Land 2023 , 12 , 305
6of 20
which we categorized as institutional actors (INST). The companies were divided into (large) public landowners (PULO), traditional farm owners (TRALO), new landowners (NEWLO), not land-owning micro-entrepreneurs (ENTR), industrial companies (IND) and social entrepreneurs (SOC). In certain cases, these categories overlap, for instance, when traditional farmers worked through a specific association, or when landowners founded social enterprises. b. Type of knowledge : We distinguish if the innovators applied their traditional rural knowledge (RUR) or if the innovations were predominantly driven by urban skills and knowhow or scientific knowledge (URB). We remark if both types contributed significantly so that the innovation was only possible through a combination of both (RUR + URB). c. Type of sector : We assess if the innovations were initiated from within forestry (F), from outside such as tourism, hunting, food, cosmetics, nature conservation, etc. (O), or if they needed specific cross-sectoral interaction (C). d. Type of support—from which sector : Innovation support may have come from within the forestry sector (SECT), from other sectorial support programmes such as agricultural or rural development support (CROSS), or from non-sector specific innovation, start-up or regional development support (NONS). In many cases, multiple support programmes were relevant which is why we find combinations in this and the following categories. e. Type of support—from which administrative/policy level : Support was granted on regional or local (LOC), national (NAT) or European Union level (EU). In many cases, support programmes stem from a higher level but are administered on the local or regional level (NAT-LOC; EU-LOC). By the latter categories we indicate the source of the means but also how near the programme administration is to the innovative actors. f. Type of support—which kind of measure : We indicate which kinds of support measures had a significant role in the innovation projects: information, financial or coordi- nation/networking (INF, FIN, COO). In addition to those measures that are often part of regular support programmes, we discovered another type of support—the adaptation of the regulatory framework (REG) which was crucial in one case. In addition to this structured comparison, influential factors on the innovation pro- cesses in the single case studies were taken into account in the analysis. 3. Results: Comparative Analysis of Case Studies The case studies are briefly described here and in the following Table 1, including the
sources of the idea and the main support measures: 1. Game meat marketing label, Austria (ATGAME)
Game meat from a National Park area is marketed under a label for high quality regional foods. The direct marketing initiative is led by a provincial State Forest holding and a local butcher and received support through various programmes, including the local LEADER LAG, an agricultural direct marketing organisation and label of the Chamber of Agriculture (Gutes vom Bauernhof) as well as an umbrella label of the Ministry of Agriculture (Genussregion Österreich). It started under the name “Xeis Edelwild” and was later renamed “Gesäuse Wild”. 2. Wild food specialties from Nature Parks, Austria (ATNPS) Under the label of “Naturparkspezialitäten” (“Nature Park Specialties”), farms in Austrian nature parks market local, traditional farm products, including wild food spe- cialties from forests. The label was developed under the frame of the Austrian Nature Parks Association and is seen as a tool to support their main aim of sustainable regional development of cultural landscapes with high natural value. Together with a regional development consultant, the Association had the idea and supported the farmers through small feasibility studies, networking, training workshops and joint marketing. 3. New forest products from a LEADER Region, Austria (ATLEAD)
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online