Skip to main content

Cross-Border Territorial Impact Assessment

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

Abstract

The solution for cross-territorial impact assessment (CBC TIA) developed by the Central European Service for Cross-Border Initiatives (CESCI) can be classified as a bottom-up model – unlike the TIA tool of the European Union (cf: EC, Assessing territorial impacts: operational guidance on how to assess regional and local impacts within the Commission Impact Assessment System, European Commission, Brussels, SWD(2013) 3 final, 2013) and those designed in the framework of the ESPON programme (like ESPON EATIA, INTERCO. Indicators of territorial cohesion. (Draft) Final Report. Part B Report, 2013) and similarly to the TARGET TIA by Medeiros (Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA). Concept, Methods and Techniques, Centro de Estudos Geográficos da Universidade de Lisboa (CEG) – Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território (IGOT). Lisbon University, Lisbon, Reg Stud Reg Sci 2(1):97–115) and the TIA of the ITEM (since 2016, annually), which are gained from daily experiences of cross-border cooperation. The CESCI CBC TIA focuses on processes facilitating the gradual elimination of the border effects and the shared exploitation of the territorial potential, territorial capital of the divided border area. These processes can be detected by a multidimensional toolkit including the mapping of the perceptions of Otherness and the territorial behaviour of the border people, and the analysis of the forms and embeddedness of cross-border governance. Consequently, this model does not contain a universal formula, but rather, it establishes a set of quantitative and qualitative indicators describing how, and to what extent, the assessed activities, projects and investments contribute to an eased permeability of the administrative borders.

Keywords

  • Territorial impact assessment
  • Borders
  • Cross-border cooperation
  • Territorial integration
  • Borderscape

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_7
  • Chapter length: 20 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. 7.1
Fig. 7.2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The majority of the publications presenting these experiences are available at the home page of CESCI (www.cescinet.eu).

  2. 2.

    For further details on the prehistory of territorial impact assessment, please refer to Evers (2011), Medeiros (2015) and Faludi (2018).

  3. 3.

    ‘In the same way, decisions taken at regional and local levels should be coherent with a broader set of principles that would underpin more sustainable and balanced territorial development within the Union’ (EC 2001: 13).

  4. 4.

    https://ec.europa.eu/knowledge4policy/territorial/topic/regional_en

  5. 5.

    The relevant ESPON projects and their results considering TIA are analysed by Evers (2011), EC (2013) and Medeiros (2014).

  6. 6.

    The generic term ‘action’ is used here for describing the complexity and diversity of cross-border programmes, projects and other development and cooperation activities.

  7. 7.

    The authors of the ex post evaluation case study of the Hungary-Slovakia Cross-Border Cooperation Programme 2007–2013 put it similarly when defining the topics of the study: ‘programme’s main achievements, the cooperation mechanisms put in place, and their effects in terms of reducing barriers to cooperation and taking advantage of common opportunities’ (EC 2016b: 1) [emphasis added].

  8. 8.

    The limits of this study do not make it possible to give a critical analysis of cross-border interpretation of territorial capital.

  9. 9.

    During the recent years, CESCI has developed its own methodology used for designing integrated cross-border strategies called cross-border cohesion-based planning. The name of the methodology stems from the fact that during the planning process only those factors are taken into account which enhance or hinder stronger cross-border territorial, economic and social cohesion. The methodology has been applied in a half a dozen cases at integrated planning of EGTCs and in the design and evaluation of four cross-border programmes.

  10. 10.

    http://www.orestat.se/

  11. 11.

    For the history of the term, please refer to Dell’Agnese and Amilhat Szary (2015), Dell’Agnese (2017), Brambilla (2015) and Brambilla et al. (2017).

  12. 12.

    See Houtum and Eker (2017: 42) and Dell’Agnese (2017: 53).

  13. 13.

    The author had the opportunity to take part at the workshop targeting the TIA of the EGTC Regulation. The experts applied the ESPON TIA Quick check at the workshop. First, the stakeholders could, as a matter of fact, hardly select indicators from among the proposed list because they were just irrelevant. Second, when finally mapping the results, the maps were geographically unintelligible, e.g. one of the most affected regions was located in Scandinavia where the EGTC tool is not applied at all. It does not mean that the TIA Quick check is useless. However, apparently, it cannot be properly applied in a cross-border context because of its simplistic character.

  14. 14.

    Bartal and Molnár (2006)

  15. 15.

    Some of the above methods were applied in a research project concerning the territorial impacts of the reopening of the Mária Valéria Bridge, published in 2019 by CESCI.

References

  • Agnew J (1994) The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Rev Int Polit Econ 1(1):53–80

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Agnew J (2008) Borders in the mind: re-framing border thinking. Ethics Global Politics 1(4):175–191

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger P, Haughton G, Knieling J, Othengrafen F (2015) Soft spaces, planning and emerging practices of territorial governance. In: Allmendinger P, Haughton G, Knieling J, Othengrafen F (eds) Soft Spaces in Europe. Re-negotiating governance, boundaries and borders. Routledge, London/New York, pp 3–22

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bartal AM, Molnár K (2006) Civil kapcsolati hálók az Ister-Granum régióban. Kutatási jelentés. Eurohíd Alapítvány, Esztergom

    Google Scholar 

  • Brambilla C (2015) From border as a method of capital to borderscape as a method for a geographical opposition to capitalism, Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana Roma 8:13, 393–402. Unofficial English translation. [online] http://societageografica.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/brambilla_eng_3_15.pdf [online, 12.04.2019]

  • Brambilla C (2017) Navigating the Euro/African border and migration nexus through the borderscape lens: insights from the LampedusaInFestival. In: Brambilla C, Laine J, Scott JW, Bocchi G (eds) Borderscaping: imaginations and practices of border making. Routlegde, London/New York, pp 111–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Brambilla C, Laine J, Scott JW, Bocchi G (2017) Introduction: thinking, mapping, acting and living borders under contemporary globalisation. In: Brambilla C, Laine J, Scott JW, Bocchi G (eds) Borderscaping: imaginations and practices of border making. Routlegde, London/New York, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • CCBS (2015) Toolkit for evaluation of cross-border projects. Centre for Cross-Border Studies, Armagh

    Google Scholar 

  • Decoville A, Durand F (2018) Exploring cross-border integration in Europe: how do populations cross borders and perceive their neighbours? Eur Urban Reg Stud 26(2):134–157

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Agnese E (2017) New geographies of border(land)-scapes. In: Brambilla C, Laine J, Scott JW, Bocchi G (eds) Borderscaping: imaginations and practices of border making. Routlegde, London/New York, pp 53–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Agnese E, Amilhat Szary A-L (2015) Borderscapes: from border landscapes to border aesthetics. Geopolitics 20(1):1–10

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2001) A white paper on European Governance. European Commission, Brussels, COM(2001) 428 final

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2007a) Phare ex post evaluation. Phase 3, thematic evaluations – cross-border cooperation. Thematic evaluation. Phare cross-border cooperation programmes 1999–2003. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2007b) Territorial agenda of the European Union. Towards a more competitive and sustainable Europe of diverse regions. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/what/territorial-cohesion/territorial_agenda_leipzig2007.pdf [online, 24.07.2019]

  • EC (2008) Green paper on territorial cohesion. Turning territorial diversity into strength, European Commission, Brussels, SEC(2008) 2550

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2009) Impact assessment guidelines, European Commission, Brussels, SEC(2009) 92

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2013) Assessing territorial impacts: operational guidance on how to assess regional and local impacts within the Commission Impact Assessment System, European Commission, Brussels, SWD(2013) 3 final

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2016a) Ex-post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007–2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF). Final report. Main report. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2016b) Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007–2013 financed by the European regional development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF). Case study: Hungary-Slovakia Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007–2013. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2017) Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions. European Commission, Brussels, COM(2017) 534 final

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2018a) Border region data collection. Final Report. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2018b) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on specific provisions for the European territorial cooperation goal (Interreg) supported by the European Regional Development Fund and external financing instruments. European Commission, Brussels, COM(2018) 374 final

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2018c) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on the European Regional Development Fund and on the Cohesion Fund. European Commission, Brussels, COM/2018/372 final

    Google Scholar 

  • ESPON (2013) INTERCO. Indicators of territorial cohesion. (Draft) Final Report. Part B Report

    Google Scholar 

  • ESPON (2019) Territorial impact assessment for cross-border cooperation. Draft Scientific Annex

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers D (2011) Territorial impact assessment: a critical examination of current practice. In: Farinos DJ (ed) De la Valucion Ambiental Estartegica a la Evaluacion de Impacto Territorial. Generalitat Valenciana/PUV, Valencia, pp 75–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Faludi A (2018) The poverty of territorialism. In: A neo-medieval view of Europe and European planning. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham/Northampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Halls ET (1968) Proxemics. Curr Anthropol 9(2/3):83–95

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Houtum v H (1998) The development of cross-border economic relations. ThelaThesis Publishers, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Houtum v H (2000) An overview of European geographical research on borders and border regions. J Borderlands Stud 15(1):57–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Houtum v H, Eker M (2017) Redesigning borderlands: using the Janus-Face of borders as a resource. In: Brambilla C, Laine J, Scott JW, Bocchi G (eds) Borderscaping: imaginations and practices of border making. Routlegde, London/New York, pp 41–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Houtum v H, Kramsch O, Zierhofer W (2005) B/ordering space. Ashgate, Aldershot/Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • ITEM (2016) Cross-border impact assessment 2016. Extensive report. Institute for Transnational and Euregional cross border cooperation and Mobility/ITEM, Maastricht

    Google Scholar 

  • ITEM (2017) Cross-border impact assessment 2017. Extensive report. Institute for Transnational and Euregional cross border cooperation and Mobility/ITEM, Maastricht

    Google Scholar 

  • ITEM (2018) Cross-border impact assessment 2018. Extensive Report. Institute for Transnational and Euregional cross border cooperation and Mobility/ITEM, Maastricht

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre H (1991) The production of space. Blackwell, Oxford/Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Medeiros E (2014) Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA). Concept, Methods and Techniques. Centro de Estudos Geográficos da Universidade de Lisboa (CEG) – Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território (IGOT). Lisbon University, Lisbon

    Google Scholar 

  • Medeiros E (2015) Territorial impact assessment and cross-border cooperation. Reg Stud Reg Sci 2(1):97–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Medeiros E (2019) Spatial planning, territorial development, and territorial impact assessment. J Spat Plann 34(2):171–182

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2013) Regions and innovation: collaborating across borders. OECD Publishing, Paris

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Othengrafen F, Knieling J, Haughton G, Allmendinger P (2015) Conclusion – what a different do soft spaces make? In: Allmendinger P, Haughton G, Knieling J, Othengrafen F (eds) Soft Spaces in Europe. Re-negotiating governance, boundaries and borders. Routledge, London/New York, pp 215–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Paasi A (2005) The changing discourses on political boundaries. Mapping the backgrounds, contexts and contents. In: Houtum v H, Kramsch O, Zierhofer W (eds) B/ordering space. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajaram PK, Grundy-Warr C (2007) Introduction. In: Rajaram PK, Grundy-Warr C (eds) Borderscapes. Hidden geographies and politics at territory’s edge. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis/London, pp ix–lx

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott JW (2014) Bordering, border politics and cross-border cooperation in Europe. Working Paper 7, EUROBORDERSCAPES. Bordering, political landscapes and social arenas: potentials and challenges of evolving border concepts in a post-Cold War World. http://www.euborderscapes.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Working_Papers/EUBORDERSCAPES_Working_Paper_7_Scott.pdf [online, 03.12.2016]

  • Svensson S, Nordlund C (2015) The building blocks of a Euroregion: novel metrics to measure cross-border integration. J Eur Integr 37(3):371–389

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Taillon R, Beck J, Rihm S (2011) Impact assessment toolkit for cross-border cooperation. The Centre for Cross Border Studies – The Euro Institut – Institute for cross border co-operation, Armagh-Kehl

    Google Scholar 

  • Werlen B (2005) Regions and everyday regionalizations. From a space-centred towards an action-centred human geography. In: Houtum v H, Kramsch O, Zierhofer W (eds) B/ordering space. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 47–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Zonneveld W, Waterhout B (2009) EU territorial impact assessment: under what conditions? final report, OTB Research Institute Delft University of Technology. https://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/5987/tiareport_zonneveld02072009.pdf [online, 19.09.2018]

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gyula Ocskay .

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

Ocskay, G. (2020). Cross-Border Territorial Impact Assessment. In: Medeiros, E. (eds) Territorial Impact Assessment . Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54502-4_7

Download citation