Loading cart contents...
Local invisibilities: how to innovate and undertake autonomy poles in times of crisis?
The main objective of this article is to highlight the potential of the Association of Residents and Entrepreneurs of Beato (AMEBEATO) to innovate and undertake solutions adapted to the context of local residents and entrepreneurs. In this sense, I share my vision and design proposals that I consider relevant and useful to the local community, taking into account some specificities that I identify in the Beato and Madre de Deus neighborhood. I will make a brief theoretical cut about two concepts, social innovation and entrepreneurship, bridging then with the potentialities that I recognize in AMEBEATO and proposing possible lines of action.
I believe that there are interdependencies between environmental, social, economic, cultural and ecological domains that can be better understood in an integrated way. Especially when we seek to apply a strategic vision that is effectively collective, participative, inclusive, among the different social agents of a territory. These interdependencies can be understood as invisibilities at the local level.
If we think that there are people and/or companies/institutions that live/exist decades in the same place without being truly heard or integrated in their territories, for various reasons, such as lack of political voice or representativeness, by mere choice, by lack of knowledge, lack of resources, or even lack of motivation, it will be easier to understand the concept of local invisibilities. That is the motto of this sharing. To explore local invisibilities along with two concepts that are key in my current professional activity, social innovation and entrepreneurship, from the perspective of the scientific domain of human ecology. And why in that domain?
Because a fundamental identity of human ecology is the stimulation of citizen participation in political decision-making processes (Pires & Craveiro, 2010). Also, because it seeks to integrate different sources of knowledge (which is still a challenge) and synergies in a social-ecological perspective, which often requires a long-term vision in the development of collective actions (Bruckmeier & Pires, 2018). In fact, the pandemic COVID-19 has highlighted new challenges, compared to those we had before, when we think about the current context and the need to rethink our relationship with nature (Pires I., 2020).
Schumpeter’s theory of entrepreneurship associates entrepreneurship not only with business creation and development, but also with innovation, where the human factor is fundamental, and it is useful to understand more precisely and in specific contexts concepts such as entrepreneurship and social innovation (Parreira & Freitas, 2022). Malerba & McKelvey (2020), inspired by Schumpeter’s theory of entrepreneurship, highlight knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship as one of the most relevant, given the challenges associated with a knowledge economy. The same authors state that entrepreneurs can be understood as opportunity creators, but that they are also very dependent on the infrastructures associated with knowledge sharing, the social agents involved, and the institutional context in these processes. Thus, they remind us that entrepreneurship is strongly influenced by both the existence of networks and channels, through which knowledge is communicated, shared and/or produced, and the complementarity of skills and knowledge of the social agents involved in these innovation ecosystems. Regarding social innovation, despite being an old concept, it is still poorly understood especially when used without a specific context and well-defined criteria (Moulaert & Mehmood, 2020). In fact, there is no global definition for social innovation (Ravazolli et al., 2021). According to the latter authors, it is generally accepted that social innovation is associated with processes of transforming social practices, producing new products and/or services and new organizational models. However, and although interest in social innovation has increased among the academic and policy communities, there is still a knowledge gap about the potential contributions of social innovation to the implementation of the sustainable development goals of the 2030 Agenda (Eichler & Schwarz, 2019). These authors concluded that there are over two hundred definitions of social innovation in the academic literature they reviewed, yet it is possible to find 5 common elements (collaborations and partnerships, social needs, innovative solutions, implementation and execution, and improvements), identified in the figure below designed to illustrate this reality:
Source: Maria João Horta Parreira in an adaptation of the work by Eichler & Schwarz (2019)
The previous details, coupled with the complexity of the current ecological crisis, stimulate the need to improve and explore new integrated and adapted approaches, such as investigating social innovation associated with local development issues, especially when considering a logic of local collective participation (Justen et al., 2020). In this view, it will be pertinent to remember that social innovation will occur with more expressive benefits when the state, local communities, and intermediary organizations work together (Lukesch et al., 2020). Also, that co-creation is a key aspect of social innovation from an ecosystemic perspective of complex networks between different social actors, and that civil society is a vital link in these dynamics (Kumari et al., 2019.
When I go for my daily walks in the neighborhood, I notice the several local vegetable gardens, some of them well taken care of although others seem to be abandoned. From the beginning, when I came to live in Beato, I became aware of this reality. Taking into account references such as FAO et al. (2022) and my own experience with urban gardens, there have been several potentials that I can discern, thinking about the possible collective initiatives that could be thought and planned based on this reality. Having as main scenario the various current challenges, that the COVID-19 pandemic itself and the context of war in Ukraine have accentuated, I consider that questioning and thinking together will be a first step to emerge and develop collective co-building processes at the local level. I will now highlight some themes, some of them interdependent, that could give a framework to the issues to be explored, to the possibilities regarding local strategies and initiatives to be developed in Beato, such as: food autonomy, short circuits between food producers and consumers, the problem of food waste, agro-environmental education, collective health and well-being. Thus, I think that in a territorial vision it will be interesting to look at the spaces occupied by gardens and other green spaces in Beato as “creative experimentation spaces”, creating links with different local actors from different sectors and fields of activity (e.g. academia, associations, municipality, citizens, schools, businesses, NGOs, etc.) avoiding “acting in isolated bubbles” and listening to different sources of knowledge, approaches and practices. In a context of uncertainty and vulnerability, I think it is a way to experiment. Collectively consider the recovery of these spaces, in a vision of a common good, taking advantage of the diversity of residents and institutions that exist in Beato. There is a resident senior population, whose knowledge about green spaces and involvement in this process can add even more collective value. Also, schools will be interesting partners in this area. Also, we already have potential partners developing very interesting projects, in an ecosystemic vision of innovation: The Beato Creative Hub. The use of funding sources will be another way for AMEBEATO, establishing for example bridges with the public initiative Portugal Inovação Social[1], among other possibilities. In my view, the vision of AMEBeato should be guided by the search for the systematization of available information and the realization of diagnoses, in order to improve strategies and decision-making at the local level. Thematic diagnoses about the potentialities associated to the social realities of Beato and neighborhood and the capacities to bring out innovative practices that can minimize the “invisibility” of less favored local contexts and “silent voices”. I share this TED by Michael Porter[2] “Why business can be good at solving social problems”, despite being from 2013 I consider it relevant and current considering the purpose of this text.
Rather than giving ready-made and watertight answers to the question drawn in the title of this article, I have tried to raise questions and stimulate critical thinking. We are all part of a complex web, whether at the individual, collective, public, or private level.
In this sense, it will be important to act at the local level, in proximity, seeking to create “social-ecological autonomy poles”, a concept that I have identified in some academic works and that seems very interesting to me, along with the interdependencies between environmental, social, economic, cultural and ecological domains. In this way, I interpret AMEBEATO as a key mediator in this collective challenge, although the plurality of actors, perspectives and proposals for action are an important source of innovation, where entrepreneurial attitude and risk management are also critical factors in this process. In addition, it will be important not to forget that new solutions may create new problems and that, therefore, it will be a dynamic and continuous process, in constant monitoring, adaptation, and alert. From my perspective, creating a regular dynamic, a collective commitment of social responsibility, mutual trust and cooperation in the search for creative and transforming lines of action for the territory where we live and do business, will be a path to be designed, implemented and monitored by all, in line with the vision of the Portugal 2030 Strategy[3] and the Agenda 2030[4].
Maria João Horta Parreira – Beato resident since 2019 and AMEBEATO associate, Researcher and PhD student in Human Ecology at the New University of Lisbon, FCSH-NOVA
[1] Available on this link: https://inovacaosocial.portugal2020.pt/sobre/portugal-inovacao-social/
[2] Available on this link: https://youtu.be/0iIh5YYDR2o
[3] Available on this link: https://www.portugal.gov.pt/pt/gc22/comunicacao/documento?i=resolucao-do-conselho-de-ministros-que-aprova-a-estrategia-portugal-2030
[4] Available on this link: https://unric.org/pt/objetivos-de-desenvolvimento-sustentavel/
References
Bruckmeier, Karl; Pires, Iva (2018) Innovation as transformation – integrating the socio-ecological perspectives of resilience and sustainability, in Pinto, H.; Noronha, T.; Vaz, E. (Ed.) Resilience and Regional Dynamics: an International Approach to a New Research Agenda (chapter 11, pp209-232). Regional Science Series. Switzerland: Spinger International. ISBN 978-3-319- 95134-8; ISBN 978-3-319-95135-5 (e-Book).
Eichler, G. M., & Schwarz, E. J. (2019). What sustainable development goals do social innovations address? A systematic review and content analysis of social innovation literature. Sustainability, 11(2), 522
FAO, Rikolto & RUAF. 2022. Urban and peri-urban agriculture sourcebook – From production to food systems. Rome, FAO and Rikolto. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9722en
Justen, G. S., Morais-da-Silva, R. L., Takahashi, A. R. W., & Segatto, A. P. (2020). Inovação social e desenvolvimento local: uma análise de metasíntese. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 14(1), 56-73.
Kumari, R., Kwon, K. S., Lee, B. H., & Choi, K. (2019). Co-creation for social innovation in the ecosystem context: The role of higher educational institutions. Sustainability, 12(1), 307.
Lukesch, R., Ludvig, A., Slee, B., Weiss, G., and Živojinović, I. (2020). Social innovation, societal change, and the role of policies. Sustainability, 12(18), 7407.
Malerba, F., & McKelvey, M. (2020). Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems. Small Business Economics, 54(2), 503-522.
Moulaert, F., & Mehmood, A. (2020). Towards a social innovation (SI) based epistemology in local development analysis: lessons from twenty years of EU research. European Planning Studies, 28(3), 434-453.
Parreira M.J. & Freitas M. (2022). Social Innovation and Young Rural Entrepreneurship: Identifying An Integrated Research In Less Favored Portuguese Rural Territories. IJBRM Special Issue – Social Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Finance: Theory and Practice in Challenging Times (SIBRM9).
Pires I. (2020). Cinco Ps (Pessoas, Planeta, Paz, Prosperidade e Parcerias) mauis um P (pandemia): o papel da COVID-19 no aumento das desigualdades sociais. In: Marques J, Dias-Lima A )org.) Ecologia Humana e pandemias: consequências da COVID-19 para o nosso futuro (pp. 114-137), Paulo Afonso, BA: SABEH.
Pires, I. M., & Craveiro, J. L. (2010). Human Ecology: Past, Present and Future. Studies in Human Ecology, 26-44.
Ravazzoli, E., Dalla Torre, C., Da Re, R., Marini Govigli, V., Secco, L., Górriz-Mifsud, E., … & Nijnik, M. (2021). Can social innovation make a change in European and Mediterranean marginalized areas? Social innovation impact assessment in agriculture, fisheries, fores