Talk:Enablers and constraints affecting community-led initiatives

From Communities for Future wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Interesting papers to consider

With notes already Forrest, N., Wiek, A., 2014. Learning from success—Toward evidence-informed sustainability transitions in communities. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 12, 66–88.

--Gil Penha-Lopes (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In the Legal section do consider information at:

(also see Organisation and governance of community-led initiatives)

--Gil Penha-Lopes (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Page Status

I think this is pretty much done for now. --Tom Henfrey (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Extra material

Found this in the 'governance and participation' page, to be integrated/discarded:

  • Local Partnerships
    • TESS

CBIs’ networks according to the type of connecting nodes So far we have characterized and described CBIs’ networking properties according to the centrality degree that CBIs have in their own networks. Another means of investigating whether important patterns arise from the networks is to characterize the relationships that CBIs have with external interlocutors according to different types of interlocutors. We first portray the frequency distribution of CBIs’ ties by type of interlocutor (Figure 80). As already shown, the majority of connections of our CBIs (~35.0%) are with other CBIs. [1]

File:CLIs’ external collaborations (TESS D4.1, 2016).png

    • Transition Movement: "The majority of transition initiatives had established forms of cooperation or partnership with local authorities, local media, local business, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other grassroots or activist groups, and other transition initiatives." [2]

"We tested for correlation among the variables associated with the factor context, i.e. cooperation with other actors and favourable context. As expected, significant correlations were observed (Pearson correlation between 0.300 and 0.650): transition initiatives who cooperate with other actors tend to consider these actors positively, or vice versa" [2] "We assessed moreover the initiatives’ propensity towards external networking: actors from intermediate network organizations and public bodies have the largest share of ties across all CBIs’ networks.""The most preferred and recurrent collaborations are, however, with other CBIs." [3]

  • Knowledge is essential to many of the networks and initiatives. They gain access to knowledge through their network (e.g. exchanging knowledge, see social learning - Basic Income NL/GER, ENOLL network, PB NL, Slow food Germany, Co-housing Germany) and (strategic) collaboration with knowledge institutions (e.g. Desis Labs, Science Shops, Slow Food, Impact Hub, GEN). Slow food has even founded its own knowledge institutions like the Foundation for Biodiversity; the Terra Madre Foundation and the University of Gastronomic Sciences (UNISG) to support its Slow Food projects. [4]
    • "In about half the cases the transition initiatives were founded on the basis of a pre-existing group (e.g. other grassroots organisation) and the group of founders was on average about 10 people, although a significant variation was observed in this respect.""In 29% of cases no steering group member of the transition initiative had ever attended a transition training course and in 18% of cases no member had attended permaculture training or had permaculture knowledge. Overall, on average about three steering group members had transition training from the Transition Network and two had permaculture training or knowledge, but high variation within groups was observed. The ratio of steering group members with transition or permaculture training to the total of steering group members was 0.45 and 0.36 (i.e. less than one in two and about one in three) respectively." [2];
  • One conclusion in this respect is that CBIs’ successes are not isolated from each other, or the achievements of one group are often a result of the successes or failures of other preceding or accompanying initiatives. This points again to the fact that their development follows not common trajectories, but is based on the importance of groups’ capacity to learn from failures and deal with constraints and challenges by innovating and integrating multiple perspectives. [3]

"The initiatives also differed in their enrolment mechanisms and openness to new members (Figure 27). Many initiatives (35%) are completely informal and allowed anyone to join. Another 9.5% were also open to anyone but had a formal enrolment process (i.e. new participants have to sign up); 35% had a formal joining process with certain criteria for members' eligibility (e.g. residency in the area). Finally, 16% had a selection process by which new participants could join and 3.2% had some other joining mechanism"[1]

  1. 1.0 1.1 Celata, F., Hendrickson, C., 2016. Case study integration report (TESS Project Deliverable No. 4.1).
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 Feola, G., Nunes, R., 2014. Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: The case of the Transition Movement. Global Environmental Change 24, 232–250.
  3. 3.0 3.1 TESS Project, 2017. Final publishable summary report.
  4. Kemp, R., Zuijderwijk, L., Weaver, P., Seyfang, G., Avelino, F., Strasser, T., Becerra, L., Backhaus, J., Ruijsink, S., 2015. Doing things differently : exploring Transformative Social innovation and its practical challenges - Transformative Social Innovation Theory (EU research Project) Policy Brief 1.