This article was downloaded by: [Dalhousie University]On: 07 September 2012, At: 16:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Planning StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

Bridge the Gap: From Spatial Planningto Strategic ProjectsLouis Albrechts aa Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium

Version of record first published: 28 Nov 2006

To cite this article: Louis Albrechts (2006): Bridge the Gap: From Spatial Planning to StrategicProjects, European Planning Studies, 14:10, 1487-1500

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310600852464

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

RESEARCH BRIEFING

Bridge the Gap: From Spatial Planningto Strategic Projects

LOUIS ALBRECHTS

Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium

ABSTRACT This paper introduces one of the largest single research projects ever granted in thefield of spatial planning. It presents the context the project has to work in and the challenges ithas to face. It further gives a broad outline of the research project, with three horizontal andthree vertical tracks and some success indicators.

Introduction

Both social relations and the technical infrastructure of society have changed significantly

over the last three or four decades. The reasons for this change (see Castells, 1996) are, on

the one hand, the rise of new technologies (information, telecommunication) and, on the

other hand, the concurrence of global historic social traditions. The latter reason includes:

the changes in the production process (focus on innovation and flexibility) that have an

impact on labour and capital, the growing strength—at all levels from global to local—

of movements (green movement, feminism, anti-globalists, etc.), a tendency to increased

social inequality and polarization, a crisis of the nation state, a related crisis of represen-

tative democracy, and the globalization of the economy and of culture. All these changes

go together—according to Beck (1992)—with a growing individualization and de-

traditionalization. The loss of traditional social structures (class, family, etc.) in society

has had the consequence that individuals are exercising a larger impact on the construction

of their own identity. The values and images that frame their actions, however, are not gen-

erated in isolation but rather are social constructs that are given meaning and are validated

by traditions of belief and practice. These values and images are reviewed, reconstructed

and invented through collective experience (see Ozbekhan, 1969; but also Foucault, 1980,

p. 11; Hillier, 1999; Elchardus et al., 2000, p. 24). Research (see Elchardus & Glorieux,

Correspondence Address: Louis Albrechts, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Architecture, Urban

Design and Regional Planning, Kasteelpark Arenberg 51 Leuven, Belgium. Email: louis.albrechts@asro.kuleuven.be

ISSN 0965-4313 print=ISSN 1469-5944 online=06=101487–14 # 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080=09654310600852464

European Planning Studies Vol. 14, No. 10, November 2006

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

2002) confirms that the forecasting of the behaviour of individuals—such as voting beha-

viour—is being done less and less on the basis of the social class they belong to.

Individuals seem to be taking/deriving their identity increasingly from the roles they

play in several networks, rather than from the organization, place or group they belong

to (Van Dijk, 1991).

All these changes have considerable spatial impact. To cope with these changes, a shift

has taken place in planning from a regulative, bureaucratic approach towards a more stra-

tegic, implementation-led and development-led approach within administrations on all

policy levels. But this approach is still in its infant stage. The knowledge built upon the

experiences still remains very “casuistic”, and needs to be connected through the

development of a more theoretical framework.

This paper introduces a 4-year research project, “Strategic Planning to Strategic

Projects—SP2SP”,1 which aims to develop an integrated and innovative approach (inno-

vative spatial concept development, innovative policy instruments, and project and quality

management) for strategic projects. This research project focuses on four main questions.

First, what kind of planning do we need as an overall framework? Second, can strategic

projects serve as a key to more strategic planning? Third, how can we operationalize sus-

tainability and spatial quality? Fourth, what kind of governance and (legal, financial, etc.)

instruments are needed? Finally, the concrete aims of the project and its success indicators

are formulated.

Motivation and Problem Definition

Within the planning literature a lot of attention has been given to designing macro-

structures and the characteristics of planning processes. These models stem from different

traditions of thought in the social sciences, policy analysis and business management

(Friedmann, 1987; Sandercock, 1998). However, a clear understanding of how to

implement and evaluate these theoretical models in daily planning processes—“practicing

theory”—has not yet been achieved. Little attention is paid in these models to project plan-

ning for the “operational level” in a strategic planning process. Project planning has been

considered unproblematic and remained a black box in many of the models. There has

been little academic research on the dialectic between strategic projects and visions.

The starting point is that many plans remain too much of “an administrative framework”

for development instead of an “action plan” aimed at the implementation of the vision and

concepts.

In the planning literature there are many examples of well-documented cases of “plan

making” and formal decision-making (Meyerson & Banfield, 1955; Altshuler, 1965;

Benveniste, 1989; Flyvbjerg, 1998; Albrechts, 1999, 2005), and substantive literature

on implementation is also available (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1979; Wildavsky, 1979;

Majone & Wildavsky, 1979; Mastop & Faludi, 1997; Gualini, 2001). Hardly any examples

of cases analysed from the perspective of the “political class” and the “implementation

class” are available. Therefore political decision-making and implementation often

seem like a black box to planners. Planning requires a fine-grained analysis of what actu-

ally takes place—in formal decision-making and implementation, in the transition from

plan to formal adoption of the plan and in the actual implementation of the plan—as

opposed to what the planners normatively would like to see happen (see Friedmann,

1998). Research by Flyvbjerg (1998) makes it clear that critical analysis of cases is

1488 L. Albrechts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

needed to discover the “whys and wherefores” of how elected representatives or preferen-

tial actors change the plan and why and how executive officers depart from the formally

approved plan. Research reveals (Albrechts, 2006; Flyvbjerg, 1998) that plan-making and

political decision-making and implementation are dealt with in different arenas and that

different actors are involved (see also Hillier, 2002). Political decision-making and

implementation are processes of their own, with different actors and different rationales

interspersed with sector and local/regional logics. New actors, new agendas, new goals

and new strategies turn up with political decision-making and implementation. Plan-

making and political decision-making and implementation use their own networking as

a way to mobilize, to build alliances for their objectives and to reach an acceptable

consensus. As few actors take part in plan-making, formal decision-making and

implementation, it becomes clear that most actors in the plan-making process, the

formal decision-making process and the implementation process are unable to grasp the

sensitivities, the gaining of a deeper understanding of the different perspectives and inter-

ests, the understanding, the ambiance, and the social, intellectual and political capital built

up during the processes that they were not part of.

Planners tend to criticize decision-makers and “implementers” for deviating from

“their” plans. Political decision-makers and “implementers” criticize plan-makers that

their visions are just “idealized modeling” (Rodriguez & Martinez, 2003), exercises in

“banalization”, “woolly thought”, or pseudo-legitimation for a number of measures and

projects connected only on paper (see Borja & Castells, 1997).

There are several challenges for planning in Europe. Some relate to dominant policy

agendas in the European Union (EU) and nation states: the persistent problem of coordi-

nating public policies, the concern to reduce existing regional disparities and the preven-

tion of further regional imbalances in the EU. The influence of the “competitiveness”

agenda has been widespread in Europe (CEC, 1991, 1994, 1999), underpinning much

investment in infrastructure and urban redevelopment. The focus on city and region

relates to well-established arguments about the importance of “place qualities” in devel-

opment. In Europe, the environmental agenda is strong, linked in part to the environmental

movement’s emphasis on sustainable resource use and in part to citizen movements con-

cerned with the quality of life in specific places (see Hall & Pfeiffer, 2000). This “place

focus” in turn is linked to a political-cultural momentum to reassert the importance of

regional/local identity and image in the face of European “integration” and globalization.

Shifts in Planning Approaches

Traditional land use planning—being a more passive planning approach aimed at control-

ling land use through a zoning system and regulations—seems unfit for bridging the gap

between plan-making, political decision-making and implementation. Hence in many

countries the need was felt for a different type of planning, moving away from regulatory

policy and instruments to a more development-led approach that aims to intervene more

directly, more coherently and more selectively in social reality and development (see

Albrechts, 1995, 1999, 2004).

In the 1960s and 1970s strategic spatial planning in a number of Western countries

evolved towards a system of comprehensive planning at different administrative levels.

This approach to planning via a single policy field (i.e. spatial planning) met fierce oppo-

sition from other and usually more powerful policy fields. Although these plans had formal

Bridge the Gap 1489

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

status and served as official guidelines for implementation, when it came down to the

actual implementation, other policy fields—which, because of their budgetary and techni-

cal resources, were needed for the implementation—were easily able to sabotage the

spatial plans if they wanted (Scharpf & Schnabel, 1978; Kreukels, 2000). Moreover, it

became increasingly clear that a number of different planning concepts—such as the

coherent, convenient and compact city long advocated by planners—cannot be achieved

solely through physical “hard” planning (see Hart, 1976).

In the 1980s we witnessed a retreat from strategic planning fuelled not only by the neo-

conservative disdain for planning, but also by post-modernist skepticism, both of which

tend to view progress as something which, if it happens, cannot be planned (Healey,

1997b). Within the architectural/urbanism discipline, a new approach emerged to land

use regulation and urban projects (Secchi, 1986; Motte, 1994), especially for the revival

of rundown parts of cities and regions. A new generation of strategic—mainly urban—

projects, such as the French “Projet urbain”, has been trying to develop a more inclusive

approach informed by insights in policy analysis and strategic planning. From these prac-

tices a whole body of knowledge is developing which could be described as “theorizing

practice” (Masboungi & De Gravelaine, 2002). However, a more theoretical framework

within which these concrete practices could be framed and evaluated has not yet been

developed and the gaps remain open. Planning and urbanism seem highly complementary

in their approach, and in their weaknesses and strengths. A cross-fertilization between the

often more model-based and top-down planning views, and the more casuistic, bottom-up

experiences is needed to construct an integrated approach. Other discourses to be inte-

grated concern the social, cultural, social, political, ecological, participative and economic

aspects. In conclusion, both for the public and for the private sector, the need exists to

develop a more action-oriented approach.

The growing complexity, the increasing concern about rapid and apparently random

development (Breheny, 1991), the problems of fragmentation, the dramatic increase in

interest (at all levels, from local to global) in environmental issues (Breheny, 1991), the

growing strength of the environmental movements (green movement, feminism, anti-

globalists), a re-emphasis on the need for long-term thinking (Newman & Thornley,

1996; Friedmann, 2004) and the aim to return to a more realistic and effective method

all served to expand the agenda. In response, more strategic approaches, frameworks

and perspectives for cities, city-regions, and regions had again become fashionable in

Europe by the end of the millennium (Healey et al., 1997; CEC, 1997; Pascual &

Esteve, 1997; Albrechts, 1999, 2004, 2006; Salet & Faludi, 2000; Albrechts et al.,

2003; Pugliese & Spaziante, 2003; Martinelli, 2005).

Strategic Planning as a Framework

Traditional spatial planning is basically concerned with the location, intensity, form,

amount, and harmonization of land development required for the various space-using

functions (see Chapin, 1965; Cullingworth, 1972; CEC, 1997). The motivations for

embarking on a strategic spatial planning process vary, but the objectives have typically

been to articulate a more coherent and coordinated long-term spatial logic for land use

regulation, for resource protection, for action-orientation, for a more open multi-level

type of governance, for introducing sustainability and for investments in regeneration

and infrastructure.

1490 L. Albrechts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Reflecting on the challenges that spatial planning is facing and relying on the experience

accumulated from planning practice and a selective reading of the planning literature leads

us to a normative point of view regarding the “what” and “how” of strategic spatial

planning. This normative viewpoint affirms values regarding the “what” and “how” of

strategic spatial planning.

Strategic spatial planning is a transformative and integrative, (preferably) public sector

led (Kunzmann, 2000) socio-spatial (see Healey, 1997b, for the emphasis on the social)

process through which a vision, coherent actions and means for implementation are

produced that shape and frame what a place is and might become.

A combination of characteristics related to the “how” of strategic spatial planning gives

a specific colouring to the “what”. Strategic spatial planning focuses on a limited number

of strategic key issue areas, and it takes a critical view of the environment in terms of

determining strengths and weaknesses in the context of opportunities and threats. It

studies the external trends, forces and resources available (Quinn, 1980; Kaufman &

Jacobs, 1987; Poister & Streib, 1999; Bryson & Roering, 1988; Hamnett & Freestone,

2000). Strategic spatial planning identifies and gathers major actors (public and

private). It allows for a broad (multi-level governance) and diverse (public, economic,

civil society) involvement during the planning process. It creates solid, workable long-

term visions/perspectives2—a geography of the unknown—and it creates strategies at

different levels, taking into account the power structures—political, economic, gender

and cultural—uncertainties and competing values (Quinn, 1980; Friend & Hickling,

1987; Bryson & Roering, 1988; Young, 1990; Sager, 1994; Mintzberg, 1994; Granados

Cabezas, 1995; Healey, 1997a, 1997b; Poister & Streib, 1999; Kunzmann, 2000;

Albrechts, 2004). Strategic spatial planning designs plan-making structures and develops

content, images and decision frameworks for influencing and managing spatial change. It

is about building new ideas and processes that can carry these structures, content, etc.

forward, thus generating ways of understanding, ways of building agreements, and

ways of organizing and mobilizing for the purpose of exerting influence in different

arenas (Faludi & Van der Valk, 1994; Healey, 1997a, 1997b; Mintzberg et al., 1998;

Albrechts, 1999; Mintzberg, 2002). Finally, strategic spatial planning, both in the short

term and the long term, is focused on framing decisions, actions, projects, results and

implementation, and it incorporates monitoring, feedback, adjustment and revision in its

efforts to accomplish these aims (Bryson & Roering, 1988; Mintzberg, 1994; Faludi &

Korthals Altes, 1994, Bryson, 1995; Poister & Streib, 1999; Gibelli, 2003). This strategic

spatial planning is presented not as a new ideology preaching a new world order but as a

method for creating and steering a (range of) better future(s) for a place based on shared

values (see also Ogilvy, 2002).

The normative view may seem to some people (see Mintzberg, 1994) to be too broad a

view of strategic spatial planning. However, the many experiences documented in the plan-

ning literature (Healey et al., 1997; Pascual & Esteve, 1997; Hamnett & Freestone, 2000;

Albrechts et al., 2001; Albrechts et al., 2003; Pugliese & Spaziante, 2003; Martinelli, 2005)

back up (parts of) this broader view. This view also implies that strategic spatial planning is

not a single concept, procedure or tool. In fact it is a set of concepts, procedures and tools

that must be tailored carefully to whatever situation is at hand if desirable outcomes are to be

achieved (Bryson & Roering, 1996). Strategic spatial planning is as much about process,

institutional design and mobilization as it is about the development of substantive theories.

Content relates to the strategic issues selected in the process. The capacity of strategic

Bridge the Gap 1491

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

spatial planning systems to deliver the wished-for outcome is dependent not only on the

system itself, but also on the conditions underlying it (see also Mintzberg, 1994). These con-

ditions—including political, cultural and professional attitudes towards spatial planning (in

terms of planning content and process) and the political will on the part of the institutions

involved in setting the process in motion (Granados-Cabezas, 1995)—affect the ability of

planning systems to implement the chosen strategies.

The term “spatial” brings into focus the “where of things”, whether static or dynamic;

the creation and management of special “places” and sites; as well as the interrelations

between different activities in an area, and significant intersections and nodes within an

area which are physically co-located (see also Healey, 2004). The focus on the spatial

relations of territories allows for a more effective way of integrating different agendas

(economic, environmental, cultural, social and policy) as these agendas impact on

places; it also allows for translating territorial development into specific investment pro-

grammes and regulatory practices (Albrechts et al., 2003; see also Wilkinson & Appelbee,

1999). Strategic frameworks and visions for territorial development—with an emphasis on

place qualities, diversity and the spatial impacts and integration of investments—

complement and provide a context for specific development projects. They also carry a

potential for the “rescaling” of issue agendas down from the national or state level and

up from the municipal level. The search for new levels of policy articulation and new

policy concepts is also linked to attempts to widen the range of actors involved in

policy processes, with new alliances, actor partnerships and consultative processes

(Healey et al., 1997; Albrechts et al., 2001; Albrechts et al., 2003). Moreover, a territorial

focus seems to provide a promising basis for encouraging levels of government to work

together (multi-level governance) and in partnership with actors in diverse positions in

the economy and civil society (Albrechts, 1999; Furst, 2001; Kunzmann, 2001).

The normative viewpoint produces a quite different picture than traditional planning in

terms of plans (master plans or land use plans versus strategic plans), type of planning

(technical/legal regulation versus framework), governance type (government-led versus

government-led but negotiated form in governance) and purpose (plans as an end

versus plans as a vehicle for change).

Strategic Projects as a Key to a More Strategic Planning

Strategic projects are spatial projects, (preferably) coordinated by public actors in close

cooperation with the private sector, and other semi–public actors. These projects are stra-

tegic to achieve visions, policy objectives and goals embedded in strategic planning

processes at different policy levels. They aim at transforming the spatial, economic and

socio-cultural fabric of a larger area through a timely intervention. Strategic projects

aim to integrate the visions, goals and objectives from different policy sectors, as well

as the ambitions and goals of the private sector. It also aims to integrate the inhabitants

and users of the area. In this way these projects are transformative and integrative.

They are strategic in the sense that they deal with specific key issues in an area.

Visions must be placed within a specific context (economic, social, cultural, political,

and power), place, time and level regarding specific issues that are of interest and

within a particular combination of actors. Visions must be rooted in an understanding

of the basic processes that shape places. This must be done recognizing conditions of

power, inequality and diversity. Whose vision is created remains a basic question to be

1492 L. Albrechts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

asked. Visioning is seen as a creative act which, at its core, is concerned with crucial ques-

tions. Planning must face “what could be” and “what ought to be”. “What ought to be”

must be constructed within the process. Therefore participants in the process must be

drawn from a representative cross-section of the place. The context provides the setting

for the process, but also takes form and undergoes changes in the process.

An Initial, Tentative Differentiation of Projects

Initially, and for a number of reasons, the SP2SP research project came up with three

major types of projects:

(1) Urban projects aim to selectively regenerate urban areas as qualitative milieus for

economic development, housing and cultural activities. Contemporary strategic

urban projects are no longer driven by defensive strategies (combating poverty in

deprived areas, social housing) like urban reconstruction (1950s), urban revitalization

(1960s) or urban renewal (1970s). Rather, they are being driven more and more by

offensive strategies within the context of growing international intercity competition.

An effort on the part of the public government, however, is needed in response to the

significant market failures on the real estate markets in urban areas and the need for

more integrated and sustainable approaches. The market failure is the result of a

lack of transparency (hidden costs, polluted areas, deadlocked physical developments)

in the urban real estate market and the technical and institutional complexity of urban

projects which impose considerable transaction costs on real estate operations. Given

the growing scarcity of urban land and development price levels, redevelopment will

become inevitable.

(2) Rural projects aim to transform rural and suburban dynamics into a more sustainable

and qualitative form of development and to give cultural meaning to a new form of

hybrid rurality (neo-rurality, see Gullinck & Dortmans, 1997). Spatial dynamics

have led to a highly fragmented, scattered landscape, with a juxtaposition of former

urban functions (retail, business parks and entertainment) and the remaining spatial

print of a mainly agrarian society. The search for integration and binding elements

within this conglomerate of fragments and the creation of culturally meaningful

spaces is the core challenge. Institutions from the public sphere are needed to integrate

and adjust new functional needs in coherent spatial entities. Moreover, an effort must

also be made to provide an alternative to the current market mechanisms, which

induce considerable externalities. Detached housing, suburban retail centres, business

parks, and scattered developments result in indirect environmental and social costs in

terms of the increasing need for individual mobility, the splintering of the rural area,

the degradation of the landscape and nature systems, and the need to provide public

services (mail delivery, electricity, sewer system, etc.). If we take a realistic approach

and assume that the demand for the suburban lifestyle will continue then “smart”

alternatives should be looked for.

(3) New, innovative employment at strategic locations is an important part of the effort to

keep up international economic competitiveness. The old concept of business parks

needs a serious re-engineering in terms of spatial concepts and management. The

new spatial requirements of firms need to be translated into specifically designed

employment locations on specific places.

Bridge the Gap 1493

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

The “SP2SP” project aims to deal with these very different but interconnected types of

projects.

Research Outline

The approach we aim to develop is open and generic in its character, since it is intended to

be applicable within a variety of public–private spatial projects in different kinds of

strategic planning processes and in different contexts (urban, neo-rural, economic

development).

Three applications of strategic spatial projects (vertical tracks) and the instruments

and attitudes crucial for achieving current policy objectives (horizontal tracks) are

considered.

Vertical Tracks

First, strategic urban projects aim to consolidate, to transform, to restructure or to reuse the

urban areas/places for new and emerging demands from public and private (individuals,

economic and cultural) actors. Within the context of the challenges cities are facing—

fierce international competition, inequality, decay, unbalanced demands—the quality of

life for all citizens is becoming a crucial asset for keeping and attracting a whole range

of households and businesses, and maintaining a sound basis for social, economic and

cultural life. Strategic urban projects play an important role in the regeneration and trans-

formation of urban areas. Urban projects embody an important paradigmatic shift in urban

planning from master planning/regulatory planning to strategic planning with a clear

emphasis on implementation.

Second, strategic rural projects aim to cope with new emerging functions in “neo-rural

areas”. In post-World War II development in Western Europe, the agrarian production

function gradually decreased, while new functions, such as nature, recreation, landscape

conservation, water management, housing and new types of business activities became

more prevalent. This development occurred in a more or less unplanned way in parallel

with the processes of suburbanization of economic activities and households. The result

is often a scattered and fragmented landscape, which is neither urban, nor rural. In this

hybrid spatial context, strategic projects provide a new approach and new concepts for

creatively and proactively dealing with and giving meaning and content to these

“rurban”(rural/urban) places.

Third, strategic economic projects question traditional industrial estates and traditional

location policy. The worn-out concept of the industrial park no longer meets the current

demands of an increasingly service oriented and flexible economy. Strategic economic

projects attempt to reinvent and spatially redesign the concept of the business park and

to reconsider the location of economic activities. A balanced supply policy provides an

answer to the question of the availability and suitability of land for specific economic

activities.

For all three ‘vertical’ research tracks, the research project aims to develop innovative

implementation oriented approaches with a focus on spatial concepts, policy instruments,

process architecture and quality management.

Innovation is sought in:

1494 L. Albrechts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

. ways in which new development dynamics can be introduced in a hybrid spatial setting

and a complex context;

. ways to develop new challenging spatial concepts;

. ways these concepts are implemented in multi-actor and multi-level government

settings.

Horizontal Tracks

Where the three vertical tracks focus on the integration of different aspects in the construc-

tion of an integrated approach, three horizontal tracks deepen specific knowledge (sustain-

ability, spatial quality, set of instruments) of specific aspects related to strategic projects.

The outcomes of these horizontal tracks will be systematically implemented and tested in

the vertical tracks and vice versa.

The first horizontal research track seeks a more operational framework for sustainability

and quality management in spatial and spatial-economic planning. Sustainable develop-

ment and spatial quality are clearly considered to be the main goal of spatial planning.

However, a clear understanding of the meaning of sustainability and quality in spatial

development and in planning approaches, as well as of how to make them operational,

and the search for criteria and indicators for evaluating and implementing them, remain

weak. The operational framework will be applied and tested back and forth in the con-

struction of the approach for strategic projects. The framework in itself is also a final

product since its generic character will enable applications in other spatial policy

processes.

The second horizontal research track deals with governance in multi-actor and multi-

level policy settings. Contemporary policy settings nearly always imply a complex

mutual dependency of actors. The capacity to achieve a consensus and to implement

decisions is increasingly being challenged by a growing and difficult to manage insti-

tutional and spatial complexity. As a reaction different institutions are developing ever

more bureaucratic rules and instruments as an outgrowth of their own sector logic. The

result is a growing fragmentation and separation between different policy fields and

levels. In this context, traditional policy tools and instruments based on control and regu-

lation, such as land use plans and rigid master plans, seem unfit to meet the current

challenges. A broadening of the arsenal of instruments and tools available for consensus

building and implementation-oriented projects seems necessary. This track explores

innovative instruments, with special attention being given to the more tacit, informal

and indirect instruments needed to enhance the capacity for implementation. The new

instruments are used as input for the new approach for strategic projects. The result of

this track is also considered a separate final generic product.

The third horizontal track identifies and critically analyses all technical, legal, financial,

organizational and property factors influencing the concrete realization of the three types

of projects and creatively searches for proper instruments, tools and means for project

development. By exploring the current technical tools and instruments applied in strategic

projects and by identifying foreign learning experiences, instruments better fitting the

specific conditions will be proposed. Finally, the proposed adjustments to the institutional

organization and management are tested to ensure the generic character of the proposed

instruments and solutions.

Bridge the Gap 1495

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

The three vertical and three horizontal tracks, together, constitute a research matrix (see

Figures 1 and 2) in which synergies are sought between different disciplines and different

research frameworks on spatial dynamics. The matrix as a whole attempts to bridge the

gap between concepts, models and methods in the fields of governance, strategic spatial

planning, regional economic development, sustainable strategies, urbanism and

implementation through a generic, open approach to strategic projects.

Main Aims of the Project

. to develop an integrated innovative approach for different types of strategic projects;

. to develop an operational framework on sustainability in strategic projects;

. to develop tools for quality management in strategic projects;

. to broaden the arsenal of tools for multi-actor/multi-level policy settings and to

evaluate current instruments and tools;

. to disseminate the approach;

. to develop an education module;

. to build a knowledge network between research institutes, professionals and

governments.

Success Indicators

. the production of deliverables and final products;

Figure 1. Overall project Structure

1496 L. Albrechts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Figure 2. Horizontal and Vertical Research Tracks

Brid

ge

the

Ga

p1

49

7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

. the active involvement of institutions and key actors (among others, a users group) in

the platforms, the creation of durable networks;

. sustainable embedding of the new approach and the key concepts via “institutionali-

zation”;

. internal and external consensus on the approach, the recommendations in the workshops

and the platforms, and the evaluation by the actors;

. the ability to find partners for participatory research;

. the ability of the approach to deal with specific contexts in test cases;

. the development of realistic and feasible proposals for dealing with the topic on the

basis of an evaluation by the different users;

. the ability of the quality management and sustainability framework and indicators to

deal with specific contexts in the test cases;

. the effectiveness of the newly developed policy instruments in specific contexts in the

test cases, as far as it can be measured during the research process;

. the potential for spin-offs in the public as well as in the private sector.

Notes

1. The SP2SP Project was initiated by Jef Van den Broeck and financed by the “Institute for the Promotion of

Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders”. It is by far the largest research project ever granted in

Belgium (E2,400,000). The project started on 1 April 2005 and runs till 2009.

2. The plural is very important here. So the real test is not whether anyone has fully achieved the “conceived”

vision, but rather whether anyone has changed his or her behavior because he or she saw the future

differently (see also Schwartz, 1991).

References

Albrechts, L. (1995) Batir le visage d’une region, DISP, 122, pp. 29–34.

Albrechts, L. (1999) Planners as catalysts and initiators of change. The new Structure Plan for Flanders, European

Planning Studies, 7(5), pp. 587–603.

Albrechts, L. (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined, Environment and Planning B: Planning and

Design, 31, pp. 743–758.

Albrechts, L. (2006) Shifts in strategic spatial planning: Some evidence from Europe and Australia. Environment

& Planning A, forthcoming.

Albrechts, L., Alden, J. & Da Rosa Pires, A. (Eds) (2001) The Changing Institutional Landscape of Planning

(Ashgate: Aldershot).

Albrechts, L., Healey, P. & Kunzmann, K. (2003) Strategic spatial planning and Regional governance in Europe,

Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, pp. 113–129.

