• Like
  • Save
"The Greenscom project: challenges and lessons learned" by Vanya Simeonova, Alterra
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

"The Greenscom project: challenges and lessons learned" by Vanya Simeonova, Alterra

on

  • 708 views

For more information about the Informed Cities initiative visit http://informed-cities.iclei-europe.org or join us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/InformedCities

For more information about the Informed Cities initiative visit http://informed-cities.iclei-europe.org or join us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/InformedCities

Statistics

Views

Total Views
708
Views on SlideShare
708
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    "The Greenscom project: challenges and lessons learned" by Vanya Simeonova, Alterra "The Greenscom project: challenges and lessons learned" by Vanya Simeonova, Alterra Presentation Transcript

    • The Greenscom project: Challenges and Lessons LearnedVanya Simeonova & Carmen AalbersAlterra-Wageningen University and Research Centre
    • GREENSCOM: Communicating Urban Growth and Green Cities of Tomorrow EU FP5 Five Research Institutes across Europe: -Alterra (NL), -Helsinki University of Technology (Finland); -Building and Urban Research (Denmark); -School of architecture, Chalmers University of Technology (Sweden) -FORS Social Research (France) Seven North West European Cities: Aarhus, Cergy Pontoise, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Houten, Tampere, Utrecht Fourteen case studies,
    • Greenscom GoalDevelop and improve planninginstruments that strengthen theintegration of urban green space inurban development of medium sizedcities in North West Europe including: Governance of the balance between green open spaces and built up areas and Ways of communication and participation in decision making for developing green spaces
    • Greenscom ObjectivesGovernance Level: DevelopAssessment Criteria for the effectof different policy instruments onthe quality of urban green areasand make recommendations toimprove theseCommunication issues : Toanalyze and evaluate theeffectiveness of communicationbetween professionals, politiciansand stakeholders in urban growth
    • Methodological framework Theoretical views based on existingknowledge about urban governance,communication and policy instrumentsCase studiesComparative framework Interactive workshops for joint policymakers/researchers’ assessment of casestudiesDevelopment of toolkit for urban planers
    • Research-Practice interfaceTheory PracticeConcepts Case-studiesThemes:-green planning and densification,-development of urban fringe and green-management of existing green spaces
    • Considerations for researchers and practitioners Balancing urban growth with green space preservation is aproblem across Europe Use of planning instruments vary, based on cultural andcontextual differences between countries “Green” may have various meanings in different countriesdepending on land use patterns, availability of space, socialneeds and cultural preferences. Reviewing best practices underlining the specific local contextis illustrative and can be useful across Europe.
    • Main ProductsTools developed Tools applied ApproachInternet toolkit: Research tools: Collaborative compilation of assessment approach for planning criteria for local researchers and instruments governmental planners to assess based on practices, the case studies and theoretical and communication identify the empirical concepts, governance and knowledge communication tools developed by methods for needed for researchers and green structure development and practitioners planning in cities preservation green together spaces
    • Framework of the toolkitAssessment Instruments Policy scale criteriaSocially Structural: National context sustainable Green structure plans, planningCommunicatively designs, impact sustainable Local context assessments Interactive:Ecologically Policy networks of sustainable Participatory agencies, individual planning, actors management contracts, PPP
    • How the work was carried out: The project as aplatform for learning? Local authorities and research organizationsinvolved from the beginning to the end of the project Sharing cultural differences regarding basic conceptsand understandings served as platform for learning Different ways of learning were identified trough theproject for planners and researchers: trough experiences in planning practice trough concepts to look at relations between planning elements and extract these from one situation to another
    • How the work was carried out: Challenges and barriers for collaboration with local policy makers? Learning was confronted by the differences between thecountries as each policy maker must first draw lessons for hislocal context; Local policy makers prefer to see more situation learning andexamples (“cooking book”) in contrary to generally prescribedtools; Planners in the local authorities need freedom to judge whichtools to use that are relevant to certain context in their urbanarea Planners may have critical views on research but need toundertake more initiative and articulate opinions on possiblesolutions during research
    • How the work was carried out: Lessons learned bydifferent partners?“We believe that the Greenscom project overall has been worth while, butalso that the theoretic-oriented part of it has been too dominating. Theresearcher-angle has not, as we see it, sufficiently respected the needs of thepractitioners. (Ole Skou Rasmussen and Troels Back, November 2003) “Research-practice cooperation is a difficult task for many reasons. Arethe outcomes destined to the practitioners or not? Do the researchers or do thepractitioners define the cases, issues, questions…? The researchers don’talways all agree, but do the practitioners all agree?” (Elizabeth Auclair,December 2003)””The ideal outcome of research-practice cooperation should have bothscientific and practical relevance. Research and practice have different aims,making knowledge explicit and solving problems, respectively. New knowledgemay support planning practice if applied but not necessarily fully solve theactual planning problems.” (Björn Malbert, December 2003)”
    • Towards a collaborative approach in urban planningin Europe: Looking at the future Intermediary phase to transfer research products intounderstandable, usable product to practice-oriented stakeholders(problem oriented) Involving policy makers, practitioners and researchers to look atconcepts and models of communication, build knowledge forumsalong the research process Build a network of competence and trust in sustainablerelationships that last beyond the project timeframe Maintain the communication throughout the project The final products (toolkit) are jointly developed
    • Conclusions The project allowed local authorities to make a self-assessment of their current practice in planning urban greenspaces and the effectiveness of policy instruments Comparing different practices of European cities is essentialfor drawing lessons in specific context but also serves as aplatform for learning among policy makers and researchers The project approach allowed to reflect upon existing andtheoretical concepts on governance and communication inurban green structure planning and translate these intoplanning tools
    • Thank you!www.greenscom.com