Global crisis, spatial justice and the planning systems: a European comparison

Inadequate regulation of spatial development is at the origin of the current global crisis and increases, in years of crisis, the unequal distribution of global wealth. The importance of the related risks draws attention to the systems of spatial governance and planning, through which States regulate the spatial development. In Europe, the countries most affected by the crisis have spatial planning systems that are traditionally based on the preventive assignation of rights for land use and development through the plan. The systems of the States that are less affected by the crisis have established rather that new rights for land use and for spatial development are assigned only after the public control of development projects and their distributional effects. More generally, the fact that the former model is still widely prevalent in the world may help to explain the global scale and the duration of the crisis. Despite the evidence that some models can operate better than others, the improvement of spatial planning systems is however limited by their complex nature of “institutional technologies”. In such a context, planners are especially responsible for the increase of public awareness concerning the role of spatial governance in economic and social life

Global crisis and the systems of spatial governance: varying patterns of urban democracy

Inadequate regulation of urban markets is at the origin of the current global crisis and increases, in years of crisis, the unequal distribution of global wealth. The importance of the related risks draws attention to the systems of spatial governance, through which States regulate the urban markets. In Europe, one can observe that the countries most affected by the crisis have systems of spatial governance that are based on the preventive assignation of rights for land use and for spatial development through the urban plan. The systems of the European States that are less affected by the crisis establish rather that new rights for land use and for spatial development are assigned only after the public control of development projects and their distributional effects. More generally, the fact that the former model is still widely prevalent in the world may help to explain the global dimension and the duration of the crisis. Despite the evidence that some models can operate better than others, the improvement of spatial governance systems is however limited by their complex nature of “institutional technologies”. In such a context, planners are especially responsible for the increase of public awareness concerning the role of spatial governance for economic and social life

ESPON project 2.3.2. Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies from EU to Local Level. Third Interim Report

ESPON research repor

Global crisis and the systems of spatial governance and planning: a European comparison

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

EU territorial governance: learning from institutional progress

EU territorial governance is a concept now familiar to European planners and decision makers. However, the lack of an official definition makes its relationship with planning activities and processes in the EU member countries unclear. Looking back at the recent history of various attempts to factor territory into the EU policy agenda, this article proposes a systematic review of institutional documents regarding, in a direct or indirect manner, EU territorial governance. The aim of the article is to assess the positioning of this concept in an institutional perspective from direct sources, in order to discuss possible implications for planning in the context of European integration

A conceptual device for spreading (good) territorial governance in Europe

Is it possible to spread good territorial governance in Europe and, if so, in which ways can such aim be achieved? This paper presents a conceptual device, developed within the ESPON project TANGO (Territorial Approaches for New Governance), usable to manage the spread of examples or "features" of good territorial governance in Europe. It is worth clarifying that this paper does not face the issues of defining what is "good" in territorial governance, nor of what can or should be transferred in this complex domain; problems thatthe aforementioned research project has also met. It focuses rather on modalities of transfer, particularly on "paths and means" through which (good) territorial governance might pass from one place to another or others, and on their major strengths and weaknesses. In order to achieve this aim vis-à-vis the well-known complexities of policy transfer (see, amongst others: Dolowitz & Marsh 1996, 2000; James & Lodge 2003), the proposed framework builds on the authors' previous reflections about Europeanization of territorial governance (Cotella & Janin Rivolin 2010). This approach welcomes the assumption that, for institutional matters, policy transfer in the European Union (EU) and Europeanization are arguably two sides of the same coin (Wishlade et al. 2003).The EU is indeed an institutional context in which «the apparatus of policy diffusion and development has transnationalised in such a profound and irreversible way as to render anachronistic the notion of independent, "domestic" decision-making» (Peck 2011: 774). The institutional nature of territorial governance and of its changing is thus a fixed point of the proposed conceptual device: therefore, whereas potentially generalisable and adaptable to other institutional contexts, its application is here tailored on the EU's contex

L’impegno di Luigi Mazza per un sapere tecnico consapevole

Luigi Mazza – affettuosamente Gigi per amici e colleghi – è stato una figura centrale permanente nel mio percorso accademico e personale. La nostra interazione è stata però particolarmente intensa in tre momenti, dai quali ho capito ogni volta qualcosa in più del suo impegno per un sapere tecnico consapevole

Unione europea e governo del territorio

L’Unione europea non è uno Stato, né dispone di un proprio sistema di governo del territorio. È un’istituzione sovranazionale senza precedenti nella storia né uguali nel mondo contemporaneo che, nel perseguire l’integrazione tra gli Stati che vi partecipano, promuove la coesione economica, sociale e territoriale. La politica di coesione, avviata alla fine degli anni ’80 del secolo scorso, concorre alla formazione delle politiche spaziali negli Stati europei e pone questioni di governo del territorio alla scala continentale

Sistemi di governo del territorio in Europa

Il governo del territorio dipende dal funzionamento di «sistemi» di principi e tecniche di ordinamento spaziale, istituzionalmente definiti. Il confronto fra i sistemi di governo del territorio in Europa ha dato origine a varie classificazioni e ad alcune distinzioni preliminari. Comprendere la natura di tali sistemi come «tecnologie istituzionali» aiuta a chiarirne le funzioni e a osservare come queste siano variamente esercitate, in ogni Stato, per assegnare i diritti d’uso e di trasformazione del suolo. Per sua natura, un sistema di governo del territorio è il prodotto di una costruzione sociale assai complessa e di lungo periodo, come l’esperienza italiana consente di esemplificare

Valle d'Aosta

In Aosta Valley region 77,9% of women (aged 25-64) are screened regularly, meaning every 3 years. Considering regional tariffs and vaccine acquisition cost, the vaccination of 12-year-old girls with a 90% coverage could prevent 2 cases of cervicocarcinoma and 1 related death and thus results to be cost-effective (33.211 €/QALY). When the vaccination programme is extended to 16-year-old girls a further 1 cancer case could be prevented, with a very similar cost-effectiveness ratio. In Aosta Valley region, the net cost for woman vaccinated is 209 € for the single cohort and 211 € for the multiple cohort