User Tools

Site Tools


Sidebar





This project is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund through the Interreg Alpine Space programme

This project is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund through the Interreg Alpine Space programme

This project is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund through the Interreg Alpine Space programme

wiki:in-depth_analysis

In-depth analysis of projects

This action served one of the main objectives of the WIKIAlps project: the project intends to offer better access to and enhance the visibility of concrete project results.

  • Therefore the in-depth analysis focused in the first step on project results and added information about them.
  • As a second step the “benefit options” of the whole project was analysed against the background of deeper knowledge about the results and in view of sustainable spatial development. This second step refered to the identification of benefits.

The results of each project were further qualified by additional information. The information is not homogeneous for all categories of results. However, a certain set of information is feasible for all project result categories.

The additional information about project outputs is structured by so-called leading questions:
Territory / area of application

  • In which region is the result valid, was it developed / applied?
  • Have there been common criteria or characteristics for territories of application/pilot areas (e.g. population decline, intensive tourism, periurban areas, natural endowment (lakes, forests) etc.)?

Time frame

  • When has the result been compiled?
  • Is it ‘aging’ (like data, recommendations) or timeless (like a label)?

Keywords
The keywords are highlighting the main focus of the result. These can be used to detect synergies and interrelations between projects. The better the keywords, the easier a result can be detected by users of the wiki and the easier also correspondences between projects can be discovered.
Accessibility
Is there full access of data and maps for capitalization (open access, limited access, restricted access)?
Transferability and re-usability

  • Is the tool, method, indicator etc. useful in other regions, in other contexts etc.?
  • Are adaptions needed / if yes which adaptions?
  • What resources are needed for adaption?
  • Is it applicable for the whole Alpine Space or only for parts of it?
  • If the tool, method, indicator is applicable for parts, for which parts?
  • Are the results applicable for other ETC areas ?

Sector/sectorial policies addressed
Which sector or sectorial policy is addressed or could be affected by the results of the project? (E.g. education, social care, health, spatial development, regional development, environment, management of natural resources, agriculture, rural development, energy, businesses, trade, transport, ICT, migration…)

Interpretation of projects
Besides the more descriptive information about the results, WIKIAlps focused on the detection of benefits in the two selected thematic fields. To specify these complex relations, an interpretation of the projects in the light of their contribution to a sustainable spatial development, based on their results was added to the project information.
How to interpret the contributions of the projects?
Again leading questions were used which help to answer the overarching question “How can the project results contribute to sustainable spatial development (SSD)?” In order to relate the project results to SSD, the hypotheses dedicated to the project and its results in the project screening were checked again, whether they are the best fitting ones. The estimations were verified by interviews with former lead partners or project partners of the respective project.
The following questions helped to estimate the project:

  • Are the results or some of them directly or indirectly suitable or applicable for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration?
  • 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?
  • Are there results which need further steps to be useful for practitioners / politicians and civil servants / administration?
  • Which kinds of stakeholders have been involved, how have their competences been used in the project and are there options for a better implementation?
  • Are the results (tool, method, indicator, recommendation) directly or indirectly addressing the strategic objectives for the Alpine Space as elaborated in the Strategy Development for the Alpine Space (JTS 2013)?
  • What could be long-term outcomes of this project? If none, why is there a low impact, why a high impact? What is needed to achieve outcomes in the long-run?

Questions on main objectives of the WikiAlps project:
Considering the four main objectives of the WIKIAlps-project some leading questions can be grouped:

  1. Not recognised synergies (within and between projects):
    • Are there “hidden” or difficult to access data sets elaborated in the project which could be made better accessible?
    • Have been methodologies developed which could be made better accessible or transferable for other SSD-relevant tasks?
    • Are there further territorial areas or areas with similar conditions in which the approach could be applied?
    • Are there synergies in terms of tasks, methodologies, data, tools with other projects?
  2. Achievements that could be further implemented:
    • Are there implementations in the pilot areas of the project, which could be extended to a larger area (in the pilot area or even beyond)?
    • Are there options for an implementation of methodological or theoretical approaches?
  3. Remaining gaps:
    • Are there gaps between the project results and their practical usability for SSD (in terms of the selected hypotheses)?
    • Are there obvious gaps between the requirements of SSD and the approach in the project?
  4. Emerging contradictions:
    • Are there contradictions between single project results within the project (e.g. supporting and jeopardising SSD)?
    • Are there contradictions between project results and SSD-hypotheses?
    • Contradictions with other projects?
wiki/in-depth_analysis.txt · Last modified: 2014/12/08 12:09 by claudias