Innovation for Sustainability in World Heritage Destinations: Opportunities and Challenges of the Idealistic Paradigm

Introduction

Innovation concepts and assumptions largely originate from studies of firms within manufacturing and technology sectors. However, as service sectors like tourism became the dominating employers in Western worlds, researchers have increasingly emphasized that mainstream theory has significant knowledge gaps regarding understanding and measuring service innovations (Djellal & Gallouj, 2010). Later, similar issues have been argued about experience-based innovations (Alsos et al., 2014).

Innovation means the exploration and exploitation of new or significantly changed ideas. Traditionally, innovation has been a new product, process, market, or organizational form (OECD, 2005). Innovations in experience-based sectors are, however, complex, since they are often developed incrementally over time and imply intertwinement across traditional innovation forms (Hjalager, 2010). This is due to the entirely or partly intangible nature of experience products, their user-value, and the importance of co-creation with users and other organizations (Fuglsang & Eide, 2013).

Many rural communities face grand challenges due to declining populations and reduction in traditional industries, e.g., fishing or farming (Bullvåg et al., 2020). Tourism and other experience-based sectors can be vital strategic tools for developing thriving local societies (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020), by promoting attractive communities to live in, work in, and travel to (Jørgensen et al., 2021). However, experience-based transformations (EBT) are not always successful (Soares, et al., 2021). One reason is that the growth of tourism before Covid-19 increased pressure and tendencies of over-tourism (Epler Wood et al., 2019). Later, Covid-19 increased other socio-economic challenges (Gössling et al., 2020). Both call for more radical innovations for sustainability, such as to “rebuild better” (Higgins-Desbiolles, 2020).

The world’s increasing sustainability challenges have bridged innovation and sustainability as research fields and called for cross-disciplinary approaches, novel innovation types with stronger sustainability and partnerships (Bocken et al., 2019; Schot & Geels, 2008). A number of terms are used, such as sustainable innovation (Schot & Geels, 2008), eco-innovation, and sustainability innovation (Klewitz & Hansen, 2014), sustainability-oriented innovation (Adams et al., 2015), responsible innovation (Stilgoe et al., 2013), green and transformative social innovations (Haxeltine et al., 2016), and innovation for sustainability (Leach et al., 2012). There is little consensus on whether it is “sustainability” or “innovation” that constitutes the primary purpose of development processes, what is meant by “sustainability,” and who should be involved. This chapter uses “innovation for sustainability” (IFS), as an umbrella concept (Bocken, et al., 2019), with sustainability as the purpose and innovation as the means. Research on IFS has increased in the last decade (Albareda & Hajikhani, 2019) and vary according to the following factors: (1) innovation types; (2) innovativeness (e.g., radical, incremental); (3) value types (economic, environmental and/or social); and (4) analytical level (product, business model, firm, value chain, multi-sector/stakeholder, and systems) (Bocken et al., 2019). In his generic systematic literature review, Ritala (2019) summarizes IFS into three paradigms, “skeptic,” “pragmatic” and “idealistic” based on different ontological assumptions about the four above-mentioned factors, as well as views on reality and actors. The concept of paradigm is commonly used when describing how scientific disciplines work based on the basic assumptions about ontology (reality and human nature), epistemology, and methodology (Kuhn, 1962). A paradigm shift means a radical change in basic assumptions and is rare, as most changes are within a worldview. More ambitious holistic and partnership approaches are needed; the notion of IFS paradigms can help explain why radical system transformations are complex.

This conceptual chapter explores the research question, “What are the core, potentials, and challenges of the idealistic paradigm to IFS in rural communities involved in experience-based transformations (EBT)?” The idealistic paradigm shares the vision of the UN’s development sustainability goals (SDGs) about holistic sustainability and broad partnerships. The chapter explores and elaborates on this paradigm by literature within the approaches of Ecological Economy (EE) and Community-Based Sustainability (CBS). In addition, two cultural World Heritage destinations in Norway are used to illustrate the potentials and challenges of using the idealistic paradigm. This chapter contributes by developing the framework of the idealistic paradigm more concretely and suggests implications for empirical research.