Society for Epidemiology

Dr. Fabienne Pradella is a researcher at the University of Bremen. She was a postdoctoral researcher at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and the Heidelberg Institute for Global Health. Her research lies at the intersection of epidemiology and economics and focuses on the prerequisites for a healthy life for all from pregnancy to old age. Her current projects focus on the effects of environmental influences during pregnancy on offspring health and on the prevention of neurodegenerative diseases in later life.

Dr Pradella, at which events have you organized policy sessions?

We held our sessions on the UN Sustainable Development Goals at the annual conferences of the German Society for Epidemiology, which take place every year with approximately 250–300 participants. The annual conferences are held in a different city each year, and we invited two to three local decision makers to discuss a specific topic with us.

How did the idea of inviting decision-makers to a scientific event come about? What topics did your session cover?

The idea arose in discussions with colleagues at previous annual conferences. A healthy life for all people of all ages is one of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Science and research, as also on the local level, are also considered highly important for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals – so we found it exciting to bring Germany’s epidemiological community into contact with local decision makers at the annual conferences. Our idea was to combine scientific and practical perspectives. To this end, we selected topics that are highly relevant to research and practice, such as children’s health and access to healthy food.

Which policymakers did you invite? Did you already have contact with them beforehand

We contacted people with connections to the topic of our session at various levels. For example, the deputy mayor of Ulm was a guest, as were people involved in local initiatives, such as an employee of an association that promotes healthy daycare and school meals in the Greifswald region. We had not had any previous contact with these individuals, and over time, it became clear that contacting them by phone was the best way to explain our concerns. We also met with some of them for lunch in the run-up to the conference.

How did you structure your policy session?

The sessions usually began with keynote speeches lasting no more than 10 minutes, covering scientific and practical perspectives. Since the exchange between science and practice is a priority for us, we experimented with various interactive formats, such as thesis discussions and scientific “speed dating.” As organizers , we primarily moderated and facilitated transitions between core questions. It was also important to us to document the sessions. Our core organizing team consisted of three people, one of whom usually summarized the discussion on flipchart paper during the session so that all participants could see it.

Science and practice have different ways of thinking. Also, science and practice often use technical terms that aren’t known in the other “world.” How did communication between researchers and decision makers work in your sessions? Was it always clear to participants what was meant?

We certainly learned a lot in this regard. It helped to make the topic of the sessions as concrete as possible. To cover the thematic expertise from a scientific perspective as well, we involved the working groups of the professional association—after all, we also organized sessions on topics that we ourselves do not research. This gave rise to exciting ideas that also facilitated communication. For example, we worked with the Health Geography working group to develop a street map in Greifswald to discuss access to healthy and sustainable nutrition using a concrete example.

Did the exchange with decision makers give you any ideas for your own research?

Yes, definitely. As I mentioned earlier, I learned a lot about how to present my research in a way tailored to the target audience. Discussing knowledge gaps and practice-relevant topics in our sessions also gave rise to research ideas – though not necessarily for my own research, as I have no expertise in daycare or school catering, for example. Instead, I learned a lot of new things and gained insights into other fields of research. In terms of motivation, the sessions also made me even more aware of the relevance of my research.

Was planning and conducting the policy sessions more time-consuming than conducting a regular scientific session?

I would say the organization was at least different, with much more communication and coordination in advance. Finding relevant decision makers was not always easy, and it sometimes took a while to reach the right person. Personally, however, I found this a welcome change, especially during my doctoral studies. A big advantage was that we didn’t need any financial resources, since the sessions took place as part of a larger event and there were no travel costs, thanks to the involvement of local decision makers.

What tips would you give to researchers who are considering organizing policy sessions as part of scientific conferences?

For our sessions, it was important that we formed an organizational team made up of people at different stages of their careers, with different skills and backgrounds. We also discussed our plans in advance with the professional association’s board. The dynamics and interests of participants at scientific conferences certainly vary by discipline. At the time, we decided to simply try out our idea—with the attitude that we would also learn something even if no one came. Ultimately, it turned out that there was interest, in our case, especially among young researchers.

Tome Sandevski conducted this interview.

Description

Practical trainings conducted by academic professionals for public administration employees – referred to as Tailored Expert Trainings – represent a dynamic form of cooperation between academia and the applied sector. These trainings facilitate the direct transfer of up-to-date knowledge from research, development, and university education into the day-to-day practice of public administration. They differ from typical commercial courses by their high degree of specialization, narrow thematic focus, and strong customization to the specific needs of participants.

The objective of such trainings is to strengthen the professional competencies of public administration officials through interactive instruction based on scientific know-how. The content is built around real-life problems and data from the public sector. The ability to work with real datasets and tailor the course material to the actual needs of participants is a key added value of this cooperation model.

Objectives

Tailored Expert Trainings aim to achieve the following core objectives:

• Transfer of specialized knowledge and skills that are not typically covered in commercially available courses and reflect the latest scientific and technological trends.
• Customizing content to specific participant groups and their institutional settings.
• Enhancing the practical applicability of expert knowledge through hands-on data work and real-world examples.
• Strengthening interdisciplinary and inter-institutional collaboration between university departments and public sector bodies.
• Building long-term relationships and partnerships, which may lead to contract research, expert consultations, or joint publicly funded projects.
• Providing researchers with valuable insights and inspiration for new research questions and applied studies derived from real-world challenges encountered by public administration professionals.

  

How does the format work?

Target Group of Participants

Potential training participants may include:

• Clerks, analysts, and technical staff in central and local government institutions, public agencies, and related organizations.
• Managers and department heads, project or team leaders.
• Mayors, deputy mayors, or other public administration representatives involved in adopting or implementing new technologies or procedures.
• The selection of training topics should be closely aligned with the profile and needs of the participant group.

Group Size

The recommended group size is 5 to 10 participants. Smaller groups enable higher interactivity, individual consultations, and flexible pacing of the training.

Duration and Timing

The recommended length of training is 1 to 2 working days, depending on topic complexity and the desired level of depth. To accommodate the availability of both public officials and academics, training is best scheduled outside the main teaching semester (e.g., during the summer or examination period).

Training Format

• Trainings are highly practice-oriented, emphasizing real-world examples, participant-led tasks, and hands-on engagement.
• It is advisable to work with real datasets and case examples that participants bring from their institutions.
• Avoid generic or simulated data – instead, aim to incorporate real institutional data under the guidance of the trainer during independent work phases.
• A two-trainer setup has proven effective – one leads the main lecture and demonstrations, while the other provides individual support to less advanced participants.

Trainers and Expertise

Trainings should be professionally guaranteed by a senior academic expert with experience in both research and practical application. Active involvement of PhD students and postdoctoral researchers is strongly recommended – they often contribute highly specialized and up-to-date knowledge. Pre-training preparation should include close communication with the participating institution regarding training goals, participant profiles, and expectations.

Example Training Topics

The following is a non-exhaustive list of possible themes. The content should always be customized:

• Use of open data, its analysis and application in decision-making.
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and cartography – visualization of spatial data.
• Fundamentals of process automation using scripting (e.g., Python, R).
• Use of graphic software for creating maps, infographics, and reports.
• Introduction to Artificial Intelligence and its use in public administration.
• Data analysis and visualization – building interactive dashboards, maps, and summary charts.

Benefits for Participants

Participants (civil servants, public managers):

• Acquisition of advanced skills and tools applicable to their daily work.
• Opportunity to work with their own data and discuss real problems.
• Enhancement of professional competencies and flexibility.

Academic Staff and Universities:

• Opportunities for real-world collaboration and applied research inspiration.
• Transfer of academic knowledge into practice.
• Establishment of long-term partnerships with the public sector.

Public Administration Institutions:

• Upskilling of employees in modern tools and methods.
• More effective internal processes.
• Enhanced innovation capacity and readiness for data-driven decision-making.

Challenges (and ways to address them)

Another potential challenge relates to the need for formal accreditation of trainings, especially in contexts where public administration institutions require officially recognized certification for their staff’s professional development. In some countries, such as the Czech Republic, accreditation can be granted by government bodies or professional associations (e.g., the Ministry of the Interior). However, the process often involves extensive documentation and compliance with formal standards, which may prolong the preparation timeline. To mitigate this, organizers should initiate accreditation procedures well in advance and maintain clear communication with accrediting institutions to ensure alignment with expected criteria.

