Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, … · Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

Ex post evaluation of

Cohesion Policy programmes

2007-2013, focusing on the

European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF)

and Cohesion Fund (CF) –

Work Package nine: Culture

and Tourism

2014CE16BAT034

DATE:

November 2014

Submitted by:

Irs, Csil, Ciset, BOP Consulting

Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine

November 2014 3

Table of Contents

1 Foreword ................................................................................................................. 5 2 Aims and scope of the evaluation ................................................................................ 7

2.1 Culture and tourism: conceptualisation and preliminary definitions........................... 8 2.2 Culture and tourism can be strongly interrelated and mutually interdependent. ......... 9 2.3 Culture and tourism can play an important role in fostering growth and supporting

social innovation, social cohesion and better living conditions… .......................................... 9 2.4 ...however culture and tourism are fragmented sectors and are highly dependent on

public funds ............................................................................................................... 10 2.5 Cohesion Policy and the culture and tourism sectors.............................................. 11

3 Fine tuning of the evaluation approach and methodology .............................................. 13 3.1 The evaluation approach .................................................................................... 13

3.1.1 Evaluation issues ......................................................................................... 13 3.1.2 The proposed evaluation approach ................................................................ 15 3.1.3 Evaluation methods ..................................................................................... 23

3.2 Evaluation activities and tasks ............................................................................ 25 3.2.1 Task 1 – Review of the existing literature on culture and tourism ...................... 26 3.2.2 Task 2 - Data analysis and sampling .............................................................. 38 3.2.3 Task 3 - Case Studies and Mini Case Studies “What Happens on the Ground?” .... 54 3.2.4 Task 4 - Cross-Task Analysis and Presentation of the Final Report ..................... 73

4 Organisation and management .................................................................................. 75 4.1 Roles and tasks ................................................................................................ 75 4.2 Allocation of activities ........................................................................................ 81 4.3 The quality control system ................................................................................. 82

4.3.1 The team’s quality management .................................................................... 84 4.3.2 Risk management and contingency plan ......................................................... 85 4.3.3 Specific quality check ................................................................................... 87

5 Time plan, deliverables and upcoming activities ........................................................... 91 5.1 Time plan and upcoming activities ...................................................................... 91 5.2 Deliverables ..................................................................................................... 94

Annexes ....................................................................................................................... 97 Annex I Indicative Bibliography ................................................................................ 97 Annex II First elaboration on ERDF AIR raw data (Project selection), 2007-2013 ........... 104 Annex III Draft Questionnaire for Managing Authority ................................................. 122 Annex IV Pilot case study proposal –Puglia ERDF ROP - Motivation ............................... 137



November 2014 4

List of abbreviations

AIR Annual Implementation Report

CCI Cultural and Creative Industries

CF Cohesion Fund

CP Cohesion Policy

DG REGIO Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy

EC European Commission

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ESF European Social Fund

ETC European Territorial Cooperation

EU European Union

GDP Gross Domestic Product

H&R Hotels and Restaurants

IB Intermediate Body

ICTs Information and Communication Technologies

LAU Local Administrative Units

LTSs Local Tourism Systems

MA Managing Authority

MS Member State

NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OP Operational Programme

RCE Regional Competitiveness and Employment

RTA Regional Tourism Agency

ROP Regional Operation Programme

SF Structural Funds

SFC Structural Funds Common database

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

TPAs Touristic Promotion Agencies

WP0 Work package 0

WP9 Work package 9



November 2014 5

1 Foreword

The Consortium IRS-CSIL-CISET-BOP has been selected for work package nine (WP9):

“Culture and Tourism”, within the framework of the ex post evaluation of the 2007-

2013 Cohesion Policy Programmes co-financed by the ERDF/CF.

This draft of the Inception Report revises the methodological approach and the general

project organization, developing the original proposal in response to the discussions

and clarifications during the kick-off meeting (held on 21 August 2014).

This report:

clarifies the aims and scope of the evaluation (chapter 2);

reviews and develops the evaluation approach and methodology (chapter 3);

refines the composition of the team and the external experts, clarifies the tasks

to be carried out and the responsible team members, and the number of days

allocated (chapter 4);

lists forthcoming activities and clarifies the schedule for the evaluation;

provides an indicative structure for future deliverables (chapter 5).



November 2014 7

2 Aims and scope of the evaluation

This ex post evaluation aims to analyse the use of ERDF1 funds invested in the sectors

of culture and tourism through the 2007-2013 Operational Programmes, and to

provide evidence of both the nature of ERDF investments and their effectiveness in

supporting regional development.

The terms of reference and discussion in both the kick off and the 1st Steering

Committee meetings provide a framework for this analysis and identified a range of

issues that the evaluation approach will address. These issues include:

given the scattered and scant evidence available on the economic effectiveness

of ERDF investments in culture and tourism, the main objective of this

evaluation is to gain a methodologically and analytically sound picture of the

nature of ERDF investments in the culture and tourism sectors and their

contribution to the main objectives of cohesion policy, by identifying – if any –

the main types of strategies used, the way investments are organised and

designed, the results achieved and the financial sustainability and expected

impact of ERDF interventions in selected regions where we undertake more

detailed investigation (using case study analysis);

the methodological approach will therefore have a specific focus on the

robustness and accountability of the evaluation and so be based on a sound

and defensible methodological design so that credible evaluation results and

impartial conclusions can be presented on the main rationales behind

interventions to support culture and tourism (including sport and creative

industries) through the financial support from ERDF;

fieldwork (in the form of an online survey and case study research) will be the

main source for primary data. Other relevant evidence will come from

statistical analysis of the DG REGIO Cohesion Policy database and the

categorisation codes currently in use, as well as evidence from programming

documents and thematic evaluations.

the analysis will have to search for a balanced approach to the analysis of

investments in both the culture and tourism sectors;

great attention to the presentation and organisation of the work will be given to

ensure high quality written outputs and that the project meets its deadlines.

To help contextualise and define the scope of the evaluation, and to ensure that these

issues are addressed, the following sections describe important characteristics of the

culture and tourism sectors that will be considered in the evaluation.

1 Hereafter we will consider only ERDF programmes given the marginal role of CF in the culture and tourism

sectors.



November 2014 8

2.1 Culture and tourism: conceptualisation and preliminary definitions

Culture and Tourism are complex policy fields to conceptualise as they cover a wide

range of activities, have sizeable overlaps between them and other policy fields and/or

sectors such as information and communications technology, transport, distribution,

construction, etc.

Culture embraces a range of activities. These activities range from preservation and

restoration of natural, historical and cultural heritage, to museums and exhibitions,

activities in the arts (music, theatre, etc.), and entertainment, media and e-culture

platforms. The development of economic activities concerned with the creation and

distribution of goods and services that are cultural in nature and protected by

intellectual property rights, has led to a new dimension of cultural supply. The rise of

“cultural or creative industries” - which include architecture, visual and performing

arts, music, artistic crafts and fashion design, but also web and graphic design,

publishing, film, TV and radio production, etc. – is a growing source of jobs and wealth

and have also an important role to play in urban regeneration and community

cohesion. It is difficult to define culture2 as it is often an “intangible” product, and in

recent years there has been a move away from product-based definitions to process-

based definitions of culture (OECD, 2009).

Tourism is considered to be a major economic activity which can have a positive

impact on economic growth and employment in Europe. The current acknowledged

definition of tourism is the one developed by the United Nations’ Agency World

Tourism Organization (UNWTO): “tourism comprises the activities of persons travelling

to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one

consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes not related to the exercise

of an activity remunerated from within the place visited”.

The tourism product is thus a complex mix of non-reproducible resources (mainly

relating to natural heritage such as beaches, national parks, lakes, mountains, etc.,

but also to historical and cultural heritage such as castles, museums, etc.) and of

goods and services produced by the private sector in different fields (such as

hospitality, the activities of tour operators and travel agencies, tourist assistance

services and cultural, recreational and sporting activities) that can be identified only

when a tourist reaches a destination and experiences it (Ritchie & Goeldner, 2007;

2 Frequently used definitions of culture include:

UNESCO Framework for Cultural Statistics (2009) includes: Cultural and Natural Heritage; Performance and Celebration; Visual Arts and Crafts; Books and Press; Audio-Visual and Interactive Media; Design and Creative Services. It also makes a distinction with two “related domains”: Tourism; Sports and Recreation.

UNCTAD (2008) defines the creative industries as “the cycles of creation, production and distribution of

goods and services that use creativity and intellectual capital as primary inputs” and comprise traditional arts and crafts; publishing; music; visual and performing arts; film, television, and radio broadcasting; new media; and design. (p13).

The “Vilnius definition” is commonly used for sport which provides three related definitions: Statistical, which is a very narrow definition focused on individual-related sport services; Narrow, which includes anything related to “doing” sport e.g. the construction of stadia; Broad, which includes all related activities e.g. sports media or sports gambling.



November 2014 9

Costa & Manente, 2000).

A key feature of the tourism sector (and to a lesser extent the cultural industries

sector) is that the market is strongly differentiated being composed by very different

market segments (e.g. same-day, overnight, cruise and activity tourism, of which

there are various sub-types including cultural tourism). The market is also segmented

by visitor origins, either from within the region or from elsewhere.

2.2 Culture and tourism can be strongly interrelated and mutually

interdependent.

Culture can generate tourism: it is often an important determinant of the

attractiveness of a tourist region (Ritchie and Zins, 1978). Tourism can also have

important effects on culture. For example, cultural heritage may be an important

factor in attracting tourists to a location, and tourism may generate funds that make

the conservation of cultural heritage possible. In this way, tourism can support

“culture”. The development of cultural productions (films, TV programmes, books,

museums, etc.) regarding a particular destination may also affect the attractiveness of

the destination to tourists, shaping its tourist image and the visitors’ behavior and

activities (Crang, 1997, 2011; Sangkyun, Long and Robinson, 2009). Therefore, the

creative industries also play a crucial role in linking these two sectors.

Cultural tourism is one of the largest and fastest-growing tourism segments and has

become an important driver for urban development. Many cities, locations and regions

develop their tangible and intangible cultural assets in order to enhance place

distinctiveness and gain a comparative advantage in an increasingly competitive

tourism marketplace. This highlights a growing awareness of the driving role of culture

in helping places become more attractive to tourists or other visitors or to live, work

and invest in. There are many examples of destinations that have adopted this

strategy, such as London and Vienna.

2.3 Culture and tourism can play an important role in fostering growth and

supporting social innovation, social cohesion and better living conditions…

Investing in culture and tourism can boost a region’s economy and enhance social

inclusion. Research undertaken for the European Commission by Ecorys3 and based on

Eurostat data claims that the EU tourism industry is an engine for economic growth

having realized in 2006 a total turnover equal to 5% of total EU-27 GDP and

employing 9.7 million people, equal to 5.2% of the total employment in the EU27.

Cultural and creative industries are a growing source of jobs and wealth and may have

an important role to play in community cohesion. Investments in culture may enhance

the quality of residents' life and sense of belonging. Culture is also increasingly

recognised as one of the factors considered in destination decisions not only in terms

of what makes people visit a certain region, but also what makes people want to stay

3 Ecorys (2009), Study on the Competitiveness of the EU tourism industry - with specific focus on the

accommodation and tour operator & travel agent industries, Final Report, Sept. 2009



November 2014 10

in that region (Wikhal, 2002). Estimates by Tera Consultants for the European

Commission4 claim that the cultural and creative industries accounted for 4.5% of EU

GDP in 2008 and employed about 3.8% of its workforce.

During the recent economic crisis employment in culture and tourism proved more

resilient than the EU economy as a whole5.

Another important feature of the culture and tourism sectors is that they are strongly

place based, relying on natural and/or historical/cultural assets which represent a

comparative advantage for specific destinations. They are therefore an important

potential driver for regional development, as recognized by the sixth priority of the

Territorial Agenda 20206. For instance, by improving the attractiveness of a region,

they may help to limit or redress depopulation. They may also support cultural

diversity, education, social inclusion and social innovation and the maintenance of

natural and historical/cultural assets.

2.4 ...however culture and tourism are fragmented sectors and are highly

dependent on public funds

Although these two sectors are closely connected, and policies adopted in Culture

and/or Tourism can (directly or indirectly) affect other economic and social activities,

strategies for investments in these sectors are often reported as being developed in

isolation from each other. They are therefore not in accordance with or underpinned

by a long term, integrated, territorial strategy. Their success is also strongly

interrelated with other fields of policy intervention (such as urban regeneration, rural

development, environmental policies, employment and education policies, innovation

policies, transportation policies, etc.). However policies and initiatives in these policy

fields are often not consistent with a strategic vision towards culture and tourism.

This fragmentation can hamper the sustainable and competitive development of

culture and tourism industries (Manente, Minghetti, Montaguti, 2013). This contributes

to the risk of limiting the capacity of these sectors’ to address key challenges, such as:

globalisation of the tourist and cultural markets, the impact of the crisis on

consumption levels and patterns and on the availability of public resources, changing

4 Tera Consultants (2014), The economic contribution of the creative industries to EU GDP and employment,

September 2014 http://www.forum-avignon.org/sites/default/files/editeur/2014-Oct-European-Creative-

Industry-GDP-Jobs-full-Report-ENG.pdf

5 Recent data provided by Eurostat show that employment in the Accomodation and food activities increased

by +3.4 between 2008 and 2013 compared to an overall employment decline in the same period of – 2.9%

(European Labour Survey Data). Data resulting from the SBS – Structural Business Survey also report that

between 2008 and 2012 in the sectors G476 - Retail sale of cultural and recreation goods, I-

Accommodation and food service activities and N79 - Travel agency, tour operator reservation service and

related activities, the number of active businesses increased by 3.4% (compared to a 3.3% increase for the

overall economy) and the number of workers increased by 5.6% compared to a decline of -2.8% for the

overall economy. 6 Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020, Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of

Diverse Regions, agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and

Territorial Development on 19th May 2011 Gödöllő, Hungary.

http://www.forum-avignon.org/sites/default/files/editeur/2014-Oct-European-Creative-Industry-GDP-Jobs-full-Report-ENG.pdf




November 2014 11

preferences due to demographic trends, and the impact of new technologies on

traditional business models.

Other factors for consideration include the high dependence of these sectors on public

funding and the relative importance of strategic and management capacity of public

institutions and operators. The lack of strategic and management capacity can make

potentially attractive regions less successful than they could be. Endowed assets

(natural resources, such as beaches, climate, and historical and cultural endowments)

that have traditionally been important for destination attractiveness are no longer

sufficient by themselves. Stronger international competition has made created assets

(infrastructure, accessibility, facilitating resources, hospitality, product and service

innovation) and management capacity (marketing, finance and venture capital,

organisation, human resource development, information/research, quality of service,

visitor and resources management) crucial to utilise all the regional tourism and

cultural assets effectively, for instance, through industry restructuring, product

innovation and territorial marketing/branding (OECD, 2009).

However, the wide array of public, private and, in the culture sector, third sector

actors involved in the provision of culture and tourism products and services makes

strategic management complex. Smaller operators may also lack the financial and

strategic resources to implement the integrated governance systems necessary to

support sustainable tourism or enhance culture as a driver of development.

Recently there has been a growing awareness of the need for a more strategic and

integrated territorial approach and European countries are reportedly revising culture

and tourism strategies in order to better address this issue (OECD, 2009).

For example, there have been moves to integrate culture and tourism policies into

national or regional economic plans to create jobs, to promote regional development,

and to promote export growth. New financing schemes and public-private partnerships

have been implemented to relieve pressure on public budgets and to encourage a

higher level of cooperation particularly in territorial strategies and marketing activities.

Clusters of cultural and creative industries are being supported with universities acting

often as important catalysts for these clusters.

Some countries/regions are also rationalising tourism policy delivery functions and

programmes, and focusing more on natural and environmental assets as well as new

technologies and social media. At the same time, there is a growing awareness of the

importance of domestic tourism (including cultural tourism) in providing a stable

source of revenue in uncertain times, as well as of the social benefits deriving from

the promotion of sustainable social tourism accessible to all (OECD, 2014).

2.5 Cohesion Policy and the culture and tourism sectors

Structural Funds are key financial sources for the culture and tourism sectors, yet

evidence of the effectiveness of ERDF support to these sectors is at present limited.

No dedicated evaluation has been carried out by the European Commission, while few



November 2014 12

evaluations have been conducted or are ongoing in the Member States.

Around EUR 13.5 billion of ERDF funds (equivalent to 5.7% of total allocated ERDF

funds) have been allocated to culture and tourism in the 2007-2013 programming

period. Existing data on expenditures available in the Infoview database show that:

around EUR 12 billion allocation under the 6 culture and tourism priority

themes in 235 OPs (see Table A1 in Annex II), including EUR 1 billion under the

Territorial Cooperation Objective;

an additional EUR 2 billion are categorized under the economic activity "hotels

and restaurants", mainly under innovation and business support priority

themes.

In addition, support for culture and tourism - related infrastructure and services can

be provided under other headings, such as innovation, business support, infrastructure

development, information technology applications and human capital.

Supported projects range from investments in large public infrastructure (including

tourist or cultural infrastructures like theatres, museums, holiday and sporting/leisure

centres, etc., as well as basic infrastructures, like transportation systems, waterfronts,

etc.) to shape and improve the attractiveness of cities and rural areas; to investments

in private enterprises and the third sector; to small local or cross-border projects to

support the upgrading of tourist or cultural services. Even if the ESF does not explicitly

address culture and tourism, it often provides support to the development of skills in

cultural and tourism sectors.



November 2014 13

3 Fine tuning of the evaluation approach and methodology

3.1 The evaluation approach

3.1.1 Evaluation issues

Besides usual challenges facing an evaluation of this type, any study assessing the

contribution of ERDF invested in the culture and tourism sectors, and the rationale for

public interventions, must address the following issues:

• The lack of a universally agreed definition of these sectors, especially in the

case of culture. This makes the collation of comparable evidence across

different countries or regions difficult (O’Brien, 2010, p11). Because of this, in

the literature review detailed in Task 1 we will analyse a range of definitions of

both culture and tourism which are used in academic and grey literature, to

ensure we choose one appropriate for this evaluation;

• The heterogeneity of activities in these sectors will have to be considered when

selecting case studies and mini case studies and in the assessment of the

evidence resulting from the evaluation;

• The lack of clarity in the logic underpinning the interventions in these sectors

and their scattered nature may make it difficult to identify and evaluate results,

making it necessary to focus on outputs and expected results, rather than

actual results.

As indicated in Chapter 2, culture and tourism can play an important role in fostering

regional socio-economic development. However, their potential contribution is

hindered by their highly fragmented structure, high dependence on public funding and

their often marginal role in territorial strategic planning. To fully exploit the potential

of culture and tourism for regional development, institutional learning and capacity

building are therefore particularly important in order to address these sector-specific

issues. The effectiveness and performance of these sectors are differentiated not only

in relation to existing socio-economic conditions, but also in relation to the strategic

and innovation capacity of public and private institutions and operators.

Cohesion policy may contribute to the competitive capacity of these sectors by

supporting related infrastructures and businesses, ICT applications and innovation, as

well as institution-building, social capital formation and partnerships. However, this

potential added value of Cohesion Policy to culture and tourism is not always created.

The academic and evaluation literature provides some examples of culture and tourism

projects producing a positive contribution to regional socio-economic growth, however

other anecdotal evidence suggests that investments in these sectors have been

sometimes isolated and over scaled one-off events, not integrated in long term

strategies and thus failing to achieve any significant economic impact. Indeed, the lack

of a coherent strategy is often limiting the effectiveness of individual interventions and



November 2014 14

their success.

For example, the performance audit of the European Court of Auditors (2011) on the

effectiveness of 206 randomly sampled ERDF co-financed tourism projects in 9 MSs in

the 2000-2006 programming period7 showed concerns over additionality and

administration. Of the surveyed project promoters, 26% stated they would have

undertaken the project even without a public grant; 42% of promoters underlined the

considerable administrative burden tied to ERDF funding. The Audit also highlighted

limitations regarding the unclear articulation of objectives and projects’ selection

criteria, weak orientation towards results, weak financial sustainability and a lack of

monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

The main impact of Structural Funds on (coastal) tourism in the 2000-2006

programming period has been on institutional and capacity building, according to a

study carried out by CSIL (CSIL, 2008). This study found that the implementation of

the Structural Funds increased attention on tourism as a strategy to foster regional

development, as well as on the need to adopt an integrated approach, especially in

terms of sustainable tourism, to the preservation of territorial areas’ historical, cultural

and natural resources and service diversification.

Other recent evaluations of the contribution of ERDF to regional development in the

previous programming periods8 show that in regions with specific geographical

features - islands, mountainous and sparsely populated areas – tourism, exploiting

cultural and natural specificities, has been a key asset-based sectors used to promote

or sustain economic development. The support to economic diversification through

tourism has thus been an effective medium-term response for regions with lagging

economies, especially when integrated strategies were implemented with synergies

with transport policies and ESF and EARDF programmes. However, when regional

development is only based on tourism assets, these economies are relatively

vulnerable to external economic shocks (such as changes in the price of natural

resources; changes in tourism preferences etc.) as well as climate change.

Furthermore, these ‘touristic asset-based’ strategies require constant monitoring and

improvement to maintain a competitive advantage over other regions.

The findings from existing studies also reveal a relative lack of projects to encourage

investment in innovation and research in these sectors. This was particularly the case

in the Convergence regions where the focus was on developing hard infrastructure

projects (e.g. visitor attractions, sometimes in the private sector), or providing

incentives to the hospitality sector with subsidies to hotel operators.

The lack of data and evaluation evidence on the specific contribution of culture to

7 European Court of Auditors (2011), Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects effective?, Special report no 6. 8 European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde (2013), Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion Policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions (from 1989-1993 programme period to the present); and ADE (2012), Relevance and effectiveness of ERDF and cohesion fund support to regions with specific geographical features - islands, mountainous and sparsely populated areas.



November 2014 15

regional development makes a comprehensive assessment particularly challenging.

The few available studies and evaluations on the contribution of the ERDF (overall) to

the development of a competitive and sustainable cultural sector in the EU (CSES,

2010, KEA, 2012) underline the importance of the strategies and of the

implementation mechanisms adopted in supporting the growth of the culture sector as

a driver for growth. According to the KEA (KEA, 2012) study, in the 2007-2013

Community Strategic Guidelines culture is considered as a:

soft location factor, improving the attractiveness of regions and cities through

the regeneration and development of cultural assets and the supply of cultural

services;

tool to create and attract more and better jobs;

driver for tourism led economic development.

Existing studies show however that culture is rarely cited as contributing to goals

relating to innovation or sustainability (unless in relation to sustainable tourism), even

if it is increasingly acknowledged as contributing to innovation, attractiveness of the

territory, entrepreneurship, and economic development. This approach does not

exploit the potential of investments in the Cultural sector in driving non-technological

and social innovation, contributing to urban regeneration or the green economy, and

to job creation.

3.1.2 The proposed evaluation approach

The proposed analytical approach aims to: (i) assess the type of interventions

supported with Structural Funds, their outputs and results in the culture and tourism

sectors and their contribution to regional development; and (ii) answer the “what

works” question, i.e. what factors and social mechanisms in the policy making process

support the policy results. To this end the theory of change will be used as main

theoretical reference, while the social mechanisms theory will be considered as an

additional explanatory approach.

The focus of the theory of change is whether it is clear what the intervention activities

are to produce in relation to the desired or intended change. It helps to analyse the

theoretical assumptions underpinning the implemented policies, and to define the

sequence in which results are likely to happen. It allows the identification of the

primary factors triggering change, as well as questioning what other sets of conditions

and circumstances, apart from the intervention activities, are necessary for the

desired outcome to occur. The theory of change clarifies the causal connections

between results, outputs and inputs in ERDF support to the culture and tourism

sectors. In looking at the causal connections, particular attention is paid to the

assumptions made about the external environment in which an intervention is

implemented (Dente, 2011). It also allows us to assess the extent to which the

interventions are on course to achieve their expected results.

As an additional explanatory approach, the social mechanisms theoretical framework



November 2014 16

(Mayntz 20049, Barzelay 2007) could also help explaining why results occur.

The evaluation will focus on the ERDF resources allocated to and spent on

interventions in the culture and tourism sectors, their targeted and achieved outputs

and the intended and actual results in order to evaluate the ERDF contribution to the

culture and tourism sectors and indirectly to regional growth and jobs.

In the following we illustrate the main issues that will be to taken into consideration in

our evaluation approach against three headings:

1) The evaluation focus in terms of policy boundaries and ERDF interventions to

be considered;

2) the rationales for ERDF support to these sectors and the strategies ERDF can

implement given its final aim to enhance regional development;

3) the expected contribution of ERDF interventions.

Evaluation focus

As specified in paragraph 2.1, definitions of culture and tourism are very broad. Within

our evaluation activities we will align with the definitions provided in the Terms of

Reference, as follows:

For culture we will refer to three specific sectors: the cultural sector, the

creative industries and sport. Thus, we will consider the preservation and

restoration of natural and cultural heritage, activities in the arts, including

venues and museums, and entertainment, media and e-culture platforms, sport

and outdoor activities.

The tourism industry includes hotels and restaurants, activities of travel

agencies and tour operators, tourist assistance activities as well as certain

recreational, cultural and sporting activities developed to attract visitors.

These definitions will be refined and developed during our literature review (Task 1).

Attention will be paid to all ERDF areas of intervention that are directly linked to

culture and tourism: protection and preservation of the cultural heritage, development

of cultural infrastructures, other assistance to improve cultural services; promotion of

natural assets, protection and development of natural heritage, other assistance to

improve tourist services, and hotels and restaurants in the case of tourism.

This list of areas of intervention will be reviewed as the evaluation progresses and with

specific reference to the reality of strategies, programming and implementation at the

regional level. Within the identified regional strategies, the selection of mini case

studies will consider ERDF-supported projects that are representative of the various

types of economic activities and interventions that are included in the culture and

tourism sectors.

9 Mayntz R., (2004), Mechanisms in the Analysis of Social Macro-Phenomena, Philosophy of the Social Sciences June 2004 34: 237-259.



November 2014 17

Identification of framework strategies and of the rationale for public intervention

As underlined in Chapter 2, the capacity of culture and tourism to be competitive and

to support sustainable regional development be competitive and to support

sustainable regional development depends on: the region’s socio-economic conditions;

the role of culture and tourism in the adopted regional strategies; which culture and

tourism sector(s) have been targeted by development policies and what have been

major trends for the target sectors(s) over the period of the programme.

In order to provide a functional structure to refer to during the evaluation, the

following preliminary general strategies based on culture and tourism as drivers for

socio-economic regional development have been identified:

- the first strategy is mainly focused on investments in culture and tourism

industries to support economic diversification, especially in declining industrial

or agricultural regions or in regions where tourism has a marginal role in the

economy. These strategies are usually regionally or nationally focused and their

typical objectives are to improve job and economic opportunities in the region

by increasing tourists numbers and/or diversifying their type. This may be done

through, for instance, improving accessibility, support to territorial marketing

activities, the upgrading and extension of accommodation infrastructures and

enhancing the attractiveness of the regions (including improving cultural and

natural assets);

- the second strategy is mainly focused on investments in culture and tourism

industries to support economic regeneration and social cohesion of urban or

rural areas within regions. A typical objective is to improve wellbeing and social

cohesion, by upgrading local cultural and natural assets, supporting sport and

cultural infrastructures and promoting events;

- the third strategy is mainly focused on support to innovation and

competitiveness in these sectors. The objective in this case is the upgrading of

cultural and tourism services with the use of new technologies or exploring new

market niches, as well as supporting spillover effects on other sectors through,

for example, cluster strategies;

- in regions largely dependent on the tourism sector, a tourism specific strategy

focused on supporting socio-economic and environmental sustainability. In this

case the objective is to encourage tourism operators and service providers to

focus on economic and environmental sustainability.

These strategies will be better defined and verified in the evaluation process, on the

basis of the survey on Managing Authorities and the case studies and mini case

studies.

ERDF investments can refer to more than one of these strategies, used in combination

and according to the regional contexts or the different tools used: physical and ICT

infrastructures; support to business start-ups and consolidation; support to business



November 2014 18

clusters/districts and to networking; grants and loans schemes; soft infrastructures

e.g. spectacles, events, skills upgrading, territorial marketing; etc.. However, a

catching-all basket of the above mentioned interventions without a clear focus and

well-identified objective can be a signal of poor planning capacity and lack of strategic

underpinnings.

Underpinning these strategies, one of the main rationale for ERDF intervention in the

culture and tourism sectors (as well as for other public intervention) could be that of

addressing possible market failures and so to improve these sectors’ performance and

the economic and social conditions of the targeted regions.

For both sectors market failures mainly relate to the presence of public goods (natural,

historical and cultural resources) and the need to ensure their sustainable use, as well

as these sectors’ externalities in terms of social cohesion and quality of life for the

resident population, their spillover effects on other sectors, their contribution to

physical and socio-economic regeneration and to contrast de-population. These

rationales for ERDF intervention are detailed in tables 3.1 and 3.2 below and further

discussed in the methodology for Task 1 (page 29). Again, these rationales will be

refined and developed throughout the evaluation.

The expected contribution of ERDF investments

In the Culture sector ERDF interventions can support industrial clusters or districts

around key major cultural assets; promote a greater involvement of private operators

in the provision of cultural products and services; support innovation and the

development of new business models and networking; enhance the economic and

social spillover effects of culture and creative industries on social and economic

innovation and growth, in particular through the design of new products and services

that can support otherwise declining industries and make room for high-value market

niches in peripheral regions; support to the development of creative clusters, creative

incubators and the digitisation of cultural contents to support Europe’s peripheral

regions; support to cultural and creative business start-ups, development and

networking; invest in cultural infrastructures.

In the Tourism sector, mainly based on private providers and the regions’ key natural

and/or historical/cultural assets, ERDF intervention can incentive long term sustainable

strategies, support tourism models focused on attracting foreign visitors (export-led

model) and based on environmental and economic sustainability; it can support the

upgrading of the management and innovation capacity of regional operators, in order

to reduce seasonality and improve employment conditions; it can support the

development of new business models and tourism services (like for example “diffused

hospitality” or “agritourism” in rural areas; or tourism facilities and services accessible

to the elderly or the disabled; etc.). Given the high dependency of some EU regions on

tourism, diversification contributes to reduce dependency and to ensure economic

activity and jobs outside the tourist season.

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 below summarise the main general strategies (as indicated in

point 2 above) and market failures that could justify public support to culture



November 2014 19

and tourism in regional development policy, as well as types of ERDF interventions in

the two sectors of interest (as indicated in point 3 above).

Table 3.1. Strategies for cultural and creative industries in economic

development10

General strategy and

description

Possible market failure

examples that the

strategy may address

Examples ERDF interventions

1) Economic

diversification

Support to the growth of

cultural and creative

industries in response to

deindustrialisation or in

economically declining rural

areas.

Enhancing digital and ICT

capacity may be used to help

the cultural and creative

industries themselves

diversify

Public intervention to

facilitate change.

Asymmetry of information /

incentives.

Market forces cannot always

ensure adequate long-term

funding for investment due

to differences between social

and private returns

Stimulating private

investments (in a promising

sector still too weak to

attract investments on its

own)

Refurbishment/recovery and protection of historical monuments, buildings or archeological sites

Construction/extension/recovery

of cultural infrastructure (e.g. museum, libraries, archives, etc.) or of infrastructure providing cultural services (e.g. theatre, concert hall, opera

house, auditorium, art galleries, planetarium, etc.) Organisation of cultural events (e.g. painting, sculpture, photography, etc.) or performing arts (e.g. film production, book

publishing, etc.) Business support for SMEs operating in the cultural and creative industries.

Support to ICT and transport

infrastructures

2) Regeneration

Developing cultural

infrastructure (e.g.

museums, heritage sites,

public art) and fostering

cultural activity (e.g.

investing in an art school)

may play a role in improving

the social and economic

conditions of neighbourhoods

and cities.

Cultural and creative

industries can contribute to

the public image of regions

and foster a sense of identity





and private returns.

Positive externalities:

culture and creative

industries support identity

development, civic pride,

promoting social or

community inclusion or

cohesion. They also create

interactions and exchanges

between individuals from

Refurbishment/recovery and

protection of historical

monuments, buildings or

archeological sites


of cultural infrastructure (e.g.

museum, libraries, archives,

etc.) or of infrastructure

providing cultural services (e.g.

theatre, concert hall, opera

house, auditorium, art galleries,

planetarium, etc.)

Organisation of cultural events

10 Adapted from: Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020, COM(2010) 553 final and

the Common Strategic Framework for 2014-2020



November 2014 20

and territorial cohesion.

Investment in culture may

be used to trigger a virtuous

development process and

contribute positively to the

four realms of sustainable

development, including

environmental.

different backgrounds,

whether they are actively

taking part in the creative

process (e.g. singing in a

community choir) or are just

appreciating the cultural

good (e.g. attending a music

festival). Cultural activities

also offer a relatively high

level of volunteering

opportunities, compared to

other sectors, bringing

people together from other

backgrounds.

(e.g. painting, sculpture,

photography, etc.) or performing

arts (e.g. film production, book

publishing, etc.)

Business support

Support to ICT and transport

infrastructures

Support to (clusters of) creative

industries (sports, media and

information technology, etc.)

