Upload
curran-peters
View
26
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Mid term review : unsatisfactory project. direct recommendations i – ix revision of deliverables period 1 & 2 ,within 3 months reduce scope: (a) users, (b) themes, (c) Russian version, (d) field; SIA/IA more active approach: websites, dissemination, cooperation with other projects. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Mid term review : unsatisfactory project
• direct recommendations i – ix• revision of deliverables period 1 &
2 ,within 3 months• reduce scope: (a) users, (b) themes, (c)
Russian version, (d) field; SIA/IA• more active approach: websites,
dissemination, cooperation with other projects
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
Reduced scope
• Environmental, land use and social impacts, as in original DoW – 12 chapters
• Focus on the primary user, EC officer, maybe sectoral issues
• Russian version can be reduced variant
• SIA retained
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
(i) A revised DOW
– done, contains points i-vi and viii – contains revised budget distribution
identical to latest CPF– has more graphs on methodology, but
should be looked over for consistency and: is the main idea/potential communicated?
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
(ii) internal communication and management plan
• project management group• panels for methodology and e-
textbook• end-of-month meetings • collaborative spaces• chapter teams contribute to website
and survey other projects
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
(iii) strenghtened advisory board
• Carys Jones, Peter Groffman and Jorma Enkenberg as old members
• new: Phoebe Koundouri (economist), Michael Chernet (JRC), EC staff??
• Advisory board actions in 2009
- when the revised draft chapters are uploaded early 2009, - attending Workshop 4 :‘editing the e-textbook’ preliminarily set for
March 2009 in Brussels, group meeting and statement - in summer 2009 when the chapters are finalized and submitted for
testing (see WP6) and then submitted for an external peer-review.
According to their own decisions as to dividing the work, the advisory board will report to the project coordinator giving recommendations on the quality and orientation of the e-tool.
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
(iv) engaging stakeholders
through the e-LUP work process of contacting EC for information, material, opinions etc.
a stakeholder session at the extra Workshop in Brussels, March 2009
training sessions as part of WP6 (months 42-44) possibly, a launching event of the finalized tool requisite: “profiling” of primary stakeholders Cooperation with other projects who have done
interviews etc.
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
(vi) external & internal review
– INTERNAL: Each chapter editor/coeditors from the project should evaluate at least the chapter assigned to her/him by a random ordering (DoW, p. ). A detailed critique statement structured through a short standard form is required from each reviewer.
– EXTERNAL: A comprehensive external peer review will be implemented. Engaging seven expert reviewers is planned.
– ALSO: Inviting contributions from other projects will give feedback on contents, ‘the chapter pages’ on the project website will stimulate internal feedback on contents.
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
(vii) Survey of related projects
• a new WP2 report exists, the 1st version• about 50 pages, describes other projects and
their relevance for e-LUP• but, a 2nd version is needed – a closer analysis of
the related projects will be of great help in (a) tailoring the new e-LUP methodology, (b) selecting projects to be contacted, (c) conclusions on state of the art in SIA tools for our Chapter 3 ’Tools’.
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
(vii) Survey of related projects– The survey has the following aims:– review the EC rationale and perceived needs behind the calls
issued in framework programmes for a batch of projects focused on SIA and SD.
– review recent projects focused on integrative tools for land use related modelling, and impact assessment.
– review recent projects on global change, environmental impacts and ecosystems.
– review recent IA tools & concepts oriented projects, including institutional and economic sustainability scenarios.
– also explore other topics, not obviously connected to SIA or SD.– short list projects relevant at chapter level (of the e-LUP
textbook).
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
Related issues
Projects:Sust A testIndilinkMatisseForesceneMosus
Carbo-EuropeNitro-EuropeAlarmAdamAquastress
SeamlessSensorPlurelSpicosaEforwoodSmile
Related tools
Projects:Sust A testIndilinkMatisseForesceneMosus
SeamlessSensorPlurelSpicosaEforwood
Related case studies
ProjectsSeamlessSensorPlurelSpicosaEforwoodMatisse
Relevant models
Projects:ExterneMulinoSuforTranscendAlarm
SeamlessSensorPlurelSpicosaEforwoodMatisse
(viii) time chart / workplan
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
(ix) updated Period 2+ reports
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
later today...
WP 6 Testing
• testing in 5 jurisdictions, originally 3
• planning of questionnaires
• external review and compilation of results
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
Website energized
– updated– upsized– open and more engaging?
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
A new forum – run by chapter teams
Updated pages, new pages
outreach
Better formulations
materials downloadable
Revised WP2 report, outline
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
• main focus is on training and decision support, encompassing four main elements: (1) treatment of issues, (2) of policies, (3) of tools and finally (4) assessment support.
• focus on e-learning, the added-value of which should be explored maximally (interactivity, multimedia).
• a rigorous analytical framework, DPSIR-framework, SENSOR benchmark?
Revised WP3 report outline
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
Meaningful integration of cases studies into the matrix should be guided by the Methodology
The hierarchical chain ‘textbook – cases – models’ should be observed, but both cases and models also have stand-alone status e.g. on the e-tool side.
Conclusions
• we think we have valuable case studies• we think the model visualisations will
be useful• we know that the challenge is the
QUALITY of the e-textbook/e-tool
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
Project e-LUP, second review, Brussels 17.11.2008
Thank you!
Thank you!
intense learning process