Polycentrism and the accessibility of public facilities to the population. The example of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Belval

References

• Adams, J. (1999). The social implications of hypermobility. OECD Env. Directorate, Unclassified ENV/EPOC/PPC/T (99) 3/FINAL/REV1.
   Google Scholar
• AGORA. (2019). Conférence de Presse. 4 Juillet 2019. p. 26 Retrieved from https://www.agora.lu/fileadmin/AGORA/user_upload/06-presse/2019_07_04_Conference_Presse/19_07_04_presentation_conference_de_presse_AGORA_bilan_2018_19_bdef.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Apparicio, P., & Séguin, A.-M. (2006). Measuring the accessibility of services and facilities for residents of public housing in Montréal. Urban Studies, 43(1), 187–211. doi: 10.1080/00420980500409334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpentier, S., & Gerber, P. (2009). Les déplacements domicile-travail: en voiture, en train ou à pied? Vivre au Luxembourg (53), 1–2. Retrieved from: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01132986/document
   Google Scholar
• Christaller, W. (1933). Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland: Eine ökonomisch-geographische Untersuchung über die Gesetzmässigkeit der Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Siedlungen mit städtischen Funktionen. Iena: Gustav Fischer.
   Google Scholar
• Clifton, J., Díaz-Fuentes, D., & Fernández-Gutiérrez, M. (2016). Public infrastructure services in the European union: Challenges for territorial cohesion. Regional Studies, 50(2), 358–373. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2015.1044958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities. (2008). Green paper on territorial cohesion turning territorial diversity into strength. Communication from the commission to the council, the European parliament, the committee of the regions and the European economic and social committee. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S. (2003). 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
• Davoudi, S. (2005). Understanding territorial cohesion. Planning Practice and Research, 20(4), 433–441. doi: 10.1080/02697450600767926
   Google Scholar
• Decoville, A., & Durand, F. (2016). Building a cross-border territorial strategy between four countries: Wishful thinking? European Planning Studies, 24(10), 1825–1843. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1195796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Decoville, A., & Durand, F. (2017). Challenges and obstacles in the production of cross-border territorial strategies: The example of the greater region. Transactions of the Association of European Schools of Planning, 1(1), 65–78. doi: 10.24306/TrAESOP.2017.01.005
   Google Scholar
• Decoville, A., Durand, F., Sohn, C., & Walther, O. (2013). Comparing cross-border metropolitan integration in Europe: Towards a functional typology. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 28(2), 221–237. doi: 10.1080/08865655.2013.854654
   Google Scholar
• Decoville, A., & Feltgen, V. (2018). Diagnostic du développement territorial. Luxembourg: Ministry for sustainable development and Infrastructure.
   Google Scholar
• Decoville, A., & Klein, O. (2014). The limits of polycentrism at the city-regional scale: The case of Luxembourg. European Journal of Spatial Development, 54, Retrieved from http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereed articles/refereed54.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Decoville, A., & Sohn, C. (2012). Mapping the structuring of a cross-border metropolis. The functional Urban region of Luxembourg. In C. Sohn C (Ed.), Luxembourg, an emerging cross-border metropolitan region (pp. 119–139). Brussels/Bern: Peter Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Dieleman, F., Dijst, M., & Spit, T. (1999). Planning the compact city: The Randstad Holland experience. European Planning Studies, 7(5), 605–621. doi: 10.1080/09654319908720541
   Google Scholar
• Durand, F., Decoville, A., & Knippschild, R. (2017). Everything all right at the internal EU borders? The ambivalent effects of cross-border integration and the rise of euroscepticism. Geopolitics, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/14650045.2017.1382475
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2012). POLYCE metropolisation and polycentric development in central Europe. Targeted Analysis 2013/2/12. Final Report. p. 209. Retrieved from https://www.espon.eu/programme/projects/espon-2013/targeted-analyses/polyce-metropolisation-and-polycentric-development
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2013). INTERCO indicators of territorial cohesion scientific platform and tools project 2013/3/2. Final Report. p. 84. Retrieved from https://www.espon.eu/export/sites/default/Documents/Projects/ScientificPlatform/Interco/INTERCO_DFR_Main-Report.pdf
   Google Scholar
• ESPON. (2016). Polycentric territorial structures and territorial cooperation. Espon Policy Brief. p. 15. Retrieved from http://www.espon.eu/main/Menu_Publications/Menu_PolicyBriefs/06.Polycentric.html
   Google Scholar
• EU Ministers responsible for urban and spatial development. (2011). Territorial agenda of the European union 2020: Towards an inclusive, smart and sustainable Europe of diverse regions? Gödöllő: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (1999). ESDP – European spatial development perspective. Towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European union. Luxembourg: Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2009). Territorial Cohesion under the looking glass (Synthesis Paper). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/consultation/terco/pdf/lookingglass.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Finka, M., & Kluvánková, T. (2015). Managing complexity of urban systems: A polycentric approach. Land Use Policy, 42, 602–608. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• GAWC. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2018t.html
   Google Scholar
• Geurs, K. T., & van Wee, B. (2004). Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: Review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography, 12, 127–140. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005
   Google Scholar
• Guy, C. M. (1983). The assessment of access to local shopping opportunities: A comparison of accessibility measures. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 10(2), 219–238. doi: 10.1068/b100219
   Google Scholar
• Haugen, K., & Vilhelmson, B. (2013). The divergent role of spatial access: The changing supply and location of service amenities and service travel distance in Sweden. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 49, 10–20. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin, M., Liu, L., Tong, D., Gong, Y., & Liu, Y. (2019). Evaluating the spatial accessibility and distribution balance of multi-level medical service facilities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(7), 1–19. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16071150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, S., & Schmitz, F. (2011). Modeling and simulating Accessibility within the Luxembourg cross-border area. Proceedings of the BIVEC/GIBET Transport Research Day, 2011, 365–375.
   Google Scholar
• Kloosterman, R., & Musterd, S. (2001). The polycentric urban region: Towards a research agenda. Urban Studies, 38(4), 623–633. doi: 10.1080/00420980120035259
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftman, P., & Nevin, B. (1995). Prestige projects and Urban regeneration in the 1980s and 1990s: A review of benefits and limitations. Planning Practice & Research, 10(3–4), 299–316. doi: 10.1080/02697459509696280
   Google Scholar
• Lösch, A. (1940). Die räumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft. Iéna: Fischer.
   Google Scholar
• Malý, J. (2016). Impact of polycentric Urban systems on intra-regional disparities: A micro-regional approach. European Planning Studies, 24(1), 116–138. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1054792
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malý, J. (2018). Questioning territorial cohesion: (Un)equal access to services of general interest. Papers in Regional Science, 97(2), 323–343. doi: 10.1111/pirs.12250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medeiros, E., & Rauhut, D. (2018). Territorial cohesion cities: A policy recipe for achieving territorial cohesion? Regional Studies. doi:10.1080/00343404.2018.1548764. online version.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijers, E. (2008). Measuring polycentricity and its promises. European Planning Studies, 16(9), 1313–1323. doi: 10.1080/09654310802401805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meijers, E., Hoogerbrugge, M., & Cardoso, R. (2017). Beyond polycentricity: Does stronger integration between cities in polycentric urban regions improve performance? Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 109(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1111/tesg.12292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministère de l’intérieur et de l’aménagement du territoire. (2003). Programme directeur de l’aménagement du territoire. Luxembourg: Ministère de l’Intérieur.
   Google Scholar
• Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1996). Urban planning in Europe: International competition, national systems and planning projects. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Omer, I. (2006). Evaluating accessibility using house-level data: A spatial equity perspective. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30(3), 254–274. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2005.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öner, Ö. (2013). Retail city: Does accessibility to shops explain place attractiveness? Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/cesisp/0335.html
   Google Scholar
• Öner, Ö. (2015). Retail City: The Relationship between Place Attractiveness and Accessibility to Shops. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2549626
   Google Scholar
• Parr, J. B. (2004). The polycentric urban region: A closer inspection. Regional Studies, 38(3), 231–240. doi: 10.1080/003434042000211114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34. doi: 10.1177/089124240001400105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauhut, D. (2017). Polycentricity- one concept or many? European Planning Studies, 25(2), 332–348. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1276157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, Y., & Sohn, J. (2007). Valuing spatial accessibility to retailing: A case study of the single family housing market in Hillsboro, Oregon. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 14(4), 279–288. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2006.07.002
   Google Scholar
• Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 351–370. doi: 10.1093/jnlecg/lbh027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannier, C., Vuidel, G., Houot, H., & Frankhauser, P. (2012). Spatial accessibility to amenities in fractal and nonfractal urban patterns. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39(5), 801–819. doi: 10.1068/b37132
   Google Scholar
• Thériault, M., Des rosiers, F., & Vandersmissen, M.-H. (1999). GIS-based simulation of accessibility to enhance hedonic modeling and property value appraisal: An application to the Quebec city metropolitan area. Retrieved from http://www.fsa.ulaval.ca/sirul/1999-011.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vandermotten, C., Halbert, L., Roelandts, M., & Cornut, P. (2008). European planning and the polycentric consensus: Wishful thinking? Regional Studies, 42(42), 1205–1217. doi: 10.1080/00343400701874206
   Google Scholar
• Van Oort, F., Burger, M., & Raspe, O. (2010). On the economic foundation of the urban network paradigm: Spatial integration, functional integration and economic complementaries within the Dutch Randstad. Urban Studies, 47, 725–748. doi: 10.1177/0042098009352362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venables, A. (2008). New economic geography. In S. N. Durlauf, & L. E. Blum (Eds.), The new palgrave dictionary of economics (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Z., Chen, J., Zheng, W., & Deng, X. (2018). Dynamics of land use efficiency with ecological intercorrelation in regional development. Landscape and Urban Planning, 177, 303–316. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witten, K., Exeter, D., & Field, A. (2003). The quality of urban environments: mapping variation in access to community resources. Urban Studies, 40(1), 161–177.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, T., Sun, B., & Li, W. (2017). The economic performance of urban structure: From the perspective of polycentricity and monocentricity. Cities (London, England), 68, 18–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2017.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar