# Navigating the participatory turn in agricultural and food research: Best practice from citizen science

Raquel Ajates, Petra Benyei, Helen Avery, Egle Butkeviciene, Alexandra
Czeglédi, Dominique Desclaux, Gerid Hager, Barbara Heinisch, Peter N.
Hoebe, Toos C. G. E. van Noordwijk, et al.

► To cite this version:

Raquel Ajates, Petra Benyei, Helen Avery, Egle Butkeviciene, Alexandra Czeglédi, et al. "Navigating the participatory turn in agricultural and food research: Best practice from citizen science." AMBIO: A Journal of Environment and Society, In press, 10.1007/s13280-025-02151-7, hal-04972056

HAL Id: hal-04972056

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04972056v1

Submitted on 28 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Navigating the participatory turn in agricultural and food research: Best practice from citizen science

Raquel Ajates, Petra Benyei ID, Helen Avery, Egle Butkeviciene, Alexandra Czeglédi, Dominique Desclaux, Gerid Hager, Barbara Heinisch, Peter N. Hoebe, Toos C. G. E. van Noordwijk, Marco Barzman

Received: 18 September 2024 / Revised: 9 December 2024 / Accepted: 3 February 2025

© The Author(s) 2025

**Abstract** Food systems have enormous impacts on people and the planet, with agriculture and food research becoming strategic for many countries. However, the way this research is conducted and the rise of new agri-food technologies have ethical and socio-economic implications. To address these, many scholars are gaining interest in participatory methods, such as citizen science, but are unfamiliar with the latest debates on ethical and methodological issues surrounding non-academic stakeholder engagement. In this perspective paper, we revisit the European Citizen Science Association's (ECSA) Ten Principles of Citizen Science under the specific lens of agri-food research. The discussion presented is based on a review of the state of the art from academic literature, secondary data from agri-food citizen science projects, and the reflections of 11 scientist and practitioners, members of ECSA's Agri-Food Working Group. The findings reflect theoretical, methodological, and practical implications for navigating the participatory turn in agriculture and food research.

**Keywords** Agriculture · ECSA principles · Ethics · Food systems · Methodologies · Participation

## INTRODUCTION: THE EXPANSION OF CITIZEN SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SYSTEM RESEARCH

Agriculture and food systems<fnref n="1" /> *agri-food systems* henceforth are key to human and environmental health (Willett et al. 2019), and their significance reaches beyond questions of food security (Mehrabi et al. 2022), or food sovereignty (Levkoe et al. 2019). From the transmission of

livestock diseases to humans, to agriculture's impact on land use, soil health, water, climate and biodiversity (Fanzo and Miachon 2023), as well as issues of land-ownership, public health, or forced migration (Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner Kerr 2017), the agri-food system is inherently transversal to our ecosystems and societies. Moreover, the importance of food for humanity is reflected in the central position these topics have in public and private research and innovation systems, with large amounts of funding being dedicated to agri-food research each year, from seed development to understanding consumer behaviour (Prasad et al. 2023).

Agri-food research entails a specific history of engagement with society. From traditional farmer-led breeding to top-down extension services, and more recently, agri-food citizen science, stakeholder groups beyond professional researchers have been part of this vast area of research for a long time (van de Gevel et al. 2020). The knowledge and localised experience of farmers, agricultural input companies, processors, farm advisers, or consumers has been, throughout the decades, a key contribution to agri-food research, be it through the expertise on growing conditions and methods, food diaries, etc. However, such participation has not always been acknowledged or compensated (Cook et al. 2021). In fact, the widespread market-oriented framing of food as a commodity rather than as a human right has, on many occasions, led to the exploitation of this tacit or informal knowledge to exacerbate corporate control over plant genetic resources or dietary data, severely affecting farmers' livelihoods, consumer privacy, and

<footnote n="1">¹ We adopt a systemic approach to food systems, i.e. take into account all processes and actors involved in food production, processing, distribution, trading, catering, consumption, disposal, etc. (Parsons et al. 2019).</footnote>
increasing corporate power concentration (Ajates 2023). Indeed, recent technological developments, such as new genomic techniques or big data used in consumer behaviour research, raise concerns over how commercial interests and non-public interest could be steering agri-food research (Sumberg 2017). Thus, food production and consumption are not only technical, but political issues, and existing power relations must be taken into account, from corporate food regimes, to former colonial relations and hierarchies of epistemological systems that are ingrained still today in our research practices and institutions (Kimura and Kinchy 2020).

Addressing agri-food research challenges requires systemic, long-term, and transdisciplinary approaches that incorporate diverse stakeholders' perspectives (Lamine 2018). In this line, Citizen Science (CS henceforth) is a research approach that involves citizens in different stages of the research process. When this involvement goes beyond contributive citizen science—which only focuses on enabling the contribution of data—and promotes long-term active involvement in research, CS can be very effective in generating changes in practice and policy, particularly in food and agriculture (Benyei et al. 2023). Numerous studies suggest that engaging society in participatory scientific knowledge generation is likely to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the research process itself. Participation can empower marginalised social groups and improve environmental sustainability (van de Gevel et al. 2020). However, not all forms of societal engagement in agri-food research devote sufficient attention to inclusiveness, equity, and empowerment of participants. Indeed, some authors suggest that there is a growing trend of “citizen washing” in research and policy-making that appears to involve the public without, in fact, taking their views into account (Oleart 2023). For instance, certain applications of citizen science have been criticised as a utilitarian approach to gather data for free in projects that only involve citizens in data collection (Vohland et al. 2019). Furthermore, research into the participation patterns in CS suggests a participation bias towards older and more educated men (Paleco et al. 2021). Thus, despite the growing and outstanding efforts to produce documentation supporting good practices in scientific communication and engagement (de Vries et al. 2019), substantial efforts are still needed to ensure inclusive and equitable research practices, particularly in agri-food research involving activities and outcomes that are crucial to people's lives.

With these considerations in mind, in this perspective paper, we propose a guiding framework for participatory agri-food research, with the aim of contributing to a transition towards just, empowering and equitable food systems research. The framework draws on the European Citizen Science Association's (ECSA) 10 principles for

citizen science (ECSA 2015), which we introduce in the next section. We then discuss the theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of the principles, organised in three keystones, to reflect on their meanings, highlighting potential synergies between principles and how they can be applied to agri-food research. We end by providing recommendations for future research.

### ECSA principles guiding framework—three keystones to highlight synergies between principles and maximise uptake

The ECSA principles for citizen science—illustrated in Fig. 1—were developed by the “Sharing best practice and building capacity” ECSA Working Group in 2015, led by the Natural History Museum of London (ECSA 2015). Communicating these principles with the wider agri-food system research community is becoming crucial, as many scholars and disciplines are gaining interest in participatory and CS methods while unaware of the existing principles that inform these practices (Ryan et al. 2018). Being aware of the principles is also important for funding agencies and evaluators who develop and evaluate agricultural and food systems research funding calls that include a societal engagement priority, as well as for authorities, organisations, and businesses that engage in participatory agri-food research projects or have interest in their outcomes.

