Advertisement

Spatial Planning Policies and the Integration Models as a Means for a Better Delivery of Services of General Interest

  • Špela Kolarič
  • Barbara Černič Mali
  • Naja MarotEmail author
Chapter
  • 222 Downloads
Part of the EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series (EAISICC)

Abstract

The provision of services of general interest (SGI) is governed by authorities at different levels. The changing role of public sector regarding SGI provision during austerity has particularly affected remote mountain and border areas, where economy, population ageing, dispersed settlements, and geomorphology hinder the SGI supply. To counter this, new integrated approaches for SGI provision should be sought. Hereby SGI integration models in 257 spatial planning and sectorial policy documents from five Alpine countries (Italy, Switzerland, Austria, France, and Slovenia) were investigated to discover if and to what extent the integration is considered, and what challenges need addressing. Analysis shows the SGI integration in the Alpine Space is moderate, mostly occurring among health, telecommunication, social care, and basic goods sectors. Adapting the existing spatial planning policies could bridge the identified gaps, as some examined documents (e.g. transport, telecommunication) do not consider the SGI provision in spatial planning context at all.

Keywords

Administrative level Alps Basic goods Co-operation Health care Integration Integration model Integrative planning Legislation National policy Provision of services Regional development Remote areas Social care Services of general interest Strategic spatial planning Strategies Strategy Telecommunication Transport 

References

  1. Arcelus FJ, Arocena P, Cabasés F, Pascual P (2015) On the cost-efficiency of service delivery in small municipalities. Reg Stud 49(9):1469–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boelens L, de Roo G (2016) Planning of undefined becoming: first encounters of planners beyond the plan. Plann Theory 15(1):42–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brozzi R, Lapuh L, Nared J, Streifeneder T (2015) Towards more resilient economies in Alpine regions. Acta Geogr Slov 55(2):339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cledou G, Estevez E, Barbosa LS (2018) A taxonomy for planning and designing smart mobility services. Gov Inf Q 35(1):61–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clifton J, Díaz-Fuentes D, Fernández-Gutiérrez M (2016) Public infrastructure services in the European Union: challenges for territorial cohesion. Reg Stud 50(2):358–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Devos A, Horgues-Deba J, Daudé R, Doukhan G (2016) Regional Report Auvergne Rhône-Alpes France. INTESI—Integrated Territorial Strategies for Services of General Interest/2015–2018. Association pour le Développementen Réseau des Territoireset des Services, Gap/ChambéryGoogle Scholar
  7. Dijkstra L, Garcilazo E, McCann P (2014) The effects of the global financial crisis on European regions and cities. J Econ Geogr 15(5):935–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egger T, Niederer P, Falempin L, Becker C, Stephan C (2011) Strategies to improve accessibility to SGI in rural mountain areas. Final synthesis of the Interreg IVB ACCESS project, SAB, BerneGoogle Scholar
  9. ESPON (2013a) SeGI Indicators and perspectives for services of general interest in territorial cohesion and development. Applied Research 2013/1/16.Final Report/Version 25/05/2013 Executive Summary (Rep.). ESPON & Royal Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  10. ESPON (2013b) TANGO-Territorial Approaches for New Governance, Executive Summary. Applied Research 2013/1/21.Version 20/12/2013 Executive Summary (Rep.). ESPON & Royal Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  11. Eum JH, Scherer D, Fehrenbach U, Köppel J, Woo JH (2013) Integrating urban climate into urban master plans using spatially distributed information. Land Use Policy 34:223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferrario E, Price M (2014) Should I stay or should I go. Alpine brain drain and brain gain: the reasons behind the choices of young mountain people. J Alp Res.  https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.2381
  13. Fischer TB, Smith M, Sykes O (2013) Can less sometimes be more?—Integrating Land Use and Transport Planning on Merseyside (1965–2008). Urban Plann Transp Res 1(1):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giuliani C, Hoffmann C (2016). Regional Report South Tyrol—Italy. INTESI—Integrated Territorial Strategies for Services of General Interest /2015–2018. European Academy of Bolzano Institute for Regional Development and Location Management, BolzanoGoogle Scholar
  15. Giuliani C, Hoffman C, Laner P (2017) WPT2 Assessment Regional Report. Deliverable 3.7.2 EURAC Research. Synthesis Report. EURAC Research, Bolzano, 69pGoogle Scholar
  16. Gløersen E, Drăgulin M, Haarich S, Zillmer S, Holstein F, Lüer C, Hans S (2016) Research for REGI Committee—Services of General Interest in the Funding Period 2014–2020 (Study). European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal PoliciesGoogle Scholar
  17. Gretter A, MacHold I, Membretti A, Dax T (2017) Pathways of immigration in the Alps and Carpathians: social innovation and the creation of a welcoming culture. Mt Res Dev 37(4):396–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gruber E, Rauhut D, Humer A (2017) Territorial cohesion under pressure? Welfare policy and planning responses in Austrian and Swedish Peripheries. Pap Reg Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12344
  19. Healey P (1999) Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. J Plan Educ Res 19(2):111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Healey P (2006) Territory, integration and spatial planning. In: Tewdwr-Jones M, Allmendinger P (eds) Territory, identity and spatial planning: spatial governance in a fragmented nation. Routledge, London, pp 64–79Google Scholar
  21. Innes JE, Booher DE (1999) Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. J Am Plan Assoc 65(4):412–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Innes JE, Booher DE (2003) Collaborative policymaking: governance through dialogue. In: Hajer MA, Wagenaar H (eds) Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Innes JE, Booher DE (2004) Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Plann Theory Pract 5(4):419–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Khan Z, Pervez Z, Abbasi AG (2017) Towards a secure service provisioning framework in a Smart city environment. Futur Gener Comput Syst 77:112–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kolarič Š, Marot N, Černič Mali B (2016) Regional Collection of Strategies. INTESI—Integrated Territorial Strategies for Services of General Interest/2015–2018. University of Ljubljana, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  26. Kolarič Š, Marot N, Černič Mali B, Kostanjšek B (2017) WPT1 Deliverable 1.2.3 Report on Comparison Analysis. EURAC Research, Bolzano, 90pGoogle Scholar
  27. Lloyd G, Peel D (2005) Tracing a spatial turn in planning practice in Scotland. Plan Pract Res 20(3):313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lord AD (2013) Towards a non-theoretical understanding of planning. Plann Theory 13(1):26–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marot N, Damjanovič V (2016) Report on Transnational Workshop. INTESI—Integrated Territorial Strategies for Services of General Interest/2015–2018. University of Ljubljana, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayer M, Woltering M, Hubert J (2008) Tourism and regional development in the Bavarian Alps. Geogr Rundsch 60(10):40–46Google Scholar
  31. Mees H, Tempels B, Crabbé A, Boelens L (2016) Shifting public-private responsibilities in Flemish flood risk management. Towards a co-evolutionary approach. Land Use Policy 57:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Niederer P, Egger T (2016) Regional Report Canton du Jura—Switzerland. INTESI—Integrated Territorial Strategies for Services of General Interest/2015–2018. Schweizerische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für die Berggebiete, BernGoogle Scholar
  33. Pearce G, Ayres S, Tricker M (2005) Decentralisation and devolution to the English regions: assessing the implications for rural policy and delivery. J Rural Stud 21(2):197–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pellegrino C, Cappiello A, Lentini G (2016) Regional Report Lombardy—Italy. INTESI—Integrated Territorial Strategies for Services of General Interest/2015–2018. RegioneLombardia, General Directorate University, Research and Open Innovation, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  35. Pinch PL, Patterson A (2000) Public sector restructuring and regional development: the impact of compulsory competitive tendering in the UK. Reg Stud 34(3):265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Soliva R (2007) Agricultural decline, landscape change, and outmigration: debating the sustainability of three scenarios for a Swiss mountain region. Mt Res Dev 27(2):124–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stanley JK (2014) Land use/transport integration: starting at the right place. Res Transp Econ 48:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stead D, Cotella G (2011) Differential Europe: domestic actors and their role in shaping spatial planning systems. disP 186(3):13–20Google Scholar
  39. Sykes O, Lord A, Thakur J (2010) Planning in a World-Container. Town and Country Planning, January 2010Google Scholar
  40. Tajima R, Fischer TB (2013) Should different impact assessment instruments be integrated? Evidence from English spatial planning. Environ Impact Assess Rev 41:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waterhout B, Othengrafen F, Sykes O (2012) Neo-liberalization processes and spatial planning in Northwest Europe: an exploration. Plan Pract Res 28(1):141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weingarten E (2010) Merits of a more integrated approach to environmental assessments. Environ Policy Gov 20(1):12–29MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Špela Kolarič
    • 1
  • Barbara Černič Mali
    • 1
  • Naja Marot
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Landscape Architecture, Biotechnical FacultyUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations