Soft planning in macro-regions and megaregions: creating toothless spatial imaginaries or new forces for change?

References

• Albrechts, L. 2004. “Strategic (Spatial) Planning Reexamined.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 31 (5): 743–758. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/b3065.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., T. Chilla, and F. Sielker. 2014. “Europeanizing Territoriality -Towards Soft Spaces?” Environment and Planning A 46 (11): 2703–2717. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/a130037p.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., and G. Haughton. 2009. “Soft Spaces, Fuzzy Boundaries, and Metagovernance: The New Spatial Planning in the Thames Gateway.” Environment and Planning A 41 (3): 617–633. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/a40208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allmendinger, P., G. Haughton, J. Knieling, and F. Othengrafen, eds. 2015. Soft Spaces in Europe: Re-Negotiating Governance, Boundaries and Borders. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Amin, A. 2004. “Regions Unbound: Towards a new Politics of Place.” Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography 86 (1): 33–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0435-3684.2004.00152.x.
   Google Scholar
• Brenner, N. 2004. New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, D. L., and M. Shucksmith. 2017. “Reconsidering Territorial Governance to Account for Enhanced Rural-Urban Interdependence in America.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 672 (1): 282–301. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217706495.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbonell, A., M. Pisano, R. D. Yaro, P. Hidiysan, and W. Fu. 2005. Global Gateway Regions.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M. 1989. The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban-regional Process. Basil Black.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, K. R. 2013. “Territory, Scale, and Why Capitalism Matters.” Territory, Politics, Governance 1 (1): 46–61.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S. 2012. “The Legacy of Positivism and the Emergence of Interpretive Tradition in Spatial Planning.” Regional Studies 46 (4): 429–441. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.618120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davoudi, S., R. Raynor, B. Reid, J. Crawford, O. Sykes, and D. Shaw. 2018. “Policy and Practice Spatial Imaginaries: Tyrannies or Transformations?” Town Planning Review 89 (2): 97–124. doi:https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2018.7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dewar, M., and D. Epstein. 2007. “Planning for “Megaregions” in the United States.” Journal of Planning Literature 22 (2): 108–124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412207306615.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dühr, S. 2018. “A Europe of ‘Petites Europes’: An Evolutionary Perspective on Transnational Cooperation on Spatial Planning.” Planning Perspectives 33 (4): 543–569. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2018.1483262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erie, S. P., and S. a. MacKenzie. 2010. “Southern California’s Crown Jewels: Historical Governance and Finance Lessons.” Public Works Management & Policy 14 (3): 205–245. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X09360518.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2013. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and Committee of the Regions concerning the Added Value of Macro-regional Strategies. Brussels, COM(2013), 468 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/HR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0468.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2020. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Implementation of EU Macro-regional Strategies. Brussels, COM(2020), 578 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0578.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. 2000. “The Performance of Spatial Planning.” Planning Practice and Research 15 (4): 299–318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/713691907.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. 2010. “Beyond Lisbon: Soft European Spatial Planning.” DisP – The Planning Review 46 (182): 14–24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2010.10557098.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. 2015. “The European Union Context of National Planning.” In Planning for States and Nation-States, edited by G.-J. Knaap, Z. Nedović-Budić, and A. Carbonell, 259–296. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. 2018. The Poverty of Territorialism. Edward Elgar. doi:https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788973618.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Highway Administration. 2013. Megaregions: Transportation Planning in the U.S.
   Google Scholar
• Fleming, B. 2015. “Towards a Megaregional Future: Analysing Progress, Assessing Priorities in the US Mega Region Project.” In Megaregions: Globalization’s New Urban Form, edited by J. Harrison, and M. Hoyler, 200–229. doi:https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782547907.
