Territorial attractiveness in EU urban and spatial policy: a critical review and future research agenda

Abstract

The paper introduces the concept of territorial assets and discusses their role for regional development. Focusing on European societies and taking into account different strands of the literature on place and territorial capital, we argue that the endowment with – and mobilization of – such territorial assets could be seen as a key aspect of regional policy, producing changes in the attraction (and/or retention) of specific segments of population and, in a longer-term perspective, influencing sustainable development strategies. In this light, ‘territorial attractiveness’ – characterized in this paper in both conceptual and operational terms – is presented as a powerful element in European spatial policy, allowing regional development strategies to be more systematically integrated under an overall objective of territorial cohesion, while taking into account their implications in terms of human mobility.

Comparing the quality of life of cities that gained and lost population: An assessment with DEA and the Malmquist index

“…The culture and entertainment dimension translates the cultural liveability of cities (Ali et al, 2009;Morais & Camanho, 2011;Zanella et al, 2015). The availability of cultural amenities attracts highly educated people (Shapiro, 2006), which typically are more demanding regarding QoL conditions (Servillo, Atkinson, & Russo, 2011).…”

Matching Tourism Development Priorities and Policy Measures – An Experimental Method to Reconcile the Key Stakeholders' Views

“…Territorial capital is defined as the system of territorial assets of economic, cultural, social and environmental nature that ensures the development potential of places (Perucca, 2014). Servillo et al (2011) offer a dynamic perspective on territorial capital highlighting its two aspects: (1) definition and (2) mobilization which plays a crucial role in achieved different performances between places. Thus, they argue that attractiveness is built through combination and interaction of different assets and from the way they are mobilized by governmental and non-governmental organizations and by institutional actors.…”

“…); and (vi) institutional capital (democracy, efficiency of the system, tax climate, participatory processes, accessibility, etc) (ESPON 2013, 16). The institutional capital has a dual status, being an attractiveness element and a prerequisite for assets mobilization (Servillo et al, 2011).…”

“…The concept of territorial attractiveness provides important insights into the development potential of places. However, the very presence of assets, no matter how important they may be, does not necessarily mean that they will yield significant development results if the favourable economic environment is not in place (Servillo et al, 2011). It is generally believed that identifying destination's development priorities involves identifying the assets/attributes that tourists and destination managers consider as important in evaluating the attractiveness of a destination (Reitsamer & Brunner-Sperdin, 2017;Vengesayi et al, 2009).…”

Questioning territorial cohesion: (Un)equal access to services of general interest

“…Although the concept of territorial cohesion has been widely discussed in the context of EU regional policy (e.g., EC ; EU Ministers Responsible for Spatial Development ) and the academic sphere (e.g., Faludi ; Evers ; Servillo et al ) in the last decade, most definitions struggle with vagueness and ambiguity. Next to the divergent ‘storylines’ framing the territorial cohesion discourse (Waterhout ), the incomprehensibility of the concept is also caused by its multidimensionality (Doucet ; Camagni ).…”