Search

Urban co-production, through which citizens contribute with the public institutions to the planning or governance of the city, is a growing practice throughout Europe. However, apart from the more widespread and spontaneous 'co-city' model, only a few countries have adopted state policies of urban co-production. A comparative inquiry of the European spatial governance and planning systems (SGPSs) highlights at least three possible types of correlation between systems and urban co-production. Urban co-production as a state policy appears to take shape only in countries with SGPSs characterized by a greater capacity for public control over spatial development. Moreover, only SGPSs that allocate land rights on a case-by-case basis seem able to ensure that co-production operates within (and not outside) the system itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper shows that, in principle, better public control in planning tends to contain land consumption in the medium-long term, thus confirming the reliability of the typology of spatial governance and planning systems in Europe recently proposed in this journal. That typology, covering 39 countries classified into five types of system by decreasing capacity for public control, is here related to the variation of land consumption in the respective countries over approximately 20 years. The result of the quantitative comparison is interpreted and refined through a qualitative analysis aimed at explaining the apparent anomalies. The results of the analysis generally verify the investigated correlation. Ultimately, to give substance to the declared commitment to curb or reduce land consumption, political attention should also be paid to the quality of the institutional technologies that can work to this end. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inadequate regulation of spatial development is at the origin of the current global crisis and increases, in years of crisis, the unequal distribution of wealth. The importance of the related risks for democracy draw attention to the systems of spatial governance and planning, through which States regulate spatial development. In Europe, the countries most affected by the unequal effects of the crisis have spatial planning systems that are traditionally based on the preventive assignation of rights for land use and development through a plan. The systems of other countries had established beforehand that new rights for land use and for spatial development are rather assigned only after the public control of development projects and their distributional effects. Despite the evidence that some models can operate better than others in ensuring public government of spatial development, the improvement of spatial planning systems is, however, limited by their complex nature of ‘institutional technologies’. Especially in a context of crisis, planners are responsible for the increase in public awareness concerning the role of spatial governance in economic and social life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spatial planning systems have become the subject of much comparative research in recent years. This has resulted in very general classifications, while a definition of the subject of comparison remains vague. Any attempt at comparative evaluation has proved therefore to be difficult and controversial, impeding further theoretical and institutional progress. Against this backdrop, the present contribution is aimed as an effort towards conceptualization. The notion of ‘institutional technology’ is adopted in order to understand planning systems as specific social constructs, thus encompassing also the shaping of respective planning cultures. Implications for analysis and comparison are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two planning system models currently cohabit in Europe: a more traditional and widespread one, aspiring to 'conform' single projects to a collective strategy; and a different and less institutionalised one, promoting those projects capable of 'performing' a collective strategy. Historical and cultural reasons may explain the major diffusion and persistence of the former, but current needs of territorial governance lead to consider the latter as preferable. This is especially so in the light of the EU integration process, such cohabitation is no longer bearable and conforming ambitions should be definitively abandoned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the functions of spatial governance and planning systems are generalizable, 30 years of comparative studies, especially in Europe, have shown the heterogeneity characterising these 'institutional technologies'. This contribution builds on the materials of the recently concluded ESPON COMPASS research project to propose a European typology on the capacity of public authorities to control spatial development, a crucial aspect for the life of entire cities, regions and countries. Based on the opinions expressed by respective national experts, the systems of 39 countries (28 EU and 11 non-EU) are compared in relation to the mechanisms to allocate land use and spatial development rights as well as to the prevalence of the state vs. the market in guiding the development decisions. As a result, the European systems are placed on an X-Y diagram, which makes it possible to cluster them in consistent types that raise new comparative observations and general findings. In summary, the capacity for public control of spatial development looks variegated in Europe, although limited overall. Even if the power relations between state and market established in each institutional context are certainly influential, the models adopted for allocating spatial development rights also play a role in determining the observed trends. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]