160
J. Zscheischler and S. Rogga
Although other scholars have highlighted the integrative nature of SLM (e.g.
Nölting and Mann 2018; Wang and Aenis 2019), comprising the components of
technology, policy and land use planning (Hurni 2000), the interaction of different
types of innovation and the specific role played by social innovations in SLM has not
yet been considered. We argue that taking a deeper look at these conditions would
enhance our understanding of sustainability transformations.
Thesis #2
SLM Innovation Processes Follow a Multiple-Objective Strategy and Combine
Transdisciplinary Processes with Innovation Management Approaches
Most projects followed a two-fold approach and combined a number of partial solutions (local niche innovations) with a “regional” integration concept. As a consequence, transdisciplinary processes were frequently combined with other innovation
management approaches such as real-world labs or the open innovation approach.
Thus, transdisciplinary processes were applied to integrate different types of knowledge and perspectives from a wider sphere of actor groups, especially when framing
and jointly defining the problem or initial situation (systems knowledge), but also
when supporting the development of visions and targeted sustainable futures (target
knowledge). This corresponds with the ideas of many scholars who regard transdisciplinarity as a valuable approach to provide “socially robust orientation” for sustainable development (Nowotny et al. 2001). However, it can be argued that complementary approaches that allow the co-design and testing of innovations (transformative
knowledge) within this jointly defined framework are required for the development
of concrete solutions and interventions.
The combination of transdisciplinary processes with real-world lab approaches
has already been observed in other studies (Rogga et al. 2018). It has been shown
that embedding the innovation process in a broader transdisciplinary discourse is
conductive to estimating unintended effects more effectively, and reducing ethical
concerns, but also to considering critical questions of legitimacy.
Thesis #3
Innovations for Sustainable Land Management Are Neither Disruptive nor
Radical
The literature on innovation studies often differentiates between incremental and
disruptive or “radical” innovations. This differentiation refers to how an innovation
influences and challenges the existing system and stimulates follow-up innovations.
Accordingly, radical innovations are innovations that have a “high degree of
novelty, being totally or substantially new” and a “profound effect on future development, establishing whole new fields of study” as well as new technological systems,
“making dominant rival technologies or processes obsolete” (Kasmire et al. 2012).
These innovations are frequently associated with eureka moments, ingenious ideas
and flashes of inspiration (e.g. van de Poel 2003).
J. Zscheischler and S. Rogga
Although other scholars have highlighted the integrative nature of SLM (e.g.
Nölting and Mann 2018; Wang and Aenis 2019), comprising the components of
technology, policy and land use planning (Hurni 2000), the interaction of different
types of innovation and the specific role played by social innovations in SLM has not
yet been considered. We argue that taking a deeper look at these conditions would
enhance our understanding of sustainability transformations.
Thesis #2
SLM Innovation Processes Follow a Multiple-Objective Strategy and Combine
Transdisciplinary Processes with Innovation Management Approaches
Most projects followed a two-fold approach and combined a number of partial solutions (local niche innovations) with a “regional” integration concept. As a consequence, transdisciplinary processes were frequently combined with other innovation
management approaches such as real-world labs or the open innovation approach.
Thus, transdisciplinary processes were applied to integrate different types of knowledge and perspectives from a wider sphere of actor groups, especially when framing
and jointly defining the problem or initial situation (systems knowledge), but also
when supporting the development of visions and targeted sustainable futures (target
knowledge). This corresponds with the ideas of many scholars who regard transdisciplinarity as a valuable approach to provide “socially robust orientation” for sustainable development (Nowotny et al. 2001). However, it can be argued that complementary approaches that allow the co-design and testing of innovations (transformative
knowledge) within this jointly defined framework are required for the development
of concrete solutions and interventions.
The combination of transdisciplinary processes with real-world lab approaches
has already been observed in other studies (Rogga et al. 2018). It has been shown
that embedding the innovation process in a broader transdisciplinary discourse is
conductive to estimating unintended effects more effectively, and reducing ethical
concerns, but also to considering critical questions of legitimacy.
Thesis #3
Innovations for Sustainable Land Management Are Neither Disruptive nor
Radical
The literature on innovation studies often differentiates between incremental and
disruptive or “radical” innovations. This differentiation refers to how an innovation
influences and challenges the existing system and stimulates follow-up innovations.
Accordingly, radical innovations are innovations that have a “high degree of
novelty, being totally or substantially new” and a “profound effect on future development, establishing whole new fields of study” as well as new technological systems,
“making dominant rival technologies or processes obsolete” (Kasmire et al. 2012).
These innovations are frequently associated with eureka moments, ingenious ideas
and flashes of inspiration (e.g. van de Poel 2003).