Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Open Access Introduction: Planning and Planning Education in 2015(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Kunzmann, Klaus R.; Koll-Schretzenmayr, MartinaIn this introduction to the themed issue of disP, Klaus R. Kunzmann and Martina Koll-Schretzenmayr provide a reflective overview of spatial planning and planning education in Europe in 2015. They identify shifting political and economic contexts—including the global financial crisis, EU re-nationalisation, and urbanisation pressures—that challenge planning’s role and legitimacy. The authors present six guiding questions that informed a survey of 50 European planners on topics such as the current status of planning, dominant media themes, the gap between theory and practice, spatial disparities, educational adequacy, and the role of EU policy. The aim is to foster a multilingual, transnational dialogue on planning’s future.Item Open Access Bernd Scholl — Switzerland(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Scholl, BerndIn this national commentary, Bernd Scholl reflects on the spatial development challenges facing Switzerland, including urban sprawl, internal densification, and the pressures of transit traffic. He emphasises the need for coordinated planning across all levels of government in a complex federal system. The article discusses the role of informal and cooperative planning processes, especially in small and mid-sized municipalities. Scholl highlights the integration of research, education, and practice, and calls for spatial planning education that is inter- and transdisciplinary, adaptable, and responsive to real-world problems. He advocates for European cooperation in planning, rooted not in standardisation but in the richness of cultural diversity and mutual learning.Item Open Access Karel Maier — Czechia(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Maier, KarelIn this national profile, Karel Maier outlines the legal and political framework of spatial planning in Czechia. He describes the dual nature of planning: legally strong but politically contested, especially at the local level where planners are often accused of serving developers rather than communities. The article highlights tensions between environmental concerns and economic interests, the growing influence of civic groups, and the use of the internet for planning activism. Maier also discusses the limited theoretical foundation of planning in Czechia, the weak professional identity due to the absence of specialised educational programmes, and the modest impact of EU guidance, which often results in superficial compliance. The article calls for a gradual convergence in European planning practice through shared ethics and improved education.Item Open Access Anna Geppert — France(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Geppert, AnnaIn this national profile, Anna Geppert explores the evolving role of spatial planning in France. She highlights a paradox: while planning values such as spatial quality are widely supported, the planner’s authority has declined. Since the 1980s, decentralisation and the involvement of multiple actors have weakened central control, while planning has become fragmented across policy sectors. Sustainability dominates discourse but is often vague, and planning conflicts—such as opposition to megaprojects—receive more media attention than systemic issues. Geppert also notes a shift from theory to pragmatic practice, the weakening of national strategies to reduce regional disparities, and the continued strength of France’s planning education, though without integration with architecture schools. She calls for stronger EU-level regulation of the planning profession and closes by inviting reflection on the feasibility of a coherent European Urban Policy.Item Open Access José Miguel Fernández-Güell — Spain(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Fernández-Güell, José MiguelIn this national commentary, José Miguel Fernández-Güell outlines the strengths and challenges of urban planning in Spain. While municipal planning is widely institutionalised, regional planning often remains symbolic due to political resistance. The article highlights a growing conceptual crisis in planning, driven by inefficiencies, corruption, and disconnection from contemporary needs. Planners increasingly focus on sustainability, mobility, and public space, yet media and public interest remain low. A significant theory-practice gap persists, with limited integration of academic thought into professional action. The article also touches on urban inequality, educational pathways, and the need for a European policy that balances cohesion with subsidiarity.Item Open Access Alessandro Balducci — Italy(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Balducci, AlessandroIn this brief national commentary, Alessandro Balducci reflects on the state of urban planning in Italy. He contrasts the post-WWII period of optimistic rational planning with today's more complex landscape marked by public scepticism and increased environmental awareness. He discusses pressing issues such as land consumption, unregulated building in high-risk zones, and the marginal role of urban planning in infrastructure and smart city development. Balducci argues that the gap between theory and practice in Italy has remained limited due to planners’ involvement in both academia and administration. He also revisits debates on spatial inequality and planning education, calling