Despite decades of residence, Turkish-Dutch citizens, one of the largest immigrant groups in the Netherlands, continue to face significant disparities in health, social, and economic factors compared to native Dutch citizens. To better understand this persistent disparity, we examined the acculturation process of Turkish-Dutch citizens across three generations. Our study addressed two critical research gaps: (1) acculturation processes across three generations within a specific immigrant group, and (2) different acculturation domains across these generations. Data from 464 participants (232 Turkish-Dutch, 232 Dutch) show that acculturation varies significantly across generations (1st, 2nd, and 3rd) and domains (i.e., national identification, cultural values, language, and media use), with the second generation demonstrating the strongest resemblance to native Dutch citizens in most domains. These findings contribute to a nuanced understanding of acculturation processes and confirm the need for future research to consider generational differences and domain-specificity. The results have potential implications for policymakers and practitioners aiming to reduce disparities of Turkish-Dutch citizens with tailored policy and communication strategies.
MULTIFILE
Cultural festivals can attract cultural tourists, extend the tourist season and add vibrancy to the cultural scene. However, there is relatively little research on how festivals affect tourist experience of the destination or outcomes such as satisfaction or repeat visitation. This study used the Event Experience Scale to measure tourist experiences at three cultural festivals in Hong Kong – the Lantern Festival, Dragon Boat Festival and the Cheung Chau Bun Festival. The findings show that tourist experiences of these festivals are distinct, and they positively affect destination image and behavioural outcomes. Relative to permanent attractions and tours, festival experiences elicit stronger affective, conative and novelty responses. Festivals also convey a stronger impression of Hong Kong as a destination exhibiting Chinese and traditional culture, but less as a global city. The festival experience is associated with positive outcomes, namely greater satisfaction, intention to recommend and intention to return.
City growth threatens sustainable development of cities. Over the past decades increased urbanization has created more pressure - not only on the suburban outskirts - but also in the inner core of the cities, putting important environmental issues such as water management and cultural heritage under stress. Cultural heritage, either standing monuments or archaeological remains, is internationally recognized as an important legacy of our history. The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage incorporates concepts and ideas that have become accepted practice in Europe. Conservation and enhancement of archaeological heritage is one of the goals of urban planning policies. One of the key objectives of the European policy is to protect, preferably in-situ, archaeological remains buried in the soil or seabed and to incorporate archaeological heritage into spatial planning policies. Conflicts with prior uses and unappreciated impacts on other subsurface resources, amongst them archaeological heritage, make use of underground space in cities suboptimal. In terms of ecosystem services, the subsurface environment acts either as a carrier of archaeological heritage in situ (stewardship) or supports above-ground cultural heritage. Often, it’s not enough to protect the heritage site or monument itself: new developments outside a specific protected area can lead to changes in groundwater level, and cause serious damage to heritage buildings and archaeological deposits. This paper presents good practices in cultural heritage management and the use of subsurface knowledge in urban areas.
In recent years, disasters are increasing in numbers, location, intensity and impact; they have become more unpredictable due to climate change, raising questions about disaster preparedness and management. Attempts by government entities at limiting the impact of disasters are insufficient, awareness and action are urgently needed at the citizen level to create awareness, develop capacity, facilitate implementation of management plans and to coordinate local action at times of uncertainty. We need a cultural and behavioral change to create resilient citizens, communities, and environments. To develop and maintain new ways of thinking has to start by anticipating long-term bottom-up resilience and collaborations. We propose to develop a serious game on a physical tabletop that allows individuals and communities to work with a moderator and to simulate disasters and individual and collective action in their locality, to mimic real-world scenarios using game mechanics and to train trainers. Two companies–Stratsims, a company specialized in game development, and Society College, an organization that aims to strengthen society, combine their expertise as changemakers. They work with Professor Carola Hein (TU Delft), who has developed knowledge about questions of disaster and rebuilding worldwide and the conditions for meaningful and long-term disaster preparedness. The partners have already reached out to relevant communities in Amsterdam and the Netherlands, including UNUN, a network of Ukrainians in the Netherlands. Jaap de Goede, an experienced strategy simulation expert, will lead outreach activities in diverse communities to train trainers and moderate workshops. This game will be highly relevant for citizens to help grow awareness and capacity for preparing for and coping with disasters in a bottom-up fashion. The toolkit will be available for download and printing open access, and for purchase. The team will offer training and facilitate workshops working with local communities to initiate bottom-up change in policy making and planning.
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.
Dutch Cycling Intelligence (DCI) embodies all Dutch cycling knowledge to enhances customer-oriented cycling policy. Based on the data-driven cycle policy enhancement tools and knowledge of the Breda University of Applied Sciences, DCI is the next step in creating a learning community between road authorities, consultants, cycling industry, and knowledge institutes with their students. The DCI consists of three pilars:- Connecting- Accelerating knowledge- Developing knowledgeConnecting There are many stakeholders and specialists in the cycling domain. Specialists with additional knowledge about socio-cultural impacts, geo-special knowledge, and technical traffic solutions. All of these specialists need each other to ensure a perfect balance between the (electric) bicycle, the cyclist and the cycle path in its environment. DCI connects and brings together all kind of different specialists.Accelerating knowledge Many bicycle innovations take place in so-called living labs. Within the living lab, the triple helix collaboration between road authorities the industry and knowledge institutes is key. Being actively involved in state-of-the-art innovations creates an inspiring work and learning environment for students and staff. A practical example of a successful living lab is the cycle superhighway F261 between Tilburg and Waalwijk, where BUAS tested new cycle route signage. Next, the Cycling Lab F58 is created, where the road authorities Breda and Tilburg opened up physical cycling infrastructure for entrepreneurs in the bicycle domain and knowledge institutes to develop e-cycling innovation. The living labs are test environments where pilots can be carried out in practice and an excellent environment for students to conduct scientifically applied research.Developing knowledge Ultimately, data and information must be translated into knowledge. With a team of specialists and partners Breda University of applied sciences developed knowledge and tools to monitor and evaluate cycling behavior. By participating in (inter)national research programs BUAS has become one of the frontrunners in data-driven cycle policy enhancement. In close collaboration with road authorities, knowledge institutes as well as consultants, new insights and answers are developed in an international context. By an active knowledge contribution to the network of the Dutch Cycling Embassy, BUAS aims to strengthen its position and add to the global sustainability challenges. Partners: Province Noord-Brabant, Province Utrecht, Vervoerregio Amsterdam, Dutch Cycling Embassy, Tour de Force, University of Amsterdam, Technical University Eindhoven, Technical University Delft, Utrecht University, DTV Capacity building, Dat.mobility, Goudappel Coffeng, Argaleo, Stratopo, Move.Mobility Clients:Province Noord-Brabant, Province Utrecht, Province Zuid-Holland, Tilburg, Breda, Tour de Force
