Search

For decades, the European Union has affected spatial planning in the member states through its environmental policies. To investigate the mechanism by which EU policy becomes joined up to spatial planning, we invoke the concept of 'coupling' from systems and organizational science. We show that coupling is established not only at the EU policymaking level (e.g. within a directive's text), but also during implementation and enforcement. Consequently, it is possible to actively 'manage' coupling either by enhancing its flexibility on paper or by limiting its activation in practice. Drawing on three case studies in the Netherlands, we show that various (de)coupling strategies can be applied, but none are completely satisfactory or risk-free. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National laws, local traditions and practices largely define which spatial planning policies are pursued and how they are carried out. Still, like many other policy areas, an unmistakeable process of Europeanization is underway in planning. On the one hand, informal bottom-up Europeanization is occurring through the increasing interaction between scholars and practitioners and by the growing body of spatial information and analyses available at the European Union (EU) level. On the other hand, formal top-down Europeanization occurs when EU policies – competition, economic development, agriculture, nature protection, air quality, etc. – impact domestic spatial planning systems, policy and practice. In this study, we investigate this second kind of Europeanization, using the case of the Netherlands as an example. Specifically, we construct a map revealing the location of EU sectoral policy using six distinct impact types. We observed that many policies overlap and various inter-sectoral tensions (horizontal coordination) are present. The empirical analysis moreover revealed, in line with recent theoretical literature on multilevel governance, that domestic policies and practices, particularly at the national level, determine the way European policies affect planning. This finding has implications for all member states, but particularly those whose national planning is undergoing fundamental reform. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article aims to highlight the mechanisms through which institutional arrangements influence the morphology of residential development. By comparing the Netherlands, Flanders and North Rhine-Westphalia, which have quite similar socio-economic and landscape characteristics, it investigates how differences in national institutional environments have contributed to differences in the urban morphology of residential areas. This article fits within a broader institutional “turn” in planning research. While most of these studies focus on how institutions affect the behaviour of actors in the process of planning and development, this article focuses on the physical outcomes of these processes. The institutional analysis of physical outcomes suggests that urban morphology is not only linked to planning systems—the subject of this special issue—but also to housing cultures and property regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]