Abstract The process to the green transition aims to address significant climate change consequences. How Europe would look like once green transition is achieved is yet unknown. This chapter explores two very distinct pathways towards green transition by 2050, taking the example of the Adriatic Ionian Region. Two territorial scenarios are explored, one focusing on the green transition being part of the quality of life, where health and social cohesion are prioritised, while the other focuses on a bolder idea of ‘giving back to nature’ where depopulated and environmentally vulnerable regions are restored as natural habitats. In the diverse landscape of the Adriatic Ionian Region, which faces its own socio-economic and geopolitical challenges, both scenarios highlight the need for tailor made, place-sensitive approaches, where policy coordination, innovative solutions, community engagement, and rethinking of current actions need to be considered. The scenarios aim to offer ‘food for thought’ to develop sound policy choices about the future.

Widespread engagement in regenerative actions with improved social coordination is urgently required to reverse the degradation of the planet’s life support systems that is accelerated by climate change. This article develops seven design attributes for scenario approaches that are designed to contribute to decentralized governance and nurturing regenerative practices. The design attributes were iteratively refined during a four-year transdisciplinary research project set in Luxembourg from 2017-2021, that engaged over 100 actors in the co-production of a set of three scenarios for how we engage with water and land in 2045. In the resulting scenario set on future engagements with water and land, each scenario corresponds to a narrative rooted in a different ontology: objectivism, subjectivism, and relational experientialism, respectively. Each ontology shapes relations in the human and to the more than human world in fundamentally different ways. The use of this scenario set is then critically discussed in two different multi-stakeholder situations. In the discussion section we explore how different ontological understandings between different stakeholder groups can be roots of polarization and lack of concerted action or sources of creativity and ideas for transformative actions.

Territorial cohesion must be more than a flanking concept to ensure a future for European places and people and avoid increasing disparities across the EU. This ambition requires a fundamental debate about how we understand cohesion and what we want to achieve. This chapter argues for broadening the understanding of cohesion and moving towards a more contemporary interpretation. The 'Cohesion Spirit Compass' offers proposals to envision, design, and enable a new understanding of cohesion, the 'Cohesion Spirit'. Delivering cohesion is necessary. Cohesion Policy is essential to combine the various EU and national policies affecting local and regional development into a coherent strategy. Cohesion is a key component of growth and solidarity, and must be based on a broader understanding beyond economic, social and territorial cohesion but promoting broader experimentation and commitment.

Europe faces the challenge of ensuring positive perspectives for all places and people. This requires rethinking cohesion, and the way cohesion is delivered. The Territorial Agenda 2030 offers a strategic reference point that sets priorities towards a more balanced, harmonious and cohesive development. Previously, the Territorial Agenda has been limited in implementing these ambitions. The article argues that, despite persisting limitations, the Territorial Agenda 2030 has moved towards making changes on two levels: A renewed cohesion understanding and an active implementation of it. However, the question remains whether it could generate enough momentum to move beyond keeping the intergovernmental policy process alive.

This paper addresses the role of spatial planning as a means to promote territorial cohesion in Europe. We first present three key challenges for Europe's future. Secondly, we explore (i) what European spatial planning would need to do to tackle the key challenges, (ii) the actual relationship between spatial planning and EU policies, and (iii) access points to increase the strategic fit between spatial planning and EU Cohesion Policy. Based on this, we derive some more general conclusions on the future perspectives of European spatial planning.

Future-orientated thinking needs to be strengthened in planning and policy making to respond to the challenges posed by ‘presentism’. Despite the inherent uncertainty of the future, effective planning and policy making require the ability to envision potential future developments and implications of today´s decisions. The ’tragedy of the time horizon’ emphasises the detrimental effects of short-term thinking on various domains, including the environment, economic stability, and social equity. It encompasses the multifaceted challenges posed by short-term thinking and the neglect of long-term consequences. To combat this, we must boost our future literacy, i.e. the capacity to imagine, read, and use the future, both at the individual and societal levels. Future literacy is vital for navigating uncertainty, making strategic decisions, embracing innovation, enhancing social resilience, and promoting sustainable development. This requires a collective effort to improve future literacy skills, foster imagination and creativity, and overcome the challenges of ‘the tyranny of now’. Envisioning positive futures is crucial for inspiring hope, collaboration, and informed decision-making,particularly in a rapidly changing world.

s The abstracts of the papers presented in the parallel sessions are distributed as an Annex to the current programme. This Annex aims to give an advanced insight on what to expect from the scientific papers and presentations at the conference and it will facilitate participant’s decisions on which workshop to attend in the parallel sessions. Note that the order of the abstracts in the Annex might be different than the order in this current programme due to some different arrangements made with speakers. Special attention should be given to the switch made between the complete Session 1A and Session 4A. The order of the presentations presented in this programme is the latest and will be followed. Scientific Report All papers presented at the ESPON Scientific Conference will be included in the second ESPON 2013 Scientific Report. An introduction, drafted by external experts, will synthesise the papers included. The report is targeting the European scientific community involved in research and higher education on territorial development and cohesion and will be published at the ESPON website by January 2014. Audience Besides providing a podium to scientist in the field of territorial research, the Scientific Conference also aims to involve policy makers using the results of territorial research for their policy related processes. The plenary sessions focus on the linkages between the scientists and policy makers and aim to bring the research interest of the scientists closer to the needs of the policy makers. In addition, parallel sessions look into policy related issues, such as how can research support policy, how can research results best be communicated to policy makers and what (new) scientific theories, concepts, methods and approaches can be considered to support the territorial approach in (sectoral/developmental) policies. ESPON Scientific Conference “Science in support of European Territorial Development and Cohesion”. Luxembourg, 12 – 13 September 2013 3 Thursday 12 September 2013 8:30 Registration at the Audimax (B08) 9:00 Welcome and Opening Moderator of the morning: Thiemo Eser, ESPON Managing Authority Welcome statement: Prof. Dr. med. Ludwig Neyses, Vice-President for Research, University of Luxembourg 9:10 Plenary Session 1: What are policy makers looking for? Romain Diederich, Director General, Luxembourg Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, ESPON Managing Authority Philippe Monfort, DG Regio, European Commission 9:30 Plenary Session 2: How are scientists dealing with policy makers' demand? Key note speakers: ESPON research on territorial development and cohesion: an outside perspective by Prof. Charlie Karlsson – President of ERSA Finding potentials to contribute to the EU2020 targets by Dr. Peter Schön – Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development, Germany Information System of Spatial Development (ISPU) – Growing attention to flows, networks and functional inter-linkages by Ivana Liović – Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning, Croatia 11:00 Networking coffee and tea at the Canteen 11:30 Plenary Session 3: Most remarkable scientific developments regarding territorial development and cohesion in the scientific and professional organisations since 2005 Short statements and discussion on most remarkable scientific developments within the European Territorial Research Community by: Prof. Gert de Roo representing AESOP Virna Bussadori representing ECTP-CEU Prof. Charlie Karlsson representing ERSA Prof. Henk Ottens representing EUGEO Prof. Martin Jones representing RSA 12:30 Lunch at Centre Prince Henri ESPON Scientific Conference “Science in support of European Territorial Development and Cohesion”. Luxembourg, 12 – 13 September 2013 4 14:00 Parallel Workshops – Sessions 1 Session 1A – Audimax Session 1B – Room 204 Session 1C – Room 208 Measuring regional disparities and territorial cohesion Using a large set of indicators to measure a specific aspect Concepts on integration Chair: Enrique Lopez-Bazo (ERSA) Chair: Martin Jones (RSA) Chair: Sabine Zillmer (Spatial Foresight) Investigating regional diversity and integrative patterns in ESPON collaboration networks Firm growth during stretches of recession: modes of resilience of Austrian firms 2002-2011 Effective planning and scientific data Presented by: Sylvie Occelli (ERSA) Presented by: Michael Steiner (RSA) Presented by: Jan Vogelij (ECTPCEU) A composite index to measure the "Europe 2020 Strategy" achievement by regions and member states: how far are territories to emerge from the crisis? What can we learn from the comparative analysis of territorial innovation dynamics? Spatial integration revisited – new insights for cross-border and transnational contexts Presented by: Ruben C. Lois (SIESTA) Presented by: Riccardo Crescenzi (KIT) Presented by: Tobias Chilla (METROBORDER, ULYSSES) The role of indicators in supporting EU spatial planning and territorial cohesion Territorial capital, territorial cohesion policy and services of general interest: a SWOT analysis of SGI Re-constructing territorial governance: findings from case study research Presented by: Gavin Daly (KITCASP) Presented by: Daniela Constantin (SeGI) Presented by: Lisa Van Well (TANGO) 15.30 Networking with Coffee and Tea at the Canteen 16:00 Parallel Workshops – Sessions 2 Session 2A – Audimax Session 2B – Room 204 Session 2C – Room 208 Understanding demographic / population mobility Different approaches for building typologies Methods to support policy selection and implementation Chair: Birte Nienaber (University of Luxembourg) Chair: Geoffrey Caruso (University of Luxembourg) Chair: Jan Vogelij (ECTP-CEU) Between self-organization and policies – spatial models of dynamic urban processes Analysing land use and land use change dynamics for policy development: identification of hotspots of change Calculating regionalised scenarios to hit Europe 2020 objectives Presented by: Izabela Mironowicz (AESOP) Presented by: Rasmus Ole Rasmussen (EU-LUPA) Presented by: Christian Lüer (RSA) Rural development, female mobility and the provision of SGI – a target group oriented approach A spatial typology for European Sea Researching in geography beyond the spatial planning, it is possible to match science, theory and practice of the territorial development Presented by: Karin Wiest (SEMIGRA, SeGI) Presented by: Dania Abdul Malak (ESaTDOR) Presented by: Maria Prezioso (INTERSTRAT, Project 3.4.2 and 3.3) Population mobility: moving away from a 'sedentarist' epistemology Characterisation of urban sprawl in Europe A conceptual device for spreading (good) territorial governance in Europe Presented by: Antonio Russo (ATTREG) Presented by: Jaume Fons-Esteve (FOCI) Presented by: Umberto Janin Rivolin (TANGO) ESPON Scientific Conference “Science in support of European Territorial Development and Cohesion”. Luxembourg, 12 – 13 September 2013 5 17:30 Closure of Day 1 17:30 Guided tour through Luxembourg city organised by the University of Luxembourg Starting point: Canteen (B04) 20:00 Dinner offered by the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure, Luxembourg Served at: Grand Hotel Mercure Alfa, Place de la gare 16, Luxembourg Friday 13 September 2013 9:00 Parallel Workshops – Sessions 3 Session 3A – Audimax Session 3B – Room 204 Session 3C – Room 208 Understanding regional disparities and territorial cohesion Interlinking information at different scales Approaches to support participatory processes Chair: Izabela Mironowicz (AESOP) Chair: Sylvie Occelli (ERSA) Chair: Virna Bussadori (ECTPCEU) Regional disparities in the EU: are they robust to the use of different measures and indicators? Evidence from micro-data as a complement to aggregate analyses on regional disparities benefits for the assessment of territorial policies Strengthen the capacity of citizen participation in urban projects Presented by: José Villaverde (ERSA) Presented by: Enrique Lopez-Bazo (ERSA) Presented by: Dominique Lancrenon (ECTP-CEU) Sigma-convergence as a measure of territorial cohesion Small area estimation of at risk of poverty rates Challenges of stakeholders’ involvement in a Delphi study Presented by: Hy Dao (INTERCO) Presented by: Andrew Copus (TiPSE) Presented by: Estelle Evrard (METROBORDER) Measuring accessibility in local/regional, European and global contexts Macroeconomic beyond territorial elements in forecasting regional growth Qualitative analytical method and territorial performance monitoring on macro-challenges and planning systems: an integrated perspective Presented by: Klaus Spiekermann (TRACC) Presented by: Roberta Capello (ET2050) Presented by: Loris Servillo (TPM) 10:30 Networking coffee and tea at the Canteen ESPON Scientific Conference “Science in support of European Territorial Development and Cohesion”. Luxembourg, 12 – 13 September 2013 6 11:00 Parallel Workshops – Sessions 4 Session 4A – Audimax Session 4B – Room 204 Session 4C – Room 208 Understanding spatial relations Additional possibilities for building data sets Communication techniques to support territorial development processes Chair: Henk Ottens (EUGEO) Chair: Michael Steiner (RSA) Chair: Gert de Roo (AESOP) The location of logistics activities and their territorial impacts in Northwest Europe Exploring Big Data for analysing territorial development New ICT in planning practice: a permanent need to innovate in practice Presented by: Mathieu Strale (EUGEO) Presented by: Sofie Jæger (RSA) Presented by: Nuno Pinto (ECTPCEU) European functional border regions: an urban potential typology Spatial disaggregation of socioeconomic data and combination with other spatial data by means of the OLAP technology Are maps sufficient? Using traffic lights and box plots for a better understanding of ESPON Presented by: Christophe Sohn (GEOSPECS) Presented by: Roger Milego (M4D) Presented by: Mihail Eva (TerrEvi) Metropolitan polycentric development: concepts, methods and resear

The ambitions of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) in relation to the development of European Union space seem to have been dissolved in the notion of territory which has become a key word in EU Cohesion Policy. The term ‘territory’ has been the subject of many debates, from attempts at definitions, to its rejection as a marker of a renunciation of the aspiration to reflect on, and adjust, development to spatial realities. Based on a constructivist definition of the concept of territory, this article argues that it is not possible to separate territory as a ‘container’ from the various realities of space in so far as the two dimensions are closely intertwined. Furthermore, it could be useful to consider these two dimensions in analysing EU space when reflecting on spatial planning at this scale.

Policy-making shapes – explicitly or implicitly – future territorial development. Therefore, sound policy making needs strong territorial and future dimensions. While territorial impact assessments focus on the territorial impact of policies, territorial foresight addresses possible long-term developments and their potential future impact on territories in order to support anticipatory or future-wise decision-making. This chapter argues to adopt territorial foresight approaches instead of territorial impact assessments when long-term developments are concerned. Territorial foresight combines elements of territorial impact assessments and foresight approaches. As such the approach supports addressing the territorial impact of future trends, visions and policy objectives when designing forward-looking policies. It offers different steps that support policy makers in thinking territorially, allow them to anticipate on the future and increase ownership on possible actions shaping the future. In short, territorial foresight contributes to making policies future-wise, i.e. fit for the future.

Territorial cohesion, recognized by the Treaty of Lisbon, has been subject to various policy and academic debates. Despite various efforts to operationalize it, territorial cohesion has remained at the level of policy intention and overall guiding policy paradigm rather than a clearly defined policy goal or task. Recently new light on possible measurement of territorial cohesion has been shed by some ESPON research. This paper examines the reasons and conditions of successful measurement of territorial cohesion . We conclude that the operationalization of territorial cohesion is the most promising when using the frameworks of existing policies and that such operationalization on smaller geographical scales (below the EU) might be easier and more productive than at the EU level.

Urban areas and the diversity of urban areas across Europe are a corner stone of territorial cohesion. At the same time, territorial cohesion in Europe is challenged by the dominant role of urban areas in territorial development and in territorial development policies. One may conclude that the urban perspective and territorial cohesion cannot do without each other, but at the same time, they risk to wreck each other. This contribution will further explore this complicated relation. Starting with the growing importance of urban areas, the first section will address the increasing concentration of economic and demographic growth in Europe to urban areas. Based on the idea that cities act as motors for territorial development in a wider region, over the past decades they have become the centre points for development and future perspectives. The impact this had on territorial cohesion can be discussed at least at two different levels: (a) European and (b) functional urban/regional level.

Increasing divisions, diversity and disparities between different types of territories pose a major and complex challenge to Europe and its cities and regions.Moreover, development is increasingly dependent on external economic, social and environmental factors, such as trade wars, migration and climate change, that affect the EU as such, and our cities and regions in particular.The current challenges facing Europe, its cities and regions, will impact the EU territory in a variety of ways, and are more severe than before.They call for innovative policy action at all levels, including the EU.In its essence the burning question is: What EU territory do we want to hand over to the next generations?Possible answers and long-term aspirations for the 'EU territory of tomorrow'

The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, that celebrates this year in Gdańsk its tenth anniversary, has been considered by many scholars and the decision makers as the model example of the soft governance that has gained in importance in the enlarged European Union (EU). The paper analyses the achievements and shortcomings of the Strategy from economic perspective with focus on externalities, public goods (also club goods, common-pool resources), economies of scale and scope and transaction costs. Two cases: Single Market for services and innovation spillovers are discussed more in depth. The analysis of these challenges and opportunities as well as the performance of the Strategy in the past and comparative analysis of its various evaluations allow authors to formulate several assumptions that should save the Strategy for the future. Their essence is related to mainstreaming of the Strategy into the EU and national policies (ensuring its stronger policy impact), strengthening strategic, visionary approach of the Strategy (e.g. facilitating large Baltic projects), better alignment with the business sector activities (understanding and addressing this sector expectations towards macro-regional co-operation) and acknowledgement of macro-regional solidarity as a foundation of the common efforts. Without all these, the Strategy might follow the case of the Baltic Development Forum that ceased to exist despite its evident positive effects for the entire region. Soft governance is difficult but promising as an alternative to the overgrowing sentiments towards centralisation. Thus, to avoid the impression of the “Titanic ball” Gdańsk celebrations should provide a new start instead of the business as usual and manifestation of shallow self-satisfaction.

Zaucha is indeed a missing link.Not only does it show how territorial cohesion bridges between economic growth and welfare, more importantly it is the missing link in academic literature linking the conceptual work of territorial cohesion to reality.The book stands in line with Jaques Robert's book on the European territory (Robert 2014) and illustrates concretely what territorial cohesion means.While most publications on territorial cohesion stay at the conceptual level (see Camagni 2006;Davoudi 2009;Faludi 2010), this present book goes beyond that.The book skilfully draws together the various discussions about what territorial could mean and takes the debate than one step further.Following the conceptual parts, the book illustrates how various facets of territorial cohesion can be measured.It translates it into concrete and measurable aspects which can be applied to the Polish context.In that sense already the first section of the book "Territorial concepts and frameworks" provides a considerable added value to the on-going debate about territorial cohesion.Considering Polish development policy as a laboratory of new concepts and ideas, the book makes a contribution to the European debate on territorial cohesion -which many practitioners and researchers in the field of applied sciences have been longing for.Building on the work conducted for the Polish EU Council Presidency, the Polish example helps to get a clearer understanding of the meaning of territorial cohesion and its possible measurements.The second section of the book "Territorial empirical analysis" introduces the reader to the territorial diversity of Poland and what that means in terms of territorial cohesion.This is mainly done by focusing on territorial capital and modelling territorial cohesion as inter-related processes.The chapters of this second section do not only introduce the reader to territorial cohesion issues in Poland, they also discuss different