2ND INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE

BELGRADE, MAY 22-25, 2013

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT,

I Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of SPATIAL PLANNING AND STRATEGIC GOVERNANCE

Conference Proceedings

ИнститутзаархитектуруиурбанизамСрбије Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia

2nd INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, SPATIAL PLANNING AND STRATEGIC GOVERNANCE - RESPAG 2013

Conference Proceedings

Belgrade, May 22 - 25, 2013 2nd INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, SPATIAL PLANNING AND STRATEGIC GOVERNANCE Conference Proceedings IAUS, May, 2013, Belgrade

PUBLISHER Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia (IAUS) Belgrade, 11000 Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73/II Fax: (381 11) 3370-203, tel. (381 11) 3370-091 E-mail: [email protected], www.iaus.ac.rs FOR THE PUBLISHER Igor Marić, Director PUBLISHING COUNCIL REVIEWERS Mila Pucar, President, IAUS, Belgrade Milica Bajić-Brković, Ljiljana Blagojević, Ružica Jasna Petrić, Vice-president, IAUS, Belgrade Bogdanović, Tijana Crnčević, Jasminka Cvejić, Tamara Maričić, Secretary of the Publishing Council, Dragana Ćorović, Vladimir Depolo, Mirjana IAUS, Belgrade Devetaković, Branka Dimitrijević, Branislav Branislav Bajat, , Faculty of Đorđević, Dejan Đorđević, Pietro Elisei, Miodrag Civil Engineering, Belgrade Ferenčak, Dejan Filipović, Maroš Finka, Milica Bajić - Brković, University of Belgrade, Panagiotis Getimis, Rudolf Giffinger, Evelyn Faculty of Architecture, Belgrade Gustedt, Miroljub Hadžić, Aleksandar Ivančić, Dragana Bazik, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Edvard Jakopin, Johann Jessen, Milica Jovanović Architecture, Belgrade Popović, Boško Josimović, Grigoris Kafkalas, Branka Dimitrijević, Glasgow Caledonian University, Angelos Kotios, Aleksandra Krstić, Nikola Glasgow Krunić, Nađa Kurtović Folić, Marija Maksin, Milorad Filipović, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Božidar Manić, Tamara Maričić, Igor Marić, Saša Economics, Belgrade Milijić, Predrag Milošević, Mohmmed Muslim Igor Marić, IAUS, Belgrade Sheikh, Zorica Nedović-Budić, Marina Nenković- Darko Marušić, Belgrade Riznić, Ana Niković, Marijana Pantić, Ksenija Nada Milašin, Belgrade Petovar, Jasna Petrić, Snežana Petrović, Mila Saša Milijić, IAUS, Belgrade Pucar, Ratko Ristić, Ljubodrag Savić, Wilfried Zorica Nedović Budić - University College Dublin, Schonbaeck, Alexander D. Slaev, Milenko School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Stanković, Božidar Stojanović, Borislav Stojkov, Policy, Dublin Aleksandra Stupar, Paolo Tomasella, Ivan Tosics, Marija Nikolić, Belgrade Branka Tošić, Dragutin Tošić, Dobrivoje Vladimir Papić, Belgrade Tošković, Miodrag Vujošević, Nader Zali, Alma Ratko Ristić, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Zavodnik Lamovšek, Slavka Zeković, Jelena Forestry, Belgrade Živanović Miljković Nenad Spasić, Belgrade Božidar Stojanović, Belgrade Borislav Stojkov, Belgrade Dragutin Tošić, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Geography, Belgrade Miodrag Vujošević, IAUS, Belgrade Slavka Zeković, IAUS, Belgrade EDITORS FINANCIAL SUPPORT Miodrag Vujošević Ministry of Education, Science and Tehnological Saša Milijić Development of the Republic of Serbia COVER PAGE DESIGN NUMBER OF COPIES: 300 Tanja Bajić COMPUTER-READY DESIGN Printed by IAUS, Belgrade Jelena Stevanović Stojanović

INSTITUT ZA ARHITEKTURU I URBANIZAM SRBIJE INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN & SPATIAL PLANNING OF SERBIA

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT, SPATIAL PLANNING AND STRATEGIC GOVERNANCE

Conference is supported by Ministry of Education, Science and Tehnological Development of the Republic of Serbia International Society of City and Regional Planners (ISOCARP) Regional Science Association International (RSAI) Conference Scientific Board Miodrag Vujošević, Scientific Advisor and Chairman of the Scientific Council of IAUS, IAUS, Belgrade, Serbia,Chairman of the Scientific Committee Jasna Petrić, Senior Research Fellow, IAUS, Belgrade, Serbia, Deputy Chairman of the Scientific Committee Rachelle Alterman, Full Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Israel Fernando Brandão Alves, Associate Professor, Director of Planning Laboratory - DEC - FEUP, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal Bálint Bachman, Dean, Pollack Mihály Faculty of Engineering, University of Pécs, Hungary Milica Bajić-Brković, Full Professor, Faculty of Architecture of the University of Belgrade, Serbia Ljiljana Blagojević, Associate Professor, Faculty of Architecture of the University of Belgrade, Serbia Cornelia Aida Bulucea, Associate Professor, Electrical Machines and Environmental Engineering Department, Faculty of Electromechanical and Environmental Engineering University of Craiova, Romania Tijana Crnčević, Research Associate, IAUS, Belgrade, Serbia Branka Dimitrijević, Director, CIC Start Online (a joint initiative of seven Scottish universities), Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Dejan Filipović, Full Professor, Faculty of Geography of the University of Belgrade, Serbia Maroš Finka, Professor, Department of Spatial Planning and Management, Slovak University of Technology in , Slovakia Panagiotis Getimis, Professor, Panteion University of Political and Social Sciences, Athens, Department of Economic and Regional Development, Greece, and Visiting Professor at the University of Darmstadt, Germany Rudolf Giffinger, Professor of Regional Science, Department of Spatial Development, Infrastructure and Environmental Planning, University of Technology, Austria Evelyn Gustedt, Academy for Spatial Research and Planning (ARL), Hannover, Germany Miroljub Hadžić, Full Professor, Faculty of Business, Singidunum University, Belgrade, Serbia Aleksandar Ivančić, Chief Technology Officer, Barcelona Strategic Urban Systems, Spain Johann Jessen, Professor, Institute of Urban Planning and Urban Design, University of Stuttgart, Germany Boško Josimović, Research Associate, IAUS, Belgrade, Serbia Grigoris Kafkalas, Professor, Spatial Development and Research Unit-SDRU, Aristotle University of , Greece Marija Maksin, Full Professor, Department for Tourism and Hotel Management of the Singidunum University, Belgrade, Serbia Igor Marić, Senior Scientific Associate, Director, IAUS, Belgrade, Serbia Saša Milijić, Senior Scientific Associate, Assistant Director, IAUS, Belgrade, Serbia Bernhard Müller, Professor, Director, Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, , Germany Zorica Nedović-Budić, Professor, Head of School, UCD School of Geography, Planning & Environmental Policy, Dublin, Ireland Geoffrey Payne, Professor, Geoffrey Payne and Associates (GPA), London, UK Ksenija Petovar, Full Professor in retirement, Faculty of Architecture and Faculty of Geography of the University of Belgrade, Serbia Renata Pindžo, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics, Finance and Administration (FEFA), Singidunum University, Serbia Mila Pucar, Scientific Advisor, IAUS, Belgrade, Serbia Ratko Ristić, Full Professor, Faculty of Forestry of the University of Belgrade, Serbia Marina Nenković Riznić, Research Associate, IAUS, Belgrade, Serbia Mauro Salvemini, Professor, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy Aleksandar Slaev, Associate Professor, Varna Free University, Bulgaria Nenad Spasić, Scientific Advisor in retirement, IAUS, Belgrade, Serbia Milenko Stanković, Full Professor, Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering of the University of Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska Borislav Stojkov, Full Professor in retirement, Faculty of Geography of the University of Belgrade, Republic Agency for Spatial Planning of the Republicof Serbia, Serbia Jean-Claude Thill, Knight Distinguished Professor, Dept. of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA Paolo Tomasella, Expert for Sustainable Buildings, Regional Centre for Cataloguing of Cultural Heritage of Friuli Venice Giulia , Italy Iván Tosics, Principal, Managing Director, Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary Dragutin Tošić, Full Professor, Faculty of Geography of the University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia Dobrivoje Tošković, Scientific Advisor in retirement, IAUS, Belgrade, Serbia Alma Zavodnik Lamovšek, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Slavka Zeković, Scientific Advisor, IAUS, Belgrade, Serbia

Organisation Committee Igor Marić, IAUS, Belgrade, Chairman of the Organizational Committee and Coordinator of key activities in the preparation of the Conference Mila Pucar, IAUS, Belgrade, Deputy Chairman of the Organizational Committee Tanja Bajić, IAUS, Belgrade Jelena Basarić, IAUS, Belgrade Tijana Crnčević, IAUS, Belgrade Mirjana Devetaković, Faculty of Architecture of the University of Belgrade, Belgrade Omiljena Dželebdžić, IAUS, Belgrade Boško Josimović, IAUS, Belgrade Nikola Krunić, IAUS, Belgrade Tamara Maričić, IAUS, Belgrade Saša Milijić, IAUS, Belgrade Milena Milinković, IAUS, Belgrade Marina Nenković-Riznić, IAUS, Belgrade Jasna Petrić, IAUS, Belgrade Miodrag Vujošević, IAUS, Belgrade Jelena Živanović Miljković, IAUS, Belgrade

Venue Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Serbia Resavska street 13-15, Belgrade, Serbia

CONTENTS

SESSION A

Miodrag Vujošević and Slavka Zeković RENEWAL OF STRATEGIC RESEARCH, THINKING AND GOVERNANCE IN SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SERBIA: MID-TERM PRIORITIES...... 13

Marija Maksin, Saša Milijić and Nikola Krunić REGIONAL SPATIAL PLANNING IN SERBIA IN THE CONTEXT OF DYNAMIC CHANGES IN REGIONAL SPATIAL PLANNING IN THE EU...... 43

Jenny Atmanagara, Philip Crowe, Karen Foley and Johann Jessen MUNICIPALITIES AND RESILIENCE: STRATEGIC GOVERNANCE AND BUILDING COMMUNITY CAPITAL IN AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE...... 69

Janis Balodis BORDERLAND DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMPARISON BETWEEN CENTRAL AND BALKAN REGION COUNTRIES...... 83

Enaya Banna-Jeries and Arza Churchman PROCEDURAL JUSTICE: TOWARDS NEW APPROACHES TO PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING PROCESSES...... 96 . Cristina E. Ciocoiu INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS AND THE EUROPEAN UNION REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY: PAST, PRESENT AND WHAT THE FUTURE HAS IN STORE...... 108

Marija Cvetinović and Jean-Claude Bolay HOW TO TECHNOLOGIZE URBAN PLANNING PROCEDURES IN ORDER TO BOOST URBAN DEVELOPMENT...... 119

Jeremias Herberg EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN LEARNING REGIONS - AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CHALLENGE...... 140

Milutin Miljuš and Milica Vujošević RELATION TOWARDS BROWNFIELD SITES IN THE URBAN PLANNING STRATEGIES...... 150

Milica Pajkić, Marija Martinović and Mladen Pešić ARCHITECTURAL POLICY OF REPUBLIC OF SERBIA ...... 160

Cocheci Radu-Matei URBAN SPRAWL IN THE BRASOV METROPOLITAN AREA, ROMANIA – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND SOLUTIONS FOR A SUSTAINABLE METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT...... 176

Sara Reimann REVISITING COMMIN - THE ONLINE-DATABASE ON EUROPEAN SPATIAL PLANNING SYSTEMS AS AN EXAMPLE FOR THE LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT OF PROCESS-ORIENTED INNOVATIONS...... 188

Renzo Riboldazzi URBAN SPRAWL IN ITALY – ISSUES, CAUSES AND LAND POLICIES WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON THE MILAN AND LOMBARDY AREAS...... 204

Alcestis P. Rodi BEYOND COMPACTNESS: TRANSITIONS TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS OF PERI-URBAN ATHENS...... 215

Nataša Živaljević Luxor and Petar Mitković REGIONAL ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE ACCESSIBILITY RIGHT IN ACCORDANCE WITH EUROPEAN LEGISLATION...... 244

SESSION B

Tamara Maričić, Jasna Petrić and Boško Josimović SOCIALIST LEGACY AND SOME CURRENT ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION IN A EUROPEAN TRANSITIONAL SOCIETY: SERBIAN EXAMPLE...... 256

Vesna Popović and Jelena Živanović Miljković KEY ISSUES OF LAND POLICY IN SERBIA IN THE CONTEXT OF SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT - CASE STUDY OF DANUBE BASIN AREA ...... 271

Stevan Stanković and Jelena Basarić IDENTIFICATION OF TOURISM DESTINATIONS AND THEIR POTENTIALS IN THE ĐERDAP NATIONAL PARK...... 298

Sofija Adžić THE INFLUENCE STRUCTURING OF PRODUCTION – ORGANIZATIONAL SYSTEM ON REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT – CASE OF SERBIA...... 309

Sónia Alves EVALUATION AND EVALUATING THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE “URBAN”...... 323

Goran M. Babić and Aleksandar Videnović SERBIAN AND BULGARIAN VILLAGE AS A JOINT TOURISM BRAND OF “STARA PLANINA” MOUNTAIN...... 341

