文档库 最新最全的文档下载
当前位置:文档库 › 欧洲城市规划政策Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional Governance in Europe

欧洲城市规划政策Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional Governance in Europe

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e513127109.html,/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpa20

Download by: [University of Liverpool]

Date:

13 January 2016, At: 06:28

Journal of the American Planning Association

ISSN: 0194-4363 (Print) 1939-0130 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e513127109.html,/loi/rjpa20

Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional Governance in Europe

Louis Albrechts , Patsy Healey & Klaus R. Kunzmann

To cite this article: Louis Albrechts , Patsy Healey & Klaus R. Kunzmann (2003) Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional Governance in Europe, Journal of the American Planning Association,69:2, 113-129, DOI: 10.1080/01944360308976301

To link to this article:

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e513127109.html,/10.1080/01944360308976301

Published online: 13 Oct 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2287

View related articles

Citing articles: 75 View citing articles

Strategic Spatial Planning and Regional

Governance in Europe

Louis Albrechts, Patsy Healey, and Klaus R. Kunzmann

I

n this article, we discuss the recent experience of planning and the devel-opment of strategic spatial development frameworks for city regions in Europe. We first explain the context and forces behind the revival of interest in this level of planning. We then describe three examples. We con-clude by summarising the motivations behind the examples, drawing gen-eral lessons.

Rethinking Place, Territory, and Governance in an Expanding Europe

During the 1980s in Europe, it was often said that strategic planning was in limbo (Healey et al., 1997; Salet & Faludi, 2000). Instead, urban and regional planning practices focused on projects—especially for the revival of rundown parts of cities and regions—and on land use regulation. But by the end of the century, new efforts were underway in many parts of Europe to produce strategies for cities, subregions, and regions (Salet &Faludi, 2000). Often these efforts involve the construction of new institu-tional arenas within structures of government that are themselves chang-ing. The motivations for these new efforts are varied, but the objectives have typically been to articulate a more coherent spatial logic for land use regu-lation, resource protection, and investments in regeneration and infra-structure. Strategic frameworks and visions for territorial development, with an emphasis on place qualities and the spatial impacts and integration of investments, complement and provide a context for speci?c development projects.

APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2113

Barrie Maguire’s image of a woman stitching together the Irish landscape reflects the central question behind this Longer View: What will recent stra-tegic spatial planning efforts in Europe give us? In the case of Northern Ire-land, the quilt sewn from separate pieces of the landscape might repre-sent that state’s desire to establish cohesion while respecting diversity. Al-brechts, Healy, and Kunzmann show that there and elsewhere, spatial plan-ning efforts are stitching together new regional patterns for many parts of Europe.

Maguire is a graduate of Notre Dame University and comes from a family of artists. He has worked as a creative director at Hallmark Cards, a book designer and illustrator, and a news-paper editorial illustrator. Since visit-ing Ireland in 1998, he has focused on painting. He lives in Pennsylvania, and more of his work can be seen on his family’s Web site, https://www.wendangku.net/doc/e513127109.html,.

This article examines recent experi-ences in Europe in the preparation and use of strategic spatial frameworks to

guide territorial development in city

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

These efforts revive a well-developed capacity in many parts of Europe for government-led strategic interventions at the urban and regional level.Such efforts build on Europe’s “strong state” traditions, particularly in the welfare states of the North West, as well as enduring political-cultural asso-ciations with city and region. This capacity is now being used in new ways to reposition cities and regions in the expanding economic and political land-scape of the European Union (EU) and of globalising economic relations.These strategic efforts are also part of a movement to recompose governance relations, to break away from the functional/sectoral organisation typical of many national and regional/local governments, and to widen governance relations to incorporate in new ways signi?cant economic and local com-munity stakeholders. They also re?ect a recognition of the eroding in?u-ence of national party politics in local political organisation and respond to reductions in national-level ?nance for local government.

The focus on the spatial relations of territories holds the promise of a more effective way of integrating economic, environmental, cultural, and so-cial policy agendas as these affect localities. It also carries a potential for a “rescaling” of issue agendas down from the national or state level and up from the municipal level. This process may involve strengthening a scale at the level of broad regions, similar to U.S. and German states. Or it may mean strength-ening a subregional development focus, the level of land and labour markets.A territorial focus also provides a promising basis for encouraging levels of government to work together and in partnership with actors in diverse posi-tions in the economy and civil society (Fürst, 2001; Kunzmann, 2001b).

There are several driving forces behind these efforts (see Figure 1). Some relate to dominant policy agendas in the EU and European nation states.The in?uence of the “competitiveness” agenda has been widespread in Eu-rope, underpinning much investment in infrastructure and urban redevel-opment. The focus on city and region relates to well-established arguments about the importance of place qualities in economic development. In Eu-rope, the environmental agenda is also strong, linked in part to the environ-mental movement’s emphasis on sustainable resource use and in part to cit-izen movements concerned with the quality of life in places. This focus on place is linked in turn to a political-cultural momentum to reassert the im-portance of regional/local identity and image in the face of European inte-gration and globalisation.

These motivations are complemented by the agenda of government re-organisation mentioned above. Forms of multilevel governance have a long history in Europe. Contemporary efforts at rescaling involve a double move-ment: to reduce hierarchies of levels while building stronger institutional capacity at regional and subregional levels, sometimes involving transna-tional cooperation. This is associated with the search for new concepts to drive policy integration (also called joined-up policy). Sustainable development has become a widely used term expressing the concept of potential for cre-ating a positive-sum strategy combining economic, environmental, and so-cial objectives in their spatial manifestation. Territorial development holds the promise of translating this concept into speci?c investment programmes and regulatory practices. This search for new scales of policy articulation and new policy concepts is also linked to attempts to widen the range of ac-tors involved in policy processes, with new alliances, stakeholder partner-ships, and consultative processes. It may respond to changes in ?ows of tax revenues or to concerns to rebuild connections between the state, the econ-omy, and civil society.

LOUIS ALBRECHTS, PATSY HEALEY, AND KLAUS R. KUNZMANN

114APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

duce principles of spatial development that address the above issues has been vigourously promoted within the European Union by EU and national-level civil servants and their advisers from the various national planning-policy communities. This potential is especially evident in the production of the European Spatial Development Per-spective (ESPD ). This document articulated the sustain-able development ideal in a way that combined the EU’s objectives of economic competitiveness, environmental

sustainability, and social cohesion (Committee for Spa-tial Development [CSD], 1999; Faludi & Waterhout,2002). The spatial expression of this direction was the concept of balanced development , which offered the prom-ise of development foci across the regions of the EU,while at the same time promoting the dynamism of the major growth zones on the continent. This general approach is developed through concepts of polycentric de-velopment , redefining urban-rural relations, securing access to infrastructure and knowledge (including trans-European communications), and at the same time promoting more compact development and resource conservation. The ESDP also puts a strong emphasis on encouraging partnership in governance forms.

Within the spatial planning policy community, at the European level, much of the discussion promoting a stronger spatial approach to spatial development em-phasises forces arising from national, European, and global shifts in economic organisation, social values, and political organisation. What is less clear is the extent to which these exercises are a local response to pressing problems experienced locally and articulated by local po-litical processes. This raises the question of the leverage that these strategic spatial planning exercises will have over time. They are, in effect, mobilisation exercises to articulate new policy frames and new policy relations.They tend to be associated with centre-left governments,which give more emphasis to strategy and to social ob-jectives. Two critical questions must be asked about these exercises: What is their power to shape project pro-posals, budget allocations, and regulatory practices across a whole array of actors, both within and beyond the areas for which they are drawn up? Do they have the persuasive power to shift territorial development trajec-tories, or, as some argue (Kunzmann, 2001a, 2001b,2001c), are they little more than a cosmetic covering that hides the growing disparities evolving within Europe?The European experiences provide a fertile laboratory to advance understanding of the nature and potential of strategic spatial frameworks and strategies for 21st-century conditions, but the above questions can be ad-dressed only by looking at speci?c examples.

Innovative Exemplars

We have selected three cases, all of which are gener-ally considered innovative, and all of which involve a strong local momentum. The ?rst case is from the state of Lower Saxony in Germany, a federal nation in which states have substantial powers. More than 80% of the German people live in cities and their hinterlands. Most German city regions are searching for new territorial vi-sions, sustainable development paradigms, and accept-

APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2115

STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

able ways of intraregional cooperation. Strategic spatial planning is a key component of political and adminis-trative efforts in city regions to guide their development processes. The city region of Hanover is probably the best known example of the success of political efforts to raise the ef?ciency of strategic planning in German city regions. Bene?ting from its status as a state capital, its relative economic wealth, its thoroughly pragmatic po-litical culture and leadership, and, last but not least, its well-quali?ed and integrated professional administra-tive elite, Hanover has always been at the forefront of re-gional planning cultures. Although in Germany the term strategic planning as such is not used for spatial planning—rather, it is called Leitbildentwicklung (paradigm develop-ment)—regional planning in the Hanover area, in the context of established statutory regional planning proc-esses at both state and city region levels, is visionary and strategic in its long-term goals and participatory and pragmatic when it comes to implementation. Hanover provides an example of visionary incrementalism , a solid combination of long-term visions and short-term prag-matism. Building on a long tradition of regional coop-eration around spatial strategy, key actors in the city region of Hanover have been able to avoid the political marginalisation that has overtaken well-established spa-tial planning systems elsewhere in Germany at the start of the 21st century.

Our second case is from the Flanders region in Bel-gium. In the past, land use planning in Belgium has been relatively weak, focused around managing coexistence among individual development projects. Flanders, sim-ilar in size to a German state, has traditionally operated with a highly localised practice of largely regulatory plan-ning, tolerant of dispersed development. The case repre-sents an innovation, both institutionally and in terms of strategic concepts. It involves a transition from a fairly traditional regulatory land use planning system to the provision of a more strategic framework, from the prac-tice of allowing dispersed development to the concept of managing growth according to sustainable develop-ment principles, and from rather closed processes to more open processes involving larger numbers of stake-holders (households, departments of government, ?rms,pressure groups, agencies, etc.) in the production of space and place qualities. Moreover, within an ongoing process of federalisation in Belgium, the case has helped create a clear regional identity and image for Flanders.Within Europe, the initiative has been recognised through awards from the European Commission and the European Council of Town Planners.

Our third case is from the UK, with its well-devel-oped regulatory planning system but ill-developed are-nas for regional policy formulation and weak traditions

of spatial strategy. The example involves the develop-ment of a regional development strategy for the Prov-ince of Northern Ireland. This exercise is the ?rst in a new wave of British regional spatial strategies (Department of Transport, Local Government and the Region, 2001).It has been strongly in?uenced by the ESDP and is used within the UK and the European Union as an exemplar.It has been awarded prizes in the UK for its achievement.It has reframed policy agendas in the province, intro-duced the concept of a spatial development strategy into the UK and has helped to shift a governance culture. Its con-text, however, is very different from that of the rest of the UK. It arises from the very distinctive social and political context of a new hope for peace and devolved govern-ment in a divided society with a continuing experience of violent sectarian con?ict. It therefore offers a striking example of the interplay of national and European plan-ning policy ideas with the speci?cities of the local.

In the following sections, we present a cameo of the experience of each case. We discuss their contexts and motivations, policy approaches and concepts adopted,and the institutional arenas within which the strategy was articulated. In each case, we comment on speci?c im-pacts and outcomes, before turning in the ?nal section to the lessons to be drawn from each case in relation to the wider European experience.

Effective Collaborations: The City Region of Hanover 1

Context

For more than half a century, Germany has bene-?ted from a well-established multitier planning system,where legally based spatial planning is undertaken at the federal, state, regional, and local government tiers. Spa-tial planning at the federal, state, and regional tiers is ba-sically physical planning. Each tier formulates spatial de-velopment goals and principles of implementation and assigns uses to space. This is done in a complex system of time-consuming, top-down and bottom-up procedures,following well-established principles within legitimised parliamentary decision making processes at the federal and state levels, but with little public involvement be-yond the representative democratic system and the lob-bying power of the private sector.2A strong constitu-tional system of federal devolution gives much legal and economic power to the 16 Lander (states). Accordingly,they plan the development of their territories quite in-dependently from national ministries. The Hanover case is an example of policy formation through long-stand-ing institutional arrangements built at the city region level within the state of Lower Saxony.

LOUIS ALBRECHTS, PATSY HEALEY, AND KLAUS R. KUNZMANN

116APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

Driving Forces

The key motivation behind the effort in building the institutional arenas and practices of a collaborative city region was the desire on the part of the administrative heads of the three local powers—the City of Hanover, the County of Hanover, and the already-existing Intercom-munal Association of Greater Hanover 3—to change the established administrative arrangements between the powerful administration of the state of Lower Saxony and self-interested local governments. The protagonists aimed to modernise and streamline the administrative system in order to raise the city region’s ef?ciency. They also sought to develop a joint approach to the location of city region facilities, such as leisure developments, logis-tics complexes, and out-of-town retail centres. Drawing on 38 years of experience of intercommunal cooperation,they anticipated the growing challenge of international city competition and developed a concept for a better planned and more ef?ciently organised city region. A fur-ther motivation was to make more effective and collabo-rative use of the eroding local tax base. Key actors also expected that a new regional entity would sharpen the external and international pro?le of the city region. The driving forces for change thus came ?rmly from below,curtailing the in?uence of the state-level government.

Policy Approach and Concepts

This alliance at the city region level focused on two strategic initiatives. The ?rst initiative was a traditional comprehensive spatial Leitbild (spatial paradigm or framework), the Regionales Raumordnungsprogramm (Re-gional Planning Program). In 1996, this strategy re-placed earlier strategies approved in 1967 and 1975. It was developed in a complex process of workshops and forums. It is formally embedded in the Lower Saxony Landesentwicklungsplan (state development plan). Based on a thorough analysis of regional strengths and weak-nesses, different future scenarios were developed with alternative approaches to regional spatial organisation.This lead to a single spatial Leitbild that combined the lo-cational potentials of the City of Hanover and those of the surrounding 20 local governments. This strategy de-?ned the pattern of settlements, assigned functions to spaces, identi?ed locations for development, suggested intercommunal and interregional cooperation, and de-veloped some ideas for regional mobility (see Figure 2).In 2001, a supplementary Regionales Einzelhandelskonzept (regional retail concept) was approved as a legally bind-ing addition to the elaborated spatial Leitbild . This con-cept was the outcome of a 3-year effort by local govern-ments in the city region to agree on the relative positions of centres within the region and on the locations of retail outlets, shopping centres, and big-box retailers.

The Regionales Raumordnungsprogramm 1996for the city region of Hanover is a strategic spatial planning document of considerable political importance. It was prepared through long discussions among the many re-gional actors. When ?nalised in 1996, it found unani-mous political approval and has since served as a legal base for guiding spatial development in the city region. It has provided the information base for day-to-day deci-sions of spatial relevance. It is now being revised, as its legal validity expires in 2004. This revision provides the opportunity to respond to new challenges, such as the threat of demographic stagnation or even decline, the un-equal use of public infrastructure, the continuing prob-lem of decisions about out-of-town shopping develop-ments, and the location of large, visually intrusive wind energy installations. Learning from previous shortcom-ings, the ongoing process will give much more attention to communicating the process of regional spatial plan-ning to the regional public, via the Internet and easy-to-read brochures. In addition, the Region Hannover (de-scribed below) will intensify cooperation with the cities in the wider region in order to improve regional transport mobility, to agree on new green?eld developments, and to better control out-of-town shopping developments.

The second initiative, the forum Region Hannover 2001, was developed within the framework of the Re-gionales Raumordnungsprogramm 1996. This forum pro-duced proposals for the production of a Leitprojecte (cat-alytic action area) for regional spatial development. The forum used the momentum of the World EXPO 2000 in Hanover to produce a consensual regional development strategy, the Zukunftsdialog Region Hannover 2001(2001Forum on the Future of the Hanover Region). To iden-tify suitable projects for the future of the region, the forum established seven working groups with more than 200 participants from the public and private sectors in the city region: housing in the 21st century, multimedia,life sciences, mobility, climate and energy, culture and leisure, and use of World EXPO potentials. They met fre-quently to discuss challenges as well as potentials and suggested a number of catalytic projects for public/private investment in the city region.

Institutional Arenas and Processes

Underpinning these two strategies was the creation in 2000 of a robust regional institutional arena, the Re-gion Hannover . This arena built on the inheritance of the Kommunalverband Gro?raum Hannover (Intercommunal Association of Greater Hanover) that had been set up in 1992 (see note 3). It inserted an additional level within the existing multigovernance context of the city region (see Figure 3). When the Region Hannover was formed,the city region had a population of about 1.1 million, of

APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2117

STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

The region has a president and an elected regional par-liament, with legal power to approve locations for in-vestment. The innovative feature of the new region is its division of tasks between the local governments and the Region Hannover . The compromise found after many years of political bargaining processes was a strengthen-ing of both local governments and regional functions at the expense of the state government. This arrangement has built a strong tradition of collaboration that enables the elaborate discussion processes to proceed effectively.The city region “fathers” bene?ted considerably from the two initiatives described above, although these represent quite different approaches to producing strategic con-cepts for regional spatial development. Practices that

sion had become part of a well-established approach that could then be built on in the future.

Impacts and Outcomes

In contrast to other city regions in Germany, the Hanover region has bene?ted from a long tradition of advanced regional planning approaches, initiated and elaborated by highly professional bureaucracies over decades. The rhetoric of competition for public re-sources and private investments among city regions in Europe proved helpful in speeding up the improvement of the regional planning machinery. However, it has been more the search for territory-based policy integra-tion and ways to strengthen regional identity that moti-

LOUIS ALBRECHTS, PATSY HEALEY, AND KLAUS R. KUNZMANN

118APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2

Source:KGH (2001a)

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2119

STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

vated politicians and planners. The tradition of compe-tent spatial planning in the region since World War II is an institutional inheritance that has allowed incremen-tal institutional approaches to increase the ef?ciency of spatial planning and ?nd broad consensus among the many public and private players and groups in the re-gion. The European spatial planning discourse was of little direct relevance, since this itself was already strongly shaped by established German concepts. The support of strong politicians and civil servants for a re-gional approach has meant that the strategic concepts have been translated effectively into regional land use plans, thereby guiding public and private investments to appropriate locations while conserving landscape and natural resources.

Other city regions in Germany are eagerly monitor-ing the Hanover case and may try to copy its institu-tional solutions. Whether this will be possible, given the particular history of the planning tradition in the Han-over city region, its wealth, and a comparative absence of pressing problems, remains to be seen.

A Catalyst for Change: The 1997Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders 4

Context and Driving Forces

The Flanders case involves building strategic capac-ity at the level of a collection of urban regions. Since the 1970s, Belgium has experienced a shift away from a tight central state towards a new form of government in which the three regions—Flanders, Wallonia, and Brussels—all have considerable autonomy (see Figure 4). Spatial plan-ning, housing, transport, the environment, and regional aspects of economic policy are now the exclusive re-sponsibility of the three regions. Each region has its legislative body (parliament), a government, and its own administration. In Flanders—the second largest region,with an area of 13,522 square kilometres and a 2001 pop-ulation of nearly 6 million—the local government adopted a three-level planning system (region, province,municipality), with spatial structure plans and spatial implementation plans at each level. The development of an overall spatial framework for Flanders as a whole had been on the political agenda for 20 years, but did not re-ally start until 1992. In 1997, the Flemish Government approved the Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen (Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders; Ministerie Vlaamse Gemeen-schap, 1998) with a time horizon of 15 years for the in-dicative part (variations only possible for very important reasons), while the Flemish parliament approved the binding part (variations require a formal revision of the plan). The spatial structure planning approach in Flan-

ders merges innovative local practices with new planning approaches drawn from academic arenas.

The impetus for the spatial structure plan was the widespread recognition of problems in the existing,highly dispersed spatial structure. Postindustrial reor-ganisation, suburbanisation, and the shift to road trans-port had disrupted the traditional pattern of urban net-works in combination with a diversified but coherent system of valleys, woodlands, natural areas, and agricul-tural areas. This disruption resulted in an active and ?ex-ible but, at the same time, highly fragmented space. Ele-ments of the past pattern survive against a background of emptying cities, diffused services, fragmentary net-works, a damaged landscape, and high levels of road use.Urban development sprawls across the rural landscape.The politically recognised key to dealing with the spatial problems in Flanders was found in the frictions between the relative ?xity of local conditions and the dynamics of global processes. What caused the tide to turn was the realisation by different sections in Flemish society (po-litical, scienti?c, economic) of the enormous planning challenges facing Flanders. Located at the nerve centre of Western Europe, Flanders feels the full force of the spectacular restructuring of economic, political, ideo-logical, and social relations that took place at the end of the 20th century. Growth pressures from Germany and the Netherlands spill over into the weakly regulated Flemish territory. Moreover, various sectoral spatial de-mands (housing, industry, transport, etc.) generate sub-stantial additional space requirements 5and take on pro-nounced quantitative signi?cance. To respond to these challenges, a new approach was conceived. The Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders (Ministerie Vlaamse Gemeen-schap, 1998) became the basis around which new coali-tions formed in support of a different con?guration of policies, plans, and programmes and a new spatial con-cept (see Figure 5).

Policy Approach and Concepts

The driving aims behind the spatial structure plan were:

?to stop the ongoing deterioration of the environment;

?to give an acceptable answer to the space demands of the main sectors (housing, economy, nature,agriculture, and infrastructure);

?to change the existing (very negative) attitude toward planning held by in?uential stakeholders by establishing a new planning culture and shifting from passive planning towards a more action-oriented form;

?to introduce sustainability as a new basic attitude;

LOUIS ALBRECHTS, PATSY HEALEY, AND KLAUS R. KUNZMANN

120APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

?to integrate key actors in the planning process;?to introduce a completely new legal planning structure; and

?to provide Flanders with more adequate (spatial)instruments and structures for the ?erce inter-national competition it faces.

The spatial structure plan aims to provide structur-ing principles capable of imposing some order on the current perceived chaos. It seeks to ?nd a new balance through a primary planning concept, deconcentrated clus-tering .6This concept suggests a tension between disper-sion and concentration. A second spatial concept is the recognition of nature, not as a subject of ecological con-cern or as a reserve but as an ordering system . River valleys,rather than any regulatory spatial ordering concept, cur-rently maintain some articulation in the chaos in the pe-riphery. The plan aims to make one coherent structuring framework from the river valleys together with linked open areas and corridors of open space. A third concept is the role of linear infrastructures as a structuring

framework. Categorisation of the road network makes it possible to set priorities: main roads with an emphasis on fast connections and a smooth traf?c ?ow and local roads with an emphasis on local access; safe, slow traf?c;and reduced traf?c noise.

To make use of the central position of Flanders in Europe and to provide Flanders with the necessary instruments for fierce international competition, the planning team conceived the image of a “Flemish Dia-mond.”7They argued that only by combining the com-plementary contributions of a network of Flemish cities (Brussels, Antwerp, and Ghent) would Flanders be able to compete more effectively for inward investment,within the European market as a whole and with other urban networks such as The Randstad, the Rhine-Ruhr area, and Lille-Roubaix-Tourcoing. Evoking these com-parisons was a deliberate rhetorical device: The planning team hoped that by creating a common enemy, the dif-ferent jurisdictions within the Flanders region would be encouraged to join forces and close ranks (see Figure 5).

APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2121

STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

FIGURE 4. Flanders in North West Europe.

Source:Albrechts (2001, p. 104)

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

The strategic spatial planning exercise provided op-portunities for discussing and deciding visions and key questions. It was not based just on traditional planning agency-client interactions,8but took into account the speci?c politics of the area under concern—the institu-tional framework within which these interactions occur.

The open dialogue between the traditional sectoral departments (agriculture, housing, public works, edu-cation, transportation, and economy) introduced new people, alliances, networks, and ideas into the process.In this arena, a strategy was articulated. An important and very supportive actor was the trade unions. They

their sphere of in?uence, so that they have a direct im-pact on the political agenda. They organised special fo-rums on spatial planning, in some of which the planning team participated. Through these discussions of the meaning and the impact of the spatial structure plan for workers and citizens, the trade unions became aware of the stake they had in it. Special arenas were set up for planning administrations and sector administrations at the central and provincial levels. These arenas were tai-lor-made for each administration, starting with the problems they faced and discussing how these problems may be treated through the principles of the spatial

LOUIS ALBRECHTS, PATSY HEALEY, AND KLAUS R. KUNZMANN

122APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2

Source:Ministerie Vlaamsee Gemeenschap (1998)

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

structure plan. This dialogue proved to be extremely suc-cessful in making these administrations aware of what the new approach was really about and in obtaining more bottom-up input in an overwhelmingly top-down process.

The Flemish government commissioned the forma-tion of the Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders (Ministerie Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 1998) to two senior academics,including Louis Albrechts, a co-author of this article.They decided to locate their planning team in the same building as the Flemish Planning Department. In doing so, they built an arena that allowed working for a struc-tural transformation of the planning administration (both in numbers and in dedication to the new ap-proach). This transformation proved to be one of the most important outcomes of the whole process.

Impacts and Outcomes

The Spatial Structure Plan for Flanders gave rise to re-markable learning processes, intense political debate,changes in mentality, and a much larger involvement in planning by local actors. Environmental groups and trade unions became strong and reliable partners against the dominance of traditional economic and agricultural organisations. Many sectoral government departments and local authorities have been overwhelmed by the spa-tial structure plan’s process and are only now beginning to see the consequences of the plan. At the same time they have to absorb a new planning system, a new legal framework, and a different approach, and they have to professionalise to cope with new responsibilities.

The spatial concepts have been in?uential. They pro-vided the discursive key that turned the discussion from one conception (dispersion) to another (clustering). Par-ticular ways of understanding the “costs” of suburban-ization (e.g., for agriculture, loss of productive land; for nature, loss of open space) changed perceptions of policy priorities that helped to change Flemish land use policy.Metaphors (e.g., the “Flemish Diamond”) were used to illustrate the issues and tasks that were at stake. With the introduction of the spatial structure plan, planning has become more proactive. The needs and demands of all the stakeholders were de?ned both analytically and in discussion with some major stakeholders. All this in-volved a shift from a form of planning focused on the regulation of private development (i.e., traditional land use plans, which aim to provide physical solutions to so-cial problems) to a form of spatial development strategy that seeks to work through the interests and strategies of selected stakeholders. The new approach works not by directing what various parties should do, but by fram-ing the activities of stakeholders in an effort to help achieve shared concerns about spatial changes in Flan-

ders. In the new planning laws of 1996 and 1999, the mechanism of the spatial structure plan was introduced,and the approach applied in the plan has become the of-?cial planning approach.

Healing a Divided Society: The Northern Ireland Regional Development Strategy 9

Context and Driving Forces

Northern Ireland is a province of the United King-dom, with a 2001 population of 1.7 million. Sectarian divisions are spatially differentiated at the regional scale,between towns and villages and within the main towns (Belfast and Derry). Sectarian violence, known as “The Troubles,” erupted 30 years ago, leading to the imposi-tion of “government from Westminster” (meaning from London) in the form of the Northern Ireland Executive.A peace process developed momentum in the 1990s, re-sulting in the replacement of the Northern Ireland Ex-ecutive with a new, power-sharing elected government in 1999.

The process of developing the Northern Ireland Re-gional Development Strategy , also called Shaping Our Future (DRDNI, 2002), has the explicit backing of the new UK Labour government.10In enabling legislation, it was given a key role in developing a framework for coordi-nating the activities of the new devolved government to be set up once agreement among the various factions had been reached. Its role was not just the spatial co-ordination of public investment, however. It was also intended to provide a vision for a new, more socially co-hesive and outward looking Northern Ireland. It was pre-ceded by an initiative by the Northern Ireland Executive to prepare a plan for the Belfast Metropolitan Area. A Province-wide strategy held out the promise of consid-ering the Belfast area, which was dominated by one of the province’s sectarian groups, in a wider context of de-velopment opportunities across the whole of Northern Ireland.

The ?nal strategy was approved in September 2001by the new devolved government. Its rhetoric is filled with the double aim of fostering a cohesive society while recognising difference—of places, groups, and identities.The guiding principles of the strategy are:

?taking an approach focused on people and community (recognising the diversity of people and places);

?achieving a more cohesive society (based on

equality of opportunity, spatial equity, a partner-ship approach that is respectful of the sensitivities

APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2123

STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

of a divided community, a more sustainable approach to transport, and an outward-looking perspective); and

?achieving competitiveness (based on investing in “intelligence” and improving accessibility).(DRDNI, 2002, pp. 22–23)

Policy Approaches and Concepts

Shaping Our Future , as developed through a spatial de-velopment strategy , tries to achieve the tricky goal of both focusing on the Belfast Metropolitan Area (BMA) and spreading development—that is, fostering both compet-itiveness and cohesion. The discourse of the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESPD ) provided a valuable resource in articulating this conjunction. A focus on the Belfast city region is justi?ed by the logic of competi-tiveness in a European context (making best use of re-gional assets). Spreading development is justi?ed by the logic of achieving a more cohesive society (promoting balanced and integrated regional development). The spa-tial development strategy is articulated through six themes (see Figure 6) and two sets of spatial organising concepts. The ?rst set of concepts divides the area into

three territories: The BMA, the area around (London)-Derry in the west (a regional hub, and the rural areas (a polycentric network of hubs and clusters). The second set of concepts develops a spatial vocabulary of hubs,corridors, and gateways, drawing on the ESDP . These concepts are drawn into a strong visual statement ,which is unusual in recent UK practice (see Figure 7).

These ideas performed real political work in the con-text of building a legitimate and acceptable framework for the new power-sharing government. But in addition,the strategy has been in?uenced by other rhetorics and policy discourses, notably those of the ESDP and UK na-tional planning policy. In particular, the planning team borrowed from these arenas the vocabulary of sustain-able development, brown?eld land targets, and allocat-ing housing numbers to different parts of the province.The policy approach of Shaping Our Future is thus the re-sult of the interplay of different discourses:

?a speci?c Northern Ireland political discourse

about cohesion, diversity, and the balance between the BMA and the rest of the province;?the concepts developed in the ESDP ;and

LOUIS ALBRECHTS, PATSY HEALEY, AND KLAUS R. KUNZMANN

124APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2

FIGURE 6. Themes of the spatial development strategy in Northern Ireland.

Source:DRDNI (2002, p. 42)

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

planning topics and their treatment in land use regulation.

It nevertheless represents a real effort to overhaul the planning and development agenda in the province and to refocus territorial development policy.

Institutional Arenas and Processes

In the distinctive political context of Northern Ire-land, the Northern Ireland Executive gave special atten-tion to processes for articulating a regional develop-ment strategy. The Northern Ireland Executive had no local representative legitimacy. It was therefore impor-tant to build a constituency for the strategy . The process originated with the planning team in the Northern Ireland Executive. It then spiralled out into intensive consultations, with one major loop encompassing the public sector and well-recognised business lobbies and

sultation with all kinds of voluntary and community groups, using a range of consultation processes. These inputs were ?ltered by the planning team and cast into a draft strategy. Until then, no regional-level planning policy document in the UK had been subject to such a high degree of participation. Nor had one been tested in any kind of public inquiry context. To buttress the legitimacy of the strategy as representing a broad base of support within the province, the planning team decided to take the draft strategy through the kind of public ex-amination process required for UK spatial structure plans. It was at this point that local housebuilders be-came involved. Their pressure initially produced some signi?cant changes to the strategy, notably an increase in the number of dwellings to be accommodated, a re-duction in the acreage targeted for brown?eld develop-ment, and a higher proportion of new dwellings located in the eastern part of the province (Neill & Gordon,

APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2125

STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

Source:DRDNI (2002, p. 45)

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

2001). However, this shift was reversed before final approval.

Impacts and Outcomes

The driving force for Shaping Our Future has been the political project of moving towards a less fractured soci-ety in the context of a power-sharing, devolved govern-ment that aims for a new social cohesion that recognises diversity. The strategy has a local motivation and many local characteristics. Its spatial emphasis has real force because it matters politically and at the ?ne grain where investment goes. But it is also strongly influenced by wider European policy agendas. The European spatial policy discourse, with its spatial vocabulary, provides a way of wrapping a spatial development strategy around the well-established UK approach to policy principles for the regulation of different types of development.

Shaping Our Future deserves the praise it has been given outside Northern Ireland. It has provided a strate-gic focus for infrastructure investment policy. It has given a framework to localities to work out how to posi-tion themselves in a positive way in a new “shared and devolved” political landscape. It has provided a basis for some degree of transdepartmental integration at gov-ernment level. It has helped to change the governance culture towards more participatory practices. And it has provided a goal-focused, transparent argument about investment priorities in a highly charged political envi-ronment. Yet it can also be criticised. Some scholars note the lack of an effective regional economic analysis and criticize the very elaborate development of an integrated strategy, when its impact on investment resources is un-certain and its primary function is to allocate housing quantities among parts of the province (Neill & Gordon,2001). Its spatial development strategy, though impor-tant in rethinking the province in terms of diversity within an integrated approach, nevertheless uses rather traditional spatial concepts (Healey, 2002). Five years after the strategy process started and a year after strat-egy approval, the critical questions are: How it will be used in the future, and what legacy will its preparation process leave behind? Will its framing of policy and its process innovations endure as the politics of devolved government in the province evolve?

Strategic Spatial Governance:The Learning Environment of European Regions

Despite the claim often made that the agenda of eco-nomic competitiveness and European integration has been driving strategic spatial planning initiatives in Eu-

rope, these examples show that this is by no means the dominant direct motivation (see Table 1). Instead, this pressure is transposed into a political project, through a search for ways of strengthening regional identity and cohesion, developing new forms of regional collabora-tion, and promoting city region pro?les internationally.This, in turn, focuses policy attention on the potential of a territorially integrated policy approach, expressed through spatial concepts that can help to reframe pol-icy ideas. In the more af?uent contexts of the Hanover and Flanders regions, citizen and pressure group de-mands for improvements to quality of life and the envi-ronment have also been signi?cant, while in Northern Ireland the yearning for peace has been a powerful force underpinning the political use of the vehicle of a regional development strategy. In Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the UK, the European spatial planning discourse articulated through the ESDP has also been important,partly because of the political value of the concept of bal-anced development, partly because of the EU’s direct in-fluence through the disbursement of the structural funds for which Northern Ireland is eligible, and partly because of the lack of a rich recent tradition of spatial policy concepts in the UK planning discourse. In Flan-ders, new planning concepts were drawn down from aca-demic planning discourse, while in Hanover the policy agenda evolved from a rich local tradition.