A further challenge lies in managing the diversity of participant skill levels, which can significantly affect the group dynamic and the overall effectiveness of the training. Trainers must be flexible and responsive, ready to adjust the scope, depth, and pace of the content delivery in real time. Gathering feedback during the training—preferably through interactive formats—enables facilitators to make immediate modifications, such as skipping redundant sections or elaborating on more advanced topics as needed. Incorporating real-time feedback mechanisms and being prepared to adapt the training structure accordingly are crucial for maintaining participant engagement and ensuring the relevance of the training to all experience levels.

Required Funding for Activities

Trainings are typically funded by the contracting public institutions (municipalities, government bodies, etc.). The cost is calculated individually, based on university regulations and the financial capacity of the contracting institution. It includes trainer preparation, contact hours, and potential use of facilities or equipment. These trainings are considered highly specialized services, and may be funded from institutional training budgets or public grants.

Example

The Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of Science, Palacký University Olomouc has been conducting specialized trainings for public administration professionals for over 15 years. The trainings are held irregularly and adapted to specific requests. They are accredited by the Czech Association for Geoinformation (ČAGI).

The courses focus on cartography, GIS, and remote sensing. The key principle is customization – including the use of participant data and institution-specific tasks. Trainings are held in university computer labs, typically using QGIS and ArcGIS. The format has consistently been evaluated by participants as highly beneficial.

An example of such a course was Unmanned Aerial Systems – Operation, Mapping, Photogrammetry, and Laser Scanning, conducted as part of continuous professional education. The two-day training (20 contact hours) combined lectures on UAV operation principles, relevant Czech and EU legislation, and sensor technologies with practical exercises in flying multirotor and fixed-wing drones, followed by data processing to produce orthophotos, digital terrain models, and 3D point clouds.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Description

Visual communication plays a critical role in contemporary policy making by enabling the clear, efficient, and inclusive interpretation of complex data and analytical outputs. In public administration, decision-making processes increasingly rely on large volumes of heterogeneous data produced by national ministries, regional authorities, municipalities, research institutions, and private entities. However, these data are often presented in highly technical, textual, or tabular formats that limit their accessibility and practical usability for policymakers, stakeholders, and the general public.

Visual communication bridges this gap by transforming complex datasets and analytical results into intuitive, comprehensible, and actionable visual forms such as dashboards, maps, infographics, and interactive reports. In the context of policy making, visualisation supports both communication to policymakers (evidence provision, scenario comparison, impact assessment) and communication from policymakers (policy explanation, transparency, accountability, and public engagement).

Universities play a key role in this process by contributing methodological expertise in data analysis, cartography, data visualisation, user experience and user design, and cognitive aspects of information perception. Through structured cooperation between public administration and academic experts, visual communication becomes not merely a design add-on, but a strategic instrument supporting informed, transparent, and participatory governance.

Objectives

The main objectives of this format are to:

• Translate complex policy-relevant data into clear and understandable visual narratives tailored to different target groups (policymakers, experts, citizens).
• Improve comprehension, interpretation, and responsible use of data produced by public administration, academia, and the private sector.
• Support evidence-based decision-making by enabling rapid comparison of scenarios, trends, and policy impacts.
• Increase transparency and trust in public institutions through open, well-explained visual outputs.
• Promote the reuse and opening of public data by embedding visualisation within open data strategies.
• Strengthen long-term cooperation between universities and public authorities in the field of applied data communication.

How does the format work?

This format is based on systematic collaboration between data producers, policy users, and academic experts specialising in visual communication. The cooperation typically starts with identifying policy-relevant questions or decision-making needs and continues through the entire data lifecycle—from data preparation to final visual outputs.

A common implementation pathway includes:

1. Problem definition

   Policymakers, together with domain experts, define key policy questions, target audiences, and decision contexts. Defining the process could start with personal/online meeting between policymakers and researchers, where all tasks are defined. The following processes could be managed through regular hybrid meetings, email reports or through shared documents.

2. Data preparation and assessment

   Public administration provides relevant datasets, while university experts assess data quality, completeness, and analytical potential.

3. Visualisation design

   Academic teams propose suitable visualisation methods (e.g. maps, timelines, dashboards, comparative charts) aligned with cognitive principles and user needs.

4. Iterative development

   Visual outputs are refined through feedback loops involving policymakers and communication specialists.

5. Publication and dissemination

   Results are published via official websites, open data portals, policy reports, social media, or public presentations.

More advanced implementations may result in comprehensive online data portals that combine interactive visualisations, explanatory texts, downloadable datasets, and methodological documentation. These platforms allow users to explore information at different levels of detail—from high-level summaries to raw data—while remaining compliant with European open data principles and interoperability standards.

Challenges (and ways to address them)

Limited availability of skilled professionals
Solution: Establish long-term partnerships with universities and involve students and researchers through applied courses, internships, or project-based collaboration.

Insufficient data quality or coverage
Solution: Introduce data quality standards and iterative validation processes involving both data producers and analysts.

Inappropriate or misleading visualisation choices
Solution: Apply established visualisation guidelines and ensure expert review by specialists in data perception and cartography.

Financial constraints
Solution: Integrate visual communication activities into existing projects, grants, or strategic development programmes rather than treating them as standalone costs.

Capacity limitations within public administration
Solution: Combine in-house expertise with external academic support and provide targeted training for public-sector staff.

Tasks and resources

Public Administration

• Define policy questions and communication objectives.
• Provide access to relevant datasets and contextual knowledge.
• Ensure alignment with legal, strategic, and institutional frameworks.

Researchers

• Analyse data and propose appropriate visual communication methods.
• Design and develop visual outputs and explanatory materials.
• Provide consultations, training, and methodological guidance.

Knowledge Exchange and Communication Officers

• Facilitate cooperation between institutions – formal/informal discussion between researchers and chosen officers competent in given subject area – in-person/virtual meeting, round table discussion.
• Support dissemination, public outreach, and stakeholder engagement.

Required funding for activities

• No additional funding is required for routine data preparation conducted as part of public administration’s standard agenda.
• Financial resources may be required for:
  • University staff time dedicated to advanced analysis and visual design.
  • Development of interactive tools or digital platforms.
• Purely consultative involvement of academic experts typically falls within their standard professional responsibilities and may not require extra funding.

Example

Case: Regional Open Data and Visualisation Portal

A regional open data and visualisation portal was developed following an initiative by a university department specialising in geoinformatics and data visualisation – Department of Geoinformatics at Palacký University Olomouc and the Olomouc region. The project began with an analytical study assessing the current state of data availability and visual communication practices within the region.

University experts prsepared a set of strategic recommendations and proposed a visual framework aligned with international best practices. Following financial support from the regional authority, the portal was implemented as an interactive online platform combining thematic dashboards, maps, explanatory texts, and access to raw datasets.

Throughout the development process, continuous consultation, training sessions, and expert support were provided to regional staff. The resulting portal became one of the first comprehensive open data visualisation platforms in the country and now serves as a reference example for other regions.

Portal is available on https://www.dataok.cz/.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Summary: Key Features in a Nutshell

●        Objective: To create a clear framework for effectively connecting academic research with policy development, ensuring that research data is used to inform local decisions

●        Approach: Strategies include regular engagement between researchers and policymakers, data dissemination through interactive workshops and consultations, and leveraging digital platforms to ensure continuous feedback

●        Outcome: The development of data-driven policies that align with local development goals, improving public services, economic growth, and sustainability at the regional level

Description

Connecting research expertise with policymaking at local levels is essential for ensuring that academic knowledge directly informs policy decisions that affect regional development. The process involves bridging the gap between scientific research and practical, actionable solutions that policymakers can implement. By integrating research into decision-making processes, it becomes possible to create evidence-based policies that are not only grounded in data but also tailored to address local needs. This contribution explores strategies for connecting researchers with local policymakers, facilitating effective communication, and utilising research data to shape policy decisions.