   Google Scholar
• Gänzle, S., D. Stead, F. Sielker, and T. Chilla. 2018. “Macro-regional Strategies, Cohesion Policy, and Regional Cooperation in the European Union: Towards a Research Agenda.” Political Studies Review 17 (2): 161–174. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918781982.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gløersen, E., N. Wergles, C. Corbineau, S. Hans, S. Haxhija, T. Chilla, F. Sielker, J. F. Michelet, and L. Jacob. 2017. ACTAREA – Thinking and Planning in Areas of Territorial Cooperation. Final Report. ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, M. 2013. “Regions, Territories and Relationality: Exploring the Regional Dimensions of Political Practice.” Regional Studies 47 (8): 1181–1190. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.697138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottmann, J. 1961. Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the United States. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Grundel, I. 2021. “Contemporary Regionalism and The Scandinavian 8 Million City: Spatial Logics in Contemporary Region-Building Processes.” Regional Studies 55 (5): 857–869. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1826419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagler, Y. 2009. Defining U.S. Megaregions.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, J. 2013. “Configuring the New “Regional World”: On Being Caught Between Territory and Networks.” Regional Studies 47 (1): 55–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.644239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, J., and H. Gu. 2021. “Planning Megaregional Futures: Spatial Imaginaries and Megaregion Formation in China.” Regional Studies 55 (1): 77–89. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1679362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, J., and M. Hoyler, eds. 2015. Megaregions: Globalization’s New Urban Form?. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Haughton, G., and P. Allmendinger. 2015. “Fluid Spatial Imaginaries: Evolving Estuarial City-regional Spaces.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 39 (5): 857–873. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haughton, G., P. Allmendinger, D. Counsell, and G. Vigar. 2010. The New Spatial Planning. Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Healey, P. 2007. “The New Institutionalism and the Transformative Goals of Planning.” In Institutions and Planning, edited by N. Verma, 61–87. Oxford: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, S., and S. Pincetl. 2014. “Evaluating Collaborative Institutions in Context: The Case of Regional Water Management in Southern California.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32 (1): 20–38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/c1210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Innes, J. E., D. E. Booher, and S. Di Vittorio. 2011. “Strategies for Megaregion Governance: Collaborative Dialogue, Networks, and Self-Organization.” Journal of the American Planning Association 77 (1): 55–67. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2011.533640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas, A. E. G., and S. Pincetl. 2006. “Rescaling Regions in the State: The New Regionalism in California.” Political Geography 25 (5): 482–505. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.02.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M., and A. Paasi. 2013. “Guest Editorial: Regional World(s): Advancing the Geography of Regions.” Regional Studies 47 (1): 1–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.746437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kern County Council of Governments, San Diego Association of Governments, & Southern California Association of Governments. 2005. The Southern California Mega-region. A Case Study of Global Gateway Regions: America’s Third Century Strategy.
   Google Scholar
• Knaap, G., Z. Nedović-Budić, and A. Carbonell, eds. 2015. Planning for States and Nation-States in the U.S. and Europe. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Knoepfel, P., C. Larrue, F. Varone, and M. Hill. 2011. Public Policy Analysis. Bristol: The Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Larrea, E., A. Ulied, O. Biosca, J. Jorba, D. Kruljac, T. Chilla, F. Sielker, and K. Petridis. 2020. European and Macro-Regional Territorial Monitoring Tool. Luxembourg: ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• MacLeod, G. 2001. “Beyond Soft Institutionalism: Accumulation, Regulation, and Their Geographical Fixes.” Environment and Planning A 33 (7): 1145–1167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacLeod, G., and M. Jones. 2007. “Territorial, Scalar, Networked, Connected: In What Sense a “Regional World”?” Regional Studies 41 (9): 1177–1191. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701646182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marston, S. A., J. P. Jones, III, and K. Woodward. 2005. “Human Geography Without Scale.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30 (4): 416–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massey, D. 2005. For Space. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, E., and K. Ward. 2010. “Relationality/Territoriality: Toward a Conceptualization of Cities in the World.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 41 (2): 175–184. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.06.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzger, J., and P. Schmitt. 2012. “When Soft Spaces Harden: The EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region.” Environment and Planning A 44 (2): 263–280. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/a44188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., A. M. Fernández Maldonado, W. Zonneveld, D. Stead, M. Dabrowski, K. Piskorek, A. Sarkar, et al. 2018. COMPASS – Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Planning Systems in Europe. ESPON EGTC.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2001. OECD Territorial Outlook.
   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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paasi, A. 2012. “Regional Planning and the Mobilization of ‘Regional Identity’: From Bounded Spaces to Relational Complexity.” Regional Studies 47 (8): 1–14. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.661410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paasi, A., and J. Metzger. 2017. “Foregrounding the Region.” Regional Studies 51 (1): 19–30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1239818.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plangger, M. 2018. “Building Something Beautiful with Stones: How Regions Adapt to, Shape and Transform the EU Opportunity Structure.” Regional & Federal Studies 28 (1): 1–24. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2017.1354851.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pope, K. 2018. “Full Speed Ahead?” Planning 84 (5): 29–32.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Purkarthofer, E. 2018. “Diminishing Borders and Conflating Spaces: a Storyline to Promote Soft Planning Scales.” European Planning Studies 26 (5): 1008–1027. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1430750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purkarthofer, E., and K. Granqvist. 2021. “Soft Spaces as a Traveling Planning Idea: Uncovering the Origin and Development of an Academic Concept on the Rise.” Journal of Planning Literature, doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412221992287.
   Google Scholar
• Raffestin, C. 2012. “Space, Territory, and Territoriality.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30 (1): 121–141. doi:https://doi.org/10.1068/d21311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read, A., D. Morley, C. Ross, and S. Smith. 2017. Multimodal Planning at the Megaregional Scale.
   Google Scholar
• Regional Plan Association. 2006. America 2050: A Prospectus. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/469077.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, C. L. 2008. Megaregions: Literature Review of the Implications for US Infrastructure Investment and Transportation Planning. Atlanta: Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, C. L., ed. 2009. Megaregions: Planning for Global Competitiveness. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salkin, P. E. 2015. “Land Use Regulation in the United States. An Intergovernmental Framework.” In Planning for States and Nation-States, edited by G.-J. Knaap, Z. Nedović-Budić, and A. Carbonell, 27–52. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• SANDAG. 2007. Otay Mesa – Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor. Strategic Plan.
   Google Scholar
• SANDAG. 2012. Otay Mesa –- Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic Plan 2007–2012. Progress Report.
   Google Scholar
• SANDAG. 2015. San Diego Forward: The Regional Plan.
   Google Scholar
• Schafran, A. 2014. “Rethinking Mega-Regions: Sub-Regional Politics in a Fragmented Metropolis.” Regional Studies 48 (4): 587–602. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.834043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seltzer, E., and A. Carbonell, eds. 2011. Regional Planning in America. Practice and Prospect. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Sielker, F. 2016a. “A Stakeholder-Based EU Territorial Cooperation: The Example of European Macro-Regions.” European Planning Studies 24 (11): 1995–2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1221383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sielker, F. 2016b. “New Approaches in European Governance? Perspectives of Stakeholders in the Danube Macro-Region.” Regional Studies, Regional Science 3 (1): 88–95. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2015.1116957.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sielker, F. 2017. “Macro-regional Integration: New Scales, Spaces and Governance for Europe?” Doctoral theis, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.
   Google Scholar
• Sielker, F. 2018. “European Spatial Governance – Towards a Sectoralisation of Spatial Planning.” Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law 10 (2): 126–139. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/JPPEL-03-2018-0011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soja, E. W. 1971. “The Political Organization of Space.” Association of American Geographers, Commission on College Geography.
   Google Scholar
• Stead, D. 2011. “Policy & Planning Brief.” Planning Theory & Practice 12 (1): 163–167. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2011.583146.
   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:https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.772731.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, P. J. 1994. “The State as Container: Territoriality in the Modern World-System.” Progress in Human Geography 18 (2): 151–162. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/030913259401800202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teitz, M. B., and E. Barbour. 2007. Megaregions in California: Challenges to Planning and Policy. The Healdsburg Research Seminar on Megaregions.
   Google Scholar
• Walsh, C. 2014. “Rethinking the Spatiality of Spatial Planning: Methodological Territorialism and Metageographies.” European Planning Studies 22 (2): 306–322. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.741568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler, S. M. 2002. “The New Regionalism: Key Characteristics of an Emerging Movement.” Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (3): 267–278. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360208976272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wulf, J.-J. 2015. Die Governance der Makro-Regionalen Strategien im Ostsee- und Donauraum [Andrássy Universität Budapest]. doi:https://doi.org/10.15772/ANDRASSY.2015.004.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerbauer, K., and A. Paasi. 2020. “Hard Work with Soft Spaces (and Vice Versa): Problematizing the Transforming Planning Spaces.” European Planning Studies 28 (4): 771–789. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1653827.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar