<figure><img src="image_151.png" /></figure>

## 7.2. Step 1: Consultation of Experts and Key Informants

During the initial phase of the study, the pioneer CS Team will first conduct a preliminary research on the context and the issues of concern to the SI initiative from internet sources and local newspapers. First, in this phase, relevant policy documents will be preliminarily identified. Second, experts and key local informants will be identified for a preliminary consultation, to capture the characteristics of the case study area, identify actors, and set up an overall context and timeline for the SI. Experts may be internal to the SI initiative, as current leaders or key partners of the SI initiative, and/or external, including researchers or experts with in-depth knowledge of the context of the case study area. Experts and key local informants will be consulted through a focus group.

Depending on the characteristics of the case study, the CS Team will identify and contact six to twelve experts and key informants. Key actors and experts may be identified through the snowball sampling principle, mentioned by name and organisation, or through a first mapping of stakeholders involved or knowledgeable about the SI initiative. The selection of experts follows the principle of “saturation of knowledge” in which experts will be invited to the focus group until a stage is reached where all of the information required to understand the social innovation can be collected.

The case study experts and key experts may be:

1) representatives of the case study area or organisations that currently play a central role in the SI initiative (e.g. innovators, project manager, beneficiaries and/or donors);

2) policy makers directly or indirectly connected to the SI initiative (e.g. local municipal authorities, agriculture and forestry sectors, land management authorities or Local Action Groups);

3) external actors with in-depth knowledge of the SI initiative process and effects (e.g. education, training or research organisations, information or advisory services, consultants or funding institutions).

The panel of experts and key informants selected are first invited to a focus group discussion, and informed of a follow up individual and semi-structured interview (second step).

### Focus groups

During the first step, the CS Team will organise a focus group, an “in-depth” interview to a group of individuals who share common interests or characteristics. Generally, participants selected will have a common level of knowledge of the case study SI initiative. The moderator will facilitate discussion on specific issues to obtain group opinions rather than individual responses. During the discussion, participants will be given space to express themselves without inhibition, while being encouraged to stay on topic.

The moderator will only intervene rarely with a few pre-prepared key questions and takes notes by using graphical support, such as pens, paper and sticky notes, hanging posters, tape and highlighters. The session will be recorded, with one or more assistants taking notes on the content of the discussion and interaction. A focus group session will generally last between 30 minutes and one and a half hours.

The first aim of the focus group is the identification of the history of the SI initiative. Through the focus group, the moderator seeks to reconstruct the pathways and sequence of events that led from the initial SI idea to the final outputs, and develops a “calendar of events” or storyline. This is done by providing cues to aid recollection of the different phases of the SI process. Examples of questions are:

* Can you remember key phases of the SI initiative? Can you link them to specific dates or events which would help respondents remember them?

* Did the SI initiative occur during a specific event, over a day, a short or a long period of time?

* Who was involved in each phase of the SI initiative?

The second aim of the focus group is identification and selection of partners and actors who took part in the SI initiative process at different points in time. When possible, these actors are interviewed during the second step, through individual face-to-face or online interviews (see Steps 2a and 2b). Actors are identified using a snowball sampling principle: respondents name the subjects that took place in the process of SI during
<figure><img src="image_152.png" /></figure>

different phases of its development using a "name generator grid" technique. The focus group participants could be re-contacted for a second meeting by the CS Team if the list of names was insufficient. Examples of questions are:

* Who were the creators/first innovators? Who invented, discovered or was attracted by the initial idea?

* Who were the first followers? Who were the first who thought that the initial idea was valuable?

* Who was involved in the development of the SI idea during the first phases of reconfiguring? Who was contacted to implement the idea and support its transformation? Who were the transformers?

* Who were the people who adopted the idea early on and shared it with other people in the group? Who were the mainstreamers and project partners? Which external actors were involved in the development? Who were the key people?

* Is it possible to identify the final users or beneficiaries of the initiative? Who are the direct beneficiaries?

The evaluation framework identifies the role of actors during the different phases of the SI process and project (see Box 24).

## Box 24 - Actors in SIMRA

### A. FROM AGENCY TO RECONFIGURING-RECONFIGURED [CLIQUE AND NETWORK]

1. **Social innovators:** The person who invents, discovers, or fully adopts the idea as their own.

2. **Followers or change agents:** A person skilled at promoting new ideas.

3. **First idea adopters or transformers:** A person who adopts the idea early on and shares it with other people in the network.

4. **Implementers or mainstreamers:** A person who follows the crowd, and adopts a new idea only when other people do.

### B. FROM ACTIVITIES TO OUTPUTS [PROJECT PARTNERS]

5. **Project coordinator:** A person who receives a financial contribution from the Contracting Authority and ensures its distribution to the project associated partners (if present) as specified in the partnership agreements. The coordinating beneficiary must be directly involved in the technical implementation of the project and dissemination of project results.

6. **Project associated partners:** Associated partners must contribute technically to the proposal, take responsibility for the implementation of one or several project actions, as agreed in the partnership agreement, and provide the beneficiary with all the necessary documents required for the fulfilment of its reporting obligations to the Contracting Authority. An associated beneficiary may also contribute financially to the project.

7. **Project co-financer:** A person or organisation which contributes to the project with financial resources, has no technical responsibilities, and cannot benefit from the financial contribution. Furthermore, it cannot act, in the context of the project, as a sub-contractor to any of the project's beneficiaries.

8. **Project consultants:** Sub-contractors provide external services to the project beneficiaries who fully pay for the services provided.

9. **Project stakeholders:** Individuals or institutions that may, directly or indirectly, positively or negatively, affect or be affected by a project or programme.

### C. FROM OUTPUTS TO IMPACTS [ACTORS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL]

10. **Beneficiaries:** Individuals who benefit directly or indirectly from the implementation of the project. They may comprise:

(a) **Target group(s):** Group/entity positively affected by the project at the level of the Project Purpose. It may include staff from partner organisations.

(b) **Final beneficiaries:** Those who benefit from the project over the long term, at the level of society or sector at large, e.g. "children", from increased spending on health and education, "consumers", from improved agricultural production and marketing.

11. **External actors:** Individuals who are not affected by the SI initiatives and projects, but who could be part of an Impact Assessment as the counterfactual group. This element has to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Source: SIMRA research team.
<figure><img src="image_153.png" /></figure>

Depending on the case study, the focus group can be used for identifying relevant policies and policy documents. The moderator of the focus group may ask about identifying secondary data and available indices for describing the marginalisation of the area, or ask questions about the context, outcomes and effects of the SI initiative (see next paragraph). The SIMRA Experts and Key Informants' Questionnaire, i.e. the operational tool for data collection, is part of Deliverable 5.1.

## Studying "significant" impacts

The consultation of experts and key informants includes a preliminary impact evaluation, with a statistically robust impact evaluation carried out in Step 4b only if the evaluator finds a feasible and significant control group of beneficiaries. It is based on the results obtained in the focus group.

The preliminary impact evaluation includes three questions (codes refer to Annex 1):

i. With respect to the initial contextual conditions, what are the environmental, economic, social and institutional components that the SI initiative impacted, directly or indirectly? (H.c.1.1-2-3-4.)

ii. Based on your responses to the previous question, state the main environmental, economic, social and institutional effects that a SI initiative has generated, both positive and negative. (H.c.2.1-2-3-4.)

iii. Select the three main negative and positive social effects based on the selection made in the previous question. What are the root causes of each effect, the stakeholders affected, and the management measures adopted (if any)? What was the level of control and influence, the responsiveness of the local context, the frequency, intensity and the risk (if negative) or opportunity (if positive)? (H.c.3.1-2-3-4.)

For the first question, the moderator shows the list of the main environmental, economic, social and institutional components for discussion by the group of experts, and subsequent selection of those which have been impacted directly or indirectly by the SI initiative.

For the second question, we propose an adaptation of the "sorting" part of the Q-methodology (Watts, 2005). All focus group participants are asked to sort a set of items on a scale. The items comprise all the effects in the components selected through the previous question. The scale interval is from -2 (negative impact) to +2 (positive impact).

<table><thead><tr><td>Negative</td><td>Slightly negative</td><td>No effect</td><td>Slightly positive</td><td>Positive</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td></tr></tbody></table>

The moderator helps the group divide the effects in five piles, trying to respect the proportions shown in Figure 27. All neutral effects are placed in the central column of the diagram, with only three items placed in the external columns of the positive and negative effects.

<figure><img src="image_154.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 27.** Sorting scale inspired by the Q-methodology (Watts, 2005).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_155.png" /></figure>

In the third question, only the three most negative and three most positive items, selected in the previous step, are considered. The moderator asks participants to analyse the six effects through three open-ended sub-questions and five quantitative scores.

In the three open-ended sub-questions, the moderator about the root cause of each effect, the affected stakeholders, and the management measures adopted (if any).

Finally, experts provide a score of 0 to 4 for five basic criteria<fnref n="105" /> that may be used to define “significance”. Table 14 summarises the general, guiding criteria for defining ‘significant aspects’ and related ‘significant impacts’. Table 15 explains how to assign a score to specific aspects/impacts based on a qualitative/narrative approach. Only aspects/impacts for which the total assigned score is equal or higher than 10¹⁰⁶ are considered ‘significant’<fnref n="107" />.

<table><caption>**Table 14.** Guiding criteria for defining a ‘significant aspects’ (with ‘significant impacts’) in the evaluation of SIMRA case studies.</caption><thead><tr><td>Basic criterion</td><td>Definition of 'significant'</td><td>Explanation</td><td>Example of application in SIMRA</td><td>Main interested domains in terms of impact</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Level of control and influence</td><td>Aspects that the SI initiative has a direct control and influence on.</td><td>The SI initiative can do something, autonomously and directly, for changing the aspect (e.g. changing activities, practices, products or services) to reduce the negative impacts or emphasise the positive ones.</td><td>Forest fire brigades in Spain: voluntary forest fire fighters have direct control on the interventions they perform against fires.</td><td>Social Environmental</td></tr><tr><td>2. Sensitivity of the context</td><td>Aspects of the SI initiative that touch a key resource for the territory and the community and/or deal with cultural and identity issues.</td><td>The organisation's activities, products or services concern resources that are vital for the local community and/or connected to core identity values of the community (cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity).</td><td>Trekkers in Norway are involved in the valorisation of natural areas (ecosystem services connected to recreation).</td><td>Social Environmental Economic</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="105">¹⁰⁵ The criteria proposed in these tables have been adopted and adapted from the ISO 14001 standards for environmental aspects to the economic, social and governance/institutional aspects. This approach was proposed and used by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (GSSB, 2016) for social and economic aspects (aside the environmental ones).</footnote>

<footnote n="106">¹⁰⁶ This threshold is defined as the average score (10.0) that can be calculated considering 5 items (first column) and 5 scores (from 0 to 4). The impacts/aspects with an average or higher score are 'significant', those with a score lower than the average are 'not significant'.</footnote>

<footnote n="107">¹⁰⁷ The significant impacts identified in each domain will be used to create specific impact indicators in relation to each single case study (see Part III - Judgement references). Examples of such indicators can be: ratio between negative and positive impacts in relation to a specific issue and/or domain; sum of total assigned scores ratio between positive and negative impacts, by domain. Moreover, the significant impacts will be used for further analysis in Step 4 in those cases when statistical techniques for impact evaluation are applicable.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_156.png" /></figure>

<table><tr><td>3. Frequency</td><td>Aspects that are ordinarily or frequently repeated by the SI initiative.</td><td>The organisation carries out the activity (products or service) on a regular basis, as it is the core business of the social innovation.</td><td>Social farming in Italy: members of a social farm take care of disabled people 12 months a year.</td><td>Social Economic</td></tr><tr><td>4. Intensity</td><td>Aspects of the SI initiative that have or can have irreversible consequences, both over the short or long-term.</td><td>The organisation's activities, products or services have or can have consequences (positive or negative, real or potential, intended or unintended) that affect a high number of people and/or a large area.</td><td>Women cooperatives in Lebanon: women involved represent a high percentage of the local community.</td><td>Social Economic Environmental Governance/institutional</td></tr><tr><td>5. Risk</td><td>Aspects connected to risks of accidents (e.g. security of people, human health) due to the SI initiative.</td><td>The organisation's activities or products or services imply a certain level of risk of accidents.</td><td>LiberaTerra association in Italy: provides lands confiscated from the mafia to social farming.</td><td>Social Economic Environmental Governance/institutional</td></tr></table>

Source: Source: SIMRA research team.

<table><caption>**Table 15.** Scoring criteria for defining 'significant aspects' (with 'significant impacts') in the evaluation of SIMRA case studies.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Basic criterion</th><th colspan="5">Scoring</th></tr><tr><th>Score = 0</th><th>Score = 1</th><th>Score = 2</th><th>Score = 3</th><th>Score = 4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Level of control and influence</td><td>The SI initiative has no direct control and influence on the aspect/impact.</td><td>The SI initiative has no or limited direct control and influence on the aspect/impact.</td><td>The SI initiative has moderate direct control and influence on the aspect/impact.</td><td>The SI initiative has good direct control and influence on the aspect/impact.</td><td>The SI initiative has direct and total control and influence on the aspect/impact.</td></tr><tr><td>2. Sensitivity of the local context</td><td>The local context is not sensitive.</td><td>The local context has a few elements of sensitive (e.g. only one minor natural resource is affected).</td><td>The local context has moderate elements of sensitive (e.g. one or more natural resources or key resources are affected and the community has not yet fully accepted the SI).</td><td>The local context has high elements of sensitive (e.g. highly protected habitats or cultural heritage are affected by the SI, there is a latent conflict between the SI</td><td>The local context is extremely vulnerable (e.g. it totally depends on the key resource affected by the SI, cultural heritage is at risk, there is a</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_157.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>and the rest of the community).</th><th>conflict in relation to the SI initiative)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>3. Frequency</td><td>The activity, products or services are not provided by the SI initiative.</td><td>The activity, products and services are not frequently provided by the SI initiative.</td><td>The activity, products and services are frequently, but not regularly provided by the SI initiative.</td><td>The activity, products and services are regularly provided by the SI initiative, with a high frequency.</td><td>The activity, products and services are provided continuously, as they are the core business of the SI.</td></tr><tr><td>4. Intensity</td><td>The SI initiative does not have any effects.</td><td>The SI initiative has limited effects (e.g. punctual, reversible over the short or medium term)</td><td>The SI initiative has moderate effects (e.g. in more than one site, reversible only in the medium term)</td><td>The SI initiative has strong effects (e.g. on a large portion of the territory, on a high number of persons, reversible only over the long term)</td><td>The SI initiative determines irreversible effects over the long-term which affect a high portion of the territory and/or of the community.</td></tr><tr><td>5. Risk</td><td>There are no risks associated with the SI initiative.</td><td>There are limited risks associated with the SI initiative.</td><td>There are moderate risks associated with the SI initiative.</td><td>There are high risks associated with the SI initiative.</td><td>There are extremely high risks associated with the SI initiative</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: SIMRA research team.

Through this approach, the SIMRA method is based on the qualitative identification of 'significant aspects' because the identification is based on the perceptions of actors of each of the four domains (i.e. economic, social, environmental and governance/institutional), and related 'significant impacts'. The impact evaluation based on statistical techniques, only used when technically feasible, should focus on the impacts identified during this initial qualitative-based screening.

The qualitative identification of 'significant aspects' has a clear limitation in terms of subjectivity: the definition of what is 'significant' is based on a subjective group interpretation of the situation and existing information, data or knowledge by those involved, and affected in some way by the SI initiative. However, it provides an easy and quick tool for immediately understanding the core effects of the social innovation on various components of the society, the economy and the whole territory. In addition, after the initial screening (the "self-identification" of what is significant), and a more accurate qualitative analysis carried out by key actors in the focus groups, only the impacts identified as 'significant' on the basis of the scoring exercise are explored in detail using statistical techniques and impact evaluation. This is intended to help evaluators save a significant amount of resources (i.e. time, money).

In the pilot test, the approach proposed is based on the perceptions of key experts of the relevance and importance of an impact. To minimise the risk that important impacts may be disregarded or underestimated (and thus that possible trade-offs by groups not involved in the SI are ignored), alternative ways to ask these questions to a wider sample of actors and collect individual answers should be explored on a case by case basis. This way, it is possible to use the Q methodology to categorise actors with similar perceptions of the impacts of the SI initiative, and discuss the results at the end of the evaluation.
<figure><img src="image_158.png" /></figure>

### 7.3. Step 2a: Survey Design for Analysis of Policy Processes (Work Package 6)

Instructions<fnref n="108" /> on analysis of policy processes and implications for SI specifically focus on identifying the factors that foster and/or hamper the emergence of SI in local case studies through a narrative approach. To do this, an integrated step-by-step approach is adopted. The approach comprises three analyses, one conducted during step 2, and two carried out during step 3:

1. Step 2a. Specific semi-structured interviews with experts and key informants identified in step 1. The CS Team interviews local authorities (policy makers) at different scales (local, regional, national and international if it applies) and key stakeholders of the CS.

2. Step 3a (first part). Identification of relevant policy and document analysis documents. The CS Team identifies legal texts (policy documents), policy statements, programmes and strategies that are potentially valid or were influential in the SI initiative.

3. Step 3a (second part). Validation of findings with CS results documents. The CS Teams iterate between field observations and documents. After initial interviews, desk-top research is undertaken, and then more interviews conducted if necessary, until "saturation".

**Instructions for the semi-structured interview guide**

The following questions provide the basic components for the interview guides, to be adapted according to the expert and context. However, the structure will be the same for every interview, to ensure consistency and to simplify the subsequent cross-case and cross-regional analysis. The sample interview guide for semi-structured, open interviews is presented for the analysis of policy implications for SI and follows the Innovation System Approach (Rametsteiner et al., 2005; Weiss et al., 2011).

**Interview guide**<fnref n="109" />

[Note to the interviewer. Before the interview date: schedule the interview and explain the general purpose. Preparations at the beginning of the interview: Check if the recorder works, batteries are loaded; put the recorder somewhere to the side as people can be irritated if it is placed in between the interviewee and interviewer. To make your interviewee comfortable, offer them a glass of water, and set the chairs crosswise rather than "confrontational" at the opposite sides of a table. Introduce yourself and exchange business cards or contact details. Explain the purpose of the interview and provide the statement of confidentiality<fnref n="110" />. Explain that the interview focuses on SI. Ask for permission to record the interview, thank them for giving you time and start with your first question.]

Characteristics of the respondent:

* What institution do you represent?

* At which scale does it operate?

* What is the kind of support you provide in the region?

* In which way is your work related to social innovations?

<footnote n="108">¹⁰⁸ The instructions on policy processes and implications for SI have been developed in collaboration with BOKU, as part of Task 4.3.</footnote>

<footnote n="109">¹⁰⁹ When the interviewees for both qualitative and quantitative enquiry are chosen, it must be clear to the CS Team that the first set of qualitative questions is dedicated to leading personnel in the municipalities and stakeholders with "support functions"; they can be policy officials, from consultancy agencies (regional or rural development, or LAG leaders), or social welfare institutions. The second set of questions is dedicated to the innovators themselves, and people active in the case (at the farm or in the start-up or in the forest activity etc.).</footnote>

<footnote n="110">¹¹⁰ Ethics: "All responses will be kept confidential if needed. Interview responses will only be used for scientific purposes. Details will only be shared with research team members and we will ensure that any information we include in our report does not identify you as the respondent. When we quote in our report we will not mention the name of the person. However, normally, the case and the region are named. Interviewees do not have to talk about anything they do not want to."</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_159.png" /></figure>

Key questions on policies:

Relation with the CS:

○ Do you know the SI initiative CS?

○ What is your relationship with the local SI cases?

○ Do you think your policies affected the CS?

○ Which policies did support the project?

○ What exactly was the policy support? Was it financial (e.g. subsidies, tax reduction, reduced loans), provision of information, facilitation of networking, previous support in the region by rural development policies and other initiatives?

Information:

○ How would you describe access to information in this region relating to social innovation?

Perceived context innovation in the region:

○ How would you describe the economic situation in this region when it comes to SI?

○ Based upon your experience, what factors foster and what hinder introducing SI in this region?

○ In your opinion, how high is the level of interest towards the introduction of SI in this region?

○ How would you describe the know-how on developing SI in this region?

○ Based upon your experience, is there anything that could be improved in this respect?

○ What are, if any, the main external enabling and constraining conditions (in terms of events, trends, societal framework conditions, institutions, structures and/or discourses), that a SI initiative has to face for moving from an idea to action?

○ Before the SI initiative, which were the five objective elements which indicate you were living in a marginalised rural area?

○ Have things changed after the SI initiative?

○ Which other positive or negative effects did the innovation have in the region (more/other social innovations in the region, economic benefits in the region, ecological impacts)?

Final (open) question:

○ Is there anything you would like to add on the topic of introducing SI that we did not discuss so far?

Additional key questions to Innovators:

[Note to the interviewer: These questions are to leading figures or founders of the innovative cases].

1. Individual and collective needs and triggers, "stimulus" for innovation

○ How did you come up with the idea of the project?

○ Why did you decide to start your activity in this area? (How did the need to do what you do come about?)

2. Perceived context

○ What do you think are the main problems in the region that your initiative addresses?

3. Agents

○ Which people and institutions were involved for starting your activity?

4. Preparatory Actions

○ Please describe the start-up phases?

○ What resources were you able to draw upon at the beginning?

○ Were there any other resources you would have found helpful?

5.1. Reconfiguring New networks

○ Which cooperations with other organisations were useful for your activity?

○ Can you expand on the kind of cooperation?

5.2. Reconfiguring New attitudes

○ What do you think is different about what you do locally, compared to what others do and provide?
<figure><img src="image_160.png" /></figure>

### 5.3 Reconfiguring New governance arrangements

* How are the decisions taken within your project?

### 6. Project activities

* Can you tell us what your project is about?

### 7. Outputs

* What do you think the benefits of your activity are to the people in this area?

### 8. Outcomes/impacts

* What has changed in the region with your activity?

### 9. Learning processes

* If you were to start your project again, what would you do differently today?

* Why?

[Notes for the conclusion of the interview. Thank the interviewee for their time and ask for contact details in case of further questions, and to send them the final report. Provide the link to the SIMRA webpage, in case they did not have it already. After the interview: Write an Ad hoc Memory protocol to help with recollection and structure the most important insights. The transcription will take time to be complete which may lead to forgetting the crucial points on which to focus. Transcription of the interviews is necessary for the analysis].

A final set of questions are asked to SIMRA pioneer CS Teams to guide their feedback on what worked well and what should be improved in the methodology (see Table 16).

<table><caption>**Table 16.** Questions for feedback on the pilot test of the semi-structured interview.</caption><thead><tr><td>Feedback questions</td><td>Response from CS Team</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Average time requested to fill the questionnaire</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Questions which did not work</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Questions with unclear terminology or wording</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Questions which could be better formulated</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Difficulties with the data collection techniques (face-to-face, semi-structured interview, online questionnaire, focus group)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other comments</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### Identification of relevant policy documents

This step aims to identify and examine policy assumptions, discourses, problem frames, regulatory approaches, policy instruments and related documents<fnref n="111" /> that might support or hamper effects of SI in the case study. Relevant policies have to be chosen from agriculture, forestry, rural development, welfare, labour markets, technological innovation, social innovation, regional development and others.

The focus is on policy and policy documents that are relevant at international, national and regional levels and expected to have effects at local level. For example, if the case study has been funded by the EU LEADER Programme, the CS Team needs to know LEADER provisions specific for the analysed context. CS Teams can read the relevant documents and might decide to start with a preliminary open-ended interview with LEADER experts before going to the field. It will be necessary to distinguish between direct policies, including LEADER, EIP, INTERREG, SI-programmes, and start-up support for social entrepreneurs, and indirectly impacting policies, including general regional development programmes, general social support system policies, education policies, and employment policies. The latter ones impact on the "societal preconditions" in a

<footnote n="111">¹¹¹ Normatively, public policies regulate the use and protection of resources and steer and govern societal wellbeing. They are represented by policy documents, formal rules, such as the constitution, laws, bylaws, ordinances. Such public regulations are predefined mechanisms which actors may assert to activate rights and legitimise actions.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_161.png" /></figure>

region, and SI may benefit from these as well. Additional policies, not above listed, can be identified by each CS Team in the specific case study.

The identification of policy documents by pioneer CS Teams has to be carried out by online searching (literature analysis, institutional web sites) and interviews with local stakeholders in the local case study survey. Documents related to local interpretations of international, national or regional policies (e.g. brochures) should also be taken into consideration. Provisions are often formulated in general terms and need to be individualised and substantiated for the specific cases.

Once relevant policies and documents are identified, all documents are saved and uploaded by the CS Team within a register, and a reference list of secondary literature and policy documents is prepared.

## Step 2b: Survey Design for SI case Study analysis (Work Package 5)

This section provides information and instructions on: (1) target population of the survey; (2) sampling design; (3) interview guidelines; (4) questionnaires; (5) specific questions.

### Target population: actors of the social innovation

The target population of the survey refers to all actors involved in the SI initiative and project, as well as its direct and indirect beneficiaries. The characteristics of the actors are described in Box 20. A complete sampling frame of each category of actors is provided by experts and key informants during the focus groups (Step 1). These actors appear in the SI process at different moments but may only respond to the interviewer's questions on the SI components with which they are familiar. Table 17 summarises the role of each category of actors during the SI process.

<table><caption>**Table 17.** List of all possible actors involved in the SI initiative relative to the SI components and expected knowledge.</caption><thead><tr><td>People to be interviewed</td><td>Relation to SI components</td><td>Expected knowledge on SI components</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Innovators</td><td>Agency (Actors and Preparatory Actions)</td><td>Individual and social Needs<br>Perceived context<br>Agency (Actors and Preparatory Actions)<br>Reconfiguring(ed)</td></tr><tr><td>Followers</td><td>Agency (Actors and Preparatory Actions)</td><td>Individual and social Needs<br>Perceived context<br>Agency (Actors and Preparatory Actions)<br>Reconfiguring(ed)</td></tr><tr><td>First idea adopters/transformers</td><td>Reconfiguring(ed)</td><td>Agency (Actors and Action)<br>Reconfiguring(ed)</td></tr><tr><td>Implementers or mainstreamers:<br>- Project coordinator<br>- Project partners<br>- Project co-financer<br>- Project consultants or contractors<br>- Project stakeholders<br>- Concrete implementers<br>- Values takers</td><td>Project activities</td><td>Project activities<br>Outputs</td></tr><tr><td>Direct beneficiaries</td><td>Outputs</td><td>Outputs<br>Outcomes and impacts<br>Learning process</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect beneficiaries</td><td>Outcomes and impacts</td><td>Outcomes and impacts</td></tr><tr><td>Experts and key informants</td><td>-</td><td>The whole process and project</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: SIMRA research team.
<figure><img src="image_162.png" /></figure>

Sampling design

Sampling design is aligned to the target population. In general, we assume that local case studies do not involve an unmanageable number of actors. So, in the instructions we propose a census for the majority of target actors. However, ad hoc sampling strategies based on the case study can also be created. There are several typologies of sampling designs: probability sampling (as Simple Random sampling, Systematic sampling, Stratified sampling, Multistage sampling), and nonprobability sampling (such as Convenience sampling, Judgement sampling, Quota sampling, Snowball sampling). It is difficult to identify a priori the proper sampling design: each CS Team will choose the one most appropriate to their circumstances<fnref n="112" />.

Figure 28 shows how the survey strategy is developed in relation to: (1) target population, (2) network structure, (3) sampling design and (4) temporal scale.

* The targets of the questionnaire in the "Agency phase" are individuals or group of individuals. They are the innovators and the initial followers. In Social Network Analysis, these agents are called *clique*. The survey is submitted to all the actors identified in relation to the initial stages of the SI. The T₀ moment refers to the emergence of SI.

* In the "Reconfiguring phase", the targets of the questionnaire are the internal and external networks. The internal network refers to the relationships amongst actors belonging to the same organisation. Its composition is expected to be actors within a micro-organisation, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and institutions. The external network refers to an enlarged network composed of different individual and collective nodes. The reconfiguring process includes all the passages that lead to the establishment of internal and external networks, and thus, to a reconfigured network supporting new social practices. The target includes the initial agents, those who first proposed the innovative idea (innovator) and those who adopted it as their own (followers), and the transformers. The survey is submitted to a census of all actors who participate in the "Reconfiguring(ed)" phase and their relationships. In the evaluation framework, this refers to the time T₁, and it corresponds to the time when new social practices emerge (see also the SIMRA's definition of SI).

* The "Reconfigured phase through activities" refers to the activities that are carried out during project planning and implementation. The implementers identify and formulate a project proposal and in the case of a positive ex-ante evaluation by the Contracting Authority, activities are implemented. All project partners are included in the survey.

* In the "Community phase", the targets of the questionnaire are the final direct and indirect beneficiaries. A sampling rather than a census approach is used to address the potentially high number of beneficiaries. This represents time T₂, and it corresponds to the time when the outputs of the SI project are produced and the outcomes achieved. The impacts of the SI project on the economic, social, environmental and institutional domains are measured through an ex-post evaluation. The CS Team will choose how to proceed based upon the case study characteristics<fnref n="113" />.

<footnote n="112">¹¹² This will be done with the assistance of Leaders of Work Packages 4 and 5.</footnote>

<footnote n="113">¹¹³ See previous note 7.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_163.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_164.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 28.** Target population, network structure, sampling design, T-SI phase. Source: SIMRA research team.</figcaption></figure>

## Interview technique

The questionnaires are designed for face-to-face interviews, but the layout can be adapted for online surveys. Interviews are generally time-consuming, but they are an invaluable instrument for collecting the information required for the elaboration of SI indicators and indices. In these instructions, the pilot survey questions will help the pioneer CS Teams understand if the interview technique is feasible, and highlighting aspects that may be missing from the proposed questionnaire in the SIMRA evaluation framework. To conduct the structured interview, all the notes suggested for the semi-structured interview remain valid (i.e. the interviewer has to start the interview by introducing themselves, explain the reasons for the interview to be conducted, etc. and to close the interview by thanking interviewees for their time and availability). All the typical techniques for properly and ethically conducting interviews have to be applied.
<figure><img src="image_165.png" /></figure>

## Questionnaires

The test is applied to three broad categories of interviewees (clique, internal and external network and community beneficiaries) through different sampling designs and using different questionnaires. An additional questionnaire has been prepared for project partners to ask questions about project activities. Table 18 provides a schematic representation of questionnaires addressed to each target population.

<table><caption>**Table 18.** Questionnaires by target population.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Questionnaire to experts and key informants</th><th>Questionnaire to Clique (innovators and followers)</th><th>Questionnaire to Network (transformers)</th><th>Questionnaire to Project partners</th><th>Questionnaire to Beneficiaries</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Identification of actors (focus group)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Calendar of events (focus group)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Identification of marginalisation (focus group)</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>A. Needs</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>B. Context</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>C-D. Agency</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>E. Reconfiguring(ed)ed</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>F. Activities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>G. Outputs</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>H. Outcomes</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>H. Impacts</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>I. Learning process</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: SIMRA research team.

The five SIMRA questionnaires to be used in the pilot test will be included in Deliverable 5.1. Each CS Team is responsible for the translation into their local language. A glossary is provided to facilitate the process and reduce risks of misinterpretation of terms due to local cultural or linguistic differences.

## Preliminary questions to evaluate SI in MRAs

The complete list of questions to be tested in the pilot application of pioneer CSs is provided in Annex 1, divided by dimensions, sub-dimensions, components and codes of questions. Questions are posed in relation to a specific time period, so the test survey is not based on a longitudinal assessment. The questionnaires include different types of questions:

* Dichotomous (Yes/No, presence/absence, relation/no relation)

* Responses using scales [1-10] or [1-4]

* Closed with one choice

* Closed with multiple response "all that applies"

* Dates

* Integers [0-∞]

* Open-ended

The preliminary set of questions for the pioneer case studies was created by taking into account i) the SITT consultation (see Part I, Section 3 of Deliverable 4.2), and ii) existing methods, in particular those developed in projects funded by the European Commission.
<figure><img src="image_166.png" /></figure>

Table 19 lists the dimensions and sub-dimensions of the SIMRA evaluation framework (see Part II, Section 5 of Deliverable 4.2). The list of components and coded questions provide an overview of the level of detail addressed in the questionnaires.

<table><caption>**Table 19.** Dimension, sub-dimension, component and questions with codes at the basis of SIMRA questionnaires. Source: SIMRA research team.</caption><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Sub-dimension</th><th>Component</th><th>Questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="5">A. Individual and collective needs</td><td>A.a. Trigger</td><td>A.a.1. Type of trigger</td><td>A.a.1.1. Idea trigger<br>A.a.1.2. Positive-negative trigger<br>A.a.1.3. Scale of the trigger<br>A.a.1.4. Affected level<br>A.a.1.5. Affected scale<br>A.a.1.6. Dissatisfaction<br>A.a.1.7. Satisfaction motivation<br>A.a.1.8. Reaction</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">A.b. Social needs</td><td>A.b.1. Individual needs</td><td>A.b.1.1. Individual needs<br>A.b.1.2. Scores of individual needs</td></tr><tr><td>A.b.2. Collective needs</td><td>A.b.2.1. Collective needs<br>A.b.2.2. Scores of collective needs</td></tr><tr><td>A.c. Societal challenges</td><td>A.c.1. Type of societal challenges<sup>114</sup></td><td>A.c.1.1. Wider challenges<br>A.c.1.2. Societal challenges</td></tr><tr><td>A.d. Governance shifts</td><td>A.d.1. Type of governance shifts</td><td>A.d.1.1. Critical elements of governance<br>A.d.1.2. Scale of governance<br>A.d.1.3. Governance dissatisfaction<br>A.d.1.4. Governance satisfaction motivation</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">B. Perceived context</td><td rowspan="3">B.a. Context of MRA</td><td>B.a.1. Level of rurality</td><td>B.a.1.1. Population density<sup>115</sup><br>B.a.1.2. Evaluator selection<sup>115</sup></td></tr><tr><td>B.a.2. Physical geography marginality</td><td>B.a.2.1. Mountain area<br>B.a.2.2. Aridity<br>B.a.2.3. Islands<br>B.a.2.4. Evaluator selection</td></tr><tr><td>B.a.3. Limited access to infrastructure</td><td>B.a.3.1. Access to internet<br>B.a.3.2. Local road transport<br>B.a.3.3. Evaluator selection</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="114">¹¹⁴ 1. Health, demographic change and wellbeing; 2. Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research, and the Bioeconomy; 3. Secure, clean and efficient energy; 4. Smart, green and integrated transport; 5. Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials; 6. Europe in a changing world - inclusive, innovative and reflective societies; 7. Secure societies - protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens.</footnote>

<footnote n="115">¹¹⁵ Examples of sources for secondary data are: OECD Regional Well-Being Database, Eurostat (https://www.oecdregionalwellbeing.org/); Regional Agricultural Statistics, Eurostat (on different issues: estimate of soil erosion, at http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=aei_pr_soiler&lang=en; structure of agricultural holdings at http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ef_r_nuts&lang=en; Regional Demographic Statistics, Eurostat (on different issues: indicators on structure of population, at http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=demo_r_pjanind3&lang=en; life births, at http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=demo_r_births&lang=en#; Regional Economic Accounts, ESA 2010 (on different issues: on Gross Domestic Product - GDP at current market price, at http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_10r_3gdp&lang=en; employment, at http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=nama_10r_3empers&lang=en; and many others, such as the Regional Science and Technology Statistics and the Regional Tourism Statistics, both in the Eurostat system.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_167.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Sub-dimension</th><th>Component</th><th>Questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="15"></td><td rowspan="15">B.b. Perceived opportunity and threats (P)OT</td><td>B.a.4. Population marginalisation</td><td>B.a.4.1. Income<br>B.a.4.2. Evaluator selection</td></tr><tr><td>B.a.5. Others selected by evaluator</td><td>B.a.5.1. Evaluator selection</td></tr><tr><td>B.a.6. Initial perceived marginality</td><td>B.a.6.1. Perceived marginality<br>B.a.6.2. Elements of MRA</td></tr><tr><td>B.b.1. Economic (ECO)</td><td>B.b.1.1. ECO-POT<br>B.b.1.2. ECO-POT score</td></tr><tr><td>B.b.2. Social (SOC)</td><td>B.b.2.1. SOC-POT<br>B.b.2.2. SOC-POT score</td></tr><tr><td>B.b.3 Environmental (ENV)</td><td>B.b.3.1. ENV-POT<br>B.b.3.2. ENV-POT score</td></tr><tr><td>B.b.4 Institutional (INS)</td><td>B.b.4.1. INS_POT<br>B.b.4.2. INS_POT score</td></tr><tr><td>B.b.5. Changing opportunities and threats</td><td>B.b.5.1. Motivation on past (P)OT<br>B.b.5.2. (P)OT during the SI initiative<br>B.b.5.3. (P)OT after the SI initiative</td></tr><tr><td>C.a. Innovative ideas</td><td>C.a.1. Typology of innovation</td><td>C.a.1.1. Content of SI idea<br>C.a.1.2. Innovation</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">C.b. Clique</td><td>C.a.2. Novelty</td><td>C.a.2.1. Novelty of SI idea<br>C.a.2.2. Valuable idea<br>C.a.2.3. Source of SI idea</td></tr><tr><td>C.b.1. SI innovator(s)</td><td>C.b.1.1. Characteristics of the SI innovator(s)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">C.c. Vision and trust</td><td>C.b.2. Followers</td><td>C.b.2.1. Characteristics of followers<br>C.b.2.2. Initial reaction of followers<br>C.b.2.3. Inspiration<br>C.b.2.4. Support of followers</td></tr><tr><td>C.c.1. Vision</td><td>C.c.1.1. Vision<br>C.c.1.2. Envisioned role/s<br>C.c.1.3. Envisioned effect/s</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">C.d. Willingness to act</td><td>C.c.2. Social relationships and interpersonal trust</td><td>C.c.2.1. Relation<br>C.c.2.2. Trust in innovator<br>C.c.2.3. Trust in the clique</td></tr><tr><td>C.d.1. Location and personal experience</td><td>C.d.1.1. Relation with community<br>C.d.1.2. Experience<br>C.d.1.3. Competences and skills<br>C.d.1.4. Distinctiveness</td></tr><tr><td>C.e. Reflexivity</td><td>C.e.1. Reflexivity on emergence, development and evolution of the SI idea</td><td>C.e.1.1. Critical reflection<br>C.e.1.2. SI Idea change<br>C.e.1.3. Content of change<br>C.e.1.4. Evolution of SI idea</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">C.f. Capacity for change</td><td>C.f.1. Competences</td><td>C.f.1.1. Skills<br>C.f.1.2. Shared competences<br>C.f.1.3. Past experiences</td></tr><tr><td>C.f.2. Leadership and entrepreneurship</td><td>C.f.2.1. Formal influence<br>C.f.2.2. Formal authority<br>C.f.2.3. Informal influence<br>C.f.2.4. Informal authority</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_168.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Sub-dimension</th><th>Component</th><th>Questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="8">D. Agency – Preparatory actions</td><td>D.a. Availability of resources</td><td>D.a.1. Importance of resources</td><td>D.a.1.1. Internal resources<br>D.a.1.2. External resources<br>D.a.1.3. Skills</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">D.b. Idea formulation and communication</td><td>D.b.1. Social vision and expectations</td><td>D.b.1.1. Social vision<br>D.b.1.2. Expectations</td></tr><tr><td>D.b.2. Idea communication</td><td>D.b.2.1. Communication<br>D.b.2.2. Idea protection</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">D.c. Information collection and readiness</td><td>D.c.1. Information collection</td><td>D.c.1.1. Preliminary analysis<br>D.c.1.2. Data<br>D.c.1.3. Markets</td></tr><tr><td>D.c.2. Readiness</td><td>D.c.2.1. Control of idea<br>D.c.2.2. Social business model</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">D.d. Identification of partners and stakeholders</td><td>D.d.1. Identification of stakeholders</td><td>D.d.1.1. Identification<br>D.d.1.2. Addressing gaps<br>D.d.1.3. New contacts</td></tr><tr><td>D.d.2. Engagement of stakeholders</td><td>D.d.2.1. Means of contact<br>D.d.2.2. Meeting<br>D.d.2.3. Declined participation<br>D.d.2.4. Expectation rise</td></tr><tr><td>D.d.3. Management of stakeholders</td><td>D.d.3.1. Management of interactions<br>D.d.3.2. Rules<br>D.d.3.3. Facilitator<br>D.d.3.4. Conflicts management<br>D.d.3.5. Conflict resolution</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">E. Reconfiguring and reconfigured social practices</td><td rowspan="4">E.a. New networks</td><td>E.a.1. Composition of the network</td><td>E.a.1.1. Multiple actors<br>E.a.1.2. Units and groups<br>E.a.1.3. Multiple sectors<br>E.a.1.4. Multiple-level.<br>E.a.1.5. Openness of the network<br>E.a.1.6. Attributes of nodes</td></tr><tr><td>E.a.2. Structure of the network</td><td>E.a.2.1. New networks<br>E.a.2.2. Innovative elements<br>E.a.2.3. Inclusiveness<br>E.a.2.4. Representativeness<br>E.a.2.5. Capacities</td></tr><tr><td>E.a.3. Relationships</td><td>E.a.3.1. Network typology<br>E.a.3.2. information exchange<br>E.a.3.3. friendship<br>E.a.3.4. informal collaboration<br>E.a.3.5. formal collaboration<br>E.a.3.6. trust<br>E.a.3.7. Before and after<sup>116</sup></td></tr><tr><td>E.b. New attitudes</td><td>E.b.1. Level of sharing</td><td>E.b.1.1. Reasons<br>E.b.1.2. Intrinsic motivation<br>E.b.1.3. Extrinsic motivation<br>E.b.1.4. Objectives<br>E.b.1.5. Needs<br>E.b.1.6. Attitude</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>E.b.2. Informal institution<sup>117</sup></td><td>E.b.2.1. Expectations<br>E.b.2.2. Individual attitudes</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="116">¹¹⁶ By filling the name grid generator for this question, the evaluator selects the partners of the network who are: innovators, followers and transformers. The last are the stakeholders that accepted to join the SI initiative. The stakeholders that left the SI initiative – during the reconfiguring process – are not included in the name grid generator.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_169.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Sub-dimension</th><th>Component</th><th>Questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="6">E.b.3. Level of commitment</td><td>E.b.2.3. Collective attitudes</td></tr><tr><td>E.b.2.4. Changes</td></tr><tr><td>E.b.2.5. List of changes</td></tr><tr><td>E.b.2.6. Proactive individual attitudes</td></tr><tr><td>E.b.2.7. Enthusiasm</td></tr><tr><td>E.b.2.8. Objective obstacles</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="12">E.c. New governance arrangements</td><td rowspan="6">E.c.1. Internal</td><td>E.b.3.1. Voluntary<sup>117</sup></td></tr><tr><td>E.b.3.2. time spent</td></tr><tr><td>E.b.3.3. monetary contribution</td></tr><tr><td>E.b.3.4. in-kind</td></tr><tr><td>E.b.3.5. engagement of civil society</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.1.1. Innovative internal governance</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="12">E.c.2. External</td><td>E.c.1.2. Internal new ways of organizing</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.1.3. Coordination mechanism</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.1.4. Formalization of rules</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.1.5. Type of rules</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.1.6. Sanctions</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.1.7. Examples of sanction</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.1.8. Decision-making process</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.1.9. Involvement in decision-making</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.1.10. Empowerment</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.1.11. Transparency</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.2.1. Change</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.2.2. New arrangement</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.2.3. External new ways of organizing</td></tr><tr><td>E.c.2.4. Help desk</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="12">F. Project activities</td><td rowspan="12">F.a. Planning the initiative</td><td rowspan="6">F.a.1. Activities</td><td>F.a.1.1. New mission and objectives</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.1.2. List of activities</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.1.3. Definition of tasks</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.1.4. Schedule of activities</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.1.5. Milestones</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.1.6. Business plan</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">F.a.2. Procedures</td><td>F.a.2.1. New mission and objectives</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.2.2. List of activities</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.2.3. Definition of tasks</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.2.4. Schedule of activities</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.2.5. Milestones</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.2.6. Business plan</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">F.a.3. Practices</td><td>F.a.3.1. New mission and objectives</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.3.2. List of activities</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.3.3. Definition of tasks</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.3.4. Schedule of activities</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.3.5. Milestones</td></tr><tr><td>F.a.3.6. Business plan</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="117">117 Belief = propositional attitude (mental state) refers to i) On a proposition/content (example: vision in 5 years), I believe that..., or ii) I believe, I hope, I fear, I doubt, ... Our interpretation of belief as a sum is: Belief = expectation on the project + individual attitude + collective attitude + objective facts (see Part II, Section 5 for details).</footnote>

<footnote n="118">118 The meaning of the word "voluntary" is in line with that of the SIMRA project.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_170.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Sub-dimension</th><th>Component</th><th>Questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="4">F.b. Human resources management</td><td>F.b.1. Activities</td><td>F.b.1.1. Law compliance<br>F.b.1.2. Training for staff<br>F.b.1.3. Gender balance<br>F.b.1.4. Merit-based system</td></tr><tr><td>F.b.2. Procedures</td><td>F.b.2.1. Law compliance<br>F.b.2.2. Training for staff<br>F.b.2.3. Gender balance<br>F.b.2.4. Merit-based system</td></tr><tr><td>F.b.3. Practices</td><td>F.b.3.1. Law compliance<br>F.b.3.2. Training for staff<br>F.b.3.3. Gender balance<br>F.b.3.4. Merit-based system</td></tr><tr><td>F.c. Financial resources management</td><td>F.c.1. Activities</td><td>F.c.1.1. Inputs<br>F.c.1.2. Budget<br>F.c.1.3. Source of funding<br>F.c.1.4. National public sources of funding<br>F.c.1.5. EU sources of funding<br>F.c.1.6. Participatory or social budgeting</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">F.d. Infrastructural resources management</td><td>F.c.2. Procedures</td><td>F.c.2.1. Inputs<br>F.c.2.2. Budget<br>F.c.2.3. Source of funding<br>F.c.2.4. National public sources of funding<br>F.c.2.5. EU sources of funding<br>F.c.2.6. Participatory or social budgeting</td></tr><tr><td>F.c.3. Practices</td><td>F.c.3.1. Inputs<br>F.c.3.2. Budget<br>F.c.3.3. Source of funding<br>F.c.3.4. National public sources of funding<br>F.c.3.5. EU sources of funding<br>F.c.3.6. Participatory or social budgeting</td></tr><tr><td>F.d.1. Activities</td><td>F.d.1.1. Transport facilitations<br>F.d.1.2. Sustainability<br>F.d.1.3. Facilities access<br>F.d.1.4. Wifi<br>F.d.1.5. Spaces for breaks</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">F.e. External interaction management</td><td>F.d.2. Procedures</td><td>F.d.2.1. Transport facilitations<br>F.d.2.2. Sustainability<br>F.d.2.3. Facilities access<br>F.d.2.4. Wifi<br>F.d.2.5. Spaces for breaks</td></tr><tr><td>F.d.3. Practices</td><td>F.d.3.1. Transport facilitations<br>F.d.3.2. Sustainability<br>F.d.3.3. Facilities access<br>F.d.3.4. Wifi<br>F.d.3.5. Spaces for breaks</td></tr><tr><td>F.e.1. Activities</td><td>F.e.1.1. Communication<br>F.e.1.2. Social media<br>F.e.1.3. Marketing</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"></td><td>F.e.2. Procedures</td><td>F.e.2.1. Communication<br>F.e.2.2. Social media<br>F.e.2.3. Marketing</td></tr><tr><td>F.e.3. Practices</td><td>F.e.3.1. Communication<br>F.e.3.2. Social media</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_171.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Sub-dimension</th><th>Component</th><th>Questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="12"></td><td rowspan="3">F.f. Administration</td><td>F.f.1. Activities</td><td>F.f.3.3. Marketing<br>F.f.1.1. Archiving system<br>F.f.1.2. Accounting<br>F.f.1.3. Administrative staff</td></tr><tr><td>F.f.2. Procedures</td><td>F.f.2.1. Archiving system<br>F.f.2.2. Accounting<br>F.f.2.3. Administrative staff</td></tr><tr><td>F.f.3. Practices</td><td>F.f.3.1. Archiving system<br>F.f.3.2. Accounting<br>F.f.3.3. Administrative staff</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">F.g. Monitoring and Evaluation</td><td>F.g.1. Activities</td><td>F.g.1.1. Monitoring<br>F.g.1.2. Transparency<br>F.g.1.3. Reporting<br>F.g.1.4. Analysis</td></tr><tr><td>F.g.2. Procedures</td><td>F.g.2.1. Monitoring<br>F.g.2.2. Transparency<br>F.g.2.3. Reporting<br>F.g.2.4. Analysis</td></tr><tr><td>F.g.3. Practices</td><td>F.g.3.1. Monitoring<br>F.g.3.2. Transparency<br>F.g.3.3. Reporting<br>F.g.3.4. Analysis</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">G. Outputs</td><td rowspan="2">G.a. Products and Services</td><td>G.a.1. Tangible</td><td>G.a.1.1. Considered new<br>G.a.1.2. New list</td></tr><tr><td>G.a.2. Intangible</td><td>G.a.2.1. Information<br>G.a.2.2. Collaboration<br>G.a.2.3. Vertical collaboration<br>G.a.2.4. New projects</td></tr><tr><td>G.b. Beneficiaries</td><td>G.b.1. Direct beneficiaries</td><td>G.b.1.1. Existing beneficiaries<br>G.b.1.2. New beneficiaries<br>G.b.1.3. Characteristics<br>G.b.1.4. Marginalised<br>G.b.1.5. Minority</td></tr><tr><td>G.c. Satisfying needs</td><td>G.c.1. Satisfied needs</td><td>G.c.1.1. Satisfaction<br>G.c.1.2. Individual needs<br>G.c.1.3. Community needs<br>G.c.1.4. List individual<br>G.c.1.5. List collective<br>G.c.1.6. Success of SI<br>G.c.1.7. Satisfied needs</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">H. Outcomes and Impacts</td><td>H.a. Indirect Beneficiaries</td><td>H.a.1. Indirect Beneficiaries</td><td>H.a.1.1. Indirect beneficiaries<br>H.a.1.2. Community needs<br>H.a.1.3. Characteristics</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">H.b. Outcomes</td><td>H.b.1. Societal challenges</td><td>H.b.1.1. Changes<br>H.b.1.2. SI contribution</td></tr><tr><td>H.b.2. Governance shifts</td><td>H.b.2.1. Shifts</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">H.c. Impacts</td><td>H.c.1. Environmental</td><td>H.c.1.1. Effects on components<br>H.c.1.2. Effects<br>H.c.1.3. In-depth analysis</td></tr><tr><td>H.c.2. Economic</td><td>H.c.2.1. Effects on components<br>H.c.2.2. Effects<br>H.c.2.3. In-depth analysis</td></tr><tr><td>H.c.3. Social</td><td>H.c.3.1. Effects on components<br>H.c.3.2. Effects<br>H.c.3.3. In-depth analysis</td></tr><tr><td>H.c.4. Institutional</td><td>H.c.4.1. Effects on components<br>H.c.4.2. Effects<br>H.c.4.3. In-depth analysis</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_172.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Dimension</th><th>Sub-dimension</th><th>Component</th><th>Questions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">I. Innovation and learning process</td><td rowspan="2">I.a. Feedback loops</td><td>I.a.1. Local</td><td>I.a.1.1. Local community<br>I.a.1.2. Events<br>I.a.1.3. Project partners' feedback<br>I.a.1.4. External donors<br>I.a.1.5. Local politicians<br>I.a.1.6. Perceived marginality (ex post)<br>I.a.1.7. Elements of MRA (ex post)</td></tr><tr><td>I.a.2. Bridging at the higher level</td><td>I.a.2.1. External events<br>I.a.2.2. Regional politicians<br>I.a.2.3. National politicians</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">I.b. Multiplier and critical innovation effects</td><td>I.b.1. Mainstreaming</td><td>I.b.1.1. Mainstreaming<br>I.b.1.2. Years</td></tr><tr><td>I.b.2. Upscaling</td><td>I.b.2.1. Effects at higher scales<br>I.b.2.2. National laws</td></tr><tr><td>I.b.3. Outscaling</td><td>I.b.3.1. Replication<br>I.b.3.2. N° of examples<br>I.b.3.3. Adaptations<br>I.b.3.4. N° of adaptations<br>I.b.3.5. Aggregation</td></tr><tr><td>I.b.4. Critical effects</td><td>I.b.4.1. Deadweight<br>I.b.4.2. Displacement<br>I.b.4.3. Substitution</td></tr></tbody></table>

To proceed with pilot tests better and faster, pioneer CS Teams will have to become familiar with the terms used in the questions and concepts which form the basis of the evaluation framework. Annex 2 provides a list<fnref n="119" /> of the most relevant terms, in the same order in which they appear in the description of the framework (Figure 8 and Section 5, Part II), and in the list of questions (see Table 17 above and Annex 1).

Also in the case of structured interviews based on questionnaires, a final set of feedback questions are asked to SIMRA pioneer CS Teams on what worked well and what should be improved in the methodology (see Table 20). Details are provided in Deliverable 5.1.

<table><caption>**Table 20.** Questions for feedback on the pilot test of the structured interview (questionnaire).</caption><thead><tr><th>Feedback questions</th><th>Response from CS Team</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Average time required to complete the questionnaire</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Questions which did not work</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Questions with unclear terminology or wording</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Questions which could be better formulated</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Difficulties with the data collection techniques (face-to-face, semi-structured interview, online questionnaire, focus group)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other comments</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: SIMRA research team.

<footnote n="119">¹¹⁹ An expanded glossary, with the terms in alphabetical order, is developed as part of Deliverables 5.1 and 5.2, with additional specific terms to assist CS Teams in translating questions into local languages.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_173.png" /></figure>

### 7.4. Step 3: Data Processing and Analysis

Information collected in Step 2 is analysed separately and follow the same structure of the dimensions of SI as identified in the SIMRA evaluation framework. The qualitative-based policy analysis the semi-structured interviews results are complemented by document analysis and validation of findings. The quantitative-based SI case study analysis the data are aggregated and normalised into synthetic indicators. The two approaches for data processing and analysis will be pilot tested by pioneer CS Teams, and feedback on feasibility provided.

**Policy analysis (qualitative-based)**

**Document analysis**

The methodology to process the information/data collected is based on content analysis of documents. This can be done by classical approaches (e.g. direct identification and extraction of "citations" from the document text) and/or by using software designed for text analysis (e.g. NVIVO, MAXQDATA). Indicators of qualitative-based content analysis of policy documents relevant to SI in MRAs are provided in Table 21, which includes both "content" and interpretation.

<table><caption>**Table 21.** Indicators for use in the content analysis of policy documents relevant to SI.</caption><thead><tr><td>Items to be evaluated</td><td>Source/ Document</td><td>Content, direct "Citations" from document</td><td>Commentary from CS Team (interpretation)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mention Innovation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mention Social innovation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Scope: Local, regional, national, EU, global</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Thematic/sectoral: R&D, Agriculture, forestry, fishery, small-scale business, social groups, participation of stakeholders</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Means and instruments targeting SI: General</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Specific means and instruments targeting SI: Financial</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Specific means and instruments targeting SI: Information</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Specific means and instruments targeting SI: Creation of new institutions</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Specific means and instruments targeting SI: support of existing networks/ cooperation project</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Executive authorities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Definition/conceptualisation of SI in the document</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Definition/conceptualisation of a specific problem/issue to be targeted by the policy</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other comments</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: SIMRA research team.
<figure><img src="image_174.png" /></figure>

## Semi-structured interview analysis

Table 22 presents the main criteria for analysing the interview records. The “content” of interview will be separated from the interpretation, for use in subsequent analysis and scientific publications. Testing and feedback on the Table content will be undertaken by pioneer CS Teams.

<table><caption>**Table 22.** Main criteria for analysing interviews.</caption><thead><tr><th>Name of interviewee, time and place of interview:</th><th>Main Content, direct citation(s) from transcript</th><th>Secondary Content, direct citation(s) from transcript</th><th>Summary by CS Team</th><th>Commentary from CS Team (for interpretation)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Characteristics of the respondent and relationship to the SI initiative</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Characteristics of the case study area</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Needs</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Background of the CS (perceived context)</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Agency<br>Actors: Who are the actors involved?; Preparatory Actions: Where do resources come from?; Which policies are supported (e.g. information, monetary, facilitation of networks, training)?</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Reconfiguration of new networks (new cooperation)</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Difference in attitudes</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">New governance arrangements (forms of decision taking)</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Project content and activities</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Outputs of project</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Impacts</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Learning processes</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Other relevant information</th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: SIMRA research team.
<figure><img src="image_175.png" /></figure>

## Policy analysis report

The policy analysis report has to be filled out after the semi-structured interviews and the document analysis. The analysis follows the sections from the interview guides (Characteristics, Relationship to the CS, Information, Innovation in the Region, Final considerations) presented in Step 2a.

A specific focus on the role of policies responds to the following questions:

1. What is the relationship between the CS and the local/national/other authorities?

2. Which policies support the CS initiative?

3. To what extent is the SI initiative supported by the policies?

4. What exactly was the policy support?

* financial, e.g. subsidies, tax reduction, reduced loans,...

* provision of information,

* facilitation of networking,

* previous support in the region by rural development policies and other initiatives?

The interpretation and analysis of impacts uses the data recorded in Table 23, which is for guiding the validation of findings and the final reporting of observations and interpretation. This allows qualitative descriptions and estimates of the effects/impacts of the policies. These results should be cross-checked with results from a statistical-based evaluation, if undertaken.

<table><caption>**Table 23.** Interpretation of impacts of policies (carried out by the CS Team).</caption><thead><tr><td>Criteria</td><td>Description</td><td>Examples</td><td>Comments by CS Team</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Identification of the most influential policies for SI</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Analysis of goals</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Patterns/specificities in the region/case (compared to other regions)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Weights of the policy: relevance, impacts, output practice (important (+), not important (-), very important (++)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Result: What works well in SI practice?</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Identification of gaps (between policy and practice)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Recommendations: What to improve?</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other important influences/impacts in the case</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: SIMRA research team.

