Drivers and barriers for a sustainability transition of the current food and agriculture system of the city of Malmö
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Drivers and barriers for
a sustainability transition of the current
food and agriculture system
of the city of Malmö
A case study of the sustainable urban farm and meeting place
Botildenborg
Coline Scharfenberg
Main field of study - Urban Studies
Degree of Master of Sciences (120 credits) in Urban Studies (Two-Year)
Master Thesis, 30 credits
Spring semester 2021
Supervisor: Kenneth Mølbjerg Jørgens (Malmö University)
Title: Drivers and barriers for a sustainability transition of the current food
and agriculture system of the city of Malmö
Author Name: Coline Scharfenberg
Supervisor: Kenneth Mølbjerg Jørgensen, Malmö University
In memory of
my grandparents Oma Gerta and Opa Franz,
that have familiarised me with agriculture at a young age.
For my parents
who gave me roots and wings and above all never stopped believing in me.
Acknowledgements
First, I would love to express my very profound gratitude to especially my parents but also my
two siblings for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout
my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. Danke für das
Korrektur lessen! Special thanks to my parents who have always supported me in my dreams
and my path, no matter where they have taken me in the world. I am forever grateful for the
opportunity to go abroad. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them.
Mama und Papa, Danke! Danke für alles!
I would also like to thank the experts who were involved in the interviews for this research
project. Without their passionate participation and input, the interviews could not have been
successfully conducted. Special thanks to the Farm Director of Botildenborg, who has inspired
and strengthened me in so many aspects. Merci de partager ton amour et ta passion pour
l'agriculture urbaine avec moi!
I would also like to thank my supervisor who supported me in the process of this thesis.
The last but not least, special thanks to my friends who reinforced me mentally during the last
meters of my studies and partly proofread my thesis. Tack! Danke! Gracias! Thank you!
i
Abstract
Humanity is facing massive sustainability challenges, such as climate change and the associated
loss of biodiversity, water scarcity and food insecurity. Capitalist urbanisation drives
furthermore profound transformations in rural and urban areas and thus in the agriculture and
food systems, presenting both challenges and opportunities. Urban agriculture as a part of a
local food system, where food is produced in an urban area and sold to consumers in that area,
presents a new food production model, generating innovative tools to lower agricultural land
use, improving resource use efficiency and biodiversity. Consequently, great potential can be
attributed to a sustainable transformation of the agri-food system through urban agriculture.
Like many cities around the world, Malmö has recognised the need for sustainable
development. Therefore, the city of Malmö has been addressing environmental, social and
economic challenges for several years and is committed to a holistic and sustainable urban
development. Although the city is aware of the benefits of small-scale urban agriculture, there
are no policies that enable the upscaling of urban agriculture in the city. Botildenborg, a
sustainable urban farm and meeting place in Malmö, on the other hand, has recognised the
potential for sustainable business and development through urban agriculture for several years,
by setting itself the goal to increase the local and ecologically produced food within the city
through this form of agriculture. Botildenborg serves therefore as a case study of this research.
In order to be able to provide indications for policies to shape the transformation steps towards
sustainability within the agri-food system in Malmö, structures and patterns, as well as possible
drivers and potential obstacles of a sustainable transition, are examined in the course of this
research. The empirical results from qualitative and quantitative data are systematically
processed using the multi-level perspective in combination with the urban political ecology.
The results indicate that the identified barriers tend to be structural and are predominantly
located in the economic and especially the political sphere. It seems that the non-monetary
added value from urban agriculture is not perceived to its full potential by the city of Malmö.
Botildenborg is stabilising itself mainly through knowledge sharing and network building, and
thus will sooner or later be able, through the movement behind the network, to change the
dominant agri-food regime. The rapidity of the transformation depends on the political
iiwillingness of the city of Malmö to explicitly integrate urban agriculture into its policies and
regulations.
Keywords: Botildenborg, local sustainability, multi-level perspective, sustainable urban
development, urban agriculture, urban political ecology
Word count: 18.116
iiiAbbreviations
Agri-food Agriculture and food
BEM Botildenborg Executive Manger
BES Botildenborg Educator of Stadsbruk
BFD Botildenborg Farm Director
BI Botildenborg Intern
EU European Union
MC City of Malmö Councillor for urban planning and environment for the Liberals
MCUF City of Malmö Responsible for making contracts with urban farmers
MED City of Malmö Environment department
MPM City of Malmö Project Manager – Sustainable Food City
MLP Multi-level perspective
RQ Research question
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SRQ Sub research question
STT Socio-technical transition
UPE Urban political ecology
ivTable of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Research Background............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Problem statement and research questions ........................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research relevance and research aim................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research outline .................................................................................................................................... 6
2 Literature review and theoretical perspective ........................................................................................... 7
2.1 Urban agriculture in the literature context ........................................................................................... 7
2.2 Multi-level perspective as a framework ................................................................................................ 8
2.2.1 Socio-technical Landscape ............................................................................................................. 10
2.2.2 Socio-technical Regimes ................................................................................................................ 11
2.2.3 Niche-innovations........................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.4 Merging the different levels ........................................................................................................... 14
2.3 Socio-technical transition.................................................................................................................... 15
2.3.1 Transformation pathway ................................................................................................................. 17
2.3.2 De-alignment and Re-alignment pathway ...................................................................................... 18
2.3.3 Technological Substitution pathway .............................................................................................. 18
2.3.4 Reconfiguration pathway................................................................................................................ 18
2.4 Combining the Multi-level Perspective with the Urban Political Ecology ......................................... 19
3 Method ......................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.1 Mixed-method Research Design.......................................................................................................... 21
3.2 Case Study as the Research Approach ................................................................................................ 21
3.3 Data Collection ................................................................................................................................... 22
3.3.1 Literature Review and Document Analysis .................................................................................... 22
3.3.2 Semi-structured expert interviews .................................................................................................. 23
3.4 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 25
3.5 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................... 26
v3.6 Research Validity ................................................................................................................................ 26
3.7 Research Process ................................................................................................................................ 27
4 Empirical Background and Setting the Frame ........................................................................................ 29
4.1 Sweden's Sustainability Approach....................................................................................................... 29
4.2 The City of Malmö ............................................................................................................................... 30
4.3 The Urban Farm Botildenborg............................................................................................................ 31
5 Illustration of the Empirical Results ......................................................................................................... 34
5.1 Relevant Effects on the Landscape-level ............................................................................................. 34
5.2 Social Technical System on the Regime-level ..................................................................................... 35
5.2.1 Sociocultural ................................................................................................................................... 35
5.2.2 Policy .............................................................................................................................................. 35
5.2.3 Market, User Preferences ............................................................................................................... 36
5.3 Movements in the Niche Level towards Sustainability ........................................................................ 36
5.3.1 Social Aspect .................................................................................................................................. 36
5.3.2 Environmental Aspect .................................................................................................................... 37
5.3.3 Economic Aspect ............................................................................................................................ 38
6 Analysis of the Drivers and Obstacles of Urban Agriculture ................................................................. 39
6.1 Visualisation of the conducted Data in the MLP ................................................................................ 39
6.2 Changes on the Landscape-level creating Window of Opportunity for Niche Innovations ................ 40
6.3 Weak Points on the current Social-technical System .......................................................................... 41
6.4 Drivers for Sustainable Transition in the Niche Level ........................................................................ 43
7 Discussion..................................................................................................................................................... 48
7.1 Possible Transition Pathways ............................................................................................................. 48
7.2 Policy Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 50
8 Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................................................. 52
8.1 Key Findings........................................................................................................................................ 52
8.2 Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................................................................ 53
Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................................... I
viLiterature and publications .............................................................................................................................. I
Internet ........................................................................................................................................................... X
Personal messages......................................................................................................................................... XI
Appendix 1 Case-study protocol .................................................................................................................... XII
Appendix 2 Guide for semi-structured interviews - city of Malmö ........................................................... XIV
Appendix 3 Guide for semi-structured interviews - Botildenborg ............................................................ XVI
Appendix 4 Coding schema ........................................................................................................................ XVIII
viiList of Figures
Figure 1: The socio-technical landscape level, adapted from Geels (2002), created by the author. ...................... 11
Figure 2: The socio-technical regime level, adapted from Geels (2002), created by the author. ........................... 12
Figure 3: The niche level, adapted from Geels (2002), created by the author. ...................................................... 14
Figure 4: The multi-level perspective framework, adapted from Geels (2002, p.1263), created by the author. ... 15
Figure 5: Graphical presentation of the research process, created by the author ................................................... 28
Figure 6: Map of Malmö with marked area of Botildenborg, created by the author ............................................. 32
Figure 7: The multi-level perspective for this research, adapted from Geels (2002,p. 1263), created by the author
........................................................................................................................................................................ 40
List of Tables
Table 1: Transformation patterns based on Geels and Schot (2007) and Geels et al. (2016), created by the author
........................................................................................................................................................................ 16
Table 2: Interviews in the case study...................................................................................................................... 24
Table 3: Validity and reliability tests in this case study based on Riege (2003), modified by the author ............. 26
Table 4: Coding schema of this research, created by the author ...................................................................... XVIII
viii1 Introduction
This chapter provides the background to the research and addresses its relevance. Besides, the
research problem and the research questions are defined to explain the aim of this thesis.
Finally, the reader is given an overview of the outline and approach of this research.
1.1 Research Background
Humanity is facing massive sustainability challenges, such as climate change and the associated
loss of biodiversity, water scarcity and food insecurity. In the academic literature, the current
industrial agriculture and food (agri-food) system is strongly associated with these
sustainability challenges (Caron et al., 2018; FAO, 2016; Ramankutty et al., 2018). Depending
on the study, the food and agriculture sector is responsible for one third to one-quarter of global
greenhouse gas emissions (Caron et al., 2018; IPCC, 2018; Poore & Nemecek, 2018). The main
sources are methane emissions from livestock farming and nitrous oxide emissions from
agricultural soils (ibid.). According to Rockström and Skudev (2016), the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) achievement is indirectly linked to the production or
consumption of food. Consequently, sustainable development of people and the planet is only
possible "if all people are food secure and well-nourished, if all ecosystems are healthy and
balanced, if societies are resilient in the face of threats posed by climate change, and if the
governance of development benefits is fair and just" (Caron et al., 2018, p. 41).
To meet the challenges of today, humanity must stop overstepping the planetary boundaries
(Lenton et al., 2019; Rockström et al., 2009) and instead find, according to Raworth (2017),
ways to operate within them. Sweden recognised the need for environmental protection at an
early stage and was the first country in the world to pass environmental protection legislation
in 1976 (Sweden - Swedish Institute, 2021). With the climate reform enacted in 2018, Sweden
has set itself the goal to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2045 at the latest, which is
an essential part of Sweden's effort to comply with the Paris Climate Agreement (Sweden -
Ministry of the Environment and Energy, 2017). As part of the environmental strategy, the
Swedish government recognises the need to reform the national food system and considers a
long-term strategy with the aim to produce more food in Sweden by 2030 (Sweden -
Government Office, 2016). Nevertheless, the focus is only on Sweden's "rural communities"
(ibid., p. 3). Cities should not be disregarded in a sustainable transformation since, according
1to the United United Nations (2019), more and more people will live in urban areas in the
upcoming years.
Capitalist urbanisation (Souza, 2020) drives profound transformations in rural and urban areas
and thus in the agri-food systems, presenting both challenges and opportunities. In the process,
productivity driven by market liberalism is leading to overexploitation of ecological resources,
according to Jackson and Victor (2011). Empirical records of gross domestic product (GDP)
growth, resource consumption and carbon emissions highlight a clear link between the
ecological crisis and economic growth (Hickel, 2020; Hickel & Kallis, 2020). In this precarious
context, the green growth paradigm, which presupposes a permanently growing green
economy, is spreading on the agendas of international organisations, governments and
economic actors worldwide. It is hailed as a comprehensive solution approach to address
environmental, social and financial moments of crisis and is also seen as a key means to achieve
the climate change goals of the Paris Agreement (Hickel & Kallis, 2020). Put simply, green
growth builds on the assumption that absolute decoupling of GDP growth from carbon
emissions and resource use is possible at a rate high enough to prevent ecological collapse,
relying primarily on technological innovation and government regulation and incentives
(Hickel & Kallis, 2020). In the degrowth scenario, over time a shift in priority to reuse and
recycling will reduce net resource use (Wells et al., 2020). According to the academic literature,
urban agriculture, as a part of a local food system, where food is produced in an urban area and
sold to consumers in that area, presents a new food production model, generating innovative
tools to lower agricultural land use, improving resource use efficiency (Al-Chalabi, 2015;
Neilson & Rickards, 2017) and encouraging circular thinking in closed-loop food systems,
which recycle resources for crop production (Fratini et al., 2019; Specht et al., 2016) and is thus
can be seen in line with the degrowth aspects.
Consequently, great potential is attributed to a sustainable transition of the agri-food system in
urban areas towards the integration of urban agriculture. Markard et al. (2012) define
sustainability transitions as long-term, multi-dimensional, and fundamental transformation
processes through which established socio-technical systems shift to more sustainable modes
of production and consumption. Sustainability transitions are defined in agriculture as a change
from an agriculture system with the primary goal of increasing productivity to a system built
on the broader principles of sustainable agriculture (Brunori et al., 2013). The transition in food
2sustainability is based on structural changes leading to new, more sustainable production and
consumption methods and practices (Spaargaren et al., 2013).
1.2 Problem statement and research questions
Malmö, the third-largest city in Sweden, was the first city to implement the SDGs 2015 in its
policies nationally (ICLEI, 2021). Hence, the city of Malmö has been addressing
environmental, social and economic challenges in a green growth-oriented manner for several
years and is committed to holistic, sustainable urban development by adopting comprehensive
strategies. Consequently, the city of Malmö follows different sustainability strategies. In the
"Policy for Sustainable Development and Food," the city of Malmö for example identifies food
among their primary interests (Malmö, 2010). Thus, through conscious choice, the impact on
the climate and the environment in the farming areas can be influenced in the right direction
through the production and consumption of food (ibid.). Accordingly, food-related greenhouse
gas emissions should be reduced by encouraging the production and consumption of more
vegetable and less meat within and around the city as close to the consumer as possible (Malmö,
2010). The policy also maintains that all food served by the city of Malmö in canteens should
be of organic origin as far as possible (ibid). In addition, the city of Malmö identifies the
importance of preserving farmland within the city for food production, biodiversity, education,
recreation and strengthening the links between the city and the countryside (Malmö, 2019).
Furthermore, the General Plan (Översiktsplanen) of the city of Malmö emphasises that a
sustainable society requires an interplay between the city and the living landscape (Malmö,
2019). This is achieved, for example on a small scale, through Stadsoling, a community garden
on public land within the city in which citizens work together in an association to cultivate in
raised garden beds (Malmö, 2021b). The environmental programme of the city of Malmö (see
Section 4.2) also points out the agricultural landscape in Malmö should be preserved and used
sustainably. In addition, the environmental programme highlights the importance of integrating
biodiversity into the planning and development of the city and reducing the economic footprint
by orienting the city towards a stronger circular economy (Malmö, 2021a). Urban agriculture
is recognised by the city, but only on a small scale. For urban agriculture to contribute to the
city's goals, it needs to be more integrated into policies and guidelines.
