Enhancing Socio-technological Innovation for Tree Health Through Stakeholder Participation in Biosecurity Science

  • Mariella Marzano
  • Rehema M. White
  • Glyn Jones


Technological innovations demand interactions across academics, end-users and commercial stakeholders if they are to be ‘fit for purpose’. Stakeholder engagement can enhance the efficacy of new biosecurity technologies, increase buy-in as well as uptake and build relationships to increase ‘preparedness’. We explore the role of stakeholder engagement and social learning through a research project developing five novel detection technologies. Our aims were to underpin the technological development, facilitate stakeholder engagement and investigate the role of engagement in enabling socio-technological innovation. Targeted, time-sensitive stakeholder engagement is preferred, and this will vary depending on the TRL, whilst the more diffuse benefits of broader social learning remain difficult to defend. However, it was concluded that collaborative approaches are still critical in stimulating effective technology development.



We would like to thank all the project team members and stakeholders who generously gave their time to participate in the social research. The project ‘New approaches for the early detection of tree health pests and pathogens’ ( was supported by a grant funded jointly by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Economic and Social Research Council, the Forestry Commission, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Scottish Government, under the Tree Health and Plant Biosecurity Initiative.


  1. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. Scholar
  2. Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., et al. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biologial Conservation, 205, 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackstock, K. L., Kelly, G. J., & Horsey, B. L. (2007). Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60(4), 726–742. Scholar
  4. Boyd, I. L., Freer-Smith, P. H., Gilligan C. A., & Godfray, H. C. J. (2013). The consequences of tree pests and diseases for ecosystem services. Science, 342, 1235773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand, R., & Karnoven, A. (2007). The ecosystem of expertise: Complementary knowledges for sustainable development. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 3(1), 21–31.Google Scholar
  6. Brasier, C. M. (2008). The biosecurity threat to the UK and global environment from international trade in plants. Plant Pathology, 57, 792–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dandy, N., Marzano, M., Porth, E., Urquhart, J., & Potter, C. (2017). Who has a stake in ash dieback? A conceptual framework for the identification and categorisation of tree health stakeholders. Special edition publication from COST Action Fraxback.
  9. Davies, A. L., & White, R. M. (2012). Collaboration in natural resource governance: Reconciling stakeholder expectations in deer management in Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management, 112, 160–169. Scholar
  10. EARTO. (2014). The TRL scale as a research and innovation policy tool, EARTO recommendations.
  11. Everett, R. A. (2000). Patterns and pathways of biological invasions. Tree, 15(5), 177–178.Google Scholar
  12. Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies—The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galanakis, K. (2006). Innovation process. Make sense using systems thinking. Technovation, 26, 1222–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920. Scholar
  15. Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39, 495–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geels, F. W., & Kemp, R. (2007). Dynamics in socio-technical systems: Typology of change processes and contrasting case studies. Technology in Society, 29(4), 441–455. Scholar
  17. Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Firecasting and Social Change, 74, 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006). Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 35(10), 1441–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marzano, M., Dandy, N., Bayliss, H. R., Porth, E., & Potter, C. (2015). Part of the solution? Stakeholder awareness, information and engagement in tree health issues. Biological Invasions, 17(7), 1961–1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mulder, K. F. (2007). Innovation for sustainable development: From environmental design to transition management. Sustainability Science, 2(2), 253–263. Scholar
  21. Mulgan, G. (2007). Social innovation—What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Oxford: Said Business School.Google Scholar
  22. O’Brien, L., Marzano, M., & White, R. M. (2013). ‘Participatory interdisciplinarity’: Towards the integration of disciplinary diversity with stakeholder engagement for new models of knowledge production. Science and Public Policy, 40, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2006). The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perrings, C., Burgiel, S., Lonsdale, M., Mooney, H., & Williamson, M. (2010). International cooperation in the solution to trade-related invasive species risks. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1195, 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Prell, C., Hubacek, K., & Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 501–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., et al. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1933–1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34, 1491–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sutherland, A., da Silva Wells, C., Darteh, B., & Butterworth, J. (2012). Researchers as actors in urban water governance? Perspectives on learning alliances as an innovative mechanism for change. International Journal of Water, 6(3/4), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Webber, J. (2010). Pest risk analysis and invasion pathways for plant pathogens. New Zealand Journal of Forest Science, 40(Suppl.), 45–56.Google Scholar
  30. White, R. M., & van Koten, H. (2016). Co-designing for sustainability: Strategising community carbon emission reduction through socio-ecological innovation. The Design Journal, 19(1), 25–46. Scholar
  31. Whitmarsh, L. (2012). How useful is the multi-level perspective for transport and sustainability research? Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 483–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mariella Marzano
    • 1
  • Rehema M. White
    • 2
  • Glyn Jones
    • 3
  1. 1.Forest ResearchEdinburghUK
  2. 2.School of Geography and Sustainable DevelopmentUniversity of St. AndrewsFifeUK
  3. 3.Fera Science Ltd.National Agri-Food Innovation CampusYorkUK

Personalised recommendations