Presented at the 10th European International Farming Systems Association (IFSA) Symposium, 1-4 July 2012 in Aarhus, Denmark. Ingram, J, Mills, J, Frelih-Larsen, A and Davis, M. (2012). Uptake of soil management practices and experiences with decisions support tools: Analysis of the consultation with the farming community. Deliverable 5.1 http://smartsoil.eu/fileadmin/www.smartsoil.eu/WP5/D5_1_Final.pdf SmartSOIL Aims to contribute to reversing the current degradation trend of European agricultural soils by improving soil carbon management in European arable and mixed farming systems covering intensive to low-input and organic farming systems. Two overall aims: To identify farming systems and agronomic practices that result in an optimized balance between crop productivity and soil carbon sequestration. To develop and deliver a decision support tool (DST) and guidelines to support novel approaches to different European soils and categories of beneficiaries (farmers, farm advisory and extension services, and policy makers). This presentation relates to the second of these aims

1. Using stakeholder consultation in the
development of a Decision Support Tool in
the SmartSOIL project
Julie Ingram*, Jane Mills (CCRI) & Ana-Frelih-Larsen, Sandra Naumann (Ecologic)
The 10th European International Farming Systems Association
(IFSA) Symposium, 1-4 July 2012 in Aarhus, Denmark
* corresponding author jingram@glos.ac.uk
copyright CCRI 2012

2. www.smartsoil.eu
Presentation from analysis by partners (WP4&5) in the EU FP7 project:
SmartSOIL: Sustainable farm Management Aimed at Reducing Threats to
SOILs under climate change
SmartSOIL aims to contribute to reversing the current degradation trend
of European agricultural soils by improving soil carbon management in
European arable and mixed farming systems covering intensive to low-
input and organic farming systems

3. SmartSOIL
Two overall aims:
• To identify farming systems and agronomic practices that
result in an optimized balance between crop productivity
and soil carbon sequestration.
• To develop and deliver a decision support tool (DST) and
guidelines to support novel approaches to different
European soils and categories of beneficiaries (farmers,
farm advisory and extension services, and policy makers).
This presentation addresses the 2nd aim

4. DST development - past experiences
DSTs (all formats) - widely used, aid deficiencies of human
judgement, can help to reduce uncertainty, can address
complex tasks
BUT
Problems occur- especially with Decision Support Systems:
• Usefulness / relevance - salience
• Distrust of the output - credibility
• Not suited to all users - legitimacy
(Mir and Quadri, 2009)

5. DST development - participatory approaches
Participatory approaches overcome these problems and assist in
development and ultimate use of DSTs (McCown, 2001; Jakku and
Thorburn, 2009)
This presentation aims to explore how stakeholder consultation can
help in the development of SmartSOIL DST and specifically how it can
help to improve the salience, credibility, and legitimacy of DST

6. Conceptualisation- DSTs operate at boundaries
• Boundaries exist between scientific community and practitioners
(advisers, farmers)
• Different norms and expectations in the two communities, regarding
what constitutes ‘reliable evidence, convincing argument, procedural
fairness, and appropriate characterisation of uncertainty’. Cash et al
(2002)
• Boundaries exist between Communities of Practice where members
share the same concerns, practices, history and frames of reference
Wenger (1998)
• Where DSTs are developed in a participatory way they have been
described as ‘boundary objects’ because they provide a common point
of reference, they describe items that sit between two different social
worlds (Star and Griesemer, 1989)

7. Improving
knowledge
WP1 LTEs & new
Linking soil carbon & experiments
crop productivity
WP4
WP2 DST &
Soil WP5
Guidelines
management Stakeholder
systems in involvement &
dissemination
Europe
WP3
Economic appraisal Applying
of soil management knowledge
options
Case studies
SmartSOIL scheme of work

8. SmartSOIL approach: DST development
Stakeholder
consultation:
interviews &
workshops

9. 6 Case study regions
9

10. DST development: stakeholder consultation
• First consultation*
• 7-10 advisers, policy makers (decision makers) & research
practitioners interviewed in each of 6 case study regions
*Full details in Ingram et al. (2012). Uptake of soil management
practices and experiences with decisions support tools: Analysis of
the consultation with the farming community. Deliverable 5.1

11. DST development: interview questions
• What is the general understanding, awareness and
implementation of soil management practices
(specifically: cover crops, rotation, residue management,
tillage management, manure and fertiliser management)?
• What data are available and used to develop tools?
• What are the experiences and views of DSTs (all formats)?
• What should the SmartSOIL DST provide?

12. Results- Salience
Salience: relevant to needs of decision makers; information
should be timely and address issues on their agendas
Interviews found that:
• soil carbon management is not relevant to advisers/farmers
• advisers and farmers do not focus on single issues
• soil carbon management operates on a different timescale
(much longer) than most production related decisions
• sensitivity of model parameters does not reflect real concerns
• perceived relevance -amount and quality of data required -
I think it would suit some people but the initial trade off the
amount of information that you have to put in to get
something robust out at the other end is off putting. Adviser,
Scotland

13. Results- Credibility
Credibility: scientific plausibility of the technical evidence
and arguments. Sources of knowledge must be deemed
trustworthy and/or believable, along with the facts,
theories, and causal explanations
Interviews found that:
One of the problems is that there is so much uncertainty
about carbon at the simplest level. It would be helpful to
have consensus in scientific community first of all.
Researcher, UK

14. Results: Credibility
Even “experts” [advisers] don’t know which practice to
recommend to farmers when they ask how can I conserve
the quality of soil and mitigate climate change. The
practices are too complicated, very difficult to recommend
one fertiliser or another because all have different effects
and advantages/disadvantages. The communication to
the farmers is not necessarily the issue, more important,
agree and display some clarity on “best practice. Adviser,
Spain
At the advising level it is crucial to have a proof, an
evidence of the effects of a practice. Adviser, Italy

15. Results: Credibility
Tools and models are too complicated. The more
precise measure you want, the more complicated the
model. Most DSTs are not precise enough at soil level to
provide the sort of recommendations that farmers
want. Most models don’t have a feel of accuracy of
history of land to provide that detail. An agronomist
constantly working on a particular soil type and
cropping system will have that knowledge. I think the
take up of tools by agronomists is low. The newer ones
[tools]are very complicated and they take time to
understand and learn. If you have been farming your
farm for 30 years you know what your soil is capable of
delivering. Researcher, UK

16. Results: Legitimacy
Legitimacy: the perception that the production of
information and technology has been respectful of
stakeholders’ divergent values and beliefs and unbiased
Interviews found that:
• case studies have a range of farming systems and farmers
• computerised DSTs - issues of resources, access,
broadband, farmer type (age, education)
• not all farmers use an adviser
• some farming systems are not able to incorporate some
soil carbon management practices -eg cover crops not
used in Scotland

17. SmartSOIL DST - Improving salience of DST
• Needs to be relevant to the farmers’ timescale
• Inputs need to be accessible and significant in real life
• Approach the issue from a farming point of view -economic
benefits should be prioritised
• Do not focus on one aspect -
You can’t just focus on one aspect, it’s a balancing act, you
can’t be prescriptive - it’s local and it’s management related
Adviser, UK
• Improve integration with other tools and continuity
Tools and models are all developed separately, distinct, with
no continuity or integration.

18. SmartSOIL DST - Improving credibility of DST
• Balance simplicity/effectiveness
It is essential to simplify the information in order to
communicate a complex message to local situations
however simplicity also reduces effectiveness.
• Improve confidence in outcomes –particularly at farm
scale where experiential knowledge already works well
• Communicate scientific certainty - provide evidence and
demonstration of practices being recommended
• Improve clarity and transparency in tool development

19. SmartSOIL DST - Improving legitimacy of DST
• Continue SH consultation
• Consider all users (access to PCs, access to broadband,
access to advisers, age education, farming systems)
• Develop a range of formats in a ‘tool box’ to suit
different users’ needs and preferences

20. SmartSOIL next steps
The iterative approach will continue with workshops enabling further consultation,
feedback and DST validation. This presentation will be developed into a full
publication.
Stakeholder
consultation:
interviews &
workshops

21. References
David Cash, William Clark, Frank Alcock, Nancy Dickson, Noelle Eckley, and Jill Jäger 2002. Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and
Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making Faculty Research Working Papers Series November 2002. RWP02-046
Ingram, J, Mills, J, Frelih-Larsen, A and Davis, M. (2012). Uptake of soil management practices and
experiences with decisions support tools: Analysis of the consultation with the farming community.
Deliverable 5.1 http://smartsoil.eu/fileadmin/www.smartsoil.eu/WP5/D5_1_Final.pdf
Jakku E and Thorburn P A 2009 conceptual framework for guiding the of participatory development of agricultural decision support
systems. CSIRO ISSN 1834 -5638
R. L. McCown, S.L. 2001 Learning to bridge the gap between science-based decision support and the practice of farming: Evolution in
paradigms of model-based research and intervention from design to dialogue Aust. J. Agric. Res., 2001, 52, 549–571
Mir, Shabir Ahmad and Quadri,S.M.K. 2009. Decision Support Systems: Concepts, Progress and Issues – A Review. In E. Lichtfouse (ed.),
Climate Change, Intercropping, Pest Control and Beneficial Microorganisms, Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 2, Springer Science
andBusiness Media B.V. pp373-399
Star S.L., Griesemer J.R. (1989), Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19 (3), pp. 387-420.
Wenger, E., (1998). Communities of Practice, Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cambridge University Press