On January 25, 2024, the RethinkAction workshop took place at the University of Szeged, Hungary, attended by 18 participants primarily from academia, the hunting sector, social sector, agricultural informatics, precision agriculture, and national park representatives. The event exceeded expectations in terms of attendance.

The Geonardo team provided a project overview and shared results achieved thus far. Participants engaged in three pre-defined tasks for CS workshops: impact chain evaluation, ranking valuable factors from 1 to 10, and placing LAMS on a matrix for their relevance, impact and how doable they are.

During Exercise 1, participants provided feedback on the impact chain developed by Geonardo. The importance of farmer education emerged as a recurring theme, particularly in understanding regulations, applying for funding, and accessing data—a deficiency identified as a risk factor. Participants emphasized the need for educating farmers on data utilization to modernize agriculture, expressing concern that farmers often rely on expert advisers instead of interpreting their own data. Additionally, participants highlighted counter-pressure on farmers to comply with regulations once they receive governmental support or funds. Accessing data posed challenges, with farmers having reporting obligations but lacking the ability to retrieve and learn from the data stored in databases, a crucial aspect for their decision-making. Some specific suggestions included rethinking land use for inland water retention, such as utilizing ponds for inland areas. The combined insights from Table 1 and Table 2 underscored the untapped potential of unused data, identified technical mistakes in the impact chain, emphasized the importance of data accessibility, and brought attention to the complexity of climate change sensitivity within the HUN CS area. Participants debated whether to simplify the impact chain or maintain its holistic view, recognizing significant differences in climate change sensitivity even within the HUN CS area.

Exercise 2, which involved ranking valuable factors from 1-10, was presented by Geonardo to the participants. However, feedback from participants indicated significant challenges. Participants expressed that the exercise was not usable and could not be interpreted. Meanwhile, feedback revealed that the exercise was deemed too vague and nonsensical, with categories being excessively broad and difficult to access. Some participants attempted to improve the exercise by providing their own explanations to make the categories more specific, emphasizing the need for sentences rather than individual words for effective interpretation. This feedback collectively underscores the need for clarity and specificity in future iterations of the ranking exercise.

During Exercise 3, participants were provided with a list of LAMS relevant to the HUN CS, selected by Geonardo. The task involved scoring these strategies on a matrix based on their importance, relevance, and feasibility for implementation. Overall, there was less negative feedback on this exercise (compared to exercise 2). Participants expressed the need for a fifth category in the matrix to distinguish non-relevant LAMS. Additionally, concerns were raised about the clarity and specificity of the LAMS, with participants finding them too vague. These insights from Exercise 3 will contribute to refining and improving the relevance and clarity of LAMS in the ongoing RethinkAction project.

Feedback from Exercises 1 and 3 will be considered for implementing changes in the impact chain and LAMS, specifically tailored for the HUN CS. Exercise 2’s feedback was challenging to translate into meaningful results. Overall, the workshop facilitated constructive discussions and identified areas for refinement in the ongoing RethinkAction project.