16
and Espejel 2015; Martínez et al. 2015, 2016). In the context of SES in order to
maintain certain favorable stable states, it is important to form participatory interand transdisciplinary partnerships, who do not only integrate the natural and social
sciences, but incorporate knowledge, needs, and interests of all stakeholders, which
then allows the co-production of knowledge, diagnostics, monitoring and evaluation
systems, and the development of public policies (Ostrom 2009). In Mexico, inventories on biodiversity operated by CONABIO have generated novel forms of knowledge generation through participatory monitoring (www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/
sistema_monitoreo), while at the Latin American level citizen observatories have
contributed to novel forms of knowledge production (www.desertificación.gob.ar/).
In both examples, citizen involvement in knowledge production has transformed
attitudes and conferred good governance schemes related to nature, life quality, and
the implementation of good practices.
Governance schemes should be flexible and support innovation and risk-taking
in research. For instance, the creation of a cross-sectional innovation unit can bridge
the gap between public research and private sector initiatives directly engaged in
sustainable management and development of the drylands. Thus, RISZA considers
that alongside good governance, social innovation is crucial to achieve the sustainable development goals in drylands. Social innovation refers to novel solutions created to solve social problems in a more efficient, effective, sustainable, and fair
manner than previous solutions, where the resulting aggregated value corresponds
to society at large rather than to a few individuals (Philis et al. 2008). Beyond ample
creativity, successful ideas for social innovation have originated from people’s
needs and dislocations, dissatisfactions, and blockages. And furthermore, from the
generation of new knowledge that opens the door to problem solving in innovative
ways (Mulgan 2006).
While certain governments have been reticent to invest in social innovation
because it entails risk of failure, innovation has a better chance of success when
users have choices and contracts for services reward outcomes achieved rather than
outputs or activities, or when there is some competition rather than a state monopoly
(Díaz Foncea et al. 2012). Other challenges for social innovation come from the
typical insights obtained from business innovation. Contrary to following typical
market structures these endeavors align with social organizations that have different
motives going further than material incentives to include political recognition and
support, voluntary labor, compassion, identity, autonomy, and care. According to
the authors’ experiences, social organizations tend to grow slower than private businesses, but they also tend to be more resilient. However, clearer metrics are needed
to understand social innovation since it is complicated to judge their success. Scale
or market share may matter little for a social innovation concerned with a very
intense but contained need. In some cases, participants’ lives are dramatically
improved by the act of collaboration (Mulgan 2006, also for an example, see http://
www.in-control.org.uk).
In drylands, it is important to document multiple innovation examples that have
been implemented to better manage natural resources like water, minerals, new
technology for pastoralism and ranching and agricultural practices, among others.
E. Huber-Sannwald et al.
and Espejel 2015; Martínez et al. 2015, 2016). In the context of SES in order to
maintain certain favorable stable states, it is important to form participatory interand transdisciplinary partnerships, who do not only integrate the natural and social
sciences, but incorporate knowledge, needs, and interests of all stakeholders, which
then allows the co-production of knowledge, diagnostics, monitoring and evaluation
systems, and the development of public policies (Ostrom 2009). In Mexico, inventories on biodiversity operated by CONABIO have generated novel forms of knowledge generation through participatory monitoring (www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/
sistema_monitoreo), while at the Latin American level citizen observatories have
contributed to novel forms of knowledge production (www.desertificación.gob.ar/).
In both examples, citizen involvement in knowledge production has transformed
attitudes and conferred good governance schemes related to nature, life quality, and
the implementation of good practices.
Governance schemes should be flexible and support innovation and risk-taking
in research. For instance, the creation of a cross-sectional innovation unit can bridge
the gap between public research and private sector initiatives directly engaged in
sustainable management and development of the drylands. Thus, RISZA considers
that alongside good governance, social innovation is crucial to achieve the sustainable development goals in drylands. Social innovation refers to novel solutions created to solve social problems in a more efficient, effective, sustainable, and fair
manner than previous solutions, where the resulting aggregated value corresponds
to society at large rather than to a few individuals (Philis et al. 2008). Beyond ample
creativity, successful ideas for social innovation have originated from people’s
needs and dislocations, dissatisfactions, and blockages. And furthermore, from the
generation of new knowledge that opens the door to problem solving in innovative
ways (Mulgan 2006).
While certain governments have been reticent to invest in social innovation
because it entails risk of failure, innovation has a better chance of success when
users have choices and contracts for services reward outcomes achieved rather than
outputs or activities, or when there is some competition rather than a state monopoly
(Díaz Foncea et al. 2012). Other challenges for social innovation come from the
typical insights obtained from business innovation. Contrary to following typical
market structures these endeavors align with social organizations that have different
motives going further than material incentives to include political recognition and
support, voluntary labor, compassion, identity, autonomy, and care. According to
the authors’ experiences, social organizations tend to grow slower than private businesses, but they also tend to be more resilient. However, clearer metrics are needed
to understand social innovation since it is complicated to judge their success. Scale
or market share may matter little for a social innovation concerned with a very
intense but contained need. In some cases, participants’ lives are dramatically
improved by the act of collaboration (Mulgan 2006, also for an example, see http://
www.in-control.org.uk).
In drylands, it is important to document multiple innovation examples that have
been implemented to better manage natural resources like water, minerals, new
technology for pastoralism and ranching and agricultural practices, among others.
E. Huber-Sannwald et al.