Difference between revisions of "Natural Resources Planning in Metsähallitus"
From COST Action FP0804: FORSYS
(→References) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
=== Brief overview === | === Brief overview === | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | Natural resources planning in Metsähallitus defines the strategic level decisions concerning six large sub-areas. | ||
| + | |||
| + | to be continued ... | ||
* what was the problem | * what was the problem | ||
| Line 14: | Line 17: | ||
* what were the aims of the participation process in the project (for example, conflict resolution, increasing acceptance of decisions) | * what were the aims of the participation process in the project (for example, conflict resolution, increasing acceptance of decisions) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
Revision as of 17:04, 26 November 2009
General case description
Brief overview
Natural resources planning in Metsähallitus defines the strategic level decisions concerning six large sub-areas.
to be continued ...
- what was the problem
- what was the end product
- what was the planning area
- what was the planning organization
- who was the decision maker
- what were the aims of the project
- what were the aims of the participation process in the project (for example, conflict resolution, increasing acceptance of decisions)
Contents
Organization
- Who started the process?
- What influence did the participation have in the decision process? (for instance compared to Arnstein levels of participation)
- How is the participation process organized?
- What was the time frame for participation?
- What was the time frame related to the project time frame?
- What was the budget of project/participation (for example in money, workdays etc.)?
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
- who were the stakeholders?
- how were they selected?
Objectives
- what were the criteria?
- how were they selected?
Preferences
- how were the preferences of the decision makers and stakeholders elicited?
Information
- what information was collected?
- what tools were used for data collection?
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
Hiltunen, V., Kurttila, M., Leskinen, P., Pasanen, K. & Pykäläinen, J. 2009. Mesta: An internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning. Forest Policy and Economics 11: 1-9.
Pykäläinen, J., Kangas, J. and Loikkanen, T. 1999. Interactive decision analysis in participatory strategic forest planning: Experiences from State owned boreal forests. Journal of Forest Economics 5: 341-364.
