How to intensify collaboration in a participatory modelling process to collectively design and evaluate new farming systems

Published: 26 February 2024
Abstract Views: 227
PDF: 281
HTML: 57
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


  • Jean-Marc Barbier INRAE Ringgold Standard Institution – ACT, Montpellier; INRAE UMR Innovation, Montpellier, France.
  • Caroline Tardivo INRAE Ringgold Standard Institution – ACT, Montpellier, France.
  • Sylvestre Delmotte INRAE Ringgold Standard Institution – ACT, Montpellier, France.
  • Roberto Cittadini INTA Ringgold Standard Institution – EEA Balcarce, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  • Laure Hossard Ringgold Standard Institution – Innovation, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
  • Christophe Le Page CIRAD Montpellier Campus International de Baillarguet Ringgold Standard Institution – UMR SENS, Montpellier, Occitanie, France.

Agricultural research is expected to foster agro-ecological transitions. For that purpose, methodologies of participative integrated assessment of new farming and cropping systems are requested. However, the territory level and the stakeholders’ participation are often not sufficiently embraced. Based on the companion modeling approach, a group of researchers from different disciplines experimented an approach where researchers and stakeholders collaborated intensively all along the process of design and use of the model. The researchers selected a small rural area where agriculture plays a major role (Valensole plateau, south of France) and where they had not carried out any investigation before. In such conditions, we argue that the interactions between researchers and stakeholders involved in the co-design from scratch of a simulation model stimulate a collective reflection about the sustainability of current and alternative farming systems. This article describes the different phases of the process from stakeholders’ enrolment until the final discussion of the results provided by the model. It underlines the conditions that favored the emergence of consensus and the production of a new set of knowledge. It emphasizes how the discordances between data and disagreements between stakeholders were used to stimulate collective debates and underlines the role played by the model. Finally, the article discusses the drawbacks that the approach did not overcome.



PlumX Metrics


Download data is not yet available.


Albaladejo C, Casabianca F (Eds), 1997. La Recherche‐action. Ambitions, pratiques, débats. Etud. Rech. Syst. Agraires Dév. 30:212.
Alcamo J, Henrichs T, 2008. Toward guidelines for environmental scenario analysis. In: Alcamo J. (ed.), Environmental Futures. The Practice of Environmental Scenario Analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 13‐35. DOI:
Barouch G, 1989. La décision en miettes, systèmes de pensée et d’action à l’œuvre dans la gestion des milieux naturels. L’Harmattan, Collection Logiques Sociales.
Becu N, Neef A, Schreinemachers P, Sangkapitus C, 2008. Participatory computer simulation to support collective decision‐making: potential and limits of stakeholder involvement. Land Use Policy 25:498‐509. DOI:
Berthet ET, Barnaud C, Girard N, Labatut J, Martin G. 2016. How to foster agroecological innovations? A comparison of participatory design methods. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 59:280‐301. DOI:
Bousquet F, Bakam I, Proton H, Le Page C, 1998. Cormas: common‐pool resources and multi‐agent systems. In: International Conference on Industrial, Engineering and Other Applications of Applied Intelligent Systems. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 826‐37. DOI:
Bousquet F, Barreteau O, Le Page C, Mullan C, Weber J, 1999. An environmental modelling approach. The use of multi‐agents simulations. In: Blasco F, Weill A, eds. Adv. Environ. Ecol. Model. Paris, Elsevier, pp. 113‐22.
Chambers R, Pacey A, Thrupp LA. (eds), 1989. Farmer first. Farmer innovation and agricultural research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. p. 218. DOI:
Commod, 2009. La posture d’accompagnement des processus de prise de décision: les références et les questions transdisciplinaires. In: Hervé, D. Lalöe, F. (eds). Modélisation de l’environnement: entre natures et sociétés, Versailles (France): Quæ, pp. 71‐89.
d'Aquino P, Bah A, 2013. A bottom‐up participatory modelling process for a multi‐level agreement on environmental uncertainty management in West Africa. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 56:271‐85. DOI:
Daniell KA, Costa MaM, Ferrand N, Kingsborough AB, Coad P, and Ribarova IS, 2011. Aiding multi‐level decision‐making processes for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Reg. Environ. Change 11:243‐58. DOI:
Delmotte S, Lopez‐Ridaura S, Barbier JM, Wery J, 2013. Prospective and participatory integrated assessment of agricultural systems from farm to regional scales: Comparison of three modeling approaches. J. Env. Manag. 129:493‐502. DOI:
Delmotte S, Couderc V, Mouret JC, Lopez‐Ridaura S, Barbier JM, Hossard L, 2017. From stakeholders narratives to modelling plausible future agricultural systems. Integrated assessment of scenarios for Camargue, Southern France. Eur. J. Agron. 82:292‐307. DOI:
Delmotte S, Barbier JM, Mouret JC, Le Page C, Wery J, Chauvelon P, Sandoz A, Lopez Ridaura S, 2016. Participatory integrated assessment of scenarios for organic farming at different scales in Camargue, France. Agric. Syst. 143:147‐58. DOI:
Doré T, Sebillotte M, Meynard JM, 1997. A Diagnostic Method for Assessing Regional Variations in Crop Yield. Agric. Syst. 54:169‐88. DOI:
Eden C, 2004. Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 159:673‐86. DOI:
Etienne M (ed.), 2011. Companion modelling. A participatory approach to support sustainable development. Versailles: Quae.
Eksvärd K, Rydberg T, 2010. Integrating participatory learning and action research and systems ecology: a potential for sustainable agriculture transition. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 23:467‐86. DOI:
Gasselin P, Lardon S, Cerdan C, Loudiyi S, Sautier D, 2020. The coexistence of agricultural and food models at the territorial scale: an analytical framework for a research agenda. Rev. Agric. Food Environ. Stud. 101:339-61. DOI:
Filatova T, Verburg PH, Parker DC, Staanard CA, 2013. Spatial agent‐based models for socio‐ecological systems: challenges and prospects. Environ. Model. Softw. 45:1‐7. DOI:
Ginger C, 2014. Integrating knowledge, interests and values through modelling in participatory processes: dimensions of legitimacy. J Environ. Plan. Manag. 57:643-59. DOI:
