Land Use Planning Tools and Institutional Change in Germany: Recent Developments in Local and Regional Planning

Abstract

This paper seeks to understand how recent social, economic and institutional developments have affected the land use planning tools and instruments that German planners have at their disposal. Although traditional planning practice was focused on the equitable distribution of services and infrastructure and managing growth within a highly structured plan approval process, planning tools at both the local and regional level have become increasingly concerned with enhancing local or regional competitiveness, primarily through the inclusion of a greater number of actors in formulating land use decisions. I argue, however, that despite these changes, the overall institutional framework, which revolves around legal and procedural concerns such as the plan approval process or the granting of building permission, has generally remained unaffected, and a significant gap exists, particularly at the regional level, between the strategic goals of regional governance and actual land use planning tools.

Sprawl Without Growth in Eastern Germany

“…This represents a major rethinking of the role of planning institutions, methods, and approaches (Schmidt, 2009;Müller and Siedentop, 2004). Several cities have already taken innovative steps toward addressing this issue, in some cases actively planning for future decline (Beetz et al, 2008;Wiechmann, 2008).…”

Post-socialist Sprawl: A Cross-Country Comparison

“…122 -123) The withdrawal of the state from planning initiatives left many local governments to compete with one another for investment (Pichler-Milanovic et al, 2007), exacerbating the tendency to prioritize growth and development over other concerns. The decentralization of plan-making and implementation has also increased the number of actors involved in urban development, and strengthened the hand of private investors and real-estate speculators who dominated the development process (Schmidt, 2009), often benefiting from federal subsidies and tax breaks (Weissner, 1999). This policy stemmed from prioritizing economic growth above attempts to control development patterns, but also as a general reaction against central planning after the downfall (and discrediting) of communism (Benfer, 1996), and prioritizing private property rights, particularly in land markets and economic production (Hirt & Stanilov, 2009).…”

Connecting Municipal and Regional Level Planning: Analysis and Visualization of Sustainability Indicators in Bergslagen, Sweden

“…In terms of spatial planning, the federal level sets general principles and defines procedures for spatial planning at the Länder and local levels (Birkmann & Gleisenstein, 2002). Both the local and regional levels have become increasingly concerned with enhancing local or regional competitiveness, primarily through the inclusion of a greater number of actors in formulating land use decisions (Schmidt, 2009). Despite these changes, a significant gap exists between the strategic goals of regional governance and actual land use planning tools.…”

“…Consequently, ecosystems and social systems are interdependent, and governance and management should thus treat them as one system and be integrated (Berke & Manta-Conroy, 2000;Asplund & Hilding-Rydevik, 2001). That requires collaborative planning over larger geographical areas containing different types of land use and cover different land ownerships in both urban and rural landscapes, encompassing both local and regional levels (Schmidt, 2009). However, very few actors have this capacity.…”