Balancing Objectivity and Subjectivity in Agricultural Funding: The Case of AKIS Measures

1. Introduction

Nowadays, the agri-food and forestry sector face various challenges, such as demographic growth, food security (e.g., ensuring the nutritional needs of future generations), and climate change (e.g., reducing pressures on natural resources at the same time) [1]. To mitigate the negative impacts of these challenges, the European Union promotes productivity and sustainability in the sector by encouraging the generation and dissemination of innovations in agri-food systems [2]. Different scholars [3,4] have investigated the crucial role of technological advancements and digitalization in improving resource efficiency and fostering sustainable, climate-friendly agriculture [5]. However, despite the growing importance of tools aimed at knowledge dissemination in agriculture, they have remained a marginal expense within the overall Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget for the 2014-2020 period [6]. Consequently, the adoption of new technologies in the agricultural sector has not reached the expected levels.

To achieve more appropriate solutions considering the sustainability transition as a priority in the policy agenda, different policy measures have been implemented. In particular, one is the European Innovation Partnership AGRI, implemented through the European Fund for Rural Development. The second consists of various Horizon 2020 Research Programs calls aimed at bridging the gap between research and innovation.

These research programs adopt a multi-actor approach, which enhances the practical relevance of scientific research by fostering close collaboration between researchers and practitioners [2] and both of them incorporate this approach within the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) framework, promoting knowledge exchange and innovation in the sector.

Considering the need for an efficient allocation of resources, effective projects evaluation is crucial to ensure that fundings are directed towards the best innovations. This primarily involves the selection criteria used to allocate funds for agricultural innovation measures, particularly those related to AKIS. In addition, the AKIS strategy further amplifies the complexity of fund allocation based on selection criteria because there are principles and processes in place for selecting AKIS projects and distributing funds among various groups.

The challenges associated with funds allocation are particularly pronounced in countries like Italy. Indeed, as reported by Cristiano et al., [7] the Italian AKIS is a multi-actor, multi-level system, shaped by the division of responsibilities between the State and the Regions, as well as the Autonomous Provinces (Trento and Bolzano). This structure has led to the creation of 21 regional AKISs, each differing in organizational models, procedures, and content. This multifaceted framework results in varying levels of definition and coordination across regions, reflecting local cultural, political, and administrative contexts.

More practically, the selection principles to allocate resource for AKIS selection are set at the national level and vary only slightly between regions. However, at the regional level, selection criteria differ, each Italian region must establish rules and criteria for deciding which projects to fund within rural development measures. In this highly variable and rather complex situation, the aim of this study is to analyze the project selection process within AKIS, with the intent of understanding how objective and subjective criteria are used to address the specific needs of different territories. Specifically, the analysis focuses on the integration of these criteria and the impact of regional differences in resource management, with the goal of highlighting how political management that acknowledges local peculiarities can contribute to the sustainability and competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectors, promoting regional growth.

More practically, the research question addressed in this article is:

RQ1: Do regions balance objective and subjective criteria in AKIS project selection to meet local needs?

To achieve the objective of this paper, a content analysis of the main documents from Italian regions has been implemented, contributing to the development of a comparative evaluation analysis. This structured approach provided a clear understanding of how the regions have approached project selection, shedding light on their alignment with the goals and requirements of the European Union’s rural development strategy.

The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a better understanding of the debate of selection criteria and the AKIS concept, Section 3 describes the methodology used, the results will be presented in Section 4, while Section 5 and Section 6 provide a discussion and concluding remarks.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. The debate of Selection Criteria

