Social innovation acknowledges that alternative arrangements between state, market and civil society are called for if innovations are to be sustainable. This chapter examines grassroots-led processes of social innovation in the field of poverty in Flanders, inspired by Ibrahim’s model of grassroots-led development. Inspired by it, we discuss the paradoxes for a politicising approach in the practice of the Flemish grassroots-led social innovation practices, Where People in Poverty Speak Out (WPPSO). We address two central questions. First, we demonstrate that social innovations such as WPPSO that aimed to improve the voice of people in poverty cannot trust only in the quality of the process of grassroots-led social innovation. A process-oriented approach might be a necessary condition for social innovation, but the democratisation of policy processes such as WPPSO do not necessarily create the conditions for concrete enhancements of the living conditions of people in poverty. Our second question was if other factors, outside of the innovation process, also need to be considered. A key external factor was that of encapsulation tendencies in policy production. The participative way of policy making about poverty with the grassroots organisations of people in poverty has brought about a separate domain of poverty policy.
DOCUMENT
Biodiversity, including entire habitats and ecosystems, is recognized to be of great social and economic value. Conserving biodiversity has therefore become a task of international NGO’s as well as grass-roots organisations. The ‘classical’ model of conservation has been characterised by creation of designated nature areas to allow biodiversity to recover from the effects of human activities. Typically, such areas prohibit entry other than through commercial ecotourism or necessary monitoring activities, but also often involve commodification nature. This classical conservation model has been criticized for limiting valuation of nature to its commercial worth and for being insensitive to local communities. Simultaneously, ‘new conservation’ approaches have emerged. Propagating openness of conservation approaches, ‘new conservation’ has counteracted the calls for strict measures of biodiversity protection as the only means of protecting biodiversity. In turn, the ’new conservation’ was criticised for being inadequate in protecting those species that are not instrumental for human welfare. The aim of this article is to inquire whether sustainable future for non-humans can be achieved based on commodification of nature and/or upon open approaches to conservation. It is argued that while economic development does not necessarily lead to greater environmental protection, strict regulation combined with economic interests can be effective. Thus, economic approaches by mainstream conservation institutions cannot be easily dismissed. However, ‘new conservation’ can also be useful in opening up alternatives, such as care-based and spiritual approaches to valuation of nature. Complementary to market-based approaches to conservation, alternative ontologies of the human development as empathic beings embedded in intimate ethical relations with non-humans are proposed. https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
DOCUMENT
Renewing agricultural grasslands for improved yields and forage quality generally involves eliminating standing vegetation with herbicides, ploughing and reseeding. However, grassland renewal may negatively affect soil quality and related ecosystem services. On clay soil in the north of the Netherlands, we measured grass productivity and soil chemical parameters of ‘young’ (5–15 years since last grassland renewal) and ‘old’ (>20 years since last grassland renewal) permanent grasslands, located as pairs at 10 different dairy farms. We found no significant difference with old permanent grassland in herbage dry matter yield and fertilizer nitrogen (N) response, whereas herbage N yield was lower in young permanent grassland. Moreover, the young grassland soil contained less soil organic matter (SOM), soil organic carbon (C) and soil organic N compared to the old grassland soil. Grass productivity was positively correlated with SOM and related parameters such as soil organic C, soil organic N and potentially mineralizable N. We conclude that on clay soils with 70% desirable grasses (i.e., Lolium perenne and Phleum pratense) or more, the presumed yield benefit of grassland renewal is offset by a loss of soil quality (SOM and N-total). The current practice of renewing grassland after 10 years without considering the botanical composition, is counter-productive and not sustainable.
DOCUMENT
De klimaatcrisis raakt iedereen – maar mensen in een kwetsbare positie in het bijzonder. Het is een dure plicht voor sociaal werkers en anderen in het sociaal domein om ervoor te zorgen dat deze ‘kwetsbare groep’ gelijkwaardig onderdeel wordt van de oplossingen voor klimaatverandering. En dat de lasten van de klimaatcrisis eerlijker verdeeld worden. Dat is een belangrijke missie van het eco-sociaal werk. In deze bundel staan tien voorbeelden van eco-sociale praktijken. De initiatiefnemers, niet alleen sociaal werkers, zetten zich in voor mensen in een kwetsbare positie én voor een duurzame toekomst. Dat klinkt mooi – tegelijkertijd laten de voorbeelden zien hoe moeilijk en weerbarstig de realiteit van die eco-sociale praktijken kan zijn. De initiatiefnemers zijn actief op het gebied van energie, voedsel, groen-ontwikkeling, geestelijke gezondheidszorg of op het bredere terrein van duurzaamheid. We kijken steeds naar de aard ervan, hoe de omgeving en burgers bij hun praktijk worden betrokken en met welke hindernissen ze zich geconfronteerd zien. Aan het einde brengen we de inzichten samen in een synthese. Redactie: Richard de Brabander (lectoraat Ecosociaal werk Hogeschool Inholland), Jeanet de Jong (BPSW), Karijn van den Berg, Mirjam Andries en Marcel Ham (Movisie)
MULTIFILE
Sustainable Experience Design Professor Frans Melissen dialogues about Sustainability Intelligence with Joseph Roevens. Topics include: Initial interest in Sustainability? https://bit.ly/2G1RTz4 How do you live Sustainably? When do you ‘sin’? https://bit.ly/2IdGFsZGaia Zoo & “Sustainable Customer Experience Design” https://bit.ly/2UgtzlY 50 Shades of Green https://bit.ly/2IeH3Yf Breda University’s Sustainable Travel Policy https://bit.ly/2WN2DqE How to stimulate Sustainable behavior? https://bit.ly/2Kb2Hiv Sustainability Intelligence: Naïve, Native & Narrative https://bit.ly/2ONUBv7 1. Naïve Intelligence https://bit.ly/2YQXeAL 2. Native Intelligence https://bit.ly/2uPBVSc 3. Narrative Intelligence, e.g.Zappos Delivering Happiness https://bit.ly/2YUbHMa The Powers-that-be vs the Grass Roots. https://bit.ly/2FKNAqw The Sharing Economy & its abuse https://bit.ly/2TTKWE8 Sustainability as the Goal, not as an Instrument to continue the old system https://bit.ly/2YRXqzB Projects at Breda University: SCITHOS https://bit.ly/2U0yG4x Sustainable Customer Experience Design https://bit.ly/2G1TB3y Improving Sustainability in the Hospitality Industry https://bit.ly/2Uw1vu3
LINK
Lecture held by Derk-Jan Stobbelaar and Hugo Hoofwijk at the International Living Knowledge Conference in 2012 in Bonn, Germany.
DOCUMENT
Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) is the main driver of resource consumption and waste generation in Europe. Although most European countries achieved 70% recovery rate of CDW, the majority is used for backfilling. Therefore, opportunities for Circular Economy (CE) practices in CDW management are underexploited. This research identifies the innovative practices, barriers, and enablers for developing tailored-made designs of Urban Resource Centre (URC) for managing CDWs in four European cities namely Riga, Tartu, Kavala, and Barcelona. Qualitative methods using multiple case studies were used to draw generalizations from cases. Data was collected from reports and interviews with different stakeholders, and a validation workshop for designing URC of each city. Current innovative practices include recycling and upcycling of CDWs; use of green points, exchange platforms, and waste management apps; repair cafés; selective demolition; and (pilot) initiatives on resource centers that function as material exchange point, recycling center, workstation for repair and creative ideas, and prototyping hub, among others. The identified barriers and enablers can be categorized as governmental, market, and individual factors. First, local governments (municipalities) play a key role for facilitating CDW management via both support such as provision of subsidies, green procurement, and mandatory waste sorting, and through strict regulatory requirements. Second, URCs must be locally rooted with inclusion of citizens, grass roots initiatives, and schools/universities to increase community acceptance, awareness, and education on CDW management. Third, partnerships with local stakeholders, such as repair cafes, waste management companies, and local NGOs, is needed to operate the URCs both in short- and long-terms. And fourth, the creation of niche markets such as linking localism (e.g. locally crafted CE stores) and supplying to businesses in need of CDWs, can support the operation of URCs. The identified barriers and enablers can help further improve the design of URCs for each city.
MULTIFILE
This article will explore the Cradle to Cradle (C2C) framework for urban environments, focusing on the perception, utilization and maintenance of parks. The case study explores the perception of urban flora and the value of greenery in everyday life in The Netherlands. The reflection section addresses the difference between conventional and C2C approaches to greenery on the one hand and current green management policies and public opinion on the other hand. The author reflects on how urban planning policies can be better geared towards public awareness of C2C, and towards the implementation of ecologically benign management of urban flora. It is proposed that an implementation of urban green management consistent with C2C is feasible and desirable. It is feasible given the favorable shifts in public opinion in relation to urban sustainability, and it is desirable due to the basic cost-benefit analysis and increased need for urban sustainability. This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Urban Ecosystems. The final authenticated version is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-015-0468-2 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Carnival Futures: Notting Hill Carnival 2020 is a King’s Cultural Institute project led by Nicole Ferdinand (Culture, Media and Creative Industries at King’s College London) which sought to engage cultural organisations and other stakeholders in planning for the future of the Notting Hill Carnival. The content of this report is intended as a contribution to current research and to identifying future directions for the development of the Notting Hill Carnival. The material and views expressed are produced by various stakeholders in a series of workshops.
DOCUMENT
This booklet holds a collection of drawings, maps, schemes, collages, artistic impressions etc. which were made by students during an intense design moment in the project (re)CYCLE Limburg, which took place in December 2016. Students of Built Environment, Facility Management, Social Work and Health & Care cooperated in making designs and developing strategies for urban renewal in Kerkrade West (Province of Limburg, the Netherlands). The study focused on the importance of qualitative and shared public spaces. The local community (inhabitants, shopkeepers, entrepreneurs, municipality, housing corporation) was actively engaged by sharing knowledge and information, ideas and opinions. These reflections are part of the Limburg Action Lab (part of the Smart Urban Redesign Research Centre). It engages in research by design on innovative and tactical interventions in public space, that might enhance the identity, sustainability and socio-spatial structure of neighbourhoods.
DOCUMENT
