13 Transcending the Loading Dock Paradigm—Rethinking …
261
effects to other farmers. These innovative products, processes or institutions
alone, however, are not the result of SLM but, in turn, are only further persuasive
vehicles to indirectly influence land use decision makers. A successful prototype
approach should therefore implement suitable instruments from the actor-centric
approach to increase its effectiveness. This might include field days for farmers or
farming business representatives, on-site performances and corresponding Q&A
sessions with an expert farmer who may also be a research partner for the new
technique.
With this approach, target group sensitivity is therefore a conditio sine qua non
for the required knowledge transfer. It necessitates a thorough analysis of the
connectivity potential of such prototypes, its (unwanted) side-effects and tradeoffs. If applied, design-thinking methods, boundary objects or adjacent creative
methods may be suitable. Depending on the research question, the prototype
approach can boost the transfer potential of projects.
3. Since land use is embedded in a highly regulated environment (market, laws, regulations, planning, etc.) that operates at all spatial levels, another transfer approach
exists for influencing KALUs: the context management approach. Steering the
development of a given system by stimulating its given framework conditions
is adapted from systems theory thinking (Willke 2014). Among the described
transfer paths, changing the regulative framework for land use is certainly the
most demanding and least manageable option for research projects. Nonetheless,
it holds the biggest potential of transformation as it sets the rules for post-project
timetables.
The context management approach seeks to involve actors and institutions that set
the framework conditions for land use or interact with intermediate institutions
that prepare political decision-making, feed in recommendations to decisionmaking levels, advance agenda-setting processes or form opinions. Interestingly,
the framework approach is still deemed to be the conventional pathway for scientific knowledge that “leaks” into society. In this concept, “excellent scientific
work” either catches the attention of science-policy networks that perform at
higher scales (such as IPCC or IPBES) or directly finds its way to decisionmakers. In our introductory example of the ozone hole, knowledge transfer took
that path as the news of a global danger “quickly” found its way into the highest
levels of global politics. I must stress that this example represents an extreme
exception.
However, the context management approach in SLM is slightly different as it
adds another dimension by proactively seeking to change context conditions
that, for instance, slow down the implementation of sustainable practices. Also,
research projects actively seek to advance options that hold more potential for
sustainability (e.g. by simplifying approval processes, and setting standards and
incentives). Other target groups of T&I activities could also be politicians, administrations, spatial planning institutions, companies and citizens, as they influence
land use indirectly (e.g. market conditions, public discourse). The degree of influence varies greatly between actor groups as well as the possibility of influencing
261
effects to other farmers. These innovative products, processes or institutions
alone, however, are not the result of SLM but, in turn, are only further persuasive
vehicles to indirectly influence land use decision makers. A successful prototype
approach should therefore implement suitable instruments from the actor-centric
approach to increase its effectiveness. This might include field days for farmers or
farming business representatives, on-site performances and corresponding Q&A
sessions with an expert farmer who may also be a research partner for the new
technique.
With this approach, target group sensitivity is therefore a conditio sine qua non
for the required knowledge transfer. It necessitates a thorough analysis of the
connectivity potential of such prototypes, its (unwanted) side-effects and tradeoffs. If applied, design-thinking methods, boundary objects or adjacent creative
methods may be suitable. Depending on the research question, the prototype
approach can boost the transfer potential of projects.
3. Since land use is embedded in a highly regulated environment (market, laws, regulations, planning, etc.) that operates at all spatial levels, another transfer approach
exists for influencing KALUs: the context management approach. Steering the
development of a given system by stimulating its given framework conditions
is adapted from systems theory thinking (Willke 2014). Among the described
transfer paths, changing the regulative framework for land use is certainly the
most demanding and least manageable option for research projects. Nonetheless,
it holds the biggest potential of transformation as it sets the rules for post-project
timetables.
The context management approach seeks to involve actors and institutions that set
the framework conditions for land use or interact with intermediate institutions
that prepare political decision-making, feed in recommendations to decisionmaking levels, advance agenda-setting processes or form opinions. Interestingly,
the framework approach is still deemed to be the conventional pathway for scientific knowledge that “leaks” into society. In this concept, “excellent scientific
work” either catches the attention of science-policy networks that perform at
higher scales (such as IPCC or IPBES) or directly finds its way to decisionmakers. In our introductory example of the ozone hole, knowledge transfer took
that path as the news of a global danger “quickly” found its way into the highest
levels of global politics. I must stress that this example represents an extreme
exception.
However, the context management approach in SLM is slightly different as it
adds another dimension by proactively seeking to change context conditions
that, for instance, slow down the implementation of sustainable practices. Also,
research projects actively seek to advance options that hold more potential for
sustainability (e.g. by simplifying approval processes, and setting standards and
incentives). Other target groups of T&I activities could also be politicians, administrations, spatial planning institutions, companies and citizens, as they influence
land use indirectly (e.g. market conditions, public discourse). The degree of influence varies greatly between actor groups as well as the possibility of influencing