wiki:access
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
wiki:access [2014/11/18 09:02] – matejash | wiki:access [2017/03/23 14:14] (current) – apolderman | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | **ACCESS** | + | =====ACCESS===== |
{{ : | {{ : | ||
//Improving accessibility of services of general interest – organisational innovations in rural mountain areas// | //Improving accessibility of services of general interest – organisational innovations in rural mountain areas// | ||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
{{tag>" | {{tag>" | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==Résumé of project outputs== | ||
+ | __Results which are directly or indirectly suitable or applicable for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration: | ||
+ | Two results are especially of interest for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration\\ | ||
+ | * The 24 implemented pilot projects are especially suitable/ | ||
+ | * The 8 strategies on how to improve accessibility to SGI are built on the above mentioned pilot projects and include also experiences from other projects in the alpine space. The strategies can directly applicated in all regions of the alpine space. | ||
+ | Strategy 1: Aggregating offer | ||
+ | Strategy 2: Alternative delivery mechanisms | ||
+ | Strategy 3: Different types of providers | ||
+ | Strategy 4: Improve marketing and demand | ||
+ | Strategy 5: Improving reachability and strengthen communication networks | ||
+ | Strategy 6: Strengthen rural-urban linkages | ||
+ | Strategy 7: Improve Governance, Co-design and Codelivery | ||
+ | Strategy 8: Reinforce SGI related policies | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | __Which of the project results are usable for which aspect of SSD and which are the most relevant for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration? | ||
+ | * The 8 elaborated strategies address all aspects of sustainable spatial development: | ||
+ | __Are there results which need further steps to be useful for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration? | ||
+ | * The Regional Intermediate Reports and the Transnational Intermediate Report display the status of SGI in the test areas nicely. However the underlying data is not accessible for the wider public due to copyright restrictions. The alpine-wide accessibility of data is a major problem for all projects.\\ | ||
+ | __Which kinds of stakeholders have been involved, how have their competences been used in the project and are there options for a better implementation? | ||
+ | |||
+ | The implementing partners of the ACCESS projects were mainly regional bodies (eg. Regional planning organisations). In their work they involved local and regional politicians, | ||
+ | The project partners reported in an evaluation that they should have started earlier with regional groups implementing the pilot projects. However this is not easy in the framework of an alpine space programme with a time period of three years and expecting already implementation results in the first year.\\ | ||
+ | __Are the results (tool, method, indicator, recommendation) directly or indirectly addressing the strategic objectives for the Alpine Space?__\\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Balance and equity in access to services of general interest across the Alps | ||
+ | This objective was the main goal of ACCESS. The project was directly adressing this strategic objective. | ||
+ | * A dynamic and innovative SME sector and thriving entrepreneurship | ||
+ | This objective has indirectly been addressed by ACCESS. By improving the accessibility to SGI it was intended to provide better production conditions for SME implantation and maintenance. | ||
+ | * Enhances capacities based on alpine traditions and social diversity | ||
+ | This objective has not been addressed by ACCESS | ||
+ | * Sustainable managed biodiversity and landscapes | ||
+ | This objective has not been addressed by ACCESS | ||
+ | * Sustainable resource management and production | ||
+ | This objective has not been addressed by ACCESS | ||
+ | * Shared responsibilities and fair co-operation among alpine territories | ||
+ | This objective has indirectly been addressed by ACCESS. The strategies take into consideration that the different alpine territories can benefit from each other. In this way it is important to establish urban-rural links that connect agglomerations with peripheric areas.\\ | ||
+ | |||
+ | __What could be long-term outcomes of this project? If none, why low impact? Why high impact? What is needed to achieve outcomes in the long-run? | ||
+ | |||
+ | A very important aspect is the accurate embedding of the projects into existing policies or new policies to be developed. The strategies developed in the ACCESS project have been integrated in policy strategy papers in Bundesland Tirol and in Région Franche Comté. This is the main longterm ouput. The awareness raising processes, trainings and knowledge transfer activities contributed essentially to a longterm sustainability of ACCESS pilot projects. The majority of the 24 pilot projects are still running, this is another longterm outcome. Finally, to assure longterm success, stakeholders should have a benefit out of the projects implemented; | ||
+ | |||
+ | On the question in the evaluation form “should you start the project again, what would you change?” most PPs responded they would dedicate more time and resources to communication on the project to local population. They reckon this is the basis of success. RVSO even recruited among its partnership a communication agency to have a professional marketing of the project. It raised highly the awareness of the local population on the project. In order to get a high level of awareness, some PPs relied on public authorities (municipalities or region for instance) to grant visibility of actions and eased participation. Pilot projects whose aim was to offer a new service or improve the information about the offer on the TAs were the ones which required a lot of communication and advertising. “We needed much more communication and advertising for the mobility management than expected, at the beginning it seemed clear that our new offer is widely known in the region but we realised that only advertising and communication is needed” (quot. BLC). Innovative projects are often dealing with bringing something new to inhabitants or the targeted group. It implies cultural and behavioural changes and this takes time. This is one of the main challenges faced by the ACCESS Partners. All Partners mentioned that it is a long process and it needs a lot of communication. Even if innovative actions bring good solutions to problems or critical situations, partners reckon they have to deal with timing difficulties. Local stakeholders (e.g. elected representatives) would like to find immediate solutions but the time to develop innovative actions is often long (average preparation time until implementation in ACCESS projects: 10 months). This is why communication and strong awareness are fundamental. Not only is the communication about the project itself essential but also raising the awareness among the people involved in the project is crucial. Convincing political stakeholders, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Outcomes and Impacts== | ||
+ | Unlike project outputs, outcomes and results cannot be described in a standardised way. Therefore, they are listed as free text: | ||
+ | __ | ||
+ | Achievements that could be further implemented__\\ | ||
+ | Theoretically the pilot projects made during the ACCESS project in the pilot areas could be extended to a larger area. However an implementation must always be justified by needs of the local population and the feasability (finances, technical approach etc.) of a foreseen activity. In the partnership it was decided - for reasons of to develop the pilot projects on a nuts 2 level. \\ | ||
+ | __ | ||
+ | Remaining gaps__\\ | ||
+ | Hypothesis 15: Ageing population requires adaptation and offers opportunities for Alpine area. There is a gap between the project results and their practical usability for SSD (in terms of the selected hypotheses): | ||
+ | __Emerging contradictions__\\ | ||
+ | The following contradictions can be identified in relation to the Access project: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Public policies request innovative approaches and solutions however the Access partnership encountered in some cases a lack of flexibility in existing policies, which are not suitable for atypical projects, transversal or multisectoral projects, or projects which mobilize public-private partnerships.\\ | ||
=== Synergies === | === Synergies === | ||
- | * [[wiki:internal_and_external_costs_of_living_and_commuting|Internal and external costs of living and commuting]] | + | * [[wiki:synergies_internal_and_external_costs_of_living_and_commuting|Internal and external costs of living and commuting]] |
- | * [[wiki:sustainable_settlement_development|Sustainable settlement development]] | + | * [[wiki:synergies_sustainable_settlement_development|Sustainable settlement development]] |
- | * [[wiki:regional_analyses|Regional analyses]] | + | * [[wiki:synergies_regional_analyses|Regional analyses]] |
- | * [[wiki:toolbox_for_analysing_mobility_settlement_patterns_and_service_provision|Toolbox for analysing mobility, settlement patterns and service provision]] | + | * [[wiki:synergies_toolbox_for_analysing_mobility_settlement_patterns_and_service_provision|Toolbox for analysing mobility, settlement patterns and service provision]] |
- | * [[wiki:decline_of_services_in_remote_areas|Decline of services in remote areas]] | + | * [[wiki:synergies_decline_of_services_in_remote_areas|Decline of services in remote areas]] |
- | * [[wiki:pilot_action_database|Pilot action database]] | + | * [[wiki:synergies_pilot_action_database|Pilot action database]] |
+ | |||
+ | {{tag>" |
wiki/access.1416297770.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/11/18 09:02 by matejash