Filtering by
- All Subjects: Sustainable development
- Creators: Wiek, Arnim
The Hawaiian Islands are highly reliant on imported foods for feeding residents and visitors alike. This is in part due to a shortage in food processing infrastructure locally that contributes to Hawaiʻi’s inability to process much of its own food products. This study examines the feasibility of increasing food self-sufficiency in the islands through utilizing legacy industrial fruit processing equipment recently acquired by Olohana Foundation, a small 501(c)3 non-profit in Hawaiʻi. This study asks: How can the Olohana Foundation develop their aseptic juicing line to best support increased food self-sufficiency in the islands? Additionally, how can the juicing line be re-deployed in a manner to provide sustainable economic opportunity to producers and other community members? Through interviews with Hawaiʻi food system experts, fruit grower and fruit product buyer surveys, and a review of selected Unites States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Survey (USDA NASS) crop data for Hawaiʻi, our team evaluated the feasibility for re-establishing the juicing line. Our results found that due to the lack of available locally-produced fruits and high start-up and operational costs, it is unlikely that the juicing line can be re-established as it was previously operating, producing papaya and guava juices and purees. However, there is no shortage in demand for locally grown fruit products in Hawaiʻi and there is high interest from producers in joining a grower-owned cooperative. We conclude with several recommendations for the near, medium and long-term. In the near to medium-term, we recommend that the Foundation pursue alternative configurations of the equipment to produce niche Hawaiʻi products for which there is adequate supply, including fermented fruit products. In the long-term, the Foundation should research the potential for sourcing produce from other Pacific-region islands, as well as work at the policy and community levels to increase production of fruits locally, lower costs of production, and lower barriers to organic certification.
Three dilemmas plague governance of scientific research and technological
innovation: the dilemma of orientation, the dilemma of legitimacy, and the dilemma of control. The dilemma of orientation risks innovation heedless of long-term implications. The dilemma of legitimacy grapples with delegation of authority in democracies, often at the expense of broader public interest. The dilemma of control poses that the undesirable implications of new technologies are hard to grasp, yet once grasped, all too difficult to remedy. That humanity has innovated itself into the sustainability crisis is a prime manifestation of these dilemmas.
Responsible innovation (RI), with foci on anticipation, inclusion, reflection, coordination, and adaptation, aims to mitigate dilemmas of orientation, legitimacy, and control. The aspiration of RI is to bend the processes of technology development toward more just, sustainable, and societally desirable outcomes. Despite the potential for fruitful interaction across RI’s constitutive domains—sustainability science and social studies of science and technology—most sustainability scientists under-theorize the sociopolitical dimensions of technological systems and most science and technology scholars hesitate to take a normative, solutions-oriented stance. Efforts to advance RI, although notable, entail one-off projects that do not lend themselves to comparative analysis for learning.
In this dissertation, I offer an intervention research framework to aid systematic study of intentional programs of change to advance responsible innovation. Two empirical studies demonstrate the framework in application. An evaluation of Science Outside the Lab presents a program to help early-career scientists and engineers understand the complexities of science policy. An evaluation of a Community Engagement Workshop presents a program to help engineers better look beyond technology, listen to and learn from people, and empower communities. Each program is efficacious in helping scientists and engineers more thoughtfully engage with mediators of science and technology governance dilemmas: Science Outside the Lab in revealing the dilemmas of orientation and legitimacy; Community Engagement Workshop in offering reflexive and inclusive approaches to control. As part of a larger intervention research portfolio, these and other projects hold promise for aiding governance of science and technology through responsible innovation.
I review historical trends in international development that led to the popularity of both sustainable development and beneficiary participation. This review identifies central themes in defining beneficiary participation and motivations for using it.
I also developed a new typology of beneficiary participation based on a literature review of how scholars define beneficiary participation. I found that the main dimensions of beneficiary participation are (1) participants, (2) channels, (3) types of inputs, (4) timing, and (5) goals. By making these dimensions explicit, this work helps researchers and development practitioners more clearly describe the types of beneficiary participation they study, employ, and advocate for.
To contribute to empirical literature about beneficiary participation, I conducted a case-study of two urban development projects in Bhopal, India. I collected data with a structured survey of project beneficiaries in four slums (two slums from each project) and semi-structured interviews with each project's organizers. And project documents provided secondary data on both projects. The results indicate that local elites did not capture a disproportionate share of either project's benefits, at least with respect to individual household toilets. Because project organizers rather than beneficiaries selected households that would receive toilets, both cases serve as counterexamples to the claim that beneficiaries must intensely participate for projects' benefits to be distributed equitably.
Finally, I review academic literature for empirical evidence that supports claims about the advantages of beneficiary participation. There is relatively strong empirical support for the claim that beneficiary participation improves project outcomes, but empirical support for most other claims (i.e., that it helps make projects more efficient, distribute benefits equitably, and sustain project benefits) is weak. And empirical research suggests that one claimed benefit, empowerment, rarely materializes. In general, more empirical research about beneficiary participation is needed.