The conformance and performance principles in territorial cooperation: a critical reflection on the evaluation of INTERREG projects

REFERENCES

• Ahner, D., & Fuechtner, N.-M. (2010). Territoriale Kohäsion: EU-Politik im Dienste regionaler Potenziale. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 8, 543–552.
   Google Scholar
• Bachtler, J., Taylor, S., & Olejniczak, K. (2004). A study of the mid-term evaluation of INTERREG programmes for the programming period 2000–2006 (Report to the INTERACT Secretariat). Glasgow: European Policies Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, S., & Fudge, C. (1981). Policy and action. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, C. (1975). Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension, 13(2), 7–12.
   Google Scholar
• Bulkeley, H. (2006). Urban sustainability: Learning from best practice? Environment and Planning A, 38(6), 1029–1044.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2008). Green Paper on territorial cohesion turning territorial diversity into strength. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/paper_terco_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2010a). Europe 2020: Commission proposes new economic strategy. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-10-225_en.htm
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2010b). Fifth report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/cohesion5/pdf/5cr_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Committee of the Regions (CoR). (2015). The improvement of the implementation of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. Opinion adopted by the Commission on 2 March 2015. Brussels: CoR.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, P., Boekholt, P., & Todtling, F. (2000). The governance of innovation in Europe. London: CengageBrain.
   Google Scholar
• Cotella, G. (2014). Spatial planning in Poland between European influence and dominant market forces. In M. Reimer, P. Getimis, & H. Blotevogel (Eds.), Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe. A comparative perspective on continuity and changes (pp. 255–277). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S. (2007). Territorial cohesion, European social model and spatial policy research. In A. Faludi (Ed.), Territorial cohesion and the European model of society (pp. 81–104). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• De la Porte, C., & Pochet, P. (2002). Supple co-ordination at EU level and the key actors’ involvement. In C. De la Porte & P. Pochet (Eds.), Building social Europe through the open method of co-ordination (pp. 27–68). Brussels: PIE-Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Dühr, S., Colomb, C., & Nadin, V. (2010). European spatial planning and territorial cooperation. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Durand, F. (2014). Challenges of cross-border spatial planning in the metropolitan regions of Luxembourg and Lille. Planning Practice and Research, 29(2), 113–132. doi:10.1080/02697459.2014.896148
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2006). From European spatial development to territorial cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 40(6), 667–678. doi:10.1080/00343400600868937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jungk, R., & Müllert, N. (1990). Zukunftswerkstätten. Mit Phantasie gegen Routine und Resignation. Munich: Heyne.
   Google Scholar
• Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (2009). Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning. Farnham: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Knippschild, R., & Schmotz, A. (2015). Seizing the opportunities of European integration? Quality of life and cross-border interrelations in the German–Polish border region. In E. Opiłowska & J. Roose (Eds.), Microcosm of European integration. The German–Polish border regions in transformation series (German and European studies of the Willy Brandt Center) ( vol. 3, pp. 92–127). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
   Google Scholar
• Knippschild, R., & Wiechmann, T. (2012). Supraregional partnerships in large cross-border areas – Towards a new category of space in Europe? Planning Practice and Research, 27(3), 297–314. doi:10.1080/02697459.2012.670933
   Google Scholar
• Mastop, H., & Faludi, A. (1997). Evaluation of strategic plans: The performance principle. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 24(6), 815–832. doi:10.1068/b240815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCann, E. (2011). Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: Toward a research agenda. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 101(1), 107–130. doi:10.1080/00045608.2010.520219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMaster, I. (2013). European territorial cooperation: Overview and evaluation. In G. Gorzelak & K. Zawalinska (Eds.), European territories: From cooperation to integration? (pp. 54–68). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, S. (2013). What’s wrong with best practice? Questioning the typification of new urbanism. Urban Studies, 50(4), 2151–2157.
   Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European spatial planning systems. Social Models and Learning, DISP, 44(1), 35–47.
   Google Scholar
• Nauwelaers, C., & Wintjes, R. (2003). Towards a new paradigm for innovation policy? In B. Asheim, A. Isaksen, C. Nauwelaers, & F. Todtling (Eds.), Regional innovation policy for small–medium enterprises (pp. 193–220). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Othengrafen, F. (2010). Spatial planning as expression of culturised planning practices: The examples of Helsinki, Finland, and Athens, Greece. Town Planning Review, 81(1), 83–110. doi:10.3828/tpr.2009.25
   Google Scholar
• Pannell, D. J., Marshall, G. R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., & Wilkinson, C. F. (2006). Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46(11), 1407–1424.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, D. (2004). Zum Stand der deutschprachigen Planungstheorie. In U. Altrock, S. Güntner, S. Huning, & D. Peters (Eds.), Perspektiven der Planungstheorie (pp. 5–18). Berlin: Leue.
   Google Scholar
• Reimer, M., Getimis, P., & Blotevogel, H. (2014). Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe: A comparative perspective. In M. Reimer, P. Getemis, & H. Blotevogel (Eds.), Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe (pp. 1–20). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th Ed.). New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schulze, H. (1997). Neo-Institutionalismus. Ein analytisches Instrument zur Erklärung gesellschaftlicher Transformationsprozesse. Berlin: Osteuropa-Institut der Freien Universtität Berlin. Retrieved from www.oei.fu-berlin.de/politik/publikationen/AP04.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stone, D. (1999). Learning lessons and transferring policy across time, space and disciplines. Politics, 19(1), 51–59. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.00086
   Google Scholar
• Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. (2011). Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 agreed at the informal ministerial meeting of ministers responsible for spatial planning and territorial development on the 19th May 2011 in Gödöllö, Hungary. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/what/territorial-cohesion/territorial_agenda_2020.pdf/
   Google Scholar
• Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanclay, F. (2015). The potential application of qualitative evaluation methods in European regional development: Reflections on the use of performance story reporting in Australian natural resource management. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1326–1339. doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.837998
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vettoretto, L. (2009). A preliminary critique of the best and good practices approach in European spatial planning and policy-making. European Planning Studies, 17(7), 1067–1083. doi:10.1080/09654310902949620
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2000). Future search: An action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
   Google Scholar
• Wiechmann, T., Mörl, K., & Vock, A. (2010). Wissenschaftliche Evaluation zweier Forschungsfelder mit mehreren Modellvorhaben der Raumordnung zur Sicherung der Daseinsvorsorge. Dresden.
   Google Scholar
• Wiechmann, T., Mörl, K., & Vock, A. (2012). Evaluation von Modellvorhaben der Raumordnung. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 1/2.2012, 79–90.
   Google Scholar