Lesson 1

These ?ndings highlight the ?rst general lesson to be drawn from the current European experiences. Stra-tegic spatial planning initiatives may look similar in broad outlines, but they take many different forms, per-forming different kinds of governance work in different contexts. Our examples highlight the importance of the value given to a regional territorial development ap-proach by key local actors and the role of spatial con-cepts within it, rather than the formulaic translation of general concepts into local arenas. If there are many rea-sons why such strategies are being undertaken across Eu-rope at present, the lesson is that local responses matter.Those strategies that are both innovative and transfor-mative and are embedded in local perceptions of chal-lenges and opportunities are more likely to have lasting effects.

Lessons 2 and 3

The second lesson from European experience is that initiatives in strategic spatial planning can liberate in-novative creative forces, but they can also become exer-cises in holding on to the status quo. Our examples were selected to illustrate the former, but without continual renewal and adaptation, the strategic frameworks artic-

LOUIS ALBRECHTS, PATSY HEALEY, AND KLAUS R. KUNZMANN

126APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

tential of strategic spatial planning arises because of the need to build both strong spatial organising concepts and persuasive institutional alliances to carry a strategy across a diffused power context and through time. A crit-ical task is the formation of policy agendas integrated around some central framing concepts, which can then be translated spatially, so that many parties can grasp the concrete difference it will make to use them. The value of a territorial approach, translated into concepts about spatial organisation and place quality, is that these concrete differences become much more visible. If the concepts begin to gain acceptance among many signi?-cant actors, then they are likely to carry substantial power to frame investments and regulatory practices into the future. But this shaping power threatens to close off future opportunity. The challenge for all those supplying expert advice to strategists is to offer clues about how to express a creative, ?exible, future-oriented approach in concepts and visions that do not become too concrete and too limiting, but can yet contribute to a politically acceptable way of creating new activity loca-tions while maintaining valued landscapes, resources,and place qualities and generating open and positive no-tions of local identity.

dimensions of such strategic plans is not just a matter of technical analysis, but the development of spatial logic and metaphors that can command attention and carry persuasive power in complex political contexts, a point made in earlier analyses of the European experi-ence (Faludi, 1996; Neuman, 1997). Currently in Europe,there is a tension between developing a store of such logic and metaphors (as in the discourse around the ESPD ) and the local invention of organising images (as with the “Flemish Diamond” metaphor).

Lesson 4

A fourth lesson stresses the importance of creating appropriate institutional arenas for these regional spa-tial development initiatives. In this context, the existence of some institutional inheritance at the regional or sub-regional scale was an important asset in all three cases. It is also helpful if local jurisdictions have some ?nancial autonomy. Across Europe, there is much discussion about how to build such a scale. But an institutional in-heritance may be both an asset and a hindrance to in-troducing new policy ideas and practices. Overcoming resistance means that exercises in introducing new pol-icy agendas and practices should be about creating, to

APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2127

STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

some degree at least, a new kind of governance culture.This re?ects the challenge across Europe. The tradition of strong government at levels above the municipality provides an accepted mode of practice, but it also means that a whole range of policy actors, within and outside government, are locked in to practices that resist new policy ideas and new forms of governance. As these ex-amples show, it is not enough just to rely on exemplar initiatives and informal practices. To have long-lasting and robust effects, efforts to articulate new strategies and practices have to be connected to accountable polit-ical levels of government and to formal, legal require-ments that affect both regulatory and investment prac-tices. These pieces of “hard” institutional infrastructure themselves carry the power to affect governance cultures.

Lesson 5

A ?fth lesson is that such initiatives bene?t from the existence and acceptance of a strong role for the state and a strong political consciousness of place identity. Al-though there are major movements across Europe to make states at all levels more ?exible and collaborative,they remain key actors in shaping territorial develop-ment. In contrast to the U.S., where government power is more hidden within federal rules and regulations and the very power-dependent legal system, across Europe,state power is still widely accepted by the society as a guarantee of a certain degree of spatial justice.

The potential power of strategic spatial plans and frameworks to affect the future thus lies in several dimensions:

?their capacity to frame concepts and images to mobilise and ?x attention,

?their creation of policy discourses through which speci?c decisions and practices are focused,?their impact on statutory tools and procedures,?their creation of expert policy communities that carry new ideas from place to place and enrich local learning capacity, and

?their capacity to shift governance cultures.Many actors in Europe’s city regions know that the pro-ductive use of their regional social, cultural, and envi-ronmental assets—their landscape and cities formed over millennia—is a key to their survival in a globalising econ-omy, where corporate market rationales decide the fu-ture of locations.

For all these reasons, Europe currently provides a rich laboratory of strategic spatial planning and gover-nance episodes through which planners worldwide can explore the extent and manner of the development of the capacity and in?uence of strategic spatial planning. Of course, it will take longer to evaluate the outcomes of

such capacity, if it is created. Spatial strategies are not merely long-term in their substantive orientation. Shift-ing governance cultures is itself a long-term process. But the hope is that where localities are able to achieve such shifts around more creative and ?exible spatial strate-gies and more open, innovative, and collaborative gov-ernance practices, this will translate into sustainable and widely shared improvements in quality of life and of environments.NOTES

1.For more information on this topic, see Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (2001), KGH (2001a,2001b), Frohner and Priebs (2001), and Priebs (1999,2002).

2.As elsewhere, business interests tend to criticise planning systems, while they enjoy their bene?ts.

3.The Verband Gro?raum Hannover (Association of Greater Hanover) was established in 1963, the Zweckverband Gro?-raum Hannover (Special Purpose Association of Greater Hanover) in 1980, and the Kommunalverband Gro?raum Hannover (Intercommunal Association of Greater of Han-over) in 1992.

4.For more information on this topic, see Ministerie Vlaamse Gemeenschap (1998), Albrechts (1999), and Loeckx (1995).

5.These demands include 400,000 new dwellings (17% of existing stock), an additional 10,000 hectares of indus-trial land, and infrastructure to accommodate substan-tial increases in passenger and freight traf?c.

6.Deconcentrated refers to the highly fragmented existing spatial structure. Clustering refers to the new policy of con-centrating growth. This echoes the much used German concept of deconcentrated concentration .

7.The image of a diamond was consciously chosen for the polycentric city region in central Belgium. It recalls one of the strengths of the Flemish economy and shows that the area is the “core” of Flanders. This “bright” image was used to re?ect the potentials of the network. The image also depicts the individual cities (such as Brussels, Antwerp,Ghent, and Leuven) as the “facets,” each contributing to the quality of the network. The image makes it clear that purposeful action (cutting and polishing of the diamond)is needed to reveal the full potential of the network.

8.Most plans in Belgium have traditionally been prepared by consultants.

9.For more information on this topic, see DRDNI (2002),Healey (2002), McEldowney and Sterrett (2001), and Neill and Gordon (2001).

10.It was launched by the UK Secretary of State for North-ern Ireland in June 1997, just after the election of the UK’s New Labour government, which was committed to speed-ing up the peace process. It was also mentioned in the 1998 “Good Friday Agreement” that resulted in the for-mation of a devolved, elected regional government in the province.

LOUIS ALBRECHTS, PATSY HEALEY, AND KLAUS R. KUNZMANN

128APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

REFERENCES

Albrechts, L. (1999). Planners as catalysts and initiators of

change. European Planning Studies,7(5), 587–603.

Albrechts, L. (2001). From traditional land use planning to

strategic spatial planning. In L. Albrechts, J. Alden, & A. da Rosa Pires,The changing institutional landscape of planning (pp. 83–108). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung [Federal Of?ce

for Civil Engineering and Regional Planning]. (2001).Expo-Region-Hannover. Werkstatt: Praxis , No. 3/2001, 13–15.

Committee for Spatial Development. (1999). The European

spatial development perspective . Luxembourg: European Commission.

Department of Transport, Local Government and the Region.

(2001). Planning: Delivering a fundamental change . Wetherby,UK: Author.

Department for Regional Development Northern Ireland

[DRDNI]. (2002). Shaping our future: Regional development strategy for Northern Ireland 2025.Belfast: Author.

Faludi, A. (1996). Framing with images. Environment and Plan-ning B: Planning and Design,23, 93–108.

Faludi, A., & Waterhout, B. (Eds.). (2002). The making of the Eu-ropean spatial development perspective . London: Routledge.Frohner, S., & Priebs, A. (2001). Der Prozess der Bildung der

Region Hannover [The process of building the Hanover region]. In KGH, Gro?raum Hannover, Eine Region mit Vergangenheit und Zukunft, Beitr?ge zu Regionalen En-twicklung 96, 347–364.

Fürst, D. (2001). Regional governance—Ein neues Paradigma

der Regionalwissenschaften? [Regional governance—A new paradigm of regionalism?] Raumforschung und Raum-ordnung ,No. 5–6/2001,370–380.

Healey, P. (2002, April). The treatment of space and place in the new

strategic spatial planning in Europe . Paper presented at the European Urban Research Association Congress, Turin,Italy.

Healey, P., Hakee, K., Motte, A., & Needham, B. (1997). Making

strategic spatial plans: Innovation in Europe . London: UCL Press.

Kommunalverband Gro?raum Hannover [KGH; Intercom-munal Association of Greater Hanover]. (2001a). Der Zukunftsdialog Pro?l für die Region Hannover [The pro-?le of the forum on the future of the Hanover region]. Beit-r?ge zur Regionalen Entwicklung , 93.

Kommunalverband Gro?raum Hannover [KGH; Intercom-munal Association of Greater Hanover]. (2001b). Gro?-raum Hannover: Eine Region mit Vergangenheit und Zu-kunft [Greater Hanover: A region with a past and a future].Beitr?ge zu Regionalen Entwicklung , 96.

Kunzmann, K. R. (2001a). L’aménagement du territoire en

Allemagne: Une discipline sans utopies? [Spatial planning in Germany: A field without utopias?]Territoires 2020,No.4/2001, 101–115.

Kunzmann, K. R. (2001b). State planning: A German success

story? International Planning Studies, 6(2), 153–166.

Kunzmann, K. R. (2001c). The Ruhr in Germany: A laboratory

for regional governance. In L. Albrechts, J. Alden, & A. da Rosa Pires, The changing institutional landscape of planning (pp. 133–158). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Loeckx, A. (1995). The dif?cult art of duality: The structural

plan for Flanders. Archis ,10,48–53.

McEldowney, M., & Sterrett, K. (2001). Shaping a regional vi-sion: The case of Northern Ireland. Local Economy, 16(1),38–49.

Ministerie Vlaamse Gemeenschap. (1998). Ruimtelijk Structu-urplan Vlaanderen [Spatial structure plan for Flanders ]. Brus-sels: MVG.

Neill, W. V., & Gordon, M. (2001). Shaping our future? The re-gional strategic framework for Northern Ireland. Planning Theory and Practice, 2(1), 31–52.

Neuman, M. (1997). Images as institution-builders: Metro-politan planning in Madrid. In P. Healey, A. Khakee, A.Motte, & B. Needham, Making strategic spatial plans: Inno-vation in Europe (pp. 77–94). London: UCL Press.

Priebs, A. (1999). Die Region ist die Stadt! Ein Pl?doyer für

dauerhafte und verbindliche Organisationsstrukturen für die Stadtregion [The region is the city! An appeal for a lasting and binding organisational structure for the city region]. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung , 9–10, 617–628.

Priebs, A. (2002). Die Bildung der Region Hannover und ihre

Bedeutung für die Zukunft Stadtregionaler Organisa-tionsstrukturen [The development of the Hanover region and its signi?cance for the future of city region organisa-tional structures]. Die Offentliche Verwaltung, 4, 144–151.Salet, W., & Faludi, A. (2000). The revival of strategic spatial plan-ning.Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nedelandse Akademie van Wetenschappen [Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences].

APA Journal N Spring 2003 N Vol. 69, No. 2129

STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING AND REGIONAL GOVERNANCE IN EUROPE

D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i t y o f L i v e r p o o l ] a t 06:28 13 J a n u a r y 2016

相关文档