A Critical Look at Dutch Greenhouse Innovations

Authors: Bjarke Landgren & William Mauricio / MSc Students, Sustainable Design Engineering / https://www.en.aau.dk/education/master/sustainable-design-msc-in-engineering
Aalborg University Copenhagen https://www.en.aau.dk
Written for the Sustainable Transitions Course Project
Introduction
Food is an essential part of human life and sustenance, yet how we produce and consume it has become one of the major challenges that our society faces today. The rapid increase in population, climate change, malnutrition, and hunger are just some of the problems that contribute to a complex and multidimensional food production system urging the need for solutions that promote sustainability. Several nations have been resorting to technological innovations to solve these issues. One example was presented to us in a video by Freethink called “The Futuristic Farms That Will Feed The World”, where they claim that the efficiency of the Netherlands’ greenhouse operations is the solution for sustainable food production success.
In this article, we will go into detail on the food problem while deconstructing the proposal from the Dutch and comparing it with the dominant method of food production. Furthermore, we will present a different perspective called agroecology that places farmers, local communities, and nature in the center of sustainable transitions rather than technological innovations.
The Theoretical Framework For Our Analysis
In order to analyze and understand how and if new methods of agriculture can emerge and develop within the current agriculture socio-technical system, we will refer to the multi-level perspective (MLP) theory (Geels, F. W. 2005).
MLP theory is a framework used for identifying the differences and interactions between three levels of analysis, the macro, meso and micro also known as the landscape, the dominant regime and niche innovations. See Figure 1.
Fig. 1: Multi-Level Perspective on Transitions based on Geels (2005). Made in Adobe Illustrator by William Mauricio & Bjarke Landgren
The landscape symbolizes larger social and environmental developments that have an impact on the entire socio-technical system such as the climate or energy crisis. The regime is considered the established method of doing things (also known as the business as usual) which is often supported by existing institutions, policies, and social norms. In agriculture, the current regime is conventional farming. Niches are new and emerging technologies that challenge business as usual, however, they often see resistance from the Regime. We will be comparing two different niches, one that relies on technology and another that is opposed to that.
The Netherlands’ Answer to Global Food Security
The Futuristic Farms That Will Feed the World | Freethink | Future of Food
The video starts by framing the food system problems that the world and regime are facing from the macro-level, such as population growth, change in consumption habits, and climate crisis. The narrative then focuses on how the Dutch greenhouse operations are a superpower in tackling these problems by utilizing technology to increase yield per square meter with fewer resources.
“The Dutch lead the world in tomato yield while using a fraction of the water that other countries use. But it’s not just tomatoes. Measured by yield per square mile, they’re the world leader in the production of chilies, green peppers, and cucumbers. Number five for potatoes, onions, and carrots.” (Freethink, 2019)

Next, the narrative delves into the innovations used in the greenhouse industry in the Netherlands, such as AI systems that track the origins of food to automated farming equipment that can reduce labor costs and increase yields.
When we are presented with greenhouse growing operations in the video, it is promoting the emerging technology as opposed to or improvement of the dominant regime. They state that consumption habits and a growing population call for the optimization of plant cultivation methods. They claim to have achieved a better way to do so, while simultaneously increasing yield per area and reducing the use of water and pesticides. They do so through technological modified greenhouses that can replicate any environment and monitor the plant behavior with AI systems.
Is this a radical change?
As described, the dominant regime within plant cultivation is conventional farming, growing large-scale monoculture cropping, with the use of heavy machinery, synthetic fertilizer, and pesticides to maximize crop yield. The efficiency of the current agricultural regime has allowed higher yields and bigger produce, thereby supporting population growth. Advanced machinery and specialization in the cultivation of mono-crops in large-scale productions have made large workforces within agriculture redundant, thus supporting urbanization (A. K. Roy, S. K. Singh, 2016). The regime has thereby changed the landscape, by enabling a bigger population with fewer people farming the land.
The need to sustain the population’s needs despite facing climate changes creates a landscape pressure, in the form of population and climate change, that pressures the regime to a change of practices or functions as a window of opportunity for emerging niches such as greenhouse technologies. (Geels, F. W, Schot, J. 2007)
The dependencies of efficient production make it essential that alternative niches can perform equally with the dominant metrics of yield per area, financial gain and perhaps consumer demand for specific crops.
The cultivation technologies utilized for intelligent greenhouse production have been nurtured as a protected technological niche since the beginning of the 20th century (Wheeler, 2017). The niche has been efficiently nurtured by expressing the expectation of efficient and sustainable alternatives to the dominant practices, thereby capturing the interest of a growing network of niche actors, drawing researchers, entrepreneurs and investors, supporting the development and commercialization of the technologies (Schot, J., Geels, F.W, 2008). Geels stretch the importance of different factors that affect the enrollment of new niches and how they affect the regime.
“if there is moderate landscape pressure (disruptive change) at a moment when nische-innovations have not yet been sufficiently developed, then the regime actors will respond by modifying the direction of development paths and innovation activities.” (Geels, F. W, Schot, J. 2007, page 406)

A stable regime will over time be developed through accumulated incremental innovations boosting performance.
In the video, it is stated that the further development of the technologies has been conducted through a collaboration between the government, science organizations and the industry. Thus rendering the niche a product of innovation made from planned changes of trajectory within the industry/regime. Arguably, the greenhouse operation is what Geel defines as a symbiotic niche that can be adopted as a competence-enhancing add-on in the existing regime to solve problems and improve performance.
The Sustainability Trade-Offs of High-Yield Agriculture: A Critical Look at the Dutch Model

Although showing great promise in increasing efficiency and decoupling food production from the dependency of surrounding weather and resources, greenhouse growing operations can hardly encompass the complexity of the problems within the agriculture socio-technical system. Here we will briefly discuss areas where we see possible shortcomings for the technology, and why alternative solutions or further development will be necessary.
Technical limitations and implications of implementation
In the video the technological improvements of green house cultivation is presented as a solution to feeding a growing population, however, there are limitations on what types of crops can be produced. According to data from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United states (FAOSTAT, n.d.) from 2019, the five most cultivated crops for consumption are maize, rice, wheat, potatoes and soy bean, accounting for 63% of the total food energy intake globally. When holding that up against data that shows cereal crop cultivation, including rice, maize and wheat, accounts for 50% of the world’s cultivated land (FAOSTAT, n.d.). According to Rinku Singh, cultivating cereal crops in greenhouses is currently not financially viable, and probably will not be in the near future (A. K. Roy, S. K. Singh, 2016). Furthermore, it is essential to consider the implication of the transition. FOA notes that the greenhouse-grown vegetables and fruits currently account for less than 1% of the global food production.
Transitioning the greenhouse production in a sustainable manner would be entirely reliant on sustainable resource procurement, considering materials for technology but especially for the energy consumption for the controlled environments. Conventional farming is mainly reliant on oil based fuel for tractors and machinery, however these emerging technologies are all electrically driven. It is hard to assess the implication hereoff, but it is vividly discussed (Kurmayer, 2023), that the European energy infrastructure already is challenged when it comes to accommodating the increasing electrical usage from vehicles and heat pumps, thereby requiring the establishment of a whole new energy infrastructure. This may change in the future if farms can operate solely on green energy.
Social impact
The video suggests that small-scale farmers and communities may have been overlooked in the development of greenhouse technology, as these innovations were predominantly developed through a joint effort comprising the government, scientific institutions, and the industry.
Even though we have argued that the greenhouse growing operations are not a direct challenge to the existing regime but rather an innovative improvement hereof, it still opposes conventional methods. Thereby, it can prove to render equipment, facilities and knowledge that conventional farmers have invested heavily in obsolete, leaving them in debt or without a trade. Therefore, it seems relevant to include and educate farmers that might be affected, to support them and related communities, thus recruiting them rather than opposing them in competition.
Even though we have argued that the greenhouse growing operations are not a direct challenge to the existing regime but rather an innovative improvement hereof, it still opposes conventional methods. Thereby, it can prove to render equipment, facilities and knowledge that conventional farmers have invested heavily in obsolete, leaving them in debt or without a trade. Therefore, it seems relevant to include and educate farmers that might be affected, to support them and related communities, thus recruiting them rather than opposing them in competition.
Furthermore, considering the heavy investment in infrastructure and technology required to start intelligent greenhouse production, it will be less feasible for smaller-scale farmers and communities to invest. Thereby creating a risk of wealth polarization, making the market exclusively for large-scale operations with major economic resources, and leaving smaller-scale farmers behind. Moreover, shortening the value chain by introducing local produce of previously imported crops will impact communities benefiting from the trade.
Beyond Technology: The Role of Nature and Communities in Agricultural Design
Photo by Sergey Kotenev on Unsplash
While the narrative of the video focuses on technology as the solution to a sustainable food system, it simply acts as a substitution to conventional farming in emphasizing production efficiency, therefore, overlooking important issues that are related to the farmers, towns, communities, and nature itself. In this next part, we will present an opposing narrative called agroecology which is a holistic approach to agriculture that aims at achieving environmental sustainability, social equality, and economic viability. In contrast to the Dutch greenhouse operations, agroecology places a higher priority on the role that human societies and ecosystems play in developing sustainable food systems.
In this alternative narrative, the emphasis is placed on a more diverse and decentralized approach to farming. The ability to experiment with various farming techniques, such as agroforestry, regenerative agriculture, and community-supported agriculture, would be granted to small-scale farmers.
An alternative to technology
While the greenhouse operations are technologically driven, agroecology promotes the use of different techniques for efficient farming such as crop rotation, cover cropping, no-till farming, and the integration of livestock to restore soil health, capture carbon, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and increase yields over time. The promotion of biodiversity and ecosystem services is a key advantage of agroecology over high-tech greenhouse operations.
Social impact
To promote sustainable production in greenhouse operations, the Netherlands has chosen a cooperative strategy involving the government, science institutions, and industry, however, agroecology prioritizes the needs and expertise of farmers and communities rather than only technological solutions, providing a more egalitarian and sustainable approach to food systems. It encourages diverse and regionally appropriate crop varieties and agricultural methods, strengthening small-scale farmers and boosting their resistance to shocks like climate change Community-supported agriculture (CSA), also offers an alternate strategy for producing sustainable food which means customers can help small-scale farmers, cut transportation emissions, and advance local food production by purchasing shares of their local farmers’ crops (Hvitsand, 2016). Developing sustainable food systems also requires involving consumers and communities through local food movements, farmers markets, and CSA programs.
Implementing new sustainable agroecosystems would require modifying the socio-economic determinants that govern what is produced, how it is produced, and for whom it is produced. Technology should be handled by agroecology in a way that it assumes its proper place in a political agenda that includes social and economic interests in its growth plan. Only policies and measures resulting from the adoption of such a strategy will be able to address the structural and economic causes of the developing countries’ rural poverty and the industrialized countries’ agricultural environmental problem (Altieri, 1989).

