sustainability

Article
Sustainable Planning of Cross-Border Cooperation:
A Strategy for Alliances in Border Cities
Joanna Kurowska-Pysz 1, * ID
, Rui Alexandre Castanho 2,3,4,5 ID
and Luís Loures 4,6,7 ID

1 Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of Dabrowa

˛ Górnicza, 41-300 Dabrowa
˛ Górnicza, Poland
2 Environmental Resources Analysis Research Group (ARAM), University of Extremadura,
06071 Badajoz, Spain; racastanho@uevora.pt
3 Department of Landscape, Environment and Planning, School of Science and Technology,
University of Évora, Évora 7-671, Portugal
4 VALORIZA—Research Centre for Endogenous Resource Valorization, Portalegre 7300-110, Portugal;
lcloures@ipportalegre.pt
5 ICAAM—Institute for Agrarian and Environmental Sciences, University of Évora, Évora 7-671, Portugal
6 Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre (IPP), Portalegre 7300-110, Portugals
7 Research Centre for Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (CinTurs), University of Algarve,
Faro 8005-139, Portugal
* Correspondence: jkurowska@wsb.edu.pl




Received: 26 March 2018; Accepted: 29 April 2018; Published: 3 May 2018


Abstract: In recent years, cooperation among nations has become a critical issue towards sustainable
development of neighbor cities in border areas. In this regard, sustainable common planning
approaches and policies are an increasing reality, particularly in European territories. Considering
the significant amount of cross-border cooperation (CBC) projects and strategies within Europe,
it is crucial to promote research approaches that are able to identify the most positive approaches
towards the establishment of alliances in border territories, serving as pivotal methodologies for
achieving success. Contextually, the present study considered direct and indirect research methods
and tools, literature reviews, data collection, computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) and
computer-assisted web interview (CAWI), all applied over two European border cities: Cieszyn
(Poland) and Cesky Tesin (Czech Republic). These methods enabled the assembly of perspectives of
local authorities, public and private institutions, non-governmental organizations, and entrepreneurs
from the cities under study. Through the analysis of the collected data, five conditions have been
identified for the success of strategic alliances in CBC projects: (i) well defining the alliance goals;
(ii) ensuring participation in the alliance of various groups of stakeholders; (iii) involvement of both
partners with extensive experience in CBC; (iv) ensuring the coherence of the key objective; and
(v) guaranteeing the alliance benefits both sides. These conditions might effectively contribute to
achieve more successful outputs in CBC projects, highlighting the relevance of previously developed
strategies on the definition of future approaches.

Keywords: cross-border cooperation (CBC); inter-organizational cooperation; alliances; sustainable

development; sustainable planning; territorial cohesion

1. Introduction
Because of the increasing number of cross-border cooperation (CBC) projects carried out along
the borders of European territories in the past few decades [1–5] and the considerable amount of
people influenced by such initiatives [6], the issue is gaining greater relevance. CBC has become not
only a way to level the development of disadvantaged areas but also a way to utilize the competitive
advantages of cities located on the borderlands of two countries. Thus, it is possible to say that they

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416; doi:10.3390/su10051416 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 2 of 26

present dual potential and exceptional diversity, which they can use to obtain a synergistic effect of
cooperation, leading to a stronger territorial cohesion.
The concept of territorial cohesion has been gaining increasing interest within academic and EU
policy circles. the territorial dimension as a key topic in the EU political agenda is of great importance
and, at the same time, it is important to answer several questions of the debate expressed in the Green
Paper on Territorial Cohesion [7]. At present, territorial cohesion may also mean (for example, in
the White Paper on European Governance) the co-ordination of policies with an impact on one territory.
Regarding the more interventionist approach to spatial planning as well as sustainable
development, there is a need for a spatial framework for community policies. Such a framework
would resemble the European Spatial Development Perspective, but also form part of territorial
cohesion policy, sharing responsibility of the Union and its member states [8]. the new concept of
territorial cohesion could mean a formal planning role for the European Union. It is also clear that
territorial cohesion needs to be seen to contribute to the competitiveness of the European Union and
its macro-regions [9]. It should also benefit from competitive territorial advantages such as human
capital, knowledge centers, decision-making structures, and accessibility of capital [10]. Back in
2005, the European Commission provided an explanation that territorial cohesion had become a key
element for promoting stronger integration of the territory of the Union in all its dimensions, and
cohesion policy supported the balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the Union
at the level of its macro-regions and reduced any barrier effects through cross-border cooperation
(CBC) and the exchange of best practices [11,12]. Moreover, CBC includes direct relations between
local governments (the most frequent, formal form), but it also extends gradually to many other
entities, institutes, and organizations, and even enterprises from neighboring cities [13,14]. In fact,
the mentioned multi-level governance is based on fundamental CBC dimensions. Within these
dimensions, the following regions should be highlighted: intra-state; urban-rural; local-regional;
and functional [15]. Considering the complex process of joint planning, the “barrier effect” can be
minimized through fostering opportunities for integrated territorial development or by establishing
strategies that foresee the involvement of actors from different territorial levels aiming at a stronger
vertical integration. The main goal of these types of cooperation is usually connected to individual
needs and expectations of cross-border partners, but the most important relevance of CBC is the ability
to solve common border problems, using synergistic resources and the potential of each partner.
CBC processes have a crucial importance in reducing all sorts of barrier effects on borderlands [16].
Euroregions, in particular, play a big role in this process, creating networks that involve a wider range
of local and regional actors into the CBC process, on both sides of the borders [17].
A special kind of cooperation is frequently based on special European funds, such as
the INTERREG-A program. It has a big impact on the reduction of the barrier effect along the border
across five dimensions (institutional-urban, accessibility, culture-social, environmental-heritage and
economy-technology) [18].
Special cooperation opportunities can be identified in border cities. These cities are motivated
and mobilized for cooperation through government policy, especially European Union (EU) priorities,
as well as specific spatial conditions, e.g., roads, transport, and connectivity network [19–21]
among many others; also, there are additional opportunities coming from mutual use of trade
and services of several types [22–24]. Another reason is the close relationship between residents,
organizations, and institutions, as well as entrepreneurs operating on both sides of the border [25–28].
Research results [25,29,30] shows that CBC mostly is done through projects, but they are completed
rather according to actual needs of partners. Rarely they are part of long-term cooperation plans.
This approach means that the potential for CBC in border cities is not fully exploited; the lack of
leadership that would point out the main directions of the CBC may explain that. These directions
should be beneficial both for the border cities as well as for other actors of CBC strategies and projects on
both sides, creating so-called win-win situations. Thus, they should also result from a well-thought-out
CBC strategy, developed jointly by border cities and their audiences.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 3 of 26

Also, and considering recent research regarding CBC projects and strategies, several disparities
have been identified among CBC projects and their results [2,21,31–34], among many other studies
and pieces of research regarding not only their relevance to influence positively their populations,
but also to achieve sustainability. Some cross-border regions may provide innovative platforms for
multidimensional integration processes, which are needed to achieve more sustainable life standards.
As territorial integration processes are occurring on a regional level, some activities can be labeled
as “cross-border region building” and “territorial integration processes”. It is necessary to answer
what this means for the search for better policies and strategies. the opportunities that are created
by cross-border cooperation will be highlighted. That is why, for sustainable CBC development, it is
necessary to use sustainable planning [35]. One sustainable planning tool, especially on borderlands, is
a strategy including the cross-border alliances of cities and cross-border alliances of various entities on
the municipal level [36]. Specific planning strategies can be used, among others, to foster a coordinated
approach towards a sustainable regional planning to improve connectivity and the movement between
cities, regarding accessibility and transportation, infrastructure, and services, developing common
master plans, and a strong political commitment towards the CBC project. However, considering
the large possibility of methods and sustainable planning approaches towards the success of CBC
projects, each case needs to be deeply analyzed to define specific planning.
In this regard, the research problem concerns the strategic planning of CBC at the level of border
cities. Although CBC is dynamically developing, among others in the EU, this process is visible
mainly at the level of Euroregions, and rarely at the level of cities. the role of the cross-border
environment in tightening CBC at the city level is poorly recognized. the border cities should cooperate
not only with local authorities but also through other target groups, e.g., NGOs and entrepreneurs.
It is not easy to formalize and agree CBC priorities with target groups. This process should also
consider the aspects of sustainable development and sustainable planning in the social, economic,
and environmental dimensions. Few border cities have formalized bilateral cooperation strategies;
even fewer cities have formulated strategies that consider the CBC of different target groups in a
cross-border, sustainable environment.
Contextually, the study aims to define the main stages of CBC strategy development, and
the dedicated cooperation of border cities. This paper identifies the main stages of the strategy building
process for the cross-border alliance of border cities. Strategic alliances are a form of network relations
and can be strong impulses for a long-lasting process of transforming border cities into cross-border
cities. Alliances are formalized or informal forms of inter-organizational relationships. In creating a
strategic alliance, an important role is played by similarity and complementarity of the organization,
common skills, and specific knowledge of each of the partners. Cross-border environment factors
that significantly determine CBC will also be indicated as well as pivotal actors in this process. These
problems are described in several parts of the paper. the paper also shows the key activities related to
the transformation of the cross-border bilateral alliance into a cross-border network alliance. In this
way the authors identify the fertile areas to develop sustainable CBC projects. This approach is also
based on other issues [3,14].
The research problem will be solved and the goal of the issue will be achieved by research
regarding CBC in the border cities of Cieszyn (PL—Poland) and Cesky Tesin (CR—Czech Republic),
which are going to develop the CBC strategy. In fact, the border cities of Cieszyn and Cesky Tesin have
been involved, since 1998, with a CBC territorial strategy, namely the Euro-Region Cieszyn Silesia
(MOT, 2016).
Thus, qualitative research has been conducted, in the form of literature review and surveys using
two data collection methods: computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI); and computer-assisted
web interview (CAWI). To perform the present study, the authors used research with 55 respondents
from Cieszyn (30) and Cesky Tesin (25), representatives of local authorities, public and private
institutions, non-government organizations, and entrepreneurs from the both cities. the authors
also used a case study research (CSR) method and analyzed CBC of the two border cities. Based on
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 4 of 26

the cross-border research results, in the next section the authors identify the key areas of possible
alliances of the border cities of Cieszyn and Cesky Tesin. They also indicate the main stages necessary to
create a CBC strategy for cross-border alliance of border cities. In the next section the authors present a
model of sustainable development of cross-border, inter-organizational cooperation and define the key
activities related to the transformation of the cross-border bilateral alliance into a cross-border network
alliance. Moreover, the main conditions for the development of network cooperation in the frame of
well-prepared CBC strategy for border cities have also been pointed out. As mentioned before, there
are not many examples of such strategies for border cities, which is why this issue should be helpful
for border cities that want to develop CBC as a way for sustainable development of borderlands.

2. The Role of the Sustainable Planning in the Development of Border Areas

The critical role played by sustainable planning in the success of territories, projects, and
strategies—and their long-term sustained development and growth—as well as to achieve the desired
sustainable cities is well known [37–39]. the strategies can be regarded as a type of cross-border
planning mechanism in promoting territorial development of the border region. These strategies
include key aspects of spatial planning as well as some social and economic dimensions. CBC projects
can be favorable to the implementation of a genuine and long-term cross-border spatial plan, with
the goal of reducing the barrier effect and improving the territorial capital along the cross-border
region. It also supports the territorial development across the border area. Consequently, cross-border
planning, cross border strategies and governance structures should be confined to promoting the active
involvement and mobilization of local and regional actors in the cross-border cooperation process, and
in implementing several cross-border projects of local/regional significance [40].
One of the more difficult elements in cross-border planning for development lies in institutional
cooperation. Most experts divide institutional cooperation into two prototypical models: formal
(presidential meetings with memoranda of agreement, or interparliamentary negotiation); and informal
(regular meetings among local and higher government authorities, as well as non-binding agreements
to cooperate on local level). Formal accords can lead to permanent cross-border institutions, including
decision-making bodies either with jurisdictionary or advisory status [41].
The concept of sustainable development has as start point at the United Nations Conference
regarding Environment and Development [42], where the need to adopt new development strategies
have been recognized at a local scale as at a global one. In fact, this need has been already identified in
1969 in a UNESCO study, which concluded that by 2000 the urban population will be only 15% [43].
In 1993, a study of the World Bank highlighted 2010 as the year when most of the population will live
in cities, leading to chaos for urban systems and dynamics, as well as to an increase in desertification
issues and scarcity of resources in rural territories [44].
Almost half a century later, the concept is still in discussion. Nevertheless, one of the most
accepted definitions of Sustainable Development, according to experts [45–47] is “development that
meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future to meet their own
needs”. Furthermore, and considering the above, human needs should be satisfied along with
the opportunity to achieve an acceptable standard of living to the existing population as well as
to future generations [47]. the previous criteria require an equitable distribution not only of the benefits
from the consumer society, but also of their inherent risks. In fact, these goals go further than the key
criteria for the decision-making process. Actually, mainly the cost-benefit-analysis (CBA) has been
used, based on the market values, which is also applied to goods, environmental services and social
care [48,49].
Moreover, the environmental dimension is clearly defined as the sum of all bio-geological
processes and the elements involved in them [45,46]. Thus, it requires the preservation of the viability
of ecological systems as the natural basis of sustaining human civilization [39,46].
Considering the institutional dimension, it is possible to verify that society groups, as well as
legal operations, administrative services, and their main actors, are inserted on it [38,39]. From
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 5 of 26

a sustainability perspective, a higher public participation, an equality of opportunities, an open

society—regarding ethnics or gender—along with an administration not “overly corrupt”, are
the desires [26,38]. These types of institutions and the synergies they create are pivotal for achieving
sustainable development [26,33,37–39].
Focusing on the economic dimension, defined on several occasions as a society-specific subsystem
by their particular features—efficiency, short-term goals, and a personal perception by human
beings as individuals in maximizing profits [38,39]—sustainability needs an economic system able
to satisfy its citizens’ needs, offering employment opportunities and a higher resilience capacity,
aiming to provide these features from a long-term perspective [23,28,50,51]. Thus, to face such
challenges, the competitiveness of the economic system should be an integral part of the concept of
sustainability [38,45,46,48].
In this regard, sustainability standards are scrutinized in the available literature as any science
or humanity would be, with the following types of questions raised by experts (one such example is
the Aral Sea disaster—unfortunately, one among many others [45,46,50]): How much climate change
is acceptable? What amount of unemployment should be tolerated? Answers to these questions define
regulatory parameters for society’s future [45,46], and if a sustainability path is chosen, sustainable
goals should be well defined as well as containing a strong and transparent political commitment [26].
Based on the available literature, it is possible to verify that the concept of sustainability is
considerer as a “maximum”, and its almost impossible to dissociate from any roundtable or political
speech [26].
In this regard, urban planning processes, as national as international or even in the specificity of a
trans-boundary area, are not an exception. Here, CBC projects and strategies will play a critical role
towards sustainability.
Thus, regarding CBC strategies and sustainable planning, the creation of the creation of
the Schengen Area, in which five European States (Germany, Belgium, France, Luxemburg, and
the Netherlands) decided to abolish checks at internal borders in 1985 [38], should be highlighted.
Commercial relationships between the sovereign territories proceeded smoothly [22].
Also, cohesion policies carried out by the EU have been a major step towards the stability and
increase in sustainability within European territories [22,26]. Development and territorial cooperation
programs have been applied to neighboring countries by the Good Neighbor Association Tool (This
strategy/tool has been co-funded by EFRD [1]) [1]. Nevertheless, there are new planning models
for cities worldwide, increasing concerns regarding the need to rethink how cities will develop
and cooperate between one another [30,52]. In this regard, land use policies have been considered
an important tool to prevent uncontrolled urban sprawl, fostering sustainable development and
revitalization [53,54].
Contextually, CBC projects and strategies are seen as the catalyst for this new era of planning
and sustainability [26]. In fact, several European CBC projects have been implemented and have
demonstrated their positive results and impacts over border territories, such as the example of
COORDSIG, PLANEXAL, GEOALEX, OTALEX, OTALEX II, OTALEX C—all CBC projects related
to territorial governance and resources valorization in the Iberian Peninsula through the last few
decades [55].
There is the EU 2020 strategy, which states, according to the European Commission [56] “the
Europe 2020 strategy represents a reference framework for activities at EU and at national and regional
levels for the current decade and puts forward three main priorities to make the EU a smarter, more
sustainable and more inclusive economy and growth”, defining target areas to measure progress
in meeting goals in EU Strategy 2020 [27]. In the scope of this strategy, a set of indicators have
been defined such as employment rate, investment on research and development (R&D), greenhouse
gas emissions, share of renewable energy, energy efficiency, early leavers from education, tertiary
educational attainment, and poverty and social exclusion, all of which should be seen as the new
critical points to focus towards sustainable planning and growth, through CBC projects and strategies.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 6 of 26

3. Methodological Approach
To achieve the aim of the paper, the authors have used studies and empirical research—both
qualitative and exploratory—serving to better identify the problem and understand its essence.
the research was conducted in the years 2017 and 2018. Study works consisted primarily of an
analysis of the available literature regarding the cross-border alliance of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn.
the authors used a case study research method and analyzed the cross-border alliance of two border
cities: Cieszyn (PL) and Cesky Tesin (CR).
A case study is an attractive method of solving problems concerning network connections
and international management [57]. the case study is mainly used to analyze specific events or
phenomena [58,59]. Its purpose may be exploration, description, and explanation [60]. Although
the basic disadvantage of this method can be considered the influence of many variables that cannot
be controlled—and which interfere with the obtained results—this method gives the possibility of
in-depth analysis of the problem (as opposed to quantitative methods). A correctly implemented case
study can lead to exploratory conclusions, which is often the first step in the process of verifying or
disproving the theory [61].
The process of building a theory from a case study includes the following stages: selection of
cases; definition of research instruments; data analysis; hypothesis modelling; literature studies; and
closing the study [62]. In the research process, it is particularly important to formulate research
questions that may be descriptive, exploratory, or explanatory [63]. It is also important to select a
sample that can be random or intentional [64]. Regarding the case study, randomness is not needed
or even desirable, which is why targeted selection is used. Random selection is subordinated to
the requirement of representativeness, whereas targeted selection, also called theoretical, omits
the criterion of representativeness [62]. the criteria for the assessment of the test sample do not
consider the requirement of representativeness, but the criterion of saturation. It is not about verifying
the degree of truth of the hypothesis under examination, but about making a theoretical proposal that
reflects reality as truly as possible.
To solve the research problem concerning strategic planning of CBC at the level of border cities,
an example of cooperation between Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn was used. These cities have formed
a strategic alliance for joint spatial development as well as social and economic revival of the areas
on both sides of the border river Olza. the alliance was developed based on a jointly prepared
planning document—The Strategy for the Development of the Olza River Waterfront in Cieszyn
and Czech Cieszyn—which considered only some aspects of cooperation [65]. Strategic alliances
can initiate a long-lasting process of transforming border cities into cross-border cities. This should
relate to the process of mutual compensation of resources, potentials, and spatial transformations
of these areas to create a high-quality offering for residents and other target groups. To achieve this
goal, the establishment of alliances in agglomerations by territorial self-governments and by cultural,
research, business, and educational institutions as well as cooperation and collaboration between these
local and regional actors is fundamental [66–68]. Alliances can lead to the reduction of uncertainty
and increase the flexibility of operation [69]. the alliances relate mainly to specific thematic projects
implemented in a bilateral or networked system, with the involvement of various actors. Nowadays,
due to the occurrence of non-economic crises and increasing environmental problems, the alliance also
includes sustainability competences related to the simultaneous implementation of economic, social,
and environmental goals [70].
There are some studies [71,72] where key issues for the study of alliances in cooperation
projects have been identified, namely: the formation of alliances; the choice of governance structure;
the dynamic evolution of alliances; the performance of alliances; and the performance consequences
for organizations entering alliances. A case study includes all the above elements.
Based on the analysis of this material, a hypothesis was formulated, which was verified by
further qualitative research: computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) and computer-assisted
web interview (CAWI), based on electronic surveys which had been sent to respondents before
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 7 of 26

the interviews. the survey is composed of closed, single and multiple-choice questions. the surveys
also contained additional questions characterizing the respondents, including type of entity, time of
engagement in cross-border cooperation, etc.
Quantitative research also covered local authorities—Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn—together with
other entities, which usually cooperate with them to form and develop the cross-border alliance e.g.,
public and private institutions as well as non-government organizations and entrepreneurs. Access
to information was gained in two ways. Information about these entities was obtained directly from
the cooperating cities, and the attendance lists from information meetings in which representatives of
the respondents took part were investigated.
This research was done by interviews (30 Polish and 25 Czech respondents). the interview
concerned, among others, the following issues: scale and duration of engagement in the cross-border
alliance of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn; preparation for participation in this alliance; compliance of
the alliance with its own objectives of cross-border cooperation at the level of Cieszyn and Czech
Cieszyn; other potential areas of future alliances at the level of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn (priority
and secondary areas) and forecasts for further development of these alliances; entities that should
engage in such an alliance; expected results of future cross-border alliances; and the need to develop a
comprehensive cross-border cooperation strategy based on alliances.
They took the form of computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) and computer-assisted web
interviews (CAWI).
Due to the number of responses, the interviews were treated only as a numerical support for
qualitative research because such small research samples should not be subjected to statistical treatment,
due to the lack of representativeness for the assessment of the total population of entities. It is difficult
to determine the real number of public and private bodies which operate in Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn
as, for example, some entities are active only formally; some of them periodically suspend their activity
or they are simply not active.
Based on the analysis of project documentation and a case study, a research hypothesis was
formulated, which was verified by the results of interviews. This hypothesis referred to the possibility
of greater involvement in cross-border alliances of other, non-governmental, institutional entities, e.g.,
non-governmental organizations or entrepreneurs and the need to create a CBC strategy for both cities
based on alliances in particular areas. At the same time, the authors sought to identify other areas
of potential alliances of strategic border cities and to indicate the main stages of activities aimed at
creating a strategy for cross-border cooperation between border cities based on alliances.

4. Case Study Results: Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn

The case study concerns cooperation between two border cities: Cieszyn (Poland, Voivodeship
of Silesia, municipality of Cieszyn) and Český Těšín (Czech Republic, Region of Silesian Moravia,
municipality of Český Těšín) (Figure 1). Before 1920, the towns of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn
(Český Těšín) separated by the river Olse/Olza were one and the same town, Teschen, situated in
the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the First World War, Teschen was divided and the western
bank became Czechoslovakian (under the name of Český Těšín), the eastern portion becoming Polish
(Cieszyn). During the Second World War, the two towns were temporarily reunited before being
separated once again in 1945. Today, the two towns constitute an important point of communication
as they form the main road passage between the north and south of Europe [73]. the population of
Cieszyn is 35,000 and Czech Cieszyn (Český Těšín) is 25,000 [73,74]. Until 1989, there had been no
form of cooperation between Cieszyn and Těšín. Crossing the border was not easy, despite Poland
and Czechoslovakia both belonging to the Soviet bloc. It was only in 1998 that the two towns and
the neighboring municipalities decided to sign an agreement to pave the way for institutionalized
cooperation within the Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia. Nowadays, the Euroregion is the main actor
in terms of CBC and has helped with the implementation of several projects in several areas,
including culture, education, the environment, spatial planning, transport, natural hazard management
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 25
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 8 of 26

prevention. The cross-border conurbation of Cieszyn-Česky Těšin functions like a capital for the
Euroregion [75]. The cooperation of the Euroregion was based on the “Cieszyn Silesia development
and prevention. the cross-border conurbation of Cieszyn-Česky Těšin functions like a capital for
strategy”; however, both cities have not yet prepared a bilateral strategy for cross-border
the Euroregion [75]. the cooperation of the Euroregion was based on the “Cieszyn Silesia development
cooperation.
strategy”; however, both cities have not yet prepared a bilateral strategy for cross-border cooperation.

Figure 1. The location of the border cities Cieszyn-Česky Těšin.

Figure 1. The location of the border cities Cieszyn-Česky Těšin.

The cross-border
The cross-borderthematic
thematic alliance
alliance “Ciesz“Ciesz si˛e Cieszynem—ogród
się Cieszynem—ogród dwóch brzegów”
dwóch brzegów” (“Enjoy
(“Enjoy Cieszyn—the
Cieszyn—the Two Shores TwoGarden”,
Shores Garden”,
in 2004,inco-financed
2004, co-financed by INTERREG
by INTERREG program)program)
was thewas thejoint
first first
joint action
action of bothof cities.
both cities. It concerned
It concerned spatialspatial development
development as as
as well well as social
social and economic
and economic revival
revival of theof
the Polish and Czech border banks of the river Olza while respecting the environmental
Polish and Czech border banks of the river Olza while respecting the environmental values of the values of
the area.
area. Its was
Its aim aim was
also also to reduce
to reduce tourism
tourism and and passenger
passenger traffic
traffic and and the intensity
the intensity of these
of these areas
areas use use
by
by the
the inhabitants
inhabitants to maintain
to maintain their
their biodiversity.
biodiversity. Thethe
aimaimofof thisalliance
this alliancewaswastotocreate
createaaspace
spacefriendly
friendly
toresidents
to residentsand andtourists
touristson onboth
bothsides
sidesofofthe
theriver
riverOlza,
Olza,using
usingthethelandscape
landscapeand andhistorical
historicalvalues
valuesof of
bothcities
both citiesin
inaasustainable
sustainableway, way, breaking
breakingthethe existing
existingperception
perceptionof ofthis
thisspace
spaceas asan
anarea
areaexcluded
excluded
fromuse.
from use.
The analysis
The analysisof the
of case
the study
case on the cross-border
study thematic alliance
on the cross-border “Ciesz si˛
thematic e Cieszynem—ogród
alliance “Ciesz się
dwóch brzegów” was
Cieszynem—ogród carried
dwóch out within
brzegów” wasthe framework
carried presented
out within in Table 1 below.
the framework presented in Table 1
below.
Table 1. Case study analysis framework.
Table 1. Case study analysis framework.
No. Phase Type of Examination
No. Phase Type of Examination
Analysis of the causes and conditions of the formation of
1 the formation of alliance Analysis of the causes and conditions of the formation of the
1 the formation of alliance the alliance
alliance
Characteristics of entities involved in alliance and relations
2 2 the choice
the choice of governance
of governance structureCharacteristics of entities involved in alliance and relations
structure between them
between them
Presentation of cross-border projects contributing to the goals
3 3 the dynamic
the dynamic evolution
evolution of alliancesPresentation of cross-border projects contributing to the goals of
of alliances
theof the alliance
alliance
Identification of external
Identification andand
of external internal conditions
internal forfor
conditions the
4 4 the performance of alliances
the performance of alliances
the development
development of the alliance
of the alliance
Assessment of positive and negative consequences of the
the performance consequences
the performance for for Assessment of positive and negative consequences of
consequences
5 5 development of the alliance
the development for its direct
of the alliance for its and indirect
direct and indirect
organizations entering
organizations alliance
entering alliance
stakeholders.
stakeholders.
Source:
Source:own
ownelaboration.
elaboration.

The main reasons for starting cooperation and developing a strategy for the development of the
Olza river banksreasons
The main in Cieszyn and Czech
for starting Cieszyn include:
cooperation and developing a strategy for the development of
the Olza river banks in Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn include:
(i) the common problems of both cities connected with the development of the Olza river banks,
which in the communist era were of strategic importance and were controlled by the army.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 9 of 26

(i) the common problems of both cities connected with the development of the Olza river banks,
which in the communist era were of strategic importance and were controlled by the army. After
the borders were opened, the stereotypes and habits still functioning within the society hindered
the development of this area;
(ii) after the collapse of communism, the tourist attractiveness of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn
increased, which was a living testimony to socio-economic changes in Central Europe.
The gradual unification of both cities has mobilized local governments to act with a view to
increase the attractiveness of both cities for residents and tourists.
(iii) the unique environmental values and biodiversity of the Olza river bed required the provision of
spatial solutions limiting uncontrolled exploitation by residents and the pressure of tourist traffic;
(iv) the possibility of using both cities to co-finance joint investments under the INTERREG program,
integrating investment activities in both parts of the borderland and stimulating the development
of cross-border cooperation.

The funds obtained from the INTERREG IIIA Czech Republic-Poland 2004–2006 program
and the involvement of both cities’ own budget funds have been instrumental for the concept of
spatial development of both banks of the Olza river. “Enjoy Cieszyn—the Two Shores Garden” and
the implementation of a plan for the development of the cross-border alliance of Cieszyn and Czech
Cieszyn, formed part of several projects related to further stages of this investment.
Spatial development of communal areas belongs to the communes’ statutory tasks both in Poland
and in the Czech Republic. Management and governance structure of both cities within the framework
of the cross-border alliance took place at the level of subsequently implemented cross-border projects,
in which one of the cities was always the leader. These were projects co-financed from the European
Regional Development Fund through the INTERREG program. In each project, four key principles of
cross-border cooperation were considered:

(i) joint preparation of the project (each partner participates in the preparation of the project);
(ii) joint implementation of the project (each partner provides the necessary resources; activities are
carried out on both sides of the border and they addressed to stakeholders from both countries);
(iii) common staff (a joint project team is made up of competent representatives of each partner);
(iv) joint financing (each partner participates financially in the costs of the joint project).

All cross-border projects implemented with the support of the INTERREG program
also considered EU horizontal principles: sustainable development, equal opportunities, and
non-discrimination, as well as gender equality.
Due to the rigid conditions for the implementation of cross-border projects co-financed from
the INTERREG program, other entities, e.g., entrepreneurs or non-governmental organizations, could
not be directly involved in the development of the alliance. All activities were carried out directly by
the self-governments of both cities. Greater involvement of other stakeholders was observed only in
the next stages of the alliance development, in the context of using the results of individual projects
and linking them with the goals of these organizations and institutions.
The dynamic evolution of the alliance manifested itself in the activities carried out simultaneously
in both cities, as part of subsequent cross-border projects included in the urban study and development
strategy of the border area located along the Olza river in Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn. the projects
were implemented in accordance with these strategic documents and the conditions for cross-border
cooperation, resulting from the guidelines of the INTERREG program. They were also consistent with
the individual strategies of both cities [76,77]. the development of the cross-border alliance of Cieszyn
and Czech Cieszyn with regard to the spatial development of the Olza river banks is presented in
Table 2 below.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 10 of 26

Table 2. The development of the cross-border alliance of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn.

Name, Years of
Item Implementation, Scope
Financing
Development of Góra Zamkowa and castle in Cieszyn, including
the restoration of the historic Piast Tower and modernization of recreation
and tourist infrastructure. Construction of the Avion
Revitalpark 2009/2010, social-cultural-catering pavilion in the Olza waterfront in Czech Cieszyn
1
INTERREG and the development of the Masarykovy Sady park. the Friendship Bridge
(Most družby) was also renovated, i.e., an element combining functionally
and architecturally the areas covered by the project on both sides of
the river.
Establishment of a cross-border tourist and recreation center on both banks
SportPark 2009/2012,
2 of the Olza river, i.e., revitalization and extension of the coastal parks in
INTERREG
Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn, and revalorization of green areas.
Construction of a new bridge over the Olza river connecting Cieszyn and
SportMost 2010/2012, Czech Cieszyn as a new transport hub connecting the revitalized parks on
3
INTERREG both banks of the river. This contributed to the efficiency of using this
infrastructure and improvement of communication between the two cities.
Improvement of communication on the revitalized Olza river banks
(including a large pedestrian-bicycle path running through both cities).
Ogród Dwóch Brzegów Modernization of Cieszyn Venice in Cieszyn and Nábřeží Míru in Czech
4
2013/2015, INTERREG Cieszyn for creating meeting places for residents and tourists, organization
of cross-border scenic locations on the Olza river banks and expansion of
the Polish-Czech information signage system.
A new tourist product located on the banks of the Olza River, presenting
the history and heritage of the divided city, appealing to the emotional and
pragmatic aspects of perceiving the border, as well as to the history of
Open Air Museum
5 divided families, friends, ordinary people. Visualization of the message
2017/2018, INTERREG
through boards and city lights, as well as a website and a mobile
application with augmented reality elements, allowing to get acquainted
with historical views of places around Olza.
Source: own elaboration.

