Darmaun M., Chevallier Tiphaine, Hossard L., Lairez J., Scopel E., Chotte Jean-Luc, Lambert-Derkimba A., de Tourdonnet S. (2023). Multidimensional and multiscale assessment of agroecological transitions : a review. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 21 (1), p. 2193028 [22 p.]. ISSN 1473-5903.
Titre du document
Multidimensional and multiscale assessment of agroecological transitions : a review
Darmaun M., Chevallier Tiphaine, Hossard L., Lairez J., Scopel E., Chotte Jean-Luc, Lambert-Derkimba A., de Tourdonnet S.
Source
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2023,
21 (1), p. 2193028 [22 p.] ISSN 1473-5903
Assessing benefits and limits of agroecological transitions in different contexts is of foremost importance to steer and manage agroecological transitions and to feed evidence-based advocacy. However, assessing agroecological transitions remains a methodological challenge. The objective of this research was to investigate to what extent existing multiscale and multidimensional assessment methods were suitable to assess agroecological transitions. We used a literature review to identify and select 14 existing multiscale and multidimensional assessment methods related to sustainable or resilient agriculture. We then analyzed these 14 methods according to five evaluation criteria that reflected key requirements for assessing agroecological transitions: 1) be adaptable to local conditions, 2) consider social interactions among stakeholders involved in the transitions, 3) clarify the concept of agroecology, 4) consider the temporal dynamics of the transitions to better understand barriers and levers in their development and 5) use a participatory bottom-up approach. The methods adopted different approaches to consider each evaluation criterion, but none of them covered all five. The two evaluation criteria most often employed were the adaptability to local conditions (used by 13 of the methods) and the consideration of social interactions (used by all 14 of the analyzed methods). To be adaptable, methods mobilized generic guidelines with flexible content and/or included a contextualization phase. For social interactions, most methods mobilized social-related indicators, and two included stakeholder mapping. Two methods clarified the agroecological concept by mobilizing different sets of principles. Two other methods considered temporal dynamics of the transitions, mobilizing a trajectory of change to understand barriers and levers in their development. Finally, seven methods adopted a bottom-up participatory approach, involving stakeholders in both their development and use. To balance the existing trade-offs between the evaluation purpose, the time requirement and the level of participation in the different approaches adopted by the 14 methods studied, we suggest combining some of the approaches in a complementary mode to cover all 5 criteria and therefore improve the assessment of agroecological transitions.
Plan de classement
Sciences du milieu [021]
;
Economie et sociologie rurale [098]
