Search

In the past decades, novel governance and management approaches that support the provision of nonmarketable Forest Ecosystem Services (FES) have emerged throughout Europe. However, it remains unclear under which circumstances such modes of FES governance develop and which sets of socialecological parameters, management formats, and interests enable or constrain these processes. In this paper, we aim to shed light on the development processes of such governance innovations. We combine approaches from natural resource governance with insights from innovation studies to identify the close interrelations between designing governance approaches and the inherent innovation dynamics in their development. Empirically, we apply an adapted innovation journey approach to reconstruct the development history of four governance innovations in Europe. We analyse key turning points and crucial influencing factors of the innovation processes, focussing on interests, resources, and values of actors, biophysical and technical conditions of the forest resource systems, institutions and governance arrangements, and features of the innovation management. Our findings show that often individual actors became mainstays of the innovation developments, whereas governmental organisations took up an important role in managing the innovation development process, without being the main change agents. Further, in cases with a reliable legal environment and existing funding schemes innovation development was fostered effectively. While various natural disturbances negatively impacted upon innovation development, most crisis-related interruptions provided an opportunity for radically changing pathways. We conclude that to cope with these uncertain development dynamics, conditions for innovation development need to be created that allow for continuous monitoring and adaptation of innovation processes along their development. For future governance innovation development processes, this calls for the setup of protected spaces that allow for stakeholder participation and open deliberation of interests and expectations regarding FES provisioning as preconditions for governance co-design work based on mutual learning and reflection.

Mountain landscapes provide a variety of cultural ecosystem services (CES), but recent developments such as land-use and climate changes, population growth or urbanization seem to lead more frequently to conflicts among users or restrict the use of natural resources. An enhanced understanding of such conflicts and limitations may improve decision-making and management of mountain landscapes and maintain high levels of CES supply. However, conceptual and empirical research on identifying and evaluating conflicts and limitations of use in qualitative, quantitative and spatial terms as well as interdependencies in socio-ecological systems (SES) is still rare, and suitable methods are underdeveloped. Therefore, this paper elaborates the outcomes of an expert workshop and presents eleven case studies related to different CES and various contexts to conceptualise conflicts and limitations of CES use in mountain regions, complemented by assessment approaches to facilitate their identification and management. Using a multidimensional framework, we find that conflicts were mostly related to socio-economic changes and an increasing recreational use, whereas limitations of use greatly depended on accessibility and legal issues. Our findings contribute to the advancement of research on CES and are particularly useful for landscape management and decision-making to develop sustainable solutions and maintain CES in mountain landscapes.

Traditionally, rural and urban spaces have been treated as separate entities with special characteristics. Within the ongoing change in human–environmental relationships the linkages between them become more and more important. This chapter introduces the main debates and challenges in academics and policy on rural–urban linkages and argues for the importance of different perspectives, providing a rationale to and context for the volume. Its aim is to, first summarize important fields of research and secondly present the authors’ contributions to this book. In a two-step literature review we show the previous geographical research on rural–urban linkages, discuss the definitions, and, in quantitative and qualitative terms, the different approaches in economic geography. The results show that the characteristics and boundaries of urban and rural have become blurred over time. Furthermore, they show that within the governance of rural–urban linkages, spaces are not absolute but social constructions to manage certain challenges.

There has been a strong quest for mapping and assessing ecosystem services (ES) to support governance. Yet, the institutional landscape that governs ES provision across multiple contexts has received less attention. We fill this research gap by developing and operationalising a framework for the analysis of policy documents that address European forest ES provision. By coding and analysing references to forest ES as well as innovations and governance mechanisms addressing these ES in national strategies on forest, biodiversity and bioeconomy, we map the institutional landscape of forest ES provision in Europe. We further analyse how biophysical supply of forest ES is connected to policies paying attention to ES and identifying innovations and governance for their provision. Innovations identified in policies centre around value chains of wood and bioenergy or biodiversity conservation, while non-wood forest products, cultural heritage, and recreation receive little attention. Biophysical supply of provisioning ES is connected to policies emphasising many innovations, while little supply of regulating ES could trigger service innovations and several new governance mechanisms. As forest ecosystems have received much attention in global, European and national sustainability policies, our institutional mapping illustrates that there is room for more use of innovations in promoting ES provision.

Fair trade is a fast growing niche market in Europe. Producer and consumer are linked via global value chains, based on the idea of solidarity manifested in a variety of social, economic and increasingly ecological criteria. In the German market, double-digit percentage growth is achieved by augmenting quality and diversity of fair trade products and selling sealed products via supermarkets and discounters. In consequence, the global value chains are subject to change; new actors not belonging to the social movement are getting involved. New steps of value creation are being inserted into existing value chains or shifted along the value chain, primarily into the consumer’s country. As a consequence, power shifts from south to north are observed. This aspect leads to the question whether the fair-trade-movement is still changing the conventional world trade system "from within" or if it is selling its reputation as a price for growth by cooperating with the market actors it is criticising. In this article the results of a study are presented, focusing on value chains of fair trade food products on the German market and their changes over time, on the upcoming of various new highly processed composite goods and on the new possibility for manufacturers and discounters to certify their in-house brand products.

Wissenschaftliche Studien zum quality turn im Weinbau haben vor allem die Restrukturierungsprozesse in Regionen der "Neuen Welt" Des Weinbaus analysiert, wahrend kaum Arbeiten zu europaischen Weinregionen vorliegen. Vor diesem Hintergrund nimmt der Beitrag die Sudtiroler Weinwirtschaft aus einer pragmatisch-prozessorientierten Perspektive in den Blick und geht der Frage nach, wie es den Weinproduzenten in Sudtirol gelungen ist, einen quality run einzuleiten und sich erfolgreich in einem globalisierten Markt zu positionieren. Ziel ist es dabei, einen Beitrag zu einem differenzierten Verstandnis von global-lokalen Aushandlungsprozessen in der Weinwirtschaft zu leisten. Ein pragmatisch-prozessorientierter Blick macht sichtbar, wie unterschiedliche Qualifizierungsstrategien im Rahmen regionaler Restrukturierungsprozesse interpretiert und kontextualisiert werden und ermoglicht so neue Einsichten in die Dynamiken regionalen Wandels. Der Aufsatz zeigt, wie es Sudtirol im Unterschied zur Neuen Welt gelungen ist, sich auch ohne Kapitalzuflusse von ausen und ohne tiefgreifende Veranderungen in der Agrarstruktur als Weinregion in einem globalisierten Markt zu erfinden.

Understanding stakeholders and stakeholder constellations is essential for governing FES sustainably and for fostering the identification and development of respective governance innovations. InnoForESt aims for an integrated approach to knowledge generation, stakeholder inter-action, and triggering governance innovation. Thus, identifying, mapping, and integrating a diversity of stakeholders’ knowledge, interests, visions, and concerns, including civil society perceptions, user demands, facilitators’ suggestions, and how stakeholders are interlinked is crucial for keeping the InnoForESt innovation action as compatible as possible with stakeholders’ perspectives. The assessment of the stakeholders’ key orientations regarding FES governance innovation is essential for fostering the co-production of the innovation networks and prototypes. More precisely, stakeholder analysis in the context of InnoForESt has the purpose of (1) identifying, organizing, and sharing the available, but unstructured or implicit knowledge about stakeholders, (2) identifying stakeholder-related knowledge gaps and, based on this, (3) gathering new stakeholder information relevant for fostering the innovation processes in the respective case studies, and (4) allowing for cross-case study analysis and for developing stake-holder typologies.

With this study we assess the process of developing novel niche innovations for sustainable forest ecosystem services governance. We chose a comparative qualitative analysis approach and conceptually built on, transfer and adapt insights from innovation research. In particular, we conceive of innovation as a process or a journey and not solely as a product. Our conceptual approach further acknowledges the need for taking into account the socio-ecological-technical context. We thus include a focus on the socially enacted interactions between niches that offer particularly fruitful innovation potential, established regimes as well as other socio-cultural, economic and political landscape developments and trends, against the background of which the more specific dynamics of particular regimes and niches evolve. The Innovation Journeys are being reconstructed as an opportunity to get an overview of the mechanisms and dynamics of the innovation processes themselves. We proceed in an abductive manner, instead of a deductive-nomological logic. That is, both theoretical and empirical considerations flow into the structure and execution of the analysis. We emphasise that the methodology does not follow the theoretical assumptions, but the latter have developed in the light of the examination of the empirical material. The analytical categories for assessing and structuring our innovation processes have not been set in advance, but were developed with a view to the structure of the cases from the material analysis and partly, where appropriate, from the combination of different theoretical streams. We find that (1) innovation development does not take place in isolated space. Rather, it is shaping and shaped by essential context conditions. (2) For innovation development the strategic orientation, i.e., the overarching aims and objectives are essential. (3) We highlight how regional innovations have been organized. (4) In the InnoForESt project, a process structure of measures was jointly developed, which provided for a number of measures to take place everywhere, such as three different types of CINA workshops. In addition, there were activities that were simply necessary to set the work process in motion in the regions. (5) Real world innovation development does not take place under ideal “laboratory” conditions. Rather it is shaped by problems, crises, stagnation and setbacks. A closer look at the Innovation Journeys has revealed that (1) innovation processes have a rhythm, (2) which is very different depending on the local and historical situation in which it is embedded, (3) which is not simply going into the direction of the new, towards progress and (4) that stakeholder networks develop along with the rhythm of the innovation process. In addition, the role of the Constructive Innovation Assessment with its multi-phase approach became clearer. Much has been achieved in the Innovation Regions during the course of the project by the Innovation Region Teams. In many cases, however, a quiet fading out was observable towards the end of the project, Partially due to the difficulties of meeting under Covid-19 conditions. At this stage it is up to the stakeholders themselves and the regional practice partners to decide whether they feel at ease or in a position to continue what they have achieved so far. The innovation work done is a good start, but still not enough for an innovation to fully take root. In order to secure the legacy, stakeholders should initiate more meetings, either on invitation of the practice partner or of one of the stakeholders willing and able to organize an invitation and setup. Keeping in touch with the entire stakeholder network enables to stay up to date with further developments and with external relations and development influencing the innovation. At least regular meetings should enable to keep relationships vivid and to further debate on promising ways to secure achievements and ideally to keep on elaborating the innovation. The established digital platforms with its external and internal parts are ready to be used as technical support for information exchange and keeping the momentum alive. For a web adapted version of this deliverable please see https://innoforest.eu/repository/d4-3-overview/