Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering

ISSN 2095-7505

ISSN 2095-977X(Online)

CN 10-1204/S

Postal Subscription Code 80-906

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.    2022, Vol. 9 Issue (4) : 558-576    https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2022465
RESEARCH ARTICLE
THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BACKYARD AS A LOCAL LEVEL INNOVATION INTERMEDIARY IN RURAL CHINA
Jinghan LI1, Cees LEEUWIS1, Nico HEERINK2, Weifeng ZHANG3,4()
1. Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen 6706KN, the Netherlands
2. Development Economics Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen 6706KN, the Netherlands
3. College of Resources and Environmental Science, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
4. College of Resources and Environment, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China
 Download: PDF(3516 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

● Agricultural innovation is a coevolution process of hardware, software and orgware.

● Innovation intermediaries is important for the coevolution process of agricultural innovation.

● The roles of STBs have evolved from a knowledge broker to a broader innovation intermediary at the village level.

● Facilitating orgware is more effective than enabling software in promoting farmers’ adoption of improved tillage practice.

● Collaboration between individual STBs is needed to support the coevolution process of innovation at a larger scale.

Agricultural innovation can be described as a coevolutionary process of technological innovation, symbolic change, and social or institutional innovation, which relies on the interactions and collaboration between multiple stakeholders. This view emphasizes the significance of innovation intermediaries in supporting the coevolution process of innovation. Many studies have provided evidence on how innovation intermediaries play roles in supporting the coevolution innovation process at a broader innovation system level. However, little emphasis has been given to the role of innovation intermediaries in supporting the coevolution process of innovation at the community level in rural China. To address this research gap, this paper offers a case study of a novel type of innovation support intervention designed to promote technical change at the community level, the Science and Technology Backyard (STB). The paper focuses on the efforts of a specific STB in Wangzhuang village to promote innovation in tillage methods in wheat production. The aims was to examine the role of this newly emerging innovation support intervention in supporting the coevolution process of innovation at the community level, and compare the outcome of the coevolution process in the village with an STB to that in villages without an STB. Innovation journey analysis is applied to understand the evolved intermediation roles in the innovation process, and multivariate regression analysis is employed to assess the outcome of the coevolution process in villages with and without an STB. The findings suggest that the roles of STBs have evolved from knowledge brokers to systemic innovation intermediaries that facilitate the coevolution process of innovation inside an STB village. It has led to a higher adoption rate of improved technology, a better enabling environment for learning, and more effective institutional support in STB villages than in non-STB villages. However, the effect of support provided by a single STB on the coevolution process outside the community was limited. This finding points to a need for collaboration mechanisms and for connecting single STBs to support the coevolution process of innovation at a larger scale.
Keywords agricultural innovation      coevolution      community level      innovation intermediaries      Science and Technology Backyards (STBs)     
Corresponding Author(s): Weifeng ZHANG   
Just Accepted Date: 15 August 2022   Online First Date: 27 September 2022    Issue Date: 07 November 2022
 Cite this article:   
Jinghan LI,Cees LEEUWIS,Nico HEERINK, et al. THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BACKYARD AS A LOCAL LEVEL INNOVATION INTERMEDIARY IN RURAL CHINA[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2022, 9(4): 558-576.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2022465
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2022/V9/I4/558
Roles Explanation
Demand articulation Facilitating the process of identifying innovation challenges and opportunities, including social or technical problem diagnosis, demand assessment, and social environment diagnosis with various stakeholders
Institutional support Facilitating and advocating informal or formal institutional change (e.g., policy change and stimulating new collaboration relationships)
Network brokering Identifying and linking different actors
Capacity building Incubating new organizational forms or strengthening the capacity of existing organizations. The capacity can be performed as more effective work arrangements, broader network etc.
Innovation process management Coordinating interaction and facilitating negotiation and learning among different actors
Knowledge brokering Identifying knowledge/technology needs, generating new knowledge or technology, and mobilizing and disseminating the technology and knowledge from different sources
Tab.1  Innovation intermediation roles and their explanation
Methods Materials Samples/Objectives Information gathered
Secondary material collection WZ STB work diary from Dec. 2012 to Dec. 2017 9 MSc or PhD candidates who worked in WZ STB (1164 pages) History of tillage method change and efforts of STB staff since Dec. 2012
Thesis or journal articles of early STB students 2 MSc and 1 PhD who worked in WZ STB from 2011 to 2013 Early activities about tillage method change
Semi-structured interviews Farmers 2 farmers (1 farmer being an FC member) Early activities about tillage method change
STB staff 2 (1 staff who worked in WZ STB from 2011 to 2013; 1 WZ STB manager from 2011 to present) Early activities about tillage method change
Tab.2  Overview of data collection
Sample Number of observations
Total STB village Non-STB villages
Township* 10 1 10
Village 34 1 33
Farmers 349 27 322
Tab.3  Sample description
Fig.1  Timeline of coevolution process of innovation in tillage methods, WZ STB village from 2011 to 2017. X indicates activities related to software (red, specialized in tillage methods; and blue, imprehensive activities included tillage methods); o indicates activities related to orgware. All the ogware activities are specified only for the STB village.
Innovation type Activities Innovation intermediation roles
Phase1
Software Field survey before the 2011–2012 wheat season F1, diagnosing the challenges for the local production and defining the technology demands
A series of technology extension activities inside the STB village F6, transfer the improved technology to the local farmers in different approaches
Hardware In-field DPT experiments in the 2011–2012 wheat season F6, linking scientific knowledge with local practice: defining the technology demands, making technical solutions and verifying its effects
Orgware None None
Phase2
Software Multistakeholder interview F1 & F3, identifying the relevant stakeholders (F3), and diagnosing the social constraints to their adoption of the improved tillage practice (F1)
A series of technology extension activities inside and outside the STB village, some of them accompanied by social activities F6 & F3, transfer the improved technology to local farmers in different approaches and develop interpersonal relations with local farmers (F3)
Hardware None None
Orgware Creating a small-scale demonstration CLUP F2, F3, F5 & F6, coordinating with local farmers with the help of two leading farmers (F3 & F5); creating a demonstration land through a new approach (F2), and this demonstration field was applied to convince farmers to adopt improved practice (F6)
Phase3
Software A series of technology extension activities inside the STB village, some of them accompanied by social activities F6 & F3, transferring technology to farmers (F6) and developing interpersonal relations with local farmers (F3)
Assisting FC in applying the municipal science base F4, strengthening the capacity of local FC and increasing FC impacts on a larger scale
Farmer questionnaire survey and in-field survey or observation F1, continuous problem diagnosis through different ways
Hardware Refitting the technical practice through in-field DPRT experiments F6, connecting technological innovation with local farmer demands and social environment
Introducing a new DPT machine F1 & F4, defining the demands for the DPT service (F1), convincing FC to buy new machines to increase their DPT service capacity (F4)
