Suchergebnisse

Shrinking cities have been a growing topic of investigation for researchers and practitioners in the US, EU and beyond in the past two decades. The concept of shrinking city has been defined from different perspectives, and research agendas have been framed in order to deepen the knowledge around a broadening circumstance (Hollander et al., 2009). Despite the growing attention which has expanded the volume of research and its results, urban shrinkage has been having a hard time in climbing the priority list of policy makers at supra-local level (Bernt et al., 2014). Shrinkage events typically involve much more than just the demographic trend of population loss; causes and effects are intertwined around social, economic and environmental factors amongst others. Despite its efforts, it seems that European policy making has not yet answered the growing challenges of local population decline with a strategic focus and structured approach. The paper supports with quantitative evidence the concern for shrinkage and describes its patterns and incidence across EU countries from 1991 to present. Moreover, an original method has allowed to estimate prospective pathways of currently shrinking cities and unveils blind areas of future shrinkage, thereby covering a 1991-2050 time horizon. The European Union is concerned and, in consideration of its means and resources, it has the opportunity to be the leading actor in steering shrinkage processes towards new equilibria; place-sensitive approaches are a key ingredient and these need a growing body of information and methods to fuel successful response strategies.

Future-orientated thinking needs to be strengthened in planning and policy making to respond to the challenges posed by 'presentism'. Despite the inherent uncertainty of the future, effective planning and policy making require the ability to envision potential future developments and implications of today´s decisions. The 'tragedy of the time horizon' emphasises the detrimental effects of short-term thinking on various domains, including the environment, economic stability, and social equity. It encompasses the multifaceted challenges posed by short-term thinking and the neglect of long-term consequences. To combat this, we must boost our future literacy, i.e. the capacity to imagine, read, and use the future, both at the individual and societal levels. Future literacy is vital for navigating uncertainty, making strategic decisions, embracing innovation, enhancing social resilience, and promoting sustainable development. This requires a collective effort to improve future literacy skills, foster imagination and creativity, and overcome the challenges of 'the tyranny of now'. Envisioning positive futures is crucial for inspiring hope, collaboration, and informed decision-making,particularly in a rapidly changing world.

The adoption of the Territorial Agenda 2030, some 20 years after the adoption of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) (European Commission, 1999) presents an opportunity to both look back on what has been achieved and envisage developments for the next 20 years. This paper starts with some personal reflections on the aspirations put forward in the ESDP and some key achievements. The main part of the paper then concentrates on what might be done differently over the next 20 years. It is argued that because the world has changed substantially since 1999 it is time to breathe new life into the original objectives of the ESDP and support them with clear governance and implementation tools. Furthermore, the geographical coverage ought to be extended to cover the Western Balkans. The final section offers an outlook on what we might want to see when looking back again 20 years from now.

This paper addresses recent developments in the area of EU territorial cohesion. A first section is dedicated to the emergence of the place-based approach as a new paradigm of the EU cohesion policy, and the subsequent need for vertical, horizontal and territorial integration of policies. In a second step, progress recently made in the framework of the EU Territorial Agenda revision process towards a better understanding of, and recognition of the need for, territorial cohesion and policy integration is commented upon. Finally, a case is made for tangible steps to be taken to reform formal EU policy making, to strengthen the territorial dimension of both the overall policy approach and relevant sectoral policies.

The inclusion of territorial cohesion in the Lisbon Treaty triggered a discussion on how to implement territorial cohesion at the EU level, but without clear results. One of the main short-comings in this discussion is the lack of awareness about the main reasoning and core objectives of territorial cohesion and the principal related instruments available to achieve such objective. Any territorial cohesion policy approach, which would not built on coordination mechanisms would "degrade" in an own sector policy. Coordination mechanisms represent the main tools for achieving territorial cohesion, as the territory is the place where any development takes place and the territorial impact of (sectoral) polices creates evidence. The case studies of Europe and Luxembourg represent extremes of a spectrum where on the one side a large territory is governed by a rather weak instrumen tal array of coordination mechanism whereas on the other side a relatively small territory is governed by coordination mechanism with relatively well controlled frame conditions. The result is that territorial cohesion can be defined as a framework that all actors have to comply with because territorial cohesion requires contextual specification. In practical terms, this means that a discussion of the policy objectives is important in order to progress on the coordination. When integrated action is necessary, discursive mechanisms leading to a common action framework appear to be the best choice in order to make coordination happen. However, sticks and carrots, i. e. a development framework, financial incentives and the necessity to end with a common result, are important framing tools to successfully achieve territorial cohesion. A convincing content alone is not enough to overcome vertical and horizontal political rigidities. ; Die Aufnahme des territorialen Zusammenhalts in den Vertrag von Lissabon hat eine Diskussion über dessen Umsetzung auf EU-Ebene ausgelöst; diese blieb aber ohne klare Ergebnisse. Der Diskussion mangelt es einerseits am Bewusstsein über die wesentlichen Argumente und Kernziele des territorialen Zusammenhalts und andererseits am Verständnis der Zusammenhänge zwischen den Instrumenten, um diese Ziele zu erreichen. Jede Politik des territorialen Zusammenhalts, die nicht auf Koordinierungsmechanismen basiert, würde zu einer eigenen Sektorpolitik "degradiert" werden. Koordinationsmechanismen stellen die wichtigsten Instrumente zur Erreichung des territorialen Zusammenhalts dar, denn das Territorium ist der Ort, wo jede Entwicklung stattfindet und die territorialen Auswirkungen von (Fach-)Politiken zu finden sind. Die im Rahmen dieses Beitrags betrachteten Fallstudien Europa und Luxemburg zeigen Extreme eines Spektrums, in dem auf der einen Seite ein eher schwaches Koordinationsinstrumentarium für ein großes Gebiet bereitsteht, während auf der anderen Seite für ein relativ kleines Gebiet Koordinationsmechanismen mit relativ gut kontrollierten Rahmenbedingungen existieren. Das Ergebnis der Analyse zeigt, dass der territoriale Zusammenhalt als Rahmen definiert werden kann, den alle Akteure ausfüllen müssen, denn territorialer Zusammenhalt erfordert einen spezifischen Kontext. In der Praxis bedeutet dies, dass eine Diskussion über die politischen Ziele wichtig ist, um bei der Koordinierung Fortschritte zu erreichen. Wenn integrierte Maßnahmen erforderlich sind, erscheinen diskursive Mechanismen in einem gemeinsamen Handlungsrahmen als erste Wahl für eine verbesserte Koordination. Nötig sind jedoch "Zuckerbrot und Peitsche", z. B. ein Entwicklungsrahmen, finanzielle Anreize und die Notwendigkeit einer Einigung, um erfolgreich territorialen Zusammenhalt zu erreichen. Überzeugende Inhalte allein reichen nicht, um vertikale und horizontale politische Widerstände zu überwinden.

This paper addresses recent developments in the area of EU territorial cohesion. A first section is dedicated to the emergence of the place-based approach as a new paradigm of the EU cohesion policy, and the subsequent need for vertical, horizontal and territorial integration of policies. In a second step, progress recently made in the framework of the EU Territorial Agenda revision process towards a better understanding of, and recognition of the need for, territorial cohesion and policy integration is commented upon. Finally, a case is made for tangible steps to be taken to reform formal EU policy making, to strengthen the territorial dimension of both the overall policy approach and relevant sectoral policies. ; The paper is published by the European Journal of Spatial Development (EJSD). The previous version of the journal was host by Nordregio.

Internationalisation of regional development policies – Needs and demands in the Nordic countries. All eight Nordic countries and self-governing areas have recently discussed or are currently discussing their administrative structures, i.e. how many municipalities or regions there should be and what responsibilities they should have. Denmark has already implemented a reform, Finland has begun to do so and, Greenland will soon follow. The experience has however been rather less successful in Norway and Sweden where many years of study and discussion now seem to have been more or less wasted.This report describes the processes and the discourse of administrative reform with a particular focus on the arguments used and the values that lie behind these arguments. The discourses are mainly concerned with four types of arguments relating to democracy, efficiency, regional development and the reform process itself. The arguments used, it is argued here, are mainly prophesies about the future. This forward-looking political logic is rather different from the work undertaken by research-based inquiries where future direction is sought in past experiences. The current report is part of Nordregio's research programme, Internationalisation of regional development policies – needs and demands in the Nordic countries. The analysis of events and developments has been updated to June 2008.

In this first issue of Nordregio News we aim to provide a better understanding of the ongoing discussion on the future European Territorial Cohesion policy and specifically the role of the Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 (TA 2020).

The ESPON Monitoring Report presents territorial evidence on the progress Europe has made towards the orientations of the Territorial Agenda 2020. It also explores how the recent development trends may have contributed to the achievement of Europe 2020 objectives. Each chapter focuses of territorial trends for one of each of the six policy priorities of the Territorial Agenda 2020, and starts with a short section on the interpretation of the policy priority. Hereafter, the latest related territorial evidence is presented, in order to support the understanding of to what degree Europe is progressing towards the policy orientation in question. A range of maps and figures illustrate the text and, when relevant, territorial trends and developments are discussed in different time perspectives, e.g. before and after the current crisis. The final section of each chapter sums up the territorial observations in light of the policy priorities addressed. An executive summary is presented before the six individual chapters, including highlights in short of the publication to support an easy uptake by policy makers of key messages presented.

The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, that celebrates this year in Gdańsk its tenth anniversary, has been considered by many scholars and the decision makers as the model example of the soft governance that has gained in importance in the enlarged European Union (EU). The paper analyses the achievements and shortcomings of the Strategy from economic perspective with focus on externalities, public goods (also club goods, common-pool resources), economies of scale and scope and transaction costs. Two cases: Single Market for services and innovation spillovers are discussed more in depth. The analysis of these challenges and opportunities as well as the performance of the Strategy in the past and comparative analysis of its various evaluations allow authors to formulate several assumptions that should save the Strategy for the future. Their essence is related to mainstreaming of the Strategy into the EU and national policies (ensuring its stronger policy impact), strengthening strategic, visionary approach of the Strategy (e.g. facilitating large Baltic projects), better alignment with the business sector activities (understanding and addressing this sector expectations towards macro-regional co-operation) and acknowledgement of macro-regional solidarity as a foundation of the common efforts. Without all these, the Strategy might follow the case of the Baltic Development Forum that ceased to exist despite its evident positive effects for the entire region. Soft governance is difficult but promising as an alternative to the overgrowing sentiments towards centralisation. Thus, to avoid the impression of the "Titanic ball" Gdańsk celebrations should provide a new start instead of the business as usual and manifestation of shallow self-satisfaction. ; 29 cm ; The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, that celebrates this year in Gdańsk its tenth anniversary, has been considered by many scholars and the decision makers as the model example of the soft governance that has gained in ...

"The inclusion of territorial cohesion in the Lisbon Treaty triggered a discussion on how to implement territorial cohesion at the EU level, but without clear results. One of the main short-comings in this discussion is the lack of awareness about the main reasoning and core objectives of territorial cohesion and the principal related instruments available to achieve such objective. Any territorial cohesion policy approach, which would not built on coordination mechanisms would 'degrade' in an own sector policy. Coordination mechanisms represent the main tools for achieving territorial cohesion, as the territory is the place where any development takes place and the territorial impact of (sectoral) polices creates evidence. The case studies of Europe and Luxembourg represent extremes of a spectrum where on the one side a large territory is governed by a rather weak instrumental array of coordination mechanism whereas on the other side a relatively small territory is governed by coordination mechanism with relatively well controlled frame conditions. The result is that territorial cohesion can be defined as a framework that all actors have to comply with because territorial cohesion requires contextual specification. In practical terms, this means that a discussion of the policy objectives is important in order to progress on the coordination. When integrated action is necessary, discursive mechanisms leading to a common action framework appear to be the best choice in order to make coordination happen. However, sticks and carrots, i.e.a development framework, financial incentives and the necessity to end with a common result, are important framing tools to successfully achieve territorial cohesion. A convincing content alone is not enough to overcome vertical and horizontal political rigidities." (author's abstract)

The objective of the COMPASS project was to provide an authoritative comparative report on changes in territorial governance and spatial planning systems in Europe from 2000 to 2016. This Final Report presents the main findings, conclusions and policy recommendations. The COMPASS project compares territorial governance and spatial planning in 32 European countries (the 28 EU member states plus four ESPON partner countries). COMPASS differs from previous studies in that the accent is not on a snapshot comparison of national systems, but on identifying trends in reforms from 2000 to 2016. It also seeks to give reasons for these changes with particular reference to EU directives and policies, and to identify good practices for the cross-fertilisation of spatial development policies with EU Cohesion Policy. The research is based on expert knowledge with reference wherever possible to authoritative sources. Experts with in-depth experience of each national system were appointed to contribute to the study. The research design involved primarily collection of data from the 32 countries through questionnaires and five in-depth case studies of the interaction of EU Cohesion Policy and other sectoral policies with spatial planning and territorial governance. ; ESPON COMPASS Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Planning Systems in Europe