Furthermore, it would take a continuous effort nurturing the new socio-technical system, by articulating expectations and visions, building social networks and learning processes at multiple levels. (Schot & Geels, 2008)
Conclusion

In conclusion, the issue of food is complicated and multifaceted. The efficiency of greenhouse growing operations has increased under the Dutch model, which has shown promise in separating food production from reliance on local weather and resources, however, it’s crucial to take into account the technology’s limitations. Technology advancements are important, but they shouldn’t take precedence over the need to put farmers, local communities, and nature itself at the core of sustainable transitions. By shifting towards more nature and human-centered approaches such as agroecology, we could possibly achieve systemic changes, shifting food cultivation from being an industrialized operation to being part of the regular citizen’s life.
A balance between technological advancements, social and environmental concerns, and alterations in consumption patterns are necessary for sustainable food production.
References

Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken, M.P N, Hultink EJ (2017) The CircularEconomy: a new sustainability paradigm. J CleanProd143: 757–768
Geels, F. W. (2005). The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technology analysis & strategic management, 17(4), 445–476
Geels, F. W, Schot, J. (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, Research Policy 36(3), 399–417
Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology analysis & strategic management, 20(5), 537–554.
“Greenhouse agriculture for sustainable food production” by A. K. Roy and S. K. Singh, 2016: FAOSTAT. (n.d.). https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
Kurmayer, N. J. (2023, January 17). Growing demand puts EU electricity grid under pressure. www.euractiv.com.
Wheeler, R. M. (2017). Agriculture for Space: People and Places Paving the Way. Open Agriculture, 2(1), 14–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2017-0002
Christine Hvitsand (2016) Community supported agriculture (CSA) as a transformational act — distinct values and multiple motivations among farmers and consumers, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 40:4, 333–351, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2015.1136720
Miguel A. Altieri (1989). Agroecology: a new research and development paradigm for world agriculture. Agric. Ecosystems Environ., 27: 37–46.
If you liked the article, please like, follow, and/or comment on Medium:
https://medium.com/@williammauricio/sustainable-agriculture-a-critical-comparison-of-the-dutch-model-and-alternative-approaches-e6735b9b23db 
↑Back to Top