Exploring local spatial planning as practices of process design in the Stockholm region, Sweden

ABSTRACT

The quest for sustainable urban development requires innovative planning approaches more apt to cater for transformative action. Based on a case study approach, this study aims to explore the potential for local planning to develop practical approaches able to accelerate the transition towards sustainable urban development. To guide spatial development towards sustainability, the analysis of the results shows that local planners need to envision a process design as to advance the understanding of how a site or area can be developed. The act of process design involves pending between processes of contextualization (i.e. exploring five distinguishable domains of planning inquiry) and concretization (i.e. deciding upon a course of action by executing activities that form a process trajectory). Regarding the potential of local planning to develop transformative approaches, it is concluded that: (i) local planners possess capabilities that allow them to probe the future of places and produce insights about prospective change, (ii) the transformative capacity of local planning practices is bound to the development of the identified domains of planning inquiry and (iii) forthcoming evaluations organized around the act of process design can reveal insights regarding the possibilities to put the notion of sustainability into practice at the local level.

KEYWORDS:

• Sustainable urban development
• urban planning
• land allocation
• land use

1. Introduction

Accelerating climate change and the continuous degradation of life-supporting ecosystems poses a severe threat to human societies, cities and communities (IPBES 2019; IPCC 2021). As urban development and land use change act as main drivers for existing sustainability challenges, the realization of established sustainability goals and objectives unavoidably becomes a question related to the change-making practices of urban planning.

Over the last three decades, several contributions have accomplished to frame the relation between urban planning and sustainability in ways that shed light on complex interdependencies and the inherent ambiguities that result from the aspiration to cater for sustainability across urban environments (see e.g. Campbell 1996; Owens and Cowell 2011; Wheeler 2004). For example, previous research indicate that the pursuit of sustainability agendas remains dependent on both institutional locomotion and practical planning capacities on the ground: the former requires an uptake in, or rather ‘by’, the latter (see Steele 2011), and the adoption of sustainability values in the latter occurs in relation to the situated specificities of the former (Turcu 2018). Thus, the transformative potential of spatial planning is related to two important insights: more of the same is still not enough (see Albrechts 2010), and someone needs to do the work (Forester 2011). With this paper, the intent is to advance the understanding of how local planning can reinforce the transition towards sustainable urban development by investigating and analyzing the capabilities of urban planners who design the planning processes that guide spatial development.

To combat the challenges ahead, there is a need for planning approaches that allow for ‘probing the future in order to make more intelligent and informed decisions in the present’ and which encourages public debates regarding the insights gained about prospective change (Friedmann 2004, 56). To assist the creation of future places, planners need to be agile and think creatively about how to bring different actors together in ways that allows for collectively imagining effective solutions to complex problems (Shepherd and Doak in Parker et al. 2020). However, current modes of governance circumscribe the ability of planning to act as a transformative source aimed at collectively agreed interventions and/or disruptions (Albrechts, Barbanente, and Monno 2019). Across Europe, and perhaps especially pertinent in the UK, the roll-out of neoliberal policies has downplayed the role of spatial planning and the planning profession in directing processes of change (see e.g. Campbell, Tait, and Watkins 2013; Grange 2016). Urban development initiatives no longer emanate mainly from central and local governments (Salet and de Vries 2019), and local planning authorities need to address the locally contextualized ‘cohabitation between demands for control and self-organization in processes of urban transformation’ (Savini, Majoor, and Salet 2014, 298).

Additionally, the upsurge of local experiments, ‘strategic niches’ and/or urban laboratories (see e.g. Savini and Bertolini 2019) further add to a situation where local authorities risk acting as mere repositories for the booming supply of ‘innovative solutions’ to problems which can only be characterized as inherently wicked. Yet, planning and innovation appear as two potentially synergistic co-constituents of transformative action. Whilst the former relies on the latter to address urban challenges more effectively, the latter relies on the former in terms of scalability and for guiding its trajectory towards local significance, contextual responsiveness and substantial relevance. Therefore, innovative planning approaches and planned innovation processes stand out as important, mutually inclusive drivers for local authorities who intend to operationalize normative sustainability objectives, e.g. Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations 2015).

Against this backdrop, the quest for urban transformation calls for an advanced understanding regarding the conditions for local planning practices to carry out the important task of actively probing the future of places and orchestrating the process of producing insights about prospective change. In particular, more knowledge regarding the contextual premises for local planners to guide spatial development can render opportunities to analyze how the notion of sustainability can be put into practice, and pave the way for innovative planning approaches more apt to cater for transformative action. Therefore, the overall aim of this study is to explore the potential of local planning to develop transformative approaches able to accelerate the transition towards sustainable urban development. In the study, we address the following three questions:

• How do planners respond to organizational, procedural and local conditions when deciding upon a course of action as to transform planning initiatives to development plans?

• How do planners explore particular planning situations to advance the understanding of how a site or area can be developed?

• What are the conditions for local planning practices to design the planning process as to cater for sustainable urban development?

Departing from the aims of the study, a qualitative research design organized around transdisciplinary principles (see Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn 2008) was used to co-produce knowledge regarding the research questions. This paper is presented in five main sections. The research methodology (see Section 3) allowed for a continuous development and refinement of the conceptual framework (see Section 2) that was used both to guide the analysis of the empirical findings (see Section 4) and to frame process design as practices of contextualization and concretization (see Section 5). In other words, the utilized process for knowledge production paved the way for the scientific contribution (theoretically and empirically) of this paper (see Section 6).

2. Conceptual framework

A conceptual framework was developed to guide the investigation into the conditions for local planning authorities to develop more transformative planning approaches. In accordance with Maxwell (2009), the conceptualization initially served as a tentative theory that informed the design of the study (i.e. aims, research questions and methods), but progressed into a coherent system of concepts aimed at clarifying, explaining and providing new insights into what is going on, and why, when local planners approach the task of transforming initiatives into urban development plans.

As a practice and profession, urban planning is perhaps best understood and characterized in terms of its contradictions, paradoxes and tensions (see Fischler 2011). Moreover, existing paradigms within planning studies approach the normative practices that organize collective spatial action and development from different angular points (Salet 2014, also Friedmann 1998). However, with its emphasis on what it actually takes to do planning work, ‘the major contribution of the pragmatic tradition has been to focus on the challenge of “acting in the world”, the challenges of forming conceptions and making judgments in the social worlds of governance practices’ (Healey 2008, 287). The conceptual framework is comprised of four contributions that bring explanatory prowess in terms of (i) how planning practice is continuously reshaped at the interface between knowledge and action, and (ii) the distinguished capacities that allow local planners to navigate in complex institutional and organizational settings when making spatial plans that aim to guide urban development and future action. Together, the included contributions proved useful for broadening the understanding of how planners go about constructing responses to what Wheeler (2004) refers to as a central question for both planning and sustainability, namely: ‘What is the most appropriate thing to do with any particular site?’ (67).

First, planners need to practice their ‘ecological wisdom’ to improvise creatively in unique and changing settings, and to navigate situations characterized by complexity, conflict, plurality and politics (Forester 2019a, 2019b). Such ‘deliberative improvisation’ offers a possibility to explore contextual settings and aims to pursue informed responses to three pragmatically important questions: ‘What matters here – what is significant, in the case at hand?’, ‘What do we know – and still need to learn?’ and ‘What can we actually do in this case?’ (Forester 2019a, 13). The need for deliberative improvisation stems from the historical development of practice-theory tensions in planning, which has led up to a situation in which planning practices need to be responsive to fluid, contested and unique settings when aiming to bring about change (Forester 2019b). In other words, current planning practices need to acknowledge the paradoxical insight that uniqueness is what planning projects have in common (Högström, Balfors, and Hammer 2019).

Next, planners rely on both ‘analytical and synthetic capabilities’ to effectively operate at the interface between knowledge and action (Campbell 2012). Whilst deliberative improvisation offers practical guidance for planning inquiry, Campbell’s distinction highlights the iterative process of engaging with both analysis and synthesis, and their associated qualities of knowledge. Whereas the former allows planners to engage with the complexity of the world and to find answers to questions that contain descriptive (what is going on here?) and analytical/explanatory (why is it like that?) qualities of knowledge, the latter is concerned with clarity and finding answers to questions that contain prescriptive (what to do?) and normative (what ought to be done?) qualities.

Finally, when producing plans which are to guide future action, plan-makers engage in the act of ‘plan composition’ (Hoch 2009). Such composition draws on three phases of judgement (appraisal, comparison and selection), and renders an iterative interpretative-representational combo. According to Hoch, interpretations are necessary in terms of framing the planning situation and for assessing the purpose of the plan, whereas representations outline the selected spatial and temporal relationships that constitute the plan-makers intentions.