Orgware Gradually increasing the size of CLUP F2–F5, facilitating the CLUP model (F2 & F4) through cooperating and coordinating with local smallholders, FC, and cadres (F3 & F5)
Intensive meeting with local farmers, FC, machine operators, and cadres F1–F6, helping smallholders to articulate their demand for lower service price and higher tillage quality (F1), and training local machine operators on the tillage standards (F6); facilitating informal arrangements about tillage quality supervision, process coordination, and service price discount (F2) through linking smallholders, FC, machine operators, and cadres (F3); developing and strengthening a clear work arrangement for the tillage season to help the tillage process run effectively (F2 & F5); strengthening the work efficiency of FC and farmer trust on the FC tillage quality by convincing FC to introduce new machine and setting operation standards (F2 & F4)
Tab.4  Summary of innovation activities related to tillage methods and the roles of STB in supporting the process
Basic information non-STB (n = 322) STB (n = 27)
Gender of householder (1 = male; 0 = female) 0.96 0.89
Age of householder (years) 58.9 55.0***
Education of householder (years) 7.92 8.52***
Off-farm occupation (1 = yes; 0 = no) 0.27 0.33
Operated total farm size (ha) 0.82 1.40***
Size of the largest plot (ha) 0.18 0.28
Flatness of the largest plot (1 = very uneven; 2 = uneven; 3 = fair; 4 = flat; 5 = very flat) 3.79 3.96
Tab.5  Basic information of farmers in the STB village and the non-STB villages
Non-STB villages (n = 322) STB village (n = 27)
Adoption rate of DPRT (%) 6.52 96.3***
Yield (t·ha−1) 7.97 8.94***
Yield for farmers who did not adopt the DPRT (t·ha−1) 7.97 9.00@
Yield for farmers who adopted the DPRT (t·ha−1) 8.06 8.97***
Farmers changing from SRT to DPRT in the past 10 years (%) 4.04 90.7**
Period when farmers changed technology (%)
2011–2015 23.1 54.5
2016–2020 76.9 45.5
Tab.6  DPRT adoption and technology transition in STB village and non-STB villages, 2019–2020 wheat season
Non-STB villages STB village
Characteristic Top-downOne-off Bottom-up and top-downLong-term exposure
Tools Single　• Lecture/in-field guidance Multiple　• In-field experiments　• Farmer field school　• Technology poster on the street wall　• Technology display boards in the field　• Technology broadcast　• Technology night schoolWith social activities, like square dancing, movie night
Timing Non-agricultural working period 7–10 days before every key agricultural management period during the whole growth season
Content General Specific suggestions
Tab.7  Comparison of non-STB villages and STB village in technology extension exposure
Non-STB villages (n = 322) STB village (n = 27)
Exposure
Technology training on DPRT (1 = yes; 0 = no) 0.08 0.30
Technology recommendation on DPRT (1 = yes; 0 = no) 0.32 0.48
Long-term exposure to knowledge (1 = yes; 0 = no) 0.0 1.0***
In-field experiments (1 = yes; 0 = no) 0.25 0.70**
Knowledge
Awareness of the existence of DPRT (1 = yes; 0 = no) 0.57 1.00**
For those who adopt DPRT, knowledge score on
Detailed definition of DPRT (1 = very unclear; 2 = unclear; 3 = fair; 4 = clear; 5 = very clear) 3.73 4.55***
Impact of DPRT on production (score 0–5) 3.93 4.13
Suitable application scenarios (score 0–3) 2.71 2.75
Perceived constraints to adoption (score 0–3) 0.83 0.58
Standards for assessing operation quality (score 0–4) 1.05 1.12
Tab.8  Exposure, knowledge and score on DPRT in STB and non-STB villages in 2020
Non-STB villages (n = 322) STB village (n = 27)
Access to rotary tillage machinery 96.9 100.0
For those who can access rotary tillage machinery, the source they access
self-owned 5.13 11.1
machinery services provided inside the village 90.7 88.9
machinery services from other villages 4.17 0.00
Access to deep plowing machinery 22.6 100.0***
For those who can access deep plowing machinery, the source they access
self-owned 2.74 7.41
machinery services provided inside the village 65.8 88.9***
machinery services from other villages 31.4 3.70
Tab.9  Access to tillage machinery in STB village and non-STB villages (%)
Non-STB villages (n = 322) STB village (n = 27)
Participating in (FCs) 7.1 66.7***
For those who participate in FCs, service received from the FC
Technology service 29.2 44.4
Agriculture input products purchase 33.3 16.7
Mechanical service 16.7 5.56
Combination of 2 or 3 of these services 20.8 33.3
Tab.10  Participation in farmer cooperatives (FCs) and services received from the FC (percentages)
