The structure of questions whose results are analysed in the paper_
| Q1: What information gathering and analysis techniques did you use during the strategy development process? | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal workshops (only for office employees) | Analysis of external conditions – e.g., PEST/PESTEL building development scenarios | Analysis of strengths and weaknesses – e.g., SWOT | Trend analysis | Building development scenarios | Other | None (technique was not used) |
| Open workshops (involving representatives of other entities and residents) | ||||||
| Online or stationary survey | ||||||
| Delphi survey (multi-stage survey with experts) | ||||||
| Statistical data analysis | ||||||
| Design thinking | ||||||
| Horizon scanning | ||||||
| Other | ||||||
The Kruskal Wallis test results – using a Delphi survey, design thinking, or horizon scanning (yes = 1, no = 0) for 5 groups of municipalities based on the results of the survey (N = 150) – data was compiled using the PS IMAGO PRO solution, whose analytical engine is IBM SPSS Statistics_
| Group of municipalities | Average rank* (yes = 1, no = 0) | Value H Kruskal Wallis | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 69.96 | 1.292 | 0.863 |
| 2 | 73.03 | ||
| 3 | 75.45 | ||
| 4 | 79.00 | ||
| 5 | 79.16 |
Mann-Whitney U-test results for the number of techniques used in the two groups of municipalities based on the results of the survey (N = 150) – data was compiled using the PS IMAGO PRO solution, whose analytical engine is IBM SPSS Statistics_
| Group of municipalities | Average rank* | Value Z | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| top24 | 28.71 | –2.121 | 0.034 |
| worst 25 | 20.29 |
Mann Whitney U test results – using a Delphi survey, design thinking or horizon scanning (yes = 1, no = 0) in the smallest and largest municipalities based on the results of the survey (N = 150) – data was compiled using the PS IMAGO PRO solution, whose analytical engine is IBM SPSS Statistics_
| Group of municipalities | Average rank* | Value Z | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 27.54 | –0.935 | 0.350 |
| 5 | 31.09 |
Distribution of responses by voivodeship_
| Voivodeship | Number of responses | Number of municipalities in voivodeship | Response share by number of municipalities |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dolnośląskie | 6 | 169 | 3.6% |
| Kujawsko-Pomorskie | 11 | 144 | 7.6% |
| Lubelskie | 16 | 213 | 7.5% |
| Lubuskie | 2 | 82 | 2.4% |
| Łódzkie | 11 | 177 | 6.2% |
| Małopolskie | 18 | 182 | 9.9% |
| Mazowieckie | 17 | 314 | 5.4% |
| Opolskie | 1 | 71 | 1.4% |
| Podkarpackie | 9 | 160 | 5.6% |
| Podlaskie | 11 | 118 | 9.3% |
| Pomorskie | 8 | 123 | 6.5% |
| Śląskie | 17 | 167 | 10.2% |
| Świętokrzyskie | 9 | 102 | 8.8% |
| Warmińsko-Mazurskie | 10 | 116 | 8.6% |
| Wielkopolskie | 8 | 226 | 3.5% |
| Zachodniopo-morskie | 7 | 113 | 6.2% |
| Total | 161 | 2477 | 6.5% |
Techniques for collecting and analysing information in the process of building the strategy of development based on the results of the survey (N = 150)_
| Type of information gathering and analysis technique | Number of responses (n = 150) |
|---|---|
| Open workshop (involving representatives of other entities and residents) | 140 |
| Statistical data analysis | 136 |
| Online or on-site survey | 135 |
| Internal workshop (only for office employees) | 126 |
| Design thinking | 48 |
| Horizon scanning | 48 |
| Delphi survey (multi-stage survey with experts) | 43 |
| Other | 38 |
Mann-Whitney U-test results for the use of development scenarios in the context of the quadruple helix (yes = 1, no = 0) based on the results of the survey (N = 150)– data was compiled using the PS IMAGO PRO solution, whose analytical engine is IBM SPSS Statistics_
| Group of municipalities | Average rank* (yes = 1, no = 0) | Value Z | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| top24 | 24.17 | –0.479 | 0.632 |
| worst 25 | 25.80 |
Selected methods in municipalities by size group based on the results of the survey (N = 150)_
| Groups by population (based on percentiles) | Group size | Use of Delphi survey, design thinking or horizon scanning | Share (%) of municipalities indicating use of method within group |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (<4866) | 26 | 9 | 35% |
| Group 2 (4866–7693) | 31 | 12 | 39% |
| Group 3 (7694–13,030) | 31 | 13 | 42% |
| Group 4 (13,031–25,088) | 30 | 14 | 47% |
| Group 5 (>25,088) | 32 | 15 | 47% |
| Total | 150 | 63 | 42% |
Examples of the methods used for developing local strategies_
| Method | Short description |
|---|---|
| Research | |
| Interviews (eg. IDI) | In-depth interviews are structured and flexible research interactions aimed at obtaining detailed insights into respondents’ knowledge, experiences, perceptions, and interpretations of a given issue. They enable the researcher to explore factual information, meanings, motivations, and subjective evaluations attached to specific phenomena (Mears 2012). |
| Survey (eg. CAWI) | Survey research is a systematic method of collecting data from a defined population through questionnaires. Developed as a rigorous research approach, it is based on clearly defined principles concerning instrument design, sampling procedures, data collection, and statistical analysis. Central methodological requirements include ensuring validity and reliability of measurement (Ball 2019). |
| Delphi | The Delphi method is a structured, multi-round procedure designed to obtain and refine expert judgments on complex issues. It involves independent assessment by experts, followed by anonymised feedback summarising the group’s responses. Participants are given the opportunity to revise their views in subsequent rounds, with the process continuing until a predefined level of consensus is reached. The method is particularly useful for forecasting and strategic planning in situations of uncertainty (Jorm 2025). |
| Participation | |
| Workshops (as an example of group interaction methods [Sanoff 2000]) | Workshops are planned, time-limited events designed for a specific (usually small) group of participants, facilitated by experienced practitioners within the relevant domain with the expectation of a concrete outcome. They can aim to stimulate interaction, solve problems, learn, or perform other actions leading to tangible outputs in a specific domain (Ørngreen, Levinsen 2017). |
| Public hearings (as an example of open-ended methods [Sanoff 2000]) | Public hearings are formal, open meetings that bring together public officials and citizens to discuss specific policy issues. They provide participants with an opportunity to express opinions, comments, or concerns in a public setting, although decision-makers are not necessarily required to provide responses. (Williamson, Fung 2004). |
| Analysis and decision-making | |
| SWOT | SWOT is a strategic diagnostic tool that structures analysis around four categories – internal strengths and weaknesses, and external opportunities and threats. Typically presented in a 2 × 2 matrix, it supports a comprehensive overview of internal and external factors affecting an organisation or territory. While the matrix format encourages holistic reflection, the method primarily serves to identify and organise key determinants (Leigh 2010). |
| PEST | PEST analysis is a framework for examining the context in which an organisation operates. It focuses on four categories of external factors: political, economic, social, and technological. The method is used to identify broader trends and contextual conditions that may influence development processes (Vasileva 2019). The acronym can be expanded – names such as PESTEL or STEEPS are also used in literature. |
| MCDM | Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) refers to a group of analytical approaches designed to support decisions involving multiple, often conflicting criteria. The method may aim at selecting the most preferred alternative, ranking available options, grouping them into preference categories, or identifying non-dominated solutions (Taherdoost, Madanchian 2023). |
| Futures exploration | |
| Scenario building | Scenario building is a foresight-oriented method used to construct coherent and plausible representations of alternative future developments. It explores possible and desirable futures in order to inform present decision-making. For scenarios to be analytically useful and credible, they should meet criteria such as pertinence, coherency, likelihood, importance, and transparency, including clarity regarding assumptions, methods, and conclusions (Durance, Godet 2010). |
| Visioning | Visioning is a strategic approach focused on defining a desirable future state towards which development efforts should be directed. By articulating long-term aspirations, visions provide orientation for operational planning, policy design, implementation, and subsequent monitoring or adaptation processes. In this sense, visioning serves as a normative framework guiding collective action and strategic alignment (John et al. 2015). |
| Backcasting | Backcasting is a planning approach that begins with the formulation of a desirable future outcome and then works backward to identify the steps required to achieve it. Backcasting is particularly suited to situations where transformative change is needed or where existing trajectories are considered unsustainable. It supports proactive and goal-oriented strategy design by linking long-term objectives with present policy choices (Bibri 2020). |
Frequency of consulting with stakeholders based on the results of the survey (N = 150)_
| How often has your municipality referred to the opinions of … during the planning and decision-making process for development over the last two terms of office (since 2014)? (n = 150) | residents | experts | other public entities | officials or representatives of other local government institutions | business representatives | non-governmental organisations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Never | 1 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 10 | 4 |
| Rarely (in isolated cases) | 40 | 60 | 65 | 42 | 85 | 63 |
| Usually (in most cases) | 89 | 70 | 68 | 83 | 44 | 68 |
| Always | 20 | 12 | 12 | 18 | 11 | 15 |
Methods in the process of building the strategy of development based on the results of the survey (N = 150)_
| Method name | Number of responses (n = 150) |
|---|---|
| Strengths and weaknesses analysis – e.g. SWOT | 139 |
| Trend analysis | 96 |
| Analysis of external factors – e.g. PEST/PESTEL | 85 |
| Building development scenarios | 87 |
| Other | 77 |
Information gathering and analysis techniques in two municipal groups based on the results of the survey (N = 150)_
| Type of information gathering and analysis technique | HELIX TOP24 | Number of ‘Other’ indications | HELIX WORST25 | Number of ‘Other’ indications |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internal workshop (only for office staff) | 21 | 0 | 18 | 0 |
| Open workshop (involving representatives of other entities and residents) | 24 | 1 | 19 | 1 |
| Online or on-site survey | 22 | 6 | 17 | 0 |
| Delphi survey (multi-stage survey with experts) | 8 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Statistical data analysis | 21 | 1 | 20 | 1 |
| Design thinking | 10 | 1 | 7 | 2 |
| Horizon scanning | 11 | 2 | 5 | 1 |
| Other | 9 | 5 | 3 | 1 |
| Total | 126 | 20 | 93 | 6 |
| Average | 5.25 | 0.83 | 3.72 | 0.24 |