Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts to harvest energy from glasshouses

Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Environmental Innovation andSocietal Transitions

journa l homepage: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /e is t

Anchoring of innovations: Assessing Dutch efforts toharvest energy from glasshouses

Boelie Elzena,b,∗, Barbara van Mierloc,1, Cees Leeuwisc,2

a Wageningen UR Livestock Research, The Netherlandsb Communication and Innovation Studies, Wageningen University, The Netherlandsc Communication and Innovation Studies, Wageningen University, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 April 2012Received in revised form 9 October 2012Accepted 9 October 2012Available online 1 November 2012

Keywords:AnchoringEnergy transitionGlasshouse horticultureNiche–regime linkingSystem innovation

a b s t r a c t

In the multi-level perspective (MLP), two key levels are socio-technical regimes and technological niches. The linking processesbetween these levels, however, are not well understood. We usethe concept of anchoring as a starting point towards a theoryof linking and distinguish three forms: technological, networkand institutional anchoring. Our case study concerns attempts toreduce energy consumption in the Dutch glasshouse horticulturesector, consisting of a variety of alternative energy approaches.Distinguishing the three forms of anchoring appears to be usefulfor studying and understanding the interactions between nov-elty, niche and regime. The study reveals that ‘hybrid actors’ and‘hybrid forums’ play a crucial role in bringing about various forms ofanchoring. These findings are not only of analytical interest, but alsorelevant for practitioners who desire to induce system innovationto contribute to sustainability.

© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The multi-level perspective (MLP) has become an important analytical tool for understanding pro-cesses of transition and system innovation (e.g. Geels, 2002, 2005; Berkhout et al., 2004; Geels and

∗ Corresponding author. Present address: STəPS – Science, Technology & Policy Studies, Ravelijn, University of Twente, POBox 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 74 291 6637; fax: +31 53 489 2159.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Elzen), [email protected] (B. van Mierlo),[email protected] (C. Leeuwis).

1 Tel.: +31 317 483 258; fax: +31 317 486 094.2 Tel.: +31 317 484 310; fax: +31 317 486 094.

2210-4224/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2012.10.006

2 B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18

Schot, 2007). In this perspective, niches are the breeding ground for radical innovations that, underinfluence of destabilisation of regimes and landscape factors, may start a transition process in a regime.The processes by which niches link up to a regime, however, are poorly understood (Smith, 2007).

Building on Loeber (2003), we propose the term anchoring as an analytical concept in this regardand distinguish three forms of anchoring, notably technological, institutional and network anchoring.Anchoring relates to the situation in which the new links are still vulnerable and might easily bebroken again. Subsequently, we analyse the details of the three forms of anchoring in a case-study onthe supply and production of energy in glasshouses.

In our conclusions, we discuss the usefulness of using the concept of anchoring for building atheory of linking. Our main goal is to present and test an analytical framework for more detailedfuture studies of linking. Based on our case study, we introduce hybrid actors who play an importantrole in the anchoring processes, much of which take place in what we call hybrid forums. Finally, wediscuss which dynamics may transfer anchoring into durable links. Some of these dynamics have beenidentified in earlier work on sustainability transitions. What we add is that we relate these dynamicsto the micro-processes of anchoring which makes it possible to study the role these dynamics play inlinking processes as a sequence of different forms of anchoring.

2. Conceptualising anchoring

2.1. Understanding linking

The multi-level perspective has been convincingly used to describe, reconstruct and analysehistorical processes of system innovation (e.g. Geels, 2002, 2006). The perspective suggests thatradical innovation emerges from complex interactions between processes occurring at three levels:socio-technical regimes (the meso level), technological niches (the micro-level) and socio-technicallandscapes (the macro-level). This perspective has been used effectively by innovation scholars toanalyse historical processes of radical socio-technical change.

Given the time frame considered, such descriptions and analyses necessarily abstract from themessy dynamics that occur within and between projects and networks of actors that are involved ininnovation processes. As a result, the processes by which developments at the niche level interactwith those at the regime level and gradually shift dynamics in the direction of system innovation arenot well understood. As Smith wrote (2007, p. 431):

“. . . the precise relations between niche and regime still requires further analytical attention.Niche practices link up with regimes under stress, resolve bottlenecks and lead to reconfigura-tions. . . . However, linkage is understood in the literature to be ‘haphazard and coincidental’.[references to Geels, 2002, p. 29; Schot, 1998] We still do not have a theory of ‘linking’.”

Smith himself made an attempt at filling this theoretical void. One of his starting points is that hesees linking as a two-way influential process. MLP studies typically focus on how and under what con-ditions a niche influences a system (e.g. Geels, 2002, 2006). Smith, however, stresses that a regime alsoinfluences niches in the sense that sustainability problems in a regime have an important constitutingeffect upon niche creation (Smith, 2007, p. 436).

Furthermore, Smith demonstrates that linking rarely means that socio-technical practices from aniche are simply adopted in a regime (or vice versa) but that some form of translation, i.e. changes ofthese practices,3 takes place to make this possible. His main argument is that “. . . a focus upon thetranslation of socio-technical practices between niche and regime will further help theory develop-ment. In addition to identifying opportunities for niche–regime connections, we need to understandthe connecting processes how these reconfigure developments in niche and regime” (Smith, 2007, p.

3 The term translation is also a central concept in Actor Network Theory (ANT). In ANT, ‘translation’ is the process by whichthe wilful objectives of one actor are transferred into other actors, who are thus recruited into the network around the primaryactor (Callon et al., 1986). Smith acknowledges this (2007, note 6) and explicitly uses a different meaning of translation, notablychanges in socio-technical practices. We follow Smith in using this meaning of the concept.

B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18 3

431; emphasis in original). This illustrates that linking is an active process, involving translation, andnot a matter of simply transferring socio-technical practices from a niche to a regime or vice versa.

As our case study demonstrates, linking is the result of a continuous process of making and break-ing new connections in which some connections may become stable while others are short-lived.Therefore, a theory of linking should address how new links are made but also how they are brokenagain.

On the basis of the description above, we propose the following requirements for a conceptualframework to analyse linking processes:

• New connections may be more or less permanent.• The linking process can lead to changes in the regime as well as in a niche.• The conceptualisation should account for translation processes like Smith identified.• It should acknowledge that niches do not usually link up to a regime as a sort of ‘coherent whole’. We

demonstrate that often just specific components (technical or social) of a niche link up to a regime.

2.2. Anchoring as a stepping stone towards linking

The first requirement above implies that when new links are formed they are still vulnerable andmay also be broken again. In this paper we focus on this initial phase because the making and breakingof new connections can teach us a lot about the mechanisms that play a role. In this phase, we do not usethe term ‘link’ for these new connections because this term, as a link in a chain, has the connotation ofrobustness. We preserve the term link for a later stage in the interaction between niches and regimes.

Instead, we use the term anchoring (Loeber, 2003; Grin and van Staveren, 2007; Kemp and Grin,2009)4 to conceptualise emerging forms of linking. In these sources anchoring refers to the linkingbetween a novelty and existing structures and institutions. This suggests that anchoring refers to thelinking between a niche and a regime. However, this is not necessarily the case since, as we willdemonstrate, anchoring can also takes place in niches. E.g. a novelty can anchor more firmly in itsinitial niche or it can (partially) anchor into other niches that emerge and develop around other corenovelties. We therefore use the following definition:

Anchoring is the process in which a novelty becomes newly connected, connected in a new way,or connected more firmly to a niche or a regime. The further the process of anchoring progresses,meaning that more new connections supporting the novelty develop, the larger the chances arethat anchoring will eventually develop into durable links.

The common use of an anchor reflects that a new connection has some durability but may be brokenagain. If forces go in one direction, an anchor digs in deeper and develops into a solid link. If forces goin the opposite direction, however, an anchor easily lets go.

A novelty can be a new technology, a new technical concept or a new way of doing things (or a newsocio-technical practice, in Smith’s terms (2007; see above)). In principle, a novelty can be defined atvarious levels of detail, e.g. in our glasshouse case from a technical component of a heating installationto a complete new system for heating and cooling glasshouses. In this paper, we are interested innovelties that may lead to a significant change of the practices of the actors in the regime which mayprelude a transition. In our case study, this leads us to define such novelties at the level of the ‘energysystem’ in a glasshouse. As we describe below, there are various such novelties which, together, wesee as the ‘energy novelties niche’.

One crucial aspect of our definition of anchoring is that it does not refer to the permanent uptakeof a novelty in a new environment (e.g. the regime) but that we see it as a continuous process ofprobing new connections (until it has developed into robust new links). Another critical aspect of the

4 The Dutch word ‘verankering’ (meaning anchoring) is used in these sources. In the Netherlands, this term is often used inwriting and presentations to describe these processes but it has not been elaborated systematically. It is also used in variousgovernment funded research programmes for the agricultural sector, requiring projects to pay attention to anchoring of theproject and its results.

4 B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18

definition is that anchoring is a process in which the activities of individuals or individual organisationsare crucial to actively create the new connections between a novelty and its environment (either aniche or a regime). When the process of anchoring has developed into robust new links the acts ofindividuals are no longer critical for continuation of the development process. One actor dropping out,for instance, will not stop development since the new practices have become embedded in rules androutines followed by a variety of other actors.

As we stated above, anchoring can take place in a niche or a regime but, as various authors havedemonstrated, the distinctions between niche and regime are not clear cut. To quote Smith5 (2007, p.447):

“Whilst this multi-level model has heuristic value, in practice niche-regime distinctions arerarely so clear cut. Distinctions soon break down, as socio-technical components, but not entirealternative practices, translate from niches into regimes and components of each appear in theother. (. . .) Without rejecting the multi-level model, the findings here do stress the need forcloser attention to relations and translations between levels.”

In our case study, the distinctions are not always clear either and we therefore use a less hierar-chical representation of the MLP which is depicted in Fig. 1. This figure shows that niches, regime andlandscape can influence each other in a variety of ways. Two key aspects of this representation arethat niches and the regime may overlap and that landscape factors may influence a niche, the regimeas well as the interactions between them.

With this figure the process of anchoring refers largely to the interactions in the area of overlapbetween a niche and a regime. We analyse these interactions as micro-level processes that initiallylead to small changes (either technological, institutional or in terms of networks; see below) thatmay prove to be more or less durable. Because of our interest in system innovation, we are especiallyinterested in how new links become sufficiently permanent to start off development in a directiondifferent from the existing configuration of the regime and may eventually lead to major changes inthe regime.

2.3. Three forms of anchoring

Before presenting our case study, we first refine the concept of anchoring on the basis of the com-ponents that make up a regime. The first two components derive from the fact that we are analysingsocio-technical regimes. This implies that we need to distinguish technical and social components. Inrelation to the social component we distinguish two aspects. The first is the network of actors thatcarry the regime, e.g. as producers, consumers and regulators. The second aspect relates to Rip andKemp (1998) who defined socio-technological regimes as rules and routines. This suggests that rulesand routines are another constituting component of a regime. However, instead of ‘rules and routines’we use the concept of ‘institutions’ in line with economic and sociological institutional theories whichregards institutions as the formal and informal rules and arrangements that orient human behaviourand (inter)action (e.g. North, 1990). The concept of institutions will allow us to borrow some insightsfrom institutional theory to specify anchoring further as we discuss below.

Thus we distinguish between technical, network and institutional components6 of a regime andstudy how novelties may anchor in each of these. Since we also want to analyse anchoring in a nicheand relate these findings to one another we use the same three components to study anchoring in aniche. Hence, we distinguish three different forms of anchoring that are briefly discussed below.

We speak of technological anchoring when the technical characteristics of a novelty (e.g. new tech-nical concepts) become defined by the actors involved and, hence, more specific to them. Initially,

5 Other authors have also criticised the nested hierarchy and the strict separation of niches from regimes. Several of theseare discussed in Genus and Coles (2008). Also Geels (2011, p. 38) suggested that “perhaps we should consider dropping the‘hierarchy’ notion in the MLP.”

6 This is in line with Geels (2004, pp. 902–903) who distinguishes three general dimensions of innovation processes, notably(1) socio-technical systems, (2) human actors, organisations, societal groups, and (3) rules and institutions.

B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18 5

Fig. 1. Multi-level processes in system innovation. In the figure, the area within the drawn line represents the incumbentregime. At the edges of the regime, several niches are indicated by the small ovals N1–N4. They typically have a partial overlapwith the regime (e.g. by using shared technical components or through actors that operate in the regime as well as in a niche).Some niches may have a partial overlap with each other (e.g. N2 and N3). A niche may also transform into a market niche (MN1,MN2) meaning that it can survive as a subsection of the regime without protection. Various landscape factors are indicatedby the hexagons LF1–LF4. Although they are all hexagons they have different shapes to indicate they can be varied in nature.Landscape factors are ‘floating all around’ (suggested by the wave-like shading) and may influence the regime, various nichesor the linking process between niches and regimes. Niches and the regime may also influence each other as indicated by variousdashed arrows. As is represented by multi-pointed stars (T1–T3), landscape influences and developments in niches may createtensions or opportunities (O1) in the regime. Tensions can also emerge internally within the regime (T4), or in niches (see thesmall star in N3). From the tensions and opportunities new developments start as is indicated by the bended arrows. The bendedshape indicates that the developments are not straightforward although there is a sense of direction due to path dependencies,at least in the short term. Some developments may ‘link up’, e.g. the developments emerging out of T1 and T2 in the figure.

this definition may cover just a few technical characteristics but in an on-going process technologi-cal anchoring can lead to further specification. For instance, in our case the ‘glasshouse as an energysource’ was defined in general terms as a glasshouse with a heat exchanger and heat and cold storagein aquifers. Later an ‘energy producing glasshouse’ (EpG) was defined more specifically as a glasshousewith a very specific type of heat exchanger (the Fiwihex) that used a new type of cooling (adiabaticcooling). We call this process the technological anchoring of the EpG.

Network anchoring means that changes occur in the network of actors that ‘carry’ the novelty, e.g.by producing it, using it or developing it further who thus become related. Besides simple expansionof the network, there are other indications of network anchoring. These include intensified con-tact and exchange among actors within the network involved, increasing interdependence and/or astrengthening of the coalition which is supporting the innovation process (Leeuwis and Aarts, 2011).

Institutional anchoring refers to the institutional characteristics of the novelty, i.e. the new rulesdeveloped in relation to it. Drawing freely upon economic and sociological perspectives on institu-tions (North, 1990; Scott, 1995) we differentiate between three categories of institutions that can betranslated into different forms of institutional anchoring. Cognitive or interpretative institutions relateto how people make sense of themselves and the world around them. This includes, for example, thecausal beliefs, visions, and problem views (as related to social values and interests) to which they

6 B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18

orient their behaviour and actions. Also the identity that people ascribe to themselves and others canbe seen as an interpretative institution.

A second broad category includes normative institutions. Here we speak of the translation of societalvalues into normative rules and aspirations (i.e. formal or informal rules about what is desirable andwhat not) that can be embedded in laws, regulations, policies and ethical standards. The third categoryis economic institutions which concern the rules and arrangements (e.g. contracts, trust, value chainsand business networks) that govern markets and economic activities. Institutional anchoring thenmeans that developments within a niche are translated into new or adapted (interpretative, normativeor economic) rules that play a role, at least temporarily, in orienting the activities of both niche andregime actors.

These three forms of anchoring (with subdivision) describe different aspects of anchoring. Techno-logical anchoring and institutional anchoring describe what it is that anchors. The object of anchoringtherefore is either the technology or the rules (institutions) that guide actors’ behaviour in relation tothe technology. Network anchoring describes with whom the novelty anchors.

In our case study, we analyse all three forms of anchoring in a niche as well as a regime. In theconclusions, we come back to how anchoring in niche and regime may be related and what thisteaches us about how novelties eventually may become durably linked to a regime.

2.4. Case study and method

We explore the value of our approach through the analysis of a case study on energy innovationsin the Dutch glasshouse horticulture sector. In the early 2000s, this sector was responsible for 10%of the country’s natural gas consumption (Koelemeijer and Kruitwagen, 2007) which led to internalpressures (because of rising energy prices) as well as external pressures (to conserve energy andreduce CO2 emissions) to bring this down. Around 2005, this led to a variety of alternative energyapproaches for the sector, some internal, some seeking to create new links with other sectors. Thisvariety in linkage attempts makes this case very suited to study processes of anchoring.

The case study is based on various technical and economic reports from research institutes andsector organisations as well as information from websites from the parties involved. This was supple-mented with eight semi-structured interviews with representatives from growers (LTO-Glaskracht),project leaders, Horticultural Product Board, Ministry of Agriculture,7 and academic research. Theseinterviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interviews especially provided informationon the reasons behind the developments described in written sources.

3. Towards an energy efficient glasshouse horticulture

3.1. Introduction to the case study

After the traumatic experience of the ‘famine winter’ in the last year of the World War II, theNetherlands developed agricultural policies to avert this risk for the future. One focal point was thedevelopment of a glasshouse sector to become less dependent on the often unreliable climate to growespecially vegetables. This policy was so successful that the sector grew beyond what the countryneeds for its own demand and the Netherlands have become an exporter of vegetables as well asflowers and plants grown in glasshouses (Wijnands et al., 2003).

The heat of the sun warms the air inside a glasshouse. During summer, when the interior of aglasshouse gets too hot, ventilation windows in the top are opened to get rid of excess heat. Duringwinter, glasshouses also warm up on sunny days but on cloudy or cold days additional heat is neededto make the interior warm enough for plant growth. Furthermore, most crops do not grow in winterbecause there is not enough light and to stretch the growth season huge light installations are used.This can also be applied during dusk and night.

7 The ministry has had various names during the episodes described. In this article we will refer to it simply as the Ministryof Agriculture.

B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18 7

Glasshouse heating installations in the Netherlands are fuelled with natural gas. The sector also usesgas during spring and summer because of the CO2 that results from burning gas. Plants ‘inhale’ CO2 and‘exhale’ oxygen (the reverse of the process in humans and animals) in a process called photosynthesis.In a glasshouse, growth is enhanced by feeding plants with extra CO2, the same substance that isthe main contributor to global warning. Gas is also burned in the fall, in this case to drive out excesshumidity. Thus, the glasshouse sector uses gas year-round and in total the sector is responsible forabout 10% of the Dutch natural gas consumption as well as 3% of its electricity use. In 2005, thesector emitted 6.1 Mega tonnes of CO2, about 3% of the Dutch total (van der Velden and Smit, 2007;Koelemeijer and Kruitwagen, 2007).

The total area of glasshouses has grown to about 10 000 ha, a figure that has been relatively stableover the past decades (LEI Data).8 But under this constant figure major changes have occurred. Onthe international market, Dutch horticulturists face competition from southern countries that are ina more favourable climatological position which requires less heating of glasshouses. Especially withrising gas prices this became a significant factor in the past two decades. The Dutch have been able toremain competitive by continuous innovation in optimising the conditions for growth for a variety ofcrops and using advanced technologies to control the climate in a glasshouse (AVAG, 2004; Vermeulenand Poot, 2008).

The focus in our study is the glasshouse horticulture regime or, in short, the GH-regime. The primaryfunction of this regime is the production and consumption of vegetables and flowers. The productionside of this regime, i.e. the horticulturists and various actors that support them, we call the GH-sector.This sector uses different forms of energy in its production process. This means that the GH-sector haslinks with two other regimes, i.e. the natural gas regime and the electricity regime. We distinguishthree different regimes rather than looking at one overall regime, because the primary dynamics ineach of these three regimes are driven by different factors. Concerning the niche developments, wefocus on attempts to reduce energy consumption in the GH-regime. We call this the ‘energy noveltiesniche’.

Our case description is structured in the form of different episodes in which we describe anchor-ing processes around one specific novelty. We discuss the following novelties: combined-heat power(anchoring in a regime), semi-closed and energy producing glasshouses (anchoring in a niche), adia-batic cooling (anchoring via a niche in a regime) and energy webs (anchoring between regimes). Atthe end of each episode we will highlight the various forms of anchoring that took place and indicatehow they relate to each other. These analyses form the basis for the concluding section where wewill generalise our findings from the empirical sections and indicate how our approach facilitates thestudy of processes of linking.

3.2. Anchoring in a regime: combined heat-power

During the 1960s, after the discovery of huge natural gas reserves in the north of the Netherlands,a nationwide grid for gas was developed. Since, natural gas has become a relatively cheap primarysource for heating for households and industry, including the GH-sector (Correljé and Verbong, 2004).After the oil crises of the 1970s, however, oil and gas prices went up considerably which stimulatedgrowers to save energy or find other ways to tackle the situation.

In the 1980s, seeking to expand their business, glasshouse floriculturists started to grow flow-ers year-round. This required lighting installations for the winter season which raised the electricityneeds and, hence, energy costs. To cut these costs, floriculturists started to install combined heat-power installations (CHP) from the mid 1980s (van Vliet, 2006). This is a sort of mini-power plantthat burns fuel (in the Dutch case natural gas) to produce heat as well as electricity, both of whichwere used in glasshouses. Such installations were initially developed and used by large industriesand further application was stimulated by government policies seeking to make more efficient use ofenergy.

8 ‘LEI data’ refers to data are taken from the LEI website. See references.

8 B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18

A 1989 electricity law allowed small producers to supply electricity to the grid and a dedicatedprogramme to stimulate CHP was implemented which provided investment subsidies and a lowergas price for CHP (Raven and Verbong, 2007). This offered new opportunities for the GH-sector. Inthe warmer and lighter months, their CHP installations sat largely idle but with the option of sellingelectricity and stimulated by the government programme, several growers started to supply electricityto the grid during summer. Initially, lighting in winter using CHP was applied mainly in the floristrysector but because of developments on the international market for vegetables it also spread to thevegetable sector in the late 1990s. This stimulated Dutch horticulturists to apply lighting to grow othercrops in winter as well which, in its turn, stimulated the use of CHP (Interview GH researcher).

The liberalisation of the utility sector since the 1990s gave an enormous boost to this process. Oneeffect of liberalisation was that new markets developed for buying and selling energy where horticul-turists could negotiate longer or shorter term contracts for buying gas and selling electricity. Manyhorticulturists were quite good at this new game and around 2007 quite a number of them made moremoney from trading energy than from selling crops (Interviews Product Board and LTO-Glaskracht).An attractive condition for CHP was that the price received for electricity compared favourably to whathorticulturists paid for natural gas, the so-called spark spread, which stimulated further investmentsin CHP systems. In 2006, the sector became a net producer of electricity and early 2007, the totalelectric capacity of the CHP installations in the sector was about 1.7 GW, supplying some 10% of theNetherlands’ total use (van der Velden and Smit, 2007).

In terms of our analytical framework, this episode firstly shows the technological anchoring of CHPinstallations as part of the floricultural production process. Subsequently, this novelty was adopted bypioneers from other horticultural sectors (‘early adopters’, in Rogers’ (1962) terms), which constitutesan example of network anchoring. This process continued until it became seen as a ‘normal’ part of thehorticultural enterprise (through interpretative institutional anchoring) after which CHP installationswere adopted by ‘mainstream’ growers via the classical diffusion process described by Rogers (1962).This process was strengthened by normative institutional anchoring, notably by government regulationsthat facilitated and stimulated selling electricity to the grid. This then led to network anchoring in theelectricity regime until horticultural CHP installations provided some 10% of total electricity use in thecountry. Subsequently, a gradual change in identity took place on the side of growers. They saw thatthey could make large sums of money from the electricity they produced and developed electricityproduction as a second business, i.e. interpretative institutional anchoring accompanied by economicinstitutional anchoring.

What we see in this case is that all different forms of anchoring aligned and reinforced one anotherwhich led to CHP becoming a standard part of a horticultural enterprise. Anchoring was thus trans-formed into a durable links (technically, institutionally and in terms of networks) between CHP andthe GH regime.

Building further on Fig. 1, Fig. 2 gives an illustration of how these processes of anchoring took placefor the CHP episode as well as for the other episodes described below.

3.3. Anchoring in a niche: semi-closed and energy producing glasshouses

3.3.1. Semi-closed glasshouseIn the period 1984–1992, scientists had been working on the concept of a closed glasshouse to keep

insects out and CO2 in to enhance plant growth. However, it appeared too difficult to cool a closedglasshouse in summer and the development was stopped (de Gelder and Kipp, 2005). In the late 1990sthis work was picked up again because of energy considerations.

In the 1990s, the building sector started to use a combination of heat exchangers with undergroundheat and cold storage. A heat exchanger is a device with small tubes through which water is pumped.Doing this with cold water in a warm surrounding in summer resulted in cooling down the air andwarming up the water. This warm water was stored in underground layers called aquifers. Duringwinter, the warm water was pumped up for heating purposes. In the same way cold water was storedin winter and pumped up in summer for cooling (Verbong, 2001).

In the late 1990s, scientists at WUR (Wageningen University and Research Centre) sought to applysuch a scheme to a glasshouse. They teamed up with Ecofys, a large consultancy firm that specialised

B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18 9

Fig. 2. Processes of anchoring. This figure is an enlarged section of Fig. 1, zooming in to the area where one niche overlaps withthe regime. The rectangles denote technological anchoring, the pentagons network anchoring and the octagons institutionalanchoring. As in Fig. 1, the shaded hexagons denote landscape pressures.

in renewable energy and energy saving. Ecofys had no experience in the glasshouse sector but wantedto move in that direction and created a subsidiary, Innogrow, to develop a working prototype. Thisled to a design that used a large central heat exchanger placed in the front of the glasshouse and aventilation system with hoses that led the warm or cool air through the glasshouse.

Innogrow’s initial design was a ‘Closed Glasshouse’ which they registered as a trademark. Sucha glasshouse still got too hot in summer and required an additional cooling system which added tothe costs. A cheaper variant, called semi-closed glasshouse (SCG), was to allow for some ventilation,although far less than in a conventional set-up (Innogrow, 2005).

This ‘Glasshouse of the Future’ was exhibited at the 2002 Floriade world horticulture fair, a largeprestigious exhibition visited by the public as well as growers (de Gelder and Kipp, 2005, p. 11). Thisraised considerable interest and the following year a practice demonstration was carried out. In 2004,one grower found the results promising enough to install it in his own glasshouse. The first technicalresults indicated that this system allowed a considerable amount of energy conservation while therewas also some rise in productivity because of higher CO2 levels. Articles on these results appearedin business journals and meetings were organised to inform growers. This stimulated interest fromhorticulturists as well as suppliers of technology who started to develop and offer new variations.As a result, about a dozen horticulturists started with some form of (semi-) closed glasshouse in2005–2006. A government programme to stimulate energy conservation provided investment subsi-dies (PT and LNV, 2006). The remaining costs would have to be recouped by lower energy costs andhigher productivity.

Around 2005 representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture as well as from the sector concludedthat a variety of new initiatives were germinating and that some sort of co-ordination would be neededto reap the full benefits of this for the sector as a whole. To facilitate this, the ministry together with theHorticultural Product Board established a programme by the name “Kas als Energiebron” (“glasshouse

10 B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18

as an energy source”; hereafter called GaE programme) and provided substantial funds, D 5.6 millionin 2007 (PT and LNV, 2006).

Until 2007, some 15 growers had started with different variants of semi-closed glasshouses, all ofwhom used heat exchangers combined with heat and cold storage in aquifers. There was a considerablewider interest in the sector as appeared from the 60–70 applications for an investment subsidy fromthe GaE programme in 2007. The rapidly rising gas prices in 2006 stimulated this interest (PT and LNV,2007, p. 6).

In further developments, the sector representative LTO-Glaskracht and the Stichting Natuur en Milieu(Nature & Environment Fund) became also connected to the semi closed glasshouse. In the mid-2000sthey had started to interact on issues related to the environmental impact of the GH sector which,in 2007, led to a joint ‘action plan for a climate neutral glasshouse horticulture’. The plan specified atransition package to reach a 45% reduction of CO2 emissions by 2020 compared to 1990. For 2010,the plan specified that 400 ha of glasshouse (i.e. 4% of the total surface in the Netherlands) should besemi-closed (SNM and LTO-Glaskracht, 2007).

These developments were supported by Transforum, a national agency for the agricultural sectorthat ran a programme to combine scientific research on innovation processes with practice orientedprogrammes to induce system innovations towards sustainability. In 2005 it established a businessplatform by the name of Synergie (the Dutch writing of synergy) for the GH sector that was connectedto the GaE programme (Boonekamp, 2006).

The platform started early 2006. Horticulturists working with new energy systems started to meetregularly with researchers and discussed their experiences and various other issues. Especially sincea (semi-) closed glasshouse allowed control of various relevant parameters (temperature, CO2 level,humidity, light) it was considered important that horticulturists worked closely together with scien-tists to find new optimal growth conditions. Suppliers were also part of the platform to ensure thatnew technologies could indeed be produced at a price that made it interesting for a wider group offollowers to buy them (Interview Synergie project leader).

In analytical terms, this episode concerns developments in a niche because they are protectedby various actors who invest time, effort and money without getting direct economic returns. Theyexpected profit later but at the time this was still unsecure. We call this the ‘energy noveltiesniche’ because, as will appear below, it encompasses a variety of new approaches to energy use inglasshouses.

In terms of anchoring, we initially see a form of technological anchoring when a heat exchangerbecomes connected to a glasshouse energy system to define a closed glasshouse. This was accompaniedby network anchoring, initially between scientists and an engineering company. Further experimen-tation led to further technological anchoring to define the semi-closed glasshouse. The network thenexpanded to include half a dozen growers and suppliers of glasshouse installations.

Through the GaE programme, the semi-closed glasshouses network expanded further to includeregime actors such as the Horticultural Product Board and the Ministry of Agriculture while the ActionPlan further enrolled LTO-Glaskracht and the Nature & Environment Fund. Still, the SCG developmenttook place within a niche as its survival depended upon various forms of protection such as subsidies.The Synergie business platform not so much expanded the niche but strengthened co-ordinationwithin it which, as we have defined it in Section 2.2, also contributes to network anchoring.

The GaE programme and the Action Plan provided a specific way of framing future development thatbecame more widely shared in the sector (as is evident from the large number of subsidy applications).In terms of our analytical framework this constitutes an example of interpretive institutional anchoringof the SCG novelty.

