Guiding the guides: Doing 'Constructive Innovation Assessment' as part of innovating forest ecosystem service governance

While participatory methods are not unknown in the ecosystem services community, there is unused potential in co-creating ecosystem service governance innovation. We argue that participatory methods in ecosystem service governance can be further improved and ingrained into the way of working by incorporating insights from innovation studies. In the InnoForESt project, which revolved around innovations in forest ecosystem services, the task of "Constructive Innovation Assessment" (CINA) was to systematically transfer strategic knowledge into six local innovation processes. We outline the core features of this approach and describe the experiences we made in accompanying the implementation of the approach in the six cases. As a core feature of CINA, realistic scenarios were developed in each innovation process, aiming to formulate contextualised innovation options. Because stakeholders are the linchpin of all efforts, they must be able and willing to do something with these options. The innovation work carried out during the project was designed in such a way that the scenarios were developed, stabilised, or modified and sometimes discarded in co-creation with the stakeholders at key points during intensive strategic workshops. Working with the CINA approach benefits from operable boundary objects and strives for achieving the quality of "convergence work": the challenge of reaching agreement on something that can be collaborated upon, across different interests and with growing shared interest. CINA's flexibility allowed each of the six processes to be tailored to the forest ecosystem governance of a region. Participation in the InnoForESt project was not limited to a series of workshops but encompassed various forms of communication and interaction between these workshops. For local innovation workers, participation in the InnoForESt project was also a practical challenge: to be self-confident and true to themselves and their own competences, while simultaneously remaining open to trying something new. For them, CINA was not only part of a broader process, but also a 'method'. This method seemed unwieldy at first but gained momentum and attractiveness while engaging with it. The effort involved in introducing and supporting CINA is substantial. If one does not want to return to a simple, linear illusion of 'controllable' innovation, then it is worth investing in the support work with local partners which CINA provides. All sides learn from adopting CINA

Narrative and Frame Analysis: Disentangling and Refining Two Close Relatives by Means of a Large Infrastructural Technology Case

Social science literature frequently conflates the concepts "narrative" and "frame." We argue not only that using the terms interchangeably is conceptually imprecise but also that analyses based on them actually produce different kinds of knowledge. A systematic disentanglement, contrast and refinement of both concepts benefits from a comparative framework applied to the same case. We provide both. The illustrative case is a large infrastructural coastal management project. The key difference between narratives and frames turns out to be on the respective scale level: frames are actors' perspectives, whereas narratives are the expressed products of those perspectives. Being the mode of expression of one's perspective, we pinpoint "storytelling" as the link between narratives and framing and the origin of the conceptual confusion. Our framework clarifies the terminological usage and enables an informed method choice based on the desired kind of knowledge. With this clearer terminological understanding in mind, we encourage researchers to let the requirements and idiosyncrasies of their specific research interest and context inform their methods choice and to view the comparative framework as a heuristic rather than a deductive scheme.In der sozialwissenschaftlichen Literatur werden die Konzepte Narrative und Frame zumeist nicht trennscharf verwendet. Für uns ist es jedoch nicht nur konzeptuell unpräzise, beide Begriffe auswechselbar zu nutzen, sondern wir gehen auch davon aus, dass die jeweiligen Analysen unterschiedliche Wissensarten produzieren. Eine systematische Trennung sowie ein Vergleich und eine Verfeinerung beider Begriffe benötigt einen Rahmen, der auf denselben Fall angewandt wird. Wir illustrieren dies am Fall eines großen, infrastrukturellen Küstenschutzprojekts. Im Ergebnis besteht ein zentraler Unterschied zwischen Narrative und Frame in der Situiertheit auf unterschiedlichen Ebenen: Frames verweisen auf Akteur*innenperspektiven, Narratives auf deren Produkte. Als Ausdrucksmittel der eigenen Perspektive lokalisieren wir Storytelling als die konzeptuelle Verbindung zwischen Narrative und Frame. Gleichzeitig ist das Konzept des Storytelling der Ursprung der konzeptuellen Verwirrung. Mittels des von uns vorgestellten Vergleichsrahmens verdeutlichen wir den terminologischen Gebrauch und eine informierte Methodenwahl je nach gewünschter Wissensart. Mithilfe dieses klareren terminologischen Verständnisses regen wir Forscher*innen an, ihre Methodenwahl von den Anforderungen und Eigenarten des spezifischen Forschungsinteresses und des Forschungskontexts abhängig zu machen. In diesem Sinne sollte unser Vergleichsrahmen als Heuristik gesehen werden und nicht als ein deduktiver Verfahrensvorschlag

Framing coastal squeeze: Understanding the integration of Mega-nourishment schemes into the Dutch coastal management solutions repertoire: An interpretive analysis of coastal management processes

Ewert Aukes’ dissertation takes an interpretive perspective to study the meaning-making processes that led to the realization of three Dutch coastal management projects. Coastal management has a long tradition in the Netherlands, which has made it well-known across the globe. Recently, coastal managers have come up with a new alternative to protecting sandy coasts, the mega-nourishment scheme. The three projects studied in the thesis are all subtypes of the mega-nourishment scheme. They are to a different degree innovative in their use of sand as material for nourishing beaches, i.e. applying large amounts of sand to beaches or foreshores to improve coastal protection performance while at the same time increasing potential for economic, recreational and nature development. In-depth, qualitative interviewing was the main source of data in this dissertation. Participants in the projects' decision-making were interviewed to gain insight into the argumentative meaning-making processes associated with the realization of the projects. The empirical work covered in this dissertation reveals different types of policy framing as dominant processes of meaning-making. In one case, policy frames initially limit the convergence of actors over solutions. In another case, a proficient meaning-making actor succeeded in framing its proposal as a solution for different problems at the same time. The results help to understand how coastal management is ‘made’ in the Netherlands. Coastal management is at first sight a technical, perhaps even technocratic policy domain. Nevertheless, meaning-making and framing, specifically, is just as important in this policy domain as it is in others. Besides their value for interpretive studies of coastal management and policy-making in general, the research this dissertation presents also opens up new avenues for practitioners to position themselves in coastal management processes

Co-production and participation: two magic words?

Consequences of co-production – In this era of growing challenges and shrinking budgets, governments are tempted to redefine some of their responsibilities. Fortunately for these institutions, the call for more public participation is answered by societal actors such as citizens, companies and societal organisations aspiring to step in. Co-production occurs, when governments work together with societal actors to find policy solutions. The final decision-making authority in such cases is still with the governments, but they are committed to the solutions developed with the societal actors. However, within these co-production processes, either governments or societal actors can be in the lead. Starting from the assumption that governmental institutions and societal actors have different interests and drivers, this article explores the consequences of societal actors taking the initiative in terms of involved actors, interaction and cooperation. In this contribution, we elaborate some of the consequences of such a shift in governance by examining a societal initiative resulting in a pilot at the Houtribdijk. This pilot investigates sandy strategies in low energy water systems for their potential for flood protection. This pilot is in contrast with the government led dike reinforcement project at the Houtribdijk