Gonzalez‐Laporte C, 2014. Recherche‐action participative, collaborative, intervention... Quelles explicitations? [Rapport de recherche] Labex ITEM. hal‐01022115.
Gouttenoire L, Taverne M, Cournut S, Hostiou N, Houdart M, Lardon S, 2014. Faciliter les échanges entre chercheurs sur les projets de recherche participative : proposition d'une grille d'analyse. Cah. Agric. 23:205‐12. DOI:
Greenwood DJ, 1993. Participatory action research as a process and a goal. Human Relat. 46:175‐92. DOI:
Hassenforder E, Pittock J, Barreteau O, Daniell KA, Ferrand N, 2016. The MEPPP Framework: A Framework for Monitoring and Evaluating Participatory Planning Processes. Environ. Manag. 57:79‐96. DOI:
Hossard L, Jeuffroy MH, Pelzer E, Pinochet X, Souchere V, 2013. A participatory approach to design spatial scenarios of cropping systems and assess their effects on phoma stem canker management at a regional scale. Environ. Model. Softw. 48:17‐26. DOI:
Hossard L, Tardivo C, Barbier JM, Cittadini R, Delmotte S, Le Page C, 2022. Embedding the integrated assessment of agricultural systems in a companion modeling process to debate and enhance their sustainability. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42:1‐17. DOI:
Hugon MA, Seibel C, 1988. Recherches impliquées, recherche action: le cas de l’éducation. Rev. Française Pédagog 92:113‐4.
Jakku E, Thorburn PJ, 2010. A Conceptual Framework for Guiding the Participatory Development of Agricultural Decision Support Systems. Agric. Syst. 103:675‐82. DOI:
Jeuffroy MH, Loyce C, Lefeuvre T, Valantin‐Morison M, Colnenne‐David C, Gauffreteau A, Médiène S, Pelzer E, Reau R, Salembier C, Meynard JM, 2022. Design workshops for innovative cropping systems and decision‐support tools: learning from 12 case studies. Eur. J. Agron. 139:126573. DOI:
Korfmacher K, 2001. The politics of participation in watershed modelling. Environ. Manag. 27:161‐76. DOI:
Lang A, Ramseyer M, 2011. Analyse‐diagnostic de l'agriculture du Plateau de Valensole, le rôle de l'irrigation en question. AgroParisTech. p. 236.
Le Page C, Becu N, Bommel P, Bousquet F, 2012. Participatory agent‐based simulation for renewable resource management: the role of the Cormas simulation platform to nurture a community of practice. J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul. 15:10. DOI:
Le Page C, Perrotton A, 2017. KILT: A modelling approach based on participatory agent‐based simulation of stylized socio‐ecosystems to stimulate social learning with local stakeholders. In: Pereira Dimuro G, Antunes L (eds). Multi‐Agent Based Simulation, XVIII International Workshop, 2017, São Paulo, Brazil, May 8-12, 2017, Revised Selected Paper. Cham: Springer, pp. 156‐69. DOI:
Liu M, 1992. Représentation de la recherche‐action: définition, déroulement et résultats. Revue Internationale de Systémique VI:293‐311.
Lopez‐Ridaura S, Masera O, Astier M, 2002. Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecol. Indic. 2:135‐48. DOI:
Martel G, Terrier‐Gesbert M, Johany F, Dernat S, 2022. Le numérique au service des différentes phases de création et d’utilisation des jeux sérieux en agriculture. Annales des Mines 19:67-73.
Mettrick H, 1993. Development oriented research in agriculture: an ICRA Textbook. International Centre for Development Oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA), Netherlands. p. 291.
Michel L, Soulard CT, Chia E, 2018. Comprendre la faible participation des agriculteurs à la gouvernance territoriale. Revue Européenne des Sciences Sociales 56:113‐42. DOI:
Michel L, Mc Namara P, 2014. Serious games: faites vos jeux! In: Systèmes d’Information and Management, ESKA (eds)., vol. 19. DOI:
Neef A, Neubert D, 2011. Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a conceptual framework for reflection and decision‐making. Agric. Human Values 28:179‐94. DOI:
Pouw N, Gupta J. 2017. Inclusive Development: A Multi‐Disciplinary Approach. Current Opinion. Environ. Sustain. 24:104-08. DOI:
Pretty JN, 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Develop. 23:1247‐63. DOI:
Reed MS, 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Cons 141:2417‐31. DOI:
