<figure><img src="image_230.png" /></figure>

<table><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Production of energy</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Energy efficiency</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Energy self-sufficiency</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Use of renewable sources</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Non-renewable sources used</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="9">Biodiversity</td><td>Fauna</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Flora</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Habitats</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>IUCN Red List species and species at risk and threatened</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Genetic resources</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Use of Genetically Modified Organisms</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>Protected and of high biodiversity value areas</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Deadwood in forest and other wooded land</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Ecological connectivity</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Respect of traditional/cultural heritage species</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Soil</td><td>Chemical soil properties</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Soil compaction from machine operations or other</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Soil erosion</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Pollution (chemical fertilizers, pesticides, other)</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Effluents and waste</td><td>Water discharge</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Produced quantity of waste</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Production of compost</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Share of waste to be recycled or reused</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Disposal systems</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Noise</td><td>Quantity and use of by-products</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Frequency</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Intensity</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Sources (punctual, diffused)</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Landscape</td><td>Aesthetic value</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Restored areas</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Land use diversification</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Ecological corridors having a visual impact</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Respect of traditional/cultural heritage landscapes</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr></tbody></table>

### H.c.1.3. In-depth analysis

Select the three main negative and positive environmental effects based on the selection made in the previous question. We ask you to please specify:

* the root cause of each effect

* affected stakeholders

* management measures adopted (if any)
<figure><img src="image_231.png" /></figure>

* Level of control and influence [0-4]

* Sensibility of the local context [0-4]

* Frequency [0-4]

* Intensity [0-4]

* Risk (if negative) or Opportunity (if positive) [0-4]

<table><thead><tr><th>Significant effects</th><th>What Is the root cause of it?</th><th>Which specific stakeholders does this affect?</th><th>Is there an effective management measure?</th><th>Control and influence</th><th>Sensitivity</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Intensity</th><th>Risk</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Negative Effects</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Positive Effects</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

## H.c.2. Economic

### H.c.2.1. Effects on economic components

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

<table><thead><tr><th>Economic component</th><th>Effects caused by the SI initiative</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>The SI initiative in itself</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Other organizations connected to the SI</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Other economic actors in the territory</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>

### H.c.2.2. Economic effects

Based on your responses to the previous question, in the following table we listed the main economic 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="4">The SI initiative in itself</td><td>Revenues</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Production costs</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Ordinary transaction costs</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Switching costs</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_232.png" /></figure>

<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="14"></td><td>Assets</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Import/export rate</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Employees wages and benefits</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Labour productivity</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Voluntary work</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Internal total investments</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Share of internal investments in R&D to SI</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Value added</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution of the SI to the total GDP</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Market share (at national, regional, local levels)</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Assistance received from government</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Support from sponsor, donor, bank</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Financial implications of risks and opportunities</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Financial solidity for liabilities</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Social externalities</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental externalities</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Other organisations connected with the SI (satellite activities)</td><td>Economic value distributed by the SI</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Payments to providers of capital</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Payments to the public sector (at any level)</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Investments in R&D within the network</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Value added</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Access to credit</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Productivity of the satellite activities</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Wages of employees in satellite activities</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Creation and/or inclusion of new business</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Social externalities</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental externalities</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">The rest of the economic actors in the territory</td><td>Investments in infrastructures for community</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Services and facilities supported by the SI</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Productivity of the satellite activities/organisations</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Wages of employees in satellite activities</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Other businesses/organisations in the territory</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Social externalities</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Environmental externalities</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr></tbody></table>

### H.c.2.3. In-depth analysis

Select the three main negative and positive economic effects based on the selection made in the previous question. We ask you to please specify:

* the root cause of each effect

* affected stakeholders

* management measures adopted (if any)
<figure><img src="image_233.png" /></figure>

* Level of control and influence [0-4]

* Sensibility of the local context [0-4]

* Frequency [0-4]

* Intensity [0-4]

* Risk (if negative) or Opportunity (if positive) [0-4]

<table><thead><tr><th>Significant effects</th><th>What Is the root cause of it?</th><th>Which specific stakeholders does this affect?</th><th>Is there an effective management measure?</th><th>Control and influence</th><th>Sensibility</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Intensity</th><th>Risk</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Negative Effects</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Positive Effects</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### H.c.3. Social

#### H.c.3.1. Effects on social components

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

<table><thead><tr><th>Social component</th><th>Any effect caused by the SI initiative?</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Labour</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Civic engagement</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Housing</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Life satisfaction</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Work life balance</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Community</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Social protection and wellbeing</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Health and well being</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Safety</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Poverty and social exclusion</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Migrants / Refugees</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Disability</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Youth</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Ecosystem services and human-connection</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>

#### H.c.3.2. Direct and indirect social effects

Based on your responses to the previous question, in the following table we listed the main social 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><tr><td>Negative</td><td>Slightly negative</td><td>No effect</td><td>Slightly positive</td><td>Positive</td><td>I don't know</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_234.png" /></figure>

<table><tr><td>☐ -2</td><td>☐ -1</td><td>☐ 0</td><td>☐ +1</td><td>☐ +2</td><td>empty</td></tr></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="10">Labour</td><td>Employment rate</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term unemployment rate</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Average earnings</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Job security</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Employment protection</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Employee hires (by age group, gender and region)</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Employee turnover</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Part-time employees (full time and involuntary)</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Parental leave (by gender)</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Education</td><td>Labour market programmes</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Job quality</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Employment in different sectors</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Years in education</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Educational attainment, labour market outcomes</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Civic engagement</td><td>Students' skills</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Transition from school to work</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Share of enrolment by gender</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Student-teacher ratio and average class size</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Adult education and learning</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Comparing innovation in education with sectors</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Housing</td><td>Voter turnout</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Engagement for developing regulations</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Willingness to join political parties</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Life satisfaction</td><td>Rooms per person, dwellings with basic facilities</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Housing expenditure</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Work life balance</td><td>Life satisfaction</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Freedom of choice</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Happiness, satisfaction and control</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Community</td><td>Employees working long hours</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Time devoted to leisure and personal care</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of work</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Community</td><td>Work ethos</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Social support network</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Solidarity</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Community</td><td>Intolerance</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_235.png" /></figure>

<table><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Living and race</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Social capital (bridging, bonding, linking)</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Social capital (structural, relational, cognitive)</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Social protection and wellbeing</td><td>Social expenditure</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Pensions</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Income distribution and poverty</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Wealth distribution</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Gender (education, entrepreneurship, work)</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Family</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="14">Health</td><td>Child wellbeing</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Health expenditure and financing</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Health status</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Life expectancy</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Mortality</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Maternal and infant mortality</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Morbidity</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Self-reported health</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived health status by socio-economic status</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Infant health</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Absence from work due to illness</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Non-medical determinants of health</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Alcohol consumption</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Tobacco consumption</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Health care resources</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Total health and social employment</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Physicians (by age, gender, categories)</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Midwives</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Nurses</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Caring personnel (personal care workers)</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Hospitals / hospital beds</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Health workforce migration</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Health care utilisation</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Waiting times</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Health care quality</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Primary care</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Acute care</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Mental health care</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Patient safety</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Patient experience</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Cancer care</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Pharmaceutical market</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Safety</td><td>Feeling safe walking alone at night</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Homicide rate</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Poverty and</td><td>People at risk of poverty</td><td>□-2 □-1 □0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_236.png" /></figure>

<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="7">social exclusion</td><td>People at risk of social exclusion</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>People at risk of poverty after social transfers</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>At-risk-of-poverty rate before social transfers</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Severely materially deprived people</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>People living in households with low work</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>In-work-at-risk-of-poverty rate</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Retirement provision</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Migrants / Refugees</td><td>Child poverty</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Employment rate (by gender, age and region)</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Educational attainment</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Rooms per person, dwellings with basic facilities</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Disability</td><td>Disability and invalidity coverage</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Youth</td><td>Labour force participation rate</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployment rate (by age and gender)</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Rehabilitation</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Income</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Vocational students trained</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Adult continuing education</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Living conditions - young people</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Ecosystem services and human-connection</td><td>Being young in Europe today - family and society</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Being young in Europe today - living conditions</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Intergenerational transmission of disadvantage</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Family situation of today's adults as children</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Young people - housing conditions</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Young people - social inclusion</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>migration and socioeconomic situation</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Employment in agriculture/forestry/third sector</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Start-up in agriculture/ forestry/third sector</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Provisioning: food</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Regulating and maintenance</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Cultural</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr></tbody></table>

### H.c.3.3. In-depth analysis

Select the three main negative and positive social effects based on the selection made in the previous question. We ask you to please specify:

* the root cause of each effect

* affected stakeholders

* management measures adopted (if any)
<figure><img src="image_237.png" /></figure>

* Level of control and influence [0-4]

* Sensibility of the local context [0-4]

* Frequency [0-4]

* Intensity [0-4]

* Risk (if negative) or Opportunity (if positive) [0-4]

<table><thead><tr><th>Significant effects</th><th>What Is the root cause of it?</th><th>Which specific stakeholders does this affect?</th><th>Is there an effective management measure?</th><th>Control and influence</th><th>Sensitivity</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Intensity</th><th>Risk</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Negative Effects</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Positive Effects</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

### H.c.4. Institutional

#### H.c.4.1. Effects on institutional components

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

<table><thead><tr><th>Institutional component</th><th>Effect caused by the SI initiative</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Internal governance of the SI initiative</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Local and cross-boundary governance (horizontal)</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Multi-level governance (vertical)</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Governance mechanisms</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Governance tools</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr><tr><td>Good governance</td><td>☐ Yes</td></tr></tbody></table>

#### H.c.4.2. Direct and indirect institutional effects

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

(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="4">Internal governance (of the SI initiative)</td><td>Leadership</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Incentives</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Composition of the decision-making board</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Government (public actor) as SI shareholder</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Formal and informal agreements</td><td>☐ -2 ☐ -1 ☐ 0 ☐ +1 ☐ +2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_238.png" /></figure>

<table><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Internal decision making: rules setting</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Internal decision making: rules implementation</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Internal decision making: rules enforcement</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Internal collaborative learning processes</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Corporate social responsibility (CSR)</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Resilience (e.g., diversification of fund sources)</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Internal interdependence</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Uncertainty</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Collaborative dynamics and actions</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Local and cross-boundary governance (based on horizontal networks within the same administrative level)</td><td>Policy networks</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Local public-private partnerships</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Other types of public-private networks</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Decision making on standards and rules setting</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Decision making on implementation of rules</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Decision making on enforcement of rules</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Quality of public services</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Resilience of the community</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborative learning processes</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Place-based local collaboration</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Conflict resolution processes at the local level</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Institutional arrangements for cross-boundary collaboration</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Interdependence</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Collective uncertainty</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Multi-level governance (based on vertical networks crossing administrative levels)</td><td>Decentralization of policies and processes</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Higher government support to local public actors</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Vertical public-private partnerships</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Multi-level interactions and collaborative learning</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Interdependence</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Cross-level coherence and consistency</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Cross-level conflict resolution mechanisms</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7">Governance mechanisms (it applies to the internal, local and multi-level governance)</td><td>Decentralisation</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Privatization</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborative governance</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Dialogue</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Consensus-building</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Networking</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Coordination</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Empowerment of citizens and</td><td>□-2 □-1 □ 0 □+1 □+2</td><td>□ Dir. □ Ind.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_239.png" /></figure>

<table><tbody><tr><td></td><td>institutions</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Citizen engagement mechanisms</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Systematic CSR reporting</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Transaction systems</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Capacity-building</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Modernisation of public administrations</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Public sector reforms</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Opening of the public sector</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Collaborative learning processes</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Place-based regional collaboration</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Conflict resolution processes</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Responsiveness</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Governance tools (it applies to the internal, local and multi-level governance)</td><td>Digital technologies</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Participatory techniques for decision support</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborative informal platforms and programs</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>CSR principles and tools</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Recognition tools (e.g., incubators, hubs, forums)</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Benchmarking and impact measurement</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Good governance (it applies to the internal, local and multi-level governance)</td><td>Data, knowledge, and experience sharing</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Experimentation of new governance arrangement</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Legality (e.g., anti-corruption measures)</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Respect of human rights</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Sustainability (impacts)</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td>Efficiency (e.g., resources allocation)</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Effectiveness (e.g., objectives vs. outputs)</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Participation</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Transparency/openness</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Reciprocity</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Accountability (e.g., monitoring)</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Capacity (e.g., competences, professionalism)</td><td>☐-2 ☐-1 ☐ 0 ☐+1 ☐+2</td><td>☐ Dir. ☐ Ind.</td></tr></tbody></table>

### H.c.4.3. In-depth analysis

Select the three main negative and positive institutional effects, based on the selection made in the previous question. We ask you to please specify:

* the root cause of each effect

* affected stakeholders

* management measures adopted (if any)

* Level of control and influence [0-4]

* Sensibility of the local context [0-4]

* Frequency [0-4]

* Intensity [0-4]

* Risk (if negative) or Opportunity (if positive) [0-4]
<figure><img src="image_240.png" /></figure>

<table><thead><tr><th>Significant effects</th><th>What Is the root cause of it?</th><th>Which specific stakeholders does this affect?</th><th>Is there an effective management measure?</th><th>Control and influence</th><th>Sensitivity</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Intensity</th><th>Risk</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Negative Effects</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Positive Effects</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

# I. INNOVATION & LEARNING PROCESS

## I.a. Feedback loops

### I.a.1. Local

I.a.1.1. Local community

Did you present your results to the local community? ☐ Yes ☐ No

I.a.1.2. Events

Did you organise specific events to share the results of your SI initiative? ☐ Yes ☐ No

I.a.1.3. Project partners' feedback

Did you collect feedback from your project partners? ☐ Yes ☐ No

I.a.1.4. External donors

Did you show your results to external donors? ☐ Yes ☐ No

I.a.1.5. Local politicians

Did you show your results to local politicians? ☐ Yes ☐ No

I.a.1.6. Perceived marginality (ex post)

Do you agree that the social innovation initiative has reduced the level of marginality of your territory (ex post)? ☐ Yes ☐ No

I.a.1.7. Elements of MRA (ex post)

Thanks to the social innovation, which are the five main elements indicating that the marginalisation of your territory have been reduced?

1. __________

2. __________

3. __________

4. __________

5. __________

### I.a.2. Bridging at the higher level

I.a.2.1. External events

Did you participate at external events (fairs), outside of your territory? ☐ Yes ☐ No

I.a.2.2. Regional politicians

Did you show your results to regional politicians? ☐ Yes ☐ No
<figure><img src="image_241.png" /></figure>

I.a.2.3. National politicians

Did you show your results to national politicians?

☐ Yes

☐ No

## I.b. Multiplier and critical effects

### I.b.1. Mainstreaming

I.b.1.1. Mainstreaming

Do you think that your SI initiative remains innovative to this day?

☐ Yes

☐ No

I.b.1.2. Years

How many years do you think will pass before the effects of your SI innovation become a normality? |__|__|

### I.b.2. Upscaling

I.b.2.1. Effects at higher scales

Do you think that the effects of your SI initiatives reached higher levels than the local?

☐ Yes

☐ No

I.b.2.2. National laws

Has your SI initiative allowed the creation of any national/international law/standard?

☐ Yes

☐ No

### I.b.3. Outscaling

I.b.3.1. Replications

Has someone replicated your SI initiative in other contexts?

☐ Yes

☐ No

I.b.3.2. Number of examples

If yes, how many? |__|__| please, provide some examples: __________

I.b.3.3. Adaptations

Has someone used your idea, adapting it to their context?

☐ Yes

☐ No

I.b.3.4. Number of adaptations

If yes, how many? |__|__| please, provide some examples: __________

I.b.3.5. Aggregation

Is there a national/international aggregation of similar initiatives?

☐ Yes

☐ No

## I.b.4. Critical effects

I.b.4.1. Deadweight

Can you identify effects in the local context which would have arisen even if the SI initiative had not taken place?

I.b.4.2. Displacement

Can you identify effects which have been obtained in the local area at the expense of another area?

I.b.4.3. Substitution.

Can you identify effects which have been obtained in the local area at the expense of other persons/organisations/enterprises?
<figure><img src="image_242.png" /></figure>

## Annex 2 – List of Key Terms to Facilitate the Pilot Test

A list of key terms is provided which are used in the preliminary set of methods in pilot tests of pioneer SI case studies in the SIMRA evaluation framework. The terms are in the logical order of concepts as listed in the framework, and in the list of questions. A few key terms are included which are not in the evaluation framework but may be useful for the CS Teams to familiarize with the methods and instruments (e.g. assessment, evaluation). The SI dimensions are highlighted in capital letters.

<table><thead><tr><td>Key terms, SI Dimensions and Sub-Dimensions</td><td>Definition adopted or developed for SIMRA for evaluation purposes</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Assessment</td><td>"The action of assessing something" (Oxford Dictionary, 2017)</td></tr><tr><td>Evaluation</td><td>"Evaluation is a process of judgement of interventions according to their results, impacts and the needs they aim to satisfy. Evaluation looks at the effectiveness, the efficiency, the coherence and at the relevance of an intervention" (EC DG Agri, 2015: 66). "Evaluation refers to the process of determining the worth or significance of an activity, policy, or program. [It is] as systematic and objective as possible, of a planned, on-going, or completed intervention" (Morra Imas and Rist, 2009: 9).</td></tr><tr><td>INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE NEEDS</td><td>In SIMRA, the dimension INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE NEEDS refers to the needs/challenges to which a social innovation should respond and address as part of its effects. It includes four sub-dimensions: Trigger; Social needs; Societal challenges; Governance shifts.</td></tr><tr><td>Trigger</td><td>Trigger refers to a punctual event or a situation "that causes something to start" (Cambridge Dictionary, 2017). A trigger may emerge in connection to a single time-bound event (e.g. a three-days extreme flooding event); an accumulation of unmet needs, (e.g. a prolonged period with worsening social life because of depopulation); or from a long-term process, whereby a situation becomes untenable (e.g. a critical demographic situation reached as consequence of a process of ageing and abandonment of a mountain area). In SIMRA, we consider trigger to be an event that determines or accentuates needs – to the point of deserving a response and a change in practice. We identify Type of trigger as a component.</td></tr><tr><td>Social needs</td><td>Social needs refers to demands of vulnerable groups in society. These include minorities or local indigenous groups, women, people with intellectual and/or physical disabilities, long-term unemployed, elders, children and youth, offenders, low income families (BEPA, 2011). In SIMRA, the components are: individual needs and collective needs.</td></tr><tr><td>Societal challenges</td><td>A challenge refers to something that needs great mental or physical effort to be done successfully and therefore tests a person's ability (Cambridge Dictionary, 2017) Societal challenges refer to social, economic, institutional and environmental challenges that require adoption of strategies of adaptation. These could include natural disturbances such as negative trends in the availability or access to natural resources due to climate change and resource and landscape loss and depletion, or social change, such as ageing, in- and out-migration, declining population, conflict, war and social unrest, or criminality (BEPA, 2011). In SIMRA, the components comprise: Type of societal challenges.</td></tr><tr><td>Governance shifts</td><td>Governance shifts refer to a limited or absent capacity of the governance system to adapt to changing circumstances. Inadequacies include ineffectiveness in the involvement of civil society and citizens in decision-making processes, lack of a voice of marginalised citizens, unbalanced representation of women in decision-making positions, overwhelming bureaucracy, obsolete and rigid legal frameworks, brittle and inflexible public administrations. In SIMRA, the components comprise: Type of governance shifts.</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_243.png" /></figure>

<table><tr><td>PERCEIVED CONTEXT</td><td>This dimension refers to the conditions that enable or constrain social innovation, such as the regulatory frameworks (laws, legislation and policy); overall governance and institutional arrangements, both formal and informal; material resources such as availability of funding, raw materials, natural resources and existing infrastructures. It also includes intangible resources such as social memory, culture and identity, discourses, and historical background. These resources are identified as the five capitals (social, natural, human, financial, cultural) (Goodwin, 2003) or as "resource systems", "resource units", and include elements of the "governance systems" and "actors" (McGinnis and Ostrom, 2014). In SIMRA, PERCEIVED CONTEXT refers to the tangible and intangible resources that are available, supportive, accessible to, recognised and ultimately used by actors or agents (and that can enable or hinder) the process of reconfiguring relations and social practices and putting in place mechanisms for SI. It includes two sub-dimensions: i) a static one, based on existing context and resources (Context); i) a dynamic and subjective one, based on the perceptions and framing of actors on what is considered as an opportunity or a threat (Perceived opportunities and threats). Context includes the factors of marginality identified by SIMRA (Price et al., 2017; D3.1): Level of rurality, Physical geography marginality, Limited access to infrastructure, Population marginalisation, and other relevant factors selected by the evaluator. Perceived opportunities and threats refer to the subjective understanding and perception of the external economic, social, environmental and institutional context by ACTORS who initiate an ACTION.</td></tr><tr><td>Marginalised Rural Area (MRA)</td><td>The core characteristics for defining marginalised rural areas within SIMRA and principal sources of data are defined in Price et al. (2017; D3.1). These are: 1) rural area (EC / population density), assumed to contain identifiable communities; 2) marginal in terms of their physical geography (i.e. spatial marginality): 2.a) mountainous), 2.b) limited connectivity as islands, 2.c) low agricultural potential due to aridity; 3) marginal in terms of limited access to infrastructure, using indicators of access to the internet from home, and accessibility by local road transport; 4) marginalised populations: inhabitants with (very) low incomes (as measured by GDP). The approach taken recognises that the definitions of rural and marginalised are contentious when expressed geographically, and that the overall objective is to enable consideration of factors influencing, stimulating or inhibiting social innovation in MRAs</td></tr><tr><td>AGENCY</td><td>Generally, agency refers to "the actor's capacity to reinterpret and mobilize an array of resources in terms of cultural schemas other than those that initially constituted the array" (Sewell 1992: 19). In SIMRA, AGENCY refers to how actors or groups of actors seek to change practices to respond to specific needs, and power to actually sustain their collective action toward specific goals (Sewell Jr, 1992; Janssen and Ostrom, 2006; Westley et al., 2013; Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). Agency includes visions and trust, willingness to act, reflexivity and capacity for change which influence how actors or groups of actors seek to change practices to respond to specific needs. It also includes their level of motivation and power to act and sustain their action toward specific goals. In the evaluation framework, agency is described with dimensions AGENCY-AGENTS (actors and drivers of preliminary actions) and AGENCY-PRELIMINARY ACTION.</td></tr><tr><td>AGENTS-ACTORS</td><td>"SI-agents can include individual and collective human actors but also ideas, objects, activities, discourses and narratives of change" (Haxeltine et al., 2016: 23). In SIMRA, AGENCY-ACTORS can refer to an individual, but more commonly to a group of individuals in an organisation or network. The dimension aims to capture the identity, aspirations, awareness, and capabilities of actors and includes the sub-dimensions innovative idea, clique of actors (inventor(s) and followers), visions and trust, willingness to act, reflexivity and capacity for change.</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_244.png" /></figure>

<table><tr><td>Innovative idea/s</td><td>In SIMRA, innovative ideas refer to a new product, service, process, procedure, practice, or organisation. The components for evaluation include Typology of innovation and Novelty.</td></tr><tr><td>Clique</td><td>In SIMRA, clique draws from Social Network Analysis and refers to the initial group of innovators/inventors and their initial follower(s) who were involved at the preliminary stages of initiating a social innovation initiative. Together with innovative idea, visions and trust, willingness to act, reflexivity and capacity for change, the clique represents a sub-dimension of AGENCY-ACTORS.</td></tr><tr><td>Innovators</td><td>Innovators are the key leaders and first drivers of innovation. Innovators are identifiable individuals who had the idea, invented it, discovered it or were attracted to it. They can be members of an organisation/association or act "autonomously" to start the innovation; members of the local community, or external to the community (e.g. newcomers or people who spent time training or working somewhere else).</td></tr><tr><td>Followers</td><td>Followers are the first to adopt or support the idea of the innovator, they can be co-creators or identify a good idea and identify a practical approach to carry it forward. They can be skilled at its promotion or dissemination at an early stage. Together with the innovator, they constitute the first clique and start to implement the idea, which is later consolidated by implementers.</td></tr><tr><td>Transformers</td><td>Transformers are people who adopt an idea at an early stage and spread it to other people in the network.</td></tr><tr><td>Implementers or mainstreamers</td><td>Implementers or mainstreamers are people who follow the crowd, and adopt a new idea after other people do.</td></tr><tr><td>Vision and trust</td><td>Vision and trust refer to the components of shared visions and social relationships and interpersonal trust.</td></tr><tr><td>Willingness to act</td><td>In SIMRA, willingness to act refers to the characteristics of the individual that support engagement in the reconfiguring (change) process, such as location and personal experience (e.g. relation to the community, experience, competences) and sense of challenge (challenge and resilience).</td></tr><tr><td>Reflexivity</td><td>"'Reflexivity' implies that actors have the capacity to monitor routinely their actions by reflecting upon them and acting according to their intentions. Reflexivity stands for the continuous monitoring of the social context and the activities taking place within this context" (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014: 47). In SIMRA, reflexivity refers to the development and evolution of the idea and its implementation, in terms of possible modifications, reasons and approaches, supported by critical reflection.</td></tr><tr><td>Capacity for change</td><td>In SIMRA, capacity for change refers to the capacities and capabilities of the individual in changing social practices. Key components are related to competences, leadership and entrepreneurship. Competences refer to skills. Leadership refers to capacity of individuals to lead collective action and be respected as a leader based on previous experiences, i.e. accountability (Westley et al., 2013); it can refer to entrepreneurship (Bund et al., 2015), administrative and political leadership (Bekkers et al., 2013), or community leadership (Ostrom, 2005).</td></tr><tr><td>AGENCY - PREPARATORY ACTION</td><td>AGENCY - PREPARATORY ACTION refers to the preparatory activities that social inventors and innovators (individuals or collectively) carry out preparations for the RECONFIGURING process. They can include benchmarking, identifying partnerships needed and contacting possible partners, seeking legal and technical information for business and contractual agreements, communicating the idea to the local community for improving awareness and building consensus, and screening potential consultants to be hired for future programming and planning. These actions prepare the ground for collective action in the reconfiguring phase. The sub-dimensions of AGENCY-ACTION are: Availability of resources; Idea formulation and communication; Information collection and readiness; Identification of partners and stakeholders.</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_245.png" /></figure>

<table><tr><td>Social innovation</td><td>Social innovation refers to the RECONFIGURING of social practices, in response to societal challenges, which seeks to enhance outcomes on societal well-being and necessarily includes the engagement of civil society actors (Polman et al., 2017).</td></tr><tr><td>SOCIAL PRACTICES</td><td>Social practices "refer to everyday practices and the way they are typically and habitually performed in (much of) a society" (Holz, 2014: 1). They are 'types' of behaving and understanding that are similar for different individuals at different points of time and locations (Reckwitz, 2002: 250). In SIMRA, social practices refer to the sub-dimensions networks, governance arrangements and attitudes that are reconfigured by agency during the social innovation process.</td></tr><tr><td>RECONFIGURING OF SOCIAL PRACTICES</td><td>The reconfiguring of social practices refers to the process initiated by the inventor/innovator and followers and implemented by the implementers and mainstreamers. It represents the core of the social innovation process and is thus subject to a detailed evaluation of: i) who is involved; ii) how long the process takes; iii) where; iv) through which instruments. The evaluation framework includes an analysis of the reconfiguring of networks, attitudes and governance arrangements.</td></tr><tr><td>RECONFIGURED SOCIAL PRACTICES</td><td>In SIMRA, RECONFIGURED SOCIAL PRACTICES are distinguished from the reconfiguring phase to underlie that the SI process led to new networks, new governance arrangements or new attitudes. The evaluation framework analyses: i) how the reconfigured practice is functioning, ii) the instruments and/or procedures (e.g. which internal rules and mechanisms, what communication tools, what procedures for taking the decisions); iii) where it is located (e.g. where a new network was established).</td></tr><tr><td>Networks (new)</td><td>New networks can include new "rules" in terms of forms of interaction amongst actors: public and different types of private actors and organisations such as the civil society and the market. These forms of interaction include different forms of relationship (e.g. formal/informal, inclusive/exclusive, economic/ social). Changes in networks can be explored by looking at the: i) composition of the network; ii) structure of the network; iii) relationships; iv) dynamism of boundaries/participation; v) coordination. In SIMRA, the components of new networks are analysed according to: Composition of the network, Structure of the network, Relationships.</td></tr><tr><td>Attitudes (new)</td><td>Attitudes are "social rules" in their broad meaning of informal institutions (North, 1990), beliefs, values and discourses. For ease of analysis, in the evaluation framework formal institutions are included within "governance arrangements", and informal institutions as "customs, beliefs, (social) norms, values, historical experiences, ..." are included under "attitudes" to highlight their role in social innovation (Sabatier, 1988; Pasqual et al., 2017). Attitudes are a predisposition or a tendency to respond positively or negatively towards a certain idea, object, person, or situation. Attitude influences an individual's choice of action, and responses to challenges, incentives, and rewards (together called stimuli). In SIMRA, four major components of new attitude are identified in the evaluation framework: Level of sharing; Informal institution and level of commitment.</td></tr><tr><td>Governance arrangements (new)</td><td>In the evaluation framework, new governance arrangements are procedural and/or decisional changes and adaptations, which appear in relation to new roles of public entities/authorities as supporters of social innovations (e.g. change in an administrative procedure or in a phase of decision-making processes to support the action of the agency at local level). They refer to what public authorities do (change/adapt) when involved in reconfiguring practices, both as external or internal nodes of the network. In the SIMRA evaluation framework, the components of new governance arrangements include: Internal and External governance.</td></tr><tr><td>Initiative of Social Innovation</td><td>In SIMRA, a social innovation initiative starts at the phase AGENCY-ACTORS and ends with the RECONFIGURED SOCIAL PRACTICES.</td></tr><tr><td>SI project</td><td>Following reconfiguration, the SI Project begins with ACTIVITIES.</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_246.png" /></figure>

