# A participatory and multi-actor approach to locally support crop diversification based on the case study of camelina in northern France

Margot Leclère, Chantal Loyce, Marie-Hélène Jeuffroy

► To cite this version:

Margot Leclère, Chantal Loyce, Marie-Hélène Jeuffroy. A participatory and multi-actor approach to locally support crop diversification based on the case study of camelina in northern France. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2023, 43 (1), pp.13. 10.1007/s13593-023-00871-2. hal-03975288

HAL Id: hal-03975288

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03975288

Submitted on 7 Jul 2023

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
# A participatory and multi-actor approach to locally support crop diversification based on the case study of camelina in northern France

Margot Leclère<fnref n="1" /> · Chantal Loyce<fnref n="1" /> · Marie-Hélène Jeuffroy<fnref n="1" />

Accepted: 16 December 2022

© The Author(s) 2023

## Abstract

Despite the acknowledged benefits of crop diversification, the transition towards more diversified cropping systems needs to be supported, mainly due to socio-technical lock-ins favoring major dominant crop species. This calls for the development of new approaches to support the design of locally tailored diversified cropping systems. This paper aims to present an original participatory and multi-actor design approach, developed to support the introduction of camelina (*Camelina sativa*) into the cropping systems of northern France and to provide some insights about the characteristics, the specificities, and the limits of this approach to support its use and adaptation to other contexts. For 3 years, and in connection with the development of an oilseed biorefinery, we gathered a variety of actors (farmers, advisors, engineers in agronomy, researchers, and industrialists) to locally support the introduction of camelina in the cropping systems. First, we illustrate the diversity of the modalities that have been collectively imagined to introduce and manage camelina in the local cropping systems. Then, we describe the originality and the diversity of the knowledge produced on camelina, especially during the assessment of some of these modalities within on-farm experiments. Finally, drawing on concepts and theories from design sciences, we show that (i) the pre-existence of networks of actors, (ii) the rationale involvement of the actors, (iii) the implementation of a situated design process fueled by action and distributed among actors, (iv) the sharing and the circulation of knowledge among a diversity of actors involved in the production and use of the new crop, and (v) the implementation of an effective network management contributed to foster the three key elements that we identified as crucial to support crop diversification, namely, the production of actionable knowledge, the exploration of new ideas/concepts, and the active participation of a diversity of actors of the agri-food system.

**Keywords** Camelina sativa · Innovative design · Open innovation · On-farm experiment · Participatory design

## 1 Introduction

In the past six decades, the evolution of agriculture has led to simplified and input-intensive cropping systems, with acknowledged negative impacts on environmental (Tilman et al. 2002; Schott et al. 2010) and human (Mostafalou and Abdollahi 2013; Coutts and Hahn 2015; Gordon et al. 2017) health. For instance, the loss of planned as well as associated biodiversity has resulted in lower biological pest regulation, higher pesticide use, and consequently in the development

of pest and weed resistances (Elzen and Hardee 2003; Gould et al. 2018; Dainese et al. 2019) and also in a higher demand for N fertilizer and fossil energy and thus higher greenhouse gas emissions (Mignolet et al. 2004). Therefore, more diversified cropping systems are needed to enhance the agroecological transition towards more sustainable agriculture (Lechenet et al. 2014; Duru et al. 2015; Liebman and Schulte 2015; Liu et al. 2019; Beillouin et al. 2020). For instance, lengthening crop rotations through the introduction of diversifying crops has been shown to be relevant to, among others, reducing pesticide use, as a result of a better biological control of weeds, diseases, and pests (Colbach et al. 2010; Lin 2011; Wezel et al. 2014). Building on the acknowledged benefits of crop diversification, the transition process towards more diversified cropping systems has already begun in various regions of the world but remains slow due to many obstacles (Roesch-McNally et al. 2018;

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

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

<footnote>Margot Leclère
margot.leclere@inrae.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR Agronomie, Bâtiment F 22 place de l'Agronomie, CS 20040, 91123 Palaiseau Cedex, France</footnote>
Burchfield and Poterie 2018; Audouin et al. 2018; Weitus-
chat et al. 2022), including socio-technical lock-ins favor-
ing major dominant crop species. Indeed, several European
studies showed that the development of diversifying crops
is hindered by a combination of interconnected barriers at
the various levels of the value chain (e.g., breeding, farming
systems, collection and storage, processing) (Magrini et al.
2016; Meynard et al. 2018; Gomiero et al. 2019; Morel et al.
2020). Therefore, consistent and disruptive innovations at
the production, process, and consumption levels, also requir-
ing changes in public policies, are needed to break out agri-
culture and food sectors of this lock-in (Kuokkanen et al.
2017; Meynard et al. 2017; Magrini et al. 2018). However,
only few studies have reported success stories in introduc-
ing diversifying crops and developing the associated value
chains (Colombo et al. 2020; Cholez et al. 2020; Smadja
and Muel 2021), thus calling for the development of new
approaches to promote and support locally tailored crop
diversification (Périnelle et al. 2021).

To build up such approaches, studies in agronomy, ergon-
omy, and design sciences provide significant inputs, espe-
cially to outline some characteristics that these approaches
should have in order to address challenges raised by crop
diversification. It is acknowledged that introducing a diver-
sifying crop requires re-designing, at least partially, the
cropping system in which this crop would take place. Yet,
cropping system design towards agroecology is known to
rely on renewed scientific knowledge (Caron et al. 2014)
and its hybridization with expert knowledge (Doré et al.
2011; Toffolini et al. 2017). Therefore, lack of scientific
and technical knowledge on diversifying crops, whether it
concerns biological processes or agricultural practices and
crop performances, as well as the lack of farmers’ and advi-
sors’ expertise and know-how on these crops were identi-
fied as crucial barriers impeding their cultivation (Zimmer
et al. 2016; Meynard et al. 2018; Muoni et al. 2019). As
a result, supporting crop diversification requires a deep
change in the ways of producing, formalizing, and sharing
among actors various forms of knowledge (Catalogna et al.

2018; Quinio et al. 2022; Verret et al. 2020; Salembier et al. 2021). In addition, the double interconnected challenge of re-designing cropping systems and of producing and sharing knowledge on diversifying crops should be addressed to support crop diversification. With this aim, the concept-knowledge (C-K) theory, which describes the interactions between concepts (i.e., ideas), exploration, and knowledge use and production, within a design activity (Le Masson et al. 2006; Le Masson and Weil 2010) appears as a relevant framework to be mobilized. Moreover, to face the systemic lock-in described above, crop diversification would gain to rely on multi-actor approaches involving not only farmers, but also breeders, advisors in extension services, collectors, and engineers specialized in food processing and in machinery development (Pigford et al. 2018; Meynard et al. 2018; Puech et al. 2021). Finally, it appears relevant to actively involve these various actors of the supply chain from the beginning of the design process, within a participatory approach, as they will be the main “users” of the diversified cropping systems and for some of them in charge of their implementation and their adaptation to the local climatic and socio-economic-cultural conditions (Béguin 2003; Cerf et al. 2012).

This paper aims to (i) present an original participatory
and multi-actor approach, combining knowledge production
and design activities, developed to support the introduction
of camelina (*Camelina sativa*) into the cropping systems
of northern France and (ii) provide some insights about
the characteristics, the specificities, and the limits of this
approach in order to support its use and adaptation for other
diversifying crops and territories (Fig. 1). After describing
the four steps of the approach and the way we analyzed a
*posteriori* our approach (Section 2.), we expose the outputs
of this transversal analysis of the results obtained for the
case study (Section 3). Finally, as discussion, we draw les-
sons from the case study to support the development of simi-
lar approaches in other contexts (Section 4).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** An original participatory and multi-actor approach combining design workshops (a) and on-farm experimentations (b) to support the introduction of camelina in northern France.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
# 2 Materials and methods

## 2.1 Overview of the case study

In strong link with the emergence of a local oilseed biorefinery in northern France (Oise department), a research program covering topics from production to processing of a diversity of biomass sources coming from various crops was launched in 2012 (https://sas-pivert.com/). Among others, this program aimed to explore how to sustainably supply the biorefinery with a local production of biomass (50 km around the city of Compiègne, where the biorefinery was located). From this perspective, based on a previous analysis of candidate crops, camelina was identified as a promising diversifying crop, due to its agronomic and industrial characteristics. Camelina is a short cycle (around 1200 growing degree-days with a 5°C base temperature) oilseed crop that can be grown under a wide range of environments (Berti et al. 2016), including the pedo-climatic conditions of northern France, with 5000 hectares cultivated in this area at the beginning of the twentieth century, and trials reported during the 1990s (Bonjean and Le Goffic 1999). Camelina is also acknowledged for the diversity of the ways it can be integrated into cropping systems, as main crop or as double crop (Gesch et al. 2014; Berti et al. 2017) and for its promising potential in terms of seed yield and oil quality under low-input management (Putnam et al. 1993; Avola et al. 2021). Finally camelina is considered an interesting alternative raw material for biofuel production (Fröhlich and Rice 2005; Moser 2010; Shonnard et al. 2010; Ciubota-Rosie et al. 2013) but also for other applications in food, feed, cosmetics, or chemical derivatives (Waraich et al. 2013; Berti et al. 2016). However, re-designing the cropping systems of the study area to introduce camelina was challenging, mainly because of lacks of scientific knowledge, technical references, and farmers' experience on this little-known crop (Leclère et al. 2018). Indeed, although literature reviews showed a regain of interest in this rustic oilseed crop during the last decade (Zanetti et al. 2013; Berti et al. 2016), scientific knowledge remained limited, compared to the major crops of the study area, namely, wheat, rapeseed, and barley. Concomitantly, local conventional farmers had little expertise on this crop because of the limited cultivation areas under camelina in the region (less than 100 hectares in 2016 for organic camelina).

Based on this initial diagnosis, a 3-year project was initiated in 2016 by our research team to locally support the introduction of camelina in the cropping systems, in narrow collaboration with an advisor of the local Chamber of Agriculture, a group of motivated farmers from a local group of rural development within the area, and researchers and engineers from various fields involved in the biorefinery project.

## 2.2 Description of the general approach

The general approach proposed was based on four main steps (Fig. 2). Each step relied on specific devices and methods detailed in the following sub-sections and involved different types of actors (Table 1). Participation was on a voluntary basis, which means that on the one hand, participation to one specific device did not commit the participants for the rest of the process, and on the other hand, for each new device set up, an invitation was extended to the actors involved in the biorefinery project and to the 80 farmers of the agricultural development group.

### 2.2.1 Step 1: Identification of knowledge gaps hindering the design of locally tailored camelina-based cropping systems

The first step of our approach aimed to identify and prioritize the gaps in knowledge that were specifically hindering the design of camelina-based cropping systems in the study area, in order to sustainably supply the local biorefinery. To do so, on one hand, we cross-referenced a literature review on camelina with biorefinery expectations, defined both by literature and through meetings with key stakeholders of the biorefinery project. On the other hand, we organized a multi-actor workshop, gathering seven farmers, two local advisors from the Chambre of Agriculture, three engineers in agronomy from national technical institutes or rural associations, two researchers specialized in oilseed crops extraction and processing, two members of oilseed industrial groups, and two representatives from the biorefinery (Table 1). This workshop aimed to identify (i) the knowledge that appeared needed to design and implement camelina-based cropping systems but that was not available at that time and (ii) the assessment indicators derived from the various participants' expectations (Leclère et al. 2018). Based on KCP method (Le Masson et al. 2009), we asked farmers to imagine how they would grow camelina in their own cropping systems, thus bringing to light the knowledge lacking to feed this situated design. Concomitantly, we asked advisors, engineers, researchers, and representatives from industries to react on opportunities or warnings linked to farmers' proposals.

### 2.2.2 Step 2: Knowledge production from field assessment of designed camelina crop management routes

The second step consisted in producing knowledge, specifically to fill the main knowledge gaps identified in the first step. It was based on the design, the implementation, and the assessment of various camelina crop management routes (CMRs), both as spring and summer crop (Fig. 2). More precisely, two on-farm experimental devices were set up: (i) a
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** General approach developed and implemented to support the introduction of camelina into the cropping systems of the Oise department to sustainably supply a local oilseed biorefinery. The four</figcaption></figure>

steps of the approach are detailed on the left side. The devices imple-
mented, the actors involved, and the timeline are described on the
right side. CMRs, crop management routes.

multi-environment experimental network, including
CMRs designed and assessed by our research team
(researchers in agronomy), and implemented by farm-
ers, and (ii) on-farm trials, i.e., CMRs designed and
implemented on their own by the farmers themselves
(Fig. 2, Table 2). Farmers involved in each on-farm
experimental device were not necessarily the same
(Table 2), but all were chosen because they were
interested and motivated by the topic and the objec-
tive of each experimental device. In total, in the multi-
environment experimental network, four CMRs, with
camelina as spring main crop, were tested across nine
environments. Besides, in the on-farm trials, thirteen
CMRs, with camelina as second crop grown during
summer, were implemented by four farmers (Fig. 4).
In the multi-environment experimental network, the
assessment of the modalities was performed by our
research team and relied on the measurement of several
variables during and at the end of the crop cycle, the
statistical analysis of the data (Leclère et al. 2019),
and the implementation of an agronomic diagnosis to
identify the causes of seed yield and quality variability
(Leclère et al. 2021b). In the on-farm trials, knowledge
production was mainly based on the formalization and
the analysis of a qualitative assessment carried out by
the farmers and collected through interviews (Leclère
et al. 2018) (Table 2).

2.2.3 Step 3: Circulation and sharing of the knowledge locally produced

This step was related to the circulation of the knowledge pro-
duced and its sharing among actors (Fig. 2). Indeed, as the
experimental devices did not always involve the same farm-
ers, and did not involve the other type of actors (Table 1),
we set up formal exchange times with various actors to share
and discuss the results obtained or the observations made.

First, as part of the monitoring of the on-farm trials,
individual field visits were performed in August 2017
(Fig. 2) by one researcher with each of the four farmers
involved (Table 2). During these visits, farmers’ obser-
vations and appraisal were discussed together with the
researcher. Then, during the following winter (January
2018, Fig. 2), we organized a 1-day feedback meeting,
the objectives of which were to share the results of the
first year of experiment and to prepare the second year
of the multi-environment experimental network. Apart
from the research team, this meeting involved eighteen
people: eight farmers, four of whom had implemented
on-farm trials (F3, F5, F7, F9), two advisors from the
Chamber of Agriculture, four engineers in agronomy
from national technical institutes or rural associations,
three researchers specialized in oilseed crop extraction
and processing, and one representative of the biorefin-
ery project. This group was formed by people who had

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
<caption>**Table 1** Actors involved in the devices implemented during the four steps on the general approach. Devices are mentioned in chronological order from left to right. MEE network means multi-environment experimental network. Step 1 refers to “Identification of knowledge gaps”; Step 2 refers to “Production of knowledge on camelina”; Step 3 refers to “Circulation and sharing of the knowledge locally produced”; Step 4 refers to “Design of locally tailored cropping systems with camelina.” “X” means that the considered actor has been involved in the device.</caption>

<table><thead><tr><th>Type of actors</th><th>Meeting with biorefinery actors (Step 1)</th><th>MEE network 1st year (Step 2)</th><th>Multi-actor design workshop (Step 1)</th><th>On-farm trials (Step 2)</th><th>Feedback meeting (Step 3)</th><th>MEE network 2nd year (Step 2)</th><th>Collective field tour (Step 3)</th><th>Farmers' design workshop (Step 4)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>Farmers (F)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>F1</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>F2</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>F3</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>F4</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>F5</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>F6</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>F7</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>F8</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>F9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>F10</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>F11</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>F12</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>F13</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>F14</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>F15</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>Local advisors (A)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>A1</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>A2</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>A3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>Engineers in agronomy (E)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>E1</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>E2</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>E3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>E4</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>E5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>E6</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>E7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>Researchers in oilseed extraction and processing (R)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>R1</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>R2</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>R3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>Oilseed industrial groups (I)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>I1</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I2</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>Biorefinery (B)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>B1</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>B2</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="9"><strong>Research team (T)</strong></td></tr><tr><td>T1</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>T2</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>T3</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 2** Main characteristics of the two experimental devices in terms of modalities tested, methods of assessment, actors involved, and knowledge produced. More details on both devices are available in Leclère et al. (2018) and Leclère et al. (2019) respectively for the</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>On-farm experimental device</th><th></th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Multi-environment experimental network</th><th>On-farm trials</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>General description</td><td>4 spring camelina crop management routes tested across 9 environments (3 soil types; 2 years of experiments: 2017 and 2018)</td><td>13 summer camelina crop management routes as second crop, spread over 4 farms; 1 year of experiment (2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Actor(s) involved</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Design</td><td>Researchers in agronomy (R1, R2, R3)</td><td>Farmers (F3, F5, F7, F9)</td></tr><tr><td>Implementation</td><td>Farmers (F1, F2, F3, F4, F8 in 2017; F3, F4, F7, F8 in 2018)</td><td>Farmers (F3, F5, F7, F9)</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment</td><td>Researchers in agronomy (R1, R2, R3)</td><td>Farmers (F3, F5, F7, F9) jointly with a researcher in agronomy (R1)</td></tr><tr><td>Assessment</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Data collection</td><td>Measurements (crop and weed biomass at flowering and harvest; N content; yield; oil and protein contents; mineral nitrogen in the soil)</td><td>Measurement (only camelina yield); Farmers interviews during and after the experiment</td></tr><tr><td>Analysis</td><td>Statistical analysis of the data; agronomic diagnosis</td><td>Qualitative analysis of the assessment performed by the farmers</td></tr><tr><td>Formalization of the knowledge produced</td><td>Bar charts<br>Graphs describing correlation between variables</td><td>Verbatim<br>Table synthesizing indicators used by farmers to assess their trials and the result of the qualitative assessment using different colors</td></tr></tbody></table>

on-farm trials and for the multi-environmental experimental network. For the actors involved, the IDs in brackets refer to the list of actors presented in Table 1.

attended the multi-actor workshop but also new ones (e.g., F10, F11, E3, R3) (Table 1). The reporting of the results relied on (i) the presentation of a first analysis of the experimental data (emergence rate, weed biomass, camelina yield) from the multi-environment experimental network and (ii) the testimonies of the four farmer-experimenters who had designed and implemented on-farm trials. All the exchanges between the participants during this meeting were recorded. Finally, during the second year of experiment (June 2018, Fig. 2), a collective field tour was organized in the four fields of the multi-environmental experimental network. Three of the four farmers involved in the experimental device this year, as well as one advisor from the Chamber of Agriculture, two engineers in agronomy from national technical institutes or rural associations, and the research team (researchers in agronomy) attended this field tour (Table 1). During the visit, in each field where a trial was implemented, exchanges between participants were driven by the following questions: “What do we see? Does the modality observed is satisfying regarding its initial objectives?” If yes, why? If no, why and what proposals could we make to improve the situation next year?”. Again, all the exchanges were recorded for

further analysis, and a detailed report including pictures was produced and shared with the participants but also with the actors involved in the other meetings.

### 2.2.4 Step 4: Farmers’ design of site-specific cropping systems including camelina

After the 2 years of experiment, a final design workshop was organized to support the design, by nine farmers, of camelina-based cropping systems adapted to their own farms, always with the goal to sustainably supply the biorefinery (Fig. 2). As proposed by Reau et al. (2012; 2015; 2018), the design workshop was organized around an ambitious and shared target, defined as: “Where and how would you grow a pesticide-free, low-input, and profitable camelina in your farm?”. Nine farmers attended this design workshop, including four farmers who had never been involved in the approach before (Table 1). After a time period dedicated to share knowledge, during which the locally produced knowledge was presented by the research team, every farmer was asked to design at least one proposal of cropping system to introduce camelina into his own farm. More precisely, farmers designed (i) the new crop sequence including camelina, and (ii) the main components of the camelina CMR, from

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>
the harvest of the previous crop to the implementation
of the following crop. Farmers were asked to shape their
prototype on a "crop information sheet." This document,
designed by the research team to collect data, is comprised
of two sections, one in which the crop sequence including
camelina is presented and compared to the current one and
another in which the main features of the crop management
steps are mapped on a timeline and detailed (Leclère et al.
2021a). All the proposals were collectively debriefed: after
the presentation and the explanation by each farmer of his
technical choices, proposals were discussed by the whole
group. All the comments, explanations, and new propos-
als were added in live on the crop information sheet, and
exchanges were recorded to allow further analysis.

**2.3 Ex-post analysis of the approach**

In order to draw lessons from this case study and contrib-
ute to the development of similar approaches for other
crops and territories with different objectives and char-
acteristics, an ex-post analysis of the approach and its
outputs was performed by the research team. The analysis
was organized around three topics of interest. First, spe-
cial attention was paid to the various design processes
that took place all along the project. Especially for each
design process, drawing on the C-K theory (Hatchuel and
Weil 2009), we analyzed the design reasoning meaning
that we identified, described, and mapped, when possible,
the actors involved, the modalities explored, the knowl-
edge mobilized by the actors, and the knowledge gaps to
be filled identified by the actors. Second, we performed
a cross-cutting reading of the knowledge produced dur-
ing the project. Each device (on-farm experiments, work-
shops, etc.) led to a distinctive production of actionable
knowledge, i.e., knowledge that is produced in action and
that "specifically supports stakeholder decision making
and consequent actions" (Geertsema et al. 2016), that
have been published in scientific papers (Leclère et al.
2018, 2019, 2021a, 2021b). Therefore, the objective of
this ex-post analysis was to look at all these results with
a new eye to highlight the nature of the knowledge pro-
duced and illustrate its diversity and originality. Finally,
drawing on concept and theories from design science
and on literature about participatory design approaches
in agriculture, we identified, analyzed, and discussed the
specificities, the conditions of success, and the limits of
the approach. To do so, we asked ourselves which char-
acteristic of the approach enabled or hindered (i) the pro-
duction of actionable knowledge, (ii) the exploration of
new ideas/concepts, and/or (iii) the active participation of
a diversity of actors of the agri-food system which are the
three key elements that we identified as crucial to support
crop diversification.

## 3 Results

**3.1 Design reasoning of the on-farm experimental devices**

3.1.1 A multi-environment network focused on weed control and on the quantitative and qualitative performance of camelina as spring crop

Based on the literature review (Step 1), we identified that (i) weeds were a major problem for growing camelina, (ii) chemical weeding was not fully effective to control weeds and only few pesticides were available, and (iii) only a few studies investigated zero-herbicide alternatives to control weeds. In addition, during the exchanges, biorefinery industrialists mentioned they expected low-input crops, able to limit environmental impacts at the production chain level. This target bolstered the fact that knowledge on herbicide-free CMRs for camelina was missing to design cropping systems adapted to our case study. Thus, to fill this knowledge gap, the research team designed three herbicide-free CMRs with camelina as main spring crop, in the view to assess and understand both the effect of these CMRs on weed biomass and the variability of camelina quantitative (yield) and qualitative (oil composition) performance, under various pedo-climatic conditions. Beyond mobilizing agronomic knowledge on already existing herbicide-free strategies to manage weeds in other crops or on crops' functioning, designing CMRs took into account (i) the local pedo-climatic conditions and cropping systems characteristics, (ii) the technical feasibility for farmers, and (iii) the biorefinery expectations (Fig. 3). For instance, no CMRs using mechanical weed control were designed because no farmer had the required equipment. Besides, intercropping with food crops was favored because of the "food first" stated objective of the biorefinery project leaders (Fig. 3).

3.1.2 On-farm trials focused on summer camelina
as second crop to answer specific and situated
knowledge gaps

During the multi-actor design workshop, the participants
identified a diversity of ways to introduce camelina into
the cropping systems of the Oise department: as spring or
summer crop, in pure stand or intercropped with a diver-
sity of food and non-food crop species (Fig. 4). Linked to
this exploration, a lot of questions and uncertainties were
raised by the participants, leading to the identification of
knowledge gaps on camelina management, on camelina
crop functioning (ecophysiology, growth, and production),
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

**Fig. 3** Formalization, using a C-K (concept-knowledge) map, of the design reasoning conducted by the research team to imagine the crop management routes (CMRs) that were assessed in the multi-environment network. In this representation, the exploration of ideas (concepts) is presented on the left side, and the associated exploration of different pockets of knowledge is shown on the right hand. Links between knowledge and concepts are identified with arrows, as

proposed by Hatchuel and Weil (2009). Gray arrow and text refer to non-explored path during the exploration (C space). The colors refer to the categories of knowledge mobilized during the design process: green with small dots, agronomic knowledge; blue with large dots, knowledge on biorefinery expectations and constraints; orange with full traits, knowledge on the local agriculture (cropping and production systems).

and on camelina preceding effects, for camelina both as spring and summer crop. Fostered by this collective reflection, four farmers (Table 1) decided to test and appraise camelina as a second crop in the specific context of their farms. More precisely, each farmer designed his own camelina CMRs, and the experimental design to be implemented, all with the aim of answering specific questions they had in their own farm. Overall, three trials took the form of a “feasibility test” in which farmers tried to see if the CMRs tested were technically feasible and were answering their expectations in terms of performances or services. For instance, one of these farmers assessed the feasibility of growing camelina after canned pea by specifically looking at the ability of camelina to reach maturity before the sowing of the following winter crop and at the effect of herbicide residuals from canned pea on camelina. The fourth trial was designed as a factorial trial which objective was to test the effect of different combinations of practices (sowing rate, tillage systems, and fertilization rate) on camelina growth and yield when grown as double crop after winter barley.

## 3.2 A diversified knowledge production throughout the approach

### 3.2.1 Knowledge produced about camelina introduction and management, farmers’ expectations, and monitoring and assessment criteria used by farmers

A wide range of ways to introduce and manage camelina, adapted to a diversity of local and unique situations (defined by the combination of a specific environment and farmer’s objectives and constraints), were identified and described during the workshops (Step 1 and Step 4) and the design of the CMR assessed in both on-farm experiments (Step 2) (Fig. 4). The explanation of the farmers’ logic of action underlying these modalities, during the workshops or during the interviews with farmers (about their on-farm trials), made it possible to identify (i) a variety of farmers’ expectations regarding the crop and (ii) assessment and monitoring criteria used by farmers (some of them being unexpected). For example, for some farmers, the introduction of camelina
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** Mapping the exploration of ways to introduce camelina into the cropping systems of the study area during the two design workshops. Overall, 17 paths were explored during the multi-actor design workshop and 9 during the farmer design workshop. In gray: paths only explored during the multi-actor design workshop. In black: paths only explored during the farmer design workshop. In bold: paths</figcaption></figure>

explored during both the multi-actor and the farmer design workshop. Modalities that have been tested in the on-farm experiments are marked with a star. Relay cropping means that camelina is sown before the harvest of the previous crop. Double cropping means that camelina is sown right after the harvest of the previous crop.

was expected to be a lever to reduce weeds in their crop sequence, exclusively composed of winter crops. For others, the introduction of camelina—as second crop—was a lever to increase profitability in soils with low-yield potential for major crops (e.g., sugarbeet, wheat, rapeseed) (Leclère et al. 2018). We also identified that weed species, and not only weed abundance—highly used in scientific studies including ours (see Leclère et al. 2019)—was an indicator used by farmers to monitor and assess the crop (Fig. 5).

### 3.2.2 Knowledge produced about biological processes of regulation and competition at stake in camelina stand

Although using different analytical approaches, both experimental devices were used to identify and describe several major biological processes during camelina development. On one hand, the analysis of the quantitative data from the multi-environmental experimental network helped to understand and quantify biological processes for weed regulation in camelina. For instance, the evidence of a negative correlation between weed biomass and total crop biomass at maturity—and not at flowering—allowed us to highlight a post-flowering competition

for resources, mainly explained by higher species growth rates in the intercrop modalities after flowering (Leclère et al. 2019). On the other hand, farmers' hypotheses to explain observations made on their on-farm trials, and collected during the individual interviews, gave first insights on possible processes involved (even if they had not been scientifically proven). For example, one farmer, who implemented eight different camelina CMRs as second crop after winter barley, combining two types of soil tillage, two sowing rates and two nitrogen rates, explained the low yields achieved (lower than 1.5 t/ha) as a consequence of a nitrogen deficiency due to the barley straw decomposition in the tilled modalities: "In my opinion, the decomposition of the straw pumped nitrogen, whereas in the no-till part, the degradation was slower. You can see that, as soon as it's not tilled, it's better. In my opinion, when I till the soil, nitrogen will destroy the straw at the expense of the plant." (Excerpt from F7 interview, 06/09/2017).

### 3.2.3 Knowledge produced about factors and practices affecting camelina performances in the study area

The analysis of the quantitative and the qualitative data from both experimental devices also led to the production

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5** Functional schemes linking practices (red inset), crop (orange inset), and soil (brown inset) characteristics, climatic conditions (blue inset), and variables of interest for farmers, agronomists, and/or biorefinery representatives (green circle) based on the results of the multi-environment experimental network (a) and the on-farm trials (b).</figcaption></figure>

of knowledge about factors (e.g., soil and crop characteristics, climatic conditions) and agricultural practices influencing camelina quantitative, qualitative, and environmental performances in on-farm conditions within the study area (Fig. 5). For instance, the agronomic diagnosis performed on the multi-environment experimental network (Leclère et al. 2021b) showed that camelina yield variability was mainly explained by the nitrogen crop status at flowering and downy mildew, while climatic conditions (cumulative temperature and high temperatures during grain filling duration) explained oil composition variability (Fig. 5a). Accordingly, the qualitative assessment performed by the farmers during the individual field visits and interviews also led to identify nitrogen crop status as factor influencing camelina yield, when grown as second crop (Fig. 5b). More precisely, by comparing the various situations, farmers identified that the nature of the preceding crop was a key factor influencing camelina status and yield: "After canned pea, it is good for

the nitrogen supply, you have better yield than after winter cereal" (Excerpt from F9 interview, 26/10/2017).

### 3.2.4 Acquisition of know-how and expertise by the farmers

The implementation of the trials by the farmers themselves, for both experimental devices (Table 2), enabled them to acquire know-how on camelina management: they learned how to manage the sowing or the harvest of this small-seed crop with their own equipment, and they developed means to dry the harvest, etc. Simultaneously, they also acquired expertise on this little-known crop illustrated by their ability to provide some characteristics about camelina functioning ("It is a plant that likes heat, so the problem in the off-season is that I feel that it had trouble for growing", excerpt from F7 interview, 06/09/2017) or to formalize some decision rules for the management of

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
camelina in the future ("This year, I harvested my peas on the 12th of June and I sowed camelina on the 24th: I lost time. As soon as I harvest peas, I have to sow the next day because 15 days is huge for the daily temperature", excerpt from F9 interview, 26/10/2017).

## 3.3 Design of locally tailored camelina-based cropping systems based on the locally knowledge produced during the second design workshop

### 3.3.1 A renewed exploration of the ways to introduce camelina into the crop sequence

As for the multi-actor design workshop (Step 1), a wide range of ways to introduce camelina into the cropping systems was explored during the design workshop dedicated to farmers (Step 4) (Fig. 4). However, the exploration slightly differed from the first workshop with the loss of some paths previously explored (e.g., the oilseed intercrops) and the emergence of new paths (e.g., spring camelina as pure crop after an unripe rye) (Fig. 4). The ex-post analysis of the farmers' proposals showed that this renewed exploration could be explained by:

(i) The presence of new farmers (i.e., who had never participated to any devices of the approach, F12 to F15, Table 1), with new objectives and constraints. For instance, the proposal of introducing camelina after green rye was specifically linked to a methanization project carried out by F12 to answer the obligation of having at least one cash crop per year within a crop sequence with dedicated energy crops.

(ii) The mobilization of the knowledge previously produced during the Steps 1 to 3. For example, F8 justified his choice of introducing camelina in intercrop with a legume (pea) and a cereal (barley), both with low sowing rate, as a way to reduce nitrogen competition with camelina and limit weed pressure, based on some results of the multi-environment experimental network summarized in Fig. 5.

### 3.3.2 Detailed camelina CMRs designed by farmers

All farmers proposed prototypes of the management they would apply on camelina (even though uncertainties remained) (Leclère et al. 2021a). As previously, the ex-post analysis of the farmers design workshop outputs (Step 4) showed that this resulted from the mobilization, by farmers, of the knowledge produced during the Steps 1 to 3 but adapted to their local situations. For instance, in the case of the introduction of camelina as double crop after winter barley (Fig. 4), for which many questions about sowing rate, nitrogen fertilization, and weeding had been raised during the multi-actor design workshop (Step 1) (Leclère et al. 2018), three different CMRs were designed by farmers F3, F7, and F15 during the farmers design workshop (Step 4) (Table 3). All three proposals were justified by farmers as strategies to limit (i) barley volunteers in camelina crop and (ii) nitrogen deficiency due to barley straw decomposition, which were the two major factors limiting yield, identified from the on-farm trials (Step 3) (Fig. 5b). These proposals relied on a high sowing rate (between 8 and 10 kg·ha⁻¹) combined either with the removal of the straws of the preceding crop or an application of nitrogen fertilizer, and a chemical or mechanical weeding, if needed (Table 3). The design of these specific combinations of techniques was mainly justified by what the farmers learned from the implementation and the appraisal of the on-farm trials (Step 3) and shared at the beginning of the farmers design workshop (Step 4).

### 3.3.3 Identification of new knowledge gaps to be filled

As a result of (i) the exploration of new ways to introduce camelina in the cropping systems and (ii) the design of camelina CMRs, the farmer design workshop (Step 4) also led to refresh the knowledge gaps to be filled to support the introduction of camelina in the Oise department. For instance, several farmers mentioned the need of investigating the effect of camelina on different possible following crops (e.g., wheat, sorghum, sunflower), and especially its possible allelopathic effect, to be able to design a crop sequence suited to these characteristics. During the multi-actor design

<table><caption>**Table 3** Description of the three combinations of agricultural practices designed by farmers during the design workshop to limit barley volunteers and nitrogen deficiency due to barley straw decomposition when introducing camelina as double crop after winter barley.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Barley straw removal</th><th>Camelina sowing rate (kg ha<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Weeding technique</th><th>Fertilization</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>F15</td><td>Yes</td><td>8 to 10</td><td>Mechanical</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>F3</td><td>Yes</td><td>8 to 10</td><td>Chemical (broadleaf herbicide)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>F7</td><td>No</td><td>8 to 10</td><td>Chemical (broadleaf herbicide)</td><td>80 kg ha<sup>-1</sup> of 18–46 NP fertilizer at sowing</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>
workshop (Step 1), these knowledge gaps had already been identified, but were not mentioned as a priority. Regarding the N fertilization of camelina, which was also one of the topics discussed during the multi-actor design workshop (Step 1), the possibility and modalities of using organic matter as a source of N fertilization was a new question raised as well as the needs of camelina in different other mineral elements (phosphorus, boron, and sulfur in particular).

# 4 Discussion: lessons from the case study to support the development of similar approaches in other contexts

The participatory and multi-actor approach presented in this paper was successful to initiate a dynamic around the cultivation of a diversifying crop, Camelina sativa, in northern France. From zero, around one hundred hectares of non-organic camelina were sown in summer 2019, right after the end of this 3-year process, to test at wider scale the possibility to use this crop as raw material for biorefinery. In 2022, trials are still running: seven farmers (including F4 and F12) are producing camelina at large scale in the study area (respectively 170 and 130 hectares in 2021 and 2022) to supply an emerging biokerosene value chain. What are the specificities of the approach that contributed to support crop diversification in that area? What are the conditions of success of this approach? What would be the limitations to overcome and the possible areas of improvement? This section aims to draw lessons from this experience and discussed them to support the development of similar approaches in other contexts. First, we better characterized the main traits of a generic approach to support crop diversification. Then, we emphasized the main challenges that the adaptation to other contexts can raised and discussed how the approach could be improved in the future.

## 4.1 Characteristics of a participatory and multi-actor design approach to support crop diversification

### 4.1.1 A multi-actor approach based on pre-existing actor networks

Beyond being part of our project, some of the actors were already linked with each other within two pre-existing networks, which has fostered and stimulated innovation within the group. First, all the farmers involved in our study were part of a local group of development of about 80 farmers, facilitated by a local advisor of the Chamber of Agriculture (a French advisory structure). In France, such groups usually gather farmers of a same geographic area and aim to support agricultural development through exchanges during

meetings or visits or the setting up of collective projects to share risks (Esposito Fava 2015). Therefore, all the farmers involved in our project were already used to share experiences and work together and were engaged in a relation of trust, which is a key element for innovation (Skardon 2011). As shown in several studies (Kroma 2006; Goulet et al. 2008; Dolinska and d'Aquino 2016), this pre-existing network also increased farmers' ability to innovate by highly favoring the exploration of new ideas and the circulation and sharing of the knowledge produced within and outside our case study. For instance, without any intervention of the research team, the entire group of 80 farmers decided to organize their annual field trip of the year 2019 in Spain, to visit a seed company working on new varieties of camelina, and meet Spanish camelina producers. This initiative, which happened before the second design workshop (Step 4), motivated new farmers to attend this workshop and resulted in the exploration of new paths linked to their own situation (see 3.3.1). In addition, this trip also contributed to expand the knowledge base of the farmers mobilized during the design process, as shown by this quotation: "In Spain, they talked about swathing camelina 8 days before maturity, so it might be a solution for me" (Excerpt from farmer design workshop, 06/06/2019). A part from this farmer network, the pre-existence of the "PIVERT ecosystem" network, gathering different actors from the value chain who shared a common ambition to develop a local oilseed biorefinery, also played a central role in facilitating interactions and collective actions. Jointly with the existence of a juridic structure (SAS PIVERT) owning physical space to meet, this has contributed to create a favorable environment for systemic and integrated thinking on innovation, similarly to what have been called "innovation platforms" in the literature, increasingly used in agricultural research for development, particularly in Africa (Schut et al. 2016; Angbo Kouakou et al. 2017; Dabire et al. 2017; Davies et al. 2018). Especially, the ability of these multi-stakeholder platforms to foster knowledge exchanges and co-creation has been recently demonstrated (van Ewijk and Ros-Tonen 2021).

### 4.1.2 A participatory approach characterized by a rational involvement of the actors

Many studies showed the need and the value of actively involving a diversity of actors from various sectors or organizations (farmers, advisors, researchers, processors, local community, or non-profit organization representatives) in the design process to support the agroecological transition (Bos et al. 2009; Chantre et al. 2016; Sautier et al. 2017; Puech et al. 2021). According to the situation, the involvement of various actors can help to identify a blocking situation linked to different actor's perceptions (Berthet et al. 2014), define collectively some assessment indicators (Le

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
Bellec et al. 2012), or co-design shared scenarios for the future (Pelzer et al. 2020) or coupled innovations (Salem-bier et al. 2020). However, such participatory approaches often raise the question of the long-term engagement of the actors. In our approach, not all the actors were always pre-sent in the different devices, but they were involved accord-ing to the objectives to achieve. This rationale involvement of the actors in time, which was an intentional choice of the research team, contributed to the establishment of fruitful and long-lasting interactions among the diversity of actors involved. For instance, as we dedicated some time specifi-cally to farmers’ exchanges (as field tours) in which a lot of technical discussions took place, we were able to organize the multi-actor devices (multi-actor design workshop and feedback meeting) around topics of interest for all the actors, including the laymen in agronomy. This highly helped the actors to share their visions, understand each other’s expec-tations, and build a common ambition.

4.1.3 A design activity distributed among the actors

Drawing on the C-K theory and nine case studies in research,
Toffolini et al. (2020) showed the ability of a design process
to produce original scientific knowledge. In our case study,
the distributed aspect of the design (meaning that the actors
have been engaged simultaneously but not jointly in separate
design activities (Falzon and Darses 1996)) played a signifi-
cant role in the originality and the diversity of the knowledge
produced. Indeed, the design of the experimental devices
was driven by distinct motivations (produce knowledge on
biological processes for researchers in agronomy, answer
technical and situated questions, and acquire know-how for
the farmers) and mobilized different knowledge pockets (see
3.1). Thus, the two complementary experimental devices,
resulting from these design activities, led to the produc-
tion of original scientific knowledge on one hand and of
empirical knowledge on the other, both known to be useful
to design agroecological cropping systems (Girard and Nav-
arrete 2005; Faugère et al. 2010; Doré et al. 2011).

4.1.4 A design process fueled by action

Together with the design activities, experimentation—in our
case, the on-farm implementation of the theoretical CMRs
designed—also played a crucial role, both in producing
actionable knowledge and in stimulating the exploration of
new ideas. First, several authors showed that, by manag-
ing experiments in their farms—as it has been done in our
approach—, farmers acquire know-how and situated knowl-
edge about crop management and performances that support
them in their continuous process of change of their cropping
systems (Leitgeb et al. 2014; Catalogna et al. 2018). Simil-
larly, in our approach, the empirical knowledge produced

during on-farm experimentation, formalized by researchers
and then shared among actors through testimonies or other
form of representation (functional scheme), was helpful for
other farmers to design cropping systems suited to their
own farm (Leclère et al. 2021a). In addition, design studies
emphasize the fact that design process should not be nar-
rowed only to the step of invention, as the implementation of
the solution is also a key step to refine the properties of the
object to be designed and to make new questions and ideas
emerge (Schön 1992; Visser 2010). Until now, researchers in
agronomy have mainly developed approaches and methods
to support the invention step, as with the design workshops
(Reau et al. 2012), but have given little consideration to the
implementation phase, as part of design and not only of an
evaluation step (Prost et al. 2018). In our case study, this
crucial role of the implementation step to feed a design pro-
cess can be illustrated with the example of the introduction
of camelina as second crop. This way to introduce camelina
was indeed presented, during the multi-actor design work-
shop, as a very promising option by the farmers to meet their
objectives (Leclère et al. 2018). However, the difficulties for
camelina to reach maturity in several on-farm trials imple-
mented by farmers (Step 2) led them to propose to refine and
adapt the management of camelina during the second design
workshop (Step 4): e.g., using early varieties, earlier sow-
ing or even relay-sowing, swathing camelina before harvest
(Leclère et al. 2021a). Combining different types of experi-
mental devices (implementation step) with other methods as
on-farm tracking innovation or design workshop (invention
step) is more and more used in participatory approaches and
has shown some promising results to support the design and
the implementation of agroecological practices and cropping
systems (Navarrete et al. 2017; Périnelle et al. 2021; Aare
et al. 2021)

4.1.5 A situated design to allow a dialogue
between the desirable and the achievable

Whether for the multi-actor (Step 1) or the farmers (Step
4) design workshops, actors were always asked to design
cropping systems or CMRs adapted to their own situation,
expectations, and objectives. This choice of having a situated
design during the workshops allowed a dialogue between the
desirable and the achievable, which is crucial to the design
of agroecological systems (Prost et al. 2018). Indeed, on one
hand, design studies highlight the need to define and share
among actors an ambitious target to simulate creativity and
avoid fixation effects (Dorst and Cross 2001; Le Masson
et al. 2009; Agogué et al. 2014). This is why, for exam-
ple, Reau et al. (2018) proposed to carry out non-situated
and long-term design to support the design of innovative
cropping systems during design workshops. According to
the authors, this is essential for a good exploration of new
concepts as “each person carries out the exercise with a cer-
tain detachment and openness of mind insofar as it does
not concern them directly or immediately” (R. Reau, pers.
comm.). But, on the other hand, the adaptive management
approach, required to manage the links between desire and
reality, also advocates the flexible and adaptive nature of
the target to fit real situations and thus support change pro-
cesses (Béguin 2007). Especially, the constant adaptation
of the design target is presented as a key element to keep
the ambition and the energy high within system innovations
projects (van Mierlo et al. 2010). As mentioned above, in
our case study, situated design allowed to put these two lev-
els in dialogue. Each workshop was organized around an
ambitious target (“Producing camelina to sustainably supply
an oilseed biorefinery” for the multi-actor workshop (Step
1) and “Growing a pesticide-free, low-input and profitable
camelina” for the farmer design workshop (Step 4), but,
during the design process, these targets were specified and
adapted based on the contribution of each actor regarding
his own situation. For instance, during the multi-actor work-
shop (Step 1), we were thus able to define what would be a
“sustainable supply” in our case study, with, for example,
criteria linked to the quantity and the quality of the seeds or
the agronomic and environmental performances of the crop
(Leclère et al. 2018) that were then used to design and assess
the CMRs of the multi-environment experimental network
(Fig. 4a).

4.1.6 An open innovation approach based
on the circulation and sharing of knowledge
between actors throughout the entire process

Initially defined in the field of industry (Chesbrough 2003), open innovation has been defined in agronomy as approaches that support the empowerment of farmers in the design, through the development of (i) news channels for the circulation of knowledge and know-how, (ii) new spaces for exchanges, (iii) new resources to support design, and (iv) new links between farmers-designers (Chesbrough et al. 2014; Salembier et al. 2018). In our approach, we formalized a specific step about the circulation and sharing of knowledge (Step 3). More precisely, in addition to the dedicated devices to share knowledge (field tours, meetings), an effort was also made by the research team to formalize and make available the knowledge produced using various formats (exploration trees as in Fig. 4, functional scheme as in Fig. 5), known to stimulate exploration during design process (Brun 2017; Quinio et al. 2022; Leclère et al. 2021a). In our case, the implementation of such an open innovation approach played a significant role in support to the design by farmers of locally adapted camelina-based cropping systems. Although we did not put in place a specific monitoring of farmers individual learning in time, we indeed observed

and illustrated that the farmers—even new ones—mobilized
locally produced knowledge during their design process (see
§3.3 and Leclère et al. 2021a). In addition, we also consider
that favoring open innovation in our approach contributed
to foster collective learning on camelina and the hybridiza-
tion between scientific and empiric knowledge—both useful
to support cropping system design—, as it has been also
observed in other participatory and multi-actor approaches
(Specht et al. 2016; Girard and Magda 2018; Navarrete et al.
2018).

4.1.7 An effective network management

Several authors identified that effective network manage-
ment is required to allow participatory approaches achiev-
ing their full potential (Meier and O'toole 2001; Giest and
Howlett 2014; Berthet and Hickey 2018). Especially in agri-
culture, Berthet and Hickey (2018) showed that, beyond ini-
tiating and facilitating interaction processes between actors
("Connecting"), network management should also play
a significant role in guiding interactions through process
agreement ("Framing"), facilitating knowledge transfer and
capitalization ("Knowledge brokering"), and searching for
goal congruency by creating new content ("Exploring") to
support agroecological transition. In our case, the manage-
ment of the multi-actor dynamic across time was under the
responsibility of the research team. The effectiveness of the
network management, i.e., combining the four aspects, was
achieved because of the multiples roles that the research
team endorsed within this multi-actor dynamic. In all device,
at least one researcher of the research team was involved
(Table 1) whether as designer (Steps 1 to 4), knowledge pro-
ducer (Step 2), facilitator (Steps 1, 3, and 4), interviewer
(Step 2), or observer (Steps 1 to 4). The endorsement of
these multiples roles of researchers is part of the paradigm
shift from a lineal and diffusionist model towards an inter-
active and participative one currently at stake in the agri-
cultural sector that has been identified as crucial to support
agroecological transition (Doré et al. 2011; Le Gal et al.
2011).

## 4.2 Towards the transposition of the approach: challenges, points of vigilance, and areas of improvement

4.2.1 Developing a tailored approach adapted
to the specificities of the context

While the seven characteristics listed before must be taken
into account during the design of an approach to support
crop diversification, their translation into steps, articulating
various devices, remains, on the contrary, really open to
allow adaptation to different contexts. For instance, in our

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>
case, the choice of camelina as study crop was a determin-
ing factor for the implementation of the on-farm trials by
farmers (Step 2). Indeed, when looking at the activity of
experimentation by farmers (Leitgeb et al. 2014; Catalo-
gna et al. 2018), the risk associated with experimentation,
and in particular the economic risk, is decisive (determina-
tion of the area dedicated to experimentation, acquisition
of specific equipment, etc.). In the case of camelina, the
possibility of experimenting with a double crop (where
camelina could, in the worst case, have the role of a cover
crop) with a reduced investment (in connection with low-
input management due to the hardiness of the species) con-
tributed to creating a favorable context (i.e., with a lim-
ited risk) for implementing these experiments, despite the
absence of a concrete local outlet for this crop. However,
not all the diversifying crops are showing similar agronomic
characteristics than camelina, suggesting that new forms of
experimentation actively involving farmers should be devel-
oped to support crop diversification (Lechenet et al. 2017;
Lacoste et al. 2022). In addition, we also recognize that the
success of approach relied partly on the involvement of a
small number (<10) of motivated and innovative farmers,
thus questioning the ability of the approach to support tran-
sition towards more diversified cropping systems at a wider
scale. To overcome this limit, we assume that other types of
devices should be imagined, especially to organize collec-
tive exploration. More broadly, this means that adaptation
to other contexts would therefore need the realization of
adequate diagnoses beforehand to reveal the specificities
in terms of pedo-climatic conditions, agronomic issues, or
even in terms of actor networks and skills in the studied area
where the crop diversification will occur (Colombo et al.
2020; Morel et al. 2020).

4.2.2 Moving from a research-led towards an actor-led network management to better support transition towards diversified cropping systems

Even this study contributed to initiate a local dynamic
around this new diversifying crop, as illustrated before,
the capacity of this approach, characterized by a full
research-led network management, to support a transi-
tion process towards more diversifying cropping systems,
that are known to be complex and last over time (Duru
et al. 2015; López-García et al. 2021), is a real limita-
tion we identified. Indeed, in our case, the design and the
implementation of the approach as part of 3-year-funded
research project forced us to focus mainly on the issue
of knowledge production to support design of camelina-
based cropping systems without really addressing the
question of the trajectories of change that the farmers
should follow to achieve these cropping systems—which
is a central question when looking at the question of the

transition process. Therefore, in our opinion, it is crucial,
in the future, to work towards the development of gov-
ernance systems that are not fully dependent on funding
or on the timeframe of research projects, often too short
or binding (DeLonge et al. 2016). More precisely, at a
time when the agroecological transition is reexamining
the role of the various actors in the agricultural sector
(Coquil et al. 2018; Aare et al. 2021), we argue that dur-
ing the process, it would be useful to reflect on how to
move from a research-led towards an actor-led network
management. This would imply to better identify the
skills needed to support and manage such multi-actor
and participatory design approaches and develop adapted
training or toolbox to support actor in this new role (Bac-
car et al. 2022).

4.2.3 Addressing simultaneously lock-ins at various level
of the value chain

Focusing on 11 diversifying crops in France, Meynard
et al. (2018) highlighted the interconnected impediments
to crop diversification occurring at every link of the value
chain. Referring to this study, we assume that our approach
mainly contributed to remove existing barriers at the farm-
ing production level through the coordinated development
of agronomic and organizational innovations. However, we
also identified that building on our approach and its out-
puts, it would be possible to also address simultaneously
existing lock-ins at other levels of the value chain, upstream
or downstream, that would require to better reconnect agri-
culture, food, and environment sciences (Lamine 2015;
Jordan et al. 2016; Brun et al. 2021). This would imply,
among others, to involve the actors from the value-chain in
a more active way than we did in our case study, in which
their participation was rather “consultative” (using Pretty
(1995) typology of participation in development programs
and projects) thus hampering effective transformations at
their own level. For instance, in the case of camelina, we
succeeded in prioritizing breeding traits answering farmers
needs in the local context of northern France, namely, the
need of early varieties to increase the chances of reaching
maturity in double-cropping modalities and the need of
varieties with higher thousand grain weight to facilitate
the establishment of broadcast seeding, also in double-
cropping. However, we hypothesize that involving breeders
more actively in the process—what we did not do—would
have contributed to ease the adoption of these criteria in
the selection process and the creation of a sales market for
the seeds that are main impediments identified for now at
the upstream production level (Magrini et al. 2016; Mey-
nard et al. 2018; Parenty 2018).
### 4.2.4 Analyzing the approach with a dedicated and reflexive monitoring

In this paper, we analyzed ex-post a participatory and multi-actor design approach. This analysis was performed by our research team (researchers in agronomy) and was based on the data produced during the approach (scientific papers, audio recordings, workshops, meetings, and interview reports) and on informal exchanges with the actors involved. In other terms, it means that no specific data collection was imagined at first to feed this analysis. Therefore, we argue that it would be valuable, in the future, to add a reflexive process as part of the approach. As it has been done in other participatory approaches, this could include the evaluation of the overall process by the actors using surveys (Bouleureau 2021) or the analysis of the learning process through time (Braun et al. 2021). In our opinion, the added value of such reflexive process would be twofold. First, it would contribute to strengthen a theoretical framework to support crop diversification by extending and deepening the list of characteristics we proposed in this study. Second, including such reflexive activity as full part of the approach will also support the actors in their transition towards more diversified cropping as it contributes to social learning (Blackstock et al. 2007; Rossing et al. 2021).

## 5 Conclusion

This paper presents the results of an ex-post analysis of an original participatory and multi-actor design approach that was performed to identify to what extent the implementation of the four steps of this approach contributed to (i) the production of actionable knowledge, (ii) the exploration of new ideas/concepts, and/or (iii) the active participation of a diversity of actors of the agri-food system which are the three key elements that we pre-identified as crucial to support crop diversification in the literature. Drawing on concepts and theory from design sciences, we outline what the characteristics needed to support crop diversification are. We expect that sharing the learnings from this case study could be helpful for other actors from the agricultural sector (especially advisors from extension services), to develop their own approaches to support crop diversification in other situations (other crops, other regions). This article reaffirms the observation made by Prost (2021) about how useful it can be to put in dialogue agricultural and design sciences to support transition towards sustainable agriculture.

**Acknowledgements** This study is the result of a multi-actor collaboration and was conceptualized under the umbrella of IDEAS (Initiative for Design in AgriFood Systems). Therefore, we would like to thank all the people who participated, directly or indirectly, in this project.

Especially, we want to thank all the farmers who have accepted to settled experiments in their fields and who trusted us to work on this new crop. We also thank the three reviewers for their comments that greatly contributed to improve this manuscript.

**Authors' contributions** All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Margot Leclère, Marie-Hélène Jeuffroy, and Chantal Loyce. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Margot Leclère, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

**Funding** This work was performed, in partnership with the SAS P.I.V.E.R.T., within the frame of the French Institute for the Energy Transition (Institut pour la Transition Energétique - ITE) P.I.V.E.R.T. (www.institut-pivert.com) selected as an Investment for the Future ("Investissements d'Avenir"). This work was supported, as part of the Investments for the Future, by the French Government under the reference ANR-001-01.

**Data availability** Not applicable

**Code availability** Not applicable

### Declarations

**Ethics approval** Not applicable

**Consent to participate** Verbal informed consent was obtained prior to the interview.

**Consent for publication** Not applicable

**Conflict of interest** The authors declare no competing interests.

**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

Aare AK, Lund S, Hauggaard-Nielsen H (2021) Exploring transitions towards sustainable farming practices through participatory research – the case of Danish farmers’ use of species mixtures. Agric Syst 189:103053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103053

Agogué M, Poirel N, Pineau A et al (2014) The impact of age and training on creativity: a design-theory approach to study fixation effects. Think Ski Creat 11:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.10.002

Angbo Kouakou E, Temple L, Mathé S, Assemien A (2017) Plate-formes d'innovation comme dispositif d'orientation des trajec-toires technologiques des filières agricoles. Cas de la filière

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>
banane plantain en Côte d'Ivoire. Technologie et Innovation, 17(2):18. https://doi.org/10.21494/ISTE.OP.2017.0107

Audouin S, Gazull L, Gautier D (2018) Territory matters: exploring the functioning of an innovation system through the filter of local territorial practices - the example of the adoption of cashew trees in Burkina Faso. J Rural Stud 63:130-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.08.007

Avola G, Sortino O, Gresta F (2021) Low-input cultivation of camelina (<em>Camelina sativa</em> (L.) Crantz) in a Mediterranean semi-arid environment. Ital J Agron 16. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2021.1728

Baccar R, Vandewalle A, Ahnemann H et al (2022) Increasing crop diversification requires diversity in teaching, training and learning. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6801262

Béguin P (2003) Design as a mutual learning process between users and designers. Interact Comput 15:709-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00060-2

Béguin P (2007) Taking activity into account during the design process. Activités 04. https://doi.org/10.4000/activites.1727

Beillouin D, Ben-Ari T, Malézieux E et al (2020) Benefits of crop diversification for biodiversity and ecosystem services. bioRxiv 2020.09.30.320309. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.30.320309

Berthet ET, Hickey GM (2018) Organizing collective innovation in support of sustainable agro-ecosystems: the role of network management. Agric Syst 165:44-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.05.016

Berthet ETA, Bretagnolle V, Segrestin B (2014) Surmonter un blocage de l'innovation par la conception collective. Cas de la réintroduction de luzerne dans une plaine céréalière. Fourrages 217:13-21

Berti M, Gesch R, Eynck C et al (2016) Camelina uses, genetics, genomics, production, and management. Ind Crops Prod 94:690-710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.09.034

Berti M, Samarappuli D, Johnson BL, Gesch RW (2017) Integrating winter camelina into maize and soybean cropping systems. Ind Crops Prod 107:595-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.06.014

Blackstock KL, Kelly GJ, Horsey BL (2007) Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol Econ 60:726-742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014

Bonjean A, Le Goffic F (1999) La cameline: Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz: une opportunité pour l'agriculture et l'industrie euro-péennes. OCL Ol Corps Gras Lipides 6:28-34

Bos AP, Koerkamp PWGG, Gosselink JMJ, Bokma S (2009) Reflexive interactive design and its application in a project on sustainable dairy husbandry systems. Outlook Agric 38:137-145. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000009788632386

Boulestreau Y (2021) Une démarche de co-conception d'innovations du système de culture au système agri-alimentaire pour une gestion agroécologique des bioagresseurs telluriques en maraîchage provençal Analyzing barriers and levers for practice change: a new framework applied to vegetables' soil pest management. These de doctorat, Avignon

Braun CL, Bitsch V, Häring AM (2021) Behind the scenes of a learning agri-food value chain: lessons from action research. Agric Hum Values. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10229-7

Brun J, Jeuffroy M-H, Pénicaud C et al (2021) Designing a research agenda for coupled innovation towards sustainable agrifood systems. Agric Syst 191:103143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103143

Brun J (2017) Modeling the expansive power of knowledge structures in design: how non-verbal tools support knowledge preordering. These, Mines ParisTech

Burchfield EK, de la Poterie AT (2018) Determinants of crop diversification in rice-dominated Sri Lankan agricultural systems. J Rural Stud 61:206-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.05.010

Caron P, Biénabe E, Hainzelin E (2014) Making transition towards ecological intensification of agriculture a reality: the gaps in and the role of scientific knowledge. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 8:44-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.004

Catalogna M, Dubois M, Navarrete M (2018) Diversity of experimentation by farmers engaged in agroecology. Agron Sustain Dev 38:50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0526-2

Cerf M, Jeuffroy M-H, Prost L, Meynard J-M (2012) Participatory design of agricultural decision support tools: taking account of the use situations. Agron Sustain Dev 32:899-910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0091-z

Chantre E, Guichard L, Ballot R et al (2016) Co-click'eau, a participatory method for land-use scenarios in water catchments. Land Use Policy 59:260-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.001

Chesbrough H, Vanhaverbeke W, West J (2014) New frontiers in open innovation. OUP Oxford

Chesbrough HW (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press

Cholez C, Magrini M-B, Galliano D (2020) Exploring inter-firm knowledge through contractual governance: a case study of production contracts for faba-bean procurement in France. J Rural Stud 73:135-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.10.040

Ciubota-Rosie C, Ruiz JR, Ramos MJ, Pérez Á (2013) Biodiesel from Camelina sativa: a comprehensive characterisation. Fuel 105:572-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.09.062

Colbach N, Schneider A, Ballot R, Vivier C (2010) Diversifying cereal-based rotations to improve weed control. Evaluation with the AlomySys model quantifying the effect of cropping systems on a grass weed. Ol Corps Gras Lipides 17:292-300. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl.2010.0331

Colombo L, Guccione GD, Canali S, et al (2020) An action-research exploration of value chain development from field to consumer based on organic hempseed oil in Sicily. OCL Oilseeds Fats Crops Lipids 27:12 p. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2020049

Coquil X, Cerf M, Auricoste C et al (2018) Questioning the work of farmers, advisors, teachers and researchers in agro-ecological transition. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0524-4

Coutts C, Hahn M (2015) Green infrastructure, ecosystem services, and human health. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12:9768-9798. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120809768

Dabire D, Andrieu N, Djamen P et al (2017) Operationalizing an innovation platform approach for community-based participatory research on conservation agriculture in Burkina Faso. Exp Agric 53:460-479. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479716000636

Dainese M, Martin EA, Aizen MA et al (2019) A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci Adv 5:eaaax0121. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax0121

Davies J, Maru Y, Hall A et al (2018) Understanding innovation platform effectiveness through experiences from west and central Africa. Agric Syst 165:321-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.12.014

DeLonge MS, Miles A, Carlisle L (2016) Investing in the transition to sustainable agriculture. Environ Sci Policy 55:266-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.09.013

Dolinska A, d'Aquino P (2016) Farmers as agents in innovation systems. Empowering farmers for innovation through communities of practice. Agric Syst 142:122-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.11.009

Doré T, Makowski D, Malézieux E et al (2011) Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensification in agronomy: revisiting methods, concepts and knowledge. Eur J Agron 34:197-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.006
Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Des Stud 22:425-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6

Duru M, Therond O et al (2015) Designing agroecological transitions; a review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:1237-1257

Elzen GW, Hardee DD (2003) United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service research on managing insect resistance to insecticides. Pest Manag Sci 59:770-776. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.659

Esposito Fava A (2015) Dossier : Les groupes d'agriculteurs, moteur d'innovations en agro-écologie. Chamb Agric N°1039

Falzon FD-P, Darses F (1996) La conception collective: une approche de l'ergonomie cognitive. Coop Concept Octarès 123-135

Faugère E, Navarrete M, Charles M et al (2010) Des connaissances scientifiques en quête de connaissances d'acteurs. Nat Sci Sociétés 18:395-403

Fröhlich A, Rice B (2005) Evaluation of Camelina sativa oil as a feed-stock for biodiesel production. Ind Crops Prod 21:25-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2003.12.004

Geertsema W, Rossing WA, Landis DA et al (2016) Actionable knowledge for ecological intensification of agriculture. Front Ecol Environ 14:209-216. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1258

Gesch RW, Archer DW, Berti MT (2014) Dual cropping winter camelina with soybean in the Northern Corn Belt. Agron J 106:1735-1745

Giest S, Howlett M (2014) Understanding the pre-conditions of commons governance: the role of network management. Environ Sci Policy 36:37-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.010

Girard N, Magda D (2018) Les jeux entre singularité et généricité des savoirs agro-écologiques dans un réseau d'éleveurs. Rev Anthropol Connaiss 12(2):199. https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.039.0199

Girard N, Navarrete M (2005) Quelles synergies entre connaissances scientifiques et empiriques? L'exemple des cultures du safran et de la truffe. Nat Sci Sociétés 13:33-44

Gomiero T, Iocola I, Canali S, Drexler D, Vanwindekens F, Colombo L (2019) Factors constraining and facilitating crop diversification: results and lessons from a sample of Italian experiences. Presented at the European Conference on Crop Diversification, September 19-21 2019, Budapest, Hungary

Gordon LJ, Bignet V, Crona B et al (2017) Rewiring food systems to enhance human health and biosphere stewardship. Environ Res Lett 12:100201. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa81dc

Gould F, Brown ZS, Kuzma J (2018) Wicked evolution: can we address the sociobiological dilemma of pesticide resistance? Science 360:728-732. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aar3780

Goulet F, Pervanchon F, Conteau C, Cerf M (2008) Les agriculteurs innovent par eux-mêmes pour leurs systèmes de culture. R Reau T Doré Systèmes Cult Innovant Durables Dijon Educ Éditions 53-69

Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) CK design theory: an advanced formulation. Res Eng Des 19:181-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4

Jordan NR, Dorn K, Runck B, et al (2016) Sustainable commercialization of new crops for the agricultural bioeconomy. Elem Sci Anthr 4:000081. https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000081

Kroma MM (2006) Organic farmer networks: facilitating learning and innovation for sustainable agriculture. J Sustain Agric 28:5-28. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v28n04_03

Kuokkanen A, Mikkilä M, Kuisma M et al (2017) The need for policy to address the food system lock-in: a case study of the Finnish context. J Clean Prod 140:933-944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.171

Lacoste M, Cook S, McNee M et al (2022) On-farm experimentation to transform global agriculture. Nat Food 3:11-18. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00424-4

Lamine C (2015) Sustainability and resilience in agrifood systems: reconnecting agriculture, food and the environment. Sociol Rural 55:41-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12061

Le Bellec F, Rajaud A, Ozier-Lafontaine H et al (2012) Evidence for farmers' active involvement in co-designing citrus cropping systems using an improved participatory method. Agron Sustain Dev 32:703-714

Le Gal P-Y, Dugué P, Faure G, Novak S (2011) How does research address the design of innovative agricultural production systems at the farm level? A review. Agric Syst 104:714-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.07.007

Le Masson P, Weil B (2010) La conception innovante comme mode d'extension et de régénération de la conception réglée: les expériences oubliées aux origines des bureaux d'études. Entrep Hist 51-73

Le Masson P, Weil B, Hatchuel A (2006) Les processus d'innovation: Conception innovante et croissance des entreprises. Hermes Lavoisier, Paris

Le Masson P, Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) Design theory and collective creativity: a theoretical framework to evaluate KCP process. 58-6 Proc ICED 09 17th Int Conf Eng Des Vol 6 Des Methods Tools Pt 2 Palo Alto CA USA 24-27082009

Lechenet M, Deytieux V, Antichi D et al (2017) Diversity of methodologies to experiment Integrated Pest Management in arable cropping systems: analysis and reflections based on a European network. Eur J Agron 83:86-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.09.012

Lechenet M, Bretagnolle V, Bockstaller C et al (2014) Reconciling pesticide reduction with economic and environmental sustainability in arable farming. PLoS ONE 9:e97922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097922

Leclère M, Loyce C, Jeuffroy M-H (2018) Growing camelina as a second crop in France: a participatory design approach to produce actionable knowledge. Eur J Agron 101:78-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2018.08.006

Leclère M, Jeuffroy M-H, Loyce C (2021a) Design workshop with farmers as a promising tool to support the introduction of diversifying crops within a territory: the case of camelina in northern France to supply a local biorefinery. OCL 28:40. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2021023

Leclère M, Jeuffroy M-H, Butier A et al (2019) Controlling weeds in camelina with innovative herbicide-free crop management routes across various environments. Ind Crops Prod 140:111605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111605

Leclère M, Lorent A-R, Jeuffroy M-H et al (2021b) Diagnosis of camelina seed yield and quality across an on-farm experimental network. Eur J Agron 122:126190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126190

Leitgeb F, Kummer S, Funes-Monzote FR, Vogl CR (2014) Farmers' experiments in Cuba. Renew Agric Food Syst 29:48-64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170512000336

Liebman M, Schulte LA (2015) Enhancing agroecosystem performance and resilience through increased diversification of landscapes and cropping systems. Elem Sci Anth 3:000041. https://doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000041

Lin BB (2011) Resilience in agriculture through crop diversification: adaptive management for environmental change. Bioscience 61:183-193. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.3.4

Liu K, Johnson EN, Blackshaw RE et al (2019) Improving the productivity and stability of oilseed cropping systems through crop diversification. Field Crops Res 237:65-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.03.020

López-García D, Cuéllar-Padilla M, de Azevedo OA et al (2021) Building agroecology with people. Challenges of participatory methods to deepen on the agroecological transition in different

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
contexts. J Rural Stud 83:257-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.02.003

Magrini M-B, Anton M, Cholez C et al (2016) Why are grain-leg-
umes rarely present in cropping systems despite their envi-
ronmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the
French agrifood system. Ecol Econ 126:152-162. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.024

Magrini M-B, Anton M, Chardigny J-M et al (2018) Pulses for sus-
tainability: breaking agriculture and food sectors out of lock-
in. Front Sustain Food Syst 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.
2018.00064

Meier KJ, O'toole LJ Jr (2001) Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: a model with evidence from U.S. public education. J Public Adm Res Theory 11:271-294. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003503

Meynard J-M, Jeuffroy M-H, Le Bail M et al (2017) Designing coupled innovations for the sustainability transition of agrifood systems. Agric Syst 157:330-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.08.002

Meynard J-M, Charrier F, Fares M et al (2018) Socio-technical lock-in hinders crop diversification in France. Agron Sustain Dev 38:54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0535-1

Mignolet C, Schott C, Benoît M (2004) Spatial dynamics of agricul-
tural practices on a basin territory: a retrospective study to imple-
ment models simulating nitrate flow. The case of the Seine basin.
Agronomie 24:219-236. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2004015

Morel K, Revoyron E, Cristobal MS, Baret PV (2020) Innovating within or outside dominant food systems? Different challenges for contrasting crop diversification strategies in Europe. PLoS ONE 15:e0229910. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229910

Moser BR (2010) Camelina (Camelina sativa L.) oil as a biofuels feed-
stock: golden opportunity or false hope? Lipid Technol 22:270-
273. https://doi.org/10.1002/lite.201000068

Mostafalou S, Abdollahi M (2013) Pesticides and human chronic dis-
eases: evidences, mechanisms, and perspectives. Toxicol Appl
Pharmacol 268:157-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2013.
01.025

Muoni T, Barnes AP, Öborn I et al (2019) Farmer perceptions of leg-
umes and their functions in smallholder farming systems in east
Africa. Int J Agric Sustain 17:205-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14735903.2019.1609166

Navarrete M, Lefèvre A, Dufils A et al (2017) Concevoir et évaluer avec les acteurs des systèmes de culture adaptés à leurs cadres de contraintes et d'objectifs en production maraichère sous abri. Mise en pratique et enseignements dans les projets GeDuNem et 4SYSLEG. Innov Agron 61:33-49

Navarrete M, Brives H, Catalogna M et al (2018) Farmers' involvement in collective experimental designs in a French region, Rhône-Alpes. How do they contribute to farmers' learning and facilitate the agroecological transition? In: 13th European IFSA Symposium (IFSA 2018). La Canée (Crete), Greece

Parenty S (2018) How to organize plant breeding to favor crop's diver-
sification?. Economics and Finance. Université Grenoble Alpes

Pelzer E, Bonifazi M, Soulié M et al (2020) Participatory design of agronomic scenarios for the reintroduction of legumes into a French territory. Agric Syst 184:102893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102893

Périnelle A, Meynard J-M, Scopel E (2021) Combining on-farm inno-
vation tracking and participatory prototyping trials to develop
legume-based cropping systems in West Africa. Agric Syst
187:102978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102978

Pigford A-AE, Hickey GM, Klerkx L (2018) Beyond agricultural inno-
vation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems
approach for niche design and development in sustainability

transitions. Agric Syst 164:116-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.04.007

Pretty JN (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture.
World Dev 23:1247-1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-
750X(95)00046-F

Prost L, Reau R, Paravano L et al (2018) Designing agricultural sys-
tems from invention to implementation: the contribution of
agronomy. Lessons from a case study. Agric Syst 164:122-132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.04.009

Prost L (2021) Revitalizing agricultural sciences with design sciences. Agric Syst 193:103225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103225

Puech C, Brulaire A, Paraiso J, Faloya V (2021) Collective design of innovative agroecological cropping systems for the industrial vegetable sector. Agric Syst 191:103153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103153

Putnam DH, Budin JT, Field LA, Breene WM (1993) Camelina: a promising low-input oilseed. New Crops, 314:322

Quinio M, Guichard L, Salazar P, Détienne F, Jeuffroy M-H, (2022) Cognitive resources to promote exploration in agroecological systems design. Agricultural Systems 196:103334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103334

Reau R, Monnot L-A, Schaub A et al (2012) Les ateliers de conception de systèmes de culture pour construire, évaluer et identifier des prototypes prometteurs. Innov Agron 20:5-33

Reau R, Geloen M, Laurent A, Loyce C, Schaub A, Caballero M (2015) De novo design workshop: a method for co-designing innovative cropping systems. Presented at the 5th International Symposium for Farming Systems Design, Septembre 7-10 2015, Montpelier, France

Reau R, Cerf M, Cros C et al (2018) Ateliers de conception de systèmes de culture. Guide pour leur réalisation avec des agriculteurs

Roesch-McNally GE, Arbuckle JG, Tyndall JC (2018) Barriers to implementing climate resilient agricultural strategies: the case of crop diversification in the U.S. Corn Belt. Glob Environ Change 48:206-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.12.002

Rossing WAH, Albicette MM, Aguerre V et al (2021) Crafting action-
able knowledge on ecological intensification: lessons from
co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe. Agric Syst
190:103103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103103

Salembier C, Segrestin B, Berthet E et al (2018) Genealogy of design reasoning in agronomy: lessons for supporting the design of agricultural systems. Agric Syst 164:277-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.05.005

Salembier C, Segrestin B, Weil B et al (2021) A theoretical frame-
work for tracking farmers’ innovations to support farming sys-
tem design. Agron Sustain Dev 41:61. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13593-021-00713-z

Salembier C, Segrestin B, Sinoir N et al (2020) Design of equipment for agroecology: coupled innovation processes led by farmer-designers. Agric Syst 183:102856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102856

Sautier M, Piquet M, Duru M, Martin-Clouaire R (2017) Exploring adaptations to climate change with stakeholders: a participatory method to design grassland-based farming systems. J Environ Manage 193:541-550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.02.050

Schön DA (1992) Designing as reflective conversation with the materi-
als of a design situation. Knowl-Based Syst 5:3-14. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0950-7051(92)90020-G

Schott C, Mignolet C, Meynard J-M (2010) Les oléoprotéagineux dans les systèmes de culture : évolution des asselements et des successions culturelles depuis les années 1970 dans le bassin de la Seine. Ol Corps Gras Lipides 17:276-291. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl.2010.0334
Schut M, Klerkx L, Sartas M et al (2016) Innovation platforms: experi-
ences with their institutional embedding in agricultural research
for development. Exp Agric 52:537–561. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S001447971500023X

Shonnard DR, Williams L, Kalnes TN (2010) Camelina-derived jet fuel and diesel: sustainable advanced biofuels. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 29:382–392. https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.10461

Skardon J (2011) The role of trust in innovation networks. Procedia
Soc Behav Sci 26:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.
10.565

Smadja T, Muel F (2021) Analysis of EU legume value chains from the H2020 LegValue project: what insights for organic value chains? OCL 28:15. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2021005

Specht K, Zoll F, Siebert R (2016) Application and evaluation of a participatory “open innovation” approach (ROIR): the case of introducing zero-acreage farming in Berlin. Landsc Urban Plan 151:45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.003

Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA et al (2002) Agricultural sustain-
ability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01014

Toffolini Q, Jeuffroy M-H, Mischler P et al (2017) Farmers’ use of fun-
damental knowledge to re-design their cropping systems: situated
contextualisation processes. NJAS Wagen J Life Sci 80:37–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.11.004

Toffolini Q, Jeuffroy M-H, Meynard J-M et al (2020) Design as a source of renewal in the production of scientific knowledge in crop science. Agric Syst 185:102939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102939

van Ewijk E, Ros-Tonen MAF (2021) The fruits of knowledge co-cre-
ation in agriculture and food-related multi-stakeholder platforms

in sub-Saharan Africa – a systematic literature review. Agric Syst
186:102949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102949

van Mierlo B, Arkesteijn M, Leeuwis C (2010) Enhancing the reflex-
ivity of system innovation projects with system analyses. Am J
Eval 31:143–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010366046

Verret V, Pelzer E, Bedoussac L, Jeuffroy M-H (2020) Tracking on-farm innovative practices to support crop mixture design: the case of annual mixtures including a legume crop. Eur J Agron 115:126018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126018

Visser W (2010) Schön: design as a reflective practice. Collection (2):21–25

Waraich EA, Ahmed Z, Ahmad R et al (2013) “Camelina sativa”, a climate proof crop, has high nutritive value and multiple-uses: a review. Aust J Crop Sci 7:1551

Weituschat CS, Pascucci S, Materia VC et al (2022) Goal frames and sustainability transitions: how cognitive lock-ins can impede crop diversification. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01156-5

Wezel A, Casagrande M, Celette F et al (2014) Agroecological prac-
tices for sustainable agriculture. a review. Agron Sustain Dev
34:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0180-7

Zanetti F, Monti A, Berti MT (2013) Challenges and opportunities for new industrial oilseed crops in EU-27: a review. Ind Crops Prod 50:580–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.08.030

Zimmer S, Liebe U, Didier J-P, Heß J (2016) Luxembourgish farm-
ers’ lack of information about grain legume cultivation. Agron
Sustain Dev 36:2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0339-5

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

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>