Testing a Framework to Co-Construct Social Innovation Actions: Insights from Seven Marginalized Rural Areas
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Enabled to engage with the key local actors and to identify the triggers and needs the local actors aimed to respond to;
- Made it possible to map how an early social innovation idea evolved into a developed social innovation process;
- Succeeded in designing focused and feasible actions, through an assessment of their technological, operational, legal, collaborative, and economic dimensions, which allowed to adjust of the scope of the actions accordingly.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Social Innovation
2.2. Innovation Management and Transdisciplinarity
2.3. Social Innovation Actions
3. An Operational Framework to Co-Construct SIAs
3.1. Design Phase
3.2. Implementation and In-Itinere Evaluation Phases
3.3. Consolidation Phase
3.4. Evaluation Phase
4. Methods: Framework Application and Analysis
4.1. Social Innovation Study Sites
- presence of physical constraints (e.g., islands, mountains);
- limited access to infrastructure (poor roads or internet networks, etc.);
- social marginality (low incomes, high risk of poverty, high proportion of early leavers from education, high distance from decision-making centers, etc.).
4.2. SIA Framework Implementation and Analysis
- Triggers, as “punctual events or accumulations of unmet needs causing a response and a change in practices by local communities” [21];
- Needs, as “the demands of vulnerable groups in society” [21];
- The structure of the core group of local actors involved in the SIA;
- The structure of the network the SIA plans to build up;
- The interventions planned (i.e., activities) to conduct and the expected outcomes.
4.3. Data Collection
5. Results and Discussion
- Fostering the development of a land banking initiative aiming to revert farmland abandonment, with a specific emphasis on wildfire prevention (ES1);
- Setting the foundation for a pilot project about forests, social networks, and human health (ES2);
- Integrating immigrants, mainly refugees or work migrants, in the rural area by motivating them to join locals in hiking activities (NO);
- Social inclusion of women from disadvantaged backgrounds to provide them with business training and marketing tools to sustain the development of small entrepreneurship initiatives (UK);
- Creating and supporting new networks of local young people interested in building socially innovative and sustainable businesses (IT);
- Transforming traditional food recipes into standardized and scientifically monitored products, and propose marketing solutions to support local women in developing profitable businesses (LB);
- Supporting the development of a shared vision of multifunctional forests and enhancing related human and social capital (FWI).
5.1. Scoping
5.2. Defining
5.3. Feasibility Assessment
- Technical feasibility—In three out of six SIAs, local actors had the expertise required to perform the tasks listed in each initiative. In two cases, technical support emerged as a key factor for strengthening the initiative (ES1, UK). Additional skills or expertise were to be sought from the SIA implementers involved (i.e., own human resources and soft skills) or through the involvement of external consultant and experts (e.g., professional guidance, communication experts, investment and management skills, marketing skills, IT skills, networking and facilitating skills). This shows the key role of the SIA implementers in supporting local actors with specific skills;
- Economic feasibility—All SIA implementers and local actors recognized that SIAs require continuous financial support for their operational and maintenance costs in the medium- and long-term. Their principal benefits are social (e.g., improving demography, increasing social resilience, fostering gender balance, empowering youth) and environmental (e.g., improving the fire resilience of the landscape), rather than monetary in nature. This entails that their proposed business models hardly cover all the required expenses. Currently, this aid takes the form of national and international grants (e.g., H2020, Erasmus+, LAG funds, European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) funds), which partially cover the planned expenditure of the actions. Such funds are crucial for SIAs;
- Legal feasibility—The legal frameworks at local and national levels, through laws and monetary, information, and coordination policy instruments, supported the implementation of the SIA activities in all cases. Concerning the potential specificities of overseas and non-EU context, no constraining factors emerged, as the FWI case had the same policy framework as the rest of the EU cases, and the LB case operated within a national law that applies the International Cooperative Principles and Values, thus, with strong similarities to an EU cooperative. Nonetheless, in three cases, ad hoc legal forms could benefit the long-term sustainability of the SIAs through mainly fiscal incentives and tax exemptions (ES1, LB, IT);
- Collaborative feasibility—The majority of the SIA implementers had a positive perception of the local actors’ participation in the SIA activities. This reflects existing, long-term collaborations (e.g., public–private partnerships, volunteers–public partnerships), and awareness of local actors of the need for close collaboration as a prerequisite to the successful undertaking of planned activities. Some critical issues emerged in those cases where institutional support declined or was ceased (ES1, NO), discouraging the local actors;
- Operational feasibility—Some of the issues which can hinder future implementation of the SIAs were highlighted, including lack of active participation of the stakeholders during the implementation phase (ES1, NO, IT), funding barriers (UK), ad hoc training of staff (UK), and uncertainties over the future prospects of the initiative (IT);
- Schedule feasibility—With respect to timing, all activities planned appeared to be feasible for implementation within a project timeframe and as part of its legacy. It is, however, likely that in some cases their outcomes will be clearer over a longer time period.
6. Recommendations and Conclusions
6.1. Summary of Key Lessons Learnt
6.2. Transferability and Legacy
6.3. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Criteria | |
---|---|
Marginalization characteristics | Does it relate to a rural (non-urban) area? |
Which accessibility does the area have? How profitable are economic activities there? | |
Which indicators show some “marginalization” in that particular area? (e.g., services, depopulation, ageing, unemployment, minorities) | |
Social innovation definition | Is there a process of reconfiguration of social practices (e.g., relationships, collaborations, networks, institutions, and governance structures) in response to societal challenges, which seeks to enhance outcomes on societal well-being? |
Does the novelty/reconfiguration take place in new geographical settings or contexts or in relation to previously disengaged social group(s)? | |
Does the act of novel reconfiguration involve civil society members as active participants? | |
Does the process of reconfiguration result in new social practices that increase the engagement of civil society actors? | |
Does the social innovation arise as a result of a crisis or apparently intractable problem? | |
Can public agency be the initiator and/or driver of social innovation? | |
Can social innovation be initiated by private sector agency? | |
Is the social innovation process driven by certain values and ethical positions? | |
Do new social practices engage voluntarily civil society actors (in relationships, collaborations, networks, institutions, and governance structures) as a result of the social innovation? | |
Do these reconfigurations seek to enhance outcomes on societal well-being, i.e., in relation to society, economy, environment, or any combination thereof? | |
Are trade-offs between types of benefit or beneficiaries likely to arise as a result of social innovation? |
Appendix B
Appendix C
Feasibility Dimension | ES1 | NO | UK | IT | LB | FWI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technical Do Local Actors have the technical expertise to complete the project and its required tasks? Is the project proposition practical? | Need for supports to local actors in certain tasks which cannot be undertaken with voluntary work (e.g., parcel clearing) | Local actors have the needed technical expertise and requirements. | Need for support in developing measuring instruments for feedback sheets of the programs, and a more efficient website to prove how effective the social enterprise is, which, in return, will help get future funding. | There is some expertise within the local partner Local Action Group, which is valorized and being used. Where the expertise is lacking within the Local Action Group, it is provided by the Implementers or external personnel. From the practical point of view, some difficulty has been found in actively involving the participants, as they often lack self-confidence, feeling insufficiently competent to intervene. | The Local Actors have team leadership abilities and the capacity to explore new opportunities. They have the ability for technical development and management of production. However, skills are lacking in investment, business management, and marketing of products in non-traditional markets. | Support needed to develop a Manifesto and run the Innovation Action activities. Experts will be invited to contribute to the activities as relevant. |
Economic Is the proposal economically viable in the long term, providing benefits that compensate for the costs incurred? | Needed a relatively large initial investment, and regular maintenance efforts for achieving long-term viability. Bottleneck: agricultural products are difficult to market competitively | The Social Innovation is economically viable if the refugees become volunteers. This benefits the sustainability of the region if it improves the health and recruitment of refugees. | Difficulty in achieving funding to run each programme. The nature of the Innovation Action is largely dependent on grants. Currently, work in support of women, and tackling social deprivation, is funded by local councils and the private sector, while uncertainties still remain for the future. | It is difficult to say whether the proposal is economically feasible in the long run, as the project is financially expensive. Considering all of the costs, the total budget is above what the Local Action Group can afford as it has limited funds. Hence, in order to be economically viable there is a need for external economic support. | The proposal is economically viable over the long term, benefiting from increased sales and reductions in the cost of energy for production. Combined, this will improve the economic and social situation for the co-operative’s members and their households. | Funding obtained by the social innovators for the first phase of their initiative. Future funding and financial capacity will be needed to sustain the social innovation activities in the future. Over the medium to long term, activities developed in the forest understorey will need to be economically viable for the farmers. The framework partly supports the Social Innovation in relation to the activities to be undertaken. Some clarity will be needed on regulations of activities in the forest understorey will be needed for the future of the social innovation though. |
Legal Does the current legal framework of the Rural Areas support the Social Innovation implementation? | The framework supports the Social Innovation in relation to the activities to be undertaken. The challenges relate to the effective fiscal policies for supporting farming start-ups. | The legal framework supports the Social Innovation in relation to the activities to be undertaken. | Yes, and encouraged. The most recent need is a policy for safeguarding participants as some of them have escaped domestic abuse at home or in their communities. | The legal frameworks support the activities programmed, although indirectly in some cases. | The current legal framework supports implementation of the Social Innovation. However, there is a need to find alternatives and to support the implementation of tax exemptions and services. | The framework partly supports the Social Innovation in relation to the activities to be undertaken. Some clarity will be needed on regulations of activities in the forest understorey will be needed for the future of the social innovation. |
Collaborative Is it feasible to involve all of the key players in the successful implementation of the Social Innovation plan? | Despite initial enthusiasm by several public agencies and individuals, institutional support is reducing, and association membership is falling as a consequence of discouragement after facing structural and farming challenges. | Yes, the collaboration between the volunteer and the public sector is feasible, as they depend on each other if they want to fulfil the scope of the activities (integration). | Working alongside other charities, NGOs and council will enhance the success of the programs. The key players continue to grow in number and change, again, depending on availability of funding. | There is good collaboration amongst the key actors making their involvement feasible. The main local partner, Local Action Group, is already a public-rivate partnership including a large variety of local entities (23 actors). Consequently, this makes it easier to collaborate with all of them at once, as well as the possibility to take advantage of the network and contacts that the Local Action Group has in the territory. | Yes, almost all key players will be involved in the implementation of the Social Innovation. | There is interest from the local actors in the initiative and the partners of the Operational Group are willing to work jointly and in a coordinated way with the IA implementer. Whether the initiative will sustain itself after this first phase is an unknown and a challenge as the farmers will lack financial and organizational support to pursue their activities. |
Operational Does the proposed Social Innovation work well? Will the factors that are hindering the Action be overcome? | Scarcity of existing farmers willing to work new parcels might hinder the operational feasibility of the action | There is a risk that the volunteers, the refugees, and local inhabitants will not follow up or attend the planned activities. | The SIA currently works well. The main factors that hinder the Social Innovation are: (i) Funding in an environment of harsh austerity, which will be an ongoing issue for any such organization; (ii). Getting more staff trained to undertake the work, as currently only one person has the skills required to deliver the programmes | Although it is still too early to have a clear idea of the operational feasibility of the Innovation Action project, it is anticipated that operational difficulties faced by the action can be overcome. | The Social Innovation will motivate and encourage the people of Deir El Ahmar to install solar panels as an alternative and cheaper source of energy. | The activities foreseen within the framework of the Innovation Action will work well. Reaching out beyond the social innovators to other stakeholders in the territory will require more time and other types of activities. |
Schedule Is the timescale of the Social Innovation plan feasible? | The timescale is feasible. | The timescale of the activities proposed is feasible. | The timescale of the activities proposed is feasible. The SIA is an on-going programme with a planned annual rolling programme. | The timescale of the activities proposed is feasible. | The timescale of the activities proposed is feasible. | The timescale of the proposed activities is feasible. |
References
- European Environment Agency. State and Outlook 2015 the European Environment; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- FRA. Together in the EU. Promoting the Participation of Migrants and Their Descendants; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights: Vienna, Austria, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Commission. Societal Challenges—European Commission. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges (accessed on 30 November 2017).
- Leijten, J.; Butter, M.; Kohl, J.; Leis, M.; Gehrt, D. Investing in Research and Innovation for Grand Challenges; Joint Institute for Innovation Policy: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kuhlmann, S.; Rip, A. The Challenge of Addressing Grand Challenges. Research Europe. 2014. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges (accessed on 30 November 2017).
- Corporation for National and Community Service. Social Innovation Fund. 2019. Available online: https://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/social-innovation-fund (accessed on 10 November 2019).
- European Commission. Social Investment: Commission Urges Member States to Focus on Growth and Social Cohesion. 2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes (accessed on 10 November 2019).
- SIMRA Innovation Actions. Available online: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/index.php/simra-innovation-actions/ (accessed on 30 November 2017).
- Moulaert, F.; MacCallum, D.; Mehmood, A.; Hamdouch, A. The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 1–461. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards-Schachter, M.; Wallace, M.L. Shaken, but not stirred’: Sixty years of defining social innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 119, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Social Innovation—A Decade of Changes, A Report of the European Bureau of Policy Advisers (BEPA); European Commission: Brussels, Belgium; Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/13403/attachments/1/translations (accessed on 29 January 2020).
- Pol, E.; Ville, S. Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? J. Socio-Econ. 2009, 38, 878–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Howaldt, J.; Knopp, R. Shaping social innovation by social research. In Challenge Social Innovation. Potentials for Business, Social Entrepreneurship and Civil Society; Franz, H.W., Hochgerner, J., Howaldt, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 43–55. [Google Scholar]
- Polman, N.; Slee, B.; Kluvánková, T.; Dijkshoorn, M.; Nijnik, M.; Gezik, V. Classification of Social Innovations for Marginalized Rural Areas; Deliverable 4.2; Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 2017; pp. 1–32. Available online: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/index.php/deliverables/ (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Cajaiba-Santana, G. Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 82, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacCallum, D.; Moulaert, F.; Hillier, J.; Haddock, S.V. Social Innovation and Territorial Development; Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2009; pp. 1–172. [Google Scholar]
- Mulgan, G. Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated; Said Business School: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 1–39. [Google Scholar]
- Nicholls, A.; Ziegler, R. Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 1–496. [Google Scholar]
- Sarkki, S.; Ficko, A.; Miller, D.; Barlagne, C.; Melnykovych, M.; Jokinen, M.; Soloviy, I.; Nijnik, M. Human values as catalysts and consequences of social innovations. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 104, 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Secco, L.; Pisani, E.; Da Re, R.; Vicentini, K.; Rogelja, T.; Burlando, C.; Ludvig, A.; Weiss, G.; Zivojinovic, I.; Górriz-Mifsud, E.; et al. Manual on Innovative Methods to Assess SI and Its Impacts; Deliverable 4.3; Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 2019; pp. 1–203. Available online: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/index.php/deliverables/ (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Haxeltine, A.; Avelino, F.; Pel, B.; Dumitru, A.; Kemp, R.; Longhurst, N.; Wittmayer, J.M. A Framework for Transformative Social Innovation; Working paper; DRIFT: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Neumeier, S. Social innovation in rural development: Identifying the key factors of success. Geogr. J. 2017, 183, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SEiSMiC. Home—SEiSMiC Project. Available online: http://www.seismicproject.eu/ (accessed on 30 November 2017).
- URBACT. Social Innovation in Cities; URBACT: Paris, France, 2015; p. 68. [Google Scholar]
- Goethals, M.; Schreurs, J. Developing shared terms for spatial equality through design. In Strategic Spatial Projects: Catalysts for Change; Oosterlynck, S., Van den Broeck, J., Albrechts, L., Moulaert, F., Verhetsel, A., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2010; p. 31. [Google Scholar]
- Prabhu, R.; Sinclair, F.; Vanclay, J. Realizing Community Futures: A Practical Guide to Harnessing Natural Resources; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Reed, M.S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 2417–2431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.; Seyfang, G. Constructing grassroots innovations for sustainability. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 827–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kelly, P.; Kranzburg, M. Technological Innovation: A Critical Review of Current Knowledge; San Francisco Press: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Hidalgo, A.; Albors, J. Innovation management techniques and tools: A review from theory and practice. R D Manag. 2008, 38, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lettice, F.; Parekh, M. The social innovation process: Themes, challenges and implications for practice. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2010, 51, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coombs, R.; Hull, R. Knowledge management practices and path dependency on innovation. Res. Policy 1998, 27, 237–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hearn, G.; Bridgstock, R. Education for the creative economy: Innovation, transdisciplinarity and networks. In Education in the Creative Economy; Araya, D., Peters, M.A., Eds.; Peter Lang Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 93–115. [Google Scholar]
- Arnstein, S.R. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1969, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wondirad, A.; Ewnetu, B. Community participation in tourism development as a tool to foster sustainable land and resource use practices in a national park milieu. Land Use Policy 2019, 88, 104–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2014–2015; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Zavratnik, V.; Superina, A.; Duh, E.S. Living Labs for Rural Areas: Contextualization of Living Lab Frameworks, Concepts and Practices. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gorriz-Mifsud, E.; Marini Govigli, V. Social Innovation Actions Guidelines; Report 7.1; Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 2017; p. 46. Available online: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/index.php/deliverables/ (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Wysocki, R.K. Adaptive Project Framework: Managing Complexity in the Face of Uncertainty; Addison-Wesley Professional: Boston, MA, USA, 2010; p. 384. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, J. In praise of the feasibility study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2007, 16, 1789–1791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valero, D.; Bryce, R.; Price, M. Selection of SI Case Studies and Policy Processes; Deliverable 3.3; Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 2017; pp. 1–40. Available online: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/index.php/deliverables/ (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Price, M.; Miller, D.; McKeen, M.; Slee, B.; Nijnik, M. Categorisation of Marginalised Rural Areas (MRAs); Deliverable 3.1; Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 2017; p. 57. Available online: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/index.php/deliverables/ (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Médail, F.; Quézel, P. Biodiversity Hotspots in the Mediterranean Basin: Setting Global Conservation Priorities. Conserv. Biol. 1999, 13, 1510–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; da Fonseca, G.A.B.; Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 2000, 403, 853–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IEDOM. Rapport Annuel 2019; IEDOM: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Marini Govigli, V.; Gorriz-Mifsud, E.; Alkhaled, S.; Arnesen, T.; Bjerk, M.; Burlando, C.; Jack, S.; Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco, C.; Sfeir, P.; Vicentini, K. Insights from the Feasibility Assessment of Innovation Actions; Report 7.2; Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 2018; p. 48. Available online: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/index.php/deliverables/ (accessed on 15 November 2019).
- Dey, C. Methodological issues: The use of critical ethnography as an active research methodology. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2002, 15, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brydon-Miller, M.; Greenwood, D.; Maguire, P. Why action research? Action Res. 2003, 1, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spijker, S.N.; Parra, C. Knitting green spaces with the threads of social innovation in Groningen and London. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stephan, U.; Uhlaner, L.M.; Stride, C. Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2015, 46, 308–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Calzada, I. Critical social innovation in the smart city era for a city-regional European horizon 2020. P3T J. Public Policies Territ. Soc. Innov. Territ. 2013, 6, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
- SIMRA. Database: Social Innovations in Marginalised Rural Areas. 2019. Available online: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/index.php/simradatabase/ (accessed on 10 December 2019).
- Dorst, K.; Cross, N. Creativity in the Design Process: Co-Evolution of Problem–Solution. Des. Stud. 2001, 22, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Christiaans, H.; Dorst, K. Cognitive models in industrial design engineering: A protocol study. Am. Soc. Mech. Eng. Des. Eng. Div. (Publ.) 1992, 42, 131–140. [Google Scholar]
- Ross, T.; Mitchell, V.A.; May, A. Bottom-up grassroots innovation in transport: Motivations, barriers and enablers. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2012, 35, 469–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Živojinović, I.; Ludvig, A.; Hogl, K. Social Innovation to Sustain Rural Communities: Overcoming Institutional Challenges in Serbia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 7248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Camps, S.; Marques, P. Exploring how social capital facilitates innovation: The role of innovation enablers. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 88, 325–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludvig, A.; Wilding, M.; Thorogood, A.; Weiss, G. Social innovation in the Welsh Woodlands: Community based forestry as collective third-sector engagement. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 95, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moulaert, F.; Mehmood, A. Towards social holism: Social innovation, holistic research methodology and pragmatic collective action. In The Routledge Handbook of Planning Research Methods: A Case-Based Guide to Research Design; Elisabete, A.S., Healey, P., Harris, N., Van den Broeck, P., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 97–106. [Google Scholar]
- The Young Foundation. Social Innovation Overview: A Deliverable of the Project: “The Theoretical, Empirical and Policy Foundations for Building Social Innovation in Europe (TEPSIE); European Commission—7th Framework Programme; European Commission, DG Research: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Veugelers, R.; Cincera, M.; Frietsch, R.; Rammer, C.; Schubert, T.; Pelle, A.; Renda, A.; Montalvo, C.; Leijten, J. The Impact of Horizon 2020 on Innovation in Europe. Intereconomics 2015, 50, 4–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Innovation Fund Denmark. Societal Readiness Levels (SRL) Defined According to Innovation Fund Denmark. Available online: https://innovationsfonden.dk/sites/default/files/2019-03/societal_readiness_levels_-_srl.pdf (accessed on 29 January 2020).
- USF. 2015 Global Best Practices Report on Incubation and Acceleration Key Trends and Analysis of the 2015 Incubation and Acceleration Ecosystem. Available online: http://usf.vc/other/global-practices-results/ (accessed on 30 October 2017).
- Mrkajic, B. Business Incubators in Developing Countries: Guidelines for Incubator Managers; Deliverable D2.2; PoliSocial Award, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Koontz, T.; Thomas, C.W. What Do We Know and Need to Know About the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management? Public Adm. Rev. 2006, 66, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Working Path | Explanation of the SIA Implementer Role | Degree of Involvement of SIA Implementers |
---|---|---|
Facilitation | Providing tips and practical tools to the local actors enabling the working group to work more efficiently | Low |
Mentoring | Active guidance to local actors in the development of the action | Low-Medium |
Collaborative management | Direct collaboration in the management of the action | Medium-High |
Direct involvement | Members, partners or beneficiaries of the action | High |
Acronym | Location | Scoping Meetings | Local Actors’ Working Group | Working Group Size | Type of Network | Needs/Opportunities |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ES1 | Gúdar-Javalambre County, Spain | Meeting with local authorities, brainstorming workshop, with the local community | Public, non-profit | 10 | External relationships among collective actors | Resilient landscape facing wildfires Loss of traditional agricultural varieties Harsh farming and low number of farmers |
ES2 | Solsones County, Spain | Skype meeting with local agency for rural development, meeting with local action groups, meeting with potential initiative, E-mail brainstorming | Non-profit | 1 | One person (innovator) weaving new networks | Arrival of external expertise and ideas to the area Insufficient number of social initiatives regarding health, culture, environment, and integration in the county. |
NO | Gudbrandsdalen, Norway | Meeting with national trekking association, and non-profit organizations | Public- non-profit | 6 | External relationships among collective actors | Integration of settled refugees Retaining local population in the area, Increase community involvement |
UK | Lancashire-Cumbria, UK | Meeting with local authorities, brainstorming workshop | Private (social enterprise) | 1 | One person (social entrepreneur) | Support for all women from deprived backgrounds compounded with living in deprived rural areas by setting up their own businesses Refugee women support to build confidence, ability to earn and socially integrate |
IT | Valbelluna, Italy | Meeting with local authorities | Public-private- non-profit | 12 | External relationships among collective actors | Lack of support for new young-led businesses in cultural, environmental, and social businesses |
LB | Bekaa Region, Lebanon | Meeting with potential social innovators, internal meeting to identify social innovations | Private | 12 | Internal relationships among cooperative members | Overcome cultural, social, political, technical, economic challenges. Foster changes in the power relations for decision-making at a local level |
FWI | Guadeloupe, France | Meeting with a newly formed operational group (VALAB) and the farmers of the SYAPROVAG (Agricultural Union of Vanilla Producers of Guadeloupe) | Representative membership body | 19 | Internal collaboration within an operational group and farmers’ union Internal relationships between union members External relationships between operational group participants | Lack of economic opportunities for vanilla producers and new entrants into forest farming Preserve ecosystem services and biodiversity of the Guadeloupean forest Maintain the socio-cultural heritage |
Feasibility Dimension | ES1 | NO | UK | IT | LB | FWI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Technical Do Local Actors have the technical expertise to complete the projects and its required tasks? Is the project proposition practical? | Support needed | Expertise available | Support needed | Support needed | Support needed | Support needed |
Economic Is the proposal economically viable in the long term, providing benefits that compensate for the costs incurred? | External funds needed to cover costs | Economically viable. Minor bottlenecks | External funds needed to cover costs | External funds needed to cover costs | Economically viable | Economically viable |
Legal Does the current legal framework of the Rural Areas support the Social Innovation implementation? | Supportive framework. Ad hoc new legal forms could be beneficial | Supportive framework | Supportive framework | Supportive framework | Supportive framework. Ad hoc new legal forms could be beneficial | Not applicable |
Collaborative Is it feasible to involve all of the key players in the successful implementation of the Social Innovation plan? | Discouragement after facing structural challenges | Good collaboration of actors | New collaborations are needed | Good collaboration of actors | Good collaboration of actors | Good collaboration of actors |
Operational Does the proposed Social Innovation work well? Will the factors that are hindering the action be overcome? | Existing hindering factors difficult to overcome | Minor hindering factors possible to overcome | Minor hindering factors possible to overcome | Minor hindering factors possible to overcome | No hindering factors identified | Minor hindering factors possible to overcome |
Schedule Is the timescale of the Social Innovation plan feasible? | Feasible timescale | Feasible timescale | Feasible timescale | Feasible timescale | Feasible timescale | Feasible timescale |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Marini Govigli, V.; Alkhaled, S.; Arnesen, T.; Barlagne, C.; Bjerck, M.; Burlando, C.; Melnykovych, M.; Rodríguez Fernandez-Blanco, C.; Sfeir, P.; Górriz-Mifsud, E. Testing a Framework to Co-Construct Social Innovation Actions: Insights from Seven Marginalized Rural Areas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1441. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041441
Marini Govigli V, Alkhaled S, Arnesen T, Barlagne C, Bjerck M, Burlando C, Melnykovych M, Rodríguez Fernandez-Blanco C, Sfeir P, Górriz-Mifsud E. Testing a Framework to Co-Construct Social Innovation Actions: Insights from Seven Marginalized Rural Areas. Sustainability. 2020; 12(4):1441. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041441
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarini Govigli, Valentino, Sophie Alkhaled, Tor Arnesen, Carla Barlagne, Mari Bjerck, Catie Burlando, Mariana Melnykovych, Carmen Rodríguez Fernandez-Blanco, Patricia Sfeir, and Elena Górriz-Mifsud. 2020. "Testing a Framework to Co-Construct Social Innovation Actions: Insights from Seven Marginalized Rural Areas" Sustainability 12, no. 4: 1441. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041441