"Cities and regions in a changing Europe: challenges and prospects"

5-7 July 2017, Panteion University, Athens, Greece

PLANNINGFORTHEUNKNOWABLE:IMPACTSOFTRANSPORT

INFRASTRUCTUREANDEVIDENCE-BASEDSPATIALDEVELOPMENT

POLICIES

PitsiavaMAGDALINI,Professor,AristotleUniversityofThessaloniki

KafkalasGRIGORIS,EmeritusProfessor,AristotleUniversityofThessaloniki

Contact:mpitsiav@civil.auth.gr

Abstract

Atthecoreoftheplanningprocess liesthequest forrationalityand legitimacyoftheplan.The

paperaddresses this issuebyproposinganevidence-basedapproach for theassessmentof the

impactoftransportinfrastructurechangeinrelationtospatialdevelopmentpolicypriorities.The

firstsectionexplorestherelationshipbetweenspatialdevelopmentandtransport infrastructure

and the constructionof a seven-step theoreticalmodel. The second section identifies themain

spatial developmentpolicypriorities for the EuropeanUnion territory. Finally, the third section

providestheoutlineofaterritorial impactassessmentframeworkenablingtheuseofterritorial

impactindicatorsasanevidence-basedbridgebetweenpolicyprioritiesandthestepsofthemodel.

Thespecificvalueaddedofthisapproachliesinitscomprehensiveandintegrativecharacterand

thecombinationofscientificallyrationalandpoliticallylegitimateparametersfortheassessment

oftheimpactoftransportinfrastructureandthe(re)formulationofspatialdevelopmentpolicies.

Keywords

spatialplanning,developmentpolicy,impactoftransportinfrastructure

2

Introduction:scopeandorientationoftheapproach

Spatialplansreferbydefaulttoafuturehorizonthatcouldbeaffectedbyunpredictableeventssuchas

physicaldisasters,politicalshifts,socio-economiccrisesortechnologicalchange.Inthissense,spatial

developmentplanningdealswithproblemsthat includedynamicparametersandvaluejudgements

whichchallengetherationalityandlegitimacyofplanningandwhichcouldbecharacterisedas‘wicked’

(Rittel & Webber, 1973). Such problems generate risks that depending on their scale may lead to

controversialandunexpectedoutcomesofthekindthatHall(1982)identifiedas‘GreatPlanningDisasters’.

Thus,planningshouldadapttotheneedtoaccommodatetheunexpectedandtocontainfailuresand

inexpediencies.

Inmostrelativelyrecentstatementsabouttheroleofspatialplanningtherearestrongideological

elementsconcerningtheorientationofplanningtowardsasupposedlybetter,smarter,healthier,

competitive,resilient,andsustainablerelationshipwithnaturalandbuiltenvironment.Ifweput

asideanyideologicalandmoralclaims,spatialplanningaimstothereshapingofspatialpatterns

according to comprehensive and integrated territorial strategies concerning the future

arrangement of population, networks and activities. In order to complete this mission, spatial

planning needs on the one hand strong social and political consent that provide the necessary

legitimacyofitsgoalsandontheotherhandreliablecriteriaofrationalitythatverifyitscompetence

toachievethem.Thelackoflegitimacymakesspatialplanningirrelevantandundesired.Thelack

of rationality raises doubts for the efficiency of spatial plans. Hence the continuous quest for

legitimacyandrationalitybecomestheburdenthataccompaniestheevolutionofallthedifferent

genresofspatialplanning.(Kafkalas,2016).

The formal rational planning paradigm known as SAP: Survey-Analysis-Plan, first introduced by

Geddes(1915)hasremaineddominantfordecades.However,thedifficultiestoimplementthese

apparentlysimplestepsledtoanoversimplificationthatundermineditscredibility.Bytheendof

the1960sitsplacewastakenbythesystemsviewofplanningaspresentedbyMcloughlin(1969)

andChadwick(1971)accordingtowhichtheanalysisshouldidentifytheelementsandtheinternal

relationshipsofaspatialsystemwhiletheplanaimstomaintain itssupposedequilibrium. In its

morepragmaticversionspatialplanninglimitstheanalysistoasmallnumberofcriticalelements

and qualifies the ambition of plans to achieve equilibrium. More recently, technological

3

developments allowing the collection and processing ofmassive amounts of data in real time,

enablethepursuitofevidencebaseddecisionmakingthatcurrentlydefinesthestateoftheartof

planning(Batty2011).Thenewtrendsrequireex-ante,ongoingandexpostevaluationofimpacts

correspondingtothe inception, implementationandoperationphaseofspatialplans.However,

despitethisapparentconsensusonmethodologythequestionofhowtoproceedfromtheanalysis

toproposalsremainsashardaseverandthereisnoclearand/oragreedwayofhowtobridgethe

gapfromthecollectionandanalysisofdatatotheformulationofproposals.

AccordingtoDavoudi(2012)planningfollowseitheraninstrumentalpathasawaytoimplement

policiesoranenlightenmentpaththatincludestheformulationofpolicies.Thepaperattemptsin

thefollowingthreesectionstocombinetheinstrumentalandtheenlightenmentpathsofplanning

throughtheelaborationofanapproach,underthesymbolicnameofIRIS1.First,therelationship

betweenspatialdevelopmentandtransportinfrastructureleadstotheadoptionofaseven-step

theoreticalmodel.Second,thekeyspatialdevelopmentpolicyprioritiesfortheEuropeanterritory

are identified. Third, a territorial impact assessment framework enabling the use of empirical

evidenceasabridgebetweenvisionandrealityisoutlined.Finally,theconclusionsarguethatthe

valueaddedoftheIRISapproachliesonprovidinginformationthatstrengthenstheabilityofspatial

planstoadaptinmorerationalandlegitimatewaystotheunknowablefutures.

1 Therelationshipofspatialdevelopmentandtransportinfrastructure

Economicgeographyandlocationtheorydealwiththeanalysisofthespatialpatternsofproduction

includingtheentirechainofthedecision-makingprocessfromtheinitialdecisiontoinvesttothe

choiceofparticularproductionsites.Inthiscontext,theroleofaccessibilitybecomescrucialdueto

thefactthathouseholdsandenterprisesaresearchingforlocationswithimprovedaccessinorder

tocapturetheresultingcomparativeadvantages.Householdsarelookingforlocationswithgood

1 AccordingtothemythIRISisadivinemessengerandapersonificationoftherainbowthatlinkstheworldofgodswiththatofthehumans.ShealsocarriesanewerofwaterfromStyx,theriveroftheunderworld,thatrevealsall,eithergodsorhumans,whoperjurethemselves.

4

accesstotheplacesofworkandthevarietyofamenities,whileenterprisesaremoresensitiveto

locationsprovidingaccesstothesourcesofrawmaterial(inputs)andthemarkets(outputs).

Theresultingspatialpatternscouldbedescribedasthecombinedandcumulativeoutcomeofthe

continuously changing balance between agglomeration (or centripetal) and dispersal (or

centrifugal) forces thatareguiding the locationofeconomicactivities (Krugman,1999:144-145,

Fujita et al., 2001:9). The relevant individual decisions are being taken by economic agents in

response to real (or perceived as such) opportunities for profitable production. Each individual

investmentgeneratesaspatialpatternofflowsofinputsandoutputsorofbackwardandforward

linkageswithsuppliersandmarkets.Theresultingspatialdevelopmentpatternscouldbeviewed

asthehistoricalfootprintofsuccessivelayersofinvestment(Massey,1979:50-51).

Transport infrastructure networks are closely linked to the processes of regional

convergence/divergence(Krugman,1991:23-25).Transportaxesdeterminetoa largeextentthe

locationofenterprisesandhouseholds,andhencethepatternoflanduseinanarea.Forexample,

theimprovementoftransportinfrastructureandgreateraccessibilitytourbanregionsencourage

sprawlandthecreationofwidespreadsuburbs.However,differentformsofaccessibilityinfluence

enterprisesandhouseholdsindifferentwaysthatrequireempiricalinvestigation(McQuaidetal,

1996).

Investmentintransportinfrastructureisgenerallyconsideredavitalpolicyfortheeconomicgrowth

ofcitiesandregions.This,initsmostsimplifiedformimpliesthatregionswithbetteraccesstothe

locationsofinputmaterialsandmarketsaremoreproductiveandcompetitivethanmoreremote

andisolatedregions(Giuliano,2004).Inparticular,EUtransportpolicyhasalwaysplacedincreased

mobility at the coreof its interest, a trend reflecting the importanceofmovements in a Single

Market.This isevident in the introductionofTrans-EuropeanNetworks (Articles154-156of the

Maastricht Treaty, 1992) as a key element of the Internal Market and the reinforcement of

EconomicandSocialCohesion.Duetotheirsignificanceandthescaleofthenecessaryinvestments

TENscouldbeplacedatthecoreofEuropeanspatialdevelopmentinterventions(DeCeuster,2005,

Buunketal.,1999).

5

However, it remains an open question what are the most appropriate types of investment in

transportinfrastructureandwhichtypesofregionsgetthehighestbenefits.Forexample,thereare

argumentsthatTrans-EuropeanNetworks,intendedtopromoteterritorialcohesionandparityof

access over the European territory, have increased spatial unevenness via their impact upon

accessibilityandthusupontheeconomicprospectsofregions(Vickermanetal,1999).Similarly,

therearearguments(Martin&Rogers,1995)thatbyimprovinginfrastructureinthepoorcountries

and regions relative to the rich, European structural funding may even increase industrial

concentrationandinduceregionaldivergence.Asspatialdevelopmenttheorists‘know’,thereisno

winningmixofpolicies thatcouldguaranteethestabilizationofcomparativeadvantages.Other

factors such as location-specific features could play a more important role in the economic

performance of regions and the determination of their relative position in the international

hierarchy(ESPON,2015).

The relationshipbetween transport infrastructureandspatial structure isextremelycomplexas

therearemanyfactorsinvolved.First,theinstitutionalcapacityofaregionplaysadecisiveroleon

howdirectandindirecteffectsoccurandtowhichdirection.Second,theinvolvedpublicagencies

andsocialpartnersexercisesignificantinfluenceonhowandwhetherornotapotentialimpactwill

occur.Third,theresponseofspatialpatternstochangesinaccessibilitytakesaratherlongtimeto

emerge.Alltheaboveareexamplesoffactorsthatmakeitverydifficulttoassignspecificterritorial

impactstospecificchanges intransport.Thecritical itemsforthe investigationof theterritorial

impactsofthetransportsystemcanbeincorporatedintotheconstitutingelementsoftheoretical

modelsexpressingtheinterrelationshipbetweenland-useandtransportchange.

There isagreatvarietyof integrated land-use transportmodelswhichcontainaseriesof inter-

linkedequationsforpredictingkeyvariablesrelatedwitheconomicactivity,transportchangeand

land-usepatterns (NERA,1999). Ingeneral land-usetransportmodelsaretypicallydeveloped in

order to simulate and evaluate land-use and transport system changes and their interactions,

incorporatingdifferentratesofchange.Thus,accordingtoGeurs&VanWee(2004)thesemodels

should fulfil the following criteria: (i) the spatial location of activities should be based on a

behaviouralrepresentationofthedifferentspatialprocessesandactorsinvolved;(ii)traveldemand

patternsshouldreflectaconsistentoutcomeoftheinterplaybetweenallthemajorbehavioural

6

responsestochangesincostsandcharacteristicsoftransportsupply,and(iii)shouldconsistently

linkthefullsetof(long-term)land-useand(short-term)travelbehaviouralresponses.

Aseven-step(cyclical)basemodelthatfulfilstheabovecriteriaisprovidedinFigure1.Thisisan

adaptedversionofaconceptualmodelontherelationbetweentransportinfrastructureandthe

spatialpatternofeconomicactivitiesproposedbyBruinsmaetal(1997)withabasicdifferencethat

transport cost isnot separatebut is incorporated in Step2 intoaccessibility thatexpresses the

generalizedcostoftravel.

Figure1:Asevenstep(cyclical)modelofspatialdevelopmentandtransportinfrastructure

STEP1Supplyoftransport

infrastructure

STEP2Changesinaccessibility

STEP3Demandformobility

STEP4Growthinproductivity

STEP5Reallocationofactivities

andpopulation

STEP6Demandfornew

mobility

STEP7Investmentfornew

infrastructure

7

Transportinfrastructurefirstandforemostaffectsaccessibilityandhenceincreasetheeconomic

potentialofregionsproducingaseriesofterritorialimpactsuponeconomicgrowth,thestateof

the environment and land use patterns (NERA, 1999, Vickerman et al., 1999). This process is

systematisedaccording to theadoptedmodel as follows: the supplyof transport infrastructure

(step 1) reduces the cost of transport and leads to improvement in accessibility (step 2) that

increases thedemand formovements (step3)and improves theproductivity in theareasof its

influence(step4)triggeringthereallocationofhouseholdsandactivities(step5)andthegeneration

ofdemandfornewmovements(step6)whichcreatepressuresforthesupplyofnewtransport

infrastructure(step7).

2 Identificationofkeypolicypriorities

Theelaborationofanevidence-basedframeworkfortheassessmentoftheterritorialimpactsof

transportinfrastructureuponspatialdevelopment,presupposestheidentificationoftherelevant

policyobjectivesandpriorities.Theadoptionandformulationofpoliciesisadynamicprocessthat

hasbothterritory-specificandtime-specificcomponents. Inthispaper,spatialdevelopmentand

transportpolicyprioritiesrefertotheterritoryoftheEuropeanUnionduringitslastprogramming

period 2007-2013 as they are stated in a series of official documents: the European Spatial

DevelopmentPerspective(CEC,1999),theTerritorialAgendaoftheEuropeanUnion(CEC,2007),

theGreenPaperonTerritorialCohesion(CEC,2008),andtheWhitePaperofEuropeanTransport

Policyfor2010(CEC,2001).Duringthecurrentprogrammingperiod2013-2020,theabovepolicy

prioritieshavebeenupdatedinaseriesofnewdocuments:EUROPE2020:Astrategyforsmart,

sustainable and inclusive growth (EC, 2010), Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020:

TowardsanInclusive,SmartandSustainableEuropeofDiverseRegions(EC,2011)andtheWhite

PaperRoadmaptoaSingleEuropeanTransportArea(EC,2011).Thoughnotstudiedindetail,the

newdocumentshavebeenalsotakenintoaccountinordertoverifythattheproposedtheoretical

approach in addition to its theoretical coherencemaintains a significantdegreeof its empirical

relevance.

AccordingtotheMaastrichtTreatyfortheEuropeanUnion(signedin1992)thevariousEuropean

policiesshouldallcontributetothesocialandeconomiccohesionoftheUnion.Thisreferstothe

structuralpolicyaimingatthebalanceddevelopmentoftheEuropeanterritoryandclosingthegap

8

withthelessdevelopedareas.Furthermore,theMaastrichtTreatyemphasizedtheimportanceof

environmentalconsideration,includingmeasuresforspatialplanning,landusesandmanagement

ofwaterresources. Italso introducedtheconceptofTrans-EuropeanNetworks,establishedthe

CommitteeofRegionsandcreatedtheCohesionFundtoassistthefourcohesioncountries(Greece,

Spain, Portugal and Ireland) to cope with their environmental and transport infrastructure

problems.Fiveyearslater,in1997,theTreatyofAmsterdamintroducedtheconceptofterritorial

cohesioninrelationtotheservicesofgeneraleconomicinteresttounderlinetheimportanceofa

comprehensive approach to the promotion of cohesion over the entire European territory

(AndrikopoulouandKafkalas,2004).

Takentogethertheaboveevolutionarytrendsindicateanincreaseinsignificanceoftheterritorial

dimension in the EuropeanUnion institutional framework. This trend is indeed reflected in the

above-mentioned EU policy documents. Examination of these documents identifies the major

policyobjectivesinrelationtoboththespatialaspectsofEuropeandevelopmentandthepriorities

oftheEuropeantransportpolicy.

The specific contributionof theESDP isdefined in relation to thecentralobjectivesof theEU’s

spatialdevelopmentpoliciesandthedeclarationthat ‘thethreefundamentalgoalsofEuropean

policyareachievedequallyinalltheregionsoftheEU:economicandsocialcohesion;conservation

and management of natural resources and the cultural heritage; and more balanced

competitiveness of the European territory’. Through these objectives the spatial aspects of

developmentareconnectedtotheconceptofsustainableandbalanceddevelopment.TheESDP

elaboratesmore specific spatial development objectives or priorities: polycentric and balanced

spatial development, parity of access to new infrastructure, and prudent management and

protectionofnaturalandculturalresources(CEC,1999).TheintentionoftheESDPistoprovidea

common reference for the orientation of decision-making in ways that take into account the

territorial impactof the implementationof relevantEuropeanpoliciesbyall responsibleand/or

otherwise involvedactorsandagencies. Inparticular it isconsideredthat ‘theESDPisasuitable

policy framework for the sectoral policiesof theCommunity and theMember States thathave

territorialimpacts,aswellasforregionalandlocalauthorities,aimedasitisatachievingabalanced

andsustainabledevelopmentoftheEuropeanterritory’.

9

ThenextstepintheevolutionoftheEuropeanspatialplanningtheoreticalandpolicydomainisthe

formulationofaEuropeanTerritorialAgendaadoptedbytheEUministersofspatialplanning in

Leipzig (CEC, 2007). This effort is based upon the operational contribution of the territorial

dimensiontotheLisbonandGothenburgstrategies.Thepotentialinfluenceonspatialdevelopment

bythevarioussectoralEuropeanpolicies(especiallythosewithdirectspatialdimensionincluding

Common Agricultural Policy, transport policy, structural policy, competition policy, and

environmental policy) is a matter of concern. According to the ESDP this impact is expressed

through diverse items such as: land uses, productive systems, spatial patterns, income levels,

regionaltransfersandallocationofpublicfunds.ItshouldalsobementionedthattheESDPsetsfor

itself the task to promote the complementarity and positive synergy of the different European

policiesovertheEuropeanterritory.Thisisnotaneasytaskandasithasbeendocumentedalready

in the first report on the Social and Economic Cohesion, the diverse sectoral objectives of the

variouspoliciestendtoproduceconflictingresultsinthevariouscountriesandregionsoftheEU

(CEC,2002).

The policy objectives set by the European Transport Policy are particularly important for the

assessmentoftheterritorialimpactoftransportinfrastructure.Theseobjectivesareclearlydefined

intheaforementionedWhitePaperonTransportPolicyfor2010.Transportpolicyisamongthe

first Community policies that were introduced with the founding Treaty of Rome (article 74).

Transportwasconsideredasthenecessaryconditionforthefreemovementofpersonsandgoods,

astwoofthefourbasicfreedomsthatwereestablishedwiththecreationoftheCommonMarket,

theothertworeferringtothefreemovementofcapitalandservices.ThoughtheTreatyofRome

envisagedacommontransportpolicy,transportpolicyremainedinfactonlyaCommunitypolicy,

i.e.apolicyfortheharmonizationandcompletionofnationalpolicies.Therewaslittleprogressin

transportpolicyuntil1985whentheWhiteBookontheSingleMarketpromoteditsre-orientation

alongaseriesofbasicprinciplesincludingtheliberalizationoftheinternationalroadtransportof

goods,establishmentofsafetyrulesandspeedlimitsanddesigninganintegratedtrans-European

transportnetworktowhichlaterwasaddedabetterbalancebetweenroadandothermodesof

transport.FollowingtheMaastrichtTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanUnionandthe1992White

Book on transport, the opening-up of the transport market was adopted as the main guiding

principle.

10

Furthermore, theTreatyestablishing theEuropeanUnionprovided the legalbasis for theTENs.

UnderthetermsofChapterXVoftheTreaty(Articles154,155and156),theEuropeanUnionmust

aimtopromotethedevelopmentofTrans-EuropeanNetworksasakeyelementforthecreation

oftheInternalMarketandthereinforcementofEconomicandSocialCohesion.Thisdevelopment

includes the interconnectionand interoperabilityofnationalnetworksaswellasaccess tosuch

networks. In 1996 fourteen priority projects were identified – considered as ‘missing links’ or

‘congestionpoints’–forwhichpartialfinancialsupportwasplanned.In2001sixnewprojectsand

twoextensionswereaddedinviewoftheEuropeanenlargementandtakingintoaccountthePan-

EuropeancorridorsandtheTINAnetwork,whilein2004revisedguidelinesandfinancialregulation

adopted,withalistof30priorityprojects(includingtheoriginal14)(OfficialJournaloftheEuropean

Union,2004:AnnexIII).

The‘WhitePaperofEuropeanTransportPolicyfor2010:atimetodecide’(CEC,2001)summarizes

theevolutionoftransportpolicy.Theintentionofthisdocumentisnottoaddnewprioritiesbutto

encouragetheimplementationoftheadoptedprinciplesandpoliciesinordertoachieveabetter

balancebetweentransportmodesandespeciallybetweenroadandrailnetworksandtocontribute

intheimprovementofthecongestionandenvironmentalproblems.Themid-termreviewofthe

WhitePaperemphasisesthecontributionoftheTENsandtheMotorwaysoftheSeas(MoS)inthe

strengtheningofintermodalityandtheterritorialcohesionoftheEU(DeCeuster,2005).

Onthebasisoftheabovestrategicdocumentsthefollowingpolicyobjectivesareidentified:

Objective1:Parityofaccessintheproducednewinfrastructure.Theimprovementofaccessibility

of the various regions is the main pursuit of new transport infrastructure. However, the new

infrastructure, especially in intra-regional level and depending on land use and land reliefmay

providedifferentialimprovementinthevariouslocations.Thus,apatternofunevennessinrelation

totheiraccesstothenewinfrastructureisproduced.Nevertheless,atinter-regionallevelamore

balancedsystemoftransportismorepossibleespeciallybecausenewinfrastructureprioritizesthe

connectionofregionalcentres.Inthissense,newtransportinfrastructuremaycontributetothe

cohesionofawiderterritory.Theaboveimpactsshouldbeexaminedinrelationtotheovercoming

ofisolationofthemostremoteplaceswithineachregion.

11

Objective2:Balancedsystemofsettlementsandorganizationofruralspace.Transportsystemsare

directly connected with the organization of the network of settlements. Transport networks

influencetheorganizationofsettlementsenablingthethickeningof inter-urbanrelationshipsby

decreasingtherelativedistanceandimprovingcommunicationandaccessibility.Thisisespecially

truefortheconnectionbetweenthemainurbancentresofanimportantroadcorridor.Ruralspace

and smaller settlements are also benefited to the extent that the main nodes and roads are

interlinkedthroughareliablewebofsecondaryaxes.

Objective3:Prudentmanagementandprotectionofthenaturalandculturalresources.Allkindsof

transport create pressures to the natural and built environment (e.g. noise, air pollution,

fragmentationofecosystems,etc.).Thisismoreacuteinrelationtotheroadaxesandshouldbe

examinedinrelationtothereorientationofroadtrafficvolumes,thediversionoftraffictowards

alternativetransportmeansandnetworks.Inrelationtotheculturalenvironmentitisimportant

toensuretheaccessofculturalresourceswithoutexcessiveenvironmentalpressuresandrisks(i.e.

ofdamage,degradation,congestion,etc.)inarchaeologicalandotherculturalsites.

Objective 4 Cohesion, consisting of: 4a) Income convergence: The securing of the freedom of

movementforthebasicproductivefactorswithintheSingleMarketisapriorityoftransportpolicy.

Generally,theimpactoftransportpolicyuponregionaleconomicconvergenceandsocialcohesion

arecontroversialasitseemsthatthoughmostregionsgaininabsolutetermstheirrelativeposition

may becomeworse. In this respect, it is crucial that all other policies act in a complementary

manner in order to compensate any new imbalances induced by the operation of new road

infrastructure. 4b) Increase of employment and combating social exclusion: The relation of

transportpolicytothisobjectiveiseffectedthroughtheimprovementofthemobilityofthefactors

ofproductionandhencebettermatchingbetweendemandandsupplyinthelabourmarket.This

adaptation is not automatic and does not depend simply upon the capacity tomove. It is also

necessarytoimprovethesynergywithotherpoliciesandespeciallyvocationaltrainingpolicyatthe

respectivespatiallevels.

12

3 Territorialimpactassessmentframework

Aftertheformulationofthetheoreticalmodelandtheidentificationofthemainpolicyprioritiesa

critical task is toassessandpossiblyquantifytherelationshipsbetweentransport infrastructure

andspatialdevelopment.Towardsthisaimitbecomesnecessarytouseclustersofindicatorswhich

couldoperateasamediatingdevicelinkingthestepsofthetheoreticalmodelandthekeypolicy

objectives. Inmanyprojects,which focuson the territorial impactof transport systemdifferent

indicatorshavebeenconsidered(Andrikopoulou&Kafkalas,2000,EgnatiaOdosObservatory,2005,

Pitsiava,2007,Fourkas,2006,Kafkalas&Pitsiava,2010,ESPON,2005,ESPON,2009,ESPON,2012).

Theseeffortshavebeentakenintoaccountintheframeworkofthepresentapproachinorderto

describe the kind of indicators that seem appropriate in order to bridge the gap between the

theoreticalmodelandtheactualpolicypriorities.

Parityofaccessmeansthatpoliciesshouldaimtoclosetheaccessibilitygapamongthedifferent

areas.Thiscouldbepursuedthroughtheallocationofnewinvestmentfortheconstructionofnew

ortheimprovementofexistingtransportinfrastructure.Thesupplyofnewtransportinfrastructure

changes transport costs by either reducing the time-distance between areas or influencing the

choice of transport mode both leading to the generation of new and/or re-orientation of

movementsandlocationofactivities.Theterritorialimpactscouldbemeasuredontheonehand

withtransportsupplyindicatorssuchaslengthanddensityofroad/railnetworkpersurfaceand

populationandontheotherhandwithtransportdemandindicatorssuchastrafficvolume(vehicle,

passengerandfreight).Theaccessibilitylevels,eitherdailyaccessibilityorpotentialaccessibility,

couldbeassessedusingindicatorssuchasbeneficiarypopulationandtraveltimeorthegeneralized

costoftransport.Theaboveimpactshavebeenincorporatedinthesteps1,2,3,6and7ofthe

theoreticalmodel.

Inordertoconfrontsocioeconomicpolarizationandstrengthenterritorialcohesionitisnecessary

topromotepolycentricityandabalancedsystemofsettlementsthroughintegratedmultimodal

andintermodaltransportnetworks(Pitsiava,2007).Basic indicatorscorrespondingtothispolicy

objective are those related to both transport infrastructure supply and the socio-economic

characteristicsof thevariousareas (i.e.employmentpersector,GDPpercapita,unemployment

ratesetc.)whichareincorporatedinthesteps1,5and7ofthetheoreticalmodel.Inthisrespect,

13

compositetransportinfrastructureindicatorsareintroduced.Forexample,thecombinationofroad

densitypersurfaceinrelationtothenumberofinhabitantsperunitofroadnetwork(reflectingthe

potentialuseleveloftransportinfrastructure)evaluatestheadequacyofinfrastructureinrelation

tothepotentialneedsofthepopulation.

Theobjectivefortheprudentmanagementandprotectionofthenaturalandculturalrecourses

reflectstheconcernfortheprotectionandimprovementofthequalityofenvironment.Indicators

used in relation to this concern should address environmental pressures that are generatedby

socio-economic conditions (reflected by indicators such as population density and land use

patterns)andtheoperationofthetransportsystem(expressedbyindicatorssuchasinfrastructure

densityandtrafficvolumes)whichareincorporatedinthesteps1,3,5,6and7ofthetheoretical

model.Theterritorialimpactofthesepressureswithrespecttothequalityofenvironmentcould

bemeasuredwithindicatorssuchaslandchangeinsidetheNatura2000network,landtakenby

urbanortransportdevelopment,andpopulationexposedtoannoyance.Manyoftheseindicators

have already been tested and adopted by the European Environment Agency in its report on

IndicatorstrackingtransportandenvironmentintegrationintheEuropeanUnion(EEA,2001).

Thepursuit of thepolicies for social andeconomic cohesion is theultimate aimof all sectoral

policies. The assessment of progress towards this aim could be made using territorial impact

indicatorsmeasuringregionaldisparitiesastheyareexpressedbyeconomicandsocialvariables

suchastheGDPpercapita,employmentbysectorofproductionandunemploymentrates(step4

ofthemodel).Aswellasbyindicatorsmeasuringchangesinpopulationandactivityallocationas

theyaredepictedbypopulationdensity,landusepatterns,landvaluesandactivityrates(step5of

themodel).

OnthebasisoftheaboveconsiderationstheconstructionoftheIRISterritorialimpactassessment

frameworkissummarizedinTable1.

14

Steps/ObjectivesObjective1Parityofaccess

Objective2Balanced

development

Objective3Environmentalprotection

Objective4Cohesion

Step1SupplyofTransport

Infrastructure

supplyindicators(i.e.lengthanddensityofroad/railnetworkpersurfaceandpopulation)

compositeindicatorsreflectingthepotentialuseleveloftransportinfrastructure(i.e.roaddensitypersurfaceinrelationtothenumberofinhabitantsperunitofroadnetwork)

Indicatorsexpressingthelandchangesandthesettlements’fragmentationduetotransportdevelopment(i.e.landtakenbytransportdevelopment)

Step2Changesinaccessibility

indicatorsexpressingaccessibilitylevels(i.e.beneficiarypopulation,traveltimeorthegeneralizedcostoftransport)

Step3Demandformobility

demandindicators(i.e.trafficvolume--vehicle,passengerandfreight)

Indicatorsexpressingthepopulationexposedtopotentialannoyance(trafficnoise/airpollution)duetonewmobilitypatterns.

Step4Growthofproductivity

Indicatorsmeasuringeconomicvariables(i.e.GDPpercapitaandactivityrates,employmentbysectorofproductionandunemploymentrates)

Step5Reallocationof

activities

socio-economiccharacteristicsofthevariousareas(i.e.employmentpersector,GDPpercapita,unemploymentrates)

Indicatorsexpressingthepopulationexposedtopotentialannoyanceduetochangesinpopulationandactivityallocation

Indicatorsmeasuringchangesinpopulationandactivityallocation(i.e.populationdensityandlandusepatterns)

Step6Newdemandfor

mobilityAsinstep3 Asinstep3

Step7Newtransportinfrastructure

Asinstep1 Asinstep1 Asinstep1

Table1:TheIRISterritorialimpactassessmentframework

15

Conclusion:planningfortheunknowable

Spatial planning is an improbable adventure into the future and its ambition to plan for the

unknowable is the source of its burden (Kafkalas 2016). Many planning models tend to use

conceptualabstractionsinordertopredictand/orshapethefutureonthebasisofidealizedspatial

representations.Incontrast,atthecoreoftheproposedIRISapproach,istheneedtodesigntools

and methods for the continuous monitoring of territorial impacts in order to allow maximum

flexibilityintheshapingofspatialdevelopmentplansandpolicies(KafkalasandPitsiava,2010).This

approachviewsspatialplanningaspartofthebroaderprocessesthatreshapespatialpatterns.In

thissense,spatialplanningentersalearningprocesstogetherwithamultitudeofsocialactorsthat

strivetoachievedesiredfutureoutcomes.

Initswiderdefinition,territorialimpactassessmentfocusesontheimpactofaproposedpolicyon

allaspectsofspatialdevelopment:economic,social,environmentalandcultural.Fromthepointof

view of spatial development, territorial impact assessment iswidely recognised as a key policy

concernandanappraisal tool necessary to assess goodplanningpractice (OECD,2002, ESPON,

2012).Inthiscontext,theIRISassessmentframeworkshouldbeconsideredasatoolforassessing

thepotentialimpactofstrategies,plans,policiesandprojects.Themorespecificvalueaddedofthe

IRIS approach lies in its comprehensive and integrative character that links the steps of the

theoretical model with the pursued policy objectives using clusters of indicators as mediating

device.Theapplicationoftheapproachinvolvesbothquantitativeandqualitativeelements.The

quantitativeelementsincludethecalculationofterritorialimpactindicatorswhilethequalitative

onesincorporatetheassumptionsconcerningthecorrespondencebetweenclustersofindicators,

policyobjectivesandstepsofthetheoreticalmodel.

The aim of the IRIS approach is tomaintain a high degree of theoretical coherence, empirical

relevanceandpracticaleffectiveness,whicharenecessaryfortheassessmentand(re)formulation

of policies involving the operation and planning of transport infrastructure. Depending on the

selection of indicators, the IRIS approach allows to take into account changes of the structural

characteristicsofthevariousareas(i.e.population,labourmarket,economy,landuses,etc.)over

different timeperiods.Thismeans thatdependingon the specificnatureand the technicaland

methodologicalrequirements,theapplicationofindicatorsprovidestheevidencebaseinorderto

16

assesstheeffectivenessofstrategicspatialdevelopmentandtransport infrastructurepoliciesas

wellastoguidetheirpossiblereformulation.Inthismanner,theIRISapproachprovidesamethod

to combine the instrumental and theenlightenmentpathsof theplanningprocess through the

tracing of the multiple correspondence between the clusters of indicators, the steps of the

theoreticalmodelandthepursuedpolicyobjectives.

References

ANDRIKOPOULOUE.,KAFKALASG.,(2000),SpatialImpactofEuropeanPolicies,Ziti,Thessaloniki(in

Greek)http://gkafkala.webpages.auth.gr/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Spatial-Impact-of-

European-Policies_SDRU-2006.pdf

ANDRIKOPOULOUE.,KAFKALASG.,(2004),GreekregionalpolicyandtheprocessofEuropeanization:

1961-2000,in:DIMITRAKOPOULOSD.,PASSASA.,(editors),GreeceintheEuropeanUnion,

Routledge,London,p.35-47.

BATTYM.,(2011),Buildingascienceofcities.J.Cities(2011),doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.11.008,

http://www.complexcity.info/files/2011/12/BATTY-CITIES-2011.pdf(visitedon30/05/17).

BRUINSMA,F,RIENSTRA,S.andRIETVELD,P.(1997)Economicimpactsoftheconstructionofa

transportcorridor:Amulti-levelandmulti-approachcasestudyfortheconstructionoftheA1

highwayintheNetherlands,RegionalStudies,Vol.31.4,pp.391-402.

BUUNK,W.,HETSEN,H.andJANSEN,A.J.(1999)Fromsectoraltoregionalpolicies:afirststep

towardsspatialplanningintheEuropeanUnion?EuropeanPlanningStudies,7,1,pp.81-98

CEC(COMMISSIONOFTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIES),(1999),EuropeanSpatialDevelopment

Perspective:TowardsBalancedandSustainableDevelopmentoftheTerritoryoftheEU,

Luxemburg,

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/sum_en.pdf(visitedon

30/05/17).

17

CEC(COMMISSIONOFTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIES),(2001),WhitePaperofEuropeanTransportPolicy

for2010:atimetodecide,COM(2001)370final,Brussels,

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/strategies/doc/2001_white_paper/l

b_com_2001_0370_en.pdf(visitedon30/05/17).

CEC(COMMISSIONOFTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIES),(2002),FirstprogressreportonEconomicand

SocialCohesion,COM(2002)46final

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/interim1/com_2002_0

46_en_acte.pdf(visitedon30/05/17).

CEC(COMMISSIONOFTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIES),(2007),TerritorialAgendaoftheEuropeanUnion

TowardsaMoreCompetitiveandSustainableEuropeofDiverseRegions,Agreedontheoccasion

oftheInformalMinisterialMeetingonUrbanDevelopmentandTerritorialCohesioninLeipzigon

24/25May2007http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/what/territorial-

cohesion/territorial_agenda_leipzig2007.pdf

CEC(COMMISSIONOFTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIES),(2008),GreenPaperonTerritorialCohesion:

Turningterritorialdiversityintostrength,COM(2008)616final,Brussels,

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/paper_terco_en.pdf(visitedon

30/05/17).

CHADWICKG.,(1971),ASystemsViewofPlanning-TowardsaTheoryoftheUrbanandRegional

PlanningProcess,PergamonPress

DAVOUDIS.,(2012),TheLegacyofPositivismandtheEmergenceofInterpretiveTraditioninSpatial

Planning,RegionalStudies,Vol.46.4,pp.429–441.

DeCeusterG.,(2005),ASSESS:AssessmentofthecontributionoftheTENandothertransport

policymeasurestothemidtermimplementationoftheWhitePaperontheEuropeanTransport

Policyfor2010,FinalReport,DGTREN,EuropeanCommission,Transport&MobilityLeuven,

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/facts-

fundings/evaluations/doc/2005_ten_t_assess.pdf(visitedon30/05/17).

18

EC(EUROPEANCOMMISSION),(2010),EUROPE2020:Astrategyforsmart,sustainableandinclusive

growth,COM(2010)2020final,http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52010DC2020&from=EN(visitedon30/05/17).

EC(EUROPEANCOMMISSION),(2011),WhitePaperRoadmaptoaSingleEuropeanTransportArea-

Towardsacompetitiveandresource-efficienttransportsystem,COM/2011/0144final,http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144&from=EN(visitedon

30/05/17).

EC(EUROPEANCOMMISSION),(2011),TerritorialAgendaoftheEuropeanUnion2020:Towardsan

Inclusive,SmartandSustainableEuropeofDiverseRegions,agreedattheInformalMinisterial

MeetingofMinistersresponsibleforSpatialPlanningandTerritorialDevelopmenton19thMay

2011Gödöllő,Hungary,http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/what/territorial-

cohesion/territorial_agenda_2020.pdf(visitedon30/05/17).

EGNATIAODOSOBSERVATORY(2005)CurrentConditionsintheRegionsofthepathofEgnatiaOdos:

Cohesion,Mobility,Balance,Environment,1stImpactReportoftheMotorway,EgnatiaOdosA.E.,

Thessalonikihttp://observatory.egnatia.gr/reports/1st_impact_report_EN.pdf(visitedon

30/05/17).

EEA(EUROPEANENVIRONMENTALAGENCY),(2001),TERM2001:IndicatorsTrackingTransportand

EnvironmentIntegrationintheEuropeanUnion(TERM),Copenhagen,

https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/term2001-sum(visitedon30/05/17).

