Suchergebnisse

The countryside, the rural area, the open space, … many definitions are used for rural Flanders. Everyone makes its own interpretation of the countryside, considering it as a place for living, working or recreating. The countryside is more than just a geographical area: it is an aggregate of physical, social, economic and cultural functions, strongly interrelated with each other. According to international and European definitions of rural areas there would be almost no rural area in Flanders. These international definitions are all developed to be used for analysis and policy within their specific context. They are not really applicable to Flanders because of the historical specificity of its spatial structure. Flanders is characterized by a giant urbanization pressure on its countryside while internationally rural depopulation is a point of interest. To date, for every single rural policy initiative – like the implementation of the European Rural Development Policy – Flanders used a specifically adapted definition, based on existing data or previously made delineations. To overcome this oversupply of definitions and delineations, the Flemish government funded a research project to obtain a clear and flexible definition of the Flemish countryside and a dynamic method to support Flemish rural policy aims. First, an analysis of the currently used definitions of the countryside, in Flanders and surrounding countries, was made. It is clear that, depending on the perspective or the policy context, another definition of the countryside comes into view. The comparative study showed that, according to the used criteria, the area percentage of Flanders that is rural, varies between 9 and 93 per cent. Second, dynamic sets of criteria were developed, facilitating a flexible definition of the countryside, according to the policy aims concerned. This research part was focused on 6 policy themes, like 'construction, maintenance and management of local (transport) infrastructure' and 'offering of (minimal) services (education, culture, health care, …)'. For each theme a dynamic set of criteria or indicators was constructed. These indicators make it possible to show where a policy theme manifests itself and/or where policy interventions are possible or needed. In this way every set of criteria makes up a new definition of rural Flanders. This method is dynamic; new data or insights can easily be incorporated and new criteria sets can be developed if other policy aims come into view. The developed method can contribute to a more region-oriented and theme-specific rural policy and funding mechanism. Other possible sessions: - E. Finance and regional development - N. Regional strategies and policies - ZM. SS- Territorial Governance, rural areas and local agro food systems

In a review of participatory planning literature, Liisa Horelli (2002) comes to the conclusion that "the core problem (of participatory planning) lies in the fuzzy relationship between participatory planning and decision making or in that between direct and representative democracy". Participatory planning, she argues, is unpredictable by nature, driven by dynamic and heterogeneous citizen initiatives. Decision making, in contrast, requires stable and long term agreements in order to plan and supervise complex projects. Participatory practices are therefore often caught in generic procedures that turn these practices into formalities that are de-politicized and thus irrelevant (a/o De Bie et al., 2012; Olesen, 2014). To overcome this 'core problem', Horelli (2002) suggests to not try and open up the procedural nature of planning, but to rather reconceive it as an iteration of communicative transactions that support "learning and capacity building of citizens, experts, and decision makers". There is quite some literature on how to organize single communicative transactions (a/o Steyaert & Lisoir, 2005) and there is a growing body of knowledge on spatial planning as collaborative learning (a/o Albrechts, 2004; Teitelbaum et al., 2015). But this literature does not provide frameworks on how to turn closed planning procedures into open collaborative learning processes, as Horelli (2002) suggests, that can support strategic planning. The aim of this paper is to explore the contours of such a framework. It will do this by applying Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) to three ongoing participatory planning processes. CHAT is a theory that conceptualizes learning as a social practice firmly situated in a cultural and historical context (Engeström, 2009). All three cases are initiated by the Spatial Development Department of the Flemish Government. And all three have to comply with a distinctive policy context. The paper will first introduce the three cases. It will then apply CHAT. The paper will end with a discussion on potential strategies to turn (standard) planning procedures into instruments that can support collaborative learning. References: Albrechts, L., 2004. Strategic (spatial) planning re-examined. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2004, 31, 743-758. De Bie, M., Oosterlynck, S., & De Blust, S., 2012. Participatie, ontwerp en toeeigening in een democratische stadsvernieuwing. In E. Vervloesem, B. De Meulder, & A. Loeckx (Eds.), Stadsvernieuwingsprojecten in Vlaanderen 20022011. Een eigenzinnige praktijk in Europees perspectief. Brussel: ASP, 29–33. Elbakidze, M., Dawson, L., Andersson, K., Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., Stjernquist, I., Teitelbaum, S., Schlyter, P. & Thellbro, C., 2015. Is spatial planning a collaborative learning process? A case study from a rural–urban gradient in Sweden. Land Use Policy, 48, 270–285. Engeström, Y., 2009. The Future of Activity Theory: A Rough Draft. In: Sannino, A., Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez, K. (Eds.), Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge University Press, 303-328. Horelli, L., 2002. A Methodology of participatory planning. In R. Bechtel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology. John Wiley. Olesen, K., 2014. The neoliberalisation of strategic spatial planning. Planning Theory, 13(3), 288–303. Steyaert, S. & Lisoir, H., 2005. Participatory methods toolkit – A practitioner's manual, King Baudouin Foundation and Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment. Belgium.