integrating transport, land use planning and environment policy

This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 16 December 2014, At: 14:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovation: The European Journal ofSocial Science ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciej20

INTEGRATING TRANSPORT, LAND USEPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT POLICYDominic Stead & Harry GeerlingsPublished online: 22 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Dominic Stead & Harry Geerlings (2005) INTEGRATING TRANSPORT, LAND USEPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT POLICY, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research,18:4, 443-453, DOI: 10.1080/13511610500384194

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13511610500384194

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciej20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13511610500384194

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13511610500384194

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

INTEGRATING TRANSPORT, LAND USE

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT POLICY

Views of practitioners from Denmark, England

and Germany

Dominic Stead and Harry Geerlings

Various recent policy documents stress the need for the integration of sectoral policies. In practice,

policy-makers recognize the need for policy-integration but often do not have a complete picture

of what it entails or how to put theory into practice. This paper reports on a research project that

examines attitudes and approaches to integrating transport, land use and environment policies in

three local authority case studies in Denmark, Germany and England.1 The paper reflects on how

different institutional and political factors can affect policy integration, focusing particularly on

the integration of transport, land use and environment policies. The institutional and political

factors covered in this paper include the division of roles and responsibilities within an

organisation, the nature of inter-departmental and inter-agency relationships, the diversity of

professional skills and education of the workforce, and the role of political and public support.

Introduction

There are increasing calls for greater policy integration at a time when decision-

making is facing increasing complexity as a result of various concurrent trends. Some of

these trends are toward globalization and greater centralization of decision-making, whilst

other trends are toward fragmentation and decentralization of decision-making (Stead

et al ., 2004). A variety of factors have increased the number of actors involved in the policy

process, such as the emergence of the information society, greater emphasis on public

participation and the increasing role of non-governmental organizations, pressure groups

and agencies in the decision-making process. All these developments make policy

integration increasingly difficult but more compelling to achieve.

It is frequently argued in the area of land use planning, transport and environment

policy that integrating decisions across these sectors is crucial for sustainable develop-

ment. The final report of the ECMT-OECD project on ‘Implementing Sustainable Urban

Travel Policies’ for example states that:

sustainability requires that policy-making for urban travel be viewed in a holistic sense:

that planning for transport, land-use and the environment no longer be undertaken in

isolation one from the other (European Conference of Ministers of Transport, 2001:19).

Innovation, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2005ISSN 1351-1610 print/ISSN 1469-8412 online/05/040443-11– 2005 Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences

DOI: 10.1080/13511610500384194

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

04 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

It notes that ‘without adequate policy co-ordination, the effectiveness of the whole

package of measures and their objectives is compromised’ (ibid ). The Johannesburg Plan

of Implementation of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development urges

governments to:

promote an integrated approach to policy-making at the national, regional and local

levels for transport services and systems to promote sustainable development, including

policies and planning for land use, infrastructure, public transport systems and goods

delivery networks . . . (United Nations, 2002: para 21)

Despite the emphasis of various documents on policy integration (see Geerlings &

Stead, 2003 for a review of European policy documents) and a sizeable academic literature

on policy integration, albeit spread across a variety of academic disciplines (see Stead

et al ., 2004), research concerning the integration of land use planning, transport and

environment policies is relatively scarce and evidence of any translation of rhetoric or

theory into practice is difficult to find.

In this paper, we examine the issue of policy integration in three urban-regions

in Denmark, England and Germany (Copenhagen, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

and Freiburg respectively). The feature that the three case study areas share is that

they have responsibility for planning at the urban-region scale. The Danish and the

German case study areas, Greater Copenhagen and Freiburg respectively, have respon-

sibility for strategic land use and transport policy. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough,

within the English case study area, produce strategic land use policy jointly but

produce transport policy separately. The material presented in this paper is based

primarily on in-depth interviews which were carried out with key actors involved in policy

making in these three case study areas (see Stead et al ., 2004 for further details of the

interviews).

Although policy integration is important in all three case studies, information

collected during the interviews suggests that the driving forces for policy integration are

somewhat different in the three areas. In Copenhagen, the driving forces are more

international in nature and include directives on strategic environmental appraisal and

water, although local driving forces such as Local Agenda 21 are also important. The

driving forces for policy integration in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are more

national and include policy guidance (in the form of planning policy guidance and other

government advice on policy such as Local Transport Plans and Air Quality Management)

and national policy reports (such as the 1998 Transport White Paper). In Freiburg, the

driving forces for policy integration are primarily regional and local in nature. The city’s

status as an environment city and the existence of a large number of environmental

groups in the city are two important factors here.

The analysis of the influence of institutional and political factors on policy

integration is presented in this paper under four main headings:

i. the division of roles and responsibilities;

ii. the nature of inter-departmental and inter-agency relationships;

iii. the diversity of professional skills and education;

iv. the role of political and public support.

444 DOMINIC STEAD AND HARRY GEERLINGS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

04 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

The Meaning of Policy Integration

Whilst the term ‘integrated policy-making ’ is rather uncommon in the theoretical

literature, a number of better known and more or less synonymous concepts can be

found: coherent policy making (OECD, 1996), cross-cutting policy-making (Cabinet Office,

2000), policy co-ordination (Challis et al ., 1988; Alter & Hage, 1993), concerted decision-

making (Warren et al ., 1974) and holistic government , also known as joined-up policy

(Wilkinson & Appelbee, 1999) or joined-up government (Ling, 2002). Other related concepts

in the organizational literature that have potential relevance for research concerning the

integration of sectoral policies within and between organizations include inter-organiza-

tional co-ordination (Rogers & Whetten, 1982), inter-organizational collaboration (Alter &

Hage, 1993; Huxham, 1996), inter-governmental management (see Agranoff, 1986) and

network management (Kickert et al ., 1997). These related concepts primarily concern co-

operation between organizations, rather than co-operation between departments within

one organization but are nevertheless also relevant given the scope of the study. However,

it could be argued that inter-organizational policy-making and intra-organizational policy-

making are similar to a considerable extent when it comes to integrating issues that are

cross-sectoral. After all, within one organization, different sectoral departments often

operate as different organizations with their own specific professional styles, approaches,

needs, agendas and modes of operation. The main difference is that the inter-dependence

within an organization is subject to a larger amount of control than between

organizations.

Our view is that there are a number of distinct terms concerning policy integration

and a hierarchy of terms (Figure 1 �/ see also Stead et al ., 2004), namely:

. policy co-operation , at the lowest level, which simply implies dialogue and information

. policy co-ordination , policy coherence and policy consistency �/ all quite similar, which

imply co-operation plus transparency and some attempt to avoid policy conflicts (but do

not necessarily imply the use of similar goals)

. policy integration and joined-up policy �/ includes dialogue and information (as in policy

co-operation), transparency and avoidance of policy conflicts (as in policy co-ordination,

policy coherence and policy consistency) but also includes joint working, attempts to

create synergies between policies (win-win situations) and the use of the same goals to

formulate policy

FIGURE 1

Integrated policy-making, policy co-ordination and cooperation.

INTEGRATING TRANSPORT, LAND USE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT POLICY 445

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

04 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

For the purpose of this paper, we regard policy integration as the management of

cross-cutting issues in policy-making that transcend the boundaries of established policy

fields, and which often do not correspond to the institutional responsibilities of individual

departments. It refers to both horizontal sectoral integration (between different

departments and/or professions in public authorities) and vertical inter-governmental

integration in policy-making (between different tiers of government), or combinations of

both. However, the focus of this paper is mainly on horizontal sectoral integration.

