Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
German Journal of Agricultural Economics Vol. 73 (2024), No. 3, 1-21
Original Research Article
https://doi.org/10.52825/gjae.v73i3.1114
© Authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Submitted: 23 Feb. 2024 | Accepted: 21 Sep. 2024 | Published: 07 Nov. 2024
Of Innovators, Enablers and Change Agents:
Disentangling Actors and Their Roles in Agri-Food
Transition Processes
Carolin Schweizerhof and Claudia Bieling
University of Hohenheim
*Correspondence: Carolin Schweizerhof, carolin.schweizerhof@uni-hohenheim.de
Abstract: The urgent need for a fundamental change within agri-food systems, driven by the
critical challenge of surpassing planetary boundaries, necessitates a comprehensive under-
standing of the actors and their roles in transition processes. This study addresses a significant
knowledge gap by exploring the dynamics of actor interactions and the multifaceted roles they
play in facilitating or hindering the transition towards more sustainable agri-food systems. Fo-
cusing on the Bio-Musterregion Heidenheim plus in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, as a case
study, data were collected using the Social Ecological Inventory method. As a theoretical
framework, the study was based on the multi-actor perspective. Altogether 157 actors and
numerous roles were identified. Key findings refute the assumption that an actor inherently has
a fixed role. We also show that roles are dynamic and can change over time. Furthermore,
actors can take on multiple roles simultaneously. We conclude that a nuanced understanding
of actor dynamics and their evolving roles is crucial for managing sustainability transitions.
Efforts need to be directed towards supporting networking and knowledge sharing between
niche actors. Equally important is the transfer of initiatives and knowledge from the niche level
to the regime level, which may be achieved by empowering change agents in the political
sphere.
Keywords: Transformation, Sustainability, Organic Agriculture, Organic Model Region, Multi-
Actor Perspective, Social Ecological Inventory
1 Introduction
The planetary boundaries are being exceeded, and agriculture stands out as a major contrib-
utor to this overshoot (Campbell et al., 2017; Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015).
However, agriculture not only contributes to this overshoot through factors such as high water
consumption and excessive fertilization, but is also significantly impacted by the conse-
quences. Crop cultivation faces increasing challenges due to human-induced climate changes,
including extreme weather events such as intense heat, drought, and severe rains and floods
(Campbell et al., 2017). This makes agriculture both a victim and a threat.
The importance of transitioning to sustainable agricultural and food systems is emphasized at
both global and regional levels. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of 2015 provide
a global framework for this shift, as further specified e.g. with SDG 2: Zero Hunger or SDG 15:
Life on Land, and underlining the need for significant changes in agricultural practices and
policies (Schaetzen, 2019; United Nations, 2015).
1
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
At European Union level, concrete steps include the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy
2023-2027 in 2021 (European Commission, 2021) and the Farm to Fork strategy in 2020
(European Commission, 2020), which aim to create fair, healthy, and environmentally-friendly
food systems by reducing pesticide and fertilizer use, increasing organic farming, and reducing
food waste.
At a national level, Germany's major initiatives, such as the Ackerbaustrategie 2035 (German
Farming Strategy 2035) (BMEL, 2021) and the Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie 2021 (Ger-
man Sustainability Strategy 2021) (Deutsche Bundesregierung, 2021) drive the transition by
focusing on reducing emissions, supporting farmers, and promoting sustainable practices. The
Zukunftskommission Landwirtschaft (Commission on the Future of Agriculture) (Zukunfts-
kommission Landwirtschaft, 2021) brings together major actor groups from the agri-food sector
for finding consensus on the future of agriculture by integrating environmental sustainability
with economic viability.
Furthermore, the federal states have set themselves ambitious targets, such as the action plan
Bio aus Baden-Württemberg (Organic from Baden-Württemberg), which aims to increase the
share of organic farming to 30-40% by 2030, thus significantly exceeding the threshold of 25%
set by the European Union (MLR, 2020). These collective efforts of various actors underscore
the pressing need for a comprehensive transition towards more sustainable agri-food systems.
The need for fundamental change in today's agriculture and food system is widely recognized
to achieve sustainable development. However, the greening that state governments are striv-
ing for in this context cannot be achieved simply by top-down introducing regulatory or funding
measures. It requires a joint effort of the broad range of actors involved in the agri-food system,
including cooperation and networking, but also deliberation and negotiation. However, until
now, there has been only an insufficient understanding of who is to be considered an actor
and what role they play in transition processes within agri-food systems (Avelino, Wittmayer,
2016; Farla et al., 2012; Newig, Fischer, 2016).
While current research provides a detailed understanding of how actors take specific decisions
and interact to achieve outcomes, like policy decisions, it often neglects a broader view. We
don't have a complete picture of the evolving roles these actors play, what activities they un-
dertake, and how their relationships change over time, all of which indicate transitions
(Wittmayer et al., 2017). This gap in the literature suggests that more attention should be given
to exploring the shifting roles and interactions among different stakeholders, not just the out-
comes of their actions.
Addressing this research gap and building on a local case study approach, the study aims to
examine the following questions within the context of the Bio-Musterregion Heidenheim plus
(Organic Model Region Heidenheim plus) in the state of Baden-Württemberg, Germany:
• R1 Which actors are involved in the transition process of the regional agri-food system?
• R2 How are the actors connected to each other?
• R3 What kind of activities that impact the agri-food system do the actors carry out?
• R4 What are the roles of these actors in the transition process?
As R1 to R3 have an analytical approach, they are examined and addressed in detail in the
Results (Chapter 4). In a next step, they provide the foundation for the interpretive and con-
cluding research question R4, which is focused on in the Discussion (Chapter 2).
By examining these research questions, the study aims to contribute to a deeper understand-
ing of how actors influence the transition process of agricultural and food systems, either by
stimulating or slowing it down. In addition, different paths that these actors may take will be
explored to shed light on the complex interaction between the actors involved in the transition
process.
2
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
2 Theoretical Background
For consistency, it was decided to use the terms ‘transition’ and ‘actors’ throughout. The au-
thors are aware that other terms, such as ‘transformation’ instead of ‘transition’ or ‘stakeholder’
instead of ‘actor’, may also be appropriate. The paper “Transition versus Transformation:
What’s the difference” served as the basis for the decision in favor of ‘transition’ (Hölscher et
al., 2018b). The term ‘actor’ was chosen as a key reference of the paper is the multi-actor
perspective (Avelino, Wittmayer, 2016).
2.1 Transition Process
A transition process is understood as a multi-actor process in which "social groups such as
businesses or firms, different types of user groups, scientific communities, policy makers, so-
cial movements, and special interest groups" (Geels, Schot, 2010) interact with each other.
Transitions are considered a "complex social phenomenon" (de Haan, Rotmans, 2011) and
“outcomes of alignments between developments at multiple levels” (Geels, Schot, 2007). Fur-
thermore, transition processes involve a high level of coevolution, complexity, and uncertainty
(Geels, Schot, 2010).
In recent decades, a wide range of perspectives on transitions have emerged, building on and
paralleling each other (Avelino, Wittmayer, 2016). In the following, the multi-level perspective
(MLP) is discussed first, followed by an outline of the multi-actor perspective (MAP) that builds
on it.
Multi-Level Perspective
The multi-level perspective (MLP) is a medium-range theory that identifies dynamic patterns
in socio-technical transitions, emphasizing the interplay between technological, economic, po-
litical, and cultural changes (Geels, 2002). It is applied in various fields, including sustainability
and agri-ecological transitions research (El Bilali, 2020; Geels, 2011). MLP posits that transi-
tions occur through interactions within and between three levels: niches, socio-technical re-
gimes, and a socio-technical landscape. Niches are spaces where innovations can develop
with less external pressure. Early organic farming communities, which tested composting, crop
rotation, and natural pest control, are an example. Socio-technical regimes are the established
norms and practices within a system, such as conventional farming with its established supply
chains and government support for large-scale monoculture. Socio-technical landscape is the
broader environment with macro-level trends and forces, like societal values and climate
change. An example is the global push for more sustainable food systems driven by climate
concerns and increased demand for organic products.
