EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 30 (2021) Cah. Agric., 30 (2021) 29 References
Open Access
Issue
Cah. Agric.
Volume 30, 2021
Article Number 29
Number of page(s) 10
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2021017
Published online 19 July 2021
  • Birner R, Davis K, Pender J, Nkonya E, Anandajayasekeram P, Ekboir J, et al. 2009. From best practice to best fit: A framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15(4): 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892240903309595. [Google Scholar]
  • BRL. 2015. Étude d’impact du dispositif FRDA-CSA à Madagascar. Ministère de l’Agriculture, Union Européenne, 161 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Cofré-Bravo G, Klerkx L, Engler A. 2019. Combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital for farm innovation: How farmers configure different support networks. Journal of Rural Studies 69: 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.04.004. [Google Scholar]
  • Desmarchelier B, Djellal F, Gallouj F. 2020. Mapping social innovation networks: knowledge intensive social services as systems builders. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 157: 120068. https://doi.org/h10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120068. [Google Scholar]
  • Dhiab H, Labarthe P, Laurent C. 2020. How the performance rationales of organisations providing farm advice explain persistent difficulties in addressing societal goals in agriculture. Food Policy 95: 101914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101914. [Google Scholar]
  • Faure G, Dugué P, Beauval V. 2007. Conseil aux exploitations familiales. In: Exploitations agricoles familiales en Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre : enjeux, caractéristiques et éléments de gestion. Versailles (France) : Ed. Quae, pp. 369–402. [Google Scholar]
  • Faure G, Desjeux Y, Gasselin P. 2012. New challenges in agricultural advisory services from a research perspective: A literature review, synthesis and research agenda. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18(5): 461–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2012.707063. [Google Scholar]
  • Faure G, Penot E, Rakotondravelo JC, Ramahatoraka HA, Dugué P, Toillier A. 2013. Which advisory system to support innovation in conservation agriculture? The case of Madagascar’s Lake Alaotra. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 19(3): 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.782169. [Google Scholar]
  • Faure G, Knierim A, Koutsouris A, Ndah HT, Audouin S, Zarokosta E, et al. 2019. How to strengthen innovation support services in agriculture with regard to multi-stakeholder approaches. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management 28: 145–169. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.028.0145. [Google Scholar]
  • Gadrey J. 1994. Les relations de service dans le secteur marchand. In: Bandt J, Gadrey J, eds. Relations de service, marchés de services. Paris (France) : CNRS Éditions. [Google Scholar]
  • Guillot MN, Cerf M, Petit MS, Olry P, Omon B. 2013. Développer la capacité des conseillers à agir face à la diversité des situations de conseil en grande culture. Économie rurale. Agricultures, alimentations, territoires 337: 59–74. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.4117. [Google Scholar]
  • Kilelu CW, Klerkx L, Leeuwis C. 2014. How dynamics of learning are linked to innovation support services: Insights from a smallholder commercialization project in Kenya. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 20(2): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2013.823876. [Google Scholar]
  • Klerkx L. 2020. Advisory services and transformation, plurality and disruption of agriculture and food systems: towards a new research agenda for agricultural education and extension studies. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 26(2): 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2020.1738046. [Google Scholar]
  • Knierim A, Labarthe P, Laurent C, Prager K, Kania J, Madureira L, et al. 2017. Pluralism of agricultural advisory service providers – Facts and insights from Europe. Journal of Rural Studies 55: 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.018. [Google Scholar]
  • Labarthe P, Laurent C. 2011. Économie des services et politiques publiques de conseil agricole. Cahiers Agricultures 20(5): 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1684/agr.2011.0508. [Google Scholar]
  • Lovelock C, Patterson P, Wirtz J. 2015. Services marketing, an Asia-pacific and Australian perspective. Melbourne (Australie): Eds Pearson, 508 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Mathé S, Faure G, Knierim A, Koutsouris A, Ndah TH, Temple L, et al. 2016. Typology of innovation support services, WP1 AgriSpin, deliverable 1.4. Montpellier (France): CIRAD, 19 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Mathé S, Audouin S, Fongang G, Gerster-Bentaya M, Knierim A, Ndah TH, et al. 2019. Designing frameworks for characterizing and assessing innovation support services and innovation support providers: SERVInnov project. In: European Seminar on Extension and Education (ESEE 2019): Agricultural education and extension tuned on innovation for sustainability. Experiences and perspectives, 24, Acireale, Italie. [Google Scholar]
  • Nettle R, Klerkx L, Faure G, Koutsouris A. 2017. Governance dynamics and the quest for coordination in pluralistic agricultural advisory systems. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 23(3): 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2017.1320638. [Google Scholar]
  • Petit S. 2013. « Faire avec » ou « donner du sens » aux normes : le conseil agricole dans un contexte de réglementation de l’agriculture. POUR 3: 203–210. https://doi.org/10.3917/pour.219.0203. [Google Scholar]
  • Pigford A, Hickey GM, Klerkx L. 2018. Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions. Agricultural Systems 164: 116–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.04.007. [Google Scholar]
  • Prager K, Labarthe P, Caggiano M, Lorenzo-Arribas A. 2016. How does commercialisation impact on the provision of farm advisory services? Evidence from Belgium, Italy, Ireland and the UK. Land Use Policy 52: 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.024. [Google Scholar]
  • Rigourd C, Dugué P. 2019. Relancer le conseil et la vulgarisation agricoles en Afrique subsaharienne Pour de nouvelles politiques en cohérence avec les réalités de terrain. Notes techniques No55. Paris (France) : AFD, 122 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Toillier A, Kola P. 2020. Le rôle des pratiques de gestion interorganisationnelles dans le renforcement de communautés d’innovation inexpérimentées : étude exploratoire au Burkina Faso. Innovations 2(62): 191–220. https://doi.org/10.3917/inno.062.0191. [Google Scholar]
  • Toillier A, Devaux-Spartakis A, Faure G, Barret D, Marquié C. 2018. Comprendre la contribution de la recherche à l’innovation collective par l’exploration de mécanismes de renforcement de capacité. Cahiers Agricultures 27(1): 15002. https://doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2017055. [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
  • Toillier A, Guillonnet R, Bucciarelli M, Hawkins R. 2020. Developing capacities for agricultural innovation systems: lessons from implementing a common framework in eight countries. Rome (Italy): FAO and Paris (France): Agrinatura, 116 p. [Google Scholar]
  • Touzard JM, Temple L, Faure G, Triomphe B. 2014. Systèmes d’innovation et communautés de connaissances dans le secteur agricole et agroalimentaire. Innovations 43: 13–38. https://doi.org/10.3917/inno.043.0013. [Google Scholar]
  • Tropical Agriculture Platform. 2016. Common framework on capacity development for agricultural innovation systems: Conceptual background. Wallingford (UK): CAB International, 99 p. [Google Scholar]
  • World Bank. 2006. Enhancing agricultural innovation: How to go beyond the strengthening of research systems. Washington DC (USA): World Bank, Agriculture & Rural Development Department, 135 p. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.