The concept of transport capacity in geomorphology

The notion of sediment-transport capacity has been engrained in geomorphological and related literature for over 50 years, although its earliest roots date back explicitly to Gilbert in fluvial geomorphology in the 1870s and implicitly to eighteenth to nineteenth century developments in engineering. Despite cross fertilization between different process domains, there seem to have been independent inventions of the idea in aeolian geomorphology by Bagnold in the 1930s and in hillslope studies by Ellison in the 1940s. Here we review the invention and development of the idea of transport capacity in the fluvial, aeolian, coastal, hillslope, débris flow, and glacial process domains. As these various developments have occurred, different definitions have been used, which makes it both a difficult concept to test, and one that may lead to poor communications between those working in different domains of geomorphology. We argue that the original relation between the power of a flow and its ability to transport sediment can be challenged for three reasons. First, as sediment becomes entrained in a flow, the nature of the flow changes and so it is unreasonable to link the capacity of the water or wind only to the ability of the fluid to move sediment. Secondly, environmental sediment transport is complicated, and the range of processes involved in most movements means that simple relationships are unlikely to hold, not least because the movement of sediment often changes the substrate, which in turn affects the flow conditions. Thirdly, the inherently stochastic nature of sediment transport means that any capacity relationships do not scale either in time or in space. Consequently, new theories of sediment transport are needed to improve understanding and prediction and to guide measurement and management of all geomorphic systems

A systematic review of evaluation studies regarding Multi-Agency Working to prevent violent radicalisation

C

Observing multi-agency working : participatory observations in Belgian, Dutch and German cities

The first part of the fieldwork within the process evaluation is participatory observations. These were carried out during MAW structures’ meetings in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Prior to the participatory observations, the MAW meeting being observed explained and introduced their work, and highlighted the strengths and pitfalls of MAW that they were experiencing.The selection of the MAW structures to be observed depended on their experience in dealing with the issue of radicalisation. The original intention was to observe eighteen meetings in three cities in Belgium, three cities in the Netherlands and three cities in Germany (two observations in each city). Due to difficulties with data protection and cancellations or a lack of meetings, usually because of the Covid-19 pandemic, we carried out eight observations in Belgium (four cities), three in the Netherlands (two cities) and three in Germany (two cities) – a total of fourteen observations in eight cities. The observations were carried out using an observation protocol (see Appendix 4). The protocol was based on the process indicators derived from the literature review. The participatory observations were carried out both in person (n = 4) and online (n = 10) via Microsoft Teams, depending on the Covid-19 pandemic measures that were in place at the time. The following is an outline of the results. More detailed results can be found in the observation matrices (Tables 5 to 9)

Towards a self-evaluation tool : focus groups with multi-agency working practitioners

As the third and last part of the realist process evaluation, two rounds of focus groups were organised within the three countries (3*2). The first round asked MAW practitioners about the proposed structure and content of the self-evaluation tool. The research team then constructed a preliminary draft of the website-based self-evaluation tool, and the second round of focus groups reviewed this draft. A focus group is a group discussion in which a small number of participants discuss a certain topic or set of issues raised by a moderator who also guides the discussion. The researcher acted here as the moderator: posing questions, keeping the discussion going and enabling full participation and interaction for all the participants. The interaction among the participants is an essential part of the focus group. Through group discussion, the interactions, interests, ideas and motives of the participants can be derived (Vander Laenen, 2021; Wilkinson, 2004). Depending on the Covid-19 measures in place for each country at that time, the focus groups were conducted either online via Microsoft Teams or face-to-face. For both rounds of focus groups, Ghent University provided a questionnaire with extensive instructions and a note form. The focus groups were moderated in Belgium by Ghent University, in the Netherlands by RadarAdvies and in Germany by VPN

Key actors in P/CVE multi-agency structures in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany

The next part of the process evaluation consisted of qualitative semi-structured interviews with participants of the MAW structures. The original intention was to include three cities per country and five interviews per city (3*15) in order to achieve a representative sample. Due to staff turnover involving our contacts in one Belgian city, this city was replaced by another one. Two interview had already been carried out prior to that. Furthermore, due to the difficulties in motivating a third city from the Netherlands to take part in the process evaluation, this third Dutch city was replaced by an additional Belgian city. This resulted in a sample of three German cities (n=3x5), two cities in the Netherlands (n=2x5) and five in Belgium (n=(4x5)+2), giving a total of 47 (15+10+22) interviews, two more than intended. The in-depth interviews were carried out both face-to-face and online via Microsoft Teams, depending on the Covid-19 pandemic measures that were in place at the time. We interviewed the mayors of the included cities, different local security actors and the local socio-preventive actors. Our partners VVSG, VPN and RadarAdvies facilitated the first contacts with candidates for the scientific evaluation, by explaining the framework of the research design, and indicating the importance of participation, etc. After this introduction, we were able to get started and make contact. The interviews in Dutch (i.e., Belgium and the Netherlands) were conducted by researchers from Ghent University. The German interviews were carried out by VPN, assisted by Ghent University. The interviews were based on a semi-structured interview guide and an informed consent form was signed each time. The semi-structured interview guide was created using the process indicators (listed in Appendix 3) that had been derived from the literature review. This chapter outlines the findings from the interviews. It is structured according to the broad categories used to group the process indicators, and this grouping also forms the basis for the structure of the self-evaluation tool. It must be noted that this list of process indicators is not exhaustive. The semi-structured interview guide can be found in Appendix 5. All interviews were conducted in Dutch, German or English and were fully transcribed. The interviews in German were transcribed in German and then translated for analysis. The interviews were coded using the program NVivo by means of a codebook. The codebook was based on the process indicators and gradually supplemented throughout the analysis. In total, 51 MAW actors were interviewed (47 interviews, of which four had two interviewees present) in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Some features of the interviewees are summarised here. One in four respondents had either a coordinating function (approximately 25%) or a participatory role (the majority, almost 80%) at the MAW meeting. On average, respondents had been in the MAW structure for three years. They worked in the following sectors: police/security, municipality, judiciary, social/wellbeing, academia/experts or youth and education. The most common organisations within these sectors were the police, social services and civil services. Twenty-one female and 28 male respondents were interviewed

Developing a self-evaluation tool focusing on multi-agency working for local practitioners in the area of violent extremism

As there is currently no thorough evaluation research on MAW in the context of radicalisation and violent extremism (Gielen, 2020), we carried out a process evaluation of MAW within three countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany). Process evaluations are used to identify the effective key components of an intervention and thus help us to understand why a programme or intervention was successful or not. The combination of all the data from the systematic literature review, participatory observations, semi-structured interviews and two rounds of focus groups created a list of promising practices for multi-agency working in the context of radicalisation and violent extremism. These were translated into a self-evaluation tool. This self-evaluation tool has been developed for a specific target group, namely local practitioners within MAW structures, and will allow cities to evaluate their MAW approach. It is supported by a practical manual that explains how local practitioners should use the tool. The manual can be found on the self-evaluation tool’s website (www.emmascan.eu), which also includes hands-on information and supporting material for conducting successful MAW self-evaluation