European Regional Sustainable Development Network

POLICY SEMINAR
Asturias, 3-4 April 2003

SPATIAL PLANNING AND

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

Vincent Nadin
Centre for Environment and Planning
University of the West of England
Bristol, BS16 !QY, UK
Vincent.Nadin@uwe.ac.uk

1. Introduction

1.1. This discussion paper is an invited expert contribution to the policy seminar. It is
intended to stimulate and guide debate among the participants. The structure broadly follows
the brief provided by the network which required consideration of

 baseline information as an introduction to the topic;

 different understandings and definitions of spatial planning and spatial policy;
 the increasing importance of sustainable development in spatial planning
activities;
 inter-sectoral integration and collaboration in delivering sustainability through
spatial planning
 instruments and procedures in spatial planning for sustainability and
institutional capacity
 issues of governance (horizontal and vertical integration of actors);
 illustrative examples and case studies.

1.2. The paper draws on the findings from numerous studies undertaken by the author and
others including the EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies (CEC 1997);
the SPECTRA project (a cross-national comparative research project on sustainability and
spatial planning) [1] and A Spatial Vision for North West Europe (Spatial Vision Group
2000).

2. Spatial planning and sustainable development

2.1. The critical connection between spatial planning and sustainable development has
been made many times and with some force. The World Commission on Environment and
Development (1987) identified environmental planning as one of five key instruments to
‘internalize … consideration of the environment in development decision-making’ (UN 1987:
36). More detailed recommendations were made in the UN’s Agenda 21: Global Programme
for Action on Sustainable Development (1992) which made firm recommendations for
strengthening integrated land use planning to resolve increasing conflicts over land use and

1
development. Since then, many international organisations with an interest in land, settlement
and the environment have called for a strengthening of spatial planning systems to regulate
land use, protect environmental assets and coordinate the territorial impacts of sectoral
policies (see for example, UNECE 1998).

2.2. In the European Union the landmark Green Paper on the Urban Environment (CEC
1990) was one of the first official documents to draw attention to the damaging environmental
consequences of spatial development trends, notably, the rapidly increasing demands for
urban development on greenfield land and increasing demands for travel resulting from
uncoordinated and fragmented settlement patterns. It too called for more effective land use
planning. The Fifth Environmental Action Programme: Towards Sustainability (CEC 1992)
pointed to the possibilities that spatial planning systems offer for sustainable development. A
number of actions from this programme have been critical for spatial planning, not least the
framework for environmental impact assessment which is now incorporated within or
alongside planning systems across the EU. The Sixth Environmental Action Programme:
(CEC 2001) will continue in the same way. Early studies of spatial development at the EU
scale raised awareness about the shared nature of the environmental problems arising from
concentrated pressures for urban development (CEC 1992 and 1994). More recently, the
member states have jointly delivered the European Spatial Development Perspective (CSD
1999) which has as its sub-title: Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the
Territory of the EU. These and other supporting statements have lent considerable weight to
arguments for strengthening spatial planning systems and policies. The European
Commission has also announced proposals for a Communication on Planning and
Environment (ECA 2002).

2.3. In sum, the main sustainable development issues to be addressed by spatial planning
include:

 rapidly increasing demands for urban development and conversion of rural land to
urban uses;
 the fragmentation and sprawl of new urban development;
 the separation of urban functions (with an associated increase in the need to travel and
increased car dependence);
 the increasing amount of derelict and contaminated land;
 the polarisation of economic development giving rise to increasing congestion in core
cities and poor access to urban services in peripheral regions;
 failure to protect areas of environmental significance and the deteriorating quality of
urban and rural environments.

2.4. The Second Assessment of Europe’s Environment (CEC 1998) indicates that there is
no respite in the pressures on the environment. It identifies three growing trends in urban land
use patterns: ‘decentralisation of economic activities traditionally located in urban centres;
shifts of population into suburbs’ and the geographical compartmentalisation of urban land
uses. A similar story is told in the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) (CSD
1999).

2.5. As our understanding of sustainable spatial development has grown it has become
accepted that this agenda in fact requires changes to planning practice, indeed quite
fundamental changes. The degree of change will depend on the starting point, although a case

2
can be made for more effective integration of the spatial impacts of sectoral policies in all
systems. Also, for all countries sustainable development requires at the least a review of the
criteria that are used to judge development proposals and options. There is little doubt that
these changes challenge well established planning axioms and ways of working (Cowell and
Owens 1997, Evans and Rydin 1997). Widespread reforms of both planning systems and
policies are now taking place as governments, planning authorities and planners review their
practices in the light of the sustainability agenda. Review and reform is widespread (CEC
1997), primarily to address the twin challenges of globalisation and sustainable development,
and linked to new forms of decentralised territorial governance (Koresawa and Konvitz
2001). The result is something of a renaissance in spatial planning in the aftermath of market-
centred public policies during the 1980s and early 1990s. This is not just a case of
reintroducing planning in the old style, but finding new ways of working that can help to
reconcile the competing objectives within the sustainable development agenda.

3. Definitions of spatial planning and spatial policy

3.1. Spatial planning like all areas of public policy is continually evolving, particularly in
response to the challenges of globalisation, European integration and sustainable
development. In this context, consistent use of terminology is impossible; the same words
(and their translations) vary in meaning from one country or region to another and vocabulary
and understandings change as concepts employed in one place are exported to others. Whilst
this will always be the case, there is a need to establish some ground rules for the discussion
on spatial planning that follows – at least in exposing the different meanings that exist and
promoting discussion. Our starting point is spatial development.

