wiki:stakeh_france
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
wiki:stakeh_france [2014/12/13 13:38] – dominikcs | wiki:stakeh_france [2017/03/24 14:39] (current) – andreash | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | **Stakeholder | + | ===== Stakeholder |
+ | Over the period from 2007 to 2013, 44 French institutions have participated in 28 Alpine Space (hereafter AS) projects from the thematic fields “inclusive growth” (hereafter IG) and “resource efficiency and ecosystem management” (hereafter RE). Six of these (14 %) have been lead partner of a project. There was only one institution that worked on projects of both thematic fields (Institute of Alpine Research in Grenoble). Across the two thematic fields, both projects and institutions were equally distributed (14 projects from each field, 28 and 29 project participations for IG and RE respectively). Yet, remarkably, the majority of institutions only contributed to one project (77 per cent), and only two institutions participated in 3 or 4 projects (IRSTEA Mountain Ecosystems research unit in Grenoble and the LIRIS Laboratory in Lyon). Overall, French institutions participated 57 times over the period.\\ | ||
+ | The distribution of French partners across projects is heterogeneous. Most of the projects involved one or two institutions. Eight projects, however, involved 3 or even 4 institutions from the French stakeholder landscape; a fact that points at high interest for the specific issues of these projects and rather strong networks at regional and local level. | ||
- | The following analysis | + | === Most important facts === |
+ | * both thematic fields have been equally distributed across projects | ||
+ | * 77 per cent of the partners only contributed to one project, but 8 projects involved 3 or even 4 French institutions | ||
+ | * 14 per cent of all institutions have been lead partner | ||
+ | * more than 80 per cent of the institutions | ||
+ | * 25 per cent of all stakeholders are either research institutes or universities | ||
+ | * main fields | ||
+ | * 95 per cent of institutions comes from the AS programme | ||
+ | * three quarters of participating institutions situated in the Rhône-Alpes administrative region | ||
+ | * more than half of the institutions | ||
+ | * stronger impacts on spatial development come from the regional and local level; one quarter | ||
+ | * several networks | ||
- | __ | + | === Branches, types and areas of work === |
- | Branches | + | Given the variety |
- | Almost one half of Project Partners (PP) are in branches | + | |
- | Looking closer at authorities | + | |
- | Another type of well represented institutions within | + | |
- | __Thematic focus of stakeholders__\\ | + | === Spatial distribution === |
+ | Some spatial disparities become apparent when we look at the spatial distribution | ||
- | Looking closer at the thematic focus of the institutions, | + | ===Influence on sustainable spatial |
- | + | We (qualitatively) estimated influences | |
- | __ | + | |
- | Influence | + | |
- | A closer loook at the degree of influence the stakeholders have on the different spatial levels shows, that there are only 5 (out of 30) institutions with a high influence | + | |
- | The stakeholders with a low degree | + | |
- | The most important stakeholders – the key stakeholders for sustainable spatial development - are the 5 institutions with high influence | + | |
- | + | ||
- | __ | + | |
- | Spatial level of stakeholders__\\ | + | |
- | National | + | |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | __Interpretation__\\ | + | |
- | The analysis revealed notable imbalances in the group of French | + | |
- | **First**, participation | + | |
- | **Second**, although | + | |
- | **Third**, the group of French | + | |
+ | ===Interpretation=== | ||
+ | The analysis revealed notable imbalances in the group of French institutions that participated in AS projects of the two thematic fields.\\ | ||
+ | **First**, participation is not equally distributed across the French alpine territory. Notable concentrations are situated in the Isere and Rhône departments, | ||
+ | **Second**, although spatial development and spatial policies appear frequently as main fields of work of the considered stakeholders, | ||
+ | **Third**, the group of French institutions is largely dominated by the public sphere. An increase in private enterprises might enlarge the scope, facilitate exchanges and increase performance of alpine (spatial) development. For instance, AS projects might reinforce the territorial anchorage of enterprises and inversely raise their awareness for alpine issues. Fourth, and according to the requirements of the operational programme, relatively few institutions participated from areas outside the AS. In the perspective of an enlarged and permeable AS network, it could be desirable to include human capital and knowledge from areas outside the programme area.\\ | ||
+ | **Last**, and in more general terms, a major problem that became apparent throughout the analysis is related to constraints of stakeholders to participate in AS projects, notably in terms of human capital, expertise and financial resources. Project participants are generally larger institutions and structures, who are able to fulfil the project management requirements. Participation of smaller institutions, | ||
+ | ^ Keep involved: | ||
+ | |all stakeholders that already participated and have lower interest,\\ e.g. SMEs, research institutes not directly working on Alpine topics|Research institutes, universities, | ||
+ | ^ Raise awareness: weak participation, | ||
+ | |private sector enterprises, |
wiki/stakeh_france.1418474304.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/12/13 13:38 by dominikcs