1,721,078 research outputs found
Adaptive Territorial Governance in the Face of COVID-19
Full text linkDuring the last few decades, extreme weather events and global and regional economic crises have been forcing us to rethink the way that governments approach territorial development. The inherent links between social, economic, and ecological systems are proving to be increasingly significant, and exist only in a complex whole characterised by multiple feedbacks (Berkes et al. 2002). In this light, managing the relationship between the social, economic, and ecological aspects of development is of paramount importance for those interested in establishing sustainable development trajectories in the long-run. This is particularly true since the COVID-19 pandemic has added further entropy to the picture . During the early stages of the pandemic, decision making, regulations, and communication had converged at the national level. However, throughout the course of the pandemic, there has been growing room for improvement in policy-making. As such, there is a need to rethink development objectives and their governance according to a new long-term perspective – one that takes better account of different issues and needs. Key concepts such as multi-level governance, place-based development, circular economy, and the localisation of the Sustainable Development Goals can all help Western Balkan countries to achieve a better quality of life while preserving productivity, social inclusion, and the environment (Cotella and Vitale Brovarone, 2020).
However, to develop territorial governance systems to support secure, long-term societal development is particularly challenging (Lambin, 2005), and requires the introduction of forms of territorial governance that explicitly take into account the possibility for immediate and long-term change (Dietz et al., 2003; Folke et al., 2005). ‘Adaptive’ governance models and mechanisms are those that are able to address uncertainty through continuous learning and feature the involvement of multiple actors and levels in decision and policy making processes. Continuous knowledge sharing and learning is indeed a critical component when facing complex dynamics and uncertainty. It can be stimulated by networks that enable interaction between individuals and institutions at multiple levels and use those interactions to draw upon various knowledge systems and develop better policies (Adger, 2001; Olsson et al., 2006). In this light, adaptive territorial governance models rely on polycentric institutional arrangements that operate at multiple scales (McGinnis, 1999), balancing between centralised and decentralised control (Imperial, 1999). At the same time, these models should be flexible enough to re-organise and re-form through institutional arrangements that encourage reflection and innovative responses (Brunner et al., 2005; Folke et al., 2005).
Since the first appearance of the concept in the early 2000s, (Dietz et al., 2003), the boundaries of adaptive governance have evolved significantly, particularly in relation to the governance of territorial development. However, an explicit research agenda on the matter has yet to coalesce. A synthesis of the literature concerning adaptive governance may contribute to the quest for new models of territorial governance that address the dynamic, large-scale nature of the most pressing crises, such as the 2008 global financial crisis that still projects its shadow over our economies and, more urgently, the uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath. Serving as an introduction to the 2020 Annual Review of Territorial Governance in the Western Balkans, this editorial focuses on the concept of adaptive territorial governance in the face of COVID-19, with particular reference to the Western Balkan Region. After this brief introduction, the concept of adaptive governance is detailed in relation to its evolving boundaries. The challenges that may undermine the implementation of adaptive governance in practice are then reflected upon before a number of tentative research avenues in relation to the Western Balkans are brought forward. Finally, the various contributions that compose this volume and the way that each contributes to the debate are introduced to the reader
Sustainable Urbanisation for Territorial Cohesion. A Multi-scalar Perspective
No full textDespite the growing recognition of the limited nature of land, the demand to develop it continues to rise, leading to urbanisation models that are often unsustainable. This conundrum is acknowledged by the EU in its Urban Agenda that, through the partnership on Sustainable Use of Land and Nature-based Solutions, explicitly links it to the objective of territorial cohesion. At the same time, it led to the development of an increasing number of initiatives in European cities and regions, aiming at a more sustainable urbanisation. Building on the results of the research project ESPON SUPER, the chapter reflects on these initiatives from a multi-scalar perspective. It discusses the rich set of practices surveyed in the project from the EU to the local level, focusing on their scope and on the types of instruments they employed. Whereas, on the one hand, the analysis suggests that a large and heterogeneous set of interventions exists in Europe, aiming at a more sustainable urbanisation; on the other hand, it also highlights that no one-size-fits-all solution exists to achieve this goal. Effective multi-level governance across territorial levels and administrative boundaries is necessary to align policies towards a more sustainable urbanisation and, in turn, territorial cohesion
Rethinking urbanisation after COVID-19. What role for the EU cohesion policy?
No full textOver 4 billion people live in cities today, six times as many as in 1950. In the European Union (EU) the share of urban population reached 75 per cent of the total, and 2050 scenarios forecast an additional increase of ten points. Until a few months ago, these trends were considered irreversible; the downsides of increasing concentration were seen as collaterals when compared to the advantages in terms of economies of scale, access to skills and services, interconnectivity and leisure. The COVID-19 pandemic is however challenging this view, leading us to reflect on the vulnerability of our way of living. Experts from various disciplines are pointing out the need to critically rethink ongoing urbanisation processes in a number of directions, ranging from a more sustainable reconceptualisation of urban mobility to alternative approaches to housing, working and public spaces. Other claims extend even further, advocating a contraction of urbanisation trends and the resettlement of underpopulated rural areas.
In this viewpoint we explore the challenges and potentials of this last perspective. In particular, we focus on the progressive abandonment of remote rural areas, and on the scarce accessibility they offer to their inhabitants. In this light, we argue that policies specifically dedicated to counteract these trends and to enhance the actual liveability of rural areas are needed, in order to enhance the overall resilience of our societies. Whereas, until now, the EU cohesion policy has mostly reinforced existing intraregional development patterns, the leeway it offers to Member states in programming and implementation allows for the introduction of initiatives aiming at triggering place-based development in disadvantaged territories. In this concern, the Italian National Strategy for Inner Areas is as a promising way forward, that could provide inspiration for other countries as well as for supranational policy-making
Between East and West. EU and China’s competing spatial integration logics for the Western Balkan Region
Full text linkThe Western Balkan Region (WBR) is currently undergoing a complex process of integration into the European Union (EU) and its countries, although at different paces, are progressively nearing the moment of accession. This has several implications for the spatial integration of the region in the EU territory, with the EU that, since the 1990s, has been supporting the latter with a number of programmes and actions. In the last decade, however, a new, cumbersome actor entered the game: the launch of China’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2013 has triggered a growing influx of foreign capitals into the region, potentially limiting the influence of the EU on ongoing transformations and reforms. The contribution aims at shedding light on this matter. It does so by exploring the logics of the Chinese interventions on the WBR, in terms of vision, approach, priorities, sectors and volume of investments and means of implementation, and by comparing it with the logics of the ongoing integration process. Overall, the contribution shows that, whereas the EU remains the most relevant player in the regions, the growing political and economic role played by China may in the slowdown the process of integration
The Urban Dimension of EU Cohesion Policy
No full textMore than two thirds of EU citizens live in urban areas and cities are easily identifiable as Europe’s core hubs for the promotion of territorial cohesion and overall economic growth. Whereas urban planning issues strictly emain in the hands of the Member states, since at least 30 years the EU has developed guidelines and initiatives with a more or less explicit territorial focus, among which the urban dimension had grown momentum through time. Since the publication of the Green paper on the Urban environment, a number of instruments directly targeting Member States’ cities have been introduced and the urban dimension has finally entered EU mainstream cohesion policy. The chapter discusses how the lack of urban planning competences notwithstanding, the EU cohesion policy progressively developed an urban dimension. Moreover, it explores the domestic impact of the latter, also in relation to the institutional innovations that its implementation brought along with it
The Europeanization of Territorial Governance. Towards a Typology
No full textThe Europeanization of territorial governance and spatial planning is a recurring discussion among European planners. It concerns both the influence of the European Union (EU) on national planning systems, despite a lack of formal competence in this matter, and the contextual (re)framing of the broad set of supranational objectives, instruments and institutional processes often recalled under the umbrella-term ‘EU territorial governance’. This contribution builds on the results of the ESPON COMPASS project to shed light on the matter. The impact of the different types of influences is explored systematically in 32 European countries, to reflect on similarities and differences and to sketch out a preliminary typology of the Europeanization of territorial governance
The Europeanization of Territorial Governance: results from an analysis across the board
Full text linkSince the 1990s developments in the territorial dimension of EU policies has progressively fostered member states’ territorial governance and spatial planning systems to become one of the key components of EU integrated development strategies and policy delivery mechanisms. The extent to which this created a catalytic environment resulting in a so called ‘Europeanization’ of territorial governance and spatial planning is however subject of debate. Aiming at shedding light on this matter, the paper builds on the provisional results of the ESPON COMPASS project to investigate the role that the EU plays in shaping national territorial governance and spatial planning and vice versa. It does so by understanding territorial governance and spatial planning systems as ‘institutional technologies’ subject to continuous change and classifying the possible influences that link the EU and the Member States within the overall European territorial governance framework. In particular, it identifies three types of top-down influence from the EU to the country level (structural, instrumental, discursive top-down), two types of bottom-up influence through which the European countries potentially influence EU policy- making (discursive bottom-up, practical), and the horizontal influence through which countries potentially influence one another. The impact of these six types of influence is explored systematically for the 32 States of the ESPON area (28 EU Member States plus 4 neighbour countries), in order to reflect on the main commonalities and differences that characterise the Europeanization of territorial governance and (ii) on what this can suggest for the improvement of European territorial governance
Central and Eastern Europe in the Global Market Scenario: Evolution of the System of Governance in Poland from Socialism to Capitalism
Full text linkThe article attempts to analyze Central Eastern European Countries (CEECs) focusing on the restructuring of governance and on the evolution of the complex network relations constituting the framework for decisional processes concerning economic, social and territorial development in Poland. The evolution from the highly hierarchical structure of the pre-1989 period towards the governance model characterising the transformation period will be looked at as a process increasingly embedded in a scenario dominated by international agents such as international financial institutions, the European Union, international capitals. It is possible to affirm that the presented transformation did not coincide with a withdrawal of the state, but mainly with a process of restructuring of apparatuses and hierarchies, following the guidelines of the neoliberal approach. The claimed neutral position of the state, guaranteeing complete freedom to the market, while provoking the dismantling of the socialist welfare system, implied a strongly biased behaviour as the state provided the necessary framework for new economic mechanisms to freely reproduce themselves
- …
