BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Frank Susanne (GICON - Großmann Ingenieur Consult GmbH), Spyra Marcin (Opole University of Technology, Poland), Fürst Christine (Martin-Luther University Halle Institute for Geosciences and Geography, Germany)
Tytuł
Requirements for Cross-Border Spatial Planning Technologies in the European Context
Źródło
Change and Adaptation in Socio-Ecological Systems, 2017, vol. 3, nr 1, s. 39-46, rys., tab., bibliogr. 41 poz.
Słowa kluczowe
Planowanie przestrzenne, Wyniki badań
Spatial planning, Research results
Uwagi
summ., The research is part of the INTECRE project (funding code 01DS14005, www.eli-web/intecre.de), financed by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
Kraj/Region
Region Morza Bałtyckiego
Abstrakt
This communication paper investigates requirements for cross-border spatial planning technologies. We refer to European cross-border regions, which are located in the European Baltic Sea Region. We hypothesize that there is no efficient cross-border spatial planning without engagement from various stakeholders, supported by novel spatial planning technologies. This study presents the results from a survey that identifies the requirements for spatial planning technologies adequate for cross - border regions. On the basis of this survey, carried out within the INTECRE project partners coming from the Baltic Sea Region, the study provides general recommendations about cross - border spatial planning technologies. Addressed in the survey are the following central issues: definition of the scope of such technologies, the data base and international planning data provision, features and properties of planning technologies, and stakeholder involvement. The research findings are transferable to wider European and extra-European contexts. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Amyot J., Grant J., Environmental Function Analysis: A decision support tool for integrated sandy beach planning, Ocean & Coastal Management 102, 2014, Part A(0):317-327.
  2. Batty M., The New Science of Cities, The MIT Press, Cambridge, London, 2013
  3. Chadwick G., A Systems View of Planning. Towards a Theory of the Urban and Regional Planning Process, 2nd ed., Pergamon, Oxford, 1978.
  4. Camerata, S. Ombuen, F. Vico, and T. Mildorf, Data interoperability for spatial planning, In: Zlatanova, Ledoux, Fendel and Rumor (Eds.), Urban and Regional Data Management. Taylor&Francis Group, London, 2011.
  5. Cullingworth B. and Nadin V., Town and Country Planning in the UK. Fourteenth edition. Routledge, London, 2006.
  6. European Commission, Action Plan for the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region. Brussels, SEC(2009) 712/2, 2013, 191 p., accessed at http://service.mvnet.de/_php/download.php?datei_id=115155 on April 5, 2016
  7. European Commission, Communication from the Commission: Green Infrastructure (GI) (COM(2013) 249 final), 2014, Accessed at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/index_en.htm on June 4, 2015
  8. Feliu E., Tapia C., Viloria I., Zaldua M., Jung W., Engelke D., et al., ULYSSES. Using applied research results from ESPON as a yardstick for cross-border spatial development planning. Final report, in: EU (Ed.), ESPON. European Union, Luxembourg, 2013, p. 69.
  9. Flaxman Michael, Geodesign: Fundamental Principles and Routes Forward. Talk at GeoDesign Summit 2010. Accessed at http://www.esri.com/news/arcwatch/0210/feature.html on June 4, 2015.
  10. Foody G.M., Valuing map validation: The need for rigorous land cover map accuracy assessment in economic valuations of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 2015, 111, 23-28.
  11. Fricke C., Spatial Governance across Borders Revisited: Organizational Forms and Spatial Planning in Metropolitan Cross-border Regions. European Planning Studies, 2014, 849-870.
  12. Furst C., Helming K., Lorz C., Muller F., Verburg P.H., Integrated land use and regional resource management - A crossdisciplinary dialogue on future perspectives for a sustainable development of regional resources. Journal of Environmental Management, 2013, 127, Supplement, S1-S5.
  13. GH, Brundtland, and World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission On Environment and Development. Oxford University, 1987. Accessed at http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm, on June 4, 2015
  14. Gonzalez-Gomez T., & Gualda E., Cross-Border Networks in Informal and Formal Cooperation in the Border Regions Andalusia-Algarve-Alentejo and South Finland-Estonia. European Planning Studies, 2014, 22(7), 1407-1424.
  15. Gonzalez E.D.R.S., Sarkis J., Huisingh D., Huatuco L.H., Maculan N., Montoya J., de Almeida C.M.V.B., Making real progress toward more sustainable societies using decision support models and tools: Introduction to the special volume, Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015, 105, 1-13.
  16. Harrison J., & Growe A., From places to flows? Planning for the new "regional world" in Germany. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2014, 21(1), 21-41.
  17. HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. Krakow, 2007, 101 p., available at http://www.helcom.fi/Documents/Baltic%20sea%20action%20plan/BSAP_Final.pdf
  18. Jacobs J., Spatial planning in cross-border regions: A systems theoretical perspective. Planning Theory, 2016, 15(1), 68-90.
  19. Kaczmarek I., Iwaniak A., Łukowicz J., New Spatial Planning Data Access Methods Through The Implementation Of The Inspire Directive, in: Real Estate Management and Valuation, 2014, 22 (1), 12-24.
  20. La Rosa D., Spyra M., & Inostroza L., Indicators of Cultural Ecosystem Services for urban planning: A review. Ecological Indicators, 2016, 61, 74-89.
  21. Lorz C., Neumann C., Bakker F., Pietzsch K., Weis H., Makeschin F. (2013). A web-based planning support tool for sediment management in a meso-scale river basin in Western Central Brazil, Journal of Environmental Management, 2013, 127, Supplement(0):S15-S23.
  22. MA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press, Washington D.C., 2005.
  23. Majewski P., Lidestav G., Svensson J., Hedblom M., Hooper R., Sandstrom P., et al., Innovative tools to support cooperation among stakeholders in Baltic Landscapes -a Handbook. Preliminary version, in: Lidestav G., Svensson J., Hedblom M. (Eds.), Baltic landscape -innovative approaches towards sustainable forested landscapes. 2015, SLU, p. 87.
  24. Mathews M.R., Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 1997, 10(4), 481-531.
  25. McCall M.K., Dunn C.E., Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning: Fulfilling the criteria for 'good' governance? Geoforum, 2012, 43, 81-94.
  26. Medeiros E., Is there a new "trust" in inner Scandinavia? Evidence from cross-border planning and governance. Geografiska Annaler, Series B: Human Geography, 2014, 96(4), 363-386.
  27. Murgante B., Donato P.D., Berardi L., Salvemini M., Vico F., Plan4all: European Network of Best Practices for Interoperability of Spatial Planning Information, Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA), 2011, International Conference on, 286-289.
  28. Raford N., Online foresight platforms: Evidence for their impact on scenario planning & strategic foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2015, 97, 65-76.
  29. Romanach S.S., McKelvy M., Conzelmann C., Suir K., A visualization tool to support decision making in environmental and biological planning, Environmental Modelling & Software, 2014, 62(0), 221-229.
  30. Schrenk M., Mildorf T., Neuschmid J., PLAN4ALL - Spatial Planning Data Harmonization according to the INSPIRE Directive, GIS, Ostrava 2011, Accessed at http://gis.vsb.cz/GIS_Ostrava/GIS_Ova_2011/sbornik/papers/Neuschmid.pdf at April 12, 2016
  31. Scott J.W., European and North American Contexts for Cross-border Regionalism. Regional Studies, 1999, 33(7), 605-617.
  32. Sohn C., & Giffinger R., A Policy Network Approach to Cross-Border Metropolitan Governance: The Cases of Vienna and Bratislava. European Planning Studies, 2015, 23(6), 1187-1208.
  33. Spyra M., Ecosystem Services and Border Regions. Case Study from Czech - Polish Borderland. TeMA Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 2014, 7(3), 921-932.
  34. Spyra M., The feasibility of implementing cross-border land-use management strategies: a report from three Upper Silesian Euroregions. iForest, 2014, 7, 396-402.
  35. Steiner F., Frontiers in urban ecological design and planning research. Landscape and Urban Planning, 2014, 125, 304-311.
  36. Talvitie J., Incorporating the Impact of ICT into Urban and Regional Planning, European Journal of Spatial Development, 2004 (10), 1-32. Accessed at http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereed%20articles/refereed10.pdf, 25 June, 2015
  37. Tewdwr-Jones M., Spatial Planning and Governance: Understanding UK Planning, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
  38. Trillo-Santamaria J.-M., Cross-Border Regions: The Gap Between the Elite's Projects and People's Awareness. Reflections from the Galicia-North Portugal Euroregion, Journal of Borderlands Studies, 2014, 29(2), 257-273.
  39. WTO Glossary (2015). Accessed at https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/glossary_e/multifunctionality_e.htm on June 4, 2015
  40. Zaucha J., Sea basin maritime spatial planning: A case study of the Baltic Sea region and Poland, Marine Policy, 2014, 50, Part A, 34-45.
  41. Zimmerbauer K., Constructing peripheral cross-border regions in planning: Territory-network interplay in the barents region, Environment and Planning A, 2014, 46(11), 2718-2734.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2300-3669
Język
eng
URI / DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/cass-2017-0004
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu