigali, Rwanda
aff002; International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Kampala, Uganda
aff003; Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
aff004; International Vegetable Center, Kampala, Uganda
aff005; International Potato Center, Lima, Perú
aff006; International Potato Center, Quito, Ecuador
aff007
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223044
Souhrn
Multi-stakeholder platforms have become mainstream in projects, programmes and policy interventions aiming to improve innovation and livelihoods systems, i.e. research for development interventions in low- and middle-income contexts. However, the evidence for multi-stakeholder platforms’ contribution to the performance of research for development interventions and their added value is not compelling. This paper focuses on stakeholder participation as one of the channels for multi-stakeholder platforms’ contribution to the performance of research for development interventions, i.e. stakeholder participation. It uses a quantitative approach and utilizes descriptive statistics and ARIMA models. It shows that, in three Ugandan multi-stakeholder platform cases studied, participation increased both in nominal and in unique terms. Moreover, participation was rather cyclical and fluctuated during the implementation of the research for development interventions. The study also shows that, in addition to locational and intervention factors such as type of the area along a rural–urban gradient targeted by the intervention and human resources provided for multi-stakeholder platform implementation, temporal elements such as phases of research for development intervention objectives and the innovation development process play significant roles in influencing participation. The study concludes that contribution of multi-stakeholder platforms to the performance of research for development projects, programs, policies and other initiatives is constrained by locational and temporal context and conditional on the participation requirements of the objectives pursued by research for development intervention.
Klíčová slova:
Geographical locations – Research design – Agriculture – Natural resources – Research monitoring – Rural areas – Uganda – Agricultural workers
Zdroje
1. Beers PJ, Geerling-Eiff F. Networks as policy instruments for innovation. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2014 Aug 8;20[4]:363–79.
2. Schut M, Soares NC, van de Ven G, Slingerland M. Multi-actor governance of sustainable biofuels in developing countries: The case of Mozambique. Energy Policy. 2014;65:631–43.
3. Schut M, Klerkx L, Sartas M, Lamers D, Campbell MM, Ogbonna I, et al. Innovation platforms: experiences with their institutional embedding in agricultural research for development. Ex Agric. 2016 Oct;52[04]:537–61.
4. Faysse N. Troubles on the way: An analysis of the challenges faced by multi‐stakeholder platforms. Nat Resour Forum. 2006;30[3]:219–29.
5. Warner J. Multi-stakeholder platforms: integrating society in water resource management? Ambiente & sociedade. 2006;8[2]:4–28.
6. Kaiser DB, Köhler T, Weith T. Knowledge management in sustainability research projects: Concepts, effective models, and examples in a multi-stakeholder environment. Applied Environmental Education & Communication. 2016 Jan 2;15[1]:4–17.
7. McHugh M, Shi Y, McClellan SR, Shortell SM, Fareed N, Harvey J, et al. Using multi-stakeholder alliances to accelerate the adoption of health information technology by physician practices. Healthc [Amst]. 2016 Jun;4[2]:86–91. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.01.004 27343156
8. Reypens C, Lievens A, Blazevic V. Leveraging value in multi-stakeholder innovation networks: A process framework for value co-creation and capture. Industrial Marketing Management. 2016 Jul;56:40–50.
9. Spielman DJ, Hartwich F, Grebmer K. Public–private partnerships and developing‐country agriculture: Evidence from the international agricultural research system. Public Administration and Development. 2010;30[4]:261–76.
10. Muñoz-Erickson TA, Cutts BB. Structural dimensions of knowledge-action networks for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2016 Feb;18:56–64.
11. Verhagen J, Butterworth J, Morris M. Learning alliances for integrated and sustainable innovations in urban water management. Waterlines. 2008 Apr;27[2]:116–24.
12. Bawden RJ. Systems approaches to agricultural development: The Hawkesbury experience. Agric Syst. 1992 Jan;40[1–3]:153–76.
13. Hall A, Clark N. What do complex adaptive systems look like and what are the implications for innovation policy? Journal of International Development: The Journal of the Development Studies Association. 2010;22[3]:308–24.
14. Foran T, Butler JRA, Williams LJ, Wanjura WJ, Hall A, Carter L, et al. Taking Complexity in Food Systems Seriously: An Interdisciplinary Analysis. World Dev. 2014 Sep;61:85–101.
15. Martin A, Chancellor T, Posthumus H. A systematic review on the impacts of capacity strengthening of agricultural research systems for development and the conditions of success. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2013.
16. Klerkx L, van Mierlo B, Leeuwis C. Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. In: Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B, editors. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2012. p. 457–83.
17. Norman DW. The farming systems approach: A historical perspective. International Farming Systems Association; 2002. p. 17–20.
18. Hemmati M. Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: beyond deadlock and conflict. Routledge; 2012.
19. Sartas M, Schut M, Leeuwis C. Learning System for Agricultural Research for Development Interventions [LESARD]—Effective Documenting, Reporting and Analysis of Performance Factors in Multistakeholder Processes. Integrated Systems Research for Sustainable Intensification of Smallholder Agriculture Ibadan: Earthscan. 2016.
20. Thiele G, Devaux A, Reinoso I, Pico H, Montesdeoca F, Pumisacho M, et al. Multi-stakeholder platforms for linking small farmers to value chains: evidence from the Andes. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 2011;9[3]:423–33.
21. Biermann F, Man-san Chan AM, Pattberg P. 11. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: does the promise hold? Partnerships, governance and sustainable development: Reflections on theory and practice. 2007;239.
22. Turnhout E, Van Bommel S, Aarts MNC. How participation creates citizens: participatory governance as performative practice. Ecology and Society. 2010;15[4]:26–41.
23. Sartas M. Do multi-stakeholder platforms work?: contributions of multi-stakeholder platforms to the performance of research for development interventions [Doctoral dissertation]. 2018.
24. Amerasinghe P, Cofie OO, Labri TO, Drechsel P. Facilitating outcomes: multi-stakeholder processes for influencing policy change on urban agriculture in selected West African and South Asian cities. International Water Management Institute [IWMI].; 2013.
25. Lamers D, Schut M, Klerkx L, van Asten P. Compositional dynamics of multilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development. Sci and Pub Pol. 2017 Dec 1;44[6]:739–52.
26. Kongo VM, Kosgei JR, Jewitt GPW, Lorentz SA. Establishment of a catchment monitoring network through a participatory approach in a rural community in South Africa. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2010;14[12]:2507–25.
27. Roloff J. Learning from Multi-Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder Management. J Bus Ethics. 2008 Sep;82[1]:233–50.
28. Johnson NL, Lilja N, Ashby JA. Measuring the impact of user participation in agricultural and natural resource management research. Agricultural systems. 2003;78[2]:287–306.
29. García-Barrios LE, Speelman EN, Pimm MS. An educational simulation tool for negotiating sustainable natural resource management strategies among stakeholders with conflicting interests. Ecol Modell. 2008 Jan;210[1–2]:115–26.
30. Bowen S, Martens PJ. A model for collaborative evaluation of university-community partnerships. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Oct;60[10]:902–7. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.040881 16973540
31. Klintenberg P, Seely M. Land degradation monitoring in namibia: A first approximation. Environ Monit Assess. 2004 Jan;99[1–3]:5–21. 15641368
32. Armstrong MJ, Payne AIL, Deas B, Catchpole TL. Involving stakeholders in the commissioning and implementation of fishery science projects: experiences from the U.K. Fisheries Science Partnership. J Fish Biol. 2013 Oct;83[4]:974–96. doi: 10.1111/jfb.12178 24090558
33. Curtis A, Coomber K, Droste N, Hyder S, Palmer D, Miller PG. Effectiveness of community-based interventions for reducing alcohol-related harm in two metropolitan and two regional sites in Victoria, Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2017 Apr 20;36[3]:359–68. doi: 10.1111/dar.12501 28429402
34. Wang L, Hu G, Zhou T. Semantic analysis of learners’ emotional tendencies on online MOOC education. Sustainability. 2018 Jun 8;10[6]:1921.
35. Ali MK, Wharam F, Kenrik Duru O, Schmittdiel J, Ackermann RT, Albu J, et al. Advancing Health Policy and Program Research in Diabetes: Findings from the Natural Experiments for Translation in Diabetes [NEXT-D] Network. Curr Diab Rep. 2018 Nov 20;18[12]:146. doi: 10.1007/s11892-018-1112-3 30456479
36. Cole CB, Pacca J, Mehl A, Tomasulo A, van der Veken L, Viola A, et al. Toward communities as systems: a sequential mixed methods study to understand factors enabling implementation of a skilled birth attendance intervention in Nampula Province, Mozambique. Reprod Health. 2018 Aug 3;15[1]:132. doi: 10.1186/s12978-018-0574-8 30075791
37. Delisle H, Roberts JH, Munro M, Jones L, Gyorkos TW. The role of NGOs in global health research for development. Health Res Policy Syst. 2005 Feb 21;3[1]:3. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-3-3 15723694
38. Laws S, Harper C, Jones N, Marcus R. Research for development: A practical guide. Sage; 2013.
39. Abate T, Shiferaw B, Gebeyehu S, Amsalu B, Negash K, Assefa K, et al. A systems and partnership approach to agricultural research for development. Outlook Agric. 2011 Sep;40[3]:213–20.
40. Ashby J. Introduction: uniting science and participation in the process of innovation–research for development. Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods. Routledge; 2013. p. 21–39.
41. Davis J, Whittington D. “Participatory” research for development projects: A comparison of the community meeting and household survey techniques. Economic Development and Cultural Change. 1998;47[1]:73–94.
42. Nuyens Y. Setting priorities for health research: lessons from low- and middle-income countries. Bull World Health Organ. 2007 Apr;85[4]:319–21. doi: 10.2471/BLT.06.032375 17546314
43. Rosenfield PL. The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining and extending linkages between the health and social sciences. Soc Sci Med. 1992 Dec;35[11]:1343–57. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90038-r 1462174
44. Steins NA, Edwards VM. Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common-pool resources. Agriculture and human values. 1999;16[3]:241–55.
45. Röling NG, Woodhill AJ. From Paradigms to Practice: Foundations, Principles and Elements for Dialogue, Water, Food and the Environment. the Consortium Dialogue on Water, Food and the Environment; 2001.
46. Abbott KW. Engaging the public and the private in global sustainability governance. Int Aff. 2012 May;88[3]:543–64.
47. Eggersdorfer M, Bird JK. How to Achieve Transparency in Public-Private Partnerships Engaged in Hunger and Malnutrition Reduction. World Rev Nutr Diet. 2016 May 19;115:224–32. doi: 10.1159/000442109 27198563
48. Hall A. Public-private sector partnerships in an agricultural system of innovation: concepts and challenges. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development. 2006;5[1]:3–20.
49. Yildirim O, Gottwald M, Schüler P, Michel MC. Opportunities and Challenges for Drug Development: Public-Private Partnerships, Adaptive Designs and Big Data. Front Pharmacol. 2016 Dec 6;7:461. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2016.00461 27999543
50. Dror I, Cadilhon J-J, Schut M, Misiko M, Maheshwari S. Innovation platforms for agricultural development: evaluating the mature innovation platforms landscape. Routledge; 2015.
51. 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 Feb 6;12[2]:e0169634. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169634 28166226
52. Sanyang S, Taonda SJ-B, Kuiseu J, Coulibaly N, Konaté L. A paradigm shift in African agricultural research for development: the role of innovation platforms. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 2016 Apr 2;14[2]:187–213.
53. Tenywa MM, Rao KPC, Tukahirwa JB, Buruchara RA, Adekunle AA, Mugabe J, et al. Agricultural innovation platform as a tool for development-oriented research: Lessons and challenges in the formation and operationalization. World Applied Sciences. 2011;16[7]:981–8.
54. Zuurbier PJP. Sustainability and certification in the biofuels sector: some critical observations. Wageningen University; 2010.
55. Kachel U, Jennings G. Exploring tourists’ environmental learning, values and travel experiences in relation to climate change: A postmodern constructivist research agenda. Tourism and Hospitality Research. 2010;10[2]:130–40.
56. Adekunle AA, Fatunbi AO. Approaches for setting-up multi-stakeholder platforms for agricultural research and development. World Appl Sci J. 2012;16[7]:981–8.
57. Giuliani E. Network dynamics in regional clusters: Evidence from Chile. Research Policy. 2013 Sep;42[8]:1406–19.
58. Bäckstrand K. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Eur Env. 2006 Sep;16[5]:290–306.
59. Derak M, Taiquib L, Aledoc A, Cortina J. Similarities in stakeholder identification of restoration targets in a semiarid area. J Arid Environ. 2016 May;128:30–9.
60. Reed M, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey IRA, Glass J, Laing A, et al. What is social learning? Ecology and society. 2010;
61. Hermans FLP, Haarmann WMF, Dagevos JFLMM. Evaluation of stakeholder participation in monitoring regional sustainable development. Reg Environ Change. 2011 Dec;11[4]:805–15.
62. Hämäläinen RP, Kettunen E, Ehtamo H, Marttunen M. Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management. Group Decis Negot. 2001;10[4]:331–53.
63. Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour. 2009 Jun 4;22[6]:501–18.
64. Walker B, Sayer J, Andrew NL, Campbell B. Should enhanced resilience be an objective of natural resource management research for developing countries? Crop Sci. 2010;50[Supplement_1]:S-10.
65. Kasonde JM, Campbell S. Creating a Knowledge Translation Platform: nine lessons from the Zambia Forum for Health Research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2012 Oct 3;10:31. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-10-31 23034056
66. Whitworth JAG, Kokwaro G, Kinyanjui S, Snewin VA, Tanner M, Walport M, et al. Strengthening capacity for health research in Africa. Lancet. 2008 Nov 1;372[9649]:1590–3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61660-8 18984193
67. Barlow J, Bayer S, Curry R. Implementing complex innovations in fluid multi-stakeholder environments: Experiences of ‘telecare.’ Technovation. 2006 Mar;26[3]:396–406.
68. Bebbington A, Farrington J. Governments, NGOs and agricultural development: Perspectives on changing inter‐organisational relationships. Journal of Development Studies. 1993 Jan;29[2]:199–219.
69. Roloff J. A life cycle model of multi-stakeholder networks. Bus Ethics Eur Rev. 2008 Jul;17[3]:311–25.
70. de Zeeuw H. Cities farming for the future—multi-stakeholder policy formulation and action planning on urban agriculture in developing countries. Acta Hortic. 2010 Nov;[881]:97–109.
71. Fleury P, Petit S, Dobremez L, Schermer M, Kirchengast C, De Ros G, et al. Implementing sustainable agriculture and rural development in the european alps. Mt Res Dev. 2008 Aug;28[3/4]:226–32.
72. Thompson GD, Dutton R, Sparks TC. Spinosad–a case study: an example from a natural products discovery programme. Pest Management Science: formerly Pesticide Science. 2000;56[8]:696–702.
73. Pretty JN, Noble AD, Bossio D, Dixon J, Hine RE, Penning de Vries FWT, et al. Resource-Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries. Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Feb;40[4]:1114–9. doi: 10.1021/es051670d 16572763
74. Bosher L, Dainty A, Carrillo P, Glass J, Price A. Attaining improved resilience to floods: a proactive multi‐stakeholder approach. Disaster Prev and Management. 2009 Feb 20;18[1]:9–22.
75. Meyer S, Glaser B, Quicker P. Technical, economical, and climate-related aspects of biochar production technologies: a literature review. Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Nov 15;45[22]:9473–83. doi: 10.1021/es201792c 21961528
76. Saysel AK, Barlas Y, Yenigün O. Environmental sustainability in an agricultural development project: a system dynamics approach. J Environ Manage. 2002 Mar;64[3]:247–60. doi: 10.1006/jema.2001.0488 12040958
77. Warner J. The beauty of the beast: Multi-stakeholder participation for integrated catchment management. Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated water management. Routledge; 2016. p. 17–36.
78. Fliervoet JM, van den Born RJG, Meijerink SV. A stakeholder’s evaluation of collaborative processes for maintaining multi-functional floodplains: a Dutch case study. International Journal of River Basin Management. 2017 Apr 3;15[2]:175–86.
79. Agarwal B. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for south asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev. 2001 Oct;29[10]:1623–48.
80. Magesa SM, Lengeler C, deSavigny D, Miller JE, Njau RJA, Kramer K, et al. Creating an “enabling environment” for taking insecticide treated nets to national scale: the Tanzanian experience. Malar J. 2005 Jul 22;4:34. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-4-34 16042780
81. Yasuoka J, Levins R. Impact of deforestation and agricultural development on anopheline ecology and malaria epidemiology. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2007 Mar;76[3]:450–60. 17360867
82. Berti PR, Krasevec J, FitzGerald S. A review of the effectiveness of agriculture interventions in improving nutrition outcomes. Public Health Nutr. 2004 Aug;7[5]:599–609. doi: 10.1079/PHN2003595 15251050
83. Huang X, Faysse N, Ren X. A multi-stakeholder platform involving a mining company and neighbouring villages in China: Back to development issues. Resources Policy. 2017 Mar;51:243–50.
84. Mayangsari L, Novani S. Multi-stakeholder co-creation Analysis in Smart city Management: An Experience from Bandung, Indonesia. Procedia Manufacturing. 2015;4:315–21.
85. Beall J, Todes A. Gender and integrated area development projects: lessons from Cato Manor, Durban. Cities. 2004 Aug;21[4]:301–10.
86. Balan V, Chiaramonti D, Kumar S. Review of US and EU initiatives toward development, demonstration, and commercialization of lignocellulosic biofuels. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining. 2013;7[6]:732–59.
87. Badibanga T, Ragasa C, Ulimwengu J. Assessing the effectiveness of multistakeholder platforms: agricultural and rural management councils in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Intl Food Policy Res Inst; 2013.
88. Leeuwis C. Reconceptualizing participation for sustainable rural development: towards a negotiation approach. Development and change. 2000;31[5]:931–59.
89. Sumberg J. Systems of innovation theory and the changing architecture of agricultural research in Africa. Food policy. 2005;30[1]:21–41.
90. Cook T, Boote J, Buckley N, Vougioukalou S, Wright M. Accessing participatory research impact and legacy: developing the evidence base for participatory approaches in health research. Educational Action Research. 2017 Aug 8;25[4]:473–88.
91. Edquist C. Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development. 2010;2[3]:14–45.
92. Richardson J, Grose J. An action learning approach to partnership in community development: a reflection on the research process. Action Learning: Research and Practice. 2013 Nov;10[3]:254–63.
93. Comby E, Le Lay Y-F, Piégay H. The achievement of a decentralized water management through stakeholder participation: An example from the Drome River catchment area in France [1981–2008]. Environmental management. 2014;54[5]:1074–89. doi: 10.1007/s00267-014-0378-8 25257044
94. Nikitina E, Ostrovskaya E, Fomenko M. Towards better water governance in river basins: some lessons learned from the Volga. Regional Environmental Change. 2010;10[4]:285–97.
95. Verma D, Ramirez-Marquez J. From TRL to SRL: The concept of systems readiness levels. boardmansauser.com; 2006.
96. Aw-Hassan AA. Strategies for out-scaling participatory research approaches for sustaining agricultural research impacts. Development in Practice. 2008;18[4–5]:564–75.
97. Hale TN, Mauzerall DL. Thinking globally and acting locally: can the johannesburg partnerships coordinate action on sustainable development? The Journal of Environment & Development. 2004 Sep;13[3]:220–39.
98. Joy KJ, Paranjape S, Kulkarni S. Multi-stakeholder participation, collaborative policy making and water governance: The need for a normative framework. Governance of Water: Institutional Alternatives and Political Economy. 2008;269.
99. Head BW. Assessing network-based collaborations: effectiveness for whom? Public Management Review. 2008;10[6]:733–49.
100. Hekkert MP, Suurs RAA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM. Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2007 May;74[4]:413–32.
101. Zornes D, Ferkins L, Piggot-Irvine E. Action research networks: role and purpose in the evaluation of research outcomes and impacts. Educational Action Research. 2016 Jan 2;24[1]:97–114.
102. Raford N. Online foresight platforms: Evidence for their impact on scenario planning & strategic foresight. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2015 Aug;97:65–76.
103. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82[4]:581–629. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x 15595944
104. Hall A, Rasheed Sulaiman V, Clark N, Yoganand B. From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research. Agric Syst. 2003 Nov;78[2]:213–41.
105. Lamb JN, Moore KM, Norton J, Omondi EC, Laker-Ojok R, Sikuku DN, et al. A social networks approach for strengthening participation in technology innovation: lessons learnt from the Mount Elgon region of Kenya and Uganda. International journal of agricultural sustainability. 2016;14[1]:65–81.
106. Boogaard BK, Schut M, Klerkx L, Leeuwis C, Duncan AJ, Cullen B. Critical issues for reflection when designing and implementing research for development in innovation platforms. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen UR; 2013.
107. CGIAR. Proposal for integrated systems for Humid Tropics Research Program. 2012 [cited 2018 Dec 12]; Available from: http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/2554/crp_1.2_humid_tropics_proposal_jan24_2012.pdf?sequence=1
108. Fazey I, Bunse L, Msika J, Pinke M, Preedy K, Evely AC, et al. Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research. Global Environmental Change. 2014 Mar;25:204–20.
109. Kilelu CW, Klerkx L, Leeuwis C. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: Contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme. Agricultural systems. 2013;118:65–77.
110. Barrientos S, McClenaghan S, Orton L. Stakeholder participation, gender, and codes of conduct in South Africa. Development in Practice. 2001;11[5]:575–86.
111. Aaltonen K, Jaakko K, Tuomas O. Stakeholder salience in global projects. International Journal of Project Management. 2008 Jul;26[5]:509–16.
112. Assaye A, Melak A, Ayalew B, Teshale D, Mazengia Y. Assessment of seed systems in North Western Ethiopia; with special emphasis on community based seed multiplication scheme. World Scientific News. 2015;12:100–10.
113. Bizikova L, Nijnik M, Kluvanková-Oravská T. Sustaining multifunctional forestry through the developing of social capital and promoting participation: A case of multiethnic mountain communities. Small-scale Forestry. 2012 Sep;11[3]:301–19.
114. Payne SL, Calton JM. Towards a managerial practice of stakeholder engagement: Developing multi-stakeholder learning dialogues. Unfolding stakeholder thinking. Routledge; 2017. p. 121–35.
115. Akpo E, Crane TA, Vissoh PV, Tossou RC. Co-production of Knowledge in Multi-stakeholder Processes: Analyzing Joint Experimentation as Social Learning. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension. 2015 Aug 8;21[4]:369–88.
116. Svendsen AC, Laberge M. Convening stakeholder networks: A new way of thinking, being and engaging. Journal of Corporate Citizenship. 2005;[19]:91–104.
117. European Commission. Horizon 2020 work programme 2014–2015. 19 General annexes revised. 2014;
118. Markard J, Truffer B. Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework. Research Policy. 2008 May;37[4]:596–615.
119. Wei WW. Time series analysis. The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology: Vol 2. 2006.
120. IBM Corporation. IBM SPSS Forecasting. IBM; 2012.
121. Yang H. The case for being automatic: introducing the automatic linear modeling [LINEAR] procedure in SPSS statistics. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints. 2013;39[2]:27–37.
122. Chambers R. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev. 1994 Jul;22[7]:953–69.
123. Tacoli C. Rural-urban interactions: a guide to the literature. Environ Urban. 1998 Apr;10[1]:147–66.
124. North D, Smallbone D. Innovative activity in SMEs and rural economic development: Some evidence from England. European Planning Studies. 2000;8[1]:87–106.
125. Eloy L, Bilbao B A., Mistry J, Schmidt IB. From fire suppression to fire management: Advances and resistances to changes in fire policy in the savannas of Brazil and Venezuela. Geogr J. 2019 Mar;185[1]:10–22.
126. Carter SE, Currie-Alder B. Scaling-up natural resource management: insights from research in Latin America. Dev Pract. 2006 Apr;16[2]:128–40.
127. Benjaminy S, Macdonald I, Bubela T. “Is a cure in my sight?” Multi-stakeholder perspectives on phase I choroideremia gene transfer clinical trials. Genet Med. 2014 May;16[5]:379–85. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.148 24071795
128. Gupta S. Worlds apart? Challenges of multi-agency partnership in participatory watershed development in Rajasthan, India. Development Studies Research An Open Access Journal. 2014;1[1]:100–12.
129. Sautier M, Piquet M, Duru M, Martin-Clouaire R. Exploring adaptations to climate change with stakeholders: A participatory method to design grassland-based farming systems. Journal of environmental management. 2017;193:541–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.02.050 28262418
130. Ohe Y. Evaluating the complementarity of the educational function in agriculture. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. 2010;131:247–55.
Článok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 11
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Nejasný stín na plicích – kazuistika
- Masturbační chování žen v ČR − dotazníková studie
- Úspěšná resuscitativní thorakotomie v přednemocniční neodkladné péči
- Dlouhodobá recidiva a komplikace spojené s elektivní operací břišní kýly
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- A daily diary study on maladaptive daydreaming, mind wandering, and sleep disturbances: Examining within-person and between-persons relations
- A 3’ UTR SNP rs885863, a cis-eQTL for the circadian gene VIPR2 and lincRNA 689, is associated with opioid addiction
- A substitution mutation in a conserved domain of mammalian acetate-dependent acetyl CoA synthetase 2 results in destabilized protein and impaired HIF-2 signaling
- Molecular validation of clinical Pantoea isolates identified by MALDI-TOF