Skip to main content

The Pioneering Quantitative Model for TIA: TEQUILA

  • 116 Accesses

Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

The request for building an operational model for the ex ante assessment of the territorial impact of EU policies, projects and regulations was addressed directly to the author by the ESPON managing authority. A rationale and definition of what could be intended as TIA was proposed, a prototype model and the connected software was built and applied to the TEN (Trans-European Network) program in 2004–2006. The convincing results achieved were followed by subsequent new and deeper studies, where the model was improved, simplified and implemented on EU transport and agricultural policies and to some EU directives in the environmental fields. TEQUILA is a multi-criteria model working on a quantitative base on Nuts3 regions in the EU; however, it integrates in a statistically consistent way qualitative judgements by experts, when necessary. The criteria refer to the main dimensions of territorial cohesion – territorial efficiency, territorial quality and territorial identity – and their sub-dimensions/criteria, measurable by multiple indicators. Particularly the goal of territorial identity captured the interest and favour of policy makers. Impact maps on concrete applications, illustrated here, were used in official reports of the European Commission.

Keywords

  • Territorial Impact Assessment
  • territorial cohesion
  • integrated spatial policies and planning
  • multi-criteria analysis

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-54502-4_3
  • Chapter length: 28 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-54502-4
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Hardcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 3.1
Fig. 3.2
Fig. 3.3
Fig. 3.4
Fig. 3.5
Fig. 3.6
Fig. 3.7
Fig. 3.8
Fig. 3.9

Notes

  1. 1.

    In that period, 1997–1998, I was serving as head of the Department of Urban Affairs at the Presidency of the Council of Ministers in Rome, under the first Prodi government.

  2. 2.

    In the final paragraph of the ESDP (326), where the case of cultural sites and art cities is dealt with, particularly with reference to tourism and “property market speculation” threats, similar spatial development strategies integrating different approaches are suggested, but not a formalised impact assessment tool (probably due to the immaterial costs and benefits which are intrinsic in Cultural Heritage (CH). However, as it will be shown later, some reliable quantitative measurements are possible also in the field of CH. A recent econometric work on the relationship between CH and development through such immaterial processes as inspiration and creativity has produced solid and convincing results. See: Cerisola 2019.

  3. 3.

    A careful scoping document on the subject was produced by Williams et al. 2000, confirming the non-existence of such a tool.

  4. 4.

    The subsequent listing of the empirical issues encompassed by the new concept look more interesting: the concentration of economic activity and population in the European “Pentagon”; the imbalance between metropolitan areas and the rest of the countries; growing congestion, pollution and social exclusion in the main conurbations; the presence of rural areas suffering from inadequate accessibility; urban sprawl.

  5. 5.

    Two relevant innovations are present here. Firstly, traditional “spatial development” policies are called “territorial”; secondly, the concept of ‘territorial capital’ is used for the first time, implicitly suggesting that territory is a resource, generating productivity increases (“higher return for specific kinds of investment”) and wellbeing to local communities. On the meaning and use of the territorial capital concept, see Camagni 2019.

  6. 6.

    As in the usual performance matrix of MCA showing scores (in our case the impacts of a policy), on columns we find the dimensions/criteria, but on the rows, we do not find alternatives (different projects or alternatives of the same project) but regions. In our case, the goal is not to choose among alternatives as in multi-criteria decision analysis, but to compare impacts on different regions on the basis of consistent quantitative scoring on each single dimension/criterion, the goal being to detect spatial cases where strong mitigation measures should be provided or alternative implementations of the policy investigated. Inside the matrix, weighted summation can be made by column (summative evaluation of impacts on single regions) or by rows (giving a general assessment of the policy impact on the entire EU territory in each dimension/criterion).

  7. 7.

    For the consideration of the specific priorities of local communities, see later at point l.

  8. 8.

    On the positive side: 5 = very high advantage for all; 4 = high advantage for all; 3 = high advantage for some, medium advantage for all; 2 = medium advantage; 1 = low advantage; 0 = nil impact. Thanks to the linearity hypothesis, scores in the 0–5 interval are easily transformed in the normal intervals, if needed.

  9. 9.

    In algebraic terms, when n stands for normalised scores and o for observed or calculated values, the normalised value nx of any observed ox is given by:

    $$ nx=\frac{\left({n}_{\mathrm{max}}-{n}_{\mathrm{min}}\right)}{\left({o}_{\mathrm{max}}-{o}_{\mathrm{min}}\right)}\cdot \left({o}_{\mathrm{max}}- ox\right) $$
  10. 10.

    Weights are at the same time ‘importance’ coefficient – indicating the priorities of national or regional communities, for example with respect to the common development-environment trade-off – and ‘substitution indicators’, i.e. marginal substitution rates among impacts on different criteria, allowing compensations among them. The author prefers not to add a third, unconventional role to weights, especially if different solutions can be found.

  11. 11.

    In the example of Fig. 3.1, the values of calculated impacts of an abstract development measure on the different regions (x axis) are very similar: why then should we attribute 0, meaning a hell condition, to 180 new jobs and 5, meaning heaven, to 250? Better to distribute scores between 2 and 3, half point around the average.

  12. 12.

    But it can be implemented easily: see footnote 6.

  13. 13.

    For example: in the case of a technological risk, PIM gives the probability of explosion of a given plant, and Vr the damage in case the plant is located close to a city or in an inhabited site.

  14. 14.

    In this case, if max % change allowed is 20%, for a region with a per capita GDP equal to the EU average the coefficient will be 1 (no change); for the poorest region it will be 1,20 and for the richest region 0,80. Therefore the same increase in GDP will have a superior value in the poor region and an inferior (perceived) value in the rich one.

  15. 15.

    The political relevance of ‘outliers’ – i.e. of excessive impacts on some aspects, population classes or regions – is made explicit by the European Commission: “When a single Member State or region is disproportionately affected (so-called ‘outlier’ impact), this should be mentioned. Where such disparities appear to be significant, they should be analysed as they may be a reason to adapt the initiative, for instance to offer mitigating or transitional measures for the ‘outlier’” (EC 2009: 41).

  16. 16.

    Mapping procedures directly integrated inside the computational machine were finalised only in the TIP-TAP version of the TEQUILA model.

  17. 17.

    The choice of this policy field was due to the existence of multiple studies, allowing a quantitative territorial assessment. Collaboration with the teams involved in these studies was gratefully acknowledged.

  18. 18.

    Ten years ago the identitarian issue was not so politically clear as today; policy makers, academics and practitioners proved to be closer to people’s feelings than public officers and experts.

  19. 19.

    Exposure fields are in a fixed number, but each directive activates only some of them.

  20. 20.

    This condition was not met in case of our assessment of CAP policy, due to the national responsibility on inter-regional resource allocation.

References

  • Beinot E, Nijkamp P (eds) (2007) Multi-criteria analysis for land-use management. Springer Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Camagni R (1998) Sustainable urban development: definition and reasons for a research programme. Int J Environ Pollut 1:6–26

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Camagni R (1999) The city as a milieu: applying GREMI’s approach to urban evolution. Revue d’Economie Régionale et Urbaine 3:591–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Camagni R (2002) On the concept of territorial competitiveness: sound or misleading? Urban Stud 13:2395–2412

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Camagni R (2006) Territorial Impact Assessment – TIA: a methodological proposal, Scienze Regionali. Italian J Reg Sci 5(2):135–146. Republished in: Capello R. (ed.) (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Camagni R (2009) Territorial impact assessment for European regions; a methodological proposal and an application to EU transport policy. Eval Program Plann 32:342–350

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Camagni R (2019) Territorial capital and regional development: theoretical insights and appropriate policies. In: Capello R, Nijkamp P (eds) Handbook of regional growth and development theories, 2nd edn. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 124–148

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Capello R (ed) (2017) Seminal studies in regional and urban economics: contributions from an impressive mind. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Capello R (2018) Cohesion policies and the creation of a European identity: the role of territorial identity. J Common Mark Stud 56(3):489–505

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Capello R (2019) Interpreting and understanding territorial identity. Reg Sci Policy Pract 11(1):141–158

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Capello R, Camagni R, Fratesi U, Chizzolini B (2008) Modelling regional scenarios for an enlarged Europe. Springer Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Capello R, Caragliu A (2019) Merging macroeconomic and territorial determinants of regional growth; the MASST4 model. Paper presented at the 59th ERSA Conference, Lyon, 27–31 August

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerisola S (2019) Cultural heritage, creativity and economic development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • CMSP – Council of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning (1998) European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). Presented at the Ministerial Meeting in Glasgow, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • DCLG – Department for Communities and Local Government (2009) Multi-criteria analysis: a manual. London

    Google Scholar 

  • EC – European Commission (1999) European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EC – European Commission (2002) Impact assessment (COM (2002) 276). Communication from the Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EC – European Commission (2004a) Impact assessment: next steps (SEC (2004) 1377). Commission Staff Working Paper, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EC – European Commission (2004b) A new partnership for cohesion, third report on economic and social cohesion, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EC – European Commission (2004c) Interim territorial cohesion report. Brussels. June

    Google Scholar 

  • EC – European Commission (2005) Impact assessment guidelines (SEC (2005) 791). Brussels, June

    Google Scholar 

  • EC – European Commission (2009) Impact Assessment Guidelines, (SEC(2009)92). Brussels. January

    Google Scholar 

  • EC – European Commission (2010) Europe 2020, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EC – European Commission (2015a) Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union, Junker Report, Brussels, June

    Google Scholar 

  • EC – European Commission (2015b) “10 Commission Priorities for 2015–19”, Dombrovskis – Moscovici – Thyssen Report, Brussels, October

    Google Scholar 

  • EC – European Commission (2019) Commission Contribution to the European Council on European Semester. Brussels, Spring

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggenberger M, Partidario MR (2000) Development of a framework to assist the integration of environmental, social and economic issues in spatial planning, in Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, September, 18:3

    Google Scholar 

  • ESPON - European Spatial Planning Observation Network (2006) Spatial Scenarios and Orientations in relation to the ESDP and Cohesion Policy, Lead Partner IGEAT, Brussels; Final Report, Vol. 5, “Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA)”, Politecnico di Milano, Dept. DIG, director R. Camagni

    Google Scholar 

  • ESPON - European Spatial Planning Observation Network (2009) TIP-TAP - Territorial Impact Package for Transport and Agricultural Policies, Lead Partner Politecnico di Milano, Dept. BEST, director R. Camagni

    Google Scholar 

  • ESPON - European Spatial Planning Observation Network (2011) ARTS - Assessment of Regional and Territorial Sensitivity to European Directives, Lead Partner OIR, Vienna; Final Scientific Report, Chapter 3, “Tha Analytical Approach”, Politecnico di Milano, Dept. BEST, director R. Camagni

    Google Scholar 

  • Luxembourg Presidency (2005) Scoping document and summary of political messages for an assessment of the territorial state and perspectives of the European Union: towards a stronger European territorial cohesion in the light of the Lisbon and Gothenburg ambitions, Luxembourg, May

    Google Scholar 

  • Munda G (1995) Multicriteria evaluation in a fuzzy environment; theory and application in ecological economics. Physika Verlag, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2005) Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide, OECD statistics working paper, STD/DOC(2005)3. Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardini A (1997) A proposal for integrating environmental impact assessment, cost benefit analysis and multicriteria analysis in decision making. Project Appraisal, Sept

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijkamp P, Ouwersloot H (1997) A decision support system in regional sustainable development. In: van den Bergh JCJM, Hofkes MW (eds) The flag model, theory and implementation of sustainable development modelling. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp 255–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijkamp P, Rietveld P, Voogd H (eds) (1990) Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning. North Holland Publ, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam RD (1993) Making democracy work. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Pose A (2017) The revenge of places that don’t matter(and what to do about it). Camb J Reg Econ Soc 11(1):189–209

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Scriven M (1994) The Final Synthesis, Evaluation Practice, 15(3):367–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Thérivel R, Partidario MR (eds) (1996) The practice of strategic environmental assessment. Earthscan Pub. Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams R, Connolly P, Healey A (2000) Territorial impact assessment: a scoping study, Final Draft Submission to the Committee on Spatial Development, CREUE-Newcastle and ECOTEC, mimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2001) Understanding and measuring social capital: a synthesis of findings and recommendations from the social capital initiative, Social Capital Initiative Working Paper n. 24, April, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto Camagni .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Camagni, R. (2020). The Pioneering Quantitative Model for TIA: TEQUILA. In: Medeiros, E. (eds) Territorial Impact Assessment . Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54502-4_3

Download citation