1. Territorial Performance Monitoring (ESPON TPM project) Loris Servillo ASRO – KU Leuven 14/06/2012

2. Outline General approach & Aim Structure: quantitative & qualitative analysis Mind map Road map General (methodological) considerations

3. Stakeholders ESPON priority 2 Five regions: Flanders (lead stakeholder) North Rhine-Westphalia Navarre Catalunia Greatest Dublin Area

4. Project team Lead Partner: IGEAT - Institut de Gestion de l'Environnement et d'Aménagement du Territoire - ULB Research partner for each region: Catalunia: Institut d'Estudis Territorial Navarra: Navarra de Suelo Residencial Greater Dublin Region: National Institute for Regional and Spatial Analysis – University Maynooth Nordrhein-Westfalen: Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwicklungsforschung Flanders: Planning & Development Research group, ASRO – KULeuven (+ coordination of qualitative analysis)

5. ESPON TPM project The ESPON Territorial Performance Monitoring (TPM) project addressed two main lines of work: a general assessment and development of tools for regional monitoring of challenges defined at other scales the practical application of the tools and ideas for monitoring the five stakeholder regions involved in the project

6. ESPON TPM project The aim of this project (not to provide some form of “Dummy's guide to monitoring”) a reflection on the issue of translating European challenges into regional realities a mean to assess the current monitoring practices in regions an exchange of best practices between stakeholder regions based on their monitoring experience a laboratory to elaborate and test different techniques and tools for monitoring A particular issue brought forward by the stakeholders was the integration of qualitative information into a fields generally dominated by quantitative measurement.

7. Perception and levers identified in stakeholder regions – Demography manage impacts of external immigration and ageing – Climate change technically managing impacts of climate change – New energy paradigm objectives determined at European level and on policies implemented at national level – Globalisation most regions quite autonomous to include relevant policies Challenges

8. Methods Quantitative Generalisation/coverage Major differences Statistical relationships generalisable results Limited set of questions Simplification of reality hard, objective, numeric data Objectivity Statistically sound methods Objective data sets allow generalisations Qualitative Exploration/depth Restict data collection more in-depth examination less generalisable (based on a smaller group of involved persons) Complexity informal approaches to capture differences - holistic approach Interpretation Interpretation processes Risk of being “just a bit more than organised common sense”

9. Combined methodology Quantitative measures Simple benchmarking with or without comparison with the EU (ESPON 5-level approach) + interpretation, contextualization,... Qualitative assessment Based on expertise, surveys, delphi, focus groups... Possibly elaboration of pseudo-quantitative indicators

10. Global challenges Mind Map Demography Globalisation Energy Climate change

11. General structure of the project

12. Qualitative analysis: appraisal questions Awareness of the challenge (per challenge) Explicitly/implicitly addressed Discourses, forcasting capacity Planning context and resilience of the Planning System Strategic capacity (vision and implementation) Coordination, cooperation & participation Monitoring capacity Effectiveness of policy approach(es) Policy bundles Encompassing strategy? Whose competences? (policy level) Coordination capacities Threats – Opportunities

13. Structure of the qualitative analysis Desktop analysis done by the different project partners; Two-step procedure of involvement of stakeholders: 1.questionnaire / semi- structured interviews; 2.feedback on first outcomes. Different techniques can be tested (focus group, or simple singular feedback from the stakeholders, ranking technique, etc) quantitative analysis Identification of crucial and contradicting aspects Second round of stakeholders’ involvement Final Reports (Set of ranked items) Analysis of documents Questionnaire and / or semi-structured interviews ResearchersStakeholders

14. From the mind map to a tailor-made set of indicators Discussion with each stakeholder Identification of specific indicators Confrontation about the regional perception of the challenges Toward tailor-made tools

15. EU-wide quantitative benchmarking HyperAtlas

16. EU-wide quantitative benchmarking: TPM Tools

17. indicators reflecting a situation and its evolution, but on which the territorial level considered – here mostly the regions – has no influence indicators reflecting supra-regional constraints for which the regions may have to implement policies established on a larger scale, sometimes even at the expense of their own short-term interests another version of the previous type consists in indicators reflecting constraints and policies present on supra-regional scales, for which a measurement on the regional scale is not necessarily relevant, but which can reflect the pursuit of other objectives indicators reflecting regional situations on which regional authorities can actually have some influence through their own policies. indicators that do not reflect regional realities, but rather the implementation of policies Indicators

18. Outcome and general recommendations

19. Regional monitoring tools Regions that have adopted the TPM indicators Regions that have embedded the TPM experience in their own monitoring activity/activities and adapted to the regional characteristics/needs Regions that have implemented the monitoring activities at lower level (differences within the regions)

20. Ideal (technocratic) model Methodological recommendations

21. Conditions of success of monitoring in regional policy making: integration of monitoring system into clear/explicit vision clearly defined procedures on how to react to findings of the monitoring system sufficient resources for continuous update and maintenance shared ownership a continuous “surveillance” of European policy discussions and documents relative political “neutrality” of monitoring system long-term commitment to the monitoring process permanent fora of contact with relevant experts Methodological recommendations

22. What can ESPON do to support monitoring efforts in regions ? Thematic research, including elaboration of innovative indicators and typologies Continuous development of tools such as the ESPON Database and the ESPON HyperAtlas Sustained maintenance of datasets, tailored to specific challenges, and specific European objectives Methodological recommendations

23. Thank you loris.servillo@asro.kuleuven.be