Planning at the state and national level leads to more efficient investments in infrastructure, better resilience in the face of climate change, and greater equity in economic development, but most land use planning continues to be done at the local level, according to new research published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Planning for States and Nation-States in the U.S. and Europe, edited by Armando Carbonell, Gerrit-Jan Knaap, and Zorica Nedovic-Budic, examines the role of the U.S. federal government and the European Union, and compares land use and spatial planning structures in five U.S. states (Oregon, California, Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey) and five western European nations (The Netherlands, Denmark, France, U.K., and Ireland).
The case studies highlight innovative strategies adopted by states and nation-states to address global and local planning challenges in the 21st century. The conclusions suggest a trend towards the devolution of planning responsibilities from the level of nations, states, and nation-states, to lower levels of government.
“In the U.S., where few states engage in planning and an aversion to national planning persists, the love affair with ‘localism’ handicaps our ability to deal with challenges like climate change, growing economic disparity, and inadequate infrastructure,” said Armando Carbonell, senior fellow and chairman of the Department of Planning and Urban Form at the Lincoln Institute.
The book, which is based on a symposium by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, the School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy at University College, Dublin, and the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland, will have its debut at the American Planning Association’s National Planning Conference in Seattle April 17-22, 2015.
The fundamental challenges of building and sustaining human settlements have not changed significantly for centuries: shelter, sanitation, transportation, nutrition, social interaction, and economic production. The relative urgency of these challenges, however, has changed over time, as have the planning and public policy approaches to address them. Since the turn of the last century, climate change, economic development, social justice, and community revitalization have risen to the top of the planning agenda.
To address these issues, planners have conducted extensive research, developed and marshaled new technologies, and adopted a variety of new tools and policy instruments. In addition, planners and policy makers in some European nations and some U.S. states have significantly changed the relative roles of international organizations and national, state, regional, and local governments.
In the United States, during the first term of the Obama administration, the federal government launched several new initiatives to facilitate collaborative planning at the metropolitan scale. Beginning in the 1970s, some states strengthened and then loosened oversight of local planning, some assigned new responsibilities to regional governments, and still others prepared and adopted statewide development plans. Oregon and Maryland are perhaps best known for robust statewide planning initiatives to encourage more sustainable development.
In Europe, changes in the roles of governments have been more dramatic and widespread, beginning with the creation of the European Union (EU) and the emergence of pan- European planning frameworks. To foster unity and economic growth, the EU promulgated principles of spatial development for its member nations. Some European nations adopted national spatial development strategies, while others delegated more responsibilities to regional and local governments.
Planning for States and Nation-States in the U.S. and Europe(2015 / 552 Pages / Paper / $35.00 / ISBN: 978-155844-291-7 / eBook ISBN: 978-1-55844-292-4) is edited by Armando Carbonell, senior fellow and chairman, Department of Planning and Urban Form, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy; Gerrit-Jan Knaap, Professor of Urban Studies and Planning,Director, National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, Associate Dean for Research and Creative Activity, School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation, University of Maryland; and Zorica Nedovic-Budic, Professor of Spatial Planning, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Ireland.
Contributors in the U.S. analysis are Patricia E. Salkin, dean of the Touro Law Center (Land Use Regulation in the United States: An Intergovernmental Framework); Ethan Seltzer, professor at the Nohad A. Toulon School of Urban Studies and Planning at Portland State University (Land Use Planning in Oregon: The Quilt and the Struggle for Scale); William Fulton, director of the Kinder Institute for Urban Research at Rice University (Will Climate Change Save Growth Management in California?); Martin A. Bierbaum, senior scholar at the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, University of Maryland (The New Jersey State Planning Experience: From Ambitious Vision to Implementation Quagmire to Goal Redefinition); Gerrit-Jan Knapp (Using Incentives to Combat Sprawl: Maryland’s Evolving Approach to Smart Growth); and Rebecca Lewis, assistant professor of Planning, Public Policy, and Management at the University of Oregon (Delaware’s Quiet Emergence into Innovative State Planning).
Contributors providing commentary in the U.S. section are: Richard Whitman, Natural Resources Policy Director, Oregon Office of the Governor; Richard Hall, Secretary, Mary land Department of Planning; Constance C. Holland, Director, Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination; Mike McKeever, Executive Director, Sacramento Association of Governments; and Frank J. Popper, professor of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, and the Environmental Studies Program, Prince ton University.
Contributors to the section on Europe are: Andreas Faludi, Emeritus Professor of Spatial Policy Systems in Europe and Guest Researcher, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands (The European Union Context of National Planning); Barrie Needham, Emeritus Professor of Spatial Planning, Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University, The Netherlands (The National Spatial Strategy for The Netherlands); Stig Enemark, Professor of Land Management Aalborg University, and Honorary President, International Federation of Surveyors, Denmark, and Daniel Galland, Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Denmark (The Danish National Spatial Planning Framework: Fluctuating Capacities of Planning Policies and Institutions); Anna Geppert, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Paris– Sorbonne, France (Planning Without a Spatial Development Perspective? The French Case); Mark Tewdwr-Jones, Professor of Town Planning, Newcastle University, United Kingdom (National Planning in the United Kingdom); and Berna Grist, Senior Lecturer, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Ireland (The Irish National Spatial Strategy).
Commentators in the Europe section are Jane Kragh Andersen, Geographer, Ministry of the Environment, Denmark; Henriette Bersee, Head of Policy Studies, Directorate for Spatial Development, Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, The Netherlands; Niall Cussen, Senior Planning Adviser, Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Ireland; Jean Peyrony, Director General, Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière, France; Brendan Williams, Lecturer, School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy, University College Dublin, Ireland; and Leonora Rozee, Visiting Professor, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, United Kingdom.