sustainability

Article
Sustainable Local Development and Environmental
Governance: A Strategic Planning Experience
Giuseppe Ioppolo 1, *, Stefano Cucurachi 2 , Roberta Salomone 1 , Giuseppe Saija 1 and Lei Shi 3
1 University of Study of Messina, Department of Economics, Piazza Pugliatti 1, Messina 98122, Italy;
[email protected] (R.S.); [email protected] (G.S.)
2 Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Bren Hall,
Isla Vista, CA 93117, USA; [email protected]
3 University of Tsinghua, Centre for Green Leap Research State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of
Eco-industry, Beijing 100084, China; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-090-771548

Academic Editor: Vincenzo Torretta

Received: 24 December 2015; Accepted: 16 February 2016; Published: 19 February 2016

Abstract: The emphasis on learning and adaptation among different actors at various political
administrative levels and on various geographic scales has become a precondition for the emergence
of sustainable development. It is possible to find the essential form of collaborative management
by using a Strategic Plan, designed to determine a local model of sustainable competitiveness in
economic, social and environmental terms. The adoption of a Strategic Plan stimulates a process of
shared knowledge, through which it is possible to generate a new environmental governance (EG)
that is truly representative of a local system. This paper presents, as a case study representative of
the Italian context, the Strategic Plan of the Nebrodi area (SP), and assesses the structure of a new
form of public and private environmental governance focused on sustainable concern. Finally, the SP
could be considered a guideline for managing the local territorial and environmental system from a
long-term perspective.

Keywords: environmental governance; environmental planning; environmental management;

participatory model; sustainable competitiveness

1. Introduction
The Italian Republic is composed of Municipalities, Provinces, Metropolitan Cities, Regions and the
State (art. 114 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic). Municipalities are the general form of local
government, and have administrative powers (Art. 118 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic) [1].
Municipalities, as local authorities, in the European region, are encouraged to establish networks
of cooperation and integrated planning (for example, the ICLEI program, Local Governmental
for Sustainability [2]. Following the recent decentralization of functions from the regions to local
authorities, the planning competencies and management of Municipalities have increased, creating
a new institutional setting. Municipalities have multiple development opportunities but sometimes
erect cultural, economic, financial, administrative and policy barriers that do not allow the territory to
trigger circuit development, thus losing the ability to participate in EU funding.
Negotiated community planning, while indicating stringent rules for multiannual institutional
and social partnership programming, monitoring and evaluation of interventions, offers development
policies and instruments based on the principles of integrated and concerted bottom up development.
In this context, the EU introduces, in terms of innovation, governance with the aim of providing
municipal systems with visibility and the ability to integrate resources into territories, raising the

Sustainability 2016, 8, 180; doi:10.3390/su8020180 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 2 of 16

quality of life, providing alternative income for populations, within a framework of sustainability at
the local, national and EU level.
Particularly, focusing on the territorial planning role of governance, this paper uses, as a key study,
the experience of the Nebrodi Strategic Plan (SP) as a starting point for exploring and identifying the
useful steps to be taken and the topics to be addressed in order to define an environmental governance
(EG, from here on) model at a local level for the Italian system. The paper shows that, in order to adopt
a successful EG, such a program has to be founded on the concepts of the participatory approach and
in a shared SP [3]. Thus, EG, beyond the sole role of manager of natural resources, assumes the role
of planner of environmental goals, defining the rules for reaching the established goals and, finally,
producing tangible policy outcomes using these rules [4–8]. The Nebrodi SP is a successful participatory
decision-making process for territorial planning and represents a unique and innovative experience in
Italy. The process involved an area covering 40 Municipalities, three Provinces and the Nebrodi National
Environmental Park, the so-called Nebrodi Region. The purpose of the program was to build a new EG
model, at a sub-regional level, aimed at local development and at local natural resource management.
The model developed has been further applied in practice and has resulted in an unprecedented success
for a participatory plan in this local context (particularly in the Sicily region and south of Italy).
As outlined in Benn et al. [9], the approach described in this paper can be considered an innovative
practice in problem identification, decision-making and action planning, representing tried and tested
strategies to be integrated into an evolving set of participative processes for decision-making in the
sub-political arena. Moreover, by working on environmental topics, by sharing their importance, and by
negotiating the ranking of each environmental aspect with the related problem in a participatory way, it is
possible to establish a voluntary aggregation of local and external actors (e.g., policy makers, stakeholders,
citizens). This proves to be a new form of EG that moves beyond the sole SP, and which uses the direct
results of an SP strategy to create a new cohesive and strong subject representing local interests.
The paper presents the process of development of a new form of consensus and highlights several
essential principles, which constitute a supra-regional SP, focusing on the description of the process
that led to the set-up and start of the Nebrodi SP. This process-methodology shows that a voluntary
action improved the territorial system cultural, and SP definitely represents a support decision tool that
introduced the principles and method of dialogue in an area at the beginning divided and then joined.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 defines the meaning of EG adopted
from the authors; Section 3 provides a summary of the SP structure (planning areas and activities),
discussing, within the theories and principles that are fundamental to building EG in a local context,
how the SP supports the process of EG definition. In Section 4, we present the new institutional EG
subject, highlighting the role and capacity of the local integrated system and expanding the results
obtained in the Nebrodi region to potentially any other similar context in the European panorama.
Section 5 closes the paper and discusses the strategic factors needed to ensure durability of the
framework in a stable pattern of social relations and touches upon several critical aspects. The future
application and implementation of the methodology in the field are underlined.

