Territoriality

@article{powell1920extraterritorial,
    author = "Powell, Thomas Reed",
    title = "Extra-Territorial Inheritance Taxation II. Established Tests of Extra-Territoriality",
    year = "1920",
    journal = "Columbia Law Review",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1112547",
    doi = "10.2307/1112547",
    number = "3",
    pages = "283",
    volume = "20"
}

@incollection{carpenter1958territoriality4,
    author = "Carpenter, C. R",
    editor = "Roe, A. and Simpson, G. G.",
    title = "Territoriality: A Review of Concepts and Problems",
    year = "1958",
    booktitle = "Behavior and Evolution",
    publisher = "New Haven, Yale University Press, p. 224-250; 537 pp",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Carpenter, C. R., 1958, Territoriality: A Review of Concepts and Problems, in Roe, A., and Simpson, G. G., eds., Behavior and Evolution: New Haven, Yale University Press, p. 224-250; 537 pp.}"
}

@techreport{brown1964the1,
    author = "Brown, J. L",
    title = "The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems",
    year = "1964",
    howpublished = "Wilson Bulletin, v. 76, p. 160-169",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Brown, J. L., 1964, The evolution of diversity in avian territorial systems: Wilson Bulletin, v. 76, p. 160-169.}"
}

@techreport{brown1969territorial2,
    author = "Brown, J. L",
    title = "Territorial behavior and population regulation in birds",
    year = "1969",
    howpublished = "Wilson Bulletin, v. 81, p. 293-329",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Brown, J. L., 1969, Territorial behavior and population regulation in birds: Wilson Bulletin, v. 81, p. 293-329.}"
}

@article{brown1970spacing3,
    author = "Brown, J. L. and Orians, G. H",
    title = "Spacing patterns in mobile animals",
    year = "1970",
    journal = "Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 1, p. 239-262",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Brown, J. L., and Orians, G. H., 1970, Spacing patterns in mobile animals: Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v. 1, p. 239-262.}"
}

@article{vartiainen1987the,
    author = "Vartiainen, Perttu",
    title = "The strategy of territorial integration in regional development: Defining territoriality",
    year = "1987",
    journal = "Geoforum",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(87)90025-x",
    doi = "10.1016/0016-7185(87)90025-x",
    number = "1",
    pages = "117-126",
    volume = "18"
}

Abstract Even when political rule is territorial, territoriality does not necessarily entail the practices of total mutual exclusion which dominant understandings of the modern territorial state attribute to it. However, when the territoriality of the state is debated by international relations theorists the discussion is overwhelmingly in terms of the persistence or obsolescence of the territorial state as an unchanging entity rather than in terms of its significance and meaning in different historical‐geographical circumstances. Contemporary events call this approach into question. The end of the Cold War, the increased velocity and volatility of the world economy, and the emergence of political movements outside the framework of territorial states, suggest the need to consider the territoriality of states in historical context. Conventional thinking relies on three geographical assumptions ‐ states as fixed units of sovereign space, the domestic/foreign polarity, and states as ‘containers’ of societies ‐ that have led into the ‘territorial trap’.

@article{doi10108009692299408434268,
    author = "Agnew, John",
    title = "The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory",
    year = "1994",
    journal = "Review of International Political Economy",
    abstract = "Abstract Even when political rule is territorial, territoriality does not necessarily entail the practices of total mutual exclusion which dominant understandings of the modern territorial state attribute to it. However, when the territoriality of the state is debated by international relations theorists the discussion is overwhelmingly in terms of the persistence or obsolescence of the territorial state as an unchanging entity rather than in terms of its significance and meaning in different historical‐geographical circumstances. Contemporary events call this approach into question. The end of the Cold War, the increased velocity and volatility of the world economy, and the emergence of political movements outside the framework of territorial states, suggest the need to consider the territoriality of states in historical context. Conventional thinking relies on three geographical assumptions ‐ states as fixed units of sovereign space, the domestic/foreign polarity, and states as ‘containers’ of societies ‐ that have led into the ‘territorial trap’.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/09692299408434268",
    doi = "10.1080/09692299408434268",
    openalex = "W2076609166",
    references = "doi1015159781400848393039, doi1023072906250"
}

@article{doi101017cbo9780511491450002,
    author = "Goemans, H. E. and Kahler, M. and Walter, Barbara F.",
    title = "Bounded communities: territoriality, territorial attachment, and conflict",
    year = "2006",
    booktitle = "Territoriality and Conflict in an Era of Globalization",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7bb85f3e0fad954faaaf0c18f8b64ac24b8feb4d",
    doi = "10.1017/CBO9780511491450.002",
    is_oa = "true",
    pages = "25-61",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "50",
    semanticscholar_id = "7bb85f3e0fad954faaaf0c18f8b64ac24b8feb4d"
}

@incollection{goemans2006bounded,
    author = "Goemans, Hein",
    title = "Bounded communities: territoriality, territorial attachment, and conflict",
    year = "2006",
    booktitle = "Territoriality and Conflict in an Era of Globalization",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511491450.002",
    doi = "10.1017/cbo9780511491450.002",
    pages = "25-61"
}

@article{etherington2010nationalism,
    author = "Etherington, John",
    title = "Nationalism, territoriality and national territorial belonging",
    year = "2010",
    journal = "Papers. Revista de Sociologia",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/papers/v95n2.23",
    doi = "10.5565/rev/papers/v95n2.23",
    number = "2",
    pages = "321",
    volume = "95"
}

@article{velasco2011contested,
    author = "VELASCO, MARCELA",
    title = "Contested Territoriality: Ethnic Challenges to Colombia's Territorial Regimes",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Bulletin of Latin American Research",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-9856.2010.00500.x",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1470-9856.2010.00500.x",
    number = "2",
    pages = "213-228",
    volume = "30"
}

Two of the most prolific contributors to the theoretical literature on territoriality—Robert Sack and Claude Raffestin—treat territoriality in fundamentally different ways. Sack conceives of territoriality as a spatial strategy that individuals, groups, and organizations use to achieve particular social and political ends. Raffestin, in contrast, takes a relational approach to territoriality—seeing it as arising out of, integral to, and reinforcing of interactions and structural circumstances. These contrasting approaches reflect different types of scholarly projects. The reading of one against the other shows that Raffestin's relational approach is critical to capturing the territorial ideas and practices of everyday life, as these are not reducible to simple strategies to control space. But as these ideas and practices congeal into territorial structures and norms of the sort exemplified by the emergence of the modern state system they produce understandings and arrangements that lend themselves to the type of theorization of territoriality proposed by Sack. Rather than treating the relationship between Raffestin's and Sack's approaches to territoriality as strictly oppositional, it is more constructive to explore the circumstances in which relational territoriality, as developed by Raffestin, produces understandings and arrangements that can be effectively captured through the territoriality-as-spatial-strategy approach of Sack.

@article{murphy2012entente,
    author = "Murphy, Alexander B",
    title = "Entente Territorial: Sack and Raffestin on Territoriality",
    year = "2012",
    journal = "Environment and Planning D: Society and Space",
    abstract = "Two of the most prolific contributors to the theoretical literature on territoriality—Robert Sack and Claude Raffestin—treat territoriality in fundamentally different ways. Sack conceives of territoriality as a spatial strategy that individuals, groups, and organizations use to achieve particular social and political ends. Raffestin, in contrast, takes a relational approach to territoriality—seeing it as arising out of, integral to, and reinforcing of interactions and structural circumstances. These contrasting approaches reflect different types of scholarly projects. The reading of one against the other shows that Raffestin's relational approach is critical to capturing the territorial ideas and practices of everyday life, as these are not reducible to simple strategies to control space. But as these ideas and practices congeal into territorial structures and norms of the sort exemplified by the emergence of the modern state system they produce understandings and arrangements that lend themselves to the type of theorization of territoriality proposed by Sack. Rather than treating the relationship between Raffestin's and Sack's approaches to territoriality as strictly oppositional, it is more constructive to explore the circumstances in which relational territoriality, as developed by Raffestin, produces understandings and arrangements that can be effectively captured through the territoriality-as-spatial-strategy approach of Sack.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1068/d4911",
    doi = "10.1068/d4911",
    number = "1",
    pages = "159-172",
    volume = "30"
}

Territorial cohesion is a shared EU competence, but what is territory? This paper seeks to alert planners—in particular those involved in European spatial planning—that common-sense answers do not necessarily apply: it is not a container. A view of macrospace as filled with territories-as-containers—territorialism—is nonetheless the basis for common misunderstandings about the EU, and also about European planning, now being articulated in terms of territorial cohesion. Leaving the container view behind means that control over territories—territoriality—must be negotiated, something that relational regionalism also suggests. The planning literature is beginning to absorb such views, articulating soft rather than hard forms of planning for ‘soft spaces’. Hard planning is bound to continue, but it will be embedded in new practices, including the conceptualisation of multiple visions on territory.

@article{faludi2013territorial,
    author = "Faludi, Andreas",
    title = "Territorial Cohesion, Territorialism, Territoriality, and Soft Planning: A Critical Review",
    year = "2013",
    journal = "Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space",
    abstract = "Territorial cohesion is a shared EU competence, but what is territory? This paper seeks to alert planners—in particular those involved in European spatial planning—that common-sense answers do not necessarily apply: it is not a container. A view of macrospace as filled with territories-as-containers—territorialism—is nonetheless the basis for common misunderstandings about the EU, and also about European planning, now being articulated in terms of territorial cohesion. Leaving the container view behind means that control over territories—territoriality—must be negotiated, something that relational regionalism also suggests. The planning literature is beginning to absorb such views, articulating soft rather than hard forms of planning for ‘soft spaces’. Hard planning is bound to continue, but it will be embedded in new practices, including the conceptualisation of multiple visions on territory.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1068/a45299",
    doi = "10.1068/a45299",
    number = "6",
    pages = "1302-1317",
    volume = "45"
}

@article{s24771affd867934a153b11c53249df1c2e67e26dd,
    author = "Monaghan, N.",
    title = "A qualitative study into the nexus between territoriality, territorial infringement, and climate",
    year = "2013",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4771affd867934a153b11c53249df1c2e67e26dd",
    is_oa = "true",
    semanticscholar_id = "4771affd867934a153b11c53249df1c2e67e26dd"
}

In che modo affrontiamo le istanze poste dalla complessità del territorio nelle pratiche e nella definizione di politiche territoriali? Cosa è la territorialità e quali possono le variabli in gioco nei processi di territorializzazione dei fenomeni urbani? Per rispondere a queste domande il contributo introdurrà la nozione di regione, territorio, luogo, territorialità e territorializzazione. In seguito si analizzano le variabili e le dimensioni emerse, nell’abito della sessione Terrioriality and Urban Policies, nell’affrontare le istanze poste dalla complessità territoriale. Tali dimensioni della “produzione territoriale” saranno qui trattate come un punto di partenza per una definizione delle politiche territoriali che sia informata dall’analisi dei fenomeni urbani e il più possibile aderente alla complessità dei territori contemporanei. How do we deal with territorial complexity in present urban territorial policies and practices. What is territoriality and what are the dimension od territorial production? In order to explore this issue the contribute will unpack in the first paragraph the notion of region, territory, place, territoriality and territorialisation. In the second paragraph it will outline the dimension of territorial production that inform urban and territorial policies as emerged from the conference parallel session on Territoriality and urban policy. These dimension might inform future approach in territorial policy making.

@inproceedings{battaglini2014territoriality,
    author = "Battaglini, Elena and Annunziata, Sandra",
    title = "Territoriality and urban policy: addressing territorial complexity",
    year = "2014",
    booktitle = "9° Congresso Città e Territorio Virtuale, Roma, 2, 3 e 4 ottobre 2013",
    abstract = "In che modo affrontiamo le istanze poste dalla complessità del territorio nelle pratiche e nella definizione di politiche territoriali? Cosa è la territorialità e quali possono le variabli in gioco nei processi di territorializzazione dei fenomeni urbani? Per rispondere a queste domande il contributo introdurrà la nozione di regione, territorio, luogo, territorialità e territorializzazione. In seguito si analizzano le variabili e le dimensioni emerse, nell’abito della sessione Terrioriality and Urban Policies, nell’affrontare le istanze poste dalla complessità territoriale. Tali dimensioni della “produzione territoriale” saranno qui trattate come un punto di partenza per una definizione delle politiche territoriali che sia informata dall’analisi dei fenomeni urbani e il più possibile aderente alla complessità dei territori contemporanei. How do we deal with territorial complexity in present urban territorial policies and practices. What is territoriality and what are the dimension od territorial production? In order to explore this issue the contribute will unpack in the first paragraph the notion of region, territory, place, territoriality and territorialisation. In the second paragraph it will outline the dimension of territorial production that inform urban and territorial policies as emerged from the conference parallel session on Territoriality and urban policy. These dimension might inform future approach in territorial policy making.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5821/ctv.8028",
    doi = "10.5821/ctv.8028",
    pages = "1378-1385"
}

@article{doi101016jjenvp201608001,
    author = "Brown, Graham and Zhu, Helena",
    title = "‘My workspace, not yours’: The impact of psychological ownership and territoriality in organizations",
    year = "2016",
    journal = "Journal of Environmental Psychology",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e4b78334c41dc79f5e175161604e8ada84c76dfa",
    doi = "10.1016/J.JENVP.2016.08.001",
    is_oa = "true",
    pages = "54-64",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "77",
    semanticscholar_id = "e4b78334c41dc79f5e175161604e8ada84c76dfa",
    volume = "48"
}

The Global Production Network (GPN) approach has not yet considered the importance of territorial intermediaries for strategic coupling. This article demonstrates how the prospects of strategic coupling for the case of Vietnam and Indonesia with the oil and gas GPN are affected by the gateway role of Singapore. Based on interviews, the analysis reveals how Singapore influences regional economic development along the GPN through different filtering mechanisms, limiting the potential for strategic coupling for Vietnam and Indonesia. For GPN research, the identified filtering mechanisms illustrate how the territoriality of GPNs contributes to differentiated territorial outcomes. The findings therefore indicate the need to intensify the appreciation of the particular territorial configuration of GPNs as this yields considerable explanatory power for understanding the unequal contours of the global economy.

@article{doi10100797830301695726,
    author = "Breul, Moritz and Diez, J. R. and Sambodo, M.",
    title = "Filtering Strategic Coupling: Territorial Intermediaries in Oil and Gas Global Production Networks in Southeast Asia",
    year = "2018",
    journal = "Gateway Cities in Global Production Networks",
    booktitle = "Economic Geography",
    abstract = "The Global Production Network (GPN) approach has not yet considered the importance of territorial intermediaries for strategic coupling. This article demonstrates how the prospects of strategic coupling for the case of Vietnam and Indonesia with the oil and gas GPN are affected by the gateway role of Singapore. Based on interviews, the analysis reveals how Singapore influences regional economic development along the GPN through different filtering mechanisms, limiting the potential for strategic coupling for Vietnam and Indonesia. For GPN research, the identified filtering mechanisms illustrate how the territoriality of GPNs contributes to differentiated territorial outcomes. The findings therefore indicate the need to intensify the appreciation of the particular territorial configuration of GPNs as this yields considerable explanatory power for understanding the unequal contours of the global economy.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lby063",
    doi = "10.1007/978-3-030-16957-2\_6",
    is_oa = "true",
    pages = "87-112",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "48",
    semanticscholar_id = "596f871989edac2069c6bf877e581181361f4ac5"
}

@article{doi101016jworlddev201609010,
    author = "Bluwstein, Jevgeniy and Lund, J.",
    title = "Territoriality by Conservation in the Selous–Niassa Corridor in Tanzania",
    year = "2018",
    journal = "World Development",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a171dff3da942acd3ed57407b105d717fae6e03f",
    doi = "10.1016/J.WORLDDEV.2016.09.010",
    is_oa = "true",
    pages = "453-465",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "106",
    semanticscholar_id = "a171dff3da942acd3ed57407b105d717fae6e03f",
    volume = "101"
}

Do managers behave territorially toward their employees? Despite accumulating evidence demonstrating the prevalence of territoriality over nonagentic organizational resources, key questions remain regarding the extent to which psychological ownership and territorial behavior occur within supervisor-subordinate relationships. To explore this question, we drew on territoriality and mate-guarding theory to ascertain how and why managers might utilize one form of territoriality, anticipatory defenses, toward their employees. In a four-study investigation, we find that managers consistently engage in two forms of anticipatory defense tactics, persuasion and nurturing, that are intended to defend ownership claims over their employees and limit employee defection. Our results demonstrate a positive relationship between psychological ownership of subordinates and employee guarding directed toward those subordinates. We also find that managers engage in employee guarding more when they anticipate an employee is likely to defect, and they adapt guarding tactics in response to the subordinate’s general mental ability. Collectively, our results identify the motivations and conditions under which supervisors act territorially toward agentic subordinates, contributing to theory in territoriality and downward social influence.

@article{doi1011770149206316642272,
    author = "Gardner, Timothy M. and Munyon, T. and Hom, P. and Griffeth, R. W.",
    title = "When Territoriality Meets Agency: An Examination of Employee Guarding as a Territorial Strategy",
    year = "2018",
    journal = "Journal of Management",
    abstract = "Do managers behave territorially toward their employees? Despite accumulating evidence demonstrating the prevalence of territoriality over nonagentic organizational resources, key questions remain regarding the extent to which psychological ownership and territorial behavior occur within supervisor-subordinate relationships. To explore this question, we drew on territoriality and mate-guarding theory to ascertain how and why managers might utilize one form of territoriality, anticipatory defenses, toward their employees. In a four-study investigation, we find that managers consistently engage in two forms of anticipatory defense tactics, persuasion and nurturing, that are intended to defend ownership claims over their employees and limit employee defection. Our results demonstrate a positive relationship between psychological ownership of subordinates and employee guarding directed toward those subordinates. We also find that managers engage in employee guarding more when they anticipate an employee is likely to defect, and they adapt guarding tactics in response to the subordinate’s general mental ability. Collectively, our results identify the motivations and conditions under which supervisors act territorially toward agentic subordinates, contributing to theory in territoriality and downward social influence.",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/572584b06cc8c96017b46257e6379b5babdd496c",
    doi = "10.1177/0149206316642272",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "7",
    pages = "2580-2610",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "28",
    semanticscholar_id = "572584b06cc8c96017b46257e6379b5babdd496c",
    volume = "44"
}

ABSTRACT Settler colonialism is premised on the replacement of an indigenous population with an exogenous one on the land. Therefore, territoriality, or territorial control, is its irreducible element.1 As it is traditionally conceived, the exercise of territoriality requires that the territorial extent of control be clearly bounded and communicated. But in settler colonial contexts the frontier is a mobile index of expansion – though not yet fully inhabited or annexed, it would eventually and inevitably be part of the settler polity. Therefore, the form of territorial control operating in the frontier of settler colonial formations is unbounded territoriality, a strategy of territorial control best exercised by not delimiting boundaries, by not making clear the extent of sovereign authority. Because settlers are ‘founders’ of political orders who carry their sovereignty with them into the frontier,2 the territorial limits of settler sovereignty are liminal – indeterminate, ambiguous, and pending – at least until the frontier is closed and final borders are established. Israel, though, has been unable to close the frontier and delimit final territorial borders, which has resulted in the indefinite character of the ‘occupation’ and the continued exercise of unbounded territoriality, particularly in the West Bank.

@article{doi1010802201473x20201741763,
    author = "Hughes, S.",
    title = "Unbounded territoriality: territorial control, settler colonialism, and Israel/Palestine",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "Settler Colonial Studies",
    abstract = "ABSTRACT Settler colonialism is premised on the replacement of an indigenous population with an exogenous one on the land. Therefore, territoriality, or territorial control, is its irreducible element.1 As it is traditionally conceived, the exercise of territoriality requires that the territorial extent of control be clearly bounded and communicated. But in settler colonial contexts the frontier is a mobile index of expansion – though not yet fully inhabited or annexed, it would eventually and inevitably be part of the settler polity. Therefore, the form of territorial control operating in the frontier of settler colonial formations is unbounded territoriality, a strategy of territorial control best exercised by not delimiting boundaries, by not making clear the extent of sovereign authority. Because settlers are ‘founders’ of political orders who carry their sovereignty with them into the frontier,2 the territorial limits of settler sovereignty are liminal – indeterminate, ambiguous, and pending – at least until the frontier is closed and final borders are established. Israel, though, has been unable to close the frontier and delimit final territorial borders, which has resulted in the indefinite character of the ‘occupation’ and the continued exercise of unbounded territoriality, particularly in the West Bank.",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f6349c81c18666ce72079aa2adab73a80938d030",
    doi = "10.1080/2201473X.2020.1741763",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "2",
    pages = "216-233",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "23",
    semanticscholar_id = "f6349c81c18666ce72079aa2adab73a80938d030",
    volume = "10"
}

Costly interactions between species that arise as a by-product of ancestral similarities in communication signals are expected to persist only under specific evolutionary circumstances. Territorial aggression between species, for instance, is widely assumed to persist only when extrinsic barriers prevent niche divergence or selection in sympatry is too weak to overcome gene flow from allopatry. However, recent theoretical and comparative studies have challenged this view. Here we present a large-scale, phylogenetic analysis of the distribution and determinants of interspecific territoriality. We find that interspecific territoriality is widespread in birds and strongly associated with hybridization and resource overlap during the breeding season. Contrary to the view that territoriality only persists between species that rarely breed in the same areas or where niche divergence is constrained by habitat structure, we find that interspecific territoriality is positively associated with breeding habitat overlap and unrelated to habitat structure. Furthermore, our results provide compelling evidence that ancestral similarities in territorial signals are maintained and reinforced by selection when interspecific territoriality is adaptive. The territorial signals linked to interspecific territoriality in birds depend on the evolutionary age of interacting species, plumage at shallow (within-family) timescales, and song at deeper (between-family) timescales. Evidently, territorial interactions between species have persisted and shaped phenotypic diversity on a macroevolutionary timescale.

@article{drury2020competition,
    author = "Drury, Jonathan P. and Cowen, Madeline C. and Grether, Gregory F.",
    title = "Competition and hybridization drive interspecific territoriality in birds",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences",
    abstract = "Costly interactions between species that arise as a by-product of ancestral similarities in communication signals are expected to persist only under specific evolutionary circumstances. Territorial aggression between species, for instance, is widely assumed to persist only when extrinsic barriers prevent niche divergence or selection in sympatry is too weak to overcome gene flow from allopatry. However, recent theoretical and comparative studies have challenged this view. Here we present a large-scale, phylogenetic analysis of the distribution and determinants of interspecific territoriality. We find that interspecific territoriality is widespread in birds and strongly associated with hybridization and resource overlap during the breeding season. Contrary to the view that territoriality only persists between species that rarely breed in the same areas or where niche divergence is constrained by habitat structure, we find that interspecific territoriality is positively associated with breeding habitat overlap and unrelated to habitat structure. Furthermore, our results provide compelling evidence that ancestral similarities in territorial signals are maintained and reinforced by selection when interspecific territoriality is adaptive. The territorial signals linked to interspecific territoriality in birds depend on the evolutionary age of interacting species, plumage at shallow (within-family) timescales, and song at deeper (between-family) timescales. Evidently, territorial interactions between species have persisted and shaped phenotypic diversity on a macroevolutionary timescale.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921380117",
    doi = "10.1073/pnas.1921380117",
    number = "23",
    openalex = "W3015731989",
    pages = "12923-12930",
    volume = "117",
    references = "doi101016jbiocon200905006, doi101016jtree201707004, doi101038nature11631, doi101086343873, doi101093vevey016, doi101111j14679868200500503x, doi101126science1157704, doi101214ss1177011136, doi1018637jssv033i02, openalexw1549853756, openalexw2097360283"
}

