Speaker
Description
The overarching planning system, i.e. the legal framework that regulates the formal planning process, the distribution of responsibilities among public and private stakeholders through property rights and obligations, relates closely to the impacts planners and architects can have on urban development through their proposals. With the gaining prominence of achieving sustainable urban development goals in the past decades, the legal frameworks enabling or preventing these goals have moved to the center of discussions in many countries. Sustainability goals do not only necessitate innovative design solutions, but also robust legal frameworks that facilitate the effective implementation of such projects. Increasingly, it is the planning systems that are being criticized for hindering sustainable urban development pathways as they are still tied to logics such as urban expansion or low density. Therefore, a closer assessment of planning systems with regard to how they enable or prevent sustainable urban development is key to identify pathways towards the achievement of ambitious political and societal goals.
While the role and impacts of individual cities in achieving sustainable urbanization goals is being broadly discussed (e.g. Wittwer, Hofer, and Kaufmann 2023; Krantz and Gustafsson 2021), the focus on overarching planning systems are only rarely compared. Comparative approaches focus on systemic differences usually in culturally or geographically heterogenous contexts (e.g. Brazil-Germany: Zimmermann and Momm 2022; U.S.-Germany: Schmidt and Buehler 2007; or Netherlands-England: Thomas and Tvrdý 2012). However, a focus on planning systems in similar cultural and economic context with mutual goals for sustainable urbanization is rare. It is thus unclear, which elements of planning systems are discussed to enable or prevent sustainable urbanization pathways in similar context with different planning systems. Rather, differences themselves are often themed and explained with regard to the cultural contexts (de Vries 2015).
Therefore, this contribution aims to discuss policies in different planning systems with specific regard to sustainable urban development in a comparative approach. For this, the question 'how do different planning systems enable sustainable urban development in similar geographical, economic and political settings?' is pursued. Questions with regard to the mechanisms of the planning system to coordinate land policy for sustainable urbanization from local to national level are addressed. Based on a regional case study on urbanization processes along the French German border (Jehling and Hecht 2022), a literature review on specific land policies is conducted.
For this, the French and German planning systems are taken as a case study that allows insights due to the two countries’ similar economic and geographic settings within the European Union while having two different planning systems. An examination of the two formal planning systems is conducted and combined with a literature review on how they enable or prevent key land policies like the French loi ALUR (2014) or the German Building Land Mobilisation Act (2021).
While in Germany, federal states are given much planning powers, in France the formerly highly centralized structure has been transformed to a more local and regional planning approach (Gustedt and Paris 2022). The two countries are frequently characterized as the “regional-economic” type that prioritizes economic and social objectives in space through strong institutions in the planning systems (Geppert 2014). However, as our empirical results show, the two planning systems face key differences in planning hierarchies and administrative structure. In the case of affordable housing, the French system for example creates specific targets for municipalities, while German land policies tend to provide tools in the planning system for municipalities to be implemented at their disposal, resulting in different effectivities in the two planning systems with regards to achieving political and societal goals.
References
de Vries,J.,2015.Planning and Culture Unfolded:The Cases of Flanders and the Netherlands. EuropeanPlanningStudies23,2148–2164.https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1018406
Demazière,C.,Sykes,O.,2021.Acting for cities and towns?The perpetual reinvention of categories and tools of national urban policies in France,in:A Modern Guide to National Urban Policies in Europe.EdwardElgarPublishing,pp.34–57.
Geppert,A. 2014.France, drifiting away from the “Regional Economic” approach, in: Reimer,M.,Getimis,P.,Blotevogel,H.H.(Eds.),Spatial Planning Systems and Practices in Europe.ARL,Hannover,pp.109–126.
Gustedt,E.,Paris,D.,2022.Institutional differences in Germany and France:Between spatial reform and persistence,in:Gustedt,E.,Grabski-Kieron,U.,Demazière,C.,Paris,D.(Eds.),Cities and Metropolises in France and Germany,ARL,Hannover,pp.23–39.
Heinelt,H.,Zimmermann,K.,2021.National urban policies in a federal system:the case of Germany,in:Zimmermann,K.,Fedeli,V.(Eds.),A Modern Guide to National Urban Policies in Europe.EdwardElgar,Cheltenham,pp.14–33.
Jehling,M.,Hecht,R.,2022.Do land policies make a difference?A data-driven approach to trace effects on urban form in France and Germany.EnvironmentAndPlanningB:UrbanAnalyticsAndCityScience49,114–130.https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808321995818
Krantz,V.,Gustafsson,S.,2021.Localizing the sustainable development goals through an integrated approach in municipalities:early experiences from a Swedish forerunner.JournalOfEnvironmentalPlanningAndManagement64,2641–2660.https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1877642
Russel,P.,Williams,B.,2021.Acting for cities and towns?The perpetual reinvention of categories and tools of national urban policies in France,in:Zimmermann,K.,Fedeli,V.(Eds.),A Modern Guide to National Urban Policies in Europe.EdwardElgar,Cheltenham,pp.34–57.
Schmidt,S.,Buehler,R.,2007.The Planning Process in the US and Germany:A Comparative Analysis.InternationalPlanningStudies12,55-75.https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470701346592
Thomas,D.,Tvrdý,M.,2012.Flexibility and Commitment in Planning:A Comparative Study of Local Planning and Development in the Netherlands and England.SpringerScience&BusinessMedia.
Wittwer,S.,Hofer,K.,Kaufmann,D.,2023.An urban take on sustainable development policies and corresponding positioning strategies.npjUrbanSustain3,1–7.https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-022-00080-y
Zimmermann,K.,Momm,S.,2022.Planning systems and cultures in global comparison.The case of Brazil and Germany.InternationalPlanningStudies27,213–230.https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2022.2042212
| Keywords | land policy; comparative approach; planning systems |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
