Case-based Impact Evaluation of the Interact Programme 2014-2020

The Interact programme has a distinct role in reinforcing the effectiveness of cohesion policy by promoting exchange of experience and best practice in relation to the implementation of cooperation programmes and actions. For the 2014-2020 period Interact’s overall objective is broken down into three programme-specific objectives to inprove: i) the management and control capacity of Interreg programmes; ii) Interreg capacity in capturing and communicating programme results; and iii) cooperation management capacity to implement innovative approaches.The Impact Evaluation of the Interact programme assesses the effect of Interact’s services on Interreg programmes and other relevant stakeholders, particularly macro-regional strategy actors. It aims to answer “How has Interact contributed to supporting Interreg programmes, and in the case of macro-regional strategies other relevant stakeholders, and to improving/changing practices?” The evaluation is based on case studies of five specific Interact projects. The evaluation finds sound evidence that the five Interact projects generated immediate results, in terms of changed practices in programme authorities and cultures (‘mindsets’) and improved systems and tools. Further, the case studies also demonstrate that Interact has an impact on programmes that goes beyond capacity building. There is sound evidence that the selected services have tangible effects on the efficiency and effectiveness of programme delivery, on programmes’ resilience to change, and also on the programmes’ stakeholders, in particular applicants/beneficiaries

An Impact Evaluation of the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme 2014-2020 : Final Report

The aim of the report is to assess the contribution of the four programme priority axes of the 2014-20 Northern Periphery and Arctic (NPA) Programme to their objectives and the contribution to implementation of the horizontal priorities. The Programme has achieved a strong start to the 2014- 20 period although it is still at an early stage for measuring impact. An assessment of mediumlonger terms impacts from the past programme period shows a positive picture of impact sustainability with improved access to services being one of the key strengths. Area experiences of project impact vary, with place-specific factors (including type of partner, partner roles and domestic frameworks) conditioning impact. Detailed case studies are used to establish, for each Specific Objective, the causal link between project results and observed development in the programme area. A range of impacts can be established including: new SME links to R&D institutes/public sector supporting economic development; new business growth opportunities; improved service provision to remote communities; changing attitudes and perceptions; future oriented strategic partnerships and transnational links; and growing local capacity to engage with macro development issues

Results orientation : what is it doing for Interreg?

Results-orientation is a central theme in programme development, implementation and evaluation in the 2014-2020 programme period. This article focuses on the challenges of showing results in the Interreg programmes, and provides an example of methodologies used in the impact evaluation of the Northern Periphery and the Arctic Programme 2014-2020. The following discussion reviews the challenges of monitoring and evaluating the (NPA) results and impact of Interreg programmes, sets out how these challenges were addressed in the impact evaluation of the 2014-2020 NPA programme and concludes with discussion of future challenges and opportunities

Energy and space : the implication of spatial planning on energy demand and energy efficiency potentials

How we arrange our activities (e.g., dwelling, work, education, leisure, mobility, etc.) in space has implications on energy demand and on energy efficiency potentials. Low density, sprawling development and monofunctional land use are generally thought to increase energy demand. However, findings indicate that density does not always (significantly) decrease energy consumption and the role of traffic in energy demand related to land use and urban density remains a contested issue. Land use and spatial planning affect many aspects of household energy demand. Land use planning intervenes on the level of settlement structures and building types, all of which has implications on the demand for heating, cooling, and illumination. Land use patterns and settlement structures also impact energy demand by increasing both the demand for technical infrastructure and public-distributive services and the demand for (private) motorized mobility. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the various potential implications of urbanization and land use patterns on household primary energy demand and to identify aspects of household energy demand that can be clearly linked to spatial structures of landuse. Furthermore, the objective is to develop a theoretical model for the assessment and quantification of land use and spatial pattern related energy demand. This involves the development of an indicator for urban form and function which can be used to compare different land use patterns in the Austrian context, and the description of required input parameters and data sources regarding availability and data quality. The analysis is split into a separate analysis of the subsystems 'energy demand related to dwelling', 'energy demand related to the provision of technical and public-distributive infrastructure', and 'energy demand for mobility' and a methodology was developed for each of the three subsystems. Settlement structure is operationalized by proposing a matrix classification for settlements that combines functional aspects of land use and morphological aspects of spatial patterns. Suitable assessment methods were identified for the assessment of building, technical infrastructure, and transport energy demand. Difficulties relate to finding the optimal trade off between necessary accuracy, on the one hand, and the applicability and comprehensiveness of the approach, on the other hand. Methods must be sensitive to even subtle relative differences between the settlement classes and be suited for a large representative sample, thus go beyond the application to few case studies. Furthermore, energy demand is difficult to disentangle from socio-economic variables that influence energy consumption patterns and from lifestyles and personal attitudes which must be controlled in order to avoid erroneous conclusions. Regarding data input, parts of the required input data are available in the necessary quality and spatio-temporal resolution. Data restrictions are related to the fact that some data are only available in aggregated format, outdated or not publicly accessible due to requirements on data protection. Lack of data concerns mobility behaviour and specific fuel consumption of public means of transport. The outcome of these findings was formalised in a theoretical model that restricts its focus to the typical average annual household primary energy demand for building and vehicle use, without accounting for upstream processes, and the typical annual primary energy demand of communities related to the provision of technical infrastructure for the total energy embodied in the process from production to disposal. More groundwork has to be done before the method can be readily implemented. Generally, the different methodological approaches for the assessment of primary energy demand must be validated by comparing results from samples with measured values. Input parameters for the settlement classification must be reviewed and the classification scheme should be subjected to practical testing. In the next step, the proposed method should be subject to testing and be implemented in a number of case studies.17

ESPON ACTAREA:Thinking and planning in areas of territorial cooperation Implementation of the Swiss Spatial Strategy and Atlas of Swiss Action Areas

Combining diverse material gathered from the analysis of the Swiss policy context and the exploration of the 12 Swiss AAs, this separate report is aimed at providing a comprehensive view on the Swiss experience with soft territorial cooperation. Chapter 2 introduces the policy context relevant for the analysis of the Swiss AAs. Chapter 3 presents the different supra-regional collaborations taking place on Action Area level, framing them in their territorial context, and proposes an analytical grid to analysing them. Chapter 4 synthetises results obtained from the analysis of the 12 Swiss AAs, classifying them based on their maturity of cooperation and summarises policy options as expressed by field actors. Chapter 5 is set up as an Atlas, offering in-depth presentation of the 12 Swiss AAs

ESPON ACTAREA: Thinking and planning in areas of territorial cooperation Final Report

ESPON ACTAREA has analysed 24 examples of ‘soft territorial cooperation areas' across Europe, taking as a starting point Swiss efforts to promote thinking and planning in so-called ‘Action Areas' (AAs), i.e. new forms of soft governance spaces with fuzzy, flexible boundaries that span across national and regional administrative boundaries and link urban and rural development policies. It has identified good practices and developed tools to describe and develop cooperation across Europe, considering both individual cooperation instances and cooperation frameworks put in place primarily by national authorities. Soft territorial cooperation areas are instances of territorial governance. They bring together actors concerned by a set of territorial challenges and opportunities and who are prepared to elaborate and implement strategies to address them jointly. Their sectoral scope and geographical boundaries are generally defined in an ‘open' or ‘fuzzy' way. When choosing case studies, the project focused on initiatives with the following characteristics: • a medium to long term integrative perspective (i.e. are not limited to the implementation of a single project); • an ambition to enhance the capacities of involved players, making them actors of their own development; • a determination to renew relations between institutional levels, sectors of activity and types of actors (e.g. NGOs, private companies, local and regional authorities, agencies…). Soft territorial cooperation instances can also be approached as ‘communities of intent'. The existence of such a ‘community' is the output of a cooperation process. However, it only emerges if a convergence of interest between involved actors can be achieved. Proponents of soft territorial cooperation are therefore typically actors that manage to identify potential such ‘communities' and to facilitate the process leading to their emergence. This require concrete competencies in fields such as process design and workshop facilitation, combined with intimate knowledge of local and regional contexts (‘Fingerspitzengefühl')

ESPON ACTAREA Guide to developing soft territorial cooperation

This handbook builds on the lessons distilled from 24 case studies on soft territorial cooperation in different parts of Europe that were undertaken in the scope of the ESPON ACTAREA project on “Thinking and planning in areas of territorial cooperation”. Case studies focused on analysing and characterising soft territorial cooperation areas regarding - the strategic purpose they pursue; - approaches to region-building they take; - organisational structures they have set up and resources they draw on; - strategies to motivate actors to participate and overcome barriers to cooperation they have developed; and - the policy frameworks and strategies under which they have been create

ESPON ACTAREA: Thinking and planning in areas of territorial cooperation European Atlas of Soft Territorial Cooperation

This Atlas contains detailed descriptions of 13 European examples of soft territorial cooperation areas. The selection of cases presented makes no claim to comprehensiveness nor (statistical) representativeness. Cases were selected out of a multitude of identified examples with a view on fitting the project's definition of soft territorial cooperation. Soft territorial cooperation areas were defined as initiatives that define the sectoral scope and geographical boundaries in an ‘open' or ‘fuzzy' way, based on a notion of ‘community of intent' as a voluntary collaboration open to public and private actors who decide to jointly address territory-specific opportunities and challenges. Their other main characteristics are: • a medium to long term integrative perspective (i.e. not limited to the implementation of a single project); • seeking to enhance the capacities of involved players, making them actors of their own development; • renewing relations between institutional levels, sectors of activity and types of actors (e.g. NGOs, private companies, local and regional authorities, agencies…). The soft territorial cooperation areas presented in this Atlas show variations of these characteristics and “openness” in how they define their cooperation area, partnership, thematic scope, type of interventions and governance structure. The way in which case study descriptions are structured shall allow the reader to quickly capture case study characteristics, make cross-connections between the different cases and draw his/ her own conclusions from the presented material. The project team's findings and conclusions can be found in the main project report