@article{HaaseHanelGronau2023, author = {Haase, Jennifer and Hanel, Paul H. P. and Gronau, Norbert}, title = {Creativity enhancement methods for adults}, series = {Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts}, journal = {Psychology of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts}, publisher = {American Psychological Association}, address = {Washington, DC}, issn = {1931-3896}, doi = {10.1037/aca0000557}, pages = {30}, year = {2023}, abstract = {This meta-analysis synthesizes 332 effect sizes of various methods to enhance creativity. We clustered all studies into 12 methods to identify the most effective creativity enhancement methods. We found that, on average, creativity can be enhanced, Hedges' g = 0.53, 95\% CI [0.44, 0.61], with 70.09\% of the participants in the enhancement conditions being more creative than the average person in the control conditions. Complex training courses, meditation, and cultural exposure were the most effective (gs = 0.66) while the use of cognitive manipulation drugs was the least and also noneffective, g = 0.10. The type of training material was also important. For instance, figural methods were more effective in enhancing creativity, and enhancing converging thinking was more effective than enhancing divergent thinking. Study effect sizes varied considerably across all studies and for many subgroup analyses, suggesting that researchers can plausibly expect to find reversed effects occasionally. We found no evidence of publication bias. We discuss theoretical implications and suggest future directions for best practices in enhancing creativity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)}, language = {en} } @misc{KuhlmannWayenberg2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Wayenberg, Ellen}, title = {Institutional impact assessment in multi-level systems}, series = {International review of administrative sciences}, volume = {82}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences}, number = {2}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-405314}, pages = {22}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Comparative literature on institutional reforms in multi-level systems proceeds from a global trend towards the decentralization of state functions. However, there is only scarce knowledge about the impact that decentralization has had, in particular, upon the sub-central governments involved. How does it affect regional and local governments? Do these reforms also have unintended outcomes on the sub-central level and how can this be explained? This article aims to develop a conceptual framework to assess the impacts of decentralization on the sub-central level from a comparative and policyoriented perspective. This framework is intended to outline the major patterns and models of decentralization and the theoretical assumptions regarding de-/re-centralization impacts, as well as pertinent cross-country approaches meant to evaluate and compare institutional reforms. It will also serve as an analytical guideline and a structural basis for all the country-related articles in this Special Issue.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlmannWayenberg2016, author = {Kuhlmann, Sabine and Wayenberg, Ellen}, title = {Institutional impact assessment in multi-level systems: conceptualizing decentralization effects from a comparative perspective}, series = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration}, volume = {82}, journal = {International review of administrative sciences : an international journal of comparative public administration}, number = {2}, publisher = {Sage}, address = {London}, issn = {0020-8523}, doi = {10.1177/0020852315583194}, pages = {233 -- 272}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Comparative literature on institutional reforms in multi-level systems proceeds from a global trend towards the decentralization of state functions. However, there is only scarce knowledge about the impact that decentralization has had, in particular, upon the sub-central governments involved. How does it affect regional and local governments? Do these reforms also have unintended outcomes on the sub-central level and how can this be explained? This article aims to develop a conceptual framework to assess the impacts of decentralization on the sub-central level from a comparative and policy-oriented perspective. This framework is intended to outline the major patterns and models of decentralization and the theoretical assumptions regarding de-/re-centralization impacts, as well as pertinent cross-country approaches meant to evaluate and compare institutional reforms. It will also serve as an analytical guideline and a structural basis for all the country-related articles in this Special Issue. Points for practitioners Decentralization reforms are approved as having a key role to play in the attainment of 'good governance'. Yet, there is also the enticement on the part of state governments to offload an ever-increasing amount of responsibilities to, and overtask, local levels of government, which can lead to increasing performance disparities within local sub-state jurisdictions. Against this background, the article provides a conceptual framework to assess reform impacts from a comparative perspective. The analytical framework can be used by practitioners to support their decisions about new decentralization strategies or necessary adjustments regarding ongoing reform measures.