Abstract
Technological innovations demand interactions across academics, end-users and commercial stakeholders if they are to be ‘fit for purpose’. Stakeholder engagement can enhance the efficacy of new biosecurity technologies, increase buy-in as well as uptake and build relationships to increase ‘preparedness’. We explore the role of stakeholder engagement and social learning through a research project developing five novel detection technologies. Our aims were to underpin the technological development, facilitate stakeholder engagement and investigate the role of engagement in enabling socio-technological innovation. Targeted, time-sensitive stakeholder engagement is preferred, and this will vary depending on the TRL, whilst the more diffuse benefits of broader social learning remain difficult to defend. However, it was concluded that collaborative approaches are still critical in stimulating effective technology development.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., et al. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biologial Conservation, 205, 93–108.
Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 726–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.05.014.
Boyd, I. L., Freer-Smith, P. H., Gilligan C. A., & Godfray, H. C. J. (2013). The consequences of tree pests and diseases for ecosystem services. Science, 342, 1235773.
Brand, R., & Karnoven, A. (2007). The ecosystem of expertise: Complementary knowledges for sustainable development. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 3(1), 21–31.
Brasier, C. M. (2008). The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment from international trade in plants. Plant Pathology, 57, 792–808.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dandy, N., Marzano, M., Porth, E., Urquhart, J., & Potter, C. (2017). Who has a stake in ash dieback? A conceptual framework for the identification and categorisation of tree health stakeholders. Special edition publication from COST Action Fraxback. http://www.slu.se/globalassets/ew/org/inst/mykopat/forskning/stenlid/dieback-of-european-ash.pdf.
Davies, A. L., & White, R. M. (2012). Collaboration in natural resource governance: Reconciling stakeholder expectations in deer management in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management, 112, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.032.
EARTO. (2014). The TRL scale as a research and innovation policy tool, EARTO recommendations. http://www.earto.eu/publications1.html.
Everett, R. A. (2000). Patterns and pathways of biological invasions. Tree, 15(5), 177–178.
Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies—The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233.
Galanakis, K. (2006). Innovation process. Make sense using systems thinking. Technovation, 26, 1222–1232.
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.
Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39, 495–510.
Geels, F. W., & Kemp, R. (2007). Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies. Technology in Society, 29(4), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.08.009.
Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Firecasting and Social Change, 74, 413–432.
Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006). Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 35(10), 1441–1449.
Marzano, M., Dandy, N., Bayliss, H. R., Porth, E., & Potter, C. (2015). Part of the solution? Stakeholder awareness, information and engagement in tree health issues. Biological Invasions, 17(7), 1961–1977.
Mulder, K. F. (2007). Innovation for sustainable development: From environmental design to transition management. Sustainability Science, 2(2), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-007-0036-7.
Mulgan, G. (2007). Social innovation—What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Oxford: Said Business School.
O’Brien, L., Marzano, M., & White, R. M. (2013). ‘Participatory interdisciplinarity’: Towards the integration of disciplinary diversity with stakeholder engagement for new models of knowledge production. Science and Public Policy, 40, 51–61.
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2006). The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 10.
Perrings, C., Burgiel, S., Lonsdale, M., Mooney, H., & Williamson, M. (2010). International cooperation in the solution to trade-related invasive species risks. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1195, 198–212.
Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 501–518.
Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1933–1949.
Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34, 1491–1510.
Sutherland, A., da Silva Wells, C., Darteh, B., & Butterworth, J. (2012). Researchers as actors in urban water governance? Perspectives on learning alliances as an innovative mechanism for change. International Journal of Water, 6(3/4), 311–329.
Webber, J. (2010). Pest risk analysis and invasion pathways for plant pathogens. New Zealand Journal of Forest Science, 40(Suppl.), 45–56.
White, R. M., & van Koten, H. (2016). Co-designing for sustainability: Strategising community carbon emission reduction through socio-ecological innovation. The Design Journal, 19(1), 25–46. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14606925.2015.1064219.
Whitmarsh, L. (2012). How useful is the multi-level perspective for transport and sustainability research? Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 483–487.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the project team members and stakeholders who generously gave their time to participate in the social research. The project ‘New approaches for the early detection of tree health pests and pathogens’ (http://protectingtreehealth.org.uk/) was supported by a grant funded jointly by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Forestry Commission, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Scottish Government, under the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Initiative.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marzano, M., White, R.M., Jones, G. (2018). Enhancing Socio-technological Innovation for Tree Health Through Stakeholder Participation in Biosecurity Science. In: Urquhart, J., Marzano, M., Potter, C. (eds) The Human Dimensions of Forest and Tree Health. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76956-1_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76956-1_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-76955-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-76956-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)