Territorial Performance Monitoring

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 Statistical relationships generalisabl
e 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
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_at_asro.kuleuven.be