The final phase of policy analysis is the validation of findings. To do this, the evaluator will use both the field observations and the documents. After the initial interviews, desk-top research is undertaken, then more interviews conducted, iterating between the two until "saturation". In practice, the CS Team will carry out interviews with stakeholders until sufficient information about the case is obtained. This is termed a "mixed approach".
<figure><img src="image_176.png" /></figure>

The desk-top analysis step helps to identify incongruences and/or inconsistencies between the policy as designed, communicated and perceived by high level policy makers, and the policy effects in practice at local level. For example, when a question such as “Why does this predefined (and so nicely formulated) regulation not produce effects in the field?” emerges during the interviews with a policy maker, it helps to identify cases of non-effectively activated/delivered policy or regulation, or inconsistencies between conflicting norms. If such inconsistencies or incongruences (i.e. policy gaps) are identified, an additional investigation to policy experts is required (see Section 7.5).

## SI case study analysis (quantitative-based)

Data collected during face-to-face or online structured interviews based on questionnaires is entered into Excel files. These are the basic infrastructure of the databases where collected data are recorded (and later processed, analysed and interpreted). The pioneer CS Team may add a descriptive analysis for each question. The pioneer CS Team should suggest possible indicators to be created on the basis of collected data and case study specificity<fnref n="120" />. Some of the data<fnref n="121" /> are to be analysed by means of Social Network Analysis (SNA) and specialized software such as UCINET (Borgatti et al., 2001) and R specific packages. However, the data to be collected in the pioneer CS will not be complete (only a few actors for category have to be interviewed for checking the feasibility of the method), and therefore cannot be used for finalizing the quantitative analysis. Rather, the CS Teams have to provide feedback and suggestions on possible indicators that can be created according to their observations from the pilot test application of the method, critical issues that can emerge during the data processing and analysis phases, any limitations they see in the practical adoption of the proposed methodology.

## 7.5. Step 4: Additional Instruments for Analysis

### Step 4a: Interviews to policy experts

In case of policy gaps and remaining questions for non-effective policies for SI are encountered in the case study, a final set of questions for key policy experts on the region and the specific problem setting will be applied. These questions will be identified according to problem-specific and problem-centred characteristics, depending on the type of SI in the region as well as the specific policy gap in question. The policy experts can be, for example, representatives of public authorities working in the agriculture, forestry and rural development fields as well as on innovation at regional, national or higher level (e.g. EU). The additional interviews complement the understanding of learning processes and the analysis carried out at a local level, especially for exploring the reasons of policies discrepancies and inconsistencies. Procedural details and examples of possible questions are outlined in Deliverable 5.1, to guide the pioneer CS Team in formulating appropriate case-specific questions.

<footnote n="120">¹²⁰ In the final set of methods, a quantitative description of each component of the SI initiative is expected to be developed through the use of composite indicators, based on the aggregation and normalisation of one or more questions. The indicators composition has been described in Part III.</footnote>

<footnote n="121">¹²¹ For example, those collected by means of questions such as E.a.3.2.- E.a.3.3.- E.a.3.4.- E.a.3.5.- E.a.3.6.- E.a.3.7. listed in Annex 1. Social Network Analysis can help study relationships among two or more actors (called 'nodes'). It describes the structure of a network based on a single relationship type, through the use of indices and figures. Data entry in the Excel files needs adjacency (square) matrices, one per each relationship. In the evaluation framework, we analyse the information exchange among actors, their friendship relationship, the informal and collaboration network, and the level of trust. Moreover, the collaboration network is analysed across four temporal moments: before the SI idea arises, during the SI initiative, when the project achieves the first outputs, and after the project ends. Some of the node's attributes (Questions C.f.2.4. and E.a.2.5.) are used as proxy indicators to measure the reputational power of the actors, interpreted both as decision making power (Dahl, 1957) and capacities and the influence of actors within network (Haugaard, 2010).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_177.png" /></figure>

### Step 4b: Impact evaluation based on statistical techniques and methods

If possible, an impact evaluation based on statistical techniques and methods should be set up. This approach to impact evaluation implies the possibility of selecting a statistically appropriate control group of beneficiaries (counterfactual), as the basis on which to measure the impacts specifically due to the SI initiative (cause-effect relation), and to isolate them from effects due to other factors. This requires that two technical conditions are contemporaneously respected in the case study:

* the number of treated units is sufficiently high, i.e. the number of the beneficiaries of the SI initiative in a certain marginalized rural area is equal to, or more than 30;

* the policy is not an universal one, i.e. there are units of the target population that are not treated or there is the possibility to identify a suitable comparison group of units not treated. For example, when a specific mountain valley (e.g. with geographical and/or cultural characteristics that make it unique) is subject to a universal treatment, meaning that all the population is treated (e.g. is involved in a SI project), then it is impossible to find a proper control group (e.g. there are not valleys that are sufficiently similar to the one treated, or there is a very limited number of people living in the area among which to identify enough involved with respect to not involved). In such cases, impact evaluation can be carried out but there are significant risks that the evaluation results will not be valid, or inaccurate, from a statistical point of view.

When these two conditions are not guaranteed in a case study, when available secondary data are not enough and/or when it is too costly for direct surveys to collect sufficient primary data, statistical techniques and methods for carrying out an impact evaluation should not be used. Table 24 provides qualitative-based screening criteria that the pioneer CS Teams can use to understand whether an impact evaluation is likely to be feasible in the case study area. Work Packages 4 and 5 Leaders will support the CS Teams in the screening and in the decisions about whether and how to proceed.

<table><caption>**Table 24.** Qualitative-based criteria to guide pioneer CS Teams in pre-screening the feasibility of an impact evaluation with statistical techniques and methods in the case study.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Key aspect (example)</th><th colspan="2">Likely feasibility of using statistical techniques and methods for impact evaluation</th></tr><tr><th>low</th><th>high</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Limited sample size (e.g. only a few individuals involved in the social innovation)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Control group with identical characteristics can easily be identified (e.g. the SI is in an area characterized by common features)</td><td></td><td>high</td></tr><tr><td>High level of secondary data on several different characteristics of individuals or groups in the same country where the case study is located (e.g. very detailed and updated census on the country's population available)</td><td></td><td>high</td></tr><tr><td>Control group small</td><td>low</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>The SI is expected to have a detectable effect on measureable outcome variables (i.e. an effect that is measurable and not negligible)</td><td></td><td>high</td></tr><tr><td>Any special condition (e.g. multiple local cases networked in a national association)</td><td colspan="2">To be checked case by case</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: SIMRA research team.
<figure><img src="image_178.png" /></figure>

The statistical-based impact evaluation approach considers SI initiatives and projects as causes, the effects of which are measured in the evaluation. Designing such an impact evaluation in a case study area might be complex. Table 25 summarises general guidelines for designing how to apply an impact evaluation of a SI in MRA by adopting statistically robust techniques and methods. Work Packages 4 and 5 Leaders will support the pioneer CS Teams in this step.

<table><caption>**Table 25.** General guidelines for designing a statistically robust impact evaluation in SIMRA case studies.</caption><thead><tr><th>Key question</th><th>Recommendations on possible methods and evaluation approaches</th><th>Explanation/notes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>When?</td><td>In the case of SI, impact evaluation is possible only after the SI event took place/started (i.e. the treatment was delivered to the target population). Thus, only non-experimental methods can be used.</td><td>SI is a spontaneous event that cannot be pre-defined or planned in advance or imposed by a public authority (there might be supporting or enabling conditions, but whether the SI will start or not depends on the existence, ideas, willingness, etc. of innovators). Thus, only ex-post evaluations (once the SI has started) are possible.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">What?</td><td>1. Target population</td><td>The target population has to be clearly defined since the outset, as part of the evaluation design. It consists of the units that are treated (i.e. participate at the activities of SI initiative directly) and are to be analysed. Units can be entities operating at different levels: micro (e.g. a single organisation, an individual), meso (e.g. networks) or macro (e.g. a whole sector in a country).</td></tr><tr><td>2. Intervention</td><td>The SI can be seen as a single treatment. But a SI initiative can also be seen as delivering multiple treatments if it started various SI projects (e.g. targeting different vulnerable groups). In this latter case, the "most important" (or the first) project has to be selected for impacts evaluation.</td></tr><tr><td>3. Outcome variables</td><td>Variables affected by the intervention/treatment, i.e. causally changed by it. These are measurable characteristics of the treated units.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">How?</td><td>The impact evaluation design is case-specific.</td><td>The case-specificity applies to both "what" to evaluate and "how" to evaluate it.</td></tr><tr><td>Matching in combination with diff-in-diff is one of the most recommended methods. It requires:</td><td>The basic idea is that for each treated unit the evaluator can select the best comparison unit or units (match) from another data source. Matches are selected on the basis of similarities in observed characteristics. To avoid the problems of matching (its controls for the selection on the observable variables but not from the selection on non-observable), and availability of longitudinal observations on the outcome variables for treated and comparisons, a combination with the difference in the difference method is recommend.</td></tr><tr><td>- a case-specific evaluation design</td><td>The data to be identified and used vary case by case. In some EU countries there are large sets of secondary population data available. However, in others it might be necessary to collect data by long and costly direct surveys based on interviews or questionnaires.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_179.png" /></figure>

<table><tr><td>- a counterfactual case that is equal (in terms of characteristics of population) to the social innovation case to be evaluated.</td><td>The population to be considered for the choice of the comparison group should be as large as possible to enable good matches with the treated units.</td></tr><tr><td>- that outcome variables are available both before and after the treatment</td><td>There is a need to have a baseline for the selected outcome variable(s).</td></tr><tr><td>Instrumental variables is another possible method. It requires an instrumental variable that is related to the participation in the treatment but does not affect the outcome variables</td><td>The instrumental variable could be of a natural or legal nature (i.e. some eligible units are excluded from the treatment due to a natural "situation" or change in the laws during or just before the implementation of the SI initiative). It is a challenge to predict the possible use of this method since it is case-specific, due to the instrumental variable being connected to the specific situation or case of SI.</td></tr></table>

Source: SIMRA research team.

Table 26 reports the main steps that are necessary to set up such a kind of impact evaluation. The steps and their practical implementation are case-specific. Therefore, they have to be identified for the case study. Work Packages 4 and 5 Leaders will support the pioneer CS Teams in this step.

<table><caption>**Table 26.** Initial steps in setting up an impact evaluation based on statistical techniques and methods.</caption><thead><tr><td>In theory</td><td>In practice, for SIMRA</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Step 1: Defining questions to be answered by the impact evaluation</td><td>Decide the focus and objectives of evaluation. The key question can be: "What is the causal effect of the social innovation initiative on an outcome on well-being (of the target group, and/or of the society as a whole at local level)?"</td></tr><tr><td>Step 2: Constructing a theory of change</td><td>Identify the target population, the intervention that has determined changes and the outcome variables modified by the intervention.</td></tr><tr><td>Step 3: Developing a results chain</td><td>Identify the causal path that leads to the expected results: what activities have determined which specific effect on the beneficiaries?</td></tr><tr><td>Step 4: Selecting performance indicators</td><td>Select the outcome variables touched by the intervention and how to measure them.</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Source: SIMRA research team based on Giraldo, 2017, pers. comm.

## 7.6. Step 5: Common Final Reporting

The common final reporting includes the results from both of the analyses. The pioneer CS Team tests the use of the nine SI dimensions to summarise the results from the case study, using both qualitative and quantitative methods and tools. The narrative approach helps to describe the SI process in each step, while the quantitative indicators summarise (from 0 to 1) the case study characteristics, the performance of its actors and its impacts. Table 27 outlines a possible structure for the integrated analysis and results reporting.
<figure><img src="image_180.png" /></figure>

<table><caption>**Table 27.** Tentative structure and types of contents for the final report.</caption><thead><tr><td>SI dimension</td><td>Qualitative description</td><td>Quantitative description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Trigger and individual and collective needs<br/>1.1 Trigger<br/>1.2 Needs</td><td>Narrative</td><td>Indicators</td></tr><tr><td>2. Perceived context</td><td>Narrative</td><td>Indicators</td></tr><tr><td>3. Agency<br/>3.1 Agents<br/>3.2 Preparatory actions</td><td>Narrative</td><td>Indicators</td></tr><tr><td>4. Reconfiguring<br/>4.1 New networks<br/>4.2 New attitudes<br/>4.3 New governance arrangements</td><td>Narrative</td><td>Indicators</td></tr><tr><td>5. Project activities</td><td>Narrative</td><td>Indicators</td></tr><tr><td>6. Outputs</td><td>Narrative</td><td>Indicators</td></tr><tr><td>7. Outcomes/impacts</td><td>Narrative</td><td>Indicators</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_181.png" /></figure>

## 8. Conclusions

The set of methods and tools developed and presented has the following key characteristics:

1. It is a preliminary set of methods and tools for the evaluation of SIMRA case studies of social innovation and related policy implications in marginalized rural areas, i.e. it is not the definitive and exhaustive approach to assess SI and its impacts in MRAs.

2. It is designed for initial use and testing in 2 or 3 pilot case studies of social innovation in marginalized rural areas, i.e. it is not the definitive set of methods and tools to be applied throughout all the case studies. The tests results will be used to improve and refine the set of methods and tools, and in particular the starting point (i.e. the list of questions for data collection), the sampling strategy, and the identification of impacts to create a consolidated version to be explained in training of the Case Study Teams, and used in the evaluation of case studies (Work Package 5) and in policy processes analysis (Work Package 6).

3. It explains how the set of methods and tools was co-created by taking into consideration both the suggestions provided by the SITT stakeholders and the existing literature on SI evaluation and other fields of evaluation. This includes reports published by other EU-funded research projects on SI, i.e. it integrates the requests expressed by practictioners, evaluators, experts on agriculture, forestry and rural development with the scientific knowledge on, and technical solutions for, evaluations.

4. It focuses on the operational instructions for data collection in case studies of social innovation (Work Package 5) and related policy implications (Work Package 6). The instructions and methods for data processing and analysis will be developed after the pioneer tests using a sub-set of completed and refined during the implementation phase of the evaluation in the SIMRA case studies. This will be jointly developed on the basis of the CSs evaluation results in collaboration with Work Package 5 (databases creation, data input, etc.), and included in the final version of methods and tools (i.e. in Deliverable 4.3).

This deliverable is designed for testing a set of methods for the evaluation of SI. This will enable their improvement on the basis of the results of the pioneer test phase in 2 to 3 pioneer case studies. Typically, in creating and setting a new instrument of evaluation, a large set of options in terms of aspects to be considered, specific questions, explanation of key words and tables are prepared and tested. After the test, aspects and/or questions that are redundant, useless and repetitive will be deleted or merged; those unclear, incomplete and improperly formulated will be refined; those too long and/or complex will be simplified. At the end of the process, the final set of methods and tools will be shorter and simpler, as well as more effective and efficient for the purpose of evaluation.

The approach proposed is mixed qualitative-quantitative-based, which integrates qualitative-pure methods (such as storytelling and focus group discussions) with the measurement of actors' perceptions (based on declared level of satisfaction, along a Likert scale, in face-to-face interviews), analysis of network structures in quantitative and qualitative ways (by means of Social Network Analysis), and impact evaluations. In particular, it allows combining in-depth analysis of complex phenomena (e.g. how the SI works directed towards SI practictioners and social scientists) with outputs of the evaluation that can be represented by synthetic data (e.g. numbers, indexes, and graphs, directed at policy makers), as intimated by SITT stakeholders.

The approach to evaluation of SI initiatives in marginalised rural areas will be step-wise. It includes an initial qualitative-based screening of those impacts considered more relevant ('significant') by the local actors, possibly complemented by a statistically robust analysis of cause-effect links between the social innovation and its impacts on one or more domains (economy, society, environment and governance/institutions). This second step will be realized only if technically feasible (e.g. secondary data available, counterfactual identifiable). The feasibility is case-specific. Therefore, the decision whether implementing an impact evaluation (or not) by means of specific statistical techniques will be taken case-by-case together with Case Study Teams and those working in Work Package 5.
<figure><img src="image_182.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_183.png" /></figure>

The preliminary set of methods aims to enable the identification and measurement of the effects that SI might have on selected groups within society, i.e. the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the SI. Whilst the first group (direct beneficiaries) are those directly involved in, and affected by, the initiative, the second group (indirect beneficiaries) ideally include a representative sample of society as a whole (at least at a local level. SI is about particular groups, often but not necessarily disadvantaged, seizing opportunities and addressing downsides and trade-offs. SI may be nurtured by policy which makes the targeting and engagement of disadvantaged groups more likely, but they often have the least capacity for SI, so other forms of SI governance and collaborations and networks helping advantaged groups may be more common. Moreover, policy is often there to support vested interests. Complex interactions, such as those that characterise SI, have intended or unintended consequences on various components of socio-ecological systems (economy, society, environment and governance/institutions), that are rarely positive for everyone. SI is about choices and trade-offs and the room for manoeuvre of different actors and groups. We are confident that the final innovative set of methods and tools to evaluate SI, its impacts and policy implications in marginalized rural areas will contribute to better understanding and measurement of part of these effects and shed light on the social innovation "black box", ultimately supporting policy makers and potential innovators in the future.
<figure><img src="image_184.png" /></figure>

9. Acknowledgments

We are indebted to the SITT members, i.e. all the stakeholders who actively and constructively participated in our online consultations and, above all, in the face-to-face consultation exercise in Bratislava, October 2016. They have been patient and open in sharing their experiences, ideas and information thus allowing us to orient the direction of development the SIMRA evaluation methods.

We are grateful to all those SIMRA partners who provided comments and suggestions for the improvement of this deliverable. In particular, we would like to thank: Robert Lukesch (ÖAR, Austria), Manfred Perlik (UNIBE, Switzerland), Elena Górriz, Valentino Govigli and Inazio Martínez de Arano (EFIMED, Spain), Tatiana Kuvlankova-Oravska, Martin Špaček, Stanislava Brnkalakova and Veronika Gezik (IFE SAS, Slovacchia), Klaus Wagner and Sigrid Egartner (AWI, Austria).

Finally, we are particularly greatful to our statistician colleagues at the Department of Statistical Sciences at the University of Padova, Dr. Anna Giraldo and Prof. Maria Castiglioni, for their valuable comments and suggestions on the impact evaluation method, and checking the design, contents and consistency of the overall evaluation approach and specific tools (variables and indicators). We also want to thank our UNIPD colleague at the Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry (TESAF), Dr. Mauro Masiero, for his suggestions in drafting the table of economic aspects on which a social innovation can have outcomes or impacts.

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_185.png" /></figure>

## 10. References

Ahmed, V. and Ahmed, S. 2014. Poverty and social impact analysis of expanded program on immunization in Pakistan (Vol. 143). Working Paper.

Anglo American 2012. SEAT Toolbox. Socio-Economic Assessment Toolbox Version 3. London (UK). http://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Plc/docs/seat-toolbox-v3.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2017.

Agarwal, J. and Malhotra, N.K. 2005. An integrated model of attitude and affect: Theoretical foundation and an empirical investigation. *Journal of Business Research*, 58(4): 483–493.

Allee, V. 2008. Value network analysis and value conversion of tangible and intangible assets. *Journal of Intellectual Capital*, 9(1), 5-24.

Asheim, B. and Gertler, M.S. 2005. The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems. In: *The Oxford Handbook of Innovation*. J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery and R. Nelson (Eds.) Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Arts, B., and Goverde, H. 2006. The governance capacity of (new) policy arrangements: a reflexive approach. In: Arts, B., Leroy ds.), *Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance*. *Environment & Policy*, 47:69–92.

AtKisson Inc. 2015. *Amoeba Lite. Understanding How Sustainability Ideas are Adopted by Groups*. Accelerator Lite Version 2.9L1, Release Date: 15 September 2015. http://atkisson.com/acceleratorlite/. Accessed 26 July 2017.

Baker, S. and Mehmood, A. 2015. Social innovation and the governance of sustainable places. *Local Environment*, 20(3):321–334. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2013.842964.

Ban, R. Gilligan, M.J. and Rieger, M. 2015. Self-Help Groups, Savings and Social Capital: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Cambodia. Policy Research Working Paper No. 7382. Washington, DC.: World Bank.

Banerjee, A., Chandrasekhar, A., Duflo, E. and Jackson, M.O. 2013. Diffusion of microfinance. *Science*, 341 (6144).

Barham, B., S.G. Bunker, and D. O'Hearn. 1994. Raw Materials Industries in Resource Rich Regions. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Barry, J. and Proops, J. 1999. Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology. *Ecological Economics*, 28(3), 337-345.

Bastian M., Heymann S. and Jacomy M. 2009. *Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks*. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. https://gephi.org/publications/gephi-bastian-feb09.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2017.

Beckman, A. and Dissing, H. 2005. EU enlargement and sustainable rural development in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 135-152). in J. Carmin and S. D. VanDeveer (Eds). *EU enlargement and the environment: Institutional change and environmental policy in Central and Eastern Europe*. London: Routledge.

Becker, G.S. 1993. *Human Capital. A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education*. 3rd Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Books.

Bekkers, V.J.J.M., Tummers, L.G. and Voorberg, W.H. 2013. *From public innovation to social innovation in the public sector: A literature review of relevant drivers and barriers*. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Belli, R.F., Bilgen, I. and Al Baghal T. 2013. Memory, ommunication, and quality in calendar interviews. *Public Opinion Quarterly*, 77: 194-219.

BEPA 2011. *Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union*. Brussels: European Commission.
<figure><img src="image_186.png" /></figure>

BEPA (2013). *Guide to social innovation*. Brussels: European Commission.

Biggs, R., Westley, F.R. and Carpenter, S.R. 2010. Navigating the back loop: fostering social innovation and transformation in ecosystem management. *Ecology and Society* 15(2), 9. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art9/. Accessed July 31, 2017.

Biggs, R., Schlüter, M., Biggs, D., Bohensky, E. L., BurnSilver, S., Cundill, G., Dakos, V., Daw, T.M., Evans, L.S., Kotschy, K., Leitch, A.M., Meek, C., Quinlan, A., Raudsepp-Earne, C., Robards, M.D., Schoon, M.L., Schultz, L. and West, P.C. 2012. Toward principles for enhancing the resilience of ecosystem services. *Annual Review of Environment and Resources*, 37, 421-448.

Bhatt, P., and Altinay, L. 2013. How social capital is leveraged in social innovations under resource constraints? *Management Decision*, 51(9): 1772-1792.

Blalock, H.M. 1979. *Social Statistics*. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Bock, B.B. 2016. Rural marginalisation and the role of social innovation, a turn towards nexogenous development and rural reconnection. *Sociologia Ruralis*, 56(4), 552–573.

Bodin, Ö. and Crona, B., 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: what relational patterns make a difference? *Global Environmental. Chane*. 19(3): 366–374.

Bosworth, G., Annibal, I., Carroll, T., Price, L., Sellick, J. and Shepherd, J. 2016a. Empowering Local Action through Neo-Endogenous Development - The Case of LEADER in England. *Sociologia Ruralis*, 56(3), 427-449.

Bosworth, G., Rizzo, F., Marquardt, D., Strijker, D., Haartsen, T. and Aagaard Thuesen, A. 2016b. Identifying social innovations in European local rural development initiatives. *Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research*, 29(4): 442-461.

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. 2002. *Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis*. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D.J. and Labianca, G. 2009. *Network Analysis in the Social Sciences*. Science, 323(5916): 892–895.

Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Johnson, J.C. 2013. *Analyzing Social Networks*. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boltanski, L., and Thévenot, L. 1991. *De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur*, Paris, Gallimard, pp. 368.

Brown, S. 1996. Q methodology and qualitative research. *Journal Qualitative Health Research* 6, 561-567.

Bryce, R., Valero, D. and Price, M. 2017. Creation of Interactive Database of Examples of Social Innovation, Deliverable 3.2, Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA). pp.24.

Bruce, B. C. 1993. *Innovation and social change*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1: 9-32.

Brunner, S.H., Huber, R. and Grêt-Regamey, A. 2016. A backcasting approach for matching regional ecosystem services supply and demand. *Environmental Modelling & Software*, 75: 439-458.

Bund, E., Gerhard, U., Hoelscher, M. and Mildenberger G. 2015. A Methodological Framework for Measuring Social Innovation. *Historical Social Research*, 40(3): 48–78.

Bunker, S. 1985. *Underdeveloping the Amazon*. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Buttoud, G., Kouplevatskaya - Buttoud, I., Slee, R. and Weiss, G. 2011. *Barriers to institutional learning and innovations in the forest sector in Europe: Markets, policies and stakeholders*. Forest Policy and Economics, 13, 124–131. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.05.006.

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

Cambridge Dictionary 2017. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/. Accessed 26 July 2017
<figure><img src="image_187.png" /></figure>

Cash, D. W., Adger, W., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., and Young, O. 2006. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. *Ecology and Society* 11(2), 8. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/. Accessed 26 July 2017.

Chiesi, A.M. 1999. *L'analisi dei reticoli*. Milano: FrancoAngeli Editore.

Chilvers, J. and Longhurst, N. 2015. A Relational Co-productionist Approach to Sociotechnical Transitions. 3S Working Paper 2015-27, Norwich: Science, Society and Sustainability Research Group, UEA.

Cianci, R. and Gambrel, P.A. 2003. Maslow's hierarchy of needs: Does it apply in a collectivist culture. *Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship*, 8(2): 143-161.

Citroni, G., Lippi, A., and Profeti, S. 2015. Representation through corporatisation: municipal corporations in Italy as arenas for local democracy. *European Political Science Review*, 7(1): 63-92.

Clark, C., Rosenzweig, W., Long, D., and Olsen, S. 2004. *Double Bottom Line Project Report: Assessing Social Impact in Double Bottom Line Ventures, Methods Catalogue*. Columbia Business School, Rise-Project.

Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. *American Journal of Sociology*, 94: S95-S120.

Corbetta, P. 2014. *Metodologia e tecniche della ricerca sociale*. Bologna: Il Mulino.

CRESSI 2017. Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation. https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/faculty-research/research-projects/creating-economic-space-social-innovation-cressi. Accessed 7 June 2017.

Dawson, P. and Daniel, L. 2010. Understanding social innovation: a provisional framework. *International Journal of Technology Management*, 51(1): 9-21.

Dahl, R.A. 1957. The Concept of Power. *Behavioral Science*, 2:3.

Dax, T., Strahl, W., Kirwan, J. and Maye, D. (2016). The Leader programme 2007–2013: Enabling or disabling social innovation and neo-endogenous development? Insights from Austria and Ireland. *European Urban and Regional Studies*, 23(1): 56-68.

De Boer, C. and Bressers, H. 2011. *Complex and Dynamic Implementation Processes; Analyzing the Renaturalization of the Dutch Regge River*. Enschede: University of Twente.

Dehejia R.H. and Wahba S. 2002. Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. *The Review of Economics and Statistics*, 84 (1): 151-161.

de Vries Lentsch, A. 2015. *Streamline - Enabling public ownership in Orkney's marine energy futures using an engaging, two-way, vision based & interactive interview format*. University of Edinburgh. Available online: https://media.wix.com/ugd/c1381e_ceff9825b36e42508ae2841c36885424.pdf

Dietrich, M., Znotka, M., Guthor, H. and Hilfinger, F. 2016. Instrumental and Non-instrumental Factors of Social Innovation Adoption. *VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations*, 27(4): 1950-1978.

Dhondt, S., Van De Ven, H., Ziauberyte, R., Van Der Torre, W., Cressey, P., Kaderabkova, A., Luna, Á., Moghadam Saman, S., Castro Spila; J. and Terstriep, J. 2016. *Ex-Ante Impact Assessment & Value Network Analysis for SI*. SIMPACT Working Paper, 2016(2). Gelsenkirchen: Institute for Work and Technology.

Dodge, Y. 2003. *The Oxford Dictionary of Statistical Terms*. Oxford: OUP.

Dopfer, K. 2012. The origins of meso economics. *Journal of Evolutionary Economics*. 22: 133-160.

Dries, L. and Ciaian, P. 2012. Job creation and job destruction in EU agriculture. *Food Policy*, 37(6): 600-608.

Dryzek, J.S., and Pickering, J. 2017. Deliberation as a catalyst for reflexive environmental governance. *Ecological Economics*, 131; 353-360.
<figure><img src="image_188.png" /></figure>

Duberry, J. 2015. Environmental governance and new ICTs: the impact of new information and communication technologies on global environmental governance. Xarxa: Universitat Pompeu Farba. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/295839

Dudwick, N., Kuehnast, K., Jones, V. N. and Woolcock, M. 2006. *Analyzing social capital in context: a guide to using qualitative methods and data*. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Džinić, J., Svidroňová, M. M. and Markowska-Bzducha, E. 2016. Participatory Budgeting: A Comparative Study of Croatia, Poland and Slovakia. *NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy*, 9(1): 31-56.

Easton, D. 1957. An approach to the analysis of political systems. *World Politics* 9: 383-400.

Edquist, C. 1997. *Systems of Innovation Approaches - Their Emergence and Characteristics. Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Institutions and Organisations*. C. Edquist. London, Pinter.

Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T. and Balogh, S. 2012. An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of public administration research and theory, 22(1): 1-29.

European Commission 2003. (SEA) Directive 2001/42/EC. Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (SEA Protocol, Kyiv 2003). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-legalcontext.htm

European Commission 2004. *Project Cycle Management Guidelines*. Volume 1. Aid Delivery Methods. EuropeAid Cooepration Office and Development DG.

European Commission 2011. Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

European Communities 2014. *Capturing the success of your RDP: Guidelines for the ex-post evaluations of 2007-2013 RDPs*. European Evaluation Network for Rural Development and European Commission: Brussels.

European Commission 2015. *Technical Handbook on the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of the Common Agricultural Policy 2014 – 2020*. Brussels: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development.

European Commission 2017. Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox. https://ec.europa.eu/info/better-regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en. Accessed 20 September 2017.

European Commission 2017. Eurostat. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ Accessed 26 July 2017.

European Network for Rural Development 2014. *Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework*. European Evaluation Helpdesk for Rural Development. https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/common-monitoring-and-evaluation-framework-cmef-common-monitoring-and-evaluation-system-cmes_en. Accessed 20 September 2017.

EU EuropeAid 2006. *Evaluation methods for the European Union's External Assistance*. Methodological bases for evaluation, Volume 1. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

European Values Survey 2008. www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/. Accessed 27 July 2017.

Garud, R. and Karnøe, P. 2005. Distributed agency and interactive emergence. *Innovating strategy process*: 88–96.

Garmendia, E. and Stagl, S. 2010. Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. *Ecological Economics*, 69(8):1712–1722.

GECES Sub, group on Impact Measurement 2014. *Proposed Approaches to Social Impact Measurement in European Commission legislation and in practice relating to: EuSEFs and the EaSI*.

Gertler P.J, Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L.B. and Vermeersch, C.M.J. 2016. *Impact Evaluation in Practice, 2nd edition*. The World Bank. https://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTHDOFFICE/Resources/5485726-1295455628620/Impact_Evaluation_in_Practice.pdf. Accessed 23 July 2017.
<figure><img src="image_189.png" /></figure>

Gibson, C., Ostrom, E. and Ahn, T.-K. 2000. The concept of scale and the human dimensions of global change: a survey. *Ecological Economics* 32: 217–239.

Giddens, A. 1979. *Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis*. (Vol. 241). Berkeley and Los Angeles (CA): University of California Press.

GIZ 2013. Guidelines on designing and using a results-based monitoring system (RBM system). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH: Bonn.

Gobattoni, F., Pelorosso, R., Leone, A. and Ripa, M.N. 2015. Sustainable rural development: The role of traditional activities in Central Italy. *Land Use Policy*, 48: 412–427.

Goodwin, N.R. 2003. *Five kinds of capital: Useful concepts for sustainable development*. Global Development and Environment Institute, Working Paper N. 03-07, Medford, MA: Tufts University.

Górriz-Mifsud, E., Secco, L. and Pisani, E. 2016. Exploring the interlinkages between governance and social capital: A dynamic model for forestry. *Forest Policy and Economics*, 65: 25–36.

GSSB 2016. The GRI Standards Glossary, 2016. Issued by the Global Sustainability Standards Board. Available on line at URL: www.globalreporting.org/standards. Accessed 10 July 2017.

Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. www.cices.eu

Hajer, M. 1993. Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalisation of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Britain. In: Fischer, F. and Forester, J. (Eds.) *The argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning*. (pp. 43–76) Durham and London: Duke Univ. Press.

Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Folke, C. and Johansson, K. 2006. Trust-building, knowledge generation and organisational innovations: the role of a bridging organisation for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. *Human ecology*, 34(4): 573–592.

Hauck, J., Schmidt, J. and Werner, A. 2016. Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level. *Ecology and Society*, 21(2): article n. 49 (Open Access).

Haugaard, M. 2010. Power: A ‘family resemblance’ concept. *European Journal of Cultural Studies*, 13(4): 419–438.

Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Pel, B., Dumitru, A.; Kemp, R., Longhurst, N., Chilvers, J. and Wittmayer, J.M. 2016. A framework for Transformative Social Innovation (TRANSIT Working Paper # 5), TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no: 613169.

Healy, T., and Côté, S. 2001. The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. Education and Skills. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.

High, C., and Nemes, G. 2007. Social learning in LEADER: Exogenous, endogenous and hybrid evaluation in rural development. *Sociologia Ruralis*, 47(2): 103–119.

Hodgson, G.M. 2007. Institutions and individuals: interaction and evolution. *Organisation studies*, 28(1), 95–116.

Hofstede, G. 1984. The cultural relativity of the quality of life concept. *Academy of Management Review*, 9(3): 389–398.

Holling, C. S. and Gunderson, L.H. 2002. Resilience and adaptive cycles. In: L.H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling (Eds). *Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems*. (pp. 25–62). Washington, D.C., USA: Island Press.

Holling, C. S. and Meffe, G. K. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. *Conservation Biology*, 10(2), 328–337.
<figure><img src="image_190.png" /></figure>

Holtz, G. 2014. *Generating Social Practices. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation*, 17(1), 17.

Hornsby, A. 2012. *The Good Analyst: Impact Measurement and Analysis in the Social-Purpose Universe*. Investing for Good.

Howaldt, J., Kopp, R. and Schwarz, M. 2015. Social Innovations as Drivers of Social Change – Exploring Tarde’s Contribution to Social Innovation Theory Building. In: A. Nicholls, J. Simon, A. Gabriel (Eds). *New frontiers in social innovation research*. London: Palgrave.

Hulme, D. and Shepherd, A. 2003. Conceptualizing chronic poverty. *World Development*, 31(3), 403–423.

Ibrahim, S. 2017. How to Build Collective Capabilities: The 3C-Model for Grassroots-Led Development. *Journal of Human Development and Capabilities*, 18(2): 197-222.

Ingold, K. 2008. Explaining Policy Outputs. The possibility to combine Social Network Analysis with other methodologies. Paper presented at the 4th UK Social Network Conference, 18-20 July 2008, University of Greenwich, London.

ISO, 2015. ISO 14001:2015(en). Environmental management systems - Requirements with guidance for use. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14001:ed-3:v1:en. Accessed 10 July 2017.

Kassa, H., Campbell, B., Sandewall, M., Kebede, M., Tesfaye, Y., Dessie, G., Seifu, A., Tadesse, M., Garedew, E. and Sandewall, K. 2009. Building future scenarios and uncovering persisting challenges of participatory forest management in Chilimo Forest, Central Ethiopia. *Journal of Environmental Management*, 90: 1004-1013.

Knack, S. 2002. Social capital and the quality of government: Evidence from the states. *American journal of political science*: 772–785.

Kubeczko, K., Rametsteiner, E. and Weiss, G. 2006. The Role of Sectoral and Regional Innovation Systems in Supporting Innovations in Forestry. *Forest Policy and Economics* 8/7: 704-715.

Janssen, M. A. and Ostrom, E. 2006. Empirically based, agent-based models. *Ecology and Society*, 11(2), 37. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art37/. Accessed 23 July 2017.

Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. *Journal of financial economics*, 3(4): 305-360.

Jongeneel, R., Polman, P. and Slangena, L. 2012. Cost-benefit analysis of the Dutch nature policy: Transaction costs and land market impacts. *Land Use Policy*, 29(4): 827-836.

Katonáné Kovács, J., Varga, E. and Nemes, G. 2016. Understanding the process of social innovation in rural regions. *Studies in Agricultural Economics*, 118(1): 22-29.

Keller, R. 2006. Analysing Discourse. An Approach from the Sociology of Knowledge. *Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung*, 223-242.

Kjær, A.M. 2004. *Governance: key concepts*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Khandher, S.R., Koolwal, G.B. and Samad, H.A. 2010. *Handbook on Impact Evaluation. Quantitative Methods and Practices*. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington D.C.

Krlev, G., Bund, E. and Mildenberger, G. 2014. Measuring what matters? Indicators of social innovativeness on the national level. *Information Systems Management*, 31(3): 200–24. doi: 10.1080/10580530.2014.923265.

Krugman, P., Wells, R. and Graddy, K. 2013. *Essentials of Economics*. Macmillan Education, Palgrave, UK.

Kusek, J.Z. and Rist, R.C. 2001. Building a Performance-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System: The Challenges Facing Developing Countries. *Evaluation Journal of Australasia*, 1 (2): 14–23.

Kluvánková, T. and Gezik, V. 2016. Survival of Commons? Institutions for robust forest socio-ecological systems. *Journal of Forest Economics*, 24: 175-185. doi 10.1016/j.jfe.2016.01.002
<figure><img src="image_191.png" /></figure>

Kluvánková, T., Gežik, V., Špaček, M., Brnkaláková, S., Valero, D., Bryce, R., Slee, W., Alkhaled, D., Secco, L., Burlando, C., Kozova, M., Miller, D., Nijnik, M., Perlik, M., Pisani, E., Polman, N., Price, M., Sarkii, S. and Weiss, G. 2017. Transdisciplinary understanding of SI in MRAs, Deliverable 2.2, Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA). pp. 58.

Krlev, G., Bund, E. and Mildenberger, G. (2014). Measuring what matters—Indicators of social innovativeness on the national level. *Information Systems Management*, 31(3), 200-224.

Lindner, M., Suominen, T., Palosuo, T., Garcia-Gonzales, J., Verweij, P., Zudin, S. and Päivinen, R. 2010. ToSIA – A Tool for Sustainability Impact Assessment of Forest-Wood-Chains. *Ecological Modelling*, 221: 2197–2205.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.08.006.

Lowe, P., Murdoch, J. and Ward, N. 1995. Networks in rural development: beyond exogenous and endogenous models. *Beyond modernisation*, 87-105.

Ludvig, A., Tahvanainen, V., Dickson, A., Evard, C., Kurttila, M., Cosovic, M., Chapman, E., Wilding, M. and Weiss, G. 2016. The practice of entrepreneurship in the non-wood forest products sector: Support for innovation on private forest land. *Forest Policy and Economics* 66, 31-37.

Ludvig, A., Weiss, G., Zivojinovic, I., Nijnik, M., Miller, D., Barlagne, C., Perlik, M., Hermann, P., Egger, T., Dalla Torre, C., Streifeneder, T., Ravazzoli, E., Sfeir, P., Lukesch, R., Wagner, K., Egartner, S., Slee, W. and Clotteau. M. 2017. Political Framework Conditions, Policies and Instruments for SIs in Rural Areas, Deliverable 6.1, Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA). pp. 36.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. *Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment*.
Island Press. www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html

Malek, A., and Costa, C. 2015. Integrating communities into tourism planning through social innovation. *Tourism Planning & Development, 12*(3), 281-299.

Maslow, A.H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. *Psychological Review*, 50(4): 370.

Maslow, A.H. 1954. *Motivation and personality*. New York, NY: Harper.

Masten, S. E. and Saussier, S. 2000. Econometrics of contracts: an assessment of developments in the empirical literature on contracting. *Revue d'économie industrielle*, 92(1): 215-236.

McAdam, D., Tarrow, S. and Tilly, C. 2001. *Dynamics of Contention*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McAdam, D. 2003. Beyond structural analysis: Toward a more dynamic understanding of social movements. In: M. Diani and D. McAdam (Eds.). *Social movements and networks: Relational approaches to collective action*, 281–298. New York: Oxford University Press.

McGinnis, M.D., and Ostrom, E. 2012. Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. *Ecology and Society* 19 (2): 30.

McGinnis, M.D. and Ostrom, E. 2014. Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. *Ecology and Society*, 19(2), 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230.

McIntyre, A. 2008. *Participatory Action Research*. Qualitative Research Methods, 52, Sage Publications, Inc.

McLachlan, M., Hamann, R., Sayers, V., Kelly, C. and Drimie, S. 2015. Fostering innovation for sustainable food security: the Southern Africa Food Lab. In: Bitzer V, Hamann R, Hall M, Griffin-EL EW (Eds) *The business of social and environmental innovation*. Springer International Publishing, Cham.

Ménard, C. 1995. Markets as institutions versus organisations as markets? Disentangling some fundamental concepts. *Journal of Economic Behavior & Organisation*, 28(2): 161–182.

Merad, M., Dechy, N., Marcel, F. and Linkov, I. 2013. Multiple-criteria decision-aiding framework to analyze and assess the governance of sustainability. *Environmental Systems and Decisions* 33: 305–321.
<figure><img src="image_192.png" /></figure>

Moore, M-L. and Westley, F. 2011. Surmountable chasms: networks and social innovation for resilient systems. *Ecology and Society* 16(1): 5. [online] URL: www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art5/. Accessed 23 July 2017.

Morra Imas, L.G. and Rist, R.C. 2009. *The Road to Results: Designing and Conducting Effective Development Evaluations*. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Moulaert, F. (Ed.). 2013. *The international handbook on social innovation: collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research*. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Moulaert, F., Jessop, B. and Mehmood, A. 2016. Agency, structure, institutions, discourse (ASID) in urban and regional development, *International Journal of Urban Sciences*, 20(2): 167-187, doi: 10.1080/12265934.2016.1182054.

Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R. and Sanders, B. 2007. Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship.

Nelissen, N. 2002. The administrative capacity of new types of governance. *Public Organization Review* 2 (1): 5-22.

Neumeier, S. 2017. Social innovation in rural development: identifying the key factors of success. *The geographical journal*, 183(1): 34-46.

Newton, A., Marshall, E., Schreckenberg, K., Golicher, D., te Velde, D., Edouard, F. and Arancibia, E. 2006. Use of a Bayesian Belief Network to Predict the Impacts of Commercializing Non-timber Forest Products on Livelihoods. *Ecology and Society*, 11. doi:10.5751/ES-01843-110224.

Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E. and Goodspeed, T. (2012). *A Guide Social Return on Investment*. In S. Cupitt S. Durie, J. Inglis, K. Leathem, T. Lumley and R. Piper. The SROI Network.

Nicholls, A. and Ziegler, R. 2010. An Extended Social Grid Model for the Study of Marginalization Processes and Social Innovation. Deliverable D1.1: Report on Institutions, Social Innovation & System Dynamics from the Perspective of the Marginalised. CRESSI Working Papers No. 2/2015.

Nijnik, M., Nijnik, A. and Brown, I. 2016. Exploring the linkages between multi-functional forestry goals and the legacy of spruce plantations in Scotland. *Canadian Journal of Forest Research*, 46, 1247-1254, doi: dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0399.

North, D.C. 1990. *Institutions, institutional change and economic performance*. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. 1993 (Eds.) *The quality of life*. A study prepared for the World Institute for Development Economics research (WIDER) of the United Nations University. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

OECD 1991. *Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance*. Paris: Development Assistance Committee of the OECD.

OECD 2000. Review of current terminology in evaluation and results based management. Working Party on Aid Evaluation, OECD DAC. Paris: OECD.

OECD 2006a. *The New Rural Paradigm: Policies and Governance*. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD 2006b. *Evaluation Quality Standards for Test Phase Application*. Development Assistance Committee. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/62/36596604.pdf.

OECD 2010 [1991]. *Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management*. Paris: DAC Working Party on Aid Evaluation of the OECD.

OECD 2011. *Evaluating Development Co-operation. Summary of key norms and standards*. Second Edition. OECD DAC Network of Development Evaluation.

OECD 2013a. *Key environmental indicators*. Paris: OECD Environment Directorate.
<figure><img src="image_193.png" /></figure>

OECD 2013b. *Evaluating Development Activities*. 12 Lessons from the OECD DAC. Paris: OECD.

OECD 2013c. *The DAC Network on Development Evaluation – 30 years of strengthening learning in development 1983-2013*. Paris: OECD.

OECD Statistics 2017. http://stats.oecd.org/. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

OECD 2017. BetterLife Index. http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ Accessed 26 July 2017.

Olsson, P., Gunderson, L.H., Carpenter, S.R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C. and Holling, C.S. 2006. Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. *Ecology and Society* 11(1), 18. www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/. Accessed 23 July 2017.

Olsson, P., Gunderson, L., Carpenter, S., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C. and Holling, C. S. 2006. Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. *Ecology and Society*, 11(1).

Oosterlynck, S., Kazepov, Y., Novy, A., Cools, P., Barberis, E., Wukovitsch, F., Sarius, T. and Leubolt B. 2013. *The butterfly and the elephant: local social innovation, the welfare state and new poverty dynamics*. ImPRovE Discussion Paper No. 13/03. Antwerp: Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy – University of Antwerp.

Osti, G. 2010. Mobility demands and participation in remote rural areas. *Sociologia Ruralis*, 50(3), 296-310.

Ostrom, E. 2005. *Understanding institutional diversity*. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. *Science*, 325(5939); 419–422.

Ostrom, E. 2011. Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. *Policy Studies Journal* 39(1):7-27

Oxford Online Dictionary. 2017. https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ Accessed 20 September 2017.

Papageorgiou, E.I. and Salmeron, J.L. 2013. A Review of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps Research During the Last Decade. *IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems* 21: 66–79. doi:10.1109/TFUZZ.2012.2201727.

Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, G., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R.T., Dessane, E.B., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S.M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S-E, Al-Hafedh, Y.S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S.T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Breslow, S.J., Bullock, C., Cáceres, D., Daly-Hassen, H., Figueroa, E., Golden, C.D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González-Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Keune, H., Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P.H., Mead, A., O'Farrell, P., Pandit, R., Pengue, W., Pichis-Madruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saarikoski, H., Strassburg, B.B., van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F. and Yagi, N. 2017. Valuing nature's contributions to people: the IPBES approach. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 26: 7–16.

Peerlings, J., Polman, N. and Dries, L. 2014. Self-reported Resilience of European Farms with and without the CAP. *Journal of agricultural economics*, 65(3): 722-738.

Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A. and Tomaney, J. (Eds.). 2010. *Handbook of local and regional development*. Routledge. pp. 642.

Pisani, E. and Laidin, C. 2016. Evaluating project networks in the EU-funded LEADER - Community-led Local Development (CLLD) across Europe: A proposal for Social Network Analysis. Paper presented at the 28th Annual EAEPE Conference, Industrialisation, socio-economic transformation and Institutions. Manchester, United Kingdom: Manchester Metropolitan University, 3-5 November 2016.

Pisani, E., Franceschetti, G., Secco, L. and Christoforou, A. in print. *Social Capital and Local Development. From Theory to Empirics*. London: Palgrave MacMillan. pp. 517.

Polman, N. 2002. Managing Wildlife and Landscape on Dutch Farms, PhD Thesis, Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University.
<figure><img src="image_194.png" /></figure>

Polman, N., Slee, W., Kluvánková, T., Dijkshoorn, M., Nijnik, M., Gezik, V. and Soma, K. 2017. Classification of Social Innovations for Marginalized Rural Areas, Deliverable 2.1, Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA). pp. 32.

Pradel-Miquel, M. 2015. Making polycentrism: Governance innovation in small and medium-sized cities in the West Midlands and Barcelona metropolitan regions. *Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space*, 33(6).

Price, M., Miller, D. McKeen, M., Slee, W. and Nijnik, M. 2017. Categorisation of Marginalised Rural Areas (MRAs), Deliverable 3.1, Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA). pp. 57.

Rametsteiner, E., Weiss, G. and Kubeczko, K. 2005. Innovation and entrepreneurship in forestry in central Europe. EFI Research Report 19, European Forest Institute, Joensuu, Finland.

Rane, A.A. and Deorukhkar, A.C. 2007. *Economics of agriculture*. Atlantic Publishers & Distributors.

Ray, C. 2000. Endogenous socio-economic development and trustful relationships: partnerships, social capital and individual agency. University of Newcastle - CRE.

Ray, C. 2006. Neo-endogenous rural development in the EU. *Handbook of Rural Studies*, 278-291.

Reckwitz, A. 2002. Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. *European Journal of Social Theory*, 5(2): 243–263.

Registroimprese 2017. Chamber of Commerce. www.registroimprese.it/ Accessed 27 July 2017.

Regulation EU No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN. Accessed 1 August 2016.

Ribot, J.C. and Peluso, N.L. 2003. A theory of access. *Rural Sociology*, 68(2): 153–181.

Rosenbaum, P.R. and Rubin, D.B. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. *Biometrika*, 70(1), 41–55.

Sabatier, P.A. 1988. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. *Policy sciences*, 21(2), 129–168.

Sabatini, F. 2009 Social capital as social networks: A new framework for measurement and an empirical analysis of its determinants and consequences. *The Journal of Socio-Economics*, 38(3), 429-442.

Sandker, M., Campbell, B.M., Ruiz-Pérez, M., Sayer, J.A., Cowling, R., Kassa, H. and Knight, A.T. 2010. The role of participatory modelling in landscape approaches to reconcile conservation and development. *Ecology and Society*, 15(2): 12.

Schouten, M., Opdam, P., Polman, N. and Westerhof, E. 2013. Resilience-based governance in rural landscapes: experiments with agri-environment schemes using a spatially explicit agent-based model. *Land Use Policy*, 30(1): 934-943.

Schwitzgebel, E. 2015. "Belief", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/belief/. Accessed 7 September 2017.

Scott, J. 2013. *Social Network Analysis: A Handbook*. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Scott, R.J. and Boyd, R. 2016. Collaborating for results in New Zealand: Evaluation using mixed methods and triangulation. Presented at the 2016 conference of the International Public Management Network. St Gallen, Switzerland.
<figure><img src="image_195.png" /></figure>

Secco, L., Da Re, R., Pettenella, D. and Gatto, P. 2014. Why and how to measure forest governance at local level: a set of indicators. *Forest Policy and Economics*, 49: 57–71.

Secco, L. and Pisani, E. 2016. Caso studio: l'applicazione del contratto di rete nello sviluppo rurale. In: Abatangelo, C. (Ed.). Reti tra imprese: top down or bottom up? *Pacini Giuridica*, 91–110. (in Italian with extended abstract in English)

Secco, L., Favero, M., Masiero, M. and Pettenella, D. 2017. Failures of political decentralisation in promoting network governance in the forest sector: Observations from Italy. *Land Use Policy*, 62: 79-100.

Secco, L., Pisani, E., Burlando, C., Da Re, R., Pettenella, D., Nijnik, M., Miller, D., Slee, B., Gezik, V. and Kluvánková, T. 2016. Guidelines to Identify and Analyse Existing Methods to Assess Social Innovation and Impacts. Deliverable 4.1, Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas (SIMRA). pp. 45.

Sefton, T., Byford, S., McDaid, D. and Hills, J. 2002. *Making the Most of It: Economic Evaluation in the Social Welfare Field*. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Sen, A. 1993. Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum, M., Sen, A. (Eds.). *The Quality of Life*. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Sen, A. 1999. *Development as Freedom*. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 384.

Seraj, M. 2012. We create, we connect, we respect, therefore we are: intellectual, social, and cultural value in online communities. *Journal of Interactive Marketing*, 26(4): 209–222.

Sewell Jr, W.H. 1992. A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. *American Journal of Sociology*, 1–29.

Shucksmith, M. 2000. Endogenous development, social capital and social inclusion: Perspectives from LEADER in the UK. *Sociologia ruraliR*, 40(2), 208-218.

SI-DRIVE 2017. Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change. https://www.si-drive.eu/. Accessed 7 June 2017.

Slee, B., Burlando, C., Nijnik, M., Pisani, E., Polman, N. and Secco, L. (submitted). Social innovation: searching for a workable definition and conceptual clarity.

Soma, K. 2010. Framing participation with multicriterion evaluations to support the management of complex environmental issues. *Environmental Policy and Governance*, 20: 89–106.

Soma, K. and Vatn, A. 2014. Representing the common goods – Stakeholders vs. citizens. *Land Use Policy*. 41:325–333.

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. 2009. Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. *Public administration*, 87(2): 234–258.

Stirling, A. and Mayer, S. 2001. A Novel Approach to the Appraisal of Technological Risk: a Multi-criteria Mapping Study of a Genetically Modified Crop. *Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy*, 19(4):529–55.

Swyngedouw, E. 2005. Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. *Urban studies*, 42(11):1991–2006.

Symes D. and Hoefnagel E. 2010. Fisheries policy, research and the social sciences in Europe: Challenges for the 21st century. *Marine Policy*, 34 (2):268–275.

TEEB 2010. *The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations*. Pushpam Kumar (Ed.). Earthscan, London and Washington. www.teebweb.org/our-publications/teeb-study-reports/ecological-and-economic-foundations/#.UjxIYH9mOG8.

Temel, T. and Dorjee, K. 2014. A method for assessing food security information system. *International Journal of Information Systems and Management*, 1(1-2):166-194.
<figure><img src="image_196.png" /></figure>

Treib, O., Bähr, H. and Falkner, G. 2007. Modes of governance: towards a conceptual clarification. *Journal of European Public Policy*, 14(1):1–20.

Turker, D. and Vural, C.A. 2017. Embedding social innovation process into the institutional context: Voids or supports. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 119, 98–113. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.019.

UN 2015. *Sustainable Development Goals*. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/. Accessed 27 July 2017.

UN-Habitat 2004. *Guidelines for Environmental Assessments for UN-Habitat Activities*. http://mirror.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/10430_1_594167.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2017.

UNPD 2009. *A user's guide to measuring local governance*. Oslo Governance Centre. http://gaportal.org/sites/default/files/LG%20Guide.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2017.

Vancity Community Foundation and the BC Association of Farmers Markets (2013). Farmers' Market Impact Toolkit. http://www.demonstratingvalue.org/resources/farmers-market-toolkit. Accessed 26 July 2017.

Van der Ploeg, J.D. 1994. Born from within: practice and perspectives of endogenous rural development. *Uitgeverij Van Gorcum*.

Van Der Schoor, T., Van Lente, H., Scholtens, B. and Peine, A. 2016. Challenging obduracy: How local communities transform the energy system. *Energy Research & Social Science*, 13: 94-105.

Van Der Vaart, W., Van Der Zouwen J. and Dijkstra W. 1995. Retrospective questions: data quality, task difficulty, and the use of a checklist. *Quantity & Quality*, 29: 299-315.

Van Der Zouwen J., Dijkstra W. and Van Der Vaart, W. 1993. Effects of Measures Aimed at Increasing the Quality of Recall Data. *Bulletin of Sociological Methodology*, 39: 3-19.

Varis, O. and Kuikka, S. 1997. Joint use of multiple environmental assessment models by a Bayesian meta-model: the Baltic salmon case. *Ecological Modelling* 102:341–351. doi:10.1016/S0304-3800(97)00068-9.

Vatn, A. 2005. Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. *Ecological Economics*, 55(2), 203–217.

Vázquez-Barquero, A. 2003. *Endogenous development: Networking, innovation, institutions and cities*. Routledge.

Veldkamp, T., Polman, N., Reinhard, S., and Slingerland, M. 2011. From scaling to governance of the land system: bridging ecological and economic perspectives. *Ecology and Society*, 16(1). www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art1/. Accessed 27 July 2017.

Verweij, P., Janssen, S., Braat, L., van Eupen, M., Pérez Soba, M., Winograd, M., de Winter, W. and Cormont, A. 2016. QUICKScan as a quick and participatory methodology for problem identification and scoping in policy processes. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 66, 47–61. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.010.

Virtanen, P. and Uusikylä, P. 2004. Exploring the missing links between causes and effects. New conceptual framework for understanding micro-macro conversions in programme evaluation. *Evaluation*, 10(1), 77–91. doi: 10.1177/1356389004043136.

Wahba, M.A. and Bridwell, L.G. 1976. Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory. *Organisational Behavior and Human Performance*, 15(2), 212–240. doi: **10.1016/0030-5073(76)90038-6**.

Watts S. and Stenner P. 2005. Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. *Qualitative Research in Psychology*, 2:67–91.

Weiss, G., Pettenella, D., Ollonqvist, P. and Slee, W. (Eds.), 2011. *Innovation in Forestry: Territorial and Value Chain Relationships*. CABI. 320 pp.

Westley, F.R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B. and Bodin, Ö. 2013. A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. *Ecology and Society*, 18(3), 27. doi: 10.5751/ES-05072-180327.
<figure><img src="image_197.png" /></figure>

Williamson, O.E. 1985. *The Economic Institutions of Capitalism*. The Free Press, New York.

Windrum, P., Schartinger, D., Rubalcaba, L., Gallouj, F. Toivonen, M. 2016. The co-creation of multi-agent social innovations: a bridge between service and social innovation research. *European Journal of Innovation Management*, 19(2):150-166.

Wittmayer, J.M., Avelino, F., Dorland, J., Pel, B. and Jorgensen, M.S. 2015. Methodological guidelines. TRANSIT: EU SSH.2013.3.2.1. http://www.transitsocialinnovation.eu/resource-hub/methodological-guidelines-for-batch-2. Accessed 20 September 2017.

World Forum on Natural Capital. 2017. https://naturalcapitalforum.com/ Accessed 20 September 2017.

Young, H.P. 2011. The dynamics of social innovation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (Supplement 4):21285-21291.
<figure><img src="image_198.png" /></figure>

# Annex 1: Preliminary List of Questions for the Assessment and Evaluation of Social Innovation Initiatives in Pilot Case Studies in Marginalised Rural Areas

These questions will be asked to one or more categories of respondents as indicated in PART IV.

## A. INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE NEEDS

### A.a. Trigger

#### A.a.1.1. Idea and Trigger

What triggered your idea?

- Was it a single time-bound event? Please describe which one:

- Was it an accumulation of events? Please describe which one:

#### A.a.1.2. Positive-Negative triggers

Did you perceive the event as a positive or a negative trigger?