ESPON(EUROPEANSPATIALPLANNINGOBSERVATIONNETWORK),(2005),ESPON2.1.1TerritorialImpact

ofEUTransportandTENPolicies

http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ESPON2006Projects/PolicyImpac

tProjects/TransportPolicyImpact/fr-2.1.1_revised.pdf

ESPON(EUROPEANSPATIALPLANNINGOBSERVATIONNETWORK),(2009),TIPTAP:TerritorialImpact

PackageforTransportandAgriculturalPoliciesAppliedResearchProject,2013/1/6FinalReport–

PartAandB

http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/AppliedResearch/TIPTAP/Final_R

19

eport_Part_A-B.pdf,FinalReport–PartC

http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/AppliedResearch/TIPTAP/Final_R

eport_Part_C.pdf

ESPON(EUROPEANSPATIALPLANNINGOBSERVATIONNETWORK),(2012),TerritorialImpactAssessmentof

PoliciesandEUDirectives:Apracticalguidanceforpolicymakersandpractitionersbasedon

contributionsfromESPONprojectsandtheEuropeanCommission,TheESPON2013Programme

https://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Publications/Guidance/TerritorialImpact

Assessment/TIA_Printed_version.pdf

ESPON(EUROPEANSPATIALPLANNINGOBSERVATIONNETWORK),(2015),TRACCTransportAccessibilityat

Regional/LocalScaleandPatternsinEuropeAppliedResearch2013/1/10FinalReport|Version

06/02/2015Volume1TRACCExecutiveSummaryandMainReport

http://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/AppliedResearch/TRACC/FR/TRA

CC_FR_Volume1_ExS-MainReport.pdf(visitedon30/05/17).

FOURKASV.,(2006),EgnatiaMotorwayObservatory:Monitoringofspatialimpactsoftransport

infrastructure,in:3rdInternationalConferenceonTransportResearchinGreece:Thecontribution

ofresearchindevelopingefficientandapplicablesolutionstotransportationproblems,

H.I.T./CE.R.T.H.,Thessaloniki,Greece,19-20May2006

http://observatory.egnatia.gr/presentations/3rd_SES_conf/vfourkas_3rd-conf-

SES_fullpaper_EN.pdf(visitedon30/05/17).

FUJITAM.,KRUGMANP.,VENABLESA.J.,(2001),TheSpatialEconomy:Cities,Regionsand

InternationalTrade,MITPress,Cambridge,Massachusetts&London,p.367.

GEDDESP.,(1915),CitiesinEvolution:Anintroductiontothetownplanningmovementandthe

studyofcivics,William&Norgate,London,p.409.

GEURS,K.T.,VANWEEB.,(2004),Land-use/transportinteractionmodelsastoolsforsustainability

impactassessmentoftransportinvestments:reviewandresearchperspectives,EuropeanJournal

ofTransportandInfrastructureResearch,4,no.3,pp.333-355.

20

GIULIANOG.,(2004).Landuseimpactsoftransportationinvestments:highwayandtransitin:

HansonS.,GiulianoG.,(editors),TheGeographyofUrbanTransportation,GuilfordPress,New

York,p.237-273.

HALLP.,(1982),GreatPlanningDisasters,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,p.308.

KAFKALASG.,PITSIAVAM.,(2010),Thespatialimpactsoftransportinfrastructure:apolicyrelevance

approachwithspecialfocusontheenvironment,in:RegionsandtheEnvironmentConference

ProceedingsoftheRegionalStudiesAssociationWinterConference,November2010,p.105-107.

KAFKALASG.,(2016),HowSpatialPlanningWorksanimprobableadventurebetweenpastand

future,in:IntroductoryspeechattheAESOPHoSMeeting:BacktoAgora:EuropeanValuesand

PlanningEducation,Thessaloniki10-12March2016http://gkafkala.webpages.auth.gr/site/wp-

content/uploads/2017/02/aesop-hos-gk-introductory-speech-1.pdf(visitedon30/05/17).

KRUGMANP.,(1991),GeographyandTrade,MITPress,Cambridge,MassachusettsandLondon,

p.142.

KRUGMANP.,(1999),Theroleofgeographyindevelopment,InternationalRegionalScienceReview

22-2,p.142-161.

MARTINP.J.,ROGERSC.A.,(1995),IndustrialLocationandPublicInfrastructure,Journalof

InternationalEconomics39,p.335-351.http://econ.sciences-

po.fr/sites/default/files/martinp/jie95.pdf(visitedon30/05/17).

MASSEYD.,(1979),Inwhatsensearegionalproblem?RegionalStudies,v.13,p.233-243.

MCLOUGHLINB.,(1969),UrbanandRegionalPlanning:ASystemsApproach,Faber&Faber,London,

p.336.

MCQUAIDR.W.,LEITHAMS.,NELSONJ.D.,(1996),Accessibilityandlocationdecisionsinaperipheral

regionofEurope:alogitanalysis,RegionalStudies,Vol.30,No6,p.579-588.

NATIONALECONOMICRESEARCHASSOCIATES,(1999),AFrameworkforAssessingStudiesoftheImpact

ofTransportInfrastructureProjectsonEconomicActivity,ReporttotheStandingAdvisory

21

CommitteeonTrunkRoadAssessment,DepartmentoftheEnvironment,Transportandthe

Regions,GreatBritain,London,p.33.

OECD(ORGANIZATIONFORECONOMICCOOPERATIONANDDEVELOPMENT),(2002),ImpactofTransport

InfrastructureInvestmentonRegionalDevelopment,Paris,p.153, https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/02rtrinveste.pdf(visitedon30/05/17).

PITSIAVAM.,(2007),TransportinfrastructureprioritiesandterritorialcohesionprospectsinSE

Europe,in:GETIMISP.,KAFKALASG.,(editors),OvercomingFragmentationinSoutheastEurope,

Ashgate,Aldershot,p.267-292.

RITTELH.,WEBBERM.,(1973),DilemmasinaGeneralTheoryofPlanning,PolicySciences4,155-169

VICKERMAN,R.,SPIEKERMANN,K.andWEGENER,M.(1999),Accessibilityandeconomicdevelopment

inEurope,RegionalStudies,Vol.33,No1,p.1-15.