User Tools

Site Tools


wiki:access

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
wiki:access [2015/01/05 14:54] peternwiki:access [2017/03/23 14:14] (current) apolderman
Line 1: Line 1:
-**ACCESS**+=====ACCESS=====
 {{ :wiki:acces_logo_kleiner_01.jpg?200|}}\\ {{ :wiki:acces_logo_kleiner_01.jpg?200|}}\\
 //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>"accessibility" "public services" "urban-rural partnership" "governance"]}} {{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.\\   * 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?__\\ __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 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.\\ 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?__\\ __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. 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 129: Line 128:
   * [[wiki:synergies_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:synergies_pilot_action_database|Pilot action database]]   * [[wiki:synergies_pilot_action_database|Pilot action database]]
 +
 +{{tag>"territorial development" "urban-rural partnership" "EU project"}}
wiki/access.1420466049.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/01/05 14:54 by petern