Variable name and definition Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Dependent variables
Adoption of DPRT (1 = yes; 0 = no) 0.13 0.34 0 1
Independent variables
Enabling software
One-off training on general tillage methods (1, if farmer received one-off training on general tillage methods; 0, if farmer did not receive one-off training on general tillage methods) 0.09 0.29 0 1
Specific technical practice recommendations on DPRT (1, if farmer received specific DPRT recommendation; 0, if farmer did not receive specific DPRT recommendation) 0.34 0.47 0 1
In-field experiments (1, if there was an experiment in farmer land; 0, if there was no experiment in farmer land) 0.29 0.45 0 1
Facilitating orgware
Participation in farmer cooperatives (1 = yes; 0 = no) 0.12 0.32 0 1
Access to rotary machinery (1, if farmer can access to rotary machinery from any source; 0, if farmer cannot access to rotary machinery) 0.97 0.17 0 1
Access to deep plowing machinery (1, if farmer can access to deep plowing machinery from any source; 0, if farmer cannot access to deep plowing machinery) 0.29 0.37 0 1
Farmer characteristics (of the household head)
Gender (1 = male; 0 = female) 0.95 0.22 0 1
Age (year) 58.6 10.2 30 87
Education (year) 7.97 3.53 0 18
Off-farm occupation (1, if farmer with off-farming jobs even in the harvest season or farmer with farming job only in the harvest season; 0, if farmer without off-farm job or only occasional off-farm job) 0.28 0.45 0 1
Plot characteristics (of the largest plot)
Plot size (ha) 0.19 0.15 0.01 1.07
Plot flatness (1 = very uneven; 2 = uneven; 3 = fair; 4 = flat; 5 = very flat) 3.80 0.92 1 5
Tab.11  Variables used in the regression analysis (n = 349)
Factors Adoption of DPRT (1 = yes; 0 = no)
(Model 1) (Model 2)
Enabling software
One-off training on general tillage methods −0.00 0.00
(0.044) (0.047)
Specific technical practice recommendations on DPRT 0.05 0.04
(0.034) (0.033)
In-field experiments 0.05 0.05
(0.043) (0.037)
Facilitating orgware
Participation in farmer cooperatives 0.31** 0.29**
(0.122) (0.128)
Access to rotary tillage machinery −0.05 −0.01
(0.043) (0.038)
Access to deep plowing machinery 0.16* 0.15*
(0.086) (0.079)
Farmer characteristics (of the household head)
Gender – −0.09
(0.092)
Age – 0.00
(0.001)
Education – −0.00
(0.003)
Off-farm occupation – −0.01
(0.022)
Plot characteristics (of the largest plot)
Plot size – 0.19**
(0.085)
Plot flatness – −0.01
(0.009)
Pseudo R2 0.2770 0.3040
Observations 349 349
Tab.12  Factors affecting farmer adoption of DPRT in the 2019–2020 wheat season (logit model)
Fig.2  Schematic representation of STB as an innovation intermediary to support the coevolution of software, orgware, and hardware, and the outcome of the coevolution process.
1 R E, Evenson D Gollin. Assessing the impact of the green revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, 2003, 300( 5620): 758–762
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1078710 pmid: 12730592
2 E M, Rogers A, Singhal M Quinlan. Diffusion of innovations. In: Salwen M B, Stacks D W, eds. An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research. Routledge, 1996, 182–186
3 M, Sartas M, Schut C, Proietti G, Thiele C Leeuwis. Scaling readiness: science and practice of an approach to enhance impact of research for development. Agricultural Systems, 2020, 183 : 102874
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102874
4 S, Wigboldus L, Klerkx C, Leeuwis M, Schut S, Muilerman H Jochemsen. Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2016, 36( 3): 46
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0380-z
5 M, Schut L, Klerkx M, Sartas D, Lamers Campbell M, Mc I, Ogbonna P, Kaushik K, Atta-Krah C Leeuwis. Innovation platforms: experience with their institutional embedding in agricultural research for development. Experimental Agriculture, 2016, 52( 4): 537–561
https://doi.org/10.1017/S001447971500023X
6 C, Leeuwis der Ban A van. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension. 3 eds. Wiley-Blackwell, 2004
7 R Smits. Innovation studies in the 21st century: questions from a user’s perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2002, 69( 9): 861–883
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(01)00181-0
8 C W, Kilelu L, Klerkx C Leeuwis. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme. Agricultural Systems, 2013, 118 : 65–77