Sadok W, Angevin F, Bergez JE, Bockstaller C, Colomb B, Guichard L, Reau R, Messéan A, Doré T, 2009. MASC, a qualitative multi‐attribute decision model for ex ante assessment of the sustainability of cropping systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29:447‐61. DOI:
Salembier C, Elverdin JH, Meynard JM, 2016. Tracking on‐farm innovations to unearth alternatives to the dominant soybean‐based system in the Argentinean Pampa. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36:1‐10. DOI:
Schmidt L, Falk T, Siegmund‐Schultze M, Spangenberg JH, 2020. The Objectives of Stakeholder Involvement in Transdisciplinary Research. A Conceptual Framework for a Reflective and Reflexive Practise. Ecol. Econ. 176:106751. DOI:
Scholz G, Dewulf A, Pahl‐Wostl C, 2013. An Analytical Framework of Social Learning Facilitated by Participatory Methods. Syst. Pract. Act. Res. 27:575‐91. DOI:
Sébastien L, Brodhag C, 2004. A la recherche de la dimension sociale du développement durable. Développement Durable et Territoires, vol. 3. DOI:
Souchère V, Millair L, Echeverria J, Bousquet F, Le Page C, Etienne M, 2010. Co‐constructing with stakeholders a role‐playing game to initiate collective management of erosive runoff risks at the watershed scale. Environ. Model. Softw. 25:1359‐70. DOI:
Star SL, 2010. This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Sci. Technol. Human Values 35:601‐17. DOI:
Supagro, 2013. Étude préalable à l'accompagnement des acteurs dans la mise en œuvre de bonnes pratiques agricoles sur le plateau de Valensole. Montpellier Supagro.
Sun Z, Lorscheid I, Millington JD, Lauf S, Magliocca NR, Groeneveld J, Balbi S, Nolzen H, Müller B, Schulze J, Buchmann CN, 2016. Simple or complicated agent‐based models? A complicated issue. Environ. Model. Softw 86:56-67. DOI:
Tardivo C, Delmotte S, Le Page C, Barbier JM, Cittadini R, 2014. Diagnosis of socio‐ecological systems and stakeholder analysis for agricultural regions: Cognitive maps to formalize stakeholders’ knowledge and elicit viewpoints. 11th European IFSA Symposium, 2‐4 April 2014, Berlin, Germany.
Varela‐Ortega C, 2011. Participatory modeling for sustainable development in water and agrarian systems: potential and limits of stakeholder involvement. Presentation at the EAAE 2011 Congress «Change and Uncertainty: Challenges for agriculture, food and natural resources», Zurich, Switzerland, p. 19.
van Ittersum MK, Ewert F, Heckelei T, Wery J, Olsson JA, Andersen E, Bezlepkina I, Brouwer F, Donatelli M, Flichman G, Olsson L, Rizzoli AE, van der Wal T, Wien JE, Wolf J. 2008. Integrated assessment of agricultural systems – a component‐based framework for the European Union (SEAMLESS). Agric. Syst. 96:150-65. DOI:
Van Mierlo BC, Regeer B, Amstel MV, Arkesteijn M, Beekman V, Bunders J, Cock Buning TD, Elzen B, Hoes A, Leeuwis C, 2010. Reflexive monitoring in action: a guide for monitoring system innovation projects, Wageningen UR. Communicatie en Innovatie studies.
van Paassen A, Roetter RP, van Keulen H, Hoanh CT, 2007. Can computer models stimulate learning about sustainable land use? Experience with LUPAS in the humid (sub‐)tropics of Asia. Agric. Syst. 94:874‐87. DOI:
Veldkamp A, Fresco LO, 1996. CLUE‐CR: An integrated multi‐scale model to simulate land use change scenarios in Costa Rica. Ecol. Model. 91:231‐48. DOI:
Verburg PH, Schot PP, Dijst MJ, Veldkamp A, 2004. Land use change modelling: current practice and research priorities. GeoJournal 61:309‐24. DOI:
Vinck D, 2009. De l’objet intermédiaire à l’objet‐frontière. Vers la prise en compte du travail d'équipement. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 3:51‐72. DOI:
Voinov A, Bousquet F, 2010. Modelling with stakeholders. Environ. Model. Softw. 25:1268‐81. DOI:
Voinov A, Kolagani N, McCall MK, Glynn PD, Kragt ME, Ostermann FO, 2016. Modeling with stakeholders – Next generation. Environ. Model. Softw. 77:196‐220. DOI:
Worosz MR, 2022. Transdisciplinary research for wicked problems. Agric. Human Values 39:1185-9. DOI:

How to Cite

Barbier, J.-M., Tardivo, C., Delmotte, S., Cittadini, R., Hossard, L., & Le Page, C. (2024). How to intensify collaboration in a participatory modelling process to collectively design and evaluate new farming systems. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 18(4).