Ex post evaluation of urban development and social infrastructures : ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007-2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF) : work package 10, final report.
Date: 2016-06-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, European Regional Development Fund, European social policy, Structural Funds, economic and social cohesion, innovation, project evaluation, regional policy, report, research and development, urban area

Ex post evaluation of Urban 
Development and Social 
Infrastructures 
FINAL REPORT 

Work Package 10 

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

March 2016 
Authors: Metis GmbH 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Directorate B - Policy 
Unit B.2 Evaluation and European Semester 

Contact: Daniel Mouqué 

E-mail:  REGIO-B2-HEAD-OF-UNIT@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Ex post evaluation of Urban 
Development and Social 
Infrastructures 
FINAL REPORT 

Work Package 10 

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

CCI: 2014CE16BAT035 

Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 

2016 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information 
contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

ISBN 978-92-79-59006-1 
doi: 10.2776/021940 

© European Union, 2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Abstract 

This ex post evaluation analyses the nature of interventions and what has been financed 
and achieved related to urban development and social infrastructure. It is the first study 
to undertake this effort.  The analysis is based on monitoring data, document screening, 
interviews with Managing Authorities and a survey of project implementation bodies. The 
results of the evaluation reveal that integrated urban development strategies are defined 
and  take  effect  outside  the  Operational  Programmes  at  local  level,  while  social 
infrastructure  interventions  follow  a  more  sectoral  path  mostly  at  national  or  regional 
level.  Integrated  urban  development  needs,  objectives  and  outcomes  tend  to  be  vague. 
Achievements  are  seen  in  making  a  locality  or  city  more  attractive  for  residents, 
businesses  and  visitors.  In  some  Member  States,  investment  in  social  infrastructures 
contributes  to  a  more  or  less  fundamental  reform  of  the  respective  system.  This  is 
particularly  relevant  for  health  and  education  infrastructure.  Generally,  there  is  a 
tendency  for  EU-13  Member  States  to  invest  more  in  infrastructure  and  for  EU-15  to 
focus more on integrated strategies. 

About this document  

This  document  is  the  final  deliverable  of  the  ‘Ex  post  evaluation  of  cohesion  policy 
programmes  2007-2013,  focusing  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF) 
and Cohesion Fund (CF) - Work Package Ten: Ex post evaluation of Urban Development 
and Social Infrastructures, No. 2014CE16BAT035’. 

Disclaimer 

The  information  and  views  set  out  in  this  report  are  those  of  the  authors  and  do  not 
necessarily  reflect  the  official  opinion  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  does  not 
guarantee  the  accuracy  of  the  data  included  in  this  study.  Neither  the  Commission  nor 
any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which 
may be made of the information contained therein. 

About METIS GmbH 

Metis is a European consulting company with its head office in Vienna. Metis knowledge-
based  services  covering  the  full  policy  cycle  policy  design,  policy  and  programme 
implementation,  monitoring  and  analysis  of  policies,  policy,  programme  and  project 
evaluation. Metis has a permanent staff from a range of disciplines, including ecological, 
economic,  social  and  political  sciences.  This  mix  of  qualifications  combined  with  a  well-
established  network  of  international  partners  allows  easy  formation  of  interdisciplinary 
and international teams. 

Authors of the study 

Christine Hamza (Metis GmbH) 
Haris Martinos (Independent Consultant) 
Oliver Schwab (IfS Institut für Stadtforschung und Strukturpolitik GmbH) 

Acknowledgement 

The  study  would  not  have  been  possible  without  the  support  of  our  national  experts  in 
different EU member states whose contributions are gratefully acknowledge herewith. We 
would like to thank Bernhard Alscher, Francesca Angori, Ewa Bloch, Maciej Borsa, Lenka 
Brown, Roberto Camagni, Tobias Chilla, Samuele Dossi, Nektaria Efthymiou, Katre Eljas-
Taal,  Gisela  Ferreira,  Maros  Finka,  Alexandra  Frangenheim,  Enrico  Gaspari,  Radim  Gill, 
María  José  Garzón,  Ricardo  Pedraz  González,  Peter  Kolossa,  Steven  Kotter,  Marco 
Marinuzzi,  Julija  Marosek,  Indre  Motiejunaite,  Daniel  Mouqué,  Ferreira  Nazaré,  Christina 
Nicolescu,  Isabel  Naylon,  António  Oliveira  das  Neves,  Pierre  Padilla,  Marili  Parissaki, 

page 5 

 
 
Chiara  Assirelli  Pandolfi,  Magda  Porta,  Angelos  Sanopoulos,  Julia  Spirindonova,  Sandra 
Spüle, Kristin Schwarze, John Walsh. 

 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 13 

1 
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 22 
1.1  Objectives and scope of the study .................................................................... 22 

1.2  Tasks and methodological approach.................................................................. 23 

1.2.1  Evaluation tasks ................................................................................................. 23 

1.2.2  Overall approach ................................................................................................ 23 

1.3  Structure of this report ................................................................................... 25 

2  GENERAL OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 30 
2.1  Patterns of ERDF investment in urban development and social infrastructure ......... 30 

2.2  ERDF investment - Characteristics of the sample of 115 OPs................................ 34 

2.3  Structural Funds objective and spatial level of OPs ............................................. 36 

2.4  Thematic orientation of OPs ............................................................................. 39 

2.5  Integration of urban development and social infrastructure in the OPs .................. 40 

3  URBAN DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................... 48 
3.1  Strategies ..................................................................................................... 48 

3.1.1  Needs and objectives .......................................................................................... 48 

3.1.2  Integrated strategies for urban development ......................................................... 51 

3.2  Activities and target groups ............................................................................. 55 

3.2.1  Activities ........................................................................................................... 55 

3.2.2  Targeted areas ................................................................................................... 56 

3.2.3  Economic sectors ................................................................................................ 59 

3.2.4  Target groups .................................................................................................... 60 

3.3  Financial resources ......................................................................................... 61 

3.3.1  Distribution and intensity ..................................................................................... 61 

3.3.2  Financial implementation ..................................................................................... 64 

3.3.3  Other sources of finance ...................................................................................... 64 

3.3.4  Form of finance .................................................................................................. 66 

3.4  Implementation ............................................................................................. 67 

3.4.1  Structures and procedures ................................................................................... 67 

3.4.2  Financial sustainability ........................................................................................ 69 

3.5  Outputs, results and achievements ................................................................... 71 

3.5.1  Outputs ............................................................................................................. 71 

3.5.2  Results .............................................................................................................. 72 

3.5.3  Achievements .................................................................................................... 74 

page 7 

 
 
 
4  SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................... 76 
4.1  Strategies ..................................................................................................... 76 

4.1.1  Needs and objectives .......................................................................................... 76 

4.1.2  Characteristics of strategies ................................................................................. 79 

4.2  Activities and target groups ............................................................................. 81 

4.2.1  Activities ........................................................................................................... 81 

4.2.2  Target groups .................................................................................................... 83 

4.2.3  Targeted areas ................................................................................................... 85 

4.2.4  Economic sectors ................................................................................................ 88 

4.3  Financial resources ......................................................................................... 89 

4.3.1  Distribution and intensity ..................................................................................... 89 

4.3.2  Financial implementation ..................................................................................... 92 

4.3.3  Other sources of finance ...................................................................................... 93 

4.3.4  Form of finance .................................................................................................. 93 

4.4  Implementation ............................................................................................. 94 

4.4.1  Structures and procedures ................................................................................... 94 

4.4.2  Financial sustainability ........................................................................................ 94 

4.5  Outputs, results and achievements ................................................................... 96 

4.5.1  Outputs ............................................................................................................. 96 

4.5.2  Results .............................................................................................................. 98 

4.5.3  Achievements .................................................................................................. 100 

5  CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 102 
5.1  Urban integrated development ....................................................................... 102 

5.2  Social infrastructure ..................................................................................... 108 

5.3  General conclusions ...................................................................................... 112 

5.3.1  Strategic approach ........................................................................................... 112 

5.3.2  Rationale of ERDF interventions and achievements ............................................... 116 

5.4  Lessons for the future ................................................................................... 120 

5.5  Summarised answers to evaluation questions .................................................. 122 

page 8 

 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

TABLES, FIGURES AND BOXES 

Figure 1: ERDF allocations by end of 2013 - shares of urban development and social 

infrastructure ........................................................................................... 31 

Figure 2: Number of OPs in Member States by Structural Funds objective ................... 36 

Figure 3: Spatial level of OPs by Member State ........................................................ 37 

Figure 4: Type of area targeted by OPs ................................................................... 38 

Figure 5: Thematic orientation of 115 OPs ............................................................... 40 

Figure 6: Structure of OPs ..................................................................................... 41 

Figure 7: Needs related to urban development ......................................................... 49 

Figure 8: Objectives related to urban development ................................................... 50 

Figure 9: Does this project form part of a broader strategy? ...................................... 54 

Figure 10: Types of activities listed in OPs in relation to urban development (code 61) .. 56 

Figure 11: Type of area targeted by OPs ................................................................. 57 

Figure 12: Territorial scope of urban development projects ........................................ 57 

Figure 13: Main target groups of urban development projects .................................... 60 

Figure 14: How are projects like this normally funded? .............................................. 65 

Figure 15: Overview of form of finance used in urban development ............................ 66 

Figure 16: Status of project implementation bodies .................................................. 67 

Figure 17: Nature of involvement of project implementation bodies by Member State ... 68 

Figure 18: Has the financial sustainability of the project been addressed (and at what 

stage)? .................................................................................................... 69 

Figure 19: How secure is the financial sustainability of the project? ............................ 70 

Figure 20: Factors ensuring the financial sustainability of the project .......................... 70 

Figure 21: Output indicator achievements according to AIR 2013 (urban development, 

code 61) .................................................................................................. 72 

Figure 22: Result indicator achievement according to AIR 2013 (urban development, code 
61) ......................................................................................................... 73 

Figure 23: Needs related to social infrastructure ....................................................... 77 

Figure 24: Objectives related to social infrastructure ................................................. 79 

Figure 25: Does this project form part of a broader strategy? .................................... 81 

Figure 26: Types of activities listed in OPs in relation to social infrastructure (codes 75-

79) ......................................................................................................... 83 

Figure 27: Specific target groups in different Member States ..................................... 83 

Figure 28: Main target groups of social infrastructure projects ................................... 85 

Figure 29: Type of area targeted by OPs ................................................................. 86 

Figure 30: Territorial scope of social infrastructure projects ....................................... 87 

Figure 31: Status of project implementation bodies .................................................. 94 

page 9 

 
 
 
Figure 32: Has the financial sustainability of the project been addressed (and at what 

stage)? .................................................................................................... 95 

Figure 33: How secure is the financial sustainability of the project? ............................ 95 

Figure 34: Factors ensuring the financial sustainability of the project .......................... 96 

Figure 35: Output indicator achievements according to AIR2013 (education 

infrastructure, code 75) ............................................................................. 97 

Figure 36: Output indicator achievements according to the AIR2013 (health 

infrastructure, code 76) ............................................................................. 97 

Figure 37: Result indicator achievement according to AIR 2013 (education infrastructure, 
code 75) .................................................................................................. 98 

Figure 38: Result indicator achievement according to AIR 2013 (health infrastructure, 

code 76) .................................................................................................. 99 

Figure 39: Types of activities related to urban integrated development ..................... 103 

Figure 40: Main target groups of urban development projects .................................. 104 

Figure 41: ERDF allocations to urban and rural regeneration per capita by country ..... 105 

Figure 42: Types of activities related to social infrastructure .................................... 108 

Figure 43: Reference to specific target groups ........................................................ 109 

Figure 44: Allocations to education (left) and health infrastructure (right) per capita by 

country ................................................................................................. 110 

Figure 45: Reference to integrated strategy in 115 OPs ........................................... 113 

Figure 46: ESF contribution ................................................................................. 119 

Figure 47: Measures to ensure the financial sustainability of the project .................... 119 

Table 1: Grouping of Evaluation Questions ............................................................... 27 

Table 2: Key figures: ERDF allocation to urban development (code 61) and social 

infrastructure (codes 75-79) – All 322 OPs................................................... 33 

Table 3: Key figures: ERDF allocation to urban development (code 61) and social 

infrastructure (codes 75-79) – Sample of 115 OPs ........................................ 35 

Table 4: EU ERDF allocation to relevant thematic codes – overview ............................ 43 

Table 5: Types of OP supporting investments in urban development ........................... 48 

Table 6: Allocation to code 61 - share of total ERDF allocation and allocation per capita 63 

Table 7: Types of OP supporting investments in social infrastructure ........................... 76 

Table 8: Allocation to codes 75 to 79 - share of total ERDF allocation and allocation per 

capita ...................................................................................................... 90 

Table 9: Overview of form of finance by thematic field (code) .................................... 93 

Table 10: Types of project contributing to growth/jobs ............................................ 107 

page 10 

 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Box 1: Czech OP ‘North East’ supporting Integrated Plans for Urban Development ........ 52 

Box 2: Integrated urban development approach in the Region of Lorraine, France ........ 52 

Box 3: Integrated urban development approach at city level – Cologne (DE) ............... 53 

Box 4: Integrated urban development approach at city level – Rotterdam (NL) ............ 53 

Box 5: Integrated urban development strategies – the experience of URBACT .............. 55 

Box 6: Sectoral strategy – Territorial Enhancement OP, Portugal ................................ 79 

Box 7: Hungarian health investments ...................................................................... 80 

page 11 

 
 
 
 
ABBREVIATIONS 

AIR 

CBC 

CF 

DG 

Annual Implementation Report 

Cross-border Cooperation 

Cohesion Fund 

Directorate General 

DG REGIO  Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy of the European 

Commission 

EC 

EQ 

European Commission 

Evaluation Question 

ERDF 

European Regional Development Funds 

ESF 

ETC 

EU 

ICT 

MA 

MS 

NACE 

NOP 

NSRF 

OP 

ROP 

European Social Fund 

European Territorial Cooperation 

European Union 

Information and Communication Technology 

Managing Authority 

Member State 

European Classification of Economic Activities 

National Operational programme 

National Strategic Reference Framework 

Operational programme 

Regional Operational programme 

R&TD 

Research and Technology Development 

SF 

WP 13 

Structural Funds 

Work Package 13 of ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 
2007-2013 focusing on ‘Geography of Expenditure’ 

page 12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This study forms part of the  ex post evaluation of cohesion policy programmes financed 
by  the  ERDF  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  during  the  period  2007-2013.  It  covers  the  policy 
areas of urban development and social infrastructure. 

The  aim  of  the  study  was  to  “establish  the  nature  and  objectives  of  co-financed 
investments  in  the  fields  of  urban  development  and  social infrastructure  and  assess  the 
extent to which they were delivered through integrated strategies or not”. This study was 
the first attempt to answer the question of what has actually been financed and achieved 
by  ERDF  in  the  2007-13  programming  period  in  the  fields  of  urban  development  and 
social infrastructure.  The subject of this evaluation has been defined on the basis of six 
expenditure codes as follows:  

Urban development: 

 

integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration (code 61). 

Social infrastructure: 

  education infrastructure (code 75); 

  health infrastructure (code 76);  

 

childcare infrastructure (code 77); 

  housing infrastructure (code 78); 

  other social infrastructures (code 79). 

The study is based on an analysis of data available from the categorisation system for all 
322 ERDF Operational programmes (OPs), data analysis and document screening of 115 
selected  OPs  with  the  highest  ERDF  allocations,  interviews  with  Managing  Authorities,  a 
web survey of 214 project implementation bodies and a stakeholder seminar. Given the 
explorative  character  of  the  study  and  its  restricted  evidence  basis,  the  findings  draw  a 
largely descriptive picture of what has been financed and how far it has been strategically 
embedded.  

Financial allocation 

The  amount  of  ERDF  funding  allocated  to  selected  projects  of  urban  development  and 
social infrastructure at the end of 2013 is EUR 29 billion. This represents 11% of the total 
ERDF  allocation  of  which  4%  to  urban  development  and  7%  to  social  infrastructure. 
Within  the  latter,  education  infrastructure  with  3.5%  has  the  largest  share,  followed  by 
health infrastructure at 2%.  

The  ERDF  resources  underpinning  investment  in  urban  development  are  unevenly 
distributed  with  more  than  45%  of  the  funds  allocated  to  just  four  countries:  Italy, 
Poland, Greece and Germany. The relative importance of the allocation to this field varies 
widely  with  eight  countries  at  one  end  of  the  spectrum  not  investing  at  all  in  this  field 
(AT, DK, FI, HR, IE, LU, RO, SE) while, at the other end, the Netherlands allocate more 

page 13 

 
 
 
than  20%  of  their  overall  ERDF  allocation  followed  by  Cyprus  (19%),  and  Bulgaria  and 
Belgium (14%).  

Regarding  social  infrastructure  the  focus  lies  on  convergence  regions  with  substantial 
budgets  in  some  Member  States,  such  as  Hungary  and  Portugal  as  well  as  the  Italian 
Region of Sicily. Conversely, eight countries are not investing at all in this field (AT, BE, 
DK, FI, HR, IE, LU, SE). In Member States that invest in social infrastructure, this field is 
often given more weight than urban development: Slovakia allocates more than 40% of 
its  ERDF  allocation  to  social  infrastructure;  also,  Estonia  (39%)  and  Hungary  (37%) 
allocate more than one third of their ERDF allocation to this field. 

The  territorial  pattern  of  the  allocation  is  quite  similar  in  urban  development  and  social 
infrastructure:  capital  cities  and  urban  agglomerations  play  a  comparatively  small  role 
(smaller  than  for  the  overall  ERDF  allocation).  The  focus  of  the  interventions  in  urban 
development  and  social  infrastructure  is  on  smaller  cities  and  towns.  Those  fields  of 
social infrastructure which in some cases deal with the reform of national systems (health 
and  education)  are  more  evenly  spread,  showing  a  significantly  higher  share  of  the 
allocation in remote rural regions. 

Strategic approach 

In  the  sample  of  the  115  OPs  the  majority  (89)  are  regional programmes,  while  18  are 
national  programmes,  one  multi-regional  programme,  and  seven  European  Territorial 
Cooperation programmes. There is diversity in the place of urban development and social 
infrastructure  in  the  structure  of  the  programmes.  In  some  cases  there  is  a  dedicated 
priority  axis  for  both  or  separate  axes  for  each  of  them.  However,  the  most  common 
arrangement  is  for  these  policy  areas  to  be  covered  by  priority  axes  of  a  broader 
thematic  scope.  Thus,  the  strategy  for  urban  development  or  social  infrastructure  is 
rarely expressed explicitly in the OP as the interventions are combined with other issues 
in  a  broader  priority  axis.  Furthermore,  the  programme  level  is  too  abstract  to  express 
the  strategic  framework  which  is  often  defined  at  a  more  local  level.  OPs  as  well  as 
annual  implementation  reports  do  not  cover  sufficiently  local  level  integrated  strategy 
development or implementation but 80% refer to external national or regional strategies.  

formulations  prevail,  such  as 

Several different objectives and needs are offered in the documents  and they are rather 
imprecise.  Vague 
‘sustainable  development  and 
improvement  of  cities  and  urban  areas’.  Only  30%  of  the  OPs  place  integrated 
development  into  a  specific  context,  such  as  the  need  for  revitalising  urban 
neighbourhoods  based  on  integrated  urban  development  strategies,  or  for  revitalising 
specific  industrial  areas,  or  for  building  on  the  cultural  heritage  of  urban  areas,  or  for 
enhancing local level  partnerships.  Even  in  those  OPs  where  the  strategy  systematically 
supports  integrated  approaches,  the  actual  implementation  does  not  appear  to  be 
integrated  and  individual  projects  seem  to  follow,  in  most  instances,  a  rather  sectoral 
approach.   

However,  among  project  promoters  and  other  stakeholders  the  perception  of  integrated 
strategies is much higher than the OP document screening suggests. The participants in 
the  stakeholder  seminar  of  the  study  highlighted  that  ‘integration’  is  commonplace  in 
local  level  interventions,  albeit  not  always  under  an  ERDF  programme  umbrella. 

page 14 

 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Similarly,  according  to  the  survey  of  project  implementation  bodies  the  majority  of 
projects  form  part  of  an  integrated  strategy.  Such  evidence  supports  the  point  made 
above, namely, that the strategic context for this type of interventions is often not visible 
at programme level, but only at a more local level.  

Indeed, the study has found that Member States implemented the ‘integrated approach’ 
differently.  In  OPs  with  a  focus  on  integrated  urban  development  some  programmes 
focused  on  integrated  strategy  development,  others  targeted  support  on  multi-level 
partnerships  between  urban  areas  and  different  government  levels,  and  a  third  group 
addressed  the  integrated  approach  at  project  implementation  level  by  specific  project 
selection criteria.  

Regarding  social  infrastructure,  investments  in  health  and  education  infrastructure  tend 
to  adhere  to  a  ‘linear’  approach,  following  up  the  need  for  better  infrastructure  in  the 
whole  OP  region  with  sector  specific  projects,  while  investments  related  to  childcare, 
housing and other social infrastructure are to a greater extent integrated. The question in 
what way any of the programme objectives follow any strategy outside of the framework 
of  the  OP  cannot  be  answered  in  an  exhaustive  manner  as  there  is  no  information 
systematically available concerning strategies ‘external’ to the OPs.  

Based  on  the  evidence  obtained  by  the  study  the  following  conclusions  can  be 
highlighted: 

  The  degree  of  integration  of  social  infrastructure  investments  and  generally  the 
adherence  to  an  integrated  approach  is  to  a  large  extent  influenced  by  the 
‘architecture’ of the OP, i.e. whether the priority axes etc. have been designed in 
a way that facilitates an integrated approach. 

  The  way  in  which  an  OP  can  promote  and  support  an  integrated  approach  takes 
the  form  of  an  ‘enabling  framework’  rather  than  the  actual  incorporation  of 
specific integrated development strategies per se in the OP.  

  Specific  integrated  development  strategies  tend  to  be  realised  at  urban 
agglomeration or city level – with or without ERDF support – and this has become 
the  norm  in  the  EU-151.  This  occurs  less  in  EU-132,  although  examples  from 
Estonia and Latvia show a clear move in that direction. Generally, the tendency is 
for the EU-13 Member States to invest more in infrastructure and for the EU-15 to 
focus  on  softer  and  more  bottom-up  types  of  interventions,  in  line  with  the 
integrated urban development approach as defined by the European Commission, 
i.e. with a strong involvement of local actors and covering multiple policy fields. A 
key  reason  for  the  divergence  between  the  EU-13  and  EU-15  is  the  remaining 
need  for  the  former  to  catch  up  with  EU-15  infrastructure  standards,  with  the 
Structural  Funds  being  the  most  important  source  of  funding  for  such 
investments.  An  additional  reason  is  the  long  experience  of  EU-15  with  urban 
development  approaches  going  back  to  several  European  initiatives,  such  as  the 

1  EU Member States before the 2004 enlargement (AT, BE, DE, DK, EL, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LU, NL, PT, SE, UK) 
2  EU Member States that joined the EU after 2004 (BG, CY, CZ, EE, HR, HU, LT, LV, MT, PL, RO, SK, SI) 

page 15 

 
 
                                           
Urban  Pilot  Projects  which  started  in  1989  or  the  successor  URBAN  programmes 
launched in 1994. 

Achievements 

Activities related to urban development range from ‘investments in deprived areas’ and 
‘economic  growth  support’  to  support  of  ‘cultural  heritage’  and  ‘strategy  development’. 
The following achievements have been distilled from the Operational programmes: 

  Strategy development, plans, reports, brochures, meetings, etc. 

  Construction/ repairs/ renovation to schools, housing, social and cultural centres, 

and other buildings  

  Creation of business space 

  Town centre/ historic area/ river banks etc. revitalisation 

 

(Re)construction of streets and cycle paths 

  Public spaces/ facilities 

  Revitalisation of wasteland/ reuse of brownfield sites 

  Wastewater and drinking water treatment 

  Energy efficiency. 

Achievements in the EU-13 range from infrastructure improvements (water, sewage, 
schools,  housing  and  cultural  centres)  and  renovation  of  buildings  to  actual 
development  of  urban  integrated  development  plans  and  strategies.  Latvia  for 
example  used  all  of  its  integrated  urban  development  budget  for  infrastructure 
improvements  in  urban  and  rural  areas.  The  Czech  Republic  made  an  effort  to  develop 
Integrated Plans for Urban Development for cities with more than 50,000 inhabitants, as 
the  basis  for  neighbourhood  development  related  to  sports  facilities,  public  places, 
culture  and  leisure  facilities.  Among  the  EU-15  the  UK  emphasised  the  creation  of 
business  centres  and  the  support  of  SMEs  at  local  level.  Other  EU-15  countries  used 
ERDF funds to trigger private investments in towns and cities, for instance in Rotterdam. 

Achievements  in  relation  to  social  infrastructure  are  most  of  all  the  improvement  or 
establishment  of  new  social  infrastructure  facilities,  especially  in  those  Member  States 
with  a  large  financial  allocation  to  education  and  health  infrastructure.  The  main 
achievements are: 

 

 

Improvement  of  social  infrastructure  facilities  with  modernisation  of  equipment 
and  increase  of  efficiency  of  services  such  as  ambulances  or  care  services.  This 
contributes to filling the gap between more and less developed regions in Europe 
(e.g. Hungary).  

Improvement  of  education  system  in  some  Member  States  where  a  significant 
share of the Structural Funds has been deployed for education infrastructure (e.g. 
Portugal).  

page 16 

 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

 

 

Improvement of health systems with the aim to improve the state of health of the 
population (Hungary and Czech Republic).  

Improvement  of  lifelong  learning  services  in  combination  with  labour  services  to 
better  adapt  the  workforce  in  target  areas  to  labour  market  and  business  needs 
(e.g. Spain, Poland, Czech Republic or Lithuania).  

  Some  programmes  used  social  infrastructure  investments  for  improving  the 
security  of  urban  areas  or  for  expanding  and  enhancing  cultural  heritage  related 
education.  

  Other social infrastructure is used in combination with various urban development 
actions  to  support  cultural,  sports  or  training  facilities,  as  well  as  the 
establishment of support centres for different disadvantaged groups.   

In  regions  with  a  lower  ERDF  allocation  to  social  infrastructure,  the  achievements  can 
mainly be found in the increase of efficiency through better cooperation, new IT systems 
and better education and training.  

Finally, there are some positive indications from the limited evidence available as to the 
contribution  of  the  OPs  to  growth  and  jobs:  the  investments  are  largely  in  line  with  EU 
regional policy objectives; and, the feedback from the project level is positive with  73% 
project  implementation  bodies  reporting  that  their  projects  have  contributed  to  growth 
and  jobs  through  the  following  achievements:  improved  skills/  educational  attainment/ 
qualifications,  entrepreneurship/  new  business  creation, 
improved  performance/ 
expansion  of  local  businesses,  higher  rate  of  female  and/or  youth  participation  in  the 
labour market and improved health outcomes.  

Sustainability 

The  financial  sustainability  of  projects  supported  by  the  OPs  is  not  treated  in  depth  in 
most of the programmes. The examination is done on a pro forma way and ex ante only, 
and  cost-benefit  analysis  is  only  applied  exceptionally.  The  issue  of  sustainability  is 
sometimes 
‘project  maturity’. 
Nevertheless,  project  implementation  bodies  are  conscious  of  the  importance  of 
sustainability issues and two-thirds of them claim that the sustainability of their projects 
is ‘fully secured’ but they treat this as largely synonymous with the availability of budget 
to run the project in the foreseeable future.   

indirectly  covered  by  broader  considerations 

like 

The sustainability of interventions and consequently of the achievements depends on the 
overall context and the embeddedness in regional and national strategies. For  example, 
in  Hungary  the  embeddedness  of  interventions  is less  clearly  visible  than in  the  case  of 
Portugal in education. In the former, the funding merely serves to fill the necessary basic 
infrastructure  gaps  and,  therefore,  it  is  not  clear  whether  the  large  health  investments 
will really lead to a sustainable change.  

Compared  to  the  rather  ad-hoc  financing  in  Hungary  Portugal  has  deployed  ERDF 
operational  programmes  to  fundamentally  modernise  the  Portuguese  secondary  school 
system. For this purpose the Portuguese government combined several different funding 
sources (ERDF, ESF, EIB, CEB, state co-funding and private loans).   

page 17 

 
 
page 18 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Indicators 

The  system  of  capturing  and  reporting  outputs  and  results  suffers  from  several 
shortcomings.  For  instance,  many  result  indicators  that  could  serve  as  the  basis  for 
evidence  are  ‘reformulated’  output  indicators.  Overall,  the  approach  of  the  Managing 
Authorities and the reporting in the annual implementation report is a quantitative one; 
achievement  is  seen  in  the  numerical  compliance  towards  the  targets  and  the 
target/performance  comparison.  The  main  question  here  is  the  credibility  of  baselines 
and  targets,  especially  in  those  cases  where  extraordinary  overachievement  has  been 
reported.  

Considering  urban  development  the  result  indicators  are  rather  broad  and  it  is  worth 
noting  the  low  number  of  indicators  related  to  integrated  urban  development,  in 
this  might  have  been  defined.  Achievements  under  education 
whatever  way 
infrastructure and health infrastructure are more precisely defined in the sense that the 
intervention  logic  -  e.g.  the  link  between  improved  facility  and  increased  number  of 
people  benefiting/increased  level  of  service  offered  -  is  direct  and  comprehensible.  The 
same  largely  applies  to  childcare  since  it  follows  a  similar  logic  to  education. 
Achievements  under  housing  and  other  social  infrastructure  are  rarely  reported  due  to 
the  lack  of  indicators  or  the  submission  under  broader  more  generally  expressed 
indicators  (e.g.  improved  social  infrastructure).  In  general  the  character  of  output  and 
result indicators in many programmes is unclear and this leads to the fact that in some 
OPs output and result indicators are the same. 

Success factors identified  

The  interviews  with  Managing  Authorities  as  well  as  the  web  survey  and  other  related 
evidence  revealed  several  factors  for  success  and  failure  which  fall  into  the  following 
categories: 

  The  complexity,  maturity  and  viability  of  the  project  proposal:  these  are 
usually  captured  in  the  proposal  selection  procedure.  In  many  cases  the 
complexity,  for  instance,  of  the  integrated  urban  approach  has  led  to  failure.  On 
the other hand Czech Managing Authorities claim that the higher the complexity, 
the  more  successful  the  project.  Failure  was  also  caused  by  implementing 
challenging  but 
financial  engineering 
instruments, as in the case of Romania. Here the implementation of the financial 
engineering instrument led to a great delay in the implementation of the OP. 

inadequate  developed 

immature 

The involvement, coordination and alignment to strategies and plans: this 
is  particularly  the  case  with  the  integrated  approach,  where  the  alignment  to 
regional  and/or  national  strategies  and  especially  the  involvement  of  local 
stakeholders  and  beneficiaries  have  been  named  as  a  very  important  success 
factor.  Additionally,  political  commitment  at  local  as  well  as  at  regional  level  is 
necessary to successfully implement a project. 

  The  capacity  of  the  project  implementation  body  and  project  owner: 
almost  all  Managing  Authorities  refer  to  a  combination  of  a  lack  of  project 

page 19 

 
 
management  skills  and  ‘high  bureaucracy’  in  project  implementation  as  a  key 
cause of failure in project implementation.  

The  screening  of  the  programmes  also  revealed  a  shortfall  in  addressing  specific  target 
groups. Interestingly, those OPs lacking a clear specification of target groups also tend to 
be the programmes where demand has stayed below expectations. This can be explained 
by  the  lack  of  strategy  and  the  lack  of  involvement  of  the  right  stakeholders.  The 
pressure  to  absorb  the  OP  budget  leads  again  to  further  ad  hoc  interventions  whose 
nature is more ‘sectoral’ than ‘integrated’. 

Future perspective 

Several  of  the  main  issues  addressed  by  this  ex-post  evaluation  are  reflected  in  the 
regulatory  framework  for  the  2014-2020  period.  The  integrated  approach  is  further 
reinforced,  as  urban  development  shall  be  implemented  through  strategies  setting  out 
integrated  actions.  A  minimum  of  5%  of  ERDF  resources  allocated  shall  be  invested  in 
integrated  actions  for  sustainable  urban  development  in  order  to  strengthen  the  role  of 
cities in the programmes. The implementation might be facilitated with instruments such 
as  the  Integrated  Territorial  Investments.  All  11  thematic  objectives  set  out  in  the 
general regulation EU No 1301/2013 are  relevant for urban areas and  some particularly 
pertinent 
the  2014-2020 
programming period represents a step forward towards a more result oriented approach 
which allows for a better validation of integrated investments.  

investment  priorities  have  been  specified.  Moreover 

page 20 

 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

page 21 

 
 
 
1  INTRODUCTION 

This  is  the  final  report  of  the  ‘Ex  post  evaluation  of  cohesion  policy  programmes  2007-
2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Cohesion Fund 
(CF).  It  represents  the  final  deliverable  of  Work  Package  Ten:  Ex  post  evaluation  of 
Urban  Development  and  Social  Infrastructures,  No.  2014CE16BAT035’.  The  evaluation 
team - a Core Team and a network of Geographic Experts - comprised experts from Metis 
GmbH and IfS as a subcontractor. 

The final report presents the results of the tasks undertaken by the study, together with 
the main findings and conclusions derived from the cross-task analysis. 

1.1  Objectives and scope of the study 

The  overall  objective  of  this  study  is  to  undertake  an  ex  post  evaluation  of  cohesion 
policy programmes financed by the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund during the period 2007-
2013.  

According  to  the  Specifications  the  aim  is  to  “establish  the  nature  and  objectives  of  co-
financed  investments  in  the  fields  of  urban  development  and  social  infrastructures  and 
assess the extent to which they were delivered through integrated strategies or not”.  

In  doing  so  the  study  addresses  a  wide  range  of  evaluation  questions  set  out  in  the 
Specifications by study task. These are presented in Table 1, below, in five homogeneous 
groups of questions drawn from all the tasks of the study, and by task in the Annexes. 

The study covers the policy areas of ‘urban development’ and ‘social infrastructure’ in all 
EU  Member  States  supported  exclusively  by  ERDF  under  the  Convergence,  Regional 
Competitiveness and Employment and European Territorial Cooperation objectives.  

The scope of the study has been defined in the Specifications on the basis of the ‘priority 
theme’  dimension  of  the  code  system  as  defined  in  Annex  II  of  regulation  1828/2006. 
The codes are assigned to every single project when it is selected for ERDF support. The 
priority themes that are directly linked to the two policy areas of this study are: 

 

‘Urban development’: 

   Code 61 Integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration 

 

‘Social infrastructure’: 

   Code 75 Education infrastructure 

   Code 76 Health infrastructure 

   Code 77 Childcare infrastructure 

   Code 78 Housing infrastructure  

   Code 79 Other social infrastructure. 

page 22 

 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

The evaluation explores the different approaches regarding urban development and social 
infrastructure and their influence on achievements. More precisely, it seeks to provide a 
better  understanding  as  to  whether  support  in  urban  areas  is  part  of  integrated 
development  strategies  and  the  extent  to  which  the  objectives  are  economic,  social  or 
environmental or a combination of these and/or other objectives. Furthermore, there is a 
need  to  understand  the  role  of  social  infrastructure  investments  in  the  context  of 
cohesion policy interventions and, particularly, in relation to urban development.  

1.2  Tasks and methodological approach 

1.2.1  Evaluation tasks 

The study was launched in November 2014 with a 10-month duration and comprised four 
tasks: 

  Task  1:  Distribution  of  investments  and  reported  outputs  -  Analysis  of 
financial  data  and  core  indicators  using  the  categorisation  system,  covering  322 
OPs,  and  in  more  detail  a  sample  of  115  OPs  with  the  highest  ERDF  allocations 
(over  EUR  22  million)  to  the  priority  theme  codes  identified  in  the  study 
Specifications (February – March 2015). 

  Task 2:  Analysis of Operational Programmes and Annual Implementation 
Reports and Survey of Managing Authorities - Screening of key documents of 
the  sample  of  115  OPs  and  telephone  interviews  with  the  respective  Managing 
Authorities (February – May 2015). 

  Task  3:  Survey  of  project  implementation  bodies  -  Web  survey  prepared  in 

March – April and carried out in May – June 2015. 

  Task 4: Cross-task analysis and presentation of the final report- including a 
stakeholder  seminar  held  on  15.07.2015  (Final  Report  submitted  in  September 
2015). 

1.2.2  Overall approach 

Task 1 

The  analysis  carried  out  in  Task  1  is  based  on  the  European  Commission’s  (EC) 
monitoring  data.  This  allows  for  the  analysis  of  both  financial  data  and  some  data  on 
outputs for selected core indicators, as follows: 

  By  using  the  categorisation  system  as  defined  by  the  European  Commission, 
financial  data  allow  for  an  analysis in  different  dimensions  and  comparisons.  The 
codes  cover  the  dimensions  of  priority  theme,  type  of  territory,  form  of  finance, 
location and economic activity. This study focuses on code 61 (‘integrated projects 
for urban and rural regeneration’ which is also referred to as ‘urban development’ 
or ‘urban and regional regeneration’ or ‘integrated urban development’ depending 
on the context) and codes 75 to 79 (‘social infrastructure’).  

page 23 

 
 
 

In addition, there are data available for the relevant physical core indicators. Six 
of them are directly related to the topics covered by this study.  

However, the quality of the data is low for the requirements of this study and - mainly for 
the  dimensions  of  economic  sector,  type  of  territory  and  location  where  there  are 
significant  gaps  -  this  has  constrained  the  analysis.  Also,  the  possibilities  for  the 
interpretation of the core indicators are limited. All indicators  are of the type ‘number of 
projects’,  which  means  that  they  give  information  on  the  activities  undertaken  rather 
than on outcomes or results.  

Some  of  the  data  gaps  have  been  addressed  by  WP13  and  we  were  able  to  carry  out 
some additional analyses of actual expenditure by NUTS III in a later stage of the study, 
as part of Task 1. 

The  methodology  of  Task  1  is  presented  in  Annex  1,  together  with  the  analyses  carried 
out  and  findings  obtained  by  thematic  field  and  by  evaluation  question.  Annex  1  also 
includes a fuller explanation of data constraints and the way Member States have applied 
the categorisation system. 

Task 2 

Task 2 concentrated on the screening of the relevant documentation of the sample of 115 
OPs  established  as  part  of  the  study  Specifications.  The  screening  of  documents 
encompassed  the  programme  documents,  including  all  relevant  Annexes  and  the  AIR 
2013  for  each  one  of  the  OPs,  as  well  as  other  relevant  sources  of  information  ranging 
from the programme website and project databases to evaluations and other studies.  

The  main  purpose  of  the  screening  was  to  better  understand  the  actual  interventions 
supported  by  the  OPs,  the  intervention  logic  where  actions  are  embedded,  and  other 
important  aspects  such  as  governance,  project  selection  and  main  implementation 
bodies.  

The screening exercise was completed for all 115 OPs by the Geographic Experts with the 
help  of  a  web-based  survey  tool.  Their  findings  and  assessments  for  each  OP  were 
integrated in a database serving as the basis for answering the evaluation questions.  

The  Geographic  Experts  were  required  to  interview  the  Managing  Authorities  in  case 
there were any information gaps remaining from the screening of the documents and in 
order  to  deepen  the  study  insights.  Interviews  with  the  Managing  Authorities  were 
conducted  for  104  OPs3.The  information  obtained  by  the  Geographic  Experts  was 
extracted and summarised using the web-based survey tool. 

The  methodology  of  Task  2  is  presented  in  more  detail  in  Annex  2,  together  with  the 
analyses carried out and findings obtained by evaluation question. 

3  No interview could be conducted in the case of 11 OPs due to no response from the relevant Managing 

Authorities. The non-respondent MAs were: FR - Guyane, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, Lorraine; PL - 
Infrastructure and Environment, Lower Silesia, Kujawsko-Pomorskie, Lubuskie, Mazovia; and IT – Calabria. 

page 24 

 
 
                                           
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Task 3 

Task  3  aimed  to  explore  the  strategies  of  ERDF  projects,  including  desired  change, 
financial  sustainability,  contribution  to  programme  objectives,  results,  and  other  issues 
related  to  the  evaluation  questions  set  out  in  the  Specifications.  This  was  pursued 
through  a  web  survey  of  project  implementation  bodies  drawn  from  different  ERDF 
programmes from all Member States covered by this study. 

The  survey  covered  equally  the  fields  of  urban  policy  and  social  infrastructure.  In  total 
579 project implementation bodies were invited to take part and  214 of them submitted 
valid responses online.  

The  survey methodology is presented in Annex 3, together  with the results obtained by 
evaluation question. 

Task 4 

Task 4 involved a cross-task analysis. This was done by group of evaluation questions, as 
presented  in  Table  1,  below,  and  by  policy  field;  urban  development  and  social 
infrastructure.  We  also  analysed  a  number  of  overarching  issues  of  the  study,  which 
transcend individual policy fields or evaluation questions, such as the strategic approach 
followed  by  the  programmes  and  its  relevance  to  their  achievements.  The  main  points 
arising from these analyses form part  of the core chapters of this report (Chapters 3, 4 
and 5). 

A ‘stakeholder seminar’ took place on 15.07.2015 as part of Task 4, in line with the study 
Specifications.  The  seminar  discussed  the  preliminary  findings  of  the  evaluation,  and 
contributed  to  the  deepening  of  the  analysis  and  to  the  drawing  of  conclusions.  Its 
agenda, participants and work shop results are presented in Annex 4.  

The development of the final report was also part of this task. 

1.3  Structure of this report 

This report is in two parts: main report and annexes. 

The main report comprises five chapters, including the Introduction (Chapter 1)4. 

Chapter 2 offers a general overview by presenting the overall pattern of ERDF spending 
for  integrated  projects  of  urban  regeneration  and  for  social  infrastructure.  It  also 
describes the main characteristics of the sample of 115 OPs which have been chosen for 
this evaluation.  

Chapters 3 and 4 present the results of the analyses carried out under Tasks 1, 2 and 3 
regarding, respectively, the fields of urban development and social infrastructure. Each of 

4  The structure of the report follows the guidance issued by DG Regio for all Work Packages of the ex post 

evaluation 

page 25 

 
 
                                           
these  chapters  covers  the  following  aspects,  which  in  turn  correspond  to  a  group  of 
relevant evaluation questions, as in Table 1: 

  Strategy 

  Activities and target groups 

  Financial resources 

 

Implementation 

  Outputs, results and achievements. 

Chapter 5addresses the overarching evaluation questions of the study, as defined by the 
Specifications  under  Task  4  of  the  study,  and  a  number  of  cross-cutting  issues  that 
spring from the findings and conclusions Chapters 3 and 4. It also summarises the main 
conclusions  of  the  study,  generally  and  by  evaluation  question,  and  draws  lessons  for 
future policy development and ERDF programmes. 

The four annexes correspond to the four tasks of the study. Each of them presents the 
relevant methodology and the results of the analyses undertaken, typically by evaluation 
question. 

page 26 

 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Table 1: Grouping of Evaluation Questions5 

Strategies 
(Sections3.1 and 4.1)6 

Activities and Target Groups 
(Sections3.2and4.2) 

Financial Resources 
(Sections3.3 and 4.3) 

Implementation 
(Sections3.4and 4.4) 

EQ2-2  What is the programme 
trying to achieve in the areas of 
urban development and social 
infrastructures (also in relation to 
addressing the needs of different 
population groups)? 
(see p. 48 and p. 76) 

EQ1-2  What are the economic 
sectors benefiting most from 
investments that can be 
associated with urban 
development and social 
infrastructures? 
(see p. 59 and p. 88) 

EQ1-1  What is the 
distribution of investment in 
urban development and social 
infrastructure across 
programmes? 
(see p. 61 and p. 89) 

EQ2-4  What is the nature of the 
relation between Managing Authorities 
and the main project implementation 
bodies (e.g. urban authorities) in terms 
of delegation of tasks and involvement in 
the selection of operation? 
(see p. 67 and p. 94) 

EQ2-3  What is the strategy to 
promote investments and justify 
actions in these specific sectors? 
And how can the demand side in 
the investigated sectors be 
characterised? 
(see for example p. 79) 

EQ2-11 (1) 
What are the 
main changes (objectives) that 
programmes are attempting to 
achieve? 
(see p. 71 and 96) 

EQ3-1 (1) What is the project 
trying to achieve and in what 
way? What are the main changes 
(objectives) that interventions are 
attempting to? 
(see p. 72 and p.98) 

EQ1-3  Are there specific 
target groups that can be 
identified as beneficiaries of the 
support? (e.g. deprived or 
marginalised groups). 
(see p. 59 and p. 88) 

Identify the nature of 

EQ2-1 
the activities and main 
beneficiaries of the financial 
support (e.g. services vs. 
infrastructure, public vs. 
private, etc.) 
(see p. 59 and p. 88) 

EQ3-2 (2) Which are the 
identifiable targets groups (e.g. 
deprived or marginalised 
groups)? 
(see p. 55ff and p. 81ff) 

EQ1-4  What is the 
‘geographical’ and ‘territorial’ 
distribution across 
investments? 
(see p. 61 and p. 89) 

EQ2-8  Are there linkages between 
ERDF support and ESF support in the 
areas of urban development and social 
infrastructures? 
(see p. 64and p.116) 

Identify the nature of 

EQ1-5 
the financial support (use of 
grants vs. financial 
engineering instruments). 
(see p. 66 and p. 93) 

EQ2-9  What are the measures put in 
place to ensure financial sustainability of 
projects? And do selection criteria and 
processes take into account the future 
financial sustainability of projects? 
(see p. 69 and p. 94) 

EQ1-6   Identify – where 
possible – other investments 
included as part of ‘integrated 
urban development 
strategies’. 
(see p. 50, 64) 

EQ3-4 Do projects in the areas of urban 
development and social infrastructures 
benefit from simultaneous ERDF and ESF 
co-financing. What is the nature of the 
linkage between ERDF and ESF in these 
cases? (see p. 64 and p.116) 

what results 

EQ2-11 (2) 
have been achieved (or are likely 
to be achieved) via the support to 
specific projects? 
(see for example p. 71 and 96) 

5  Summarised answers to the evaluation questions are presented in Section 5.3.2 
6  Sections of the report in which the results of the analyses concerning this group of evaluation questions are presented  

page 27 

Outputs, Results and 
Achievements(Sections3.5 and 
4.5) 

EQ2-5  What are the main 
drivers of success and failure 
associated with these strategies 
and projects? 
(see p. 74 and p.100) 

EQ2-6  What is the relationship 
between investments for 
integrated urban development 
strategies and investments in the 
different fields of social 
infrastructures? 
(see for example p. 40) 

EQ2-10  How are achievements 
captured and reported on 
(quantitatively or qualitatively)? 
(see for example p. 71ff and 96ff) 

 
 
                                           
Strategies 
(Sections3.1 and 4.1)6 

Activities and Target Groups 
(Sections3.2and4.2) 

Financial Resources 
(Sections3.3 and 4.3) 

Implementation 
(Sections3.4and 4.4) 

Outputs, Results and 
Achievements(Sections3.5 and 
4.5) 

EQ4-3 (2) Is it concentrated on 
identifiable target groups? 
(see p. 59 and p. 88) 

EQ2-7  What is the role of 
ERDF support in supporting 
strategies for integrated urban 
development in comparison to 
other possible co-funding? 
And how much of the ERDF is 
supporting integrated urban 
development strategies? 
(see p. 50, 64) 

EQ3-3 Do projects in the 
areas of urban development 
and social infrastructures 
address identified market 
failures? 
(see p. 64) 

EQ3-6 Is financial sustainability 
addressed? What are the measures put 
in place to ensure financial sustainability 
of projects? 
(see p. 69 and p. 94) 

EQ3-1 (2) what results have been 
achieved (or are likely to be 
achieved) via the support to 
specific projects? 
(see p. 72 and p.98) 

EQ3-5 In each of the sub sectors 
what are the most common 
measures of project output used 
by the projects? 
(see p. 71ff and 96ff) 

EQ3-7 Are the supported projects 
contributing to economic growth 
and creating jobs? And in what 
ways? Can beneficiaries point to 
objective evidence in this regard? 
(see for example p. 116ff) 

EQ4-4 What are the main 
rationales to justify public 
investment in integrated urban 
strategies and social 
infrastructures?(see for example 
p. 116ff) 

EQ4-5 What evidence is there of 
achievements of investments in 
sustainable urban development 
and social infrastructures?(see for 
example p. 116ff) 

EQ3-2 (1) What is the socio 
economic objective focus of the 
project and the logic of 
intervention at the basis of the 
interventions carried out?  
(see p. 55ff and p. 81ff) 

EQ4-1 To what extent was the 
ERDF allocated to urban 
development investments 
through integrated strategies for 
urban development? 
(see p. 50 and p. 5.1) 

EQ4-2 How was integrated urban 
development organised in the 
programmes during 2007-2013 
programming period? Are there 
“types” of strategies that can be 
detested? 
(see for example p. 48ff) 

EQ4-3 (1) How was “social 
infrastructure” organized in 
Operational Programmes – and 
within strategies for urban 
development?  
(see for example p. 76ff) 

page 28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

page 29 

 
 
 
2  GENERAL OVERVIEW 

2.1  Patterns of ERDF investment in urban development and social 
infrastructure 

This  section  presents  an  analysis  of  the  data  available  from  the  categorisation  system 
according  to  Annex  II  of  Regulation  1828/2006.  According  to  this  system,  the  ERDF 
amount  allocated  to  selected  projects7  is  attributed  to  pre-defined  categories  in  the 
following five dimensions: priority theme, form of finance, territorial dimension, economic 
activity, and location. The 2007-2013 programming period was thus the first time that a 
coherent monitoring approach was introduced to cover all OPs EU-wide.  

The  priority  theme  dimension  of  the  code  system  has  been  used  to  define  the  scope  of 
this study in the tender Specifications. This dimension offers  a catalogue of 86 different 
codes  aimed  at  covering  the  content  of  the  interventions.  The  codes  are  grouped 
thematically, e.g. nine codes for different research and technology development (R&TD) 
related activities, six codes for different aspects supporting the information society, and 
so  on.  Categorisation  data  are  available  for  322  OPs,  covering  the  Convergence, 
Competitiveness8  and  European  Territorial  Cooperation  (ETC)  objectives.  The  total 
indicative  financial  plan  for  all  322  ERDF  OPs  foresees  a  budget  of  EUR  270,623.91 
million.  By  the  end  of  2013,  the  total  allocation  to  selected  projects  amounted  to  EUR 
266,875.97 million. Nearly 98% of the total available budget has been allocated to them.  

The  scope  of  this  study  covers  six  of  the  codes  for  the  priority  theme  dimension.  The 
allocation  to  Code  61  (‘Integrated  projects  for  urban  and  rural  regeneration’9)  is  EUR 
10,416.66  million (or  3.9%  of  the  total  ERDF  allocation)  (see  Figure  1).  Allocations  to 
social  infrastructure  amount  to  EUR  18,642.63  million  (7.0%  of  total  allocation). 
‘Investment in social infrastructure’ is covered by a group of five codes (codes 75 to 79). 
Half  of  the  allocation  to  social  infrastructure  goes  to  education  infrastructure  which 
accounts for EUR 9,314.27 million (3.5% of total allocation). Health infrastructure is the 
second  key  area  of  social  infrastructure  funding  with  EUR 5,597.03  million  (2.1%). 
Allocations  to  other  types  of  social  infrastructure  are  EUR 2,687.97  million  (1.0%). 
Childcare  and  housing  infrastructure  only  play  a  minor  role  with  EUR 638.63  million 
(0.2%) allocated to the former and EUR 404.74 million (0.2%) to the latter.  

7 

„Allocation to selected projects“ is the official definition of the information to be collected with the 
categorisation system. It is known that this definition can mean different things in different countries. An 
amount reported as “allocation” can represent a political intention to spend the money for a specific project, 
the formal decision to support a specific project, or the fact that a contract has been signed (or an official 
notification has been issued). WP13 highlights the point without giving any additional information on the 
scope of the variation (“National practices and terminology may differ and are not regulated by EU 
definitions. Some variation in practice is to be expected”).  So, we cannot assess in how far this affects the 
validity of the analysis. 

8  Regional Competitiveness and Employment  
9 

In this context the use of the term ‘integrated’ refers to ‘integrated projects’. These are not necessarily part 
of ‘integrated strategies’. 

page 30 

 
 
 
 
                                           
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure  1:  ERDF  allocations  by  end  of  2013  -  shares  of  urban  development  and 
social infrastructure 

Source: Monitoring data DG REGIO 2013 

The  total  amount  allocated  to  urban  and  rural  regeneration  and  social  infrastructure  is 
10.9% (EUR 29,059.29 million). Although this is a significant amount, other policy fields 
have greater shares in ERDF allocations: nearly 29% of the ERDF funds are allocated to 
transport  projects;  nearly  25%  of  the  support  goes  to  R&TD  projects;  for  example 
investment in environmental protection and risk prevention is significantly higher (more 
than 18% of the allocated ERDF volume).10 

Hungary, Poland and Portugal allocate more than EUR 3,000 million each to the relevant 
intervention  categories  (see  Table  2,  below).  The  three  countries  together  spend  more 
than  one  third  of  the  total  allocation  on  the  relevant  codes.  Another  nearly  20%  of  the 
total allocation is spent in Italy and Greece with more than EUR 2,500 million ERDF funds 
in  each  country.  Slightly  more  than  20%  is  allocated  to  four  countries  with  around  EUR 
1,500 million ERDF allocation each (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Spain and Germany).  

Thus,  nine  countries  spend  nearly  80%  of  the  total  allocation  to  integrated  urban 
development  and  social  infrastructure.  The  rest  (21%)  is  distributed  between  the 
remaining  18  Member  States,  none  of  them  allocating  more  than  EUR  1,000  million  of 
ERDF  funds  to  social  infrastructure  and  integrated  projects  for  urban  and  rural 
development.  Denmark  and  Croatia  invest  neither  in  social  infrastructure  nor  in 
integrated projects for urban or rural regeneration (see Table 2, below). 

10  The financial weight of different types of policy largely depends on the activities that are being supported. It 

is mainly investment in infrastructures which leads to high absolute figures in the allocations. 

page 31 

89.10%3.90%3.50%2.10%1.00%0.20%0.20%10.90%other codesintegrated urban developmenteducation infrastructurehealth infrastructureother social infrastructurechildcare infrastructurehousing infrastructure 
 
 
 
 
                                           
The  ETC11  programmes  allocate  EUR  312.15  million  in  total  to  integrated  urban 
development  and  social  infrastructure  and,  overall,  play  only  a  minor  role  in  financial 
terms.  However,  they  include  specialised  programmes,  like  the  EU-wide  URBACT  II 
programme  and  the  PEACE  III  programme  for  Northern  Ireland  /  Ireland,  which  is 
investing  a  substantial  amount  in  social  infrastructure,  as  well  as  some  Interreg  A-type 
programmes investing significant amounts in the relevant policy fields.  

Looking only at the absolute amounts of ERDF allocated to projects per country does not 
provide information about the relative importance of the intervention compared to other 
elements of the country’s strategy. With a share of more than 20% of the total national 
ERDF  allocation, 
integrated  urban  and  rural  regeneration  together  with  social 
infrastructure is of particular importance in Portugal, Latvia and Cyprus (see Table 1 and 
Table  2,  below).  With  a  share  between  11.0%  and  19.5%  nine  other  countries  give  a 
greater  weight to  these  two  policy  areas  in  their  ERDF  allocations  than  the  EU  average. 
At the same time 15 Member States allocate less than the average to these fields: three 
of  them  not  even  3%  of  their  total  ERDF  allocations  (Sweden  –  2.9%,  Finland  –  2.1%, 
Luxemburg - 0.8%). The relative weight compared to all allocations reflects the political 
emphasis  accorded  to  the  policy  areas:  Poland  for  instance  gives  a  comparatively  small 
weight  to  these  policy  fields  (6.7%),  although  the  absolute  amount  of  the  allocation  is 
the second largest in Europe. Cyprus– ranking among the smallest absolute allocations in 
Europe – invests more than 20% of its ERDF allocation in these policy fields. 

Another  perspective  is  offered  by  looking  at  the  allocation  to  the  relevant  codes  in 
relation  to  the  number  of  inhabitants  (see  Table  2,  below).  The  EU-wide  allocation  to 
integrated  urban  development  and  social  infrastructure  is  EUR  57.3  per  capita.  The 
allocation  per  capita  in  Estonia  is  more  than  seven  times  higher  (EUR  430.2).  Seven 
other countries allocate more than EUR 250 per capita, followed by five countries with an 
allocation between EUR 63.6 and EUR 170.3. Six countries have a per capita allocation of 
between  EUR  10  and  the  EU  average  of  EUR  57.3.  Finally,  seven  countries  allocate  less 
than 10 EUR per inhabitant to the relevant policy fields (Luxemburg only EUR 0.8). Most 
of  the  countries  with  high  absolute  amounts  allocated  to  the  relevant  policy  areas  also 
show  high  per  capita  allocations.  But  there  are  also  exceptions  like  Italy  with  a  total 
allocation of EUR 2,830.11 million – but a per capita allocation below the EU average.  

Anyhow,  the  per  capita  allocation  needs  to  be  considered  carefully  when  calculated  at 
Member State level: urban development, by definition, focuses on selected cities or areas 
within the cities and these are not distributed evenly across the country.  Therefore, the 
per  capita  allocation  in  the  actual  territories  selected  for  funding  is  often  much  higher 
than at Member State level. 

11  Also referred to as Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) programmes and ‘CB’ in the list of Member States in 

Tables 2 and 3, consistent with the CCI number of the programmes 

page 32 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Table 2: Key figures: ERDF allocation to urban development (code 61) and social 
infrastructure (codes 75-79) – All 322 OPs 

Allocation 2013 61, 75-79 

Member State 

in € million 

in % (Share of each Member 
State's total ERDF allocation) 

Allocation per capita (€) 

HU 

PL 

PT 

IT 

EL 

CZ 

SK 

ES 

DE 

LT 

LV 

RO 

FR 

CB 

EE 

BG 

UK 

SI 

NL 

BE 

CY 

MT 

SE 

IE 

FI 

AT 

LU 

DK 

HR 

3,718.808 

3,663.406 

3,568.390 

2,830.107 

2,760.104 

1,790.664 

1,583.380 

1,550.605 

1,477.941 

940.952 

844.336 

728.899 

690.388 

669.340 

566.048 

461.033 

412.417 

191.909 

144.454 

141.354 

121.860 

108.080 

27.966 

24.254 

21.663 

20.735 

0.200 

0.000 

0.000 

14.9% 

6.7% 

23.9% 

13.2% 

11.0% 

10.2% 

16.2% 

8.4% 

10.1% 

16.5% 

22.6% 

4.5% 

9.4% 

8.9% 

19.5% 

7.4% 

7.9% 

5.4% 

16.8% 

14.2% 

20.2% 

15.3% 

2.9% 

5.9% 

2.1% 

3.6% 

0.8% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

EU Total 

29,059.292 

10.9% 

Source: Monitoring data DG REGIO 2015 

376.4 

95.2 

342.2 

46.6 

251.1 

170.3 

292.4 

33.3 

18.3 

319.7 

421.9 

36.5 

10.5 

-- 

430.2 

63.6 

6.4 

93.1 

8.6 

12.6 

142.0 

254.1 

2.9 

5.3 

4.0 

2.4 

0.4 

0.0 

0.0 

57.3 

page 33 

 
 
  
 
 
2.2  ERDF investment - Characteristics of the sample of 115 OPs 

For  a  more  in-depth  analysis,  a  sample  of  115  OPs  has  been  selected  (see  Table  4, 
below).  These  programmes  invest  more  than  EUR  22  million  of  ERDF  each,  in  the  two 
policy  areas  covered  by  the  evaluation12.  All  together  the  115  programmes  cover  98.43 
%  of  the  total  allocation  to  social  infrastructure  in  all  322  programmes  and  93.87%  of 
the  total  allocation  to  integrated  projects  for  urban  and  rural  regeneration.  The  total 
allocation  to  the  115  selected  programmes  amounts  to  EUR  149,490  million  of  which 
12.3% (EUR 18,350 million) are allocated to projects for social infrastructure (Codes 75-
79) and 6.5% (EUR 9,778 million) to integrated projects for urban and rural regeneration 
(Code 61).  

The following seven countries are not represented in the sample (see Table3). 

  Denmark  and  Croatia  which  do  not  invest  in  integrated  projects  for  urban 

development and social infrastructure.  

  Austria,  Finland,  Ireland,  Luxemburg  and  Sweden,  which  have  allocations  in  the 
relevant fields but no OP passing the threshold of more than EUR 22 million ERDF 
allocation. 

In the selected programmes, 18.8% of the overall ERDF allocation is used for integrated 
projects for urban and rural regeneration and social infrastructure (compared to 10.9% in 
all  OPs  EU-wide).  At  Member  State  level,  the  selected  OPs  allocate  up  to  50.5% 
(Slovakia)  of  the  total  allocation  to  the  relevant  codes.  Altogether,  five  Member  States 
have  an  allocation  to  the  relevant  codes  of  more  than  one  third  of  the  total  ERDF 
allocation. Although Poland has the second largest amount allocated in absolute figures, 
this only reflects 8.1% of Poland’s total ERDF allocation – the lowest value of all Member 
States (see Table 3). 

12  The selection and the threshold of € 22 million have been defined in the Specifications on the basis of the 

allocation by the end of 2012. The application of the same threshold to the data as of the end of 2013 would 
have led to some small changes in the selection. 

page 34 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Table 3: Key figures: ERDF allocation to urban development (code 61) and social 
infrastructure (codes 75-79) – Sample of 115 OPs 

Allocation 2013 61, 75-79 

Member State 

in € million 

in % (Share of each Member 
State's total ERDF allocation) 

Allocation per capita (€) 

HU 

PL 

PT 

EL 

IT 

CZ 

SK 

ES 

DE 

LT 

LV 

RO 

EE 

FR 

BG 

CB 

UK 

SI 

BE 

CY 

NL 

MT 

AT 

DK 

FI 

HR 

IE 

LU 

SE 

3,718.808 

3,663.406 

3,568.390 

2,760.104 

2,759.293 

1,787.341 

1,555.439 

1,488.629 

1,438.138 

940.289 

844.336 

728.899 

566.048 

469.494 

461.033 

360.704 

351.241 

191.909 

131.881 

121.860 

113.141 

108.080 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

47.2% 

8.1% 

32.7% 

22.3% 

20.7% 

23.9% 

50.5% 

12.5% 

11.5% 

35.5% 

27.1% 

17.6% 

38.9% 

13.4% 

34.4% 

26.2% 

13.7% 

11.0% 

14.0% 

20.2% 

22.6% 

15.3% 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

-- 

EU Total 

28,128.461 

18.8% 

Source: Monitoring data DG REGIO 2015 

376.4 

95.2 

342.2 

251.1 

45.4 

170.0 

287.2 

32.0 

17.8 

319.4 

421.9 

36.5 

430.2 

7.1 

63.6 

-- 

5.5 

93.1 

11.8 

142.0 

6.7 

254.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

55.4 

page 35 

 
 
  
2.3  Structural Funds objective and spatial level of OPs 

The  115  programmes  cover  21  Member  States  and  seven  ETC  programme  areas13  and 
they  concern  different  Structural  Funds  objectives.  A  general  overview  about 
categories  of  region  and  types  of  programme  (national  or  regional  level  programme,  or 
ETC  programme)  which  are  involved  in  the  study  assessment  is  presented  in  Figure  2, 
below: 

Figure 2: Number of OPs in Member States by Structural Funds objective14 

Source: Metis, 2015 

Figure 2 shows the number of different OPs in each Member States. This should illustrate 
that the study does not allow a generalisation across all European Member States due to 
inequality  of  competitiveness  OPs  compared  to  convergence  OPs  as  well  as  regional 
programmes in relation to national OPs. In selecting the programmes on the basis of the 
total  amount  allocated  to  urban  and  rural  regeneration  and  social  infrastructure,  the 
chosen  OPs  give  more  weight  to  these  policy  areas  than  the  average  programme. 
Seventy five convergence programmes allocate by far the highest share (EUR 22,675.07 
million). Six programmes cover both convergence and competitiveness areas and allocate 
EUR  2,872.26  million  to  the  selected  policy  fields.  The  27  competitiveness  programmes 
cover an amount of EUR 2,220.42 million. Finally, seven of the 115 OPs are programmes 
for cross-border or interregional cooperation (total allocation EUR 360.70 million).  

13  Including URBACT II which covers all Member States 
14  Figure includes only those 21 MS and ETC programmes which are covered by 115 OPs. Excluding AT, DK, FI, 
IE, LU, HR, SE. However all MS are covered in the URBACT ETC programme and several MS are covered by 
different ETC programmes.   

page 36 

BGCYCZEEHULTLVMTPLROSISKFRBEDEESGRITNLPTUKEU13EU15ETCConvergence and competitiveness11121ETC7Competitiveness142644222Convergence1817111181124166365202468101214161820Number of OPs 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

It  is  not  easy  to  interpret  the  high  share  of  allocations  in  convergence  programmes  as 
different  factors,  some  of  them  rather  technical,  come  into  play.  First,  the  EU  co-
financing  to  convergence  programmes  is  higher  than  to  competitiveness  programmes 
and  therefore  the  EU  is  simply  paying  a  larger  share  of  the  investments  under 
convergence programmes compared to competitiveness programmes.  

than 

Second,  convergence  and  competitiveness  programmes  are  investing  in  different  mixes 
of  project  types.  Infrastructure  investment  is  of  greater  importance  in  convergence 
convergence  and 
programmes 
competitiveness  regions  are  defined  on  the  basis  of  objective  criteria,  and  generally 
speaking,  the  convergence  regions  can  be  expected  to  be  confronted  with  more  severe 
problems  in  basic  public  facilities  than  competitiveness  programmes.  Thus,  a  mix  of 
different  problem  structures,  different  types  of  intervention  and  different  co-financing 
rates lead to a clear dominance of convergence programmes in the sample. 

competitiveness  programmes.  Third, 

in 

The  108  competitiveness  and  convergence  OPs  come  from  21  different  Member  States. 
More  than  half  (59  OPs)  are  Polish,  German,  Italian,  Spanish  and  Czech.  Six  countries 
have only one relevant programme (Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Malta, Slovenia, Estonia, 
Latvia and Lithuania) – see Figure 2. 

