Impact Logic: Social Innovation Categories for Cities’ Action Plans

Abstract

How can cities’ public administrators, policy makers or transition teams be supported in selecting and monitoring social innovation actions that support people-centred systemic solutions to reduce carbon emissions? Including social innovation in cities’ climate city contracts and action plans, requires decision makers to consider the impact logic and impact pathways: which social innovation initiatives could lead to expected outcomes? In order to develop such impact logic, it is necessary to define categories of social innovations that can be implemented in urban or reginal action plans, for then identifying indicators for each category.

How can cities’ public administrators, policy makers or transition teams be supported in selecting and monitoring social innovation actions that support people-centred systemic solutions to reduce carbon emissions? Including social innovation in cities’ climate city contracts and action plans, requires decision makers to consider the impact logic and impact pathways: which social innovation initiatives could lead to expected outcomes? In order to develop such impact logic, it is necessary to define categories of social innovations that can be implemented in urban or reginal action plans, for then identifying indicators for each category.

To develop such social innovation categories for the cities’ action plan, we analysed existing social innovation action plans developed worldwide, and complemented this knowledge with theory of change theoretical models (Cooksy et al., 2001; Knowlton & Phillips, 2012; McLaughlin & Jordan, 2015; Shove, 2010; Treasury, 2007) and the overall theory of change and impact pathways of the NetZeroCities project (Chaudary et al., 2022) and related indicators’ framework. Insight from case studies and scientific literature presented in the previous chapter, are mapped to the intervention categories for their further refinements from this bottom-up and top-down knowledge.

2.1 Exemplary Cases of Social Innovation Action Plans

Very few social innovation action plans have been developed and implemented by cities or regions worldwide. The following examples have been identified and analysed: Taiwan (Fig. 2.1), Montreal (Figs. 2.2 and 2.3) and British Columbia (Fig. 2.4).

Fig. 2.1

Taiwan social innovation action planFootnote

Source https://english.ey.gov.tw/News3/9E5540D592A5FECD/0b040d2e-170f-4dc8-9cc9-44ad9d9f3ba6.

Fig. 2.2

Montreal action plan/1Footnote

Source https://montreal.ca/en/articles/action-plan-social-innovation-13851.

Fig. 2.3

Montreal action plan/2

Fig. 2.4

British Columbia Social Innovation Action PlanFootnote

Source https://lillooet.bc.libraries.coop/files/2020/01/BC-Soical-Innovation-Council.pdf.

2.2 NetZeroCities Theory of Change and Impact Pathways

In order to evaluate initiatives of cities’ action plans related to social innovation for climate neutrality, the intervention categories have to be aligned not only with social innovation typical categories, but also with climate city contracts and action plans’ categories aimed at reducing emissions. The NetZeroCities project’s theory of change (Chaudary et al., 2022), provides the grounding of the intervention logic adopted in this book. In more details, the Theory of change of urban’s transition toward climate neutrality (developed within the project) depicted in Fig. 2.5, identifies six emission domains (energy systems, mobility and transport, circular economy, nature-based solutions, green industry and built environment) and 6 levers of systemic change, which include (1) social innovation in addition to (2) technology and infrastructure, (3) governance and policy, (4) democracy and participation, (5) finance and funding, and (6) learning and capability. Tackling emission domains through the systemic levers of change, will create changes that can be measured with indicators (to assess specific outcomes), which will lead to long term impacts both in terms of direct GHG emission reductions, as well as co-benefits in terms of health and wellbeing, social impact, resource efficiency, economic impact, biodiversity and climate change adaptation (Fig. 2.6 based on Neuman et al., 2022).

Fig. 2.5

NZC theory of change—overall structure and its essential elements (developed in: Chaudary et al., 2022)

Fig. 2.6

WP2 overall framework (developed in Neuman et al., 2022)

Within the NetZeroCities’ Theory of Change work (Chaudary et al., 2022), impact pathways specific to social innovation are co-developed as presented in Fig. 2.7 and described in detail in Fig. 2.8 (for an extended explanation see: Chaudary et al., 2022).

Fig. 2.7

NZC social innovation impact pathways (developed in: Chaudary et al., 2022)

Fig. 2.8

NZC theory of change for interventions in social innovation (developed in: Chaudary et al., 2022)

2.3 Social Innovation Categories of a City’s Action Plan

Based on the aforementioned work, specifically the insights from social innovation action plans, the NetZeroCities’ theory of change, cases studies and scientific literature, a set of ten social innovation categories of action plan are derived:

• 1. SI capacity building of public officials, citizens and urban stakeholders.

• 2. SI skills of citizens and urban stakeholders.

• 3. Co-design of policies with social innovators and urban stakeholders.

• 4. Co-creation of social innovation initiatives with citizens and urban stakeholders.

• 5. Funding/supporting community-led initiatives and small-scale pilots/experimentations.

• 6. Enabling/supporting social innovation initiatives scale-up beyond pilots.

• 7. Testing and prototyping new funding mechanisms.

• 8. Public procurement of social innovation services for sustainability.

• 9. Urban planning for social innovation.

• 10. Resource circularity.

A detailed description of each category is provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Social innovation categories of the action plan

The case studies presented in this chapter are mapped to the Social Innovation Categories of the action plan in order to refine the categories and to ensure that they cover all the most relevant facets (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2 Mapping of case studies

2.4 Relation to NetZeroCities Climate Transition Map

In order to ensure consistency with the NetZeroCities project activities, the devised categories are mapped with respect to the NZC climate transition maps elaborated by the partners Dark Matters Lab and ICLEI Europe (Fig. 2.9) and available on the project platform as a guiding framework for the entire project.⁴

Fig. 2.9

The ten social innovation categories mapped on the NZC Climate Transition Map. Adapted from https://netzerocities.app/ClimateTransitionMap

2.5 Social Innovation Intervention Logic

For each category of the (social innovation component of the) action plan, the definition of the intervention logics needs to be outlined. The intervention logic defines the project objectives and inputs with respect to the expected results in terms of outputs, outcomes, and impacts (Knowlton & Phillips, 2012; Treasury, 2007).

It is typically depicted in form of a process diagram. Establishing the intervention logic is the first step in setting up an impact assessment framework (Fig. 2.10).

Fig. 2.10

Basic intervention logic

The general intervention logic is based on NZC’s aim to put in place a set of initiatives at city level aimed to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all the while ensuring decarbonisation efforts are equitable and contribute to the well-being of European communities. It contains five evaluation stages, as defined below:

• Context/needs: defining and considering the existing situation the project is being implemented into and the needs of the stakeholders involved.

• Intervention: evaluating what the project contributes in order to address the problem.

• Output/uptake: evaluating what the project provides.

• Outcomes: evaluating the immediate result/s of the project.

• Impact: evaluating the long-term result/s of the project.

In that regard, the general intervention logic for the initiatives of the action plan related to social innovation is as follows (Fig. 2.11).

Fig. 2.11

General intervention logic

After the definition of the general intervention logic, an intervention logic for each of the ten aforementioned categories, based on exemplary social innovation cases, is provided.

Category 1 Intervention Logic: SI Capacity Building of Public Officials and Policy Makers

The specific intervention logic for the category “Social innovation capacity building of public officials, and policy makers” is depicted (Fig. 2.12). An exemplary case for this category is the PentaHelix project described in Chap. 1.

Fig. 2.12

Intervention logic for the category “Social innovation capacity building of public officials and policy makers”

Category 2 Intervention Logic: Social Innovation Skills of Citizens and Urban Stakeholders

The specific intervention logic for the category “SI skills of citizens and urban stakeholders” is depicted in Fig. 2.13. Exemplary cases for this category are the projects Play!UC and Ecohouse Antwerp.

Fig. 2.13

Intervention logic for the category “Social innovation skills of citizens and urban stakeholders”

Category 3 Intervention Logic: Co-design of Policies with Social Innovators and Urban Stakeholders

Here is depicted the specific intervention logic for the category “Co-design of policies with social innovators and urban stakeholders” (Fig. 2.14). An exemplary case for this category is Bologna’s Citizen Collaboration Pacts.

Fig. 2.14

Intervention logic for the category “Co-design of policies with social innovators and urban stakeholders”

Category 4 Intervention Logic: Co-creation of Social Innovation Initiatives with Citizens and Urban Stakeholders

The specific intervention logic for the category “Co-creation of social innovation initiatives with citizens and urban stakeholders” is depicted in Fig. 2.15. Exemplary cases for this category are SONNET Mannheim City Lab and Bologna’s Citizen Collaboration Pacts.

Fig. 2.15

Intervention logic for the category “Co-creation of social innovation initiatives with citizens and urban stakeholders”

Category 5 Intervention Logic: Funding/Supporting Community-Led Initiatives and Small-Scale Pilots/Experimentations

Here is depicted the specific intervention logic for the category “Funding/supporting community-led initiatives and small-scale pilots/experimentations” (Fig. 2.16). An exemplary case for this category is You Decide.

Fig. 2.16

Intervention logic for the category “Funding/supporting community-led initiatives and small-scale pilots/experimentations”

Category 6 Intervention Logic: Enabling/Supporting Social Innovation Initiatives Scale-Up Beyond Pilots

The specific intervention logic for the category “Enabling/supporting social innovation initiatives scale-up beyond pilots” is outlined in Fig. 2.17. An exemplary case for this category is Clean Cities ClimAccelerator.

Fig. 2.17

Intervention logic for the category “Enabling/supporting social innovation initiatives scale-up beyond pilots”

Category 7 Intervention Logic: Testing and Prototyping New Funding Mechanisms

The specific intervention logic for the category “Testing and prototyping new funding mechanisms” is provided in Fig. 2.18. An exemplary case for this category is SONNET—The Bristol City Lab.

Fig. 2.18

Intervention logic for the category “Testing and prototyping new funding mechanisms”

Category 8 Intervention Logic: Public Procurement of Social Innovation Services for Sustainability

The specific intervention logic for the category “Public procurement of social innovation services for sustainability” is depicted in Fig. 2.19. An exemplary case for this category is Oslo public procurement.

Fig. 2.19

Intervention logic for the category “Public procurement of social innovation services for sustainability”

Category 9 Intervention Logic: Urban Planning for Systemic Social Innovation

The specific intervention logic for the category “Urban planning for systemic social innovation” is outlined in Fig. 2.20. Exemplary cases are Paris: 15-min city, Superblocks and Climate Quarter Project.

Fig. 2.20

Intervention logic for the category “Urban planning for systemic social innovation”

Category 10 Intervention Logic: Systemic Resource Circularity

The specific intervention logic for the category “Systemic resource circularity” is provided in Fig. 2.21. An exemplary case for this category is the project Applause.

Fig. 2.21

Intervention logic for the category “Systemic resource circularity”