Communicative and participatory paradigm in the European territorial policies. A discourse analysis

References

• Albrechts, L. (2003). Reconstructing decision-making: Planning versus politics. Planning Theory, 2(3), 249–268. doi: 10.1177/147309520323007
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L., & Denayer, W. (2001). Communicative planning, emancipatory politics and postmodernism. In R. Paddison (Ed.), Handbook of urban studies (pp. 369–384). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Alfasi, N., & Portugali, J. (2007). Planning rules for a self-planned city. Planning Theory, 6(2), 164–182. doi: 10.1177/1473095207077587
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, R. (2008). European urban policies and the neighbourhood: An overview. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Urban Design and Planning, 161(3), 115–122. doi: 10.1680/udap.2008.161.3.115
   Google Scholar
• Baccianella, S., Esuli, A., & Sebastiani, F. (2010). SentiWordNet 3.0: An enhanced lexical resource for sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Paper presented at the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation, Malta. Retrieved from http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2010/pdf/2769_Paper.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Balducci, A. (2013, September). Planning the humane smart city. Torino Summer School on Urban studies for a smart city. Multimedia presentation.
   Google Scholar
• Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., … Portugali, Y. (2012). Smart cities of the future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214, 481–518. doi: 10.1140/epjst/e2012-01703-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbonaro, G. (2010, March 12). Integrated plans for sustainable urban development in the context of JESSICA. Methodology and characteristics. JESSICA networking platform – third meeting, Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• CEMAT (European Conference of Ministers Responsible for Spatial/Regional Planning Meeting of the Enlarged Task Force of the Committee of Senior Officials). (2006). Draft resolutions (CEMAT-CHF 84 (2006) 6 rev). Strasbourg (France).
   Google Scholar
• Committee of the Regions. (2009). The white paper on multi-level governance. The EU’s Assembly of Regional and Local Representatives. Retrieved from http://cor.europa.eu/pl/activities/governance/Pages/white-pape-on-multilevel-governance.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Committee of the Regions. (2012). Opinion on building a European culture of multilevel governance: Follow-up to the committee of the regions’ white paper. Retrieved from http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/governance/Documents/vdb-opinion-mlg/cdr273-2011_fin_ac_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Committee of the Regions. (2014). Resolution on the charter for multilevel governance in Europe. Retrieved from http://cor.europa.eu/en/activities/governance/Documents/mlg-charter/en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Damurski, Ł. (2016). Smart city, integrated planning and multilevel governance. A conceptual framework for e-planning in Europe. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 5(4), 41–53. doi: 10.4018/IJEPR.2016100103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deakin, M., & Waer, H. A. (2012). Introduction: From intelligent to smart cities. In M. Deakin & H. Al Waer (Eds.), From intelligent to smart cities (pp. 1–7). Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dictionary.com. (2016). Websites: http://www.dictionary.com/, http://www.thesaurus.com/
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2007). Infrastructure for the spatial information in the European community. Retrieved from http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm/pageid/48
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020. A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2013). European innovation partnership on smart cities and communities. Strategic implementation plan. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eip/smartcities/files/sip_final_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2014a). European innovation partnership on smart cities and communities. Operational implementation plan: First public draft. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eip/smartcities/files/sip_final_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2014b). Integrated sustainable urban development. Cohesion policy 2014–2020.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy. (2011). Cities of tomorrow – Challenges, visions, ways forward. Brussels.
   Google Scholar
• Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2006). From European spatial development to territorial cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 40(6), 667–678. doi: 10.1080/00343400600868937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (pp. 109–133). Brighton: Harvester.
   Google Scholar
• Götz, M. (2013). Multi-level governance w kontekście kryzysu gospodarczego strefy euro – wybrane zagadnienia. In J. Ruszkowski & L. Wojnicz (Eds.), Multi-level governance w Unii Europejskiej (pp. 293–308). Szczecin.
   Google Scholar
• Gzell, S. (2013). Praktyka planistyczna a naukowe metody badania miasta. In P. Lorens & I. Mironowicz (Eds.), Wybrane teorie współczesnej urbanistyki (pp. 224–245). Gdańsk: Akapit-DTP.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Vancouver: UBC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123. doi: 10.1177/14730952030022002
   Google Scholar
• Higdem, U., & Hanssen, G. S. (2014). Handling the two conflicting discourses of partnerships and participation in regional planning. European Planning Studies, 22(7), 1444–1461. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.791966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City: Analysis of Urban Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action, 12(3), 303–320. doi: 10.1080/13604810802479126
   Google Scholar
• Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Types of multi-level governance. European Integration Online Papers, 5(11), 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Innes, J. (2004). Consensus building: Clarifications for the critics. Planning Theory, 3(1), 5–20. doi: 10.1177/1473095204042315
   Google Scholar
• Jauhiainen, J. S. (2014). New spatial patterns and territorial–administrative structures in the European Union: Reflections on Eastern Europe. European Planning Studies, 22(4), 694–711. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.772732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• JPI Urban Europe. (2015). Transition towards sustainable and liveable urban futures. The strategic research and innovation agenda of JPI Urban Europe. Retrieved from http://jpi-urbaneurope.eu/downloads/jpi-sria-def-pdf/
   Google Scholar
• Kiisel, M. (2013). Local community participation in the planning process: A case of bounded communicative rationality. European Planning Studies, 21(2), 232–250. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.722921
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korzeniak, G. (2011). Rozumienie pojęcia rozwoju miasta oraz planowania zintegrowanego. In G. Korzeniak (Ed.), Zintegrowane planowanie rozwoju miast (pp. 95–99). Kraków: Instytut Rozwoju Miast.
   Google Scholar
• Leboreiro Amaro, A. (2014). State of the art of strategic physical planning. In J. Arana & T. Franchini Alonso (Eds.), Strategies for the post-speculative cities (pp. 32–43). Wrocław: Association of European Schools of Planning.
   Google Scholar
• Lees, L. (2004). Urban geography: Discourse analysis and urban research. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 101–107. doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph473pr
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities. (2007). Retrieved from http://www.espon-usespon.eu/dane/web_usespon_library_files/1244/leipzig_charter_on_sustainable_european_cities.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Low, N. (2005). The discourse network: A way of understanding policy formation, stability, and change in the networked polity. In L. Albrechts & S. L. Mandelbaum (Eds.), The network society: A new context for planning? (pp. 45–56). New York: Routledge.
   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
• MacCallum, D. (2016). Discourse dynamics in participatory planning. Opening the bureaucracy to strangers. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Marcińczuk, M., Oleksy, M., & Kocoń, J. (2017). Inforex—A collaborative system for text corpora annotation and analysis. In R. Mitkov & G. Angelova (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference recent advances in natural language processing, RANLP (pp. 473–482). Shoumen: INCOMA.
   Google Scholar
• Markowski, T. (2011). Funkcjonowanie gospodarki przestrzennej – założenia budowy modelu zintegrowanego planowania i zarządzania rozwojem. In T. Markowski & P. Żuber (Eds.), System planowania przestrzennego i jego rola w strategicznym zarządzaniu rozwojem kraju, seria “Studia KPZK PAN” ( t. CXXXIV, pp. 25–44). Warszawa: Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju PAN.
   Google Scholar
• Miessen, M. (2010). The nightmare of participation (crossbench praxis as a mode of criticality). New York: Sternberg Press.
   Google Scholar
• Othengrafen, F., & Reimer, M. (2013). The embeddedness of planning in cultural contexts: Theoretical foundations for the analysis of dynamic planning cultures. Environment and Planning A, 45(6), 1269–1284. doi: 10.1068/a45131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oxford Dictionaries online. (2016). Websites: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/english-thesaurus
   Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2009). Planners’ role: Torn between dialogical ideals and Neo-liberal realities. European Planning Studies, 17(1). doi: 10.1080/09654310802513948
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, M., Redmond, D., & Russell, P. (2012). Active citizenship and local representational politics in twenty-first century Ireland: The role of residents groups within Dublin’s planning arena. European Planning Studies, 20(2). doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.650905
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selle, K. (2005). Planen. Steuern. Entwickeln. Über den Beitrag öffentlicher Akteure zur Entwicklung von Stadt und Land. Dortmund: Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und Planungsliteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Servillo, L. (2010). Territorial cohesion discourses: Hegemonic strategic concepts in European spatial planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(3), 397–416. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2010.500135
   Google Scholar
• Sharp, L., & Richardson, T. (2001). Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3, 193–209. doi: 10.1002/jepp.88
   Google Scholar
• Statute of the Council of Europe, London, 5 May 1949.
   Google Scholar
• Stead, D. (2014). The rise of territorial governance in European policy. European Planning Studies, 22(7), 1368–1383. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.786684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sum, N.-L. (2008). Toward a cultural political economy: Discourses, material power and (counter-) hegemony. DEMOLOGOS spot paper for European Commission Framework Program 6.
   Google Scholar
• Territorial agenda of the European Union 2020. Towards an inclusive, smart and sustainable Europe of diverse regions. Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development on 19th May 2011 Gödöllő, Hungary.
   Google Scholar
• Treaty of Lisbon. (2007). Official Journal of the European Union, C 306, 17 December 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Van den Broeck, P. (2015). Rediscovering qualitative research. In E. A. Silva, P. Healey, N. Harris, & P. Van den Broeck (pp. 135–139). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352–371). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Zipser, T. (2006). Aktualna doktryna urbanistyczna wśród ślepych uliczek. In T. Ossowicz & T. Zipser (Eds.), Urbanistyka w działaniu. Teoria i praktyka. Materiały II Kongresu Urbanistyki Polskiej (pp. 114–121). Warszawa: Urbanista.
   Google Scholar