Botildenborg, a sustainable urban farm and meeting place founded in 2011 and located in the
Rosengård district of Malmö, on the other hand, has recognised the potential for sustainable
3business and development through urban agriculture for several years, by setting itself the goal
"to increase the local and ecologically produced food within the city" through this form of
agriculture (Sustain Europe, 2020). Botildenborg seeks to be economically, environmentally
and socially sustainable by working with different aspects, such an incubator programme, an
education farm, a farming hub or a testbed, but also through the integration of refugees and
immigrants (Botildenborg, 2021). Together with different cities and universities, Botildenborg
has developed the Stadsbruk methodology to also enable other cities to work with urban
agriculture on a strategic, city planning and hands-on level (Sustain Europe, 2020). Thus, it
seems that Botildenborg has developed methods and practices to integrate urban agriculture on
a large scale in the city of Malmö to contribute to a sustainable transformation of the city's agri-
food system.
In order to be able to provide indications for polices to shape the transformation steps towards
sustainability within the agriculture and food system in Malmö, structures and patterns, as well
as possible drivers and potential obstacles of a sustainable transition, are examined and
systematically processed by answering the following research question (RQ):
(RQ) What are the obstacles and drivers for a sustainability transition of the current food and
agriculture regime in the city of Malmö?
Using the multi-level perspective (MLP) from Geels (2002) in combination with urban political
ecology and semi-structured expert interviews, the RQ is divided into the following sub-
research questions (SRQ):
(SRQ 1) What are the weak points of the current social-technical regime?
(SRQ 2) How do the methods and practices developed by Botildenborg as a niche innovation
intent to challenge the dominate social-technical regime?
(SRQ 3) How can the city of Malmö support urban agriculture to achieve a sustainable
transition?
SRQ 1 refers to the regime level of the MLP in order to identify where the current dominant
regime has weaknesses that can be addressed through sustainable niche innovations. The extent
to which this transition can be guided by Botildenborg (as a role model) is discussed by
analysing the niche level of the MLP and by answering SRQ 2. SRQ 3 aims to analyse how the
4sustainable transformation of the agri-food system in Malmö can be accelerated through policy
intervention.
1.3 Research relevance and research aim
According to Kates et al. (2001), research in sustainability science should focus not only on the
fundamental nature of the interaction between nature and society but also on society's ability to
steer these interactions in a more sustainable direction. This is precisely the aspect that research
around the MLP is trying to address. It explores how transitions towards sustainability can be
characterised and how these can be effectively managed and, if necessary, how this process can
be accelerated (Loorbach et al., 2017). This research is part of the MLP on socio-technical
transitions (STT) and is therefore closely related to the principles and goals of sustainability
science. The focus of the current scientific work on sustainability transformations has been on
the supply sectors of energy, transport and water. However, only a few studies have dealt with
the agricultural and food sector (e.g., Audet et al., 2017; Ingram, 2018; Markard et al., 2012).
The studies often have a national focus, whereas studies with a regional or urban focus are rare
(Markard et al., 2012). According to Baccarne et al. (2014), STTs are observed in urban areas
because significant societal challenges accompany increasing urbanisation as a social structural
change, and rapid technological developments force cities to search for new systematic changes.
To address this research gap, this study analyses sustainability transitions in the agri-food sector
in an urban area using the MLP.
The current academic literature states that urban agriculture can contribute to higher levels of
urban self-sufficiency and enhance environmental benefits such as resource efficiency, reduce
carbon emissions, and generate ecosystem services (e.g., Cleveland et al., 2017; Hume et al.,
2021; Paiho et al., 2021; Wielemaker et al., 2018). The most ardent proponents of urban
agriculture believe that it can be the solution for food production to reduce the ecological
footprint of agriculture. On the other hand, sceptics argue that urban agriculture is too energy-
intensive to be sustainable and that the technical limitations of farming systems only allow for
the production of relatively nutrient-poor crops that do not make up a large share of the diet
(Goodman & Minner, 2019). Therefore, this study aims to reflect on the drivers and obstacles,
that could be identified as possible advantages and disadvantages, of urban agriculture for a
transition to a sustainable agri-food system in the city of Malmö.
51.4 Research outline
This research starts with an introduction (Chapter 1), which describes the problem and how the
study aims to address it. It provides the research question that guides the analytical process and
establishes the limits of the study. A literature review (Chapter 2) is then conducted to develop
a multidisciplinary view on current trends in urban agriculture that seek to make a systematic
change to develop sustainable cities. This leads to the conceptual framework of the study
(Section 2.4), where the MLP is combined with urban policy ecology to go beyond the
perception of the relationship between innovation and social transitions and to examine how
environments, natural or built, are produced and reproduced. In Chapter 3, all methodological
decisions are presented approach are presented together with the implications for the research.
Afterwards, the empirical background (Chapter 4) and the empirical results (Chapter 5) are
presented. They are discussed and analysed in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 with the help of the
theories and the conceptual framework. Finally, Chapter 8 reconnects to the aim of this master
thesis and summarises the essential findings and presents suggestions for further research.
62 Literature review and theoretical perspective
This chapter contains the literature review which contains the debate around the effects of
urban agriculture on sustainability within cities. Besides the framework of the MLP with the
various pathways of transformation are presented. Coupled with a deeper understanding of
power relations exposed through reflections on the political ecology of cities. All these aspects
are combined in order to build the conceptual framework for this research.
2.1 Urban agriculture in the literature context
In recent years, academic literature has devoted significant attention to the opportunities that
urban agriculture provides to improve the environment and the ecology of cities (Pearson et al.,
2010; Thomaier et al., 2015). In most of the research, urban agriculture represents a new model
of food production that generates innovative tools to reduce agricultural land use, improve
resource efficiency, and address food insecurity (Al-Chalabi, 2015; Neilson & Rickards, 2017).
Concerns about the impact of climate change on the agricultural sector coupled with rapid
urbanisation are also acting as drivers for urban planners to incorporate urban agriculture into
policies to build sustainable cities (Lovell, 2010), as it promotes among other effects closed-
loop thinking in food systems in particular (Fratini et al., 2019; Specht et al., 2014). The
agricultural production is no longer limited to rural areas but is brought back to its origins closer
to the consumer through urban agriculture (Mougeot, 2000; Sonnino, 2016). However, Chance
et al. (2018) observed that urban communities are unlikely to be independent of rural
agriculture, especially in the production of corn and wheat. Nevertheless, there is much
potential in urban cultivation of products such as leafy vegetables (ibid.).
In attempting to create new ways of producing food, connecting food to the consumers and
promoting local food production, urban agriculture has emerged as a movement that fosters an
integrated sustainable food system within the urban environment design (Al-Chalabi, 2015;
Neilson & Rickards, 2017). In order to estimate the effects of urban agriculture, the literature
usually divides the impacts into environmental, economic and social effects according to the
three pillars of sustainability (Pearson et al., 2010).
Especially in the global North, the effects of urban agriculture tend to be framed as social
benefits (Battersby & Marshak, 2013). Sumner et al. (2010) likewise stated that urban
7agriculture considers the critical role of culture and values in agriculture and their link to
sustainability. Indeed there is a positive benefit on personal and community development
(Hynes & Howe, 2002). Community gardens are perceived as a place for social interaction and
support, enabling connection and collective benefits that strengthen the sense of community
(Kingsley et al., 2020). It has been emphasised in the literature that urban agriculture has the
potential for urban regeneration, more sustainable land use and social engagement in
neighbourhoods by communicating on the supply and demand and developing the relationship
locally between food producers and consumers (Dimitri et al., 2016; Thomaier et al., 2015). To
conclude, urban agriculture has a great potential to transform communities and cities into better
places to live, learn, and work (Al-Chalabi, 2015; Neilson & Rickards, 2017). Several scientists
have concluded that growing food within the city limits can reduce energy consumption and
greenhouse gas emissions, as transport distances are shortened (Despommier, 2009; Jones,
2002). In general, urban agriculture is considered in the academic literature to positively affect
the environment (Sumner et al., 2010). As a positive spinoff, this form of agriculture creates
environmental awareness and improves local biodiversity (Dubbeling, 2014; Pearson et al.,
2010). Furthermore, urban agriculture uses less fertiliser and pesticides, and the required water
can be used more efficiently (Chance et al., 2018; Pinstrup-Andersen, 2018). According to
Vogel (2008, p. 752), well-planned greenhouses can use only 10% of the water and only 5% of
the area of conventional farms. Thus, according to Despommier (2011), in addition to vertical
farming, retrofitting greenhouse structures on city rooftops is another logical step to achieve
more sustainable food production. In Paris, for instance, a bottomless approach to agriculture
that requires less space and fewer resources has been constructed on the roof of the new
exhibition hall (Henley, 2020).
2.2 Multi-level perspective as a framework
The need to transform today's food system towards a regenerative and restorative system has
been well documented for some years. The main drivers for this transformation have been
analysed in detail (Davies & Evans, 2019; Olsson, 2018; Van Veenhuizen & Danso, 2007). The
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019) stated, for instance, that given the complexity and
interconnectedness of the food system, a multi-layered approach is needed to address the
complex challenges successfully.
8Based on the socio-economic concept of co-evolution (Nelson & Winter, 1997) and similar
considerations by Rip and Kemp (1998), Geels (2002) introduced a heuristic research
framework for empirical case studies with the MLP, which explicitly focuses on the role of
long-term STT in modern societies and seeks to clarify the process, opportunities and
challenges in large technical systems and how they are socially embedded (Darnhofer, 2015;
Lawhon & Murphy, 2012).
The STT framework acknowledges and assigns great importance to co-evolution and mutual
societal change, and technological innovation. A comprehensive view of the interdependent
connection between technology and system is taken into account, which generates the need for
innovations and ultimately produces and sustains them (Geels, 2005; Geels & Schot, 2010).
Geels (2005) defines STT as a multi-dimensional change from one socio-technical system
(depicted as the hexagon in Figure 4) to another, which involves a change in both technological
and social systems interconnected with a feedback loop. Generally stated, STT is a slow
process, as technological innovations gradually occur along set pathways due to the rigidity of
economic, social, cultural, infrastructural and regulatory norms (ibid.). This process can be
referred to as path dependency and leads to technological "lock-ins" that prevent innovation
(Klitkou et al., 2015). Accordingly, the breakthrough and establishment of innovations depend
on a complex interplay of different actors on different levels.
Hence, the MLP is an analytical tool that intends to deal with this complexity and resistance to
change and explain why some innovations become established over time while others do not.
The MLP approach is mainly used to analyse regime transitions, which are defined as a change
from one state of shared cognitive routines, lifestyles and general orientation of activities to
another (Geels & Schot, 2007). Most of the research focuses on the energy and transport sector
(Geels, 2002; Markard et al., 2012), but recently this framework has been used for other sectors
such as agriculture (El Bilali et al., 2019; Elzen et al., 2012; Smith, 2006; Sutherland et al.,
2014; Wigboldus et al., 2016).
As the name of the MLP suggests, this analytical tool involves reflection at different levels. The
MLP divides the overall research scope into three levels: the landscape level, the regime level
and the niche level (Figure 4 shows the entire framework, with Figures 1-3 representing extracts
from it.). The underlying assumption described by Geels (2002) suggests that radical
innovations first develop in so-called niches (micro-level), which are mainly outside the general
sphere of perception and are supported by a small number of individual, collective or corporate
9actors. These niches are closely related to given socio-technical regimes (miso-level),
characterised by more or less established actor constellations, rules and conventions as well as
economic and technical structures. Niche innovations can change these regimes and their
development can be influenced vice versa. Geels (2002) describes the landscape (macro-level)
level as superordinate to the regimes and thus to the niche level to describe all those dynamics
that cannot be directly influenced by the actors involved, such as fundamental social trends like
globalisation and individualisation or general developments like global climate change. An
innovation emerges through the interaction and alignment of the three different levels
(Darnhofer, 2015; Geels, 2002; Vogel et al., 2020).
2.2.1 Socio-technical Landscape
The macro-level is defined primarily by slowly changing (long-term) external factors that
influence the regime gradually (e.g., climate change, demography) or disruptively (e.g., war,
environmental disaster, pandemic) (Geels, 2002, 2011). These effects are represented in Figure
1 by the two arrows with almost constant slopes. According to Geels and Schot (2010), this
creates constant and overarching framework conditions that cannot be affected in the short term
by the regime or niche actors and cannot be changed at will (Geels, 2005, 2011). Fundamental
social trends (e.g., increasing digitalisation or an ageing society), political (e.g., the nature and
form of governments) and economic structures (e.g., the level of the base rate), ecological
developments (e.g., climate change) (Van Driel & Schot, 2005) or currently contemporary the
COVID-19 crisis (Wells et al., 2020) can fall under this level. The landscape usually changes
only gradually (e.g., formation of social, environmental awareness), even though more rapid
change can also occur due to crises (Geels, 2011). Thus, the landscape level represents the
primary framework conditions for economic activities.
In several research papers on sustainability transformations using MLP in agri-food science,
little attention is paid to the landscape level. Sometimes this approach is taken to keep the study
focused (Isgren & Ness, 2017), but often it is omitted without further explanation. Also, Geels
(2011, p. 36) referred to the level as the ‘garbage can’ to accommodate everything that cannot
be assigned to the miso and micro level. Nevertheless, the landscape level is characterised by
an essential rethinking in environmental awareness, sustainability, and resource use outside of
actors and niches (Geels, 2002, 2011). Some of the research addresses various external trends
and exogenous factors that influence the transition to sustainable agricultural and food systems.
In academic research, these trends and factors include, for example, population growth
10(Konefal, 2015), globalisation and the internalisation of the agricultural and food market
(Belmin et al., 2018; Immink et al., 2013; Konefal, 2015) and the global financial crisis
(Slingerland & Schut, 2014), as well as changes in dietary habits and lifestyles (Immink et al.,
2013), international treaties and conventions (Li et al., 2013; Zwartkruis et al., 2020), in the
context of the European Union the common agricultural policy (CAP) (Feyereisen et al., 2017;
Levidow et al., 2014) but also in general international laws, rules or standards (Immink et al.,
2013), the increasing awareness of animal welfare and the environment (Hassink et al., 2018;
Immink et al., 2013) and climate change (Konefal, 2015; Lutz & Schachinger, 2013). Indeed,
in the academic literature, the socio-technical landscape is attributed to two main functions: On
the one hand, to exert pressure on the regime and, on the other, to create the opportunity for
niches to develop (Geels, 2011; Smith et al., 2010).
Figure 1: The socio-technical landscape level, adapted from Geels (2002), created by the author.
2.2.2 Socio-technical Regimes
Embedded in the landscape level are the regime networks that determine the forms of work and
organisation for a particular economic sector or product group that provide stability and
reinforcement to the prevailing socio-technical systems. Geels (2011) includes in the miso-level
(Figure 2) the strongly interrelated and stable dimensions such as scientific knowledge, policies
and regulations, markets and user preferences, technologies, cultural values, and industry
structures. The configuration of the regimes provides actors with a secure and stable framework
for their work processes, although in contrast to the rigid structure of the landscapes, this can
change incrementally, in other words, in small adjustment steps learning processes and
development trends (Geels, 2002). Geels (2011) has symbolised this process in Figure 2 with
small arrows pointing in the same direction. This is partly due to the 'lock-in' effect (caused, for
example, by a commitment to installation standards or investments that have already been made
11or increasing returns to scale), which prevents rapid changes, as a radical change would require
an inordinately considerable effort. Geels (2011, p. 27) furthermore describes the incremental
change as occurring through the duality of structure, whereby actors are governed by rules and
constantly create new rules to which they are bound. Elzen et al. (2002) see the regime level as
a barrier to change and new technological and social innovations, as this level serves as a
selection and retention mechanism.
