Conceptual and empirical framework

2 Toward a comprehensive understanding of planning

The literature on contemporary planning ideas and practices refers to different strands of spatial planning and development. According to Healey (1997), there are at least three interpretations of spatial planning: economic planning, physical development planning and policy analysis planning. The focus of economic planning highlights the importance of a continuing growth in a city and a fair distribution of the benefit of growth. Policies following the line of economic planning often show a close link between spatial development and economic growth. The focus of physical development planning has primary concerns on materials and functions that can improve the qualities of urban development. This often leads to interest in building regulation and strategic regulations related to the location of development. The focus of policy analysis planning has grown out of the search for ways to make public administration more efficient and effective.

Planning in real situations is often based on one of the three strands, sometimes in combination with the others. The combination of these strands is related to the historic paths, the government interests and the traditions of debates in a given location. This makes planning in one place different from another. For example, planning in Taiwan mainly has an economic development focus. The importance of economic planning is strong and directly influences spatial development. Meanwhile, in the Netherlands, spatial planning has a stronger focus on public administration and policy analysis.

Negotiation and communication is central to spatial development.

In spite of having different focuses, there is a general agreement that planning represents a way of guiding spatial development for the future (Faludi, 2000). This is traditionally considered to be land use planning that initiates plans and policies for the implementation of physical development. The approach of land use planning often has a clear task that requires regulations to be fulfilled. For example, by separating residential areas from industrial land use according to zoning regulations, the negative impact of industrial development can be reduced. Plans and policies in land use planning are often made by a small number of actors, mainly the government authorities. Measures and analyses are used to support the argument of the development policies. Non-governmental groups are seldom involved in decision-making or can only speak out after a plan is practically adopted in a place.

Strategies of land use planning have been challenged in managing the complexity and widening diversity of urban development since the late 1980s when market-oriented development in most countries became increasingly influential in shaping

the way cities were formed and function. The power of land use control was therefore weakened. In some cases, the development power of the market is so strong that it forces the government to offer an exception in planning regulations for the development. Another challenge of land use planning presented more recently is related to the ability to cope with uncertain disturbances. This is particularly critical in facing the recent combination of the increasing vulnerability of populations due to climate change. Planning regulations can neither ensure the safety of the cities nor manage the social and economic impact caused by the disturbances. As a result, regulations for land use development have become so fragmented that they can hardly control spatial development.

European scholars began to use the term spatial planning in the late 1990s to describe a newer understanding of planning that considers the process of decision-making to be as important as the implementation of spatial development. Cullingworth and Nadin (2006) pointed out that planning is about managing ‘the problem of coordination or integration of the spatial dimension of sectoral policies through a territorially-based strategies.’ This highlights the consequence of collaboration and negotiation in framing planning decisions. UNECE (2008) also highlighted the importance of planning for resolving disputes, releasing tensions and developing guiding actions for the environment.

Although the term can be increasingly found in studies related to non-European contexts, spatial planning is still typically presented as a continental European concept (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010). In places outside of Europe, although the importance of collaborating and integrating activities is increasingly emphasised in policy-making, policy-makers seem to remain in the traditional understanding of planning as a governmental tool for land use management. For example, planning in Taiwan is often related to government strategies for spatial development. It is a challenge to examine the process of a vision of spatial development being addressed, transferred and shaping coalitions between actors involved in decision-making. This may result in difficulty in managing spatial development under the considerations of complex issues that require a combination of different policies, disciplines and professions, such as climate change and flooding.

In this context of the continental differences of planning understanding, this study is keen to examine how spatial planning can be used in both the Dutch and the Taiwanese contexts to discover the relationship between the process of decision-making and the physical development in local practices. The chapter presents the theoretical framework of the study. Four sections are included. The discussion begins by reviewing the shifts of planning understanding from land use planning to spatial planning. Next, the discussion takes a specific focus on assessing spatial planning by considering the conformity between plans and physical development and performance in decision-making. The governance of planning is discussed in the third section. This

helps the reader to understand whether and how the integrating and coordinating activities are formulated to shape planning decisions. The chapter concludes by presenting the four dimensions of planning which are based on the existing studies of spatial planning. These dimensions are used to exhibit policy-making and local practices in the case studies.