Operationalizing a contested concept: indicators of territorial cohesion

References

• Abrahams, G. (2014). What “is” territorial cohesion? What does it “do”?: Essentialist versus pragmatic approaches to using concepts. European Planning Studies, 22(10), 2134–2155. doi:10.1080/09654313.2013.819838
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alfsen, K. H., & Sæbø, H. V. (1993). Environmental quality indicators: Background, principles and examples from Norway. Environmental and Resource Economics, 3(5), 415–435. doi:10.1007/BF00310246
   Google Scholar
• Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations: Independent Report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Baudelle, G., & Castagnède, B. ( Eds.). (2002). Le polycentrisme en Europe : Une vision de l’aménagement du territoire européen. Paris: éditions de l’Aube, DATAR.
   Google Scholar
• Collier, D., Daniel Hidalgo, F., & Olivia Maciuceanu, A. (2006). Essentially contested concepts: Debates and applications. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11, 211–246. doi:10.1080/13569310600923782
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, S. (2007). Mapping sustainable development as a contested concept. Local Environment, 12(3), 259–278. doi: 10.1080/13549830601183289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Da Cunha, A., & Ruegg, J. (Eds.). (2003). Développement durable et aménagement du territoire. Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes.
   Google Scholar
• Dao, H., Plagnat, P., Rousseaux, V., Angelidis, M., Batzikou, S., Bazoula, V., … Van Well, L. (2012). INTERCO – Indicators of territorial cohesion, ESPON Scientific Platform and Tools Project 2013/3/2, Final Report, ESPON & University of Geneva.
   Google Scholar
• Dao, H., Plagnat, P., & Rousseaux, V. (2013). Sigma-convergence as a measure of territorial cohesion. In F. Holstein, S. Zillmer, & K. Böhme (Eds.), Second ESPON 2013 scientific report – science in support of European territorial development and cohesion (pp. 32–37). Luxembourg: ESPON Programme 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S. (2005). Understanding territorial cohesion. Planning Practice & Research, 20(4), 433–441. doi:10.1080/02697450600767926
   Google Scholar
• EEA. (2009). Territorial cohesion – Analysis of environmental aspects of the EU Cohesion Policy in selected countries. EEA Technical Report No 10/2009. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. Retrieved from http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/territorial-cohesion-2009
   Google Scholar
• Eser, T. W. (2009). From disparities to diversity – territorial cohesion in the European Union. In H. Kilper (Ed.), German annual of spatial research and policy 2009 (pp. 19–35). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Eser, T. W., & Konstadakopoulos, D. (2000). Power shifts in the European Union? The case of spatial planning. European Planning Studies, 8(6), 783–798. doi:10.1080/713666438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2008). Green paper on territorial cohesion. Turning territorial diversity into strength. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. (2014). Getting messages across using indicators. A handbook based on experiences from assessing sustainable development indicators. Luxembourg: Eurostat.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2005). Territorial cohesion: An unidentified political objective: Introduction to the special issue. Town Planning Review, 76(1), 1–13. doi:10.3828/tpr.76.1.1
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2007). Territorial cohesion policy and the European model of society. European Planning Studies, 15(4), 567–583. doi:10.1080/09654310701232079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrugia, N., & Gallina, A. (2008). Developing Indicators of Territorial Cohesion Federico Caffè Centre Research Report (Vol. Nr 1/2008): Department of Society and Globalization, Roskilde University.
   Google Scholar
• Freeden, M. (1996). Ideologies and political theory: A conceptual approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fukuda-Parr, S. (2003). Rescuing the human development concept from the HDI: Reflections on a new agenda. In S. Fukuda-Parr & A. K. Shiva Khumar (Eds.), Readings in human development (pp. 117–124). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gallie, W. B. (1956). IX. – essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198. doi:10.1093/aristotelian/56.1.167
   Google Scholar
• Grasland, C., & Hamez, G. (2005). Vers la construction d’un indicateur de cohésion territoriale européen ? Espace Géographique, 34, 97–116. doi:10.3917/eg.342.0097
   Google Scholar
• Heink, U., & Kowarik, I. (2010). What are indicators? On the definition of indicators in ecology and environmental planning. Ecological Indicators, 10(3), 584–593. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holder, J., & Layard, A. (2011a). Drawing out the elements of territorial cohesion: Re-scaling EU spatial governance. Yearbook of European Law, 30(1), 358–380. doi:10.1093/yel/yer016
   Google Scholar
• Holder, J., & Layard, A. (2011b). Seeking spatial and environmental justice for people and places within the EU. In A. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos (Ed.), Law and ecology. New environmental foundations (pp. 171–191). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, M. (1999). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice (pp. 21–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., & Varone, F. (2006). Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques. Zurich/Coire: Rüegger Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Mason, A. (1990). On explaining political disagreement: The notion of an essentially contested concept. Inquiry, 33(1), 81–98. doi:10.1080/00201749008602212
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mirwaldt, K., Mcmaster, I., & Bachtler, J. (2008). Reconsidering cohesion policy: The contested debate on territorial cohesion. Paper presented at the European Policy Research Paper (EoRPA paper 08/5), Glasgow. Retrieved from http://www.eprc.strath.ac.uk/eorpa/Documents/EoRPA_08_Papers/EoRPA_08-5.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mueller, C. W. (2004). Conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social science research methods (pp. 162–166). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, G. L. (1988). Comprehending complex concepts. Cognitive Science, 12(4), 529–562. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1204_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. (2015). How’s life? Measuring well-being. Paris: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Parrott, L. (2010). Measuring ecological complexity. Ecological Indicators, 10, 1069–1076. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.03.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rametsteiner, E., Pülzl, H., Alkan-Olsson, J., & Frederiksen, P. (2011). Sustainability indicator development – science or political negotiation? Ecological Indicators, 11(1), 61–70. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.06.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rapport, D. J., & Hildén, M. (2013). An evolving role for ecological indicators: From documenting ecological conditions to monitoring drivers and policy responses. Ecological Indicators, 28, 10–15. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.05.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rastier, F. (1999). De la signification au sens – pour une sémiotique sans ontologie. In P. Basso & L. Corrain (Eds.), Eloquio del senso (pp. 213–240). Milan: Costa & Nolan. Retrieved from http://www.revue-texto.net/Inedits/Rastier/Rastier_Semiotique-ontologie.html
   Google Scholar
• Ruben, D.-H. (2010). W.B. Gallie and essentially contested concepts. Philosophical Papers, 39(2), 257–270. doi:10.1080/05568641.2010.503465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sala-i-Martin, X. X. (1996). The classical approach to convergence analysis. The Economic Journal, 106(437), 1019–1036. doi:10.2307/2235375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarmiento-Mirwaldt, K. (2013). Can multiple streams predict the territorial cohesion debate in the EU? European Urban and Regional Studies, 1–15. doi:10.1177/0969776413481984
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schön, P. (2005). Territorial cohesion in Europe? Planning Theory & Practice, 6(3), 389–400. doi:10.1080/14649350500209397
   Google Scholar
• Schön, P. (2009). Territorial cohesion – current views of the commission and the member states of the European Union. In H. Kilper (Ed.), New disparities in spatial development in Europe (pp. 7–17). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, K., & Bell, D. (2013). Trying to measure local well-being: Indicator development as a site of discursive struggles. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(3), 522–539. doi:10.1068/c10127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sykes, O. (2011). Investigating sub-state interpretations of European territorial cohesion: The case of the United Kingdom. International Planning Studies, 16(4), 377–396. doi:10.1080/13563475.2011.618026
   Google Scholar
• Timmer, A., Majtényi, B., Häusler, K. & Salát, O. (2014). Critical analysis of the EU’s conceptualisation and operationalisation of the concepts of human rights, democracy and rule of law. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Retrieved from http://www.fp7-frame.eu/wp-content/materiale/reports/10-Deliverable-3.2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Van Well, L. (2012). Conceptualizing the logics of territorial cohesion. European Planning Studies, 20(9), 1549–1567. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.708021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B. (2002). Polycentric development: What is behind it? In A. Faludi (Ed.), European spatial planning (pp. 83–103). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B. (2007). Territorial cohesion: The underlying discourses. In A. Faludi (Ed.), Territorial cohesion and the European model of society (pp. 37–59). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B. (2012). European organisations and the institutionalization of a territorial dimension in EU policy. In W. Zonneveld, J. De Vries, & L. Janssen-Jansen (Eds.), European territorial governance (pp. 11–27). Amsterdam: Delft University Press.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. (2009). World development report 2009: Reshaping economic geography world development report. Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Zillmer, S., & Böhme, K. (2010). EU regional policy – Territorial cohesion objectives and realities. Spatial foresight. Retrieved from http://www.regionalstudies.org/events/2010/may-pecs/papers/Zillmer.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Zillmer, S., Böhme, K., & Lüer, C. (2012). Territorial cohesion in future EU cohesion policy: Final report for the research project “The territorial dimension of future EU cohesion policy” (Forschung issue 156 ed., pp. 53). Berlin: Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (BMVBS).
   Google Scholar