Abstract
So far, we have extensively discussed how the elements of a joint spatial and energy planning system are intertwined and how their effectiveness for proceeding toward the energy turn can be judged; we have drawn visions for integrated spatial and energy planning, described fields of action and principles as well as measures to achieve energy efficiency and renewable energy supplies in different spatial structures. This chapter is dedicated to the design of planning processes for the energy turn and tools that can facilitate such processes. First, a theory frame for process and tool design is introduced. Second, the interplay between top-down framework planning and bottom-up action planning is described. Finally, tools to support such planning processes are introduced and their applicability for certain planning tasks is discussed.
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
References
Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to institutional change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Emirch, H., Zeller, R., Stoeglehner, G., & Erker, S. (2012). Energy pass for settlements 2.0. funded by the Government of Lower Austria. St. Pölten: Department of Spatial Planning and Regional Policy.
Fischer, T. (2003). Strategic environmental assessment in postmodern times. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23, 155–170.
Friedler, F., Varga, J. B., & Fan, L. T. (1995). Decision-mapping: a tool for consistent and complete decisions in process synthesis. Chemical Engineering Science, 50, 1755–1768.
Fürst, D., & Scholles, F. (2001). Handbuch Theorien+Methoden der Raum- und Umweltplanung. Dortmund: Dortmunder Vertrieb für Bau- und Planungsliteratur.
Halasz, L., Povoden, G., & Narodoslawsky, M. (2005). Sustainable processes synthesis for renewable resources. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 44, 293–307.
Healey, P. (1992). Planning through debate. The communicative turn in planning theory. Town Planning Review, 63, 143–162.
Innes, J., & Booher, D. E. (2000). Collaborative Dialogue as a Policy Making Strategy. Institute of Urban and Rural Development, University of California, Berkeley—Working Paper Series, Accessed Nov 08, 2015 from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8523r5zt#page-7.
Krotscheck, C., & Narodoslawsky, M. (1996). The sustainable process index—a new dimension in ecological evaluation. Ecological Engineering, 6(4), 241–258.
Lawrence, D. P. (2000). Planning theories and environmental impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 607–625.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.
Müller, S. (2004). Internationale Einflüsse auf die Planungstheoriedebatte in Deutschland nach 1945 oder die Perspektiven der Planungsdemokratie. In U. Altrock, S. Güntner, S. Hunning, & D. Peter (Eds.), Perspektiven der Planungstheorie (pp. 123–140). Berlin: Leue.
RegiOpt (2016). Optimization and evaluation of regional technology networks. Accessed Nov 08, 2015 from www.fussabdrucksrechner.at.
Scharpf, F. (2000). Interaktionsformen. Akteurszentrierter Institutionalismus in der Politikforschung. Opladen: Leske+Budrich.
Stoeglehner, G. (2010). Enhancing SEA effectiveness: lessons learnt from Austrian experiences in spatial planning. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28(3), 217–231.
Stoeglehner, G. (2014). SUP-Qualität im Planungsalltag—Überlegungen zur Planung- und Prüfmethodik. UVP-Report, 28(3+4), 107–112.
Stoeglehner, G., Baaske, W., Mitter, H., Niemetz, N., Kettl, K. H., Weiss, M., et al. (2014b). Sustainability appraisal of residential energy demand and supply—a life cycle approach including heating, electricity, embodied energy and mobility. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 4(24), 1–13.
Stoeglehner, G., Brown, A. L., & Kornov, L. (2009). SEA and planning: ‘ownership’ of SEA by the planners is the key to its effectiveness. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 27(2), 111–120.
Stoeglehner, G., Erker, S., & Neugebauer, G. (2014a). Tools für Energieraumplanung. Ein Handbuch für deren Auswahl und Anwendung im Planungsprozess. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (Ed.). Wien.
Stoeglehner, G., & Narodoslawsky, M. (2008). Implementing ecological footprinting in decision-making processes. Land Use Policy, 25, 421–431.
Stoeglehner, G., Narodoslawsky, M., Baaske, W., Mitter, H., Weiss, M., Neugebauer, G. C., et al. (2011a). ELAS—Energetische Langzeitanalysen von Siedlungsstrukturen. Wien: Final report.
Stoeglehner, G., Narodoslawsky, M., Steinmüller, H., Haselsberger, B., Eder, M., Niemetz, N., et al. (2010). INKOBA—Durchführbarkeit von nachhaltigen Energiesystemen in INKOBA Parks. Wien: Final report.
Stoeglehner, G., Narodoslawsky, M., Steinmüller, H., Steininger, K., Weiss, M., Mitter, H., et al. (2011b). PlanVision—Visionen für eine energieoptimierte Raumplanung. Wien: Final report.
Therivel, R. (2006). Strategic environmental assessment in action. London: Earthscan.
Winther, S. (1990). Integrating Implementation Research. In D. J. Palumbo & D. J. Calista (Eds.), Implementation and the policy process opening up the black box (pp. 19–38). New York: Greenwood Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stoeglehner, G., Narodoslawsky, M., Erker, S., Neugebauer, G. (2016). Processes and Tools for Integrated Spatial and Energy Planning. In: Integrated Spatial and Energy Planning. SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31870-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31870-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31868-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31870-7
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)