Project no.217213Project acronym: SMILE

Project title: Synergies in Multi-scale Inter-Linkages of Eco-social systems

Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities (SSH)Collaborative Project

FP7-SSH-2007-1

Stakeholder-based PENTAGON modelsDeliverable 19, WP 5

Date of preparation:Start date of project: 1.1.2008Duration: 42 months

Project coordinator name: Jarmo Vehmas

Project coordinator organisation name: Turku School of Economics, Finland FuturesResearch Centre

Partners: Uniparthenope University of Naples, Autonomous University of Barcelona, VrijeUniversiteit Amsterdam, The Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Institute for EconomicForecasting, Statistics Finland

Prepared by: Aliye Ahu Gülümser Akgün, Eveline van Leeuwen and Peter Nijkamp (VUUniversity, Amsterdam)

2

3

Table of ContentsSUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 5

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 71.1 SMILE and WP5 ..................................................................................................... 71.2 Theoretical approach ............................................................................................... 71.3 Examples of PENTAGON Models ........................................................................ 101.4 Application of PENTAGON Models: Main Steps of WP5 ..................................... 13

2 PENTAGON APPROACH FOR WP 5 .......................................................... 142.1 Concepts ............................................................................................................... 14

2.1.1 Sustainability .............................................................................................. 14

2.1.2 Policy ......................................................................................................... 152.1.3 Stakeholder ................................................................................................. 15

2.1.4 Success/Failure Factors .............................................................................. 152.1.5 The Toolkit.................................................................................................. 15

2.2 Basic PENTAGON Model .................................................................................... 16

2.2.1 Critical Success and Failure Factors of Basic Pentagon Model .................. 162.2.2 Driving Forces of Basic PENTAGON Model .............................................. 18

3 STAKEHOLDER-BASED PENTAGON MODELS FOR EACH CASE-STUDY .................................................................................................................... 20

3.1 Prefatory remarks: methods to generate stakeholder-based PMs ............................ 203.2 Finnish stakeholder-based PM ............................................................................... 22

3.2.1 Summary of the case-study .......................................................................... 223.2.2 Stakeholder-based PM for Finish case-study ............................................... 22

Interviewees’ understanding of sustainable development ...................................................... 22Results of the interviews: the success/failure factors ............................................................. 23Stakeholder-based pentagon model for Finish case-study: the critical factors ........................ 26

3.3 Italian stakeholder-based PM ................................................................................ 27

3.3.1 Summary of the case-study .......................................................................... 273.3.2 Stakeholder-based PM for the Italian case-study......................................... 28

Interviewees’ understanding of sustainable development ...................................................... 28Results of the interviews: the success/failure factors ............................................................. 29The critical factors for the Italian case-study ......................................................................... 31

3.4 Romanian stakeholder-based PM .......................................................................... 32

3.4.1 Summary of the case-study .......................................................................... 323.4.2 Stakeholder-based PM for the Romanian case-study ................................... 33

Interviewees’ understanding of sustainable development ...................................................... 33Results of the interviews: the success/failure factors ............................................................. 34The critical factors for the Romanian case-study ................................................................... 36

3.5 Scottish stakeholder PM ........................................................................................ 38

3.5.1 Summary of the case-study .......................................................................... 38

4

3.5.2 Basic stakeholder-based PM for the Scottish case-study ............................. 39Interviewees’ understanding of sustainable development of Scotland and the CNP ............... 39Results of the interviews: the success/failure factors ............................................................. 39The critical factors for the Scottish case-study ...................................................................... 40

3.6 Spanish stakeholder-based PM .............................................................................. 42

3.6.1 Summary of the case-study .......................................................................... 42

3.6.2 Basic stakeholder-based PM for the Spanish case-study ............................. 42Interviewees’ understanding of sustainable development ...................................................... 43Results of the interviews: the success/failure factors ............................................................. 43The critical factors for the Spanish case-study ...................................................................... 45

4 Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 47

5 Future Steps ..................................................................................................... 51References ............................................................................................................... 53

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 55Appendix A: Interviews ..................................................................................................... 55

A.1. Finnish case-study interview ......................................................................... 55

A.2. Italian case-study interview .......................................................................... 59A.3. Romanian case-study interview ..................................................................... 63

A.4. Scottish case-study interview ........................................................................ 67A.5. Spanish case-study interview ........................................................................ 69

Appendix B: Stakeholders mentioned during the interviews per case-study ........................ 73

B.1. Finish Forestry sector ................................................................................. 73

B.2. Italian agricultural sector ........................................................................... 73B.3. Romanian Energy sector ............................................................................. 73

B.4. Scottish Cairngorms national park .............................................................. 73B.5. Spanish/ Catalonian Energy sector ............................................................. 74

5

SUMMARY

The SMILE project analyses the trade-offs and synergies that exist between the differentobjectives related to sustainable development by using the different indicators developedwithin the European Sustainable Development Indicator (SDI) Working Group, as well as,new types of indicators provided by the tools developed by the consortium partners inprevious projects. WP5 addresses the interfaces between scientific achievements insustainability analysis and the various user categories and interest groups (stakeholders)that are either involved in sustainable development or that are interested or involved in the(development of) the SMILE toolkit.To formulate a conceptual and operational model that encapsulates the highlights ofscientific sustainability research and that identifies the critical success factors for sustainabledevelopment from a societal and policy perspective, the pentagon model (PM), which playsan important role as a systematic framework for identifying critical success/failureconditions is applied in WP5 for each case-study. The introductory part of the report givesthe information and explanation about the pentagon model, its application and its differentuses. The second part of the report provides the results of the first inventory, based on aquestionnaire filled in by the project partners. Firstly, a basic pentagon model is defined thatfits the thoughts and specific approach of the SMILE project. This basic Pentagon model isused for the first draw of the case-study specific pentagon models, which describe differentaspects of the case-studies and provides the first design of the pentagon model and thecritical factors for each case-study. In a second step, stakeholders of each case-study havebeen interviewed about their perception of sustainability and the relative importance of theproposed critical success factors. The data and information is collected by the application ofin-depth interviews in each case-study area. This way, the perceptions and opinions ofdifferent stakeholders are collected to formulate the stakeholder-based pentagon model(PM) on the basis of the basic PM generated by the internal discussions made during theSMILE meetings in collaboration with the partners.Therefore, this report offers insights of the interviews and provides the proof of the validityto use PM in the search for sustainable development at the interface of economic,environmental and social factors. The basic PM generated consists of five critical pentagonfactors and their sub-factors serving as the basis for each case-study specific PM. After thedevelopment of the basic PM, we adapted it for each case-study taking into account thediversity in focus and aim. However, the basic case-study specific PMs were two dimensionaland were not reflecting the point of views of the stakeholders, neither the relativeimportance of each of the factors. The fuzziness of the sustainability concept and itsdependency on perception directed us to use an interview process as a first step togeneralize the stakeholder-based PMs. This enabled us to test the sensitivity and robustnessof the basic PM and to define in a more clear way the factors related to each case-study.The interview process is applied in five case-study areas, viz. Finnish, Italian, Romanian,Scottish and Spanish/Catalonian case-study areas. During the interview process, the Finish,Italian and Romanian partners used an almost identical structure of interviews, while theScottish and Spanish partners, due to their focus, used different interview formats. Howeverthey did include the pentagon factors. Thus, we were able to use an identical evaluation

6

process for each case-study. The results show that the ecological and social systems areseen as the most important ones to enable sustainable development. The other threesystems (physical, economic and institutional system) are seen as less important; howeverthey do have a significant effect. In particular the importance of the physical andinstitutional system varies significantly between the case-studies.

7

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SMILE and WP5The SMILE project analyses the trade-offs and synergies that exist between the differentobjectives related to sustainable development by using the different indicators developedwithin the European Sustainable Development Indicator (SDI) Working Group, as well as,new types of indicators provided by the tools developed by the consortium partners inprevious projects. The assessment takes place between;

Economic and environmental aspects;

Economic and social aspect;

Social and environmental aspects;

All three objectives.In addition, interfacing the scientific results with societal/policy processes (stakeholderparticipation, sustainable consumption and production patterns) will be assessed and policyrecommendations will be formulated. The assessment of the inter-linkages of the differentdimensions will form the basis for policy recommendations on improvement of sustainabilityconditions at various geographical scales.WP5 addresses the interfaces between scientific achievements in sustainability analysis andthe various user categories and interest groups (stakeholders) that are either involved insustainable development or that are interested or involved in the (development of) theSMILE toolkit. A conceptual and operational model has been formulated that encapsulatesthe highlights of scientific sustainability research and that identifies the critical successfactors for sustainable development from both a societal and policy perspective). In thesearch for sustainable development at the interface of economic, environmental and socialfactors, the pentagon model can play an important role as a systematic framework foridentifying critical success conditions. This approach has demonstrated its operationalvalidity in various European policy studies (e.g., transportation, energy, environment, landuse etc.). In this task, we will develop stakeholder-based case-study specific pentagonmodels (PMs). This means that the PMs are tailors made to the situation in each case-studyand that they are approved and improved by local stakeholders.

1.2 Theoretical approachCritical success factors are elements that are vital for a strategy to be successful. Key-performance indicators are often related to the critical success factors as ways to quantifythe main objectives and to evaluate the actual success of the strategy or policy. In thisreport, the main strategy we focus on is sustainable development with the SMILE toolkit as auseful tool to quantify the key-performance indicators.Since many years, the importance of various impact analyses, such as environmental impactanalysis, social and economic impact analysis and spatial impact analysis, has beenacknowledged by policymakers and researchers. Due to the pluriformity and complexity ofmost countries and even regions, coherent and balanced public policy strategies are usuallyfraught with difficulties. For example, the integration and co-ordination of various aspectsrelated to climate change (such as the emission of greenhouse gasses, flood protection,changes in biodiversity, etc.) are often hampered due to administrative frictions, mono-disciplinary approaches, lack of information and political discrepancies. In such cases, an

8

impact analysis may be a meaningful tool for more integrated and co-ordinated strategies. Ingeneral, impact analysis aims at assessing all relevant foreseeable and expectedconsequences of external changes in a system within a certain time period. External changesmay relate to both exogenous circumstances (e.g. climate change) and policy measures(Nijkamp, 1983). It is clear that a large number of effects can be taken into account.Therefore, a certain clustering is necessary in order to obtain a systematic impact analysis. Inaddition, relevant characteristics of an impact analysis are: relevance; completeness;consistency; pluriformity; comparability; and flexibility.Furthermore, given the complex nature of sustainable development processes and policies,a systems approach may offer a practical frame of reference. In general, a systems approachaims at portraying the processes and relationships in a complex system that encompassvarious components which are linked together by means of functional, technical,institutional or behavioural linkages (Harvey, 1969). According to Hwang (2000), systemthinking enables to see the overlapping and ever-expanding relationships among systems inmultiple dimensions to both problem farming and problem solving in (organizational)practice. The idea behind considering the wholes and related elements as a system is basedon the perception of ‘causality’.In this report, we combine the ideas of impact analyses with a systems approach in the formof the Pentagon model approach. What this rather stylized approach does is to enable someof the key issues of the policies under research to be discussed in a systematic way. Ithighlights key dimensions in decision-making and also enables one to look at those areaswhere policy initiatives can influence the way in which sustainable development is enhanced(Button, 1998). It is a systematic framework to determine the (most) critical success factorsand sub-factors for certain, in this sustainable development, policies.

Figure 1: The original PENTAGON prism for necessary conditions for a successful policy.

The basic idea is formed by the following pentagon prism of necessary – though not yetsufficient – conditions for successful policies (see Figure 1). The original Pentagon modeldistinguishes between 5 key factors, viz. software (e.g. knowledge), hardware (e.g. researchfacilities), finware (e.g., financial support), ecoware (e.g., environmental amenities) andorgware (e.g., institutional support systems). This model has been extensively tested on thebasis of interviews and survey questionnaires among various categories of stakeholders.

Hardware

Software

EcowareOrgware

Finware

9

These pentagon factors can be applied to both the supply side and the demand side ofeconomic-technological systems.

The original pentagon model can be seen as the basis, or starting point for the developmentof the basic and the case-study specific models. This means that, when developing the newmodels, we start thinking in line of the five basic factors. However, in a specific situation thenumber and the name of factors can be different as can/will be the specification of thefactors. This is also shown in the examples of existing Pentagon models described in Section1.2. In WP 5, we will first generate one basic sustainability pentagon model, which forms thebasis for all case-studies (see Figure 2). To be able to evaluate the critical success factors ofthe implementation of the SMILE toolkit we will use another approach which will bedescribed in a later deliverable.The general approach that we used to formulate the 5 main factors that contribute tosustainable development policies is to start with a basic model based on literature reviewsand the experience of researchers. In a second step, the model is validated and improved by(local) stakeholders or experts. This is done by extensive interviews and sometimes byadditional questionnaires.

Figure 2: Relationships between the original pentagon model, the two basic SMILE pentagon modelsand the case-study specific pentagon models.

Figure 3 shows the relationship between WP5 and the toolkit and case-studies of the SMILEproject. It shows that the case-studies are an important input to WP5, in particular fordistinguishing critical factors and stakeholders. The toolkit is an important input in pointingout what the driving forces of sustainable development are by decomposing general trendsin the case-studies.

10

Figure 3: Relationships between WP5 and other SMILE components.

In the present deliverable we will design stakeholder-based Pentagon models, using as input(i) available results of previous work packages (WP2-WP4), (ii) experiences from the projectmembers (partly obtained through a project member questionnaire), and (iii) informationacquired from the various stakeholders (governmental agencies, industrial organizations,citizens’ participation groups etc.). This will form the basis for policy recommendations onimprovement of sustainability conditions at various geographical scales. The same approachcan be adopted to identify barriers or impediments to sustainable development, so that thePentagon model can also be used to explore a priority ranking of initiatives on sustainabledevelopment for classes of stakeholders.

1.3 Examples of PENTAGON ModelsThe pentagon approach is applied in several policy studies in the last decades, in order toassess the critical success/ failure factors of a policy (see, e.g. Nijkamp et al., 1994; Peppingand Nijkamp, 1998; Capello et al., 1999; Nijkamp and Yim, 2001; Nijkamp, 2008).Intrinsically, this model aims to map out, in a structured manner, the various forces thatpoint out the factors that contribute to the performance of a given policy (Nijkamp andPepping, 1998). The model has demonstrated its methodological power and empiricalvalidity in various studies (Nijkamp, 2008). The model is not only used in policy studies butalso in systematic thinking/evaluation of a multidimensional complexity (Nijkamp, 2008).One example of the pentagon model application is the pentagon model deployed by Capelloand her colleagues. The five factors of this application to define critical success/failurefactors of energy policies in several countries have the following meanings (Capello et al.,1999):

HARDWARE: technological conditions for sustainable development

PENTAGON ANALYSIS (WP5)

Critical factors

Stakeholders

Driving Forces

TOOLKIT

Unsustainable trends

Production/consumption

Social/economical/ecologicalsystem

CASE STUDIES

Sustainability goal

Stakeholders

Spatial level

Policyrecommendations

11

SOFTWARE: information provision to and communication with relevant stakeholders

ORGWARE: institutional and managerial support systems for sustainability policies

ECOWARE: quality of life indicators and related action to enhance sustainability

FINWARE: cost saving and financing of new sustainability initiatives.

Another example is the application of Nijkamp and Pepping in 1998. They used the model asan exploratory statistical analysis evaluating energy policies at the urban level. They definedthe five factors as follows:

HARDWARE: the physical and technological construction works of the infrastructure, inparticular its degree of sophistication and innovation,

SOFTWARE: the information and communication potential of the infrastructureprovision concerned, in particular its broader network connecting potential,

ORGWARE: the degree of managerial, regulatory and organizational competenceinvolved, with a view to enhancing the efficiency and the satisfaction of customers’needs,

FINWARE: the cost-effectiveness and financing aspects of the infrastructure investment,with a particular view to an improvement of the competitive position of theinfrastructure facility,

ECOWARE: the contribution of the infrastructure at hand to an enhancement ofecological quality conditions, in particular from the viewpoint of sustainabledevelopment (Nijkamp and Pepping, 1998).

