https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9540-2114
ABSTRACT
Agroecology is widely regarded and advocated as a participatory approach. This scoping review assessed the extent, range, and nature of available evidence on participatory research methods in agroecology studies conducted in South Asia. From 2069 records identified in two databases, we included a total of 27 studies, of which 20 were conducted in India. We found that a diverse range of participatory research methods have been used in agroecology studies. However, farmers are rarely engaged as study collaborators, co-researchers and decision-makers. We recommend that more researchers consider the full potential of participatory methods to develop relevant and effective agroecological solutions.
Introduction
Agroecology has been described as a transdisciplinary, participatory and action-oriented approach (Méndez, Bacon, and Cohen Citation2013) and experts have advocated for agroecology projects to “focus on solving real-world problems in close collaboration with the individuals and communities affected by those problems” (Mason et al. Citation2021). As an approach to agroecology research, local experiential and indigenous knowledge must be integrated with scientific knowledge through a collaborative, iterative and equitable research process.
Participatory research emphasizes direct engagement of local priorities and perspectives. It encompasses “research designs, methods, and frameworks that use systematic inquiry in direct collaboration with those affected by an issue being studied for the purpose of action or change” (Vaughn and Jacquez Citation2020). What these approaches all have in common is the value of doing research with people, rather than on subjects.
The distinguishing feature of participatory research is, therefore, the power of non-academic stakeholders to contribute to decision-making about the design and implementation of the research. In agroecology research, non-academic stakeholders include smallholder farmers, community members, civil society organizations, farmer associations, non-government organizations, local governments, and private sector organizations.
The degree of engagement and participation in the research process varies between and within studies, and the design of participatory research is likely to influence the impact it will have in the real world. Ideally, academic and non-academic partners will work together to co-design research that meets each other’s needs.
Decisions about the degree of participation may happen at different steps or ‘choice points’ in the research process (Vaughn and Jacquez Citation2020). presents a framework to help research teams to co-design genuine and meaningful participatory research by considering whether to inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower stakeholders.
Figure 1. Participation choice points in the research process (source: Vaughn and Jacquez Citation2020).
Mason et al. (Citation2021) used bibliometric and network analysis techniques to map the evolving landscape of agroecological research, showing how the field has transformed and diversified beyond the application of ecological principles to agricultural systems. This demonstrated that agroecology has become increasingly concerned with social and political aspects of food production and the interests of different actors/stakeholders in food systems. Hence, the term ‘participatory’ has slowly become more commonplace in agroecology research papers since the 1980s (Mason et al. Citation2021). Mason et al.’s review focused on identifying ‘research fronts’ or sub-fields of agroecology at global level. It did not disaggregate studies by region or explore the details of methods used.
Our review seeks to expand the growing body of work examining participatory activity in agroecological settings and give impetus to studies that empower local populations. We are interested in participatory and community-led approaches, and developing innovative methods and tools, to engage farmers and rural communities in transitions to agroecology. When we explored the literature in 2020, we found no comprehensive or systematic reviews of participatory research methods in agroecology. Furthermore, the IMMANA (Innovative Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions) Evidence and Gap Map launched in 2019 highlighted a paucity of studies using community-led or participatory approaches in the interdisciplinary field of agriculture-nutrition research.
The field of agriculture is, however, vast and it is necessary to set parameters in any study to make the process manageable and the results focused. Considering agroecology on a regional basis is a sensible first step at bridging the gap in the literature and offers a potential template to other work in different geographical areas as well as a platform on which to build work in our chosen location. We have an existing research interest in South Asia (specifically the nations of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives) and this fits with a particular need for work on participatory approaches in agroecology in this region (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Citation2015; Rahmanian et al. Citation2016). As Rahmanian et al. (Citation2016, 198) note in their reflections on the FAO symposia on agroecology of 2014 and 2015, participants in Asia “stressed the need to move to a holistic and inclusive approach for the development of agroecology, enhancing connections and partnerships between producers’ organizations and other public and private actors.” The FAO report for Asia and the Pacific (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Citation2015, 4) is explicit; “As a marriage of knowledges of farmers’ traditional knowledge and other sciences, agroecology calls for participatory research.” Consequently, the purpose of our review was to inform the co-development of research proposals with academic and non-academic partners in South Asia.
This scoping review specifically addresses the following research question: What is extent, range, and nature of available evidence on participatory research methods in agroecology studies conducted in South Asia? Furthermore, it aims to explore the types of agroecology research in which participatory research methods have been used, and the ways in which participatory research methods have been used across the field of agroecology. It will identify approaches where evidence exists, and highlight gaps and opportunities to engage individuals, communities and other non-academic stakeholders in the research process.
Methods
Review frameworks
We used two existing frameworks to ensure that our scoping review would provide a clear and comprehensive overview of available evidence on participatory research methods in agroecology studies conducted in South Asia.
First, we used the methodological framework for scoping reviews by Arksey and O’Malley (Citation2005). This framework was developed based on the authors’ experiences of conducting scoping studies and was chosen as one of our approaches as it provides a practical and logical approach to conducting scoping studies and has been extensively cited since its publication. The framework outlines five stages for conducting a scoping study or review (Arksey and O’Malley Citation2005):
Identifying the research question
Identifying relevant studies
Study selection
Charting the data
Collating, summarizing and reporting the results
Second, we used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) extension for scoping reviews, which provides reporting guidelines for this specific type of evidence synthesis and a checklist of 22 items to include when reporting a scoping review (Tricco et al. Citation2018).
We followed the PRISMA checklist except for three items. We did not register the review protocol (item 5), undertake critical appraisal of sources of evidence (item 12) or include studies (item 16). These are considered as optional items in the checklist and scoping reviews do not require formal appraisal of the quality of evidence, which is a key difference from systematic reviews (Sucharew and Macaluso Citation2019).
Search strategy
We developed a broad search strategy to identify articles relating to agroecology. We used similar search terms to Mason et al. (Citation2021) including hyphenated and non-hyphenated spellings of agroecology () and included studies conducted in South Asia (the countries of which are similarly noted in ). Our linguistic capability meant limiting the scope of publication to studies published in the English language. We searched two multidisciplinary academic research databases: Scopus and Web of Science (both 1970 to present) in March 2021. The searches were applied to titles, abstracts and keywords.
Table 1. Search terms used in Web of Science (search conducted on 4th March 2021).
Table 2. Search terms used in Scopus (search conducted on 4th March 2021).
While it might have been of interest to include variations on the term ‘agroecology’ (or ‘agro-ecology’) in our keyword searches this is a commonly used term, that we define below. Consequently, it would be expected to be included in any work within our search parameters. If the term was not included in search results, we would question whether these results were aiming to cover agroecology to the degree we identified (again defined below). Moreover, the volume of results that were initially returned from our searches was significant and to have included variations on either word, that could also have prompted a debate on accuracy, would have potentially increased the data to unmanageable proportions. However, this may be something that future studies consider as the literature is developed.
Study selection
Records identified during the search process were exported into Microsoft Excel (Version 2008) for de-duplication and screening. One reviewer (HO) removed the duplicates using the built-in function in Excel. Any other duplicates identified during the screening process were removed manually.
To be included in this review, studies were assessed against the following criteria:
Primary research of any design
Research conducted in one of more countries in South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives)
Relevance to agroecology
Participatory research methods
Agroecology and participatory research methods are both deliberately broad concepts, and we have also adopted a broad and inclusive approach in this scoping review. The following definitions were used during the screening process:
Agroecology was defined as “the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems” (Gliessman Citation2000). Studies were not included if they only referred to ‘agroecological zones’ or other geographical/physical indicators (regions, areas, locations, sites, conditions etc.) without also referring to agroecology as a practice or way of farming. This approach was consistent with the recent global review by Mason et al. (Citation2021).
Participatory research methods were defined as any methods (qualitative or quantitative) that were designed or implemented in direct collaboration with farmers, communities, or any other stakeholders involved with or end-users of the research. The research team agreed a list of terms that were used to identify potentially relevant studies: participatory, participative, cooperative, community-led, collaboration, collaborative, co-design, co-production, co-research, engagement, bottom-up, grassroots, etc.
The study selection process was completed in two stages. Titles and abstracts were independently screened against the inclusion criteria by two reviewers (HO and ZI). Studies appearing to meet the criteria were obtained as full text articles, which were independently screened using the same criteria (HO, ZI and CL). Any differences or disagreements were resolved through discussion with the whole team.
Mapping process
Data were extracted as needed to describe the key characteristics of each included study: authors, year of publication, title, study location, study design, study participants (number and stakeholder group) and types of participatory methods used. To explore the extent, range and nature of the evidence in more depth, we used the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 10 elements of agroecology as a framework to examine which aspects of agroecology were considered in each study (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Citation2018). We also mapped included studies against the five levels of participation depicted in ; to show which studies used participatory research methods to inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower stakeholders (Vaughn and Jacquez Citation2020).
Results
Search results
The PRISMA flow diagram shows how studies were identified and selected (). A total of 2069 records were identified in the electronic database searches, of which 97 appeared to be potentially relevant. In the full text assessment, 27 articles met the inclusion criteria for this review (reasons for exclusion of 70 articles shown in ).
Figure 2. PRISMA flow chart for scoping review.
General characteristics
presents key characteristics of the 27 studies included in this scoping review. The studies were conducted in four South Asian countries: India (n = 20) (Banerjee et al. Citation2014; Banik et al. Citation2006; Bhatta et al. Citation2017; Bijarniya, Parihar, and Jat et al. Citation2020; Bisht, Rana, and Pal Ahlawat Citation2020; Bonny et al. Citation2005; Borah et al. Citation2018; Chakraborty and Chaudhuri Citation2018; Friedrichsen et al. Citation2021; Gangwar, Tyagi, and Soni Citation2020; Kumar et al. Citation2019; Maikhuri, Rao, and Semwal Citation2001; Meinke et al. Citation2006; Rafiq, Najeeb, and Sheikh et al. Citation2016; Ramdas, Deepika, and Deepika Citation2001; Rawat et al. Citation2010; Reddy et al. Citation2016; Singh, Gohain, and Datta Citation2016; Singh, Singh, and Pandey Citation2014; Singh and Sureja Citation2008), Nepal (n = 5) (Bhatta et al. Citation2017; Gartaula et al. Citation2020; Pant et al. Citation2014; Yadav et al. Citation2018-1, Citation2018-2), Bangladesh (n = 3) (Bhatta et al. Citation2017; Ferdous et al. Citation2016; Kashem and Islam Citation1999) and Sri Lanka (n = 1) (Williams et al. Citation2018). We were unable to identify any relevant studies conducted in Afghanistan, Bhutan, Pakistan or the Maldives. The 27 included studies were published between 1999 and 2021, with more than half (n = 16) published since 2015.
Table 3. Key characteristics of 27 included studies and participatory research methods used.
Types of agroecology research
The included studies varied in terms of relevance to agroecology and specifically the 10 elements of agroecology (). All 27 studies were aligned with co-creation and sharing of knowledge since this element refers to participatory processes (and therefore integral to our inclusion criteria). Across the other nine elements, the most frequently represented in our included studies were human and social values (22/27 studies), culture and food traditions (22/27 studies) and resilience (20/27 studies). These elements are perhaps more closely aligned to participatory research methods than others, such as synergies (11/27 studies), responsible governance (8/27 studies) and circular and solidarity economy (6/27 studies). However, the 10 elements of agroecology are quite broadly defined, interrelated and overlapping (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Citation2018) and some studies referred to them less explicitly than others. With that in mind, illustrates the diversity and range of agroecological studies that have used participatory research methods in South Asia.
Table 4. Elements of agroecology that were considered in each included study.
