This chapter focuses on the nature and powers of governance arrangements in two Dutch metropolitan areas, both situated in the Randstad: the Metropolitan Region Amsterdam (Metropoolregio Amsterdam) and the Metropolitan Region Rotterdam The Hague (Metropoolregio Rotterdam Den Haag ). It considers the power of process by analysing the actor network and relations. The chapter deals with an overview of recent international trends in metropolitan governance. It then presents a summary of trends in sub-national governance in the Netherlands. Territorial governance is being redefined in the light of important societal challenges, new powers and responsibilities and new attempts to increase the societal relevance of planning. Metropolitan governance bodies – bodies aiming at organising responsibilities among public authorities in metropolitan areas – are extremely common in most OECD countries. Amidst the economic recession of the 1980s cooperation between the three Randstad provinces picked up again in various domains from 1985 onwards, including spatial planning.

At succession of a farm successors often evaluate the farm operation and whether to continue in the same way, to diversify or to specialise. An increasing number of successors chooses to diversify their farm income, either by diversification which aims at changes in agricultural production and management (like adding production-oriented branches, processing and selling home-made products and the switch to organic production) or by broadening which aims at adding non-agricultural activities to the farm company (such as creating farm leisure services like camping sites, B&B overnight stays, workshops etc.). The market for this type of products and services is growing, but there may also be other reasons to choose for diversification and broadening. It may create more employment (for a partner, family and others) and lead to more satisfaction because there is direct contact with the end-users of the farm products. This case study focuses on diversification and addresses two Flemish farms where at the moment of succession or at the entrance of the new generation decisions were made about agricultural management. They kept agricultural production as main source of income and adapted their agricultural management either by switching from traditional to organic agricultural production (Biohoeve Hof te Muizenhole) or by adding an agricultural branch to the existing organic farm management (organic dairy goats and home processing and direct sales). De Speiboerderij). The two examples are situated in Flanders (Belgium) in the province of East-Flanders in two neighbouring municipalities, Herzele en Lierde (Figure 1).

EU Cohesion Policy has arguably the most tangible impact on the citizens’ environment and livelihoods and can potentially boost their attachment to the European project. Beyond the cross-national transactionalist hypothesis, Cohesion Policy spending has a local impact and may affect the lives of citizens who do not benefit directly from cross-national transactions, like education, work, investment and travel in other European countries. One could thus expect that Cohesion Policy has a significant positive impact on the ways in which citizens perceive the EU. But what happens when a country is a net contributor to the EU’s budget receiving a relatively small amount of Cohesion Policy funding, the bulk of it being invested in poorer European territories? Building on the cases of two Dutch regions–Flevoland and Limburg–this paper investigates the extent to which the citizens are aware of Cohesion Policy interventions and how the features of communication on and implementation of Cohesion Policy affect this awareness.

The objective of this case study is to investigate EU Cohesion policy performance and communication and the impact on citizens’ attitudes to the EU in Limburg, the Netherlands. The case study also contextualises comparative COHESIFY research findings and provides more in-depth insights into the performance and communication of Cohesion policy. The selection criteria for the Dutch case studies included Cohesion policy eligibility and financial intensity, programme types, governance system, European identity (also related to the specific geographical features and experience of cross-border cooperation), and Cohesion policy implementation setting and performance.

The objective of this case study is to investigate EU Cohesion policy performance and communication and the impact on citizens’ attitudes to the EU in Limburg, the Netherlands. The case study also contextualises comparative COHESIFY research findings and provides more in-depth insights into the performance and communication of Cohesion policy. The selection criteria for the Dutch case studies included Cohesion policy eligibility and financial intensity, programme types, governance system, European identity (also related to the specific geographical features and experience of cross-border cooperation), and Cohesion policy implementation setting and performance.

Cohesion Policy being the EU’s policy, bringing investment funds to European regions, has arguably the most tangible impacts on the citizens’ environment and livelihoods. One could thus expect that it has a significant positive impact on the ways in which citizens perceive the EU. But does it? How does the regional context affect this linkage between the use of European funding for regional development and the identification with the EU? This paper brings an element of response to this question through study of two Dutch regions -Flevoland and Limburg - conducted as part of the Horizon 2020 COHESIFY project (Grant Agreement no 693427). The first used to be a substantial receiver of Structural Funds, but today finds itself marginalised in the stream of EU funding, while the latter is at the heart of a cross-border area with deeply embedded cooperation long-supported by Cohesion Policy. Although citizens in both regions show attachment to the EU, the perception of how the EU works tends to be negative. To what extent are those views related to the ways in which EU Cohesion Policy has been implemented in those regions? Drawing on interviews with the key policy stakeholders, surveys and focus groups with citizens, the paper explores this question and sheds light on the capacity of Cohesion Policy to mobilise positive European identification from the perspective of a country that is a net contributor to EU budget.

Cities worldwide are challenged by a high complexity of acute and chronic problems, including challenges related to economic development, social polarisation and segregation as well as climate change and ecological degradation. While all of these problems are complex in themselves, they are also interrelated. Addressing them in a meaningful way requires governance systems with systemic capacities to deal with complexity. In order to create resilience in urban systems, cities need to be able to learn, adapt and transform across sectors and levels. One definition of urban resilience is the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow regardless of the kinds of chronic stress and acute shocks they experience. This is the definition the Rockefeller Foundation adopts in its mission to promote the well-being of humanity throughout the world by facilitating the building of resilience in cities worldwide through its 100 Resilient Cities Programme, launched in 2013. Rotterdam is one of the first cities to participate in this programme. The city has been a front-runner in preparing for climate change and striving for urban sustainability. This paper assesses the concept of urban resilience, introduces the Rockefeller Foundation's effort in building city resilience worldwide and illustrates this with the Rotterdam case.

The book brings together information on housing production, housing provision and the housing environment, highlighting the theoretical and policy contexts in which housing developments take place as an integrated process. The book relates to what is done, why it is done and how it fits in with the general scope of housing development. The aim of the book is to provide a basic reference for the housing development process, which is multi-disciplinary in scope. The book is not written for a specific potential readership, but addresses professionals, academics and students alike. It is also useful for an international readership interested in the English housing development context and practice. [...]

Globalisation in planning was put on the scientific research agenda by inspiring publications by Castells and Sassen. Since then research on the influences of globalisation on cities and urban and spatial policy has become more widespread. The concept of globalisation is often under discussion and the editors of Planning in a Global Era endorse this. The definition that they use as their basis is that of Held and colleagues (1999): “widening, deepening and speeding up of world wide connectedness in all aspects of social life”. This book consists of a wide range of contributions that were originally presentations at the Planning Research 2000 Conference at the London School of Economics. As in many books that have been put together in similar circumstances, widely differing papers are forced into juxtaposition between the same covers. The introduction the editors have given to the 17 contributions that follow is rather brief, even though they do have the intention of developing a common theoretical framework. Unfortunately, they have even neglected to put forward an adequate credible co‐ordinating framework within which the 17 contributions could each be given a logical place. [...]