No abstract

The co-creation of knowledge is gaining recognition and use within the science, practice, and movement of agroecology. Knowledge co-creation fosters participatory learning and development, which differs from passive knowledge sharing. This approach can bridge the real and perceived gaps across diverse forms of knowledge, including what is often distinguished as farmers’ traditional, Indigenous, tacit, or local knowledge and experts’ scientific, western, or generalizable knowledge. Formal academic documentation of processes and outcomes related to knowledge co-creation is limited; therefore, we bring in examples of published research, drawing from fields of agroecology, participatory action research, and science and technology studies, along with a firsthand farmer perspective on co-creation. Combined, these frameworks offer insight into the potential benefits of knowledge co-creation in agroecology. Many of these challenges, such as navigating power dynamics, may be addressed through mindful research and community practices, including strong communication and transparent expectations and goals. Co-creation processes have traditionally and continually taken place between farmers and throughout communities without academic acknowledgment and/or interpretation of such. We reinstate the invaluable role of farmer-centered inquiry, understanding, and application, which offer benefits to individual farmers and their extended communities of practice and research, in addition to holding spiritual and cultural significance. The co-creation of knowledge in agroecology presents a compelling, adaptive approach and outcome for the increasingly complex challenges facing farmers and the agrifood system.

No abstract

Farmers and policy makers pursue management practices that enhance water quality, increase landscape flood resiliency, and mitigate agriculture’s contribution to climate change, all while remaining economically viable. This study presents a holistic assessment of how two practices influence the supply of these ecosystem services—the use of an aerator prior to manure application in haylands, and the stacked use of manure injection, cover crops, and reduced tillage in corn silage production. Field data are contextualized by semi-structured interviews that identify influences on adoption. Causal loop diagrams then illustrate feedbacks from ecosystem services onto decision making. In our study, unseen nutrient pathways are the least understood, but potentially the most important in determining the impact of a practice on ecosystem services supply. Subsurface runoff accounted for 64% to 92% of measured hydrologic phosphorus export. Average soil surface greenhouse gas flux constituted 38% to 73% of all contributions to the equivalent CO2 footprint of practices, sometimes outweighing carbon sequestration. Farmers identified interest in better understanding unseen nutrient pathways, expressed intrinsic stewardship motivations, but highlighted financial considerations as dominating decision making. Our analysis elevates the importance of financial supports for conservation, and the need for comprehensive understandings of agroecosystem performance that include hard-to-measure pathways.

As agricultural conservation priorities evolve to address new complex social-ecological problems and emerging social priorities, new conservation incentive program participation and success can be enhanced by incorporating local stakeholder preferences into program design. Our research explores how farmers incorporate ecosystem services into management decisions, their willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem services programs, and factors beyond compensation level that would influence participation. We conducted three focus groups with 24 participants between January of 2019 and May of 2019 in Vermont. Our study revealed that a strong, intrinsic stewardship ethic motivates farmers to enhance ecosystem service provisioning from their farms, though financial pressures often limit decision-making. These results suggest that programs with sufficient levels of payment may attract participation, at least among some types of farmers, to enhance ecosystem services from farms in Vermont. However, farmers may be deterred from participating by perceived unfairness and distrust of the government based on previous experiences with regulations and conservation incentive structures. Farmers also expressed distrust of information about ecosystem services supply that conflicts with their perceptions of agroecosystem functioning, unless delivered by trusted individuals from the extension system. The delivery of context-specific information on how management changes impact ecosystem service performance from trusted sources could enhance farmers' decisions, and would aptly complement payments. Additionally, farmers expressed a desire to see a program that both achieves additionality and rewards farms who have been stewards, goals that are potentially at odds. Our findings offer important insights for policy makers and program administrators who need to understand factors that will influence farmers' willingness to participate in payment for ecosystem service programs and other conservation practice adoption initiatives, in Vermont and elsewhere.