- Email: [email protected]
Future sustainability and images
Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Futures journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures
Future sustainability and images P.J. Beers a,b,*, A. Veldkamp c, F. Hermans d,e, D. van Apeldoorn d, J.M. Vervoort d, K. Kok d a
TransForum Agro&Groen, P.O. Box 80, 2700AB Zoetermeer, The Netherlands Education and Competence Studies, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8130, 6700EW Wageningen, The Netherlands c Faculty ITC, University of Twente, P.O. Box 6, 75AA Enschede, The Netherlands d Land Dynamics, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands e Tilburg University, Telos, Brabant Centre for Sustainable Development, P.O. Box 90153, 5000LE Tilburg, The Netherlands b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Ambitions for sustainable development invariably lead to pondering the future, because sustainability issues require a future oriented transition of existing, unsustainable systems and practices. Working towards transition requires thorough experimentation with a broad range of innovation projects. However, in the public arena, many such projects are met with stereotypical images, which influence their innovative potential in often unpredictable ways. What is the role of multiple images in complex sustainable development issues, and what are promising approaches to deal with their associated problems? We report current insights from selected cases from TransForum, a large-scale innovation programme toward transition of Dutch agriculture. Our preliminary results show that that simple images can cause a disregard of complexity and that a negative societal image can stifle a project’s innovative potential. Images need to me monitored and managed to increase the future potential of innovation projects. Visualisation techniques may foster taking complexity into account in an innovation project. Furthermore, increasing image awareness can help a project to adapt more effectively to existing societal discourses and the images embedded in them. Finally, fostering effective transition requires the creation of new, enticing, images, that do justice to the ambition for transition. ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Available online 28 April 2010
1. Future sustainability and images Ambitions for sustainable development invariably lead to pondering the future, because overcoming current sustainability problems requires a structural change of existing societal (sub)systems. In other words, it requires transitions to a more sustainable future [1]. According to current transition theories [1–3], triggering transitions toward more sustainable futures requires active experimentation with a wide range of innovations. New technologies, new ways of doing things, new product-market combinations can all potentially lead to sustainable development. But how do we decide which are the effective innovations? In the case of transitions, simple, provocative images can have a decisive influence on the decision-making process. Take, for example, the case of biofuels. Initially, biofuels were heralded as a renewable source for gasoline—they were an image of sustainability. The mobilising power of this image quickly resulted in many national policies to support the adoption of
* Corresponding author at: TransForum Agro&Groen, P.O. Box 80, 2700AB Zoetermeer, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 79 3470910; fax: +31 79 3470404. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.J. Beers), [email protected] (A. Veldkamp), [email protected] (F. Hermans), [email protected] (D. van Apeldoorn), [email protected] (J.M. Vervoort), [email protected] (K. Kok). 0016-3287/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.017
724
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
biofuels [4]. However, it now appears that the initial popularity of biofuels is at the root of its current failure in terms of sustainability: the land-use changes resulting from increases in biofuel croplands actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases [5]. The initial, positive image of biofuels apparently accelerated the decision-making process, with some unfortunate, unintended consequences later on. The autonomous dynamics of images continuously influences the innovative potential of promising inventions; strong, inspiring images can trigger change, but can also cause lock-ins early on in transition processes [6]. Similarly, strong, negative images can lock out otherwise promising inventions from decision making. In contrast, transition theory proclaims that it is important to keep multiple transition pathways open for longer time-spans [6]. It appears that images can be both advantageous and detrimental for transition. However, only little is known about how images influence decision making in transition processes, how they get created, and how they can be ‘‘managed.’’ This leads to the following three questions; (1) What is the role of images in steering transition? (2) How can we deal with their associated potential and problems? (3) How can we create images that enhance the potential for transition of innovation projects? In this paper we focus on the role of images in the agricultural transition towards sustainable agricultural development. We first describe the role of transitions for sustainable futures, after which we introduce a simple integrative framework of the concept of images. We then use the multi-level perspective on transitions to derive hypotheses about the role of images in transition. We present results and insights from four ongoing projects in the context of sustainable agriculture to explore these hypotheses. The article ends with recommendations on how to analyse and use images in the context of transitions. 1.1. Transitions toward a more sustainable future Many different definitions of transition exist [e.g., 1,2,6,7], but they have a number of elements in common. First, transitions entail structural change to societal (sub)systems [cf. 1], with major changes in the ways that societal functions are fulfilled [7]. Second, transitions involve co-evolution of (sub)systems such as technology, infrastructure, institutions, markets, culture, and the environment [1,2,7]. Third, these changes occur from one relatively stable situation (a system state of dynamic equilibrium) to another [cf. 2,8]. We can speak of a sustainability transition when an unsustainable present is transformed into a more sustainable future. Transitions, if ‘‘successful,’’ can play an important role in overcoming the more unsustainable characteristics of societal systems. Unfortunately, there is no reason why a transition, by and of itself, should lead to a more sustainable future. We consider sustainability to be one of the main dynamic aspects of a complex societal system [9]. However, the complexity of the associated systems makes it very difficult, if possible at all, to steer transitions towards a more sustainable future. In the scientific field of transitions, transition management [6] and strategic niche management [2,3] are the main theories that deal with how to trigger a transition. Although they differ in some respects, they are sufficiently similar to draw one set of lessons from the two of them. Furthermore, they share one main conclusion: fostering transitions requires active experimentation with many different promising innovations. However, these innovation experiments are susceptible to the influence of images. Different societal actors will form their own images as an innovation project matures, some positive, others negative. These images can come to act as a catalyst or a barrier to the growth of the innovation in question [2]. 1.2. Images conceptualised Images are metaphorical depictions of some real-world phenomena. Usually, these are mental images, but they can also be external representations, such as pictures or textual imagery. Images are easily recognisable when they are explicit about what they depict. Take, for example, the image of nature as ‘‘the provider of life-fulfilling ecological services,’’ or, conversely, the image of nature as ‘‘a cornucopia of resources available for exploitation’’ [10]. Both images clearly name what they depict, that is, nature. Another example of vivid imagery is the image of nuclear power as either climate fix or climate folly. However, images can also be more implicit, as is clear from the following phrase: ‘‘the countryside is in need of protection from urbanisation’’ [cf. 11]. These examples show that images depict something in a certain way, and that they add some value-laden meaning to what is depicted. For instance, the image of nature as ripe for exploitation has a clear anthropocentric value, whereas the image of nature as life-fulfilling service has a more ecology-oriented value. Furthermore, these images have a normative, sometimes even persuasive connotation. Nuclear power is not just another way of generating energy, it also is either a folly or a fix for climate change. Advocating nuclear power is portrayed as something that you either do or do not do. The image of nuclear power as climate fix does not only put nuclear power in a positive light, it can also exerts persuasive power on others, that is, to use nuclear power as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, the example images all seem to be tailored to be highly communicative. They act as iconic symbols that mediate the exchange of values, ideas and information [10; paraphrased from p. 330]. But to enable their communicative character, images are by necessity much simpler than what they depict. To call nuclear power a climate
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
725
folly has strong implications for its use as an energy source, but obscures many of the underlying reasons why nuclear power would be folly. Here, we define the concept of image as: A simple, metaphorical representation of a complex real-world phenomenon. We use this definition to derive those characteristics that link images to transitions. First—images are metaphors. Metaphors are deeply ingrained in our thought and speech, and their metaphoric character often escapes our awareness [12]. Hence, we may be unaware of the difference between the image and what it represents. Being metaphorical, images are not ‘‘truthful’’ representations. Images carry a meaning of their own, which is assumed to hold for what they represent [12]. Images thus may entail characteristics that do not hold for what is represented. Second, the simplicity of images offers a stark contrast to the complexity of sustainability issues, which are known to be multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary, and encompass webs of problems [13]. Sustainability issues are fraught with (scientific) uncertainties and are subject to strong, opposing value-orientations [14]. Furthermore, the underlying systems are unpredictable, and their behaviour often is counter-intuitive [15]. If metaphors obscure certain aspects of their underlying concepts, then images of complex phenomena will especially obscure those aspects that are specific for complexity. Third, as metaphors, images are culturally embedded [12]. This means that large groups of people that share a societal perspective [cf. 16], or a world-view [cf. 17] or participate in a discourse [cf. 18,19]) will also share a coherent set of images. Such broad societal perspectives often coincide with specific value-orientations [cf. 20]. In the case of transitions, this means that images can become the focal point of strongly value-laden debates: ‘‘Groups. . .portray issues deliberately in certain ways so as to win the allegiance of large numbers of people who agree (tacitly) to let the portrait speak for them’’ [21; as cited in [22]; emphasis in original]. In the words of Scho¨n and Rein [22], images are used to frame sustainability issues. Any societal issue will be subject to some unintended framing, but people can also consciously use images to put issues in a certain light [22]. Images thus can become the object of strategic behaviour—people construct positive images to persuade others to their point of view, and, they construct negative images to put other points of view out of favour. 1.3. Images and visions; conceptual disambiguation Within the Futures literature, concepts like ‘‘visions’’ and ‘‘images’’ are widely used, in various different ways [23]. It is important to analyse the differences and similarities between these concepts to avoid confusion about the meaning of the concept of images as it is used here. In an effort to disambiguate how the word vision is used in the futures literature, Van der Helm [23] defined vision as: ‘‘The more or less explicit claim or expression of a future that is idealised in order to mobilise present potential to move into the direction of this future’’ (p. 100). Used in the above sense, our conceptualisation of images has a lot in common with the concept of visions. Both concepts have the potential to mobilise (groups of) people, both are aimed at (persuasive) communication, and both have the character of a social representation, in other words, both images and visions are metaphors. The main difference is that visions necessarily concern the future, which need not be the case for images. This does not mean that images are not related to the future. Images often address the types of actions and activities that should or should not be done in the present, in order for the future to be more sustainable. For instance, from the image of nature as a lifefilling service we can learn that natural resources should not be depleted, in order to preserve these services for the future. Another difference between images and visions is that images are not necessarily idealised. A vision is meant to depict a desirable future, which can act as guiding principle for decision making. An image does not necessarily depict something as desirable. An image may just as well depict something as undesirable (nuclear power as climate folly), to mobilise others against certain actions. In sum, visions can be seen as a subset of images, in the sense that a vision is an image of a desirable future. 1.4. Transitions from a multi-level perspective To untangle how images might influence transitions toward a more sustainable future, we first need a perspective on how transitions happen. According to the multi-level perspective, a transition involves specific dynamics at multiple scale levels [e.g., 1,2,24,25]. The multi-level perspective has seen various incarnations, as a framework for technological change [26], sociotechnical regime shifts and strategic niche management [2], sociotechnical transitions [27] and transition management [6], but has retained its basic characteristics. It distinguishes between three levels within societal systems: the niche level (micro), the (sociotechnical) regime level (meso), and the societal landscape level (macro). A transition involves changes at each of these levels [8]. The dynamic state of a societal system is characterised by the regime. Transition management theories assume that a specific (dynamic) system state exists at the beginning of a transition, and that a transition will result in a structurally different future system state. A regime consists of the rules, institutions, social norms, belief systems and practices embedded in technical systems, sectoral structures and strategic games, and is usually geared toward self-preservation
726
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
[cf. 8,25]. Innovation-oriented processes and activities at the regime level are usually aimed at further optimisation of the regime, increasing its robustness against change. The regime evolves against the backdrop of a macro-level landscape that consists of factors that are very slow to change [8]. The landscape is an external structure, which acts as a context for the (inter)actions of actors [7]. It consists of system aspects such as environmental state, current world views and paradigms, macro-economics, demographics, infrastructure, and macro-political culture. In micro-level niches, local groups, or even individual actors, can develop innovations, radically new social practices and/or technologies, with the potential of structural change [8]. Sustainability problems arise when a regime slowly depletes a macro-level resource that is essential for its subsistence. Such resources can be environmental (such as fossil fuels), but also social (such as societal goodwill). In the case of Dutch agriculture, one such resource is the ‘‘license-to-produce’’, which has steadily waned since the 1960s, due to growing concerns about animal welfare, biodiversity, and environmental problems. The image of the farmer as country-side custodian slowly gave way to the image of the farmer as industrial producer. Slow macro-level changes come to impact the regime, which becomes increasingly unsustainable and can respond with break-down or change. The micro-level niches hold the highest potential for change. They can offer new practices and technologies that have the potential from regime shifts toward sustainability. It follows that one way to foster transition is to explore and stimulate the promising innovations that happen in the micro-level niches. Nurturing the niches offers innovations the opportunity to mature, and enables learning about the innovative potential of certain niches, and the obstacles to their adoption on a larger scale. A successful transition would happen when a societal system is steadily reaching its limits, and a more sustainable niche is recognised and adopted by the regime. An unsuccessful transition implies that no niche level development emerges, and the system slowly but surely declines as a whole [28]. At the beginning of a transition process, it is hardly possible to assess which micro-level niches offer the best potential for regime transition. Choosing too soon might result in lock-in; large investments early-on make it impossible to switch transition pathways later on. Keeping multiple options open for a long time maximises the potential for transitions. Our goal is to gain more understanding of the role of images in transition processes, and from that understanding derive practical ways to deal with images. The multi-level perspective offers some starting points to hypothesise about the role of images in transitions. We assume that images play a role both within niches and at the regime level. Within niches, images continuously interact with processes of problem analysis and the construction of innovation experiments. The problems underlying these innovation experiments are often highly complex, but the innovations themselves may be inspired by simple images. Images with strong mobilising power can cause tensions between the urgency of the problem and the depth of analysis. In such cases, simple images thus may impede understanding the complexity of the underlying sustainability issue. Our first hypothesis: The mobilising power of simple images can impede understanding of complexity in (sustainability) problems. At the level of the societal regime, images are part of public debate, they are used to frame societal issues, and they are embedded in discourse. The role of images comes to the fore when groups with different perspectives meet. They will have different images, and will have different preferences for innovations. When such different perspectives are applied to a deliberately wide range of innovation experiments, it stands to reason that at least some of these experiments will meet with strong societal support, and others with strong societal opposition, while it would be as yet unclear to what extent these support and opposition are warranted. Our second hypothesis: Images in the public debate affect the innovative potential of niches. 1.5. Images and the case of agriculture Agriculture in metropolitan regions is confronted with rising demands in food quantity and quality, while at the same time being challenged by increasing land prices, urban demands on green space, and increasing concerns of environmental quality and animal welfare [29]. Policy makers, farmers, and consumers alike are increasingly seeing agriculture as unsustainable, and stress the need for structural change of the agricultural system. The situation calls for a transition toward more sustainable agriculture [6]. Despite these pressures, metropolitan areas are also innovative hotspots, well-connected to international resource networks and with easy access to state-of-the-art knowledge [29,30]. Indeed, a wide range of innovative agricultural options exists, such as implementing (industrial) agro-food clusters, organic/green production, and care farms. In The Netherlands, images have a long history in marking different discourses about the Dutch rural area [18]. Some see the farmer as the custodian of the rural landscape, which fits well with small-scale agriculture, many family farms, and a big role for organic food. Others view the family farm as a relic of a bygone age, not fitting with the role of the farmer as an entrepreneur, the main provider of food on a global scale. And again others adhere to the image of a multifunctional rural area, in which agricultural functions are mixed with recreation, biodiversity and health care. Such images serve as a focal point for public debate between different discourses about rural areas. Currently, different discourses about agricultural innovation co-exist in The Netherlands, in ongoing interaction and conflict, symbolised and empowered by images [19].
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
727
TransForum, a Dutch innovation institute, is carrying out a series of projects that experiment with promising agricultural innovations, with the ultimate goal of triggering transitions toward sustainable agricultural development [9]. TransForum’s project portfolio sports a wide range of some 55 innovative projects. The topical breadth of the programme answers to the breadth in existing societal perspectives on agricultural innovation [cf. 18,19]. In the spirit of current transition theories [1– 3], this wide range was chosen deliberately, because it is never clear what the right way forward might be, and multiple, different solutions might be equally valid. Organisations like TransForum organise innovative projects which are themselves societally embedded. Certain TransForum projects have become associated with specific images, and have met with strong societal pressure [31]. In the remainder of this article, we present selected results and experiences from TransForum’s project portfolio. Furthermore, we present some suggestions for dealing with images. 2. Research approach TransForum organised a research theme on ‘‘Images of sustainable development,’’ in which the relevance of images became apparent [9]. The research approach of this theme is summarised in Fig. 1. From our hypotheses and goals, we deduced two dichotomies to distinguish between the various research approaches for images. The first dichotomy concerns that of niche versus regime. We introduced this distinction in keeping with our two hypotheses. To study the first hypothesis, that the mobilising power of simple images can impede understanding of complexity in (sustainability) problems (niche complexity), requires research on the extent to which images are able to convey insights about the complexity of the underlying issues. To study the second hypothesis, that images in the public debate affect the innovative potential of niches (regime influences), requires knowledge about the extent to which the adoption of a niche innovation on the regime level is influenced by societal images, focussing on societal discourse (which itself embeds specific images) and actors. The above directions for research result in predominantly descriptive research about the (seemingly) autonomous role of images. In keeping with our prescriptive goal to find ways for dealing with images, we added the descriptive–prescriptive dichotomy to the research framework. The distinction refers to the role of management strategies for images. On the niche level, we identified the research topic of collaborative visualisation. Visualisations have the promise of making highly abstract knowledge tangible and easy to understand. On the regime level, a pluralist approach appears to offer potential ways for up-scaling niche experiments. Instead of focusing on one niche project, a ‘‘pluralist image’’ can encompass multiple niche projects, and appeal to multiple regime discourses. We will discuss preliminary results of TransForum projects, following the research framework (see Fig. 1) by analysing: (a) Niche complexity; (b) Collaborative visualisation; (c) Regime influences; and (d) Managing pluralism in images. We will reflect on the research framework by the directions it yields for dealing with images in Section 4. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Niche complexity Simple, attractive images can inspire niche creation. One TransForum practice project involved a Dutch rural region called the Northern Frisian Woodlands, which features a small-scale landscape with large cultural-historical value. Currently, its landscape is under threat, because new legislation on manure prescribes the use of large machinery that is incompatible with the existing landscape. This led farmers and researchers to try and reconcile the existing legislative goals with manure application methods that could sustain the current landscape. The first thing that caught their eyes, was that some farmers were able to use much less inorganic fertiliser than others without harming their production, and their soil was able to achieve a much higher efficiency with regard to nitrogen, resulting in lower emissions to the environment [32]. Apparently, they used an alternative farming strategy that was more sustainable than the default, with its high use of inorganic fertiliser. This coincided with the emergence of a new perspective on manure problems. Stuiver [33] noted that manure was increasingly regarded as a resource that the farmer could use to improve nutrient efficiency in his/her farm, instead of a problem. These observations and developments gave rise to the idea that the farmer’s management strategy could lead to more sustainable fertiliser use. In terms of a simple image: the land (and environment) adapts to the farmer.
Fig. 1. Framework for studying images.
