Difference between revisions of "Wg4 workplan"
(→The overall work plan) |
(→The overall work plan) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
The first task for this is to establish general success measures for public participation by reviewing the existing literature. The review has been carried out, but new measures may be included during the work. | The first task for this is to establish general success measures for public participation by reviewing the existing literature. The review has been carried out, but new measures may be included during the work. | ||
| − | === | + | The second task is 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. The phases are further divided to tasks. |
| − | Information is collected in | + | |
| + | ===Collected information=== | ||
| + | Information is collected in three ways: | ||
| + | |||
| + | First, information is collected during the preparation process of country reports, concerning the problem types involving several parties. Information is collected on 1) what tools and methods are used, 2) in what phases they are used, and 3) how participatory planning is carried out (open/restricted/expert participation). | ||
| + | |||
| + | Second, information is collected concerning specific cases of interest from the participatory planning point of view. The cases of interest for participatory planning will be presented on the WIKI pages, and presented based on the case template given. | ||
These problem type descriptions and specific cases will be subject to a further meta-analysis of the usage/usefulness of the different tools for the point of view of participatory planning. | These problem type descriptions and specific cases will be subject to a further meta-analysis of the usage/usefulness of the different tools for the point of view of participatory planning. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Third, information on the usage/usefullness is also collected by directly asking the professionals working with PP what they think is useful but also what could be potentially useful. | ||
===A framework for classifying different models and tools=== | ===A framework for classifying different models and tools=== | ||
| − | |||
| − | + | a. Classify the DSSs and cases with respect to PP (based on problem types of CR etc.) | |
| − | + | b. Classify the PP cases with respect to phase. | |
| + | c. Divide the DSSs to a compilation of different tools. | ||
| − | + | For instance, one group of tools to consider in the group of KM tools, like the ways to analyze and include local information/expert judgment into the planning process. | |
| − | === | + | ===Meta-analysis / reviews of existing models and tools === |
| − | + | ||
| + | a. Make reviews of the collected information (cases/CR), and see what tools are actually used in PP and what have not been used. If tools seemingly useful are not utilized in practise, we try to find out why. | ||
| + | b. Make questionnaires/interviews of forestry planning professionals to find out what they feel are adequate methods and tools | ||
| + | c. Screen the DSS cases to see how common using PP in the development has been, and to what sort of tasks. | ||
===Preparing the guidelines=== | ===Preparing the guidelines=== | ||
| + | As conclusions from the analyses above, we try to find out suitable tools (within DSS and/or outside) to match the needs of the process phases and/or different problem types. | ||
| + | |||
Based on all the work carried out, guidelines for forestry practise are presented in the form of final report. | Based on all the work carried out, guidelines for forestry practise are presented in the form of final report. | ||
Revision as of 09:41, 20 October 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.
- WG4 sessions at Riga meeting.
- A WG4 designated page on the wiki opened.
Work Program 2010
Activities and Outputs
- WG4 enlargened - 31 participants from 14 countries.
- The success criteria for participatory planning have been reviewed, and the criteria most relevant to DSS development have been selected, and their importance discussed. (manusript Menzel, S. et al. 2010, Between ethics and technology - evaluation criteria for the development of appropriate DSS in the context of participatory planning under preparation)
- Six cases for participatory planning have been included to the list so far, from three different countries. More cases will be included in the coming year.
- The usefulness of DSS tools in the context of PP will be further analyzed through interviews of professionals working in the field (Italy and Finland under work), and an email questionnaire to professionals in other countries
- Descriptions of the usage of participation in the development will be included to the DSS WIKI template for further analysis
- Descriptions of usage of DSS methods and tools in different phases of participatory planning will be collected in the coutry reports for further analysis
Work on CR reports and cases presented in the WIKI
- The contribution of DSS on participation is analyzed based on the information collected from important cases with case template questions, and from the coutry reports
The overall work plan
The first task for this is to establish general success measures for public participation by reviewing the existing literature. The review has been carried out, but new measures may be included during the work.
The second task is 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. The phases are further divided to tasks.
Collected information
Information is collected in three ways:
First, information is collected during the preparation process of country reports, concerning the problem types involving several parties. Information is collected on 1) what tools and methods are used, 2) in what phases they are used, and 3) how participatory planning is carried out (open/restricted/expert participation).
Second, information is collected concerning specific cases of interest from the participatory planning point of view. The cases of interest for participatory planning will be presented on the WIKI pages, and presented based on the case template given.
These problem type descriptions and specific cases will be subject to a further meta-analysis of the usage/usefulness of the different tools for the point of view of participatory planning.
Third, information on the usage/usefullness is also collected by directly asking the professionals working with PP what they think is useful but also what could be potentially useful.
A framework for classifying different models and tools
a. Classify the DSSs and cases with respect to PP (based on problem types of CR etc.) b. Classify the PP cases with respect to phase. c. Divide the DSSs to a compilation of different tools.
For instance, one group of tools to consider in the group of KM tools, like the ways to analyze and include local information/expert judgment into the planning process.
Meta-analysis / reviews of existing models and tools
a. Make reviews of the collected information (cases/CR), and see what tools are actually used in PP and what have not been used. If tools seemingly useful are not utilized in practise, we try to find out why. b. Make questionnaires/interviews of forestry planning professionals to find out what they feel are adequate methods and tools c. Screen the DSS cases to see how common using PP in the development has been, and to what sort of tasks.
Preparing the guidelines
As conclusions from the analyses above, we try to find out suitable tools (within DSS and/or outside) to match the needs of the process phases and/or different problem types.
Based on all the work carried out, guidelines for forestry practise are presented in the form of final report.