One of the more recent examples of a pentagon model is developed by Nijkamp in 2008 toidentify the critical access factors to the highest possible quality of the urban economy(Figure 4). Nijkamp (2008) defines the five factors as:

ECONOMIC CAPITAL: this component refers to the economic foundation that isnecessary for an efficient operation of a sustainable urban area.

ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES: this driving force is particularly concerned with theenvironmental basis that is a prerequisite for ecologically sustainable development.

TECHNOLOGICAL SYSTEMS: this concept is not only related to the technologicaladvances, but in particular to soft factors.

GEOGRAPHICAL INFRASTRUCTURE: this notion addresses in particular the networkcharacter of cities (both physical and non-physical) and is particularly concerned withaccessibility (by exploiting the hub character of a city) and connectivity (by stimulatingthe e-function of the city in a world-wide competitive setting).

SOCIAL SUPRASTRUCTURE: this factor represents the society’s drivers which create asocially sustainable society, in particular: creativity (a potential human asset that formsthe foundation of innovative ideas) and diversity (a systemic notion that supports openmindedness, coping with stress etc.).

12

Figure 4: Pentagon model for sustainable urban development.

The most recent example of a pentagon model is generated by Gülümser in 2009 to identifycritical factors underpinning sustainable rural development. The pentagon approach plays animportant role as a systematic framework for identifying success/failure factors in the searchfor sustainable development. In this study, the authors take into consideration thesystematic approach to the necessary conditions for sustainable development used in thereport ‘Our common future’. Therefore, the five critical factors called ‘systems’ are asfollows (Figure 5):

PHYSICAL SYSTEM: This factor represents the technological and infrastructural advancesin rural areas including the availability and the level of use of technology andinfrastructure, and their integration in daily life.

SOCIAL SYSTEM: The concept is related to the degree of breaking the closed localism inrural areas, in terms of the creation of an innovative and entrepreneurially-orientedculture by encouraging the participation of locals. It is also related to the degree ofopen-mindedness of the rural communities.

ECONOMIC SYSTEM: This factor refers to the non-agricultural activities/economicdiversity by means of which sustainable rural development can be realized with theinvolvement of entrepreneurs.

LOCALITY SYSTEM: This concept is related to the characteristics which have led an areato become rural, i.e. traditions, cultural values, nature, and landscape.

CREATIVE SYSTEM: This factor deals with the creative activity which takes place in ruralareas as a result of the combination of technology and knowledge.

Figure 5: The critical factors of sustainable rural development.

13

1.4 Application of PENTAGON Models: Main Steps of WP5The basic steps of WP5 related to the Pentagon approach (see Figure 6) started with aliterature review, consulting of earlier SMILE output and the consulting of SMILE partnersthrough a questionnaire asking about success and failure factors in relation to their case-study. From this, both the draft case-study specific Pentagon models evolved, as well as thedraft basic Pentagon model.In the second step, stakeholders and experts are consulted to validate and improve ourinitial ideas. In each case-study, 5-10 interviews were held asking open question about theidea of sustainability and about the proposed factors and sub-factors. This will result in thefinal basic pentagon model and the final case-study specific models.During the third (future) step, which consist of the collection of a large number ofquestionnaires the factors and sub-factors will be quantified and the relative importance willbe evaluated. This will allow us to define stakeholder specific model in many different ways.However, this will be described in deliverable D27.In the description of each pentagon factor we will clearly emphasize economic,environmental and social aspects. Therefore, it is important to identify sub-factors/decomposition of each pentagon factor. Later on, multi-criteria analysis will be usedto evaluate the relative importance of these factors. Consequently, an important part of theanalysis will be oriented towards the identification and evaluation of bandwidths for themost relevant economic, social and environmental objectives of the case-study. The level ofacceptability of a given achievement can then be evaluated using the 5 criteria from thepentagon model. This would imply the design of a multi-criteria analytic (MCA) model, inwhich the pentagon factors offer the operational basis for criteria in an MCA sense. Theseapproaches will be selected in a later stage of the WP.In the next section, the basic pentagon model is described. This model is generated to assessdifferent sustainability policies related to the case-studies.

Figure 6: The three steps in WP5 related to the PENTAGON approach.

Draft case-study specific PentagonsDraft basic Pentagon

Step 2: Consulting Experts1. 5-10 interviews per case-study

with stakeholders and experts;2. Qualitative assessment.

Step 1: Initial State1. Pentagon Concept;2. Information from WP2-4;3. Project-member questionnaire.

(Future) Step 3: Questionnaire1. 50 questionnaires per case-study

consisting of closed questions;2. Quantitative assessment.

Stakeholder-based (case-studyspecific) Pentagons

Final basic Pentagon

Final stakeholder specific PentagonsPOLICY IMPLICATIONS

14

2 PENTAGON APPROACH FOR WP 5In WP 5, the aim is to develop specific pentagon models for the Finnish, Italian, Romanian,Spanish and Scottish case-studies, in addition, a basic model will be developed applicable tosustainable development issues in general. All five case-studies are different in terms of theiraim, time scale, spatial scale, sustainability aspects and stakeholders but they are similar inthe sense of their approach to the case-studies. We use the pentagon approach as asystematic framework to identify the critical success conditions for each case-study. Beforethe promised stakeholder-specific models for each case-study can be developed, we firstdevelop a basic pentagon model. Later, in the following section, we discuss the case-studyspecific pentagon models based on stakeholder perceptions (see also Figure 2).First, in Section 2.1 we will describe five concepts that will be used in this report in order tohave a common understanding. Then, in Section 2.2 the basic pentagon model is described,together with the main driving forces.

2.1 Concepts

2.1.1 Sustainability

Sustainability is a hard-to-define concept and is a term that everyone likes to use (Daly,1996). Sustainability discourses has a history of one decade which started by the publicationof Our Common Future, so-called Brundtland Report in 1987. The aim of the report was tostress on the environmental issues to have place in policy agendas and to search for acommon understanding of sustainability of nations. Therefore, the report playedgroundwork for the future of sustainability phenomenon, which later on brought up theEarth Summit convention in 1992; succeed the adoption of Agenda 21 and The RioDeclaration.According to the report sustainable development was the development that meets theneeds of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirown needs (WCED, 1987). The concept was not only limited to environmental issues butincluding other aspects that the concept became multi-dimensional and difficult to define.Therefore, maybe not spatially but conceptually, the multidimensionality of sustainabilityhas led international organizations and researchers to identify their own parameters. Thediversity of the necessary conditions (WCED, 1987) and dimensions of sustainability (Sachs,1997) is reflected in a complex list of indicators. In 1996, the UN produced a list of 134indicators following the outline drawn in Agenda 21 (UN, 1996).Besides its broader definition and sense, sustainability is the ability to maintain the newlyobtained dynamism and to seek to remain viable in perpetuity. Therefore, sustainabledevelopment is the development with which the continuity of settlements andenvironments is maintained while increasing the well-being of inhabitants and offeringdesirable milieu for economic activities.Therefore, sustainability will be assessed first as the continuity of dynamism with a specialfocus on the case study. For instance, it can be sustainable development, energy, specificeconomic activities. Thus, it is very important that in the questionnaire the target and theaim of the case study are clearly indicated.

15

2.1.2 Policy

The policy mentioned in the questionnaire can be any policy, which includes somehow thesustainability and sustainable development as defined above. Therefore, policies mentionedin the questionnaire can be national policies or local policies or even product or sectorspecific policies.

2.1.3 Stakeholder

The stakeholder is the most important concept of the WP5. In general, a stakeholder issomeone who is interested, involved and who feels responsible for a certain issue.Stakeholders can be politicians, branch organisations, action groups, environmentalorganisations, but also non-organised groups such as households or single farmers. Some ofthem are perhaps already involved in discussions or decisions, others perhaps not, butactually they should be. For Wp5 we define two groups of stakeholders, depending on thefocus of the case-study: One group related to sustainable development in the specific case-study, the other related to the development and implementation of the SMILE toolkit.

2.1.4 Success/Failure Factors

Success conditions refer to the necessary –though not sufficient- conditions that are to befulfilled to meet a priori given objectives on sustainable development, as economicperformance, social cohesion and ecological sustainability and also in our case objectives onusefulness and acceptance in the case of the toolkit. The failure conditions are to beinterpreted in a different way. They refer to those factors that drive the performance of asystem toward levels that are unacceptable from the perspective of a priori specifiedobjectives.

2.1.5 The Toolkit

The methodological work done within the previous DECOIN project, and furtherimplemented within the present SMILE project, aims at helping the EU and its MemberStates to better observe the trends in relation to the different dimensions of sustainability.The key element in the toolkit is the integration of three evaluation frameworks (ASA,SUMMA and MuSIASEM methods) into one multi-criteria, multi-scale and versatileprototype framework for the assessment of complex systems. The Advanced SustainabilityAnalysis (ASA), the Multi-Scale Integrated Analysis of Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism(MUSIASEM) and the Sustainability Multi-method Multi-scale Assessment (SUMMA)approaches are integrated into a tool, which is easy to use and provides reporting featuresthat are required for monitoring and policy making.The toolkit is designed to generate effective multipurpose grammars to be used to representand study “sustainability issues” in an integrated manner across different dimensions andscales of analysis. The toolkit has to be adapted, case by case, to the peculiar characteristicsof the sustainability problem to be tackled. It is obvious that not just a single protocol (onesize fits all) can be used. The application of the toolkit (which type of approach to use and forwhich purpose) has to be tailored both on: (i) the specific goal of each case study; and (ii) thespecific characteristics of the investigated system.Within the SMILE project the toolkit is applied to a selection of human dominated complexsystems (environmental, agricultural, industrial, whole economies) in order to test the

16

toolkit potential for the multidimensional assessment of a system’s dynamics andsustainability.

2.2 Basic PENTAGON ModelEven though we will specify the 5 factors for each specific case-study in the next chapter,here we develop a common pentagon model where we define the 5 factors, which includethe search for sustainable development at the interface of economic, environmental andsocial factors in line with the SMILE project. Therefore, we will give the description of eachpentagon (critical) factor while emphasizing their economic, environmental or social aspects.In addition, we will identify the sub-factors/decomposition of each pentagon factor. The pentagon approach plays an important role as a systematic framework for identifyingsuccess/failure factors in the search for sustainable development. In our study, taking intoconsideration the systematic approach to the necessary conditions for sustainabledevelopment, i.e. the results of WP3 and WP4 and also the results of the STEP1 projectmember questionnaire, we generated the critical conditions for sustainability by means ofthe pentagon approach. In the description of each factor, it is important to identify the sub-factors/decomposition of each pentagon factor.

2.2.1 Critical Success and Failure Factors of Basic Pentagon Model

Based on the project member questionnaire and information from WP2-4 (including case-study specific information) a first version of a basic Pentagon model can be formulated. Eachcritical factor consists of sub-factors of which the first one generally refers to the basiccondition of the particular factor. Our five critical factors called ‘systems’ are as follows(Figure 7):

Physical system: This factor represents the physical and technological advances neededfor sustainable development in the case-study area. This factor is vital for the optimaluse of the capacity of the region and thus, to reach the effectiveness and productivitynecessary for sustainable development. Therefore, its sub-indicators are:

o Built-Environment: This is related to the quality of human-made environmentthrough which the well-being and living standards of people can be obtained.This can be seen as a basic necessity;

o Technology: This means the (additional) technological advances anddevelopment in the related sector(s);

o Infrastructure: This indicator refers to the technical infrastructure like roads,sewage, water, electricity, etc. In addition it also refers to internet entelecommunication infrastructure;

o Accessibility: This refers to the availability and costs of different modes oftransportation.

Social system: The concept is related to the quality of social networks in the case-studyarea. The coherence and also, the continuity of the social networks can be cited as twoof criteria related to this factor. Therefore, the sub-indicators are:

o Social capital: This indicator deals with the basic quality of the social system, likethe level of education and skills, but also the distribution of youngsters andelderly;

17

o Openness: This is the level of tolerance/interest of inhabitants to newsuggestions and concepts in relation to sustainable development;

o Participation: This is the level of involvement of inhabitants in the decision-making processes. It is related to the social dialogue inside the community andoutside the community with experts and the project members;

o Awareness: This sub-factor refers to the awareness and understanding of thesociety about sustainability and the particular policy in the case study.

Economic System: This factor refers to the economic activities and its characteristicsinside the case-study area. This factor is vital for the competitiveness of the case-studyarea in terms of economic development and resilience to crises . The decomposition ofthis factor is as follows:

o Economic diversity: This concerns the number of different economic activities inthe case-study area. Even though the case-study area can be focused on onesingle sector, other sectors will also be evaluated related to economic diversity;

o Uncertainty: This factor refers to the possible impacts of unexpected economicshifts, i.e. economic crisis, price changes;

o Property rights: This refers to the structure of economic activities by means ofthe size of the economic activity, the proprietorship of the economic activity,etc.

Ecological System: This concept is related to both the natural environment/ecosystem ofthe case-study area and the environmental impacts addressed in the case-studies.Therefore, the decomposition of this critical factor is as follows:

o Ecological environment: In this sub-factor, what is meant is the quality andquantity (the state) of flora and fauna of the case-study area. Also, depending onthe case-study it includes the part of the ecological environment under interest,i.e. forestry, agriculture;

o Environmental impact: Approaches to assess and mitigate environmentalimpacts. There are different indicators possible to assess the environmentalimpact, i.e. energy consumption etc.

Institutional system: This factor represents the administrative and management issuesrelated to the case-studies, including quality of political decisions and policyimplementation. Furthermore, it includes the incentives and sanctions available to thestakeholders within the policies, i.e. grants, regulations, brands etc. This is a vital systemfor sustainable development. Its sub-indicators are:

o Governance structures: This explains the basic quality of the governancestructures, related to interaction between different governmental andinstitutional stakeholders who are influencing decisions, efficiency of thedecision-making process and how well these decisions are implemented andmanaged in the case study area;

o Integration: This refers to the degree of connections between different policiesin one spatial area of policies (and policy makers);

o Continuity: This refers to the continuity of policies, policy measures andgovernments;

o Sustainability inclusion: This means the level of sustainability and its differentaspects of inclusion in relevant policies;

18

o Opportunities: This refers to the opportunities provided to the stakeholders bypolicies, e.g. subsidies.

Figure 7: The basic pentagon model: sustainability and its driving forces.

2.2.2 Driving Forces of Basic PENTAGON Model

The fulfilment of these pentagon factors will most likely have a positive impact onsustainable development. But the degree of these impacts can change due to theheterogeneity of the case-studies. Therefore, we will also discuss these pentagon factors andtheir harmonization with each other by means of their success and failure levels.Therefore, from this point onwards, we will discuss the above-mentioned driving forces ofthe pentagon model 1. The driving forces of sustainable development can be multiply. But,here, we will mention five of them which are related to the case-studies and the criticalfactors mentioned above. These are: (i) capacity; (ii) continuity; (iii) competitiveness; (iv)resilience; and (v) coherence.The capacity of a region, determined by both economic and social qualities, strongly affectsthe extent to which sustainable development is possible. The quality of the social andeconomic systems needs to be good enough to provide and enable enough capacity for asustainable way of further development. Another driving force is the continuity. Thecontinuity of both social and ecological environment is the desired outcome of sustainabledevelopment that it is only possible to obtain by the contribution of society itself to thesurvival of the ecological environment and by the contribution of the ecological environmentto the welfare of the society. The third driving force, competitiveness, related to botheconomic and ecological qualities, enables a region to compete with outside markets indifferent ways.The changing perception of people regarding ecological environment showed that theuniqueness of a region depends on it and its continuity can lead regions to survive in anopen market. Therefore, the liaisons between economic and ecological systems lead tocompete in the open market. The fourth driving force is the resilience, which lead a region todevelop and grow. This depends on the seamless policies and its collaboration with theeconomic system. The last driving force is the coherence. People need to rely on stable

19

policy and administrative systems. For a sustainable development, in order to apply andimplement the projects and policies, administrative systems and social systems need to becoherent. Therefore, the solid interactions obtained between the administration and socialenvironment will lead to coherence.This basic pentagon model including its driving forces will be applied for the Italian, Finnishand Scottish case-studies. The case-specific pentagon models and their driving forces aredetailed in Chapter 3.