In combination, ‘deliberative improvisation’, ‘analytic-synthetic capabilities’ and the act of ‘plan composition’ highlight essential qualities of planning work at the local level. At the heart of these exercises lie practical judgements that allow planners to cope with the emerging situations that result from the ongoing social and spatial processes that co-constitute the planning context. In her conceptualization of planning as practice of knowing, Davoudi (2015) argues that such judgement relies upon the interdependency between four forms of knowing: ‘what’ (theories/concepts), ‘how’ (crafts/skills), ‘to what end’ (moral choices) and ‘doing’ (action). Moreover, she identifies that practical judgements are accomplished in a dynamic process that makes practices of knowing ‘situated and provisional’, ‘collective and distributed’, ‘purposive and pragmatic’ and ‘mediated and contested’. In other words, the four forms of knowing are embedded within social processes that shape what perhaps can be termed ‘situational logics’ or the ‘contextual nature’ of such knowing.

Taken together, the abovementioned concepts form a coherent framework for thinking about how planners approach particular situations when producing plans that are to guide future action, see Figure 1. For this study, the conceptual framework informed the analysis of the empirical findings, and is used to analyze the conditions for local planning practices to cater for sustainable urban development. Hence, we return to the presented conceptualization when discussing the investigated planning processes in Section 5.1.

Figure 1. A conceptualization that illustrates co-existing theoretical perspectives on planning craftsmanship. Planners approach the task of transforming initiatives into urban development plans by accomplishing practical judgements (Davoudi 2015, grey) to guide iterations between analysis and synthesis (Campbell 2012, green) throughout the act of plan composition (Hoch 2009, light/dark gold) and to engage in deliberative improvisation (Forester 2019a, blue).

3. Materials and methods

In accordance with Bryman (2012), this study used a qualitative research design to explore the potential for local planning to develop transformative approaches able to accelerate the transition towards sustainable urban development. Drawing on Stock and Burton (2011), the research design followed the principles of transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge to analyze the contextual premises for local planning practices to guide spatial development. According to Pohl and Hirsch Hadorn (2008), transdisciplinary research builds upon a collaborative research process in which the relation between theory and practice is recursive rather than linear, and aims at providing descriptive, normative and practice-oriented knowledge regarding a socially relevant problem field. Following Lang et al. (2012), the purpose of the design was to organize a research process aiming to investigate how local planners respond to case-specific conditions and how they advance their understanding of how a site or area can be developed.

The research process was based on a case study approach in three municipalities in the Stockholm region, Haninge, Huddinge and Nynäshamn. Research activities focused specifically on the planning of three development areas in the selected municipalities. The selected cases and development areas provided access to three different organizational settings, and allowed for analysis of similarities and differences in terms of how planning work is carried out in particular projects. Additionally, the selection allowed for investigating the transition between different phases of the planning process. Representatives from four municipalities in the Stockholm region (Haninge, Huddinge, Nynäshamn and Tyresö), developers and academia participated in the research process.

Between 2017 and 2019, 18 research activities were conducted, each lasting for at least three hours. In accordance with Bryman (2012), these activities resembled semi-structured focus groups and aimed to foster an understanding based on the interaction between participants. A core formation of 6–8 participants, which included three urban planners and two land development engineers from the participating municipalities, continuously attended the research activities. All research activities were documented by participating researchers in the form of extensive notes, which provided the basis for the iterative, researcher-led, process of analyzing the empirical findings and designing subsequent research activities. Moreover, the results from the analysis were fed into the research activities throughout the research process. This incremental approach allowed for continuous respondent validation, enhanced the dynamic interplay between research and practice, and facilitated the co-production process since participants became involved in critically analyzing and elaborating upon the findings from preceding research activities.

Following Högström et al. (2021), the research process consisted of three consecutive phases, with a clear division of roles between researchers (e.g. data collection, analysis, synthesis of preliminary results) and practitioners (e.g. provision of practical knowledge, continuous validation). First, the municipal officials provided in-depth presentations of the development areas, and research activities were designed to have practitioners expound upon the organizational and procedural conditions for each planning process. Next, research activities aimed to have practitioners reflect upon the basis on which they make decisions about how to design particular spatial planning processes, leading to the co-production of knowledge regarding available trajectories for the planning process and how planners approach specific planning situations. Lastly, the final thematization derived from the analysis of the empirical findings (i.e. the identified domains of planning inquiry) was presented to participating practitioners, thereby allowing them to critically analyze the results based on their experiences from past and ongoing planning work. Additionally, to cross-check the reliability of the results, the final themes were presented, on four different occasions, to representatives from other Swedish municipalities, not participating in the research activities.

3.1. Case studies: Haninge, Huddinge and Nynäshamn municipalities

The municipalities of Haninge, Huddinge and Nynäshamn are located in the southern part of the Stockholm region, Sweden, see Figure 2. The population in the Stockholm region is approximately 2.3 million, and is expected to reach 3.4 million by 2050 (Stockholm County Council 2018). The main characteristics of the three adjacent municipalities are described in Table 1.

Figure 2. Sweden's 290 municipalities (left) and a land use map of the southern parts of the Stockholm region showing the location of the development areas (right).

Table 1. Main characteristics of the three municipalities (Adapted from: National Board of Housing 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018; Södertörnsmodellen 2016; Statistics Sweden 2018; Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions 2016).

	Haninge	Huddinge	Nynäshamn
Population	89 989	111 722	28 290
Population growth (2010–2018)	13 752	15 924	2509
Classification	A2: Commuter municipality close to major city
Adopted comprehensive plan (most recent)	2016	2018	2012
Adopted detailed development plans (new + changed) (2014–2018)	35	52	15
Municipal land ownership (approx.)	10%	50%	5–10%

3.2. Development areas: Lillängsvägen, Norra Grantorp and Ösmo

The three development areas are located in the municipalities of Haninge, Huddinge and Nynäshamn in the southern part of the Stockholm region, Sweden, see Figure 3.

Figure 3. Land use maps of Lillängsvägen (upper left), Norra Grantorp (upper right) and Ösmo (lower left).

3.2.1. Lillängsvägen – Haninge municipality

By 2030, the population in Haninge is expected to reach 105.000, and the municipality plans to construct 9.000 housing units at a rate of 600 units per year (Haninge Municipality 2016). Despite the emphasis on Haninge town, an area which constitutes one of the eight designated regional cores in the Stockholm region (Stockholm County Council 2018), the municipality is also planning for housing in other areas. The Lillängsvägen project is situated in the area of Vendelsö. Due to its topography, the project area faces significant problems related to stormwater management (Haninge Municipality 2018). Furthermore, the area holds recreational, ecological and cultural values (Haninge Municipality 2008).

3.2.2. Norra Grantorp – Huddinge municipality

The area of Norra Grantorp is located in the northern parts of Flemingsberg, Huddinge municipality. Flemingsberg is one of the eight designated regional cores in the Stockholm region (Stockholm County Council 2018). Here, the municipality, in close cooperation with the adjacent municipality of Botkyrka, plans to construct at least 10.000 new housing units, to create 20.000 more jobs, and to attract 15.000 more students by 2030 (Stockholm County Council, Huddinge Municipality, and Botkyrka Municipality 2018). Moreover, Huddinge municipality has participated in the state-led negotiation on housing and infrastructure, resulting in a decision to build a new light-rail system (Spårväg Syd) cutting across Flemingsberg and providing the area with additional public transport facilities (Swedish Government 2017).

3.2.3. Ösmo – Nynäshamn municipality

Ösmo is a designated countryside node in the Stockholm region (Stockholm County Council 2018). Ösmo is the second largest urban settlement in the municipality of Nynäshamn, with a population of approximately 3.700 (Nynäshamn Municipality 2012). The municipality has developed three scenarios for future development in Ösmo, spanning between 780 and 1350 new housing units (Nynäshamn Municipality 2016). The existing centre of the area, which incorporates the school, a grocery store, a swimming facility and a library, has a weak connection to the railroad station connecting the area to the Stockholm region (Nynäshamn Municipality 2016).

4. Analysis of the empirical findings

Emanating from the aim to gain knowledge about the contextual premises for local planners to guide spatial development, this section outlines five domains of planning inquiry which were derived from the analysis of the empirical findings. These domains are continuously explored by planners to find ways to transform ideas and proposals into development plans. The analysis is presented in five main subsections, in accordance with the identified domains. The exploration of these domains is critical for how local planners (i) gain an understanding of the situation at hand, (ii) create a basis for how to design the planning process and (iii) adapt the process to cater for sustainability issues in particular planning contexts.

4.1. The organizational and institutional domain: positioning planning activities in an organizational and institutional setting

In the investigated planning processes, the planners are continuously using their understanding of the organizational and institutional context to make decisions about how to proceed in particular situations. This resembles how Davoudi (2015) describes planning as a situated, historical, practice where planners adapt their thinking and interacting in accordance with the prevailing setting (see also Jackson 2018, 2019).

