DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism 2018, 10(2):75-90 | DOI: 10.32725/det.2018.014

Territorial Impact Assessment: Cohesion policy and balanced territorial development (Czechia)

Jiří Novosáka, Oldřich Hájeka, Lucie Severováa, Daniela Spiesováa, Jana Novosákováb
a Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamýcká 129, CZ-16521 Prague
b NEWTON College, Václavské náměstí 11, CZ-11000 Prague

Keywords: Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA), Cohesion Policy, territorial goals, Czechia

The intent of this paper is to add to the current knowledge in the field of TIA modelling by presenting a case study of cohesion policy (CP) in Czechia, 2007-2013. The empirical results are mixed. While the territorial impact of CP interventions concerning the NSRF objective of a 'Competitive Czech Economy' is higher in main metropolitan regions, CP interventions concerning the NSRF objectives of an 'Open, Flexible and Cohesive Society' and of an 'Attractive Environment' have higher impacts in regions with more desire for CP interventions. Consequently, territorial impacts of the three NSRF objectives are contrary to one another, and the observed pattern of overall territorial impacts of CP interventions is patchy, almost mosaic-like. Additionally, the paper suggests some methodological ideas for TIA modelling drawing inspirations from the prominent TEQUILA model. In particular, the spatial distribution of SF is used to model the intensity of CP interventions in a territory. A methodology how to model the potential territorial impact and the desirability of CP interventions in a territory is also presented.

Published: July 31, 2018  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Novosák, J., Hájek, O., Severová, L., Spiesová, D., & Novosáková, J. (2018). Territorial Impact Assessment: Cohesion policy and balanced territorial development (Czechia). DETUROPE - The Central European Journal of Regional Development and Tourism, 10(2), 75-90. doi: 10.32725/det.2018.014
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Abrahams, G. (2014). What "is" territorial cohesion? What does it "do"? Essentialist versus pragmatic approaches to using concepts. European Planning Studies, 22(10), 2134-2155. Go to original source...
    2. Bentley, G., & Pugalis, L. (2014). Shifting paradigms: people-centred models, active regional development, space-blind policies and place-based approaches. Local Economy, 29(4-5), 283-294. Go to original source...
    3. Camagni, R. (2009). Territorial impact assessment for European regions: a methodological proposal and an application to EU transport policy. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(4), 342-350. Go to original source...
    4. Camagni, R. (2017). Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA): a methodological proposal. In R. Capello (Ed.), Seminal studies in regional and urban economics (pp. 399-410). Springer: Berlin. Go to original source...
    5. Colomb, C., & Santinha, G. (2014). European Union competition policy and the European territorial cohesion agenda: An impossible reconciliation? State aid rules and public service liberalization through the European spatial planning lens. European Planning Studies, 22(3), 459-480. Go to original source...
    6. Cotella, G., Adams, N., & Nunes, R.J. (2012). Engaging in European spatial planning: A central and Eastern European perspective on the territorial cohesion debate. European Planning Studies, 20(7), 1197-1220. Go to original source...
    7. Czyz, T., & Hauke, J. (2011), Evolution of regional disparities in Poland. Quaestiones Geographicae, 30(2), 35-48. Go to original source...
    8. Davoudi, S. (2005). Understanding territorial cohesion. Planning, Practice & Research, 20(4), 433-441. Go to original source...
    9. De Propris, L. (2007). Reconciling cohesion and competitiveness through EU cluster policies? Policy Studies, 28(4), 327-345. Go to original source...
    10. Elissalde, B., & Santamaria, F. (2014). Territorial cohesion and regional competitiveness: defining key-notions in the EU's regional policy. Social Sciences, 3(4-1), 4-12. Go to original source...
    11. Ezcurra, R., Pascual, P., & Rapún, M. (2007). The dynamics of regional disparities in Central and Eastern Europe during transition. European Planning Studies, 15(10), 1397-1421. Go to original source...
    12. Faludi, A. (2005). Territorial cohesion: an unidentified political objective. Town Planning Review, 76(1), 1-13. Go to original source...
    13. Fischer, T.B., Sykes, O., Gore, T., Marat, N., Golobič, M., Pinho, P....., Perdicoulis, A. (2015). Territorial Impact Assessment of European Draft Directives - the emergence of a new policy assessment instrument. European Planning Studies, 23(3), 433-451. Go to original source...
    14. Golobič, M., & Marat, N. (2011). Territorial impact assessment: integrating territorial aspects in sectoral policies. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(3), 163-173. Go to original source...
    15. Greiving, S., Fleischhauer, M., Tarvainen, T., Schmidt-Thomé, P., & Jarva, J. (2008). A methodological concept for territorial impact assessment applied to three EU environmental policy elements. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 66(1), 36-51. Go to original source...
    16. Hájek, O., & Górska-Szymczak, J. (2017). Is there thematic concentration of public finance management in the Czech regions? International Journal of Public Administration, Management and Economic Development, 2(2), 48-56.
    17. Kaufmann, A., & Wagner, P. (2005). EU regional policy and the stimulation of innovation: the role of the European Regional Development Fund in the Objective 1 Region Burgenland. European Planning Studies, 13(4), 581-599. Go to original source...
    18. Klímová, V., & ®ítek, V. (2015). Inovační paradox v Česku: Ekonomická teorie a politická realita [Innovation paradox in the Czech Republic: economic theory and political reality]. Politická ekonomie, 63(2), 147-166. Go to original source...
    19. Krzysztofik, R., Tkocz, M., Spórna, T., & Kantor-Pietraga, I. (2016). Some dilemmas of post-industrialism in a region of traditional industry: The case of the Katowice conurbation, Poland. Moravian Geographical Reports, 24(1), 42-54. Go to original source...
    20. Luukkonen, J., & Moilanen, H. (2012). Territoriality in the strategies and practices of the territorial cohesion policy of the European Union: territorial challenges in implementing "soft planning". European Planning Studies, 20(3), 481-500. Go to original source...
    21. Maier, K., & Franke, D. (2015). Trendy prostorové sociálně-ekonomické polarizace v Česku 2001-2011 [Trends in spatial socio-economic polarisation in the Czech Republic 2001-2011]. Czech Sociological Review, 51(1), 89-123. Go to original source...
    22. Malý, J. & Mulíček, O. (2016). European territorial cohesion policies: Parallels to socialist central planning? Moravian Geographical Reports, 24(1), pp. 14-26. Go to original source...
    23. Marat, N., Kolarič, ©., & Golobič, M. (2013). Slovenia as the natural park of Europe? Territorial Impact Assessment in the case of Natura 2000. Acta Geographica Slovenica, 53(1), 91-116. Go to original source...
    24. Marková, J., & ©vihlíková, I. (2017). Komparace vlivu PZI zemí V4 na vnějąí rovnováhu z pohledu platební balance [Comparison of FDI influence in Visegrad countries on the external balance from the view of the balance of payments]. Scientia et Societas, 13(4), 40-64.
    25. Martinát, S., Dvořák, P., Frantál, B., Klusáček, P., Kunc, J., Navrátil, J.... & Reed, M. (2016). Sustainable urban development in a city affected by heavy industry and mining? Case study of brownfields in Karvina, Czech Republic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 118, 78-87. Go to original source...
    26. Medeiros, E. (2012). Territorial cohesion: a conceptual analysis. Lisbon: Alameda da Universidade.
    27. Medeiros, E. (2014). Assessing territorial impacts of the EU cohesion policy: the Portuguese case. European Planning Studies, 22(9), 1960-1988. Go to original source...
    28. Medeiros, E. (2015). Territorial Impact Assessment and cross-border cooperation. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 97-115. Go to original source...
    29. Medeiros, E. (2017). European Union cohesion policy and Spain: a territorial impact assessment. Regional Studies, 51(8), 1259-1269. Go to original source...
    30. MRD CR (2007). National Strategic Reference Framework of the Czech Republic 2007-2013. Prague: Ministry for Regional Development of the Czech Republic.
    31. Navratil, J., Picha, K., Martinat, S., Nathanail, P. C., Tureckova, K., Holesinska, A. (2018). Resident's preferences for urban brownfield revitalization: Insights from two Czech cities. Land Use Policy, 76, 224-234. Go to original source...
    32. Nosek, ©. (2017). Territorial cohesion storylines in 2014-2020 Cohesion Policy. European Planning Studies, 25(12), 2157-2174. Go to original source...
    33. Novosák, J., Hájek, O., Horváth, P., & Nekolová, J. (2017). Structural funding and intrastate regional disparities in post-communist countries. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 13(51), 53-69. Go to original source...
    34. Servillo, L. (2010). Territorial cohesion discourses: hegemonic strategic concepts in European spatial planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(3), 397-416. Go to original source...
    35. Severová, L., Chromý, J., Sekerka, B., & Soukup, A. (2012). Microeconomic aspects of government subsidies in the agricultural market. Agricultural Economics 58(11), 542-548. Go to original source...
    36. Skokanová, H., Havlíček, M., Klusáček, P., & Martinát, S. (2017). Five military training areas - five different trajectories of land cover development? Case studies from the Czech Republic. Geographia Cassoviensis, 11(2), 201-213.
    37. Vanolo, A. (2010). European spatial planning between competitiveness and territorial cohesion: Shadows of neo-liberalism. European Planning Studies, 18(8), 1301-1315. Go to original source...
    38. Veneri, P., & Burgalassi, D. (2012). Questioning polycentric development and its effects. Issues of definition and measurement for the Italian NUTS-2 regions. European Planning Studies, 20(6), 1017-1037. Go to original source...
    39. Zaucha, J., Komornicki, T., Böhme, K., ¦wi±tek, D., & Żuber, P. (2014). Territorial keys for bringing closer the territorial agenda of the EU and Europe 2020. European Planning Studies, 22(2), 246-267. Go to original source...
    40. ®enka, J., Novotný, J., Slach, O., & Květoň, V. (2015). Industrial specialization and economic performance: A case of Czech microregions. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography, 69(2), 67-79. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content