Altshuler, A. (1965) The City Planning Process (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).

Beck, U. (1992) The Risk Society, Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage).

Benveniste, G. (1989) Mastering the Politics of Planning (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

Borja, J. & Castells, M. (1997) Local and Global: Management of Cities in the Information Age (London:

Earthscan).

Breheny, M. (1991) The renaissance of strategic spatial planning?, Environment and Planning B: Planning and

Design, 18, pp. 233–249.

Bryson, J. M. (1995) Strategic Panning for Public and Non-profit Organizations (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass).

Bryson, J. M. & Roering, W. D. (1988) Initiation of strategic spatial planning by governments, Public

Administration Review, 48, pp. 995–1004.

Bryson, J. M. & Roering W. D. (1996) Strategic spatial planning options for the public sector, in: J. L. Perry (Ed.)

Handbook of Public Administration (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society (Oxford: Blackwell).

1498 L. Albrechts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

CEC (1991) Europe 2000: Outlook for the Development of the Community’s Territory (Luxembourg: Office for

the official publications of the European Communities).

CEC (1994) Europe 2000þ Cooperation for European Territorial Development (Luxembourg: Office for the

official publications of the European Communities).

CEC (1997) The E.U. Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies (Luxembourg: Office for the official

publications of the European Communities).

CEC (1999) European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the

Territory of the EU (Luxembourg: Office for the official publications of the European Communities).

Chapin, F. S. (1965) Urban Land Use Planning (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press).

Cullingworth, J. B. (1972) Town and Country Planning in Britain (London: Allen and Unwin).

Elchardus, M. & Glorieux, I. (Eds) (2002) De symbolische samenleving. Een exploratie van de nieuwe sociale en

economische ruimtes (Tielt: Lannoo).

Elchardus, M., Hooghe, M. & Smits, W. (2000) De vormen van middenveld particpatie, in: M. Elchardus,

L. Huyse & M. Hooghe (Eds) Het maatschappelijk middenveld in Vlaanderen, pp. 15–46 (Brussels:

VUB Press).

Faludi, A. & Korthals Altes W. (1994) Evaluating communicative planning: a revised design for performance

research, European Planning Studies, 2(4), pp. 403–418.

Faludi, A. & Van der Valk, A. (1994) Rule and Order. Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century

(Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

Flyvbjerg, B. (1998) Rationality and Power Democracy in Practice (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).

Foucault, M. (1980) The History of Sexuality (New York: Vintage).

Friedmann, J. (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action (Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press).

Friedmann, J. (1998) Planning theory revisited, European Planning Studies, 6(3), pp. 245–253.

Friedmann, J. (2004) Strategic spatial planning and the longer range, Planning Theory & Practice, 5(1), pp. 49–62.

Friend, J. & Hickling, A. (1987) Planning under Pressure (Oxford: Pergamon Press).

Furst, D. (2001) Regional governance. Ein neues Paradigma der Regionalwissenschaften, Raumforschung und

Raumordnung, 5–6, pp. 370–380.

Gibelli, M. C. (2003) Flessibilita e regole nella pianificazione strategica; buone pratiche alla prova in ambito

internazionale, in: T. Pugliese & A. Spaziante (Eds) Pianificazione Strategica, 53–78 (Milan: Franco

Angeli).

Granados Cabezas, V. (1995) Another methodology for local development? Selling places with packaging tech-

niques: A view from the Spanish experience of city strategic spatial planning, European Planning Studies,

3(2), pp. 173–187.

Gualini, E. (2001) Planning and the Intelligence of Institutions (Ashgate: Aldershot).

Gullinck, H. & Dortmans, C. (1997) Neo-rurality: The Benelux as a workshop for new ideas about threatened

rural areas, Built Environment, 23(1), pp. 37–46.

Hall, P. & Pfeiffer, U. (2000) Urban Future 21 (London: Spon).

Hamnett, S. & Freestone, R. (Eds) (2000) The Australian Metropolis (St Leonards: Allen & Unwin).

Hart, D. A. (1976) Strategic Planning in London (Oxford: Pergamon Press).

Healey, P. (1997a) Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies (London: Macmillan Press).

Healey, P. (1997b) An institutionalist approach to spatial planning, in: P. Healey, A. Khakee, A. Motte & B.

Needham (Eds) Making Strategic Spatial Plans. Innovation in Europe, pp. 21–36 (London: UCL Press).

Healey, P. (2004) Creativity and urban governance, Policy Studies, 25(2), pp. 87–102.

Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A. & Needham, B. (1997) Making Strategic Spatial Plans. Innovation in Europe

(London: UCL Press).

Hillier, J. (1999) What values? Whose values?, Ethics, Place and Environment, 2(2).

Hillier, J. (2002) Shadows of Power (London: Routledge).

Kaufman, J. L. & Jacobs, H. M. (1987) A public planning perspective on strategic spatial planning, Journal of the

American Planning Association, 53(1), pp. 21–31.

Kreukels, A. (2000) An institutional analysis of strategic spatial planning: The case of federal urban policies in

Germany, in: W. Salet & A. Faludi (Eds) The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, pp. 53–65 (Amsterdam:

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences).

Kunzmann, K. (2000) Strategic spatial development through information and communication, in: W. Salet & A.

Faludi (Eds) The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, pp. 259–265 (Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands

Academy of Arts and Sciences).

Bridge the Gap 1499

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012

Kunzmann, K. (2001) State planning: A German success story?, International Planning Studies, 6(2),

pp. 153–166.

Majone, G. & Wildavsky, A. (1979) Implementation in evolution, in: J. Pressman & A. Wildavsky (Eds)

Implementation, pp. 177–194 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Masboungi, A. & De Gravelaine, F. (2002) Projets urbains en France [French urban Strategies] (Paris: Editions

du Moniteur).

Martinelli, F. (Ed.) (2005) La pianificazione strategica in Italia e in Europa: Methodologie ed esiti a confronto

(Milan: Franco Angeli).

Mastop, H. & Faludi, A. (1997) Evaluation of strategic plans: The performance principle, Environment and Plan-

ning B, 24(6), pp. 815–822.

Meyerson, N. M. & Banfield, E. C. (1955) Politics, planning and the public interest: The case of public housing at

Chicago (New York: Free Press).

Mintzberg, H. (1994) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Spatial Planning (New York: Free Press).

Mintzberg, H. (2002) Five Ps for strategy, in: H. Mintzberg, J. Lampel, J. B. Quin & S. Goshal (Eds) The Strategy

Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases, pp. 3–9 (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. & Lampel, J. (1998) Strategy Safari. A Guided Tour through the Wilds of Strategic

Management (New York: Free Press).

Motte, A. (1994) Innovation in development plan making in France 1967–1993, in: P. Healey (Ed.) Working

Paper 42, pp. 90–103 (Newcastle upon Tyne: Department of Town and Country Planning, University

Newcastle upon Tyne).

Newman, P. & Thornley, A. (1996) Urban Planning in Europe (London: Routledge).

Ogilvy, J. (2002) Creating Better Futures (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Ozbekhan, H. (1969) Towards a general theory of planning, in: E. Jantsch (Ed.) Perspective of Planning,

pp. 45–155 (Paris: OECD).

Pascual, I. & Esteve, J. (1997) La estrategia de las ciudades. Planes estrategicos como instrumento: metodos,

technicias y buenas practices? (Barcelona: Diputacion de Barcelona).

Poister, T. H. & Streib, G. (1999) Strategic management in the public sector: Concepts, models and processes,

Public Management and Productivity Review, 22(3), pp. 308–325.

Pressman, J. & Wildavsky, A. (1979) Implementation (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Pugliese, T. & Spaziante, A. (Eds) (2003) Pianificazione strategica per le citta: riflessioni dale pratiche (Milan:

Franco Angeli).

Quinn, J. B. (1980) Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism (Homewood: Down Jones-Irwin).

Rodriguez, A. & Martinez, E. (2003) Restructuring cities: Miracles and mirages in urban revitalization in Bilbao,

in: F. Moulaert, A. Rodriguez & E. Swyngedouw (Eds) The Globalized City. Economic Restructuring and

Social Polarization in European Cities, pp. 181–207 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Sager, T. (1994) Communicative Planning Theory (Avebury: Aldershot).

Salet, W. & Faludi, A. (Eds) (2000) The Revival of Strategic Spatial Planning, pp. 1–10 (Amsterdam: Royal

Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences).

Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis. Planning for Multicultural Cities (Chichester: John Wiley & Sons).

Scharpf, F. W. & Schnabel, F. (1978) Durchsetzungsprobleme der Raunordnung im offentlichen Sektor,

Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, 1, pp. 19–28.

Schwartz, P. (1991) The Art of the Long View (New York: Double Day).

Secchi, B. (1986) Una nuova forma di piano, Urbanistica, 82, pp. 6–13.

Van Dijk, J. (1991) De netwerkmaatschappij, sociale aspecten van nieuwe media (Houtem/Zaventem: Bohn

Stafleu van Loghum).

Wildavsky, A. (1979) Implementation in context, in: J. Pressman & A. Wildavsky (Eds) Implementation,

pp. 163–176 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Wilkinson, D. & Appelbee, E. (1999) Implementing Holistic Government (Bristol: The Policy Press).

Young, I. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

1500 L. Albrechts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Dal

hous

ie U

nive

rsity

] at

16:

52 0

7 Se

ptem

ber

2012