No abstract

DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT.This is a peer-reviewed, post-print ( DisclaimerThe University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. Bill Slee, James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland AbstractIn this paper, we present a broad conceptualisation of change in farm-level trajectories. We argue that as a result of path dependency, major changes in farming practice primarily occur in response to 'trigger events', after which farm managers intensify their consideration of the options open to them, and may set a new course of action. In undertaking new actions, the farm system enters a period of instability, while new practices become established. Over time these new practices, if successfully achieving anticipated aims, lead to a further period of path dependency. Recognising and capitalising upon this pattern of events is important for the development of policies oriented towards incentivising major change in farming practices, and may explain why similar projects and/or policies influence some 'types' of farmers differently, and at different times. To illustrate our arguments, examples of this process are described in relation empirical examples of major on-farm change processes, drawn from qualitative interviews with organic and conventional farmers in two English case study areas.

Citizen-driven Renewable Energy (RE) projects of various kinds, known collectively as community energy (CE), have an important part to play in the worldwide transition to cleaner energy systems. On the basis of evidence from 8 European countries, we investigate CE, over approximately the last 50 years (c.1970-2018), through the lens of Social Innovation (SI). We carry out a detailed review of literature around the social dimension of renewable energy; we collect, describe and map CE initiatives from Belgium, and the UK; and we unpack the SI concept into 4 operational criteria which we suggest are essential to recognizing SI in CE. These are: (1) Crises and opportunities; (2) the agency of civil society; (3) reconfiguration of social practices, institutions and networks; (4) new ways of working. We identify three main phases of SI in CE. The environmental movements of the 1960s and the "oil shocks" of the 1970s provided the catalyst for a series of innovative societal responses around energy and self-sufficiency. A second wave of SI relates to the mainstreaming of RE and associated government support mechanisms. In this phase, with some important exceptions, successful CE initiatives were mainly confined to those countries where they were already embedded as innovators in the previous phase. The third phase of CE innovation relates to the societal response to the Great Recession that began in 2008 and lasted most of the subsequent decade. CE initiatives formed around this time were also strongly focused around democratization of energy and citizen empowerment in the context of rising energy prices, a weak economy, and a production and supply system dominated by excessively powerful multinational energy firms. CE initiatives today are more diverse than at any time previously, and are likely to continue to act as incubators for pioneering initiatives addressing virtually all aspects of energy. However, large multinational energy firms remain the dominant vehicle for delivery of the energy transition, and the apparent excitement in European policy circles for "community energy" does not extend to democratization of energy or genuine empowerment of citizens.

No abstract

There are many factors that determine what forestry activities forest owners carry out in their forest properties and that influence whether forest owners engage in entrepreneurial activity. This paper explores whether the values and objectives of forest owners influence their forestry behaviour and their engagement in entrepreneurial activity. This is done through a review of the literature on private forest owners' typologies based on owners' objectives. The review reveals that typologies typically divide forest owners into two main groups. The primary objective of the first group of owners is production (of wood and non-wood goods and services) usually, although not exclusively, so as to generate economic activity. The primary objective of the second group is consumption (of wood and non-wood goods and services). There is a tacit assumption in the studies reviewed that goals Á . Ní Dhubháin (and objectives do influence forestry behaviour but few studies have actually assessed whether this is the case. The general finding is that forest owners whose objectives are timber production and who are business-oriented are more likely to manage and harvest their stands. No research focusing on the link between owners' objective and wider entrepreneurial activity in forests was found.