IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p10959-d904849.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Blind Spot for Pioneering Farmers? Reflections on Dutch Dairy Sustainability Transition

Author

Listed:
  • Anne-Charlotte Hoes

    (Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University & Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands)

  • Lusine Aramyan

    (Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University & Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 4, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

This study explores the questions of how to govern the transition towards sustainable farming in a responsible and inclusive manner by exploring the Dutch dairy case. Sustainability transition is about fundamental social–technical changes to address the grand challenges that society faces today. It includes breaking down and phasing out unsustainable practice as well as scaling up sustainable alternatives. Transition literature argues that governments should implement a mix of transition tasks to give direction, support the new and destabilase the unsustainable. In addition, market-based instruments (MBIs) and policy interventions rewarding sustainable farming stimulate transition. This study illustrates that strong and prolonged pressure of not meeting international environmental agreements triggered the implementation of stronger policy interventions that destabilize the unsustainable. However, less policy attention seems to be given to supporting the “new”, such as pioneering alternative farmers who develop sustainable alternatives to mainstream farming. To achieve more responsible and inclusive sustainability transitions, it is important to implement tailor-made policies that support pioneering alternative farmers who are already taking steps in developing sustainable farms which, in addition to food, provide ecological and other benefits to community.

Suggested Citation

  • Anne-Charlotte Hoes & Lusine Aramyan, 2022. "Blind Spot for Pioneering Farmers? Reflections on Dutch Dairy Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10959-:d:904849
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10959/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10959/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Montero, Juan-Pablo, 2002. "Permits, Standards, and Technology Innovation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 23-44, July.
    2. Motta, Ronaldo Serã”A Da & Huber, Richard M. & Ruitenbeek, H. Jack, 1999. "Market based instruments for environmental policymaking in Latin America and the Caribbean: lessons from eleven countries," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 177-201, May.
    3. Hans Dagevos & Carolien de Lauwere, 2021. "Circular Business Models and Circular Agriculture: Perceptions and Practices of Dutch Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Geels, Frank W. & Schot, Johan, 2007. "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 399-417, April.
    5. Geels, Frank W., 2014. "Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary Triple Embeddedness Framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 261-277.
    6. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2020. "Research on Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability in Dairy Farming: A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-14, July.
    7. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    8. Requate, Till, 2005. "Dynamic incentives by environmental policy instruments--a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 175-195, August.
    9. Margherita Masi & Yari Vecchio & Gregorio Pauselli & Jorgelina Di Pasquale & Felice Adinolfi, 2021. "A Typological Classification for Assessing Farm Sustainability in the Italian Bovine Dairy Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-14, June.
    10. McCauley, Darren & Heffron, Raphael, 2018. "Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental justice," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 1-7.
    11. Jung, Chulho & Krutilla, Kerry & Boyd, Roy, 1996. "Incentives for Advanced Pollution Abatement Technology at the Industry Level: An Evaluation of Policy Alternatives," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 95-111, January.
    12. Elsie Onsongo & Johan Schot, 2017. "Inclusive Innovation and Rapid Sociotechnical Transitions: The Case of Mobile Money in Kenya," SPRU Working Paper Series 2017-07, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    13. Jenkins, Kirsten & Sovacool, Benjamin K. & McCauley, Darren, 2018. "Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 66-74.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rabah Amir & Adriana Gama & Katarzyna Werner, 2018. "On Environmental Regulation of Oligopoly Markets: Emission versus Performance Standards," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(1), pages 147-167, May.
    2. Fuhai Hong & Susheng Wang, 2012. "Climate Policy, Learning, and Technology Adoption in Small Countries," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 391-411, March.
    3. Martin Larsson, 2017. "EU Emissions Trading: Policy-Induced Innovation, or Business as Usual? Findings from Company Case Studies in the Republic of Croatia," Working Papers 1705, The Institute of Economics, Zagreb.
    4. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Till Requate & Israel Waichman, 2012. "Investment Incentives Under Emission Trading: An Experimental Study," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 53(2), pages 229-249, October.
    5. Bouwe R. Dijkstra & Maria J. Gil‐Moltó, 2018. "Is emission intensity or output U‐shaped in the strictness of environmental policy?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(2), pages 177-201, April.
    6. Demirel, Pelin & Kesidou, Effie, 2011. "Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the UK: Government policies and firm motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1546-1557, June.
    7. Mehdi Fadaee & Luca Lambertini, 2015. "Non-tradeable pollution permits as green R&D incentives," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(1), pages 27-42, January.
    8. Ashokankur Datta & E. Somanathan, 2016. "Climate Policy and Innovation in the Absence of Commitment," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(4), pages 917-955.
    9. Alfred Endres & Bianca Rundshagen, 2010. "Standard Oriented Environmental Policy: Cost-Effectiveness and Incentives for 'Green Technology'," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 11, pages 86-107, February.
    10. Li, Yi, 2017. "Voluntary disclosure and investment in environmental technology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 331-341.
    11. Haiyang Xia & Tijun Fan & Xiangyun Chang, 2019. "Emission Reduction Technology Licensing and Diffusion Under Command-and-Control Regulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 477-500, February.
    12. Alfred Endres & Bianca Rundshagen, 2010. "Standard Oriented Environmental Policy: Cost‐Effectiveness and Incentives for ‘Green Technology’," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 11(1), pages 86-107, February.
    13. Coria, Jessica, 2011. "Environmental crises' regulations, tradable permits and the adoption of new technologies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 455-476, September.
    14. Clémence Christin & Jean-Philippe Nicolai & Jerome Pouyet, 2013. "Pollution Permits, Imperfect Competition and Abatement Technologies," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 13/186, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    15. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Innes, Robert, 2010. "Environmental innovation and environmental performance," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 27-42, January.
    16. Upham, Dr Paul & Sovacool, Prof Benjamin & Ghosh, Dr Bipashyee, 2022. "Just transitions for industrial decarbonisation: A framework for innovation, participation, and justice," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    17. Perino, Grischa & Requate, Till, 2012. "Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 456-467.
    18. Barbanente, Angela & Grassini, Laura, 2022. "Fostering transitions in landscape policies: A multi-level perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    19. Artur Santoalha & Ron Boschma, 2021. "Diversifying in green technologies in European regions: does political support matter?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(2), pages 182-195, February.
    20. Geels, Frank W. & Kern, Florian & Fuchs, Gerhard & Hinderer, Nele & Kungl, Gregor & Mylan, Josephine & Neukirch, Mario & Wassermann, Sandra, 2016. "The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 896-913.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10959-:d:904849. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.