Impact assessment of the Coffee Social Network (Rede Social do Café)

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to assess the impacts of the Coffee Social Network (Rede Social do Café, in portuguese) among different categories of users through the proposal of a method based on multidimensional indicators. The CSN shares information about coffee and promotes collaboration and exchange of experiences in the coffee ecosystem. In an online study conducted in 2019 with 366 respondents, we observed an overall measured impact of the CSN of 29.1%, ranging from 25% to 37%, among eight categories of users: Agroindustry, Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (TARE), Commer-cialization, Communication, Education, Research, Agricultural Production, and Other. The most expressive results were found in the Quality, Evolution in Knowledge, and Adoption of Technologies indicators, at 44.4%, 39.4%, and 38.4%, respectively. Such indicators refer to an established pattern in each one of the categories of users and are aligned with the objectives of the CSN and with its most frequent themes. The results found are relevant for the management of the platform, whether as informative content or in relationship with users. Finally, the model of impact assessment proved to be appropriate for the CSN and can be applied in other social networks linked to agribusiness.

Full text

eISSN: 1984-3909
Coee Science, e172006, 2022
2022 | Lavras | Editora UFLA | www.coeescience.ua.br
Doi: https://doi.org/10.25186/.v17i.2006
Impact assessment of the Coffee Social Network (Rede Social do Café)
Sérgio Parreiras Pereira1, Luiza Maria Capanema Bezerra2, Carlos Eduardo Fredo3,
Celso Luis Rodrigues Vegro4, Cibele Maria Garcia de Aguiar Pereira5
1Instuto Agronmico/IAC, Centro de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento de Café, Campinas, SP, Brasil
2Instuto Agronmico/IAC, Centro de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento de Grãos e Fibras. Campinas, SP, Brasil
3Instuto de Economia Agrícola/IEA, Centro de Pesquisa de Informações Estascas dos Agronegócios, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
4Instuto de Economia Agrícola/IEA, Centro de Pesquisa e Estudos dos Agronegócios/IEA, São Paulo, SP, Brasil
5Programa de Pós-Graduação em Políca Cienca e Tecnológica (PCT/Unicamp) e Universidade Federal de Lavras/UFLA, Lavras, MG, Brasil
Corresponding authors: sergio.parreiras@sp.gov.br; luiza.bezerra@sp.gov.br; cfredo@sp.gov.br; celvegro@sp.gov.br; cibele.aguiar@ua.br
Received in February 4, 2022 and approved August 3, 2022
ABSTRACT
The aim of the present study was to assess the impacts of the Coee Social Network (Rede Social do Café, in portuguese) among dierent categories of
users through the proposal of a method based on muldimensional indicators. The CSN shares informaon about coee and promotes collaboraon and
exchange of experiences in the coee ecosystem. In an online study conducted in 2019 with 366 respondents, we observed an overall measured impact
of the CSN of 29.1%, ranging from 25% to 37%, among eight categories of users: Agroindustry, Technical Assistance and Rural Extension (TARE), Commer-
cializaon, Communicaon, Educaon, Research, Agricultural Producon, and Other. The most expressive results were found in the Quality, Evoluon in
Knowledge, and Adopon of Technologies indicators, at 44.4%, 39.4%, and 38.4%, respecvely. Such indicators refer to an established paern in each one
of the categories of users and are aligned with the objecves of the CSN and with its most frequent themes. The results found are relevant for the man-
agement of the plaorm, whether as informave content or in relaonship with users. Finally, the model of impact assessment proved to be appropriate
for the CSN and can be applied in other social networks linked to agribusiness.
Key words: Social network; impact assessment; coffee; agribusiness.
1 INTRODUCTION
In a recurring manner, action taken by an agent
in attempting to achieve a certain objective lead to two
questions. The first consists of understanding if the
objective was fulfilled in a complete or partial manner
and what results were obtained. The second deals with
the attempt to measure the efforts employed for achieving
that purpose. Different factors are evaluated so as to
achieve the same or even better objectives in the future,
while minimizing the efforts undertaken and maximizing
the benefits achieved. All the elements that compose this
process should in some way be identified and measured.
This reflection, in a summarized fashion, involves an
impact assessment (IA).
Among the conceptions found in the literature,
Gertler et al. (2011) define impact assessment as a tool
for measuring the results obtained by project execution,
public policy, programming, and other objects of study
that can modify the well-being of individuals and families.
IA identifies a causal relationship between the action and
long-term results. Thus, the authors highlight that IAs,
when well-constructed and applied, allow obtaining reliable
evidence that assists decision making for different interested
parties. In addition, they represent a relevant contribution to
accountability, resource allocation, monitoring directives,
and other decisions. IA is also part of the analysis of
execution of a program cycle or public policy, providing
sound input for decisions regarding performance and
continuity (Carvalho et al., 2018).
In the context of public policy, there is increasing
demand for impact assessments (Salles-Filho et al., 2011),
including those of communication programs and activities,
above all, those that involve popularization of themes of
public interest (Brandão, 2007; Duarte, 2007). In Brazil,
companies and institutions increased their concern with
organizational communication in the second half of
the 1980s. Kunsch (2017) argues that organizational
communication needs to be in the interests of society. She
highlights that practicing public communication must be
open and interact with society, the media, and the productive
system.
Created in 2006, Coffee Social Network - CSN (Rede
Social do Café) is an online tool of communication based on
concepts of social media1, that aims the disclosure of news,
information, and technologies regarding coffee. When it
1For Recuero (2008), social media refers to the tools of communication that allow the
emergence of social networks, overturning the logic of mass media (one for all) to the
logic of participation (all for all). According to the concept of Altermann (2010), social
networks represent groups of people that have some level of mutual relationship or
intere, while social media would be the online tools used to disclose content, with the
possibility of participation.

Coee Science, 17:e172006, 2022
PEREIRA, S. P. et al.
began, it sought to promote collaboration, knowledge, and
business in the ecosystem of coffee agribusiness (Pereira;
Aguiar, 2013). Over time, the objectives have changed,
with expanded reach of the information, the exchange of
experiences, and the disclosure of technologies remaining.
From the beginning, it has been maintained through support
from the institutional program of the Brazilian Consortium
for Coffee Research and Development (Consórcio Brasileiro
de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento do Café), including public
resources.
Thus, we propose a method based on multidimensional
indicators for analyzing the results and impacts of CSN on its
users. We aim to evaluate the impacts of CSN by category of
user. For that purpose, indicators that allowed measurement
of additionality and causality were proposed and analyzed;
these elements are important in an IA (Salles-Filho et al.,
2010). Additionality consists of measuring the difference
of a determined indicator in time T1 in relation to its value
in time T0. In this variation, exogenous and endogenous
factors may be present that need to be considered in the
model. That way, the attribution of causality relates how
much of the variation found can be attributed to the object
evaluated (Capanema et al., 2013). The IA was performed
based on the perception of users of the CSN, divided into
interest groups.
In addition to this introduction and final considerations,
the study has three other sections that deal with contextualization
of the assessment, methodological procedures, and results and
discussion.
2 CONTEXT OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT
A study performed in 2020 indicates that 84% of
Brazilian farmers use at least one digital technology in
their production process and 57.5% use social networks
as information channels. The main function of the digital
technologies used by farmers is obtaining information
and planning the activities of the property. Prominent
among the advantages perceived from use of the digital
technology are increased productivity, greater efficiency
in the labor force, and quality in production (Bolfe et al.,
2020).
The use of Internet tools has transformed the way
people communicate and allowed new social groupings,
new forms of conversation, and identification of new
actors and their connections (Recuero, 2008; Lemos,
2003). This new configuration, called WEB 2.0, has had
important social repercussions, strengthening processes of
collective work, of affective exchange, of production and
circulation of information, and of social construction of
knowledge supported by information technology (Primo,
2007).
With the emergence of the digital economy, dynamic
networks of cooperation among different social and
economic agents have been considered the organizational
format suitable for promoting learning and for generating,
communicating, and transferring knowledge and innovations.
Thus, creating alliances is analyzed as a possibility of
disseminating knowledge regarding the sector, promoting
value for the companies, partners, and customers/clients
(Aguiar et al., 2012).
Cerqueira and Silva (2011), nevertheless, indicate
the need for selecting pertinent indicators, as well including
a step that seeks to identify correlations, motives, effects,
consequences, and variations in perceptions in analysis of the
interactions in these networks. However, the development of
IA methods is not a trivial task and it involves complexity,
due to attribution of criteria of causality and additionality,
the specificities of the object studied, and the need for
accountability (Pereira et al., 2019).
In dealing with assessment of programs for
communication in the online environment, like the object of
the present study, it is necessary to recognize its complexity
because it involves many factors and dimensions of analysis.
According to Pellegrini (2014), this assessment generally
involves identification of patterns of interaction among the
different actors and monitoring of reactions in the face of
available resources. According to Macnamara (2018, p. 24),
an assessment of the communication process must have the
public as the main focus: “In public communication, the
audiences determine if the communication is effective or
not, especially in the final stages of change of attitude or
behavior”.
Based on a broad survey of theories of public
communication and influence, Atkin and Rice (2013) argue
that public communication campaigns can generate moderate
to strong influence on the results of cognition, and less
influence on attitudinal and behavioral results. Regarding
this limitation, Macnamara (2018) affirms the importance of
carrying out systematic assessments of the communication
process, in contrast with naive suppositions, to promote
an action or program. In highlighting cases of success, the
author emphasizes that communication is generally better
assessed when there is direct involvement of the public with
the media or there is the perception of benefits.
3 MATERIAL AND METHODS
The first phase of the research involved a study of
the context of the CSN, including mapping of user profiles,
themes of interest, areas of operation, and ways of making use
of the products offered by the network. This set of information
provided the basis for constructing the method based on
multidimensional indicators for impact assessment, serving as

Coee Science, 17:e172006, 2022
Impact assessment of the Coffee Social Network (Rede Social do Café)
a model that can be used in assessment of agribusiness social
networks.
For this, we carried out an in-depth study of the
context of CSR, which considered information on its
institutional trajectory, the development and implementation
process, and the current situation of the network. A
literature review and institutional documents supported this
study. This set of information supported the construction
of themes, dimensions, and evaluation indicators, which
are the basis of the conceptual proposal presented in this
article. From definition of dimensions and indicators, a
questionnaire was prepared, composed of five sections: a)
User Characterization; b) Products Offered; c) Credibility
and Reliability; d) Results Achieved; and e) Demands and
Improvements. However, for this article, we only address
the “Results Achieved” section.
The dimensions of the impact assessment present
a transversal nature in the different links of the coffee
production chain due to the nature of the network product and
the information. The information generated by the network has
a dynamic character of the use, molded from interests, which
vary according to the actor or user, which results in a diversity
of uses and, consequently, impacts. Figure 1 illustrates this
dynamic.
in the next section. A total of 374 questionnaires were collected,
eight of which were eliminated as they showed inconsistencies,
resulting on a total of 366 valid questionnaires.
The questions were constructed from categorical variables
to calculate the impact on the indicator, with possibilities of
responses regarding perception of the influence of the CSN being
(0) does not apply, (1) low, (2) medium, and (3) high.
Specifically, in this article, we present the method
developed for impact assessment in the dimension “Results
Achieved”2 by the CSN considering the use of the information
by users and the perception of its influence on the following
indicators: a) Evolution in Knowledge; b) Evolution of Income;
c) Completion of Transaction(s); d) Quality; e) Management
of the Rural Property; f) Agricultural Productivity; g)
Forming and Strengthening of Networking; and h) Adoption
of Technologies. The “Results Achieved” dimension merited
special attention in this article because it presented the
additionality and causality elements desired in an IA. Thus,
the information and the calculations obtained allowed analysis
of the impacts of the CSN. The causality shows the effect of
the CSN on the evolution of each indicator.
The “User Characterization” and “Products Offered”
dimensions portrayed the CSN and its users, without presenting
elements of additionality or causality. The “Credibility and
Reliability” dimension analyzed aspects of additionality,
showing the evolution in the perception of users on the content
made available, though without causality. The “Demands and
Improvements” dimension inquires about the possibility of
refinement through open questions.
The information collected was consolidated in MS
Excel – Office, which assisted in the calculation of the
indicators impact according to Equation 1:
Figure 1: Dynamics of information generation in the Café
Social Network
Source: prepared by the authors.
The questionnaire was applied through the Google
Docs tool in the period from 20 November to 10 December
in a random, non-probabilistic, convenience sample with
respondents representing eight user categories of the CSN:
Agroindustry, Technical Assistance and Rural Extension
(TARE), Commercialization, Communication, Education,
Research, Agricultural Production, and Other. Each one of
these categories and their respective impacts will be discussed
2The name given to the dimension “Results Achieved” alludes to the objectives of the
CSN and to the perception of the users. It should be noted, however, that the terms
“result” and “impact”, though commonly used interchangeably, are diinct in this udy.
Results are more immediate, and can be considered as intermediate eps in the direction
of long-term impacts (https://www.tcd.ie/civicengagement/assets/pdf/engaged-research/
planning-for-impact-guide.pdf). For the purposes of this udy, we will use the following
denition of impact: “Positive and negative, primary and secondary eects of long term
produced by an intervention of development, directly or indirectly, whether intentional
or not” (OCDE, 2002).
01
1
1
2
n
CSN
i
TT
C
R
n








where
RI = impact on the indicator
n = number of valid responses in the indicator
T0, T1 = value of the attribute
α = -1 if T0 > T1
α = +1 if T0 ≤ T1
CCSN = inuence of the CSN on the indicator
(1)

Coee Science, 17:e172006, 2022
PEREIRA, S. P. et al.
The calculation of R1 considers the mean between
the values of T1 and T0, because there are cases in which the
individuals did not show changes in the indicators during the
period considered in the assessment, that is, for the cases in
which the calculation of additionality resulted in zero (T1 - T0
= 0). However, we observed that causality was present in the
responses, indicating that, although there was no evolution
in the indicator (additionality equal to zero), the CSN had
an effect, resulting in a final impact different from zero. The
parameter establishes the evolution in the indicator measured.
For cases in which the individual evolved or remained constant
in the indicator, is positive; otherwise, it is negative.
Upon analyzing the data obtained through Equation
1, we noted that the interval of the impact of the indicator
ranged from -6 to +9. Thus, the interval was normalized to
[-1; +1], without distorting the original responses or results,
through the following Equation 2:
the highest impacts, over 40 percent (Figure 2). Regarding the
categories of users analyzed, users belonging to Agroindustry
were the most impacted by the contents made available on
CSN (37.2% of general impact), followed by the category of
users linked to Education (33.8%) (Figure 3).
5 DISCUSSION
In this section, we discuss the impact assessment of
the CSN in the “Results Achieved” dimension. First, we will
discuss the results of the indicators in a general manner, and
then by user categories.
5.1 Impact Indicators of the Coffee Social
Network
Eight indicators were proposed for the “Results
Achieved” dimension: Evolution in Knowledge, Management
of the Rural Property, Evolution of Income, Completion of
Transaction(s), Forming and Strengthening of Networking,
Quality, Agricultural Productivity, and Adoption of Technologies.
The impact on each one of these indicators, according to the
responses obtained from the total of 366 respondents, ranged
from 9.2% in the Evolution of Income indicator to 44.4% in the
indicator referring to Quality (Figure 2).
In relation to the Quality indicator, the CSN had an
effect on advancement in coffee quality regardless of the user
category. The network disseminates agronomic techniques,
post-harvest procedures, and industrial practices that affect
quality. From the result determined, many made use of this
information to increase their attention regarding product
excellence, or they judged that the CSN positively affected
this indicator.

2 3
15
I
f
xR
I


where
RI = impact on the indicator
If = normalized impact on the indicator
Thus, the impacts of each of the indicators proposed
were obtained and then analyzed in the following section,
together with the results for each user category.
4 RESULTS
Among the evaluated indicators, Quality, Evolution in
Knowledge, and Adoption of Technologies were the ones with
(2)
Figure 2: Impacts on the indicators in the “Results Achieved” dimension, CSN, 2019
Source: prepared by the authors.