How does the format work?

1.       Researcher-policymaker interaction. The process is typically initiated and coordinated by knowledge exchange managers or research managers within the university who act as intermediaries between researchers and policymakers. They establish regular communication channels – such as interactive workshops, consultation sessions or collaborative planning meetings – where researchers are invited to present evidence and data that can directly inform local policy decisions.

2.       Using research data to influence policymaking at local levels. A critical component of this process is ensuring that research data be relevant and accessible to policymakers. This can be achieved through the creation of policy briefs, data visualisation tools, and interactive reports that distill complex research findings into actionable insights. Researchers can work with local governments to highlight key findings that address specific regional issues such as sustainability, economic development, and public health. For instance, researchers from the University of Granada could present socioeconomic research on local development trends linked to green and digital transitions, such as sustainable land use, climate adaptation, the digitalisation of public services or the digital divide, as well as research on archaeological heritage preservation, and offer data-driven recommendations that align with policy goals for urban renewal or cultural conservation.

3.       Feedback and continuous engagement. A successful research-policy connection requires ongoing engagement. Researchers should not only share their findings but also actively participate in the policy implementation process. This can be done through dialogue-oriented follow-up consultations, such as meetings or workshops with policymakers, which may be complemented by written feedback or short analytical notes. These interactions allow researchers to assess how their evidence has been applied and to adjust strategies accordingly. Continuous interaction between researchers and policymakers enables policies to be refined as new data emerges, ensuring that decisions remain flexible and responsive to evolving local needs.

4.       Using digital platforms for ongoing interaction. Digital platforms, such as the Impronta Granada website, play a crucial role in maintaining visibility for research projects and ensuring that research findings be continuously accessible to local stakeholders. For example, platforms like these allow researchers to share project updates, findings, and recommendations, making it easy for local policymakers to track research progress and align their policy decisions with the most current data.

Challenges

●        Complexity of research data. Academic research can often be complex, and translating it into clear, actionable policy recommendations for local governments can be challenging. Ensuring that researchers are able to simplify their findings while maintaining their scientific integrity is key to this process. For example, quantitative research on soil health, climate adaptation, or digital inclusion may need to be translated into clear indicators, visual summaries or policy briefs that highlight implications for local planning or service provision, rather than detailed methodological explanations.

●        Stakeholder engagement. Engaging policymakers in the research process is not always straightforward. Local authorities may have competing priorities, and integrating research expertise into policy frameworks may require significant effort to overcome bureaucratic barriers.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

●        Tasks

○        Present research findings

○        Create policy briefs

○        Engage in collaborative workshops with policymakers

●        Required resources

○        Time for research dissemination and participation in events

○        Communication tools for presenting research data to policymakers

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

●        Tasks

○        Coordinate researcher involvement with local policymakers

○        Facilitate workshops

○        Ensure that research is accessible and relevant to local governance needs

●        Required resources

○        Digital platforms for research dissemination and ongoing feedback

○        Facilitation support for organizing collaborative workshops and consultations

Policymakers

●        Tasks

o   Integrate research data into local policies and allocate resources for research-driven initiatives.

●        Required resources

○        Policy expertise to interpret research data and incorporate it into decision making

○        Financial and administrative resources to support research applications in local development projects

Examples

UGR County Councils refers to the initiative led by the University of Granada (UGR) under the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen project, aiming to foster collaboration between academic researchers, local governments, and community stakeholders. This initiative focuses on addressing regional challenges through co-created, research-driven solutions. The Second Impronta Granada Meeting is the third pilot event organised by UGR as part of this project, bringing together researchers, policymakers, and local communities to discuss and develop strategies for sustainable development in rural and urban areas

The UGR County Councils initiative played a crucial role in connecting researchers with policymakers. Through online preparatory meetings and interactive workshops, the initiative was coordinated by the University of Granada through its knowledge exchange structures, which invited UGR researchers to showcase their research projects. These projects were mapped in an Excel database and shared through the Impronta Granada website. The website allowed policymakers to view actor profiles of UGR researchers, filter them by county council, and understand how their research aligned with territorial development needs. These efforts culminated in the Second Impronta Granada Meeting, where researchers presented their projects in micropresentations, directly engaging with local governments and businesses to discuss real-world applications of their findings. This process ensured that research data was accessible, visible, and integrated into the policy-making process at local levels.

Sources and further reading

• Impronta Granada Website – Impronta Granada Actor Profiles and UGR Projects in County Councils.
• Official coverage of the Second Impronta Granada meeting – University and Territory event: https://improntagranada.es/impronta/ii-impronta-granada-meeting-strengthens-the-university-territory-alliance-in-loja/

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

A Practical Example of Science-Policy Dialogue for Territorial Drought Governance.

Description

This contribution presents a structured example of a science-policy webinar format applied to a highly sensitive societal challenge: drought and water scarcity in Spain. The webinar “Drought: A Comprehensive Approach from the Peninsula (Sequía: un abordaje integral desde la Península Ibérica) was organized at a time of relative calm, when the slowdown in the depletion of water reserves created the illusion that the emergency had eased.  The structural and environmental conditions behind drought remain unchanged, however, reinforcing the need to reflect precisely during these brief periods of apparent normality. The session proposed an integral perspective that brings together natural and social knowledge, compares territorial realities and, above all, fosters direct dialogue between scientists and policymakers. Through guiding questions, the webinar explored the question whether scientific insights are reaching political arenas, which barriers public administrations face, and how long-term thinking can be incorporated into decision-making processes typically dominated by short-term urgency.

Summary:

• Structural moment of discussion: Held during a temporary respite in drought conditions, enabling medium- and long-term reflections
• Integral approach: Combines the environmental, social, and territorial dimensions of drought
• Science-policy interface: Designed to connect researchers and public administrations through a shared set of guiding questions
• Regional comparison: Incorporates insights from different regions to illustrate diverse challenges and governance contexts
• Focus on decision-making barriers: Examines obstacles faced by policymakers when implementing research-based recommendations
• Long-term perspective: Emphasizes the need to move beyond emergency-driven responses toward structural, future-oriented strategies

How does the format work?

The session was organized into three consecutive blocks designed to progressively deepen the collective understanding of drought governance:

1. Shared framing and territorial diagnoses
2. From challenges to possible solutions
3. Open dialogue with participants

The moderator played a central role and was explicitly designed to maintain a balanced alternation between scientific perspectives and political viewpoints, preventing disciplinary silos and ensuring a fluid, dynamic exchange. Aglobal-to-local approach was employed: beginning with the structural dimensions of drought under global change, then introducing three territorial contexts (Catalonia, Granada, and Madrid), and finally opening the discussion to thematic experts in governance, ecology, and environmental history.

To guide the debate, the webinar relied on a set of core questions that structured the interaction between speakers. These questions were tailored to each type of participant:

• For researchers: Are your scientific proposals reaching the political level? What tools or forms of support would you need from public administrations to translate your innovations into practice?
• For policymakers and public administration representatives: What barriers do you encounter when attempting to integrate academic insights into policy? What were the main difficulties that emerged during the last drought in terms of decision making?
• For all participants: How can long-term, structural perspectives be incorporated into political environments that often operate under urgent or short timeframes? Would it be feasible or desirable to apply innovations from other territories to your own context?

This format enabled a clear, focused dialogue that linked structural challenges with practical constraints, helping identify common issues and potential avenues for science-policy collaboration.

Challenges

• Time constraints: Limited time reduces the depth of technical exchanges, making it difficult to expand on complex scientific or administrative issues
• Institutional barriers: Policymakers face structural or administrative constraints that limit the uptake of scientific proposals, even when there is interest or political will
• Communication gaps: Differences in language, priorities, and timeframes between academia and public administration can hinder mutual understanding
• Need for focused messages: Clear guidance is required to keep contributions concise and avoid fragmentation of the dialogue
• Uneven territorial capacities: Regions differ in technical, administrative, and environmental respects, which complicates the transferability of solutions
• Difficulty integrating long-term perspectives: Structural approaches often clash with short-term political cycles and emergency-driven decision making

Tasks and resources

Scientists

• Prepare concise, policy-relevant summaries of research findings on drought, water management and systemic impacts
• Provide territorial diagnoses and evidence-based explanations of structural drivers
• Respond to targeted questions from policymakers and engage in cross-territorial comparison
• Identify innovations or successful practices that may be transferable to other regions

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

• Design the structure of the session, ensuring balanced alternation between scientific and political voices
• Facilitate communication before, during, and after the event, including follow-up emails and potential collaboration links
• Prepare guiding questions, contextual framing, and flow (global → regional → local)
• Support the creation of accessible materials, summaries, and visual resources for the audience

Policymakers

• Present the institutional and regional context of drought management
• Identify operational constraints, administrative barriers, and lessons learned from past decision making cycles.
• Engage with researchers to assess the feasibility of implementing scientific proposals
• Contribute local experiences that complement scientific evidence

Case studies

Webinar “Drought: A Comprehensive Approach from the Peninsula” (Sequía: un abordaje integral desde la Península Ibérica)

• Date and time: September 24, 2024, 6:00 PM
• Organized by: Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen, a joint collaboration between the University of Granada and BETA, from the University of Vic.

Participants

• Nuria Hernández-Mora: PhD in geography, researcher and consultant specializing in water governance, and a member of the Fundación Nueva Cultura del Agua
• Javier García Martínez: Head of the Urban Water Cycle Service (Servicio del Ciclo Urbano del Agua) at the Provincial Council of Granada
• José Luis Nieto Bueno: Councilor for Más Madrid in the Madrid City Council and Spokesperson for the Urban Planning, Environment, and Mobility Committee; he holds a PhD in biology.
• Lorenzo Proia: Coordinator of the Applied Ecology and Global Change Unit at the BETA Technological Center, University of Vic.
• Fernando Delgado Ramos: Director of Cátedra del Agua at the University of Granada.
• Antonio Ortega Santos: Full Professor of Contemporary History at the University of Granada.

Available resources (what are the main tasks)

• Moderation script for the webinar
• YouTube recording of Webinario – Sequía: un abordaje integral desde la península

What worked

• Alternating science and policy ensured a fluid, dynamic format
• Comparing regions highlighted shared challenges and contextual differences
• The moderator played a key role in keeping messages concise and interconnected
• Shared conclusions emphasized:
  • urgency of systemic, structural approaches
  • participatory governance
  • limits to demand growth
  • water as a commons
  • need for multilevel coordination

What doesn’t & lessons learnt

• Value of territorial diversity: Comparing different regions provided clear added value, revealing both shared structural challenges and region-specific dynamics
• Global–to–local framing: Moving from overarching structural issues to concrete local cases helped expand the perspectives of all actors and connect scientific evidence to regional realities
• Role of facilitators: Effective moderation requires a strong understanding of the global context, normative frameworks and the ability to link contributions across disciplines and regions; the mediators or knowledge brokers should have a broad context of the topics and the main debates
• Foundations for future collaborations: These encounters can initiate new connections between researchers and policymakers, provided follow-up is supported (e.g., exchanging contacts, identifying thematic overlaps, and encouraging continued communication)
• Transferable innovations: Sharing successful practices and innovations from different regions helps participants identify feasible pathways for improving drought governance in their own contexts
• Time limitations: Limited time reduces the depth of technical exchanges and may constrain complex discussions
• Institutional constraints: Policymakers often face structural or administrative barriers that limit the uptake of scientific proposals
• Need for clear guidance: Providing concise instructions and time limits helps speakers keep their messages focused and ensures a balanced, coherent dialogue

How the activities evaluated?

The webinar highlighted the critical and non-postponable nature of the current drought situation, reinforcing the need for structural rather than reactive responses. Dialogue between political and academic spheres proved increasingly permeable, showing that collaborative approaches are both possible and necessary. Participants also stressed that water demand cannot continue to grow, pointing towards the need for a profound structural rethinking of current models.

A key insight was the importance of regional specificity: the challenges faced in Madrid differ significantly from those in smaller municipalities, making local perspectives essential for designing effective policies. Finally, the discussion underscored the relevance of social actor involvement as addressing drought requires engaging communities and local stakeholders in decision-making processes.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

How does the format work?

The ENGAGEgreen project aims, among other things, to strengthen universities’ capacity to engage in meaningful dialogue with policymakers, fostering equitable collaborations that generate concrete and socially relevant outcomes. Central to the project are the themes addressed in its seminar series: namely, the ecological and digital “twin transition” that constitutes the core focus of ENGAGEgreen.

This document, produced by the team from Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, offers a synthesis and critical re-elaboration of two seminars held with academic experts on topics of particular relevance to the ENGAGEgreen initiative.

The seminars were titled:

• “Bridging Sustainability and Artificial Intelligence” (16 February 2024)
• “Engaging Green Policy Decision Making” (30 February 2024)

A diverse group of scholars, researchers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers contributed to these seminars. The discussions were rich and multifaceted, generating a wide range of insights. At the end of each meeting, several participants were invited to provide written reflections. A number of colleagues agreed to contribute to this collective effort to identify and articulate key factors that can strengthen the connection between scientific research and policymaking processes.

The reflections presented here were guided by a set of questions that grounded the discussion in the concrete experience of the contributors – senior academics with extensive expertise in leading international research projects. The guiding questions were as follows:

1. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, what kind of cooperation between policymakers on the one hand and academics and researchers on the other is necessary to design and implement effective policies to address the consequences of climate change?
2. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, what role can financial markets play in supporting the green transition?
3. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, how can we distinguish between companies that are genuinely committed to the sustainability transition and those that engage in greenwashing practices?
4. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, do you think the European Commission should review any of the initiatives undertaken so far? If so, in which direction should such revisions be gone?

The main themes and insights distilled from the exchange among the experts are found below.

2. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, what kind of cooperation between policymakers on the one hand and academics and researchers on the other is necessary to design and implement effective policies to address the consequences of climate change?

A close, structured, and ongoing cooperation between policymakers and the academic/research community is essential for effective climate change policy. Political decisions should be “informed and supported” by scientific research. Moreover, rigorous scenario analysis – combining climate science, socioeconomic projections, and long-term modelling – must be a core component of any policy dialogue.

More specifically:

• Interdisciplinary research and scenario analysis as foundation

Researchers must develop robust, evidence-based climate, environmental, and socioeconomic scenarios that policymakers can use to anticipate the impact of different policy paths, assess trade-offs and make informed decisions. Scenario analysis has proven a valuable tool for navigating uncertainty and design resilient climate and adaptation policies.

• Institutionalized, two-way dialogue mechanisms

Instead of ad hoc consultations, institutional channels (e.g., advisory boards, policy-research consortia, regular working groups) should be established to ensure continuous exchange. This helps new scientific evidence to be integrated and policies to be adapted as knowledge evolves. Reports on bridging science and policy highlight the importance of concise, relevant summaries of scientific findings (policy briefs), to make research usable for decision makers.

• A holistic assessment of environmental, economic, and social impacts

Effective climate policies require not only the mitigation of emissions but also consideration of economic viability, social equity, resilience, and adaptation. Interdisciplinary research combining environmental science, economics, and the social sciences is crucial.

• Transparency and stakeholder engagement

Policies designed with input from researchers, civil society, business, and other stakeholders gain legitimacy, reflect a broad perspective, and are more likely to succeed. A collaborative approach increases public trust and enables more equitable, inclusive climate action.

In conclusion, cooperation between policymakers and researchers should be institutional and continuous, combining rigorous scientific analysis (scenarios, modeling, data) with inclusive, interdisciplinary dialogue. Only through such a partnership can climate policies be scientifically sound, socially equitable, economically viable, and adaptive over time.

2. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, what role can financial markets play in supporting the green transition?

Financial markets can – and should – play a central role in enabling the green transition. The points about the necessity of mobilizing funds and diversifying risk, together with the emphasis on financing voluntary mechanisms (carbon credits, biodiversity, restoration), underline two complementary roles: providing resources and incentivizing sustainable investment.

Concretely, financial markets can contribute by

• Mobilizing capital toward green investments

Instruments such as green bonds, sustainable bonds, and ESG-linked funds channel resources to renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean technologies, circular economy, restoration and other environmentally beneficial projects.

• Diversifying risk and attracting private investors

By pooling resources and spreading risk across investors, financial markets make green projects more viable. This is particularly important for large-scale or long-term investments, which often require upfront capital and have long payback horizons.

• Driving innovation and scale-up of sustainable technologies

Through financing mechanisms, markets can support startups and companies developing green technologies – facilitating diffusion of innovations and structural transformation of the economy.

Supporting mechanisms beyond direct investments – e.g., carbon credits, biodiversity credits, restoration finance

Financial support for voluntary environmental measures (carbon offsetting, biodiversity projects, nature-based solutions) can complement regulatory interventions, especially where public resources or regulatory coverage are limited.

• Embedding environmental risks into financial evaluation and risk management.

Through tools like climate scenario stress-tests and risk assessment frameworks, financial institutions and markets can internalize climate risk, making sustainability part of standard financial decision making.

The effectiveness of finance depends, however, on enabling conditions:

• Clear regulatory frameworks and definitions (e.g., sustainable activities taxonomy)

Investors need clarity about what counts as “green” or “sustainable” to channel funds credibly.

• Transparency, disclosure standards, and independent verification

To avoid “greenwashing,” firms and financial products must provide reliable, comparable ESG and impact data. Sustainability reporting and ESG disclosure regime are key.

• Coordination between public and private capital

Given the scale of investment required for transition – especially in infrastructure, energy, and large-scale environmental projects – public incentives (subsidies, guarantees, regulation) are often necessary to reduce risk and attract private capital.

In conclusion, financial markets are not just passive funders – they can act as enablers and accelerators of the green transition, provided they operate under robust regulatory frameworks, transparency requirements, and a long-term vision of sustainability.

3. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, how can we distinguish between companies that are genuinely committed to the sustainability transition and those that engage in greenwashing practices?

The reasonable view that companies must be properly understood and that clear metrics, standards, and credible certification are essential highlights the core challenge: distinguishing genuine commitment from superficial claims requires sound governance, transparency, and accountability.

Key criteria and mechanisms

• Mandatory, standardized ESG reporting and disclosure

Companies should publish regular, comparable, and independently verified sustainability reports (environmental, social, governance data), covering emissions, resource use, social impact. This allows stakeholders (investors, regulators, civil society) to judge performance over time.

• Use of recognized, independent certification schemes and sustainable-finance standards

Instruments like green bonds or sustainability-linked bonds should follow accepted frameworks and be verified by independent third parties, to ensure credibility of the environmental claims.

• Assessment of “additionality” and genuine impact, not just intentions

It is crucial to evaluate what companies would have done in the absence of “green” labeling; only net improvements compared to a realistic baseline should count.

• Ongoing monitoring, transparency, and stakeholder scrutiny

Sustainability should not be a one-off advertisement but a continuous commitment: audits, public reporting, stakeholder engagement, and accountability mechanisms must be in place.

• Alignment with objective, science-based frameworks and regulations

For instance, compliance with the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities can help ascertain whether a company’s activities truly contribute to environmental objectives.

In conclusion, distinguishing genuine sustainability from greenwashing requires a governance infrastructure: standardized reporting, independent verification, impact assessment, accountability, and regulatory alignment. Without these factors, “green” claims risk being nothing more than marketing.

4. Based on your professional knowledge and experience, do you think the European Commission should review any of the initiatives undertaken so far? If so, in which direction should such revisions go?

A review of existing initiatives is justified and, if done properly, could strengthen the effectiveness, inclusiveness and credibility of the European green policy framework. Based on the responses received and informed by recent developments and challenges, the following directions are suggested:

• Stronger support for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) and smaller actors

Large firms often have resources to meet ESG standards and access green finance; SMEs risk being left out. The Commission should create dedicated support mechanisms (technical assistance, preferential financing, simplified procedures) for SMEs to enable widespread, inclusive participation in the green transition.

• Reinforcing regulatory frameworks for sustainable finance and transparency

To prevent greenwashing and increase trust, the Commission should promote or mandate standardized ESG disclosure, encourage use of recognized sustainability standards and certification, and ensure that financial instruments labeled as “green” meet strict, science-based criteria (for example, complying with the EU Taxonomy).

• Promoting a holistic, interdisciplinary, and participatory governance model

Climate policies should integrate environmental, economic, and social dimensions: mitigation, adaptation, social equity, resilience, biodiversity, and long-term sustainability. Collaboration among science, civil society, the private sector, and public institutions should be fostered.

• Encouraging long-term investments and support for innovation

The Commission should incentivize sustainable investments that have long payback periods – for example, renewable energy infrastructure, circular economy, nature-based solutions, biodiversity restoration – through green bonds, subsidies, public-private partnerships, and guarantee schemes.

• Establishing robust monitoring and evaluation of policy impact

Policies should be regularly assessed using scientific evidence, data, and transparent metrics; adjustments should be made when necessary. This helps ensure that declared objectives translate into real environmental, social, and economic outcomes.

In conclusion, a revision of current initiatives should aim at making the green transition more inclusive, transparent, science-based, and resilient – with a special focus on SMEs, long-term financing, robust governance, and equity. Such a revision would strengthen the credibility and effectiveness of European climate policy, making it more likely to achieve its goals in a fair and sustainable manner.

Authors: the ENGAGEgreen Project, Venice Unit – Marco Corazza, Michele Marzulli, Giulia Ballarin, and Stefano Campostrini.

They express their heartfelt gratitude to all the seminar contributors, namely:

D. Barro, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
H. Bersini, FARI Institute of Brussels
M. Bidoia, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
M. Billio, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
A. Calvi, Modefinance
M. Costola, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
G. Figà-Talamanca, University of Perugia
G. Filograsso, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
A. Fronzetti Colladon, University of Perugia
S. Gentner, DG European Commission
R. Giacometti, University of Bergamo
C. Giupponi, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice
B. Guardabascio, University of Perugia
A. Mistretta, Bank of Italy
M. Patacca, University of Perugia
M.A. Pigato, World Bank’s Consultant
J.M. Ricci, University of Bergamo
L. Segneri, University of Perugia
G. Torri, University of Bergamo
K. Vozian, Hanken School of Economics

Do you want to know more about the Policy Engagement Toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Medialab UGR, Impronta Granada and its Regional Approach

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

• University Living Labs as spaces of open and experimental innovation linking science, policy, and society
• Territorial focus through county-based participatory structures across the province of Granada
• Integration of the Quintuple Helix model (academia, government, business, civil society, and environment)
• Practice-based engagement formats such as co-creation workshops, policy labs, and science-policy events
• Coordinated by Medialab UGR within the “Impronta Granada” initiative and the ENGAGEgreen project

Description

This article explores the role of university-based citizen laboratories as spaces for social innovation, collaborative governance, and inclusive engagement. Drawing on the case of Medialab UGR and its umbrella initiative Impronta Granada, the study analyses how public universities can act as facilitators of regional innovation ecosystems. It focuses on the deployment of ten Living Labs known as UGR County Councils structured around the Quadruple and evolving Quintuple Helix models. These labs have enabled over 230 participants from academia, government, civil society, and the private sector to co-design sustainable, place-based solutions to regional challenges. The methodology involved a four-phase process including training, co-creation and continuous evaluation. Key results include the development of targeted action plans and the activation of science-policy dialogues grounded in local knowledge. The study highlights the strategic value of universities as political and epistemic actors capable of mediating between knowledge and democratic regional governance. It concludes with lessons and recommendations for scaling this model across Europe, proposing a situated, effective and inclusive approach to innovation that recognises the environment and region as active agents.

How does the format work?

Main objective and relevance

This contribution aims to document a methodological case study showcasing the implementation of a university-led Living Lab ecosystem grounded in the Quintuple Helix model. It provides a detailed account of how universities can serve as mediating infrastructures between academia and public administration, fostering science-policy interfaces that respond to regional and environmental challenges. The case is relevant for stakeholders interested in participatory governance, place-based innovation, and regional development.

Background information

Medialab UGR, embedded in the Vice-Rectorate for Social Innovation, Employability and Entrepreneurship, functions as the social innovation lab of the University of Granada. Through its strategic programme Impronta Granada, it has established ten UGR County Councils as thematic Living Labs across the province. These Councils operationalise a Quintuple Helix structure, engaging diverse regional actors in identifying, analysing, and addressing region-specific challenges. This model shifts from traditional linear knowledge transfer to a distributed and systemic approach to innovation.

Figure 1. Overview of the Impronta Granada project; Source: authors’ own schematic.

Methodological approach

The implementation followed a four-phase methodology: (1) internal recruitment and onboarding of academic participants with territorial ties; (2) expansion to include policymakers, civil society organisations, and business actors; (3) capacity-building and co-creation workshops; and (4) monitoring and evaluation. A participatory registration system captured over 230 participants, segmented by helix affiliation, thematic interest, and geographical connection. Tools included online seminars, thematic roundtables, SWOT analyses, and surveys. The methodology prioritised relationality, territoriality and multi-actor co-creation.

Key activities

• Internal call and onboarding of UGR academic and administrative staff, coordinated by Medialab UGR within the framework of the Impronta Granada initiative
• Identification of territorial links by participants (municipality, county, thematic interest)
• Development of ten geographically distributed UGR County Councils
• Capacity-building seminars introducing Living Lab and Quintuple Helix methodologies
• Co-creation sessions at the I Impronta Granada Meeting (Jan 2025)
• Collaborative roundtables and thematic seminars
• Evaluation surveys and impact assessments

Results

• Over 230 participants joined the Councils, representing all helices
• Eight action plans co-designed and linked to specific county priorities
• More than fifteen public and internal activities conducted
• Significant interest generated at European and international forums
• Demonstrated ability to trigger science-policy dialogues on local issues
• Strengthened epistemic legitimacy of non-academic knowledge
• Enabled hybrid governance model with decentralised coordination

Lessons learnt

• Territorial anchoring of innovation processes enhances engagement and legitimacy
• Flexible governance structures accommodate diverse local dynamics
• Political and institutional backing is essential for sustainability
• Hybrid (online-offline) formats democratise participation
• Co-creation works best when coupled with symbolic recognition (certificates, awards)

Transferability

The Impronta Granada model is scalable and adaptable to other regions seeking to establish university-led regional Living Labs. It requires minimal infrastructure, relies on open-source methodologies and benefits from aligning with EU frameworks such as the Urban Agenda, Horizon Europe and Erasmus+. The approach is especially relevant in rural or decentralised territories seeking to activate participatory public policy ecosystems.

Connection with the Quadruple/Quintuple Helix

Initially designed within the Quadruple Helix, the UGR County Councils explicitly adopt the Quintuple Helix model by integrating environmental and regional dimensions as co-creators of innovation. This extension redefines the role of place, recognising it as both an epistemic and political actor. Environmental sustainability, landscape memory, and regional knowledge shape the agenda-setting and solution design phases of the Labs.

Figure 2. The Quintuple Helix Model; Source: authors’ own schematic

Figure 3. Distribution of Quadruple Helix Participants in the UGR County Councils; Source: authors’ own schematic

Challenges

• Asymmetry in expectations, language, and timeframes between researchers and public administration
• Limited institutional incentives or recognition for academic staff engaging in policy-oriented initiatives
• Need for constant mediation and facilitation to avoid fragmentation and ensure productive dialogue
• Scaling up localised actions while preserving territorial relevance and community trust

Tasks and resources

Scientists

• Identify and translate local and regional challenges into research-informed questions and frameworks
• Participate in co-creation processes and workshops alongside policymakers, civil society, and other stakeholders
• Contribute disciplinary expertise to interdisciplinary problem-solving efforts within the Living Lab
• Act as facilitators of evidence-based decision-making, bringing scientific knowledge into the public debate
• Engage in the development and evaluation of participatory methodologies and tools used in the Lab
• Communicate findings in accessible formats to non-academic audiences, including local governments

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

• Design and coordinate the overall structure of the Living Lab, ensuring alignment with institutional and territorial goals
• Facilitate communication and collaboration between researchers, policymakers, civil society, and businesses
• Mediate expectations and timescales between academia and public administrations to enable effective co-creation
• Manage logistics, outreach, and documentation of activities (e.g. workshops, policy labs, meetings)
• Monitor and evaluate the impact of science-policy interactions, contributing to continuous improvement
• Support the institutional embedding and long-term sustainability of Living Lab initiatives

Policymakers

• Bring forward local and regional policy challenges to be addressed collaboratively within the Living Lab
• Participate actively in co-design sessions and workshops alongside scientists and other stakeholders
• Offer practical and regulatory insights that inform the development of realistic and actionable proposals
• Facilitate access to local networks, data, and institutional support for implementing pilot initiatives
• Act as potential end-users of research-based outputs, helping to translate co-created knowledge into public policy
• Promote political buy-in and institutional alignment to ensure the adoption of innovative solutions

Sources and further reading

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix. IJSESD, 1(1), 41–69.

Romero-Frías, E., & Robinson-García, N. (2017). Social Labs in Universities. Comunicar, 51(2), 29–38.

Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ståhlbröst, A., Holst, M., & Mirijamdotter, A. (2015). A Milieu for Innovation – Defining Living Labs. ENoLL Summer School.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@uni-frankfurt.de

Case Study of the Second Impronta Granada Meeting and Poniente Workshop

Description

The Quadruple Helix (QH) model fosters collaboration between four key stakeholders: academia, government, industry, and civil society. The Living Lab methodology allows these groups to cocreate solutions in real-world settings.

UGR County Councils refers to the initiative led by the University of Granada (UGR) under the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen project, aiming to foster collaboration between academic researchers, local governments, and community stakeholders. This initiative focuses on addressing regional challenges through cocreated, research-driven solutions. The Second Impronta Granada Meeting is the third pilot event organized by UGR as part of this project, bringing together researchers, policymakers, and local communities to discuss and develop strategies for sustainable development in rural and urban areas

The Poniente Workshop, part of the Second Impronta Granada meeting, serves as a case study of how these two frameworks work together to address regional challenges in the Poniente Granadino region. The event brought together policymakers, academics, local businesses, and citizens working together to identify shared needs, propose solutions, and codesign initiatives for the region’s sustainable development.

In the run-up to the workshop, two online meetings with the UGR County Councils from the Poniente region and other areas were held to identify the key themes that would be presented at the meeting. These discussions helped shape the agenda and guided the workshop’s focus on sustainable development, regional identity, and regional collaboration.

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

• Stakeholders involved: University of Granada (UGR), local governments (Diputación de Granada, municipalities), local businesses, civil society organizations, and citizens
• Objective: To identify common challenges and to cocreate actionable solutions for regional problems related to depopulation, local heritage, tourism, and economic development
• Format: An interactive workshop, with cocreation activities, and panel discussions, building on findings from two preparatory online meetings
• Outcome: Development of practical initiatives such as intergenerational housing, tourism revitalization, integration of local knowledge, and cultural heritage preservation

How does the format work?

The Poniente Workshop followed the Quadruple Helix (QH) model, with active participation from governmental actors, academia, local businesses, and civil society

1. Government: Local councils and the Diputación de Granada provided policy frameworks, funding, and regional development goals.
2. Academia: Experts from the University of Granada (UGR) shared research findings on cultural heritage, socioeconomic development, and sustainable tourism.
3. Civil Society: Organizations like Tierra de Aguas and local communities represented the needs of the population and their vision for the future of the Poniente region.
4. Local Businesses: Entrepreneurs discussed how to connect local products and services to sustainable tourism models and the economic revitalization of the area.

Challenges

• Coordination Complexity: Despite efforts, coordination between stakeholders remains a challenge due to the complexity of local governance structures, funding dynamics, and the differing goals of each actor
• Sustainability: The main challenge lies in maintaining long-term commitment to initiatives as most projects are funded on a short-term basis and lack a continuous funding strategy
• Stakeholder Engagement: The need to engage local businesses and the broader community remains difficult, especially in marginalized areas or regions where public participation is low

Tasks and resources

Scientists

• Tasks
  • Contributing research insights on socioeconomic development, cultural heritage, and sustainable tourism; providing evidence for policymaking
• Required resources
  • Time for fieldwork and data collection
  • Collaboration with local governments to align research with practical solutions
  • Support for disseminating research findings to local stakeholders

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

• Tasks
  • Organizing stakeholder meetings
  • Disseminating research findings
  • Ensuring communication between academia, government, and civil society
• Required resources
  • Digital platforms (e.g., webinars, forums) to facilitate communication
  • Organizational resources for managing the events and sustaining long-term initiatives

Policymakers

• Tasks
  • Defining regional policy frameworks
  • Providing financial support for local initiatives
  • Ensuring alignment with local and EU development goals
• Required resources
  • Policy expertise and administrative capacity for effective project management
  • Financial support and allocation of resources to ongoing initiatives
  • Time to participate in meetings, workshops, and planning sessions

Examples

1. Living Lab Example:The Poniente Workshop served as a Living Lab where stakeholders codesigned solutions for regional development; projects such as intergenerational housing models and sustainable tourism programs were suggested based on real-world challenges presented during the workshop
2. Research-based example

• Research conducted by the University of Granada (UGR) on cultural heritage preservation informed the creation of strategies for preserving the region’s history while simultaneously boosting local economies
• Academic contributions, such as sociodemographic studies on depopulation, provided the foundation for formulating strategies that directly addressed the region’s challenges.

Sources and further reading

Official coverage of the Second Impronta Granada meeting – University and Territory event: https://improntagranada.es/impronta/ii-impronta-granada-meeting-strengthens-the-university-territory-alliance-in-loja/

Case Study Details

How is the Format Conducted?

• The Poniente Workshop followed a structured format of an interactive session with micropresentations, group work, and panel discussions; prior to the event, two preparatory online meetings helped define key themes, such as sustainable tourism, youth retention, and economic revitalization, which were then discussed in greater depth during the event

Available Resources (Main Tasks)

• Coordination between local councils, researchers, and civil society is key to ensuring sustainability and relevance of the projects
• Research dissemination through the University of Granada (UGR) to share key findings with all stakeholders and design solutions that align with regional needs

What works? What doesn’t? (Lessons learnt)

• What works: The QH model of collaboration was effective in fostering dialogue and co-creation among diverse stakeholders; bringing together a variety of stakeholders with shared interests can lead to effective co-creation of solutions. The Living Lab approach allows for real-time feedback
• What doesn’t work: Coordination remains a challenge, and stakeholder engagement continues to be difficult, especially with local businesses and marginalized groups; besides, ensuring sustainability and long-term engagement from stakeholders is challenging, particularly when there are limited resources

How are the activities evaluated?

• Evaluating the success of the Living Lab requires monitoring stakeholder engagement and the implementation of solutions post-workshop
• Feedback will be gathered through surveys and follow-up workshops to assess the long-term impact of the initiatives launched

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@uni-frankfurt.de

Description – Key features in a nutshell

The UGR County Councils are regional dialogue spaces that connect university staff, local policymakers, civil society actors, and the private sector across Granada’s regions. They foster collaboration to identify local challenges and co-design solutions. Their aim is to align scientific knowledge with regional development needs. They are organised primarily around in-person meetings, while virtual sessions are also held to follow up on the activities of each UGR County Council. The UGR County Councils are new collaborative spaces designed:

• To foster direct connections between the University of Granada (UGR) and the different municipalities and regions within the province of Granada
• To create innovative, sustainable solutions by engaging the university, local governments, businesses, and the public in co-creation processes
• To generate opportunities and transfer scientific, educational, and innovative knowledge that contribute to the transformation and sustainable development of the regions
• To lay the foundations for future Living Labs, testing and applying innovations in public policies and local practices

How does the format work?

The methodology behind the UGR County Councils is based on the Living Lab methodology and follows a collaborative model known as the ‘Quadruple Helix’, bringing together four key stakeholders: the university, the public sector (municipalities’ mayors and governments), businesses, and citizens. The UGR County Councils aim to work closely with local communities to identify local needs related to three main thematic areas: the environmental impact of urban agendas, soil and culture. Besides, one of the UGR County Councils’ objectives is to design solutions for local development through regular meetings, workshops, and hackathons which can be implemented through scientific knowledge, technological innovation, and public policies.

After recruiting our main participants (lecturers, researchers, professors, and technicians from the University of Granada) via Google Form, the first informational meeting about the formation of UGR County Councils was held on 18 December 2024, gathering over 45 participants. The formal launch of the UGR County Councils took place and premiered on 20 January, 2025, as part of the Impronta Granada initiative, the strategic alliance between the University of Granada and the Provincial Council of Granada.

This recruitment process was coordinated by Medialab UGR, the Social Innovation Lab of the University of Granada. The first internal call was launched through a Google Form open to the entire university community between June and July 2024. Once this initial group was engaged, we organised the first informational and training session on the Living Lab methodology on 18 December 2024.

After ensuring that the university community was familiar with the initiative, we updated the Google Form to open participation to the other three helices – citizens, policymakers, and the business sector. University members themselves helped share the form with representatives from their own municipalities. Parallel to this, Medialab UGR, with the support of the Provincial Council of Granada, also sent the form to all municipalities in the province of Granada.

Challenges

• Engagement of local stakeholders. Ensuring active and sustained participation from local businesses, municipalities, and citizens is challenging
• Coordinating diverse interests. Balancing the interests of different groups (university, public sector, businesses, and citizens) while ensuring the project’s goals are met
• Implementation of solutions. Ensuring the co-created solutions are practical and implementable within the local context and effectively integrated into local policies

Tasks and resources

Scientists

Over 80 scientists from the University of Granada have joined the UGR County Council initiative. The registered researchers have different backgrounds and are specialised in more than 20 diverse areas of expertise (ranging from psychology and linguistics to parasitology and ecology), which make the knowledge transfer rich and fruitful.

Key tasks

• Provide scientific expertise and knowledge to help identify local needs and co-create innovative solutions
• Guide collaborative research projects that address regional challenges, particularly within the framework of the “Living Lab” methodology
• Actively participate in the evaluation of proposed solutions and innovations based on scientific validity and local applicability
• Present findings from collaborative efforts at various meetings, workshops, and events, such as the Impronta Granada annual gathering

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

Key tasks

• Coordination of knowledge transfer by facilitating the transfer of scientific knowledge to local communities
• Ensure active participation from all relevant stakeholders, including municipalities, businesses, and citizens and ensure their needs are met with appropriate knowledge inputs
• Handle logistical arrangements for meetings, workshops, and events, ensuring smooth operations and communication
• Oversee the implementation of collaborative projects between UGR, businesses, and local governments
• Promote participation in the councils through communication strategies such as the social media campaigns
• Collect participant feedback after each session, ensuring that ideas and concerns are communicated effectively to the relevant decision makers

Policymakers

Key tasks

• Contribute to the identification of local needs, leveraging their expertise to align council projects with existing urban agendas and municipal and regional development plans
• Help ensure that the innovative solutions developed through the UGR County Councils are integrated into local governance and policymaking processes.
• Provide institutional support for the projects that emerge from the UGR County Councils
• Engage with local businesses, citizens, and researchers to promote regional collaborations and policy initiatives based on scientific evidence.

Example

The successful implementation of the Living Lab methodology in the 10 different regions constituting the Granada province, where university researchers and local stakeholders work together to design and implement solutions for their municipalities’ needs.

How has the format been implemented?

1. Initial informational session. Held on 18 December 2024, organised by Medialab UGR within the framework of the Impronta Granada initiative, with institutional support from the Vice-Rectorate for Social Innovation, Employability and Entrepreneurship. The meeting was moderated by Medialab UGR staff, who were also responsible for designing and managing the agenda, and brought together 46 participants to discuss the structure, objectives, and methodology behind the creation of the UGR County Councils.
2. Internal structure
   1. Council presidency. Vice-Rectorate for Social Innovation, Employability, and Entrepreneurship.
   2. Council spokesperson. Responsible for leading meetings, ensuring cohesion among stakeholders, and coordinating action implementation. This role could be assumed by a UGR lecturer or staff member.
   3. Dialogue facilitator. When necessary, Medialab UGR experts will facilitate participatory processes, ensuring all actors have a voice and that discussions are productive and balanced.
3. Ongoing Google Form questionnaire. The initial Google Form used to reach the lecturers, professors, researchers, and technicians from the University of Granada has been extended to the other three stakeholders (municipalities’ governments, private sector and citizenship in the region of Granada) accounting currently for over 120 registered participants.
4. Emailing list. Creation of an emailing list per UGR County Council so that the different participants can contact each other.
5. Organisational session. 10 different virtual meetings have been organised so that every UGR County Council participant can meet their counterparts and identify their local needs so as to present them in the formal launch event.
6. Formal launch. The councils met officially on 20 January 2025 during the Impronta Granada event, where all participants were introduced and roles assigned.
7. Additional meetings. Subsequent meetings will be held either in-person or online, depending on local needs and priorities.

Available resources (What are the main tasks?)

1. Coordination: Organising meetings, gathering feedback, and ensuring all stakeholders are informed of developments.
2. Workshops and Living Labs: Facilitating collaborative problem-solving and ideation sessions.
3. Community engagement: Ensuring active participation from local residents, businesses, and governmental bodies. Fostering engagement is considered in the following ways:
   1. Participation certificates;
   2. Continuous training through science-policy based workshops;
   3. Best UGR County Council Award to be delivered at the 2026 Impronta Granada event;
   4. Visibility and dissemination through UGR social media.

What works? What doesn`t? (Lessons learnt)

• What works? Clear communication channels and flexible participation options (online and in-person meetings) have helped engage stakeholders
• What doesn’t? Overreliance on digital platforms for engagement may exclude some community members, especially in rural areas with limited access to technology.

How do you evaluate the activities?

Evaluation will be conducted through continuous feedback loops, including focus groups after each meeting. Success indicators include:

• Number of projects initiated
• Level of satisfaction from participants
• Number of solutions implemented in local policies
• Degree of local economic impact

Sources and further reading

Promotion and dissemination of both the informational meeting and the consolidation of the UGR County Councils:

• UGR County Councils microsite via Impronta Granada website with the profile of the different participants: https://improntagranada.es/campaign/consejoscomarcalesugr/
• UGR County Councils news and informational video within the University of Granada via Medialab UGR: https://medialab.ugr.es/impronta-granada/la-universidad-de-granada-celebra-la-primera-reunion-informativa-sobre-la-constitucion-de-los-consejos-comarcales-ugr/

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@uni-frankfurt.de

A Case Study of the Second Impronta Granada Meeting and Entrepreneurship and Employability Workshop

Description

UGR County Councils refers to the initiative led by the University of Granada (UGR) under the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen project, which aims to foster collaboration between academic researchers, local governments, and community stakeholders. This initiative focuses on addressing regional challenges through cocreated, research-driven solutions. The Second Impronta Granada Meeting is the third pilot event organized by UGR as part of this project, bringing together researchers, policymakers, and local communities to discuss and develop strategies for sustainable development in rural and urban areas.

Planning effective follow-up activities is essential to ensuring that the momentum generated by participatory events like the Entrepreneurship and Employability Workshop that took place at the Second Impronta Granada Meeting is sustained and transformed into long-term, actionable outcomes. The UGR County Councils initiative, along with the Second Impronta Granada Meeting, demonstrates how follow-up activities can provide continuous engagement between researchers, local governments, and youth participants to address employment and entrepreneurship challenges in rural regions. Follow-up actions help evaluate the success of proposed solutions and allow for adjustments as the community works together to overcome challenges and build sustainable initiatives.

Summary: Key features in a nutshell

• Objective: To design and implement follow-up activities that maintain engagement with local stakeholders and ensure sustainability in addressing employment and entrepreneurship issues
• Approach:
  • Post-event surveys to evaluate the effectiveness of proposals
  • Ongoing collaboration between UGR researchers, policymakers, and local businesses
  • Visibility of outcomes through digital platforms like the Impronta Granada website
• Outcome: Creation of long-term initiatives that reflect collaborative solutions and tackle local development challenges

How does the format work?

1. Planning post-event engagement: After the  Entrepreneurship and Employability Workshop, the follow-up phase ensures that all stakeholders stay engaged. This can be achieved through feedback loops like surveys and online discussions on platforms such as the Impronta Granada website. Feedback helps refine the solutions discussed during the event and provides participants an opportunity to reflect on the progress made.
2. Collecting feedback and evaluating impact: Post-event surveys and interviews can be used to measure the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. These tools help identify gaps in implementation and areas that require additional attention. For instance, participants could be asked if the entrepreneurship programs presented in the workshop were accessible and if they helped overcome barriers to starting businesses in rural areas.
3. Visibility and continuous engagement: Using digital platforms like the Impronta Granada website, researchers and policymakers can continue the dialogue after the event by updating project progress and sharing outcomes. This transparency keeps the community informed and ensures that everyone is working towards common goals.
4. Sustaining collaboration: Long-term engagement requires regular communication. After the II Encuentro Impronta Granada, stakeholders can continue collaborating through follow-up workshops, networking events, or virtual consultations, where ideas and solutions can be refined using feedback from the initial event.

Challenges

• Sustaining participation: Keeping stakeholders engaged long-term can be difficult due to time constraints, especially for researchers and policymakers who have other responsibilities
• Resource availability: Limited funding and resources can make consistent implementation of follow-up activities challenging
• Managing expectations: Ensuring that stakeholders’ expectations align with what can be realistically achieved in the follow-up phase is crucial to avoiding disillusionment

Tasks and resources

Scientists

• Tasks
  • Support data collection
  • Participate in follow-up workshops
  • Share updates on research progress
• Required resources
  • Time for research dissemination and follow-up consultations

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

• Tasks
  • Coordinate online feedback.
  • Manage communication platforms
  • Facilitate follow-up events
• Required resources
  • Digital tools (e.g., websites, survey tools)

Policymakers

• Tasks
  • Monitor progress.
  • Allocate resources
  • Ensure that research findings are integrated into policy decisions
• Required resources
  • Financial and administrative support for post-event actions

Examples

1. Impronta Granada website: The Impronta Granada website allowed continuous engagement after the  Entrepreneurship and Employability Workshop where researchers shared updates, progress reports, and new insights, allowing policymakers and businesses could stay informed and involved.
2. Follow-up surveys: After the Second Encuentro Impronta Granada, surveys were used to assess the effectiveness of entrepreneurship programs and youth employment initiatives discussed during the event, with feedback used to refine the proposals and ensure that they met local needs.

Sources and further reading

• Impronta Granada Website – https://improntagranada.es/
• Official coverage of the Second Impronta Granada meeting – University and Regional event: https://improntagranada.es/impronta/ii-impronta-granada-meeting-strengthens-the-university-territory-alliance-in-loja/

Case study details:

How is the format implemented?

Follow-up activities are initiated post-dialogue events to ensure the connection between researchers and policymakers is maintained. For example, after the Second Impronta Granada Meeting, researchers were invited to submit further proposals for collaboration based on the feedback received from policymakers and stakeholders. This ensured that both parties could review and refine their engagements.

Available resources (main tasks):

• Collecting feedback from participants to assess the relevance of research presentations
• Facilitating ongoing dialogue via online platforms like Impronta Granada to track progress
• Organizing further collaborative meetings based on the discussions at the events

What works? What doesn’t? (Lessons Learnt):

What works:

Using structured online platforms such as Impronta Granada to continue discussions beyond events ensures that the momentum of the workshops and discussions is not lost.

What doesn’t work:

It’s challenging to maintain sustained participation by policymakers after the events due to their varying commitments and workloads.

How are the activities evaluated?

The follow-up activities were evaluated using feedback surveys sent to both researchers and policymakers, to gauge how well the research had impacted local policymaking. Follow-up surveys assessed the continuation of collaboration, the implementation of knowledge, and the development of new projects or initiatives inspired by the initial discussions.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de