This perspective highlights nested and bidirectional dynamics of change across multiple levels,
emphasizing interactions among different sectors and actors (Barbanente, Grassini, 2022).
One of the main criticisms is that the MLP does not sufficiently examine how actor interests
influence the development of technologies (Genus, Coles, 2008; Loorbach, Rotmans, 2010).
Multi-Actor Perspective
The multi-actor perspective (MAP) is a heuristic framework that builds on the MLP. Specifying
and nuancing the "regime" and "niche" actors identified by the MLP, the MAP addresses the
complex variety of roles they occupy at different levels of aggregation (sector-level actors,
organizational actors, individual actors). This involves understanding of how actors interact
with each other and how their interests and values influence the development of innovations.
Furthermore, the MAP is used as an interactive tool to identify actor groups in social systems
and to connect actors in the formation of temporary transition networks (Avelino, Wittmayer,
2016; Loorbach et al., 2017).
3
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
Drawing on the welfare model (Pestoff, 1992), the MAP categorizes actors into four sectors:
state, market, community, and third sector. These sectors are described along three axes:
1) informal‒formal, 2) for-profit‒non-profit, and 3) public‒private.
• Informal‒formal: this axis differentiates between activities that are structured and reg-
ulated (formal) and those that are more spontaneous or loosely organized (informal).
In Table 1, the government (state sector) represents a formal structure with defined
processes, while a neighborhood community (community sector) reflects an informal
setup, often driven by local customs and unwritten norms.
• For-profit‒non-profit: this axis distinguishes entities focused on generating revenue and
profit (for-profit) from those that do not operate primarily for profit (non-profit). In
Table 1, businesses and companies (market sector) fall into the for-profit category,
while public service organizations and churches (state and community sectors) are
non-profit.
• Public‒private: this axis separates entities based on their ownership or control by the
government (public) or by individuals or corporations (private). In Table 1, government
departments (state sector) are public entities, while consulting firms (market sector) are
private.
The third sector serves as an intermediate category, bridging these axes. It encompasses or-
ganizations that may have characteristics of both private and public, for-profit and non-profit,
formal and informal. Examples from Table 1 include culture and arts organizations, which might
be private but operate on a non-profit basis, or research institutes that may cross the boundary
between public and private sectors.
These distinctions help to understand the complex roles and dynamics within the MAP frame-
work, illustrating how transitions in social systems involve a wide range of actors with varying
goals and structures. It's important to note that these sector classifications are not rigid. They
are flexible, allowing for crossover between categories and adaptations to fit specific contexts
(Avelino, Wittmayer, 2016). This flexibility acknowledges that actors may not always fit neatly
into one category, and that boundaries between sectors are often fluid and subject to change.
Table 1. Sectors and aggregations in transition processes,
illustrated with two examples for each category
AGGREGATION
Sector Subtype
Organizational Actors
Individual Actors
SECTOR
State
Formal / non-profit
Government
Public service
Public authorities
Government departments
Politician
Citizen
Market
Private / for-profit
Marketing
Consulting
Business
Company
Entrepreneur
Consumer
Community
Informal / non-profit
Neighborhood
Church
Family
Community
Neighbor
Resident
Third Sector
Private / public / non-
profit / for-profit
Culture and arts
Sports and recreation
Association
Research institutes
Member
Volunteer
Source: authors' presentation based on Avelino, Wittmayer (2016); Wittmayer et al. (2021)
2.2 Actors in Transition Processes
In transition processes, companies, public authorities, associations, and research institutes
are considered organizational actors. In addition, however, individuals appear as independent
actors (e.g., residents) or as members of an organization (e.g., company owners, employees)
(Farla et al., 2012).
4
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
Actors are not passive rule followers but active rule-users and rule shapers. They have differ-
ent backgrounds and thus bring different strategies and resources to the table (Geels, 2011;
Geels, Schot, 2007; Jørgensen, 2012; Rotmans, 2005). Depending on performance and ca-
pabilities, actors are involved in different levers for transition: for example, as 'policy makers',
'expertsC, 'consumers', 'business owners' (Farla et al., 2012) or 'policy entrepreneurs' (Brown
et al., 2013). These levers can also be understood as roles at the same time, as will be ex-
plained in more detail in Section 2.3.
Newig, Fischer (2016) distinguish three types of actors in sustainability transitions: 1) niche
actors, 2) regime actors, and 3) landscape actors. Niche actors are responsible for developing
new technologies and practices that can be used to create sustainable systems. Regime actors
are responsible for maintaining the existing system and ensuring that it continues to function
effectively. Landscape actors are responsible for shaping the broader context in which the
transition to sustainability occurs (Newig, Fischer, 2016).
According to Böröcz, Southworth (1998), ties between actors can be differentiated into formal
and informal ties. Formal ties are defined as "explicit, impersonal, and function-specific"
(Böröcz, Southworth, 1998) which means that actors are bound to each other, e.g., by con-
tracts or agreements for a specific purpose. Informal ties, on the other hand, are "implicit, per-
sonal, and general" (Böröcz, Southworth, 1998) and refer to more loose personal affiliations.
2.3 Roles in Transition Processes
Wittmayer (2016) describes roles in transition processes as "a set of recognizable activities
and attitudes used by an actor to address recurring situations". And, in addition, "the core of
[these] activities and attitudes … [is] widely recognized and shared within a specific group of
people or a social system" (Wittmayer, 2016). A role is a socially constructed element that is
associated with expectations, rights, and also duties (Biddle, 1986). However, a role is not
static and therefore open to negotiation and change over time (Turner, 1990; Wittmayer et al.,
2017). People can take on roles or simply play them (Biddle, 1986). Whether or not a role is
performed appropriately is decided by society and can also be associated with sanctions
(Wittmayer et al., 2017). Roles can also be interrelated, meaning that a change in one role can
affect others (Turner, 1990; Wittmayer et al., 2017).
There are different ontological perspectives on role concepts. The functionalist perspective
views roles as essential for sustaining social order and stability. Roles are thus created and
maintained by society (Biddle, 1986). The interactionist perspective focuses on the process of
"role-making": How roles are adopted, adapted, performed, and made. Roles are viewed as
socially constructed as they are created through interactions between individuals, and individ-
uals have some freedom in "shaping" a particular role (Biddle, 1986). The constructivist per-
spective views roles as constructed by individuals based on their experiences and interactions
with others (Biddle, 1986; Callero, 1994).
When discussing and analyzing roles, it is first determined whether the role is a single role or
a network of roles (interaction of roles). Furthermore, it is differentiated whether the change of
a role (transition) or the state of a role at a certain point in time (static) is to be considered.
Furthermore, a distinction is made between whether the role is meant as a resource or as a
boundary object (Wittmayer et al., 2017).
In transition processes, a multitude of roles emerge. Change agents, visionaries at the fore-
front, initiate change, guide, and motivate other actors throughout the process (Wittmayer,
Schäpke, 2014). Innovators, particularly grassroots innovators, drive change by exploring and
implementing new ideas, technologies, or practices on a small scale and strengthen local com-
mitment (Bodenheimer, Dütschke, 2021; Fuchs, 2014; Hossain, 2016; Seyfang, Smith, 2007).
Frontrunners, strong opinion leaders in specific fields, excel due to early adoption or excep-
tional performance on a larger scale (Loorbach, 2007; Loorbach, Rotmans, 2010). Gatekeep-
ers control access to resources, influence the acceptance or rejection of innovations, and
5
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
shape the course of change (Felt et al., 2012). (Process) Facilitators promote dialogue and
collaboration between different actors and facilitate the exchange of ideas and information to
enable a seamless transition (Wittmayer, Schäpke, 2014). Intermediaries bridge the gap be-
tween different actors and contribute to the smooth flow of information and resources
(Hargreaves et al., 2013; Hossain, 2016). Conversely, resistors, motivated by factors like un-
certainty or conflicts of interest, resist change and aim to maintain the status quo
(Bodenheimer, Dütschke, 2021). Although this description of roles is not exhaustive, it empha-
sizes the diversity of actors involved in transitions and highlights the interplay between vision-
aries, implementers, facilitators, and others dealing with change.
3 Methodology
3.1 Research Approach: Case Study
The present study is designed as a case study, taking the Bio-Musterregion Heidenheim plus
(BMR) in the state of Baden-Württemberg in Germany as an exemplary case. Bio-Musterre-
gionen (Organic Model Regions) are designated regions in which organic agriculture is partic-
ularly promoted (following the idea of greening) and regional value chains for organic food are
to be strengthened (regionalization) (Landratsamt Heidenheim, n.d.). Furthermore, the goal is
to raise awareness of organic farming and organic food among the local population
(Landratsamt Heidenheim, n.d.).
The implementation of BMR is one of the elements of the action plan Bio aus Baden-Württem-
berg (Organic from Baden-Wuerttemberg) (MLR, 2020). This plan includes various measures
to increase the share of organic agriculture in Baden-Württemberg to 30-40% by 2030, as
defined by the state government in its key issues document of October 2019 (MLR, 2020).
These include measures to improve conditions for organic farms and measures to promote
conversion to organic. By now, there are 14 BMR in Baden-Württemberg (MLR, n.d.). They
are part of the Agricultural Office of the District Office and are administered by a regional man-
ager.
An overview of the main characteristics of the selected BMR is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Characteristics of the case study area Bio-Musterregion Heidenheim plus in the
Federal State of Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Start
2018 (MLR, n.d.)
Region
Heidenheim district (11 municipalities) together with five neighboring municipalities in the
Ostalbkreis district (MLR, n.d.)
Landscape
Characterized by the Lineal and Swabian Alb, Härtsfeld Ries, and Albuch with typical juniper
heaths (LEL, ULB Heidenheim, 2019)
Agriculture
Due to altitude and geographical conditions, cereal cultivation, especially spelt, and cultivation
of permanent grassland are of great importance (LEL, ULB Heidenheim, 2022)
Long tradition of sheep farming to maintain the heath landscape (Landratsamt Heidenheim
,
n.d.)
In 2021: 66 organic farm
s (10,5% of all farms) manage 3509 ha (11,3% of total agricultural
area) (Heidenheim district) (LEL, ULB Heidenheim, 2022); 4
organic farms manage 200 ha
(municipalities in the Ostalbkreis district) (MLR, n.d.).
ongoing activities
in the BMR (se-
lection)
Gift basket with regional organic products
Shelves with regional organic products in local supermarkets
Initiative to promote traditional orchards
Project on regional and organic food in communal catering
Source: authors' presentation
6
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
3.2 Applied Methodology to Collect Data
Social Ecological Inventory
As a starting point, the Social Ecological Inventory (SEI) method was utilized to identify actors
involved in local transition processes and to get acquainted with the research area. Developed
initially for conservation management, SEI systematically identifies local stewards, their val-
ues, motivations, activities, knowledge, experiences, and networks (Schultz et al., 2011). Sub-
sequent to its original conception, Baird et al. (2014) further refined SEI, dividing it into six
practical phases (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Six phases of the Social Ecological Inventory
Source: authors' representation based on Schultz et al. (2011)
In the preparatory phase (Phase 1), SEI objectives are defined and research principles estab-
lished. The preliminary identification phase (Phase 2) involves sourcing information (e.g., in-
ternet, literature) to compile a list of potential actors. Subsequently, this list is refined
(Phase 3) to identify key actors for interviews, often suggested by initial contacts. The selection
is guided by actor frequency, highlighting critical individuals and organizations. Then interviews
with these key actors are conducted (Phase 4). Following this, in Phase 5, reflection occurs,
capturing emerging trends, insights, and knowledge gaps. Finally, Phase 6 engages actors,
fostering dialogue to address shared concerns and ideas (Baird et al., 2014).
In this case study, SEI was utilized up to Phase 5, leaving out Phase 6. Although iteration and
feedback are typically valuable for refining results and adapting to complex systems, con-
straints such as limited time and financial resources prevented the inclusion of Phase 6. The
study's focus was primarily on data collection rather than extended engagement or iterative
feedback processes. This involved an initial review of the literature and media leading to the
identification of (key) actors, in line with Phases 2 and 3. Furthermore, semi-structured inter-
views were conducted as part of Phase 4. Phase 5 involves the discussion of the results and
thus the enrichment of the overall picture.
Literature and Media Analysis
The literature and media analysis were used to better understand the connections between
the actors and their roles in the transition process and divided into two phases (Figure 2). In
doing so, a semi-structured literature review approach was applied (Snyder, 2019).
7
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
Figure 2. Two stages of literature and media analysis
Source: authors' representation
In the First Stage, a list of potential actors involved in the agriculture and food system was
compiled, guiding the identification of individual actors within documents. The literature review
commenced with the proposal from local municipalities of Heidenheim to become a BMR,
marking the conceptual inception of the initiative. All contributors to the proposal, along with
mentioned actors, were cataloged, and existing as well as projected activities were noted in
the application.
Official documents scrutinized included those from participating municipalities, districts, the
city of Heidenheim, and the state of Baden-Württemberg. Notably, documents from the De-
partment of Agriculture at involved District Offices were prioritized, being the headquarter of
the BMR and a hub for local agriculture and food system activities and information dissemina-
tion. Examples include annual brochures from direct marketers and the BMR newsletter pub-
lished periodically. Additionally, articles from the local newspaper, Heidenheimer Zeitung, con-
cerning agricultural and food system topics were analyzed for actors and their connections to
pertinent activities. A total of around 120 documents were analyzed, including official docu-
ments, brochures and media reports. The review of these documents was guided by content
analysis, which focused on key terms, mentions of actors and activities. In order to organize
and analyze the available data, the software tool MAXQDA was used (VERBI Software, 2021).
In the Second Stage, a comprehensive literature review on transition processes within agricul-
ture and food systems, and the roles of actors within these processes, was conducted. The
theoretical framework draws from Frank Geels' work on transitions, particularly the multi-level
perspective (Geels, 2002; Geels, Schot, 2010). On the basis of this, the multi-actor perspective
serves as the core of this work. Here, the works of Flor Avelino and Julia M. Wittmayer are of
great influence (Avelino, Wittmayer, 2016, 2018, 2019). The contents of this Second Stage
form the basis for the chapter "Theoretical background" (Chapter 2).
Interviews
Based on the literature review (First Stage), semi-structured interviews were conducted with
actors from the BMR. The first interview was with the BMR regional manager, assumed to offer
a comprehensive regional perspective. Subsequently, interviews targeted persons who had
already participated in a workshop on values and norms in transition processes in agriculture.
This was held during a six-months preparatory phase of the project Öko-Valuation in which
this study is embedded in (Öko-Valuation, n.d.). The snowball method was employed to reach
potential interviewees through existing contacts. Some actors were approached directly, as-
suming their significant involvement in the transition process. The interviews aimed to validate
literature research findings regarding key actors and identify any new actors mentioned by
interviewees. Additionally, motivations for engagement in the agricultural and food system, as
well as perspectives on agricultural greening and regionalized value chains, were explored.
Each interview was conducted individually, preceded by a project introduction. Interviewees
were provided with background information on the interview topic and a summary of the ques-
tions shown in Figure 3 by e-mail a few days before the interview. Guiding questions were
8
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
visible only to the interviewer (Figure 3). Key guiding questions for interviews with local key
actors), with flexibility in question order based on interviewee responses, ensuring all sections
were addressed while maintaining a smooth flow.
Between January and June 2021, 16 key actors from the BMR were interviewed. Due to the
restrictions in the course of the Covid pandemic at the time, all interviews were conducted
online via video call or telephone. The focus was on interviewing people from as many different
areas of the agri-food system as possible, including farmers, politicians, government officials,
business people and volunteers. Interviews, lasting 30 to 98 minutes, were recorded and tran-
scribed in simplified manner according to Dresing, Pehl (2018), or directly transcribed from the
notes if recording was not agreed upon. The interview campaign was ended when no new
information emerged and saturation of the data was reached.
• How are you involved in agriculture and food in the region?
• What motivates your interest and commitment to agriculture and food?
• Why should agriculture in the region become more organic, with increased local produc-
tion and marketing of food? Are there any arguments against such development?
• In which areas of agriculture, food production, and marketing do you see a need for im-
provement in the BMR? Where should more be done for sustainability?
• What changes have occurred in the region due to the BMR?
Figure 3. Key guiding questions for interviews with local key actors
Source: authors' representation
3.3 Applied Data Analysis
The research questions R1-R4 described in Chapter 1 formed the overarching framework for
the systematic analysis of the data. The qualitative content-based analysis process followed
an approach which combined inductive and deductive coding. It was carried out in four different
steps, which are explained in more detail below.
In the first step, actors were identified through a comprehensive literature and media analysis
(Chapter 3.2). A preliminary list of actors was drawn, which formed the basis for identifying
potential interview partners. This preliminary list was reviewed in the subsequent interview
phases and compared with the actors mentioned in the interviews. Consequently, new actors
not yet mentioned were added to make the analysis as complete as possible (Chapter 3.2).
For the analysis itself, codes were created using an inductive approach. A list of all codes and
sub-codes is provided in the appendix. For this step, the software tool MAXQDA was used as
the primary instrument (VERBI Software, 2021).
In the second step, the identified actors were analyzed according to their levels of aggrega-
tion, specifically sectors, organizational actors, and individual actors (R1). Furthermore, the
actors were categorized by sector, namely state, market, community, and third sector (R1). To
this end, the list of identified actors was reviewed and each actor was systematically assigned
to a corresponding category. This categorization involved a deductive approach, grounded in
the multi-actor perspective elucidated in Chapter 2.1 (Avelino, Wittmayer, 2016; Wittmayer et
al., 2021).
The third step focused on identifying existing interactions and connections between actors
(deductive coding, refined by inductive approach). This step enabled a better understanding
of the networks and relationships within the agri-food system (R2).
In this fourth step, roles were assigned to the actors (R4) based on the findings about the
actors' activities (R3). The dimensions, effects and potentials of these roles were also system-
atically documented (R4).
9
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
4 Results
In the following chapters, Research Questions R1 to R3 are examined in more detail. Each
chapter is organized thematically according to one of the questions. In chapter 4.1 the individ-
ual actors and their motivations are addressed (R1), in Chapter 4.2 the connection between
the actors (R2) and in Chapter 4.3 the activities of the actors are analyzed (R3).
4.1 Actors and Their Motivations
In the first phase of the literature and media research, 152 different individual actors and or-
ganizations from the agricultural and food sector in the BMR were identified. Subsequently,
five additional individual actors and organizations were identified through interviews, bringing
the total number to 157. This encompasses a broad spectrum of actors, varying significantly
in their frequency of mention and the explicit description of their importance for the transition.
Given the scope of this work, providing a detailed presentation of each individual actor is be-
yond its limits. Two organizational actors, however, stood out as being frequently highlighted
in a key role in the local transition process. These are the political actor of the BMR, led by the
regional manager, and the County Farmers' Association with its representatives.
In the following section, a selection of the most frequently mentioned motivations of the indi-
vidual actors and representatives interviewed from the organizations for co-designing the ag-
ricultural and food system is presented.
The actors interviewed who are involved in production, that is, in agriculture, sheep farming,
and agricultural associations, all showed a desire for healthy food production. They consider
their work to be an important contribution to society. Some were born into families that produce
food and, therefore, felt a commitment to maintain and develop the family farm from an early
age. On a personal level, many describe their work as meaningful and purposeful. Fascination
for the growth of plants, the joy of nature, or even new life, such as the birth of an animal, are
mentioned as sources of motivation for their work. An actor working in the field of production
explains this sense of purpose with his Christian faith and his admiration for God's creation.
Actors who do not work in the producing and processing sector but are still involved in the agri-
food sector, e.g., in educational work, similarly mentioned a strong appreciation for agricultural
and handicraft activities.
Actors working in the organic sector were asked what drives them or has motivated them to
convert to organic. It was noted that only some have always been in the organic sector and
have never been involved with conventional production. Others only converted to the organic
sector in the course of their career, motivated by the desire for more animal welfare, no factory
farming and fewer (unnecessary) transport routes, but also the desire for higher quality food
and greater appreciation for their work. Additionally, the increased demand for organic food
was mentioned. This conversion was described as a very conscious and future-oriented step
that had and still has an impact on their business, but also on their private lives.
During the interviews, the actors were also asked what motivated them to get involved in the
BMR. It should be noted that only some of the interviewed persons were actively involved in
the activities related to the BMR, for example, as a member of the steering or controlling com-
mittee. The motivations of these people were mainly strategic, such as strengthening their own
marketing, further developing existing organic structures, or supporting new farmers in their
conversion to organic agriculture. Another motivation was that through the activities of the BMR
regional food can and should be made more present and its value clarified. As a source of
motivation, the name of a deceased Heidenheim district governor was also frequently men-
tioned, who had actively promoted and implemented the BMR.
10
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
The greatest motivation for strengthening regionality was consistently expressed by the inter-
viewees as enthusiasm for the great variety of products from the region and that more attention
should be paid to this variety. One person underlined this by adding that they were born and
raised in their region and proud of their homeland and their products. However, there were
also critical voices on more regionality. One person stated that not everything that comes from
the region is also good at the same time, and therefore one should be careful with pushing
regionality. Another person went in a similar direction and stated that regionality always means
a "give and take".
The connection to nature and the desire for sustainability were mentioned as reasons for ad-
vocating for greening. In this context, it was mentioned that greening should not be something
short-term, but rather a long-term endeavor and requires perseverance. It was noted that the
work for greening was meaningful and carried out with a clear conscience. It feels right to do.
It also became apparent that most of the interviewees were not recent advocates of greening;
rather, this motivation arose many years ago. For example, one of the interviewees mentioned
that the Chernobyl disaster was the motivation to consciously join the Green Party and to get
involved with Greenpeace in the 1980s. Greta Thunberg was mentioned as a current role
model for greening.
The main motivation for respondents to engage with nutrition issues was the desire for "good"
food. The word good was interpreted differently: for some, ‘good’ means regional and sea-
sonal, while for others it must definitely be organic, and for another person it must be simply
healthy. One person emphasized that the story behind the food is important and, therefore,
she prefers regional production where the story can be conveyed directly.
