Territorial impact assessment: Integrating territorial aspects in sectoral policies

Evaluation and Program Planning

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 163-173

  Golobic, Mojca ^a,b   Marot, Naja ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^b Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia   (Slovenia)

Author keywords

Energy policy; Slovenia; Territorial cohesion; Territorial impact assessment

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; ENERGY POLICY; INPUT-OUTPUT ANALYSIS; POLICY DEVELOPMENT; REGIONAL POLICY; TERRITORIAL PLANNING;

ARTICLE; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMAN; PILOT STUDY; POLICY; POLITICS; SLOVENIA; SOCIAL CLASS;

CULTURE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; PILOT PROJECTS; POLITICS; PUBLIC POLICY; SLOVENIA; SOCIAL CLASS;

SLOVENIA;

EID: 79952076141     PISSN: 01497189     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.02.009     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Academy for Spatial Research Planning The territorial cohesion principles. Position paper to the EU green paper on territorial cohesion. Position paper from the ARL. No. 78 2008, ARL, Hanover.
2. Battis U., Kersten J. European policy of territorial cohesion - European legal framework and national implementation - Summary 2008, Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning, Bonn.
3. Bennett J. Introduction in EU presidency conference territorial cohesion: Meeting new challenges in an enlarged EU. 25-27 May 2004, Irish Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, County Galway, Ireland, Dublin.
4. BMVBS Leipzig charter on sustainable cities 2007, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs, Leipzig.
5. BMVBS Territorial agenda of the EU 2007, Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs, Leipzig.
6. Camagni R. On the concept of territorial competitiveness: Sound or misleading?. Urban Studies 2002, 13:2395-2412.
7. Camagni, R. (2006a). TEQUILA SIP, interactive simulation package for territorial impact assessment. Unpublished results.
8. Camagni R. Territorial impact assessment - TIA: A methodological proposal. Italian Journal of Regional Science (Scienze Regionali) 2006, 5(2):135-146.
9. Camagni R. Territorial impact assessment for European regions: A methodological proposal and an application to EU transport policy. Evaluation and Program Planning 2009, 32(4):342-350.
10. Carney R.N., Levi J.R. Pictoral illustrations still improve students' learning from text. Educational Psychology Review 2002, 14(1):5-26.
11. Chicoye C. Regional impact of the single European market in France. Regional Studies 1992, 26(4):407-411.
12. Commission of the European Communities The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. Regional development studies, 28 1997, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
13. Commission of the European Communities European spatial development perspective - Towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the EU committee on spatial development 1999, CEC, Brussels.
14. Commission of the European Communities White paper on European governance, COM(2001) 428 final 2001, CEC, Brussels.
15. Commission of the European Communities Communication from the commission on impact assessment, COM (2002) 276 final 2002, CEC, Brussels.
16. Commission of the European Communities A new partnership for Cohesion: Third report on economic and social cohesion 2004, CEC, Luxembourg.
17. Commission of the European Communities Commission staff working paper: Impact assessment: Next steps (SEC(2004)1377) 2004, CEC, Brussels.
18. Commission of the European Communities Annexes to impact assessment guidelines European Commission 2005, CEC, Brussels.
19. Commission of the European Communities Impact assessment guidelines, (SEC(2005)791) European Commission 2005, CEC, Brussels.
20. Commission of the European Communities Action plan for energy efficiency: Realising the potential - Saving 20% by 2020 directorate-general energy and transport 2006, CEC, Brussels.
21. Commission of the European Communities Green paper: A European strategy for sustainable, competitive and secure energy, SEC(2006) 317 2006, CEC, Brussels.
22. Commission of the European Communities An energy policy for Europe: Commission steps up to the energy challenges of the 21st century, MEMO/07/7. Directorate-general energy and transport 2007, CEC, Brussels.
23. Commission of the European Communities Better regulation and enhanced impact assessment. Information note from the President to the Commission 2007, CEC, Brussels.
24. Commission of the European Communities Communication from the commission. An energy policy for Europe, COM(2007)1 2007, CEC, Directorate-General Energy and Transport, Brussels.
25. Commission of the European Communities Green paper on territorial cohesion - Turning territorial diversity into strength directorate general - Regional policy 2009, CEC, Directorate-General Energy and Transport, Brussels.
26. Commission of the European Communities Impact assessment guidelines (SEC(2009)92) commission of the European communities 2009, CEC, Brussels.
27. Dalal-Clayton B., Sadler B. Sustainability appraisal: A review of international experience and practice (draft report) 2005, International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
28. Davoudi S. Understanding territorial cohesion. Planning Practice & Research 2005, 20(4):433-441.
29. Dühr S., Colomb C., Nadin V. European spatial planning and territorial cooperation 2010, Routledge, London, New York.
30. Dutch Presidency (2004). Presidency conclusions. Rotterdam, November.
31. Ekins P., Medhurst J. The European structural funds and sustainable development: A methodology and indicator framework for evaluation. Evaluation 2006, 12:474-495.
32. Energy Act (1999). National Official Gazette, 79/99, 8/00.
33. ESPON ESPON project 2.1.1: Territorial impact of EU transport and TEN policies 2004, ESPON, Luxembourg.
34. ESPON ESPON project 3.1: Integrated tools for European spatial development, final report 2004, Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung, Bonn.
35. ESPON ESPON project 2.1.3: Territorial impact of CAP and rural development policy 2005, ESPON, Luxembourg.
36. ESPON ESPON project 2.1.4: Territorial trends of energy services and networks and territorial impact of EU energy policy 2005, ESPON, Research Centre for Energy, Transport and Environment Economics, Luxembourg.
37. ESPON ESPON project 2.2.2: Territorial effects of the pre-accession aid 2005, ESPON, Luxembourg.
38. ESPON ESPON action 2.1.5: Territorial impacts of European fisheries policy 2006, ESPON, Luxembourg.
39. ESPON ESPON project 2.2.1: The territorial effects of the structural funds 2006, ESPON, Luxembourg.
40. ESPON ESPON project 2.2.3: Territorial effects of structural funds in urban areas 2006, ESPON, Luxembourg.
41. ESPON ESPON project 2.3.1: Application and effects of the ESDP in the member states 2006, ESPON, Luxembourg.
42. ESPON ESPON project 2.4.1 territorial trends and impacts of EU environment policy 2006, ESPON, Luxembourg.
43. ESPON ESPON project 3.2: Spatial scenarios and orientations in relation to the ESDP and cohesion policy 2006, ESPON, Luxembourg.
44. European Parliament, Council Directive 2001/42/EC of the European parliament and of the council of the 27th June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment 2001, The European Parliament, the Council, Luxembourg.
45. Faludi A. Territorial cohesion: Old (French) wine in new bottles?. Urban Studies 2004, 41(7):1349-1365.
46. Faludi A. Territorial cohesion policy and the European model of society. European Planning Studies 2007, 15:567-583.
47. Finka M. Territorial cohesion - Between expectation, disparities and contradictions. German annual of spatial research and policy 2007 2007, 23-40. Springer Verlag, Leipzig. D. Scholich (Ed.).
48. FSA Better regulation action plan financial service authority 2005, Financial Service Authority, London.
49. GHK, PSI, IEEP, CE, National Evaluators The Contribution of the structural funds to sustainable development, annexes to volume 1: Synthesis report, final report to the European commission, DG REGIO, EC 2002, GHK, London, Brussels.
50. Golobic, M., & Zakrajsek, F. (2007). Challenges of regulating integrated impact assessment: the case of Slovenia. In: C. George, & C. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), Impact assessment and sustainable development (pp. 255-272). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
51. Golobic, M., Marot, N., Radej, B., Tomsic, M. G., Kontic, B., & Gulic, A. (2008). Monitoring and territorial impact assessment of sector policies. Target Research Programme Competitiveness of Slovenia 2006-2013. Final Report. Ljubljana: Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia.
52. Haas P.M. When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy 2004, 11:569-592.
53. Hamez G. Territorial cohesion: How to operationalize and measure the concept?. Planning Theory & Practice 2005, 6(3):400-402.
54. Inkinen T. European coherence and regional policy? A Finnish perspective on the observed and reported territorial impacts of EU research and development policies. European Planning Studies 2005, 13(7):1113-1121.
55. Jacob K., Hertin J., Hjerp P., Radaelli C., Meuwese A., Wolf O., et al. Improving the practice of impact assessment. Project report EVIA - Evaluating integrated impact assessments, 6th framework programme 2008, Freie Universitaet, Berline.
56. Lennert M., Robert J. The territorial futures of Europe: Trends, competition or cohesion. Futures 2010, 42(8):833-845.
57. Leontief W. Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics 1970, 52(3):262-271.
58. Leopold L.B., Clarke F.E., Hanshaw B.B., Balsley J.R. A procedure for evaluating environmental impact, geological survey circular 645 1971, United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Washington.
59. Lozano R. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008, 16(17):1838-1846.
60. Luxembourg Presidency (2005). Scoping document and summary of political messages for an assessment of the territorial state and perspectives of the European Union: Towards a stronger European territorial cohesion in the light of the Lisbon and Gothenburg ambitions. Luxembourg, May.
61. Martinez-Alier J., Munda G., O'Neill J. Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 1998, 26:277-286.
62. Miklavcic, T., & Weaver, A. (2005). About IA, SEA and TIA, Draft. Unpublished results.
63. Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy SDSS - Spatial development strategy of Slovenia 2004, Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy, Spatial Planning Directorate, Office for Spatial Development, Ljubljana.
64. NAO Transport act 2000: Regulatory impact assessment 2000, National Audit Office, London.
65. NAO Better regulation: Making good use of regulatory impact assessments 2001, National Audit Office, London.
66. NAO Good practice: Regulatory impact assessments - Introduction to RIAs 2007, National Audit Office, London.
67. Nijkamp P., Van Pelt M. Spatial impact analysis in developing countries: Method and application. International Regional Science Review 1989, 12(2):211-228.
68. OECD Recommendation of the council of the OECD on improving the quality of government regulation 1995, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.
69. Owens S., Rayner T., Binaô O. New agendas for appraisal: Reflections on theory, practice, and research. Environment and Planning A 2004, 36(11):1943-1959.
70. Radej B. Exercising in aggregating the unaggregatable. Meso-matrical synthesis of the incommensurable 2008, Slovenian Evaluation Society, Ljubljana.
71. ReNEP - Resolution of National Energy Programme (2004). National Official Gazette, 57/2004.
72. Schindegger F., Tatzberger G. Territorial impact assessment (TIA): A certain tool or a whole kind of tools (contribution for first interim report of ESPON 3.1) 2004, ÖIR - Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning, Vienna.
73. Schnellenbach J. The Dahrendorf hypothesis and its implications for (the theory of) economic policy-making. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2005, 29/6:997-1009.
74. Uusikyla, P. (2009). Making sound judgements about the effects of public policies. How to explore the missing links between the cause and effect? Unpublished results.
75. VROM Shared spaces: The newsletter of VROM 8 2004, VROM, The Hague.
76. Yin R.K. Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods) 2008, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi, London, Singapore.