2. Scientific Background
Over the last two decades, the concept of governance has become one of the key models in
political science, political geography and public administration [10–12]. In these contexts, the search
for a compromise through stakeholder participation and negotiation is strongly advocated in order to
facilitate the integration of shared interests, knowledge and values.
Governance may be defined as a stable pattern of social relations between actors, who
deliberately interact and attempt to structuralize these interactions with organizations and rules [13,14].
Governance, however, also acts as an unplanned model, which is the result of coincidental
interactions and strategies and previously created rules [15,16]. In its broadest interpretation,
governance also concerns the many ways in which public and private actors from the state, the
market and civil society, govern public issues on multiple levels, autonomously or in mutual
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 3 of 16

interaction [17]. In the European context, according to the “White Paper on Governance”, participation
is, indeed, one of the five principles of good governance, together with openness, accountability,
effectiveness and coherence [18–20]. Moreover, it is participation through multi-stakeholder knowledge
that significantly contributes to improved understanding and increased transparency in the
decision-making process [21].
Furthermore, governance could also be considered an ethical operational method of adaptive
management [22,23], which investigates how flexible public and private structures and institutions
may be fostered [24–29]. In this sense, governance is the result of a collaborative management
process [30,31], which also needs to broaden the abovementioned ideas from the level of single
interventions to that of entire social-ecological systems [32]. Hence, governance should also aim
to deal with environmental problems, increasing the resilience of ecological systems in the face of
an uncertain future characterized by disturbances and uncertain non-linear change [33–35]. In this
paper, governance, enriched with explicit environmental goals, overcomes the mounting complexity
and multilayered nature of environmental problems that are not adequately addressed by local and
national governments [36,37]. Thus, we refer here to the broader and encompassing connotation of EG.
Keeping in mind the necessity to incorporate all the above concepts in the definition of EG, this
paper aims to present a direct example of how to realize a model of governance in the Italian local
context that achieves a compromise between different positions, and that is able to define a common
strategy for territorial development. The experience of SP represents a valid tool that put in practice
way how build a new form of governance, environmental oriented.

3. Methods: The Nebrodi Region SP and Its Development

3.1. Definition and Elaboration of the Strategic Plan

The municipality of Sant’Agata di Militello in the Nebrodi region and nine other partner
Municipalities, with the support of consultants and experts from Academia, promoted the idea of a
shared SP for the Nebrodi region, an area of approximately 1800 km2 . Following a voluntary protocol
agreement, the participatory system grew to include 40 Municipalities, three Provinces (Messina, Enna,
and Catania) and the Nebrodi Environmental National Park, an entity already active within the area.
The SP involved a total population of 143,763 inhabitants, with an average density of 79.9 inhabitants
per km2 as indicated by data gathered by municipal statistical offices. The size of the Municipalities is
mostly below 5000 inhabitants (as is the case for 72% of Italian Municipalities), with the population
mainly clustered on the coast in the North-Eastern portion of the Plan area (see Table 1 and Figure 1
for more details on the territorial system).

Table 1. The territorial system involved in the Strategic Plan, grouped by population size.

Number of
Numbers of Inhabitants Name of Municipalities
Municipalities
Inhabitants > 10,000 3 Capo D’Orlando (ME), Sant’Agata Militello (ME) and Troina (EN).
Acquedolci, Brolo, Gioiosa Marea, Mistretta, Tortorici (All in the
5000 < Inhabitants < 10,000 5
Province of Messina)
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
1000 < Inhabitants < 5000 28
(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).
Source: municipal statistics offices and Studio FC&RR Associati s.r.l.
 Teodoro (ME), San Salvatore di Fitalia (ME),
Santo Stefano di Camastra (ME), Torrenova
(ME), Tusa (ME), Ucria (ME).
Floresta (ME), Frazzanò (ME), Motta D’Affermo
Inhabitants < 1000 4
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 (ME), Reitano (ME). 4 of 16
Source: municipal statistics offices and Studio FC&RR Associati s.r.l.

Figure 1. The geographic boundaries of the Strategic Plan area (Municipalities in grey), inserted in
Figure 1. The geographic boundaries of the Strategic Plan area (Municipalities in grey), inserted in
the territorial system in order to highlight the relationships from local to national system. Source:
the territorial system in order to highlight the relationships from local to national system. Source:
elaboration on technical professional team data information (Studio FC&RR Associati s.r.l.).
elaboration on technical professional team data information (Studio FC&RR Associati s.r.l.).

The
The above‐mentioned
above-mentioned promoters
promoters and
and partners,
partners, with
with the
the support
support of
of aa professional
professional scientific and
technical team
technical team were part of the steering group. The
The steering group adopted the
steering group adopted the following
following strict
strict
requirements
requirements for
for the
the SP, following the
SP, following the indications
indications of
of Stratigea
Stratigea and
and Giaoutzi
Giaoutzi [38]:
[38]:

(1) (1)The The

needneed to measure
to measure and and communicate
communicate all environmental
all environmental and and territorial
territorial phenomena
phenomena to
to the
the
social social system.
system.
(2) The connection
(2) The connection of phenomena
of phenomena to cause‐and‐effect
to cause-and-effect relationships.
relationships.
(3) (3)The The building
building of a comprehensible
of a comprehensible system,
system, designed
designed for afor a multidimensional
multidimensional approach.
approach.
(4) The introduction of a form of environmental governance able to manage
(4) The introduction of a form of environmental governance able to manage the continuous the continuous
flow of
flow of system
system information. information.
(5) The definition of a pathway towards territorial development that is both sustainable and
(5) The definition of a pathway towards territorial development that is both sustainable and shared.
shared.
The SP can be summarized in four phases: project launch, environmental assessment, territorial
The SP can be summarized in four phases: project launch, environmental assessment,
assessment, and negotiation on territorial perspectives for sustainable development—using a top-down
territorial assessment, and negotiation on territorial perspectives for sustainable development—
mixed with a bottom-up approach with joint shared decisions for durable integrated local development.
using a top‐down mixed with a bottom‐up approach with joint shared decisions for durable
Over a period of three years between 2007 and 2009, the SP realized a new territorial vision involving,
integrated local development. Over a period of three years between 2007 and 2009, the SP realized a
in a stable way, public and private actors and stakeholders, as recommended in the multi-phase plan
new territorial vision involving, in a stable way, public and private actors and stakeholders, as
by Healy; see Figure 2) [39]. In the following, the application of the SP is described for the Nebrodi
region, but general considerations are applicable to other contexts.
Following the process detailed in Figure 2, Phase 0 regarded the launch of the project in which
the first ten Municipalities, as partners and promoters of the project (i.e., Sant’Agata Militello, as
chief promoter of the project, Acquedolci, Brolo, Capo d’Orlando, Caprileone, Frazzanò, Mirto,
Naso, Piraino, and Torrenova—all Municipalities in the Province of Messina), held a conference
to launch the project idea, goals and expectations. In Phase 1, an in-depth analysis was made of
each territorial theme by the professional technical team. The SP uses an ecosystem service-based
approach to support policy makers, through the incorporation of ecosystem service principles in
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 5 of 16

line with the Strategic Environmental Assessment process. The sub-phases of Screening, Scoping,
Reporting, Monitoring and Consultation [40] were identified, as required by projects and plans in the
EU zone [41]. Subsequently, the community involved in the SP forum produced a summary document
on the state of the environment in relation to the strategically important aspects towards a perspective
of sustainable local development. Phase 2 regarded the analysis of dimensional data provided by the
Italian national statistical agency [42] and by each municipal statistics office in the Nebrodi region,
and of urban data obtained by urban regulatory tools. These data were enriched with other themes
related to natural and environmental components. The territorial analysis phase (i.e., the top-down
approach) further identified the development priorities. The analysis was completed using a spatial
index aggregating nine indicators (i.e., accommodation, architectural-cultural heritage, statement,
leisure facilities,
Sustainability socio-cultural
2016, 8, 180 activities, healthcare, security, environmental goods, and accessibility),
5 of 17

allowing the construction of a map of the Municipalities that play a fundamental role in the SP, namely
recommended in the multi‐phase plan by Healy; see Figure 2) [39]. In the following, the application
urban centers (See Table 2). Finally the feasibility of all the projects ideas identified is evaluated under
of the SP is described for the Nebrodi region, but general considerations are applicable to other
different perspectives (financial, administrative, political, economic, technical, etc.).
contexts.
PHASE 0 – kick off

Technical professional team

SP presentation
Involvement and Partners and Launching
mission, vision and
communication Promoters Conference
steps

Technical professional team

Data and research collection

NO
Direct surveys
PHASE I ‐ Top‐down

DRAFT
Macro trend analysis YES Report on environment
Partners and
and territory SP FORUM
Promoters
Benchmarking analysis
NO
YES
SWOT analysis
Partners and
Performance indicators Promoters

Tech. Prof. team

Objectives and actions

PHASE II – Bottom‐up

DRAFT
FINAL
Thematic tables Territory Index and targets
Report on environment YES Planning documents YES
SP FORUM Round Tables
and territory Focus Groups
Alternative scenarios
NO
NO
Cost estimation
Tech. Prof. team

Territorial feasibility
RESULTS
PHASE III – Mixed approach

PRIVATE GOVERNANCE
Social‐economics feasibility
FINAL
FORMAL
Partners and YES ADOPTION OF
Financial feasibility Strategic Plan SP FORUM
Promoters SP SHARED DECISIONS

Administrative feasibility PUBLIC GOVERNANCE

NO
Policy feasibility
SP ‐ PHASE

LEGEND OF Debate and

Debate for Results and
STRATEGIC PLAN Activities Sharing
governance building delivery
OPERATIVE FLOWS enlarged

Figure 2. The phases and processes of the Nebrodi Strategic Plan, identifying roles, results and the
Figure 2. The phases and processes of the Nebrodi Strategic Plan, identifying roles, results and the
steps needed to build a new form of oriented environmental governance. Source: elaboration on
steps needed to build a new form of oriented environmental governance. Source: elaboration on
technical professional team data information (Studio FC&RR Associati s.r.l.).
technical professional team data information (Studio FC&RR Associati s.r.l.).
Following the process detailed in Figure 2, Phase 0 regarded the launch of the project in which
the first ten Municipalities, as partners and promoters of the project (i.e., Sant’Agata Militello, as
chief promoter of the project, Acquedolci, Brolo, Capo d’Orlando, Caprileone, Frazzanò, Mirto,
Naso, Piraino, and Torrenova—all Municipalities in the Province of Messina), held a conference to
launch the project idea, goals and expectations. In Phase 1, an in‐depth analysis was made of each
territorial theme by the professional technical team. The SP uses an ecosystem service‐based
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 6 of 16

Table 2. Territorial index for Municipalities of the Nebrodi Area with the best score (the urban centres).

Indicators
Municipality
Architectural Facilities Socio Cultural Environmental
Accommodation Statement Healthcare Security Accessibility Total score
Cultural Heritage for Leisure Activities goods
Score from Score from Score from Score from Score from Score from Score from
Score from 0 to 5 Score from 0 to 6 Score from 0 to 3
0 to 4 0 to 4 1 to 14 0 to 7 0 to 2 0 to 9 0 to 48
SANT’AGATA DI
3 6 3 1 3 14 7 2 9 48
MILITELLO
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
1 6 1 1 1 3 5 0 9 27
CAMASTRA
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 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
heritage visit = 10; 6 = monuments to visit > 10
Statement 0 = structures ď 5; 1 = 5 < monuments to visit ď 10; 2 = 10 < structures ď 20; 3 = structures < 20; 1 plus point for each university structures.
Facilities for leisure 1 point for each structures for leisure time
Socio cultural
0 = celebration-exhibitions fairs = 1; 1 = 0 < celebration-exhibitions fairs = 3; 2 = 3 < celebration-exhibitions fairs = 5; 3 = celebration-exhibitions fairs > 5
activities
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
Source: elaboration on technical professional team data information (Studio FC&RR Associati s.r.l.).
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 7 of 16

In this phase, in order to aggregate different positions and points of view (i.e., using a bottom-up
approach), round tables and focus groups involving the local community were organised, with opinions
being gathered through the use of questionnaires produced by the professional technical team. The SP
addressed in this phase the construction of a new level of EG using stakeholder analysis, which, in
policy research, is seen as a way of generating information on the relevant actors in order to understand
their behavior, interests, agendas, and influence on decision-making processes [43]. Such an approach
oriented the SP towards the introduction of deliberative democracy in the project area, in the form of
equitable involvement of all local actors [44–46].
In Phase 3 the SP, using wide participatory action, develops a special form of dialogue in which
all affected parties have equal rights and duties to present their viewpoints and test their validity in a
context free of social or political domination [47]. Participatory action is focused on consensus building
and power relations through information, consultation, collaboration, co-decision and empowerment.
It achieves these targets with different environmental negotiation techniques, such as focus groups,
consensus conferences, stakeholders’ workshops, participatory expert workshops, thematic forums,
policy simulation exercises and consultative forums [48]. The outcome is an aggregate study by cluster
point of view. During all phases, the professional technical team, together with the partners and
promoters, hosted four events/conferences in order to develop a forum of all possible stakeholders
(i.e., local population, Nebrodi National Environmental Park, NGOs, firms, banks, investors) in the
local system, thereby increasing participation. Finally, in phase 3, there is the adoption of the SP, in
which the new form of local governance, environmentally oriented, identifies and prioritizes all the
projects that are strategic for the environmental and competitive development of the area, and this is
the basis of linking the environmental dimension to local economic development.

3.2. Evaluation of the Strategic Plan and Link to the Environmental Governance of the Local Area
The SP identifies, assesses and prioritizes environmental variables and, through participatory
action, encourages the local system to revise the project area in a uniform manner, linking the goals of
economic and social growth, within the principles of natural protection and sustainable development.
Consequently, the SP assesses carrying capacity, defined as the level of human activity (i.e., including
population dynamics and economic activity) that a region can sustain maintaining acceptable quality of
life levels in a comprehensive way, without losing evaluation complexity [49]. Such was the experience
also for the SP developed for the Nebrodi region.
Analyzing the key data on the territorial system provided by local authorities, Municipalities,
regional offices, and directly gathered with specific questionnaires in phase 1 and 2, the steering
committee concluded that the area boasts remarkable ecosystem quality and a unique heritage of
biodiversity, characterized by rare endemic species and the presence of a wide range of habitats (this
aspect is highlighted by the presence of the Nebrodi National Park). The SP also highlighted the
importance of safeguarding these resources and, at the same time, the importance of creating a synergic
system to work with the other assets of the SP area.
The setting up of an SP allowed fostering of the EG process to share and achieve concrete
sustainable planning activity. The SP and EG are strictly connected and the SP represents the starting
point for developing good governance. EG is matched by a new territorial subject that can exploit
the opportunities offered by the SP, in order to compete on a national and international level. Indeed,
EG is implemented as an integrated task, linked to and aimed at improvement of socio-economic
conditions within the territory. Each municipality, with its local system and its specific settlement area,
was considered to be a resource for all members of the plan, including public and private stakeholders,
and, as such, was considered in an overview. In this perspective, environmental and territorial values
were integrated, weighted and compared in order to obtain a territorial index. Bottom-up enhanced
participation is based on this shared environmental and territorial analysis of the area.
Starting from the established SP the wide involved community contributed to defining the
EG. All participants, phase by phase, studying and understanding the quality level of their local
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 8 of 16

systems, were involved in confronting territorial environmental problems in the following five steps:
problem identification, problem comprehension, and problem analysis, treatment of sub-areas and their
integration in order to achieve overlapping results [50], and, finally, exchange of ideas. As Renn [51]
concludes, the goals of the definition of these steps are multifold. In particular, the community
managed to:

‚ 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.

Hence, the SP process-methodology was used as a guideline in order to push the system to
re-organize itself in a new form of interface between socio-political mandates and dynamics, within
the framework of sustainable resource and environmental management. The resulting EG provides
an operational mechanism allowing key local stakeholders, community members, resource users and
private sector groups to become a single subject that incorporates public preferences, integrates public
input into the management process and assigns appropriate roles to technical experts [52,53].

4. Results: From the SP to the EG, Generalizing the Experience of the Nebrodi Region
The shared SP allowed for an EG characterized by a long life operative capacity. A critical
assessment of the proposed SP experience shows that this tool is designed to overcome one of the
most critical elements of territorial groupings, and in particular to overcome the difficulty of ensuring
continuity and administrative progress to the decisions taken during meetings of the representatives
of the local authorities (i.e., the mayors).
These difficulties arise from the detachment of Municipal Councils from the processes that trigger
local development initiatives promoted by the authorities, but also and above all, from different
timelines of municipal administrations with respect to the advancement of territorial initiatives in the
national context.
These are generally longer, leading to continuous rotations of political actors and the consequent
need for training activity in order to progress to further developments. Therefore, it is understandable
that mayors, who need to give immediate answers to the problems of their community, sometimes have
difficulty maintaining a consistent focus on and in-depth involvement in a program aimed at general
and longer-term objectives. Indeed, as evident from the questionnaires and the reports produced by all
the round tables (Phase 2 in Figure 2), the highest-priority problems to be solved require the creation
of a representative local structure operative in the long term.
The SP allows a new form of cohesion, the EG, to be reached. The result is an operating platform
for the negotiation process of consultation. Using the proposed method of SP, the empowered
community of stakeholders can play a strategic role in enhancing understanding, generating new
options, decreasing hostility and aggressive attitudes among participants, exploring new problem
framing, enlightening policy makers, and producing competent, fair and optimized solution packages
that also facilitate consensus. The SP allows definition of an EG that stimulates a participative and
deliberative dialogue able to trace political and territorial development programs, in line with an
integration and sustainability idea (see Figure 3).
empowered community of stakeholders can play a strategic role in enhancing understanding,
generating new options, decreasing hostility and aggressive attitudes among participants, exploring
new problem framing, enlightening policy makers, and producing competent, fair and optimized
solution packages that also facilitate consensus. The SP allows definition of an EG that stimulates a
participative
Sustainability and
2016, deliberative dialogue able to trace political and territorial development programs,
8, 180 9 of 16
in line with an integration and sustainability idea (see Figure 3).

Public System New Governance Private Governance Private System

Public Governance

1.Local Authority Responsible Special Citizenship

Chief Office
2.Local Authority NGOs
New Governance

Stakeholders
3.Local Authority SP Forum Firms
Cities
Council Territorial Presidential
...Local Authority Banks
Council Comitee
40.Local Authority Investors

... Authority Ethics Comitee ….

Figure 3. The local cycle of dialogue realized by the new governance in the Nebrodi Area (the
Figure 3. The local cycle of dialogue realized by the new governance in the Nebrodi Area (the structure
structure is only an exemplification not exhaustive).
is only an exemplification not exhaustive).

This mission, highlighted in the above sections, is substantial, because the model is designed to
This
ensure mission,
that highlightedcapacity
the management in the above sections,
of the is substantial,
area must be the firstbecause the model
step towards is designed
achieving to
a stable
ensure
networkthat the management
of relationships capacity
[54,55]. of theovercoming
Moreover, area must be Liuthe
et first stepthis
al. [56], towards achieving
structure a stable
is an inclusive
network of relationships [54,55]. Moreover, overcoming Liu et al. [56], this structure
model for the centralization of the decision making process, valid in the local context [57]. These is an inclusive
model
aims areformore
the centralization
evident in a of the context
local decisioninmaking
which process,
a wide gap validstill
in the local
exists contextlocal
between [57]. governance
These aims
are
andmore
higher evident in a local
government context
levels, and in whichare
citizens a wide
oftengap still exists
excluded frombetween local governance
the decision‐making and
process,
higher government levels, and citizens are often
even if they suffer the consequences of such a process. excluded from the decision-making process, even if
they suffer
As canthe be consequences
seen from theof such a process.
considerations above, the meeting of different positions and points of
As can be seen from the considerations
view, public and private, has made it possible above, the meeting
to design of different
a new model positions and
of governance that points of
is in line
view, public and private, has made it possible to design a new model of governance
with the SP choices. The new EG assesses, interprets, forecasts and manages a compatible future for that is in line with
the
the SP choices.
entire The new
territorial EG assesses,
system, throughout interprets, forecasts
its structures, and manages
summarized a compatible
in Table future
3. This new for the
voluntary
entire territorial system, throughout its structures, summarized in Table 3. This new voluntary form
of aggregation overcomes the traditional mandatory system, redefining the identity and role of each
actor/participant [58].

Table 3. The structure and roles of the proposed Environmental Governance within the Nebrodi
Strategic Plan.

Name Composition Role

Composed of the mayors and the President of Deliberative decision-making role in the
Territorial Council
the Nebrodi National Environmental Park. formulation of Assembly policies, approval
(also called Assembly
At this stage, it is the central organ of the of operational phases and definition of
of SP mayors)
whole governance. negotiated agreements.
Acts as chairman of the Presidential
Committee, responsible for advancement of
Representative of the territorial aggregation management objectives and also, with
Chief Promoter
and its interests. respect to loans granted by the Region for
implementation of the SP, responsible for
the success of development projects
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,
Chaired by the Chief Promoter, who is
according to recent guidelines for the
Presidential Committee supported by the President of the Nebrodi
programming of Structural Funds 2007/2013
Environmental Park
(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“.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 10 of 16

Table 3. Cont.

Name Composition Role

They carry out all formalities required
under the laws of local authorities, in an
The group of Municipalities that take part in
Municipal Councils independent but coordinated manner, in
the SP.
accordance with the steps taken above the
municipal level.
The GPT is responsible for verification of
General Partnership
Composed of all public and private the Plan in relation to the implementation
Table—GPT (also
stakeholders; meets at least twice a year. of private projects and makes suggestions
called the SP Forum)
during the operational phase.
Committee of five experts, chaired by the
Carries out the monitoring functions of the
Ethics Committee President of the Oasis Foundation. It meets at
process and has powers of reprimand.
least once a year
Office that supports the entire process, both
Territorial Office (also
in administrative and operational terms. The Develops the SP and supports local
known as Strategic
Strategic Planning Office is supported by the system governance.
Planning Office)
technical coordination table
Source: elaboration on technical professional team data information (Studio FC&RR Associati s.r.l.).

