In this paper we present a novel methodology for identifying stakeholders for the purpose of engaging with them in transdisciplinary, sustainability research projects. In transdisciplinary research, it is important to identify a range of stakeholders prior to the problem-focussed stages of research. Early engagement with diverse stakeholders creates space for them to influence the research process, including problem definition, from the start. However, current stakeholder analysis approaches ignore this initial identification process, or position it within the subsequent content-focussed stages of research. Our methodology was designed as part of a research project into a range of soil threats in seventeen case study locations throughout Europe. Our methodology was designed to be systematic across all sites. It is based on a snowball sampling approach that can be implemented by researchers with no prior experience of stakeholder research, and without requiring significant financial or time resources. It therefore fosters transdisciplinarity by empowering physical scientists to identify stakeholders and understand their roles. We describe the design process and outcomes, and consider their applicability to other research projects. Our methodology therefore consists of a two-phase process of design and implementation of an identification questionnaire. By explicitly including a design phase into the process, it is possible to tailor our methodology to other research projects.

The recently released Farm to Fork Strategy of the European Union sets, for the first time, pesticide reduction goals at the EU level: 50% reduction in overall use and risk of chemical pesticides and a 50% use reduction of more hazardous pesticides. However, there is little guidance provided as to how to achieve these targets. In this study, we compiled the characteristics of all 230 EU-approved, synthetic, open-field use active substances (AS) used as herbicides, fungicides and insecticides, and explored the potential of seven Farm to Fork-inspired pesticide use reduction scenarios to achieve the 50% reduction goals. The pesticide reduction scenarios were based on recommended AS application rates, pesticide type, soil persistence, presence on the candidate for substitution list, and hazard to humans and ecosystems. All 230 AS have been found to cause negative effects on humans or ecosystems depending on exposure levels. This is found despite the incomplete hazard profiles of several AS. 'No data available' situations are often observed for the same endpoints and specific organisms. The results of the scenarios indicate that only severe pesticide use restrictions, such as allowing only low-hazard substances, will result in the targeted 50% use and risk reductions. Over half of the 230 AS considered are top use or top hazard substances, however, the reduction actions depend on the still to be defined EC priority areas and action plans, also for other recent and related strategies. Broader scenario implications (on productivity, biodiversity or economy) and the response of farmers to the pesticide use restrictions should be explored in those plans to define effective actions. Our results emphasize the need for a re-evaluation of the approved AS and of their representative uses, and the call for open access to AS, crop and region-specific use data to refine scenarios and assess effective reductions.