Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: trends across Europe

REFERENCES

• Ahern, J., Cilliers, S., & Niemelä, J. (2014). The concept of ecosystem services in adaptive urban planning and design: A framework for supporting innovation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 125(2014), 254–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. (2001). Traditional land use planning to strategic spatial planning: The case of Flanders. In L. Albrechts, J. Alden, & A. Da Rosa Pires (Eds.), The changing institutional landscape of planning (pp. 83–108). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. (2015). Ingredients for a more radical strategic spatial planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 42(3), 510–525. https://doi.org/10.1068/b130104p
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L., Healey, P., & Kunzmann, K. R. (2003). Strategic spatial planning and regional governance in Europe. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(2), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360308976301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barca, F. (2009) Agenda for a reformed cohesion policy. A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Batory, A., & Cartwright, A. (2011). Re-visiting the partnership principle in Cohesion policy: The role of civil society organizations in structural funds monitoring. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(4), 697–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02159.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batty, M. (2016). Creative destruction, long waves and the age of the smart city. In R. D. Knowles, & C. Rozenblat (Eds.), Sir Peter Hall: Pioneer in regional planning, transport and urban geography (pp. 81–97). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Berisha, E., Cotella, G., Janin Rivolin, U., & Solly, A. (2020). Spatial governance and planning systems, and the public control of spatial development: A European typology. European Planning Studies. doi:10.1080/09654313.2020.1726295
   Google Scholar
• Booth, P. (2007). The control of discretion: Planning and the common-law tradition. Planning Theory, 6(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207077585
   Google Scholar
• Brownill, S., & Carpenter, J. (2007). Increasing participation in planning: Emergent experiences of the reformed planning system in England. Planning Practice and Research, 22(4), 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701770134
   Google Scholar
• Brownill, S., & Parker, G. (2010). Why bother with good works? The relevance of public participation(s) in planning in a post-collaborative era. Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.503407
   Google Scholar
• Colomb, C. (2007). The added value of transnational cooperation: Towards a new framework for evaluating learning and policy change. Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), 347–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701666712
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (1997). The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and. policies. Regional development studies, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2001). European governance: A White Paper, COM (2001) 428. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2011). Territorial agenda of the European Union 2020: Towards an inclusive, smart and sustainable Europe of diverse regions. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (2015). Territorial Agenda 2020 put into practice. Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2017). Seventh report on economic, social and territorial cohesion: My region, my Europe, our future. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Committee on Spatial Development (CSD). (1999). European spatial development perspective: Towards balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. Commission of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• Conroy, M. M., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2006). E-participation in planning: An analysis of cities adopting on-line citizen participation tools. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24(3), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1k
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Counsell, G., Allmendinger, P., Haughton, G., & Vigar, G. (2006). ‘Integrated’ spatial planning – Is it living up to expectations? Town and Country Planning, 75(8), 243–246.
   Google Scholar
• Cullingworth, B., & Nadin, V. (2006). Town and country planning in the UK (14th Ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dąbrowski, M. (2014). EU cohesion policy, horizontal partnership and the patterns of sub-national governance: Insights from central and Eastern Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 21(40), 364–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776413481983
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dąbrowski, M., Musiałkowska, I., & Polverari, L. (2018). Introduction: Drawing lessons from international policy-transfer initiatives in regional and urban development and spatial planning. Regional Studies, 52(9), 1165–1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1462490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dąbrowski, M., & Piskorek, K. (2018). The development of strategic spatial planning in central and Eastern Europe: Between path dependence, European influence, and domestic politics. Planning Perspectives, 33(4), 571–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2018.1513373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dühr, S., & Belof, M. (2020). Social learning in transnational spatial planning processes: An analysis of the ‘V4+2’ cooperation on spatial development. Planning Practice and Research, 35(2), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2020.1726133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dühr, S., Colomb, C., & Nadin, V. (2010). European spatial planning and territorial cooperation. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dühr, S., Zonneveld, W., & Stead, D. (2007). The Europeanization of spatial planning through territorial cooperation. Planning Practice and Research, 22(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701688245
   Google Scholar
• European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON). (2013). ESPON TANGO: Territorial approaches for new governance. Final report. ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON). (2014). Towards better territorial governance in Europe. A guide for practitioners, policy and decision makers based on contributions from the ESPON TANGO project. ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion (ESPON). (2017). SPIMA – Spatial dynamics and strategic planning in metropolitan areas. Targeted Analysis. Final Report. ESPON.
   Google Scholar
• Evans-Cowley, J., & Hollander, J. (2010). The new generation of public participation: Internet-based participation tools. Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.503432
   Google Scholar
• Fainstein, S. S. (2014). The just city. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 18(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2013.834643
   Google Scholar
• Falco, E., & Kleinhans, R. (2018). Beyond technology: Identifying local government challenges for using digital platforms for citizen engagement. International Journal of Information Management, 40(June), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.01.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (1987). A decision-centred view of environmental planning. Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A., & Waterhout, B. (2002). The making of the European spatial development perspective, no masterplan. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Farinós Dasi, J. (Ed.). (2007). Governance of territorial and urban policies from EU to local level. Final report of ESPON Project 2.3.2. ESPON Coordination Unit.
   Google Scholar
• Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation: Avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, T. B. (2007). The theory and practice of strategic environmental assessment: Towards a more systematic approach. Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (2006). Making participation work when interests conflict: Moving from facilitating dialogue and moderating debate to mediating negotiations. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glasson, J., Therivel, R., & Chadwick, A. (2005). Introduction to environmental impact assessment (3rd Ed.). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta, J. C., Termeer, J., Klostermann, S., Meijerink, M. v. d., Brink, P., Jong, S., Nooteboom, S., & Bergsma, E. (2010). The adaptive capacity wheel: A method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science and Policy, 13(6), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halleux, J.-M., Marcinczak, S., & van der Krabben, E. (2012). The adaptive efficiency of land use planning measured by the control of urban sprawl. The cases of the Netherlands, Belgium and Poland. Land Use Policy, 29(4), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Head, B. W. (2007). Community engagement: Participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361140701513570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Vintage.
   Google Scholar
• Kato, S., & Ahern, J. (2008). ‘Learning by doing’: Adaptive planning as a strategy to address uncertainty in planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(4), 543–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560802117028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinhans, R., Van Ham, M., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2015). Using social media and mobile technologies to foster engagement and self-organization in participatory urban planning and neighbourhood governance. Planning Practice and Research, 30(3), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1051320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knieling, J., & Othengrafen, F. (2015). Planning culture – A concept to explain the evolution of planning policies and processes in Europe? European Planning Studies, 23(11), 2133–2147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1018404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koresawa, A., & Konvitz, J. (2001). Towards a new role for spatial planning. In OECD Proceedings. Towards a new role for spatial planning (pp. 11-32). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
   Google Scholar
• Lane, M. B. (2005). Public participation in planning: An intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 36(3), 283–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180500325694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muñoz Gielen, D., & Tasan-Kok, M. T. (2010). Flexibility in planning and the consequences for public-value capturing in UK, Spain and the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 18(7), 1097–1131. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654311003744191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadin, V. (2007). The emergence of the spatial planning approach in England. Planning Practice and Research, 22(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701455934
   Google Scholar
• Nadin, V. (2012). International comparative planning Methodology: Introduction to the theme issue. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.669928
   Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., & Shaw, D. (1999). Subsidiarity and proportionality in European spatial planning. Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.
   Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. disP – The Planning Review, 44(172), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2008.10557001
   Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2014). Spatial planning in the United Kingdom, 1990–2013. In M. Reimer, P. Getimis, & H. H. Blotevogel (Eds.), Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe: A comparative perspective on continuity and changes (pp. 189–214). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., Fernández Maldonado, A. M., Zonneveld, W. A. M., Stead, D., Dąbrowski, M., Piskorek, K., Sarkar, A., Schmitt, P., Smas, L., Cotella, G., Janin Rivolin, U., Solly, A., Berisha, E., Pede, E., Seardo, B. M., Komornicki, T., Goch, K., Bednarek-Szczepańska, M., Degórska, B., … Münter, A. (2018). COMPASS: Comparative analysis of territorial governance and spatial planning systems in Europe. ESPON EGTC.
   Google Scholar
• Nedović-Budić, Z. (2001). Adjustment of planning practice to the new Eastern and Central European context. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360108976354
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Needham, B., & de Kam, G. (2004). Understanding how land is exchanged: Coordination mechanisms and transaction costs. Urban Studies, 41(10), 2061–2076. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000256387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. (2017). Land-use planning systems in the OECD: Country fact sheets. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Publ.
   Google Scholar
• Othengrafen, F., Knieling, J., Haughton, G., & Allmendinger, P. (2015). Soft spaces in Europe: Re-negotiating governance, boundaries and borders. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (1998). Managing horizontal government: The politics of coordination. Public Administration, 76(2), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, T., & Minnery, J. (2012). Scale and public participation: Issues in metropolitan regional planning. Planning Practice and Research, 27(2), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661670
   Google Scholar
• Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (2nd Ed.). University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Puerari, E., De Koning, J. I. J. C., Von Wirth, T., Karré, P. M., Mulder, I. J., & Loorbach, D. A. (2018). Co-creation dynamics in urban living labs. Sustainability, 10(1893), 1–18. doi:10.3390/su10061893
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauws, W. (2017). Embracing uncertainty without abandoning planning. disP – The Planning Review, 53(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2017.1316539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rauws, W., & De Roo, G. (2016). Adaptive planning: Generating conditions for urban adaptability. Lessons from Dutch organic development strategies. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 43(6), 1052–1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516658886
   Google Scholar
• Rauws, W. S., Cook, M., & Van Dijk, T. (2014). How to make development plans suitable for volatile contexts. Planning Practice and Research, 29(2), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.872902
   Google Scholar
• Reimer, M., Getimis, P., & Blotevogel, H. (2014). Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe: A comparative perspective on continuity and changes. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sartorio, F. S. (2005). Strategic spatial planning: A historical review of approaches, its recent revival, and an overview of the state of the art in Italy. Disp – The Planning Review, 41(3), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2005.10556930
   Google Scholar
• Savy, R., Pauliat, H., & Senimon, M. (2017). The process of decentralisation in Europe. In J. Ruano & M. Profiroiu (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of decentralisation in Europe (pp. 1–14). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt, P. (2013). Planning for polycentricity in European metropolitan areas – Challenges, expectations and practices. Planning Practice and Research, 28(4), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2013.780570
   Google Scholar
• Shipley, R., & Utz, S. (2012). Making it count: A review of the value and techniques for public consultation. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(1), 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412211413133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sintomer, Y., Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008). Participatory budgeting in Europe: Potentials and challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 164–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00777.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skrimizea, E., Haniotou, H., & Parra, C. (2019). On the ‘complexity turn’ in planning: An adaptive rationale to navigate spaces and times of uncertainty. Planning Theory, 18(1), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218780515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorensen, A., & Sagaris, L. (2010). From participation to the right to the city: Democratic place management at the neighbourhood scale in comparative perspective. Planning Practice and Research, 25(3), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.503424
   Google Scholar
• Stead, D. (2013). Convergence, divergence, or constancy of spatial planning? Connecting theoretical concepts with empirical evidence from Europe. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412212471562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stead, D., & Cotella, G. (2011). Differential Europe: Domestic actors and their role in shaping spatial planning systems. disP – The Planning Review, 47(186), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2011.10557140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stead, D., & Meijers, E. J. (2009). Spatial planning and policy integration: Concepts, facilitators and inhibitors. Planning Theory and Practice, 10(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649350903229752
   Google Scholar
• Stead, D., & Nadin, V. (2011). Shifts in territorial governance and the Europeanisation of spatial planning in central and Eastern Europe. In N. Adams, G. Cotella, & R. Nunes (Eds.), Territorial development, cohesion and spatial planning: Knowledge and policy development in an enlarged EU (pp. 154–177). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stead, D., & Pálné Kovács, I. (2016). Shifts in governance and government across Europe. In P. Schmitt & L. van Well (Eds.), Territorial governance across Europe – Pathways, practices and prospects (pp. 21–35). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, J. (2000). The nature of British local government. Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Talen, E. (2014). Planning the emergent and dealing with uncertainty: Regulations and urban form. In T. Haas & K. Olsson (Eds.), Emergent urbanism: Urban planning and design in times of structural and systemic change (pp. 141–146). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2004). Spatial planning: Principles, practice and culture. Journal of Planning and Environment Law, 57(5), 560–569.
   Google Scholar
• Thoidou, E. (2013). The climate challenge and EU cohesion policy: Implications for regional policies. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 7(3), 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2013.056946
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, D., Minett, J., Hopkins, S., Hamnett, S., Faludi, A., & Barrell, D. (1983). Flexibility and commitment in planning: A comparative study of local planning and development in the Netherlands and England. Marinus Nijhoff.
   Google Scholar
• Tuler, S., & Webler, T. (1999). Voices from the forest: What participants expect of a public participation process. Society and Natural Resources, 12(5), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/089419299279524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tulumello, S., Cotella, G., & Othengrafen, F. (2020). Spatial planning and territorial governance in Southern Europe between economic crisis and austerity policies. International Planning Studies, 25(1), 72–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2019.1701422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). (2008). Spatial planning. Key instrument for development and effective governance with special reference to countries in transition. UNECE.
   Google Scholar
• van Buuren, A., Driessen, P., van Rijswick, M., Rietveld, P., Salet, W., Spit, T., & Teisman, G. (2013). Towards adaptive spatial planning for climate change: Balancing between robustness and flexibility. Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law, 10(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01001003
   Google Scholar
• Waterhout, B., Othengrafen, F., & Sykes, O. (2013). Neo-liberalization processes and spatial planning in France, Germany, and the Netherlands: An exploration. Planning Practice and Research, 28(1), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.699261
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, A., Tewdwr-Jones, M., & Comber, R. (2019). Urban planning, public participation and digital technology: App development as a method of generating citizen involvement in local planning processes. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(2), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317712515
   Google Scholar
• Zandvoort, M., Van der Vlist, M. J., Klijn, F., & Van den Brink, A. (2018). Navigating amid uncertainty in spatial planning. Planning Theory, 17(1), 96–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216684530
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeković, S., Vujošević, M., & Maričić, T. (2015). Spatial regularization, planning instruments and urban land market in a post-socialist society: The case of Belgrade. Habitat International, 48(August), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar