Search

Copyright of Raumforschung und Raumordnung is the property of Oekom Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Raumforschung und Raumordnung is the property of Oekom Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Raumforschung und Raumordnung is the property of Oekom Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Raumforschung und Raumordnung is the property of Oekom Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Raumforschung und Raumordnung is the property of Oekom Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Raumforschung und Raumordnung is the property of Oekom Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Many metropolitan regions face concerns over sprawling development, increased costs of maintaining infrastructure, and loss of green space and farmland. Some metropolitan regions have intentionally created spatial policies to govern development patterns and manage growth within their region. This paper compares the spatial policies applied in three case studies: the Puget Sound region (Washington State, USA), Metro Vancouver region (British Columbia, Canada) and Stuttgart region (Baden-Württemberg, Germany). While all three regions share a vision that can broadly be summarised as transit-connected communities, each metropolitan planning organisation leverages a variety of spatial policies. Based on the unique planning cultures, various governmental actors take on different roles at the local, county, regional and state levels. This paper categorises and compares the multi-level responsibilities for defining, mapping, and implementing spatial policies. With this focus, the paper provides an international comparative perspective on approaches, context, and contents of multi-level growth management.

Ensuring a crisis-proof food supply has become a key political issue. In Germany, official spatial planning allows the use of priority and reserved areas to secure land for agricultural use and regional food supply. The focus should be particularly on climate-resilient areas that also have a stable yield potential in the future. This paper supplements widely used, static approaches for determining priority and reserved areas with a dynamic bio-economic analysis that takes future climate scenarios into account. The results for the German federal state of Brandenburg show a high area equivalence between the static and dynamic approaches. In the case of data gaps, for example, static approaches such as soil quality indices can serve as an adequate proxy for future yield potentials. However, not all climate-robust areas can be classified as potential reserved or priority areas. Furthermore, areas that show low yield potential under future conditions are not released for other land uses. Feedback from stakeholders involved in the study showed that the use of the dynamic approach and a target value using the results of a foodshed model lead to broad acceptance. The method developed here can make a valuable contribution to climate change adaptation in spatial planning instruments.

Copyright of Raumforschung und Raumordnung is the property of Oekom Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

As a contribution to the debate on deregulation of spatial planning and lean regional plans, this paper presents the first long-term study for Germany analysing the regulatory intensity of all regional plans legally valid in 2017 on the topics of settlement and open space development over time. As a final result, the assumption of a general deregulation and streamlining of regional plans cannot be confirmed. In contrast, changes in the legal basis, such as the priority of inner over outer urban development, have led to a continuous increase in the regulatory intensity over time, particularly in the case of positive growth management policies with an active role of regional planning. At the same time, there is evidence of streamlining tendencies in some states, which can partly be interpreted as deregulation tendencies. To date, however, they are merely an expression of state-specific ways of shaping regional planning and not a sign of an accelerated deregulation competition.

Central place concepts are an inherent part of all regional plans of the German federal states (the ‘Länder’). These concepts have become increasingly important because regional plans need to be adapted to recent and future demographic changes in order to ensure an adequate provision of services of general interest. This paper analyses the current central place concepts of the Länder and gives recommendations for their further development. The analysis shows that the Länder have developed different approaches in regard to central place concepts, both in terms of definitions, threshold levels of population and accessibility and also their function for guiding future regional development. The paper gives recommendations on how to improve central place concepts and related plan approval procedures. Policy makers and planning authorities should define and seek political approval for overarching goals, from which key analytical indicators would be derived. These indicators should then be used for an empirical analysis, which would finally allow designating central places and their respective functions. Of course, the underlying methodology should be explained in detail within each regional plan. A central place should not be designated on the basis of its current facilities and services, but on the basis of the specific demographic and spatial characteristics and requirements of the surrounding region. Thus two cities with similar central facilities could nevertheless be handled differently by a central place concept because their respective hinterlands have different needs for central places.

Today, most countries in the global north have developed and implemented urban growth management (UGM) programs and policies aimed at mitigating the impacts and negative externalities of urban sprawl and achieving a more compact urban form. However, there is substantial disagreement about their effectiveness and effects of these programs. In this paper, we systematically review the extensive literature on growth management to better understand a) the current state of the practice of UGM, and b) the determinants of successful UGM implementation. Compared to previously available literature syntheses, which focus heavily on North American research, we also take into account studies based in Europe and some Asian and Oceanic countries. From this literature, we identify several key factors to successful growth management implementation: a multi-level governance approach, intersectoral policy coordination, a regionally adapted mix of policy instruments, balancing development needs with preservation goals, and the ability to develop positive narratives around growth management.

Small-scale, often polarizing changes in the population structure characterized by migration, have a crucial influence on the current development of settlements in Germany. Although state and regional planning tries to manage related demands for residential areas, competition for potential migration gains on the municipal level often leads to an unregulated development of residential areas within the region. This paper therefore seeks to develop an approach for an inter-municipally coordinated planning of residential areas, which takes into account demographic developments, in order to reduce the overall land consumption. In a first step, the residential land requirements that can be derived from expected small-scale population movements are presented in the form of different scenarios for specific municipalities. In a second step, a screening approach is used to identify those municipalities that appear to be suitable for accommodating additional residential development land requirements on the basis of their amenities and accessibility. In a third step, the identified residential land requirements are assigned to test areas with the help of various indicators. The approach is illustrated using the example of the Halle-Leipzig region.

Due to increasing density-dependent competitions in land use, it is difficult to plan new industrial areas, especially for factories and businesses with a need for large-scaled sites. Economic interest groups demand to plan new industrial areas to keep the region in a competitive position. At the same time, many citizens and local politicians are concerned about new specific land use areas for industries. To locate suitable industrial sites in the catchment area of municipalities with land shortage and a high demand for space and to involve regional stakeholders into the planning process, new regional planning tools are required. The case study about the “Regionale Kooperationsstandorte” planning tool in this paper shows which additional values and challenges the recipients of the plan expect from the new planning approach. Apparently, the new regional planning tool is generally accepted by most of the stakeholders in the Ruhr Metropolis. But specific regulations and particular sites are highly controversial, due to diverging interests of different stakeholders and municipalities or due to changing circumstances, so that it is not possible to reach a consensus on all issues.

In Germany and Switzerland, land use and urban sprawl there has been a central topic of public debate for several years. Cantonal structure plans in Switzerland as well as state and regional plans in Germany contain binding regulations for managing settlement development. Studies that examine the implementation of these regulations are lacking. This paper analyses the implementation of selected instruments of supra-local spatial planning for managing settlement development in Germany and Switzerland using the Policy Arrangement Approach. The case study covers the regions Oberland (Bavaria), Südlicher Oberrhein (Baden-Württemberg) and the cantons of Zurich and St. Gallen. The results show that actors implement spatial-planning instruments in situative negotiation processes in which they exploremargins and alternatives. Central to these processes is a regional specific overlapping of (i) interlinkings of formal and informal instruments, (ii) the interplay between local autonomy, supra-local control and superordinate context factors, and (iii) the overlapping of supra-local and regional discourses. The results show that the Policy Arrangement Approach helps to better understand how spatial planning works.

In Germany, regional planning plays a key role in the designation of sites for wind turbines. Relying on instruments such as “priority areas”, “suitable areas” and “exclusion areas”, regional planners have the legal authority to designate areas for wind energy schemes. Bearing in mind their leading role in the final decision regarding the siting of such plants, regional planners find themselves on the firing line between the supporters and opponents of wind power. The first group considers wind power as an efficient, clean and safe source of energy as well as an alternative to non-regenerative fuels. For the second group, wind farms present a risk to health and are drivers of an unwanted change of landscape. The aim of this paper is to examine the potentials and limitations of regional planning concerning these conflicts. Specifically, we investigate the ongoing regional plan for the Saxon planning region Oberes Elbtal/Osterzgebirge (Upper Elbe Valley/Eastern Ore Mountains). One interesting aspect of the planning process is a dedicated working group that aims to bring together supporters and opponents of wind energy. The results show that while regional planning can help to bring transparency to the planning process, it is unable to resolve the basic conflict between the two sides.