The main objective of the course is the familiarization of students with the definitions, hypotheses, and outcomes of spatial governance as well as the related implementations on a local. regional, national and European level. The development of various types of spatial governance is examined within the framework of contemporary states, and their correlation with the special policies of spatial planning.

The attending students acquire the following capabilities:

• To comprehend the definition and functions of spatial governance and itsconsistingfactors.
• To perceive spatial governance as a set of interactions among social partners acting in a spatial framework, in accordance to their administrative, economic, and social motivations.
• To distinguish the basic and particular elements which have to be taken in consideration in the process of actions of social partners.
• To know the theoretical background and the historical evolution of governance systems.
• To learn about methodologies and practices used at local, regional, national and European/international level.
• To understand the process of integration of governance in spatial and development planning.
• To comprehend the variety of dimensions of public participation in decision making.
• To know the institutional framework which is related to spatial governance.

With successful completion of the course students are expected to have acquired the following skills for:

• Analysis of the “social map” of an area.
• Management of participation operations.
• Use of interactive technology for participation operations.

Assessment of the relative institutional framework and introduction of improvements.

With successful completion of the course, students are expected to have the capacities for:

• Formulating spatial governance processes with enriched participation of social partners.
• Supporting public participation.
• Successfully managing human resources.
• Elaborating spatial governance models in specific local environments.

Assessment of the role of social partners in participation processes.

Ability to work in teams, function in a multidisciplinary environment, and elaboration of team projects.

Knowledge of the institutional and legislative framework related to governance and participation, and the methods used to implement and operate relative strategies.

Introduction, description of course requirements, analysis of concepts of spatial governance, public participation and related legislation.

Series of lectures about theory and practice of spatial governance.

Gaming: 1-3 games related to cases of contemporary interest, with a variety of participating agents expressing often conflicting perspectives and strategies. Roles are allocated to teams of students who should defend and promote their positions after preparation including research, contact with “real participants”, presentations in class, and negotiations with the other participant groups represented by students.

Compilation of reports related to games, with detailed analysis about conditions, roles and interactions.

Specified Evaluation Criteria

The elaboration of team projects, the successful participation in role games organized in class and the related reports and presentations made by students guarantee the comprehension of the basic notions, methodology, use of tools, and adaptation to the special requirements in different cases related to spatial governance and its implementations.

The course description is clear about the requirements of the course and the criteria for the assessment of students. Besides, there is extensive analysis of the evaluation process at the first lectures of each term.

There is assessment of the course, the teaching staff, the methodologies used, the internal organization and the outcomes of the course from the part of the students at the end of the term. Occasionally, this assessment includes self-evaluation of teams and team members. In cases of doubts of students about their assessment, the doubts are discussed in special meetings between teaching staff and students. If problems are not solved, students can ask their re-assessment from the General Assembly (faculty meeting) of the department.

• 1. Alterman, R., Harris, D. & Hill M. (1984). The impact of public participation on planning. Town Planning Review Vol. 55.
• 2. Αrnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35.
• 3. Benwell, M. (1980). Public participation in planning – A research report. Long Range Planning Vol. 13.
• 4. Blair, T. (1971). Advocacy Planning. Built Environment, Feb. 1971.
• 5. Boaden, N., Goldsmith, M., Hampton, W., Stringer, P. (1980). Planning and Participation in Practice: a Study of Public Participation in Structure Planning. Progress in Planning, Vol. 13, pp 1-102, Pergamon Press Ltd, London.
• 6. CEMAT (2014) “Η Δήλωση του Ναυπλίου”, Αθήνα.
• 7. Cole, R. (1973). Citizen Participation in the Urban Policy Process. R. Cole, Lexington Books, Massachusetts.
• 8. Curtis, B. & Edwards, D. (1980). Planning Aid. Occasional Papers OP1, School of Planning Studies, University of Reading, UK.
• 9. Darke R. (1988). Democracy and Popular Planning. Planning Practice and Research Workshop on “Radical Planning Initiatives – What Future?”. University of Sheffield and Polytechnic of Central London, 8 Jan. 1988.
• 10. Fagence, M. (1977). Citizen Participation in Planning. Urban and Regional Planning Series, Vol. 19, Pergamon Press.
• 11. Geddes, P. (1915). Cities in evolution. William and Norgate 1949, London.
• 12. Glasser, R., Dale, M. & Nehman, G. (1975). “Public Participation in Water Resources Planning”. Presentation in International Water Resources Association (UNESCO), Paris and Strasbourg, France, 24 – 29 March 1975.
• 13. Gutch, R., Spires, R., & Tayler M. (1979). “Views of participation”. Planning Studies no. 4, Polytechnic of Central London, Planning Unit.
• 14. Humpton W. (1978). “The Individual Citizen and Public Participation”. William Hampton and Raymond Walker, Interim Research Paper 13, Department of the Environment, London.
• 15. Lalenis K. (1993). Public Participation Strategies in Urban Planning in Greece after the “Urban Reconstruction Operation (EPA) 1982-1984”. Comparison of Theory and Practice, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Westminster, London.
• 16. McConaghy D. (1972). “The Limitations of Advocacy”. Ekistics, 201, August 1972.
• 17. Smith R. W. (1973). “A theoretical basis for participatory planning”. Policy Sciences, 1973 – Springer.
• 18. The Royal Town Planning Institute (1980). Public Participation: An Issues Report. February 1980.
• 19. The Royal Town Planning Institute (1983). The Public and Planning: Means to Better Participation. Final report of the Public Participation Working Party.
• 20. Thornley, A. & Newman, P. (1996). Urban Planning in Europe; International Competition, national systems and planning projects. London, Routledge.
• 21. Varveri, O. (1986). Local Politics and Land Use Change: An Interest Group Based Conceptual Framework and Urban Model. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University USA.
• 22. Yukubouski, R. (1979). Effective Participation: Public Search for “Democratic Efficiency”. Presentation in Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington DC, USA, Jan. 1979.
• 23. Βασσενχόφεν Λ., Σαπουντζάκη Κ., Ασπρογέρακας Ε., Γιαννίρης Ε., Παγώνης Τ. (2010), Χωρική Διακυβέρνηση: Θεωρίες, Ευρωπαϊκή Εμπειρία και η περίπτωση της Ελλάδας, επιμέλεια Βασσενχόφεν Λ., εκδόσεις Κριτική, Αθήνα.