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.03.003
9 C, Leeuwis M, Schut A, Waters-Bayer R, Mur K, Atta-Krah B Douthwaite. Capacity to Innovate from a System CGIAR Research Program Perspective. Penang, Malaysia: CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems , 2014
10 Bank World. Enhancing agricultural innovation: how to go beyond the strengthening of research systems? Washington DC: World Bank , 2006
11 C, Leeuwis N Aarts. Rethinking adoption and diffusion as a collective social process: towards an interactional perspective. In: Campos H, ed. The Innovation Revolution in Agriculture. Springer, 2021, 95–116
12 M P, Hekkert R A A, Suurs S O, Negro S, Kuhlmann R E H M Smits. Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2007, 74( 4): 413–432
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.002
13 C W, Kilelu L, Klerkx C, Leeuwis A Hall. Beyond knowledge brokering: an exploratory study on innovation intermediaries in an evolving smallholder agricultural system in Kenya. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 2011, 7( 1): 84–108
https://doi.org/10.1080/19474199.2011.593859
14 W, Kanda O, Hjelm J, Clausen D Bienkowska. Roles of intermediaries in supporting eco-innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 205 : 1006–1016
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.132
15 T, Gliedt C E, Hoicka N Jackson. Innovation intermediaries accelerating environmental sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 174 : 1247–1261
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.054
16 J, Markard B Truffer. Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: towards an integrated framework. Research Policy, 2008, 37( 4): 596–615
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.004
17 H, Yang L, Klerkx C Leeuwis. Functions and limitations of farmer cooperatives as innovation intermediaries: findings from China. Agricultural Systems, 2014, 127 : 115–125
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.02.005
18 W, Zhang G, Cao X, Li H, Zhang C, Wang Q, Liu X, Chen Z, Cui J, Shen R, Jiang G, Mi Y, Miao F, Zhang Z Dou. Closing yield gaps in China by empowering smallholder farmers. Nature, 2016, 537( 7622): 671–674
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19368 pmid: 27602513
19 P, Yang X, Jiao D, Feng S, Ramasamy H, Zhang Z, Mroczek W Zhang. An innovation in agricultural science and technology extension system: case study on science and technology backyard. Rome: FAO , 2021
20 Academy of Agriculture Green Development (NAAGD) National. Science and Technology Backyard: a 500-year-old fantasy turned into a global practice. Beijing: NAAGD , 2021
21 L, Klerkx S, Adjei-Nsiah R, Adu-Acheampong A, Saïdou E, Zannou L, Soumano O, Sakyi-Dawson Paassen A, van S Nederlof. Looking at Agricultural Innovation Platforms through an Innovation Champion Lens. Outlook on Agriculture, 2013, 42( 3): 185–192
https://doi.org/10.5367/oa.2013.0137
22 L, Klerkx N, Aarts C Leeuwis. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: the interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems, 2010, 103( 6): 390–400
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.012
23 L, Wang J, Li J, Li W X Bai. Effects of tillage rotation and fertilization on soil aggregates and organic carbon content in corn field in Weibei Highland. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 2014, 25( 3): 759–768
pmid: 24984494
24 S, Tian T, Ning Y, Wang Z, Liu G, Li Z, Li R Lal. Crop yield and soil carbon responses to tillage method changes in North China. Soil & Tillage Research, 2016, 163 : 207–213
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.06.005
25 C Jia. The Demonstration of High-yield and High-efficiency Technology for Winter Wheat-Summer Maize in Wangzhuang Village, Quzhou Country, Hebei Province. Dissertation for the Master’s Degree. Beijing: China Agricultural University , 2013 ( in Chinese)
26 F Wang. Application and Demonstration of Soil Deep Plowing and Deep Loosing Technologies. Dissertation for the Master’s Degree. Beijing: China Agriculture University , 2013 ( in Chinese)
27 P Zhao. Quantifying and Closing Yield Gaps for Winter Wheat and Summer Maize Rotation in Smallholder Farming System. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Beijing: China Agriculture University , 2016 ( in Chinese)
28 F, Wang G, Cao Q, Liu H, Zhang J Shen. Present situation, problems and countermeasures of production mechanization of wheat-maize rotation system in Huanghuaihai region: taking Quzhou County as an example. Journal of Hebei Agricultural Sciences, 2012, 16(6): 58− 62 ( in Chinese)
29 X, Jiao C, Wang F Zhang. Science and Technology Backyard: a novel model for technology innovation and agriculture transformation towards sustainable intensification. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2019, 18( 8): 1655–1656
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62770-X
30 X, Liu Y, Zhang W, Han A, Tang J, Shen Z, Cui P, Vitousek J W, Erisman K, Goulding P, Christie A, Fangmeier F Zhang. Enhanced nitrogen deposition over China. Nature, 2013, 494( 7438): 459–462
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11917 pmid: 23426264
31 Z, Yuan S, Jiang H, Sheng X, Liu H, Hua X, Liu Y Zhang. Human perturbation of the global phosphorus cycle: changes and consequences. Environmental Science & Technology, 2018, 52( 5): 2438–2450
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03910 pmid: 29402084
32 J, Huang C, Xiang X, Jia R Hu. Impacts of training on farmers’ nitrogen use in maize production in Shandong, China. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2012, 67( 4): 321–327
https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.67.4.321
33 J, Huang Z, Huang X, Jia R, Hu C Xiang. Long-term reduction of nitrogen fertilizer use through knowledge training in rice production in China. Agricultural Systems, 2015, 135 : 105–111
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.01.004
34 X, Jia J, Huang C, Xiang D Powlson. Reducing excessive nitrogen use in Chinese wheat production through knowledge training: what are the implications for the public extension system. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 2015, 39( 2): 189–208
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.967436
35 J, Huang R, Hu J, Cao S Rozelle. Training programs and in-the-field guidance to reduce China’s overuse of fertilizer without hurting profitability. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008, 63( 5): 165A–167A
https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.63.5.165A
36 X P, Chen Z L, Cui P M, Vitousek K G, Cassman P A, Matson J S, Bai Q F, Meng P, Hou S C, Yue V, Römheld F S Zhang. Integrated soil-crop system management for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011, 108( 16): 6399–6404
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101419108 pmid: 21444818
37 J, Chen M, Zheng D, Pang Y, Yin M, Han Y, Li Y, Luo X, Xu R, Li Z Wang. Straw return and appropriate tillage method improve grain yield and nitrogen efficiency of winter wheat. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2017, 16( 8): 1708–1719
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61589-7
38 J A, Turner L, Klerkx K, Rijswijk T, Williams T Barnard. Systemic problems affecting co-innovation in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System: identification of blocking mechanisms and underlying institutional logics. NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 2016, 76( 1): 99–112
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2015.12.001
39 J, Rodenburg M, Schut M, Demont L, Klerkx G, Gbèhounou Lansink A, Oude M, Mourits T, Rotteveel J, Kayeke Ast A, van L, Akanvou M, Cissoko J, Kamanda L Bastiaans. Systems approaches to innovation in pest management: reflections and lessons learned from an integrated research program on parasitic weeds in rice. International Journal of Pest Management, 2015, 61( 4): 329–33940
https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2015.1066042
40 Q, Gao C Zhang. Agricultural technology extension system in China: current situation and reform direction. Management Science and Engineering, 2008, 2( 4): 47–58
41 R, Hu Y, Cai K Z, Chen J Huang. Effects of inclusive public agricultural extension service: results from a policy reform experiment in western China. China Economic Review, 2012, 23( 4): 962–974
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2012.04.014
42 X, Jiao H, Zhang W, Ma C, Wang X, Li F Zhang. Science and technology backyards: a novel approach to empower smallholder farmers for sustainable intensification of agriculture in China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2019, 18( 8): 1657–1666
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62592-X
[1] FASE-22465-OF-LJH_suppl_1 Download
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed