Ecocentres and Research

ECOCENTRES AND RESEARCH

CAN THEY MAKE A DISTINCTIVE CONTRIBUTION?

Peter Harper

Department of Research and Innovation

Centre for Alternative Technology

Ecosites/ecocentres can contribute important innovations to knowledge, skills and social forms. But because the research activities of many ecosites are carried out in unconventional ways, they can easily be invisible to the conventional research and policymaking communities. Since these ‘official’ communities effectively define what counts as ‘research’ and control the diffusion of resultsand to some extent fundsthere is a danger that a significant societal resource is being neglected.

This neglect would be particularly regrettable in the field of Sustainable Development (SD), where we are usually dealing with dynamic and complex techno-social systems that might not be accurately modelled by conventional discipline-based research.[1] New methodologies, new approaches, are needed, but these themselves need launching, testing and evaluating. Ecosites are potentially important locations for such new approaches, and should be encouraged in these tasks.[2]

It is possible to classify ecosites according to their style of research and their relationship to the formal research community. The ‘minimalist’ definition of an ecosite adopted by the European Federation of Ecosites (EF-Ecos) identifies something like 100 significant sites. Of these a handful have been set up specifically to carry out high-quality, peer-reviewed research, or at least have a strong formal research component in their founding brief. At the other extreme, we can identify a fair number of sites that perform no obvious research activity at all. Between these extremes, many ecosites carry out a wide range of research-like activities, and it is this ‘in-between’ group that is most significant for the present discussion. The EF-Ecos definition uses the word ‘innovation’ rather than ‘research’ and this is probably a better term to evoke the novelties being explored in most ecosites.

Some Ecosites carry out formal, peer-reviewed research and are specifically constituted to do so. I shall call these ‘Primary Research Ecosites’ (PREs) because for them, research is a primary activity. Examples of PREs include Ecosite du Pays de Thau, HDRA, Elm Farm, Folkecenter, the National Botanic Garden of Wales, Ökozentrum Langenbruck, ITER, and the Rocky Mountain Institute. Visits to their web sites will give a good idea of the range of their research activities, and the important documents they have produced over many years.

How does the research of PREs differ from that carried out in conventional research institutions connected with universities, commercial companies or government bodies? Of course there are considerable overlaps. The main differences are that PRE researchers are likely to be motivated in a different way, and that topics selected are oriented to real problems of sustainable development. The research is generally of an applied kind, although from time to time pure research into underlying principles is required to fill gaps left by the conventional process. The research has a direction, and this imparts a sense of larger purpose. We might say it ‘has an edge to it’. There is no evidence that this results in a loss of quality. On the contrary, PREs are generally accepted as respected members of the professional research community.

In contrast, what I shall ‘Secondary Research Ecosites’ (SREs) are those in which research is not the principal activity, but which nevertheless have contributed significant innovations in sustainable development. They include CAT, De Kleine Aarde, Energie und Umweltzentrum am Deister, Artefact, CERES, Terre Vivante, De Twaalf Ambachten, Centrum Duurzaambouwen, Sunseed Trust , Findhorn Foundation. Some differences between these two categories are summarised in Table 1

TABLE 1: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RESEARCH SITES

PRIMARY RESEARCH ECOSITES / SECONDARY RESEARCH ECOSITES
The research is explicitly (and actually) part of the project programme / Research develops as an ‘optional extra’ perhaps by accident or through the enthusiasm of some individuals
“Real” research and accepted as such in the wider research community / Probably better described as “innovation”.
Usually imbued with ‘professional research culture’ / More a culture of inventors, enthusiasts and bricoleurs
The ‘clientele’ is a professional community of researchers, officials and decision-makers / The ‘clientele’ is householders, SMEs, educators and social activists
There is both fundamental research and applied development / Generally more ‘D’ than ‘R’, usually responding to a specific problem
There is a bias towards systems and methods with a commercial application, that can be automated and scaled up / There is a bias towards low-tech systems that can be easily used in a non-commercial situation
Good quality control through rigorous institutional routines and peer-review / Erratic quality control
Dissemination of results can be both formal (for the professional community) and informal (for the wider public) / Only informal dissemination, usually through ‘grapevine’, internal publications, popular media, grey literature
‘Writing up’ is part of the culture and reward system / Writing up is simply an extra burden and often neglected
Results can be retrieved through mechanised indexing, or through well-maintained web sites / Results are often difficult to locate and retrieve. Sometimes it is hard to discover what research has actually been done
Results are acceptable for citation in peer-reviewed papers / Results are usually not acceptable for citation. The work is usually ignored in the formal research community, or ‘borrowed’ without acknowledgement
Usually a long-term research framework within which ‘opportunistic’ work can also be carried out / Often one-off research projects, usually with no long-term research plan
Often funded by ‘official’ research grants, and also by business and charitable foundations. Usually the work does not proceed unless adequate funding is available / Usually cannot access dedicated research funds. Much work un-funded, or carried out on the back of other, separately-funded, projects. Quality affected by meagre funding
Usually complete programmes carried through to final results / Usually ‘pilot’ research projects, generating suggestive results that would require validation in a more formal context
Tendency to operate within conventional disciplinary boundaries / Tendency to ignore conventional disciplines. Can be extremely wide-ranging, and interdisciplinary
Range restricted by what is fundable, profitable, acceptable to peers / Range restricted by ethics and ideology, sometimes from outside the research group
Possible limitations due to confidentiality or patent protection / Usually all work is in the public domain
Research funding often a major component of overall income / Research funding a minor component of income
Restricted to approved methodologies and ‘safe’ topics / Can address some topics, and use some methods, that formal research would find difficult
Would benefit from partnerships with less formal organisations in order to access certain types of funds / Could benefit in several ways from partnerships with more formal research bodies.

The whole spectrum of SD research is actually slightly wider than this, summarised in Table 2. Conventional research bodies try to maintain a maximum of control. The reliability and replicability of the results is paramount. Ecosites are looking for useful results relevant to sustainable development, and are prepared to tolerate lower standards of control if required. Some ecosites have relinquished all aspirations to well-controlled conditions,. but might nevertheless develop innovations ‘incidentally’ as part of their overall interest in promoting SD, or through attracting the interest of a commercial company wishing to test-run a new product or system (in terms of the terminology developed here, they might be called ‘tertiary research ecosites’ but they will not be mentioned further). All ecosites can have an important role in promoting the diffusion of new technologies or principles through demonstration and implementation, publications, consultancy and so on, but here we will restrict the debate to the process of innovation itself.

TABLE 2: LEVELS OF FORMALITY IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT-ORIENTED RESEARCH

Formal research in controlled context / Deliberately applied innovation / Incidental innovation
Conventional research bodies / X / x
‘Primary research’ ecosites (PREs) / X / X / x
‘Secondary research’ ecosites (SREs) / x / X / X
Sites with no recognised research function / x / X

The bulk of this presentation is devoted to an analysis of the research/innovation carried out by a representative SRE, because this is relatively unrecognised category, and there are numerous novel principles to put forward for discussion. However, further illumination can come from a look at the research work carried out by a representative PRE, and we shall turn to this first.

It should be remarked of course, that this classification of ecosites is made only with respect to their research functions. It is not intended to be applied in any other context.

RESEARCH AT A PRIMARY RESEARCH ECOSITE

The case of HDRA, England, UK.

HDRA is the principal demonstration site for organic agriculture and horticulture in the UK.

The history of HDRA is significant. It started as the inspiration of one remarkable individual, Lawrence D.Hills, whose mission was to promote organic gardening and to that end, carry out research to test its benefits and improve its methods. This work was initially carried out in a large private garden. Through a regular column in a national newspaper, Hills’s work became widely known and a considerable body of supporters developed. This led to the foundation of the Henry Doubleday Research Association, with the hallmark logo of the so-called Latin Square, the basic design for crop trials.[3]

Hills pioneered a new style of research in which experiments on the trial ground were combined with ‘member’s experiments’. Members of the HDRA were invited to suggest topics for investigation, and in turn asked to take part in trials. Such trials would then take place in gardens all over Britain (and beyond) and the individual results reported back and collated. Combined results were reported in the quarterly journal, in the weekly newspaper column, and in Hills’s books. This distributed and semi-formal research covered a wide span over the years: composting; pest and weed control; tests of new and old varieties of fruit, vegetables and tree crops; taste trials; protected cropping systems, and so on.

Eventually the work outgrew the original location and in 1982 a new site was chosen at Ryton, near Coventry, in central England, partly because a large flat area was available for controlled trials. This amounted to a re-foundation, essentially the setting up of a specialised but complete ecosite‘complete’ in the sense of a full range of ecosite functions:

• a main 9ha site open to the public all year round, with usual visitor facilities
• two ‘daughter’ display gardens in other parts of the UK, also with many thousands of visitors 100,000 visitors per year to the three sites
• interpreted displays on all aspects of food and organic gardening
• a membership network with 25,000 members
• a quarterly magazine
• numerous other publications
• regular events promoting organic and sustainable themes
• active participation in public policy forums
• a dedicated test ground for controlled crop trials
• a permanent research department staffed by qualified researchers

The opportunity was taken to re-launch the research programmes on a more formal basis, and high quality research has been central since the establishment of the present site. Research has to co-exist with many other activities, but characteristically for a PRE, is a leading part of the synergistic mix. It contributes the largest single component of the organisation’s income, and is of course the cornerstone of its reputation in the professional world. HDRA has had a central role in making organic husbandry scientifically credible and acceptable both to the general public and to decision-makers.

Again characteristically for a PRE, a deliberate strategy underlies the research programme, which currently falls into three categories: Soil Nutrient dynamics, Horticultural Production, and Landscape and Amenity Horticulture (see box for more details). These three categories reflect the spread of necessary enquiry, from pure research answering fundamental questions about soil processes, through many detailed trials of particular hypotheses and methods, to the ‘software’ of farm economics and landscape design.

The pure research is significant. Usually ecosites will take as read the current state of scientific knowledge, and apply it to solving specific problems. Occasionally however, conventional research has failed to answer certain critical questions, perhaps driven by a different mindset, or different commercial and technological pressures. In the present case, soil science has been dominated by the prevailing paradigm of chemical agriculture, so the biotic aspects crucial to successful organic husbandry have been relatively neglected. There are clear gaps in our knowledge here, and it is very significant that an ecosite with positive values and an alternative paradigm should set out to fill them. The ability and willingness to do this represents an important and distinctive role for PREs.

At the more applied end of the spectrum we can see another important innovation, although a non-technical one. That is, the application of sustainability standards to amenity horticulture. There is now widespread acceptance of the existence and usefulness of verifiable standards for organic food and its production processes. But much land, particularly where there are dense human populations, is not used for food growing and the existing farm standards do not apply. HDRA argues that it makes equal sense to evaluate landscape and amenity work from an environmental point of view, and to develop a formal certification scheme. Hence this unique research programme.

As well as having their details searchable through the internet, some of the research programmes have on-line discussion groups to open the debate and attract further comment and data. This is emblematic of the open spirit of ecosite research. The enthusiasm for research is strongly shared by the members, as was proved recently during a management-initiated attempt to change the organisation’s name. This was understandable, since HDRA means nothing in itself, The Henry Doubleday Research Association is an impossible mouthful, and nobody knows who ‘Henry Doubleday’ is anyway. From a marketing point of view a change to make the name more descriptive of its subject to funders and the wider public, was eminently rational. Yet proposal was rejected by the membership, which apparently did not want to dilute the ‘research’ aspect of the organisation’s public identity.

TABLE 3: RESEARCH THEMES AT HDRA

SOIL NUTRIENT DYNAMICS / The soil nutrient dynamics research programme seeks to improve the techniques by which organic farmers can improve and manage their soil fertility, for example by growing green manures, by applying animal manures and municipal composts and by using nutrient budgeting to plan rotations. We are also seeking to understand 'soil fertility' at a more fundamental level by examining differences between organic and conventional farming systems.
E-MAIL DISCUSSION GROUP
HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTION / Crop Technology
Research work covering a range of topics including vegetable variety evaluation, developing technologies for organic vegetable transplants, promoting organic vegetable seed production and studies on the suitability of different break crops in organic rotations.
Pest, Disease and Weed Management
Practical research focusing on weed and disease control strategies for organic field vegetable production. Other work aims to test forecasting or management models developed for weed or pest control in conventional systems for their relevance to organic growers.
E-MAIL DISCUSSION GROUP
Economics, Marketing and Policy
Current research covers three areas from a wider system perspective. Studies are being undertaken on conversion to organic field vegetable production, on-farm production and whole system economics as well as on marketing from farm level to international level. The research also aims to provide information on the implications for setting policy on organic issues.
LANDSCAPE AND AMENITY HORTICULTURE / The Landscape and Amenity Horticulture team is working to extend the principles of organic growing into gardening, landscaping and amenity horticulture projects and situations. In support of this work we are also investigating the quality and use of organic waste materials. We work with relevant industry representatives and policy makers to develop guidelines and standards, and with producers, formulators and users of recycled organic materials to assess and improve product quality and utilisation.

RESEARCH AT A SECONDARY RESEARCH ECOSITE

Case of CAT, Wales, UK.

Unlike the specialised HDRA, The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) has tried to cover a wider range of the issues connected with SD. A glance at CAT’s web site ( reveals many different themes and activities. Research, however, does not stand out. It is characteristic of the culture of most SREs that research and innovation are not seen as separate activities, but emerge as part of an ongoing exploration across a wide front. However, in a broader sense, a great deal of research has been undertaken over the years. It is far less organised that that of a PRE, but extremely wide-ranging and arguably has turned up a great deal of useful knowledge. This will be discussed in some detail because it is likely to be unfamiliar.