Regional design

Abstract

Spatial planning approaches have changed since the 1990s. Major shifts in the institutional architecture of planning schemes have occurred: plan-led planning approaches – characterized by fixed administrative boundaries, statutory frameworks, and paternalistic forms of government – have turned into development-led approaches, in which soft planning follows and facilitates development proposals by market actors and the civil society. Dilemmas that are triggered by an accumulation of competing spatial claims – often due to highly urgent climate mitigation and adaptation measures – and a coupling of structural social, economic and political change have resulted in a greater appreciation of soft, adaptive, and flexible spatial planning approaches. Such approaches involve knowledge about particular areas, draw on place-based community-led initiatives and tailored temporary governance arrangements. They employ more transformative perceptions of natural, metabolic and evolutionary spatial change. In a context of uncertainty, contentiousness and complexity, they aim at unlocking more immediate and effective societal responses to problems in the built environment while maintaining robust, longterm planning rationales at the same time (Van Buuren et al., 2013; Nadin et al., 2021).