Pokaż uproszczony rekord

The mapping of forms of spatial planning: An instrument-oriented tool for the international comparison of spatial planning activities

dc.contributor.authorSalamin, Géza
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-11T10:35:06Z
dc.date.available2023-12-11T10:35:06Z
dc.date.issued2023-06-30
dc.identifier.issn1231-1952
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/48708
dc.description.abstractThe paper makes a contribution to European comparative research on spatial planning by providing an instrument-oriented methodological framework for forms of planning. Based on the main efforts to date, the main challenges of comparative research on European planning systems are identified. The author’s comparative four-dimensional model and related visual tool can be used to bridge different national languages of planning and compare various spatial forms of planning. With the tool, the nature of planning regimes, specific plans, and other planning-related activities can be identified in accordance with the dimensions of Motivation, Geography, Scope, and Instruments, making them comparable.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEuropean Spatial Research and Policy;1en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectspatial planningen
dc.subjecturban planningen
dc.subjectEuropean Unionen
dc.subjectterritorial governanceen
dc.subjectcomparative studiesen
dc.titleThe mapping of forms of spatial planning: An instrument-oriented tool for the international comparison of spatial planning activitiesen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number55-78
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationCorvinus University of Budapest, Institute for Sustainable Development, Department of Geography and Planning, Fővám tér 8, Budapest, 1093 Hungaryen
dc.identifier.eissn1896-1525
dc.referencesALLMENDINGER, P.(2000), Planning in Postmodern Times, London: Routledge.en
dc.referencesALLMENDINGER, P. (2016), ‘Towards a Post-Positivist Typology of Planning Theory’, Planning Theory, 1 (1), pp. 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309520200100105en
dc.referencesALLMENDINGER, P. and HAUGHTON, G. (2009), ’Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: The new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway’, Environment and Planning A, 41 (3), pp. 617–633. https://doi.org/10.1068/a40208en
dc.referencesALLMENDINGER, P., HAUGHTON, G., KNIELING, J.and OTHENGRAFEN, F.(2015), Soft spaces of Europe. Re-negotiating governance, boundaries and borders, Oxon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315768403en
dc.referencesASSCHE, K., BEUNEN, R. and VERWEIJ, S. (2020), ‘Comparative Planning Research, Learning, and Governance: The Benefits and Limitations of Learning Policy by Comparison’, Urban Planning, 5 (1), pp. 11–21. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i1.2656en
dc.referencesBERISHA, E., COTELLA, G., JANIN RIVOLIN, U. and SOLLY, A. (2021), ‘Spatial governance and planning systems in the public control of spatial development: a European typology’, European Planning Studies, 29 (1), pp. 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1726295en
dc.referencesBÖHME, K. (2002), Nordic Echoes of European Spatial Planning: Discursive Integration in Practice, Stockholm: Nordregio, https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/19205/19205_nordecofe.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [accessed on: 10.10.2022].en
dc.referencesBÖHME, K. and WATERHOUT, B. (2008), ‘The Europeanization of Planning’, [in:] FALUDI, A. (ed.), European Spatial Research and Planning, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. 225–248.en
dc.referencesCEC (1997), The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.en
dc.referencesCOTELLA, G. and JANIN RIVOLIN, U. (2011), ‘Europeanization of Spatial Planning through Discourse and Practice in Italy’, disP – The Planning Review, 47 (186), pp. 42–53. http://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2011.10557143en
dc.referencesDALLHAMMER, E., GAUGITSCH, R., NEUGEBAUER, W. and BÖHME, K. (2018), Spatial planning and governance within EU policies and legislation and their relevance to the New Urban Agenda, Brussels: European Committee of the Regions, https://cor.europa.eu/en/engage/studies/Documents/Spatial-planning-new-urban-agenda.pdf [accessed on: 10.02.2023].en
dc.referencesDAVIES, H.W.E.(ed.) (1989), Planning Control in Western Europe, London: HMSO.en
dc.referencesDÜHR, S., COLOMB, C. and NADIN, V. (2010), European Spatial Planning and Territorial -Cooperation, London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203895290en
