International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 12, Issue 12 (December 2025), Pages: 280-294

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Enhancing farmer productivity through participatory approaches and continuous training: A communication quality perspective in North Sumatra’s agricultural sector

 Author(s): 

 Muhammad Arsyad *, Yusniar Lubis, Ihsan Effendi

 Affiliation(s):

 Faculty of Agriculture, University of Medan Area, Medan, Indonesia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4435-912X

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.12.025

 Abstract

This study examines the influence of participatory approaches and continuous training on farmers’ productivity, with communication quality as a mediating factor, in four districts of North Sumatra Province. The research investigates how farmers’ active involvement in planning, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation, together with regular and structured training, strengthens their technical and managerial skills. Using a quantitative survey method with primary data collected through questionnaires, the findings show that participatory approaches and continuous training positively affect agricultural productivity. Communication quality plays an important mediating role by ensuring that technical information is clearly communicated and effectively applied by farmers. Clear, open, and two-way communication supports behavioral change and the adoption of innovations in agricultural practices. Overall, the study highlights the need for agricultural development programs to emphasize collaborative participation, needs-based training, and improved communication capacity to enhance farmer productivity and promote regional food security.

 © 2025 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 Participatory approach, Continuous training, Communication quality, Farmer productivity, Agricultural development

 Article history

 Received 26 June 2025, Received in revised form 23 November 2025, Accepted 7 December 2025

 Acknowledgment

This research was financially supported by the Directorate of Research, Technology, and Community Service (DRTPM), Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of the Republic of Indonesia, under Grant Number 7/SPK/LL1/AL.04.03/PL/2025. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

This study involved human participants and was conducted in accordance with ethical research principles. Participation was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to data collection. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study and assured that their responses would remain anonymous and confidential. No personally identifiable information was collected.

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Arsyad M, Lubis Y, and Effendi I (2025). Enhancing farmer productivity through participatory approaches and continuous training: A communication quality perspective in North Sumatra’s agricultural sector. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(12): 280-294

  Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

  Table 1  Table 2  Table 3  Table 4  Table 5  Table 6  Table 7 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (73)

