Stakeholder analysis - transnational results [WIKIAlps

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
===== Stakeholder analysis - transnational results =====

The following analysis and interpretation bases on the project partner institutions participating in the thematic fields “inclusive growth” and “resource efficiency and ecosystem management” of the Alpine Space programme period 2007-2013. In total the project partners of 30 projects (15 in each thematic field) were analysed following the [[http://www.wikialps.eu/doku.php?id=wiki:more_about_the_method|WikiAlps method]]. About 230 institutions from Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia and Switzerland were included in this analysis.\\

Stakeholders from Austria, France and Italy participated in almost every project (27 or 28 out of 30), while institutions from Switzerland, Germany and Slovenia participated in about 2/3 of the projects.
A considerable percentage of stakeholders participated in several projects, in Slovenia more than 50%, in Austria almost 50% and in Italy about 30% participated in more than one project, some stakeholders even in 4 or 5 projects, while in Switzerland and Germany about 90% of the institutions participated only in one project (of the two thematic fields).


===Types of stakeholders and degree of influence===
About one third of stakeholders are authorities and another third Universities and research institutes or research centers. 
Regarding the influence on sustainable spatial development, most partners (39%) who participated in the analysed projects were estimated to have a low influence, but only 26% having a high influence. This is due to the fact that universities and research institutes participate to a great share in the programme, but generally have a low direct influence on sustainable spatial development. Their influence may be more indirect, in the case of Alpine Space projects in the first part it is likely that they have at least influence on cooperating pilot regions.\\

===Similarities and differences===
**Sector**: Most project participants came from the public sector, followed by the public-private sector, only 15 from the private sector and only 4 from the civil society. The picture is more or less the same for all countries.\\
**Type**: In Austria and Germany about 40 % of the stakeholders are Universities and research institutes, in Slovenia about one third and in France and Switzerland about 25 %. Italy has the lowest share of these types of institutions with only about 15 %, but one of them (EURAC) is participating in 5 projects of the considered thematic fields in the last program period.
While Austria and Slovenia have a very low share of authorities (less than 10 %) in Italy more than half of the stakeholders are authorities. The other countries are in between, Germany about one third, Switzerland 16 % and France nearly 20 %.\\
**Spatial level**: Stakeholders representing only the local level are rare, but the supra-local and regional level is well represented (more regional level than supra-local). Local stakeholders are sometimes indirectly involved as pilot regions without being project partner.\\
**Influence**: Concerning the intersubjective estimation of the degree of influence on sustainable regional development the different stakeholder have, it showed that about 40 % of the stakeholders have a low influence, about 34 % have medium influence and only about 26 % seem to have a high influence. One possible explanation is, that universities and research institutes have a low (direct) influence, but are a significant share of stakeholders, while the local stakeholders who have a high influence on (sustainable) spatial development are not as often project partners.\\


===Conclusions and recommendation===
The AS Programme appears to be most interesting for the public sector and less interesting for the private sector or the civil society. 
In some countries especially universities and research institutions seem to be over-represented, especially when considering their direct influence on sustainable spatial development. There could be a lack of transferring the insights of research to the local stakeholders, which have generally a high influence at least by holding many spatial planning competences. 
Facilitating the project management requirements would probably help to make the programme more attractive to local and supra-local institutions. The latter may be lacking on resources (financial as well as personal). There are some regions which are better represented than others, e.g. in France Isère and Rhône department and in Italy Lombardia and Piemonte.\\