8 Innovations for Sustainable Land Management …
149
quality. As a level of consideration, regions are regarded as a particularly promising
spatial intervention level (e.g. “sustainable development of regions”, regional circular
economy”, “regional value chains”). Emphasis is also placed on the central role of
holistic systems approaches, reflected by the demand for “system solutions”, which
consider the “system context”, complex interactions and urban–rural linkages.
In sum, SLM is regarded as a “key issue” and a highly “complex area of activities”
that integrates different sectors, demands and interests such as water, soil, biodiversity, regional value creation, urban and rural areas, and others. Consequently, an
interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary collaboration between actors
from practice (politics, administration, economy and civil society) and science was
mandatory.
8.3 Analysis of Innovations in Sustainable Land
Management
We sought adequate frameworks and theoretical models to identify the specifics of
SLM innovations, to better understand the underlying innovation processes, and to
structure our study. Despite a thorough review, we found no conceptual framework
with a consistent explanation or guidance for the very diverse processes and projects
that we accompanied.
Not only does the literature distinguish between different types of innovation (technical, social and process innovations) that require different management
approaches, innovation processes are also embedded in very complex contexts. Due to
this complexity, there is often doubt as to the extent to which such complex processes
can be controlled and purposefully managed (e.g. Sauer 1999; Kristof 2010).
However, it can also be stated that change and innovation processes are more
than random events that do not happen out of nothing, but that can and need to be
stimulated. In this context, many authors emphasised the role of conditions and innovation contexts that can be managed to support innovations. Particularly concerning
sustainability innovations, the “multi-impulse hypothesis” has increasingly come to
the fore (e.g. Kramer 2010). Here, the foci can be very diverse, as demonstrated
by a collection of theories about socio-technical change with “the most explanatory
power” or applicability by Sovacool and Hess (2017). The authors interviewed 35
experts from different disciplinary backgrounds and found 96 distinct theories. The
most frequently mentioned theories were the socio-technological transition approach
(after Geels 2002, Geels and Schot 2007), social practice theory (Shove et al. 2012),
discourse theory, social construction of technology, and sociotechnical imaginations.
Sovacool and Hess (ibid.) were able to show that most theories focus on the categories
(i) agency, (ii) structure, (iii) meaning, (iv) relations, and (v) norms.
149
quality. As a level of consideration, regions are regarded as a particularly promising
spatial intervention level (e.g. “sustainable development of regions”, regional circular
economy”, “regional value chains”). Emphasis is also placed on the central role of
holistic systems approaches, reflected by the demand for “system solutions”, which
consider the “system context”, complex interactions and urban–rural linkages.
In sum, SLM is regarded as a “key issue” and a highly “complex area of activities”
that integrates different sectors, demands and interests such as water, soil, biodiversity, regional value creation, urban and rural areas, and others. Consequently, an
interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary collaboration between actors
from practice (politics, administration, economy and civil society) and science was
mandatory.
8.3 Analysis of Innovations in Sustainable Land
Management
We sought adequate frameworks and theoretical models to identify the specifics of
SLM innovations, to better understand the underlying innovation processes, and to
structure our study. Despite a thorough review, we found no conceptual framework
with a consistent explanation or guidance for the very diverse processes and projects
that we accompanied.
Not only does the literature distinguish between different types of innovation (technical, social and process innovations) that require different management
approaches, innovation processes are also embedded in very complex contexts. Due to
this complexity, there is often doubt as to the extent to which such complex processes
can be controlled and purposefully managed (e.g. Sauer 1999; Kristof 2010).
However, it can also be stated that change and innovation processes are more
than random events that do not happen out of nothing, but that can and need to be
stimulated. In this context, many authors emphasised the role of conditions and innovation contexts that can be managed to support innovations. Particularly concerning
sustainability innovations, the “multi-impulse hypothesis” has increasingly come to
the fore (e.g. Kramer 2010). Here, the foci can be very diverse, as demonstrated
by a collection of theories about socio-technical change with “the most explanatory
power” or applicability by Sovacool and Hess (2017). The authors interviewed 35
experts from different disciplinary backgrounds and found 96 distinct theories. The
most frequently mentioned theories were the socio-technological transition approach
(after Geels 2002, Geels and Schot 2007), social practice theory (Shove et al. 2012),
discourse theory, social construction of technology, and sociotechnical imaginations.
Sovacool and Hess (ibid.) were able to show that most theories focus on the categories
(i) agency, (ii) structure, (iii) meaning, (iv) relations, and (v) norms.