Graciela Nava Guerrero,
Rafael Silveira,
In this chapter, we present the main findings of our sub-system analysis. Additionally, we keep a list of information that we have and information that is still missing in our research. The last list serves as input for the field research which we will perform on Texel.
In Chapter 1 we conducted an initial exploration of the sub-system on Texel. Our objective was to get familiar with what is happening on the island with the perspective to Permanently Innovate. We analyzed Texel from the perspective of socio-technical and innovation systems (among with socio-technical niches and -regimes), governance of change, sustainability transitions and agency. We identified and studied the innovation sub-system on Texel.
Through an actor analysis based on desk research, we investigated which stakeholders are currently involved in innovation on the island and how they interact. We found that although many Texelaars are willing to start new businesses, those activities are not necessarily innovative nor sustainable. Our research also suggested that initiatives currently take place in relative isolation, perhaps due to individualistic views of life on the island. Based on the described state of innovation, we pictured the following vision for the desired Permanently Innovate sub-system on Texel.
Texel is 100% self-sufficient in the sub-system of permanently innovate when
Texelaars are able to identify areas of opportunity,
have enough connections to acquire all required resources,
and persevere to successfully conclude their project.
After analysing the current situation and picturing the future system, we identified challenges that need to be overcome for bridging the gap between the present and the future. Key challenges include the engagement of Texelaars in innovation activities and the transition from an individualistic view of life to a more collectivistic attitude.
In Chapter 2 we investigated daily life in the current system and selected a focus on which aspects to improve in the transition towards the future system, resulting in a design challenge. We analysed presence and used the resulting insights in pro-environmental behaviour and how people strive for well-being to design for presence. The daily life of citizens differs from that of sustainable innovators on many aspects, when analysed using the YUTPA framework. The aspects with most potential of improving with our design are situated agency, environmental impact and synchronizing performance.
Overall, the latter means that citizens need to realize that they have the power to influence their surroundings (situated agency). While using their agency, they would also be transforming their environmental impact and synchronizing performance, for instance, with group activities to achieve the island’s vision.
When the above aspects are improved, both Texel citizens and sustainable innovators realize they have plenty of opportunities and resources to contribute to permanent innovation on Texel. As our design challenge, we aim that all actors understand a sustainable transition as a future with well-being, so they are naturally guided to collaborate with each other. We also want people in the system to participate in the initiatives to achieve this common goal. As part of this, people should know their role, stakeholders should communicate transparently and short-term projects should be presented in a tangible way. Nevertheless, those short-term projects should strive for the achievement of a broader, long-term vision of the island with Permanently Innovate.
Adding to the regime-analysis of the socio-technical system from the previous, Chapter 3 analysed the socio-technical landscape and investigates how the developments support or work against our future vision. In order to study how innovations can occur in a socio-technical subsystem, we analyzed Texel from the concepts of grassroots innovations and intermediaries. We mapped innovation trends on Texel, based on findings from our previous chapters, on findings from last year’s students as well as on online resources and documents. Its aim was to expand the knowledge on the present state of the sub-system. We found that Texelaars have already been innovative, but this innovation is more and more focussing on sustainability. As always, Texelaars are happy to solve their own problems and be independent from the mainland. The ambitious vision of the municipality supports both of these trends.
We assessed, based on the criteria we developed before, whether the current trends on Texel contribute to the achievement of the Permanently Innovate vision. While current innovations in principle share the spirit of the sub-system we want to achieve, they need to be spreaded and become mainstream on the island. Furthermore, actors need to increase their connections with each other and increase their motivation to innovate. After studying and assessing trends on Texel, we had a look at the international trends that can serve as inspiration for the island, or that could act as allies for the development of their own vision. We found that there are many social movements from which Texel can learn and with which they could participate.
In Chapter 4 we proposed two different pathways and technical interventions that bridge the gap between the present and our future vision. To better understand how to propose interventions that lead to our future vision, we discussed the literature with a focus on the concepts of green industrialization, hybrid innovations and transition pathways. Based on those concepts, we developed proposals for the technologies that would be necessary to achieve our vision, includingonline learning platforms and innovation events. Those technologies (as well as the concepts) served as building blocks for the chapter, and as input to study presence in the current and future system. We presented two different pathways: Texel Innoveert and Sustainaversity. The former would start by involving local people in innovation events, where results from existing innovations are presented and where the most popular new ideas receive resources to start their innovation.The latter would start by collecting knowledge from current innovation projects and offer this in local and digital courses.
Finally, we have performed two interviews; one with Antoine Maartens, who has the role of an external intermediary, and with Anton, who lived on Texel until he was 18 years old. From Antoine the main lesson we learned ishow hard it is for non-Texelaars to make a change on the island. He names the strength of the local community as an opportunity for our design. Furthermore, he mentioned that legislation is a big barrier for innovation.
From Anton our main finding was that Texelaars would be willing to actively engage with the ambitions from the municipality, if only their input is being listened to. This has been important for us to validate whether the expectations for our future vision would be achievable, as we intend to improve the two-way communication and action between citizens and the municipality.
After analysing our findings in the research we developed for the previous chapters and interviews we concluded that we still need some more information to answer all our research questions. Below, we list our general findings until the moment and what are the topics we should learn more about during our week in Texel.
What we know
- Motivation
- Texelaars are motivated by money
- Texelaars want the island to be self-sufficient, since they have a strong sense of identity which differs from the mainland
- Stakeholders
- Who is currently innovating on the island, distinguising between Texelaars and non-Texelaars? What do they innovate exactly?
- Some intermediaries are present within the current system. They help people to apply for funding, and advise them on how to manage their project.
- Texelaars are not comfortable with following decisions from outsiders about their future, it would be more feasible to make them participate and incorporate the new ideas as theirs
- Interaction between stakeholders
- Texelaars are willing to share their opinion with the municipality if asked, but demand their input to be acted upon.
- Currently innovators rarely communicate with each other, though they are willing to open their houses to expose what they are doing.
- A previous platform to connect innovators (Stichting Duurzaam Texel) is no longer in use for this purpose
What we want to know
- To what extent do Texelaars have a natural urge to innovate?
- What do Texelaars think of the sustainable ambitions from the municipality? Do they support this ambition?
- Does a feedback loop exist in which the municipality learns and listens to Texelaars and do Texelaars contribute to the ambitions of the municipality?
- Which interactions and information sharing does not take place yet, although Texelaars would be willing to do that (when facilitated)?
- Is there potential for the municipality to become as transparent as we desire for Texel Innoveert?
- We expect that Texelaars have little trust in the municipality when it comes to listening to their opinion, input and suggestions. We would like to check whether this is true. Thus, the municipality might have to build trust amongst Texelaars.
- What do Texelaars think of our vision? Would their desire to live in this world?
- How do Texelaars share information in daily life?
- Which activities or events would invite citizens to join discussions about the ambitions of the municipality?
- Would Texelaars accept the interference/engagement of tourists within their innovation projects?
- In the future, how would tourism look like ideally? How should tourists interact and engage with Texel?
- What are the current intermediaries roles and tasks in Texel? And how do Texelaars think they should help?