COST Action FP0804
Forest Management Decision Support Systems (FORSYS)
 

Contents

Working Group 4 - main objectives

WG4 should assess models, tools and conventions for different phases of participatory planning process and for different tasks within these phases; for evaluating the effectiveness of DSSs in supporting participatory processes; and for deriving improved protocols to be included in guidelines on good practices for DSS development and use, the last point in concert with WG1.

Work Program 2009

Activities and Outputs

  • WG4 established - 27 participants from 13 countries.
  • Definition of public participation has been defined as well as a classification scheme of methods models and tools.
  • Case template defining documentation of cases of participatory planning in forestry
  • A description of cases following the template is emerging.
  • A preliminary list of success criteria for participatory processes has been developed.
  • WG4 sessions at Riga meeting.
  • A WG4 designated page on the wiki opened.

Work Program 2010

Activities and Outputs

Finalize descriptions / classifications /criteria

  • A (peer-reviewed) review on the possible approaches to evaluate a case of participatory planning.
  • To assemble existing knowledge on methods involving participation with respect to the problem structuring phase of the decision making process. To be presented at the Lisbon workshop.

Work on cases

  • The contribution of DSS on participation based on the information collected from important cases with case template questions

The overall work plan

The first task for this is to establish general success measures for public participation by reviewing the existing literature. New measures may be included during the work. Below are examples of possible success measures to be used based on the plan.

Table 1. Examples of success measures to be derived

Measure Milestone
Goals of the participants are clear M5
Information (concerning alternatives and consequences) is transparently and comprehensively communicated to participants M10
Local knowledge is accounted for M10
Increases awareness of the other worldviews M10
Increases acceptance of other worldviews M10
Enhances innovative solutions M5
Other, what?

Select the cases

Criteria for selecting interesting cases should be developed and communicated with WG1. In the process one should not avoid the possibility that maybe WG4 should have partly different cases than the rest of groups.

A framework for classifying different models and tools

The work of the WG includes the review of different tools and working conventions and recommendations related to participation process. As the process covers all the phases (intelligence, design, choice, monitor), also the models and tools of participatory process relate to all these. In addition, the organization of the whole process is an issue. The phases are further divided to tasks. The work in the first year focuses on for listing tasks related to each phase of participatory process, and on finding appropriate classifications for the existing models, tools and conventions under different tasks (for a draft, see Appendix 1).

Reviewing existing models and tools

In the second year the models, tools and conventions related to tasks (how - questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 or a selection of them in Appendix1) in different fields are reviewed. The aim is to find good practices that could be brought to forestry practice.

Part of the questions may also serve in defining the success criteria.

Evaluating the cases

The cases are selected based on the criteria outlined in Riga meeting from different countries. The selected cases are then evaluated based on the selected success criteria. Then, it is defined what properties of the process and/or the forest DSS support the success in each of the cases.

Preparing the guidelines

Based on all the work carried out, guidelines for forestry practise are presented in the form of final report.

Members

download member's list
NameE-mail CountryAffiliation
1)Dr. Bernhard Wolfslehner bernhard.wolfslehner(at)boku.ac.at Austia Institut für Waldbau, Universität für Bodenkultur Wien
2) Filip Aggestam filip.aggestam(at)boku.ac.at Austia University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences
3)Prof. Annika Kangas annika.kangas(at)helsinki.fi Finland
4)Dr. Heli Saarikoski heli.saarikoski(at)ymparisto.fi Finland SYKE
5)Dr. Jukka Tikkanen jukka.tikkanen(at)oamk.fi Finland OAMK
6)Dr. Leena Leskinen leena.leskinen(at)metla.fi Finland METLA
7)Dr. Basiliki Kazana vkazana(at)teikav.edu.gr Greece Department Of Forestry And Natural Environment Management
8) Laszlo Jager jagerla(at)emk.nyme.hu Hungary University of West Hungary, Faculty of Forestry
9)Dr. Isabella DE Meo isabella.demeo(at)entecra.it Italy Agricultural Research Council
10)Prof. Luigi Portoghesi lporto(at)unitus.it Italy Universit. della Tuscia, Viterbo
11)Dr. Dagnis Dubrovskis dagnis.dubrovskis(at)llu.lv Latvia
12) Janis Donis janis.donis(at)silava.lv Latvia Latvian State forest Research Institute
13)Dr. Johannes Flacke flacke(at)itc.nl Netherlands
14)Dr. Luc Boerboom boerboom(at)itc.nl Netherlands
15) Agnieszka Kopanska kopanska(at)wne.uw.edu.pl Poland Warsaw University
16)Dr. Anna Bartczak bartczak(at)wne.uw.edu.pl Poland Dept of Economics, Warsaw University
17) Alexandra Marques alexmarques(at)isa.utl.pt Portugal Instituto Superior de Agronomia
18) Beatriz Fidalgo bfidalgo(at)esac.pt Portugal Escola Superior Agr.ria de Coimbra
19) Brigite Botequim bbotequim(at)isa.utl.pt Portugal Instituto Superior de Agronomia
20) Jordi Garcia-Gonzalo jordigarcia(at)isa.utl.pt Portugal Instituto Superior de Agronomia
21) Pedro Antunes paa(at)di.fc.ul.pt Portugal Faculdade de Ci.ncias da Universidade de Lisboa
22) Susete Marques smarques(at)isa.utl.pt Portugal Instituto Superior de Agronomia
23) Juan Uriol Batuecas juaurba(at)agf.upv.es Spain Escuela Técnica Superior Ingenieros Agrónomos, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia
24)Dr. Manuel Marey manuel.marey(at)usc.es Spain University of Santiago de Compostela
25) Anu Hankala Anu.Hankala(at)srh.slu.se Sweden Sweden, SLU, Dept of Forest Resource Management
26) Eva-Maria Nordström eva-maria.nordstrom(at)srh.slu.se Sweden SLU, Dept of Forest Resource Management
27)Dr. Matthias Buchecker matthias.buchecker(at)wsl.ch Switzerland Swiss Federal Institute WSL
28)Dr. Susanne Menzel susanne.menzel(at)wsl.ch Switzerland Swiss Federal Institute WSL
29)Prof. Haldun Muderrisoglu haldunm(at)duzce.edu.tr Turkey Department of Landscape Architecture Faculty of Forestry University of Duzce
30)Dr. Oktay Yildiz oktayyildiz(at)duzce.edu.tr Turkey Duzce University, Forestry Faculty
31)Dr. Amy Stewart amy.stewart(at)forestry.gsi.gov.uk United Kingdom Forest Research, Roslin, Scotland
32)Dr. Anna Lawrence anna.lawrence(at)forestry.gsi.gov.uk United Kingdom Holt Research Station, Forest Research, Farnham, Surrey

Last modified: January 13, 2010 17:54

© 2009 - 2010 Allan Sims