Diminishing borders and conflating spaces: a storyline to promote soft planning scales

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
• Adams, N., Cotella, G., & Nunes, R. (2011). Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning: Knowledge and policy development in an enlarged EU. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., Chilla, T., & Sielker, F. (2014). Europeanizing territoriality – towards soft spaces? Environment and Planning A, 46(11), 2703–2717. doi: 10.1068/a130037p
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, M. (1997). Transfrontier Co-operation – history and theory. In G. Brunn & P. Schmitt-Egner (Eds.), Grenzüberschreitende zusammenarbeit in Europa. Theorie – empirie – praxis (pp. 78–97). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
   Google Scholar
• Antalovsky, E., Dangschat, J. S., & Parkinson, M. (Eds.). (2005). European metropolitan governance. Cities in Europe – Europe in the cities. Wien: Europaforum.
   Google Scholar
• Bäcklund, P., Häikiö, L., Leino, H., & Kanninen, V. (2017). Bypassing publicity for getting things done: Between informal and formal planning practices in Finland. Planning Practice & Research, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2017.1378978
   Google Scholar
• Bäcklund, P., & Kanninen, V. (2015). Valtaistetut asukkaat: Neighbourhood Planning ja asuinalueperustaisen osallistumisen rajaamisen taktiikat. Alue Ja Ympäristö, 44(1), 4–16.
   Google Scholar
• Behagel, J., & Turnhout, E. (2011). Democratic legitimacy in the implementation of the water framework directive in the Netherlands: Towards participatory and deliberative norms? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(3), 297–316. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2011.607002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böhme, K. (2002). Nordic echoes of European spatial planning. Stockholm: Nordregio.
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, A. (2002). Political legitimacy and democracy. Ethics, 112, 689–719. doi: 10.1086/340313
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotella, G., & Janin Rivolin, U. (2011). Europeanization of spatial planning through discourse and practice in Italy. disP - The Planning Review, 47(186), 42–53. doi: 10.1080/02513625.2011.10557143
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cremer-Schulte, D. (2014). With or without you? Strategic spatial planning and territorial re-scaling in Grenoble urban region. Planning Practice & Research, 29(3), 287–301. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2014.929844
   Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S. (2003). EUROPEAN BRIEFING: Polycentricity in European spatial planning: From an analytical tool to a normative agenda. European Planning Studies, 11(8), 979–999. doi: 10.1080/0965431032000146169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dühr, S. (2006). The visual language of spatial planning: Exploring cartographic representations for spatial planning in Europe. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dukes, T. (2008). The URBAN programme and the European urban policy discourse: Successful instruments to Europeanize the urban level? GeoJournal, 72(1–2), 105–119. doi: 10.1007/s10708-008-9168-2
   Google Scholar
• EU Ministers Responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development. (2009). The Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020: Towards an Inclusive, Smart and Sustainable Europe of Diverse Regions. doi: 10.3828/tpr.80.1.4
   Google Scholar
• EU Ministers Responsible for Territorial Cohesion and Urban Matters. (2016). Urban agenda for the EU: Pact of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Author.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2011). Cities of tomorrow: Challenges, visions, ways forward. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2776/41803
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2014). Integrated Territorial Investment: Cohesion Policy 2014-2020.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2017). My region, my Europe, our future. Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. (2017). Ireland must not pay the price for Brexit, says Guy Verhofstadt. Press Release. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20170921IPR84414/ireland-must-not-pay-the-price-for-brexit-says-guy-verhofstadt
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2001). The application of the European spatial development perspective: Evidence from the north-west metropolitan area. European Planning Studies, 9(5), 663–675. doi: 10.1080/09654310120057368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2010). Centenary paper: European spatial planning: Past, present and future. Town Planning Review, 81(1), 1–22. doi: 10.3828/tpr.2009.21
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2013a). Territorial cohesion, territorialism, territoriality, and soft planning: A critical review. Environment and Planning A, 45(6), 1302–1317. doi: 10.1068/a45299
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2013b). Territory: An unknown quantity in debates on territorial cohesion. European Journal of Spatial Development, 1–16, Article Number 51. http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereedarticles/refereed51.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2015). Place is a no man’s land. Geographia Polonica, 88(1), 5–20. doi:10.7163/GPol.2015.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A., & Waterhout, B. (2002). The making of the European spatial development perspective: No masterplan. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursice politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. London: UCL Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gualini, E. (2006). The rescaling of governance in Europe: New spatial and institutional rationales. European Planning Studies, 14(7), 881–904. doi: 10.1080/09654310500496255
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 43–76). London: UCL Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. (1995). Politics of environmental discourse : ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A. (2006). The living institutions of the EU: Analysing governance as performance. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 7(1), 41–55. doi: 10.1080/15705850600839546
   Google Scholar
• Hajer, M. A., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 175–184. doi: 10.1080/15239080500339646
   Google Scholar
• Haselsberger, B. (2014). Decoding borders: Appreciating border impacts on space and people. Planning Theory & Practice, 15(4), 505–526. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2014.963652
   Google Scholar
• Haughton, G., & Allmendinger, P. (2007). 'Soft spaces' in planning. Town and Country Planning, 76, 306–308.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies: Towards a relational planning for our times. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, C. M. (2009). Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 341–368. doi: 10.1007/s11077-009-9095-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humer, A. (2017). Linking polycentricity concepts to periphery: Implications for an integrative Austrian strategic spatial planning practice. European Planning Studies. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1403570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, O. B., & Richardson, T. (2004). Making European space: Making European space: Mobility, power and territorial identity. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kanninen, V., & Akkila, I. (2015). Kaupunkiseutujen strateginen suunnittelu. Ympäristöministeriön Raportteja, 24.
   Google Scholar
• Keating, M. (2008). A quarter century of the Europe of the regions. Regional & Federal Studies, 18(5), 629–635. doi: 10.1080/13597560802351630
   Google Scholar
• Luukkonen, J. (2010). Territorial cohesion policy in the light of peripherality. Town Planning Review, 81(4), 445–466. doi: 10.3828/tpr.2010.12
   Google Scholar
• Luukkonen, J. (2011). Europeanization of spatial planning: Exploring the spatialities of European integration. Nordia Geographical Publications, 40(3), 1–59. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84862188364&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
   Google Scholar
• Luukkonen, J., & Moilanen, H. (2012). Territoriality in the strategies and practices of the territorial cohesion policy of the European union: Territorial challenges in implementing ‘soft planning’. European Planning Studies, 20(3), 481–500. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.651806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R. (2013). Coping with the paradox of strategic spatial planning. disP - The Planning Review, 49(3), 51–52. doi: 10.1080/02513625.2013.859009
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Jarenko, K., Nilsson, K. L., & Saglie, I.-L. (2015). Legitimacy of informal strategic urban planning—observations from Finland, Sweden and Norway. European Planning Studies, 23(2), 349–366. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.861808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, J., & Schmitt, P. (2012). When soft spaces harden: The EU strategy for the Baltic Sea region. Environment and Planning A, 44(2), 263–280. doi: 10.1068/a44188
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moisio, S., Bachmann, V., Bialasiewicz, L., dell’Agnese, E., Dittmer, J., & Mamadouh, V. (2013). Mapping the political geographies of Europeanization: National discourses, external perceptions and the question of popular culture. Progress in Human Geography, 37(6), 737–761. doi: 10.1177/0309132512472093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moisio, S., & Luukkonen, J. (2015). European spatial planning as governmentality: An inquiry into rationalities, techniques, and manifestations. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(4), 828–845. doi: 10.1068/c13158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olesen, K. (2012). Soft spaces as vehicles for neoliberal transformations of strategic spatial planning? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(5), 910–923. doi: 10.1068/c11241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olesen, K. (2014). The neoliberalisation of strategic spatial planning. Planning Theory, 13(3), 288–303. doi: 10.1177/1473095213499340
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paasi, A. (2009). The resurgence of the ‘region’ and ‘regional identity’: Theoretical perspectives and empirical observations on regional dynamics in europe. Review of International Studies, 35, 121–146. doi: 10.1017/S0260210509008456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkmann, M. (2003). Cross-border regions in Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 10(2), 153–171. doi: 10.1177/0969776403010002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkmann, M. (2007). Construction of new territorial scales: A framework and case study of the EUREGIO cross-border region. Regional Studies, 41(2), 253–266. doi: 10.1080/00343400600990517
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkmann, M., & Sum, N.-L. (2002). Globalization, regionalization and cross-border regions. Basingstoke: Palgrave. http://doi.org/10.1057/9780230596092
   Google Scholar
• Peters, D. (2003). Cohesion, polycentricity, missing links and bottlenecks: Conflicting spatial storylines for Pan-European transport investments. European Planning Studies, 11(3), 317–339. doi: 10.1080/09654310303638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petzold, W. (2008). EU Cohesion Policy 1988-2008: Investing in Europe’s future. Inforegio Panorama (Vol. 26).
   Google Scholar
• Purkarthofer, E. (2016). When soft planning and hard planning meet: Conceptualising the encounter of European, national and sub-national planning. European Journal of Spatial Development, 61, 1–20. http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereedarticles/refereed61.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Salet, W., & Thornley, A. (2007). Institutional influences on the integration of multilevel governance and spatial policy in european city-regions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), 188–198. doi: 10.1177/0739456X07307207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandercock, L. (2003). Out of the closet: The importance of stories and storytelling in planning practice. Planning Theory & Practice, 4(1), 11–28. doi: 10.1080/1464935032000057209
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, D., & Sykes, O. (2005). European spatial development policy and evolving forms of territorial mobilisation in the United Kingdom. Planning Practice and Research, 20(2), 183–199. doi: 10.1080/02697450500414694
   Google Scholar
• Sielker, F. (2016). New approaches in European governance? Perspectives of stakeholders in the Danube macro-region. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 3(1), 88–95. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2015.1116957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sohn, C., & Giffinger, R. (2015). A policy network approach to cross-border metropolitan governance: The cases of Vienna and Bratislava. European Planning Studies, 23(6), 1187–1208. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2014.994089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stead, D. (2014). European integration and spatial rescaling in the Baltic region: Soft spaces, soft planning and soft security. European Planning Studies, 22(4), 680–693. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.772731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffek, J. (2003). The legitimation of international governance: A discourse approach. European Journal of International Relations, 9(2), 249–275. doi: 10.1177/1354066103009002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terlouw, K. (2012). Border surfers and Euroregions: Unplanned cross-border behaviour and planned territorial structures of cross-border governance. Planning Practice and Research, 27(3), 351–366. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2012.670939
   Google Scholar
• Throgmorton, J. A. (1993). Survey research as rhetorical trope: Electric power planning arguments in Chicago. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 117–144). London: UCL Press.
   Google Scholar
• Throgmorton, J. A. (1996). Planning as persuasive storytelling: The rhetoric construction of Chicago’s electric future. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Throgmorton, J. A. (2003). Planning as persuasive storytelling in a global-scale Web of relationships. Planning Theory, 2(2), 125–151. doi: 10.1177/14730952030022003
   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. (2007). Territorial cohesion: The underlying discourses. In A. Faludi (Ed.), Territorial cohesion and the European model of society (pp. 37–59). Cambridge, MA: LincolnInstitute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B. (2008). Institutionalisation of European Spatial Planning (Doctoral thesis). Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B. (2011). European spatial planning: Current state and future challenges. In N. Adams, G. Cotella, & R. Nunes (Eds.), Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning: Knowledge and policy development in an enlarged EU (pp. 84–102). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerbauer, K., & Paasi, A. (2013). When old and new regionalism collide: Deinstitutionalization of regions and resistance identity in municipality amalgamations. Journal of Rural Studies, 30, 31–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zonneveld, W. (2005). Expansive spatial planning: The new European transnational spatial visions. European Planning Studies, 13(1), 137–155. doi: 10.1080/0965431042000312442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar