Establishing Cross-Border Spatial Planning

  • Frédéric Durand
  • Antoine Decoville
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)


In the Lisbon Treaty signed in 2007, one of the objectives mentioned is not only to offer European citizens a space of freedom, security and justice without internal borders, but also to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, as well as solidarity between the Member States . In theory, cross-border spatial planning is a means to regulate spatial dynamics and the effects induced by the cross-border integration process that impact on territories and the socio-spatial practices of border residents. However, spatial planning at the cross-border level, even though it is promoted by the European Union, remains a field of action that faces many obstacles and whose definition varies greatly depending on the context. So what are we really talking about when we use these terms, and to what does spatial planning correspond at a cross-border scale? The first part of this chapter aims to dissect the concept of cross-border spatial planning and to clarify the reasons why it constitutes an opportunity for supporting the cross-border integration process. In the second part, the various experiences of cross-border cooperation in spatial planning will be shown, and in the final part, the obstacles encountered by the actors to implement it will be exposed.


Cross-Border spatial planning European union Cross-Border cooperation Spatial planning Territorial cooperation 


  1. Anderson A, Wever E (2003) Borders, Border Regions and Economic Integration: One World, Ready or Not. J Borderlands Stud 18(1):27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrechts L, Healey P, Kunzmann K (2003) Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. J Am Plann Assoc 69:113–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) (2012) Information services for cross-border workers in European border regions, Overall report. AEBR, GronauGoogle Scholar
  4. Brackhahn B, Kärkkäinen R (eds) (2001) Spatial planning as an instrument for promoting sustainable development in the Nordic countries Action programme for 2001–2004, Report prepared by the Ministries responsible for the Environment in the five Nordic countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Ministry of the Environment Spatial Planning Department from Denmark, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  5. Bufon M (2011) Cross-border policies and spatial and social integration: between challenges and problems. Eur Spatial Res Policy 18(2):29–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cankar S, Seljak J, Petkovšek V (2014) Factors that influence cross-border cooperation between businesses in the Alps-Adriatic region. Econ Res-Ekonomska Istraživanja 27:304–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Decoville A, Durand F, Feltgen V (2015) Opportunities of cross-border cooperation between small and medium cities in Europe. Report for the Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure for the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. Luxembourg: DATER.
  8. Decoville A, Durand F (2016) Building a cross-border territorial strategy between four countries: wishful thinking? Eur Plan Stud 24(10):1825–1843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Decoville A, Durand F (2017) Challenges and obstacles in the production of cross-border territorial strategies: the example of the greater region. Trans Assoc Eur Schools Plann 1(1):65–78Google Scholar
  10. De Vries J (2008) Breaking the deadlock: lessons from cross-border spatial projects in Flanders and the Netherlands, disP—The. Plann Rev 44(172):48–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dühr S, Colomb C, Nadin V (2010) European spatial planning and territorial cooperation. Routledge, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Dühr, S. (2011) Baltic Sea, danube and macro-regional strategies: a model for transnational cooperation in the EU?, Notre Europe Study & Research, vol 85. ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. Durand F (2014) Challenges of cross-border spatial planning in the metropolitan regions of Luxembourg and Lille. Plann Practice Res 29(2):113–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durand F, Decoville A, Knippschild R (2017) Everything all right at the internal EU borders? The ambivalent effects of cross-border integration and the rise of Euroscepticism, Geopolitcs.
  15. European Commission (1997) The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  16. Evers D, Tennekes J (2016) Europe exposed: mapping the impacts of EU policies on spatial planning in the Netherlands. Eur Plan Stud 24(10):1747–1765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fabbro S, Haselsberger B (2009) Spatial planning harmonization as a condition for trans-national cooperation—the case of the Alpine-Adriatic area. Eur Plan Stud 17(9):1335–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faludi A (2010) Cohesion, coherence, cooperation: European spatial planning coming of age?. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  19. Faludi A (2014) EUropeanisation or Europeanisation of spatial planning? Plann Theory Practice 15(2):155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hooghe L, Marks G (2003) Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. Am Political Sci Rev 97(2):233–243Google Scholar
  21. Jacobs J (2016) Spatial planning in cross-border regions: a systems theoretical perspective. Plann Theory 15(1):69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knieling J, Othengrafen F (2009a) Planning cultures in Europe between convergence and divergence: findings, explanations and perspectives. In: Knieling J, Othengrafen F (eds) Planning cultures in Europe.Ashgate, Farnham, pp 301–321Google Scholar
  23. Knieling J, Othengrafen F (2009b) En route to a theoretical model for comparative research on planning cultures. In Knieling J, Othengrafen F. (eds) Planning cultures in Europe. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 37–61Google Scholar
  24. Knippschild R (2011) Cross-border spatial planning: understanding, designing and managing cooperation processes in the German–Polish–Czech borderland. Eur Plan Stud 19(4):629–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Korthals Altes WK (2014) The Europeanization of development planning in Valencia. Eur Plan Stud 22(2):418–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kramsch O, Hooper B (eds) (2004) Cross-border Governance in the European Union. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Krastev I (2012) European Disintegration? J Democracy 23(4):23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Medeiros E (2014) Is there a new TRUST in Inner Scandinavia, Evidence from Cross-Border Planning and Governance. Geografiska Annaler Series B Hum Geography 96(4):363–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (MOT) (2014) L’observation des territoires transfrontaliers, Cahiers de la MOT, 9. MOT, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Nadin V, Dühr S (2005) Some help with Euro-planning jargon. Town Country Plann 74(3):82–84Google Scholar
  31. Nelles J, Durand F (2014) Political rescaling and metropolitan governance in cross-border regions: comparing the cross-border metropolitan areas of Lille and Luxembourg. Eur Urban Regional Stud 21(1):104–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Newman P, Thornley A (1996) Urban Planning in Europe: International Competition. National Systems and Planning Projects, London, RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Paasi A, Zimmerbauer K (2016) Penumbral borders and planning paradoxes: relational thinking and the question of borders in spatial planning. Environ Plann A 48(1):75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peña S (2007) Cross-border planning at the U.S.-Mexico border: An institutional approach. J Borderlands Stud 22(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perkmann M (2003) Cross-border regions in Europe: significance and drivers of cross-border cooperation. Eur Urban Regional Stud 10(2):153–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scott JW (2012) European politics of borders, border symbolism and cross-border cooperation. In: Wilson TM, Donnan H. (dir.) A Companion to Border Studies. Wiley, Hoboken, pp. 83–99Google Scholar
  37. van Houtum H, van Naerssen T (2002) Bordering, ordering and othering. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93(2):125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic ResearchLuxembourg CityLuxembourg

Personalised recommendations