15:00 - 17:00 · Day 2 Scientific Session 5 Agroecology Transitions Chair: Dr. Erin Anders, Water for Food Institute, University of Nebraska. Discussant: Richard Appoh, WV. Room: Volta 1. Scientific Participant information Full Name Your main participant category * Researcher/Academic Farmer/Farmer organisation Policymaker/Government agency NGO/Civil society organisation Development partner Private sector/Industry Student Media Other If Other, please specify Country/organisation Session quality Use a 1-5 scale: 1 = Very poor, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent. How relevant was this session to your work, interests, or organisation? * 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent How clear were the session objectives or main message? * 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent How useful was the content presented? * 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent How practical or applicable were the ideas discussed? * 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent How well was the session chaired/facilitated? * 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent How good was the quality of discussion, questions, and responses? * 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent How well did the session manage time? * 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent How inclusive was the session of different perspectives, such as research, policy, farmer experience, gender, youth, and practice? * 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent Overall, how would you rate this session? * 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent Learning and usefulness What was your main takeaway from this session? * What idea, method, partnership, policy suggestion, or practice from this session could be useful after the conference? What was unclear, missing, or weak in this session? What should be improved if a similar session is organised again? Would you recommend a similar session in a future CIRAWA event? * Yes No Maybe Any other comments? Scientific questions How strong was the quality of evidence or research presented? * 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent How useful were the presentations for research, policy, or field practice? * 1 Very poor 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent Submit Scientific Session 5 evaluation