Advertisement

Raumforschung und Raumordnung

, Volume 66, Issue 1, pp 36–51 | Cite as

A methodological concept for territorial impact assessment applied to three EU environmental policy elements

  • Stefan Greiving
  • Mark Fleischhauer
  • Timo Tarvainen
  • Philipp Schmidt-Thomé
  • Jaana Jarva
Wissenschaftliche Beiträge
  • 113 Downloads

Abstract

EU policies require either impact assessment or evaluation, depending on the character of the policy elements. A relatively new requirement is the need to assess the territorial impacts of a policy as proposed in the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and promoted by the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) 2006 programme. Territorial impact assessment (TIA) is defined as “a tool for assessing the impact of spatial development against spatial policy objectives or prospects for an area” (European Communities 2000). This paper summarises and further develops basic work on TIA and presents a methodological concept and the first results of such a TIA approach, applying it to EU environmental policy (civil protection, water, biodiversity).

Keywords

Environmental Policy Water Framework Directive Water Policy Civil Protection Territorial Quality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Ein methodisches Konzept für Raumwirksamkeitseinschätzungen, erprobt an drei Politikfeldern der EU-Umweltpolitik

Kurzfassung

Für EU-Politiken sind entweder Wirkungseinschätzungen oder aber Evaluationen vorgeschrieben, je nach Gegenstand der Politik. Relativ neu ist die Vorgabe, die räumlichen Auswirkungen einer Politik abzuschätzen, wie es im Europäischen Raumentwicklungskonzept (EUREK) vorgeschlagen und vom ESPON 2006 Programm unterstützt wurde. Derartige Raumwirksamkeitseinschätzungen sollen dazu dienen, die voraussichtlichen Auswirkungen einer Politik auf die Entwicklung von Räumen zu ermitteln, und zwar mit Blick auf raumordnungspolitische Zielsetzungen oder deren Zukunftsaussichten (European Communities 2000). Der Beitrag beschreibt die Grundlagen von Raumwirksamkeitseinschätzungen und entwickelt sie weiter. Er stellt einen methodischen Ansatz und erste Anwendungsergebnisse vor, und zwar am Beispiel der EU-Umweltpolitikbereiche Zivilschutz, Wasser und Biodiversität.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Böhme, K. (2004): The State of European Spatial Development — Nordic ESPON Impressions. In: Journal of NORDREGIO, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 7–13Google Scholar
  2. Camagni R. (1998): “Sustainable Urban Development: Definition and Reasons for a Research Programme.” In: International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 1, pp. 6–26Google Scholar
  3. Camagni, R. (2005): The rationale for territorial cohesion and the place of Territorial Development Policies in the European Model of Society. Presentation given at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy International Seminar “Territorial Cohesion and the European Model of Society,” Vienna, 11-13 July 2005Google Scholar
  4. Camagni, R. (2006): Territorial Impact Assessment — TIA: a methodological proposal. In: Scienze Regionali — Italian Journal of Regional Science 5, (2), pp. 135–146Google Scholar
  5. ESPON — European Spatial Planning Observation Network (2003): Crete Guidance Paper — ESPON Co-ordination towards August 2003. BonnGoogle Scholar
  6. ESPON — European Spatial Planning Observation Network (2004): Matera Guidance Paper. BonnGoogle Scholar
  7. ESPON Project 1.3.1 (2005): The spatial effects and management of natural and technological hazards in general and in relation to climate change, final report of the ESPON Project 1.3.1. Geological Survey of Finland, EspooGoogle Scholar
  8. ESPON Project 2.2.1 (2005): The Territorial Effects of the Structural Funds, Final Report, Nordregio. StockholmGoogle Scholar
  9. ESPON Project 2.4.1 (2006a): Territorial Trends and Policy Impacts in the Field of EU Environmental Policy, first interim report, Geological Survey of Finland, EspooGoogle Scholar
  10. ESPON Project 2.4.1 (2006b): Territorial Trends and Policy Impacts in the Field of EU Environmental Policy, draft final report, Geological Survey of Finland, EspooGoogle Scholar
  11. ESPON Project 3.1 (2004): Integrated Tools for European Spatial Development. Final Report, Part C: New tools and instruments for European spatial analysis. BonnGoogle Scholar
  12. ESPON Project 3.2 (2005): Territorial Impact Assessment, Working Document 1 v2, November 2005. Unpublished manuscript ESPON Project 3.2 (2006): Spatial Scenarios and Orientations in relation to the ESDP and Cohesion Policy. Third Interim Report, Volume 6 “Territorial Impact Assessment”Google Scholar
  13. ESPON — European Spatial Planning Observation Network (2006): European Spatial Planning Observation Network, www.espon.eu, visited 21.08.2006Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (2000): Communication to the Commission from Mrs. Schreyer in agreement with Mr. Kinnock and the President SEC (2000) 1051 — 26/07/2000 According to action 16 of the Action Plan for Reform. Focus on results: strengthening evaluation of Commissions activities European Commission (2005): Evaluating EU Activities; An introduction; Luxembourg, http://ec.europa.eu/budget/evaluation/pdf/eval_short_guide_en.pdf, visited 07.07.2006Google Scholar
  15. European Commission (2004): A new partnership for cohesion — convergence competitiveness cooperation. Third report on economic and social cohesion, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion3/cohesion3_en.htm, visited 21.08.2006Google Scholar
  16. European Commission (2005a): Impact Assessment Guidelines. SEC(2005) 791. 15 June 2005Google Scholar
  17. European Commission (2005b): Integrated Management of Natura 2000 sites. The contribution of LIFE-nature projects. LIFE-Focus European Commission (2006): LIFE-III The Financial Instrument for the Environment, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/, visited 05.07.2006Google Scholar
  18. European Communities (1999): ESDP — European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  19. European Communities (2000): European co-operation in spatial planning 2000-2005. ESDP Action ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris, B. (1967): The limits of science and humanism in planning. In: AIP Journal, vol. 33, pp. 324–335Google Scholar
  21. Helmer, 0. (1966): The Use of the Delphi Technique in Problems of Educational Innovations. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation. P-3499 p.Google Scholar
  22. OECD (2002): Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf, visited 21.08.2006Google Scholar
  23. Stufflebeam, D. L.; Webster, W. J. (1980): An analysis of alternative approaches to evaluation. In: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, 3, pp. 5–20Google Scholar
  24. Tamborra, M. (2005): EU-funded research in Impact Assessment and Sustainable Development. Presentation given at the (IMP)3 Conference (IMProving the IMPlementation of Environmental IMPact Assessment) “Improving European EIA-Implementation,” 22 November 2005. ViennaGoogle Scholar
  25. Vanclay, F., Bronstein, D.A. (eds.) (1995): Environmental and social impact assessment. ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  26. WBGU — German Advisory Council on Global Change (1994): World in Transition: Basic Structure of Global People-Environment Interactions. 1993 Annual Report. Bonn. = Economica, 214 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmBH 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefan Greiving
    • 1
    • 2
  • Mark Fleischhauer
    • 1
  • Timo Tarvainen
    • 3
  • Philipp Schmidt-Thomé
    • 3
  • Jaana Jarva
    • 3
  1. 1.Institut für RaumplanungTU DortmundDortmund
  2. 2.Dortmund
  3. 3.Geological Survey of Finland (GTK)ESPOO

Personalised recommendations