Logo EUCC-D
Deutsch English
<< | >>

Mossbauer, M., Schernewski, G.. Kooperation von Wissenschaft und Praxis in Forschungsprojekten: Erfahrungen am Beispiel der Odermündungsregion. (Co-operation and social learning between scientists and stakeholders in the Oder estuary region: A survey.) In: Schernewski, G., Janßen, H., Schumacher, S. (eds.). Coastal Change in the southern Baltic Sea Region. Coastline Reports (12), pp. 143-160. EUCC - The Coastal Union, Leiden, 2009.

Zusammenfassung:

The national German project IKZM-Oder and the EU–FP6 project SPICOSA (Science and Policy Integration for Coastal Systems Assessment) carry out research and develop strategies and methodologies to support Integrated Coastal Zone Management, and the sustainable development of coastal areas. The Oder/Odra estuary at the German/Polish border is the focus region of IKZMOder and a study site area for SPICOSA. The Oder estuary initiative is based on a regional Agenda 21 “Oder Lagoon - Region of two nations”, a co-operation agreement and formal commitment between the Ministry of Environment of the Federal State Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany) and the Vojevodship Western Pomerania (Poland), signed in 2002. Among the 10 themes of action are “Integrated Coastal Zone Management” and “Scientific cooperation”. In the Oder estuary initiative, the involvement of regional practitioners, authorities, NGOs and district administrations is an important element. Altogether 12 persons form a permanent advisory board. This board and the interdisciplinary scientific groups meet once or twice a year, to discuss recent regional research results and to exchange ideas. Here we present results of a survey of the advisory board members. Based on a questionaire and personal interviews, we tried to get their perspective of the Oder estuary initative, the information and communication tools and structures as well as their experience in the co-operation with scienctists and possible resulting social learning processes. The survey was based on a questionaire provided by McFadden et al. (in prep.). This questionaire (see chapter 2) was translated, modified, extended and adapted to regional needs. Altogether seven advisory board members were willing to take part in this study. All of them had previously been involved in scientific projects and had experience in co-operation with scientists. The motivations for getting involved in a learning process with scientists in ICZM were an exchange of experiences, increased awareness, gaining knowledge and getting scientific research results for free. All saw the co-operation process as positive. Major points were: productive co-operation, a nice working atmosphere, better understanding of certain topics, access to recent knowledge and expertise, strengthening of German/Polish co-operation, exchange of ideas and improved awareness of regional problems among scientists as well as promotion of more practical research topics. Five out of seven people mentioned negative experiences as well: The thematic interests of scientists and practioners did not fit together and research results often were not directly applicable. There was a complaint that scientists did not show a sufficient local commitment and that cooperation was not permanent. Six out of seven people came to the conclusion that joint scientific projects are beneficial for cooperation between practitioners and scientists and five people stated that they had personally benefited from the project work. Only three people answered that the cooperation has changed their perception of problems and their future decision making. Information and results were spread via local and national newletters, email, provided in articles and online reports and made available via an internet platform (www.ikzm-oder.de). However, personal phone calls and joint meetings were considered to be the most effective communication pathways. Despite the positive overall evaluation of the joint meetings, attendence was often poor. To improve the attractiveness the following suggestions were made: Stronger focus on tourism as a topic, additional excursions, an interesting programme framework, an attractive location and presentations of other projects. Further the dates and topics should be agreed upon by all participants and the benefits of participation should be clear. Six out of seven people had the opinion that the advisory board and the existing communication structures are successful. However they would like to be much more involved in the planning process, and would like to have a stronger influence on the project and co-operation.

PDF: Mossbauer.pdf (589.701 Bytes)
(Seite in 0,00 Sekunden erzeugt.)