This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
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.
Erblin Berisha; Giancarlo Cotella; Umberto Janin Rivolin; Alys Solly. Spatial governance and planning systems in the public control of spatial development: a European typology. European Planning Studies 2020, 29, 181 -200.
AMA StyleErblin Berisha, Giancarlo Cotella, Umberto Janin Rivolin, Alys Solly. Spatial governance and planning systems in the public control of spatial development: a European typology. European Planning Studies. 2020; 29 (1):181-200.
Chicago/Turabian StyleErblin Berisha; Giancarlo Cotella; Umberto Janin Rivolin; Alys Solly. 2020. "Spatial governance and planning systems in the public control of spatial development: a European typology." European Planning Studies 29, no. 1: 181-200.
Sustainable land use depends on both the socio-economic processes that trigger spatial development and the effectiveness of spatial governance tools that aim to regulate these processes. The ESPON Sustainable Urbanization and land-use Practices in European Regions (SUPER) research project aims to analyze the main land-use dynamics in Europe, looking at and comparing the interventions implemented in the various countries in order to promote sustainability. In particular, a sample of 227 interventions was chosen from a total of 39 European countries. This paper analyzes them on the basis of four different variables: (i) the scale at which the interventions are conceived; (ii) the type of territories subject to them; (iii) the type of interventions; (iv) the type of instruments behind these interventions. On this basis, it develops a number of considerations concerning the effectiveness of the interventions implemented in Europe to promote more sustainable use of land.
Alys Solly; Erblin Berisha; Giancarlo Cotella; Umberto Janin Rivolin. How Sustainable Are Land Use Tools? A Europe-Wide Typological Investigation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1257 .
AMA StyleAlys Solly, Erblin Berisha, Giancarlo Cotella, Umberto Janin Rivolin. How Sustainable Are Land Use Tools? A Europe-Wide Typological Investigation. Sustainability. 2020; 12 (3):1257.
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlys Solly; Erblin Berisha; Giancarlo Cotella; Umberto Janin Rivolin. 2020. "How Sustainable Are Land Use Tools? A Europe-Wide Typological Investigation." Sustainability 12, no. 3: 1257.
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.
Umberto Janin Rivolin. Global crisis and the systems of spatial governance and planning: a European comparison. European Planning Studies 2017, 25, 994 -1012.
AMA StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. Global crisis and the systems of spatial governance and planning: a European comparison. European Planning Studies. 2017; 25 (6):994-1012.
Chicago/Turabian StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. 2017. "Global crisis and the systems of spatial governance and planning: a European comparison." European Planning Studies 25, no. 6: 994-1012.
Giancarlo Cotella; Umberto Janin Rivolin. Policy Transfer and Territorial Governance in the European Union. Regions 2014, 296, 16 -18.
AMA StyleGiancarlo Cotella, Umberto Janin Rivolin. Policy Transfer and Territorial Governance in the European Union. Regions. 2014; 296 (1):16-18.
Chicago/Turabian StyleGiancarlo Cotella; Umberto Janin Rivolin. 2014. "Policy Transfer and Territorial Governance in the European Union." Regions 296, no. 1: 16-18.
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.
Umberto Janin Rivolin. Planning Systems as Institutional Technologies: a Proposed Conceptualization and the Implications for Comparison. Planning Practice & Research 2012, 27, 63 -85.
AMA StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. Planning Systems as Institutional Technologies: a Proposed Conceptualization and the Implications for Comparison. Planning Practice & Research. 2012; 27 (1):63-85.
Chicago/Turabian StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. 2012. "Planning Systems as Institutional Technologies: a Proposed Conceptualization and the Implications for Comparison." Planning Practice & Research 27, no. 1: 63-85.
Characterized by a prescriptive but often ineffective “urbanism” tradition, spatial planning practice in Italy has changed over the last two decades under the influence of the EU territorial governance agenda. Whereas some experiences have shown that more “performative” spatial development policies are possible, most planning practices continue to be largely based on a “conformative” idea of spatial planning. Surveying the role of actors and epistemic communities in the framework of recent spatial planning changes in Italy, this paper argues that an almost spontaneous and heterogeneous impact of the EU territorial governance agenda on domestic practices occurred initially but could not take root because of the resilience of professional culture. The Europeanization of spatial planning in Italy has progressively lost momentum and there is little evidence to date of any wholesale reform of the Italian spatial planning system.
Giancarlo Cotella; Umberto Janin Rivolin. Europeanization of Spatial Planning through Discourse and Practice in Italy. disP - The Planning Review 2011, 47, 42 -53.
AMA StyleGiancarlo Cotella, Umberto Janin Rivolin. Europeanization of Spatial Planning through Discourse and Practice in Italy. disP - The Planning Review. 2011; 47 (186):42-53.
Chicago/Turabian StyleGiancarlo Cotella; Umberto Janin Rivolin. 2011. "Europeanization of Spatial Planning through Discourse and Practice in Italy." disP - The Planning Review 47, no. 186: 42-53.
Reviewed book: 'European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation' by Stefanie Duehr, Claire Colomb & Vincent Nadin, 2010, Abingdon and New York, Routledge, 460 pp., ISBN 978-0-415-46774-2, £34.99 (pbk
Marco Te Brömmelstroet; Umberto Janin Rivolin; Wei-Ju Huang. Book Reviews. Planning Practice & Research 2010, 25, 625 -629.
AMA StyleMarco Te Brömmelstroet, Umberto Janin Rivolin, Wei-Ju Huang. Book Reviews. Planning Practice & Research. 2010; 25 (5):625-629.
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarco Te Brömmelstroet; Umberto Janin Rivolin; Wei-Ju Huang. 2010. "Book Reviews." Planning Practice & Research 25, no. 5: 625-629.
This article explores the possibility of identifying spatial units that are more suitable to manage the European Union territorial governance process than the traditional administrative districts or crude statistical partitions. To this purpose, the article presents a study on North-Western Italy, which the author has developed recently in the framework of a research project promoted by the Italian Ministry of Infrastructures to prepare a spatial vision for the Italian National Strategic Reference Framework under the EU cohesion policy 2007-2013. While updating the reader on the Italian approach to EU cohesion policy and on developments in this area, the article particularly draws the attention of European planners to the concept of "Interdependent Territorial Systems" as spatial units contributing to combine the relevant dimensions of EU territorial governance in a proactive planning proces
Umberto Janin Rivolin. Spatial Units for EU Territorial Governance: Findings From a Study on North-Western Italy. European Planning Studies 2010, 18, 299 -316.
AMA StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. Spatial Units for EU Territorial Governance: Findings From a Study on North-Western Italy. European Planning Studies. 2010; 18 (2):299-316.
Chicago/Turabian StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. 2010. "Spatial Units for EU Territorial Governance: Findings From a Study on North-Western Italy." European Planning Studies 18, no. 2: 299-316.
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 abandone
Umberto Janin Rivolin. Conforming and Performing Planning Systems in Europe: An Unbearable Cohabitation. Planning Practice & Research 2008, 23, 167 -186.
AMA StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. Conforming and Performing Planning Systems in Europe: An Unbearable Cohabitation. Planning Practice & Research. 2008; 23 (2):167-186.
Chicago/Turabian StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. 2008. "Conforming and Performing Planning Systems in Europe: An Unbearable Cohabitation." Planning Practice & Research 23, no. 2: 167-186.
: While the Interreg IIIb Alpine space programme for transnational territorial cooperation, launched in 2000, is going to conclude its activities by the end of 2006, a new programme is expected to strart in the framework of the EU structural funds programming period 2007-2013. The present article illustrates the results of a survey on « spatial policies » in the Alpine area, conducted for a « Prospective Study » in view of the elaboration of the forthcoming programme. A review of spatial policies in the framework of EU territorial governance processes (§ 1) introduces the illustration of the survey results, which are based on the analysis of 70 spatial policy documents currently in force, at different institutional levels, in the Alpine area (§ 2). A section of conclusions suggests how, in the light of the presented survey, the « Alpine Space » territorial cooperation programme could be improved in 2007-2013 (§ 3).Janin Rivolin Umberto. Surveying spatial policies in the Alpine Space. In: Revue de géographie alpine, tome 94, n°2, 2006. Prospectives et coopération transnationale dans les Alpes, sous la direction de Martin Vanier. pp. 45-55
Umberto Janin Rivolin. Surveying spatial policies in the Alpine Space. Revue de géographie alpine 2006, 94, 45 -55.
AMA StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. Surveying spatial policies in the Alpine Space. Revue de géographie alpine. 2006; 94 (2):45-55.
Chicago/Turabian StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. 2006. "Surveying spatial policies in the Alpine Space." Revue de géographie alpine 94, no. 2: 45-55.
Umberto Janin Rivolin. Cohesion and subsidiarity: Towards good territorial governance in Europe. Town Planning Review 2005, 76, 93 -106.
AMA StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. Cohesion and subsidiarity: Towards good territorial governance in Europe. Town Planning Review. 2005; 76 (1):93-106.
Chicago/Turabian StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. 2005. "Cohesion and subsidiarity: Towards good territorial governance in Europe." Town Planning Review 76, no. 1: 93-106.
The message of this contribution is that now that the EU territorial cohesion policy has been formally recognized in the European Constitutional Treaty, the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) should evolve towards a discussion of common principles of EU territorial governance. The spatial vision that the ESDP represents appears to be no longer sufficient for European Community members to get a handle on the territorial cohesion policy. Indeed, the Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion (CSGC) proposed in the new Structural Funds regulations might incorporate such a task in future. Moreover, the experiences of European spatial planning, summed up here in four main regional perspectives, show that some common principles of EU territorial governance would be rather in the interest of not only Community institutions, but of all public authorities in Europe, who, whether they appreciate it or not, already participate in territorial cohesion policy and are progressively transformed by it.
Umberto Janin Rivolin. The Future of the ESDP in the Framework of Territorial Cohesion. disP - The Planning Review 2005, 41, 19 -27.
AMA StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. The Future of the ESDP in the Framework of Territorial Cohesion. disP - The Planning Review. 2005; 41 (161):19-27.
Chicago/Turabian StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin. 2005. "The Future of the ESDP in the Framework of Territorial Cohesion." disP - The Planning Review 41, no. 161: 19-27.
Presently, the ‘informal’ European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) is being duly applied. At the same time, European planners are still searching for a shared understanding of what European spatial planning actually means. Against the backdrop of current developments in European governance, it seems appropriate to explore various regional perspectives on this emergent phenomenon. In so doing, one needs to go beyond the most commonly known perspectives, though. One needs to also reveal the less obvious ‘southern perspectives’. Under close scrutiny, they show themselves well capable of introducing some valuable new elements, and they are as equally useful as others in enriching the debate on European spatial planning and in deepening our understanding about current changes in planning practices in Europe.
Umberto Janin Rivolin; Andreas Faludi. The hidden face of European spatial planning: innovations in governance. European Planning Studies 2005, 13, 195 -215.
AMA StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin, Andreas Faludi. The hidden face of European spatial planning: innovations in governance. European Planning Studies. 2005; 13 (2):195-215.
Chicago/Turabian StyleUmberto Janin Rivolin; Andreas Faludi. 2005. "The hidden face of European spatial planning: innovations in governance." European Planning Studies 13, no. 2: 195-215.