Cormac Walsh

Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020: Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions

At a time when the financial crisis in the Eurozone is seen to cast doubts on the extent to which European institutions act in the collective interests of Europe, it is perhaps instructive to consider the question of the territorial agenda of the European Union. To what extent does the EU have a coherent spatial policy or agenda? Do sectoral policies and the actions of individual member states have uncoordinated and even contradictory effects? These are questions which European spatial policy initiatives have sought to address, most notably through intergovernmental initiatives such as the European Spatial Development Perspective (CEC, 1999) and the Territorial Agenda of the European Union (TAEU, 2007). Most recently, at a meeting of the Ministers of EU member states responsible for spatial planning and territorial development in the town of Gödöllő, Hungary, on 19 May 2011, a new, revised and updated Territorial Agenda for the European Union (TAEU) was agreed upon. With the title Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020: Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions (TAEU 2020, 2011) the document constitutes a revision of the “Territorial Agenda of the European Union: Towards a More Competitive and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions” agreed by the EU ministers at Leipzig in 2007 (TAEU, 2007). Whereas the TAEU was framed in the context of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Agendas on economic competitiveness and sustainable development respectively, the TAEU 2020 is clearly positioned within the context of the EU 2020 strategy (CEC, 2010). The need for reorientation in the light of changes in the overarching EU policy discourse is, however, only one of many factors influencing the direction taken in the 2011 revision. As in all strategic policy documents at the European level, however, the language and terminology employed can be critically important. Since the adoption of the TAEU in 2007, the pursuit of territorial cohesion has become a shared objective of the European Union and member states under Article 3 of the Treaty of Lisbon ratified in 2009. Thus while its precise meaning is still subject to debate, the status of territorial cohesion policy has been significantly strengthened (see Faludi, 2009, 2010). A report prepared for the Polish Presidency of the European Council in September 2011 argues that the TAEU 2020 should act as a “reference point” during the preparation of a new set of EU framework policies associated with the 2014–2020 programming period. The links between the TAEU 2020 and other policies, including cohesion policy remain at a general abstract level, however (Böhme et al., 2011, pp. 9, 12). The TAEU 2020 itself refers to territorial cohesion as a “set of principles”:

Rethinking the Spatiality of Spatial Planning: Methodological Territorialism and Metageographies

This paper argues for increased attention to the role of territory and territoriality in framing sociospatial discourses in the context of spatial plan making. In particular, it is suggested that the engagement of political actors with processes of spatial planning tends to be framed within particular spatial imaginaries which reflect established political-administrative and territorial boundaries. It is contended that a critical analysis of the territorial framing of processes of spatial planning is necessary in order to understand the capacity for spatial strategies to effectively challenge and reconfigure established sociospatial imaginaries in functional or relational terms. It is suggested that spatially explicit public policy statements, such as planning strategies, may be characterized by specific assumptions of territorial space, in a similar manner to which mainstream social science has contained implicit assumptions of state-centrism. The salience of territorial spatial imaginaries is demonstrated in the case of European spatial planning and through a local case study of city-regional spatial planning and politics in the Greater Dublin Area.

Spatial distribution of urban land-use change in the Dublin city-region: 1990–2006

High-resolution land-use data were analysed for the period from 1990 to 2006 for the Greater Dublin Area, including County Louth. The land-use datasets were produced from the photo-interpretation of high-resolution satellite imagery and classified using the MOLAND nomenclature for three reference dates during the 16-year period, these include: 1990, 2000 and 2006. The analysis carried out in this paper deals specifically with changes in land-use concerning artificial fabric. Between 1990 and 2000, artificial areas increased by 12,832 ha, while an increase of 13,455 ha occurred during the six-year period from 2000 to 2006. The changes to artificial surfaces represent 1.64% of the total study area between 1990 and 2000, and 1.72% for the period between 2000 and 2006.

Spatial planning and territorial governance: managing urban development in a rapid growth context

This article examines the policy and practice of spatial planning in the Dublin city region over the period from 1990 to 2006. This period has been characterized by rapid demographic and economic expansion and increased dispersal of urban and peri-urban development across a spatially extensive functional urban region. Spatial planning policy and practice at local, regional and national scales has sought to steer the spatial distribution of urban development in accordance with broad policy principles of sustainable development and balanced regional development. This article critically examines the governance capacity of regional-scale spatial planning strategies to manage urban expansion in a dynamic market-led development context and finds in this case a significant absence of conformance between strategic objectives and spatial development outcomes.

Strategic Spatial Planning: Responding to Diverse Territorial Development Challenges: Towards an Inductive Comparative Approach

The concept of strategic spatial planning has come to represent a particular concern to broaden the scope and enhance the governance capacity of spatial policy and practice in a European context. It is increasingly evident, however, that the concept represents a diversity of multifaceted and fragmented practices, confounding assumed narratives of Europeanization and policy convergence. This article seeks to move towards a context-sensitive, inductive understanding of spatial planning in a territorially diverse Europe. Emphasis is placed on the need for critical comparative studies to assess the capacity of spatial strategies in practice to respond to diverse territorial development challenges.

Managing coastal risks at the Wadden Sea: a societal perspective

Purpose The trilateral Wadden Sea Region (WSR), extending from Den Helder in the Netherlands, along the German North Sea coast, to Esbjerg in Denmark, constitutes a unique but vulnerable coastal landscape. Vulnerability to environmental and societal risks is expected to increase in coming decades with encompassing new challenges such as demographic changes and conflicting uses of space, both on land and at sea. Meeting these challenges will require a shift toward an understanding of risk management as a social process, marking a significant departure from the dominant technical risk management paradigm. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach In practice, this paradigm shift requires participatory stakeholder engagement, bringing together multiple and diverse perspectives, interests and concerns. This paper aims to support the implementation and expansion of enhanced social processes in coastal risk management by presenting a case study of participatory risk management process. Implemented in collaboration with a trilateral stakeholder partnership, the authors present a mixed-method approach which encouraged a joint, deliberate approach to environmental and societal risks within an overall framework. Findings The results enable the authors to deduce implications of participatory risk management processes for the WSR, wherein the partnership can act as a communicator and ambassador for an improved understanding of risk management as a social process. Originality/value In this context, the trilateral dimension, discussed here for the first time in relation with coastal risk management processes in the WSR, is emphasized as an efficient level that offers room for enhanced participatory and negotiation processes that are crucial for enhanced risk management processes.