Types of participatory research methods
includes a summary of the participatory research methods used in each study. The most reported method was Participatory Rural Appraisal (7/27 studies) (Banik et al. Citation2006; Kashem and Islam Citation1999; Rafiq, Najeeb, and Sheikh et al. Citation2016; Ramdas, Deepika, and Deepika Citation2001; Reddy et al. Citation2016; Singh, Singh, and Pandey Citation2014; Singh and Sureja Citation2008). Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) is an approach that enables farmers (and rural communities) to assess their own situation and contribute knowledge and opinions into the planning and management of natural resource management and agriculture (Better Evaluation. Participatory Rural Appraisal Citation2021). Other participatory research methods that were specifically named in the study methods include community-level participatory exercises (Bhatta et al. Citation2017), participatory strategic research trials (Bijarniya, Parihar, and Jat et al. Citation2020), participatory interaction meetings (Bisht, Rana, and Pal Ahlawat Citation2020), Participatory Learning, Experimentation, Action and Dissemination (PLEAD) (Bonny et al. Citation2005), Integrated Farmer Participatory Watershed Management (IFPWM) Model (Friedrichsen et al. Citation2021), participatory village appraisal (Kumar et al. Citation2019), participatory climate risk-management workshops (Meinke et al. Citation2006) and participatory action research (Rawat et al. Citation2010). We also included eight studies that used methods or approaches that we judged to be participatory but were not explicitly described using that terminology in the study methods (Banerjee et al. Citation2014; Borah et al. Citation2018; Ferdous et al. Citation2016; Gartaula et al. Citation2020; Maikhuri, Rao, and Semwal Citation2001; Pant et al. Citation2014; Singh, Gohain, and Datta Citation2016; Williams et al. Citation2018). The 27 included studies varied in terms of the degree or level of participation reported (). A greater proportion of used participatory approaches to inform (13/27 studies), consult (all 27 studies) and involve (18/27 studies) stakeholders; compared to higher levels of participation such as shared decision-making, co-design and co-leadership of research, whereby participatory research methods were used to collaborate (9/27 studies) and empower (2/27 studies) stakeholders. We did not assess the degree of participation at each stage of the research process (as depicted in ) because in many cases the study methods were not reported in sufficient detail to enable us to do this equitably across all 27 included studies.
Table 5. Degree or level of participation reported in each included study.
Discussion
This scoping review provides an overview of the extent, range and nature of available evidence on participatory research methods in agroecology studies conducted in South Asia. We included 27 relevant articles, of which 16 were published since 2015, suggesting that participatory approaches have become more commonly used in recent years. This finding is consistent with a recent study using bibliometric and content analysis techniques, which showed that use of the word ‘participatory’ in agroecology studies has gradually increased over time (Mason et al. Citation2021). Given that participatory and action-oriented approaches have been widely advocated by experts in agroecology (Méndez, Bacon, and Cohen Citation2013), the adoption and development of participatory research methods appears to have been slow – or perhaps they are not always clearly reported. Indeed, we identified some studies that we considered to be participatory in nature, which did not use the term ‘participatory’ at all.
As we approached the final stages of our review, a global systematic review was published that explored the use of participatory methods in agroecology, and the extent to which participatory approaches contribute to agroecology transitions (Sachet et al. Citation2021). The authors of this opted to limit the search results by including “case study” as a keyword. They identified 23 case studies using participatory methods, out of 145 case studies in total that were relevant to agroecology. Only three of the 23 case studies were also included in our scoping review (Bhatta et al. Citation2017; Meinke et al. Citation2006; Rawat et al. Citation2010). We included primary research of any design and, therefore, our review captured more relevant studies from South Asia than did the systematic review.
Despite these differences, the findings of this recent systematic review complement our findings and demonstrate the potential for developing this body of work through further investigations. Sachet et al. also identified a diverse range of participatory methods, including participatory rural appraisal (PRA), rapid rural appraisal (RRA), participatory learning, and participatory action research. They described some participatory methods as ‘extractive’ meaning that “participants are consulted on a particular topic without opening space for co-learning, interaction, and potential self-mobilization” (Sachet et al. Citation2021).
This reflects our findings on the degree or level of participation in agroecology studies not limited to case studies (). We found that many studies used participatory methods to obtain or exchange knowledge with farming communities, or to engage farmers in study implementation on their land, rather than empowering them as collaborators and co-researchers throughout the research process. However, we identified two studies conducted in India that exemplified a deeper level of participation and engagement with farmers and farming communities i.e. the end-users of the research.
Bonny et al. (Citation2005) developed the PLEAD model (participatory learning, experimentation, action and dissemination) through consultation and collaboration with 18 farmer research groups in Kerala. This farmer-researcher partnership model promotes interactive co-learning and innovation, with farmers empowered as knowledge holders, decision-makers and problem solvers. It resulted in the development of effective coping strategies and interventions to enhance the long-term sustainability of local agroecosystems.
Kumar et al. (Citation2019) used participatory village appraisals to understand the priorities and constraints of smallholder farmers in three districts in Rajasthan. Study methods included transect walks, household surveys, focus group discussions, consultation meetings and a multi-stakeholder interactive platform. A participatory process was used to develop a farm household typology (reflecting biophysical, socio-economic and ecological characteristics) and subsequently co-design and pilot context specific interventions for each household type.
We acknowledge some limitations of this scoping review. We endeavored to be systematic, consistent, inclusive and transparent during the study selection process. However, this was challenging with criteria based on two broad concepts: agroecology and participatory research methods. As we identified, additional key words that some authors may use synonymously for these concepts could have been included. We may also have included some studies that other reviewers would not have included. This challenge has been observed in the wider literature on participatory research methods:
“Although the results of participatory research are prolific in the literature, it can be difficult to isolate concrete descriptions of how the research was collaboratively conducted” (Vaughn and Jacquez Citation2020).
We focused on two academic research databases (due to resource limitations) and we may have missed additional relevant studies published in the gray literature. Scopus and Web of Science are two of the largest databases and they only include articles published in peer-reviewed journals, thus providing some level of assurance of coverage and study quality. Future reviewers could improve on our approach by consulting the gray literature and developing a more targeted search strategy. The FAO Agroecology Knowledge Hub is a valuable resource containing not just articles but video, learning and other materials outside of traditional academic search parameters that could be a useful starting point for this. Moreover, it may be of interest to compare agroecological projects with more ‘conventional’ agriculture work, identifying if there are more innovative participatory approaches in the former than the latter, or if conventional agriculture can be part of the increasing participation discussion.
In conclusion, this scoping review illustrates that a diverse range of participatory research methods have been used in agroecology studies in South Asia. However, farmers and other non-academic stakeholders largely remain in the position of participants and informants. They are rarely engaged as study collaborators, co-researchers and decision-makers. We recommend that more researchers consider the full potential of participatory methods to develop relevant and effective agroecological solutions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
References
- Arksey, H., and L. O’Malley. 2005. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 8 (1):19–32. doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616.
- Banerjee, H., R. Goswami, S. Chakraborty, S. Dutta, K. Majumdar, T. Satyanarayana, M. L. Jat, and S. Zingore. 2014. Understanding biophysical and socio-economic determinants of maize (Zea mays L.) yield variability in eastern India. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 70-71(1):79–93. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2014.08.001.
- Banik, P., A. Midya, S. Fajardo, and S. Pheng Kam. 2006. Natural Resource Inventory of Luppi Village, Eastern Plateau of India: Implications for Sustainable Agricultural Development. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 28 (2):85–100. doi:10.1300/J064v28n02_07.
- Better Evaluation. Participatory Rural Appraisal (Accessed online in October 2021): https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/approach/PRA
- Bhatta, G. D., H. R. Ojha, P. K. Aggarwal, V. R. Sulaiman, P. Sultana, D. Thapa, N. Mittal, K. Dahal, P. Thomson, L. Ghimire. 2017. Agricultural innovation and adaptation to climate change: Empirical evidence from diverse agro-ecologies in South Asia. Environment, Development and Sustainability 19 (2):497–525. doi:10.1007/s10668-015-9743-x.
- Bijarniya, D., C. M. Parihar, R. K. and Jat, M. L. 2020. Portfolios of Climate Smart Agriculture Practices in Smallholder Rice-Wheat System of Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains – Crop Productivity. Resource Use Efficiency and Environmental Foot Prints. Agronomy 10 (10):1561. doi:10.3390/agronomy10101561.
