Is spatial planning a driver for sustainable development in Poland?

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. For the project results, see Heinrichs et al. (2005).

2. For the project results presented in a systematic way, see Matczak et al. (2004).

3. This is the second Concept of Spatial Development for Poland since 1989, when the country regained full independence. For the previous Concept, see Koncepcja (2001), and for its amendment Zaktualizowana koncepcja (2006).

4. In the course of negotiations and open dialogue between the Commission and member states this position has been softened and an integrative approach has been welcomed by both sides.

5. The budget of the 250,000 population city of Gdynia is much bigger than the budget of the Pomerania region: 10 times larger in population ratio terms.

6. Although this system is unable to grasp the success factors and preconditions for mobilization of social and political actors, it indicates what type of mechanism for maintenance of learning results would be desirable. Comparing to the SAUL approach (as explained in the article in this Special Issue by Colomb, 2007) this system, although much less accurate, is simpler and also applicable at the programme level.

7. This observation appears to be important, since learning results also seem to be core to INTERREG project outcomes in Poland. Polish partners most frequently reported as benefits of INTERREG projects the improved information background on EU polices and issues, extended communication networks, establishment of common trust and permanent partnership with foreign partners, exchange of experience, and, less frequently, solving common development problems (Zaucha & Szydarowski, 2005, p. 738).

8. Also, the Leipzig process has not been sufficiently used for that purpose. The evidence document prepared for the Leipzig Conference of May 2007 is still deeply rooted in the ESDP paradigm, offering little help for bridging better growth and structural changes (the Lisbon Agenda) with local characteristics (of cities, regions) of a territorial nature (accessibility, gateway functions etc.). Because of that we might lose an opportunity to explain the pro-developmental role of spatial planning to those who will shape the space and its order in the future.

9. For the project results, see Groth et al. (2005).