Advertisement

A Closer Look to Processes of Territorial Transformations in Europe: Urbanization, Agricultural Intensification and Land Abandonment

  • Carlo RegaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Cities and Nature book series (CITIES)

Abstract

Here we examine more in detail how the general processes described in the previous chapter have been developing in Europe and specifically in the European Union. Account is given of recent literature that has examined the main processes of landscape transformation in the EU: relentless urban expansion, agricultural intensification, and agricultural land abandonment. These processes are analysed and interpreted using the conceptual tools developed in the previous chapter. In Europe, urban growth rate exceeding population growth rate is linked to the ongoing processes of neo-liberalization of spatial planning, drawing from extensive empirical evidence from literature. Similarly, agricultural intensification and land abandonment are examined as two interlinked aspects of a joint process of reconfiguration of space under the contemporary dominating economic paradigm. The relevance for spatial planning of these processes is discussed and the necessity to bring back the politics in what has been termed the post-political planning is argued.

Keywords

Urbanization Urban expansion Suburbanization Agricultural intensification Land abandonment Neo-liberalization of planning Post-political planning 

References

  1. Allmendinger P (2011) New labour and planning: from new right to new left. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allmendinger P, Haughton G (2009) Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environ Plan A 41:617–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allmendinger P, Haughton G (2012) Post political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus. Trans Inst Br Geogr 37(1):89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allmendinger P, Tewdwr-Jones M (2000) New Labour, new planning? The trajectory of planning in Blair’s Britain. Urban Stud 37(8):1379–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allmendinger P, Thomas H (eds) (1998) Urban planning and the British New Right. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnaby W (1986) Agriculture and the environment (UK). Ambio 15(6):364–366Google Scholar
  7. Brenner N (2004) Urban governance and the production of new state spaces in Western Europe, 1960–2000. Rev Int Polit Econ 11(3):447–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brenner N, Theodore N (2002) Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”. Antipode 34:349–379.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bricocoli M (2017) Projects and places in the reorganization of local social policies. An experimentation in Milan. Territorio (83):70–74Google Scholar
  10. Buckwell A (1991) The CAP and world trade. In: Ritson C, Harvey D (eds) The common agriculture policy and the world economy: essays in honor of John Aston, 223 ± 40. CAB International, Wallingford, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne J (2019) Farmers show anger with protests in Ireland, Germany and France. Available online:https://www.feednavigator.com/Article/2019/11/27/Farmers-show-anger-with-EU-wide-protests
  12. Cerreta M, Concilio G, Monno V (eds) (2010) Making strategies in spatial planning: knowledge and values. Springer Science+Business Media B.V., DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. Davoudi S, Strange I (eds) (2009) Conceptions of space and place in strategic spatial planning. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. EEA (European Environmental Agency) (2019) Land Take 2000–2018. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/dashboards/land-take-statistics. Accessed Oct 2019
  15. Ekers M, Prudham S (2017) The metabolism of socioecological fixes: capital switching, spatial fixes, and the production of nature. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 107(6):1370–1388.  https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1309962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (EC) (2013) Communication from the Commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: green infrastructure (GI)—enhancing Europe’s natural capital. COM (2013) 249 final. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. EC (European Commission) (2019) The European Green Deal (COM(2019) 640 final). European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (Food and AGriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2019) Food and agriculture data. available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
