|
|
European Cooperation in the field of Scientific and Technical Research - COST Action C11 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Introduction COPENHAGEN MEETING - 30 June to 3 July '05 Minutes of meeting 1 COST C 11 PublicationsFinal report: Ann Carol has sent the report to Brussels. She has no control over the further publication process but the latest message of 11 July is that a part of the report is already in print. Any mistakes in the report can only be corrected in the pdf-files on our website, but not any more in the version submitted to the publisher. Practitioners’ brochure: The brochure for practitioners has not been finished. Peter said that he will put the last version from April on the website. Ann Caroll will ask, whether the deadline for getting funds for printing has already been passed or not. Other publications: All members should give notice to Bernard, Stephan and Anne about further publications of the COST Action, no matter in which language they are written. Please mention also papers where the COST Action has been mentioned / promoted. Please provide full bibliographic references (with an English translation in parentheses). 2 Name, organisation and aims of the network Name and organisation: The name of the network should be more open than strictly linked to the COST action. It is “Network: Green structures and Urban Planning (former COST C11)”. Stephan will serve as contact person as long as nobody else wants to take over responsibility. He has the addresses of all members and will find together with Anne Beer ways and means to circulate information to all members of the network. Members are those who were participants of the COST action and the guests that attended the final conference of C 11 in Budejovice or the meeting at Copenhagen. The network is also open to others provided they send there contact details to Stephan. Aims of the network The aim of the network is To maintain an informal network on green structure and urban planning for interested researchers and practitioners from different fields, disciplines and institutions (public administration, universities, private offices, interested private), To learn about the green structures of European cities in field visits, discussions with local experts and by exchange of relevant information via the website, To prepare new projects and actions related to urban green structure, To disseminate and distribute the findings of the COST C 11 Action and further promote the concept of green structure, To maintain a website. 3 Ideas for future work (see attachment) Short proposals were presented by
All proposals were discussed in four working groups with the exception of the eLearning project, which is a dissemination project but could become a part of other new activities: Green structure governance and ‘soft functions’ (which could but must not necessarily become the umbrella-working title to take new actions) (Minutes by Marleen) Green structure in different worlds (Minutes by Sybrand and Sjef), Evidence based governance for urban green structures (Minutes by Bettina). A special cooperative Project is the EULAP cooperation with the le: Notre Network Minutes by Richard Stiles & Stephan) 3.1 Governance (which could but must not necessarily become the umbrella-working title to take new actions) Aim / Main objectives Focus for research and / or public administration (analyses and or recommendations) Participants (How to find them?) Envisaged result / product Ways and methods, steps (kind of meetings, workshops etc.) Funding (COST Action or other kind of funding?) Responsibilities 3.2 Green structure in different worlds (minutes by Sybrand & Sjef) Aim / Main objectives The proposed general aim of the exchange project is mutual learning from experiences about planning, design, management and maintenance of green areas in the context of urban development. In the working group’s meeting we emphasised the need to aim at sharing experiences on a colleague-to-colleague basis. Focus for research and / or public administration (analyses and or recommendations) The proposal stressed ‘best practices’ in municipal green structure planning as the focus of research. In the meeting most of us felt a need to further limit the field. Several potential focal points were selected:
The first and second themes address procedural aspects and leave it open to choose a variety of substantive aspects. Most likely, the starting point will be a theoretical statement and the research will start by a search for relevant cases. In case one of the last three themes will be chosen, the research will probably start by the concrete institutions and documents related to these substantive issues. The study will then look at the procedural and substantive issues encountered. Thus, a choice for 1 or 2 will tend to produce a theory-driven research plan, whereas a choice for 3,4 or 5 will lead to a practice-driven research project. In the discussion, some felt it necessary to limit the scope of the project to a geographically limited area and not aiming for participation from all continents. Sjef argued for a broad scope, drawing on positive experiences with a similar exchange project concerning river-basins all over the world. Participants (How to find them?) The proposal mentioned practitioners, ngo’s and researchers and stressed the need for at least eight cities to participate. In the meeting it was felt that the best way to generate a group of initiators is to explore the existing networks and conferences. Commitment of the initiators could also influence the focus of research or a possible geographical limitation. Envisaged result / productThe meeting did not change the proposal’s text. Ways and methods, steps (kind of meetings, workshops etc.) At this stage the meeting did not comment on the proposed stages and steps. Fortunately, PhD students Li Liu and Jasper Schipperijn took part in our working group’s meeting. This made us more aware of the possible benefits of a link between our future project and current university research. Funding (COST Action or other kind of funding?) The project we envisage includes non-European participants and may therefore not fall into the range of COST. Perhaps COST could support the project together with others. At this stage we discussed the possible funding by international networks for Housing (UN-Habitat), for urban (and peri-urban) forestry and agriculture (FAO) and for urban water management. The participation of universities, cities and NGO’s, of course, also includes a contribution to the budget. This contribution may primarily involve people and practical arrangements for field visits. Responsibilities Sybrand and Sjef will elaborate the proposal and further explore the options. They will prepare a new version of the proposal. Björn Malbert will explore the options in the UN Habitat network and the conference in Nangjin in November. Jasper Schipperijn will further explore the options of the Urban Forestry Network. 