Search

This thesis is a critical exploration of how the concept of inclusive innovation is understood and practised, as well as its legitimacy across different spheres in the Kenyan agricultural sector. Though social exclusion from innovation processes has been a long-standing concern, the concept of ‘inclusive innovation’ has emerged recently to denote how innovation can include marginalised actors in its processes and outcomes. Despite its rhetoric within various policy and academic circles, the concept remains ambiguous and there lacks a consensus on what it entails and how it can be assessed. The central aim of this thesis is therefore to explore how processes of inclusive innovation unfold and relate across different spheres in an agricultural innovation system.The first study investigates the historical background and current landscape of the agricultural innovation system in Kenya in order to identify key issues relating to social inclusion and exclusion within this system. It finds that a key issue in the history of state-led agricultural innovation and development was the annexing of prime agricultural land for European settlers in the country and the exclusion of many rural areas from official agricultural research, education, and development support. The second study examines how the issue of inclusive innovation if framed both in literature and by different actors within the Kenyan agricultural sector. It finds similarities as well as differences in how the issue is framed in literature on the one hand and by agricultural practitioners in Kenya on the other hand. The third study uses ‘the ladder of inclusive innovation’ to examine the levels and forms of social inclusion within three agricultural extension and advisory service programmes in Kenya. Findings indicate a skewed focus on levels of social inclusion that are lower in the ladder such as the intention to include and the delivery of AEAS to the farmer compared to higher levels of social inclusion such as

In the agri-food sector terms like agriculture 4.0, smart farming and digital agriculture are used to describe the digital transformation process that impacts both on- and off-farm. Digital technologies are often seen as an opportunity to enable sustainable futures in agriculture and rural areas. They, however, often have impacts that go beyond use of the digital technology, but also includes social, economic, institutional, etc., aspects, which can be difficult to foresee and understand. Digital transformation is thus a process that comes with uncertainties, expectations and the need for sense-making by and for actors. Hence the research objective of this thesis is to develop insights and understanding of the challenges encountered by organisations, value chains and the agricultural knowledge and innovation system (AKIS) in their ability to make sense of digital transformation of agri-food systems. This objective leads to the following overall research question: How do actors within agri-food systems make sense of digital transformation?The following sub-research questions will help to address this overall research question:How do actors within agri-food systems perceive digital transformation?What are key elements for actors within agri-food systems to make sense of and respond to digital transformation responsibly?Chapter 1 introduces the core concepts of this thesis, namely digi-grasping and Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). The former can be considered a form of sense-making whereby actors actively gain awareness and get involved in the digital world. This will help them to deal the earlier mentioned uncertainties, expectations and challenges and in doing so they may move across different digi-grasping modes (e.g. ignorance, awareness, empowerment, and transformation). The latter, the RRI approach, can help to consider unseen and unknown (positive or negative) aspects of digital transformation using four main principles (e.g. anticipation, inclusion, r

Supply chains are increasingly being virtualized in response to globalization and emerging market challenges. Virtualization requires technical innovation using IoT technologies such as smart sensors, and it allows to transmit quality information across the chain. Associated organizational innovation is complex, especially in SME-dominated supply chains, and relies upon intensive knowledge exchange, discussions and negotiation. However, the development of solutions to address socio-institutional barriers to virtual supply chains has been under-researched up to now. This study analyses barriers to virtualization faced in SME-dominated supply chains, that is, the Dutch floriculture. The second step is developing a solution to core barriers in the form of a dedicated simulation game, the ‘Virtual Flower Chain’. Design and experiences are shown. The barriers that the game addresses are a sector-wide lack of cooperation, consumer focus, and sense of urgency, as well as a limited understanding of virtualization. The validation through game sessions shows that 87% of the participants gained more insights about the benefits of virtualization technologies and the willingness to collaborate, rather than blaming others, increased to 89% after the game. Game participants achieved more awareness of their position in a larger system, rather than as an isolated business.

Global warming and climate change pose serious risks for ecological and social systems worldwide. Vietnam, due to its exposed geographical location and socio-economical context, has been recognized as one of the countries that is most severely affected by climate change. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report concluded that human influence is mostly likely the dominant cause of the observed global warming. The UNFCCC’s Conference of the Parties in 2015 set a target of keeping global temperature increase within 2oC in comparison to the pre-industrialized era to ensure that the world climate system will not collapse. Addressing the consequences of climate change requires both mitigation and adaptation. Moreover, understanding climate change risks appears to be a communication challenge in addressing the determinants of risk negligence, especially among the groups who fail to exercise appropriate responses against the anthropogenic causes and expected consequences. Therefore, climate change communication is important to raise awareness, to garner support for collective initiatives, and to motivate individual action. The main objectives of this thesis are to understand which factors influence flood and climate change risk perceptions and efficacy towards responding to flood and climate risks among different groups of people living in the coastal and delta communities in Vietnam. The thesis also aims to test message framing methods to effectively communicate flood and climate change risks for behavioural changes toward mitigation and adaptation. Several conceptual frameworks were developed or adapted based on existing theories around risk perceptions, efficacy, and communication. The principle data collection method applied in all studies is quantitative with a total sample of 2299 inhabitants in coastal and delta communities in Vietnam. Regarding flood and climate change risk perceptions, Chapter 2 and 3 showed that while pairwise analyses revealed a significant a

