Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The human being at the heart of agroecological transitions: insights from cognitive mapping of actors’ vision of change in Roquefort area

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agroecological transitions aim at developing sustainable farming and food systems, adapted to local contexts. Such transitions require the engagement of local actors and the consideration of their knowledge and reasoning as a whole, which encompasses different natures of knowledge (empirical, scientific, local, generic), related to different dimensions (economic, environmental, technical, social, political), as well as their values and perceived uncertainties. While these transitions are often problematized in relation to technical issues, this article's objective is to start from the way the local actors consider these transitions in order to see what issues are actually involved. In this study, we analyzed the reasoning of diverse farming actors, including farmers and farm advisors. We conducted 30 cognitive mapping interviews, during which the local actors drew cognitive maps to explicit their reasoning concerning their agroecological transition with an open approach. Their reasoning revealed an emphasis on the human & social dimension of the process of agroecological transitions: (i) human and social considerations come first in the transition process, while technical solutions are viewed as secondary, (ii) use and development of human capacities, social interactions and human well-being are crucial to the conduct of agroecological transitions, (iii) human-scale farming appears as a condition for the use of human capacities, human well-being and rural development, (iv) agroecological transitions imply farming advisory transitions, and (v) rural development appears as a condition for agroecological transitions, implying transitions in society as a whole.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

A1,… Ax:

Actor 1, … Actor x

CAP:

Common Agricultural Policy

CUMA :

Coopérative d'Utilisation de Matériels Agricoles (cooperative for the use of agricultural equipment)

DIAL :

Dispositif d’Innovations Agroécologiques Locales (initiative for local agroecological innovations)

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organisation

GO PEI :

Groupe Opérationnel Européen d’Innovation (operational group for European innovation partnership)

INRAE :

Institut national de recherche pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement ([French] National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and the Environment)

UNESCO:

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

VUCA:

Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity

References

  • Allen, P., D. Van Dusen, J. Lundy, and S. Gliessman. 1991. Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6 (1): 34–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altieri, M.A., and V.M. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (3): 587–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Averbuch, B., M.H. Thorsøe, and C. Kjeldsen. 2022. Using fuzzy cognitive mapping and social capital to explain differences in sustainability perceptions between farmers in the northeast US and Denmark. Agriculture and Human Values 39 (1): 435–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, R. 1976. Structure of decision: The cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bawden, R.J. 1992. Systems approaches to agricultural development: The Hawkesbury experience. Agricultural Systems 40 (1–3): 153–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bawden, R. 2010. The community challenge the learning response. In Social learning systems and communities of practice, ed. C. Blackmore, 39–56. London: Springer London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beudou, J., G. Martin, and J. Ryschawy. 2017. Cultural and territorial vitality services play a key role in livestock agroecological transition in France. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 37 (4): 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezner Kerr, R., J. Liebert, M. Kansanga, and D. Kpienbaareh. 2022. Human and social values in agroecology: A review. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 10 (1): 00090.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, C., N. Sriskandarajah, and R. Ison. 2018. Developing learning systems for addressing uncertainty in farming, food and environment: What has changed in recent times? International Journal of Agricultural Extension 6 (3): 03–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blesh, J., and S.A. Wolf. 2014. Transitions to agroecological farming systems in the Mississippi River Basin: Toward an integrated socioecological analysis. Agriculture and Human Values 31 (4): 621–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonneviale, J.-R., R. Jussiau, and E. Marshall. 1990. Approche globale de l’exploitation agricole. Économie Rurale 199 (1): 52–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, A., and M. Sébillotte. 1978. Réflexion sur l’évolution contemporaine des exploitations agricoles. Économie Rurale 126 (1): 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brossier, J., and M. Petit. 1977. Pour une typologie des exploitations agri­coles fondée sur les projets et les situations des agriculteurs. Économie Rurale 122 (1): 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerf, M., M.N. Guillot, and P. Olry. 2011. Acting as a change agent in supporting sustainable agriculture: How to cope with new professional situations? Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 17 (1): 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chantre, E., and A. Cardona. 2014. Trajectories of French field crop farmers moving toward sustainable farming practices: Change, learning, and links with the advisory services. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38 (5): 573–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chizallet, M., F. Barcellini, and L. Prost. 2018. Supporting farmers’ management of change towards agroecological practices by focusing on their work: A contribution of ergonomics. Cahiers Agricultures 27 (3): 35005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chizallet, M. 2019. Comprendre le processus de conception d’un système de travail dans l’indivisibilité du temps: le cas d’agriculteurs en transition agroécologique, 281p. Thèse de doctorat en psychologie. Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers.

  • Christen, B., C. Kjeldsen, T. Dalgaard, and J. Martin-Ortega. 2015. Can fuzzy cognitive mapping help in agricultural policy design and communication? Land Use Policy 45: 64–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, G., J. Simonneaux, and L. Hazard. 2022a. Tailoring Cognitive Mapping Analysis Methods to Different Management Styles of Collective Action by Handling Actor Reasoning Diversity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 21: 16094069221137492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, G., V. Thénard, L. Hazard, and J. Simonneaux. 2022b. Accompagner une transition agroécologique dans un contexte complexe et incertain: utilisation de la diversité des raisonnements des acteurs de terrain. Pour 244 (3): 145–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, G. 2021. Valuing the diversity of actor reasoning to foster an agroecological transition, 228p. INP Toulouse, France: Thèse de doctorat. INARE et ENSFEA.

  • Colville, I., A.D. Brown, and A. Pye. 2012. Simplexity: Sensemaking, organizing and storytelling for our time. Human Relations 65 (1): 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coquil, X., J.-L. Fiorelli, A. Blouet, and C. Mignolet. 2014. Experiencing organic mixed crop dairy systems: A step-by-step design centred on a long-term experiment. In Organic farming, prototype for sustainable agricultures, 201–17. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coquil, X., B. Dedieu, and P. Béguin. 2017. Professional transitions towards sustainable farming systems: The development of farmers’ professional worlds. Work 57 (3): 325–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coquil, X., M. Cerf, C. Auricoste, A. Joannon, F. Barcellini, P. Cayre, M. Chizallet, B. Dedieu, N. Hostiou, and F. Hellec. 2018. Questioning the work of farmers, advisors, teachers and researchers in agro-ecological transition A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 38 (5): 47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cossette, P., and M. Audet. 1992. Mapping of an idiosynchratic schema. Journal of Management Studies 29 (3): 325–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Annolfoa, R., B. Gemmill-Herrena, B. Graeuba, and L.A. Garibaldi. 2017. A review of social and economic performance of agroecology. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15 (6): 632–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1398123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. 1939. Theory of valuation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumont, A.M., A.C. Wartenberg, and P.V. Baret. 2021. Bridging the gap between the agroecological ideal and its implementation into practice. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 41 (3): 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duru, M., O. Therond, G. Martin, R. Martin-Clouaire, M.-A. Magne, E. Justes, E.-P. Journet, J.-N. Aubertot, S. Savary, J.-E. Bergez, and J.P. Sarthou. 2015. How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35 (4): 1259–1281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. 1992. On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies 29 (3): 261–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esparcia, J. 2014. Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis from European innovative projects. Journal of Rural Studies 34: 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J.R., and L.M. Hunt. 2011. Can farmers map their farm system? Causal mapping and the sustainability of sheep/beef farms in New Zealand. Agriculture and Human Values 28 (1): 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. 2018. The 10 Elements of Agroecology: Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, L.-B., and J. Newig. 2016. Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions: A systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability 8 (5): 476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, C., G. Lieblein, S. Gliessman, T.A. Breland, N. Creamer, R. Harwood, L. Salomonsson, J. Helenius, D. Rickerl, and R. Salvador. 2003. Agroecology: The ecology of food systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22 (3): 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galliano, D., A. Gonçalves, and P. Triboulet. 2019. The peripheral systems of eco-innovation: Evidence from eco-innovative agro-food projects in a French rural area. Journal of Rural Studies 72: 273–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F.W., and J. Schot. 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36 (3): 399–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gliessman, S. 2016. Transforming food systems with agroecology. Routledge: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldkuhl, G. 2011. The research practice of practice research: Theorizing and situational inquiry. Systems, Signs & Actions 5 (1): 7–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, W. 1978. As you sow: Three studies in the social consequences of agribusiness. Universe Books. Allanheld, Osmun , New York

  • Gonçalves, A., D. Galliano, and P. Triboulet. 2021. Eco-innovations towards circular economy: Evidence from cases studies of collective methanization in France. European Planning Studies 30 (7): 1230–1250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouttenoire, L., S. Cournut, and S. Ingrand. 2013. Participatory modelling with farmer groups to help them redesign their livestock farming systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33 (2): 413–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J.L., and C. Getz. 2015. Farm size and job quality: Mixed-methods studies of hired farm work in California and Wisconsin. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (4): 617–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazard, L., N. Couix, and C. Lacombe. 2021. From evidence to value-based transition: The agroecological redesign of farming systems. Agriculture and Human Values 39 (1): 405–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hervieu, B., and F. Purseigle. 2013. Chapitre 6 - Vers une sociologie des mondes agricoles dans la globalisation. In sociologie des mondes agricoles, 231–66. Paris: Armand Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaac, M.E., E. Dawoe, and K. Sieciechowicz. 2009. Assessing local knowledge use in agroforestry management with cognitive maps. Environmental Management 43 (6): 1321–1329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ison, R., and C. Blackmore. 2014. Designing and developing a reflexive learning system for managing systemic change. Systems 2 (2): 119–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalani, B., P. Aminpour, S. Gray, M. Williams, L. Büchi, J. Haggar, P. Grabowski, and J. Dambiro. 2021. Mapping farmer perceptions, conservation agriculture practices and on-farm measurements: The role of systems thinking in the process of adoption. Agricultural Systems 191: 103171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamine, C., D. Magda, M. Rivera-Ferre, and T. Marsden. 2021. Agroecological transitions, between determinist and open-ended visions. Bern: Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, C., F. Maxime, A. Mazé, and M. Tichit. 2003. Multifonctionnalité de l’agriculture et modèles de l’exploitation agricole. Économie Rurale 273 (1): 134–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lièvre, P., M. Aubry, and G. Garal. 2019. Management of extreme situations: From polar expeditions to exploration-oriented organizations. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, V., P. Gasselin, and J.D. Van Der Ploeg. 2019. Local inter-farm cooperation: A hidden potential for the agroecological transition in northern agricultures. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 43 (2): 145–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, S. 2022. Farm-level pathways to food security: Beyond missing markets and irrational peasants. Agriculture and Human Values 39 (1): 135–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, B.D., H.R. Herren, J. Wakhungu, and R.T. Watson. 2009. IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development) Global report. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Migliorini, P., and A. Wezel. 2017. Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 37 (6): 63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Assessment, Millennium Ecosystem, and (Program), eds. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morel, K., M. San Cristobal, and F.G. Léger. 2017. Small can be beautiful for organic market gardens: An exploration of the economic viability of French microfarms using MERLIN. Agricultural Systems 158: 39–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morin, O., L. Simonneaux, J. Simonneaux, R. Tytler, and L. Barraza. 2014. Developing and using an S3R model to analyze reasoning in web-based cross-national exchanges on sustainability: Socioscientific and sustainability reasoning. Science Education 98 (3): 517–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M.C. 1997. Capabilities and human rights. Fordham Law Review 12: 273–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Omon, B., M. Cerf, C. Auricoste, P. Olry, M.-S. Petit, and S. Duhamel. 2019. CHANGER–Échanger entre conseillers sur les situations de travail pour accompagner les agriculteurs dans leurs transitions vers l’agroécologie. Innovations Agronomiques 71: 367–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osty, P.L. 1978. L’exploitation agricole vue comme un système. Diffusion de l’innovation et contribution au développement. Bulletin Technique D’information 326: 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oteros-Rozas, E., B. Martín-López, J.A. González, T. Plieninger, C.A. López, and C. Montes. 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Regional Environmental Change 14 (4): 1269–1289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özesmi, U., and S.L. Özesmi. 2004. Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: A multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling 176 (1–2): 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paine, M., R. Nettle, and S. Coats. 2004. Learning and professional development in advisory services: supporting the reflective practitioner. Farming and Rural Systems research and extension. Proceedings of the 6th European IFSA Symposium

  • Papageorgiou, E.I. 2013. Review Study on Fuzzy Cognitive Maps and Their Applications during the Last Decade, 18 p. In 2011 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE 2011) (pp. 828–835). IEEE.

  • Poignonec, D. 2006. Apport de la combinaison cartographie cognitive/ontologie dans la compréhension de la perception du fonctionnement d’un écosystème récifo-lagonaire de Nouvelle-Calédonie par les acteurs locaux, 76 p. Thèse de doctorat. Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique de Rennes, 2006.

  • Poole, M.S., and A.H. Van de Ven. 1989. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 562–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauschmayer, F., T. Bauler, and N. Schäpke. 2015. Towards a thick understanding of sustainability transitions — Linking transition management, capabilities and social practices. Ecological Economics 109: 211–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Ortega, T., E. Oteros Rozas, R. Ripoll Bosch, M. Tichit, B. Martín López, and A. Bernués. 2014. Applying the ecosystem services framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems in Europe. Animal 8 (8): 1361–1372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryschawy, J., T. Debril, J.P. Sarthou, and O. Therond. 2015. Agriculture, jeux d’acteurs et transition écologique. Première approche dans le bassin Tarn-Aveyron. Fourrages 222: 143–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salembier, C., B. Segrestin, N. Sinoir, J. Templier, B. Weil, and J.-M. Meynard. 2020. Design of equipment for agroecology: Coupled innovation processes led by farmer-designers. Agricultural Systems 183: 102856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonneaux, J., L. Simonneaux, and N. Cancian. 2016. QSV Agro-environnementales et changements de société: Transition éducative pour une transition de société via la transition agroécologique. DIversité REcherches et terrains 13: 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessier, L., J. Bijttebier, F. Marchand, and P.V. Baret. 2021. Cognitive mapping, flemish beef farmers’ perspectives and farm functioning: A critical methodological reflection. Agriculture and Human Values 38 (4): 1003–1019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A.K. 2016. From Modernity to Post-Modernity [online]. ReviseSociology. Available from: https://revisesociology.com/2016/04/09/from-modernity-to-post-modernity/ [Accessed 30 Aug 2022].

  • Thorén, K., and M. Vendel. 2018. Backcasting as a strategic management tool for meeting VUCA challenges. Journal of Strategy and Management 12 (2): 298–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, C., and G.F. Félix. 2015. Agroecology as a vehicle for contributive justice. Agriculture and Human Values 32 (3): 523–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tittonell, P. 2014. Ecological intensification of agriculture—sustainable by nature. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8: 53–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toffolini, Q., M.-H. Jeuffroy, and L. Prost. 2016. Indicators used by farmers to design agricultural systems: A survey. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36 (1): 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Mierlo, B., and P.J. Beers. 2020. Understanding and governing learning in sustainability transitions: A review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 34: 255–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanwindekens, F.M., P.V. Baret, and D. Stilmant. 2014. A new approach for comparing and categorizing farmers’ systems of practice based on cognitive mapping and graph theory indicators. Ecological Modelling 274: 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David. 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29 (4): 503–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wezel, A., B.G. Herren, R.B. Kerr, E. Barrios, A.L.R. Gonçalves, and F. Sinclair. 2020. Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 40 (6): 40.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to warmly thank all the participants of the DIAL project, as well as the other actors interviewed. We are also very grateful to the reviewers of this paper, whose constructive feedback enabled us to greatly improve it. This research was funded by ADEME, INRAE and the French Region of Occitanie (PSDR ATA-RI).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AGIR, Univ Toulouse, INRAE, 24 Chemin de Borde Rouge, 31320, Castanet-Tolosan, France

    Gwen Christiansen & Laurent Hazard

  2. EFTS, Univ Toulouse, ENSFEA, 2 route de Narbonne, 31320, Castanet-Tolosan, France

    Jean Simonneaux

Authors
  1. Gwen Christiansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean Simonneaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laurent Hazard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gwen Christiansen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Christiansen, G., Simonneaux, J. & Hazard, L. The human being at the heart of agroecological transitions: insights from cognitive mapping of actors’ vision of change in Roquefort area. Agric Hum Values 40, 1675–1696 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10430-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10430-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation