154 research outputs found
Wissenschaftsdiplomatie? Rahmenbedingungen für einen europäischen Ansatz
Get PDFThe interest of foreign policy organisations in Science Diplomacy is growing. It may transform the mobilization of knowledge in international scientific and political relations, a.o. to address Grand Societal Challenges. We understand Science Diplomacy as a constellation of governance arrangements, stakeholders and de facto governance practices. This research note describes the development of guidelines for a meta-governance framework for Science Diplomacy, one objective of the EU H2020-funded project S4D4C. We derive the building bricks for the framework from nine case studies. The research note is a German-language, revised version of a working paper by Ewert Aukes, Gonzalo Ordóñez-Matamoros and Stefan Kuhlmann (2019)
Framing coastal squeeze: Understanding the integration of Mega-nourishment schemes into the Dutch coastal management solutions repertoire: An interpretive analysis of coastal management processes
Get PDFEwert Aukes’ dissertation takes an interpretive perspective to study the meaning-making processes that led to the realization of three Dutch coastal management projects. Coastal management has a long tradition in the Netherlands, which has made it well-known across the globe. Recently, coastal managers have come up with a new alternative to protecting sandy coasts, the mega-nourishment scheme. The three projects studied in the thesis are all subtypes of the mega-nourishment scheme. They are to a different degree innovative in their use of sand as material for nourishing beaches, i.e. applying large amounts of sand to beaches or foreshores to improve coastal protection performance while at the same time increasing potential for economic, recreational and nature development. In-depth, qualitative interviewing was the main source of data in this dissertation. Participants in the projects' decision-making were interviewed to gain insight into the argumentative meaning-making processes associated with the realization of the projects. The empirical work covered in this dissertation reveals different types of policy framing as dominant processes of meaning-making. In one case, policy frames initially limit the convergence of actors over solutions. In another case, a proficient meaning-making actor succeeded in framing its proposal as a solution for different problems at the same time. The results help to understand how coastal management is ‘made’ in the Netherlands. Coastal management is at first sight a technical, perhaps even technocratic policy domain. Nevertheless, meaning-making and framing, specifically, is just as important in this policy domain as it is in others. Besides their value for interpretive studies of coastal management and policy-making in general, the research this dissertation presents also opens up new avenues for practitioners to position themselves in coastal management processes
Open Science Diplomacy
No full textFollowing the call for ‘open science, open innovation, and open to the world’ by the EU Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation Carlos Moedas in 2015, we look for applications and implications of open science in science diplomacy
D5.5: Ecosystems Service Governance Navigator & Manual for its Use
No full textWe aim for the Navigator to be a practical tool that should help finding orientation and direction for (forest) ecosystem innovation processes. To that end we provide suggestions for practical application throughout most of the sections. Deliverable 5.5 presents a Navigator to be used as a guidance to improve understanding on Forest Ecosystem Services governance innovations. The Navigator comprises the InnoForESt approach, as it has emerged in the course of this innovation action project. The Navigator entails a compendium of “heuristics” understood as a set of practical tools (rooted in theory) integrating the project knowledge generation and communication approach to forest ecosystem services (project glossary, analytical framework, fact sheets, typologies, workshops, etc.). It aims at giving orientation, not setting hard rules. The Navigator dedicated to the interested public outside this project for a first impression of the InnoForESt approach. A governance innovation Navigator, as we understand it in InnoForESt, is strongly rooted in the socio-political context of the innovations that are studied and cannot instantly be separated from this context. To understand the variation across the innovation contexts, we have mapped the biophysical and institutional features of forest ecosystem service provision as well as studied the governance and stakeholder contexts of the innovations. All methods applied are tailored to the innovations to be analysed and further developed. In turn, this also means that a presentation of methods is not complete without outline of the innovations themselves. Hence, this Navigator also refers to empirical findings from the regional socio-political innovation contexts including the respective project’s practice and scientific partners, entities we term Innovation Regions. There are InnoForESt Innovation Regions, in which payment schemes for ecosystem services or variants thereof are introduced or developed further, for example, in Finland and Germany. Others rethink the way they convey knowledge about forest ecosystem services, as it happens in Sweden and Austria. In Italy, the provincial forest management agency undertakes efforts to innovate its management practices of their special land-use type, the mid-elevation forest-pasture landscape. Finally, in the Czech and Slovak Innovation Regions, new practices of collective forest management are explored. After the introduction, in section 2, we present an overview of the theoretical background of the project (cf. InnoForESt Deliverable 3.1, Sorge & Mann 2019) as well as the analytical approaches used to come to the empirical orientations based on Stakeholder Analysis (cf. InnoForESt Deliverable 5.2, Schleyer et al. 2019), Governance Situation Assessment, and a reconstruction of the regional Innovation Journeys (cf. InnoForESt Deliverable 4.3, Loft et al. 2019). Section 3 provides a deeper look at the methods used in InnoForESt, including a technology-assessment-based, multi-stakeholder-driven Constructive Innovation Assessment (cf. InnoForESt Deliverable 4.2, Aukes et al. 2020a), experimental Role Board Games and the systematic development of prototypes (cf. InnoForESt Deliverable 3.2, Kluvánková et al. 2019). In section 4, the Navigator ends with an outlook on plans how to convey the knowledge and methods acquired in the project in training circumstances, practice interactions, as well as the digital innovation platform which InnoForESt is developing. This deliverable, elaborated under WP5 leadership, has been co-authored with colleagues from the entire project and is thus a true joint deliverable. It draws information from the other InnoForESt work packages by integrating their analytical approaches, tools, and methods employed. It reflects on possibilities and limitations, options and alternatives of the elements currently in use. It also builds on the experience of the six Innovation Regions identifying basic patterns of forest ecosystem services governance innovation in practice “that work”. In the text, we refer to other results of the project that illustrate exciting aspects and from which further knowledge can be obtained: on the basis of which you can see how we did it in the project
Co-production and participation: two magic words?
Get PDFConsequences of co-production – In this era of growing challenges and shrinking budgets, governments are tempted to redefine some of their responsibilities. Fortunately for these institutions, the call for more public participation is answered by societal actors such as citizens, companies and societal organisations aspiring to step in. Co-production occurs, when governments work together with societal actors to find policy solutions. The final decision-making authority in such cases is still with the governments, but they are committed to the solutions developed with the societal actors. However, within these co-production processes, either governments or societal actors can be in the lead. Starting from the assumption that governmental institutions and societal actors have different interests and drivers, this article explores the consequences of societal actors taking the initiative in terms of involved actors, interaction and cooperation. In this contribution, we elaborate some of the consequences of such a shift in governance by examining a societal initiative resulting in a pilot at the Houtribdijk. This pilot investigates sandy strategies in low energy water systems for their potential for flood protection. This pilot is in contrast with the government led dike reinforcement project at the Houtribdijk
Multifunctionality as a supporting frame and storyline
Get PDFThis chapter deals with how the Sand Motor came about. This intriguing question led researchers Ewert Aukes and Lotte Bontje on a quest that provided many insights into the dynamics of the decision-making process leading up to the pilot Sand Motor. The researchers approached the issue from different, but related starting points: the frames that guided stakeholders to interpret the actual case (Page 30), and the storylines which stakeholders used to understand the whole project (Page 34)
D5.5: Ecosystems Service Governance Navigator & Manual for its Use
No full textWe aim for the Navigator to be a practical tool that should help finding orientation and direction for (forest) ecosystem innovation processes. To that end we provide suggestions for practical application throughout most of the sections. Deliverable 5.5 presents a Navigator to be used as a guidance to improve understanding on Forest Ecosystem Services governance innovations. The Navigator comprises the InnoForESt approach, as it has emerged in the course of this innovation action project. The Navigator entails a compendium of “heuristics” understood as a set of practical tools (rooted in theory) integrating the project knowledge generation and communication approach to forest ecosystem services (project glossary, analytical framework, fact sheets, typologies, workshops, etc.). It aims at giving orientation, not setting hard rules. The Navigator dedicated to the interested public outside this project for a first impression of the InnoForESt approach. A governance innovation Navigator, as we understand it in InnoForESt, is strongly rooted in the socio-political context of the innovations that are studied and cannot instantly be separated from this context. To understand the variation across the innovation contexts, we have mapped the biophysical and institutional features of forest ecosystem service provision as well as studied the governance and stakeholder contexts of the innovations. All methods applied are tailored to the innovations to be analysed and further developed. In turn, this also means that a presentation of methods is not complete without outline of the innovations themselves. Hence, this Navigator also refers to empirical findings from the regional socio-political innovation contexts including the respective project’s practice and scientific partners, entities we term Innovation Regions. There are InnoForESt Innovation Regions, in which payment schemes for ecosystem services or variants thereof are introduced or developed further, for example, in Finland and Germany. Others rethink the way they convey knowledge about forest ecosystem services, as it happens in Sweden and Austria. In Italy, the provincial forest management agency undertakes efforts to innovate its management practices of their special land-use type, the mid-elevation forest-pasture landscape. Finally, in the Czech and Slovak Innovation Regions, new practices of collective forest management are explored. After the introduction, in section 2, we present an overview of the theoretical background of the project (cf. InnoForESt Deliverable 3.1, Sorge & Mann 2019) as well as the analytical approaches used to come to the empirical orientations based on Stakeholder Analysis (cf. InnoForESt Deliverable 5.2, Schleyer et al. 2019), Governance Situation Assessment, and a reconstruction of the regional Innovation Journeys (cf. InnoForESt Deliverable 4.3, Loft et al. 2019). Section 3 provides a deeper look at the methods used in InnoForESt, including a technology-assessment-based, multi-stakeholder-driven Constructive Innovation Assessment (cf. InnoForESt Deliverable 4.2, Aukes et al. 2020a), experimental Role Board Games and the systematic development of prototypes (cf. InnoForESt Deliverable 3.2, Kluvánková et al. 2019). In section 4, the Navigator ends with an outlook on plans how to convey the knowledge and methods acquired in the project in training circumstances, practice interactions, as well as the digital innovation platform which InnoForESt is developing. This deliverable, elaborated under WP5 leadership, has been co-authored with colleagues from the entire project and is thus a true joint deliverable. It draws information from the other InnoForESt work packages by integrating their analytical approaches, tools, and methods employed. It reflects on possibilities and limitations, options and alternatives of the elements currently in use. It also builds on the experience of the six Innovation Regions identifying basic patterns of forest ecosystem services governance innovation in practice “that work”. In the text, we refer to other results of the project that illustrate exciting aspects and from which further knowledge can be obtained: on the basis of which you can see how we did it in the project
- …
