In many European countries, regional planning is an established institutional framework. In recent years we have observed a resurgent research interest in regional planning with a specific focus on governance and institutional design and on the strategic and practical relevance of regional planning in pursuing sustainable development. However, in Sweden, regional planning traditionally has a weak position in practice as well as in research. Yet over the past 15 years, we have seen an increasing political interest in experimenting with different forms and formats of regional planning. In this paper, we explore the emerging logics of non-statutory regional planning, which the majority of Swedish regions have chosen. Drawing upon a qualitative research design we identify, compare and discuss three different logics and their inherent rationales, practices, challenges and prospects. Our analysis shows that our three case regions can do very little non-statutory regional planning unless they are part of properly working multi-level networks, and have well-established regional informal arenas for interaction and political backing. More specifically, we point at a number of tensions caused by the large degree of freedom to design non-statutory regional planning, which foster conflicts, confusion and insecurity. 

The Territorial Agenda 2030, adopted in December 2020, introduces a new policy frame: that of ‘A Just Europe’. This intergovernmental policy document is intended to guide territorial cohesion policy and strategic spatial planning in and across the EU member states. But what does the adjective ‘just’ mean and to what extent can it become operational? Drawing on text analysis and expert interviews, the paper investigates the rationales and expectations underpinning this policy frame. It firstly contextualizes the policy frame of ‘a Just Europe’ within the policy and academic debates on spatial justice and territorial cohesion, and positions the Territorial Agenda 2030 against the backdrop of its forerunners. The analysis demonstrates that instead of guiding measures, the Territorial Agenda 2030, like its forerunners, essentially has a diagnostic and to some extent also a motivational function to mobilize policy actions. We do however identify and discuss three rather novel conditions which, unlike those of its forerunners, may revitalize the European spatial planning discourse. This contribution demonstrates that spatial justice is an inspiring notion to critically reflect on the current and future character and potentials of European spatial planning in general and territorial cohesion policy in particular.

In this paper we address the question of whether academic educational planning programmes are prepared to provide future planning professionals with the essential expertise to promote the transformation towards carbon-free cities and regions. Drawing upon interviews with master’s programme directors and involved academic teachers from European schools of planning, we argue that in view of transformative planning there is a need for adjustments in terms of knowledge areas and methodological skills. Our results also suggest reconsideration of normative and ethical aspects of planning as well as the attributed roles of planners and planning educators.

Spatial planning instruments are fundamental for the operation of spatial planning systems. In the ESPON COMPASS project over 250 spatial planning instruments at different policy levels in 32 European countries were identified. In this chapter we compare and review these planning instruments that are used to mediate competition over the use of land, to allocate rights of development, to regulate change and to promote preferred spatial and urban form. The comparative analysis highlights that there are various types of spatial planning instruments at different policy levels many of which have multiple characteristics, that is, they are expected to have multiple functions in relation to spatial development and territorial governance practices. However, there is a significant consistency in how planning systems are hierarchically structured around spatial planning instruments and how these systems are based on rational ideals. Furthermore, the results indicates that there is a clear direction towards more strategic forms of spatial planning, also among statuary planning instruments. In conclusion, our survey reveals that spatial planning instruments are expected to serve as multi-purpose tools that simultaneously provide strategic frameworks and regulate spatial development whilst they have become less visionary.