Please, motivate your response:

1. Positive

2. Negative

#### A.a.1.3. Scale of the trigger

What was the geographical/spatial scale at which the trigger happened? (Tick one or more, if pertinent)

1. Local

2. Regional

3. National

4. International

#### A.a.1.4. Affected level

Who was affected by the trigger? (more options)

1. Myself

2. My family

3. My close friends

4. My community

5. Others (specify):

#### A.a.1.5. Affected scale

How much were you personally affected by the trigger before you decided to act?

Scale from 1 (totally unaffected) to 10 (totally affected)

Totally unaffected

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Totally affected

#### A.a.1.6. Dissatisfaction

How would you quantify your level of satisfaction with the situation when the trigger happened?

Scale from 1 (totally unsatisfied) to 10 (totally satisfied)

Totally

Totally
<figure><img src="image_199.png" /></figure>

unsatisfied

satisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A.a.1.7. Satisfaction motivation.

Please motivate: __________

A.a.1.8. Reaction

How long did it take for you to react and respond with an idea of social innovation (SI idea)?

Please specify the period (days, weeks, months, years): |__|__|__| .................... (days, weeks, months, years)

## A.b. Social needs

### A.b.1.1.- A.b.2.1. Individual and collective needs

Which were the personal and collective needs that you wanted to satisfy with your SI idea? (Please list a maximum of 3 for each)

Individual needs
1. __________

Collective needs
1. __________

2. __________

2. __________

3. __________

3. __________

### A.b.1.2. - A.b.2.2. Scores of individual and collective needs

Which of the following category of needs did your SI idea try to satisfy? (Tick one or more if the needs are interdependent, and give a score: - the sum of all completed scores must equal 100)

<table><thead><tr><th>Category of needs</th><th>Individual needs (sum to 100)</th><th>Collective needs (sum to 100)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Biological and Physiological</strong> needs (e.g., air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sleep, parental care)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Safety</strong> needs (e.g., education, health and sanitation, security, law and order, stability)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Social</strong> needs (e.g., friendship, intimacy, trust and acceptance, receiving and giving affection and love, being part of a group, family, friends, work)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Esteem and cognitive</strong> needs (e.g., curiosity, exploration, confidence and self-esteem, knowledge, understanding and learning, mindfulness, mastery, achievement, meaningfulness and predictability, social responsibility, independence, status, prestige, reputational power)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Self/group-actualization</strong> needs (e.g., realizing personal potential, self-fulfilment, seeking personal/collective growth and peak experiences, creativity, appreciation and search for beauty, balance)</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Score sum</td><td>100</td><td>100</td></tr></tbody></table>

## A.c. Societal challenges

### A.c.1. Type of societal challenges

#### A.c.1.1. Wider challenges

Do you think that your idea responds to challenges at a level wider than the local one? 1. Yes 2. No

#### A.c.1.2. Societal challenges

Do you think that your idea addresses any of the societal challenges listed below?
<figure><img src="image_200.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><td></td><td>Societal challenges</td><td>Yes</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Health</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Demographic change</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Wellbeing</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Food security</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Sustainable agriculture and forestry</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Water</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Bioeconomy</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Secure, clean and efficient energy</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Smart, green and integrated transport</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Climate action</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Environment</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Resource efficiency and raw materials</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Inclusive societies</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Innovative societies</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Freedom</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Security</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Others (specify):</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>

## A.d. Governance shifts

### A.d.1.1. Critical elements of governance

To what extent was your idea aimed at solving critical elements of governance?

<table><thead><tr><td></td><td>Not at all</td><td>To a minor extent</td><td>To some extent</td><td>To a large extent</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Support the involvement of civil society and citizens in decision-making processes</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>2. Support the voice of marginalised citizens</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>3. Ensure gender balance</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>4. Address an overwhelming bureaucracy</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>5. Address obsolete and rigid legal frameworks</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>6. Address brittle and inflexible public administrations</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>7. Address accountability and transparency of public and private organisations</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>8. Address conflict of interests and corruption in public and private organisations</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>9. Others (specify):</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>

### A.d.1.2. Scale of governance

What was the geographical/spatial scale at which you wished to solve the critical elements of governance?
(Tick one or more, if pertinent)

1. Local

2. Regional
<figure><img src="image_201.png" /></figure>

3. National

4. International

A.d.1.3. Governance dissatisfaction

How would you quantify your satisfaction with the governance situation when you started the SI idea?

Scale from 1 (totally unsatisfied) to 10 (totally satisfied)

<table><thead><tr><th>Totally unsatisfied</th><th>Totally satisfied</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td></tr></tbody></table>

A.d.1.3. Governance satisfaction motivation

Please motivate: __________

B. PERCEIVED CONTEXT

B.a. CONTEXT of MRA

[These indexes are based on data that the evaluator collects at the lowest available geographical level (e.g. in EU countries, the LAU2 level is recommended). These specific indexes of marginalisation in rural areas have been selected by WP 3]

B.a.1. Level of rurality

B.a.1.1. Population density

[Average or % under 150]

B.a.1.2. Evaluator selection

[This index is left open for the evaluator to identify together with key local experts]

B.a.2. Physical geography marginality

B.a.2.1. Mountain areas

[At least 50% of mountain areas through parameters selected by WP3]

B.a.2.2. Aridity

(Hyper arid, Arid, Semi-arid, Dry Sub-humid, Humid through parameters selected by WP3)

B.a.2.3. Island

(see WP3)

B.a.2.4. Evaluator selection

[This index is left open for the evaluator to identify together with key local experts]

B.a.3 Limited access to infrastructure

B.a.3.1. Access to the internet from home

B.a.3.2. Local road transport

B.a.3.3. Evaluator selection

[This index is left open for the evaluator to identify together with key local experts]

B.a.4. Population marginalisation
<figure><img src="image_202.png" /></figure>

B.a.4.1. Income per-capita

B.a.4.2. Evaluator selection

[This index is left open for the evaluator to identify together with key local experts]

B.a.5. Others selected by the evaluator

B.a.5.1. Evaluator selection

[This index is left open for the evaluator to identify together with key local experts]

B.a.6. Initial perceived marginality

B.a.6.1. Perceived marginality

Do you agree that your territory was marginalised when the SI idea was started?

1. Yes

2. No

B.a.6.2. Elements of MRA

Before the SI initiative, which were the five main elements indicating that your territory could be considered marginalised?

1. __________

2. __________

3. __________

4. __________

5. __________

B.b. Perceived opportunity and threats (P)OT

B.b.1.1/B.b.2.1./B.b.3.1/B.b.4.1. (Table below)

Which were, if any, the main opportunities and threats (in terms of events, trends, societal framework conditions, institutions, structures and/or discourses) that you faced during the initial steps of the social innovation, moving from the SI idea to the preliminary activities (action)?

(max 3 condition per category; leave empty whenever it applies)

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>OPPORTUNITIES (ENABLING CONDITIONS)</th><th>THREATS (CONSTRAINING CONDITIONS)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">B.b.1. Economic</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">B.b.2. Social</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">B.b.3. Environmental</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">B.b.4 Institutional</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3</td></tr></tbody></table>

B.b.1.2/B.b.2.2./B.b.3.2/B.b.4.2. (Table below)

In a scale from -2 (constraining) to +2 (enabling), how would you evaluate the level of influence of the following conditions on the development of your SI idea?

(Feel free to add items in the empty spaces; if you can't think of any, leave them empty)
<figure><img src="image_203.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Constraining aspects</th><th>Neutral</th><th>Enabling aspects</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>-2</td><td>-1</td><td>0</td><td>+1</td><td>+2</td></tr><tr><td><strong>B.b.1. Economic conditions</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Economic growth</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Economic crises</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Market demand</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Market supply</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Amount of available resources<br>(absolute advantage)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cost of required resources<br>(comparative advantage)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Market infrastructure</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Access to ICT technologies</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Productivity</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Access to data</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Labour supply</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Market prices</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Fiscal system</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Financing</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>B.b.2. Social conditions</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Demographic trends</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Health care system</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cooperation among social actors</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Civic engagement</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Services to disadvantaged groups<br>(elderly, children, global health threats)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Skills</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>B.b.3. Environmental conditions</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Protected areas</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Biodiversity</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Natural resources</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Land use</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sustainable use of resources</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Natural hazards</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Water for human activities and<br>consumption</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Pollution</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Climate change</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>B.b.4. Institutional conditions</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Public services to sustain employment</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lifelong learning policies</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Specific sectoral laws</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Policies sustaining the green economy</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Short-terminism in decision making</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Subsidies and quotes</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Bureaucracy</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_204.png" /></figure>

Public-private partnerships

New governance arrangements

Property rights

B.b.5. Changing opportunities and threats

B.b.5.1. Motivation on past (P)OT

Please motivate your responses to the opportunities and threats that you think enabled or constrained your SI idea:

B.b.5.2. (P)OT during the SI initiative

Do you think that the opportunities and threats have changed during the SI initiative?

B.b.5.3. (P)OT after the SI initiative

Thanks to the social innovation initiative, do you think that the opportunities and threats have changed?

C. AGENCY-AGENTS

C.a. Innovative ideas

C.a.1. Typology of innovation

C.a.1.1. Content of the SI idea

What is the innovative idea? Please describe it.

C.a.1.2. Type of innovation

How do you classify your idea as "innovative"? (Tick all that apply)

1. a new product;

2. a new service;

3. a new process;

4. a new procedure;

5. a new practice;

6. a new organisation;

7. a new network

8. Other (specify):

C.a.2. Novelty

C.a.2.1. Novelty of the SI idea

Why would you qualify the new idea as “novel” when compared to business-as-usual?

C.a.2.2. Valuable idea

Why did you think that the SI idea was valuable?

C.a.2.3. Source of the SI idea

Is your idea:

1. Something totally new (invention)

2. Modified and adapted to the context (modification)

3. Simply replicated or adapted to the context (adaptation)?

C.b. Clique

C.b.1: SI Innovator/s

C.b.1.1. Characteristics of the SI innovator/s
<figure><img src="image_205.png" /></figure>

Who are the innovators/creators of the idea?

(Please provide name and descriptive features of the innovator: age, gender, location in MRA, educational level and employment)

### C.b.2. Followers

#### C.b.2.1. Characteristics of followers

Who are the followers of the innovator?

(Please provide name and descriptive features of the innovator: age, gender, location in MRA, educational level and employment)

#### C.b.2.2. Initial reaction of followers

What was your immediate reaction when you first heard about the idea?

#### C.b.2.3. Inspiration

Why did you follow the innovator? (Tick all that apply)

1. The social innovation idea *per se*

2. Leadership and charismatic features the innovator

3. Previous relationship with the innovator

4. Others, please specify _________________

#### C.b.2.4. Support of followers

How did you support the idea/innovator/s?

### C.c. Vision and trust

#### C.c.1. Vision

##### C.c.1.1. Vision

What was your vision when you decided to engage with the SI initiative?

##### C.c.1.2. Envisioned role/s

When you decided to engage with the SI initiative, did you have an idea of your possible role/s?

##### C.c.1.3. Envisioned effect/s

When you decided to engage with the SI initiative, did you have an idea of the possible effect/s?

### C.c.2. Social relationships and interpersonal trust

#### C.c.2.1. Relation

Did you engage with the SI initiative because your relationship with the innovator was of (Tick all that apply):

1. Friendship

2. Collaborative working relationship

3. Expertise of the topic

4. Completely unknown

5. Others, please qualify _________________

#### C.c.2.2. Trust in the innovator

Did you engage with the SI initiative because you trusted the innovator (question to the follower)?

#### C.c.2.3. Trust in the clique

When you first engaged with the SI initiative, did you trust the agents involved in the clique?
<figure><img src="image_206.png" /></figure>

1. Very few

2. Some

3. Most

4. All of them

### C.d Willingness to act

#### C.d.1 Location and personal experience

**C.d.1.1. Relation with community**

How are you related to the local community? (Tick all that apply)

1. Born and raised in the community

2. First-hand encounter with the community's issue/s

3. Born, studied away from the area and then came back

4. Official worker in the community

5. Resident of the community

**C.d.1.2. Experience**

Do you work or have working experience in the same field as the one of the SI?

**C.d.1.3. Competences and skills**

Which competences or skills did you bring to the network?

**C.d.1.4. Distinctiveness**

Are you the only one with these competences or skills?

#### C.d.2. Sense of challenge

**C.d.2.1. Challenge**

How and to what extent did the people involved in the SI initiative had a sense that they could challenge the social context?

Please explain: _________________________

**C.d.2.2. Resilience**

Did you think the clique had the capacities for overcoming obstacles and the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances?

Scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 10 (totally agree)

<table><thead><tr><th>Totally disagree</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th><th>Totally agree</th></tr></thead></table>

### C.e. Reflexivity

#### C.e.1 Reflexivity on emergence, development and evolution of the SI idea

**C.e.1.1. Critical reflection**

How was your idea based on a critical reflection of the situation in your territory?

**C.e.1.2. SI idea modification/change**

Did the innovator and/or followers (clique) modify or change the initial idea? When?

**C.e.1.3. Content of modification/change**
<figure><img src="image_207.png" /></figure>

How and why was the idea modified or changed?

C.e.1.4. Evolution of the SI idea

When you were implementing the project, did you recognise limits of the initial idea in relation to unforeseen pitfalls or drawbacks?

C.f. Capacity for change

C.f.1. Competences

C.f.1.1. Skills

When you were developing the idea, did you feel you had the required skills to implement it?

1. I had no skills at all

2. I had few skills

3. I had many of the required skills

4. I had all the required skills

C.f.1.2. Shared competences

Which were the three main competences you shared with the clique to develop the SI initiative?

1. __________

2. __________

3. __________

C.f.1.3. Past experience

Before engaging with the initiative, did you already undertake a similar experience elsewhere?

1. Yes

2. No

3. If yes, please describe it: __________

C.f.2. Leadership and Entrepreneurship

C.f.2.1. Formal influence

At present, who in the network has the role of:

1. Top-management position, with discretion over budget and organisational/strategic direction

2. Middle-management, with control over execution/implementation

3. Members that follow the organisation/implementation of directives

- Please provide the names in the table:

C.f.2.2. Formal authority

At present, who holds a formal role of authority outside of the initiative?

- Please provide the names in the table:

C.f.2.3. Informal influence

In the community, who influences decision-making within the network, informally?

- Please provide the names in the table:

C.f.2.4. Informal authority

Who has informal authority within the initiative in terms of:

1. Knowledge
<figure><img src="image_208.png" /></figure>

2. Learning

3. Capacity for outreach/development/growth of the initiative

4. Capacity for socialization

5. Linking/Networking

- Please provide the names in the table:

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Actors of the network</th><th colspan="2">Management</th><th rowspan="2">Formal role outside</th><th rowspan="2">Influence decisions</th><th colspan="5">Informal authority</th></tr><tr><th>Middle</th><th>Top</th><th>Knowledge</th><th>Learning</th><th>Development</th><th>Socialization</th><th>Networking</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>

# D. AGENCY - PREPARATORY ACTIONS

## D.a. Availability of resources

### D.a.1. Importance of resources

D.a.1.1. Internal resources

Did you use your own resources for starting the SI process? Please list them

D.a.1.2. External resources

Did you need additional external resources for starting the SI process? Please list them

D.a.1.3. Skills

Did you have the skills required for starting the SI process? Please list them

## D.b. Idea formulation and communication (message refining, value sharing, writing)

### D.b.1. Social vision and expectations

D.b.1.1 Social vision

Was your idea based on a social vision? If yes, please describe it

D.b.1.2. Expectations

During the idea formulation, what were your concrete expectations in terms of:

1. New networks

2. New attitudes

3. New governance arrangements

## D.b.2. Idea communication

D.b.2.1. Communication

Was the idea written down clearly, for communicating it to the initial stakeholders?

D.b.2.2. Idea protection

Did you protect the ownership of your idea before engaging with the stakeholders?

# D.c. Information collection and readiness

### D.c.1. Information collection

D.c.1.1. Preliminary analysis

Did you do a preliminary analysis of similar initiatives?

D.c.1.2. Data

Did you collect data on the local or neighbouring contexts?
<figure><img src="image_209.png" /></figure>

D.c.1.3. Markets

Did you study possible markets and/or competitors?

D.c.2. Readiness

D.c.2.1. Control of idea

Would have you been ready to give up some level of control over your idea to seek the support of external partners?

D.c.2.2. Social business model

Did you have an integrated social and business model that you followed?

D.d. Identification of partners and stakeholders (contacts, meetings, expectation rise management)

D.d.1. Identification of stakeholders

D.d.1.1. Identification

How did you identify the stakeholders who could have taken part in the SI process?

D.d.1.2. Addressing gaps

Did you identify the stakeholders based on specific gaps you perceived needed to be fulfilled?

D.d.1.3. New contacts

Did you know the stakeholders or were they new contacts?

1. Close contacts

2. Already known by name

3. Unknown but recommended by close contacts

4. Completely new contacts

D.d.2. Engagement of stakeholders

D.d.2.1. Means of contact

How many stakeholders did you contact:

1. Personally

2. By phone

3. By mail

4. By other instruments (specify): _________

5. I have been contacted by: ____________________

D.d.2.1. Means (to network)

How were you contacted?

1. Personally

2. By phone

3. By mail

4. By other instruments (specify): _________

5. "I contacted the initiators"

D.d.2.2. Meetings

How many meetings did you organise with them?

D.d.2.3. Declined participation

How many stakeholders declined to participate to the meeting/s?
<figure><img src="image_210.png" /></figure>

D.d.2.4. Expectation rise

Which expectations did you raise with the stakeholders?

D.d.2.4. Expectations (*to network*)

What were your expectations when you were contacted?

1. I had no expectations at all

2. I had few expectations

3. I had some expectations

4. I had many expectations

D.d.3. Management of the stakeholders

D.d.3.1. Management of interactions

Did you envisage how you would organise interactions among stakeholders?

D.d.3.2. Rules

Did you define some initial rules?

D.d.3.3. Facilitator

Did you involve any professional experts/facilitators?

D.d.3.4. Conflict management

Did you plan how to manage possible conflicts during the interactions among stakeholders?

D.d.3.5. Conflict resolution

Did you think about how you would resolve conflicts?

E. RECONFIGURING AND RECONFIGURED SOCIAL PRACTICES

E.a. New networks

E.a.1. Composition of the networks

E.a.1.1. Multiple actors

Are you an:

1. Entrepreneur (private sector)

2. Entrepreneur (non for profit)

3. Public sector (different levels of administration)

4. Member of an association

5. Citizen

E.a.1.2. Units and groups

Do you represent:

1. Yourself as an individual actor

2. A group of individual actors

3. An organization

4. An institution

E.a.1.3. Multiple sectors

Which is your sector?
<figure><img src="image_211.png" /></figure>

1. Agriculture

2. Livestock

3. Forestry

4. Rural development

5. Other sector/s (specify): __________

### E.a.1.4. Multiple levels

At which level do you usually work?

1. Local

2. Regional

3. National

4. International

### E.a.1.5. Openness of the network

The network is:

1. Already existing (already existing and closed)

2. Predefined during the conception (not already existing and closed)

3. Defined during the reconfiguring (not already existing and open till the reconfigured)

4. Open to participatory process (open also after the reconfigured)

### E.a.1.6. Attributes of nodes

[These items are not going to be considered in the questionnaires and are included only for potential matching in impact evaluation]

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Individual</th><th>Organisation/Enterprise</th><th>Institutions</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Age</th><td>How old are you?</td><td>When was your org/ent created?</td><td>Is your institution new to the territory?</td></tr><tr><th>Gender</th><td>Are you a male or female? Or prefer not to respond</td><td>Is your org/ent for- or not-for-profit?</td><td>Which is the scale of your inst/ent? (local, regional, national)</td></tr><tr><th>Employment</th><td>What is your job?</td><td>Are you a small- medium-large org/ent? (N° of employees)</td><td>N° of employees</td></tr><tr><th>Education</th><td>What is your educational level?</td><td>Educational level of employees</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## E.a.2. Structure of the network

### E.a.2.1. New network

According to your experience, in a scale from 1 to 10, to which extent do you believe that the new network is innovative?

Scale from 1 (not innovative) to 10 (totally innovative)

Not
innovative

Totally
innovative
<figure><img src="image_212.png" /></figure>

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

### E.a.2.2. Innovative elements

Which are the elements that make the new network innovative? List a maximum of three elements

1. __________________________________________________

2. __________________________________________________

3. __________________________________________________

### E.a.2.3. Inclusiveness

During the reconfiguring phase, on a scale from 1 to 10, to which extent do you think that the new network is inclusive, involving people that are usually not included in community initiatives?

Scale from 1 (not inclusive) to 10 (totally inclusive)

Not inclusive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

### E.a.2.4. Representativeness

In a scale from 1 to 10, to which extent are the actors in the network representative of ...

Institutions?

Scale from 1 (not representative) to 10 (totally representative)

Not representative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Organizations (e.g., civic, voluntary associations, not-for-profit)?

Scale from 1 (not representative) to 10 (totally representative)

Not representative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Enterprises (i.e., for-profit, third sector)?

Scale from 1 (not representative) to 10 (totally representative)

Not representative

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

### E.a.2.5. Capacities

Please, indicate which actors had the highest...

1. Ability to mobilize resources

2. Power in decision making

3. Inclination in project implementation

4. Aptitude to convening and consulting with other actors

5. Capacity to create bridges with external actors

6. Dedication to promoting the SI initiative
<figure><img src="image_213.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><td>Actors of the network</td><td>Mobilising resources</td><td>Decision making</td><td>Implementing</td><td>Convening/ Consulting</td><td>Bridging</td><td>Promoting</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>

### E.a.3. Relationships

#### E.a.3.1. Network typology

Did the SI process of reconfiguring create a network based on:

<figure><img src="image_214.png" /></figure>

a) external relations
among individual actors

<figure><img src="image_215.png" /></figure>

b) internal relations (within an
organisation/enterprise/institution)
among individual actors

<figure><img src="image_216.png" /></figure>

c) external relations
among collective actors
(organisation/enterprise/institution)

<figure><img src="image_217.png" /></figure>

d) a mix model of external-internal relations
among individual-collective actors

#### E.a.3.x.

Please, indicate with which actors:

- E.a.3.2. You had a continuous information exchange

- E.a.3.3. You had a friendship relationship

- E.a.3.4. You had an informal collaboration

- E.a.3.5. You had a formal collaboration

- E.a.3.6. You fully trusted

<table><thead><tr><td>Actors of the network</td><td>Information exchange</td><td>Friendship</td><td>Informal collaboration</td><td>Formal collaboration</td><td>Full trust</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>

#### E.a.3.7. Before and after

With whom:

1. Did you collaborate before the SI idea?

2. Did you collaborate during the SI process?

3. Did you collaborate for achieving the SI project output?

4. Do you still collaborate in other projects and initiatives?
<figure><img src="image_218.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><td>Actors of the network</td><td>Before the SI idea</td><td>During the SI process</td><td>For achieving the SI outputs</td><td>After the SI initiative</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>A</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>

## E.b. NEW ATTITUDES

### E.b.1. Level of sharing

#### E.b.1.1. Reasons

Why did you join the SI process?

#### E.b.1.2. Intrinsic motivation

I participated:

1. To be personally fulfilled

2. To participate in interesting activities

3. To have tasks of responsibility

#### E.b.1.3. Extrinsic motivation

I participated:

1. To receive recognition from my peers

2. To show others that I serve a good cause

3. For others to perceive me as a responsible person

4. To be positively esteemed by my environment

#### E.b.1.4. Objectives

Were the vision and the objectives of the SI process clear?

1. No, it was not

2. In part

3. For the most part

4. Yes, everything was clear

#### E.b.1.5. Needs

Which trigger or social need do you think the SI process was attempting to face?

#### E.b.1.6. Attitude

In a scale from 1 to 10, do you think the SI process has created a new social attitude?

*Scale from 1 (Not at all) to 10 (To a great extent)*

Not at
all

To a great
extent

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

## E.b.2. Informal Institutions

### E.b.2.1. Expectations
<figure><img src="image_219.png" /></figure>

In a scale from 1 to 10, what was your level of expectation on the SI reconfiguring process?

Scale from 1 (Very few) to 10 (Very high)

Very low

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Very high

### E.b.2.2. Individual attitudes

In a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 refers to "totally pessimistic" and 10 to "totally optimistic", would you think of yourself as more as a negative or a positive person?

Scale from 1 (Totally pessimistic) to 10 (Totally optimistic)

Totally
Pessimistic

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Totally
Optimistic

### E.b.2.3. Collective attitudes

During the reconfiguring process, did you believe that the SI initiative would have led to the expected effects?

Scale from 1 (Not at all) to 10 (To a great extent)

Not at all

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

To a great
extent

### E.b.2.4. Changes

When did you start believing that there would be concrete change?

1. I always believed in it

2. During the conception and the reconfiguring process

3. After the first results of the SI project activities

4. I still don't see concrete changes

### E.b.2.5. List of changes

Please list the three major ones:

### E.b.2.6. Proactive individual attitudes

When did your attitude towards the SI process become pro-active?

1. Since the beginning

2. During the ideation and the reconfiguring process

3. After the first results of the SI project activities

4. Not yet

### E.b.2.7. Enthusiasm

Over the period of change, has your level of enthusiasm in the initiative:

1. Worsened

2. Remained the same
<figure><img src="image_220.png" /></figure>

3. Improved

E.b.2.8. Objective obstacles

During the SI process of reconfiguring, were there issues that influenced positively or negatively your expectations/beliefs? Please, list the three main ones, if any.

Positively

1. __________

2. __________

3. __________

Negatively

1. __________

2. __________

3. __________

E.b.2.8. Objective obstacles (to experts)

During the SI process of reconfiguring, were there issues that negatively or positively influenced expectations/beliefs of stakeholders? Please, list the three main ones, if any.

Positively

1. __________

2. __________

3. __________

Negatively

1. __________

2. __________

3. __________

E.b.3. Level of commitment

E.b.3.1. Voluntary

Did you participate in the SI process:

1. Thanks to an economic incentive

2. Because you knew you could receive an economic benefit

3. Without expecting any economic reward

E.b.3.2. Time spent

How much time did you spend during the SI process?

| ____ | (specify the unit (e.g., days, weekly, monthly, yearly): __________)

E.b.3.3. Monetary contribution

Did you provide a monetary contribution? How much?

E.b.3.4. In-kind

Did you contribute in-kind? Please specify the typology.

E.b.3.5. Engagement of civil society

Was there a voluntary engagement of civil society?

E.c. New governance arrangements

E.c.1. Internal

E.c.1.1. Innovative internal governance

To what extent were changes in internal governance processes socially innovative? Please indicate your score
in a scale from "not at all" to "a great extent".

1. Not at all

2. To a small extent

3. To some extent

4. To a great extent
<figure><img src="image_221.png" /></figure>

5. I don't know

E.c.1.2. Internal new ways of organising

During the SI process, did you see new ways of organising?

E.c.1.3. Coordination mechanism

Which new coordination mechanisms did you see? (all that apply)

1. Mutual informal coordination

2. Direct supervision whereby one or a few people take responsibility

3. Standardization of work processes through formal rules

4. Other. Please specify __________

E.c.1.4. Formalisation of rules

To what extent were rules formalised?

1. Not at all

2. To a small extent

3. To some extent

4. To a great extent

5. I don't know

E.c.1.5. Types of rules

Which were, if any, the main formal and informal internal rules for coordination?

<table><thead><tr><th>Formal rules</th><th>Informal rules</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. ____________________</td><td>1. ____________________</td></tr><tr><td>2. ____________________</td><td>2. ____________________</td></tr><tr><td>3. ____________________</td><td>3. ____________________</td></tr></tbody></table>

E.c.1.6. Sanctions

Was there a formalized system of sanctions for those not respecting the internal rules?

1. No

2. Not formalized: sanctions were arranged case by case

3. Yes, there was a gradual system of sanctions, increasing with the level of recidivism

4. Yes, there was a fixed system of sanctions

E.c.1.7. Examples of sanctions

Please, provide some examples of sanctions: ____________________

E.c.1.8. Decision-making process

<table><thead><tr><th>To experts. What was the level of project partners' engagement during the SI process? (Please tick one option)</th><th>To network. What was your level of engagement during the SI process?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Information<br>Consultation<br>Involvement<br>Collaboration<br>Empowerment<br>Total control</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_222.png" /></figure>

### E.c.1.9. Involvement in decision-making

To what extent did you feel that you were being involved in the SI process through specific internal governance arrangements?

1. I was informed of the decisions taken

2. I was consulted before a decision was taken

3. I was involved in decision making

4. I actively collaborated in decision-making

### E.c.1.10. Empowerment

To what extent did you feel that the internal governance arrangements of the SI process empowered you?

1. Not at all

2. To a small extent

3. To some extent

4. To a great extent

5. I don't know

### E.c.1.11. Transparency

Are the decision-making reports or agreements easily available to the project partners of the SI process?

## E.c.2. External

### E.c.2.1. Change

To what extent did formal institutions change to help the SI process?

1. Not at all

2. To a small extent

3. To some extent

4. To a great extent

5. I don't know

### E.c.2.2. New arrangements

Which new policies, laws, regulations, guidelines, codes, and standards arrangements have been adopted/changed/adapted to facilitate the emergence of the SI? (If none, you don't have to fill in the table)

<table><thead><tr><th>Who?</th><th>How?</th><th>What new?</th><th>Describe</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><ul><li>Municipality</li><li>Province</li><li>Region</li><li>Other</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Adopt</li><li>Change</li><li>Adapt</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Policy</li><li>law</li><li>regulation</li><li>guideline</li><li>code</li><li>standard</li><li>Others</li></ul></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><ul><li>Municipality</li><li>Province</li><li>Region</li><li>Other</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Adopt</li><li>Change</li><li>Adapt</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Policy</li><li>law</li><li>regulation</li><li>guideline</li><li>code</li><li>standard</li><li>Others</li></ul></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><ul><li>Municipality</li><li>Province</li><li>Region</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Adopt</li><li>Change</li><li>Adapt</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>Policy</li><li>law</li><li>regulation</li></ul></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_223.png" /></figure>

□ Other

□ guideline

□ code

□ standard

□ Others

E.c.2.3. External new ways of organising

How did external actors help you achieve new ways of organising?

E.c.2.4. Help desk

Did the local government have a help desk dedicated to innovation and research?

## F. PROJECT ACTIVITIES

F.x.n.n.

The following activities are commonly recognized as key for project planning. For each item, we ask you to please tick (providing evidences if necessary) whether you...

a) planned and discussed it

b) formulated it into written tasks and roles

c) applied it in practice.

<table><thead><tr><th>Project plan</th><th>1 Activities: did you plan and discuss about ...?</th><th>2 Procedures: did you formulate the activity into written tasks and roles?</th><th>3 Practices: did you apply it in practice?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>F.a. Planning the initiative</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. New mission and objectives</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>2. List of activities</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>3. Definition of tasks within each activity</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>4. Schedule of activities</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>5. Milestones</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>6. Business plan</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>F.b. Human resources management</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. Compliance with national employment law</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>2. Training for staff</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>3. Gender balance</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>4. Merit-based system</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>F.c. Financial resources management</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1. Inputs to carry out activities</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>2. Budget allocated to each activity</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>3. Source of funding (internal, external) for each budget item</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>4. National public sources of funding</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>5. EU sources of funding</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>6. Participatory or social budgeting</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td><td>□ Yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>F.d. Infrastructural resources management</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_224.png" /></figure>

1. Transport facilitation for employees ☐ Yes

2. Promotion of sustainable practices ☐ Yes

3. Access to recreational facilities ☐ Yes

4. Access to Wi-Fi ☐ Yes

5. Access to open spaces for breaks ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

F.e. External interactions management

1. Communication strategy ☐ Yes

2. Communication and social media managers ☐ Yes

3. Marketing strategy ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

F.f. Administration

1. Archiving system ☐ Yes

2. Accounting staff ☐ Yes

3. Administrative staff ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

F.g. Monitoring and evaluation

1. Monitoring of activities and outputs ☐ Yes

2. Transparency of monitoring process ☐ Yes

3. Annual report ☐ Yes

4. Analysis of external limiting factors ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

☐ Yes ☐ Yes

G. OUTPUTS

G.a. Products and Services

G.a.1. Tangible

G.a.1.1. Considered new

How many new products and/or service did your organisation delivered in the first 18 months? |__|__|

G.a.1.2. New list

Please, list the main ones:

1. __________

2. __________

3. __________

4. __________

5. __________

G.a.2. Intangible

G.a.2.1

Thanks to the SI project, did you have access to new contacts or persons useful for...

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Not at all</th><th>To a small extent</th><th>To some extent</th><th>To a great extent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>...1. Information sharing?</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>...2. Horizontal work/collaboration?</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>...3. Vertical collaboration?</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>...4. New projects?</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>

G.b. Direct beneficiaries

G.b.1.1. Existing beneficiaries
<figure><img src="image_225.png" /></figure>

On average, how many beneficiaries does your organisation work with regularly? | | | |

### G.b.1.2. New beneficiaries

How many new beneficiaries did you reach due to the new products and/or services delivered? | | | |

### G.b.1.3. Characteristics

What are the socio-economic characteristics of the direct beneficiaries?

### G.b.1.4. Marginalised

How many beneficiaries are located within the marginalised rural area? | | | |

### G.b.1.5. Minorities

How many beneficiaries are considered part of groups who are weakly involved in, or excluded by, the community? | | | |

Feel free to add comments on these aspects.

## G.c. Satisfied needs

### G.c.1.

To what extent ...

<figure><img src="image_226.png" /></figure>

### G.c.1.

Specifically, which individual or community needs have been satisfied?

4. Individual needs: 1 __________ 2 __________ 3 __________

5. Collective needs: 1 __________ 2 __________ 3 __________

### G.c.1.6. Success of the SI

With respect to the social needs you wanted to address, do you think the SI project fulfilled them?

1. Not at all

2. To a small extent

3. To some extent

4. To a great extent

### G.c.1.7. Satisfied needs

Please, list the social needs you addressed: __________

# H. OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS

## H.a. Indirect beneficiaries

H.a.1. Does the SI initiative...

Disagree strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Agree Strongly I don't know
<figure><img src="image_227.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>-2</th><th>-1</th><th>0</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>9</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>.1. ...lead to benefits for other indirect beneficiaries as well?</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>.2. ... help to address social problems of the community?</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>

### H.a.1.3. Characteristics

What are the socio-economic characteristics of the indirect beneficiaries?

Feel free to add comments on these aspects.

## H.b. Outcomes

### H.b.1. Societal challenges

Looking at a wider level, do you think that...

H.b.1.1. ...contextual conditions have changed compared to when you initially had the idea?

Use the following scale for CHANGE:

<table><thead><tr><th>Worse</th><th>Slightly worse</th><th>Equal</th><th>Slightly improved</th><th>Improved</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td></tr></tbody></table>

H.b.1.2. ...the SI initiative contributed to address any societal challenges?

Use the following scale for SI CONTRIBUTION:

<table><thead><tr><th>Not at all</th><th>To a small extent</th><th>To some extent</th><th>To a great extent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>Societal challenges</th><th colspan="5">Change</th><th colspan="4">SI contribution</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>(1) Health</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(2) Demographic change</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(3) Income</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(4) Jobs</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(5) Housing</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(6) Life satisfaction</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(7) Education</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(8) Food security</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(9) Sustainable agriculture and forestry</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(10) Water</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(11) Energy</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(12) Transport</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(13) Climate action</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(14) Environment</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(15) Resource efficiency</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr><tr><td>(16) Raw materials</td><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>☐ 1</td><td>☐ 2</td><td>☐ 3</td><td>☐ 4</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_228.png" /></figure>

<table><tr><td>(17)Inclusive societies</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4</td></tr><tr><td>(18)Civic engagements</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4</td></tr><tr><td>(19)Innovative societies</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4</td></tr><tr><td>(20)Secure societies</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4</td></tr><tr><td>(21)Migration</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4</td></tr><tr><td>(22)Freedom</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4</td></tr><tr><td>(23)Security</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4</td></tr></table>

## H.b.2. Governance shifts

### H.b.2.1. Shifts

To what extent do you think that the SI initiative addressed critical elements of local and regional governance?
*Please indicate your score on a scale from "not at all" to "a great extent".*

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Not at all</th><th>To a<br>minor<br>extent</th><th>To some<br>extent</th><th>To a large<br>extent</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Support the involvement of civil society and citizens in decision-making processes</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>2. Support the voice of marginalised citizens</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>3. Ensure gender balance</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>4. Address an overwhelming bureaucracy</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>5. Address obsolete and rigid legal frameworks</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>6. Address brittle and inflexible public administrations</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>7. Address accountability and transparency of public and private organisations</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>8. Address conflict of interests and corruption in public and private organisations</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr><tr><td>9. Others (specify):</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td><td>☐</td></tr></tbody></table>

## H.c. Impacts

### H.c.1. Environmental

#### H.c.1.1. Effects on environmental components

With respect to the initial contextual conditions, what are the environmental components that the SI initiative impacted, directly or indirectly?

<table><thead><tr><th>Environmental component</th><th>Effects caused by the SI initiative</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Air and climatic change</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Water</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Land use and ecosystems</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Raw materials</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Energy</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Biodiversity</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Soil</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Effluents and waste</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Noise</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Landscape</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>

#### H.c.1.2. Direct and indirect environmental effects
<figure><img src="image_229.png" /></figure>

Based on your responses to the previous question, in the following table we listed the main environmental effects that a SI initiative could generate. Please specify whether the SI initiative...

* generated a positive or negative effect, referring to the following scale:

<table><thead><tr><th>Negative</th><th>Slightly negative</th><th>No effect</th><th>Slightly positive</th><th>Positive</th><th>I don't know</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>empty</td></tr></tbody></table>

* generated the effect directly or indirectly

(Consider only the effects within the components selected in the previous question. If the respondent does not know the answer on one or more effect, leave the corresponding raw "empty")

<table><thead><tr><th>Components</th><th>Effects to be considered</th><th>Negative-Positive</th><th>Direct-Indirect</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="7">Air and climatic change</td><td>Direct GHG emissions</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect GHG emissions (CO2, ...)</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Other non-GHG emissions</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Emissions of other types of pollutants</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Carbon stock, wood products, pastures, meadows</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Climatic conditions</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Extreme climatic events</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">Water</td><td>Quality of surface</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of groundwater</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity consumption</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Groundwater recharge</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Water recycled and reused</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Water cycle regulation</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Water resources differentiation</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity: area of crops, forests, pastures, etc.</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Land use and ecosystems</td><td>Ecosystem functioning</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Quality: semi-natural forests vs. plantations, etc.</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Quality: primary forests, stable meadows, etc.</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Growing stocks</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Fish resources</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Land use degradation</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Invasive species</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Raw materials</td><td>Production of wood and/or renewable materials</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Consumption of wood and renewable materials</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Consumption of oil and non-renewable materials</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Consumption of other raw material</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Recycled materials</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Reclaimed materials</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Food for animals</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Energy</td><td>On-site energy generation</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Energy consumption</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr></tbody></table>