The establishment and management of green infrastructure in cities require the involvement of a complex network of stakeholder groups, who may differ sharply from one another in their expectations and approaches. Bridging the communication gaps between them is essential for creating and maintaining urban green spaces and expressing their full potential and multi-functionality. In this research, we investigate the ways that knowledge is transferred from one stakeholder group to another, and we identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the different modes by which these actors collaborate and interact in practice. Data obtained from this first-ever exploratory survey of public administrators, practitioners and academic researchers involved with urban green infrastructure in Italy and other European - but also some extra-European - countries indicate that there are positive attitudes toward forms of collaboration, mainly because of the need to achieve common aims such as encouraging innovation, identifying practical problem solutions and accessing sources of funding. Our analysis suggests that stakeholders need to better understand the importance of forming cohesive teams, of optimizing financial resources, and of finding a common language to bridge their diverse disciplinary backgrounds. To be effective, future models of knowledge transfer will have to consider the current needs of end users without neglecting the long-term potential of emerging communication technologies such as e-learning, and vocational training must not only be based on high-quality content, it must also include practical activities and facilitate personal contact that can lead to enhanced collaboration.

Knowledge transfer between stakeholders in the field of urban forestry and green infrastructure: Results of a European survey

Sanesi, Giovanni;
2015

Abstract

The establishment and management of green infrastructure in cities require the involvement of a complex network of stakeholder groups, who may differ sharply from one another in their expectations and approaches. Bridging the communication gaps between them is essential for creating and maintaining urban green spaces and expressing their full potential and multi-functionality. In this research, we investigate the ways that knowledge is transferred from one stakeholder group to another, and we identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the different modes by which these actors collaborate and interact in practice. Data obtained from this first-ever exploratory survey of public administrators, practitioners and academic researchers involved with urban green infrastructure in Italy and other European - but also some extra-European - countries indicate that there are positive attitudes toward forms of collaboration, mainly because of the need to achieve common aims such as encouraging innovation, identifying practical problem solutions and accessing sources of funding. Our analysis suggests that stakeholders need to better understand the importance of forming cohesive teams, of optimizing financial resources, and of finding a common language to bridge their diverse disciplinary backgrounds. To be effective, future models of knowledge transfer will have to consider the current needs of end users without neglecting the long-term potential of emerging communication technologies such as e-learning, and vocational training must not only be based on high-quality content, it must also include practical activities and facilitate personal contact that can lead to enhanced collaboration.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Ugolini et al.LUP2015.pdf

non disponibili

Tipologia: Documento in Versione Editoriale
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 3.31 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
3.31 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11586/227389
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 51
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 48
social impact