This article illustrates the trust relationships among the members of the Brazilian Association of Fairtrade Farmers Organizations (BRFair), which is a second-level network of coffee-producing cooperatives. Representatives of 19 cooperatives were interviewed in 2018 to verify their opinions about the other associations regarding several aspects. Through software specific for social network analysis, the direction and level of trust among the various cooperatives were measured. One cooperative is recognized as the most active and trustworthy, while the other ones are followers and perform peripheric roles. Several improvements are possible, including improvement in the performance of this second-level network and strengthening of its bargaining role with the other actors of the value chain.
International audience ; Compared with more productive areas, mountain areas are at risk of being marginalized, particularly in the agri-food sector. To circumvent price competition, local actors in the mountains can develop specialized local products, which depends on their capacity to act collectively. Collective action, however, is complex and needs to be better understood if it is to steer initiatives towards success. This article sets out a relational approach to studying collective action in a dairy cooperative located in a mountain area: The Primiero cooperative in the Italian Alps. The common pool resources and territorial proximity frameworks were combined in a social network analysis of advice interactions among producer members, and an analysis of trust and conflict among members and between members and other actors involved in the value chain. The results show that the success of collective action can be explained by various complementary factors. Firstly, members had dense relationships, with high levels of trust and reciprocity, while the president had the role of prestige-based leader. Nonetheless, the analysis also highlighted conflicts related to the production levels of "traditional" and "intensive" producers, although members demonstrated a high capacity to resolve conflicts by creating their own rules to control further intensification. Socio-economic status did not appear to play a role in advice relationships, showing that the members interact horizontally. However, the results show that the geographical isolation of some members tended to inhibit their commitment to the collective dynamics. At a higher level, trust toward other actors involved in the value chain plays a central role in carrying out joint projects to develop and promote cheese.
Social innovation is an emerging topic, identified in the EU Strategy 2020 as one of the crucial, intangible factors required to promote smart, inclusive and sustainable growth. It provides society with a renovated role by considering it – in a time of major public budgetary constraints - an effective way of responding to social challenges through the mobilisation of people's creativity, the promotion of an innovative and learning society and the creation of the social dynamics behind technological innovations (BEPA, 2011: 7). Although it initially focused on addressing social disadvantage and exclusion in a wide range of contexts, urban more often than rural, an unambiguous definition of social innovation has not been agreed on yet (Moulaert et al. 2005; MacCallum et al. 2009). Likewise, so far only a few scholars have proposed how to interpret the concept in the rural arena (e.g. Neumeier, 2012; Bosworth et al. 2016; Bock et al. 2016). A recent proposed definition of social innovation in relation to rural areas with specific limitations in terms of geographical location and/or socio-economic conditions, comes from a 4-year research project named SIMRA (Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas) and funded under the EU Horizon2020 Programme. Such proposed definition by Polman et al. (2017) states that social innovation is "the reconfiguring of social practices, in response to societal challenges, which seeks to enhance outcomes on societal well-being and necessarily includes the engagement of civil society actors". To date, a catalogue of more than 50 examples of social innovation that have been identified according to this definition, in the sectors of agriculture, forestry and rural development in marginalised rural areas in EU and extra-EU Mediterranean countries (Bryce et al. 2017), has been compiled and published online. The catalogue is neither fix nor comprehensive, rather it provides an initial overview on how large the variety of social innovation cases already implemented can be. On the one hand, social innovation is probably more widespread than reported by scientific literature and perceived by practitioners today. This may be because the concept refers de facto to a wide range of initiatives dealing with different societal challenges: from the new social uses of agricultural and forestry activities (e.g., social horticulture or social farming, nursery services in forests, forest therapy), to the creation of new networks based on public-private partnerships for the production, transformation and commercialisation of new agricultural products and services, to the involvement of migrants and refugees in the management of peri-urban green areas, to several others. On the other hand, our knowledge and understanding of social innovation and related socio-economic dynamics remains very limited. It has been already stated that a commonly accepted definition and theoretical conceptualisation are under construction. Besides, specific policy instruments are still lacking, and a method to comprehensively evaluate social innovation in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and impacts on society, economy, environment and institutions is also not available yet. According to the SIMRA project proposal, key elements of social innovation to be evaluated are: the "trigger"; the "perceived context"; the "agency/actors" acting for change; the "reconfiguring" process of social practices (included networks, governance arrangements and attitudes); the "reconfigured" new situation that brings about a social innovation project; the "activities", "outputs" and "outcomes/impacts" of the social innovation project; the feedback loops interpreted as "learning processes". Information on these complex and multifaceted aspects can be collected at the local level by means of semi-structured and structured interviews and participatory-based events (focus groups). Both quantitative and qualitative approaches and instruments are hence combined, and this is applicable for data collection as well as for the analysis of results and reporting of findings. Accordingly, the data can then be analysed and interpreted through indicators and other advanced instruments like the Social Network Analysis. Our proposed SIMRA evaluation method is currently being tested in 10 different case studies in various EU and extra-EU Mediterranean countries. Preliminary results in terms of calculated indicators for social innovation elements are expected by January 2019. Given the current stage of the study within SIMRA, this contribution intends to stimulate the scientific discourse and the debate between the world of science and that of the stakeholders. It does this by providing ideas and opportunity for discussion, alongside possible practical solutions for an evaluation approach and a specific evaluation framework for the capturing of the multifaceted aspects of social innovation. The latter two will be explained by directly applying them to a few/three selected Italian examples that most probably will be chosen among "Cooperativa Cadore", with its SIMBIorti project (Belluno); the national network "Montagnaterapia", with its activities with disabled people; "Cooperativa di Comunità Briganti del Cerreto" (Reggio Emilia), with its multiple services to slow and rural tourism; "Rural Hub" (Frosinone), with its activity of migrants' inclusion. Despite the various methodological challenges and the high diversification and complexity of the topics to be evaluated (social innovation's process, project and impacts), we believe that our scheme paves the way for building an innovative set of methods that considers "social factors" important role in EU's future 'Rural Development Programs' and 'Agricultural research and Innovation Agenda'.
An agreed and well-consolidated evaluation framework for the assessment of social innovation (SI) and its impacts has not been developed yet, despite tentative made by scholars (e.g., Nicholls et al. 2015). The EU funded H2020 project SIMRA – Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (www.simra-h2020.eu) – aims to conceptualize an evaluation framework for SI initiatives in disadvantaged rural areas of Europe and non-EU Mediterranean countries. Within SIMRA, SI is defined as "the reconfiguring of social practices, in response to societal challenges, which seeks to enhance outcomes on societal well-being and necessarily includes the engagement of civil society actors" (Polman et al., 2017). The evaluation framework has been co-constructed with project partners and a panel of international stakeholders in the fields of agriculture, forestry and rural development (Nijnik et al. 2019). It is structured into dimensions and sub-dimensions. It follows the phases of a SI initiative, from the trigger that generates the idea, to the reconfiguring process, and to its impacts. Eight tools for data collection have been developed, tested in pilot cases, and applied in 11 case studies. Empirical results allowed to set 166 indicators: 73 indicators describe the SI dimensions; 63 indicators analyse the process, the project and the whole SI initiative by following relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability evaluation criteria (OECD, 1991 and 2010); 30 indicators focus on the key aspects of the SI SIMRA definition. Social Network Analysis helps in visualizing the increasing collaborative network of actors involved in the SI process, from core group composed by innovators and followers, to the reconfigured network with new project partners. The approach integrates qualitative-pure methods (e.g., focus group) with quantitative ones. The proposed evaluation framework would like to contribute to current debates, both within the scientific and practitioners' communities, on evidence-based policy and self-evaluation by rural development agencies.
An agreed and well-consolidated evaluation framework for the assessment of social innovation (SI) and its impacts has not been developed yet, despite initial tentative made by scholars (e.g., Nicholls et al. 2015, Bock 2016). Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas – SIMRA (www.simra-h2020.eu.) is a EU funded H2020 project which aims to conceptualize and propose an evaluation framework, based on qualitative-quantitative methods to evaluate SI in disadvantaged rural areas of Europe and non-EU Mediterranean countries. Within SIMRA, SI is defined as "the reconfiguring of social practices, in response to societal challenges, which seeks to enhance outcomes on societal well-being and necessarily includes the engagement of civil society actors" (Polman et al., 2017). The aim of this paper is to illustrate the framework and the related tools for data collection and analysis that we propose for evaluating SI and its impacts in rural contexts. The evaluation framework has been co-constructed with project partners and a panel of international stakeholders in the fields of agriculture, forestry, and rural development (Nijnik et al. 2019). It is structured into dimensions and sub-dimensions. It follows the phases of a SI initiative, from the trigger that generates the idea, to the reconfiguring process to its impacts. The framework envisages several interconnected quantitative and qualitative variables. Eight tools for variables collection have been developed, tested in two pilot cases, and applied in 11 case studies in the target regions. Empirical results allowed to set 166 indicators: 73 indicators describe all the dimensions of SI (e.g., idea, agency, new networks, outputs, outcomes, learning processes); 63 indicators analyse the process, the project and the whole SI initiative by following relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability evaluation criteria (OECD, 1991 and 2010); 30 indicators focus on the key descriptive of the SI SIMRA definition. The approach integrates qualitative-pure methods (e.g., focus group) with quantitative ones (e.g., Social Network Analysis). The empirically tested evaluation framework proposed in this paper would like to contribute to current debates, both within the scientific and practitioners' communities, on evidence-based policy, future strategies to support communities' creativity mobilization, and self-evaluation by rural development agencies.
Mushrooms, berries and other Non-Wood Forest Products (NWFPs) are an important part of forest recreation, rural income and of cultural heritage. Due to poor data on their collection and use, they are often ignored in forest policy and management decisions, which could impair those livelihoods that depend on NWFPs as an income source. We conducted a survey involving 17,346 respondents from 28 European countries to estimate which and how much of these products are collected. Our results show that 26% of European households collect NWFPs and that collection rates and quantities increase from Western to Eastern Europe. Previous studies focused mainly on marketed NWFPs, but our findings suggest that marketed NWFPs represent only a small share and that 86% of the collected weight is self-consumed. The total value of NWFPs collected each year amounts to 71% of the value of annual roundwood production, much more than previously estimated. Our results point to the need to consider co-production of wood and NWFPs, especially in Central Europe where their value per hectare is the highest. ; The authors acknowledge the funding received from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement no. 311919 (project StarTree) and Horizon 2020 EU Research and Innovation programme under grant agreement no. 773297 (project BioMonitor).
The "Final Report on Cross-Case Studies Assessment of Social Innovation" provides a transversal and systematic analysis of the Case Studies of Social innovation (SI) identified in the H2020 SIMRA project (http://www.simra-h2020.eu/) using aggregated qualitative and quantitative empirical information. The cross-case analysis identifies commonalities and differences across the cases in relation to the principal issues and characteristics of social innovation processes in Marginalised Rural Areas and examines complex and situated relationships and interactions. The cross-case assessment of the main social innovation issues and characteristics was based on the investigation of important trends identified within five cross-cutting themes of enquiry: The factors that influence the emergence and development of social innovation in terms of both the context and characteristics of actors. The process of reconfiguration and the changes of social practices (e.g. new networks, new government arrangements). The model of social innovation development and the identification of trajectory of divergence. The impacts of the social innovation on dimensions of territorial capital (economy, society, environment, governance). The analysis of policy impacts on social innovation and social innovation policy implications. In addition to the analysis undertaken for each theme of enquiry, composite indicators were calculated which were based upon the methodology developed in Secco et al. (2019) to better understand Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas on a large scale. Outputs associated with the report are recommendations on factors linked to the success and failure of social innovation initiatives in relation to impacts of policies or on policies. ; Suggested citation: Ravazzoli, E., Dalla Torre, C., Streifeneder, T., Pisani, E., Da Re, R., Vicentini, K., Secco, L., Górriz-Mifsud, E., Marini Govigli, V., Melnykovych, M., Valero, D., Bryce, R., Weiß, G., Ludvig, A., Zivojinovic, I. and Lukesch, R. 2020. Final Report on ...
Social innovation (SI) impacts are long-term changes that affect different dimensions of territorial capital (i.e., economy, society, environment, governance) for the territory in which SI occurs. Yet, systematic empirical evidence and theoretically sound assessments of the impacts of SI are scarce. This paper aims to fill the gap and assess the different aspects of SI's impacts in European and Mediterranean areas that are characterized by marginalization processes. To assess the impacts of SI in marginalized areas, we use the evaluation framework developed within the Social Innovation in Marginalized Rural Areas (SIMRA) Horizon 2020 project and apply it to nine SI initiatives related to the fields of agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and rural development. Our findings show that SI produces cross-sectoral (societal, economic, environmental, and governmental) and multi-level impacts (on individuals, community, and society), which have improved the societal well-being, and contributed to the reduction of certain forms of marginality, mainly inside the territory in which SI occurred. ; This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under Grant Agreement No. 677622 (H2020 SIMRA–Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas Project).
Social innovation (SI) impacts are long-term changes that affect different dimensions of territorial capital (i.e., economy, society, environment, governance) for the territory in which SI occurs. Yet, systematic empirical evidence and theoretically sound assessments of the impacts of SI are scarce. This paper aims to fill the gap and assess the different aspects of SI's impacts in European and Mediterranean areas that are characterized by marginalization processes. To assess the impacts of SI in marginalized areas, we use the evaluation framework developed within the Social Innovation in Marginalized Rural Areas (SIMRA) Horizon 2020 project and apply it to nine SI initiatives related to the fields of agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and rural development. Our findings show that SI produces cross-sectoral (societal, economic, environmental, and governmental) and multi-level impacts (on individuals, community, and society), which have improved the societal well-being, and contributed to the reduction of certain forms of marginality, mainly inside the territory in which SI occurred. View Full-Text Keywords: social innovation; socio-economic impacts; institutional impacts; environmental impacts; societal well-being; European societal challenges; marginalization; sustainability challenges; local level
