158
J. Zscheischler and S. Rogga
landscapes. Sustainability innovations are thus often associated with competitive
disadvantages (Nidumolu et al. 2015). In addition, in order to be able to develop and
establish themselves, sustainability innovations usually require “second–order” innovations; they “challenge” conventional paradigms, routines and institutions (Knickel
et al. 2009), and eventually reconfigure regimes (Geels and Schot 2007) where technical and economic drivers have proven inadequate (Hegger et al. 2007). Moreover,
the development and enforcement (including adoption and impact) of innovations is
seen as a social process (Currie et al. 2005) and as a result of co-evolutionary development and learning processes that involve different stakeholder groups and bring
together knowledge resources (e.g. Ingram et al. 2015; Kemp et al. 2009; Schot and
Geels 2008).
Most of the projects then addressed these conceptual considerations by designing
innovation processes with the participation of various stakeholder groups. Different
approaches were used in the nine research projects (see Table 8.1). Examples include
the “real-world” or “living lab” approach, the “open innovation” concept, the method
of “design thinking”. Transdisciplinary processes were also conducted, as well
as very incremental management approaches that can be described as “muddling
through”. Combinations of several approaches, such as a transdisciplinary learning
process with a real-world lab approach (see also Rogga et al. 2018) were often
observed.
Such combinations appear to be pertinent: while transdisciplinary processes
enable the joint definition of problems in the consensual discourse, the integration of
different stakeholder perspectives, the elaboration of objectives and the identification
of suitable innovations, the other methods and approaches enable these solutions and
the corresponding transformation knowledge to be tested and experimented with.
8.4.4 Leverage Points in the Governance System of Land
(Use)
As stated above, we consider SLM to be a concept of change and transformation. In
this context, the term “management” refers to activities and interventions that seek
to bring about a shift towards more sustainable land use. Land (use), however, is a
highly regulated subject/field with several intervention levels, as shown in Fig. 8.2
(adapted after Hurni 1997).
With regard to the nine projects under investigation, we found that most projects
comprised interventions and developed innovations at levels between the land
plot (e.g. technological innovations such as agrophotovoltaic plants, agroforestry
systems) and the community (e.g. collaborative landscape management, integrated
spatial energy concepts). However, we also found that the projects coordinators
mentioned legal conditions as main barriers to innovation processes. Thus, it may
be worthwhile considering TDR projects that also involve actors from higher
intervention levels in the future.
J. Zscheischler and S. Rogga
landscapes. Sustainability innovations are thus often associated with competitive
disadvantages (Nidumolu et al. 2015). In addition, in order to be able to develop and
establish themselves, sustainability innovations usually require “second–order” innovations; they “challenge” conventional paradigms, routines and institutions (Knickel
et al. 2009), and eventually reconfigure regimes (Geels and Schot 2007) where technical and economic drivers have proven inadequate (Hegger et al. 2007). Moreover,
the development and enforcement (including adoption and impact) of innovations is
seen as a social process (Currie et al. 2005) and as a result of co-evolutionary development and learning processes that involve different stakeholder groups and bring
together knowledge resources (e.g. Ingram et al. 2015; Kemp et al. 2009; Schot and
Geels 2008).
Most of the projects then addressed these conceptual considerations by designing
innovation processes with the participation of various stakeholder groups. Different
approaches were used in the nine research projects (see Table 8.1). Examples include
the “real-world” or “living lab” approach, the “open innovation” concept, the method
of “design thinking”. Transdisciplinary processes were also conducted, as well
as very incremental management approaches that can be described as “muddling
through”. Combinations of several approaches, such as a transdisciplinary learning
process with a real-world lab approach (see also Rogga et al. 2018) were often
observed.
Such combinations appear to be pertinent: while transdisciplinary processes
enable the joint definition of problems in the consensual discourse, the integration of
different stakeholder perspectives, the elaboration of objectives and the identification
of suitable innovations, the other methods and approaches enable these solutions and
the corresponding transformation knowledge to be tested and experimented with.
8.4.4 Leverage Points in the Governance System of Land
(Use)
As stated above, we consider SLM to be a concept of change and transformation. In
this context, the term “management” refers to activities and interventions that seek
to bring about a shift towards more sustainable land use. Land (use), however, is a
highly regulated subject/field with several intervention levels, as shown in Fig. 8.2
(adapted after Hurni 1997).
With regard to the nine projects under investigation, we found that most projects
comprised interventions and developed innovations at levels between the land
plot (e.g. technological innovations such as agrophotovoltaic plants, agroforestry
systems) and the community (e.g. collaborative landscape management, integrated
spatial energy concepts). However, we also found that the projects coordinators
mentioned legal conditions as main barriers to innovation processes. Thus, it may
be worthwhile considering TDR projects that also involve actors from higher
intervention levels in the future.