spatial planning
Recently Published Documents





2022 ◽  
Vol 158 ◽  
pp. 112108
V. Stelzenmüller ◽  
J. Letschert ◽  
A. Gimpel ◽  
C. Kraan ◽  
W.N. Probst ◽  

Marine Policy ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 136 ◽  
pp. 104936
Jordan Gacutan ◽  
Ibon Galparsoro ◽  
Kemal Pınarbaşı ◽  
Arantza Murillas ◽  
Ibukun J. Adewumi ◽  

2022 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 825
Richard leBrasseur

Most sustainable planning frameworks assess natural and social–economic landscape systems as separate entities, and our understanding of the interrelationships between them is incomplete. Landscape classification in urbanizing environments requires an integrated spatial planning approach to better address the United Nation’s sustainable development challenges. The objective of this research is to apply a multicriteria evaluation which ranked diverse ecosystem–service producing landscapes and synthesize the findings within a unique green infrastructure spatial planning framework. Local government stakeholder derived weighting and GIS classification were operated to map both the urban and natural landscapes of the Salt Lake City region of Utah, one of the most rapidly urbanizing areas in North America. Results were assimilated through five regional landscape typologies—Ecological, Hydrological, Recreational, Working Lands, and Community—and indicated those highest ranked landscape areas which provided multiple ecosystem services. These findings support collaborative decision making among diverse stakeholders with overlapping objectives and illustrates pathways to the development of ecosystem service criteria. This paper contributes to a better understanding of how to integrate data and visualize the strategic approaches required for sustainable planning and management, particularly in urban and urbanizing regions where complex socioecological landscapes predominate.

2022 ◽  
Leopoldo Cavaleri Gerhardinger ◽  
Eike Holzkämper ◽  
Mariana Martins de Andrade ◽  
Marina Ribeiro Corrêa ◽  
Alexander Turra

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-98
Walter Timo De Vries

Changes in spatial planning and land management practices, regulations and operations have frequently relied on the uptake of innovations in geospatial technologies. This article reviews which ones the spatial planning and land management domains has effectively adopted and which new ones might potentially disrupt the domain in the near future of 2021 and beyond. Based on an extensive concept-centric trends synthesis and meta-review, the analysis demonstrates that whilst geospatial technologies are clearly gaining wider societal recognition and while private companies are indeed developing promising applications, its adoption in office work of public officials and public decision makers remains almost as limited as before. The potentially most disruptive technologies for the domain are however BIM, Block chain and Machine learning.

Land ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 73
Waldemar A. Gorzym-Wilkowski ◽  
Karolina Trykacz

As the level of development increases, spatial planning is becoming more significant among public management tools. Although the issue of spatial planning and its mechanisms has been repeatedly investigated in the literature, the issue of clashing of interests of different actors remains to be examined. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the enforcement mechanisms of the public interest in the spatial planning systems of Poland and Portugal. The analysis was based on a comparative analysis of the legal basis of the spatial planning systems of the countries. The research confirmed the hypothesis that even with some sociocultural and economic similarities, different countries do not have to create similar mechanisms for the realisation of the public interest in spatial planning processes. The specific solutions adopted in Poland and Portugal differ so much that the enforcement of the public interest proceeds with very few similarities. The integrated Portuguese planning system, with its hierarchical elements, facilitates the achievement of the objectives of public entities. On the other hand, the Polish system, with the dominant position of the municipality, pushes great possibilities of influencing the planning by land administrators, and the poor location of spatial planning in all public tasks makes it difficult, and sometimes even impossible, to achieve public goals in space.

2022 ◽  
pp. 147309522110663
Ernest R. Alexander

The futility of defining planning suggests that there is no planning as a recognizable practice. Sociology of knowledge definitions imply three kinds of planning practices: (1) Generic “planning”—what people do when they are planning; (2) Knowledge-centered “something” (e.g., spatial) planning; and (3) Real planning practiced in specific contexts, from metro-regional planning for Jakarta to transportation planning for the Trans-Europe Network, and enacted in general contexts, for example, informal- or Southern planning. Planning theories are linked to different practices: generic “planning” theories and “something” (e.g., regional, community, environmental, or Southern) planning theories. Selected topics illustrate the “planning” theory discourse and spatial planning theories are briefly reviewed. Three generations of planning practice studies are reviewed: the first, a-theoretical; the second, the “practice movement,” who studied practice for their own theorizing; and the third, informed by practice theories. Five books about planning show how their planning theorist authors understand planning practice. While recognizing planning as diverse practices, they hardly apply “planning” theory to planning practices. “Planning” theories are divorced from enacted planning practices, “something” (e.g., spatial) planning theories include constructive adaptations of “planning” theories and paradigms, but knowledge about real planning practices is limited. Implications from these conclusions are drawn for planning theory, education, and practices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document