Loris Antonio Servillo

Territorial attractiveness in EU urban and spatial policy: A critical review and future research agenda

The paper introduces the concept of territorial assets and discusses their role for regional development. Focusing on European societies and taking into account different strands of the literature on place and territorial capital, we argue that the endowment with – and mobilization of – such territorial assets could be seen as a key aspect of regional policy, producing changes in the attraction (and/or retention) of specific segments of population and, in a longer-term perspective, influencing sustainable development strategies. In this light, ‘territorial attractiveness’ – characterized in this paper in both conceptual and operational terms – is presented as a powerful element in European spatial policy, allowing regional development strategies to be more systematically integrated under an overall objective of territorial cohesion, while taking into account their implications in terms of human mobility.

The Innovation of the Italian Planning System: Actors, Path Dependencies, Cultural Contradictions and a Missing Epilogue

The paper aims at investigating the changes in the Italian planning system that took place in the last two decades. It is of interest because different directions of changes and combination of modes, tools and approaches have been developed and experimented. Such a plethora of changes however has been developed without a sound national reform capable to provide a legislative, disciplinary and cultural framework. At the same time, though, the condition of legislative immobility at the national level has characterized an unexpected experimenting ground for different actors and approaches at different administrative levels. In order to present its arguments, the paper combines an institutionalist approach with a strategic-relational perspective as starting point for the identification of the main interpretative categories for the processes of change. The modernization of the planning system can be investigated through its actors and the achieved innovations, its institutional path dependencies, as well as its cultural planning divergences. As a concluding consideration, we wonder if in occasion of the challenges that the ongoing socio-economic and institutional crisis has brought, the accumulated planning cultural capital can be the base ground for a new possible reforming season that would put order to a rich but scattered situation.

FlowSampler: Visual Analysis of Urban Flows in Geolocated Social Media Data

Analysis of flows such as human movement can help spatial planners better understand territorial patterns in urban environments. In this paper, we describe FlowSampler, an interactive visual interface designed for spatial planners to gather, extract and analyse human flows in geolocated social media data. Our system adopts a graph-based approach to infer movement pathways from spatial point type data and expresses the resulting information through multiple linked multiple visualisations to support data exploration. We describe two use cases to demonstrate the functionality of our system and characterise how spatial planners utilise it to address analytical task.

Romanian Spatial Planning System: Post-Communist Dynamics of Change and Europeanization Processes

Abstract This paper addresses the post-communist history of Romanias spatial planning system with the two-fold aim of describing its evolution and identifying the role played by the EU in this process. Taking as a starting point the contradiction between the formal goals of Romanian spatial planning and the actual spatial development patterns, the paper proposes a contextualized analysis of the systems changes. It complements the focus on the formal technical dimension with a look at the broader socio-political context, driving forces and path dependencies. It identifies five episodes within this time frame and argues that they were catalysed by factors outside the immediate technical dimension of spatial planning, such as the changes in the Romanian political scene, the dynamics in the governance and planning culture, the evolution of the economy, the actual development patterns and most notably, by the process of Europeanization. While often the role of the EU is taken for granted as a general positive force for Romania, the paper makes instead the distinction between the use of Europeanization as a rhetorical external driving force and the real changes brought about by the process.

Pragmatism and Research by Design: Epistemological Virtues and Methodological Challenges

Abstract This article reflects on the methodological capacity of the field of knowledge and expertise called spatial design in pursuing spatial quality. The aim is to analyse the methodological aspects of the field and its heuristic processes understood as research-by-design. Research-by-design has an encompassing attention to space through two related and complementary vocations: interpretation and transformation of our environment. The article argues that a research-by-design process is characterized by creative-abductive reasoning. Abduction fits the analytical logic of pragmatism, which is understood as a social philosophy of collective action and knowledge-building. Because of its focus on co-production and social learning, and its use of abductive reasoning, research-by-design offers a powerful inter- and transdisciplinary methodology for exploring transformative capacities and achieving spatial quality, the article argues.

Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning. Knowledge and policy development in an enlarged EU, edited by Neil Adams, Giancarlo Cotella, and Richard Nunes

This book examines some of the challenges faced by spatial planning in Europe in the last decade, in particular those related to the eastward shift of the European Union’s (EU) geographical and political barycentre after the EU enlargement. It focuses on three key issues combined in a coherent analytical framework: European spatial planning (ESP) as a proper disciplinary field, which has been challenged by the new changes of the last decade; the reforms that have been taking place in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries after their EU membership and the new issues that they have posed to the ESP debates; and the role of the so-called epistemic communities as driving forces in steering the dynamic changes in both the EU agenda and the member states in terms of territorial development policies. The mere attempt to debate these three spheres of knowledge is valuable per se and this makes this book worth reading. Concerning ESP, it has become a proper disciplinary field in the last two decades, despite not formally existing, with some important achievements reflecting the increasing attention to territorial issues by the EU. These developments are well summed up in the introduction to this book. Apart from some formal institutional recognition, and above all the inclusion of the territorial dimension of cohesion policy’s aim in the Lisbon Treaty, the disciplinary field has produced academic research and publications as well as several EU policy documents that have strengthened the profile of the specific scientific context in which this book is embedded. However, among the international community as well as in some national arenas, some sceptical voices have voiced criticisms of the EU spatial development approach. While the potentialities of the EU perspective are generally understood, there is a sense of lack of actual capacity to provide added value to regional and local agendas. Moreover, some over-ambitious policy aims, as for instance the Lisbon–Gothenburg and the new EU2020 strategies, have given support to those voices pointing to the distance between discourses and regional realities. At the same time, over-technocratic and bureaucratic ways of action, the unbalanced emphasis on the market economy in comparison with the approach of the EU social dimension and the predominance of western European culture are some of the most recurrent Euro-sceptic and critical comments. In the context of this pessimistic overview, this book represents something of a declaration of faith rather than an evidence-based counterargument on the role of the EU in providing a meaningful policy framework. Nevertheless, it succeeds in highlighting the importance of an EU spatial planning dimension. The different parts of this book are able to

Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning. Knowledge and policy development in an enlarged EU, edited by Neil Adams, Giancarlo Cotella, and Richard Nunes: New York and London, Routledge, 2010, 488 pp., £105.00 (hardback), ISBN 978-0-415-55194-6

This book examines some of the challenges faced by spatial planning in Europe in the last decade, in particular those related to the eastward shift of the European Union’s (EU) geographical and political barycentre after the EU enlargement. It focuses on three key issues combined in a coherent analytical framework: European spatial planning (ESP) as a proper disciplinary field, which has been challenged by the new changes of the last decade; the reforms that have been taking place in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries after their EU membership and the new issues that they have posed to the ESP debates; and the role of the so-called epistemic communities as driving forces in steering the dynamic changes in both the EU agenda and the member states in terms of territorial development policies. The mere attempt to debate these three spheres of knowledge is valuable per se and this makes this book worth reading. Concerning ESP, it has become a proper disciplinary field in the last two decades, despite not formally existing, with some important achievements reflecting the increasing attention to territorial issues by the EU. These developments are well summed up in the introduction to this book. Apart from some formal institutional recognition, and above all the inclusion of the territorial dimension of cohesion policy’s aim in the Lisbon Treaty, the disciplinary field has produced academic research and publications as well as several EU policy documents that have strengthened the profile of the specific scientific context in which this book is embedded. However, among the international community as well as in some national arenas, some sceptical voices have voiced criticisms of the EU spatial development approach. While the potentialities of the EU perspective are generally understood, there is a sense of lack of actual capacity to provide added value to regional and local agendas. Moreover, some over-ambitious policy aims, as for instance the Lisbon–Gothenburg and the new EU2020 strategies, have given support to those voices pointing to the distance between discourses and regional realities. At the same time, over-technocratic and bureaucratic ways of action, the unbalanced emphasis on the market economy in comparison with the approach of the EU social dimension and the predominance of western European culture are some of the most recurrent Euro-sceptic and critical comments. In the context of this pessimistic overview, this book represents something of a declaration of faith rather than an evidence-based counterargument on the role of the EU in providing a meaningful policy framework. Nevertheless, it succeeds in highlighting the importance of an EU spatial planning dimension. The different parts of this book are able to