Opening up the Compendium: An Evaluation of International Comparative Planning Research Methodologies

Abstract

It is two decades since the European Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies was conceived. Since its publication in 1997, the Compendium has become a widely cited reference in comparative planning literature. 1 It remains one of the few comprehensive reviews of spatial planning policy and practice across western Europe. The Compendium also represents one of the few studies to develop a typology for distinguishing between national planning systems. A number of comparative research studies on spatial planning have since built on the methodological foundations laid by the Compendium although its typology of national planning systems is not always used or interpreted as originally intended for a variety of reasons. In the context of extensive reform of planning approaches in Europe, the paper examines what can be learned about methodologies for international comparative research in planning based on the experience of the Compendium study and subsequent major comparative planning studies. We conclude that while broad typologies remain useful in explaining general trends, they may hide as much as they reveal. Future studies should widen the criteria used to build ideal types beyond formal characteristics in order to address planning in practice.

Questioning the Universality of Institutional Transformation Theories in Spatial Planning: Shopping Mall Developments in Palermo

“…As a result, relatively low level of formal public participation to decision-making are found (Bonafede and Lo Piccolo 2010;Seixas and Albet 2012). Unsurprisingly, comparative studies hardly find an agreement when assessing Southern European planning systems: some refer to them as 'immature' when compared to Central European traditions (CEC 1997;Nadin and Stead 2013), whereas others refer to the urbanism tradition as the 'missing piece' in the 'puzzle' of European planning (Janin Rivolin and Faludi 2005).…”

Land-Use Planning Methodology and Middle-Ground Planning Theories

“…The work on the compendium showed that planning systems are fundamentally adapted to the historical traditions of different countries and we understand that these systems are essentially planning cultures, deriving from the wider societal and cultural context. This work resulted in the identification of four different non-exclusive planning traditions, based not only on the variables of the legal family and the distribution of power between central and local government, but also on five additional variables [39] (pp. 1544, 1546, 1549, 1550-1553, 1555); [40] (p. 4).…”

Towards Sustainable Territories-in-Between: A Multidimensional Typology of Open Spaces in Europe

“…This is the reason why only cases in Western and Central Europe are included.For the first aspect, we have used the traditions (or ideal types) of spatial planning introduced by the European Compendium of Spatial Planning and further developed by Nadin and Stead (2013). These ideal types can be assigned to individual countries within the EU.…”