Disentangling critical success factors and principles of on-farm agricultural demonstration events

Figures & data

Table 1. Original case studies of demonstration activities.

Country	Case study ID	Case studies
Belgium	BE1	Open Energy day
	BE3	Bayer ForwardFarming programme: demonstrations on innovative solutions for sustainable agriculture
Bulgaria	BG1	Demonstration on renewable energy sources in milk production
	BG2	Demonstrations on new plant protection technologies in grain crop production
Croatia	HR1	Wheat and barley field day
	HR3	On-farm demonstration on vegetable production
France	FR3	INOSYS network: demonstration days on livestock breeding
	FR4	SYPPRE project: demonstrations on innovative cropping systems
Italy	IT1	DEMOdays on sustainable viticulture
	IT2	Demonstration day on soil management in organic farming
Latvia	LV1	Informal farm visits in integrated fruit production
	LV2	Herbivore project: farm days in animal husbandry
Netherlands	NL1	National leek day
	NL3	Grounded maize cropping project: demonstration on undersowing grass with maize
Norway	NO1	Field day on optimal soil culture
	NO2	Theme day on berry production in plastic tunnels
Poland	PL1	National potato day
	PL2	Festival of onion, potato and soya
Spain	ES1	Farm visits on extensive crop trials
	ES2	Demonstration on organic cow cheese production
Switzerland	CH1	Arenenberg Arable day
	CH2	PROVIEH programme: organic cattle day
United Kingdom	UK3	Field event on integrated farm management
	UK5	Lothian Monitor Farm

Note: All case study reports are available at https://zenodo.org/record/3444499#.XhLQ30czYWU.

Table 2. Characteristics of the demonstration success factors and principles.

Success factor	Description	Challenge	Success principle	Relevant earlier studies	Original case study reports highlighting the factor
PURPOSE	The objective(s) the organisers implicitly or explicitly define for the demonstration	The needs and interests of supply and demand side can diverge or fail to be articulated. Absent or poorly formulated objectives limit the possibility to assess the demonstration outcome.	Set a clear and jointly agreed objective at the outset	Hancock 1997; Bailey et al. 2006; Heiniger et al. 2002	BE1, BE2, NL2, PL1
PROBLEM	The topic chosen for the demonstration	The choice and definition of the topic influences the prospects of attracting the target audience. The main challenge is to balance local user demand and national/public interest.	Identify and frame a topic tailored to farmers’ needs	Bailey et al. 2006; Leeuwis 2004; Magill and Rogers 1981; Hancock 1997; Heiniger et al. 2002; Millar and Curtis 1997; Gandhi et al. 2009; Kania and Kiełbasa 2015; Pangborn, Woodford, and Nuthall 2011; Richardson 2003	CH1, CH2, LV1, LV2, BE1, BE3, BG1, ES1, ES2, IT1, IT2, FR3, NO2
PLACE	The geographical site of the event and profile of farm where the demonstration is held	Selection of the site has implications for the benefits and credibility perceived by the target audience. It is not only about spatial but also social proximity of the host farm.	Select a physically and socially accessible and credible site	Bailey et al. 2006; Hancock 1997; Knapp 1916; Leeuwis 2004; Kania and Kiełbasa 2015; Richardson 2003	BE1, BE3, IT1, IT2, BG1, ES1, PL1, PL2, LV1, LV2, UK2
PERSONNEL	The profile of individuals involved in the organisation and implementation of the demonstration	The personnel need to possess a range of complementary personal and professional characteristics to allow for both efficient management and user-value of demonstration.	Ensure a motivated and trusted team of organisers and facilitators	McDowell 1929; Warner 2006; Hancock 1997; Elmquist and Krysztoforski 2015; La Grange et al. 2010; Lukuyu et al. 2012; Millar and Curtis 1997; Gandhi et al. 2009; Bailey et al. 2006; Kania and Kiełbasa 2015; Richardson 2003	FR3, NO1, NO2, LV1, LV2, UK1, UK2, BE3, CH1, CH2, BG1, ES1, ES2, IT1, IT2, HR3
POSITIONING	The pre-event process of profiling the demonstration and recruiting the potential visitors	The value and impact of demonstration can be undermined by having either limited or unsuitable audience. The challenge lies in positioning the activity vis-à-vis the target group and communicating it in an unbiased way.	Identify, address, and reach the target audience	Knapp 1916; Elmquist and Krysztoforski 2015; La Grange et al. 2010; Bailey et al. 2006; Hancock 1997	IT1, LV2, BE3, BG1, ES2, FR3, IT1, IT2, NL2, NO1, PL1, UK2
PROGRAMME	The structure of the event in terms of the type, sequence, and timing of planned activities	The challenge in designing the programme is to find the right balance between different types of activities that satisfy the objectives of the organisers and are attractive enough for the attendees.	Design a balanced set of formal and informal activities		CH2, NL1, NL2, NO1, NO2, PL1, UK1, BG1, BE1, BE3, CH1, CH2, IT1, IT2, ES1, ES2, FR3
PROCESS	The mix of means used to communicate the solutions demonstrated	The number and diverse cognitive profiles of visitors can limit an even distribution of learning effects across the audience.	Align the form and the content of communicated knowledge to different learning styles	Gandhi et al. 2009; La Grange et al. 2010; Millar and Curtis 1997; Warner 2006; Leeuwis 2004; Magill and Rogers 1981; Hancock 1997; Knapp 1916	BE1, BE3, CH1, CH2, BG1, ES1, ES2, IT1, IT2, LV1, LV2, NL1, NL2, NO1, NO2, PL1, PL2, UK1, UK2, HR3
PRACTICALITIES	Practical issues that need to be addressed to cater for basic human needs and to ensure a good learning environment	A well-intended demonstration concept focusing only on the content might not utilise its full potential if inhibited by factors that distract visitors and/or create inconveniences in accessing and staying on the site.	Ensure the provision of suitable infrastructure and limit distracting external conditions		UK1, IT1, NL1, LV1, LV2, FR3
POST-EVENT ENGAGEMENT	Communication and promotion of the demonstration message(s) after the event	A single event might not be enough to ensure that the communicated content is taken up by visitors and that it reaches a wider audience of non-attendees. Ignoring visitor feedback can lead to making the same mistakes in future demonstrations.	Reinforce the demonstration message and follow up with the participants	Elmquist and Krysztoforski 2015; La Grange et al. 2010; Gandhi et al. 2009; Millar and Curtis 1997; Bailey et al. 2006	LV2, ES1, FR3, NL2, NO2, PL1, UK1

