Bas Waterhout

Introducing Evidence-Based Planning

Abstract This article introduces the concept of evidence-based planning in the context of its appearance in the UK at the end of the 1990s and traces its historical relationship to the practice of collecting information for state and public purposes from Roman taxation and the famous Domesday Book to the movements and counter-movements of the last century to its present role in politics and policy-making in the field of spatial planning. Delving into the connections between evidence and decision-making, evidence and action, the use and role of research, creativity, and social context as elements of spatial planning, the article also provides background on the perennial planning-theoretical debate. It leads into the current situation where the EU charter requires the use of the best scientific information available for decision-making and where the demand for research has increased since the year 2000 with corresponding agencies (ESDP, ESPON) and institutions being created or reorganized to fill the information gap. Pointing out what is new about evidence-based planning and how it has changed from previous practices, this article builds a framework for the articles presented in this issue, which study and evaluate the theory and practice of evidence-based planning as one of the important trends of this century.

Neo-liberalization Processes and Spatial Planning in France, Germany, and the Netherlands: An Exploration

Abstract ‘Is the English experience distinctive?’ It is this question, asked by the guest editors of this Special Issue, that triggered this article focusing on the impact of neo-liberal ideologies on planning in Germany, France, and the Netherlands. The multi-faceted concept of neo-liberalism is used here as a perspective to interpret the recent developments in the three countries. Proposed changes to planning in England are also briefly considered. Although there are clear differences in the magnitude and actual manifestation of neo-liberalism in planning across the analyzed countries, with England clearly showing some of the more radical and disruptive effects, there seems to be a clear direction in which planning in North West Europe is heading. Due to processes of globalization, individualization, and Europeanization, questions also arise in each country regarding the position and objectives of planning. Neo-liberalization processes tend to further accentuate these questions as planning more often than not is grounded on a different set of principles. Yet, this does not necessarily completely dissociate planning from neo-liberalism. In particular, the French and German experiences indicate that even in broadly ‘neo-liberal times’, there is still a demand for spatial planning.

Episodes of Europeanization of Dutch national spatial planning

For Dutch spatial planners it came as no surprise when, on 25 May 2006, Mr Van Geel, then junior minister for the environment, objected to the postponement of obligatory soot filters on cars by the European Commission until the year 2009. Nor were they surprised to see him – as the only European Union (EU) member state – voting against tougher air quality norms by the year 2015 at the Environment Council of 23 October 2006. Planners also see the logic in the Dutch Ministry for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment broadcasting television commercials that draw attention to its Euro 500 subsidy for a soot filter. In fact, since the 1 January 2005, from which date the limit values of SO2 and PM10 as set out in the first Daughter Directive (1999/30/EC) of the of the EU Air Quality Framework Directive have to be met, Dutch planners have become very sensitive to air quality issues and welcome all possibilities to improve it. What has happened? The Netherlands were the only EU member state to relate air quality to spatial planning when it transposed the EU Directive into national legislation. The effect of this is that no new spatial development is allowed at locations where the air quality exceeds the limits set by the EU, which unfortunately is the case in 75% of the country. As we will see below, this meant the start of a new episode of Europeanization of Dutch spatial planning. Europeanization refers to the influence of the EU and its policies on domestic policies and practices and how these policies, in this case planning, adapt to the European context. Although the phenomenon of Europeanization is not new, it is only recently that academics have paid any attention to it as regards planning (Tewdwr Jones & Williams, 2001; Dabinett & Richardson, 2005; Giannakourou, 2005). One reason for this is that, unlike in many other policy fields, there is no formal European spatial planning policy. However, while there is no formal EU competence for spatial planning, over the past fifteen years we have witnessed the emergence of a European spatial planning discourse, which is carried forward by, amongst others, the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP), the INTERREG IIC/IIIB programmes, which

Territorial Impact Assessment of European Draft Directives—The Emergence of a New Policy Assessment Instrument

Abstract European Union directives, along with their transposing arrangements in EU member states, can have unanticipated and sometimes undesirable impacts on certain regions and places. These include impacts on the use of space (e.g. new infrastructure or sprawl), governance, and on wider social, economic or environmental dimensions. Although ex-ante assessment of the potential impacts of EU initiatives has been carried out since 2002 through the European Commissions Impact Assessment procedure and also through national equivalents in some member states, important impacts are still overlooked, frequently because of their territorially heterogeneous nature within and between EU member states. This paper presents the results of the ESPON EATIA research project, in which a new territorial impact assessment methodology was developed for national and regional administrations in EU member states in order to inform their national positions during the negotiation of European draft directives and potentially other policy proposals.

Mixed messages: How the ESDP's concepts have been applied in INTERREG IIIB programmes, priorities and projects

During the process that led to the adoption of the European Spatial Development Perspective in 1999, the INTERREG IIC Community initiative was established. Whilst floods in north-west Europe and droughts in southern Europe provided the political momentum to establish the initiative, the link with the ESDP process was always clear from the start (Faludi & Waterhout, 2002; Doucet, 2002). INTERREG IIC aimed to stimulate transnational co-operation between national, regional and local actors in the field of spatial planning and intended to put the ESDP’s principles into practice. After three years of operation, INTERREG IIC was followed by INTERREG IIIB in the new programming period 2000 – 2006. This new programme had a larger budget and, following the Guidelines of INTERREG III, saw its focus widened towards achieving ‘a higher degree of territorial integration across large grouping of European regions . . .’ whilst taking account ‘ . . . of the recommendations for territorial development of the European Spatial Development Perspective’ (CEC, 2000, p. 7). In the meantime the ESDP had been finalized and identified the INTERREG Initiative as one of the key means by which territorial issues can be coordinated. The INTERREG Initiative, according to the ESDP, represents ‘an important instrument for the application of the ESDP’ (CSD, 1999, p. 39). This paper examines this process of application of the ESDP through INTERREG IIIB programmes, priorities and projects. What we find is that processes of application are not straightforward and that the ESDP is not always easy to translate into INTERREG priorities and even less easy to translate into INTERREG projects.

Learning from the Application of the ESDP: Influences on European Territorial Governance

Abstract European Territorial Cooperation, and the EU INTERREG Initiative in particular, is one of the five main means of application identified by the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). An entire chapter of the ESDP is in fact devoted to considering the application of its concepts and ideas. The five main means of application comprise: (1) application at the European Community level; (2) application via transnational cooperation between member states; (3) application via cross-border and interregional cooperation; (4) application of the ESDP in member states; and (5) application via pan-European and international cooperation. The influence and application of the ESDP clearly have an important transnational learning dimension. This paper examines the influences of the ESDP on territorial policy and governance and on the associated learning effects, looking specifically at the supra-national level. Three areas of influence are considered here: (1) cooperation within the European Commission, looking at sectoral policy-making; (2) cooperation between member states under the INTER- REG Initiative, focusing on cross-border, transnational and interregional cooperation; and (3) pan-European spatial planning cooperation, focusing on activities of the European Conference of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning (CEMAT).

Debating Evidence-Based Planning

You need to focus your collection of information on some hypothesis. As the information is acquired, you build either an antithesis, or you reinforce the hypothesis to a thesis.