The EU territorial cohesion discourse and the spatial planning system in Greece

References

• Albrechts, L. (2001). From traditional land use planning to strategic spatial planning: The case of Flanders. In L. Albrechts, J. Alden, & A. d. R. Pires (Eds.), The changing institutional landscape of planning (pp. 83–108). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L., Healey, P., & Kunzman, K. (2003). Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), 113–129. doi: 10.1080/01944360308976301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2009). Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 41, 617–633. doi: 10.1068/a40208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2006). Territrory, identity and spatial planning. In M. Tewdwr-Jones & P. Allmendinger (Eds.), Territrory, identity and spatial planning, spatial governance in a fragmented nation (pp. 3–21). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Asprogerakas, E. (2016a). Προσεγγίσεις ολοκληρωμένων αστικών παρεμβάσεων στην Ελλάδα: εργαλεία και στοιχεία διακυβέρνησης [Approaching integrated urban strategy in Greece: Tools and governance schemes]. ΑΕΙΧΩΡΟΣ, 26, 4–36.
   Google Scholar
• Asprogerakas, E. (2016b, May). Strategic planning and urban development in Athens. The current attempt for reformation and future challenges. Sustainable urban planning & design symposium, The Town Planning and Housing Department, Nicosia, CY.
   Google Scholar
• Asprogerakas, E. (2016c, June). Η αναπτυξιακή διάσταση της Χωροταξίας: Προοπτικές και προϋποθέσεις εϕαρμογής του νέου Ρυθμιστικού Σχεδίου Αττικής [The development dimension of spatial planning: Perspectives and implementation conditions of the new master plan of Attica]. Paper presented at the 14th ERSA-GR CONFERENCE, Athens, GR.
   Google Scholar
• Avdikos, V., & Chardas, A. (2016). European Union cohesion policy Post 2014: More (place-based and conditional) growth – less redistribution and cohesion. Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(1), 97–117. Regional Studies Association, Routledge doi: 10.1080/21622671.2014.992460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy, a place – based approach to meeting EU challenges and expectations. Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hubner, Commissioner for Regional Policy, EU.
   Google Scholar
• Begg, I. (2010). Cohesion or confusion: A policy searching for objectives. Journal of European Integration, 32(1), 77–96. doi: 10.1080/07036330903375115
   Google Scholar
• Böhme, K., & Toptsidou, M. (2017). The future of Europe and its territories? A response to the EC White Paper on the future of Europe, Spatial Foresight Brief 2017:7. Heisdorf, Luxembourg: Spatial Foresight GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (1997). The EU Compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (1999). European spatial development perspective. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2008a). Green paper on territorial cohesion, Turning territorial diversity into strength, COM (2008) 616 final. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2008b). Commission staff working document accompanying the Green paper on territorial cohesion, Turning territorial diversity into strength. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• CEC. (2017). White paper on the future of Europe, Reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025, COM (2017)2025. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Coccossis, H., Economou, D., & Petrakos, G. (2005). The ESDP relevance to a distant partner: Greece. European Planning Studies, 13(2), 253–264. doi: 10.1080/0965431042000321811
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colomb, C., & Santinha, G. (2014). European Union competition policy and the European territorial cohesion agenda: An impossible reconciliation? State Aid rules and public service liberalization through the European spatial planning lens. European Planning Studies, 22(3), 459–480. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.744384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities. (1991). Europe 2000. Outlook for the development of the Community's territory. Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities. (1994). Europe 2000+. Cooperation for European territorial development. Luxemburg: Office of Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Cotella, G., & Stead, D. (2011). Spatial planning and the influence of domestic actors: Some conclusions. DISP – The Planning Review, 47(186), 77–83. doi: 10.1080/02513625.2011.10557146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ESDP. (1999, May). European spatial development perspective. Adopted by the Ministers for Spatial Planning at the Potsdam Council. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2007). Governance of territorial and urban policies from EU to local levels, Final Report, project 2.3.2., Luxemburg: ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2016). COMPASS, Comparative analysis of territorial governance and spatial planning systems in Europe, Inception Report, Version 1/11/2016. Luxemburg: ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• ESPON INTERCO. (2013). Indicators of territorial cohesion, Scientific Platform and Tools, Project: 2013/3/2, Final Report, Luxemburg: ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• EU. (2007). Treaty of Lisbon for the amendment of the Treaty for the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community. Official Journal of the European Union, 2007/C 306/01. Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:SOM:EL:HTML
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2009, December 10–11). Territorial cohesion: Unleashing the territorial potential. Background document to the conference on cohesion policy and territorial development: Make use of the territorial potential. Kiruna, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2010). Investing in the future of Europe, 5th report on economic, social and territorial cohesion. Luxemburg: Publication Office of the EU.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2000). Strategic spatial planning in Europe: Institutional aspects. In W. G. M. Salet & A. Faludi (Eds.), The revival of strategic spatial planning, Proceedings of the Colloquium (pp. 243–258). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2003). Unfinished business. European spatial planning in the 2000s. Town Planning Review, 74(1), 121–140. doi: 10.3828/tpr.74.1.7
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2006). The European Spatial Development Perspective shaping the Agenda. European Journal of Spatial Development, (21), Refereed Article, ISSN 1650-9544. Retrieved from http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:02670899-6918-4250-a2d9-b9c43d65f687
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2010). Cohesion, coherence, cooperation, European spatial planning coming of age?, RTPI. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2016). EU territorial cohesion policy, a contradiction in terms. Planning Theory and Practice, 17(2), 302–313. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2016.1154657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GFSPSD. (2003). General framework of spatial planning and sustainable development. Unpublished draft prepared in 2003 by the Greek Ministry of the Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works.
   Google Scholar
• GFSPSD. (2008). General framework of spatial planning and sustainable development. Official Government Gazette, No 128, Issue A’, 03.07.2008.
   Google Scholar
• Giannakourou, G. (2005). Transforming spatial planning policy in Mediterranean countries: Europeanization and domestic change. European Planning Studies, 13(2), 319–331. doi: 10.1080/0365431042000321857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giannakourou, G. (2008). Η Χωροταξία στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση [Spatial Planning in European Union], Εκδόσεις Παπαζήση, Αθήνα.
   Google Scholar
• Giannakourou, G. (2012). The Europeanization of national planning: Explaining the causes and the potentials of change. Planning Practice & Research, 27(1), 117–135. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2012.661195
   Google Scholar
• González, A., Daly, G., Pinch, P., Adams, N., Valtenbergs, V., Burns, M., & Johannesson, H. (2015). Indicators for spatial planning and territorial cohesion: Stakeholder-driven selection approach for improving usability at regional and local levels. Regional Studies, 49(9), 1588–1602. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2015.1018883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karanika, M., & Kallioras, D. (2018). EU spatiality under question – territorial cohesion in danger. Territories: A Trans-Cultural Journal of Regional Studies, 1(1), 60–72. doi: 10.5070/T21141511
   Google Scholar
• Koresawa, A., & Konvitz, J. (2001). Towards a new role for spatial planning. In OECD (Ed.), Towards a new role for spatial planning (pp. 11–32). Paris: OECD Publications Service.
   Google Scholar
• Medeiros, E. (2016). Territorial cohesion: An EU concept. In European Journal of Spatial Development, 60.
   Google Scholar
• Nadin, V. (2007). The emergence of the spatial planning approach in England. Planning, Practice & Research, 22(1), 43–62. doi: 10.1080/02697450701455934
   Google Scholar
• Nordregio. (2007). ESPON project 2.3.1: Application and effects of the ESDP in the Member States (Final Report). ESPON project 2.3.1. Stockholm: Nordregio.
