The need for a new agro innovation system

Chapter

Abstract

Agriculture has seen a tremendous development in both production and productivity growth during the last decades. A continuous innovation effort was at the heart of these positive developments. And with that growth, the negative effects on the physical and social environment have also become apparent. For the coming decades the world population will continue to grow, and rising incomes will lead to the increasing demand for food and other agricultural produce. These developments urge the agricultural sector to shift toward a more sustainable development so that production will continue to rise and the impact on the environment will diminish. Systems innovation is needed to bring this about. Based on a large number of action experiments we propose five assumptions that may alter the way in which innovation can be organized and stimulated. This book explores the validity and applicability of these assumptions building on an extensive body of research of various disciplines, that was carried out alongside the action experiments. The results are presented as a practical model to transform agro innovation.

Keywords

Sustainable Development Innovation System Action Experiment Innovation Process Agricultural Sector 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beddington, J. (2010). Food security: Contributions from science to a new and greener revolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B Biological Sciences, 365(1537), 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bekman, H. (1998). Controlled quality meat: The Dutch experience. Journal of Food Safety, 18(4), 363–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boogaard, B.K., Bock, B.B., Oosting, S.J., Wiskerke, J.S.C. and van der Zijpp, A.J. (2010). Social acceptance of dairy arming: The ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 1–24.Google Scholar
  4. Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M. and Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31(2), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Casimir, G. and Dutilh, C. (2003). Sustainability: A gender studies perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(4), 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunn, E.C. (2003). Trojan pig: Paradoxes of food safety regulation. Environment and Planning A, 35(8), 1493–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. FAO (2002), World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
  9. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 74(4), 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hjorth, P. and Bagheri, A. (2006). Navigating towards sustainable development: A system dynamics approach. Futures, 38(1), 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johansson, F. (2004). The Medici effect: What elephants and epidemics can teach us about innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jongbloed, A.W. and Lenis, N.P. (1998). Environmental Concerns about Animal Manure. Journal of Animal Science, 76(10), 2641–2648.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Leeuwis, C., Smits, R., Grin, J., Klerkx, L.W.A., van Mierlo, B.C. and Kuipers, A. (2006). Equivocations on the post privatization dynamics in agricultural innovation systems. In The design of an innovation enhancing environment. Working papers no. 4 (pp. 3–58). Zoetermeer: TransForum Agro & Groen.Google Scholar
  15. Ludwig, D. (2001). The era of management is over. Ecosystems, 4(4), 758–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K. and Rangaswami, M.R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 88(9), 1–10.Google Scholar
  17. Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Palmer, J., Smith, T., Willetts, J. and Mitchell, C. (2007). Creativity, ethics and transformation: Key factors in a transdisciplinary application of systems methodology to resolving wicked problems in sustainability. In: Systemic development: Local solutions in a global environment. Auckland, New Zealand: Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology.Google Scholar
  19. Peterson, H.C. (2009). Transformational supply chains and the ‘wicked problem’ of sustainability: Aligning knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship, and leadership. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 9(2), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Porter, M.E. (1998). On competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  21. Regeer, B.J. (2010). Making the invisible visible. Analysing the development of strategies and changes in knowledge production to deal with persistent problems in sustainable development. Oisterwijk: Boxpress.Google Scholar
  22. Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schiere, J.B. and Van Keulen, H. (1999). Rethinking high input systems of livestock production: A case study of nitrogen emissions in Dutch dairy farming. Tropical Grasslands, 33(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  24. Slingerland, M. and Rabbinge, R. (2009). Introduction. In K.J. Poppe, C. Termeer and M. Slingerland (eds.), Transitions towards sustainable agriculture, food chains and peri-urban areas, pp. 13–23 (illustrated ed.). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Smits, R. and Kuhlmann, S. (2004). The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1(1/2), 4–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Strauss, A.L. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage publications.Google Scholar
  27. UNEP (2009). The environmental food crisis: The environment’s role in averting future food crises: A UNEP rapid response assessment. Arendal, Norway.Google Scholar
  28. Van Bueren, E.M., Klijn, E.H. and Koppenjan, J.F.M. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 193–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Latesteijn, H.C. (1998). Future land use in Europe. In E.M. Barron and I. Nielsen (eds.), Agriculture and sustainable land use in Europe: Papers from conferences of European environmental advisory councils (pp. 101–115) (illustrated ed.). The Hague; Boston: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  30. Van Mierlo, B., Leeuwis, C., Smits, R. and Woolthuis, R.K. (2010). Learning towards system innovation: Evaluating a systemic instrument. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77(2), 318–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wallinga, D. (2009). Today’s food system: How healthy is it? Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 4(3–4), 251–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. WRR (1995). Sustained risks: A lasting phenomenon, report no. 44. The Hague: SDU.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TransForumZoetermeerThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations