Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- wiki:access [2015/01/05 14:19] – petern
+++ wiki:access [2017/03/23 14:14] (current) – apolderman
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-**ACCESS**
+=====ACCESS=====
 {{ :wiki:acces_logo_kleiner_01.jpg?200|}}\\
 //Improving accessibility of services of general interest – organisational innovations in rural mountain areas//
@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 {{tag>"accessibility" "public services" "urban-rural partnership" "governance"]}}
 ==Résumé of project outputs==
 __Results which are directly or indirectly suitable or applicable for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration:__\\
-  * The pilot actions-database can be directly used by practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration.
+Two results are especially of interest for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration\\
-  * The roadmaps are meant for further use in the whole Alpine Space: "To that end, this paper picks up on the results achieved through the development of various strategies in a number of model regions in order to make such findings available to the rest of the Alpine Space and with the hope that all Alpine regions will be able to reap the benefits of the experiences gained within the DEMOCHANGE framework. Also documented below are methodologies for the transnational development of spatial planning and regional development strategies that were tested by international experts during several workshops held in Italy, Austria, Germany, and Slovenia." (Roadmap, p. 7)
+  * The 24 implemented pilot projects are especially suitable/applicable for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration since they demonstrate a practical solution to a problem in accessibility of SGI in a representative test area in the alpine space. The methodology implemented and the lessons learnt as well as political framework conditions are documented in the final synthesis http://www.alpine-space.eu/uploads/tx_txrunningprojects/Final_report_and_recommendations_ACCESS.pdf\\
-  * The Swottool is useful for municipalities and regions for a first analysis, but without experience not easily applicable.
+  * 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.
-  * The Public Participation Manual and Materials are useful for practitioners and administrations to give some ideas, but unexperiences people would need support.
+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?__\\
-  * Most relevant for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration is the database of pilot actions.
+  * The 8 elaborated strategies address all aspects of sustainable spatial development: an equal accessibility to services of general interest for the entire population of a country (social), a cost efficient installation and maintenance (economic) as well as a minimal impact on the environment (ecological). The most relevant results for practitioners / and civil servants / administration are the strategies 1: Agregating the offer, 2. Alternative delivery mechaniscms, 3. Different types of providers, 4: Improve marketing and demand, 5: Improving reachability and strengthen communication networks, 6 strengthen rural urban linkages, 7: Improve Governance, Co-design and Codelivery. The most relevant strategy for politicians are to reinforce SGI related policies. Every strategy is underpinned with a pilot project. This approach increases the comprehensibility of the strategies and make them very useful for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration\\
-  * The roadmaps give background information about demography-related objectives in spatial planning and regional development.
-  * The SWOT-tool is suitable for all aspects of SSD as long as strength-weakness-opportunities and threats can be clearly identified.
-  * The Public Participation Manual and Materials are describing general methods applicable for all aspects of SSD which can be discussed in a broader public.\\
 __Are there results which need further steps to be useful for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration?__\\
-  * Many outputs are only available in English which could be obstructive for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration. Translations into the different alpine languages could be helpful.
+  * 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.\\
-  * A document "Analysis of demographic data: WP4 list of indicators & guidelines for data collection is named in "Output 4.5 - Work Package 4 DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE IN THE ALPINE SPACE short regional reports with summary", p. 8, but could not be found at the homepage.
-  * The database of pilot action is useful to give ideas for action, but to transfer them to other regions would need more information in some cases\\
 __Which kinds of stakeholders have been involved, how have their competences been used in the project and are there options for a better implementation?__\\
-Mainly local and regional policy makers (mayors of municipalities), administrations and public service providers were involved. In context with participation also the public had the opportunity to contribute.\\
+The implementing partners of the ACCESS projects were mainly regional bodies (eg. Regional planning organisations). In their work they involved local and regional politicians, experts in mobility/logistics, representatives of NGO, responsables of schools, tourism promoters, Regional development experts etc. The involved stakeholders were important to identify needs of customers of SGI and to develop tailored solutions.
+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?__\\
-The SWOT-tool, the pilot actions and especially the roadmaps contribute to the strategic objective "Balance and equity in access to services of general interest across the Alps".
-The systematic SWOT analysis is suitable to detect the demographic challenges of the regions and can raise awareness for them. \\
+  * 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?__\\
-Some pilot regions started projects in the frame of Demochange, which are continued after the project ended. E.g. the pilot region Nidwalden started 4 activities which are pursued (Revitalize old knowledge; Future Living Facilities; On the spoor of culture and nature; Apprenticeship in trade and crafts) (Source: http://othmar-filliger.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/IGWestStans_20131218_2.pdf)"
-Further long-term outcome could be higher awareness for the issues of demographic change and their implications in the pilot regions. \\
+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; this is of course decisive for a successful continuation. In this respect the inquired ACCESS partners were convinced that the implemented projects already have a positive impact.
+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, defining clearly responsibilities and role of everyone are key elements in the implementation of projects. Especially when they are innovative, projects may call upon actors that are not used to working together. One has really to prove the efficiency and impact of the project as it may be something never done before or form new kinds of partnership. Thus some Partners needed to elaborate formal agreements between institutions to smooth the process and reinforce the stakeholders’ involvement. Capacity of trust-building is often mentioned by the ACCESS partners as one of the success factors in their pilot projects. “It required a large anticipation from projects’ managers to get public services involved as the pilot project may change their internal organisation or their way of working”\\
 ==Outcomes and Impacts==
@@ Line 95: / Line 112: @@
 __
 Achievements that could be further implemented__\\
-The SWOTTOOL can be implemented in all Alpine regions to identify the challenges connected to demographic change.
+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. \\
-A translation of the pilot activities and the possibility to contact a person in case more information is needed would ease the implementation of pilot activities in other regions as well as free access to all documents named in the pilot activities database.\\
 __
 Remaining gaps__\\
-Besides the “Short regional report book with summary” for each of the ten pilot regions only for the three pilot regions in Austria and Germany more detailed versions of the analysis are available. The short regional reports are an output of the WP4, which was dedicated only to the analysis of demographic change. The further work in the pilot regions is not documented in form of reports, but only in the pilot action database. These descriptions are quite short and documents, which are connected to a pilot activity are just named, but not available (e.g.: pilot activity “More Mobility, local supply and social integration for elderly people”: a questionnaire is named, but not available: Ankündigung DT Seniorenerhebung Fragebogen.dox, Annuncio IT Seniorenerhebung Fragebogen.dox, Seniorenerhebung Fragebogen Version 9 DE.dox, Seniorenerhebung Fragebogen Version 9 IT.dox)\\
+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): In the ACCESS project the needs and requirements of elderly people were considered and the offer adapted however more could have been done to really benefit from the opportunities the ageing population offers.\\
 __Emerging contradictions__\\
-none\\
+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 ===
@@ Line 114: / Line 128: @@
   * [[wiki:synergies_decline_of_services_in_remote_areas|Decline of services in remote areas]]
   * [[wiki:synergies_pilot_action_database|Pilot action database]]
+{{tag>"territorial development" "urban-rural partnership" "EU project"}}