Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in’ rather than ‘for’ development
By R. Coe, F. Sinclair, E. Barrios. 2014
211 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Recent high-level policy papers call for scaling-up agroforestry to sustainably increase agricultural production and maintain environmental services. Evidence suggests that this will not be achieved by wide scale promotion of a few iconic agroforestry practices. Instead, three key issues need to be addressed. First, fine-scale variation in social, economic and ecological context and how this creates a need for local adaptation. Second, the importance of developing appropriate service delivery mechanisms, markets, and institutional contexts, as well as technologies. Third, appropriate research design, within the scaling process, that enables co-learning amongst research, development and private sector actors. This requires a new paradigm that builds on previous integrated systems approaches, but goes further, by embedding research centrally within development praxis.
Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Global and Planetary Change
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2248e7cf4e036438dd6b880d1a3f69759b96c1f9
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences
In Global and Planetary Change
Citations in the corpus
- Evidence map of crop diversification strategies at the global scale (2019, background): “In sub-Saharan Africa, the proportion of agroforestry reaches 29%of the agricultural land (Coe et al 2014) whereas these areas are much smaller in Europe (Den Herder et al 2017), despite large potential areas for implementation (Reisner et al 2007).”
- Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review (2016, background): “…diffusion and adoption, focuses on what works in a particular ecological, geographical or sociocultural area, but technologies and practices do not necessarily work, and may even have negative effects, in other areas (Coe et al. 2014; Garb and Friedlander 2014; Gee et al. 2013; Menter et al. 2004).”
- INNOVATION PLATFORMS: EXPERIENCES WITH THEIR INSTITUTIONAL EMBEDDING IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH FOR DEVELOPMENT (2015, background): “…different ‘modes’ of knowledge production (Gibbons, 1994; Nowotny et al., 2003), research ‘for’ development versus research ‘in’ development approaches (Coe et al., 2014), expert-led development versus peopleled development (Sherwood, 2009), or science-centric innovation systems towards…”