The Influence of Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) in the Fostering of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development: A Step Closer to Achieve Major Structural Changes and Sustainable Cities Within European Territory

  • Luís LouresEmail author
  • Rui Alexandre Castanho
  • José Manuel Naranjo Gómez
  • José Cabezas
  • Luis Fernández-Pozo
Part of the Studies on Entrepreneurship, Structural Change and Industrial Dynamics book series (ESID)


Currently, we are living “strange/changing times”, mainly, for populations from developed countries. Those challenges are caused by internal and external factors that are taking place inside and outside the borders of developed countries. Still, as new challenges arise, men have found new solutions to overcome existing difficulties. This might be the case of the entrepreneurship within EU borders, as a possible solution for increasing regional development of border areas.

Contributing for sustainable regional development and growth, cross-border cooperation (CBC) projects and strategies of cross-border cooperation has been as seen as critical for achieving desired territorial success, constituting fertile habitats for entrepreneurship and investment.

In this regard, it is important to analyse successful examples of European CBC projects in order to better understand not only how those issues are connected, but also how they influence and contribute for regional development.

The performed analyses enable us to understand the impacts of CBC for a sustainable growth identifying the ways territories should implement specific tools to develop structural alternatives and to open new paths towards the desired sustainable city, throughout the use of entrepreneurship as a catalyst for development.


Cross-border cooperation (CBC) Entrepreneurship Regional development Sustainable cities 


  1. Antrop, M. (2000). Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe. Landscape Ecology, 15(3), 257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antrop, M. (2004). Landscape change and the urbanization process in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning, 67(1–4), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baptista, T., Cabezas, J., Fernández, L., & Pinto-Gomes, C. (2013). IDE-OTALEX C. The first crossborder SDI between Portugal and Spain: Background and development. Journal of Earth Science and Engineering, 3(6).Google Scholar
  4. Botsiou, K. (1999). Regional cooperation in Eastern and Southeast Europe. Greek Foundation of European and Foreign Policy.Google Scholar
  5. Buti, M., & Carnot, M. (2012). The EMU debt crisis: Early lessons and reforms. Journal of Market Common Studies.
  6. Cadavid, J. (2013). Arquitectura y Sostenibilidad. Santiago de Cali, Colombia. ISBN 9788494191510.Google Scholar
  7. Castanho, R. A., Cabezas, J., & Pozo, L. (2016a). Territorial planinng and development tools in transboundary areas. Study case of the OTALEX-C space. Conference paper. Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning - University of Lisbon & International Journal of E-Planning Research. Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning, University of Lisbon, 31 March–1 April 2016, Lisbon.Google Scholar
  8. Castanho, R., Loures, L., Fernández, J., & Pozo, L. (2016b). Identifying critical factors for success in cross border cooperation (CBC) development projects. Habitat International. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castanho, R., Loures, L., Fernández, J., & Fernández-Pozo, L. (2017a). Cross border cooperation (CBC) in Southern Europe - An iberian case study. The eurocity Elvas-Badajoz. Sustainability, 9, 360. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castanho, R., Vulevic, A., Cabezas, J., Fernández-Pozo, L., Naranjo Gómez, J., & Loures, L. (2017b). Accessibility and connectivity – Movement between cities, as a critical factor to achieve success on cross-border cooperation (CBC) projects. A European analysis. Sustainable Cities and Society Journal. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Commission of the European Communities. (2008). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions - on implementing European community environmental law, Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. Dale, G. (2016). Karl Polanyi: A life on the left. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dognin-Sauze, K. (2015). Greater Lyon area – A smart metropolis buzzing with innovation. Digital For All Now, Lyon.Google Scholar
  14. EUREGIO-MR. (2016). Le portail interactit de’l Euregio Meuso-Rhiu. Accessed 16 Nov 2016.
  15. Eurostat. (2016). Eurostat – Statistics explained. Accessed November 14, 2016, from
  16. Fadigas, L. (2010). Urbanismo e Natureza e Os Desafios. Lisbon: Edições Sílabo.Google Scholar
  17. Fadigas, L. (2015). Urbanismo e Território e As políticas públicas. Lisbon: Edições Sílabo.Google Scholar
  18. Faludis, A. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, cooperation: European spatial planning coming of age? New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fundación Mapfre. (2009). Ciudades y pueblos sostenibles. Seguridad y Medio Ambiente. Madrid, Spain. ISSN 1888-5438.Google Scholar
  20. Greenfield, A. (2013). Against the smart city. New York: Do Projects. ISBN: 9780982438329.Google Scholar
  21. Hashem, I. A. T., Chang, V., Anuar, N. B., Adewole, K., Yaqoob, I., Gani, A., Ahmed, E., & Chiroma, H. (2016). The role of big data in smart city. International Journal of Information Management, 36(5), 748–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holmes, R. (2016). Fascism 2. Anthropology Today, 32(2), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huggins, C. (2013). Motivations behind local government transnational networking. Regional Insights, 4(1), 9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Joenniemi, P., & Sergunin, A. (2011). Another face of integration: City twinning in Europe. Research Journal of International Studies, 22(1), 120–131.Google Scholar
  25. Krenek, T. (2005). Die Entwicklungspotenziale und – Hindernisse der grenzünberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit im tschechisch. Polnisch – Slowakischen Dreiländereck, Dissertation, Westfälische Universität zu Münster.Google Scholar
  26. Kurowska-Pysz, J. (2016). Opportunities for cross-border entrepreneurship development in a cluster model exemplified by the Polish–Czech border region. Sustainability, 8(3), 230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laine, J. (2016). An alternative politics of borders: The EU-Russia interphase a space of encounter. In Cross-border review yearbook 2016. Budapest: Central European Service for Cross-border Initiatives (CESCI).Google Scholar
  28. Levy, J. (2008). Case studies: Types, designs and logics of inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 25(1), 1–18. ISSN: 0738-8942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lima, F. (2012). As dinâmicas territoriais no espaço de fronteira na fachada atlântica peninsular: a eurocidade Valença/Tuy. O’porto, Portugal.Google Scholar
  30. LISER. (2015). Opportunities of cross-border cooperation between small and medium cities in Europe. Report written in the scope of the Observatory of Territorial Development, in partnership with the Department of Spatial Planning and Development – Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, Luxembourg Institute of Socio – Economic Research, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
  31. Loures, L., Panagopoulos, T., & Burley, J. (2015). Assessing user preferences on post-industrial redevelopment. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 0, 1–22.Google Scholar
  32. Magoulios, G., Dimitriadis, S., & Kydros, D. (2014). Inter-border cooperation in the area of serres prefecture and consequences of the EU Bulgaria accession – an empirical research. Procedia Economics and Finance. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martín, G. (2013). Border space as a vehicle for territorial cooperation in the new programming period 2014–2020.OTALEX-C. Badajoz, Spain.Google Scholar
  34. Martins, S. (2015). Labirintos Mundiais: As revoluções pós-modernas e os caminos da incerteza global. Lisbon: Edições Sílabo. ISBN: 978-972-618-804-9.Google Scholar
  35. Mau, S. (2007). Transnationale Vergesellschaftung: Die Entgrenzung sozialer Lebenswelten (Vol. 4). Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  36. Medeiros, E. (2013). Assessing territorial impact of the EU cohesion policy: The Portuguese case. European Planning Studies, 22(9), 1960–1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Medeiros, E. (2015). Territorial impact assessment and cross-border cooperation. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meng, T., Hsu, D., & Wadzuk, B. (2017). Green and smart: Perspectives of city and water agency officials in Pennsylvania toward adopting new infrastructure technologies for stormwater management. Journal of Sustainable Water in the Built Environment, 3, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mikail, B. (2011). Syria: The limits of external influence. Policy brief. ISSN: 1989-2667.Google Scholar
  40. Odehnalova, P., & Pirozek, P. (2014). Innovations and entrepreneurship at a time of financial crisis in Czech and Austrian constructions industries. In Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (ECIE 2014). Proceedings of the European Conference on Entrepreneurship and Innovation, pp. 355–359.Google Scholar
  41. Paunmard, M. (2011). Le concept de ville intelligente s’affine et se concrétise. San Francisco: L’ATELIER.Google Scholar
  42. Perkmann, M. (2010). Cross-border regions in Europe: Significance and drivers of regional cross-border cooperation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(2), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. PORDATA. (2016). PORDATA – Base de Dados Portugal Contemporâneo. Accessed November 14, 2016 from
  44. Rifkin, J. (2013). The European dream: How Europe’s vision of the future is quietly eclipsing the American dream. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. Rojo Salgado, A., & Varela Álvarez, E. J. (2010). Las Eurorregiones como motores de la refundación Europea: Una aproximación politológica. Razón y Palabra, 15(74).Google Scholar
  46. Schneyder, P. (2012). Euroregion Ruse-Giurgiu operations integrated opportunity management throuh master-planning. Pan Plan-Lassy-Bulplan Consortium, Ruse-Giurgiu.Google Scholar
  47. Scott, J. (2016). Rebordering central Europe: Observations on cohesion and cross-border cooperation. Cross-border review yearbook 2016.Google Scholar
  48. Smallbone, D., & Welter, F. (2012). Cross-border entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(3–4), 95–104. Scholar
  49. Sosef, D., & Nassiri, A. (2013). Europe’s most desirable logistics locations - logistics facility user survey 2013, California.Google Scholar
  50. Treaty on European Union. (1992). Maastricht Treaty. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. ISBN 92-824-0959-7.Google Scholar
  51. Trillo Santamaria, J., González, R., & Paül, V. (2015). Border-crossing cities: A critical analysis on the Eurocidade Chaves-Verin project. Geographic Journal, 54(1), 160–185.Google Scholar
  52. UE. (2016). Smart cities. Accessed 10 Nov 2016.
  53. UN. (2013). United Nations statistics division, demographic statistics. Accessed 14 Nov 2016.
  54. Van Houdt, K. (2009). Maastricht - from treaty to euregion, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  55. Vázquez, M. (2010). Ciudades transfronterizas con importante grado de cooperación: el caso de la Eurociudad Chaves-Verín. Razón y Palabra, 15(74).Google Scholar
  56. Vobruba, G. (2008). Die Entwicklung der Europasoziologie aus der Differenz national/europäisch. Berliner Journal für Soziologie, 18(1), 32–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vulevic, A. (2016). Linkage between regional accessibility, economic development, and logistic infrastructure. Book Sustainable Logistics and Strategic Transportation Planning, Tomaž Kramberger, Vojko Potočan and Vesna Mia Ipavec. doi:
  58. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research – design and methods. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luís Loures
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rui Alexandre Castanho
    • 2
  • José Manuel Naranjo Gómez
    • 3
  • José Cabezas
    • 2
  • Luis Fernández-Pozo
    • 2
  1. 1.ESAE - Instituto Politécnico de Portalegre, Portugal and Research Centre for Spatial and Organizational Dynamics (CIEO)University of AlgarveFaroPortugal
  2. 2.Environmental Resources Analysis Research Group (ARAM)University of ExtremaduraBadajozSpain
  3. 3.Polytechnic SchoolUniversity of ExtremaduraBadajozSpain

Personalised recommendations