The Northern Netherlands is like many delta’s prone to a wide range of climate change effects. Given the region its long history with floods and adaptation, there are numerous initiatives to be found that tried to battle these effects. As part of the Climate Adaptation Week Groningen, an inventory was made of these initiatives. The most inspiring ones were coined ‘best practices’, and analysed in order to learn lessons. A distinction was made between 4 regional landscape types. The first consists of the coastline itself, where the effects of the rising sea level begin to show. The second covers the farmlands near the coastlines, where challenges such as salinisation and the loss of biodiversity prevail. A third landscape covers the historically compact cities, which have to deal with rising temperatures and heavy rainfall in increasingly limited spaces. The fourth and final landscape comprises the wetlands surrounding the cities, where the natural capacity to retain and store rainwater is undermined by its agriculture usage. Most of these challenges form a risk for maintaining a liveable region. The best practices that were collected show a diverse set of innovations and experiments, both on small and large scales. Three main characteristics could be distinguished that illustrate trends in climate adaptation practices. First, many best practices were aimed at restoring and embracing the natural capacity of the different landscapes, giving more and more room for the building with nature concept as part of building resilience. Second, climate adaptation is seldomly focussed on as the sole function of a spatial intervention, and is almost always part of integrated plans in which biodiversity, agriculture, recreation or other themes are prolonged with it. A third and last characteristic shows that many projects embed a strong focus on the historical context of places as a source of inspiration and cultural identity. The best practices show how different ways of adapting are emerging and can inspire planners across the world.
Background and Objectives: Various interventions aim to reduce obesity and promote healthy lifestyles among different cultural groups.Methods: We have conducted a systematic literature review, following PRISMA guidelines (registered at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/HB9AX), to explore profiles of cultural adaptation and parenting approach of lifestyle interventions for families with young children (1-4 years).Results: Our search (in CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and SSCI) yielded 41 studies reporting 31 interventions. Drawing on Intervention Mapping, we applied a newly developed framework with various indicators of cultural adaptation and a parenting approach to analyze interventions. Our review shows clear differences in the level of cultural adaptation. A categorical principal component analysis revealed 6 different empirical profiles of cultural adaptation.Conclusions: Based on our profiles, we discuss how cultural adaptation can be strengthened in the design of future early interventions aimed at promoting a healthy lifestyle.
MULTIFILE
Background: Concepts such as participation and environment may differ across cultures. Consequently, to use a measure like the Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth (PEM-CY) in other than the original English-speaking contexts, cultural adaptation needs to be assured. The aim of this study was to cross-culturally translate and adapt the PEM-CY into German as it is used in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Methods: Fifteen parents of children and adolescents with disabilities from three German speaking countries participated in three rounds of think-aloud interviews. We followed the procedure of cultural equivalence guidelines including two additional steps. Data was analyzed by content analysis using semantic, idiomatic, experiential and conceptual equivalence. Results: Results show adaptations mainly focused on experiential and conceptual equivalence, with conceptual equivalence being the most challenging to reach. Examples of experiential equivalence included adapting the examples of activities in the PEM-CY to reflect those typical in German speaking countries. Conceptual equivalence mainly addressed aspects of “involvement” and “environment” of children and adolescents and was reached through adaptations such as enhanced instructions and structures, and additional definitions. Conclusions: This study presents a cross-cultural translation and adaptation process to develop a German version of the PEM-CY that is suitable for Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Using a modified cultural adaptation process, a culturally adapted version of PEM-CY (German) is now available for research, practice and further validation.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
Human kind has a major impact on the state of life on Earth, mainly caused by habitat destruction, fragmentation and pollution related to agricultural land use and industrialization. Biodiversity is dominated by insects (~50%). Insects are vital for ecosystems through ecosystem engineering and controlling properties, such as soil formation and nutrient cycling, pollination, and in food webs as prey or controlling predator or parasite. Reducing insect diversity reduces resilience of ecosystems and increases risks of non-performance in soil fertility, pollination and pest suppression. Insects are under threat. Worldwide 41 % of insect species are in decline, 33% species threatened with extinction, and a co-occurring insect biomass loss of 2.5% per year. In Germany, insect biomass in natural areas surrounded by agriculture was reduced by 76% in 27 years. Nature inclusive agriculture and agri-environmental schemes aim to mitigate these kinds of effects. Protection measures need success indicators. Insects are excellent for biodiversity assessments, even with small landscape adaptations. Measuring insect biodiversity however is not easy. We aim to use new automated recognition techniques by machine learning with neural networks, to produce algorithms for fast and insightful insect diversity indexes. Biodiversity can be measured by indicative species (groups). We use three groups: 1) Carabid beetles (are top predators); 2) Moths (relation with host plants); 3) Flying insects (multiple functions in ecosystems, e.g. parasitism). The project wants to design user-friendly farmer/citizen science biodiversity measurements with machine learning, and use these in comparative research in 3 real life cases as proof of concept: 1) effects of agriculture on insects in hedgerows, 2) effects of different commercial crop production systems on insects, 3) effects of flower richness in crops and grassland on insects, all measured with natural reference situations
In het kader van het Hoogwaterbeschermingsprogramma (HWBP) neemt de vraag naar klei voor het versterken van dijken toe, echter is het aanbod beperkt. Dit voorstel richt zich op ontwikkelen van nieuwe duurzame en kosteneffectieve technieken die het mogelijk maken om zout sediment uit estuaria in te kunnen zetten voor de dijkversterkingsopgave. Gebiedseigen materiaal, met name het zoute slib, kan worden ingezet voor klei productie in lokale dijkverzwaring en draagt bij aan duurzaam grondstoffenverbruik, klimaatadaptatie en de ecologische kwaliteit van estuaria. Met het project “Ontzouten rijpend slib voor Deltabescherming” gaan het lectoraat Sustainable River Management van de HAN, Ecoshape, Netics in samenwerking met partijen verenigd in het interbestuurlijk project IBP-VLOED onderzoeken hoe zout slib (kosten)effectief kan worden ontdaan van het zout, zodat het gebruikt kan worden in de regionale dijkversterkingsopgave. In IBP-Vloed zijn alle relevante nationale en regionale (semi)overheden, kennisinstellingen en belangenorganisaties vertegenwoordigd die zich richten op hergebruik van slib uit het Eems-Dollard estuarium. Beoogd wordt om een geschikte kosteneffectieve en schaalbare ontzoutingsmethode (strategie) te ontwikkelen die rekening houdt met de samenhang van de governing parameters en de heterogeniteit in samenstelling en structuur van het zoute slib uit estuaria zoals het Eems-Dollard gebied. De resultaten worden gepresenteerd tijdens een workshop en gebundeld in de vorm van best practices.
