1 / 23

Territorial Performance Monitoring (ESPON TPM project)

Territorial Performance Monitoring (ESPON TPM project). Loris Servillo ASRO – KU Leuven 14/06/2012. Outline. General approach & Aim Structure: quantitative & qualitative analysis Mind map Road map General (methodological) considerations. Stakeholders. ESPON priority 2 Five regions:

kiral
Download Presentation

Territorial Performance Monitoring (ESPON TPM project)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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. Challenges • 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

  8. Methods Quantitative Generalisation/coverage Major differences Statisticalrelationships generalisableresults 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-depthexamination lessgeneralisable (basedon a smaller group of involvedpersons) Complexity informalapproaches to capturedifferences - holistic approach Interpretation Interpretationprocesses 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. Mind Map Global challenges 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: • questionnaire / semi-structured interviews; • feedback on first outcomes. Different techniques can be tested (focus group, or simple singular feedback from the stakeholders, ranking technique, etc) Researchers Stakeholders Analysis of documents Questionnaire and / or semi-structured interviews Identification of crucial and contradicting aspects Second round of stakeholders’ involvement Final Reports (Set of ranked items) quantitative analysis

  14. From the mind map to a tailor-made set of indicatorsDiscussion with each stakeholderIdentification of specific indicatorsConfrontation 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 • 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

  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. Methodological recommendations Ideal (technocratic) model

  21. Methodological recommendations • 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

  22. Methodological recommendations • 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

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

More Related