4.5 Article

Towards a method of evaluating social innovation in forest-dependent rural communities: First suggestions from a science-stakeholder collaboration

期刊

FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS
卷 104, 期 -, 页码 9-22

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.03.011

关键词

-

资金

  1. Horizon 2020 [677622]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forest-dependent communities in remote rural areas face challenges such as delocalization of industry and loss of economic activities (only partially stemmed by tourism), ageing, migration, increasing poverty and global environmental change. The EU has increasingly embraced social innovation as a mean for addressing these challenges and rebuilding resilience. However, it is not yet clear how to evaluate these emergent processes in terms of dynamics, performances and impacts, e.g. enhanced human wellbeing. Specific methodologies for social innovation evaluation in rural and forest-dependent communities have not been agreed yet. This qualitative paper is based on the initial stages of a science-stakeholder collaboration carried out within the 4-years EU funded Horizon 2020 project titled Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA) on evaluation methods. Its aims are to: (1) provide an overview of what aspects of social innovation should be evaluated, and (2) describe the characteristics of an evaluation method that would capture such aspects, with a focus on forestry domain. Results show that a suite of qualitative and quantitative methods and indicators are required, as well as a combination of expert and participatory-based evaluation approaches capturing both elements of the social innovation process and their outcomes, as well as primary data from social innovation initiatives at local level. More attention is needed on soft data such as satisfaction, feelings and happiness of involved actors and beneficiaries, as well as on environmental aspects, than on the pure economic efficiency and impacts, considering the effects of social innovation in forest ecosystem services.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据