Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Agricultural nature conservation in the Netherlands: Three lenses on

transition pathways
⁎
Joyce V. Zwartkruisa, Holger Bergb, , Andries F. Hofa,c, Marcel T.J. Koka
a
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Netherlands
b
Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt, Energie, Germany
c
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Netherlands

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper three approaches on transitions pathways are combined to study the role of agricultural nature
Sustainability transitions conservation in the Dutch land use domain for achieving internationally agreed climate and biodiversity targets.
Land use The three perspectives used are the Multilevel Perspective (MLP), Initiative Based Learning (IBL) and Integrated
Agricultural nature conservation Assessment Modelling (IAM). The analysis provides insights in how the combination of different research ap-
Triangulation
proaches can lead to more comprehensive policy advice on how agricultural nature conservation could help to
achieve internationally agreed sustainability goals related to climate change and biodiversity. IAM shows under
which conditions agricultural nature conservation could be consistent with European and global long-term goals
regarding food security, biodiversity and climate. MLP provides insight into the extent in which agricultural
nature conservation has affected or changed the existing nature and agricultural regimes. IBL, finally, reveals the
challenges of encouraging agricultural nature conservation with policy measures. Our analysis shows that a
combined perspective provides a deeper understanding of the underlying processes, reasons and motives of
agricultural nature conservation, leading to more comprehensive policy recommendations.

1. Introduction many ways (Berg, 2013; Manson, 2001; Mittleton-Kelly, 2003). As an

important share of land is used for production of food and feed (in
In order to achieve internationally agreed sustainability goals re- Europe 43.8% in 2014; World Bank, 2017), attention for combining
lated to biodiversity and climate change, tremendous changes away agricultural production with for example nature conservation to im-
from business as usual are required. Land use plays an important role in prove the ecological resilience of land use is increasing. Improved
such a transition pathway, as many environmental, social, and eco- knowledge is needed for the design of new agricultural systems that
nomic sustainability goals relate to land use and the affiliated ex- combine ecological resilience with efficient technologies. Research can
ternalities (Fischer-Kowalski and Rotmans, 2009). More concretely, contribute to this by providing insight into transition pathways and
habitat loss due to land use change is often considered to be a primary deriving implications on how these can be governed (cf. Gibbons, 2000;
driver for biodiversity decline (Pereira et al., 2012). Furthermore, land Schneidewind and Singer-Brodowski, 2014).
use is responsible for a large share of greenhouse gas emissions, with Given the complexity of the task, it is more than unlikely that one
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from forestry and other land use con- scientific school, method or discipline can capture and understand the
tributing about 10% to global emissions (IPCC, 2014). Changes in land whole antecedents, prerequisites, processes and outcomes that relate to
use are therefore crucial for achieving biodiversity and climate targets, transition pathways (Foran et al., 2014; Geels et al., 2016; Turnheim
such as agreed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and et al., 2015). Methods and procedures to interpret transition pathways
the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015), while at the same time the im- from different scientific angles need to be applied, the findings of which
portant role of land for food production has to be acknowledged. should be combined or compared in what could be understood as an
A vast number of actors and institutions on very different levels are effort of inter- and transdisciplinary triangulation (Campbell, 1975).
involved in the way society uses land, from individuals and farmers to Combining the findings made by different approaches may lead to a
companies or social groups to national or supranational systems. Hence, more encompassing and robust understanding of the processes, out-
transition pathways in the land use domain are complex processes in comes, and impacts of transition pathways. They may thus also produce

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Berg).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.006
Received 27 March 2017; Received in revised form 26 February 2018; Accepted 4 March 2018
0040-1625/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Zwartkruis, J.V., Technological Forecasting & Social Change (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.006
J.V. Zwartkruis et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

more appropriate and legitimate implications for practice and policy agricultural nature conservation measures can be distinguished, in-
(Dewulf et al., 2005). cluding species, border, and parcel management (Agriholland, 2015).
In this context, Geels et al. (2016) argue that low-carbon transitions The Netherlands was chosen for our study as it is a small country with
are best analysed through a combination of the following analytical high population density, so that every place has one or more particular
approaches: i) rational goal-oriented analysis with Integrated Assess- functions.
ment Modelling (IAMs), culminating in a vision or general plan, ii) Although the three approaches are developing and responding to
identification of feasible and legitimate pathways with socio-technical criticisms (see e.g. Geels, 2011), every approach has its own char-
analysis using a multi-level perspective (MLP), and iii) assessments of acteristics, methodologies and focus. Therefore it is helpful to keep
real-world initiatives and projects to explore transition pathways and them distinct, in order to develop a richer picture (Geels et al., 2016).
emerging options using initiative-based learning (IBL). Each of these This paper provides a first, exploratory attempt to combine the insights
approaches has its own view on transition pathways and there are from three different research approaches on transition pathways by
several reasons why these approaches complement each other. IAMs comparing, contrasting, and combining results derived from these ap-
usually take a goal-oriented approach by starting from a specified long- proaches, based on the framework developed by Turnheim et al. (2015)
term target (such as the 2 °C climate target) to analyse transitions, using and Geels et al. (2016).
backcasting to determine which kind of changes are needed to achieve The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 characterises the three
such a target. Due to their comprehensive representation of global approaches and lays out the procedures for the joint approach taken
systems, IAMs allow to evaluate the implications of different policy here. It points out what the approaches can contribute and what their
decisions on both the human and natural system, taking into con- specific advantages and limitations are in understanding a transition in
sideration interactions between these systems. However, due to their agricultural land use. Section 3 outlines the present transition process in
focus on aggregated universal processes, various institutional, political, the Dutch agricultural land use domain and offers relevant insights
social, entrepreneurial and cultural factors are usually under- gained from applying the three approaches individually. In Section 4
represented. Therefore, the scenario outcomes could be considered as the findings are combined to point out how a combined analysis leads
offering rather narrow technology-oriented perspectives on governance to more comprehensive policy advice than single-approach under-
aspects (Anderson and Peters, 2016; Peters, 2016; Stern, 2016; Victor, takings. Section 5 provides a discussion.
2015). MLP analysis can fill this gap, as such analysis explicitly studies
the role of governance and actors in transitions. In MLP, transitions are 2. Theory
defined as “alterations in the overall configuration of transport, energy
and agri-food systems, which entail technology, policy, markets, con- 2.1. Integrated Assessment Modelling
sumer practices, infrastructure, cultural meaning and scientific knowl-
edge” (Geels, 2011 p. 24). MLP analyses, however, have a limited goal- Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) have been developed to de-
oriented and forward-looking view as they usually focus on identifying scribe key processes in the interaction between human development
changes of systems and on what has happened in the past. However, and the natural environment on a global scale. They provide a dynamic
especially for analysing transitions related to achieving sustainability and long-term perspective of global environmental change by devel-
goals, goal-oriented analysis is important (Geels, 2011; Smith et al., oping scenarios. These scenarios are based on socio-economic and
2005). Here, IAMs complement MLP by their strong forward-looking policy storylines and some of them capture both direct and indirect
and goal-oriented focus. Both IAM and MLP analyses disregard the local land-use change.
level where transitions often begin: i.e. real-life development and the IAM methods and tools draw on functional relationships between
direct processes related to transitions, which is the focus of IBL. IBL is activities, such as provision of food, water and energy, and the asso-
the foremost action oriented approach. Contrary to most IAM and MLP ciated impact (Stehfest et al., 2014). These impacts include climate
research, IBL strongly adopts participatory approaches aiming to in- change, air pollution, water quality, water scarcity, depletion of non-
stilling change in the course of its research undertakings (as in Berg renewable resources (e.g. fossil fuels, phosphorus), overexploitation of
et al., 2015). renewable resources (e.g. fish stocks, forests), and effects on biodi-
Given the above differences in views of transition pathways and versity (for IAMs which include models to assess this). IAMs can be a
approaches to analyse them, we follow Turnheim et al. (2015) in our useful starting point for more detailed regional assessment, but they do
definition of transition pathways: patterns of changes in socio-technical not capture all impacts – changes in certain habitats, for instance, may
systems unfolding over time that lead to new ways of achieving specific so- be better identified by empirical studies (Meller et al., 2015).
cietal functions. This captures both the MLP and IAM perspective on IAMs are particularly useful to:
transition pathways: the MLP perspective focuses especially on the
changes in socio-technical systems, while the orientation of achieving • Assess the relative importance of different linkages within the so-
sustainability goals is captured by the new ways of achieving specific ciety-biosphere-climate system;
societal functions. Transition pathways here thus take an active con- • Analyse the strength of different interactions and feedbacks;
notation, concerning themselves in what way(s) change may be effected • Estimate the consequences of various policy measures.
rather than what changes may occur or may be observed.
In this paper we apply this set of approaches to study developments As an example, Fig. 1 shows the interactions in the IMAGE in-
in agricultural nature conservation in the Netherlands as a practice in tegrated assessment model framework (Stehfest et al., 2014). IMAGE
land use, with the aim to gain insights on whether and how it could consists of a set of interlinked models, including an energy, climate,
help to achieve internationally agreed sustainability goals related to agriculture and land use, and biodiversity model. In the IMAGE model
climate change and biodiversity. Here, agricultural nature conservation framework, global changes in agriculture and land use are affected by
is understood as a transition in agricultural land use from intensive crop drivers such as population and economic growth, policies, technologic
production towards a multifunctional land use in which food and feed change, lifestyle change, and change in resources. Agriculture and land
production is combined with other functions of the landscape, such as use interact with energy supply and demand, for instance via bio-en-
water storage and providing a diversity of plant and animal species. In ergy. Changes in land use affect the Earth system, such as vegetation,
the broadest sense, agricultural nature conservation refers to the mea- nutrient cycles, the water cycle, and the climate via changes in land use
sures farmers are taking on and surrounding their farms that help to emissions.
protect the landscape (managed and natural), with agricultural pro- An important limitation of IAMs is oversimplification of the tran-
duction remaining the most important function. Different forms of sition process, due to only a limited attention to actors and their

2
J.V. Zwartkruis et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 1. IMAGE framework (Stehfest et al., 2014).

behaviour in these models. Furthermore, the scale of the model is im- niches as higher order analytical entities. Regimes influence all related
portant. A global model is not suited for regional or local analysis. processes in their area of dominance, stabilizing a system's trajectory
However, global scenarios can quantify the impact on land use changes through mechanisms such as sunk investments, dominant customs,
at a regional level, inform the debate on how actions affect opportu- networks etc. The socio-technical landscape resembles the exogenous
nities and needs, and can help identifying potential conflicts between environment of a regime and is not susceptible to the influence of niche
different goals (Meller et al., 2015). The focus of IAMs is on economic and regime actors (for a more distinct conceptualization of all three
mechanisms, often ignoring societal considerations. Furthermore, there levels, see Geels and Schot, 2007). From a socio-technical transition
is only limited attention to policy implementation. On the other hand, perspective transitions can be pictured as in Fig. 2. In the context of
quite a number of explicit and implicit assumptions on factors like agricultural land use, agricultural nature conservation can be called a
learning and investments are applied. The research and data behind niche: it is a development that differs from mainstream agricultural
these assumptions guide the interaction of cause and effect in the production (agricultural regime) and nature conservation (nature re-
models. The realism of these assumptions is hence crucial to the validity gime) and demands different approaches to land use. So, this niche is
of the models. influencing both the agricultural and nature regimes. Both regimes
have their own institutions and actors involved that influence the de-
velopment of a niche.
2.2. Socio-technical analysis in a multi-level perspective According to Geels and Schot (2007) a transition pathway can be
characterised based on timing and the nature of the interaction between
“Socio-technical analysis, […] investigates interactions between niches, regimes and the landscape. The timing is about the state of the
technical and social dimensions (including economic, cultural and po- niche developments at the moment landscape pressure is increasing.
litical dimensions). It is sociological in the sense of focusing on the The nature of interaction is about the relationship between niche in-
various groups of social actors that interact in the reproduction and novations and the landscape developments: is there a reinforcing or
change of socio-technical systems” (Geels et al., 2015, p. 4). The ap- disruptive (pressure and competition) relationship with the regime?
proach relies on the Multilevel Perspective (MLP) in which the inter- Based on this categorisation they came up with four transition path-
dependent relations, dynamics and impact of three distinct levels are ways: transformation, de-alignment and re-alignment, technological
analysed: niche innovations, socio-technical regimes, and socio-tech- substitution and reconfiguration pathways.
nical landscape (Geels, 2002; Geels and Schot, 2007). Niches are con- An important strength of this approach lies in its deep attention to
ceptualized as the micro-level in which radical innovation originates; the specific contexts and nuances of (historic) real-world processes and
they are formed by local projects that eventually join to constitute

3
J.V. Zwartkruis et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 2. Multi-level perspective on transitions (Geels and Schot, 2007 p. 401).

in the consideration of a broad range of interdependent influences such regime or instigating a transition, seek to actively affect and promote a
as agency, institutional constellations and development, as well as transition (WBGU, 2011). Such approaches may include experimental
mechanisms such as path dependency and causation (Turnheim et al., settings like participatory action research (Ozanne and Saatcioglu,
2015). As most evolutionary oriented research approaches, this ap- 2008), LivingLabs (Liedtke et al., 2013) or real-world laboratories
proach is limited with regard to its predictive capabilities and is more (Wagner and Grunwald, 2015). IBL also has a distinct aptness of pro-
stylized and less tangible than e.g. initiative-based learning. Due to a ducing concrete actionable knowledge for this level of analysis (Argyris,
mainly descriptive and qualitative character, generalisation is limited. 1996; Castree et al., 2014). IBL thus provides insights into the processes
Recently, there has been an increasing attention for agency and actors within innovative projects. It is set where transitions begin, take-off or
in MLP literature (see e.g. Farla et al., 2012). However, for IBL these fail. These processes are generally not very transparent, as they are
themes are the main focus. actor driven and affected by phenomena like ambitions, in-group in-
teraction, network effects, needs for resource acquisition etc. (Berg
2.3. Initiative-based learning et al., 2015) They are hence of a less ordered or even messy character
(Kirchhoff et al., 2013).
IBL deals with the emergence, development and impact of real Strengths of this approach relate to its concreteness and orientation
world activities that seek to instigate, replicate or cope with efforts that on problem solving or uptake. Of the three approaches included in this
lead to regime transitions or emerge from them. It “focuses on real-life study, it is closest in respect to real life development and the direct
projects driven by a diverse set of actors that work as catalysts and processes involved in transitions. In return, it is less capable of deriving
nuclei for innovation towards transitions” (Berg et al., 2015, p. 5, lessons regarding the “bigger picture” and its findings may be difficult
Turnheim et al., 2015). As such, IBL concentrates on which lessons can to generalise, as they can be context-dependent (Turnheim et al., 2015).
be learned from ‘transitions in the making’. Especially in the case of land use it is hard to foresee what will happen
IBL can be related to local projects, using a diverse set of research in the future, as developments in land use take some time before effects
methods to observe, explain or even support initiatives. For example, on, for example, biodiversity are visible.
these activities can be analysed in traditional case studies with the re-
searcher as an observer, acting according to classic case study aims and 2.4. Combining the approaches
methodology (as laid out by e.g. Eisenhardt (1989) or Yin (2014)).
More pro-active approaches, in the sense of actively intervening into a Table 1 summarizes the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of

4
J.V. Zwartkruis et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Comparison of MLP, IAM and IBL foci, characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. Adapted and expanded from Geels et al. (2016) and Turnheim et al. (2015).

IAM MLP IBL

Main focus Technological potential to achieve goals Provides insight into the factors that Behaviour and motivation of actors as starting point
Benefits and costs determine (the success of) a transition Enabling conditions
Support formulation of (international) strategy Adoption of new technologies
documents
Dynamics Long term dynamics (30+ years) Long term dynamics (30–90 years) Present and recent history (5–15 years)
Future oriented Historically oriented Orientation on current situation
Methodology Quantitative modelling approach linking policy Review of literature incl. policy documents Qualitative approaches
goals to required physical changes Interviews Real-world experiments
Strengths Robust and highly formalized research methods Attention to multiple actors and behaviour Closeness to real-world complexity
Consistent analysis of complex systems types Engages in real-world initiatives as experimenters
Attention to system and problem interactions Analysis of institutions and changing ‘rules Relevance to stakeholders
Simple and coherent policy advice of the game’ Attention to concrete implementation
Attention to inertia of existing systems. Policy advice is rooted in practice
Policy advice sheds light on uncertainties
Weaknesses Oversimplification Mainly descriptive: limitation in Limited methodological standardization
Little attention to actors and behaviour generalisation Often context-specific and short-term orientated
Over-reliance on economic mechanisms Limited forward orientation to targets Limited attention to wider context
Limited attention to policy implementation Policy advice often on general strategies Difficult to generalise
rather than instrumentality
Inputs Socio-economic data on population, GDP, Meta-studies, literature, expert opinions Interaction with local initiatives e.g. through
policies, lifestyles participative action research, LivingLabs, ethnography,
Technology assumptions on costs and potentials etc.
Resource availability
Outputs Information on various pathways to achieve long- Information on barriers and opportunities Information on perspectives of individual actors and
term goals in the past enabling conditions
Mutual enrichment IAM → MLP: provides sectoral targets and context MLP → IAM: information on impact of IBL → MLP: provides detailed information on
IAM → IBL: provides context for case studies actors/feasible actions implementation
MLP → IBL: context for case studies IBL → IAM: provides detailed information on
implementation and innovation processes in reality

the three approaches. Although they are all interested in change, the agriculture was assumed to be interwoven with natural corridors and
table shows how distinct the approaches are from each other in terms of national policies that regulate equitable access to food potentially
focus, perspective on time, and methodology. This underlines the ar- leading to land sharing (Tittonell, 2014; van Noordwijk and Brussaard,
gument that in combination with the other two, the findings created by 2014). The Decentralised Solutions pathway has strong similarities with
a single approach can be utilized to strengthen the understanding of our case study in which agricultural production and nature conserva-
and action for more sustainable land use as a whole. tion are combined. In a separate study, Kok and Alkemade (2014)
Fig. 3 describes the information flow between the three approaches. specifically addressed the contribution of the agricultural sector to the
IAM provides the context for both socio-technical analysis and in- realization of biodiversity targets for the same pathways. Contrasting
itiative-based learning. With their different foci MLP is then employed these two pathways provides insight in the conditions under which a
to understand the qualitative assessment as to which barriers uphold scenario in which agricultural nature conservation is targeted can
the current regime, and which cracks exist therein to create a foothold achieve multiple long-term sustainability targets compared to a sce-
for change. IBL, on the other hand, is used to identify the struggles and nario in which it is not.
opportunities real world action is faced with. It thereby generates in- The Global Technology pathway reflects dynamics that lead to se-
sights in implementation issues regarding agricultural nature con- paration of agriculture and nature and can result in land sparing, re-
servation as a practice for improved land use. The combination of all ducing pressures on existing nature, and making space for rewilding.
three approaches is then employed to derive implications for policy that The Decentralised Solutions pathway reflects land-sharing dynamics
can foster more sustainable land use through agricultural nature con- leading to better use of ecosystem services and more natural agri-
servation. culture, but also a larger land requirement. Such landscapes can im-
prove local ecosystems and connectivity between natural areas, but
3. Findings from the research approaches production improvements are easier to achieve in mono-functional
agriculture by using cutting edge technological refinements, agronomic
3.1. Findings from the IAM perspective optimisation of the farm environment, and new animal breeds and crop
varieties that perform best under these optimised conditions. However,
One of the major questions related to agricultural nature con- this may lead to more local biodiversity loss compared to multi-
servation addressed by IAMs is whether and how multifunctional land functional land use. In multifunctional landscapes, higher yields may be
use, and especially agricultural nature conservation, could fit in a achieved by combining the services provided by natural processes with
pathway that achieves biodiversity and other sustainability targets si- technological advanced measures.
multaneously. In an IAM approach Van Vuuren and Kok (2012) and The IAM analysis shows not only the impact of multifunctional land
Van Vuuren et al. (2015) have analysed alternative global pathways to use on greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss, but can also help
achieve multiple sustainability goals by 2050. Long-term relationships to show which type of practices are in line with long-term climate and
between two clusters of sustainable development issues were analysed: biodiversity targets and food security – and on the regional potentials of
food, land, and biodiversity on the one hand, and energy, air pollution, the scenarios. IAM shows that agricultural nature conservation can fit
and climate change on the other hand. In one of these pathways (coined into different scenarios in which both biodiversity and climate targets
Global Technology), there was a strong technology-focus with intensive are achieved, without endangering food security. However, as multi-
agriculture, potentially leading to land sparing (Phalan et al., 2011; functional land use is likely to lead to lower productivity improve-
Tilman et al., 2011). In another pathway (Decentralised Solutions), ments, additional measures are needed to both maintain farmer's

5
J.V. Zwartkruis et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Quantave systems modelling

Specificaon of pathways to meet SDGs (climate, biodiversity, hunger etc)

Sectoral targets, relevance of

current regimes/systems for Context to cases, role of niche
transions, need for socio-technical innovaons to achieve goals
change to achieve goals

Iniave-based learning
Socio-technical analysis
Real-world experimentaon, struggles and
Niche momentum, regime dynamics, niche-
negoaons, pre-figuraons of possible
regime interacons
futures

Assessment of implementaon issues:

role of actors, instuons, behaviour

Policy advice

Fig. 3. Schematic representation of steps in a combined analysis of future-oriented transition pathways.

(Adapted from Turnheim et al., 2015.)

The analyses by Kok and Alkemade (2014) showed that substantial

efforts will be needed to fulfil the conditions on which these pathways
are based. For the Global Technology pathway, one of these conditions is
that in the developed regions of the world, the annual yield increase
needs to be the same as the average over the past 20 years (1.3%). It
will be challenging to achieve this, as agricultural productivity is al-
ready high in developed regions. This challenge can be illustrated by
comparing the required yield increase in developed countries to the
FAO projection of an annual 0.7% increase for the 2006–2050 period
for the world as a whole (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012). In the
Decentralised Solutions pathway, productivity increase will come from
ecological solutions. In the currently intensively-managed landscapes of
the United States and Europe, remnants of biodiversity are relatively
scarce, putting ecological solutions at risk. This pathway therefore re-
quires a profound change in these intensive farming systems, so that
time and investments will be needed to improve degraded ecosystem
Fig. 4. Options for reducing biodiversity loss in alternative scenario's (Van Vuuren and
services.
Kok, 2012). The indicator used for biodiversity in this figure is mean species abundance
(MSA), which uses the species composition and abundance of the original ecosystem as a
reference situation. If the indicator is 100%, biodiversity is assumed to be similar to the 3.2. Methods and findings from the MLP perspective
undisturbed state, implying that the abundance of all species equals the natural state. If
the indicator is 50%, the average abundance of the original species deviates by 50% from Although agricultural nature conservation as such is not a recent
the undisturbed state. phenomenon, from an MLP perspective it can be regarded as an in-
novative niche as it is not business as usual nor a mere improvement of
income and to achieve biodiversity targets (Fig. 4). In uncultivated the current regime, but a type of land use in which agricultural pro-
areas, these additional measures could consist of limiting infra- duction and nature conservation are combined. The question that can
structural expansion and expanding protected areas. The study also be asked from this approach is to what extent the niche is able to
shows that mono-functional and multi-functional agriculture land use change the existing agricultural and nature regime. By delving into
both have significant scope for increased and more sustainable pro- reports and literature on agricultural nature conservation and its his-
duction, but both require improved land-use planning and will result in tory, techno-economic, socio-cognitive and governance issues can be
different types of biodiversity. found that influenced the development of the niche and the regimes.
Other input came from focus groups with experts on the topic.

6
J.V. Zwartkruis et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Agricultural nature conservation was for a long time what we can

call a stabilized niche: a part of nature conservation was arranged in
combination with agricultural production, but it did not increase in
momentum or changed the existing agricultural or nature regime.
However, recently, discussions arose on the role of farmers in rural
areas, as the farms and kind of agricultural activity determines to a
large extent how the rural areas look like. For instance, there are dis-
cussions on license to produce for farmers. Helping maintaining the
rural areas and taking measures to help nature conservation is one way
to create a license to produce. In 2013, around 11% (about 12,500) of
all farms had contracts regarding nature or landscape management –
which is a strong decrease from 27% in 2003 (Agriholland, 2015).
However, in terms of total area, agricultural nature conservation has Fig. 5. Income of farmers and reward for nature conservation (Arnouts et al., 2013).

been relatively stable since 2000 (CBS et al., 2014). The subsidies that
arable farmers get for nature and landscape is relatively small, but in this regime are visible which might lead to changes. These stem from
stable, compared to the profit they receive from their farm (Fig. 5) more stringent regulations to counter environmental and public health
(Arnouts et al., 2013). For 81% of the farms that have agricultural problems, stronger societal awareness, and non-governmental organi-
nature conservation as the only secondary activity, this activity pro- sations and the public opinion gaining more influence on the sector
vided less than 10% of their total income in 2010 (and in almost all (Elzen et al., 2011). The license for farmers to produce is no longer
previous years) (Meurink, 2010). It is expected that without subsidies, taken for granted. Rising attention among consumers for healthy, au-
only a quarter of the farmers would keep on managing the nature and thentic, sustainable, animal friendly, and locally produced products
landscape on their farms, and that will only be the ‘light measures’ asks for different production methods (De Bakker et al., 2013; LEI
(PBL, 2013a). The main motivations for farmers to become involved in Wageningen UR, 2014). For some – but not all – farmers, a solution to
agricultural nature conservation are therefore increase of income deal with decreasing incomes is to combine production with other ac-
(Arnouts et al., 2013), with idealistic reasons being a secondary moti- tivities in order to generate sufficient income, for example care, tourism
vation (Leneman and Graveland, 2004). or selling their own produce.
Besides farmers, around 75,000 volunteers (mainly citizens, often The nature regime is less locked-in compared to the agricultural re-
not living in the rural areas) were involved to help maintaining the gime, as there are less incumbent and powerful players dominating the
existing nature and agricultural areas in 2015, by developing new areas ‘market’. The cracks and tensions in the nature regime are strong
suitable for agricultural nature conservation and developing recreation mainly due to decentralisation of budgets from the (inter)national level
areas. These developments are not only influencing the farmers but also to regional governments (provinces) (Schuerhoff and Ruijs, 2016):
the people living in rural areas. policy on nature shifted from connecting nature areas organised on the
Research regarding the effectiveness of agricultural nature con- (inter)national level to a partly decentralisation of responsibility to
servation as a niche, showed that its success is determined by 1) the local and regional governments and deregulation of landscape policies
degree to which measures lead to improvement of habitats of the target (Buijs et al., 2014), although the state remains responsible for the EU
species; 2) the intensity of agriculture in the area in which measures are Natura 2000-goals. This change of responsibility aims to realize mea-
taken and 3) the structure and diversity of the area (Kleijn et al., 2011). sures which better correspond to characteristics of the specific region.
As the ecological effectivity of agriculture nature conservation has been At the same time, the link between economy and biodiversity is being
limited so far, the system was changed in 2016 and budgets were de- put to the fore in order to find ways to improve both simultaneously
centralised: farmers can now only apply collectively for agriculture (win-win solutions). The importance and positive impact of nature on
nature conservation in designated areas with large ecological oppor- society has also gained attention, with The Nature Alliance1 introducing
tunities. A first ex ante evaluation showed that in practice, not all of the the term ‘natural capital’. Related to these developments, nature is in-
designated areas have large ecological opportunities, which may limit creasingly combined with agriculture or water supply and financial
the environmental impact of the new system (Melman et al., 2015; PBL, resources from different sources are employed. This, together with
2016). In fact, the regulations for nature agricultural subsidies in The budgets available for nature being under pressure (Kleijn, 2012), could
Netherlands have been changed several times since 1975 - but with spur niche-innovations on new ways to reward or finance agricultural
little success for nature conservation goals (Melman et al., 2007). nature conservation and more extensive agriculture.
Farmers were participating on a voluntary basis and could choose the At the landscape level characteristics were identified that have a
kind of conservation measures they would like to apply. This resulted in stabilizing effect on the land use domain and might both hinder or
many farmers choosing measures that were easy to implement but had encourage the development of agricultural nature conservation. The
low or zero ecological impact (Runhaar, 2016). Agricultural nature landscape level of the agricultural sector is strongly determined by The
conservation may therefore not necessarily be the best solution to halt Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU (European Commission,
biodiversity loss in agricultural areas, but is an interesting niche to 2014, 2015). The present CAP consists of two pillars: pillar 1 entailing a
study for the future as it combines managerial and policy measures with Common Market Organisation and pillar 2 the Rural Development
technological measures in the field. regulation of Agenda 2000. Pillar 1 lays out the rules for providing
MLP-related research revealed that the dominant agricultural regime market price support measures as well as direct payments. Pillar 2
is characterised by agricultural intensification: a decreasing number of consists of a list of measures from which member states can choose.
farms, and simultaneously an increase in the size of the farms in hec- Funding in this pillar requires co-funding at national or regional level
tares or number of animals. Mechanization and the use of inputs such as (OECD, 2015). The CAP used to be a stabilizing factor, as it determines
water and minerals contributed to this trend. The agricultural regime is how the payments are organised. Adaptations of the CAP are discussed
very locked in due to i) sunk investments mainly in machinery and
buildings by farmers; ii) hard-to-change culture and habits of farmers
who are focused on maximizing yields; and iii) the uneven distribution 1
The Nature Alliance (Natuurpact, established 2013) is an arrangement between the
of power in the value chain, with many farmers but only very few national government and the provincial governments, in which agreements are made on
purchasing companies (PBL, 2013b), leading to very few degrees of developing the existing state targets for new nature (80,000 ha), improving the biodi-
freedom on the side of the farmers. However, some cracks and tensions versity and reaching international Natura 2000 nature goals.

