Dominic Stead

European Spatial Planning Systems, Social Models and Learning

Abstract An underlying aim of European territorial cooperation initiatives, such as INTERREG, is that they will lead to mutual understanding and learning across national boundaries. However, the effect of mutual learning on national systems and policies of planning is uncertain. After all, spatial planning systems are deeply embedded in their socio-economic, political and cultural context, which can potentially constrain the scope for mutual learning. Moreover, planning systems may have a certain degree of path-dependency, such as the persistence of institutions and cultures. In this paper, we explore the relationship between planning systems and their context and assess the extent to which cooperation and learning might contribute to convergence in styles of planning in Europe, as well as why and how this might be taking place. We take as our context the prevailing social model or model of society, the collection of common social and cultural values. We examine and compare typologies of planning systems and typologies of social models and find a degree of correspondence between them. The examples of England and the Netherlands are used to illustrate this interdependence. However, they also reveal how planning systems and policies in different contexts are changing in similar ways, and perhaps even demonstrate a measure of convergence. In other words, external factors may be overriding or undermining the influence of the national social model. The implementation of planning reforms may be running ahead of wider changes in the social model.

The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in European policy and research

There are increasing calls for greater policy integration within European policy documents and research programmes. In the area of land use planning, transport and environment policy, there is widespread acceptance that integrating decisions across these sectors is crucial for sustainable development. Despite this, relatively little European research has been (or is being) carried out on the issue of policy integration, particularly in relation to transport, land use planning and environment policies. Most of the research is mainly technical and mainly focuses on policy options, instruments or assessment methods, rather than on decision-making processes and/or implementation issues; little attention has been given to organisational and/or institutional aspects of policy integration and how this relates to theories from organisational, policy or political sciences. This paper provides a review of policy integration in academic literature, European policy documents and research activities. The paper aims to give a historical perspective to the issue of policy integration, summarise recent policy and research, identify key research gaps and identify promising new areas for future research. The paper is divided into five main sections. The introduction is followed by a short overview of academic literature concerning policy integration. The next section discusses the importance of policy integration in European policy-making and policy documents. This is followed by an assessment of the importance of policy integration for European research programmes and projects. The last section presents some conclusions and recommendations for promising areas of research concerning policy integration in relation to transport, land use planning and environmental issues.

Spatial Planning and Policy Integration: Concepts, Facilitators and Inhibitors

While the concept of policy integration is not a new idea within spatial planning discourse, it is becoming increasingly prevalent. Frequently, however, the term is used without any clear definition of what it means, or how it might be achieved. The aim of this paper is to provide more clarity about the concept and to identify the types of actions in the field of planning where integration with policy can be improved. In so doing, the paper assembles a range of material from different disciplines, and identifies some of the key inhibitors and facilitators of policy integration.

Land use and travel behaviour: expected effects from the perspective of utility theory and activity-based theories

Assumptions about the effects of various land-use characteristics on travel patterns have found their way into diverse concepts of planning and design, such as the compact city and neighbourhood-design principles. In general, these concepts aim at reducing travel distances and reducing car-travel speed, as it is assumed that as travel distances are shorter, individuals will travel less, and the relative competitive position of slower modes is increased. Although some literature supports the link between land use and travel behaviour, for the greater part limited effects have been concluded, whereas in others it has been concluded that there is virtually no effect. We argue that the effects fall short of the expectations advocated by the land-use concepts, because of shortcomings behind assumptions concerning the relationships between land use and travel behaviour. We argue that utility-based and activity-based theories add some extra insights. Various behavioural responses in terms of travel-time changes are possible, depending on whether travel time is minimised, benefits maximised, or activity patterns optimised. It is concluded that the contribution of compact urban designs to reduction on travel may not be as straightforward as is suggested by their advocates. In any case, a simplified distance-oriented and trip-oriented approach is unable to examine complex behaviour, and a broader framework of space and time is needed.

Impact of information and communications technology on transport

The impacts of information and communications technologies on transport are examined. First, the wider context of global change is outlined with the growth in the service and knowledge‐based economy, the breakdown of trade barriers, and the development of new patterns of travel. The more traditional views are briefly covered and discussed, and a case is made for longer term, more subtle direct and indirect effects of technological innovation on transport. Three spheres of influence are considered (production, living and working) to help structure the argument and to provide a framework within which to investigate the different information and communications technology applications in terms of their roles and impacts on transport. The review ends with three key unresolved questions that relate to the future of transport demand and analysis, and three further opportunities for using information and communications technology substantially to increase transport efficiency.

The Europeanization of spatial planning through territorial cooperation

The influence of the European Union (EU) on spatial planning systems, policies and processes in the member states is steadily increasing. Whilst the Community’s direct role in spatial planning is limited, EU sectoral policies in the fields of environment, transport, rural development and regional policy have considerable spatial impacts and often require institutional adjustments within member states (see van Ravesteyn & Evers 2004). Consequently, the impact of EU legislation and policies on domestic planning is considerable and growing. This is contributing to a ‘vertical’ exchange of ideas and concepts between EU and national/regional institutions. Furthermore, initiatives related to the coordination of sectoral policies and more harmonized spatial development of the EU territory are being actively supported by the European institutions. Planners across Europe are now routinely involved in transboundary cooperation networks and interregional collaboration initiatives and thus subject to foreign experiences and exposed to a variety of planning approaches from other member states. Such cooperation between member states and regions on spatial planning is leading to horizontal processes of policy transfer and institutional adaptation between member states and regions. The focus of this special issue is on the Europeanization of spatial planning, and in particular the effects of territorial cooperation across national borders. Many of the authors of the articles in this special issue have been involved in a variety of recent research on European spatial planning, while others reflect on the practice of transnational territorial cooperation. Together, the articles provide a wealth of information on recent experiences of EU influences on domestic planning systems, policies and practices. They present reflections on the impact of territorial cooperation on institutional and policy change within the member

Urban Transport Policy Transfer in Central and Eastern Europe

Abstract European Territorial Cooperation is one important context in which partners from across the whole of Europe meet and learn from each other. Naturally, the involvement of partners from Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in this process is increasing as a consequence of the expansion of Europe, particularly the accession of ten new EU member states in 2004, and two more in 2007. Various examples can be found where CEE countries are seeking to catch up politically and economically by drawing lessons from policies in more developed countries. The uncertainties of policy-making in some of these countries have made policy transfer a particularly attractive option, as politicians see it as the quickest solution to many problems without having to reinvent the wheel. This paper focuses on international policy-transfer and lesson-drawing, looking specifically at how urban transport concepts and ideas have been transferred from Western Europe to two CEE countries. In these cases, the social and economic situations in the “borrowing” and “lending” countries are very different. So too, are the institutional frameworks. As a consequence, successful policy transfer is much more complex than mere copying or emulation. The paper argues that large-scale institutional transformations are neither feasible nor desirable to produce results that benefit cities in CEE countries. Small initiatives with straightforward, comparatively short-term outcomes and moderate budgets often work better and keep momentum going for further steps towards more sustainable urban transport policies and programs.

Best Practices and Policy Transfer in Spatial Planning

Abstract Numerous European programs and initiatives have been instrumental in identifying a large and increasing number of examples of best practice (or good practice) in the field of spatial planning. In fact, there is now a profligacy of best practice, which means that many researchers and policy-makers are often confronted with too much information when trying to identify examples of policy and practice in other places. The identification and dissemination of best practices has become a growing industry in many areas of European policy, including spatial planning and urban environmental issues. In many cases, an underlying assumption of best practices is that they are equally applicable and effective in another setting, and that the development and dissemination of best practice will help to lead to improvements in policy and practice in other countries, regions or cities. However, the reality is that best practices have a more limited role in policy-making processes: other influences are frequently more important. The value of exchanging European best practices is limited since there are huge differences in the economic, political or social situation between countries in the European Union. This is particularly true when considering the transfer of best practices between ‘new’ and ‘old’ member states, where the social and economic situation, as well as the institutional frameworks, are often very different in ‘borrowing’ and ‘lending’ countries.

Policy & Planning Brief

European macro-regional strategies form part of a process of reflection about the future of European regional policy beyond 2013 and could be poised to take a decisive role in future European cohesion policy. Examples of European macro-regional strategies to date include the Baltic Sea Strategy (2009), the Danube Basin Strategy (developed during 2010 and to be launched in 2011 under the Hungarian Presidency of the EU), and strategies for the Atlantic, Mediterranean and North Sea regions (under various stages of discussion/consideration). This article outlines the recent emergence of these European macroregional strategies in the light of contemporary debates about spatial rescaling. For some commentators (e.g. Allmendinger & Haughton, 2009), processes of spatial rescaling represent one of the most significant contemporary changes in planning. These processes do not simply imply changes in powers across existing layers of decision making but also involve new scales of intervention, new actor constellations, and variable geometries of governance (Allmendinger & Haughton, 2009; Brenner, 2004; Haughton et al., 2009; Jessop, 2004; Lidström, 2007). The emergence of “soft spaces”—multi-area sub-regions in which regional strategy is being made between or alongside formal institutions and processes—is one of the main phenomena associated with contemporary spatial rescaling. Various scales of “soft spaces” can be identified, ranging all the way from local and regional through to transnational, in the case of European macroregions. These soft spaces, according to Haughton & Allmendinger (2007), are “fluid areas . . . between formal processes where implementation through bargaining, flexibility, discretion and interpretation dominate” and contrast with “hard spaces”—the “formal visible arenas and processes, often statutory and open to democratic processes and local political influence” (p. 306). Also associated with processes of spatial rescaling is the emergence of “fuzzy boundaries” that offer a way of breaking away from “the shackles of pre-existing working patterns which might be variously held to be slow, bureaucratic, or not reflecting the real geographies of problems and opportunities” (Allmendinger & Haughton, 2009, p. 619). Because of their issue-based focus, these spaces are unlikely to fit together neatly: overlaps are likely. On the one hand this trend can be considered to represent a more place-based approach to planning— responding to the specificities of particular places. On the other hand it can be seen as a form of neo-liberalism—trying to shortcut democratic processes that may be slow or bureaucratic (Haughton et al., 2009). Underlying these trends towards soft spaces and fuzzy boundaries is a strong element of pragmatism: “getting things done and not worrying too much about tidiness around the edges or administrative clutter” (Allmendinger & Haughton, 2009, p. 619). To be clear, this is not to say that planning is losing its “harder” side. The point is that there is a hard and soft side to planning, and that planners are being increasingly confronted by both. Sotarauta & Linnamaa (1998), for example, have referred to the emergence of “soft strategies” in planning as a way of managing “interorganisational and communicative processes in flux” (p. 513) while Faludi Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 12, No. 1, 163–167, March 2011

Individual Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Potential for Reduction in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom

Using National Travel Survey (NTS) data from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, this paper examines how passenger transport emissions are divided across society and how similar this distribution is across these two countries. By looking across a series of data over time, the paper examines the relationships between socioeconomic characteristics and individual greenhouse gas emissions, the stability of these relationships over time, and the extent to which these relationships are similar in these two countries. Suitable policy measures for different socioeconomic groups are then examined. The general effectiveness and acceptability of these measures are then discussed by drawing on pan-European (Euro-barometer) survey results. Analyses of the NTS data reveal that about 10% of the Dutch population is responsible for almost half of all travel-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the Netherlands. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, about 20% of the population is responsible for 60% of the passenger–transportation-related CO2 emissions. Analysis of pan-European opinion surveys shows that there is a clear awareness among the majority of the population that the type of car and the way in which it is used have important impacts on the environment. Despite this awareness, however, only a minority seem prepared to take action to reduce the environmental consequences of their travel behavior. The study supports the argument that the willingness to change behavior is a complex mixture of individual and social interests. A major challenge is how to encourage changes in behavior to reduce transport emissions with the right policies at the right time in the right place.