The global availability of (low-cost) digital technologies and services have made digital innovation a key goal and investment theme in the agricultural sector, including in Africa. For this Global South context, there is keen hope that longstanding, complex problems in the agricultural sector, like market access, information provision and knowledge sharing, and monitoring of pest and diseases, can be addressed with the aid of digital technologies.In the past, the introduction of new, modern technologies in smallholder farming communities often failed. Designed in and for rich, western countries, the technologies did not fit the needs, capacity, and life-world of African smallholder farmers. Participatory approaches are an increasingly popular response to this problem. Participatory design means that a product is developed together with users and other stakeholders. To date, the participatory design approach is widely but somewhat uncritically adopted for designing digital agriculture technologies and services. It is thereby assumed that this approach leads to designs that fit the needs and demands of users.In practice we still know very little about the process through which digital agriculture services are designed and the complex and uncertain circumstances wherein design decisions are made. We also have limited understanding about the role that design plays in determining the societal consequence of digitalization and who is, ultimately, affected and in what way (positive or negative).This PhD research contributes to these research gaps by developing understanding about the factors and processes that determine the design and use of digital innovations that are created to address complex agricultural problems. It does this by studying how digital agriculture apps are designed, by whom, with what objectives, and what outcomes and consequences. The study’s primary question is: ‘What factors and processes shape the design and use of digital advisory and decision sup

How can dairy farmers in the land-scarce East African highlands increase their market participation in a sustainable way? Answering this question is important to ensure sufficient supply of safe milk and dairy products to rural and urban consumers. The question implies that farmers can make a decent livelihood, achieve investments and changes in their practices, and are not exposed to insurmountable risks. It also implies that other actors in the market chain do the same, and that a conducive enabling environment is present. The question further touches on societal expectations regarding what is being produced and how, with profound concerns about social inclusivity and the impact of market dynamics and climate change.Chapter 1 lays out the objective of this thesis to gain insights into factors affecting commercialization of dairy farming under land scarcity, through assessment of the dynamics of market participation, land use intensification, and resilience of dairy farming systems in relation to the markets for inputs, services, and outputs. The main research question is: in what ways do market quality and spatial factors affect commercialization of dairy farming systems under land scarcity in two countries in the East African highlands? It considers the research question from different angles: the role of spatial factors in driving or hindering upgrading of dairy farming systems; the effects of input and service arrangements on the market quality and market participation of dairy farmers; and lastly, transition and resilience of farming systems Chapter 2 looks at the effect of being located in a dairy cluster on dairy farm commercialization. This comparative study of five emerging dairy clusters elaborates how the upgrading of farming systems, value chains, and context shapes transformations from semi-subsistent to market-oriented dairy farming. The main results show unequal cluster upgrading along two intensification dimensions: dairy feeding system and

Different actors, for different reasons, have increasingly questioned how current development models affect distribution, diversity, directionality, and democracy issues within socio-technical systems where the contemporary world meets its basic needs, such as food, energy, and transport. Scholars focused on analyzing agri-food systems' evolution have paid close attention to how directionality interacts with systemic governance to promote specific goals – e.g., to make systems more organized, efficient, or profitable; to make them more environmentally friendly, inclusive, or resilient. Despite valuable critiques and theoretical reflections provided by previous literature regarding directionality and systemic governance, there is a call for 1) sharpening how directionality influences transformative processes; and 2) shedding light on the role of systemic governance in the steerability of directionality. This thesis aims to contribute to these debates by analyzing case studies related to the evolvement of Brazilian pig production from the 1960s to date. The thesis proposes, as one of its key findings, the 'streams of directionality' concept. In doing so, it offers a more fine-grained comprehension of how directionality unfolds in agri-food systems by 1) arguing that the guidance directionality exerts on agri-food systems is multifaceted, and 2) implying that its multifaceted guidance unfolds through different levels and domains. Drawing upon the streams of directionality concept, this thesis offers a double understanding of synchronization in the steering of change. Moreover, it argues that there is a need to pay explicit public policy attention to build systemic governance elements to promote the synchronization or desynchronization of the guiding forces linked to directionality. &nbsp

