Stefanie Dühr

The Europeanization of spatial planning through territorial cooperation

The influence of the European Union (EU) on spatial planning systems, policies and processes in the member states is steadily increasing. Whilst the Community’s direct role in spatial planning is limited, EU sectoral policies in the fields of environment, transport, rural development and regional policy have considerable spatial impacts and often require institutional adjustments within member states (see van Ravesteyn & Evers 2004). Consequently, the impact of EU legislation and policies on domestic planning is considerable and growing. This is contributing to a ‘vertical’ exchange of ideas and concepts between EU and national/regional institutions. Furthermore, initiatives related to the coordination of sectoral policies and more harmonized spatial development of the EU territory are being actively supported by the European institutions. Planners across Europe are now routinely involved in transboundary cooperation networks and interregional collaboration initiatives and thus subject to foreign experiences and exposed to a variety of planning approaches from other member states. Such cooperation between member states and regions on spatial planning is leading to horizontal processes of policy transfer and institutional adaptation between member states and regions. The focus of this special issue is on the Europeanization of spatial planning, and in particular the effects of territorial cooperation across national borders. Many of the authors of the articles in this special issue have been involved in a variety of recent research on European spatial planning, while others reflect on the practice of transnational territorial cooperation. Together, the articles provide a wealth of information on recent experiences of EU influences on domestic planning systems, policies and practices. They present reflections on the impact of territorial cooperation on institutional and policy change within the member

European spatial planning and territorial cooperation

Part 1: Introducing The European Dimension of Spatial Planning 1. Introducing the European Union as a Planning Subject 2. Arguing for and against European Spatial Planning 3. The Language Challenge and Terminology Part 2: The Spatial Development Context for European Spatial Planning 4. Spatial Development Trends in Europe and the Key Issues for Spatial Planning 5. Understanding and Representing European Space 6. Spatial Data and Spatial Information Part 3: The Institutional Framework for European Union Spatial Policy Making 7. European Integration and the European Union as a Political System 8. Theoretical Approaches to EU Governance and Policy-Making 9. The institutions of the European Union 10. Non-EU Actors, Organisations and Networks 11. Decision-Making and Policy-Making Processes in the European Union 12. Widening, Deepening and Broadening the EU: Past Experiences and Future Prospects Part 4: The European Spatial Planning Agenda 13. A Model of European Spatial Planning? 14. The Emergence of the European Spatial Planning Agenda 15. The Instruments of European Spatial Planning: Spatial Strategies, Spatial Visions and the Quest for Spatial Coordination 16. The Instruments of European Spatial Planning: Transboundary Territorial Cooperation Programmes and Projects Part 5: EU Spatial Policy: Sectoral Policies and their Territorial Effects 17. EU Economic and Competition Policies 18. EU Cohesion Policy, Regional Development and Disparities 19. EU Transport Policy 20. EU Agriculture and Rural Development Policy 21. EU Environmental Policy and Sustainability Part 6: Towards New Forms ofTerritorial Governance? 22. The Relevance of European Transboundary Cooperation for Spatial Planning 23. The Europeanisation of Domestic Planning Systems 24. Planning Cultures, Professions and Education in the EU 25. Looking Back and Looking Forward: A Critical Reflection on European Spatial Planning as Practice and as a Field of Research

Europeanization through transnational territorial cooperation? The case of INTERREG IIIB North-West Europe

The exponential growth in cooperation on spatial development issues across national borders involving many thousands of professionals is perhaps the most overt indication that, to some degree, there may be a Europeanization of spatial planning underway. There can be few planning authorities across the EU that are not involved in some form of cooperation across national borders. Many planning practitioners will have been exposed to planning practices in other countries, for instance through their involvement in INTERREG cooperation projects. For some places, cooperation across borders has become a major and routine component of planning work. The Hamburg metropolitan region, for example, was involved in 39 cooperation projects under the INTERREG IIIB North Sea and Baltic Sea Region programmes between 2000 and 2006. These projects had a total value of 108 million Euros and brought together 650 international partners (Eggert, 2006). The North-West Europe programme, which is the focus of this article, funded 45 projects through the INTERREG IIC initiative (1997 – 99) and between 2000 and 2006 allocated a 330 million Euro European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) budget to more than 100 projects through the INTERREG IIIB initiative. Overall, between 1997 and 2006 the European Union spent about 8.5 billion Euros cofinancing cooperation alongside similar amounts from the member state governments and other partners. This is substantial funding, and the level of activity is impressive on any measure, especially given that it began in earnest only about a decade ago with what was described as an experimental initiative. However, there has to date been little examination of the impact and effectiveness of this funding. The 2007 – 13 programme for Community regional policy (now commonly referred to as cohesion policy) continues funding for cooperation and debate is underway on possible reform beyond 2013. This is therefore an

Editorial: Reaching Out to New Territories …

A NEW TEAM ...While taking over the Editorial Board of a journal likeRegional Studies will never be easy, our start greatlybenefited from the excellent shape in which weinherited the journal from the team based in Newcastleupon Tyne. We were provided with avery healthy stockofpapers andspecialissues,andawell-organizedjournaladministration. Specialwords ofthanksshould go out toAndy Pike from Newcastle University, who not onlycoordinated an excellent team of Editors, but alsoarranged for a smooth and gradual transition betweenNewcastle and the new Editorial Board in Utrecht-Nijmegen. We are very happy that Andy Pike willremain in post as an Editor, so that we can benefitfrom his experience and insights in the years to come.On a more substantive point, the Newcastle team,like their predecessors in Cambridge, have successfullywidened the scope and reach of the journal (cf. P

The Role of Spatial Data and Spatial Information in Strategic Spatial Planning

STEFANIE DÜHR* and ANDRÉ MÜLLER†‡ *Department of Geography, Spatial Planning and Environment, Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen, PO Box 9108, NL-6500 HK Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Email: s.duhr@fm.ru.nl †Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development/BBSR (Berlin, Bonn), Deichmanns Aue 31–37, D-53179 Bonn, Germany ‡Sciences Po (Paris), 27 rue Saint-Guillaume, F-75337 Paris Cedex 07, France. Email: andre.mueller@sciences-po.org

Contested Spaces? The Use of Place Concepts to Communicate Visions for Peri-Urban Areas

In Dutch planning, there has always been an important role for spatial concepts. Their role has arguably changed with the recent decentralization of planning to the regional and local level. At the national level, guiding concepts of a more procedural nature have replaced the more substantive and place-based spatial concepts, leaving more room for regional and local interpretation. At the regional and local level, spatial concepts are still in use, but this seems to be in a more communicative, negotiating and developing role than before. In this paper, we analyse how place concepts are used to exercise power, mobilize recourses and frame meaning over the use of the peri-urban areas, in the changing Dutch planning context. This paper focuses on two competing place concepts for overlapping green urban fringe areas in The Hague Region, which have been promoted by different actor constellations and which represent different visions about the meaning of these peri-urban areas. The case study allows conclusions about the changing role of spatial concepts in Dutch spatial planning.

Europeanizing planning education and the enduring power of national institutions

ABSTRACT It is widely observed that planning education in Europe is affected increasingly by various forces of Europeanisation and internationalization. While these trends are not regarded uncritically, very often commentators treat them as inexorable, or it is assumed that individual universities have considerable agency in how they respond. However, closer attention to the literature on Europeanisation shows that nation-states significantly mediate these processes. This is the focus of this paper, which draws on a case study of the creation of an integrated multi-country Masters programme in spatial planning. The analysis shows that national institutions still exert significant force, at least on the structure of the degree programmes that can be created, which universities seeking to Europeanize have to negotiate.

A Europe of ‘Petites Europes’: an evolutionary perspective on transnational cooperation on spatial planning

ABSTRACT Using a historical-institutionalist framework, this paper discusses the emergence and evolution of transnational cooperation initiatives in post-war Europe. A number of critical junctures can be identified at which different goals and approaches were introduced. Due to the path-dependent nature of institutional arrangements, this has resulted in increasingly fuzzy rationales and contradictory objectives for transnational regions in Europe today. The paper concludes with a reflection on the value of historical institutionalism to identify the malleability of such complex policy concepts and the key challenges that transnational regions are facing due to unresolved tensions in their policy design and evolution.

Transboundary Spaces, Policy Diffusion and Planning Cultures-A New Thematic Group for AESOP

Introduction The Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP) (http://www.aesop-planning.eu/) has regularly hosted tracks focusing on European territorial cohesion, and transnational and cross-border planning within the context of its annual congresses, coordinated for many years by Andreas Faludi, and more recently by Stefanie Dühr, Jochem de Vries and Wil Zonneveld. Since the AESOP congress in Grenoble in 2003, discussions have been held by academics working on these topics about the possibility of establishing a thematic group. In general, AESOP thematic groups are working groups focusing on specific themes, established in order to create more effective platforms for debate and discussion amongst AESOP members and beyond. Due to their very nature, the activity of each thematic group (as many as fourteen of them exist at the time of writing) depends greatly on the commitment of its members to interact and cooperate in joint initiatives within the scope of the group. Following on from earlier discussions, including a dormant group on Transnational and Cross-border Planning, and reflecting new developments in the field, a new AESOP thematic group on Transboundary Spaces, Policy Diffusion and Planning Cultures (http://www.aesop-planning.eu/blogs/en_GB/transnational-andcross-border-planning) was launched during the 2015 AESOP annual congress in Prague. This thematic group is coordinated by the authors of the present contribution, with the active support of a growing number of scholars from universities around Europe with an interest in the themes. The group is gathering considerable momentum, providing opportunities for exchange during AESOP annual congresses through paper sessions on relevant topics, and has recently organized its first autonomous event. This short contribution aims at presenting the new thematic group on Transboundary Spaces, Policy Diffusion and Planning Cultures to the wider readership of disP – The Planning Review. Firstly, it introduces and details the scope of the group, its background and aims, to then briefly sketch out the process that led to its recent revival. It then reports on information concerning the first thematic group’s symposium, which took place at the University of Kaiserslautern in September 2016, and introduces the main activities that will characterize the group’s life in the near future. Scope, background and aims The AESOP thematic group on Transboundary Spaces, Policy Diffusion and Planning Cultures aims at creating and growing a network of researchers interested in, broadly speaking, the Europeanization and internationalization of spatial planning, and the various forms this takes: from the creation of new, softer planning spaces and corresponding governance arrangements, to the change of policies and practices through ‘travelling ideas’, the institutionalization of EU territorial governance, the relevance of planning traditions and cultures in territorial cooperation, etc. As will be further detailed in the subsections below, the scope of the group is deliberately broad in order to acknowledge the diversity of spatial planning arrangements across Europe and the range of questions that arise from processes of European integration (or dis-integration) for the field of spatial planning and territorial cooperation.

Analysing cartographic representations in spatial planning

Spatial planning maps are powerful instruments to frame discussions in plan-making processes and for the visualisation of existing and envisaged land uses on which future decisions are based. Yet despite their communicative potential, the role of cartographic representations has received less attention in spatial planning research than communication in planning processes through text or actions. Many planning researchers may therefore feel poorly prepared to analyse the design, content and meaning of planning maps and how they are used in planning processes. However, the analysis of maps and cartographic representations should be an essential part of the toolbox of every planning researcher interested in policy analysis and policy design. The visual expression of spatial policy can offer a different, and sometimes complementary, view on the envisaged use of space to that put forward by policy text. After all, planning maps have been described as the ‘forms and crystallizations of the thought of […] planners as they go about their work’ (Soderstrom 1996: 252). Moreover, any spatial planning researcher interested in unravelling power structures in planning processes and planning outcomes should develop a keen analytical interest in cartographic expressions of spatial policy. Especially in comparative planning research, analysing the style of spatial images in different spatial planning traditions – and the reasons for these differences – is a promising avenue to pursue to better understand how spatial planning systems function and perform.