@article{hughes2020unbounded,
    author = "Hughes, Sara Salazar",
    title = "Unbounded territoriality: territorial control, settler colonialism, and Israel/Palestine",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "Settler Colonial Studies",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473x.2020.1741763",
    doi = "10.1080/2201473x.2020.1741763",
    number = "2",
    pages = "216-233",
    volume = "10"
}

@incollection{belov2021territory,
    author = "Belov, Martin",
    title = "Territory, Territoriality and Territorial Politics as Public Law Concepts",
    year = "2021",
    booktitle = "Territorial Politics and Secession",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64402-4\_2",
    doi = "10.1007/978-3-030-64402-4\_2",
    pages = "15-43"
}

Job-based psychological ownership arises when workers develop personal feelings of possession over various aspects of a job. Drawing on conservation of resources and regulatory focus theory, the current research adopts a resource-based perspective to suggest a double-edged effect on job performance, mediated by three forms of territoriality (marking, defending, expanding) and information exchange and moderated by individual regulatory focus. With a multistep process in Study 1, the authors develop and validate a territorial expanding scale. Among 358 employee-supervisor dyads, Study 2 tests the proposed model; job-based psychological ownership prompts employees to engage in territorial marking, defending, and expanding. Territorial defending correlates negatively with information exchange, territorial expanding is positively related to it, and territorial marking has no relationship with information exchange. Information exchange is positively related to job performance. Job-based psychological ownership impedes job performance through increased territorial defending and reduced information exchange, especially among employees with a prevention focus. It enhances job performance through increased territorial expanding and increased information exchange, particularly if employees have a high promotion focus. These findings have notable implications for research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

@article{doi101037apl0001027,
    author = "Chen, Xingwen and Lee, Cynthia and Hui, C. and Lin, Weipeng and Brown, Graham and Liu, Jun",
    title = "Feeling possessive, performing well? Effects of job-based psychological ownership on territoriality, information exchange, and job performance.",
    year = "2022",
    journal = "The Journal of applied psychology",
    abstract = "Job-based psychological ownership arises when workers develop personal feelings of possession over various aspects of a job. Drawing on conservation of resources and regulatory focus theory, the current research adopts a resource-based perspective to suggest a double-edged effect on job performance, mediated by three forms of territoriality (marking, defending, expanding) and information exchange and moderated by individual regulatory focus. With a multistep process in Study 1, the authors develop and validate a territorial expanding scale. Among 358 employee-supervisor dyads, Study 2 tests the proposed model; job-based psychological ownership prompts employees to engage in territorial marking, defending, and expanding. Territorial defending correlates negatively with information exchange, territorial expanding is positively related to it, and territorial marking has no relationship with information exchange. Information exchange is positively related to job performance. Job-based psychological ownership impedes job performance through increased territorial defending and reduced information exchange, especially among employees with a prevention focus. It enhances job performance through increased territorial expanding and increased information exchange, particularly if employees have a high promotion focus. These findings have notable implications for research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1a20ad9d374a6899e3b9129457ca07dedb47e991",
    doi = "10.1037/apl0001027",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "3",
    pages = "403-424",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "47",
    semanticscholar_id = "1a20ad9d374a6899e3b9129457ca07dedb47e991",
    volume = "108"
}