Thus, several forms of anchoring (technological, network and institutional) were starting to alignalthough the semi-closed glasshouse was still supported by subsidies and, therefore, this contributedto niche development rather than regime development. It seems that to achieve the latter, one formof institutional anchoring, notably economic institutional anchoring, was still missing.

Interestingly, the involved growers are actors in the GH regime (their primary activity is to produceand sell crops) but by installing equipment for a semi-closed glasshouse they started to operate in aniche as well (as this technology relied upon various forms of protection). We will come back to thisdual nature of these actors later.

B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18 11

3.3.2. Energy producing glasshouseConcurrently with the development of the semi-closed glasshouse a more radical variant was devel-

oped. In the late 1990s, the Dutch national advisory council for agricultural research (NRLO) carried outvarious desk studies on what was called a ‘climate neutral glasshouse horticulture’. In 2000 the NRLOwas succeeded by an organisation with a more developmental than advisory character called, in short,the InnovationNetwork. At the same time the sector’s branch organisation LTO (later LTO-Glaskracht)saw a need for major innovation in the sector to tackle international competition and energy challengesand created a programme and organisation by the name of SIGN (the Dutch acronym for Foundationfor Innovation in the GH sector; Grin and van Staveren, 2007, Chapter 3).

Early 2001 SIGN and the InnovationNetwork organised a joint meeting to develop an innovationagenda for the GH sector. They developed a long-term programme by the name ‘Glasshouse Horticul-ture 2020’ and identified five themes to work on, one of which was energy. The people responsiblefor this theme wanted to start a paradigm shift: rather than seeing the GH sector as an enormousconsumer of energy they saw it as a 10 000 ha solar collector. Using heat exchangers combined withheat and cold storage as in a semi-closed glasshouse would make it possible to harvest enormousamounts of heat during summer and store it underground to be used in winter (Roza, 2006).

In 2001, the programme managers talked to a variety of actors in the sector to gain support fortheir ideas. Various stakeholders from of the sector lend a willing ear but were quite unanimous intheir judgements: “It’s nonsense!” (van Oosten and Koehorst, 2007; Interview van Oosten) The onlypositive responses came from outside the GH sector, from an Akzo Nobel employee who worked on anew type of heat exchanger by the name of Fiwihex which he thought would be perfectly suited forthe purpose. One employee from KEMA, a Dutch research organisation for the electricity sector, alsoresponded positively. They became part of the programme team to develop the concept further, usingthe Fiwihex as a central component (Roza, 2006).

WUR scientists calculated that this could result in a net-production of energy on a year-roundbasis (de Zwart and Campen, 2005). For that reason it was called the Energy Producing Glasshouse(EPG). Various scenarios were developed for using the energy produced by the glasshouse. In someof these, the energy was used within the sector but in the most radical scenario the heat wasused to warm nearby houses. The glasshouse would thus become part of a broader local systemof use and supply of energy called an energy web. Later studies within the programme suggestedthat a 1 ha glasshouse could warm a hundred houses (Roza, 2006, p. 26). With a total GH surfaceof 10 000 ha the theoretical capacity would be to warm a million houses, about 15% of the Dutchstock.

On the technical side, in contrast to the semi-closed glasshouse where a large central heat exchangerwas used, a Fiwihex was a small device of which a large number (about 250 per ha) would have tobe placed in a glasshouse. The advantage was that no hoses would be needed to pump the warm orcool air through the glasshouse. In 2003, after some small scale tests and further development, WURscientists considered this a promising concept. Their positive report was important to secure furtherfunding (Grin and van Staveren, 2007, pp. 41–42).

The next step was to demonstrate the concept on a larger scale. After some internal deliberationsit was decided to go directly to a real life size pilot, notably 5000 m2, i.e. 0.5 ha. Since this was largerthan the research facilities at WUR, the pilot was carried out in an existing business owned by aninterested horticulturist. This project started in 2006 (Roza, 2006, p. 31). It appeared that with such asystem production levels could be somewhat increased (due to higher CO2 levels) but that this wouldnot outweigh the required extra investment (Interview GH researcher).

When the GaE programme was created and the Synergy business platform was formed, variousactors working on and with the EPG also became members of these new networks.

In analytical terms, we initially see a form of technological anchoring in which the Fiwihex heatexchanger became connected to a glasshouse energy system which subsequently became conceptuallyconnected to an energy web. Network anchoring of sector actors, however, largely failed, with variousstakeholders rejecting the concept. Eventually, one grower became connected which was realised viasubsidy protection. Further network anchoring took place when the EPG linked up to the Synergiebusiness platform. Linking up to the GaE programme, as in the case of the semi-closed glasshouse,constitutes a form of interpretative institutional anchoring.

12 B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18

3.4. Anchoring via niche to regime: adiabatic cooling

The GaE programme explicitly targeted a system innovation with the goal that after 2020 allnewly built glasshouses would be climate neutral. Interestingly, after the semi-closed glasshouse hadanchored in several forms (technological, institutional, network) this started new developments thatcould also be used in existing installations which might compromise the system innovation ambition.

One example is adiabatic cooling. In a closed glasshouse, the heat caught in summer is storedin an aquifer. In practice, however, these glasshouses still get very warm, necessitating some sortof ventilation or cooling. As ventilation was not attractive in the new thinking (it would necessi-tate continuous CO2 feeding to enhance plant growth) there was a search for effective, inexpensiveforms of cooling. An interesting option was to make use of so-called adiabatic cooling. In thisapproach, small droplets of water are sprayed into the glasshouse creating a light mist. Due tothe high temperature these droplets vaporise quickly which has a cooling effect, so-called adia-batic cooling. This increases the humidity in the glasshouse but this benefits growth as it does ina rainforest. For this reason it was picked up by various growers (Cli Mate, 2008; Interview ProductBoard).

Thus, adiabatic cooling was initially applied to compensate for the lack of ventilation in a semi-closed glasshouse but once demonstrated it appeared to have more general advantages. Such a mistinstallation has a relatively short payback time and various horticulturists have started to install it ina conventional glasshouse. In this way, a development that was initially started as an overall concepttargeting system innovation led to the technological anchoring of a spin-of that can be seen as a formof incremental innovation. Network anchoring followed quickly when it was applied by many growersin the regime. This was accompanied by all forms of institutional anchoring as this became seen as theway to cool a glasshouse that was also cost-effective.

3.5. Anchoring between regimes – energy webs

The Energy Producing Glasshouse project suggested the possibility of using heat generated inglasshouses to warm houses. In analytical terms this would imply connecting two regimes that hith-erto were separate. In 2001, when the EPG programme managers tried to get support for their ideas,including heating houses via so-called energy webs (i.e. a pipe grid to transport warm or cold waterfor either heating or cooling), they were turned down by all actors in the GH regime. One of thearguments from the ministry was that the glasshouse sector was about producing crops, not aboutproducing energy (Interview EPG project leader).

Although initially turned down by the sector, the energy web concept came back on the agenda viathe semi-closed glasshouse route. It appeared that these glasshouses produced more heat in summerthan was needed in winter. One of the first applications was in the sector itself. In 2006, Prominent,a group of 22 growers, built 9.3 ha of new glasshouses of which 3.4 ha used the Innogrow ClosedGlasshouse concept and the other 5.9 were conventional open glasshouses. Excess heat stored insummer from the 3.4 ha was used to heat the whole 9.3 ha area in winter (SenterNovem, 2006).

Other growers, however, started to look for possible external use for their heat. In 2006, two horti-cultural enterprises teamed up with Volker Wessels, a large construction and infrastructure company,to make an offer for heating 2800 new houses in the village of Waddinxveen in the western part of theNetherlands (InnovatieNetwerk, 2007). This attempt at anchoring did not hold, however, as the hous-ing company did not want to take the risk of choosing a heating scheme which they were unfamiliarwith and chose a conventional bid. In Venlo, in the south of the Netherlands, a comparable project didtake off. A tomato grower built a new glasshouse by the name of Greenport which warmed a nearbynursing home (SunnyTom, 2007).

These initial moves opened up a range of new possibilities. Firstly, the managers of the GaE pro-gramme raised their ambitions: by 2020 the glasshouse sector should not only supply sustainableelectricity but also sustainable heat to other sectors (PT and LNV, 2007, p. 3). But this line of thinkingcould also be reversed. Various industries had excess heat that was discharged as warm water intorivers or canals or via cooling towers into the atmosphere. The sector could use this heat to warmglasshouses (Interview Product Board). Thus, the energy webs had come back on the agenda.

B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18 13

In 2007, concrete plans were developed for the region of the Westland between Rotterdam andThe Hague, that has the highest concentration of glasshouses in the Netherlands, to develop a varietyof smaller energy webs which, at a later stage, might be connected to create larger webs. The city ofThe Hague, for instance, developed plans to use geothermal heat to warm houses and such a schememight later be connected to a developing grid in the Westland (Interview Product Board).

Thus, initial technological anchoring linked the energy production in glasshouses to various tech-niques to supply this energy to consumers from other sectors. A growing variety of actors was tinkeringwith this new concept constituting also network anchoring. This was accompanied by interpretativeinstitutional anchoring in which the glasshouse sector was no longer seen as self-supporting but as partof a wider system of production and consumption of heat. The connections in this developing niche atthe end of this episode were still fragile and could easily be broken again which is an intrinsic featureof anchoring. An interesting point about this episode is that it shows that anchoring that initially fails(when the ideas of the EPG people were turned down; cf. Section 3.3.2) may find other routes that aremore successful.

4. Vicissitudes of anchoring

In this section we systematise and reflect upon the findings and evaluate the value of the analyticalframework of anchoring to analyse linking between niche and regime.

We distinguished three forms of anchoring relating to different components of a regime, notablytechnological, institutional and network anchoring. The first two describe what anchors (the technol-ogy or the rules), the last with whom it anchors. Importantly, in conceptualising anchoring we madeno a priori distinction between anchoring in a regime or in a niche. We assumed that studying bothwould help us understand how novelties are eventually taken up by the regime.

4.1. Translation via crooked paths of anchoring

Fig. 2 visualises a subset of the various forms of anchoring described in the empirical sections above,as well as the locations of anchoring and the most relevant influences and pathways. This figure buildson Fig. 1 and zooms in to the area where one niche intersects with the regime.

Comparing the anchoring of different novelties in the glasshouse horticulture case it appears thatvarious forms of anchoring sometimes took place in a niche (e.g. Innogrow starting to use heat exchang-ers in combination with heat/cold storage in a glasshouse) and sometimes in the regime (e.g. thefloriculturists starting to install CHP). We can indeed trace all three forms of anchoring in the energynovelties niche as well as in the regime. Moreover, by analysing anchoring both in the niche and in theregime, we find that important developments take place in an area where niche and regime overlap.In this area of overlap, the novelty on the one hand still gets protection in order to survive, whichmakes it part of the niche. On the other hand, some of the actors involved are regular regime actorswho apply the novelty in their own practices which makes the novelty part of the regime as well. Thefigure shows that various forms of anchoring took place in niche and regime but also in this area ofoverlap.

The case study, as is expressed by Fig. 2, clearly shows that anchoring is not a linear process.Sequences of anchoring took place in connection with different novelties and interacted. Severalepisodes started with technological anchoring of a novelty for a limited number of actors. These actorsstarted to see a technology that was new to them as something that might be of value. Various forms ofanchoring followed in subsequent developments. In some cases the innovating actors worked furtheron developing and testing the technology which led to further forms of technological anchoring, e.g.from the semi-closed glasshouse via adiabatic cooling to the closed glasshouse. Others enrolled moreactors or were approached by others which led to network anchoring, e.g. in connection with CHP.Both these routes were often accompanied by some form of institutional anchoring, i.e. a change ofrules and routines.

Our analytical framework thus allows the study of anchoring of a novelty in a niche and/or aregime as a crooked path of different forms of anchoring. In this process, the technological char-acteristics of the novelty, the rules that guide its further development and use and the network of

14 B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18

actors involved may all change. Using the concept of anchoring thus allows a more precise analysis ofthe process of translation that Smith described that takes place during a linking process (cf. Section2.1). Smith distinguishes three forms of translation (of sustainability problems, adaptation of lessonsand altering contexts; 2007, p. 446). With our framework we can break down these translations intosmaller steps of different forms of anchoring and study the paths via which these translations takeplace.

4.2. Critical role of hybrid actors and hybrid forums

If we take a closer look at Fig. 2 we see how these paths of anchoring developed. One striking featureis that many of the anchoring activities took place in the area of overlap between niche and regime.Several actors that are active in this area show characteristics of belonging to the regime as well as tothe niche, for instance:

1. Suppliers of glasshouse installations. Because they also operate in other regimes than the glasshousehorticulture regime they are an important channel for introducing innovations from other sectorsinto the GH sector (e.g. heat/cold storage from the building sector).

2. Pioneer-growers. They are regime actors who want to make a profit from growing crops but arealso prepared to take risky, innovative steps.

3. Horticultural Product Board. The board seeks to guard the vital interests of the glasshouse sectorbut is also sensitive to societal concerns and actively stimulates innovation through programmessuch as SIGN (‘Innovation in the GH sector’).

4. The semi-governmental innovation intermediary InnovationNetwork, which is affiliated to the Min-istry of Agriculture (regime) and who introduced the vision of an Energy Producing Glasshouse(niche).

Various studies have stressed that radical innovations usually come from outside the regime andare initially developed by entrepreneurs and pioneers (e.g. Constant, 1980; Utterback, 1994). van dePoel uses the term outsiders for these actors who feature two main characteristics (van de Poel, 2000,p. 384):

1. They are outside or at least marginal to the regime.2. They do not share some of the relevant rules with respect to technical development.

When we look at the four types of actors listed above we see that they do not satisfy van de Poel’scriteria for outsiders. They are anything but marginal to the regime and/or they do share (some of)the relevant rules. Then again, they also have a deep commitment towards the realisation of (radical)change to satisfy personal or societal concerns.

To account for, this we define a new type of actor which we call hybrid actors. They can be individuals(e.g. entrepreneurial horticulturists) as well as organisations (e.g. Horticultural Product Board). Theyform a category between insiders and outsiders, displaying some important characteristics from eachof them. They share some of the important rules with the regime actors but they also bring in newrequirements that most regime actors consider to be at odds with those rules.

Despite their ‘in-between-like’ character these hybrids are not the kind of intermediaries that arewidely studied for their role in innovation processes (e.g. Howells, 2006; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008).Hybrid actors are different in at least two respects. They are part of the regime as well as the nichewhile intermediaries typically are outsiders to both regime and niche. Furthermore, the key role ofintermediaries is to create linkages between different groups of actors while hybrid actors basicallyoperate in their own interest and creating links is not their primary concern.

Coming back to anchoring, then, it appears that the hybrid actors play a crucial anchoring role. Inthe episodes described, they did so in various network settings, e.g.

• several pilot projects;• the Glasshouse as an Energy Source (GaE) programme;

B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18 15

• meetings between the Nature & Environment Fund and LTO-Glaskracht which led to the Actionprogramme for an energy neutral GH sector;

• Synergie business platform.

All these activities took place in the overlapping area between niche and regime (cf. Fig. 2). Thesesettings are characterised by relatively stabilised innovation networks (that resulted from networkanchoring) where regime and niche developments come together at the most concrete level. We willcall these networks hybrid forums.

The hybrid forums are of interest in that they can be seen as the location where translations takeplace (e.g. from cooling by ventilation to adiabatic cooling in the GaE programme) that contribute tothe durability of anchoring. Anchoring can in principle take place in niche, hybrid forums (located inthe area of overlap) and regime. However, our study shows that for various novelties (different formsof) anchoring in a hybrid forum were an important intermediary step towards anchoring in a regime(e.g. using adiabatic cooling in a conventional glasshouse via the GaE programme).

4.3. From anchoring to durable links

What emerges from Fig. 2 is that different forms of anchoring occur in a relatively capriciouspattern, where one form of anchoring (or the lack or failure of it) is followed by another. In Section 2.2we have defined anchoring as a process in which new connections are made that are still vulnerableand may also be broken again. We have defined linking as the process in which these new connectionsattain some durability. An important question is which dynamics transfer the phase of anchoring intodurable links.

Two novelties that were eventually widely used and thus constitute an example of successfullinking are adiabatic cooling and the use of CHP to sell electricity to the grid. Taking a closer look atthe anchoring of these novelties it appears that all forms of anchoring were present. When looking atthe other novelties discussed it appears that in all cases at least one form of anchoring was missing. Inthe case of semi-closed glasshouses, for instance, economic institutional anchoring was missing andno durable links with the regime were developed. This suggests that an alignment of the three forms ofanchoring is crucial to transform anchoring into a durable link.

Furthermore, our case study suggests that the following processes may make a positive contributionto the development of durable links:

• Novelty branching: a specific form of technical anchoring whereby a novelty branches into variousforms enhancing the chances that at least one of those will anchor further (e.g. the ‘glasshouse as anenergy source’ branch and the ‘energy producing glasshouse’ branch). This novelty branching mayprecede niche branching (Hoogma et al., 2002) or niche accumulation (Raven, 2007) that are seen asimportant mechanisms towards regime change in Strategic Niche Management. In contrast to thesemechanisms, however, novelty branching may also affect regime developments directly rather thanvia niches.

• Novelty articulation: the further articulation or redefinition of various components of a novelty, likea specific technological aspect. An example is the redefinition of the semi-closed glasshouse (SCG)as an energy producing glasshouse with the addition of the concept of energy web. The latter wasinitially refuted but later connected to the SCG. Our case study suggests that such articulations arerequired to develop a better fit between the technical, network and institutional components of anew socio-technical configuration.

• Emergence of new opportunities that present themselves after a previous anchoring. An example isthe opportunity to sell electricity after the installation of CHP, which was initially meant for internaluse only. The growers discovered that they could also supply the electricity to the grid as a newsource of income.

At the level of a niche, some of these dynamics have been identified in earlier work as beingimportant in sustainability transitions (e.g. Hoogma et al., 2002; Raven, 2007; Smith, 2007; Geelsand Schot, 2007; Elzen et al., 2011; van Mierlo, 2012). What we add is that we relate these dynamics

16 B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18

to the micro-processes of anchoring. Our framework thus makes it possible to study which role thesedynamics play in different situations as a sequence of different forms of anchoring. The challenge forfurther research is to find some order in these sequences and possibly distinguish a set of characteristicpatterns. To this end, a wider variety of case studies is required.

5. Conclusion

In this paper we set out to contribute to the understanding of how niche and regime developmentsinfluence one another, i.e. what Smith called a theory of linking. Our first step was to present a newrepresentation of the multi-level perspective that acknowledges that some developments take placein an area of overlap between niche and regime and that landscape factors may influence the niche,the regime, as well as the interactions between them. Concerning linking, we focused on the situationwhen the new links are still vulnerable and, inspired by Loeber (2003), we used the term anchoringto analyse these emerging links. Based on the constituting components of a regime we distinguishedthree forms of anchoring, notably technological, network and institutional anchoring.

Our case study on energy use in the glasshouse horticulture regime subsequently showed thatmuch of the anchoring took place in the area of overlap between niche and regime. Based on thesefindings we proposed to distinguish a new type of actors called hybrid actors and a specific type ofinnovation networks called hybrid forums that operate in this area. We concluded that they seem toplay a crucial role in anchoring processes because anchoring in the overlapping area tends to precedeanchoring in the regime.

Thus we have developed some conceptual tools to zoom in to the area of overlap between nicheand regime and demonstrated that they provide useful means to study in further detail how processesof anchoring develop and interact. The next step would be to systematise patterns of anchoring andthe role of hybrid actors and hybrid forums based on a variety of case studies.

The work presented is not of academic relevance only. In various fields (energy, mobility, agri-culture) there is widely shared ambition to induce system innovation to contribute to sustainability(e.g. Elzen et al., 2004). A first conclusion from our study has rather sobering implications for theseambitions given the various examples where later developments overruled the initial ambitions. Theconcept of a semi-closed glasshouse, for instance, started with explicit system innovation ambitions.To make the concept work, adiabatic cooling was developed which was later also applied in a conven-tional glasshouse. Thus, a development that started with a high system innovation ambition becamemodified into a system with a low system innovation ambition. Another example shows the reverseprocess. CHP was initially used in the floriculture sub-sector with low ambitions, notably to reducethe electricity bill. Several forms of anchoring (including translations) later, however, many growersusing CHP became energy traders as well and thus became players in a regime different from theirtraditional one, a clear example of system innovation.

The study provides some additional lessons for practitioners who are interested in working onsystem innovation towards sustainability. For them, the important role that hybrid actors and hybridforums seem to play in bringing about anchoring suggests that it is important to ensure that at leastsome of these actors are part of a project team. Furthermore, since alignment seems to be critical (cf.Section 4.3), it is important to address all different forms of anchoring.

However, this will not guarantee success as we have seen that the dynamics of system innovationtrajectories are messy, coincidental and capricious, and the scope for predicting courses of events islimited. Thus, one should not be overtly optimistic about the scope for planning and controlling systeminnovation processes. Yet, the various pathways of anchoring in our study indicate that projects andinterventions matter, albeit at times – and perhaps quite often – in ways that were not intended oranticipated (see also Elzen et al., 2011). To acknowledge this, projects should show more variety, lesspredefined outputs, more open expectations and, last but not least, be required to include anchoringactivities. The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture & Innovation recognises the importanceof anchoring and various projects funded by the ministry are required to include anchoring activities.

In this study we developed some conceptual tools to study processes of anchoring by zooming into the intersection between niche and regime. The subsequent challenge, of course, is to zoom outagain and understand how anchoring can eventually contribute to system innovation. That challenge

B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18 17

is far beyond the scope of this article but with this analysis we have sought to provide some usefulanalytical tools for ourselves and others to take up that challenge.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from Transforum Agro and Groen (TAG) and alsothank Eric Berkers, Frank Geels, Adrian Smith, Geert Verbong and two anonymous referees for theiradvice and useful comments on previous versions of this article. We also thank the interviewees forthe information they provided.

References

AVAG, 2004. Innoveren in een glazen huis (Innovating in a Glass House). AVAG (Association of Glasshouse Suppliers), ’sGravenzande.

Berkhout, F., Smith, A., Stirling, A., 2004. Socio-technical regimes and transition contexts. In: Elzen, B., Geels, F.W., Green, K.(Eds.), System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham.

Boonekamp, G., 2006. Synergie laat kennis vrijelijk stromen (Synergie make knowledge move freely). Groenten en Fruit, 20–21,week 46.

Callon, M., Law, J., Rip, A. (Eds.), 1986. Mapping the Dynamic of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World.Macmillan, London.

Cli Mate, 2008. Verdampingskoeling of adiabatische koeling van het gewas (Evaporative or Adiabatic Cooling of a Crop).http://www.kasklimaat.nl/288-Verdampingskoeling.htm

Constant, E.W., 1980. The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Correljé, A., Verbong, G., 2004. The transition from coal to gas: radical change of the Dutch gas system. In: Elzen, B., Geels,

F.W., Green, K. (Eds.), System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham, pp.114–136.

de Gelder, A., Kipp, J.A., 2005. Perspectiefstudie voor (semi-) gesloten kassystemen (Study of Perspectives of (Semi-) ClosedGlasshouse Systems). WUR-PPO, Wageningen.

de Zwart, H.F., Campen, J.B., 2005. Jaarrondberekeningen aan energieproducerende tuinbouwkas (Year-round Calculations onEnergy Producing Glasshouse). WUR, Wageningen.

Elzen, B., Geels, F.W., Green, K. (Eds.), 2004. System Innovation and the Transition to Sustainability. Edward Elgar PublishingLtd, Cheltenham.

Elzen, B., Geels, F.W., Leeuwis, C., van Mierlo, B., 2011. Normative contestation in transitions ‘in the making’: animal welfareconcerns and system innovation in pig husbandry. Research Policy 40 (2), 263–275.

Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31 (2002), 1257–1274.

Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Insights about dynamics and change fromsociology and institutional theory. Research Policy 33 (6–7), 897–920.

Geels, F.W., 2005. Technological Transitions and System Innovations: A Co-evolutionary and Socio-technical Analysis. EdwardElgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham.

Geels, F.W., 2006. The hygienic transition from cesspools to sewer systems (1840–1930): the dynamics of regime transformation.Research Policy 35, 1069–1082.

Geels, F.W., 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Inno-vation and Societal Transitions 1 (1), 24–40.

Geels, F.W., Schot, J.W., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy 36 (3), 399–417.Genus, A., Coles, A.-M., 2008. Rethinking the multilevel perspective of technological transitions. Research Policy 37 (9),

1436–1445.Grin, J., van Staveren, A., 2007. Werken aan Systeeminnovaties (Working on System Innovations). Van Gorcum, Assen.Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J.W., Truffer, B., 2002. Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche

Management. Spon Press, London/New York.Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35, 715–728.Innogrow, 2005. GeslotenKas® bij Prominent bijna in bedrijf (Closed glasshouse at pominent (an association of 22 growers)

almost in operation). Innogrow Electronic Newsletter 7 http://innogrow.email-service4.nl/archief/mailing-43794.htmlInnovatieNetwerk, 2007. Zonnewarmte uit kassen voor 2800 woningen in Waddinxveen? (Solar heat from glasshouses for 2800

houses in Waddinxveen?). InnovatieNetwerk Nieuwsbrief (January).Kemp, R., Grin, J., 2009. Opschaling van transtitie-experimenten en verankering van systeeminnovatieve vernieuwing (Upscaling

of Transition-Experiments and Anchoring of System Innovative Renewal). TNO, Delft.Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2008. Balancing multiple interests: embedding innovation intermediation in the agricultural knowledge

infrastructure. Technovation 28, 364–378.Koelemeijer, R., Kruitwagen, S., 2007. Milieubalans 2007 (Environmental Balance 2007). Milieu en Natuur Planbureau, Bilthoven.Leeuwis, C., Aarts, N., 2011. Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating space for change in complex systems.

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 17, 21–36.LEI Data. These data are taken from statistics pages on the website of the WUR-Agricultural Economics Research Institute LEI:

http://www3.lei.wur.nl/ltc/Loeber, A., 2003. Inbreken in het gangbare: Transitiemanagement in de praktijk – De NIDO benadering (Breaking in into the

Usual: Transition Management in Practice – The NIDO Approach). NIDO, Leeuwarden.North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

18 B. Elzen et al. / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (2012) 1– 18

PT and LNV, 2006. Programma Kas als Energiebron: Jaarplan 2007 (Programme Glasshouse as an Energy Source. Annual Work-plan 2007). Productschap Tuinbouw (Horticultural Product Board) and Ministry of LNV, The Hague.

PT and LNV, 2007. Programma Kas als Energiebron: Jaarplan 2008 (Programme Glasshouse as an Energy Source. Annual Work-plan 2008). Productschap Tuinbouw (Horticultural Product Board) and Ministry of LNV, The Hague.

Raven, R., 2007. Niche Accumulation and hybridisation strategies in transition processes towards a sustainable energy system:an assessment of differences and pitfalls. Energy Policy 35, 2390–2400.

Raven, R.P.J.M., Verbong, G., 2007. Multi-regime interactions in the Dutch energy sector: the case of combined heat and powertechnologies in the Netherlands 1970–2000. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19 (4), 491–507.

Rip, A., Kemp, R., 1998. Technological change. In: Rayner, S., Malone, E.L. (Eds.), Human Choice and Climate Change. BattellePress, Columbus, OH, pp. 327–399.

Rogers, E.M., 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press, Glencoe.Roza, C., 2006. Kas als energiebron (Glasshouse as an Energy Source). InnovatieNetwerk and Stichting Innovatie Glastuinbouw,

Utrecht/Bleiswijk.Schot, J.W., 1998. The usefulness of evolutionary models for explaining innovation: the case of the Netherlands in the 19th

century. History and Technology 14, 173–200.Scott, W.R., 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.SenterNovem, 2006. Glastuinbouw heeft energieneutrale kas in 2020 al in het vizier ((Glasshouse horticulture has 2020 energy

neutral glasshouse already in sight). SenterNovem Nieuws 13 December.Smith, A., 2007. Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical. Technology Analysis & Strategic Man-

agement 19 (4), 427–450.SNM and LTO-Glaskracht, 2007. Actieplan voor een klimaatneutrale glastuinbouw (Actionplan for a Climate Neutral Glasshouse

Horticulture). Stichting Natuur & Milieu (Nature and Environment Fund)/LTO-Glaskracht, Utrecht.SunnyTom, 2007. Van tomatenteler tot energieleverancier (From Tomato Grower to Energy Supplier). Leaflet on greenport

glasshouse. Further info on www.greenportkas.nlUtterback, J.M., 1994. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.van de Poel, I., 2000. On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 12 (3),

383–397.van der Velden, N., Smit, P., 2007. Energiemonitor van de Nederlandse glastuinbouw 2000–2006 (Energy Monitor for the Dutch

Glasshouse Horticulture 2000–2006). LEI, The Hague.van Mierlo, B., 2012. Convergent and divergent learning in photovoltaic pilot projects and subsequent niche devel-

opment. Sustainability, Science, Practice, & Policy 8 (2), Downloadable from: http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol8iss2/0901-002.vanmierlo.html

van Oosten, H., Koehorst, H., 2007. Toekomstsignalen (Signals of the Future). Stichting Innovatie Glastuinbouw and Innova-tieNetwerk, Bleiswijk/Utrecht.

van Vliet, M., 2006. Vijf tips om te winnen met WKK (Five tips to win with CHP). Weekblad Groenten & Fruit, week 29.Verbong, G., 2001. Omgevingsenergie en energieopslag. In: Verbong, G., van Selm, A., Knoppers, R., Raven, R. (Eds.), Een kwestie

van lange adem: De geschiednis van duurzame energie in Nederland (A Matter of Long Breath: The History of SustainableEnergy in The Netherlands). Aeneas, Boxtel, pp. 295–318.

Vermeulen, T., Poot, E., 2008. Transitie en Toeleveranciers (Transition and Suppliers). WUR Glastuinbouw, Bleiswijk.Wijnands, J.H.M., Deneux, S.D.C., van Paassen, R.A.F., Poot, E.H., van Woerden, S.C., 2003. Op kop: Internationale concurrentieposi-

tie en strategie Nederlandse glastuinbouw (In the Lead: International Competitive Position and Strategy Dutch GlasshouseHorticulture). WUR-LEI/PPO, The Hague/Naaldwijk.