Funding for this research was provided by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 311994, and the Scottish Government’s Strategic Research Programme (2011–2016).In this paper we assess the types of knowledge networks utilised by small-scale farmers in four case studies (located in Bulgaria, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom). We focus on knowledge acquired to inform three new activities being undertaken by study participants: agricultural production, subsidy access and regulatory compliance, and farm diversification (specifically agritourism). Findings demonstrate that the new knowledge networks are dominated by different forms of expertise: formal ‘agricultural advisors’ identified in the case studies primarily offer codified managerial knowledge through centralised networks, suggesting that state-funded services for small-scale farmers are largely embedded in traditional, linear models of knowledge transfer. Production and diversification knowledge is exchanged through ‘distributed’ and ‘decentralised’ networks, where a range of actors are involved across varying geographical distances. Findings highlight issues associated with the quality and independence of both ‘free’ and paid advice, as well as the importance of combining tacit and codified knowledge for credibility. In all four cases, we found that small-scale farmers utilise formal advisory services primarily for accessing subsidies (e.g. completing application forms), rather than acquiring production knowledge. The authors argue that by utilising the state funding allocated to advisory services for small-scale farmers primarily to enable these farmers to access subsidies, important opportunities for innovation by both advisors or farmers can be lost.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Adoption of sustainable agriculture innovations is acknowledged to be an effective response to agro-ecological challenges, such as climate change, pests, drought, natural catastrophes, and food insecurity. However, its level of dissemination is still low across the world, particularly in the Global South. There is a need for a better understanding of the adoption determinants of these innovations in order to enhance them. This paper presents a systematic literature review focused on the use of sociopsychological determinants to understand the adoption of sustainable agriculture innovations, combining conventional bibliometric analysis with the method of vote-count. This method enabled an evaluation of the ability of the determinants considered by the models, as well as respective sociopsychological constructs, to explain the innovation adoption. Our results show a significant growth in the research employing theory and models built on sociopsychological factors to understand the decision-making processes undertaken by farmers in the context of the adoption of sustainable agriculture innovations. The development of statistical models and techniques, such as the structural equation model (SEM), has facilitated the inclusion of a growing set of sociopsychological variables. However, our review highlights that the selection of the sociopsychological constructs used by research to explain farmers’ adoption of sustainability innovations relies mainly on constructs defined for other decisional contexts, such as the adoption of innovations by firms in other sectors. Hence, the low ability evidenced by the models to explain farmers’ adoption behavior is due to a poor selection of constructs. The review highlights that this poor selection is a result of repetition of constructs, such as attitude, subjective norms, and little inclusion of other relevant constructs such as knowledge. The paper suggests the need for a better selection of the innovation determinants and measurement of respective constructs adjusted to the case of agriculture and the specificities of the diverse geographical farming contexts.

The European COST Action E45 on European Forest Externalities (EUROFOREX) participants developed a set of good practice guidelines for the non-market valuation of forests, elaborating on stated and revealed preference methodologies, as well as benefit transfer and meta-analytical procedures. This article presents a summary of the guidelines