ARTICLE CASE

The Cycle of Trust Building, Co-Learning, Capability Development,

and Confidence Building: Application of a Co-Innovation Approach
in a Multi-Stakeholder Project

M . S . S R I N I VA S A N 1 A N D G R A H A M E L L E Y 2
1
Catchment Hydrology, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited, 10 Kyle Street, Christchurch, New
Zealand, 2Environmental Monitoring, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited, 10 Kyle Street,
Christchurch, New Zealand
Email: ms.srinivasan@niwa.co.nz

ABSTRACT Through learnings and reflections from a water-use efficiency (WUE) pilot study, this paper examines the
use of co-innovation. Led by hydrologists, this paper tracks the cycle of trust building among stakeholders, co-learning
of WUE problem, co-developing of possible solutions and practices, identifying the need for capability development to
overcome constraints, and finally enabling confidence among stakeholders in adapting new practices. The hydrologists
built the trust among stakeholders by matching and validating stakeholders’ experiential knowledge through on-farm
biophysical observations of water use (irrigation) practices. This trust allowed the stakeholder group to identify con-
straints to improving WUE and helped the hydrologists to devise biophysical solutions and practices that support farm-
ers in better managing their irrigations. Observations also indicated that the process of capability development needed
to take into account of farmers’ experiential knowledge and integrate a learning–practice–confirmation cycle that would
boost their (farmers’) confidence in using newly acquired capability.

K E Y M E S S AG E tion, competing demands for water, multiple water users,

• An understanding of co-innovation process in
practice.
• An understanding of how trust among stakeholders
could be used in communicating science outputs for
better outcomes.
• An understanding of how co-innovation could lead
to co-learning and capability development and
improved uptake of science outputs.
I N T R O D U C T I O N A N D B AC KG R O U N D
In New Zealand (NZ), the use of technologies such as
soil moisture sensors to assess demand and schedule irri-
gation has remained stagnant over the last three decades,
even though the area under irrigation has been doubling
every 12 years since 1970 [1]. It was reasoned that the
use of a tech-transfer approach to disseminate efficient
irrigation scheduling practices has failed to include wider
water management issues, such as limits on water alloca-
and farmers’ aspirations to achieve greater water-use effi-
ciency (WUE) [2]. Irrigation management in NZ was
identified as a wicked problem [2, 3], and when addressing
a wicked problem, a linear tech-transfer approach, or a lin-
ear sequence of production and diffusion of knowledge,
has been found ineffective [4]. It was highlighted that on-
farm irrigation management is complex as it is “influenced
by several layers of technical, hydrological, climatic, soci-
etal, environmental, economic, regulatory and cultural
factors, which individually and collectively impose con-
trols and constraints on farmers’ ability and desire to
adopt efficient irrigation practices” [2], pg 139.
A pilot study was initiated in a river-based irrigation
scheme, the Waimakariri Irrigation Scheme (WIS) in
2012, to examine the barriers to the uptake of irrigation
scheduling practices among the farmers and the usefulness
of a co-innovation approach in improving the uptake. Co-
innovation is described as a multi-directional, multi-level,

Case Studies in the Environment, 2018, pps. 1–8. electronic ISSN 2473-9510. © 2018 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Reprints and Permissions web
page, www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/cse.2018.001255

1
and multi-stakeholder approach, where knowledge and
input from every stakeholder are valued in every phase of
the project, from defining the problem to evolving solu-
tions. The co-innovation principles used in the pilot study
were (1) take time to understand the problem from mul-
tiple (stakeholder) perspectives; (2) be inclusive of all per-
spectives; (3) value all sources of knowledge; (4) strive
to learn from each other by actively listening and under-
standing; (5) keep sight of the shared vision; (6) be hon-
est, open, and constructive while interacting with stake-
holders; (7) be aware of the wider context of the problem;
(8) be flexible and adaptable; and (9) stick with the co-
innovation process despite its frustrations [5, 6].
Through a selection of examples from the 5-year pilot
study, we reflect on the cycle of trust building, co-
learning, capability development, and confidence building
as guided by a co-innovation approach.
C A S E E X A M I N AT I O N
Pilot Study Description
The WIS is a farmer cooperative with ~240 shareholders,
irrigating a total area of 18,000 ha. The irrigation scheme
is located in the South Island of NZ. The scheme abstracts
water from the Waimakariri River, which undergoes sig-
nificant flow fluctuations in summer, resulting in poor
supply reliability. An earlier study, which examined the
irrigation practices in WIS, concluded that poor supply
reliability had been an impediment to efficient irrigation
practices and that farmers tend to manage their irrigations
based on supply rather than on demand (soil/crop needs)
[7]. Based on this, the hydrologists in the present pilot
study hypothesised that irrigation scheduling could be
improved by combining current soil moisture (a proxy for
soil and/or crop water demand), supply (river flow), and
future supplies (next 2-, 6-, and 15-day rainfall).
The role of hydrologists in the pilot study was to estab-
lish a co-innovation process that would be inclusive of all
stakeholders—pilot study funders, hydrologists, farmers,
industry professionals, regulators, and irrigation scheme
managers. The pilot study originally included five farms
(Figure 1). At each pilot farm, a rain gauge and soil mois-
ture sensor were installed under one spray irrigator, and
the data were relayed back to farmers electronically every
hour. Pilot farmers were given 24/7 web access to farm-
specific, near real-time rainfall, irrigation, soil moisture
and soil temperature data, and 2-, 6-, and 15-day weather
forecasts that were updated every 6 h. The forecast data
2 CASE STUDIES IN THE ENVIRONMENT 2018
included an estimate of timing and amount of rainfall
expected. A daily email was also sent to all pilot farmers,
displaying the rainfall, irrigation, soil moisture, and soil
temperature data of the last 7 days and the 2-, 6-, and
15-day weather forecasts. The hydrologists did not pro-
vide any irrigation recommendation.
Throughout the season, several one-on-one conversa-
tions via email, phone, and in-person about the informa-
tion ensued between the pilot farmers and hydrologists.
At the end of each irrigation season (typically in May),
all stakeholders were invited to come together for a work-
shop (referred to as “farmer workshop” hereafter). The co-
innovation approach used in the pilot study was aimed
at creating and enhancing co-learning opportunities that
would lead to an agreement on problem description, iden-
tification of barriers to change, and opportunities to adopt
improved irrigation practices. The farmer workshops
would start with a hydrological appraisal of the just-
concluded irrigation season, discussing how much irriga-
tion was applied, when, and why, and the differences in
irrigation practices between the pilot farms (see an exam-
ple in Figure 2). The hydrologists also presented modelled
information on drainage based on measured rainfall and
irrigation and published soil hydraulic properties. The
stakeholder group collectively reflected on the current irri-
gation practices and explored opportunities to improve
WUE through improved irrigation scheduling. The dis-
cussions were unmoderated, open, and transparent, and
provided a window into the diverse perspectives and
knowledge existing within the stakeholder group.
Detailed description of the workshop processes and the
outputs and outcomes from the co-innovation processes
used in the pilot study are available elsewhere [2, 8]. Here,
we have drawn examples from the pilot study to describe
the genesis of trust among the stakeholders and how the
trust enabled co-learning and capability development. We
also present an example highlighting the need to extend
the cycle of trust building, co-learning, and capability
development into confidence building in using new tech-
nologies and practices.
Building Trust
Building trust between the pilot farmers and hydrologists
was identified as a key task for the project team to achieve
its goal of improved WUE. On-farm biophysical obser-
vations of irrigation practices and observations of local
weather and soil conditions that could influence irrigation
FIGURE 1. Rainfall and soil gradient across the WIS area as defined by the farmers at the start of the pilot. The five pilot farms
(four dairy and one crop) are also identified in the scheme area.

FIGURE 2. Rainfall, irrigation, and drainage gradient across the pilot farms resulting in gradients in rainfall, soil type, and
irrigation management. Both rainfall and irrigation were measured and drainage estimated based on soil water holding capacity.
The gradients matched that of farmers shown in Figure 1.
scheduling (e.g., differences in rainfall and soil water hold-
ing capacities across WIS area) were used as tools, or
boundary objects, to initiate a conversation between the
pilot farmers and hydrologists. When considering the
selection of pilot farms, the hydrologists met with the
prospective farmers and the irrigation scheme manager to
gain an understanding of local soil and weather conditions
and how they were incorporated currently (then) incorpo-
rated into irrigation management decisions. Even though
the farmers lacked scientific skills or tools for monitoring
of weather, they possessed an enormous amount of expe-
riential knowledge on local weather gradients. Farmers
understood that the prevailing weather brought more
rainfall to one end of the scheme than the other, although
they (farmers) did not know the strength of this gradient,
and they did not use it in their irrigation management
decisions. Similarly, the farmers possessed a good knowl-
edge of variability in soil water holding capacities, though
they rarely applied that knowledge in practice. Based on
these preliminary conversations, the hydrologists deliber-
ately chose pilot farms distributed across the length and
breadth of the scheme to quantify the gradient, specifically
the rainfall differences (see Figure 1).
Measurement of rainfall at the pilot farms helped to
quantify the rainfall gradient across the scheme. At the
2013 farmer workshop, when the hydrologists presented
the gradient information (Figure 2), it matched farmers’
experiential knowledge (Figure 1). This match between
scientific observations and experiential knowledge
enabled a trust in the co-innovation process. The hydrol-
ogists took this opportunity to further the use of this
knowledge by highlighting the differences in irrigation
applied between farms, as influenced by weather and soil
water holding capacity gradients. This also allowed the
irrigation scheme manager to understand the demand
(water ordering) gradient across the scheme.
The co-innovation-based pilot study was built on the
premise that stakeholders could co-learn and co-identify
barriers, opportunities, and constraints to achieve a better
WUE. To enhance this experience, each pilot farmer, in
addition to their farm, was provided with access to irri-
gation data from other pilot farms. This open data access
helped in building trust among the farmers. When the
pilot farmers arrived at the farmer workshop, since every-
one had prior knowledge of others’ irrigation practices, a
free and transparent discussion ensued. The concept of
matching current and forecast supplies against current
4 CASE STUDIES IN THE ENVIRONMENT 2018
demand was a new concept, so the pilot farmers com-
mented on the need for a confirmation of their practice.
This need was intensified as hydrologists deliberately did
not provide any irrigation recommendation. The hydrolo-
gists indicated that farmers need to upskill their decision-
making capability, taking their own constraints and capac-
ities into consideration, instead of relying on external
agents (e.g., the hydrologists in the pilot study) who may
lack on-farm knowledge. The ability to see others’ irriga-
tion data was helpful with this capability building. When
irrigation scheduling between pilot farms coincided, it
provided those pilot farmers a positive confirmation that
they are on the right track. However, when their schedul-
ing did not match, it gave them a moment to reflect on
their practice and that of the other pilot farmer. With-
out such a reference, these moments of pause-and-reflect
would not have been possible in the pilot study. Here,
the role of hydrologists was limited to enabling such co-
learning and capability development opportunities.
Trust Leading to Co-Learning
Once a trust in the co-innovation process was established
between the pilot farmers and hydrologists, the latter
delved into understanding farmers’ perception to the use
of weather forecasts for irrigation scheduling. A discussion
at the 2014 farmer workshop indicated that farmers gen-
erally use weather forecast at the start and end of irrigation
seasons (termed as “shoulder” season, September, Octo-
ber, March, and April) and rarely during peak seasons
(November through February). Farmers perceived that
any interruption to irrigation during the peak season
would aggravate the dry conditions, thereby stressing the
crop and affecting the yield. While farmers acknowledged
that rainfall during the peak season would add to soil
moisture, they generally discounted these additions, as
they do not use rainfall forecasts for irrigation scheduling.
This provided an insight into farmer decision-making and
an opportunity for the hydrologists to analyse irrigation
applications and drainage during the peak season.
At the following farmer workshop in 2015, based on
drainage data collected at one of the pilot farms, the hydrol-
ogists presented evidence for significant drainage from irriga-
tion during the peak season of 2014 (Figure 3). The hydrol-
ogists highlighted that the drainage during peak season
resulted from poor irrigation scheduling, either irrigating
more than the soil could hold (exceeding soil water holding
capacities), irrigating when soil was wet from previous
FIGURE 3. Rainfall, irrigation, and estimated drainage at one of the pilot farms during an irrigation season. During the shoulder
(irrigation) seasons, farmers use weather forecast but rarely during the peak season. The evidence presented here shows that use of
weather forecast during the peak season could have reduced the number of instances of irrigation-induced drainage.

irrigation and/or rainfall events, or irrigating before a signif-
icant rainfall event. Unlike the earlier example, where the
farmers’ experiential knowledge and the hydrologists’ science
data agreed, here they contradicted. However, the trust built
in the co-innovation process helped in effectively communi-
cating the results. This also led to further discussion among
the stakeholders, which revealed that farmers lacked capabil-
ity to manage irrigation and drainage together, an important
step to better WUE.
Co-Learning Leading to Capability Building
At the start of the pilot study (2012), soil moisture sensors
were installed at 20 cm (depth to root zone, 40 cm), and
soil moisture was used as a proxy to trigger irrigations. In
2014, the local regulatory authority, Environment Can-
terbury (ECan), published agricultural good management
guidelines [9] that emphasised the need to reduce
drainage to control nutrient leaching, as leaching below
root zone in irrigated farms was identified as a key envi-
ronmental issue in NZ [10]. Since ECan was a stakeholder
at the farmer workshop, the emergence of drainage and
leaching management issues was conveyed directly to the
group, allowing them sufficient time to look for solutions.
At the 2015 workshop, the hydrologists, based on a
water balance model developed from observed drainage
data from one of the pilot farms, presented estimations
of drainage at all five pilot farms (Figure 2). These data
provided an indication of the extent of drainage during
the irrigation seasons, but these data were not available to
farmers in real time. This meant that the farmers could not
effect a change to their irrigation practice in real time. The
pilot study farmers urged the hydrologists for a solution
that would allow them (farmers) to assess the impact of
their irrigation in real time. The hydrologists sensed that
real-time knowledge of drainage would provide an oppor-
tunity to enhance the uptake of irrigation scheduling prac-
tices and weather forecast.
Following the 2015 farmer workshop, at each pilot farm,
the hydrologists installed a profile soil moisture sensor that
measured soil moisture within (0–40 cm) and below
(40–80 cm) the root zone. The soil moisture measurements
within the root zone were used as a proxy for irrigation

Multi-Stakeholder Co-Innovation Processes 5

demand and below the root zone as an indicator of drainage.
Whenever irrigation (or rainfall) drains below the root zone,
this was recorded as an increase in soil moisture in that zone,
and thus the farmers were able to see the impact of the last
irrigation (or rainfall). Also, combining the management of
irrigation and drainage using one sensor greatly increased the
capability of farmers and helped them to provide evidence
to the regulator of their irrigation practices. However, these
changes demanded that the hydrologists remain open and
flexible to alter their biophysical observations in response to
emerging signals.
Co-Development of Solutions
Co-development of solutions is central to a co-innovation
process. At WIS, farmers are required to place their irrevoca-
ble water orders 48-hour ahead of time. However, the pilot
farmers found that the 2-day rainfall forecast to be the most
reliable, which meant that there was very little time available
for them to process the forecast information and decide on
water ordering. This quandary was discussed in one of the
farmer workshops. One of the pilot farmers questioned the
usefulness of 2-day rainfall forecast for their farm where no
storage was available to store the ordered water in case of a
significant rainfall forecast. The neighbouring farmer (not a
pilot study farmer), who was present at the workshop, offered
their pond for storage if such a situation arises. Neither the
constraint nor the solution emerged from the hydrologists.
The workshop offered the stakeholders a forum to discuss
such constraints and co-evolve solutions. Here is a case where
the farmers, because of their proximity to each other and
being a part of the same irrigation scheme, were able to devise
a solution within constraints. The role of the hydrologists
was limited to providing an enabling environment, such as
the farmer workshop, where such constraints to change could
be discussed and resolved, where possible.
Transiting from Capability Building to Confidence Building
Finally, the cycle of learning, practice, and confirmation was
found to be very important in sustaining the uptake of new
technology or practice, such as the use of profile soil moisture
sensor. Such a cycle needs to be repeated more than once
to ensure the learning is well integrated into practice. When
the profile soil moisture sensors were installed in 2015, the
hydrologists worked with the pilot farmers to ensure that
they understood its operation, i.e., soil moisture within root
zone was proxy to irrigation demand and below root zone to
drainage. The pilot farmers were told to keep the soil mois-
6 CASE STUDIES IN THE ENVIRONMENT 2018
ture increases in the below root-zone layer to be minimal
during irrigation events, which would give them the confir-
mation that all applied irrigation had been held within the
root zone. This was a case of self-referencing and confirming
their practices based on real time observations. Following a
few one-on-one training sessions, one of the pilot farmers
reported significant changes to their irrigation practice. Over
the month following the training, none of the irrigations in
that farm resulted in increases in soil moisture below root
zone, confirming an irrigation practice that resulted in no
drainage (see Figure 4, section A). The pilot farmer even
skipped a few irrigation events based on root zone soil mois-
ture measured during this period and weather forecast,
thereby saving on time, labour, money, and water. However,
the same pilot farmer, 2 months later scheduled irrigations
that had resulted in frequent increases in soil moisture in the
below root-zone layer (Figure 4, section B). On enquiry, the
farmer indicated that they scheduled those later irrigations as
they perceived that the grass growth was low, which they con-
cluded due to dry soil conditions. Even though they could
access soil moisture data from within the root zone, in the
absence of any explicit reason for the lack of grass growth,
they reverted back to their original irrigation practice. Fur-
ther investigation proved that the poor grass growth might
have resulted from poor nutrient availability. The drainage
and leaching resulting from poor irrigation practices further
depleted nutrient availability, eventually impacting the grass
growth. While the capability development allowed a change
early on, a lack of confidence in that newly acquired capabil-
ity resulted in the pilot farmer falling back to their original
practice. This emphasised the need to take into account the
farmer’s inherent knowledge and integrate an optimal learn-
ing–practice–confirmation cycle when such new technolo-
gies and practices are introduced.
CONCLUSION
A co-innovation approach provides opportunity to all stake-
holders to explore and learn about a problem from multiple
perspectives. The role of researchers in a co-innovation set-
ting varies with context, which itself could vary during the
span of a project. Trust among stakeholders and in the co-
innovation process is seldom recognised as an outcome due
to its non-tangible nature. However, in a multi-stakeholder,
building trust among participants is a key enabler to sharing
perspectives, co-learning and co-definition of problem space,
and co-development of solutions. Biophysical observations,
specifically observations of stakeholders’ (on-farm) practices,
FIGURE 4. The cycle of learning–confirmation–practice is critical in enabling and establishing new practices. The farmers
trained in managing irrigation and drainage simultaneously were able to eliminate irrigation-induced drainage in December and
January (see section A), but practiced irrigation that led to drainage in February and March (see section B).

provide a good platform in establishing stakeholders’ trust in
a co-innovation process.
Even when on-farm observations contradicted stake-
holder perceptions, the trust in co-innovation process could
enable moments of reflection and (co-)learning. In the irri-
gation pilot study described here, the co-learning was notice-
able among all stakeholders and not just among pilot farmers
(end-users). For instance, the hydrologists learned to present
information that takes into account of stakeholders’ percep-
tions and knowledge gaps. One of the key learnings for all
stakeholders was the need to spend more time in practising
the lessons learned. In the absence of any confirmation of
their practice, the confidence in using new practices could
decline over time, resulting in old habits to creep up.
C A S E S T U DY Q U E S T I O N S
1. What are the advantages and limitations of a
co-innovation process in a multi-stakeholder
setting?
2. Apart from biophysical observations of
stakeholders’ irrigation practices, how else
could trust be established in a multi-
stakeholder setting?
3. While transferring specific on-farm observa-
tions of irrigation practices from one stake-
holder group to another, how could the
experiences and lessons be transformed across
the groups?
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The lead author MS is the programme manager for the
research programme “Justified Irrigation” and the lead
researcher of “Primary Innovation” programme. GE is an irri-
gation scientist who contributed to the designing and imple-
mentation of Justified Irrigation and Primary Innovation pro-
grammes. Both authors contributed equally to idea concep-
tualisation, funding acquisition, and investigation.

Multi-Stakeholder Co-Innovation Processes 7

AC K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
We thank the pilot study farmers and the Waimakariri
Irrigation Scheme for their continued support and coop-
eration in undertaking this study.
FUNDING
We acknowledge the New Zealand Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment for funding the programmes
and Primary Innovation (CONT-30071-BITR-AGR) and
Justified Irrigation (CO1X1617) that supported the work
presented here.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
REFERENCES
1. Irrigation NZ. Irrigation in New Zealand. 2016. Available:
https://www.irrigationnz.co.nz/.
2. Srinivasan MS, Bewsell D, Jongmans C, Elley G. Just-in-
case to justified irrigation: applying co-innovation principles in
an irrigation scheme. Outlook Agric. 2017;46: 138–145.
3. Boyce W, Srinivasan MS, Turner JA, Fielke SJ, Percy H.
When to co-innovate to solve complex agricultural challenges?
8 CASE STUDIES IN THE ENVIRONMENT 2018
Applying a cognitive framework to a pilot study. Rur Ext Inno
Sys J. 2018;14(1): 137–141.
4. Leeuwis C, Aarts N. Rethinking communication in
innovation processes: creating space for change in complex
systems. J Agric Educ Ext. 2011;17: 21–36.
5. Coutts J, White T, Blackett P et al. Evaluating a space for
co-innovation: the practical application of nine principles for
co-innovation in five innovation projects. Outlook Agric. 2017:
doi:10.1177/0030727017708453.
6. Nederlof S, Wongtschowski M, van der Lee F. Putting
Heads Together. Agricultural Innovation Platforms in Practice.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: KIT Publishers; 2011.
7. Srinivasan MS, Duncan MJ. Droughts and irrigation:
study in a river-based irrigation scheme in New Zealand.
2012;138(1). doi:10.1061/(ASCE)IR.1943-4774.0000372.
8. Srinivasan MS, Jongmans C, Bewsell D, Elley G. Research
idea to science for impact: tracing the significant moments in
an innovation based irrigation study. Agric Water Manage. 2018:
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2018.08.045.
9. Environment Canterbury. Canterbury Water. 2017.
Available: http://www.canterburywater.farm/.
10. Cameron KC, Di HJ, Moir JL. Nitrogen losses from the
soil/plant system: a review. Ann Appl Biol. 2014: doi:10.1111/
aab.12014.