Next Article in Journal
The Shared City: Housing and Tourism in the Metropolitan Areas of Lisbon and Porto
Previous Article in Journal
Symphony of Silence: The Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Philharmonic Bands in Portugal
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Contributions of Territorial and Multilevel Governance: The Case of a Strategic Urban Development Plan in Trás-os-Montes, Bragança (Portugal) †

by
Maria Patrocínia Correia
1,2,* and
Hermínia Gonçalves
2
1
School of Public Management, Communication and Tourism, Bragança Polytechnic University, 5300-253 Bragança, Portugal
2
Centre for Transdisciplinary Development Studies (CETRAD), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the XVIII International Seminars on Overarching Issues of the European Area, Porto, Portugal, 23–26 May 2024.
Proceedings 2025, 113(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2025113008
Published: 20 January 2025

Abstract

This paper focuses on one of the instruments provided by the municipal sphere to solve problems in integrated territorial public policies, namely the Strategic Urban Development Plan (SUDP). Considering the starting question, “What lessons can we draw for the construction of governance models in the territorial development processes of historic city centres in low-density cities?”, the following objectives were defined: understanding territorial and multilevel governance; capturing the contribution of governance types to the SUDP in Trás-os-Montes, Bragança; analysing the case study through the anchor projects carried out; and understanding the involvement of municipal technical managers in its implementation.

1. Introduction

The plurality of studies on the development of territories reveals their constant transformation based on the economic, social, and political processes that shape and surround them. The territorial scale has become a priority, especially in the political-institutional field, where the surrounding space and geography have emphasised planning at the government level, providing a turning point in public policies. The territorialisation of public policies, namely territory-centred policies, has become a paradigm to be followed. It is based on the need to know and exploit the potential knowledge of a territory and to invest and build institutions through a process involving local actors. Thus, these policies coincide remarkably with those focused on people (people-based policies).
This paper studies an integrated territorial strategy, namely the Strategic Urban Development Plan (SUDP) carried out in the Bragança municipality, the northern interior of Portugal, more specifically, in its historic centre. Once some of the interventions under the SUDP in Bragança were completed, we sought to understand the interventions carried out, reflecting on the governance practises used and trying to respond to the multiple uncertainties that revolve around territorial development. In scientific terms, expanding the understanding of urban development processes in historic centres is urgent. Therefore, we established the territorial and multilevel governance model’s influence in Bragança as an object of investigation.

2. Territorial and Multilevel Governance: Concepts and Assessment Dimensions

Territorial governance is defined as a form of “territorial collective action, based on the openness and transparency of the process itself, co-operation/coordination between actors (horizontally and vertically), and on a more or less explicit framework of subsidiarity” [1] (p. 35). This means territorial governance mechanisms must involve not only the community and local organisations but also public and private organisations with the power to influence innovation, such as universities, businesses, and non-governmental organisations. Territorial governance, therefore, depends on the capacity to organise the joint work of these actors in the territory. Thus, the territorial approach to development is required in governance dynamics and understanding the multilevel governance process associated with the territory. The authors warn that multilevel governance must be complemented by “concern about the understanding of territorial arrangements” [2] (p. 51).
There is evidence of three dimensions in territorial governance: the strategic dimension (related to the objectives and strategies of partnerships), the operational dimension (the organisation and management of the structure), and the relational dimension (leadership and participation in the partnership) [3]. Figure 1 presents a set of dimensions summarising territorial governance’s analytical components and which were applied to this methodological proposal.

3. Methodological Background and Case Study Context

In the present research, we decided to implement a qualitative methodology in a scientific context. A territorially based instrument was studied, reflected in the SUDP (Table 1). Data collection was conducted in July 2022 and between March 2023 and May 2023, including an analysis of secondary sources extracted from municipality reports, national and regional statistics, and opinion pieces. We decided to select three interviewees based on their proximity criteria to the object of analysis. The interviews were semi-structured and addressed to the Director of the Department of Municipal Services and Construction (DMSC), the Director of the Logistics and Mobility Division (DLM), and the Director of the Construction Division (DC). The three interviews were encoded from I1 to I3.
The analysis of the interviews valorised discourse analysis. The subsequent analysis was based on the municipality’s technical documents, online news about the works in progress in the city, and the assessment and perspectives of three experts responsible for the design, instruction, execution, and management of the operations/projects.

4. Results and Discussion

According to [3], the management of the development of historic centres can be based on a triangle of efficiency–sustainability–cohesion. This triangle challenges the urban system, emphasising the need to rethink territorial and multilevel governance models, understood as the system of relationships between institutions, organisations, and individuals, ensuring collective choices and their implementation [3]. Multilevel territorial governance will require the creation of structures and, above all, rethinking the relationships between existing structures. Table 2 shows that the discussion of the results considers the dimensions of actors, powers, and relationships; decision processes; and policy coordination [4]. Each of the dimensions has several criteria, and each of the requirements was analysed about its intensity of influence (X—weak to XXX—strong). This table format was chosen for better interpretation.
The authors propose an evaluation matrix on territorial and multilevel governance based on analysing three dimensions: strategic, relational, and operational [3]. The coordination of policies and instruments was decisive for analysing the strategic dimension. The intervention of the MB was prioritised in terms of promoting the economic sector, in articulation with urban regeneration projects. It is understood that, as a public entity, the municipality must create conditions for the economic function to settle and develop sustainably. Incorporating a young population in the centre will generate specific needs that must be met to convert it into a set of desirable places to live for an extended period. In this sense, incorporating public spaces, mobility, local commerce, and public services is essential. However, the three interviewees mentioned the lack of private initiative as a negative aspect of the UDP interventions. In the relational dimension, the three interviewees, regarding the complementarity and involvement of actors in the development of the SUDP partnerships, believed that this involvement occurred and the partnerships were efficient. At the local level, key public and non-profit organisations, the Higher Education Institution, residents, and retail businesses were involved. Real-time contact platforms were created, receiving communications and alerts from those sharing the spaces and encouraging participation. In the operational dimension, the municipality considered that the guiding vision of the SUDP would have to focus on investments that promote economic dynamics and services, adequately complemented by urban regeneration and public space actions such as those associated with mobility.

5. Conclusions

This article makes several main contributions. Firstly, it is expected that the knowledge from the study will be helpful and fruitful for municipal actors, serving for the development of other strategic urban development processes. The comparative analysis highlights three common topics: development and territorialization based on local problems with integrated intervention, multi-institutional coordination, and horizontal and vertical communication. Secondly, this work was intended to aggregate the practical and scientific components, strengthening the knowledge of territorial development. The last contribution is related to the conviction that this work has shown that the territories and their municipalities will find development opportunities, whether through municipal projects or public policies reflected in community territorial development instruments. Finally, applying the governance assessment tools to several historic centres of low-density cities covered by the SUDP would be a challenge for the future.

Author Contributions

M.P.C. contributed to the research design and implementation, the results analysis, and the manuscript. M.P.C. wrote the study with input from H.G., M.P.C. and H.G. discussed the results and contributed to the final version of this work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is supported by national funds through the FCT—Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology under the project UIDB/04011/2020 (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/04011/2020, accessed on 2 June 2024).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest and the funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Davoudi, S.; Evans, M.; Governa, F.; Santangelo, M. Territorial governance in the making: Approaches, methodologies, practices. Boletín Asoc. Geógrafos Españoles 2008, 46, 33–52. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dias, R.C.; Seixas, P.C. Territorialização de Políticas Públicas, Processo ou Abordagem? Rev. Port. Estud. Reg. 2020, 55, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Monteiro, S. Mudanças recentes nos processos de governança territorial em Portugal. Finisterra 2009, 88, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dallabrida, V.R. Governança Territorial: Do debate teórico à avaliação da sua prática. Análise Soc. 2015, 2, 304–328. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Evaluating the dimensions of territorial governance. Source: [4].
Figure 1. Evaluating the dimensions of territorial governance. Source: [4].
Proceedings 113 00008 g001
Table 1. Methodological framework.
Table 1. Methodological framework.
ParadigmPhenomenological and Interpretative Nature
MethodsQualitative method, case study
Data collection
Techniques
Interviews with those who assumed leadership roles in the implementation of the SUDP
Documentary analysis of secondary sources, program guidelines, instruments, and reports
Analysis TechniquesDiscourse analysis
CaseSUDP (six regional cases)
Own elaboration.
Table 2. Results of the evaluation of the territorial and multilevel governance of the SUDP.
Table 2. Results of the evaluation of the territorial and multilevel governance of the SUDP.
DimensionsCriteriaSUDP
Actors, powers, and relationshipsDistribution of responsibilities and competences XXX
Relation integrationXXX
Decentralised integrationXXX
Active participation in civil societyXX
Flexibility of actors and institutions in the face of changeX
Decision ProcessRepresentativityXXX
Democratisation of decisionsX
Data collective responsibility, with actors contributing to common endsXXX
Actions legitimised by cooperation, negotiation, and sharingXX
Network governanceXX
Policy CoordinationDecentralisation of policiesXXX
Horizontal integrationXXX
Vertical integrationXXX
Effectiveness and focus on resultsXXX
Territorial GovernanceEmbracing a variety of interestsXXX
Maximising the effects of policies on society and territoriesXXX
Interaction and collective learningXX
Actors as subjects of collective actionXXX
Focus on improving social cohesion and socio-economic developmentXXX
Territory as a reference framework, with the potentializing of territoryXXX
Multilevel governance outcomesHorizontal integration (inter-organisational agreements)XXX
Horizontal integration (social actors)XXX
Vertical integration (intergovernmental agreements)XX
(X—weak influence to XXX—strong influence), Own elaboration.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Correia, M.P.; Gonçalves, H. Contributions of Territorial and Multilevel Governance: The Case of a Strategic Urban Development Plan in Trás-os-Montes, Bragança (Portugal). Proceedings 2025, 113, 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2025113008

AMA Style

Correia MP, Gonçalves H. Contributions of Territorial and Multilevel Governance: The Case of a Strategic Urban Development Plan in Trás-os-Montes, Bragança (Portugal). Proceedings. 2025; 113(1):8. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2025113008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Correia, Maria Patrocínia, and Hermínia Gonçalves. 2025. "Contributions of Territorial and Multilevel Governance: The Case of a Strategic Urban Development Plan in Trás-os-Montes, Bragança (Portugal)" Proceedings 113, no. 1: 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2025113008

APA Style

Correia, M. P., & Gonçalves, H. (2025). Contributions of Territorial and Multilevel Governance: The Case of a Strategic Urban Development Plan in Trás-os-Montes, Bragança (Portugal). Proceedings, 113(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/proceedings2025113008

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop