Number of the records: 1

Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programmebased planning in natural resource management

SYSNO ASEP	0433798
Document Type	J - Journal Article
R&D Document Type	Journal Article
Subsidiary J	Článek ve WOS
Title	Evaluating collaborative planning methods supporting programmebased planning in natural resource management
Author(s)	Vacik, H. (AT) Kurttila, M. (FI) Hujala, T. (FI) Khadka, Chiranjeewee (UEK-B)_{RID, SAI, ORCID} Haara, A. (FI) Pykäläinen, J. (FI) Honkakoski, P. (FI) Wolfslehner, B. (AT)
Source Title	Journal of Environmental Management. - : Elsevier - ISSN 0301-4797 Roč. 144, NOV 2014 (2014), s. 304-315
Number of pages	12 s.
Language	eng - English
Country	GB - United Kingdom
Keywords	participatory planning ; group decision making ; problem identification ; problem modeling ; problem solving ; natural resource management
Subject RIV	EH - Ecology, Behaviour
R&D Projects	ED1.1.00/02.0073 GA MŠMT - Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS)
Institutional support	RVO:67179843 - RVO:67179843
UT WOS	000340011800035
DOI	10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.029
Annotation	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.
Workplace	Global Change Research Institute
Contact	Nikola Šviková, svikova.n@czechglobe.cz, Tel.: 511 192 268
Year of Publishing	2015

Number of the records: 1