Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characterising Planning Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Planning Studies

Part of the book series: Planning, Environment, Cities ((PEC))

  • 435 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter considers ways to characterise the different planning systems that exist internationally to regulate land use and development, protect and enhance places, and manage spatial interactions engendered by societal, economic, and public policy claims on space. A number of dimensions are considered: legal and administrative contexts; the scope of planning and the planning system; the balance of competences between different levels of government; the extent and type of planning at national, regional, and local levels; the role of different stakeholders in the planning system; the nature of ‘regulatory’, ‘discretionary’, or ‘hybrid’ planning systems; the capacity of planning systems and their effectiveness in meeting expressed objectives; and the degree of formal and informal practices in planning. How such dimensions shape planning systems is also considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allmendinger, P. (2009). Performance improvements and delay in development control. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Design and Planning, 162(2), 79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arup, University of Liverpool and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2022). Cities Alive designing cities that work for women, Arup, Retrieved 06 November 2022 https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/cities-alive-designing-cities-that-work-for-women

  • Berisha, E., Cotella, G., Janin Rivolin, U., & Solly, A. (2020). Spatial governance and planning systems and the public control of spatial development: A European typology. European Planning Studies, 29, 181. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1726295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, S., Patro, S. A., Vaidyanathan, V., & Rathi, S. (2016). Localising the gender equality goal through urban planning tools in South Asia. Overseas Development Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, C. (2017). Sons pf the soil conflict in Africa: Institutional determinants of ethnic conflict over land. World Development, 96(2017), 276–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, P. A. (1986). Introduction. In I. Masser & R. Williams (Eds.), Learning from other countries. Geo Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, P. (2003). Planning by consent: The origins and nature of British Development Control. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, P. (2007). The control of discretion: Planning and the common law tradition. Planning Theory, 6(2), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, C., Jordan, A., Gravey, V., Berny, N., Bulmer, S., Carter, N., Cowell, R., Dutton, J., Moore, B., Oberthür, S., Owens, S., Rayner, T., Scott, J. & Stewart, B. (2016). The EU Referendum and the UK environment: An expert review. Retrieved from http://environmenteuref.blogspot.co.uk/p/about-us.html

  • Caprotti, F., Cowley, R., Datta, A., Castán Broto, V., Gao, E., Georgeson, L., Herrick, C., Odendaal, N., & Joss, S. (2017). The new urban agenda: Key opportunities and challenges for policy and practice. Urban Research & Practice, 10(3), 367–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2003). Urban spaces—Public places: The dimensions of urban design. Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities (CEC). (1997). The EU compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. Regional Development Studies, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commonwealth Association of Planners. (2018). Survey of the planning profession in the commonwealth. CAP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordes, M. (1989). Policing bias and conflicts of interest in zoning decision making. North Dakota Law Review, 65(2), 161–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, G. (2018). Women and EIA processes: A case study on gender aspects of EIA in four Myanmar projects. Sustainable Development Knowledge Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowell, R., Ellis, G., Fischer, F. T., Jackson, T., Muinzer, T., & Sykes, O. (2020). Integrating planning and environmental protection: An analysis of post-Brexit regulatory styles and practitioner attitudes in the UK. Planning Theory and Practice, 21(4), 570–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, H. W. E., Edwards, D., Hooper, A. P., & Punter, J. V. (1989). Planning control in Western Europe. HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demazière, C., Desjardins, X., & Sykes, O. (Eds.). (2020). La gouvernance des métropoles et des régions urbaines en Europe: Des réformes institutionnelles aux coopérations territoriales. PUCA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembski, S., & O’Brien, P. (2020). The myth of zoning: The European experience. Town and Country Planning, 2020(Aug), 281–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desjardins, X. (2018). Greater Paris and its lessons for metropolitan strategic planning. Town Planning Review, 89(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2012). The future of policy transfer research. Political Studies Review, 10, 339–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. (2004). Civil society. Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ESPON. (2018). COMPASS – comparative analysis of territorial governance and spatial planning systems in Europe. Final Report. Luxembourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faludi, A. (1983). Critical rationalism and planning methodology. Urban Studies, 20(3), 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geppert, A. (2014). France, drifting away from the “regional economic” approach. In M. Reimer, P. Getimis, & H. H. Blotevogel (Eds.), Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe – A comparative perspective on continuity and changes (pp. 109–126). ARL and Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodfellow, T. (2017). Seeing political settlements through the city: A framework for comparative analysis of urban transformation. Development and Change, 44(1), p199–p222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government of Sierra Leone and OCHA ROWCA. Subnational administrative boundaries. Creative Commons License.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grazioli, M. (2017). From citizens to citadins? Rethinking right to the city inside housing squats in Rome, Italy. Citizenship Studies, 21(4), 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies (2nd ed.). Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hong Kong Government. Schedule of notes for commercial zones. Retrieved from https://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/en/forms/Schedule_Notes/msn_c_e.pdf

  • House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. (2016). EU and UK environmental policy third report of session 2015–16. HC 537 published on 19 April 2016 by authority of the house of commons. Retrieved from https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmenvaud/537/537.pdf

  • Inch, A. (2015). Ordinary citizens and the political cultures of planning: In search of the subject of a new democratic ethos. Planning Theory, 14, 404–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janin-Rivolin, U. (2008). Conforming and performing planning systems in Europe: An unbearable cohabitation. Planning, Practice & Research, 23(2), 167–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jowell, J. (1975). Development control. The Political Quarterly, 46(3), 340–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M. (2010). Political settlements and the governance of growth enhancing institutions. SOAS Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, M. (2016). Land conflict in peri-urban areas: Exploring the effects of land reform on informal settlement in Mexico. Urban Studies, 53, 2700–2720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard, M. (2019). Informality as structure or agency: Exploring shed housing in the UK as informal practice. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 43(3), 569–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, K., Nel, E., & Binns, T. (2020). ‘Transforming freetown’: Dilemmas of planning and development in a West African City. Cities, 101(102694), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, D. A., & Smith, L. (2004). Privatising Cape Town: From apartheid to neo-liberalism in the Mother City. Urban Studies, 41(8), 1461–1484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Tourism and Transport (MLITT). (2016). An overview of spatial policy in Asian and European countries. Retrieved from http://www.mlit.go.jp/kokudokeikaku/international/spw/general/spain/index_e.html

  • Murphy, R. H. (2020). Does democracy die in recessions? A descriptive analysis of aggregate demand shortfalls and regime transition. Economic Affairs, 40(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2013). Opening up the compendium: An evaluation of international comparative planning research methodologies. European Planning Studies, 21(10), 1542–1561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadin, V., Fernández Maldonado, A. M., Zonneveld, W., Stead, D., Dąbrowski, M., Piskorek, K., Sarkar, A., Schmitt, P., Smas, L., Cotella, G., Janin Rivolin, U., Solly, A., Berisha, E., Pede, E., Seardo, B. M., Komornicki, T., Goch, K., Bednarek-Szczepańska, M., Degórska, B., Szejgiec-Kolenda, B., Śleszyńskic, P., Lüer, C., Böhme, K., Nedovic-Budic, Z., Williams, B., Varghese, J., Colic, N., Knaap, G., Csák, L., Faragó, L., Mezei, C., Pálné Kovács, I., Pám, Z., Reimer, M., & Münter, A. (2018). COMPASS – Comparative analysis of territorial governance and spatial planning systems in Europe. Applied research 2016–2018: Final report. ESPON and TU Delft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P., & Thornley, A. (1996). Urban planning in Europe: International competition, national systems, and planning projects. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P. & Thornley, A. (2005). Planning world cities: Globalization and urban politics. Palgrave/Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2017). Land-use planning systems in the OECD: Country fact sheet. OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pinson, G., & Morel Journel, C. (2016). Beyond neoliberal imposition: State–local cooperation and the blending of social and economic objectives in French Urban Development Corporations. Territory Politics and Governance, 4(2), 173–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, C. (2012). A new sort of duty? The significance of “outcome” duties in the climate change and child poverty acts. Public Law, 2012(4), 749–767.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, M., & Blotevogel, H. H. (2012). Comparing spatial planning practice in Europe: A plea for cultural sensitization planning. Practice and Research, 27(1), 7–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimer, M., Getimis, P., & Blotevogel, H. (2014). Spatial planning systems and practices in Europe: A comparative perspective on continuity and changes. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ruming, K., & Gurran, N. (2014). Australian planning system reform. Australian Planner, 51(2), 102–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satsangi, M., Hoolachan, A., O’Brien, P., Dembski, S., Dunning, R., & Lord, A. (2020). Housing land allocation, assembly and delivery: Lessons from Europe. Scottish Land Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, P. (2020). Not so much about informality: Emergent challenges for urban planning and design education. Sustainability, 12(8450), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, W., & Ruming, K. J. (2012). Flexibility versus certainty: Unsettling the land-use planning shibboleth in Australia. Planning Practice and Research, 27(2), 155–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiftel, B. (2021). Planners and the new urban agenda: Will we lead the agenda, or will the agenda lead us? Town Planning Review, 92(4), 421–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundaresan, J. (2019). Urban planning in vernacular governance: Land use planning and violations in Bangalore India. Progress in Planning 1271-23 S0305900616301441 10.1016/j.progress.2017.10.001

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunikka-Blank, M., Bardhan, R., & Haque, A. N. (2019). Gender, domestic energy and design of inclusive low-income habitats: A case study of slum rehabilitation in Mumbai, India. Energy Research and Social Science, 49, 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, O., & Dembski. (2019). Cross-national comparative research in planning–some things to consider. Town and Country Planning, 88(7), 312–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, O. J., & O’Brien, P. (2018). Regions to be fearful? Town and Country Planning, 96–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewdwr-Jones, M. J. (1999). Discretion, flexibility, and certainty in British planning: Emerging ideological conflicts and inherent political tensions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18(3), 244–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, B., et al. (2000). Certainty and discretion in planning control: A case study of office development in Hong Kong. Urban Studies, 37(13), 2465–2483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Supreme Court. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. No. 31. Argued January 27, 1926.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-Habitat. (2009). Planning sustainable cities (p. 106). United Nations Human Settlement Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-Habitat. (2016). World cities report 2016: Urbanization and development - Emerging futures. United Nations Human Settlements Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN-Habitat. (2018). Leading change: Delivering the new urban agenda through urban and territorial planning. UN-Habitat.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNHSP. (2018). Leading Change: Delivering the New Urban Agenda through Urban and Territorial Planning. UN-Habitat. Kuala Lumpur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varley, A. (2013). Post-colonialising informality? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 31(1), 4–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (1986). National styles of regulation. Environmental policy in Great Britain and the United States. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. H. (1996). European Union spatial policy and planning. Chapman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeboah, E., & Shaw, D. P. (2013). Customary land tenure practices in Ghana: Examining the relationship with land-use planning delivery. International Development Planning Review, 35(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yiftachel, O. (2009). Theoretical notes on gray cities’: The coming of urban apartheid? Planning Theory, 8(1), 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Planning, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK

    Olivier Sykes & David Shaw

  2. School of Geography and Planning/Ysgol Daearyddiaeth a Chynllunio, , Cardiff University/Prifysgol Caerdydd, Cardiff/Caerdydd, UK

    Brian Webb

Authors
  1. Olivier Sykes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian Webb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Sykes .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sykes, O., Shaw, D., Webb, B. (2023). Characterising Planning Systems. In: International Planning Studies. Planning, Environment, Cities. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5407-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5407-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-19-5406-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-19-5407-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation