# Testing a Framework to Co-Construct Social Innovation Actions: Insights from Seven Marginalized Rural Areas

Valentino Marini Govigli, Sophie Alkhaled, Tor Arnesen, Carla Barlagne, Mari Bjerck, Catie Burlando, Mariana Melnykovych, Carmen Rodríguez Fernandez-Blanco, Patricia Sfeir, Elena Górriz-Mifsud

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Valentino Marini Govigli, Sophie Alkhaled, Tor Arnesen, Carla Barlagne, Mari Bjerck, et al.

HAL Id: hal-04054109

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04054109

Submitted on 31 Mar 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
1 Article

## 2 Testing a framework to co-construct social innovation actions. Insights from seven marginalized rural areas

4 Valentino Marini Govigli¹, Sophie Alkhaled², Tor Arnesen³, Carla Barlagne⁴, Mari Bjerck³,

5 Catie Burlando⁵, Mariana Melnykovych¹, Carmen Rodríguez Fernandez-Blanco 1,6,7, Patricia

6 Sfeir⁸, Elena Górriz Mifsud¹,6,*

7 ¹ European Forest Institute - Mediterranean Facility (EFIMED), Barcelona (Spain)

8 ² Lancaster University - Management School. Lancaster (UK)

9 ³ Inland Norway University of Applied Science (INN), Lillehammer (Norway)

10 ⁴ Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences Group, The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen
11 AB15 8QH (UK)

12 ⁵ ETIFOR, Agripolis/Viale dell'Università 16 - TESAF, 35120 Legnaro (Italy)

13 ⁶ Forest Sciences Centre of Catalonia (CTFC), Bioeconomy and Governance programme, Ctra. St Llorenç de Morunys km.2, 25280 Solsona, (Spain)

15 ⁷ FORECO Technologies, 25280 Solsona, (Spain)

16 ⁸ SEEDS-Int, Centre Ivoire, Bloc B, Eigth Floor, Sin el Fil, Horsh Tabet (Lebanon)

17 * Correspondence: elena.gorriz@efi.int; (E.G.)

19 Abstract:

20 Innovation actions within European H2020 projects aim at testing research results in practice. When
21 supporting social innovations in rural areas, such testing requires the alignment of several rural
22 actors in order to entail behavioral changes beyond the individual level. Recently, social innovation
23 has been recognized as an important tool for rural areas as well, developing new solutions to
24 respond to wicked problems for improving local living conditions at the grassroots level. In this
25 study, we present an operational framework for the early governance of social innovation actions.
26 This framework was applied to co-construct seven innovation actions across Europe and the
27 Mediterranean basin applied to forestry, agriculture, and rural development. Our results show that
28 the connection of the research teams with the local context, their degree of involvement in the action,
29 as well as the types of relationships developed with the local actors played a key role for identifying
30 a suitable social action. Additionally, we show that the process of defining a social innovation is
31 complex and requires recursive engagement which might lead to evolution through time, especially
32 in the first phases of the process. Lastly, conducting the feasibility assessment enabled the action
33 implementers to reflect upon what they could ‘offer’ the local actors both in term of their own skills
34 as social innovation practitioners (i.e. facilitation, mentoring, planning skills), but also in terms of
35 the boundaries/limits of the project (e.g. time, funding). Such findings help us to draw general
36 lessons for the development and governance of social innovation actions in rural areas, potentially
37 applicable to any rural sector.

38 **Keywords:** Transdisciplinarity; knowledge co-construction; feasibility assessment; participatory
39 approaches; forestry; rural development; multi-actor approach.

40

41

42

43
44

45

# 1. Introduction and Theoretical background

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

Current societies in Europe and beyond are facing complex, multi-scale and interrelated challenges. These include rural depopulation, demographic changes such as aging, in- and out-migration, youth unemployment, increasing poverty and inclusion of vulnerable groups, as well as global issues connected to climate change, energy and natural resources provision, and food security [1-3]. These trends require systemic and holistic interventions – often missing or curtailed –, leading to innovative solutions. These global issues are named Societal Challenges under the European framework of research Horizon 2020 (H2020) [4]. Transdisciplinary frameworks and assessment approaches can help develop innovative policies and evaluate investments models that can efficiently tackle these challenges and generate effective long-term solutions at local and global scales [5].

Technological, economic and social innovations may provide different perspectives to analyses and address complex problems, complementing Business As Usual solutions, and allowing the development of policy, scientific or technological advances [5,6]. In particular, interest in social innovation for transforming or ‘reconfiguring’ existing social, cultural and economic arrangements has increased worldwide in practice and in the political arena (e.g. the social innovation fund established in the US in 2009 [7]; EU recommendations [8]).

Available Social Innovation frameworks have highlighted the role of human agency in powering actions for collective benefits [9-13]. Agency “seeks to change practices to respond to specific needs” [14] by “…imagin[ing] new ways of being, new relationships and new ways of doing” [15]. The act of innovating existing practices in favor of new ones is thus interlinked to the actions of motivated individuals and civil society members who collectively seek to alleviate societal challenges or emerging environmental, economic, social and institutional needs, that may remain unsolved under existing public policies and interventions, or privately-led actions.

According to this perspective, social innovation may provide approaches to (partially) tackling emerging problems in society, in addition to what may be currently provided by public institutions and private actors. However, how this is carried out, by whom, under which circumstances and with what outcomes and impacts, has not been thoroughly assessed, leaving margin for testing hypotheses on the emergence of social innovation. Additionally, while Social Innovation and its drivers have been studied in detail in the urban environment [16,17], scarce information exists for understanding the emergence and impact of SI initiatives in rural areas [18].

What are the differences that may exist between urban and rural areas when dealing with a social innovation? Rural communities due to their remoteness form the decision-making centers, might be equally prone as urban realities to design and implement social innovations as a response to existing complex problems they might face. Frameworks for analysis and evaluation may need to account for marginalization trends in rural areas. These result from a mix of social (e.g. rural exodus), economic (e.g. lack of services and infrastructure, global market pressures) and environmental (e.g. harsh climate) features [19].

While scarce information exists on the emergence of social innovation, testing project-led initiatives may shed light into some of the factors of success. For a Social Innovation Action (SIA) to be designed and implemented, local communities and early implementers may draw from emerging needs and triggers and seek solutions that could best address them. Additionally, environmental and geographical constrains can influence successful participation [18], due to varying commitment to the Social Innovation process, organizational structure, and the community’s climate of acceptance and cooperation towards change. Furthermore, in remote and marginalized rural areas, these processes require the participation and alignment of several rural actors, often distant from one another, around perceived behavioral and structural changes that go beyond the individual level. These forms of collaboration and alignment of actors with different and sometimes divergent interests have been studied in other fields such as spatial design [20], environmental planning and management [21,22] or sustainable development more broadly [23]. A deeper understanding of how those processes apply across different types of social innovation remains yet to be achieved.
95 All these factors make crucial the definition of supportive frameworks that can assist researchers, practitioners, and local actors alike in fomenting and implementing SIAs. These operational frameworks need to ensure communities participation and involvement at the different stages of the social innovation process: from the diagnostic of the problem and challenges encountered, to the identification and design of appropriate solutions to tackle those challenges. An extensive body of literature has highlighted the benefits of actively involving stakeholders into decision making processes, spanning from the seminal work of Paulo Freire (1921) on awareness creation of oppressed community, to the characterization of the degree in which communities can and are engaged in decision making (see Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation in [24] p.217), and finally to the recent work on participation for environmental management in tourism [22,25]. Some of the mentioned benefits are: better appraisal of the reality faced by the stakeholders and therefore better identification of adequate solutions; increased rate of adoption of identified solutions; empowerment of the social actors and increase in human capital through social learning processes; increased responsibility of the stakeholders' vis-à-vis the innovation identified and its implementation.
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

110 While SIAs can play a prominent role in supporting the emergence of Social Innovation, the triggering factors that spur action in the face of existing resources and community needs, remain unclear. In their latest formulation, the European Research programme Horizon 2020 stimulates the establishment of innovation actions as demonstration activities for exploring the technical feasibility of new or improved knowledge in terms of processes, related technology, products or services – in real world conditions [26]. They constitute a new approach for hands-on practice and implementation of research, a reason why they are rising in importance. Yet, there is limited knowledge on the processes behind SIA implementation, on the researcher's role in guiding local actors toward the establishment of an idea, on the evolution of the idea and the network from its proposal to its mature phase.
115
116
117
118
119

120 In this paper, we analyse the co-construction process which led to the initiation of seven SIAs on grassroots initiatives across Europe and the Mediterranean basin applied to forestry, agriculture, and rural development. These SIAs have been kicked off as part of the Horizon 2020 project SIMRA (Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas) to boost and analyse their initial stages of development[27]. According to the definition provided by SIMRA, SI refers to "*the reconfiguration of social practices in response to societal challenges, which seeks to enhance outcomes on societal well-being and necessarily includes the engagement of civil society actors*" [28].
125
126

127 Grounded on innovation management theories and innovation entrepreneurship approaches, an operational framework co-construct SIAs was developed. This framework differs from –but complements– from rural Living Labs [29] insofar as these act typically as platform for catalyzing a portfolio of innovation projects, whereas our framework refers to the operationalization of individual innovation projects. This framework differs as well from Action Research as the latest focuses on creating new knowledge (research as priority), whereas the Innovation Actions rather concentrate in the testing of scientific knowledge. In particular, in this paper we focus on testing the initial phases of such operational framework, focusing on:
132
133
134

135 1. Discussing the relevance of kick-starting a SIA, providing a concrete insight for identifying common features across diverse type of actions. We will seek to respond to the following questions: who are the initial local actors? Which are the triggers and needs the local actors responded to? How has the early Social Innovation idea evolved in the later stages of the SIA process?
136
137
138
139

140 2. The feasibility of the SIAs: The feasibility assessment is used to evaluate whether an action identified as a SIA is actually viable and can be implemented effectively in the long term. Feasibility will be assessed through the TELCOS assessment model, contextualized based on the specificities of each individual SIA. Our analysis will explore the feasibility challenges faced by different SIAs, in terms of technological, operational, legal, collaborative, and economic factors.
145
These findings will help us draw general lessons for the implementation and establishment of effective SIAs in rural areas, which may be potentially applicable to different rural areas and to diverse innovations where social processes are at their core.

## 2. Methods: an operational framework to co-construct SIAs

### 2.1. *Framework steps*

An adaptive project management conceptualization [30] underlined the development of common guidelines to the SIAs [31]. These guidelines envision SIAs as a process to catalyze and sustain rural grass-root initiatives as flow with key milestones in the short, medium and long terms. In particular, the SIA co-construction framework includes: a first (i) **Design phase** aiming at defining the scope of action of the SIAs, by identifying the objectives that the stakeholders wish to pursue, and at operationalizing the SIA activities; an (ii) **Implementation phase** which carries out the planned social innovation activities, including dissemination of the activities, processes and outcomes to the wider public; an (iii) **in-itinere evaluation** of the initial implementation, with the possibility to redesign the strategy, a (iv) **Consolidation phase** during which the initiative crystallize. Lastly (v) the achievement of the targets (performance) is **evaluated**. In this paper we will focus on the design phase. Nonetheless, a short description of the remaining phases is also hereby provided.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Conceptual flows of the SIA process through the design, implementation and consolidation phases. SIA flow: the process through which a Social Innovation idea is developed into a concrete initiative (consolidation); Agent flow: the evolution and enlargement of the actors' network along the SIA process; Idea flow: the evolution of the Social Innovation idea from broad to narrow (i.e. operationalization). Source: own elaboration.</figcaption></figure>

Along this process, the collaboration between SIA implementers and local actors might take multiple forms according to the degree of involvement, as described in. Table 1. This involvement applies also to the other phases and includes the transfer of the best scientific knowledge. In this line, academic works recommend (i) to smartly manage the social networks of rural communities, including bonding, bridging (often this is the role of the SIA implementer), and linking relationships; (ii) a supportive internal governance system, (iii) to support local actors in their capacities to search for funding options.

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Possible relationships developed between local actors and the SIA implementer.</caption><thead><tr><td>Working path</td><td>Explanation of the SIA implementer role</td><td>Degree of involvement of SIA implementers</td></tr></thead></table>
<table><tr><td>Facilitation</td><td>Providing tips and practical tools to the local actors enabling the working group to work more efficiently</td><td>Low</td></tr><tr><td>Mentoring</td><td>Actively guidance to local actors in the development of the action</td><td>Low-Medium</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborative management</td><td>Direct collaboration in the management of the action</td><td>Medium-High</td></tr><tr><td>Direct involvement</td><td>Members, partners or beneficiaries of the action</td><td>High</td></tr></table>

177

## 2.1.1. Design phase

The design phase is the first step of a SIA. It is the moment during which key local actors and the SIA implementer<fnref n="1" /> meet to discuss about the challenge to tackle, to brainstorm alternatives and to identify a suitable SIA. The SIA target is defined through a collaborative and participatory local process (Scoping) in relation to the individual and collective needs of the actors and the communities involved as well as the contextual factors (the social, environmental, legislative and cultural conditions that might enable or constrain social innovations). Hence, a participatory gap analysis contributes to discern the current and desired scenario, and consequently the opportunities for action.

186

During the initial collaboration phase, the working groups may include the actors who directly had the idea –the innovators<fnref n="2" />– and their close connections – those following and supporting the leaders in the idea's development. Working groups and SIA implementers may meet regularly to refine the first Social Innovation idea, to operationalize it (e.g. through an adapted Business Model Canvas), and to discuss whether and how the proposed activity falls within the scope of action -e.g. does the SI idea fit the Social Innovation definition? (Defining). In order to analyse the relevance of the proposed idea vis-à-vis the challenge to tackle, tailored exercises based on techniques such as the Drivers-Pressures-Status-Impacts-Response (DPSIR), Cognitive Mapping, or the Theory of Change, help in discussing with the local actors how the suggested interventions/activities are actually aligned with the problem on focus.

Once an action is selected, the working groups should check whether it complies with a set of established feasibility requirements (Feasibility assessment). In order to standardize the feasibility plan across case studies, the TELOS framework was proposed -a widely used method for feasibility study of business projects. The TELOS framework takes into consideration five feasibility areas for assessing a given project: Technical, Economic, Legal, Operational and Schedule. Due to the key role of social relationships and collaboration networks in Social Innovation initiatives, an additional component (Collaborative feasibility) was added following [32], hereafter named TELCOS (Figure 2).

203

<footnote n="1">¹ A SIA implementer refers to the person belonging to a research team in charge of organizing the SIA whose role varied between facilitation, research, and mentoring.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Key leaders and first drivers of innovation. Source [14].</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. The TELCOS framework with the six feasibility areas.</figcaption></figure>

The feasibility check can be of strategic importance for the successful implementation of the SIA because it allows implementers and relevant local actors to test and assess the feasibility of their proposals. The underlying hypothesis is that implementation of the feasibility assessment works as a learning tool, making local actors more aware of technical, economic, legal, operational, schedule, and collaborative issues that may hinder the implementation of the SIA. In practice, initial perceptions may change during the development of the feasibility phase, whereas no changes would mean an initial proper assessment of the critical aspects of their project by local actors. The feasibility assessment can have two main outcomes on the Social Innovation idea: (i) a refinement of the proposed concept to overcome possible barriers identified during the appraisal of the idea, (ii) a shift from the original concept to the generation of new ideas.

### 2.1.2. Implementation and in-itinere evaluation phases

If the proposed SIA fulfils the needs of the territory and is seen as effective to properly address the societal issues recognized in the rural area, then Local Actors can proceed to implement it with the direct support of the SIA implementers. The period of implementation can vary among Innovation Actions depending on different enabling factors (e.g. funding availability, critical mass, and direct support from the local communities and from policy makers). During this phase, the core group will seek to include more specialized people (e.g. managers, communication experts), which will assist in consolidating the social innovation idea.

During the implementation phase, a first assessment of how the implemented initiative evolved in relation to the objectives identified during the design phase can be verified by qualitative-quantitative indicators. These can help to understand how the implementation process went: what worked and could be replicated in the future, what did not work and should be avoided in the future, what was missing during the SIA implementation and is suggested to be included in future.

### 2.1.3. Consolidation phase

The consolidation phase is developed only in the medium-long term and it indicates that the SIA has achieved maturity and is self-sustained beyond the life of the project. The local actors involved work now independently from the SIA implementers who supported the action in its first steps. Additionally, the first beneficiaries of the initiative become noticeable, as those individuals that
benefit directly or indirectly from the project implementation (e.g. consumers if the SIAs produce tangible products and services). Also, the first outcomes on the wellbeing of the local community start to appear. It might happen that if the initiative is relevant not only to the concrete locality where it is applied, the consolidation phase implies a replication or expansion to other areas.

### 2.1.4. Evaluation phase

This phase is often relevant for the innovators to justify the achievements towards donors and funders, and to advocate for necessary inputs to sustain the running of the initiative. Depending on the expected period of the objectives, the outputs, outcome or impacts can be identified. The availability of different sources of disaggregated pre-SIA and post-SIA data (e.g. municipal statistics, initial vs final surveys) contribute to build appropriate indicators. This phase is frequently overlooked as per its high resource consumption, and its usual disconnection from programs supporting only the initial steps.

## 2.2. *Framework application*

### 2.2.1. Social Innovation study sites

The areas in which the seven SIAs were initiated testing the operational framework are located in France, Lebanon, Italy, Norway, Spain, and United Kingdom (Figure 3). These sites encompass different types of rural areas as well as different types of marginalization. A brief description of the context of each area is hereby provided. Having a clearly defined context become crucial as it represents the conditions that enable or constrain the Social Innovation, amplifying and echoing communities' needs and triggering factors [14].

254

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Country and location of the seven Social Innovation Actions. Source: Own elaboration based on Google Earth.</figcaption></figure>

255

256

257

Gúdar-Javalambre County, Spain (ES1): The southernmost county of Aragon is considered one of the hotspots of biodiversity in the Mediterranean [33] but is simultaneously one of the most
depopulated areas in Spain. With 8,328 inhabitants and a density of 3.5 inhab/km², it belongs to the so-called "triangle of desert". Its landscape covers a mosaic of pine and evergreen oak forests, agroforestry, cereal crops and pastures. Yet, mountain agriculture in this area is harsh due to climate (irregular precipitations) and accessibility (steep terrains). Farm economy concentrates around black truffle production and trade, given its predominantly calcareous soil -hence leaving other productions as secondary and less interesting for landowners. The area is a typical location for second homes and rural tourism, mainly from the nearby region of Valencia.

**Solsonès County, Spain (ES2):** The Solsonès county (Lleida, Spain) is located in Central Catalonia and has two well differentiated parts, the north, covered by high mountains, and the south, with flatlands devoted to agriculture, mainly dryland crops. The county has a population of 13,392 inhabitants (2018), out of which over 9000 live in Solsona, the capital. The county population density is 2.3 inhabitants/km². The Solsonès has a Mediterranean-continental climate, with very hot summers and cold winters. Most of the county is covered by oak forests and pine forests.

**Gudbrandsdalen, Norway (NO):** Gudbrandsdalen makes up half of the county of Oppland and has altogether 71,036 inhabitants, with a population density of 4.6 inhabitants/km². The county host seven national parks and offer a unique mountain farm environment with a rich cultural heritage. The valley region faces challenges in the northernmost municipalities related to depopulation, elderly population, unemployment and a high proportion of inhabitants depending on welfare services and benefits. This challenge the sustainability of the region. Immigration from refugees and work migrants has been over the latter 10 to 15 years an important vector in sustaining or curbing the population decrease. At the same time, this has created integration challenges in civil society in these parts of the Gudbrandsdalen.

**Lancashire-Cumbria, England (UK):** Lancashire is a county in North West England. The county has a population of 1,449,300, with a density of 470 inhabitants/km². Apart from the coastal towns, Lancashire is largely rural with the land devoted to vegetable crops and a large nature reserve in the northwest corner of the county, straddling the border to the South with Cumbria. Cumbria is a county with a population of half a million in an area of 6,678 km², one of the most sparsely populated counties in the United Kingdom, with 73.4 people per km². Cumbria is the third largest county in England by area and is predominantly rural. However, the region has struggled with a high rural share of deprivation and dependence on welfare services and social benefits, under the themes of an aging population, unemployment, low income, qualifications/skills, housing and access to services and transportation.

**Valbelluna, Italy (IT):** Valbelluna is located in northeastern Italy, in the Veneto Region, along the Piave River and includes the Dolomiti Bellunesi National Park. It has a population of 142,803 inhabitants, with a density of 106.2 inhabitants/km². The larger towns, supported by manufacturing poles, concentrate two thirds of the population and have witnessed population growth (4.57% over a ten year period), while the more marginal and rural municipalities located in the foothills have witnessed population loss (-3.51%). Significantly, a large share of employment is taken up by large multinational companies (e.g. eyewear), a smaller share in tourism and services while the primary sector accounts for less than 1% of productivity. Following the 2008 crisis in manufacturing, unemployment and outmigration rose quite dramatically. More recently, while overall unemployment has started to decrease, youth unemployment has decreased much less sharply and continues to be followed by worrisome trends in youth outmigration, including highly educated professionals.

**Bekaa Bekaa Region, Lebanon (LE):** Deir el Ahmar, North Bekaa, is situated 75 km away from Beirut. The region has 11,000 inhabitants and a population density of 155.7 inhab/km². The area has an important pilgrimage site (Our Lady of Bechouat) which attracts visitors all year long, and a florid agricultural sector. Nonetheless, change in the climate, water scarcity, and limited marketing opportunities can pose serious treats to the agriculture production in the village and its future sustainability. The area understudy can be considered marginal due to population aging, migration to the big cities, youth unemployment, influx of Syrian refugees and limited access to main services such as public transport.
Guadeloupe, France (GUA): Guadeloupe is an outermost island region of Europe, located in the French West Indies. With an area of 1,628 km², Guadeloupe is one of the 35 Hotspots for Biodiversity in the World [34]. It has a population of 382,704 inhabitants. The economy is mainly a tertiary economy based on services provided by the private and public sectors (85.6% of the added value) while industries, construction and agriculture contribute to 8.0%, 4.6% and 1.7% to the added value respectively [35]. Major constraints to the economy are the ultra-peripherality in relation to European markets, narrow local markets, difficulties to access export markets and weak cash flow of rural enterprises. When it comes to forestry and agroforestry, the Regional Rural Development program highlights the lack of research and development infrastructure of those sectors, remoteness from the European decision centers adding to the marginalization of the territory and those sectors. With a mainly tertiary economy based on services provided by the private and the public sectors, 23.1% of the population is unemployed, this proportion being of 47% amongst the 15-29 age class population [35]. The local economy is constrained its ultra-peripherality that engenders additional costs in relation to food provisioning, very narrow markets due to the size of the territory, difficulties to position itself on export markets, weak cash flow of rural enterprises.

## 2.2.2. Data collection and analysis

Starting in 2016, seven teams used the SIA operational framework to foster grassroot initiatives in each study area. The heterogeneity of study areas and their respective challenges implied a diverse set of activities implemented. These comprised i.a. literature reviews, stakeholder analysis, organization facilitation and observation of internal meetings with local actors, organization of workshops -for brain-storming, discussion forums and dissemination-, survey development, soft-coaching, or rural hackathons. These activities are in line with action-orientated research, which combines research and practical work in a process that aims to improve strategies, practices and knowledge [36]. The internal meetings were organized to discuss about the adequacy and operationalization of the activities the local actors were willing to implement within the SIA process, and their corresponding feasibility assessment. The feasibility assessment was formalized in a report [37].

The SIAs activities were systematically recorded in a "Social Innovation Action Diary". The SIA Diary was conceptualized as a quasi-ethnographic tool of participant observation, where the SIA implementers registered the progress of the initiative, as well as complementary explanatory observations. Therefore, the SIA implementers not only facilitate and coach local actors, but also "immersed themselves within their chosen empirical setting" for a period during which "the researcher's experience, in terms of his or her participation and/or observation at the research site, is used to generate a narrative-based interpretation of the events that took place" [38]. The SIA Diaries served then as repository of the steps done, troubles faced, debates, agreements taken, or crises arisen during the SIA process.

Based on the diaries and the feasibility reports, a content analysis has been performed contrasting the operational framework presented in Section 2. In addition, the suitability of the proposed initiatives was analyzed in regard to the Social Innovation definition, as well as to the Social Innovation evaluation framework, following [14]. This analysis allowed identifying the following dimensions for each SIA:

* Triggers, as "punctual events or accumulations of unmet needs causing a response and a change in practices by local communities" [14];

* Needs, as "the demands of vulnerable groups in society" [14];

* The structure of the core group of Local Actors involved in the SIA;

* The structure of the network the SIA plans to build up;

* The interventions planned (i.e. activities) to conduct and the expected outcomes.

# 3. Results and discussion

By testing the Social Innovation Action co-construction framework, it emerges that the implementation of the suggested process allowed to select purposeful actions for each of the study areas. These were:
362 1. Fostering the development of a land banking initiative aiming at reverting the abandonment of agricultural and forestry parcels with a specific emphasis on wildfire prevention (ES1)

365 2. Setting the foundation for a pilot project about forests, social networks and human health, (ES2)

367 3. Integrating immigrants, mainly refugees or work migrants, in the rural area by motivating them to join locals in hiking activities (NO)

369 4. Social inclusion of women from disadvantaged backgrounds as to provide them business-training and marketing tools to sustain the development of small entrepreneurship initiatives (UK)

372 5. Create and support new networks of local young people interested in building socially innovative and sustainable businesses (IT)

374 6. Transforming traditional food recipes into standardized and scientifically monitored products, to support local women in developing profitable businesses and gain community respect (LE).

377 7. Supporting the development of a shared vision of multifunctional forests and enhancing related human and social capital (GUA).

379
380 Nonetheless, the process leading to these actions differed across the study areas. Figure 4 shows
381 an adaptation of the co-construction framework to one of the seven study areas (ES1). The remaining
382 six figures are provided in Appendix A. In the next sections we discuss patterns and differences
383 across three main initial stages of the design phase of SIAs: (i) the scoping phase and the first contacts
384 with the key local actors in the area, (ii) the definition of a social innovation idea to develop during
385 the SIAs, and (iii) the feasibility assessment of the idea and further redesigning processes.

386 3.1. *Scoping*

387
388 Meetings with key local actors were held in the different regions. However, for some cases the
389 chosen SIA had to be revised and modified to better adapt to the local context and territorial dynamics
390 (Table 3). These meetings enabled the different SIA implementers to identify main contextual factors,
391 individual and collective needs for each SIA. Additionally, they served to (i) define the scope of the
392 action, (ii) define the core group of local actors involved, (iii) list the additional actors to be engaged
393 in the SIA and (iv) start envisioning potential activities to conduct over the course of the years. These
394 initial contacts were mainly held with local authorities (ES1, UK), Local Action Group<fnref n="3" /> (IT, ES1),
395 operational groups<fnref n="4" /> (GUA) and/or local actors (NO, LE, ES1, ES2) interested in pursuing a given idea
396 on the territory. This shows how the local social fabric is fundamental for revealing and/or identifying
397 unmet territorial needs. [18] refers to this first stage of social innovation as "Problematisation", which
398 is triggered by "an initial impetus for which an actor or small group of actors decide to change their behaviour
399 and attitudes". The idea and identification of a problem may be done by this initial core group, by an
400 external influence (SIA implementers), or by a combination of both. The outcomes of these exercises
401 of envisioning activities and practices that could potentially enhance the community's well-being has
402 also been identified in the literature as way of revealing the unmet territorial needs [39]. This
403 highlights that, often for social innovations, the development of activities is not necessarily preceded
404 by context analysis and formal strategic design. Literature findings also shows that policymakers
405 may have a strategic role in strengthening social entrepreneur initiatives [40], therefore creating

<footnote n="3">³ A Local Action Group (LAG) is a non profit-making composition made up of public and private organisations from rural villages having a broad representation from different socio-economic sectors, and often funded through the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ An Operational Group is a group of people from a diverse combination of practical and scientific backgrounds who work on concrete, practical solutions to a problem or innovative opportunity and whose project is funded by the EU Rural Development policy. (https://bit.ly/332MDna)</footnote>
405
406

alliances with them early on in the process may be beneficial for long-term sustainability of the social innovation initiatives.

407
408

Social Innovation embryos are often processes known only through proximal networks to the innovators. In order to disclose them, a search through networks on Rural Development stakeholders (ES2) or a brainstorming workshop (ES1, UK) were conducted.

409
410

The role adopted by the SIA implementers was very similar across all seven SIAs, mainly facilitating the process of designing and implementing the actions (low degree of involvement, Table 1). In terms of the pre-existing relationships with the local actors, however, there were significant differences. They may be differentiated in three types; (i) Pre-existing relationship; When one or several members of the research teams had a well-established working relationship, preceding the starting of the project (IT, NO, LE, GUA), (ii) Common contacts; When none of the members of the research teams and local actors had had a working relationship before, but they had common contacts (ES1, UK) (iii) No linkage; When research teams and local actors only met each other during the scoping phase (ES2).

411
412

413
414

415
416

417
418

419
420

The strength of the linkages to the territory, the role adopted by the SIA implementers, and the type of pre-existing relationships all play a definitive role during the first steps of the design phase. In particular, our results show how the SIAs with strong connections to the territory and well-established working relationships with the local actors had smoother process for selecting the Social Innovation idea to implement. Literature on action research acknowledges that abiding respect for people's knowledge, and understanding and addressing the issues that communities confront is crucial for achieving success [41].

421
422

423
424

425
426

The degree of participation of the public sector (local councils, counties and LAGs), private (social business, cooperatives, commerce trade and cooperative trade associations), and non-profit sectors (local and community foundations, local development agencies) in the SIAs varied significantly. In two cases (ES2, UK) the action was moved forward by a single motivated individual, who was seeking support in moving forward the initiative. In one case (LE) the aim was increasing cooperation of individuals already members of a group (an existing cooperative), while in the other cases (ES1, NO, IT), social networks were newly created, fostered by the H2020 project. This diversity of composition and ways of constructing the social networks reflects the wide diversity that we can find in other well-documented cases of social innovation worldwide [39,42,43].

427
428

429
430

431
432

433
434

435
436

Lastly, we observed how the needs that each SIA aimed to meet were located at the core of the three sustainable development pillars. Namely the environmental domain (e.g. improving the ecological resilience of the landscape, preserving ecosystem services and biodiversity), the social domain (supporting institutional void in rural areas and for marginalized sectors of the society, strengthen community involvement), or economic one (boost business formation led by marginalized communities). This further aligns with the very wide body of literature that supports that social innovation dynamics materialize in a wide range of sociocultural and socio-political contexts, in all their dimensions [44].

437
438

439
440

441
442

443
444

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

445
446

<caption>**Figure 4.** Adaptation of the SIA conceptual framework to the action implemented in Gúdar-Javalambre County, Spain (ES1) in the period 2016-2018 (design phase only), highlighting the flow of the action, the flow of the agents' group, and the evolution of the Social Innovation idea.</caption>
<table><caption>**Table 2.** The six SIAs and the main features of their networks.</caption><thead><tr><td>Acronym</td><td>Location</td><td>Scoping meetings</td><td>Local Actors' working group</td><td>Working group size</td><td>Type of network</td><td>Needs/opportunities</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ES1</td><td>Gúdar-Javalambre County, Spain</td><td>Meeting with local authorities, brainstorming workshop with the local community</td><td>Public, non-profit</td><td>10</td><td>External relation among collective actors</td><td>Resilient landscape facing wildfires Loss of traditional agricultural varieties Harsh farming and low amount of farmers</td></tr><tr><td>ES2</td><td>Solsones County, Spain</td><td>Skype meeting with local agency for rural development, meeting with LAG, Meeting with potential initiative, E-mail brainstorming</td><td>Non-profit</td><td>1</td><td>One person (innovator) weaving new networks</td><td>Arrival of external expertise and ideas to the area Insufficient number of social initiatives regarding health, culture, environment, and integration in the county.</td></tr><tr><td>NO</td><td>Gudbrandsdalen, Norway</td><td>Meeting with national trekking association, and NGOs</td><td>Public- non-profit</td><td>6</td><td>External relation among collective actors</td><td>Integration of settled refugees Retaining local population in the area, Increase community involvement</td></tr><tr><td>UK</td><td>Lancashire-Cumbria, UK</td><td>Meeting with local authorities, brainstorming workshop</td><td>Private (social enterprise)</td><td>1</td><td>One person (social entrepreneur)</td><td>Support for all women from deprived backgrounds compounded with living in deprived rural areas by setting up their own businesses Refugee women support to build confidence, ability to earn and socially integrate</td></tr><tr><td>IT</td><td>Valbelluna, Italy</td><td>Meeting with local authorities</td><td>Public-private- non-profit</td><td>12</td><td>External relation among collective actors</td><td>Lack of support for new young-lead businesses in cultural, environmental and social businesses</td></tr><tr><td>LE</td><td>Bekaa Region, Lebanon</td><td>Meeting with potential social innovators, Internal meeting to identify SI</td><td>Private</td><td>12</td><td>Internal relation among cooperative members</td><td>Overcome cultural, social, political, technical, economic challenges.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>GUA</td><td>Guadeloupe, France</td><td>Meeting with a newly formed operational group (VALAB) and the farmers of the SYAPROVAG (Agricultural Union of Vanilla Producers of Guadeloupe)</td><td>Representative membership body</td><td>19</td><td>Internal collaboration within an operational group and farmers' union<br>Internal relation between union members<br>External relation between operational group participants</td><td>Foster changes in the power relations for decision making at a local level<br>Lack of economic opportunities for vanilla producers and new entrants into forest farming<br>Preserve ecosystem services and biodiversity of the Guadeloupean forest<br>Maintain the socio-cultural heritage</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

449

## 3.2. Defining

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

The definition of the main social innovation around which the local actors decide to work on to alleviate the needs of the local society is a key milestone of the SIA process. While all actions eventually identified an idea to be developed, the original idea never stopped evolving at any point during the designing phase. As an example, in the ES1 case, the topic of the SIAs changed three times during the process of designing (from broad land stewardship-type of initiative, to land banking for wildfire risk prevention), and was additionally refined during the implementation of the idea. (Fig.4). Redefining an idea repeatedly during a design thinking approach is widely recognized as a key feature of creativity, and a likely approach to achieve concrete results [45,46].

In the seven SIAs, the idea changed and got adapted in three main situations: (i) when important barriers were identified by the actors involved (ES1, ES2), (ii) when the public reacted negatively to the proposed idea (ES1), and (iii) when eventual institutional, economic, technological and collaborative barriers either emerged during the design process or were existing but not eventually acknowledged properly (ES1, NO, IT). Existing literature confirms these findings. Considering the needs of others and confirmation from early users of the benefits of the proposed ideas emerge as key element for defining an idea to work upon [47]. Additionally, appropriate technical, financial and governmental policies can also hinder the implementation of a given action, therefore if additional barriers emerge local actors might be forced to modify appropriately the scope of the action.

This shows how the process of defining a SIAs is rather complex and recursive, requiring several contacts with all interested Local Actors, and might be subjected to a constant evolution through time, especially in the first phases of the process. This is a limitation of the current framework, which was designed to define an idea and proceed to its implementation, without fully acknowledging the possible evolution of the concept including at later phases of the process.

472

## 3.2. Feasibility assessment

473

474

475

476

Six out of seven SIAs performed a feasibility assessment during the designing phase. This allowed to refine the actions, and to identify certain challenges, which would need to be tackled during the implementation phase (Table 4). The feasibility of the proposed actions shows some recurring elements across the analyzed SIAs.

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

*   **Technical feasibility** - In three out of six SIAs, local actors had the expertise required to perform the tasks listed in each initiative. In two cases, technical support emerged as key factor for strengthening the initiative (ES1, UK). Additional skills or expertise was to be sought from the SIA implementers involved (i.e. soft skills) or through the involvement of external consultant and experts (e.g. professional forestry guidance, communication experts, investment and management skills, marketing skills, IT skills, and networking and facilitating skills). This shows the key role of the SIA implementers in supporting local actors with specific skills.

*   **Economic feasibility** - All SIA implementers and Local Actors recognized that SIAs require continuous financial support to their operational and maintenance costs in the medium and long-term. Currently, this aid takes the form of national and international grants (e.g. H2020 as in the case of SIMRA, Erasmus+, LAG funds, EARDF funds), which partially covered the planned expenditure of the Actions. Such funds are crucial for SIAs. Their principal benefits are social (e.g. improving demography, increasing social resilience, fostering gender balance, empowering youth) and environmental (e.g. improving the fire resilience of the landscape), rather than economic in nature.

*   **Legal feasibility** - The legal frameworks at local and national levels, through laws and monetary, information and coordination policy instruments supported the implementation of the SIAs activities in all cases. Nonetheless, in three cases ad hoc legal forms could benefit the long-term sustainability of the SIAs through mainly fiscal incentives, and tax exemptions (ES1, LE, IT).
498 • *Collaborative feasibility* – The majority of the SIA implementers had a positive perception of the local actors’ participation in the SIAs activities. This reflects existing, long-term collaborations (e.g. public-private partnerships, volunteers-public partnerships), and awareness of local actors for the need of close collaboration as a prerequisite to the successful undertaking of planned activities. Some critical issues emerged in those cases where institutional support declined or was ceased (ES1), discouraging the network of members of the Innovation actions.

505 • *Operational feasibility* - Some of the issues which can hinder future implementation of the Innovation Actions were highlighted, including: lack of active participation of the stakeholders during the implementation of the initiative (ES1, NO, IT), funding barriers (UK), ad-hoc training of staff (UK), and uncertainties over the future prospects of the initiative (IT);

510 • *Schedule feasibility* – With respect to timing, all activities planned appeared to be feasible for implementation within the project timeframe and as part of its legacy. It is however likely that in some cases their outcomes will be clearer over a longer time period.

513 The feasibility assessment appeared to be an efficient assessment tool and motor for future action to be taken. Providing a structured and systematic framework to analyses the current situation and collect the relevant information, enabled both the social innovators and the SIA implementers to reflect upon some of the main challenges faced by the local actors. Indeed, social innovation can be hindered or enabled by a variety of factors that are underpinned in the different dimensions of this feasibility framework. For example among factors identified by [48] in the Serbian context are: poor law enforcement, lack of trust, norms and values. [49] highlight the role of social capital and its components (structural, cognitive and relational) on innovation capabilities at the firm level; [49] highlight the importance of well targeted and flexible funding as well as cooperation and collective efforts in the development of social innovation in the forestry sector.

523 Having a clearer picture of the potential challenges also enabled the SIA implementers to reflect upon what they could ‘offer’ the local actors both in term of their own skills as social innovation practitioner (facilitation, mentoring, planning skills...), as well as in terms of the boundaries and limits of the project (time, amount of funding, type of action funded). Moreover, because the feasibility assessment comprised six dimensions, it allowed to conduct a holistic approach to the social innovation initiatives regardless of their nature or the domain to which they applied (rural development, agriculture or forestry). [51] recommend holism as a research methodology and pragmatic collective action arguing that it enables the researcher to account for relationships between the part and the whole, here the whole being the overall social innovation and the parts being its different dimensions (technical, economic, legal, collaborative, operational, schedule). Indeed, by focusing on understanding how results could be achieved under those different dimensions, the feasibility assessment helped identify interdependencies between different aspects of the social innovation project ideas. As an example, understanding existing actors and networks involved in the GUA case highlighted the necessity to reinforce the collaborative dimension of the initiative before being able to move onto other dimensions such as the technical dimension. In the UK case, reinforcement of technical capacities such as monitoring and communication will in turn increase the social innovators’ capacity to secure future funding.

540

<caption>**Table 4.** Results from the TELCOS feasibility assessment of the six Social Innovation Actions.</caption>

541

Darker colors indicate stronger feasibility concerns of the different dimensions. An extended table is provided in Appendix B.

542

543

544

<table><thead><tr><th>Feasibility dimension</th><th>ES1</th><th>NO</th><th>UK</th><th>IT</th><th>LE</th><th>GUA</th></tr></thead></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Technical</strong><br>Do Local Actors have the technical expertise to complete the projects and its required tasks? Is the project proposition practical?</td><td>Support needed</td><td>Expertise available</td><td>Support needed</td><td>Some support needed</td><td>Some support needed</td><td>Support needed</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Economic</strong><br>Is the proposal economically viable in the long term, providing benefits that compensate for the costs incurred?</td><td>External funds needed to cover costs</td><td>Economically viable. Minor bottlenecks</td><td>External funds needed to cover costs</td><td>External funds needed to cover costs</td><td>Economically viable</td><td>Economically viable</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Legal</strong><br>Does the current legal framework of the Rural Areas support the Social Innovation implementation?</td><td>Supportive framework. Ad hoc new legal forms could be beneficial</td><td>Supportive framework</td><td>Supportive framework</td><td>Supportive framework</td><td>Supportive framework. Ad hoc new legal forms could be beneficial</td><td>Not applicable</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Collaborative</strong><br>Is it feasible to involve all of the key players in the successful implementation of the Social Innovation plan?</td><td>Dissuasion after facing structural challenges</td><td>Good collaboration of actors</td><td>New collaboration s are needed</td><td>Good collaboration on of actors</td><td>Good collaboration of actors</td><td>Good collaboration of internal actors</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Operational</strong><br>Does the proposed Social Innovation work well? Will the factors that are hindering the Action be overcome?</td><td>Existing hindering factors difficult to overcome</td><td>Minor hindering factors possible to overcome</td><td>Minor hindering factors possible to overcome</td><td>Minor hindering factors possible to overcome</td><td>No hindering factors identified</td><td>Minor hindering factors possible to overcome</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Schedule</strong><br>Is the timescale of the Social Innovation plan feasible?</td><td>Feasible timescale</td><td>Feasible timescale</td><td>Feasible timescale</td><td>Feasible timescale</td><td>Feasible timescale</td><td>Feasible timescale</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>** ES2 feasibility assessment was done on a SIA that had to be almost fully re-designed in other to move it forward, which finally constituted a radical change in the SIA. As such assessment does not correspond to the current SIA taking place in the Solsonès County (Spain), we decided to not present it here.</footnote>
Conceptualizing frameworks can assist practitioners in identifying bottlenecks for implementing SIA projects and processes. They can also allow standardizing processes across study areas, which might differ geographically, economically, or in terms of the initiative taken forward. However, SIAs are also strongly dependent on local dynamics and networks. Communities' customs and norms, formal and unofficial relationships are thus crucial for the success of the SIA, but can be hardly subject to theory at the start of a SIA process.

Additionally, the needs and triggers supporting SIAs are not static but may change over time, as such, ideas initially proposed will change over time, adapting to emerging constraints or new opportunities. Rigid approaches are thus not appropriate when designing and implementing SIAs, but rather support to local actors in developing Social Innovation initiative may need to be continuous and flexible. Additionally social innovations require to be considered through the entire cycle of the spiral model: from ideas, to prototyping and piloting, to implementation, and upscaling. It is the cycle from ideas to production and markets (e.g. new entrepreneur opportunities), and towards innovative policy and governance mechanisms within each scale and across the scales (c.f. [52]). This implies that attention has been given to new social networks, partnerships, horizontal and vertical networks [53].

The role of the SIA implementer is also key and twofold. On one hand, SIA implementers ought to facilitate local actors in designing a context-appropriate initiative; on the other hand, SIA implementers may observe, helping to conceptualize, synthetize and disseminate the information they gather from the development of the SIA process. These multifaceted positions imply that the role of the external implementers should be clarified at the beginning of the SIA processes, in order to minimize potential for conflict, and maximize support and cohesion with the local actor group.

Preliminary information on SIA multiple drivers as well as perceptions on the possible challenges that the initiative may face allow to zoom into the role of the SIA in the community and for the involved partners. In particular, in some cases it raised awareness of local actors on the challenges that could obstacle the feasibility of their action in the future. The facilitation process led by the SIA implementers together with local actors provides some hints at how a rural acceleration service of social innovations might look like. Indeed, the process of establishing and guiding social innovation actions can be compared to the arrangement and organization of start-ups incubators and accelerators. While the existing literature is mainly oriented at business development (e.g. [54,55]), mentoring and aid programs specifically designed for supporting SIA may overlap with start-ups incubator services, where by focusing primarily on social innovation early ideas, local actors are guided into the development stage and are supported on the establishment of their core activities.

While the process of co-constructing allows to mobilize interested local actors to join the Social Innovation idea, broadening and strengthening the scope of the initiative; additional training and mentoring services (such as the hereby proposed feasibility assessment) allows local actors to proactively face issues that can emerge in the early establishment phases of the SIAs. All these tools contribute to strengthen the Social Innovation initiative into a much robust one. Yet, much remains to be done to link social innovations with desired policy outcomes [56]. Traditional accelerator units support businesses by providing connections to investors. Similarly, a social innovation acceleration service supports local initiatives by expanding their scope, increasing citizen awareness and, potentially, leading to additional private (e.g. fundraising, crowdfunding campaigns) or public (grants from organizations) expenditure. Nevertheless, at this stage the information available from the seven SIAs is not enough to validate whether the process undertaken in the SIAs will obtain fruitful outcomes. Further work needs to be undertaken to closely follow the implementation and the consolidation phases of the SIAs, and to attempt to assess the overall impact of this SIA accelerator program.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, VMG; Data curation, MM; Investigation, VMG, SA, TA, CBa, MB, CBu, CRFB, PS and EGM; Methodology, VMG and EGM; Supervision, VMG and EGM; Validation, SA, TA, CBa, MB, CBu, CRFB, PaS and EGM; Visualization, SA, TA, CBa, MB, CBu, CRFB, PS and EGM; Writing – original draft, VMG and CBu; Writing – review & editing, SA, TA, CBa, MB, CBu, MM, CRFB and EGM.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

**Funding:** This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No 677622.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

**Acknowledgments:** ETIFOR thanks the participants in SIparte, University of Padova, iPitt, Matteo Aguanno and David Rech. SEEDS-Int is grateful to the Jana al Ayadi Cooperative, Mrs Angele Ishak, and Ms Lory Boutchakdjian. The Eastern Norway Research Institute /Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences thanks DNT Gudbrandsdalen and Vågå municipal refugee services. EFI is indebted to Mijares Vivo, the Irrigation Communities of Olba and Albentosa, the municipalities of Olba and Albentosa, LAG AGUJAMA and the Gúdar-Javalambre County. FORECO thanks Mireia Pecurul, Jaume Subirà, Begoña López, the Arrels Primary School students, and the owners of "Finca la Salada". Lancaster University Management School thanks Jane Binnion, her team, and the women at the Growing Club. The James Hutton Institute would like to thank the SYAPROVAG and its partners in the VALAB Operational Group: the National Parc of Guadeloupe, INRA, GDAEcoBio, ARECA, Fleur de Carbone, EPLEFPA Guadeloupe, Rézo 129 and the Chamber of Agriculture of Guadeloupe.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

## Appendix A

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

Adaptation of the SIA conceptual framework to the remaining Social Innovation Actions (ES, IT, NO, UK, LE, GUA), highlighting the flow of the action, the flow of the agents' group, and the evolution of the SI idea results from the TELCOS feasibility assessment of the Social Innovation Actions.

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A1.** SIA conceptual framework for ES2.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A2.** SIA conceptual framework for NO.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A3.** SIA conceptual framework for UK.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_38.png" /><figcaption>Figure A4. SIA conceptual framework for IT.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>Figure A5. SIA conceptual framework for LE.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>Figure A6. SIA conceptual framework for GUA.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Feasibility dimension</th><th>ES1</th><th>NO</th><th>UK</th><th>IT</th><th>LE</th><th>GUA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Technical</strong><br>Do Local Actors have the technical expertise to complete the projects and its required tasks? Is the project proposition practical?</td><td>Need for supports to local actors in certain tasks which cannot be undertaken with voluntary work (e.g. parcel clearing)</td><td>Local actors have the needed technical expertise and requirements.</td><td>Need for support in developing measuring instruments for feedback sheets of the programmes, and a more efficient website to prove how effective the social enterprise is, which in return, will help get future funding.</td><td>There is some expertise within the local partner Local Action Group, which is valorised and being used. Where the expertise is lacking within the Local Action Group, it is provided by the Implementers or external personnel. From the practical point of view, some difficulty has been found in actively involving the participants as they often lack self-confidence, feeling insufficiently competent to intervene.</td><td>The Local Actors have team leadership abilities and the capacity to explore new opportunities. They have the ability for technical development and management of production. However, skills are lacking in investment, business management, and marketing of products in non-traditional markets.</td><td>Support needed to develop a Manifesto and run the Innovation Action activities. Experts will be invited to contribute to the activities as relevant.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Economic</strong><br>Is the proposal economically viable in the long term, providing benefits that compensate for the costs incurred?</td><td>Needed a relatively large initial investment, and regular maintenance efforts for achieving long-term viability. Bottleneck: agricultural products are</td><td>The Social Innovation is economically viable if the refugees become volunteers. This benefits the sustainability of the region if it improves the health and recruitment of refugees.</td><td>Difficulty in achieving funding to run each programme. The nature of the Innovation Action is largely dependent on grants. Currently, work in support</td><td>It is difficult to say whether the proposal is economically feasible in the long run as the project is financially expensive. Considering all of the costs, the total budget is above what the</td><td>The proposal is economically viable over the long term, benefiting from increased sales and reductions in the cost</td><td>Funding obtained by the social innovators for the first phase of their initiative. Future funding and financial capacity will be needed to sustain the</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>difficult to market competitively</td><td>of women, and tackling social deprivation, is funded by local councils and the private sector, while still remain uncertainties for the future.</td><td>Local Action Group can afford as it has limited funds. Hence, in order to be economically viable there is a need for external economic support.</td><td>of energy for production. Combined, this will improve the economic and social situation for the co-operative's members and their households.</td><td>social innovation activities in the future. Over the medium to long term, activities developed in the forest understorey will need to be economically viable for the farmers. The framework partly supports the Social Innovation in relation to the activities to be undertaken. Some clarity will be needed on regulations of activities in the forest understorey will be needed for the future of the social innovation though.</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td><strong>Legal</strong><br>Does the current legal framework of the Rural Areas support the Social Innovation implementation?</td><td>The framework supports the Social Innovation in relation to the activities to be undertaken. The challenges relate to the effective fiscal policies for supporting farming start-ups.</td><td>The legal framework supports the Social Innovation in relation to the activities to be undertaken.</td><td>Yes, and encouraged. The most recent need is a policy for safeguarding participants as some of them have escaped domestic abuse at home or in their communities.</td><td>The legal frameworks support the activities programmed, although indirectly in some cases.</td><td>The current legal framework supports implementation of the Social Innovation. However, there is a need to find alternatives and to support the implementation of tax</td><td>The framework partly supports the Social Innovation in relation to the activities to be undertaken. Some clarity will be needed on regulations of activities in the forest understorey will</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td><strong>Collaborative</strong><br>Is it feasible to involve all of the key players in the successful implementation of the Social Innovation plan?</td><td>Despite initial enthusiasm by several public agencies and individuals, institutional support is reducing, and association membership is falling due as a consequence of discouragement after facing structural and farming challenges.</td><td>Yes, the collaboration between the volunteer and the public sector is feasible, as they depend on each other if they want to fulfil the scope of the activities (integration).</td><td>Working alongside other charities, NGOs and council will enhance the success of the programmes. The key players continue to grow in number and change, again, depending on availability of funding.</td><td>There is good collaboration amongst the key actors making their involvement feasible. The main local partner, Local Action Group, is already a public-private partnership including a large variety of local entities (23 actors). Consequently, this makes it easier to collaborate with all of them at once, as well as the possibility to take advantage of the network and contacts that the Local Action Group has in the territory.</td><td>Yes, almost all key players will be involved in the implementation of the Social Innovation.</td><td>exemptions and services.</td><td>be needed for the future of the social innovation.<br>There is interest by the local actors in the initiative and the partners of the Operational Group are willing to work jointly and in a coordinated way with the IA implementer. Whether the initiative will sustain itself after this first phase is an unknown and a challenge as the farmers will lack financial and organisational support to pursue their activities.</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Operational</strong><br>Does the proposed Social Innovation work well? Will the factors that are hindering the Action be overcome?</td><td>Scarcity of existing farmers willing to work new parcels might hinder the operational feasibility of the action</td><td>There is a risk that the volunteers, the refugees and local inhabitants will not follow up or attend the planned activities.</td><td>The SIA currently works well. The main factors that hinder the Social Innovation are: (i) Funding in an environment of harsh austerity, which will be an ongoing issue for any such organisation; (ii). Getting more staff trained to undertake the work, as currently only one person</td><td>Although it is still too early to have a clear idea of the operational feasibility of the Innovation Action project, it is anticipated that operational difficulties faced by the action can be overcome.</td><td>The Social Innovation will motivate and encourage the people of Deir El Ahmar to install solar panels as an alternative and cheaper source of energy.</td><td></td><td>The activities foreseen within the framework of the Innovation Action will work well. Reaching out beyond the social innovators to other stakeholders in the territory will require more time and other types of activities.</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td></td><td>has the skills required to deliver the programmes</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Schedule</strong><br>Is the timescale of the Social Innovation plan feasible?</td><td>The timescale is feasible.</td><td>The timescale of the activities proposed is feasible.</td><td>The timescale of the activities proposed is feasible. The SIA is an on-going programme with a planned annual rolling programme.</td><td>The timescale of the activities proposed is feasible. The timescale of the proposed activities is feasible.</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

641 References

642 1. European Environment Agency. State and Outlook 2015 the European Environment. 2015.
https://doi.org/10.2800/944899

643 2. FRA. Together in the EU. Promoting the participation of migrants and their descendants. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2017. https://doi.org/10.2811/80928

644 3. Godfray, H. C. J.; Beddington, J. R.; Crute, I. R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J. F.; Toulmin, C. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. *Science* **2010**, *327*, 812–8.

645 4. European Commission. Societal Challenges - European Commission. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges (accessed on 30 November 2017).

646 5. Leijten, J.; Butter, M.; Kohl, J.; Leis, M.; Gehrt, D. *Investing in Research and Innovation for Grand Challenges*. 2012.

647 6. Kuhlmann, S.; Rip, A. The challenge of addressing Grand Challenges. Research Europe. 2014. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/societal-challenges (accessed on 30 November 2017).

648 7. Corporation for National and Community Service. 2019. *Social Innovation Fund*. Available online: https://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/social-innovation-fund (accessed on 10 November 2019).

649 8. European Commission. 2019. *Social investment: Commission urges Member States to focus on growth and social cohesion*. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=1044&newsId=1807&furtherNews=yes (accessed on 10 November 2019).

650 9. Cajaiba-Santana, G. Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, **2014**, *82*: 42-51.

651 10. MacCallum, D.; Moulaert, F.; Hillier, J.; Haddock, S.V. (Eds.) *Social innovation and territorial development*, Ashgate: Farnham, UK, 2009; pp. 1-172.

652 11. Moulaert, F.; MacCallum, D.; Mehmood, A.; Hamdouch, A. (Eds.) *The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research*. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 1-461.

653 12. Mulgan, G. *Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated*. Said Business School: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 1-39.

654 13. Nicholls, A.; Ziegler, R. (Eds.) *Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation*. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 1-496.

655 14. Secco, L.; Pisani, E.; Burlando, C.; Gatto, P.; Pettenella, D.; Akinsete, E.; Koundouri, P.; Lopolito, A.; Prosperi, M.; Tuomasiukka, D.; Herder, M. Den; Lovric, M.; Polman, N.; Dijkshoorn, M.; Soma, K.; Ludvig, A; Zivojinovic, I.; Sarkki, S.; Ravazzoli, E.; Torre, C.D.; Streifeneder, T.; Slee, B.; Miller, D; Barlagne, C.. *Set of methods to assess SI implications at different levels. Instructions for WP5 & 6*. Deliverable 4.2. Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 2017; pp: 1-203.

656 15. Haxeltine, A.; Avelino, F.; Pel, B.; Dumitru, A.; Kemp, R.; Longhurst, N.; Wittmayer, J. M. *A framework for transformative social innovation*. Working paper, 2016. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30337.86880

657 16. SEiSMiC. Home - SEiSMiC Project. Available online: http://www.seismicproject.eu/ (accessed on 30 November 2017).

658 17. URBACT. *Social innovation in cities*. URBACT II, 2015; pp. 68.

659 18. Neumeier, S. Social innovation in rural development: identifying the key factors of success. *The Geographical Journal*, **2017**, *183*, 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12180

660 19. Price, M.; Miller, D.; McKeen, M.; Slee, B.; Nijnik, M. *Categorisation of Marginalised Rural Areas (MRAs)*. Deliverable 3.1 - Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 2017; pp. 57.
688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

20. Goethals, M.; J. Schreurs. Developing shared terms for spatial equality through design. In *Strategic Spatial Projects: Catalysts for Change*. Oosterlynck, S., J. Van den Broeck, L. Albrechts, F. Moulaert: A. Verhetsel, Taylor & Francis, 2010, pp 31.

21. Prabhu, R.; Sinclair, F.; Vanclay, J. Realizing Community Futures: A Practical Guide to Harnessing Natural Resources, Taylor & Francis, 2012.

22. Reed, M. S. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. *Biological Conservation*, **2008**, *141*, 2417-2431.

23. Smith, A.; G. Seyfang. Constructing grassroots innovations for sustainability. *Global Environmental Change*, **2013**, *23*, 827-829.

24. Arnstein, S. R. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. *Journal of the American Planning Association*, **1969**, *35*, 216-224.

25. Wondirad, A.; B. Ewnetu. Community participation in tourism development as a tool to foster sustainable land and resource use practices in a national park milieu. *Land Use Policy*, **2019**, *88*, 104-155.

26. European Commission. *Horizon 2020; Work programme 2014-2015*. Appendix G, 2014.

27. SIMRA Innovation Actions. Available online: http://www.simra-h2020.eu/index.php/simra-innovation-actions/ (accessed on 30 November 2017).

28. Polman, N.; Slee, B.; Kluvánková, T.; Dijkshoorn, M.; Nijnik, M.; Gezik, V. *Classification of Social Innovations for Marginalized Rural Areas*. Deliverable 4.2. Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA). 2017 pp. 1-32.

29. Zavratnik, V., Superina, A. Duh, E.S. 2019. Living Labs for Rural Areas: Contextualization of Living Lab Frameworks, Concepts and Practices. *Sustainability*, **11**: 3797.

30. Wysocki, R.K. *Adaptive Project Framework: Managing Complexity in the Face of Uncertainty*. Addison-Wesley Professional: Boston, USA, 2010; pp. 384.

31. Gorriz-Mifsud, E.; Marini Govigli, V. *Social Innovation Actions Guidelines*. Report 7.1 - Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 2017; pp. 46.

32. Taylor, J. In praise of the feasibility study. *Journal of Clinical Nursing*, **2007**, *16*, 1789-1791.

33. Médail, F.; Quézel, P. Biodiversity Hotspots in the Mediterranean Basin: Setting Global Conservation Priorities. *Conservation Biology*, **1999**, *13*, 1510-1513.

34. Myers, N.; Mittermeier, R.A.; Mittermeier, C.G.; da Fonseca, G.A.B.; Kent, J. Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. *Nature*, **2000**, *403*, 853-858.

35. IEDOM. *Rapport Annuel 2019*. IEDOM: Paris, 2019.

36. Kidd, S; Davidson L.; Frederick, T; and Kral, M.J. Reflecting on Participatory, Action-Oriented Research Methods in Community Psychology: Progress, Problems, and Paths Forward. *American Journal of Community Psychology*, **2018**, *61*, 76-87.

37. Marini Govigli, V.; Gorriz-Mifsud, E.; Alkhaled, S.; Arnesen, T.; Bjerk, M.; Burlando, C.; Jack, S.; Rodríguez Fernández-Blanco, C.; Sfeir, P.; Vicentini, K. *Insights from the Feasibility Assessment of Innovation Actions*. Report 7.2 - Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA), 2018; pp. 48.

38. Dey, C. Methodological issues: The use of critical ethnography as an active research methodology. *Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal*, **2002**, *15*, 106-121. 10.1108/09513570210418923.

39. Spijker, S.N.; Parra C., Knitting green spaces with the threads of social innovation in Groningen and London. *Journal of Environmental Planning and Management*, **2017**, *10.1080/09640568.2017.1382338*.

40. Stephan, U.; Uhlaner, L. M.; Stride, C. Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. *Journal of International Business Studies*, **2015**, *46*, 308-331.

41. Brydon-Miller, M.; Greenwood D.; Maguire P. Why action research? *Action Research*, **2003**, *1*, 9-28.

42. Calzada, I. Critical social innovation in the smart city era for a city-regional European horizon 2020. P3T *Journal of Public Policies & Territories, Social Innovation and Territory*, **2013**, *6*, 1-20.

43. SIMRA 2019. *Database: Social innovations in marginalised rural areas*. Available online http://www.simra-h2020.eu/index.php/simradatabase/ (accessed on 10 December 2019).

44. Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D.; Mehmood, A.; Hamdouch, A. (Eds.). The international handbook on social innovation: collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 480.

45. Dorst, K.; Cross, N. Creativity in the Design Process: Co-Evolution of Problem-Solution. *Design Studies*, **2001**, *22*, 425-437. 10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.
742

46. Christiaans, H.; Dorst, K. Cognitive models in industrial design engineering: A protocol study. *American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Design Engineering Division (Publication)*, **1992**, *42*. 131-140.

743

47. Ross, T.; Mitchell, V.A.; May, A. Bottom-up grassroots innovation in transport: motivations, barriers and enablers. *Transportation Planning & Technology*, **2012**, *35*, 469–489.

744

745

48. Živojinović, I.; Ludvig, A; Hogl, K. Social Innovation to Sustain Rural Communities: Overcoming Institutional Challenges in Serbia. *Sustainability*, **2019**, *11*, 10.3390/su11247248.

746

747

49. Camps, S.; P. Marques. Exploring how social capital facilitates innovation: The role of innovation enablers. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, **2014**, *88*, 325-348.

748

749

50. Ludvig, A.; Wilding, M.; Thorogood A.; Weiss, G. Social innovation in the Welsh Woodlands: Community based forestry as collective third-sector engagement. *Forest Policy and Economics*, **2018**, *95*, 18-25.

750

751

51. Moulaert, F.; Mehmood, Abid. Towards social holism: social innovation, holistic research methodology and pragmatic collective action. In: *The Routledge Handbook of Planning Research Methods: A Case-Based Guide to Research Design* Silva, Elisabete A., Healey, Patsy, Harris, Neil Robert and Van den Broeck, Pieter eds., New York, NY: Routledge, 2014; pp. 97-106.

752

753

754

755

52. Weiss, G.; Ollonqvist, P.; Slee, R. How to support innovation in the forest sector: Summary and conclusions. *Innovation in Forestry: Territorial and Value Chain Relationships*, **2011**, 303-319.

756

757

53. Nijnik M.; Secco L.; Miller D.; Melnykovych M. Can social innovation make a difference to forest-dependent communities? *Forest Policy and Economics*, **2019**, *100*, 207–213.

758

759

54. USF. 2015 Global Best Practices Report on Incubation and Acceleration Key Trends and Analysis of the 2015 Incubation and Acceleration Ecosystem, Available online: http://usf.vc/other/global-practices-results/ (accessed on 30 October 2017).

760

761

762

55. Mrkajic, B. Business Incubators in Developing Countries : Guidelines for Incubator Managers, 2014.

763

764

56. Koontz T.; Thomas C.W. What Do We Know and Need to Know About the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management? *Public Administration Review*, **2006**, *66*, 111 – 121.

765

766

767

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

© 2020 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

768