- Bisht, I. S., J. C. Rana, and S. Pal Ahlawat. 2020. The Future of Smallholder Farming in India: Some Sustainability Considerations. Sustainability 12 (9):3751. doi:10.3390/su12093751.
- Bonny, B. P., R. M. Prasad, S. S. Narayan, and M. Varughese. 2005. Participatory Learning, Experimentation, Action and Dissemination (PLEAD): A Model for Farmer-Participatory Technology Evolution in Agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture 34 (2):111–15. doi:10.5367/0000000054224346.
- Borah, N., F. D. Athokpam, R. L. Semwal, and S. K. Garkoti. 2018. Chakhao (Black Rice; Oryza sativa L.): A culturally important and stress tolerant traditional rice variety of Manipur. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 17:789–94.
- Chakraborty, S., and S. K. Chaudhuri. 2018. Integrating diverse knowledge bases for empowering local farmers in India. Annals of Library and Information Studies 65 (3):147–55.
- Ferdous, Z., A. Datta, A. K. Anal, M. Anwar, and A. S. M. Mahbubur Rahman Khan. 2016. Development of home garden model for year round production and consumption for improving resource-poor household food security in Bangladesh. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 78 (1):103–10.
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2015. Report on the Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on Agroecology in Asia and the Pacific. https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1189969/
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2018. The 10 elements of agroecology: Guiding the transition to sustainable food and agricultural systems. FAO; Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/I9037EN/i9037en.pdf.
- Friedrichsen, C. N., M. C. Monroe, S. H. Daroub, and S. P. Wani. 2021. Yuck! Plural Valuation of Constructed Wetland Maintenance for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment in Rural India. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.564539.
- Gangwar, D. S., S. Tyagi, and S. K. Soni (2020). Connecting Farmers to Knowledge, Networks and Institutions for Agroecological Sustainability. International Conference on Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Gorakhpur, India (ICE3), 311–15. DOI: 10.1109/ICE348803.2020.9122983.
- Gartaula, H., K. Patel, S. Shukla, and R. Devkota. 2020. Indigenous knowledge of traditional foods and food literacy among youth: Insights from rural Nepal. Journal of Rural Studies 73:77–86. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.12.001.
- Gliessman, S. R. 2000. Agroecology: Ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. Ed. E. Engles, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
- Kashem, M. A., and M. M. Islam. 1999. Use of Indigenous Agricultural Technologies by the Rural Men and Women Farmers in Bangladesh. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 14 (2–3):2–3, 27–43. doi:10.1300/J064v14n02_05.
- Kumar, S., P. Craufurd, A. Haileslassie, T. Ramilan, A. Rathore, and A. Whitbread. 2019. Farm typology analysis and technology assessment: An application in an arid region of South Asia. Land Use Policy 88:104149. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104149.
- Maikhuri, R. K., K. S. Rao, and R. L. Semwal. 2001. Changing scenario of Himalayan agroecosystems: Loss of agrobiodiversity, an indicator of environmental change in Central Himalaya, India. The Environmentalist 21 (1):23–39. doi:10.1023/A:1010638104135.
- Mason, R. E., A. White, G. Bucini, J. Anderzén, M. V. E, and S. C. Merrill. 2021. The evolving landscape of agroecological research. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 45 (4):551–91. doi:10.1080/21683565.2020.1845275.
- Meinke, H., R. Nelson, P. Kokic, R. Stone, R. Selvaraju, and W. Baethgen. 2006. Actionable climate knowledge: From analysis to synthesis. Climate Research. 33(1):101–10. doi:10.3354/cr033101.
- Méndez, V. E., C. M. Bacon, and R. Cohen. 2013. Agroecology as a Transdisciplinary, Participatory, and Action-Oriented Approach. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (1):3–18. doi:10.1080/10440046.2012.736926.
- Pant, L. P., K. C. Bahadur, E. D. G. Fraser, P. K. Shrestha, A. B. Lama, S. K. Jirel, and P. Chaudhary. 2014. Adaptive Transition Management for Transformations to Agricultural Sustainability in the Karnali Mountains of Nepal. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38 (10):1156–83. doi:10.1080/21683565.2014.942022.
- Rafiq, M., S. Najeeb, and F. A. Sheikh. 2016. Farmer’s participatory varietal selection in Japonica rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Kashmir valley. SABRAO Journal of Breeding and Genetics 48 (2):200–09.
- Rahmanian, M., J. Gomez, L. Bannò, and A. Meybeck. 2016. What types of markets to support agroecology? Reflections from the FAO agroecology symposia. Sustainable Value Chains for Sustainable Food Systems 193.
- Ramdas, S. R., G. Deepika, and G. Deepika. 2001. Changing Livelihoods, Livestock and Local Knowledge Systems: Women Stake their Claim in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Indian Journal of Gender Studies 8 (2):175–94. doi:10.1177/097152150100800202.
- Rawat, L. S., R. K. Maikhuri, V. S. Negi, A. Bahuguna, K. S. Rao, S. K. Agarwal, and K. G. Sexena. 2010. Managing natural resources with eco-friendly technologies for sustainable rural development: A case of Garhwal Himalaya. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 17 (5):423–30. doi:10.1080/13504509.2010.505372.
- Reddy, K. S., P. K. Pankaj, N. N. Reddy, and N. S. Raju. 2016. Participatory Rural Appraisal in Drylands: A Holistic Approach for Getting Insight into an Agro-Ecosystem Analysis. Journal of Rural Development 35 (4):555–80.
- Sachet, E., O. Mertz, J. Le Coq, G. S. Cruz-Garcia, W. Francesconi, M. Bonin, and M. Quintero. 2021. Agroecological Transitions: A Systematic Review of Research Approaches and Prospects for Participatory Action Methods. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 5:397. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.709401.
- Singh, A. K., I. Gohain, and M. Datta. 2016. Upscaling of agroforestry homestead gardens for economic and livelihood security in mid–tropical plain zone of India. Agroforestry Systems 90 (6):1103–12. doi:10.1007/s10457-015-9886-7.
- Singh, R. K., A. Singh, and C. B. Pandey. 2014. Agro-biodiversity in rice–wheat-based agroecosystems of eastern Uttar Pradesh, India: Implications for conservation and sustainable management. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 21 (1):46–59. doi:10.1080/13504509.2013.869272.
- Singh, R. K., and A. K. Sureja. 2008. Indigenous knowledge and sustainable agricultural resources management under rainfed agro-ecosystem. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 7 (4):642–54.
- Sucharew, H., and M. Macaluso. 2019. Methods for Research Evidence Synthesis: The Scoping Review Approach. Journal of Hospital Medicine 7 (7):416–18. doi:10.12788/jhm.3248.
- Tricco, A. C., E. Lillie, W. Zarin, K. K. O’Brien, H. Colquhoun, D. Levac, D. Moher, M. D. J. Peters, T. Horsley, L. Weeks, et al. 2018. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 169(7):467–73. doi:10.7326/M18-0850.
- Vaughn, L. M., and F. Jacquez. 2020. Participatory Research Methods – Choice Points in the Research Process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods 1 (1). doi: 10.35844/001c.13244.
- Williams, N. E., A. R. Carrico, I. Edirisinghe, and P. A. J. Champika. 2018. Assessing the Impacts of Agrobiodiversity Maintenance on Food Security Among Farming Households in Sri Lanka’s Dry Zone. Economic Botany 72 (2):196–206. doi:10.1007/s12231-018-9418-2.
- Yadav, R. K., A. R. Adhikari, S. Gautam, K. H. Ghimire, R. Dhakal, and M. Tejada Moral. 2018-2. Diversity sourcing of foxtail millet through diversity assessment and on-farm evaluation. Cogent Food & Agriculture 4 (1):1. doi:10.1080/23311932.2018.1482607.
- Yadav, R. K., S. Gautam, E. Palikhey, B. K. Joshi, K. H. Ghimire, R. Gurung, A. R. Adhikari, N. Pudasaini, and R. Dhakal. 2018-1. Agro-morphological diversity of Nepalese naked barley landraces. Agriculture & Food Security 7 (1):86. doi:10.1186/s40066-018-0238-5.