The Division of Roles and Responsibilities

The division of roles and responsibilities within an organization can have a variety of

impacts in terms of working practices, although it provides no certainty of policy

integration. For example, reorganisation of the internal structure of Cambridgeshire

County Council in 1996 led to the merger of departments responsible for transport,

planning and the environment. According to some interviewees, this is one of the reasons

why the 2002 structure plan is more inter-sectoral than the previous one from 1995, which

was based very much on topics/sectors (housing, shopping, conservation and so on). In

Peterborough City Council, the departments responsible for transport, planning and

environmental policy are also housed within one directorate in one building. One of the

consequences is that there are more informal links between the different areas of policy

and joint working is simpler.

Although the German political system is characterised by a strong horizontal and

vertical Politikverflechtung (political entanglement), there is a clear separation of

responsibilities and legislative instruments at all the different levels of policy making

(from national to local). One of the organizational approaches to implementing cross-

cutting policy in Germany is the establishment of Spiegelreferate (mirror units) in each

government department, such as an office for environmental affairs in every ministry. To

a certain extent this approach has led to positive results in terms of policy integration

(see for example Schleicher-Tappeser et al ., 2001). Another approach involves formalised

advice procedures, whereby ministries are formally required to consult with other

departments before policy decisions. Here, much depends on the spirit in which these

procedures are carried out and informal communication plays an important role. Inter-

departmental committees are also used to some extent for discussing important cross-

cutting issues. This approach has gained importance with policies on climate change and

sustainable development. Despite these various approaches, the interactions between

policy fields are in general rather limited (especially at the federal level). In addition,

policies are rather segmented, especially environmental and the transport policies, despite

claims from policy-makers that they would prefer more co-ordination and cooperation.

The very differentiated administration at the local level and a strongly developed spirit of

defending competences also acts as a barrier to more integrated approaches. Due to

strong democratic legitimation and efficiently managed budgets for research, parliamen-

tary Enquete commissions have also had a positive influence on raising issues concerning

policy-making with a cross-cutting perspective. Some successes in integration has been

achieved where new institutional settings overcame traditional fragmentation and limits

of competence. This has often been the case at the local level where more direct public

participation requires more inter-sectoral cooperation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

04 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

In England, requirements for the production of an increasingly large number of

strategies by local government (such as air quality, health, noise, contaminated land,

transport and so on) means that achieving consistency and integration across all

documents is increasingly challenging for policy-makers. Some interviewees feel that

this ‘production line of documents’ devotes too much attention to policy and too little to

delivery.

There are also political tensions when trying integrate policy between different

levels of government. In Denmark, for example, the current government is centre-right,

whilst the politics of Copenhagen are centre-left. Therefore, fitting local policy within the

national policy framework, as in the case of the national transport investment plan and the

greater Copenhagen transport plan, is not always straightforward. However, this is not to

say that policies always fitted perfectly when both levels of government were under

centre-left control. There is also the tendency to provide funding to support very discrete

‘high profile’ projects (e.g. the new metro system for Copenhagen) than for lower profile

projects (e.g. investment and/or expansion of Copenhagen’s bus network), even if their

impacts are just as substantial. Thus, capital for the development of new infrastructure can

be easier to secure than for operation and maintenance.

The Nature of Inter-Departmental and Inter-Agency Relationships

In all three case study areas, more agencies and professions are now involved in the

process of policy-making than in the past. Public involvement is also an increasingly

important aspect of policy-making. The number of organizations and professions involved

in the process requires more negotiation and, quite often, compromises to reach policy

decisions. In Denmark, because of the nature of political representation within local

government and the fact that the ‘mayors’ of different departments within an authority

often come from different political parties, different departments may have different goals

that are sometimes incompatible. There is also the perennial tension between satisfying

the economic goals of an authority with its environmental and quality of life goals.

Because these are measured and articulated in different ways (i.e. quantitative versus

qualitative or monetary versus non-monetary), it is also difficult to reconcile these two

types of goals.