7
J.V. Zwartkruis et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

on the European level, and can hardly be influenced in the region. borders of the agricultural and the nature regime, so the initiators have
However, the CAP is currently changing as recently discussions have to deal with differences in regulations and actors between the different
started on its design after 2020. This is an opportunity to organise regimes and have difficulties in acquiring resources. Farmers would be
change. Other possibly destabilizing factors are the increasing urgency less willing to participate in agricultural nature conservation if it would
to deal with climate change, the changing demand of consumers (such lead to less productivity, but since 1975 they are compensated for re-
as increased global meat consumption and population growth), and ductions in production resulting from nature conservation. Activities
crises (such as floods, animal diseases and the financial crisis). related to agricultural nature conservation are therefore dependent on
In the typology of Geels and Schot (2007) this transition can be subsidies and regulations.
identified as a Transformation pathway. In this type of pathway, the Initially, the main goal of WLD was to protect meadow birds. Due to
regime actors modify the direction of developments (towards agri- changes in the CAP and in national policy the goals of WLD became
cultural nature conservation) as a result of moderate landscape pressure broader. One of the most important changes consists of a more pro-
(changes in the CAP). Niche innovations have not yet been sufficiently minent role for collectives: in the past, individual farmers could apply
developed and are under development to deal with the changes in for payments for nature and landscape maintenance at the provincial
policy. level, whereas from 2016 onwards only collectives can apply for these
payments. Farmers and agricultural land users sign contracts with these
collectives (Zwartkruis and Westhoek, 2015). Two other major recent
3.3. Findings from the IBL perspective
changes in the CAP relevant for WLD were (Water Land & Dijken,
2014):
The case studied here was the Initiative Water Land and Dikes
(WLD), managed by farmers. It is studied with the IBL perspective
Greening: A share of the direct payments for farmers that nowadays
(Zwartkruis and Westhoek, 2015): via interviews and document ana-
compensate for the low world market prices will be based on green
lysis the timeline of the case was reconstructed and insight was gath-
services.
ered on how the ‘transition’ process of WLD from an Agricultural Nature
The range of services is broadened with other themes, such as water,
Association (ANA) towards a collective responsible for developing new
soil and climate.
services occurred (Zwartkruis and Westhoek, 2015). The focal question
that was asked from this perspective is: What factors enable or disable
Based on this background and due to these changes, WLD developed
the transition for initiatives on the ground that resemble ‘transitions in
into a project organisation with a lot of knowledge on agricultural
the making’? There are numerous ANAs at local or regional level in The
nature conservation. They have established a great knowledge base and
Netherlands, most of them established in the 1990s. These nature as-
as a result, they are viewed by the (national) government as a serious
sociations consist of people collaborating in the coordination and im-
partner. WLD proposed to start a pilot to practice with the role of
plementation of policies on agricultural nature conservation introduced
collectives in CAP, financed by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. After a
by the government. The overall goal of an ANAs is improving the
selection procedure, WLD could develop their pilot from 2011 until
quality of nature and agriculture in their working area. The associations
2014. In this course, WLD became regarded as a ‘think tank’ for the
are mainly present in the northern and western part of the Netherlands
government.
as a lot of meadow birds live there (for other studies on the role of
As mentioned above, one of the future tasks of WLD will be the
ANA's in grassroots developments, see Franks, 2010, Hermans et al.,
distribution of subsidies to the farmers in the area. The motivation for
2016).
organising agricultural nature conservation in this way is to decrease
WLD has started as a result of the fusion of two organisations in
administration and implementation costs for the government (from
2007 that existed already since the early 1990s in the area Lower
formerly 50% to 12–18%) (Terwan and Rozendaal, 2014) as it is no
Holland, an area in the north-western part of the Netherlands. WLD was
longer the individual farmer but the collective that needs to apply for
able to make a quick start in its activities since they received substantial
subsidies. Furthermore, it is expected that organising agricultural
subsidies. This was mainly due to the ‘natural handicaps’ of the area,
nature conservation in local networks improves its quality because
such as excessive water and many peat areas. Intensive agricultural
formerly a part of subsidies was given to parcels without nature values
production is hardly possible in this area, because not every piece of
(Zwartkruis and Westhoek, 2015). Fig. 6 shows some of the most im-
land can be reached by machines (or cows). This leads to lower income
portant events in the history of WLD.
for farmers. There are, however, good conditions to combine nature and
The study of this local initiative revealed a strong governance in-
agriculture, and protect species that belong to such an agricultural
fluence. The government facilitated transitions by creating a space to
landscape (Terwan, 2013).
innovate (by developing a pilot) and by providing subsidies, thereby
Agricultural nature conservation is per definition occurring at the

Fig. 6. Timeline of most important events in the history of WLD.

8
J.V. Zwartkruis et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

creating a protected space for this innovation. However, ever-changing agricultural nature conservation given its lower potential for creating
regulations led to uncertainties regarding the availability of subsidies in value. Agricultural nature conservation can then be seen as a stabilized
the future, making it difficult for farmers to take investment decisions. niche: a movement that will not change the entire agricultural regime,
Hence, as long as high direct payments (based on production or area) but will remain small within this regime. In the framework of Geels and
exist, the incentive for agricultural nature conservation is limited. It Schot (2007) this transition can be defined as reconfiguration. The main
will only be attractive for farmers to put effort in agricultural nature actors are still the regime actors, but their role in the system is altered.
conservation if their production levels are insufficient. The focus will Parts of the current practices are changing and new roles are developed:
then be on production or landscape and biodiversity developments, The role of the national government, for instance, is becoming less
while our study of interest is on the combination of the two. Therefore, prominent. The main push for this niche to become mainstream seems
it could be argued that currently subsidies could limit innovation as to arise from the developments around the CAP and the decreasing
they only stimulate a development in the direction of higher yields. subsidies in the nature regime that create cracks in the current agri-
Furthermore, people will not be willing to invest in innovative ideas or cultural and nature regimes, from which agricultural nature conserva-
new management tools if the future level of subsidies is unclear, as they tion could benefit. The limited impact of agricultural nature conserva-
run the risk of unprofitable investments. tion on the ecological quality is an important reason why the
The interviews in the case study showed that the local character of momentum still remains small, although there might be types of com-
the organisation motivates people to join. An important reason for this binations of nature and agriculture for which both the license to pro-
is that farmers are approached by people from the organisation that duce for farmers and the increasing urgency to halt the loss of biodi-
know the area very well and know how to discuss measures or ideas. As versity are taken into account. However, the IBL case on WLD shows it
such, locally organised initiatives can form a bridge between practice is not easy to combine measures for both the agricultural and nature
and policy. Some measures are more easily to take at a local level than regime. Furthermore, the case shows the power of a good relation with
at the national level, as the area specific characteristics as potential other organisations and of a wide knowledge base in making a quick
nature values of a parcel can be taken into account. start that could lead to successful niche innovation. Fig. 7 provides an
The developments around WLD illustrate the difficulties to en- overview of the analyses' results and their implication in terms of policy
courage agricultural nature conservation with policy measures. As advice. The relationships and information flows indicated here are used
agricultural nature conservation needs to deal with two regimes (nature to discuss our findings made on the interplay between the three ap-
and agriculture), both with their own characteristics and institutions, it proaches in the following sections.
was sometimes hard to find measures that fit in both regimes. Different
subsidy schemes existed for nature and agriculture. Combining them 4.1. The relation between IAM and MLP
could simplify subsidy applications, but this is challenging as the goals
and measures of the subsidy schemes sometimes conflict. For example, IAM analysis shows that a regime shift towards multi-functional and
in order to improve biodiversity along the ditches, it is necessary to mosaic landscapes could be consistent with long-term global and
keep a certain amount of plants, while from the perspective of the water European sustainability targets regarding climate, food security, and
boards it will be better to mow all plants. Another difficulty is that due biodiversity. It frames the findings of the Dutch regime into a for-
to the multifunctional character of the land, different payments have to malized context offering foci and levers for future analysis and it pro-
be asked for at different institutions, demanding different information vides the relevance of analysing multifunctional land use by showing
and implying a high level of bureaucracy. that it could fit in a broader transition in which multiple sustainability
Both the MLP and IBL analysis suggest that agricultural nature targets are achieved. The MLP analysis suggests that developments in
conservation strongly depends on subsidies, which implies that mo- the agriculture and nature conservation regimes fit mostly in a global
mentum may be vulnerable to changes in policy. However, the number technology/intensification pathway. Therefore, one reason why devel-
of collectives is growing, as farmers can only receive subsidies via such opments in agricultural nature conservation are not easy to implement
collectives. could be that they go against the dominant agricultural land use regime
in the Netherlands.
4. Combining the findings The MLP analysis shows how agricultural nature conservation is a
niche developed at the borders of both the agricultural and nature re-
In this paper, we argue that a combination of scientific approaches gime. As both regimes have their own institutions and regulations, it is
that analyse transition pathways can improve our understanding of hard to realize innovations that have an impact in both regimes. MLP
such pathways. IAM defines potential measures to achieve (global) analysis shows how difficult it is to create such a development as
sustainability goals on biodiversity and climate while ensuring food characteristics of both regimes need to be taken into account.
supply, and MLP and IBL provide insights into what extent these Furthermore, the effects on the ecology of agricultural nature con-
measures are realistic based on current developments in the agricultural servation are only marginal, while there is a lot of financial support
and nature regime and on practices at the local level (Fig. 7). More involved in agricultural nature conservation. Only when there is a fair
specifically, IAM analysis provides insights under which conditions and more fact based choice between the financing of broad and shallow
multifunctional land use, and especially agricultural nature conserva- or deep and thorough nature agriculture both the halt of biodiversity
tion, could fit in a pathway that achieves biodiversity and other sus- loss and the economic needs can be addressed at the same time.
tainability targets simultaneously. MLP analysis delves deeper in how
agricultural nature conservation, as a particular form of multifunctional 4.2. The relation between MLP and IBL
land use, has been developing over time and whether it contributed to
changing existing nature and agricultural regimes. Finally, IBL provides By combining the MLP and IBL approach, we see how changes in the
insights into how agricultural nature conservation is organised in regime (especially the rules and regulations) influence the local in-
practice. It shows the pitfalls and obstacles in encouraging nature itiative and the niche. The pilot of WLD is the result of changes in the
conservation with policy measures, thereby revealing implications for landscape (namely the changes in the CAP), but is influencing the re-
future measures. gime as well, as it sheds a light on how to deal with agricultural nature
The MLP analysis showed that agricultural nature conservation as a conservation in practice, e.g. by highlighting the difficulties in ad-
niche is already under development since the 1970s. Nowadays it seems dressing the two regimes at once. As a prefiguration for a future shape
that it is becoming part of the existing regimes, but its potential for of the regime this could indicate that a strong connection between the
growth is limited therein, as not all agricultural land will be used for regime and niche or local initiative can help to make room for an

9
J.V. Zwartkruis et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 7. Combining insights from IAM, MLP, and IBL – an example of agricultural nature conservation in the Netherlands.

innovation. If the regime actors are aware of their relations with the 5. Discussion
niche and local actors and the other way around, feedback between
local initiatives and regime developments could be arranged to mu- Although the three approaches used in this study have different time
tually improve the regime and the niche. Moreover, the distinct case in spans and focus on different developments, further linkages between
IBL showed how different regimes can affect each other directly the approaches can be made.
through cross-regime knock-on effects – a finding that would likely As the IBL analysis mainly addresses the stubborn reality of the
have gone unnoticed in single regime analysis. social practices and the interactive patterns of stakeholders, IBL cases
can be an addition to MLP analyses by providing directions for future
developments within a regime or for new configurations within or after
4.3. The relation between IAM and IBL a transition. Practices, products and institutions developed and ob-
served within the initiative may e.g. work as role models. IBL can
In the current case, IAM results can help to show how measures can provide IAM with narratives for future development as pre-figurations:
or cannot contribute to achieving multiple sustainability targets on a What will happen if a specific innovation scales up? In this case the
larger scale, which may increase the policy attention given to the im- initiative would be used to calibrate the parameters of a model, for
plementation of agricultural nature conservation. It is important to note example by showing how policy measures or new practices work out in
that agricultural nature conservation is one way of multifunctional land practice. Moreover, observations from initiatives may be used to show
use, and probably even more important, multifunctional land use might the struggles related to implementation of measures taken in IAM sce-
not be the best solution to deal with halting biodiversity loss. However, narios. In this way, IBL can also help to judge the feasibility of future
IBL can be used to critically evaluate the storyline, underlying as- IAM projections or as experiments whose outcomes can be fit into the
sumptions, and model parameters used in IAM regarding the transition models for testing their scope. However, local practices can differ a lot,
towards multifunctional land use by validating these based on the complicating connecting IBL with IAM outcomes.
analysis of real life cases. Insights from both MLP and IBL can help to MLP captures reality in a framework with multiple levels and
strengthen the assumptions made in models. multiple actors and systems. MLP could therefore draw implications on
While IAM analysis show that multifunctional land use could be part actual chances for change, timelines required and mechanisms in place
of a strategy to achieve multiple sustainability goals, the MLP and IBL (e.g. non-linear feedback in a locked-in environment). MLP can there-
analyses reveal the struggles in practice when trying to deal with both fore validate the assumptions of IAMs, and sets the cases in IBL into a
regimes, and show that a multifunctional solution is often hard to more encompassing timeline so that their role and significance in re-
realize. The IBL case is zooming in on one niche. It is too early to see the lation to past and present occurrences e.g. with regard to regimes and
effect on the ecology of the measures taken in that very case. transitions becomes clearer. In land use, changes are bounded by spatial

10
J.V. Zwartkruis et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

and ecological characteristics as well, and not only by technological project.eu/sites/default/files/D3_3_ComprehensionCaseStudies_May282015_web.

feasibility. Therefore, it makes sense to not talk only about socio- pdf.
Buijs, A., Mattijssen, T., Arts, B., 2014. “The man, the administration and the counter-
technical systems, but also about socio-ecological systems, which are discourse”: an analysis of the sudden turn in Dutch nature conservation policy. Land
“complex and integrated systems in which mixed components of eco- Use Policy 38, 676–684.
nomic, social and environmental capitals interact across spatial scales Campbell, D.T., 1975. “Degrees of freedom” and the case study. Comp. Pol. Stud. 8,
178–193.
(but within a geographically-bounded space) over a defined period of Castree, N., Adams, W.M., Barry, J., Brockington, D., Büscher, B., Corbera, E., Demeritt,
time” (Ferrara et al., 2016). D., Duffr, R., Flet, U., Neve, K., Newell, P., Pellizoni, L., Rigby, K., Robbins, P., Robin,
IAM can provide supporting narrative storylines, context, and set L., Rose, D.R., Ross, A., Schlosberg, D., Sörlin, S., West, P., Whitehead, M., Wynne, B.,
2014. Changing the intellectual climate. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 763–768.
goals to MLP, i.e. set an on-going or past transition into reference of CBS, PBL, W. UR, 2014. Realisatie nieuwe EHS-agrarisch natuurbeheer, 1999–2012 (in-
broader approaches, future trends or projected development. Similarly, dicator 1317, versie 10, 9 juli 2014). CBS, Den Haag; Planbureau voor de
IAM can, just like MLP but in a different way, provide context and focus Leefomgeving, Den Haag/Bilthoven en Wageningen UR, Wageningenwww.
compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl.
to IBL cases and initiatives. IAM can also be used to assess whether
De Bakker, E., Dagevos, H., Van Mil, E., Van der Wielen, P., Terluin, I., Van den Ham, A.,
innovative ideas may be seen as parts of a solution, or whether they 2013. Vigourous Searches for More Sustainability in the Agricultural and Food
could be detrimental for certain sustainability targets on a larger scale. Sector: Paradigms and Practices. Statutory Research Tasks Unit for Nature and
Moreover, IAM forecasts, e.g. on climate change, may work as moti- Environment (WOt Natuur & Milieu), Wageningen.
Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Bouwen, R., Taillieu, T., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2005. Integrated man-
vators or set agendas to start initiatives or keep them going, as such agement of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and
projections tend to receive ample attention from policy makers and civil diverging frames. Water Sci. Technol. 52, 115–124.
actors. They are therefore an appealing tool for assessing the impacts of Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev.
14, 532–550.
land use change on biodiversity globally. However, on smaller geo- Elzen, B., Geels, F.W., Leeuwis, C., Van Mierlo, B., 2011. Normative contestation in
graphical scales the use of IAMs is more limited, as the resolution at transitions ‘in the making’: animal welfare concerns and system innovation in pig
which these models work is much broader than most biodiversity husbandry. Res. Policy 40, 263–275.
European Commission, 2014. The EU Birds and Habitats Directives, Luxembourg.
ranges and IAMS are not sensitive to local drivers of biodiversity loss European Commission, 2015. Introduction to the new EU Water Framework Directive.
(Meller et al., 2015). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm.
Our analysis thus provided first insights into how the combination Farla, J., Markard, J., Raven, R., Coenen, L., 2012. Sustainability transitions in the
making: a closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
of different research approaches may improve the understanding of Chang. 79, 991–998.
certain empirical observations related to transition pathways – in our Ferrara, A., Kelly, C., Wilson, G.A., Nolè, A., Mancino, G., Bajocco, S., Salvati, L., 2016.
case the role of agricultural nature conservation in a transition of the Shaping the role of ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ drivers of change in forest-shrubland socio-eco-
logical systems. J. Environ. Manag. 169, 155–166.
Dutch land use domain. An assessment of the ecological quality of this
Fischer-Kowalski, M., Rotmans, J., 2009. Conceptualizing, observing, and influencing
measure is not part of such an analysis; instead, the focus is on gov- social-ecological transitions. Ecol. Soc. 14, 3.
ernance measures. It is hard to generalise findings from one case study Foran, T., Butler, J.R.A., Williams, L.J., Wanjura, W.J., Hall, A., Carter, L., Carberry, P.S.,
to a modelling exercise, but MLP and IBL can help to criticize the as- 2014. Taking complexity in food systems seriously: an interdisciplinary analysis.
World Dev. 61, 85–101.
sumptions and storylines made in models. In the end, many measures Franks, J., 2010. Boundary organizations for sustainable land management: the example
ask for changes at the local level, and as our analyses show, studying of Dutch Environmental Co-operatives. Ecol. Econ. 70, 283–295.
real life interactions and social relations provide insight into these Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31, 1257–1274.
mechanisms. Although in the MLP literature, the attention for actors Geels, F.W., 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to
and agency is increasing (see for example Farla et al., 2012), the focus seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 1, 24–40.
of IBL is on studying their effect and even on starting or enforcing them Geels, F.W., Schot, J.W., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res.
Policy 36, 399–417.
in real life, while focusing on a local or specific situation. IBL brings in Geels, F.W., McMeekin, A., Mylan, J., Southerton, D., 2015. A critical appraisal of sus-
the practical struggles actors face in a local context, while the MLP tainable consumption and production research: the reformist, revolutionary and re-
perspective focuses on actors at a more general level (MLP focuses for configuration positions. Glob. Environ. Chang. 34, 1–12.
Geels, F.W., Berkhout, F., Van Vuuren, D.P., 2016. Bridging analytical approaches for
example on the consumers instead of the people living in city X). So IBL
low-carbon transitions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 576–583.
brings in the local and practical component. Bridging different ap- Gibbons, M., 2000. Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science. Sci.
proaches as we did in this paper, leads to a deeper understanding of the Public Policy 27, 159–163.
Hermans, F., Roep, D., Klerkx, L., 2016. Scale dynamics of grassroots innovations through
underlying processes, reasons and motives and points towards potential
parallel pathways of transformative change. Ecol. Econ. 130, 285–295.
future development and opportunities for intervention. IPCC, 2014. Summary for policymakers. In: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y.,
Further research can build on these insights and concentrate on Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., Brunner, S., Eickemeier, P.,
specific analytical foci, such as governance or developmental dynamics. Kriemann, B., Savolainen, J., Schlömer, S., Stechow, C.v., Zwickel, T., Minx, J.C.
(Eds.), Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working
Such approaches could meaningfully deepen the more exploratory Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
analysis performed here and thus allow for further insights both into Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
the topic of transition pathways and into possibilities of integration of NY, USA.
Kirchhoff, C.J., Lemos, M.C., Dessai, S., 2013. Actionable knowledge for environmental
different research approaches. decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 38, 393–414.
References Kleijn, D., 2012. De effectiviteit van Agrarisch Natuurbeheer. Centrum voor Ecosystemen,
Alterra.
Kleijn, D., Rundlöf, M., Scheper, J., Smith, H.G., Tscharntke, T., 2011. Does conservation
Agriholland, 2015. Agrarisch natuurbeheer. http://www.groeneruimte.nl/dossiers/ on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends Ecol. Evol. 26,
agrarisch_natuurbeheer/. 474–481.
Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J., 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 Montreal, CBD Technical Series Kok, M.T.J., Alkemade, R. (Eds.), 2014. How sectors can
revision. In: ESA Working Paper No. 12-03. FAO, Rome. contribute to sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity, Secretariat of the
Anderson, K., Peters, G., 2016. The trouble with negative emissions. Science 354, Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada. 79.
182–183. LEI Wageningen UR, 2014. Monitor Duurzaam Voedsel 2013. In:
Argyris, C., 1996. Actionable knowledge: design causality in the service of consequential Consumentenbestedingen aan duurzaam gelabelde producten. Ministerie van
theory. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 32, 390–406. Economische Zaken, Den Haag.
Arnouts, R., Van den Born, G.J., Daalhuizen, F., Farjon, H., Pols, L., Tekelenburg, T., Leneman, H., Graveland, C., 2004. Deelnamebereidheid en continuïteit van het Agrarisch
Tisma, S., Van Veen, M., Gerritsen, A., Verburg, R., Wiering, M., Roovers, G., 2013. Natuurbeheer. LEI, Den Haag.
Leren van het energieke platteland. Achtergrondrapport, PBL, Den Haag. Liedtke, C., Hasselkuß, M., Welfens, M.J., Nordmann, J., Baedeker, C., 2013. In:
Berg, H., 2013. Transitions of Energy Regimes – An Evolutionary Economic Transformation towards sustainable consumption: changing consumption patterns
Interpretation. Josef Eul Verlag, Lohmar – Köln. through meaning in social practices. 4th International Conference on Sustainability
Berg, H., Echternacht, L., B., J., 2015. Comprehension of case studies for MLP transition Transitions. IST, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 702–729.
analysis in WP2, deliverable 3.3 of the PATHWAYS project. http://www.pathways- Manson, S.M., 2001. Simplifying complexity: a review of complexity theory. Geoforum

11
J.V. Zwartkruis et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

32, 405–414. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 8, 53–61.

Meller, L., van Vuuren, D.P., Cabeza, M., 2015. Quantifying biodiversity impacts of cli- Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., van Vuuren, D.,
mate change and bioenergy: the role of integrated global scenarios. Reg. Environ. 2015. Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: bridging analytical approaches
Chang. 15, 961–971. to address governance challenges. Glob. Environ. Chang. 35, 239–253.
Melman, T.C.P., Grashof-Bokdam, C.J., Huiskes, H.P.J., Bijkerk, W., Plantinga, J.E., Jager, UNFCCC, 2015. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1: Adoption of the Paris Agreement. UNFCCC,
T., Haveman, R., Corporaal, A., 2007. Veldonderzoek effectiviteit natuurgericht Paris, France.
beheer van graslanden: ecologische effectiviteit regelingen natuurbeheer: achter- van Noordwijk, M., Brussaard, L., 2014. Minimizing the ecological footprint of food:
grondrapport 2, Wettelijke Onderzoekstaken Natuur & Milieu 56, Wageningen. closing yield and efficiency gaps simultaneously? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 8,
Melman, T.C.P., Doorn, A.M.v., Schotman, A.G.M., Zee, F.F.v.d., Blanken, H., Martens, S., 62–70.
Sierdsema, H., Smidt, R.A., 2015. Nieuw stelsel agrarisch natuurbeheer: ex ante Van Vuuren, D.P., Kok, M., 2012. Roads From Rio + 20 Pathways to Achieve Global
evaluatie provinciale natuurbeheerplannen. Alterra Wageningen UR, Wageningen. Sustainability Goals by 2050. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency,
Meurink, A., 2010. Natuurbeheer geen vetpot voor boeren. CBShttps://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/ Bilthoven.
achtergrond/2010/26/natuurbeheer-geen-vetpot-voor-boeren. Van Vuuren, D.P., Kok, M.T.J., Lucas, P.L., Prins, A.G., Alkemade, R., van den Berg, M.,
Mittleton-Kelly, E., 2003. Ten principles of complexity and enabling infrastructures. In: Bouwman, A.F., van der Esch, S., Jeuken, M., Kram, T., Stehfest, E., 2015. Pathways
Mittleton-Kelly, E. (Ed.), Complex Systems and Evolutionary Perspectives on to achieve a set of ambitious global sustainability objectives by 2050. Explorations
Organizations – The Application of Complexity Theory to Organisations. Pergamon, using the IMAGE integrated assessment model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 98,
Amsterdam, pp. 25–50. 303–323.
OECD, 2015. Innovation, Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability in the Netherlands. Victor, D., 2015. Climate change: embed the social sciences in climate policy. Nature 520,
OECD Publishing, Paris. 27–29.
Ozanne, J.L., Saatcioglu, B., 2008. Participatory action research. J. Consum. Res. 35, Wagner, F., Grunwald, A., 2015. Reallabore als Forschungs- und
423–439. Transformationsinstrument – Die Quadratur des hermeneutischen Zirkels. Gaia 24
PBL, 2013a. Leren van het energieke platteland. Lokale en regionale coalities voor (1), 26–31.
duurzame plattelandsontwikkeling. PBL, Den Haag, The Netherlands. Water Land & Dijken, 2014. Lessen uit de GLB-pilot Laag Holland 2011–2014.
PBL, 2013b. The Netherlands in 21 Infographics - Facts and Figures on the Human WBGU, 2011. World in transition. Social contract for sustainability. German Advisory
Environment, The Hague. Council on Global Change, Berlinhttp://www.wbgu.de/en/flagship-reports/fr-2011-
PBL, 2016. Balans van de Leefomgeving. Richting geven - Ruimte maken. PBL, The a-social-contract/.
Hague. World Bank, 2017. World development indicators. https://data.worldbank.org/
Pereira, H.M., Navarro, L.M., Martins, I.S., 2012. Global biodiversity change: the bad, the indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS?locations=EU.
good, and the unknown. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37, 25–50. Yin, R.K., 2014. Case Study Research - Designs and Methods, 5th edition. Sage, Los
Peters, G.P., 2016. The ‘best available science’ to inform 1.5 °C policy choices. Nat. Clim. Angeles.
Chang. 6, 646–649. Zwartkruis, J., Westhoek, H., 2015. Deliverable 3.3. Analysis of case studies. In: Sub-
Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A., Green, R.E., 2011. Reconciling food production and report: Case in the Multifunctional Land Use Domain in the Netherlands: Water, Land
biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333, and Dikes. PBL, Bilthoven.
1289–1291.
Runhaar, H., 2016. Towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture (Inaugural speech). Joyce V. Zwartkruis is working as a researcher at the National Institute for Public Health
Wageningen University & Research. and the Environment (RIVM), in the Centre for Environmental Quality. Joyce holds a PhD
Schneidewind, U., Singer-Brodowski, M., 2014. Transformative Wissenschaft – in Innovation Studies. Her dissertation has the title: “Framing in Innovation. Towards
Klimawandel im deutschen Wissenschafts- und Hochschulsystem. Metropolis, sustainable agro-food systems”. Her research interests are in innovation processes, tran-
Marburg. sitions, sustainability and the agro-food sector.
Schuerhoff, M., Ruijs, A., 2016. Geldstromen naar natuur - Ontwikkelingen van de fi-
nancieringsstromen voor natuur- en landschapsbeheer tussen 1999 en 2013. PBL
Holger Berg is Project Co-ordinator to the Research Unit “circular Economy” of the
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The Haguehttp://www.pbl.nl/sites/
default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2016-geldstromen-naar-natuur-erratum-met- Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Energy and the Environment. Holger holds a PhD in
economics. His research interests concern entrepreneurship, business models and re-
erratum-2352.pdf.
Smith, A., Stirling, A., Berkhout, F., 2005. The governance of sustainable socio-technical source efficiency. Currently his focus is set on digital solutions to create circular economy.
transitions. Res. Policy 34, 1491–1510.
Stehfest, E., van Vuuren, D., Kram, T., Bouwman, L., Alkemade, R., Bakkenes, M., Andries F. Hof is senior researcher at PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Biemans, H., Bouwman, A., den Elzen, M., Janse, J., Lucas, P., van Minnen, J., Müller, Agency and guest researcher at the Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University. He holds a
M., Prins, A., 2014. Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change With university degree in economics (1999), after which he conducted research at several
IMAGE 3.0. Model Description and Policy Applications. PBL Netherlands institutes in the Netherlands, Germany, and the US. In 2007, he started working on a EU
Environmental Assessment Agency, The Hague. research project about mitigation and adaptation strategies for climate change policy at
Stern, N., 2016. Economics: current climate models are grossly misleading. Nature 530, PBL and received his PhD with this topic in 2010. Andries has authored more than 50
407–409. publications in peer-reviewed journals.
Terwan, P., 2013. The Netherlands case study: water. In: Land & Dijken Association,
OECD Report Providing Agri-environmental Public Goods Through Collective Action. Marcel T.J. Kok is programme leader International Biodiversity Policy and senior re-
Terwan, P., Rozendaal, W., 2014. Vergroenen van de landbouw doe je beter samen: searcher at PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. His research con-
Oefenen met een collectief leveringsstelsel voor vergroening en groenblauwe dien- centrates on global environmental governance strategies and scenario analysis of global
sten - Lessen uit de vier GLB-pilots 2011–2014. http://www.waterlandendijken.nl/ environmental problems, most recent in particular on mainstreaming biodiversity,
uploads/eqz_eindrapportage_glb-pilots_%282014%29-web.pdf. bottom up approaches to global governance, sustainable supply chains and vulnerability
Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., Befort, B.L., 2011. Global food demand and the sustainable analysis.
intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 20260–20264.
Tittonell, P., 2014. Ecological intensification of agriculture—sustainable by nature. Curr.

12