Abstract
In the last decade, soft spaces and soft planning have emerged as new spatial planning and governance concepts, calling for a fresh approach to planning. The European Union has been partly responsible, not only by acting as a driver of soft planning, but also by encouraging the convergence and harmonisation of planning styles into a common European planning culture. However, soft planning does not replace statutory frameworks. Planning deals with both hard (mandatory and regulatory) and soft (non-statutory and non-binding) spaces, although this coexistence is not free of contention. Deviances and mismatches give rise to a number of ambiguities, inconsistencies and contradictions. This chapter examines the meeting ground between hard and soft planning, i.e. how EU-led, soft planning policy initiatives are accommodated and managed within statutory national planning systems, using the Portuguese system as a reference. The Portuguese administrative organisation and spatial planning system provide the background for the analysis, while the study focuses on soft planning initiatives endorsed by EU Cohesion Policy, namely in the last EU programming cycle of 2014–2020. The conclusions point to the tensions and detachments that emerge from the coexistence of EU-led soft planning and statutory spatial planning tools, despite the increasing convergence of the Portuguese system with European spatial planning rationale.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Although the concept of soft planning is not mentioned, the factsheet on ITIs provided by the EC is clear on the purposes that lay behind the creation of such a tool: “This approach is multi-dimensional, tailored to place-specific features and outcomes, which may mean going beyond traditional administrative boundaries, and may require greater willingness from different levels of government to co-operate and co-ordinate actions in order to achieve shared goals. (…) Any geographical area with particular territorial features can be the subject of an ITI, ranging from specific urban neighbourhoods with multiple deprivations to the urban, metropolitan, urban-rural, sub-regional, or inter-regional levels. An ITI can also deliver integrated actions in detached geo-graphical units with similar characteristics within a region (e.g. a network of small or medium-sized cities). It is not compulsory for an ITI to cover the whole territory of an administrative unit” European Commission (2014a).
- 2.
The policy initiative of CLLD is also a way to push forward the creation of soft planning spaces. According to the factsheet on CLLDs provided by the EC, CLLD falls upon “specific sub-regional areas” to be “carried out through integrated and multi-sectoral area-based local development strategies, designed taking into consideration local needs and potential, (…) networking and, where appropriate, co-operation” European Commission (2014b).
- 3.
ISUD is fostering soft spaces and soft planning in several ways: covering urban areas that “range from neighbourhood or district level to functional areas such as city-regions or metropolitan areas” set up according to the “specific needs of geographical areas” and “to target areas with specific urban challenges”; strengthening the delivery of integrated actions; fostering multi-level governance namely with “the development of strong partnerships involving local citizens, civil society, the local economy and the various levels of government is an indispensable element”; pressing the devolution of powers to the lower tiers of government, namely by requiring the delegation of tasks to urban authorities, without explicitly mentioning who urban authorities are or at which level of government they perform (“Member states are required (…) to put in place arrangements to delegate a number of tasks (at least project selection) to urban authorities related to implementation of sustainable urban development strategies”) European Commission (2014c).
- 4.
PROSIURB—Programme for the consolidation of the national urban system and to support the execution of the PDM—MPAT. Ministério do Planeamento e da Administração do Território. (1994). Despacho nº 6/94 e Despacho nº 7/94, Diário da República II Série, nº 21, de 26 de janeiro de 1994.
- 5.
Instead of making use of integrated territorial approaches and place-based policy measures, the PNPOT was settled in a sectorial matrix, i.e. the policy programme is somehow the collection of a set of sectorial policy measures, many of them coming from other existing sectorial programmes and plans, without placing particular emphasis on its place-based integration.
- 6.
More than ten years on average, which explains why in 2016 only 54% of the municipalities had their new PDM in force (Costa and Cavaco 2017).
- 7.
In the North Region, which does not have an effective PROT in force, 82% of the PDM has been already revised, in the Lisbon and Algarve regions revision rates fell to 21 and 6%, respectively (Costa and Cavaco 2017).
- 8.
In Portugal, regional autonomy is especially consigned to the Autonomous Regions of Azores and Madeira, while in Portugal’s mainland there are only two tiers of government.
- 9.
Under the 3rd National Development Plan (1968–1973).
- 10.
According to João Ferrão, “The current Constitutional Law, in spite of some shortcomings, does not hinder the formulation of a new generation of territorial policies, more efficient, democratic and equal. However, the current political and administrative organization restrains the participation of several public entities in the design and implementation of such policies” (2016: 123).
- 11.
E.g.: the amalgamation of parishes from 4259 to 3091, in 2013 (Law 22/2012, 30 May); the reorganisation of inter-municipal entities (Law 75/2013, 12 September) and the revision of NUTS III accordingly (EU Regulation 868/2014, 8 August) which came into force on 1 January 2015.
- 12.
Most recently, NUTS III have gradually emerged as the preferred scale for contracting between central government and local authorities.
- 13.
Law 159/99, 14 September, which foresaw the transfer of a set of competences to the municipalities; Law 169/99, 18 September, which approved the competences framework and legal regime of local authorities; Law 2/2007, 15 January, which established the new financial regime for the municipalities and parishes, strengthening the decentralisation and autonomy of local power.
- 14.
Different types of proceedings can be put in place, ranging from contracts, covenants or partnership agreements. They often comprise contracts and agreements established between different government levels (central and local governments) and between the public administration and private stakeholders.
References
Albrechts L (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 31:743–758. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3065
Allmendinger P, Haughton G (2009) Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environ Plan A 41:617–633
Allmendinger P, Haughton G, Knieling J, Othengrafen F (2015) Soft spaces of governance in Europe: a comparative perspective. Routledge, London
Amin A (2002) Spatialities of globalisation. Environ Plan A 34:385–399. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3439
Bhome K, Waterhout B (2008) The Europeanisation of planning. In: Faludi A (ed) European spatial research and planning. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, pp 225–248
Campos V, Ferrão J (2015) O Ordenamento do Território em Portugal: uma Perspetiva Genealógica, ICS Working Papers, Lisboa: Instituto de Ciências Sociais. http://www.ics.ul.pt/flipping/wp2015_1/index.html#
Cavaco C (coord.) et al (2014) Avaliação do Programa de Ação 2007–2013 do Programa Nacional da Política de Ordenamento do Território. Direção-Geral do Território, Lisboa
Cavaco C (coord.) et al (2016) Habitat III—National Report Portugal. Direção-Geral do Território, Lisboa
Cavaco C (2018) Urbanismo como política pública: que mudanças de azimute? Território, Planeamento e Urbanismo. Teoria e prática 1:78–104. http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/tpu/issue/view/398. ISSN: 2184-1802
Cavaco C, Magalhães M (2015) Avaliação do Programa de Ação do PNPOT. Territorialização, Governança e Inteligência Territorial. In: Julião R P (coord.) (2015). Informação Geográfica, Cadastro e Gestão Territorial. Experiências e boas práticas luso-brasileiras. Ed. CICS.NOVA.FCSH, Lisboa, pp 33–56
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (1997) The EU Compendium of spatial planning systems and policies. European Commission: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
Costa JP, Cavaco C (2017) A revisão dos PDM’s de primeira geração. In: Costa JP (ed) Pensar a Cidade, 2005–2015. A crítica da crítica. Caleidoscópio, Lisboa, pp 94–95
Dühr S, Nadin V (2007) Europeanisation through transnational territorial cooperation? The case of INTERREG IIIB North-West Europe. Plan Pract Res 22(3):373–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701666738
Dühr S, Stead D, Zonneveld W (2007) The Europeanisation of spatial planning through territorial cooperation. Plan Pract Res 22(3):291–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701688245
Dusza K (1989) Max Weber’s Conception of the State. Int J Polit., Cult Soc 3(1):71–105
ESPON TANGO (2013) Territorial approaches for new governance. Final Report, ESPON Coordination Unit, Luxembourg
Estratégia Integrada de Desenvolvimento Territorial da Área Metropolitana de Lisboa, 2014–2020 (2015) Área Metropolitana de Lisboa, Augusto Mateus & Associados, Lisboa. Online: http://www.am-lisboa.pt/documentos/1518970305A2fNI7cy4Ku53CX9.pdf
European Commission (2014a) Integrated Territorial Investments—Europa, 2014. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/iti_en.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2017. https://doi.org/10.2776/56347
European Commission (2014b) Community-Led Local Development—Europa, 2014. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/community_en.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2017. https://doi.org/10.2776/2575
European Commission (2014c) Integrated Sustainable Urban Development—Europa, 2014. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/urban_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2017. https://doi.org/10.2776/47320
European Commission (2016) Guidance for Member States on Integrated Sustainable Urban Development—Europa, 2016 Online: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_sustainable_urban_development_en.pdf. Accessed 5 Nov 2017
Faludi A (2013) Territorial cohesion, territorialism, territoriality, and soft planning: a critical review. Environ Plan A 45:1302–1317
Faludi A (2014) EUropeanisation or Europeanisation of spatial planning? Plan Theory Pract 15(2):155–169
Ferrão J (2011) Ordenamento do Território como Política Pública. Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa, 1st Edition (2011), 2nd Edition (2014)
Ferrão J (2016) O Território na Constituição da República Portuguesa (1976–2005). Dos preceitos fundadores às políticas de território do futuro. Sociologia, problemas e práticas, número especial: 123–134. https://doi.org/10.7458/spp2016ne10353
Ferrão J, Mourato JM, Balula L, Bina O (2013) Functional Regions, Urban-Rural Relations and Post 2013 Cohesion Policy. OBSERVA – Observatório de Ambiente e Sociedade, Estudo 29. Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Lisboa
Galland D (2012) Understanding the reorientations and roles of spatial planning: the case of National Planning Policy in Denmark. Eur Plan Stud 20(8):1359–1392
Galland D, Elinbaum P (2015) Redefining territorial scales and the strategic role of spatial planning. Evidence from Denmark and Catalonia. disP—The Plan Rev 51(4):66–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2015.1134963
Giannakourou G (2005) Transforming spatial planning policy in Mediterranean countries: Europeanization and domestic change. Eur Plan Stud 13(2):320–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/0365431042000321857
Gualini E (2003) Cross-border governance: inventing regions in a trans-national multi-level polity. disP—The Plan Rev 39(152): 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2003.10556833
Haughton G, Allmendinger P (2007) Soft spaces. Plan Town Ctry Plan 76(9):306–308
Haughton G, Counsell D (2004) Regions and sustainable development: regional planning matters. The Geogr J 170(2):135–145
Haughton G, Allmendinger P, Counsell D, Vigar G (2010) The new spatial planning. Territorial management with soft spaces and fuzzy boundaries. Routledge
Keating M (2008) A quarter century of the Europe of the Regions. Reg Federal Stud 18(5):629–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597560802351630
Knieling J, Othengrafen F (2015) Planning culture—a concept to explain the evolution of planning policies and processes in Europe? Eur Plan Stud 23(11):2133–2147. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1018404
Luukkonen J, Moilanen H (2012) Territoriality in the strategies and practices of the territorial cohesion policy of the European Union: territorial challenges in implementing “soft planning”. Eur Plan Stud 20(3):481–500
Macleod G, Goodwin M (1999) Space, scale and state strategy: rethinking urban and regional governance. Prog Hum Geogr 23(4):503–527
Medeiros E (2016) Is there a rise of the territorial dimension in the EU Cohesion Policy? Finisterra, LI 103:89–112. https://doi.org/10.18055/Finis7940
Mourato J, Rosa Pires A (2007) Portugal e a perspectiva de desenvolvimento do espaço Europeu: o EDEC como institucionalização de um discruso de mudança. In Sociedade e Território. Revista de Estudos Urbanos e Regionais 40:34–43
Mourato J, Vasconcelos L, Farrall H (2015) Building governance: conflict as a driver for policy learning in Portugal. In: Gualini E, Mourato J, Allegra M (eds) Conflict in the city. Contested Urban Spaces and Local Democracy. Jovis Verlag GmbH, pp 266–281
Nadin V (2007) The emergence of the spatial planning approach in England. Plan, Pract Res 22(1):43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450701455934
Nadin V, Stead D (2008) European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. disP—The Plan Rev 44(172):35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2008.10557001
Newman P, Thorney A (1996) Urban planning in Europe. International competition, national systems and planning projects. Routledge, London and New York
PEDU – Plano Estratégico de Desenvolvimento Urbano do Município de Lisboa (2015) Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, Lisboa. Online: http://www.cm-lisboa.pt/viver/urbanismo/plano-estrategico-de-desenvolvimento-urbano/pedu-documentacao
Perkmann M (2007) Construction of new territorial scales: a framework and case study of the EUREGIO Cross-border Region. Reg Stud 41(2):253–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400600990517
Plano Diretor Municipal de Lisboa (2012) Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, Lisboa. Online: http://www.cm-lisboa.pt/viver/urbanismo/planeamento-urbano/plano-diretor-municipal
Programa Nacional da Política de Ordenamento do Território (2007) Diário da República, Lei nº58/2007, de 4 de setembro de 2007
Purkarthofer E (2016) When soft planning and hard planning meet: conceptualising the encounter of European, national and sub-national planning. Eur J Spat Dev 61
Roodbol-Mekkes P, Brink A (2015) Rescaling spatial planning: spatial planning reforms in Denmark, England, and the Netherlands. Environ Plan C: Gov Policy 33:184–198. https://doi.org/10.1068/c12134
Rosa Pires A (2005) The Fragile Foundations of European Spatial Planning in Portugal. Eur Plan Stud 13(2):237–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431042000321802
Sousa L (2013) Understanding European cross-border cooperation: a framework for analysis. J Eur Integr 35(6):669–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2012.711827
Stead D (2014) European integration and spatial rescaling in the Baltic Region: soft spaces, soft planning and soft security. Eur Plan Stud 22(4):680–693
Swygedoun E (2000) Authoritarian governance, power, and the politics of rescaling. Environ Plan D: Soc Space 18:63–76. https://doi.org/10.1068/d9s
Tasan-Kok T, Vranken J (2011) Multilevel urban governance. Handbook: theory and practice. European Urban Knowledge Network, Amsterdam
Thoidou E (2011) The territorial approach to EU Cohesion Policy: current issues and evidence from Greece. SPATIUM Int Rev 25:7–13. https://doi.org/10.2298/SPAT1125007T
Vitorino A (2010) Abordagens Integradas de Base Territorial. Relatório Final, Observatório do QREN
Acknowledgments
This article is funded by national funds by means of FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, under the scope of the research project SOFTPLAN Ref. nºPTDC/GES-URB/29170/2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cavaco, C., Costa, J.P. (2020). Administrative Organisation and Spatial Planning in Portugal: A Push Towards Soft Planning Spaces in Europe?. In: Lingua, V., Balz, V. (eds) Shaping Regional Futures. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23573-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23573-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-23572-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-23573-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)