According to Scriven [8], the process of the evaluation includes four steps: defining the merit dimensions (how the object of evaluation is to be judged), determining the merit standards that specify the level of performance needed for every dimension, comparing the object’s performance against those standards, and finally, integrating these comparisons into an overall assessment and judgment of value. This flow is the basis of any evaluative process, including the awarding of funding calls for AKIS initiatives. In this context, some of the entities under evaluation could be the entire proposal or parts of it (e.g., the project team or the budget and procured components), while standard evaluative criteria are different such as originality, relevance, and feasibility [9]. As different authors have pointed out [9,10], the criteria applied in evaluation processes are often unspecified or ambiguous, resulting in a lack of consistency, which undermines the clarity and credibility of funding decisions. Given these processes’ intricacy and the finances’ potential impact, resource distribution should adopt clearly definable, optimal, and just processes. In this perspective, the use of objective and measurable benchmarks can support analytically sound decisions, while acknowledging that every evaluation inevitably involves an element of judgment. For this reason, understanding the relationship between objective and subjective indicators becomes crucial [11]. According to Veenhoven [12], objective indicators are based on tangible facts and explicit assessments by external observers, whereas subjective indicators concern personal perceptions. Although both types have limitations, subjective data are indispensable for setting policy goals and assessing their overall success. A categorical rejection of subjective indicators risks leaving decision-makers with an information deficit, which is inevitably filled with personal impressions and unsystematic opinions. Therefore, integrating both perspectives represents an essential strategy to guide funding decisions in a conscious and balanced manner.

2.2. Current State of the AKIS Strategy

The AKIS is commonly defined as a network of people and organizations that work together to create, share, and use knowledge and information. The main goal of this system is to improve decision-making, solve problems, and promote innovation in agriculture [13]. The model relies on collaboration among various stakeholders, including researchers, advisors, farmers, foresters, and educators, who contribute complementary expertise to achieving project objectives [14]. The literature on AKIS has been increasing highlight the significant role of this initiative. As well a simply search in an academic database, such as Scopus, using keywords like “Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System” reveals an important increase in publications. Specifically, several aspects have been explored in the literature. Some studies have focused on advisory services, analysing their implementation and impact on farmers [15,16]. While others have emphasized the importance of community relationships [17] and the role of participatory approaches in addressing farmers’ needs [18]. Although this increase in AKIS publication, to the best of our knowledge, there is a gap on the selection criteria of AKIS initiatives, particularly in the context of Italy, as previously mentioned. Specifically, in Italy, the AKIS is composed of nine key interventions designed to promote innovation and enhance the productivity and sustainability of the agricultural sector. These interventions, which are part of the European Union’s Rural Development Policy, encompass a wide range of activities, from supporting innovation to providing advisory services [19]. Figure 1 summarizes the nine interventions of AKIS in Italy. Among these, SRG01 pays attention to the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability (EIP-AGRI) Operational Groups (OGs), which work towards stakeholder cooperation for innovative project implementation. SRG08 promotes the development, testing, and implementation of new research innovations to facilitate their commercialization in the agriculture, agri-food, and forestry industries. SRG09 promotes the formation of collaborative partnerships that seek to serve the needs of rural enterprises by constructively solving problems, promoting innovative practices, and strengthening collaboration through the AKIS. SRH01 helps agricultural businesses through the provision of advisory services; offering help in technical, management, economic, environmental, and social parts while also supporting the transfer of new ideas and findings. SRH02 aims at improving the training skills of the consultants to increase the professional and consequently, the advisory service quality to agricultural clients. SRH03 has the objective to enhance the competency of agricultural entrepreneurs as well as other professionals in agriculture related fields through training to enable them to better practice agriculture, animal husbandry, agri-processing, and rural development. SRH04 focuses on the marketing and public relations activities that communicate innovations and research results to stakeholders, both public and private, in the agriculture and forestry industries. SRH05 has advanced the knowledge and technology transfer through the implementation of education field trials, experiments, and demonstrations. SRH06 provides administrative support to the knowledge system actors for data capture, network monitoring, and digital tool development needed for complicated analysis.

3. Methodology

To address the research objective, the methodological approach followed a multi-step structure that integrates two steps: qualitative content analysis and systematic comparative evaluation.

First step includes two analyses. Firstly, content analysis is conducted as a systematic and replicable technique for coding and categorizing textual to identify recurrent themes, principles, and criteria [20]. A comprehensive document analysis was conducted, specifically focusing on regional planning documents, with particular attention to the Complement to Regional Programming (CSR 23/27). Each CSR defines the regional development strategies that contribute to achieving the objectives outlined in European regulations related to the new CAP. The CSRs are documents that implement the national strategy (PSP) at the regional level. While they do not introduce new choices, they explain how the national strategy is adapted to the specificities of each region. This analysis encompassed the eligibility and selection criteria applied to projects funded through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) within the 2014–2022 programming period. These criteria pertain to specific “types of operations” embedded in the Rural Development Programs (RDPs) and include parameters such as sectoral relevance, geographical targeting, alignment with RDP priorities, measurability, and evaluability of project proposals. Second, a comparative analysis of regional documents was performed. More specifically, regional project calls were examined to assess how the formally defined criteria are translated into practical decision-making processes for project selection.

The second step applied a criteria-based analysis, wherein evaluative criteria were assessed. The evaluation of selection criteria was organized into two dimensions: the subjective versus objective nature of the criteria. Subjectivity refers to the influence of individual perceptions, values, or institutional biases on evaluation outcomes, while objectivity relates to the use of measurable and standardized indicators. The steps followed in this study are summarized in Figure 2.

3.1. First Step

The Table 1 summarizes the principles on which Italian regions base the selection of AKIS initiatives. The table presents a column with the 9 AKIS initiatives, alongside which the principles used for selecting each initiative are listed.

Table 1 illustrates that while the principles applied by Italian regions in the selection of AKIS initiatives are largely consistent, each region retains the discretion to select specific principles to adopt for each strategy, thereby tailoring the initiatives to reflect regional peculiarities. This approach is further elaborated in Table 2, which presents a comparative analysis of the regional documents. Following the identification of the selection principles adopted by each region, an in-depth examination was conducted on the calls for proposals issued by the respective regions, with a particular focus on the selection criteria.

The comparative analysis of selection criteria across Italian regions reveals a structured yet flexible evaluation framework for rural development projects. Core principles, like partnership quality (SRG01), project innovation (SRG09), and service provider competence (SRH01), are common applied among the Regions. However, significant regional variations emerge in the adoption of supplementary criteria, particularly in the reward of thematic priorities, exemplified in Piemonte’s forestry focus and digitalization in Lombardia, and the more peripheral specificity like mountain agriculture in Valle d’Aosta which show great regional adoption diversity in supplementary criteria. Such as with other regions, Lazio and Sardegna share the strong focus on local coherence and adaptation to regional agricultural priorities. Team quality and project quality seem to be the most widespread qualifiers which showcase the value derived from having a robust operational structure for the growth of these initiatives. Focusing on project sustainability is the approach taken by some other regions, particularly Autonomous Province of Bolzano, and by others like Veneto and Liguria whose focus is on the economic efficiency of the consultancy service provider. The links with research projects funded at a European and national level stand out as a defining feature for region integration within the broader systems of agricultural innovation. The rewards for specific themes or territorial objectives are especially evident in regions like Sardegna and Umbria, where local policies aim to address specific sectoral challenges, such as enhancing agricultural supply chains and promoting innovative actions for sustainability. Notably, northern regions exhibit more granular scoring methodologies, while southern regions prioritize social sustainability and local stakeholder engagement. These divergences reflect both contextual adaptations and strategic focuses within the shared EU policy framework.

3.2. Second Step

The analysis of the AKIS Initiative data reveals significant variation in the distribution of objective and subjective indicators across different selection criteria and regions (Table 3).

Considering the EIP-AGRI Operational Groups (SRG01), a total of 27 criteria were used, with 38.89% being objective and the remaining 61.11% subjective. This criterium was found in regions like Abruzzo, Trento, Bolzano, and Veneto. In these areas, subjective indicators evaluate how the partnerships were structured or how original the proposed solutions looked. These indicators leaned on qualitative inputs, like the reputation of external experts or just how convincing the project seemed overall. Of course, some objective aspects were considered too, like how many farms or forestry businesses were involved. Moreover, considering the SRG08 — Support for Pilot Actions and Testing of Innovations—it involved 17 criteria, split more or less evenly: 47.06% objective and 52.94% subjective. Interestingly, this was only used in Piemonte. The design here seemed to value both concrete metrics, like how many pilot projects were actually carried out and more open-ended judgments, such as how much innovative potential a proposal might offer in a local setting.

Moreover, SRG09, which focused on Innovation Support Services, used 24 criteria, evenly divided between objective and subjective indicators. These indicators were applied in regions like Toscana, Piemonte, Veneto, Abruzzo, and Campania. While, for Advisory Services (SRH01), 60% of the criteria were objective, and 40% were subjective. The initiative was assessed in Campania, Piemonte, Abruzzo, and Emilia-Romagna. The emphasis on quantitative indicators, such as the number of trained advisors and the geographical spread of services, points to a data-driven approach. On the other hand, Training for Advisors (SRH02) leaned even more into objective metrics: four out of five criteria were objective. This was mainly observed in Piemonte, with attention on the delivery methods and trainer credentials. Training for Farmers and Other Rural Actors (SRH03) had a more mixed approach: 17 criteria total, with 70.59% objective indicators, used across different regions such as Veneto, Marche, Campania, Toscana, Lombardia, Abruzzo, Piemonte, and Emilia-Romagna. Furthermore, to assess the initiative titled SRH04 (Information Actions) it is possible to see that 90% of its nine criteria were objective. It looked mainly at concrete outputs, like attendance numbers at events. This was used in Veneto and Marche.

Moreover, the Demonstration Actions for the Agricultural and Forestry Sectors (SRH05) used 16 assessment criteria, 62.5% of which were objective indicators. It combined quantitative data, such as the number of events held, with qualitative aspects, like the effectiveness of communication plans and the level of stakeholder engagement. This measure was mostly applied in Veneto and Piemonte. Finally, among the Back-office Services for the AKIS (SRH06), two-thirds of its six criteria were subjective. This probably reflects the trickier nature of evaluating internal support structures, where softer, experience-based judgments often make more sense. This approach was used in Veneto, Toscana, Piemonte, and Sicilia.

4. Discussion

The results show that while some regions relied primarily on quantitative assessments, others preferred more subjective methods that were better suited to their specific local contexts. This highlights the need for evaluation systems in agricultural innovation to remain flexible, broad enough to capture diverse on-the-ground realities yet still focused on measurable outcomes where they matter most.

The analysis of documents reveals important insights into the application of objective and subjective indicators, reflecting the complexity of selection criteria across different regions within the Italian context. This variation highlights the different approaches used for evaluating rural development projects and allocating resources.

The results show the different priorities in project evaluation, emphasizing how regions adapt their criteria to address specific territorial issues. For instance, areas like Bolzano and Abruzzo used objective indicators, such as the number of sectors or enterprises involved, which are easier to quantify. On the other hand, regions like Trento and Veneto applied subjective indicators, emphasizing aspects like innovation, technical expertise, and adaptability to local needs.

The distribution of objective versus subjective indicators highlights the differences within the AKIS initiative. Certain actions, like advisor training, were based on objective indicators, focusing on measurable variables such as participant numbers and the number of delivery methods. However, other actions, such as back-office services for AKIS, relied on subjective criteria, reflecting the need for a more flexible approach that accounts for the complexity of this initiative.

Moreover, the mix of objective and subjective indicators creates a comprehensive framework for evaluating rural development projects under the CAP. The findings of this study suggest that regions have different priorities when selecting projects. Some regions applied objective metrics, while others focused on subjective criteria, such as social and environmental sustainability, reinforcing the importance of evaluators. Indeed, while objective indicators play a key role in ensuring transparency and accountability, subjective indicators of the evaluation allow for a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in rural development.

6. Concluding Remarks

Policy makers are recognizing the intrinsic complexities of rural development, using a mix of objective and subjective indicators to create specific solutions to territorial needs. As highlighted in this paper, it is crucial that rural development governance does not reduce the allocation of resources to a statistical view but instead adopts dynamic evaluations requiring tailored, context-sensitive approaches. The criteria used in AKIS project selection have a direct influence on the types of projects funded, which in turn shape innovations within the agricultural and food systems. Indeed, the agri-food sector, being a complex and transversal system, includes a wide range of innovations, from the use of AI in crop planting to the final stages of food consumption. Therefore, the selection of specific indicators has an impact that extends not only to territorial development of specific regions but also to various interconnected sectors.

Despite the different insights offered by this paper, the study presents some limitations that should be considered when interpreting its findings. For example, the analysis relies on data from specific regions involved in the AKIS Initiative, particularly within the Italian context. Notwithstanding these limitations, the paper highlights the importance of including both objective and subjective indicators in evaluating rural development initiatives [12]. The findings suggest that regions should adopt a mixed approach to project selection and resource allocation.

Therefore, future research should focus on refining evaluation methodologies to create a standardized framework that remains flexible enough to account for the unique characteristics of each region, improving the accuracy and comprehensiveness of evaluations in rural development.