Spatial planning and governance: understanding UK planning
Spatial planning and governance: understanding UK planning
复制标题
空间规划和治理：了解英国规划
DOI：
10.1080/02665433.2013.774568
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
0.8
通讯作者：
S. Payne
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Payne
这本书的地方土地和政治作为中央租户在英国空间规划的理解，无论是在概念和实践中，在不断变化的治理制度，英国土地使用和管理。上面写着...土地和空间规划以及土地使用管理过程的争议性质，负责收集空间变化的情报和调解领土上的冲突主张“（72）。第一章提供了一个简短的历史背景，本书的叙述。它概述了土地使用的困难和不确定性，介绍了空间规划作为一个非常不稳定的过程，负责管理这些争论，并概述了空间规划，特别是自1947年以来，如何受到市场，环境和不断变化的政治期望的影响。这一章提醒我们，在整个二十世纪，规划成了一种“......一个妥协的系统，在政治上夹在几个不同的二元制之间-城市和农村，个人和集体，经济和社会，开发商和社区。[和].今天仍然是这个泥潭的中心（11）。第2章讨论了英国在21世纪将如何变化，概述了具有土地和空间影响的变化的主要驱动因素。这一章很好地突出了规划面临的主要不确定性不断变化的人口水平，不断变化的经济条件，不断变化的环境条件，运输和基础设施的要求和能源供应，以及制定和管理决策，以解决这些问题的政治困难。第三章从概念和实践两个方面论述了英国空间规划的兴起。它回顾了三个正在进行的改革过程重新领土化，欧洲化和一体化后，它提供了这些新形式的空间规划如何试图在英国找到一个实践基地的批评。这一章，实际上是这本书，认为英国空间规划议程的出现是“......通过英国政府、机构、专业和法律的规划框架，实现规划的另一次转型和再政治化“（67）。本章最后强调，空间规划一词已被“…在政治上和专业上都被用来描述规划的更广泛的作用，而在一代人之前，规划已经变得非常不受欢迎和受到质疑。通过讨论，第三章突出了一个重要问题：“……这些新形式的空间规划是否实际上导致政府有能力在没有中央指导的情况下提供战略政策，从而允许在新的过程中出现次国家和地方特色。第四章探讨了欧洲的起源和制定的空间规划，并探讨了它如何影响了不同的规划系统在欧洲各地。本章强调了欧洲化作为规划研究领域的一种新兴范式所面临的概念挑战，认为它可以被描述为“欧洲化”。通过多种方法，这取决于它被用作调查框架的不同学科背景”（76）。第五章讨论了国家空间规划、国家规划政策的作用以及“权力下放时代的国家空间职权范围”（107）。在这种背景下，本章很好地将读者吸引到了空间规划目前面临的一个关键争论：
This book places land and politics as central tenants in the understanding of UK spatial planning, both in concept and practice, within changing governance regimes of UK land use and management. It sets out ‘... the contested nature of both land and spatial planning and landuse management processes charged with gathering intelligence on spatial change and mediating conflicting claims on territory’(72).The book is structured into 10 chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief historical context to the book’s narrative. It outlines the difficulties and uncertainties with how land is used, introduces spatial planning as an extremely fluid process tasked with managing these contentions and outlines how spatial planning, since 1947 in particular, has been influenced by the market, the environment and changing political expectations. The chapter reminds us that planning, throughout the twentieth century, became ‘... a compromised system, caught politically between several different dualisms–urban and rural, individual and collective, economic and social, developer and community...[and]... remains at the centre of this quagmire today’(11). Chapter 2 discusses how the UK is expected to change in the twenty-first century, outlining the key drivers of change that have land and spatial implications. The chapter serves well to highlight the key uncertainties facing planning–changing population levels, changing economic conditions, changing environmental conditions, transport and infrastructure requirements and energy provision–and the political difficulties of making and administering decisions to address these issues. Chapter 3 discusses the emergence of spatial planning in the UK, both conceptually and in practice. It reviews three ongoing processes of reform–re-territorialization, Europeanization and integration–after which it provides a critique of how these new forms of spatial planning are attempting to find a practice base in the UK. The chapter, and indeed the book, considers the emergence of the UK spatial planning agenda as ‘... yet another transformation and re-politicization of planning through the governmental, institutional, professional and legal frameworks of planning in the UK’(67). The chapter concludes by emphasizing that the term spatial planning has been ‘... appropriated politically and professionally to describe a broader role for planning that, a generation ago, had become deeply unpopular and questioned’(71). Through its discussion, Chapter 3 highlights an important question:‘... whether these new forms of spatial planning actually lead to an ability on the part of government to provide strategic policy without central direction, and thereby allow sub-national and local distinctiveness to emerge within the new processes’(69). Chapter 4 examines the European origin and formulation of spatial planning and explores how it has impacted upon different planning systems across Europe. The chapter highlights the conceptual challenges facing Europeanization as an emerging paradigm in the field of planning studies, arguing that it can be characterized ‘... by a multiplicity of approaches, depending on the different disciplinary contexts in which it is used as an inquiry framework’(76). Chapter 5 discusses national spatial planning, the role of national planning policy and the ‘national spatial remit in the age of decentralization’(107). Against this backdrop, the chapter serves well in drawing the reader to a key debate currently facing spatial planning: