Abstract
The legal and governance context for landscape planning in countries outside the EU can differ greatly from their EU counterparts. We propose a framework for characterizing that context in order to enable readers from non-EU countries to relate their planning systems to the European baseline for landscape planning. Methodologies for the assessment of ES in landscape planning, such as presented in this book, can be applied in principle in most countries. However, their planning context often will be very different. Legal, political, economic, demographic, cultural and physical-environmental conditions define whether comprehensive environmental planning is possible at all, or whether incremental actions are the only feasible strategy. The context also influences the role of citizen participation and different spatial or political tiers at which particular planning tasks take place. The methodologies applied in any kind of landscape planning must also be adapted to the quality and availability of data, and particularly to the evaluation standards and roles of citizen preferences in different legal and political systems. We present two particular examples from advanced economy countries – Oregon in the USA and Japan. These examples illustrate the different governance contexts for environmental planning in the selected jurisdictions and their possible consequences for managing ecosystem services.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Change history
31 January 2020
Fig. 3.3 in Chapter 3 and Fig. 30.1 in Chapter 30 were initially published with errors. The correct presentation is given here.
Notes
- 1.
Endangered Species Act of 1973; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
- 2.
Clean Water Act of 1977. Pub.L. 95-217, December 27, 1977.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
Managing Transportation and Land Use Planning Grants for Local Government wetland and forest wildlife guides. http://www.nwhi.org/index/publications, www.Oregon.gov.
- 7.
References
Alexander, E. E. (1993). Interorganizational coordination in theory and practice. Journal of Planning Literature, 7(4), 328–343.
Alterman, R. (Ed.). (2001). National-Level Planning in democratic countries: An international comparison of City and regional policy-making, town planning review book series. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Alterman, R. (2005). A view from the outside: The role of cross-national learning in land-use law reform in the United States. In D. R. Mandelker (Ed.), Planning reform in the new century (pp. 309–320). Chicago: Planners Press.
Alterman, R. (2010). Takings international: A comparative perspective on land use regulation and compensation rights. Chicago: American Bar Association.
Alterman, R. (2011). The US regulatory takings debate through international lenses. Urban Lawyer, 42, 331.
Bosselman, F., Callies, D., & Banta, J. (1973). The taxing issue: An analysis of the constitutional limits of land use control. Washington, DC: Council on Environmental Quality.
Brady, M. E. (2017). The Damagings clauses. University of Virginia Schools of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series. Virginia Law Review, 104, 341.
Cullingworth, B., & Caves, R. W. (2009). Planning in the USA: Policies, issues, and processes. New York: Routledge.
de Roo, G., & Silva, E. A. (2010). A Planner’s encounter with complexity. London: Routledge.
Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., et al. (2008). Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 127(1–2), 135–140.
European Commission. (2016). No net loss. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/nnl/index_en.htm. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
European Environment Agency. (2018). Natural capital and ecosystem services. https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/europe/natural-capital-and-ecosystem-services. Accessed 17 Aug 2018.
Forest Agency. (2014). Shinrin Ringyo Hakusyo (Forest and forestry white paper). http://www.rinya.maff.go.jp/j/kikaku/hakusyo/25hakusyo/index.html. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
Geißler, G. (2008). The ballot box – Threat or blessing for planning? – The impact of direct democracy on land use planning in Oregon, USA. Diploma thesis. Institut für Landschaftsarchitektur und Umweltplanung, Technische Universität Berlin.
Hirt, S. A. (2015). Zoned in the USA: The origins and implications of American land-use regulation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Ide, H., & Takeuchi, K. (1985). Shizen Ricchiteki Tochiriyou Keikaku (Land use planning based on based on geoecological land evaluation). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
Japan Country Section. (2008). Environmental performance of agriculture in OECD countries since 1990. Paris: OECD.
Johnson, C. (1995). Japan: Who governs? The rise of the developmental state. New York: Norton.
Kayden, J. (2001). National land-use planning and regulation in the United States: Understanding its fundamental importance. In R. Alterman (Ed.), National-level planning in democratic countries (pp. 43–64). Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Lakeview District, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2003). Lakeview resource management plan 2003 as part of national system of public lands. http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/lakeview/plans/files/signed_scoping_letter.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2018.
Levy, L. W. (2001). Origins of the bill of rights. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Liberty, R. (2009). Stopping sprawl in the fifty states. A report by smart growth America. Summary report commissioned by the Wallace Global Fund.
Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., et al. (2012). Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union. Ecosystem Services, 1(1), 31–39.
Mie prefectural Government. (2015). Mie no Shinrindukuri (Forest development of Mie). http://www.pref.mie.lg.jp/common/content/000116668.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2006). Landscape Act. http://www.mlit.go.jp/crd/townscape/keikan/pdf/landscapeact.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2014). Special green space Conservation District. http://www.mlit.go.jp/crd/park/joho/database/toshiryokuchi/ryokuchi_hozen/. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2015). Urban park data base. http://www.mlit.go.jp/crd/park/joho/database/t_kouen/pdf/01_h26.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2018). http://www.mlit.go.jp/common/001251069.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2019.
Ministry of the Environment. (2012). Nature conservation area. http://www.env.go.jp/nature/hozen/about.html. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
Ministry of the Environment. (2016). Table of Natural park areas. http://www.env.go.jp/park/doc/data/natural/naturalpark_1.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
Nagoya City. (2014). Nagoya green basic plan 2020. http://www.city.nagoya.jp/shisei/category/53-3-3-2-0-0-0-0-0-0.html. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
National Land Numerical Information Download Service. (2015). National information division, National and Regional Policy Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tour-ism. http://nlftp.mlit.go.jp/ksj-e/index.html. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., et al. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1890/080023.
OECD. (2017). Land-use planning systems in the OECD: Country fact sheets. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. (2018). Goal 5 process for aggregate. https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/pages/goal5agg.aspx. Accessed 16 Aug 2018.
Putter, B. (2010). The special case of Oregon the heated debates regarding measures 37 and 49. In R. Alterman (Ed.), Takings international (p. 229). Chicago: American Bar Association Press.
Roberts, T. E. (2010). United States. In R. Alterman (Ed.), Takings international (p. 215). Chicago: American Bar Association Press.
Sasada, H. (2008). Japan’s new agricultural trade policy and electoral reform: ‘Agricultural policy in an offensive posture [seme no nosei]’. Japanese Journal of Political Science, 9(2), 121–144.
Seltzer, E., Smith, T., & Cortright, J. et al. (2010). Making ecodistricts concepts & methods for advancing sustainability in neighborhoods, Portland, OR. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=iss_pub. Accessed 29 Aug 2018.
Shibata, K. (2007). The state, planning and the planning and the public interest: The development of city planning in Japan. University of London Press.
Shibata, K. (2008a). Neoliberalism, risk, and spatial governance in the developmental state: Japanese planning in the global economy. Critical Planning, 15, 92–118.
Shibata, K. (2008b). The public interest in planning in Japanese jurisprudence: The limits to participatory democracy. LSE Research Online. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21676/1/The_public_interest_in_planning_in_Japanese_jurisprudence_(LSERO).pdf. Accessed 11 June 2018.
Siems, M. M. (2016). Varieties of legal systems: Towards a new global taxonomy. Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(3), 579–602.
Sorensen, A. (2002). The making of urban Japan: Cities and planning from Edo to the 21st century. London: Routledge.
Sorensen, A. B. (2005). The developmental state and the extreme narrowness of the public realm: The twentieth century evolution of Japanese planning culture. In B. Sanyal (Ed.), Comparative planning cultures (pp. 223–259). New York: Routledge.
Sorensen, A., & Funck, C. (Eds.). (2007). Living cities in Japan: Citizens’ movements, Machizukuri and local environments. London: Routledge.
Sullivan, E. J. (2007). Through a glass darkly: Measuring. Loss under Oregon’s measure. Urban Lawyer, 39, 563–618.
Sullivan, E. (2011). The quiet revolution goes West: The Oregon planning program 1961–2011. John Marshall Law Review, 45(2012), 357–395.
Takeuchi, K. (1983). Landscape planning methodology based on geoecological land evaluation. GeoJournal, 7(2), 167–183.
Urban Development and Improvement Division. (2015). Tochi Kukaku Seiri Jigyo (Land read-justment project). http://www.mlit.go.jp/crd/city/sigaiti/shuhou/kukakuseiri/kukakuseiri01.htm. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
US Forest Service. (2018). Ecosystem services. https://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/. Accessed 17 Aug 2018.
US Geological Survey. (2018a). Ecosystem services. https://www.usgs.gov/ecosystems/status-and-trends-program/science/ecosystem-services?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects. Accessed 17 Aug 2018.
US Geological Survey. (2018b). Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES). https://www.usgs.gov/centers/gecsc/science/social-values-ecosystem-services-solves?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects. Accessed 17 Aug 2018.
Waage, S., Stewart, E., & Armstrong, K. (2008). Measuring corporate impact on ecosystems: A comprehensive review of new tools. https://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_EMI_Tools_Application1.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Shandas, V., von Haaren, C., Shimizu, H., Alterman, R., Lovett, A.A. (2019). Perspectives From Outside the EU: The Influence of Legal and Planning Frameworks on Landscape Planning. In: von Haaren, C., Lovett, A., Albert, C. (eds) Landscape Planning with Ecosystem Services. Landscape Series, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1681-7_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1681-7_30
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1679-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1681-7
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)