Coee Science, 17:e172006, 2022
Impact assessment of the Coffee Social Network (Rede Social do Café)
Another prominent indicator was Evolution in
Knowledge in topics related to the theme of coffee, which
confirms achievement of one of the missions of the CSN,
which was created precisely to disseminate information to the
coffee community. The impact of the CSN on this indicator
was 39.4%, allowing one to infer that the CSN is important for
maintaining and/or increasing the knowledge of its users. A
similar result of impact was found in relation to the Adoption
of Technologies indicator, which obtained 38.4% impact,
showing that the CSN contributes to dissemination, transfer,
and adoption of coffee technologies.
Analyzing these two indicators together, it can be
inferred that the CSN not only affects advancement in
knowledge but also supports the dissemination and consequent
adoption of technologies. In other words, it confirms that
technological dissemination for the purpose of fostering
innovation and increasing the competitiveness of the Coffees of
Brazil segment can be partly attributed to the CSN. Currently,
it is recognized that part of the economic success in coffee
growing can be observed through the Management of the
Property indicator, the result of which was positive, at 26.8%.
This impact refers to the effect of the CSN on improvements in
management of the different activities of the coffee production
system, as well as on maintaining agricultural ventures.
The CSN contributed to increasing the relationship
networks, since the digital environment facilitates the
establishment of contacts and interactions with the diverse
actors in the coffee ecosystem. Thus, the CSN affected the
Forming and Strengthening of Networking indicator, which
showed a positive impact result of 24.2%.
In the indicators related to Agricultural Productivity,
Completion of Transaction(s), and Evolution of Income, the
impacts were relevant, though less than those mentioned
above. In relation to Agricultural Productivity, the impact of
the CSN was 21.7%. This value is not directly correlated, but
it leads to the inference that the greater knowledge and use of
technologies attributed to participation in the CSN also had an
effect on the productivity indicator.
In the case of the Completion of Transaction(s)
indicator, the impact of the CSN was 17.6%. Although
completing business transactions is not the focus of the
CSN, users affirmed that they were positively affected by
participation.
Concluding the discussion of the indicators assessed,
the CSN has an informative character and a limited capacity
to affect the income of its users. This can be confirmed from
the result obtained by the Evolution in Income indicator,
which was the indicator that showed the least impact (9.2%)
among all those analyzed. In this respect, it is not the role of
the CSN to modify the income of users, but rather to make
content available so that they can receive this information
and make use of it. This result confirms the observation of
Atkin and Rice (2013) and Macnamara (2018) when they
emphasize that campaigns and communication programs
have more effect on cognition and less effect on attitudinal
and behavioral results. But it also supports the idea of
Macnamara (2018) when it indicates that the evaluation is
related to direct involvement of the public with the media or
there is the perception of benefits.
5.2 Impacts on User Categories
In this section, we will present analysis of the results
of impacts by user category: Agroindustry, Technical
Assistance and Rural Extension (TARE), Commercialization,
Communication, Education, Research, Agricultural
Production, and Others. It is noteworthy that there was a
Figure 3: Impacts of the indicators on the “Results Achieved” dimension, by user category, CSN, 2019
Source: prepared by the authors.

Coee Science, 17:e172006, 2022
PEREIRA, S. P. et al.
larger number of responses for the Agricultural Production,
Research, and TARE categories, concentrating approximately
65% of the total interviewees (Table 1).
Among these, the Agricultural Production user category is
noteworthy, since it includes coffee growers and represents
the largest number of respondents (27.8%), constituting
the group that most accesses the CSN in this study (Table
1). It should be remembered that the CSN was created in
2006 with the objective of integrating research, TARE, and
coffee growers, and the percentages of impact achieved in
these categories show the success of the strategy conducted
up to now.
We will now discuss the results of each one of the
indicators in accordance with the different user categories
(Figure 4). In relation to the Agricultural Production
category (Figure 4a), the Quality indicator recorded one
of the greatest impacts (48.8%) and, in fact, the themes of
coffee quality, trends, and post-harvest practices have been
highlighted by the CSN over the years. Furthermore, within
this category, the Adoption of Technology and Evolution
in Knowledge indicators were positive, both greater
than 38%. Upon disseminating content regarding coffee
production from genetics to consumption, the CSN impacts
the Agricultural Production user category above all. In the
other indicators, the impacts were positive, though of lower
magnitude, in the following decreasing order: Management
of the Rural Property (20.6%), Forming and Strengthening
of Networking (18.5%), Completion of Transaction(s)
(18.5%), Agricultural Productivity (17.5%), and Evolution
in Income (8%).
In the Research user category, which corresponds to
20.4% of the total of interviewees, the impacts were more
relevant in the indicators of Evolution in Knowledge (42.0%),
Quality (39.2%), and Adoption of Technologies (29.6%). Other
indicators had impact values below 25% (Figure 4b). It should
be noted that the CSN arose from the interaction between the
Coffee Research Consortium (Consórcio Pesquisa Café) and
the National Coffee Council (Conselho Nacional do Café) for
fostering greater coordination between research on TARE and
agricultural production, encouraging exchange of knowledge
from the beginning.
In the TARE category, there were significant impacts
mainly in the following indicators: Quality (47.8%),
Management of the Rural Property (38.5%), Evolution in
Knowledge (38.5%), Adoption of Technologies (38.4%),
and Agricultural Productivity (32.5%) (Figure 4c). These
results are aligned with the mission of the CSN related to
dissemination and transfer of knowledge to coffee growers
served by TARE. In addition, this category has a prominent
role in replication and multiplication of information
closely related to coffee growers. In the Evolution of
Income, Completion of Transaction(s), and Forming and
Strengthening of Networking indicators, impacts were
below 22%; though lower than the others, they were still
quite significant.
Table 1: Distribution of the respondents by user category,
2019.
User Category Number %
Agricultural Production 102 27.87
Research 75 20.49
TARE 59 16.12
Commercialization 51 13.93
Others 24 6.55
Communication 22 6.01
Agroindustry 17 4.71
Education 16 4.64
Total 366 100.0
Source: prepared by the authors.
These different categories of users were positively
influenced by the CSN in all the indicators proposed, the
impact ranging from 25% to 37%, as can be seen in Figure
3. These results lead to the inference that in greater or lesser
magnitude, the CSN had a positive impact, regardless of the
category.
The CSN had the greatest influence on the agroindustry
category, representing 37.2% impact (Figure 3). This result
may stem from the need of the actors present in this segment to
diversify sources of information regarding quality, market, and
commercialization, because these themes are frequent within
the daily posts of the CSN.
After that, the most significant aspects were in the
user categories of Education, at 33.8%, and Communication,
at 32.3%. The objective of the CSN is to disseminate
technical-scientific and market knowledge regarding coffee
growing, allowing real time monitoring of that which
influencers and decision makers are putting forth. The CSN
essentially operates as an informal continuing education
system for its users. It should be emphasized that in these
categories, journalists, communicators, professors, and
students (technical education, undergraduate or graduate
studies) participate in the CSN as receivers and producers of
information/content.
In the TARE category, impact was evaluated at
32.4%, a result aligned with the role of these professionals
in disseminating technologies and innovations. The other
user categories have impact values from 25% to 30%:
Commercialization (28.7%), Agricultural Production
(27.6%), Research (26.2%), and Others (25.2%) (Figure 3).

Coee Science, 17:e172006, 2022
Impact assessment of the Coffee Social Network (Rede Social do Café)
Figure 4: Impacts on indicators by CSN user categories in 2019.
Source: prepared by the authors.

Coee Science, 17:e172006, 2022
PEREIRA, S. P. et al.
The Education category (professors and students)
exhibited a trend similar to that identified in the TARE
category – impacts in different indicators greater than 40%
(Figure 4d), as observed in Adoption of Technologies (45.0%),
Quality (44.8%), and Evolution in Knowledge (40.8%), as
well as Forming and Strengthening of Networking (35.8%).
Thus, both the TARE category and Education category differ
from the others by having transversal activity throughout the
coffee ecosystem, making use of the informative content of
the CSN, replicating and transferring it to other actors. In the
other indicators, the impacts were from 28.3% for Agricultural
Productivity to 16.7% for Evolution of Income.
The Commercialization category includes users linked
to traders, managers of cooperatives and associations, baristas,
and retail companies of inputs, fertilizers, farm machinery,
and others; and it also follows a pattern already observed
in other categories. Thus, the Sensory Quality, Adoption of
Technologies, Evolution in Knowledge, and Management
of the Rural Property indicators obtained more significant
impacts (Figure 4e); that is, the content made available by
the CSN is received by these users linked to business and
are reflected in impacts on the indicators cited. For the other
indicators, the effect of the CSN on the category was positive,
though at lower magnitude.
In the Agroindustry category, the greatest result of impact
of the activity of the CSN was obtained for the Quality indicator,
at 62.9% (Figure 4f). Furthermore, in this category, the Evolution
in Knowledge and Adoption of Technologies indicators
achieved impacts of 50.2% and 48.6%, respectively. After that,
the Forming and Strengthening of Networking (35.7%) and
Management of the Rural Property (32.8%) indicators were
prominent. Finally, at lower magnitude, came Agricultural
Productivity (24.3%), Completion of Transaction(s) (21.9%),
and Evolution of Income (14.4%). Among the indicators
evaluated for this category, Sensory Quality stands out, for
this is a sensitive topic both for this agro-industrial segment of
coffee and for other categories already analyzed. This results in
a more attentive look at the knowledge and technologies that
add quality to the product and, for that reason, it is present in the
content made available by the CSN.
The Communication category, as the others
analyzed, showed the pattern of prominence of the Adoption
of Technologies (50.9%), Quality (47.0%), and Forming and
Strengthening of Networking (40.6%) indicators (Figure
4g). A possible explanation for the greater impacts on these
indicators is that they are topics frequently made available by
the CSN and that possibly generate interest in communicators.
In relation to the Forming and Strengthening of Networking
indicator, the category felt that it was influenced, showing that
participation in the CSN expands its contact network. For the
other indicators, though impact was positive, it was of lower
magnitude.
The Others category was placed in the survey as
an option for respondents that did not fit in the pre-defined
categories, with a total of 24 questionnaires answered. Impacts
were identified in the following indicators: Evolution in
Knowledge (40.6%), Adoption of Technologies (37.5%), and
Management of the Rural Property (31.4%) (Figure 4h). The
others 7showed less expressive impacts. Thus, the lack of
homogeneity of the interests of this group of users might not
provide an exact perception of the impact of the CSN for this
category.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Through a method based on multidimensional
indicators, the results of this study indicate that the CSN
had a positive influence on all user categories in all the
indicators assessed. We can infer that each category uses the
information according to its role in the coffee ecosystem and
obtains (or expects to obtain) results according to its interests,
which consequently results in different impacts both in the
indicators proposed and for each category assessed. Through
the evidence presented, experiences like the CSN can serve
as an example and stimulate other agricultural ecosystems.
These ecosystems can increase communication and
consequently lead to improvement for the actors in different
segments.
Among the indicators evaluated, those that exhibited
greatest impact were Quality, Evolution in Knowledge, and
Adoption of Technologies, with positive results in the order of
40.0%. These same indicators were those that had the greatest
impacts on all the categories analyzed, defining a pattern
aligned with the objectives of the CSN and with the content
made available in a recurrent manner. The other indicators,
in order of impact, were as follows: Management of the
Rural Property, Forming and Strengthening of Networking,
Agricultural Productivity, Completion of Transaction(s), and
Evolution in Income.
Among the user categories most present in the CSN
are Agricultural Production, Research, and TARE, which
corresponded to approximately 65% of the interviewees. In
fact, since conception of the CSN, the objective has been to
expand dialogic among these groups, through dissemination
of information of technologies to extension personnel and
coffee growers, as well as contribute to determining demands
for studies.
The procedures adopted will allow systematic
assessment, which may enhance investments in human
resources, time, and projects, and will support management
personnel of the CSN in decision making and activities. Based
on the results of the IA, it is possible to identify themes of
interest, priority groups, and new forms of conversation and
interaction among the different actors.

Coee Science, 17:e172006, 2022
Impact assessment of the Coffee Social Network (Rede Social do Café)
In the present study, just as in most of the models that
seek to indicate causality, we recognize that the results may
be affected by biases from this participation and even by the
positive perception of the interviewees. These limitations are
explained by the complexity of isolation of the factors, as in
most of the methods based on the presuppositions of cause and
effect and that are used in perception of users. The impacts
of communication processes involve several factors, including
the need to evaluate the reception of the content and of the
information shared.
For future studies, we suggest expanding the
methodology of multidimensional indicators for assessment of
the impact of other social networks, especially when the desire
is to identify the perception of users regarding the effect of
this participation on performance of their activities. We also
suggest validation of the proposed indicators in other social
media, contributing to strengthening the field of assessment
studies.
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the Consórcio Pesquisa Café for the
financial support for the project.
8 AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION
SPP participated in the project’s conception, including
the methodological conception, questionnaire application,
elaboration, and revising of the manuscript. LMCB discussed
the theoretical and methodological conception, questionnaire
application, and elaborating and revising of the manuscript.
CEF participated in developing the methodology, elaboration,
and application of the questionnaire, statistical analyses, and
elaborating and revising the manuscript. CLRV participated in
developing the methodology, elaboration, and application of
the questionnaire and elaborating and revising the manuscript.
CMGAP participated in elaborating and reviewing the final
version of the manuscript.
9 REFERENCES
AGUIAR, C. M. G. DE et al. View of Alliance in the
agroindustrial system of coffee: Alliance model for adding
value to coffee certificates. Coffee Science, 7(3):238-249,
2012.
ALTERMANN, D. Qual a diferença entre redes sociais e
mídias sociais. Midiatismo, 2010. Available in: <https://
www.midiatismo.com.br/qual-a-diferenca-entre-redes-
sociais-e-midias-sociais>. Access in: August 24, 2022.
ATKIN, C; RICE, R. Theory and principles of public
communication campaigns. In: RICE, R.; ATKIN, C.
(eds.). Public communication campaigns. 4th ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p 3-19, 2013.
BOLFE, E. L. et al. Desafios, tendências e oportunidades
em agricultura digital no Brasil. In: MASSRUHÁ, S.
M. F. S. et al. (Eds.). Agricultura digital: Pesquisa,
desenvolvimento e inovação nas cadeias produtivas.
Brasília, DF: Embrapa, p. 380-406, 2020.
BRANDÃO, E. P. Conceito de comunicação pública. In:
DUARTE, J. (Ed.). Comunicação pública: Estado,
mercado, sociedade e interesse público. São Paulo: Atlas,
p. 1-33, 2007.
CAPANEMA, L. M. et al. Avaliação de impactos
multidimensionais de Indicações Geográficas: o caso
do Vale dos Vinhedos, Rio Grande do Sul. Revista de
Economia Agrícola, 60(2):57-76, 2013.
CARVALHO, A. X. Y. de. et al. Avaliação de políticas
públicas: Guia prático de análise ex post. Brasília,
DF: Casa Civil da Presidência da República, 2018. v.
332p.
CERQUEIRA, R.; SILVA, T. Mensuração em mídias
sociais: Quatro âmbitos de métricas. p. 119, 2011.
DUARTE, J. Comunicação pública. In: DUARTE, J. (Ed.).
Comunicação pública: Estado, mercado, sociedade e
interesse público. São Paulo: Atlas, p. 47-58, 2007.
GERTLER, P. J. et al. La evaluación de impacto en la
práctica. Washington DC: World Bank, 2011. 256p.
KUNSCH, M. M. K. Comunicação organizacional:
aportes teóricos e metodológicos. In: MARQUES, Â.;
OLIVEIRA, I. de L.; LIMA, F. (orgs). Comunicação
Organizacional: vertentes conceituais e metodológicas.
Belo Horizonte: PPGCOM UFMG, v.2, p. 41-53, 2017.
LEMOS, A. Cibercultura: Alguns pontos para compreender
a nossa época. Olhares sobre a cibercultura. 2003.
Available in: https://www.labeurb.unicamp.br/endici/
index.php?r=verbete%2Fview&id=58. Access in: August
24, 2022.
MACNAMARA, J. A Review of new evaluation models
for strategic communication: progress and gaps.
International Journal of Strategic Communication,
12(2):180-195, 2018.
OCDE. Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results
based management. Paris: OCDE, 2002. 60p.
PELLEGRINI, G. The right weight: good practice in
evaluating science communication. Journal of Science
Communication, 13(1):1824-2049, 2014.

Coee Science, 17:e172006, 2022
PEREIRA, S. P. et al.
PEREIRA, S. P. et al. Results and impacts evaluation of the
coffee social network. Debates sobre Innovación, 3(2):1-
9, 2019.
PEREIRA, S. P.; AGUIAR, C. M. G. Rede Social do Café:
articulação para a construção coletiva do conhecimento.
In: EMBRAPA (Ed.). Transferência de Tecnologia e
Construção do Conhecimento. 1a. ed. Brasília: Otavio
Valentim Balsadi; Maria Clara da Cruz; Marina Caldas
Verne; Vanessa da Fonseca Pereira; Assunta Helena
Sicoli, 2013. p. 369-388.
PRIMO, A. O aspecto relacional das interações na Web
2.0. E-Compós, 9:1-21, 2007.
RECUERO, R. O que é mídia social?. 2008 Available in:
<http://pontomidia.com.br/raquel/arquivos/o_que_e_
midia_social.html>. Access in: August 24, 2022.
SALLES-FILHO, S. et al. Evaluation of STI programs:
A methodological approach to the Brazilian small
business program and some comparisons with the
SBIR program. Research Evaluation, 20(2):159-171,
2011.
SALLES-FILHO, S. L. M. et al. Multidimensional
assessment of technology and innovation programs:
The impact evaluation of INCAGRO-Peru. Research
Evaluation, 19(5):361-372, 2010.