As outlined above, this paper sets out to re-examine the ECSA principles under the specific lens of agricultural and food system research. This analysis is based on academic literature on agri-food CS, secondary data from agri-food CS projects (such as deliverables, website content, etc.) and the reflections of 11 scientists and practitioners from seven countries who are members of ECSA's Agri-Food Working Group and who have participated in numerous agri-food CS projects. Additionally, the Agri-Food Working Group held a face-to-face two-day workshop in June 2023, which included an extended discussion and group work to map how the ECSA principles related to and can strengthen CS practices in agri-food research. Small groups were created and assigned one ECSA principle each to be discussed from an agri-food perspective. When the joint output was analysed, we identified similar arguments and themes across several principles, based on which, we put forward the following keystones, summarised in Fig. 2.

Keystone 1. Meaningful participation and active inclusivity, is related to the role of citizens as citizen scientists and the promotion of greater public engagement in science. It includes principles that promote CS inclusivity, active, and meaningful engagement opportunities for citizens, and the acknowledgement and reduction of research biases to support science democratisation. Keystone 2. Measurable Outcomes and Benefits, refers to the expected types of

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
ECSA PRINCIPLES

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

AGENCY

Actively involve citizens in scientific endeavour in a meaningful role

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

SCIENTIFIC OUTCOME

Have a genuine science outcome: answering a research question or generating new knowledge

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

PARTICIPANT BENEFITS

Citizens benefit from taking part: learning, enjoyment, local action, policy, empowerment

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

PARTICIPATION STAGE

Citizens may participate in multiple stages of the scientific process: design, fieldwork, analysis, communication

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

FEEDBACK

Citizens receive feedback from the project in forms of data, reports, or local applications.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

BIASES AND DEMOCRATIZATION

Limitations and biases should be considered and controlled for, but still create opportunity for greater public engagement and democratisation of science.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

OPEN SCIENCE

Project data and meta-data are made publicly available and where possible, results are published in an open access format.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Citizen scientists are acknowledged in project results and publications.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

EVALUATION

Programmes are evaluated for their scientific output, data quality, participant experience and wider societal or policy impact.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

ETHICS AND NO HARM

Take into consideration legal and ethical issues surrounding copyright, intellectual property, data sharing agreements, confidentiality, attribution and environmental impacts of any activity

Source: Own elaboration based on ECSA 2015

<table><caption>**Fig. 1** ECSA ten principles of citizen science (2015). Own elaboration using Canva</caption><thead><tr><th>Keystones guiding participatory research</th><th>Related ECSA Principles</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><img src="placeholder_image_Keystone_1.png" alt="Keystone 1.png"></td><td>1. Projects actively involve citizens in a meaningful role.<br>4. Citizen scientists participate in multiple stages of research.<br>6. Projects control biases and promote greater public engagement and science democratization.</td></tr><tr><td><img src="placeholder_image_Keystone_2.png" alt="Keystone 2.png"></td><td>2. Projects have a genuine science outcome.<br>3. Citizen scientists benefit from taking part in the project.<br>9. Projects are evaluated for their impact in science and society.</td></tr><tr><td><img src="placeholder_image_Keystone_3.png" alt="Keystone 3.png"></td><td>5. Citizen scientists receive feedback from the project.<br>7. Results and data are published in an open access format.<br>8. Citizen scientists are acknowledged in project results.<br>10. Projects take into consideration legal and ethical issues.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<caption>**Fig. 2** Keystones guiding participatory research and their connection to ECSA principles. Own elaboration using Canva</caption>

results, their impacts, and the ways to measure such impacts. It includes principles that promote reflexive impacts of CS projects, or the promotion of scientific and non-scientific outcomes and benefits, and the encourage-ment of evaluation as a tool to measure the multiple effects

of projects. Finally, keystone 3. Responsible Research and Innovation Processes, relates to the research process itself in the context of implementing a CS approach. It includes principles that promote responsible processes in CS design and development, including giving meaningful feedback to
participants, acknowledging their participation, and fol-
lowing ethical research standards.

We propose the use of these keystones not to replace,
but to more easily communicate the ECSA principles to
researchers new to CS approaches and keen on adopting
them, and for those who use them regularly and would like
a briefer framework to apply and share in their practice.
The main goal of the piece is to contribute to the discussion
on how to better guide participatory agri-food research, and
the new keystone framework is used as a mechanism to
support this objective, while rooting the discussion in the
wider citizen science literature. In the next sections, we
discuss how each of these complementary and non-vertical
keystones is relevant to agri-food research, in the hope that
our work stimulates debate and fosters the implementation
of the ECSA principles in this field.

Keystone 1: Meaningful participation and active inclusivity

Agri-food research has used participatory approaches and
engaged citizens, including members of rural communities,
for a long time, albeit often in roles with limited
acknowledged agency in the research process itself
(Davidson 2007). For example, farmers may contribute
knowledge and information as part of field trials, surveys,
interviews, storytelling, or focus groups, but are not always
included in decisions on research questions and methods.
Citizen science, in some cases, has also struggled with
biased and non-inclusive engagement, limiting its potential
impacts by engaging mainly predominantly white, male
participants from higher education and affluent socio-ec-
nomic backgrounds (Allf et al. 2022). This pattern would
exclude many agricultural and food service workers from
agri-food citizen science. A similar pattern of lower levels
of female participation has also been identified in agri-
cultural research (Dey de Pryck and Elias 2023). Several
efforts are currently underway to make CS practices more
accessible and inclusive for everyone, leading to best
practice guidelines and inclusive design methods that
promote science democratisation (Benyei et al. 2023;
Veeckman et al. 2023), which research in the agri-food
domain can benefit from.

From our analysis, three topics emerge as fundamental
in this keystone: the agency of participants (practitioners
from the food system), the availability of diverse and
meaningful project roles, and the reduction of participation
barriers and biases. Regarding participants’ agency, the
definition of “active” participation is essential. Although
the level of participation may vary among projects, it helps
to differentiate projects where citizens are “being studied”
(traditional social science) from projects where citizens are
“those who study” (citizen science). For example, in agri-

food research, a focus group might be used as a method to
investigate farmers´ choice of crop varieties. However, if
attending a focus group is the only role farmers play in the
project, lacking any agency on how the research is con-
ducted, it cannot be considered CS, and some would argue
that it is not even “participatory” (Cornwall 2008). This
keystone and the CS literature also suggest different pos-
sible roles for participants, depending on their level of
involvement (Haklay et al. 2021), and that every role taken
should be meaningful, both to the participant and to
achieving the goals of the research activity itself. However,
CS participants in agriculture and food research often
mostly provide data and are rarely involved in other stages
of the research process. This could be due to a prevalence
of “short-term” project formats, as deeper engagement
levels require more in-depth training, trust, and commit-
ment from citizen scientists (Ebitu et al. 2021). Finally, this
keystone also acknowledges the need to democratise sci-
ence in order to avoid biases. In CS, anyone can take the
role of a citizen scientist or co-researcher, independently of
a citizens’ legal status, gender, age, education, or expertise.
This is particularly significant in the agri-food sector,
which employs about 40% of the global workforce, in
many cases with poor and illegal working conditions
(Davis et al. 2023). Thus, citizen scientists in agri-food can
be food consumers as well as agricultural workers and
anyone else across the entire food system (Parsons et al.
2019), including those with less power and who might be
more transient: migrant farm workers, agricultural stu-
dents, elderly traditional farmers, female food vendors,
food self-reliant indigenous communities, food community
groups, food bank users, hobby food growers, food waste
composting networks, amongst others. Broadening the
diversity of participants’ profiles contributes not only to
more equitable research frameworks, but also to a reduc-
tion in scientific biases, and thus, improved data quality
and relevance (Graham et al. 2014; Nature 2015).

Some key issues must be considered with regard to this
keystone. From an implementation viewpoint, it is impor-
tant to clarify expectations and priorities, including the
overall aim and expected outcomes of the project (e.g. pest
control monitoring for a farm, on-farm experiments for
testing the rollout of a new technology, monitoring societal
impact in food deserts, etc.). Also, CS methods and training
must be offered in order to foster citizen participation
throughout the different research stages. Tailoring such
training to the specific context and audience will enable
wider participation, remove barriers, and reduce biases. An
inclusive training strategy during an agri-food CS project
can support citizens moving from collecting data, to ana-
lysing them, and even setting up their own bottom-up
experiments (Woods et al. 2020b). As research teams grow
to incorporate the participation of diverse citizen scientists,
their background, interests, and worldviews—as in any professional research team—might affect the steps and decisions in which they are involved within the research process. One hurdle to overcome is the under-valued capacity of citizen scientists to engage in research design, funding procurement or science communication, sometimes due to a lack of self-perceived legitimacy (Benyei et al. 2020a). This is why the process of opening a wider range of project tasks to citizen scientists requires discussions on power sharing, uneven availability of time and resources and differentiating between willingness, motivations, and evolving levels of ability to participate (Cornwall 2008). Also, in the agri-food domain, applying the principles of this keystone involves reverting a long history of colonial farming dynamics that still shape food systems today, from dietary preferences (e.g. tea in UK) to development approaches (e.g. agricultural links with former colonies). Many food practices have emerged in the context of dispossession of indigenous peoples, stratification of food production and distribution based on ethnicity, class and citizenship (Kimura and Kinchy 2020). Furthermore, the power of large corporations on practices and norms in the production, distribution and consumption of food should also be considered.

This keystone of agri-food citizen science can guide research that is more grounded and relevant to the communities involved, also helping to increase their agency. These benefits of strong and diverse stakeholder engagement in research projects have long been recognised (Pateman and West 2023). For example, farmers involved in networks that include researchers, advisers, and other stakeholders are known to be more likely to innovate than isolated ones, and ensure the sustainability of proposed innovations (Barzman et al. 2015). Participants that have a higher level of involvement in projects are also more likely to engage in fund raising and dissemination, thereby fostering increased new participant engagement in subsequent stages (Arnstein 1969). Expanding research teams through CS can contribute to democratising the generation of scientific knowledge (Pearce 2010), resulting in greater public engagement with the potential to disrupt the dominant agri-food system, challenging power dynamics, particularly when involving previously marginalised participants.

## Keystone 2: Measurable outcomes and benefits

Pateman and West (2023) and Van Noordwijk et al. (2021) have notably identified various impact pathways for CS projects, while Wehn et al. (2021) have developed principles for a consolidated approach to impact assessment in CS. Moreover, in the agri-food domain in particular, a number of studies have highlighted the importance of CS in generating scientific, practice, and policy impacts (Ryan

et al. 2018; van de Gevel et al. 2020). Still, agri-food research has traditionally followed an approach to project evaluation that values exclusively research and innovation outputs (Turner et al. 2022). Thus, the outcomes and benefits of participatory approaches to agri-food research need to go further, as there are many aspects of participation and areas of the food system that are not always considered in impact assessment (Mourad et al. 2020; Reynolds et al. 2021).

This second keystone highlights three main ideas based on the ECSA principles it encompasses. First that, while having a scientific outcome (mandatory in order to be called “science”), CS should also aim to have impacts beyond the traditional scientific realm, into the educational, economic, socio-cultural, and policy spheres. Second, that such impacts and outcomes should be evaluated based on a diversity of social, political, and scientific indicators. Third, that benefits for participants might be different than those envisioned by scientists. While citizen science must be a research activity and thus provide scientific outcomes in any of the formats the multiple scientific disciplines foresee (from natural sciences, to social sciences and humanities), an exclusive emphasis on scientific outcomes may deter the engagement of stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, or constitute barriers for other types of knowledge beyond academic knowledge to emerge (Benyei et al. 2020a). Indeed, in agri-food CS it is common that the subject of research is directly linked to participants’ business and economic situation, e.g. farmers contributing to the investigation of farmland soil health, which can have direct effects on yield and hence, farmers’ income. Thus, citizen scientists’ motivations to participate in an agri-food project, and their expectations in relation to project outcomes and impact might go beyond the ones that are written in the project proposal (Ryan et al. 2018). For example, NGOs or local residents might initiate agri-food CS projects to raise awareness of social injustices such as land grabs or food deserts, or to stop damaging farming practices by collecting impact indicators in affected ecosystems, or, map illegal deforestation and land uses (Kimura and Kinchy 2020). Considering this and given the multi-actor, multi-output, and transformative character of participatory agri-food research, including more-than-academic outcomes in evaluation become crucial. Moreover, to avoid exploiting citizen scientists’ time and goodwill, feasible and tailored rewards and benefits must be considered collectively from the beginning of the project. In the case of agri-food CS, this reward could be improved practices on pest control, water management, or soil management (Ryan et al. 2018; Woods et al. 2020b) that could translate into health outputs from reduced pesticide use, savings and self-pride, or other less tangible benefits, such as improved interactions and learning from fellow
farmers or citizens (Benyei et al. 2020b). Indeed, the dif-
ferent stakeholders can benefit from gaining ownership and
agency over project results, providing them with the evi-
dence and the skills that can empower them to take further
actions and contribute to broader social movements
(Benyei et al. 2023).

This keystone encourages researchers to consider the
potential tensions between academics and citizen scientists
in relation to possibly different views on the expected
project goals to be evaluated, and the challenges of
involving stakeholders beyond academia in project evalu-
ation as well as delivering evaluation reports that are
meaningful and timely, both to funders and participants.
These tensions arising from differing constraints and out-
come priorities of academic and non-academic partici-
pants, are issues extensively discussed in the literature
(Eitzel et al. 2017; Ebitu et al. 2021). Also, during the data
collection phase, conflicts may arise between scientific
goals and participants’ food and farming practices, e.g.
projects investigating sustainable agricultural practices in a
region characterised by intensive farming. Thus, method-
ologically, co-created and validated data collection proto-
cols and tools will enhance the knowledge transfer and
implementation of project outcomes, and their credibility
and acceptability by different stakeholder groups. It is key
to realise that such collaborations have the potential to not
only change citizen scientists’ perceptions, but also
broaden scientists’ understanding and perception of other
professionals involved, with a potentially profound impact,
e.g. on their future research priorities (Benyei et al. 2023).
Furthermore, involving citizens in evaluation can be chal-
lenging, and the team must ensure a safe space to
encourage participants to provide constructive feedback in
suitable formats, on things that went well, as well as areas
to improve. Evaluation methods might encounter differ-
ences not only in spatial and temporal horizons considered,
but also in terms of the weight attributed to the various
aspects being evaluated. Disciplinary, social, and profes-
sional hierarchies within teams can be an issue when
establishing these priorities and also when setting data
quality standards (Sumberg et al. 2013). Indeed, measuring
data quality in participatory projects presents several
challenges (Steinke and van Etten 2017). Thus, agreement
on terminology must be considered carefully (Eitzel et al.
2017). This is particularly important in agri-food research,
where a multitude of tools, definitions, and practices exist
for capturing “social impact” (Janker and Mann 2020).
Similarly, many other key concepts in agri-food research
lack an agreed definition and/or operationalisation (e.g.
sustainable and healthy diets, local food, or even healthy
soil) mainly due to the high number of factors determining
each of these constructs. In addition, evaluation timing and
methods pose important considerations, and while

evaluation is often thought to take place at the end of a
project, impact targets should be predefined together with
participants from the beginning of the collaboration (Wehn
et al. 2021). Finally, the involvement of relevant policy
makers from the beginning of the project, e.g. through the
creation of observatory policy interfaces or liaising with
national statistics units, can help link the project outcomes
with policy frameworks such as the Common Agricultural
Policy (CAP), local farming schemes, rural repopulation
programmes, and others (Woods et al. 2020b). More
specifically, due to its complex links of natural and social
dimensions, a global food policy area to which agri-food
CS is contributing, is through measuring SDG indicators
related to water, soil, zero hunger, good health, life on land,
and below water, etc. (Ajates et al. 2020; Fraisl et al. 2020).

Agri-food CS is well placed to have outcomes that span
from the hyperlocal to the global and that can be demon-
strated through a more comprehensive evaluation (Ajates
et al. 2020). Tools for co-designing and co-evaluating
impacts of agri-food CS projects exist and can be adapted
to different project needs (Woods et al. 2020a). Thus, this
keystone maximises the reach of project documented and
multilevel impacts that can promote the funding and use of
participatory approaches in agri-food research and beyond.

Keystone 3: Responsible research and innovation processes (RRI)

Discussion about RRI in agri-food research and develop-
ment is increasingly popular, especially in the field of
agricultural digitalisation (Bellon-Maurel et al. 2022).
Tricarico et al. (2020) have highlighted four RRI dimen-
sions that must be examined: (1) The processes of mutual
exchange in setting and re-driving the direction of research
and innovation (Diversity & Inclusiveness); (2) socially
desirable science and innovation (Anticipation); (3) par-
ticipatory and accessible methodologies experimented in
the research agenda and the dissemination of its outcomes
(Openness and Transparency); (4) flexible, reflexive, and
socially responsible governance of the process (Respon-
siveness and Adaptation to Change). However, a key dif-
ferentiating aspect of CS approaches with regard to RRI is
the active role of societal actors in research, as we dis-
cussed in Keystone 1.

Keystone 3, while being in dialogue with the RRI
approach, incorporates the specificities of CS, where two
main topics are fundamental: the ways in which results and
data are shared with the citizen scientists involved in the
project and more broadly with wider society, and the eth-
ical principles CS is set to follow. Facilitating access to
results and data and providing project feedback to partici-
pants in a suitable way are two crucial separate but inter-
twined elements of this keystone. While providing
feedback to participants can be seen as an essential aspect
contributing to the responsible governance of the research
process, making results and data accessible contributes to a
broader openness and transparency goal (Woods et al.
2020b; Bellon-Maurel et al. 2022). Feedback can be more
specifically tailored to the needs or expectations of par-
ticipants, while making research outputs accessible should
follow guidance from the wider movement of scientific
openness and institutional policies on open data (Wehn
et al. 2024). ECSA and the Association for Advancing the
Participatory Sciences (formerly known as the US CS
Association) have highlighted strong synergies between CS
and open science movements, with specific working groups
dedicated to this topic (see ECSA and AAPS websites<fnref n="2" />).
The growing number of CS projects adhering to this
movement in health and genetic research projects (DITOs
Consortium 2017) can serve as inspiration and guidance in
CS agri-food research. With the rise of the genetic
sequencing of plants, fungi, and animals used in farming
and food processing, this movement sets to promote open
data, open code, and participatory processes that benefit
communities and avoid biopiracy (Calvet-Mir et al. 2018;
Ajates 2023). Indeed, opening data is one of the key dif-
ferentiating aspects that CS brings to participatory agri-
food research, as in many cases, data collected through the
latter were kept within the projects, and participants’
knowledge was considered—just as seeds or plants—an-
other resource that could be appropriated and capitalised
(Birch et al. 2010). Regarding ethical principles, this key-
stone highlights the need to follow ethical guidelines and
consider the regulatory framework that comes with the
benefit-sharing principle and no-harm rule of any scientific
research. Ethical issues such as data sovereignty or human
rights protection in agri-food CS have been discussed
before by CS practitioners (Reyes-García et al. 2022;
Benyei et al. 2023). Although, in principle, most agri-food
participatory research has to be approved by institutional
ethical review boards, the literature and this keystone
remind us that ethics go beyond ticking pre-defined boxes
and should engage more deeply into—sometimes,
uncomfortable—discussions between researchers and par-
ticipants about power sharing and participants’ rights. A
specific aspect of ethics covered in this keystone is attri-
bution. Research within the agri-food sector has increas-
ingly acknowledged the significance of involving
stakeholders, encompassing farmers and agri-food busi-
nesses, in the outcomes and publications of projects (Jones
et al. 2014). The attribution of communities collectively
credited in the acknowledgement section of journal articles
is a common manifestation of participatory research ethics.

However, defining what acknowledgement entails for
individual participants, requires joint consideration.
Acknowledging research participants is centred on partic-
ipatory research ethics that require the perception of citizen
scientists as active contributors. This is further emphasised
by processes of knowledge co-production (Pearce 2010).
Without trustable collaborations with participants,
acknowledgement might remain an ethically motivated, but
merely symbolic gesture. This keystone opens the floor to
discussing how a dynamic view of acknowledgement,
involving participants in the co-definition of what is
expected, could be a better approach, potentially leading to
alternative forms of publication, outputs, and enhanced
engagement.

With regard to adequate levels of feedback, this third
keystone notes areas for agreement. First, establishing what
appropriate feedback is might become challenging when
working with multiple stakeholders. As noted by De Vries
et al. (2019), in general “little research has thoroughly
investigated the extent to which citizen scientists find
communication of scientific output to be important” (pp.1),
and even less in the area of agri-food. Moreover, even in
participatory projects, feedback and access to data/results
may not be relevant for participants, especially when lim-
ited to websites, scientific reports, or raw data, failing to
impact participants’ practices. For instance, in the FARM
project,<fnref n="3" /> when asked about what the agricultural students
expected from the project, most students did not mention
feedback nor data. To tailor feedback and results/data
sharing appropriately, and considering that feedback pro-
vision has a positive impact on participants’ motivation to
further engage in CS (Cappa et al. 2020), a feedback form
or community engagement protocol should be established
at the start of a CS project and be monitored throughout its
implementation. This protocol needs to draw on early
discussions on project output criteria (see Keystone 2). It
should also include relevant timing, content, and form of
feedback. Moreover, it should consider to which extent the
feedback should be open to everyone or available and
tailored to certain project partners, as this might have
ethical, financial, or legal consequences. Indeed, a second
related issue central to this keystone refers to data privacy.
Opening data might be particularly impactful for agri-food
citizen scientists, as data sensitivity, particularly concern-
ing farmland or consumer choices, may directly affect
farmers’ livelihoods and business interests, and consumers’
privacy. For instance, discovering protected species or
flood risk could lead to land designation and/or land value
changes, or finding negative environmental impacts could
further polarise farmer-environmentalist discussions (Bur-
ton et al. 2008). In other cases, participants in CS projects

<footnote n="2">² https://www.ecsa.ngo/working-groups/citizen-science-and-open-science/ and https://www.citizenscience.org/association/about/values.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ www.farm.csic.es.</footnote>
addressing health or environmental impacts of industrial food supply chains might even face intimidation by industry stakeholders, or the research results might be put under special scrutiny for being a CS project (Kimura and Kinchy 2020), especially if these projects challenge the existing norms of dominant agricultural practices.

Moreover, potential data use by third parties, such as big companies modelling food markets, raises concerns about consumers' information misuse and lack of protection. This is why a set of ethical principles should always be implemented in parallel. As agri-food research deals with peoples' basis for survival (food) or income (farming), extra ethical and legal considerations might be necessary. For instance, the issue of patents in agri-food participatory research requires early and deep consideration given its potential legal, ethical, and economic impacts (Fredriksson 2021). Some projects choose not to patent or favour other forms of licencing (e.g. copy-left), and it is common to encounter challenges when private companies exploit shared knowledge without proper compensation to the less privileged parts involved (Calvet-Mir et al. 2018). Indeed, biopiracy is a significant concern in participatory agri-food research, with considerable impacts in terms of community's food sovereignty and access rights to natural resources (Ajates 2023). To help manage these issue, CS projects must establish a data sharing protocol that is agreed upon with participants before sharing any data, and ideally, before data collection has started, to make the project as open as possible and as closed as necessary. Thus, it is key to identify and deal with any potential privacy concerns before collecting and opening the data. Robust data management strategies will consider different types of outcomes, how they are going to be shared, and who will likely benefit from them. Moreover, it is important to remember that access does not equal usability; thus, user requirements and skills must be taken into account in data sharing policies. A third issue relates to the multiple and sometimes conflicting ways in which recognition and benefit sharing materialises in projects. A big discussion has been ongoing in the CS community about participant economic compensation, the role this might have in promoting more participant diversity and the impacts it can also have in terms of the relationship between participants and researchers (Benyei et al. 2023). For instance, in agri-food CS, paying farmers for their time and effort is starting to be a common practice (see RADIANT project,<fnref n="4" />), although it can create conflicts when resources are limited and not all farmers can participate. In a situation with numerous contributors or groups, rewards and recognition are better preceded by a consultation and alignment of expectations. The symbolic recognition of contributions

such as co-authorship, active recognition with delegated responsibilities such as co-writing, co-organising and co-chairing research tasks and workshops, community champion roles (Woods et al. 2020b), offer different strategies for appreciating participants' contributions. Moreover, an advocacy lens can empower communities, leveraging diverse forms of acknowledgement for change and community organisation, which is especially relevant for agricultural cooperative endeavours in specific geographical areas.

In sum, co-decisions on the most appropriate form of acknowledgement and rewards, data, and result sharing and feedback are necessary with farmers, consumers, and other stakeholders to ensure their ongoing commitment to the research. This keystone sets the field for more ethical, just, and equitable agri-food research practices and minimises the risks of projects having a negative impact on the communities they work with.

## CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD

Agri-food research is shaped by the myriad of disciplinary lenses and methods it applies, and the far-reaching implications of food in society. The food system is composed of complex socio-ecological systems that are often characterised by policy, technological, environmental, and social aspects that require a transdisciplinary approach (Lamine 2018). Citizen science in agri-food opens up a common umbrella under which diverse participatory scientific activities and methods—such as farmer-based biodiversity monitoring, participatory plant breeding, rapid rural appraisal, food deserts mapping, etc.—can be in dialogue and create wider public engagement in addressing urgent food system challenges.

Agri-food research is currently faced with accelerating socio-technical changes and environmental concerns that complicate ethical considerations within this research landscape. In this context, we have underscored the need for guidelines that contribute to an inclusive, equitable, and empowering implementation of agri-food research working with and for society. Building on the ECSA principles we have provided three keystones offering such guidance on how to involve participants in agri-food research in an ethical and practical manner. This new framing of the ECSA principles should facilitate their implementation by researchers not yet involved in the CS community, but interested in applying participatory methods, or those looking for a more integrated version of the principles.

The CS approach highlights how ethics, rewards, and data usability are crucial in participatory agri-food research. At the same time, an agri-food system lens enables the CS community to move beyond environmental

<footnote n="4">⁴ https://www.radiantproject.eu/.</footnote>
impact criteria towards a more integrated understanding of the social, economic, and public health impacts of their research (Wehn et al. 2021).

This perspective piece has opened up many questions that can inform future research and practice, and has proposed a framework that can be applied to specific agri-food CS established and emerging domains. We have highlighted the widespread level of impacts that agri-food CS can achieve, since it examines food as a life-dependent daily practice and livelihood relating to most of the SDGs, representing a collective drive for positive change, rooted in respect, openness, and empowerment.

The reflections provided in this perspective article are based on transdisciplinary scholarly literature and our diverse work in agri-food CS and participatory science. However, we envision this framework to be communicated beyond the European Citizen Science Association networks to reach and be taken up by all agri-food researchers. We also think it could be interesting to funding agencies and evaluators who develop and evaluate agricultural and food systems research funding calls that include a societal engagement priority, as well as for authorities, organisations, and businesses that engage in participatory agri-food research projects or have interest in their outcomes. We have aimed to provide food for thought and encouragement on how agri-food research can draw from CS principles at the intersection of food security, ethics, and technology debates. Our hope is that through such integration of research domains, knowledge generation can be made more equitable, locally relevant, and engaging.

**Acknowledgements** The authors of this manuscript are members of the European Citizen Science Association Agri-Food Working Group. We would like to acknowledge the whole working group for their participation in the regular meetings and discussions from which many ideas emerge. In particular, we would like to thank Geraldine Vasquez, Katerina Zourou, Stefania Oikonomou, and Jean Masson for their contributions to the workshop in which the initial ideas behind this paper were discussed. Last but not least, we are hugely grateful to all the farmers, agri-food stakeholders, students, and other citizens who we have the pleasure to work with. We learn so much from you.

**Author contributions** RA and PB wrote the original draft; PB coordinated the input from other co-authors and prepared the draft for submission; HA, EB, AC, DD, GH, BH, PNH, CGEN, and MB wrote sections, edited, and commented the manuscript; MB secured the funding for the group meetings.

**Funding** Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This manuscript is an output of a workshop that took place in Paris in June 2023, funded by the French National Institute for Agriculture, Food, and Environment (INRAE). PB was supported by a Juan de la Cierva Formación fellowship under Grant Agreement No. FJC2021-047229-I, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MCIN/AEI/https://doi.org/10.13039/501100011033) and by the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR funds. GH was supported by the European Union H2020 FRAMEwork project under Grant Agreement No. 862731.

## Declarations

**Conflict of interest** The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## REFERENCES

Ajates, R. 2023. From land enclosures to lab enclosures: Digital sequence information, cultivated biodiversity and the movement for open source seed systems. *Journal of Peasant Studies* 50: 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2022.2121648.

Ajates, R., G. Hager, P. Georgiadis, S. Coulson, M. Woods, and D. Hemment. 2020. Local action with global impact: The case of the grow observatory and the sustainable development goals. *Sustainability (Switzerland)* 12: 10518. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410518.

Allf, B.C., C.B. Cooper, L.R. Larson, R.R. Dunn, S.E. Futch, M. Sharova, and D. Cavalier. 2022. Citizen science as an ecosystem of engagement: Implications for learning and broadening participation. *BioScience* 72: 651–663. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac035.

Arnstein, S.R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. *Journal of the American Institute of Planners* 35: 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.

Barzman, M., P. Bärberi, A.N.E. Birch, P. Boonekamp, S. Dachbrodt-Saaydeh, B. Graf, B. Hommel, J.E. Jensen, et al. 2015. Eight principles of integrated pest management. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0327-9.

Bellon-Maurel, V., E. Lutton, P. Bisquert, L. Brossard, S. Chambaron-Ginhac, P. Labarthe, P. Lagacherie, F. Martignac, et al. 2022. Digital revolution for the agroecological transition of food systems: A responsible research and innovation perspective. *Agricultural Systems* 203: 103524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2022.103524.

Benyei, P., M. Pardo-de-Santayana, L. Aceituno-Mata, L. Calvet-Mir, M. Carrascosa-García, M. Rivera-Ferre, A. Perdomo-Molina, and V. Reyes-García. 2020a. Participation in citizen science: Insights from the CONECT-e case study. *Science, Technology, & Human Values*. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920948110.

Benyei, P., L. Aceituno-Mata, L. Calvet-Mir, J. Tardío, M. Pardo-de-Santayana, D. García-del-Amo, M. Rivera-Ferre, M. Molina-Simón, et al. 2020b. Seeds of change: Reversing traditional agroecological knowledge's erosion through a citizen science school program in Catalonia. *Ecology and Society* 25: 19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11471-250219.

Benyei, P., A. Skarlatidou, D. Argyriou, R. Hall, I. Theilade, N. Turreira-García, D. Latreche, A. Albert, et al. 2023. Challenges, strategies, and impacts of doing citizen science with marginalised and indigenous communities: Reflections from project
coordinators. *Citizen Science: Theory and Practice* 8: 21. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.514.

Birch, K., L. Levidow, and T. Papaioannou. 2010. Sustainable capital? The neoliberalization of nature and Knowledge in the European “Knowledge-based bio-economy.” *Sustainability* 2: 2898–2918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su2092898.

Burton, R.J.F., C. Kuczera, and G. Schwarz. 2008. Exploring farmers' cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. *Sociologia Ruralis* 48: 16–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00452.x.

Calvet-Mir, L., P. Benyei, L. Aceituno-Mata, M. Pardo-de-Santayana, D. López-García, M. Carrascosa-García, A. Perdomo-Molina, and V. Reyes-García. 2018. The contribution of traditional agroecological knowledge as a digital commons to agroecological transitions: The case of the CONCT-e platform. *Sustainability* 10: 3214. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093214.

Cappa, F., F. Rosso, L. Giustiniano, and M. Porfiri. 2020. Nudging and citizen science: The effectiveness of feedback in energy-demand management. *Journal of Environmental Management* 269: 110759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110759.

Cook, B.R., P. Satizábal, and J. Curnow. 2021. Humanising agricultural extension: A review. *World Development* 140: 105337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.WORLDDEV.2020.105337.

Cornwall, A. 2008. Unpacking “Participation” models, meanings and practices. *Community Development Journal* 43: 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010.

Davidson, A.P. 2007. Participation, education, and pluralism: Towards a new extension ethic. *Development in Practice* 17: 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520601092584.

Davis, B., E. Mane, L.Y. Gurbuzer, G. Caivano, N. Piedrahitka, K. Schneider, N. Azhar, M. Benali, et al. 2023. *Estimating global and country-level employment in agrifood systems*. Rome: Food & Agriculture Org. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc4337en.

Dey de Pryck, J., and M. Elias. 2023. Promoting inclusive facilitation of participatory agricultural research for development. *Development in Practice*. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2021.2013445.

de Vries, M., A. Land-Zandstra, and I. Smeets. 2019. Citizen scientists' preferences for communication of scientific output: A literature review. *Citizen Science: Theory and Practice* 4. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.136.

DITOs Consortium. 2017. "Do it yourself biotechnology" (DIYBio) for open, inclusive, responsible Biotechnology. DITOs policy brief 2.

Ebitu, L., H. Avery, K.A. Mourad, and J. Enyetu. 2021. Citizen science for sustainable agriculture—a systematic literature review. *Land Use Policy* 103: 105326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105326.

ECSA. 2015. *ECSA 10 principles of citizen science*. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XPR2N.

Eitzel, M.V., J.L. Cappadonna, C. Santos-Lang, R.E. Duerr, A. Virapongse, S.E. West, C.C.M. Kyba, A. Bowser, et al. 2017. Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. *Citizen Science: Theory and Practice* 2: 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.96.

Fanzo, J., and L. Miachon. 2023. Harnessing the connectivity of climate change, food systems and diets: Taking action to improve human and planetary health. *Anthropocene* 42: 100381. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANCENE.2023.100381.

Fraisl, D., J. Campbell, L. See, U. Wehn, J. Wardlaw, M. Gold, I. Moorthy, R. Arias, et al. 2020. Mapping citizen science contributions to the UN sustainable development goals. *Sustainability* Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00833-7.

Fredriksson, M. 2021. Open source seeds and the revitalization of local knowledge. *Sustainability (Switzerland)* 13: 12270. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112270.

Graham, M., B. Hogan, R.K. Straumann, and A. Medhat. 2014. Uneven geographies of user-generated information: Patterns of increasing informational poverty. *Annals of the Association of American Geographers* 104: 746–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.910087.

Haklay, M., D. Fraisl, B. Greshake Tzovaras, S. Hecker, M. Gold, G. Hager, L. Ceccaroni, B. Kieslinger, et al. 2021. Contours of citizen science: A vignette study. *Royal Society Open Science* 8: 0–2. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.202108.

Janker, J., and S. Mann. 2020. Understanding the social dimension of sustainability in agriculture: A critical review of sustainability assessment tools. *Environment, Development and Sustainability*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0282-0.

Jones, K., L.L. Glenna, and E. Weltzien. 2014. Assessing participatory processes and outcomes in agricultural research for development from participants' perspectives. *Journal of Rural Studies* 35: 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.04.010.

Kimura, A.H., and A. Kinchy. 2020. Citizen science in North American agri-food systems: Lessons learned. *Citizen Science: Theory and Practice* 5: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5334/CSTP.246.

Lamine, C. 2018. Transdisciplinarity in research about agrifood systems transitions: A pragmatist approach to processes of attachment. *Sustainability (Switzerland)* 10: 1241. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041241.

Levkoe, C.Z., J. Brem-Wilson, and C.R. Anderson. 2019. People, power, change: Three pillars of a food sovereignty research praxis. *Journal of Peasant Studies* 46: 1389–1412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2018.1512488.

Mehrabi, Z., R. Delzeit, A. Ignaciuk, C. Levers, G. Braich, K. Bajaj, A. Amo-Aidoo, W. Anderson, et al. 2022. Research priorities for global food security under extreme events. *One Earth* 5: 756–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.06.008.

Mourad, K.A., S.H. Hosseini, and H. Avery. 2020. The role of citizen science in sustainable agriculture. *Sustainability (Switzerland)* 12: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410375.

Nature. 2015. Rise of the citizen scientist. *Nature Editorial*. https://doi.org/10.1038/524265a.

Nyantakyi-Frimpong, H., and R. Bezner Kerr. 2017. Land grabbing, social differentiation, intensified migration and food security in northern Ghana. *Journal of Peasant Studies* 44: 421–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1228629.

Oleart, A. 2023. The contrast between the EU's technocratic conception of 'Citizen Participation' and the democratic pluralism of the decolonial multitude. In *Democracy without politics in EU citizen participation*. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38583-4_8.

Paleco, C., S.G. Peter, N.S. Seoane, J. Kaufmann, and P. Argyri. 2021. Inclusiveness and diversity in citizen science. In *The science of citizen science*, ed. K. Vohland, A. Land-zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson, and K. Wagenknecht, 261–281. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_14.

Parsons, K., C. Hawkes, and R. Wells. 2019. *Brief 2. What is the food system? A food policy perspective*. In *Rethinking food policy: A fresh approach to policy and practice*. London: Centre for Food Policy.

Pateman, R.M., and S.E. West. 2023. Citizen science: Pathways to impact and why participant diversity matters. *Citizen Science: Theory and Practice* 8: 50. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.569.

Pearce, J. 2010. Co-producing knowledge critical reflections on researching participation. In *Participation and democracy in the twenty-first century city*, 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780203277342_2.

Prasad, P.V.V., N. Bhatnagar, V. Bhandari, G. Jacob, K. Narayan, R. Echeverría, N. Beintema, P. Farah Cox, et al. 2023. Patterns of
investment in agricultural research and innovation for the Global South, with a focus on sustainable agricultural intensification. *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems* 7: 1108949. https://doi.org/10.3389/FSUFS.2023.1108949/BIBTEX.

Reyes-García, V., A. Tofighi-Niaki, B.J. Austin, P. Benyei, F. Danielsen, Á. Fernández-Llamazares, A. Sharma, R. Soleymani-Fard, et al. 2022. Data sovereignty in community-based environmental monitoring: Toward equitable environmental data governance. *BioScience* 72: 714–717. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biac048.

Reynolds, C., L. Oakden, S. West, R. Pateman, and C. Elliott. 2021. *Citizen science and food: A review*. London.

Ryan, S.F., N.L. Adamson, A. Aktipis, L.K. Andersen, R. Austin, L. Barnes, M.R. Beasley, K.D. Bedell, et al. 2018. The role of citizen science in addressing grand challenges in food and agriculture research. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* 285: 20181977. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.1977.

Steinke, J., and J. van Etten. 2017. Gamification of farmer-participatory priority setting in plant breeding: Design and validation of “AgroDuos.” *Journal of Crop Improvement* 31: 356–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2017.1303801.

Sumberg, J. 2017. *Agronomy for development: The politics of knowledge in agricultural research*. Routledge: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315284057.

Sumberg, J., J. Thompson, and P. Woodhouse. 2013. Why agronomy in the developing world has become contentious. *Agriculture and Human Values* 30: 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10460-012-9376-8/METRICS.

Tricarico, L., A. Galimberti, A. Campanaro, C. Magoni, and M. Labra. 2020. Experimenting with RRI tools to drive sustainable agri-food research: The SASS case study from Sub-Saharan Africa. *Sustainability (Switzerland)* 12: 827. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030827.

Turner, J.A., B. Guesmi, J.M. Gil, K. Heanue, M. Sierra, H. Percy, I. Bortagaray, N. Chams, et al. 2022. Evaluation capacity building in response to the agricultural research impact agenda: Emerging insights from Ireland, Catalonia (Spain), New Zealand, and Uruguay. *Evaluation and Program Planning* 94: 102127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102127.

van de Gevel, J., J. van Etten, and S. Deterding. 2020. Citizen science breathes new life into participatory agricultural research. A review. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development* 40: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00636-1.

van Noordwijk, T. C. G. E., I. Bishop, S. Staunton-Lamb, A. Oldfield, S. Loiselle, H. Geoghegan, and L. Ceccaroni. 2021. Creating positive environmental impact through citizen science. In *The science of citizen science*. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_19.

Veeckman, C., S. Claes, L. Van Audenhove, and S. van der Graaf. 2023. A framework for making citizen science inclusive with storytelling methods. *Frontiers in Environmental Science* 11: 1211213. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1211213.

Vohland, K., M. Weißpflug, and L. Pettibone. 2019. Citizen science and the neoliberal transformation of science–an Ambivalent relationship. *Citizen Science: Theory and Practice*. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.186.

Wehn, U., M. Gharesifard, L. Ceccaroni, H. Joyce, R. Ajates, S. Woods, A. Bilbao, S. Parkinson, et al. 2021. Impact assessment of citizen science: State of the art and guiding principles for a consolidated approach. *Sustainability Science*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00959-2.

Wehn, U., R. Ajates, C. Mandeville, L. Somerwill, G. Kragh, and M. Haklay. 2024. Opening science to society: How to progress societal engagement into (open) science policies. *Royal Society Open Science* 11: 231309. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.231309.

Willett, W., J. Rockström, B. Loken, M. Springmann, T. Lang, S. Vermeulen, T. Garnett, D. Tilman, et al. 2019. Food in the anthropocene: The EAT–lancet commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. *The Lancet* 393: 447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4.

Woods, M., R. Ajates, N. Gulari, S. Coulson, and GROW Consortium. 2020a. *Co-evaluation tool*. https://doi.org/10.20933/100001180.

Woods, M., D. Hemment, R. Ajates, A. Cobley, A. Xaver, and G. Konstantakopoulos. 2020b. GROW Citizens’ observatory: Leveraging the power of citizens, open data and technology to generate engagement, and action on soil policy and soil moisture monitoring. In *IOP conference series: Earth and environmental science*. Vol. 509. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/509/1/012060.

**Publisher’s Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

## AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES

**Raquel Ajates** is a César Nombela Research Fellow at the Sociology Department of Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED). Her research work focuses on food policy, seed systems, cooperatives, agroecology, and citizen science.

**Address:** Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, C/Obispo Trejo, n°2, 28040, Madrid, Spain.

e-mail: raquel.ajates@poli.uned.es

**Petra Benyei** (✉) is a Ramon y Cajal post-doctoral researcher at the Agri-food Systems and Territorial Development Department of the Institute of Economics, Geography and Demography (Spanish National Research Council). Her main research interests are citizen science and agroecology.

**Address:** Instituto de Economía, Geografía y Demografía, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Calle Albasanz 26, 28037 Madrid, Spain.

e-mail: petra.benyei@cchs.csic.es

**Helen Avery** is a researcher at the Centre for Environmental and Climate Science (CEC), Lund University. She is interested in how CS can support strategies in sustainability transitions in agriculture and questions affecting smallholder farmer livelihoods in arid and semi-arid regions, notably aspects connected to microclimates, soil health and erosion, crop choice, water resources, and landscape management.

**Address:** Centre for Environmental and Climate Science, Lund University, Box 117, 221 00 Lund, Sweden.

e-mail: Helen.Avery@cec.lu.se

**Egle Butkeviciene** PhD serves as full Professor of Sociology and Head of the Committee for Political Science, Sociology and Public Governance Study Programs at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities. Her research and teaching focuses on citizen science, civil society issues, civic participation, social innovations, social entrepreneurship, environmental activism, governance, and social impact of technologies.

**Address:** Faculty of Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Kaunas University of Technology, A. Mickevičiaus str. 37, 44244 Kaunas, Lithuania.

e-mail: egle.butkeviciene@ktu.lt

**Alexandra Czeglédi** is a researcher at the Environmental Social Science Research Group (Non-profit Ltd.) (Hungary) and a PhD student in Environmental Humanities at the Ethnology and Cultural
Anthropology Department of the University of Pécs (Hungary). Her interests include ontological anthropology, multi-actor food value chains, agroecology, and participatory methodologies.

**Address:** Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG), Bükkszentkereszt, 42. Táncsics Street, Budapest 3557, Hungary.
e-mail: czegled.alexandra@essrg.hu

**Dominique Desclaux** is senior researcher at INRAE (French Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment) and deeply involved in Participatory Research projects, as geneticist and agro-nomist. Interactions between plant and environment as well as interactions between science and society are her main research topics.
**Address:** Institut National de Recherche Pour l'Agriculture, l'Ali-mentation et l'Environnement (INRAE), Domaine de Melgueil, 34130 Mauguoio, France.
e-mail: dominique.desclaux@inrae.fr

**Gerid Hager** is a Research Scholar at the Novel Data Ecosystems for Sustainability (NODES) Research Group at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Her research interests include participatory approaches to advancing the understanding and management of sustainable systems, including citizen science, social simulations, and participatory systems modelling.
**Address:** International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, 2361 Laxenburg, Austria.
e-mail: hager@iiasa.ac.at

**Barbara Heinisch** is a researcher and lecturer at the Centre for Translation Studies at the University of Vienna, Austria, and is working in the field of citizen science (strategy) for the Citizen Science Network Austria at BOKU University. Her research interests include specialised translation, terminology, accessibility, digital humanities, and citizen science.

**Address:** University of Vienna, Porzellangasse 4, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
e-mail: barbara.heinisch@univie.ac.at

**Peter N. Hoebe** is research lead for the sustainable agriculture programme (Farming with Nature) at Earthwatch Europe. His interests include sustainable agricultural topics related to soil health, water quality, and biodiversity in relation to participatory research approaches.
**Address:** Earthwatch Europe, 102-104 St Aldates, Oxford OX1 1BT, UK.
e-mail: phoebe@earthwatch.org.uk

**Toos C. G. E. van Noordwijk** is director at Wij.land, a charity that supports farmer-led learning and innovation towards nature-inclusive farming practices. Her main interest is the development and integration of participatory and cross-disciplinary approaches to support science-based, bottom-up landscape restoration.
**Address:** Earthwatch Europe, Zaltbommel, The Netherlands.
**Address:** Wij.Land, Gein-Zuid 23, 1391 JE Abcoude, The Netherlands.
e-mail: t.vannoordwijk@wij.land

**Marco Barzman** is a research engineer in the Science in Society team at INRAE (France's National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment). His main interest is in the promotion of participatory research as a way to tackle present-day challenges in food, agriculture, and the environment.
**Address:** Institut National de Recherche Pour l'Agriculture, l'Ali-mentation et l'Environnement (INRAE), 147 rue de l'Université, 75007 Paris, France.
e-mail: marco.barzman@inrae.fr