Furthermore, local authorities are not always the financier of developments,

infrastructure or transport services. Various other actors are involved in providing these

things. As a result, policy is often framed to reflect the interests of these other parties

(often economic interests). And implementation may depart from policy to satisfy the

interests of these other actors. Policy integration is problematic where there are different

time horizons for different areas and levels of policy. In England, for example, Local

Transport Plans primarily have a 5-year time horizon, whilst structure plans have a 15 to

20-year time horizon and the national government has a 10-year transport investment

plan (Stead, 2003).

It is important to stress here that planning in all three case study countries is a

restrictive or regulatory activity that relies on other agencies to provide development

and realise plans. Inevitably this involves negotiation and sometimes trade-offs.

Furthermore, implementation of policy is not just a matter of getting the policy right �/

it is also reliant on decisions and action by other agencies (such as developers, businesses

and individuals) that are in line with policy. Policy-making authorities have a number of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

04 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

regulatory instruments (‘sticks ’) at their disposal to influence decisions and action but few

incentives (‘carrots ’). In Denmark, for example, five development sub-centres were

identified in the 1973 plan for greater Copenhagen but since then only one of them

(Hoje Tastrup) has been developed to any degree because of the collapse in demand for

office space during the 1980s. This is a clear example that plans are reliant on other bodies

(such as the development industry) and the right conditions (such as the demand for

property) to achieve planning goals.

Despite strategic planning, new investments are not always made in the best

interest of the region. In Denmark, development and investment decisions are often made

as a result of political lobbying for investments in certain parts of the region and/or

attempts to spread spending fairly evenly. This is also the case at the national level where

infrastructure decisions are ‘top-down’ in nature and not always consistent with the

priorities or objectives at the local level of government. National decisions are often made

as a result of quid pro quo political agreements within the coalition, where gaining

political support for one decision can be contingent on support for another (sometimes

unrelated) policy decision.

Joint working arrangements can help to produce more integrated policy. Prepara-

tion of the transport and environment plan in Copenhagen, for example, involved an equal

stake (in terms of resources and staffing) from two departments: transport and

environment. This has led to a greater sense of joint ownership and collaboration

between the two departments. Most methods and techniques used in the production of

Copenhagen’s transport and environment plan were ad hoc. At the time this plan was

developed, few Danish authorities had prepared transport and environment plans, so

there were few methods and techniques that could be used from elsewhere. Because only

a small team of people was involved in producing the plan, interaction could be more

informal and less structured. Similarly, the city-centre masterplan for Peterborough was

jointly resourced and drafted by the planning and transport departments of the authority,

which meant that there was equal involvement in the process and equal interest in finding

policies to fulfil planning and transport goals.

Production of the structure plan involved a small joint team with members from

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough councils. The core team also drew on the expertise of

other colleagues for various areas of policy. Each of the core team members was

responsible for taking the lead on one or more chapters of the plan. A small team clearly

offers the advantages of opportunities for close collaboration but has disadvantages

in terms of the breadth of expertise and experience that a small group can bring.

A brainstorming process involving a wide range of officers and disciplines was used in the

early stages of developing structure plan policies for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

This wide perspective was considered beneficial to the process. Despite general support

for involving a wide range of views and actors there is also the view, however, that this

adds extra time, resources and difficulty in developing policy. However, the extra time and

resources are not always available.

Joint working between Cambridgeshire and Peterborough on producing the

structure plan was undoubtedly made easier by the legacy that Peterborough was once

within the county of Cambridgeshire and that plans were always made for this area. In

addition, various staff from the two authorities (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough) had

worked as colleagues before the creation of the unitary authority of Peterborough, which

meant that personal and professional networks between policy-makers in the two


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

04 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

organisations are quite strong. However, there is no guarantee that this network will

remain strong: old ties between organizations may well diminish over time.

Informal networks are generally considered an important part of policy integration:

they provide a good opportunity for open discussions and debate. Movement of staff

between different parts of the organization can also be beneficial for internal links within

the organisation. A high turnover of staff, on the other hand, is likely to lead to lower levels

of informal networks within the organization.

The Diversity of Professional Skills and Education

There has been a definite change in the skills and activities of planning professions

over recent years. The educational and professional background of planners has diversified

and their work increasingly requires skills such as negotiation and facilitiation and less in

the way of specialist technical skills. Officers within local authorities are more cross-

disciplinary than in the past, partly as a result of the education and curriculum of these

officers but also as a result of changes in the job market and in recruitment. Authorities

now recruit fewer staff with specialist technical training for a specific job: many people are

now trained on the job and more people move around within an organization to gain

experience of different departments or sections. According to many interviewees, people

with cross-disciplinary experience of working in different parts of an organization are often

better equipped to deal with policy integration. Across all three case studies, most officers

share the view that land use planning, transport and environmental policy-making is more

inter-disciplinary than in the past.

Nevertheless, there is often still a divide between departments responsible for

transport, land use and environment policy in terms of professional culture and attitudes.

Officers involved in environmental policy are likely to view property development as an

environmental threat: a source of environmental impacts. Officers involved in land use

planning policy often see property development as something to be encouraged and

located in the right place, whilst officers involved in transport policy see their role as

finding a way to plan and manage movements between developments. The approaches

used by these professions also vary: the approaches involved in environmental and

transport policy are still relatively technical and quantitative by comparison to those

involved in land use planning policy. In Denmark, for example, although there is no strong

road construction mentality within transport planning in and around the city of

Copenhagen, some interviewees believe that the ‘new realism’ of transport planning

has not reached all parts of the country. They say that it is possible to find transport

planning professionals outside the capital city ‘clapping their hands’ at the approval of

every new road scheme. In Baden-Wurttemberg, the ministries responsible for the

environment and for transport in were merged in 1996. Originally, the main motivation

was to decrease the number of ministers. However, there were also expectations that

policy-making might become more integrated as a result. To date, no evaluation has

taken place but the implications for policy integration are probably not very signifi-

cant, despite claims by the minister that transport policy and environmental policy

are at one.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

04 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

The Role of Political and Public Support

Most interviewees share the view that officers can have a strong role in pushing

forward the issue of policy integration. Elected members, on the other hand, may often be

less inclined to think in terms of cross-cutting issues and more motivated by influencing

shorter-term ‘electable’ issues. Land use planning and strategic transport planning is often

rather remote and long-term for generating much public involvement in decision-making,

unless of course a proposal has a direct effect on people (e.g. construction of a new road).

Achieving popular support from politicians and the public for policies and procedures that

do not have short-term results or effects is difficult. Thus, there is less concern for planning

policies that may have impacts a long way in the future than for policies that have a direct

effect in the near future.

Local authorities in England are increasingly involving the public in the planning

process, often more than the statutory minimum. Authorities such as Cambridgeshire and

Peterborough are keen to move away from the ‘decide-announce-defend’ system of

introducing new planning policy by involving the public early in the decision-making

process: this is not without problems, however. Canvassing public opinion often results in

multiple, conflicting, unachievable goals (more spacious homes and gardens in rural

locations; protection of the countryside against development; freedom to use a car; less

pollution and congestion). Some local authority officials feel that inter-disciplinary

solutions and policy development are sometimes difficult for politicians and/or the public

to understand or accept, especially when they appear counter-intuitive (e.g. how can a

reduction in road-space capacity alleviate congestion?). The support for policy integration

is perhaps because of its ambiguous and opaque nature: it sounds sensible and important

but is not explicit about what it really involves and how to achieve it (as in the case of

sustainable development). Furthermore, because there is no clarity about what it involves,

there is little argument against it. Consequently support for policy integration is often high

but action rather weak. Thus, there may be a willingness to integrate policy but few (if any)

resources to do so.