Hancock, J. 1997. Extension Education: Conducting Effective Agricultural Demonstrations. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky College of Agriculture. Lexington. http://www2.ca.uky.edu/agcomm/pubs/id/id111/id111.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Bailey, A. P., C. J. Garforth, B. Angell, T. Scott, J. Beedell, S. Beechener, and R. B. Rana. 2006. “Helping Farmers Adjust to Policy Reforms Through Demonstration Farms: Lessons from a Project in England.” Journal of Farm Management 12 (10): 613–625.

 Google Scholar

Heiniger, R. W., J. L. Havlin, D. A. Crouse, C. Kvien, and T. Knowles. 2002. “Seeing is Believing: The Role of Field Days and Tours in Precision Agriculture Education.” Precision Agriculture 3 (4): 309–318.

 Google Scholar

Leeuwis, C. 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension. 3rd ed. Kundli: Blackwell Science.

 Google Scholar

Magill, K. P., and E. M. Rogers. 1981. “Federally Sponsored Demonstrations of Technological Innovations.” Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 3 (1): 23–42.

 Google Scholar

Millar, J., and A. Curtis. 1997. “Moving Farmer Knowledge Beyond the Farm Gate: An Australian Study of Farmer Knowledge in Group Learning.” European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 4 (2): 133–142.

 Google Scholar

Gandhi, R., R. Veeraraghavan, K. Toyama, and V. Ramprasad. 2009. “Digital Green: Participatory Video and Mediated Instruction for Agricultural Extension.” Information Technologies and International Development 5 (1): 1–15.

 Google Scholar

Kania, J., and B. Kiełbasa. 2015. “Demonstration Farms for Transfer of Knowledge – Case Study of Poland.” Scientific Journal 17 (5): 123–130.

 Google Scholar

Pangborn, M. C., K. B. Woodford, and P. L. Nuthall. 2011. “Demonstration Farms and Technology Transfer: The Case of the Lincoln University Dairy Farm.” International Journal of Agricultural Management 1 (1): 29–33.

 Google Scholar

Richardson, J. G. 2003. “On-farm Demonstrations: Consideration Factors for Their Success and Viability as an Extension Teaching Tool.” South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 32 (1): 114–124.

 Google Scholar

Knapp, B. 1916. “Education Through Farm Demonstration.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 67 (1): 224–240.

 Google Scholar

McDowell, M. S. 1929. “What the Agricultural Extension Service Has Done for Agriculture.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 142 (1): 250–256.

 Google Scholar

Warner, K. D. 2006. “Extending Agroecology: Grower Participation in Partnerships is Key to Social Learning.” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21 (2): 84–94.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Elmquist, H., and M. Krysztoforski. 2015. Using Demonstration Farms for a Healthier Baltic Sea. Baltic Deal Bridge project report. https://h24-files.s3.amazonaws.com/101965/863726-K1905.pdf.

 Google Scholar

La Grange, R. F., M. Titterton, E. M. Mann, and C. M. Haynes. 2010. “Agricultural Extension: A Review and Case Study in the Tasmanian Dairy Farming Sector.” In Proceedings of the 4th Australasian Dairy Science Symposium 2010: 261–264.

 Google Scholar

Lukuyu, B., F. Place, S. Franzel, and E. Kiptot. 2012. “Disseminating Improved Practices: Are Volunteer Farmer Trainers Effective?” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18 (5): 525–540.

 Google Scholar