Social innovation and sustainability; how to disentangle the buzzword and its application in the field of agriculture and rural development

Social innovation is often appointed as an essential part of agricultural and rural innovation. Everybody seems to agree that social innovation is important but what exactly is meant by the term remains often unclear. This paper aims at clarifying the meaning and significance of the concept by going back to its root in innovation science and policy. It appoints three main interpretations of social innovation, referring to the social mechanism of innovation, the social responsibility of innovation and the need for innovating society. Studying its application in the field of agriculture and rural development reveals that social innovation is rarely referred to when agriculture as a singular economic activity is concerned, but prominently present in discussions about rural development. Here social innovation may be referred to when identifying society’s need for more sustainable production methods, the necessity for collaboration and social learning, and the scope of change needed for revitalising (rural) society. Often, however, social innovation is presented as a tangle of interdependent processes and beneficial outcomes. Its fuzziness contributes to its discursive power in discussions about agricultural politics and the significance of sustainability, but also hides the valued-loadedness of social innovation. As a result its critical potential becomes neutralised. For gaining more insight in how to more effectively support social innovation, it is important to disentangle the social innovation jumble, to unravel the diverse interrelations and to explore and monitor its functioning and contribution to processes of social change and renewal

Young Muslims’ religious identities in relation to places beyond the UK:a qualitative map-making technique in Newcastle upon Tyne

Transnational relations can play an important role in young people’s identity negotiations and transitions to adulthood. In this article, we explore how young British-born Muslims construct and contest their religious identities and experience their changing religious identities from their lateteens until their early-twenties. We analyse how places beyond the UK shape their religious beliefs and identities in Newcastle upon Tyne in the North East of England, and present a methodological tool to understand young people’s complex and changing (religious) identities and spatialities. We draw on in-depth interviews–including map-making methods–with a small number of young Muslims living in Newcastle upon Tyne whose parents migrated from Pakistan or Bangladesh. This article contributes to youth geographies, by illustrating that when the participants begin to negotiate ‘being Muslim’ more independently, the spatial orientation of their religious identities starts to change as well. We show that the changing meaning and importance of the places beyond the UK should be understood in relation to other spatial notions when explaining religious identity negotiations of young people. Moreover, the paper provides a methodological contribution in demonstrating how map-making can help to examine young people’s identities and changing relationships to places in a transnational context

Part II Farmers’ Experiences of the Farm Assessment: Interviews with Farmers

The objective of work package 463 was to test the implementation of the WQ assessment Scheme on regular broiler farms. We assessed the perception and attitudes of farmers towards animal welfare and on-farm assessment, the experience and evaluation of the assessment itself and the relevance and applicability of the results. at the same time animal scientists assessed the welfare of the animals by WQ monitoring instruments. In addition they scored foot pad lesions at the slaughterhouse by way of video imaging. Both studies proceeded in parallel; farmers told, hence, about their real-life experience. It is to be noted that the WQ monitoring instruments were not at their final state, and experiences and comments of the farmers are to be interpreted as reflection and discussion on work in progress. A team of sociologists carried out the study on farmers’ experiences, perception and attitude whereas the assessment of animal welfare was done by animal scientists. the study took place in three countries – Netherlands, Italy and the UK. We choose to focus on broilers for two main reasons. First of all the production cycle of broilers is relatively short and so it is possible to assess the welfare of different flocks within a short time-span and to check more easily any improvement of animal welfare as a result of farmers’ interventions. a second reason for focusing on broilers is that it allows us to link this project to another project where a new way of checking for foot-pad lesions is developed. this is, moreover, a relatively easy manner of checking animal welfare that allows us to lower the burden of three on-farm assessments considerably. In the following we report on the results of the welfare assessment (Part I) and the interviews with farmers about their perception and experience of animal welfare and the welfare assessment (Part II). In both parts we compare the results across the participating countries (Netherlands, Italy and United Kingdom). More in detail information on the national results of welfare assessment and interviews with farmers can be found in the deliverables 4.31.a (farmers’ interviews) and D4.31b (assessment results). as appendixes, we provide the technical and sociological questionnaires and the assessment reports that were sent to the farmers in the different countries. Bettina B. Bock Ingrid de Jon

Rurality and multi-level governance : Marginal rural areas inciting community governance

In the late 1990s, the shift of power from government to governance was a critical subject of academic debate. In the rural context, studies focused on the role of governance in endogenous models of development. The discussion centred on the opportunities for development from bottom-up and based on local resources, the danger of elite groups’ dominance and the legitimacy of rural governance within a representative democracy society. Changes in the governing of rural areas have continued ever since and proceeded in the same direction. They reflect the continuous withdrawal of the state from public tasks in the aftermath of the financial crisis and as part of welfare state reforms. Lack of public funds is one driver of this development, yet this is – again – presented as an opportunity for citizen empowerment. Marginal rural areas are affected in a particular way; because of the diminishing support from central governments, active citizens play an increasingly important role in maintaining vital services. In a way they may, hence, be considered as natural laboratories for testing and understanding the opportunities and limits of multilevel governance. This chapter looks into the development of thought about rural governance in relation to rural development. In sketches how research and theory developed since the 1990s, appointing and discussing the most important strands of thought in rural governance literature. It then focuses on current research in marginal rural areas where we see a broad spectrum of multilevel governance mechanisms, before the conclusions regarding the characteristics of current multi-level governance, its functioning and its results

Social innovation and sustainability; how to disentangle the buzzword and its application in the field of agriculture and rural development

Social innovation is often appointed as an essential part of agricultural and rural innovation. Everybody seems to agree that social innovation is important but what exactly is meant by the term remains often unclear. This paper aims at clarifying the meaning and significance of the concept by going back to its root in innovation science and policy. It appoints three main interpretations of social innovation, referring to the social mechanism of innovation, the social responsibility of innovation and the need for innovating society. Studying its application in the field of agriculture and rural development reveals that social innovation is rarely referred to when agriculture as a singular economic activity is concerned, but prominently present in discussions about rural development. Here social innovation may be referred to when identifying society’s need for more sustainable production methods, the necessity for collaboration and social learning, and the scope of change needed for revitalising (rural) society. Often, however, social innovation is presented as a tangle of interdependent processes and beneficial outcomes. Its fuzziness contributes to its discursive power in discussions about agricultural politics and the significance of sustainability, but also hides the valued-loadedness of social innovation. As a result its critical potential becomes neutralised. For gaining more insight in how to more effectively support social innovation, it is important to disentangle the social innovation jumble, to unravel the diverse interrelations and to explore and monitor its functioning and contribution to processes of social change and renewal

Rural Migration and New Patterns of Exclusion and Integration in Europe

Migration into rural areas is an increasingly important phenomenon in the global north. It is significant in terms of rising numbers of rural immigrants and the demographic and socioeconomic shifts it causes in host and home regions. Yet its importance results also from the processes of social change that it reflects as well as produces, and the new chances and risks it generates in terms of social equality and social integration. Moreover, current trends of rural immigration grant new insights into modern migration as well as rural development. It is insightful as it portrays a modern, mobile image of the rural that contradicts the traditional notion of the rural as stagnant and immobile, points at the importance of extra-local relations and mobile residents, and underlines the interrelationships between urban and rural regions

The emergence of social innovation in rural revitalisation practices : A comparative case study from Taiwan

Social innovation is considered a promising strategy for coping with societal challenges in rural areas. It is even viewed as essential to revitalisation. The literature suggests that social innovation is driven by the will to pursue a better quality of life, which includes the tangible and practical needs of residents (digital connectivity, healthcare facilities, environmental improvement, etc.), and results in tangible and intangible changes in society. In this paper, we aim to clarify the emergence of social innovation in rural revitalisation from community-driven practices and identify the relevant actors (actants). In doing so, we use the lens of actor-network theory (ANT) to analyse two rural communities from Taiwan. Both were confronted with environmental issues but they addressed in different ways and with different outcomes. Identifying the emergence of social innovation processes and their key actants, we conclude that rural social innovation can be an unintended outcome of continuous engagement in which practical interests result in both tangible and intangible changes. Therefore, it is difficult to predict at the outset whether community-driven rural revitalisation will facilitate social innovation. Nevertheless, staying connected with a group of engaged residents who are driven by a shared vision seems to be essential for fuelling social innovation, regardless of whether the actors are conscious of social innovation

Investigating the limits of multifunctional agriculture as the dominant frame for Green Care in agriculture in Flanders and the Netherlands

European agriculture and rural areas are facing multiple socio-economic changes, including a transition from an agriculture-based to a service-based economy. This restructuring forces agricultural and rural actor-networks to reformulate their (self-)definitions. One reformulation prevailing both in policy and scientific circles focuses on the notion of multifunctional agriculture (MFA). This paper critically examines the dominant role that this notion has played in legitimising and shaping the pathways of rural development now present in Europe. More specifically, we examine MFA's role in promoting and organising Green Care as an innovative agricultural activity in the Netherlands and in Flanders (Belgium). We will demonstrate that the MFA frame does not sufficiently grasp the complex reality of Green Care developments. More importantly, the dominance of the MFA frame and related practices and institutional structures enable as well as constrain Green Care's continuity and further development