Classifications of planning systems are valuable in analysis and explanation of their main lines of similarity and difference, especially where projects have generated large amounts of data. There are two main types, taxonomies allocate systems into classes that are mutually exclusive with countries in the same or adjacent classes clustered as a type. Typologies use ideal types that are conceptual, one-sided characterisations. The choice of variables is a theoretical statement about what is important in variation. There were four major European cross-national comparative planning studies between 1989 and 2006. Constitutional arrangements and legal families are the primary variables and emphasise the differences in commitment and discretion in systems. Four post-2006 classifications arising from the ESPON COMPASS project are also reviewed which use other variables including the level of sectoral policy integration, adaptation and quality of governance. Classifications using many variables are less successful in clustering countries, there is a lot of variation and not much similarity.@en

Comparative knowledge of spatial planning systems (city and regional planning, land use planning or spatial planning) is of great value to governments. Planning is seen as a critical tool in building sustainability and resilience in the face of climate change, challenges that have a strong spatial dimension. Governments are keen to learn from elsewhere, but this needs care. Planning is strongly shaped by the underlying social model, itself a product of geographical, economic, social and cultural conditions. Thus, the idea and practice of spatial planning is rooted in place. There are common tendencies to replace technocratic expert-led approaches with more collaborative and inclusive planning processes. Planning is increasingly seen as a coordinating mechanism, cross-fertilising sectoral policy and action that affects places. This is the spatial planning approach, or more broadly territorial governance. This book explains the directions of spatial planning reform in Europe, with details on 39 European countries.@en

Cross-national comparison of spatial planning systems involves considerable, conceptual, methodological and practical challenges, involving conceptual equivalence between cultures and languages, the continual reform of planning systems and the importance of actual practice as well as formal structures. Most comparative studies in Europe have concentrated the method of investigation on documentary evidence of formal administrative structures and to a lesser extent actual practices and change over time. Several other studies have collected similar data for systems and created compilations of information with little comparative content. The ESPON COMPASS project examined change in planning systems over a sixteen-year period in both the formal arrangements and actual practice, including integration with sectoral policies, adaptability, citizen engagement and the effects of Europeanisation. The project gathered data through questionnaire surveys of nominated country experts, and in-depth case studies in five European regions, all of which was subject to extensive quality control to improve reliability and trustworthiness of findings.@en

The European Union Cohesion Policy supports the development of European regions since the end of the 1980s, despite the lack of supranational spatial planning competences. As reported through time by numerous studies, this has triggered important changes in the Member States’ territorial administration, regional and urban policies, spatial planning praxis. Drawing on the comprehensive dataset collected in the context of the ESPON COMPASS research project, this chapter shed light on the role of EU cohesion policy as a driver of Europeanisation, by systematically analysing its impact on all Member States’ territorial governance and spatial planning systems in the period from 2000 to 2016, and in relation to the various administrative levels. In doing so, the authors bring new evidence to confirm how the actual impact of Cohesion Policy depends on domestic differential institutional and administrative settings, spatial planning traditions, as well as on the magnitude of the allocated funding.@en

This symposium presents the results of a roundtable of well-known European spatial planning scholars critically engaging with Andreas Faludi's The Poverty of Territorialism. A Neo-Medieval View of Europe and of European Spatial Planning (2018). The book allows readers to rethink the current debates surrounding territorialism in the context of the European Union, as well as its implications for democracy. In particular, it argues that the open-ended character of the European project requires continuous efforts to (re)conceptualize spatial relations both inside and outside of existing administrative containers, in turn putting the democratic control of state territories and their development in question. Shedding a light on the above, this contribution presents some of the discussion that emerged during the roundtable. Its convenor (Giancarlo Cotella) introduces the aims and scope of the event, before leaving the floor to the critical considerations proposed by one of the participants (Eva Purkarthofer). Finally, the author of the book is given the chance to reply.@en

The objective of the COMPASS project was to provide an authoritative comparative report on changes in territorial governance and spatial planning systems in Europe from 2000 to 2016. This Final Report presents the main findings, conclusions and policy recommendations. The COMPASS project compares territorial governance and spatial planning in 32 European countries (the 28 EU member states plus four ESPON partner countries). COMPASS differs from previous studies in that the accent is not on a snapshot comparison of national systems, but on identifying trends in reforms from 2000 to 2016. It also seeks to give reasons for these changes with particular reference to EU directives and policies, and to identify good practices for the cross-fertilisation of spatial development policies with EU Cohesion Policy. The research is based on expert knowledge with reference wherever possible to authoritative sources. Experts with in-depth experience of each national system were appointed to contribute to the study. The research design involved primarily collection of data from the 32 countries through questionnaires and five in-depth case studies of the interaction of EU Cohesion Policy and other sectoral policies with spatial planning and territorial governance.@en