  19. Fernandes JR, Chamusca P (2014) Urban policies, planning and retail resilience. Cities 36:170–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flyvbjerg B (2013) How planners deal with uncomfortable knowledge: The dubious ethics of the American Planning Association. Cities 32:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Girardi A (2019) Why shepherds are pouring milk on highways in the Italian Island of Sardinia. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/annalisagirardi/2019/02/19/why-shepherds-are-pouring-milk-on-highways-in-the-italian-island-of-sardinia/#1dd6c3c61b4e
  22. González Díaz JA, Celaya R, Fernández García F, Osoro K, Rosa García R (2019) Dynamics of rural landscapes in marginal areas of northern Spain: past, present, and future. Land Degrad Dev 30(2):141–150.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gotham KF (2009) Creating liquidity out of spatial fixity: the secondary circuit of capital and the subprime mortgage crisis. Int J Urban Reg Res 33(2):355–371.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00874.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hafner R (2018) Environmental justice and soy agribusiness. New York: Earthscan/RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall P (2011) The Big Society and the Evolution of Ideas. Town Country Planning 80(2):59–60Google Scholar
  26. Harvey D (2001) Globalization and the ‘spatial fix’. Geographische Revue 3(2):23–30Google Scholar
  27. Hatherley O (2010) A guide to the new ruins of Great Britain. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Haughton G, Allmendinger P, Counsell D, Vigar G (2010) The New Spatial Planning: Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haughton G, Allmendinger P, Oosterlynck S (2013) Spaces of neoliberal experimentation: soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality. Environ Plan A 45(1):217–234.  https://doi.org/10.1068/a45121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Healey P (1992) Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory. Town Plann Rev 63(2):143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Healey P (2007) Urban complexity and spatial strategies: towards a relational planning for our times. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Hytönen J, Ahlqvist T (2019) Emerging vacuums of strategic planning: an exploration of reforms in Finnish spatial planning. Eur Plan Stud 1–19Google Scholar
  33. Immergluck D (2011) The local wreckage of global capital: the subprime crisis, federal policy and high-foreclosure neighborhoods in the US. Int J Urban Reg Res 35(1):130–146.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00991.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Janin Rivolin U (2017) Global crisis and the systems of spatial governance and planning: a European comparison. Eur Plan Stud 25(6):994–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. La Repubblica (1984) Sotto le ruspe in Sicilia 8 milioni di quintali di agrumi. Newspaper article, 22.05.1984. https://ricerca.repubblica.it/repubblica/archivio/repubblica/1984/05/22/sotto-le-ruspe-in-sicilia-milioni-di.html
  36. Lefebvre H (2003 [1970]) The urban revolution. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MNGoogle Scholar
  37. Lennon M, Waldron R (2019) De-democratising the Irish planning system. Eur Plann Stud 27(8):1607–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levers C, Müller D, Erb K, Haberl H, Jepsen MR, Metzger MJ, Meyfroidt P, Plieninger T, Plutzar C, Stürck J, Verburg PH, Verkerk PJ, Kuemmerle T, (2018) Archetypical patterns and trajectories of land systems in Europe. Reg Environ Change 18(3):715–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Local Government Denmark (2014) Barrierer for Vækst i den Fysiske Planlægning, memorandum 12 May 2014. Local Government Denmark, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  40. Lord A, Tewdwr-Jones M (2014) Is Planning "Under Attack"? Chronicling the Deregulation of Urban and Environmental Planning in England. Eur Plann Stud 22(2):345–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lord A, Tewdwr-Jones M (2018) Getting the Planners Off Our Backs: Questioning the Post-Political Nature of English Planning Policy. Plann Pract Res 33(3):229–243Google Scholar
  42. Lord A, Mair M, Sturzaker J, Jones P (2017) ‘The planners’ dream goes wrong?’ questioning citizen-centred planning. Local Gov Stud 43(3):344–363.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017.1288618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Malheiros J, Carvalho R, Mendes L (2013) Gentrification, residential ethnicization and the social production of fragmented space in two multi-ethnic neighbouroods of Lisbon and Bilbao. Finisterra 48(96):109–135Google Scholar
  44. Martínez-Alier J, Muradian R (eds) (2015) Handbook of ecological economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783471416
  45. Martinez-Alier J, Temper L, Del Bene D, Scheidel A (2016) Is there a global environmental justice movement? J Peasant Stud 43(3):731–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miessner M (2018) Spatial planning amid crisis. The deepening of neoliberal logic in Germany. Int Plan Stud 1–20Google Scholar
  47. Moore JW (2016) The rise of cheap nature. In: Moore JW (ed) Anthropocene or capitalocene? PM Press, Oakland, pp 78–115Google Scholar
  48. Nabielek K, Hamers D, Evers D (2016) Cities in Europe. Facts and figures on cities and urban areas. PBL Netherland Environmental Assessment Agency, Report no. 2469. https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/cities-in-europe. Accessed 30 May 2016
  49. Næss P, Næss T, Strand A (2011) Oslo’s farewell to urban sprawl. Eur Plan Stud 19(1):113–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Niedziałkowski K, Beunen R (2019) The risky business of planning reform—the evolution of local spatial planning in Poland. Land use Policy 85:11–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Olesen K (2014) The neoliberalisation of strategic spatial planning. Plan Theory 13(3):288–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Olesen K, Carter H (2018) Planning as a barrier for growth: Analysing storylines on the reform of the Danish Planning Act. Environ Plann C Pol and Space 36(4):689–707Google Scholar
  53. Olesen K and Richardson T (2011) The spatial politics of spatial representation: relationality as a medium for depoliticization? Int Plan Stud 16(4):355–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Olesen K, Richardson T (2012) Strategic Planning in Transition: Contested Rationalities and Spatial Logics in Twenty-First Century Danish Planning Experiments. Eur Plann Stud 20(10):1689–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Oliveira E, Hersperger AM (2018) Governance arrangements, funding mechanisms and power configurations in current practices of strategic spatial plan implementation. Land Use Policy 76:623–633.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Oliveira E, Tobias S, Hersperger AM (2018) Can strategic spatial planning contribute to land degradation reduction in urban regions? State of the art and future research. Sustainability (Switzerland) 10(4).  https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040949
  57. Patel R (2013) The Long Green Revolution. J Peasant Stud 40(1):1–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Patterson LA (1997) Agricultural policy reform in the European Community: a three-level game analysis. Int Org 51:135–165.  https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Peck J, Tickell A (2002) Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 34(3):380–404.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Plieninger T, Draux H, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Bürgi M, Kizos T, et al. (2016) The driving forces of landscape change in Europe: A systematic review of the evidence. Land Use Policy 57:204–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ponzini D (2016) Introduction: crisis and renewal of contemporary urban planning. Eur Plan Stud 24(7):1237–1245.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2016.1168782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Prior A (2005) UK planning reform: a regulationist interpretation. Plan Theory Pract 6(4):465–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Puustinen S, Mäntysalo R, Hytönen J, Jarenko K (2017) The ‘deliberative bureaucrat’: deliberative democracy and institutional trust in the jurisdiction of the Finnish planner. Plan Theory Pract 18(1):71–88.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.1245437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Richner M, Olesen K (2019) Towards business improvement districts in Denmark: Translating a neoliberal urban intervention model into the Nordic context. Eur Urban Reg Stud 26(2):158–170.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776418759156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sager T (2011) Neo-liberal urban planning policies: a literature survey 1990–2010. Prog Plan 76(4):147–199Google Scholar
  66. Smith N (1984) Uneven development: nature, capital and the production of space. The University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  67. Strand A, Næss P (2017) Local self-determination, process-focus and subordination of environmental concerns. J Environ Policy Plann 19(2):156–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tulumello S (2016) Reconsidering neoliberal urban planning in times of crisis: Urban regeneration policy in a "dense" space in Lisbon. Urban Geogr 37(1):117–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van Vliet J, Magliocca NR, Büchner B, Cook E, Rey Benayas JM, Ellis EC, Verburg PH (2016) Meta-studies in land use science: current coverage and prospects. Ambio 45(1):15–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0699-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITERAS - Research Centre for Sustainability and Territorial InnovationBariItaly

Personalised recommendations