Review of Urban Forestry Research in the Nordic Countries - SNS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%No publications / no informationNational publications onlyInternational publications onlyInternational and nationalpublications10%0%2005 2009Fig.4.9. Comparison of distribution of projects according to type of publications.Comparison with research needs listed in the 2005 surveyPart of the initial survey in 2005 was a research needs assessment by urban forestryresearchers and end users (e.g. municipal green space managers) in the participating countries.A comparison of ongoing research with these research needs can shine some light on to whatextent research needs are being met.Although most of the overall research themes were comparable between the 2005 and 2009studies, there also were some differences which make a full comparison difficult. An effortwas made to facilitate comparison, e.g. by comparing the themes ‘Public involvement &communication’, ‘Social values’ and ‘Urban (forest) planning’ from the 2009 study with theterms ‘Public involvement’, ‘Social & cultural values’ and ‘Urban forest planning & Greeninfrastructure planning’ in the 2005 research needs survey. Three themes (‘Historical studies’,‘Multifunctional’, ‘Economic and (environmental) benefits’) and the category ‘Other’ onlyoccurred in the 2005 survey, while the theme ‘Selection’ appeared in the 2009 overview, butnot in the 2005 study. Another note of caution is that the 2005 needs survey includedresponses from Estonian and Latvian experts.Figure 4.10 shows the results of the comparison. Quite some differences are shown in sharesof research needs and ongoing research. For example, the themes ‘Nature & health’, ‘Ecology& biodiversity’ and ‘Urban (forest) planning’ stand out as leading categories of ongoingresearch, covering a much larger share of research than called for in 2005. On the other hand,themes such as ‘Urban forest management & silviculture’, ‘Stresses’ (e.g. biotic and abiotic),‘Economic assessment’ and ‘Organisation, networking and ownership’ take a much largershare among 2005 needs than among actual research in 2009. These findings indicate thatmajor discrepancies exist between research needs and actual research, although a full picturewould of course first emerge when the research needs assessment would be updated as well.20
2005 research needs 2009 research projects35%30%25%20%15%10%Urban forest management & silvicultureSocial valuesUrban (forest) planningRecreation & useOtherStressesEcology & biodiversity5%0%MultifunctionalityOrganisation, networking & ownershipEstablishment & afforestationNature & healthUrban forest assessmentEconomic (and environmental) benefitsAwareness raising, training & educationInformation & decision-supportPublic involvement & communicationHistorical studiesSelectionEconomic assessmentFig. 4.10. Comparison of 2009 research themes with 2005 research needs.21
Page 2 and 3: PrefaceThe Nordic Forest Research C
Page 6 and 7: 2. MethodThe urban forestry researc
Page 8 and 9: 3. Results - Research OverviewGener
Page 10 and 11: FOR-US 2006 report and on the resea
Page 12 and 13: 403530Projects funded2520151050Othe
Page 14 and 15: 4. Comparison of results with the 2
Page 16 and 17: 60%50%Percent of projects40%30%20%2
Page 18 and 19: 100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%500 000 EU
Page 22 and 23: ReferencesForrest, M., Konijnendijk
Page 25 and 26: Appendix 2 - Project ContactsThe pe
Page 27 and 28: Appendix 3 - List of Projects Inclu
Page 29: 45 Influence of production method o

Review of Urban Forestry Research in the Nordic Countries - SNS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?