   Google Scholar
• Nordregio. (2017, June 17). The spatial planning systems in the Nordic region [on-line report prepared by Nordic working groups 2013-2016]. Retrieved from http://www.nordregio.se/Metameny/About-Nordregio/Nordic-working-groups/nwgcityregions/The-spatial-planning-systems-in-the-Nordic-region/
   Google Scholar
• Nosek, Š. (2017). Territorial cohesion storylines in 2014–2020 cohesion policy. European Planning Studies, 25(12), 2157–2174. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1349079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. (2001). Towards a new role for spatial planning. Paris: OECD Publications Service.
   Google Scholar
• Serraos, Κ, Greve, Τ, Asprogerakas, Ε, Balampanidis, D., & Chani, A. (2016). Athens, a capital in crisis. Tracing the spatial impacts. In J. Knieling & F. Othengrafen (Eds.), Cities in crisis, socio-spatial impacts of the economic crisis in Southern European cities (pp. 116–138). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Territorial Agenda. (2007, May). Towards a more competitive and sustainable Europe of diverse regions. Agreed on the occasion of the informal ministerial meeting for urban growth and territorial cohesion, Leipzig: German Presidency of the EU.
   Google Scholar
• Territorial Agenda 2020. (2011). Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020, towards an inclusive, smart and sustainable Europe of diverse region. Αgreed at the informal ministerial meeting of ministers responsible for spatial planning and territorial development on 19th of May 2011, Gödöllő: Hungarian Presidency of the EU.
   Google Scholar
• TSP 2020. (2011). The Territorial State and perspectives of the European Union 2011 update. Background document of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Vogelij, J. (2008). Spatial planning towards territorial cohesion. Bruxelles: European Council of Spatial Planners. Retrieved from http://www.ceu-ectp.eu/images/stories/download/cp20060116.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wassenhoven, L. (2000). The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies: Greece. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Wassenhoven, L., Sapountzaki, K., Asprogerakas, E., Gianniris, H., & Pagonis, T. (2010). Χωρική Διακυβέρνηση: Θεωρία, Ευρωπαϊκή Εμπειρία και η Περίπτωση της Ελλάδας [Spatial governance: Theory, European experience and the case of Greece]. Athens: Critiki Editions.
   Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B. (2002). Polycentric development: What is behind it? In A. Faludi (Ed.), European spatial planning (pp. 83–103). Cambridge: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B., Faludi, A., Stead, D., Zonneveld, W., Nadin V., & Milder, J. (2009, July 15–18). Reinventing spatial planning in a borderless Europe: Emergent themes. Paper presented at the 23rd Congress of the Association of European Schools of planning (AESOP) “Why can’t the future be more like the past”. Liverpool, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Zachari, V., & Asprogerakas, E. (2012, September). Χωρική Διακυβέρνηση και Διακρατική Συνεργασία. Η Μακροπεριϕερειακή Στρατηγική στη Βαλτική Θάλασσα [Spatial governance and transnational cooperation. The macro-regional strategy in the Baltic Sea]. Πρακτικά 3ου Πανελλήνιου Συνεδρίου Πολεοδομίας, Χωροταξίας και Περιϕερειακής Ανάπτυξης, σελ.114–120, Βόλος: Τμήμα Μηχανικών Χωροταξίας, Πολεοδομίας και Περιϕερειακής Ανάπτυξης Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλίας.
   Google Scholar
• Zachari, V., & Asprogerakas, E. (2013, June). Η πολιτική συνοχής ως πλαίσιο τοπικής ανάπτυξης [Cohesion policy as a framework for local development]. Πρακτικά συνεδρίου Αγροτική οικονομία, ύπαιθρος χώρος. Περιϕερειακή και τοπική ανάπτυξη, Patras: ERSA – GR.
   Google Scholar
• Zonneveld, W. (2000). Discursive aspects of strategic planning: A deconstruction of the “balanced competitiveness”. Concept in European spatial planning. In W. G. M. Salet & A. Faludi (Eds.), The Revival of strategic spatial planning, Proceedings of the Colloquium (pp. 267–280). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Zonneveld, W., & Waterhout, B. (2005). Visions on territorial cohesion. Town Planning Review, 76(1), 15–27. doi: 10.3828/tpr.76.1.2
   Google Scholar