The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation and the Associated Wicked Sustainability Problems in Agriculture

C H A P T E R S I X

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation and the Associated Wicked Sustainability Problems in Agriculture J. Bouma, A.C. van Altvorst, R. Eweg,† P.J.A.M. Smeets,‡ and H.C. van Latesteijn† Contents 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction 294 Current Problems in Dutch Agriculture 299 The Flow of Knowledge When Studying Sustainable Development 300 Case Studies 301 4.1. Case 1: Northern Frisian Woods: Cradle-to-Cradle dairy farming 301 4.2. Case 2: The new mixed farm: an example of industrial ecology 305 4.3. Green care: health care on the farm 309 4.4. Case 4: Developing the new “Rondeel” chicken housing system 315 5. Discussion and Conclusions 319 Acknowledgments 321 References 321

Abstract Scientific institutions all over the world emphasize the importance of effective links between science and society when pursuing sustainable development thereby linking science and development. Unfortunately, the knowledge paradox implies that too much research is not applied, partly because the research community is still rather inward looking, creating a gap between what is written and what is achieved in practice. The Dutch government initiated, therefore, the large 6-year TransForum program to enhance innovation in agriculture, not allowing the regular research circuit to set the agenda. TransForum emphasized the relevance of connected value development when dealing with wicked problems associated with sustainable development, requiring a balance between  † ‡

Professor of Soil Science, Wageningen University, The Netherlands TransForum Innovation Program, The Netherlands Alterra, Wageningen University and Research Center, The Netherlands

Advances in Agronomy, Volume 113 ISSN 0065-2113, DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-386473-4.00006-3

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

293

294

J. Bouma et al.

the well-known people, planet, and profit aspects of sustainable development. Thus new and innovative 3P businesses were created through the sequence of value proposition, -creation, and -capture, together constituting connected value development. This required transdisciplinary interaction between knowledge institutions, entrepreneurs, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and governmental bodies working together on innovation (KENGi partners), each of these partners contributing different opinions, goals, and values. In this chapter, four case studies are used to illustrate that innovation was achieved by successively working together on value proposition, -creation, and -capture. Only the committed persistence of entrepreneurs supported by knowledge brokers and development of new business and organizational models ultimately led to the desired connected value development, representing a successful link between knowledge creation and societal appreciation. The process involved mobilization and strategic injection of various forms of tacit and scientific knowledge in the overall interaction process that often took more than 10 years to mature, requiring an important role for knowledge brokers with hard knowledge and social intelligence (“T-shaped skills”) as well as long-term funding. The development of value propositions needed much more attention than is usually provided. Research planning and management procedures as well as judgement procedures need to be adapted to fit transdisciplinary requirements. The cases demonstrate that the process of connected value development is unique for each project; there is no standard recipe. Track records of case studies, as presented, can be used in education as a learning tool to create awareness for possible opportunities as well as pitfalls in transdisciplinary studies. Keywords: Communities of Scientific Practice; KENGi partners; NGO; 3P’s; Connected Value Development

1. Introduction There is general agreement that inventions generated by scientific research are an essential but not exclusive ingredient to achieve innovation in the context of sustainable development. Inventions are seen as the result of a creative process with outcomes beyond what is currently known ( Jacobsen et al., 2010). But what role do inventions play in realizing a more sustainable development through system innovations? In innovation sciences, innovation is nowadays perceived as “an interactive, nonlinear process in which multiple actors (e.g., firms, research institutes, intermediaries, customers, authorities, financial organizations and possibly others) depend on each other in realizing innovation” (Van Mierlo et al., 2010). To achieve a more sustainable development, all these actors are needed to come up with new modes of production and new institutional and organizational arrangements to allow for these

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

295

new modes of production. Therefore, we speak of “system innovations,” leading to new ways of doing things that can be commercialized leading to new and improved configurations with the surrounding physical and social environment. The latter two elements are important for sustainable development, since this type of development not only considers economic but also environmental and social aspects (the 3P’s) (Van Latesteijn and Andeweg, 2010). When describing the significance of science, strategic reports of science academies, research organizations, and universities all over the world emphasize the importance of sustainable development and the need for effective communication between science and society. The International Council for Science (ICSU) advocates “Strengthening international science for the benefit of society.” This implies de facto integration of science and development, which is not agreeable to at least some members of the scientific community. It also represents a view from the perspective of science with an implicit plea for increased funding that is not necessarily embraced by society. The statement can also be read in reverse in terms of a view from society raising questions as to how society judges benefits gained from science, acknowledging the “knowledge paradox,” indicating that too much research hardly contributes to innovations and thus to societal development (Bouma, 2010). One reason for this paradox is the rather self-centered nature of the scientific community where quality is still mainly being judged by (“vertical”) peer review and by the number of refereed publications in international journals. Here, emphasis is on science, while development is seen as the responsibility of others. Social scientists have thoroughly analyzed these phenomena and propose a new transdisciplinary approach where (“horizontal”) interaction with various stakeholders, entrepreneurs, and policy makers plays a more important role. In fact, transdisciplinary implies integration of science and development (Bunders et al., 2010; Gibbons et al., 1994; Hessels and Lente, 2008). True transdisciplinarity can only be achieved if various stakeholders (with often strongly contrasting views and visions) somehow work together. To underline the importance of this collaboration, the acronym KENGi partners is used here to represent the major partners in the transdisciplinary debate, where K stands for the knowledge community, E for enterprises and business, N for NGOs and civil-society organizations, G for government at different levels, and i for system innovation that can only be reached when these stakeholders work together. Wenger et al. (2002) proposed Communities of Practice (CoPs) in which scientists work together with ENGi partners. Bouma et al. (2008) strongly supported this but suggests that the scientific community is as yet ill prepared to face the ENGi partners and that the scientific community would be well advised to first get their own act together in what he calls Communities of Scientific Practice (CSPs) before embarking on working in CoPs.

296

J. Bouma et al.

The traditional “vertical” research paradigms are persistent with good reason because the scientific community is aware of the possible risk of loosing its precious independence and scientific vigor when either entrepreneurs, NGOs, or governmental funding agencies obtain major influence in establishing research agendas. The classic notion of research states that the research community operates best when the intellect is allowed to freely roam and this may be questioned when linking science and development. To break this apparent deadlock, three observations are made. Distinction between different fields of science allows different approaches. When studying basic sciences such as, for example, astronomy or theoretical physics, emphasis on cutting-edge, curiosity-driven basic science subject to peer review is the only way forward. “Horizontal” interaction with stakeholders and policy makers implies at most popularizing results. However, many other fields of science are focused on societal problems dealing with sustainable development and covering intertwined economic, social, and environmental issues. The epistemological term to denote these types of societal problems is “wicked,” expressing their complexity and messiness. Moreover, wicked problems have no clear and undisputed definition of the problem. As a result, these types of problems do not have a single solution. Constraints and available resources change over time and often quite vocal participants in the discussions have different frames of reference, ideas, and interests as to how the problems should be solved (Rittel and Webber, 1973). This chapter intends to address the latter field of scientific activities, exploring the “horizontal” approach linking science and development, while acknowledging the intrinsic characteristics of basic science. Whatever research activities are realized within a transdisciplinary context, the scientific quality of the work should be beyond question. For this reason, this specific type of research requires additional value indicators as compared with the classical “vertical” approach (Bouma et al., 2008). Because these specific value indicators have been proposed (Spaapen et al., 2007) but are not yet applied, value criteria for basic research are still indiscriminately applied for “horizontal” approaches, thereby hampering its development. The KENGi partners are increasingly well informed following the profound information and communication revolution of the last decade. Besides, many of them are yesterday’s students. Each partner is likely to have a quite different perspective as to the character and possible solutions of problems being considered. In any case, the traditional image of knowledgeable, generous scientists informing ignorant, and grateful third parties become increasingly outdated. When studying “wicked” problems of sustainable development, many scientific disciplines are involved. Combining essentially separate “vertical” research efforts of different disciplines, which is still the prevalent procedure, is quite difficult. Moreover, problems are so complex

