Participatory Backcasting of biogas from anaerobic

digestion in the Dutch province of Gelderland

Delft University of Technology, course Sustainable Innovation and Social Change

Supervisor of the course
Jaco Quist
Group
2 (Biogas), individual assignment topic 3 (participatory Transition Management or Backcasting)
Report made by
Sanne de Groot, student Industrial Ecology 1188313 (Delft) 1190431 (Leiden)
June 2012

1 Introduction
This report is a continuation on the research Biogas in the Netherlands (de Groot et al, 2012) where
Functions of Innovation Systems (FIS) analyses current opportunities and Backcasting states
recommendations for a desired future. Backcasting is shifting towards a more participatory
orientation (Quist and Vergragt, 2006). A participatory approach has not yet been discussed in
mentioned research which is the reason to extend this aspect in relation to Backcasting.
The research questions is: How can participatory Backcasting be used to stimulate spin-off or followup activities in the case of biogas in Gelderland?
In case no stakeholders were organised a project group or platform for anaerobic digestion could be
founded. However in the Netherlands the national Platform Nieuw Gas (Dumont, 2008) and EDGaR
(Weidenaar et al., 2012) are already active in the field of co-digestion and market creation. The
excising networks and their knowledge can be used to embed a participatory Backcasting project. A
regional approach could help to come closer to the stakeholders involved and have a less diffuse
working area. In the province of Gelderland (Migchels et al., 2011) there are regional developments
starting to stimulate the production of biogas. It was an initiative from the Province Gelderland
government. Transition paths are developed by Platform Nieuw Gas and stakeholders have been
identified with their corresponding interests. There are developments to realise a transition.
However there has not been involvement of all the stakeholders with participatory Backcasting.
Interaction between stakeholders is the key issue. Stakeholder identification and involvement will be
included.

2 Methodology
2.1 Existing frameworks
Realising system changes to reach the desired future situation can be approached with the
Backcasting approach but also with the Transition Management (TM) framework. Each
methodological tool has its own field of application with parts overlapping. They are still under
development and not set in stone. This makes an understanding of the different uses and flexibility
to adapt to new situations a must. The frameworks do not describe what has to be done but
stimulate a way of thinking. With participatory oriented case studies it is possible to observe what
went well in certain situations and borrow the way of implementation.
Stakeholder participation can have different functions. Involvement of stakeholders during the
decision making phase is a more democratic process that increases the support for decisions.
Stakeholder participation to create a vision and pathway also makes use of their knowledge. During
the implementation phase participation of all stakeholders will be needed. Changing socio-technical
systems will face resistance from the incumbent regime. Motors of change can be derived from
inevitable changes in the landscape, creation of legitimacy and other advantages that a transition can
offer. Participation and interaction between stakeholders is integrated in TM (Loorbach, 2007;
attachment 2): Firstly the development of knowledge and the transfer of knowledge can be done in a
participatory way; Secondly the application of this knowledge and change in real life is necessary to
realise transitions.

2.2 Participatory Backcasting

Backcasting uses a desired future vision to communicate where a system change should lead us to.
This is opposed to forecasting that mainly depends on likely business-as-usual scenarios. A future
vision and pathway can strengthen a belief that reaching this desired future is really possible (Quist
2

and Vergragt, 2006). A participatory Backcasting exercise with pathway development has multiple
goals:
Generating awareness among stakeholders;
Creating future visions or reaching normative targets;
A follow-up agenda for research and projects to start realising the future vision;
Higher order learning and understanding of other stakeholders.
These goals can be different during phases of a project. Quist and Vergragt (2006) made a distinction
between five phases in participatory Backcasting. In the case of the SusHouse project it is structured
in seven steps (Green and Vergragt, 2002) that can be grouped in the five phases.

Figure 1, structure in five stages as used with STD (left) and in seven steps as in SusHouse (right).
Phase 1. Strategic problem orientation
This phase in participatory Backcasting will depend to a large extend on the situation. In a complex
and uncertain case it could be the main phase. Problem orientation can provide learning experiences
for stakeholders sharing their perspectives (Cuppen, 2011) so they will better understand the other
stakeholders which is one step closer to a solution. The stakeholder analysis and selection makes
sure there is enough diversity and inclusion of marginal perspectives in a balanced way (Cuppen,
2011). Diversity increases the learning opportunities for stakeholders. Marginal perspectives are
usually not being articulated in the public debate. Balance ensures that all perspectives have an
equal importance. A creativity session can brainstorm on solutions. Groups that have a similar
perspective make it easier to speak up for every stakeholder (Cuppen, 2011). By confronting the
different groups in a later stage there will be less barriers between sharing perspectives. This can
lead to different scenarios and is not forced towards consensus.
Problem orientation looks at current trends from a multi level perspective and how these will affect
the future (Vergragt and Quist, 2011). A creativity session could result in a quantitative goal. The STD
programme has a goal of factor 20 reduction in environmental impact per service provided.

Phase 2. Construction of sustainable future visions or scenarios

If no scenarios are constructed in a participatory manner these can be constructed in the beginning
of the second phase. Trends that will and could happen can be the basis of the scenarios.
Construction of scenarios that should happen can be done as preparation for a stakeholder workshop
to come to a desired future vision. Construction of multiple scenarios worked out well in the MSL
case to let the stakeholders be an active part in selecting and combining the scenarios in a single
vision. Participants of the workshop came to a vision based on the main MSL scenario (Quist, 2007).
The SusHouse case produced three scenarios that reduce environmental impacts with a Factor 20.
Stakeholders were involved in creativity workshops that led to far reaching aims for 2050 (Quist and
Knot, 2001).
It is recommended to have a single desired future vision to communicate a common ambition.
Multiple visions are more open-ended which will decrease the probability of follow-up. The extend
that the vision can be realised within a certain timeframe can be further elaborated.
Phase 3. Backcasting
Realising the vision can be planned with pathways that involve the corresponding stakeholders.
Pathways can be divided in time slots that make a gradual transition. The timeframe is already
determined in the Backcasting phase. Implementation of the vision over the pathway can be done in
collaboration with stakeholders. Questions are WHAT has to be changed, HOW can it be done and
WHO will have to take action (Quist, 2012). Like in the first phase, one of the most important aims is
that participants can learn from each other (Cuppen, 2011).
The WHAT part consists of technical changes in technology, cultural changes in the way consumers
behave and structural changes how the system is organised. HOW to change things can be for
example with knowledge development and consumer awareness. The WHO part can be the
participants of the Backcasting exercise or other stakeholders that are not present (Quist, 2012).
Phase 4. Elaboration, analysis and action agenda
Alternative solutions can be compared that fit in the future vision. A vision and Backcasting with
many cultural changes will result in fitting cultural oriented solutions. Possible solutions can be
compared according to environmental, social and economic criteria. Different stakeholders can have
their own contribution in finding alternative solutions, setting criteria and making the comparison.
The action agenda prescribes the short term implementation by stakeholders. Participation of
stakeholders in making the action agenda will motivate them, leading to more success with
implementation.
Phase 5. Embedding of results, generating follow-up and implementation
The next phase of implementation is less manageable with stakeholder consultation and workshops.
The foundation can be laid with the other phases. Supporting entrepreneurs can be with information
meetings, network meetings to bring different parties together and incentives (i.e. subsidies). If more
research is needed the topic can be brought in the attention of the academic world with
recommendations.
Results of participatory Backcasting are not limited to the participating stakeholders. The vision,
pathways, action agenda and recommendation can affect others as well by knowledge diffusion.
Evaluation of results can only be done after some time. It reflects on the action agenda and draws
conclusions for improvement in next projects. Evaluation is relevant to perform case studies of
finished projects or start up a new project. Interaction of successful examples can help higher order
learning.
4

3 Applying Participatory Backcasting

3.1

Strategic problem orientation

Strategic problem orientation is mostly being done on a high level decision making in the case of
biogas. Involving stakeholders can help to set the scope to energy or closing of nutrient loops. Some
problems will be seen as of minor importance but can support the main message.
Stakeholder analysis is already in progress in this case. Stakeholders to be involved are biomass
producers and transporters, manure producers, Alleander, LTO Noord (farmer interests), Province,
municipalities, manure traders, users of fertiliser, suppliers of digestion plants, consumers,
researchers, policy makers (EU), bio industry, retail stakeholders and NGOs.

3.2

Construction of sustainable future visions or scenarios

The ambition to become an energy neutral province in 2050 (Bus, 2012) includes a mix of energy
sources. Stakeholders can be involved to influence the scenarios and come with their own future
vision.
Stakeholder participation can result in more in depth consequences of the scenarios with related
opportunities and barriers. This increases the understanding of the other stakeholders. Providing
quantitative tools to give an indication to what extend the ambition of energy neutrality will be
reached could also help to make a concrete vision. Eventually coming to a single vision is
recommended to get everyone in line.

3.3

Backcasting

What has to be changed to reach the vision is mostly the technology because in the case of biogas
there can be technical oriented change in the vision. Stakeholders can here give advise and select the
best option (Quist, 2012). Cultural changes also play a role in the scenarios described in the previous
phase. Consumers that purchase food and energy need to be represented to include cultural
preferences. All stakeholders are consumers at the same time so they can bring in this perspective as
well as long as there is paid attention to it. Structural changes will be large in the local scenario
where there is less need for centralised food and energy production. Utility companies could take the
role of energy service companies to reduce energy demand. These stakeholders might see this as a
threat or an opportunity. Opportunities mobilises them to stay in business and avoid missing the
boat.
Next question is how the alternative options come closer to be implemented. Removing barriers with
upscaling the technology, new systems to distribute biomass, a biogas pipeline to attach multiple
farms, involving consumers or an organisational change can be applied over a certain pathway.
Opportunities are synergies between combinations of options. Stakeholders might also see synergies
with other renewable energy sources, food production systems and the processing of digestate from
the anaerobic digestion. Stakeholders with knowledge about the options and from diverse
backgrounds are needed for this.
Who will have to take action is then the question. Implementation will have to be done by the
stakeholders. An energy cooperation between consumers is an option but a representative of the
cooperation is needed. Change in the behaviour of consumers can be their own responsibility but
supporting them with information the necessarily means influences more people. If stakeholders are
involved in this process they will also be more committed.

3.4

Elaboration, analysis and action agenda

The choise of alternative solutions is something for an expert group that has a system view in how
the choices influence each other. These will mostly be researchers but allowing reactions from other
stakeholders can avoid that their solution is not represented.
Selection criteria can be gathered from interviews with stakeholders to avoid missing certain aspects
and make a weighting in importance. Ethical questions of energy dependency, biomass scarcity and
animal rights have huge emotional reactions that make an objective view difficult. To take the vision
into account for system changes the realisation of the impacts in the future instead of changing a
small aspect in the current situation. The final choise of a solution can contain some subjective
criteria that can be justified with a certain weighting system.
For the action agenda there can be ideas from all stakeholders to start implementing the chosen
solution. This will again get support from stakeholders to actually implement them. If there is a clear
direction what has to be done and there is a probable implementation then it is a good
recommendation. Too general or unrealistic points should be avoided. Sometimes there can already
be some support before putting it on the agenda.

3.5

Embedding of results, generating follow-up and implementation

If the first step is made for an infrastructure that support further adoption of biogas projects there
will be less barriers to continue. A facilitating role for the government helps to realise the first step in
a protected atmosphere. Spreading information about the importance of the projects can get the
attention of more stakeholders and increase the involvement. Neighbours of a projects can get
involved in the realisation to avoid any resistance against it. The supply energy and less
environmental impacts that are caused by the spreading of untreated manure shows the neighbours
the positive aspects of biogas.

Conclusions and recommendations

From this report can be concluded that there are various stakeholder participation possibilities.
Different kinds of participation are interviews and workshops. Workshops increase learning from
interaction. It is recommended to create a vision based on multiple scenarios where stakeholders can
learn from each other. During the following phases a participatory approach can mean individual
feedback from stakeholders how to realise the vision and their willingness of participation.
The maturity of transitions determines if the orientation phases are more important or if the focus is
on the implementation phase. The case of biogas is part of an existing transition process where a
problem orientation can improve understanding of stakeholders. The first phase can in this case be
performed by a smaller steering group. Now the main challenge is to involve stakeholders in the
implementation phase.
Neighbourhood and consumer participation with information meetings and an interactive website
decreases resistance and creates support. Especially with transitions of the socio-technical regime
users have to be involved. Awareness and market formation of sustainable niches is an important
driver behind changes in the rest of the system.
Development of the Backcasting methodology profits from case studies with a varying amount of
success. Recognising the maturity of transitions and the corresponding focus on certain phases needs
further development in the methodology. Selecting participating stakeholders and their role in the
process is also a pattern in case studies that needs further methodological research.

Literature

Bus, R., 2012. Biogas Infrastructuur Oost Nederland (BION) [Biogas infrastructure in east
Netherlands]. Provincie Gelderland, available online: www.bioenergieclusteroostnederland.nl/
images/stories/downloads/18042012-provincie-gelderland-biogas-infrastructuur-oostnederland.pdf, last accessed: 23-06-2012.
Cuppen, E., 2011. Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for
design and methods. Policy Sci, 45, 2346.
de Groot, S., M. van Paassen, A. Tardast, J. van der Veen and J. Versluis, 2012. Biogas in the
Netherlands The past, present and future socio-technical innovations in anaerobic digestion. TU
Delft, available online: http://tinyurl.com/c3yuy87, last accessed: 21-06-2012.
Dumont, M., 2008. Vol gas vooruit! De rol van Groen Gas in de Nederlandse energiehuishouding [Full
speed ahead! The role of green gas in the Dutch energy market]. Energie Transitie, available
online: www.refman.et-model.com, last accessed: 20-06-2012.
Loorbach, D. A., 2007. Transition Management - New mode of governance for sustainable
development. Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Migchels, G., P. Kuikman, H.F.M. Aarts, H.J.C. van Dooren, P.A.I. Ehlert, J. Luttik, L.B. Sebek and K.B.
Zwart, 2011. Kansen en bedreigingen voor mestvergisting en groengasproductie in de Gelderse
landbouw [Opportunities and threats for manure digestion and green gas production in
Gelderland]. Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Report 505.
Quist, J. and M. Knot, 2001. Strategies towards sustainable households. Int. J. sustainable
Development, 4(1), 7589.
Quist, J., and P. Vergragt, 2006. Past and future of backcasting: The shift to stakeholder participation
and a proposal for a methodological framework. Futures, 38, 10271045.
Quist, J., 2007. Backcasting for a sustainable future, the impact after 10 years. Delft: Eburon
Academic Publishers.
Quist, J., 2009. Stakeholder and user involvement in backcasting and how this influences follow-up
and spin-off. Paper for the Joint Actions On Climate Change conference, Aalborg, Denmark, 810 June 2009.
Quist, J., W. Thissen and P. J. Vergragt, 2011. The impact and spin-off of participatory backcasting:
From vision to niche. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 78: 883897.
Quist, J., 2012. Handbook of Sustainable Engineering, chapter 52: Backcasting and Scenarios for
Sustainable Technology Development. Houten: Springer.
Vergragt, P. and G. van Grootveld, 1994. Sustainable Technology Development in the Netherlands:
the first phase of the Dutch STD programme. J. Cleaner Prod., 2(54), 13-137.
Vergragt, P. and J. Quist, 2011. Backcasting for sustainability: Introduction to the special issue.
Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 747755.
Weidenaar, T., E. Bekkering and R. van Eekelen, 2012. Scenarios for the Dutch gas distribution
infrastructure in 2050. Groningen: Energy Delta Gas Research, Working Paper n1.

Appendix 1,

FIS Biogas in Gelderland

The information about the status of biogas developments is mostly based on a recent report about
opportunities of biogas in Gelderland (Migchels et al., 2011). Latest developments and differences
between regions have become more clear during conversations with Gerard Migchels from WUR and
Roland Bus from the Province of Gelderland. Broader developments in the Netherlands are described
in de Groot et al. (2012) and wil not be discussed here. The available information will be structured
according to the Functions of Innovation Systems (FIS) to assess the opportunities and barriers.

.1 Support of advocacy coalitions

Support started with the national government and the Province to initiate the Gelderland climate
programme 2008-2011 (Migchels et al., 2011). Currently biogas in Gelderland is part of the Green
Deal between the national government and the Province Gelderland (Rijksoverheid, 2011). On a
more local scale there are the regions Achterhoek and city triangle Apeldoorn-Zutphen-Lochem that
have motors of change that support biogas developments. There is no resistance from the
stakeholders like there is in the region of De Vallei. Energy distribution companies Alleander and
Essent participate in the project that will create legitimacy for them.
Region De Vallei has developments with biogas production from sewage treatment. A local biogas
grid is an option to make use of the biogas other than as a transportation fuel. However the
developments are not going as fast as in the other regions. Co-digestion of biomass is an issue that
has a reputation to compete with food supply. Small scale digestion of only manure could still be
implemented here with little resistance from stakeholders.

.2 Guidance of the search

The Province Gelderland has a vision to reach 60PJ of biobased energy with manure digestion in
2050. This is a substantial part of the current natural gas demand, electricity use and transport. The
other goal is to make a transition to a sustainable agriculture. Synergies with other aspects can be
possible to improve the livability of the region.

.3 Availability of resources
The availability of manure in the province of Gelderland will not be a limiting factor to reach biogas
production of at least 50% van the current natural gas demand in the province. A larger constraint is
the availability of biomass for co-digestion. Biomass is allowed to consist of maximum 50% of the
digestion feedstock and increases the biogas production significantly (de Groot et al., 2012). Manure
digestion without biomass co-digestion would solve this issue and can well be applied for farm scale
digestion plants. Sterksel is running a small-scale digester.
Subsidies from the national SDE+ programme will only be sufficient cover the gap between expenses
and revenues in some cases. Large scale digestion plants with the availability of biomass for codigestion and an existing infrastructure to supply green gas or electricity and to the grid could be
economically interesting. For small scale energy production there is an interesting tax arrangement
(AgenschapNL, 2012). Other cases might need additional subsidies from for example the province.

.4 Market formation
Production of green gas has to take the variation in gas demand into account. Some periods during
the summer will have a low gas demand. It is not possible to inject more green gas than there is
demand. When injection in the high pressure (40 bar) network is an option then there is a larger
capacity. A local biogas grid could make a connection to the high pressure gas grid. Waiting for other
stakeholders to construct the infrastructure, production capacity or market will cause a lock-in. First
8

investments in for example a biogas grid can be an incentive for more potential biogas producers to
join. Small scale production of biogas is more suited to production of electricity and heat for own
use. Small scale production of green gas can be used for transport or injection in distribution
networks (4-8 bar).

Figure 2.2, green dots are biogas related activities (http://duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl/kaart)

.5 Entrepreneurial activities
Most stakeholders are entrepreneurs that want to make a profit. For potential producers of biogas
there will be a tool available from the province to assess the profitabolity for their situation. If they
have a need for more information there can be arranged a coffeetable meeting.
Frieslandcampina is prepared to buy biogas to replace natural gas in their facilities. Alleander (gas
distributor) will transfer the biogas if there are biogas producers involved.

.6 Knowledge development
Biogas grids are a new development with the BioNoF (Kooistra and de Jong, 2012) being developed in
Friesland. This local biogas grid will supply biogas to the natural gas grid after purifying the biogas.
More developments like the use for transport fuel or combined heat and power generation could be
a contribution to the knowledge development.
Also manure-only digestion plants are a development that makes the process less depending on
other biomass availability. The company HoSt has developed the Microferm that allows the use of
only manure. The german government actively supports manure-only digestion with extra subsidies.
Thirdly the use of digestate could be further researched. If digestate could replace artificial fertiliser
then there be a solution to the manure problem and a saving of fertilizer.

.7 Knowledge diffusion
Participation of Alterra brings knowledge from researchers to other stakeholders. There have been
several workshops by Province Gelderland (duurzameenergiegelderland.wing.nl). There will be
more information meetings and workshops in the coming year.
References:
AgenschapNL, 2012. Energie-investeringsafrek (EIA) [Energy investement discount]. AgenschapNL,
available online: www.agentschapnl.nl/eia, last accessed: 23-06-2012.
9

Jonkman, J., 2011. Verkenning mogelijkheden invoeding groengas op het aardgasnetwerk

[Exploration possibilities feed-in of biogas to the gas grid]. NV RENDO, available online:
www.rendonetwerken.nl/bestanden/documenten/327-onderzoek-groengasinjectie-totalerendo-netwerk-definitief.pdf, last accessed: 20-06-2012.
Kooistra, K and K. de Jong, 2012. BioNoF een biogasleiding met gevolgen [BioNoF a biogas pipeline
with consequences]. Leeuwarden: Ekwadraat.
Rijksoverheid, 2012. Green Deal van Provincie Gelderland met de Rijksoverheid [Green Deal of
province Gelderland with national government]. National government, available online:
https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/blg-139602.pdf, last accessed: 21-06-2012.

10

Appendix 2,
and AM.

case studies of participory Backcasting, TM

The Sustainable technology development (STD) programme assumes constant interaction between
the present actions and possibility of a desired future. It was a programme of the Dutch government
between 1993 and 2001 to explore the possibilities of the contribution of technology to sustainable
development (Quist, 2009). A normative goal was already known from the start in the Factor 20. This
Factor 20 is based on the technological improvement to halving environmental effects while doubling
the world population and increasing affluence with a factor 5. In the case of novel protein foods it
appeared to be technically possible to reach the goal. Consumer behaviour change is mentioned as
essential.
The SusHouse project was a follow-up of the STD funded by the European Union. Technical, cultural
and structural changes were the key to make the project a success. The focus is more on households
than in the STD programme (Quist, 2007). The steps can be adjusted according to each case. The
SusHouse case has an emphasis on strategic problem formulation with the subdivision in three steps.
Stakeholder consultation led to further knowledge development and commitment. In the SusHouse
case there was also a consultancy firm was involved for a feasibility study (Quist, 2012). When a case
is more structured and there is consensus among the stakeholders more emphasis can be put on
other phases.
Multiple Sustainable Land-use (MSL) was also part of the STD programme. It aimed at a vision for
system change with the large amount of uncertainties and interest conflicts involved. Data was being
collected with interviews. Four different system options were made as an input for a second
workshop. The different system options created interaction and involvement of participants of the
workshop (Quist, 2007). At the end of the second workshop a single vision was based on MSL.
Stakeholders in the selected areas were interviewed and the area Winterswijk was chosen because
of the high level of commitment in the area. After completing the project involved stakeholders like
the province and steering group committed to continue with follow-up activities.

Table 1, participatory backcasting case studies

Novel protein foods

SusHouse project

MSL

Time period

1993-2001

1998-2000

1994-1997

Topics

Meat replacement by
other protein sources

Nutrition from a
consumer perspective

Integration agriculture with

other rural area functions

Stakeholders
National government,
Emphasis on participation
involved during Dutch food companies, of non-governmental
Backcasting
7 universities/institutes, stakeholders
key persons from
research and NGOs,
broader stakeholder
group

National government,
research,
business (production side),
public interest groups,
the wider public

Vision

One vision with gradual Three different scenarios Different scenarios leading
development
to one vision

Assessment

NPF make a Factor 10 Factor 20 improvement Viable for some areas

30 possible compared to environmental,
Reduced environmental
11

production
of pork meat

economic, consumer
acceptance analysis

impact per function

Action agenda

1. Communication with
general public;
2. Education and
knowledge transfer;
3. Consumer research;
4. Research and chains;
5. product developm.;
6. Environmental
reduction, instruments;
7. Regulation and social
measures.

2nd stakeholder
workshop focusing on:
implementation;
follow-up;
construction of action;
policy
recommendations;
new innovative ideas
developed.

Spreading of outcome to
other areas

Follow up

research (Profetas)
R&D major Dutch food
companies
growth in NPF SMEs
food purchase of
ministry

co-operation between
stakeholders
workshop focusing on
domestic appliances for
treating NPF at home

Continues influence of the

vision in own domain,
continues research

Analysis of transition processes go back almost two hundred years ago with the development of
steam ships instead of sailing ships. A way to describe these transitions is done by Rotmans et al.
(2001). Transition Management (TM) was part of the Fourth Netherlands Environmental Policy Plan
(NMP4) that was published in 2000. It aims to address climate change, biodiversity issues, depletion
of resources and threats to human health in a transition way instead of a collapse of the system. It
can be described as a tool for policy making that sits in between incrementalism that has a short
term adaptive approach and long term planning (Kemp et al., 2007). There are four parts of TM:
forming a transition arena, development of long term visions, experiments and programmes for
system innovation and monitoring and evaluation. These parts have no particular order which makes
them more flexible to use (Foxon et al., 2009). A steering group that manages a transition for a
certain is called a transition arena.
Adaptive Management (AM) is meant for socio-ecological systems where TM more focuses on sociotechnical systems. The foundation in structural change and ecosystem functioning is gradually
transforming in a framework that takes complexity into account (Foxon et al., 2009). There are many
similarities with TM and the adaptive learning approach of both frameworks makes them suited to
adopt parts of each other.
Learning by doing can be illustrated with several case studies. Paredis (2008) described the DuWoBo
project in Flanders as the first TM project outside the Netherlands. Parkstad Limburg was started
during formation of the theory and implementation by the Dutch national government (Loorbach,
2007). The UK Upland case study (Foxon et al., 2009) faces with erosion of the soil leading to
decrease in water quality and agriculture that needs subsidies to survive. The government has
started a programme to address these problems with stakeholder participation. Fot the Peak Hill
area three phases were proposed: context determination, scenario development and management
options. (Dougill et al., 2006).

12

Table 2, Adaptive Management case studies

DuWoBo

Parkstad Limburg

UK Upland

Time period

2004-2006

1998-2002

2005-2025

Frameworks

TM

TM

AM

Stakeholders
Flemish government,
involved during IVAM,
project
SERV, MINA-Raad,
DRIFT (research)

Commissioning board P.L. UK national policy-makers,

(companies, research),
agricultural community,
local municipalities,
grouse managers,
conservationists

Vision

substantive side and

process side

Different scenarios
resulting in a vision

Assessment

Integrated System
6 transition paths
Analysis,transition paths

Action agenda

Continuation of Arena+: local organisation

- control natural fires
advise on local policy, Cooperation (housing - concentrate moorland
spreading information, and health care)
burning in small area
start spin-offs
Cooperation education - keep agricultural subsidies
Thematic plans
Coalitions
Media attention

