Crafting Actionable Knowledge On Ecological Intensificarion

Agricultural Systems 190 (2021) 103103
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy
Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from

co-innovation approaches in Uruguay and Europe
Walter A.H. Rossing a, *, Maria Marta Albicette b, Veronica Aguerre b, Carolina Leoni b,
Andrea Ruggia b, Santiago Dogliotti c
a
Farming Systems Ecology, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands
b
Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Estación Experimental INIA Las Brujas, Canelones, Uruguay
c
Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Agronomy, University of the Republic, Montevideo, Uruguay
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Editor: Guillaume Martin Context: Despite a wealth of analytical knowledge on factors and processes that operate to slow down or impede
sustainability transitions in various sectors of society, design-oriented researchers face a lack of guidance on the
Keywords: ‘how to’ question for developing knowledge to support sustainability changes. From 2007, we crafted co-
Complex adaptive system innovation as an approach for governance and management of change-oriented projects, combining three do
Social learning
mains; a complex adaptive systems perspective, a social learning setting, and dynamic monitoring and
Dynamic monitoring and evaluation
evaluation.
Socio-technical system
Sustainability transition experiments Objective: This paper sets out to describe the co-innovation approach and draw lessons from its application in
Project pedigree projects on ecological intensification in Uruguay and the European Union.
Methods: We used an analytical framework for evaluating sustainability transition experiments, which considers
project features that provide insights into the contribution to sustainability transformations by project outputs,
outcomes, processes and inputs, and their interactions. Empirical information on 6 cases from 3 projects was
collected through in-depth interviews with former project staff, group discussion, and project documentation.
This enabled a reflexive evaluation of co-innovation.
Results and conclusions: Outputs showed substantial variation among the cases despite a similar approach to
project governance and management. More significant contributions to sustainability transitions were associated
with in-depth project preparation, a focus at the farm-level instead of the crop or field level, connections during
the project’s lifetime with regional innovation system actors, and frequent facilitated interactions among project
actors to reflect on results, wider system implications, and project direction. We discuss the results in relation to
the three domains of co-innovation. To enhance the role of projects in destabilizing currently unsustainable
systems we highlight: reconsidering the role of projects as a business model; stimulating institutional learning
from previous change-oriented projects; and making funding more adaptive to evolving project needs.
Significance: With most of the budget for agricultural research-for-change spent through projects, how projects
are conducted is a critical determinant of the rate of sustainability transitions. Effective disruption of unsus
tainable practices through project interventions requires rethinking linear cause-effect relations to include
project governance and management approaches based on complex adaptive systems thinking, social learning
settings, and monitoring geared to adaptation and learning.
1. Introduction emphasis put on specific environmental, social and economic objectives,

a common element in the proposals is their attention for synergistically
Rethinking agricultural production to enhance its societal contribu managing ecological processes at the levels of field, farm and region,
tions beyond food and feed production is a pivotal element in various rather than controlling them through external inputs (e.g. agro-ecology -
scholarly sustainability transition proposals that involve redirecting or Altieri, 1999; ecoagriculture - Scherr and McNeely, 2008; ecological
replacing dominant food production models. While they differ in the intensification - Doré et al., 2011; industrial ecology - Dumont et al.,
* Corresponding author at: P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
E-mail address: [email protected] (W.A.H. Rossing).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103103
Received 12 October 2020; Received in revised form 5 February 2021; Accepted 9 February 2021
0308-521X/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
W.A.H. Rossing et al. Agricultural Systems 190 (2021) 103103
2013; biodiversity-based agriculture - Duru et al., 2015). Research may reached within the constraints of project time and budget. In an adaptive
foster such sustainability transitions by producing knowledge that is project-management approach, project interventions are seen as ex
usable in change processes by being robust as well as socially, culturally periments and during the project learning-by-doing is emphasised,
and geographically contextualized (Caniglia et al., 2017; Cash et al., resulting in crafting – construction in situ – rather than ‘rolling out’
2003; Clark et al., 2011). Following Geertsema et al. (2016a), we refer to project outputs and outcomes. Innovation scientists rejected the use
such context-specific knowledge that assists stakeholders in their fulness of the linear project management model for fostering change
decision-making to be better positioned to achieve their goals as over a decade ago (e.g., Ekboir, 2003; Smits and Kuhlmann, 2004; Pahl-
actionable knowledge (cf. van Kerkhoff and Lebel, 2006; Wiek et al., Wostl, 2009). Nevertheless, the complexity of global problems is only
2012). With most of the research structured in projects, the way change- slowly reflected in the governance and management of change-oriented
oriented research projects are organized and executed to produce agricultural research projects, not in the least because change-oriented
actionable knowledge is, therefore, an important determinant of the rate projects involve changes in what are considered valid ways of produc
of sustainability transitions. ing scientific evidence (Caniglia et al., 2017). Only recently, the CGIAR
In this paper, we consider the governance and management of abolished its systems programs, some of which were well underway in
research projects that aim to produce actionable knowledge for developing adaptive project-management approaches (Douthwaite and
ecological intensification. More specifically, we aim to evaluate 6 cases Hoffecker, 2017; Leeuwis et al., 2017).
from 3 change-oriented projects that one or several of the authors of this In different sectors of society new forms of collaboration between
paper were involved in, using the perspective of sustainability transition sustainability scientists and other societal actors have emerged that
experiments. In each project, co-innovation was adopted and developed involve experimental interventions in societal processes with the aim to
as a common approach to project governance and management, and the produce science-based empirical evidence on sustainability transitions.
projects thus offer a rich basis for learning on production of knowledge In a review of such sustainability transition experiments Schäpke et al.
that is usable for sustainability transitions. In the remainder of this paper (2018) identified forms of collaboration referred to as Real-World Lab
we will refer to project governance to mean the actors, networks and oratories, Sustainable Living Labs, Urban Transition Labs and Trans
interactions put in place to bring about the project’s aim, while project formation Labs, each with their own profile in terms of contributions to
management refers to monitoring and analysing, and developing and transformation; shaping of the experiments; the degree of trans
implementing measures to keep the project on track. Ecological inten disciplinarity;, their long-term orientation and scalability; and contri
sification comprises the smart use of biodiversity-mediated ecosystem butions to learning. A common element among them is that they provide
functions to support agricultural production in a sustainable, affordable “spaces that facilitate explicit experimentation and learning based on
way, while reducing the environmental impact of agriculture and its participation and user involvement” Luedertiz et al. (2017), quoting
dependence on non-renewable resources (Doré et al., 2011; Tittonell (Voytenko et al., 2015). Such sustainability transition experiments may
et al., 2016). Using ecosystem functions in agriculture implies context- be classified depending on the level of researcher control over in
specificity, as the biophysical endowment of fields, farms, and land terventions and context - full, participatory, or beyond control, and
scapes determine to a large extent what may be grown and which depending on their experimental aim - sustainability problems or sus
ecological interactions can be fostered. To produce actionable knowl tainability solutions (Caniglia et al., 2017). Building on transitions
edge, research projects, therefore, find themselves operating in a scholarship Luedertiz et al. (2017) emphasize the need for reflexive
research mode that accommodates both generic and specific knowledge, evaluation of such experiments, and propose an evaluative framework
and does so in an inclusive manner to secure engagement with the for cross-case learning to understand patterns of success of interventions
stakeholder community (Geertsema et al., 2016b; Pohl and Hirsch to inform future actions. The framework distinguishes 24 features, i.e.
Hadorn, 2008). Here we will refer to research projects that aim to bring salient assessment criteria, to describe and analyse four dimensions that
about change in dominant societal systems as design-oriented or change- reflect the logic model of project organization: outputs, outcomes, pro
oriented projects, as opposed to analysis-oriented projects that aim to cesses and inputs. The features were derived from a review of 61 indi
explain observed phenomena (e.g. Rossing et al., 2017). vidual cases of sustainability transition experiments and were tested and
A considerable body of research has analysed relations between revised based on discussions at various international congresses. The
science and society and developed ‘requisite jargon and specialist de authors designated the evaluative framework as generic, i.e. suited for
bates’ (Clark et al., 2016) that inform the creation of actionable different types of sustainability transition experiments; comprehensive,
knowledge. Insights highlight the importance of distinguishing hierar i.e. representing an experiment’s ultimate outcomes as well as the un
chies of systems that involve interactions among human and non-human derlying outputs, processes and inputs; operational, i.e. ready to be
components through feedbacks and feed forwards that adapt to chang applied; and formative, i.e. supporting greater effectiveness and efficacy
ing conditions in highly unpredictable ways, and which components of experiments. At the same time, they referred to the framework as
exhibit strong variation in their speed of adaptation. While such tentative, and invited reflection on its limitations and usefulness.
analytical approaches have provided important insights on system Over the past years, our team crafted the concept of co-innovation
functioning (Klerkx et al., 2010), design-oriented scientists continue to through various design-oriented research projects on ecological inten
grapple with the question how to shape projects to successfully mobilise sification in Latin America and Europe (Albicette et al., 2017; Dogliotti
knowledge for sustainable development (e.g. de Wildt-Liesveld et al., et al., 2014a; Klerkx et al., 2017; Rossing et al., 2010). The intention of
2015; Coutts et al., 2017; Pereira et al., 2018). Fazey et al. (2018) denote the co-innovation approach was to provide a framework for project
the question ‘how to’ facilitate the transformative sustainability changes governance and management that was responsive to the idiosyncrasies
that are urgent as ‘the most critical question for climate research’, while of our change-oriented projects’ complex settings. Here, we consider
Clark et al. (2016) conclude that ‘more usable knowledge is urgently these projects as cases of sustainability transition experiments: they
needed to help meet the challenges of sustainable development’. The constituted transformational interventions that built on existing efforts,
latter authors denote the process of producing usable or actionable created new actions, and added orientation to transitions. Furthermore,
knowledge as ‘crafting’ thus emphasising that in their practice project they followed a transdisciplinary research approach involving various
leaders are faced with mobilising a combination of skills, theory and actors in the experimentation process to reconcile contrasting objectives
contextual sensitivity. Referring to design-studies literature, Prost et al. and positions, and to create ownership for solutions that aspired to be
(2017) distinguish classical project management from emerging adap radically different from the status quo. Finally, all had the intention ‘to
tive project-management approaches to describe progressing insights on create positive outcomes that are replicable, transferable, and scalable
how to conduct change-oriented projects. In a classical project man to society at large’ (Luederitz et al., 2017; p.62). In all cases experiments
agement approach, goals defined at the start of a project are to be on sustainability solutions were carried out subject to decision making
2
negotiated between researchers and farmers, i.e. under participatory with sustainability problems and solutions in areas such as urban
control. development, mobility, energy, or food. This type of analysis-oriented
With as ultimate goal to enhance the usefulness of research for sus research is also denoted as transformation research producing systems
tainable development, in this paper we aim to analyse the extent to knowledge, as opposed to transformative research that results in target
which the six sustainability transition experiments contributed to the (or: normative) knowledge showing the need and the options for change
evolving knowledge base on scientific contributions to sustainability and their consequences, and transformative knowledge, which enhances
transitions, as well as to practical insights for design-oriented research reflection on project governance and management during project
project governance and management. We do so by analysing the extent execution (Fig. 1).
to which co-innovation across six cases of sustainability transition ex
periments in Uruguay and the European Union contributed to desired 2.2. The three domains of co-innovation
outputs and outcomes, and how this was accomplished in terms of
processes and inputs. The analysis is reflexive to the extent that each The term co-innovation, as described in this paper, was coined in the
author of this paper was involved in the development and execution of at EULACIAS project (see below). The project developed on-farm analysis-
least one of the projects. In the next section, we describe the history and and-design cycles in local co-innovation pilots to reverse unsustainable
evolution of the co-innovation approach. After introducing the analyt resource use and insufficient economic results by systemically
ical framework of the paper, we describe the cases and the methods. In rethinking farm livelihood strategies. Based on early experiences with
the Results section individual and cross-case analyses are presented interactive farming systems design in the Netherlands (Rossing et al.,
starting from the cases’ outputs and connecting these to outcomes, 1997; Vereijken, 1997; Wijnands, 1999) and participatory cropping
processes and inputs. We end with a discussion of implications of the systems design in Australia (Carberry et al., 2002; McCown, 2002), the
findings for governance and management of design-oriented projects. project was structured in such way as to provide attention to both
knowledge accumulation for and with the local co-innovation pilots, and
2. Crafting co-innovation to benefit from emerging insights on open innovation and evaluation for
learning (Douthwaite, 2002; Douthwaite et al., 2003). Knowledge
2.1. Situating co-innovation accumulation was addressed through thematic workpackages dealing
with the elaboration of regional baselines and scenarios, and with farm-
Following Goewie (1993), we distinguish between analysis-oriented level baselines and evolution of sustainability indicators supported by
research and design-oriented research. Both research strains start from modelling. Process management was harnessed in a Co-innovation
perceived problems. Analysis-oriented approaches decompose these workpackage led by the team from the International Center for Trop
problems into researchable questions and mobilise procedures that ical Agriculture (CIAT) that had developed the Participatory Impact
enable elucidation of structure – function - purpose relations, thus Pathway Analysis methodology for project design and learning-oriented
arriving at new knowledge on causal relations. Design-oriented ap monitoring (Alvarez et al., 2010). After 2 years of evolving the co-
proaches, in contrast, translate the problem at hand into solution spec innovation approach, a visual representation was developed of its key
ifications and elaborate purpose – function – structure relations, to domains (Fig. 2), including a complex adaptive systems approach, social
arrive at decisions on solutions. The two strains may be connected learning setting and dynamic project monitoring. These domains have
through exchanges of analytical knowledge and questions emerging remained across the projects described in this paper. Operationalisation
during design that require analytical knowledge. Adopting an action- has depended on the project-specific constraints and progressive in
oriented agronomic and development viewpoint, Giller et al. (2008) sights. We describe the co-innovation domains in the next paragraphs.
developed the DEED research cycle, in which analysis-oriented Reflecting a dynamic view of agricultural innovation systems (e.g.
(‘Describe’ and ‘Explain’) and design-oriented (‘Explore’ and ‘Design’) Hall et al., 2001; Klerkx et al., 2012; Leeuwis, 2004), the change-
research steps are connected. Here we combine the DEED research cycle orientation of the EULACIAS project prompted a complex adaptive
with the learning cycle of Kolb (1984) to express the role of research system (CAS) perspective. Initially developed for ecological and social-
contributions to actionable knowledge development (Fig. 1). ecological systems (Levin, 1998), Douthwaite et al. (2002), and more
Within sustainability science (Fazey et al., 2018; Pohl and Hirsch recently, Douthwaite and Hoffecker (2017) used the CAS perspective to
Hadorn, 2008) an emerging body of knowledge addresses the systematic provide guidelines for what the latter authors called complexity-aware
cross-case learning from sustainability transition experiments concerned approaches to agricultural research. Following Axelrod and Cohn
(1999), a CAS is described as consisting of agents, entities which can
make things happen, along with artefacts (e.g., things, databases, stor
ies) and strategies including values and norms that the agents use in
their interactions with other agents and with artefacts. Evaluation of the
results of these interactions leads to the selection of strategies or arte
facts that are combined or copied, or to the invention of new ones. This
evolutionary process introduces innovations, i.e. inventions as well as
the way they are considered and used (cf. Prost et al., 2018). Douthwaite
et al. (2002) and Douthwaite and Gummert (2010) introduced the term
Learning Selection to describe the process by which the generated
variation is evaluated and discarded, or remoulded and included in
practices. The CAS perspective suggests that project design and man
agement should (i) foster variation in agents, artefacts, strategies; (ii)
stimulate variation in interaction patterns to generate novelties for the
Learning Selection process; (iii) support selection processes to better
allow survival and spread of the selection results (cf. Duru et al., 2015).
Fig. 1. Actionable knowledge cycle, which combines the experiential knowl The third consequence hints at the notions of ‘anticipating niche and
edge cycle (after Kolb, 1984) and the scientific knowledge development cycle structural change’ in the Reflexive Interactive Design approach (Bos
(DEED – Describe, Explain, Explore, Design; Giller et al., 2008). Types of et al., 2009; Bos and Grin, 2008) and ‘anchoring’ as described by (Elzen
knowledge production distinguished in sustainability sciences are arranged et al., 2012a).
around the cycle. Creating a social learning setting emerged as the second domain of
3
Fig. 2. Three domains of co-innovation, with keywords per domain and results emerging at their overlap. Adapted from Rossing et al. (2010), Dogliotti et al. (2014a)
and Albicette et al. (2017).
co-innovation. We take social learning to refer to the way collaboration used the results reflectively to establish whether project actors still
changes individual values and behaviour, in turn affecting collective agreed on project directions. Such use of monitoring has been referred to
culture and norms (e.g. Blackstock et al., 2007). The term has been used as formative evaluation (Blackstock et al., 2007; Wigboldus et al., 2016)
by a range of scientific disciplines, resulting in a wide variety of and has been recognised as essential for sustainability transitions
meanings and consequences (Wals and van der Leij, 2007). Ison et al. (Cundill and Fabricius, 2009; Fazey et al., 2018; Hegger et al., 2012;
(2013) identified seven clusters of metaphors around which social Pahl-Wostl, 2009). In addition, the projects mobilised resources for
learning could be considered. They concluded that rather than coming accountability evaluation as part of obligatory financial and technical
up with a unifying description, the richness of interpretations can be reporting to donors. Finally, ex-post, summative evaluations were car
maintained for opening spaces for innovation. In the evolution of the co- ried out to draw lessons from experiences, which aimed to contribute to
innovation approach, creating social learning settings implied creating social learning in the longer term. Blackstock et al. (2007) distinguished
regularly recurring events with formats by which the diversity of project four purposes for evaluation; proving (to reveal efficiency or value);
actors felt invited to share their perspectives on the results achieved, on controlling (to demonstrate and maintain quality); improving (in rela
the interactions with the other project participants, and on the direction tion to objectives); and learning (transforming the individual partici
of the project. Building on and contributing to the CAS perspective, this pant). Within co-innovation, proving provided the material for
was meant to stimulate an evolving project language and framing of the accountability, while the learning and improving purposes of moni
problems and approaches taken on in the project, as well as enhancing toring and evaluation supported social learning within the CAS context.
trust among project actors.
The third domain of co-innovation, dynamic monitoring and evalu
ation, focused on which and how project results were produced, and
Fig. 3. Pedigree of co-innovation projects originating from the EULACIAS project. Timelines describing EULACIAS’ pre- and post-project major activities, and
implementation duration of the other projects. Projects in bold are part of this paper. STE is sustainability transition experiment.
4
2.3. Evolution of the approach Table 1

Salient features in four evaluative dimensions for appraising sustainability
Since the EULACIAS project, co-innovation evolved through projects transition experiments (STEs). Summarized from Luederitz et al. (2017).
in Uruguay and in the European Union (Fig. 3). In Uruguay, new projects Evaluative dimension Feature Description
were developed with vegetable and mixed vegetable-livestock farmers, Outputs – direct Built capacities Skills, abilities and crafts that
transferring the approach to other regions and actors, and capitalising results of STEs enable people to act sustainably
on the knowledge built in the research team. Immediately after the in everyday life: strategic
EULACIAS project, a project in the livestock family farming sector was competence in developing
effective interventions; practical
started, which is part of the empirical material of this paper (INIA-
skills; interpersonal competence
Rocha). Following from this experience, a number of projects were for building coalitions.
executed, some of them with international partners. Various projects Actionable knowledge Evidence-supported and tested
were running at the time of writing. In the European Union, the co- guidance for practical
innovation approach was further developed in a project on integrated application to address a
sustainability problem in
pest management (IPM) solutions with 4 country innovation pilots context. Comprises three
(PURE). These experiences were scaled out in an ongoing project on crop knowledge sources: analytical-
diversification. descriptive knowledge about the
sustainability problem;
normative knowledge about the
3. Analytical framework: project output related to outcome,
sustainability goals;
process and input transformational knowledge on
most effect solutions
Sustainability transitions and the transformational changes in prac Accountability Ensuring participants’
tices and power structures that bring them about develop over large time confidence and commitment to
implement the actions selected in
frames (Geels and Raven, 2006), involving decades or generations. the STE, as illustrated by positive
Evaluating the contribution of projects with time frames of 3 to 5 years participant attitudes or
to such ultimate aims is therefore faced with the inherent delay between formalised commitments.
the project’s activities and the aspired consequences, challenging con Structural changes Physical changes: creation of new
or changed buildings,
ventional scientific causation. Transition researchers have emphasized
infrastructures, technologies and
learning as part of transition experiments as the key mechanisms for products.
appraising progress towards sustainability goals (e.g. Armitage et al., Societal changes: creation of new
2008; Fazey et al., 2018; Luederitz et al., 2017). Projects assume a dual or changed networks and
role of generating changes as well as providing the means to learn about organisations, values and norms,
rules and policies, discourses.
next change efforts. The latter requires iterative and reflexive moni Facilitate uptake of Evidence that the sustainability
toring and evaluation within and across projects designed for exper experiments solutions work beyond the
imenting with sustainability transitions. To assess and explain the extent specific STE conditions, in terms
to which co-innovation-based project governance and management of transferability and scalability.
Transferability: evidence that the
generated the desired effect on sustainability transitions towards
lessons learned in the experiment
ecological intensification, we adopted the preliminary evaluative are applicable in different
scheme for sustainability transition experiments described by Luederitz contexts. Scalability: evidence
et al. (2017). The evaluation scheme takes the frequently used logic that the experiment can be
model of project evaluation (McLaughlin and Jordan, 2010 in Luederitz successfully repeated in a similar
context (scaling out), or
et al., 2017) as the point of departure and asks the questions: What was integrated at higher system levels
generated (evaluative dimension: outputs); What was accomplished (scaling up).
(evaluative dimension: outcomes); How was it completed (evaluative Accounting for uptake for
dimension: processes); and What was invested (evaluative dimension: unintended desirable or
undesirable consequences of the
inputs). Each of the dimensions was specified in terms of features that
STE.
were derived from literature review of transition experiments; no details Outcomes – extent of Socio-ecological Recognition of the
were provided, however, on the process of feature derivation. For the contribution to integrity interdependence of human well-
sake of clarity we represent the dimensions and their evaluative features sustainability being and bio-physical
in Table 1. conditions, as witnessed by
preventing degradation of
Starting from the outputs produced by the project, the analysis ad
ecosystem services and
dresses the extent to which the outputs have resulted in desired out enhancing regenerative capacity
comes, and have been supported by processes and inputs. Comparing of natural resources.
these relations among sustainability transition experiments aspires to Livelihood sufficiency Securing access of individuals
& opportunity and communities to what is
reveal patterns of relations between more and less effective interactions
needed for a decent life, both in
among project logic components to foster future project governance and material and social-psychological
management. terms.
Intra- & Developing choices that reduce
4. Description of the co-innovation cases and methods intergenerational the gap between rich and poor
equity and enhance opportunities of
future generations to pursue
4.1. The co-innovation cases sustainable lives.
Resource maintenance Creation of sustainable
Three projects provided empirical material for this paper; EULA & efficiency livelihoods for all by increasing
use efficiencies and minimizing
CIAS, INIA-Rocha and PURE. In EULACIAS and INIA-Rocha, environ
negative effects on the
mental, social and productive/economic sustainability problems were environment
addressed, while PURE focused on environmental and economic prob (continued on next page)
lems. Solutions evaluated in the projects concerned ecological
5
Table 1 (continued ) herd interactions to synchronise forage availability with cow and calf
Evaluative dimension Feature Description demands along the year and maximise forage and animal productivity
(Albicette et al., 2017). The PURE project aimed to reduce the de
Stewardship and Provide arrangements that
democratic support individual and collective
pendency on pesticide use in 6 major crops types by developing and
governance decision-making fostering on- implementing integrated pest management (IPM) solutions. Within
going collective actions, social PURE a small Co-innovation workpackage aimed to develop, implement
inclusion and ownership and evaluate a co-innovation approach in four country innovation pilots
Precaution & Acknowledgement of
equivalent to four cases in this study. Two cases had a primary focus on
adaptation uncertainty, and anticipation and
avoidance of unpredictable risks. wheat (Denmark – DK and France – FR), the other two on vegetables
Precautionary approaches and (Germany – DE and the Netherlands – NL). Each case was headed by a
preparation for surprises. local case study team of 2 or 3 (DE) researchers and/or advisors.
Processes – Sequence of actions In experimentation actions need The cases were organised in different levels. Common to all projects
sequences of to include: (i) baseline and goal
actions conducted for intervention; (ii) structured
was the level of the core project teams consisting of researchers and
in STEs administration of the advisors. In EULACIAS and INIA-Rocha the core project team together
intervention; (iii) measuring with the farmers constituted a separate level, while in PURE these in
effects; (iv) evaluation of effect teractions were considered to be part of the activities of the local case
against sustainability criteria; (v)
study teams. Hence, while the core project teams in EULACIAS and INIA-
providing evidence-based
recommendations. These steps Uruguay engaged with the farmers in redesign, the core project team in
are evidenced in the project’s PURE took on the role of facilitating reflection on activities and direction
planning. in the local cases. EULACIAS and PURE included an international project
Sound methodology Scientifically supported methods team level. INIA-Rocha was constructed to have a level with an inter-
for the actions under the previous
feature.
institutional network that included the farmers, the core project team
Collaboration Empowerment of collaborators and national and local professional organisations on rural development.
through appropriate choice of In all cases, reflection on direction, progress and planning was
mechanisms of collaboration, in structured around regular meetings at the various organisational levels.
the core transdisciplinary and
Methods included informal discussions during farm visits and Partici
inclusive.
Reflexivity & learning Structural iterative analysis of all patory Impact Pathway Analysis (PIPA; Alvarez et al., 2010) supported
components of the experiment to by tools from participatory action research (Macdonald, 2012) and Re
support (first and second order) flexive Monitoring in Action (RMA, van Mierlo et al., 2010b). Except for
learning. the informal discussions, all meetings were formally facilitated and
Transparency Ensuring open and truthful
monitored. Progress was monitored through complexity-aware in
reporting on intensions and
actions, in support of dicators (cf. Britt and Patsalides, 2013; Douthwaite and Hoffecker,
researchers’ accountability 2017), and more traditional agronomic approaches and performance
towards collaborators. indicators. The latter were based on MESMIS (López-Ridaura et al.,
Inputs- contributions Awareness Ability and consciousness of
2002) in the Uruguayan cases. In PURE, teams used locally agreed
to and investments participants of the need for
in STEs radical real-world change. protocols to measure performance.
Commitment Willingness, promise and
positive attitude of participants 4.2. Data collection and analysis
to engage in radical rather than
incremental change.
Expertise Professional skills and
For the purpose of this study, change-oriented researchers or advi
experiences of participants, such sors from each of the three projects were approached to participate in
as related to experimentation and the evaluation described in this paper. Each participant had been part of
reflexivity, as well as on ethics the team that implemented the co-innovation approach, acting as or
and power relations.
ganisers, facilitators or project monitors (cf. van Mierlo et al., 2010a),
Trust Mutual willingness to collaborate
on equal footing among and in some cases additionally acting as analytical researchers, mainly
participants of the STE on agronomic topics. As part of the invitation, the purpose of the eval
Support Structural, financial and non- uative framework was explained by summarising the concepts and
financial resources and providing details of the features following Luederitz et al. (2017). Par
assistance from public and
private authorities.
ticipants from each project were asked to revisit project materials, such
as scientific evaluative papers, annual reports, or field notes to recall
processes, events and outputs of the projects. In addition, they were
intensification at farm and crop levels. In all projects, the co-innovation asked to think about effects beyond the projects’ lifetimes.
approach was applied for project governance and management. Projects The EULACIAS project was evaluated by the first and last authors of
characteristics are summarised in Table 2. An extensive description of this paper who acted as project coordinator and Uruguayan case study
project background, project organisation and working methods is pro leader in EULACIAS, respectively. Individually, assessments for each of
vided in the Supplementary Materials. the features were drafted and compared in a working session to check for
The EULACIAS project addressed decreasing land and labour pro congruence and completeness. To evaluate the INIA-Rocha project, four
ductivity and poor farmer working conditions on family vegetable farms research team members from INIA, the national research organisation
in Uruguay by introducing long crop rotations, changes in organic responsible for the project, met during two working sessions to discuss
matter management, and integration of beef cattle (Dogliotti et al., the contribution of the project in terms of each of the features. The re
2014b), as suggested by model-based explorations (Dogliotti et al., sults of the sessions were discussed with the last author of this paper,
2005). The INIA-Rocha project connected researchers with family live who was involved in the INIA-Rocha project but not employed by INIA.
stock farmers on the Campos natural grasslands in Uruguay to improve To evaluate the four co-innovation pilots in PURE two members of the
and stabilise low productivity levels and family income, while main PURE supervising team (one of which is the first author of this paper)
taining or improving natural resources and labour productivity. Sus met on two occasions, based on a semi-structured interview guideline
tainability solutions evaluated included strategic changes in pasture- derived from the features of the framework. Similarly, semi-structured
6
Table 2
Characteristics of the co-innovation projects providing the empirical cases for this paper.
Project Aim System Participatory Methods1 Complexity- Performance Timing and Reference
description dynamics aware indicators2 indicators2 funding
EULACIAS – To reverse Focus on farms. Two-weekly visits Agronomic Changes in vision, Based on MESMIS: 2005–2010; Dogliotti
Uruguay unsustainable use Formal networks to the farms by an monitoring problem trees, productivity, INIA and EU- et al.
of natural and at three levels: advisor and a protocols. actor attitudes. stability, FP6, approx. (2014b);
agro-resources (i) Farm: 14 researcher; MESMIS Most Significant reliability/ 450 kU$S Rossing
and insufficient farms and 20 monthly local diagnosis. Change (MSC) adaptability/ et al.
economic results farmers, 2 researcher and PIPA (vision, stories. resilience, self- (2010)
by rethinking of advisors and up advisor team network Ex-post analysis reliance.
entire livelihood to 23 meetings; 6- analysis, of new ways of Farmer health and
strategies in a researchers; monthly local problem trees, working among well-being.
systemic way (ii) Local research team logframe, (i) researchers
researcher and reflection Knowledge- and advisors; (ii)
advisor team (up meetings; annual Attitude-Skills- farmers.
to 25 persons); international Aspirations).
(iii) project meetings. Reflection
International supporting
project team approaches, e.g.
(around 30 peer review,
persons). fishbowl, world
Informal café
contacts with
professionals in
family
agriculture
Co-innovating To contribute to Focus on farms Monthly farm Agronomic Changes in vision, Based on MESMIS: 2012–2015; Albicette
for the the improvement and their visits by the monitoring problem trees, productivity, INIA, approx. et al.
sustainable of family farming innovation advisor, protocols. actor attitudes. stability, 344 kU$S (2016);
development systems’ support system. occasionally with Interviews. Frequent exit reliability/ Albicette
of family- sustainability, Formal networks a research team MESMIS polls on adaptability/ et al.
farming rural at three levels: member; 6- diagnosis. satisfaction with resilience, self- (2017);
systems in development, and (i) Farm: 7 farms monthly research PIPA (vision, overall reliance. Blumetto
Rocha- improvement of and farm team reflection network achievements, Environmental et al.
Uruguay farmers well-being families, 1 meetings; 6- analysis, project and social (2019)
advisor and up monthly meetings problem trees, performance, indicators.
to 15 of the inter- logframe, future impact of
researchers; institutional Knowledge- results.
(ii) Local network. Attitude-Skills- Ex-post scientific
research team Aspirations). review.
including Reflection
advisor (up to 15 supporting
persons); approaches from
(iii) Inter- Participatory
institutional Action Research
network of
national and
local
organizstions on
regional rural
development
(up to 32
persons).
PURE - EU To provide Focus on 4 teams Four co- Local agronomic Narratives on Based on local 2011–2015; Klerkx
practical IPM of 2 researchers/ innovation measurement changes in actor protocols, e.g. EU-FP7, 155 et al.
solutions to reduce advisors in 4 workshops (after protocols. attitude towards yields of IPM kU$S (2017)
dependence on countries. 6, 12, 24, 36 PIPA (vision, case study practices
pesticides in Formal networks months) situated network ambitions on compared to
selected major at three levels: in country case analysis, reducing conventional;
farming systems in (i) Local area; 6-monthly problem trees, pesticide input; farmer assessment
Europe research/ reflection logframe, ex-post scientific of feasibility of
advisor team meetings between Knowledge- review. IPM practices.
(2–3 persons); hosting team and Attitude-Skills-
(ii) Local local research/ Aspirations).
network of advisor team. Team dynamics
farmers, and reflection
advisors and supporting
researchers, approaches from
maintained by RMA, e.g. peer
the local teams; review, dynamic
(iii) learning agenda.
International co-
innovation
hosting team.
1
References to methods: MESMIS – (López-Ridaura et al., 2002); PIPA – Alvarez et al. (2010)); RMA – van Mierlo et al. (2010b); PAR - Macdonald (2012);
Knowledge-Attitude-Skills-Aspirations -Rockwell and Bennet (2004).
2
On the difference between complexity-aware and performance indicators: Britt and Patsalides (2013); MSC - Davies and Dart (2005).
7
interviews were held with one member of the Danish case and one exchange network. Such farmer-initiated exchanges were not seen in the
member of the French case. The interviews were audio-recorded and the Uruguayan cases, possibly due to differences in education levels; Uru
results, coded in terms of the features of the evaluation framework were guayan farmers had mostly only attended primary school, while in
shared with the interviewees to check for validity and completeness. In Europe farmers received at least high school education and often also
all cases, topics beyond the framework features were encouraged in the benefitted from (applied) university training. In the next sections we
spirit of the tentative nature of the framework. describe the other three dimensions of the sustainability transition ex
The results of the individual assessments per project and the reasons periments in relation to these outputs.
for differences were then discussed among all authors of this paper to
ensure a consistent interpretation of the framework features. Per case 5.2. Outcomes in relation to outputs
study and for each feature scores between 1 (no to hardly any contri
bution to the feature) and 5 (completely or strongly contributing to the All cases addressed socio-ecological integrity, resource maintenance and
feature) were agreed upon. The scores were used to support the cross- efficiency and precaution and adaptation, by stimulating agricultural
case comparison. While the scores supported summarising and visual innovation system, farm-level or crop-level changes to reduce reliance
isation of differences among projects, they were presumed to be on external inputs and increase farmer autonomy. The cases that were
considered only in combination with the accounts for each feature. more effective in producing outputs were also seen to be more effective
in producing these outcomes: the results showed sustained commitment
5. Cross-case findings of the networks developed in EULACIAS, INIA-Rocha and FR to continue
with the initiated sustainability transitions (Fig. 3). In the DK case, co-
5.1. Outputs innovation remained supported by individuals from the case, but did
not scale out or up, despite its performance in producing IPM outputs.
Supported by a similar co-innovation project management perspec The advisory organisation’s institutional strategy favoured a technology
tive, the 6 cases developed distinctly to produce their output features focus, in which projects accompanied farmers with new or lesser-known
(Table 3; details in Supplementary Materials). The two Uruguayan and technologies for some time, to move on to different technologies after
the FR cases built output features that were supportive to sustainability the project. Considering the farm as a system comprising interacting
transitions. The DE and NL cases were least able to do so, and the DK components was regarded to be the role of the farmer rather than of the
case took an intermediate position (Fig. 4). specialist advisor or researcher. In the DE and NL cases, the relative lack
The overall more effective cases (EULACIAS, INIA-Rocha, FR) of outcome features had different origins. The institutional mandate of
resulted in built capacities among the participants on systemic solutions the DE research institute, being federal and analytically oriented, did not
to persistent production problems, along with actionable knowledge. For favour continuation of the co-innovation approach, which required
instance, they developed approaches and tools for farm and crop level ability to locally adapt knowledge in collaboration with end users. In the
diagnosis and redesign, and for creating a project setting that enabled case of the NL team, the lack of clear outputs hampered the team in
joint learning. The three cases demonstrated farmer-supported physical promoting the approach more widely. In addition, we found a lack of
changes at the level of entire farms or (FR) of cropping systems. In the structures to enhance institutional learning within the NL team’s
Uruguayan cases, changes were evidenced by quantitative measure project-driven organisation. This was also mentioned in the interviews
ments, in the FR case by quali-quantitative measurements as was custom with the DK case. Thus, while there were individuals who adopted a
in the study group. Participants in the cases were committed to imple systemic perspective, this did not translate into sustainability outcomes
ment the management changes (output features accountability and at the level of their own organisations or with the farmers that were
structural changes – physical structures). Such results were also found for included in the projects.
the DK case, with farmers selecting IPM measures and implementing The outcome features ‘livelihood sufficiency & opportunity’ and ‘intra-
them on their farms, but these concerned crop-level changes (e.g. wide & intergenerational equity’ were not assessed for the European cases. In
row spacing to facilitate mechanical weeding; cultivar mixtures to contrast to the Uruguayan cases that took a whole-farm approach, the
reduce disease pressure) implemented as part of on-farm technology field and crop level approach in the European cases gave little basis for
demonstration. In the DE and NL cases, we found little indication of assessing these outcome features.
these project-attributable output features, except built capacity in the
research teams. 5.3. Processes in relation to outputs
Scores for structural changes in the societal realm and the features
describing facilitation of uptake showed greater diversity. The outputs The cases all built on the co-innovation approach developed in the
features transferability and scalability, defined by Luederitz et al. (2017) EULACIAS project in which processes supported the complex adaptive
as part of uptake facilitation, were found to be supported by EULACIAS, systems and social learning perspectives, and dynamic monitoring and
INIA-Rocha and the FR cases through their connection with networks evaluation.
outside the project’s core group. Results showed that in particular the The Uruguayan projects created an archetypical sequence of actions
way of working was transferable, with the broad domains of co- by starting from quantitatively measured baselines followed by moni
innovation being amenable to other types of sustainability transition toring and evaluation of the effects of the farm-level interventions. In the
experiments in agronomy or the wider food system (cf. Fig. 3). The DE, DK and FR cases the sequence of actions conformed to a classical
limited outputs of the DK, DE and NL cases to structural changes in the agronomic comparison of field-level experiments with and without in
societal realms are likely to have negatively affected wider uptake. terventions, where the interventions evolved from year to year
Among the unintended effects, co-opting of the term co-innovation depending on progressing insights. In contrast to the Uruguayan cases
occurred in all cases, with both positive and negative effects. The the other cases used the results for internal use, and did not publish them
negative effects particularly concerned incomplete or incorrect in scientifically. This limited opportunities to evaluate the soundness of the
terpretations of the notion, such as reducing it to ‘working with farmers’. methodologies.
In the DK and FR cases positive unintended effects were found as a result Methods supporting the process feature collaboration differed only
of role changes between the advisors and the farmers. When given the slightly across cases. Differences were particularly related to the
mandate to set the agenda, the farmers were found to come up with new strength of the relations built between the group of researchers or ad
questions and ideas, which provided the facilitators with a new demand visors on the one hand and the farmers and advisors on the other.
for knowledge. In addition, the farmers looked for help on solutions with Context and expertise – both part of the input features – were found to
actors that had not been identified before, thus creating a dynamic contribute to these differences. Collaboration in the DK and FR cases was
8
Table 3
Summary of salient features describing outputs, outcomes, processes and inputs in the 6 cases on co-innovation for fostering ecological intensification.
Evaluative Feature EULACIAS Rocha PURE-DK PURE-FR PURE-DE PURE-NL
dimension
Outputs Built capacities Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries:

participating farmers, agronomic participating participating participating participating
farmers, agronomic researchers, advisors and farmers advisors and scientists and scientists
researchers, advisors, post- farmers, the regional farmers
advisors, post- graduate students, advisory service and
graduate students, national policy scientists
but not with makers and regional
sociological and local
researchers organisations
Actionable 1. Farm system 1. Farm system 1. Crop system 1. Farm system None None
knowledge diagnosis; 2. diagnosis; 2. diagnosis; 2. diagnosis; 2.
Planning for farm Planning for farm Planning for crop Planning for farm
system redesign; 3. system redesign; 3. system redesign; 3. system redesign; 3.
Iterative testing and Iterative testing and Iterative testing and Shaping a co-
improving; 4. improving; 4. improving; 4. innovation approach
Shaping a co- Shaping a co- Shaping a co- in context; 4.
innovation approach innovation approach innovation Networking to scale
in context in context; 5. approach in context up and out
Networking to scale
up and out
Accountability Confidence and Confidence and Confidence and Confidence and Limited confidence No confidence and
commitment commitment commitment built commitment and commitment commitment built
evidenced by uptake evidenced by uptake during the project evidenced by uptake built during the on sustainability
of change proposals of change proposals not continued in of change proposals project; no solutions
during the STE and during the STE and next projects during the STE and continuation in
various follow-up various follow-up various follow-up next projects
projects projects projects
Structural Physical: changes in Physical: changes in Physical: changes in Physical: changes in Physical: inclusion None
changes crops and animals, herd and grassland crop management cropping patterns of flower strips.
cropping management technologies. and technologies, Societal: farmer
technologies and technologies; Societal: little effect but generally not at insight into
their planning; enlargement of beyond project whole-farm level. usefulness of pest
enlargement of buildings in some participants Societal: new monitoring
buildings in some cases. relations in farmer-
cases. Societal: new advisor-researcher
Societal: new relations in farmer- networks; new
relations in farmer- advisor-researcher- perspective on
advisor-researcher policy maker change-oriented
networks; new networks; new research
perspective on perspective on
extension service extension service
and role of research; and role of research;
no effect on society no effect on society
at large. at large.
Facilitate uptake Way of working but Like EULACIAS. No activities were Way of working but No activities to No activities to
of experiments not the actual Scaling up effects undertaken to not the actual secure secure
changes were were stronger due to secure uptake after changes were transferability or transferability or
transferable and embedding in the the project’s transferable and scalability; scalability;
scalable, with regional and lifetime. Unexpected scalable. Scaling out unexpected unexpected lack of
emphasis on scaling national innovation positive effects of in new projects; negative effects of interest among
out, as evidenced by system. Unexpected giving farmers scaling up by uptake statements in stakeholders
follow-up projects. positive effects of responsibility for the of the approach in a media were addressed in
No attention for joint communication project’s direction new R&D unit. addressed various ways
unintended effects of plans were were exploited Unexpected positive
co-option of ‘co- successfully effects of giving
innovation’ concept exploited farmers
responsibility for
project direction
were exploited
Outcomes Socio-ecological Positive effects on Positive effects on Some positive Positive effects at Greater knowledge None
integrity soil erosion, soil grassland and meat effects on pesticide the level of cropping of participating
organic matter and productivity, and use in wheat and systems farmers on their
less or no pesticide workload, while oilseed rape. management and natural resource
use by improved soil maintaining high awareness of base.
and crop levels of systemic nature of
management environmental persistent problems.
indicators.
Livelihood Clear positive effects Clear positive effects – – –
sufficiency & on family income on family income
opportunity and on farmers’ and on farmers’
rewards for labour rewards for labour
compared to compared to
regional peers. regional peers.
(continued on next page)
9
Table 3 (continued )
dimension
Intra- & Positive effects due Positive effects due – – – –

intergenerational to more equitable to more equitable
equity labour reward and labour reward and
enhanced economic enhanced economic
and social and social
performance, but no performance, but no
explicit attention. explicit attention.
Resource Clear positive effects Clear positive effects Positive effects in Positive effects by Positive effects of None
maintenance & by more sustainable by more sustainable one crop species, more sustainable crop monitoring for
efficiency production methods. production methods. with an application production methods pests and natural
in a second. at cropping system enemies.
level.
Stewardship and Positive effects of Positive effects of Positive effects of Positive effects of Joint negotiation None
democratic individual and group individual and group individual but not of individual and group among previously
governance engagement in engagement in group engagement engagement in disconnected levels
sustainability sustainability in sustainability sustainability of research and
decision-making decision-making decision-making decision-making development, and
with impact at a farmers
hierarchically higher
level
Precaution & Changes inspired by Changes inspired by Changes inspired by Changes inspired by Changes inspired Changes inspired
adaptation social and social and social and social and by social and by social and
biophysical biophysical biophysical biophysical biophysical biophysical
unpredictabilities unpredictabilities unpredictabilities unpredictabilities unpredictabilities unpredictabilities
Processes Sequence of Full scientific Full scientific Component-based Component-based Component-based Annual farmer
actions process: baseline, process: baseline, comparison of comparison of comparison of plans with changes
design of design of treatments with and treatments with and treatments with compared to a
intervention, intervention, without without and without, in a baseline but
implementation and implementation and demonstration without rigorous
monitoring, monitoring, format monitoring
recommendations recommendations
Sound Structured Structured Structured Structured Structured Farmer self-
methodology procedures and procedures and procedures and procedures and procedures and reporting
adequate scientific adequate scientific methods for farmer methods for farmer methods for farmer
methods methods demonstration demonstration demonstration
Collaboration Facilitation of Facilitation of Facilitation of Facilitation of Collaboration Collaboration
collaboration among collaboration among collaboration among collaboration among addressed a addressed a
relevant relevant relevant relevant narrowly defined narrowly defined
stakeholders in the stakeholders in the stakeholders, with stakeholders in the group of group of
experimentation experimentation no attention for experimentation stakeholders in stakeholders in
process process higher hierarchical process view of the view of the
levels sustainability sustainability
problem at hand problem at hand
Reflexivity & Approach stimulated Approach stimulated Approach Approach stimulated Approach Approach
learning both first and second both first and second stimulated both first both first and second stimulated both stimulated both
order learning order learning and second order order learning first and second first and second
learning order learning order learning
Transparency Openly published Openly published Openly published After a start with a Difficulty in Difficulty in
results and results and results and researcher-agenda, conveying conveying
documentation of documentation of documentation of open documentation intention of the intention of the
the decision-making the decision-making the decision-making of the decision- experiment to the experiment to
process. Some mass process. Strong mass process making process and farmers and potential actors
media attention media attention published results advisors; lack of
transparency on
position on
pesticides
Inputs Awareness High initial High initial Attention focused on Evolution from Attention focused Attention focused
awareness in the awareness in the incremental change attention for on incremental on incremental
research and farmer research team of incremental change change with change with
teams of need for need for to systemic change limited awareness limited awareness
transformational transformational of the co- of the co-
change change. Low initial innovation innovation
awareness among approach approach
the farmers
Commitment High commitment to High commitment to High commitment High commitment to Limited Limited
engage and continue engage and continue for incremental engage and continue commitment and commitment and
the experiment the experiment change but less so the experiment only for only for
for systemic change incremental change incremental change
Expertise Adequate technical Adequate technical Adequate technical Adequate technical Emphasis on Emphasis on
and participatory and participatory skills, with and participatory technical skills technical skills
skills represented skills represented participatory skills skills accruing over
growing over time time
Trust High level of trust High level of trust Trust increased over High level of trust Breakdown of trust Trust based on
from start from start the course of the from start due to researcher credibility of the
project interview organization
(continued on next page)
10
Table 3 (continued )
dimension
Support Adequate Adequate Financially and Financially and Financially and Financially and
institutionally made institutionally institutionally institutionally
possible by linking strongly supported highly limiting highly limiting
projects by linking projects
Fig. 4. Evaluative scheme for the 6 sustainability transition experiments, following Luederitz et al. (2017). Scores ranged from 1 (dark red) to 5 (dark green). The
greater the score, the stronger the feature was brought out. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.)
similar to that in the Uruguayan cases, but collaborative arrangements with the participants but also with the embedding research and advisory
in DE and NL were less firm (DE, affected by the 500 km distance be organisations, by INIA-Rocha notably as part of a regional level in the
tween the team’s location and participating farmers as well as the in project. Critical comments on pesticide use by the DE case study leader
stitute’s mandate) or emerged very late in the project (NL, after in a farmer magazine revealed a lack of convergence or transparency on
connecting the case to an pre-existing farmer study group). the position towards pesticides, causing one farmer to leave the case. In
The co-innovation approach stimulated reflexivity and learning in the both the DE and NL cases the intention of the activities – contributing to
researcher-advisor core teams of the cases, as well as in the various lesser dependence on pesticides – appeared to be not clear to the
combinations of core team and other actors, using methods derived from farmers, even though they appreciated having learned about insect
PIPA (Alvarez et al., 2010), PAR (Macdonald, 2012) and RMA (van monitoring in the field (DE) and exchanges on pest management with
Mierlo et al., 2010b), monitored using qualitative methods and/or organic farmers (NL).
entry-exit surveys. Differences found for this process feature, like for the
previous one, related to the efficacy in translating learning into action to 5.4. Inputs in relation to outputs
bring about desired outputs.
Regarding the process feature transparency we found differences in Awareness within the core teams of the need for a different way of
use of media and other supportive communication, in excess of the collaboration with farmers was found to be high for the Uruguayan and
required or usual reporting through reports and open field events. In the DK and FR cases. Awareness of the need for radical agronomic
terviewees mentioned the importance of showing the approach to pave changes was generally less pronounced in the European IPM cases
the way for structural changes and facilitate uptake. The INIA-Rocha compared to the Uruguayan cases. The PURE project was structured
and DK cases utilised videos and web-based media. In the EULACIAS, around individual crops and therefore had built-in limitations to sys
INIA-Rocha and FR cases the approach was discussed early-on not only temic change. Throughout the project, however, the farmer-led systems
11
analysis in the FR case highlighted the need for whole-farm change, 6. Discussion
enabling the case to achieve the output features described earlier. In
both Uruguayan cases, we found that the awareness of the core group of Based on the co-innovation approach for governance and manage
researchers and advisors of the need for systemic change caused other ment of sustainability transition projects, we systematically compared 6
researchers and practitioners to join over the course of the project, as cases from Latin America and Europe in terms of 24 indicators. We found
positive outputs became visible. significant differences traceable to input features that determined the
The level of awareness of the need for change, both in the way of efficacy of the project interventions in terms of outputs and outcomes.
working and in the agronomic realities, are reflected in the input feature This finding suggests that more careful construction of projects in terms
commitment. As also suggested by Luederitz et al. (2017), the different of initial awareness, commitment, expertise, trust and support provides
levels of commitment were reflected in the output feature accountability, necessary conditions for more effective transition experiments.
which in turn was nourished by built capacities and actionable knowledge. Furthermore, governance structures differed among the three projects,
Expertise for co-innovation was derived from process facilitation and with less (PURE) or more (Uruguay) involvement of the targeted farmers
teaching experiences in the core teams in the Uruguayan cases and in the in the projects, an explicit level to connect to wider networks (INIA-
PURE hosting team. The individual PURE cases differed strongly in Rocha), or an international level (EULACIAS, PURE). The building of
expertise on process facilitation, with the scientific DE team having less networks to connect a project’s core activities to the broader institu
and the teams with advisors having more expertise. Nevertheless, also tional community was found to contribute positively to the continuity of
the advisor teams commented that the systemic way of working was new the sustainability transition efforts. In terms of the three domains of co-
to them and required adjustments in their role perceptions, from being innovation (Fig. 2), the results thus point to differences in identification
the expert to being the facilitator, and in their contributions to agenda- of the complex adaptive systems to work in and to the degree to which
setting, from technological proposals to systemic ones in which conse social learning was facilitated within those systems, supported by
quences of technologies were elucidated at the level of entire farms. monitoring and evaluation.
Project entrepreneurship was found to be particularly important within Each of the features of the analytical framework may be studied in
the poorly funded PURE cases, where the DK and the FR cases managed detail in itself. Different studies have addressed e.g. the influence on
to connect projects, people and funding streams within and across in positive outcomes of sustainability research by individual awareness,
stitutions to enhance financial inputs to the case. expertise and commitment (Neef and Neubert, 2010), institutional
We found high levels of trust among the various participants in cases context (Klerkx et al., 2017), roles of stakeholders (Blackstock et al.,
with effective outputs in terms of the features built capacities, physical 2007; Kilelu et al., 2013; Reed, 2008), or system definition (Klerkx et al.,
structure changes and actionable knowledge (EULACIAS, INIA-Rocha, DK, 2012; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018). While such analytical approaches
FR), but also for NL. Trust was associated with long-standing relations provide conceptual or evidence-based elements for inclusion in sus
between core team individuals and their organisations on the one side tainability transition experiments, they lack a holistic approach to
and farmers and advisors on the other. Trust was also created by ac project governance and management that supports the design of sus
tivities that addressed a feeling of urgency among the farmers and other tainability transition experiments (e.g. Beratan, 2014; Clark et al., 2016;
actors. The NL case did not manage to identify such areas of urgency, Coutts et al., 2017; Douthwaite and Hoffecker, 2017; Fazey et al., 2018;
and hence could not translate the existing trust into action. As shown in Kok et al., 2019; Lacombe et al., 2018; Nassauer and Opdam, 2008).
the DE case where an interview in a farmer magazine resulted in a strong Recent policies that aim to transform dominant food systems such as the
decrease of trust, diverging worldviews need to be laid out explicitly to Farm to Fork strategy of the European Commission (European Parlia
enhance transparency and trust. ment, 2020), multi-actor oriented approaches in projects under the
Three types of support were found to have contributed to the outputs. Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe research programmes (EIP-AGRI,
First, institutional support was strong in the Uruguayan and FR cases. In 2017) and system-oriented projects of the CGIAR (Leeuwis et al., 2017)
Uruguay, EULACIAS and INIA-Rocha project results were taken as input provide a strong demand to address the ‘how to’ question that has for
by the government and by farmers organisations to develop research and long been considered to be at the margins of the realm of science (Fazey
extension programs for family farmers. In the FR case, the institutional et al., 2018). Coutts et al. (2017) evaluate an approach to innovation in
support came through a specific structure (a mixed technical network or the New Zealand agricultural sector, also called co-innovation. In their
RMT by its French abbreviation) that stimulated joint work of scientists approach, networking and interactive learning among heterogeneous
and other actors. For the DK case, we found that the case was tolerated actors targeted at organisational change are emphasised and described
within the institution, but that at national level questions were raised by nine principles that define a ‘space for co-innovation’. These princi
over the usefulness of the approach. In the DE and NL cases institutional ples provide a useful specification for the social learning setting we have
support was not found. Second, budgets strongly affected the cases in described here (Fig. 1). Our results show the importance of a complex
Europe. The DK and FR cases started in the first year of the 4 year project adaptive systems perspective with attention for creating a project legacy
while the DE and NL cases only started working with farmers 1.5 years by anchoring activities, and monitoring and evaluation as additional
into the project, forced by limited budgets. The DE team considered the domains. Coutts et al. (2017) conclude that among the five projects they
case an option to enlarge the budget of the on-station analysis-oriented evaluated especially the ones that addressed problems of greater
work on IPM in vegetables that was part of another work package. The complexity and from a position of greater room for manoeuvre, i.e. more
budget issue also affected the NL case. Only towards the end of the conducive input features, benefitted from a co-innovation approach.
project, the NL case overcame this by connecting to ongoing innovation These conclusions support our framing of co-innovation as a method for
projects, thus revealing project entrepreneurship. Budgets in the Uru governing and managing systemic rather than incremental change as
guayan cases were more adequate, and through securing additional part of sustainability transition experiments. In this sense, co-innovation
funds teams of up to 25 (part-time) researchers and advisors fostering bears more resemblance with the concept of collaborative adaptive
the co-innovation work could be supported. Third, an essential source of management (Beratan, 2014).
support was the endorsement by the actors at the start of the cases in The pedigree of projects in Fig. 3 suggests that co-innovation as an
Uruguay, resulting from the extensive discussions on results of model- approach may be called scalable, in this case interpreted as geographi
based explorations of sustainability transitions and the shared vision cally expanding (Douthwaite et al., 2003). Notwithstanding its popu
developed in INIA-Rocha through a rapid rural appraisal. These prepa larity among research donors, such descriptive label hides relevant
ratory steps laid the groundwork for awareness, commitment, trust and the contextual factors that affect outputs and outcomes, as shown in this
ensuing outputs. Such support was also secured in the FR case when the study. In line with the postulate of a project as a complex adaptive
agenda-setting was transferred to the farmer group. system operating within a complex adaptive problematic situation, co-
12
innovation should be considered as a way of project governance and and INIA-Rocha supportive inputs were built during the pre-project
management that is to be adapted and re-adapted to each project preparation phase, which resulted in agreement on system definitions
context. The results show the importance of facilitating change-oriented and approaches that resonated with the sense of urgency among the
(research) project managers through adequate project inputs and pro participants and legitimised the subsequent sustainability transition
cesses. Scaling co-innovation then revolves around creating conditions experiments (Clark et al., 2011). EULACIAS benefitted from a whole-
for scaling rather than pushing a (project governance and management) farm modelling study (Dogliotti et al., 2005), while INIA-Rocha built
technology (Wigboldus et al., 2016). on a rapid rural appraisal that was jointly designed and agreed with
regional actors (Albicette et al., 2017). The FR case started from a system
6.1. Revisiting the co-innovation domains definition that lacked alignment with the perceptions of the farmers, but
adapted its strategy to develop a jointly supported experimental plan.
We found four interacting organisational layers at which the co- Scholarly work on lock-ins onto unsustainable trajectories resulting
innovation dimensions (Fig. 2) were implemented. These comprised from an oversimplification of system definitions (e.g. IPES-FOOD, 2016;
(i) the local primary subject of the sustainability transition experiment; Meynard et al., 2018; Vanloqueren and Baret, 2009) shows the poten
(ii) the local agricultural innovation system actors; (iii) the local core tially severe consequences of early fixation on a particular system
project team driving the sustainability transition experiment; (iv) the specification. Interestingly in this respect, the DK case initially devel
international core project team driving the co-innovation approach. We oped much faster than the FR case. Still, its system definition remained
found continuity of the sustainability transition experiments and close to traditional experimental design based on crop-specific bio
apparent success to be associated with a whole-farm rather than a crop- physical traits, and ultimately lacked outputs that allowed socio-
level perspective in layer (i); formal inclusion of (in INIA-Rocha), or at technical changes. Adaptation after the start of a project is often
least informal involvement with (EULACIAS, FR) the local agricultural considered a failure. However, as the FR results show even in a context
innovation system actors in layer (ii); frequent engagement of the core where participants have a collective working history, progressing in
team from layer (iii) with the subject of the sustainability transition sights may draw on the core team’s adaptative capacities to change the
experiment in layer (i), which was supported by physical and social course of action. These results reflect Neef and Neubert (2010) sugges
proximity; pre-existing links of the core team in layer (iii) with the tions to evaluate project team composition based on disciplinary
subject of the sustainability transition experiment in layer (i) to facilitate knowledge, experience with interactive approaches and process
project preparation; and, adoption of methods across layers to enhance expertise.
transparent and inclusive reflection on aims and progress of the sus
tainability transition experiments. The international layers in EULAU 6.2. Impediments to projects as a means to destabilise the status quo
CIAS and PURE were important for developing and fostering the co-
innovation outlook and creating reflection spaces that enabled the Our findings impact on the understanding of projects as activities
project managers to get away from their everyday concerns. In the INIA- that are designed to solve a specific problem within specified constraints
Rocha project, this role was fulfilled by the local core project team of budget and time. Projects designed as sustainability transition ex
capitalising on expertise gathered during the EULACIAS project. This periments may be seen as interventions to destabilise the unsustainable
emphasises the usefulness of portfolio building across projects to enable status quo by providing evidence on the degree of unsustainability as
learning on approaches and tools, and to benefit from networks. well as on the availability of alternatives (Fazey et al., 2018; Luederitz
Monitoring and evaluation were found to have provided insights for et al., 2017). As a single successful project will have limited impact on
learning within and across the governance levels. Other studies also destabilising conventional practices and informal power structures
point out the importance of learning for systemic change (Coutts et al., (Geels and Raven, 2006; Nevens et al., 2013), sustainability transition
2017; Cundill and Fabricius, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2009; van de Kerkhof experiments will need to be designed as successive projects that build on
and Wieczorek, 2005). Qualitative indicators that were part of PIPA, earlier experiences with changes brought about in the incumbent sys
RMA or pragmatically gleaned elsewhere, such as the Most Significant tems. There are various institutional impediments to such a take on
Change stories (Davies and Dart, 2005) collected in EULACIAS, provided project-based change (Fazey et al., 2018). The first is the time needed for
material for reflection, connection and trust building. The more suc project preparation. Our results confirm the importance of project
cessful cases combined qualitative indicators with quantitative in preparation to secure the various input features (Klerkx et al., 2017): in
dicators on baseline and changes in their STEs, and in this way they were the three successful cases between 1 and 3 years were spent on system
able to provide evidence on the successes or trade-offs of their in characterisation and diagnosis at different levels. Here we identify three
terventions, which helped the production of longer-term outcomes additional impediments: the tension in organisations between doing
(EULACIAS, INIA-Rocha, FR). Quantitative indicators were selected projects as a means of organisational survival versus as a means to solve
locally, based on available frameworks such as MESMIS for Latin societal problems. Secondly, a lack of institutional learning of research
America or based on standing procedures such as in FR. We found no and development organisations and donors. And thirdly, contractual
evidence of lack of consensus on the selection of quantitative indicators arrangements by donors that lack adaptive capacity.
as reported by de Olde et al. (2017), who consulted scientist-experts Research and advisory organisations are increasingly focused on
around the world on the most important criteria for selecting in project acquisition for economic survival, as illustrated by the cases in
dicators for robust sustainability assessment. The locally adapted indi PURE (cf. Klerkx et al., 2017). Rather than building a consistent port
cator sets revealed progress that was salient for the cases but precluded folio of projects and programs on specific sustainability transition ex
generic scientific conclusions due to differences between the indicator periments, projects are seen as a means to secure the organisation’s cash
sets. Thus, rather than aiming at a one-size-fits-all approach to indicators flow. This trend is justified by a perception of science as value-free and
for measuring local change as well as for scientific comparisons, specific available to anyone willing to pay. It builds inefficiencies for advance
indicators may be needed that describe change at more aggregate levels ment to sustainable development. It may work counterproductively by
to reveal social and bio-technical progress (Turnheim et al., 2015), for not capitalising on built networks, expertise and methods but rather ‘re-
example in terms of mid-level theories of change (Douthwaite and inventing the wheel’ in subsequent projects (e.g. Turnheim et al., 2015).
Hoffecker, 2017). In addition, the FR case suggested that qualitative Capturing the lessons from previous work, i.e. learning institutionally,
complexity-aware indicators may be more important during initial would also fit the idea of organisational survival and would allow to
development stages of a sustainability transition experiment, when the retain capacities developed even from disconnected project efforts, as e.
experimental design is being negotiated. g. argued by Watts et al. (2007) for the mission-driven CGIAR centres
Input features were found to strongly affect outputs. In EULACIAS (but see Leeuwis et al. (2017) on its lack of uptake). Institutional
13
learning, however, is resource demanding in organisations where proj levels were associated with connections to salient actor networks
ect acquisition and project execution take priority. Implications for the beyond those involved in the on-farm work. The FR case showed that
research and development donor community thus are that new initia such preparatory work could even take place during project imple
tives should reveal continuity with existing physical, social, and mentation if the project team can capitalise on existing knowledge and
knowledge structures through pre-project building of networks and networks.
connections to previous local initiatives. Moreover, research and The complexity and uncertainty associated with sustainability tran
development donors can support sustainability transition contributions sition experiments will require project entrepreneurs that are able to
from projects by developing funding themes that require trans connect people and resources in response to emerging requirements. The
disciplinarity in approaches in contrast to the multi-disciplinary cases also showed that financial requirements associated with successful
approach found in PURE. In a similar way as capacity was built for projects are substantial. To fulfil the need of donors for quick wins,
long-term ecological experiments (Brown et al., 2001; Likens, 1989), projects may need to build portfolios of small wins (Termeer and Dew
current global problems require the development of long-term socio- ulf, 2019) in addition to system-wide radical changes.
ecological sustainable transition experiments integrating different sys The adoption of co-innovation as a common project governance and
tems levels. management perspective across a range of projects (Fig. 3) will enable
The final impediment we note is the inflexible contractual arrange additional analyses of its evolution and skill in fostering sustainability
ments that prevail in donor funding. Once included in a consortium, a transition experiments. Rather than considering it as ‘scientists working
sustainability transition experiment and its actors will remain until the with farmers’ our results show the importance of considering all three
end of the funding term. Experiments, however, may fail and consortium domains: complex adaptive systems, social learning and dynamic
actors may develop different priorities than to devote energy to the STE. monitoring for reflection.
While sustainability transition experiments also provide insights when
they fail, the principle of learning selection (Douthwaite and Gummert,
2010) calls for termination of experiments that do not show the capacity Declaration of Competing Interest
to mobilise adequate levels of input and process features. Such risk of
‘losing the project’ will stimulate organisations to consider whether The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
projects contribute to strategic goals, or are just part of ‘doing projects’ interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
as a business model. Together with more systemic calls for proposals the work reported in this paper.
donors may use such penalties to leverage commitment and expertise
from project participants. Acknowledgements
6.3. Methodological considerations The authors would like to thank all the farmers, advisors, researchers
and other agricultural actors that contributed to the crafting of co-
The tentative framework for sustainability transition experiments innovation. Thanks are due to the interviewees from the PURE-IPM
guided data collection on the six cases. Its structure based on the logic project. WAHR thanks the PURE-IPM project funded by the 7th
model proved accessible to the interviewees. Individual features were Framework program of the European Union under grant number 265865
sometimes found to overlap and difficult to disentangle – e.g. actionable and the DiverIMPACTS project funded by European Union’s Horizon
knowledge is revealed by taking action, which is also covered by 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No.
accountability, and close to physical structural changes. Information on 727482 for financial support. WAHR and SD thank the EULACIAS
governance structures may be addressed more specifically as part of the project, funded by the 6th Framework INCO-Dev Program of the Euro
Processes dimension to enhance insights on system identification pean Union under grant agreement 032387, and the HortEco project
(Beratan, 2014; Duru et al., 2015). Moreover, information on the as funded by NWO-WOTRO under grant agreement W08.250.304 for
sumptions on how the experiment would achieve its objectives, or its financial support. SD thanks the FPTA 209 project, funded by INIA,
Theory of Change, would help to compare approaches as was shown by Uruguay. MMA, VA, CL and AR thank the INIA-PF07 project for financial
Douthwaite and Hoffecker (2017), and would reveal the relation to support.
scaling out, scaling up or, more generally, anchoring the experiments’
outputs (Elzen et al., 2012b). Appendix A. Supplementary data
The interviews for this study did not include actors from the DE and
NL cases due to their unavailability. Instead we combined previous in Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
formation reported in Klerkx et al. (2017) with reflections from the org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103103.
leader of the international hosting team and information from in
terviews with the DK and FR teams. We are convinced that this reflexive
References
approach has done justice to also the DE and NL cases.
Albicette, M.M., Bortagaray, I., Scarlato, S., Aguerrre, V., 2016. Co-innovación para
7. Conclusions promover sistemas ganaderos familiares más sostenibles en uruguay. Análisis de tres
años de cambios en la dimensión social de la sostenibilidad. Rev. Latinoam. Estud.
Rural. I 2, 105–136.
With most of the budget for agricultural research-for-change spent Albicette, M.M., Leoni, C., Ruggia, A., Scarlato, S., Blumetto, O., Albín, A., Aguerre, V.,
through projects, how projects are conducted is a critical determinant of 2017. Co-innovation in family-farming livestock systems in Rocha, Uruguay: a 3-
the rate of sustainability transitions. The analysis revealed how co- year learning process. Outlook Agric. 46, 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0030727017707407.
innovation, as an approach to change-oriented project governance and Altieri, M.A., 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst.
management, led to effective outputs for sustainability transitions. It Environ. 74, 19–31.
also showed that the approach in itself is not sufficient. The cases Alvarez, S., Douthwaite, B., Thiele, G., Mackay, R., Córdoba, D., Tehelen, K., 2010.
Participatory impact pathways analysis: a practical method for project planning and
illustrated the importance of thorough attention for preparation of the
evaluation. Dev. Pract. 20, 946–958. https://doi.org/10.1080/
actual change-oriented work to arrive at legitimate interventions at 09614524.2010.513723.
system levels that enable transcending extant sustainability problems. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., Plummer, R., 2008. Adaptive co-management and the
Problems of low production and environmental deterioration in our paradox of learning. Glob. Environ. Chang. 18, 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2007.07.002.
cases were consistently only overcome by addressing them not at the Axelrod, R., Cohn, M.D., 1999. Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a
field but at the farm level. Capacity building and changes at societal Scientific Frontier. The Free Press, New York.
14
Beratan, K.K., 2014. Summary: addressing the interactional challenges of moving Dumont, B., Fortun-Lamothe, L., Jouven, M., Thomas, M., Tichit, M., 2013. Prospects
collaborative adaptive management from theory to practice. Ecol. Soc. 19 https:// from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century.
doi.org/10.5751/ES-06399-190146. Animal 7, 1028–1043. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112002418.
Blackstock, K.L., Kelly, G.J., Horsey, B.L., 2007. Developing and applying a framework to Duru, M., Therond, O., Fares, M., 2015. Designing agroecological transitions; a review.
evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 60, 726–742. https:// Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 1237–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0318-x.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014. EIP-AGRI, 2017. EIP-AGRI_brochure_multi-actor_projects_2017 [WWW Document]. URL.
Blumetto, O., Castagna, A., Cardozo, G., García, F., Tiscornia, G., Ruggia, A., Scarlato, S., https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/sites/agri-eip/files/eip-agri_brochure_multi
Marta, M., Aguerre, V., Albin, A., 2019. Ecosystem integrity index, an innovative -actor_projects_2017_en_web.pdf (accessed 8.18.20).
environmental evaluation tool for agricultural production systems. Ecol. Indic. 101, Ekboir, J.M., 2003. Research and technology policies in innovation systems: zero tillage
725–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.01.077. in Brazil. Res. Policy 32, 573–586.
Bos, A.P., Koerkamp, P.W.G.G., Gosselink, J.M.J., Bokma, S., Lelystad, A.B., 2009. Elzen, B., Barbier, M., Cerf, M., Grin, J., 2012a. Stimulating transitions towards
Reflexive Interactive Design and its Application in a Project on Sustainable Dairy sustainable farming systems. In: Darnhofer, I., Gibbon, D., Dedieu, B. (Eds.), Farming
Husbandry Systems, 38, pp. 137–145. Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic. Springer Netherlands,
Bos, B., Grin, J., 2008. “Doing” reflexive modernization in pig husbandry: the hard work Dordrecht, pp. 431–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2.
of changing the course of a river. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 33, 480–507. Elzen, B., Barbier, M., Cerf, M., Grin, J., 2012b. Farming Systems Research into the 21st
Britt, H., Patsalides, M., 2013. Complexity-aware monitoring. In: Monitoring and Century: The New Dynamic 431–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2.
Evaluation Series, December. USAID, Washington, DC. European Parliament, 2020. F2f action plan 2020 Strategy-info [WWW Document]. URL.
Brown, J.H., Whitham, T.G., Ernest, S.K.M., Gehring, C.A., 2001. Complex species https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/f2f_action-plan_2020_strate
interactions and the dynamics of ecological systems: long-term experiments. Science gy-info_en.pdf (accessed 8.18.20).
293, 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.293.5530.643. Fazey, I., Schäpke, N., Caniglia, G., Patterson, J., Hultman, J., van Mierlo, B., Säwe, F.,
Caniglia, G., Schäpke, N., Lang, D.J., Abson, D.J., Luederitz, C., Wiek, A., Laubichler, M. Wiek, A., Wittmayer, J., Aldunce, P., Al Waer, H., Battacharya, N., Bradbury, H.,
D., Gralla, F., von Wehrden, H., 2017. Experiments and evidence in sustainability Carmen, E., Colvin, J., Cvitanovic, C., D’Souza, M., Gopel, M., Goldstein, B.,
science: a typology. J. Clean. Prod. 169, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Hämäläinen, T., Harper, G., Henfry, T., Hodgson, A., Howden, M.S., Kerr, A.,
jclepro.2017.05.164. Klaes, M., Lyon, C., Midgley, G., Moser, S., Mukherjee, N., Müller, K., O’Brien, K.,
Carberry, P.S., Hochman, Z., McCown, R.L., Dalgliesh, N.P., Foale, M.a., Poulton, P.L., O’Connell, D.A., Olsson, P., Page, G., Reed, M.S., Searle, B., Silvestri, G., Spaiser, V.,
Hargreaves, J.N.G., Hargreaves, D.M.G., Cawthray, S., Hillcoat, N., Robertson, M.J., Strasser, T., Tschakert, P., Uribe-Calvo, N., Waddell, S., Rao-Williams, J., Wise, R.,
2002. The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support: farmers’, advisers’, Wolstenholme, R., Woods, M., Wyborn, C., 2018. Ten essentials for action-oriented
researchers’ monitoring, simulation, communication and performance evaluation. and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research.
Agric. Syst. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00025-2. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 40, 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026.
Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M., Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jäger, J., Geels, F., Raven, R., 2006. Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development
Mitchell, R.B., 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl. trajectories: ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973-2003). Tech. Anal.
Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 100, 8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100. Strat. Manag. 18, 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777143.
Clark, W.C., Tomich, T.P., van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N.M., Geertsema, W., Rossing, W.A., Landis, D.A., Bianchi, F.J., Van Rijn, P.C., Schaminée, J.
McNie, E., 2011. Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource H., Tscharntke, T., Van Der Werf, W., 2016a. Actionable knowledge for ecological
management at the consultative group on international agricultural research intensification of agriculture. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 209–216. https://doi.org/
(CGIAR). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900231108. 10.1002/fee.1258.
Clark, W.C., van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L., Gallopin, G., 2016. Crafting usable knowledge for Geertsema, W., Rossing, W.A., Landis, D.A., Bianchi, F.J., Van Rijn, P.C., Schaminée, J.
sustainable development. PNAS 113, 4570–4578. https://doi.org/10.2139/ H., Tscharntke, T., Van Der Werf, W., 2016b. Actionable knowledge for ecological
ssrn.2782651. intensification of agriculture. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 209–216. https://doi.org/
Coutts, J., White, T., Blackett, P., Rijswijk, K., Bewsell, D., Park, N., Turner, J.A., 10.1002/fee.1258.
Botha, N., 2017. Evaluating a space for co-innovation: practical application of nine Giller, K.E., Leeuwis, C., Andersson, J.A., Andriesse, W., Brouwer, A., Frost, P.,
principles for co-innovation in five innovation projects. Outlook Agric. 46, 99–107. Hebinck, P., Van Ittersum, M.K., Koning, N., Ruben, R., Slingerland, M., Udo, H.,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727017708453. Veldkamp, T., Van Wijk, M.T., Windmeijer, P., 2008. Competing claims on natural
Cundill, G., Fabricius, C., 2009. Monitoring in adaptive co-management: toward a resources: what role for science? Ecol. Soc. 13.
learning based approach. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 3205–3211. https://doi.org/ Goewie, E.A., 1993. Ecologische landbouw: een duurzaam perspectief? Inaugural
10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.012. address. Wageningen University.
Davies, R., Dart, J., 2005. The “Most Significant Change” Technique (A guide to its use). Hall, A., Bockett, G., Taylor, S., Sivamohan, M.V.K., Clark, N., 2001. Why research
de Olde, E.M., Moller, H., Marchand, F., McDowell, R.W., MacLeod, C.J., Sautier, M., partnership really matter: innovation theory, institutional arrangements and
Halloy, S., Barber, A., Benge, J., Bockstaller, C., Bokkers, E.A.M., de Boer, I.J.M., implications for developing new technology for the poor. World Dev. 29, 783–797.
Legun, K.A., Le Quellec, I., Merfield, C., Oudshoorn, F.W., Reid, J., Schader, C., https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00004-3.
Szymanski, E., Sørensen, C.A.G., Whitehead, J., Manhire, J., 2017. When experts Hegger, D., Lamers, M., Van Zeijl-Rozema, A., Dieperink, C., 2012. Conceptualising joint
disagree: the need to rethink indicator selection for assessing sustainability of knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success
agriculture. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 19, 1327–1342. https://doi.org/10.1007/ conditions and levers for action. Environ. Sci. Pol. 18, 52–65. https://doi.org/
s10668-016-9803-x. 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.002.
de Wildt-Liesveld, R., Bunders, J.F.G., Regeer, B.J., 2015. Governance strategies to IPES-FOOD, 2016. From uniformity to diversity: A paradigm shift from industrial
enhance the adaptive capacity of niche experiments. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 16, agriculture to diversified agroecological systems. In: International Panel of Experts
154–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.04.001. on Sustainable Food Systems.
Dogliotti, S., Van Ittersum, M.K., Rossing, W.A.H., 2005. A method for exploring Ison, R., Blackmore, C., Iaquinto, B.L., 2013. Towards systemic and adaptive governance:
sustainable development options at farm scale: a case study for vegetable farms in exploring the revealing and concealing aspects of contemporary social-learning
South Uruguay. Agric. Syst. 86, 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2004.08.002. metaphors. Ecol. Econ. 87, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.016.
Dogliotti, S., García, M.C., Peluffo, S., Dieste, J.P., Pedemonte, a.J., Bacigalupe, G.F., Kilelu, C.W., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2013. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms
Scarlato, M., Alliaume, F., Alvarez, J., Chiappe, M., Rossing, W.a.H., 2014a. Co- in supporting co-evolution of innovation: contributions and tensions in a smallholder
innovation of family farm systems: a systems approach to sustainable agriculture. dairy development programme. Agric. Syst. 118, 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Agric. Syst. 126, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.02.009. agsy.2013.03.003.
Dogliotti, S., García, M.C., Peluffo, S., Dieste, J.P., Pedemonte, A.J., Bacigalupe, G.F., Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., Leeuwis, C., 2010. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation
Scarlato, M., Alliaume, F., Alvarez, J., Chiappe, M., Rossing, W.A.H., 2014b. Co- systems: the interactions between innovation networks and their environment.
innovation of family farm systems: a systems approach to sustainable agriculture. Agric. Syst. 103, 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.012.
Agric. Syst. 126, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.02.009. Klerkx, L., Van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., 2012. Evolution of systems approaches to
Doré, T., Makowski, D., Malézieux, E., Munier-Jolain, N., Tchamitchian, M., Tittonell, P., agricultural innovation: Concepts, analysis and interventions. In: Darnhofer, I.,
2011. Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensification in agronomy: revisiting Gibbon, D., Dedieu, B. (Eds.), Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The
methods, concepts and knowledge. Eur. J. Agron. 34, 197–210. https://doi.org/ New Dynamic. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 457–483. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.006. 10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2.
Douthwaite, B., 2002. Enabling Innovation: A Practical Guide to Understanding and Klerkx, L., Seuneke, P., de Wolf, P., Rossing, W.A.H., 2017. Replication and translation of
Fostering Technological Innovation. Zed Books, London. co-innovation: the influence of institutional context in large international
Douthwaite, B., Gummert, M., 2010. Learning selection revisited: how can agricultural participatory research projects. Land Use Policy 61, 276–292. https://doi.org/
researchers make a difference? Agric. Syst. 103, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.027.
j.agsy.2010.01.005. Kok, K.P.W., den Boer, A.C.L., Cesuroglu, T., van der Meij, M.G., de Wildt-Liesveld, R.,
Douthwaite, B., Hoffecker, E., 2017. Towards a complexity-aware theory of change for Regeer, B.J., Broerse, J.E.W., 2019. Transforming research and innovation for
participatory research programs working within agricultural innovation systems. sustainable food systems-a coupled-systems perspective. Sustain. 11 https://doi.org/
Agric. Syst. 155, 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.002. 10.3390/SU11247176.
Douthwaite, B., Keatinge, J.D.H., Park, J.R., 2002. Learning selection: an evolutionary Kolb, D.A., 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
model for understanding, implementing and evaluating participatory technology Development. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
development. Agric. Syst. 72, 109–131. Lacombe, C., Couix, N., Hazard, L., 2018. Designing agroecological farming systems with
Douthwaite, B., Van De Fliert, E., Kuby, T., Schulz, S., 2003. Impact pathway evaluation: farmers: a review. Agric. Syst. 165, 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agric. Syst. agsy.2018.06.014.
78, 243–265.
15
Leeuwis, C., 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Rossing, W.A.H., Sabatier, R., Teillard, F., Groot, J.C.J., Tittonell, P., 2017. Rebalancing
Extension. Blackwell Science, Oxford. food production and nature conservation. The need for design-oriented research. In:
Leeuwis, C., Schut, M., Klerkx, L., 2017. Systems research in the CGIAR as an arena of Gordon, I.J., T, H., H, P., Squire, G.R. (Eds.), Food Production and Nature
struggle. In: Sumberg, J. (Ed.), Agronomy for Development. The Politics of Conservation. Conflicts and Solutions. Earthscan, London and New York,
Knowledge in Agricultural Research. Taylor and Francis, pp. 59–78. pp. 261–280.
Levin, S.A., 1998. Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems. Schäpke, N., Stelzer, F., Caniglia, G., Bergmann, M., Wanner, M., Singer-Brodowski, M.,
Ecosystems 1, 431–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100219900037. Loorbach, D., Olsson, P., Baedeker, C., Lang, D.J., 2018. Jointly experimenting for
Likens, G.E. (Ed.), 1989. Long Term Studies in Ecology: Approaches and Alternatives. transformation? Shaping real-world laboratories by comparing them. Gaia 27,
Springer, New York. 85–96. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.S1.16.
López-Ridaura, S., Masera, O., Astier, M., 2002. Evaluating the sustainability of complex Scherr, S.J., McNeely, J.A., 2008. Biodiversity conservation and agricultural
socio-environmental systems. The MESMIS framework. Ecol. Indic. 2, 135–148. sustainability: towards a new paradigm of “ecoagriculture” landscapes. Philos.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-160X(02)00043-2. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 363, 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1098/
Luederitz, C., Schäpke, N., Wiek, A., Lang, D.J., Bergmann, M., Bos, J.J., Burch, S., rstb.2007.2165.
Davies, A., Evans, J., König, A., Farrelly, M.A., Forrest, N., Frantzeskaki, N., Schot, J., Steinmueller, W.E., 2018. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of
Gibson, R.B., Kay, B., Loorbach, D., McCormick, K., Parodi, O., Rauschmayer, F., innovation and transformative change. Res. Policy 47, 1554–1567. https://doi.org/
Schneidewind, U., Stauffacher, M., Stelzer, F., Trencher, G., Venjakob, J., 10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011.
Vergragt, P.J., von Wehrden, H., Westley, F.R., 2017. Learning through evaluation – Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S., 2004. The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. Int.
a tentative evaluative scheme for sustainability transition experiments. J. Clean. J. Foresight Innov. Policy 1, 4–32. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2004.004621.
Prod. 169, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.005. Termeer, C.J.A.M., Dewulf, A., 2019. A small wins framework to overcome the
Macdonald, C.D., 2012. Understanding participatory action research: a qualitative evaluation paradox of governing wicked problems. Polic. Soc. 38, 298–314. https://
research methodology option. Can. J. Action Res. 13, 34–50. doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1497933.
McCown, R.L., 2002. Changing systems for supporting farmers decisions: paradigms, Tittonell, P., Klerkx, L., Baudron, F., Félix, G.F., Ruggia, A., Van Apeldoorn, D.,
problems, and prospects. Agric. Syst. 74, 179–220. Dogliotti, S., Mapfumo, P., Rossing, W.A.H., 2016. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews,
McLaughlin, J.A., Jordan, G.B., 2010. Using logic models. In: Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H.P., pp. 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5961-9.
Newcomer, K.E. (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. Jossey-Bass, San Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F.W., Hof, A., Mcmeekin, A., Nykvist, B., Van
Francisco, pp. 55–88. Vuuren, D.P., 2015. Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: bridging
Meynard, J.-M., Charrier, F., Fares, M., Le Bail, M., Magrini, M.-B., Charlier, A., analytical approaches to address governance challenges. Glob. Environ. Chang. 35,
Messéan, A., 2018. Socio-technical lock-in hinders crop diversification in France. 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.010.
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38, 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0535-1. van de Kerkhof, M., Wieczorek, A., 2005. Learning and stakeholder participation in
Nassauer, J.I., Opdam, P., 2008. Design in science: extending the landscape ecology transition processes towards sustainability: methodological considerations. Technol.
paradigm. Landsc. Ecol. 23, 633–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-008-9226-7. Forecast. Soc. Change 72, 733–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Neef, A., Neubert, D., 2010. Stakeholder participation in agricultural research projects: a techfore.2004.10.002.
conceptual framework for reflection and decision-making. Agric. Human Values 28, van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L., 2006. Linking knowledge and action for sustainable
179–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9272-z. development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31, 445–477. https://doi.org/10.1146/
Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., Loorbach, D., 2013. Urban transition labs: co- annurev.energy.31.102405.170850.
creating transformative action for sustainable cities. J. Clean. Prod. 50, 111–122. van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., Smits, R., Woolthuis, R.K., 2010a. Learning towards system
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.001. innovation: evaluating a systemic instrument. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 77,
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2009. A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi- 318–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.08.004.
level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, van Mierlo, B., Regeer, B., van Amstel, M., Arkesteijn, M., Beekman, V., Bunders, J., de
354–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001. Cock Buning, T., Elzen, B., Hoes, A.-C., Leeuwis, C., 2010b. Reflexive Monitoring in
Pereira, L.M., Karpouzoglou, T., Frantzeskaki, N., Olsson, P., 2018. Designing Action: A Guide for Monitoring System Innovation Projects. Communication and
transformative spaces for sustainability in social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 23 Innovation Studies, WUR; Athena Institute, VU, Wageningen/Amsterdam.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10607-230432. Vanloqueren, G., Baret, P.V., 2009. How agricultural research systems shape a
Pohl, C., Hirsch Hadorn, G., 2008. Methodological challenges of transdisciplinary technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological
research. Nat. Sci. Soc. Artic 16, 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss:2008035. innovations. Res. Policy 38, 971–983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Prost, L., Berthet, E.T.A., Cerf, M., Jeuffroy, M.H., Labatut, J., Meynard, J.M., 2017. respol.2009.02.008.
Innovative design for agriculture in the move towards sustainability: scientific Vereijken, P., 1997. A methodical way of prototyping integrated and ecological arable
challenges. Res. Eng. Des. 28, 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0233- farming systems (I/EAFS) in interaction with pilot farms. Eur. J. Agron. 7, 235–250.
4. Voytenko, Y., McCormick, K., Evans, J., Schliwa, G., 2015. Urban living labs for
Prost, L., Reau, R., Paravano, L., Cerf, M., Jeuffroy, M.H., 2018. Designing agricultural sustainability and low carbon cities in Europe: towards a research agenda. J. Clean.
systems from invention to implementation: the contribution of agronomy. Lessons Prod. 123, 45–54.
from a case study. Agric. Syst. 164, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Wals, A.E.J., van der Leij, T., 2007. Introduction. In: Wals, A. (Ed.), Social Learning:
agsy.2018.04.009. Towards a Sustainable World, pp. 17–32.
Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature Watts, J., Horton, D., Douthwaite, B., La Rovere, R., Thiele, G., Prasad, S., Staver, C.,
review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 2007. Transforming impact assessment: beginning the quiet revolution of
biocon.2008.07.014. institutional learning and change. Exp. Agric. 44, 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Rockwell, K., Bennet, C., 2004. Targeting outcomes of programs: a hierarchy for S0014479707005960.
targeting outcomes and evaluating their achievement. Fac. Publ. Agric. Leadership Wiek, A., Ness, B., Schweizer-Ries, P., Brand, F.S., Farioli, F., 2012. From complex
Educ. Commun. Dep. Pap. 48, 1–48. systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative appraisal of
Rossing, W.A.H., Jansma, J.E., De Ruijter, F.J., Schans, J., 1997. Operationalizing sustainability science projects. Sustain. Sci. 7, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/
sustainability: exploring options for environmentally friendly flower bulb production s11625-011-0148-y.
systems. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 103, 217–234. Wigboldus, S., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., Schut, M., Muilerman, S., Jochemsen, H., 2016.
Rossing, W.A.H., Dogliotti, S., Bacigalupe, G.-F., Cittadini, E., Mundet, C., Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. Agron. Sustain.
Douthwaite, B., Álvarez, S., Tehelen, K., Lundy, M., Almekinders, C., 2010. Project Dev. 36 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0380-z.
design and management based on a co-innovation framework: Towards more Wijnands, F.G., 1999. A methodical way of prototyping more sustainable farming
effective research intervention for sustainable development of farming systems. In: systems in interaction with pilot farms. In: Härdtlein, M., Kaltschmitt, M.,
Darnhofer, I., Grötzer, M. (Eds.), Building Sustainable Rural Futures. The Added Lewandowski, I., Wurl, H.N. (Eds.), Nachhaltigheit in Der Landwirtschaft.
Value of Systems Approaches in Times of Change and Uncertainty. BOKU University, Initiatieven Zum Umweltschutz, vol. 15. Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, pp. 365–391. Band.
Vienna, pp. 402–412.
16

Crafting Actionable Knowledge On Ecological Intensificarion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crafting Actionable Knowledge On Ecological Intensificarion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crafting Actionable Knowledge On Ecological Intensificarion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agricultural Systems 190 (2021) 103103

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Crafting actionable knowledge on ecological intensification: Lessons from

1. Introduction emphasis put on specific environmental, social and economic objectives,

2.3. Evolution of the approach Table 1

Outputs Built capacities Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries: Beneficiaries:

Intra- & Positive effects due Positive effects due – – – –

You might also like