Difference between revisions of "Participation in forest planning in southern Italy"
| Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
The stakeholder’s identification process was iterative: starting with institutional respondents, previously unknown representative respondents were also identified and following the first interviews, the snowball effect that ensued meant more were carried out. The main advantage of his type of sampling, known as "Snowball sampling" or "Referall sampling" is its limited cost and sample size. | The stakeholder’s identification process was iterative: starting with institutional respondents, previously unknown representative respondents were also identified and following the first interviews, the snowball effect that ensued meant more were carried out. The main advantage of his type of sampling, known as "Snowball sampling" or "Referall sampling" is its limited cost and sample size. | ||
| − | === Objectives | + | === Objectives Preferences Information === |
The involvement of the stakeholders was obtained through interviews, aimed at assessing the perception and knowledge of the silvo-pastoral systems, to highlight problems and opportunities and collect proposals for future land development theories. | The involvement of the stakeholders was obtained through interviews, aimed at assessing the perception and knowledge of the silvo-pastoral systems, to highlight problems and opportunities and collect proposals for future land development theories. | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
The interview, comprised of 132 questions, was submitted to 63 stakeholders, subdivided into various categories as shown in the table. | The interview, comprised of 132 questions, was submitted to 63 stakeholders, subdivided into various categories as shown in the table. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Design == | == Design == | ||
Revision as of 16:33, 14 September 2010
General case description
Brief overview
The participatory process was conducted in the frame of the forest landscape management plan "Comunità Montana Collina Materana" that was realized in the frame of the activities established with the Agreement between the Consiglio per la Ricerca e la Sperimentazione in Agricoltura (C.R.A.) and INEA-Headquarter of Potenza (planning organization).
This research was supported by MIPAF (Ministry for agriculture and forestry policy) - National Research Project Ri.Selv.Italia (Subproject 4.2 – Forest Planning - Task: 4.2.6 Study on the implementation of a territory forest planning with participatory approach). Ri.Selv.Italia was a national multi-year research in the forest-wood-environment sector project “oriented to problem solving”, promoted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests in concert with Regions.
The Comunità Montana is the Italian administrative body that coordinates the municipalities located in the mountainous areas and is responsible for administration and economic development. The Comunità Montana Collina Materana, located in the Basiliata region, southern Italy, was chosen as the study area. The territory of the Comunità Montana occupies about 60,784 ha, divided into seven municipalities. The forest areas (12,304 ha) comprise 19,8% of the territory. The large diversity of forest formations is to be attributed to the great variability in morphology, altimetry and lithology of the area. The demographic density is low, 22.2 people/km², against a national average of 200.1 people/km². The rural sector covers an important role in the economic structure of the Comunità Montana, employing 24% of the active population (national average 8%, European average 4-5%). Conversely, the industrial sector is extremely weak as well as the tourist sector.
The decision makers were Regional Government and Comunità Montana Officials
The aims of the project were:
- to perform reflections on the causes and the consequences of the change in the man-forest relationship and on the opportunity to acknowledge new expectations and needs arisen from society towards the forestry sector through participation;
- to perform, through study cases, a procedure capable of integrating participation into territory forest planning and to develop a method suitable for all different situations present in Italy.
The aims of the participation process in the project were:
- to evaluate the perception of forest and of forest management among the local communities,
- to integrate between traditional knowledge and the technical content of the plan
- to make aware the population of the planning process,
- to carry out the mapping of the stakeholders,
- to involve, through a targeted reach out, stakeholders that would have something to say but would hardly be able express themselves increasing acceptance of decisions.
Contents
Organization
Main steps of the participatory process
- 1. context analysis
- 2. stakeholders assessment
- 3. planning participation group definition
- 4. method definition
- 5. tools selection
- 6. field survey and data collection
- 7. support systems for data analysis
- 8. evaluation of results
- 9. design of further development
A participation process was launched based on consultation by Planning Participation Group (CRA, INEA, Comunità Montana). The launch of the participation was initially made concrete during detailed informing of the institutional individuals involved and of the citizens, followed by the consultation phase itself. The local community was involved in the whole planning procedure (from March 2005 to April 2007): from preliminary surveys to the definition of the intervention guidelines of the forest plan policy at territory level.
Problem structuring
- How was the problem defined?
- Who defined the problem? Was participation used in problem definition phase?
- What tools or methods were used in problem structuring, if any?
Intelligence
Stakeholders
The stakeholders list encompasses 63 participants, grouped into 2 categories, as presented in the table below.
| Category | Stakeolder Group | Nº participants |
|---|---|---|
| Private sector | Associations | 4 |
| Proprieters of accomodation businesses | 5 | |
| Farmers, husbandry activities owners | 27 | |
| Forest operatives | 7 | |
| Woodland firms | 5 | |
| Woodland owners | 3 | |
| Public sector | Mayors | 7 |
| Mountain Comunities | 1 | |
| Corpo Forestale dello Stato (State Forest Park Rangers Corps) | 4 |
The stakeholder’s identification process was iterative: starting with institutional respondents, previously unknown representative respondents were also identified and following the first interviews, the snowball effect that ensued meant more were carried out. The main advantage of his type of sampling, known as "Snowball sampling" or "Referall sampling" is its limited cost and sample size.
Objectives Preferences Information
The involvement of the stakeholders was obtained through interviews, aimed at assessing the perception and knowledge of the silvo-pastoral systems, to highlight problems and opportunities and collect proposals for future land development theories. The questions were formulated according to the following topics: the value and main functions of the woodland, knowledge of the forest value chain and the current situation within the sector, grazing and relationship between pastures and forest, potential for agriculture, the value attributed to landscape and perception of changes in the landscape, the population’s bond with the territory; relations between the population and the institutions. The interview, comprised of 132 questions, was submitted to 63 stakeholders, subdivided into various categories as shown in the table.
Design
Alternatives
- What kind of alternatives were considered?
- How were they defined?
- Who defined them?
- What tools and methods (if any) were used to define them?
Choice
Usage of DSS
- What kind of DSS was used (if any)?
- How was the DSS used in the process?
Usage of models, methods and tools
- What kind of decision support tools (models, methods) were used, if any?
- How were the decision support tools used? (for instance, through internet, with the help of a facilitator, with hands-on experiments)
- Was the use of decision support tools interactive?
Monitoring
- Was the success of the project monitored?
- How was the success of the project monitored? (both process and product)
- Who monitored the success?
- Were the decisions/plans implemented?
- Was the implementation monitored?
- Were the goals set for participation achieved?
References
Cited references
