Measuring the performance of planning: the conformance of Italian landscape planning practices with the European Landscape Convention

References

• Alexander, E. R., & Faludi, A. (1989). Planning and plan implementation: Notes on evaluation criteria. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 16, 127–140. doi:10.1068/b160127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brody, S. D., Highfield, W., & Carrasco, V. (2004). Measuring the collective planning capabilities of local jurisdictions to manage ecological systems in southern Florida. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 33–50. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broussard, S., Washington, C., & Miller, B. (2008). Attitudes toward policies to protect open spaces: A comparative study of government planning officials and the general public. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86, 14–24. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brunetta, G., & Voghera, A. (2008). Evaluating landscape for shared values: Tools, principles, and methods. Landscape Research, 33, 71–87. doi:10.1080/01426390701773839
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campagna, M., & Craglia, M. (2012). The socio-economic impact of the spatial data infrastructure of Lombardy. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 39, 1069–1083. doi:10.1068/b38006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, S. (2003). Case studies in planning: Comparative advantages and the problem of generalization (Working paper URRC 02-07). University of Michigan: Urban and Regional Research Collaborative Working Paper Series.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M., & Louie, S. (Eds.). (2004). Measuring quality in planning. Managing the performance process. New York: Spon Press, Taylor and Francis Group.
   Google Scholar
• Chueca, P. (2008). Estudio comparativo de las polìticas de paisaje en Francia, los Paises Bayos y Suiza [Comparative analysis of landscape policies in France, Netherlands and Switzerland]. In Centro de Estudios, Paisaje y Territorio (Ed.), La situación del Paisaje en España. Líneas para la aplicación y desarrollo del Convenio Europeo del Paisaje [The status of landscape in Spain. Guidelines for the application and development of the European Landscape Convention] (pp. 2–4). Seville: University of Andalusia Press. [In Spanish].
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. (2000). The European landscape convention. Strasbourg: Author. Retrieved March 29, 2016, from http://www.coe.int/it/web/landscape/home
   Google Scholar
• Council of Europe. (2006). Landscape and sustainable development: Challenges of the European landscape convention. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
   Google Scholar
• Dawkins, C. J., & Nelson, A. C. (2002). Urban containment policies and housing prices: An international comparison with implications for future research. Land Use Policy, 19, 1–12. doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00038-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Montis, A. (2013). Implementing strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning tools: A study on the Italian provinces. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, 53–63. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2013.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Montis, A. (2014). Impacts of the European landscape convention on national planning systems: A comparative investigation of six case studies. Landscape and Urban Planning, 124, 53–65. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission (EC). (1994). Europe 2000+ cooperation for European territorial development. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and Council. (2007). Directive 2007/2/EC of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European community (INSPIRE). Official Journal of the European Union L. 108/1, April 25, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2001). Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Faludi, A. (2000). The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research, 15, 299–318. doi:10.1080/713691907
   Google Scholar
• Fincher, R., Iveson, K., Leitner, H., & Preston, V. (2014). Planning in the multicultural city: Celebrating diversity or reinforcing difference? Progress in Planning, 92, 1–55. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2013.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219–245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Getimis, P. (2012). Comparing spatial planning systems and planning cultures in Europe. The need for a multi-scalar approach. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), 25–40. doi:10.1080/02697459.2012.659520
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann, T., & Spit, T. (2015). Dilemmas of involvement in land management – comparing an active (Dutch) and a passive (German) approach. Land Use Policy, 42, 729–737. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P., & Williams, R. H. (1993). European urban planning systems: Diversity and convergence. Urban Studies, 30(4/5), 701–720. doi:10.1080/00420989320081881
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herlin, I. S. (2004). New challenges in the field of spatial planning: Landscapes. Landscape Research, 29, 399–411. doi:10.1080/0142639042000289037
   Google Scholar
• Italian Regulation. (2004). Legislative decree Decree (LD) No. 42/ 2004. Code about cultural heritage and landscape. Gazzetta Ufficiale, 45 (2004). [In Italian].
   Google Scholar
• Italian Regulation. (2006a). L No. 14/ 2006. Ratification and execution of the European Landscape Convention, Florence, October 20th, 2000. Gazzetta Ufficiale 16 (2006). [In Italian].
   Google Scholar
• Italian Regulation. (2006b). LD No. 156/ 2006. Amendments and integrations of the Legislative decree approved on January, 24th 2004 No. 42, with respect to cultural goods. Gazzetta Ufficiale 119 (2006). [In Italian].
   Google Scholar
• Italian Regulation. (2008). LD No. 62/2008. Further amendments and integrations of the Legislative decree approved on January, 24th 2004 No. 42, with respect to cultural goods). Gazzetta Ufficiale 84 (2008). [In Italian].
   Google Scholar
• Janin Rivolin, U. (2012). Planning systems as institutional technologies: A proposed conceptualization and the implications for comparison. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), 63–85. doi:10.1080/02697459.2012.661181
   Google Scholar
• Jaraíz Cabanillas, F. J., Mora Aliseda, J., Gutiérrez Gallego, J. A., & Jeong, J. S. (2013). Comparison of regional planning strategies: Countywide general plans in USA and territorial plans in Spain. Land Use Policy, 30, 758–773. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, W. C. (1984). Citizen participation in local planning in the U.K. and U.S.A.: A comparative study. Progress in Planning, 21, 149–221. doi:10.1016/0305-9006(84)90001-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M. (2007). The European landscape convention and the question of public participation. Landscape Research, 32, 613–633. doi:10.1080/01426390701552753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, M., Howard, P., Olwig, K. R., Primdahl, J., & Herlin, I. S. (2007). Multiple interfaces of the European landscape convention. Norwegian Journal of Geography, 61, 207–215. doi:10.1080/00291950701709176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam Ng, M. (1999). Political economy and urban planning: A comparative study of Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. Progress in Planning, 51, 1–90. doi:10.1016/S0305-9006(98)00027-0
   Google Scholar
• Khakee, A. (1998). Evaluation and planning: Inseparable concepts. Town Planning Review, 69, 359–374. doi:10.3828/tpr.69.4.3803q86489619xm7
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, T. (2014). Infrastructure futures and spatial planning: Lessons from France, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. Progress in Planning, 89, 1–38. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2013.03.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. disP – The Planning Review, 44, 35–47. doi:10.1080/02513625.2008.10557001
   Google Scholar
• Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1996). Urban planning in Europe: International competition, national systems and planning projects. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Olwig, K. R. (2007). The practice of landscape ‘conventions’ and the just landscape: The case of the European landscape convention. Landscape Research, 32, 579–594. doi:10.1080/01426390701552738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Quality standards for development evaluation. Paris: OECD. Retrieved March 29, 2016, from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/0/44798177.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. doi:10.1007/BF01405730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roodbol-Mekkes, P. H., van der Valk, A. J. J., & Korthals Altes, W. K. (2012). The Netherlands spatial planning doctrine in disarray in the 21st century. Environment and Planning A, 44(2), 377–395. doi:10.1068/a44162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo, P., Tomaselli, G., & Pappalardo, G. (2014). Marginal periurban agricultural areas: A support method for landscape planning. Land Use Policy, 41, 97–109. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2011). Neo-liberal urban planning policies: A literature survey 1990–2010. Progress in Planning, 76, 147–199. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2011.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanyal, B. (Ed.). (2005). Comparative planning cultures. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, S., & Buehler, R. (2007). The planning process in the US and Germany: A comparative analysis. International Planning Studies, 12(1), 55–75. doi:10.1080/13563470701346592
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1989). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Tassinari, P., Torreggiani, D., & Benni, S. (2013). Dealing with agriculture, environment and landscape in spatial planning: A discussion about the Italian case study. Land Use Policy, 30, 739–747. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voghera, A. (2010, October 18–19). The implementation of the European landscape convention in different countries. In Proceedings of the conference on Living Landscape, Florence, Italy (pp. 386–398).
   Google Scholar
• Wildavsky, A. (1973). If planning is everything, maybe it’s nothing. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 127–53. doi:10.1007/BF01405729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willey, S. (2005). Are planning appeal rights necessary? A comparative study of Australia, England and Vancouver B.C. Progress in Planning, 63, 265–320. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2004.09.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, G. (1999). Metropolitan governance and strategic planning: A review of experience in Manchester, Melbourne and Toronto. Progress in Planning, 52, 1–100. doi:10.1016/S0305-9006(99)90003-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar