Table1 climate change_clearinghouse

244 views

Published on

Background document which led to the Clearinghouse for sustainable mountain developments we are creating on www.mountaintrip.eu

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
244
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Table1 climate change_clearinghouse

  1. 1. mountain.TRIPmountain sustainability: Transforming Research Into PracticePRACTITIONERS’ CONSULTATION WORKSHOP9 NOVEMBER 2010Clearinghouse for climate change researchSummaryJacek Kozak, Dominik KaimJagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland 2009-2011 | FP7 | Coordination and Support Action Knowledge Transfer and uptake of EU research results
  2. 2. Presentation of results1.How useful is the content and does it respond to the information needs of the targeted group of practitioners?Main findings:• in general – yes, it is (might be) useful• several requirements / needs have to be metStrengths and weaknesses of the content:• one of many platforms/ portals for CC (W)• information and not data (S)
  3. 3. Presentation of results2.How well do the communication goals address the communication problems? Are they ambitious enough, feasible, relevant?Main findings:• yes, relevant; time savings to extract ‘ready information’ are important• due to diverse community – translation is necessary• users have to be defined more preciselyStrengths and weaknesses of the communication goals:• unclear user definition (W)• practice-orientation may attract users which up to now were not benefitingfrom CC research
  4. 4. Presentation of results3.How is the fit between the components of the information products? How effective are the information products as a whole?Main findings:• effectiveness depends on the design and ‘marketing’Strengths and weaknesses of the information products as a whole:• has to be known and used, maintained – otherwise makes no sense (W)
  5. 5. Presentation of results4.How well does the proposed format(s) correspond to the target groups preferences?Main findings:• yes, it is one of important ways / methods of looking for information• CCC may be structured and ‘personalised’ with respect to user groupsStrengths and weaknesses of the format(s):• it is very easy to construct one more technical tool which would be rejectedby users at the very beginning (users do not like it & do not use it)•required ease-of use, intuitiveness• CCC layout is important
  6. 6. Presentation of results5. How effective and adequate are the chosen dissemination channels?Main findings:• links / newsletters / email lists with information• Google search !!!• targeted mail lists• exchange of links• mass media
  7. 7. Presentation of results6.Which aspect of the information products needs to be improved most? How?Main findings:• translations (at least keywords)• intuitive design• advanced search capabilities• various ways of structuring the information: thematic, geographic• additional project outcome categories may be included (e.g., layman reports)Other key comments:• focus on CC (economic) impacts (practice-oriented)• benchmarking / comparison to other similar platforms is important
  8. 8. Presentation of results7.Do you think these information products could be used for the future communication of research results?Main findings:• yes• continuity and maintenance beyond the project lifetime – very difficult;volunteering participation / clearinghouse update was discussed, but noconvincing evidence that it might work; reliability of information is an issuethen

×