20

3 STAKEHOLDER-BASED PENTAGON MODELS FOR EACHCASE-STUDY

3.1 Prefatory remarks: methods to generate stakeholder-based PMsIn order to obtain and generate stakeholder-based pentagon models for each case-study ofthe SMILE project, first we constructed an interview (see Appendix). The aim of the interviewis for us to get a better insight in what the most important success and failure factors are foreach case-study. Furthermore, we are interested in who the most important stakeholdersare. Therefore we use the opinion of several experts from each case-study. This was a 45minute interview consisting of 6 parts, viz. personal questions; general sustainabilityquestions; case-study questions; Pentagon model sub-factors; stakeholders; and Toolkit. Allthese questions, and in particular the evaluation of each of the sub-factors, were formulatedto be used in the formulation of the stakeholder-based PMs and later to be used as a pilotapplication for the questionnaire process.

To generate the basic stakeholder specific PMs from the interview results, we follow foursteps:

Step 1: The generation of an information table to summarise the information collected fromthe interviews.

Step 2: The identification of the nature of the critical sub-factors and their importanceranking. In this step, we first identify whether a sub-factor is a success or failure factor fromthe point of view of interviewees. In addition, we calculate an equally weighted andweighted scale based on the interviews.A sub-factor is identified as a success or failure if more than half of the interviewees agreeon the nature of the factor. If there is no agreement, we omit the nature of the sub-factorand accepted as no nature. For the calculation of scales and the weight for each sub-factor,we generally use the arithmetic average to better understand the level of agreement ofinterviewees about the importance of each sub-factor1. Equations 1-3 describe thederivation of the weights.The notation for the calculation of these three mentioned scales and weight is as follows.

i: Intervieweej: Sub-factorI: Total number of intervieweesJ: Total number of sub-factorsImp: Importance scale of sub-factor by the intervieweeIImp: Total number of interviewees stated a sub-factor as one of the two mostimportantw: WeightEW: Equally weighted scale of sub-factorW: Weighted scale of sub-factor

1 If a sub-factor has not been mentioned by any of the interviewees as one of the two most importantfactors we omit it.

21

=( , ), i=1,....,I; j=1,....,J (eq.1)

=( )

( )j=1,....,J (eq.2)

= ( ) ( ) j=1,....,J (eq.3)

Step 3: Visualizing the Stakeholder-based PM with importance of critical factors. In this step,the aim is to visualize the static basic PM on the basis of the importance of sub-factors. Inorder to do this, we used spider models. The spider model is an appropriate analytical toolto show the relative score of various factors, while enabling different cases to be compared(Rienstra, 1998; Baycan-Levent et al., 2007). The spider model is not a real quantitativemodel but just a visualization tool. Comparable to how we calculated the weighted scales foreach sub-factor, now we recalculate them for each critical factor that is called a system. Thisenables us first to see the importance of each critical factor among each other and to see therelative importance of the factors through the shape of the PM. In addition, by using EW andW scales we can test the robustness of the basic stakeholder specific PM. The calculation ofthese is shown in equations 4-5:

j: Sub-factorc: critical factorI: Total number of intervieweesJ: Total number of sub-factorsF: Number of sub-factors named as one of the most two important sub-factorswj: Weight of sub-factorEWF: Equally weighted scale of the most important sub-factor of the critical factorWF: Weighted scale of the most important sub-factor of the critical factorEW: Equally weighted scale of sub-factorW: Weighted scale of sub-factor

If wj > 0.50 then;

=( , ), j=1,....,J; c=1,...C (eq.4)

= ( ) ( , ),j=1,...,J; c=1,..,C (eq.5)

Step 4: Listing the new set of critical factors. After all the calculations, in this step we list thenew set of critical factors and their sub-factors and their definition that will be used duringthe questionnaires.

The next part of this section offers insights about each case-study, the results of theinterviews and the draft stakeholder-based PM, which is generated on the basis of theseresults. Appendix B shows the list of mentioned stakeholders to be used in a future step.

22

3.2 Finnish stakeholder-based PM

3.2.1 Summary of the case-study

The aim and focus of the Finnish case-study is the sustainability of forest ecosystem and itsutilisation by humans. This case-study is a nation-wide case-study for the future 20 years.Main sustainability target is to assess the ecosystem well-being; possibilities to regenerateand sustain ecosystem quality. According to the Finnish case-study, the different aspects ofthe case-study are:• Social aspect: The case-study itself is conducted without the involvement of

stakeholders. But the results of the case-study are useful for mainly researchers anddevelopers and also for forest professionals, environmental protection experts,policymakers, firms, NGO's, etc.

• Ecological aspect: The case-study focus on the forest ecosystem, therefore, theplanet aspect covers the ecosystem quality and the ecosystem wellbeing of forestareas especially in Finland.

• Economic aspect: The economic aspect of the case-study is to provide thepossibilities to regenerate and sustain ecosystem quality. In other words, theincrease of productivity and labour intensity of the forest sector is the expectedprofit of the application of the toolkit. Hence, the statistical data will be easilyprovided that the users of the statistical data will also profit from the toolkit.

3.2.2 Stakeholder-based PM for Finish case-study

From Finnish case-study, we have collected 4 interviews in collaboration with Finnishpartners. The interviewees are two researchers, an NGO representative, and a researcherwhose family owns forests. In this section, first we introduce the understanding ofinterviewers about sustainable development and then we offer the result of the interviewswith the stakeholder-specific PM for the Finish case-study.

Interviewees’ understanding of sustainable development

According to the results of the interviews, the three systems economy, ecology and societyare equally important and should be in balance with each other. First of all, withoutecologically sustainable development, there cannot be economically and socially sustainabledevelopment. Although it seems economic development is possible without ecological andsocial development (benefits not shared equally) that is not sustainable. We know that inplaces where the environment is poor and resources are missing, any kind of development isdifficult. Therefore, if we want to achieve sustainable development, ecology and societyshould be considered more important than they are today. Reaching agreement in sharingresources can’t be reached if there’s no social agreement,In addition, it seems the social subsystem is dependent on both economic and ecologicaldevelopment at least until now. Because of the way the world is, first the economic sideshould be in order. An environment that is in good health influences the lifestyle of peopleand vice versa if people are not well, they cannot take good care of the environment.Furthermore, if we get things right on the ecological and social side, economy will bethriving.

23

When thinking about whether sustainability increased in the Finnish forest sector it is statedthat it is still important to separate ecologically sustainable development and economicallysustainable development since the Finnish forest sector is still very much traditional andeven today focuses on maximizing loggings and the economical benefits. Thereforeecologically the Finnish forest sector is not really becoming more sustainable (not lesseither) because the biodiversity especially in southern Finland is still under threat due toheavy logging. Nevertheless, waste reduction, emissions reduction, efficiency improvementsand such have taken place.Economically there is a risk that the Finnish forest sector will lack behind if new ways ofthinking about the forests as natural resources is adopted. The technology is not significantlyimproving and thus its sustainability remains about the same. The crucial question is that ofthe magnitude of production that determines the total environmental stress the forestindustry causes also in terms of energy (electricity) used by the factories themselves.

Results of the interviews: the success/failure factors

The basic Pentagon model demonstrated in the previous part of the report serves as thebasis for each case-study specific model. To apply the pentagon model to the Finnish case-study is an interesting challenge, as there has not been much involvement of stakeholdersyet and also the results and the application of the toolkit is related to the possibleuncertainty levels and the issues which cannot be controlled. For instance, the existence ofan unexpected shift in the national forest and natural protection policies and the currentsevere crisis of forest industries can affect negatively the results of the toolkit. Moreover, onthe basis of this basic PM, we developed a basic stakeholder specific PM for the Finish case-study as the result of the interviews.The results of the interviews are shown in Table 1. According to the results, the basic PM ofthe Finish case-study remains the same, although the views of the interviewees differ fromeach other. This shows already the importance and perception-orientation of the conceptsustainability and sustainable development. Although this is the case, we focused on thecritical factors defined for the case study.According to the results, the critical factors, otherwise stated systems and their importancedoes not change but the answers indicated that we were missing three sub-critical factorswhich are energy dependency of the sector and of the society, the international markets andrelations, and EU policies. Although we did not include the sector as the case-study itself isfocused on the forestry and also in the sub-factor ‘integration’ by means of relevant policieswe included also the EU policies, the international markets as a critical factor were missing inthe critical factors list of the basic PM. Therefore, we included this factor while the sub-factors: ‘the built environment’, ‘participation’ and also ‘the opportunities’ are excludedfrom the stake-holder specific PM as they were not mentioned in any interviews as one ofthe two important factors.Through the results – as they are all perceptive – it is difficult to decide whether a sub-factoris a success or failure factor. Due to the limited number of interviews and their pilotstructure in the evaluation of success/failure factors we first took into consideration thescores of each interviewee equally, thus the average of scores is calculated as one scale foreach sub-factor (Table 2) (See eq.1). Each interviewee indicated two most important sub-factors. This indication is used to generate a weight changing from 0 to 1 for each sub-factor

24

(See eq.2). This calculated weight is used to calculate a weighted scale to avoid theperceptivity of the scaling of sub-factors (See eq.3). Therefore, the weighted scale iscalculated by the multiplication of equally weighted scale and the weight related toimportance (Table 2).

Table 1. Summary of the interviews.Positive or negative effect Importance (1-5)

NGO R1 R2 RO NGO R1 R2 ROPhysical system:

Built-Environment: o NA - + 3 NA 1 3Infrastructure: + NA + - 2* NA 2* 4Technology and innovation: + + + o 4* 5* 1 4*Accessibility: + - + - 2 4* 2* 4*

Social system:Social capital: + + + + 4* 3* 1 2Awareness: o + + + 5 5* 2* 4*Openness: o + - + 5* 3 3* 4*Participation o + - + 5 3 2 4

Economic System:Economic diversity: - + + + 2 3 2* 4*Uncertainty: - o - o 3* 4* 1* 3Property rights: + o o + 3* 3* 1 3*Ecological System:Ecological environment: - + + - 4* 5* 1 4*Environmental impact: - o - - 4* 5* 2 4*

Institutional system:Governance structure: o o + o 3* 4 1 4*Integration: o + - 3 5* 3*Continuity: o + - o 2 5* 2 3Sustainability inclusion: + + - + 2* 4 3* 5*

Opportunities: o + - + 3 4 2 2Notes: R=researcher; RO= Researcher and owner; P= positive; N=negative; P/N= both positive and negative;NA=not available; *= important.

Table 2. The nature and scales of sub-factors

Success orFailure

Equallyweighted scale

(1-5)

Weight related toimportance

(0-1)

Weighted scale(1-5)

Physical System:Infrastructure: - 2.67 0.50 1.33Technology and innovation: S 3.50 0.75 2.63Accessibility: - 3.00 0.75 2.25Social System:Social capital: S 2.50 0.50 2.50Awareness: S 4.00 0.75 3.00Openness: - 3.75 0.75 2.81Economic System:Economic diversity: S 2.75 0.50 1.38Uncertainty: F 2.75 0.75 2.06Property rights: - 2.50 0.75 1.88Ecological System:Ecological environment: - 3.50 0.75 2.63Environmental impact: F 3.75 0.75 2.81Institutional System:Governance structure: - 3.00 0.50 1.50Integration: - 2.75 0.50 1.38Continuity: - 3.00 0.25 0.75Sustainability inclusion: S 3.50 0.75 2.63

25

According to these results, the success or failure effects of the majority of sub-factors aresubject to the perceptive evaluation that their effect cannot be provided clearly. Besides thisunclear situation, respectively, for the sub-factors, technology and innovation, social capital,awareness, economic diversity, sustainability inclusion and for the sub-factors uncertaintyand environmental impact a clear cut-off of success and failure can be stated (Table 2).To use the spider models for the generation of basic stakeholder specific PMs, we calculateda general equally weighted scale for each set of sub-factors, in other words for each criticalfactors, and also weighted scale by using the average of the most important factors thatwere chosen by more than 50% of the interviewees (See Table 3 and eq.4 and eq.5).Therefore, we drawn the pentagon models by spider models to test the robustness of ourbasic stakeholder specific PM related to the importance ranking of each factor. The spidermodel has shown for the Finish case-study, the basic stakeholder specific PM is robust.Although the results do not affect very much the critical factors, thus, the visualpresentation of the basic pentagon model, the importance ranking of sub-factorsdifferentiate very much from the point of view of stakeholders. In other words, when takinginto account the importance ranking of sub-factors, thus of critical factors the shape ofpentagon model changes (see Figure 8). To better understand the shape of the pentagonand the importance ranking of pentagon factors, for the visualization we used spidermodels. The spider models show that, the importance of social system and ecological systemis ranked first and second respectively and their rank and importance is highly robust as theother factors are.

Table 3. Scales of critical factorsEW W

Physical System 3.25 2.44Social System 3.88 2.91Economic System 2.63 1.97Ecological System 3.63 2.72Institutional System 3.50 2.63

Figure 8: Spider model of PM by the importance of critical factors

0

1

2

3

4

5Physical System

Social System

Economic SystemEcological System

Institutional System

EW W

26

To this end, we can state that the basic critical factors remain the same from the view ofstakeholders and also in terms of their importance. But the critical sub-factors are sensitiveto the perception of sustainability of the stakeholders. The following section offers, the newset of critical sub-factors, which will be used during the application of questionnaires tofinalize and test our model in the next step.

Stakeholder-based pentagon model for Finish case-study: the critical factors

In order to apply the pentagon model to the Finnish case-study, on the basis of the results ofthe interviews, we have revisited the basic pentagon model. Therefore, our new set ofcritical factors and the explanation of each factor for the Finish basic stakeholder specific PMare:

Physical system: This factor represents the physical and technological advancesneeded for sustainable development in the case-study area. Its sub-indicators are:

o Technology: This means the availability of technological and infrastructuraladvances in the forest sector. In addition, it is also related to thetechnological infrastructure for the improvement of innovative forestryactivities;

o Infrastructure: This indicator refers to the technical infrastructure likeroads, water, electricity etc. available for the forest sector;

o Accessibility: This refers to the availability of different modes oftransportation used in the forest sector;

o Energy dependency/consumption; the dependency of both the Finishsociety in general, as the forest sector more specifically, on (fossil) energy.

Social system: The concept is related to the degree of breaking the closed socialnetworks in the case-study area on sustainability and sustainable development. Thecoherence and also, the continuity of the social environment can be cited as two ofthe driving forces related to this factor. Therefore, the sub-indicators are:

o Social capital: This indicator deals with the basic quality of the social system,such as the level of education and skills in regions that are mainly involvedin the forest sector;

o Openness: This is the level of tolerance of inhabitants to the novelty ineconomic activities and new suggestions;

o Awareness: This sub-factor refers to the awareness and understanding ofthe forest managers about sustainability. Also the feel of responsibility ofboth society and the owners is important, the case-study and otheropportunities related to the topic.

Economic System: This factor refers to the economic activities and its characteristicsinside the case-study area. This factor is vital for the competitiveness of the case-study area in terms of competitiveness and economic development as well as for theresistance of the area to the possible fragility in the economy. The decomposition ofthis factor is as follows:

o Economic diversity of Finland and the dependency on the forest sector;o Uncertainty in future prices of wood in relation to scarcity;o Property rights: level of cooperation and competition between forest

companies.

27

o International markets: the extent of market relations.

Ecological System: This concept is related to both natural environment/ecosystem ofthe forest sector in Finland and the environmental impacts raised.

o Ecological environment: The current state of Finnish forests in terms ofbiodiversity, the health of trees and the average age of the trees;

o Environmental impact: the effect of the forest industry on the quality of theforest, the danger of overproduction and the level of efficiency of the sectorrelated to energy use.

Institutional system: This factor represents the administrative and managementlevel related to the case-studies. Its sub-indicators are:

o Governance structure: the effectiveness of the structure of the Finishgovernment and the efficiency of decision-making process;

o Integration: the degree of connections and interaction between relevantpolicies, viz. national, global or EU policies.

o Continuity: This refers to the continuity of policies, policy measures andgovernments including the instruments to enforce sustainability liketaxation system;

o Sustainability inclusion: The attention for and relative importance ofsustainability in the policies important to the forest sector.

The pentagon model provided above will be updated after the application of questionnaireswith the users of the toolkit by the presentation of the toolkit to them.

3.3 Italian stakeholder-based PMThe interview of the Italian case-study is made in Italian in order to avoid the languageproblem. The aim of the interview is to get a better insight into the most important drivingforces of sustainable development in general and more specifically of sustainabledevelopment of the agricultural sector in Italy in general and Campania more specifically.The structure of the interview is identical to the Finish case-study consisting 6 parts, viz.personal questions; general sustainability questions; case-study questions; Pentagon modelsub-factors; stakeholders; and Toolkit. In the section of our report, we introduce the Italiancase-study and offer the results of the interviews first to clarify the sustainabilityunderstanding of interviewees and second to generate a basic stakeholder pentagon modelfor the Italian case-study.

3.3.1 Summary of the case-study

Aim and focus of the case-study is to understand the complex interactions and metabolismof agriculture sector in Italy. The main objective of the Italian case study is to analyse thedifferent scales in relation to relevant sustainability issues. The study focuses on threespatial scales, viz. local scale (farm level- three farms are selected), regional scale (Campaniaregion) and national scale (Italy). According to the focus of the case-study, the differentaspects of the case-study can be summarized as follows:

Social aspect: Case-study focuses on Coldiretti (Association of agro-SMEs) of theCampania region and specifically focuses on three farms. Although the case-study

28

includes stakeholders which are regional, national or global scale institutions, e.g.Regional Administration of Campania – Agricultural Department; Coldiretti (Associationof agro-SMEs) of the Campania region; Italian Statistical Institute, ISTAT – Regional Officeof Campania; WWF Campania – World Wildlife Fund, regional branch; WWF Italia –World Wildlife Fund, National Headquarters; Italian Statistical Institute, ISTAT – NationalHeadquarters, the people aspects of the study is based on the farmers in Campaniaregion. While stating farmer, what is important for the case is the lack of languageknowledge to use the toolkit, the inter-linkages between farmers and market and alsobetween farmers and farmers including the rest of the society.

Ecological aspect: The case uses the results of the previous applications of SUMMAapproach which provided an analysis of the amount and the quality of resources used bythe societal metabolism of Italy, Campania and three selected farms and possibleimplications in terms of environmental impact, and, MuSIASEM to the three levels whichallowed the comparison of the trajectories of economic development of Italianagriculture across scale levels, and ASA which provided an evaluation of the inter-linkagebetween economic and environmental aspects of sustainability by means of thedecomposition analysis, by also identifying the main drivers behind the investigatedtrends, though the analysis of decomposition equations for CO2 emissions and the non-renewable emergency fraction. Therefore, the planet aspect of the case-study covers theamount and the quality of the resources used by the people and the possible impacts ofthe inter-linkages between economic activities and environmental resources.

Economic aspect: The economic aspect of the study again formulated by the applicationof the three previous approaches, viz. SUMMA; MuSIASEM; and ASA. As the toolkit is notyet achieved, the possible/expected economic aspect is to make enable the policymakers to provide some incentives; to be able to collaborate with the local marketoperators, hence to create a clear understanding of the environmental benefits as theresult of the use of the toolkit.

3.3.2 Stakeholder-based PM for the Italian case-study

The interviews in Italy are conducted with five stakeholders among who two wereresearchers and three were different NGO representatives. In this section, we provideinsights about the sustainability understanding of these five interviewees and then weprovide the basic stakeholder specific pentagon model for the Italian case-study.

Interviewees’ understanding of sustainable development

Sustainability and sustainable development objectives are not only related to theenvironmental sector, but also have heavy consequences for the economic and socialsystem. On the other hand, socio-economic choices are the basis for maintainingenvironmental resources, which is why we talk a lot of appropriate environmentalgovernance. Economic development interacts with the social system, influencing and beinginfluenced by the environment and natural resources of a country. So it can be concludedthat the concept of sustainable development has three dimensions: economic, social,environmental, interacting with each other.In general the perception is that the Italian agricultural sector is becoming more sustainabledue to the new EU agricultural policies and the growth of interest in this area. Possibly

29

because of the economic crisis farmers were forced to look around to learn more andbecome aware of the potential of sustainable farming. In addition, work done by variousorganizations, environmental groups and associations have helped to raise awareness of thesector, but also greater awareness among consumers. In addition it is thought that futureagri-environmental policies will increasingly tend to promote multifunctional and eco-friendly agriculture and increase sustainability.

Results of the interviews: the success/failure factors

For the Italian case-study, we used the same basic pentagon model which was demonstratedin the previous part of our. In this section, we applied the pentagon model for the Italiancase-study. In other words, here we generate a systematic framework for identifyingsuccess/failure factors of the case-study from the perspective of five stakeholders.The results of the interviews are shown in Table 4. According to the results, the criticalfactors remain the same while two sub-factors, viz. continuity and opportunities are notshown as important from any interviewees. Although sustainable development, thus itcritical factors are subject to perceptive treatments, as all the interviewees agree on thatthese two sub-factors are not among the most important factors we excluded them from thelist of factors in the following steps of our evaluation.

Table 4. Summary of the interviews.Positive and Negative effects Importance of sub-factors

NGO1 NGO2 NGO3 R1 R2 NGO1 NGO2 NGO3 R1 R2Physical system:Built-Environment: + o + + + 5* 2 4* 5* 3*Infrastructure: + o + o + 4 2 4 4 2*Technology and innovation: + o + o - 4 4* 4 3 2Accessibility: + o + + - 5* 3* 5* 5* 4Social system:Social capital: + + + + + 5 5* 4 5 5Awareness: + + + + + 5 3 5 5* 5*Openness: + + + + + 5* 3 5* 5* 5*Participation + + + + + 5* 5* 5* 5 5Economic System:Economic diversity: + - + o + 5* 2 3 3 3*Uncertainty: - - - - - 3 4* 5* 4* 5Property rights: + + + o + 4 2 5* 5* 3*Ecological System:Ecological environment: + o + + + 5* 5* 5* 5* 5*Environmental impact: + + + o - 5* 3* 4 4 5Institutional system:Governance structure: + - + + + 5* 2 5 4 4*Integration: + + + + + 5 5* 5 5* 5Continuity: + + + o + 5 3 5 4 5Sustainability inclusion: + + + + + 5* 3* 5* 5* 5*Opportunities: + + + + + 5 2 5 5 5

Therefore, as we applied in the Finish case-study’s evaluation, we go further by formulatinga kind of consensus about the importance and scales of the sub-factors to better understandtheir importance ranking and to see the robustness of our model. When we took intoconsideration that all sub-factors are equally important under the critical factors that theybelong to, we calculated the average scores of each interviewee’s response (Table 5).Moreover, we used the identification of the two most important factors as the weight to

30

calculate a weighted scale and avoid the perceptivity of scaling. Therefore, we obtained theweighted scales. According to the interviewees, they almost agree on the success failurefactors except technology and innovation sub-factor. In addition, except the uncertainty sub-factor, they think that all factors are success factors rather than failure factors (Table 5).

Table 5. The importance of success/failure factors

Success orFailure

Equallyweighted scale

(1-5)

Weight related toimportance

(0-1)

Weighted scale(1-5)

Physical system:Built-Environment: S 3.8 0.80 3.40Infrastructure: S 3.2 0.20 0.64Technology and innovation: - 3.4 0.20 0.68Accessibility: S 4.4 0.80 3.52Social system:Social capital: S 4.8 0.20 0.84Awareness: S 4.6 0.40 1.84Openness: S 4.6 0.80 3.68Participation S 5.0 0.60 3.00Economic System:Economic diversity: S 3.2 0.40 1.28Uncertainty: F 4.2 0.60 2.52Property rights: S 3.8 0.60 2.28Ecological System:Ecological environment: S 5.0 1.00 5.00Environmental impact: S 4.2 0.40 1.68Institutional system:Governance structure: S 4.0 0.40 1.60Integration: S 5.0 0.40 2.00Sustainability inclusion: S 4.6 1.00 4.60

Our visualization of pentagon models does not include the importance of factors but we usea static pentagon form to visually explain our model. To make this visualization moreunderstandable and to better evaluate the importance of the critical factors, we generated anew information table depending on the most important sub-factors (the most importantfactors are the sub-factors which are shown as one of the two most important sub-factorsfrom at least half of the interviewee’s number). Therefore, we formulated the Table 6 by theequal weight scales and weighted scales of these most important factors to generate theimportance ranking of the critical factors.

Table 6. Scales of the critical factors

EW W

Physical System 4.10 3.46

Social System 4.80 3.34

Economic System 4.00 2.40

Ecological System 5.00 5.00

Institutional System 4.60 4.60

After formulating our Table of importance ranking of the critical factors, we use a spidermodel to visualize the new stakeholder-based model for the Italian case-study. As can beseen from the Figure 9, the stakeholder-based model for the Italian case-study is robust: theimportance ranking of the critical factors is the same for equally weighted and weighted

31

ranking. Additionally, we can observe that for the Italian case the Institutional system andthe ecological system are very important from the point of view of each stakeholderinterviewed.

Figure 9. The basic stakeholder-based Pentagon model with weighted factors

Although, due to the limited number of interviews, we can state that our model is robustand valid. Thus, we can apply this stakeholder-based model during the questionnaire processto evaluate the view of stakeholders about sustainability. Here, we have given informationcollected from the interviews and showed stakeholder-based pentagon model in a generalterm. The following section deepens the analysis and offers the new set of critical sub-factors by critical factors, which will be used during the questionnaire process.

The critical factors for the Italian case-study

The critical factors and their sub-factors for the Italian case study are as follows:

Physical system: This factor represents the physical and technological advancesneeded for sustainable development in the case-study area. Therefore, its sub-indicators are:

o Built-Environment: the quality of man-made environment necessary to theagricultural sector, such as the availability of storage or cooling facilities

o Technology: the technological and infrastructural advances anddevelopment in the agricultural sector

o Infrastructure: the technical infrastructure like roads, water, electricity etc.,as well as telecommunication and internet infrastructure that can be usedin the agricultural sector

o Accessibility: the different modes of transportation important to theagricultural sector and the easiness to reach more remote areas

Social system: The concept is related to the degree of breaking the closed socialnetworks in the case-study area on sustainability and sustainable development. Thecoherence and also, the continuity of the social environment can be cited as two ofthe driving forces related to this factor. Therefore, the sub-indicators are:

0

1

2

3

4

5Physical System

Social System

Economic SystemEcological System

Institutional System

EW W

32

o Social capital: the basic quality of the social system, such as the educationlevel of the farmers, the number of successors and the distribution of youngand elderly farmers.

o Openness: the level of tolerance of farmers to novelty and new suggestionsrelated to sustainable development in the agricultural sector;

o Participation: the level of the involvement of farmers in the decision-makingprocesses.

o Awareness: the awareness and understanding of the farmers aboutsustainability.

Economic System: This factor refers to the economic activities and its characteristicsinside the case-study area. The decomposition of this factor for the Italian case-study is as follows:

o Economic diversity: the dependence of the region on agricultural economicactivities, and the presence of other sectors.

o Uncertainty: uncertainty about profits and prices in the relevant agriculturalmarkets

o Property rights: proprietorship of farms and agricultural cooperation’s;o Communication: the understanding and the dissemination of sectoral issues

and solutions.

Ecologic System: This concept is related to both natural environment/ecosystem ofthe case-study area and the environmental impacts raised in the case-studies.Therefore, the decomposition of this critical factor is as follows:

o Ecological environment: the ecological quality of the area of the case-studyconsisting of both agricultural lands and other natural areas.

o Environmental impact: the environmental impact of the agricultural sectoron the area.

Institutional system: This factor represents the administrative and managementlevel related to the case-studies including the quality of political decisions, thereliability and seamlessness of policies and their inclusion of sustainability and itsdifferent aspects in the policies. Its sub-indicators are:

o Governance structures: the basic level of efficiency of policymaking anddecision-making processes between different governance levels in relationto agricultural sustainability;

o Integration: the degree of connections (seamlessness) between differentpolicies and governance levels in relation to developments in theagricultural sector;

o Sustainability inclusion: the level of inclusion of sustainability and itsdifferent aspects in the Italian agricultural policies (the relative importanceof the subject).

3.4 Romanian stakeholder-based PM

3.4.1 Summary of the case-study

The main target of the Romanian case-study is to analyse the socio-economic system’smetabolism -integrated social, economic and environmental aspects- of Romania. Otherwise

33

stated, the case-study focuses on the transition economy in Romania by sectoral levels onthe basis of the metabolism of system in terms of flows of energy, materials and money. Onthe basis of this aim and focus, the different aspects of the Romanian case-study are thefollowings:

Social aspect: The Romanian case-study has its country scale therefore, the social aspectof the case-study is primarily the topic-related ministries but due to the properties andpriorities of the case-study it has also the households and action groups, localauthorities, companies as the people aspect. From the results of the study will benefitthe policy makers, and the companies, households and local authorities as well.

Ecological aspect: The ecological aspect of the case-study comes from the quantitativeindicator used in the analysis, i.e. energy consumption. The case-study takes intoconsideration the planet aspect on the basis of the output of households and activitiesand their energy consumption hence, the environmental impact of such different energyconsumptions.

Economic aspect: The economic aspect of the Romanian case-study comes from theresults of MuSIASEM approach. Therefore, the economic aspect of the case-study is toreveal the gaps between the Romanian economy and the economy of other EU Memberstates. The decision-makers may use the results in elaborating and informing thenational, sectoral and regional restructuring and sustainable development policies: fiscaland monetary policies adequate to development stage and pace; labour employmentpolicies, and educational reform policies in the sense of forming a culture specific to thenew economic circumstances; trade policies adapted to globalization challenges, andespecially to phenomena and processes specific to the EU area. At the same time, suchinformation allows for anticipation and efficient administration of economic and socialchanges at different time horizons. For companies - small and medium enterprises(SMEs) - and households, the results of the study may be useful for their ownorganization and for functioning programmes and strategies according to national andsectoral policies promoting the access to the EU funds for investments, socialdevelopment and environmental protection.

3.4.2 Stakeholder-based PM for the Romanian case-study

The interviews in Romanian case-study are applied to five interviewees among who therewere two researchers and three administrative representatives. In the following section, wesummarize the case-study, give insights about the opinion of interviewees on sustainabledevelopment and generate the basic stakeholder specific pentagon model.

Interviewees’ understanding of sustainable development

According to the Romanian stakeholders, sustainable development is a complex, systemicphenomenon, equally implying economic, social and environmental aspects. It would haveno meaning without coexistence and evolution of the three sub-systems. The social systemas both beneficiary and generator of sustainable development interacts with the ecologicalsystem through the economic system. Such an interaction may be constructive ordestructive and is strongly nonlinear.At the moment, the energy sector in Romania is non-sustainable, experiences high energyand economic losses, the urban energy sector is nearly in economic collapse, the rural

34

energy sector is not included in the energy programs, many decisions were delayed(especially in what regards energy generation) and that led to a high financing needuncovered by programs and funds. Most current actions are oriented towards maintainingthe status quo, and not towards transformation. However, for the future there are someimportant attempts in what regards the sustainable energy, through elaboration andimplementation of certain projects regarding the use of green energy. A positive aspect isthat power generation is mainly developed towards hydroelectric and nuclear technologies(without CO2 emissions), and also clean technologies are penetrating in coal andhydrocarbon power generation. The potential for intervention in energy efficiency is highand the EU policy transposed in national measures actions in a beneficial to sustainabledevelopment.

Results of the interviews: the success/failure factors

The scale and the dynamic structure of the case-study have led to use a wide range ofcriteria and indicators during the analysis while designing the pentagon model. The basic PMfor the Romanian case-study is again identical to the others demonstrated above. In thissection, we will offer the changes and thus the new basic stakeholder specific PM for theRomanian case-study.Table 7 shows the summary of the results of the interviews in order to serve as aninformation table for the following steps. According to the results, the critical sub-factors‘participation’ and ‘integration’ are not named as one of the most tow important sub-factorsfrom any of the interviewees that they were omitted in the following steps. It must be notedthat these views are still perception-oriented that these cannot be generalized for allstakeholders but will be used only to generate the stakeholder-based PM.

Table 7. Summary of the interviews.Positive and Negative effects Importance of sub-factorsR1 R2 A1 A2 A3 R1 R2 A1 A2 A3

Physical system:Built-Environment: + + + + + 4* 3* 4* 4* 4Infrastructure: - + o - + 5 2 3 5* 5*Technology and innovation: + + + + + 3* 2 5* 5 4Accessibility: + + NA + + 3 3* NA 3 5*Social system:Social capital: + + + + + 5* 4* 5* 5* 5*Awareness: + + + + + 5* 2 5 5* 4Openness: + - + + + NA 2* 5* 4 4*Participation + + + + + NA 2 4 4 3Economic System:Economic diversity: + - + + + 4* 2* 4 4* 2Uncertainty: - - - - - 5 1 4* 5* 4*Property rights: + + + + + 5* 4* 5* 5 3*Ecological System:Ecological environment: + - - + - 4* 3* 5* 4* 2*Environmental impact: - - - - - 5* 3* 5* 5* 3*Institutional system:Governance structure: + - - + + 3* 2 5* 3* 4*Integration: + - + + - 4 2 5 4 3Continuity: + - + + - 4 3* 5* 4* 3Sustainability inclusion: + + NA + + 5* 3 NA 5 3Opportunities: + + NA + + 5 3* NA 5 4*

35

According to the results of the Romanian case-study’s interviews, due to the background ofthe interviewees and the focus of the case-study, except three sub-factors, viz. ‘uncertainty’;‘ecological environment’; and ‘environmental impact’, all of the sub-factors are evaluated assuccess factors. Moreover, interviewees, except the sub-factor ‘infrastructure’, agreed onthe nature of the critical sub-factors. Therefore, ‘awareness’, ‘ecological environment’ and ‘environmental impact’ sub-factors by taking ‘1’ as weight are shown as the most importantsub-factor by each interviewee. In contrast, the disagreed most important sub-factor is the‘sustainability inclusion’ that only one interviewee has shown it among the most importantsub-factors (see Table 8).

Table 8. The nature and weights of critical sub-factors

Success orFailure

Equallyweighted scale

(1-5)

Weight related toimportance

(0-1)

Weighted scale(1-5)

Physical system:Built-Environment: S 4.6 0.80 3.68Infrastructure: - 4.0 0.40 1.60Technology and innovation: S 3.8 0.40 1.52Accessibility: S 2.8 0.40 1.12Social system:Social capital: S 4.8 1.00 4.80Awareness: S 4.2 0.40 1.68Openness: S 3.0 0.60 1.80Economic System:Economic diversity: S 3.2 0.60 1.92Uncertainty: F 3.8 0.60 2.28Property rights: S 4.4 0.80 3.52Ecological System:Ecological environment: F 3.6 1.00 3.60Environmental impact: F 4.2 1.00 4.20Institutional system:Governance structure: S 3.4 0.80 2.72Continuity: S 3.8 0.60 2.28Sustainability inclusion: S 3.2 0.20 0.64Opportunities: S 3.4 0.40 1.36

On the basis of the above-mentioned scales and importance ranking, later we calculatedweighted scales of the five critical pentagon factors. Therefore, we obtained Table 9, andvisualized the basic PM referring to the importance ranking obtained by weighted scales ofthe five critical pentagon factors (Figure 10) by using the spider model.

Table 9. Weighted scales of the critical pentagon factors

EW W

Physical System 4.60 3.68

Social System 3.90 3.30

Economic System 3.80 2.57

Ecological System 3.90 3.90

Institutional System 3.60 2.50

The application of the spider model showed that the equally weighted scales of the fivecritical pentagon factors are very close to the ideal pentagon model, while weighted scalesare changing the pentagon model like in the other case-studies. What makes the Romanian

36

case-study distinct from others is that the application of the pentagon model for theRomanian case-study is sensitive to the stakeholders’ opinions about the importance of thesub-factors.

Figure 10. Pentagon Model on the basis of importance rankings.

In addition, the ranking of three critical factors are changing according to the two weightedscales. For instance, physical system according to the equally weighted scale ranking is theprimary factor while according to the weighted ranking it is the second critical factor, andvice-versa for the factor ‘ecological system’. In other words, the pentagon model depends onthe structure of the interviewees and an extensive sample is needed for the Romanian case-study. In the following section, we offer the new set of critical pentagon factors and theirsub-factors.

The critical factors for the Romanian case-study

The five critical factors for the Romanian case-study are as follows:Physical system: This factor represents the physical and technological advancesneeded for sustainable development in the case-study area. This factor is vital toincrease and the optimum-use of the capacity of the region and thus, to obtain theeffectiveness and productivity needed for sustainable development. Therefore, itssub-indicators are:

o Built-Environment: This is related to the basic quality of man-madeenvironment through which the well-being and living standards of peoplecan be obtained like green buildings, energy efficient buildings etc.;

o Infrastructure: This indicator refers to the quality technical infrastructurelike roads, water, electricity etc., as well as internet and telecommunication,IT networks and other networks within the natural environment;

o Technology and innovation: This means the technological and innovativeadvances and development in the Romanian mining and energy sector, viz.coal gasification, green energy exploitation systems, energy obtained fromwaste;

0

1

2

3

4

5Physical System

Social System

Economic SystemEcological System

Institutional System

EW W

37

o Accessibility: This refers to the availability of different modes oftransportation and the easiness to reach important locations includingmultimode transport and operative national, international networks.

Social system: The concept is related to the quality of social networks in Romania.The coherence and also, the continuity of the social networks can be mentioned astwo of criteria related to this factor. Therefore, the sub-indicators are:

o Social capital: This indicator deals with the basic quality of the social system,such as the level of education and skills including upgrading skills and abilityto use the new technologies in regions that are mainly involved in themining and energy sector;

o Awareness: This sub-factor refers to the awareness and understanding ofsociety about sustainability and also about raising campaigns, the miningand energy sector and other opportunities related to the topic;

o Openness: This is the level of tolerance of stakeholders to novelties andnew developments including new technologies and production costs in themining and energy sector;

Economic System: This factor refers to the economic activities and its characteristicspresent in Romania. This factor is vital for the competitiveness of the country interms of competitiveness and economic development as well as for the resistance ofthe area to the possible fragility in the economy. The decomposition of this factor isas follows:

o Economic diversity: This concerns the economic activities in Romania. Howdependent are the Romanian rural areas on the mining and energy sector?

o Uncertainty: This factor refers to the unexpected economic shifts, i.e.economic crisis or fluctuations in the price/costs of energy or bankruptcyand the decrease of demand in the energy sector;

o Property rights: this factor relates to ownership in the mining and energysector. The existence of large, state-owned companies, privatization andPPPs.

Ecological System: This concept is related to both natural environment/ecosystem ofthe case-study area and the environmental impacts raised in Romania. Therefore,the decomposition of this critical factor is as follows:

o Ecological environment: This factor refers to the (ecological) quality of theregions in which mining and energy production takes place and theirvulnerability towards activities of that sector and the exploitation of naturalresources;

o Environmental impact: The negative impact of the mining and energy sectoron the environment in Romania;

Institutional system: This factor represents the administrative and managementlevel related to the case-studies as well as the uncertainty, necessary coherence ofpolitical decisions, the reliability and seamlessness of policies and their inclusion ofsustainability and its different aspects in the policies. Its sub-indicators are:

o Governance structure: the effectiveness of the structure of the Romaniangovernment, viz. central administration and ministries;

38

o Continuity: This refers to the continuity of policies, policy measures andgovernments;

o Sustainability inclusion: The attention for and relative importance ofsustainability in the policies important to the mining and energy sectorincluding sustainable development strategies and local, regional, nationalstrategies.

o Opportunities: This refers to the opportunities provided to the stakeholdersby means of policies, subsidies etc. like non-reimbursable financing throughthe national environment programs.

o Vision: the EU’s continental vision and global corporate governance visionabout the mining and energy sectors.

3.5 Scottish stakeholder PM

3.5.1 Summary of the case-study

The Scottish case study is focused on assessing the trends in the Cairngorms National Park(CNP) and the delivery of the National Park (Scotland) Act via the Cairngorms National ParkPlan. CNP Plan is a strategic spatial planning document that is structured around three mainthemes: conserving and enhancing the Park, living and working in the Park and enjoying andUnderstanding the Park. The Plan has 22 strategic objectives to be achieved by 2030; and 7priorities for action to be achieved by 2012. The plan has a statutory remit, in that all public(governmentally funded) agencies have to have regard to the plan, but it is not supported byany direct regulation or funding initiatives. The CNPP is related to sustainability as it deliversthe four aims of the NPA. The main research questions relevant to the pentagon model are:how does the system perform at different levels?; and what are the implications of itscurrent performance for possible future states?. These questions raise further somenormative questions about what is to be sustained, for whom, at whose cost and whobenefits? Therefore, the main trade offs of interest of Scottish case-study are:

• Economic & Environment - Increased land based industries in protected area• Environment & Social - Management of ‘wild’ or working landscapes• Social & Economic – Ensuring economic growth and social justice, inclusion• Policy & Governance - Long term planning & integration of multiple interests• Spatial Scale - National Park but local impacts.

In the light of the above-mentioned aim, the research questions and the trade-offs, thethree aspects of the case-study are:

Social aspect: The Scottish case-study includes CNP Authority as the main stakeholder intheir study. However, there are also other national, regional and local stakeholdersinvolved in developing and implementing the plan. The national stakeholders includeScottish Government and their agencies; plus national level 3rd sector organisations. Theregional stakeholders include five local authorities and regional based companies and 3rd

sector organisations. The local stakeholders are those representing those who live andwork within the Park boundaries via community councils, commerce councils etc.

Ecological aspect: The ecological aspect of the Scottish case-study comes again from theCNP Plan. Therefore, it covers Landscape, Built and Historic Environment; Biodiversity;

39

Geodiversity; Sustainable Use of Resources; Energy; Water; and air from a sustainabilityperspective.

Economic aspect: The main economic aspect of the Scottish case-study can be given asmaking tourism and business more sustainable, making housing more affordable andsustainable.

3.5.2 Basic stakeholder-based PM for the Scottish case-study

The interviews of the Scottish stakeholders have been conducted in a different way. Becausethe questions were part of a longer interview related to the success of the national park onlya question was asked about possible success and failures factors, and what they thoughtabout the Scottish pentagon model.Unfortunately, this means we cannot say anything about the cores for each sub-factor.However, we did get a better insight in what important factors are according to the 11interviewees.

Interviewees’ understanding of sustainable development of Scotland and the CNP

In general, the perception is that Scotland is becoming more sustainable. The concept istaken much more serious today. There is pressure on the society to look at resource use andreduce waste. It’s an uphill battle but there have been inroads regarding local food, travelmiles, land practices – starting to make some changes to good practice. There seems to bemore awareness of not being a throw-away society, of climate change and damage tonatural heritage. Wind farms are a good example of using power in a sustainable way, agood example of getting a balance. Also a better understanding of the fish system improvedthe current situation. However, increasing imports in forestry, and a decline in farming,decreased sustainable as well.Also the perception about the CNP is quite positive. It seems that currently significant workis done to preserve the best of the Park balanced with economic development. The NationalPark has potentially lots of good practice, they are innovative and taking risks. This is thePark Staff but also enthusiasm from the private sector e.g. estates like Alvie, Rothiemurcus,Cairngorms Mountain. In addition, the park Authority seems to be managing developmentso doesn’t damage heritage and is positive for species and habitats. However, it is difficult tosee to which extent the national park authority influences sustainable development exactlyand also the large share of external funding could be seen as (economically) unsustainable.

Results of the interviews: the success/failure factors

During the interviews, it was often mentioned, that a small area as the CNP does not need atheoretical model to evaluate sustainable development, because most issues are verypractical and local. An example is the concern for the rising price of real-estate, which inparticular affects the local population. Another example is the concern for the relatively highdependency on public support and the large share of imports into the local economy.A repeating issue is the importance of the social system. It is often stated that communitybuilding and the awareness of people of sustainability issues is of key importance. Inaddition, more closely related to the institutional system, leadership and bureaucracy areseen as important sub-factors. From the 11 interviews the following remarks are collected:Physical system:

40

Infrastructure is mentioned as being important

Accessibility is mentioned as the most important physical sub-factor.Social system:

Include both inhabitants and visitors

Feel of community and community building

Information provision (awareness) is mentioned many times

Participation of local entrepreneurs and inhabitantsEconomic system:

Diversity is seen as not so important; furthermore uncertainty is quite constant,mostly related to number and demand of visitors.

Local income and costs of housing is often mentioned as a failure factor.

Local entrepreneurship should be encouraged to decrease dependency on importsand public payments.

Ecological System:

Quality is most important because that is what attracts the visitors.Institutional system:

Undeniably important but risk of over institutionalising the plan and the system.

Sustainability inclusion in the plan is seen as a positive sub-factor.

Describing clear targets could improve sustainable development

Bureaucracy is seen as a negative sub-factor that can strongly hinder local(sustainable) developments.

Leadership and communication are very important

Public and private partnership could improve sustainable developments.

Figure 11: The Pentagon model on the basis of the importance of sub-factors

The critical factors for the Scottish case-study

Physical system: This factor represents the physical and technological advancesneeded for sustainable development in the case-study area. This factor is vital to theoptimum use of the capacity of the region and thus, vital to obtain the effectivenessand productivity needed for sustainable development. Therefore, its sub-indicatorsare:

0

1

2

3

4

5Physical System

Social System

Economic SystemEcological System

Institutional System

41

o Built-Environment: The basic quality of human-made environment(settlements, housing but not infrastructure) in the Cairngorms;

o Infrastructure: The quality of technical infrastructure like roads, water,electricity and of communication networks such as broadband etc.;

o Accessibility: This refers to the availability and costs of transport servicesand the easiness to reach (important) locations.

Social system: The concept is related to the quality of social networks and socialcapital in the case-study area. The quality, coherence and the continuity of the socialnetworks influence sustainable development. Therefore, the sub-indicators are:

o Openness: The degree of tolerance to change and new suggestions by thoseliving, working and contributing to the CNP Plan ;

o Social relations: The external and internal ties between those living, workingand influencing the activities within the Park and the community feeling.

o Participation: The degree of the involvement in the park and in the decision-making processes regarding the CNPP of both inhabitants andentrepreneurs.

o Awareness: The degree of awareness and understanding aboutsustainability and the CNPP.

Economic System: This factor refers to the economic activities and its characteristicsinside the case-study area. The decomposition of this factor is as follows:

o Economic diversity: The economic sectors active within the CairngormsNational Park and related entrepreneurship;

o Uncertainty: The volatility of economic trends affecting the Park, such asthe number of visitors related to weather conditions;

o Property rights: The structure of economic activities in the Park, inparticular related to property rights;

o Economic flows: the direction of economic (monetary) flows such as thelevel of commuting and the share of second-home owners, the dependencyon public money and the share of imports and exports.

Ecological System: This concept is related to both natural environment/ecosystem ofthe case-study area and the environmental impacts raised in the case-studies.Therefore, the decomposition of this critical factor is as follows:

o Ecological environment: the quality and quantity of the flora and fauna ofthe CNP.

o Environmental impact: This refers to the environmental impacts generatedby (economic) developments in the CNP.

Institutional system: This factor represents the administrative and managementarrangements as well as the opportunities provided to the stakeholders by policies,i.e. fiscal policy, financial policies etc. Its sub-indicators are:

o Governance structures: Who influences the developments, who makes thedecisions and who implements and manages the CNPP. In addition public-private partnerships can play a role;

o Local leadership;

42

o Opportunities and communication: The opportunities provided to thestakeholders by the CNPP

o Reliability and efficiency: This refers to the level of seamlessness andreliability of policies and legislations and the danger of bureaucracy;

3.6 Spanish stakeholder-based PM

3.6.1 Summary of the case-study

The aim of the Spanish case-study is to check whether it is possible to combine the threemethodologies, ASA, SUMMA and MuSIASEM, into an integrated quantitative analysis fordifferent characterizations of the socio-economic system "Catalonia" at different scales: (i)the whole Catalonia, compared with Spain and other EU countries; (ii) the province ofBarcelona; (iii) the households in the province of Barcelona. In addition this will also be doneand in relation to spatial analysis to try to see whether it is possible to implement the samesystem of accounting using GIS related data. The main focus of the case-study is basically thegeneration of an integrated analysis, three aspects of the sustainability cannot be providedfor this case-study.

3.6.2 Basic stakeholder-based PM for the Spanish case-study

Since the Spanish case-study was not set out to evaluate an overall sustainability policy butrather aiming at the applicability and the relevance of the results of the Toolkit, the scope ofthe questions that have to be asked has two folds:(PART I) Looking into whether the outcome of the Toolkit (with the application andoutcomes of the three methodologies (ASA, SUMMA and MuSIASEM)) reveal useful andinteresting results for stakeholders and social actors that might seek to use such resultswithin the area of policy making. Within the scope of Spanish case-study, the sets ofquestions investigate how relevant it is for the social actors to make use of such data thatexamine how energy is used in the different economic sectors and in the Spanish, mainlyCatalonian, economy as a whole, on the basis of economic, demographic and energy data.Furthermore, the stakeholders, policymakers and the social actors that are questioned canthereafter interpret the usefulness and the applicability of our specific results in the arenafor policy making and suggest further improvements on what can be done and analyzed forfuture policy implications (see Appendix 7.1.5);b) (PART II) Investigating the applicability, drawbacks and advantages of using such toolkitsand models within the domain of integrated assessment and sustainability analysis. For theCatalonian/Spanish case study, questions are asked to seek the usefulness/availability ofdata in the Energy field of Catalonia, the difficulties encountered in interfacing data fordeveloping integrated models and examine the most effective ways in communicating theresults to the relevant stakeholders. The results of these questions can set guidance forfuture areas of application of the toolkit in different areas and to investigate the mosteffective strategies in communicating such results from a scientific/academic realm to thepolicy realm.Thus, with a double objective for the science-policy interface aspect two groups ofstakeholders were interviewed:

43

(i) Corresponding to the initial objective (PART I), three stakeholders currently in the policydomain of energy analyses in Catalonia are interviewed;(ii) Corresponding to the second objective (PART II), four stakeholders involved in thetechnical/scientific/academic field of using/generating models on energy analysis areinterviewed.

Interviewees’ understanding of sustainable development

The Spanish interview mainly focused on energy policies on itself, not so much in relationwith the concept of sustainability, although it is of course an important topic within thesustainability discussion.When asking the interviewees about the relative importance of the economic, ecological andsocial subsystem the general idea is that the economy is the subsystem influencing mostlythe energy policies. However, ecological restrains (e.g. to renewables) are a main part of thedebate. Furthermore, the social dimension is also seen as very important. The social actorsare the ones that need to act, and who therefore need to understand and agree theimportance. For example, if there is a policy of incentives related to solar energy, but theusers are not interested, it will not work. Summarizing, all three sub-systems should betaken into account for energy policies to be successful.And above all, there is a need to have a global vision of the three factors. Not only see themas three different things, but as mutual affecting pieces. For example while creating newinfrastructure and moving it to a specific territory and concentrating it within one singlearea, you might be producing a regional inequality issue. At a social level, that might causenegative effects.

Results of the interviews: the success/failure factors

Due to the focus of the case-study, the effect of the sub-factors (being success or failurefactors) is not part of interview, furthermore, each sub-factor is considered equallyimportant from the point of view of the majority of the interviewees. Thus, the informationtable (Table 10) covers only the scale of the importance of sub-factors.

Table 10. Summary of the interviews.Importance of sub-factorsA1 A2 A3 R1 R2 R3 R4

Physical system:Built-Environment: 5 4 5 5 5 5 5Infrastructure: 5 4 5 5 5 5 5Technology and innovation: 5 3 5 5 5 5 5Accessibility: 4 4 5 4 5 5 5Social system:Social capital: 5 4 5 2 NA 5 5Awareness: 3 4 5 3 5 5 4Openness: 3 3 5 4 5 5 4Participation 3 4 5 3 5 5 4Economic System:Economic diversity: 5 5 5 3 5 5 4Uncertainty: 3 4 5 3 5 5 4Property rights: 1 3 5 4 5 5 4Ecological System:Ecological environment: 5 4 5 5 5 5 5

44

Environmental impact: 5 3 5 5 5 5 5Institutional system:Governance structure: 3 2 5 5 4 5 4Integration: 2 5 5 4 5 5 4Continuity: 2 4 5 4 3 5 4Sustainability inclusion: 2 5 5 3 5 5 5Opportunities: 2 4 5 2 5 5 4

Due to the equal importance of each critical sub-factors, we omitted the weighted scale ofsub-factors for the Catalonian case-study and only equally weighted scales are calculated. Sothe visualization of the stakeholder-based PMs by using the spider model is only based onthe equally weighted scales of the critical pentagon factors (Figure 12).

Table 11. The nature and weights of critical sub-factorsEqually weighted scale (1-5)

Physical system:Built-Environment: 4.86Infrastructure: 4.86Technology and innovation: 4.71Accessibility: 4.57Social system:Social capital: 3.71Awareness: 4.14Openness: 4.14Economic System: 4.14Economic diversity:Uncertainty: 4.57Property rights: 4.14Ecological System: 3.86Ecological environment:Environmental impact: 4.86Institutional system: 4.71Governance structure:Continuity: 4.00Sustainability inclusion: 4.29Opportunities: 3.86

Table 12. Weighted scales of the critical pentagon factorsEW

Physical System 4.75Social System 4.04Economic System 4.19Ecological System 4.79Institutional System 4.06

45

Figure 12: Pentagon Model on the basis of importance rankings.

The application of the stakeholder-based PM for the Spanish case-study showed us that theperceptions of stakeholders are close to the ideal PM that our model remained robust.Therefore, in the following, we provide the critical pentagon factors and their sub-factors,which will be used for the further steps of our modelling.

The critical factors for the Spanish case-study

Although the case-study does not focus directly on sustainability, sustainable development isthe general topic of SMILE and also WP5, thus to prepare a set of five critical factors for theSpanish case-study was a challenge. Therefore, these factors and their sub-factors are asfollows:

Physical system:o Built-Environment: Settlements, Urban spread, number and size of housing

unitso Technology: The technological aspects (source of primary energy,

transformation techniques) used for the production of the energy (switchingfrom fossil fuel based sources to renewable energies)

o Infrastructure: The current instalment of the basic infrastructure, i.e. roadseffecting the dependence on road transport vs public transport

o Accessibility: The easiness that the system facilitates initiatives i.e. public vs.private transport

Social system:o Social capital and subsequent demand: the basic quality of the social system

in Catalonia and the general demand of energy for functionso Openness: The degree willingness to change, reduction of CO2, switching to

renewableso Participation: The degree of the involvement in the decision-making

processes for the energy future of Cataloniao Awareness: The degree of awareness and understanding about the current

energy dependency on fossil fuel sources and heavy external dependenceEconomic System:

o Economic diversity: The different economic sectors demanding energy use;o Production Capacity: Economic sectors contributing to the production

patters of Catalonia

0

1

2

3

4

5Physical System

Social System

Economic SystemEcological System

Institutional System

46

o Uncertainty: The volatility of economic trends/ changing energy pricesEcological System:

o Ecological environment: The direct and indirect flora and fauna affected byenergy use/ methods for energy extraction (i.e. coal extraction, surroundingof Hydroelectric plats, nuclear plants)

o Environmental impact: This refers to the environmental impacts generatedby the dominant economic sectors (i.e. Pollution from a nearby factory,exhaust gasses)

Administrative system:o Governance structures: Who influenced the development, who made the

decisions and who implements and manages the Energy Policy of Cataloniao Integration: The degree of connections between different policies in

Catalonia and Spain; and the consistency of their application;o Opportunities: The opportunities provided to the stakeholders (producers,

green investors etc)o Continuity: This refers to the level of seamlessness and reliability of policies

and legislations;

o Sustainability inclusion: the relative importance of sustainable approaches inpolicies and to the policymakers.

47

4 Evaluation

During the evaluation process, we calculated – when possible – two different importance

rankings for the five pentagon factors and redraw PMs for each case-study: the equally

weighted (EW) and weighted (W) rankings. The results for all case-studies are combined inFigure 13a and Figure 13b. It can be seen that the basic pentagon model seems to be quitesuitable to all cases when some (minor) adaptations are made.

Figure 13a: The importance rankings of five pentagon models for each-case-study

Figure 13b: The importance rankings of five pentagon models for each-case-study

0

1

2

3

4

5Physical System

Social System

Economic SystemEcological System

Institutional System

Finish (EW-W) Italian (EW) Romanian (EW)Scottish (EW) Spanish (EW)

0

1

2

3

4

5Physical System

Social System

Economic SystemEcological System

Institutional System

Finish (EW-W) Italian (W) Romanian (W)

48

The complexity of working with diverse and multiple case-studies has led us to use anadditional visualization to better understand the situation of each case-study compare to theothers. When we look at the rankings in Table 13, for the Finish case-study the ranking isrobust and that one single ranking can be provided while this situation is not valid for theItalian and Romanian case-studies. In addition, due to the different format of interviews forthe Scottish and Spanish case-studies we can only provide one single ranking.

Table 13: Rankings by weighted scales of five pentagon factors by case-studiesFinish

(EW-W)Italian

(W)Romanian

(W)Scottish

(EW)Spanish

(EW)

Physical System 4 3 2 5 2

Social System 1 4 3 1 5

Economic System 5 5 4 4 3

Ecological System 2 1 1 3 1

Institutional System 3 2 5 2 4

When we evaluated these rankings one by one for each case study, we can state that (Figure14):

Finnish case-study: Social and ecological systems are the most important factors.

Italian case-study: Ecological system is the most important factor. But the dualitybetween social system and institutional system can be easily seen. This can beexplain by the strong social bonds in Italian culture and strong beliefs in (EU) policiesthat choosing one is preceptive.

Romanian case-study: Even though there is no precised ’the most important’ factor,ecologic, social and physical systems are the improtant ones. Romania experiencingthe transition economy treat good physical system as a necessary basis.

Scottish case-study: Social and institutional system are the most important factors.

Spanish case-study: Ecological and physical systems are the most important factors.

Figure 14: The ranking of the five pentagon factors per case-study

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

Ran

king

Case-study

Physical System Social System Economic SystemEcological System Institutional System

49

The results show that the ecological and social systems are seen as the most important onesto enable sustainable development. The other three systems (physical, economic andinstitutional system) are seen as less important; however they do have a significant effect. Inparticular the importance of the physical and institutional system varies significantlybetween the case-studies.Due to the limited number of interviewees, these results cannot be evaluated as the generalstakeholder specific model, but these results showed that the application of PM holds itsvalidity for such an evaluation. The next steps to be taken in WP5 will definitely provide anadditional insight about sustainability and sustainable development. Thus, we will continueour research with the extensive survey questionnaires. The future steps to be taken in WP5are given in the following part of the report.

50

51

5 Future StepsIn this deliverable (D19) we showed the development and results of the stakeholder-basedPM models that reveal the most important factors for the success and failure of sustainabledevelopment (policies) for each case-study. As proposed in the description of work, we usedin-depth interviews to validate the basic PM model and to make it more case-study specific.However, the number of interviews conducted in each country is too small to developstakeholder-specific models and to use evaluation techniques such as multi-criteria analysis.Therefore, we will use the insights and the improved case-study specific PM models toconduct a short questionnaire that mainly focuses on the ranking of the (sub)factors to arelatively large number of stakeholders (around 30-50) in each case-study. This way, PMmodels that are specific for different interest groups can be developed. This is important forthe policy recommendations to be drawn in deliverable 24 (D24).In order to take into account all relevant stakeholders, we included in the interviews aquestion about who the relevant stakeholders are. Appendix B shows the list of mentionedstakeholders. This list will be used when sending out the questionnaires.

Figure 15: The steps of WP5 (repeated Figure 6)

Apart from focussing on sustainable development, we also intend to look at the applicabilityof the toolkit for various potential users. For this evaluation, the first step (a questionnaireto the partners) has already been taken. When we have more results from the toolkit thatcan be shown to interested stakeholders, this will be used for interviews as well. The resultsfrom all this will also be described in D24.

Draft case-study specific PentagonsDraft basic Pentagon

Step 2: Consulting Experts3. 5-10 interviews per case-study

with stakeholders and experts;4. Qualitative assessment.

Step 1: Initial State4. Pentagon Concept;5. Information from WP2-4;6. Project-member questionnaire.

(Future) Step 3: Questionnaire3. 30-50 questionnaires per case-

study consisting of closedquestions;

4. Quantitative assessment.

Stakeholder-based (case-studyspecific) Pentagons

Final basic Pentagon

Final stakeholder specificPentagons

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

52

53

ReferencesBaycan-Levent, T., Bruinsma, F. and Nijkamp, P. 2007. Urban spiders: a comparative

framework for evaluation and scenario analysis, In Sustainable Urban Development:The environmental assessment methods, M. Deakin, S.R. Curwell, G. Mitchell, P.Nijkamp, M. Symes, R. Vreeker (eds). Taylor & Francis, London. pp. 236-263.

Button, K. 1998. The good, the bad and the forgettable — or lessons the US can learn fromEuropean transport policy. Journal of Transport Geography, 6(1), 285-294.

Capello, R., Nijkamp, P. and Pepping, G. 1999. Sustainable Cities and Energy Policies. VerlagBerlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 43-47.

Daly, H. 1996. Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development. Boston, MA:Beacon Press. pp. 7.

European Commission (EC), 2005. Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe:sustainable development indicators for the European Union. Luxembourg: EU.

Gülümser, A.A. 2009. Rural Areas as Promising Hot Spots: Sustainable Rural DevelopmentScenarios. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Istanbul Technical University.

Harvey, D. 1969. Explanation in Geography. Arnold, London.Hwang, A. 2000. Toward fostering systems learning in organizational contexts, Syst. Pract.

Action Res. 13 (3), 329–343.Nijkamp, P. 1983. Qualitative Spatial Impact analysis. In: M. Chatterji, P. Nijkamp, T.R.

Lakshmanan and C.R. Pathak. Spatial, Environmental and Resource Policy in theDeveloping Countries. Gower, Aldershot.

Nijkamp, P. 2008. XXQ factors for sustainable urban development: a system economics view,Romanian Journal of Regional Science, 2 (1), 1-34.

Nijkamp, P. and Pepping, G. 1998. A Meta-analytical Evaluation of Sustainable CityInitiatives. Urban Studies, 35 (9), 1481-1500.

Nijkamp, P. and Yim, H.Y. 2001. Critical Success Factors for Offshore Airports: A ComparativeEvaluation. Journal of Air Transport Management, 7, 181-188

Nijkamp, P., Vleugel, J., Maggi, R. and Masser, I. 1994. Missing Transport Networks in Europe.Aldershot: Avebury.

Rienstra, S.A. 1998. Options and barriers for sustainable transport policies, PhD Thesis, VrijeUniversiteit, Amsterdam.

Sachs, I., 1997. L'écodéveloppement/Stratégies pour le XXIe siecle, Paris: Syros.United Nations (UN), 1996. Indicators of sustainable development: framework and

methodologies. New York: UN.World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987. Our Common Future.

Oxford: Oxford University.

54

55

Appendices

Appendix A: Interviews

A.1. Finnish case-study interview

SMILE interview FinlandDate:Interviewee:Interviewer:

We are very pleased with your cooperation for this interview. The interview will take around45 minutes.During these 45 minutes we would like to ask your opinion about several things all related tosustainable development in general and in relation to the forest sector in Finland.The aim of the interview is for us to get a better insight into the most important drivingforces of sustainable development in general and more specifically of sustainabledevelopment of the Finish forest sector. Furthermore, we are interested in who the mostimportant stakeholders are. Therefore, we will use your opinion, as well as the opinion ofseveral other experts.This interview is held as part of the European Union research project SMILE. The SMILEproject analyses the trade-offs and synergies that exist between the different objectivesrelated to sustainable development by utilizing the different indicators developed within theEuropean Union. The assessment takes place (i) between economic and environmentalaspects, (ii) between economic and social aspects, (iii) between social and environmentalaspects, and (iv) between all three objectives. The assessment takes place through severalcase studies. The project consortium consists of non-profit research organizations with astrong orientation towards environmental issues and/or sustainability evaluation.As mentioned above, the focus of this interview will be on sustainable development ingeneral and a sustainable development of the Finish forest sector more specifically.Sustainability can be defined as the development that meets the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In addition,we think about the development with which the continuity of settlements and environmentsis maintained while increasing the well-being of inhabitants and offering desirable milieu foreconomic activities. Related to this case-study, we think about a sustainable development ofthe Finish forest sector that is profitable from an economic perspective as well as from anecological perspective.

Personal questionsP1) Can you tell me your professional background?

P2) In which ways are you involved in the Finish Forest sector?

General Sustainability QuestionsG1) When you think about sustainable development what are the first aspects that come toyour mind?

G2) How important, do you think, are the economic, ecological and social subsystemsrespectively in reaching a sustainable development?

G3) How do those three systems in general affect sustainable development and each other?

56

G4) When thinking about the most important factors that can positively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: goodorganisational structure or technical development)

G5) When thinking about the most important factors that can negatively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: lack ofcommunication between different stakeholders, low economic development).

Case-study QuestionsC1) When thinking about a sustainable development of the Finish forest sector in which botheconomical and ecological quality is sustained, how important do you think are theeconomic, ecological and social subsystems and in which way?

C2) Do you think the Finish Forest sector is becoming more or less sustainable? Why do youthink this?

C3) When thinking about the most important factors that can positively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: newtechnologies in cutting trees)

C4) When thinking about the most important factors that can negatively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: low woodprice)

Pentagon model >>Handover the sheet with the Pentagon factors to the interviewee.P1) During the SMILE project, we defined 5 important factors that have a positive ornegative effect on the sustainable development of the Finish forest sector. Those are:physical system, the social system, the economic system, the ecological system and theinstitutional system. Each factor consists of a set of relevant subsectors. For each (sub)factor you should ask yourself: is this an important factor that can positively or negativelyaffect a sustainable development of the Finish forest sector?Could you please:

1) Indicate if the sub-factors have a negative, positive or dual effect on the sustainabledevelopment of the Finish forest sector;

2) indicate the importance of each subfactor on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being veryimportant

3) indicate the 2 most important subfactors per factor.

Positive ornegative

Importancescale 1-5

2 mostimportant

Physical system:Built-Environment: This is related to the basic quality of man-

made environment through which the well-being and livingstandards of people can be obtained;

Infrastructure: This indicator refers to the quality technicalinfrastructure like roads, water, electricity etc., as well asinternet and telecommunication;

o o

Technology and innovation: This means the technological andinnovative advances and development in the Finish forestsector.

o o

Accessibility: This refers to the availability of different modes oftransportation and the easiness to reach important locations;

o o

57

Social system:Social capital: This indicator deals with the basic quality of the

social system, such as the level of education and skills inregions that are mainly involved in the forest sector.

o o

Awareness: This sub-factor refers to the awareness andunderstanding of society about sustainability, the forestsector and other opportunities related to the topic.

o o

Openness: This is the level of tolerance of stakeholders tonovelties and new developments in the forest sector.

o o

Participation: This is the level of involvement of stakeholders inthe decision-making processes.

o o

Economic System:Economic diversity: This concerns the economic activities in

Finland. How dependent are the Finish rural areas on theforest sector?

o o

Uncertainty: This factor refers to the unexpected economicshifts, i.e. economic crisis or fluctuations in the price/costs ofwood;

o o

Property rights: are the property rights of firms in the forestsector well organised? Are there mainly big, governmentalfirms, international firms, small local firms or somethingelse?

o o

Ecological System:Ecological environment: This factor refers to the (ecological)

quality of the forests in Finland in terms of vulnerability andbiodiversity. How vulnerable are they to activities in thewood sector?

o o

Environmental impact: The impact of the forest sector on theforests in Finland

o o

Institutional system:Governance structure: the effectiveness of the structure of the

Finish government;o o

Integration: the degree of connections and interaction betweenrelevant policies.

o o

Continuity: This refers to the continuity of policies, policymeasures and governments;

o o

Sustainability inclusion: The attention for and relativeimportance of sustainability in the policies important to theforest sector.

o o

Opportunities: This refers to the opportunities provided to thestakeholders by means of policies, subsidies etc.

o o

P2) Do you miss any factors or sub-factors? Which?

StakeholdersS1) Who do you think are important stakeholders?

ToolkitWithin the SMILE project we are developing a toolkit that exists of several models andprograms that allows you to use your own data and to do analyses using sustainabilityindicators to see changes over time and to try to understand what causes what.T1) Are you familiar with the Microsoft program Excel?

If yes, how often do you use it on a monthly base?

T2) Do you use any other calculation or analytical programs?

T3) Would you like to use an application if someone would teach you how to use it?

58

T4) what kind of questions should the application be able to answer?

59

A.2. Italian case-study interview

SMILE interview ItalyDate:Interviewee:Interviewer:

We are very pleased with your cooperation for this interview. The interview will take around45 minutes.During these 45 minutes we would like to ask your opinion about several things all related tosustainable development in general and in relation to the forest sector in Finland.The aim of the interview is for us to get a better insight into the most important drivingforces of sustainable development in general and more specifically of sustainabledevelopment of the agricultural sector in Italy in general and Campania more specifically.Furthermore, we are interested in who the most important stakeholders are. Therefore, wewill use your opinion, as well as the opinion of several other experts.This interview is held as part of the European Union research project SMILE. The SMILEproject analyses the trade-offs and synergies that exist between the different objectivesrelated to sustainable development by utilizing the different indicators developed within theEuropean Union. The assessment takes place (i) between economic and environmentalaspects, (ii) between economic and social aspects, (iii) between social and environmentalaspects, and (iv) between all three objectives. The assessment takes place through severalcase studies. The project consortium consists of non-profit research organizations with astrong orientation towards environmental issues and/or sustainability evaluation.As mentioned above, the focus of this interview will be on sustainable development ingeneral and a sustainable development of the Italian and Campania agricultural sector morespecifically. Sustainability can be defined as the development that meets the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Inaddition, we think about the development with which the continuity of settlements andenvironments is maintained while increasing the well-being of inhabitants and offeringdesirable milieu for economic activities. Related to this case-study, we think about asustainable development of the agricultural sector that is profitable from an economicperspective as well as from an ecological perspective.

Personal questionsP1) Can you tell me your professional background?

P2) In which ways are you involved in the Italian agricultural sector?

General Sustainability QuestionsG1) When you think about sustainable development what are the first aspects that come toyour mind?

G2) How important, do you think, are the economic, ecological and social subsystemsrespectively in reaching a sustainable development?

G3) How do those three systems in general affect sustainable development and each other?

G4) When thinking about the most important factors that can positively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: goodorganisational structure or technical development)

60

G5) When thinking about the most important factors that can negatively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: lack ofcommunication between different stakeholders, low economic development).

Case-study QuestionsC1) When thinking about a sustainable development of the Italian agricultural sector inwhich both economical and ecological quality is sustained, how important do you think arethe economic, ecological and social subsystems and in which way?

C2) Do you think the Italian agricultural sector is becoming more or less sustainable? Why doyou think this?

C3) When thinking about the most important factors that can positively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: newtechnologies in harvesting)

C4) When thinking about the most important factors that can negatively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: low educationlevel of farmers)

Pentagon model >>Handover the sheet with the Pentagon factors to the interviewee.P1) During the SMILE project, we defined 5 important factors that have a positive ornegative effect on the sustainable development of the Finish forest sector. Those are:physical system, the social system, the economic system, the ecological system and theinstitutional system. Each factor consists of a set of relevant subsectors. For each (sub)factor you should ask yourself: is this an important factor that can positively or negativelyaffect a sustainable development of the Finish forest sector?Could you please:Indicate if the sub-factors have a negative, positive or dual effect on the sustainabledevelopment of the Italian agricultural sector;indicate the importance of each sub-factor on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being very importantindicate the 2 most important sub-factors per factor.

Positive ornegative

Importancescale 1-5

2 mostimportant

Physical system:Built-Environment: the quality of man-made environment necessaryto the agricultural sector, such as the availability of storage or coolingfacilitiesTechnology: the technological and infrastructural advances anddevelopment in the agricultural sectorInfrastructure: the technical infrastructure like roads, water,electricity etc., as well as telecommunication and internetinfrastructure that can be used in the agricultural sectorAccessibility: the different modes of transportation important to theagricultural sector and the easiness to reach more remote areasSocial system:Social capital: the basic quality of the social system, such as theeducation level of the farmers, the number of successors and thedistribution of young and elderly farmers.

Openness: the level of tolerance of farmers to novelty and newsuggestions related to sustainable development in the agricultural

61

sector;Participation: the level of the involvement of farmers in the decision-making processes.Awareness: the awareness and understanding of the farmers aboutsustainability.Economic System:Economic diversity: the dependence of the region on agriculturaleconomic activities, and the presence of other sectors.Uncertainty: uncertainty about profits and prices in the relevantagricultural marketsProperty rights: proprietorship of farms and agriculturalcooperation’s;Ecologic System:Ecological environment: the ecological quality of the area of the case-study consisting of both agricultural lands and other natural areas.Environmental impact: the environmental impact of the agriculturalsector on the area.Institutional system:Governance structures: the basic level of efficiency of policymakingand decision-making processes between different governance levelsin relation to agricultural sustainability;Integration: the degree of connections (seamlessness) betweendifferent policies and governance levels in relation to developmentsin the agricultural sector;Continuity: continuity of policies, policy measures and governmentsin the region in general, as well as more related to the agriculturalsector.;Sustainability inclusion: the level of inclusion of sustainability and its

different aspects in the Italian agricultural policies (the relativeimportance of the subject).Opportunities: the opportunities provided to the stakeholders bymeans Italian policies.

P2) Do you miss any factors or sub-factors affecting sustainable development? Whichone(s)?

StakeholdersS1) Who do you think are important stakeholders in the development of the Italianagricultural sector (name at least 5)?

S2) What is your role in sustainable development as a stakeholder?

S3) Who do you think should be definitely involved in sustainable development and is nowmissing?

Toolkit >>only address these questions if relevant to the intervieweeWithin the SMILE project we are developing a toolkit that exists of several models andprograms that can allow you to use your own data and to do analyses using sustainabilityindicators to see changes over time and to try to understand what causes what.

T1) Are you familiar with the Microsoft program Excel?If yes, how often do you use it on a monthly base?

T2) Do you use any other calculation or analytical programs?

T3) Would you like to use an application if someone would teach you how to use it?

62

T4) What kind of questions should the application be able to answer?

T5) What kind of applications must the toolkit have? (For example, drawing figures, tablesautomatically).

63

A.3. Romanian case-study interview

SMILE interview RomaniaDate:Interviewee:Interviewer:

We are very pleased with your cooperation for this interview. The interview will take around45 minutes.During these 45 minutes we would like to ask your opinion about several things all related tosustainable development in general and in relation to the mining and energy sector inRomania.The aim of the interview is for us to get a better insight into the most important drivingforces of sustainable development in general and more specifically of sustainabledevelopment of the Romanian mining and energy sector. Furthermore, we are interested inwho the most important stakeholders are. Therefore, we will use your opinion, as well as theopinion of several other experts.This interview is held as part of the European Union research project SMILE. The SMILEproject analyses the trade-offs and synergies that exist between the different objectivesrelated to sustainable development by utilizing the different indicators developed within theEuropean Union. The assessment takes place (i) between economic and environmentalaspects, (ii) between economic and social aspects, (iii) between social and environmentalaspects, and (iv) between all three objectives. The assessment takes place through severalcase studies. The project consortium consists of non-profit research organizations with astrong orientation towards environmental issues and/or sustainability evaluation.As mentioned above, the focus of this interview will be on sustainable development ingeneral and a sustainable development of the Romanian mining and energy sector morespecifically. Sustainability can be defined as the development that meets the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Inaddition, we think about the development with which the continuity of settlements andenvironments is maintained while increasing the well-being of inhabitants and offeringdesirable milieu for economic activities. Related to this case-study, we think about asustainable development of the Romanian mining and energy sector that is profitable froman economic perspective as well as from an ecological perspective.

Personal questionsP1) Can you tell me your professional background?

P2) In which ways are you involved in the Romanian mining and energy sector?

General Sustainability QuestionsG1) When you think about sustainable development what are the first aspects that come toyour mind?

G2) How important, do you think, are the economic, ecological and social subsystemsrespectively in reaching a sustainable development?

G3) How do those three systems in general affect sustainable development and each other?

64

G4) When thinking about the most important factors that can positively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: goodorganisational structure or technical development)

G5) When thinking about the most important factors that can negatively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: lack ofcommunication between different stakeholders, low economic development).

Case-study QuestionsC1) When thinking about a sustainable development of the Romanian mining and energysector in which both economical and ecological quality is sustained, how important do youthink are the economic, ecological and social subsystems and in which way?

C2) Do you think the Romanian mining and energy sector is becoming more or lesssustainable? Why do you think this?

C3) When thinking about the most important factors that can positively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: newtechnologies in mining and energy)

C4) When thinking about the most important factors that can negatively affect sustainabledevelopment, which ones come to your mind? (if they need an example use: pollution)

Pentagon model >>Handover the sheet with the Pentagon factors to the interviewee.P1) During the SMILE project, we defined 5 important factors that have a positive ornegative effect on the sustainable development of the Romanian mining and energy sector.Those are: physical system, the social system, the economic system, the ecological systemand the institutional system. Each factor consists of a set of relevant subsectors. For each(sub) factor you should ask yourself: is this an important factor that can positively ornegatively affect a sustainable development of the Romanian mining and energy sector?Could you please:

Indicate if the sub-factors have a negative, positive or dual effect on the sustainabledevelopment of the Romanian mining and energy sector;indicate the importance of each sub-factor on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being veryimportantindicate the 2 most important sub-factors per factor.

Positive ornegative

Importancescale 1-5

2 mostimportant

Physical system:Built-Environment: This is related to the basic quality of man-madeenvironment through which the well-being and living standards ofpeople can be obtained;Infrastructure: This indicator refers to the quality technicalinfrastructure like roads, water, electricity etc., as well as internetand telecommunication;Technology and innovation: This means the technological andinnovative advances and development in the Romanian mining andenergy sector.Accessibility: This refers to the availability of different modes oftransportation and the easiness to reach important locations;Social system:

65

Social capital: This indicator deals with the basic quality of the socialsystem, such as the level of education and skills in regions that aremainly involved in the mining and energy sector.

Awareness: This sub-factor refers to the awareness andunderstanding of society about sustainability, the mining and energysector and other opportunities related to the topic.Openness: This is the level of tolerance of stakeholders to noveltiesand new developments in the mining and energy sector.Participation: This is the level of involvement of stakeholders in thedecision-making processes.Economic System:Economic diversity: This concerns the economic activities inRomania. How dependent are the Romanian rural areas on themining and energy sector?Uncertainty: This factor refers to the unexpected economic shifts,i.e. economic crisis or fluctuations in the price/costs of energy;Property rights: this factor relates to ownership in the mining andenergy sector. Are there mainly big, governmental firms,international firms, small local firms or something else?Ecological System:Ecological environment: This factor refers to the (ecological) qualityof the regions in which mining and energy production takes placeand their vulnerability towards activities of that sector.Environmental impact: The impact of the mining and energy sectoron the environment in RomaniaInstitutional system:Governance structure: the effectiveness of the structure of theRomanian government;Integration: the degree of connections and interaction betweenrelevant policies.Continuity: This refers to the continuity of policies, policy measuresand governments;Sustainability inclusion: The attention for and relative importance of

sustainability in the policies important to the mining and energysector.Opportunities: This refers to the opportunities provided to thestakeholders by means of policies, subsidies etc.

P2) Do you miss any factors or subfactors affecting sustainable development? Which one(s)?

StakeholdersS1) Who do you think are important stakeholders in the development of the Romanianmining and energy sector?

S2) What is your role in sustainable development as a stakeholder?

S3) Who do you think should be definitely involved in sustainable development and is nowmissing?

Toolkit >>only address these questions if relevant to the intervieweeWithin the SMILE project we are developing a toolkit that exists of several models andprograms that can allow you to use your own data and to do analyses using sustainabilityindicators to see changes over time and to try to understand what causes what.T1) Are you familiar with the Microsoft program Excel?

T2) Do you use any other calculation or analytical programs?

66

T3) Would you like to use an application if someone would teach you how to use it?

T4) What kind of questions should the application be able to answer?

T5) What kind of applications must the toolkit have? (For example, drawing figures, tablesautomatically).

67

A.4. Scottish case-study interview

Cairngorms National Park Interviews

Questions for Interviews with key participants,

Interviewee: Date:Interviewer: Time:Type of recording:

(1) Make interviewee aware that the session is being recorded and get their verbal consentWhilst recording, say something like ‘this interview is part of our data collection process for theassessment of Park Plan project and the EU FP7 SMILE project and we just need to check that youagree to us using the data for our analysis. We will be bound by …’ – then read out item (2) below;ensure their affirmation is recorded.

X consent recorded

(2) Remind interviewee thatX data will be confidential;X analysis will not attribute statements to individualsX they are free to speak ‘off the record’;X they can end the interview at any time.

(3) Give interviewee the handout with all the questions and briefly outline the structure of theinterview. Check on their time allocation so we can prioritise questions if they have to leave.

Please tell me your position within your organisation.

Please tell me about other aspects of your identity that might influence how you view theNational Park (e.g. also a farmer, land-owner, entrepreneur, mother, volunteer etc).

Briefly, what do you understand as sustainable development?

Thinking about Scotland over the period from 2000 to 2007, do you think we are gettingmore or less sustainable? Why do you think this?

And now thinking about the CNP are from 2000 to 2007, do you think we are becoming moreor less sustainable?

How have you been involved in the process of delivering the CNPP?

We have drawn up a list of stakeholders who have, or should be, involved in delivering theCNPP – are any missing? Or would you remove any? [show card with our list of stakeholderson it]

Please tell me what you know about the implementation of the Park Plan that was approvedby the Minister in 2007.

How satisfied are you with the implementation process to date, using a scale of 1 – 5 (with 1being very unsatisfied and 5 being very satisfied)?

Is there anything you would have changed regarding the process of implementation?

68

Please describe what you understand will happen next? Do you anticipate any problems? Ifso, what?

And do you think that the objectives of the CNPP are being achieved? Which ones?

Okay, so to summarise your views, you think the CNPP is … [achieving X/not achieving Y/and/or too hard to know yet etc] [cross check that this relates to their answer on thesustainability trends for CNP area; and explore differences]

Now we want to explore what are the factors that might help us understand why theobjectives of the CNPP are or aren’t being achieved. We call these the success and failurefactors. In your experience, what things might help us understand why the aims of the CNPPare/aren’t being achieved?

We have been thinking about this, and we asked an ‘external’ expert from the Netherlands tosuggest what they thought could be the success and failure factors for the CNPP. This is whatthey developed [show them the pentagon model and explain what the terms mean].

What do you think about this? [Discuss how it differs from what they said, if it does]

Is anything missing from this model? Or has it included something that you hadn’t thoughtabout?

Okay, so to summarise, we should alter the diagram to include/exclude these aspects [insertfrom discussion above] in order to explain why the CNPP is delivering sustainability or not?

What message would you like to send to the CNPA about what could be done to improve thedelivery of the CNPP?

How long have you lived in the Park area? Where did you live before?

How long have you worked in the Park area? Where did you work before?Gender:

Age to nearest decade:

Thank you very much for your time.We will share the information on your views about success/failure factors with our Dutchcolleagues; who are comparing success and failure factors for sustainability across differentcase studies and different stakeholder groups. Later this year, the Dutch will be sending out ashort questionnaire based on the results of these interviews to a wider set of stakeholders sothey can run some statistical analysis on the data. We’ll send you the comparative findingsfrom the interviews and questionnaires later in the year (around October 2010).

We will share your view on the performance of the CNPP with the CNPA to help them withthe process of getting the next cycle right. We will keep your answers anonymous though.We’ll send you the overall findings from the longitudinal study on the CNPP (started in 2006)in December 2010.

Note total time of interview (mins):Note your observations: e.g. which question interviewee had problems with and why; didthey feel relaxed or tense; was there any time pressure or interruptions…

69

A.5. Spanish case-study interview

SMILE interview Catalan Case Study (for the Applicability of the Toolkit)Background and Work PlanSince the Catalonia Case Study was not set out for obtaining an overall sustainability policybut rather aiming at the applicability and the relevance of the results of the Toolkit, thescope of the questions that will be asked will be twofold:(PART I) Looking into whether the outcome of the Toolkit (with the application andoutcomes of the three methodologies (ASA, SUMMA and MuSIASEM)) reveal useful andinteresting results for stakeholders and social actors that might seek to use such resultswithin the area of policy making. Within the scope of our case study, these sets of questionswill investigate how relevant it is for the social actors to make use of such data that examinehow energy is used in the different economic sectors and in the Catalan economy as awhole, on the basis of economic, demographic and energy data. Furthermore, thestakeholders, policymakers and the social actors that will be questioned can thereafterinterpret the usefulness and the applicability of our specific results in the arena for policymaking and suggest further improvements on what can be done and analyzed for futurepolicy implications;(PART II) Investigating the applicability, drawbacks and advantages of using such toolkits andmodels within the domain of integrated assessment and sustainability analysis. For ourspecific case, questions will be asked to seek the usefulness/availability of data in the Energyfield of Catalonia, the difficulties encountered in interfacing data for developing integratedmodels and examine the most effective ways in communicating the results to the relevantstakeholders. The results of these questions can set guidance for future areas of applicationof the toolkit in different areas and to investigate the most effective strategies incommunicating such results from a scientific/academic realm to the policy realm.

Thus, with a double objective for the science-policy interface aspect; the stakeholders thatwill be interviews will also be twofold:(i) Corresponding to the initial objective (PART I), stakeholders currently in the policy domainof energy analyses in Catalonia will be interviewed(ii) Corresponding to the second objective (PART II), stakeholders involved in thetechnical/scientific/academic field of using/generating models on energy analysis will beinterviewed.

Part I – Interview FormatDate:Interviewee:Interviewer:We are very pleased with your cooperation for this interview. The interview will take around45 minutes.During these 45 minutes we would like to ask your opinion about several things all related toEnergy Policy Field, and whether the outcomes associated with the work carried out underthe European Union research project SMILE. Furthermore, we are interested in who themost important stakeholders are. Therefore, we will use your opinion, as well as the opinionof several other experts.This interview is held as part of the project SMILE. The SMILE project analyses the trade-offsand synergies that exist between the different objectives related to sustainabledevelopment by utilizing the different indicators developed within the European Union. Theassessment takes place (i) between economic and environmental aspects, (ii) betweeneconomic and social aspects, (iii) between social and environmental aspects, and (iv)

70

between all three objectives. The assessment takes place through several case studies. Theproject consortium consists of non-profit research organizations with a strong orientationtowards environmental issues and/or sustainability evaluation.The focus of this interview will be on energy policy field in Catalonia, and the application of atoolkit used on the SMILE project (MuSIASEM). Focused on the case of Catalonia, thesequestions aim to reveal how relevant the SMILE work is for social actors who wishinformation concerning how energy is used in the different economic sectors and in theCatalan economy as a whole, based on distinctions according to economic, demographic andenergy data. For us, this interview aims to gather information about your view of theusefulness and applicability of the SMILE results for policy making and at the end, we inviteyou to suggest further improvements on what can be done and analyzed in future.During this interview, we will ask you some questions about your opinions on the generaltopic of the SMILE research and then a series of specific questions about the actual results ofthe Catalonia SMILE case study (we’ll provide you some examples), then we will follow withyour opinion about some pre-described success and failure factors, after which we areinterested in other stakeholders. But first we want to know some personal details.

A. Background information1. Age, sex, education, profession, current position2. How long have you been working at your current position?3. How have you been involved with the Energy Policy Field? (in some sense: What is yourcontribution to the Energy Policy Field?)

B. Brief description of Energy Policy Making arena4) Who are the most relevant actors involved in the Energy Policy Making arena inCatalonia? (Which institutions?)5) How would relate your role within the network of actors (previously stated)? (i.e. Havingstronger ties with the scientific domain, closely related to the political arena, etc.)6. What is your opinion about the linkage between academy and administration in theEnergy Policy field in Catalonia? (Are they relevant to the current energy debate?)

C. Interpreting results and relevance of Toolkit7. In your opinion, how important are economic, ecological and social subsystems indetermining the future of energy policies in Catalonia?8. How would you evaluate the interaction among these three systems (economic, ecologicaland social) in the energy field specifically?9. How would you evaluate the targets of the Energy Plan for Catalonia?10. Do you think that there are comprehensive analyses of the Energy Use (within therelevant Economic Sectors of Catalonia) in line with Catalonian Energy Plan? If Yes, pleasestate.11. Have you heard of the term “integrated analysis”? If so, please explain yourunderstanding of the term.If no – then a brief definition should be providedFor our purposes here integrated analysis can be understood as: (integrating analysis ofsocial, economic and environmental dimensions of development across multiple scales anddimensions of analysis, in collaboration with multi-stakeholders)12. Do you think conducting integrated analyses is important? IF so, how and why?

D. Questions to be asked with respect to the Results of the Catalan Case Study(Here I present them some results before asking these questions)

71

13. Do you think that integrated analyses results like the one’s I have just shown you areuseful in tracking changes of Energy Consumption over time for Catalonia?14. Do you think that there is a close link between economic growth and energyconsumption?15. How do you think the overall Energy Consumption of Catalonia behaves with respect toOther European Countries?16. How would you evaluate the sectoral performance of Catalonia in terms of EnergyConsumption and Labour Productivity?17. Do you think conducting a multi scale analysis helps to distinguish between the sectorsof the economy that demand more energy consumption?If yes, does this, in your opinion, help to smooth the process for policy interpretations?18. Do you think that results like those generated in the SMILE case study assist in makingfuture policy scenarios for energy use in Cataloina?19. Do you have other suggestions / recommendations on the topic of the SMILE results?

Part II – Interview FormatDate:Interviewee:Interviewer:We are very pleased with your cooperation for this interview. The interview will take around45 minutes.During these 45 minutes we would like to ask your opinion about several things all relatedthe applicability, drawbacks and advantages of using toolkits and models like thosedeveloped in the SMILE project within the domain of integrated assessment andsustainability analysis. The SMILE project analyses the trade-offs and synergies that existbetween the different objectives related to sustainable development by utilizing thedifferent indicators developed within the European Union. The assessment takes place (i)between economic and environmental aspects, (ii) between economic and social aspects,(iii) between social and environmental aspects, and (iv) between all three objectives. Theassessment takes place through several case studies. The project consortium consists of non-profit research organizations with a strong orientation towards environmental issues and/orsustainability evaluation.The SMILE research involved the application of a toolkit of the three methodologies (ASA,SUMMA and MuSIASEM), and the aim of this interview is to get your impression of theusefulness/availability of data in the Energy field of Catalonia, the difficulties encountered ininterfacing data for developing integrated models and to examine the most effective ways ofcommunicating the results of research like SMILE to the relevant stakeholders. The interviewalso aims to set guidance for future areas of application of the toolkit in different areas andto investigate the most effective strategies in communicating such results from ascientific/academic realm to the policy realm.During this interview, we will ask you some questions about your opinions on the generaltopic of the SMILE research and then a series of specific questions about the work ofcommunicating the results of the Catalunya SMILE case study to stakeholders, then we willfollow with your opinion about some pre-described success and failure factors. But first wewant to know some personal details.

A. Background information1. Age, sex, education, profession, current position2. How long have you been working at your current position?3. How have you been involved with the Energy Policy Field? (in some sense: What is yourcontribution to the Energy Policy Field? What types of analyses are you developed?)

72

B. Brief description of Energy Policy Making arena (Actors and Science Policy Interface)4. Who do you think are the most relevant actors involved in the Energy Field in Catalonia?(Which institutions?)5. How would relate your role within the network of actors (previously stated)?6. How do you evaluate the actions of the Science-Policy Interface in the Energy Domain,especially in Catalonia? Do ready exist this Science-Policy Interface ?7. In your opinion, what are the major tasks that await the Scientific Domain tocommunicate results to the Policy making Arena?

C. Interpreting results and relevance of Toolkit8. In your opinion, how important are the economic, ecological and social subsystems (andtheir interaction) in determining the future of energy policies in Catalonia?9. Have you heard of the term “integrated analysis”? If so, please explain your understandingof the term

Again – I would put a definition here..as above (integrating social, economic andenvironmental dimensions of development across multiple scales and dimensions of analysiswith the incorporation of multi-stakeholders)

10. Do you think conducting integrated analyses is important? IF so, how and why?11. Do you conduct integrated analysis in your work? If so, how?12. What are the major challenges that you face when dealing with integratedanalysis/models?13. How do you regard the data availability for conducting energy analyses for Catalonia?14. What are your thoughts on the current way of accounting of energy analyses?15. Do you think that such results assist in making future policy scenarios for energy use inCataloina?16. Any other challenges that you would like to share in the scientific domain of workingwith integrated tools?(If necessary, I make some comments relating communicating results to stakeholders)Do you have other suggestions / recommendations on the points raised so far?

73

Appendix B: Stakeholders mentioned during the interviews per case-study

B.1. Finish Forestry sector

• Forest companies (MTK)• Forest owners,• Entrepreneurs (also in other sectors that have a connection with the forest sector)• Tourism sector• Policy makers (both administration and political side, ministry of agriculture and

forestry and ministry of environment)• Unions• Researchers• Local citizens• Tourists/visitors• Nature organizations

B.2. Italian agricultural sector

• Farmers• Consumers• Agricultural Associations• Local Authorities• Public institutions• Research Institutes• Producers that use the agricultural products as inputs• Environmental NGOs• Political organizations• Community institutions (e.g. Mipaf)

B.3. Romanian Energy sector

• The Ministry of Economy• the Ministry of Public Administration• The Ministry of Environment• The National Agency for Energy Regulation (ANRE)• The National Commission of Nuclear Activity Research (CNCAN)• The Nuclear Power Agency• Energy companies• Consumers• Trade unions• Educational institutions

B.4. Scottish Cairngorms national park

• Marr Area Partnership• Highland Housing Alliance• Housing Trusts and Associations

74

• Estates (Alvie, Rothiemurcus, Glenmore Lodge)• Schools• Cairngorms Hostels• Glenlivet & Cairngorms DMO• Dee Salmon Fisheries Board• Community councils• 5 local authorities (Aberdeenshire; Angus, Highland, Moray, Perth & Kinross)• Communities Scotland, Highlands & Islands Enterprise• Scottish Enterprise; Forestry Commission Scotland• Scottish Natural Heritage;• Scottish Water• Scottish Environment Protection Agency;• Deer Commission• VisitScotland• Historic Scotland and University of Highlands & Islands.• Association of Cairngorms Community councils• Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce• National Farmers Union of Scotland• Scottish Rural Property and Business Association• Local interest groups• Visitors and tourists (including 2nd home owners and retirees)• Environment LINK (umbrella of environmental and social justice charities)• Social justice charities for inclusion and Fishery Boards (SRPBA)• Researchers

B.5. Spanish/ Catalonian Energy sector

• Catalan Institute of Energy, ICAEN• Department of Economics and Finance• Department of Territorial Policy• Landscape Management department• European Commission• Energy sector (including nuclear energy sector)• Social movements (nature/landscape organisations)• Most important (largest) consumers• Domestic sector