Difference between revisions of "Wg4 workplan"
Ola Eriksson (Talk | contribs) (→Workplan) |
Ola Eriksson (Talk | contribs) (→Working Group 4 - main objectives) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* WG3 sessions at Riga meeting. | * WG3 sessions at Riga meeting. | ||
* A WG4 designated page on the wiki opened. | * A WG4 designated page on the wiki opened. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Work Program 2010 == | == Work Program 2010 == | ||
Revision as of 16:11, 26 February 2010
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.
- WG3 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 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. A preliminary list of success criteria needs to be defined in Riga meeting 23.-24.11.2009.
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 preliminary list of criteria needs to be defined in Riga meeting 23.-24.11.2009.
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). A preliminary list of tasks and classification for the tools and models needs to be defined in Riga meeting 23.-24.11.2009.
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.
Outputs planned for year
The main result for this year are the list of success criteria, selection criteria for cases, the list of tasks of participatory planning and the framework for their classification,
Review of literature on the success criteria for participation
- are any new criteria needed?
- are any forestry-specific criteria needed?
- main responsible person ???
Review of literature on the models, tools and conventions to be used in different tasks
- are there useful tools to be introduced into forestry practice in other fields?
- main responsible person ???
Review of the cases
- what properties of process enhance success?
- what properties of DSS enhance success?
Final report
- what are the good guidelines to be followed in the future?
