IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v40y2023i2d10.1007_s10460-022-10377-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Constructing legitimacy for technologies developed in response to environmental regulation: the case of ammonia emission-reducing technology for the Flemish intensive livestock industry

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Velden

    (ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food)
    Ghent University)

  • Joost Dessein

    (Ghent University)

  • Laurens Klerkx

    (Wageningen University
    Universidad de Talca)

  • Lies Debruyne

    (ILVO (Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food))

Abstract

This study is focused on unsustainable agri-food systems, especially intensive livestock farming and its resulting environmental harms. Specifically we focus on the development of technologies that seek to mitigate these environmental harms. These technologies are generally developed as incremental innovations in response to government regulation. Critics of these technological solutions allege that these developments legitimate unsustainable food production systems and are incapable of supporting agri-food systems transformation. At the same time, technology developers and other actors seek to present these technologies as the legitimate solution to agri-environmental harms. Our study seeks to explore the perceptions and constructions of legitimacy for technologies that are developed to reduce ammonia emissions in intensive livestock farming in Flanders (Belgium). We use a qualitative case study, employing semi-structured interviews and workshops, with technology developers of ammonia-emission reducing technologies and stakeholders in the intensive livestock farming industry in Flanders. What our study shows is that technologies developed to reduce emissions are dependent on regulative legitimacy. The normative and cognitive legitimacy of these technologies is lacking, both due to ties to the intensive livestock industry and due to uncertainty over the performance of these technologies. With the delegitimation of intensive livestock farming, the legitimacy of these technologies is also under threat. In response, technology developers are looking to (re-)construct this legitimacy through knowledge claims over the performance of their technologies. We show several ways for other actors to deal with this, centred on either re-legitimising technologies to maintain the status quo, or to contest these knowledge claims and use them to disrupt path dependencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Velden & Joost Dessein & Laurens Klerkx & Lies Debruyne, 2023. "Constructing legitimacy for technologies developed in response to environmental regulation: the case of ammonia emission-reducing technology for the Flemish intensive livestock industry," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 649-665, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:40:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-022-10377-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-022-10377-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-022-10377-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-022-10377-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    2. Arwin van Buuren & Jurian Edelenbos, 2004. "Why is joint knowledge production such a problem?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 289-299, August.
    3. Marberg, Angela & van Kranenburg, Hans & Korzilius, Hubert, 2017. "The big bug: The legitimation of the edible insect sector in the Netherlands," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 111-123.
    4. Richard Lee, 2012. "Knowledge claims and the governance of agri-food innovation," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 79-91, March.
    5. Jasper Eshuis & Marian Stuiver, 2005. "Learning in context through conflict and alignment: Farmers and scientists in search of sustainable agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 22(2), pages 137-148, June.
    6. C. Dionisio Pérez-Blanco & Arthur Hrast-Essenfelder & Chris Perry, 2020. "Irrigation Technology and Water Conservation: A Review of the Theory and Evidence," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(2), pages 216-239.
    7. Laurens Klerkx & Karin Grip & Cees Leeuwis, 2006. "Hands off but Strings Attached: The Contradictions of Policy-induced Demand-driven Agricultural Extension," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 23(2), pages 189-204, June.
    8. Ruebottom, Trish, 2013. "The microstructures of rhetorical strategy in social entrepreneurship: Building legitimacy through heroes and villains," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 98-116.
    9. Madeleine Fairbairn & Zenia Kish & Julie Guthman, 2022. "Pitching agri-food tech: performativity and non-disruptive disruption in Silicon Valley," Journal of Cultural Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(5), pages 652-670, September.
    10. Jennifer Clapp & Sarah-Louise Ruder, 2020. "Precision Technologies for Agriculture: Digital Farming, Gene-EditedCrops, and the Politics of Sustainability," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 20(3), pages 49-69, August.
    11. Klerkx, Laurens & Begemann, Stephanie, 2020. "Supporting food systems transformation: The what, why, who, where and how of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    12. Audley Genus & Marfuga Iskandarova & Chris Warburton Brown, 2021. "Institutional entrepreneurship and permaculture: A practice theory perspective," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 1454-1467, March.
    13. Tobias Haas, 2020. "Cracks in the gearbox of car hegemony: struggles over the German Verkehrswende between stability and change," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(6), pages 810-827, November.
    14. Markard, Jochen & Wirth, Steffen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2016. "Institutional dynamics and technology legitimacy – A framework and a case study on biogas technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 330-344.
    15. Marc Schut & Annemarie van Paassen & Cees Leeuwis & Laurens Klerkx, 2014. "Towards dynamic research configurations: A framework for reflection on the contribution of research to policy and innovation processes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 207-218.
    16. de Boon, Auvikki & Sandström, Camilla & Rose, David Christian, 2022. "Perceived legitimacy of agricultural transitions and implications for governance. Lessons learned from England’s post-Brexit agricultural transition," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    17. Niko Wojtynia & Jerry van Dijk & Marjolein Derks & Peter W. G. Groot Koerkamp & Marko P. Hekkert, 2021. "A new green revolution or agribusiness as usual? Uncovering alignment issues and potential transition complications in agri-food system transitions," Post-Print hal-03893991, HAL.
    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. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    2. Akimowicz, Mikaël & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Gallai, Nicola & Képhaliacos, Charilaos, 2022. "The leader, the keeper, and the follower? A legitimacy perspective on the governance of varietal innovation systems for climate changes adaptation. The case of sunflower hybrids in France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    3. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    4. Schnebelin, Éléonore, 2022. "Linking the diversity of ecologisation models to farmers' digital use profiles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    5. Laxmi Prasad Pant, 2019. "Responsible innovation through conscious contestation at the interface of agricultural science, policy, and civil society," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(2), pages 183-197, June.
    6. Kenny, Ursula & Regan, Áine & Hearne, Dave & O'Meara, Christine, 2021. "Empathising, defining and ideating with the farming community to develop a geotagged photo app for smart devices: A design thinking approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    7. Lajoie-O'Malley, Alana & Bronson, Kelly & van der Burg, Simone & Klerkx, Laurens, 2020. "The future(s) of digital agriculture and sustainable food systems: An analysis of high-level policy documents," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    8. Boulestreau, Yann & Peyras, Claire-Lise & Casagrande, Marion & Navarrete, Mireille, 2022. "Tracking down coupled innovations supporting agroecological vegetable crop protection to foster sustainability transition of agrifood systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    9. Ancín, María & Pindado, Emilio & Sánchez, Mercedes, 2022. "New trends in the global digital transformation process of the agri-food sector: An exploratory study based on Twitter," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    10. Prost, Lorène, 2021. "Revitalizing agricultural sciences with design sciences," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    11. Matthijs J Janssen & Joeri Wesseling & Jonas Torrens & K Matthias & Caetano Penna & Laurens Klerkx, 2023. "Missions as boundary objects for transformative change: understanding coordination across policy, research, and stakeholder communities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 398-415.
    12. Summer Sullivan, 2023. "Ag-tech, agroecology, and the politics of alternative farming futures: The challenges of bringing together diverse agricultural epistemologies," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 913-928, September.
    13. Menary, Jonathan & Collier, Rosemary & Seers, Kate, 2019. "Innovation in the UK fresh produce sector: Identifying systemic problems and the move towards systemic facilitation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    14. Shambu Prasad Chebrolu & Deborah Dutta, 2021. "Managing Sustainable Transitions: Institutional Innovations from India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, May.
    15. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    16. Albaladejo, Christophe, 2020. "The impossible and necessary coexistence of agricultural development models in the Pampas: the case of Santa Fe province (Argentina)," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(2-3), March.
    17. Thomas Pircher & Conny J. M. Almekinders, 2021. "Making sense of farmers’ demand for seed of root, tuber and banana crops: a systematic review of methods," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(5), pages 1285-1301, October.
    18. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    19. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    20. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:40:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-022-10377-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.