SDDP Akamas 2017 - Vision: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
}} | }} | ||
The '''SDDP Akamas 2017 - Vision''' [[Structured Democratic Dialogue Process]] has been conducted on a contract by the | The '''SDDP Akamas 2017 - Vision''' [[Structured Democratic Dialogue Process]] has been conducted on a contract by the [[Cyprus Academy of Public Administration]] to address the major conflicts between stakeholders of the Akama peninsula. | ||
==Executive Summary== | ==Executive Summary== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
<u>The [[Triggering Question]] (TQ) of the first workshop was: </u><br> | <u>The [[Triggering Question]] (TQ) of the first workshop was: </u><br> | ||
'''What are the objectives, the achievement of which will lead to the best possible utilization of the area of the Local Plan, taking into account the peculiarities of the Akamas Peninsula?"<br>GR:"Ποιοί είναι οι στόχοι, που η επίτευξή τους θα οδηγήσει στην καλύτερη δυνατή αξιοποίηση της περιοχής του Τοπικού Σχεδίου, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τις ιδιαιτερότητες της Χερσονήσου του Ακάμα;" ''' | '''What are the objectives, the achievement of which will lead to the best possible utilization of the area of the Local Plan, taking into account the peculiarities of the Akamas Peninsula?"<br><br>GR:"Ποιοί είναι οι στόχοι, που η επίτευξή τους θα οδηγήσει στην καλύτερη δυνατή αξιοποίηση της περιοχής του Τοπικού Σχεδίου, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τις ιδιαιτερότητες της Χερσονήσου του Ακάμα;" ''' | ||
In response to the TQ, the 24? participants came up with 69 statements, which were categorized in 13 clusters. Following the voting process, 39 ideas received one or more votes. 18 were structured to create the influence MAP shown below. <br> | In response to the TQ, the 24? participants came up with 69 statements, which were categorized in 13 clusters. Following the voting process, 39 ideas received one or more votes. 18 were structured to create the influence MAP shown below. <br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
[[File: Akamas_SDDP_20170320_MAP.jpg|Influence tree| | [[File: Akamas_SDDP_20170320_MAP.jpg|Influence tree|650px]] | ||
<br/> | <br/> | ||
According to the participants of this workshop, the targets that appear to be the most influential were: <br> | According to the participants of this workshop, the targets that appear to be the most influential were: <br> | ||
* 1: Integrated spatial planning | |||
* 21: Unified and integrated urban and spatial planning of the Akama Peninsula | |||
* 22: Creation of infrastructure projects in the communities of the area as compensation | |||
* 40: Quantified sustainability indicators and implementation of the action plan | |||
* 42: Fair and equal treatment of landowners | |||
GREEK Original Statements | |||
* 1: Ολοκληρωμένος χωρικός σχεδιασμός | * 1: Ολοκληρωμένος χωρικός σχεδιασμός | ||
* 21: Ενιαίος και ολοκληρωμένος πολεοδομικός και χωροταξικός σχεδιασμός της χερσονήσου Ακάμα | * 21: Ενιαίος και ολοκληρωμένος πολεοδομικός και χωροταξικός σχεδιασμός της χερσονήσου Ακάμα | ||
| Line 39: | Line 46: | ||
* 42: Δίκαιη ΚΑΙ ισότιμη μεταχείρηση των ιδιοκτητών γής | * 42: Δίκαιη ΚΑΙ ισότιμη μεταχείρηση των ιδιοκτητών γής | ||
The workshop was facilitated by [[Yiannis Laouris]] and [[Nicoleta Jiorzi]] under the monitoring of [[Marios Michaelides]. | The workshop was facilitated by [[Yiannis Laouris]] and [[Nicoleta Jiorzi]] under the monitoring of [[Marios Michaelides]]. | ||
The atmosphere of this gathering was extremely tense and explosive. It has been probably the first time ever that the whole spectrum of stakeholders was placed in the same room for such a long time and permitted to deliberate. At the completion of the process, the participants reported their satisfaction especially because they had the opportunity to communicate their ideas and objections to those with opposite positions and interests. They reported that the exchange of ideas regarding a positive evolution of the Akamas peninsula took place in an environment of respect and understanding regarding each side's interests and wishes. The actual problem has not yet been resolved even a few years later. The various stakeholder groups, i.e., the government, the land and tourism developers, the environmentalists, and of course the locals continue to attempt to promote their group's interests not in holistic manner and in disrespect of the discovery of the root factors, i.e., Integrated spatial planning, | |||
and Unified and integrated urban and spatial planning of the Akama Peninsula. At the same time, their joint discovery of these root factors has equipped every group with the understanding that progress cannot be made until these two factors are truly addressed by all; thus the delay! | |||
==External Links== | ==External Links== | ||
Latest revision as of 01:50, 27 September 2020
|
The SDDP Akamas 2017 - Vision Structured Democratic Dialogue Process has been conducted on a contract by the Cyprus Academy of Public Administration to address the major conflicts between stakeholders of the Akama peninsula.
Executive Summary
A few weeks earlier, the project team, in collaboration with Marios Michaelides and his colleagues at the Cyprus Academy of Public Administration, conducted consultation meetings - workshops with all interested stakeholders in-order to analyze
The Triggering Question (TQ) of the first workshop was:
What are the objectives, the achievement of which will lead to the best possible utilization of the area of the Local Plan, taking into account the peculiarities of the Akamas Peninsula?"
GR:"Ποιοί είναι οι στόχοι, που η επίτευξή τους θα οδηγήσει στην καλύτερη δυνατή αξιοποίηση της περιοχής του Τοπικού Σχεδίου, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τις ιδιαιτερότητες της Χερσονήσου του Ακάμα;"
In response to the TQ, the 24? participants came up with 69 statements, which were categorized in 13 clusters. Following the voting process, 39 ideas received one or more votes. 18 were structured to create the influence MAP shown below.
According to the participants of this workshop, the targets that appear to be the most influential were:
- 1: Integrated spatial planning
- 21: Unified and integrated urban and spatial planning of the Akama Peninsula
- 22: Creation of infrastructure projects in the communities of the area as compensation
- 40: Quantified sustainability indicators and implementation of the action plan
- 42: Fair and equal treatment of landowners
GREEK Original Statements
- 1: Ολοκληρωμένος χωρικός σχεδιασμός
- 21: Ενιαίος και ολοκληρωμένος πολεοδομικός και χωροταξικός σχεδιασμός της χερσονήσου Ακάμα
- 22: Δημιουργία έργων υποδομής στις κοινότητες της περιοχής σαν αντιστάθμισμα
- 40: Ποσοτικοποιημένοι δείκτες αειφορίας και εφαρμογή του σχεδίου δράσης
- 42: Δίκαιη ΚΑΙ ισότιμη μεταχείρηση των ιδιοκτητών γής
The workshop was facilitated by Yiannis Laouris and Nicoleta Jiorzi under the monitoring of Marios Michaelides. The atmosphere of this gathering was extremely tense and explosive. It has been probably the first time ever that the whole spectrum of stakeholders was placed in the same room for such a long time and permitted to deliberate. At the completion of the process, the participants reported their satisfaction especially because they had the opportunity to communicate their ideas and objections to those with opposite positions and interests. They reported that the exchange of ideas regarding a positive evolution of the Akamas peninsula took place in an environment of respect and understanding regarding each side's interests and wishes. The actual problem has not yet been resolved even a few years later. The various stakeholder groups, i.e., the government, the land and tourism developers, the environmentalists, and of course the locals continue to attempt to promote their group's interests not in holistic manner and in disrespect of the discovery of the root factors, i.e., Integrated spatial planning, and Unified and integrated urban and spatial planning of the Akama Peninsula. At the same time, their joint discovery of these root factors has equipped every group with the understanding that progress cannot be made until these two factors are truly addressed by all; thus the delay!
External Links
WALL