for stronger institutional pathways and EU support for urban regeneration and local capacity building.Item Open Access Louis Albrechts — Belgium(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Albrechts, LouisIn this national reflection, Louis Albrechts examines the evolution of spatial planning in Flanders (Belgium) following the country’s federalisation and the transfer of planning responsibilities to regional authorities. He critiques the rigidity and outdated nature of statutory land-use plans and traces the development of the Structure Plan Flanders as a significant milestone in raising the visibility of planning. Albrechts reflects on shifting political dynamics, dominant themes such as ribbon development and urban decay, and highlights the growing disconnect between academic research and planning practice. He advocates for linking spatial planning to socio-spatial innovation, embedding governance and social change in planning processes. Finally, he argues for the need to educate planners with creative, integrative, and adaptive mindsets, and promotes a dialectical approach between top-down and bottom-up governance—especially in relation to the EU’s influence.Item Open Access Peter Ache — Netherlands(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Ache, PeterIn this brief national report, Peter Ache outlines the current status and key challenges of spatial planning in the Netherlands. The text touches upon planning's public reputation, legal reforms, dominant public themes, the relationship between theory and practice, the role of planning education, and the influence of the European Union. Ache highlights the centrality of water management, the emphasis on maintaining “spatial quality,” and the increasing attention paid by the planning community to social disparities and managerial aspects of planning. He concludes by emphasising the need for experimentation, shared learning, and capacity-building through interdisciplinary approaches.Item Restricted AESOP Thematic Groups: Planning/Conflict(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Gualini, EnricoThis article presents the AESOP Thematic Group on Planning/Conflict, established in 2013 to explore the role of planning in framing, transforming, and engaging with urban conflicts. The group offers a platform for interdisciplinary dialogue on how planning practices both generate and respond to conflicts within urban development. It organizes international conferences and special sessions at academic events and has contributed to multiple edited volumes and scholarly outputs. The article critically reflects on the conceptual and practical intersections between planning and conflict, arguing for a post-disciplinary and interpretive approach to understand urban contention, the dynamics of power, and the political dimensions embedded in planning processes.Item Open Access AESOP Thematic Groups: Resilience and Risk Mitigation Strategies(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Sliuzas, RichardThis article introduces the AESOP Thematic Group “Resilience and Risk Mitigation Strategies” (RRMS), established around the 2007 AESOP Annual Conference in Naples. The group connects spatial planning expertise with risk governance, addressing natural, technological, and hybrid risks. It explores how planning can reduce vulnerabilities and hazard exposure, integrate disaster risk reduction into policy, and enhance resilience through proactive governance. The article outlines key developments in theory, practice, and education, referencing major international frameworks (e.g., UNISDR, Sendai, Habitat III) and activities such as roundtables, workshops, and conference sessions. RRMS emphasizes planning’s interdisciplinary potential and capacity-building roles in risk-aware urban development.Item Open Access AESOP Thematic Groups: Public Spaces and Urban Cultures(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Knierbein, Sabine; Sezer, Ceren; Tornaghi, ChiaraThis article introduces the AESOP Thematic Group on Public Spaces and Urban Cultures (PSUC), founded in April 2010 to foster interdisciplinary and international dialogue on public space and urban culture. The group engages academics, practitioners, and public stakeholders through meetings, workshops, and online platforms. It supports research, planning, and educational initiatives focused on spatial justice, everyday urbanism, and participatory processes. The article presents the group’s structure, key themes, events, and publications, emphasizing its open and inclusive approach and its ambition to bridge theory and practice across diverse sociopolitical contexts.Item Restricted Transportation Planning and Policy(Taylor & Francis, 2015) Nicolaisen, Morten Skou; Driscoll, Patrick; Bertolini, LucaThis article presents the history, goals, and activities of the AESOP Thematic Group on Transportation Planning and Policy. It addresses the core challenges of mobility in increasingly dense urban environments and explores how transportation planning must balance economic, environmental, and social concerns. The group originated from a popular AESOP Congress track and evolved into an active community through seminars, workshops, and the EU-funded COST Action on accessibility instruments. The article highlights the group’s interdisciplinary nature, involvement in planning practice, and ambitions to continue collaborative research through annual workshops. It also outlines recent activities and future plans, including contributions to the AESOP Congress in Prague.