Differences

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

--- wiki:access [2015/01/05 14:45] – 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"]}}
@@ Line 87: / Line 84: @@
   * 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, 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.\\
@@ Line 105: / Line 103: @@
 __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; 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.
@@ Line 113: / 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 132: / 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"}}