Follow up

continuation under
TWOL program

No long term vision,

Maintaining status quo
Recommendations on short
term

collaboration between
companies and education

The multi-level perspective (Geels, 2002) is interwoven in TM and to some extend in Backcasting. It
distinguishes niche developments from the socio-technical regime and landscape level. All three
levels influence each other. A successful niche development can become part of the regime.
Society is becoming more complex to manage with the increasing number of connections and the
division in sub-systems (Luhmann, 2002). Sub-systems are for example the political and judicial
systems. To manage society it is increasingly important to be aware that not everything can be
overseen by a single individual. Conceptual frameworks can be used as a tool to bring order in
complex matter. For transitions in society there are knowledge developments in progress in the field
of social sciences.
Backcasting is typically divided in five different phases. TM consists of four parts but is less restricted
in a chronological order of the parts. AM has three main phases that complete a learning process.
The structure in five Backcasting phases as is done in Biogas in the Netherlands - The past, present
and future socio-technical innovations in anaerobic digestion fits participatory Backcasting as well.
This structure would need little change. Only the involvement of stakeholders will be more important
in every phase. In particular the last two phases where generating follow up and implementation
happens stakeholders are important. Stakeholder participation is part of TM and AM. Backcasting is
originally not participatory but is making a shift towards stakeholder participation.
Lessons learnt with TM and AM can help to integrate stakeholder participation more in Backcasting.
The first part in TM to form a transition arena can be called a project (core) group in Backcasting that
starts with the first phase of problem formulation. From the case study DuWoBo it can be learned
that a bottom up approach can work well to avoid inconsequent government policy. The UK Upland
case showed a conscious selection of stakeholders to be involved during the first phase. Parkstad
13

Limburg has members from companies and education involved in the transition arena that can help
each other. Also the enthusiasm of local governments ensures the continuation of the project and
awareness beyond their own local boundary. The second TM part to construct a vision is similar to
the second phase of the Backcasting framework. This can take place during a workshop. The third
Backcasting phase is a part of the second TM part of creating pathways. Experiments and
programmes for system innovation can be part of the last two phases of the Backcasting Framework.
The cooperation of the Parkstad Limburg case has resulted in follow-up projects. Monitoring and
evaluation is not part of the Backcasting framework. Only evaluation could be done after setting the
action agenda to indicate the involvement of participants and try to improve it.
Three scenarios for the case of biogas that take the local situation into account will now be
proposed.
Digestion of manure with all available biomass streams (e.g. roadside grass, swill, agricultural, algae)
is a scenario that generates the maximum amount of biogas. This can be called the biobased
economy scenario. When emphasis is placed on small scale digestion plants that process only the
manure, a transition towards local and organic agriculture can be imagined. Eating less meat and
dairy products would further reduce the environmental impacts of the agricultural sector but few
stakeholders in the sector will be in favour of this local scenario. A third scenario could be the other
extreme with fully industrialised farms that feed animals according to their needs or even in vitro
meat is a possibility. With the current trend of battery cages being abolished in the EU this might not
be a very realistic scenario.
References:

Cuppen, E., 2009. Putting perspectives into participation constructive conflict methodology for
problem structuring in stakeholder dialogues. Oisterwijk: Uitgeverij BOXPress.
Dougill, A. J., E. D. G.Fraser, Holden, J., K. Hubacek, C. Prell, M. S. Reed, S. Stagl and L. C. Stringer, 2006.
Learning from Doing Participatory Rural Research: Lessons from the Peak District National Park.
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(2), 259-275.
Foxon, T. J., M. S. Reed and L. C. Stringer, 2009. Governing long-term socialecological change: what can
the adaptive management and transition management approaches learn from each other?
Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(1), 320.
Geels, F. W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level
perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 12571274.
Kemp, R., D. Loorbach and J. Rotmans, 2007. Transition management as a model for managing processes
of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development
and World Ecology, 14, 7891.
Luhmann, N., 2002. Theories of Distinction: Redescribing the Descriptions of Modernity. Palo Alto:
Stanford University Press.
Paredis, E., 2008. Transition management in Flanders. Policy context, first results and surfacing tensions.
Ghent University: Centre for Sustainable Development, Working Paper n6.
Raven, R. P. J. M., 2005. Strategic Niche Management for Biomass, A comparative study on the
experimental introduction of bioenergy technologies in the Netherlands and Denmark.
Dissertation, Eindhoven University of Technology.
Rotmans, J., R. Kemp and M. van Asselt, 2001. More evolution than revolution: transition management in
public policy. Foresight, 3, 15-31.

14