Worldwide, there is a growing recognition that strategic partnering between cities and universities can bring substantial benefits for both sides. The big question is how to organize such partnerships successfully. This handbook offers insights, best practices and advice for leaders in cities and universities that want to go beyond “ad hoc” projects and take the next step towards a strategic and sustainable partnership. The handbook identifies promising avenues, but also barriers and pitfalls and how to avoid them. Illustrated by a rich variety of examples from European cities, the handbook provides concrete advice on the various stages of strategic city-university collaboration. This handbook intends to provide inspiring practices and guidance to develop strategic interaction between city and university, considering the complex and layered nature of both. The focus lies on the more strategic, transformational types of collaborations, that are more complex.
DOCUMENT
BackgroundTackling challenges related to health, environmental sustainability and equity requires many sectors to work together. This “intersectoral co-operation” can pose a challenge on its own. Research commonly focuses on one field or is conducted within one region or country. The aim of this study was to investigate facilitators and barriers regarding intersectoral co-operative behaviour as experienced in twelve distinct case studies in ten European countries. The COM-B behavioural system was applied to investigate which capabilities, opportunities and motivational elements appear necessary for co-operative behaviour.MethodTwelve focus groups were conducted between October 2018 and March 2019, with a total of 76 participants (policymakers, case study coordinators, governmental institutes and/or non-governmental organisations representing citizens or citizens). Focus groups were organised locally and held in the native language using a common protocol and handbook. One central organisation coordinated the focus groups and analysed the results. Translated data were analysed using deductive thematic analysis, applying previous intersectoral co-operation frameworks and the COM-B behavioural system.ResultsAmongst the main facilitators experienced were having highly motivated partners who find common goals and see mutual benefits, with good personal relationships and trust (Motivation). In addition, having supportive environments that provide opportunities to co-operate in terms of support and resources facilitated co-operation (Opportunity), along with motivated co-operation partners who have long-term visions, create good external visibility and who have clear agreements and clarity on roles from early on (Capability). Barriers included not having necessary and/or structural resources or enough time, and negative attitudes from specific stakeholders.ConclusionsThis study on facilitators and barriers to intersectoral co-operation in ten European countries confirms findings of earlier studies. This study also demonstrates that the COM-B model can serve as a relatively simple tool to understand co-operative behaviour in terms of the capability, opportunity and motivation required amongst co-operation partners from different sectors. Results can support co-operators’ and policymakers’ understanding of necessary elements of intersectoral co-operation. It can help them in developing more successful intersectoral co-operation when dealing with challenges of health, environmental sustainability and equity.
DOCUMENT
https://www.fons.org/Resources/Documents/Journal/Vol11No1/IPDJ_1101_11.pdfBackground: There is a growing amount of research in which older adults contribute as co-researchers. The quality of this research depends, among other factors, on the nature of relationships between professional researchers and co-researchers. Reflections on these relationships can offer structured insight into this form of research.Aim: Our reflection on the co-operation between two older adults and a nurse researcher aims to share the lessons learned based on a critical understanding of our journey. Our main questions are: 1. How has the relationship developed over time, including in terms of mutuality and equality? 2. Which moments have been decisive in this development?Conclusion: We regard our co-operative relationship as a ‘dynamic search’. The meaning of mutuality and equality may change over time and so enrich the relationships. There is a need for further understanding into how these values can be nurtured in different configurations of researchers and co-researchers.Implications for practice: Evolving relations can be nurtured through deliberative sharing of the perceptions, expectations and experiences of the researchers and co-researchers Combining a formal working atmosphere with informal moments helps the research team respond to the individual needs of its members To enhance equality and mutuality, it is important to appreciate and value everyone’s contribution rather than concentrating on ‘what’ or ‘how’ individuals contribute
MULTIFILE
ILIAD builds on the assets resulting from two decades of investments in policies and infrastructures for the blue economy and aims at establishing an interoperable, data-intensive, and cost-effective Digital Twin of the Ocean (DTO). It capitalizes on the explosion of new data provided by many different earth sources, advanced computing infrastructures (cloud computing, HPC, Internet of Things, Big Data, social networking, and more) in an inclusive, virtual/augmented, and engaging fashion to address all Earth Data challenges. It will contribute towards a sustainable ocean economy as defined by the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Ocean, a hub for global, multi-stakeholder co-operation.
In the coming four years, the Hedwige-Prosperpolder in the Schelde estuary will be reopened for nature restoration. This creates opportunities, within a binational Dutch-Belgian consortium, to experiment with the existing dike and to perform targeted dike breach experiments and breach monitoring. We will exploit this opportunity to investigate a newly described, potentially valuable contribution of vegetated foreshores to flood safety: the restriction of dike breach extent, and thus of flooding volume, in the case of failure of the dike. Fostering marsh development in front of realigned dikes could improve safety more than hitherto thought. Not only does it reduce dike failure probabilities, it may also restrict the consequences of failures. Even though this is not the primary goal of the HPP realignment, in this Living Lab we will study how management realignment can be used as a nature-based solution for flood safety. We will model the contribution of vegetated foreshores to breach development, calculate its contribution to reduction of risks, and validate the model using the breach experiment. We will also study the conditions for, and rates of, vegetation and soil strength development in front of realigned dikes. We will explore novel designs and maintenance schemes for realigned dikes connected to a vegetated foreshore. Finally, we will study how people experience physical changes in the landscape in terms of place attachment: will they be reconnected to the changed landscape when properly informed on the new role of this landscape in ecosystem development and safety enhancement? The project consortium is composed of engineers, ecologists and social scientists with a strong track record in multidisciplinary co-operation. It is externally supported by national and regional water authorities, contractors and engineering companies. It is ideally situated to translate new knowledge into operational procedures, and incorporate this into the education of future coastal professionals.