}, language = {en} } @article{WendeWojtkiewiczMarschalletal.2012, author = {Wende, Wolfgang and Wojtkiewicz, Wera and Marschall, Ilke and Heiland, Stefan and Lipp, Torsten and Reinke, Markus and Schaal, Peter and Schmidt, Catrin}, title = {Putting the plan into practice implementation of proposals for measures of local landscape plans}, series = {Landscape research}, volume = {37}, journal = {Landscape research}, number = {4}, publisher = {Routledge, Taylor \& Francis Group}, address = {Abingdon}, issn = {0142-6397}, doi = {10.1080/01426397.2011.592575}, pages = {483 -- 500}, year = {2012}, abstract = {The knowledge of the effectiveness of local landscape planning in Germany is in the main limited to particular cases and derives mostly from qualitative single case studies. This applies especially to the implementation of measures defined by landscape plans. To fill that gap, the paper focuses on the implementation of those measures. Furthermore, it discusses the factors and framework conditions which are crucial for this implementation. The potential factors and conditions of influence were derived from theory and compiled in 20 investigation hypotheses. In order to gain information on the execution of the measures, 28 randomly selected plans were first analysed, then interviews were carried out with administration representatives. It can be stated that landscape planning has positively influenced the development of nature and landscape in the investigated municipalities. A considerable number of measures had been implemented, although landscape planning as a supply-side instrument proposes generally a very large number of measures. Factors with a positive effect on the implementation of landscape planning measures are pointed out.}, language = {en} } @article{KuhlickeSeebauerHudsonetal.2020, author = {Kuhlicke, Christian and Seebauer, Sebastian and Hudson, Paul and Begg, Chloe and Bubeck, Philip and Dittmer, Cordula and Grothmann, Torsten and Heidenreich, Anna and Kreibich, Heidi and Lorenz, Daniel F. and Masson, Torsten and Reiter, Jessica and Thaler, Thomas and Thieken, Annegret and Bamberg, Sebastian}, title = {The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications}, series = {WIREs Water}, volume = {7}, journal = {WIREs Water}, number = {3}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {2049-1948}, doi = {10.1002/wat2.1418}, pages = {1 -- 22}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.}, language = {en} } @misc{KuhlickeSeebauerHudsonetal.2020, author = {Kuhlicke, Christian and Seebauer, Sebastian and Hudson, Paul and Begg, Chloe and Bubeck, Philip and Dittmer, Cordula and Grothmann, Torsten and Heidenreich, Anna and Kreibich, Heidi and Lorenz, Daniel F. and Masson, Torsten and Reiter, Jessica and Thaler, Thomas and Thieken, Annegret and Bamberg, Sebastian}, title = {The behavioral turn in flood risk management, its assumptions and potential implications}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {3}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-51769}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-517696}, pages = {24}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Recent policy changes highlight the need for citizens to take adaptive actions to reduce flood-related impacts. Here, we argue that these changes represent a wider behavioral turn in flood risk management (FRM). The behavioral turn is based on three fundamental assumptions: first, that the motivations of citizens to take adaptive actions can be well understood so that these motivations can be targeted in the practice of FRM; second, that private adaptive measures and actions are effective in reducing flood risk; and third, that individuals have the capacities to implement such measures. We assess the extent to which the assumptions can be supported by empirical evidence. We do this by engaging with three intellectual catchments. We turn to research by psychologists and other behavioral scientists which focus on the sociopsychological factors which influence individual motivations (Assumption 1). We engage with economists, engineers, and quantitative risk analysts who explore the extent to which individuals can reduce flood related impacts by quantifying the effectiveness and efficiency of household-level adaptive measures (Assumption 2). We converse with human geographers and sociologists who explore the types of capacities households require to adapt to and cope with threatening events (Assumption 3). We believe that an investigation of the behavioral turn is important because if the outlined assumptions do not hold, there is a risk of creating and strengthening inequalities in FRM. Therefore, we outline the current intellectual and empirical knowledge as well as future research needs. Generally, we argue that more collaboration across intellectual catchments is needed, that future research should be more theoretically grounded and become methodologically more rigorous and at the same time focus more explicitly on the normative underpinnings of the behavioral turn.}, language = {en} }