Promotion of sports and

recreational activities and events

3) Support to innovation

and competitiveness

Investment in the cultural

and creative industries in

order to develop innovation

capacity, either within the

sector or by linking it with

other industries to enhance

spillover effects.





and private returns and

uncertainty of innovation

results.

Awareness of returns from

adaptation to new

technology.

Business support Support to (clusters of) creative industries (sports, media and information technology, etc.)

Support to ICT infrastructures

Table 3.2. Tourism: Strategies for supporting regional development11 General strategy

Possible market failure addressed by

the strategy and other rationales for

public intervention

Examples of

ERDF

interventions

1a Economic diversification

a) in declining industrial or

agricultural regions

Investment in tourism as a

response to economic decline

and unemployment in other

sectors (e.g. industry,

agriculture) or to industry

delocalization/depopulation

Preserving public goods (natural,

historical and cultural resources), whose

characteristics (non-rivalry and non-

excludability) require an actor super

partes to ensure their efficient

conservation and use for future

generations (missing markets)

Lack of basic know-how at private level.

Decline of the regional economy,

depopulation and difficulty in attracting

Physical investments for the promotion

and

development of the tourism sector (e.g.

11 Adapted from: Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020, COM(2010) 553 final and

the Common Strategic Framework for 2014-2020



November 2014 21

private investments

Local resources and the tourist

superstructure are not developed

enough to attract private investments

from other regions/countries

Some of primary attractions (cultural

heritage, natural areas, local traditions,

itineraries etc.) are public goods

Need for basic infrastructure that can

also affect the development of the

region (roads, airports, etc.)

Need to accelerate the development

process to prevent further economic and

social problems

Information failure: information

provided on the region is based on its

previous economic specialisation or on

its decline and problems

information centres, etc.)

Investments to improve the safety and protection of natural assets

Territorial

marketing

activities (e.g.

promotional

activities,

networking,

conferences and

trade fairs)

Support to private initiatives (e.g. hotel and restaurants and

other tourism service providers)

Infrastructure to

improve

accessibility

b) in emerging tourism

regions and in regions

where tourism has a

marginal role

Investment in tourism to:

diversify the regional economy

and make it less affected by

economic cycles

provide a driver for

development in natural

protected areas

Preventing market failures related to an

un-governed development of the

tourism sector (missing markets,

negative externalities, income gaps):

tourists and tourism enterprises may fail

to take into account the effects of their

actions on third-parties (e.g. other

tourists, residents’, other businesses)

Managing unstable markets: due to

climate change or business cycles

Spreading tourism benefits to a wider

area and reducing congestion on major

destinations, when the market itself

would tend to address tourists

exclusively on the main attractors

Stimulating private investments (in a

promising sector, still too weak to

attract investments on its own)

Managing economic spillovers to other

regions (most profit derived from

tourism activities may benefit other

regions/countries)

Ensuring that tourism development

supports cultural and creative

industries, and/or cultural and natural

heritage preservation

Information failure on new or less

developed destinations

Provision of key infrastructure to

support the region’s accessibility with

spillover effects on regional

development and welfare

2. Regeneration

Support to tourism accessibility:

Important role of public goods such as

cultural heritage but also other public

Physical

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Market_failures/Unstable_markets.html



November 2014 22

Regenerate degraded urban

or natural/rural areas

improve the economic value

and social conditions of the

area

Prevent depopulation of rural

semi-abandoned areas

goods such as roads, infrastructures,

public parks or public urban spaces,

etc., which are essential components of

the area to be regenerated

Management and maintenance of new

infrastructures (e.g. cycling routes)

Coordination role of different

institutional levels (e.g. cycling routes

encompassing different regions,

municipalities, etc.)

Information failure: inaccurate

information on these areas is, or

focused exclusively on its

decline/negative aspects

Preventing and managing negative

externalities: tourists and tourism

enterprises may fail to take into account

the effects of their actions on third-

parties (e.g. other tourists, residents’

community, other businesses), who

indirectly benefit or suffer as a result of

their actions

Spreading tourism benefits on a wider

area and reduce congestion on the

major destinations, when the market

itself would tend to address tourists

exclusively on the main attracting

destinations

investments for the promotion

and development of the tourism sector (e.g. information centres, congress

centres, cycling routes etc.) Investments to improve the safety and protection of

natural assets

Infrastructure to

improve the area

accessibility

Marketing

activities (e.g.

promotional

activities,

networking,

conferences and

trade fairs)

Support to private initiatives

(e.g. hotel and restaurants and other tourism

services providers)

3. Innovation and

competitiveness

in specialized tourist regions

and emerging tourist regions:

Investment in tourism as a way

to support innovation and

competitiveness capacity within

the sector or to stimulate

innovation in other sectors (e.g.

agriculture; culture; sport; etc.)

Market forces cannot always ensure

adequate long-term funding for

investment due to differences between

social and private returns and

uncertainty around the results of

innovation processes or investments.

Compensate the lack of motivation by

private businesses to introduce

innovation processes or new

investments, mainly due to the

prevalence of local demand, firms’ size

(SMEs), entrepreneurs’ skills or

knowledge.

Integrate the training

requested/delivered by the private

sector, which can be insufficient due to

the isolation of purchasers or lack of

demand, etc.

Support to

private initiatives

to improve the

quality and

innovation of the

tourism offer



November 2014 23

4.Socio-economic and

environmental sustainability

in specialized touristic

regions: incentive economic

and environmental

sustainability

Preserving public goods (such as

natural, historical and cultural

resources), whose characteristics (non

rivalry and non-excludability) require an

actor super partes to ensure their

efficient conservation and use for future

generations (missing markets).

Preventing and managing negative

externalities: tourists and tourism

enterprises may fail to take into account

the effects of their actions on third-

parties (e.g. other tourists, residents’,

other businesses).

Managing unstable markets (for

instance, as a result of climate change).

Reducing congestion at major

destinations, when the market itself

would be likely to focus primarily on the

main attractions, and incentive tourism

provides to focus on economic and

environmental sustainability.

Investments to improve the

safety and protection of natural assets Support to private initiatives to improve the

quality and innovation of the tourism offer Investments in

new ICT or other

infrastructures

3.1.3 Evaluation methods

Given the evaluation approach and framework developed in the previous section, the

evaluation will focus on:

The territorial socio-economic context and the culture and tourism

sectors’ structure and performance, to explore the main features and recent

trends of the regional socio-economic structure; the features, performance and

trends of the culture and tourism sectors in EU countries and regions, the

challenges and opportunities they are facing, their contribution to regional

development and the rationale for public intervention in these sectors. This

analysis will be mainly based on indications resulting from the Literature review

(see Task 1 below for details) and the statistical analysis of context and sector

specific indicators available in the “General and regional statistics” section of the

EUROSTAT statistics website (see Task 2c below for details).

The relevance of ERDF programmes in the policy areas of interest, to

assess the extent to which ERDF programmes address the specific needs and

challenges of the culture and tourism sectors in EU regions and contribute to

their performance. This analysis will be based on the indications emerging from

the literature review (Task 1) and on data available in the database of Infoview

raw data on expenditures and the survey on the MAs of the largest CP

programmes (Tasks 2a and 2b).

The contribution and effects of ERDF on the culture and tourism sectors,

to assess the type of interventions supported with ERDF, their outputs/results

and their value added relative to domestic policies through the case studies.

Particular emphasis will be put on how ERDF strategies incentivise innovative




November 2014 24

and integrated interventions aimed at overcoming the seasonality issue and at

promoting a high quality and sustainable culture and tourism activities, as well

as the contribution of the supported activities to regional development. The

evaluation of the potential and actual effects of ERDF on culture and tourism will

consider the following dimensions (see Task 3 for details):

promotion of sustainable and quality tourism and of less known

destinations;

job and business creation/preservation;

innovation in products, services and processes;

development of cultural and creative industries;

contribution of tourism and cultural interventions to the regeneration and

attractiveness of rural and urban areas and community development;

contribution to the attraction and retention of highly skilled workers;

contribution to job quality.

In assessing the main national and regional strategies in the policy areas of interest,

additional attention will also be devoted to understanding the evolution of the

strategies in the programming period within the given institutional setting. This

analysis will be based on the indications resulting from the Literature review (Task1),

inputs from thematic experts (internal and external to the research team) and the

survey on the MAs and some Implementation bodies (when possible) of the largest

Cohesion Policy programmes (see Task 2b for details).

A combination of methods will be used in the evaluation:

Desk research and literature review on public investment in the culture and

tourism sectors (including the literature on creative industries and sport) will

support the definition of the analytical framework for the evaluation, by providing a

typology of investment strategies in these sectors; an indication of the challenges

and opportunities faced by the culture and tourism sectors at the regional level and

their potential contribution to regional development; the rationale for public

intervention in these sectors and the factors to be considered in the analysis; initial

indications of more and less successful projects. The literature that will be taken

into account will cover different sources: academic contributions, empirical

research and studies, documents produced by the European Institutions in the

framework of the Structural Funds and of the European Cohesion Policies;

evaluation studies.

Statistical analysis based on available comparative descriptive indicators mainly

derived from the “General and regional statistics” section of the EUROSTAT

statistics website and the data stored in the DG for Regional and Urban Policy's

databases (InfoView). Statistical analysis will assess the importance and the main

features of the culture and tourism sectors in the national/regional economy and

the incidence of ERDF financial support to these sectors. A Cluster analysis on

culture and tourism context indicators and ERDF spending in related categories will



November 2014 25

support the mapping of EU regions according to these dimensions to highlight

similarities and differences across and within European regions/countries.

Fieldwork based on:

An online Survey addressed to MAs on the strategies, typologies of

activities, and policy tools implemented in a sample of regions with ERDF

allocations in the culture and tourism projects in their areas.

Case studies involving direct interviews with (regional) programming

authorities and local stakeholders to gain: (a) a deeper understanding of

the culture and tourism activities supported by ERDF and their contribution to

improve the quality and performance of these sectors at the regional level and

the factors supporting or hindering success; (b) a detailed understanding of the

complex interactions and processes between ERDF supported measures and

developments in the culture and tourism sectors affecting expected and

unexpected results, with attention to the context and implementation

processes.

The following paragraphs describe in detail how these methods will be combined to

deliver the various tasks and to answer the evaluation questions.

3.2 Evaluation activities and tasks

In summary, the evaluation will include the following activities:

literature review and typology of interventions (Task 1);

data analysis and sampling (Task 2a);

survey to MAs and some Implementation bodies (Task 2b);

tabulation of findings and proposal for case selection (Task 2c);

case study analysis, including mini case studies (Task 3);

cross-task analysis and presentation of the final report (Task 4).

Figure 3.1 shows the relationship between the different tasks, with arrows

representing the main links between the tasks.

The following sections present for each task a detailed description of aims, evaluation

questions, methodology and deliverables



November 2014 26

Figure 3.1. Relationship between Tasks of WP9

3.2.1 Task 1 – Review of the existing literature on culture and tourism

Aims

Task 1 aims to review the existing literature on culture and tourism (including creative

industries and sport), and in particular on the role and use of public investments, in

order to construct a functional theoretical framework which can be used for the

assessment of ERDF support in these sectors. Therefore, it aims to:

identify the socio-economic rationales that justify public financial support in

culture and tourism, distinguishing between public and private initiatives;

identify the main typologies of investment strategies implemented by public

authorities in the recent past (taking into account the type of strategy, the

expected results, etc.);

establish the context for the evaluation of the effects of ERDF support in these

sectors, either in general or according to different type of investment, and then

of the contribution that these investments make to growth and job creation.

These aims are intended to support the thorough analysis of ERDF investments in the

fields of culture and tourism which will be undertaken in Task 2, as well as the

selection of the programme case studies which will be used to assess the

Task 1

Literature review and typology of interventions

Task 2a

Data analysis and sampling

Task 2b

Survey to MAs

Task 2cTabulation of findings and proposal for case selection

Task 4

Cross-task analysis and final report

Task 3a

6 Case studies

Task 3b

12 Mini Case studies

Task 3cFinal comparative analysis and lessons



November 2014 27

achievements of investments and their effectiveness in contributing to the objectives

of long-term growth and jobs (Task 3). To do this the analysis in the literature review

will:

1. highlight, with appropriate key evidence, the role that culture and tourism play to

support long-term growth and jobs and to reduce economic and social disparities

in the EU, in line with the objectives of the ERDF;

2. give evidence of the socio-economic foundations behind the role of public

authorities in supporting culture and tourism development and planning, through

the discussion of the specific characteristics each of the two sectors (i.e. the role

of public goods, the structural complexity of both sectors, the multiplicity of actors

and industries involved, the spread of economic impacts);

3. provide a concise overview of the main political and strategic approaches to

culture and tourism in the EU28, which demonstrate the theoretical assumptions

followed by public authorities in developing multi-annual programs, against a set

of appropriate criteria to classify general policies and Operative Programmes;

4. building on point 3, provide evidence of the main typologies of public investment

strategies pursued in culture and tourism, using a set of specific criteria;

5. contribute to the assessment of the effects of public financial support, either in

general or according to the specific type of investment made and its correlation to

the overall strategy, through the use of a set of indicators already applied in other

studies on the achievements of Cohesion Policy Programs.

The analysis will provide clear and concise answers to the evaluation questions

indicated in the Terms of Reference and raised during the Kick-off meeting and the 1st

Steering Committee. Table 3.3 shows how the evaluation questions map across to

corresponding activities which will be undertaken and included in the final report.

Table 3.3. Task 1 - Evaluation questions and activities

Evaluation questions Evaluation activities

What is the socio-economic rationale behind the public financial support to these sectors?

Discussion of the main socio-economic theoretical foundations behind the role of public financial support, based on the specific characteristics of the culture and tourism Sectors, and that derive from acknowledged academic and practitioner literature in the field, which also inform official government decision making.

What are the main types of public investment strategies pursued in CULTURE AND TOURISM?

Concise overview of the main political and strategic approaches to public support for culture and tourism developed in the EU28, which demonstrate the theoretical assumptions followed by public authorities to guide changes in these two sectors, according to a set of appropriate criteria derived from the literature.

Identification of the main typologies of public investment strategies pursued in culture and tourism, according to a set of specific variables.

Is there evidence of the effects of public financial support, either in general or according to the different type of investments?

Contribution to the assessment of the effects of public financial support in general and according to the type of investment, through a set of indicators already applied in other studies on the achievements of Cohesion Policy Programs.



November 2014 28

Methodology

This Task will provide:

the instruments, criteria, and structure required to identify the main typologies of

investment strategies in culture and tourism highlighting the (sometime implicit)

motivation, and logic behind the ERDF investments choices made by the EU regions

in relation to their broad development strategies;

the reference framework to understand if things worked as expected in order to

produce the desired change regarding (directly and indirectly) culture and tourism

or, in other words, how and why the desired change is expected to come about.

The literature review will focus on four interrelated categories of documents, papers

and studies. For each evaluation question, the most appropriate literature to support

the development of the corresponding evaluation activity will be selected. Figure 3.2

summarises the procedure and shows the links between questions, activities and

literature.

Figure 3.2. Task 1 - Scheme of the links among questions, activities and

literature considered

Note: Arrows between boxes relate to links between activities and the evaluation questions or literature.

For each category of literature, Table 3.4 specifies the main sources that will be used

alongside an example of which ones are likely to be most relevant. Priority will be

given to official statistics and to acknowledged academic literature. Special attention

What are the socio-economic rationales

behind the public financial support to

these sectors?

What are the main types of public investments

strategies pursued in Culture and

Tourism?

Is there evidence of the effects of public financial support,

either in general or according to the different type of

investments?

3. Investigation of main strategic approaches and identification of main typologies of investment initiatives in EU28

4. Identification of a number of indicators

through which to assess the effects of

ERDFsupport

2. Discussion of the main socio-economic foundations behind the role, based on a number of relevant aspects that characterise the two sectors

Evaluation questions

Evaluation activities

Literature investigated

• Academic literature• ‘Grey’ literature• EC studies and

publications (evaluation studies)


publications (sector-based studies)


publications(evaluation studies)

1. Statistical data on the role of Culture and

Tourism for a homogeneous economic

and social development of the EU, coherently with

ERDF tools

• International statistics and related studies


publications



November 2014 29

will be given to the selection of grey literature and of EC studies and publications, in

order to identify those that provide a balanced, substantiated view on the two sectors.

In general, equal attention will be given to sector-based literature as well as to studies

and research that analyses and assess the relationships between culture and tourism.

Table 3.4. Task 1 – Main sources of information and data

Type of literature

Description Examples of relevant sources

International statistical data and related studies

Statistical information describing the consistency and evolution of culture and tourism in Europe (physical and economic size: e.g. no. tourists/visitors: tourism receipts; tourism GDP; jobs created), in total and in different countries;

Specific studies carried out by the same sources, through an in-depth analysis of this information.

UNWTO, OECD,

Eurostat, National

Statistics bureaus,

Banque de France,

Banca d’Italia, etc.

Academic literature

Relevant studies and research published by the

international academic community on:

the economic value of culture and tourism (including creative industries and sport);

the economic and social impacts of these sectors at global and territorial level;

the rationale for public sector intervention in supporting

tourism and cultural development and the evolution of public investments in culture and tourism (Books, papers, articles, research works, conference proceedings, etc.)

Costa, Manente, 2000; Dwyer, Forsyth and Papatheodorou, 2011; Blake and Sinclair, 2007; Costa, Panik and Buhalis, 2013 and 2014; etc.

Practitioner or ‘grey’ literature

Selection of relevant studies and research published by National, Regional Tourist and Cultural Offices, independent associations and research centres, national and regional governmental authorities on: the economic value of culture and tourism (including

creative industries and sport); the economic and social impacts of these sectors at

global and territorial level; the rationale for public sector intervention in supporting

tourism and cultural development and the evolution of public investments in culture and tourism

(Books, papers, articles, research works, conference proceedings, reports, assessments, etc.)

OECD, World Economic

Forum, European

Travel Commission,

Visit Britain and other

national and regional

tourist board and

development agencies,

GLA Economics, etc.

EC studies and publications

Selection of studies and reports regarding the aspects mentioned just above and developed or commissioned by the European Commission or by EU Directorates directly and indirectly involved with culture and tourism or by national and regional authorities;

Selection of studies on the relevance and effectiveness of ERDF and CF support and on the main achievements

of CP programmes commissioned by the DGREGIO, which include and assessment of investments in the sectors of culture and tourism

European Commission, DG Enterprise & Industry, DG Culture and Education, Council of Europe, DGREGIO, etc.

The limited availability of data, especially for culture, will be addressed through a wide

search of available sources. The homepage for cultural statistics in the Eurostat portal

states that “European cultural statistics presenting data on enterprises in cultural

sectors, employment and occupation, external trade in cultural goods, cultural

participation and other cultural statistics will be made available as from 2015 onward”

which may mean it is available in the lifetime of this study

(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/culture/introduction).

In order to provide a robust theoretical framework for the evaluation, the literature

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/culture/introduction



November 2014 30

will be selected using a two-step process:

Step 1: Preliminary Search. The collection of materials already available to the

thematic experts involved in the task will be accompanied by a comprehensive

search on the widely used electronic databases (e.g. Google Scholar, Science Direct

Scopus, Web of Science). The search will be based upon Boolean combinations of

keywords that are considered relevant according to the evaluation questions (e.g.

“public sector investments in tourism”, “economic impact of tourism”). The search

terms used will be recorded for reference. The electronic search will be

supplemented by complementary methods such as reference checking and follow-

up, Internet and hand searching journals, and email communication with key

authors.

Step 2: Initial Review and Selection. The list of potentially relevant material

collected will be analysed and refined. The definitive sources to be reviewed will be

selected and organized according to their relevance to the evaluation questions.

An indicative bibliography of relevant key publications and documentation on culture

and tourism is provided in Annex I.

The two external experts will be involved in the selection phase and will be asked for

their suggestions regarding any additional literature not collated by the investigation.

Outputs

As indicated in the Tender specification, the output of Task 1 will be included in the

First Interim Report. The report will provide a theoretical framework to the evaluation

of ERDF support to culture and tourism. The key findings and results will be presented

using logic models (which will outline the key assumptions made and the Theory of

Change behind investments in culture and tourism), alongside the main objectives of

the Task, the main categories of literature identified, and the methodology described

for the literature review.

The report will be relatively short (30-35 pages) in comparison to the number of topics

dealt with, in order to summarise and bring out the main points of discussion and

provide a concise framework and guidance for the analysis carried out in the following

Tasks.

The report will be supported by appropriate tables, graphs and/or figures in order to

present the data in a clear and informative way. The report will, therefore, consist of

four main sections:

1. culture and tourism in European regions: key figures, development trends

and evolutionary aspects;

2. the socio-economic rationales behind public financial support in culture and

tourism;

3. main strategic approaches and investment initiatives in culture and tourism

in the EU28: A comparative analysis;



November 2014 31

4. assessment of the effects of public financial support in relation to the

strategies in culture and tourism.

The proposed contents and methodology for each section of the report follows.

1. Culture and Tourism in European regions: key figures, development trends

and evolution aspects.

This section will review the most important statistical sources and statistics-related

studies at international and EU level (UNWTO, EUROSTAT, OECD, National Statistics

Bureaus, etc.) to provide a concise descriptive analysis of the:

characteristics and development of culture and tourism in the EU28 Member

States and, particularly, in NUTS2 regions

contribution of the two sectors to the countries/regions’ economy and welfare;

main expected trends shaping their evolution in the next 5-10 years.

To support the first two points, a number of quantitative indicators will be used

(according to data availability) such as: no. of tourists, in total and by country of

residence; no. of cultural visitors; no. of nights spent in all accommodation

establishments, in total and by country of residence; volume of cultural and tourism

receipts; volume of tourism and cultural GDP, in total and as % share of total national

GDP; proportion of cultural and tourism receipts on country GDP; number of

enterprises and of jobs created. These elements will contribute to:

set the scene, highlighting the relevance of culture and tourism (including creative

industries and sport) in the global and regional EU social and economic scenario,

especially in the light of the unprecedented economic crisis that Europe has been

facing;

identify the NUTS2 regions where Culture and/or Tourism make the highest

contribution to social and economic development and, vice versa, those where the

two sectors, or one of them, have a comparatively limited role compared to other

regions or other industrial and service activities. This consideration is important to

help contextualise and understand the logic of intervention followed by public

authorities, and therefore the typologies of investments made (e.g. ‘hard’ vs. ‘soft’

actions).

Culture and tourism will be presented separately, alongside a unifying analysis. The

text will be supported by appropriate tables, graphs and maps, based on available and

relevant data.

The analysis of culture will generally use this concept to refer to three specific sectors:

the cultural sector; the creative industries; and sport. This range of meanings provides

an additional challenge for any evaluation, as the difference in makes the collation of

comparable evidence difficult, especially across different countries or regions (O’Brien,

2010, p11). By clearly defining the sector this approach will avoid some complications

caused by this imprecise terminology.



November 2014 32

2. The socio-economic rationales behind public financial support in culture

and tourism

The second section of the report will discuss the socio-economic rationales that

underpin public financial support to both culture and tourism, including the distinction

between public and private initiatives. This analysis will support the identification of

the socio-economic objectives behind the interventions surveyed in Task 2b. It will be

presented as separate sections on Culture, and on Tourism, as well as a unifying

analysis.

The discussion will be based on a number of relevant features and market failures

characterising each of the two sectors resulting from the acknowledged academic and

practitioner literature in the field and underpinning official government decisions (see,

for example, Blake and Sinclair, 2007, for the UK Department for Culture, Media and

Sport; GLA Economics & London Development Agency, 2006; Dwyer, Forsyth and

Papatheodorou, 2011). Examples of these policy rationales include:

Rationales or characteristics applying to both culture and tourism to be tested on the

basis of the evidence provided by the literature review:

presence of public goods (natural and cultural resources) in culture and tourism,

and the importance of ensuring their sustainable use (non-rivalry and non

excludability) and their availability also for future generations;

peculiarity of cultural and tourism demand (seasonality, strong variability

according to a number of factors, etc.);

complex nature of these sectors and multiplicity of (public and private) actors and

industries directly and indirectly involved (for tourism: accommodation, transport,

intermediaries, entertainment, but also agriculture, etc.), which usually have

different and diverging interests and objectives;

reduction of economic disparities, through the spread of impacts produced by

tourist and cultural consumption over different industries and territories, not

directly offering products and services to tourists and cultural visitors;

strong links among the location of main assets and the related investments (the

financing of place-specific sectors tends to produce local benefits);

linked to the previous point, supporting job-intensive sectors and stimulating job

creation at local level (opportunities to ensure gender equality, disadvantage

workers, less-skilled workers especially in less developed regions or declining

economies);

contribution to social cohesion, such as enhancing residents’ quality of life,

preserving cultural identity and local values, reducing isolation and stimulating the

spread of innovation at a territorial level;

Rationales or characteristics that apply primarily to the Culture sector to be tested on

the basis of the evidence provided by the literature review:

growing economic importance of the cultural and creative industries;

cultural sector as a strategic asset for Europe, because of its historic strengths;

role of the cultural and creative industries in stimulating innovation and providing

other economic spillovers;



November 2014 33

role in promoting intercultural dialogue and in international relations ("soft"

power).

Rationales or characteristics that apply primarily to the Tourism sector to be tested on

the basis of the evidence provided by the literature review:

different impacts that public-owned initiatives vs. private investments in tourism

infrastructure can have on the territory (as, for example, the effects that the

opening of a new flight route by a private low-cost airline can have in marginal

areas);

complex nature of these sectors and their interactions with other different sectors

that, directly and/or indirectly, contribute to the “tourism product”, so that public

investments in other sectors (like, for example, agriculture, transports, energy,

etc.) can have an important effect on tourism (e.g. green innovation). Therefore,

public investment can help capitalise or adjust to these effects.

These elements (and, in particular, the presence of public goods and the sector

complexity) highlight the probability of inefficiencies in both sectors and therefore the

need for public intervention in order to improve the functioning of the market, through

strategic and financial support. According to the literature (see, for example, Jeffries

(2001:105-113), there are six main reasons of public intervention in tourism: the

need to have wider objectives than private stakeholders; the importance of transport

policies; the complexity of the tourism sector; the presence of market failure; the

public sector provision of leisure services and the resolution of conflict. This means

that “rationales are also not related to market failure, but some include reasons that

do derive from one of more forms of market failure in tourism” (Blake and Sinclair,

2007: 3). Examples of market failure in tourism are the following: missing markets

(the preservation of public goods, i.e. natural, historical and cultural assets require an

actor super partes who ensure their efficient conservation); externalities (tourists and

tourism enterprises may fail to take into account the positive and negative effects of

their actions on third-parties, e.g. other tourists, residents’ community, other

businesses); information failure (markets may not provide enough information

because, during a market transaction, it may not be in the interests of one party to

provide full information to the other party); unstable markets (sometimes markets

become highly unstable (e.g. because of sudden climate change) and such volatility

may require intervention); economic inequality or income gaps (market transactions

reward consumers and producers with incomes and profits, but these rewards may be

concentrated in the hands of a few).

3. Main strategic approaches and investment initiatives in culture and

tourism in the EU28: A comparative analysis

Having set the scene on the characteristics, structure and role of culture and tourism,

and analysed the socio-economic rationales behind public support to the two sectors,

the third section of the Report will investigate the main typologies of investment for

culture and tourism developed in the EU28 regions. This will support Task 2b (MA

survey of selected programmes) and Task 3 (Selection and analysis of

regional/programme case studies).




November 2014 34

The first part of this section will provide a concise overview of the main approaches

adopted in the EU28 for culture and tourism, building on the general strategies

illustrated in sub-section 3.1.2. This analysis will be developed taking into account, if

relevant, the differences between Convergence and Competitiveness & Employment

regions. The approaches considered are those that guide the theoretical assumptions

behind the intervention logic followed by national and regional public authorities in

developing programmes and include the identification of specific objectives and of

intended results or outcomes.

The main initiatives developed by Member States and representative regions for

culture and tourism will be identified through a review of EU official publications (e.g.

LSE&EPRC, 2013), of National and Regional programming documents defining policies

and financial instruments, and of recent academic research in comparative policy

analysis (Costa, Panyik and Buhalis, 2013 and 2014). The evaluation will also assess

the role of culture and tourism initiatives within the framework of general national and

regional policies, in order to contextualise and understand whether and how they are

part of a broader strategy for encouraging the development of a territory in terms of

growth and job creation and also for improving the residents’ quality of life.

The overview will be based on an appropriate set of criteria derived from the literature

review and will be supported by concise, illustrative case studies at national and/or

territorial level. A first set of criteria for identifying and grouping the main approaches

has been summarised in Table 3.5., with some examples of their application.

Other criteria will be identified during the analysis. The literature will also provide the

basis to interpret the identified approaches in relation to each region’s characteristics

as far as culture and tourism are concerned (e.g. tourism GDP and employment,

number of tourist arrivals, seasonality, destination life cycle, etc.)

Table 3.5 Task 1 – Intervention approaches for culture and tourism in the

EU28: preliminary classification criteria and some examples of application

from both sectors

Criteria Examples Culture Examples Tourism

Strategic level and scope

General development strategy for culture and tourism, i.e. planned independently from the funds used, and the fund sources

Amsterdam’s ‘Kunstenplan 2013-2016' sets out the city cultural strategy, and highlights key areas

of focus or the sector, as well as spending. Amsterdam has a separate ERDF strategy, which includes Creative Industries under the Knowledge development and innovation theme.

The Basilicata strategy for tourism development is illustrated in the Regional Tourism development plan

(PTR). The Basilicata ERDF OP has a specific Axis dedicated to culture and tourism (Axis IV) . This is one of the axis with the higher amount of investments

The Andalucia tourist areas requalification plan (Plan qualifica) is

ERDF strategy, i.e. developed in the OP according to the available ERDF funds or other Eu funds



November 2014 35

partially financed through ERDF and partially by other

sources, including private ones (Programa Operativo de Andalucia, Plan Qualifica)

Main focus and relationships between culture and tourism

Culture, Tourism or both sectors. In the last case indication of which sector is the main pillar of the strategy

The main focus of Andalucia ERDF strategy is tourism more than culture, as tourism is mentioned among the sectors to be considered for new business development, water supply management, technological improvement, sustainable urban development, etc.

Approach Holistic vs. sectoral approach to culture and/or tourism

Dublin’s Arts culture and tourism Strategy does not include EU programmes or ERDF, which are covered by a separate strategy.

Basilicata adopts a sectoral interrelated approach, where the exploitation of natural/cultural heritage also relate to tourism development goals (the same happens in the Apulia or Liverpool cases)

Specificity of the objectives (generic vs. specific)

Generic development of one or both sectors vs. development/promotion of specific markets/products/services

In Swansea (UK), culture and tourism fit within an overarching city economic strategy, as well as within Welsh strategies for culture and tourism.

A focus on tourism in general, or on specific aspects such as seaside tourism, accessible tourism, or similar

Explicit/implicit goals

Whether the strategy addresses culture and tourism explicitly or implicitly, i.e. whether the objectives indicated in programme documents (in accordance to ERDF guidance) differ from public institutions’ real goals for tourism and/or culture development (underlying

aims, which can also emerge in the implementation phase)

A focus on cultural sector, or on a subsector such as cultural heritage, performing arts or similar

In the Andalucian OP, the infrastructure development is not explicitly addressed as part of tourism development, but measures concerning airports infrastructure improvements “in view of demand increase” or the railway connection

Malaga-Algericias are possibly intended for tourism

Continuity with previous ERDF support programmes

If the strategy builds on previous ERDF strategies in this field

The National Strategic Reference Framework for Ireland guides the spending of European funds, and culture and the

creative industries are not mentioned explicitly or implicitly.

In the case of Liverpool and the Merseyside, the strategy remained focused on the development of visitors’ economy throughout the three programming

periods the area benefited from ERDF

The relationship between culture and tourism can heavily influence the strategic

planning at national/regional level. This close relationship explains why some

Operational Programmes in some EU regions have a specific Priority Axis that



November 2014 36

addresses directly natural and cultural resources (i.e. their development/preservation

is the main focus of the Axe) and indirectly tourism12. It is also likely to explain why

specific projects under these programmes address culture directly and tourism

indirectly13.

Moving from the approaches listed above, the Report will also give evidence of the

main typologies of public investments specifically addressing culture and tourism

and of those investments that, although developed in other sectors, can indirectly

cause a change in the development of the culture and tourism sectors. The definition

of these typologies will be based on a set of criteria derived from the literature, which

will set the context in which the investments take place, identify the expected

outcomes/results and their possible strengths and weaknesses. Some of the

classification criteria that can be identified ex ante are described in Table 3.6. Further

criteria will identified during the analysis.

The use of these criteria, derived from the literature, will:

provide a common framework to compare the different investment strategies at

a regional level;

provide a framework to assess the main aspects and determinants

underpinning such differences;

allow us to analyse why the results of some typologies of investments are more

or less effective, and which kind of strategies are likely to be most successful

depending on the specific context.

12 For example, in the Basilicata OP 2007-2013: the development of sustainable tourism and the growth of territorial competitiveness is the main focus of specific/operative objectives and action lines of Priority Axis 4: Exploitation of natural and cultural assets. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/prordn/details_new.cfm?gv_PAY=IT&gv_reg=562&gv_PGM=1050&LAN=7&gv_PER=2&gv_defL=7 13 For example, the Campania project “Protecting Pompei for future generations”, aims to stop the degradation of the area and to increase tourism, by attracting an average of 300,000 additional visitors each year by 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/details_new.cfm?pay=IT&the=79&sto=2556&lan=7&region=1218&obj=ALL&per=2&defL=en. Also in the Castilla-La Mancha project “From mines to mining park”, the building of a cultural site to preserve the mining and industrial heritage of the world’s largest mercury mines and to reverse the environmental damage of years of extraction generated over 52,000 visitors URL: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/details_new.cfm?pay=ES&the=79&sto=1874&lan=7&region=574&obj=ALL&per=2&defL=en).

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/prordn/details_new.cfm?gv_PAY=IT&gv_reg=562&gv_PGM=1050&LAN=7&gv_PER=2&gv_defL=7

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/country/prordn/details_new.cfm?gv_PAY=IT&gv_reg=562&gv_PGM=1050&LAN=7&gv_PER=2&gv_defL=7

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/details_new.cfm?pay=IT&the=79&sto=2556&lan=7&region=1218&obj=ALL&per=2&defL=en

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/details_new.cfm?pay=IT&the=79&sto=2556&lan=7&region=1218&obj=ALL&per=2&defL=en

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/details_new.cfm?pay=ES&the=79&sto=1874&lan=7&region=574&obj=ALL&per=2&defL=en

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/projects/stories/details_new.cfm?pay=ES&the=79&sto=1874&lan=7&region=574&obj=ALL&per=2&defL=en



November 2014 37

Table 3.6. Task 1 –Main classification criteria for public investments in

culture and tourism in the EU28 regions

Classification Criteria Illustration - Culture

Illustration - Tourism

Output nature ‘Hard’ vs. ‘soft’ outputs Construction of a new theatre vs. a business support programme for the creative

industries

Construction of new hotels vs. the creation of tourism packages or the development of a

promotional strategy

(For investments on ‘hard’ outputs) Structure level

Infrastructure vs. superstructure A digital archive vs. a new theatre

Dedicated transport vs. a hotel, a congress centre, a theme park

Economic activity The sector in which the investments have been developed (e.g. tourism, culture, urban regeneration, environment, energy). If different from culture and tourism, what is the main goal (tourism/cultural development or other)?

Investment in superfast broadband may support creative businesses

Investment in a new waste treatment centre may support the tourist economy

Territorial area The type of area where the investment takes place

For instance, urban vs. rural areas

For instance, urban vs. rural areas

Type of beneficiaries Public and/or private stakeholders (distinguishing NGOs, third sector operators)

Intended results The sector where the main results are expected, whatever the output

For example, the creation of a new concert hall may be intended to improve cultural engagement at a local level or develop the city tourist brand.

Actual results The sector where the main impact occurs, whatever the output

For example, the actual results of the restoration of an historic building are mainly in the tourism sector.

4. Assessment of the expected effects of ERDF financial support to culture

and tourism

This final section of the Report on Task 1 will assess the anticipated effects of ERDF

support on in the two sectors, in general and/or according to the different type of

investments and strategies implemented, according to the literature review. The

conditions under which the intended results have been achieved or not will also be

considered.

The assessment will build on the results of the investigation on the strategic

approaches adopted and the investment initiatives. This analysis will provide guidance

for Task 2b (MA survey of selected programmes) and Task 3 (Selection and analysis of

regional/programme case studies).

As already mentioned, this part of the evaluation is likely to be challenging. First,

because of the lack or poor quality of the data available (Martin and Tyler, 2006).

Second, because of the difficulties in understanding how and why the support provided

by ERDF “brings about changes in the regions where they have been targeted” (Martin

and Tyler, 2006; LSE & EPRC, 2013). Third, the difficulty of disentangling the specific

impact of ERDF support (e.g. in terms of visitors growth) from those of other

investments, wider trends or from other factors. For example, the general evolution of



November 2014 38

the tourism industry brought about by big private companies (e.g. low-cost airlines,

tourist portals and online travel agencies) may provide easier accessibility to regions

and easier booking procedures for accommodation and consequently stimulate an

increase of tourist flows at local level, and if these changes happen alongside ERDF

investment, causality is hard to identify with precision (LSE and EPRC, 2013: 63).

Given these limitations and capitalising on the experience of previous studies on the

achievements of Cohesion Policy Programmes (LSE and EPRC, 2013), the following

table summarises the evaluation criteria to assess the main achievements of ERDF

support, as required in the Terms of Reference. Other possible criteria and indicators

will be identified during the analysis.

Table 3.7. Task 1 – Assessing the effects of ERDF public financial support:

Main evaluation criteria

Dimensions Definition Significance

Relevance Appropriateness of the explicit objectives of an intervention with regard to the socio-

economic problems the intervention is meant to solve

It indicates the strategic structure and internal coherence of programs, i.e. whether the programme strategies, goals and priorities

respond to the needs of the regions where they apply

Effectiveness The extent to which programmes/investments achieved the goals stated (coherence between intended

and actual results)

It is intended to assess, on the one hand, the results specified in the programmes; on the other, the changes which were intended to occur as a result of the policy intervention. In

other words, the anticipatedeffect of the intervention

The two external experts will be involved in the development of Chapter 3 and 4 of the

Interim Report of Task 1. In particular, they will be asked to give advice on further

initiatives and investment strategies developed by some countries, regions, or

destinations that can be illustrative of the investment strategies implemented, and to

assess the potential ERDF intervention areas identified.

3.2.2 Task 2 - Data analysis and sampling

Task 2 a - Distribution of investments and reported output

Aims

As required by the Terms of Reference, the aim of Task 2a is to carry out a statistical

analysis of the distribution of ERDF investments and reported outputs, in order to

derive a picture of the formal allocation of funds by priority themes, their geographical

distribution, their economic relevance and reported achievements. As part of this sub-

task the programmes allocating more than 15 million Euros to culture and tourism

activities (55-60 Priority Themes) plus hotels and restaurants (Economic Activity 14

not included in 55-60 Priority Themes) will be identified in order to set up the survey

envisaged in Task 2b.

Table 3.8 presents the evaluation questions and the corresponding activities and



November 2014 39

deliverables.

Table 3.8. Task 2a – Evaluation questions and activities

Evaluation questions Activities and deliverables

What are the main differences in the relative distribution of investments in culture and tourism across ERDF programmes?

Statistical analysis of the distribution of financial allocations and reported outputs based on DG REGIO categorisation data and achievement indicators (core indicators and other relevant achievement indicators resulting from the

activities of WP0, as well as programme specific indicators resulting from the survey on MAs carried out in task 2b)

This task will: Map and assessment of the distribution of

investments and reported outputs by Priority

Themes, Regions/countries, Economic sectors and Territorial Dimensions

Identification of the programmes with the highest aggregate allocations for these policy areas for the survey of MAs.

Assessment of the core and programme

specific indicators used by the Mas (resulting from WP0 and the Survey), individuation of main strengths and weaknesses and of significant gaps in data reporting (between input and output indicators).

What are the economic sectors (distinguishing between public and private) benefiting most from investments

associated with culture and tourism?

What is the ‘geographical’ and ‘territorial’ distribution across investments?

How reliable is the reporting of relevant core indicators across the programmes?

What programme specific indicators are used and what are their reported achievements?

Methodology

The statistical analysis will be mainly based on: (i) the categorisation of expenditures

and (ii) the achievement indicators reported by Member States in the Annual

Implementation Reports and available from the database created by WP014, as well as

those indicated by the surveyed MAs in Task 2b.

As for the allocation of ERDF Funds, in order to answer the evaluation questions,

we will carry out a descriptive analysis of the distribution of the resources allocated for

culture and tourism and their incidence on the total amount by the following five

dimensions identified in the DG Regio Categorisation System:

1) The Priority themes, which identify the areas of intervention (86 codes). The

analysis on ERDF investments will take into account those priority themes which are

directly linked to culture and tourism:

For Tourism: 55 Promotion of natural assets, 56 Protection and development of

natural heritage, 57 Other assistance to improve tourist services.

14 'Ex post' evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007–2013, focusing on the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) - Work Package Zero: Data collection and Quality

Assessment.



November 2014 40

For Culture: 58 Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage, 59

Development of cultural infrastructure, 60 Other assistance to improve cultural

services.

In addition, through the "economic" dimension of the categorisation system, we

will take into account support for the economic sector "code 14: Hotels and

restaurants" (not included in the Priority themes 55-60).

2) the nature of financial support, giving information on the nature of support:

Non-repayable aid, aid, venture capital, other forms;

3) the territorial dimension, defining the type of territory in which the allocated

investment takes place (i.e. urban, mountains, islands, rural, etc.).

4) the economic activity dimension, describing the sector in which the investments

have taken place. These codes are derived from the statistical NACE classification,

with codes added for the services sector. As requested by the Terms of Reference, this

dimension will also allow us to distinguish the public sector (code 17). A preliminary

cross tabulation of ERDF financial allocations in culture and tourism by economic

activity (Table A3 in Annex II) shows however a high percentage of not applicable (00)

or other unspecified services (22) that will be further investigated through the survey

and the case studies.

5) the location dimension, reporting the code of the NUTS area in which the

investment takes place. Descriptive statistics will be provided at European, National

(NUTS 0) and Regional level (NUTS 2 or NUTS 1 for countries with regional OP

referring to NUTS 1 level, such as Germany and The United Kingdom).

First elaborations on available data provided by DG Regio15 are presented in Annex II

as well as the list of OPs investing more than 15 million ERDF in culture and tourism

(Table A2).

Around EUR 13.5 billion of ERDF funds (equivalent to 5.7% of total allocated ERDF

funds) have been invested in the sectors of culture and tourism in the 2007-2013

programming period (Table A1 in Annex II). The countries with higher amount of ERDF

allocations in culture and tourism are PL, GR, ES, HU and IT while the incidence of

culture and tourism on the total ERDF allocations is particularly high in Cross-border

programmes (16.6%), in MT (15,9%), in DK and AT (around 13%). Considering

economic activities, ERDF allocations are concentrated in the Public Administration

sector (13.5%), Hotels and Restaurants (7.7%) and Construction (5.9%) while the

distribution by territorial dimension (Table A4 in Annex II) shows a concentration of

culture and tourism interventions in urban areas (48.2%).

15 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/data/erdf_projectselection_air_rawdata_

2007_13.xls. The 2017 - 2013 categorisation data (Project selection) should be available in October 2014 and

should be considered in the interim report.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/data/erdf_projectselection_air_rawdata_%202007_13.xls

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/data/erdf_projectselection_air_rawdata_%202007_13.xls



November 2014 41

As regards the output indicators, the shortage of data for culture and tourism

must be highlighted. There are only two core indicators for ERDF to account for

achievements in the targeted sectors. They are:

Indicator n. (34) Number of projects in Tourism defined as the number of projects

aimed to develop the tourism industry in the region.

Indicator n. (35) Number of jobs created, defined as the gross direct jobs created

(in full time equivalents) by tourism projects counted under indicator 316.

These indicators will be analysed to highlight gaps with respect to the target value in

all OPs. Whenever feasible, the average financial allocation per project will be

calculated. We will also calculate the coverage rate of jobs created on the total

employment in the tourism sector (resulting from LFS microdata).

Core indicators were not mandatory but only recommended by the European

Commission, and so data on core indicators is likely to be scarce. A first indication on

WP0 data provided by DG Regio shows that only 120 OPs out of 253 with allocations in

priority themes directly linked to culture and tourism (including 104 OPs investing

more than 15 millions of Euros in these areas) report data on Number of Projects in

Tourism (Core Indicator 34), and only 70 (56 OPs with more than 15 millions of Euros

allocated) on jobs created (Core Indicator 35). Furthermore, in some case these

indicators are not consistent and reliable. As shown in table 3.9, at the end of 2012

the number of tourism projects were 8,600, 42% of the target, concentrated in Spain

(1,642 projects), Italy (1,443) and Portugal (1,076).

Jobs created were around 12,000 up to the end of 2012, 53% of the final target. The

highest achievement was 3,300 reported in HU (51.5% of target); also PL reports a

high number, with 1,900 tourism jobs (43.3% of final target) and DE with 1,347 (four-

times the final target) (Table 3.10).

16 Indicator 39 “Number of projects ensuring sustainability and improving the attractiveness of towns and

cities” will not be considered because it is not possible to derive the actual relationship with culture and

tourism from the available data.



November 2014 42

Table 3.9. Core indicator n. 34 - Number of tourism projects at the end of

2012 and % of the final target (ordered by Number of projects)

Country Number of projects % of the final target

ES 1642 21.9

IT 1443 31.5

PT 1076 81.3

HU 998 92.2

CZ 813 79.4

DE 647 159.8

PL 555 54.8

FR 291 67.4

LT 231 192.5

RO 180 45.0

SI 146 116.8

SK 136 36.2

GR 118 6.1

SE 102 510.0

UK 92

BE 37 160.9

NL 31 34.1

LV 28

MT 20 100.0

AT 14 155.6

DK 10 100.0

BG 8 11.4

HR 2 13.3

Total 8620 41.9

Source: calculation on DG Regio – Core Indicator AIR data

Table 3.10. Core indicator n. 35 - Number of jobs created in tourism at the

end of 2012 and % on the final target (ordered by Number of Job created)

Country Jobs created % of the final target

HU 3324 51.5

PL 1947 43.3

DE 1347 443.1

CZ 1092 67.1

IT 1050 76.0

SI 840 84.0

UK 520 1040.0

LT 461 92.2

SK 404 10.2

FR 349 103.8

PT 166 6.9

Total 11928 53.0

Source: calculation on DG Regio – Core Indicator AIR data

The interpretation of these data on achievements will take into account the strengths

and weaknesses in the reporting of the data, emphasizing significant gaps that

prevent a clear understanding of achievements. For example, there may be differences



November 2014 43

in the definitions and methods of calculation adopted by MAs; differences in the

projects considered to calculate the indicator (on-going projects or only concluded

ones); differences in the measurement of jobs (often only the number of jobs is

reported without adjustment in full-time equivalents). The analysis of the reliability

and comparability of the core indicators will take into account the results of WP0.

In order to complete the analysis of available output indicators, we will also consider

those collected in OPs Monitoring Systems. Starting from the list of relevant indicators

identified by WP0 (see Table A8 in Annex II), we will classify and analyse all the

specific indicators related to culture and tourism. We expect that only an analysis at

the Programme Level will be possible. A first recognition on WP0 data provided by DG

Regio shows that only 110 OPs (86 investing more than 15 millions of Euros culture

and tourism) provide additional programme specific indicators related to culture and

tourism and that these indicators refer to: Additional and/or modernized tourist beds,

facilities; Number of visitors; Increase in number of nights; and Improved sites or

monuments.

The survey on MAs (task 2b) and the case studies will provide additional information

of the Programme results.

Task 2b - Survey of selected programmes

Aims

As required by the Terms of Reference, the survey will complement the assessment

performed under Task 2a. In particular, it will collect fine-grained information and data

on ERDF strategic expenditures as well as on outputs and results achieved in the field

of culture and tourism. Both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected in order

to investigate the rationales of ERDF investments for culture and tourism as well as to

understand the logic of intervention. The aim is to provide an overview of the

strategies underpinning these investments, a classification of the most common

typologies of activities implemented and of beneficiaries targeted. The survey will

serve as a tool to investigate the ERDF resources directly and indirectly addressed to

these two sectors as well as to assess whether synergies and complementarities exist

between ERDF interventions and other ESI funds (e.g. EAFRD, Cohesion Fund, ESF,

etc.).

The survey will target Operational Programmes investing more than EUR 15 million of

ERDF17 in support of culture and tourism activities. In order to select the Operational

Programmes for the survey, the amount of Structural Funds allocated to the

categories of expenditures in culture and tourism (55-60 plus hotels and restaurants)

was taken into account. On this basis, 158 OPs will be addressed, representing about

96% of total allocation of funds to culture and tourism. As shown below, more than

half of the number of OPs and total financial allocation are concentrated in a small

number.

17 As required by ToR, pag 14.



November 2014 44

Figure 3.3. Number of targeted OPs by countries

Source: calculation on DG Regio – ERDF AIR rawdata (Project selection), 2007-2013

Figure 3.4. Financial allocation of targeted OPs by countries

Source: calculation on DG Regio – ERDF AIR raw data (Project selection), 2007-2013

Table 3.11 shows the evaluation questions and the corresponding activities and parts

of the questionnaire which address them.

Table 3.11. Task 2b – Matching ToRs’ evaluation questions and questionnaire

Evaluation questions Questionnaire

What is the nature of the activities and main beneficiaries of the financial support (e.g. services vs. infrastructure, public vs. private, etc.,)?

Questions C.1, C.2, E.1

On which socio-economic objectives do the interventions focus on and what is the logic underpinning these

interventions? To what extent do interventions address

identified market failures?

Questions B.1, B.2, B.3, B.4, B.5,

B.6, B.7

Are clear changes (specific objectives) being targeted and quantified and how are they being monitored?

Questions B.8, B.9, B.10, D.1, D.2

What is the nature of the financial support (grants vs. financial engineering instruments)?

Question C.1

In the case of business support to private companies (e.g. hotels and restaurants) are the support measures targeted exclusively to tourism enterprises or do these enterprises compete on the same criteria applied to

enterprises in other sectors?

Question C.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35C

B PL IT DE

FR ES PT

HU CZ

GR

UK SK EE BE

NL FI SE RO SI LT BG

MT

LV DK

AT

CY IE

Nu

mb

er

of

OP

s

79 Ops (50% of

targetedOps)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

PL

GR IT PT

HU CB CZ ES DE

RO FR SK SI LT UK

BG EE MT

BE

NL FI SE LV DK

AT

CY IE

Mill

ion

s o

f EU

RO

6,8 Billions(53% of

targetedOps)



November 2014 45

What are the most commonly used measures of achievements (core indicators as well as programme

specific indicators - e.g. capacity of hotels, number of visitors and occupancy rate of facilities)?

Question D.1

What is the nature of the selection processes? Do selection processes, selection criteria and the choice of indicators address the assessment of the financial sustainability of projects?

Questions E.2 and E.3

Methodology

The Questionnaire

The draft version of the questionnaire included in the Technical Offer has been revised

according to the comments provided during the kick-off meeting and those received

on a previous versions of the Inception Report. In particular, more emphasis has been

placed onto the collection of quantitative data on the achievements indicators of the

OPs. Also, some multiple choice questions were changed into open-ended questions,

especially those related to the description of the strategies. The questionnaire is still

an early draft, expected to be improved and finalised on the basis of the literature

review (Task 1) and the analysis of ERDF expenditures and reported achievements

from MAs on core and specific indicators (WP0 considered in Task 2a). A final

questionnaire will be tested with a small number of MAs. The revised draft version of

the questionnaire is provided in Annex III.

The questionnaire is deliberately ambitious. Great efforts will be made - e.g. through

telephone recalls and e-mail reminders - to increase response rates. We will also

consider whether to make a selection of questions mandatory in order to allow more

reluctant respondents to concentrate on at least a minimum set of high priority data.

Running the Survey

The questionnaire will be available in different languages18. It will be administered with

an online tool and will be supported by follow-up calls carried out by country experts

in different languages. The survey will be undertaken through:

Step 1 – Preparatory activities

Preparatory activities for the launch of the survey, including:

collecting contacts of all the targeted Managing Authorities. The list of contacts

will be provided by the Commission services.

testing the questionnaire with a small number of MAs and fine-tuning if needed.

translating the questionnaires into relevant languages.

drafting an invitation and reminder letters, as well as a script for the follow-up

call.

18 Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian,

Latvian, Lithuanian, Spanish, Polish, Portuguese.



November 2014 46

Step 2 – Launch of the survey to MAs

Once the contact list of the MAs has been gathered, and the questionnaire tested and

adjusted, the full-scale survey distribution takes place. Invitations to the survey will be

sent out via e-mail through an electronic system. The system provides a link to the

online questionnaire, which can be accessed through a standard Internet browser. By

clicking the link and selecting the preferred language, the MAs are able to respond to

the questionnaire.

A letter of presentation of the study will be attached to the invitations. It will focus on

the objectives of the exercise, including the advantages that feedback of the overall

evaluation exercise may have on their activities. The letter will make explicit that the

information provided will be used only in aggregate form, which should remove a

possible hesitation MAs may have about making their data available.

As the questionnaire is ambitious and is likely to require the collaboration of different

persons within the Managing Authorities to answer, a printable version will also be

attached to the invitation letter in order to provide the respondents with a preview of

the information required. . After the questionnaire has been filled in and submitted by

the respondent, it is transferred to a central database for storage and later processing

and analysis.

The survey will be open for about two months in order to achieve a balanced

distribution of respondents. During this period, a hotline will be available to answer

both technical and content-related questions. A reminder will be sent two weeks after

the launch of the survey to non-respondents.

Step 3 – Telephone recall

The IT solution5 used enables continuous monitoring of the survey and, in the specific

case, provides information on the number of respondents and their distribution by

country. The project team plans to spend significant resources on telephone follow-

ups, to achieve a balanced distribution of respondents, and so preserving the

geographical representativeness of the collected data.

In answering the questionnaire, MAs will be required to provide at least three contacts

of Implementation bodies. This will enable the project team to build a database of

contacts of Implementation bodies who will be contacted and required to answer

specific questions with the aim of having a more comprehensive picture of ERDF

effectiveness in supporting culture and tourism activities. The launch of an on-line

survey to Implementation Bodies – through a structured questionnaire - will be

considered on the basis of the response rates from MAs in providing useful contacts,

as well as of the time available for data collection.

Analysis of collected data

Collected data will be processed using standard statistical tools. The main statistics

describing variability of strategies, activities implemented across countries and OPs,

beneficiaries of interventions, results and outcomes achieved will be provided, e.g.,



November 2014 47

standard deviation, max/min, quantile statistics. An extensive cross tabulation

analysis will be performed to provide a picture of the main features of the strategies

and operations e.g. typologies of actions, support, type of beneficiaries and the

relationship and the interrelationship between these characteristics and the types of

strategies and regions targeted.

In addition to descriptive statistics, specific graphical devices will be used to

investigate the data, such as histograms, (cumulative) density plots and box plots.

Finally, a segmentation analysis will be performed to identify the groups of OPs that

share similar characteristics in terms of strategies and actions implemented.

Segmentation analysis will help to answer questions like: how different are strategies

in the relevant Member States?

Table 3.12. Timetable of the survey activities October/November 1st week 2nd week 3rd week 4th week 5th week 6th

week Preparatory activities

Launch of the survey to MAs

Telephone recall

Interviews with IBs

Analysis of survey’s results

The table below provides an initial indicative illustration of the ERDF interventions and

their expected outputs and intended results (changes) in the two sectors of interest.

Table 3.13. Culture and tourism: ERDF interventions, expected outputs and

intended results ERDF interventions Expected outputs Expected results (changes)

CULTURE

Refurbishment/recovery and protection of historical monuments, buildings or archeological sites

• No. and type of new, restored/refurbished facilities or sites

• No. of visitors

• Contribution to job creation/maintenance and to the attraction and retention of highly skilled workers

• Increased attendance/ participation

to cultural events • • Increase and diversification of

audiences / participants/tourists • More competitive, and more

sustainable businesses / organisations

• Greater territorial attractiveness • Development of creative industries

and innovation in products, services and processes

• Improved community identity • Crossovers / spillovers effects

contributing to innovation and growth, such as the value design adds to other sectors

• Leverage effects on investments • Improved social cohesion and

living conditions • Improved institutional and

administrative capacity

Construction/extension/recovery of cultural infrastructure (e.g. museum, libraries, archives, etc.) or of infrastructure providing cultural services (e.g. theatre, concert hall, opera house, auditorium, art galleries, planetarium, etc.)

• No. and type of new, restored/refurbished facilities or sites

• No. of visitors

Organisation of cultural events (e.g. painting, sculpture, photography, etc.) or performing arts (e.g. film production, book publishing, etc.)

• No. and type of events promoted

• No. of audiences or participants

Support to creative industries (sports, media and information technology, etc.)

• No. and sector of firms supported

• No. of adaptations or innovations

Promotion of sports and recreational activities and events

• no. of events and recreational activities promoted

• Increased numbers and diversification of tourism flows

• Lower seasonality of tourism inflows



November 2014 48

ERDF interventions Expected outputs Expected results (changes)

• Improved social cohesion and living conditions

Support to transport and ICT infrastructures

• no. and type of infrastructure supported

• Improved territorial accessibility • Increased numbers and

diversification of cultural tourism flows

• Lower seasonality of tourism

TOURISM

Investments to improve the safety and protection of natural assets

• no. and type of interventions and projects

• Reduction of adverse natural events

• Improvement in the quality of life for local population

• Increased tourism inflows • Contribution to job

maintenance/creation

Physical investments for the promotion and development of the tourism sector (e.g. information centres, etc.)

• No. and types of new/restored/refurbished infrastructures

• Leverage effect on investments • Greater quality /efficiency

/sustainability of the infrastructural endowment

• Increased arrivals/nights at tourists accommodation establishments

• Contribution to job maintenance/creation

• Improved supply of attractions and quality of life for inhabitants

Territorial marketing activities (e.g. promotional activities, networking, conferences and trade fairs)

• no. promotional activities, conferences and trade fairs

• Increased numbers and diversification of tourism inflows (arrivals/nights)

• Lower seasonality of tourism inflows

Support to private initiatives (e.g. hotel and restaurants)

• no. and type of support

• types of interventions supported (e.g. technological innovation, networking, environmental sustainability, etc.)

• no. and sector of firms supported

• contribution to Business maintenance/creation

• Improved quality of the hospitality sector

• Contribution to job maintenance/creation

• Improved quality /efficiency /sustainability of the sector

Transport and ICT Infrastructure • no. and type of

infrastructure supported

• Improved territorial accessibility • Increased numbers and

diversification of tourism flows • Lower seasonality of tourism

Source: Authors processing regulations and policy documents19

19 Part A – Code by Dimensions of the COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1828/2006 of 8 December 2006

setting out rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general

provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund

and of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European

Regional Development Fund; Commission of the European Communities (2007b), White Paper on Sport,

COM(2007) 391 final. European Commission (2006), the Economy of Culture in Europe, available for

download on http://ec.europa.eu/culture/keydocuments/doc873_en.htm European Commission (2010b),

Green Paper: Unlocking the potential of cultural and creative industries, COM(2010) 183. European

Commission (2011), Ex-post Evaluation of 2011 European Capitals of Culture, final report drafted by Ecorys

on behalf of DG EAC. European Commission (2012), Communication from the Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions:

Promoting cultural and creative sectors for growth and jobs in the EU, COM(2012) 537 final. European

Parliament (2012), Use of Structural Funds for cultural projects, DG for Internal Policies, Brussels. JASPERS

(2011), Best Practice in the Preparation of Projects in the Culture Sector, Staff Working papers.

http://ec.europa.eu/culture/keydocuments/doc873_en.htm



November 2014 49

Task 2c - Tabulation of findings and proposal for case selection

The aim of this sub-task is to cross-analyse the outcomes of Task 2a and 2b in order

to classify EU regions according to the different culture and tourism strategies

identified in the literature review (Task 1). As requested in the ToRs, this task will

provide a systematic mapping of EU regions and a summary table presenting for each

region/programme: the “initial financial allocation”; the “financial allocation at the

moment of the MAs survey”; the “expected final allocation”; the “outputs of

interventions”; and the “achieved/expected results”.

This multi-dimensional analysis will be at the basis of the selection of nine regional or

programme case studies and 18 “mini case studies" (two for each of the 9

regional/programme strategies proposed). From among the nine proposed programme

cases, six will be then identified with the associated pair of mini case studies in

agreement with the European Commission and will be subject to the in-depth analysis

described in task 3.

Table 3.14 shows the evaluation questions and the corresponding activities.

Table 3.14. Task 2c – Evaluation questions and activities Evaluation questions Activities and deliverables

Proposal of nine regional or

programme case studies and of 18

mini case studies

Classification of EU regions based on ERDF and context indicators Selection of nine regional or programme case studies and the corresponding 18 mini case studies (2 for

each regional/programme case) on the basis of the

findings of the previous Tasks context indicators on the relevance of the culture and tourism sectors in EU regions. Description of the proposed programmes’ strategies

Methodology

The selection of the 9 case studies (Programmes) and 18 mini case studies (Projects)

will be based on the following steps:

1. Classification of the EU regions according the culture and tourism strategy

undertaken and relevance of the sectors in the regional economy;

2. Identification of additional criteria to describe regional patterns and to select the 9

case studies;

3. Identification of 2 more and less successful mini case studies for each one of the 9

case studies.

Step 1 - Classification of the EU regions

The classification will provide a mapping of the surveyed regions on the basis of the

different regional/national strategies in culture and tourism individuated in the



November 2014 50

previous Tasks. While the Literature review (Tasks 1) will identify the different

strategy models of culture and tourism, data and analysis from Task 2a and 2b will

allow us to classify EU regions according to the strategy models identified, the ERDF

financial allocation, the output and results indicators and the relevance of the culture

and tourism sectors in the regional economy.

In particular we will consider the following data:

For the strategy dimension (D1)

o The presence in the OP of a specific axis on culture and/or tourism and the

average amount of financial allocation per project (questions B7 and C1 of the

survey). Also the presence of big projects will be taken into account.

o The typology of investment strategy in terms of objectives (questions B8 and

B9 of the survey) and the nature of activities implemented for the culture and

tourism sectors (Question C1 of the Survey);

o The distribution of ERDF allocations by each priority themes (resulting from

task 2a);

o The beneficiaries of the activities implemented (Question E1 of the survey).

For the ERDF financial dimension (D2) the 2013 ERDF allocations to the

sectors of interest (resulting from task 2a) in order to individuate regions with

high/medium/low ERDF relevance in these sectors (with respect to the EU

average). We propose to consider the incidence of ERDF allocations for culture and

tourism (plus hotels and restaurants) on the overall OP.

For the achievements dimension (D3): Core Indicators 34 and 35 as well as

other relevant indicators (see task 2a and question D1 of the survey), we propose

to classify the OPs according to the gaps between the achievement in 2013 with

respect to the target value. We will also consider the physical (Completed

projects/Total projects) and financial performance (from questions C1 of the

Survey);

For the relevance of the sectors in the regional economy (D4) we will

individuate similar EU regions in terms of the relevance of culture and tourism

sectors and their trends during the programming period on the basis of a cluster

analysis (see Box 3.1) performed on the culture and tourism indicators usually

adopted in the literature and available at the regional level. Compared to a

descriptive analysis, which does not allow an easy handling of different variables

simultaneously, the cluster analysis allow us to “classify” multivariate entities in

few categories a priori not defined. Given the regional focus of the analysis, we

have to use harmonized comparative data available in the EUROSTAT Regio

database or in other European official sources of information (e.g. the European

Structural Business Survey and the LFS Microdata, see the following Box). The

selection of the proposed case studies will take into account the coverage of the

different regional clusters resulting from the analysis.

The output of this first step will be a qualitative table mapping the surveyed

programmes/regions according to the type of strategy undertaken; the initial, current

and expected final ERDF allocation; ERDF outputs and achieved/expected results;



November 2014 51

relevance of the culture and tourism sector in the regional economy.

Box 3.1 - Relevance of the culture and tourism sector in the regional economy: a cluster analysis

A cluster analysis will be carried out in order to classify EU regions according to comparable context indicators and to individuate similar EU regions in terms of the relevance of culture and tourism in the regional economy and their trends during the programming period. On the basis of the above mentioned indicators, regions will be clustered according to an agglomerative hierarchical technique which undertakes a succession of mergers of n units, starting from the baseline situation in which each unit is a group in its own right up to the stage n-1 which forms a group that includes them all. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering methods begin with each

observation considered as a separate group (n group each of size 1). The closest of two groups are then combined (n-1 groups, one of size 2 and the rest of size 1), and this process continues until all observation belong to the same group. To cluster the individual units, we will use the method of Ward in which the pair entity to be aggregated to a certain step of the analysis is the one that minimizes the deviance between the centroid of the groups. Ward’s method joins the

two clusters that result in the minimum increase in the error sum of squares. The Euclidean distance between an entity k and a new group (i, j) is the square root of

where nk is the number of units that make up the group k and n(ij)= ni+nj. The territorial unit of analysis is the NUTS II level (except for Germany and UK where the NUTS I level is considered), and we will consider changes between average 2005-2007 and average 2012-2013 (when available). On the basis of a first recognition of available data, we propose to consider the following context

indicators: List of illustrative “context” indicators

INDICATOR NATIONAL/ REGIONAL FIELD PERIOD

SOURCE

Business Local Unit in culture and tourism (Number and Incidence on

the total)

Regional culture

and tourism

2008-2012 Eurostat: Structural Business Survey

(sbs_r_nuts06_r2)*

Number of persons employed

(Number and Incidence on the

total)

Regional culture

and tourism

2008-2012 Eurostat: Structural Business Survey

(sbs_r_nuts06_r2)*

Growth rate of employment (%)

Regional culture

and tourism

2008-2012

Eurostat: Structural Business Survey (sbs_r_nuts06_r2)*

Employment in the

accommodation sector

Regional Culture

and Tourism

2005-2012

LFS Microdata**

Number of establishments, bedrooms and

bed-places

Regional Tourism

2005-2013 Eurostat: Regional Tourism Statistics

(tour_cap_nuts2)*

Nights spent at tourist

accomodation establishments

Regional Tourism

2005-2013

Eurostat: Regional Tourism Statistics (tour_occ_nin2)

Arrivals at tourist accommodation establishments

Regional Tourism 2005-2013

Eurostat: Regional Tourism Statistics (tour_occ_arn2))

*We will consider the following codes: G476 - Retail sale of cultural and recreation goods, I- Accommodation and food service activities, N79 - Travel agency, tour operator reservation service and related activities.

)(2

)

)(

(ijk

ijk

ijkd

nn

nn

= ijkjkkjikki

kji

dndnndnnnnn

2221



November 2014 52

** unpublished Eurostat LFS microdata on employment in culture and tourism sectors. We will consider the following NACE Rev. 2 codes: 55 – Accommodation; 56 – Food and beverage activities; 90 – Creative, arts and entertainment activities; 91 – Libraries, archives, museum and other cultural activities; 93 Sports activities and amusement and recreation activities; 96.04 – Physical well-being activities (where available). A specific request to obtain these microdata will be sent through the DG Regio Evaluation Unit. It should be pointed out that this data will be considered according the Eurostat reliability (limits a and b).

Step 2 - Identification of additional qualitative criteria and selection of nine case

studies

The nine programmes/regions will be selected among those grouped according to the

metholdology presented in step 1 and the following complementary and integrative

criteria:

Programme coverage: One Cross Border Programme and a combination of

“Convergence” and “Competitiveness and Employment” regions according to

the weight of the financial allocations in the two groups of regions;

Geographical distribution: north, south, central and eastern Europe and

distribution between old/new member states;

Urban vs rural regions and topographical characteristics: Mountains, Coastal,

Other;

The selected nine cases will have to cover at least the two main types of

culture and of tourism industries.

The 9 case studies will thus be selected to represent different culture and tourism

strategies and the above-mentioned additional criteria.

Step 3 - Identification of the Mini Case-Studies

As foreseen by the tender, besides case studies (representative of different typologies

of investment strategies), the evaluation will include also two mini case studies

(representative of different typologies and performance of projects) for each

programme/region case study.

The 18 examples of Mini Case studies will cover both successful and less successful

practices.

Successful practices refer to innovative projects that achieved:

good financial and physical performance;

sustainable results that contributed to the tourism and/or culture sectors and

so to the region’s socio-economic development (for further details on potential

results in the two sectors see task 1);

improvements in the capacity to capitalize the results produced (i.e. exploit

infrastructure created).

Other success criteria include: adoption of an integrated strategy; pluralism and

stakeholders participation; grounding; and transferability20.

20 European Commission, DG REGIO, (2008) Analysing ERDF co-financed innovative projects. Case study

manual.



November 2014 53

Less successful practices are those characterised by financial/physical/partnership

criticalities that blocked the development of the project or where a major challenge

was overcome in the implementation. We are interested especially in this latter type of

projects as they allow us to derive lessons on potential barriers and how to overcome

them.

In selecting both successful and less successful projects, we will look at projects that

are either relevant to the strategy objectives or from a financial perspective. Selected

projects will be representative of the different types of strategies identified during the

literature review.

The selection of mini case studies will be based on information deriving both from the

literature review (task 1) and the indications from survey to the MAs (questions F1

and F2).

Outputs

The results of task 2 will be presented in Part II of the intermediate report. This will be

structured in four parts:

1) A descriptive picture of EU regions/programmes according to the culture and

tourism indicators in terms of financial allocation and achievements of ERDF

interventions; in addition to descriptive statistics, specific graphical and mapping

devices will be used to present the data at EU regional level (dispersion and plot

graphs and maps).

2) The evidence resulting from the survey on the MAs of programmes investing

more than EUR 15 million in culture and tourism. An extensive cross tabulation

analysis will be performed to provide a picture of the main features of the

strategies and operations (e.g. typologies of actions, support, type of

beneficiaries and the interrelation between these characteristics and the types of

strategies and regions targeted) and of the main outputs and results of the ERDF

supported interventions.

3) The results of the classification of EU regions according to the strategy models

resulting from Task 1 by combining the findings from task 2a with the evidence

from the MAs survey.

4) The selection of the 9 case studies. For each one of the proposed 9 case studies

and of the 18 mini case studies the report will present a brief description and the

motivation of the choice. Moreover a synthetic table resuming the nine case

studies in terms of strategy undertaken (for example the presence of a specific

axis in Culture and/or Tourism , if they are part of any urban development

strategies or fall outside of urban strategies), relevance of culture and tourism,

motivation of choice and Mini Case Studies will be elaborated.

Table 3.15 presents the main challenges and the possible solution in carry out the

activities of Task 2.



November 2014 54

Table 3.15. Task 2 - Main challenges and possible solutions

Risks expected Solutions

Task 2a Difficulties in identifying and assessing specific programme indicators.

Integration with qualitative information on outputs/results achieved from the Web Survey (Task 2b) and stakeholders‘ interviews (Task 3).

Task 2b Low response rate from MAs to the questionnaire MAs reluctant to answer all the questionnaire since it looks too time-consuming. After three weeks from the launch of the survey, the response rate is still far from target. The questionnaire may require the collaboration of different persons within the Managing Authorities to provide all the answers. MAs are reluctant to provide contacts on Implementation bodies.

A reminder to non-responders will be sent after two weeks from the launch of the survey (or every week if needed). Only a selection of questions will be made mandatory in order to allow more reluctant respondents to concentrate on at least a minimum set of high priority data. Resource allocated to telephone follow-ups to ensure that a sufficient number of MAs respond. It will be made possible within the system that different people access the on-line questionnaires in different moments and that partial responses are saved and stored until the overall questionnaire is responded. Resource allocated to telephone follow-ups to ensure that a sufficient number of contacts of the Implementation bodies are provided.

Task 2c Difficulties in classifying EU regional strategies Missing data for the context indicators Shortage of comparable regional indicators on culture Difficulties in clustering EU regions

Triangulation of information from Task 1 and 2b and indications from Thematic Experts and Scientific Advisors We will consider the possibility to use proxies (e.g. national values or available values for comparable regions) Use of indications from task 1 We will consider different clustering specifications (different variables, different unit of measure and definitions)

3.2.3 Task 3 - Case Studies and Mini Case Studies “What Happens on the Ground?”

Task 3a - Regional/Programme Case studies

Aims

The case studies aim to gain a better understanding of the ERDF contribution to the

overall objectives of cohesion policy in the sectors of culture and tourism.

Following the selection of the case studies (Task 2), we will carry out 6 in-depth ERDF

programme/regional case studies, thereafter called case studies. The analysis of the

case studies will address different types of ERDF strategies implemented in the sectors

of culture and tourism. Each case study will be accompanied by two mini case studies,

pursuing one more and one less successful project implemented within the regional



November 2014 55

programme.

Case studies will explore whether and how the expected results of the ERDF strategy

are achieved and what factors contributed to the achievement of results. Case studies

will also provide information on how the different ERDF strategies deliver growth and

jobs in the sectors of culture and tourism. By doing so, case studies will test the

hypotheses of change resulting from task 1 , which will be further refined in the

literature review.

In detail, the case study analysis will consider the following issues:

the context of the intervention with specific regards to the sectors of culture and

tourism and their specific barriers to growth;

the rationale of the public/ERDF intervention in the sectors of culture and tourism,

with a particular focus on the take-up of market failure and analysis of future

demand, typologies of interventions selected, policy mix and expected changes;

the features of the ERDF strategy that has been implemented;

the implementation process of the ERDF strategy, with a particular focus on the

actors involved, and the main barriers to address;

the effectiveness and sustainability of the ERDF strategy;

the lessons for future policies in the two sectors, with a particular focus on the

drivers (social mechanisms) useful to explain specific outstanding results and/or

failures.

The table below provides a match of the evaluation questions to be addressed by this

task and the evaluation activities put in place.



November 2014 56

Table 3.16. Task 3 - Evaluation questions and activities

Evaluation questions How information is collected: case study activities

How information is synthesized in the case study template

What are the regional strategies underpinning public

support and how do they identify priority

investments in these specific sectors? How has

future demand been analysed?

Desk analysis

Regional briefing

Semi-structured

interviews

Rationale and intervention

logic

Programme supporting

features

Are the supported projects within the investigated

cases financially sustainable? How do selection

criteria and the choice of indicators contribute to

assure the financial sustainability of projects in the

selection process?

Desk analysis

Regional briefing

Semi-structured

interviews

Mini case studies

Programme supporting

features

Outputs achieved

Results achieved

What are the main changes (objectives) that

programmes are attempting to achieve and what

results have been achieved (or are likely to be

achieved) via the support to specific projects?

Desk analysis

Regional briefing

Semi-structured

interviews

Rationale and intervention

logic

Outputs achieved

Results achieved

To what extent do the projects supported represent

a cost-effective means to foster economic growth for

the Member State or region? Could such a support

be better targeted to this end?

Desk analysis

Regional briefing

Semi-structured

interviews

Mini case studies

Outputs achieved

Results achieved

5. Conclusions and

lessons learned

Comparative analysis and

lessons

What are the main drivers of success and failure

associated with these strategies and projects?

Desk analysis

Regional briefing

Semi-structured

interviews

Mini case studies

Conclusions and lessons

learned

Comparative analysis and

lessons

Methodology

Case studies will be conducted by country experts on the basis of a common

methodological framework that will be provided by the core team.

A. Contents of the case study

The box below presents the case study draft template. The template will be further

refined during the project based on the findings of the literature review and web-

based survey.

Box 3.2 - Proposed regional case study template

Executive summary

1) The regional context

2.1. Overall picture of the socio-economic conditions and trends in the region 2.2 Overall picture of the culture and tourism conditions and trends in the region

2) The regional ERDF 2007-2013 strategy in the culture and tourism sectors

3.1 Chronology

3.2 The rationale and the intervention logic 3.3. The programme supportive features



November 2014 57

3.4. The implementation process: phases and actors

3) Effectiveness and sustainability of the strategy: outputs and results

5.1 Outputs achieved (qualitative and quantitative evidence) 5.2 Results achieved (qualitative and quantitative evidence)

4) Conclusions and lessons learnt

The following sections detail the methodology proposed for each section of the case

study.

1. The regional context

This chapter aims to set the context of the ERDF regional programme strategy at the

beginning, during and at the end of the 2007-2013 programming period. It will

provide information on the:

socio-economic conditions of the analysed region;

main features of the culture and tourism sectors in the region.

Socio-economic conditions and trends in the region

The section aims to provide information on the regional socio–economic structure and

its position in the national and EU context, underlining the main challenges for

regional socio-economic development faced by the Region.

The analysis of the features and changes in the socio-economic situation of the region

over the 2007-2013 period will include information on the following indicators.

Table 3.17. Relevant socio-economic indicators of the Region in the 2007-13

period

Regional National EU

2007 2013 ∆% 2007 2013 ∆% 2007 2013 ∆%

Total Population

Population over 65

Population Education level

Net migration

GDP per capita

Working age population

Employment rate

Unemployment rate

Where available, data should be presented by gender and additional information that

supports the analysis will be included.

Information sources: Eurostat database, regional and national official statistic

databases. The core team will provide country experts with preliminary information on

these indicators. Statistics will be integrated with information on the main changes

and challenges related to the socio-economic and territorial development in the region

as identified from the regional briefing with stakeholders and the semi-structured

interviews.



November 2014 58

Main features of the culture and tourism sectors in the region

The section provides information on the main characteristics of the culture and

tourism sectors in the region over the 2007-2013 programming period and their

influence on the regional/national economy during this period. It includes quantitative

and qualitative information on the characteristics of the two sectors, with particular

regard to:

General data on the culture and tourism sectors, and

The policy framework governing the two sectors.

General data on the culture and tourism sectors

The section has the goal of describing the relevance of the culture and tourism sectors

for the regional economy, the main trends and challenges of the two sectors in the

period under consideration.

The analysis will provide general data and descriptions on the evolution of the two

sectors before, during and after the 2007-2013 period. Particular attention will be paid

to the impact of the economic crisis on the culture and tourism sectors.

Furthermore, if data is available, the analysis of the evolution of the two sectors will

go back before 2007.

The table below provides an indication of the minimum information to be analysed in

this paragraph.

Table 3.18. – A general overview of the culture and tourism sectors

Regional National EU

2007 2013 ∆% 2007 2013 ∆% 2007 2013 ∆%

Arrivals at tourist accommodation establishments

Nights spent at tourist accommodation establishments

Number of establishments, bedrooms and bed-places

Incidence of international tourism receipts on GDP (%)

Business Local Units in culture and tourism (number and incidence on the total)

Number of workers employed in the sectors of culture and tourism (number and incidence on the total)

Share of the region covered by a policy or plan that protects cultural heritage

Share of the region’s biggest events that are focused on traditional/local culture and assets



November 2014 59

Additional information21 that supports this analysis will be included, if available.

In commenting on data, the main challenges in the region in terms of development of

the culture and tourism sectors have to be underlined.

Information sources: Eurostat database, regional and national official statistic

databases. The core team will provide country experts with preliminary information on

these indicators. Statistics will be included, alongside information from regional

briefing with stakeholders and semi-structured interviews.

The policy framework governing the two sectors

This subsection aims to place the ERDF 2007-13 regional case within the general

policy framework at national and regional level.

The analysis will describe the main national/regional policies implemented in the two

sectors, their goals and their organization, with particular reference to the main public

and private actors involved in the programming and delivering of culture and tourism

policies.

Particular attention will be devoted to the stability and continuity (or the main

changes) of the policy framework with respect to the previous programming period

(2000-2006).

The analysis will summarize the resources allocated globally to the culture and tourism

policy during the 2007-2013 programming period and the incidence of ERDF funds on

the total allocations in this period.

Information sources: the information will be collected mainly through desk analysis. It

may be integrated with information from the briefing to regional stakeholders and

semi-structured interviews.

2. The regional 2007-2013 ERDF strategy in the culture and tourism sectors

This chapter provides information on the analysed strategy and, in particular, on:

main events (chronology); the rationale of the ERDF intervention in the sectors of

culture and tourism; the main features of the strategy; the governance and supportive

features; the implementation process and actors involved.

21 If available for the analysed regions, some other indicators to be considered might be: nights spent at

tourist accommodation establishments by degree of urbanisation; Nights spent at tourist accommodation

establishments by coastal and non-coastal area; net occupancy rate of bed-places and bedrooms in hotels

and similar accommodation; number of establishments, bedrooms and bed-places by degree of

urbanisation; number of establishments, bedrooms and bed-places by coastal and non-coastal area.



November 2014 60

Chronology

This section provides a brief chronology of the main events/phases in the

programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the analysed strategy

(e.g. starting date of the programming; starting date of the implementation; etc).

The rationale and the intervention logic

The goal is to reconstruct the rationale behind the analyzed ERDF programme

strategy, providing insights into:

The justification of the public intervention, and in particular the ERDF

intervention in the sectors of culture and tourism. Particular attention will be

paid to the consideration of specific market failures22 in the sectors of culture

and tourism that underpinned the development of the strategy.

The main changes (objectives) pursued by the strategy and the expected

results. Particular attention will be paid to the targets identified;

The elements of the strategy (types of interventions/operations) intended to

contribute to the expected changes in these two sectors, and in particular, the

types of interventions and the main involved beneficiaries.

The reconstruction of the underlining theory of change of the strategy will serve as a

reference for the assessment of its contribution to the expected results, and for the

identification of unintended/unexpected results.

The reconstruction of the ERDF regional strategy will be based on the web survey

(task 2b), refined by country experts (phase B Collecting preliminary information)

according to a shared template, and discussed during the regional briefing with

stakeholders in order to be refined/completed.

A check list will be provided by the core team to allow comparisons among the two

sectors and the six cases under analysis. The checklist will be refined after the

completion of the literature review and will consider the following dimensions:

Types of intervention: which are the main types of operations foreseen by the

strategy (with reference to the operations defined in Task 1);

Type of beneficiaries: which are the main beneficiaries of the strategy: i.e.

economic actors, local public institutions, universities/research centres, social

actors, etc;

Synergies with other wider strategies: whether the analyzed ERDF strategy for

culture and tourism is part of wider urban or rural development strategies

and/or other relevant regional/national frameworks;

22 Some examples of market failures in the two sectors might be : lack of private operators in the sectors ;

constraints in accessing capital markets; lack of profitability; lack of accessibility infrastructures; lack of

cultural/leisure infrastructures; small dimensions/fragmentation of the market; lack of entrepreneurial

capacities; etc



November 2014 61

Continuity: whether it draws on previous ERDF strategies in these fields;

Centralization/decentralization: the use of subdelegation by the Mas;

Holistic integration: whether it addresses culture and tourism in an integrated

and holistic way (namely including interventions in different tourism and

cultural fields,23 and/or addressing interventions regarding both internal and

external tourism);

Sectoral and financial integration: whether it is sector or policy integrated24;

whether it integrates infrastructural interventions with immaterial ones

(training, awareness raising, etc); whether it is integrated with other different

type of funds (EU/national/regional funds);

Financial sustainability: if and how it considers/addresses financial

sustainability, and market risks of the interventions implemented;

Expected changes.

Information sources: the information will be collected through desk analysis, regional

briefing with relevant stakeholders and semi-structured interviews

The programme supportive features

The analysis aims to assess to what extent the ERDF strategy has been supported by

appropriate supportive features25 to favour the achievement of results.

The analysis will take into consideration the available documentation (AIRs,

evaluations) and the opinions/judgments of MAs and other stakeholders.

Particular attention will be paid to triangulate the sources of information, to

appropriately balance personal opinions.

Mini case studies will provide for more details and specifications on these elements.

A checklist will be prepared by the core team in order to facilitate the gathering of

information and final comparisons among the two sectors and the six cases under

analysis (cross analysis).

The supportive features under analysis will be the following:

Use of information and tools in order to analyse and monitor future demand;

23 Such as: costal tourism, mountain tourism, cultural tourism, creative tourism, educational tourism,

gastronomic tourism, religious tourism, arts tourism, heritage tourism, wellness and spa tourism, sports

tourism; social tourism; etc.

24 Namely, it includes interventions in different policy fields, such as: tourism/culture and ICT,

tourism/culture and environment; tourism/culture and energy, tourism/culture and transport,

tourism/culture and innovation, etc

25 “Implementing features” are those that directly implement basic mechanisms. For example, actors’

enhanced propensity to renovate tourism accommodations could be fostered by a substantial grant.

Supportive features are those elements (programme processes, inputs, resources…) used to bring the

implementing features into being. They have a less directly instrumental role in fostering change, but they

support the general working of the programme. The difference between implementing features and

supportive features has been underlined by Bardach, 2004, Presidential Address. The Extrapolation

Problem: How Can We Learn from the Experience of Others?



November 2014 62

Presence and adequacy of selection criteria in order to select financial

sustainable projects;

Presence and quality of the monitoring and evaluation systems and the use of

performance indicators (to assure the financial sustainability of projects in the

selection process);

Use of public-private partnerships for the delivery of the financed interventions;

Typologies of contracts agreed for the delivery of the interventions (grants;

tenders; conventions; etc) and how they intended to favour the implementation

process26;

Use and effectiveness of tools for the involvement of the stakeholders and the

management of partnerships.

Information sources: the information will be collected through desk analysis, regional

briefing and semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders, including

implementing bodies, business association representatives, civil society organisations

and representatives of beneficiaries, etc..

The implementation process: phases and actors

The aim of this section is to provide an overview of main phases of the programme

and the policy network involved.

This section provides information on:

the main phases the programme (length of the programming/implementing

phases; problems encountered during each phases),

the main actors involved and, in particular: their type

(bureaucrats/administrators, politicians, economic actors, social actors,

experts) and their level of action (international/EU, national, regional and

local).

Information sources: The information will be collected through desk analysis, regional


3. Effectiveness and sustainability of the strategy: outputs and results

This chapter aims to assess the effectiveness of the ERDF strategy. It considers the

outputs of the strategy and its direct and indirect results on the two sectors and on

regional development.

Priority is placed on the collection of objective quantitative and qualitative

evidence. Quantitative data, in particular outputs and some results indicators, are in

principle available from the monitoring systems of the MA27. Evaluation reports could

26For example: existence of clauses referring to solutions of controversies, rules for decision-making,

sanctions/rewards for the respect of time schedules, process monitoring, setting of performance indicators

to be achieved, use of ex ante, mid-term and ex post evaluation

27 A qualitative assessment of the way this principle is reflected into reality will be also provided.



November 2014 63

also contain additional information on results. Furthermore, quantitative data on

outputs and results indicators will also be found in the Cohesion Policy database

collecting all indicators presented in the final annual reports of the ERDF programmes.

Other more qualitative information will be collected from the interviewed MA and

relevant stakeholders. In order to limit the subjectivity of such information, particular

attention will be paid to the triangulation of sources and their integration with other

more “objective” evidence such as quantitative data.

Output achieved

The output analysis takes into consideration the financial (expenditure) and physical

performance of the strategy.

The financial performance considers the overall degree of absorption of the

strategy (resources programmed, allocated and spent) and of the different

types of interventions promoted within the strategy.

The physical performance includes an analysis of the strategy’s capacity to

achieve the programmed physical targets. Moreover, it will also include details

on the most relevant projects financed within the different types of

interventions and their financial and physical achievements.

The sustainability analysis focuses on whether 1) the projects financed are

likely to continue to operate in the absence of ongoing ERDF or other public

financial support and 2) to what degree sustainability has been promoted using

appropriate selection criteria. The assessment will verify whether the main

financed projects include, for instance, an analysis of changes in demand and

appropriate governance structures, which will assure the continuity of the

results achieved; whether other funds are needed/available for the sustaining

the interventions after the end of the ERDF co-financing; whether there is an

improvement in the capacity of the actors involved to exploit and manage the

infrastructures and facilities created. Specific information will be drawn from

the mini case study analysis.


briefing with relevant stakeholders and semi-structured interviews, mini case study

analysis.

Results achieved

The analysis of results aims to test the theory of change underlined in chapter 3.1.

Particular emphasis is put on the main effects of the strategy on the performance of

the two sectors, in terms of contribution to the regional economic and social

development.

Attention will be paid to expected results as well as to obtained results (even if not

expected). Where results are not fully deployed due to the reduced time span between

implementation and evaluation, intermediate results or expected results will be

considered as well.




November 2014 64


4. Conclusions and lessons learnt

This chapter aims to provide conclusions and specific lessons for future policy in the

two sectors on the following issues:

Whether the regional strategy is based on and centered around a sound

analysis of future demand;

Whether and to what degree the intervention achieved the expected outputs

and results;

What are the main differences between actual (or likely to be achieved) results

and expected ones, and what explains the possible differences

(wrong/irrelevant strategy; implementation failures; etc.)

Whether the programme features include appropriate selection criteria and

indicators and the extent to which and how they contribute to fostering the

financial sustainability of projects;

which are the more relevant (positive or negative) effects achieved.

Furthermore, social mechanism theory will be used as an additional tool to better

understand what has or has not worked and why.

Conclusions and lessons of each case study will be horizontally assessed in a final

comparative analysis (see below).

Information sources: The section will draw on the analysis carried out in the previous

sections.

B. Activities and steps to carry out the case study

The development of the case studies will follow seven steps, as illustrated below.



November 2014 65

Figure 3.5. – Steps in the development of the case studies

Each of these steps is described in detail in the following paragraphs.

A. Drafting templates and guidelines

Prior to the case study analysis, the core team will draft a case study template and

guidelines for the semi-structured interviews that will guide country experts in data

collection and analysis.

The drafting of the case study template and interview guidelines will draw on the

findings of the literature review (Task 1) and of the survey to MAs and implementation

bodies (Task 2b).

Case studies will be a maximum of 25 pages. Table, graphs and maps will be included

as required to clearly communicate the main points.

B. Pilot case study

The pilot case study will be developed by the core team using the template drafted

under phase A. The aim is to test the case study template and research tools,

adjust/refine them if necessary, and to provide country experts with an example of

how to conduct and draft the case study.

On the base of a preliminary analysis of the main OPs indicated in the tender and

dedicating significant financial allocations to culture and tourism, we propose the

Puglia ROP for the pilot case study (see Annex 4 for the rationale for this choice).

C. Online briefing with the experts involved in the drafting of the case study

Because of the complexity of the subject and the need for a coherent approach, we

will run an online briefing for all country experts involved in conducting the case

A

Drafting templates

and guidelines

B

1 Pilot case study

C

Online briefing

with country experts

D

Collecting preliminary information:

Web survey

Desk research

Contact with MA

E

Gathering data and

information:

Desk research,Regional briefing,

Interviews to stakeholders

F

Drafting 6 case studes

and two mini case

studies

G

Conclusions and lessons

xxCaCase studies 6 Case studies



November 2014 66

studies.

The briefing is crucial in ensuring experts have a good understanding of the case study

approach and methodology, for achieving a common view on how case studies can

make the most effective contribution to the overall evaluation. Templates and

interview guidelines will be presented and discussed, as well as the timeframe and

deliverables. The briefing will be a morning or afternoon online workshop.

Before attending the briefing, experts will be asked to carefully read the reports on

Task 1 and 2 and the Pilot case study produced by the core team.

D. Collecting preliminary information from secondary data

Different documents on the regional ERDF strategy will be reviewed through desk

analysis in order to collect information on the issues identified in the case study

template.

The desk analysis phase starts with collecting and reading through relevant documents

(programme/s documents and reports, annual implementation reports or other

available monitoring reports, ex ante/mid-term/ex post evaluations, regional/national

studies, official programme websites, regional managing authority websites, press

review, etc).

The desk analysis phase also includes an analysis of quantitative data (deriving mainly

from the monitoring system put in place by the MA and from the evaluation reports

produced), with reference to the analysis of the effectiveness of the ERDF strategy,

and which will be completed using information from the semi-structured interviews.

Prior to the desk analysis, country experts will be asked to contact the MA, introduce

themselves (if the previous contact is done by the core team), and explain the project

and aims of the case study. They will first make an approach by email, ahead of an

introductory phone call.

The first conversation is crucial as it facilitates a more in-depth introduction to the

study. It should be also used to ask for official and unofficial documents on the

programme and for the monitoring data (monitoring reports or access to the

database). Furthermore, it is useful for moving forward with the planning of the

fieldwork activity, and, in particular, of the regional briefing with relevant stakeholders

of the ERDF strategy.

All the materials collected by the country experts in this phase will be organized along

the structure of the case study template.

Country experts should also make a list of the actors involved in the case to be

analysed as described in the official and unofficial documents. The list will be useful

during fieldwork when identifying actors to be interviewed.



November 2014 67

E. Fieldwork: Collecting primary data

The fieldwork consists of a regional briefing with relevant stakeholders of the analysed

ERDF strategy, and of semi-structured face-to-face interviews.

Regional briefing with the main stakeholders of the ERDF strategy

The regional briefing will introduce the project and the case study to the programme

authorities (representatives of the MA), and to relevant stakeholders. The regional

briefing aims to integrate the secondary data obtained from the desk analysis with

other quantitative and qualitative information on the issues indicated in the case study

template. Moreover, during the regional briefing country experts are urged to plan the

fieldwork.

Stakeholders to be involved in the regional briefing will be identified based on the list

of actors involved in the strategy, as identified during the desk analysis and the

contacts indicated by the MA. Up to 10 stakeholders will be invited to take part in the

briefing.

Semi-structured interviews

In order to collect information on the issues mentioned in the case study template,

country experts will carry out face to face semi-structured interviews with policy

makers (MA of the ERDF regional/programme strategy, regional and other

administrations’ staff in charge of designing and implementing the regional strategy,

etc), relevant stakeholders (politicians, bureaucrats, economic actors, social actors,

academic and practitioners), relevant beneficiaries, and independent evaluators.

Based on the actors involved in the analyzed case, the number of interviews should

vary between a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 15.

Interviews will be conducted face-to-face in order to allow him/her to freely express

his/her opinions. Country experts can also consider a group interview if it is not

feasible to meet stakeholders separately or if they think this would bring an added

value to better understand some of the process dynamics. In case of limited time for

the face-to-face interview, experts can also consider realizing some complementary

phone interviews afterwards. However, phone interviews should occur soon after the

face-to-face interview so that respondents are still familiar with the issues discussed.

A careful selection of interviewees will be carried out to ensure those chosen include

the key managers who have the ‘institutional knowledge’ of what happened in the past

and why. Actors to be interviewed will be selected through the snowball method28. As

the success of this technique depends greatly on the initial contacts and connections

28 Snowball sampling is a special nonprobability method used when the desired sample characteristic is rare.

Snowball sampling relies on referrals from initial subjects to generate additional subjects. As the success of

this technique depends greatly on the initial contacts and connections made, it is important to know the

case and the main actors involved.



November 2014 68

made, it is important to know the case and the main actors involved. Therefore, in this

phase, experts are urged to use the list of actors drafted in the previous phase and

the information deriving from the regional briefing with relevant stakeholders.

Interviews should start with the MA representatives, who know the strategy best. As

they might be selective in their choice of actors with “good stories” to tell, country

experts will ask each actor interviewed who are the other relevant actors involved in

the case who in his/her opinion should be interviewed. In doing so, experts are asked

to use their knowledge on the case, the list of actors involved resulting from the

previous phase and the indications deriving from the regional briefing with

stakeholders involved.

In conducting the face-to-face semi-structured interviews, country experts will follow

the case study template and indicative questions included in the interview guidelines.

However, country experts are urged to let the conversation follow smoothly based on

the answers given by the interviewee. Country experts have to pay attention to the

fact that all the issues specified in the template have to be covered during the

interview. Whether they feel that that the conversation diverges too far from the

issues relevant for the case study, they can return to the indicative questions included

in the case study template.

Country experts are asked to prepare a report of the interviews that have to be sent

to the core team together with the case study.

For each interview, country experts have to fill in the following fiche:

Name of interviewee

Position of interviewee

Name of the organisation

Type of organisation

Country and region

Address

Contact telephone

E-mail address

Date of interview

Time of interview

Interviewer

In conducting the face-to-face interviews, country experts have to:

give assurance of anonymity and confidentiality if this is requested by the

interviewees;

reassure interviewees that the interview data will be analyzed collectively, and

that names will be included in the research report only after consensus;

ask permission to record the interview (if using a recorder). However, it is

advisable not to use a recorder as this may inhibit responses, and this can

influence conversation negatively. It is better to directly type the answers,

using the structure of the case study template;



November 2014 69

ask the respondent if they would like to see a copy of the interview note when

it is written up;

remind the interviewee they can stop the interview at any time. If at any point

during the interview, interviewee would prefer to provide particular views ‘off

the record”, they should let the interviewer know;

ask permission to use quotes when presenting results (quotes could also be

attributed by broad designation);

conduct the interview in an informal way to encourage open expression;

avoid expressing personal opinions about the case during the interviews.

F. Analysing the collected data and filling in the case study template

In this phase, it is important to organize the material collected during the previous

phases and write up the case study report.

Country experts will have to note that the case study is not a mere collection of

information from official or unofficial documents and fieldwork, but an elaboration and

a critical analysis of the information collected in the previous research phases.

In writing up the case study, country experts will have to provide evidence of their

analysis referring to any relevant material, such as official/unofficial documents,

evaluations or interviews. Experts will be asked to avoid using jargon, including

technical terms without a proper explanation or acronyms without the full name.

The completed document with both descriptive and analytical elements becomes a first

working draft.

Once completed, the draft case study will be sent to the core team that will review it.

The review is aimed at:

commenting on gaps, incomplete information or missing references;

using information and evidence gathered for the critical analysis identifying

logical flaws or unclear passages in the case study report;

checking the writing style and presentation.

Following the review, country experts are asked to integrate comments received from

the core team within the deadline agreed with the core team.

Outputs

The main deliverables are:

Template and guidelines guiding country experts in charge of the case studies

drafting;

One pilot case study;

One regional briefing for each case study;

A case study report including all the six regional case studies.



November 2014 70

Task 3b - Mini case studies

Aims

As foreseen by the tender, besides case studies (at the programme level), the

evaluation will include also two mini case studies (projects) for each programme case

study. Mini case studies will be selected from the 18 proposed at the end of Task 2

and will include both successful and less successful projects representative of the

different typologies of projects supported by ERDF programmes. We will search for

practices that are singular, for whatever reasons, and can offer an exemplary record

of success and less success.

Methodology

As for programme case studies, mini case studies will be based on a common template

in order to gather and present homogenous information.

The following box illustrates an indicative mini case study structure. The proposed

template will be further revised during the study, based especially on the findings of

the literature review (Task 1) and the survey on MAs (Task 2b).

Project title

1. Synthesis includes brief information on:

o the project objectives; o key project activities and their beneficiaries; o main results achieved – with specific reference to any innovative aspect - and

impacts

2. Background information Includes information on:

o the country and region;

o programme type; o duration of project; o funding; o ERDF objective.

3. Project description Includes an analysis of:

o the overall objectives/objectives and purpose; o beneficiaries; o description of activities; o project main outputs and results.

4. Political and strategic context This section will “set the scene for the story of the project”. It places the project in a wider

context providing a synthetic description of the regional economy and governance system and

of the culture and tourism sectors in the implementation area. It provides information on the

role and importance of the project in the context of regional (or national) strategies and

policies. Furthermore, it retraces the story of the intervention from the most recent event

(usually results) until the programming and agenda setting phases. In addition the purpose of

this phase is to provide information on the actors involved in the policy process.

5. Implementation This section will complement the main analysis addressing the following issues:

the process of project design and planning; management, monitoring and evaluation system of the project;



November 2014 71

governance arrangements of the project; innovative elements and novel approaches to implementation; key implementation obstacles and problem-solving practices.

6. Key results

This section focuses on identifying, explaining and assessing the results of the described project.

Emphasis will be given to any results that may be considered innovative.

Findings will include any quotes which summarise key themes or findings in the evaluation and

which can be used to support the findings from the data.

This section will also include information on whether the intervention represents a cost-effective

way to foster economic growth of the implementation area.

7. Sustainability and transferability This section focuses on assessing the sustainability of the project in the absence of ERDF or

other public funding and providing information on other funding schemes that could sustain

results and impacts as well as on the other ways through which the results and effects could be

maintained.

For successful cases, this section will provide information on the capacity and contextual

conditions that are needed for target sites to ensure a similar successful implementation. In

particular, it will include a check list of the social mechanisms that have favoured the successful

implementation process and that could be activated in other contexts for ensuring a smooth

implementation of similar interventions.

8. Lessons learnt Drawing on previous information, this section will synthesize information on the main lessons

learnt from the project, particularly regarding the key factors behind either successful or less

successful projects.

9. Contact details

The following research methods will be applied for the analysis of the mini cases:

Desk research;

4-8 semi-structured and face to face interviews with the main actors involved

in the project;

focus-group with other stakeholders (if necessary to get a complete picture of

the case).

Outputs

Mini case study template;

Guidelines on how to draft mini case studies provided by the Core team to

regional experts;

Two pilot mini case studies;

12 mini case studies (6 successful projects and 6 less successful projects).

Task 3 c. Final comparative analysis and lessons

In this task the core team will analyse horizontally the case studies and mini case

studies reports in order to draw conclusions and lessons from the information

acquired.



November 2014 72

The cross-analysis will aim to identify similarities and differences among the strategic

approaches to culture and tourism sectors, and in particular:

Whether the regional strategies are based on and centered around a sound analysis

of future demand;

Which are the main reasons explaining the differences between actual (or likely to

be achieved) results and expected ones;

Whether the supported projects within the regional strategy analyzed are financially

sustainable;

Which selection criteria and indicators and how they contribute to assure the

financial sustainability of projects in the selection process;

Which are the more relevant (positive or negative) effects achieved, which

programme features and mechanisms fostered those results.

Moreover, the analysis will assess the programme features which favoured the

achievement of outstanding results (positive or negative), and the underlying

mechanisms which provided those results. Positive cases (including mini case studies

experiences) will provide knowledge on solutions and mechanisms which are likely to

lead to comparatively cost-effective results.

Outputs

The main deliverables is a Comparative analysis of 6 regional case studies and 12 mini

case studies

Quality and risk management for Task 3.

The table below includes an overview of the main risks related to this task.

Table 3.19. – Task 3- Main challenges and possible solutions

Risk Mitigation measures

Lack of data on programme results (high chance of occurring; high impact)

Data obtained from the monitoring reports and evaluations will be integrated with data from the regional briefing and semi-structured interviews. Moreover, the contractor will also consider the perceptions of relevant stakeholders on the expected results, in case the strategy is not yet completed. Triangulation of information and data sources and combination of qualitative views and evidence will mitigate the subjectivity of these perceptions.

Confidentiality of data (low chance of occurring; medium impact)

Country members engaged on the ground will clearly state that data collected will remain confidential

Availability of interviewees (chance of occurring medium; impact medium)

The proposal puts forward a reasonable budget dedicated to chasing interlocutors. Support from the EC will be requested in extreme cases

Less successful practices to be analysed within mini case studies (medium chance of occurring: high impact)

MA or other relevant stakeholders may not be willing to provide information on interventions judged as failures. Particular attention will be paid to the selection of mini case studies, selecting "promising" or "relevant" interventions that faced a specific problem (for example, the management of the partnership; a significant obstacle in the implementation process, etc). The aim is to adopt a learning perspective (and not a naming-and-shaming one) in the evaluation, in order to raise knowledge on the specific problem faced and its causes, the consequences for the process and the possible lessons learnt for the future and for other policy makers.

Consistency and horizontal analysis of

Strong coordination in the implementation of case studies is needed to make sure that the collated information from the case studies is aligned with the aims



November 2014 73

the information presented in case studies (medium/high chance of occurring; high impact)

of the study, and to ease the horizontal analysis. To this end, the core team will develop the case studies template, undertake a pilot case to test and fine tune it, and will draft interview guidelines. Furthermore, a briefing with the experts involved in the case studies will be organized before they begin research. The implementation of the case studies will be strictly monitored by the project leader and quality manager, to ensure a close alignment with the study overall methodological approach and Steering Group’s expectations.

3.2.4 Task 4 - Cross-Task Analysis and Presentation of the Final Report

Aims

This task draws together the results of the previous Tasks 1-3 in order to:

analyse and synthesise results;

draw conclusions on the basis of these results;

put forward recommendations;

contribute to the validation and dissemination of the results after approval

of the final report.

Methodology

The results of the different analyses will be discussed according to the analytical

framework presented in the methodological approach and the triangulation of different

sources in order to identify:

The main strategies and types of intervention in culture and tourism adopted at

national and regional level;

The nature of co-financed investments in these sectors and their effectiveness

in contributing to the development of these sectors;

The contribution of culture and tourism strategies to regional development;

The process and context related factors that might condition the success of

regional strategies in the sectors of interest.

The results will address the evaluation questions indicated in the tender specifications

and pinpoint a set of causal mechanisms that could explain the success of the ERDF

strategies at different levels, as well as operational recommendations on how to

enhance the contribution of cohesion policy in the culture and tourism policy areas.

Outputs

The output of this phase will consist of a final synthesis report including the overall

findings of the analysis and the main implications for policies targeting the sectors of

culture and tourism.

The final report will include a thorough analysis of the information collected; a

revalidation of the preliminary findings from the previous tasks; a synthesis of the

overall findings and lessons learnt; conclusions and operation recommendations. The

report will be completed by an executive summary in English, French and German,

and by annexes presenting in detail the results of each task:



November 2014 74

The literature review

The survey on MAs

The 6 case studies

The 12 mini case studies.

The final report will have an emphasis on clear communication to ensure that it is able

to be shared widely29.

A Validation Seminar with Member States to discuss the findings of the evaluation and

deepening the analysis for policy orientation will be organised in Brussels before the

draft final report is submitted to the Commission. The results of the discussion will be

incorporated into the final report.

The specific arrangements for the organization of the seminar will be discussed at a

later stage. Indicatively the seminar could be held on the 10th of September 2015. As

required by the tender specifications the evaluator will be responsible for the

organisation and content of the seminar, including identifying participants, preparing

the content of the seminars, leading discussions and writing up the event.

29 http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf

http://www.economist.com/styleguide/introduction

http://ec.europa.eu/translation/english/guidelines/documents/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf

http://www.economist.com/styleguide/introduction



November 2014 75

4 Organisation and management

4.1 Roles and tasks

As specified in the proposal, the project will be implemented by a Consortium of four

organizations, led by IRS.

The lead organization (IRS) will guarantee an efficient project management process

that ensures:

Central management and coordination of the work streams and tasks;

Reliable service integrity and continuity;

Services delivered to quality professional standards (Quality assurance).

Research and communication activities, including the regional stakeholders’ workshops

and presentation of project results will involve all the partners of the Consortium.

The members of the consortium are used to managing large projects, at international

and national level, coordinating mixed teams and facilitating close multidisciplinary

collaborations by large numbers of experts from different countries and in multiple

languages, and maintaining the highest standards of quality and resource efficiency.

Moreover the consortium can activate a large network of European experts in the

evaluation of Cohesion Policy and culture and tourism policies to be involved in the

drafting of the programme/regional case studies and the related mini case studies.

The team includes (i) a Project Manager with more than 10 years experience in project

management, including overseeing project delivery, quality control of delivered

service, client orientation and conflict resolution experience and several years

experience in management of team of at least 5 people; (ii) more than two members

with native-level language skills in English; and iii) two high level external experts.

On the basis of discussion during and after the kick-off meeting with the DG REGIO

Evaluation Unit, the composition of the project team has been modified with the

substitution of the two external experts to be involved in the study.

In detail, the proposed research team includes:

a core team made of:

√ the project leader (Manuela Samek, who will also act as task manager of Task

4);

√ the project operative coordinator (Flavia Pesce)



November 2014 76

√ the quality manager (Paul Owens supported by Callum Lee30)

√ three tasks managers (Valeria Minghetti, Erica Melloni, Silvia Vignetti);

a team of scientific advisors made of:

√ two high level external experts (Dr. Beatriz Garcia and Professor Harvey

Armstrong);

√ an internal high level expert (Prof. Bruno Dente);

a team of thematic experts in cohesion policy, tourism, culture, local and

regional development, urban development, public governance and public

management and capacity building (Mara Manente, Paul Owens, Claudio Calvaresi,

Ivana Fellini, Luca Moreschini, Nicoletta Torchio, David Bradley);

a team of researchers and research assistants with national and international

experience in the evaluation of public policies, and in particular culture and tourism

policies, cohesion policy, territorial development policies, capacity building policies

(Jessica Catalano, Erica Mingotto, Federica Montaguti, Bethany Lewis, Monica

Patrizio, Paulo Rosario, Emanuela Sirtori);

a team of country experts in cohesion policy and/or culture and tourism to carry

out the case studies (Davide Barbieri, Anelia Damianova, Heitor José Rocha Gomes,

Nicholas Georgios Karachalis, Andris Klepers, Tomasz Komornicki, Callum Lee,

Sandra Naaf, Julie Pellegrin, Davide Sirtori, Vladimir Sodomka, Dmitrij Svec,

Cristina Vasilescu). If necessary the team of country experts may be modified

according to the case studies selected for the field work;

a financial manager (Nadia Naldi);

an administrative secretariat (Rosa Rainieri).

The figure below describes the links between the members of the research team with

arrows representing the main communication channels.

30 Given the great importance given to the quality of the outputs, editorial and linguistic check, we

integrated the proposed quality manger with an additional support. Callum is an experienced consultant with

over ten years experience in research and evaluation in the cultural and creative sectors (Category II) and

is an Associate Director at BOP Consulting. This supplements the time provided by Paul Owens and Callum

potential role as a Country Expert, on the delivery of the research component, and ensures we have

continuity with one individual managing all processes and therefore ensuring a higher quality output.



November 2014 77

Figure 4.1. Project Management

The Core team will be responsible for:

planning the tasks required by the tender;

choosing the best team for execution of the tasks;

fine tuning the theoretical approach and methodologies, jointly with the

internal scientific advisor;

defining and approving methods of implementation, analysis of findings and

dissemination of results;

supervising the work done by the team assigned to the task;

assisting thematic experts, country experts and researchers in the

implementation of the tasks;

coordinating the drafting of all reports foreseen by the tender (inception

report, first interim report, report on the pilot case study and two mini case

studies, report on the 6 case studies and 12 mini case studies, draft final

report, final report) and presentations requested by the Commission;

ensuring that the all changes/requests of integration pointed out during the

Steering Meetings and/or in exchanges with the Commission office and the

external experts are fully considered and integrated in the reports to be

submitted;

project management and risk management;

project monitoring;

quality management;

administrative and general coordination.

In particular, the project leader is responsible for representing the consortium with the

European Commission; scientific and project coordination, implementation and results;

the management of the work team and delivery of qualitative and timing project

deliverables. Furthermore, the project leader will also be in charge of: work planning

in order to ensure that the project stays within its original timescale; facilitating

regular interaction between the project team members; monitoring of the work;

managing the risk(s) associated with project execution; communicating and liaising



November 2014 78

with the client on a regular basis.

In carrying out these tasks the project leader will be supported by:

the project operative coordinator for internal and external operative project

coordination; day-to-day activities and communication exchanges between the

partners of the consortium; production of the Monthly Progress Reports;

the tasks managers in charge of the implementation of all four project tasks;

the quality manager responsible for quality checks of all project deliverables.

The scientific advisors are in charge of ensuring high quality standards in the

development of the evaluation design and its implementation.

The internal expert will be involved in the fine tuning of the methodologies for each

tasks and in providing feedback during the drafting process.

The external experts will comment on each deliverable, based on their area(s) of

expertise. The experts’ comments have to include:

an assessment of the quality of the deliverable;

brief, specific, constructive suggestions for change or improvement based on their

expertise.

External expert will not however be responsible for the final deliverable, which remains

in all cases the responsibility of the contractor.

The experts comments will have to be provided both in written and oral form.

Written comments will be provided on the draft deliverables and sent to DG Regio at

least 2 days before the Steering Committee. Oral comments will be provided at three

expert meetings to be held around the same time as the Steering Group in Brussels.

The following table shows the contribution of the external experts to the deliverables.

If these contributions need to be changed later in the contract this will be done by

prior agreement with DG Regio.

Table 4.1. Contribustion of experts to the deliverables

Expert 1: Beatriz Garcia Expert 2: Harvey Armstrong

Deliverable 1: Methodological

Inception Report

Written comments Written comments

Deliverable 2: First Interim

report presenting the results

of Task 1 and Task 2

Written comments and

Meeting in Brussels


Meeting in Brussels

Deliverable 3: Presentation of

a Pilot Case Study, including

two mini case studies


Meeting in Brussels


Meeting in Brussels

Deliverable 4: Report on the

six case studies, including all

mini case studies

Written comments Written comments

Deliverable 5: Draft Final

Report


Meeting in Brussels


Meeting in Brussels



November 2014 79

The country experts’ team. Depending on the choice of the regional case studies to

be analysed, a number of country experts will be selected from the network presented

in the technical offer. Their contribution will be crucial in:

the identification of national and regional statistical sources for collection of

data;

the identification of key stakeholders at national and regional level to

interview;

carrying out the regional case studies with the support of the Core team

(Task 3) and drafting the mini case studies;

providing insights to the core team during the preparation of the first,

second, third interim reports, draft final report and final report.

The thematic experts team cover the different areas of policy required by the tender

and will be involved in the different project tasks according to their competences. They

are individually and as a group responsible for:

data collection and qualitative and quantitative data analysis;

drafting the project reports;

ensuring the highest scientific level of their contributions.

The team of researchers provides research support to the core team and to the

thematic experts.

The administrative secretariat is in charge of operative support in the general

coordination tasks, in day-to-day logistics and editorial support.

The financial manager is in charge of all the financial aspects of the contract. She

will work with the partners on any financial matters.

Table 4.2 presents in details the role of each member of the consortium and their

task.

Table 4.2. Research team expertise, roles, tasks

Role in the Projec Name Category Task Language

Core team Project Leader

Manuela Samek

Lodovici

I Project management,

Manager of Task 4

Contribution in all

tasks

IT (MT),

EN

Core team Operative

Coordinator

Flavia Pesce I Project management

Contribution in all

tasks

IT (MT),

EN, DE

Scientific advisor

team

High level internal

expert (Scientific

Advisor)

Bruno Dente I Scientific advice and

contribution in all tasks

IT (MT)

EN, FR, SP

Scientific advisor

team

High level external

expert for Culture

(Scientific Advisor)

Dr. Beatriz

Garcia

I Scientific advice and


EN (Es,Fr)

Scientific advisor

team

High level external

expert for Tourism

(Scientific Advisor)

Prof. Harvey

Armstrong

I Scientific advice and


EN

Core team Task Manager

Senior Thematic

Expert (Tourism

Economics)

Valeria Minghetti I

Manager of task 1 and

contribution in Task 4

IT (MT)

EN, FR

Core team Task Manager Silvia Vignetti II Manager of Task 2 and IT (MT),



November 2014 80

Senior Thematic

Expert (Evaluation

and Structural Fund)

contribution in Task 4 EN, FR

Core team Task manager

Senior Thematic

Expert (Evalutation,

Local Development

and Structural

Funds)

Erica Melloni II

Manager of Task 3 and

contribution in Task 4

IT (MT)

EN, FR

Core team Quality Manager

Senior Thematic

Expert (Evaluation

and Cultural and

Creative sectors)

Paul Owens I

Manager for the quality

check and contribution

in Tasks 1 and 4

EN (MT)

FR, Hausa

Thematic Experts

team

Senior Thematic

Expert (Evaluation

and Tourism sector)

Mara Manente I

Tasks 1 and 4

IT (MT)

EN, FR

Thematic Experts

team

Senior Thematic

Expert (Evaluation,

Regional and Urban

Development,

Spatial planning)

Claudio

Calvaresi

I

Tasks 1, 2c, 4

IT (MT)

EN, SP

Thematic Experts

team

Senior Thematic

Expert (Tourism

Economics)

Ivana Fellini II

Tasks 2a, 2c, 4

IT (MT)

EN, FR

Thematic Experts

team

Senior Thematic

Expert (Evaluation,

Culture, Structural

Funds)

Luca Moreschini II

Task 2a, 2c, 4

IT (MT)

EN, FR, ES

Thematic Experts

team

Senior Thematic

Expert (Evaluation

and Structural

Funds)

Nicoletta Torchio II

Task 2a, 2c, 4

IT (MT)

EN, FR, ES

Thematic Experts

team

Senior Thematic

Expert (Evaluation

of Structural Funds,

Tourism sector)

Country Expert (IE,

UK)

David Bradley I

Tasks 1, 3 and 4

EN (MT)

FR

Researchers’ team Researcher Jessica Catalano IV Tasks 2b, 2c IT, EN, FR

Researchers’ team Researcher Erica Mingotto IV Task 1

IT (MT)

EN

Researchers’ team Researcher Federica

Montaguti

II

Task 1

IT (MT

EN, FR, ES,

Japanese

Researchers’ team Proof Reader

Researcher

Bethany Lewis III Task 1 and Proof

reading in all tasks

EN, DE (Bi-

lingual)

FR, NL

Researchers’ team Researcher Monica Patrizio III Tasks 2a, 2c and 3

IT (MT)

EN, FR

Researchers’ team Researcher Paulo Rosario III Task 1

PT (MT)

EN, ES

Researchers’ team Researcher Emanuela Sirtori IV Tasks 2b, 2c

IT (MT)

EN, ES

Country Experts’

team

County Expert (IT) Davide Barbieri II Task 3

IT (MT)

EN, ES, FR

Country Experts’

team

County Expert (BG) Anelia

Damianova

I Task 3

BG (MT)

EB, FR, Russian

Country Experts’

team

Country Expert (PT) Heitor José

Rocha Gomes

II Task 3 PT (MT)

EN, FR, ES

Country Experts’

team

Country Expert (GR,

CY)

Nicholas

Georgios

Karachalis

II Task 3 GR (MT)

NL, EN, FR

Country Experts’

team

Country Expert (LV,

LT, EE)

Andris Klepers III Task 3 LV (MT)

EN, DE, Russian

Country Experts’

team

Country Expert (PL) Tomasz

Komornicki

II Task 3 PL (MT)

EN, FR, RU



November 2014 81

4.2 Allocation of activities

The allocation of human resources by Tasks is presented in table 4.3.

Table 4.3. Working days allocated per task and researcher

Name

Project

Manageme

nt

Task

1

Task

2a

Task

2b

Task

2c

Task

3

Task

4

Tota

l

Manuela Samek Lodovici 27 5 5 5 5 5 10 62

Flavia Pesce 20 2 2 2 2 2 10 40

Bruno Dente 2 2 2 2 8

Beatriz Garcia 10 10

Harvey Armstrong 10 10

Valeria Minghetti 5 10 8 10 12 45

Silvia Vignetti 5 10 15 10 15 55

Erica Melloni 15 10 25

Paul Owens 6 8 8 22

Mara Manente 5 3 5 5 18

Claudio Calvaresi 7 7 14

Ivana Fellini 7 7 14

Luca Moreschini 5 5 5 15

Nicoletta Torchio 5 5 5 15

David Bradley 5 10 15

Jessica Catalano 8 30 6 10 54

Erica Mingotto 10 10

Federica Montaguti 10 10

Monica Patrizio 8 15 10 15 48

Paulo Rosario 10 10 20

Emanuela Sirtori 8 30 10 48

Callum Lee 4 5 5 14

6 Experts for selected case

studies 180 180

Rosa Rainieri 10 10

Nadia Naldi 10 10

TOTAL days 112 72 62 87 79 224 136 772

% 14.5 9.3 8.0 11.3 10.2 29.0 17.6 100

Country Experts’

team + support to

Quality Manager

Country Expert (NL) Callum Lee II Task 3 EN (MT)

FR, DE

Country Experts’

team

Country Expert (DE,

AT)

Sandra Naaf III Task 3 DE (MT)

EN, ES, FR, PT,

IT

Country Experts’

team

Country Expert (FR,

BE)

Julie Pellegrin I Task 3

FR (PT)

IT, EN

Country Experts’

team

Country Expert (ES) Davide Sirtori III Task 3 IT (MT)

EN, ES

Country Experts’

team

Country Expert (SK) Vladimir

Sodomka

II Task 3 CZ (MT)

EN, FR, Russian

Country Experts’

team

Country Expert (CZ) Dmitrij Svec I Task 3 CZ (MT)

EN, Russian

Country Experts’

team

Country Expert (RO) Cristina

Vasilescu

III Task 3 RO (MT)

EN, FR, IT

Financial Manager Nadia Naldi I IT (MT)

EN, FR

Secretariat and

Editing

Rosa Rainieri I IT (MT)

EN, DE



November 2014 82

Figure 4.2 shows a balanced allocation of resources for the tasks to be carried out.

More resources, in terms of working days, are allocated to Tasks 2 and 3 due to the

important time consuming activity of the fieldwork to be carried out in the Survey

(Task 2b) and the programme/regional case studies (Task 3). Over 40% of the total

working days are spent on fieldwork (the survey and on the case studies).

Figure 4.2. Allocation of human resources by tasks (%)

4.3 The quality control system

As indicated in the proposal, the consortium leader (IRS) will manage the overall

quality control system, assisted by the Consortium partners.

IRS and the consortium partners have a strong commitment to quality. Significant

past experience in managing complex projects with wide EU coverage and large teams

enabled the team experts to set up and further refine a well proven internal quality

control system for this project.

To ensure that the services provided under this contract meet the highest professional

standards, a quality assurance system will be used, specifying the Consortium

approach to quality assurance and how it intends to control and ensure the effective

monitoring of the services supplied to the Commission as part of the execution of this

contract.

The quality plan covers the following areas:

The procedures the Consortium intends to implement to ensure the quality of

the services provided;

Personnel policy and management, including the mechanisms for notification to

the Commission, and timely and full replacement of any reduction in capacity,

in order to ensure the committed level of expertise and resources throughout

the whole duration of the contract;

Project Management;

14,5

Task 1; 9,3

Task 2a; 8

Task 2b; 11,3

Task 2c; 10,2

Task 3; 29

Task 4; 17,6



November 2014 83

The structure set up for coordinating the work between the different members

of the Consortium, including working criteria for the distribution of assignments

between the members of the consortium;

The procedures we intend to use for quality control, assurance of client

satisfaction and complaint management.

The quality system aims to ensure the following overall standards:

Consistency with the research questions set out in the Terms of Reference

and with requests and considerations from meetings with the Commission,

the steering Group and the external experts.

High scientific relevance and accuracy. A peer review mechanism aims

to ensure a sound methodology and access to the latest research and

evidence. A standard practice on IRS’s assignments is the mobilisation of

scientific advisors of renowned reputation in their fields of specialisation to

guarantee the quality of IRS’s intellectual input. They are involved either as

external critical reviewers and as members of the team ensuring scientific

quality in the overall methodological development;

Reliability of information provided. All material from the work of others

which is used for specific assignments, such as data, information, ideas,

concepts, methodologies, quotes and literature will be clearly identified

and cross checked for reliability and referred to in a systematic reference

system. The most recently available information and data will be taken into

account;

Clarity and quality of language. From past working experience for

European institutions, the Consortium partners know that the study report

should inform discussion and policy debate. Thus a special effort will be paid

to the way the key messages are communicated and the adopted style and

language will be reader friendly and policy oriented, straightforward and

easy to be understood to all the relevant stakeholders. As agreed in the

Inception Meeting, the Economist Style Guide will be taken as a model for

this where possible, taking into account the specific language and

terminology required for a evaluation of this type. The Consortium experts

have extensively experience in producing deliverables for policy makers

(e.g. officials in national and European public institutions) and the general

public (e.g. public dissemination of findings through conferences, mass

media). This ensures that the deliverables will be easily accessible. Good

linguistic coverage of the research teams enables to avoid

misinterpretations and misunderstandings in a multilingual environment.

Finally, the presence of a number of native English speakers as well as of a

proof-reader will assure that all the deliverables (especially the final ones)

will meet high standard of written English.

Besides these key principles which guide this evaluation, a tailor-made quality

management system will be implemented as specified below.



November 2014 84

4.3.1 The team’s quality management

Roles and responsibilities

Aware of the strategic importance of quality control activities, especially for the

management of large international teams, the allocation of resources includes a

specific allocation for activities aimed at ensuring a smooth implementation of the

study tasks, and specific quality check activities for the production of individual

deliverables.

The quality management of the project will be ensured by the Project Manager

(Manuela Samek Lodovici) and the Operative Coordinator (Flavia Pesce) who will take

overall responsibility for the quality of the reports produced and submitted, for

covering all issues as identified by the Terms of Reference, for considering all issues

raised during Steering meetings and other exchanges with the Commision services

and external experts, as well as for the quality of work undertaken and overall

implementation of the assignment. In this role they will rely on the support of the

feedback by the Internal Scientific Advisor (Bruno Dente) who will guarantee the

general quality of the content of the reports as well as the Quality Manager (Paul

Owens supported by Callum Lee) and a Proof-reader (Bethany Lewis), who will ensure

the editorial and linguistic quality.

The role of the Project Manager as regards the internal quality system includes the

following tasks:

Monitoring the progress of each activity;

Supervising and ensuring the smooth and effective implementation of the

overall activities performed in the framework of the quality control process;

Ensuring the clarity and reliability of any documents submitted to the Steering

Group;

Ensuring communication with the Commission officials.

In addition, the appropriate attribution of responsibilities to the various experts, a

constant monitoring of the implementation of the project and the capacity to manage

a contingency plan will ensure the successful and efficient execution of the

assignments. In order to guarantee a smooth implementation of the quality

management plan, the following methods will be used:

the study will accord with the Tender Specifications, addressing the right focus and

scope, including the further fine-tuning needed to comply with the Steering

Group’s specific requests during the implementation of the study. The participation

of the Project Manager and the Operative Coordinator to all meetings and

interactions with the External and Internal Scientific Advisors as well as the Task

Managers and the internal thematic experts will ensure that the project

implementation will address the SG requirements and agreed refinements;

the Project Manager and the Operative Coordinator will ensure the alignment of

the whole team to such requirements. They will keep Task Managers and the

research team constantly informed about the development of the study and will

ensure an open communication and exchange of information with all members. In



November 2014 85

order to facilitate the sharing of the information and documents a shared

management environment will be set up and populated under the responsibility of

Task managers with the help of the researchers in order to ensure a real-time

sharing of documents and reports.

The study process will be carried out in a transparent way. Besides the scheduled

meetings, an open communication with the Steering Group will be pursued by the

Project Manager, who will be the main contact point vis-à-vis the client, supported

by the Operative Coordinator. If any force majeure problem occurs, the Project

Manager will inform the Commission immediately by providing a possible solution.

The allocation of the workload among the team’s members is made in order to

maximise the comparative advantage of each expert and will be adjusted if

necessary to ensure his/her full availability when specific input is required.

The whole team is committed to providing the necessary high quality service to the

Client. In the unlikely case of the absence of one of the experts, the continuity of

the service is assured by the Project Manager who will reshuffle the internal time

allocation in order to allow other team members to take over responsibilities. This

will be possible since each role within the team is ensured by more than one

expert, so that in case some of them are not available in the foreseen timeframe

his/her role may be covered by other experts in the same category. The

Consortium partners also belong to extended networks of experts in the evaluation

of Structural Funds and in the sectors of interest. This ensures the capacity to

rapidly activate additional experts in case of need. Furthermore the wide range of

experts that can be activated ensures that each expert will be in charge of one

specific case study, given the depth of analysis required.

4.3.2 Risk management and contingency plan

The assignment poses some specific challenges which have been carefully considered

in setting up the quality management system and contingency plan. In our view, the

most important are:

the large size of the consortium and the broad spectrum of tasks running in

parallel require the strong coordination of the team and the capacity to manage

heavy workloads. For this reason, special attention will be dedicated to project

monitoring and coordination, as well as a continuous alignment of the team’s

members to the state of implementation and methodological development. A

strong coordination role is ensured by the core team and flexibility is

guaranteed by the availability of a wide range of expertise within the team,

with the awareness that the schedule and time allocation may well be subject

to constant revisions and updates in order to promptly mobilise the best

available resources.

the need to ensure consistency among case studies. It is acknowledge that

strong coordination in the implementation of case studies is needed to make

sure that the set of information from different case studies are fully aligned

with the study aim, so as to ease the subsequent comparative analysis. To this

end, the Task Manager, with the help of the core team, will develop the case

studies template, undertake a pilot case to test and fine tune it, and will if

required support the Member State experts in the drafting of the case studies



November 2014 86

to ensure the consistency of information in them. Continuous exchanges with

the country experts will be ensured throughout the implementation of the case

studies. The implementation of the case studies will be strictly monitored by

the core team, to ensure a close alignment with the study overall

methodological approach and Steering Group’s expectations as developed

during the first phase of the project implementation.

The statistical analysis to be implemented in task 2 and the on line survey on

MAs is subject to the inherent uncertainty related to data availability, response

rate as well as quality of responses. The Team’s experience from previous

studies suggests that any attempt to predict a credible survey response rate is

challenging, especially considering conditions such as the motivation of of those

invited to participate, and how accurate or current the contacts available are.

In order to minimise these risks, the Consortium will put significant effort into

the careful design of the questionnaire as well as in a follow up approach, after

the initial survey invitation. In our experience, the design of the questionnaire

is also crucial in gaining the required information and ensuring a good response

rate.

In addition to these challenges, the Consortium have prepared plans to mitigate or

deal with some specific risks that may arise from the project: those related to the

management and organisation of the work and those related to the methodological

approach adopted. The main risks are detailed in chapter 3.2. These are summarized

below, from an operational perspective.

Table 4.4. Risk management related to team management

Risk Impact Chance

of occurring

Mitigation measures Responsible

Lack of experts Medium Low The partners have a wide network of contacts throughout Member States and can rapidly find individual experts to perform the required task

Lead partner (IRS)

Individual country experts are too busy

Low Medium

Advanced planning will allow early warning for individual country experts so to allow them to commit to deadlines. In any case, partners and subcontractors have a wide network of contacts throughout Member States and can rapidly find individual experts to perform the required task

Lead partner (IRS)

Senior staff leaves a consortium organisation

Medium / high if it concerns partners

Medium

Partners have sufficient in-house capacity to substitute the experts with equal level of qualification and experience

Partner concerned

Senior experts are too busy, unavailable to travel

Medium Medium

Telephone and writing exchanges may help to address this. If not, the proposal includes a large number of senior experts to deal with the issue.

Lead partner (IRS)

Experts or Partners deliver work of poor quality

Low High

Partners and experts have been chosen for their excellent records. In case the issue arises, the management of outputs delivery will allow identifying it in time to take corrective measures, such as redrafting a deliverable, or finding substitutes if no progress is made.

Lead partner (IRS)

Delays Medium Medium The management of the delivery of outputs–internal or concerning deliverables to the EC – will be designed to allow the project team to identify issues in time to address them. Monitoring the project development will be one of the main responsibilities of the project manager

Lead partner (IRS)



November 2014 87

Table 4.5. Risk management related to the methodological approach

Risk Impact

Chance

of

occurring

Mitigation measures Responsible

Lack of data

availability (Tasks

2 and 3)

High High

This risk depends on the data

concerned and is likely to be higher

for the culture sector. Monitoring

data will be checked against the

results of WP0, the MAs survey and

the interviews carried out in the

case studies. The triangulation of

sources will help in covering the

main data gaps.

Partners and experts

concerned

Confidentiality of

data (Tasks 2,3) Medium Low

Consortium members engaged on

the ground will clearly state that

data collected will remain

confidential

Partners experts and

subcontractors

concerned

Low availability of

interviewees

(Tasks 1,2, 3)

Medium Medium

The proposal puts forward a

reasonable budget dedicated to

conducting interviews and their

arrangement. Support from the EC

will be requested in extreme cases

Partners concerned,

EC.

Low survey

response rate

(Task 2b)

Medium /

High High

See above

Partners concerned

Validity of the

typologies used

(task 2, 3)

Medium High

The different typologies (of policy

instruments, of sectors, of

operators) will be used

pragmatically, allowing for

progressive refinement and

adjustment

Lead partner (IRS)

Consistency and

comparability of

outputs (tasks

2,3,4)

High Medium

See above

Lead partner (IRS)

Poor readability of

outputs High Medium

Native team members will edit all

deliverables to the EC with

emphasis not only on correct

English but also on stylistic issues

to ensure they use a clear and

concise style. Final language

checks are foreseen as part as the

quality control process.

Lead partner (IRS)

4.3.3 Specific quality check

The quality management plan will be implemented through a joint collaboration of the

Internal Scientific Advisor (Bruno Dente), the Project Manager (Manuela Samek

Lodovici), the Quality Manager (Paul Owens supported by Callum Lee) and the proof-

reader (Bethany Lewis). The process will include four main activities:

1. Scientific review of each report before it is submitted to the Steering Group. This

is performed by the Internal Scientific Advisor who is convened to discuss the

proposed results. His main responsibility will be to ensure that the outputs

delivered meet the highest academic standards especially in terms of content and

methods. In addition the two External Scientific Advisors will provide the



November 2014 88

Team’s experts with comments and suggestions on how to improve the

deliverables in order to ensure the highest scientific quality of the research.

2. An editorial check aimed at ensuring the clarity and consistency of the

information provided as well as the ease of reading of the final output. This check

will be performed by the Quality Manager whose main role is to carefully read

documents drafted by the Team’s experts and verify that the information are

consistent and presented according to the European Commission’s requirements in

terms of layout, style, format, length and structure. The Quality Manager will

suggest improvements in the style and format of the information presented to the

Team’s experts. In addition, all the reports will have the same layout, style and

format and will follow a common structure in order to ease the readability and

intelligibility of the results.

3. A linguistic check aimed at ensuring that the clarity and highest quality of the

language. Each deliverable will be submitted to the proof-reader who is an

English native speaker. This ensures that requirements of clarity and the highest

quality of language are met. When proofreading activities have to be carried out

for different deliverables in parallel (for example for the case studies report) the

British partner (BOP) will support this with a linguistic check. In addition, the

British partner will be in charge of directly drafting some of the planned

deliverables or sections of them (e.g. literature review in Task 1, case studies for

UK and/or IE or MT in Task 3, final reporting in Task 4) which significantly reduces

the number and length of deliverables expected to undergo the professional proof-

reading.

The Project Manager will lead the quality process monitoring with the support of the

Operative Coordinator. This involves: i) monitoring the progress of each

aforementioned activity of the quality process, by holding regular progress discussions

with the Internal Scientific Advisor and the Task managers; ii) supervising and

assuring the smooth and effective implementation of the overall activities performed in

the framework of the quality control process; iii) managing a contingency plan to

overcome problems and ensure a successful and efficient functioning and execution of

the assignments.

This process is visualized in the Figure below.



November 2014 89

Figure 4.3. Illustration of the quality control system

Team’s experts producing the reports

Review by the Scientific Advisor

(checking the scientific and academic quality)

OK

Editorial reviewer (checking the style, layout,

clarity of presentation)

Proof - reader (checking the linguistic

quality)

OK

Project Manager (checking the overall quality

and consistency of the deliverables)

OK

Project Manager

Steering Group

NO

NO

NO

YES

YES

YES



November 2014 91

5 Time plan, deliverables and upcoming activities

5.1 Time plan and upcoming activities

Deadlines relating to the study have been discussed and agreed with the DG REGIO

Evaluation Unit at the kick-off meeting.

All the future activities will proceed as agreed, taking into consideration any

methodological fine tuning proposed in chapter 3.

The following table presents the updated timeframe of activities and deliverables.

Table 5.1. Time plan and deliverables

Deliverable Deadline Steering Committee and other

meetings

Kick off meeting 21 August 2014

Inception Report Draft 24 September 2014

(by noon)

Final 21 November 2014

1st Steering Committee: 1 October

2014, 2.30 p.m

Progress Report By the 21st of each month

First intermediate report:

results of T1 and T2

15 January, 2014 2nd Steering Committee and

1st Meeting with external experts:

indicatively in the third/fourth week of

January 2015

Presentation of a pilot case-

study and 2 mini case-studies

21 February 2015 2nd Meeting with external experts:

indicatively by end of February/early

March 2015

Report on the six case-studies

and 12 mini case-studies

21 May 2015

Draft final report 31 July (No later than 21

August) 2015

3rd Meeting with external experts –

indicatively by early Sept. 2015

3rd Steering Committee: 10 September

2015, 10.30 a.m.

Validation Seminar with regional and

national representatives: 10

September 2015, 2.30 p.m.

Final report 21 October 2015

Tasks 1 and 2 have already started during the inception phase, pending any fine

tuning of the methodology outlined in this Inception Report and according to the

discussion at the 1st Steering Committee on October 1, 2014.

As shown in the GANTT chart (table 5.2) below the activities to be carried out in Task

1 and Task 2a will proceed in parallel and will end indicatively by December 2014.

Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund (CF) – Work Package nine

November 2014 92

Table 5.2 Gantt

Phase

Months

21/8/14

21/9/14

21/9/14

22/10/14

22/10/14

22/11/14

22/11/14

22/12/14

22/12/14

22/01/15

22/01/15

22/02/15

22/02/15

22/03/15

22/03/15

22/04/15

22/04/15

22/05/15

22/05/15

22/06/15

22/06/15

22/07/15

22/07/15

22/08/15

22/08/15

22/09/15

22/09/15

22/10/15

Phase 1

Kick off meeting (21

August 2014)

Scoping

Inception Report 24/9

1st Steering group 1/10

Phase 2

Literature review

Data analysis and

sampling

Web survey on MAs

First Intermediate Report 15/1

2nd Steering group + 1st meeting with external

experts

To be

defined

Phase 3

Fieldwork: pilot

regional/programme case

study and two mini case

studies

Report including the pilot

case study and two mini

case studies

21/2

2nd meeting with

external experts

To be

defined

Phase 4

Fieldwork:

regional/programme case

studies and mini case

studies

Report including the 6

regional case studies and

12 mini case studies

21/5

Phase 5

Synthesizing results of all

the previous tasks

Draft final report 31/7

3rd Steering group 10/9

Phase 6

Drafting the final report

Final report 21/10

Phase 7

Dissemination (to be

defined with the

Commission)

Project management

Project monitoring

Progress reports 21/9 21/10 21/11 21/12 21/1 21/2 21/3 21/4 21/5 21/6 21/7 21/8 21/9



November 2014 93

As for Task 2b, all the preliminary steps (collection of contacts, fine tuning of the

questionnaire, setting up of the on line questionnaire and testing) have been

undertaken in November, in order to be ready to launch the on line survey by the end

of November 2014. We expect the survey to be open for about two months in order to

achieve a balanced distribution of respondents.

In January 2014 the research team will work on the tabulation of findings and the

selection and description of the 9 programme case studies and 18 mini case studies

(Task 2c).

A draft first Intermediate Report will be produced by the 15th of January 2015. The

report will incorporate the outcomes of Task 1 and Task 2a, as well as the initial

findings of the Web survey (Task 2b) and of Task 2c. The report will be discussed in a

1st Steering Committee to be held between the third and fourth week of January 2015.

A separate meeting with the two external experts will take place in the same date.

Between December 2014 and mid-February 2015 the evaluation team will also

implement the Pilot case study and the corresponding 2 mini case studies,

according to the methodology proposed in the Inception report and refined in the

Intermediate Report on the basis of the results of Task 1 and 2. The Report on the

Pilot case study and the corresponding 2 mini case studies will be produced by

February 21, 2015 and discussed in a 2nd meeting with the external experts to be held

by the end of February.

The methodology for the case studies and mini case studies will then be adjusted

according to the results of the pilot case study and of the discussion with the external

experts. On the basis of this adjusted methodology and of the tools provided by the

Core Team, the country experts will carry out the remaining 5 programme case

studies and 10 corresponding mini-case studies during March and April 2015. A

second intermediate report presenting the result of all the case studies and mini

case studies will then be produced by 21st May 2015.

During June and July 2015 the Core team, with the support of the internal high level

advisor, the thematic experts and of the research staff, will work on the draft final

report to be delivered by the end of July and certainly no later than August 21 2015.

The draft final report will be presented to the 3rd Steering Committee on 10th

September 2015 and to the external experts early in September 2015 to allow

discussion and input before it is finalised. Following discussion with the Steering

Committee there will be a presentation in a validation seminar with regional and

national representatives. The arrangements of the validation seminar will be discussed

at a later stage. A possible date for the seminar is the 10th of September 2015 in the

afternoon, following the 3rd Steering meeting.

The final version of the report will be delivered after one month (by the 21st of October

2015) and will internalize the results of the discussion with the Steering committee,

the external experts and the validation seminar.



November 2014 94

5.2 Deliverables

The First Intermediate Report will present the results of Tasks 1 and 2, namely:

The findings of the literature review, with a focus on: recent trends in these

sectors in the EU; the socio-economic rationales that justify public financial

support in the culture and tourism sectors and the effects of public financial

support in these fields; the main types of investment strategies and

interventions pursued in these areas.

The findings of the analysis of the ERDF support in culture and tourism, and in

particular those resulting from the statistical analysis of the main financial and

core indicators reported by MS.

The initial findings from the survey to the MAs of programmes investing more

than 15 million euro of ERDF funds in these areas and of the analysis on the

relevance of the culture and tourism sectors and of the ERDF financial support

by programme, region and type of intervention strategy and the proposed 9

programme case studies and 18 mini case studies with a brief description (1-2

pages) of each one.

The refined overall methodological approach for the programme case studies

and mini case studies as well as the template and guide to the research tools to

be used in fieldwork.

An indicative table of contents for the first intermediate report is below.

Indicative table of contents for the first intermediate report

Foreword and synthesis of the main results

Introduction: aims of the study and methodology

Part I - Task 1 - Literature review and analytical approach

1. culture and tourism in European regions: key figures, development trends

and evolution aspects

2. The socio-economic rationale behind public support to culture and tourism

3. Main strategic approaches and investment initiatives in culture and

tourism in the EU28: A comparative analysis

4. Assessment of the expected effects of ERDFfinancial support to culture

and tourism

Part II – Data analysis and sampling

1. ERDF contribution to culture and tourism: distribution of investments and

reported outputs

2. Main features of the adopted strategies and ongoing results of ERDF

Programmes allocating more than EUR 15 million to culture and tourism

(initial results from the Survey on MAs and other operators)

3. Classification of regions/programmes with similar features and

preliminary identification of 9 programme case studies and 18 mini case

studies for field work. Brief description of each proposed programme.



November 2014 95

Part III- Upcoming activities

Refining of the case studies and mini case studies methodology

ANNEXES

1. Annex to Part I: List of references

2. Annex to Part II: Methodology and source of data for the statistical

analysis and Survey Questionnaire; Additional data and statistics

(tables and figures)

3. Annex to Part III: Template for the case studies and mini case studies;

Consolidated check list for the case studies and mini case studies;

Interview guide for the semi-structured interviews

The second deliverable will present a pilot case study and two corresponding mini

case studies. Both the pilot case study and mini case studies are aimed at testing the

methodology and hypothesis drawing on the previous tasks. The report will also

include the finalized case study and mini case study methodology and the related

templates and guidelines for the drafting of case studies/mini case studies.

The third deliverable will be a report presenting all 6 regional/programme case

studies and 12 mini case studies, to provide answers to the evaluation questions

identified in the Terms of Reference. The report will present a transversal analysis of

all regional/programme case studies and mini case studies and a table of contents of

the draft final report. The 6 case studies and 12 mini case studies reports will be

annexed to the report. (An indicative structure of the case studies and mini case

studies has been presented in a section on Task 3 in chapter 3.)

The Final Report will cover the findings resulting from all activities under tasks 1 – 3.

The Report will provide: in depth analysis of the information collected in a specific

chapter for each task; a revalidation of the findings from the programme case studies,

mini case studies and seminars with the members states; a synthesis of the overall

findings and lessons learnt; the policy implications in the two areas of culture and

tourism, which will also take into account the further policy orientations resulting from

the discussion in the Validation seminar).

The report will be complemented by an Executive Summary in English, French and

German and a short document (1-2 pages) of Key Findings. The case studies and mini

case studies will be provided in an annex to the final report. Additional annexes will

present the data sources, the methodology and tools adopted for the statistical

analysis, the survey, and the case studies.

Monthly Progress Reports will be sent to the Commission on the activities carried

out and on the resources used (human and financial) as well as future planned tasks.



November 2014 97

Annexes

Annex I Indicative Bibliography

International statistical data and related studies

UNWTO

UNWTO, Statistical Yearbook 2008-2012, 2014 Edition

UNWTO, Compendium of tourism statistics 2008-2012, 2014 Edition

UNWTO, Tourism Highlights, 2014 Edition

UNWTO World Tourism Barometer and Statistical Annex, June 2014

UNWTO, Tourism towards 2030: Global Overview, 2011 Edition

EUROSTAT

EUROSTAT, Statistical Database. Tourism

(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/tourism/data/database:

monthly and annual data on tourism industries; annual data on trips of EU

residents)

EUROSTAT, Eurostat Yearbook. Tourism (Online publication:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_trends)

EUROSTAT, Eurostat Regional Yearbook. Tourism (Online publication:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics

_at_regional_level)

EUROSTAT, Tourism Industries – Economic analysis, Statistics in Focus 32/2013

(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/extensions/EurostatPDFGene

rator/getfile.php?file=157.138.95.30_1409649975_68.pdf)

EUROSTAT, Tourism trips of Europeans (Online publication:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_trips_-

_introduction_and_key_figures

OECD

OECD (2014), OECD Tourism Trends and Policies 2014, Paris. URL:

http://www.oecd.org/cfe/tourism/oecdtourismtrendsandpolicies2014.htm

OECD (2013), Indicators for measuring competitiveness in tourism, OECD Tourism

Papers 2013/02. URL:

http://www.oecd.org/cfe/tourism/Indicators%20for%20Measuring%20Competitiven

ess%20in%20Tourism.pdf

OECD (2009), The impact of culture and tourism, URL:

http://www.oecd.org/cfe/tourism/theimpactofcultureontourism.htm

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/tourism/data/database

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_trends

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics_at_regional_level

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics_at_regional_level

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/extensions/EurostatPDFGenerator/getfile.php?file=157.138.95.30_1409649975_68.pdf

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/extensions/EurostatPDFGenerator/getfile.php?file=157.138.95.30_1409649975_68.pdf

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_trips_-_introduction_and_key_figures

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Tourism_trips_-_introduction_and_key_figures

http://www.oecd.org/cfe/tourism/oecdtourismtrendsandpolicies2014.htm

http://www.oecd.org/cfe/tourism/Indicators%20for%20Measuring%20Competitiveness%20in%20Tourism.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/cfe/tourism/Indicators%20for%20Measuring%20Competitiveness%20in%20Tourism.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/cfe/tourism/theimpactofcultureontourism.htm



November 2014 98

UN

UN (2013), Creative Economy Report 2013. Widening Local Development

Pathways, Geneva and New York: United Nations.

UN (2010), Creative Economy Report 2010. Creative Economy: A Feasible

Development Option, Geneva and New York: United Nations.

UN (2008), Creative Economy Report 2008. The Challenge of Assessing the

Creative Economy: Towards Informed Policy Making. Geneva and New York: United

Nations.

UNCTAD (2008), Creative Economy Report.

UNESCO (2009), Framework for Cultural Statistics.

Academic literature

Ashworth, G., & Larkham, P. (Eds.). (2013), Building A New Heritage, London:

Routledge.

Bachtler, J., & Gorzelak, G. (2007). Reforming EU Cohesion Policy: A reappraisal

of the performance of the Structural Funds, Policy Studies, 28(4), 309-326.

Bachtler J. and Wren C. (2006), Evaluation of EU Cohesion Policy: Research

Questions and Policy Challenges, Regional Studies, Vol. 40 (2), pp. 143-153, April.

Bachtler, J., & Michie, R. (1995), A new era in EU regional policy evaluation? The

appraisal of the Structural Funds, Regional Studies, 29(8), 745-751.

Balmey A.M., MacMillan F., Fitzsimons C.F., Shaw R., Mutrie N. (2013), “Using

programme theory to strengthen research protocol and intervention design within

an RCT of a walking intervention”, in Evaluation, volume 19, number 1.

Barzelay M. (2007), "Learning from Second-Hand Experience: Methodology for

Extrapolation-Oriented Case Research" in Governance 20(3), 521-543.

Benhamou F. (1996), L’Économie de la Culture. Éditions La Découverte, Paris.

Blake A., Sinclair T. (2007), The Economic Rational for Government Intervention

in Tourism, Report for the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Beeton, S. (2005), Film-induced tourism, (No. 25). Channel View Publications.

Burkart and Medlik (1992), Tourism: past, present and future, Butterworth-

Heinemann, London, Third Edition.

Butler, R.W., 1980. The concept of a tourist area cycle of evolution: Implications

for management of resource Canadian Geographer. Vol 14, No. 1, pp. 5-12.

Cappelen, A., Castellacci, F., Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2003), The impact of

EU regional support on growth and convergence in the European Union. JCMS:

Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(4), 621-644.

Bound K., Briggs, R., Holden, J. & Jones, S. (2007), Cultural Diplomacy, London:

Demos.

Boukas, N., Ziakas, V., & Boustras, G. (2013), Olympic legacy and cultural

tourism: exploring the facets of Athens’ Olympic heritage. International Journal of

Heritage Studies, 19(2), 203-228.

Costa C., Panyik E., Buhalis D. (eds.)(2014), European Tourism Planning and

Organisation Systems. The EU Member States, Channel View.

Costa C., Panyik E., Buhalis D. (eds.)(2013), Trends in European Tourism Planning

and Organisation, Channel View.



November 2014 99

Costa P., Manente M. (2000), Economia del turismo. Milano: TUP –Touring

University Press.

Crang M. (2011), Tourist: moving places, becoming tourist, becoming

ethnographer. In T. Cresswell ed. Geographies of mobilities: practices, places,

subjects. Farnham: Ashgate 2011, pp.205-224.

Crang, M. (1997), “Picturing practices: research through the tourist gaze” in

Progress in Human Geography, June 1997 vol. 21 no. 3, pp. 359-373.

Curiel J. (2005), “Cultural tourism and contemporary culture in Madrid” in

Literature Review -Cultural Tourism in Spain.

De la Fuente, A., Vives, X, Dolado, JJ and Faini, R. (1995), Infrastructure and

Education as Instruments of Regional Policy: Evidence from Spain. Economic

Policy, Vol. 10, No. 20, 11-51.

Dente Bruno (2011), Policy decisions: how they are taken and how they are

studied, Il Mulino.

Dredge D, Jenkins J. (2003) Destination place identity and regional tourism policy.

Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and

Environment, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp.383-407.

Dwyer L., Forsyth, P., Papatheodorou A. (2011), Economics of Tourism,

Contemporary Tourism Review, URL:

http://www.goodfellowpublishers.com/free_files/fileEconomics.pdf.

Farrell B.H., Twining-Ward L.(2004), Reconceptualizing Tourism, Annals of

Tourism Research, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 274–295

Flew T. (2010), The Creative Industries: Culture and Policy, SAGE.

García, B. (2004), Cultural policy and urban regeneration in Western European

cities: lessons from experience, prospects for the future. Local economy, 19(4),

312-326.

Heidenreich, M., & Plaza, B. (2013). Renewal through culture? The role of

museums in the renewal of industrial regions in Europe. European Planning

Studies, (ahead-of-print), 1-15.

Howard, P., & Papayannis, T. (Eds.). (2013). Natural heritage: At the interface of

nature and culture. London: Routledge.

Jarvie, G. (2013). Sport, culture and society: an introduction. London: Routledge.

Manente M., Minghetti V., Montaguti F. (2013), "The Role of the EU in Defining

Tourism Policies for a Competitive Destination Governance" in C. Costa, E. Panyk,

D. Buhalis (eds), Trends in European Tourism Planning and Organisation. London,

Channel View, 2013

See: http://www.channelviewpublications.com/display.asp?isb=9781845414108

Martin R., Tyler P. (2006), Evaluating the impacts of the Structural Funds on

Objectives 1 Regions: An Exploratory Discussion, Regional Studies, Vol. 40(2), pp.

201-2010.

Mieczkowski Z. (1990), World Trends in Tourism and Recreation, Peter Lang, New

York.

Pellegrini, G., Terribile, F., Tarola, O., Muccigrosso, T., & Busillo, F. (2013).

Measuring the effects of European Regional Policy on economic growth: A

regression discontinuity approach. Papers in Regional Science, 92(1), 217-233.

Pforr C (2006) Tourism policy in the making. An Australian network study, Annals

of Tourism Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 87-108.

http://www.goodfellowpublishers.com/free_files/fileEconomics.pdf



November 2014 100

Ritchie, J.R.B. and Zins, M. (1978). Culture as determinant of the attractiveness of

a tourism region. Annals of Tourism Research, 5 (2), 252-267

Ritchie B.J.R., Goeldner C.R. (2007), Tourism Principles, Practices, Philosophies,

10Th Ed Paperback, J.Wiley&Sons;

Richards G. (2010), Increasing the attractiveness of places through cultural

resources, Tourism, Culture & Communication, Vol. 10, Cognizant

RodrÍguez-Pos, A., & Fratesi, U. (2004), Between Development and Social

Policies: The Impact of European Structural Funds in Objective 1 Regions,

Regional Studies, 38:1, 97-113.

Sacco, P. L., Tavano Blessi, G., & Nuccio, M. (2008), Culture as an engine of local

development processes: system-wide Cultural Districts. Working paper. University

IUAV of Venice.

Sakai, M., 2006, Public Sector Investment in Tourism Infrastructure, in L.Dwyer

and P. Forsyth (eds.), International Handbook on the Economics of Tourism:

Edward Elgar, pp. 266-279.

Sánchez-Moral, S., Méndez, R., & Arellano, A. (2014), Creative economy and

employment quality in large urban areas in Spain. Urban Geography, 35(2), 264-

289.

Sangkyun K., Long P., Robinson M. (2009), Small Screen, Big Tourism: The Role

of Popular Korean Television Dramas in South Korean Tourism, Tourism

Geographies - TOUR GEOGR. 01/2009; 11(3):308-333.

Steiner, L., Frey, B., & Hotz, S. (2014), European capitals of culture and life

satisfaction. Urban Studies, (ahead of print) doi: 10.1177/0042098014524609.

Throsby, D. (2014), The role of culture in sustainable urban development: some

economic issues. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 13(2), 89-

99.

Stevenson N., Airey D., Miller G. (2008), Tourism policy making: the

policymakers’ perspective, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp-732-

750.

Vanhove (2011), The Economics of Tourism Destination, Elsevier, London. Second

Edition.

Wanhill, S., 1994, The Measurement of Tourism Income Multipliers, Tourism

Management,, 15(4): 281-283.

Wanhill, S., 2005, Role of Government Incentives, in W. F. Theobald (ed.), Global

Tourism, Butterworth-Heinemann.

Practitioner Literature

Atout France (AAVV) Tableau de bord du tourisme

British Council (2010), Mapping the creative industries: a toolkit, Creative and

cultural economic series 2, URL:

http://www.britishcouncil.org/mapping_the_creative_industries_a_toolkit_2-2.pdf.

CSES Centre for Strategy & Evaluation Services (2010), Study on the Contribution

of Culture to Local and Regional Development – Evidence from the Structural

Funds, Final Report, September.

Csapo J. (2012), “The Role and Importance of Cultural Tourism in Modern Tourism

Industry” in TechOpen, Published on: 2012-04-20.



November 2014 101

Deloitte, Oxford Economics, for VisitBritain (2013) Tourism, jobs and growth: the

economic contribution of the tourism economy in the UK.

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2014), Creative Industries Economic

Estimates.

Ecorys (2009), Study on the Competitiveness of the EU tourism industry - with

specific focus on the accommodation and tour operator & travel agent industries,

Final Report, Sept. 2009

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=3702

Ecotec (1992) Study of Methods and Concepts: Visitor Expenditure and Economic

Effects, English Tourist Board.

Exceltur con el Gobierno de La Rioja (2012) Impacto económico del turismo para

2012.

GLA Economics (2006), The rationale for public sector intervention in the

economy, URL:

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/rationale_for_public_sector

_intervention.pdf.

Empresa Pública para la Gestión del Turismo y del Deporte de Andalucía ,

CONSEJERÍA DE TURISMO Y COMERCIO (AAVV) El turismo como actividad

estratégica de la economía andaluza.

Impact assessment of the draft 2007-2013 EU structural funds regulations.

Executive Summary. Study financed by the Office of the Prime Minister of the

Republic of Lithuania.

IET, Impacto Economico del turismo (AAAV)

http://www.iet.turismoencifras.es/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&layo

ut=category&task=category&id=11&Itemid=6.

KEA European Affairs. (2012). Measuring economic impact of CCIs policies - How

to justify investment in cultural and creative assets – Prepared for the INTERREG

IVC network CREA.RE, Brussels.

KEA European Affairs (2010). Promoting Investment in the Cultural and Creative

Sector: Financing Needs, Trends and Opportunities- Prepared for ECCE Innovation

– Nantes Metropole.

KEA European Affairs. (2009). The impact of Culture on Creativity – Prepared for

the European Commission (DG CULT), Brussels.

KEA European Affairs. (2006). The Economy of Culture in Europe – Prepared for

the European Commission (DG CULT), Brussels.

Manente, M. (AAVV) Il turismo nell’economia italiana. In E. Becheri, G. Maggiore

(a cura di). XIX Rapporto sul turismo italiano. Milano: Franco Angeli.

O’Brien D. (2010), AHRC/ESRC Placement Fellow, Measuring the value of culture:

a report to the Department for Culture Media and Sport, Department for Culture

Media and Sport.

Nogué, F. (2014) Le tourisme,« filière d’avenir . Développer l’emploi dans le

Tourisme. Rapport remis à Michel Sapin,Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi, de la

Formation professionnelleet du Dialogue social et à Sylvia Pinel Ministre du

Commerce, de l’Artisanat et du Tourisme, Republique Francaise.

Oxford Economics (AAVV) The Economic Impact of the UK Film Industry.

Oxford Economics (2013) The Economic Impact of the UK Heritage Tourism

Economy.

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=3702

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/rationale_for_public_sector_intervention.pdf

http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/economic_unit/docs/rationale_for_public_sector_intervention.pdf

http://www.iet.turismoencifras.es/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&layout=category&task=category&id=11&Itemid=6

http://www.iet.turismoencifras.es/index.php?option=com_k2&view=itemlist&layout=category&task=category&id=11&Itemid=6



November 2014 102

Sillignakis C. (2005), The role of private and public sector in Tourism planning and

development, URL:

http://www.sillignakis.com/PDF/The%20role%20of%20private%20and%20public

%20sector%20in%20Tourism%20planning%20and%20development.pdf

SWK Review of the 2007-13 Convergence Programmes & the contribution of the

local authority Specialist European Teams in South West Wales . A Final Report to

the Four Local Authorities in South West Wales , 18 March 2013.

Tera Consultants (2014), The economic contribution of the creative industries to

EU GDP and employment, September 2014 http://www.forum-

avignon.org/sites/default/files/editeur/2014-Oct-European-Creative-Industry-

GDP-Jobs-full-Report-ENG.pdf

UK Music (AAVV) Destination: Music. The contribution of music festivals and major

concerts for tourism in the UK.

World Economic Forum (2013), Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013,

URL: http://www.weforum.org/issues/travel-and-tourism-competitiveness.

EC Studies and publications

ADE (2012), Study on the relevance and the effectiveness of ERDF and Cohesion

Fund support to Regions with Specific Geographical Features – Islands,

Mountainous and Sparsely Populated Areas, Voll. I and II, European Commission,

(URL:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/ge

ographical_final1.pdf;

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/ge

ographical_final2.pdf)

CSIL (2008), The Impact of Tourism on Coastal Areas: Regional Development

Aspects, European Parliament- Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion

Policies.

European Court of Auditors (2011), Were ERDF co-financed tourism projects

effective?, Special report no 6.

European Commission (2014), Preference of Europeans towards tourism, Flash

Eurobarometer 392, February,

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_392_en.pdf.

European Commission, DG Regional and Urban Policy (2013), Job creation as an

indicator of outcomes in ERDF programmes, Expert evaluation network delivering

policy analysis on the performance of Cohesion Policy 2007-2013.

European Commission (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and

inclusive growth- COM(2010) 202. European Union (2010) Investing in our regions: 150 examples of projects co-

funded by European Regional Policy.

LSE, EPRC (2013), Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion Policy

Programmes and Projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions. Final

Report, (URL:

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/co

hesion_achievements/final_report.pdf).

http://www.sillignakis.com/PDF/The%20role%20of%20private%20and%20public%20sector%20in%20Tourism%20planning%20and%20development.pdf

http://www.sillignakis.com/PDF/The%20role%20of%20private%20and%20public%20sector%20in%20Tourism%20planning%20and%20development.pdf




http://www.weforum.org/issues/travel-and-tourism-competitiveness

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/geographical_final1.pdf




http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_392_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/cohesion_achievements/final_report.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/eval2007/cohesion_achievements/final_report.pdf



November 2014 103

SEC (2011) 1141 Final Commission Staff Working Paper. Impact assessment

Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down common provisions on the

European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion

Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European

Maritime and Fisheries Fund covered by the Common Strategic Framework and

laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the

European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No

1083/2006.


November 2014 104

Annex II First elaboration on ERDF AIR raw data (Project selection), 2007-2013

Table A1 - Number of OPs and allocations in culture and tourism by Country and Priority Theme (ordered by Total

Amount) – 2012 data

Country

Number of Ops AR Community Amount in M. €

Tourism

55-57

Culture

58-60

14 -

H&R

Total 55-

60+H&R

Total

OPs

Number of OPs with allocation

in culture and

tourism

/Number of

Total OPs

Tourism

55-57

Culture

58-60 14 - H&R

Total 55-

60+H&R

Total

Amount

Amount in

culture and

tourism Priority

Themes in % of

Total

PL 18 17 16 19 20 95.0 878.5 980.4 199.1 2057.9 48844.7 4.2

GR 6 6 7 7 10 70.0 197.5 687.0 764.7 1649.2 21750.2 7.6

ES 14 13 14 18 23 78.3 370.7 346.4 67.2 784.3 21634.3 3.6

HU 7 8 5 10 13 76.9 646.3 375.1 25.8 1047.2 19458.1 5.4

IT 19 19 17 22 28 78.6 571.6 456.3 78.8 1106.7 18994.1 5.8

CZ 9 9 4 9 14 64.3 525.0 424.0 2.5 951.5 16544.9 5.8

PT 7 8 8 9 10 90.0 235.6 344.0 468.4 1048.1 13595.6 7.7

DE 14 14 13 17 18 94.4 256.6 276.0 162.9 695.4 13343.4 5.2

RO 1 1 1 1 5 20.0 380.4 295.6 3.1 679.0 12309.7 5.5

SK 3 2 3 9 33.3 146.8 129.8 276.6 7495.8 3.7

CB 61 63 5 65 71 91.5 635.6 553.0 2.9 1191.5 7195.7 16.6

FR 24 20 14 27 31 87.1 255.4 125.7 23.7 404.8 6154.7 6.6

LT 1 1 1 2 2 100.0 113.3 101.3 0.1 214.6 5204.3 4.1

BG 1 1 1 5 20.0 28.9 135.0 163.9 5190.5 3.2

UK 7 3 2 7 16 43.8 152.5 32.0 0.9 185.4 4418.0 4.2

LV 1 1 2 2 100.0 34.5 0.5 35.0 3653.0 1.0

EE 2 1 1 2 2 100.0 114.7 31.8 0.1 146.6 2767.8 5.3

SI 1 1 1 1 2 50.0 112.2 109.5 30.8 252.5 2709.2 9.3

BE 4 3 4 4 100.0 46.4 48.2 94.6 997.2 9.5

SE 5 5 6 8 75.0 59.4 10.0 69.4 982.4 7.1

FI 4 4 4 5 5 100.0 65.5 22.5 7.2 95.2 887.7 10.7

NL 3 3 2 4 4 100.0 63.4 34.4 2.7 100.5 816.3 12.3

MT 1 1 1 1 100.0 31.7 70.2 101.9 641.7 15.9

CY 1 1 1 1 100.0 10.4 14.6 25.0 579.8 4.3

AT 5 2 8 8 9 88.9 6.0 7.0 54.0 67.0 514.2 13.0

IE 1 1 1 2 50.0 4.4 0.8 5.1 402.2 1.3

DK 1 1 1 1 1 100.0 7.5 8.4 14.8 30.7 232.1 13.2

LU 1 0.0 24.9 0.0

Total 219 209 126 253 317 79.8 5905.7 5649.2 1924.7 13479.5 237342.4 5.7

For Tourism: 55 Promotion of natural assets, 56 Protection and development of natural heritage, 57 Other assistance to improve tourist services.

For Culture: 58 Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage, 59 Development of cultural infrastructure, 60 Other assistance to improve cultural services.

14 H&R: Hotel & Restaurant Economic Activity not included in 55-60 Priority Themes



November 2014 105

Table A2 - OPs investing more than 15 millions of Euro in culture and tourism (ordered by Total allocations in Tourism,

culture and tourism) - 2012 data

Country OP Code Name of the OP Allocations in Tourism

(55-57)

Allocations in Culture (58-60)

Allocations in H&R

(Economic activity=14)

Total allocations in Tourism, Culture and

H&R

Overall amount of OP

Incidence % of

culture and tourism on the total amount

RO 2007RO161PO001 Regional Operational Programme 380.4 295.6 3.1 679.0 3531.3 19.2

GR 2007GR161PO001 Ανταγωνιστικότητα και Επιχειρηματικότητα 101.0 78.5 455.4 634.8 1881.0 33.7

PL 2007PL161PO002 Program Operacyjny Infrastruktura i Środowisko 0.0 405.0 0.0 405.0 24051.0 1.7

GR 2007GR161PO008 Μακεδονία - Θράκη 8.9 248.1 89.6 346.6 3751.1 9.2

PT 2007PT161PO002 PO Regional do Norte 2007-2013 90.5 136.5 96.3 323.4 2545.9 12.7

ES 2007ES161PO008 Programa Operativo FEDER de Andalucía 203.0 101.4 8.7 313.1 5879.9 5.3

HU 2007HU161PO011 Operational Programme for South Transdanubia 93.0 164.7 0.0 257.7 714.1 36.1

SI 2007SI161PO001 Operativni program krepitve regionalnih razvojnih 112.2 109.5 30.8 252.5 1546.8 16.3

CZ 2007CZ16UPO002 Integrovaný operační program 50.9 202.9 0.2 254.0 1303.6 19.5

IT 2007IT161PO010 Programma Operativo FESR Puglia 2007-2013 90.3 138.5 14.8 243.7 2171.0 11.2

LT 2007LT161PO001 2007-2013 m. Sanglaudos skatinimo veiksmų programa 113.3 101.3 0.0 214.6 2491.3 8.6

IT 2007IT161PO011 Por Sicilia FESR 145.8 47.3 6.2 199.3 3513.5 5.7

IT 2007IT161PO001 Poin Attrattori culturali, naturali e turismo 146.9 11.1 35.1 193.1 217.9 88.7

GR 2007GR161PO006 Αττική 8.5 154.8 19.3 182.6 2750.4 6.6

GR 2007GR16UPO002 Κρήτη & Νήσοι Αιγαίου 12.0 75.8 90.0 177.7 1259.3 14.1

GR 2007GR16UPO001 Θεσσαλία - Στερεά Ελλάδα - Ήπειρος 35.1 52.3 85.4 172.8 1631.4 10.6

BG 2007BG161PO001 Operational Programme Regional Development 28.9 135.0 0.0 163.9 1231.3 13.3

PL 2007PL161PO001 Program Operacyjny Innowacyjna Gospodarka, 2007-20 164.6 0.0 2.8 167.3 7369.2 2.3

PT 2007PT161PO003 PO Regional do Centro 2007-2013 19.8 67.1 77.5 164.4 1645.6 10.0

PL 2007PL161PO010 Małopolski Regionalny Program Operacyjny na lata 2 47.1 103.9 9.7 160.7 1200.8 13.4

PT 2007PT161PO001 PO Factores de Competitividade 2007-2013 0.0 0.0 163.4 163.4 3105.1 5.3

HU 2007HU161PO006 Operational Programme for North Hungary 136.0 15.9 0.0 151.9 820.3 18.5

HU 2007HU161PO009 Operational Programme for North Great Plain 139.8 14.5 0.0 154.3 897.0 17.2

PL 2007PL161PO005 Regionalny Program Operacyjny dla Województwa Doln 63.0 34.2 52.3 149.5 1052.3 14.2

IT 2007IT161PO009 Por Campania FESR 79.1 65.8 0.8 145.7 3268.1 4.5

SK 2007SK161PO006 OP Competitiveness and Economic Growth 138.2 5.1 0.0 143.2 716.0 20.0

HU 2007HU161PO004 Operational Programme for South Great Plain 122.2 11.2 0.3 133.8 714.8 18.7

CZ 2007CZ161PO008 ROP NUTS II Severozápad 92.4 38.3 0.0 130.7 562.6 23.2

PL 2007PL161PO020 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Warmińsk 77.5 28.4 24.7 130.7 853.9 15.3

SK 2007SK161PO003 Regional Operational Programme 7.7 124.7 0.0 132.4 1488.7 8.9

PL 2007PL161PO019 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Śląskieg 61.1 50.1 19.3 130.5 1556.2 8.4

PT 2007PT161PO006 Programa Operacional dos Açores para a Convergênci 71.2 26.6 32.5 130.3 955.7 13.6

CZ 2007CZ161PO005 ROP NUTS II Severovýchod 104.0 15.6 1.2 120.9 567.5 21.3


November 2014 106


(55-57)


Allocations in H&R



H&R


Incidence % of


GR 2007GR161PO007 Δυτική Ελλάδα - Πελοπόννησος - Ιόνιοι Νήσοι 32.1 77.6 5.3 114.9 1250.0 9.2

DE 2007DE162PO007 Operationelles Programm EFRE Nordrhein-Westfalen 2 58.8 53.4 0.0 112.2 1220.6 9.2

PT 2007PT161PO004 PO Regional do Alentejo 2007-2013 13.4 31.5 69.1 114.0 793.2 14.4

HU 2007HU161PO003 Operational Programme for West Pannon 48.3 57.5 0.0 105.8 440.6 24.0

CZ 2007CZ161PO001 ROP NUTS II Jihovýchod 60.6 41.3 0.0 101.9 544.4 18.7

HU 2007HU161PO005 Operational Programme for Central Transdanubia 49.0 58.3 0.0 107.3 481.7 22.3

MT 2007MT161PO001 Operational Programme I - Investing in Competitive 31.7 70.2 0.0 101.9 641.7 15.9

PL 2007PL161PO011 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Mazowiec 33.7 69.5 2.8 106.0 1556.0 6.8

ES 2007ES161PO005 Programa Operativo FEDER de Galicia 59.6 32.8 9.0 101.3 2294.4 4.4

EE 2007EE161PO002 Operational Programme for the Development of Livin 70.3 31.8 0.0 102.1 1380.4 7.4

PL 2007PL161PO016 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Zachodni 40.4 51.7 2.7 94.8 703.8 13.5

PL 2007PL161PO007 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Lubelski 52.9 35.1 5.7 93.8 927.7 10.1

CZ 2007CZ161PO002 ROP NUTS II Střední Morava 70.7 19.9 0.2 90.8 440.5 20.6

CZ 2007CZ161PO013 ROP NUTS II Jihozápad 57.2 31.6 0.0 88.9 523.6 17.0

PL 2007PL161PO009 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Łódzkieg 46.5 44.5 4.2 95.2 972.4 9.8

HU 2007HU162PO001 Operational Programme for Central Hungary 57.9 30.3 5.1 93.3 1561.6 6.0

CZ 2007CZ161PO009 ROP NUTS II Střední Čechy 45.3 35.6 0.0 80.9 458.1 17.7

UK 2007UK161PO002 West Wales and the Valleys ERDF Convergence programme 80.6 0.0 0.0 80.6 1287.3 6.3

ES 2007ES162PO006 Programa Operativo FEDER de Cataluña 31.1 44.5 0.0 75.6 638.1 11.9

CZ 2007CZ161PO010 ROP NUTS II Moravskoslezsko 42.0 30.6 0.0 72.6 572.8 12.7

ES 2007ES162PO009 Programa Operativo FEDER de Castilla y León 2.5 57.8 10.5 70.8 851.0 8.3

DE 2007DE162PO010 Operationelles Programm EFRE Niedersachsen (ohne R 30.1 34.9 7.5 72.4 506.3 14.3

ES 2007ES161PO006 Programa Operativo FEDER de Extremadura 12.3 49.7 5.8 67.9 1282.2 5.3

DE 2007DE162PO001 Operationelles Programm EFRE Bayern 2007 - 2013 21.1 27.5 19.2 67.8 476.4 14.2

PL 2007PL161PO015 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Pomorski 37.8 27.2 2.7 67.6 877.3 7.7

PL 2007PL161PO014 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Podlaski 30.0 16.1 19.6 65.7 543.7 12.1

PL 2007PL161PO003 Program Operacyjny Rozwój Polski Wschodniej 2007-2 61.7 0.0 0.0 61.7 2292.8 2.7

PL 2007PL161PO012 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Opolskie 20.6 13.1 29.7 63.4 446.5 14.2

DE 2007DE161PO002 Operationelles Programm EFRE Brandenburg 2007-2013 27.9 16.4 20.8 65.1 1247.5 5.2

DE 2007DE161PO007 Operationelles Programm EFRE Sachsen-Anhalt 2007-2 18.2 31.1 14.0 63.3 1663.1 3.8

PL 2007PL161PO006 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Kujawsko 44.0 18.5 0.7 63.2 773.5 8.2

CB 2007CB163PO005 Programa Operativo FEDER Cooperación Transfronteri 36.1 21.4 0.0 57.5 257.7 22.3

CB 2007CB163PO017 Programm Ziel 3 / Cíl 3 zur Förderung der grenzübe 47.2 14.0 0.0 61.1 196.0 31.2

PL 2007PL161PO017 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Wielkopo 30.4 24.5 1.7 56.6 1192.1 4.7

IT 2007IT162PO005 Por Liguria FESR 0.0 52.1 2.5 54.6 489.7 11.2


November 2014 107


(55-57)


Allocations in H&R



H&R


Incidence % of


CB 2007CB163PO063 INTERREG IV France-Wallonie-Vlaanderen 25.6 28.9 0.0 54.5 140.6 38.8

BE 2007BE161PO001 Programme opérationnel 'Convergence' Hainaut - FED 36.3 15.2 0.0 51.6 455.2 11.3

DE 2007DE161PO001 Operationelles Programm EFRE Thüringen 2007 bis 20 9.8 37.8 3.0 50.6 1053.1 4.8

DE 2007DE162PO003 Operationelles Programm EFRE Schleswig-Holstein 20 19.1 13.1 18.3 50.6 316.2 16.0

CB 2007CB163PO025 OP Česká republika - Polsko 40.5 12.5 0.2 53.2 168.1 31.7

PL 2007PL161PO018 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Świętokr 41.9 13.1 0.0 55.0 634.0 8.7

PT 2007PT16UPO001 PO Temático Valorização do Território 2007-2013 0.0 53.1 0.0 53.1 3775.0 1.4

CB 2007CB163PO006 Programa Operativo FEDER Cooperación Transfronteri 39.2 13.8 0.0 53.0 163.9 32.3

PL 2007PL161PO013 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Podkarpa 5.6 29.9 13.9 49.4 1055.4 4.7

PT 2007PT162PO002 PO Valorização do Potencial Económico e Coesão Ter 24.9 7.8 15.7 48.4 281.7 17.2

DE 2007DE161PO006 Operationelles Programm EFRE Niedersachsen - Regio 21.9 21.8 4.6 48.3 486.5 9.9

FR 2007FR161PO003 Programme opérationnel FEDER Martinique 33.9 14.4 0.0 48.3 318.4 15.2

CB 2007CB163PO038 Programme des 2 mers 16.1 29.4 0.0 45.5 164.5 27.7

EE 2007EE161PO001 Operational Programme for the Development of Econo 44.4 0.0 0.1 44.5 1387.4 3.2

PL 2007PL161PO008 Regionalny Program Operacyjny Województwa Lubuskie 19.8 15.5 6.5 41.7 406.0 10.3

BE 2007BE162PO003 Programme opérationnel 'Compétitivité régionale et 8.5 30.3 0.0 38.8 290.0 13.4

FR 2007FR161PO004 Programme opérationnel FEDER Réunion 32.2 3.3 7.8 43.3 672.1 6.5

NL 2007NL162PO001 Operationeel Programma Noord 2007-2013 31.0 13.2 0.0 44.2 188.1 23.5

NL 2007NL162PO002 Operationeel Programma West 2007-2013 24.3 15.4 0.9 40.6 301.3 13.5

UK 2007UK162PO008 North West England ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment 18.6 20.2 0.0 38.8 568.6 6.8

DE 2007DE161PO003 Operationelles Programm EFRE 2007 - 2013 Mecklenbu 0.0 0.0 38.7 38.7 912.8 4.2

DE 2007DE162PO011 Operationelles Programm EFRE Rheinland-Pfalz 2007- 11.8 4.7 17.5 33.9 158.9 21.4

IT 2007IT162PO002 Por Emilia Romagna FESR 8.2 25.7 0.0 33.9 172.3 19.7

CB 2007CB163PO034 PO Italia-Francia Alpi (ALCOTRA) 14.0 22.5 0.0 36.5 144.0 25.4

CB 2007CB163PO068 Hungary-Slovakia Cross-border Co-operation Program 24.3 8.5 0.0 32.8 140.3 23.4

FI 2007FI162PO002 Pohjois-Suomen EAKR-toimenpideohjelma 2007-2013 26.5 8.8 4.7 40.0 301.0 13.3

IT 2007IT161PO012 Por Basilicata ST FESR 2.5 30.8 1.4 34.6 252.3 13.7

CB 2007CB163PO019 Ziel 3-Programm zur grenzüberschreitenden Zusammen 14.0 21.4 0.0 35.4 116.2 30.4

DE 2007DE162PO004 Operationelles Programm EFRE Berlin 2007-2013 3.8 29.4 0.5 33.6 814.7 4.1

IT 2007IT161PO008 POR Calabria FESR 2007 - 2013 7.3 26.3 0.0 33.6 932.6 3.6

IT 2007IT162PO011 PO Regione Piemonte FESR 30.3 0.0 0.6 30.9 309.2 10.0

LV 2007LV161PO002 Infrastructure and Services 0.0 34.5 0.0 34.5 2975.7 1.2

CB 2007CB163PO040 Interreg IV A programme de coopération transfronta 7.1 22.7 1.8 31.7 153.4 20.6

SE 2007SE162PO007 Mellersta Norrland 27.1 4.6 0.0 31.7 181.7 17.4


November 2014 108


(55-57)


Allocations in H&R



H&R


Incidence % of


DK 2007DK162PO001 Innovation og Viden 7.5 8.4 14.8 30.7 232.1 13.2

CB 2007CB163PO012 Program współpracy przygranicznej Polska-Słowacja 13.6 19.7 0.0 33.3 140.3 23.8

ES 2007ES161PO004 Programa Operativo FEDER de Asturias 13.9 14.6 3.0 31.5 467.1 6.7

ES 2007ES161PO007 Programa Operativo FEDER de Castilla La Mancha 16.5 5.5 11.3 33.3 1232.0 2.7

FI 2007FI162PO001 Itä-Suomen EAKR-toimenpideohjelma 2007-2013 24.0 3.7 2.0 29.7 314.7 9.4

FR 2007FR162PO017 Programme opérationnel FEDER NORD PAS-DE-CALAIS 0.0 35.0 0.0 35.0 533.0 6.6

UK 2007UK162PO003 Nothern Ireland ERDF Regional Competitiveness and Employment 33.2 0.0 0.0 33.2 177.2 18.7

DE 2007DE162PO005 Operationelles Programm EFRE Hessen 2007-2013 24.7 0.5 1.6 26.8 222.8 12.0

PT 2007PT162PO001 PO Regional de Lisboa 2007-2013 8.4 16.8 0.7 25.9 316.8 8.2

CB 2007CB163PO009 Ziel 3-Programm zur grenzübergreifenden Zusammenar 9.8 17.8 0.0 27.6 105.5 26.1

CB 2007CB163PO035 Programma Operativo di Cooperazione Transfrontalie 21.2 10.9 0.0 32.1 63.8 50.3

FR 2007FR162PO016 Programme opérationnel FEDER PAYS DE LA LOIRE 5.8 20.0 0.0 25.8 237.2 10.9

ES 2007ES162PO004 Programa Operativo FEDER de Madrid 6.6 20.9 0.0 27.5 219.1 12.6

CB 2007CB163PO018 Operationelles Programm zur grenzübergreifenden Zu 10.6 14.1 0.0 24.7 98.6 25.1

CB 2007CB163PO059 Πρόγραμμα Ευρωπαϊκής Εδαφικής Συνεργασίας Ελλάδα – 7.9 15.0 0.0 22.9 115.9 19.7

SE 2007SE162PO008 Övre Norrland 24.9 3.4 0.0 28.3 255.4 11.1

AT 2007AT161PO001 OP Burgenland 2007-2013: Ziel Konvergenz/Phasing O 3.6 6.1 18.5 28.2 96.2 29.3

FR 2007FR162PO004 Programme opérationnel FEDER AUVERGNE 20.3 1.6 0.9 22.8 168.5 13.5

CB 2007CB163PO036 Programma per la cooperazione transfrontaliera Ita 10.4 18.7 0.0 29.0 114.2 25.4

CB 2007CB163PO061 Central Europe 2007-2013 6.3 14.6 0.0 20.9 233.7 8.9

HU 2007HU161PO008 Operational Programme for Social Infrastructure 0.0 22.7 0.0 22.7 1410.8 1.6

CB 2007CB163PO069 South East Europe (SEE) Transnational Co-operation 10.2 10.5 0.0 20.8 218.7 9.5

CB 2007CB163PO011 Program współpracy przygranicznej Polska-Niemcy (w 20.8 5.2 0.0 26.1 113.3 23.0

PT 2007PT161PO005 PO Regional do Algarve 2007-2013 7.5 4.5 13.2 25.2 141.7 17.8

CB 2007CB163PO026 Interreg IV Öresund-Kattegatt-Skagerrak 8.6 9.3 0.0 17.9 111.9 16.0

ES 2007ES162PO010 Programa Operativo FEDER de la Comunidad Valencian 15.2 6.2 1.0 22.4 1245.7 1.8

FR 2007FR162PO022 Programme opérationnel FEDER RHONE-ALPES 22.1 3.9 0.0 26.0 296.2 8.8

GR 2007GR161PO002 Ψηφιακή Σύγκλιση 0.0 0.0 19.7 19.7 837.9 2.4

IT 2007IT162PO004 Por Lazio FESR 21.5 2.8 0.0 24.2 373.4 6.5

CB 2007CB163PO066 Central Baltic INTERREG IV A Programme 2007-2013 4.8 12.1 0.0 16.9 100.0 16.9

CY 2007CY16UPO001 Sustainable Development and Competitiveness 0.0 10.4 14.6 25.0 579.8 4.3

DE 2007DE161PO004 Operationelles Programm EFRE Sachsen 2007-2013 5.9 0.0 17.3 23.2 2782.3 0.8

FR 2007FR162PO001 Programme opérationnel FEDER AQUITAINE 22.3 0.0 0.0 22.3 331.8 6.7

CB 2007CB163PO054 Operational Programme Slovenia-Austria 2007-2013 12.6 6.0 0.0 18.6 66.7 27.9


November 2014 109


(55-57)


Allocations in H&R



H&R


Incidence % of


FR 2007FR162PO014 Programme opérationnel FEDER LIMOUSIN 5.7 11.9 0.0 17.7 96.6 18.3

IT 2007IT162PO016 Por Sardegna ST FESR 3.4 13.1 1.2 17.7 551.2 3.2

UK 2007UK161PO001 Highlands and Islands of Scotland ERDF phasing out 11.1 9.5 0.7 21.3 120.2 17.7

CB 2008CB163PO001 Programa de Cooperación Territorial Transfronteriz 13.6 8.7 0.0 22.2 88.6 25.1

CB 2007CB163PO030 Program cezhraničnej spolupráce Slovenská republik 9.2 7.4 0.0 16.7 82.1 20.3

CB 2007CB163PO031 Lithuania - Poland 2007-2013 European Teritorial C 4.4 14.2 0.0 18.5 72.2 25.7

CB 2007CB163PO064 Programme transfrontalier Grande Région 7.7 10.0 0.0 17.6 102.0 17.3

CB 2007CB163PO065 Grensregio Vlaanderen - Nederland - Operationeel p 9.9 9.6 0.0 19.4 94.0 20.7

IT 2007IT162PO012 Por Toscana FESR 11.0 8.7 0.7 20.3 332.7 6.1

CB 2007CB163PO002 Operational Programme Objective European Territori 10.4 9.0 0.0 19.3 91.4 21.2

CB 2007CB163PO047 EU Programme for Cross Border Territorial Cooperat 15.4 3.9 0.0 19.3 161.3 11.9

CB 2007CB163PO052 INTERREG IV A Italia/Austria 12.0 5.5 0.0 17.5 56.6 30.9

FR 2007FR161PO002 Programme opérationnel FEDER Guadeloupe 20.1 0.1 0.0 20.2 317.9 6.4

CB 2007CB163PO045 Programme opérationnel CTE MED - Méditerranée 10.3 6.1 0.0 16.4 185.8 8.8

CB 2007CB163PO060 Πρόγραμμα Ευρωπαϊκής Εδαφικής Συνεργασίας Ελλάδα – 5.5 13.6 0.0 19.0 59.5 31.9

FR 2007FR162PO021 Programme opérationnel FEDER MIDI-PYRENEES 11.0 0.2 6.0 17.2 377.1 4.6

CB 2007CB163PO067 Hungary-Romania Cross-border Co-operation Programm 7.6 7.8 0.0 15.3 224.5 6.8

ES 2007ES162PO011 Programa Operativo FEDER de Canarias 0.0 0.0 16.2 16.2 863.8 1.9

IT 2007IT162PO006 Por Lombardia FESR 11.8 6.2 0.0 18.0 189.1 9.5

FR 2007FR162PO006 Programme opérationnel FEDER BOURGOGNE 11.2 3.9 0.0 15.2 158.0 9.6

FR 2007FR162PO010 Programme opérationnel FEDER FRANCHE-COMTE 9.3 6.6 0.0 16.0 120.8 13.2

IT 2007IT162PO015 Por Veneto FESR 3.9 9.4 1.8 15.1 193.0 7.8

Total targeted OPs 5641.9 5446.5 1839.6 12928.0 157913.2 8.2

Overall OPs with al allocations in culture and tourism 5905.7 5649.2 1924.7 13479.5 180331.7 7.5 For Tourism: 55 Promotion of natural assets, 56 Protection and development of natural heritage, 57 Other assistance to improve tourist services; For Culture: 58 Protection and preservation of

the cultural heritage, 59 Development of cultural infrastructure, 60 Other assistance to improve cultural services.




November 2014 110

Table A3 - Allocations in culture and tourism by Economic sector (ordered by % of the total) - 2012 data





M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € %

Other unspecified services 295.6 36.4 86.5 12.6 2046.0 46.4 2477.1 40.6 1585.6 49.8 697.9 33.1 182.4 51.2 2548.8 43.6 4893.9 42.4

Not applicable 40.1 4.9 168.1 24.6 432.4 9.8 670.2 11.0 653.1 20.5 569.8 27.0 83.3 23.4 1353.7 23.1 1946.9 16.8

Public administration 136.4 16.8 101.6 14.8 470.7 10.7 740.3 12.1 356.7 11.2 461.8 21.9 35.1 9.9 886.7 15.2 1562.2 13.5

Hotels and restaurants 42.6 5.3 8.2 1.2 781.4 17.7 838.6 13.7 49.4 1.6 5.4 0.3 1.7 0.5 58.4 1.0 888.8 7.7

Construction 33.9 4.2 32.2 4.7 276.7 6.3 351.6 5.8 202.1 6.4 128.4 6.1 10.9 3.1 353.9 6.1 684.2 5.9

Activities linked to the environment 155.1 19.1 217.3 31.8 84.7 1.9 508.0 8.3 55.7 1.7 10.8 0.5 1.6 0.5 70.4 1.2 525.2 4.5

Social work, community, social and personal services 44.9 5.5 32.8 4.8 100.2 2.3 188.2 3.1 140.5 4.4 145.9 6.9 19.0 5.3 316.7 5.4 483.3 4.2

Real estate, renting and business activities 44.0 5.4 1.8 0.3 104.2 2.4 155.6 2.5 62.4 2.0 43.7 2.1 8.1 2.3 118.2 2.0 264.1 2.3

Education 2.4 0.3 0.7 0.1 17.3 0.4 20.8 0.3 49.8 1.6 44.7 2.1 11.0 3.1 109.2 1.9 125.9 1.1

Transport 3.5 0.4 18.2 2.7 30.6 0.7 55.4 0.9 8.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.2 9.1 0.2 61.2 0.5

Human health activities 5.2 0.6 6.9 1.0 38.0 0.9 51.8 0.8 8.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.4 0.1 58.3 0.5

Wholesale and retail trade 0.0 4.2 0.6 15.5 0.4 20.4 0.3 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 2.3 0.0 21.9 0.2

Agricuture, hunting and forestry 4.4 0.5 5.5 0.8 5.9 0.1 17.2 0.3 4.3 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.1 21.1 0.2

Collection, purification and distribution fo water 2.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 3.6 0.0

Manufacture of food products and beverages 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 3.2 0.0

Manufacture of textiles and textile products 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.1 1.3 0.4 3.1 0.1 3.0 0.0

Unspecified manufacturing industries 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.3 0.1 2.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 3.0 0.0

Financial intermediation 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 2.2 0.0

Fishing 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0

Manufacture of tranport equipment 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0

Mining and quarrying of energy producting materials 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0

Post and telecommunications 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0

Total 812.0 100.0 684.3 100.0 4409.4 100.0 6105.7 100.0 3181.9 100.0 2111.3 100.0 356.0 100.0 5849.2 100.0 11554.9 100.0

55 56 57 55-57

TotalTourism Culture

58 59Economic Cd

60 58-60


November 2014 111

Table A4 - Allocations in culture and tourism by territorial dimension (ordered by % of the total) - 2012 data





M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € % M. € %

Urban 338,5 41,7 238,5 34,9 2107,7 47,8 2761,2 45,2 1716,1 53,9 1281,0 60,7 125,8 35,3 3237,5 55,3 692,8 36,0 6500,3 48,2

Rural areas 246,1 30,3 117,4 17,2 942,8 21,4 1353,8 22,2 736,5 23,1 223,1 10,6 19,4 5,4 1012,6 17,3 448,7 23,3 2733,9 20,3

Not applicable 58,8 7,2 60,2 8,8 578,3 13,1 713,4 11,7 214,4 6,7 347,3 16,4 14,6 4,1 599,4 10,2 262,9 13,7 1536,5 11,4

Cross-border cooperation area 52,4 6,5 131,6 19,2 387,7 8,8 597,5 9,8 235,5 7,4 117,3 5,6 146,4 41,1 512,2 8,8 2,9 0,1 1073,9 8,0

Islands 8,8 1,1 9,0 1,3 129,7 2,9 149,9 2,5 96,8 3,0 34,0 1,6 11,8 3,3 147,3 2,5 257,7 13,4 547,8 4,1

Outermost region 65,1 8,0 36,8 5,4 86,9 2,0 202,2 3,3 21,6 0,7 29,0 1,4 5,5 1,5 58,1 1,0 63,9 3,3 308,7 2,3

Sparsely and very sparsely

pupulated areas 23,0 2,8 19,3 2,8 86,7 2,0 134,6 2,2 35,4 1,1 34,7 1,6 5,1 1,4 78,0 1,3 97,7 5,1 301,9 2,2

Mountains 2,1 0,3 48,3 7,1 28,1 0,6 85,8 1,4 96,9 3,0 23,6 1,1 3,5 1,0 128,1 2,2 34,5 1,8 236,9 1,8

Transnational cooperation area 13,7 1,7 18,4 2,7 37,1 0,8 73,6 1,2 23,4 0,7 8,2 0,4 18,9 5,3 51,6 0,9 0,0 119,7 0,9

Former UE external borders (after

30.04.2004 ) 3,1 0,4 3,2 0,5 16,9 0,4 24,0 0,4 5,2 0,2 13,2 0,6 5,0 1,4 24,3 0,4 63,6 3,3 110,2 0,8

Inter-regional cooperation area 0,3 0,0 1,7 0,3 7,4 0,2 9,7 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,0 9,6 0,1

Total 812,0 100,0 684,3 100,0 4409,4 100,0 6105,7 100,0 3181,9 100,0 2111,3 100,0 356,0 100,0 5849,2 100,0 1924,7 100,0 13479,5 100,0

55 56 57 55-57

Tourism Culture Total

58Territory Cd

59 60 58-60

14 - H&R



November 2014 112

Table A5 – Hotel & Restaurant Economic Sector: Allocations by Priority

themes - 2012 data

Millions of EURO %

01 - R&TD activities in research centres 0.3 0.0 03 - Technology transfer and improvement of cooperation networks between small business (SMEs), between these and other business and universities, post-secondary education establishments of all kinds, regional authorities, research centres and scientific and technological poles

1.4 0.0

04 - Assistance to R&TD, particularly in SMEs 0.7 0.0 05 - Advances support services for firms and groups of firms 6.8 0.2 06 - Assistance to SMEs for the promotion of environmentally-friendly products and production processs

31.5 1.1

07 - Investment in firms directly linked to research and innovation 410.6 14.6 08 - Other investment in firms 958.6 34.1 09 - Other measures to stimulate research and innovation and entrepreneurship in SMEs 426.6 15.2 11 - Information and communication technologies (access, security, interoperability, risk-prevention, research, innovation, e-content, etc).

1.6 0.1

13 - Services and applications for the citizen (e-health, e-government, etc.). 0.4 0.0 14 - Services and applications for SMEs (e-commerce, education and training, networking, etc.).

35.7 1.3

15 - Other measures for improving access and efficient use of ICT by SMEs 4.1 0.1 24 - Cycle tracks 0.0 0.0 40 - Renewable energy: solar 1.7 0.1 41 - Renewable energy: biomass 3.3 0.1 42 - Renewable energy: hydroelectric, geothermal and other 1.1 0.0 43 - Energy efficiency, co-generation, energy management 9.3 0.3 48 - Integrated prevention and pollution control 0.0 0.0 50 - Rehabilitation of industrial sites and contaminated land 0.0 0.0 51 - Promotion of biodiversity and nature protecion (including Natura 2000) 2.1 0.1 53 - Riks prevention (including the drafting and implementation of plans and measures to prevent and manage natural and technological risks)

0.1 0.0

54 - Other measures to preserve the environment and prevent risks 4.1 0.1 55 - Promotion of natural assets 42.6 1.5 56 - Protection and development of natural heritage 8.2 0.3 57 - Other assistance to improve tourist services 781.4 27.8 58 - Protection and preservation of the cultural heritage 49.4 1.8 59 - Development of cultural infrastructure 5.4 0.2 60 - Other assistance to improve cultural services 1.7 0.1 61 - Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration 11.7 0.4 68 - Support for self-employment and business start-up 2.3 0.1 71 - Pathways to integration and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people; combating discrimination in accessing and progressing in the labour market and promoting acceptance of diversity at the workplace

0.4 0.0

72 - Design, introduction and implementation of reforms in education and training systems in order to develop employbility, improving the labour market relevance of initial and vocational education and training

1.8 0.1

77 - Childcare infrastructure 0.1 0.0 79 - Other social infrastructure 3.0 0.1 81 - Mechanisms for improving good policy and programme design, monitoring and evaluation at national, regional and local level, capacity building in the delivery of policies and programmes.

0.1 0.0

83 - Specific action addressed to compensate additional costs due to size market factors 5.1 0.2 85 - Preparation, implementation, monitoring and inspection 0.0 0.0 86 - Evaluation and studies; information and communication 0.0 0.0 Total 2813.4 100.0

Total 888.8 31.6 Source: calculation on DG Regio – ERDF AIR rawdata (Project selection), 2007-2013



November 2014 113

Table A6 – List of relevant indicators related to culture and tourism

OP Unit of

measurement Indicator name

2007AT162PO003 € Investment induced in the field of the improvement of touristic services

2007BE161PO001 enterprises Number of enterprises participating to a touristic network

touristic networks Number of touristic networks initiated or supported

2007BE162PO002 Realisations Number of realisations in improving the touristic and (socio-)cultural of (less know) city areas)

2007BE162PO003

enterprises Number of enterprises participating to a touristic network

networks Number of touristic networks initiated or supported

touristic networks Number of touristic networks initiated or supported

2007BG161PO001

persons Annual number of participants (organisations, companies) in international, national and regional tourism fairs and exhibitions

facilities Cultural facilities improved

% Bed occupancy rate

Satisfaction of visitors with attractions and information services

visitors Additional annual number of visitors of attractions supported

€ m Net annual revenues from international tourism

enterprises Number of enterprises involved in promotion projects in Bulgaria

Number of enterprises involved in promotion projects abroad

Events Number of promotional events to promote conformity assessment, certification and product quality

km Kilometres constructed / rehabilitated gas connection with relevant borudvane

projects Number of investment projects

Number of completed investment projects in the sectors targeted

services Number of new or improved business services provided by organizations NQI

start-ups Number of start-ups backed by financial products

centres Number of supported / created centres for technology transfer, technology incubators, technology centres, technology parks and other pro-innovative firms

Incubators Number of supported regional business incubators created / updated

% Survival of innovative start-ups

visitors Increase the number of people using the website of the ASME

companies Number of supported companies that use specialized consulting services

innovations Number of innovations introduced / ready to be brought to market

applications Number of applications from commercial to trade marks, designs, patents, etc. by supported enterprises and research organization

certificates Number of certificates introduced in supported enterprises

installations Number of introduced CHP installations in supported enterprises

compressor stations

Number of purchased and installed compressor stations

inquiries Number of inquiries from potential investors in targeted sectors

labs Number of supported labs

2007CB163PO003 projects Number of common cultural actions

person No visitor of cultural events

2007CB163PO004 number Elaborated concepts (e.g. tourism)

Established tourism infrastructure

2007CB163PO009 projects Education and general learning, science, research, culture, health, social, civil protection and disaster prevention - Support of culture



November 2014 114

OP Unit of


2007CB163PO017 projects Improvement of the cooperation in the field of art and culture

2007CB163PO017 projects Improvement of the cooperation in the field of art and culture

m Length of the built or maintained touristic roads

2007CB163PO025 Products Number of tourism products / services

buildings Number of new / reconstructed tourism facilities

2007CB163PO027 solutions RI 7: No. of new or improved solutions for sustainable management of cultural heritage

2007CB163PO028 cooperations

Cooperation and knowledge sharing among linguistic minorities

Cooperation in order to create the conditions for an environmentally sound use of nature as a resource for processing and tourism

Cooperation in order to develop activities based on the cultural values that exist in communities in the archipelago , coastal and mountain areas and World Heritage sites

Cooperation in order to preserve and develop the cultural history as a resource for regional growth

Creation of communities in areas such as culture and recreation for young people , students and newcomers

Cooperation between regional newspapers , television , Internet and radio media which help to increase the knowledge of neighbours

2007CB163PO031

Products

No of ecotourism products/services developed/ improved due to supported operations

No of developed joint tourism products

Places No of places for incoming tourists created on both sides of the border due to supported operations

objects No of developed/ renewed cultural/historical/tourism infrastructure and objects

2007CB163PO033 networks

Networks of harbours and touristic services

Networks of wildlife and marine parks

Number of networks (training, cultural, athletical social and touristic) created in cooperation areas

2007CB163PO034 towns Number of towns covered by touristic itineraries

itineraries Number of touristic itineraries

2007CB163PO035 persons

Number of persons buying touristic packages

Number of participants to cultural events

packages Number of thematic touristic packages

2007CB163PO036

networks Number of network in tourism

persons Number of participants in cultural events

infrastructures Number of cultural infrastructures used jointly

2007CB163PO037 countries / tour operators

Number of countries / tour operators achieved by the actions of territorial marketing and promotion of culture and tourism.

2007CB163PO039 number Number of new tourism offerings created

2007CB163PO056 products and service offers

Number of new intercultural offers

2007CB163PO058 Actions Number of actions of management, utilization and promotion of cultural resources

2007CB163PO059 co operations Establishment of joint co operations for the promotion of cultural assets

2007CB163PO060 Events Number of joint events and cooperation in the fields of tourism, culture and natural heritage promotion

2007CB163PO068 projects Tourism cooperation (Number of jointly developed tourist attractions)

2007CY16UPO001 beds Number of beds upgraded in tourist establishments



November 2014 115

OP Unit of


2007CZ161PO001

beds Number of newly created or reconstructed beds total

projects

Number of created marketing and promotion products for tourism

Number of supported cultural events

Number of products created for navigation and routing of visitors

institutions Number of newly certified facilities in tourism

objects Number of new and technically improved objects of tourism infrastructure

Number of renovated historical monuments

2007CZ161PO002

projects Number of created marketing and promotion products for tourism

% Share of overnight stays of guests in hotel facilities of the region on the total number of stays in the Czech Republic except for Prague)

2007CZ161PO005 beds Number of newly created or reconstructed beds total

objects Number of renovated historical monuments

2007CZ161PO008 projects Number of newly created or reconstructed beds total




overnight stays Visitors of the region – number of overnight stays

2007CZ161PO013

beds Number of newly created or reconstructed beds total

projects Number of renovated historical monuments

Number of products created for navigation and routing of visitors

visitors Visitors of the region – number of overnight stays

2007CZ162PO001 % Use of regenerated or recultivated area - increase in number of visitors


2007CZ16UPO002

Products Number of created publicity or marketing products for tourism

facilities Number of newly built or modernised cultural facilities

%

Increase in the share of tourists in the number of visitors to the CR

Increase in the number of visitors to monuments and cultural facilities

Share of entities operating in tourism in the CR, which will be connected to the information system

monuments Number of regenerated immovable cultural monuments

methodologies Number of created methodologies in the cultural heritage area

2007DE161PO004 projects Rehabilitated adits

m Functioning adits

2007DE161PO006

jobs Jobs safeguarded due to supported film and media projects

visitors Number of visitors in supported facilities

institutions Number of visitors in supported cultural institutions

Upgraded cultural institutions

infrastructures Number of newly established or upgraded infrastructures (edutainment, cycle paths, bridleways etc.)

2007DE161PO007 ha Newly created area: Trades, industries, tourism, rehabilitated area (in ha)

2007DE162PO001 m2 Area of new museums

2007DE162PO002 visitors Number of visitors’ arrivals (arrivals of day tourism)

overnight stays Number of overnights



November 2014 116

OP Unit of


2007DE162PO003

persons Thereof involved in culture

services Number of new developed cultural economy products and services

visitors Increase of visiting numbers in funded institutions (here absolute visitors numbers)

2007DE162PO005 persons Number of visitors / users p.a. in 1000 (tourism infrastructure)

2007DE162PO009

centres Modernised cultural centres in neighbourhood districts

% relative increase of people using cultural centres in neighbourhood districts

partnerships Initiated development partnership for urban development through culture

2007DE162PO010 institutions Number of modernised culture institutions

overnight stays Development of the overnight stays (tourism)

2007EE161PO001 persons Increase in overnight visitors in accommodation establishments

% Decrease in seasonality

2007EE161PO002 Sites Number of visitor sites created or qualitatively improved

2007ES161PO004 number Number of plans and dissemination campaigns for touristic promotion developed

2007FR161PO002

% % Of tourists other than metropolitan

Increased number of nights

number Number of licenses of brand quality in tourism

number of promotional campaign

Number of Guadeloupe promotional campaign oriented towards new targets

Number of rooms Capacity accuil created or furnished

2007FR161PO003 Sites Number of cultural and heritage sites restored

nights Increase the number of hotel nights

2007FR161PO004

rooms Additional host capacity of hotels

€ m

Amounts of investment (tourism and tic)

Amount of investment projects related to facilities and equipment for tourism

2007FR162PO003 number Number of host structure created

persons Number of visitors participate in events organized thanks to the program

2007FR162PO005 number Virtual tourist routes

2007FR162PO006 M nights Numbers of nights hotels

2007FR162PO009 centres Number of tourist centres created

2007FR162PO010 number Number of beds created

Number of requalified beds

2007FR162PO014 number Number of nights hotels

nights Number of nights spent in hotels

2007FR162PO023 number

Number of shelters in which were improved the quality of reception and comfort, the working conditions of the keepers, work up to standards and improving environmental quality and access

€ m Amount of investment in shelters summer / winter

2007FR162PO024 m Number of annual visitors paying a right to enter on large sites

2007GR161PO001

beds Number of new beds in tourist establishments

% Percentage of beds upgraded in tourist establishments

heritage attractions

Number of tourism - cultural infrastructures supported



November 2014 117

OP Unit of


2007GR161PO006 number

Number of museums - monuments rehabilitated

Tourist beds modernised

Investment projects on alternative forms of tourism

2007GR161PO007 beds Number of tourist beds modernised

monuments Number of museums - monuments rehabilitated

2007GR161PO008 beds

Number of tourist beds modernised

Number of new tourist beds

number Number of museums - monuments rehabilitated

2007GR16UPO001

% Tourist beds modernised

Contemporary culture buildings

Contemporary culture buildings

infrastructure Number of cultural tourism infrastructure supported

tourism promotion programmes

Tourism promotion programmes

monuments/archaeological sites

Monuments / archaeological sites rehabilitated

2007GR16UPO002 number Tourist beds modernised

Monuments / archaeological sites rehabilitated

2007HU161PO004 person Number of guest nights at commercial/business accommodations (per 1000 persons) (nights)

2007HU161PO005

persons Average number of visitors at the supported tourism attraction (persons)

nights Number of guest nights at commercial/business accommodations (per 1000 persons) (nights)

2007HU161PO006


nights/T persons Number of guest nights at commercial/business accommodations (per 1000 persons) (nights)

2007HU162PO001


nights/1T persons Number of guest nights at commercial/business accommodations (per 1000 persons) (nights)

2007IE162PO001 visitors No. of visitors to 2 New National Park Visitor Centres

2007IT161PO001

programmes Number of international cultural programme

interventions

Number of interventions for renovation, conservation and requalification of cultural assets

Number of interventions for improving buildings used for cultural activities

Number of intangible interventions for promoting the integration of inter-regional touristic offer

2007IT161PO008

beds Number of beds in high quality accommodations of regional touristic destination

enterprises

Number of enterprises (recovery and renovation of cultural assets)

Number of enterprises (marketing for network of cultural services)

Number of enterprises (production and diffusion of cultural events)

Number of new/updated touristic enterprises

Number of enterprises (services for cultural networks)

centres Number of new cultural multifunctional centres

% Presence of foreign tourists (%)

Increase in bed in accommodations (%)

days/inhabitant Days of touristic presence (non-summer time)

2007IT161PO009 % Valorisation of cultural and historical assets

days Days of touristic presences (except for summer time)



November 2014 118

OP Unit of


2007IT161PO010

% Increase in touristic presence in areas covered by valorisation/riqualification projects (%)

days/inhabitant Days of touristic presences (except for summer time)

Days of touristic presences in accommodations

2007IT161PO012

enterprises Number of enterprises benefiting from touristic projects

persons Number of additional touristic arrivals

Number of additional touristic arrivals (protected areas)

presences per capita

Tourist presences per capita in non-summer months

2007IT162PO001

% Recovery of touristic demand (%)

days Number of touristic presence days

buildings Number of high relevant historic, cultural and architectural buildings for cultural activities

2007IT162PO002 € m Enterprise investments in sustainable culture and tourism projects financed by OP

2007IT162PO003

beds Number of new beds

buildings Number of recovered buildings for touristic purposes

accomodations Number of accommodations that can be reserved through touristic portal

2007IT162PO004 beds Number of beds created in accommodation facilities of valorised protected areas

2007IT162PO006

persons Increasing in persons visiting rehabilited buildings and areas

assets

Number of upgraded cultural assets (religious buildings)

Number of upgraded cultural assets (historical buildings)

Number of upgraded cultural assets (mobile assets)

Number of upgraded cultural assets

2007IT162PO007 projects

Number of historical and cultural assets recovered

Number of recovered/valorised cultural areas

Number of interventions to upgrade cultural heritage

2007IT162PO008

enterprises Number of touristic enterprises benefiting from facilitations

Number of female touristic enterprises benefiting from facilitations

infrastructures Number of cultural infrastructures

€ m Investments for recreation areas and cultural infrastructures

2007IT162PO011 % Increase in number of persons visiting recovered buildings and monuments

2007IT162PO012 assets Number of recovered cultural assets

€ m Investments in sustainable tourism (millions of euro)

2007IT162PO014 persons Number of visitors in recovered and valorised area and buildings

areas Touristic areas covered by support and valorisation projects

2007IT162PO015 % Additional tourists in area covered by territorial valorisation projects (%)

2007LT161PO001

number of protected territories

Number of protected territories (national parks and reserves) where tourist centres and visual information systems are established

percentage points Increase in percentage of protected territories where conditions to visit without damaging nature are provided

2007PL161PO001 million persons Number of people benefiting from tourism products resulting from the support of the OP IE

2007PL161PO002

persons Increase in the number of visitors to museums

items

Number of restored and renovated historical buildings

Increase in the number of new / built, expanded and reconstructed cultural institutions (museums, galleries, theaters and music institutions)

€ bn Growth of foreign tourist expenditures in Poland



November 2014 119

OP Unit of


2007PL161PO003 items Number of tourist attractions made available

2007PL161PO005

persons Number of people visiting supported cultural institutions

items Number of cultural heritage sites made accessible to tourists

Number of supported cultural institutions

2007PL161PO006

persons Number of tourists using produced / modernized tourist products

items Number of supported enterprises in the field of tourism

units Number of culture projects

2007PL161PO007

persons Number of tourists

items

Number of accommodation beds resulting from the implementation of projects

Number of constructed / modernized objects of culture

Number of jobs created in culture

New types of services / products / attractions offered as a result of implementation of projects

2007PL161PO008 persons

Number of people using the supported infrastructure of culture and tourism - foreign citizens thereof

Number of people using the supported infrastructure of culture and tourism

M PLN Revenue from tourism infrastructure under the support of the program

2007PL161PO009 items Number of culture projects

Number of jobs created in the area of culture

2007PL161PO010

persons Number of visitors to Malopolska Region

persons/year Number of tourists visiting Krakow

items

Number of new, modernized, equipped objects of culture and heritage

Number of supported objects in the field of cultural infrastructure in Krakow Metropolitan Area

2007PL161PO011 items Number of new, modernized facilities of culture and heritage

Total number of directly created new jobs (FTE) in the culture

2007PL161PO012 items Number of supported institutions of culture

2007PL161PO013 items Number of supported cultural institutions

Number of cultural heritage buildings opened to tourism

2007PL161PO014

persons Number of people using tourist attractions arising from the implementation of the program

items

Number of infrastructure projects in the field of culture and protection of cultural heritage

Number of new or modernized objects of cultural infrastructure

2007PL161PO015

persons/year Number of people benefiting from the tourist information system as a result of projects

items Number of created / developed tourism products

Number of education, sports and cultural projects

2007PL161PO016

persons Number of people benefiting from the tourist information system

items

Number of culture projects

Number of new / modernized cultural buildings

Number of new / modernized tourist infrastructure

2007PL161PO017 items Number of constructed / modernized facilities of culture and heritage

2007PL161PO018 items Number of built / modernized cultural objects



November 2014 120

OP Unit of


2007PL161PO019

items

Number of buildings of culture undergoing modernization

Number of new program offers in terms of culture

Number of program officers promoted for tourism

€ m Income from tourism infrastructure covered by the support of the program

T persons

Number of people benefiting from the support of tourism infrastructure covered under the program

Number of people using cultural infrastructure covered by the support of the program

2007PL161PO020 items Number of newly created / upgraded cultural objects

Number of newly created / upgraded tourist facilities (hotels - catering)

2007PT161PO002

Events Supported events for region internationalization

persons

Participants in supported actions for qualification and promotion of touristic resources integrated into PDTVD

Participants in supported actions for qualification and promotion of touristic resources of Oporto/North Region

Visitors of supported events

Participants in supported actions for qualification and promotion of touristic resources integrated into regional development plans

Visitors and users of supported infrastructures and collective equipment to support the economic valorisation of marine resources

Covered population by cultural equipment

Actions

Supported actions for qualification and promotion of touristic resources integrated into PDTVD

Supported actions for qualification and promotion of touristic resources of Oporto/North Region

Supported actions for qualification and promotion of touristic resources integrated into regional development plans

equipments

Cultural equipment (public libraries, public archives, theatres, cinetheatres, digital cinema, contemporary art centres)

Cultural equipment

2007PT161PO003 persons

Covered population by cultural equipment (public libraries, public archives, theatres, cinetheatres, digital cinema, contemporary art centres)

Actions Interventions for monuments valorisation and rehabilitation

2007PT161PO004

persons Covered population by cultural equipment (public libraries, public archives, theatres, cinetheatres, digital cinema, contemporary art centres)

equipments Cultural equipment (public libraries, public archives, theatres, cinetheatres, digital cinema, contemporary art centres)

2007PT161PO006

Visitors (% of growth)

Additional visitors of cultural spaces

€ m Hospitality income

2007RO161PO001

nights Overnights-staying within the accommodation structures

Tourists Tourists visiting the Information and Promotion Centres

Tourists visiting the rehabilitated/equipped accommodation structures

campaigns Promotional campaigns for advertising the tourism brand

informtion centers

National Tourism Information and Promotion Centres supported

2007SI161PO001

projects Number of renovated cultural heritage and public cultural heritage infrastructure facilities

%

Increase in value added per employee in companies receiving financial support (at least 24 months after the project completion at the end of financial year compared to the 31. December of the year of the project start)

overnight stays Number of tourist overnight stays (in millions)

tourist beds Increase in tourist accommodation capacities



November 2014 121

OP Unit of


2007SK161PO001

services Number of online services available in culture

% Share of users of electronic services in culture on the total number of Internet population

2007SK161PO003

services

Number of new and improved services provided in supported immovable cultural monuments

Number of new and improved services provided in tourism

Number of new and improved services provided in supported facilities of cultural infrastructure

Number of new and improved services provided in supported immovable facilities of cultural infrastructure

facilities Number of supported facilities of cultural infrastructure

monuments

Number of revitalized immovable cultural monuments in order to preserve the cultural heritage or their utilization in the cultural-cognitive tourism

Number of revitalized immovable cultural monuments

Source: WP0



November 2014 122

Annex III Draft Questionnaire for Managing Authority

SECTION A. GENERAL INFORMATIONGENERAL INFORMATION

A.1 Operational Programme List of Operational Programmes

A.2 Name of Respondent(s)

A.3 Position Programme Manager

Responsible for the implementation of

a specific priority axis

Responsible for the implementation of

a specific measure

Other, please specify

SECTION B. STRATEGIC UNDERPINNINGS OF CULTURE AND TOURISM

INVESTMENTS

B.1. Please indicate if there is a specific strategy for CULTURE in your OP, if

this strategy is inspired by regional/national strategies on CULTURE or if

other rationales apply (indicate in this case how investment priorities are

decided and funds allocated)

Specific strategy on CULTURE set in the programme document (please

summarise goals and expected changes):

____________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Regional /national general strategies on CULTURE outside the programme

document (please summarise main goals and expected changes):

____________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Other (please indicate how investment priorities are decided and funds

allocated if there is no ERDF specific or regional/national strategy on

CULTURE):

____________________________________________________________________



November 2014 123

B.2. What is the rationale for investing in CULTURE in the strategy?

Rationale is based on identified market failure(s) (e.g. lack of private

operators, small dimensions/fragmentation of the market, lack of

entrepreneurial capacities, etc.)

____________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Rationale is based on financing needs of the sector:

____________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Other (please specify):

____________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

B.3. Please indicate if there is a specific strategy for TOURISM in your OP, if

this strategy is inspired by regional/national strategies on TOURISM or if

other rationales apply (indicate in this case how investment priorities are

decided and funds allocated)

Specific strategy on TOURISM set in the programme document (please

summarise goals and expected changes):

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Regional /national general strategies on TOURISM outside the programme

document (please summarise main goals and expected changes):

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Other (please indicate how investment priorities are decided and funds

allocated if there is no ERDF specific or regional/national strategy on

TOURISM):

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________



November 2014 124

B.4. What is the rationale for investing in TOURISM in your ERDF Operational

Programme?

Rationale is based on identified market failure(s) (e.g. lack of private

operators, small dimensions/fragmentation of the market, lack of

entrepreneurial capacities, etc.)

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Rationale is based on financing needs of the sector:

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Other (please specify):

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

B.5. To what extent are strategies on CULTURE and on TOURISM integrated?

Please, provide a brief description.

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

B.6. To what extent have strategies on CULTURE and on TOURISM been

integrated with other strategies (e.g. with strategies on competitiveness of

SMEs, on innovation etc.)? Please, provide a brief description.

CULTURE

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________



November 2014 125

TOURISM

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

B.7. In the ERDF Operational Programme of your country/region: (more than

one response is possible)

There is a specific priority axis for CULTURE

There is a specific priority axis for TOURISM

Culture and tourism are addressed together in a specific priority axis

There are specific measures for Tourism/Culture within a broader priority axis

(please specify which

one)..............................................................................................

Tourism/Culture are indirectly addressed in the framework of integrated

projects for urban and regeneration

Tourism/Culture are indirectly addressed under other headings (e.g. research

and innovation, promotion of small and medium-sized enterprises, information

society, transport, energy, human capital, etc.). If so, please provide examples:

__________________________________________________________________

___

A mix of the above

Other (please specify)

B.8. Which are the SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES for CULTURE directly or indirectly

addressed by the ERDF Operational Programme of your country/region?

(more than one response is possible)

Support the development and networking of cultural resources and activities

Encourage the development of entrepreneurship in the cultural sector (e.g.

creative industries)

Develop the culture sector (including creative industries) to diversify the

economic structure of declining industrial zones and rural areas

Support the culture sector (including culture industries) to foster innovation and

spill-over effects to other industries

Support culture sector (including creative industries) to improve urban

regeneration and social cohesion

Diversify the cultural offer and support the production/promotion of new culture

services

Other, please specify:



November 2014 126

B.9. Which are the SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES for TOURISM directly or indirectly

addressed by the ERDF Operational Programme of your country/region?


Support the development of sustainable economic activities in natural heritage

areas

Encourage the development of entrepreneurship in the tourism sector

Develop the tourism sector to diversify the economic structure of declining

industrial zones and rural areas

Diversify the tourism offer and create targeted tourism products/packages

Support the upgrading of hotels and other accommodation facilities

Improve the tourist attractiveness of the region and enhance tourism

promotion, also through the use of ICT

Support the development of territorial marketing actions


B.10. Have targets been set for each specific objective of the ERDF

investments supported by the Operational Programme of your country/region

and is progress on achievements systematically monitored?

Yes, but only for some of them

Yes, for all of them

No



November 2014 127

SECTION C. NATURE OF ACTIVITIES

C.1 Considering the following typologies of activities, please identify those

listed in the ERDF Operational Programme of your country/region and

provide an indication of the financial allocation and the number of projects

implemented.

CULTURE

Financial

allocation

in 2007

Financial

allocation

up to

June 2014

Expenditure

up to June

2014

Number of

projects to June

2014

EUR EUR EUR Total Of which

completed




archeological sites


of cultural infrastructure (e.g.

museum, libraries, archives,

etc.) or of infrastructure

providing cultural or sporting

services (e.g. theatre, concert

hall, opera house, auditorium,

arty gallery, planetarium,

stadium, etc.)

Organisation of cultural events

(e.g. painting, sculpture,

photography, etc.) or performing

arts (e.g. film production, book

publishing, etc.)

Support to private initiatives in

creative industries (media and

information technology, cultural

operators), of which:

Grants

Loan, interest subsidy,

guarantees

Venture capital

Financial engineering

instruments

Non financial support




November 2014 128

TOURISM

Financial

allocation

in 2007

Financial

allocation

to June

2014

Expenditure

to June 2014

Number of

projects to June

2014

EUR EUR EUR Total

Of which

completed


safety and protection of natural

assets

Physical investments for the

promotion and development of

the tourism sector (e.g.

information centres, etc.) or

recreational touristic

infrastructures and services

Territorial marketing activities

(e.g. promotional activities,

networking, conferences and

trade fairs)


recreational activities and events


(e.g. sports, hotel and

restaurants) in the tourism

sector, of which:

Grants

Loan, interest subsidy,

guarantees

Venture capital

Financial engineering

instruments

Non-financial support

Integrated tourism initiatives


C.2. On the basis of the typologies of activities identified under question C1,

please describe the most relevant initiative supported by the ERDF

Operational Programme of your country/region to strengthen the

development of culture and tourism and describe the allocated and expected

expenditure and the actual (or expected) results.

CULTURE

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________



November 2014 129

_____________________________________________________________________

TOURISM

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

C.3. Are there projects financed in other policy areas by the ERDF Operational

Programme of your country/region with an indirect impact on culture and

tourism. Please provide a brief description of the main ones.

CULTURE

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

TOURISM

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

C.4 In the case of business support to private operators in the culture and

tourism sectors (e.g. hotel and restaurants or support schemes for culture

industries), are support measures targeted exclusively to tourism /culture

operators or do these operators compete for the same support measures

applied to operators in other sectors?

Only for tourism/culture operators

Generally for all operators

Mixed

C.5 In addition to your ERDF Operational Programme, have funding

opportunities for culture and tourism sectors been available also under other

Cohesion Policy’s funds (e.g. EAFRD) and/or national/regional programmes

in your country/region?

Yes

No

I don’t know



November 2014 130

C.5.1 If yes, could you please specify which activities have been supported?


Cultural and leisure activities

Renovation and development of rural villages

Protection and conservation of the rural heritage

Financial support to SMEs operating in the tourism/cultural sector




November 2014 131

SECTION D. ACHIEVEMENTS OF ERDF INTERVENTIONS IN CULTURE AND

TOURISM

D.1. For each of the following typologies of interventions, please specify the

most relevant achievement indicators (distinguishing between output and

result) adopted in your monitoring system (maximum three), provide a

quantitative measure of the achievements to 2013 and describe any other

additional evidence available (qualitative or quantitative).

CULTURE Output/

Result

Enter the

name of

the

relevant

indicator

Target

(if any)

Achievement

s to June

2014

Additional

evidence




archeological sites

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

Construction/extension/recov

ery of cultural infrastructure

(e.g. museum, libraries,

archives, etc.) or of

infrastructure providing

cultural services (e.g.

theatre, concert hall, opera

house, auditorium, arty

gallery, planetarium, etc.)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

Organisation of cultural

events (e.g. painting,

sculpture, photography, etc.)

or performing arts (e.g. film

production, book publishing,

etc.)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

Support to creative industries

(sports, media and

information technology)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)


1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

TOURISM Output/

Result

Enter the

name of

the

relevant

indicator

Target

(if any)

Achievement

s to June

2014

Additional

evidence


safety and protection of

natural assets

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

Physical investments for the

promotion and development

of the tourism sector (e.g.

information centres, etc.)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

Territorial marketing 1) 1) 1)



November 2014 132

activities (e.g. promotional

activities, networking,

conferences and trade fairs)

2)

3)

2)

3)

2)

3)


recreational activities and

events

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)


(e.g. hotel and restaurants)

in the tourism sector

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)


1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

1)

2)

3)

D.2 Do indicators listed under question D1 appropriately describe the

achievements of culture and tourism interventions? Please identify the

strengths and weaknesses of the indicators used.

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________



November 2014 133

SECTION E. TYPOLOGIES OF BENEFICIARIES

SECTION E. TYPOLOGIES OF BENEFICIARIES

E.1 Who are the main beneficiaries of the interventions implemented? (more

than one responses are possible)

Individ

ual

Large Enterprises

Individual

SMEs

Consortium/

networks of

private operator

s

Individual

public bodie

s

Consortium/partnershi

ps of public bodies

NGOs

Cons

ortium of public and

private

opera

tors

Other

(specify)

CULTURE


protection of historical monuments, buildings or archeological sites

Construction/extension/recovery of cultural infrastructure (e.g. museum, libraries,

archives, etc.) or of infrastructure providing cultural

services (e.g. theatre, concert hall, opera house, auditorium, arty

gallery, planetarium, etc.)

Organisation of cultural events (e.g. painting, sculpture,

photography, etc.) or performing arts (e.g. film production, book publishing, etc.)

Support to

creative industries (sports, media and information technology)

Other (please specify..)

TOURISM

Investments to



November 2014 134

improve the safety and

protection of natural assets

Physical investments for the promotion and development

of the tourism sector (e.g. information centres, etc.)

Territorial

marketing activities (e.g. promotional

activities, networking, conferences and trade fairs)

Promotion of sports and recreational activities and events

Support to private initiatives (e.g. hotel and restaurants) in the tourism sector

Other (please specify..)

E.2 How are beneficiaries selected? (more than one responses are possible)

Open

competitive

procedure

Negotiated

procedure

Direct

appointment

Other

(please

specify)

Individual Large Enterprises

Individual SMEs

Consortium/ networks of private

operators

Individual public bodies

Consortium/partnerships of public

bodies

NGOs

Consortium of public and private

operators

Other (specify)



November 2014 135

E.3 What are the most common selection criteria for beneficiaries?

Never Sometimes Often Always

Employment expected impact

Technical quality

Financial robustness and

sustainability

Capacity to cooperate/build

networks

Innovativeness

Previous experience in the field

Other (specify)



November 2014 136

***

SECTION F. EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS

F.1 Please indicate one interesting example of project co-financed by the

ERDF programme in your region/country in tourism/culture, from which

lessons can be drawn on the effective and timely delivery:

Title

Brief Description

Contact Person

(Please, provide name and e-mail

address)

Link to website, if any

F.2. Please indicate one interesting example of project co-financed by the

ERDF programmes in your region/country in tourism/culture, from which

lessons can be drawn on typical challenges and problems encountered:

Title

Brief Description

Contact Person

(Please, provide name and e-mail

address)

Link to website, if any

***

The European Commission is interested to know what is the effectiveness of

the ERDF/Cohesion Fund interventions from the point of view of actors

involved in the implementation of the Programme. Please provide us with

contact details of at least three implementing bodies of the most significant

interventions in the field of culture and tourism:

1 Contact name:

E-mail address:

2 Contact name:

E-mail address:

3 Contact name:

E-mail address:



November 2014 137

Annex IV Pilot case study proposal –Puglia ERDF ROP - Motivation

Puglia ERDF ROP is an relevant and insightful regional case study given its strong effort in

investing in tourism, culture and creativity in recent years. The project provides insights because of both the governance process used and the global touristic and cultural strategy implemented. The present governance structure for tourism in Apulia is the result of a complex reform

process which redesigned the organisation of regional tourism by setting up Local Tourism Systems (LTSs) (as provided for by the Regulations of the R.L. 11 February 2002 no. 1, and by the Regulation n. 19/2011,– concerning the reorganisation of the regional tourism system). New regulations dissolved the existing five provincial TPAs (Touristic Promotion Agencies) and established the RTA (Regional Tourism Agency) which took over their tasks and duties. The overall regional strategy stated its objectives as: - to develop a network of integrated tourist micro - systems focused on different regional

attractions. This approach aims to reduce the gap between the coastal and internal areas and so to balance socio - economic opportunities at a regional level.

- to support the tourist regional offer, reinforce tourist demand and improve regional infrastructures.

- the adoption of different participatory models to elaborate the overall regional strategy of tourist development by reinforcing democratic and community accountability.

- to rationalise the expenditure of the limited national and European funds at disposal. At the core of Apulia tourism policy are a series of actions aiming to develop local tourist systems which can diversify the tourist offer and improve the regional attractiveness through the integration between tourism and natural and cultural resources. This integration corresponds to the specific vocations and needs of the 10 – “area vasta”, (broad area) who are sub-regional aggregations of municipalities which represent part of the regional territory and

which are experimenting with an innovative process of multilevel governance leading to the definition of strategic plans per each “area vasta”. Therefore the strategy is elaborated at local level through several processes of sub-regional strategic planning enhancing the territorial stakeholders and democratic participation and contributing to the empowerment of local authorities to achieve greater territorial cohesion. The model of tourism development assumed in the Apulia region is thus focused on the promotion of specific local resources of the territory.

The imperative is therefore to accentuate and enhance the specificity of Apulia, both in terms of

natural and cultural resources and accomodation (including local variations such as trulli, masserizie, etc.), aiming to encourage a highly experiential tourism, concentrated on land resources. From the perspective of the culture sector, the Apulia global strategy included a broad and integrated policy supporting the production chain of the creative industries, by

implementing several programs and regulations aiming to ensure its presence within institutions that have, as their mission, an activity in the creative industries sector. The Apulia Region has become the main partner within the Teatro pubblico pugliese, a public circuit for prose and dance, operating in the whole Region in association with a large number of Apulian municipalities and provinces. Also, the Apulia Film Commission has been established, to promote the area and attract film production, as well as promoting video content, audiovisual content and film across the region.

Within this context, the ROP has a dedicated Axis (Axis 4) specifically addressing the “Enhancement of natural and cultural resources for attraction and development” which aims to

make the region more attractive to tourists with environmental policies, and actions directed at goods, and cultural events and the tourism offer. With specific reference to regional tourism policy, Axis IV is focused on (i) promoting the

tourism economy by qualification, diversification and the promotion of an integrated tourism offer in the territorial structure, the completion and qualification of the infrastructure and territorial marketing actions, with specific actions relating to the completion of infrastructure supporting the tourism economy (especially tourist ports); (ii) developing territorial marketing and promotion, with the aim of taking Apulian tourist destinations to national and international markets; and finally (iii) creating hospitality structures and leisure facilities for social tourism, in



November 2014 138

rural and beach contexts as well as in the old town centres. With reference to culture, the Axis covers both (i) maintaining cultural heritage and improving

its accessibility (see for example, Intramoenia extra art – Castelli di Puglia) and (ii) the promotion of cultural and creative initiatives (see for example, the initiatives Teatri abitati which assigns the management of small local theatres to small companies and artistic groups. It has involved, to date, 12 theatres and 185 operators). At the present time, the Axis has a good level of implementation: the number of implemented projects are higher than the target objective; the financial commitment amounts

to 93% of the dedicated resources and the level of payment is 63% of the committed resources. Actions implemented in the tourism sector record a positive performance reaching 83% of the target value. The actions undertaken and interventions have contributed to increase the number of tourists visiting Puglia. Several of the integrated projects (among which mini case studies can be selected) are already implemented, and these affect the entire Region and cover all its tourism and cultural specificities.

Contact persons: Palumbo Francesco, Responsible for Axis 4 Tel. 0039/080 5405615 Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, … · Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)