Co-financing of projects from the INTERREG program funds since the establishment of
the cross-border alliance was decisive for its character and objectives. the alliance was developed based
on successive, implemented cross-border projects aimed at achieving common goals. On the one hand,
it limited the flexibility of activities, but at the same time guaranteed diligence of implementation
and striving to achieve the designated results, which was a condition for reimbursement of funds.
However, the use of public support did not allow any commercial activities to be carried out, nor did
it allow direct involvement of entrepreneurs, as it would result in public aid participation. For this
reason, the projects focused only on public and non-profit activities, which did not allow full use of
the potential of this cross-border cooperation. At the same time, the development of the alliance with
the use of INTERREG program funds guaranteed its simultaneous impact on both border cities, which
is the supreme attribute of cross-border projects.
Based on the project documentation, it should be added that the results of all projects were
measured in line with the indicators provided for in the INTERREG program for this type of project,
and they were achieved. These indicators, included in the documentation of the projects, are concerned
mainly by the assessment regarding:

(i) the number of partners involved in joint operations;

(ii) the relationship between the results of investment activities and the costs of their implementation;
(iii) the relationship between the results of non-investment activities and the costs of
their implementation;
(iv) the number of entities that will be engaged in cross-border cooperation during the project
sustainability period;
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 11 of 26

(v) the number of promotional and information activities aimed at developing cross-border
cooperation within projects.

The performance of the alliance depends on internal and external conditions relating to
the implementation of projects co-financed from the INTERREG program. Internal conditions can
be defined as dependent on entities involved in the alliance, e.g., Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn city
self-governments, and their organizational units. These include:

(i) accuracy and comprehensiveness of the developed strategy for the development of the Olza
waterfront in Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn;
(ii) quality of applications for co-financing of individual cross-border projects implementing
the alliance’s development plan;
(iii) qualifications and competences as well as motivation of the project team consisting of
representatives of both partners;
(iv) ability to cooperate, and quality of communication between representatives of both cities;
(v) ability to ensure and maintain the cross-border effect of individual projects.

On the other hand, external conditions concerned objective factors on which the entities
developing the alliance had no influence. They were related, among others to:

(i) mode of obtaining and using subsidies from the INTERREG program;
(ii) legal conditions for the implementation of infrastructure investments in Poland and
the Czech Republic
(iii) environmental values and biodiversity of areas where projects were implemented
(iv) needs and expectations of target groups, i.e., inhabitants of both cities and cross-border tourists
(v) involvement of other stakeholders at the level of both cities in the utilization of the results of
cross-border projects
(vi) involvement of other stakeholders at the level of both cities in the utilization
of the results of cross-border projects, e.g., other public institutions, entrepreneurs,
non-governmental organizations.

The performance consequences for organizations entering alliances were varied. All previous
stages of the development of the alliance have been achieved because of the funds obtained for
this purpose. These projects yielded tangible results: in both cities a significant modernization
of the urban space was carried out, there was visible development of cross-border tourism and
the resident interest in spending free time on the Olza river waterfront increased, and the natural
values and biodiversity occurring in the area were preserved. These effects are in line with the goal of
forming an alliance. As far as using the experience from this alliance to improve the capacity of both
cities to further develop cross-border cooperation is concerned, the conclusions are not so unequivocal.
It was found that co-financing from the INTERREG program, which significantly facilitated the creation
and development of the alliance, also became its significant limitation. This is due to the following
circumstances:

(i) the need to implement cross-border projects in a rigid partnership resulting from the conditions
for applying for EU funds in practice, which limited the interest and involvement of other
entities and institutions in cooperation, which did not allow the synergy and scale to be used in
cross-border cooperation;
(ii) although the development of the alliance was based on a multi-stage spatial development strategy
for of the Olza river banks, the cooperation horizon was set by individual projects, which hindered
constant, harmonious cooperation and setting long-term cooperation goals;
(iii) the cross-border alliance contributed to the development of cooperation between Cieszyn and
Czech Cieszyn only in a narrow (yet very important for both cities) sphere of joint development of
the border area; however, it did not directly affect the expansion of cooperation in other spheres;
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 12 of 26

(iv) the results of the development of the cross-border alliance were not visible immediately after
the completion of individual projects, but only after a certain time, and overlapped in the long
term; hence it is difficult to say which stage of the alliance proved to be the most effective and
which was the least effective;
(v) in accordance with the requirements for the use of subsidies from the INTERREG program, both
cities have the obligation to maintain the effects of implemented projects for at least 5 years after
the completion of each of them, which indicates some coercion and not the spontaneity of further
cooperation under the pain of the EU financing repayment.

Bearing in mind the above conclusions, it was hypothesized that to ensure sustainable cross-border
cooperation between Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn, it is important to:

(i) develop cross-border cooperation between Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn by creating further
cross-border alliances in areas important for both cities, using the existing experience;
(ii) development of cross-border alliances with direct involvement of stakeholders from
different environments who are really interested in it, especially entrepreneurs and
non-governmental organizations;
(iii) creating new alliances in a more flexible formula, with the limitation of co-financing from
EU funds;
(iv) development and implementation of a long-term cross-border cooperation strategy at the level of
both cities, including all relevant stakeholders and thematic areas.

5. Figures and Results

The structure of the research respondents and their answers for the research questions are
presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3. Structure of the research respondents.

Respondents (%)
No. Categories of Respondents
Cieszyn Czech Cieszyn
1 Representatives of local government units 16.7 12.0
2 Representatives of public institutions 26.6 36.0
3 Representatives of non-governmental organizations 40.0 28.0
4 Representatives of enterprises 16.7 24.0
Total 100.0 100.0
Source: own evaluation.

The varied participation in the research of individual categories of respondents results from
the specificity of their involvement in the alliance on both sides of the border, as well as from the slightly
different social structure of both cities. On the Polish side, the involvement in the alliance of local
governments and public institutions, as well as non-governmental organizations that implement
a significant part of public activities, is dominant. In turn, on the Czech side, in addition to local
governments and public institutions, enterprises took greater part in the research (almost comparable
to non-governmental organizations), which are interested in developing cross-border cooperation
between both cities, among other things due to its economic interest. A relatively small research sample
was not an obstacle to achieving the research objective, as it was a targeted sample of respondents
involved in the creation and development of the examined cross-border alliance. the answers obtained
for subsequent research questions are presented below in Tables 4–6.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 13 of 26

Table 4. Preparation of respondents to take part in the cross-border alliance of Cieszyn and Czech
Cieszyn and taking advantage of its benefits.

The Degree of Preparation of Local Government Public Institution Non-Governmental

Enterprise
No. Individual Categories of Unit (%) (%) Organization
Respondents PL CR PL CR PL CR PL CR
1 High 20.0 20.0 12.5 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2 Rather high 70.0 80.0 75.0 25.0 25.0 28.6 0.0 18.2
3 Average 10.0 0.0 12.5 25.0 50.0 42.8 80.0 63.6
4 Rather low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 28.6 20.0 18.2
5 Low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: own evaluation.

Table 5. Involvement of respondents in cross-border cooperation within the framework of the alliance
of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn.

Forms of Engagement of Local Government Public Institution Non-Governmental

Enterprise (%)
No. Individual Categories of Unit (%) (%) Organization (%)
Respondents PL CR PL CR PL CR PL CR
Constant cooperation with
1 80.0 100.0 10.1 16.0 16.7 16.0 20.0 12.0
various partners/one partner
Periodic cooperation with various
2 20.0 0.0 13.3 32.0 33.3 24.0 40.0 48.0
partners/one partner
3 Ad hoc cross-border cooperation 0.0 0.0 76.6 52.0 50.0 60.0 40.0 40.0
4 Lack of cross-border cooperation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: own evaluation.

Table 6. The period of engagement of respondents in cross-border cooperation as part of the alliance of
the cities of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn.

Time of Engagement of Local Government Public Institution Non-Governmental

Enterprise
No. Individual Categories of Unit (%) (%) Organization
Respondents PL CR PL CR PL CR PL CR
1 Up to 1 year 0 0 0 0 33.3 14.3 20.0 18.2
2 From 1 year to 3 years 0 0 25.0 50.0 16.7 28.6 40.0 36.4
3 From 3 years to 5 years 0 0 50.0 25.0 41.7 42.8 20.0 27.2
4 More than 5 years 100.0 100.0 25.0 25.0 8.3 14.3 20.0 18.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: own evaluation.

The greatest involvement in the development of the alliance is demonstrated by local

self-governments, which are also best prepared for its development (Table 4) and cooperate the longest
in the alliance (Table 6). These results coincide with the case study, where it was shown that
the initiators of the cooperation were local self-governments, which from the very beginning were
managing the alliance independently through subsequent cross-border projects. Public institutions are
well-prepared for cross-border cooperation, but it is not permanent. Non-governmental organizations
are slightly better prepared for cross-border cooperation than companies, although they focus mainly
on periodic and ad hoc cooperation. In some cases, cooperation lasts over 5 years, and in others it is
just beginning. A similar approach to the alliance is presented by companies, of which only a small
number develop permanent cross-border cooperation over a longer period (Tables 4 and 5). the results
of the research, interpreted in the aspect of the previous case study analysis, prove that:
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 14 of 26

(i) the purpose of a cross-border alliance is associated mainly with public (local government) tasks,
hence the involvement in the development of this cooperation of non-governmental organizations
and companies is much smaller;
(ii) the formula of the cross-border alliance (projects co-financed from EU funds, implemented
only by public beneficiaries) is not conducive to direct involvement of other stakeholders, as
it is not formally possible in this type of project; thus, NGOs or companies are not able to
fully participate in the development of the alliance and do not develop enough competence for
cross-border cooperation;
(iii) basing the cross-border alliance solely on the long-term implementation of a single planning
document implemented by self-governments and public institutions did not encourage
non-governmental organizations and companies to engage more in cooperation, as the benefits
that could be derived from it were not clearly outlined;
(iv) local self-governments responsible for the alliance developed it exclusively based on projects
co-financed from EU funds, without additional complementary activities involving other
stakeholders in cross-border network cooperation between the two cities.

The research results confirm the hypothesis that the development of sustainable cross-border
alliances requires direct or even formal involvement of various stakeholder groups (not only local
governments and public institutions). At the same time, each group of stakeholders, especially
non-governmental organizations and enterprises, should be well prepared to develop cooperation
on various levels and acquire at least one permanent partner and understand the opportunities and
benefits that cooperation can bring them.
The evaluation of the previous impact of the studied alliance on possible areas of social and
economic cooperation was made by comparing the opinions of respondents from Cieszyn and Czech
Cieszyn (Table 7). the assessment of the alliance on both sides of the border is similar. Its impact
hitherto on both cities can be considered sustainable primarily in areas such as transport, nature
and landscape protection, sport, recreation and tourism, spatial planning and development planning,
and administrative cooperation. Most of them are the domain of public administration. In addition,
the respondents expect that in the future the impact of the alliance will also extend to the sphere of
cooperation within culture and the removal of barriers in mutual relations. Respondents, however, do
not see the clear impact of the alliance on the development of economic cooperation. the alliance is
mainly located in the public sphere, responsible for social activities, with reference to the environmental
sphere (nature and landscape protection); the economic sphere is clearly neglected. Respondents also
assess that the impact of the cross-border alliance on the sphere of nature and landscape protection as
well as spatial planning and development planning will slowly disappear (low assessments of these
areas in the perspective of the future impact of the alliance). This is a signal that the respondents
believe that some possibilities of cooperation in the cross-border alliance under investigation will be
exhausted, but at the same time it should open to new areas. They include security or social integration
and economic cooperation. At the same time, the respondents indicate that further cross-border
alliances should be concluded, inter alia, in the sphere of transport, security and economic cooperation.
The results of the research confirm the hypothesis that based on current experience of cooperation
within the alliance, both further development of current directions of cooperation (the same areas of
cooperation under the alliance indicated as current and future, while the respondents on both sides of
the border agree that some areas of cooperation will disappear), as well as the development of alliances
in new areas, not resulting from the current cooperation, is possible.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 15 of 26

Table 7. Assessment of the impact of the cross-border alliance between Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn on
particular areas of social and economic cooperation.

Assessment of the Previous Assessment of the Future Areas of Cooperation in Which

Influence of the Cross-Border Influence of the Cross-Border Respondents Want to Develop
Town Alliance: Cieszyn and Town Alliance: Cieszyn and Cross-Border Alliances of
Individual Areas of Czech Cieszyn on the Areas of Czech Cieszyn on the Areas of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn in
No. Cross-Border Cooperation Cooperation—Multiple Choice Cooperation—Multiple Choice the Next 10 Years (%)—Multiple
between Cities: Cieszyn and Answer, the Result Does Not Answer, the Result Does Not Choice Answer, the Result Does
Czech Cieszyn Add Up to 100% Add Up to 100% Not Add Up to 100%
PL CR PL CR PL CR
1 Transport 76.6 76.0 93.3 88.0 93.3 88.0
2 Power engineering 6.7 0.0 6.6 4.0 20.0 25.0
3 Education and higher education 6.7 16.0 20.0 24.0 40.0 40.0
4 Safety 13.4 24.0 33.3 48.0 76.6 96.0
5 Nature and landscape protection 76.6 76.0 20.0 24.0 66.6 56.0
6 Social integration 16.6 20.0 53.3 72.0 76.6 84.0
7 Culture 53.3 72.0 83.3 92.0 66.6 64.0
8 Sport, recreation, and tourism 93.3 96.0 100.0 96.0 100.0 96.0
Spatial planning and
9 76.6 80.0 46.6 24.0 16.6 24.0
development planning
10 Administrative cooperation 93.3 88.0 96.6 96.0 66.6 68.0
11 Economic cooperation 33.3 32.0 46.6 64.0 76.6 80.0
12 Other public services 13.3 24.0 26.6 8.0 13.3 24.0
13 Removing barriers in relations 33.3 20.0 80.0 76.0 63.3 68.0
14 Other 13.3 8.0 6.6 4.0 16.6 8.0

Source: own evaluation.

Respondents and stakeholders of the cross-border alliance of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn expect
both cooperation transformation within the alliance (gradual vanishing of cooperation in some areas
and replacement with new ones), as well as creating further alliances in other areas. As the creators
of these processes, the local self-governments of both cities are indicated, as well as the Euroregion
Cieszyn Silesia. These are entities from the public sphere and this is probably the alliance model
closest to the respondents. It is worth noting that with the involvement of the Euroregion
Cieszyn Silesia, the alliance could gain a more networked dimension, with the participation of
stakeholders from outside Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn. Polish respondents also attribute a large
role in creating cross-border alliances to the inhabitants, which results from the increasingly popular
participatory approach to local development on the Polish side. On the other hand, on the Czech side,
non-governmental organizations and entrepreneurs are attributed a greater role. Particularly large
discrepancies occur in assessing the involvement of enterprises in the development of cross-border
cooperation on both sides of the border (Table 8). This may indicate a different approach to
the future shape of cross-border alliances: on the Polish side there is the expectation that they will
have a self-government and social dimension, while on the Czech side the alliances are seen as a
balanced cooperation of several groups of stakeholders: local government officials, representatives
of non-governmental organizations and entrepreneurs with strong support from the Euroregion
Cieszyn Silesia. Undoubtedly, the most important actors of cross-border cooperation remain local
governments, which should be responsible for creating a strategy for cross-border cooperation between
the two cities, including alliances, involving different groups of stakeholders, depending on their
expectations and opportunities to participate in cross-border cooperation. Very high and high demand
for the development of such a strategy is reported by as many as 93.4% of Polish respondents and
80% of Czech respondents (Table 9). It should be assumed that cooperation is possible only in those
areas where interest has been declared on both sides of the border. Therefore, the research confirmed
the hypothesis that ensuring permanent cross-border cooperation between the two cities requires
drawing up and implementing a long-term cross-border cooperation strategy at the level of both cities,
including all relevant stakeholders and thematic areas. It is particularly important to emphasize that
each future cross-border alliance will be based on the individual involvement of various stakeholder
groups who will be directly responsible for its development and the expected results of cooperation.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 16 of 26

Table 8. Creators of the development of cross-border alliances of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn.

Respondents’ Assessment (%)—Multiple Choice

No. Categories of Entities Answer, the Result Does Not Add Up to 100%
PL CR
1 Local governments 86.6 84.0
2 Non-governmental organizations 43.3 72.0
3 Entrepreneurs 26.6 48.0
4 Inhabitants 53.3 36.0
5 Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia 73.3 68.0
6 Local authority 33.3 32.0
7 Other 6.6 3.3
Source: own evaluation.

Table 9. Demand for the development of a cross-border cooperation strategy for the cities of Cieszyn
and Czech Cieszyn.

Respondents Assessment (%)

No. Possible Answers
PL CR
1 Very high demand 70.0 72.0
2 High demand 23.4 8.0
3 Moderate demand 3.3 20.0
4 Very low demand 3.3 0.0
5 Lack of demand 0.0 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0
Source: own evaluation.

In the opinion of respondents, cross-border alliances should be financed primarily from public
funds, both national and international (Table 10). This determines the preferred model of cooperation in
which public entities dominate, as well as non-governmental organizations that can also use such funds.
Only half of Polish respondents and nearly one third of Czech respondents’ point to the financing of
cooperation from enterprise funds, which would shift the area of this cooperation towards an economic
one. For this to happen, it is necessary to create a much higher demand for cooperation in the economic
sphere, which is currently of secondary importance.

Table 10. Sources of financing cross-border alliances of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn.

Respondents’ Assessment (%)—Multiple Choice

No. Categories of Financing Sources Answer, the Result Does Not Add Up to 100%
PL CR
1 National public funds 70.0 56.0
2 International funds, including EU funds 93.30 80.0
3 Commercial funds, i.e., loans and borrowings 3.33 12.0
4 Own funds of entrepreneurs 50.0 32.0
5 Private funds of residents 3.33 12.0
6 Others 0 4.0
Source: own evaluation.

Therefore, the hypothesis that the creation of new cross-border alliances will take place in a more
flexible formula with limited use of EU funds has not been confirmed. Respondents of the survey,
as the dominant stakeholders, are public entities using public financing sources. It should be noted,
however, that the possibilities of financing further development of cross-border cooperation from
European funds are conditioned by their future availability, which is not guaranteed. In the future,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 17 of 26

three scenarios for the development of cross-border alliances of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn are
possible:

(i) combining cooperation in current areas and extending cooperation to new areas with
the dominant involvement of public and non-governmental entities, mainly based on European
funds and national public funds;
(ii) deepening cooperation in current areas and new areas, with the dominant involvement
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 25
of
public and non-governmental entities (European funds and national public funds) and parallel
(i) combining
development cooperation
of new, in current areas and
more commercialized extending
areas cooperation to
of cooperation, newinareas
e.g., with the
the field of transport
dominant involvement of public and non-governmental entities, mainly based on European
or tourism;
funds and national public funds;
(iii) maintaining
(ii) deepeningcooperation
cooperation at the current
in current level
areas and or
neweven limiting
areas, with theitdominant
in current areas onofthe part of
involvement
public and non-governmental
public and non-governmental entities
entities(among
(Europeanothers due
funds and to low
national availability
public funds) andof European and
parallel
development of new, more commercialized areas of cooperation,
national funds for this purpose) and parallel development of new, more commercialized e.g., in the field of transport or areas of
tourism;
cooperation, e.g., in the field of transport or other areas of economic cooperation.
(iii) maintaining cooperation at the current level or even limiting it in current areas on the part of
public and non-governmental entities (among others due to low availability of European and
In the aspect of planning alliances between Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn, scenario II, which ensures
national funds for this purpose) and parallel development of new, more commercialized areas
the balance between the public
of cooperation, e.g., inand commercial
the field spheres,
of transport whileofrespecting
or other areas the environment, should be
economic cooperation.
considered optimal. For this scenario, the next chapter presents the key stages of creating a cross-border
In the aspect of planning alliances between Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn, scenario II, which
cooperation strategy basedbetween
ensures the balance on alliances involving
the public various
and commercial entities,
spheres, whiledeveloped inenvironment,
respecting the various spheres.
should be considered optimal. For this scenario, the next chapter presents the key stages of creating a
6. The Main Stages of
cross-border the Strategy
cooperation Building
strategy Processinvolving
based on alliances for thevarious
Cross-Border Alliance
entities, developed of
in various
Border Cities
spheres.

Based6. on
Thethe
Mainassumptions regarding
Stages of the Strategy sustainable
Building development
Process for the planning
Cross-Border Alliance for border
of Border Cities areas, as
well as the analyzed
Based on the assumptions regarding sustainable development planning for border areas, in
case study and surveys that verify the research hypotheses set out as the paper,
the key stages ofthe
well as theanalyzed
strategy-building
case study andprocess for verify
surveys that alliances of cross-border
the research hypotheses border
set out incities are discussed.
the paper,
the key
the presented stagesisoforiented
concept the strategy-building
towards theprocess for alliances
development of cross-border
of network border cities
cooperation are various
between
discussed. The presented concept is oriented towards the development of network cooperation
stakeholder groups. the key stages of this process are shown in Figure 2.
between various stakeholder groups. The key stages of this process are shown in Figure 2.

INITIATION OF DIAGNOSIS OF ALLIANCE INCLUSION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT OF

COOPERATION IN DEVELOPMENT DIRECTIONS STAKEHOLDERS TO ALLIANCE ALIANCE DEVELOPMENT
ALLIANCE STRATEGY
•analysis of the cross- •promotion of alliance
• selection of partners border environment, among various mission
•establishing national and regional stakeholders vision
cooperation and •identification of • selection of strategic objectives
communication rules problems, needs and stakeholders for the
•institutionalization objectives of the alliance (formal and directions of activities
of cooperation alliance unformalized (present and future)
•establishment of a •resource and participation) bilateral and network
joint team and potentials analysis of •redefinition of the projects
selection of leaders alliance partners problems, needs and results
•determining the goals of alliance
directions of alliance •redefinition of alliance
development development
directions

Figure 2. The key stages of the process of building a strategy for the development of a cross-border
Figure 2. The keyof stages
alliance of the
border cities. process
Source: Ownof building a strategy for the development of a cross-border
elaboration.
alliance of border cities. Source: Own elaboration.
The creation of an alliance should be based on the cooperation of entities with the potential and
resources for sustainable development of cross-border cooperation. Institutionalizing cooperation
The creation of an alliance
(e.g., conclusion shouldconsortium
of an agreement, be basedagreement,
on the cooperation of entities
etc.) is an important factorwith the potential
stabilizing the and
resources for sustainable
alliance development
and ensuring its continuityofand
cross-border
durability. Ascooperation.
results from the Institutionalizing cooperation
research, the best leaders of (e.g.,
conclusioncross-border alliances consortium
of an agreement, are local governments as they
agreement, etc.)have institutional
is an important competences for broader
factor stabilizing the alliance
assessment of the needs for cross-border cooperation, also from the point of view of other
and ensuring its continuity and durability. As results from the research, the best leaders of cross-border
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 18 of 26

alliances are local governments as they have institutional competences for broader assessment of
the needs for cross-border cooperation, also from the point of view of other stakeholders. Therefore,
the development of cross-border alliances of border towns should be based on the involvement of local
self-governments as leaders.
In addition to formal institutional cooperation in the alliance, direct cooperation in the project
team is equally important. the project should involve competent professionals, including leaders
prepared to manage cross-border cooperation, both bilateral and network, and able to communicate in
an international team.
Only understanding and good cooperation between the alliance partners, as well as the leaders
and representatives of the partners in the project team, can ensure the effective development of
the alliance.
The diagnosis of the directions of the alliance development should be based on the analysis of
the partners’ environment, including the common cross-border environment as well as the national
and regional environment of each cooperating city (P1, P2, according to Figure 3), considering factors
important for both the initiators of the alliance and other stakeholders that can join the alliance (e.g.,
P3 and P4, according to Figure 3).
Factors resulting from the national and regional environment of partners include:

(i) availability of national structures of cross-border cooperation (e.g., Euroregions),

(ii) national and regional legal, economic, and social conditions, promoting or hindering
the development of cross-border cooperation,
(iii) attractiveness of cross-border cooperation from the point of view of other paths to achieve similar
goals at the national level,
(iv) popularization of standards and good practices for the development of cross-border cooperation

The factors influencing the alliance at the cross-border level can be divided into [78]:

- factors related to partnership in alliance (the level of trust between partners; quality and
dynamics of relationships between partners; common value system between partners; agreement
on the objectives and scope of cooperation; tolerance for: cultural, linguistic, ideological,
etc. differences)
- factors related to the cross-border region where the alliance develops (system support provided
for the development of CBC at the EU level and on the border; similarity of historical
and socio-economic background of the neighboring border regions; geopolitical situation in
the countries developing cross-border cooperation; demand for the integration from local
borderland communities; common policy of borderline development; availability of EU funds for
development of the borderlands; efficiency of other competing partnerships).

The continuation and development of the partnership (alliance), which shaped this cross-border
cooperation under the influence of various factors, was also considered. the development of
the cross-border alliance is also determined by the correct matching of the resources and potentials
of the partners to identify common problems, needs and goals, considering the principle of
sustainable development.
This approach to the process of building a cross-border cooperation strategy is unique since as a
starting point for the development of cooperation, a cross-border alliance of two local governments
is adopted. These two local governments intend to co-operate with other partners, transforming
the bilateral relationship into a network. As a rule, strategies for developing cross-border cooperation
are defined at the level of regions or Euroregions, where the network cooperation processes develop in
a natural way. However, it is much more difficult to develop network cooperation at the city level.
There is a lack of appropriate instruments for this (including local funds for cooperation), and in order
for such cooperation to develop, it is necessary to mobilize other stakeholders from both cities much
more strongly. Therefore, in further considerations, these mechanisms are discussed in detail.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 19 of 26

Figure 3 presents a mechanism for transforming a project partnership, e.g., a cross-border alliance
of border cities, into new partnerships built by other stakeholders. the continuation and development of
the partnership (alliance), which shaped this cross-border cooperation was also taken into consideration
under the influence of various factors. the development of the cross-border alliance is also determined
by the correct matching
Sustainability 2018, 10,of resources
x FOR PEER REVIEW and potential of the partners to identify common problems, 19 of 25 needs
and goals, considering the principle of sustainable development.
alliance is 2018,
Sustainability also 10,
determined by the correct matching of resources and potential of the partners
x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of to
25
To ensure sustainable cross-border partnership leading to sustainable borderland development,
identify common problems, needs and goals, considering the principle of sustainable development.
the activities should
alliance
To is alsobe
ensure implemented
determined
sustainable in apartnership
by the correct
cross-border sustainable
matchingleading way,
of resources onand
both sides of
potential
to sustainable ofthe
borderland the bordertoby at least
partners
development,
identify
two partners fromcommon
the activities the problems,
neighboring
should needs
be implemented andingoals,
countries. considering
the key
a sustainable way, the
on principle
objective of ofthe
both sides ofsustainable
border development.
development
the oftwo
by at least cross-border
To ensure
partners from sustainable
the the cross-border
neighboring partnership
countries. The keyleading
objectiveto sustainable borderland
of the development development,
partnerships is not only integration of neighboring communities on the ofborder
cross-border
areas, but also
the activities should
partnerships be implemented
is not only the integrationin a of
sustainable
neighboringway,communities
on both sidesonofthethe border
border areas,
by at least
but two
also
harmonious and from
partners sustainable
the development
neighboring countries.of these
The areas
keyareas andofstrengthening
objective the development their competitiveness in
of cross-border
harmonious and sustainable development of these and strengthening their competitiveness in
relation topartnerships
more developed
relation to more areas
is not developed
only of areas
the Union.
the integration ofofthe Sustainable
neighboring development
communities
Union. Sustainable of cross-border
on the border
development ofareas, partnerships
but also
cross-border
harmonious
is therefore a desirable
partnerships and sustainable
mechanism
is therefore development
a desirable of these
reflecting
mechanism theareas and the
strengthening
expectations
reflecting their
of local
expectations of competitiveness
communities
local communities in regarding
relation
regarding toopportunities
more developed for areas of the Union.
cross-organizational Sustainable
cooperation development
within borderlands. ofA cross-border
partnership
opportunities for cross-organizational cooperation within borderlands. A partnership should pursue
partnerships
should pursue is therefore
individuala desirable
goals of mechanism reflecting
the cooperating the expectations
organizations of local communities
with implications for their
individualregarding
goals ofopportunities
the cooperating organizations with
for cross-organizational implications
cooperation for their environment.
within borderlands. A partnership
environment.
should pursue individual goals of the cooperating organizations with implications for their
environment.

Figure 3.Figure
Model 3. Model of sustainable
of sustainable development of
development ofcross-border,
cross-border,inter-organizational cooperation.
inter-organizational cooperation.
TheFigure
key 3. Model ofrelated
activities sustainable development
to the of cross-border,
transformation inter-organizational
of the cross-border cooperation.
bilateral alliance into a
cross-border network alliance are shown in Figure 4.
The key activities related to the transformation of the cross-border bilateral alliance into a
The key activities related to the transformation of the cross-border bilateral alliance into a
cross-border network alliance
cross-border network
are shown
alliance
in Figure 4.
goal of are
the shown inresource
Figure balance
4.
activities
goals goals

common
of

and development of new

needs, needs,

in alliance

alliance, solving the

and directions

potentials of the relationships (formal,

common problem, partners -balance
allianceand informal), useof ofnew
new
problems,

activities

common
balancinggoal of the
of

resource development
in alliance

expectations
alliance, solving the initiators inofthe resources (formal,
and directions

potentials the relationships

cooperation

and the needs

common problem, of the aspect of-the and alliances
partners - expectations
the initiators partners alliance informal), use of new
problems,

balancing designated directions

initiators in the potentials, redefining
resources
of the alliance
of the alliance

of actions and goals

cooperation

and the needs of the aspect of the and alliances

partners - the initiators results, identification
designated directions and directions
potentials, of
redefining
of network

of the alliance of actions

potential further action, redefinition of
the alliance

of and goals
allianceidentification
results, partners with the results
and of of
directions
thepotential
missing resources activities (synergy of
of network

of further action, redefinition

criticalofmass

and potentials
alliance partners with effects
the results of
development

necessary
the missingtoresources and scale)(synergy
activities in the
strengthen the aspect of network
critical mass

and potentials effects

critical massto of the cooperation,
development

necessary and scale) in the

alliance and
strengthen the achieve diversification
aspect of
of network
the expected
critical mass ofgoals
the partners according to
cooperation,
and the and
alliance results of the
achieve the degree of of
diversification
alliance
the expected goals preparation
partners for
according to
and the results of the cooperation
the degree ofand the
alliance need for cooperation
preparation for
cooperation and the
need for
Figure 4. Activities related to the transformation of the cross-border cooperation
bilateral alliance into a
cross-border network alliance.
Figure 4. Figure 4. Activities
Activities related torelated to the transformation
the transformation of theofcross-border
the cross-border bilateral
bilateral alliance
alliance into
into a
a cross-border
cross-border network alliance.
network alliance.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 20 of 26

The success of the alliance depends both on the selection of partners, but also on the directions
of the alliance policy. It should be in line with the objectives of network cooperation, and not only
the cooperation of the alliance leaders, because this approach would in principle make it impossible to
obtain other entities to cooperate, as demonstrated by the case study discussed previously for the cities
of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn. To ensure the sustainability of the cross-border alliance, the following
conditions for the development of network cooperation can be adopted:

(i) Defining goals and directions of activities that consider social, economic, and environmental
aspects in the cross-border dimension. In the discussed case study for Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn,
the focus was on social and environmental aspects, taking into account the economic aspect (weak
involvement of entrepreneurs in the alliance), which resulted in the inability to use the economic
potential of this alliance)
(ii) Ensuring participation in alliance of various groups of stakeholders, bringing various resources
and potentials, which positively affects the synergy and scale effect in network cooperation,
(iii) Involvement of both partners with extensive experience in cross-border cooperation, as well as
those who do not have such experience, who report high, average, or low cooperation needs,
(iv) Ensuring the coherence of the key objective of cross-border cooperation for all participants in
the alliance on both sides of the border,
(v) Ensuring that the results of the alliance bring comparable benefits on both sides of the border.

