Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Planning Practice & Research
Planning Practice & Research
Planning Practice & Research
To cite this article: Stefanie Dühr , Dominic Stead & Wil Zonneveld (2007): The Europeanization of
spatial planning through territorial cooperation, Planning Practice & Research, 22:3, 291-307
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 22, No. 3,
pp. 291 – 307, August 2007
INTRODUCTION
Introduction
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013
The influence of the European Union (EU) on spatial planning systems, policies
and processes in the member states is steadily increasing. Whilst the Community’s
direct role in spatial planning is limited, EU sectoral policies in the fields of
environment, transport, rural development and regional policy have considerable
spatial impacts and often require institutional adjustments within member states
(see van Ravesteyn & Evers 2004). Consequently, the impact of EU legislation
and policies on domestic planning is considerable and growing. This is
contributing to a ‘vertical’ exchange of ideas and concepts between EU and
national/regional institutions. Furthermore, initiatives related to the coordination
of sectoral policies and more harmonized spatial development of the EU territory
are being actively supported by the European institutions. Planners across Europe
are now routinely involved in transboundary cooperation networks and
interregional collaboration initiatives and thus subject to foreign experiences
and exposed to a variety of planning approaches from other member states. Such
cooperation between member states and regions on spatial planning is leading to
horizontal processes of policy transfer and institutional adaptation between
member states and regions.
The focus of this special issue is on the Europeanization of spatial planning,
and in particular the effects of territorial cooperation across national borders.
Many of the authors of the articles in this special issue have been involved in a
variety of recent research on European spatial planning, while others reflect on
the practice of transnational territorial cooperation. Together, the articles provide
a wealth of information on recent experiences of EU influences on domestic
planning systems, policies and practices. They present reflections on the impact
of territorial cooperation on institutional and policy change within the member
Stefanie Dühr, Radboud University Nijmegen, NSM – Department of Spatial Planning, PO Box
9108, NL-6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Email: s.duhr@fm.ru.nl; Dominic Stead, OTB
Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, PO Box
5030, 2600GA Delft, The Netherlands. Email: d.stead@tudelft.nl; Wil Zonneveld, OTB Research
Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5030,
2600GA Delft, The Netherlands. Email: w.a.m.zonneveld@tudelft.nl
recognition that processes and patterns of spatial development are more influenced
by non-local, transboundary factors, and that these need to be addressed through
wider cooperation and collaboration. An important asset that cities and regions
seek to exploit and enhance is their connectivity, as is demonstrated by
investments in strategic European high-speed rail connections and other large-
scale infrastructure projects such as the Öresund Bridge between Denmark and
Sweden. These actions then reinforce interconnectedness and contribute to
increasing awareness of its impacts and potentials, thus creating a need for further
cooperation.
2000 (CEC, 1991) and Europe 2000þ (CEC, 1994). Europe 2000 stated that ‘it
makes no sense for planning to stop artificially at national borders’ (CEC, 1991,
p. 3). The analysis which underpins this claim has two interrelated arguments
which remain at the core of the debate on European spatial planning. Firstly, that
spatial development has cross-border and transnational dimensions that cannot be
addressed by regions or nations acting independently and, secondly, that the
significant spatial impacts of the Community’s sectoral policies are not effectively
coordinated. The subsequent principal actions to address these concerns have been
well documented: the preparation of the European Spatial Development
Perspective (ESDP) in 1999 by the intergovernmental Committee on Spatial
Development (CSD, 1999), and the funding of cooperation activity through the
Community’s INTERREG Initiative (see Faludi & Waterhout, 2002). The ESDP’s
successor document, the Territorial Agenda of the European Union, was adopted
by the member state ministers for spatial planning in May 2007 (TAEU, 2007).
Since the early 1990s, these initiatives have resulted in a stronger awareness
among planners and decision-makers of the need for improved horizontal, vertical
and geographical coordination in an integrated Europe.
Increasing territorial cooperation on spatial development across national and
regional borders has also prompted a greater demand for comparable spatial
information. Initiatives such as the Urban Audit and the ‘European Spatial
Planning Observation Network’ (ESPON) have been set up in response. Preceded
by the Study Programme on European Spatial Planning (SPESP, 1998 – 2000),
ESPON was launched in 2002 to provide detailed spatial information for the EU
territory and to set up a decentralized network of spatial research institutes across
Europe. Until 2006, the programme funded thematic research on the spatial
impacts of EU sector policies, projects on ESDP concepts (such as polycentricity
and urban – rural partnerships) and cross-thematic studies. More than 500
researchers from research institutes and universities across Europe collaborated
on ESPON projects. The main outputs were vast volumes of reports and maps,
many of which of arguably limited practical relevance. The academic debate has
only recently turned to deconstructing the ESPON experiences (see Gløersen
et al., this issue 2007). In the EU Cohesion Policy period 2007 – 2013, the ESPON
2013 Programme will continue to focus on applied spatial research and territorial
293
Stefanie Dühr et al.
2006, had a budget of more than five billion Euros. Three objectives were
supported: cross-border cooperation (Strand A); transnational cooperation on
spatial planning across large contiguous areas (Strand B); and interregional
cooperation to improve the effectiveness of regional development through
information exchange and sharing of experience (Strand C). Strand B was most
explicitly concerned with spatial planning and the application of the ESDP
policy concepts such as polycentric territorial development and urban – rural
partnerships. The INTERREG IIIB programming documents required coopera-
tion projects to pursue an ‘integrated spatial approach’ as promoted by the
ESDP. The funding available for transnational cooperation, although still
considerably less than for cross-border activities, had increased to 1.3 billion
Euros (Nadin & Dühr, 2005). The number of actors involved in INTERREG
IIIB cooperation projects has been impressive, with an estimated tens of
thousands of actors, most of whom from regional and local planning authorities
across Europe, now directly or indirectly involved in transnational cooperation
networks (Ahlke & Görmar, 2006).
Transboundary cooperation is set to continue in the EU Cohesion Policy period
2007 – 2013. However, as a result of the ambiguity over the European
Community’s involvement in spatial planning activities and spatial development,
these terms have meanwhile been replaced in the Commission’s vocabulary by a
discourse on ‘territorial cohesion’ and by the term ‘territorial cooperation’ in the
guidelines and regulations of the 2007 – 2013 Cohesion Policy. The Lisbon and
Gothenburg Strategies, agreed at the European Councils in 2000 and 2001
respectively, promote the new strategic goal for the EU to become the most
competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of
sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social
cohesion. All European funding programmes are now focused on achieving these
objectives. For the 2007 – 2013 programming period, Structural Funding is being
streamlined under three objectives: convergence, competitiveness and territorial
cooperation. INTERREG ceases to be a separate Community Initiative, but is
integrated into the new mainstream objective of ‘European territorial cooperation’
(CEC 2005, 2006a, 2006b), also referred to as ‘INTERREG IV’. The budget for
cooperation almost doubled to 8.7 billion Euros (about 2.5% of the total Structural
294
Europeanization of Spatial Planning
Funds budget). Whilst the three strands of cooperation remain, the emphasis on
cross-border working has been strengthened. The funding available for
transnational cooperation has increased to 1.8 billion Euros, but this now has to
be shared between 27 member states. However, additional cofinancing from
government and other sources will be added to these substantial sums, thus
making INTERREG IV a powerful instrument in financial terms.
In the context of EU enlargement and the EU’s strategic Lisbon-Gothenburg
objectives, there have been many substantial and procedural changes to
INTERREG cooperation. The new transnational (‘INTERREG IVB’) programmes
are no longer targeted at the application of the ESDP, with funding instead being
aimed at thematic priorities such as innovation, environment, accessibility and
sustainable urban development. There is no longer a requirement for an integrated
spatial approach of cooperation projects, and while some of the proposed activities
such as the management of river basins and coastal zones or the creation of urban
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013
networks still have a strong territorial dimension, others range some way from a
spatial agenda (CEC, 2006b, Article 6). Besides the changes to budget and funding
priorities, there have also been again changes to some of the transnational
cooperation areas (see Figures 1 and 2). The cooperation zones determine the
eligibility areas of the European territory, and thus ultimately which actors can
collaborate with each other. They are thus an important part of the definition of the
scope and rationale for transnational cooperation under INTERREG (see Dühr &
Nadin, this issue 2007).
FIGURE 1. INTERREG IIIB transnational cooperation programme areas (2000 – 2006). Source:
EuroGeographics Ó European Communities (http://www.europa.eu.int) (accessed 5 July 2005).
Stone, 1999). Radaelli (2004) distinguishes two main reasons why Europeaniza-
tion takes place: firstly, in response to EU pressure, such as directives, regulations
or other requirements, and secondly because the EU becomes a cognitive and
296
Europeanization of Spatial Planning
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013
FIGURE 2. Structural Funds 2007 – 2013 – transnational cooperation areas. Source: EuroGeographics Ó
European Communities (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/index_en.htm) (accessed 20 August 2007).
297
Stefanie Dühr et al.
normative frame, and provides orientations to the logic of meaning and action. The
concept of Europeanization has been used to analyse EU influences in a number of
ways, including (1) top down (from the EU to the national level), (2) bottom up
(uploading of national ideas to the EU level), (3) horizontal (between EU member
states) and (4) circular (from the national level to the EU and back to the national
level, for example in the form of new EU Directives or initiatives) (Lenschow,
2006).
The top-down interpretation of Europeanization is the one most widely found in
the literature (see Börzel, 1999) and describes the
the INTERREG IIIB initiative. They argue that although a large number of actors
have been involved in cooperation projects to date, there is little evidence of
learning effects in terms of a ‘rescaling’ of planning agendas from the national and
regional to the transnational level.
In an understanding of Europeanization as a circular process, actors at national
and subnational government levels seek to ‘upload’ domestic policy models and
ideas to the EU, while at the same time also ‘import’ EU influences in the pursuit
of changes that suit their domestic political interests. The ESDP is an example of a
circular process of Europeanization in which member states shaped the content of
the document through the CSD during the preparation (see Faludi, 2004), and
subsequently applied the ideas to domestic planning systems, shaped policies and
contributed to institutional change (see, for instance, Shaw & Sykes, 2003;
Davoudi & Wishardt, 2005). In their analysis of the application of ESDP concepts
in INTERREG programmes and projects, Waterhout and Stead (this issue 2007)
investigate the circular processes of Europeanization and argue that the ESDP
influence is not always clearly retraceable. Gløersen et al. (this issue 2007)
examine the various interpretations of the concept of polycentricity within
INTERREG and ESPON programmes, and conclude that cross-fertilization
between the programmes has been limited to date. In their practice review on the
interpretation of the concept of urban – rural relationships in ESPON and
INTERREG IIIB projects, Zonneveld and Stead (this issue 2007) come to a
similar conclusion. These accounts raise important questions about the added
value of territorial cooperation initiatives, and in particular the learning effects
which are now widely considered to be the most important aspect of such
collaboration. Reasons for the limitations to learning effects from the application
of concepts such as polycentricity through EU funding programmes or the
involvement in cooperation projects cofinanced by the EU may be the still
relatively recent nature of such initiatives. The effects of horizontal and circular
processes which affect the cognitive logic of actors involved in spatial
development and transnational cooperation may still become more visible over
the coming years. However, there may be other reasons, such as the institutional
and political resistance to change in many member states, be it due to a ‘misfit’
between EU and national policies and rules, or a missing need for adaptation.
299
Stefanie Dühr et al.
The changing ‘rules of the game’ and evolving framework for cooperation,
through policy shifts at EU level and changing funding requirements of the
INTERREG and ESPON programmes, may also have prevented more significant
learning effects. Yet, given the scale of activity on territorial cooperation, more
significant results could be expected. There may be a need to review the
framework for cooperation in the EU in the light of expectations for the medium-
to long-term effects of cooperation. The articles in this special issue contribute to
the discussion on the limited evidence of a Europeanization through territorial
cooperation and ways to overcome the limitations to policy learning.
The processes of Europeanization of spatial planning in the Western part of the
EU at least are thus subtle, and the effects complex and often not directly
attributable to a certain initiative. In particular the more recent results of intensified
INTERREG cooperation and ESPON research networks have yet to demonstrate
their contribution to horizontal and vertical learning processes and a Europeaniza-
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013
institutional integration (the range and integration of strategies and policies that
seek to guide the development of these places) and political co-operation (the
extent and further scope for mutually beneficial co-operation among the
governments and other stakeholders).
The Community’s INTERREG Initiative has been the principal means of
encouraging member states and regions to address the policy priorities of the
ESDP through co-financing of spatial planning projects involving partners in
different countries. INTERREG has been through three phases that have addressed
a spatial planning agenda – II (1994 – 1999), III (2000 – 2006) and IV (2007 –
2013). There are three strands of action: cross-border, between geographically
contiguous border regions; transnational, across large multi-national spaces; and
inter-regional, among non-contiguous regions across the whole territory of the
EU. In the latest phase INTERREG has been incorporated into the mainstream
cohesion policy under the objective of territorial cooperation. This implies
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013
cooperation on regional and spatial planning together with other economic growth
issues more generally related to regional policy.
A number of the INTERREG transnational programmes produced transna-
tional spatial visions which drew together findings from individual projects and
provide an agenda for future co-operation and the development of new
programmes. The need to work across borders in projects or joint visioning
exercises is justified with reference to transnationality, which means having an
effect in more than one country. A railway line crossing national borders is
obviously a transnational issue, but arguably the concept might also embrace
issues of common interest, such as rural out-migration. Demonstrating
transnationality helps to justify action by the EU or other transnational cooperation
activities above the level of the member state. These actions should meet the
subsidiarity principle, that is, decisions should only be ceded to higher
jurisdictions when there is demonstrable need or benefit to be gained.
The European treaties that outline the Community’s competences do not make
reference to spatial planning and there would be significant opposition to any
suggestion of involvement in domestic planning systems.4 However, in the
process of reform of the European Treaty proposals have been made to insert an
overarching objective for the Community of territorial cohesion. This makes
explicit what may have been implied by the treaties all along, that there is a
territorial or spatial dimension to the primary sectoral social and economic goals
of the EU. An Interim Report on Territorial Cohesion (CEC 2004: Art. 16)
explained territorial cohesion as ‘the balanced distribution of human activities
across the Union. . . [and] includes the fair access to all citizens and economic
operators to services of general economic interest . . . irrespective of the territory
to which they belong’. A less ambiguous view is that ‘territorial cohesion means
incorporating a spatial planning perspective into decisions that are now made
primarily on economic and social grounds’.5 This makes more explicit the spatial
dimension of the Community objective of a more fair (or equal) access for all
citizens to services and opportunities (for example, housing, jobs and education)
irrespective of their location. It should mean that sector decisions at the EU
level will have to pay more attention to the spatial policy impacts and act
accordingly.
303
Stefanie Dühr et al.
Notes
1. The glossary is based on an earlier version by Nadin, V. and Dühr, S. (2005) Some help with Euro-planning
jargon, Town and Country Planning 74(3): 82.
2. The European Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies published by the European Commission
in 1997 attempted to provide a generic terminology for planning instruments.
3. DG Environment has also taken a keen interest in spatial planning especially in its potential role in delivering
more sustainable urban development. The activities of other Directorates, especially transport have also had
important influences on spatial planning.
4. There is a reference in section 175 which gives the EU powers ‘to adopt measure concerning town and country
planning . . . (English version) but it is agreed that this relates only to environmental protection measures.
5. This view was given by the Dutch Minister at a meeting of ministers on territorial cohesion in 2004, according
to a report in ‘Shared Spaces’, the newsletter of the Netherlands Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and
Environment in October 2004).
References
Agence Européene Territories and Synergies, Eure-consult, Nederlands Economisch Instituut NEI, Quaternaire
Portugal (2001) Spatial Impacts of Community Policies and Costs of Non-coordination, Strasburg, Agence
Européene.
Ahlke, B. & Görmar, W. (2006) Fünf transnationale Kooperationsräume mit deutscher Beteiligung – Überblick
gewinnen. Workshop ‘Perspektiven für Transnationale Projekte nach 2006’. Leipzig, Euregia, 23.10.2006.
Available at http://www.bbr.bund.de/cln_005/nn_21696/DE/Forschungsprogramme/Foerderprogramm
InterregIIIB/Downloads/DL__Euregia2006__AhlkeGoermarUeberblick__pdf,templateId¼raw,property¼
publicationFile.pdf/DL_Euregia2006_AhlkeGoermarUeberblick_pdf.pdf (accessed 23.02.2007).
Batt, J. R. & Wolczuk, K. (1999) The political context: Building new states, in: P. Hare, J. Batt & S. Estrin (Eds)
Reconstituting the Market: The Political Economy of Microeconomic Transformation, pp. 33 – 48
(Amsterdam, Harwood Academic Publishers).
Bennett, C. J. & Howlett, M. (1992) The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy
change, Policy Sciences, 25, pp. 275 – 294.
Bomberg, E. & Peterson, J. (2002) Policy Transfer and Europeanization: Passing the Heineken Test? Queen’s
Papers on Europeanisation 2/2000, School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queen’s
University of Belfast, Belfast.
Böhme, K., Richardson, T., Dabinett, G. & Jensen, O. B. (2004) Values in a vacuum? Towards an integrated
multi-level analysis of the governance of European space, European Planning Studies, 12(8), pp. 1175 –
1188.
304
Europeanization of Spatial Planning
Börzel, T. A. (1999) Towards convergence in Europe? Institutional adaptation to Europeanisation in Germany
and Spain, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(4), pp. 573 – 596.
Börzel, T. A. & Risse, T. (2000) When Europe hits home: Europeanization and domestic change, European
Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 4. Available at http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-015a.htm (accessed 13
May 2007).
Colomb, C. (2007) The added value of transnational cooperation: Towards a new framework for evaluating
learning and policy change, Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), pp. 347 – 372.
Commission of the European Communities (1991) Europe 2000: Outlook for the Development of the
Community’s Territory (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).
Commission of the European Communities (1994) Europe 2000þ: Cooperation for European Territorial
Development (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).
Commission of the European Communities (2005) Communication from the Commission. Cohesion Policy in
Support of Growth and Jobs: Community Strategic Guidelines, 2007 – 2013, COM (2005) 0299
(Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).
Commission of the European Communities (2006a) Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006
Laying Down General Provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013
and the Cohesion Fund and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, Official Journal of the European
Union, 31 July 2006, L210/25.
Commission of the European Communities (2006b) Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional Development Fund and Repealing Regulation
(EC) No 1783/1999, Official Journal of the European Union, 31 July 2006, L210/1.
Committee on Spatial Development (1999) European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and
Sustainable Development of the Territory of the EU (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the
European Community).
Dabinett, G. & Richardson, T. (2005) The Europeanization of spatial strategy: Shaping regions and spatial justice
through governmental ideas, International Planning Studies, 10(3/4), pp. 201 – 218.
Davoudi, S. & Wishardt, M. (2005) The polycentric turn in the Irish Spatial Strategy, Built Environment, 31(2),
pp. 122 – 132.
Dolowitz, D. & Marsh, D. (1996) Who learns from whom: A review of the Policy Transfer Literature, Political
Studies, 44(2), pp. 343 – 357.
Dolowitz, D. & Marsh, D. (2000) Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy
making, Governance, 13(1), pp. 5 – 24.
Dühr, S. & Nadin, V. (2007) Europeanization through Transnational Territorial Cooperation? The case of
INTERREG IIIB North-West Europe, Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), pp. 373 – 394.
ESPON 2013 (2007) ESPON 2013 PROGRAMME. European observation network on territorial development
and cohesion. Operational Programme, version 3, resubmitted on 16 July 2007 (Esch-sur-Alzette, ESPON
Coordination Unit). Available at http://www.espon.eu (accessed 5 August 2007).
Faludi, A. (2001) The application of the European Spatial Development Perspective: Evidence from the North-
West Metropolitan Area, European Planning Studies, 9(5), pp. 663 – 675.
Faludi, A. (2004) Spatial planning traditions in Europe: Their role in the ESDP process, International Planning
Studies, 9(2 – 3), pp. 155 – 172.
Faludi, A. & Waterhout, B. (2002) The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No
Masterplan (London, Routledge).
Farthing, S. & Carrière, J.-P. (2007) Reflections on policy-oriented learning in transnational visioning processes:
The case of the Atlantic Spatial Development Perspective (ASDP), Planning Practice and Research, 22(3),
pp. 329 – 345.
Gløersen, E., Lähteenmäki-Smith, K. & Dubois, A. (2007) Polycentricity in transnational planning initiatives:
ESDP applied or ESDP reinvented? Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), pp. 417 – 437.
Grabbe, H. (2001) How does Europeanisation affect CEE Governance? Conditionality, diffusion and diversity,
Journal of European Public Policy, 8(4), pp. 1013 – 1031.
Harris, N. (2001) Spatial development policies and territorial governance in an era of globalisation and localisation,
in: A. Koresawa & J. Konvitz (Eds) Towards a New Role for Spatial Planning, pp. 33 – 58 (Paris, OECD).
Knill, C. & Lehmkuhl, D. (2002) The national impact of European Union regulatory policy: Three
Europeanization mechanisms, European Journal of Political Research, 41(2), pp. 255 – 280.
Lenschow, A. (2006) Europeanisation of public policy, in: J. Richardson (Ed.) European Union – Power and
Policy Making, 3rd edn, pp. 55 – 71 (Abingdon, Routledge).
305
Stefanie Dühr et al.
May, P. (1992) Policy learning and failure, Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), pp. 331 – 354.
Nadin, V. & Dühr, S. (2005) The future for Cohesion Policy, Town & Country Planning, 74(3),
pp. 85 – 86.
O’Dwyer, C. (2006) Reforming regional governance in East Central Europe: Europeanization or domestic politics
as usual? East European Politics and Societies, 20(2), pp. 219 – 253.
Olsen, J. P. (2002) The many faces of Europeanization, Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(5), pp. 921 – 952.
Radaelli, C. M. (2000) Policy transfer in the European Union: Institutional isomorphism as a source of legitimacy,
Governance, 13(1), pp. 25 – 43.
Radaelli, C. M. (2004) Europeanisation: Solution or problem? European Integration Online Papers, 8(16),
pp. 1 – 23.
Ravesteyn, N. van & Evers, D. (2004) Unseen Europe (Amsterdam, NAi Publishers).
Rose, R. (1993) Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning across Time and Space (Chatham,
Chatham House).
Secrétariat général de l’Union économique Benelux (Ed.) (1996) Espace de coopération. Deuxième Esquisse de
Structure Benelux (Brussels, Secrétariat général de l’Union économique Benelux).
Shaw, D. & Sykes, O. (2003) Investigating the application of the European Spatial Development Perspective
Downloaded by [Brown University] at 02:46 23 May 2013
(ESDP) to regional planning in the United Kingdom, Town Planning Review, 74, pp. 31 – 50.
Stone, D. (1999) Lesson drawing and policy transfer, Politics, 19(1), pp. 51 – 59.
TAEU (2007) Territorial Agenda of the European Union. Towards a More Competitive and Sustainable Europe
of Diverse Regions. Agreed on the occasion of the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development and
Territorial Cohesion in Leipzig on 24/25 May 2007. Available at http://www.bmvbs.de/Anlage/
original_1010200/German-EU-Presidency-Essentials-for-European-Territorial-and-Urban-Development-
Policies.pdf (accessed 20 August 2007).
Van Ravesteyn, N. & Evers, D. (2004) Unseen Europe: A survey of EU politics and its impact on spatial
development in the Netherlands (The Hague, Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research).
VASAB2010 Vision and Strategies Around the Baltic Sea 2010 (1994) Vision and Strategies Around the Baltic
Sea 2010: Towards a Framework for Spatial Development in the Baltic Sea Region (Gdansk, VASAB2010).
VASAB2010 Vision and Strategies Around the Baltic Sea 2010 (2001) VASAB 2010þ: Spatial Development
Action Programme (Essen, PLANCO Consulting GmbH).
Waterhout, B. (2007) Episodes of Europeanization of Dutch national spatial planning, Planning Practice and
Research, 22(3), pp. 309 – 327.
Waterhout, B. & Stead, D. (2007) Mixed Messages: How the ESDP’s Concepts Have Been Applied in
INTERREG IIIB Programmes, Priorities and Projects, Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), pp. 395 – 415.
Williams, R. H. (1996) European Union Spatial Policy and Planning (London, Paul Chapman).
Zonneveld, W. & Stead, D. (2007) European territorial cooperation and the concept of urban – rural relationships,
Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), pp. 439 – 453.
306
Europeanization of Spatial Planning
307