Prenos vedeckých poznatkov do lesníckej praxe prostredníctvom modelu RIU: skúsenosti z transdisciplinárneho projektu ALTERFOR
Le résumé fourni par la source
The goal of the European project ALTERFOR was to find robust strategies concerning forest management that would be resistant to challenges of the 21st century, and support their transfer into practice. The Research, Integration and Utilization (RIU) model was applied to organize the transfer. While this model was applied in nine countries, this paper deals only with experience from Slovakia. We simulated for four climate scenarios and three management strategies, which ecosystem services would be provided by different forest management models for the next 100 years. While the simulation was done independently of integration, the integration phase provided a forum for not only involving the key actors in project research but also a platform for transferring the scientific knowledge to these actors. Utilization of the results and their transfer into action was in the hands of powerful actors. We found that the results as a whole were not transferred, but rather some pieces of knowledge (e.g. the transparent and newly developed modelling methods for provisioning of ecosystem services). In summary, as a part of interest-oriented communication only selected scientific information was reinserted into the existing knowledge and experience of actors, and thereby shaped their potential actions (e.g. requesting scientific consultation).
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Prenos vedeckých poznatkov do lesníckej praxe prostredníctvom modelu RIU: skúsenosti z transdisciplinárneho projektu ALTERFOR
- Date Crossref
- 17/07/2023
- Éditeur
- Forestry and Game Management Research Institute
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.