Sustainable Local Development and Environmental Governance: A Strategic Planning Experience
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Scientific Background
3. Methods: The Nebrodi Region SP and Its Development
3.1. Definition and Elaboration of the Strategic Plan
- (1)
- The need to measure and communicate all environmental and territorial phenomena to the social system.
- (2)
- The connection of phenomena to cause-and-effect relationships.
- (3)
- The building of a comprehensible system, designed for a multidimensional approach.
- (4)
- The introduction of a form of environmental governance able to manage the continuous flow of system information.
- (5)
- The definition of a pathway towards territorial development that is both sustainable and shared.
3.2. Evaluation of the Strategic Plan and Link to the Environmental Governance of the Local Area
- seek a consensus on the procedure that they want to employ in order to reach a final decision or compromise (such as voting, sorting of positions, consensual decision making or the involvement of a mediator or arbitrator);
- articulate and criticize factual claims on the basis of the ‘‘state of the art’’ of scientific knowledge and other forms of problem-adequate knowledge (in the case of dissent, all relevant camps have the right to be represented);
- interpret factual evidence in accordance with the laws of formal logic and analytical reasoning;
- disclose their relevant values and preferences, thus avoiding hidden agendas and strategic game playing;
- process data, arguments and evaluations in a structured format (for example a decision-analytic procedure) so that norms of procedural rationality are met and transparency can be created.
4. Results: From the SP to the EG, Generalizing the Experience of the Nebrodi Region
- varying planning capacity (as seen in the absence of homogeneity in local urban planning tools);
- population density (much higher on the coast than inland, reflecting a tendency towards congestion, thus lowering the quality of life and depleting natural resources);
- profoundly different economic activities in inland towns and coastal resorts; urban services, administration and research & development mainly localized in certain areas of the territory.
5. Discussion and Future Outlook
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Governo Italiano. 2015. Available online: http://www.governo.it/Governo/Costituzione/2_titolo5.html (accessed on 10 February 2015).
- ICLEI. 2015. Available online: http://www.iclei-europe.org (accessed on 15 January 2015).
- Newig, J.; Fritsch, O. Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level and effective? Environ. Policy Gov. 2009, 19, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crona, B.I.; Parker, J.N. Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ioppolo, G.; Saija, G.; Salomone, R. Developing a Territory Balanced Scorecard approach to manage projects for local development: Two case studies. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 629–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemos, M.C.; Agrawal, A. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006, 31, 297–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maccarrone, V.; Filiciotto, F.; Buffa, G.; Mazzola, S.; Buscaino, G. The ICZM Balanced Scorecard: A tool for putting integrated coastal zone management into action. Mar. Policy 2014, 44, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paavola, J. Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderies, J.; Janssen, M.; Ostrom, E. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol. Soc. 2004, 9, 18. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss1/art18/ (accessed on 16 December 2015). [Google Scholar]
- Pierre, J. (Ed.) Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2000.
- Krajer, A. Governance; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Somorin, O.A.; Visseren-Hamakers, I.J.; Arts, B.; Sonwa, D.J.; Tiani, A.-M. REDD+ policy strategy in Cameroon: Actors, institutions and governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koppenjan, J.F.M.; Klijn, E.H. Managing Uncertainty in Networks; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 69–70. [Google Scholar]
- Edelenbos, J.; Klijn, E.H. Managing Stakeholder Involvement in Decision-making: A Comparative Analysis of Six Interactive Processes in The Netherlands. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2006, 16, 417–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rhodes, R. The New Governance: Governing without Government. Polit. Stud. 1996, 44, 652–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klijn, E.-H.; Steijn, B.; Edelenbos, J. The Impact of Network Management on outcomes in Governance Networks. Public Adm. 2010, 88, 1063–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sampford, C. Environmental governance for biodiversity. Environ. Sci. Policy 2002, 5, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. European Governance: A White Paper, COM 428. 2001. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf (accessed on 8 October 2014).
- Graham, J.; Amos, B.; Plumptre, T. Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century; Policy Brief No. 15—Institute on Governance: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Lockwood, M. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 754–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ioppolo, G.; Saija, G.; Salomone, R. From coastal management to environmental management: The sustainable eco-tourism program for the mid-western coast of Sardinia (Italy). Land Use Policy 2013, 31, 460–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fennell, D.; Plummer, R.; Marschke, M. Is adaptive co-management ethical? J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rijke, J.; Brown, R.; Zevenbergen, C.; Ashley, R.; Farrelly, M.; Morison, P.; van Herk, S. Fit-for-purpose governance: A framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 22, 73–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holling, C.S. (Ed.) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
- Walters, C.J. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources; MacMillan Publishing Company: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Armitage, D. Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environ. Manag. 2005, 35, 703–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Armitage, D.; Berkes, F.; Doubleday, N. Adaptive Co-management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-level Governance; UBC Press: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Hughes, T.P.; Gunderson, L.H.; Folke, C.; Baird, A.H.; Bellwood, D.; Berkes, F.; Crona, B.; Helfgott, A.; Leslie, H.; Norberg, J.; et al. Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef and the Grand Canyon world heritage areas. Ambio 2007, 36, 586–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huitema, D.; Mostert, E.; Egas, W.; Moellenkamp, S.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; Yalcin, R. Adaptive water governance: Assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive co-management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecol. Soc. 2009, 14, 26. [Google Scholar]
- Agranoff, R.; McGuire, M. Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments; Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Carlsson, L.; Berkes, F. Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. J. Environ. Manag. 2005, 75, 65–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 411–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armitage, D.R.; Plummer, R.; Berkes, F.; Arthur, R.I.; Charles, A.T.; Davidson-Hunt, I.J.; Diduck, A.P.; Doubleday, N.; Johnson, D.S.; Marschke, M.; et al. Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, J.R.A.; Clarke, R. Local sustainability initiatives in English National Parks: What role for adaptive governance? Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bulkeley, H. Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Polit. Geogr. 2005, 24, 875–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Buizer, M.; Arts, B.; Kok, K. Governance, scale and the environment: The importance of recognizing knowledge claims in transdisciplinary arenas. Ecol. Soc. 2011, 16, 21. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art21/ (accessed on 16 December 2015). [Google Scholar]
- Benn, S.; Dunphy, D.; Martin, A. Governance of environmental risk: New approaches to managing stakeholder involvement. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1567–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stratigea, A.; Giaoutzi, M. Linking global to regional scenarios in foresight. Futures 2012, 44, 847–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Healy, S. Toward an epistemology of public participation. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1644–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kumar, P.; Esen, S.E.; Yashiro, M. Linking ecosystem services to strategic environmental assessment in development policies. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 40, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EU (European Union). Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- ISTAT. 2001. Available online: http://www.istat.it/it/censimento-popolazione/popolazione-2001 (accessed on 8 October 2014).
- Brugha, R.; Varvasovsky, Z. Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy Plan. 2000, 15, 239–246. Available online: http://sse.stevens.edu/fileadmin/sse/sdoe_files/stakeholder_analysis.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2015). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chess, C.; Dietz, T.; Shannon, M. Who should deliberate when? Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1998, 5, 60–68. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In Deliberative Democracy; Essays on reason and politics; Bohman, J., Rehg, W., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997; pp. 407–437. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, G. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment (Environmental Politics); Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Habermas, J. Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry 1970, 13, 360–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luyet, V.; Schlaepfer, R.; Parlange, M.; Buttler, A. A framework to implement stakeholder participation in environmental projects. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 111, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Traverso, M.; Finkbeiner, M.; Jørgensen, A.; Schneider, L. Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 16, 680–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Höchtl, F.; Lehringer, S.; Konold, W. Pure theory or useful tool? Experiences with transdisciplinarity in the Piedmont Alps. Environ. Sci. Policy 2006, 9, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renn, O. Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drottz-Sjöberg, B.M. Perception of Risk. Studies of Risk Attitudes, Perceptions, and Definitions. Center for Risk Research, Stockholm. 1991. Available online: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:417678/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2015).
- Ioppolo, G. Nuove forme di governance territoriale: Il Piano strategico Nebrodi città aperta. Doss. Urban. 2010, 143, 24–27. [Google Scholar]
- Agranoff, R.; McGuire, M. Big Questions in Public Network Management Research. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2001, 11, 295–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agranoff, R. Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations; Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, L.; Zhang, B.; Bi, J. Reforming China’s multi-level environmental governance: Lessons from the 11th Five-Year Plan. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 21, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besley, T.; Coate, S. Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: A political economy approach. J. Public Econ. 2003, 87, 2611–2637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benn, S.; Jones, R. The role of symbolic capital in stakeholder disputes: Decision-making concerning intractable wastes. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1593–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fraser, E.D.G.; Dougill, A.J.; Mabee, W.; Reed, M.S.; McAlpine, P. Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 2006, 78, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Susskind, L.; Cruikshank, J. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Rogut, A.; Piasecki, B. Foresight methodology as a tool for elaboration of plans for sustainable management of water, energy, the environment and society. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol. 2011, 11, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munda, G. Multicriteria evaluation in a fuzzy environment. In Theory and Applications in Ecological Economics; Physica-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- De Marchi, B.; Funtowicz, S.; Lo Cascio, S.; Munda, G. Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation. An empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily. Ecol. Econ. 2000, 34, 267–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thabrew, L.; Wiek, A.; Ries, R. Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts: Applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wyborn, C.; Bixler, R.P. Collaboration and nested environmental governance: Scale dependency, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative conservation. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 123, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- ISO (International Organisation for Standardization). ISO 14001: 2004. Environmental Management Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use. 2004. Available online: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=31807 (accessed on 10 October 2013).
- MacDonald, J.P. Strategic sustainable development using the ISO 14001 Standard. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 631–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Porter, M.; van der Linde, C. Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9, 97–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prakash, A.; Potoski, M. Racing to the Bottom? Trade, Environmental Governance, and ISO 14001. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 2006, 50, 350–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falkner, R. Private environmental governance and international relations: Exploring the links. Glob. Environ. Polit. 2003, 3, 72–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. In Deliberative Policy Analysis; Understanding governance in the network society; Hajer, M.A., Wagenaar, H., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Prior, T.; Daly, J.; Mason, L.; Giurco, D. Resourcing the future: Using foresight in resource governance. Geoforum 2013, 44, 316–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bekkers, V.; Dijkstra, G.; Edwards, A.; Fenger, M. Governance and the Democratic Deficit: Assessing the Democratic Legitimacy of Governance Practices; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Van Asselt, M.B.; Rijkens-Klomp, N. A look in the mirror: Reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Glob. Environ. 2002, 12, 167–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biddle, J.C.; Koontz, T.M. Goal specificity: A proxy measure for improvements in environmental outcomes in collaborative governance. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 145, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Finkbeiner, M.; Schau, E.M.; Lehmann, A.; Traverso, M. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2010, 2, 3309–3322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benoit-Norris, C.; Cavan, D.A.; Norris, G. Identifying social impacts in product supply chains: Overview and application of the social hotspot database. Sustainability 2012, 4, 1946–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boguski, T.; Erickson, L.E.; Fredkin, J.; Green, R.; Jamka, L.; Norris, G.; Vera, L.; Whiteley, C. Use the environmental knowledge and assessment tool to assist with environmental management. Environ. Prog. 2010, 26, 251–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Numbers of Inhabitants | Number of Municipalities | Name of Municipalities |
---|---|---|
Inhabitants > 10,000 | 3 | Capo D’Orlando (ME), Sant’Agata Militello (ME) and Troina (EN). |
5000 < Inhabitants < 10,000 | 5 | Acquedolci, Brolo, Gioiosa Marea, Mistretta, Tortorici (All in the Province of Messina) |
1000 < Inhabitants < 5000 | 28 | Alcara li Fusi (ME), Caronia (ME), Caprileone (ME), Castel Di Lucio (ME), Capizzi (ME), Castell’Umberto (ME), Cerami (EN), Cesarò (ME), Ficarra (ME), Galati Mamertino (ME), Longi (ME), Militello Rosmarino (ME), Maniace (CT), Mirto (ME), Pettineo (ME), Naso (ME), Piraino (ME), Raccuja (ME), Sant’Angelo di Brolo (ME), Santa Domenica Vittoria (ME), San Fratello (ME), San Marco D’Alunzio (ME), San Teodoro (ME), San Salvatore di Fitalia (ME), Santo Stefano di Camastra (ME), Torrenova (ME), Tusa (ME), Ucria (ME). |
Inhabitants < 1000 | 4 | Floresta (ME), Frazzanò (ME), Motta D’Affermo (ME), Reitano (ME). |
Municipality | Indicators | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Accommodation | Architectural Cultural Heritage | Statement | Facilities for Leisure | Socio Cultural Activities | Healthcare | Security | Environmental goods | Accessibility | Total score | |
Score from 0 to 5 | Score from 0 to 6 | Score from 0 to 4 | Score from 0 to 4 | Score from 0 to 3 | Score from 1 to 14 | Score from 0 to 7 | Score from 0 to 2 | Score from 0 to 9 | Score from 0 to 48 | |
SANT’AGATA DI MILITELLO | 3 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 14 | 7 | 2 | 9 | 48 |
CAPO D’ORLANDO | 5 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 9 | 40 |
MISTRETTA | 1 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 36 |
SANTO STEFANO DI CAMASTRA | 1 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 9 | 27 |
BROLO | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 25 |
GIOIOSA MAREA | 5 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 24 |
TROINA | 3 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 24 |
TUSA | 2 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 21 |
Indicators | Scoring table | |||||||||
Accommodation | 0 = number of beds =1; 1 = number of beds < 100; 2 = 100 < number of beds < 200; 3 = 200 < number of beds < 500; 4 = 500 < number of beds < 1000; 5 = number of beds > 1000 | |||||||||
Architectural cultural heritage | 0 = monuments to visit = 0; 1 = 1 < monuments to visit = 2; 2 = 2<monuments to visit = 4; 3 = 4 < monuments to visit = 6; 4 = 6<monuments to visit = 8; 5 = 8< monuments to visit = 10; 6 = monuments to visit > 10 | |||||||||
Statement | 0 = structures ≤ 5; 1 = 5 < monuments to visit ≤ 10; 2 = 10 < structures ≤ 20; 3 = structures < 20; 1 plus point for each university structures. | |||||||||
Facilities for leisure | 1 point for each structures for leisure time | |||||||||
Socio cultural activities | 0 = celebration-exhibitions fairs = 1; 1 = 0 < celebration-exhibitions fairs = 3; 2 = 3 < celebration-exhibitions fairs = 5; 3 = celebration-exhibitions fairs > 5 | |||||||||
Healthcare | 1 point for each presence of emergency medical centre; 2 points for each presence of counseling; 5 for each presence of hospital; 6 if the municipality is place of health district | |||||||||
Security | 1 point for each place of Civil Protection and Carabineers; 2 points for each Secondment Court, Police or Financial force, Fireman station | |||||||||
Environmental goods | 1 point for each environmental good (lake, rural landscape, wildlife, environmental relevant plase,…) | |||||||||
Accessibility | 1 point for each bus service; 2 points if there is railway station; 3 point if there is the highway direct access |
Name | Composition | Role |
---|---|---|
Territorial Council (also called Assembly of SP mayors) | Composed of the mayors and the President of the Nebrodi National Environmental Park. At this stage, it is the central organ of the whole governance. | Deliberative decision-making role in the formulation of Assembly policies, approval of operational phases and definition of negotiated agreements. |
Chief Promoter | Representative of the territorial aggregation and its interests. | Acts as chairman of the Presidential Committee, responsible for advancement of management objectives and also, with respect to loans granted by the Region for implementation of the SP, responsible for the success of development projects |
Presidential Committee | This Committee, given the complexity of the spatial clustering of the municipalities and based on the urban structure described in the SP, is formed by the mayors of the municipalities identified as urban centres, according to recent guidelines for the programming of Structural Funds 2007/2013 (these are S. Agata Militello, Capo d‘Orlando, Mistretta and Troina, a mountain village in the province of Enna), along with representatives of the “Halaesa“ and “Saracen Coast local systems“. | Chaired by the Chief Promoter, who is supported by the President of the Nebrodi Environmental Park |
Municipal Councils | The group of Municipalities that take part in the SP. | They carry out all formalities required under the laws of local authorities, in an independent but coordinated manner, in accordance with the steps taken above the municipal level. |
General Partnership Table—GPT (also called the SP Forum) | Composed of all public and private stakeholders; meets at least twice a year. | The GPT is responsible for verification of the Plan in relation to the implementation of private projects and makes suggestions during the operational phase. |
Ethics Committee | Committee of five experts, chaired by the President of the Oasis Foundation. It meets at least once a year | Carries out the monitoring functions of the process and has powers of reprimand. |
Territorial Office (also known as Strategic Planning Office) | Office that supports the entire process, both in administrative and operational terms. The Strategic Planning Office is supported by the technical coordination table | Develops the SP and supports local system governance. |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ioppolo, G.; Cucurachi, S.; Salomone, R.; Saija, G.; Shi, L. Sustainable Local Development and Environmental Governance: A Strategic Planning Experience. Sustainability 2016, 8, 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020180
Ioppolo G, Cucurachi S, Salomone R, Saija G, Shi L. Sustainable Local Development and Environmental Governance: A Strategic Planning Experience. Sustainability. 2016; 8(2):180. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020180
Chicago/Turabian StyleIoppolo, Giuseppe, Stefano Cucurachi, Roberta Salomone, Giuseppe Saija, and Lei Shi. 2016. "Sustainable Local Development and Environmental Governance: A Strategic Planning Experience" Sustainability 8, no. 2: 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020180