3.3 Evidence based governance for urban green structures Participants of the working group: Barbara Szulczewska, Karen Attwell, Anna Jorgensen, Bettina Oppermann, Ulrik Reeh?, Hilde Moe Aim / Main objectives: Collection and interpretation of standards at work in different cities and countries. The group would like to enhance learning from each other and discuss about best practices of standards at work. Those standards should refer to space, because otherwise the field could become too broad. But they can involve not only hard standards and norms but also practices and procedures that are more or less standardized in use. They should include also the implementation phase of planning, that is the implementation of plans and actions and the maintainance of planning products. As a start we could look at standards of quantity, quality, access to green structures and long term monitoring standards. Focus for research and / or public administration (analyses and or recommendations): The group wants to start with an analytic understanding, how standards are at work, why and how they are used and have developed historically. It seems to be important to understand also the political and economic background of the standards and gain a better understanding, why they are controversial or how they grounded on scientific or practical knowledge. The group also wants to give recommendations or give advice to practitioners how to use standards as an instrument in urban green structure planning. The ways and means how the standards and the qualities (being based on evidence) can be communicated to the general public and to stakeholder groups is a question to deal with. Participants (How to find them?): The group should include research people and practitioners from the planning side on the cities and the regional level. The norm building process and the involved actors are a possible target group as well. Existing networks, that work with standards and benchwork-strategies could be invited (Baltic cities network). Envisaged result / product: Best practices …. Ways and methods, steps (kind of meetings, workshops etc.): The field visit approach is useful in this action. It should be accompanied by a profound discourse with experts from the field of scientific work but also from the practitioners side. Funding (COST Action or other kind of funding?): We suggest a COST Action “Green Governance” and could here build up a working group focussing on the question how green standards are an instrument in the “toolkit” and how they get the quality of being based on evidence. Responsibilities: Barbara has already applied in her country for a research project. A small group could try together with the governance work to discuss a new COST action. 3.4 EULP cooperation with the le:Notre Network (Minutes by Stephan) Participants of the working group: Richard Stiles, Simon Bell, Arie Koster, Elke Mertens, Stephan Pauleit, Inkeri Vähä-Piikkiö, +? Aim / Main objectives: The working group discussed the possibility of creating the EULP as a new initiative. The idea of creating a European Urban Landscape Partnership has developed in the Le:Notre project funded by the EU. The aims and objectives are to establish a partnership between cities, universities, and other organisations in the field of urban landscape planning and management. The Network would establish an information centre and communication structure, through which experience and best practice could be presented, developed and exchanged between Europe’s major municipalities and universities for the benefit of all concerned. The focus on a Network web site would be a central feature of the Network. It would also develop a wide range of relevant activities from seminars to research projects, lobbying activities and competitions (from Richard Stile’s leaflet, slightly changed) Focus for research and / or public administration (analyses and or recommendations): Information network that links public administration with academia on urban landscape issues. Participants (How to find them?): In the beginning 25 – 30 cities, approached through personal contacts of the EULP core group, as well as partnering universities and other organisations such as the Council of Europe, Eurocities, the European Environment Agency, ICLEI, Council of Local Authorities and Regions in Europe (CLARE) and relevant other organisations Envisaged result / product: A permanent network between local administration, universities and other organisations. Potential outputs could include a website that makes available information on best practice examples of landscape projects; seminars, student competitions, projects and funding of collaborative PhDs, lobbying for green space issues at EU and national levels. Funding (COST Action or other kind of funding?): Potential sources for funding need to be identified. The original proposal by Richard suggests that the network should be self-funded through contributions from the local authorities. However, it needs to be seen whether this is feasible. Perhaps EU programmes such as Interreg could provide for additional / alternative sources of funding. A new COST network could support researchers with means for networking. Responsibilities: Richard Stiles (RS) (main organiser) with Simon Bell, Arie Koster, Elke Mertens, Stephan Pauleit, Inkeri Vähä-Piikkiö. Next steps:
3.5 eLearning- and eTraining-Marketplace Bettina has small funds to start with an eLearning- and eTraining-network. On the one hand the material from the COST Action C 11 could be reused in this context, if the authors of the needed chapters agree that their contribution is used for teaching and training at the university or for other purposes. Bettina will contact those who may be concerned. On the other hand, this activity can also be used as a dissemination strategy for a new action. No working group is needed at the moment, but if a new action comes is established, it is an offer to use the elearning platform, that will be stablished the following year. As a first step, the general ways to “give and take” should be clarified. The suggestion is to gain offers from the possible participants of the marketplace. A review process should be started and a general frame must be established to guarantee quality. The marketplace should be small in the beginning and can grow step by step. 4 Further steps to take Every group has thought about possible steps to take. Please comment the minutes of the Copenhagen meeting and make up your mind, which role you and your institution might have in further activities. …(irgend so ein gestuftes System, wo sich jeder eintragen kann? Everybody should declare her or his readiness
Final Report The Scope Button to the right tells you about the purpose of this project, its timetable and funding. The other buttons will take you to the latest information on the Website. You can use this email link to send a message to the webmaster for inclusion in the posted messages. Click the buttons to the right to navigate this site
|
Meetings Background |
COST Action C11
up dated 16 June 2005
Web space designed for the COST11 C11 Action by Map21
Ltd