4.2 Connections Between the Actors
In examining the connections between key actors within the region, Figure 4 illustrates the
network linking these entities. Actors can establish formal ties, such as official partnerships or
contractual agreements, as well as informal ties, encompassing personal relationships, inoffi-
cial collaborations, and social ties. Formal ties provide explicit organizational roles, responsi-
bilities, and legal protections, yet they may exhibit rigidity and slow adaptability. Conversely,
informal ties offer flexibility but may lack consistency and accountability, thereby introducing
potential uncertainties.
In the following, the actors are briefly described on the basis of their ties to and among each
other and according to their sector in the MAP.
11
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
Figure 4. Predominant types of connection between actors
Source: authors' representation based on own research
Farms emerge as pivotal actors, producing the central commodity of the agricultural and food
system: food. Operating within the market sector, farms maintain close and predominantly for-
mal contacts with actors in processing, gastronomy, and retail. In addition, farms share ties
among themselves, facilitated by formal agreements and informal channels, such as experi-
ence exchange and membership in associations such as organic associations or local neigh-
borhood relations.
On the contrary, a significant actor in the state sector is the BMR and its regional manager.
Unlike farms, their interactions are primarily informal, particularly with other actors like farms.
Nevertheless, the BMR has formal connections with individual supermarkets, featuring re-
gional organic products endorsed by the BMR.
The production and processing networks in the grain sector are also important in the region.
Individual private citizens are equally important actors for the transition towards a more organic
agri-food system. However, their relationships with other actors are rather informal.
The most important actor from the "community" sector is individual private persons who have
ties to other actors mainly through their purchasing activities, be it in supermarkets or restau-
rants. Similarly, there are informal ties between farms and private individuals. On the one hand,
this works indirectly through direct marketing, e.g., at farmers' markets, and on the other hand,
at open days, e.g., the Gläserne Produktion (transparent production) events organized by the
Baden-Württemberg agricultural administration, at which private visitors can gain an insight
into agricultural production (Forum Ernährung Heidenheim, 2021).
4.3 Activities
As described in the previous chapters, there is a large number of actors in the region who are
involved in the transition at different levels and with various activities. Each actor has a very
specific profile, and it is beyond the scope of the paper to name them all. Therefore, we provide
an overview of the most frequently mentioned and relevant activities in the context of a local
12
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
agriculture and food system transition. All the actors listed below were mentioned once or mul-
tiple times in the interviews by the respondents. Some of these actors were also personally
interviewed, but they are not specifically marked for reasons of anonymity.
The BMR and its regional manager play a pivotal role in fostering networking and cooperation
within the region. As an intermediary and facilitator, the BMR brings actors together and drives
collective engagement.
Numerous farms in the regions, acting at the grassroot level early on embraced organic meth-
ods, much ahead of today's formal and established structures. In a pioneering approach they
played a key role in shaping the region's organic landscape. An exemplary case is the Talhof,
established in 1929. Remarkably, it holds the distinction of being Germany's oldest Demeter
farm and the third oldest globally (Talhof Heidenheim, n.d.).
Several farms and farmers can likewise be described as being at the forefront. They actively
promote transition processes, establish new standards, and demonstrate their practices. The
aforementioned Talhof is an example of this. The farm has pushed the boundaries of what is
usual and now includes a dairy and a café and markets its products not only locally, but also
nationwide successfully under its name (Talhof Heidenheim, n.d.).
A regional event venue distinguishes itself by offering innovative gastronomic experiences
solely using organic, preferably local, products. This concept gives the venue a unique selling
point and gains public recognition.
An influential collective actor emerges as a producer association Kornkreis comprising approx-
imately 50 organic grain producers from Heidenheim and neighboring districts, significantly
contributing to networking and shaping the organic agricultural scene.
In the interviews, the late former district governor, a key advocate for the region's application
to become a BMR, is credited with catalyzing the change process.
A region-specific magazine exclusively focusing on companies and individuals in the organic
and conventional agricultural sector serves as a valuable platform, fostering dialogue between
producers and consumers despite its recent inception and limited circulation.
Behind the scenes, numerous actors contribute quietly to greening the local agriculture and
food system. Educational institutions and initiatives act as knowledge brokers, offering nutrition
courses, farm excursions, and raising awareness. This includes, for example, the Familienbild-
ungsstätte Heidenheim e.V. (Family Education Center). Initiatives like the food bank Tafel and
Food Sharing address waste reduction. Additionally, the presence of activists like Fridays for
Future and Farmers for Future underscores the region's commitment to environmentally con-
scious practices.
Our investigation did not uncover any actors actively hindering the transition process. Similarly,
no single actor stood out as a particularly committed financial investor or business monopolist
influencing developments.
5 Discussion
In the following, and addressing R4, we will discuss different types of actors’ roles and their
link to the sectors (Avelino, Wittmayer, 2016) and levels (Geels, 2002). Moreover, we will high-
light the complex and fluid character of roles.
13
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
5.1 Types of Actors' Roles Within the Transition Process
Grassroots innovators have played a central role in initiating a transition in the region. Or-
ganic practices were implemented experimentally on a small scale, primarily on farms, in
stores, and restaurants long before formal frameworks and guidelines were established at a
higher administrative level. Similar examples of grassroots innovators driving change on a
small scale and behind the scenes, mostly for their own agenda, have been documented in
various case studies and contexts (Bodenheimer, Dütschke, 2021; Fuchs, 2014; Oliveira,
Penha-Lopes, 2020). These innovators proactively identified and articulated challenges and
aimed to develop solutions on their own (Bodenheimer, Dütschke, 2021; Fuchs, 2014). As new
questions and challenges continue to arise in the course of the transition, new grassroots in-
novators also emerge over time. The motivations for such initiatives described in the literature
‒ ethical/moral, religious, pragmatic, idealistic, socio-cultural, economic and environmental fac-
tors ‒ are consistent with the findings of this study (Bellon, Lamine, 2009; Darnhofer et al.,
2005; Hossain, 2016; Kallas et al., 2010; Veisi et al., 2017). Hossain (2016) notes that there is
no uniform understanding of grassroots innovators, as their motivations and the times at which
they take a role in a transition vary greatly. Furthermore, grassroots innovators face significant
pressures, whether in terms of financial constraints or social expectations, and their resilience
to cope with these challenges is often limited. As a result, failure is not uncommon. However,
this aspect receives minimal attention in the research literature (Hossain, 2016). Taking the
multi-level perspective, grassroots innovators operate in so-called niches (Geels, 2002).
In the context of the niche, the role of frontrunners within the region also emerges as partic-
ularly important. These individuals actively strive to set industry standards and gain recognition
for their ideas, innovations, and practices (Loorbach, 2007; Loorbach, Rotmans, 2010). In con-
trast to grassroots innovators, they target the public. The frontrunners identified in the study
embody these characteristics, as shown in the results section: organic farms venture into new
business areas and expand their activities and innovative approaches, thus setting new stand-
ards and presenting themselves confidently to the public. The pioneers described by Nevens
et al. (2013) as "visionary people" play a central role in managing the transition. According to
Meadows (1999) leverage points in systems are strategic positions where small interventions
can lead to significant changes. Frontrunners, acting at these leverage points, strategically
influence norms, policies, and consumer behaviors within their sectors. By introducing novel
practices and influencing market trends, they play a pivotal role in steering the transition to-
wards sustainability (Geels, 2002; Meadows, 1999; Nevens et al., 2013). As grassroots inno-
vators progress through the transition, they may assume the role of frontrunners, either in ad-
dition to their existing roles or entirely. It can be said that frontrunners tend to operate at the
edge of the niche with a focus on the dominant regime (Geels, 2002; Geels, Schot, 2010;
Nevens et al., 2013).
In the study, an individual from the state sector was identified as a change agent who actively
promoted change at the political level by encouraging the promotion of organic and regional
value chains and initiating the application of the region as a BMR. However, according to van
Poeck et al. (2017) a change agent encompasses other characteristics beyond those men-
tioned as a motivator, initiator and awareness-raiser, including that of a technician, revolution-
ary, or persuader. This versatility can position change agents in the niche or as hybrid actors
between the niche and the regime (Bünger, 2018; Diaz et al., 2013). The change agent in this
study is a hybrid actor who, on the one hand, is part of the prevailing regime by profession, but
on the other hand embraces the views and ideas of the niche (Diaz et al., 2013). Hybrid actors
are crucial in connecting niche activities with regime institutions, facilitating compatibility and
playing a central role in the transition process (Diaz et al., 2013). Their openness to innovation
and disruption of mainstream practices encourages collaboration with regime actors and con-
tributes significantly to the dynamics of change. As cross-border actors, they not only bridge
divergent logics, but also act as catalysts for innovation, guiding, and shaping the transition to
more sustainable and adaptive systems (Bünger, 2018). Niche actors need to identify and
involve hybrid actors to secure their interest and cooperation. Acting as allies, hybrid actors
14
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
then may help the niche to take over more and more space at the regime level. They provide
important resources to strengthen the niche developments and increase their influence on the
process by bringing greater leverage to the dominant regime (Diaz et al., 2013). This shows
the importance of the aforementioned political change agent for the process.
In addition, the study identified the BMR and its regional manager as a prominent actor in the
state sector, assuming the roles of enabler and intermediary. As such, it brings together es-
tablished actors from different areas, serves as a point of contact for all interested parties, and
aims to create impetus for further developments. Although a relatively young institution estab-
lished in 2018, the BMR operates on a project-based funding model, lacking long-term perma-
nence. Despite this, the BMR has demonstrated substantial momentum, significantly influenc-
ing the region in embracing more organic agriculture and regional value chains. Enablers like
the BMR play a crucial role in setting the stage, initiating and mediating processes, and pro-
moting participation with an inclusive approach to various perspectives (Nevens et al., 2013;
Wittmayer, Schäpke, 2014). Acting strategically, the BMR operates as an intermediary and
enabler at critical points within the system where interventions can lead to significant shifts. By
facilitating collaborations and policy initiatives, it catalyzes systemic changes towards sustain-
ability (Meadows, 1999; Nevens et al., 2013). Loorbach (2007) attributes the role of an (in-
ter)mediator to governments. Additionally, depending on the transition's status, governments
may also function as directors and decision-makers. However, in this study, these latter roles
cannot be ascribed to the local government or to the BMR, which is part of the local govern-
ment.
In our study, there were also roles that were expected but could not be found. For example,
we did not identify any actors who impeded the transition and took on the role of hinderers.
Naturally, the level of participation among actors varies widely, ranging from active engage-
ment to limited participation or complete non-participation. There were, however, no indications
for actors who work against the process. Several factors could explain this absence. Hinderers
may not have been discussed in interviews due to concerns, such as fear of negative conse-
quences if the information would get public, or interview partners being reluctant to talk nega-
tively about others. Alternatively, interviewees may have perceived these roles as insignificant
or overlooked their impact. We also did not ask specifically about hinderers in our interviews,
since we did not do this for other specific roles either.
Additionally, no actors were identified as exerting a particular influence through a monopoly
position or specific activities, such as funding, to steer developments in a particular direction.
5.2 Actors With Multiple Roles and Interplay of Actors in Different Roles
Research on actors with multiple roles in sustainable transition processes is relatively scarce.
The majority of studies in this area originates from fields beyond the agri-food context, and
often concentrates on individuals juggling diverse roles in life (e.g. Timm et al., 2020). Despite
the differences in focus, it is reasonable to assume that some findings of these studies reso-
nate with the ones presented here.
In the realm of transition dynamics, Lindkvist et al. (2023) emphasize that actors often take on
multiple roles, which is particularly evident among actors in the state sector. This aligns with
our study, where the BMR, acting as both enabler and intermediary, exemplifies this dual func-
tionality. Notably, other actors in our study also operate in dual capacities, including a front-
runner from the market sector who also acts as a facilitator in the state sector.
This multi-faceted engagement underlines the versatility of the actors and shows that they are
able to switch between different roles within and between sectors. Although such dual roles
are not uncommon, they lead to multi-layered contexts that both constrain and expand inter-
actions between actors and shape the dynamics of collaboration and innovation in the transi-
tion context (Lindkvist et al., 2023). As a result, the interplay between actors with different roles
and the collaborative landscape becomes even more complex, offering both challenges and
15
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
opportunities. Taking on dual roles can be beneficial by promoting innovation and collabora-
tion, but it also brings with it responsibilities, time commitments, and potential conflicts
(Hölscher et al., 2018a; Timm et al., 2020). Successfully managing this complexity requires
adaptability and a nuanced understanding of the different roles. While dual roles enrich the
transition dynamics, they must be carefully managed to maximize their positive impact.
The results of the study show that the dynamic interplay of actors from different sectors ‒ state,
community, market, third sector ‒ drives the transition in the region (Avelino, Wittmayer, 2016).
The majority of the identified grassroots innovators and frontrunners were mainly found in the
market sector and change agents mainly in the state sector, while intermediaries came from
the state, market and third sector. However, there are also exceptions and no generalization
can be made, which implies that roles cannot be rigidly assigned to certain actors, nor can
actors be assigned certain roles per se. Also considering that there are some actors with dual
roles, it can be shown that roles are fluid and adaptable over time and in different contexts
(Hölscher et al., 2018a; Wittmayer et al., 2017). This complex network of actors and roles
underscores the richness and flexibility of the transition process, emphasizing its dynamic na-
ture.
To better understand these intricate connections and dynamics, Eva Schiffer's net-map ap-
proach offers an interesting starting point (Schiffer, Hauck, 2010). This participatory method of
mapping networks of influence allows for a comprehensive analysis of social networks and
provides a nuanced understanding of both formal and informal relationships between actors.
However, the method used in this study and the data available are not sufficient to implement
the net-map approach. Future studies applying this methodology in the context of regional agri-
food transition processes could potentially provide valuable insights into the dynamics of actor
networks.
6 Conclusion
The study showed that within the small region of the BMR, a large number of actors with di-
verse roles are actively contributing to the transition to more sustainable agriculture and re-
gional value chains. The range of actors involved is diverse, some even taking on multiple
roles and working in different sectors. The roles and actors described within the study provide
only a small insight into the diversity and represent a snapshot of the current and dynamic
landscape on the ground. This makes it clear how multi-layered and evolving the roles and
contributions of actors are in the context of transition processes towards sustainability.
Furthermore, our findings show a differentiated interplay of actors operating at both the niche
and regime levels. Especially at the niche level, a large number of actors with specialized roles
are active. In order to make progress, networking and knowledge sharing between these niche
actors must be promoted, possibly through peer-to-peer mechanisms. Equally important is the
transfer of initiatives and knowledge from the niche level to the regime level. To effectively
drive the transition process, support structures within the regime need to be strengthened,
including the empowerment of change agents in the political sphere.
The MAP has proven to be a useful tool for identifying actors and can also be applied to other
regions based on the experience gained in this study. While it can be assumed that comparable
roles can be found in other regions, new roles may emerge depending on the respective con-
text. Additionally, the frequency of certain roles may vary by region. For example, the hinderer
role, which was not identified in this study, might be more prevalent in other areas. Building on
this information, specific measures can be taken based on the presence of individual roles to
navigate the transition process. For instance, if there is a lack of innovators, incentives for
innovation could be created through funding. Conversely, if there are many hinderers, oppor-
tunities for dialogue and conflict resolution might be established.
16
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
Nevertheless, it is important to note two limitations of this study. First, due to its one-off nature,
it is a static snapshot rather than a continuous analysis of ongoing transition and changing
roles. This limitation is particularly important when considering that actors' roles are fluid and
dynamic ‒ one of the key findings of this study. Second, the study did not directly examine
whether the identified actors saw themselves in accordance with the roles assigned to them
by the researchers. These aspects are important areas for future research.
To conclude, the journey towards more sustainable agri-food systems is a collective endeavor
that requires the commitment, innovation and resilience of all actors involved. The BMR serves
as a microcosm for the broader challenges and opportunities associated with the transition of
global agri-food systems. By further exploring and understanding the roles and interactions of
actors in these processes, we can better manage the complexity of sustainability transitions,
provide concrete actions to navigate the different roles and achieve our shared environmental
and societal goals.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts Baden-Württem-
berg within its program “Ökolandbauforschung Baden-Württemberg” (33-7533-24-11/7/3). Fur-
thermore, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to our interview partners for their
time and trust.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding
author, Carolin Schweizerhof. The data are not publicly available due to the privacy of research
participants.
Competing Interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
References
Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J.M. (2016): Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions: A
multi-actor perspective. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 18(5): 628-649.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2015.1112259.
Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. (2018): Transformative social innovation and its multi-actor nature.
Atlas of Social Innovation–New Practices for a Better Future. In: Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C.,
Schröder, A., Zirngiebl, M. (eds.): Sozialforschungsstelle Dortmund. TU Dortmund: 47-50.
https://www.socialinnovationatlas.net/fileadmin/PDF/einzeln/01_SI-
Landscape_Global_Trends/01_09_Transformative-SI-Multi-Actor-Nature_Avelino-
Wittmayer.pdf.
Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J.M. (2019): The transformative potential of plural social enterprise.
Theory of Social Enterprise and Pluralism: 193-221.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429291197-10.
Baird, J., Plummer, R., Pickering, K. (2014): Priming the governance system for climate change
adaptation: The application of a social-ecological inventory to engage actors in Niagara,
Canada. Ecology and Society 19 (1): art3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06152-190103.
Barbanente, A., Grassini, L. (2022): Fostering transitions in landscape policies: A multi-level
perspective. Land Use Policy 112: 105869.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2021.105869.
Bellon, S., Lamine, C. (2009): Conversion to organic farming: A multidimensional research
object at the crossroads of agricultural and social sciences - A review. In: Lichtfouse, E.,
17
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
Navarrete, M., Debaeke, P., Véronique, S., Alberola, C. (eds.): Sustainable Agriculture.
Springer, Dordrecht: 653-672. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2666-8_40.
Biddle, B.J. (1986): Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology 12(1):
67-92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435.
BMEL (2021): Ackerbaustrategie 2035 Perspektiven für einen produktiven und vielfältigen
Pflanzenbau.
https://www.bmel.de/DE/themen/landwirtschaft/pflanzenbau/ackerbau/ackerbaustrategie.h
tml.
Bodenheimer, M., Dütschke, E. (2021): Lost in transition? Disentangling agency, activities and
actor roles. In: International Sustainability Transitions Conference 2021.
https://doi.org/10.24406/publica-73.
Böröcz, J., Southworth, C. (1998): “Who you know” earnings effects of formal and informal
social network resources under late state socialism in Hungary, 1986-1987. The Journal of
Socio-Economics 27 (3): 401-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(99)80096-1.
Brown, R.R., Farrelly, M.A., Loorbach, D.A. (2013): Actors working the institutions in
sustainability transitions: The case of Melbourne’s stormwater management. Global
Environmental Change 23 (4): 701-718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.013.
Bünger, A. (2018): Die Bedeutung von regionalen Innovationspotenzialen und
Nachhaltigkeitsorientierung für eine sozio-technische Transformation in der Agrar- und
Ernährungswirtschaft. Dissertation. Universität Greifswald.
Callero, P.L. (1994): From role-playing to role-using: Understanding role as resource. Social
Psychology Quarterly 57 (3): 228. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786878.
Campbell, B.M., Beare, D.J., Bennett, E.M., Hall-Spencer, J.M., Ingram, J.S.I., Jaramillo, F.,
Ortiz, R., Ramankutty, N., Sayer, J.A., Shindell, D. (2017): Agriculture production as a major
driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecology and Society 22 (4):
art8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09595-220408.
Darnhofer, I., Schneeberger, W., Freyer, B. (2005): Converting or not converting to organic
farming in Austria: Farmer types and their rationale. Agriculture and Human Values 22 (1):
39-52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-004-7229-9.
de Haan, J.H., Rotmans, J. (2011): Patterns in transitions: Understanding complex chains of
change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78 (1): 90-102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2010.10.008.
Deutsche Bundesregierung. (2021): Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie 2021.
https://www.zukunftsstadt-stadtlandplus.de/news-details/deutsche-
nachhaltigkeitsstrategie-2021-beschlossen-und-veroeffentlicht.html.
Diaz, M., Darnhofer, I., Darrot, C., Beuret, J.E. (2013): Green tides in Brittany: What can we
learn about niche-regime interactions? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
8: 62-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIST.2013.04.002.
Dresing, T., Pehl, T. (2018): Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse. Anleitungen und
Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende. 8. Auflage.
https://www.audiotranskription.de/download/praxisbuch_transkription.pdf?q=Praxisbuch-
Transkription.pdf.
El Bilali, H. (2020): Transition heuristic frameworks in research on agro-food sustainability
transitions. Environment, Development and Sustainability 22 (3): 1693-1728.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0290-0.
European Commission. (2020): ‘Farm to fork’ strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally
friendly food system. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/farm-to-fork-
strategy-for-a-fair-healthy-and-environmentally-friendly-food-system.html.
European Commission. (2021): Common agricultural policy 2023-2027.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/de/policies/cap-introduction/cap-future-2020-common-
agricultural-policy-2023-2027/.
18
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
Farla, J., Markard, J., Raven, R., Coenen, L. (2012): Sustainability transitions in the making: A
closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change 79 (6): 991-998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.02.001.
Felt, U., Igelsböck, J., Schikowitz, A., Völker, T. (2012): Challenging participation in
sustainability research. International Journal of Deliberative Mechanisms in Science 1 (1):
4-43. https://doi.org/10.4471/demesci.2012.01.
Newig, J., Fischer, L.B. (2016): Importance of actors and agency in sustainability transitions:
A systematic exploration of the literature. Sustainability 8 (5): 476.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8050476.
Forum Ernährung Heidenheim (2021): Entdecke den Ess-Genuss in der Heimat. https://hei-
denheim.landwirtschaft-bw.de/,Lde/Startseite/Forum+Ernaehrung/Direktvermarktung.
Fuchs, G. (2014): The role of local initiatives in transforming the german energy supply system.
GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 23 (2): 135-136.
https://doi.org/10.14512/GAIA.23.2.15.
Geels, F.W. (2002): Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy 31 (8-9): 1257-1274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8.
Geels, F.W. (2011): The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to
seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1 (1): 24-40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002.
Geels, F.W., Schot, J. (2007): Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy
36 (3): 399-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
Geels, F.W., Schot, J. (2010): The dynamics of transitions: A socio-technical perspective. In
Transitions to Sustainable Development: New directions in the Study of Long Term
Transformative Change (January). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273697987.
Genus, A., Coles, A.-M. (2008): Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological
transitions. Research Policy 37 (9): 1436-1445.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.05.006.
Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G., Smith, A. (2013): Grassroots innovations in
community energy: The role of intermediaries in niche development. Global Environmental
Change 23 (5): 868-880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.008.
Hölscher, K., Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J.M. (2018a): Empowering actors in transition
management in and for cities: 131-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69273-9_6.
Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J.M., Loorbach, D. (2018b): Transition versus transformation: What’s
the difference? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 27: 1-3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.007.
Hossain, M. (2016): Grassroots innovation: A systematic review of two decades of research.
Journal of Cleaner Production 137: 973-981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.140.
Jørgensen, U. (2012): Mapping and navigating transitions - The multi-level perspective
compared with arenas of development. Research Policy 41 (6): 996-1010.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2012.03.001.
Kallas, Z., Serra, T., Gil, J.M. (2010): Farmers’ objectives as determinants of organic farming
adoption: the case of Catalonian vineyard production. Agricultural Economics 41 (5): 409-
423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00454.x.
Landratsamt Heidenheim (n.d.): Bio-Musterregion Heidenheim plus. Retrieved February 23,
2024. https://www.landkreis-heidenheim.de/landkreis/bio-musterregion+heidenheim+plus.
LEL (Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Ländlichen Raum), ULB (Untere
Landwirtschaftsbehörden) Heidenheim (2019): Natürliche Grundlagen.
https://lel.landwirtschaft-bw.de/site/pbs-bw-mlr-
root/get/documents_E174456775/MLR.LEL/PB5Documents/lel/Abteilung_3/Agrarstuktur/
Statistik/A_Dienstbezirke/2021_Nat/ULB%20Heidenheim%20-
%20Nat%C3%BCrliche%20Grundlagen.pdf.
19
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
LEL, ULB Heidenheim (2022): Landwirtschaft Heidenheim 2021. https://lel.landwirtschaft-
bw.de/site/pbs-bw-mlr-root/get/documents_E-
302396977/MLR.LEL/PB5Documents/lel/Abteilung_3/Agrarstuktur/Statistik/A_Dienstbezir
ke/2021_RPS/06_LRA%20Heidenheim_2021.pdf.
Lindkvist, H., Lind, F., Melander, L. (2023): Actor roles and public-private interaction in
transitioning networks: the case of geofencing for urban freight transport in Sweden. Journal
of Business and Industrial Marketing 38 (6): 1376-1389. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-
2021-0494/FULL/PDF.
Loorbach, D. (2007): Transition management: New mode of governance for sustainable
development. International Books. https://repub.eur.nl/pub/10200/proefschrift.pdf.
Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Avelino, F. (2017): Sustainability transitions research:
Transforming science and practice for societal change. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources 42 (1): 599-626. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340.
Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J. (2010): Towards a better understanding of transitions and their
governance: A systemic and reflexive approach. In: Schot, J., Grin, J., Rotmans, J. (eds.):
Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term
transformative change: 105-222: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281364837.
Meadows, D. (1999): Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Sustainability Institute.
https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/.
MLR (Ministerium für Ernährung, Ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz Baden-Württem-
berg) (n.d.): Biomusterregionen Baden-Württemberg. https://www.biomusterregionen-
bw.de/.
MLR (2020): Der weiterentwickelte Aktionsplan „Bio aus Baden-Württemberg“.
https://mlr.baden-wuerttemberg.de/de/unser-service/presse-und-
oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/pressemitteilungen/pressemitteilung/pid/aktionsplan-bio-weiterer-
ausbau-des-oekologischen-landbaus/.
Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., Loorbach, D. (2013): Urban transition labs: co-
creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production 50: 111-
122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.001.
Öko-Valuation (n.d.): Öko-Valuation - Werte und Normen in der Landwirtschaft.
https://oekovaluation.de/.
Oliveira, H., Penha-Lopes, G. (2020): Permaculture in Portugal: Social-ecological inventory of
a re-ruralizing grassroots movement. European Countryside 12 (1): 30-52.
https://doi.org/10.2478/euco-2020-0002.
Pestoff, V.A. (1992): Third sector and co-operative services - An alternative to privatization.
Journal of Consumer Policy 15 (1): 21-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01016352/METRICS.
Rockström, J., Steffen, …, Foley, J.A. (2009): A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461
(7263): 472-475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a.
Rotmans, J. (2005): Societal innovation between dream and reality lies complexity.
http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/jel_class_system.html.
Schaetzen, S. De (2019): Part of the solution - Organic agriculture and the sustainable
development goals. https://www.natureandmore.com/sites/www.natureandmore.com/
files/documenten/nm_final_report_en_lr.pdf.
Schiffer, E., Hauck, J. (2010): Net-Map: Collecting Social Network Data and Facilitating
Network Learning through Participatory Influence Network Mapping. Field Methods 22 (3):
231-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10374798.
Schultz, L., Plummer, R., Purdy, S. (2011): Applying a social-ecological inventory: In Assessing
Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems : Workbook for Practitioners. Version 2.0.
http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/resilience_assessment.
Seyfang, G., Smith, A. (2007): Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards
a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics 16 (4): 584-603.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010701419121.
20
Schweizerhof and Bieling | Ger J Agr Econ 73 (2024), No. 3
Snyder, H. (2019): Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines.
Journal of Business Research 104: 333-339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2019.07.039.
Steffen, W., Richardson, ..., Sorlin, S. (2015): Planetary boundaries: Guiding human
development on a changing planet. Science 347 (6223): 1259855-1259855.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.
Talhof Heidenheim (n.d.): Retrieved February 21, 2024, from https://talhof-hdh.de/.
Timm, I.J., Reuter, L., Berndt, J.O. (2020): Role assignment adaptation: An intentional
forgetting approach. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, 2020-January: 4786-4795. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2020.588.
Turner, R.H. (1990): Role change. Annual Review of Sociology 16 (1): 87-110.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.000511.
United Nations (2015): Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. http://www.ustainabledevelopment.un.org.
van Poeck, K., Læssøe, J., Block, T. (2017): An exploration of sustainability change agents as
facilitators of nonformal learning: mapping a moving and intertwined landscape. Ecology
and Society 22 (2). published online: Jun 15, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09308-
220233, https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09308-220233.
Veisi, H., Carolan, M. S., Alipour, A. (2017): Exploring the motivations and problems of farmers
for conversion to organic farming in Iran. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
15 (3): 303-320. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1312095.
VERBI Software (2021): MAXQDA 2020 [computer software]. https://www.maxqda.com/.
Wittmayer, J.M. (2016): Transition management, action research and actor roles:
Understanding local sustainability transitions. PhD thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/94385.
Wittmayer, J.M., Avelino, F., Pel, B., Campos, I. (2021): Contributing to sustainable and just
energy systems? The mainstreaming of renewable energy prosumerism within and across
institutional logics. Energy Policy 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2020.112053.
Wittmayer, J.M., Avelino, F., van Steenbergen, F., Loorbach, D. (2017): Actor roles in
transition: Insights from sociological perspectives. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions 24: 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.10.003.
Wittmayer, J.M., Schäpke, N. (2014): Action, research and participation: roles of researchers
in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science 9 (4): 483-496.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4.
Zukunftskommission Landwirtschaft (2021): Zukunft Landwirtschaft. Eine gesamtgesell-
schaftliche Aufgabe Empfehlungen der Zukunftskommission Landwirtschaft.
https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/_Landwirtschaft/abschlussbericht-
zukunftskommission-
landwirtschaft.html;jsessionid=CCF76E0880DE690D96145E1586432C5A.live831.
Contact Author
Carolin Schweizerhof
University of Hohenheim, Department of Societal Transition and Agriculture (430b)
70593 Stuttgart, Germany
e-mail: carolin.schweizerhof@uni-hohenheim.de
21