Framework for reporting STATUS workshop 1

This document is Open Content – You may copy, distribute and

display the work only if credit to the authors is given (attribution)

Survey on Territorial Governance and Urban Problems FRAMEWORK FOR REPORTING

Prepared by:

Partner full name http://partner website

Reviewed by:

STATUS Content Management URBASOFIA www.urbasofia.eu

Urban Planning Institute

of the Republic of

Slovenia

Copyright open content

PARTNER

LOGO

http://partner/

http://www.urbasofia.eu/

Workpackage 4 – Urban Programming

Activity 4.1 Workshops: interested parties active in urban sectors

D4.2 20 surveys on territorial governance (2*10)

Survey on Territorial Governance and Urban Problems in PPX PARTNER

2/11

Project number: SEE/D/0297/4.1/X

Project acronym: STATUS

Project title: Strategic Territorial Agendas for "Small and Middle-Sized Towns" Urban

Systems

Instrument: INTERREG IV B SEE

Call identifier: South East Europe Call D

Authorship

Barbara Music (UIRS), Bostjan Cotic (UIRS)

Pietro Elisei (URBASOFIA), Sabina Dimitriu (URBASOFIA)

Linda Dörrzapf (CEIT

Output 3.2 Operational analysis on territorial partners Identifying major urban issues at urban/territorial partner scale ANNEX 02 Municipality of Alba Iulia (RO)

3

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 4

1 Expectations and objectives of the workshop ........................................................................ 5

2 Workshop Organisation; Organizers and Panellists ................................................................ 6

3 Assessment of the meeting’s success ..................................................................................... 7

4 Overall conclusions of the workshop ................................................................................... 10

5 Final considerations and key lessons learned ....................................................................... 10

6 Follow-up and next steps .................................................................................................... 10

7 Annexes .............................................................................................................................. 11


4

Table of Figures

Tables

Table 1 - Dates, location and attendance of the workshop .................................................................... 6

Table 2 - Organizers and participating experts in the PARTNER 1st Workshop ...................................... 6

Pictures

Figure 1 - The Working Groups of the workshop ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.


5

1 Expectations and objectives of the workshop

Please describe in max. 1 page:

the expectations you had before the workshop with respect to the stakeholder group

and the content produced in the local event

the objectives/aims of the workshop on local governance and urban problems


6

2 Workshop Organisation; Organizers and Panellists

2.1 Overview of the 1st Workshop organisation

The 1st local workshop has been held in PARTNER LOCATION, spanning X days between

xx – xx.xx.2013:

Day Date held Location of meeting (address) Participants overall

Of which Stakeholder representatives

1

2

3 Table 1 - Dates, location and attendance of the workshop

Please talk about the organizing and coordination team and, if applicable, the additional

experts, facilitators, moderators. List them in the table below.

Organizer /

Expert

Representative

person

Position Contact Type of

organization

Table 2 - Organizers and participating experts in the PARTNER 1st Workshop

Please give details about the attendees: total number, general overview.

The full list of participants is available in the Annex 1: Attendance list.

2.2 Assessment of changes to the stakeholder composition

Assess the changes (and motivation behind them) between the original list of stakeholders

provided in D3.1 and the participants list.

NOTE: Update your participants list from the dropbox. DO NOT edit the existing one:

Make a second sheet named Partner WS1 with the updated information;

Mark with a darker color in the original sheet the stakeholders initially considered that

have not participated in the first workshop

Use this example in operating the modifications in your excel stakeholder list:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d629gj2z6p1oqol/Stakeholder_data%20Alba%20Iulia_aft

er1stWorkshop_SD.xls

https://www.dropbox.com/home/_work/STATUS/status%20dropbox/Work%20packages%20deliverables/WP3/TP

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d629gj2z6p1oqol/Stakeholder_data%20Alba%20Iulia_after1stWorkshop_SD.xls

https://www.dropbox.com/s/d629gj2z6p1oqol/Stakeholder_data%20Alba%20Iulia_after1stWorkshop_SD.xls


7

3 Assessment of the meeting’s success

3.1 Topics of discussion within each Working Group

The working groups have been organized based

on the original STATUS Workshop

Methodology provided for the WP4, with a few

modifications (if the case):

1. […]

2. […]

The topics of discussion for each working group have been the following:

1. Working Group 1 –Title. Moderated by XXX (Organisation)

List of the topics you analysed in-depth with the stakeholders in the group

2. …

Example: Working Group 1 – Mobility and Accesibility:

streets, railways (underground, trams, etc), sidewalks, squares public buildings,

parking lots,

car sharing, integrating different transport systems, intermodal hubs, environmentally

friendly means of transportation, traffic management systems

low impact transport means (polluting means paying more –system of local taxation),

rationalization of existing parking places, ….

WG2WG1

WG3 WG4

WG6WG5


8

3.2 Key Observations

Working Group 1 – XXX

Assess the workgroup dynamic, information about the stakeholder group composition you deem

important, their openness to communicate. List other things you deem important: conflicting or

opposite opinions, general consensus on certain topics, etc.

Do you think the stakeholders in the workgroup worked well with each other? Did they show interest

to the topic at hand?







9

3.3 Summary of discussion per each Working Group


List the main problems raised by the participants, per topic/subtopic

a. Topic 1

Problem 1

Problem 2

….

b. Topic 2

Include an image of the geoblog illustrating the representable problems. Note: The geoblog

categories are standard throughout the partners. If your working groups differ from the original

ones in the methodology, you will have to find the best matching category to upload.


10

4 Overall conclusions of the workshop

Talk about the content generated in the workshop: Which problems are multidimensional? Which

have been the most often mentioned ones, even in different groups? What have been the final

conclusions regarding the urban problems and the sectors analysed in the workgroups?

5 Final considerations and key lessons learned

Did the meeting fulfil your expectations? Yes/no? Why? What KEY LESSONS have you learned?

6 Follow-up and next steps

Talk about:

the problems on which you will focus for the next workshop

how and when you will organize the 2nd workshop

how you will keep the stakeholders “alive” inbetween: inviting them to register with the

STATUS website and participating to the geoblog, providing them with results, etc.


11

7 Annexes

Annex 1: Attendance list

Annex 2: Agenda of the workshop

Annex 3: Pictures of the workshops

Annex 4: Graphical outputs (like maps, drawings, etc) (if available)

Framework for reporting STATUS workshop 1

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Framework for reporting STATUS workshop 1