Iwona Cieślak, Małgorzata Gerus – Gościewska and Karol Szuniewicz THE APPLICATION OF GENETIC ALGOTIRHMS AS A TOOL FOR SUPPORTING THE PROCESSES OF ANALYSIS AND PREDICTING URBAN DEVELOPMENT...... 350

Marko Filipović, Marijana Pantić and Jelena Živanović Miljković URBAN-RURAL FUNCTIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL - EXAMPLE OF THE CITY OF VALJEVO, MIONICA AND OSEČINA MUNICIPALITY...360

Caterina Gallizioli RELATIONS DESIGN SPACES: VILLORESI CANAL AS OPPORTUNITY OF REDEVELOPMENT AND RECONNECTION OF OPEN PUBLIC SPACES...... 374

Fernando M. García Martín A METHODOLOGY TO STUDY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN URBAN ACTIVITIES AND MORPHOLOGY IN THE CASE OF A TWENTIETH CENTURY SUBURB IN MADRID (SPAIN)...... 386

Irina Grcheva THE IMPACT OF COPY-PASTE PLANNING: THE CASE OF THE STRATEGY FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA 2009-2019...... 401

Miroljub Hadžić and Slavka Zeković EFFECTS OF THE PROCESS OF DEINDUSTRIALISATION AND THE CONCEPT OF A REINDUSTRIALISATION STRATEGY OF SERBIA...... 410

Dimitrios Kyrkilis and Simeon Semasis THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE IN ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN GREECE...... 422

Aleksandar Lugonja SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE MOUNTAIN AREAS OF ...... 439

Dijana Milašinović Marić MODERN ARCHITECTURE AND ITS SOCIAL AND REGIONAL ASPECTS AS TOOLS FOR MAKING STRATEGY FOR THE PRESENTATION OF CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL HERITAGE OF SERBIA...... 449

Tatjana Mrđenović and Danijela Milovanović Rodić TRAININGS AS A TOOL FOR CHANGE IN URBAN REGENERATION PRACTICE ...... 460

Valentin Nemes THE ROLE OF SMALL TOWNS IN REGIONAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT IN ROMANIA...... 470

Marija Nevenić FUNCTIONAL URBAN REGION-THE INSTRUMENT OF POLYCENTRIC SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SERBIA...... 479

Dragana Nikolić PROBLEMS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS IN SERBIA....487

Peter Nikolov A SURVEY OF BULGARIAN (NATIONAL) PLANNING AND REGULATION ACTS AND DOCUMENTS CONCERNING URBAN SPRAWL...... 495

Ana Perić INSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATION AS THE PILLAR OF SUSTAINABLE BROWNFIELD REGENERATION IN THE DANUBE MACRO-REGION...... 506

Rastko Petrović, Miloš Marjanović, Uroš Đurić, Vladimir Šušić, Biljana Abolmasov and Snežana Zečević STATISTICAL APPROACH IN LAND-USE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS OF THE BELGRADE CITY SUBURBS...... 517

Renata Pindžo, Goran Petković and Аnа Vjetrov REVITALIZATION OF THE GOLUBAC FORTRESS IN ORDER TO ENSURE SUSTAINABLE USE OF THE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES IN THE FUNCTION OF SOCIO- ECONOMIC VALORIZATION...... 530

Marcel Pleijte REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT BASED ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF VALUE CREATION AND BUSINESS MODELS...... 544 Miodrag Ralević MONITORING IN THE FUNCTION OF OPEN (FLEXIBLE) PLANNING...... 554

Johann Rathke and Norbert Weber THE ROLE OF FORESTRY IN TRANSBORDER GOVERNANCE PROCESSES...... 567

Juan Luis de las Rivas Sanz and Mario Paris STRENGTHENING THE TERRITORIAL POSITION OF VALLADOLID THROUGH PLANNING STRATEGIES: NETWORKS, PATTERNS, CENTRALITIES...... 578

Ana Ruiz LOST CENTRALITY IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OF THE VALLADOLID REGION, SPAIN...... 591

Mileva Samardžić-Petrović, Branislav Bajat and Miloš Kovačević THE APPLICATION OF DIFFERENT KAPPA STATISTICS INDICES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF SIMILARITY BETWEEN PLANNED AND ACTUAL LAND USE MAPS...... 605

David Schnée A TRANSPORT-URBANISM STRATEGY BASED ON A NEW APPROACH OF CENTRALITY: AREAS OF MULTI-COMMUNE COHESION APPLIED TO THE GIRONDE’S COUNTY...... 618

Júlia Schuchmann NEW TRENDS OF SUBURBANIZATION PROCESSES IN THE BUDAPEST METROPOLITAN REGION...... 634

Dušica Srbović and Vojkan Gajović DETERMINATION AND DELINEATION OF FUNCTIONAL URBAN AREAS IN SERBIA...... 649

Viktória Szirmai EMERGENCE OF A NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT MODEL? TRANSITION AND GLOBALISATION IN THE HUNGARIAN NEW TOWNS AND THEIR REGIONS...... 666

Paolo Tomasella HISTORIC PARKS AND GARDENS OF FRIULI VENEZIA GIULIA: CENSUS, CATALOGUING, PERSPECTIVE OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE REGIONAL SPATIAL PLANNING...... 677

Jacko A. van Ast TOWARDS INTERACTIVE FLOOD GOVERNANCE: CHANGING APPROACHES IN DUTCH FLOOD POLICY...... 685

Zsuzsanna Váradi and Levente Halász POTENTIALS, CONSTRAINTS AND CONFLICTS BETWEEN KAZINCBARCIKA AND GYÖNGYÖS, A HUNGARIAN NEW AND HISTORICAL TOWN AND THEIR SURROUNDINGS...... 698

Chengzhi Yin and Dongfeng Yang ANALYSIS OF THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATION IN CHINESE REGULATORY PLANNING TOWARDS THE MAIN FUNCTION ZONING STRATEGY...... 714

Zora Živanović and Dragica Gatarić INNER URBAN AREA OF BELGRADE...... 725 SESSION C

Jelena Basarić and Jelena Stevanović Stojanović ENHANCEMENT IN TOURISM AND PROTECTION OF THE LOWER DANUBE BASIN TOURISM AREA...... 738

Nikolaos Gavanas and Magda Pitsiava-Latinopoulou METHODOLOGY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY MODEL FOR THE WIDER BALKAN REGION...... 749

Ana Mitić and Marija Martinović MONITORING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN PAN-EUROPEAN TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR 10...... 761

Miodrag Ralević, Sanja Simeunčević Radulović and Branislav Antonić DANUBE STRATEGY IN SERBIA: EDUCATION-BASED RESEARCH OF THE POTENTIALS OF SERBIAN TOWNS ON THE DANUBE...... 777

Marius Voica, Vasile Meita and Elena Stancu DANUBE AREA SPATIAL INTEGRATION BY STIMULATING THE ROMANIAN PORT CITIES REGENERATION...... 791

SESSION D

Omiljena Dželebdžić, Dragana Bazik and Tijana Crnčević VULNERABILITY OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE IN RELATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE - NEW CHALLENGE FOR SPATIAL AND URBAN PLANNING...... 808

Igor Marić, Ana Niković and Božidar Manić ENHANCEMENT OF URBAN STRUCTURE WITH THE AIM OF REDUCING THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE EXAMPLE OF BELGRADE...... 823

Marina Nenković-Riznić, Milena Stojković and Mila Pucar KEY ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE URBAN AND SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE CONDITIONS...... 852

Dobrivoje Tošković, Branislava Kovačević and Tanja Bajić SUSTAINABLE SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF DRY, HUMID AND MIXED CLIMATE ON THE EXAMPLES OF SOME TROPICAL COUNTRIES...... 871

Francesco Bonsinetto, Enzo Falco and Giuseppe Modica REGIONS IN TRANSITION TO A LOW CARBON ECONOMY: SOME FINDINGS FROM ESPON SIESTA PROJECT...... 893

Matija Brković and Višnja Sretović SMART SOLUTIONS FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT: POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION IN SERBIA...... 907

Liu Chengcheng, Sun Ling, Lu Li, An Shufang, Liu Shengli and Shi Huiling IMPROVING ADAPTABILITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE – URBAN ECOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY...... 920

Mirjana Devetaković and Milan Radojević KNOWLEDGE ON CLIMATE CHANGES IN THE SEE REGION – INTEGRATION IN THE KNOWLEDGE BASE SUPPORTING THE PROJECT TR36035...... 926

Aleksandra Đukić and Milena Vukmirović IMPROVING THE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLING NETWORKS TOWARD CLIMATE FRIENDLY URBAN ENVIRONMENT. CASE STUDY: NEW BELGRADE...... 938

Darko Jaramaz, Veljko Perović, Snežana Belanović, Elmira Saljnikov, Dragan Čakmak, Vesna Mrvić and Ljubomir Životić THE ESA SENTINEL-2 MISSION VEGETATION VARIABLES FOR REMOTE SENSING OF PLANT MONITORING...... 950

Milica Jovanović Popović, Dušan Ignjatović and Nataša Ćuković Ignjatović RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TYPOLOGY IN SERBIA AND STRATEGIC ASPECTS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT...... 962

Ahmed Khaled Ahmed Elewa and Mahmoud Yousef M. Ghoneem A METHODOLOGY FOR MITIGATING THE EFFECTS OF THE MICROCLIMATE CHANGES RELATED TO THE URBANIZATION INSIDE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES MAIN CITIES "CAIRO AS A CASE STUDY"...... 975

Nađa Kurtović Folić and Mirjana Sladić STRATEGY FOR PROTECTION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE EXPOSED TO THE NATURAL AND MAN-MADE ACTIVITY DISASTERS IN SERBIA...... 990

Marija Maruna CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES: URBAN PLANNING IN POST-SOCIALIST TRANSITION COUNTRIES IN BETWEEN VALUES AND INTERESTS...... 1007

Miloš Mihajlović RIVER FLOODS IN THE URBAN AREA, RESULT OF CHANGING CLIMATE - OBSERVATIONS...... 1018

Mira Milaković and Milena Vukmirović ANALYSING THE QUALITIES OF BEING ON FOOT: COMPARATIVE PILOT STUDY IN VRAČAR AND NEW BELGRADE...... 1025

Mirjana Miletić MEASURES AIMED AT IMPROVING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF STATE PROTECTED BUILDINGS APPLYING INNOVATIVE MATERIALS ON BUILDING FRONTS...... 1038

Ana Mitić SMART ENERGY REGIONS AS A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE CONDITIONS...... 1048

Miloš Nedić, Stefan Spasojević and Ana Radivojević TREATMENT OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE IN SERBIA AND THE LIFE CYCLE OF BUILDINGS...... 1057

Ana Nikezić and Nataša Janković (RE)CREATING URBAN LANDSCAPE: NEW BELGRADE RIVERFRONT...... 1070

Ksenija Pantović SUSTAINABILITY OF TEMPORARY STRUCTURE MODELS DESIGNED FOR HOUSING...... 1081

Ksenija Pantović and Vladimir Parežanin SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGY AESTHETICS...... 1087

Snežana M. Petrović and Mila Pucar INDICATORS OF SPATIAL SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND CRITERIA OF LEED ND CERTIFICATION...... 1094

Elona Pojani and Perseta Grabova THE RISK OF NATURAL DISASTERS IN THE ECONOMY: THE CASE OF ALBANIA...... 1104

Ivan Simić and Tanja Bajić GREEN AND BLUE SPACES: INTEGRAL URBAN DESIGN AS A TOOLKIT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN THE CASE OF SMALLER SETTLEMENTS IN REGION...... 1116

Višnja Sretović and Matija Brković CONTEMPORARY APPROACH TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: POTENTIAL FOR APPLICATION IN SERBIA...... 1126

Milena Stojković, Dimitra Kyrkou and Boris Žerjav SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS – THE ISSUE OF SCALE IN SUSTAINABLE DESIGN...... 1144

Svetlana Vrećić and Branko AJ Turnšek ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CAPACITIES AND DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS OF INDOOR SPORT FACILITIES IN THE AREA OF THE CITY OF NIŠ...... 1158

Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

EVALUATION AND EVALUATING THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE “URBAN”

Sónia Alves1

1 Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University Copenhagen, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper is divided in four parts.

The first part emphasizes the importance of “evaluation” on building social and institutional “learning”. It is argued that evaluation should go beyond the monitoring role, which is mainly related to how effectively and efficiently the resources are used, focusing on the production of relevant immaterial resources, like knowledge and social learning.

The second part emphasizes “diversity” of experiences and cultures on evaluation processes across the EU member states, identifying a “common” guidance from European Union to the national and regional authorities on Community Initiatives, such as the Initiative URBAN. The main features and challenges of this initiative are also considered.

The third section identifies the main factors that contributed to the creation of a spiral of urban and social decline in a suburban neighbourhood of the city of Porto (S. João de Deus – SJD), as well as the reasons why this neighbourhood was chosen as a priority area of intervention in the Initiative "URBAN II of Porto / Gondomar”.

The fourth and last part outlines the evaluation model developed by Alves (2011) and the results obtained by this academic research, focused on the SJD area. The comparative analysis between the results achieved on this research and those presented by the EU Ex Post evaluation lead us to conclude that some weak points of the initiative were omitted, which does not help the important goal of learning with this type of experimental initiatives and in the urban regeneration field.

323 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

2. EVALUATION AND LEARNING

The relevance of the relationship between evaluation and learning is widely acknowledged, as well as the importance of this learning process to support policy decision making. There are indeed a consensus regarding the relevance of these immaterial assets to inform policies, bringing information about what works better, why, for whom and in what circumstances.

The production of new ideas and perspectives is particularly valuable in the case of policies that deal with complex and multidimensional problems, such as those who involve the urban deprived areas. The vast number of stakeholders, who can affect or be affected by the intervention, and the high level of uncertainty and the dilemmas related to what should and can be done in areas that face complex processes of economic, social and physical decline, emphasize the importance of learning with those who have stakes there (residents, public workers, investors, etc.).

This type of policies embedded in complex and multidimensional issues request models of evaluation less dominated by quantitative approaches (since they tend to ignore what is not mathematical measured and tend to overestimate what can be quantifiably measured) and more sensitive to the variety of interest and expectations that exist in society (Alves, 2008; Healey, 1997).

“The ‘original sin’ of mainstream evaluation (that with a positivist imprint) lies in choosing to play a low-key role. Neither wanting to enter into the ‘value’ problem (thanks to a value-free stance), not wanting to discuss the theoretical implications of programmes, evaluators have concentrated their efforts on developing a methodology for verifying the internal validity (causality) and external validity (generalization) of programmes. No wonder so much energy has been spent not only in developing evaluate methods in general (the pride of the profession), but methods suited to test programmes frames in that way” (Stame, 2004: 59).

The pluralistic approaches of evaluation challenge the “scientific” models of evaluation, showing that they have not been occurred in an ideology-free social vacuum but in contexts where political, economic and social pressures affect the results of evaluation. The recognition that there is circuits of power within and between organizations and the influence of values and ideologies in all the process have implied a paradigmatic shift in the theory and practice of evaluation, towards more constructivist models (Guerra, 2002).

These models, inspired by a constructivist thinking which believes that knowledge is a human construct produced by social interaction and experience, support approaches and methodologies of evaluation more reflective and democratic. Approaches that should be developed with those who affect and were affected by the interventions.

324 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

3. THE IMPORTANCE OF EVALUATION IN EU AND OF THE URBAN INITATIVE

The structural and management considerations as well as the expenditure pressures in Europe over the last decades have promoted the rapid growth of evaluations carried out at an international, national and local level. “Citizens expect to know what has been achieved with public money and want to be sure that we run the best policy. Monitoring and evaluation have a role to play to meet such expectations” (European Commission, 2012a). It has also been recognized that there are different traditions and cultures of evaluation between Member States (European Commission, 1999) although there is a common guidance from the European Union to the national and regional authorities for the evaluation of programmes and initiatives funded by the EU.

On this matter, Ferrão and Mourato (2010) have emphasized the recent tradition of evaluation in Portugal, of only two decades, and how it has established and grown as a response to European Union demands and regulations. Such delay, in Portugal as well as in other southern countries and new EU member states from central and Eastern Europe, can be explained by the permanence of dictatorial rulers and of non-transparent hierarchical and bureaucratic structures.

It is worth to emphasize the significant influence of the European Commission with its publication of detailed methodological guidance for the evaluation of all EU funded programmes. Specially of the MEANS programme (Means for Evaluating Actions of a Structural Nature) which started in 1995 and culminated in 1999 with a six volume publication where were presented the main guidelines, standards and recommendations for the assessment of socio-economic development programs involving Community funding (European Commission, 1999). In 2004, MEANS was transformed and developed into a website – Evalsed (European Commission, 2012a).

A recently published report of the European Commission (2012b) that presented a new evaluation model that will replace the model MEANS, recognizes several inaccuracies in MEANS model arising from the difficulty of distinguishing between “results” and “impacts” or between a short-term direct effect (result) and a longer-term, indirect effect (impact) (European Commission, 2012b).

Other main criticism is the excessive simplicity of this model to deal with the complexity that involves the intervention, with multi-levels of governance and several stakeholders with different interests and visions. On this matter, Murtagh and McKay (2003) criticized the model for being predominantly instrumental and technocratic, revealing weak interpretative capabilities of issues such as "the actors who are and are not represented", the "internal democracy of the system" or the "social justice and equity contained in the decisions and actions ".

325 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

The Community Initiative URBAN was an initiative launched by the European Commission and implemented by the cities to tackle the serious and multidimensional problems of economic, territorial and social exclusion (associated with poor environmental conditions, long term unemployment, poverty, discrimination).

Even the EU has no official competency in the area of Urban Policy, this initiative, like others before, had an important impact on cities. The initiative followed the principle of subsidiarity, in the sense that the goals and objectives were defined by the European Commission while the strategies and means were defined at local levels. Each selected city taking part in the URBAN Initiative was implementing its own programme.

The “Urban Pilot Programme” was launched with the aim of experimenting and setting the agenda of the URBAN initiative (Alves, 2011), that was after funded in two phases: 1994- 99 and 2000-2007. The main features of the initiative were: an integrated approach to issues that are often treated in isolation, strengthening competitiveness, combating social exclusion and environmental regeneration, to help the integration of immigrant communities, to promote equal opportunities and to manage the initiatives locally, close to the people and their problems (European Commission, 2003).

The actions were co-financed by two of the European Community’s Structural Funds: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and European Social Fund (ESF). In terms of evaluation, EU left the responsibility for evaluation of the first two stages (ex-ante and on-going) to the regional and local authorities but commissioned the final stage of the ex- post evaluation in collaboration with Member States.

Some academic research has been carried out concerning the effects of the URBAN initiative on governance to conflict resolution and participatory practices in local development (Murtagh e Sterrett, 2006, in Derry/Londonderry, North Ireland); on innovative practices in area based urban regeneration (Barbanente e Tedesco, 2002, in Bari, Italy); and on the creation of strategic and more integrated area based regeneration in what is concerned with stakeholders and dimensions of intervention (Blanco, 2005, Barcelona, Spain).

326 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

4. S. JOÃO DE DEUS (SJD) IN THE CONTEXT OF “URBAN II” OF PORTO/GONDOMAR

This section is divided in two complementary parts. In the first part, the main phases of construction and occupation of the S. João de Deus (SJD) neighbourhood are analysed, as well as the factors that contributed to the creation of a spiral of urban and social decline in the area. In the second part, the main characteristics of the Community Initiative "URBAN II" of Porto / Gondomar are scrutinised, as well as the strategies targeted to the SJD neighbourhood, that was defined as a priority area of intervention of the initiative in Porto area.

4.1. The SJD neighbourhood

The SJD’s history is a story about social housing estate that “was born poor” in terms of urban planning, social occupation, and location. The neighbourhood was constructed in a peripheral area, where there was still a very incipient urbanization process and therefore very low or non-existent economic and social opportunities (such as jobs, social and private services, etc.). It was constructed to rehouse a population that was living in different parts of the city but had in common the bad housing conditions and the low- incomes. The neighbourhood is therefore inseparable of the politics of inner-city slum clearance that were implemented in the city of Porto between 1956 and 1966 (Alves, 2011).

Fig. 1 – The SJD neighbourhood

327 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

The history of the neighbourhood started in 1944 with the construction of small detached dwellings (Fig. 2) and continued in the 50’s and 60’s with the construction of multi-storey buildings (Fig. 3) (Fig. 4). In the 80's the neighbourhood consisted of about 448 dwellings that housed a population of about 400 families and 1600 inhabitants.

Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4

The shortage of housing and the rapid increase of families seeking for housing in the city of Porto, as a consequence of the independence of ex colonies and the return of thousands of families who were previously living in Africa to Portugal, as well the rural exodus after the implementation of democracy in Portugal in mid70’s, led to the construction of shanties around the housing blocks in the neighbourhood (Fig. 5).

The construction of the shantytown around the social housing blocks increased the concentration of poor people and illegal activities as well as the sense of insecurity in the neighbourhood. The lack of social control within the neighbourhood created a spiral of decline and the influx of new population and criminal activities which became by itself a source of further physical and social decline of the area.

In the mid-90s, as part of a national initiative to combat poverty, the shanties were destroyed and new multi-storey buildings were constructed (in total 270 dwellings) (Fig. 6).

Fig. 5 Fig. 6

The construction of new housing brought improvements to the physical and environment conditions of the neighbourhood and to the housing conditions of the population (that before was living in the shanties) but did not bring improvements in the neighbourhood

328 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

management. Quite the contrary: After the end of the project that led to the construction of the new housing blocks, no one (public authority) was responsible for managing the neighbourhood. Consequently, the tenants did not pay rent and they began to exchange and sell houses illegally.

The loss of control over what was happening in the neighbourhood led to intensification of its problems and of its downward spiral.

In 2000, the neighbourhood was inhabited by about 2600 people, occupying about 706 dwellings (28 multifamily housing units and 144 single-family houses) and was already known as the major focus of drug trafficking and consumption in the Metropolitan Area Porto. Its inhabitants were facing a broad range of economic and social challenges, as well as a rundown physical environment.

4.2. The SJD neighbourhood in the URBAN II Porto Gondomar initiative

The context of high concentration of problems and needs justified the priority given by the local authority of Porto to the SJD neighbourhood. The area of intervention of URBAN II, which is marked in Fig. 7, comprehended a territory of 5,7 km2 and of 27,365 inhabitants. A territory with high levels of social, economic and physical deprivation that belongs to two contiguous municipalities of the metropolitan area of Porto: Porto and Gondomar.

Fig. 7

The program of intervention was structured in three strategic axes: Regenerating the urban character of the area, Social Inclusion and Economic and Professional Qualification and Promoting social, cultural and sporting activities (Deloitte, 2003). From 2001 to 2006 the

329 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

Programme’s total cost amounted to € 15,2 million euros, of which € 10,1 million came from ERDF - (CCDRN, 2007), and € 4 million from the local administration. The participation of the private sector was not expected and didn’t occur in the program (Deloitte, 2003: 24).

The ex-ante evaluation, took place before the adoption of the programme, to provide a prior judgment on whether the strategy and proposed objectives were relevant and whether there was incoherence in relation to community practices and guidelines (European Commission, 1999). In this evaluation phase, which was carried by a department of the national government (Direcção Geral do Desenvolvimento Regional - DGDR) in collaboration with an external private firm of consultants (CEDRU), the SJD neighbourhood was selected as a priority area of intervention. Several reasons justified this decision: the youth of the population (47% of the total was less than 24 years old), its ethnic diversity: 34% were Roma (Gypsy) population and 7% had African roots; the highest unemployment rate (equivalent of 35.3% of the active population) and a stronger dependency on social benefits provided by the state (like on the minimum income). This higher prevalence of drug traffic and drug use in the SJD neighbourhood was emphasized by this report (DGDR, 2001).

Fig. 8 Fig. 9

In a very early stage of the programme implementation, it was carried out the Mid-term evaluation by an external consultant that among other things should analyse the first outputs and results of interventions. In what is related to the SJD, the evaluation report (Deloitte, 2003) gave emphasis to the positive effect that the demolition of “some” blocks in the neighbourhood could have in diminishing the concentration of poor households and allowing the construction of a road to connect and open the area.

Nevertheless, the report did not explain how they intended to rehouse the (poor) population neither the estimated effects caused by the displacement into other areas and communities. Decisions on how to rehouse, where to rehouse, whether to rehouse whole communities or

330 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

to scatter individual households over all estates, were not answered anywhere. There was not any plan, neither mediator to enable the inclusion into the new neighbourhoods.

However, the report recommended a better articulation between the Programme manager and the management, monitoring and controlling structures and a previous hearing of an enlarged number of social partners during the programme’ s financial re-orientation (Deloitte, 2003).

4.2.1. The SJD in the municipal agenda.

The strategy for neighbourhood improvement was defined by the local municipal executive, without public participation. The Councillors of Social Services and of Urban Planning requested the department of projects of the municipality, to produce a draft project based on the following strategic lines: i) the reduction of the population of the neighbourhood through a large-scale demolition of housing stock to clear the site for future developments; ii) the construction of a road that should cross and open the area; iii) the construction of 124 semi-detached dwellings to rehouse part of population (it was not defined which groups); iv) the requalification of the semi-detached dwellings constructed in the 40’s; v) the transformation of the local school into a private university, and the closure of all the local services of the neighbourhood.

At the end of 2002, the project was presented to the inhabitants and to the media. Several aspects associated with the project were criticized: the lack of public participation by community members and local representatives, the idea of demolishing housing units that were constructed recently (a decade before) and the ambiguity associated with the re- housing of more than two thousand of residents, to be accomplished over the next years.

The municipality argued that the existence of poor housing and poor urban design was contributing to the physical isolation of the neighbourhood and for the maintenance of a antisocial behaviour (crime, vandalism, drugs …) and therefore the demolition would be more cost effective than the renovating and maintenance of the neighbourhood.

In 2003 began the demolition of the blocks of multi-family housing. By the end of 2005 the demolition of nearly the entire neighbourhood was concluded. In total 28 blocks of multi-family housing total of 562 housing units were demolished (Figure 10), in the neighbourhood remained only 144 single-family houses built in the middle of the last century, and currently inhabited by a predominantly older population.

331 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

Fig 10 Fig. 11

The demolition process involved a high level of contestation and a strong police intervention (Fig. 11). The demolitions lead to the transfer of 430 households to other housing estates and to 132 housing evictions. According to the local authorities, the housing evictions occurred in situations when the housing unit was being used for illicit purposes, such as second homes or illegal occupation of the household (e.g. due to trade or illegal sale of houses).

The resettlement process did not involve collaborative and monitoring methodologies, and occurred through the school year. It is important to mention that many families were rehoused in many large housing estates, some of them already considered problematic and segregated due to a high concentration of problems of crime and antisocial behaviour. For example the Cerco neighbourhood, that was targeted by the initiative URBAN I and concentrated already 3,100 inhabitants, received 69 more families (CMP, 2001). This neighbourhood, that at the time began to show a positive trajectory, in terms of community identity, social cohesion, etc. (Alves, 2008), faced an increase of problems as a consequence of this mass relocation.

The residents, who remained in the neighbourhood, considered that the neighbourhood improved in terms of calm and quietness, but became an empty place. The old houses were not qualified as promised, and they were progressively sealed, as soon as their occupants die or were transferred to other areas. The figures 12 and 13 were taken in January of 2013.

332 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

The table 1 shows the achievements in the SJD according to the three mains strategic axes defined for the initiative URBAN II in Porto-Gondomar. As it can be seen by this analyses, even the SJD neighbourhood was defined as a priority area of intervention in this initiative, its effects on their inhabitants and area were quite low.

333 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

Table 1 - The realisations in the SJD

The Strategic axes of the initiative URBAN II Porto-Gondomar SJD Neighbourhood

Priority 1 - Regenerating the urban character of the area.

Revitalise the urban environment and add value to the public space to enable No urban spaces to become areas where social and intergenerational relationships Demolition and are possible “cleaning”

Priority 2 – Social Inclusion and economic and professional qualification

Pre-training, vocational training and promotion of self-employment: improving Only information the skills and qualifications of the local population, enabling them to enter into about employment the labour market opportunities/ training

Valorisation of local economic activities and promotion of entrepreneurship. No

Combat drug traffic and drug addiction: promoting prevention and information No measures by fostering the existing health and social services to host and treat Displacement to other drug addicts areas

Priority 3 – Promoting social, cultural and sporting activities Yes Education. Supporting Projects in the schools and Promotion of socio-cultural life and sport. institutions (seniors)

Active citizenship and participation: Revitalise the social environment, by No strengthening local communities to integrate more vulnerable people (immigrants, ethnic minorities, etc)

5. EVALUATIONS AND RESULTS

In this section it is presented the evaluation model developed by Alves (2011) and the results obtained by this academic research that focused on the SJD area. The results of the research are compared with the findings presented by an Ex Post evaluation undertaken at the EU level in which the initiative was considered “a real achievement” (European Commission, 2010b)

5.1. The Alves evaluation model: concepts, methodology and results

The evaluation framework was structured around several concepts and dimensions (Fig. 14) that were subsequently translated into research questions. The concepts and

334 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

dimensions of evaluation were structured in two different survey guidance’s: one created to officials who were engaged directly in policy making or implementation (these included local government staff, members of specific project teams and members of local associations), and the other one intended to people who were directly affected by the interventions. The selection of the interviewed population followed the diversification criteria in order to ensure diversity of profiles and thereby the identification of different positions of the population towards the initiative. It was interviewed households from those that continued to live in the neighbourhood after the intervention but also from those who were displaced and rehoused in other housing estates. The data was collected from different documentary sources (reports, specific legislation, studies), and from semi- structured in-depth interviews.

The sense in which the concepts were used in this evaluation model was explained in detail in Alves (2011). Within this paper it is particularly important to note that these are interlinked and mutually reinforcing concepts.

First Dimention

Governance Institutional Capacities

Knowledge Organizational Procedural Relations Mobilization resources

Second Dimention

Trajectories of Social Capital socioeconomic integration

Social Rules/Norms Trust Work Reciprocity Welfare State Networks

Fig. 14

Some key ideas were essential for the structuring of this evaluation model, such as: - Capabilities of individuals and institutions can be transformed, in a positive or negative way. When they are successfully transformed they create trust, and foster good relationships between users, service providers, public authorities and other stakeholders.

335 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

They also can promote individual trajectories of social inclusion, towards work, reciprocity, social protection of the state (Kesteloot, 2002); - Social capital is related to the set and quality of relationships that connect people and institutions in a particular territory. From this perspective depends on where people live, with whom they live and how they live (Meegan and Mitchell, 2001). - The availability of knowledge and relational resources are necessary dimensions of urban regeneration initiatives, which have the potential to build sustainable institutional capacity for pro-active place-making, but they need to be deliberately mobilized to release their potential (Magalhães et al., 2002)

The core of the survey involved many descriptive, normative and causal questions about what happened, the relations of cause/effect between methodologies and the impacts on individuals and neighbourhoods; about the correspondence between results and needs, and the level of satisfaction of individuals and institutions towards institutions and partnership working.

Regarding the results achieved by this research, it is particularly important to emphasize the following findings: Although there may be different ways of understanding and interpreting the process of implementation, there was a consensus among the interviewees about the discrepancies between the aims or the purposes of the initiative and the achieved results. The representatives of the local organizations (schools, community, social workers,…) considered that the way the neighbourhood was demolished and families relocated disrupted pre-existent social relations and created new problems (such as the isolation of the elderly, and an increase in the school dropout, namely among the gypsy community).

The implementation procedures were not consistent with the principles of democratic involvement, empowerment, participation and collaboration of the urban program. For example the local actors were not involved in decision making process, but instead were informed by the mass media about the municipal decisions. The political devaluation of the principles, values and goals of the EU initiative led to the creation of an administrative structure that was strictly hierarchical and unresponsive to the expectations and needs of the beneficiaries and of the local actors.

5.2. The Ex-post evaluation of Urban II

The Ex post evaluation should recapitulate and judge the entire programme, particularly its impacts. Its aim is to account for the use of resources and to report on the effectiveness and efficiency of the interventions and the extent to which expected effects were achieved. It should focuses on factors of success or failure, and on the sustainability of results and impacts (Commission European, 1999).

336 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

In the case of URBAN II Porto Gondomar, the Ex post evaluation was performed several years after the end of the programming period, and the report was published in 2010. The evaluation was carried out by independent evaluators (ECOTEC) in collaboration with the Coordination Commission of the North (which was the Programme Manager). With the title, "URBAN II Evaluation, Porto Gondomar Case Study: An isolated success story?” this report highlights the achievements of the initiative in both municipalities of Porto and Gondomar.

Regarding the results obtained by this report, it is particularly important to highlight the following:

1 - The SJD which had been described as a priority area of intervention is not referenced in this ex-post evaluation report. No reference is made to the neighbourhood.

2 - The investigation of Alves (2011) revealed the existence of processes of decision- making and implementation marked by the prevalence of sector and top-down approaches, and by weak forms of institutional collaboration between the municipality and local associations. The conflict associated with the whole process was, moreover, widely reported in the local media. On the contraire, the assessment developed by an international team, presented a totally different reality:

“URBAN II is the only urban regeneration initiative in the area that is based on broader consensus, empowerment and integrative participation model (…) The integrated approach adopted in the URBAN II programme Porto – Gondomar can be considered a real achievement. It has brought together key stakeholders to work in employment, social inclusion and physical and environmental regeneration in the area. The programme involved a rather balanced and coherent set of physical and urban regeneration, social integration and educational measures based on local partnership proposals…” (European Commission, 2010b)

Changes in strategy have never been explained in this report neither the impacts of demolition and displacement of population to other areas.

6. FINAL REMARKS

“Implementation tends to be seen as a means to an end; the main test of whether implementation is successful is whether it produces the desired outcomes” (Skiker, 2006: 156). In the case of the Community Initiative Urban II, the aim was “to develop innovative and integrated approaches to regenerating neighbourhoods in crisis and promoting sustainable urban development” (European Commission, 2010a: i). “The expectation was that URBAN II would contribute to positive improvements and would develop a legacy of longer term change, whereby public and private agencies, together with local communities

337 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

would work together to create sustainable neighbourhoods in their cities” (European Commission, 2010a: i).

Even there was a strong emphasis on partnership working, to develop and deliver effective initiatives, the SJD case study showed:

Despite the way the initiative was welcomed by some people working at local level, centralized forms of government blocked the experimentation of new approaches and methodologies based on principles of collaboration and empowerment. Moreover, some preconceived ideas of political leadership, values and ideologies have created a low level of mutual trust and of coordination during decision making process and implementation phase. A movement away from centralized and sectoral divisions of government to multilevel governance based on a real partnership working is necessary for upgrading the program results The political pressure to show results and success in conjunction with some bureaucratic mechanisms of evaluation is not helping the goal of learning with these experimental initiatives. The multidimensional nature of critical areas requires new evaluation approaches, based on reflective and democratic exercises with the involvement of all the stakeholders, namely of those who are affected by the interventions, in order to improve their quality and accountability.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sónia Alves is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Danish Building Research Institute, Aalborg University Copenhagen in Denmark. She is supported by grant no. SFRH/BPD/75863/2011 from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, Lisboa, Portugal.

8. REFERENCES

Alves, S. (2008) A diferença que a participação faz em iniciativas de regeneração urbana, Sociedade e Território, No. 41, pp. 8-18. Alves, S. (2011) O Social, o Espacial e o Político na Pobreza e na Exclusão - Avaliação de iniciativas de regeneração de áreas urbanas ‘em risco’ na cidade do Porto, Lisboa: Departamento de Sociologia, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa. Barbanente, A., Tedesco C. (2002) The european urban initiative: multi-level learning processes between successes and failures. In: Urban and spatial european policies: levels of territorial government. Turin: EURA. Blanco, I. (2005) Políticas urbanas de inclusión socio-espacial. La experiencia de Barcelona. In: La reforma del Estado y de la administración pública. Santiago de Chile: CLAD. CMP - Câmara Municipal do Porto (2001) Estudo Socioeconómico da Habitação Social, Porto: Pelouro de Habitação e Acção Social. Deloitte (2003) Avaliação Intercalar do Programa de Iniciativa Comunitária Urban II de Porto- Gondomar, Porto: Deloitte.

338 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

DGDR (2001) Programa de Iniciativa Comunitária URBAN II 2000-2006 Porto – Gondomar, Lisboa: Ministério do Planeamento, Direcção - Geral do Desenvolvimento Regional. European Commission (1999) The MEANS Collection, : European Commission. European Commission (2003) Partnership with the Cities - The URBAN Community Initiative, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2003. European Commission (2010a) Ex-Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2000-06: The URBAN Community Initiative, Final Report prepared for the European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2006/urbanii/final_repor t.pdf, (accessed 7th January, 2013). European Commission (2010b) URBAN II Evaluation Case Study: Porto Gondomar - An isolated success story? http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2006/urbanii/case_studie s/porto_gondomar.pdf, (accessed 7th January, 2013). European Commission (2012a) Evaluation, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/evaluation/index_en.htm (accessed 7th January, 2013). European Commission (2012b) Results Indicators 2014+: Report on Pilot Tests in 12 regions across the EU http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/2014/working/result_indicator_pilot_report%2 0.pdf, (accessed 7th January, 2013). Ferrão, J., Mourato, J. (2010) A avaliação de políticas públicas como factor de aprendizagem, inovação institucional e cidadania: o caso da política do ordenamento do território em Portugal. Revista Brasileira de Estados Urbanos e Regionais, Vol. 12, 1, pp. 9-28. Guerra, I. (2002b) Fundamentos e Processos de Uma Sociologia de Acção – O Planeamento em Ciências Sociais, Lisboa: Principia. Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning, London: Macmillan. Magalhães, C., Healey P., Madanipour A. (2002) Assessing Institutional Capacity for City Centre Regeneration: Newcastle's Grainger Town. In: Cars, G, Healey, P., Madanipour, A., Magalhães, C. (ed), Urban Governance, Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux. London: Ashgate Publishing. Meegan, R., Mitchell A. (2001) 'It's not community round here, it's neighbourhood': Neighbourhood change and cohesion in urban regeneration policies, Urban Studies, 38 (12), pp. 2167-2194. Murtagh, B., Sterrett, K. (2006) Instrumental and Interpretative Methods in Evaluating Urban Programmes, Urban Policy and Research, 24:1, pp. 83–96. Murtagh, B., McKay, S. (2003) Evaluating the social effects of the EU URBAN Community Initiative Programme, European Planning Studies, 11:2, pp. 193-211. Kesteloot, C. (2002) Urban territorial policies and their effects at the neighbourhood level, 4th framework programme on Targeted Socio-Economic Research (TSER) of the European Union. Spicker, P. (2006) Policy Analysis for practice – Apllying social policy, The Policy Press, Bristol: University of Bristol. Stame, Nicoletta (2004) Theory-Based Evaluation and Types of Complexity, Evaluation, 10:1, pp. 58-76

339 Conference Proceedings 2nd International Scientific Conference RESPAG 2013

SUMMARY

The relevance of the relationship between evaluation and learning is widely acknowledged; as well as the importance of this learning process to support policy decision making and to judge the value of “what was done”, “how” and “with what results”. Although the activity of evaluation is not something new, but a field of knowledge with its own theories and practices, it is important to notice that there is great variability in the tradition and cultures of evaluation between countries.

This paper presents and compares different conceptual and methodological frameworks created for the assessment of the European initiative Urban II, including the one that was used by the author in the context of an academic evaluation in the city of Porto.

The comparative analysis of the results leads us to the recommendation for more democratic processes of evaluation and intervention, in order to improve their quality and accountability and promote the important goal of learning with this type of experimental initiatives.

340