This paper addresses the question how public-private partnerships function as systemic innovation policy instruments within agricultural innovation systems. Public-private partnerships are a popular government tool to promote innovations. However, the wide ranging nature of PPPs make it difficult to assess their effects beyond the direct impacts they generate for the partners. This paper broadens the discussion on the evaluation of PPPs beyond the organisational and financial benefits of the actors involved, and assesses their contribution to the functioning of the innovation system itself. In this paper, we utilise an innovation system perspective that focusses on how PPPs influence the dynamic interplay of innovation system functions and how these functions form a set of feedback loops that constitute an ‘innovation motor’. We compare the innovation history of four cases that differ in their strategic policy goals, either working on agricultural sustainability, or on the international competitiveness in the Dutch agricultural sector. The results show the strengths and weaknesses of different types of public-private partnerships as systemic instruments and their capability to orchestrate other types of innovation policy instruments

Intermediary actors have been proposed as key catalysts that speed up change towards more sustainable socio-technical systems. Research on this topic has gradually gained traction since 2009, but has been complicated by the inconsistency regarding what intermediaries are in the context of such transitions and which activities they focus on, or should focus on. We briefly elaborate on the conceptual foundations of the studies of intermediaries in transitions, and how intermediaries have been connected to different transition theories. This shows the divergence – and sometimes a lack – of conceptual foundations in this research. In terms of transitions theories, many studies connect to the multi-level perspective and strategic niche management, while intermediaries in technological innovation systems and transition management have been much less explored. We aim to bring more clarity to the topic of intermediaries in transitions by providing a definition of transition intermediaries and a typology of five intermediary types that is sensitive to the emergence, neutrality and goals of intermediary actors as well as their context and level of action. Some intermediaries are specifically set up to facilitate transitions, while others grow into the role during the process of socio-technical change. Based on the study, as an important consideration for future innovation governance, we argue that systemic and niche intermediaries are the most crucial forms of intermediary actors in transitions, but they need to be complemented by a full ecology of intermediaries, including regime-based transition intermediaries, process intermediaries and user intermediaries.

The term scaling (up) has become increasingly popular over the past three decades in the context of development initiatives and related investment proposals. Such scaling (up) generally relates to innovations, which include (new) technologies, practices (and habits), policies (and wider institutions), and projects. The approach of scaling innovations is often presented as the instrument par excellence for addressing grand challenges in/for society, to the extent that it may be regarded as a core development paradigm or even ideology. This thesis presents the case for a need to approach ideas and practices related to scaling more critically than is commonly done. This includes a need to consider related complexities and potentially negative implications from a more holistic perspective. The thesis discusses concerns as well as opportunities for developing a practice of responsible scaling of innovations.

Innovation Platforms (IPs) are seen as a promising vehicle to foster a paradigm shift in agricultural research for development (AR4D). By facilitating interaction, negotiation and collective action between farmers, researchers and other stakeholders, IPs can contribute to more integrated, systemic innovation that is essential for achieving agricultural development impacts. However, successful implementation of IPs requires institutional change within AR4D establishments. The objective of this paper is to reflect on the implementation and institutionalisation of IPs in present AR4D programmes. We use experiences from sub-Saharan Africa to demonstrate how the adoption and adaptation of IPs creates both opportunities and challenges that influence platform performance and impact. Niche-regime theory is used to understand challenges, and anticipate on how to deal with them. A key concern is whether IPs in AR4D challenge or reinforce existing technology-oriented agricultural innovation paradigms. For example, stakeholder representation, facilitation and institutional embedding determine to a large extent whether the IP can strengthen systemic capacity to innovate that can lead to real paradigm change, or are merely ‘old wine in new bottles’ and a continuation of ‘business as usual’. Institutional embedding of IPs and – more broadly – the transition from technology-oriented to system-oriented AR4D approaches requires structural changes in organisational mandates, incentives, procedures and funding, as well as investments in exchange of experiences, learning and capacity development.

This study identifies systemic problems in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) in rela-tion to the AIS capacity to enact a co-innovation approach, in which all relevant actors in the agriculturalsector contribute to combined technological, social and institutional change. Systemic problems are fac-tors that negatively influence the direction and speed of co-innovation and impede the developmentand functioning of innovation systems. The contribution in the paper is twofold. Firstly, it combinesboth innovation system functions and systemic problems in an integrated analysis to asses an AIS at acountry level, which has not been done previously in AIS literature. Secondly, it deepens the genericliterature on structural-functional innovation systems analysis by looking at the interconnectednessbetween systemic problems and how these create core blocking mechanisms linked to the prevalentinstitutional logics (historically built-up and persistent structures and institutional arrangements) of theAIS. Results indicate that the existing New Zealand AIS has three main blocking mechanisms related tothree institutional logics: (i) competitive science in silos, (ii) laissez faire innovation, and (iii) sciencecentered innovation. These findings resemble weaknesses of AIS in other countries, and provide support-ive evidence that co-innovation principles in many places have not yet been translated into agriculturalinnovation policies due to persistent and interlocked blocking mechanism and institutional logics. Theypoint to the absence of effective systemic innovation policy instruments that pro-actively stimulate andsupport co-innovation. These instruments facilitate the counteracting of individual systemic problemsand have a more transformative ambition; tackling the key institutional logics that hinder co-innovation,and hence supporting ‘structural system innovation’.