SUMMARY ENVIRONMENT & PLANNING PART 2
,Content
L6: Area-based Approaches De Roo (2003) §5.5
¨ Concepts Ch. 2
¨ History & developments Ch. 5
L7: Decentralization & Deregulation Zuidema & De Roo (2014)
¨ Recent developments NL
(2000-now)
¨ Focus on decentralization and its
impacts
L8: Decentralization, Doubts & Risks Zuidema & De Roo (2014)
L9: The Netherlands in a EU Context Driessen et al. (2012)
¨ Shifts in Dutch environmental
governance
Extra: Nitrogen (movie + lecture) -
L10: Smart Methods -
L11: The rising issue of energy in environmental planning Cajot et al. (2014)
L12: Reflection and Summary -
Literature first half
¨ Morgan (2012)
o Environmental Impact Assessments
¨ Jordan & Lenschow (2010)
o Environmental Policy Integration
¨ Cajot et al (2012)
o Energy as rising theme
¨ Runhaar et al (2010)
o Major trends
,L6: Area-based approaches
Context
We had three approaches to deal with as well internal integration (coherency within environmental policies – 80’s) as external
integration (between environmental policies & other policy domains (combine EP and SP)– end 80’s / 90’s)
1. Theme oriented
2. Target-group oriented
3. Area-oriented
Area-based approaches
¨ Still had to be done when we finalized internal integration (end 80’s)
¨ Very explicit link with spatial planning à real external integration
¨ How can we deal with the effects that remain (after source-oriented policies) with
thinking about the specific characteristics of this area à area-specific solutions.
o How do environmental quality standards relate to areas
1 | Area-based approach: rise – Taking areas as a starting point for making policies
Area-based policies
¨ Definition: “Policies developed for specific areas, aimed at the maintenance, recovery or development of an areas’
functionalities and (environmental) qualities.”
¨ Focused on processes where both causes and effects are (mostly) in the same area
o Cannot stop climate change, but with area-based approach you could do some adaptation strategies
¨ Adapt to specific circumstances of the area (common for spatial planning approaches)
o Solutions that are smart to do, based on the specific characteristics / circumstances of an area
§ Based on specific characteristics à different demands of qualities (Already existed in a way à e.g.
a national park / drinking water source / silence area)
§ à This is new in an environmental frame (had standards that were the same everywhere!)
Hope & Expectation
¨ Idea: after successful source-oriented policies (theme & target-group oriented) most environmental problems would be
solved, and effect-oriented policies (area-oriented) would ONLY be needed in exceptional cases (can both be where
you have very high demands (silence area) or places with a lot of pollution) or ‘for the time being’.
o Example Rotterdam harbor: even though you try to do as much as possible at the source, you cannot
prevent that all those sources combined still create an environmental quality that does not meets the
standards. à exceptional case: here we can look at those areas and see what we can do there specifically to
increase the environmental quality.
Action plan on area-based environmental policy (1991) [Gebiedsgericht Milieubeleid] (= 3e track: area-based)
¨ Focus on grey environment (health & hygiene)
o 1. Environmental protection for areas with limited conflict and a (potential) high quality
o 2. Environmental protection for areas with many conflicts and a poor quality
Scheme de Roo
¨ This thinking took place in a context where the standard was still holy. à
limited flexibility: if you didn’t meet the standard an area-based policy
was needed in order to meet the standard!! Still all about that.
¨ Everything has to adapt in the area so as to meet the standard
o tricky logic à is that really the best solution always?
, 2 | The compact city: a strong idea? – Standards in a densely urbanized context?
NL is a densely populated country, live in very dense urban areas
¨ Compactness relates to things such as environmental qualities and sustainable development in different ways
Arguments supporting the compact city (almost became a religion à compact city will solve (almost) all our problems)
¨ Avoid urban sprawl (Keep green places open and green)
¨ Quality of the spatial environment
o Avoid derelict and underused land (re-using land is expensive)
o Less concentration of poor educated in cities (rich to suburbs)
o Maintain basis for services
o Vibrancy and diversity (mixed-use)
¨ Finances (Sewage, waste, soil remediation)
¨ Mobility & congestion (More opportunities for biking & public transport; less energy use; less noise, air pollution, odour
etc.)
¨ Nature (No destruction and less roads)
¨ è Good for spatial quality & sustainable development
o You would read this anywhere end 80’s and beginning 90’s
Compact city | Doubts
¨ Densification is expensive
¨ People are routine animals (cars, gardens etc.)
o No real evidence that it reduces mobility much (The Hague vs. Groningen, no real difference)
¨ The dilemma of the compact city becomes visible
o You may improve environmental quality overall (less congestion, energy consumption, air pollution etc.), but
at the same time you further concentrate concentrate congestion, air pollution, noise pollution etc. where it is
already busy, so you may decrease environmental quality in that specific place. AND you concentrate most
people in the most polluted areas!
§ Environmental health and hygiene è Compact city a good idea? (NO!)
§ (Sustainability orientied good: overall improved environmental quality)
Dilemma of the compact city è NMP-2 (1994)
¨ Urban areas with environmental health and hygiene constraints…
¨ … combined with….
¨ Densification and increased multifunctionality….
¨ … à tensions!!!!
Exceptional case?
¨ We are making the quality of the environment in dense urban areas worse by concentrating more people there. So is it
really an exception? Or are we supporting strategies that create more pollution in cities (not an exceptional case?)???
Time context: NMP1 (More ambitious standards)
¨ At the same time we thought we needed even more ambitious standards because the environmental quality was not
good enough yet. à so creating more pollution in urban areas on the one hand and on the other hand creating more
ambitious standards.
o So it also becomes more difficult to meet the standard (Standards demand space!!)
3 | First attempts: IMZ (Integrale Milieu Zonering) – Dream vs. Reality (1990’s)
Two approaches to pursuing external integration and env. policies (that we both tried, now only 1, second lecture 2)
1. Is area-based environmental policy to be based on sectoral standards that have to be implemented in spatial planning
through zones: standards dictate solutions in spatial planning. (Technical rationale) è Integrated Environmental
Zoning (IMZ) à (Centralized conditioning)
,Content
L6: Area-based Approaches De Roo (2003) §5.5
¨ Concepts Ch. 2
¨ History & developments Ch. 5
L7: Decentralization & Deregulation Zuidema & De Roo (2014)
¨ Recent developments NL
(2000-now)
¨ Focus on decentralization and its
impacts
L8: Decentralization, Doubts & Risks Zuidema & De Roo (2014)
L9: The Netherlands in a EU Context Driessen et al. (2012)
¨ Shifts in Dutch environmental
governance
Extra: Nitrogen (movie + lecture) -
L10: Smart Methods -
L11: The rising issue of energy in environmental planning Cajot et al. (2014)
L12: Reflection and Summary -
Literature first half
¨ Morgan (2012)
o Environmental Impact Assessments
¨ Jordan & Lenschow (2010)
o Environmental Policy Integration
¨ Cajot et al (2012)
o Energy as rising theme
¨ Runhaar et al (2010)
o Major trends
,L6: Area-based approaches
Context
We had three approaches to deal with as well internal integration (coherency within environmental policies – 80’s) as external
integration (between environmental policies & other policy domains (combine EP and SP)– end 80’s / 90’s)
1. Theme oriented
2. Target-group oriented
3. Area-oriented
Area-based approaches
¨ Still had to be done when we finalized internal integration (end 80’s)
¨ Very explicit link with spatial planning à real external integration
¨ How can we deal with the effects that remain (after source-oriented policies) with
thinking about the specific characteristics of this area à area-specific solutions.
o How do environmental quality standards relate to areas
1 | Area-based approach: rise – Taking areas as a starting point for making policies
Area-based policies
¨ Definition: “Policies developed for specific areas, aimed at the maintenance, recovery or development of an areas’
functionalities and (environmental) qualities.”
¨ Focused on processes where both causes and effects are (mostly) in the same area
o Cannot stop climate change, but with area-based approach you could do some adaptation strategies
¨ Adapt to specific circumstances of the area (common for spatial planning approaches)
o Solutions that are smart to do, based on the specific characteristics / circumstances of an area
§ Based on specific characteristics à different demands of qualities (Already existed in a way à e.g.
a national park / drinking water source / silence area)
§ à This is new in an environmental frame (had standards that were the same everywhere!)
Hope & Expectation
¨ Idea: after successful source-oriented policies (theme & target-group oriented) most environmental problems would be
solved, and effect-oriented policies (area-oriented) would ONLY be needed in exceptional cases (can both be where
you have very high demands (silence area) or places with a lot of pollution) or ‘for the time being’.
o Example Rotterdam harbor: even though you try to do as much as possible at the source, you cannot
prevent that all those sources combined still create an environmental quality that does not meets the
standards. à exceptional case: here we can look at those areas and see what we can do there specifically to
increase the environmental quality.
Action plan on area-based environmental policy (1991) [Gebiedsgericht Milieubeleid] (= 3e track: area-based)
¨ Focus on grey environment (health & hygiene)
o 1. Environmental protection for areas with limited conflict and a (potential) high quality
o 2. Environmental protection for areas with many conflicts and a poor quality
Scheme de Roo
¨ This thinking took place in a context where the standard was still holy. à
limited flexibility: if you didn’t meet the standard an area-based policy
was needed in order to meet the standard!! Still all about that.
¨ Everything has to adapt in the area so as to meet the standard
o tricky logic à is that really the best solution always?
, 2 | The compact city: a strong idea? – Standards in a densely urbanized context?
NL is a densely populated country, live in very dense urban areas
¨ Compactness relates to things such as environmental qualities and sustainable development in different ways
Arguments supporting the compact city (almost became a religion à compact city will solve (almost) all our problems)
¨ Avoid urban sprawl (Keep green places open and green)
¨ Quality of the spatial environment
o Avoid derelict and underused land (re-using land is expensive)
o Less concentration of poor educated in cities (rich to suburbs)
o Maintain basis for services
o Vibrancy and diversity (mixed-use)
¨ Finances (Sewage, waste, soil remediation)
¨ Mobility & congestion (More opportunities for biking & public transport; less energy use; less noise, air pollution, odour
etc.)
¨ Nature (No destruction and less roads)
¨ è Good for spatial quality & sustainable development
o You would read this anywhere end 80’s and beginning 90’s
Compact city | Doubts
¨ Densification is expensive
¨ People are routine animals (cars, gardens etc.)
o No real evidence that it reduces mobility much (The Hague vs. Groningen, no real difference)
¨ The dilemma of the compact city becomes visible
o You may improve environmental quality overall (less congestion, energy consumption, air pollution etc.), but
at the same time you further concentrate concentrate congestion, air pollution, noise pollution etc. where it is
already busy, so you may decrease environmental quality in that specific place. AND you concentrate most
people in the most polluted areas!
§ Environmental health and hygiene è Compact city a good idea? (NO!)
§ (Sustainability orientied good: overall improved environmental quality)
Dilemma of the compact city è NMP-2 (1994)
¨ Urban areas with environmental health and hygiene constraints…
¨ … combined with….
¨ Densification and increased multifunctionality….
¨ … à tensions!!!!
Exceptional case?
¨ We are making the quality of the environment in dense urban areas worse by concentrating more people there. So is it
really an exception? Or are we supporting strategies that create more pollution in cities (not an exceptional case?)???
Time context: NMP1 (More ambitious standards)
¨ At the same time we thought we needed even more ambitious standards because the environmental quality was not
good enough yet. à so creating more pollution in urban areas on the one hand and on the other hand creating more
ambitious standards.
o So it also becomes more difficult to meet the standard (Standards demand space!!)
3 | First attempts: IMZ (Integrale Milieu Zonering) – Dream vs. Reality (1990’s)
Two approaches to pursuing external integration and env. policies (that we both tried, now only 1, second lecture 2)
1. Is area-based environmental policy to be based on sectoral standards that have to be implemented in spatial planning
through zones: standards dictate solutions in spatial planning. (Technical rationale) è Integrated Environmental
Zoning (IMZ) à (Centralized conditioning)
