Perspectives From Outside the EU: The Influence of Legal and Planning Frameworks on Landscape Planning

  • Vivek ShandasEmail author
  • Christina von Haaren
  • Hiroyuki Shimizu
  • Rachelle Alterman
  • Andrew A. Lovett
Part of the Landscape Series book series (LAEC, volume 24)


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.


Landscape planning context International Japan Oregon Planning systems 


  1. Alexander, E. E. (1993). Interorganizational coordination in theory and practice. Journal of Planning Literature, 7(4), 328–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Alterman, R. (2010). Takings international: A comparative perspective on land use regulation and compensation rights. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  5. Alterman, R. (2011). The US regulatory takings debate through international lenses. Urban Lawyer, 42, 331.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Cullingworth, B., & Caves, R. W. (2009). Planning in the USA: Policies, issues, and processes. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. de Roo, G., & Silva, E. A. (2010). A Planner’s encounter with complexity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2016). No net loss. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  12. European Environment Agency. (2018). Natural capital and ecosystem services. Accessed 17 Aug 2018.
  13. Forest Agency. (2014). Shinrin Ringyo Hakusyo (Forest and forestry white paper). Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Hirt, S. A. (2015). Zoned in the USA: The origins and implications of American land-use regulation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ide, H., & Takeuchi, K. (1985). Shizen Ricchiteki Tochiriyou Keikaku (Land use planning based on based on geoecological land evaluation). Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
  17. Japan Country Section. (2008). Environmental performance of agriculture in OECD countries since 1990. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, C. (1995). Japan: Who governs? The rise of the developmental state. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lakeview District, Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2003). Lakeview resource management plan 2003 as part of national system of public lands. Accessed 11 June 2018.
  21. Levy, L. W. (2001). Origins of the bill of rights. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Liberty, R. (2009). Stopping sprawl in the fifty states. A report by smart growth America. Summary report commissioned by the Wallace Global Fund.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mie prefectural Government. (2015). Mie no Shinrindukuri (Forest development of Mie). Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  25. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2006). Landscape Act. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  26. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2014). Special green space Conservation District. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  27. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2015). Urban park data base. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  28. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. (2018). Accessed 20 Mar 2019.
  29. Ministry of the Environment. (2012). Nature conservation area. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  30. Ministry of the Environment. (2016). Table of Natural park areas. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  31. Nagoya City. (2014). Nagoya green basic plan 2020. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  32. National Land Numerical Information Download Service. (2015). National information division, National and Regional Policy Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tour-ism. Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  33. 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. Scholar
  34. OECD. (2017). Land-use planning systems in the OECD: Country fact sheets. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. (2018). Goal 5 process for aggregate. Accessed 16 Aug 2018.
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Roberts, T. E. (2010). United States. In R. Alterman (Ed.), Takings international (p. 215). Chicago: American Bar Association Press.Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seltzer, E., Smith, T., & Cortright, J. et al. (2010). Making ecodistricts concepts & methods for advancing sustainability in neighborhoods, Portland, OR. Accessed 29 Aug 2018.
  40. Shibata, K. (2007). The state, planning and the planning and the public interest: The development of city planning in Japan. University of London Press.Google Scholar
  41. Shibata, K. (2008a). Neoliberalism, risk, and spatial governance in the developmental state: Japanese planning in the global economy. Critical Planning, 15, 92–118.Google Scholar
  42. Shibata, K. (2008b). The public interest in planning in Japanese jurisprudence: The limits to participatory democracy. LSE Research Online. Accessed 11 June 2018.
  43. Siems, M. M. (2016). Varieties of legal systems: Towards a new global taxonomy. Journal of Institutional Economics, 12(3), 579–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sorensen, A. (2002). The making of urban Japan: Cities and planning from Edo to the 21st century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. Sorensen, A., & Funck, C. (Eds.). (2007). Living cities in Japan: Citizens’ movements, Machizukuri and local environments. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Sullivan, E. J. (2007). Through a glass darkly: Measuring. Loss under Oregon’s measure. Urban Lawyer, 39, 563–618.Google Scholar
  48. Sullivan, E. (2011). The quiet revolution goes West: The Oregon planning program 1961–2011. John Marshall Law Review, 45(2012), 357–395.Google Scholar
  49. Takeuchi, K. (1983). Landscape planning methodology based on geoecological land evaluation. GeoJournal, 7(2), 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Urban Development and Improvement Division. (2015). Tochi Kukaku Seiri Jigyo (Land read-justment project). Accessed 7 Dec 2016.
  51. US Forest Service. (2018). Ecosystem services. Accessed 17 Aug 2018.
  52. US Geological Survey. (2018b). Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES). Accessed 17 Aug 2018.
  53. Waage, S., Stewart, E., & Armstrong, K. (2008). Measuring corporate impact on ecosystems: A comprehensive review of new tools. Accessed 13 June 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivek Shandas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christina von Haaren
    • 2
  • Hiroyuki Shimizu
    • 3
  • Rachelle Alterman
    • 4
  • Andrew A. Lovett
    • 5
  1. 1.Portland State UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental PlanningLeibniz University HannoverHannoverGermany
  3. 3.Nagoya UniversityNagoyaJapan
  4. 4.Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy ResearchHaifaIsrael
  5. 5.School of Environmental SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations