Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
20
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
20 results for “stakeholder survey”
GRRIP WP5 - Stakeholder Survey
<p>This dataset includes the full survey data of the GRRIP project's WP5 Stakeholder Survey, including documentation about using the dataset and the original survey design.</p> <p>Respondents of this survey are interested in a research organisation in the marine and maritime sector and stakeholder in the GRRIP (Grounding RRI Practices in research performing organisations) project. The survey was conducted as part of auditing the policies and practices of the five marine & maritime organisations involved in GRRIP and to gather respondents' perspectives on these policies and practices.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>About GRRIP</strong><br> GRRIP is an EU-funded project (<a href="https://grrip.eu/">grrip.eu</a>) that aims to embed sustainable RRI (responsible re-search and innovation) practices in the marine & maritime sector through institutional and cultural change. GRRIP will embed sustainable RRI practices in these five marine & maritime organisa-tions: The Centre for Marine and Renewable Energy (MaREI), University College Cork, Ireland Plataforma Oceánica de Canarias (Plocan), Gran Canaria WavEC Offshore Renewables, Lisbon, Portugal Institut Universitaire Mer Littoral U.Nantes (IUML), France Swansea University, Wales.</p> <p> </p> <p>-----------<br> <em>This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No.</em> <a href="https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/820283"><em>820283</em></a><em>.</em></p>
Multi-stakeholder research data management training as a tool to improve the quality, integrity, reliability and reproducibility of research: Quantitative data of the post-course surveys
<p>Data contains doctoral students' and postdoc researchers' (n=168) self-ratings of their RDM competencies before and after the 3 ECTS credits "Basics of Research Data Management" (BRDM) trainings held 2019-2021 in the University of Turku and Åbo Akademi University, Finland. Moreover, data contains respondents' self-reported further learning needs.</p>
BRAVE stakeholder survey
<p>Data set from the BRAVE stakeholder survey. A codebook ist documenting and complementing the data set.</p> <p>The BRAVE stakeholder survey was conducted within the context of the multidisciplinary research project “BRidging gaps for the adoption of Automated VEhicles” (BRAVE) funded by the EU as part of the Horizon 2020 research program. The survey took place in the seven countries of the participating project partners, i.e. in the EU countries France, Germany, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden, as well as in Australia and the USA and took place in February and March 2020. The survey was conducted via computer assisted web interviews (CAWI).</p> <p>The aim of the study was to explore stakeholders’ expectations, concerns and needs of a large-scale introduction of automated vehicles at SAE Level 3. Applying a mixed method approach, expert interviews were conducted to design the questionnaire of the online stakeholder survey.</p> <p>The codebook of the BRAVE stakeholder survey documents the applied questionnaire and codes given in data preparation. The documentation accompanies the data set of the BRAVE stakeholder survey stored in the repository zenodo.org available under doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5495219.</p> <p>Further details on the survey and results are reported in the BRAVE Deliverable D2.2 “Report on the findings of the expert online survey”, available at https://www.brave-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/20210225-Deliverable-D2.2-Stakeholder-survey-Final.pdf.</p>
2020 Stakeholder Survey of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) - Quantitative Dataset
<p>This dataset is the outcome of a survey of IPBES stakeholders that was conducted in May-June 2020. The aim of this survey is to better understand stakeholder engagement with IPBES, to improve implementation of the IPBES stakeholder engagement strategy (decision IPBES-3/4 presented in document IPBES/3/18), and to further increase the inclusivity and effectiveness of the IPBES work programme. Results will help, among others, to better align communication and outreach, and to strengthen collaborative processes within the IPBES work programme.</p> <p><br> This dataset presents only the quantitative data of the complete dataset of responses. It has been anonymised and all personal comments in response to open questions have been removed. For information, the full anonymised dataset has been published on Zenodo, with restricted access (see DOI: <a href="http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4121916">10.5281/zenodo.4121916</a>).</p> <p>This dataset is under restricted access and embargoed until after the eighth session of IPBES Plenary. For any inquiry, please contact IPBES Head of Communications (stakeholders@ipbes.net). </p>
Survey of Electrical & Electronic Equipment (EEE) Sector Stakeholders & End Users of EEE regarding Circular Economy in the EEE Sector
<p>The data is the full results of surveys of stakeholders in the electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) value chain conducted as part of the Horizon 2020 funded <a href="https://c-serveesproject.eu/index.php">C-SERVEES project</a>. </p> <p>The purpose of the survey was to provide guidance for the successful implementation of circularity in the EEE sector, specifically to develop circular economy business plans for four items of equipment: printers (inc. toner cartridges); washing machines; televisions; and network monitoring equipment. The survey aimed to capture data on:</p> <ul> <li>Circular economy awareness;</li> <li>Current practices relating to circular economy; and</li> <li>Circular economy opportunities, barriers and enablers.</li> </ul> <p>Investigation of opportunities, barriers and enablers focused on technical, economic, socio-cultural, regulatory and environmental themes. In addition, background information was also collected to enable some of the attributes of the respondent to be recorded. This included: country; city, years of experience in the industry as well as, in the household users’ survey, age and education level. </p> <p>The stakeholder groups surveyed are noted below, these being the key EEE supply chain actors. A separate dataset is available for each.</p> <ol> <li>Designers of EEE</li> <li>Suppliers to manufacturers of EEE</li> <li>Manufacturers of EEE</li> <li>EEE Retailers</li> <li>Business users of EEE</li> <li>Household users of EEE</li> <li>Waste EEE handlers</li> </ol> <p>A project report analysing the results of the survey is available: <em><a href="https://c-serveesproject.eu/project_activities.php?op=5">Guidelines for circular economic models in the E&E sector</a> . </em>A journal article outlining the subsequent development of the circular economy business models is also available: <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095965262101430X"><em>A circular economy business model innovation process for the electrical and electronic equipment sector</em></a>. </p>
External Stakeholders Survey Results - The Future of Aquaculture The impact of 4.0 technologies worldwide
<p>Aquaculture 4.0 technologies have landed and are very likely to stay, aiming to play a major role within the implementation of new Circular Bioeconomy approaches. In this context, European aquaculture has been recently applying innovative and disruptive technologies to transform fishery management strategies. The so-called “4th industrial revolution” is projected to allow a 15-20% increase in the sector by the year 2030. In addition to the growth the revolution can provide, the benefits of Industry 4.0 include improved productivity, efficiency and reduced costs. Companies will be able to produce more, in less time, while allocating resources more effectively, due to a smooth adoption of interconnectivity through the Internet of Things (IoT), access to real-time data, and the introduction of cyber-physical systems. According to FAO data, the estimated production volume of fish from European aquaculture in 2028 will increase to approximately 1.4 million tons, needing more circular, digitized solutions to cover end user demand.</p> <p>This data was collected from a survey investigating the Future of Aquaculture The impact of 4.0 technologies worldwide. The results of this survey were used to understand the main challenges faced within the Aquaculture 4.0 market concerning usage experience and level of awareness, in order to identify barriers for implementation and key drivers to encourage adoption of innovative technologies within their businesses. The insights gathered will help us to improve our concept and ultimately the whole value chain of the Aquaculture 4.0 market.</p>
ipaast project - community stakeholder survey data and basic analysis
<p>This data provides the basis for the report titled</p> <p>"Ready for integrated sustainable agricultural land management? </p> <p>Are practitioners in archaeology and agriculture informed, willing, enabled, and motivated to change how they work with remote and near-surface sensing data to collaboratively address contemporary challenges in sustainable agricultural land management? "</p> <p>Data were collected in compliance with the University of Glasgow's Research Ethics Policy (Application #100200154).</p> <p>As stated in the Methods section of this report:</p> <p>"The participatory survey was conducted between May 2021 and October 2022. </p> <p>Location: The preponderance of stakeholders engaged with are professional practitioners or researchers based in the UK, Belgium, Italy, Cyprus, Spain and France. Sessions occurred remotely (online/phone), as well as on site, during workshops at the University of Glasgow, the Dalswinton Estate, Dumfries, and Manor Farm, Yedingham. </p> <p>Participants </p> <p>Selection: A sub-group of 51 high-level participants were selected from a greater network of 86 stakeholders who were engaged with during the ipaast project. </p> <p>Sector: Farmers, researchers, heritage managers, geophysicists, remote sensing specialists, statisticians, soil scientists, service providers, sensor developers, and data archivists, who all deal directly, or indirectly with datasets relating to the measurement of soil and/or plant properties (physical, chemical, microbial) were represented (Table 1) </p> <p>Expertise: Engagement with mid- to late- career specialists was prioritised, with many participants having over 20 years of experience and most having over 10 years of experience (including time during the PhD). </p> <p> </p> <p>Interview method </p> <p>Engagement with stakeholders was primarily through one-to-one interviews and structured workshop discussions, conducted either in person, or remotely over video conference or phone. In some instances, participants provided written input (see Table 2 summary). Follow-up interviews or written exchanges were used to clarify or continue discussions when required. A semi-structured approach to interviews and discussions was preferred, with a mix of general questions (see sample questions), as well as questions specifically tailored to the participants specialist background and experience. </p> <p>Sample Questions: </p> <ul> <li> <p>What types of sensing data do you use/collect? </p> </li> </ul> <ul> <li> <p>Where/how do you access/collect these data? </p> </li> <li> <p>What are your main aims/applications in using or collecting these data? </p> </li> <li> <p>How often do you access/collect, or anticipate accessing/collecting, these data to be useful to you? </p> </li> <li> <p>What spatial resolution is necessary for these data to be useful to you? </p> </li> <li> <p>What, if anything, would encourage/discourage you from sharing your data? </p> </li> </ul> <ul> <li> <p>What kinds of additional data types or additional information (metadata) might help you to better understand and use data which you have previously collected or received? </p> </li> <li> <p>What do you see as the main impacts, if any, of ecosystem service frameworks and/or recent changes to rural/environmental regulations on your work? </p> </li> <li> <p>What attitudes to sensing data do you see from other stakeholders in rural affairs? </p> </li> </ul> <p>Documentation: Where viable, interviews and workshop discussions were recorded and transcribed; alternatively, notes were made during engagement by either the interviewer and/or dedicated participant observers (e.g. at workshops). Where notes were used, specific quotes and summary reports were checked with the participants for accuracy. "</p>
Survey data from stakeholders on the supply side of Nigeria's online budget
<p>The survey data was collected during field work from key personnel on the supply side of the national budget preparation process in Nigeria. This was done as part of the stakeholder survey on the case study investigating the use of the online national budget of Nigeria which is part of the 'Exploring the Emerging Impacts of Open Data in Developing Countries' (ODDC) research project.</p>
Survey data from stakeholders on the demand side of Nigeria's online budget
<p>The survey data was collected during field work from key personnel on the demand side of the national budget preparation process in Nigeria. This was done as part of the stakeholder survey on the case study investigating the use of the online national budget of Nigeria which is part of the 'Exploring the Emerging Impacts of Open Data in Developing Countries' (ODDC) research project.</p>
Multi-stakeholder Validation of Entrustable Professional Activities in Family Medicine - Survey Responses
<p>Survey Responses from the 2021 Multi-Stakeholder Validation of Entrustable Professional Activities in Family Medicine medical education research project.</p>
Survey responses from stakeholders managing, growing, advising or assessing UK populations of Juniperus communis
<p>Increased imports of plants and timber through global trade networks provide frequent opportunities for introduction of novel plant pathogens that can cross-over from commercial to natural environments, threatening native species and ecosystem functioning. Prevention or management of such outbreaks relies on a diversity of cross-sectoral stakeholders acting along the invasion pathway. Yet guidelines are often only produced for a small number of stakeholders, missing opportunities to consider ways to control outbreaks in other parts of the pathway. We used the infection of common juniper with the invasive pathogen <em>Phytophthora austrocedri</em> as a case study to explore the utility of decision tools for managing outbreaks of plant pathogens in the wider environment. We invited stakeholders who manage or monitor juniper populations or supply plants or management advice to participate in a survey exploring their awareness of, and ability to use, an existing decision tree produced by a coalition of statutory agencies augmented with new distribution maps designed by the authors. Awareness of the decision tree was low across all stakeholder groups including those planting juniper for restoration purposes. Stakeholders requested that decision tools contain greater detail about environmental conditions that increase host vulnerability to the pathogen, and clearer examples of when management practices implicated in pathogen introduction or spread should not be adopted. The results demonstrate the need to set clear objectives for the purpose of decision tools and to frame and co-produce them with many different stakeholders, including overlooked groups such as growers and advisory agents, to improve management of pathogens in the wider environment.</p>
CONSOLE_WP3_Task3.3_Pan-EU survey of stakeholders_common_2022.10.31_v01
<p>Data collected from the 14 key actor and stakeholder surveys, properly operated through data management and assembled as a coherent and cohesive database to be used by the whole Consortium.</p>
Results of the SMS Survey on soil stakeholder interests related to the EU Soil Mission objectives
<p>Soil Mission Support results of the online survey on soil stakeholder interests related to the EU Soil Mission objectives</p> <p>The processed survey results can be found in SMS D3.4 "Report on prioritization of actor needs and criteria for living lab and lighthouse identification" (https://zenodo.org/record/7695582#.ZAdE-NXMI2w)</p>
Survey responses from stakeholders managing, growing, advising or assessing UK populations of Juniperus communis
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
CO2SMOS H2020 Project_Elicitation of Stakeholders and Market needs_webinars survey datasets
<p><span>CO2SMOS’ Task 1.1 aims at defining the stakeholders’ (technology providers, feedstock suppliers, refineries, fuel traders, final end-users, etc.) requirements and specifications, emphasizing on the expected benefits from the CO2SMOS CO2-to-Chemicals Platform concept.</span></p> <p><span>These datasets gathers the data collected by external stakeholders who participated in the first webinar organized on September 2021 and the second webinar organized on October 2021 regarding their industrial vision and market needs</span></p>
A Delphi Survey for Key Stakeholders to Identify Priority Self-management Outcomes for Chronic Kidney Disease
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05991726. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
Data from: An international, multi-stakeholder survey about metadata awareness, knowledge, and use in scholarly communications
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
SOSteniamoci: Stakeholders' Survey
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05797571. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 0.
2020 Stakeholder Survey of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) - Full Dataset
<p>This dataset is the outcome of a survey of IPBES stakeholders that was conducted in May-June 2020. The aim of this survey is to better understand stakeholder engagement with IPBES, to improve implementation of the IPBES stakeholder engagement strategy (decision IPBES-3/4 presented in document IPBES/3/18) , and to further increase the inclusivity and effectiveness of the IPBES work programme. Results will help, among others, to better align communication and outreach, and to strengthen collaborative processes within the IPBES work programme.</p> <p><br> This dataset is the full dataset of responses, after anonymization. This dataset is under restricted access. The quantitative data are however publicly available, after an embargo period (see DOI: <a href="http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4095066">10.5281/zenodo.4095066</a>). For any inquiry, please contact IPBES Head of Communications (stakeholders@ipbes.net). </p>
Synthesizing Stakeholders Perspectives on Online Psychological Interventions to Improve the Mental Health of the Italian Population during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Online Survey Study
<p>The COVID-19 pandemic is expected to significantly increase the prevalence of mental health problems, thus raising the need for psychological support interventions around the world. Online psychological interventions have already been shown to be an effective solution to promote psychological treatments. Nevertheless, planning and developing an online intervention, involving possible stakeholders, might facilitate the dissemination of, willingness to use, and success of the future intervention. This study aims to explore and compare the experiences that Italians living in Italy and abroad had with available support services during the COVID-19 pandemic, their needs, and attitudes, as well as possible barriers to online psychological interventions. A sample of<br> 1024 Italians (F = 69.8%; mean age = 41.3; SD = 15.3) was recruited through social media platforms and personal contacts and they were asked to complete an online survey. Results showed that perceived psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic improved. In Europe, psychological support was delivered mainly in person (69.0%), while online interventions were primarily used in<br> extra-European countries (57%). Then, only 44% of the total sample was interested in trying an online psychological intervention. Various advantages and disadvantages were defined by stakeholders: The main advantages were the reduction in geographical distances, economic reasons, and the reduction in the waiting list; The main disadvantages were problems with technology, low motivation of users, and privacy/safety reasons. These data made it possible to improve the knowledge regarding the views and attitudes that Italians have about online psychological interventions and shed light on how to increase the uptake of digital health.</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.