3.2. Spatial development (or territorial development) is the process by which the
distribution and quality of physical features and human activities across territorial space is
maintained or altered. Development in this sense does not only refer to physical change to
territory, but also the changing distribution of economic and social activities that make use of
space or territory. (This is a different notion of development to that used in ‘sustainable
development’.) Spatial development is the product of complex socio-economic, political and
physical processes. It is influenced by a mixture of market forces and public intervention; a
mixture which varies considerably from place to place.

3.3. EU member states are giving more weight to the contribution that spatial development
makes to meeting the goals of social cohesion, economic competitiveness and sustainable
development. The linkages between spatial development and sustainability are self evident.
The recent increasing interest in the field is probably due to many interrelated factors, not
least changing views about the balance between state and market in society, but it must also
owe something to the very obvious conflicts between urban development and environmental
protection. It follows that there is also a need to give more attention to public intervention in
the process of spatial development, that is, spatial planning.

3.4. Spatial planning (or physical or land use planning) refers to the arrangements adopted
by government to influence spatial development – the distribution of activities across its
territory. This general approach to spatial planning is that taken for the EU Compendium of
Spatial Planning Systems and Policies and which was further elaborated for other purposes
(Nadin 1999, Shaw and Nadin 1996). Spatial planning can be distinguished from regional
policy, although in some countries the two are closely related. Regional policy is public

3
intervention to address the social and economic disparities among regions in pursuit of social
cohesion and typically concentrates on economic instruments.

3.5. The public policy systems for spatial planning are readily identifiable in each member
state of the EU. The systems, or the main components of them, are variously described as
aménagement du territoire, town and country planning, Raumplannung or ruimtelijke
ordening. ‘Spatial planning’ is sometimes used as a generic term for these and other ‘physical
or land-use planning systems’. The meaning of these terms has evolved in the particular legal,
socio-economic, political and cultural conditions of the country or region in question. Strictly
speaking, the terms are not transferable to other countries, except in the most general sense.
This applies even if the same words are used. For example, aménagement du territoire will
essentially have a different meaning in Belgium, France and Luxembourg, because the
systems are different and sit in very different contexts.

3.6. At a very general level there is a good deal of similarity in EU states in the way that
spatial planning operates, although also great variation in details. Numerous attempts have
been made to classify different systems. [2] The EU Compendium suggests four broad
‘traditions’. The land use management tradition is where the system primarily pursues the
control of land use change at different spatial scales through a hierarchy of land use plans and
policies and a well established process for regulating development. Urbanism is the dominant
tradition of planning in the Mediterranean countries. The accent is on building and land use
regulation through rigid zoning and codes and with a strong architectural and design theme.
The regional economic planning approach makes use of a wider range of regulatory and
economic instruments to address social and economic disparities across regions and cities and
with a strong territorial approach. Such planning is closely linked to public sector investments
and regional economic policy, and thus central government plays an important role. The
comprehensive integrated approach to spatial planning has the clear objective of spatial co-
ordination of public policy across different sectors. This approach requires well established
planning institutions, strong political commitment and mechanisms for the public sector to
realise objectives and lead development.

3.7. All four traditions describe a system of spatial planning which is the principal sector
within the structure of government that seeks to influence spatial development, but many
other sectoral policies have impacts on spatial development. Spatial policy is the term used to
describe the spatial or territorial impacts of sectoral policies. All sectors have some aspect of
spatial policy (although this is usually not made explicit) from the fairly obvious impacts on
spatial development of transport and agriculture to the less obvious but no less important
spatial impacts of education and health policies.

3.8. Over recent years, and particularly at the EU level, the role of spatial planning in
coordinating spatial policy (the territorial impacts of other sectoral policies) has been
prominent. It should be emphasised that this is a different notion of spatial planning to
physical land use planning. It is true that all spatial planning systems seek to coordinate the
spatial impacts of other sectors, but this is generally quite weak. The idea of spatial planning
as cross-sectoral coordination and integration is different. In this second sense, spatial
planning has been described as a method of securing ‘convergence and co-ordination between
various sectoral policies’ through a territorial development strategy (CEC 1999, Bastrup-Birk
and Doucet, 1998). Thus, spatial planning seeks to identify and address the contradictory
effects of sectoral policies and the opportunities for synergy and complementarity in their
spatial effects.

4
3.9. In sum, the idea of spatial planning in principle may incorporate land use regulation,
regional policy and sectoral policy coordination. A simple and succinct definition which
incorporates these ideas is suggested.

Spatial planning is action to influence spatial structure by

managing territorial development and coordinating the spatial
impacts of sectoral policies.

4. The principles of sustainable development for spatial planning

4.1. There is no benefit in trying to identify a single unambiguous definition of

sustainability or sustainable development - they are political constructs (O’Riordan 1985,
Baker et al 1997). At a general level we know that sustainability requires changes in patterns
of production and consumption to ensure that all people living now and in the future have
equitable access to social and economic development within environmental limits.

4.2. A useful distinction can be made between the universal principles for sustainable
development that are applicable to territorial policy in all places at all times (such as the
protection of critical natural capital) and policies and actions for sustainability in spatial
planning and development which are specific to particular times and places (such as
increasing urban densities).

4.3. The European Sustainable Cities project identified the core principles for sustainable
territorial development

 environmental limits - apply the precautionary principle so as not to exceed carrying

capacities;
 demand management rather than planning to simply meet demands;
 environmental efficiency - reducing our use of natural resources;
 welfare efficiency - obtaining the most human benefit from economic activity;
 equity - social cohesion and an equitable distribution of wealth.

4.4. The list has been elaborated (as shown in Figure 1) and organised around the three
dimensions of sustainable development - environmental, economic and social. The table also
lists criteria or tests that can be used both to promote certain responses in territorial
development policy and to evaluate existing policy and action. Sustainability principles and
criteria assist in transposing or operationalising the general notion of sustainability into
territorial development practice. The challenge for the member states is to ensure that the
universal principles are embedded into territorial development goals, policies and actions at
all territorial levels.

5
Table 1: Sustainability principles for territorial development
PRINCIPLES
Futurity & Inter-generational equity
Inter-societal equity
Local and regional self-sufficiency
Risk prevention and reduction
Maintaining the capacity of natural systems
Minimisation of resource consumption
Environmental quality
III ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL
Protect and develop the economic system
Develop the human social system
(education,
democracy, human rights)
Develop the capacity of the political system
CRITERIA
I OVERARCHING
Precautionary principle (no irreversible decisions)
Include cumulative and long-term impacts in decision-making
Commitment to equity at local, national and international levels
Ensure commitment to equity so environmental impacts and the costs
of protecting the environment do not unfairly burden any one
geographic or socio-economic sector
Reducing externality effects so that environmental impacts and costs do
not unfairly burden any one geographic group or socio-economic sector
Using close in preference to distant resources
Polluter pays
Preparedness to tackle natural and people-made disasters
II ENVIRONMENTAL
Absolute protection of critical natural capital
Defence of improvement of soil quality and stability
Defence and improvement of key habitats and biodiversity
Respecting absorption and assimilation capacities of natural systems
Efficient use of renewable resources and demand management
Minimum depletion of renewable resources
Minimum depletion of non-renewable resources
Energy efficiency
Minimisation of waste, recycling and re-use
Reduction of pollution emissions; protection of air, soil and water
quality and minimisation of noise
Protection and enhancement of environmental amenity and aesthetics
Protection of natural and cultural heritage
Durability in the built environment
Encourage and develop connections between environmental quality and
economic vitality
Satisfy and protect basic needs (shelter, food, clean water etc.)
Provide entrepreneurial and employment opportunities
Protect basic human rights
Ensure health and safety
Improve local living conditions
satisfy the economic & living standards to which people aspire
Ensure transparent decision-making processes
Develop open, inclusive and participatory governance
Apply subsidiarity and ensure that competences are exercised at the
most appropriate level
6
4.5 At its simplest, spatial planning systems will contribute to environmental
sustainability to the extent to which they adopt and successfully implement the principles
listed above and others like them. However, the principles can be adopted and implemented in
different ways. Weak, moderate and strong interpretations can be given to these sustainability
principles through planning policy and action Baker (1997). The examples of planning policy
themes and planning system objectives given in Table 1 suggest a strong definition of
sustainability. This view demands proactive environmental management, the promotion of
local economic self sufficiency, institutional changes and new planing instruments and tools
to ensure that economic activity is kept within environmental capacity limits. It would be
possible to generate a similar list of criteria based on weaker notions of sustainability. The
emphasis would be on ameliorating measure to reduce the impact of economic activity on the
environment especially trough technical fixes, the need to justify exploitation of non-
renewable resources on grounds of economic gains, and a better use of existing institutions
and tools for spatial planning. In practice even strong policies may be softened in the face of
competing political priorities to weaker interpretations of sustainability. The definition of
sustainable development and objectives is a critical issue.

5. Sustainable development in spatial planning policy and action

5.1. To a greater or lesser extent, spatial planning systems in the EU currently offer great
potential for embracing principles of sustainability in their policies, institutional structures,
and procedures. Planning systems operate at different spatial scales, so can address
sustainability issues within the appropriate geographical area. They offer opportunities to
consider environmental, economic and social objectives in decisions about the use of land and
to integrate sectoral policies. They can take account of the long term environmental, economic
and social impacts of development and thus embrace futurity. They contain legal provisions
for community involvement in plan and decision making. And they encompass measures to
limit the adverse impacts of development, to compensate those suffering adverse impacts and
to achieve gains for the community.

5.2. Findings from comparative studies of planning practice in the EU research indicate
that there is some consistency among different countries and regions in the objectives and
policies for spatial planning relating to sustainable development (Nadin et al forthcoming). Or
to put it another way, there are common general themes in the way that the general principles
of environmental sustainability are operationalised by spatial planning policy and action.
These interpretations illustrate how policy makers understand ‘the technical relations’
between spatial planning and sustainable development - it is the taken for granted ‘theory-in-
practice’ of sustainable development.

5.3. In most cases, and even where there is a very positive attitude to sustainable
development, the contribution from spatial planning is understood in narrow terms -
predominantly relating to a particular organisation of land uses and transport and the location
of activities. There are examples where the planning system addresses a wider range of
concerns including environmental impacts such as noise and energy use and conservation,
environmental flows such as waste and water and social concerns such as quality of life, but
these are very much the exception.

7
5.4. There is evidence of innovation in planning policy in response to the sustainability
agenda, but the strategies adopted are generally conservative and reflect a weak definition of
sustainability. In particular, there is little fundamental change of policy approach towards
demand management, but rather novel ways are found of meeting market demands in more
sustainable ways. Environmental interests are being traded off against short term economic
interests and the planning systems generally continue to balance competing interests rather
than assert sustainability principles. More detailed analysis indicates considerable differences
in the understanding of sustainability across Europe, which may not be sufficiently recognised
in European policy. The main policy themes that are common to the six countries studied are
given in Table 2.

5.5. The main concerns of spatial planning in relation to sustainability are

 the rational organisation of land uses, especially the location of new development so as to
create more ‘balance’ in the spatial structure (a polycentric spatial development approach);
 the containment of urban development or management of urban growth and conservation
of the land resource;
 the re-use of vacant land and property and intensification of existing urban land;
 mitigating the negative impacts of new urban development on environmental resources,
and the protection of areas of special ecological or landscape value;
 reducing the growth and impact of road traffic and questions of mobility and access;
 the defence of the built cultural heritage.

