In this paper territoriality is studied in the context of contemporary spatial development theories and practices in the European Union (EU). Primarily, territoriality is examined as a strategy for governing spatial development, and the focus is on the relationships between different modes of territoriality and governing. Territoriality is conceptualized bounded, networked, and fluid territory, and this is indicated in practice with examples of regional development zones (RDZs) in Finland. Potentially, RDZs could be tools to link the current territorial concepts of EU spatial development and poststructuralist spatial planning theories into practices for governing spatial development. Fluid territories—characterized by flexible boundaries, policy integration, and ‘governance of governance’ – emerge in spatial development theories and strategies. However, it is challenging to find proper tools for implementing them in practice. A broader consideration of agency, participation, and bottom-up development are crucial for fluid territory and its governing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG, 2007, “The fluid scales and scope of UK spatial planning”Environment and Planning A391478–1496
2.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG, 2009, “Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway”Environment and Planning A41617–633
3.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG, 2010, “Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28803–818
4.
AminA, 2002, “Spatialities of globalisation”Environment and Planning A34385–399
BrennerN, 1998, “Between fixity and motion: Accumulation, territorial organization, and the historical geography of spatial scales”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space16459–481
7.
BrennerN, 2004New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
8.
CEC, 1999European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU Commission of the European Communities (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg)
9.
CEC, 2005Cohesion Policy in Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007–2013 Communication from the Commission, COM(2005) 0299, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels
10.
CEC, 2008Green 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, SEC(2008) 2550, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels
11.
DavoudiS, 2008, “Conceptions of the city-region: A critical review”Proceedings of the ICE: Urban Design and Planning16151–60
12.
DavoudiS, 2009, “Asymmetric development in spatial planning: Positivist content and postmodernist processes?”, in Conceptions of Space and Place in Strategic Spatial Planning Eds DavoudiSStrangeI (Routledge, New York) pp 207–243
13.
DavoudiSEvansNGovernaFSantangeloM, 2008, “Territorial governance in the making: Approaches, methodologies, practices”Boletín de la AGE46351–355
14.
DeasILordA, 2006, “From a new regionalism to an unusual regionalism? The emergence of non-standard regional spaces and lessons for the territorial reorganization of the state”Urban Studies431847–1877
15.
DelaneyD, 2009, “Territory and territoriality”, in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography Eds KitchinRThriftN (Elsevier, London) pp 196–208
16.
DührSColombCNadinV, 2010European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation (Routledge, New York)
17.
EldenS, 2005, “Missing the point: Globalization, deterritorialization and the space of the world”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series308–19
18.
EldenS, 2007, “Governmentality, calculation, territory”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space25562–580
19.
European Commission, 2010aInvesting in Europe's Future: Fifth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion report from the Commission (Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg)
20.
European Commission, 2010bEurope 2020: A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth Communication from the Commission, COM(2010) 2020, European Commission, Brussels
21.
FaludiA, 2007, “Territorial cohesion policy and the European model of society”European Planning Studies15567–583
FaludiA, 2010Cohesion, Coherence, Cooperation: European Spatial Planning Coming of Age? (Routledge, New York)
24.
FaludiAWaterhoutB, 2002The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No Masterplan (Routledge, London)
25.
Finnish Road Administration, 2001, “Pääteiden liikennevirrat ja linkkikohtaiset liikenne-ennusteet” [Transport flows of the main roads and transport forecasts for the links] (in Finnish)Sisäisiä julkaisuja 38/2001, Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki
26.
FoucaultM, 2004 [1978] Sécurité, Territoire, Population: Cours au Collége de France 1977–1978 (Seuil/Gallimard, Paris)
27.
GloersenEDuboisACopusASchurmannC, 2005, “Northern peripheral, sparsely populated regions in the European Union”, Nordregio report 4, Nordregio, Stockholm
28.
GoodwinM, 2009, “Governance”, in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography Eds KitchinRThriftN (Elsevier, London) pp 593–599
29.
GovernaFSaloneC, 2005, “Italy and European spatial policies: Polycentrism, urban networks and local innovation practices”European Planning Studies13265–283
30.
HaughtonGCounsellDVigarG, 2008, “Sustainable development in post-devolution UK and Ireland”Regional Studies421223–1236
31.
HaughtonGAllmendingerPCounsellDVigarG, 2010The New Spatial Planning: Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries (Routledge, London)
32.
HealeyP, 2006a, “Relational complexity and the imaginative power of strategic spatial planning”European Planning Studies14525–546
33.
HealeyP, 2006bCollaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies2nd edition (Palgrave Macmillan, New York)
34.
HillierJ, 2007Stretching beyond the Horizon: A Multi-planar Theory of Spatial Planning and Governance (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants)
35.
HinchliffeS, 2010, “Working with multiples: A non-representational approach to environmental issues”, in Taking-place: Non-representational Theories and Geography Eds AndersonBHarrisonP (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 303–320
36.
HudsonR, 2010, “Resilient regions in an uncertain world: Wishful thinking or a practical reality?”Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society311–26
RivolinJanin UFaludiA, 2005, “The hidden face of European spatial planning: Innovations in governance”European Planning Studies13195–215
40.
JauhiainenJ SHarvioSLuukkonenJMoilanenH, 2007a, “Kehittämisvyöhykkeet aluekehittämisessä” [Regional development zones in regional development] (in Finnish)Sisäasiainministeriön julkaisuja 22/2007, Ministry of the Interior, Helsinki
41.
JauhiainenJ SHarvioSLuukkonenJMoilanenH, 2007b, “Regional development zones in Finland: Territorial cohesion and competitiveness”Fennia18531–47
JessopB, 2003, “Governance and metagovernance: On reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony”, in Governance as Social and Political Communication Ed. BangH (Manchester University Press, Manchester) pp 101–116
LatourB, 2005Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-network-theory (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
46.
LawJMolA, 2001, “Situating technoscience: An inquiry into spatialities”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space19609–621
47.
LeitnerHSheppardE, 2002, “The city is dead, long live the network: Harnessing networks for a neoliberal era”, in Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Europe Eds BrennerNTheodoreN (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 148–171
48.
LuukkonenJMoilanenH, forthcoming, “Territorial in territorial cohesion? A case of regional development zone in the northernmost Europe”European Planning Studies
49.
MasseyD, 2005For Space (Sage, London)
50.
Ministry of Employment and the Economy, 2010Suomen aluekehittämisstrategia 2020 [Finland's regional development strategy 2020] (in Finnish) (Ministry of Employment and the Economy, Helsinki)
51.
Ministry of the Environment, 1995Alueiden käyttö ja aluerakenne vuonna 2017 [Land-use and spatial structure in 2017] (in Finnish) (Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki)
52.
Ministry of the Environment, 2006, “Competitiveness, welfare and eco-efficiency: Perspectives for spatial structure and land use in Finland”The Finnish Environment 31en/2006 (The Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki)
53.
OECD, 2010The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow (OECD, Paris)
54.
PaasiA, 2009, “Bounded spaces in a ‘borderless world’: Border studies, power and the anatomy of territory”Journal of Power2213–234
55.
PapkeL E, 1994, “Tax policy and urban development: Evidence from the Indiana enterprise zone program”Journal of Public Economics5437–49
56.
TaylorP J, 2005, “Time: From hegemonic change to everyday life”, in Key Concepts in Geography Eds HollowayS LRicePValentineG (Sage, London) pp 151–164