The spatial level of the programmes also varies (see Figure 3): 89 of the 115 OPs are 
regional  programmes  (ROP),  18  national  operational  programmes  (NOP),  one  multi-
regional operational programme (Multi ROP), and seven ETC programmes15. 

Figure 3: Spatial level of OPs by Member State 

Source: Metis, 2015 

15  Four cross-border programmes, two transnational multi-country programmes (North West Europe and 

Central Europe) and one EU-wide inter-regional cooperation programme (URBACT II).   

page 37 

BGCYCZEEHULTLVMTPLROSISKBEDEESFRGRITNLPTUKEU13EU15ETCROP771631210858274NOP11211111111321MultiROP1ETC702468101214161820Number of OPs 
 
 
                                           
 
There is considerable diversity regarding the types of area targeted by the programmes, 
as depicted in Figure 4. 

Figure 4: Type of area targeted by OPs 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

Figure  4  shows  clearly  that  half  of  the  OPs  (50%)  did  not  specify  the  target  area.  The 
highest share of unspecified target areas is shown in the case of Italy followed by Greece 
and  Germany.  Although  the  majority  of  the  integrated  urban  development  funds  are 
allocated to EU-15 still there is no specification of target areas. In the case of the Czech 
Republic it is worth noting that although there is a distinctive urban strategy framework it 
does  not  distinguish  between  urban  areas  and  rural  areas  in  most  of  the  OPs.  A  large 
proportion of programmes (25%) address towns below 50,000  inhabitants in rural areas 
(especially Hungary, Latvia and the Czech Republic).  

The rest of the OPs specify the addressed areas in a more concrete way (i.e. capital cities 
or  specific  neighbourhoods  etc.).  Specifications  regarding  Neighbourhood  areas  have 
been  specified  only  in  EU-15.  One  programme  (‘Border  Region  of  Ireland  and  Western 
Scotland’)  targets  only  rural  areas.  The  following  OPs  explicitly  focus  on  cities  and 
agglomerations, and three of them cover capital cities (Athens, Lisbon and Berlin): 

  2007BE162PO003 Wallonia 

  2007BG161PO001 Regional Development Programme 

  2007DE162PO004 Berlin 

  2007GR161PO006 Attica 

  2007FR162PO022 Rhone-Alpes 

  2007PL161PO010 Małopolski  

  2007PL161PO009 Łódzkieg 

  2007PT162PO001 Lisboa  

page 38 

020406080100120Network of citiesCapital cityAgglomerationUrban areas in cities/neighbourhood…Regional centreTowns in rural areasNo specificationNumber of entries 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

The 115 OPs have been selected with reference to the total amount of funding allocated 
to the two policy areas of urban and regional regeneration and social infrastructure, but 
they cover different combinations of the two policy areas in the programmes.  

The  majority  of  OPs  cover  convergence  regions.  Therefore  the  evaluation  is  very  much 
focusing  towards  those  areas  of  investment.  General  conclusions  related  to  differences 
between convergence and competitiveness regions are therefore rarely feasible.  

2.4  Thematic orientation of OPs 

The  following  categories  have  been  identified  based  on  the  ERDF  allocations  at 
programme level (see Figure 5): 

  Urban  development  programmes:  18  OPs  invest  only  in  urban  and  rural 
regeneration (code 61) and not in social infrastructure. An ERDF allocation of EUR 
933.85  million  had  been  made  by  the  end  of  2013  (nearly  10%  of  the  total 
allocation  to  urban  development  in  the  115  OPs).  These  programmes  come  from 
eight different countries. 

  Social  infrastructure  programmes:  12  OPs  invest  in  social  infrastructure 
(codes  75-79)  but  do  not  allocate  funds  to  urban  development  (code  61).  The 
ERDF  allocation  to  these  codes  by  the  end  of  2013  was  EUR  4,396.25  million, 
which  is  nearly  one  quarter  of  the  total  allocation  to  social  infrastructure  in  the 
115 OPs. The programmes come from eight different countries. 

These two categories of programmes have a combined share of nearly 20% of the overall 
allocation to urban and rural regeneration (code 61) and social infrastructure (codes 75-
79). This means that more than 80% of the overall ERDF allocation to the relevant codes 
is  found  in  programmes  combining  both  urban  and  rural  regeneration,  and  social 
infrastructure. Different combinations fall into two further programme categories:  

  Mixed programmes – urban development dominated: 25 OPs allocate funds 
to  both  infrastructure  (code  75-79)  and  urban  and  rural  regeneration,  with  a 
higher share spent on  urban and rural regeneration (code 61).  The  OPs combine 
nearly  one  third  of  the  overall  allocation  to  urban  development  (EUR  3,012.18 
million)  and  nearly  7%  of  the  allocation  to  social  infrastructure  (EUR  1,209.44 
million). The programmes come from 10 different countries. 

  Mixed  programmes  –  social  infrastructure  dominated:  60  programmes 
apportion  a  higher  share  of  their  allocation  to  social  infrastructure  (code  75-79), 
but  also  invest  in  urban  and  rural  regeneration  (code  61).  These  programmes 
cover  more  than  two  thirds  of  the  overall  allocation  to  social  infrastructure  (EUR 
12,744.70  million)  and  nearly  60%  of  the  allocation  to  urban  and  rural 
regeneration  (EUR  5,832.03  million).  The  programmes  come  from  18  different 
countries. 

page 39 

 
 
 
 
Figure 5: Thematic orientation of 115 OPs 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

The  distinction  above  does  not  allow  a  systematic  categorisation  without  looking  into 
each OP and how urban development and social infrastructure are combined.  

2.5  Integration of urban development and social infrastructure in the 
OPs 

The  place  of  urban  development  and  social  infrastructure  in  the  overall  structure  of  the 
OP  is influenced  by  various  factors  such  as  budget,  strategy  and  regional  character  and 
needs.  In  general  there  are  three  main  groups  of  OPs  with  different  approaches  (see 
Figure 6).  

Social infrastructure dominated OPs with sectoral focus 

The  first  group  is  characterised  by  a  high  budget  allocation  on  social  infrastructure, 
mainly health or education. Interventions in the respective fields are concentrated on one 
or several priority axes. Main examples are the Hungarian OP ‘Social Infrastructure ‘with 
a clear focus on education in one priority axis and health in another priority axis.  

Social infrastructure and urban development combined 

The  second  group  covers  urban  development  and  social  infrastructure  in  one  OP. 
However programmes addressing urban development as well as social infrastructure are 
either separating the thematic areas strictly in different priority axes or combining them.  

  The  Polish  OP  ‘Silesia’  or  the  Estonian  OP  ‘Development  of  Living  environment’ 
address different thematic codes, each in a different priority axis, without combing 
them with urban development interventions.  

page 40 

010203040506070Urban development programmesSocial infrastructure programmesMixed programmes –urban development dominatedMixed programmes –social infrastructure dominatedNumber of OPs 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

  Hungarian  regional  OPs  ‘South  Great  Plain’,  ‘Central  Transdanubia’,  ‘North 
Hungary’  combine  different  social  infrastructure  themes  in  one  priority  axis  but 
separate them from urban development priority axes.  

  Several  Czech  and  Portuguese  OPs  but  also  the  Maltese  OP  combine  urban 

development and different social infrastructure themes in one priority axis.  

A  small  group  of  OPs,  four  Greek  and  one  Czech  OP,  combine  social  infrastructure  and 
urban development in several similar priority axes per OP. Each priority axis addresses a 
specific sub-region of the OP.  

Urban development dominated OPs with integrated focus 

The  third  main  group  comprises  those  OPs  which  cover  only  urban  development 
interventions without any social infrastructure codes addressed. All those OPs are in EU-
15 Member States. However in some of the OPs urban development allocations are used 
for  social  infrastructure  interventions.  For  example  the  Spanish  OPs  ‘Comunidad 
Valencian’  and  ‘Castilla  y  León’  have  directed  urban  development  interventions  also  to 
training facilities and other social infrastructure. 

Figure 6: Structure of OPs 

Group 1: Social infrastructure OPs with separate thematic axes 

Sub-group 2a: Mixed OPs – separate thematic axes 

Sub-group 2b: Mixed OPs – combined social infrastructure but separate urban development axes 

Sub-group 2c: Mixed OPs – combined social infrastructure and urban development axes 

Group 3: Urban development OPs integrating social infrastructure 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

page 41 

0510152025303540Group 1Sub-group 2aSub-group 2bSub-group 2cGroup 3Number of OPsno referencecombined urban development and social infrastructureonly related tourban development 
 
 
 
 
 
The priority axes structure is the most reliable source of evidence for a close relationship 
between  integrated  urban  development  and  social  infrastructure.  This  relationship  is 
sometimes  underlined  in  the  first  section  of  the  programmes,  especially  regarding 
deprived urban areas. However, in the majority of the OPs this relationship is much less 
visible  –  indeed  it  often  disappears  altogether  -  in  the  strategy  section  where  the 
operational and, by default, sectoral structure prevails.  

page 42 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Table 4: EU ERDF allocation to relevant thematic codes – overview 

Nr.  CCI 

OP name 

1  2007BE161PO001 
2  2007BE162PO002 

3  2007BE162PO003 

4  2007BG161PO001 

5  2007CB163PO006 

6  2007CB163PO017 

7  2007CB163PO044 

8  2007CB163PO047 

9  2007CB163PO048 
10  2007CB163PO049 

11  2007CB163PO061 

12  2007CY16UPO001 

13  2007CZ161PO001 
14  2007CZ161PO002 
15  2007CZ161PO005 
16  2007CZ161PO006 
17  2007CZ161PO008 
18  2007CZ161PO009 
19  2007CZ161PO010 
20  2007CZ161PO013 

21  2007CZ16UPO002 

22  2007DE161PO001 

Wallonia (Hainaut) 
Flanders 
Wallonia (not including 
Hainaut) 
Regional Development 
France – Spain – 
Andorra 
Germany (Saxony) – 
Czech Republic 
North West Europe 
Border Region of Ireland 
and Western Scotland 
URBACT 
PEACE I 
Central Europe 2007-
2013 
Sustainable 
Development and 
Competitiveness 
South-East 
Central Moravia 
North-East 
Environment 
North-West 
Central Bohemia’ 
Moravia Silesia 
South-West 
Integrated operational 
programme 
Thuringia 

MS 

BE 
BE 

BE 

BG 

CBC 

CBC 

CBC 

CBC 

CBC 
CBC 

CBC 

CY 

CZ 
CZ 
CZ 
CZ 
CZ 
CZ 
CZ 
CZ 

CZ 

DE 

61 
EUR million 

75 
EUR million 

76 
EUR million 

77 
EUR 
million 

78 
EUR 
million 

79 
EUR million 

Grand Total 
EUR million 

45.09 
49.18 

37.61 

45.09 
49.18 

37.61 

187.63 

60.23 

119.83 

62.51 

17.07 

13.77 

461.03 

2.39 

0.63 

19.46 

- 

- 

- 

22.49 

10.65 

3.26 

11.11 

22.88 

10.58 

32.16 

27.32 

111.69 

10.17 

52.75 
59.52 
141.35 

139.20 
72.50 
70.46 
62.14 

22.42 
44.30 
20.73 
24.94 
47.23 
56.05 
65.86 
32.88 

3.27 

22.62 

24.28 
7.19 
20.37 

22.11 
44.75 
30.02 
41.15 

161.74 

5.74 

217.25 

49.37 

31.74 

9.22 
1.74 

0.98 
8.01 
7.55 
8.06 

194.36 

31.72 
51.23 
20.18 

14.84 
10.96 
36.17 
16.29 

83.47 

25.02 

26.15 

33.20 

32.16 
194.36 

27.32 

121.86 

140.39 
163.98 
202.62 
24.94 
224.36 
192.27 
210.07 
160.52 

468.20 

81.11 

page 43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nr.  CCI 

OP name 

MS 

61 
EUR million 

75 
EUR million 

76 
EUR million 

77 
EUR 
million 

78 
EUR 
million 

79 
EUR million 

Grand Total 
EUR million 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

DE 

Brandenburg 
Mecklenburg 
Vorpommen 
Saxony 
Lüneburg (Lower 
Saxony) 
DE 
Saxony-Anhalt 
DE 
Bavaria 
DE 
Berlin 
DE 
Hessen 
Bremen 
DE 
North Rhine-Westphalia  DE 
Lower Saxony 
(excluding Lüneburg) 
Operational programme 
for the Development of 
Living environment 
Región de Murcia 
Asturias 
Galicia 
Extremadura 
Castilla La Mancha 
Andalucía 
Cataluña 
Castilla y León 
Comunidad Valencian 
Canarias 
Guyane 
Guadeloupe 
Martinique 
Réunion 
Aquitaine 

ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 
ES 
FR 
FR 
FR 
FR 
FR 

EE 

23  2007DE161PO002 

24  2007DE161PO003 

25  2007DE161PO004 

26  2007DE161PO006 

27  2007DE161PO007 
28  2007DE162PO001 
29  2007DE162PO004 
30  2007DE162PO005 
31  2007DE162PO006 
32  2007DE162PO007 

33  2007DE162PO010 

34  2007EE161PO002 

35  2007ES161PO001 
36  2007ES161PO004 
37  2007ES161PO005 
38  2007ES161PO006 
39  2007ES161PO007 
40  2007ES161PO008 
41  2007ES162PO006 
42  2007ES162PO009 
43  2007ES162PO010 
44  2007ES162PO011 
45  2007FR161PO001 
46  2007FR161PO002 
47  2007FR161PO003 
48  2007FR161PO004 
49  2007FR162PO001 

page 44 

120.99 

14.81 

41.85 

7.14 

137.62 

218.07 

19.07 

11.45 

15.56 

67.81 
12.70 
15.29 

48.13 

163.88 
42.44 
186.14 
28.71 
27.90 
141.75 

35.69 

135.81 

48.99 

355.69 

82.77 

243.14 
55.14 
201.43 
28.71 
27.90 
141.75 

35.69 

1.25 

275.73 

145.86 

37.46 

105.75 

566.05 

19.41 
26.07 
124.56 
101.05 
60.54 
253.82 
58.91 
36.04 
69.81 
24.24 
31.38 
37.59 
21.31 
21.40 
26.62 

40.67 
12.83 
18.60 
18.17 
61.41 
178.29 

13.17 
38.78 
5.22 

109.01 

2.94 

4.45 
3.07 
16.29 

0.79 

37.05 
3.43 
102.36 
35.44 
88.31 

54.30 

3.33 
7.09 
15.00 

63.02 
75.95 
152.81 
226.78 
182.70 
530.89 
58.91 
36.04 
69.81 
91.71 
70.16 
48.44 
37.94 
155.43 
26.69 

1.76 
2.13 
9.02 
10.47 

2.31 
8.75 
10.02 
0.07 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Nr.  CCI 

OP name 

50  2007FR162PO015 
51  2007FR162PO017 
52  2007FR162PO022 
53  2007GR161PO006 

54  2007GR161PO007 

55  2007GR161PO008 

56  2007GR16UPO001 

57  2007GR16UPO002 

58  2007HU161PO003 
59  2007HU161PO004 
60  2007HU161PO005 
61  2007HU161PO006 
62  2007HU161PO008 
63  2007HU161PO009 
64  2007HU161PO011 
65  2007HU162PO001 
66  2007IT161PO004 

67  2007IT161PO007 

68  2007IT161PO008 
69  2007IT161PO009 
70  2007IT161PO010 
71  2007IT161PO011 
72  2007IT162PO004 
73  2007IT162PO005 

Lorraine 
Nord Pas-De-Calais 
Rhone-Alpes 
Attica 
Western Greece – 
Peloponnesus – Ionian 
Islands 
Central Macedonia – 
Western Macedonia – 
Eastern Macedonia & 
Thrace 
Thessalia – Sterea 
Ellada – Ipiros 
Crete and the Aegean 
Islands 
West Pannon 
South Great Plain 
Central Transdanubia 
North Hungary 
Social Infrastructure 
North Great Plain 
South Transdanubia 
Central Hungary 
Learning Environments 
Security for 
development’ 
Calabria  
Campania  
Puglia  
Sicilia  
Lazio  
Liguria  

MS 

FR 
FR 
FR 
GR 

GR 

GR 

GR 

GR 

HU 
HU 
HU 
HU 
HU 
HU 
HU 
HU 
IT 

IT 

IT 
IT 
IT 
IT 
IT 
IT 

61 
EUR million 

75 
EUR million 

76 
EUR million 

77 
EUR 
million 
7.53 

78 
EUR 
million 

20.35 
55.36 
18.15 
231.94 

0.02 
155.47 

6.00 
58.73 

4.38 
87.62 

79 
EUR million 

Grand Total 
EUR million 

14.93 

4.12 
12.14 

42.80 
55.36 
32.67 
545.90 

131.71 

169.78 

155.70 

4.72 

27.00 

488.91 

398.74 

265.56 

142.31 

22.96 

51.90 

881.47 

121.82 

156.57 

96.72 

8.77 

4.66 

21.40 

409.94 

167.79 

152.52 

78.27 

19.54 

15.75 

433.88 

82.94 
92.89 
65.92 
169.44 

134.80 
46.01 
245.82 

22.39 

303.57 
697.12 
108.48 
90.80 
45.70 
19.74 

53.67 
69.73 
36.06 
107.80 
537.06 
126.35 
89.24 
158.22 
74.11 

98.17 
213.88 

20.03 
28.69 
19.60 
58.16 
976.67 
50.82 
22.68 
113.72 

181.18 
135.76 

5.86 
22.51 
6.29 
14.58 

14.49 
2.66 
37.49 

3.34 
37.91 

0.29 
7.48 
0.46 

3.93 
0.71 
10.69 

5.54 
21.43 
6.90 
27.72 
171.75 
26.95 
7.02 
17.73 

168.03 
235.55 
142.25 
378.17 
1,685.49 
357.34 
168.31 
583.67 
74.11 

111.71 

134.10 

12.94 
90.26 
114.81 
5.53 

281.25 

414.68 
1,004.59 
442.37 
513.33 
45.70 
19.74 

page 45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nr.  CCI 

OP name 

74  2007IT162PO012 
75  2007IT162PO016 
76  2007LT161PO001 

77  2007LV161PO002 

78  2007MT161PO001 

79  2007NL162PO002 
80  2007NL162PO003 

81  2007PL161PO002 

82  2007PL161PO003 

83  2007PL161PO005 
84  2007PL161PO006 
85  2007PL161PO007 
86  2007PL161PO008 
87  2007PL161PO009 
88  2007PL161PO010 
89  2007PL161PO011 
90  2007PL161PO012 
91  2007PL161PO013 
92  2007PL161PO014 
93  2007PL161PO015 
94  2007PL161PO016 
95  2007PL161PO017 
96  2007PL161PO018 
97  2007PL161PO019 
98  2007PL161PO020 
99  2007PT161PO002 
100  2007PT161PO003 

Toscana  
Sardegna  
Promotion of Cohesion 
Infrastructure and 
Services 
Investing in 
Competitiveness for a 
Better Quality of Life 
West Netherlands 
South Netherlands 
Infrastructure and 
Environment’ 
Development of Eastern 
Poland 
Lower Silesia 
Kujawsko-Pomorskie 
Lubelski 
Lubuskie 
Łódzkie 
Małopolski 
Mazovia 
Opoloske 
Podkarpackie 
Podlaskie 
Pomerania 
Zachodniopomorskie 
Greater Poland 
Świętokrzyskie 
Silesia 
Warminsko-Mazurskie 
Norte  
Centro  

MS 

IT 
IT 
LT 

LV 

MT 

NL 
NL 

PL 

PL 

PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PL 
PT 
PT 

page 46 

61 
EUR million 

75 
EUR million 

76 
EUR million 

20.59 
60.37 
302.34 

8.26 
274.80 

9.44 
238.42 

77 
EUR 
million 
1.79 

78 
EUR 
million 

79 
EUR million 

Grand Total 
EUR million 

7.32 
2.89 
124.73 

29.69 
80.97 
940.29 

326.35 

244.50 

218.57 

41.03 

13.89 

844.34 

6.17 

44.99 

54.45 

1.21 

0.95 

0.30 

108.08 

40.23 
67.77 

90.52 
67.93 
46.89 
17.94 
100.52 
60.11 
71.33 
18.03 
54.32 

79.37 
36.47 
59.17 
63.09 
274.79 
60.30 
317.49 
151.07 

132.77 

383.53 

322.80 

93.56 
55.74 
67.81 
31.85 
31.33 
100.76 
78.45 
19.88 
80.99 
15.38 
31.55 
9.80 
58.67 
23.71 
77.22 
21.67 
604.63 
114.70 

48.07 
28.03 
38.03 
15.09 
40.26 
69.95 
58.93 
11.28 
28.73 
26.46 
36.55 
37.40 
49.43 
47.02 
35.14 
35.57 
137.61 
49.76 

2.42 
0.81 

1.74 
0.13 
1.80 

9.63 

0.82 

5.46 

16.13 
3.46 
1.23 
1.33 
0.89 
0.17 

0.10 
10.57 

2.75 

9.49 
22.05 

5.14 

0.83 
6.76 
37.64 
0.52 
5.13 
49.02 
15.29 

26.78 
18.01 
10.65 
8.76 
4.78 
11.74 
33.75 
4.02 
55.62 
64.76 

45.37 
67.77 

516.30 

322.80 

251.52 
162.73 
191.60 
68.48 
178.26 
281.81 
224.00 
49.29 
211.02 
59.86 
158.12 
95.19 
172.05 
146.39 
430.40 
143.60 
1,115.35 
385.76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Nr.  CCI 

OP name 

MS 

101  2007PT161PO004 
102  2007PT161PO005 
103  2007PT161PO006 
104  2007PT162PO001 
105  2007PT162PO002 
106  2007PT16UPO001 

107  2007RO161PO001 

108  2007SI161PO001 

109  2007SK161PO003 

110  2007SK161PO005 

111  2007SK16UPO001 

112  2007UK161PO002 

113  2007UK161PO003 

114  2007UK162PO001 

115  2007UK162PO009 

Grand Total 

RO 

SI 

Alentejo  
PT 
Algarve  
PT 
Azores 
PT 
Lisboa  
PT 
PT 
Madeira 
Territorial Enhancement  PT 
Regional Operational 
programme’ 
Strengthening Regional 
Development Potentials 
Western Slovakia, 
Central Slovakia and 
Eastern Slovakia 
Health 
Research & 
Development 
West Wales and the 
Valleys  
Cornwall and the Isles 
of Scilly  
Lowlands and Uplands 
of Scotland  
Yorkshire and 
Humberside England  

SK 

SK 

SK 

UK 

UK 

UK 

UK 

61 
EUR million 

75 
EUR million 

76 
EUR million 

151.07 
17.35 

56.62 
19.43 
4.19 

114.70 
19.34 
158.32 
51.64 
57.14 
1,090.67 

49.76 
2.65 
42.02 

7.35 

77 
EUR 
million 
5.46 

78 
EUR 
million 

79 
EUR million 

Grand Total 
EUR million 

64.76 

65.15 
8.35 
0.45 
80.84 

385.76 
39.34 
265.49 
116.61 
84.38 
1,175.70 

289.66 

205.83 

1.12 

232.30 

728.90 

36.51 

33.08 

34.10 

22.42 

65.80 

191.91 

301.19 

539.89 

49.36 

166.02 

1,056.45 

236.30 

262.68 

139.46 

18.15 

7.82 

30.72 

76.34 

78.75 

236.30 

262.68 

157.62 

38.54 

76.34 

78.75 

9,778.07 

9,232.86 

5,504.32  622.52  396.78  2,593.93 

28,128.46 

page 47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
3  URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

3.1  Strategies 

Urban  development  (code  6116)  is  supported  in  103  out  of  the  115  programmes  in  the 
sample.  Most  of  them  are  regional  programmes  (87)  and  only  eleven  are  national 
programmes.  Five  programmes  of  cross-border  or  inter-regional  cooperation  (ETC 
objective) also invest in this field (see Table 5). 

Table 5: Types of OP supporting investments in urban development 

Member 
State 

ETC 

NOP 

ROP 

1 

1 

3 

Total 
Source: Metis 2015 

1 

3 

1 

BE  BG  CY  CZ  DE  EE  EL  ES  FR  HU  IT  LT  LV  MT  NL  PL  PT  SI  SK  UK  ETC  Total 

1 

7 

8 

1 

1  1  1 

1 

1 

1  1 

12 

5  10  8 

12  1  5  10  8 

7 

7 

8 

9  1  1 

1 

2 

2 

15  6 

15  7 

1  1 

4 

4 

5 

5 

11 

87 

5 

103 

The  types  of  programme  vary  considerably.  Programmes  can  cover  either  an  entire 
country  or  only  selected  regions;  a  single  strategy  or  multiple  strategies.  In  fact,  even 
national  programmes  can  be  designed  as  a  grouping  of  several  regional  sub-
programmes.  The  variety  of  OP  types  on  the  one  hand  and  the  definition  of  needs  and 
objectives on the other hand, lead to variations in the structure and strategy of the OPs. 

There  are  further  variations  in  the  way  urban  development  is  accommodated  in  the 
structure  of  the  OPs.  There  is  a  category  of  OPs  covering  only  urban  development 
interventions without any social infrastructure codes addressed. They are predominantly 
in  EU-15  Member  States  and  some  of  them  also  cover  various  social  infrastructure 
themes.  Another  category  concerns  OPs  covering  both  urban  development  and  social 
infrastructure  codes;  some  of  them  with  separate  axes  addressing  urban  development 
from  social  infrastructure,  some  with  one  priority  axis  covering  both  fields  (see  also 
Section 2.5). 

3.1.1  Needs and objectives 

In  order  to  understand  the  strategy  pursued  by  the  OPs,  the  needs  and  objectives 
presented  in  the  programmes  have  been  distilled  and  their  coherence  assessed.  In  the 
field  of  urban  development  the  OPs  demonstrate  different  levels  of  explicitness  in  their 
needs and objectives. A significant number of OPs do not include any particular reference 
to urban development  or are vague and generic when referring to  it (see Annex 2.2.2 -
EQ 2-2). 

This  means  that  there  is  only  a  very  general  reference  to  urban  issues  or  typical  urban 
problems,  but  no  specific  reference  either  to  particular  urban  territories  or  to  distinct 
types  of  problems.  Only  a  minority  (32%)  of  the  programmes  mention  a  specific  urban 
context they are referring to explicitly.  

16 ‘Integrated projects for urban and regional regeneration’ 

page 48 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                           
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

A  wide  spectrum  of  needs  are  defined  in  the OPs.  The  most  frequently  mentioned  are: 
improving  the  physical  infrastructure  (42OPs);  investing  in  rural  areas  (27  OPs); 
environmental  protection  and  energy  efficiency  (26  OPs);  and  improving  the  economic 
and business environment (22 OPs) (see Figure 7). 

It could be paradoxical to find needs related to rural areas as one of the most frequently 
cited  type  of  need  justifying  investment  in  urban  development.  However,  in  most 
instances,  this  presumably  refers  to  investment  in  smaller  towns  which  are  not  part  of 
larger  urban  agglomerations.  A  more  in  depth  analysis  of  the  spatial  pattern  of 
investment is described in Section 3.2, below.  

Figure 7: Needs related to urban development 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

Overall,  the  distribution  of  different  types  of  needs  between  different  categories  of 
regions (ETC, competitiveness, convergence) can be summarised, as follows: 

 

 

In  the  case  of  convergence  regions  infrastructure  is  the  most  commonly  cited 
need,  with  a  lower  share  of  needs  related  to  economic  development  and 
environmental protection. 

In  competitiveness  regions  needs  related  to  economic  development  and 
environmental protection predominate. 

  ETC  programmes  typically  address 

‘economic  development’, 
‘infrastructure improvement’, ‘social infrastructure and environmental protection’.  

four  needs: 

  OPs  covering  mixed 

target 
‘infrastructure’,  ‘environmental  protection’,  ‘rural  areas’  and  the  ‘need  to  reduce 
territorial disparities’.  

regions  (convergence  and  competitiveness) 

page 49 

Social infra-structureSpecific urban related contextRural areasEnviron-mental protection and energy efficiencyEconomic dev-elopmentTerritorial disparitiesRevitalisation of urban areas and brownfieldsCultural heritage and tourismConvergence and competitiveness3312ETC111Competitiveness1066109574Convergence2618181412141280510152025303540Number of OPs 
 
 
 
Regarding  the  stated  objectives  in  relation  to  the  needs  expressed,  the  programmes 
tend  to  be  even  vaguer  than  in  the  definition  of  needs.  The  most  frequently  defined 
objective refers to ‘sustainable development and improvement of cities and urban areas’. 
This  is  not  necessarily  a  deficit  or  an  indicator  for  an  insufficiently  focused  strategy;  it 
can simply indicate that the programme is contributing to integrated strategies that can 
be  found  in  the  context  of  the  programme  but  are  not  explicitly  described  in  the 
document.  This  can  be  a  logical  approach,  if  the  programme  is  funding  activities  in 
different urban territories, each with its own specific strategy.  

General  formulations  prevail  beyond  the  reference  to  sustainable  development,  such  as 
references to ‘development’ or ‘improvement’ without these translated into more specific 
objectives (74 OPs) (see Figure 8). 

Figure 8: Objectives related to urban development 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

Sustainable development and improvement of cities and urban areas 

Improvement of business environment and creating jobs 

Environmental protection 

Infrastructure development 

Social infrastructure development 

Improvement of cultural sites, tourism 

Development of integrated urban development strategies and plan 

Improvement of partnership and cooperation 

Revitalisation of urban areas including brownfields 

Improvement of rural areas 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

page 50 

ABCDEFGHIJConvergence and competitiveness.431212ETC32112111Competitiveness2464575712Convergence43191615129654301020304050607080Number of objectives 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

3.1.2  Integrated strategies for urban development 

The  analysis  of  the  OPs  and  AIRs  revealed  that  only55  out  of  103  programmes  can 
be  linked  to  integrated  urban  development  strategies.  In  the  case  of  48  OPs  no 
integrated  approach  is  mentioned  in  the  programmes.  The  financial  allocation  to  the  55 
programmes  with  a  reference  to  integrated  urban  development  amounts  to  EUR  4,924 
million or 50% of the total allocation to code 61 (see Annex 2.2.7 -EQ 2-7).  

However,  even  those  OPs  where  the  strategy  systematically  supports  integrated 
approaches,  the  actual  implementation  does  not  appear  to  be  integrated  and  individual 
projects  seem  to  follow,  in  most  instances,  a  rather  sectoral  approach.  Overall,  the 
examination  of  the  consistency  of  the  intervention  logic  identified  a  lack  of  a  coherent 
‘thread’ running through the programmes. 

This  shows  a  key  limitation  in  assessing  the  strategy  of  the  OP  in  relation  to  urban 
development: the fact that the integrated urban development approach refers to external 
local  strategies  which  are  not  part  of  the  OPs.  Nevertheless,  the  feedback  from  the 
interviews  with  the  Managing  Authorities  and  the  stakeholder  seminar  highlighted  a 
number of important points, which are summarised below. 

First,  the  degree  of  integration  of  social  infrastructure  investments  and  generally  the 
adherence to an integrated approach is to a large extent influenced by the ‘architecture’ 
of the OP, i.e. whether the priority axes etc. have been designed in a way that facilitates 
an integrated approach (see Section 2.5). 

Second, the way in which an OP can promote and support an integrated approach takes 
the  form  of  an  ‘enabling  framework’  rather  than  the  actual  incorporation  of  specific 
integrated  development  strategies  per  se  in  the  OP.  This  is  clearly  illustrated  in  the 
examples  of  the  Czech  and  French  OPs  which  are  provided  in  Box  1and  Box  2,  below. 
However, not all such frameworks have facilitated or led to integrated projects17. 

Third, specific integrated development strategies tend to be realised at agglomeration or 
city level – with or without ERDF support  - and this has become the norm in EU-15, as 
illustrated in the examples of Box 3and Box 4, below, regarding the cities of Cologne and 
Rotterdam. This incurs less in EU-13, although examples from Estonia and Latvia show a 
clear move in that direction. 

17  Examples from Czech Republic and Poland reveal that the integrated approach triggers integrated strategies 
at different levels but this leads to confusion at project level. In some cases such as Czech Republic OP 
'South Moravia' the different strategies situated at different level confuse rather than help to implement 
projects. Other Member States claim that the integrated urban development strategy does not lead to 
integrated projects. 

page 51 

 
 
 
                                           
However, the information available suggests that OPs, where an integrated approach has 
been  followed  in  the  project  selection  process,  are  coming  closer  to  turning  integrated 
urban  development  into  reality.  Even  so,  an  important  limitation  is  the  complexity  of 
projects and the lack of beneficiaries willing (or capable) to deal with this complexity. The 
result is insufficient demand for integrated projects and a tendency to use the resources 
for ad-hoc sectoral interventions in urban areas. Especially the pressure of n+2 rule leads 
to the abandonment of an initially ‘noble’ aim.   

Box  1:  Czech  OP 
Development 

‘North  East’  supporting  Integrated  Plans  for  Urban 

There is a strong need to invest in public spaces of the cities. One of the objectives of the OP is the 
revitalisation of such areas. These objectives are achieved through the development and improved 
quality of public infrastructure in cities and towns of the supported regions. The target groups are 
citizens  of  the  supported  cities  and  towns  as  well  as  the  visitors.  The  indicators  reflect  the 
supported interventions. 

The Integrated Plans for Urban Development (IPUD) are realised with the support of the OP. Each 
IPUD has its indicators which have to be monitored during its realisation. 

The IPUDs envisaged two main types of actions: regeneration and revitalisation of brownfields; and 
regeneration of  other areas such  as education,  health etc. The MA  had  planned  to spend  more  in 
the  first  type  of  actions;  however  it  turned  out  during  the  programme  implementation  that  the 
demand  for  the  second  type  was  higher.  Investments  in  schools  are  one  of  key  factors  of 
attractiveness of the city or town for their inhabitants, especially for young families with children. 

IPUDs were prepared by regional centres in accordance with the partnership approach, e.g. NGOs, 
universities, commercial chambers, businesses were consulted. All the IPUDs were prepared in line 
with the national methodology for IPUDs established by the Ministry of Regional Development. 

Box  2:  Integrated  urban  development  approach  in  the  Region  of  Lorraine, 
France 

In France integrated urban development pertains to agglomerations with a social cohesion contract 
(CUCS). There are 22 CUCS in the region of Lorraine. However, after a first call only 2 candidates 
were selected, the two biggest cities of Lorraine: the Community of Agglomeration Metz Métropole 
and the Urban Community of Greater Nancy. A second call approved projects in 7 other cities with 
CUCS.  
Projects must take into account all aspects of the development of a territory, including economic, 
social and environmental. The recipients of the calls for proposals are the cities involved in a CUCS.  
This  call  focuses  on  actions  promoting  the  development  of  economic  activity  accompanied  by 
measures to reduce social exclusion and environmental issues in order to contribute to sustainable 
urban development. Particular attention was paid to the governance of projects: firstly, to promote 
an integrated vision of actions to track down the offending neighbourhoods; secondly, to support or 
encourage  the  emergence  of  structures  uniting  people,  associations,  public  professionals  and 
services  to  a  common  development  strategy  and  then  bringing  all  the  projects  required  for  its 
implementation. 

page 52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

the fight against discrimination 
the need to reduce school dropout 
the aim of improving access to employment for people in difficulty. 

The purpose of the calls was the development of integrated territorial projects whose contents also 
relied on the thematic priorities under the other axes of the ERDF OP, as well as those under the 
ESF OP to create synergies. Projects should also take into account: 
 
 
 
The  achievements  vary  over  the  projects,  but  in  general  Metz  and  Nancy  have  invested 
considerably in socio-economic infrastructure such as, sports parks, health and childcare facilities, 
public  education  facilities  and  cultural  infrastructure.  Other  cities  under  the  second  call  focused 
more  on  improving  public  spaces  and  mobility  infrastructure.  This  contributes  to  a  renewal  of 
various human social and environmental functions, services, shops and facilities of proximity, and 
to more family friendly, secure areas to bring new life and dynamism to the neighbourhood. 

Box 3: Integrated urban development approach at city level – Cologne (DE) 

In North Rhine-Westphalia the biggest integrated urban development project is situated in Cologne. 
The  project  is  based  on  specifications  provided  by  the  Managing  Authority.  They  describe  the 
necessary structure and content the project needs to  follow in order to get funded. The project  is 
further based on a formal agreement to the integrated city concept provided by the city council. 

The  city  council  is  involved  in  the  whole  process  starting  with  communication  with  the  Managing 
Authority  during  the  OP  development,  the  urban  strategy  development  and  the  implementation 
process. The basis of the urban development strategy is an obligatory SWOT analysis and defined 
objectives.  Projects  which  are  funded  in  this  context  are  all  judged  by  a  specific  committee 
comprising  members  of  the  ministries  as  well  as  the  city.  However  the  integrated  approach  has 
been difficult to put into action since the actual implementation is done by sectoral departments in 
the city government. The ERDF support represents only a small part of the city budget and merely 
feeds into the overall city interventions.  

Box 4: Integrated urban development approach at city level – Rotterdam (NL) 

In Rotterdam ERDF funding represents only a small part of the actual public expenditure for urban 
development.  Integrated programmes  are  much  larger  than  the  ERDF  contribution  and  ERDF  just 
feeds in where suitable. Rotterdam is dominated by its port and project development is focused on 
needs and opportunities related to the port. The main topics are to adjust the labour market to the 
needs of the business sector. The currently high unemployment rate shows a significant mismatch.  

A  second  topic  in  the  city  is  brownfield  development  of  former  port  areas.  A  third  intervention  is 
the establishment of a financial engineering instrument to trigger private investments. However the 
key  issue  is  that  profitable  projects  get  financed  without  ERDF  support  and  those  projects  which 
need  ERDF  support  do  not  attract  private  investments.  The  involvement  of  ESF  has  not  been 
foreseen and only happens coincidently. The main stakeholder in the programme is the city council.  

page 53 

 
 
 
 
A  more  general  point  emerging  from  the  stakeholder  seminar  and  supported  by  the 
results  of  the  survey  of  project  implementation  bodies  is  that  ‘integration’  is 
commonplace  in  local  level  interventions,  albeit  not  always  under  an  ERDF 
programme  umbrella.  This  is  fully  supported  by  the  results  of  the  survey  of  project 
implementing  bodies  which  show  a  majority  of  projects  being  part  of  an  integrated 
strategy (see Figure 9) and the experience of URBACT in supporting the development of 
integrated  development  strategies,  which  are  rarely  implemented  per  se  through  ERDF 
(see Box 5, below). 

Overall,  besides  the  operational  programme  document  there  is  a  certain  interaction 
between  managing  authorities,  line  ministries  and  local  governments  in  some  Member 
States.  For  example  in  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  integrated  urban  development 
strategies  at  local  level  are  prepared  by  the  local  government  and  discussed  with  the 
regional  governments.  However  this  process  is  not  part  of  the  ERDF  programme  and  is 
not covered in the programme documentation. A relevant experience has also been noted 
in the case of Bordeaux, France, where a similar system has been established as far back 
as  in  the  late  1990s  and  ERDF  has  been  utilised  for  implementing  an  already  existing 
integrated development strategy. 

Hence,  there  is  a  rather  fundamental  issue  concerning  the  relationship  of  integrated 
urban development approaches and ERDF operational programmes, as well as a visibility 
issue, and these are considered further in Chapter 5.  

Figure 9: Does this project form part of a broader strategy? 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

page 54 

57%8%12%23%YES, an ‘integrated urban development’ strategy YES, a ‘sectoral’ strategy in a particular field (e.g. education, health)YES, a different type of strategy than in 1) or 2) aboveNO/ Not sure 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Box 5: Integrated urban development strategies – the experience of URBACT 

The URBACT programmes has accompanied integrated development strategies in around 500 cities 
and towns and gained extensive experience in problems and issues facing local governments. The 
lessons learned are:  

 

 

Integrated urban development approaches need to be triggered. The approach does not come 
from inside local governments due to the sectoral structures of all governmental levels. 
It is easier to trigger integrated strategies with tangible problems or concrete topics on which 
different governmental levels and stakeholders can focus their work efforts. 

  Horizontal integration of stakeholders is easier than the vertical integration of different levels of 
government.  Power  plays  are  a  main  reason  for  difficulties  in  communication  between 
governmental levels. 
The  integration  of  strategies  into  ERDF  programmes  is  difficult  due  to  the  rigid  structure  and 
nature of the latter. Many strategies are based on real needs and the willingness to adapt them 
to the ERDF logic is limited and requires additional administrative effort. 

 

  All-in-all only a small part of the cities and towns which  have developed integrated strategies 

actually use them in relation to ERDF. 

3.2  Activities and target groups 

3.2.1  Activities 

The  103  OPs  with  allocations  to  urban  development  (code  61)  cover  a  broad  range  of 
activities(see  Annex  2.2.1  -  EQ  2-1).They  focus  on  investments  in  deprived  areas  (86 
OPs),  investment  in  economic  growth  with  support  of  economic infrastructure  (67  OPs), 
accessibility  in  terms  of  public  transport  but  also  road  infrastructure  (53  OPs),  cultural 
heritage project including renovation and preservation of buildings (51 OPs) and support 
of  the  creative  industry  by  providing  facilities  for  entrepreneurs  in  the  local  area  (48 
OPs).  

Other types of activities covered by the OPs which do not involve tangible investment per 
se  are  strategy  development  and  cooperation/networking.  The  former  is  cited  in  almost 
half of the OPs (46) and involves the elaboration of integrated strategies in specific urban 
areas  but  also  strategies  covering  different  urban  and  rural  areas.  Activities  related  to 
integrated  urban  development  also  include  cooperation  and  networking  between  urban 
areas within one Member State and across Member States (39 OPs including seven ETC 
programmes) (see Figure).  

page 55 

 
 
 
 
Figure  10:  Types  of  activities  listed  in  OPs  in  relation  to  urban  development 
(code 61) 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

3.2.2  Targeted areas 

Not  all  OPs  make  explicit  in  which  type  of  territory  they  want  to  invest.  As  shown  in 
Figure below a substantial proportion of OPs do not specify a target area. Member States 
with a focus on capital cities are Poland with Warsaw, Greece with Athens, Germany with 
Berlin and Portugal with the Lisbon. Poland specifies largely regional centres and Hungary 
towns in rural areas. 

A  significant  proportion  of  the  programme  budget  allocation  (19%)  addresses  towns 
below  50,000  inhabitants  in  rural  areas  (especially  Hungary,  Latvia  and  the  Czech 
Republic).  In  the  case  of  the  Czech  Republic  it  is  worth  noting  that  although  there  is  a 
specific urban strategy framework it does not distinguish between urban areas and rural 
areas in most of the OPs.  

Eight OPs explicitly focus on cities and agglomerations with a total of 10% of the budget 
allocation, and some of them cover capital cities (see also Section 2.3). 

In a number of programmes, the targeted area is not only specified on the level of type 
of  cities,  but  in  a  more  detailed  way  in  terms  of  neighbourhoods  and  specific  urban 
territory. The possibility of the OP to  express the targeted area on such a detailed level 
clearly depends on the level and type of the OP as such. National OPs or larger regional 
OPs – like for instance the OP of North Rhine-Westphalia covering a region of more than 
17 million inhabitants with a large number  of cities – might have difficulties in including 
detailed strategies for specific territories in the OP. Anyhow, it is striking that targeting at 
neighbourhood areas has been specified only in EU-15.  

page 56 

Investment in deprived areasEconomic growth supportSocial integrationProtection of cultural heritageCultural projects and creative industriesStrategy dev-elopmentNatural environmentCooperation and networkingOthersFinancial engineering instrumentsETC133222151Conv. and comp.321345232Competitiveness2421181412914834Convergence584141323030262112120102030405060708090100Number of activities 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure 11: Type of area targeted by OPs 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

The  picture  changes,  when  going  down  to  project  level:  Projects  are  more  clearly 
embedded in the local context than the OP strategies are. At project level the territorial 
scope  of  the  interventions  is  mostly  at  district/neighbourhood  level  (32%)  followed  at 
city-wide level (23%), but a significant proportion is at regional or national level (most of 
‘other’, see Figure 12). 

Figure 12: Territorial scope of urban development projects 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

page 57 

02004006008001.0001.2001.4001.600ITPLELDEHUESCZPTLVUKLTSKFRBGBECYNLCBCSIMTEEROMillion EURCapital citiesAgglomerationRegional centreUrban areas -neighbourhood areasTowns in rural areasNetwork of citiesNo specifications32%23%18%27%District/ neighbourhoodWhole town/ city Network of towns/ citiesOther 
 
 
WP13 of the ex-post evaluation recently provided more complete data at NUTSIII level18. 
The  data  are  used  for  an  analysis  of,  first,  the  concentration  of  the  allocation  in  capital 
and  metropolitan  regions,  and,  second,  for  the  distribution  between  urban  and  rural 
regions. Following the European Commission’s regional typology19there are three types of 
agglomerations defined: 

 

 

capital city regions – agglomerations including capital cities,  

second-tier  metro  regions  –  group  of  largest  cities  in  the  country  excluding  the 
capital 

 

smaller agglomerations.  

As  to  the  territorial  distribution,  investment  in  urban  development  (‘integrated  projects 
for  urban  and  regional  regeneration’,  code  61)  is  less  concentrated  in  the  capital  and 
urban  regions  than  the  total  ERDF  allocation  is.  Only  10.7%  of  the  expenditure  is 
invested  in  the  capital  regions  –  compared  to  12.8%  for  the  total  ERDF  allocations 
covering all codes.  

the  next 

Together  with 
two  groups  (second-tier  metro  regions  and  smaller 
agglomerations) in the respective Member State, 45% of the ERDF allocation of code 61 
goes to the urban areas. Again, the concentration of investment in urban development in 
metropolitan regions is lower than for the total ERDF allocation (some 52%).  

This  suggests  that  the  majority  of  urban  development  investment  is  focusing  on  towns 
and rural areas instead of capital cities and agglomerations. 

The finding that capital cities are not the focus of expenditure holds for all Member States 
with the highest share  of allocation to the capital region is 28.7% in Hungary.20 Only in 
Germany (24.0%) and Greece (21.5%) the capital cities have a share of more than 20% 
of  the  allocations.  A  number  of  Member  States  do  not  allocate  any  funds  for  integrated 
projects of urban and regional development at all to the capital regions (UK, SK, SI, ES, 
EE, FR). In some cases, the capital city is simply not eligible for ERDF support (e.g. UK). 

18  This analysis of the financial allocation by type of regions is based on the data provided by WP13 on NUTS 
III level. It should be noted that 6 of the 115 OPs analysed in our study are not represented in the data (2 
from Germany, the rest are cross-border cooperation programmes.  

19  European Commission, GD REGIO (2011): Regional typologies: a compilation, Regional Focus No 01/2011, 

where both typologies used here are described. 

20  With  the  exception of  Cyprus,  consisting of  only  one  NUTS  III  unit,  the  total  allocation  in  Cyprus  is  in  the 

capital region. 

page 58 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

The  typology  of  urban  areas  distinguishing  capital  city  agglomerations,  medium  and 
smaller  agglomerations  does  not  cover  the  whole  Member  State  territory.  Another 
typology  suggested  by  the  European  Commission21  is  the  urban  rural  typology  covering 
all NUTS III regions.  

1.  Predominantly urban regions; 

2.  Intermediate region, close to a city; 

3.  Intermediate, remote regions;  

4.  Predominantly rural regions, close to city; 

5.  Predominantly rural; remote regions. 

When analysing ERDF allocation based on this typology the weak concentration on larger 
agglomerations  is  again  apparent.  Some  27%  of  the  allocation  of  urban  development 
(code 61) has been spent in ‘urban’ NUTSIII units, but more than 30% of the total ERDF 
allocation to the 115 OPs has gone to urban NUTS III areas. At the same time 15.3% of 
the allocation to urban development goes to the ‘predominantly rural, remote regions’ – 
compared to only 10.6% of the total ERDF allocation to the 115 programmes. 

Therefore,  the  majority  of  ERDF  funds  allocated  to  urban  development  projects  is 
allocated to towns and rural areas rather than larger agglomerations. The analysis of the 
financial allocation supports the finding from the OP analysis: ERDF investment in urban 
development  (code  61)  is  mostly  directed  to  smaller  cities  and  towns  –  often  in  rural 
areas.  Capital  cities  and  agglomerations  profit  less  from  the  investment  in  urban 
development than they do from other policy areas in which ERDF invests.22 

This pattern is predetermined by the definition of eligible regions.  This focus on smaller 
cities and towns is coherent with the ERDF objective to support those parts of the Union 
that are lagging behind.  

3.2.3  Economic sectors 

‘public  administration’  and 

The  main  economic  sectors  directly  benefiting  from  the  investments  in  urban 
development  are 
‘public 
administration’,  it  can  be  assumed  that  frequently  the  public  sector  is  a  beneficiary  but 
since  it  either  provides  services  or  builds  infrastructure  it  has  effectively  the  role  of  an 
intermediary. ‘Construction’ underlines the importance of ‘hard’ projects and is expected 
to involve new or renovation of existing infrastructure.  However, it should be noted that 
considerable ambiguity prevails even on the level of the immediate beneficiaries with one 
third  of  the  overall  financial  allocation  to  urban  development  categorised  as  ‘other 
unspecified sectors’ and ‘not applicable’ (see Annex 2.2.2 - EQ 1-2).  

‘construction’.  Regarding 

21  European Commission, GD REGIO (2011): Regional typologies: a compilation, Regional Focus No 01/2011, 

where both typologies used here are described. 

22  It is known that R&D investment has a specifically strong focus on metropolitan regions reflecting the fact 
that dominating entities of the regional innovation systems (universities and large enterprises) normally are 
to be found there. 

page 59 

 
                                           
Given the nature of the intervention, the sectoral structure of the immediate beneficiaries 
does not necessarily reflect which sectors benefit from the output of the projects. Having 
in  mind  the  (at  least  potentially)  integrated  quality  of  interventions  in  urban 
development,  an  analysis  of  economic  sectors  alone  will  not  cover  the  range  of  groups 
benefiting from the intervention. The analysis of the target groups of the intervention can 
shed some light on this. 

3.2.4  Target groups 

Regarding  target  groups  out  of  the  103  programmes  related  to  integrated  urban 
development the majority refer to the population in the programme area on which the OP 
focuses its intervention. The second major group is the general population in the city or 
agglomeration. Forty two programmes  refer also to small and medium-sized enterprises 
and 29 had other, more precise, descriptions of target groups.  

One third of the programmes citing other groups of ultimate beneficiaries use definitions 
along the following lines:  the Spanish OPs addressed young people, unemployed people 
and  migrants  (Región  de  Murcia,  Asturias,  Extremadura);  the  Spanish  OP  ‘Galicia’ 
addressed women and migrants; the Greek OP ‘Western Greece - Peloponnesus - Ionian 
Islands’  specifically defined vulnerable groups  (e.g. Roma) as target  groups  for  code 61 
actions.  In  some  cases  also  NGOs  and  public  authorities  are  also  defined  as  final 
beneficiaries (see Annex 2.2.1 -EQ 2-1). 

This  picture  can  be  completed  with  the  information  provided  by  project  implementation 
bodies regarding the main target groups of their projects (see Annex 3.2.2 - EQ 3-2). As 
shown in Figure 13, below, ‘all population in local area’ and ‘all population city-wide’ are 
the  more  common  answers  with  25%  and  23%  of  responses,  respectively.  However,  a 
significant  a  large  proportion  of  respondents  (53%)  have  provided  multiple  responses 
combining  these  two  answers  with  more  specific  ones,  such  as  ‘small  businesses’, 
‘visitors’, marginalised groups’, ‘young people’ or ‘women’. 

Figure 13: Main target groups of urban development projects 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

page 60 

051015202530WomenOld peopleMarginalised groupsYoung peopleSmall businessesOtherChildrenVisitorsAll population city wideAll population in local area% or entries 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

3.3  Financial resources 

3.3.1  Distribution and intensity 

The  amount  of  EUR  9,778  million  allocated  to  urban  development  projects  (code  61)  is 
mostly assigned to convergence programmes (77%). Competitiveness programmes have 
a  share  of  16%,  and  six  programmes  covering  both  competitiveness  and  convergence 
(6%).  Seven  CBC  programmes  take  up  together  just  1%  of  the  allocation  to  the  policy 
field. 

Looking  at  the  allocations  by  Member  States,  those  countries  with  high  total  ERDF 
allocations  to  the  policy  field  are  also  the  ones  with  the  highest  share  of  allocations  to 
integrated  projects  for  urban  and  rural  regeneration  within  the  115  OPs.  Italy  accounts 
for  14%  of  urban  development  allocations  of  the  115  OPs  (EUR  1,369  million).  Poland, 
Greece and Germany assign more than EUR 1,000 million each to integrated projects for 
urban  and  rural  regeneration.  These  four  countries  cover  more  than  45%  of  the  total 
ERDF  allocation  to  the  field.  Hungary,  Czech  Republic,  Spain  and  Portugal  establish  a 
middle  ground  by  assigning  between  EUR  720  million  and  EUR  840  million  each  to  this 
category.  Then  there  is  a  gap  and  the  next  largest  allocations  are  between  EUR  230 
million  and  EUR  320  million  by  Latvia,  the  United  Kingdom,  Lithuania,  Slovakia  and 
France.  With  less  than  EUR  100  million,  Slovenia,  Malta  and  Estonia  have  the  lowest 
allocations to urban development. 

In  terms  of  OP  allocations  to  urban  development,  by  far  the  largest  is  the  allocation  of 
EUR  697  million  in  the  Italian  convergence  programme  ‘Por  Campania  FESR’.  The  next 
largest  allocation  of  a  single  programme  is  EUR  399  million  in  a  Greek  convergence 
programme  ‘Central  Macedonia  –  Western  Macedonia  –  Eastern  Macedonia  &  Thrace’. 
Altogether 32 other programmes allocated more than EUR 100 million each to this policy 
area.  Most  of  them  are  from  the  countries  investing  the  highest  amounts  in  this  policy 
field  but  there  are  also  certain  OPs  allocating  quite  substantial  amounts  to  this  field  in 
other countries (Latvia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and the United Kingdom).  

The  33  programmes  with  the  highest  allocation  represent  more  than  two  thirds  of  the 
ERDF  allocation  in  this  policy  field  (69%).  Eighteen  more  programmes  allocate  budgets 
between  EUR  50  and  100  million  to  integrated  projects  of  urban  and  regional 
regeneration. These OPs, together with the first group, represent a total of nearly 88% of 
the allocation in the policy area. There are also programmes with small allocations to this 
policy field: Five programmes have an allocation of less than EUR 10 million each, eight 
more programmes have allocations between EUR 10 million and EUR 20 million. 

The Member States represented in the sample of the 115 OPs allocate on average 6.5% 
of  their  ERDF  budget  to  urban  development  projects.  The  Netherlands  (22%),  Cyprus 
(19%),  Bulgaria  and  Belgium  (14%)  allocate  the  highest  share  to  this  policy  field, 
expressing its policy importance. This is contrasted by two countries with an allocation of 
1% or less of the overall ERDF budget (MT, EE) (see Table 6, below). 

page 61 

 
 
 
 
The average allocation per capita for urban development projects at national level in the 
115  OPs  is  EUR  19.  Three  countries  allocate  more  than  EUR  100  per  inhabitant:  Latvia 
(EUR  163),  Cyprus  (EUR  130)  and  Lithuania  (EUR  103).  However,  the  Netherlands,  the 
United  Kingdom,  France  and  Estonia  have  an  ERDF  allocation  to  integrated  projects  for 
urban and rural development of less than EUR 10. 

The example of the Netherlands illustrates that the relative strategic importance that can 
be  accorded  to  urban  development:  allocating  a  high  share  of  ERDF  Funds  to  urban 
development  projects  can  certainly  come  with  a  low  per  capita  intensity  of  funding  at 
national  level.  Conversely,  a  country  like  Portugal  with  a  comparatively  high  total  ERDF 
allocation can achieve a relatively high per capita allocation (EUR 69) with less than 7% 
of the ERDF budget. 

Urban  development  (code  61)  allocations  are  distributed  between  103  of  the  115 
programmes,  but  the  distribution  between  OPs  is  uneven.  Just  one  programme  has  a 
share of 7% of the overall allocation in the 115 OP sample: the convergence programme 
‘Por Campania FESR’, Italy, with EUR 697 million allocated to code 61.  

Other programmes have a share of more than 2% of the total allocation to the code. The 
remainder  (92  OPs)  have  a  share  of  less  than  2%  (less  than  EUR  183  million  of  ERDF, 
including  five  OPs  allocating  less  than  EUR  10  million,  each,  the  smallest  being  the 
Estonian  OP  for  the  ‘Development  of  Living  Environment’  with  just  over  EUR  1  million). 
Twelve OPs do not allocate any funds to urban development. 

Only  two  programmes  allocate  more  than  one  third  of  their  total  ERDF  budget  to  urban 
the  Dutch 
regeneration  projects: 
competitiveness programme ‘Operationeel Programma Zuid 2007-2013’ (37%). Six other 
programmes have a share of more than 20%.  

II’  programme 

(62%);  and 

‘URBACT 

the 

page 62 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Table 6: Allocation to code 61 - share of total ERDF allocation and allocation per 
capita 

Member State  Allocation to integrated projects of urban and rural development (code 61) 

in € Million 

in % (Share member states' 
of total ERDF allocation) 

Allocation per capita 

6.4 

130.2 

25.9 

11.8 

4.7 

102.7 

84.8 

163.1 

22.5 

72.3 

55.6 

95.7 

12.7 

3.5 

68.8 

16.7 

28.6 

17.7 

14.5 

1.0 

21.6% 

18.5% 

14.0% 

14.0% 

11.8% 

11.4% 

10.6% 

10.5% 

10.3% 

10.2% 

9.8% 

8.5% 

8.2% 

6.9% 

6.6% 

6.6% 

6.5% 

2.4% 

2.1% 

0.9% 

0.1% 

NL 

CY 

BG 

BE 

UK 

LT 

HU 

LV 

IT 

CZ 

SK 

EL 

DE 

CB 

FR 

PT 

ES 

PL 

SI 

MT 

EE 

AT 

DK 

FI 

HR 

IE 

LU 

RO 

SE 

108.000 

111.689 

187.630 

131.881 

302.366 

302.339 

837.824 

326.354 

1,368.765 

759.662 

301.189 

1,051.999 

1,024.498 

95.334 

232.153 

717.209 

774.460 

1,100.778 

36.510 

6.174 

1.254 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

EU Total 

9,778.068 

6.5% 

19.3 

Source: Monitoring data DG REGIO 2015 

page 63 

 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
3.3.2  Financial implementation 

A rough assessment of the progress in financial implementation can be provided by using 
the data provided by WP13 of the ex-post evaluation. In the 115 OPs, expenditure under 
code 61 was EUR 7,713 million by end of 2014. It is not easy to assess this expenditure, 
as  all  potential  figures  we  can  compare  with  this  value  are  problematic:  The  initially 
decided  amount  (EUR  9,122  million)  was  very  indicative  and  is  not  very  valid  as  actual 
orientation  for  planning  and  delivery.  The  allocation  to  selected  projects  in  turn  is  EUR 
11,344  million  for  the  115  OP.  So  the  allocation  exceeds  the  decided  amount  for  the 
code: This can either indicate a growing strategic emphasis on the field or simply reflect 
an  over-commitment  of  the  funds,  which  can  be  very  rational  in  order  to  get  all  the 
available  money  spent.  So,  neither  the  decided  amount,  nor  the  actual  allocation  are 
very good figures for comparison.  

However  the  allocation  is  linked  to  the  selected  projects  as  the  maximum  theoretically 
possible  amount  to  be  spent.  Compared  to  the  possible  maximum,  the  expenditure  by 
end of 2014 is 98%  for all 115 programmes in Code 61. Compared to the average, the 
UK  (66%),  France  (61%),  Greece  (51%)  and  Italy  (31%)  show  lower  expenditure 
compared to the allocation. The cross-border cooperation programmes have the highest 
expenditure in relation to the allocation (96.6%). There is not a single country which has 
dispensed  the  complete  budget  allocated  by  end  of  2014.  Given  the  fact  that  the 
allocation  is  higher  than  the  initially  decided  amount,  it  would  be  not  surprising  to  find 
the actual expenditure at the end of the period being lower than the  current allocations 
to projects. 

3.3.3  Other sources of finance 

Co-financing  from  ESF23is  uncommon  with  less  than  one  third  of  the  projects  benefiting 
from ESF (see Annex 2.2.7 - EQ 2-7).  

Regarding funding from non-EU sources, there is a serious limitation in obtaining reliable 
information  on  other  sources  of  finance  available  and  commonly  used  for  supporting 
strategies and other interventions like those supported by the ERDF programmes.  

This,  due  to  fact  that  the  OP  documentation  does  not  cover  this  information  and  the 
Managing  Authorities  are  not  ‘aware’  of  alternative  sources  of  co-funding,  since  their 
focus  is  the  proper  implementation  of  the  OPs  within  the  given  framework  of  eligibility 
and other rules (see Annex 2.2.7 -EQ 2-7).  

23 The broader relationship of ERDF and ESF is examined in Section 5.2. 

page 64 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

However,  two  relevant  indications  have  emerged  from  the  interviews  with  Managing 
Authorities, suggesting that: 

  Alternative  co-funding  of  integrated  urban  development  can  usually  be  found  in 
more  developed  regions  and  countries  as,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  Germany 
where  other  possible  co-funding  includes  federal-level  programmes,  such  as 
‘Social City’ and ‘Living in Neighbourhoods’.  

  Although  in  2007,  at  the  beginning  of  the  programming  period,  the  potential  for 
other co-funding was available, with the 2008 crisis most possibilities for other co-
funding ‘vanished’.  

The  point  that  normally  funding  for  this  type  of  investments  comes  from  EU  funds  or 
national/regional/local  public  budgets  or  a  combination  of  them  was  also  made 
emphatically in the survey of the project implementation bodies (see Figure 14and Annex 
3.2.3 - EQ 3-3). 

Figure 14: How are projects like this normally funded? 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

page 65 

5545083820102030405060708090Number of respondentsBy programmes co-financed by the European UnionBy the public sector (national/ regional/ municipal government etc.)By the private sectorBy a combination of public and private sector sourcesBy other meansMultiple answers including 1 & 2 
 
 
 
 
3.3.4  Form of finance 

The  large  majority  of  the  allocation  is  spent  as  non-repayable  grants  (94%).  Venture 
capital  and  other  forms  of  repayable  financial  support  are  also  used  for  urban 
regeneration projects, although their share is very low (see Figure 15). 

Figure 15: Overview of form of finance used in urban development 

Source: Monitoring data DG REGIO 2015 

Overall,  the  use  of  forms  of  finance  other  than  non-repayable  grants  is  generally 
restricted to a few programmes under each code and is more common in EU-15 than EU-
13 (see Annex 1.6.5 - EQ 1-5).  

page 66 

94%2%1%3%Non-repayable aidAidVenture CapitalOther Forms 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

3.4  Implementation 

3.4.1  Structures and procedures 

The  OP  screening  has  shown  that  the  majority  of  the  implementing  bodies  in  urban 
development  are  regional  and  local  authorities  or  agencies.  This  is  confirmed  by  the 
survey  of  project  implementation  bodies  which  found  that  78%  of  the  respondents  fell 
into this category (see Figure 16). 

Figure 16: Status of project implementation bodies 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

The  interviews  with  Managing  Authorities  revealed  that  the  involvement  of  project 
implementation  bodies  in  project  selection  can  take  three  different  forms  (see  Annex 
2.2.4 - EQ 2-4 and Figure 17, below): 

  Formal  procedures,  e.g.  in  the  framework  of  regional  or  urban  planning  where 
the project implementation bodies fulfil their institutional role  e.g. in granting an 
approval.  

  Standard  calls  for  proposals  where  project  selection  is  assumed  by  the 
Monitoring Committee or a similar body, and where project implementation bodies 
are  present  and  projects  are  assessed  on  their  merits  based  on  the  evaluation 
criteria of the call.  

  Indirectly, where a prerequisite for projects is their inclusion into an ‘integrated 
urban  development  strategy’,  and  where  project  implementation  bodies  are 
engaged  and/or  consulted  in  the  formulation  and  implementation  of  the  strategy 
itself.  

page 67 

11%78%2%5%4%Public sector   national/regional level, e.g. ministry, state agencyPublic sector   local level, e.g. municipality, publicly owned enterpriseNon-public sector, e.g. NGO, non-profit private organisation, established and operating at national/regional levelNon-public sector, e.g. NGO, non-profit private organisation, established and operating at local levelOther 
 
 
 
Figure  17:  Nature  of  involvement  of  project  implementation  bodies  by  Member 
State 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

Different levels of delegation are encountered, depending on the administrative culture 
of the country and the capacity of the project implementation bodies. The majority of the 
OPs  involve  local  authorities  through  their  participation  in  Monitoring  Committee  and 
related  decision  processes.  As  a  general  trend,  a  stronger  role  is  foreseen  for  urban 
authorities in urban development actions, reflecting to some extent the intentions of the 
integrated urban development strategies. However, the majority of Managing Authorities 
did not delegate formally any management tasks to project implementation bodies.  

Regarding the implementation of integrated urban development three different types 
of approaches have been identified: 

  Some  OPs  support  only  one  single  project  which  serves  as  an  umbrella  project 
for  many  different  sub-interventions.  The  project  is  divided  into  different  sub-
projects (e.g. MT).  

  Some  OPs  foresee  only  pilot  projects.  Especially  those  with  small  budget 

allocation to the respective code (e.g. PT). 

  There  is  a  small  group  of  OPs  (23)  focusing  on  the  development  of  integrated 
urban  development  plans  and  strategies  as  an  intervention  financed  by  the 
programme. For example the Czech OP ‘North East’ supports ‘Integrated Plans for 
Urban Development’, and Greece as well as Italy foresee local development plans 
to  be  supported  in  the  respective  OPs.  France  integrated  urban  development  is 
addressed  to  agglomerations  with  a  social  cohesion  contract  (CUCS,  see  Box  4, 
above). 

page 68 

02468101214161820PLDEESHUUKITCZELFRPTBESKCBCEELVNLBGLTMTROSICYNumber of entriesIndirectlyStandard callsFormal procedures 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

3.4.2  Financial sustainability 

The  financial  sustainability  of  projects  supported  by  the  OPs  is  not  treated  in  depth  in 
most  of  the  programmes.  In  the  programmes  where  sustainability  is  covered  the 
examination is done  on a pro forma way and  ex-ante  only. Cost-benefit analysis is only 
applied exceptionally. The issue of sustainability is sometimes indirectly covered by more 
broad considerations like ‘project maturity’.  

The  interviews  with  Managing  Authorities  revealed  that  this  ‘light  touch’  approach  to 
sustainability  is  sometimes  rationalised  through  statements  that  "projects  are  not 
revenue  generating"  and/or  "have  low  operation  and  maintenance  costs",  and  hence 
financial  sustainability  is  not  considered  to  be  an  issue.  The  main  exceptions  are 
measures to enhance the local economy, where the beneficiaries can be private entities. 
Hence stricter rules apply in order to guarantee the longevity of the investment, as well 
as to provide for the recovery of the funds should the need arise.  

Nevertheless,  the  sustainability  issue  is  on  the  radar  of  the  project  implementation 
bodies.  The  vast  majority24  of  the  respondents  in  the  survey  have  stated  that  the 
financial  sustainability  of  the  project  has  been  addressed,  mostly  at  the  project  design 
and  implementation  stages,  and  fewer  at  just  the  completion  stage  (see  Figure  18and 
Annex 3.2.6 -EQ 3-6). 

Figure 18: Has the financial sustainability of the project been addressed (and at 
what stage)? 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

24  This is significantly reduced if the large number of non-responses is taken into account. 

page 69 

68%15%17%YES, at design and implementation stageYES, at project completion stageNO 
 
                                           
Furthermore, the majority consider that the financial sustainability of their project is fully 
secure. This is largely attributed to the necessary budget for the operation, maintenance, 
etc. of the project being available (46%), and to a lesser extent to the project generating 
significant  own  revenues  (13%)  (see  Figure  19and  Figure  20,  below)  However,  it  also 
implies a widespread reliance on public budgets which are normally beyond the control of 
individual  projects.  This  raises  a  number  of  broader  issues  on  sustainability  which  are 
addressed in Chapter 5. 

Figure 19: How secure is the financial sustainability of the project? 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

Figure 20: Factors ensuring the financial sustainability of the project 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

page 70 

67%19%3%11%Fully securePartly secureNot secure, but not a major cause for concernNot secure and a major cause for concern51%12%37%The necessary budget for the operation, maintenance, etc of the project after completion is secureThe project generates significant own revenuesOther measures 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

3.5  Outputs, results and achievements 

3.5.1  Outputs 

The  programmes  generally  include  output  indicators  but  not  all  of  them  include  result 
indicators,  set  targets  and  report  achievements.  Moreover,  sometimes  no  values  are 
specified25.  

The survey responses of the project implementation bodies regarding the main outputs of 
the projects have been clustered and typically refer to (see Annex 3.2.5 - EQ 3-5): 

  Strategy development, plans, reports, brochures, meetings, etc. 

  Construction/ repairs /renovation to schools, housing, social and cultural centres, 

and other buildings 

  Creation of business space 

  Town centre/ historic area/ river banks etc. revitalisation 

 

(Re)construction of streets and cycle paths 

  Public spaces/ facilities 

  Revitalisation of wasteland/ reuse of brownfield sites 

  Wastewater and drinking water treatment 

  Energy efficiency. 

The achieved output indicators have been analysed using the monitoring system and the 
quantitative  performance  reported  in  the  AIR  as  the  main  sources  of  information  (see 
Figure 21and Annexes 2.2.10 and 2.2.11- EQ 2-10/2-11).  

25 Web Q 18: 40% of responses included quantification of outputs or results achieved 

page 71 

 
 
 
                                           
Figure  21:  Output  indicator  achievements  according  to  AIR  2013  (urban 
development, code 61) 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

3.5.2  Results 

In  the  field  of  urban  development  79  out  of  103  OPs  cited  at  least  one  result  indicator. 
They  were  mostly  quantitative,  accompanied  by  targets,  and  the  AIRs  have  reported 
achievement against the targets (see Annex 2.2.10 - EQ 2-10). The most common topics 
were  related  to  ‘promoting  businesses’  (72  indicators  with  38  cases  of  ‘high  or 
exceptional  achievement’26  and  17  cases  of  no  values  reported).  Other  common  topics 
were  ‘sustainable  development  and  improvement  of  cities  and  urban  areas’  and 
‘revitalisation of urban areas including brownfields’ (see Figure 22, below). 

26  ‘Achievement’ relates to the achieved performance compared to the target set.  

page 72 

Sustainable development and improving attractiveness of citiesPromote businessesSocial infrastructure improvedInfrastructure improved or createdCultural sites, tourism projectsIntegrated urban development strategies and plansRevitalised area Environmental protection and energy efficiency improvedPartnerships and cooperations createdExceeding2796835512High 1602325210Medium562112776453Low752011113No information181110760541020406080100120140Number of indicators 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure  22:  Result  indicator  achievement  according  to  AIR  2013  (urban 
development, code 61) 

Infrastructure  

Promote businesses 

A 
B  Sustainable development and improvement of cities and urban areas 
C  Revitalised area  
D 
E  Cultural sites, tourism 
F 
G  Partnership  
H  Environmental  
I 

Integrated urban development  

Social infrastructure  

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

The  survey  responses  of  the  project  implementation  bodies  has  also  identified  project 
results by clustering responses (see Annex 3.2.5 - EQ 3-5). Typical results include: 

 

Improved liveability of neighbourhood 

  Making  the  old  town/museum/etc.  more  attractive  (or  creating/improving  an 

existing facility) attracting more visitors/ improving business 

 

 

(Number of) residents in improved/rehabilitated area 

(Number of) individuals gaining jobs 

  Eco-efficiency 

  Better health facilities. 

page 73 

ABCDEFGHIexceeded251311245312high 13210311001medium9100120021low 861310100no achievement178374223201020304050607080Amount of indicators 
 
 
It is worth noting the low number of indicators related to ‘integrated urban development’, 
in whatever way this might have been defined. In general it can be said that output and 
result  indicators  are  more  precise  when  the  activities  address  concrete  infrastructure 
investments  and  objectives  focus  on  improvements  in  particular  sectors,  such  as 
infrastructure investments and improvement of cultural sites. 

Indeed,  the  analysis  of  output  and  result  indicators  shows  a  higher  rate  of  sectoral  ad 
hoc actions. Integrated urban development has  again been translated in the majority of 
the programmes into ‘hard’ sectoral projects. In cases where strategic development was 
foreseen in the programme implementation the output has been the development of the 
actual strategy or plan.  

Nevertheless, there is a sizeable minority – one third of the urban development projects - 
that  have  pursued  a  genuine  integrated  approach,  addressing  multiple  objectives 
(economic,  social  or  environmental)  and  various  combinations  of  actions  and  have 
reported multi-faceted outcomes (see Annexes 3.2.1 and 3.2.5 - EQ 3-1 and EQ 3-5).  

3.5.3  Achievements 

Overall, the system of the output and result indicators is weak: output indicators tend to 
lack a specific reference to the activities and result indicators are missing or in some OPs 
are the same as the output indicators27.  

Hence,  the  performance  of  indicators  does  not  lead  to  any  reliable  conclusions  about 
success  or  failure.  The  interviews  with  Managing  Authorities  have  provided  extensive 
qualitative  feedback  on  this  matter  and  three  ‘clusters’  of  factors  are  emerging  (see 
Annex 2.2.5 - EQ 2-5), related to: 

 

 

 

the  complexity,  maturity  and  viability  of  the  project  proposal:  these  are 
usually captured in the proposal selection procedure.  

the involvement, coordination and alignment to strategies and plans: this 
is  particularly  the  case  with  the  integrated  approach,  where  the  alignment  to 
regional  and/or  national  strategies  and  especially  the  involvement  of  local 
stakeholders  and  beneficiaries  have  been  named  as  a  very  important  success 
factor.  

the  capacity  of  the  project  implementation  body  and  project  owner: 
almost  all  Managing  Authorities  refer  to  lack  of  project  management  skills,  and 
high  bureaucracy  in  project  implementation  as  a  key  driver  of  failure  in  project 
implementation.  

27  As it is clear by comparing the indicators presented in Figures 21 and 22. Also, many of the respondents to 
the survey of project implementation bodies have treated output and result indicators as interchangeable. 
responses of  

page 74 

 
 
 
 
                                           
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

page 75 

 
 
 
 
4  SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE 

4.1  Strategies 

Social  infrastructure  interventions  cover  five  different  thematic  areas  with  separate 
financial  allocations:  health,  education,  childcare,  housing  and  other  social 
infrastructures. They are represented in 97 of the 115 OPs of our sample which invest in 
at  least  one  of  the  five  codes  for  social  infrastructure  (codes  75  to  79)  (see  Table 
7below). 

The number  of national OPs is higher than in the  urban development  field; in fact,  only 
one  of  the  national  OPs  in  the  sample  does  not  invest  in  social  infrastructure.  This  is  a 
first  indication  that  at  least  the  larger  scale  investment  in  the  health  and  education 
systems  tends  to  be  under  national  rather  than  regional  responsibility.  Indeed,  as 
discussed further below, ERDF investment in social infrastructure can be part of a general 
reform of the national system  – mainly in the field of education and health – depending 
on the national system and strategy. 

Table 7: Types of OP supporting investments in social infrastructure 

BG  CY  CZ  DE  EE  ES  FR  GR  HU  IT  LT  LV  MT  NL  PL  PT  RO  SI  SK  UK  CBC  ∑ 

MS 

ETC 

MultiROP28    

NOP 

ROP 

1 

1 

Total 

1 

1 

2 

7 

9 

8 

8 

1 

1 

7 

7 

7 

7 

5 

5 

1 

7 

8 

2  1  1 

1 

6 

8  1  1 

1 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

5 

1 

1 

1 

1  3 

1 

1 

16  7 

18  8 

1 

1 

2 

2 

5 

1  3 

5 

1 

17 

74 

97 

There  are  also  considerable  variations  in  the  way  the  OPs  have  accommodated  the 
thematic  fields  of  social  infrastructure  in  their  structure,  ranging  from  separate  priority 
axes  for  different  thematic  areas  to  axes  combining  thematic  areas  and  in  some  cases 
representing  an  integrated  approach  (see  Section  2.5).  In  this  respect  different 
approaches tend to be associated with the strategies pursued by, or reflected in the OPs, 
as discussed in Section 4.1.2, below. 

4.1.1  Needs and objectives 

The social infrastructure intervention areas differ in terms of strategies as well as in the 
implementation approaches (see Figure 23, below, and Annex 2.2.2 - EQ 2-2).  

As regards health and education, programmes clearly mention the need for renovation of 
infrastructure  and  for  addressing  insufficient  systems  in  place.  Programmes  also  refer, 
albeit to a lesser extent, to the mismatch between the needs and the existing provision.  

28  Poland has one Multi regional OP covering all PL regions 

page 76 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
                                           
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

More  specifically,  as  regards  education  infrastructure,  the  most  common  needs 
expressed  fall  under  the  categories  ‘need  for  revitalisation  of  education  infrastructure’ 
and  ‘insufficient  education  infrastructure’  (with  31  indications  each).  Also,  the  need  to 
match labour force skills and labour market needs (27 OPs) is often mentioned. Eighteen 
OPs  mention  the  need  for  improving  social  infrastructure  in  general,  while  13  OPs  in 
convergence  regions  specifically  refer  to  the  need  for  improving  educational  systems  in 
rural areas (see Annex 2.2.2, EQ2.2).There is also a small number of OPs mentioning the 
need  for  improving  the  education  system,  while  in  the  field  of  health  the  strategic 
development of health system cannot be identified as a need. 

Health  infrastructure  needs  can  be  categorised  along  the  following  lines:  26  OPs 
mention improvement of hospital systems and infrastructure, and equipment renovation. 
The need for general improvement of the health care system, the need for improvement 
of  the  health  system  in  deprived  areas  and  the  need  for  accessibility of  health  care  are 
each  mentioned  in  17  OPs.  It  is  noteworthy  that  14  OPs  including  code  76  do  not 
describe any needs concerning health. 

For  childcare,  housing  and  ‘other  social  infrastructure’  needs  are  less  explicitly  or 
consistently  described.  While  42  OPs  have  allocated  funds  to  childcare  only  25  of  them 
describe relevant needs regarding the subject. Similarly, 22 OPs have allocated funds to 
housing  infrastructure  but  only  13  describe  needs  regarding  housing  infrastructure. 
Finally,  70  OPs  have  allocated  funds  to  code  79  but  only  53  describe  needs  related  to 
‘other social infrastructure’. 

Figure 23: Needs related to social infrastructure 

s
P
O

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

A

Conv. and comp. 3

ETC

Competitiveness

1

2

B

2

3

2

2

1

1

3

1

1

9

2

2

4

Convergence

24 21 16 16 9

C D E

F G H

I

2

J

K

L M N O

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

5

2

3

page 77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A 
B 
C 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 
J 
K 
L 
M 
N 
O 

General social infrastructure references 
 Lack of effectiveness and quality 
 Social exclusion of (children, handicapped, Roma, etc.) 
 Lack of available facilities 
 Adaptation to societal changes, innovative solutions 
 Unemployment 
 Improvement of the service in deprived areas 
 Rural reference 
 Financial need and optimizing infrastructure costs 
 Improvement of accessibility 
 cooperation and coordination 
 Promote work life balance 
 Strategy development and standardisation procedures 
 Prevention centres (drugs, crime racism) 
 High energy requirements 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

Objectives follow the same logic as needs. The most frequently encountered objective is 
an  ‘improvement’  of  the  respective  system  or  its  effectiveness  and  quality.  Only  a 
minority  of  OPs  define  more  concrete  objectives  like  improvement  of  health  services  in 
deprived  areas  and  prevention  centres  (drug,  crime,  racism,  etc.),  or  identify  specific 
target groups (e.g. the elderly) (see Figure 24).  

Education  infrastructure  objectives  clearly  mention  renovation  and  revitalisation  of 
education facilities and equipment (35 OPs) while a similar number (33 OPs) are broader 
in aiming to improve the ‘education system’ or enhancing ‘social infrastructure’ in general 
(26  OPs).  Twenty  one  OPs  take  a  more  indirect  position  aiming  to  ‘decrease  urban 
disparities’. Sixteen OPs refer to matching education to labour market needs. 

Health  infrastructure  objectives  clearly  focus  on  ‘health  care  system  improvement’ 
and  ‘improvement  of  accessibility  of  health  care’.  Some  20  OPs  refer  to  ‘health 
infrastructure renewal and improvement of hospital service’ and 16 aim at ‘general social 
infrastructure improvement’.  

A different strategic approach has been noted  in the OPs regarding childcare, housing 
and  other  social  infrastructure.  While  housing  and  childcare  are  in  almost  all 
programmes  combined  with  other  thematic  areas  under  one  priority  axis,  ‘other  social 
infrastructure’  is  used  as  an  all-purpose  category  for  all  kinds  of  interventions; 
sometimes combined with integrated urban development, sometimes focusing separately 
on Roma, the unemployed, the disabled or families.  

page 78 

 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure 24: Objectives related to social infrastructure 

  Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

4.1.2  Characteristics of strategies 

The  character  of  OP  strategies  focusing  mainly  on  sectoral  health  and  education 
infrastructure  investments  differs  from  those  of  OPs  that  pursue  a  more  integrated 
approach.  The  purely  sectoral  health  and  education  infrastructure  tends  to  follow  a 
‘linear’  approach,  following  up  the  need  for  better  infrastructure  in  the  whole  OP  region 
with investments in this sector.  

The  question  in  what  way  any  of  those  objectives  follow  any  strategy  outside  of  the 
framework  of  the  OP  cannot  be  answered  in  an  exhaustive  manner  as  the  information 
available  on  strategies  ‘external’  to  the  OPs  is  not  systematically  available  (see  Annex 
2.2.3  -  EQ  2-3).  Nevertheless,  the  analysis  of  the  OPs  has  provided  an  indication 
regarding  social  infrastructure:  39  OPs  refer  to  national  and  43  OPs  refer  to  regional 
strategies, with 26 OPs referring on local strategies. 

An example of national strategy pursued through an ERDF co-funded  programme in the 
field of education is the Portuguese Territorial Enhancement OP (see Box 6). 

Box 6: Sectoral strategy – Territorial Enhancement OP, Portugal 

The Territorial Enhancement OP endorsed a contribution to the Policy of Cities Polis XXI in relation 
to  the  consolidation  of  the  national  urban  system  and  to  the  National  Programme  for  Spatial 
Planning  Policy.  One  particular  focus  has  been  the  change  of  the  secondary  school  system  in 
Portugal  which  has  been  a  priority  of  the  XVII  Government.  The  government  determined  the 
development  of  the  Programme  of  Modernization  of  the  School  Estate  intended  for  Secondary 
Education and the decision to finance its implementation through the ERDF Programme. 

The main basis for project selection have been objectives, guidelines and priorities of the National 
Programme for Spatial Planning Policy (PNPOT) and the Regional Plans of Spatial Planning (PROT). 

page 79 

 
 
For the implementation of the state wide intervention several different funding sources have been 
combined  (ERDF,  EIB,  CEB,  state  co-funding  and  private  loans)  ESF  has  been  used  for 
complementary interventions in schools. 

Actual investments cover: 

  Correction  of  existing  facility  problems  and  improvement  of  living,  security  and  accessibility 

conditions; 
Functional reorganisation of schools and respective services; 

 
  School equipment (laboratories and workshops); 
  Requalification of sports facilities; 
 
  Opening of schools to the surroundings area; 
 

Improvement of technological infrastructure and allocation of informatics equipment; 

Improving the involvement of students with special needs (contribution to equal opportunities 
and social inclusion); 

  Construction  and  qualification  of  higher  education  equipment  including  equipping  of 

laboratories. 

To some extent the Hungarian OP ‘Social Infrastructure’ also falls into the same category 
with  its  strategic  emphasis  on  renewing  the  health  system  country-wide  (see  Box  7, 
below).  Interventions  refer  to  the  following  national  strategies:  National  Development 
Concept  (2005),  New  Hungary  Rural  Development  Strategic  Plan  (2007-2013),  Concept 
Paper on Health Care Development (2006), National Social Inclusion Strategy (2011) and 
the Semmelweis Plan (2011) a concept paper on the health care system).  

The regional operational programmes complement the national programme by supporting 
smaller  facility  improvements  in  the  respective  regions.  Interventions  combine  different 
funds.  However,  the  division  of  responsibilities  between  national  and  regional 
administrations  is  not  clear  and  in  general  the  funding  tends  to  replace  domestic 
financing obligations.  

Box 7: Hungarian health investments 

The  Hungarian  investments  in  health  are  based  on  the  aim  to  level  the  national  cohesion.  The 
health  care  system  has  a  structural  problem,  while  certain  specialities  have  excessive  capacities, 
others  experience  shortages  and  their  regional  distribution  is  unsatisfactory.  Therefore  the  ERDF 
supports the country- wide improvement of health systems by investing in facilities and equipment. 
There  are  also  interventions  covering  the  development  of  out-patient  specialist  care  centres, 
development  of  the  blood  supply  system,  IT  development,  and  improvement  of  the  ambulance 
system.  

As  regards  social  infrastructure,  the  survey  of  project  implementation  bodies  has  found 
that the largest group  of projects were  reported to be part of a sectoral strategy in the 
field  of  education,  health,  etc.  (37%  plus  most  of  “other”  responses,  see  Figure  25).  A 
much smaller proportion were reported as being part of an integrated urban development 
strategy. A significant proportion of interventions did not form part of a broader strategy. 

page 80 

 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure 25: Does this project form part of a broader strategy? 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

4.2  Activities and target groups 

4.2.1  Activities 

An overview of activities funded in the field of social infrastructure is shown in Figure 
26, below, while detailed figures are provided in Annex2.2.1 - EQ 2-1. 

For  activities  related  to  education  infrastructure  (code  75)  the  majority  of  OPs 
invested  in  school  material  (69)  and  improved  school  premises  (70),  the  majority  of 
them combined. Thirty programmes invested in restructuring of educational systems, as 
well  as  improving  energy  efficiency  of  schools  and  training  centres.  Forty  one 
programmes  invested  in  the  improvement  of  training  facilities  for  lifelong  learning  (e.g. 
environmental  centres,  change  of  training  agendas  to  adapt  to  market  needs,  sports 
facilities  in  schools  or  for  training  sport  teachers).  The  Polish  OP  ‘infrastructure  and 
environment’ as well as the Hungarian OP  ‘social infrastructure’  deployed the  significant 
parts  of  the  financial  allocation  related  to  education  infrastructure  on  cultural  heritage 
related skill development. 

The  majority  of  activities  related  to  health  infrastructure  (code  76)  are  targeting 
construction  or  reconstruction  of  buildings.  Further,  investment  focuses  on  equipment 
improvement  and  energy  efficiency.  One  third  of  the  programmes  focused  on 
improvement of health services in deprived areas. Especially the rural areas of the Czech 
Republic,  Hungary  and  Poland  have  been  targeted  with  this  kind  of  support.  Seven  OPs 
supported  e-health29  activities.  Interestingly,  activities  are  reported  to 
involve 
cooperation  and  networking  within  regional  and  national  OPs.  This  concerns  either  the 
network  of  emergency  systems  between  towns  and  villages  for  efficiency  improvement 
(HU)  or  the  improvement  of  infrastructure  networks  within  cities  to  improve  efficiency 
(EL).  

29  E-health investments have been named in some priority axes in correlation with health infrastructure. It was 
reported  in  Poland,  Greece,  Italy,  Portugal  and  Slovak  Republic  (2007GR161PO006,  2007GR161PO008, 
2007GR16UPO001, 2007IT161PO011, 2007PL161PO018, 2007PT161PO004, 2007SK161PO005) 

page 81 

12%37%16%35%YES, an ‘integrated urban development’ strategy YES, a ‘sectoral’ strategy in a particular field (e.g. education, health)YES, a different type of strategy than in 1) or 2) aboveNO/ Not sure 
 
                                           
In  45  OPs  activities  related  to  childcare  infrastructure  (code  77)  supported  the 
improvement  of  existing  childcare  facilities.  Twenty  five  OPs  supported  new  facilities  or 
encouraged  the  establishment  of  new  facilities.  As  the  only  OP  in  the  country,  the 
‘Bulgarian Regional Development’ OP established a grant scheme which also involves ESF 
funding. Regarding childcare related activities the focus and approach is less sharp than 
in  relation  to  health  and  education  infrastructure.  There  are  only  a  few  OPs  explicitly 
mentioning  activities  related  to  childcare.  Instead,  the  majority  of  OPs  combined 
childcare  related  activities  with  integrated  urban  development,  education  infrastructure 
or ‘other social infrastructure’ activities. 

Activities related to housing infrastructure (code 78) are rarer. Housing renovation in 
deprived  urban  areas  (21  OPs)  and  reduction  in  energy  consumption  (13  OPs)  are  the 
main issues. There is a significant overlap between activities which are explicitly linked to 
the  thematic  code  for  housing  and  those  which  are  related  to  it,  for  instance,  through 
energy  efficiency  measures.  Two  OPs  do  not  show  any  indication  of  actual  activities 
related  to  housing  although  they  show  a  financial  allocation  to  the  respective  code  (the 
French OP ‘Guyane’ and the Maltese OP ‘Investing in Competitiveness for a Better Quality 
of Life’).  

Activities related to other social infrastructure (code 79) focus on community based 
premises  for  social  exclusion  (41  OPs),  such  as  youth  centres,  retirement  care  centres, 
centres  for  women,  women  refuges,  Roma  centres  and  centres  for  immigrants).  There 
are cultural projects in 23 programmes. Fourteen OPs planned to invest in capacities and 
networking of civil society organisations but only two of them mentioned the possibility of 
involving ESF. Nine programmes support public awareness campaigns, mostly combined 
with  other  types  of  action.  One  Polish  OP,  ’Infrastructure  and  Environment’,  explicitly 
describes the promotion of culture, promotional and educational activities focusing on the 
transformation of the inhabitants' lifestyle. One programme (PEACE III) focuses solely on 
other social infrastructure. Its aim is “to reinforce progress towards a peaceful and stable 
society  and  to  promote  reconciliation  in  Northern  Ireland  and  the  Border  Region  [of 
Ireland]”.  The  activities  comprise  education,  training,  counselling,  community  activities 
and similar projects. 

page 82 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure  26:  Types  of  activities  listed  in  OPs  in  relation  to  social  infrastructure 
(codes 75-79) 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

4.2.2  Target groups 

Only  a  relatively  small  number  of  OPs  (45)  made  reference  to  particular  target  groups 
(see Figure 27). 

Figure 27: Specific target groups in different Member States 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

page 83 

Investment in facilitiesCooperation and networking projectsInvestment in equipmentEnergy efficiency measuresCapacity developmentOthersPublic awareness raisingRenovation of deprived urban areasDevelopment of e-healthLoan schemesEncouragement of building new facilities7973411591478211337987737404147614657131271110757072423117050100150200250300350Number of activities0246810121416BEBGCYCZDEEEELESFRHUITLTLVMTNLPLPTROSISKUKCBCNumber of citations per OPDisabledUnemployedMigrants Women Disadvantaged people/elderlySMENGORomaFamilies Local governments Young people Children 
 
 
 
 
The target groups which are most commonly cited in the programmes in connection with 
particular thematic fields are, as follows: 

  young people (mainly education and other social infrastructure); 

 

 

(governments of) deprived areas (again mainly named in education infrastructure 
and other social infrastructure but also in health infrastructure); 

children  (mainly  education  infrastructure  and  childcare  infrastructure  but  also 
referring to other social infrastructure); 

  women  (reference  is  made  in  relation  to  childcare  but  also  in  relation  to  women 

centres for victims of violence); 

 

families  (mainly  mentioned  in  relation  to  housing  infrastructure  and  other  social 
infrastructure related to family centres); 

  Roma  (mainly  in  relation  to  housing  infrastructure,  but  also  related  to  education 

and other social infrastructure); 

  migrants  (mentioned  only  in  relation  to  other  social  infrastructure,  namely 

migration centres); 

  elderly  people  (mainly  referring  to  health  infrastructure  and  other  social 

infrastructure);  

  unemployed  (mentioned  in  relation  to  other  social  infrastructure  regarding 
unemployment  centres,  and  in  relation  to  education  infrastructure  regarding 
lifelong learning).  

The  intentions  of  the  OPs  regarding  target  groups  are  largely  supported  by  the  target 
groups of the realised projects as reported by the implementing bodies in the survey (see 
Annex  3.2.2  -  EQ  3-2).  Figure  28  shows  that  again  young  people,  children  and  the 
population of deprived areas are among the most frequently reported.  

page 84 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

‘All  population’  type  of  definitions  are  less  common  than  in  the  case  of  urban 
development  and,  again,  a  significant  proportion  of  respondents  (31%)  have  provided 
multiple  responses  combining  a  general  target  group  answer  with  more  specific  ones, 
such as ‘small businesses’, ‘visitors’, marginalised groups’, ‘young people’ or ‘women’.  

Figure 28: Main target groups of social infrastructure projects 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

4.2.3  Targeted areas 

As shown in Figure 29 below, a large proportion of programmes did not specify  a target 
area. In total the OPs with unspecified target areas are 45% of the total supporting social 
infrastructure,  a  lower  proportion  than  in  the  case  of  urban  development.  However, 
comparing  different  social  infrastructure  themes  there  are  significant  differences  in  the 
share  of  unspecified  target  areas.  The  highest  share  can  be  found  in  the  health 
interventions, followed by education and other social infrastructure.  

In many cases the non-specification leads to a significant share of funding in rural areas. 
Some EU-13 countries are specifically targeting smaller towns and regional centres. This 
is largely because there is proportionally a higher share of rural areas in EU-13 countries. 
Noticeably,  the  Czech  Republic  and  Hungary  address  smaller  towns  and  rural  areas  due 
to their demographic and territorial structure.  

page 85 

14%17%6%19%12%6%5%4%6%11%All population city wideAll population in local areaMarginalised groupsYoung peopleChildrenOld peopleWomenSmall businessesVisitorsOther 
 
 
 
A particularly sharp focus on rural areas can be seen in housing interventions and this is 
partly linked to the support of housing for Roma in small urban areas in Hungary and the 
Czech Republic. In the case of Estonia childcare support is mainly focused on rural areas.  

Figure 29: Type of area targeted by OPs30 

Education 

Health 

Childcare 

Housing 

Other social infrastructure 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

Regarding  the  territorial  scope  of  investments  in  social  infrastructure  23%  are  at 
district/neighbourhood  level  and  a  similar  percentage  at  city  level.  An  analysis  of  the 
much  larger  category  ‘other’  (48%)  has  shown  that  it  represents  overwhelmingly 
investments with a regional or national scope (seeFigure 30).  

30  Education - 52 entries, health - 56 entries, childcare - 40 entries, housing - 42 entries, other social 

infrastructure - 58 entries 

page 86 

45%4%9%15%17%10%No urban area(s) specifiedCapital cityAgglomerationsRegional centresTowns in rural areas72%8%6%8%6%No urban area(s) specifiedCapital cityAgglomerationsRegional centresTowns in rural areasUrban areas in cities/neighbourhood areasNetwork of citiesBorder regions36%5%5%16%23%15%No urban area(s) specifiedCapital cityAgglomerationsRegional centresTowns in rural areasUrban areas in cities/neighbourhood areas25%3%22%25%25%No urban area(s) specifiedCapital cityAgglomerationsRegional centresTowns in rural areasUrban areas in cities/neighbourhood areas49%7%9%5%11%15%2%2%No urban area(s) specifiedCapital cityAgglomerationsRegional centresTowns in rural areas 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure 30: Territorial scope of social infrastructure projects 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

An  analysis  of  the  data  at  NUTSIII  level  based  on  the  regional  typology  system  of  the 
European Commission31has highlighted a number of territorial patterns. 

Generally,  social  infrastructure  is  not  strongly  focused  on  the  capital  regions:  Whilst 
nearly  13%  of  the  overall  ERDF  allocation  in  the  115  OPs  is  spent  in  capital  regions,  it 
represents only 10% of the social infrastructure allocation. However, there are significant 
variations between the types of infrastructure: 

  allocation  in  childcare  infrastructure  for  instance  is  much  more  focused  on  the 
capital  regions  (32%  of  the  allocation)  compared  to  other  social  infrastructure 
codes; 

  only 3% of the allocation to housing infrastructure is in capital regions; 

  between  45%  and  55%  of  ‘other  social  infrastructure’  budget  is  allocated  to  the 
metropolitan  regions  (capital  region  plus  second-tier  metro  regions  and  smaller 
agglomerations). 

The analysis using the urban-rural typology32, covering not only the metropolitan regions 
but the whole territory, shows a similar pattern. The bulk of the allocation for all types of 
social infrastructure goes to urban regions or regions close to a city – but for all types of 
social  infrastructure,  the  concentration  on  these  regions  is  weaker  than  for  the  overall 
ERDF  allocation.  For  education  infrastructure,  the  concentration  on  urban  regions  or 
regions close to a city is higher than for the investment in  ‘integrated projects for urban 
and rural development’. The investment in education and health infrastructure seems to 
be  more  evenly  distributed  in  the  programme  areas:  15%  and  16%,respectively,  of  the 
allocation  goes  to  remote  rural  regions  (compared  to  11%  for  the  total  allocation 
covering all codes). 

31  European Commission, GD Regio (2011): Regional typologies: a compilation, Regional Focus No 01/2011, 

where both typologies used here are described. 

32  ibid 

page 87 

23%22%7%48%District/ neighbourhoodWhole town/ city Network of towns/ citiesOther 
 
                                           
Actually,  the  territorial  pattern  of  the  strategy  and  the  allocation  is  quite  similar  to  the 
pattern in the field of urban development: capital cities and urban agglomerations play a 
comparatively small role (smaller than for the overall ERDF allocation). But smaller cities 
and towns get more from the ERDF allocation. Those fields of  social infrastructure which 
in some cases deal with the reform of national systems (health and education) are more 
evenly  spread,  showing  specifically  a  higher  share  of  the  allocation  in  remote  rural 
regions.  

4.2.4  Economic sectors 

There  are  two  clear  patterns  regarding  the  economic  sectors  that  benefit  from 
investments in social infrastructure.  

  First, there is a clear concentration on specific sectors to be found in the thematic 
fields  which  are  strongly  sector  oriented,  namely,  education  and  health.  In  both 
cases,  more  than  80%  has  been  allocated  to  the  corresponding  economic  sector 
types  of 
(‘education’  or 
infrastructure,  the  next  most  important  sector  is  ‘public  administration’  (see 
Annex 1.6.2 - EQ 1-2). 

‘human  health  activities’).  Similarly, 

for  both 

  Second, there is a more diffused pattern in the case of the other thematic fields. 
As  regards  to  investment  in  childcare  infrastructure  the  predominant  sector  is 
‘social work, community, social and personal services’ (52%) with smaller shares 
going to ‘education’, ‘public administration’ and ‘construction’. A similar pattern is 
observed  in  other  social  infrastructure,  with  a  lesser  concentration  (41%)  in  the 
prevalent sector of ‘social work, community [etc] services’.  

Housing  infrastructure  represents  an  exceptional  case  with  an  allocation  of  nearly  two- 
thirds  of  the  funds  to  ‘not  applicable’  (and  acts  as  a  reminder  of  the  limitations  of  the 
coding system). 

page 88 

 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

4.3  Financial resources 

4.3.1  Distribution and intensity 

The  highest  amount  of  allocation  to  social  infrastructure  (codes  75  to  79)  goes  to 
Hungary,  Portugal  and  Poland.  Each  of  these  countries  allocates  more  than  EUR  2,500 
million  to  social  infrastructure  (see  Table  8)  with  more  than  45%  of  the  overall  ERDF 
allocation in the sample of 115 OPs going to these three countries. Spain, Italy, Slovakia 
and  the  Czech  Republic  allocate  more  than  EUR  1,000  million  each.  The  seven  Member 
States with the highest allocation represent three quarters of the overall ERDF allocation 
to social infrastructure. 

The  relative  strategic  weight  given  to  social infrastructure  compared  to  other  policies  of 
ERDF  investment  is  the  highest  in  Slovakia,  where  41%  of  the  total  national  ERDF 
allocation is in the field of social infrastructure. Estonia and Hungary allocate more than 
one  third  of  their  ERDF  budget  to  this  field.  Portugal,  Latvia  and  Bulgaria  are  the  only 
three other countries to allocate more than 20% of the allocation to social infrastructure. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  allocation  to  social  infrastructure  in  the  UK,  Cyprus  and  the 
Netherland is below 2%. 

Depending  on  the  overall  intensity  of  ERDF  support  to  a  Member  State,  the  relative 
importance given to social infrastructure compared to other policies can result in varying 
per  capita  allocations.  For  Estonia,  it  results  in  the  highest  per  capita  allocation  of  the 
sample:  EUR  429.  There  are  seven  other  countries  with  an  allocation  between  EUR  200 
and  EUR  300  per  capita:  Hungary,  Portugal,  Latvia,  Malta,  Slovenia,  Lithuania  and 
Greece. In Germany, France, the UK and the Netherlands, allocations are less than  EUR 
10 per inhabitant. 

page 89 

 
 
 
Table  8:  Allocation  to  codes  75  to  79  -  share  of  total  ERDF  allocation  and 
allocation per capita 

Member State  Allocation to social Infrastructure 

in % (Share of member 
states' total ERDF 
allocation) 

Allocation per capita 

40.8% 

38.9% 

36.5% 

26.1% 

24.1% 

20.4% 

19.3% 

17.6% 

16.6% 

14.4% 

13.8% 

13.7% 

10.4% 

8.9% 

6.8% 

6.0% 

5.7% 

3.3% 

1.9% 

1.7% 

1.0% 

231.6 

429.2 

291.6 

273.4 

216.7 

37.7 

36.5 

258.8 

239.6 

155.4 

97.8 

22.9 

75.4 

3.6 

15.4 

66.6 

5.1 

0.8 

11.9 

0.3 

SK 

EE 

HU 

PT 

LT 

BG 

CB 

RO 

LV 

MT 

EL 

CZ 

IT 

SI 

FR 

ES 

PL 

DE 

UK 

CY 

NL 

AT 

BE 

DK 

FI 

HR 

IE 

LU 

SE 

in € Million 

1,254.250 

564.793 

2,880.984 

2,851.181 

637.949 

273.403 

265.370 

728.899 

517.982 

101.906 

1,708.105 

1,027.679 

1,390.527 

155.399 

237.341 

714.169 

2,562.628 

413.640 

48.875 

10.172 

5.141 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

EU Total 

18,350.393 

12.3% 

36.2 

Source: Monitoring data DG REGIO 2015 

page 90 

 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Within  each  thematic  field  the  allocation  of  ERDF  funding  is  not  evenly  distributed 
between  the  programmes.  In  each  field,  the  bulk  of  the  allocation  typically  goes  to  a 
small number of programmes (often with one OP standing out with an exceptionally high 
share)  while  the  majority  of  the  OPs  have  very  small  shares  of  the  total  allocation.  The 
situation in each of the thematic fields is summarised below (see also Annex  1.6.1 - EQ 
1-1). 

 

 

Investment in education infrastructure (code 75) is available in 85 out of the 
115  OPs  of  the  sample.  A  single  programme  represents  11.8%  of  the  ERDF 
allocation  for  all  115  programmes:  the  convergence  programme  ‘PO  Temático 
Valorização do Território 2007-2013’, Portugal, allocating EUR 1,090.67 million to 
code  75.  Three  other  convergence  programmes  –  from  Portugal,  Slovakia  and 
Hungary – have a share of more than 5% of the total allocation each. Most of the 
programmes (57) have a share of less than 1% of the total allocation. 

Investment  in  health  infrastructure  (code  76)  is  found  in  69  of  the  115  OPs. 
The largest OP allocation accounts for as much as 17.7% of the total allocation for 
all 115 OPs (the Hungarian convergence programme ‘OP for Social Infrastructure’ 
with an allocation of EUR 976.68 million to code 76). Fourteen other programmes 
represent between 2.1% and 7.0% of the total allocation. The remaining 54 OPs 
have a share of less than 2% each. 

  Childcare  and  housing  infrastructure  (codes  77  and  78)  are  used, 
respectively,  in  45  and  22  OPs.  Childcare  infrastructure  is  dominated  by  one 
programme  with  a  share  of  14.1%  (a  Greek  convergence  programme  ‘Attica’). 
The  investment  in  housing  infrastructure  is  similarly  dominated  by  one  single 
programme,  the  Italian  convergence  programme  ‘pro  Sicilia’,  which  allocates 
70.9% of the total to housing infrastructure (EUR 281.25 million). 

  Within  the  sample  of  115  OPs,  there  are  71  programmes  allocating  funding  to 
other social infrastructure (code 79). Allocations come from 17 countries and 
two  ETC  programmes.  The  three  OPs  with  the  largest  allocation  to  ‘other  social 
infrastructure’  are  the  Romanian  OP  ‘Regional  Operational  Programme’,  the 
Hungarian OP ‘Social Infrastructure’ and the ETC ‘PEACE III’ programme.  

Among  the  115  programmes,  there  are  only  two  which  are  thematically  focused  on  a 
single  thematic  code  (from  those  covered  by  this  study):  the  Slovakian  convergence 
programme  ‘Operational  programme  Health’  invests  only  in  health  infrastructure  (code 
76),  and  the  ‘PEACE  III’  programme  allocates  nearly  all  the  funds  to  ‘other  social 
infrastructure’  (code  79).  Besides  the  Slovakian  programme  for  health  infrastructure, 
there  is  the  Hungarian  ‘Programme  for  Social  Infrastructure’  which  allocates  more  than 
one-half of its total ERDF budget to health infrastructure. 

Only  five  programmes  have  a  share  of  more  than  20%  allocated  to  education 
infrastructure  and  only  two  to  health  infrastructure.  The  rest  of  this  programme  is 
invested  in  education  and  other  social  infrastructures.  Childcare  infrastructure  and 
housing infrastructure have a maximum share of less than 10% in any one programme. 

page 91 

 
The  geographical  distribution  of  the  allocation  to  the  115  OPs  to  the  relevant  codes  is 
obviously influenced by the high share of convergence programmes.  However, the more 
detailed patterns vary: 

 

In education infrastructure, Portugal plays an important role with 23.7% of the 
allocation  for  all  115  programmes  in  this  country.  Poland  and  Hungary  allocate 
some 13% each. Therefore, the three countries account for nearly one- half of the 
overall allocation in this field. 

  The  health  infrastructure  allocation  is  dominated  by  Hungary  (23%),  followed 
by Poland (18%), with these two countries accounting for more than 40% of the 
total allocation. 

  The pattern of the geographical distribution for the other types of infrastructure is 
more  concentrated  on  a  smaller  number  of  programmes.  In  this  way,  the 
distribution  is  dominated  by  individual  programmes.  This  is  particularly  the  case 
for  housing  infrastructure,  where  one  Italian  programme  accounts  for  more 
than  70%  of  the  total  allocation.  Investment  in  childcare  infrastructure  is 
concentrated in Greece and Hungary. 

4.3.2  Financial implementation 

A tentative assessment of the progress in financial implementation can be provided with 
using the data provided by WP13 of the ex post evaluation. In the 115 OPs, expenditure 
in  social  infrastructure  has  been  EUR  15,600  million  ERDF-Funds  end  of  2014.  The 
amount initially planned in the OPs to be spent for social infrastructure was EUR 18,391 
million EUR, but the planning was very indicative and is not really reliable. The allocation 
to selected projects in turn is EUR 21,028 million, which is higher than the initial plan. An 
over commitment of the available funds can be reasonable in order to be able to get the 
available budget spent completely. 

Taking the allocation to selected projects as the maximum possible amount to be spent, 
the  expenditure  reached  72%  of  this  figure  for  the  social  infrastructure  in  all  115  OPs. 
The programmes in expenditure compared to the allocation varies for the different types 
of 
infrastructure)  and  78%  (education 
infrastructure). Health and childcare infrastructure have both slightly higher expenditure 
rates  than  the  average  (close  to  73%).  Besides  housing  infrastructure,  ‘other  social 
infrastructure’ is the only field with below-average expenditure rate (66%).  

infrastructure  between  50%  (housing 

In  education  infrastructure,  Bulgaria  and  Malta  have  already  spent  more  than  100%  of 
the  allocated  amounts  of  more  than  100%.33  On  the  other  hand  expenditure  in  Italy 
(42%)  and  Romania  (32%)  is  very  low  compared  to  the  allocation.  The  field  of  housing 
infrastructure is the only field of social infrastructure with an initially plan exceeding the 

33 Actually, expenditure exceeding the allocation to selected projects is irritating. From the data, we cannot 

identify the underlying explanations. What is known is that “allocation to projects selected” can mean very 
different things – from an initial financial planning for potential projects to actual commitment only to those 
projects which are actually being carried out. This varying interpretations might offer scope for the over 
expenditure we found in these two countries. 

page 92 

 
 
                                           
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

allocation  to  selected  projects,  the  expenditure  is  even  lower.  There  seems  to  be  a 
specific problem of delivery in this field. 

4.3.3  Other sources of finance 

Simultaneous  ESF  and  ERDF  co-financing  is  uncommon  with  less  than  one  third  of  the 
projects  benefiting  from  ESF  (see  Annex  3.2.4-  EQ  3-4).  The  broader  relationship  of 
ERDF and ESF is examined further in Section 5.2. 

Regarding funding from non-EU sources, as already stated in Section 3.4 regarding urban 
development,  there  is  a  serious  limitation  in  obtaining  reliable  information  on  other 
sources of finance available since the Managing Authorities and the OP documentation do 
not cover this information.  

However,  the  interviews  with  Managing  Authorities  and  the  survey  of  project 
implementation  bodies  have  highlighted  the  fact  that  funding  for  social  infrastructure 
investments  normally  comes  from  EU  funds  or  national  budgets  or  a  combination  of 
them.  Since  the  2008  crisis  and  the  subsequent  squeeze  on  public  budgets,  alternative 
funding has been reduced dramatically.   

4.3.4  Form of finance 

The  investment  of  the  115  OPs  in  all  codes  is  predominantly  implemented  by  non-
repayable  grants  (see  Annex  1.6.5  -  EQ  1-5).  In  all  the  thematic  fields  of  social 
infrastructure the share of non-repayable grants is more than 95 % (see Table 9, below). 
The only exception is the allocation to housing infrastructure but this is attributable to a 
single programme that is responsible for the investment in ‘other forms for finance’ (the 
Italian convergence programme ‘pro Sicilia’). 

For all types of social infrastructure, there is no allocation to  repayable financial support 
or venture capital. Only ‘other forms of finance’ are used.  

Table 9: Overview of form of finance by thematic field (code) 

Thematic field (Code) 

Allocation  
115 OP sample 

Non- 
repayable 
aid 
(%) 

Aid34 
(%) 

Venture 
Capital 
(%) 

Other 
Forms 
(%) 

Education infrastructure (Code 75) 
Health infrastructure (Code 76) 
Childcare infrastructure (Code 77) 
Housing infrastructure (Code 78) 
Other Social infrastructure (Code 
79) 

Source: Monitoring data DG REGIO 2015 

9,232.86 
5,504.32 
622.52 
396.78 
2,593.93 

95.8 
96.9 
97.4 
38.0 
95.2 

- 
- 
- 

- 
- 
- 

4.2 
3.1 
2.6 
61.2 
4.8 

34  Repayable financial support 

page 93 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
4.4  Implementation 

4.4.1  Structures and procedures 

The  main  groups  of  implementing  bodies  in  the  field  of  social  infrastructure  are  public 
bodies  at  municipal  level  (43%)  and  regional/national  level  (39%).  The  latter  is  much 
more  prominent  than  in  the  case  of  urban  development.  NGOs  represent  9%  of  project 
implementation bodies (see Figure 31). 

Figure 31: Status of project implementation bodies 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

Direct  delegation  by  Managing  Authorities  (to  municipalities  or  even  sectoral  ministries) 
in the field of social infrastructure is very uncommon, and, generally, the involvement of 
other actors in the implementation is very limited (see Annex 2.2.4 - EQ 2-4).  

Regarding project selection, social infrastructures mostly fall under standard calls, where 
the  project  implementation  bodies  might  either  be  involved  directly  or  through  their 
national  umbrella  organisation  or  higher  authority  (e.g.  Ministry  of  Health  rather  than 
individual hospitals).  

4.4.2  Financial sustainability 

Only  about  one-half  of  OPs  have  explicitly  cited  financial  sustainability  as  a  selection 
criterion.  Even  so,  the  criterion  basically  checks  whether  the  project  owner  or  operator 
(who in most cases is the same as the project implementation body) is able to cover the 
costs (usually meaning the operation and maintenance costs) of the project during its life 
time.  

The  project  owners  and  operators  tend  to  be  public  bodies  or  public  equivalent  bodies 
which  are  assumed  to  cover  the  operation  and  maintenance  costs  of  the  projects  ad 
infinitum. Therefore, financial sustainability tends to be taken for granted. 

page 94 

39%43%9%9%Public sector   national/regional level, e.g. ministry, state agencyPublic sector   local level, e.g. municipality, publicly owned enterpriseNon-public sector, e.g. NGO, non-profit private organisation, established and operating at national/regional levelOther 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

According  to  the  project  implementation  bodies  the  issue  of  sustainability  is  not  lacking 
attention.  The  vast  majority35  of  the  respondents  in  the  survey,  even  larger  than  in  the 
case  of  urban  regeneration  projects,  have  stated  that  the  financial  sustainability  of  the 
project  has  been  addressed,  in  nearly  80%  of  the  cases  at  project  design  and 
implementation stages (see Figure 32 and Annex 3.2.6 - EQ 3-6).  

Figure 32: Has the financial sustainability of the project been addressed (and at 
what stage)? 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

Furthermore, nearly two thirds consider that the financial sustainability of their project is 
fully  secure.  This  is  largely  attributed  to  the  necessary  budget  for  the  operation, 
maintenance,  etc.  of  the  project  being  available36(see  Figure  33  and  Figure  34, 
below).The  implications  of  the  reliance  on  public  budgets  which,  as  already  mentioned, 
are  under  considerable  pressure  and  other  factors  beyond  the  control  of  individual 
projects are discussed further in Chapter 5. 

Figure 33: How secure is the financial sustainability of the project? 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

35This is significantly reduced if the large number of non-responses is taken into account. 
36 At 59% of responses it is a higher proportion than for urban regeneration projects (46%) 

page 95 

79%13%9%YES, at design and implementation stageYES, at project completion stageNO72%24%1%3%Fully securePartly secureNot secure, but not a major cause for concernNot secure and a major cause for concern 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 34: Factors ensuring the financial sustainability of the project 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

4.5  Outputs, results and achievements 

4.5.1  Outputs 

The thematic fields of education and health infrastructures are relatively well covered by 
the  indicators  systems  used  by  the  programmes.  However,  in  the  case  of  housing, 
childcare  and  other  infrastructures  there  is  a  general  lack  of  specific  /  directly  relevant 
indicators. This is partly due to the fact that they usually come under priority axes which 
cover a wider range of fields of intervention.   

The achieved output indicators have been analysed using the monitoring system and the 
quantitative  performance  reported  in  the  AIR  as  the  main  sources  of  information  (see 
Annexes 2.2.10 and 2.2.11 -EQ 2-10/2.11).  

page 96 

51%12%37%The necessary budget for the operation, maintenance, etc of the project after completion is secureThe project generates significant own revenuesOther measures 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure  35,  below,  show  the  commonly  used  indicators,  respectively,  in  the  fields  of 
education and health infrastructure.  

Figure  35:  Output  indicator  achievements  according  to  AIR2013  (education 
infrastructure, code 75) 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

Figure  36:  Output  indicator  achievements  according  to  the  AIR2013  (health 
infrastructure, code 76) 

A 
B 
C 

Number of centres and hospital renovated 
Number of projects 
new equipment purchased 

page 97 

New and newly equipped education facilitiesImproved rural areasVocational training facilitiesImproved urban areasResearch environment improvementTraining centre equipment, new training coursesNumber of pupils effectedImproved ICT accessibilityProject directly supporting young people employmentSocial infrastructure improvementExceeding17 1 1 3 2 2 1 High 14 1 1 1 1 Medium28 8 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Low4 1 1 No information/no achievement8 2 2 1 -10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Number of indicatorsABCDEFGHIJKLExceeding6431111High 6451111Medium13123343211Low311No information/no achievement577611105101520253035Number of indicators 
 
 
 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 
J 
L 
M 

Number of beds 
Number of patients, number of projects supporting the improvement of health 
Number of projects for general improvement of social infrastructure 
projects related to health care protection 
Standard development 
Projects for elderly people 
Prevention centres 
number of health care projects in rural areas 
Adaptation to societal changes, innovative solutions 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

4.5.2  Results 

Regarding  education  infrastructure,  22  OPs  (out  of  85  OPs  covering  this  thematic 
field)  have  not  defined  any  result  indicator  which  could  be  linked  to  code  75.  The 
majority of the remaining 63 OPs addressed the indicator ‘benefiting students and pupils’ 
(43 OPs with 25 cases of ‘high or exceptional achievement’37 and three cases of no values 
reported).  This  was  followed  by  ‘renovated  area/facilities’,  ‘social  infrastructure 
improvement’,  ‘improvement  of  the  learning  system’  and  ‘vocational  infrastructure 
support’ (see Annex 2.2.10 - EQ 2-10 and Figure 37). 

Figure  37:  Result  indicator  achievement  according  to  AIR  2013  (education 
infrastructure, code 75) 

37  "Achievement" relates to the achieved performance compared to the target set.  

page 98 

ABCDEFGHIExceeding (total 27)81173232High (Total 30)1753221Medium (Total 23)1253111Low (Total 6)3111No achievement reported (Total 15)33322205101520253035404550Number of indicators 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

A  Benefiting students and pupils 
B  Renovated area, facility 
C  Social infrastructure improvement  
D  Improvement of the learning system 
E  Vocational infrastructure support 
F  ICT improvement 
G  Improvement of the learning system 
H  Improvement of rural areas 
I  Support of research infrastructure 
Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

Result  indicators  used  for  health  infrastructures  were  more  widespread  covering: 
‘number  of  available  beds  and  number  of  patients  served’,  ‘number  of  care  services 
newly equipped’ and ‘level of equipment’, ‘number of benefitting patients’, etc. The most 
commonly  used  were:  ‘number  of  units  receiving  support’,  ‘Number  of  care  services 
newly equipped etc.’, and ‘percentage of users’ (see Annex 2.2.10 - EQ 2-10 and Figure 
38). 

Nineteen  OPs  (out  of  76  OPs  covering  this  thematic  field)  did  not  provide  any  result 
indicator which could be linked to code 76. 

Figure  38:  Result  indicator  achievement  according  to  AIR  2013  (health 
infrastructure, code 76) 

A 

B 
C 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 

Number of hospital beds per 1000 inhabitants, patients served by hospital beds 
Number of care services newly equipped, increase of level of equipment, Level of 
hospitals offering special welfare service in two or more different buildings 
Patients benefitting, number of patients 
Area renovated, investments in the care system 
Number of jobs created, waiting time for health care, number of health care units 
Number of units receiving support 
Support of older and disabled people 
Percentage of users  
Ratio of the population accessible within 15 minutes by ambulance through the 

page 99 

FBHAIMJKCDEGLNExceeding (total 17)2133131111High (total 13)22411111Medium (total 10)343Low (total 3)111No achievement (total 19)331142131024681012Indicators 
 
infrastructural development of the ambulance service 
Number of care services meeting the requirements,  
Cross border services 
Number of health care projects in rural areas 
Number of infrastructural projects in the area of education, health care, cultural and 
natural protection 
Energy efficiency in health care 

J 
K 
L 

M 
N 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

Indicators concerning childcare, housing, other social infrastructure are rare. This is 
due  to  the  fact  that  most  of  the  result  indicators  are  very  general  and  not  easy  to  be 
linked  to  the  codes.  Furthermore,  as  already  described  above,  the  codes  are  jointly 
undertaken  in  one  priority  axis  and  result  indicators  refer  to  the  actions  targeting 
different interventions together in that priority axis.  

Where  available,  the  indicators  include:  ‘number  of  basic  social  services’,  ‘number  of 
people  with  special  needs  reached’,  ‘number  of  families  at  risk’,  ‘crime  prevention’, 
‘number of people benefiting’. Achievement is ‘medium’ to ‘high’.  

4.5.3  Achievements 

The  overall  picture  is  mixed.  In  the  case  of  education  and  health  infrastructure  the 
system  of  the  output  and  result  indicators  is  rather  robust;  a  good  proportion  of  the 
indicators are sharply defined and correspond unambiguously to the needs and objectives 
addressed  by  the  programmes  (see  Figure  35  to  Figure  38).  As  such  the  reported 
achievements  against  the  set  targets  are  generally  credible.  Achievements  are  mainly 
related  to  modernisation  of  the  respective  system.  This  is  achieved  via  renovation  and 
revitalisation  of  facilities.  The  majority  of  the  programmes  refer  merely  to  the 
improvement  and  investment  into  infrastructure.  A  more  integrated  way,  as  already 
stated  above,  has  been  hardly  reported.  An  outstanding  achievement  however  is  the 
change  of  the  education  system  at  policy  level  in  Portugal  which  is  a  prerequisite  of 
sustainability.  

This  is  contrasted  by  the  situation  prevailing  in  childcare,  housing,  other  social 
infrastructure where relevant indicators are lacking, mainly due to the ‘architecture’ of 
the OPs, where these thematic fields are typically subsumed in priority axes with a much 
broader remit. Therefore achievements can only be looked at in a very broad and generic 
way. However achievements regarding childcare are mainly new childcare facilities build 
but also to a lesser part initiation of childcare facilities combined with other facilities. The 
achievement  regarding  housing  can  be  subsumed  with  the  shaping  up  of  different 
deprived  areas.  Housing  interventions  are  to  a  higher  extent  combined  with  urban 
development  and  therefore  stand  in  relation  to  general  improvement  of  deprived  area 
buildings.  Finally  ‘other  social  infrastructure’  again  is  combined  with  integrated  urban 
development.  The  main  achievements  assumed  are  improved  support  of  marginalised 
groups in deprived areas as well as supporting social for example youth, unemployed and 
drug addicted people.  

Regarding  success  or  failure  factors,  the  generic  ‘clusters’  of  factors  that  have  emerged 
from the interviews with the Managing Authorities - and which were mentioned in Section 
3.6  concerning  urban  development  -  apply  also  to  social  infrastructure,  especially:    the 

page 100 

 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

complexity, maturity and viability of the project proposals and the capacity of the project 
implementation body and project owner (see Annex 2.2.5 - EQ 2-5). 

page 101 

 
 
5  CONCLUSIONS 

5.1  Urban integrated development 

Strategies 

The operational programmes which have addressed urban integrated  development show 
different  approaches  in  defining  their  strategies,  broadly  reflecting  an  integrated 
approach or a sectoral approach.  

Only  just  over  one-half  of  the  programmes  pursue  an  integrated  approach  and  even  in 
these cases ‘integration’ is not visible in the implementation of the OPs. Real integration, 
based  on  strategies  or  processes  and  practices,  takes  place  at  city  or  local  level  and  is 
usually led by the urban authorities. But the programming is often done on a higher level 
– so the concrete strategy from the ground can hardly appear directly in the programme.  

In  most  cases  the  OP  needs  to  cover  more  than  one  territory.  Thus,  if  the  strategic 
formulation  on  programme  level  is  somewhat  vague,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
objectives  defined  in  the  programmes  tend  to  be  vague  too,  and  without  any  concrete 
indication of actual changes to be achieved. This ambiguity does not allow any consistent 
measurement of results (see also below). With the vagueness of objectives and the lack 
of  clear  links  between  needs  and  objectives  the  coherence  of  the  intervention  logic  is 
weak.   

However,  this  vagueness  at  programme  level  does  not  preclude  an integrated  approach 
occurring at sub-programme level. In fact, one could perhaps detect a certain ‘trade-off’: 
The  stronger  the  involvement  of  local  actors  and  the  more  integrated  the  strategies  on 
the  ground,  the  harder  to  describe  them  in  the  programme.  The  experience  of  URBACT 
underscores this point, showing that a large number of cities have developed integrated 
development strategies but found it difficult to enshrine them into ERDF programmes. 

The  second  approach  to  programming  in  the  field  of  urban  development  is  a  sector-led 
strategy. The programme identifies a more concrete need, such as environmental issues 
or local economic development, and focuses the strategy on this need. Often the sectoral 
focus goes hand-in-hand with a more infrastructure oriented investment. 

Activities and target groups 

In the field of urban development the OPs cover different types of activities, ranging from 
‘hard’  road  and  rail  infrastructure,  through  environmental,  cultural  heritage  and  energy 
efficiency  projects,  to  economic  and  business  environment  enhancement  and  social 
inclusion (see Figure 39). 

page 102 

 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure 39: Types of activities related to urban integrated development 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

There  are  various  activities  cited  in  the  OPs  which  directly  and  indirectly  relate  to 
integrated  urban  development  approaches.  The  most  coherent  with  an  integrated 
approach  are  the  activities  related  to  strategy  development  and  participation  in 
cooperation activities such as those involved in city networks across Member States. The 
OPs  have  also  supported  various  other  innovative  and  integrated  urban  projects  which 
offer important facilities and services for different population groups. Indeed, a majority 
of  projects  are  reported  by  the  implementing  bodies  to  be  part  of  integrated  urban 
development strategies (see Section 3.2, above).  

A characteristic of many such projects and activities is that they do not immediately lead 
to  improvement  in  the  socio-economic  context.  The  idea  of  strengthening  the  problem-
solving  capacity  in  the  local  context  by  networking  and  establishing  exchange  and 
cooperation  is  an  integral  part  of  the  local  development  strategies.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
difficult  to  make  this  type  of  projects  accessible  to  a  clearly  result-oriented  monitoring 
system. 

Regarding  territorial targeting, it is  striking  that  there  is  a  common  lack  of  reference  to 
specific urban areas. However, the actual situation, as programmes are implemented, is 
much more concrete: 

 

 

the territorial scope of the majority of the projects is at local level; 

the  majority  of  ERDF  funds  allocated  to  urban development  projects  go  to  towns 
and rural areas rather than to capital cities and larger agglomerations. 

Target  groups  are  similarly  broadly  defined  in  the  programmes.  Most  of  the  OPs  are 
vague  in  defining  target  groups  in  relation  to  integrated  urban  development.  The  most 
common  definition  is  the  ‘population  in  the  area’  followed  by  ‘general  population  in  the 
city or agglomeration’ (see Figure 40).  

page 103 

10%12%6%23%20%14%15%Revitalisation of urban areas and brownfieldsEconomic developmentCultural heritage and tourismInfrastructure (road, sewage, ..)Social infrastructureEnvironmental protection and energy efficiencyInvestment in rural areas 
 
 
 
Notwithstanding  such  broad  definitions  in  the  OPs,  a  more  nuanced  approach  has 
emerged  from  the  projects’  perspective,  with  a  large  proportion  following  a  two-tier 
targeting  covering  the  whole  population  of  a  locality  or  city,  as  well  as  specific  target 
groups, such as small businesses or particular population groups. 

Figure 40: Main target groups of urban development projects 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

Financial resources 

The  ERDF  resources  underpinning  investment  in  urban  regeneration  are  unevenly 
distributed,  with  more  than  45%  of  the  funds  available  in  this  thematic  field  being 
allocated to just four countries: Italy, Poland, Greece and Germany.  

Only  ten  Member  States  allocate  more  than  10%  of  their  share  of  ERDF  to  urban 
regeneration,  the  highest  being  in  the  case  of  the  Netherlands  (22%).  Only  three 
countries allocate at national level more than EUR 100 per capita (LV, CY, LT) (see Figure 
41).  

At OP level, the convergence programme ‘Por Campania FESR’, Italy, stands out with an 
allocation of nearly EUR 700 million. However, most of the OPs (92 out of 115) allocate 
less than EUR 183 million each. 12 OPs do not allocate any funds to urban development. 

The  large  majority  of  the  allocation  is  spent  as  non-repayable  grants  (94%).  Venture 
capital,  and  other  forms  of  investment  are  clearly  the  exception.  The  expenditure  rate 
(expenditure  compared  to  allocation)  is  lower  for  the  ‘integrated  projects  of  urban  and 
rural regeneration’ than for the whole ERDF allocation. 

page 104 

22%25%5%7%8%3%4%7%12%7%All population city wideWomenAll population in local areaOld peopleChildrenOtherMarginalised groupsYoung peopleVisitorsSmall businesses 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure 41: ERDF allocations to urban and rural regeneration per capita by 
country 

Source: Monitoring data DG REGIO 2015 

Implementation 

The  majority  of  the  implementing  bodies  in  urban  development  are  regional  and  local 
authorities  or  agencies  and  they  have  various  opportunities  to  be  involved  in  project 
selection  and  other  programme  implementation  processes.  Generally,  a  stronger  role  is 
played by urban authorities in urban development actions, reflecting to some  extent the 
intentions  of  the  integrated  urban  development  strategies.  However,  the  majority  of 
Managing  Authorities  did  not  delegate  formally  any  management  tasks  to  project 
implementation bodies.  

At project level, the implementing bodies express confidence in the sustainability of their 
projects.  However,  the  combination  of  the  ‘light  touch’  approach  to  sustainability  that 
prevails  at  programme  level  and  the  widespread  reliance  on  public  budgets  beyond  the 
control of the projects themselves raises wider issues. These are considered further in a 
broader context in Chapter 5. 

page 105 

 
 
 
 
Outputs, results and achievements 

The OPs make extensive use of output indicators – and these tend to be accompanied by 
quantitative  targets  –  but  less  so  of  result  indicators.  Generally,  output  and  result 
indicators  are  more  precise  when  the  activities  address  concrete  infrastructure 
investments  and  objectives  focus  on  improvements  in  particular  sectors,  such  as 
infrastructure investments and improvement of cultural sites.  

The main noteworthy achievements reported by the OPs can be summarised, as follows:  

 

Improvement  or  creation  of  different  kinds  of  infrastructure  is  a  first  type  of 
output  that  becomes  visible  from  the  intervention  (social,  cultural,  tourist, 
environmental  infrastructure).  In  the  assessment  of  the  project  implementation 
bodies, this results in making a city or territory more attractive, or leads to more 
sector  focused  effects  like  improving  eco-efficiency  or  providing  better  health 
facilities. Result indicators are in many cases similar to output indicators such as 
the SK example ‘Number of revitalised buildings in the frame of  cultural heritage 
protection or for tourism’. 

  The  more  focused  a  programme  is  (e.g.  cultural  heritage,  environmental 
protection, infrastructure) the more concrete output indicators are. Examples are 
‘Number  of  newly  constructed  or  modernized  cultural  premises’  (CZ)  or  ‘size  of 
redevelopment area’ (DE), ‘bike line lengths (EL).  

 

Improving  economic  activities  is  not  predominantly  done  by  infrastructure 
investment but by support to enterprises or their networks. Output indicators are 
‘the  size  of  area  prepared  for  investment  opportunities  (in  hectares)’  (PL),  ‘floor 
space  created’  (UK),  ‘building  developed  for  new  economic  use’  (UK).  A  rather 
complex  output  indicator  is  ‘Projects  promoting  the  development  of  sustainable 
business  environment,  within  integrated  urban  development  plans’  (RO).  Result 
indicators  are  mostly  similar  to  output  indicator.  However  examples  of  a  more 
ambitious  result 
integrated  urban 
development  projects’  (BE)  and  ‘number  of  created  jobs’  (CZ,  PL),  ‘number  of 
business created’ (UK), ‘number of jobs’ safeguarded’ (UK).  

‘leverage  effect  of  the 

indicator  are 

  Another  type  tends  to  be  linked  to  improving  the  preconditions  for  working  in  a 
more  integrated  manner  on  the  local  level.  Typical  activities  for  this  kind  of 
involve  creating  partnerships,  promoting  cooperation  and 
achievements 
supporting  the  development  of  integrated  strategies  and  plans.  As  these  are 
rather intermediary activities, they are not directly linked to changes in the socio-
economic  context.  An  example  of  a  well  described  output  indicator  provides  the 
CBC  programme  France  -  Spain  -  Andorra  ‘number  of  common  working  methods 
established between cultural, health and education actors in the different areas of 
the border regions’.  

page 106 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

  Finally,  sustainable  development  and  attractiveness  of  the  cities  are  most 
frequently  mentioned  as  output  indicators  and  are  the  closest  to  established 
integrated  strategies.  The  results  that  project 
procedures 
implementing  bodies  describe  are 
liveability  of  the 
improved 
neighbourhood,  ultimately  leading  to  stabilising  the  population  in  the  territory. 
Output  indicators  are  all  very  general.  The  majority  of  the  result  indicators  are 
‘number of people benefiting’.  

for  delivering 

linked  to 

Therefore,  the  effects  of  the  intervention  in  relation  to  integrated  strategies  for  urban 
development seem to be more tangible when the strategy is more sectorally oriented and 
specific. This, in turn, means that the results of really integrated strategies at local level 
are  hard  to  be  grasped  and  explicitly  described  on  higher  levels.  Comparatively  clear 
results can be found for more sectoral approaches (see 2.2.10 EQ2-10).  

Nevertheless  the  web  survey  results  present  a  more  positive  picture  with  75%  of  the 
respondents  reporting  a  contribution  to  growth  and  jobs  with  different  types  of 
achievements (see Table 10). 

Table 10: Types of project contributing to growth/jobs 

Type of contribution 
Improved skills/ educational attainment/ qualifications 
Entrepreneurship/new business creation 
Improved performance/ expansion of local businesses 
Higher rate of female and/or youth participation in the labour 
market 
Improved health outcomes 
Other 
Total reporting some contribution 

Source: Web-survey results, 265 total respondents  

Results 
39% 
24% 
32% 

17% 
25% 
26% 
73% (of which 1/3, ie 24pp 
reported a high contribution) 

Overall,  it  should  be  stressed  that  based  on  weak  indicator  systems,  the  reported 
achievements do not capture sufficiently the basic outputs and limit the scope for judging 
the  success  or  failure  of  a  programme.  Moreover,  programmes  might  achieve  good 
results on local or regional level. However, despite the perceived contribution to growth 
and  jobs  reported  by  programme  management,  only  a  limited  number  of  countries  and 
programmes  gave  ‘integrated  projects  for  urban  and  rural  regeneration’  funding  on  a 
scale which could generate expect visible results at national level (see 2.2.10 EQ2-10).  

page 107 

 
 
 
5.2  Social infrastructure 

Strategies 

The  strategic  rationale  of  ERDF  interventions  in  social  infrastructure  is  dominated  by 
making  funds  available  to  address  perceived  infrastructure  deficits  and  general 
improvement of the existing national systems. A more specific focus is often missing.  

OPs  with  a  distinct  priority  axis(es)  on  social infrastructure  investments  are  much  more 
sharply defined in comparison to mixed priority axes. The latter can be interpreted as  a 
deliberate choice for keeping the OP flexible and able to react to ‘bottom up’ demand.  

80%  of  the  programmes  and  investments  in  the  field  of  social  infrastructure  follow  an 
external strategy of sectoral character, set at regional or national level. 

In  specific  sectors,  especially  regarding  education  and  health,  there  is  a  high  level  of 
consistency  in  the  intervention  logic  of  the  programmes,  notably  where  a  whole 
programme or priority axis has be devoted to one of these sectors (as noted above). 

Activities and target groups 

The  programmes  that  cover  social  infrastructure  investments  have  defined  a  range  of 
activities  for  each  of  the  thematic  fields  of  social  infrastructure.  In  most  cases  the 
activities  are  defined  clearly  and  in  some  detail.  However  the  majority  of  activities  are 
related to investment in facilities and equipment (see Figure 42). 

Figure 42: Types of activities related to social infrastructure 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

There is also a good degree of clarity regarding the target groups which correspond in a 
logical  way  to  the  activities  covered  by  each  thematic  field.  The  same  applies  to  the 
economic  sectors  benefiting  from  the  social infrastructure  investments,  especially in  the 
fields of education and health. Figure 43 shows that a higher proportion of OPs with clear 
objectives  refer  also  to  specific  target  groups,  than  OPs  with  vague  or  not  stated 
objective. 

page 108 

63%5%8%1%8%9%3%2%1%Investment in facilities and equipmentCooperation and networking projectsEnergy efficiency measuresLoan schemesRenovation of deprived urban areasCapacity developmentEncouragement of building new facilitiesPublic awareness raisingDevelopment of e-health 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

However, area targeting is much weaker with a large proportion of investments being of 
regional  or  national  relevance.  Overall,  the  territorial  pattern  of  the  strategy  and  the 
allocation is quite similar to the pattern in the field of urban development: capital cities 
and urban agglomerations play a comparatively small role while smaller cities and towns 
get  more  from  the  ERDF  allocation.  Within  this  broad  pattern,  the  differences  between 
thematic  fields  are  very  pronounced.  For  instance,  the  allocation  in  childcare 
infrastructure is much more focused in the capital regions (32% of the allocation), while 
the allocation to housing infrastructure in the capital regions is only 3%. 

Figure 43: Reference to specific target groups 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

infrastructure  the  approach 

Overall, two approaches can be identified regarding target groups. In education, health, 
childcare  and  housing 
‘hard’ 
infrastructures  and  equipment  targeted  at  the  corresponding  group  (students,  patients, 
children, families, etc.). In the case of ‘other social infrastructures’ the approach covers a 
broad and diverse range of activities (community based services, social inclusion centres, 
networking,  etc.)  with  specified  target  groups  for  each  of  the  activities  (e.g.  Roma, 
immigrants).  

focuses  strongly  on 

Financial resources 

Most of ERDF support to investment in social infrastructures (nearly 75%) goes to seven 
countries  (HU,  PT,  PL,  EL,  IT,  SK,  CZ)  each  with  an  allocation  of  between  EUR  1  and  3 
billion. 

The  relative  importance  of  ERDF  resources  allocated  to  social  infrastructure  is  greater 
than  in  the  case  of  urban  development  reaching  41%  for  Slovakia.  In  seven  countries 
(EE,  HU,  PT,  LV,  MT,  SK,  LT)  per  capita  allocations  exceed  EUR  200,  the  highest  being 
nearly EUR 430 in Estonia.  

page 109 

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Clear objectivesNo specific objective related to integrated urban development or social infrastructureVague objectivesReferences to specific target groupsNo reference to specific target groups 
 
In each thematic field, the ERDF allocation is dominated by a small number of countries 
and programmes.  The majority of countries and OPs have very small shares of the total 
allocation. 

In education infrastructure, Portugal has the largest share with 24% of the allocation 
for  all 115 programmes. A small number of programmes  stand out in terms of absolute 
allocations: 

  The  convergence  programme  PO  Territorial  Enhancement,  Portugal,  with  an 

allocation of EUR 1,091 million.  

  Three other convergence programmes, each with more than EUR 500 million: the 
Hungarian  ‘Social  Infrastructure’;  the  Slovakian  ‘Western  Slovakia,  Central 
Slovakia and Eastern Slovakia’ OP; and the Portuguese OP ‘Norte’. 

The  health  infrastructure  allocation  is  dominated  by  Hungary  and  Poland,  with  these 
two  countries  accounting  for  more  than  40%  of  the  total  allocation.  The  Hungarian 
convergence OP for Social Infrastructure stands out with the highest allocation (EUR 977 
million) (see Figure 44).  

Figure 44: Allocations to education (left) and health infrastructure (right) per 
capita by country 

Source: Monitoring data DG REGIO 2015 

In other types of social infrastructure the distribution tends to be dominated by individual 
programmes. This is particularly the case for housing infrastructure, where the Italian 
Convergence  programme  ‘pro  Sicilia’  with  EUR 281  million  accounts  for  more  than  70% 
of the total allocation. Investment in childcare infrastructure is concentrated in Greece 
and Hungary and is dominated by one Greek convergence programme (‘Attica’) with EUR 
87 million. 

page 110 

 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

With  isolated  exceptions,  the  dominant  form  of  finance  is  non-repayable  grants.  More 
than 95% of the allocation is spent in this form, while certain forms of finance (repayable 
financial support and venture capital) are not used at all. 

Implementation 

The involvement of project implementing bodies in programme implementation processes 
is  much  more  limited  than  in  the  case  of  urban  regeneration.  Direct  delegation  by 
Managing Authorities is very uncommon in the field of social infrastructure, while project 
selection typically falls under standard calls for proposals.  

Financial  sustainability  is  often  taken  for  granted  and  is  not  subject  to  rigorous 
assessment.  The  project  owners  and  operators  tend  to  be  public  bodies  or  public 
equivalent  bodies,  and  the  projects  overwhelmingly  rely  on  public  budgets,  which  it  is 
assumed  they  cover  the  operation  and  maintenance  costs  of  the  projects  ad  infinitum. 
These assumptions raise wider issues  on sustainability and these are  considered further 
in a broader context in Chapter 5. 

Main findings Outputs, results and achievements  

Although the programmes generally include output indicators, a significant minority lack 
result  indicators  or  many  of  the  result  indicators  used  are  ‘reformulated’  output 
indicators. The fields of housing and other social infrastructure are particularly deficient. 

Indicators for education, health and to some extent childcare are more precisely defined 
in  the  sense  that  the  intervention  logic  -  e.g.  the  link  between  improved  facility  and 
increased  number  of  people  benefiting/improved  level  of  service  offered  -  is  direct  and 
comprehensible. Thus, they provide a sounder basis for assessing achievement.  

Achievements  in  relation  to  social  infrastructure  investments  are  most  of  all  the 
improvement  or  establishment  of  new  social  infrastructure  facilities,  especially  in  those 
Member  States  with  a  larger  financial  allocation  to  education  and  health  infrastructure. 
However  in  regions  with  a  lower  ERDF  allocation  to  social  infrastructure,  the 
achievements can be found in the increase of efficiency through better cooperation, new 
IT  systems  and  better  education  and  training.  Some  Member  States  clearly  dedicated 
ERDF  funding  to  implement  national  policies,  such  as  Portugal  in  the  field  of  education 
and Hungary in the field of health.  

Hence,  the  main  noteworthy  achievements  reported  by  the  OPs  in  the  field  of  social 
infrastructure can be summarised, as follows:  

 

 

Improvement  of  social  infrastructure  facilities  with  modernisation  of  equipment 
and  increase  of  efficiency  of  services  such  as  ambulances  or  care  services.  This 
contributes to filling the gap between more and less developed regions in Europe 
(e.g. Hungary).  

Improvement  of  education  system  in  some  Member  States  where  a  significant 
share of the Structural Funds has been deployed for education infrastructure (e.g. 
Portugal).  

page 111 

 
 

 

Improvement of health systems with the aim to improve the state of health of the 
population (Hungary and Czech Republic).  

Improvement  of  lifelong  learning  services  in  combination  with  labour  services  to 
better  adapt  the  workforce  in  target  areas  to  labour  market  and  business  needs 
(e.g. Spain, Poland, Czech Republic or Lithuania).  

  Some  programmes  used  social  infrastructure  investments  for  improving  the 
security  of  urban  areas  or  for  expanding  and  enhancing  cultural  heritage  related 
education.  

  Other social infrastructure is used in combination with various urban development 
actions  to  support  cultural,  sports  or  training  facilities,  as  well  as  the 
establishment of support centres for different disadvantaged groups.    

The extent and sustainability of achievements clearly depends on various factors, among 
which two stand out: 

First,  as  in  the  case  of  urban  development,  programmes  might  achieve  good  results  on 
local or regional level. However, only a limited number of countries and programmes give 
social infrastructure enough weight to expect visible results at national level.  

Second,  the  sustainability  of  interventions  and  consequently  of  the  achievements 
depends  on  the  overall  context  and  the  embeddedness  in  regional  and  national 
strategies.  For  example,  in  Hungary  the  embeddedness  of  interventions  is  less  clearly 
visible  than  in  the  example  of  Portugal  in  education.  In  the  former  case,  the  funding 
merely  serves  to  fill  the  necessary  basic  infrastructure  gaps.  Therefore  it  is  not  clear 
whether the large health investments really lead to a sustainable change.  

5.3  General conclusions 

5.3.1  Strategic approach 

A central issue in this study is the extent to which ERDF co-financed investments in the 
fields  of  urban  development  and  social  infrastructures  are  delivered  through  strategies, 
and the type and nature of these strategies.  

The  results  of  the  analyses  presented  in  Chapters  3  and  4  reveal  three  distinct 
possibilities:  

 

 

 

first, programmes that clearly follow well-articulated strategies in connection with 
urban development and/or social infrastructure;  

second, programmes where such strategies are not evident from the OP viewpoint 
but there are indications that such strategies play a role, notwithstanding the fact 
that they are ‘external’ to the OP; 

third,  programmes  where  no  concrete  strategy  has  been  cited  or  a  flexible  and 
open to bottom-up demand ‘strategy’ has been described (see Figure 45). 

page 112 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure 45: Reference to integrated strategy in 115 OPs 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

In  the  first  and  second  categories  we  can  identify  integrated  or  sectoral  strategies,  and 
these  are  discussed  further  below.  The  third  category  amounts  to  a  ‘non-strategy’ 
approach  which  explicitly  or  implicitly  aims  to  maximise  the  use  of  programme  funds 
through support for stand-alone projects.  

Typically, strategies are treated in a contextual manner with the OP referring to external 
(local, regional, national, sectoral, etc.)  strategies which ‘inform’ the OP strategy but do 
not  form  part  of  it.  are  not  included  in  the  OPs.  Once  the  OP  has  been  adopted,  the 
external  strategies  are  subsumed  into  the  programme  structure  and  are  ‘lost’  in  the 
melting pot of the OP documentation. Moreover, during implementation, specific priorities 
and other requirements of such external strategies are outside the remit of the Managing 
Authorities  and  very  much  below  top  MA  priorities  of  absorbing  the  funds  and 
administering efficiently the implementation of the programme. 

The degree to which concrete strategies are kept external varies depending on the type 
of  the  programme  and  the  internal  structure  of  the  programme.  National  programmes 
and  at  least  the  larger  regional  programmes  need  to  cover  a  too  diverse  and  complex 
territory  to  allow  for  explicit  strategies  for  specific  territories.  Both  the  strategies  for 
urban development and social infrastructure are therefore often kept rather general.  

Health  and  education  infrastructure  can  be  an  exception  if  ERDF  is  used  to  co-finance 
strategies  of  fundamental  reform  of  the  national  systems.  In  these  cases,  the  –  most 
likely  national  –  OPs  can  be  more  explicit  and  more  concrete.  So  the  vagueness  of  the 
strategies is to a certain degree the  result of the way  ERDF programmes are  structured 
and programmed. 

page 113 

35%49%16%well-articulated strategies reference to an external strategyno concrete strategy  
 
 
 
Are the strategies integrated?  

The  integrated  nature  of  the  strategy  is  of  crucial  interest  in  the  case  of  urban 
development but the evidence of the study shows that it is quite variable, depending on 
different factors, ranging from institutional arrangements and policy traditions. 

Integrated  urban  development  has  been  defined  by  the  Commission  in  the  study 
Specifications  as  comprising  three  key  elements:  integration  across  two  or  more  policy 
areas;  a  leading  role  for  urban  authorities;  and  involvement  of  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders, including the benefiting communities. 

OPs are split roughly 50/50 between those proclaiming an integrated approach and those 
failing to do so, although the former tend to be ambiguous in the way they convert this 
intention into practice and mostly do not meet in full the above criteria; notably the lead 
role of urban authorities and the active involvement of local communities.  

This could be interpreted, prima facie, as a general absence of genuine integrated urban 
development approaches in the ERDF programmes examined by  this study. However, in 
the light of the finding that strategies are partly left contextual – and for good reasons – 
the lack of a coherent integrated urban development strategy in the OP is not necessarily 
an  indication  that  integrated  strategies  are  generally  missing.  They  can  simply  be  kept 
outside the programme.  

With the methods applied in this study, there is only limited access to the context of the 
programmes.  But  while  there  are  difficulties  in  extracting  clear  integrated  strategies  at 
OP level, a substantial majority of project implementation bodies report an integration of 
their project in such a strategy. This is further supported by the multi-faceted nature of 
the  change  that  the  majority  of  ERDF  supported  projects  are  attempting  to  achieve, 
typically a combination of urban regeneration, social cohesion, better skills, etc.  

We  also  have  examples  of  genuine  integrated  urban  development  approaches  pursued 
within programmes, such as in the case of the cities of Cologne (DE) and Antwerp (BE), 
or outside them (URBACT). So even if integrated strategies are not present everywhere, 
they  are  often  available  and  actioned  more  than  the  OPs  might  suggest,  albeit  at  sub-
programme – mostly at city or even more local – level. 

There  are  certain  pieces  of  evidence  suggesting  that  the  policy  model  of  integrated 
strategies  for  local  development  –  involving  the  local  authorities  and  being  defined  in  a 
cross-policy  manner  –  are  more  common  in  the  EU-15  than  the  EU-13.  EU-15 
programmes  tend  to  have  a  weaker  focus  on  infrastructure  and  prefer  softer  and  more 
bottom-up-types of intervention.  

page 114 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Local  and  regional  actors  ‘below’  the  Managing Authorities are more frequently involved 
in  programme  delivery.  This  might  reflect  the  fact  that  the  development  of  integrated 
urban  strategies  is  demanding.  Not  only  does  it  require  local  authorities  with  strategic 
competencies  and  capacities,  it  also  needs  some  kind  of  coordination  between  the 
different  levels  involved  and  an  approach  of  somehow  combining  activities  and 
instruments from different policies to tackle problems in a given local context. Not all the 
national systems of distribution of competencies between levels of public authority allow 
for this approach. 

Finally,  looking  at  the  issue  of  integrated  development  strategies  from  a  different 
perspective  –  not  whether  such  strategies  have  been  followed  but  whether  they  make 
any  difference  –  two  points  stand  out.  First,  integrated  strategies  are  essential  in  the 
case  of  multi-faceted  problems  in  urban  areas  which  cannot  be  tackled  through  ad  hoc 
projects  and  require  complex  and  longer-term  solutions.  Second,  the  framework  for 
assessing their contribution is inadequate, both conceptually  – project-level quantitative 
outcomes  are  insufficient  for  judging  this  contribution  –  and  in  practical  terms,  as 
discussed in the following section. 

Are the strategies sectoral?  

Sectoral  strategies  are  commonly  followed  in  social  infrastructure  programmes  with  a 
strong  thematic  focus,  especially  in  education  and  health,  seeking  to  address 
infrastructure  deficits  and  a  general  improvement  of  the  existing national  systems.  This 
tends to be facilitated by the structure of the programmes: OPs with distinct priority axes 
on  social  infrastructure  investments  are  much  more  sharply  defined  in  comparison  to 
mixed priority axes.  

80%  of  the  programmes  and  investments  in  the  field  of  social  infrastructure  follow  an 
external  strategy  of  sectoral  character,  set  at  regional  or  national  level.  In  specific 
sectors, especially regarding education and health, there is a high level of consistency in 
the intervention logic of the programmes, notably where a whole programme or priority 
axis has to be devoted to one of these sectors, as noted above. However, in other social 
infrastructure sectors less coherent approaches prevail.  

Sectoral  approaches  are  not  confined  to  social  infrastructure  dominated  programmes. 
Many  OPs  although  addressing  urban  development  show  a  purely  sectoral  approach, 
either  by  not  translating  during implementation  a  proclaimed integrated  approach  or  by 
establishing straightforward sectoral priorities.  

For  example,  the  Latvian  OP  ‘Infrastructure  and  Services’  where  housing,  wastewater 
management,  safe  drinking  water,  waste  management,  accessibility  issues  and 
educational infrastructure are promoted under the title of ‘investment in deprived areas’. 
Another  example  is  the  Belgian  OP  ‘Wallonia’  (not  including  Hainaut)  which  mainly 
promotes brownfield development, transport and other physical infrastructure under the 
title  of  ‘integrated  urban  development’.  However  the  key  issue  is  whether  these 
investments are embedded in an integrated way and whether they are part of an overall 
strategy.  This  is  reported  to  be  the  case  in  all  of  the  OPs.  In  some  cases  however  only 
the regional strategies are mentioned in the OP to be relevant for the interventions (e.g. 
Slovenia). 

page 115 

 
5.3.2  Rationale of ERDF interventions and achievements 

Rationale 

A key aspect of the study is to address the question of what is the rationale that guides 
ERDF investments in urban development and social infrastructure.  

The  strategic  rationale  of  ERDF  intervention  in  social  infrastructure  is  dominated  by 
making funds available to address infrastructure deficits and general improvement of the 
existing  national  systems.  This  is  mostly  the  case  in  the  education  and  health  sectors, 
especially  in  programmes  with  substantial  financial  allocations  and  dedicated  priority 
axes.  

The  rational  for  integrated  urban  development  is  manifold  and  cannot  be  easily 
generalised.  The  main  trigger  for  integrated  urban  development  is  the  fact  that  many 
urban  areas  face  multiple  problems  that  need  complex  and  longer-term  solutions.  In 
other cases, programmes describe an integrated approach while effectively seeking to fill 
gaps  in  infrastructure  and  –  mostly  in  EU-13  –  to  catch  up  with  EU-15,  with  funding  in 
EU-13  being  more  readily  available  from  ERDF  than  from  other  sources  for  such 
infrastructures. 

Otherwise, in the fairly large category of programmes lacking a clear strategy, the main 
rationale  to  justify  public  investment  is  the  general  need  to  fill  gaps  and  to  address 
structural deficits.  

Generally,  the  pattern  of  the  allocations  both  in  urban  development  and  social 
infrastructure is in line with the objectives of EU regional policy: In both policy areas the 
support  of  ERDF  is  not  only  focused  on  the  capital  cities  or  metropolitan  regions.  The 
focus of allocation is more on smaller cities and towns. So the funding also addresses the 
more remote parts of the Member States.  

There is also a significant differentiation according to the type of region, which is again in 
line  with  EU  regional  policy,  with  OPs  in  competitiveness  regions  focusing  on  economic 
and  business  environment,  while  convergence  regions  prioritise  improvements  to  hard 
infrastructure.  

This  study  is  a  first,  tentative  effort  to  collect  information  on  what  has  been  done  with 
ERDF  funds  in  the  field  of  integrated  urban  development  and  social  infrastructure.  The 
evidence  base  is  too  weak  to  allow  for  firm  conclusions  on  the  rationale  of  the 
intervention  in  relation  to  European  level  objectives.  But  we  can  identify  a  number  of 
(potential) connections between the interventions and European added value: 

  The interventions in urban development and social infrastructure can contribute to 
improve social cohesion. This can be the case in the field of social infrastructure – 
mainly  if  the  ERDF  investment  is  used  to  boost  significant  reform  of  national 
systems.  But  it  can  also  be  the  case  for  smaller  scaled  investment  in  social 
infrastructure  or  urban  development  by  allowing  for  improved  access  to  social 
services or improving integration of disadvantaged target groups. 

page 116 

 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

  The  impulse  given  by  European  policy  can  either  induce  or  strengthen  political 
activities  in  the  fields  of  urban  development  and  social infrastructure  on  national 
level. European policy is working as a stimulus for national policy makers to invest 
in  the  fields.  This  might  mainly  be  relevant  for  urban  development,  with  only  a 
few  Member  States  having  a  longer  tradition  to  do  this  by  using  integrated 
strategies. 

  The  fact  that  support  is  organised  via  the  European  level  helps  not  only 
transferring  money,  but  also  approaches  and  ideas  across  Europe.  It  creates  a 
closer  communication  between  actors  in  different  Member  States  and  allows  for 
the  diffusion  of  ideas  and  policy  approaches.  In  this  sense,  the  European 
Structural policy offers possibilities for learning. 

Achievements 

Overall  the  evidence  of  achievement,  even  in  its  most  narrow  sense  –  meeting  or 
exceeding quantitative targets of OPs – is weak largely due to the widespread vagueness 
in  the  strategies  and  lack  of  internal  consistency  in  the  intervention  logic(s)  of  the 
majority of programmes, as well as the shortcomings of the indicators systems used by 
the  programmes.  This  is  particularly  the  case  in  urban  development,  where  these 
limitations  are  compounded  by  relatively  low  absolute  financial  allocations  in  some 
programmes. The visibility of results and effects depends on the importance accorded by 
the  OPs  to  the  thematic  fields  addressed  by  the  study.  From  the  evidence  we  have,  we 
can conclude the following on results and achievements: 

 

In some Member States, investment in social infrastructures contributes to a more 
or  less  fundamental  reform  of  the  whole  system.  This  is  specifically  relevant  for 
health  and  education  infrastructure.  Examples  are  the  focused  investment  in  the 
renovation  of  schools  in  Portugal  or  the  development  towards  a  more  needs-
oriented system in Estonia.   

  Furthermore,  some  programmes  contribute  in  tackling  specific  problems  of  EU-
wide  interest.  The  investment  in  facilities  to  deal  with  the  large  numbers  of 
refugees  in  Italy  are  an  example  for  this  type  of  programme,  the  PEACE 
programme in Northern Ireland and the Border Region of  Ireland or the URBACT 
programme are others. 

  For  integrated  urban  development,  results  and  effects  are  often  not  directly 
accessible  from  the  programme’s  perspective  as  the  local  focus  is  much  smaller 
(even  on  a  specific  neighbourhood)  and/or  there  are  large  numbers  of  cities  and 
neighbourhoods participating. 

  Generally,  the  tendency  is  for  EU-13  Member  States  to  invest  more  in 
infrastructure  and  for  EU-15  to  focus  more  on  integrated  strategies  in  the  way 
they are defined by the Commission (involvement of local actors, covering several 
policies). 

page 117 

 
 
In some Member States and/or programmes, the potential effects are in doubt due to a 
serious  delay  in  expenditure.  Romania  and  Italy  are  generally  lagging  behind,  but  also 
single  programmes  from  other  countries.  To  disburse  the  funds  is  a  precondition  for 
achieving the intended effects.  

Ultimately,  the  achievements  obtained  through  the  ERDF  investments  in  urban 
development  and  social  infrastructure  need  to  be  seen  in  terms  of  their  overall 
contribution to growth and jobs and social cohesion. 

Again,  the  limitations  mentioned  above  would  make  it  difficult  to  reach  any  firm 
conclusions but there some positive indications from the limited evidence available. First, 
the  investments  have  been  largely  in  line  with  EU  regional  policy  objectives,  as  noted 
above.  Second,  the  feedback  from  the  project  level  has  pointed  to  a  contribution  to 
economic  growth  and  the  creation  of  jobs,  albeit  of  a  mostly  minor  and indirect  nature. 
Nearly three quarters of project implementation bodies have reported that their projects 
have  contributed  to  growth  and  jobs  through  improved  skills,  expansion  of  local 
businesses, improved health outcomes, etc. 

A  number  of  factors  –  drivers  of  success  –  have  been  noted  as  having  a  potentially 
significant influence on programmes reaching achievements (see also Annex 2.2.5- EQ 2-
5). 

First,  the  influence  of  integrated  or  sectoral  strategies  is  difficult  to  pinpoint  for  the 
reasons presented above. Nevertheless the integrated approach, although more complex, 
is  seen  as  a  driver  of  success,  particularly  the  involvement  of  local  and  regional 
stakeholders is necessary to assure a successful implementation and sustainability. This 
leads to a wider issue on how to capture the value of the integrated approach, in a way 
that  goes  beyond  quantified  outcomes  of  individual  projects,  which  is  addressed  in 
Section 5.3, below.  

Second, a number of other drivers of success (or otherwise) stand out, including: 

  Project  maturity  and  viability  are  important  success  factors.  While  this  seems  to 
be  an  obvious  remark,  experience  shows  that  merit is  not  unidirectional;  mature 
projects might fail due to immature implementation tools.  

  The  balance  in  the  efforts  of  Managing  Authorities  between,  on  the  one  hand, 
administrative  compliance  and  quantitative  performance,  and,  on  the  other, 
support  to  beneficiaries  during  project  selection  and  implementation,  can  be  an 
important influence. 

Third,  links  with  other  EU  or  national  policies  and  instruments  can  potentially  play  an 
important  role.  In  this  context  the  links  between  ERDF  and  ESF  are  of  particular 
interest. They could be through financial engineering instruments, simple cross-financing 
of  individual  projects,  Article  8  or  parallel  implementation.  In  general  interventions 
related  to  urban  integrated  development  do  have  reported  the  highest  number  of  ERDF 
and ESF interactions (Figure 46). 

page 118 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Figure 46: ESF contribution 

Source: OP/AIR2013 screening Metis, 2015 

As  a  general  conclusion,  the  ESF  involvement  was  at  least  included  in  the  OPs  as  an 
option. This was more often the case in EU-15 countries, which might feel more confident 
in developing and implementing multi-facetted projects. This is a broader approach that 
seeks  synergies  between  ERDF  and  ESF  (and  potentially  other  EU  programmes)  in  an 
effort  to  tackle  multi-faceted  issues.  However,  in  practice  the  application  was  limited 
mainly  due  to  timing  problems,  complexity,  and  a  prevalent  orientation  towards  ‘hard’ 
infrastructure  (only  about  a  quarter  of  OPs  mentioned  links  with  the  ESF,  and  a  similar 
proportion of implementing bodies said the their project benefited from ESF) (see Annex 
2.2.8- EQ 2-8 and Annex 3.2.4 - EQ 3-4). 

Whatever  the  achievements,  as  seen  at  project  or  programme  completion  stage,  their 
sustainability  is  a  crucial  issue.  Although  this  issue  is  far  from  ignored  by  all  those 
concerned  it  is  typically  treated  in  a  narrow  sense,  i.e.  as  to  whether  an  investment 
supported  by  the  ERDF  will  (continue  to)  operate  beyond  the  period  of  support  by  the 
programme, and for how long (see answers from web survey in Figure 47). This in turn is 
linked  to  the  availability  of  the  required  budget  to  cover  operational,  maintenance,  etc. 
costs.  

Figure 47: Measures to ensure the financial sustainability of the project 

Source: Survey of project implementation bodies, Metis, 2015 

page 119 

53%14%5%14%2%12%Urban developmentEducationHealthChildcareHousingOther social infrastructure8920560102030405060708090100Number of responsesThe necessary budget for the operation, maintenance, etc of the project after completion is secureThe project generates significant own revenuesOther measures 
 
 
There are many pieces of evidence in this study showing that treating sustainability as a 
mere financial resource issue at project level is an over-simplification. One implication is 
that assessing sustainability ex ante – already notoriously difficult and inaccurate at the 
start  of  the  2007-2013  period  –  has  become  nearly  impossible  in  many  countries 
following the financial crisis and ongoing public spending cuts, which tend to be systemic 
and their impact is unforeseen at project level. 

These  shortcomings  highlight  that  assessing  the  sustainability  of  projects  requires  a 
sound  understanding  of  the  specific  environment  in  which  projects  are  embedded. 
Embeddedness  in  a  strategy,  community  engagement,  citizen  participation  and  other 
such  factors  could  influence  the  sustainability  of  a  project  and  its  interaction  with  other 
projects,  as  well  as  the  overall  prospects  of  sustainability  of  their  (collective)  benefits. 
This  is  even  more  necessary  for  integrated  projects  than  for  stand-alone  social 
infrastructure projects. 

Finally, a related issue  concerns  the role of public funding.  In the  most developed of 
the  EU-15  countries  ‘good  projects’  emanating  outside  the  public  sector  are  supported 
through  low  intervention  rates  in  order  to  reach  fruition  earlier  or  in  the  sense  of 
providing gap financing for projects with full prospect of being sustainable and successful 
without  public  funding.  While  this  is  aligned  with  a  ‘market  failure’  approach,  there  is 
ample  evidence  to  suggest  that  in  the  vast  majority  of  the  programmes  and  projects 
public funding is taken for granted as the sole form of financing urban development and 
social infrastructure. 

Midterm  and  ongoing  evaluations  specifically  addressing  urban 
integrated 
development  are  to  a  limited  extend  available.  The  screening  of  available  evaluations 
revealed that most of them focus on quantitative figures. However in some cases such as 
Germany,  UK  and  Czech  Republic  qualitative  evaluations  have  been  conducted 
specifically  addressing  urban  integrated  development  interventions.  Most  of  the  OPs 
however did not report any further in-depth evaluation of urban integrated development.  

5.4  Lessons for the future 

Integrated  development  approaches  have  been  variedly  and  weakly  represented  in  the 
OPs of the 2007-2013 period, and mostly exist as ‘external’ strategies whose realisation 
is not the main concern of the OP or its Managing Authority.  

The  evidence  of  this  study  supports  the  validity  of  the  definition  espoused  by  the 
European  Commission,  which  encompasses  both  a  substantive  dimension  (covering 
multiple  policy  fields)  and  a  procedural  one  (lead  role  of  urban  authorities  and 
community  involvement).  In  this  form,  integrated  development  strategies  have  a 
considerable potential, for tackling multiple problems requiring complex solutions and 
longer term horizons, as seen in the examples of Bordeaux where the integrated strategy 
was  launched  in  the  1990s  and  Rotterdam  where  it  stretches  to  2040.  As  such  they 
require  substantial  (institutional  and  financial)  capacities  and  sophisticated  governance 
arrangements, ideally with OP and strategy management aligned. Hence, they have been 
adopted mostly in EU-15 Member States.  

page 120 

 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Therefore,  a  lesson  for  the  future  is  that  integrated  approaches  should  not  be 
treated as panacea but they should be pursued where the nature of the problems calls 
upon  them  and  the  appropriate  conditions  exist.  If  there  is  the  potential  for  addressing 
identified  needs  only  through  stand-alone  projects  it  would  be  unwise  for  ERDF 
programmes to prescribe ‘integrated’ approaches.  

However, integrated development strategies can be seen as having  unexploited value. 
For instance, smaller and diverse social infrastructures have been pursued in a more-or-
less  ad  hoc  manner  in  the  2007-2013  period,  mostly  without  their  ‘own’  priority  axes, 
objectives  and  indicators  in  the  OPs.  They  could  very  much  gain  in  coherence  if  they 
were  part  of  area-based  integrated  strategies  in  the  future.  Given  the  fact  that 
integration tends to  occur at city or  even at more local level, the use  of tools like CLLD 
would be worth exploring.  

For  integrated  urban  development,  there  is  an  inevitable  tension  between  the  level  of 
programming and the integrated local strategies: if programming is done at a national or 
regional level, it is more difficult to reflect adequately the specific local-level problems as 
the  programme  is  most  likely  covering  a  larger  number  of  local  strategies.  This  is 
obviously true for national programmes – which tend to emphasise a sectoral focus then. 
The  same  issue  is  relevant  for  regional  programmes:  programming  needs  to  cover 
several local territories and strategies so that the expression of the strategy  will tend to 
be rather general. 

Specific  impact  evaluation  should  particularly  address  to  integrated  interventions.  With 
only quantitative evaluations based on output indicators the actual achievements cannot 
be visualised and assessed.  

Several  of  the  main  issues  addressed  by  this  ex-post  evaluation  are  reflected  in  the 
regulatory  framework  for  the  2014-2020  period.  The  integrated  approach  is  further 
reinforced,  as  urban  development  shall  be  implemented  through  strategies  setting  out 
integrated  actions.  A  minimum  of  5%  of  ERDF  resources  allocated  shall  be  invested  in 
integrated  actions  for  sustainable  urban  development  in  order  to  strengthen  the  role  of 
cities in the programmes. The implementation might be facilitated with instruments such 
as  the  Integrated  Territorial  Investments.  All  11  thematic  objectives  set  out  in  the 
general regulation EU No 1301/2013 are  relevant for urban areas and  some particularly 
pertinent 
the  2014-2020 
programming period represents a step forward towards a more result oriented approach 
which allows for a better validation of integrated investments.  

investment  priorities  have  been  specified.  Moreover 

page 121 

 
5.5  Summarised answers to evaluation questions 

Below we provide an overview of the evaluation questions listed in the European Commission specifications.  

Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

EQ1-1  What is the distribution of 

investments in urban 
development and social 
infrastructures across 
programmes? 

EQ1-2  What are the economic sectors 

benefiting most from investments 
that can be associated with urban 
development and social 
infrastructures? 

EQ1-3  Are there specific target groups 
that can be identified as 
beneficiaries of the support? (e.g. 
deprived or marginalised groups) 

EQ1-4  What is the ‘geographical’ and 
‘territorial’ distribution across 
investments? 

While investment in integrated projects for urban and rural development is implemented in the majority of the ERDF 
programmes, the different types of social infrastructure are more concentrated on a limited number of OPs. This is specifically 
true for childcare and housing infrastructure, which are only financed in a minority of the 115 OPs.  
Furthermore, there are a small number of OPs covering a significant share of the overall allocation for each of the codes. In 
most programmes, the allocation to the relevant codes plays only a minor role compared to the overall ERDF allocation. 
The economic sectors directly benefiting from the allocation are firstly determined by the specific type of intervention. 
Allocation to health and education infrastructure goes predominantly to the health and education sector. The allocation in 
childcare and other social infrastructure goes to the social work and community services sector and, furthermore, to public 
administration. Public administration ranks first in the list of sectors for integrated projects of urban and rural development 
and second or third for the social infrastructure codes. Unspecified sectors and ‘not applicable’ play an important role, a fact 
that complicates the interpretation. 
The role of public authorities varies in different interventions. In some cases they are rather intermediate bodies but also 
beneficiaries. The indicator system however does not specify the particular role and opens up misleading entries.  
References to EQ2-1: the ‘code 61 approach’ covering a broad range of activities combining ‘hard’ investments and ‘soft’ 
activities targeting a generic ‘population’;  
the ‘codes 75-78 approach’ focusing strongly on ‘hard’ infrastructures and equipment targeting at the corresponding target 
group (students, patients, children, families, etc.); 
the ‘code 79 approach’ covering a broad but diversified range of activities (community based services, social inclusion centres, 
networking, etc.) and specific target groups for each of the activities. 
Generally speaking the bulk of the allocation for integrated projects of urban and rural development as well as for social 
infrastructure goes to EU-13, simply reflecting the fact that investment in infrastructure tends to be more important in 
convergence programmes.  
The relative weight of EU-15 is higher for the allocation to integrated projects for urban and rural development than for social 
infrastructure. 
For most of the social infrastructure allocations, Poland and Hungary play an important role. In education infrastructure, it is 
Portugal which allocates nearly one quarter of the overall allocation in the 115 OPs. Investment in housing infrastructure is 
dominated by one Italian programme, and Greece invests a comparatively high share of the allocation to childcare 
infrastructure. 
There are urban and rural areas and at the same time categories like ‘mountains’, ‘islands’, ‘sparsely and very sparsely 
populated areas’ or ‘outermost regions’. In the German region Mecklenburg-Vorpommern for example the entire urban 
development allocations are assigned to the category ‘rural’ because this is a rural region. Nevertheless there were urban 

page 122 

 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

EQ1-5 

EQ1-6 

Identify the nature of the financial 
support (use of grants v financial 
engineering instruments); 
Identify – where possible – other 
investments included as part of 
‘integrated urban development 
strategies’; 

development activities funded in cities. The same applies for Malta which assigns all its allocations to ‘island’, even though 
there are urban areas on this island. France classifies the allocations to the overseas departments and territories as 
‘outermost regions’, even if there are urban and rural areas there. 
The use of forms of finance other than non-repayable aid is generally restricted to a few programmes under each code and is 
more common in EU-15 than EU-13. 

Reference to EQ2-7: Neither the monitoring data, OPs nor the interviews with Managing Authorities offer a satisfactory answer 
concerning ‘other co-funding’.  
In convergence regions, as expected, ERDF is the most important, if not the only, funding source. This is especially the case 
for the more ambitious ‘integrated urban development’ approaches, which can be seen as experimental, especially in EU-13. 
Social infrastructures are easier financed by national sources, should it be necessary, notably in EU-15. 

Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

EQ2-1 

Identify the nature of the 
activities and main 
beneficiaries of the financial 
support (e.g. services vs. 
infrastructure, public vs. 
private, etc.) 

The most coherent with integrated urban development approaches are the activities related to strategy development, and 
participation and cooperation activities such as those involved in city networks across Member States. Some OPs used the 
opportunity to start innovative new urban projects which supports facilities for different population groups.  
However, when considering that this particular thematic focus should cover the implementation of integrated urban 
development actions, the activities listed in the OPs do not provide any concrete answers.  
The OPs have used very broad definitions of targeted areas (and also of corresponding activities) encompassing a wide range of 
types of areas and not clearly distinguishing between urban and rural areas. This can be interpreted as a deliberate choice of 
keeping the OP flexible and able to react to ‘bottom up’ demand. However, this undermines its purported strategy (or effectively 
amounts to a lack of real strategy).  
Regarding activities and target groups/final beneficiaries, three approaches can be identified: 

 

the  ‘code  61  approach’  covering  a  broad  range  of  activities  combining  ‘hard’  investments  and  ‘soft’  activities  targeting  a 
generic ‘population’; 
the ‘codes 75-78 approach’ focusing strongly on ‘hard’ infrastructures and equipment targeting at the corresponding target 
group (students, patients, children, families, etc.); 
the  ‘code  79  approach’  covering  a  broad  but  diversified  range  of  activities  (community  based  services,  social  inclusion 
centres, networking, etc.) and specific target groups for each of the activities. 
EQ2-2  What is the programme trying  Regarding integrated urban development the programmes try to achieve mitigation of the general situation in deprived areas or 

 

 

page 123 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

to achieve in the areas of 
urban development and social 
infrastructures (also in relation 
to addressing the needs of 
different population groups)? 

EQ2-3  What is the strategy to 

promote investments and 
justify actions in these specific 
sectors?  
And how can the demand side 
in the investigated sectors be 
characterised? 

to improve specific urban and rural shortfalls. The goals of urban development address the general population and the intended 
improvements should serve the whole population of the area with no specific target groups named.  
Regarding social infrastructure the achievements targeted are in the majority of the OPs specifically addressing the 
improvement of infrastructure. In the case of education and health infrastructure all achievements are directly related to 
education and health. In comparison to integrated urban development the coherence between objectives and interventions are 
clearly visible. OPs only partly distinguish between target groups related to lifelong learning (e.g. unemployed) and target 
groups related to education system improvement (e.g. young people, pupils and children). 
Interventions related to childcare, housing and other social infrastructure have a niche role; needs and objectives are subsumed 
under ‘social infrastructure improvement’. Other social infrastructure is somewhat more differentiated by pinpointing specific, 
yet narrow, needs of particular social groups. 
The key limitation in evaluating the strategy of the OP in relation to urban development is the fact that the integrated urban 
development approach refers to external local strategies which are not included in the OPs. Without an in-depth analysis of the 
development and use of the underlying integrated urban development strategies the value added of urban development 
interventions is only partly assessable.   
When an integrated approach has been followed in the project selection process are coming closer to turning integrated urban 
development into reality. Even so, an important limitation is the complexity of projects and the lack of beneficiaries willing (or 
capable) to deal with this complexity. The result is insufficient demand for integrated projects and a tendency to use the 
resources for ad-hoc sectoral interventions in urban areas. Especially the pressure of n+2 rule leads to the abandonment of an 
initially ‘noble’ aim.   
Regarding the demand side, the OP screening and interviews revealed that there is a discrepancy between those managing the 
programme and those implementing it. The implementing organisations are mostly public authorities who have their difficulties 
in understanding and putting into effect the integrated approach. One reason for the discrepancy between strategy/objective 
and the actual implementation is the lack of involvement of local level stakeholders (i.e. future project implementation bodies) 
in the formulation of the OPs.  
Regarding the social infrastructure interventions the strategy involves either an integrated approach as part of integrated urban 
development or a purely sectoral approach. However even in the first case the actual implementation of measures stays sectoral 
and is rarely embedded in any integrated strategy rather than in national or regional strategies external from the OP. In cases 
where social infrastructure interventions are combined with integrated urban development the OPs justify the interventions by 
reference to the need for the physical improvement: first, to better serve the population in the area; and, second, to improve 
the physical appearance of the urban area in order to attract business, tourism, etc.    
Regarding the demand side for social infrastructure this is either addressing local communities when embedded in integrated 
urban development concepts (concerning mainly childcare infrastructure, housing and other social infrastructure) or it is 
implemented by national and regional authorities managing education and health infrastructure. The latter is used to improve 
the conditions of schools, training centres, hospitals and health centres. 

EQ2-4  What is the nature of the 

relation between Managing 

Different levels of delegation are encountered, depending on the administrative culture of the country and the capacity of the 
project implementation bodies. The majority of the OPs involve local authorities through their participation in Monitoring 

page 124 

 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

Authorities and the main 
project implementation bodies 
(e.g. urban authorities) in 
terms of delegation of tasks 
and involvement in the 
selection of operation? 

Committee and related decision processes.  
As a general trend, a stronger role is foreseen for urban authorities in the implementation of integrated urban development, 
reflecting to some extent the intentions of the integrated urban development strategies.  
Social infrastructure related interventions fall mostly under standard calls, where the project implementation bodies might either 
be involved directly or through their national umbrella organisation or higher authority (e.g. Ministry of Health rather than 
individual hospitals). 

EQ2-5  What are the main drivers of 

success and failure associated 
with these strategies and 
projects? 

EQ2-6  What is the relationship 
between investments for 
integrated urban development 
strategies and investments in 
the different fields of social 
infrastructures? 
EQ2-7  What is the role of ERDF 

support in supporting 
strategies for integrated urban 
development in comparison to 
other possible co-funding? And 
how much of the ERDF is 
supporting integrated urban 
development strategies? 

The OP and AIR screening revealed that the implementation of integrated urban development started ambitiously but did not 
meet the intended success in many of the OPs. A significant number of reported failures are related to financial engineering 
instruments. Member States intended to set up financial engineering instruments in order to implement integrated urban 
development but the actual establishment process has taken too long and failed to lead to any implemented project at the date 
of the reporting. Relevant examples can be found in Greece and Bulgaria. A gap can also be detected between the intended 
consideration of integrated development plans in project selection and the actual selection process hampering the integrated 
approach due to the lack of commitment at the level of local authorities.  
The screening of the programmes also revealed a shortfall in addressing specific the target groups. Interestingly those OPs 
lacking a clear specification of target groups also tend to be the programmes where demand has stayed below expectations. 
This can be explained by the lack of strategy and the lack of involvement of the right stakeholders. The pressure of absorbing 
the OP budget leads again to further ad hoc interventions whose nature is more ‘sectoral’ than ‘integrated’. 
A successful approach of implementing an integrated approach is the use of competitions between local communities in 
developing integrated concepts or the joint implementation of local strategies. The involvement of local authorities in a very 
early stage in general increases the chances of successful implementation due to a higher commitment of all stakeholders. OPs 
where regional authorities supported local authorities in the implementation phase with joint strategy development on local level 
led to higher commitment at local level and ultimately to a successful implementation.   
The priority axes structure is the most reliable source of evidence for a close relationship between integrated urban 
development and social infrastructure. This relationship is often underlined in the first section of the programmes, especially 
regarding deprived urban areas. However, this relationship is much less visible – indeed it often disappears altogether - in the 
strategy section where the operational and, by default, sectoral structure prevails. 

Neither the OPs nor the interviews with Managing Authorities offer a satisfactory answer concerning ‘other co-funding’. MAs are 
focused on the implementation of the OPs and, hence, to them the ERDF role is central.  
In convergence regions, as expected, ERDF is the most important, if not the only, funding source. This is especially the case for 
the more ambitious ‘integrated urban development’ approaches, which can be seen as experimental, especially in EU-13. Social 
infrastructures are easier financed by national sources, should it be necessary, notably in EU-15. 
A significant share of the budget allocated to code 61 supports integrated urban development strategies, at least in the context 
of the intervention logic of the OPs. 

page 125 

 
 
Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

EQ2-8 

Are there linkages between 
ERDF support and ESF support 
in the areas of urban 
development and social 
infrastructures? 

EQ2-9  What are the measures put in 

place to ensure financial 
sustainability of projects?  
And do selection criteria and 
processes take into account 
the future financial 
sustainability of projects? 

EQ2-10  How are achievements 

captured and reported on 
(quantitatively or 
qualitatively)? 

Two ways of systematically involving ESF have been established: first by establishing financial engineering instruments and 
second by simple ESF cross financing of individual projects. A third way where ERDF and ESF addressing the same projects 
without official cross financing has been mentioned by Managing Authorities. The majority of the ESF involvement occurs in 
relation to urban development in EU-15 countries. An assumption is that EU-15 might feel more confident in developing and 
implementing multi-facetted projects. Of the 27 OPs 81 % are regional OPs and only 9 are national OPs. It can be said that the 
involvement of ESF has been planned in 27 OPs out of 115. An even lower number of OPs actually implemented joint ERDF and 
ESF activities. The actual ESF contribution beside the official cross financing or deployment of financial engineering instruments 
lies probably higher. However the simple ESF contribution to ERDF project is not reported nor is it monitored systematically.  
Financial sustainability is not an explicit main concern for the (narrow) majority of the OPs. In the programmes where 
sustainability is covered the examination is done ex-ante only and to a certain extent the issue is covered by more broad 
concepts like ‘maturity’.  
Based on interviews with Managing Authorities, the main reasons leading to this position are the following: 
Projects are not revenue generating and/or have low operation and maintenance costs while benefits are declared in a broad 
manner (especially under code 61) and thus financial sustainability is not considered to be an issue. 
The project owners and operators are public bodies or public equivalent bodies which are assumed to cover the operation and 
maintenance costs of the projects ‘ad infinitum’ (especially under codes 75-79) and thus financial sustainability is considered to 
be granted. 
The main exceptions are measures to enhance the local economy and the beneficiaries can be private entities. Hence much 
stricter rules apply in order to guarantee the longevity of the investment and as well as to provide for the recovery of the funds 
should the need arise. 
The system of capturing and reporting achievements is suffering from the same shortcomings as output indicators. At the same 
time many result indicators that could serve as the basis for evidence are ‘reformulated’ output indicators.  
Overall, the approach of the Managing Authorities and the reporting in the AIR is a quantitative one; achievement is seen in the 
numerical compliance towards the targets and the target/performance comparison. The main question here is the credibility of 
baselines and targets, especially in those cases where extraordinary overachievement is reported.  
Considering urban development the result indicators are rather broad and it is worth noting the low number of indicators related 
to integrated urban development, in whatever way this might have been defined.  
Achievements under education infrastructure and health infrastructure are more precisely defined in the sense that the 
intervention logic - e.g. between improved facility and increased number of people benefiting/increased level of service offered - 
is direct and comprehensible. The same largely applies to childcare since it follows a similar logic to education. Achievements 
under housing and other social infrastructure are rarely reported due to the lack of indicators or the submission under broader 
ones.  
In general the character of output and result indicators in many programmes is unclear and this leads to the fact that in some 
OPs output and result indicators are the same. 

page 126 

 
 
 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

EQ2-11  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? 

The main changes which are meant to be achieved are clearly the creation and improvement of infrastructure on the one side 
and the support of deprived areas in terms of economic development and social inclusion. The more concrete the thematic focus 
(e.g. health and education) the more concrete are objectives and results. A considerable amount of OPs do refer to a national or 
regional strategy in place at sectoral level as well as local strategies. But it is not clear to what extend the strategies do show an 
integrated approach nor is it possible to evaluate to contribution of the OP to these strategies. 
The actual achievements reached in implementing the OPs are to a higher extend successful in terms of sectoral infrastructure 
renovation or new infrastructure.  
The results achieved in terms of integrated urban development are less straightforward and it seems that in some cases OPs 
have been too ambitious in planning interventions without involving (or involving too late) the necessary stakeholders at local 
level. The result is that the potentially high achievements in terms of integrated urban development has hampered and budgets 
flow in rather sectoral ad hoc activities.  
Punctual evidence at project level show that the integrated approach has been met best via pilot projects already defined in the 
OP and with the strong involvement of local stakeholders. Furthermore competitions between local communities for funding 
possibilities allowed for a better and more integrated concept design in some community developments.  
Finally in can be said from project examples in Germany and the Netherlands that those Member States with a small budget 
used the funding to contribute to existing national and regional strategies in order to fund specific interventions suitable for 
ERDF. However in most of the cases this contribution was too small to extract a specific value added from ERDF contribution.   
On the other hand those Member States with a high number of convergence regions and with high Structural Funds contribution 
did have the chance to actually make a change with the provided budget but in most cases failed due to lack of experience on 
how to implement an integrated approach. Notwithstanding based on interviews and the stakeholder seminars in can be said, 
that there is a certain learning effect in some Member States especially Estonia, Latvia, Czech Republic and Poland.  

Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

EQ3-1  What is the project trying to 

achieve and in what way? 
What are the main changes 
(objectives) that 
interventions are attempting 
to achieve and what results 
have been achieved (or are 
likely to be achieved) via 

A sizeable minority – one third of projects - have addressed multiple objectives (economic, social or environmental). 
In the case of urban development, social and economic objectives lead and are fairly balanced, with environmental objectives 
behind. 
In this field the main change that the projects are attempting to achieve or contribute to concern ‘urban regeneration‘, ‘better 
living conditions‘ and ‘social cohesion‘, and quite often a combination of these and other changes. 
In the case of social infrastructure, social objectives predominate, followed well behind by economic and environments objectives. 
In this field the main change that the projects are attempting to achieve or contribute to concern ‘social cohesion‘, ‘better living 

page 127 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

the support to specific 
projects? 

conditions‘ and ‘better skills / greater employability’ and quite often a combination of these and other changes. 
The matter of results achieved is addressed in EQ-3.5. 

The socio economic objective focus of the projects is addressed in EQ-3.1 
Regarding target groups of urban development projects, ‘all population in local area’ and ‘all population city-wide’ are the most 
common answers of responses. However, a large proportion of projects have provided multiple responses combining these two 
answers with more specific ones, such as ‘small businesses’, ‘visitors’, marginalised groups’, ‘young people’ or ‘women’. 
In the case of social infrastructure ‘all population’ type of definitions are less common than in the case of urban development and, 
again, a significant proportion of respondents have provided multiple responses combining a general target group answer with 
more specific ones, such as ‘young people’ or ‘children’. 

Project implementation bodies in the fields of urban development and social infrastructure do not associate their projects with 
market failures. They have stated overwhelmingly that funding for these types of investment normally comes from EU funds or 
national/regional/local public budgets or a combination of them. 

ESF involvement is uncommon. Less than one third of the projects have benefited from ESF. This has mostly taken the form of 
ESF-type actions being included in the project and as planned from the beginning.  

In the field of urban development, the main clusters of outputs reported are: 

  Development of strategies, plans, etc. 
  Building  works  or  repairs  (improvements  to  housing,  school  buildings/playing fields, construction  of  museum/  media  centre/ 

social centre, etc.) 

  Creation of business space 
  (Re)construction of streets, cycle paths, etc. 
  Public spaces and facilities, enhancement of riverfront, etc. 
  Revitalisation of former wasteland/ reuse of brownfield sites 
  Town centre/ historic area improvements 
  Waste water/ drinking water treatment 
  Energy efficiency measures 

EQ3-2  What is the socio economic 

objective focus of the 
project and the logic of 
intervention at the basis of 
the interventions carried 
out? Which are the 
identifiable targets groups 
(e.g. deprived or 
marginalised groups)? 

EQ3-3  Do projects in the areas of 

urban development and 
social infrastructures 
address identified market 
failures? 

EQ3-4  Do projects in the areas of 

urban development and 
social infrastructures benefit 
from simultaneous ERDF 
and ESF co-financing. What 
is the nature of the linkage 
between ERDF and ESF in 
these cases? 

In each of the sub sectors 
what are the most common 
measures of project output 
used by the projects? 

EQ3-5 

page 128 

 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

One third of survey responses have identified project results. The main clusters are: 

Improved liveability of neighbourhood 

 
  Making  the  old  town/museum/etc  more  attractive  (or  creating/improving  an  existing  facility)  attracting  more  visitors/ 

improving business 

  (Number of) residents in improved/rehabilitated area 
  (Number of) individuals gaining jobs 
  Eco-efficiency 
  Better health facilities. 

According to the project implementation bodies, sustainability is a matter that has received attention. The majority of the 
respondents in the survey have stated that the financial sustainability of the project has been addressed, mostly at project design 
and implementation stages. (This majority is nominally very large but it is drastically reduced if the large number of non-responses 
is taken into account). 
Furthermore, the majority consider that the financial sustainability of their project is fully secure. This is largely attributed to the 
necessary budget for the operation, maintenance, etc. of the project being available and to a much lesser extent to the project 
generating significant own revenues.  
However, this implies a widespread reliance on public budgets which are normally beyond the control of individual projects and 
have been are under considerable pressure in most countries.  
There are indications of a largely minor and indirect contribution. Nearly three quarters of project implementation bodies report 
that their projects have contributed, albeit in small way, to economic growth and the creation of jobs. This has been achieved 
through improved skills, expansion of local businesses, improved health outcomes, etc. However, only in one-half of the projects 
this is supported by programme or project evaluation studies or research by independent bodies. 

EQ3-6 

Is financial sustainability 
addressed? What are the 
measures put in place to 
ensure financial 
sustainability of projects? 

EQ -7 

Are the supported projects 
contributing to economic 
growth and creating jobs? 
And in what ways? Can 
beneficiaries point to 
objective evidence in this 
regard? 

Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

EQ4-1 

To what extent was the ERDF 
allocated to urban development 
investments through integrated 
strategies for urban 
development? 

As for the Structural Funds, ERDF and to a lesser extend ESF are the main sources of financial support for integrated urban 
development. The analysis of the OPs and AIRs revealed that out of the total sum of EUR 9,776 million allocated to code 61 in the 
115 OPs, EUR 4,924 million can be linked to integrated urban development strategies. This amount is generated by those OPs with 
an allocation to code 61 (103 OPs) minus those with no integrated approach mentioned in the programmes (48 OPs). This leaves 
55 programmes with a reference to integrated urban development and a total allocation to code 61 amounting to EUR 4,924 
million. 

EQ4-2  How was integrated urban 

development organized in the 

Viewed from a narrow OP perspective, there is a lack of a coherent ‘thread’ running throughout the programmes, notwithstanding 
the definitions of needs and objectives (and in some cases also activities) used, intending to demonstrate an integrated approach. 

page 129 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

Even those OPs where the OP systematically supports integrated approaches, the actual implementation does not appear to be 
integrated and individual projects seem to follow, in most cases, a rather sectoral approach. 
This shows that a key limitation in assessing the strategy of the OP in relation to urban development is the fact that the integrated 
urban development approach refers to external local strategies which are not part of the OPs. Nevertheless, the feedback from the 
interviews with the MAs and the stakeholder seminar has highlighted a number of important points, which are summarised below. 
First, the degree of integration of social infrastructure investments and generally the adherence to an integrated approach is to a 
large extent influenced by the ‘architecture’ of the OP, i.e. whether the priority axes etc. have been designed in a way that 
facilitates an integrated approach. 
Second, the way in which an OP can promote and support an integrated approach takes the form of an ‘enabling framework’ rather 
than the actual incorporation of specific integrated development strategies per se in the OP. This is clearly illustrated in the 
examples of the Czech and French OPs. However, not all such frameworks have facilitated or led to integrated projects. 
Third, specific integrated development strategies tend to be realised at agglomeration or city level – with or without ERDF support - 
and this has become the norm in EU-15. This incurs less in EU-13, although examples from Estonia and Latvia show a clear move 
in that direction. 

Regarding the social infrastructure interventions the strategy involves either an integrated approach as part of integrated urban 
development or a purely sectoral approach. However even in the first case the actual implementation of measures stays sectoral 
and is rarely embedded in any integrated strategy rather than in national or regional strategies external from the OP. In cases 
where social infrastructure interventions are combined with integrated urban development the OPs justify the interventions by 
reference to the need for the physical improvement: first, to better serve the population in the area; and, second, to improve the 
physical appearance of the urban area in order to attract business, tourism, etc.    
Regarding the demand side for social infrastructure this is either addressing local communities when embedded in integrated urban 
development concepts (concerning mainly childcare infrastructure, housing and other social infrastructure) or it is implemented by 
national and regional authorities managing education and health infrastructure. The latter is used to improve the conditions of 
schools, training centres, hospitals and health centres.  
Social infrastructure related interventions fall mostly under standard calls, where the project implementation bodies might either be 
involved directly or through their national umbrella organisation or higher authority (e.g. Ministry of Health rather than individual 
hospitals).  
The strategic rationale of ERDF intervention in social infrastructure is dominated by making funds available to address 
infrastructure deficits and general improvement of the existing national systems. This is mostly the case in the education and 
health sectors, especially in programmes with substantial financial allocations and dedicated priority axes.  
The rational for integrated urban development is manifold and cannot be easily generalised. The main trigger for integrated urban 
development is the fact that many urban areas face multiple problems that need complex and longer-term solutions. In other 
cases, programmes aspire to an integrated approach while effectively seeking to fill gaps in infrastructure and – mostly in EU-13 – 
to catch up with EU-15 

programmes during 2007-2013 
programming period? Are there 
‘types’ of strategies that can be 
detected? 

EQ4-4  How was ‘social infrastructure’ 

organized in Operational 
Programmes – and within 
strategies for urban 
development? Is it 
concentrated on identifiable 
target groups? 

EQ4-4  What are the main rationales 
to justify public investment in 
integrated urban strategies and 
social infrastructures? 

page 130 

 
 
 
Ex-post evaluation Urban Development (WP 10) 

Evaluation question 

Summary of conclusions 

EQ4-5  What evidence is there of 

achievements of investments in 
sustainable urban development 
and social infrastructures? 

Overall the evidence of achievement, even in its most narrow sense – meeting or exceeding quantitative targets of OPs – is ‘shaky’ 
largely due to the widespread vagueness in the strategies and lack of internal consistency in the intervention logic(s) of the 
majority of programmes, as well as the shortcomings of the indicators systems used by the programmes. This is particularly the 
case in urban development, where these limitations are compounded by relatively low absolute financial allocations in some 
programmes. The visibility of results and effects depends on the importance accorded by the OPs to the thematic fields addressed 
by the study.  
From the evidence we have, we can conclude the following on results and achievement: 

 

In  some  Member States,  investment  in  social  infrastructures  contributes  to  a  more or  less  fundamental  reform of  the  whole 
system.  This  is  specifically  relevant  for  health  and  education  infrastructure.  Examples  are  the  focused  investment  in  the 
renovation of schools in Portugal or the development towards a more needs-oriented system in Estonia.   

  Furthermore,  some  programmes  contribute  in  tackling  specific  problems  of  EU-wide  interest.  The  investment  in  Italy  in 
facilities  to  deal  with  the  large  numbers  of  refugees  are  an  example  for  this  type  of  programme,  the  PEACE  programme  in 
Northern Ireland and the Border Region of Ireland or the URBACT programme are others. 

  For integrated urban development, results and effects are often not directly accessible from the programme’s perspective as 
the  local  focus  is  much  smaller  (even  on  a  specific  neighbourhood)  and/or  there  are  large  numbers  of  cities  and 
neighbourhoods participating. 

  Generally, the tendency is for EU-13 Member States to invest more in infrastructure and for EU-15 to focus more on integrated 

strategies in the way they are defined by the Commission (involvement of local actors, covering several policies). 

In some Member States and/or programmes, the potential effects are in doubt due to a serious delay in expenditure. Romania and 
Italy are generally lagging behind, but also single programmes from other countries. To disburse the funds is a precondition for 
achieving the intended effects. 

:

page 131 

 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries 
(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) 
or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

Priced subscriptions: 

•  via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 

(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm). 

 
 
 
 
K
N
-
0
4
-
1
6
-
4
8
0
-
E
N
-
N

[

C

a

t

a

l

o

g

u

e

n

u

m

b

e

r

]

doi: 10.2776/021940