  1. Adebayo TS, Meo MS, Eweade BS, and Özkan O (2024). Analyzing the effects of solar energy innovations, digitalization, and economic globalization on environmental quality in the United States. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 26: 4157-4176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-024-02831-0    [Google Scholar]
  2. Adenuga AH, Jack C, Ashfield A, and Wallace M (2021). Assessing the impact of participatory extension programme membership on farm business performance in Northern Ireland. Agriculture, 11(10): 949.  https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11100949    [Google Scholar]
  3. Al-Shammary AAG, Al-Shihmani LSS, Fernández-Gálvez J, and Caballero-Calvo A (2024). Optimizing sustainable agriculture: A comprehensive review of agronomic practices and their impacts on soil attributes. Journal of Environmental Management, 364: 121487.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121487    [Google Scholar] PMid:38889650
  4. Anani-Bossman A and Blankson IA (2024). Participatory communication for sustainable development: A study of the Access Project in Ghana. In: Mmutle T, Molale TB, Akinola OO, and Selebi O (Eds.), Strategic communication management for development and social change: 41–59. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41401-5_3    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bocean CG (2024). A cross-sectional analysis of the relationship between digital technology use and agricultural productivity in EU countries. Agriculture, 14(4): 519.  https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040519    [Google Scholar]
  6. Çakmak C and Uğurluoğlu Ö (2024). The effects of patient-centered communication on patient engagement, health-related quality of life, service quality perception and patient satisfaction in patients with cancer: A cross-sectional study in Türkiye. Cancer Control, 31.  https://doi.org/10.1177/10732748241236327    [Google Scholar] PMid:38411086 PMCid:PMC10901059
  7. Camacho-Zuñiga C, Salas-Maxemín S, Valle-Arce AP, Caratozzolo P, and Chans GM (2025). Toward a continuous learning educational model: Insights from the experience of a Mexican private university. Frontiers in Education, 10: 1485034.  https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1485034    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cameira MB, Rodrigo I, Garção A, Neves M, Ferreira A, and Paredes P (2024). Linking participatory approach and rapid appraisal methods to select potential innovations in collective irrigation systems. Agricultural Water Management, 299: 108885.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2024.108885    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen X, Liu C, Yan P, Wang H, Xu J, and Yao K (2025). The impact of doctor-patient communication on patient satisfaction in outpatient settings: Implications for medical training and practice. BMC Medical Education, 25: 830.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07433-y    [Google Scholar] PMid:40468313 PMCid:PMC12135588
  10. Chowdhury A, Kabir KH, Asafo-Agyei EK, and Abdulai AR (2024). Participatory and community-based approach in combating agri-food misinformation: A scoping review. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 5(2): 81-104.  https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v5i2.349    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dernat S, Etienne R, Hostiou N, Pailleux JY, and Rigolot C (2022). Ex-post consequences of participatory foresight processes in agriculture: How to help dairy farmers to face outcomes of collective decisions planning? Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6: 776959.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.776959    [Google Scholar]
  12. Doerwald F, Stalling I, Recke C, Busse H, Shrestha R, Rach S, and Bammann K (2024). A rapid review of digital approaches for the participatory development of health-related interventions. Frontiers in Public Health, 12: 1461422.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1461422    [Google Scholar] PMid:39678234 PMCid:PMC11638186
  13. Dossou-Yovo ER, Arouna A, Benfica R, Mujawamariya G, and Yossa R (2024). A participatory framework for prioritizing climate-smart agriculture innovations in rice-based systems: A case study of Mali. Smart Agricultural Technology, 7: 100392.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2023.100392    [Google Scholar]
  14. Espinoza M and Escobal J (2025). The impact of Peru's land reform on national agricultural productivity: A synthetic control study. Land Use Policy, 157: 107619.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107619    [Google Scholar]
  15. Fanatico AC, Gibbard LG, and Bramall SB (2025). Frontline to farm: Sustainable farming training for military veterans and beginning farmers. Poultry Science, 104(1): 104443.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104443    [Google Scholar] PMid:39616674 PMCid:PMC11648745
  16. Fatima S and Ying Z (2025). Enhancing agricultural productivity and food security through circular sustainability practices: A pathway to achieving sustainable development goal 2. Journal of Environmental Management, 389: 126237.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126237    [Google Scholar] PMid:40540903
  17. Gebeyehu HZ and Jira YS (2023). Exploring participatory communication implemented to improve the livelihood of rural Ethiopia. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10: 802.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02286-6    [Google Scholar]
  18. Haryuningtyas RI, Ibrahim JT, and Ariadi BY (2024). The trust as a linchpin when social norms and network effect on the productivity of farmer women's group. East African School Journal of Agricultural and Life Sciences, 7(7): 91-100.  https://doi.org/10.36349/easjals.2024.v07i07.002    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hernández HA, Mondragón IF, González SR, and Pedraza LF (2025). Reconfigurable agricultural robotics: Control strategies, communication, and applications. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 234: 110161.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2025.110161    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hinojosa C, Sanchez K, Camacho A, and Arguello H (2023). AgroTIC: Bridging the gap between farmers, agronomists, and merchants through smartphones and machine learning. Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:2305.12418.  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.12418    [Google Scholar]
  21. Huang W and Wang X (2024). The impact of technological innovations on agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability in China. Sustainability, 16(19): 8480.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198480    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jameel A, Sahito N, Guo W, and Khan S (2025). Assessing patient satisfaction with practitioner communication: Patient-centered care, hospital environment and patient trust in the public hospitals. Frontiers in Medicine, 12: 1544498.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1544498    [Google Scholar] PMid:40470044 PMCid:PMC12133871
  23. Ji H, Suo L, and Chen H (2024). AI performance assessment in blended learning: Mechanisms and effects on students' continuous learning motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 15: 1447680.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1447680    [Google Scholar] PMid:39737232 PMCid:PMC11683091
  24. Jotta S (2024). The impact of information and communication technologies in improving crop productivity among youths in Misungwi and Kilosa Districts, Tanzania. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 12(5): 246-264.  https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2024.125017    [Google Scholar]
  25. Karner K, Mitter H, Sinabell F, and Schönhart M (2024). Participatory development of shared socioeconomic pathways for Austria's agriculture and food systems. Land Use Policy, 142: 107183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107183    [Google Scholar]
  26. Keshtkar L, Bennett-Weston A, Khan AS et al. (2025). Impacts of communication type and quality on patient safety incidents: A systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 178(5): 687-700.  https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-02904    [Google Scholar] PMid:40228297
  27. Khan MA, Ni G, Man T, and Saud S (2025). Impacts of transport infrastructure on agricultural total factor productivity in Asian countries. Transport Policy, 171: 18–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2025.05.022    [Google Scholar]
  28. Lei L, Dakuan Q, Jin T, Lishuang W, Yuying L, and Xinhong F (2024). Research on the influence of education and training of farmers' professional cooperatives on the willingness of members to green production: Perspectives based on time, method and content elements. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 26: 987-1006.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02744-2    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lei X and Yang D (2025). Cultivating green champions: The role of high-quality farmer training in sustainable agriculture. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16: 2016-2046.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02014-8    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lertsinudom S, Kaewketthong P, Chankaew T, Chinwong D, and Chinwong S (2021). Smoking cessation services by community pharmacists: Real-world practice in Thailand. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22): 11890.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182211890    [Google Scholar] PMid:34831660 PMCid:PMC8620368
  31. Li B, Guo B, Zhu Q, and Zhuo N (2023). Impact of technical training and personalized information support on farmers' fertilization behavior: Evidence from China. Sustainability, 15(11): 8925.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118925    [Google Scholar]
  32. Liu J, Liao Y, Ji C, Zhao Z, Zhao Y, and Tong Q (2025). Optimizing communication technology investment for economic growth and industrial transformation. Procedia Computer Science, 261: 327-335.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2025.04.211    [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu Y, Shi K, Liu Z, Qiu L, Wang Y, Liu H, and Fu X (2022a). The effect of technical training provided by agricultural cooperatives on farmers' adoption of organic fertilizers in China: Based on the mediation role of ability and perception. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21): 14277.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114277    [Google Scholar] PMid:36361156 PMCid:PMC9654095
  34. Liu Y, Shi R, Peng Y, Wang W, and Fu X (2022b). Impacts of technology training provided by agricultural cooperatives on farmers' adoption of biopesticides in China. Agriculture, 12(3): 316.  https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12030316    [Google Scholar]
  35. López-García D, García-García J, García-García V, Rada-Sereno O, and Vázquez-Macías G (2025). What is transformative in participatory approaches to territorial agroecological transitions? A systematization of five case studies in Spain. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 49(7): 1177-1215.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2025.2456946    [Google Scholar]
  36. Luo W, Zuo S, Tang S, and Li C (2025). The formation of new quality productivity of agriculture under the perspectives of digitalization and innovation: A dynamic qualitative comparative analysis based on the "technology-organization-environment" framework. Sustainability, 17(2): 597.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020597    [Google Scholar]
  37. Ma Z, Wang D, Feng F, and Zhao T (2025). Moving out of agriculture: How trade liberalization affects agricultural productivity in China. China Economic Review, 91: 102388.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2025.102388    [Google Scholar]
  38. Matowo NS, Tanner M, Temba BA, Finda M, Mlacha YP, Utzinger J, and Okumu FO (2022). Participatory approaches for raising awareness among subsistence farmers in Tanzania about the spread of insecticide resistance in malaria vectors and the possible link to improper agricultural pesticide use. Malaria Journal, 21: 277.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-022-04289-1    [Google Scholar] PMid:36180865 PMCid:PMC9524312
  39. Maughan C and Anderson CR (2023). "A shared human endeavor": Farmer participation and knowledge co-production in agroecological research. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7: 1162658.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1162658    [Google Scholar]
  40. Maulidiyah R, Salam M, Jamil MH, Tenriawaru AN, Muslim AI, Ali HNB, and Ridwan M (2025). Determinants of potato farming productivity and success: Factors and findings from the application of structural equation modeling. Heliyon, 11(10): e43026.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e43026    [Google Scholar]
  41. Min W (2025). Rural financial development, agricultural mechanization, and total factor productivity. Finance Research Letters, 79: 107288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.107288    [Google Scholar]
  42. Mponela P, Manda J, Kinyua M, and Kihara J (2023). The impact of participatory action research and endogenous integrated soil fertility management on farm-gate dietary outputs in northern Tanzania. Heliyon, 9(11): e21888.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21888    [Google Scholar] PMid:38034764 PMCid:PMC10682143
  43. Mukhtar YA and Jallow C (2025). Factors influencing consumers' intention to adopt Takaful products in Somalia: Extension of diffusion of innovation theory. Cogent Business and Management, 12(1): 2543050.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2543050    [Google Scholar]
  44. Müller B, Hartung J, von Cossel M, Lewandowski I, Müller T, and Bauerle A (2024). On-farm use of recycled liquid ammonium sulphate in southwest Germany using a participatory approach. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 129(3): 459-474.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-023-10329-2    [Google Scholar]
  45. Mulungu K, Kassie M, and Tschopp M (2025). The role of information and communication technologies-based extension in agriculture: Application, opportunities and challenges. Information Technology for Development, 31(4): 1117-1146.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2025.2456232    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ochieng W, Silvert CJ, and Diaz J (2022). Exploring the impacts of lead farmer selection on community social learning: The case of farmer-to-farmer model: A review of literature. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 29(3): 7-31.  https://doi.org/10.4148/2831-5960.1022    [Google Scholar]
  47. Osman RA (2025). Optimizing IoT communication for enhanced data transmission in smart farming ecosystems. Expert Systems with Applications, 265: 125879.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125879    [Google Scholar]
  48. Paleologo M, Acampora M, Barello S, and Graffigna G (2025). Uncovering the landscape of participatory research in agricultural innovation: A scoping review. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 10(1): 17.  https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.767    [Google Scholar]
  49. Pandey SC, Modi P, Pereira V, and Fosso Wamba S (2025). Empowering small farmers for sustainable agriculture: A human resource approach to SDG-driven training and innovation. International Journal of Manpower, 46(4): 652-675.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-11-2023-0655    [Google Scholar]
  50. Plana-Farran M, Arzubiaga U, and Blanch A (2023). Successors’ future training in family farms: The impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 14(4): 4216-4237.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-01046-2    [Google Scholar]
  51. Pothin HJ, Houinsou D, Femi HE, Victor C, Emile HN, and Gauthier B (2025). Promoting women autonomy in the agricultural sector: Is productivity land access mode wise and gender differentiated? Land Use Policy, 157: 107656.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107656    [Google Scholar]
  52. Prajapati CS, Priya NK, Bishnoi S et al. (2025). The role of participatory approaches in modern agricultural extension: Bridging knowledge gaps for sustainable farming practices. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International, 47(2): 204-222.  https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2025/v47i23281    [Google Scholar]
  53. Prakash C, Singh LP, Gupta A, and Lohan SK (2023). Advancements in smart farming: A comprehensive review of IoT, wireless communication, sensors, and hardware for agricultural automation. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 362: 114605.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sna.2023.114605    [Google Scholar]
  54. Qin Z, Wang J, Wang Y, Liu L, Zhou J, and Fu X (2025). Assessing the impacts of new quality productivity on sustainable agriculture: Structural mechanisms and optimization strategies: Empirical evidence from China. Sustainability, 17(6): 2662.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062662    [Google Scholar]
  55. Rohit J, Bal SK, Anshida Beevi CN et al. (2024). Exploring farmers’ communication pattern and satisfaction regarding the adoption of Agromet advisory services in semi-arid regions of southern India. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7: 1284880.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1284880    [Google Scholar]
  56. Saha S, Alam MJ, Begum IA, Rola-Rubzen MF, and McKenzie AM (2025). Impact of human capital and remittances on agricultural productivity in Bangladesh. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 22: 102073.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2025.102073    [Google Scholar]
  57. Salam M, Jamil MH, Tenriawaru AN et al. (2024). The effectiveness of agricultural extension in rice farming in Bantaeng Regency, Indonesia: Employing structural equation modeling in search for the effective ways in educating farmers. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 18: 101487.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101487    [Google Scholar]
  58. Shamshiri RR, Navas E, Dworak V, Cheein FAA, and Weltzien C (2024). A modular sensing system with CANBUS communication for assisted navigation of an agricultural mobile robot. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 223: 109112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2024.109112    [Google Scholar]
  59. Sharma S and Singh R (2023). Knowledge enhancement of landless and marginal farmers through entrepreneurship training on goat farming. Indian Journal of Extension Education, 59(4): 58-61.  https://doi.org/10.48165/IJEE.2023.59412    [Google Scholar]
  60. Shehzad K and Xue Q (2024). Can technology in terms of finance, environment, and communication boost food production while facilitating a low-carbon transition? Evidence from a high-tech and low-tech state. Journal of Cleaner Production, 477: 143859.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143859    [Google Scholar]
  61. Supriatna J, Saluy AB, Kurniawan D, and Djumarno D (2025). Promoting sustainable performance of smallholder oil palm farmers: An analysis of key determinants and strategic priorities. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 74(5): 1644-1675.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-12-2023-0647    [Google Scholar]
  62. Suryalena S, Andri S, Karneli O, Andini FK, and Febrian AF (2025). Community social capital and farmer development: Key drivers of welfare and business productivity in farmer groups. E3S Web of Conferences, 611: 02001.  https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202561102001    [Google Scholar]
  63. van der Merwe M and Makamane A (2025). Borich needs assessment model to evaluate training needs of smallholder farmers in Zambia. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 28(1): 93-108.  https://doi.org/10.22434/ifamr1069    [Google Scholar]
  64. Velado-Alonso E, Kleijn D, and Bartomeus I (2024). Reassessing science communication for effective farmland biodiversity conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 39(6): 537-547.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2024.01.007    [Google Scholar] PMid:38395670
  65. Wang M, Zhu C, Wang X, Ntim VS, and Liu X (2023). Effect of information and communication technology and electricity consumption on green total factor productivity. Applied Energy, 347: 121366.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121366    [Google Scholar]
  66. Wonde KM, Tsehay AS, and Lemma SE (2022). Training at farmers training centers and its impact on crop productivity and households’ income in Ethiopia: A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Heliyon, 8(7): e09837.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09837    [Google Scholar] PMid:35815142 PMCid:PMC9263857
  67. Xiuling D, Qian L, Lipeng L, and Sarkar A (2023). The impact of technical training on farmers adopting water-saving irrigation technology: An empirical evidence from China. Agriculture, 13(5): 956.  https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13050956    [Google Scholar]
  68. Xue Z, Li J, and Cao G (2022). Training and self-learning: How to improve farmers’ willingness to adopt farmland conservation technology? Evidence from Jiangsu Province of China. Land, 11(12): 2230.  https://doi.org/10.3390/land11122230    [Google Scholar]
  69. Zhang H and Yang M (2025). Does farmers’ participation in skills training improve their livelihood capital? An empirical study from China. Agriculture, 15(7): 679.  https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15070679    [Google Scholar]
  70. Zhang J and Drury M (2024). Sustainable agriculture in the EU and China: A comparative critical policy analysis approach. Environmental Science and Policy, 157: 103789.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103789    [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhang S, Huang J, and Wang H (2024). Influencing factors of women’s sports participation based on self-determination theory: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 17: 2953-2969.  https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S465903    [Google Scholar] PMid:39136006 PMCid:PMC11318597
  72. Zhang Z, Takahashi Y, and Rezwan RB (2025). Knowledge hiding and social exchange theory: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 15: 1516815.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1516815    [Google Scholar] PMid:39895973 PMCid:PMC11784149
  73. Zougris K, Miles AF, Benjamin R, and Geismar E (2025). Forming a national community of practice of food system planning initiatives aligned with the United Nations sustainable development goals. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8: 1490923.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1490923    [Google Scholar]