5.6. These common policy themes are promoted so widely that they might be described as
‘near-universal’. The themes are critically important in planning practice, since they are
routinely used as a form of ‘sustainability shorthand’ by planning professionals. The
emphasis is very much on acceptable policy responses and there seems to be little
consideration in decision making of fundamental principles. The means (increasing densities,
or re-using vacant land) become the ends. There is tendency to attempt to apply sustainability
principles though ‘standards’ or checklists in a rigid fashion which has both advantages and
disadvantages.

5.7. Having embraced sustainability principles in planning policies and actions there is
then the question of what effect this has on development outcomes. The SPECTRA project
found conclusively that there is an implementation gap between sustainability principles in
spatial planning policy and their realisation. Much depends on the role and influence of spatial
planning in shaping spatial development generally (existing and new) and the wider
conditions in which spatial planning operates in some countries. Also, other policy
frameworks and factors are at least equally important for promoting sustainability in spatial
development. In some places Local Agenda 21 initiatives and environmental regulations play
as important a role as the planning system. In some cases, the initiatives for more sustainable
outcomes have come from the developer or user rather than from the planning system.

8
Table 2: How sustainability is put into practice through spatial planning policy
Policy themes
Organising the distribution of land
uses, especially new development
Reshaping the spatial structure of
existing urban areas
Mitigating the impact of new
development on environmental
resources and the built heritage
Reducing the need to travel whilst
maintaining access to services and
opportunities
Mitigating the impact of road traffic Traffic management schemes, pedestrian friendly
Agricultural intensification and
agro-environmental problems
Durability and adaptability in the
built environment
Coastal zone protection
Revitalising town centres and
creating more mixed use
development (Finland and the UK)
Protection of the water resource and Maintaining water quality and water environments,
water networks (the Netherlands)
Demand management and urban
capacities (UK)
Environment and energy
Risk reduction
Examples of policies
Creating more balance in the urban structure so as
to get a better distribution of urban services and
opportunities and respect capacities.
Prevention of urban sprawl to minimise
transformation of rural land, and fragmentation of
urban services.
Increasing urban densities through intensification
Reusing vacant and derelict urban land and
property
Protecting areas of special ecological or landscape
value and buildings through designation.
Linking work, home and other activities within
reach of each other and self contained communities,
sustainability supporting infrastructure.
zones and
Preventing over-exploitation of land resources by
agriculture by designating protected areas and
management schemes; protecting water courses and
aquifers.
Increasing the quality of the built environment to
minimise energy use, promoting neighbourhood
identity and historical continuity, opportunities for
walking, etc.
Preventing further physical development of the
coastal zone; protecting valued coastal
environments, and integrated coastal management
schemes.
Promoting diversity of land uses within town and
neighbourhood centres, making more efficient use
of the land resource, and the abandonment of crude
zoning.
and managing the promoting flows through and
open water.
Attention to environmental limits and carrying
capacities of specific territorial areas, so that
development is constrained by supply and
environmental capacity, not simply demand led.
Limiting energy use in new development through
planning
Planning for natural disasters (forest fires and
earthquakes) and minimising their impact
9
6. Inter-sectoral integration in delivering sustainability through spatial planning

6.1. The discussion now turns from the response of spatial planning policy to sustainable
development to consideration of the way that the systems – the institutions, instruments and
procedures – are being reformed. It begins by examining the question of cross-sectoral policy
integration and the capacity of systems to deliver it.

6.2. Environmental sustainability requires a more comprehensive or holistic approach to

public policy so as to address the contradictions that arise from sectoral policy
compartmentalisation. Thus, there is a need to adopt an approach to spatial planning which
addresses the cross-sectoral dimension as well as physical land use regulation. However, the
findings from the SPECTRA project suggest that the sustainability agenda has not yet
promoted the adoption of effective cross-sectoral and integrated policy approaches. Indeed,
there are numerous examples where sectoral policy objectives and instruments contradict
sustainability objectives for spatial planning. For example in the provision of subsidies for the
location of new development in less sustainable locations and tax incentives that encourage
long distance commuting.

6.3. Any number of examples of contradictory public policies involving environmental

sustainability could be cited. Agricultural income support policies have in some locations led
to the overexploitation of water resources, and more generally have contributed to the loss of
valued habitats and landscapes (Cheshire 1985). Road and rail infrastructure improvements
have direct impacts on local environments, sometimes in contradiction of protection policies.
They also affect locational and investment decisions which through the effect of polarisation
of economic development may intensify pressure on valuable environments. Infrastructure
and regional policies together with weak land use planning have contributed to rapid
urbanisation through low density peri-urban development, increasing the demand for travel
and reducing efficiency in the use of land and infrastructure. Regional policies (including
those of the EU) have contributed to rapid growth in some regions and to depopulation and
decline in others, creating unsustainable settlement patterns.

6.4. As well as the potential conflicts between sectoral policies which need to be addressed
through spatial planning, there are also positive opportunities for creation of synergy between
policy sectors in pursuit of sustainability. For example, it has been argued that taxation, and
especially road pricing, is a more effective way to reduce travel by car and energy use than
land use policy - which has only very long term effects. But the best results would come from
applying both in a coordinated way through integrated spatial planning policy.

6.5. A positive approach to policy integration through spatial planning presents many
challenges not least that sectoral policy is based often on different territorial units, for
different timescales, and produced under different procedures. Whilst inter-sectoral
coordination or integration is widely accepted as a goal, there has been only limited
discussion about what integration means or how spatial planning will help to achieve it.
Mechanisms to improve the integration of policy may take different forms on a continuum
from basic consultation to full policy integration. Consultation amongst sectors will allow
exchange of information and understanding about the environmental impacts of policies.
Coordination will involve joint planning arrangements to promote compatibility of policies
with environmental principles, synchronise processes including consultation and thus make
the connections between policies more transparent, and lead to joint decisions. Beyond this,

10
systems of authorisation and approval (sometimes linked to the provision of funding) will
ensure that sectoral policies and actions conform to a common strategy or decisions in priority
sectors. The integration of environmental protection into other sectoral policies has generally
taken this form, with environmental assessment of projects and strategic assessment of the
environmental consequences of policies and programmes.

6.6. Full integration of policies in different sectors may be a possibility, as for example,
between land use and transport. Full integration may be accompanied by the creation of new
policy themes which cut across traditional sectoral divisions - such as ‘accessibility’ or
‘quality of life’. However, full integration may not necessarily be an advantage, since it may
result in dilution rather than integration depending on the power of the sectors being brought
together. Mechanisms to ensure conformity may offer the best option for environmental
sustainability. Finally, the issue of policy integration goes beyond government to include
communities, investors, developers and other actors. This suggests that spatial planning
systems may need to include special arrangements which bring the government departments
into partnerships with other actors.

6.7. Policy integration or ‘joined-up government’ has become a byword of the late 1990s
and spatial planning is a natural vehicle for promoting greater integration through a
territorially based strategy. Also, the emphasis on policy integration does not sit well with
some traditional methods of land use zoning and regulation at the local level. Zoning and
rigid standards may be obstacles to finding innovative solutions and tend to reinforce the
compartmentalisation of land use planning policy. This may make planning part of the
problem rather than the solution. Decision makers will need discretion to be able to take
into account a range of priorities and policies, and to manage and resolve the potential
conflicts. This will often require novel or ‘one-off’ solutions which cannot be predetermined
in a plan. This is particularly the case in encouraging more diversity in land uses. Each
decision will throw up its own complications and it will be important that decision makers
have the flexibility to negotiate a solution specific to each case.

6.8. The discussion reveals the complicated issues that surround the simple demand for
more integrated policy. In sum there is a need for permeable boundaries between policy
sectors, mechanisms to ensure different degrees of integration, coordination and
synchronisation, and discretion at the point of making decisions such that ‘joined-up’
decisions can be made. the application of sustainability principles to spatial planning sysetms
requires attention to both land use planning and sectoral spatial policy making, and national
and retional governments have important role on both counts. It should not be assumed that a
land use planning system can grow so as to act as a sectoral policy coordination or integration
mechanism. If the traditional place of planning is as an unequal partner to other sectors then
there may be effective resistance from other policy sectors on a spatial planning strategy. In
fact land use planning is typically much weaker than some other sectors. Where planning
policy is brought together with other strong sectors the spatial policy element (and its
sustainability component) is likely ‘to be diluted into ,rather than integrated with, the others
(Liberatore 1997: 119).

6.9. The extent of spatial policy integration compartmentalised, diluted, coordinated or

integrated. Libertore has suggested indicators for measuring the success of sectoral policy

11
integration (with an emphasis on the integration of environmental sustainability into other
policy sectors). These are (amended for use in this paper

 the extent, degree and timing of environmental assessment in sectoral policy formulation;
 the existence and frequency of consultations between jurisdictions with competence for
sectoral policies at the various levels, and whether these are symbolic or lead to co-
decision;
 assessment of comparability of new sectoral legislation with environmental legislation
 whether policy evaluation includes and assessment of the environmental consequences of
policies;
 whether funding is available for sustainable development in each sector.

6.10. Positive results can be achieved in different ways. The research on which this paper is
based, suggests that there is equal potential of very different institutional arrangements and
spatial planning systems in achieving more sustainable development. For example, although
an effective tier of regional planning is crucial to the elaboration of spatial planning policy for
sustainable development, it can be delivered effectively in one country by a regional tier of
government and in another through voluntary co-operation of local authorities.

7. Instruments and procedures available to spatial planning for sustainability

7.1. This section considers some aspects of the systems of spatial planning (instruments
and procedures which are available to policy and decision makers who wish to address
sustainability through spatial planning. This is a selective discussion based on the main
findings from the SPECTRA project

7.2. The scope of spatial planning instruments: The legal definitions of the scope of
planning systems strongly emphasise land use concerns and may specifically exclude other
closely related areas. Thus the legal competence of spatial planning is generally limited to the
regulation of land use and physical development issues and excludes important related areas,
notably energy, transport and nature conservation (in different degrees depending on
location). Moreover, sectoral interests and professions lack a common understanding of
sustainability and may base decisions on different data and criteria. There is also a reliance
within planning on statutory instruments which are constrained in the extent to which they can
consider the wide range of relevant considerations for sustainability. It is interesting to note in
the unusual situations of ‘crisis planning’ following natural disasters. Less attention is paid to
traditional boundaries of competence and more inclusive cross-sectoral strategies have been
created and implemented. It follows that a successful planning system would have more
permeable boundaries in terms of competence. Successful planning tools for sustainability
may lie outside the statutory system (extra-legal tools). The need to cut across sectoral and
administrative boundaries, to take a long-term perspective and to build a wide consensus may
require the use of informal methods that are not restricted by legal specification of
competences and jurisdictions.

7.3. Sustainable development objectives in national and regional (sectoral) policy

statements: National and/or regional sustainable development policy frameworks (both
outside and within spatial planning) are very important for determining the extent to which

12
sustainability is considered, and the particular interpretation of sustainability at the regional
and local operational levels. The potential value of a strong national framework is that it can
consistently embed the same sustainability goals in a range of sectoral policies. Efforts to
coordinate sectoral policy at the local level around sustainability objectives are very difficult
where government allows for different priorities in each sector. The national and regional
policy framework is also very significant in shaping aspirations and awareness, and providing
confidence and enabling action at the local level, especially where it establishes ambitious and
challenging targets. There is a natural tension between national and local objectives for
sustainability through spatial planning – local interests will not always coincide with national
or regional interests. More attention needs to be paid to the distribution and sharing of
competences in spatial planning for sustainability such that national (and global)
sustainability objectives are reflected in local decisions, but whilst promoting local discretion
and innovation. On this there are significant differences among EU states with some
demonstrating a strong commitment to sustainability at the national level which has enhanced
the response locally.

7.4. Commitment and flexibility in planning instruments: There is great variation in the
form of regional and local planning instruments. They vary in the extent of commitment they
impose or discretion they allow to the ‘decision making moment’. Some instruments outline
precise boundaries on detailed maps, whilst others adopt a more symbolic approach to the
graphical representation of policy. (The exceptions here are geographical areas that are to be
protected from development which are always defined in some detail.) More specific systems
can have severe problems especially when linked to rigid procedures which effectively grant
or withhold development rights at the time that the plan is created. Creating sustainable
outcomes requires a sensitive approach taking into account appraisal of environmental and
sustainability implications, environmental enhancement and mitigating measures, and views
of local stakeholders which can only be judged at the time that development proposals come
forward. Systems that try to make all decisions in advance through zoning approaches are
very difficult to operate effectively. The question here is what matters can and should be
specified during plan making and what matters should be left for negotiation at a later stage.
The answer will vary according to the particular policy theme, perhaps, for example, adopting
a more rigid approach in protecting sensitive environments and resources.

7.5. The general use of rigid zoning instruments in the regulation of land use and
development is undoubtedly a significant barrier in achieving more sustainable development.
Zoning instruments are used as a benchmark against which to judge development proposals
(with varying degrees of rigidity). Whilst this approach has the benefits of certainty (and in
some cases clear accountability) and can provide strong protection to certain sites, there is
limited flexibility to negotiate solutions at the local level and to devise innovative solutions.
The results show that this is a major constraint on the potential of spatial planning to
implement sustainability. It is critical to establish sustainability criteria and address the
cumulative impacts of development through firm policy instruments. But lack of flexibility in
decision making can stifle innovation. Spatial planning appears to contribute to sustainability
more effectively where it is strict on the principles but flexible in the solutions. Bearing in
mind the need for strong commitment in some cases it is generally not desirable to determine
outcomes in advance but to specify the criteria that will be used to judge alternative proposals.

7.6. Inclusive planning processes Spatial planning can (and does in many cases) provide
good opportunities for other sectoral interests and the public to be involved and engaged in

13
decision-making. It can also bring forward to the decision-making process wider interests that
would otherwise not be represented. Planning procedures that are inclusive and promote a
sense of ownership of the plan amongst a wide range of interests appear more successful in
sustainability terms. This is particularly important in relation to other sectors of public policy
(primarily transport, environment and regional policy but also others such as energy, health
and education) whose activities are crucial to achieving sustainable development. However, as
noted above, spatial planning is often relatively weak in comparison to other sectors plans and
programmes. There is little ownership of the spatial strategy in other policy sectors. Spatial
strategies are often compromised by objectives of sectoral policy and the credibility of the
system suffers. Again, this focuses attention on the need to also address spatial planning as a
cross-sectoral process and tool.

7.7. Resources, incentives and sanctions: More sustainable solutions tend to require
innovation which involves a perceived greater risk for investors. The lack of resources to
underwrite the risk is a significant barrier whether development is publicly or privately
funded. Public land ownership has been an important catalyst in some cases, and land value
betterment can be used to achieve sustainability goals. The EU has played a positive role in
providing resources for regional development, but they have not always been well connected
to sustainability criteria. There are many actors involved in the spatial development process
and the ability to provide incentives and sanctions so that they adopt sustainability principles
into their activities (such as in the design of housing layouts) can be a very positive factor.
Mechanisms are needed that provide incentives for landowners, developers and investors to
adopt more sustainable solutions. Such incentives may lie outside the traditional land use
policy remit of spatial planning, including taxation and subsidy measures.

7.8. Knowledge skills and awareness Sustainable development is a complex issue,

particularly in the cross-sectoral nature of decision making that it requires. There is no doubt
that many professionals lack an understanding of the principles of sustainability (and they
often recognise and are concerned about this). Uncertainty and disagreement about the
appropriate spatial planning policies that may make for more sustainable development, and
professional compartmentalisation reinforce the problem. Systems may also be deficient in
knowledge such as environmental resources or the long term and cumulative impacts of
development. Monitoring and measurement of progress towards sustainability is also
constrained through lack of available baseline and other data. There is an urgent need to build
capacity to address sustainability institutionally and among different professional groups.
Spatial planning systems have an important role to play in raising awareness, agenda building
and disseminating information about sustainable development. Planning tools must
demonstrate effective communication to local communities and other professional fields.

8. Governance

8.1. The governance issues are are principally about what tasks of spatial planning and
sustainability should be performed at various jurisdicational levels, and how the levels then
cooperate. The criterion of subsidiarity helps with this. The general normative principle of
subsidiarity it widely employed in considering the assignment of competences in government,
especially in federal systems. Subsidiarity also has a specific meaning in European Union
law, where it has been used primarily to limit the powers and actions of the supranational
institutions. [3] But the general principle of subsidiarity is that powers should be retained at
the lowest possible level and not ceded upwards unless action cannot be effectively

14
undertaken at the lower levels, and where action at the higher level brings general societal
benefits, or the extension of individual freedoms (Nadin and Shaw, 1999).

8.2. The subsidiarity principle implicitly assumes a multi-level governmental system.

Where the application of the principle suggests devolution of action to a lower level which
does not exist then it should be created. If that jurisdictional level is weak then it may need to
be strengthened. Similarly it may be necessary to create institutions at levels above the nation
state where the issues cut across boundaries. The sustainability debate has been a factor in the
creation of new transboundary institutions. However, the assignment of competences and
their application will depend on the existing governmental structure, and the maturity and
capacity of institutions already in place or being created. This is particularly important in the
case of the European transition countries (although by no means restricted to them) where
new or renewed forms of national, regional and local government are being created, and
where the capacity of some institutions is as yet limited. In such circumstances, strict
adherence to the ideal of local decision making may be counter-productive unless the local
institutions have the resources, expertise and processes in place to deal with them effectively.

8.3. In practice, national government (and in federal systems, the state governments)
usually has powers to determine what actions are taken at what levels, and how resources are
used within its own jurisdiction. This sovereign power of nation states can become a major
obstacle to sustainable development if the need to surrender and/or share competences either
upwards or downwards to other jurisdictions is not recognised (Blowers 1995: 13). An
important task for national government is to consider carefully what spatial planning
competences should be performed at what levels - the transboundary, national, regional and
local.

8.4. The subsidiarity criterion is mostly one for individual countries to address. But some
general comments can be made about the assignment of spatial planning competences from an
environmental sustainability perspective. There is general agreement that the complex task of
policy integration is best done, and most easily achieved at the regional and local levels
(Blowers 1993, Haughton and Hunter 1994). Action at the local level is more likely to
promote the necessary changes in individual behaviour, and ‘an enduring commitment to
environmental responsibility’ which are critical to addressing global environmental concerns
(Selman 1996:4). Local government is well placed to manage the allocation of resources
within its community in the knowledge of local environmental and land use conditions,
citizen and local interest group viewpoints and participation. Regional level jurisdictions are
more appropriate for addressing some principles and policy themes (although the
administrative boundaries are unlikely to match environmental regions). This is especially so
in identifying and safeguarding carrying capacities, promoting balanced settlement structures
and reducing the need to travel and the creation of open space networks.

8.5. It has been argued that the role of national government in spatial planning for
sustainability is largely to create the conditions within which regional and local initiatives can
develop. This will also apply to regions in federal and strongly regionalised countries. Thus
the main tasks are to coordinate the creation of policy for different spatial scales; to identify
appropriate targets and methods to implement them; and to monitor and evaluate the results
(Blowers, 1997). National government will also be important in providing overarching
strategic direction, building capacity at the appropriate institutional levels; providing
information on the state of the environment and fostering debate on the meaning of
sustainability. As well as this facilitating role, some aspects of environmental sustainability

15
inevitably require direct action at the national level, notably in the need to protect critical
natural capital, as through the designation of protected sites which may need the power of
national and regional government to enforce.

8.6. National government will also need to cede aspects of spatial planning policy to
transboundary institutions, as is already well established for air quality and climate change
targets. There is a need for spatial planning responses at the supranational level to address the
increasing significance of global forces in determining spatial development patterns and
sustainability, and the externality effects of national and regional spatial planning decisions
across borders.

8.7. However, the assignment of competences and their application will depend on the
existing governmental structure, and the maturity and capacity of institutions already in place
or being created. In some countries, strict adherence to the ideal of local decision making
may be counter-productive where the local institutions do not have the resources, expertise
and processes in place to deal with them effectively. In these circumstances it may be more
acceptable for higher levels of central involvement although whilst strengthening local
capacity.

9. Conclusion

9.1. The goal of more sustainable development has led to considerable rethinking about the
role and operation of spatial planning, with much action on reforming policy and systems. On
policy there is evidence of considerable innovation, but the strategies adopted are generally
conservative and reflect a weak definition of sustainability. There is little fundamental change
in policy towards demand management, but rather novel ways are found of meeting market
demand in more sustainable ways. Planning policies generally (though there is still much
variation) balance competing interests rather than assert sustainability principles.

9.2. In conclusion the presentation has highlighted the potential of spatial planning systems
to contribute to more sustainable development. However, it is recognised that the structure of
the planning system is only one factor in the successful implementation of environmental
sustainability through spatial planning. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Whether
or not sustainability is promoted through the system, and the effectiveness of that action will
depend on other factors - not least political priorities and relative economic conditions, citizen
values and attitudes. Nevertheless, it is important that planning authorities take action to
ensure that structures and mechanisms are in place that will facilitate the implementation of
sustainability. The conclusion is that whereas important requirements in relation to planning
systems and policies are not being met, some progress is being made.

References

Agence Européenne Territories and Synergies, EURE-Consult SA, Nederlands Economisch

Instituut NEI and Quaternaire Portugal (2001) Spatial Impacts of Community Policies and
Costs of Non-coordination, Brussels, Directorate General Regional Policy, CEC

16
Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D. and Young, S. (1997) 'The theory and practice of
sustainable development in EU perspective, in Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D. and
Young, S. (1997) The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy and Practice
within the European Union, London, Routledge

Brown, C. and Dühr, S. (1999) Prospects for the implementation of sustainability through
spatial planning: a comparative review, Paper presented to the XII AESOP Congress, 7-11
July 1999, Bergen, Norway

Brown, C., Dühr, S. and Nadin, V. (2001 forthcoming) Sustainability, Development and
Spatial Planning in Europe, London, Routledge

CEC (1990) Green Paper on the Urban Environment: Communication from the Commission
to the Council and Parliament, COM(90) 218 final, Brussels

CEC (1999) European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards Balanced and Sustainable
Development of the Territory of the EU, Presented at the informal meeting of Ministers
responsible for spatial planning in the member states of the European Union, Potsdam, May
1999, Luxembourg, Office for the Official Publications of the European Community

Cowell, R. and Owens, S. (1997) Sustainability: the new challenge, in Blowers, A. and Evans,
B. 1997, pp. 15-31

ECA, S.A. (2002) Land Use – Exploring the Scope for Action at the EU Level, DG
Environment Markets Team, Brussels

European Consultative Forum on the Environment and Sustainable Development (2000)

Policy Statement on Space and Land Use, Brussels, ECFESD

European Environment Agency (1998) Europe’s Environment: The Second Assessment,

Luxembourg, Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities

EU Expert Group on the Urban Environment Sustainable Cities Project (1996)

European Sustainable Cities Final Report, Luxembourg, Office for the Official Publications
of the European Community,

Evans, B. and Rydin, Y. (1997) Planning, professionalism and sustainability, in Blowers, A.

and Evans, B., 1997 pp. 56-69

Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A. and Needham, B. (1997) Making Strategic Spatial Plans:
Innovation in Europe, London: UCL Press.

Koresawa, A. and Konvitz, J. (2001) Towards a new role for spatial planning, in OECD
(2001) Towards a New Role for Spatial Planning, Paris, OECD, 11- 32

Kousis, M., Richardson, D. and Young, S. (1997) The Politics of Sustainable Development:
Theory, Policy and Practice within the European Union, London, Routledge

Le Gales, P. (1998) Regulation and governance in British Sites, International Journal of

Urban and Regional Research, 22(3): 482-506

17
Libetore, A. (1997) Sustainable development and EU policy making’, in Baker, S. et al,
(1997) The Politics of Sustainable Development: Theory Policy and Practice within the
European Union, London, Routledge

Myerson, G. and Rydin, Y. (1996) ‘Sustainable development: the implications of the global
debate for land use planning’, in Buckingham-Hatfield, S. and Evans, B. (1996)
Environmental Planning and Sustainability, London: Wiley

Nadin, V. 2000. European spatial planning: what it means in principle and practice. Paper
presented to the European Council of Town Planners Congress, London: December 2000.

Nadin, V. (1999) Is spatial planning good for sustainable development? The capacity of
spatial planning systems to implement sustainability: an interim report from the SPECTRA
project, Second Symposium: Regions - Cornerstones for Sustainable Development, 13-14
September 1999, Joensuu, Finland

Nadin, V. and Mills, L (1998) The capacity of spatial planning systems to develop and
implement policy for sustainability, Symposium Regions - Cornerstones for Sustainable
Development, October 28-30 Graz, Austria

Nadin, V. and Shaw, D. (1999) Subsidiarity and Proportionality in EU Spatial Planning

Activities, Research Report for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions, London, Stationery Office

Nadin, V., Hawkes, P. Cooper, S., Shaw, D. and Westlake, T. (1997) The EU Compendium
of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies, Regional Development Studies No. 28,
Luxembourg, Office for the Official Publications of the European Community

Nadin, V. Brown, C. and Dühr, S. (forthcoming) Sustainability, Development and Spatial

Planning in the EU, London Routledge

O’Riordan, T. (1985) 'What does sustainability really mean? Theory and development of
concepts of sustainability’, in Sustainable Development in an Industrial Economy,
Proceedings of a Conference, Queen’s College, Cambridge, UK Centre for Economic and
Environmental Development

O’Riordan, T. (1999) Planning for Sustainable Development, London, Town and Country
Planning Association

Sassen, S. (1995) 'Urban impacts of economic globalisation' in Brotchie, J., Batty, M.,
Blakely, E., Hall, P. and Newton, P. Cities in Competition: Productive and Sustainable Cities
for the 21st Century, Melbourne, Longman

Selman, P. (1996) Local Sustainability: Managing and Planning Ecologically Sound Places,
London, Paul Chapman Ltd.

United Nations (1987) Environmental Perspective to the Year 2000 and beyond, Resolution
42/186 Annex, New York: United Nations

18
United Nations (1992) Agenda21: The UN Programme of Action from Rio, New York,
United Nations

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford
University Press

Notes

1
The paper has been prepared using research material from partners in the SPECTRA project,
funded by the European Commission’s Directorate XII under the Environment and Climate
Programme: Project No. ENV4-CT97-0644(DG12). The partners are The Centre for
Environment and Planning, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK; VTT Technical
Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland; The National Technical University of Athens,
Greece; the Department of Regional and Urban Planning, University College Dublin, Ireland;
Ambiente Italia srl, Istituto di Ricerche, Milano, Italy; Faculteit der Beleidswetenschappen,
Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen The Netherlands; and the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), Freiburg, Germany. More detailed findings are available
in the case study and synthesis reports at <www.uwe.ac.uk/spectra>.
2
Knowledge about the structure and operation of different planning systems is mostly limited
to descriptions of their key features, as for example, in the International Manual of Planning
Practice (Dal Cin and Lyddon 1996). Other studies have provided further elaboration, for
example on the principles which govern the granting of planning permission (Schmidt-
Eichstaedt 1996) or the integration of different types of permit (GMA Planning 1993).
Numerous other studies have concentrated more on comparison of the various facets of the
operation of planning systems in Europe (for example, Davies et al 1989, Healey and
Williams 1993; Hull 1996; and Newman and Thornley 1996).
3
Subsidiarity has a very specific meaning in European Union law - it does not affect the
assignment of competences which is the effect of the Treaties, but it does affect whether or
not those competences are used at the European level.

19