Understanding Stakeholders’ Interest and Influence in Agroecosystems Through Social Network Analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

The sustainability of agroecosystems constitutes a global challenge that requires integration of ecological and social dimensions. This study identifies key actors, their interests, influence on decision-making, and their relationships. We chose a representative area of the Espinal ecoregion (Argentina) as a case study. We conducted in-depth and semi-structured interviews with producers, agricultural advisors, and other stakeholders. Membership and information-flow networks were analysed and complemented with an actor map to characterise interest, influence, and relationships. The results indicated that producers based their decisions on information from agricultural advisors, private producer groups, and agricultural input cooperatives. The information network was more integrated than the membership network, and central institutions structured the communities. Private organisations predominated in these central positions. A public research and extension institution (INTA) stood out for its central position as a source and intermediary in the information flow; however, this role is weakening due to funding constraints. Producers reported conflictual relationships with society and the national government, mainly driven by environmental and economic tensions. These findings highlight the importance of understanding stakeholder relationships for agroecosystem management and sustainable production systems. Highlights: Social network analysis was combined with actor mapping to assess stakeholder influence. Membership and information networks revealed different patterns of actor connectivity. Agricultural advisors strongly influenced production decisions across producer groups. Private organisations dominated central positions in agroecosystem networks. INTA served as a critical bridge for information exchange despite declining capacity.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.