Re‐Thinking Territorial Cohesion in the European Planning Context

Abstract

The socio‐economic dimensions of cohesion have long been considered an integral part of Europeanization. However, recently a third dimension has been added to the Europe 2020 cohesion policy debate: territorial cohesion. Consequently this term is as yet undeveloped, resulting in a lack of consensus on how to define and interpret it. Such ambiguity represents a theoretical and empirical challenge to regional actors needing to respond to European Union (EU) directives while operationalizing the concept within their national and/or regional agendas. This article uses Portugal as a case study to examine how the concept of territorial cohesion is being interpreted and transposed from EU‐based to territorial‐based instruments and policy documents. First, we conducted a qualitative content analysis (QCA) of a selection of European and regional publications to compare their intrinsic discourses. This was followed by around 60 structured qualitative interviews, conducted with leading actors who had been instrumental in writing or implementing regional policy documents. On the basis of this dual analysis we conclude that, as a whole, the writers of the Portuguese strategic documents successfully transposed this concept, although perceptible differences exist between regions, as local actors have selectively redefined it to better suit their strategic priorities. These differences are debated with the aim of contributing to the design of effective public policies that facilitate inclusion, cohesion and Europeanization.

Community crime prevention in Portugal: an introduction to Local Safety Contracts

“…A multidisciplinary and inter-sectoral approach should be implemented to support the promotion of the territorial dimension of public policies at different scales. Territorial and social cohesion is achieved by considering aspects of territorial governance and organization, by promoting social and territorial solidarity and equity, and by recognizing the need for diversity and specificity in territorial policies (Marques et al 2018 ). Crime and insecurity have a great impact in communities, at local level, so all stakeholders, from the central administration to the community, should work together devising specific strategies for specific territories.…”

Editorial: Spatial Justice in Europe. Territoriality, Mobility and Peripherality

“…The conceptualization of spatial justice discussed above has revealed two rival understandings of territoriality: state territoriality which is somehow fixed and refers to territory as a container for socio-spatial relations and policies; and territoriality as the outcome of social construction (Elden, 2010;Sassen, 2013). It has been argued that the nation-state as a territorial myth of the European construction is being called into question, while a new concept of territorial sovereignty is emerging (Kahn, 2014).…”

“…The legitimacy of the 'territorial-administrative complex' derives from the capacity of state territories to attain democratic legitimacy based on voting procedures and representative democracy (Faludi, 2016b). However, there are critical voices who argue that the emphasis should be placed on other types of territoriality which, since they are not necessarily tied to traditional state territories, allow for cross-cutting or rearranging territories regardless of state sovereignty (Elden, 2010;Faludi, 2013Faludi, , 2016cFaludi, , 2016dFaludi, , 2019Sassen, 2013). For example, the challenge of measuring territorial cohesion brings to the fore the issue of delimiting territories or disaggregating them, ensuring the context-dependence of territorial dynamics, involving and engaging sub-national stakeholders in indicator definition and monitoring changes, establishing close collaboration between researchers/experts and stakeholders, and translating real life issues into policy goals, targets and evidence (Zaucha & Böhme, 2019).…”

Pedestrian accessibility of services as a measure of territorial cohesion at the neighbourhood level

“…Due to its multidimensional and dynamic nature and the heterogeneity of its users, TC lacked clarity and generated endless disputes about its definition, measurement and application (Dao et al, 2017). During the last decade the ambiguity of "territorial cohesion" has mostly been resolved, although its implementation still represents a major challenge to regional actors needing to respond to European Union directives within their policy agendas (Sá Marques et al, 2018). Drevet (2007) and Van Well (2012) describe it as a "moving target" that is hard to hit and hard to grasp.…”

“…Drevet (2007) and Van Well (2012) describe it as a "moving target" that is hard to hit and hard to grasp. Policy-makers are forced to define their approaches towards achieving territorial cohesion but the European guidelines are elusive in terms of what creating a "cohesive territory" entails (Sá Marques et al, 2018).…”