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
728
At the same time, local farmers came to see the current political situation in terms of ‘David and Goliath’ [33]: the farmers (David) were to quest for changes in the existing fertiliser legislation (Goliath). Indeed, existing legislation was the only reason that prevented more widespread experimentation with the alternative management style: it used a fertiliser application method that was not legally allowed, despite its lower nitrogen emissions to the environment. The project could only start with an exemption from manure legislation. In this situation, the simple image that the land adapts to the farmer, combined with a rising societal movement towards change, together appear to have generated sufficient pressure to sway the legislators. The exemption was granted, and quickly a 6-year innovation project to study the effects of the alternative strategy was under way. We conducted a scientific study about the involved soil systems. In this study [34], we used a mathematical computer model based on complex adaptive systems theory [35,36] to test whether the image that the land will adapt to the farmer is accurate. The model took a complexity perspective, including concepts like resilience, adaptability and transformability [37,38]. From the existing diversity in landscape and soil types, it became clear that soils rich in organic matter, with high nitrogen efficiency and low environmental impacts, coincided with the alternative management strategy. Modelling experiments demonstrated that a transition from the default to the alternative style indeed is indeed possible, but not within the time-frame expected by the project members (about 7 years). Instead, the modelling results indicated that such a transition would take nearly 200 years. Contrary to the initial image, the alternative strategy did not control soil nutrient efficiency. Instead, farmers appear to have adapted their management to the soil composition of their pastures, in other words, to their location in the landscape. A more correct image should have been ‘‘The farmer adapts to the land’’. From this account we can derive two important lessons about images. The first is that strong images can play an important role in raising awareness of an innovation potential. In the case of the North Frisian Woodlands, a simple image quickly convinced government officials, researchers and farmers to start an innovation project. The second lesson is that a simple image can obscure the real (dynamic) complexity of the underlying system. In the North Frisian Woodlands example, the initial image gave the impression that soil efficiency could be easily adapted. A closer look at the dynamics involved has showed that this was not the case. This suggests that the initial, simple image has obscured (some of) the real-world complexity at stake. 3.2. Collaborative visualisation Having established that simple images can indeed obscure the real complexity in niche projects, we raised the question how to make sure that those aspects of complexity are considered in niche-project deliberation. To answer this question, we started out from the main premise that cognitive limits to understanding and communicative bandwidth limits are for an important part a given [39,40]. Taking the role of complexity into account therefore means that it must be represented just as simply as other images would be, while doing justice to the underlying content. How can state-of-the-art visualisation techniques contribute to the visualisation of complexity? As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Especially cognitive research on multimedia in education has shown that visual and auditory information processing paths have a lot more cognitive bandwidth than text only [41,42]. In other words, an image requires significantly less cognitive processing than the same information in text. Furthermore, it is not hard to imagine how some of the more problematic aspects of complexity might be visualised in a simple, accessible manner (see Fig. 2 for a visualisation of ‘‘Myths of Nature’’, various beliefs about how nature reacts to disturbances). For instance, non-linear shifts in complex systems can be easily visualised by a sudden change in the slope of a
Fig. 2. Simple example visualisations of Myths of Nature (adapted from [45]).
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
729
line. Resilience is often visualised with the ‘‘ball in a cup’’ metaphor; the deeper the cup, the lower the chances of the ball leaping out of the cup, and the more resilient the system is. Although no such visualisations have been applied yet in the organisation of innovative niche projects, the above strengthens the hypothesis that visualisations can be used to produce simple images of complexity, that facilitate the analysis of, and communication about, complex problems. Currently, efforts are under way to test both conceptual visualisations that represent system complexity in an iconic way, and concrete depictions of complexity, embedded in collaborative scenario storylines [43]. Scenario storylines have the advantage that they enable niche project stakeholders to depict their own perspective on complexity. In future research, we will focus on combining visualisations with simplified non-linear models, to be used interactively in niche projects. Our current working hypothesis is that collaborative visualisation techniques can foster the faithful treatment of complexity in niche projects, that they enable creating accessible images of complex phenomena. Ultimately, we aim to use visualisation to enhance the innovative potential of niche experiments. 3.3. Regime influences In a pluralist society, niche experiments can easily become the topic of dispute between different discourses at the regime level. TransForum’s New Mixed Farm (NMF) project provides an interesting account of how regime forces can influence a niche project by means of images. The NMF-case has acquired the image of pollution, increasing traffic, increase in animal diseases like the bird-flu, and increases in animal transport—in sum, all negative connotations that come with the existing societal image of industrial farming. The NMF-project is an example of a so-called agro-park. An agro-park is an innovative form of farming that uses high-tech innovations to reduce costs and environmental damage [44]. In an agro-park, a number of distinct agricultural businesses is co-located to enable the reuse of resources such as energy, gas, minerals, and manure. The NMF is a collaboration between a pig farmer (35,000 pigs), a chicken farmer 1,300,000 chickens), a slaughterhouse, and a waste refinery producing energy and mould [31]. Agro-parks share a number of traits with traditional industrial farming. Both are large-scale approaches, both are predominantly intensive forms of agriculture, focussed on efficiency, and in either, technology plays in important role in innovation. However, agro-parks differ from industrial farming in the way that technology is employed for innovation. Whereas industrial farming uses technology to increase efficiency, agro-parks use technological solutions to reduce environmental burdens and to increase animal welfare. The environmental advantages to the NMF are manifold. Firstly, waste flows of nitrogen and phosphorus are reduced because of manure reuse. Secondly, the co-location of animal breeding and a slaughterhouse reduces the amount of traffic around the farm, and with that, the risk of animal disease transmission. Thirdly, by locally producing energy from waste, large reductions in CO2 emission are established. In sum, the NMF can be seen as a more environment-friendly version of traditional industrial farming. Despite all its technological environmental advantages, the NMF-project met with large adversity in the public debate, which frustrated its future as a niche experiment. Why? The NMF raised many public concerns with regard to animal welfare, local animal transports, environmental pollution, and spread of animal disease. In the eye of the public, the NMF was the arch-image of traditional industrial farming, taken to the next level. It subsequently attributed to the NMF all possible concerns that would otherwise hold for industrial farming. As a consequence, the NMF came to be seen as almost the opposite of what it actually was. We can draw various lessons about images from the above account. Firstly, it exemplifies how strong images can mobilise public support, in this case against the niche experiment in question. Secondly, the image obscured many of the characteristics of the actual niche. It substituted the NMF’s most important characteristics with its own, which, coincidentally, were quite the opposite of the actual project characteristics. Thirdly, the account calls for ways to manage images, starting with the awareness of one’s own image, and continuing with the projection of the image a project aspires to. In the worst case, a niche experiment’s image may prevent it from being implemented at all. When a project increases its awareness of its own image, and how it is perceived on the regime level, it is better able to adapt to existing societal discourses and the images embedded in them. 3.4. Managing pluralism with images The above account pointedly illustrates how images at the regime level can affect niche project innovation potential. It is not only the project content that counts. In some cases, project image dominates project content. The process in which a project becomes associated with images—be it positive or negative—appears to a large extent autonomous (out of control). It would seem that projects from a portfolio like TransForum’s are subject to continuous framing and reframing activities [22], which in some cases do little justice to a project’s content. How can we adapt a project’s image to existing regime forces, to secure its innovation potential? First of all, a transition programme like TransForum’s does not consist of one single project. TransForum is developing a future vision that includes a wide range of innovations, and in doing so caters to existing pluralism on the regime level. This vision, called Metropolitan Agriculture [29], consist of connecting the possibilities of the metropolitan area to the problems of the agricultural systems. This means using available knowledge to reduce environmental pressure, using multifunctional
730
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
agriculture to alleviate urban pressure on the rural area, and addressing the increasing quality and quantity of food demand by offering more, and more varied products. Metropolitan Agriculture thus requires a healthy mix of various agricultural innovations, as is present in TransForum’s project portfolio. How can a vision itself escape from becoming associated with images? Metropolitan Agriculture differs from other visions in that it is less concrete. While it offers a vision of the preferable kinds of agriculture (multifunctional, regional development, agro-industrial clusters), and gives some inklings about what agricultural practice should not be continued, it also offers freedom with regard to what specific types of agriculture are eligible. In that sense, Metropolitan Agriculture is intended to be an overarching vision, which appeals to multiple societal discourses and can incorporate multiple, different images. A vision essentially is yet another image. However, we think that an overarching vision, by appealing to multiple societal discourses, may have a better chance to escape becoming associated with negative imagery. We are currently exploring the possibility of offering basic building blocks for Metropolitan Agriculture, stimulating stakeholders and policy makers decide what mix and pattern of building blocks would be effective. We will use a choice from TransForum’s project portfolio as building blocks, possibly combined with other agricultural innovation projects that fit the portfolio vision of Metropolitan Agriculture. Still, our experiences with the NMF project also suggest some ways in which regime influences and how images can be dealt with. The first suggestion is that existing relations between niches and discourses must be monitored. That way, a possible conflict between project content and the way the project is perceived, its image, can be detected earlier on, before it has resulted in substantial public protest. Hoes et al. [31] suggests that, to curtail public protest, public actors need to be included in niche processes as early as possible. Yet another way of managing images may be to consciously try to manage the image of a niche project. For instance, when predominantly technological innovations run a large risk to become seen as environmentally detrimental, it might not be the best idea to stress the technological prowess of your innovation. However, the same project may find a more receptive audience when it stresses its environmental merits. 4. Conclusion In the face of achieving sustainable development, innovation organisations like TransForum attempt to trigger transitions. In doing so, they invariably get confronted with societal images, that affect the success of the innovation process. We have analysed images from a prescriptive and descriptive perspective in a multi-level (niche-regime) context. 4.1. Revisiting the hypotheses The cases discussed suggest that simplistic images can impede the understanding of complex (sustainability) problems. It appears that simplistic images can stand in the way of understanding the complexity of an actual system, confirming the first hypothesis. This result highlights the important role images can have in innovation programmes: they narrow problem analysis in niche projects. Furthermore, our research showed that concepts from complex adaptive systems theory improved how accurate the complexity of a system at hand was treated. This implies that such concepts can serve as a basis for improving the understanding of complex systems in niche projects. The cases discussed also exemplified how societal images can affect the potential of niche projects. TransForum’s results show that it is very important how a project is viewed: a project’s content may radically differ from its public image, and a negative image may lower the project’s success. This suggests that niche projects need not only focus on content, they also need to be careful of their image. In line with the second hypothesis, images in the public debate did influence the innovative potential of niches. 4.2. Dealing with images Knowing the importance of images in transition projects, how can we deal with their associated potential and problems? We return to our research framework to draft some tentative directions for dealing with images in the context of an innovation project (see Fig. 3). On the niche project level, one needs to prevent that images lead to oversimplification. Niche projects often concern complex problems and systems, which are difficult for simple images to portray accurately. The accuracy of simple images with regard to complexity needs to be thoroughly tested, and the assumptions inherent to those images need to be regarded with a healthy dose of scepticism. In one of our cases, concepts from complex systems theory were used to treat the underlying system’s complexity more accurately. Furthermore, visualisations may benefit communicative processes, when the system complexity exceeds the communicative bandwidth shared by the project team. Regarding the relation between niche and regime, it appears to be important to be aware of existing societal discourses that may frame the niche project negatively. One way in which this may be done is to engage actors from multiple societal discourses early-on in the development of an innovation project, to explore the various ways in which the project may come to be seen. Discourse analysis, as a social sciences research method, can yield a more comprehensive view of the existing discourses [e.g., 18,19], but it is also more labour-intensive, which may not be feasible in the context of an innovation project.
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
731
Fig. 3. Tentative directions for dealing with images.
Having established the various relevant discourses, one can try to assess how each may come to view the innovation project, and whether the resulting images will be positive or negative. The resulting insights turn can be used to actively frame the innovation project towards favourable images. For instance, one and the same innovation project can be described both by its technical merits, and by its environmental effects. In the case of agriculture, the former may lead to a negative image (the food is unnatural), whereas the latter puts the project in a more positive light. One final note concerns the image of a full programme of innovation projects, and how they are seen at the societal level. An encompassing vision can bring together multiple discourses on rural innovation. Our results suggest that such a vision fosters putting different innovation projects in one broad perspective. This way, a programme of projects can be seen as one integrated innovation ‘‘package’’. This also allows the individual projects to be discussed apart from their local implementations. Such a vision, like Metropolitan Agriculture, should be broad and sweeping, and not specific towards certain types of agriculture. Used like this, a vision keeps a wide playing field, without the risk of lock-in early-on in a transition process [6]. The research framework and its two dichotomies have proved helpful for the analysis of images in this study, judging by the broad range of tentative directions that it yielded. Interestingly, a broad range of scientific disciplines underlies those directions, which includes sociology, cognitive psychology, and complex adaptive systems. It appears that the concept of images served as a focal point for the various scientific disciplines involved. It allowed an interdisciplinary treatment of what otherwise may have remained four disjoint studies. Our studies have important implications for transition management and strategic niche management. Successfully triggering transitions requires careful consideration of existing images, their dynamics, and how they relate to possible transition pathways. Furthermore, it appears to some extent possible to manage images, by using visualisations in nichelevel projects, and by using enticing visions for the societal level. Indeed, using a vision may leverage the power of images for promoting change. Images are never neutral. They need to be monitored and managed to do justice to the ambition for transition management. Acknowledgments This research has received funding from TransForum, and was carried out as part of TransForum’s Scientific Programme on Images of Sustainable Development. References [1] J. Rotmans, D. Loorbach, Complexity and transition management, Journal of Industrial Ecology 13 (2009) 184–196. [2] R. Kemp, J. Schot, R. Hoogma, Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10 (1998) 175–195. [3] J. Schot, R. Hoogma, B. Elzen, Strategies for shifting technological systems; the case of the automobile system, Futures 26 (1994) 1060–1076. [4] E. van Thuijl, E.P. Deurwaarder, European biofuel policies in retrospect, Report Number ECN-C-06-016, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), 2006. [5] T. Searchinger, R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, T.-H. Yu, Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change, Science 319 (2008) 1238–1240. [6] J. Rotmans, R. Kemp, M. van Asselt, More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy, Foresight/the journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy 03 (2001) 1–17. [7] F.W. Geels, Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study, Research Policy 31 (2002) 1257– 1274. [8] D. Loorbach, J. Rotmans, Managing transitions for sustainable development, in: X. Olsthoorn, A.J. Wieczorek (Eds.), Understanding Industrial Transformation: Views from Different Disciplines, The Netherlands, Springer, Dordrecht, 2006, pp. 187–206. [9] A. Veldkamp, A.C. Van Altvorst, R. Eweg, E. Jacobsen, A. van Kleef, H. van Latesteijn, S. Mager, H. Mommaas, P.J.A.M. Smeets, L. Spaans, J.C.M. van Trijp, Triggering transitions towards sustainable development of the Dutch agricultural sector: Transforum’s approach, Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29 (2009) 87–96.
732 [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]
[30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732 J. Alexandra, C. Riddington, Redreaming the rural landscape, Futures 39 (2007) 324–339. K. Hurley, Food in the future: does futures studies have a role to play? Futures 40 (2008) 698–701. G. Lakoff, M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980. M.B.A. van Asselt, Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000. M. Hisschemo¨ller, R. Hoppe, Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis, Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 8 (1995–96) 40–60. J.D. Sterman, Learning in and about complex systems, System Dynamics Review 10 (1994) 291–330. M. Douglas, A.B. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1982. M.E. Koltko-Rivera, The psychology of worldviews, Review of General Psychology 8 (2004) 3–58. J. Frouws, The contested redefinition of the countryside. An analysis of rural discourses in The Netherlands, Sociologia Ruralis 38 (1998) 45–68. F. Hermans, I. Horlings, P.J. Beers, H. Mommaas, The contested redefinition of a sustainable countryside; revisiting Frouws’ rurality discourses, Sociologia Ruralis 50 (2010) 46–63. P.A. Sabatier, An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein, Policy Sciences 21 (1988) 129–168. D.A. Stone, Policy Paradox and Political Reason, Scott Foresman, Glenview IL, 1988. D.A. Scho¨n, M. Rein, Frame reflection. Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies, BasicBooks, New York, NY, 1994. R. van der Helm, The vision phenomenon: towards a theoretical underpinning of visions of the future and the process of envisioning, Futures 41 (2009) 96– 104. F.W. Geels, J. Schot, Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, Research Policy 36 (2007) 399–417. R. van der Brugge, R. van Raak, Facing the adaptive management challenge: insights from transition management, Ecology & Society 12 (2007) 33. A. Rip, R. Kemp, Technical change, in: S. Rayner, E.L. Majone (Eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change, Batelle Press, Columbus, OH, 1998, pp. 327–399. F.W. Geels, R. Kemp, Dynamics in socio-technical systems: typology of change processes and contrasting case studies, Technology in Society 29 (2007) 441– 455. J. Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, Penguin, London, 2005. H.C. van Latesteijn, A. Veldkamp, A.C. van Altvorst, P.J. Beers, R. Eweg, A. Fischer, V. Harezlak, E. Jacobsen, A. van Kleef, S. Mager, H. Mommaas, P.J.A.M. Smeets, L. Spaans, J.C.M. van Trijp, Transforum: organizing the transition towards metropolitan agriculture, in: Paper presented at the Agriculture in Transition Conference, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2008. K. Borch, Emerging technologies in favour of sustainable agriculture, Futures 39 (2007) 1045–1066. A.-C. Hoes, B. Regeer, J. Bunders, Anticipating public protest in niche experiments, in: Paper presented at the First European Conference on Sustainability Transitions: Dynamics & Governance of Transitions to Sustainability, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009. M.P.W. Sonneveld, J.J. Schro¨der, J.A. de Vos, G.J. Monteny, J. Mosquera, J.M.G. Hol, E.A. Lantinga, F.P.M. Verhoeven, J. Bouma, A whole-farm strategy to reduce environmental impacts of nitrogen, Journal of Environmental Quality 37 (2008) 186–195. M. Stuiver, Regime change and storylines, a sociological analysis of manure practices in contemporary Dutch dairy farming, Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2008. D.F. van Apeldoorn, K. Kok, M.P.W.S. Sonneveld, T. Veldkamp, Rethinking resilience of agro-ecosystems: the role of panarchy and short-circuits (submitted for publication). J.H. Holland, Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1996. J.J. Kay, On complexity theory, exergy, and industrial ecology: some implications for construction ecology, in: C. Kibert, J. Sendzimir, B. Guy (Eds.), Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis for Green Buildings, Spoon Press, London, 2002, pp. 72–107. C.S. Holling, Resilience and stability of ecological systems, Annual Reviews of Ecological Systems 4 (1973) 1–23. M. Scheffer, S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, B. Walker, Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems, Nature 413 (2001) 591–596. G.A. Miller, The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Review 63 (1956) 81–97. J. Sweller, J.J.G. van Merrie¨nboer, F.G.W.C. Paas, Cognitive architecture and instructional design, Educational Psychology Review 10 (1998) 251–295. J.J.G. van Merrie¨nboer, J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions, Educational Psychology Review 17 (2005) 147–177. F. Paas, A. Renkl, J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory: instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture, Instructional Science 32 (2004) 1–8. J.M. Vervoort, K. Kok, R. van Lammeren, T. Veldkamp, Thresholds to the future: exploring the potential of interactive media for participatory scenarios on socio-ecological systems, Futures (in press), doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.031. P.J.A.M. Smeets, Expeditie agroparken, Ontwerpend onderzoek naar metropolitane landbouw en duurzame ontwikkeling, Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2009. M. Schwarz, M. Thompson, Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1990.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Futures journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/futures
Future sustainability and images P.J. Beers a,b,*, A. Veldkamp c, F. Hermans d,e, D. van Apeldoorn d, J.M. Vervoort d, K. Kok d a
TransForum Agro&Groen, P.O. Box 80, 2700AB Zoetermeer, The Netherlands Education and Competence Studies, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 8130, 6700EW Wageningen, The Netherlands c Faculty ITC, University of Twente, P.O. Box 6, 75AA Enschede, The Netherlands d Land Dynamics, Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands e Tilburg University, Telos, Brabant Centre for Sustainable Development, P.O. Box 90153, 5000LE Tilburg, The Netherlands b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Ambitions for sustainable development invariably lead to pondering the future, because sustainability issues require a future oriented transition of existing, unsustainable systems and practices. Working towards transition requires thorough experimentation with a broad range of innovation projects. However, in the public arena, many such projects are met with stereotypical images, which influence their innovative potential in often unpredictable ways. What is the role of multiple images in complex sustainable development issues, and what are promising approaches to deal with their associated problems? We report current insights from selected cases from TransForum, a large-scale innovation programme toward transition of Dutch agriculture. Our preliminary results show that that simple images can cause a disregard of complexity and that a negative societal image can stifle a project’s innovative potential. Images need to me monitored and managed to increase the future potential of innovation projects. Visualisation techniques may foster taking complexity into account in an innovation project. Furthermore, increasing image awareness can help a project to adapt more effectively to existing societal discourses and the images embedded in them. Finally, fostering effective transition requires the creation of new, enticing, images, that do justice to the ambition for transition. ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Available online 28 April 2010
1. Future sustainability and images Ambitions for sustainable development invariably lead to pondering the future, because overcoming current sustainability problems requires a structural change of existing societal (sub)systems. In other words, it requires transitions to a more sustainable future [1]. According to current transition theories [1–3], triggering transitions toward more sustainable futures requires active experimentation with a wide range of innovations. New technologies, new ways of doing things, new product-market combinations can all potentially lead to sustainable development. But how do we decide which are the effective innovations? In the case of transitions, simple, provocative images can have a decisive influence on the decision-making process. Take, for example, the case of biofuels. Initially, biofuels were heralded as a renewable source for gasoline—they were an image of sustainability. The mobilising power of this image quickly resulted in many national policies to support the adoption of
* Corresponding author at: TransForum Agro&Groen, P.O. Box 80, 2700AB Zoetermeer, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 79 3470910; fax: +31 79 3470404. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.J. Beers), [email protected] (A. Veldkamp), [email protected] (F. Hermans), [email protected] (D. van Apeldoorn), [email protected] (J.M. Vervoort), [email protected] (K. Kok). 0016-3287/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.017
724
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
biofuels [4]. However, it now appears that the initial popularity of biofuels is at the root of its current failure in terms of sustainability: the land-use changes resulting from increases in biofuel croplands actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in some cases [5]. The initial, positive image of biofuels apparently accelerated the decision-making process, with some unfortunate, unintended consequences later on. The autonomous dynamics of images continuously influences the innovative potential of promising inventions; strong, inspiring images can trigger change, but can also cause lock-ins early on in transition processes [6]. Similarly, strong, negative images can lock out otherwise promising inventions from decision making. In contrast, transition theory proclaims that it is important to keep multiple transition pathways open for longer time-spans [6]. It appears that images can be both advantageous and detrimental for transition. However, only little is known about how images influence decision making in transition processes, how they get created, and how they can be ‘‘managed.’’ This leads to the following three questions; (1) What is the role of images in steering transition? (2) How can we deal with their associated potential and problems? (3) How can we create images that enhance the potential for transition of innovation projects? In this paper we focus on the role of images in the agricultural transition towards sustainable agricultural development. We first describe the role of transitions for sustainable futures, after which we introduce a simple integrative framework of the concept of images. We then use the multi-level perspective on transitions to derive hypotheses about the role of images in transition. We present results and insights from four ongoing projects in the context of sustainable agriculture to explore these hypotheses. The article ends with recommendations on how to analyse and use images in the context of transitions. 1.1. Transitions toward a more sustainable future Many different definitions of transition exist [e.g., 1,2,6,7], but they have a number of elements in common. First, transitions entail structural change to societal (sub)systems [cf. 1], with major changes in the ways that societal functions are fulfilled [7]. Second, transitions involve co-evolution of (sub)systems such as technology, infrastructure, institutions, markets, culture, and the environment [1,2,7]. Third, these changes occur from one relatively stable situation (a system state of dynamic equilibrium) to another [cf. 2,8]. We can speak of a sustainability transition when an unsustainable present is transformed into a more sustainable future. Transitions, if ‘‘successful,’’ can play an important role in overcoming the more unsustainable characteristics of societal systems. Unfortunately, there is no reason why a transition, by and of itself, should lead to a more sustainable future. We consider sustainability to be one of the main dynamic aspects of a complex societal system [9]. However, the complexity of the associated systems makes it very difficult, if possible at all, to steer transitions towards a more sustainable future. In the scientific field of transitions, transition management [6] and strategic niche management [2,3] are the main theories that deal with how to trigger a transition. Although they differ in some respects, they are sufficiently similar to draw one set of lessons from the two of them. Furthermore, they share one main conclusion: fostering transitions requires active experimentation with many different promising innovations. However, these innovation experiments are susceptible to the influence of images. Different societal actors will form their own images as an innovation project matures, some positive, others negative. These images can come to act as a catalyst or a barrier to the growth of the innovation in question [2]. 1.2. Images conceptualised Images are metaphorical depictions of some real-world phenomena. Usually, these are mental images, but they can also be external representations, such as pictures or textual imagery. Images are easily recognisable when they are explicit about what they depict. Take, for example, the image of nature as ‘‘the provider of life-fulfilling ecological services,’’ or, conversely, the image of nature as ‘‘a cornucopia of resources available for exploitation’’ [10]. Both images clearly name what they depict, that is, nature. Another example of vivid imagery is the image of nuclear power as either climate fix or climate folly. However, images can also be more implicit, as is clear from the following phrase: ‘‘the countryside is in need of protection from urbanisation’’ [cf. 11]. These examples show that images depict something in a certain way, and that they add some value-laden meaning to what is depicted. For instance, the image of nature as ripe for exploitation has a clear anthropocentric value, whereas the image of nature as life-fulfilling service has a more ecology-oriented value. Furthermore, these images have a normative, sometimes even persuasive connotation. Nuclear power is not just another way of generating energy, it also is either a folly or a fix for climate change. Advocating nuclear power is portrayed as something that you either do or do not do. The image of nuclear power as climate fix does not only put nuclear power in a positive light, it can also exerts persuasive power on others, that is, to use nuclear power as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, the example images all seem to be tailored to be highly communicative. They act as iconic symbols that mediate the exchange of values, ideas and information [10; paraphrased from p. 330]. But to enable their communicative character, images are by necessity much simpler than what they depict. To call nuclear power a climate
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
725
folly has strong implications for its use as an energy source, but obscures many of the underlying reasons why nuclear power would be folly. Here, we define the concept of image as: A simple, metaphorical representation of a complex real-world phenomenon. We use this definition to derive those characteristics that link images to transitions. First—images are metaphors. Metaphors are deeply ingrained in our thought and speech, and their metaphoric character often escapes our awareness [12]. Hence, we may be unaware of the difference between the image and what it represents. Being metaphorical, images are not ‘‘truthful’’ representations. Images carry a meaning of their own, which is assumed to hold for what they represent [12]. Images thus may entail characteristics that do not hold for what is represented. Second, the simplicity of images offers a stark contrast to the complexity of sustainability issues, which are known to be multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary, and encompass webs of problems [13]. Sustainability issues are fraught with (scientific) uncertainties and are subject to strong, opposing value-orientations [14]. Furthermore, the underlying systems are unpredictable, and their behaviour often is counter-intuitive [15]. If metaphors obscure certain aspects of their underlying concepts, then images of complex phenomena will especially obscure those aspects that are specific for complexity. Third, as metaphors, images are culturally embedded [12]. This means that large groups of people that share a societal perspective [cf. 16], or a world-view [cf. 17] or participate in a discourse [cf. 18,19]) will also share a coherent set of images. Such broad societal perspectives often coincide with specific value-orientations [cf. 20]. In the case of transitions, this means that images can become the focal point of strongly value-laden debates: ‘‘Groups. . .portray issues deliberately in certain ways so as to win the allegiance of large numbers of people who agree (tacitly) to let the portrait speak for them’’ [21; as cited in [22]; emphasis in original]. In the words of Scho¨n and Rein [22], images are used to frame sustainability issues. Any societal issue will be subject to some unintended framing, but people can also consciously use images to put issues in a certain light [22]. Images thus can become the object of strategic behaviour—people construct positive images to persuade others to their point of view, and, they construct negative images to put other points of view out of favour. 1.3. Images and visions; conceptual disambiguation Within the Futures literature, concepts like ‘‘visions’’ and ‘‘images’’ are widely used, in various different ways [23]. It is important to analyse the differences and similarities between these concepts to avoid confusion about the meaning of the concept of images as it is used here. In an effort to disambiguate how the word vision is used in the futures literature, Van der Helm [23] defined vision as: ‘‘The more or less explicit claim or expression of a future that is idealised in order to mobilise present potential to move into the direction of this future’’ (p. 100). Used in the above sense, our conceptualisation of images has a lot in common with the concept of visions. Both concepts have the potential to mobilise (groups of) people, both are aimed at (persuasive) communication, and both have the character of a social representation, in other words, both images and visions are metaphors. The main difference is that visions necessarily concern the future, which need not be the case for images. This does not mean that images are not related to the future. Images often address the types of actions and activities that should or should not be done in the present, in order for the future to be more sustainable. For instance, from the image of nature as a lifefilling service we can learn that natural resources should not be depleted, in order to preserve these services for the future. Another difference between images and visions is that images are not necessarily idealised. A vision is meant to depict a desirable future, which can act as guiding principle for decision making. An image does not necessarily depict something as desirable. An image may just as well depict something as undesirable (nuclear power as climate folly), to mobilise others against certain actions. In sum, visions can be seen as a subset of images, in the sense that a vision is an image of a desirable future. 1.4. Transitions from a multi-level perspective To untangle how images might influence transitions toward a more sustainable future, we first need a perspective on how transitions happen. According to the multi-level perspective, a transition involves specific dynamics at multiple scale levels [e.g., 1,2,24,25]. The multi-level perspective has seen various incarnations, as a framework for technological change [26], sociotechnical regime shifts and strategic niche management [2], sociotechnical transitions [27] and transition management [6], but has retained its basic characteristics. It distinguishes between three levels within societal systems: the niche level (micro), the (sociotechnical) regime level (meso), and the societal landscape level (macro). A transition involves changes at each of these levels [8]. The dynamic state of a societal system is characterised by the regime. Transition management theories assume that a specific (dynamic) system state exists at the beginning of a transition, and that a transition will result in a structurally different future system state. A regime consists of the rules, institutions, social norms, belief systems and practices embedded in technical systems, sectoral structures and strategic games, and is usually geared toward self-preservation
726
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
[cf. 8,25]. Innovation-oriented processes and activities at the regime level are usually aimed at further optimisation of the regime, increasing its robustness against change. The regime evolves against the backdrop of a macro-level landscape that consists of factors that are very slow to change [8]. The landscape is an external structure, which acts as a context for the (inter)actions of actors [7]. It consists of system aspects such as environmental state, current world views and paradigms, macro-economics, demographics, infrastructure, and macro-political culture. In micro-level niches, local groups, or even individual actors, can develop innovations, radically new social practices and/or technologies, with the potential of structural change [8]. Sustainability problems arise when a regime slowly depletes a macro-level resource that is essential for its subsistence. Such resources can be environmental (such as fossil fuels), but also social (such as societal goodwill). In the case of Dutch agriculture, one such resource is the ‘‘license-to-produce’’, which has steadily waned since the 1960s, due to growing concerns about animal welfare, biodiversity, and environmental problems. The image of the farmer as country-side custodian slowly gave way to the image of the farmer as industrial producer. Slow macro-level changes come to impact the regime, which becomes increasingly unsustainable and can respond with break-down or change. The micro-level niches hold the highest potential for change. They can offer new practices and technologies that have the potential from regime shifts toward sustainability. It follows that one way to foster transition is to explore and stimulate the promising innovations that happen in the micro-level niches. Nurturing the niches offers innovations the opportunity to mature, and enables learning about the innovative potential of certain niches, and the obstacles to their adoption on a larger scale. A successful transition would happen when a societal system is steadily reaching its limits, and a more sustainable niche is recognised and adopted by the regime. An unsuccessful transition implies that no niche level development emerges, and the system slowly but surely declines as a whole [28]. At the beginning of a transition process, it is hardly possible to assess which micro-level niches offer the best potential for regime transition. Choosing too soon might result in lock-in; large investments early-on make it impossible to switch transition pathways later on. Keeping multiple options open for a long time maximises the potential for transitions. Our goal is to gain more understanding of the role of images in transition processes, and from that understanding derive practical ways to deal with images. The multi-level perspective offers some starting points to hypothesise about the role of images in transitions. We assume that images play a role both within niches and at the regime level. Within niches, images continuously interact with processes of problem analysis and the construction of innovation experiments. The problems underlying these innovation experiments are often highly complex, but the innovations themselves may be inspired by simple images. Images with strong mobilising power can cause tensions between the urgency of the problem and the depth of analysis. In such cases, simple images thus may impede understanding the complexity of the underlying sustainability issue. Our first hypothesis: The mobilising power of simple images can impede understanding of complexity in (sustainability) problems. At the level of the societal regime, images are part of public debate, they are used to frame societal issues, and they are embedded in discourse. The role of images comes to the fore when groups with different perspectives meet. They will have different images, and will have different preferences for innovations. When such different perspectives are applied to a deliberately wide range of innovation experiments, it stands to reason that at least some of these experiments will meet with strong societal support, and others with strong societal opposition, while it would be as yet unclear to what extent these support and opposition are warranted. Our second hypothesis: Images in the public debate affect the innovative potential of niches. 1.5. Images and the case of agriculture Agriculture in metropolitan regions is confronted with rising demands in food quantity and quality, while at the same time being challenged by increasing land prices, urban demands on green space, and increasing concerns of environmental quality and animal welfare [29]. Policy makers, farmers, and consumers alike are increasingly seeing agriculture as unsustainable, and stress the need for structural change of the agricultural system. The situation calls for a transition toward more sustainable agriculture [6]. Despite these pressures, metropolitan areas are also innovative hotspots, well-connected to international resource networks and with easy access to state-of-the-art knowledge [29,30]. Indeed, a wide range of innovative agricultural options exists, such as implementing (industrial) agro-food clusters, organic/green production, and care farms. In The Netherlands, images have a long history in marking different discourses about the Dutch rural area [18]. Some see the farmer as the custodian of the rural landscape, which fits well with small-scale agriculture, many family farms, and a big role for organic food. Others view the family farm as a relic of a bygone age, not fitting with the role of the farmer as an entrepreneur, the main provider of food on a global scale. And again others adhere to the image of a multifunctional rural area, in which agricultural functions are mixed with recreation, biodiversity and health care. Such images serve as a focal point for public debate between different discourses about rural areas. Currently, different discourses about agricultural innovation co-exist in The Netherlands, in ongoing interaction and conflict, symbolised and empowered by images [19].
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
727
TransForum, a Dutch innovation institute, is carrying out a series of projects that experiment with promising agricultural innovations, with the ultimate goal of triggering transitions toward sustainable agricultural development [9]. TransForum’s project portfolio sports a wide range of some 55 innovative projects. The topical breadth of the programme answers to the breadth in existing societal perspectives on agricultural innovation [cf. 18,19]. In the spirit of current transition theories [1– 3], this wide range was chosen deliberately, because it is never clear what the right way forward might be, and multiple, different solutions might be equally valid. Organisations like TransForum organise innovative projects which are themselves societally embedded. Certain TransForum projects have become associated with specific images, and have met with strong societal pressure [31]. In the remainder of this article, we present selected results and experiences from TransForum’s project portfolio. Furthermore, we present some suggestions for dealing with images. 2. Research approach TransForum organised a research theme on ‘‘Images of sustainable development,’’ in which the relevance of images became apparent [9]. The research approach of this theme is summarised in Fig. 1. From our hypotheses and goals, we deduced two dichotomies to distinguish between the various research approaches for images. The first dichotomy concerns that of niche versus regime. We introduced this distinction in keeping with our two hypotheses. To study the first hypothesis, that the mobilising power of simple images can impede understanding of complexity in (sustainability) problems (niche complexity), requires research on the extent to which images are able to convey insights about the complexity of the underlying issues. To study the second hypothesis, that images in the public debate affect the innovative potential of niches (regime influences), requires knowledge about the extent to which the adoption of a niche innovation on the regime level is influenced by societal images, focussing on societal discourse (which itself embeds specific images) and actors. The above directions for research result in predominantly descriptive research about the (seemingly) autonomous role of images. In keeping with our prescriptive goal to find ways for dealing with images, we added the descriptive–prescriptive dichotomy to the research framework. The distinction refers to the role of management strategies for images. On the niche level, we identified the research topic of collaborative visualisation. Visualisations have the promise of making highly abstract knowledge tangible and easy to understand. On the regime level, a pluralist approach appears to offer potential ways for up-scaling niche experiments. Instead of focusing on one niche project, a ‘‘pluralist image’’ can encompass multiple niche projects, and appeal to multiple regime discourses. We will discuss preliminary results of TransForum projects, following the research framework (see Fig. 1) by analysing: (a) Niche complexity; (b) Collaborative visualisation; (c) Regime influences; and (d) Managing pluralism in images. We will reflect on the research framework by the directions it yields for dealing with images in Section 4. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Niche complexity Simple, attractive images can inspire niche creation. One TransForum practice project involved a Dutch rural region called the Northern Frisian Woodlands, which features a small-scale landscape with large cultural-historical value. Currently, its landscape is under threat, because new legislation on manure prescribes the use of large machinery that is incompatible with the existing landscape. This led farmers and researchers to try and reconcile the existing legislative goals with manure application methods that could sustain the current landscape. The first thing that caught their eyes, was that some farmers were able to use much less inorganic fertiliser than others without harming their production, and their soil was able to achieve a much higher efficiency with regard to nitrogen, resulting in lower emissions to the environment [32]. Apparently, they used an alternative farming strategy that was more sustainable than the default, with its high use of inorganic fertiliser. This coincided with the emergence of a new perspective on manure problems. Stuiver [33] noted that manure was increasingly regarded as a resource that the farmer could use to improve nutrient efficiency in his/her farm, instead of a problem. These observations and developments gave rise to the idea that the farmer’s management strategy could lead to more sustainable fertiliser use. In terms of a simple image: the land (and environment) adapts to the farmer.
Fig. 1. Framework for studying images.
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
728
At the same time, local farmers came to see the current political situation in terms of ‘David and Goliath’ [33]: the farmers (David) were to quest for changes in the existing fertiliser legislation (Goliath). Indeed, existing legislation was the only reason that prevented more widespread experimentation with the alternative management style: it used a fertiliser application method that was not legally allowed, despite its lower nitrogen emissions to the environment. The project could only start with an exemption from manure legislation. In this situation, the simple image that the land adapts to the farmer, combined with a rising societal movement towards change, together appear to have generated sufficient pressure to sway the legislators. The exemption was granted, and quickly a 6-year innovation project to study the effects of the alternative strategy was under way. We conducted a scientific study about the involved soil systems. In this study [34], we used a mathematical computer model based on complex adaptive systems theory [35,36] to test whether the image that the land will adapt to the farmer is accurate. The model took a complexity perspective, including concepts like resilience, adaptability and transformability [37,38]. From the existing diversity in landscape and soil types, it became clear that soils rich in organic matter, with high nitrogen efficiency and low environmental impacts, coincided with the alternative management strategy. Modelling experiments demonstrated that a transition from the default to the alternative style indeed is indeed possible, but not within the time-frame expected by the project members (about 7 years). Instead, the modelling results indicated that such a transition would take nearly 200 years. Contrary to the initial image, the alternative strategy did not control soil nutrient efficiency. Instead, farmers appear to have adapted their management to the soil composition of their pastures, in other words, to their location in the landscape. A more correct image should have been ‘‘The farmer adapts to the land’’. From this account we can derive two important lessons about images. The first is that strong images can play an important role in raising awareness of an innovation potential. In the case of the North Frisian Woodlands, a simple image quickly convinced government officials, researchers and farmers to start an innovation project. The second lesson is that a simple image can obscure the real (dynamic) complexity of the underlying system. In the North Frisian Woodlands example, the initial image gave the impression that soil efficiency could be easily adapted. A closer look at the dynamics involved has showed that this was not the case. This suggests that the initial, simple image has obscured (some of) the real-world complexity at stake. 3.2. Collaborative visualisation Having established that simple images can indeed obscure the real complexity in niche projects, we raised the question how to make sure that those aspects of complexity are considered in niche-project deliberation. To answer this question, we started out from the main premise that cognitive limits to understanding and communicative bandwidth limits are for an important part a given [39,40]. Taking the role of complexity into account therefore means that it must be represented just as simply as other images would be, while doing justice to the underlying content. How can state-of-the-art visualisation techniques contribute to the visualisation of complexity? As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Especially cognitive research on multimedia in education has shown that visual and auditory information processing paths have a lot more cognitive bandwidth than text only [41,42]. In other words, an image requires significantly less cognitive processing than the same information in text. Furthermore, it is not hard to imagine how some of the more problematic aspects of complexity might be visualised in a simple, accessible manner (see Fig. 2 for a visualisation of ‘‘Myths of Nature’’, various beliefs about how nature reacts to disturbances). For instance, non-linear shifts in complex systems can be easily visualised by a sudden change in the slope of a
Fig. 2. Simple example visualisations of Myths of Nature (adapted from [45]).
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
729
line. Resilience is often visualised with the ‘‘ball in a cup’’ metaphor; the deeper the cup, the lower the chances of the ball leaping out of the cup, and the more resilient the system is. Although no such visualisations have been applied yet in the organisation of innovative niche projects, the above strengthens the hypothesis that visualisations can be used to produce simple images of complexity, that facilitate the analysis of, and communication about, complex problems. Currently, efforts are under way to test both conceptual visualisations that represent system complexity in an iconic way, and concrete depictions of complexity, embedded in collaborative scenario storylines [43]. Scenario storylines have the advantage that they enable niche project stakeholders to depict their own perspective on complexity. In future research, we will focus on combining visualisations with simplified non-linear models, to be used interactively in niche projects. Our current working hypothesis is that collaborative visualisation techniques can foster the faithful treatment of complexity in niche projects, that they enable creating accessible images of complex phenomena. Ultimately, we aim to use visualisation to enhance the innovative potential of niche experiments. 3.3. Regime influences In a pluralist society, niche experiments can easily become the topic of dispute between different discourses at the regime level. TransForum’s New Mixed Farm (NMF) project provides an interesting account of how regime forces can influence a niche project by means of images. The NMF-case has acquired the image of pollution, increasing traffic, increase in animal diseases like the bird-flu, and increases in animal transport—in sum, all negative connotations that come with the existing societal image of industrial farming. The NMF-project is an example of a so-called agro-park. An agro-park is an innovative form of farming that uses high-tech innovations to reduce costs and environmental damage [44]. In an agro-park, a number of distinct agricultural businesses is co-located to enable the reuse of resources such as energy, gas, minerals, and manure. The NMF is a collaboration between a pig farmer (35,000 pigs), a chicken farmer 1,300,000 chickens), a slaughterhouse, and a waste refinery producing energy and mould [31]. Agro-parks share a number of traits with traditional industrial farming. Both are large-scale approaches, both are predominantly intensive forms of agriculture, focussed on efficiency, and in either, technology plays in important role in innovation. However, agro-parks differ from industrial farming in the way that technology is employed for innovation. Whereas industrial farming uses technology to increase efficiency, agro-parks use technological solutions to reduce environmental burdens and to increase animal welfare. The environmental advantages to the NMF are manifold. Firstly, waste flows of nitrogen and phosphorus are reduced because of manure reuse. Secondly, the co-location of animal breeding and a slaughterhouse reduces the amount of traffic around the farm, and with that, the risk of animal disease transmission. Thirdly, by locally producing energy from waste, large reductions in CO2 emission are established. In sum, the NMF can be seen as a more environment-friendly version of traditional industrial farming. Despite all its technological environmental advantages, the NMF-project met with large adversity in the public debate, which frustrated its future as a niche experiment. Why? The NMF raised many public concerns with regard to animal welfare, local animal transports, environmental pollution, and spread of animal disease. In the eye of the public, the NMF was the arch-image of traditional industrial farming, taken to the next level. It subsequently attributed to the NMF all possible concerns that would otherwise hold for industrial farming. As a consequence, the NMF came to be seen as almost the opposite of what it actually was. We can draw various lessons about images from the above account. Firstly, it exemplifies how strong images can mobilise public support, in this case against the niche experiment in question. Secondly, the image obscured many of the characteristics of the actual niche. It substituted the NMF’s most important characteristics with its own, which, coincidentally, were quite the opposite of the actual project characteristics. Thirdly, the account calls for ways to manage images, starting with the awareness of one’s own image, and continuing with the projection of the image a project aspires to. In the worst case, a niche experiment’s image may prevent it from being implemented at all. When a project increases its awareness of its own image, and how it is perceived on the regime level, it is better able to adapt to existing societal discourses and the images embedded in them. 3.4. Managing pluralism with images The above account pointedly illustrates how images at the regime level can affect niche project innovation potential. It is not only the project content that counts. In some cases, project image dominates project content. The process in which a project becomes associated with images—be it positive or negative—appears to a large extent autonomous (out of control). It would seem that projects from a portfolio like TransForum’s are subject to continuous framing and reframing activities [22], which in some cases do little justice to a project’s content. How can we adapt a project’s image to existing regime forces, to secure its innovation potential? First of all, a transition programme like TransForum’s does not consist of one single project. TransForum is developing a future vision that includes a wide range of innovations, and in doing so caters to existing pluralism on the regime level. This vision, called Metropolitan Agriculture [29], consist of connecting the possibilities of the metropolitan area to the problems of the agricultural systems. This means using available knowledge to reduce environmental pressure, using multifunctional
730
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
agriculture to alleviate urban pressure on the rural area, and addressing the increasing quality and quantity of food demand by offering more, and more varied products. Metropolitan Agriculture thus requires a healthy mix of various agricultural innovations, as is present in TransForum’s project portfolio. How can a vision itself escape from becoming associated with images? Metropolitan Agriculture differs from other visions in that it is less concrete. While it offers a vision of the preferable kinds of agriculture (multifunctional, regional development, agro-industrial clusters), and gives some inklings about what agricultural practice should not be continued, it also offers freedom with regard to what specific types of agriculture are eligible. In that sense, Metropolitan Agriculture is intended to be an overarching vision, which appeals to multiple societal discourses and can incorporate multiple, different images. A vision essentially is yet another image. However, we think that an overarching vision, by appealing to multiple societal discourses, may have a better chance to escape becoming associated with negative imagery. We are currently exploring the possibility of offering basic building blocks for Metropolitan Agriculture, stimulating stakeholders and policy makers decide what mix and pattern of building blocks would be effective. We will use a choice from TransForum’s project portfolio as building blocks, possibly combined with other agricultural innovation projects that fit the portfolio vision of Metropolitan Agriculture. Still, our experiences with the NMF project also suggest some ways in which regime influences and how images can be dealt with. The first suggestion is that existing relations between niches and discourses must be monitored. That way, a possible conflict between project content and the way the project is perceived, its image, can be detected earlier on, before it has resulted in substantial public protest. Hoes et al. [31] suggests that, to curtail public protest, public actors need to be included in niche processes as early as possible. Yet another way of managing images may be to consciously try to manage the image of a niche project. For instance, when predominantly technological innovations run a large risk to become seen as environmentally detrimental, it might not be the best idea to stress the technological prowess of your innovation. However, the same project may find a more receptive audience when it stresses its environmental merits. 4. Conclusion In the face of achieving sustainable development, innovation organisations like TransForum attempt to trigger transitions. In doing so, they invariably get confronted with societal images, that affect the success of the innovation process. We have analysed images from a prescriptive and descriptive perspective in a multi-level (niche-regime) context. 4.1. Revisiting the hypotheses The cases discussed suggest that simplistic images can impede the understanding of complex (sustainability) problems. It appears that simplistic images can stand in the way of understanding the complexity of an actual system, confirming the first hypothesis. This result highlights the important role images can have in innovation programmes: they narrow problem analysis in niche projects. Furthermore, our research showed that concepts from complex adaptive systems theory improved how accurate the complexity of a system at hand was treated. This implies that such concepts can serve as a basis for improving the understanding of complex systems in niche projects. The cases discussed also exemplified how societal images can affect the potential of niche projects. TransForum’s results show that it is very important how a project is viewed: a project’s content may radically differ from its public image, and a negative image may lower the project’s success. This suggests that niche projects need not only focus on content, they also need to be careful of their image. In line with the second hypothesis, images in the public debate did influence the innovative potential of niches. 4.2. Dealing with images Knowing the importance of images in transition projects, how can we deal with their associated potential and problems? We return to our research framework to draft some tentative directions for dealing with images in the context of an innovation project (see Fig. 3). On the niche project level, one needs to prevent that images lead to oversimplification. Niche projects often concern complex problems and systems, which are difficult for simple images to portray accurately. The accuracy of simple images with regard to complexity needs to be thoroughly tested, and the assumptions inherent to those images need to be regarded with a healthy dose of scepticism. In one of our cases, concepts from complex systems theory were used to treat the underlying system’s complexity more accurately. Furthermore, visualisations may benefit communicative processes, when the system complexity exceeds the communicative bandwidth shared by the project team. Regarding the relation between niche and regime, it appears to be important to be aware of existing societal discourses that may frame the niche project negatively. One way in which this may be done is to engage actors from multiple societal discourses early-on in the development of an innovation project, to explore the various ways in which the project may come to be seen. Discourse analysis, as a social sciences research method, can yield a more comprehensive view of the existing discourses [e.g., 18,19], but it is also more labour-intensive, which may not be feasible in the context of an innovation project.
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732
731
Fig. 3. Tentative directions for dealing with images.
Having established the various relevant discourses, one can try to assess how each may come to view the innovation project, and whether the resulting images will be positive or negative. The resulting insights turn can be used to actively frame the innovation project towards favourable images. For instance, one and the same innovation project can be described both by its technical merits, and by its environmental effects. In the case of agriculture, the former may lead to a negative image (the food is unnatural), whereas the latter puts the project in a more positive light. One final note concerns the image of a full programme of innovation projects, and how they are seen at the societal level. An encompassing vision can bring together multiple discourses on rural innovation. Our results suggest that such a vision fosters putting different innovation projects in one broad perspective. This way, a programme of projects can be seen as one integrated innovation ‘‘package’’. This also allows the individual projects to be discussed apart from their local implementations. Such a vision, like Metropolitan Agriculture, should be broad and sweeping, and not specific towards certain types of agriculture. Used like this, a vision keeps a wide playing field, without the risk of lock-in early-on in a transition process [6]. The research framework and its two dichotomies have proved helpful for the analysis of images in this study, judging by the broad range of tentative directions that it yielded. Interestingly, a broad range of scientific disciplines underlies those directions, which includes sociology, cognitive psychology, and complex adaptive systems. It appears that the concept of images served as a focal point for the various scientific disciplines involved. It allowed an interdisciplinary treatment of what otherwise may have remained four disjoint studies. Our studies have important implications for transition management and strategic niche management. Successfully triggering transitions requires careful consideration of existing images, their dynamics, and how they relate to possible transition pathways. Furthermore, it appears to some extent possible to manage images, by using visualisations in nichelevel projects, and by using enticing visions for the societal level. Indeed, using a vision may leverage the power of images for promoting change. Images are never neutral. They need to be monitored and managed to do justice to the ambition for transition management. Acknowledgments This research has received funding from TransForum, and was carried out as part of TransForum’s Scientific Programme on Images of Sustainable Development. References [1] J. Rotmans, D. Loorbach, Complexity and transition management, Journal of Industrial Ecology 13 (2009) 184–196. [2] R. Kemp, J. Schot, R. Hoogma, Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 10 (1998) 175–195. [3] J. Schot, R. Hoogma, B. Elzen, Strategies for shifting technological systems; the case of the automobile system, Futures 26 (1994) 1060–1076. [4] E. van Thuijl, E.P. Deurwaarder, European biofuel policies in retrospect, Report Number ECN-C-06-016, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), 2006. [5] T. Searchinger, R. Heimlich, R.A. Houghton, F. Dong, A. Elobeid, J. Fabiosa, S. Tokgoz, D. Hayes, T.-H. Yu, Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change, Science 319 (2008) 1238–1240. [6] J. Rotmans, R. Kemp, M. van Asselt, More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy, Foresight/the journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy 03 (2001) 1–17. [7] F.W. Geels, Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study, Research Policy 31 (2002) 1257– 1274. [8] D. Loorbach, J. Rotmans, Managing transitions for sustainable development, in: X. Olsthoorn, A.J. Wieczorek (Eds.), Understanding Industrial Transformation: Views from Different Disciplines, The Netherlands, Springer, Dordrecht, 2006, pp. 187–206. [9] A. Veldkamp, A.C. Van Altvorst, R. Eweg, E. Jacobsen, A. van Kleef, H. van Latesteijn, S. Mager, H. Mommaas, P.J.A.M. Smeets, L. Spaans, J.C.M. van Trijp, Triggering transitions towards sustainable development of the Dutch agricultural sector: Transforum’s approach, Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29 (2009) 87–96.
732 [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]
[30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]
P.J. Beers et al. / Futures 42 (2010) 723–732 J. Alexandra, C. Riddington, Redreaming the rural landscape, Futures 39 (2007) 324–339. K. Hurley, Food in the future: does futures studies have a role to play? Futures 40 (2008) 698–701. G. Lakoff, M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1980. M.B.A. van Asselt, Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000. M. Hisschemo¨ller, R. Hoppe, Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis, Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization 8 (1995–96) 40–60. J.D. Sterman, Learning in and about complex systems, System Dynamics Review 10 (1994) 291–330. M. Douglas, A.B. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1982. M.E. Koltko-Rivera, The psychology of worldviews, Review of General Psychology 8 (2004) 3–58. J. Frouws, The contested redefinition of the countryside. An analysis of rural discourses in The Netherlands, Sociologia Ruralis 38 (1998) 45–68. F. Hermans, I. Horlings, P.J. Beers, H. Mommaas, The contested redefinition of a sustainable countryside; revisiting Frouws’ rurality discourses, Sociologia Ruralis 50 (2010) 46–63. P.A. Sabatier, An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein, Policy Sciences 21 (1988) 129–168. D.A. Stone, Policy Paradox and Political Reason, Scott Foresman, Glenview IL, 1988. D.A. Scho¨n, M. Rein, Frame reflection. Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies, BasicBooks, New York, NY, 1994. R. van der Helm, The vision phenomenon: towards a theoretical underpinning of visions of the future and the process of envisioning, Futures 41 (2009) 96– 104. F.W. Geels, J. Schot, Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, Research Policy 36 (2007) 399–417. R. van der Brugge, R. van Raak, Facing the adaptive management challenge: insights from transition management, Ecology & Society 12 (2007) 33. A. Rip, R. Kemp, Technical change, in: S. Rayner, E.L. Majone (Eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change, Batelle Press, Columbus, OH, 1998, pp. 327–399. F.W. Geels, R. Kemp, Dynamics in socio-technical systems: typology of change processes and contrasting case studies, Technology in Society 29 (2007) 441– 455. J. Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, Penguin, London, 2005. H.C. van Latesteijn, A. Veldkamp, A.C. van Altvorst, P.J. Beers, R. Eweg, A. Fischer, V. Harezlak, E. Jacobsen, A. van Kleef, S. Mager, H. Mommaas, P.J.A.M. Smeets, L. Spaans, J.C.M. van Trijp, Transforum: organizing the transition towards metropolitan agriculture, in: Paper presented at the Agriculture in Transition Conference, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2008. K. Borch, Emerging technologies in favour of sustainable agriculture, Futures 39 (2007) 1045–1066. A.-C. Hoes, B. Regeer, J. Bunders, Anticipating public protest in niche experiments, in: Paper presented at the First European Conference on Sustainability Transitions: Dynamics & Governance of Transitions to Sustainability, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009. M.P.W. Sonneveld, J.J. Schro¨der, J.A. de Vos, G.J. Monteny, J. Mosquera, J.M.G. Hol, E.A. Lantinga, F.P.M. Verhoeven, J. Bouma, A whole-farm strategy to reduce environmental impacts of nitrogen, Journal of Environmental Quality 37 (2008) 186–195. M. Stuiver, Regime change and storylines, a sociological analysis of manure practices in contemporary Dutch dairy farming, Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2008. D.F. van Apeldoorn, K. Kok, M.P.W.S. Sonneveld, T. Veldkamp, Rethinking resilience of agro-ecosystems: the role of panarchy and short-circuits (submitted for publication). J.H. Holland, Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1996. J.J. Kay, On complexity theory, exergy, and industrial ecology: some implications for construction ecology, in: C. Kibert, J. Sendzimir, B. Guy (Eds.), Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis for Green Buildings, Spoon Press, London, 2002, pp. 72–107. C.S. Holling, Resilience and stability of ecological systems, Annual Reviews of Ecological Systems 4 (1973) 1–23. M. Scheffer, S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, B. Walker, Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems, Nature 413 (2001) 591–596. G.A. Miller, The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Review 63 (1956) 81–97. J. Sweller, J.J.G. van Merrie¨nboer, F.G.W.C. Paas, Cognitive architecture and instructional design, Educational Psychology Review 10 (1998) 251–295. J.J.G. van Merrie¨nboer, J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and complex learning: recent developments and future directions, Educational Psychology Review 17 (2005) 147–177. F. Paas, A. Renkl, J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory: instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture, Instructional Science 32 (2004) 1–8. J.M. Vervoort, K. Kok, R. van Lammeren, T. Veldkamp, Thresholds to the future: exploring the potential of interactive media for participatory scenarios on socio-ecological systems, Futures (in press), doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.031. P.J.A.M. Smeets, Expeditie agroparken, Ontwerpend onderzoek naar metropolitane landbouw en duurzame ontwikkeling, Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2009. M. Schwarz, M. Thompson, Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Social Choice, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1990.