ECOCENTRES AND RESEARCHCAN THEY MAKE A DISTINCTIVE CONTRIBUTION?

Peter HarperDepartment of Research and Innovation

Centre for Alternative Technologypeter.harper@cat.org.uk

Ecosites/ecocentres can contribute important innovations to knowledge, skills and social forms. But because the research activities of many ecosites are carried out in unconventional ways, they can easily be invisible to the conventional research and policymaking communities. Since these ‘official’ communities effectively define what counts as ‘research’ and control the diffusion of resultsand to some extent fundsthere is a danger that a significant societal resource is being neglected.

This neglect would be particularly regrettable in the field of Sustainable Development (SD), where we are usually dealing with dynamic and complex techno-social systems that might not be accurately modelled by conventional discipline-based research.1 New methodologies, new approaches, are needed, but these themselves need launching, testing and evaluating. Ecosites are potentially important locations for such new approaches, and should be encouraged in these tasks.2

It is possible to classify ecosites according to their style of research and their relationship to the formal research community. The ‘minimalist’ definition of an ecosite adopted by the European Federation of Ecosites (EF-Ecos) identifies something like 100 significant sites. Of these a handful have been set up specifically to carry out high-quality, peer-reviewed research, or at least have a strong formal research component in their founding brief. At the other extreme, we can identify a fair number of sites that perform no obvious research activity at all. Between these extremes, many ecosites carry out a wide range of research-like activities, and it is this ‘in-between’ group that is most significant for the present discussion. The EF-Ecos definition uses the word ‘innovation’ rather than ‘research’ and this is probably a better term to evoke the novelties being explored in most ecosites.

Some Ecosites carry out formal, peer-reviewed research and are specifically constituted to do so. I shall call these ‘Primary Research Ecosites’ (PREs) because for them, research is a primary activity. Examples of PREs include Ecosite du Pays de Thau, HDRA, Elm Farm, Folkecenter, the National Botanic Garden of Wales, Ökozentrum Langenbruck, ITER, and the Rocky Mountain Institute. Visits to their web sites will give a good idea of the range of their research activities, and the important documents they have produced over many years.

How does the research of PREs differ from that carried out in conventional research institutions connected with universities, commercial companies or government bodies? Of course there are considerable overlaps. The main differences are that PRE researchers are likely to be motivated in a different way, and that topics selected are oriented to real problems of sustainable development. The research is generally of an applied kind, although from time 1 Ravetz, J.R. “What is Post-Normal Science?”, Futures, 31, 647-654, 1999.2 Kemp, R., Schot, J., and Hoogma, J.R. “Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of Strategic Niche Management”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10 (2), 175-195, 1998.

1

to time pure research into underlying principles is required to fill gaps left by the conventional process. The research has a direction, and this imparts a sense of larger purpose. We might say it ‘has an edge to it’. There is no evidence that this results in a loss of quality. On the contrary, PREs are generally accepted as respected members of the professional research community.

In contrast, what I shall ‘Secondary Research Ecosites’ (SREs) are those in which research is not the principal activity, but which nevertheless have contributed significant innovations in sustainable development. They include CAT, De Kleine Aarde, Energie und Umweltzentrum am Deister, Artefact, CERES, Terre Vivante, De Twaalf Ambachten, Centrum Duurzaambouwen, Sunseed Trust , Findhorn Foundation. Some differences between these two categories are summarised in Table 1

TABLE 1: DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY RESEARCH SITESPRIMARY RESEARCH ECOSITES SECONDARY RESEARCH ECOSITESThe research is explicitly (and actually) part of the project programme

Research develops as an ‘optional extra’ perhaps by accident or through the enthusiasm of some individuals

“Real” research and accepted as such in the wider research community

Probably better described as “innovation”.

Usually imbued with ‘professional research culture’

More a culture of inventors, enthusiasts and bricoleurs

The ‘clientele’ is a professional community of researchers, officials and decision-makers

The ‘clientele’ is householders, SMEs, educators and social activists

There is both fundamental research and applied development

Generally more ‘D’ than ‘R’, usually responding to a specific problem

There is a bias towards systems and methods with a commercial application, that can be automated and scaled up

There is a bias towards low-tech systems that can be easily used in a non-commercial situation

Good quality control through rigorous institutional routines and peer-review

Erratic quality control

Dissemination of results can be both formal (for the professional community) and informal (for the wider public)

Only informal dissemination, usually through ‘grapevine’, internal publications, popular media, grey literature

‘Writing up’ is part of the culture and reward system

Writing up is simply an extra burden and often neglected

Results can be retrieved through mechanised indexing, or through well-maintained web sites

Results are often difficult to locate and retrieve. Sometimes it is hard to discover what research has actually been done

Results are acceptable for citation in peer-reviewed papers

Results are usually not acceptable for citation. The work is usually ignored in the formal research community, or ‘borrowed’ without acknowledgement

Usually a long-term research framework within which ‘opportunistic’ work can also be carried out

Often one-off research projects, usually with no long-term research plan

Often funded by ‘official’ research grants, and also by business and charitable foundations. Usually the work does not proceed unless

Usually cannot access dedicated research funds. Much work un-funded, or carried out on the back of other, separately-funded, projects. Quality affected

2

adequate funding is available by meagre fundingUsually complete programmes carried through to final results

Usually ‘pilot’ research projects, generating suggestive results that would require validation in a more formal context

Tendency to operate within conventional disciplinary boundaries

Tendency to ignore conventional disciplines. Can be extremely wide-ranging, and interdisciplinary

Range restricted by what is fundable, profitable, acceptable to peers

Range restricted by ethics and ideology, sometimes from outside the research group

Possible limitations due to confidentiality or patent protection

Usually all work is in the public domain

Research funding often a major component of overall income

Research funding a minor component of income

Restricted to approved methodologies and ‘safe’ topics

Can address some topics, and use some methods, that formal research would find difficult

Would benefit from partnerships with less formal organisations in order to access certain types of funds

Could benefit in several ways from partnerships with more formal research bodies.

The whole spectrum of SD research is actually slightly wider than this, summarised in Table 2. Conventional research bodies try to maintain a maximum of control. The reliability and replicability of the results is paramount. Ecosites are looking for useful results relevant to sustainable development, and are prepared to tolerate lower standards of control if required. Some ecosites have relinquished all aspirations to well-controlled conditions,. but might nevertheless develop innovations ‘incidentally’ as part of their overall interest in promoting SD, or through attracting the interest of a commercial company wishing to test-run a new product or system (in terms of the terminology developed here, they might be called ‘tertiary research ecosites’ but they will not be mentioned further). All ecosites can have an important role in promoting the diffusion of new technologies or principles through demonstration and implementation, publications, consultancy and so on, but here we will restrict the debate to the process of innovation itself.

TABLE 2: LEVELS OF FORMALITY IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT-ORIENTED RESEARCH

Formal research in controlled context

Deliberately applied innovation

Incidental innovation

Conventional research bodies X x‘Primary research’ ecosites (PREs) X X x‘Secondary research’ ecosites (SREs) x X XSites with no recognised research function x X

The bulk of this presentation is devoted to an analysis of the research/innovation carried out by a representative SRE, because this is relatively unrecognised category, and there are numerous novel principles to put forward for discussion. However, further illumination can

3

come from a look at the research work carried out by a representative PRE, and we shall turn to this first.

It should be remarked of course, that this classification of ecosites is made only with respect to their research functions. It is not intended to be applied in any other context.

RESEARCH AT A PRIMARY RESEARCH ECOSITEThe case of HDRA, England, UK.

HDRA is the principal demonstration site for organic agriculture and horticulture in the UK. The history of HDRA is significant. It started as the inspiration of one remarkable individual, Lawrence D.Hills, whose mission was to promote organic gardening and to that end, carry out research to test its benefits and improve its methods. This work was initially carried out in a large private garden. Through a regular column in a national newspaper, Hills’s work became widely known and a considerable body of supporters developed. This led to the foundation of the Henry Doubleday Research Association, with the hallmark logo of the so-called Latin Square, the basic design for crop trials.3

Hills pioneered a new style of research in which experiments on the trial ground were combined with ‘member’s experiments’. Members of the HDRA were invited to suggest topics for investigation, and in turn asked to take part in trials. Such trials would then take place in gardens all over Britain (and beyond) and the individual results reported back and collated. Combined results were reported in the quarterly journal, in the weekly newspaper column, and in Hills’s books. This distributed and semi-formal research covered a wide span over the years: composting; pest and weed control; tests of new and old varieties of fruit, vegetables and tree crops; taste trials; protected cropping systems, and so on.

Eventually the work outgrew the original location and in 1982 a new site was chosen at Ryton, near Coventry, in central England, partly because a large flat area was available for controlled trials. This amounted to a re-foundation, essentially the setting up of a specialised but complete ecosite‘complete’ in the sense of a full range of ecosite functions:

a main 9ha site open to the public all year round, with usual visitor facilities two ‘daughter’ display gardens in other parts of the UK, also with many thousands of

visitors 100,000 visitors per year to the three sites interpreted displays on all aspects of food and organic gardening a membership network with 25,000 members a quarterly magazine3 The organisation, perhaps eccentrically, was named after a pioneer of the use of Russian comfrey (Symphytum x uplandicum) in agriculture, a plant considered by Hills to be an important element in organic husbandry. Research into the uses of comfrey has continued sporadically, and gardens all over Britain still have vigorous stands of the variety developed by the HDRA).

4

numerous other publications regular events promoting organic and sustainable themes active participation in public policy forums a dedicated test ground for controlled crop trials a permanent research department staffed by qualified researchers

The opportunity was taken to re-launch the research programmes on a more formal basis, and high quality research has been central since the establishment of the present site. Research has to co-exist with many other activities, but characteristically for a PRE, is a leading part of the synergistic mix. It contributes the largest single component of the organisation’s income, and is of course the cornerstone of its reputation in the professional world. HDRA has had a central role in making organic husbandry scientifically credible and acceptable both to the general public and to decision-makers.

Again characteristically for a PRE, a deliberate strategy underlies the research programme, which currently falls into three categories: Soil Nutrient dynamics, Horticultural Production, and Landscape and Amenity Horticulture (see box for more details). These three categories reflect the spread of necessary enquiry, from pure research answering fundamental questions about soil processes, through many detailed trials of particular hypotheses and methods, to the ‘software’ of farm economics and landscape design.

The pure research is significant. Usually ecosites will take as read the current state of scientific knowledge, and apply it to solving specific problems. Occasionally however, conventional research has failed to answer certain critical questions, perhaps driven by a different mindset, or different commercial and technological pressures. In the present case, soil science has been dominated by the prevailing paradigm of chemical agriculture, so the biotic aspects crucial to successful organic husbandry have been relatively neglected. There are clear gaps in our knowledge here, and it is very significant that an ecosite with positive values and an alternative paradigm should set out to fill them. The ability and willingness to do this represents an important and distinctive role for PREs.

At the more applied end of the spectrum we can see another important innovation, although a non-technical one. That is, the application of sustainability standards to amenity horticulture. There is now widespread acceptance of the existence and usefulness of verifiable standards for organic food and its production processes. But much land, particularly where there are dense human populations, is not used for food growing and the existing farm standards do not apply. HDRA argues that it makes equal sense to evaluate landscape and amenity work from an environmental point of view, and to develop a formal certification scheme. Hence this unique research programme.

As well as having their details searchable through the internet, some of the research programmes have on-line discussion groups to open the debate and attract further comment and data. This is emblematic of the open spirit of ecosite research. The enthusiasm for research is strongly shared by the members, as was proved recently during a management-initiated attempt to change the organisation’s name. This was understandable, since HDRA means nothing in itself, The Henry Doubleday Research Association is an impossible mouthful, and nobody knows who ‘Henry Doubleday’ is anyway. From a marketing point of view a change to make the name more descriptive of its subject to funders and the wider public, was eminently rational. Yet proposal was rejected by the membership, which apparently did not want to dilute the ‘research’ aspect of the organisation’s public identity.

5

TABLE 3: RESEARCH THEMES AT HDRA

SOIL NUTRIENT DYNAMICS

The soil nutrient dynamics research programme seeks to improve the techniques by which organic farmers can improve and manage their soil fertility, for example by growing green manures, by applying animal manures and municipal composts and by using nutrient budgeting to plan rotations. We are also seeking to understand 'soil fertility' at a more fundamental level by examining differences between organic and conventional farming systems.E-MAIL DISCUSSION GROUP

HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTION

Crop TechnologyResearch work covering a range of topics including vegetable variety evaluation, developing technologies for organic vegetable transplants, promoting organic vegetable seed production and studies on the suitability of different break crops in organic rotations.Pest, Disease and Weed ManagementPractical research focusing on weed and disease control strategies for organic field vegetable production. Other work aims to test forecasting or management models developed for weed or pest control in conventional systems for their relevance to organic growers. E-MAIL DISCUSSION GROUPEconomics, Marketing and PolicyCurrent research covers three areas from a wider system perspective. Studies are being undertaken on conversion to organic field vegetable production, on-farm production and whole system economics as well as on marketing from farm level to international level. The research also aims to provide information on the implications for setting policy on organic issues.

LANDSCAPE AND AMENITY HORTICULTURE

The Landscape and Amenity Horticulture team is working to extend the principles of organic growing into gardening, landscaping and amenity horticulture projects and situations. In support of this work we are also investigating the quality and use of organic waste materials. We work with relevant industry representatives and policy makers to develop guidelines and standards, and with producers, formulators and users of recycled organic materials to assess and improve product quality and utilisation.

RESEARCH AT A SECONDARY RESEARCH ECOSITECase of CAT, Wales, UK.

6

Unlike the specialised HDRA, The Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) has tried to cover a wider range of the issues connected with SD. A glance at CAT’s web site (www.cat.org.uk) reveals many different themes and activities. Research, however, does not stand out. It is characteristic of the culture of most SREs that research and innovation are not seen as separate activities, but emerge as part of an ongoing exploration across a wide front. However, in a broader sense, a great deal of research has been undertaken over the years. It is far less organised that that of a PRE, but extremely wide-ranging and arguably has turned up a great deal of useful knowledge. This will be discussed in some detail because it is likely to be unfamiliar.

It is partly the cultural qualities of many SREs that make their approach to research different, and one might hope, complementary, to conventional practice and content. The conventional world inevitably has institutional blindnesses and timidities. It is blind to certain possibilities that superficially conflict with prevailing taste or commercial interests; and even if it is aware of them, they are viewed as uninteresting because there is no prospect of realising them, getting them taken up, or making them profitable. In contrast, the ‘alternative’ world represented by many ecosites can both see different things, and be willing to engage with them, develop their possibilities, bring them closer to the conventional world. It is the very differences in ideology, taste, style, vision of SREs that render them potentially valuable as centres of innovation complementary to the mainstream processes.4

We will give examples from a number of distinct categories, although many actual research processes fall into several of these classes: Hardware innovations ‘First Approximations’ to evaluate the direction or size of an effect, pending fuller

investigation ‘Cinderella’ research topics deliberately neglected by the mainstream community Methodological improvements Policy research Innovations in communication and pedagogy

HARDWARE INNOVATIONSThese are among the least surprising. They are precisely the kind of eco-technical ‘cliches’ that the public might expect of ecosites, but it should be noticed how the different style and ethos of the organisation can select unusual problems and tackle them in unusual ways.

Construction of a large, low-cost solar heating system using a 100m3 hot water inter-seasonal heat store. This was built in 1977 and was the first of its kind in the UK. It was dismantled in 1995, but the knowledge and experience fed forward into the more sophisticated solar/biomass district heating system that presently serves the site, that also incorporates a heat-store.

The Biomass Monitor, an electrical method for measuring the volume of live tissue in a solution. This was originally designed for monitoring the processes inside anaerobic/biogas digestion installations, but turned out to have much wider applications, particularly in the

4 Smith, A. “Transforming technological regimes for sustainable development: a role for alternative technology niches?”, Science and Public Policy, 30 (2), 127-135, 2000.

7

brewing and pharmaceutical industries. A spin-off company was created to commercialise the device and has proved highly successful, with many subsequent electronic inventions.5

Incremental improvements in self-build housing systems. In the late 1970s CAT adopted a simple timber frame construction method in order to encourage and teach the techniques of owner-building. This was later refined by the addition of low operating-energy features such as insulation and low-e glazing. Later still the influence of the German Baubiologie movement stimulated the specification of materials to reflect effects on the health of occupants. Finally ‘low embodied-energy’ materials were specified in addition to all previous requirements. The net result of 25 years evolution is a fully sustainable house still buildable by non-professionals at a reasonable price. 6

Other building innovations. Over the years there have been many experiments, not all successful. For example, using straw and sheep’s wool for insulation in a wet climate has shown the vital importance of keeping these materials dry if they are not to suffer from asthma-inducing moulds. But of course a great deal can be learned from acknowledged and publicised failures. Among the successful innovations have been the use of narrow-section earth columns as internal load-bearing elements, the construction of large public buildings free of cement-based mortars and concrete, and the integration of photovoltaic panels as roofing elements in their own right.7

Incremental improvements in designs for waterless toilets. There are circumstances when sanitary facilities are required, but it is impossible or inappropriate to install a conventional flush toilet. In fact, from a sustainability perspective waterless toilets can have many advantages over conventional toilets. CAT has designed, built and operated a wide variety of systems for use both privately and by the general public, and also investigated many standard commercial systems. Among the areas of research have been: optimising in-situ compost processes, passive urine separation, odour-control, user acceptability, pathogen survival and horticultural uses of toilet-based composts.8

Low-cost assembly of photovoltaic panels in developing countriesDuring the Eritrean-Ethiopian war of 1980-95 CAT was contacted by the Eritrean Government for help in supplying electricity for remote field hospitals and clinics that were under aerial bombardment. Since it was often difficult to supply liquid fuels to these hospitals, and because the local climate was suitable, the technology of choice was solar photovoltaics (PV). However, standard PV panels are expensive. In the Eritrean situation there was a considerable amount of skilled labour available in the form of disabled soldiers, and CAT was asked if this resource could be used to produce cheaper PV panels. Eritrean technicians stayed at CAT for several months to explore the possibilities, and a method was found of hand-soldering broken monocrystalline doped-silicon cells, cheaply available as rejects from manufacturers, and making these up into odd-looking but functional PV panels.

5 Specifications for this and other devices can be obtained from CAT’s daughter-company, Aber Instruments Ltd, www.aber-instruments.co.uk . 6 See Borer, P., and Harris, C. Out of the Woods. Machynlleth: CAT Publications 1999.7 CAT has produced a definitive textbook of environmental building, The Whole House Book, by Cindy Harris and Pat Borer, CAT Publications 2001.8 See Harper, P., and Halestrap, L., Lifting the Lid: An Ecological Approach to Toilet Systems. CAT Publications 1999. For parallel innovations in waste-water treatment, see Grant, N., Moodie, M., and Weedon, C. Sewage Solutions (2nd ed.), CAT Publications 2002..

8

“FIRST APPROXIMATIONS”In whose interest is research carried out? Commercial enterprises will pay for research if there is some prospect of commercial benefit, while governmental or quasi-governmental bodies will pay for research that is considered to be in the public interest. While these two forms of research funding serve vital purposes in society, they leave important gaps. Many groups and individuals have ‘research needs’ (or at least, desires) that are unmet by the conventional process, and some ecosites have seen it as part of their remit to serve this constituency, largely SMEs and householders. In the case of CAT there is a steady stream of enquiries to the free information service and the annual statistics reveal various areas of concern where it has proved difficult to provide answers

This can mark the beginning of an investigation into a topic of general importance that appears not to have been investigated elsewhere. Of course the resources are usually meagre, but CAT will often feel that a pilot study is justified, even though it does not feel able to carry out a definitive investigation. Some numbers at least are better than none at all, establishing a direction and some indication of the magnitude of an effect. It is generally hoped that the existence of a suggestive result will stimulate ‘real’ research organisations with access to the necessary resources, to carry out proper studies.

We can also identify other agendas here, such as perhaps a nostalgic fondness for the 18th-century style of science using low-cost ordinary materials and a cavalier disregard of disciplinary boundaries.9 Or perhaps an interest in bringing a scientific approach back into everyday affairs,10 or ‘extending the peer community’11

Does black plastic sheeting warm soil significantly?It is widely believed that covering soil with black plastic helps it to warm up for an earlier start in the spring. This sounds reasonable since dark objects absorb heat better than light ones. But does it actually work? It proved impossible to find any quantitative data. Simple studies with temperature loggers at various depths and conditions showed the effect to be rather small, and any temperature difference was lost within a few hours of removing the plastic. In contrast, the use of clear plastic had a strong effect, and was able to bring forward seed germination and emergence by up to two weeks. Here is an example of a simple series of tests that should have been done long ago by a reputable research body just to check a widespread and plausible belief which wastes a vast amount of time and material. The results were disseminated in CAT’s quarterly journal and by personal communication to other horticultural bodies, and are incorporated into courses. But they have not been widely published, nor developed further into a systematic monograph covering many different conditions. This weakness in dissemination of results is typical of SREs.

Effects of diluted urine on yield and other qualities of horticultural crops (many studies). In Europe’s early-industrial period human urine was an important commercial commodity, but was eventually superseded by synthetic chemicals and became simply a pollutant to be disposed of. It is still recognised as containing useful plant nutrients and a market is

9 Astonishing examples are found throughout a recent account of the provincial manufacturers and natural philosphers that constituted the Lunar Society in the British Midlands, Uglow, J. The Lunar Men. 10 Teasley, S. et al., “Participatory science via the internet”, in Fishman, B. and O’Connor-Divelbics, S. (Eds), 4th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Erlbaum 2000.11 Funtowitz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R., “Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of Post-Normal Science”, in Kusinsky, S. and Golding, D. (Eds), Social Theories of Risk, Greenwood 1992.

9

developing in Scandinavia to use it to fertilise pastures. Its use as a horticultural fertiliser has not been investigated.This is an excellent example where the divergence of mass-commercial interests and the interests of environmentally-minded householders and SMEs lead to different research priorities. It is fairly obvious why research into human urine is problematic, but that is only within the ‘normal framework’. Green-minded thinking will ask, why not investigate the closing of this loop? Why not attempt to use a potential resource that otherwise becomes a pollutant? Who knows where it might lead?

These are the kind of questions CAT has asked, and within the limits of its resources, has attempted to answer. It has demonstrated that human urine can indeed be used as complete plant food in a variety of different circumstances, and probed its limits: the frequency of application, dilution rates, mixtures with grey water, different methods of application, the root response of different plants, automated application systems and so on. This knowledge is supremely un-commercial, although there is a widespread community of interest.

Non-toxic treatments for potato blight.Scattered reports in the literature suggest that various kinds of compost extracts sprayed on leaves can protect plants against fungal and bacterial diseases.12 In particular, results reported from the USA in the last few years were especially impressive. If true, this could be especially beneficial for organic production of potatoes, since the standard ‘organic’ treatmentspraying with copper compoundsis about to be banned. Spraying with compost extracts naturally appeals to the green-minded since a certain mystique attaches to the many unknown qualities of compost. What we have here is the prospect of a cheap and non-toxic treatment. Enquiries at the beginning of 2002 revealed that none of the established organic research bodies in the UK were willing to carry out trials, on the grounds that the wet climate would make any such treatment ineffective. CAT thought this short-sighted, since the potential benefits were worth some small effort to evaluate. A small grant was sought from an appropriate charitable foundation and discussions were undertaken with the agricultural section of local university, which has several experimental farms. A randomised block trial was conducted in 2002, comparing aerated and nutritionally enriched compost extracts with copper oxychloride (the standard treatment) as control. The results on foliage infection and tuber yield were completely negativethat is, the compost extracts had no effect at all. Were the ‘official’ bodies then vindicated? They might well say so; but at least it has been tried under thoroughly controlled conditions in an unfavourable climate. A repeat is planned in 2004. Negative results are important and must be reported if the whole research process is not to be statistically corrupted.

In this case the university partners will be able to publish a normal peer-reviewed report, while CAT will use its own informal channels to disseminate the results. Such partnerships between SREs and conventional research bodies are an attractive way forward.

Simple, household-friendly methods of home compostingComplaints and requests for advice about failed domestic compost are among the most common received by CAT’s information service. It is surprising that no reputable bodies are doing systematic work on a practice that could, in principle, bring instant compliance with the EU Landfill Directive of 2000 that is causing so much trouble for British local authorities. Enquiries revealed that this was another case of a problem rendered invisible by a whole range of misperceptions, cultural biases, commercial pressures and institutional blindnesses. 12 See for example the web site www.soilfoodweb.com

10

In other words, the normal research process has completely failed. It turned out that the ‘solution’ is complex and has serious implications both for research methodology and public policy. This is discussed in more detail below.

It can be remarked here, however, that a practical system has been developed that is simpler, more reliable, and reduces waste more effectively, than standard methods promoted in the popular literature. The new technique involves the simple expedient of adding to the compost mass crumpled paper and cardboard, material that is already in the household waste stream. Results have been very encouraging, and several local authorities have adopted the new technique. But there remain many details to work out, and it has proved difficult to fund further research. It is not a fashionable area of study.13

‘CINDERELLA’ RESEARCH TOPICSJust as Cinderella was ignored and left moping by the fireside, there are areas of enquiry pointedly ignored by the conventional scientific community. These are research topics that conventional science will treat as nonsense, and conclude therefore that there is absolutely no point in investigating them at all. The problem for ecosites (or some of them at least) is that real peoplepart of their vital constituency of supportthink otherwise, and seek answers and guidance. Lay people derive their information from diverse sources, and often find it difficult to evaluate its reliability. Very often there is a large body of practice or literature appearing to support the truth of a matter that official science regards as false. Should ecosites invariably support the official view, and reassure their public that it is all nonsense? This is a safe policy, but problematic in that often there is no direct evidence that x or y is false, because controlled trials have not been done. And will not be done, because the outcome is regarded as already certain. This can look biased and hypocritical. Another possible approach is to be ‘even-handed’ and neutrally refer to the literature on both sides. This sounds reasonable but in many cases there is only one side, because, again, the mainstream has ignored it. We end up with a mass of anecdote and positive reports (usually riddled with errors, contradictions and wishful thinking, but nevertheless regarded as constituting a prima facie case), balanced against…nothing. From a lay perspective this begins to look like an ideologically motivated conspiracy of circular reasoning, and paradoxically can diminish rather than enhance the respect accorded to mainstream science.

CAT’s view is that here is an excellent role for SREs. It should be part of their responsibility to meet a perhaps over-credulous public half way; to accept that there are questions that are being asked and need answering. The answers are potentially useful: either they will suggest a previously unrecognised effect that might lead to new methods, orby consistently negative results they will help to dispel persistent erroneous beliefs. This is not trivial: a very large part of the general public conduct their lives under the influence of beliefs for which there is no evidence. Often they have lost faith in mainstream science to tell the truth: they ignore the sneering of bien pensant opinion as being ideologically motivated and self-interested. They are often, however, prepared to listen to the views of bodies not associated with the political and intellectual establishment. Ecosites can be members of this class. They can carry out soundly-designed experiments that will be convincing to all sides. They can effectively debunk falsity.

Within this process SRCs can perhaps pioneer a new role with respect to the mainstream research community, that of shock-troops to absorb the destructive power of dissonant fields

13 Harper, P., Cool Composting: A Fresh Approach. CAT Publications, Machynlleth 2001.

11

of inquiry. Such fields are ‘contaminating’ in the anthropological sense and can ruin reputations and careers. It would be difficult to obtain a standard research grant to investigate a taboo topic, and one’s reputation would be at risk even for applying. If, against all the odds a grant were secured but negative results were obtained, one would be derided for wasting time and money in pursuit of a foregone conclusion. Even if positive results were obtained, one would inevitably be embroiled in corrosive controversy, with research protocols being minutely examined and criticised, and ad hominem attacks on one’s judgement etc. There is definitely a risk to any research career that steps too far over the line of the orthodox framework,14 and it is hardly surprising that controlled research in these areas is so meagre.

But at least some research is needed in these fields, if ony tpo dispel error and demonstrate the correctness of the conventional paradigm. This is a contribution SREs are well-placed to make, because their staff are not ordinary members of the research community: they have no reputations to lose, no careers at stake. They can carry out the most ridiculous-sounding experiments, and report the results objectively and with equanimity.

What follows are two examples, both of which CAT has investigated in an open-minded spirit, and in both of which ‘negative’ results have been obtained.

Controlled studies of effects of the sidereal position of the moon on germination and plant growthThere is a large body of practice, lore and theory that relates plant growth to various aspects of the moon’s monthly cycle. In some ways, this might not be surprising, since the moon is known to affect numerous biotic processes. Surely some controlled trials would be reasonable, and rather inexpensive, since they could probably be incorporated into a fairly conventional sowing and cropping regime? One might have expected at least something in the scientific literature, but there is not.

In 1995 a pilot study was carried out designed to test for effects predicted by four different lunar planting systems. There was no evidence of any such effects. The results were reported within horticultural circles. It was hoped that this might lead to funding for a large and more definitive study at CAT, or that some reputable body would take it up. This has not transpired.

Studies of the effects on water of mathematical surfaces inducing periodic laminar flows.There are some European philosophical traditions suggesting that water can enter more ‘structured’ states than regular chemistry allows.15 Such beliefs have engendered practical expressions in the form of shaped flumes for the transportation of solid materials, and more recently, so-called ‘flow-forms’ that will entrain the flow of water over them and endow it with new properties. Is this indeed the case? People frequently ask.

CAT’s response to this was to set up a ‘public experiment’. That is to say, creating a real-time experiment that can be readily observed by the public, of which the results are not known by anyone in advance. In this case two identical cataracts of seven flow-forms were assembled in a small hemispherical greenhouse, each with identical flows of water into reservoirs from which water was pumped separately back to the top. One cataract was left clear so that the water could adopt a rhythmic, lemniscatory flow, while on the other cataract (the control) the pattern was disrupted by small pebbles, generating a chaotic rather than laminar flow. Various

14 See for example what happened to Jacques Benveniste, who strayed from biochemistry into homeopathy; Schiff, M. The Memory of Water. Thorsons (1994).15 Harper, P., “Weird Water”, Scientific and Medical Network Review, No 66, 1997.

12

dependent variables were measured, for example oxygen concentration, BOD reduction after introduction of a high-BOD material, vegetation in the reservoir, inflorescences of vegetation. effects on plants irrigated by the two different water streams.

After five years of numerous trials, no differences of any kind have been observed between the two sides. This is entirely in line with conventional expectation.

This consistently negative result has been reported within circles of those interested in these matters and has generated a certain amount of debate. Enquirers about flow-forms now have at least a token item in the conventional pan of balance, to counterweight the claims of partisans. Enquirers can be told that although CAT cannot disprove these claims, it has not been able to observe any effects over many years of testing.

COMMENT

The willingness of CAT to test unorthodox claims might be considered to damage its overall credibility. In response it can be argued that these odd activities are within the true spirit of science, that results and observations must overrule theory. And in any case, if a large number of people believe x=y surely it should be publicly tested, whatever the current state of bien pensant opinion?

At CAT a procedural hypothesis has emerged: that there are three classes of phenomena:A: that are utterly universal, objective and obtain under all circumstancesB: that obtain if the operator is committed to the process (i.e. some human agency is required)C: that are simply false; that never obtain

B and |C are obviously problematic categories, but we would wish to be able to advise enquirers about class A phenomena.

METHODOLOGY An area where ecosite might be able to contribute is scientific methodology. This can range from simple techniques applicable in many situations, to proposals for (and demonstration of) new standards for certain kinds of data, to new patterns of attack on interdisciplinary problems. An example of each is given from CAT’s work.

Use of leeks as a non-sacrificial test crop CAT favours the idea of encouraging ‘green’ householders to be able to design their own experiments and monitor their own results. In organic gardening there are many situations where a new kind of soil treatment (comparing composts perhaps, or other unconventional fertilisers, or mulch systems) requires a test crop, with the dependent variable being crop yield. A formal experiment will wait for the whole crop to reach harvest weight, harvest everything and perform the necessary measurements. This is often not appropriate for a small grower or a householder, who wants a result but who cannot dispose of a large yield all at once, and whose economic situation cannot bear the loss of an entire crop. Such a situation demands a crop that lends itself to non-destructive yield measurement. At CAT measurements were carried out of the diameters of leeks at soil level throughout their growth cycle, followed

13

by harvesting and weighing of the leeks. It was established that for all the varieties of leeks tested the harvested weight is approximately equal to (D1.6 – D) where D is the maximum diameter at soil height. This is independent of maturity or the depth of planting. It is a good enough proxy measure to obtain a result without harvesting the leeks, and carry out appropriate statistical tests to establish whether there is a significant response to different treatments.

Monitoring of sustainable buildingsCAT has a long history of innovation in sustainable building techniques. A buildingparticularly one open for public usecan have a strong demonstration effect. How can such an effect be deepened? Generally a major building will be ‘written’ up in the architectural press, and might receive wider publicity through competitions and awards. But how do we measure the achievement of such buildings?

Generally buildings are evaluated in a fairly qualitative way in terms of various features such as the use of low-embodied energy materials pioneering the use of new (or re-engineered old) materials minimising toxic materials self-supply of energy for heating and electricity water conservation collection of rainwater treatment of waste water

This is a start, and is becoming the minimum standard for ecosites. But can we not make the evaluation more quantitative, so a building can be compared with others, and we can establish a sense of progress? One way to do this is to monitor the building’s performance in terms of factors such as energy or water use, related to scaling parameters such as floor area, occupancy, activity rates etc. This requires certain meters and sensors, and the means to collate data.

Even this has a weakness: how can we be sure that the economic and or ecological cost of the building is proportionate to its later performance? Essentially we need a Life-Cycle Assessment of a whole building. To achieve this we would need to monitor every step of the building’s construction. How much of each material is used? How far has it travelled before arriving on the site? How much energy, of what kind, is used in construction? How long did it take? How many person-hours did it consume? What was the previous status of the land on which it was built?

We would need to do this for a number of representative buildings in order to establish benchmarks. This is an expensive process, and needs to be incorporated into the budget. It also requires the willing co-operation of a sophisticated contractor. This is precisely what is planned for a building development at CAT due to start in June 2004, with a budget of around 8m euro. When the building is complete, continued monitoring will be able to relate running performance with the initial costs.

Ecosites are well-placed to carry out this kind of work, because their raison d’être is precisely the development and demonstration of green technologies, and in raising funds for new developments the monitoring process is itself an attractive feature to certain sources of funds.

14

The principle of ‘multiple formats’Some practical problems are extremely complicated and cannot be tackled within the framework of any single approach. The social, ideological and cultural flexibility of SREs can be exploited here, to break institutional log-jams.

One principle that has emerged at CAT is deliberately to develop several different styles (or ‘formats’) of investigation that can be mutually supportive and, at least in principle, could lead to quicker progress. The idea is to proceed with several formats in parallel, bringing them back together for mutual illumination from time to time. It is an iterative process, in which each perspective can be used to view the others in a fresh light.

CAT has applied this principle to the question of maximising the diversion of organic waste through home composting. The details of this research programme, and the full rationale for each ‘format’ is given in Appendix I.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLICY AND THEORY

It could be argued that it is not the job of ecosites to act as think tanks or philosophy departments. Yet on account of their divergent Weltanschauung, they might well have usefully different insights on the theoretical or policy fronts. Their biases and blindnesses are different. Here are two examples from CAT.

Analysis of the UK Energy system.When CAT started in the 1970s the prevailing policy climate was quite different from that of today. Energy planning was strongly committed to permanent growth, based on newly-discovered oil and gas in the North Sea, and a vigorous programme of nuclear power development. To suggest that this was unsustainable, and that renewable energy could make any discernible impact, was deeply heretical and virtually unthinkable in established policy circles. Nevertheless in 1977 ex-academic engineer Robert Todd of CAT convened a panel of energy analysts glad to escape pressures from their peers and funding sources to think the unthinkable. They produced a booklet called An Alternative Energy Strategy for the United Kingdom. This argued (with comprehensive statistics and calculations) that given appropriate policy measures, energy demand could be held indefinitely at the mid-1970s level, while a targeted programme of renewable energy development could meet a steadily increasing proportion of that demand, reaching 40% by 2025. These ideas were greeted with condescending scorn by academic, governmental and industrial experts. However, the study was extremely effective in sowing new ideas among younger experts, who could appreciate its logic and who now occupy positions of influence. And indeed, 25 years later there has been a complete revolution in energy policy: the UK is more or less on track to achieve the targets proposed in the bookletwith respect both to energy demand and energy supply, and the UK government has endorsed the process as rational and necessary. Although the study did not predict this outcome, but merely claimed it was possible, its argument has been totally vindicated.

The members of the study group were all conventional engineers and energy analysts. They readily acknowledged that the approach taken by the study would not have been possible in their normal work environments, owing to pressure from peers, superiors and funding bodies.

15

Different institutional cultures are often required in order to think ‘outside the box’, and these can often be found in ecosites, especially SREs.

Analysis of global trends in the 21st century.Such an ambitious theme might be thought even more inappropriate to an organisation dedicated to essentially practical and applied work. However, a values-driven organisation has to have some kind of theoretical framework to ground its vision, maintain a coherent programme and provide a justification for its practical efforts. There is a genuine difficulty here, since ‘sustainability’ is a word that covers a multitude of meanings, many of them paradoxical or contradictory. We have come a long way from the stark certainties of 1970s environmentalism, and a modern organisation dedicated to sustainable development has to have some kind of agreed resolution of the new complexities. If it can find this ready-made somewhere, that is well and good, but if not, it is obliged to fabricate something of its own that matches its aspirations and programme. In the case of CAT, attempts have been made to construct a model of likely trends in the 21st century that balances both negative and positive forces and demonstrates the feasibility of paths through to a physically sustainable future. It makes a distinction between policies appropriate to developed and developing countries. It also makes a distinction between ‘first aid’ measures to forestall potential short- and medium-term catastrophes, and far more radical shifts of aspirations and life styles to guarantee sustainability in the long-term. In these ways it attempts to explain and resolve long-standing differences of opinion within the broad sustainability movement, which are revealed to be largely differences of perspective rather than substance.16 This is a continuing process, and is incorporated into CAT’s teaching and outreach programmes.

INNOVATIONS IN PEDAGOGY AND COMMUNICATIONSREs generally place more emphasis on demonstration and knowledge transfer than on research as such. But these activities are important, and can also be the subject of innovation. Here are some examples from CAT

Eco-theatreIn 1999 a grant was sought from the Royal Society’s Committee on Public Understanding of Science to finance the building of a dedicated theatre for environmental themes. The application was successful and the building was constructed from wood and straw with a grass roof. It incorporates the ‘Gaiascope’, an arrangement of mirrors that creates the illusion that the images on a videoscreen cover the surface of a 4m diameter sphere. This arrests the attention of children and is used to show environmental materials. During the summer months there is a dedicated team of actors working with younger children and putting on environmental morality-plays.

Web Site DiariesInnovations in building techniques have already been mentioned. How are these innovations and their associated techniques to be disseminated? It has become the custom at CAT during the construction of a major new building to photograph typical activities each day and to post the photographs immediately on the web site. This creates a kind of unfolding narrative for enthusiasts and shows very clearly the sequences of certain processes. Later, of course, the

16 Harper, P. (2000), The End in Sight? Futures, 32, 361-384.

16

diary remains on the web site as a permanent record and teaching tool. An example can be seen on www.cat.org.uk. ‘Eco-cabin’ residential units.The eco-cabins accommodate up to 32 students, and were built in 1988 to accommodate primary schoolchildren, although in recent years it is older children and university students that have made most use of them. The cabins have their own service systems that are managed by the residents as part of their educational experience, and can be monitored to assess levels of consumption. Heating is by wood, and students cut their own. They can relate a certain weight of wood to heating effects by a degree-hour logger. Water is heated either by wood (winter) or sun (summer). Gas is supplied for cooking, through a meter near the cooker to monitor consumption. Water for washing and toilet flushing is supplied from a 1500 litre pressure tank, but this must be kept filled by hand, carrying buckets from a stand-pipe 20m away. This helps students understand the volumes of water typically used per person per day for most domestic purposes. Sewage effluent is cleaned by a dedicated aquatic plant treatment system and the transformation of water from turbid and smelly to clear and sparkling can be readily observed. Electricity is a 24 volt system supplied by batteries that are fed by a combination of photovoltaics, small wind turbines and a 100kl reservoir with a 200W turbine. A live real-time monitor board shows the instantaneous inputs and outputs, and the level of charge in the batteries. The balance of supply and demand depends very much on the weather and various activities, and has to be delicately managed.

Students stay in these conditions for varying lengths of time, from a weekend to several weeks. The degree of ‘rigour’ can be adjusted. The real-time, hands-on features are widely acknowledged to transform a routine field trip into an unforgettable experience.

CONCLUSIONS It has been the purpose of this paper to explore ways in which ecosites can make distinctive contributions to knowledge, technology, skills and policy in the continuing problem of sustainable development. Primary Research Ecosites, built around an explicit commitment to research, can generate peer-reviewed work of the highest quality, with a special emphasis on relevance and usefulness. Secondary Research Ecosites, with no explicit research remit, can nevertheless generate an extremely wide range of innovations, many of them unlikely to emerge from the conventional process. Ecosites deserve greater recognition and support for the special contributions they can make to sustainable development.

17

Appendix I

THE PRINCIPLE OF MULTIPLE FORMATS APPLIED TO RESEARCH INTO HOME COMPOSTING

Rationale:Why is home composting potentially important? Organic waste takes up between 30% and 50% of the weight of domestic refuse in Europe. Apart from small amounts of toxic waste it is potentially the most environmentally damaging element in the waste stream, if it finds its way into land-fills. This is the basic reason behind the European Landfill Directive of 2000, the purpose of which is to reduce the dumping of organic waste in landfills. Local authorities, responding to the Directive, have naturally reached for technically sophisticated and administratively simple mass solutions such as incineration and municipal-scale composting. SREs inhabit a different universe, that of households and other small players, so naturally small-scale solutions are more visible, and more congenial, to them. Home composting is an example: it is an iconic feature of ‘alternative life’. Can it have more than a minor role in waste reduction?

This is exactly the kind of question asked by SREs, arising from their different outlook, responsibilities and economic circumstances.

CAT’s approach has been to try and look at the problem as a whole, divide it into “different ways of looking at it”, proceed some way into each of these perspectives (or ‘formats’), then use the insights from each to illuminate the others. The process gets quite complicated, and some illustrations only are given here.

Format 1Theoretical re-analysis.Knowing that this is a ‘Cinderella’ area that has received little attention from the scientific community, it is likely to be theoretically weak. Can we identify misperceptions, false assumptions, serious gaps in knowledge? Is there a disjunction between official knowledge and common practice? Is official knowledge itself inconsistent? This process identified many anomalies, errors and weaknesses, both on the official side, and in common practice. For example No group of any kind had set out to systematise the science of home composting It was widelyand falselyassumed that the biology of home composting was identical

to that of large-scale composting No attempt had been made to optimise home composting from a waste-minimisation

standpoint. Most home composting theory derives from a gardening tradition of optimising the

product, not the process. This has been severely misleading. Classical thermophilic composting does not match the pattern of household waste arisings,

and that this was not recognised Other decomposer ecologies appear to be more suitable, but have not been systematically

investigated Optimisation required work in several quite different fields: biology, ergonomics, social

attitudes, kitchen layouts, waste policy, product design, technology transfer and so on.

18

To tackle all these questions in detail is clearly beyond the scope of a meagrely-resourced SME, but it was nevertheless felt important to demonstrate how, in principle, the problem could be moved on. It is a typical problem of SD: an extremely complex mixture of the human and the technical

Format 2Controlled bench-scale systemsThis is close to the approach typically adopted in a university laboratory: to investigate relatively few variables in well-controlled conditions. In fact bench-scale work is commonly reported in the literature, but invariably follows the thermophilic assumptions and uses uniform, well-characterised material. It was our task to attempt a similar level of control but with different assumptions, and using ‘real’ raw material. from a network of ‘compost donors’. The disadvantage here is that we might be missing some crucial feature of composting in real household settings. Hence the importance of Format 3.

Format 3Full-scale systems in real households using panels of volunteers.80 volunteers took part in trials and new methods and new containers, with regular monitoring and interviews with the volunteers. This revealed data not apparent in the more controlled trials of Format 2, and the very range of beliefs, habits and potential mistakes that can arise in real households. One can never think of everything. Interviews with volunteers proved very useful, but with the limitation that their observations were not focused or systematic.

Format 4Participant observation by researchers in their own homesTo formalise this is characteristic of the different approach adopted by SREs. Yet it should be obvious that a trained participant-observer will be able to notice things that untrained observer cannot, leading to useful results and all manner of new hypotheses. Accordingly, all members of the research team applied the new principles themselves and became effectively part of the volunteer panel. Of course observation of single households has the weakness that it might not be at all typical, but this fault is rectified by the existence of Format 3.

Format 5Analysis of barriers to promotion and take-up at various levelsThis moves the focus away from technique to social and institutional questions. It applies to householders, to local authorities, to government policymakers and regulatory bodies. The barriers might be psychological, legal, technological, or economic. The situation is extremely variable even within one country, and is very marked across the EU as a whole.Discussions with waste authorities reveal numerous institutional blockages regarding home composting. There is a simple mathematical error in regarding the quantities as small simply because each individual arising is small; they simply fail to multiply by the total number of households. Anyway there is an assumption that take-up cannot exceed a few percent. Then there is a problem of measurement, and hence getting credit for tonnage reduction: if a proportion of waste never enters the official waste stream it cannot be measured. There is a weariness at the prospect of having to deal with the peculiarities of thousands of households rather one single contractor (perhaps an old friend). There are fears about public health and amenity issues, particularly regarding rodents, flies and smells. And there is a common prejudice against rather mundane, messy, old-fashioned approaches to modern problems.

19

Home composting is not the stuff of profit and preferment. If the local authority representatives and officials do not believe in the potential of home composting, they will not promote it effectively and will fail to overcome the social and psychological reluctance in householders.

These are formidable barriers. Ecosites independent of local authorities are well placed to analyse them objectively, suggest ways to overcome them, and engage in constructive dialogue to that end.

Format 6Hardware redesign in accordance with new findingsAs new principles for home composting started to emerge it became clear that traditional and commercial container-designs were not optimal, and that improvements could be made. Accordingly a variety of prototypes were constructed to test different materials, aspect ratios, volumes, the design of lids and bases etc. Testing these designs fed back into the process of exploring the underlying biological processes, and questions of social acceptability, economic barriers and so on. A product-design student joined the team for her ‘sandwich year’ and created a number of near-commercial designs and prototypes.

Format 7New social roles for research workers in the communityThe trials with our panel of 80 volunteers were set up by one of the research team. This worker explained and demonstrated the methods personally to each volunteer householder. Subsequently there was a help-line and follow-up visits every few months to monitor results, correct mistakes and reassure the householders that the process was working and the results valuable. It became apparent that the success-rate for home composting, and knock-on effects in recycling other parts of the domestic waste stream, was much higher than generally reported in the literature. Only one household dropped out of the programme, and all others continued after the formal end.

Although there was no direct control group in this case, it seems fairly clear that it was the personal contact with the research team that was the crucial element in getting householders through the ‘germination phase’ leading to a permanent change in household practice. In bringing about such changes in lifestyle it appears to make a great difference if there is someone to notice it, who regards the changes as important. The same effect was observed by a researcher at Imperial College London carrying out a near-repeat of CAT’s process in a suburban part of Surrey.

SOME CONCLUDING REMARKSThe multiple format approach might be described as ‘broad and shallow’ rather than ‘focused and deep’ but it suits a multidisciplinary approach where detailed knowledge is lacking in any specific area. The different approaches do illuminate each other in the way that lights shone from different angles can fully illuminate a scene. In addition, some of the formats (for example #4 and #7) are particularly appropriate to the culture of SREs and bring distinctive new understanding and technique.

20