Table 3 shows that, operating through its Territorial Office, the SP attempts to achieve the necessary
technical involvement of all local authorities, as well as the various participating forces, in order to
increase the level of representation.
Starting with a top-down approach, the SP developed the first level of governance, focused
on meeting current environmental needs. Assessment of the structure of the proposed EG and
the composition and role of a new form of Assembly (i.e., Territorial Council), consisting of all the
mayors of the local authorities, are of great importance in order to achieve this goal. The Territorial
Council has a deliberative role, as well as a joint responsibility for all programmatic activities and
operates independently, guaranteeing the administrative process. The Territorial Council successfully
avoids restrictions in terms of representation for complex organizations; it overcomes the problem
of delegation and transfer functions, thus allowing discussion and development of all operational
decisions in order to achieve a democratic and participatory approach.
The role of the Chief Promoter is of fundamental importance. In our case, the mayor of the
municipality of Sant’Agata Militello, in his role as chief promoter of the SP, performed executive
functions, supported by a specific office. The Chief Promoter was supported by a Presidential Committee,
which takes on the functions of the executive branch with a role of exchanging information. This
fundamental activity aims to confront the particularly non-homogenous territorial complexity (e.g.,
in terms of land shape, production system, transport system and related accessibility), as well as
maintaining widespread public involvement. Regarding the composition of the Presidential Committee,
it can be seen that the various territorial systems are gathered into territorial clusters, with the economic
system developing around the urban centers. The mayors of these centers, and those of the other main
centers in the local context, sit on the Committee. With regard to Municipal Councils, it is evident that
involvement has been gradual. It was necessary, at first, to provide basic training in order to be able to
approach problems with such diverse spatial profiles. This may be also the case for other contexts in
which an SP is used to reach a shared view on EG.
The form of public EG that is reached through the development of an SP, as outlined above,
involves all categories of stakeholders, and acts directly as a mediating interlocutor. The representative
groups are collected together in the General Partnership Table, the SP Forum, which follows a bottom-up
approach and achieves widespread participative action in the local decision making process [59]. The
Ethics Committee is introduced by the SP. This innovation is recommended as a best practice and is
totally independent in overseeing all procedures. The committee must ensure and verify compliance
with commitments, as well as the adherence of each initiative to the founding principles of aggregation,
and can occasionally use its power to reprimand.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 11 of 16

This model of EG does not work with a form of discussion to identify a common interest and
to reach consensus, but rather with the negotiation of a compromise approach, in which each party
strives to conciliate individual and diverging interests [60,61]. Such a mode of action often shows how
participatory processes progressively bring out dissent and conflict. In this way, a key role is played
by the dialogue facilitator, who acts in order to achieve a conscious consensus. The facilitator actions,
which are developed by the Territorial Office, are addressed to supporting the negotiation process.
This can be achieved by organizing information sharing events, framing issues, orienting analysis,
understanding the structure of the problem, identifying options, making trade-offs more explicit,
structuring the decision-making process, exploring possible compromises, or creating value [62,63].
Finally, in order to avoid overlaps and crossovers, which could slow down the immediate SP
process, the new level of governance embeds existing relational systems through the establishment
of a completely new actor. For the Nebrodi area, this represented a strong result for innovation in
local development.
The principles, methods, and outcomes show that the validity of this case study reaches beyond
its geographic boundaries, making it a valid guideline for local development. Analysis of the SP results,
focused on the new form of EG, shows how this experience helped to overcome deep differences
within the partnership, such as:

‚ 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.

The validity of the result is its reproducibility for many other networks of Municipalities that
share common characters, whether they are geographical proximity, vocation of the territory, economic
drivers or simply size. The model is then ready to be translated into other contexts.

5. Discussion and Future Outlook

Efforts to achieve effective local-scale cooperation for management of common environmental
resources can be elusive and often require prolonged resource investment in order to build social
capital and facilitate learning and adaptation.
The results of the Nebrodi case and the generalization thereof show that the main strategic factor
for achieving competitive medium/long-term local territorial development is the building of a new
form of EG, grounded in the establishment of a clear shared SP. The baseline for achieving this result is
concrete and continuative dialogue in order to reach consensus, thus oriented at identifying the widely
shared directives on which to build and develop scenarios compatible with the territorial system (as in
the example of the Nebrodi area). The Nebrodi SP fulfils this vision through a model conceived to
organize a territorial system, aimed at increasing levels of cohesion among local authorities in order
to recover identity, history, local culture and traditions linked to the Nebrodi area. The model must
benefit from the aggregative experience gained in the area in order to reconfigure a system suited to
the enhancement of an innovative sustainable project.
The experience of the Nebrodi case shows that EG must be flexible, but it must also be able to
understand and make use of the available environmental datasets. In addition, EG has to be capable of
planning sustainable prospects while identifying the dependencies between sectors, assessing multiple
aspects of sustainability and being able to generate alternative scenarios and strategy building for
implementation [64]. SP can be considered the support tool for the strategic decision-making activity
responsible for the achievement of a new form of EG on a local scale. In the SP, all environmental
aspects are considered central to local development.
Only through widespread debate among the various actors who took part in the process plan was
it possible to build a shared vision. The inherent differences between local, regional and supra-regional
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 12 of 16