dc.referencesEuropean Commission (2022), Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic And Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of EU macro-regional strategies, Brussels: European Commission, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52022DC0705&from=EN [accessed on: 10.02.2023].en
dc.referencesERNSTE, H. (2012), ‘Framing Cultures of Spatial Planning’, Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), pp. 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661194en
dc.referencesESPON (2018), COMPASS – Comparative Analysis of Territorial Governance and Spatial Planning Systems in Europe, Final Report, Luxembourg: ESPON, https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/1.%20COMPASS_Final_Report.pdf [accessed on: 10.10.2022].en
dc.referencesESPON (2013): TANGO – Territorial Approaches for New Governance, Final Report, Luxembourg: ESPON, https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/ESPON_TANGO_Executive_summary_Final.pdf [accessed on: 10.02.2023].en
dc.referencesEU MINISTERS (2020), The New Leipzig Charter – The transformative power of cities for the common good, adopted at the Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Matters on 30 November Germany.en
dc.referencesFALUDI, A. (2004), ‘Spatial Planning Traditions in Europe: Their Role in the ESDP Process’, International Planning Studies, 9 (2–3), pp. 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356347042000311758en
dc.referencesFALUDI, A. and WATERHOUT, B. (2002), The Making of the European Spatial Development Perspective: No Masterplan, London: Routledge.en
dc.referencesFALUDI, A. (2011), ‘Cohesion, Coherence, Cooperation: European Spatial Planning Coming of Age?’, RTPI Library Series, Oxon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203842324en
dc.referencesFALUDI, A. (2013), ‘Territorial cohesion, territorialism, territoriality, and soft planning: a critical review’, Environment and Planning A, 45 (6), pp. 1302–1317. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45299en
dc.referencesFALUDI, A. (2016), ‘Territorial governance challenging government’, [in:] SCHMITT, P. and VAN WELL L.(eds.), Territorial governance across Europe. Pathways, practices and prospects, London: Routledge, pp. 27–39. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716220en
dc.referencesFARINÓS DASÍ, J. (ed.) (2006), ESPON project 2.3.2 Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies from EU to Local Level, Final Report, Luxembourg: ESPON. https://www.espon.eu/sites/default/files/attachments/fr-2.3.2_final_feb2007.pdf [accessed on: 10.02.2023].en
dc.referencesFRANK, A., MIRONOWICZ, A., LOURENÇO, J., FRANCHINI, T., ACHE, P., FINKA, M., SCHOLL, B. and GRAMS, A. (2014), ‘Educating planners in Europe: A review of 21st century study programmes’, Progress in Planning, 91, pp. 30–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2013.05.001en
dc.referencesFÜRST, D. (2009), ‘Planning Cultures on route to a better comprehension of «planning process»?’, [in:] KNIELING, J. and OTHENGRAFEN, F. (eds.), Planning cultures in Europe: Decoding Cultural Phenomena in Urban and Regional Planning, Rarnham: Ashgate, pp. 23–38. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315246727en
dc.referencesGÄNZLE, S. and KERN, K. (eds.) (2016), A ’Macro-regional’ Europe in the making: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Evidence, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-50972-7en
dc.referencesGETIMIS, P. (2012), ‘Comparing Spatial Planning Systems and Planning Cultures in Europe. The Need for a Multi-scalar Approach’, Planning Practice and Research, 27 (1), pp. 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.659520en
dc.referencesHARRISON, J., GALLAND, D.and TEWDWR-JONES, M. (2020), ‘Regional planning is dead: Long live planning regional futures’, Regional Studies, 55 (1), pp. 6–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1750580en
dc.referencesHAUGHTON, G., ALLMENDINGER, P., COUNSELL, D.and VIGAR, G.(2010), The New Spatial Planning. Territorial Management with Soft Spaces and Fuzzy Boundaries, London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203864425en
dc.referencesHELEY, J. (2013), ‘Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries and spatial governance in post devolution Wales’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37 (4), pp. 1325–1348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01149.xen
dc.referencesJANIN RIVOLIN, U. (2012), ‘Planning Systems as Institutional Technologies: a Proposed Conceptualization and the Implications for Comparison’, Planning Practice and Research, 27 (1), pp. 63-85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661181en
dc.referencesKNIELING, J. and OTHENGRAFEN, F. (2016), ‘EN route to a theoretical model for comparative research on planning cultures’, [in:] KNIELING, J. and OTHENGRAFEN, F. (eds.), Planning cultures in Europe. Decoding cultural phenomena in urban and regional planning, London, New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315246727en
dc.referencesKUNZMANN, K. (2006), ‘The Europeanisation of spatial Planning’ [in:] ADAMS, N., ALDEN, J. and HARRIS, N.(eds.), Regional development and spatial planning in an enlarged European Union, Hamshire: ASHGATE.en
dc.referencesLARSSON, G. (2006), Spatial planning systems in Western Europe, Amsterdam: Ios Press.en
dc.referencesMETZGER, J. and SCHMITT, P. (2012), ‘When soft spaces harden: The EU strategy for the Baltic Sea Region’, Environment and Planning A, 44 (2), pp. 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44188en
dc.referencesNADIN, V. (2006), The Role and Scope of Spatial Planning – Literature Review Spatial Plans in Practice Supporting the Reform of Spatial Planning, London: Department for Communities and Local Government.en
dc.referencesNADIN, V. (2012), ‘International comparative planning methodology: Introduction to the theme issue’, Planning Practice and Research, 27 (1), pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.669928en
dc.referencesNADIN, V. and STEAD, D. (2012), ‘European Spatial Planning Systems, Social Models and Learning’, disP – The Planning Review, 44 (172), pp. 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2008.10557001en
dc.referencesNADIN, V. and STEAD, D. (2013), ‘Opening up the Compendium: An evaluation of international comparative planning research methodologies’, European Planning Studies, 21 (10), pp. 1542– 1561. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722958en
dc.referencesNADIN, V., STEAD, D., DABROWSKI, M.and FERNANDEZ-MALDONADO, A.M.(2021), ‘Integrated, adaptive and participatory spatial planning: Trends across Europe’, Regional Studies, 55 (5), pp. 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1817363en
dc.referencesNEWMAN, P. and THORNLEY, A. (1996), Urban planning in Europe: International competition, national systems, and planning projects, London: Routledge.en
dc.referencesOTHENGRAFEN, F. (2016), Uncovering the Unconscious Dimensions of Planning: Using Culture as a Tool to Analyse Spatial Planning Practices, Oxon: Ashgate. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315549347en
dc.referencesOTHENGRAFEN, F. and GALLAND, D. (2019), ‘International Comparative Planning’ [in:] LEIGH, N.G., FRENCH, S.P., GUHATHAKURTA, S.and STIFTEL, B. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of International Planning Education, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315661063en
dc.referencesPERIĆ, A., TRKULJA, S. and ŽIVANOVIĆ, Z. (2021), ‘From conformance to performance? A comparative analysis of the European Union territorial policy trends in Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina’, European Spatial Research and Policy, 28 (2), pp. 21–41. https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.28.2.02en
dc.referencesPÉTI, M.(2011), A területi tervezés és fejlesztés a fenntarthatóság jegyében & stratégiai környezeti vizsgálatok földrajzi szemlélettel, Szeged: JATEPress Kiadó, http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/45347/1/ft_007.pdf [accessed on: 10.02.2023].en
dc.referencesPURKARTHOFER, E. (2016), ‘When soft planning and hard planning meet: Conceptualiszing the encounter of European, national and sub-national planning’, European Journal of Spatial Development, 61, pp. 1–20, https://archive.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereed%20articles/Refereed61.pdf [accessed on: 10.02.2023].en
dc.referencesPURKARTHOFER, E., HUMER, A.and MANTYSALO, R. (2021), ‘Regional planning: An arena of interests, institutions and relations’, Regional Studies, 55 (5), pp. 773–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1875128en
dc.referencesREIMER, M. and BLOTEVOGEL, H. H. (2012), ‘Comparing spatial planning practice in Europe: A plea for cultural sensitization’, Planning Practice and Research, 27 (1), pp. 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.659517en
dc.referencesREIMER, M., PANAGIOTIS, G. and BLOTEVOGEL, H. H. (eds.) (2014a), Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe, New York, Oxon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315852577en
dc.referencesREIMER, M., PANAGIOTIS, G. and BLOTEVOGEL, H. H. (2014b), ‘Conclusion: multiple trends of continuity and change’, [in:] REIMER, M., GETIMIS, P.,and BLOTEVOGEL, H. (eds.), (eds.), Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe, New York, Oxon: Routledge.en
dc.referencesSALAMIN, G.(2018), A földrajzi tér alakításának európaizálódása: Az Európai Unió térbeli stratégiáinak, tervezésének és kohéziós politikájának hatása az európai országok térbeli tervezési rendszereinek transzformációjára (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Gödöllő: Szent István University.en
dc.referencesSALAMIN, G. and PÉTI, M. (2019), ‘Tervkészítéstől a governance-ig: A térbeli tervezés európai fogalma, jelentései és lehetséges hazai kapcsolódásai’, Tér és Társadalom, 33 (3), pp. 7–28. https://doi.org/10.17649/TET.33.3.3175en
dc.referencesSALAMIN, G. (2019), ‘European Trends in Planning - Lessons From a Survey on Changes of Spatial Planning’ (presentation and conference paper), [in:] Planning on the Edge: 13th Biennial of European Towns and Town Planners, 11 to 13 September 2019, Plymouth, UK: Plymouth University, pp. 46-47, https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/15/15367/13th_European_Biennial_of_Towns_and_Town_Planners_2019_Final_Programme.pdf [accessed on: 10.02.2023].en
dc.referencesSALAMIN, G. (2021), ‘Ki a tervező?: A területi és várostervezés (térbeli tervezés) mint szakma és diszciplína Európában’, [in:] SALAMIN, G. and TÓTH, B. (eds.), Városok – tervezés – ingatlanpiac : Az urbanisztika aktuális kérdései, Budapest, HU: Magyar Urbanisztikai Társaság, pp. 13-28.en
dc.referencesSERVILLO, L. A. and BROECK, P. V. D (2012), ‘The social construction of planning systems: A strategic-relational institutionalist approach’, Planning Practice and Research, 27 (1), pp. 41– 61. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661179en
dc.referencesSMAS, L. and SCHMITT, P. (2021), ‘Positioning regional planning across Europe’, Regional Studies, 55 (5), pp. 778–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1782879en
dc.referencesSTEAD, D. (2013), ‘Convergence, Divergence, or Constancy of Spatial Planning? Connecting Theoretical Concepts with Empirical Evidence from Europe’, Journal of Planning Literature, 28 (1), pp. 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412212471562en
dc.referencesSTEAD, D. and COTELLA, G. (2012), ‘Differential Europe: Domestic Actors and Their Role in Shaping Spatial Planning Systems’, disP – The Planning Review, 47 (186), pp. 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2011.10557140en
dc.referencesSTEAD, D. and PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, I. (2016), ‘Shifts in governance and government across Europe’, [in:] SCHMITT, P. and VAN WELL, L. (eds.), Territorial governance across Europe. Pathways, practices and prospects, London: Routledge, pp. 11–26. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716220en
dc.referencesSÜTŐ, A., SZABÓ, P. and SALAMIN, G. (2010), ‘Issues of Territoriality and Territorial Cohesion in the Revision of the TSP and the Territorial Agenda – a Sort of Connection between Geography and Regional Policy’, Forum Geografic, 9 (9), pp. 145–154. https://forumgeografic.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/9/Suto.pdf [accessed on: 10.02.2023].en
dc.referencesTEWDWR-JONES, M. (2001), ‘Complexity and Interdependency in a caleidoscopic Spatial Planning Landscape for Europe’, [in:] ALBRECHTS, L. (ed.), The Changing Institutional Landscape of Planning, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.en
dc.referencesVAN WELL, L. and SCHMITT, P. (2016), ‘Territorial governance across Europe’, [in:] SCHMITT, P.and VAN WELL, L.(eds.), Territorial governance across Europe. Pathways, practices and prospects, London: Routledge, pp. 5–11. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716220en
dc.referencesVERWEIJ, S. and TRELL, E. M. (2019), ‘Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) in spatial planning research and related disciplines: A systematic literature review of applications’, Journal of Planning Literature, 34 (3), pp. 300–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412219841490en
dc.referencesWALSH, C. (2014), ‘Rethinking the spatiality of spatial planning: methodological territorialism and metageographies’, European Planning Studies, 22 (2), pp. 306–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.741568en
dc.referencesWILLIAMS, R. H. (1996), European Union Spatial Policy and Planning, London: Paul Chapman.en
dc.referencesZIMMERBAUER, K. and PAASI, A. (2019), ‘Hard work with soft spaces (and vice versa): probelmatizing the transformating planning spaces’, European Planning Studies, 28 (4), pp. 771–789. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1653827en
dc.contributor.authorEmailgeza.salamin@uni-corvinus.hu
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1231-1952.30.1.03
dc.relation.volume30


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Nazwa:
55-78_Salamin.pdf
Rozmiar:
1.338MB
Format:
PDF
Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0