35
Performance of spatial planning Informal development illegal, unregulated development Photo: Tsenkova, S (2010) Informal settlements in post-communist cities: Diversity factors and patterns
Performance of spatial planning
Informal development
illegal, unregulated development
Photo: Tsenkova, S (2010) Informal
settlements in post-communist cities: Diversity
factors and patterns
Spatial planning and EU policy
‘Despite a long tradition of intergovernmental territorial planning among the EU countries and multiannual programming in … (cohesion) policy there has been no serious attempt to better link both processes…’
Böhme, K. et al. (2011) How to strengthen the territorial dimension of ‘Europe 2020’ and the EU Cohesion Policy: Report based on the Territorial Agenda 2020, prepared at the request of the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union
Comparing spatial planning systems and territorial governance in Europe:
devising a method
ESPON Compass
Comparative Analysis of
Territorial Governance and
Spatial Planning Systems in
Europe
1. Introducing ESPON COMPASS
MAIN OBJECTIVE
To describe and explain changes in territorial governance and
spatial planning systems and policies across Europe since
2000, and the reasons for these changes with particular
reference to the impact of the European Union.
1. Introducing ESPON COMPASS
• to describe and explain changes in territorial governance and spatial planning systems since 2000
• the reasons for changes – EU law and policy
• to identify good practice on the relationship of spatial policies with EU Cohesion Policy;
• to recommend how those relationships can be improved
Objectives
Compass
phase 1data on structure
phase 2data on operation
& performance
research design
QC
synthesisphase 3
case studies
desk study + expert focus groups/interviews
many countries and regions in Europe are gradually adapting their territorial governance and spatial planning systems in order to reflect the continuing advancements and complexities of macro-level EU cohesion and growth policies…
to maximise European funding opportunities, limit land-take and promote polycentric and compact urban development …
Terms of Reference 2016
Why make a comparison?
Europe 2020 strategy - ‘spatially blind’
Sixth Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion (2014) highlights the need for better territorial governance
Barca Report (Agenda for a reformed cohesion policy calls for a ‘place-based’ approach to territorial development, etc.
therefore:
‘demand to revisit this issue … to examine commonalities and differences of approach, and for further developing the territorial dimension of cohesion policies’
…
Why make a comparison?
Example components
A. Conditions and prerequisites: rule of law, good governance,
social model, economy, professional capacity & political prioritie
B. System: scope, and scale of TG and SP & their recent
evolution
C. Process: planning policy and decision-making; citizen and
stakeholder engagement (participation); public safeguards and
probity
D. Policy: objectives or guiding principles, their evolution since
2000 and impact on planning systems
E. Integration of sectoral policies – the role of TG & SP
F. Outcomes and outputs of policy orientations and decisions
G. Territorial cohesion (regional policy) & polycentricity in TG & SP
H. EU relations – impact of impact of EU integration; impact of EU
directives; the challenges for integrating EU territorial policies
I. Potential regions that would provide
J. Other information that is relevant for thcase studies explaining
good practice e specific circumstances of the countyr
12
spatial planning and territorial governance
management of land use change
coordinating territorial impacts of
sector policies
regional policy
spatial planning
spatial planning
1990s
2000s
2010s territorial governance
Urban planning
Institutions that mediate competition over the use of land and property, allocate rights of development towards preferred spatial and urban form.
Spatial plannng
14
Territorial governance :
active cooperation across government, market and civil society to coordinate decision-making and actions that have an impact on the quality of places.
Spatial planning
15
Spatial planningRaumordnung
L'aménagement du Territoire
Териториално и селищно устроиство
Prostorno Uređenje
Πολεοδομικός και Χωροταξικός Σχεδιασμός
Ùzemní Plánování
Regionální Rozvoj
Landsplanlægning
planlægning
Planlægning i Hovedstadsområdet
Kommuneplanlægningen
Lokalplanlægning
Ruumiline Planeerimine
Planeerimine
Areng
Alueiden Käytön Suunnittelu
Kaavoitus
Suunnittelu
Urbanisme
Aménagement et Développement Durable du Territoire
Landesplanung
Planes Generales
Fysiska Planeringen (or: Fysisk Planering)
Χωρικός σχεδιασμός
Területi Tervezés
Landsskipulagstefna
Urbanistica
Governo del territorio
Pianificazione strategica
Pianificazione paesaggistica
Kompleksinis Teritorijų Planavimas
Strategija Spazjali
Pjanar Sostenibbli u gestjoni ta’ l-izvilupp
Ippjanar ta’ l-izvilupp
Ruimtelijke Ordening
Planlegging
Samfunnsplanlegging
Arealplanlegging
Reguleringsplanlegging
Ład Przestrzenny
Rozój Zrównoważony
Ordenamento do Território
Suatentabilidade Territorial
Gestão territorial
Desenvolvimento Territorial
Coesão Territorial
Amenajarea Teritoriului
Dezvoltare Teritorială
Priestorové Plánovanie
Územné Plánovanie
Prostorsko Načrtovanje
Podrobno Prostorsko Načrtovanje
Umeščanje Prostorskih Ureditev v Prostor
Ordenación del Territorio
Urbanismo
Planes Generales
Fysiska Planeringen (or: Fysisk Planering)
Regionplanering
Planläggning
Pianificazione del Territorio
Town and Country Planning
comparison – more than juxtaposition of data
Ideal types
The 1997 EU
Compendium
policy
urbanism
strategy
economic
Classes or
categoriesInductive search for
patterns
Is planning policy oriented towards infrastructure?
Infrastructure in ‘definitions’ of spatial planning
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Is planning coordinating and integrating? 2000-2016
Source: ESPON Compass 2017 interim results
Integration of
sector policies
Coordination of
sector policies
Cooperation Information No contributionDegrees of
integration (Stead and
Meijers 2009)
National level Sub-national level Local level
Do planning instruments have influence?
High
Moderate
Low or
limited
None
Is planning policy oriented towards sustainability?
Influence of the environment sector on planning?
Change
2000-2016
Source:
Strong
Very influential
Moderate/
influential
Weak
Little influence
None
DE
BE/F
CZ
EE
SK
SL
IT
ES
Is planning policy oriented towards sustainability?
Sustainability in the legal definitions of Spatial planning
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Is planning policy oriented towards sustainability?
planning as steering development
and/or
planning as steering sustainable development
0 2 4 6 8
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
HOW EUROPE HITS HOME?
Comparing the impact of the EU legislation, policy and discourse on its
Member States’ territorial governance and spatial planning systems
Giancarlo Cotella ([email protected])
DIST – Inter-university Department of Regional and Urban Studies and Planning
Politecnico di Torino
19th – 20th October, 2017 | Warsaw (Poland)
Warsaw Regional Forum 2017
More in detail, COMPASS talks about “territorial governance and spatial
planning systems”, whereas:
2. Comparing territorial governance and spatial planning
systems
“Formal” elements:
• the overall set of constitutional and legal provisions allowing the operation
of the spatial planning system.
• The administrative framework within which each spatial planning system
operates
• The set of spatial planning instruments at each territorial levels
“Soft” elements:
• The scope of the system and the level of vertical and horizontal integration,
the main issues on the spatial planning agenda, the role of planning in the
country etc.
• How spatial planning works in practice, i.e. the actual implementation of
planning instruments, their capacity to steer development processes, their
adaptability etc.
There is no such a thing as a
‘EU Spatial planning system”
…a disagreement on the establishment of explicit planning competences in
the European Treaties has so far prevailed among the Member States, that
proved to be generally jealous of their respective national sovereignties
in this field (the so-called ‘competence issue’)
However, since almost 30 years the EU is responsible for the promotion of
documents, actions and initiatives of territorial relevance under the flag of
the promotion of EU social economic (and territorial) cohesion
So how do territorial governance and spatial planning systems and
European spatial planning coexists, interact and influence each other?
3. The Europeanization of spatial planning
EU legislation with potential spillover effects on territorial
governance and spatial planning
• Environment
• Energy
• Competition
• Transport
• Others (?)
4. Preliminary findings: the influence of EU legislation
Impact of the EU legislation – Environment
4. Preliminary findings: the influence of EU legislation
Impact of the EU legislation – Energy
4. Preliminary findings: the influence of EU legislation
Impact of the EU policy – Cohesion policy
4. Preliminary findings: the influence of EU policies
Impact of the EU policy – European territorial cooperation
4. Preliminary findings: the influence of EU policies
Impact of the EU policy – EU urban policy
• 14 countries report moderate influence, strong only in 2 countries (IT, HU)
• Influence increasing (16) or constant (12) (exception of IT)
• Whereas EU-15 countries reported the influence of the URBAN initiative
and did not mentioned the following financial instruments, CEECs stress
the relevant role played by JESSICA and now by ITI
• Institution of ad hoc urban programmes (IT, PT)
• Overall issues: energy efficiency, sustainable mobility and sustainable
urban development in general (CZ, EE, IR, IT, LV, RO); city compactness
and reduction of soil consumption (CZ) and heritage preservation (LV and
other Eastern countries).
4. Preliminary findings: the influence of EU policies
The discursive arenas of European spatial planning
• Mainstream development strategies
• Spatial policy documents
• EU urban agenda
• ESPON
• Others (?)
4. Preliminary findings: the influence of EU discourse
• The EU exert an influence over Member States territorial governance and
spatial planning systems through legislation, policy tools, concepts and
ideas
• The impact of the EU legislation is mostly indirect, as it occurs through
sectoral fields that may concern spatial planning, and then the integration of
these fields with spatial planning is essentially a national matter
• Overall, Environmental legislation has been by far the most influential for
territorial governance and spatial planning, whereas the other fields shows
a more prominent sectoral character
• Overall, CEECs and Mediterranean countries show higher degrees of
influence than Northern and North-western countries (due to lower
goodness to fit and higher financial support received + the Pre-accession
process)
• This raises interesting research questions that will be explored in the
second part of the analysis, i.e. concerning the differential influence of EU
Member States of the development and consolidation of European spatial
planning (bottom-up Europeanization
5. Interim conclusions