scales of operation are evident, but the analysis of the case study also argues that greater collaboration
is required for these three levels to effectively meet their goals [65].
The elements set out above are fundamental in light of the strategies that will be identified for the
development of the area. The community, through knowledge and experience, becomes conscious of
the quality of natural environments, which must necessarily be considered as the principal cornerstones
of the identified projects. These drivers, in line with ISO 14001 [66,67], also induce local governments
(as well as firms) to take considerable progressive environmental actions that translate into pollution
reduction and better compliance with government regulations. Consequently, competitive market
economies can compel firms to differentiate themselves on a variety of counts, including environmental
stewardship [68,69].
In this way, private governance has become a reality in global environmental politics and it has
become an important instrument in the political toolbox of global civil society in its efforts to promote
environmental sustainability. This experience highlights how EG represents a mosaic of actors (public
and private), whose integration is often uneasy. However, the SP, through spatial analysis, allows clear
and quantitative identification of critical success factors for the entire area, for which it is developed.
This proves the need to achieve a strategic overview. The decomposition and aggregation process of
interests and expectations gradually favors the clustering of homogeneous territorial specificities and then
allows the creation of synergies and virtuous circles between different systems of the same area, as clearly
seen in the Nebrodi area. The key role, in terms of territorial proximity and efficiency for collaborative
environmental governance, is played by local governments [70,71]. Hence, the form of EG achieved
supports the hypothesis that the representatives of local authorities involved in partnerships possess the
resources needed to reduce the pitfalls of traditional sustainable governance, facilitate coordination, and
contribute to the success of shared policy-making. Moreover, by working on environmental problems
and implementing the outcomes of a deliberative, multi-stakeholder process establishing a vision for the
future, the participatory action managed by the SP promotes EG [72].
The SP and EG that are presented in this paper for the case of the Nebrodi region are not only a
successful example of process development, but also the results of a continuous cycle of improvement
that the Nebrodi system has implemented. Five years from the development of the SP results are
clearly visible in the area. Indeed, EG has achieved a strong partnership with institutional unity, and
has been capable of regaining credibility in Sicily through various initiatives otherwise previously
disconnected from the local reality. The enhancement of the Nebrodi cultural identity and the building
of a human-centered social network, based on principles of solidarity and respect for nature, have
proven to be the strategies to be pursued in order to ensure welfare conditions for the entire population
of the Nebrodi area. A homogenous area has been created in the form of a Territorial System with
local governance represented by a permanent EG, and all actors involved expressing themselves as a
collective actor, as theorized by Bekkers et al. [73].
This permanent form of EG represents an environmental policy target of fundamental importance
for local sustainable development. The community and the respective stakeholders are increasingly
becoming the operative base for identifying and interpreting broad environmental issues interlinked
with economic and social aspects, and is increasingly supporting decision making for long lasting
development solutions within the capacities of the local community [74]. More work still has to be done
in the quest to explain links between collaborative processes and environmental outcomes [75], but
this case study demonstrates that linking the environmental dimension in local economic development
is useful for attracting the interest of various actors and stakeholders.
The role of EG is also important because the social benefits can be estimated by analyzing the
effects of the organization on stakeholders at local, national and global levels [76]. The SP represents a
highly important experience of the voluntary construction of a shared path. In the Nebrodi area this
has been achieved through the establishment of a new virtuous model of EG, based on the cultural
and environmental uniqueness of the territory, and consistent with the sustainable development tools
and policies active at the local level.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 13 of 16

The complexity of sustainable development on a regional scale requires both an understanding

of the dynamics of local development and of its compatible transformations, and of the level of
management aimed at maintaining and protecting the excellence and specificity of the territorial
system. These principles, now accepted and shared, are not easily achievable and need a great deal
of financial support. Experiences of territorial government have fully demonstrated that a major
critical success factor of such local development initiatives, in the Italian system, is the presence of a
governance system that has sufficient authority and time to plan, program and implement a policy for
sustainable territorial development.
The experience of the Nebrodi area could represent a baseline for future deepening and widening
of environmental and territorial performance, of both the public and private production system, using
an ad hoc tool for benchmarking intra/inter territorial systems [77,78]. It is the use of an SP framework
and the tailoring structure of the new form of governance, in line with the context under study (both
Italian and European), which allows the creation of a new form of adaptive management oriented
towards local competitiveness. The greatest success factor in transforming the SP tool into a guideline
for managing the local territorial and environmental system in a long-term perspective is that of
having thought about environmental issues on a local scale and having defined future strategies for
sustainable development, thus leading to the definition of a new EG model.

Acknowledgments: This research was made possible through the support of Studio FC & RR Associati S.r.l.,
a company specialized in environment planning and management tools for territory development. We are
particularly grateful to two anonymous referees for reading and for their comments.
Author Contributions: Giuseppe Ioppolo contributed to the research design and coordinated with Shi Lei on the
research project. Stefano Cucurachi analyzed the sources and literature. Roberta Salomone and Giuseppe Saija
supervised the research project and carried out a detailed revision. All authors wrote the body of the paper and
read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Governo Italiano. 2015. Available online: http://www.governo.it/Governo/Costituzione/2_titolo5.html
(accessed on 10 February 2015).
2. ICLEI. 2015. Available online: http://www.iclei-europe.org (accessed on 15 January 2015).
3. Newig, J.; Fritsch, O. Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level and effective? Environ. Policy Gov.
2009, 19, 197–214. [CrossRef]
4. 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. [CrossRef]
5. 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. [CrossRef]
6. Lemos, M.C.; Agrawal, A. Environmental governance. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2006, 31, 297–325.
[CrossRef]
7. 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. [CrossRef]
8. Paavola, J. Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualization. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 63, 93–103.
[CrossRef]
9. 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).
10. Pierre, J., Ed.; Debating Governance: Authority, Steering and Democracy; Oxford University Press: Oxford,
UK, 2000.
11. Krajer, A. Governance; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004.
12. 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. [CrossRef]
13. Koppenjan, J.F.M.; Klijn, E.H. Managing Uncertainty in Networks; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 69–70.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 14 of 16

14. 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. [CrossRef]
15. Rhodes, R. The New Governance: Governing without Government. Polit. Stud. 1996, 44, 652–667. [CrossRef]
16. Klijn, E.-H.; Steijn, B.; Edelenbos, J. The Impact of Network Management on outcomes in Governance
Networks. Public Adm. 2010, 88, 1063–1082. [CrossRef]
17. Sampford, C. Environmental governance for biodiversity. Environ. Sci. Policy 2002, 5, 79–90. [CrossRef]
18. European Commission, 2001. European Governance: A White Paper, COM 428. Available online:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf (accessed on 8
October 2014).
19. 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.
20. Lockwood, M. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance
outcomes. J. Environ. Manag. 2010, 91, 754–766. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. 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. [CrossRef]
22. Fennell, D.; Plummer, R.; Marschke, M. Is adaptive co-management ethical? J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88,
62–75. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. 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.
[CrossRef]
24. Holling, C.S., Ed.; Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1978.
25. Walters, C.J. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources; MacMillan Publishing Company: New York, NY,
USA, 1986.
26. Armitage, D. Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environ. Manag. 2005,
35, 703–715. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Armitage, D.; Berkes, F.; Doubleday, N. Adaptive Co-management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-level
Governance; UBC Press: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2007.
28. 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. [CrossRef]
29. 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.
30. Agranoff, R.; McGuire, M. Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments; Georgetown
University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
31. Carlsson, L.; Berkes, F. Co-management: Concepts and methodological implications. J. Environ. Manag. 2005,
75, 65–76. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Folke, C.; Hahn, T.; Olsson, P.; Norberg, J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 2005, 30, 411–473. [CrossRef]
33. 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. [CrossRef]
34. 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. [CrossRef]
35. Bulkeley, H. Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Polit. Geogr.
2005, 24, 875–902. [CrossRef]
36. 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).
37. Benn, S.; Dunphy, D.; Martin, A. Governance of environmental risk: New approaches to managing
stakeholder involvement. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1567–1575. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 15 of 16

38. Stratigea, A.; Giaoutzi, M. Linking global to regional scenarios in foresight. Futures 2012, 44, 847–859.
[CrossRef]
39. Healy, S. Toward an epistemology of public participation. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1644–1654. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
40. 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. [CrossRef]
41. 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.
42. ISTAT. 2001. Available online: http://www.istat.it/it/censimento-popolazione/popolazione-2001 (accessed
on 8 October 2014).
43. 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). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Chess, C.; Dietz, T.; Shannon, M. Who should deliberate when? Hum. Ecol. Rev. 1998, 5, 60–68.
45. 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.
46. Smith, G. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment (Environmental Politics); Routledge: London, UK, 2003.
47. Habermas, J. Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry 1970, 13, 360–375. [CrossRef]
48. Luyet, V.; Schlaepfer, R.; Parlange, M.; Buttler, A. A framework to implement stakeholder participation in
environmental projects. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 111, 213–219. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Traverso, M.; Finkbeiner, M.; Jørgensen, A.; Schneider, L. Life Cycle Sustainability Dashboard. J. Ind. Ecol.
2012, 16, 680–688. [CrossRef]
50. 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. [CrossRef]
51. Renn, O. Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy 2006, 23, 34–43.
[CrossRef]
52. Drottz-Sjöberg, B.M., 1991. Perception of Risk. Studies of Risk Attitudes, Perceptions, and Definitions.
Center for Risk Research, Stockholm. Available online: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:
417678/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2015).
53. Ioppolo, G. Nuove forme di governance territoriale: Il Piano strategico Nebrodi città aperta. Doss. Urban.
2010, 143, 24–27.
54. Agranoff, R.; McGuire, M. Big Questions in Public Network Management Research. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory
2001, 11, 295–326. [CrossRef]
55. Agranoff, R. Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations; Georgetown University Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
56. 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. [CrossRef]
57. Besley, T.; Coate, S. Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public goods: A political economy
approach. J. Public Econ. 2003, 87, 2611–2637. [CrossRef]
58. Benn, S.; Jones, R. The role of symbolic capital in stakeholder disputes: Decision-making concerning
intractable wastes. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 1593–1604. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Susskind, L.; Cruikshank, J. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes; Basic
Books: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
61. 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. [CrossRef]
62. Munda, G. Multicriteria evaluation in a fuzzy environment. In Theory and Applications in Ecological Economics;
Physica-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1995.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 180 16 of 16

63. 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. [CrossRef]
64. 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. [CrossRef]
65. 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.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
66. ISO (International Organisation for Standardization), 2004. ISO 14001: 2004. Environmental Management
Systems—Requirements with Guidance for Use. Available online: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/
store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=31807 (accessed on 10 October 2013).
67. MacDonald, J.P. Strategic sustainable development using the ISO 14001 Standard. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13,
631–643. [CrossRef]
68. Porter, M.; van der Linde, C. Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship.
J. Econ. Perspect. 1995, 9, 97–118. [CrossRef]
69. Prakash, A.; Potoski, M. Racing to the Bottom? Trade, Environmental Governance, and ISO 14001. Am. J.
Polit. Sci. 2006, 50, 350–364. [CrossRef]
70. Falkner, R. Private environmental governance and international relations: Exploring the links.
Glob. Environ. Polit. 2003, 3, 72–87. [CrossRef]
71. 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.
72. Prior, T.; Daly, J.; Mason, L.; Giurco, D. Resourcing the future: Using foresight in resource governance.
Geoforum 2013, 44, 316–328. [CrossRef]
73. Bekkers, V.; Dijkstra, G.; Edwards, A.; Fenger, M. Governance and the Democratic Deficit: Assessing the Democratic
Legitimacy of Governance Practices; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2007.
74. 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. [CrossRef]
75. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
76. Finkbeiner, M.; Schau, E.M.; Lehmann, A.; Traverso, M. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment.
Sustainability 2010, 2, 3309–3322. [CrossRef]
77. 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. [CrossRef]
78. 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. [CrossRef]

© 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/).