152th EAAE Seminar

Emerging technologies and the development of the agriculture

August 30th – September 1st, 2016

Novi Sad, Serbia

1. How did you initially find out about the Seminar?

2%9%

7%

42%

37%

2%

1.1 From the EAAE: website 1 2.3 %

1.2 From the EAAE: e-mail/NewsFlash 4 9.3 %

1.3 From the organizers: website 3 7 %

1.4 From the organizers: e-mail 18 41.9 %

1.5 From a direct communication from somebody who knew about the Seminar 16 37.2 %

1.6 By word of mouth 0 0 %

1.7 Other (please specify) 1 2.3 %

Other (please specify):

Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics

Comments (if any):

Well organized

2. How easy was it to obtain information about the Seminar?

2.1 From the EAAE website

N/A

Very easy

Easy

Neutral

Difficult

Very difficult

0 5 10 15 20 25

5

21

11

4

2

0

Very difficult 0 0 %

Difficult 2 4.7 %

Neutral 4 9.3 %

Easy 11 25.6 %

Very easy 21 48.8 %

N/A 5 11.6 %

2.2 From the Seminar website

N/A

Very easy

Easy

Neutral

Difficult

Very difficult

0 5 10 15 20 25

8

21

9

4

0

1

Very difficult 1 2.3 %

Difficult 0 0 %

Neutral 4 9.3 %

Easy 9 20.9 %

Very easy21 48.8 %

N/A 8 18.6 %

2.3 By e-mail to/from the Local Organising Committee

N/A

Very easy

Easy

Neutral

Difficult

Very difficult

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0

33

7

2

1

0

Very difficult 0 0 %

Difficult 1 2.3 %

Neutral 2 4.7 %

Easy 7 16.3 %

Very easy33 76.7 %

N/A 0 0 %

Comments (if any):

There was no website

3. How important were the following factors in your decision to attend the Seminar?

3.1 Location

Not important at all 0 0 %

Not important 2 4.7 %

Neutral 13 30.2 %

Important 17 39.5 %

Very important 11 25.6 %

Very important

Important

Neutral

Not important

Not important at all

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

11

17

13

2

0

3.2 Theme of the Seminar

Very important

Important

Neutral

Not important

Not important at all

0 5 10 15 20 25

21

18

2

2

0

Not important at all 0 0 %

Not important 2 4.7 %

Neutral 2 4.7 %

Important 18 41.9 %

Very important 21 48.8 %

3.3 Having a paper accepted

Not important at all 2 4.7 %

Not important 2 4.7 %

Neutral 9 20.9 %

Very important

Important

Neutral

Not important

Not important at all

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

15

15

9

2

2

Important 15 34.9 %

Very important 15 34.9 %

3.4 Time of the Seminar

Very important

Important

Neutral

Not important

Not important at all

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

11

18

11

3

0

Not important at all 0 0 %

Not important 3 7 %

Neutral 11 25.6 %

Important 18 41.9 %

Very important 11 25.6 %

3.5 Cost of the Seminar (registration fees)

Not important at all 1 2.3 %

Not important 3 7 %

Neutral 12 27.9 %

Very important

Important

Neutral

Not important

Not important at all

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

13

14

12

3

1

Important 14 32.6 %

Very important 13 30.2 %

Comments (if any):

Costs of the Seminar very high and not acceptable for many of my

colleagues and the main reason why they did not want to participate on the

Seminar.

4. What is your opinion about the following aspects of the Seminar website?

4.1 Quantity of information

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

0 5 10 15 20 25

16

20

6

0

1

Very poor 1 2.3 %

Poor 0 0 %

Fair 6 14 %

Good 20 46.5 %

Very good 16 37.2 %

4.2 Clarity of information

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

19

15

8

0

1

Very poor 1 2.3 %

Poor 0 0 %

Fair 8 18.6 %

Good 15 34.9 %

Very good 19 44.2 %

4.3 Registration procedure

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

0 5 10 15 20 25

20

15

7

0

1

Very poor 1 2.3 %

Poor 0 0 %

Fair 7 16.3 %

Good 15 34.9 %

Very good 20 46.5 %

4.4 Abstracts/papers upload procedure

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

16

18

7

0

2

Very poor 2 4.7 %

Poor 0 0 %

Fair 7 16.3 %

Good 18 41.9 %

Very good 16 37.2 %

Comments (if any):

Proper answers are N/A, cause all information came directly from organizers

There was no website

Didn't use website

5. The description of the procedure for the selection of papers given in the Call for papers and on the website of the Seminar was?

30%

56%

14%

Very poor 0 0 %

Poor 0 0 %

Fair 6 14 %

Good 24 55.8 %

Very good 13 30.2 %

Comments (if any):

6. In your opinion, how fair and transparent was the selection procedure for paper submissions?

5%

21%

30%

37%

7%Not fair and transparent at all 0 0 %

Not fair and transparent 2 4.7 %

Neutral 9 20.9 %

Fair and transparent13 30.2 %

Very fair and transparent16 37.2 %

N/A 3 7 %

Comments (if any):

7. Where you able to attend the Seminar for its entire length?

74%

26% Yes 32 74.4 %

No 11 25.6 %

Comments (if any):

Arrived just after the first plenary session

I didn't attend only the last day

8. Your overall assessment of the scientific quality of the Seminar is:

56%37%

2%5%

Very poor 0 0 %

Poor 2 4.7 %

Fair 1 2.3 %

Good 16 37.2 %

Very good 24 55.8 %

Comments (if any):

9. The balance between plenary and contributed paper sessions was:

Very poor 0 0 %

Poor 1 2.3 %

Fair 2 4.7 %

Good 26 60.5 %

Very good 14 32.6 %

33%

60%

5% 2%

Comments (if any):

9.1 If you gave a “Very poor”, “poor” or “Fair” response, please, tell us about the imbalance:

o Two parallel sessions compared to three plenary ones

o No poster section

o Procedure

10. The quality of the different components of the Seminar was:

10.1 Plenary session 1 (Presentation by Swinnen & Brummer)

Very poor 0 0 %

Poor 0 0 %

N/A

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

2

30

8

3

0

0

Fair 3 7 %

Good 8 18.6 %

Very good 30 69.8 %

N/A 2 4.7 %

10.2 Plenary session 2 (Presentation by Lovre & Subic)

N/A

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

1

31

8

2

1

0

Very poor 0 0 %

Poor 1 2.3 %

Fair 2 4.7 %

Good 8 18.6 %

Very good31 72.1 %

N/A 1 2.3 %

10.3 Plenary session 3

Very poor 1 2.3 %

Poor 0 0 %

N/A

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

0 5 10 15 20 25

6

23

8

5

0

1

Fair 5 11.6 %

Good 8 18.6 %

Very good23 53.5 %

N/A 6 14 %

10.4 The contributed paper sessions you attended

N/A

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

1

24

14

4

0

0

Very poor 0 0 %

Poor 0 0 %

Fair 4 9.3 %

Good14 32.6 %

Very good24 55.8 %

N/A 1 2.3 %

10.5The poster sessions you attended

N/A

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

16

10

10

5

1

1

Very poor 1 2.3 %

Poor 1 2.3 %

Fair 5 11.6 %

Good10 23.3 %

Very good10 23.3 %

N/A16 37.2 %

Comments (if any):

11. Did you choose to stay in one of the Hotels suggested by the organizers?

26%

74%

Yes 11 25.6 %

No 32 74.4 %

11.1 The price/quality ratio of the Hotel where you stayed was:

Very good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7

3

1

0

0

Very poor 0 0 %

Poor 0 0 %

Fair 1 9.1 %

Good 3 27.3 %

Very good 7 63.6 %

Comments (if any):

12. The location of the venue of the Seminar (easy to reach? close to the Hotels?) was:

56%

21%

21%

2% Not convenient at all 0 0 %

Not convenient 1 2.3 %

Neutral 9 20.9 %

Convenient 9 20.9 %

Very convenient24 55.8 %

Comments (if any):

13. The venue of the Seminar (rooms and facilities) was:

35%

56%

5%2% 2% Not functional at all 1 2.3 %

Slightly functional 1 2.3 %

Moderately functional 2 4.7 %

Very functional 24 55.8 %

Extremely functional 15 34.9 %

Comments (if any):

14. The coffee breaks and lunches provided at the Seminar venue (quality/quantity/logistical arrangements) was:

42%

42%

12%

5%Very poor 0 0 %

Poor 2 4.7 %

Fair 5 11.6 %

Good 18 41.9 %

Very good 18 41.9 %

Comments (if any):

The lunch of the second day was extremely poor

15. The social dinner was:

33%

42%

21%

5%Very poor 0 0 %

Poor 0 0 %

Fair 2 4.7 %

Good 9 20.9 %

Very good 18 41.9 %

N/A 14 32.6 %

Comments (if any):

No attend

I did not attend

16. The services received vis a vis the registration fees you paid were:

35%

44%

21%

Very poor 0 0 %

Poor 0 0 %

Fair 9 20.9 %

Good 19 44.2 %

Very good 15 34.9 %

Comments (if any):

Didn't use this option

17. What did you like the most about the Seminar?

Plenary session 1

Location

Nice venue, helpful organizers

Plenary session

Contributed papers

The topic

New knowledge in lectures

Lectures were excellent, new insights

Introduction lectures

Quality of papers

NETWORKING

Organization

Plenary part and sessions

Possibility to exchange research experience

People

Good presentations and personal contacts with colleagues

Lectures

Lectures about the possibilities of application of new technologies in

agriculture, such as GPS, information systems in agriculture ...

Topic

Organization

Lunch

Possibility to exchange information and knowledge with collages

Topics of scientific papers

18. Is there anything you disliked about the Seminar?

No

No

Too few contributed papers; too few international participants

Too few participants, and consequently a too narrow geographical focus for

an international seminar and too low scientific quality

The "official" language was Serbian

The lack of translation by Sessions

Missing translations sessions

TIMENING

No

The lunch given second day was insufficient and poor

Business participant

19. Further comments or suggestions for future EAAE Seminars?

No

Please coordinate the seminar evaluation procedure better: It is now the

third time I fill the questionnaire: on location, by email from the Serbian

organisers and now on the EAAE website.

It is good to include new Countries and local associations, but it is a process

that needs to be guided.

Expand topics

Increase the number of participants and expand topics

No

End of year timeing

To choose towns with airports

More foreign people

I do not have any comment or suggestions.

Continue with good expirience

The best

Pay attention to the economic aspects as crucial in the development of

agriculture

Number of daily responses

5 de sep 6 de sep 7 de sep 8 de sep 9 de sep 10 de sep

11 de sep

12 de sep

13 de sep

14 de sep

15 de sep

16 de sep

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Total number of responses

43