Enrich Project Final Report

The Enrich project was a 12 month JISC project funded as part of the Inf11 Programme (2009-11). It was conducted in partnership by the Library, Research and Enterprise and IT Services – with additional technical support from EPrints Services. This interdepartmental approach was critical to the success of the project and the repository’s long term sustainability as an institutional [not simply Library] service. At its heart, Enrich provided a clear focus for the integration and enhancement of the University of Glasgow’s repository, Enlighten with other institutional systems, including our Research System (for funder data) and our Data Vault (for staff records), lowering barriers to deposit and increasing the range of information held

Final Digital Storytelling Project

At the end of the semester, students will also combine some of their blogs into an approximately 1,500-character essay to be submitted for publication, with instructor revisions, in an official journal for students’ essays in the U.S., JUHE SUPPLEMENT

The LIFE2 final project report

Executive summary: The first phase of LIFE (Lifecycle Information For E-Literature) made a major contribution to understanding the long-term costs of digital preservation; an essential step in helping institutions plan for the future. The LIFE work models the digital lifecycle and calculates the costs of preserving digital information for future years. Organisations can apply this process in order to understand costs and plan effectively for the preservation of their digital collections The second phase of the LIFE Project, LIFE2, has refined the LIFE Model adding three new exemplar Case Studies to further build upon LIFE1. LIFE2 is an 18-month JISC-funded project between UCL (University College London) and The British Library (BL), supported by the LIBER Access and Preservation Divisions. LIFE2 began in March 2007, and completed in August 2008. The LIFE approach has been validated by a full independent economic review and has successfully produced an updated lifecycle costing model (LIFE Model v2) and digital preservation costing model (GPM v1.1). The LIFE Model has been tested with three further Case Studies including institutional repositories (SHERPA-LEAP), digital preservation services (SHERPA DP) and a comparison of analogue and digital collections (British Library Newspapers). These Case Studies were useful for scenario building and have fed back into both the LIFE Model and the LIFE Methodology. The experiences of implementing the Case Studies indicated that enhancements made to the LIFE Methodology, Model and associated tools have simplified the costing process. Mapping a specific lifecycle to the LIFE Model isn’t always a straightforward process. The revised and more detailed Model has reduced ambiguity. The costing templates, which were refined throughout the process of developing the Case Studies, ensure clear articulation of both working and cost figures, and facilitate comparative analysis between different lifecycles. The LIFE work has been successfully disseminated throughout the digital preservation and HE communities. Early adopters of the work include the Royal Danish Library, State Archives and the State and University Library, Denmark as well as the LIFE2 Project partners. Furthermore, interest in the LIFE work has not been limited to these sectors, with interest in LIFE expressed by local government, records offices, and private industry. LIFE has also provided input into the LC-JISC Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Economic Sustainability of Digital Preservation. Moving forward our ability to cost the digital preservation lifecycle will require further investment in costing tools and models. Developments in estimative models will be needed to support planning activities, both at a collection management level and at a later preservation planning level once a collection has been acquired. In order to support these developments a greater volume of raw cost data will be required to inform and test new cost models. This volume of data cannot be supported via the Case Study approach, and the LIFE team would suggest that a software tool would provide the volume of costing data necessary to provide a truly accurate predictive model

Project FATIMA Final Report: Part 2

The final report of project FATIMA is presented in two parts. Part 1 contains a summary of the FATIMA method and sets out the key recommendations in terms of policies and optimisation methodology from both project OPTIMA and project FATIMA. Part 1 is thus directed particularly towards policy makers. Part 2 contains the details of the methodology, including the formulation of the objective functions, the optimisation process, the resulting optimal strategies under the various objective function regimes and a summary of the feasibility and acceptability of the optimal strategies based on consultations with the city authorities. This part is thus mainly aimed at the professional in transport planning and modelling

Final report on the VEGINECO project

Vegetable farming systems in Europe, Final report on the VEGINECO project

Emancipated Youth Connections Project Final Report/Toolkit

This report presents findings and recommendations from the Emancipated Youth Connections Project, a model program designed to seek and sustain permanent lifelong connections for older youth who have already emancipated from foster care without a permanent connection to a caring adult. See "Part 3: Project Results" for project evaluation

Project FATIMA Final Report: Part 1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Final Report covers the results of the EU-funded research project FATIMA (Financial Assistance for Transport Integration in Metropolitan Areas) which had the following objectives: (i) to identify the benefits to the private sector of optimal urban transport strategies, and the potential for obtaining private sector funding to reflect those benefits; (ii) to determine the differences between strategies optimised using public funds and those optimised within the constraints imposed by private funding initiatives; (iii) to propose mechanisms by which private sector funding can be provided so as to achieve appropriately optimal transport strategies while maintaining quality of operation; and (iv) to use the results to provide more general guidance on the role of private sector funding for urban transport in the EU. The project adopted an approach which involved the application of the same study method to nine cities, chosen to reflect a range of urban transport policy contexts in Europe: Edinburgh, Eisenstadt, Helsinki, Merseyside, Oslo, Salerno, Torino, Tromsø and Vienna. This method involved specifying appropriate policy objective functions against which transport strategies could be assessed, and finding the specific strategy that optimised each of these functions. The objective functions covered a range of differing regimes with respect to constraints on public finance and the involvement of the private sector. It was found that, in a majority of the case study cities, optimal socio-economic policies could be funded by road pricing or increased parking charges, considered over a 30 year time horizon. Such measures would typically be used to make it feasible to increase public transport frequency levels or decrease public transport fares. In general it was found to be important that the city transport planning authority had complete control over all transport measures, affecting both private and public transport. However, such strategies are likely to require significant levels of investment and, given current attitudes towards constraints on public spending, it might be politically awkward for the public sector to raise such finance. There is thus a potentially useful role for private finance to be used to help overcome such (short term) financing problems. However, it must be appreciated that the private sector will expect to make a profit on such investment. In cities where optimal policies are funded by travellers, the private sector can be reimbursed by travellers. In cities where it is unfeasible for travellers to fund all the costs of optimal policies, it will be necessary for the private sector to be reimbursed from public funds (raised from taxes). An important issue here is that the use of private finance should not be allowed to replace optimal policies with sub-optimal policies. Whether or not the private sector is involved in financing a strategy, there may be interest in private sector operation of the public transport service. However, evidence on the scale of benefits or losses from such operation is unclear. If, though, a city authority decides that private operation is beneficial, it should use, where legally possible, a franchising model in which it specifies optimal public transport service levels and fares. On the other hand, if a deregulation model is required (in order to comply with national law), private operators should not be given complete freedom to determine the operating conditions which meet their profitability target, even if the level of profitability is itself constrained as a result. There are typically a number of combinations (e.g. of fares and frequency) which achieve a given level of profitability, and not all will be equally effective in terms of public policy objectives