Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programmebased planning in natural resource management

0433798 - ÚVGZ 2015 RIV GB eng J - Článek v odborném periodiku
Vacik, H. - Kurttila, M. - Hujala, T. - Khadka, Chiranjeewee - Haara, A. - Pykäläinen, J. - Honkakoski, P. - Wolfslehner, B.
Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programmebased planning in natural resource management.
Journal of Environmental Management. Roč. 144, NOV 2014 (2014), s. 304-315. ISSN 0301-4797. E-ISSN 1095-8630
Grant CEP: GA MŠMT(CZ) ED1.1.00/02.0073
Institucionální podpora: RVO:67179843
Klíčová slova: participatory planning * group decision making * problem identification * problem modeling * problem solving * natural resource management
Kód oboru RIV: EH - Ekologie - společenstva
Impakt faktor: 2.723, rok: 2014

Programme-based Planning of Natural Resources (PBPNR) is an evolving planning frame for solving complex land use, environmental and forest management problems within hierarchically administrated funding and decision-making schemes. PBPNR acknowledges that an effective planning process requires the combined consideration of environmental, technological, economic and socio-political factors. To reach acceptability, commitment and operability, PBPNR processes need to foster collaboration and learning. For this study, an analysis of 43 collaborative planning methods was conducted to examine their potential to be applied within PBPNR. We present the approach of screening the applicability of methods for specific needs that may occur in PBPNR. The approach is based on a list of key criteria for the phases of a collaborative planning process: problem identification, problem modelling and problem solving. The features of each method were qualitatively assessed and peer-reviewed by a team of experts. Most of the methods are able to deal with qualitative data, support processes to increase transparency in planning and capture the preferences of the participating stakeholders. They also produce understandable results for the three phases. Contrarily, many methods do not offer features to handle uncertainty, nor do they satisfactorily stimulate creativity and innovation in the planning process. The results show that the overall applicability of the reviewed methods for the three planning phases varies according to a cluster analysis basing on the capabilities of the methods. Methods such as "Planning for Real", "Open Space" and "A'WOT" seem to be particularly promising for a broad range of planning situations.
Trvalý link: http://hdl.handle.net/11104/0237966