DT1.2.1 Knowledge Support 9.52 Mb
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Interreg Alpine Space project „OpenSpaceAlps“ Workpackage T1: Spatial Planning Governance Check and Guidance Activity A.T1.2: Knowledge support in working on transnational case study areas, national and transnational activities Presentation of proposed methods and planning approaches for transnational case study areas Deliverable D.T1.2.1 Constantin Meyer M.Sc. Würzburg, July 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 Presentation and comparative analysis of selected planning approaches ......................... 3 2.1 Specifically designated areas (designated open land) ....................................................... 5 2.2 Special concepts on limiting disturbing infrastructures ..................................................... 15 2.3 Supra local zoning approaches ....................................................................................... 21 2.4 Regional spatial plans ..................................................................................................... 23 3 Discussion and proposal of transferable components ...................................................... 30 4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 34 References ................................................................................................................................... 35 Presentation of proposed methods and planning approaches for transnational case study areas D.T1.2.1 List of Tables Tab. 1: Comparative summary of the central characteristics and potentially transferable components of the presented spatial planning instruments ........................................................................................................... 33 List of Figures Fig. 1: Guiding open space planning principles for the demand and supply approach ..................................... 2 Fig. 2: Legal competences in spatial planning, relevant to the safeguarding of alpine open spaces ............... 4 Fig 3: Distribution of protected areas in the federal state of Tyrol (Austria) (Quiet Areas are displayed in yellow) ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Fig. 4: General orientation (Räumlich-funktionales Leitbild) of the Tennengau regional development programme (Alpine Quiet Areas are displayed in blue) ..................................................................................... 4 Fig. 5: Examples of ecological corridors in the Oberpinzgau region near Mittersill (Salzburg, Austria) (corridors are displayed by green shading) ....................................................................................................... 6 Fig. 6: Distribution of the Vorarlberg State Green Zone in the Rhine Valley and Walgau region (displayed in green)................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Fig. 7: Distribution of Agricultural Provision Areas near Lienz in the federal state of Tyrol (displayed in green) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Fig. 8: Distribution of the total amount of Crop Rotation Areas among the Swiss cantons ............................. 12 Fig. 9: Potential extension/connection (defined by the purple line) of the existing Pitztal and Ötztal glacier ski areas (appendix 2 of the Glacier Protection Programme) ............................................................................... 14 Fig. 10: Example of ski zone delimitations in the Obervinschgau region near Reschensee Lake (ski zones are displayed beige-colored, ski slopes in purple and lift facilities as red/purple lines) .................................. 20 Fig. 11: Zoning of the Alpenplan in the eastern part of the Bavarian Alps (Zone A=yellow, Zone B=green, Zone C=red) ..................................................................................................................................................... 22 Fig. 12: Selected area-based components of the Wallis/Valais Cantonal Structure Plan, exemplified in a section of the upper Rhone valley near Oberwald (protected agricultural zones displayed in light brown, ecological corridors dis-played in light green, residential and labour zones as part of the building zones displayed in red and purple) ............................................................................................................................ 24 Fig. 13: Elements of the Green and Blue Frame (Trame Verte et Bleue) in the Haute-Savoie Département near Charmo-nix-Mont-Blanc .......................................................................................................................... 27 Fig. 14: Section of the Regional Ecological Network in the northeastern part of the Friuli Venezia Giulia region ............................................................................................................................................................... 29 Presentation of proposed methods and planning approaches for transnational case study areas D.T1.2.1 1 Introduction In order to elaborate this comparative report on proposed methods and planning approaches in open space planning, it is necessary to discuss some theoretical and conceptual implications from the research field of comparative planning studies. There has been long-standing distinctive interest in the comparison of European planning systems, represented e.g. by publications such as the EU Compendium of European Spatial Planning Systems and Policies (Commission of the European Communities 1997) and many other outputs of research projects in the following decades. The comparative characterization of planning systems faces various methodological challenges, including potential problems of the discrepancy of linguistic and conceptual equivalence, biased approaches based only on country-specific knowledge (e.g. for concepts such as “zoning” or “structure plans”) as well as the high complexity and diversity of sub-national competences in spatial planning (cf. NADIN & STEAD 2013). It is obvious that this rather short report, that aims to compare open space planning approaches and to identify transferable elements of those planning instruments, is not suitable for an in-depth analysis of local or regional planning cultures, as it is done mainly as a desk research. In addition to that, it is necessary to look at the notion of policy transfer in spatial planning research, which is highly influenced by the concept of “best practice”. We agree with STEAD (2012), who criticises the common assumption of best practices being equally applicable and effective in another institutional setting, and emphasizes the importance to differentiate between various components of “best prac-tice” according to the extent to these can be transferred. This requires more detailed examinations of the transferability of spatial planning methods, techniques, operating rules, instruments and pro-grams (cf. STEAD 2012). For this reason, the report is divided into two separate parts. While we present, discuss and catego- rize selected planning instruments in chapter 2 without analysing their transferability, the focus of chapter 3 is to extract and discuss transferable elements of the specific methods for the delimitation and safeguarding of open spaces. For the assessment of the transferability of certain planning methods and techniques, it is important to understand the legal and organisational foundations of the respective planning systems. Therefore, there is a short comparative introduction on the coun- tries’ spatial planning systems at the beginning of the second chapter. Open space planning approaches can differ substantially according to their specific objectives and methodologies. This is mainly due to the fact that there are manifold open space functions and pur- poses that need to be taken into consideration. According to MARUANI and AMIT-COHEN (2007), those can be summarized in two main categories: a demand approach that reflects the anthropo-genic demand for open spaces (e.g. for recreation purposes) and a supply approach that is oriented towards the specific natural features of open spaces (e.g. conservation of flora and fauna habitats). This differentiation also influences the guiding planning principles with regard to site selection, quantitative measures, types of (permissible) activities and site design (see Fig. 1). Without ne- glecting the role of open spaces as e.g. recreational areas close to residential areas, the open space definition of the OpenSpaceAlps project (areas kept free from built-up sites as well as tech-nical infrastructures) is more strongly influenced by the supply approach in open space planning. Presentation of proposed methods and planning approaches for transnational case study areas D.T1.2.1 1 Fig. 1: Guiding open space planning principles for the demand and supply approach Source: MARUANI & AMIT-COHEN 2007: 4 The selection of documents is based on the catalogue on current planning approaches (D.T1.1.2) and assessments/ recommendations by the OpenSpaceAlps project partners and observers. Out of the catalogue on current planning approaches only instruments