Foreword: equality of parties |
|
xi | |
Foreword: balancing planning practice and academia |
|
xiv | |
Acknowledgement |
|
xvi | |
|
1 Spatial planning - an exploration of the discipline |
|
|
1 | (35) |
|
1.1 Finding spatial planning - an approach to a definition |
|
|
4 | (10) |
|
1.1.1 Spatial planning and the future |
|
|
5 | (4) |
|
1.1.2 Spatial planning is comprehensive, not sectoral |
|
|
9 | (2) |
|
1.1.3 Planning as a public activity - the trias politica |
|
|
11 | (3) |
|
1.2 Spatial planning as a discipline - between practical application and an academic discipline |
|
|
14 | (2) |
|
1.3 The planning triangle |
|
|
16 | (5) |
|
|
17 | (1) |
|
|
18 | (1) |
|
|
19 | (2) |
|
1.4 Evolution of planning and its theory |
|
|
21 | (3) |
|
1.4.1 Focusing on the object: blueprint planning until the 1970s |
|
|
21 | (1) |
|
1.4.2 Focus on planning processes: collaborative planning around the 1990s |
|
|
22 | (1) |
|
1.4.3 Context matters at the start of the 21st century |
|
|
23 | (1) |
|
1.5 Theory in practice - examples from the Netherlands |
|
|
24 | (10) |
|
1.5.1 Towards spatial planning as a national policy interest |
|
|
24 | (2) |
|
1.5.2 `The Dutch created the Netherlands' (1965-1985) |
|
|
26 | (2) |
|
1.5.3 `The Dutch Planner's Paradise' (1985-2010) |
|
|
28 | (3) |
|
1.5.4 `Paradise Lost?'--New challenges, and a new Act? (2010-present) |
|
|
31 | (3) |
|
1.6 Conclusion: Entangled theory and practice |
|
|
34 | (2) |
|
2 The object of planning: land-use |
|
|
36 | (20) |
|
2.1 The object of planning: five key characteristics |
|
|
36 | (4) |
|
2.1.1 The physical connection of an object to a location (1) |
|
|
37 | (1) |
|
2.1.2 The inert nature of the object (2) |
|
|
38 | (1) |
|
2.1.3 The heterogeneity of the object (3) |
|
|
38 | (1) |
|
2.1.4 The functional possibilities of the object (4) |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
2.1.5 The price of the object (5) |
|
|
39 | (1) |
|
2.2 Spatial planning and land-use planning |
|
|
40 | (4) |
|
2.2.1 Different perspectives on the development of land-use |
|
|
41 | (2) |
|
2.2.2 The complexity of land-use |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
2.3 Land-use planning at different spatial scales |
|
|
44 | (4) |
|
|
45 | (1) |
|
|
46 | (1) |
|
|
46 | (1) |
|
2.3.4 Multi-level dynamics |
|
|
47 | (1) |
|
2.4 Land-use and scale: planning large-scale infrastructures |
|
|
48 | (5) |
|
2.4.1 Investing in large-scale infrastructure development |
|
|
48 | (1) |
|
2.4.2 The structuring effects of infrastructure: space and time |
|
|
49 | (2) |
|
2.4.3 Dutch example: the Betuweroute and the German hinterland |
|
|
51 | (2) |
|
2.5 Discussion: scale and scarcity in Dutch land-use planning |
|
|
53 | (1) |
|
2.6 Conclusion: increasing normativity |
|
|
54 | (2) |
|
3 The process of planning: policy and governance |
|
|
56 | (21) |
|
3.1 The process of planning as a policy cycle |
|
|
57 | (7) |
|
3.1.1 Different phases of the planning process |
|
|
57 | (7) |
|
3.2 Actors and governance - towards open planning processes |
|
|
64 | (6) |
|
3.2.1 Actors interact in governance networks |
|
|
64 | (1) |
|
3.2.2 Changing role of governance |
|
|
65 | (2) |
|
3.2.3 Governance and integrated planning |
|
|
67 | (3) |
|
3.3 Example: Dutch regional governance |
|
|
70 | (3) |
|
3.3.1 Introducing the institutional void |
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
3.3.2 Complex regional planning challenges in the Netherlands |
|
|
71 | (1) |
|
3.3.3 Dutch provinces in regional governance: learning by doing |
|
|
72 | (1) |
|
3.4 Discussion: the role of the planner in a governance setting |
|
|
73 | (2) |
|
3.5 Conclusion: increasing normativity |
|
|
75 | (2) |
|
4 The context of planning: an administrative and institutional context |
|
|
77 | (22) |
|
4.1 The administrative context of planning |
|
|
78 | (6) |
|
4.1.1 Allocation and equivalence: the third aspiration level of Goedhart |
|
|
78 | (3) |
|
4.1.2 Financial flows and the principle of subsidiarity |
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
4.1.3 Dutch example: allocation issues and regional policy |
|
|
82 | (2) |
|
4.2 The institutional setting of planning: the formal planning system |
|
|
84 | (8) |
|
4.2.1 Functions and tensions of the planning system |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
4.2.2 Balancing tensions in planning |
|
|
85 | (4) |
|
4.2.3 Dynamics and performance of planning |
|
|
89 | (3) |
|
4.3 Discussion: societal developments and uncertain and complex planning challenges |
|
|
92 | (4) |
|
4.4 Conclusion: increasing uncertainty |
|
|
96 | (3) |
|
5 Discussion: the planning triangle `revisited' |
|
|
99 | (10) |
|
|
99 | (5) |
|
5.1.1 Defined and open objects of planning |
|
|
100 | (1) |
|
5.1.2 Defined and open processes of planning |
|
|
101 | (1) |
|
5.1.3 Defined and open contexts of planning |
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
5.1.4 Dynamics of object, process, and context |
|
|
103 | (1) |
|
5.2 The `Utrecht school': evolution of planning education and research |
|
|
104 | (3) |
|
5.3 Epilogue by the authors |
|
|
107 | (2) |
References |
|
109 | (15) |
Index |
|
124 | |