According to Holtz et al. (2008), the academic literature only briefly addresses the
conceptualisation and operationalisation of regimes in the agriculture and food sectors. It is less
about describing and defining regimes and more about the dynamics of transitions and transition
management. In essence, regimes are ways of working and organising a particular sector of the
economy that provide stability and reinforcement. Hinrichs (2014) includes the agri-food
regime business codes and regulations, food safety laws, existing business networks, logistics,
transport and infrastructure. Which, according to Morrissey et al. (2014), are characterised by
mainstream practices and approaches dominated by industrial agriculture and integrated food
supply chains. Indeed, modern agriculture and food systems are highly standardised, with
multiple layers of rules governing agricultural production and food processing practices as well
as distribution networks (Loconto, 2016). According to Duineveld et al. (2009) regime
stabilisation strategies include lobbying and forming networks and alliances. Thus, socio-
technological regimes often remain effective as these are consolidated by well-established
routines and relationships (ibid.). Nevertheless, all socio-technological regimes have internal
contradictions and fissures, enabling change (Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 2014). Holtz et al.
(2008) pointed out that the regime to be explored and possibly managed is usually not given by
clear system boundaries but a matter of framing and deliberation.
Figure 2: The socio-technical regime level, adapted from Geels (2002), created by the author.
122.2.3 Niche-innovations
Figure 4 and the detailed view in Figure 3 shows which niche innovations that can be developed
outside the regime level, can contribute to a changed regime configuration under certain
circumstances. Geels (2011) emphasises that niche innovations are therefore not fundamentally
exposed to the economic activity of the regimes or landscapes rather than being protected by
the mainstream system and can therefore develop independently of these determinants. A
virtual space for budling social networks and support innovations is provided (Geels, 2005).
According to van der Ploeg et al. (2004) niches are alternative socio-technical systems that
provide a protected space for developing new technologies, new concepts and new ways of
organising and acting. If the innovation finds a more accepted social approval, then it can
sustainably change the configuration of a regime through its further development and, if
applicable, contribute to the transformation of the landscape (see Section 2.3) (Geels & Schot,
2007). It can be deduced that the success of niche innovation is not exclusively dependent on
niche management but equally on the developments of the existing regimes and landscapes
(Geels, 2002).
Niche innovations in the agri-food sector include alternative food systems or networks and
farming systems. To be more specific, in academic research, for instance, ecological agriculture
(Hauser & Lindtner, 2017; Vila Seoane & Marín, 2017), agroecology (Durua et al., 2014; Isgren
& Ness, 2017; Levidow et al., 2014; Pant, 2016), conservation agriculture (Vankeerberghen &
Stassart, 2016) or integrated agriculture (Vlahos et al., 2017), permaculture (Ingram, 2018), but
also alternative food networks (Audet et al., 2017; Bui et al., 2016; Crivits & Paredis, 2013;
Lutz & Schachinger, 2013) and urban agriculture (Bell & Cerulli, 2012) are considered niches.
Vivero-Pol (2017) cautions that alternative food and farming systems do not necessarily have
reformist, transformative agendas. Sutherland et al. (2014) emphasise the importance of the
precise definition of a niche and its novelty to the current regime. The majority of research
using MLP addresses the relationship between the elements of the heuristic framework at the
macro, miso and micro levels and how these influence transition dynamics and processes in the
agri-food sector. Only a small part deals with internal niche processes (Paschen et al., 2017).
Indeed, transitions only occur when niche innovations are robust enough to challenge the
dominant socio-technical system. Therefore, Pitt and Jones (2016) emphasise that the
robustness and maturity of niches are two necessary conditions to ensure their upward and
outward scaling and thus contribute to a sustainable transformation.
13Figure 3: The niche level, adapted from Geels (2002), created by the author.
2.2.4 Merging the different levels
The interaction between the three different levels merged in the MLP (Figure 4) can be seen as
an essential driving force for social change. According to Schot and Geels (2008, p. 545), the
interactions can be summarised as follows: (1) niche innovations build internal momentum, (2)
changes at the landscape level create pressure on the regime, (3) destabilisation of the regime
creates windows of opportunity for niche innovations. Accordingly, it is not only about bottom-
up processes of sustainable transformation but rather about linking ongoing processes at the
regime and landscape levels to the innovations on the niche level (ibid.). The niche variations
can then emerge depending on the regime, the selection environment for the niches. Whether
the niches can ultimately change the regime then depends on how they relate to the regime.
Equally important is the state of the regime in question. It may be unstable due to pressure from
the landscape levels. Therefore, in addition to the development of the niches, it is also essential
how new regime structures can emerge from them and how upscaling can be designed. This
results in different interactions between the niches and the dominant regime, from which
different transformation paths can emerge. It is also important to emphasise that different niches
can emerge. They can be complementary, mutually reinforcing or in competition with each
other. Moreover, the different niches can interact with different regimes.
14Figure 4: The multi-level perspective framework, adapted from Geels (2002, p.1263), created by the author.
2.3 Socio-technical transition
Section 2.2.4 showed how the interaction between the different levels takes place. Geels and
Schot (2007) analysed how the transformation to a (more sustainable) system occurs based on
the MLP. Geels and Schot (2007) have thereby developed a differentiated transformation
typology that distinguishes the following transformation patterns and is also based on different
interaction dynamics between the three levels (Summarised in Table 1 and explained in more
detail in the following sections). These transformation paths are to be understood alternatively
and follow each other within a transformation process (ibid.).
In defining the different transformation paths, the timing and nature of the interaction are of
great importance. As already stated, according to Geels and Schot (2007), pressure can be
15exerted on the regime from the landscape level, thus creating windows of opportunity for niche
innovations (see Figure 4 “Landscape developments put pressure on the existing regime, which
opens up, creating a window of opportunity for niche innovations”). These windows manifest
in the opportunity to establish themselves more firmly in the regime or, if appropriate, to replace
it. To achieve this, the niche innovations must initially match the current regime and the
selection environment to some extent (see Figure 4 “Elements become aligned and stabilise in
a dominate design”). However, if niche innovations are not fully developed, they cannot fully
exploit this window to drive a transition and leave the market for the most part (shown in Figure
3 with arrows pointing against the current). The nature of the interactions has to do with the
type of relationship that the landscape and the niche have with the regime. Whereby these
relationships present themselves as either reinforcing or disrupting. Similarly, different niche
innovations may have a competitive or symbiotic relationship with the regime among
themselves. Competitive innovations compete with the established regime, while symbiotic
innovations can be incorporated into the regime to solve problems (ibid.).
Table 1: Transformation patterns based on Geels and Schot (2007) and Geels et al. (2016), created by the author
Niche innovations Interaction Dynamics Outcome
Modification of the transition path
of regime actors and adaptation of
No replacement of the niche innovations
current regime actors
Transformation Symbiotic & not Determining transformation
Pathway mature Struggle between through the degree of realignment
policymakers and
industry actors Possible formation of a new regime
with, however, no change in the
fundamental structures
Increase in regime tensions due to
Replacement of the landscape pressure
current regime actors
De-alignment and Breakdown of the regime
Competitive & not
Re-alignment No confrontation
mature
Pathway between established Cooperation between the niche
regime actors and niche innovations to replace the regime
innovations
Dominance of one niche innovation
16Replacement of the regime through
the niche innovations
Replacement of the
current regime actors
Technological Shift in the regime
Competitive &
Substitution
mature Competition between
Pathway Degree of institutional change
established regime actors
depends on whether the niche
and niche innovations
innovation conforms to existing
rules and institutions
No replacement of the Change in the structure of the
current regime actors regime through the adaptation of
niche innovations
Competition between
Reconfiguration Symbiotic & not different regime actors Creation of knock-on effects
Pathway mature through new combinations of niche
Potential alliance innovations
between established
regime actors and niche Growing institutional change over
innovations time
2.3.1 Transformation pathway
If the landscape level puts pressure on the existing regime, but there are no sufficiently mature
niches, then regime actors have the opportunity to adjust the orientation of innovation activities
and the development direction of the regime (Geels & Schot, 2007). Landscape pressure can be
considered as disruptive and niche innovations as symbiotic. At the end of the transformation
path, a new regime will develop with constant regime actors (ibid.). The established actors,
however, do not resist change or are trapped in the dominant regime patterns. They are much
more "dynamically stable" and can actively decide to reorient themselves in a new direction
(Geels et al., 2016). The degree of reorientation determines the extent of institutional
transformation. For example, according to Geels et al. (2016), if reorientation efforts are strong
and technologies are adopted quickly, a higher degree of institutional change may occur.
Elsewhere, a lack of reorientation efforts is associated with the incremental nature of adopting
niche technical innovations into the regime, leading to limited institutional transition (ibid.).
Institutional pressure may likely lead to struggles between policymakers and industry actors
(Geels et al., 2016).
172.3.2 De-alignment and Re-alignment pathway
According to Geels and Schot (2007), sudden and far-reaching landscape changes destabilise
the regime and lead to its erosion (de-alignment). If niche innovations at this stage are not yet
sufficiently developed to fill the incoming gap, this leads to the development of multiple niche
innovations that co-exist and compete for attention and resources. Eventually, one niche gains
the upper hand and forms the starting point for forming a new regime (re-alignment) (ibid.).
Geels et al. (2016), state that there is no confrontation within this pathway and thus no real
competition between established actors and niche innovations. Therefore, the old technologies
and innovations lose their dominance with the unbundling of the regime and are eventually
replaced by innovations (Geels et al., 2016). While the innovations become established, there
may be a long period of uncertainty (ibid.).
2.3.3 Technological Substitution pathway
If there is intense pressure from the landscape level and, at the same time, enough established
niche innovations, then these might dominate and thus initiate a transformation of the regime
(Geels & Schot, 2007). Since the regime is not yet completely destabilised at this point,
competition between the established actors and the niche innovations might occur (ibid.).
Provided that the niche innovations fit the existing rules and institutions, a slight change
emerges. If, however, the institutions are forced to adapt, disruptive change and possible power
struggles arise, according to Geels et al. (2016).
2.3.4 Reconfiguration pathway
Initially, niche innovations develop in symbiosis with the regime and are used in the regime to
solve problems in sub-areas of the regime (Geels & Schot, 2007). This eventually leads to
significant changes in the fundamental architecture of the regime. According to Geels et al.
(2016), so-called knock-on effects, which refer to new combinations between innovations, can
also trigger structural changes within the regime. Established actors are not part of this
transition path (Geels & Schot, 2007) but can still lead to competition and tension as new
alliances can be formed with niche innovations (Geels et al., 2016). Institutional transformation
is initially limited but ultimately leads to significant changes (ibid.).
18You can also read