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

297

and involve so many different players with contrasting ideas and desires that in any case undisputed, single solutions to such “wicked” problems cannot be defined. At most, there are a large number of options each of which with different trade-offs between economic, social, and environmental considerations. The traditional linear image of a problem first being identified by researchers, then studied, and “solved” after which the result is applied in the real world, becomes irrelevant when working on wicked problems like sustainable development. Here, political decisions determine the course being taken. Scientists advise but do not decide. Still, they can have a major impact on decisions ultimately being made because knowledge (when properly formulated and injected in a timely manner into interactive KENGi processes) is still the most powerful tool to distinguish facts from beliefs and to clarify opinions. The case studies to be discussed in this chapter will illustrate this. The scientific community studying sustainable development has to make a clear choice now because the discrepancy between what is written in strategic plans in terms of societal relevance of research and what happens in reality is beginning to strain the credibility of science. Clearer distinctions are needed between science and development. For good reasons, the traditional “vertical” approach should be maintained for basic science, cherishing its independence and judging its quality by peer review. However, engaging science in transdisciplinary endeavors, managing wicked problems, is a different game altogether that implies active knowledge development together with other KENGi partners. This chapter intends to focus on a critical discussion of the alternative “horizontal” approach, realizing that many questions remain because while the theory of transdisciplinarity is by now rather well developed (cf. Bunders et al., 2010), more practical applications in the real world, as presented in this chapter, are still needed. We will use experiences from the public private funded “TransForum” innovation program (2004 2010) aimed at stimulating a more sustainable development of the agricultural sector in the Netherlands with the objective to discuss applications in practice of the proposed “horizontal” approach to research. The TransForum group followed an innovative approach based on the widespread feeling that the existing form of knowledge generation and dissemination could not possibly result in the type of innovation needed in agriculture to confront the societal challenges of the twenty-first century. The government therefore provided substantial funds to invite collaborative programs for areas considered to be important for the future development of the country. Agriculture was one of the areas, and the collective TransForum proposal of knowledge institutes, entrepreneurs, NGOs, and (regional) government bodies received 30 million euros, provided that the other partners would come up with the same amount. The Royal Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters was invited to judge the

298

J. Bouma et al.

scientific quality of the submitted proposals and the central planning bureau judged societal relevance for economic development. This procedure bypassed established funding mechanisms for research by, for example, the national science foundation, governmental agencies, and industry. In summary, TransForum proceeded by:  Allowing practitioners to define projects, requiring 50% cofinancing which tends to cement commitment. Overall, some 80 practical, scientific, and learning projects were executed.  Forming a lean management structure of the program, including a managing director, a board with representatives of the research community, industry, societal groups, and governments, accompanied by international advisory councils.  Analyzing research needs, after approval of proposed projects, by four scientific directors, initiating research where relevant.  Emphasizing the role of “knowledge brokers” in the overall management of each project. They were either prominent KENGi members or TransForum staff members. Their function was to keep interaction going between the different partners in the project, using various forms of knowledge as a major lubricant (Andeweg and van Latesteijn, 2010; Peterson and Mager, 2010). The objective of this chapter is to analyze the role of knowledge and research in four selected Transforum case studies and discuss desirable education and research practices in future. A successful link of science and society is only established when both parties consider results obtained to be valuable, leading to specific results. As different KENGi partners were involved in each case study, each with quite contrasting visions, opinions, and values, a common framework, was developed in TransForum on the basis of connected value development, following from consecutive value proposition, -creation, and -capture (Andeweg and van Latesteijn, 2010). A project was only considered successful when connected value development resulted in a tangible new 3P business case and this, in turn, was interpreted as support for the “horizontal” procedure as discussed. In summary, the objective of this study is to: 1. Analyze four representative case studies by constructing a track record as a function of time in terms of the role of various forms of knowledge used by knowledge brokers interacting with the KENGi partners in achieving project objectives, defined in terms of connected value development. 2. Analyze the specific role of the scientific community in the process of connected value development in terms of value proposition, -creation, and -capture vis-a-vis the various KENGi partners. 3. Discuss possible implications for scientific education and knowledge infrastructure.

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

299

2. Current Problems in Dutch Agriculture Dutch agriculture has reestablished itself very well after the devastation of World War II and research linked with an effective extension service has made major contributions to this revival. Until the 1970s, problems were mainly production oriented and corresponding research resulted in spectacular increases in production levels of crops and animals. Research produced more productive crops and animals by breeding, effective fertilization and crop protection procedures, drainage, and irrigation practices and mechanization. Extension services were very effective in this particular setting as objectives were clear in terms of an exclusive focus on production increase. However, since the late 1970s, conditions gradually changed and environmental problems were increasingly recognized in terms of water, soil, and air pollution caused by agricultural practices. Agriculture became the major cause of the degradation of nature. Moreover, increasing urbanization changed the classical differences between urban and rural areas that tend to disappear in a densely populated country as the Netherlands (Smeets, 2011). The term “metropolitan agriculture” has been coined to reflect this development (Van Latesteijn and Andeweg, 2010). Animal welfare became an issue as well as was the changing character and quality of the agricultural landscape that was appreciated by city dwellers for its recreational potential and its significance in terms of cultural heritage and biodiversity. As the concept of sustainable development was ever more broadly embraced, next to economics, environmental and social aspects of land use became important and were increasingly reflected in environmental laws and regulations at national and at the European policy levels. In other words, land users were confronted with environmental and societal requirements for sustainable development involving a highly diverse group of stakeholders with quite contrasting visions and demands and ever more governmental rules and regulations. Rather than the single goal of increasing levels and efficiency of production, research objectives became multigoal oriented requiring different, innovative approaches. Privatized extension services were ill prepared to face up to the new challenge, but also the research community is still struggling to cope with this new broad perspective. As mentioned, social science literature provides valuable suggestions for different (“horizontal”) approaches to research, but they still need to be tested in practice. Also in the ecological literature and in the new landscape science, these issues of inter- and transdisciplinarity were extensively discussed (Jacobs, 2006; Tress et al., 2001, 2004). The TransForum program based its work on the key questions articulated

300

J. Bouma et al.

by practitioners and knowledge workers and by taking a broad view on the utilization and generation of knowledge including tacit knowledge by stakeholders.

3. The Flow of Knowledge When Studying Sustainable Development Knowledge is the major product of scientific labor. Five forms of knowledge can be distinguished (Fig. 1 from Bouma et al., 2008) in terms of two ranges of characteristics: from qualitative to quantitative and from empirical to mechanistic. The term mechanistic has been chosen to emphasize understanding of the mechanisms of relevant processes rather than empirical observation of the effects of these processes. K1 represents user expertise, sometimes referred to as tacit knowledge. K2 is expert knowledge from practitioners or applied scientists and still fits the concept of tacit knowledge. The still essentially empirical character of this knowledge is, however, supported by a better mechanistic understanding of the underlying processes and can be highly effective in practice. K3 K5 represents increasingly specific scientific knowledge. K3 represents, for example, empirical statistical relationships, while the underlying processes are increasingly expressed in quantitative terms in K4 and K5, the latter representing new cutting-edge science in terms of instrumentation and modeling. The case studies to be discussed in this chapter covered periods of up to 15 years and the cutting-edge K5 knowledge of, say, 10 years

Figure 1 Knowledge diagram with five knowledge types on the basis of four defining characteristics.

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

301

ago may now be K3 or K2 knowledge, illustrating the shifting character when characterizing knowledge as a function of time. But this is, of course, not true for all K4 or K5 knowledge. Ideally, such knowledge is transformed to the K3 or K2 level when it is internalized by its users. But often this transformation does not occur and K4 and K5 knowledge catches dust after publication, thus contributing to the knowledge paradox. The K1 K5 classification of knowledge is focused on the character of knowledge itself rather than on the way in which it is used and is more specific than the one proposed by Peterson (2009) who distinguishes tacit knowledge from explicit knowledge and introduces the category of cocreated “new knowledge,” needed for innovation. When characterizing TransForum projects over periods of up to 15 years, different forms of knowledge, originating from different KENGi partners, turned out to play a crucial part in different phases of the various projects. The four selected case studies were therefore characterized in terms of a track record of the flow of different types of knowledge as a function of time. This was expected to result in conclusions as to the most effective knowledge management procedures for any given case study and in suggestions for future education and knowledge management.

4. Case Studies 4.1. Case 1: Northern Frisian Woods: Cradle-to-Cradle dairy farming 4.1.1. Problem and objectives In 1991, the EU nitrate guideline was introduced, limiting N applications in manure to 170 kg ha21 with the objective to reduce the nitrate content of groundwater. In 1994, a law was passed requiring farmers to inject liquid manure into the soil rather than spread it at the surface. This was intended to reduce ammonia volatilization that, in turn, was expected to result in less deposition in adjacent nature areas. Many dairy farmers did not like these (“vertically imposed”) limitations, particularly the second one because they felt that injection would harm their soils. But more importantly, they hated the infringement on their entrepreneurial independence that was particularly evident as farmers refusing to inject manure received substantial fines. They suggested alternative technical procedures, based on the Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C) concept (McDonough and Braungart, 2002), reducing nutrient cycles and ammonia volatilization by changing the feeding regime, producing manure with less N (Sonneveld et al., 2008). This would also be favorable for water and

302

J. Bouma et al.

landscape quality and biodiversity by reducing nutrient loads (Bouma et al., 2008). Farmers wished that such alternative procedures would be allowed by rules and regulations. In addition, they suggested a “horizontal” self-governance approach requiring clear and transparent environmental guidelines. To this purpose, they established a farmers’ cooperative also exploring introduction of various product market combinations leading to higher future farmer’s income. 4.1.2. The players The problem raised is a “wicked” one: the KENGi partners had at first different visions as to what constituted sustainable development and the proper role of environmental legislation as they operated in different contexts. Researchers (K) were primarily focusing on various forms of disciplinary research. Their contacts with the Ministry of Agriculture (G) were close and their funding was assured leading to limited intellectual curiosity. The Ministry was clearly risk averse as they had to face European regulators when satisfying European environmental guidelines. The farmers (E) expected that the mentioned problems could only be solved when they would be allowed to apply C2C methodology in a self-governing context and NGOs (N) considered agriculture as a negative threat to environmental quality. But lobbying by farmers, supported by a number of politicians, changed the scene. A farmer’s cooperative (E) was initially established in 1997 and has now 850 members (representing 40,000 ha). In 2005, an agreement was signed, indicating support for the cooperative by provincial and local government (G), environmental NGOs (N), the Ministries of the Environment and Agriculture (G), and researchers of Wageningen University and Research Center (K). The support of this group not only covered the manure problem being discussed but also other issues such as landscape quality and cultural heritage preservation. TransForum financed a substantial part of the program in the period 2005 2009 and provided knowledge brokerage in the form of a project director and several monitors. 4.1.3. Track record of the storyline (Fig. 2) As mentioned above, the EU-inspired nitrate guideline was introduced in 1991 (box 1, with no supporting research; the guideline was based on K2 knowledge). The injection legislation of 1994 (box 3) was, however, based on K5 research at the time (box 2: Huijsmans et al., 2001). Later, farmers refusing to inject manure were taken to court where substantial fines were issued as represented in Fig. 2 by a horizontal arrow between the years 1994 and 2006. In 1997, farmers organized into a small environmental cooperative, that was later expanded (box 4). They were inspired by scientist Jaap van Bruchem (box 5), not a member of the regular research circuit and a strong advocate of C2C agriculture (even long

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

Figure 2

303

Track record of case study 1: NFW (see text).

before the term was widely introduced), pointing out (at K3 level) that N-use efficiency was very low on farm level and could be increased significantly by changing feeding practices of cattle and by lower application rates of chemical fertilizers. The environmental cooperative organized many meetings among its farmers to share experiences (at K1 level). In 1998, Dutch researchers devised a mineral accounting system (MINAS) for the government (boxes 6 and 7) to satisfy the nitrate guideline in a major research effort applying K3 level knowledge (box 6). The system, allowing farmers to estimate the difference between N entering and N leaving the farm, was successful in creating awareness about nutrient balances but yielded data only indirectly related to water quality. MINAS was, therefore, rejected by the European Court of Justice in 2003 (box 9), implying that the original guideline be maintained (Schroder and Neeteson, 2008). In 2001, an interdisciplinary research project was started, ending in 2008, initiated by the Department of Sociology of Wageningen University and joined by other Departments in close cooperation with the farmers to support development of a system-C2C approach (box 8), and this was instrumental in mobilizing broad societal support for the program by KENGi partners in 2005 (box 10) as mentioned above. In 2006, two actions occurred. First, Dutch researchers, using a K3 approach, presented a so-called derogation plan to the EU allowing farmers to temporarily apply 240 kgN ha21 from manure rather than the required

304

J. Bouma et al.

170 kgN. This was accepted through 2009 and was recently extended to 2013 (not shown in Fig. 2). Second, the national government allowed 29 farmers in the Northern Frisian Woods (NFW) area, supported by scientists, to freely experiment with the C2C approach by temporarily canceling all legal manure requirements until 2009 (box 11). A final extension of this cancelation was granted until the Spring of 2012 and resulted in interactive research (box 14). In 2007 (not shown in Fig. 2), the Dutch Parliament approved the Polderman proposal requesting the government to investigate C2C dairy farming and, when successful, to create a certification system for this particular practice. Research contributions (at K3 level) in this period covered research on the effect of manure injection on soil biology (Van Vliet and de Goede, 2006) and on compaction (box 12). Integrative systems research using K5 life cycle analysis (Thomasson et al., 2008, 2009), started in 2010 (box 13) was essential to document the particular advantages of C2C dairy farming including a business plan (B in box 14) and is expected to result in the acceptance by the government of the principle of self-government and therefore, implicitly, in completing connected value development. This is, however, not yet clear at this time. Flow of knowledge The track record of Fig. 2 spans a period of 20 years, indicating that short-term projects dealing with certain aspects only are unlikely to achieve connected value development. Ultimately, government will probably accept the principle of self-governance provided that clear environmental guidelines corresponding to those of the EU are adhered to. But strict controls will be enforced to check the control mechanisms of the farmer cooperative. Figure 2 illustrates that this “wicked” problem had no simple, straightforward answer nor that only researchers possessed the required knowledge. In fact, the arrows in Fig. 2 represent most often transfer of K1, K2, or K3 knowledge, and K5 knowledge was restricted to the relatively sophisticated boxes 2 and 12 using state-of-the-art but available techniques and models. The key factor of connected value development was the perseverance of the board of the farmer’s cooperative that persisted in its activities despite of many problems encountered. But effective interaction with researchers and with the knowledge broker of TransForum was crucial as was TransForum funding. Governmental agencies were strictly enforcing the rules but ultimately open to change as evidenced by the experimental permits provided in the period 2006 2012. Two lines are presented in Fig. 2 for knowledge (K) because two research cultures clearly prevailed. The upper (K) line represents more traditional, rather monodisciplinary research that certainly made significant contributions even though some (MINAS in boxes 6 and 7) did not work out. Note that upward arrows from the upper K line toward G and E are one way. The lower (K) line presents more systems-oriented,

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

305

inter- and transdisciplinary research, starting conceptually and inspiringly in box 5, moving toward comprehensive but still rather disciplinary research in close cooperation with the farmers (box 8) to, finally, a truly systems approach by introducing life cycle analysis, including economics (box 13), allowing formulation of a business plan in the experimental period granted by the government (box 14). Arrows toward G and E in the lower K line now point into two directions. In the end, the government (G) is likely to accept the advantages of the C2C approach and will also move from a “vertical” command-and-control mode into a “horizontal” participatory mode, expressed by permitting controlled self-regulation. But, as stated, this is not clear yet. Lessons for knowledge management The following lessons can be learned when analyzing the flow of knowledge in Fig. 2: 1. The need for emphasis on comprehensive systems analyses, such as the life cycle assessment. Separate and disconnected disciplinary studies prevailed for too long. 2. More attention should have been paid to connected value development in the early proposition phase of the project. Now, KENGi partners followed their own, separate views for too long. 3. Communication was hampered by unclear and nontransparent environmental rules and regulations. More emphasis should have been given to environmental monitoring providing specific data, using, for example, new automatic sensors that are available now (Bouma, 2011). 4. Developing management plans to address wicked problems takes a very long time. Short-term projects cannot possibly result in connected value development. 5. The roles of committed entrepreneurs and knowledge brokers are crucial to keep the process moving and so is long-term financing.

4.2. Case 2: The new mixed farm: an example of industrial ecology 4.2.1. Problem and objectives Economic rationalization of agricultural production processes (the industrialization of agriculture) has resulted in ever higher productivity in intensive livestock farming. This has particularly occurred in the sandy areas in the southern and eastern part of the Netherlands. From 1960 until 1980, this resulted in large quantities of excess manure and associated pollution of water, soil, and air. From 1980 onward, strict environmental laws were directed toward control of the mineral flows and they are increasingly successful. Also, animal-welfare NGOs objected to what

306

J. Bouma et al.

they considered to be unacceptable living conditions for animals. The outbreak of a large-scale foot-and-mouth disease gave rise to a governmental program that aimed at the spatial concentration of intensive livestock farms. A regional or landscape dialogue was started in the late 1990s by the provincial Limburg government to guide this process in the North of the Province, involving local government and a number of local entrepreneurs to explore integrated regional solutions for this spatial reconstruction of the intensive livestock sector. By 2001, major support was provided by different experts of Wageningen University and Research Center (UR) in developing a plan for an agropark that became known as “New Mixed Farm.” This integrated system combined pig, chicken, and mushroom production with a concentrated greenhouse area of 200 ha and a power plant based on codigestion of manure and other organic restproducts. The New Mixed Farm was designed on the basis of principles of industrial ecology, optimizing energy, CO2, and nutrient flows between the units (Smeets, 2011). This way, the problem of environmental pollution by excess manure could not only be solved, but what used to be a negative cost factor in the farmers budget would change into positive income. At the same time, innovative construction of the pig and chicken farms would enhance animal welfare. 4.2.2. The players Initially, entrepreneurs and local government initiated a Regional Dialogue in the 1990s and researchers of Wageningen UR became involved in analyzing the problems associated with intensive chicken and pig farming. In 2001, Wageningen UR invested in KnowHouse, a public private liaison organization acting as knowledge broker between local entrepreneurs and knowledge suppliers. The agropark received their prime attention, and major support was provided by the National Ministry of Agriculture when in 2004 they assigned a separate status to the agropark ensuring that existing legislation would not inhibit the development of innovations in the agropark. In the period 2004 2009, Transforum funded the project, supporting research and activities of KnowHouse and also provided input by a knowledge broker. Increasingly, objections by animal-welfare NGOs and local action (NIMBY) groups that underlined the human health hazards inhibited progress. Environmental impact statements were prepared and the local city council finally approved construction in 2008. Still a large number of environmental permits had to be obtained from national and local government which again causes delays. This hurdle is expected to be cleared in the end resulting in a start of construction of the agropark after 2011. Thus, all KENGi partners were involved in different ways and times in the overall process that will at least cover about 14 years.

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

307

4.2.3. Track record of the storyline (Fig. 3) The design process that was initiated by the Regional Dialogue (Fig. 3) involved four entrepreneurs (E) (a pig, chicken, mushroom farmer, and a greenhouse grower) and local government (G) supported by different researchers from Wageningen UR (K). This culminated in a first design for an agropark in 2004 (box 1) where knowledge management by KnowHouse played an important role. Also a business plan was made (B). The Ministry of Agriculture assigned the project special status in 2004 (box 2), while local government provided continuing support. Until 2008, progress in realizing the agropark slowed down. The greenhouse grower withdrew from the team as he worried about the possible negative spin-off for his operation of the poor public image of intensive livestock farming. The mushroom farmer went bankrupt in 2006. The remaining entrepreneurs decided to proceed with a slimmed-down plan consisting of building a robust, open structure, which consisted of a chicken and pig business and a manure processing facility. They found a new building location. As plans developed, local inhabitants protested as they feared negative effects of livestock farming (increasing traffic, smell, health hazards, and degradation of landscape quality). Some political parties and a national NGO, focusing on animal-welfare and environmental issues, joined the protests. Apparently, there was a gap in perception between the KENGi partners that wanted to develop an agropark and the protesters that only saw the potential threats of very large pig and chicken farms. In the

Figure 3

Track record of case study 2: New Mixed Farm (see text).

308

J. Bouma et al.

agropark, manure is processed in a facility producing energy and dried organic fertilizer, thus solving the excess manure problem. Besides, in the agropark, particular attention was paid to installing scrubbers, strongly reducing ammonia and dust emissions. Individual farms would not be able to afford such installations. Local government became increasingly aware of local resistance and, being strongly risk averse, its support decreased. Therefore, Fig. 3 shows no arrows from local government after 2004 except again in 2010 when permits for construction had to be granted. Ultimately, the municipal council approved the new location with only a one-vote margin in 2008. An operation like this requires an independent environmental impact statement, which was delivered in 2010 (box 3). The initial reaction to this report was mildly positive (box 4), but the national committee judging these reports demanded additional information. Once this revised report has been presented to the committee it is expected that there will be a final positive outcome (box 5). The realization of the agropark might then begin, be it that there are still several hurdles to overcome with respect to individual permits. And there is always the possibility that the opponents of the agropark will fight the decisions all the way up to the highest court in the Netherlands. That may take another several years. 4.2.4. Flow of knowledge Establishing the concept of the agropark and defining its characteristics in a continuous and iterative research and design process from 2001 onward involved input of K5 knowledge by different research groups from Wageningen UR and K2 tacit knowledge by the local entrepreneurs and government. The process of knowledge exchange was interesting (Hoes et al., 2008). The entrepreneurs worked as a group as did the scientists. Contact was only established when specific questions arose. This procedure resulted in team building on both sides, while mutual trust was slowly built as contacts proved productive. Joint meetings right from the start would most probably have been less effective. In addition, KnowHouse, connecting the E, G, and K partners, successfully facilitated the interaction process. This result would, most likely, not have materialized without KnowHouse input. The support by the national government in 2004 and participation of TransForum accelerated progress and a business plan was prepared. After 2004, the value creation phase was cumbersome because of public resistance to the plans. Two arrows appear in Fig. 3 for N. One represents the negative feelings of local citizens, expressed in the municipal council and the other the impact of national NGOs, both reflecting K1 knowledge. Although KnowHouse and TransForum contributed to local discussions, one of the weaker points in the KENGi approach was the relative absence of NGOs and societal groups in the core team. It would have been better to reward the protests

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

309

of local groups by inviting them over and help the connected value development by bringing their design criteria to the table. This certainly would not have been an easy task, but the alternative—polarization between the entrepreneurs and the (local) NGOs—is worse. Unfortunately, the discussions were on one side dominated by the perceived benefits of the agropark and on the other side by the perceived negative consequences of large-scale intensive livestock farming. This division was not bridged in the process; so on this issue there was no real connected value development. Still, lobbying on the basis of scientifically based arguments led ultimately to narrow acceptance by the local municipal council. They required yet another independent environmental impact statement (box 3), representing K4 knowledge. Also, several permits had to be obtained from national and local governments before construction could start. Some local legal requirements contradict national ones, and the reverse was also true. It remains to be seen whether realization of the agropark will be within reach the coming year. There is progression although it is very slow. 4.2.5. Lessons for knowledge management The initial development of the agropark concept in this particular context was quite successful as K, E, and G partners worked well together being facilitated by knowledge brokers of KnowHouse. The mistake was made to wait too long with involving local citizens and national NGOs. They should have been involved earlier as codevelopers of ideas being generated. Now, a conflict situation arose that was difficult to overcome. K5 knowledge from research (K) was crucial to establish and realize the agropark concept for this particular location. The E and G partners made their K2 contributions and they clearly enhanced the science-based concepts, as reflected by the plans materialized by 2004. Discussions in the period 2004 2008 were dominated by K1 and K2 knowledge of local citizens and politicians. Attempts of KnowHouse and Wageningen UR scientists to inject K3 K5 knowledge in local discussions has contributed to the ultimate acceptance of the agropark plans by the local municipality. The impulse of an independent environmental impact statement (K4) in 2010 played an important role in what may ultimately result in acceptance of the plans. This case study illustrates that the whole range of K1 K5 knowledge is important in achieving connected value development.

4.3. Green care: health care on the farm 4.3.1. Problem and objectives New approaches in the health-care sector started during the second half of the previous century by emphasizing that elderly people, drug addicts, and psychiatric patients should be dehospitalized and more integrated in society.

310

J. Bouma et al.

New forms of independent living groups and labor therapies were introduced. At the same time, farmers, government, and knowledge institutions were developing new approaches of rural development in threatened smallscale landscapes by introducing multifunctionality and by stimulating societal interest in local and regional products. In line with these developments, small groups of innovative farmers started experimenting with receiving elderly people and (former) psychiatric patients on their farms as a new source of income. On their “green care farms,” they offered structure, tranquillity, nature and labor (Hassink et al., 2007). In 2003, the sector received a strong incentive when the “Personal Budget” was officially introduced, which is a budget provided by public insurance, which can—after being approved—be spent freely by the client to obtain the necessary care depending on the clients’ specific needs. The number of care farms increased remarkably since then numbering 620 in the Netherlands in 2008. Farmers, however, are, despite of their good intentions, ill equipped to deal with various types of patients and the potential problem of failing care systems is real. Farmers in the area of “Waterland” in the north of Dutch capital, Amsterdam, were under pressure by the urbanization of the area: urban activities were spreading to the north, making it difficult for the farmers to scale up. Also, the area was declared a “national landscape” because of its cultural historical value as a traditional Dutch agricultural landscape, posing additional restrictions on farming. The “Landzijde” foundation was therefore established to connect farmers to the urban market of clients interested in care farming in order to create additional income enabling them to keep on farming. The regional and local governments were interested because in this way small-scale farmers would stay in business and keep on maintaining the typical small-scale agricultural national landscape. When TransForum joined this initiative, they underlined the importance of supporting the farmers in professionalizing their business proposal on the care market and therefore support them in competence development and administrative skills. The ultimate objective of this program was therefore to create a commercial system in which “green” care could provide essential functions for a variety of patients while contributing toward multifunctional agriculture providing benefits to both farmers and city dwellers. The Waterland example should become a pilot for other areas in the Netherlands. In the description of this case in this chapter, attention will be focused on knowledge generation and transfer. A detailed analysis of the overall project is provided by van Altvorst et al. (2011). 4.3.2. The players Quite a number of diverse players are involved: (i) the initiator of Landzijde, was a farmer with a background in education (E). He made

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

311

contact with (ii) the regional government, the province of North Holland and the municipalities (G). The national government (iii) was not directly involved, but played a decisive role in the development of care farming, by introducing the “Personal Budget.” The national health-care insurance agency (iv) provided the quality mark needed to spend insurance money for the care clients (v). Various research institutes were involved of Wageningen UR and of the Free University of Amsterdam (K). Wageningen UR’s main interest was the development of new sources of farm income by providing new services to the urban community. The Free University of Amsterdam performed participatory research into the knowledge development resulting from collaboration of entrepreneurs, governments, and knowledge institutes (Regeer, 2010). (vi) The Athena Institute and the Medical Centre of the Free University investigated effects of green care therapies on depressions and anxieties (Hassink et al., 2010), addressing the “wicked” problem of therapeutical effects of care farms, and (vi) care institutions, such as hospitals, are considered as “social entrepreneurs” (E). In contrast to the other case studies discussed in this chapter, no players were involved in the N category of NGOs. The reason is simple: the concept of green care is attractive and noncontroversial. However, its implementation creates many wicked problems as interests involved are quite diverse, originating in different worlds of perception. For example, the medical and agricultural communities have widely different perspectives on their own and on society’s problems. Linking good health care with financially attractive multifunctional agriculture presents, therefore, a huge challenge. 4.3.3. Track record of the storyline (Fig. 4) The “Personal Budget,” as discussed above, was introduced in 2003 (box 1). In the same year, the National Authority for Health Insurances approved Landzijde as an organization where health insurance money could be spent (box 2). In 2006, the TransForum project “Green Care” started connecting researchers of Wageningen UR and the Free University to the entrepreneur. Together they drew up the most important knowledge questions which had to be investigated during the project (box 3) (Fig. 4):  What are the unique qualities represented by care farms and how can they distinguish themselves from regular forms of care? How can rural entrepreneurs effectively make use of these qualities?  What is the societal impact of care farming (on a social, ecological, and economic field and on micro-, meso, and macro scale level?) What is the present state of the art, what are the developments, and what is the potential?  Which type of agricultural enterprises may fulfill the potential demand for care, now and in the future?

312

J. Bouma et al.

Figure 4 Track record of case study 3: Green Care (see text).