The above considerations indicate that the development of a document containing the strategy
for the development of the cross-border alliance should take place only when the participants of
the alliance are joined by subsequent participants interested in the development of cross-border
cooperation within this alliance. Defining the mission, vision and strategic goals of the alliance is
the responsibility of the initiators who, in accordance with the model presented in Figure 4, are most
responsible for its development.
It is extremely important to capture all the relationships that will be established as part of
the network cooperation that develops in the alliance [79]. Each additional partnership is realized in
the implementation of subsequent projects and achieving additional results, which constitute the added
value of network cooperation in the cross-border alliance. It is difficult to assume that all participants
of the cross-border alliance will cooperate with each other with equal intensity and sustainability.
Certainly, there will be numerous asymmetries related to e.g., the organizational structures of partners,
their financial potential, impact on other network participants, interest in selected areas of cooperation,
etc. Some of the new relationships established in the framework of the cross-border alliance will evolve
into separate and independent partnerships over time and then in subsequent alliances. This is also
confirmed by the results of research carried out in Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn.
The research also shows that there is a high demand among the participants of the cross-border
alliance to develop a cooperation strategy that would also define its future areas. A well-prepared
strategy for the development of a cross-border alliance in the network cooperation model should,
therefore, consider the future directions of actions related to three main aspects:

(i) the needs and goals of alliance leaders responsible for its continuation and development,
(ii) the needs and objectives of the other participants of the alliance, strengthening its critical
mass enabling survival and further development of cross-border cooperation in current and
new directions,
(iii) the needs and objectives of borderland development, being in line with the national and regional
environment of the partners, as well as the cross-border environment, in the social, economic,
and environmental dimension.

It is also important to mention that another key condition for the development of cross-border
alliance is high awareness and good preparation of each group of stakeholders, especially
non-governmental organizations and enterprises to enlarge the cooperation at various levels. First,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 21 of 26

cooperating partners should understand the opportunities and benefits that cooperation can bring.
It is important to motivate them to develop the cross-border networks.

7. Final Remarks
It is increasingly acknowledged that the identification of critical factors for CBC success
represents, together with the definition of new strategies based on those factors, a crucial step towards
development of border regions of European countries, since CBC projects can contribute not only
to tackling aforementioned problems but also to enabling the creation of resilient and sustainable
cities, and strengthening potential synergies of territorial development. These issues gain increasing
emphasis when we know that in several countries more than half the population lives across the border,
tending to be more affected by common policy-making, and by the gaps that plague such policies.
The present study enabled us to conclude that the use of the case study research method constitutes
a feasible approach to identify specific conditions promoting the success of CBC projects:

(i) correctly defining the alliance goals;

(ii) ensuring the participation in alliance of various groups of stakeholders;
(iii) involving both partners with extensive experience in CBC;
(iv) ensuring the coherence of the key objective;
(v) guaranteeing the alliance benefits both sides.

Moreover, the methodology used enabled not only the identification of key challenges and
difficulties felt by European countries on the implementation of specific CBC projects, identified and
reviewed throughout the research, but also the verification that regardless of all the efforts made
in recent years in order to strengthen CBC in several countries around the world [80–84] there is
still a long way to go in order to achieve a sustainable methodology based on objective principles
that might contribute to support the creation of multiple benefits across economic, environmental,
sociocultural and political aspects in CBC projects. Still, the performed analysis put forward specific
problems among CBC projects mostly related to the duplication of equipment in nearby areas, lack of
basic services and infrastructures within the CBC influence area, and limited data sharing relating to
common planning options between cities, which emphasizes the aforementioned problems, among
other issues of concern on CBC processes that should be reviewed and rethought, given the negative
trend they might introduce on these processes. These aspects acquire increasing importance especially
in cities in which it is evident that the duplication of equipment and infrastructures contributed
directly to the lack of capacity to perform and or acquire essential services and public infrastructures
by both cities. This reality brings to light an apparent misuse of public money that has a clear impact
on the quality of life of the people living in these cities. This fact corroborates the findings put
forward by Castanho et al. [3] according to which regardless of all the CBC political considerations
and the advertisements received by CBC projects, investment continues to be developed according to
individual political goals, following discrete political, economic, environmental, and social agendas.
Likewise, even if as mentioned before, the preformed research enables the identification of specific
conditions promoting the success of CBC projects, CBC alliances depend both on the selection of
partners, but also on the envisioned politic directions, which should be in line with the objectives
established for the network, and not only based on the leaders’ ideas, since this approach would
generally make it impossible to obtain other entities to cooperate [85,86], as demonstrated by the case
study discussed previously for the cities of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn.
In summary, the performed research enabled us to put forward noteworthy conclusions on
the relevance of the establishment of alliances on CBC development projects, and on the main aspects
that should be considered throughout the planning process of a CBC project. In fact, though no one
single size fits all, there are some critical issues that, if considered, might contribute definitely to
the success of any cross-border cooperation strategy. Building trust, involving all relevant partners,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 22 of 26

and fomenting a perceptive sense of belonging might not be a miraculous recipe, but they are generally
relevant aspects towards CBC success.

8. Limitation of the Studies and Future Directions

The paper is based on qualitative research, including CATI and CAWI, which were conducted on
a deliberately chosen sample, not a representative one. This sample was sufficient to study the alliance
of the small cities of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn. More accurate results would be based on statistical
analysis that would build an economic model for this problem, which could be done using MANCOVA
analysis followed by univariate ANOVAs with some dependent variables in rounds. the authors
intend to use these methods in subsequent studies.
Further areas of research that the authors intend to pursue will primarily concern the assessment
of attitudes and actions of particular groups of actors developing cross-border cooperation in the border
cities of Cieszyn and Czech Cieszyn. Individual types of behavior aimed at the transformation of
bilateral cross-border cooperation in the network cooperation within the alliance will also be assessed as
presented in detail as Figure 3. the authors also want to verify to what extent the network relationships
that developed as part of the alliance met the requirements for sustainable cross-border cooperation as
defined in the last part of Section 6.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally in the development of the present paper. For the proper
paper developing, all the phases have been discussed and worked by the authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Cáceres, C.C.; Guerrero, E.M.F.; Carroza, V.M.; Puerto, M.; Batista, T.; Carriço, C.; González, M.A.D.;
Martín, J.L.; Gálvez, M.R.; et al. OTALEX-C; Direccíon General de Transportes, Ordenación del Territorio e
Urbanismo. Consejeria de Fomento, Vivienda, Ordenación del Territorio y Turismo; Junta de Extyremadura: Merida,
Spain, 2013.
2. Domínguez, J.A.; De Noronha, T.; Vaz, E. Sustainability in the trans-border regions? the case of
Andalusia—Algarve. Int. J. Glob. Environ. 2015, 14, 151–163. [CrossRef]
3. Castanho, R.; Loures, L.; Fernández, J.; Pozo, L. Identifying critical factors for success in Cross Border
Cooperation (CBC) development projects. Habitat Int. 2018, 27, 92–99. [CrossRef]
4. Abrhám, J. Project management and funding in the Euroregions. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2017, 16, 7–20.
[CrossRef]
5. Kurowska-Pysz, J.; Szczepańska-Woszczyna, W. the analysis of the determinants of sustainable cross-border
cooperation and recommendations on its harmonization. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2226. [CrossRef]
6. Martín, G. Border Space as a Vehicle for Territorial Cooperation in the New Programming Period 2014–2020,
OTALEX-C; Direccíon General de Transportes, Ordenación del Territorio e Urbanismo. Consejeria de Fomento,
Vivienda, Ordenación del Territorio y Turismo; Junta de Extyremadura: Badajoz, Spain, 2013.
7. Medeiros, E. Territorial cohesion: An EU concept. Eur. J. Spat. Dev. 2016, 60, 1–30.
8. Faludi, A. Territorial cohesion: Old (French) wine in new bottles? Urban Stud. 2004, 41, 1349–1365. [CrossRef]
9. Faludi, A. Territorial Cohesion under the Looking Glass. 2014. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/
regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/pdf/lookingglass.pdf (accessed on 3 July 2014).
10. Medeiros, E. Territorial cohesion trends in Inner Scandinavia: the role of cross-border
cooperation–INTERREG-A 1994–2010. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift Nor. J. Geogr. 2014, 68, 310–317.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 23 of 26

11. Commision of the European Communities. Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic
Guidelines, 2007–2013; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxemburg, 2005;
Available online: Availableonline:https://www.google.pl/search?q=11.+Commision+of+the+European+
Communities.+Cohesion+Policy+in+Support+of+Growth+And+Jobs:+Community+Strategic+Guidelines,
+2007-2013.+Luxemburg:+Office+for+Official+Publications+of+the+European+Communities;+2005&
spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjN79-nstHaAhWFGuwKHW53AX0QBQgkKAA&biw=1280&bih=615
(accessed on 22 April 2018).
12. Valkering, P.; Beumer, C.; de Kraker, J.; Ruelle, C. An analysis of learning interactions in a cross-border
network for sustainable urban neighbourhood development. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 49, 85–94. [CrossRef]
13. Chilla, T.; Evrard, E.; Schulz, C. On the territoriality of cross-border cooperation: “Institutional Mapping” in
a multi-level context. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2012, 20, 961–980. [CrossRef]
14. Loures, L.; Castanho, R.A.; Vulevic, A.; Naranjo Gómez, J.; Cabezas, J.; Fernández-Pozo, L. the multivariated
effect of city cooperation in land use planning and decision—Making processes: A European analysis.
In Urban Agglomerations; Ergen, M., Ed.; InTech: London, UK, 2018.
15. Medeiros, E. Territorial Impact Assessment and Cross-Border Cooperation. Reg. Stud. Reg. Sci. 2015, 2,
97–115. [CrossRef]
16. Wassenberg, B.; Reitel, B. Territorial Cooperation in Europe: A Historical Perspective; Publications Office of
the European Union: Luxembourg, 2015.
17. Medeiros, E. (Re)defining the Euroregion concept. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2011, 19, 141–158. [CrossRef]
18. Medeiros, E. Barrier effect and cross-border cooperation. the Sweden-Norway INTERREG–A territorial
effects. Finisterra 2014, 49, 97. [CrossRef]
19. Naranjo Gómez, J.M. Impacts on the Social Cohesion of Mainland Spain’s Future Motorway and High-Speed
Rail Networks. Sustainability 2016, 8, 624. [CrossRef]
20. Vulevic, A. Linkage between regional accessibility, economic development, and logistic infrastructure.
In Sustainable Logistics and Strategic Transportation Planning; Kramberger, T., Potočan, V., Ipavec, V.M., Eds.;
IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2016.
21. Castanho, R.A.; Vulevic, A.; Cabezas, J.; Fernández-Pozo, L.; Goméz-Naranjo, J.; Loures, L. Accessibility and
connectivity—Movement between cities, as a critical factor to achieve success on cross-border cooperation
(CBC) projects: A European analysis. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017, 32, 181–190. [CrossRef]
22. Fadigas, L. Urbanismo e Território, As Políticas Públicas; Edições Sílabo: Lisbon, Portugal, 2015.
23. Martins, S. Labirintos Mundiais: As Revoluções Pós-Modernas e os Caminhos da Incerteza Global; Edições Sílabo:
Lisbon, Portugal, 2015.
24. Hanson, G. Economic integration, intraindustry trade, and frontier regions. Eur. Econ. Rev. 1996, 40, 941–949.
[CrossRef]
25. Kurowska-Pysz, J. Opportunities for Cross-Border Entrepreneurship Development in a Cluster Model
Exemplified by the Polish-Czech Border Region. Sustainability 2016, 8, 230. [CrossRef]
26. Castanho, R. Sustainable Urban Planning in Transboundary Areas—Analysis of Critical Factors for Territorial
Success. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain, 2017.
27. Castanho, R.; Cabezas, J.; Fernández-Pozo, L.; Vulevic, A.; Naranjo Gómez, J.; Martín Gallardo, J.; Loures, L.
Common regional development strategies on Iberian territory. Envisioning new horizons: Post 2020. In Urban
Agglomerations; Thomson Reutes Aranzadi: Albuquerque, NM, USA, 2018.
28. Loures, L.; Castanho, R.A.; Naranjo Gómez, J.; Cabezas, J.; Fernández-Pozo, L. the influence of Cross-Border
Cooperation (CBC) in the fostering of entrepreneurship and regional development—A step closer to achieve
major structural changes and sustainable cities within European territory. In Entrepreneurship and Structural
Change in Dynamic Territories; Leitão, J., Devezas, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018.
29. Cross-Border Cooperation in Research and Higher Education, the Chance of Regional Development
for European Neighbours. Final Declaration, Annual Conference in Plauen, German, 16–18 October
2008. Available online: http://www.aebr.eu/files/publications/Final_Declaration_Plauen_EN.pdf
(accessed on 1 March 2018).
30. De Sousa, L. Understanding European cross-border cooperation: A framework for analysis. J. Eur. Integr.
2013, 35, 669–687. [CrossRef]
31. Spirkova, D.; Ivanicka, K. Dynamics of Bratislava Urban and Housing Development. New Models for Innovative
Management and Urban Dynamics; University of Algarve: Faro, Portugal, 2009.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 24 of 26

32. Baycan-Levent, T.; Ahu Gülümser Akgün, A.; Kundak, S. Success Conditions for Urban Networks: Eurocities
and Sister Cities. J. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2010, 18, 1187–1206. [CrossRef]
33. Castanho, R.A.; Loures, L.; Fernández, J.; Fernández-Pozo, L. Cross Border Cooperation (CBC) in Southern
Europe—An Iberian Case Study. the Eurocity Elvas-Badajoz. Sustainability 2017, 9, 360. [CrossRef]
34. Lange, E. Cross-border institutional thickness: From the Iberian Raia to Galicia-North of Portugal.
Geopolitica(s) 2017, 8, 225–251.
35. Blatter, J. Emerging cross-border regions as a step towards sustainable development? Experiences and
considerations from examples in Europe and North America. Int. J. Econ. Dev. 2000, 2, 402–440.
36. Xia, J. Mutual dependence, partner substitutability, and repeated partnership: the survival of cross-border
alliances. Strateg. Manag. J. 2011, 32, 229–253. [CrossRef]
37. Sassen, S. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo, 2nd ed.; Princeton University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001.
38. Williams, D.E. Sustainable Design: Ecology, Architecture and Planning; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ,
USA, 2007.
39. Yigitcanlar, T.; Dur, F.; Dizdaroglu, D. Towards prosperous sustainable cities: A multiscalar urban
sustainability assessment approach. Habitat Int. 2015, 45, 36–46. [CrossRef]
40. Medeiros, E. Is there a new ‘trust’in inner scandinavia? Evidence from cross-border planning and governance.
Geogr. Ann. Ser. B Hum. Geogr. 2014, 96, 363–386. [CrossRef]
41. Herzog, L.A. Cross-border planning and cooperation. In The US-Mexican Border Environment: A Road Map to
a Sustainable 2020; San Diego State University Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 139–161.
42. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Available online:
http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2018).
43. Grant, U. Urbanization and the Employment Opportunities of Youth in Developing Countries; Background Paper
Prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2012; Youth and Skills: Putting Education to
Work; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2012.
44. Amado, M. Planeamento Urbano Sustentável; Caleidoscópio: Lisboa, Portugal, 2009.
45. Spangenberg, J. Towards Sustainable Europe, A Study from the Wuppertal Institute for Friends of the Earth Europe;
Russel Press: Luton, UK, 1995.
46. Spangenberg, J. Sustainable Development—Concepts and Indicators; Sustainable Europe Research Institute:
Koln, Germany, 2000.
47. Loures, L.; Nunes, J.; Viegas, A. Transforming post-industrial infrastructure: Applying reversed translational
research as a redevelopment strategy. In Department of Architectural Science—Ryerson University: IC Adaptation
and Movement in Architecture; Ryerson University: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2013.
48. Beck, U. Risikogesellschaft—The Risk Society; SAGE Publications: Frankfurt, Germany, 1988.
49. Clark, B.; Gilad, A.; Bisset, R.; Tomlinson, P. Perspectives on Environmental Impact Assessmen: Proceedings of
the Annual WHO Training Courses on Environmental Impact Assessment, Centre for Environmental Management
and Planning; University of Aberdeen: Aberdeen, Scotland, 1980.
50. Wackernagel, M.; Rees, W. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on Earth; the New Catalyst’s
Bioregional Series; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 1997.
51. Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K.; Kurowska-Pysz, J. Sustainable business development through leadership in
SMEs. Econ. Manag. 2016, 8, 57–69. [CrossRef]
52. Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K.; Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z. Edukacja Wobec Rynku Pracy i Integracji Europejskiej
[Education Towards the Labor Market and European Integration]; Wyższa Szkoła Biznesu w Dabrowie
˛ Górniczej:
Dabrowa
˛ Górnicza, Poland, 2007.
53. Adams, D.; Watkins, C. Greenfields, Brownfields and Housing Development; Blackwell Science Ltd.: Oxford, UK,
2002.
54. Willem, K. Taxing land for urban containment: Reflections on a Dutch debate. Land Use Policy 2009, 26,
233–241.
55. Baptista, T.; Cabezas, J.; Fernandez, L.; Pinto-Gomes, C. IDE-OTALEX C. the first crossborder SDI between
Portugal and Spain: Background and development. J. Earth Sci. Eng. 2013, 3, 393–400.
56. The European Semester: Europe 2020 Strategy; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017; Available
online: www.ec.europa.eu (accessed on 1 March 2018).
57. Piekkari, R.; Welch, C. Rethinking the Case Study in International Business and Management Research; Edward
Elgart Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2011.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 25 of 26

58. Dooley, L.M. Case study research and theory building. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2002, 4, 335–354. [CrossRef]
59. Herling, R.W.; Weinberger, L.; Harris, L. Case study Research: Defined for Application in the Field of HRD; Human
Resource Development Research Center, University of Minnesota: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 2000.
60. Yin, R.K. Application of Case Study Research; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003.
61. Popper, K.R. Conjectures and Refutations; Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1963.
62. Eisenhardt, K.M. Building theories from Case Study Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 532–550.
63. Yin, R.K. the Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Adm. Sci. Q. 1981, 26, 58–65. [CrossRef]
64. Lisiński, M. Methodological paradigms of management science. Res. Pap. Wroclaw Univ. Econ. 2016, 421,
374–385.
65. Ciesz si˛e Cieszynem—Ogród Dwóch Brzegów. Available online: https://www.slaskie.pl/interreg/cgi/
zalaczniki/2006/12/29/1167385624.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2018).
66. Soldatos, P. Strategic cities alliances: An added value to the innovative making of an international city.
Ekistics 1991, 58, 346–350.
67. Hutchcroft, I. Local authorities, universities and communities: Alliances for sustainability. Local Environ.
1996, 1, 219–224. [CrossRef]
68. Klasik, A. (Ed.) Kreatywna aglomeracja-ocena zdolności i perspektyw. In Kreatywna Aglomeracja Aktywność
Przedsi˛ebiorcza i Konkurencyjność Ekonomiczna Miast w Procesie Restrukturyzacji Aglomeracji Miejskich; Akademia
Ekonomiczna w Katowicach: Katowice, Poland, 2008.
69. Macias, J. Alians strategiczny jako strategia przedsi˛ebiorstwa w niepewnym otoczeniu. Problemy Jakości 2013,
11, 12–19.
70. Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. Sieciowe uj˛ecie współpracy mi˛edzyorganizacyjnej w zarzadzaniu ˛ kryzysowym.
Współczesne Zarzadzanie
˛ 2012, 3, 51–60.
71. Gulati, R. Alliances and networks. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 293–317. [CrossRef]
72. Khanna, T.; Gulati, R.; Nohria, N. the dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative
scope. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 193–210. [CrossRef]
73. The Basic Data Concerning Cieszyn Town. Available online: www.cieszyn.pl (accessed on 1 March 2018).
74. The Basic Data Concerning Český Těšín Town. Available online: www.tesin.cz (accessed on 1 March 2018).
75. MOT. Cieszyn-Český Těšín. Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière. 2016. Available online: www.espaces-
transfrontaliers.org (accessed on 24 April 2018).
76. City Development Strategy for Cieszyn for Years 2010–2020. Available online: www.cieszyn.pl
(accessed on 1 March 2018).
77. Město Český Těšín, Strategický Plán Rozvoje Města 2012-201. Available online: www.tesin.cz
(accessed on 1 March 2018).
78. Kurowska-Pysz, J. A model of sustainable development of cross-border inter-organizational cooperation,
conclusion from the research. In Business Models: Strategies, Impact and Challenges; Jabłoński, A., Ed.; Nova
Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
79. Wróblewski, Ł.; Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z.; Cuyler, A. the European Union consumer behaviour in the festivals
market in Poland. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2017, 16, 302–314. [CrossRef]
80. Veemaa, J. Internationalizing the spatial identity of cross-border cooperation. Eur. Plan. Stud. J. 2012, 20,
1647–1666. [CrossRef]
81. Mau, S. Transnationale Vergesellschaftung. Die Entgrenzung Sozialer Lebenswelten; Campus Vewrlag: Frankfurt,
Germany, 2007.
82. Boehnke, K.; Rippl, S.; Fuss, D. Sustainable civil-society engagement: Potencials of a transnational civil
society in French-German, Polish-German, and Czech-German border regions. Sustain. J. 2015, 7, 4078–4099.
[CrossRef]
83. Kurowska-Pysz, J. Assessment of Trends for the Development of Cross-Border Cultural Clusters at an
Example of Euroregion Cieszyn Silesia. Forum Sci. Oecon. 2015, 3, 31–51.
84. Kurowska-Pysz, J. the Circumstances of Knowledge Transfer within the Scope of the Cross-Border
Czech-Polish Projects 2014-2020. Forum Sci. Oecon. 2015, 3, 31–43.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 1416 26 of 26

85. Wróblewski, Ł. Application of marketing in cultural organizations: the case of the Polish Cultural and
Educational Union in the Czech Republic. Cult. Manag. Sci. Educ. 2017, 1, 79–92. [CrossRef]
86. Jakubiec, J.; Kurowska-Pysz, J.; Gaw˛eda, M. Jakość Kształcenia Zawodowego na Pograniczu
Polsko-Czeskim Jako Determinanta Konkurencyjności Przedsi˛ebiorstw; Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii
Techniczno-Humanistycznej: Bielsko-Biała, Polska, 2015.

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).