In England, the Secretary of State appoints an independent panel to conduct the

Examination in Public (EiP) of a structure plan. The EiP takes place over several weeks and

involves a large number of invited participants including representatives of interest groups

and developers, local councillors, academics, government agencies and members of the

public. Following the EiP, the panel presents its report of recommendations to the

planning authority. The planning authority then has to respond to the recommendations

of the EiP Panel and propose a set of modifications to policies and proposals. The

resources of the organizations involved in the EiP obviously differ very substantially. For

example, development interest groups may devote substantial amounts of resources for

research or publicity to support their arguments, whereas environmental groups, on the

other hand, often have very limited resources and capacity for research or publicity to

support their case.

Like all other structure plans in the UK, the structure plan for Cambridgeshire and

Peterborough was subject to statutory public consultation, which allowed wider scrutiny

of the policies. The authority produced a consultation pack for this purpose, which

included an interactive CD-ROM, an information booklet and a questionnaire. Information

was also made available on the council’s website and through a number of staffed

displays in different locations across the area. In Germany, the strongly formalized


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

04 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

planning procedures mean that opportunities for dialogue with stakeholders and the

public are at a rather late stage of planning process. The strong reliance on legal

procedures sometimes leads to extended court cases. Increasing attempts to involve

the public at an earlier stage in the planning process (as in the case of Freiburg) are

still rare.

Conclusions

Although there is increasing attention being given to the issue of policy integration,

the concept remains fuzzy for many policy-makers, somewhat analogous to the concept of

sustainable development. Underdal noted as early as 1980 that, despite calls for policy

integration, explanation about what policy integration exactly means and how it can be

achieved remains elusive (Underdal, 1980). More than two decades later, this is still very

much the same. Like the case of sustainable development, there is widespread consensus

that policy integration is a fine idea but a rather limited understanding about what exactly

it is or precisely how to achieve it or monitor it. Despite frequent recent claims of policy

integration, little has changed in terms of policy-making processes or implementation.

There is therefore something of a rhetoric and reality mismatch in terms of policy

integration. Everyone seems happy to sign up to the idea of policy integration (because

the concept is fairly illusive) and claim that it is going on.

Various more specific conclusions emerge from the analysis of the interviews

concerning institutional and political factors and their effect on the integration of

transport, land use and environment policies. These are summarised below:

. Joint teams working on strategic planning are generally considered more effective in

terms of time, resources and expertise. Although the joint structure plan for

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is mainly a consequence of former administrative

responsibilities, officers also see it as a way of saving money and improving policy co-

ordination.

. Political support . Policy implementation requires political support for adequate resources

and the approval of policy. Securing this political support is sometimes problematic

because decisions concerning land use planning, transport and environment policy may

only have long-term and/or rather intangible impacts, which do not generate great

interest from politicians.

. Shared budgets and responsibilities . There is a view that policy integration is more

effective when there is a balanced (fairly even), clear division of budgets and

responsibilities, as in the case of the transport and environment plan in Copenhagen

and the joint structure plan for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

. Shared goals . Integrated policy is dependent on a shared set of goals within the

policy-making organisation. This in turn depends on procedures, rules and guidelines

that promote policy consistency (see below) as well as issues such as information,

communication and professional training.

. Procedures, rules and guidelines . Policy-makers often feel that they have no clear

guidelines or procedures for producing integrated policy, despite frequent calls from

different tiers of government for policy integration. Thus, most procedures are currently

developed in an ad hoc trial-and-error way. There are usually no formal procedures set

out by local or national government to formulate integrated policy.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

04 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

. Key individuals and networks . Strongly motivated officers and/or those with an extensive

professional network are generally considered important for bringing about policy

integration. Various practices such as benchmarking and staff mobility can help to extend

professional networks and disseminate good practice (see below).

. Environmental awareness . Freiburg and Peterborough both have the status of environ-

ment city and as such are perhaps more inclined to attach more importance

environmental concerns in policy-making. In Freiburg, environmental organisations

have a consultative role in all policy decisions.

Organizational structures, while important, are no guarantee of policy integration.

Furthermore, no single measures or techniques can bring about policy integration alone.

Different approaches may result in similar levels of policy integration. And similar

approaches in different settings may have different effects in terms of policy integration.

A range of factors can affect the impact of different approaches, including cultural,

political and organisational issues. Having said this, there are some good examples of

instruments and techniques that can be conducive to policy integration. The complexity of

contemporary policy-making makes policy integration extremely difficult but making (and

implementing) policy in a clear, open and transparent way is more conducive to policy

integration. Finally, it is important to stress that, whilst policy integration is of key

importance for sustainable development, policy integration is not an end in itself. Policy

integration is just one means by which decisions can be made more sustainable: it is

equally important that implementation is consistent with integrated policy if outcomes are

to be more sustainable.

NOTE

1. This paper is based on a research project funded by The Netherlands Agency for Energy

and the Environment (NOVEM) as part of their research programme on Regional

Transport Performance (VervoersPrestatie Regionaal or VPR).

REFERENCES

AGRANOFF, R. (1986) Intergovernmental Management. Human Services Problem-Solving in Six

Metropolitan Areas , State University of New York Press, New York.

ALTER, C. & HAGE, J. (1993) Organizations working together , Sage, Newbury Park.

CABINET OFFICE (2000) Wiring it up. Whitehall’s Management of Cross-cutting Policies and Services ,

The Stationery Office, London.

CHALLIS, L., FULLER, S., HENWOOD, M., KLEIN, R., PLOWDEN, W., WEBB, A., WHITTINGHAM, P. & WISTOW, G. (1988)

Joint approaches to social policy: rationality and practice , Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

EUROPEAN CONFERENCE OF MINISTERS OF TRANSPORT (2001) Implementing Sustainable Urban Travel

Policies [Report CEMT/CM(2001)13] , ECMT, Paris.

GEERLINGS, H. & STEAD, D. (2003) ‘The integration of Land Use Planning, Transport and

Environment in European Policy Research’, Transport Policy , vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 187�/196.

HUXHAM, C. (ed.) (1996) Creating Collaborative Advantage , Sage, London.

KICKERT, W. J. M., KLIJN, E-H. & KOPPENJAN, J. F. M. (1997) Managing complex networks: strategies for the

public sector , Sage, London.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

04 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

LING, T. (2002) ‘Delivering joined-up government in the UK: Dimensions, Issues and problems’,

Public Administration , vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 615�/642.

OECD (1996) Building Policy Coherence: Tools and Tensions , OECD, Paris.

ROGERS, D. L. & WHETTEN, D. A. (1982) Interorganizational coordination: theory, research, and

implementation , Iowa State University Press, Ames.

SCHLEICHER-TAPPESER, R., GREIF, M. & SCHROEDER, M. (2001) Langzeit- und Querschnittsfragen in

europaischen Regierungen und Parlamenten �/ eine vergleichende Bestandsaufnahme. Teil I:

Hauptbericht , EURES Institute for Regional Studies in Europe, Freiburg.

STEAD, D. (2003) ‘Transport and land-use planning policy: really joined up?’ International Social

Science Journal , vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 333�/347.

STEAD, D., GEERLINGS, H. & MEIJERS, E. (eds.) (2004) Policy integration in practice: the integration of

land use planning, transport and environmental policy-making in Denmark, England and

Germany , Delft University Press, Delft.

UNDERDAL, A. (1980) ‘Integrated marine policy. What? Why? How?’, Marine Policy , vol. 4, no. 3,

pp. 159�/169.

UNITED NATIONS (2002) Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development ,

United Nations, New York.

WARREN, R. L., ROSE, S. M. & BERGUNDER, A. F. (1974) The structure of Urban Reform , Lexington Books,

Lexington.

WILKINSON, D. & APPELBEE, E. (1999) Implementing holistic government: joined-up action on the

ground , Policy Press, Bristol.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

04 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

integrating transport, land use planning and environment policy

Documents