Dear Participant,

Twenty years ago, the Space Weather and Space Climate community had the vision and initiative to start organising the European Space Weather Week (ESWW), the international conference that strongly contributed to the community’s growth and success. Meanwhile, we are facing a dramatic acceleration of the environmental crisis. To tackle this crisis and align with the goals of the Paris Agreement, the average annual carbon footprint per person should be reduced over fourfold, from around 8 to 2 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per person per year. This target is crucial for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the impacts of climate change.

It has been shown that in-person participation in an international conference has an average carbon footprint of approximately 1 tonne of CO2 equivalent per participant, which is half the recommended yearly quota. This can amount to a significant proportion of the total carbon emissions of a scientific activity. For this reason, it is now time for our community to once again have vision and be pioneers in finding ways to maintain a vibrant and thriving community while drastically reducing our environmental footprint.

To explore different solutions, the ESWW Programme Committee (ESWW PC) has carried out a study among its members to identify the goals of organising ESWW and to explore the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) of different conference formats. The report of this study is available at this link. 

The ESWW PC invites you here to share your thoughts on this topic by participating to this survey. Please note that all the definitions and alternatives are described in the ESWW PC report. You can go back and forth between the steps without losing the results. The survey will be open until 20 December 2024.  We appreciate your input and look forward to your feedback.

 

Step 1 of 11Step 2 of 11Step 3 of 11Step 4 of 11Step 5 of 11Step 6 of 11Step 7 of 11Step 8 of 11Step 9 of 11Step 10 of 11Step 11 of 11

 

 

 

From one (not very relevant) to five (very relevant), how do you rate the importance of these following ESWW objectives (see detailed descriptions in section 6.1 of the ESWW PC report available on this link)?

 

From one (not very efficient) to five (very efficient), how do you rate the annual hybrid meeting efficiency in reaching the following ESWW objectives?

 

From one (not very efficient) to five (very efficient), how do you rate the biennial hybrid meeting efficiency in reaching the following ESWW objectives?

 

From one (not very efficient) to five (very efficient), how do you rate the biennial alternating hybrid one year, virtual the other year meeting efficiency in reaching the following ESWW objectives?

 

From one (not very efficient) to five (very efficient), how do you rate the annual virtual (in the current settings) meeting efficiency in reaching the following ESWW objectives?

 

With new settings, involving for example augmented reality to enhance immersive online interaction, the sharing of relevant material in advance, or the use of asynchronous tools (text chat, online document), how much do you think future annual virtual meetings can improve in efficiency, as compared to a present-day fully virtual meeting, in reaching the following ESWW objectives from one (not much improvement) to five (considerable improvement)

 

Is there anything you want to add to the SWOT analysis (in addition to what is already presented in section 7.1 of the ESWW PC report available on this link).

a. Annual hybrid

b. Biennial hybrid

C. Biennial alternating hybrid one year, virtual the other year

C. Annual virtual