<table><tr><td>ACTIVITIES</td><td>ACTIVITIES refer to all those daily working tasks, procedures and practical solutions that are implemented in practice for managing the social innovation initiative (i.e. the reconfigured social practices). Activities focus on SI management and planning issues, i.e. what is done, by whom, how and by means of which instruments. In SIMRA, each sub-dimension identifies the components of Activities, Procedures and Practices. This division allows the capturing of the difference between what was thought about and discussed (Activities), what was formulated into specific roles and tasks (Procedures), and what was implemented and carried out (Activities). The sub-dimensions of ACTIVITIES are: Planning the initiative, Human resources management, Financial resources management, Infrastructural resources management, Management of external interactions, Document management and administration, Monitoring and evaluation.</td></tr><tr><td>Procedures</td><td>Procedures are specifications of how activities should be carried out daily, and/or relational activities. Procedures can be in written form, or agreed orally and adopted in daily tasks. They imply different tasks for people, with different roles and responsibilities that are engaged in the management of the SI (i.e. organisational flow charts in businesses).</td></tr><tr><td>Practices</td><td>Practices refer to the practical implementation of procedures (informally or formally). Sometimes, practices diverge from procedures, as occurs when what is done in practice is different from what should be done according to the procedures.</td></tr><tr><td>Planning the initiative</td><td>The evaluation framework analyses the planning of the initiative, in terms of how it is planned and formulated in procedures, and managed in practice (e.g. mission and objectives, list of activities, definition of tasks, schedule of activities, milestones and business plan).</td></tr><tr><td>Human resources management</td><td>The evaluation framework analyses how human resources are planned and formulated in procedures, and managed in practice (e.g. based on compliance with the law, training for staff, gender balance, merit-based system).</td></tr><tr><td>Financial resources management</td><td>The evaluation framework analyses how financial resources are planned and formulated in procedures, and managed in practice (e.g. inputs to carry out activities, budgets allocated to each activity, internal and external sources of funding, national and EU sources of funding, and participatory or social budgeting).</td></tr><tr><td>Infrastructural resources management</td><td>The evaluation framework analyses how infrastructural resources are planned and formulated in procedure, and managed in practice (e.g. transportation facilitation for employees, promotion of sustainable practices, access to recreational facilities and wifi, access to open spaces).</td></tr><tr><td>Management of external interactions</td><td>The evaluation framework analyses how external interactions are planned and formulated in procedures, and managed in practice (e.g. communication, social media and marketing strategy).</td></tr><tr><td>Administration</td><td>The evaluation framework analyses how administration is planned and formulated in procedures, and managed in practice (e.g. archiving system, accounting, administrative staff)</td></tr><tr><td>Monitoring and evaluation</td><td>The evaluation framework analyses how monitoring and evaluation activities are planned and formulated in procedures, and managed in practice (e.g. monitoring of activities and outputs, transparency of monitoring processes, reporting, analysis).</td></tr><tr><td>OUTPUTS</td><td>Output refers to an "action which is financed and accomplished (or concretised) with the money allocated to an intervention. A project promoter undertakes to produce an output in immediate exchange for the support granted" (EC, 2015: 76). In SIMRA, outputs are the immediate results of using inputs through the process of social innovation. They are identifiable, often tangible, and refer to the creation of opportunities for changes in interactions and behaviour. They are results of the SI and are within the control of the SI implementation agency. The sub-dimensions of Outputs</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_247.png" /></figure>

<table><tr><td></td><td>are: Products and Services, Direct beneficiaries and Satisfying needs.</td></tr><tr><td>Products and services</td><td>Products and services are the first outcome of the social innovation and can be tangible or intangible. For example, outputs may refer to the inclusion of disabled persons in a farming activity, educational sessions on the transition to low carbon energy systems or organic farming and e-marketing tools.</td></tr><tr><td>Beneficiaries</td><td>Someone who derives direct advantage from the social innovation. They can be people or communities who derive new benefits currently or in the future, or be in the marginalised rural areas and/or part of a minority.</td></tr><tr><td>Satisfied needs</td><td>Outputs should be able to satisfy the needs initially identified, i.e. the reasons for why agency initiated a SI reconfiguring process. In this sense, outputs are related to the relevance and the appropriateness of the process of social innovation to individual and collective needs.</td></tr><tr><td>OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS</td><td>The evaluation framework focuses on the impacts of social innovation from an economic, social and environmental perspective, as well as of governance/institutional aspects in a marginalised rural area.</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect beneficiaries</td><td>Outcomes/impacts belong to the same category of effects of the SI, but affect different groups: while outcomes are effects on direct beneficiaries, impacts are effects on indirect beneficiaries.</td></tr><tr><td>Outcomes</td><td>Outcomes are behavioural changes determined by the SI initiative, intended and unintended, positive or negative (Binnendijk, 2000), that produce new routines, decisions, rules and institutions. Outcomes of SI can have a much broader effect than in the original site of emergence, shifting social arrangements and institutional relations and values at the meso and macro levels as well (e.g. policy reform, regional or national reconfiguration of social services). In this case, when they affect also 'indirect beneficiaries' of the SI initiative, they shift into the category of impacts.</td></tr><tr><td>Impacts</td><td>"Impact describes all the changes which are expected to happen due to the implementation and application of a given policy option/intervention. Such impacts may occur over different timescales, affect different actors and be relevant at different scales (local, regional, national and EU). In an evaluation context, impact refers to the changes associated with a particular intervention which occur over the longer term" (EC, 2015: 70). The OECD defines impact as "the positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended (Measuring impact involves determining the main impacts and effects of an activity on local social, economic, environmental, and other development indicators. The examination should be concerned with both intended and unintended results and must include the positive and negative impact of external factors, such as changes in terms of trade and financial conditions) [OECD 1991b]." (Morra-Imas and Rist, 2009: 30). In SI initiatives, impacts should be positive, but might also be negative. They can include the creation of goods and improved access conditions, enhancement of cohesion and well-being, competitiveness, self-organisation and resilience, and higher education and skills (Polman et al., 2017; D2.1). In SIMRA, impacts can be social, economic, environmental and institutional.</td></tr><tr><td>LEARNING PROCESSES</td><td>In the evaluation framework, learning processes are identified through feedback loops and multiplier and critical effects. Feedback loops occur both within the local level, as well as in bridging with higher levels.</td></tr><tr><td>Feedback loops</td><td>In SIMRA, feedback loops refer to sharing results within the local community through presentations or specific events can lead to raising interest, debating issues and identifying trade-offs, as well as seeking opportunities and implementation beyond the sector or the beneficiaries reached.</td></tr><tr><td>Multiplier effects</td><td>Positive multiplier effects refer to mainstreaming, upscaling and outscaling. Mainstreaming refers to the establishment of a social innovation as routine practice.</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_248.png" /></figure>

<table><tr><td></td><td>Upscaling considers whether the SI initiative has had an impact at higher scales, including in national policy or laws. Outscaling refers to whether the SI initiative has been replicated, adapted or aggregated into a body of similar initiatives at the national level (see also Westley et al., 2013). In the CMEF, multiplier effects are “Secondary effect resulting from increased income and consumption generated by the public intervention. Multiplier effects are cumulative and take into account the fact that part of the income generated is spent again and generates other income, and so on in several successive cycles. In each cycle, the multiplier effect diminishes due to purchases outside the territory. The effect decreases much faster when the territory is small and when its economy is open.” (EC ENRD online).</td></tr><tr><td>Critical effects</td><td>Critical effects refer to deadweight, displacement and substitution. Displacement refers to the “Effect obtained in an eligible area at the expense of another area. Displacement effects may be intended (e.g. displacement of a public administration from the capital to a 'lagging' region) or unintended (e.g. 10% of the jobs created by a regional development programme resulted in the disappearance of jobs in other eligible regions). When they are not intended, displacement effects must be subtracted from gross effects to obtain net effects” (EC, 2015: 65-66). Substitution refers to the “Effect obtained in favour of direct beneficiaries but at the expense of a person or organisation that does not qualify for the intervention. ... An evaluation determines, with regard to the objectives of the intervention, whether the substitution effect can be considered beneficial or not. When it is not beneficial, the substitution effect must be subtracted from gross effects” (EC, 2015: 80). The deadweight loss effect refers to “those changes observed in economic, environmental or social situation of programme beneficiaries which would even have occurred without the intervention”, displacement effects, at the expense of other areas, and substitution effects, at the expense of other people not qualified to participate (EC, 2014a: 52-53).</td></tr></table>

Source: SIMRA research team and references cited.

i