Dealing with interrelatedness and fragmentation in road infrastructure planning: an analysis of integrated approaches throughout the planning process in the Netherlands

Abstract

Planning approaches that integrate road infrastructure and other land uses are being increasingly applied. Dealing with functional interrelatedness and stakeholder fragmentation are the main reasons for this. This article conceptualizes and analyses why and how such integrated approaches can be applied effectively throughout consecutive stages of infrastructure planning. The two case studies illustrate that the concept of integration is applied for strategic as well as operational reasons, and they reveal that these reasons may alternate throughout the planning process. Effective integration is therefore dynamic: it appropriately focuses on strengthening the socio-economic perspectives of a region for the longer term, as well as on the relations between different land uses that are physically adjacent and competing for space within a smaller area. Due to fragmented institutional contexts, successfully dealing with interrelatedness requires an intense level of interaction amongst involved actors. Such "coproduction" of visions and plans has two important characteristics: negotiation, and learning about each other's goals. Ultimately the case studies also show that planning at the infrastructure-land use interface needs institutional mechanisms to guide the alterations between strategically and operationally inspired integration. Contracts with private parties, public participation, and positive conditions for learning about each other's referential frames are examples of the institutional mechanisms encountered in this study.

Reflecting on How Social Impacts are Considered in Transport Infrastructure Project Planning: Looking beyond the Claimed Success of Sydney’s South West Rail Link

“…Bradford and Wolfe (2010, p. 1) described integrated approaches to planning as "policies that are multi-level in their governance structure and tailored to the specific reality of individual regions". Through varying governance arrangements, planners and developers work together to address issues experienced across scales (Barca et al 2012, Heeres et al 2016. However, the public need for transport infrastructure is usually only framed in policy at the metropolitan scale, where there is usually a high level of political interest and oversight (Howitt and Jackson 2000, Wheeler 2000, Mottee and Howitt 2018.…”

“…different planning tools/ methods, disciplinary terminology and objectives) and institutional (e.g. different funding sources, procedural resistance) challenges that restrict the early implementation of integrated planning and assessment (Te Brömmelstroet and Bertolini 2010, Heeres et al 2012a, Heeres et al 2016.…”

Developing Goals and Indicators for the Design of Sustainable and Integrated Transport Infrastructure and Urban Spaces

“…Saidi et al [17] divided the goals of infrastructure system integration into four levels: (1) high-level integration within an individual subsystem, (2) detailed-level integration within a specific subsystem, (3) high-level integration between multiple subsystems, and (4) detailed-level integration between various subsystems. For transportation infrastructure, Heeres et al [18] proposed an instrumental matrix of integration, categorising a set of solution spaces (i.e., "the conceptual space in which possible solutions might be found" [19]) of integration. From a functional and spatial perspective, they identified three degrees of integration, including:…”

“…In line with [17,18], an integrated transportation infrastructure system should achieve both sector-internal integration and external integration with other sectors. Furthermore, according to complex systems theory, system integration aims to coordinate not only the interrelationships among internal elements of a subsystem but also the relation between the subsystems and with the external environment.…”

Co-creating value through renewing waterway networks: A transaction-cost perspective

“…In the field of transport planning (including port and inland waterway planning), new interorganisational forms are being explored with broader stakeholder involvement, as seen, for instance, in increased public participation (Bickerstaff et al, 2002;Dooms et al, 2013), the development of integrated evaluation tools (Haezendonck, 2007;Woltjer et al, 2015) and integrated forms of transportation and land use (Hull, 2008;Caris et al, 2014). Although the functional interrelatedness is herewith acknowledged, parties often still operate in an institutionally fragmented context (Busscher et al, 2015;Heeres et al, 2016). As a result, the planning of waterways can be regarded a "complicated multi-scalar and multi-actor affair" (Romein et al, 2003: 207).…”