Capitalising on the European Research Outcome for Improved Spatial Planning Practices and Territorial Governance

Auziņš Auziņš

doi:10.3390/land8110163

Abstract

If distinguishing between spatial planning systems and practices, the latter reflect on the continuity and perspective of planning cultures and are concerned with the values, attitudes, mindsets and routines shared by those taking part in concrete planning processes. Some recent studies demonstrated comparative assessment of European spatial planning. Thus, the coexistence of continuity and change, as well as convergence and divergence concerning planning practices, was delineated. Moreover, the trends and directions in the evolution of spatial planning and territorial governance were explored when focusing on linkages between diverse national planning perspectives and EU policies. The relevant outcome of European projects met their visionary statements in general and are towards the inspiration of policymaking by territorial evidence. However, it showed a highly differential landscape for territorial governance and spatial planning across Europe in terms of terminology, concepts, tools and practices. Therefore, the paper focuses on how the most relevant outcome of European research may initiate a reasonable in-depth study of concrete planning practices and substantiate an effective planning approach. Mainly based on critical literature review and comparative analysis and synthesis techniques, the overviewed key research results led (1) to agenda-setting for comprehensive evidence gathering (CEG) if exploring spatial planning practices and territorial governance in selected European countries, and (2) to a set of objectives for a values-led planning (VLP) approach to be introduced for improvement of land use management.

Highlights

More than a decade ago, EU aimed to strengthen territorial cohesion, gradually encouragedEuropean spatial planning policies (Territorial Agendas (TAs)—TA 2007 and TA 2020), the EuropeanSpatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and provided integrated instruments for European spatial development, which have been applied under the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) projects [1,2,3]
The main outcome of debates on European spatial planning, which is relevant for the promotion of improved planning practice, incorporates conceptual considerations
The authors of the research argue that planning perspective necessitates a more fundamental reflection upon the roles and attitudes of planners, shifting from coordinators or semi-controlled planning processes producing policies and projects towards identifying potential societal challenges and emerging alternatives that can be synthesised, strengthened and empowered to more effectively contribute to desired urban transitions

Summary

Introduction

More than a decade ago, EU aimed to strengthen territorial cohesion, gradually encouragedEuropean spatial planning policies (Territorial Agendas (TAs)—TA 2007 and TA 2020), the EuropeanSpatial Development Perspective (ESDP) and provided integrated instruments for European spatial development, which have been applied under the European Spatial Planning Observation Network (ESPON) projects [1,2,3]. European spatial planning policies (Territorial Agendas (TAs)—TA 2007 and TA 2020), the European. Experts in spatial planning of a European Research Group joined for collective work and developed a comparative study on continuity and changes in spatial planning systems and practices of selected European countries [4]. Research towards spatial planning practices in Europe addresses different planning cultures. Some scientific contributions clearly distinguish between planning systems and planning cultures. Reimer and Blotevogel (2012) interpreted planning systems as “dynamic institutional technologies, which define corridors of action for planning practice, which may, display a good deal of variability” [4] While a planning culture has sometimes been seen as “equivalent to the values, attitudes, mind-sets and routines shared by those taking part in planning” [5].

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion