DILEME NA POBUDAH TEMELJEČEGA PROSTORSKEGA PLANIRANJA
DILEMMAS OF URBAN PLANNING BASED ON PRIVATE INITIATIVES

Jure Zavrtanik, Andrej Pogačnik

DOI: 10.15292/geodetski-vestnik.2012.02.290-307

 

Izvleček:

Ne glede na vtis, da se zaradi sedanjih gospodarskih razmer pritisk različnih interesnih skupin na prostor zmanjšuje, ostaja vprašanje vključevanja vseh deležnikov v postopek planiranja eden izmed ključnih izzivov planerske prakse. Glede na to prispevek obravnava vidike sprejemljivosti vključevanja individualnih pobud v odločevalski proces, pri čemer gradi na predpostavki, da na eni strani na pobudah temelječi urbanizem ne vodi v vzdržen prostorski razvoj, na drugi strani pa obstoječi kriterijski pristop usmerjanja prostorskega razvoja ne daje optimalnih rezultatov.

Ključne besede: pobuda, na pobudah temelječi urbanizem, okoljska sprejemljivost, ekonomska sprejemljivost, družbena sprejemljivost

 

Abstract:

Notwithstanding the impression that the pressure on land is decreasing because of the current economic crisis, the challenge of a contemporary urban planning to involve all stakeholders as equally as possible in the planning process remains unchanged. This article focuses on the acceptability of the integration private initiatives into the decision-making process. It asserts that urban planning based on private initiative does not lead to a sustainable spatial development; furthermore, the existing criteria-based land development approach does not necessarily give optimal results.

Keywords: private initiative, urban planning based on private initiative, environmental acceptability, economic acceptability, social acceptability

 

Literatura / References:

Aarhuška konvencija – Konvencija o dostopu do informacij, udeležbi javnosti pri odločanju in dostopu do pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah. (2004) Uradni list RS, št. 62/04.

Adams, D. (1994). Urban planning and the development process. Routledge, Abington.

Adams, D., May, H. (1992). The Role of Landowners in the Preparation of Statutory Local Plans. The Town Planning  Review. Vol. 63, št. 3, 297–323.

Altes,W. K. K. (2006). Towards regional development planning in the Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research 21, 309–321.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02697450601090807

Altes, W. K. K. (2009). Taxing land for urban containment: Reflections on a Dutch debate. Land use policy, 26(2), 233–241.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.01.006

Barker, K. (2006). Barker Review of Land Use Planning. Final Report – Recommendations. Crown copyright, Norwich.

Bruns, D. F. W., Schmidt, A. J. (1997). City edges in Germany: quality growth and urban design. Lanscape and Urban Planning, 36, 347–356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(96)00357-X

Buitelaar, E. (2003). Neither market nor government: comparing the performance of user rights regimes, Town Planning Review, 74, 315–330.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3828/tpr.74.3.4

Buitelaar, E., Needham, B. (2007). Property rights and private initiatives: An introduction. Town planning review. 78(1), 1–8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3828/tpr.78.1.1

Castells, M. (1996, second edition, 2000). The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. I, Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Cheshire, P., Sheppard, S. (2002). The welfare economics of land use planning. Journal of Urban Economics 52, 242–269.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0094-1190(02)00003-7

Cof, A. (2005). Vplivi širjenja pozidanih zemljišč na krajinske kakovosti prostora v ljubljanski urbani regiji v obdobju 1951–2002. Urbani izziv, 16(1), 117–123.
http://www.dlib.si/details /URN:NBN:SI:doc-KBRLQ3Q8

David, N., Bengston, D. N., Fletcher, J. O., Nelson, K. C. (2004). Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2004), 271–286.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.007

Dekleva, J. (2011). Pregled in komentar normativne ureditve občinskega prostorskega načrtovanja skozi čas ter instrumenti prostorske regulative v svetu. V: Štravs, L. (ur.): Urejanje prostora na občinski ravni, Ljubljana.

Drevenšek, M., Pek Drapal, D. (2008). Pomen družbene sprejemljivosti za uresničevanje okoljskih in prostorskih projektov: predlog sistematizacije merjenja. Teorija in praksa, 45(6), 752–777.
http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-PTDKZXZS

Ellman, M., Gaidar E. T., Kolodko, G. W. (1993). Economic Transition in Eastern Europe. Blackwell, Oxford.

Free University of Brussels – IGEAT (2006). Espon project 3.2. Spatial scenarios and orientations in relation to the ESDP and cohesion policy: Teritorial impact assessment. Final report. Volume 5. Bruselj.

Gant, R. L., Robinson, G. M., Fazal, S. (2011). Land-use change in the ‘edgelands’: Policies and pressures in London's rural–urban fringe. Land use policy, 28(1), 266–279.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.007

Gantar, P. (2007). Prostorsko planiranje in javni interesi v pluralistični družbi = Spatial planning and public interests in a pluralist society.Geodetski vestnik, 51(2), 246–254.

Gennaio, M. P., Hersperger, A. M., Bürgi, M. (2009). Containing urban sprawl – Evaluating effectiveness of urban growth boundaries set by the Swiss Land Use Plan. Land use policy, 26(2), 224–232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.02.010

Gerber, A., Michel, S., Gerber, V. (2003). Siedlungsbegrenzung fűr eine nachhaltige Siedlungsentwicklung – Evaluation Nutzungsplanung aus der Sicht der nachhaltigen Siedlungsentwicklung. UVEK, Bundesamt fűr Raumentwicklung ARE, Bern.

Geuting, E. (2007). Proprietary governance and property development – Using changes in the property-rights regime as a marketbased policy tool. Town planning review, 78(1), 23–40.

Gielen, D. M., Altes, W. K. K. (2007). Lessons from Valencia: Separating Infrastructure Provision from Land Ownership, Town Planning Review, 78(1), 61–79.

Glaeser, E. L. (2007). Restricting residential construction. V: Ingram, G. K., Hong, Y.-H. (ur.): Land Policies and Their Outcomes. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, 21–45.

Henger, R., Bizer, K. (2010). Tradable planning permits for land-use control in Germany. Land use policy, 27(3), 843–852.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.11.003

Johnston, R. A., Madison, M. E., (1997). From landmarks to landscapes: a review of current practices in the transfer of development rights. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 365–379.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975929

Killian, J., Pretty, D. (2008). The Killian Pretty Review: Planning applications: A faster and more responsive system Final Report Executive Summary and Recommendations. Communities and Local Government Publications, London.

Koolhaas, R., Mau, B. (1997). Small, medium, large, extra-large : Office for Metropolitan Architecture, B. Taschen, Köln.

Kos, D. (2002). Praktična sociologija za načrtovalce in urejevalce prostora, FDV, Ljubljana.

Koželj, J. (1998). Krajinska arhitektura – krajinski urbanizem. AB, Arhitektov bilten, 28(139-140), 1.

Lőhr, D. (2010). External Costs as Driving Forces of Land Use Changes. Sustainability, št. 2, 1035–1054.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su2041035

Lőhr, D. (2010). Land Conversion out of Control – How to Achieve Better Governance. Prispevek na konferenci:Facing the Challenges - Building the Capacity. Sydney, Avstralija.

Marušič, J. (1986). Podatkovne osnove za načrtovanje odprtega prostora. V: Baze podatkov in njih metode uporabe za urejanje prostora, Zveza društev urbanistov Slovenije in Zveza geodetov Slovenije, Maribor.

Mascarucci, R. (1995). L'urbanistica efficace. Raccolta di interventi e saggi brevi sull'efficacia del progetto urbanistico, Sala, Pescara.

Mencinger, J. (1999): Deset let pozneje. Tranzicija – uspeh, polom ali nekaj vmes?. Gospodarska gibanja, 23–42.

Sodobni urbanizem ne določa ampak predvsem omogoča: Pogovor s podžupanom prof. Janezom Koželjem. V: Meršol, M. (ur.): Ljubljana, Glasilo Mestne občine Ljubljana, št. 2, letnik XIII, predstavitev novega Prostorskega načrta MOL, ISSN 131879X. Mestni svet Mestne občine Ljubljana.

Mlakar, A. (2006). Možnosti zmanjševanja negotovosti v prostorsko načrtovalnih postopkih. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana, Univerza v Ljubljani, Biotehniška fakulteta.

Mlakar, A. (2009). Pomen analize ranljivosti prostora in okoljskih izhodišč za celovito prostorsko načrtovanje = Relevance of vulnerability analysis and environmental premises for comprehensive planning. Geodetski vestnik, 53(3), 509–542.

Pek Drapal, D., Kralj, M., Železnik, N. (2005). Metodologija ocene družbenih vidikov uresničljivosti prijave za sodelovanje v postopku umeščanja NSRAO, ARAO, Ljubljana.

Pogačnik, A. (2006). Kako izdelamo prostorske načrte. Univerzitetni učbenik in strokovni priročnik, Obzorja, Maribor.

Potokar Rant, J. (2008). Svoboda izražanja – temelj demokratičnega političnega sistema. Magistrska naloga, FDV, Ljubljana.

Prelovšek, A. (1998). Razpršena gradnja – usmerjanje in sanacija v prostoru Ljubljane, Študija – končno gradivo, Panprostor, Mestna občina Ljubljana, Ljubljana.

Pruetz R., (2003). Beyond Takings and Givings. Saving Natural Areas, Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights and Density Transfer Charges. Arje Press, Kalifornija.

Segeren, A., Verwest, F., Needham, B., Buitelaar, E. (2007). (Re-)designing markets for land use decisions – Private initiatives in a publicly determined context: lessons drawn from other policy fields. Town planning review, 78(1), 9–22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3828/tpr.78.1.2

Skaburskis, A. (2003). Pricing City Form: Development Cost Charges and Simulated Markets. Planning, Practice and Research, 18(2-3), 197–211.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0269745032000168250

Stafford, H. A. Jr. (1962). The Dispersed City. Professional Geographer, 14(4), 8–10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1962.144_8.x

Sorensen, T. (1994), Further thoughts on Coasian approaches to zoning: a response to Lai Wai Chung. Town Planning Review, 65, 197–203.

Stauffer & Studach AG Raumplanung, Umweltplanung, Bauberatung (2000). Mobilisierung von Bauland in der ARGE Alp. Comunita di Lavoro delle Regioni Alpine, Commissione Ambiente, Agricoltura e Assetto del Territorio.

Špes, M., Smrekar, A., Lampič, B. (2000). Kvaliteta bivalnega okolja v Ljubljani. V: Gabrovec, M. (ur.), Orožen Adamič, M. (ur.), Ljubljana: geografija mesta. Ljubljansko geografsko društvo, Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 163–174.

Tan, R., Beckman, V., van der Berg, L., Qu, F. (2009). Governing Land Conversion: Comparing China with the Netherlands and Germany. Land use policy, 26, 961–974.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.11.009

Tse, R. Y. C. (2001). Impact of comprehensive development zoning on real estate development in Hong Kong. Land Use Policy 18, 321–328.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00025-4

Wasilewski, A., Krukowski, K. (2002). Land Conversion for Suburban Housing: A Study of Urbanization around Warsaw and Olysztyn, Poland. CEESA Discussion paper No.,8 ISSN 1616-9166.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-3010-x

Weber, P. (2010). Spatial planning to the test of property rights in Switzerland: an innovative land management approach to coordinate spatial planning goals with property rights interests. V:The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London.

Wiegandt, K. (2004). Mixed Land Use in Gerany: Chances, Benefits and Constraints. Prispevek na simpoziju: International Planning Symposium on Incentives, Regulations, and Plans – The Role of States and Nation States in Smart Growth Planning. National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, University of Maryland.

Zavrtanik, J., Mlakar, A., Fatur, M. (2009). Prostorski vidiki načrtovanja logističnih središč: primer gospodarskega središča Feniks v Posavju = Spatial aspects of planning logistical centres: the case of the economic centre Feniks in the Posavje Region. Urbani izziv, 20(1), 68–77.
http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:doc-Y123R3SV