Speaker
Description
Spatial planning is frequently characterised as a lengthy, bureaucratic process with ambiguous outcomes and insufficient tools for implementation. The enduring question of “Does planning deliver?” alongside concerns about plan evaluation has persisted over the decades (see, for instance, Faludi 2000). Composing a spatial plan, whether for a railway, offshore wind farm, or historic residential area, often requires years of effort and significant financial investment. How can we enhance the societal value of spatial planning and expand its beneficiaries? Why is it that despite large-scale developments typically yielding more winners than losers, public planning processes often amplify only the voices of opponents?
Research indicates that successful planning implementation depends largely on public and political support, input of financial and human resources and a clear legal framework for implementation (van Rij et al., 2008; Bengston and Youn, 2006 in Hersperger et al 2018). Furthermore, the organizational culture of the leading party plays an increasingly critical role in success, as illustrated by the reorganization of Rijkswaterstaat’s identity and the Room for the River program in the Netherlands (van den Brink 2009). Inspired by the adaptive management approach in infrastructure planning (Groot et al. 2020), our study explores the potential for additional organisational support in spatial planning.
We propose establishing a coordinating organisation the early stages of planning could enhance to enhance the value capture of plans. Such an entity could assist public authorities by analysing solutions, garnering support for ideas, and facilitating plan implementation. The successful execution of plans, particularly those addressing broad and general areas, requires coordinated efforts from diverse stakeholders and systematic contributions toward shared goals. Beyond the public sector and developers, the active participation of local residents, entrepreneurs, and other stakeholders is essential. The coordinating organisation would aim to expand the circle of beneficiaries, fostering a sense of ownership among as many stakeholders as possible. However, risks remain, as public authorities may align too closely with particular interests, potentially compromising their impartiality and discretion in planning.
Focusing on real-time examples from Estonia, we examine the advantages and challenges of this concept. Our findings suggest that well-designed organisational support can significantly enhance the societal benefits of spatial planning, making the resource- and time-intensive process more effective and inclusive.
References
Bengston, D., Youn, Y.C (2006). Urban containment policies and the protection of natural areas: the case of Seoul's greenbelt. Ecol. Soc. 11 (1).
Faludi, A (2000). The Performance of Spatial Planning. Planning Practice & Research, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 299–318.
Groot, de B; Leendertse, W; Arts, J (2020). Building Adaptive Capacity through Learning in Project-Oriented Organisations in Infrastructure Planning. Urban Planning (ISSN: 2183–7635) 2020, Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 33–45 DOI: 10.17645/up.v5i1.2523
Hersperger, A M; Oliveira, E; Pagliarin, S; Palka, G; Berburg, P; Bolliger, J; Gradinaru, S (2018). Urban land-use change: The role of strategic spatial planning. Global Environmental Change 51 (2018) 32–42
van Rij, E., Dekkers, J., Koomen, E (2008). Analysing the success of open space preservation in the Netherlands: the Midden‐Delfland case. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie 99 (1), 115–124.
van den Brink, M 2009. Rijkswaterstaat on the Horns of a Dilemma. Eburon Academic Publishers, Utrecht.
| Keywords | Value capture; implementation; adaptive management in planning; evaluation |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
