What “Is” Territorial Cohesion? What Does It “Do”?: Essentialist Versus Pragmatic Approaches to Using Concepts

References

• Camagni, R. (2005) The rationale for territorial cohesion and the place of territorial development policies in the European Model of Society. Presentation from international seminar, Vienna, July 11–13.
   Google Scholar
• Camagni, R. & Fratesi, U. (2011) The territorial cohesion objective within European cohesion policies from a territorial capital perspective. Presentation from DG-Regio and RSA joint conference “What Future for Cohesion Policy? An Academic and Policy Debate”, March 16–18, Bled, Slovenia.
   Google Scholar
• CEC (1999) The European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union, Luxembourg Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• CEC (2001) Unity, Solidarity, Diversity for Europe, Its People and Its Territory: Second Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, Luxembourg Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• CEC (2008) Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion: Turning Territorial Diversity into Strength, Luxembourg Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• CEC (2009) Sixth Progress Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, Luxembourg Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Delanda, M. (2006) A New Philosophy of Society (London: Continuum Press).
   Google Scholar
• EC (2010) EUROPE 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, Luxembourg Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• EP (2008) Draft Report on Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion and the State for the Debate on the Future Reform of Cohesion Policy, Luxembourg Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2003) ESPON Project 3.2: Spatial Scenarios and Orientations in Relation to the ESDP and Cohesion Policy, Tender: November, ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2006a) ESPON Project 3.2: Spatial Scenarios and Orientations in Relation to the ESDP and Cohesion Policy, Final Report: October, ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2006b) ESPON Project 4.1.3: Feasibility Study on Monitoring Territorial Development Based on ESPON Key Indicators, Interim Report: July 2006, ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2007) ESPON 2013 Programme: Adopted Operational Programme, Final Version 7 November 2007. Available at http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Programme/ (accessed 3 June 2013).
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2008) TIP TAP: Territorial Impact Package for Transport and Agricultural Policies, Inception Report: September 24, ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2009) Territorial Indicators and Indices (2010–2012), Specification: ESPON Project 2013/3/2.Version August 21, 2009, ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2010a) INTERCO: Indicators of Territorial Cohesion, Inception Report: Version August 27, 2010, ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2010b) INTERCO: Indicators of Territorial Cohesion, Note on the Selection of Territorial Cohesion Indicators: 7/6/2011, ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2011a) INTERCO: Indicators of Territorial Cohesion, (draft) Final Report: December 2011.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2011b) INTERCO: Indicators of Territorial Cohesion, (draft) Final Scientific Report, December 2011.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2012a) ESPON ARTS Assessment of Regional and Territorial Sensitivity, Final Report: Version 30/07/2012.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2012b) EATIA: ESPON and Territorial Impact Assessment, Final Report: Version 29/06/2012.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2012c) KITCASP: Key Indicators for Territorial Cohesion and Spatial Planning, Interim Report: Version 31/10/2012.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2012d) ESPON BSR-TeMo: Territorial Monitoring for the Baltic Sea Region, Interim Report: Version 30/11/2012, Interim Report Revision: 12/10/2012.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2012e) ET2050 Territorial Scenarios and Visions for Europe.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON (2013) ESPON Evidence and Tools for EU Cohesion Policy 2014–2020. Available at http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Programme/EUCohesionPolicy2014-2020/ (accessed 3 June 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Evers, D., Tennekes, J., Borsboom, J., Helingenberg, H. & Thissen, M. (2009) A Territorial Impact Assessment of Territorial Cohesion for the Netherlands (The Hague, Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL)).
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2001) The application of the ESDP: Evidence from the North West Metropolitan area, European Planning Studies, 9(5), pp. 663–676. doi: 10.1080/713666496
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2006) From European spatial development to territorial cohesion policy, Regional Studies, 40(6), pp. 667–678. doi: 10.1080/00343400600868937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2008) Territorial Cohesion under the Looking Glass: Synthesis Paper about the History of the Concept and Policy Background to Territorial Cohesion. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/pdf/lookingglass.pdf (accessed 12 December 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. & Waterhout, B. (2002) The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective (London: Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• German Presidency (2007a) The Territorial State and Perspectives of the European Union: Towards a Stronger European Cohesion in the Light of the Lisbon and Gothenburg Ambitions.
   Google Scholar
• German Presidency (2007b) Territorial Agenda of the European Union: Towards a More Competitive and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions, as agreed 24–25 May 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Gløersen, E. & Böhme, K. (2011) Storylines on Territorial Cohesion. Nordregio News (online journal) Issue 1, October 2011. Available at http://www.nordregio.se/en/Metameny/Nordregio-News-Thematic-Line/Europes-strive-for-Territorial-Cohesion/Storylines-on-Territorial-Cohesion/ (accessed 12 December 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Hague, C. (2011) Towards a Set of Indicators for Territorial Cohesion: Report from the INTERCO Workshop, October 20, 2011. Available at www.rtpi.org.uk/download/.../Report-on-INTERCO-workshop-Oct-2011.pdf (accessed 12 December 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. (1989) City Politics: Hegemonic Projects and Discourse (Aldershot: Avebury, Gower).
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. (1993) Discourse coalitions and the institutionalisation of practice. The case of acid rain in Britain, in J. Forester & F. Fischer (Eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy and Planning, pp. 43–76.(Durham, NC: Duke University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. (1998) FAQ: Research Methods. Available at http://www.maartenhajer.nl/?page_id=14 (accessed 4 January 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Halsey, M. (2006) Deleuze and Environmental Damage (Aldershot: Ashgate).
   Google Scholar
• Harper, T. L. & Stein, S. M. (2006) Dialogical Planning in a Fragmented Society: Critically Liberal, Pragmatic, Incremental (New Brunswick, NJ: CUPR Press).
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2009) The pragmatic tradition in planning thought, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28(3), pp. 277–292. doi: 10.1177/0739456X08325175
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hillier, J. (2007) Stretching Beyond the Horizon: A Multiplanar Theory of Spatial Planning and Governance (Aldershot: Ashgate).
   Google Scholar
• Hillier, J. (2011) Strategic navigation across multiple planes: Towards a Deleuzian-inspired methodology for spatial planning, Town Planning Review, 82(5), pp. 503–527. doi: 10.3828/tpr.2011.30
   Google Scholar
• Hübner, D. (2007) Territorial cohesion: Towards a clear and common understanding of the concept. Speech delivered at the informal ministerial meeting on territorial cohesion and regional policy, Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal, November 23. Available at http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/07/743&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en (accessed 12 December 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Inforegio (2011) Results from Contributors: Public Consultation from 06 October 2008 to 28 February 2009. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/index_en.htm (accessed 14 May 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Markusen, A. (1999) Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: The case for rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies, Regional Studies, 33(9), pp. 869–884. doi: 10.1080/00343409950075506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD (2008) Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide (Paris: OECD).
   Google Scholar
• de Roo, G. & Porter, G. (2007) Fuzzy Planning: The Role of Actors in a Fuzzy Governance Environment (Aldershot: Ashgate).
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, D. & Sykes, O. (2004) The concept of polycentricity in European spatial planning: Reflections on its interpretation and application in the practice of spatial planning, International Planning Studies, 9(4), pp. 283–306. doi: 10.1080/13563470500050437
   Google Scholar
• Stein, S. M. & Harper, T. L. (2012) Creativity and innovation: Divergence and convergence in pragmatic dialogical planning, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(1), pp. 5–17. doi: 10.1177/0739456X11417829
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sykes, O. (2004) Diversity and context dependency in European spatial planning: Investigating the application of the European spatial development perspective, PhD thesis, University of Liverpool.
   Google Scholar
• UK Government (2009) UK Government's Response to the Consultation on the European Commission's Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, March 10.
   Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B. (2007) Territorial cohesion: The underlying discourses, in A. Faludi (Eds) Territorial Cohesion and the European Model of Society, pp. 37–59.(Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy).
   Google Scholar