Land 2023 , 12 , 305
11of 20
teachers but started their new engagement by personal interest (e.g., FIBIR, UKWILL) or social engagement (UKCOPP, UKSKIL). 3.4. Type of Support—From Which Sector Only in two cases, support was provided from within forestry—the Christmas tree association (ATXMS) and the State forest company headquarters (DEGAME). Most cases received other sectoral support (11), non-sectoral development support (9) or from both (ESGOUR, ESRES) (Figure 1). Other sectoral support includes other sectors (2 agricultural direct marketing, 2 charities, 1 nature conservation) or cross-sectoral rural development support such as through EU LEADER (4) or regional platforms (2). Non-sector-specific support included in our cases national or local level start-up/micro-business support (7), export promotion (SRBTEA) or support by the municipality (ITTURP). Relation of the sources of knowledge and sources of support, as shown in Table 2, mirrors the sectoral logic of support programmes. Forestry support was given to projects with rural knowledge, and most cross-sectoral (rural development) support was directed to projects that combined urban and rural knowledge. Non-sector-specific business support spread across all categories of knowledge sources but was particularly important for urban knowledge projects. The fact that rural knowledge projects received support from all categories can be seen as a good sign when those projects find out about those possibilities or are perceived as important enough to be supported from outside the sector (the larch turpentine initiative ITTURP supported by the municipality, and the mushroom restaurant ESREST which received a start-up grant). Table2. Relations between sources of knowledge and sectoral support (remark: cases add up to 22 because two innovation cases received support from two different sectoral categories).
Support from Which Sector
Forestry (SECT)
Cross-Sectoral (CROSS)
Non-Sectorial (NONS)
Sources of Knowledge
2 0 0
2 8 1
2 5 2
(6)
Rural (RUR)
(13)
Combined (RUR + URB)
(3)
Urban (URB)
(2)
(11)
(9)
(22)
From the relation from which sectors the innovation projects were initiated and sup- ported (Table 3), we see similarly clear sectoral relations. The forestry project (and a cross-sectoral project) received forestry support, the majority of the cross-sectoral projects received cross-sectoral (rural development) support (7 out of 12) and the projects from other sectors mostly received support from non-sector specific (business support) programmes or actors (5 out of 9). In a number of cases, cross-sectoral initiatives received non-sector support (4 out of 12) and other sector businesses also benefitted from cross-sectoral pro- grammes (4 out of 9). We may interpret these figures so that the programmes do follow their sectoral preferences without being too strict in their implementation. Vice versa, it may be a good sign when NWFP businesses find opportunities in rural development and/or business support structures. Table 3. Relations between sectoral initiation and sectoral support (remark: cases add up to 22 because two innovation cases received support from two different sectoral categories).
Support from Which Sector
Initiation from Which Sector
Cross-Sectoral (CROSS)
Non-Sectorial (NONS)
Forestry (SECT)
1 1 0
0 7 4
0 4 5
(1)
Forestry (F)
(12)
Cross-sectoral Other sector (O)
(9)
(2)
(11)
(9)
(22)
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online