 What are the most appropriate organizational forms resulting in an integral approach to develop the new value chains between rural areas and cities?  What is the impact of these new chains between city and rural areas for the spatial organization of rural areas?  How can new, unambiguous marketing strategies be developed to promote health-care products and services from rural areas? The challenge is to connect farming and care, healthy recreation, healthy food, education, inspiration, etc. The project started with a care experiment on two farms (box 4). The province of North Holland and the Municipality of Amsterdam got actively involved (box 5) as, respectively, sponsor of the project and in terms of the personal commitment of an aldermen. Three working groups (“CoPs”) were started in which farmers, care workers, civil servants, and researchers addressed the knowledge questions in a network approach (box 6). The researchers shared experiences elsewhere in the Netherlands and Europe. In the meantime, the Wageningen researcher connected the project with a National Initiative on care farming and an European network on care farming, “SoFar.” Through his contacts, the researcher succeeded in providing the Landzijde project the status of “European pilot on care farming,” which provided publicity, status, knowledge, and funds. Based on its research activities, Wageningen University and the Free

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

313

University published papers and articles on care farming and its societal impact in the following years. A researcher of the Free University continuously monitored the interaction processes and intervened during sessions, focusing on the effectiveness of collaboration between the stakeholders with different interests. In the end, the researcher drew up a “learning history” of the Landzijde foundation (Regeer, 2010). In 2007, basic K5 scientific research was initiated to investigate the effects of agriculture and health care on depressions and anxieties (box 7). This was based on collaboration between two groups at the Free University: the Athena Institute and the Medical Centre (Psychiatry) and resulted in several leading publications. Connections of Landside with regional and municipal health-care organizations were formalized by giving these organizations a place in the supervising board (box 8). Furthermore, connections were established with banks, health insurance companies, the national farmers organisation, and the national youth care platform (box 9). In 2008, TransForum directed attention toward the business case of Landzijde and the possibilities to scale up or translate the Landzijde concept to other regions and thus become a contribution to a real systems innovation. For this a new scientific project, a collaboration, was started between the scientific partners which were already involved (Wageningen University, Free University) and new scientists on policy science (University of Amsterdam) and entrepreneurship (Erasmus University, Rotterdam) (box 10) to analyze green care initiatives from a viewpoint of entrepreneurship and systems innovation. Meanwhile, Landzijde and the municipality developed a professional relationship, in which Landzijde started to offer services to the urban community in 2009 (box 11). The first project that Landzijde carried out for the Amsterdam city was the “Farm force project,” in collaboration with the welfare organization “Streetcornerwork.” In this successful project, homeless people in Amsterdam were offered daily activities on farms. The work on the farm offered the clients a structured life, steady work, and development of self-esteem, which supports their reintegration in society. This point can be seen as the achievement of value capture. In 2010, the TransForum project ended but research projects at Wageningen UR and Free University continue. Clearly, the TransForum period from 2006 to 2010 has been particularly productive. At this moment, Landzijde is a full-grown, professional organization with 102 care farmers, 421 clients, 7 full-time employees (director, administration and regional coordinators), and a turnover of 4 million euros. Clients and farmers are represented in the advisory board. Clients, farmers, and care institutions form the board of commissioners (van Altvorst et al., 2011).

314

J. Bouma et al.

4.3.4. Flow of knowledge The Green Care project was a project about learning and system change. The challenge was the development and professionalization of a new agricultural sector. In 2006, an entrepreneur with an innovative idea (K2) was through TransForum connected to the knowledge institutions Wageningen UR and the Free University of Amsterdam (K3 K5). This started new developments and dynamics. New partnerships were set up, new connections were made, and new attitudes and views were introduced on the crossroads of existing sectors. The focus on learning can be recognized on different levels: primarily by the clients of the projects, who develop new attitudes, competences and structure at K1 level by working on the farms. This learning process reflects interaction between clients, farmers, and health-care workers. On a second level, learning by the farmers and health-care institutions at K2 and K3 level, who have to develop environments that enable clients to work and develop themselves on the farms. This puts new demands on farmers and health-care workers, both on their competences, mode of operation and organization. These new demands were developed in working groups in which farmers, health-care workers, and researchers interacted. Here, K2 knowledge was dominant but occasionally researchers injected results of the scientific program at K3 level. The Landzijde foundation forms the anchorage of the new knowledge resulting from these groups. On a third level, new (financing) structures, quality control systems, and legislation have to be developed, by governments, health insurance companies, and health organizations. This involved new arrangements of existing structures and rules at K3 level. The knowledge institutes played an important role in this process. By bilateral discussions, workshops, symposia, and publications, they contribute to the necessary changes in the system. Finally, on a fourth level, the system change addresses the development of new paradigm’s and views: new views on care and clients and new views on the agricultural sector. This requires evidence-based research into the effects of care on farms and the economic impact on agricultural enterprises and was successful because knowledge from the entire knowledge chain ranging from K1 to K5 was injected at appropriate times in the working groups. 4.3.5. Lessons for knowledge management 1. Partners had different roles in the different phases of the program. When developing the value proposition, scientists collaborated closely in mixed working groups with entrepreneurs, health-care workers, and civil servants to design new (3P) business cases. These working groups had a crucial function, and scientists acted here in two ways

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

315

by contributing knowledge and by acting as knowledge broker able to understand and communicate with representatives of the practical, institutional, and scientific world, thus creating meaningful connections between them. When achieving value creation, the partners had an important function to connect with government and health-care organizations to develop a business plan, including new institutional structures in order to achieve value capture in the end. 2. The innovative process required flexibility of all partners. They should not necessarily adhere to familiar methods and instruments or even to procedures agreed upon at the start of the program, but they should be flexible with an open attitude to learning. 3. Cutting-edge basic medical research originated from this project and represents an interesting reversal of the knowledge chain, as shown in Fig. 1. Traditionally, curiosity-driven K5 research is communicated down the chain. Here, K1 K2 experiences inspired to specific K5 research that most likely would not have materialized without this program. Focusing K5 research this way is likely to result in more applicable results than the classical top-down procedure while it does not in any way infringe on academic freedom.

4.4. Case 4: Developing the new “Rondeel” chicken housing system 4.4.1. Problem and objectives The present crowded housing systems for egg laying hens are unsustainable as they are associated with animal and human health risks, environmental pollution and, in general terms, with a perceived lack of animal welfare. Problems culminated in 2003 with an outbreak of chicken flue requiring the killing of millions of chickens and resulting in a major public backlash as this was perceived by the general public as resulting from an unethical production system primarily focused on generating output. Next, the Ministry of Agriculture initiated research to develop innovative production systems to be focused on animal welfare. The outlook was for such systems to be built in future. 4.4.2. The players Many players were involved in developing innovative housing systems (named “Rondeel” after 2005) for chickens: (i) the national Ministry of Agriculture initiated a research project—“The Keeping of Hens” (2004 2006) became involved in providing financial guarantees; (ii) local government was involved in providing environmental and building permits for the experimental demonstration site in 2009; (iii) researchers representing different disciplines from Wageningen UR were involved in different ways during the entire process; (iv) local entrepreneurs (chicken farmers)

316

J. Bouma et al.

were involved during the entire process and so was the farmers’ trade union; (v) a large cooperative, showing commercial interest in the new innovative design; (vi) animal-welfare and environmental NGOs were also involved during the entire project; (vii) TransForum financed important activities in the period 2007 2010 and provided continuous support by a knowledge broker who was not a member of the scientific community but had worked for an animal-protection NGO, creating a favorable position to work from. The knowledge broker maintained and initiated interaction among the various players and guarded overall progress. 4.4.3. Track record of the storyline (Fig. 5) As discussed, the Ministry of Agriculture commissioned research to design an innovative system in 2003 (box 1). In 2004, the project “The Keeping of Hens” was started (box 2) and research until 2006 involved a multistakeholder approach with entrepreneurs (E) and right from the start interaction with NGOs (N). Two-way arrows are therefore shown in Fig. 5. The design process evolved into a truly innovative open and accessible design, including: (i) an animal-friendly environment with a relatively low stocking density, a dustbath and a woodland rim for chickens to roam into; (ii) a 50% reduction of ammonia emissions and 50% reduction of energy consumption as compared with traditional systems; (iii) a visitor’s section where the production process can be observed, allowing direct

Figure 5

Track record of case study 4: the Rondeel (see text).

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

317

contact with consumers; (iv) environmentally friendly packaging of the eggs, and (v) a design that blends harmoniously into the landscape (van Altvorst et al., 2011). A Rondeel stable houses 30,000 chickens and 150,000 eggs will be produced per week. In 2006 (box 3), a large manufacturer of poultry systems decided to embrace the design and take part in its development. But more was needed than the technical design. The ultimate success required effective marketing, also internationally, and of an innovative chain design from production to consumption where eggs were to be sold directly to a major supermarket concern. To realize all of this, much interaction and development occurred in the period 2007 2010 (box 4) during the TransForum-funded phase of the project: “The quest for the golden egg.” A local entrepreneur volunteered in 2008 to lead the first of—it was hoped—many future Rondeel stables and he received support from local government. In this period, the Rondeel concept received the highest three-star quality award from the Animal Protection Fund and an environmental label (“Milieukeur”) which was helpful in engaging the supermarket concern and to convince the public that buying Rondeel eggs (30% more expensive than the regular ones) was a means to express awareness in terms of the environment and about animal care. Still, funding of the first Rondeel building remained problematic. Government and banks were unwilling to provide funds and funds were ultimately provided by the manufacturer himself as a future investment (Box 5). The first Rondeel stable was built and eggs are now for sale in a major supermarket chain. After this, the government ultimately approved guarantee funding for the second and third Rondeel stable to be constructed elsewhere. In 2011, the second stable was opened and three more are under development. 4.4.4. Flow of knowledge Figure 5 illustrates that the wicked problem being considered had no simple straightforward answer and that relevant knowledge was scattered among many disciplines and experts. Creating an innovative and sustainable egg production system requires multi- and interdisciplinary K5 research (box 2) involving animal scientists, construction engineers, energy experts, ethics specialists and K1 K2 interaction with various stakeholders, including animal activist and environmental groups who are highly suspicious of what they perceive as yet another industrial project. Certainly, the Rondeel concept as presented (box 3) represents a true interdisciplinary invention. But Fig. 5 also illustrates that an invention, as such, does not necessarily lead to value capture. Involvement of TransForum (box 4) included four major workshops where a wide range of participants discussed practical implementation in terms of marketing, also internationally, contacts with the media,

318

J. Bouma et al.

creation of short, innovative producer consumer chains, regulatory requirements, and finances. Here, the knowledge broker, the project director of TransForum, and the director of Rondeel played a crucial role arranging contacts at appropriate times with different specialists, entrepreneurs, and representatives of NGOs. The exchange of knowledge was dominantly of the K2 type and was technical, administrative, and entrepreneurial by nature. Simply focusing on processes and social intelligence would not have been adequate. The large group of participants did have a joint objective, but their frames of reference differed widely, making facilitation by the knowledge broker essential. Value capture was only achieved (box 5) because the manufacturer of poultry systems decided to make a strategic investment (box 4). It is highly unlikely that value capture would have been achieved without the actions represented in box 4. 4.4.5. Lessons for knowledge management  Rondeel is a fine example of successful interdisciplinary research, and it also shows that an invention, as such, is not enough to achieve connected value development. The research community could argue that organizational, financial, and commercial aspects are not part of a scientific exercise. Still, without value capture, the invention of the Rondeel concept would most likely have remained academic and would not have represented a successful link between science and society as it presently does. Thus, continued involvement with the value creation and capture process is important for the scientific community.  It is essential to assemble the right parties at the start of the value proposition process. Combination of various types of knowledge is essential for solving complex, wicked problems. In this project, researchers were important for contributing scientific knowledge, the manufacturer of poultry systems for technical and financial know-how, the NGOs for public support and the entrepreneurs for their understanding of the commercial and technical feasibility of the project. Progress is only maintained when the overall objective, which can be reached in different ways, remains in focus. This requires a clear strategy and an open mind for different frames of reference, opinions, and societal processes, taking all partners seriously.  Financial requirements for not only project funding but also implementation need to be satisfied before effective action can take place. TransForum has performed a crucial function in this project. Government agencies, notorious for short-time change and being risk averse, are often not a reliable source for long-term financial support that is needed.

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

319

5. Discussion and Conclusions 1. Four case studies from the TransForum portfolio demonstrate that system innovation in agriculture can be achieved by managing “wicked” problems associated with sustainable development, applying the method of connected value development to develop new modes of 3P agricultural production in three phases of value proposition, -creation, and -capture. This transdisciplinary approach involves all KENGi partners (knowledge workers, entrepreneurs, NGOs, and government), each with different interests, goals, and value judgments. The value proposition phase serves to define a common solution to the different goals and requires much more time than is usually provided. Value creation involves integration of different types of hard and soft data and information into a coherent, operational design supported by a solid business plan and investment strategy. The value capture phase represents successful completion and can serve as an illustration of science contributing to societal developments, supporting claims being made in many strategic research reports. Knowledge-driven inventions by research, when presented in isolation, often do not contribute to societal developments because there is no cocreation of system innovations that lead to new modes of agricultural production. This may explain part of the knowledge paradox. 2. Persistent entrepreneurs and knowledge brokers played a crucial role in connected value development in the four case studies. The latter are most effective when they possess both “hard” knowledge and considerable social intelligence (so-called T-shaped skills) as they function as intermediaries between the various KENGi partners. They can be regarded as a new type of extension workers of the twenty-first century (Extension 2.0). But there are major differences with the classical extension agents of the agricultural era who basically interpreted and communicated research knowledge to farmers in a linear process. Extension 2.0 requires initiation and facilitation of complicated interaction processes, as illustrated in the four case studies, involving all KENGi partners in unpredictable ways. Also, interaction has a different focus in the different phases of systems innovation. To support the independent role of knowledge brokers, Extension 2.0 should preferably be independent with separate financing, just like the traditional extension services in the agricultural era. Aside from knowledge brokers acting in the overall KENGi context, each KENGi partner itself needs members with T-shaped skills that can effectively represent the partner in the overall discussion. They act as knowledge brokers within their own group and not all members of the group are able or willing to interact with third parties.

320

J. Bouma et al.

3. Focusing attention on the scientific community, they would be well advised to actively participate in case studies on sustainable development, as presented in this chapter, with the objective to demonstrate the importance of various forms of knowledge when cocreating systems innovations. This has major consequences for research organization and planning as it implies:  Active participation of all participants, including scientists, in the entire connected value development process, which often takes years requiring long-term commitment and funding. This contrasts with current practices of short-term research projects with limited funding often focusing on disciplinary knowledge creation only.  Educating knowledge brokers, who may be seen as extension agents of the twenty-first century and presenting them with good job perspectives. As discussed above, this aspect has two dimensions for the science community. First, knowledge brokers are needed to facilitate connected value development among the KENGi partners. Second, within the group of scientists also, some researchers with T-shaped skills should be selected to interact with the other partners on behalf of the group. These knowledge brokers deserve a solid position next to their traditional colleagues in the scientific community being engaged with basic, strategic, and applied research as they are all part of a CSP (Bouma et al., 2008).  Expanding the way scientific research is judged. Publishing refereed papers in international journals is still relevant for basic, strategic, and even applied research, but broader criteria have to be applied to judge research in a transdisciplinary context as exemplified in this chapter. As stated, knowledge brokers perform an important function in this context and they should be judged and rewarded accordingly. Judging criteria have been proposed but have so far not been implemented (Spaapen et al., 2007). 4. The four case studies show that innovation rarely starts with cuttingedge K5 inventions in the value proposition phase that result in innovation and value capture. Progress in the innovation process depends on joint learning, obtaining business plans, and organizational arrangements based on mainly tacit K2 knowledge of various stakeholders, with occasional injections of focused K3 K5 research to solve particular problems where tacit knowledge is inadequate. This is shown in the four track records of the case studies. Achieving innovation requires, therefore, activation of the entire knowledge chain from K1 to K5. The green care case showed that innovative medical K5 research resulted from practical experiences earlier in the project. Thus, basic research is linked to practical problems and this potentially increases its applicability as compared with a purely curiosity-driven approach.

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

321

5. There are no simple recipes to successfully manage wicked problems associated with innovation and sustainable development. The track records of the four case studies are quite different. However, the case studies illustrate a successful approach following the connected value development approach. Detailed case studies, as reported in this chapter, may serve to point out potential problems and opportunities and may be used in teaching and education to impart “T-shaped skills.” Showing developments as a function of time as track records is important because aggregate characteristics of each project cannot adequately reflect knowledge transfer and questions as to what happened when and why. Along these lines, the case-study method is followed successfully in business schools.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The commitment and hard work of all participants in the case studies is gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES Andeweg, K., & van Latesteijn, H. C. (2010). Transforming agriculture: A new approach to stimulate sustainable development. In Van Latesteijn & Andeweg (Eds.), The Transforum model: Transforming agro innovation toward sustainable development. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer Verlag (Chapter 7). Bouma, J. (2010). Implications of the knowledge paradox for soil science. Advances in Agronomy, 106, 143 171. Bouma, J. (2011). Applying indicators, threshold values and proxies in environmental legislation: A case study for Dutch dairy farming. Journal of Environmental Science and Policy, 14, 231 238 (doi:10.1016/j.envsc 2010.12.00). Bouma, J., de Vos, J. A., Sonneveld, M. P. W., Heuvelink, G. B. M., & Stoorvogel, J. J. (2008). The role of scientists in multiscale land use analysis: Lessons learned from Dutch communities of practice. Advances in Agronomy, 97, 177 239. Bunders, J. F. G., Broerse, J. E. W., Keil, F., Pohl, C., Scholz, R. W., & Zweekhorst, M. B. M. (2010). How can transdisciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? In R. J. in ‘t Veld (Ed.), Knowledge democracy. Consequences for science, politics and media. Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York: Springer-Verlag. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, H. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE. Hassink, J., Elings, M., Zweekhorst, M., van den Nieuwenhuizen, N., & Smit, A. (2010). Care farms: Attractive empowerment-oriented and strengths-based practices in the community. Health and Place, 16, 423 430. Hassink, J., Zwartbol, C., Agricola, H. J., Elings, M., & Thissen, J. T. N. M. (2007). Current status and potential of care farms in the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Life Sciences, 55(1), 21 36. Hessels, L. K., & Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37, 740 760.

322

J. Bouma et al.

Hoes, A. C., Regeer, B. J., & Bunders, J. F. G. (2008). Transformers in knowledge production: Building science practice collaborations. Action Learning: Research and Practice, 5, 207 220. Huijsmans, J. F. M., Hol, J. M. G., & Hendriks, W. M. M. B. (2001). Effect of application technique, manure characteristics, weather and field conditions on ammonia volatilization from manure applied to grassland. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, 49, 323 342. Jacobs M. (2006). The production of mindscapes. A comprehensive theory of landscape experience. Thesis Mansholt Graduate School, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen. Jacobsen, E., Beers, P. J., & Fischer, R. H. (2010). Inventions for future sustainable development in agriculture. In H van Latesteijn, & K. Andeweg (Eds.), The Transforum model: Transforming agro innovation towards sustainable development. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer-Verlag. McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York, NY: North Point Press. Peterson, H. C. (2009). Transformational supply chains and the “wicked problems” of sustainability: Aligning knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship and leadership. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 9(2), 71 82. Peterson, H. C., & Mager, S. E. (2010). From motivating assumptions to a practical innovation model. In Van Latesteijn & Andeweg (Eds.), The Transforum model: Transforming agro innovation toward sustainable development. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer-Verlag (Chapter 6). Regeer, B.J. (2010). Making the invisible visible. Analysing the development of strategies and changes in knowledge production to deal with persistent problems in sustainable development. PhD Thesis, Free University of Amsterdam. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155 169. Schroder, J. J., & Neeteson, J. J. (2008). Nutrient management regulations in the Netherlands. Geoderma, 144, 418 425. Smeets, P. J. A. M. (2011). Expedition agroparks. Research by design into sustainable development and agriculture in the network society. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers. Sonneveld, M. P. W., Schroder, J. J., De Vos, J. A., Monteny, G. J., Musquera, J., Hol, J., et al. (2008). A whole-farm strategy to reduce environmental impacts of nitrogen. Journal of Environmental Quality, 37(3), 333 337. Spaapen, J., Dijstelbloem, H., & Wamelink, F. (2007). Evaluating research in context. A method for comprehensive assessment. The Hague, The Netherlands: Consultative Committee of Sector Councils for Research and Development (COS). Thomasson, M. A., Dalgaard, R., Heijungs, R., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2008). Attributional and consequential LCA of milk production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13, 339 349. Thomasson, M. A., Dolman, M. A., van Calker, K. J., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2009). Relating life cycle assessment indicators to gross value added for dutch dairy farms. Ecological Economics, 68, 2278 2284. Tress, B., Tress, G., De´camps, H., & d’Hauteserre, A. (2001). Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 57, 137 141. Tress, B., Tress, G., & Fry, G. (2004). Integrative studies on rural landscapes: Policy expectations and research practice. Landscape and Urban Planning. van Altvorst, A. C., Eweg, R., van Latesteijn, H., Mager, S., and Spaans, L., (2011). Sustainable agricultural enterprises. The metropolitan area as an engine for new entrepreneurial activities. Transforum, Zoetermeer, the Netherlands. 180p. (in press).

The Role of Knowledge When Studying Innovation

323

Van Latesteijn, H. C., & Andeweg, K. (2010). The need for a new agro innovation system. In Van Latesteijn & Andeweg (Eds.), The TransForum model: Transforming agro innovation toward sustainable development. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: SpringerVerlag (Chapter 1). Van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., Smits, R., & Woolthuis, R. K. (2010). Learning towards system innovation: Evaluating a systemic instrument. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(2), 318 334. Van Vliet, P. C. J., & de Goede, R. G. M. (2006). Effects of slurry application methods on soil faunal communities in permanent grassland. European Journal of Soil Biology, 42, 348 353. Wenger, E., Mc Dermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice—A guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.