4.1.1. The organization of planning work

In the investigated municipalities, planning work is regularly organized as projects. For example, the municipality of Nynäshamn, a fairly small planning organization with limited resources, is involved in approximately 70 parallel planning projects. In all three municipalities, there are project manuals that describe tasks, prescribe the sequencing of actions and define the roles of municipal competencies in different phases of the planning and development process, e.g. PLEXMAN (Huddinge Municipality 2010).

All three municipalities have recently adopted ambitious targets for housing, and face a growing market interest. As described by a strategic planner in Nynäshamn, the municipality has changed its organizational mind-set from ‘grateful’ (towards any external interest) to development-oriented. However, due to a lag in terms of resources, the more ambitious political aspirations have resulted in organizational shortcomings. The planning organization faces a situation where it becomes more difficult to govern and prioritize within the municipal project plan (a shortlist of potential and ongoing urban development initiatives). Moreover, as explained by one planner, a lack of resources makes unit managers hesitant to devote resources early on in the planning projects. Consequently, there is a risk that certain competencies (e.g. environmental planners) are not involved in assessing the appropriateness of incoming initiatives, something which affects the municipality’s capacity to (i) assess potential projects in relation to long-term strategic agendas (e.g. the municipal comprehensive plan) and (ii) identify synergies between different projects early on.

4.1.2. Choosing a strategy for conducting planning work: institutional conditions and pathway selection

Since the municipalities often lack the means to implement their adopted plans, there is a need to decide upon an approach to plan preparation, i.e. if, how, and when developers are to become involved in the planning process. According to the practitioners, and as exemplified in all three development areas, such choices are conditioned by land ownership and the available options as defined by the institutional setting. Planning on either municipal or private land alters the planners’ room for manoeuvre as well as the trajectory for the planning process.

In the research project, ten planning pathways were identified, see Table 2. In general, a municipality characterized by high land values and extensive land holdings faces a richer variety of procedural options. The municipal officials stress the importance of understanding how specific pathways influence the organization and sequencing of planning activities. Also, the officials express that pathway selection is influenced by existing praxis (i.e. one or a few pathways are more common in specific municipalities) and personal experiences.

Table 2. Ten local level detailed development planning pathways.

Land ownership	Private	Municipal
Municipality alone	1	2	3	4	5
Municipality and developer(s)	6	7	8	9	10
Plan preparation		Direct^A	Bid^B	Comparative bid^C	Competition^D
		Land allocation procedures
		(A) Implies that one developer is granted the land allocation without the examination of other bids or developers. (B) Implies that developers compete according to established criteria and demands (price is decisive). (C) Similar to bid procedure, but criteria and demands include additional qualities (price is not decisive). (D) Implies that more developed design proposals are evaluated based on established criteria and preconditions for development. Sources: Huddinge Municipality (2016), Nynäshamn Municipality (2018).

The selection of a specific planning approach includes a bundle of considerations related to existing local preconditions and the desired character of the forthcoming plan. For example, in Ösmo, local conditions influence pathway selection due to uncertainties regarding land value. Here, a bid (pathway 3) can be useful for assessing market interest and determining the market value for development rights. In other cases, competitions (pathways 5 & 10) can prove useful to push developers (or even consortiums) to create more advanced and refined project ideas.

In Table 2, pathways 2–5 incline more flexible plans. A flexible plan is characterized by its general plan regulations which e.g. can allow for a variety of land uses. According to the planners, it is a significant challenge to strike a balance between the plan’s capacity to remain relevant over time and the need to formalize and enforce specific demands. To some of the municipal officials, a flexible plan is considered more durable, and can attract developers with different specializations due to its lack of specificity. To others, flexible plans are associated with major risks as completed projects may deviate from planning intents. Also, in cases where the land allocation is conducted after the plan is adopted (pathways 2–5), it becomes necessary to translate the intentions of the plan into a document specifying the criteria for the land allocation. Thus, increased plan flexibility results in a greater responsibility to properly design patterns of collaboration between municipal units in subsequent phases of the development process to ensure the realization of sought-for qualities.

4.2. The environmental domain: interpreting and establishing project-environment relations

As put by a senior planner, one main concern is to respond to the question of how a project relates to its environment. When actors (e.g. representatives from municipal units) enter and act within the planning process, they use their knowledge and skillset to interpret contextual relations from a variety of perspectives. Moreover, participants carry with them different perceptions of which issues should be considered and prioritized in the planning process. However, since ‘we could go on describing the relevant features of the embedding context without ever being certain that we have exhausted all the relevant features’ (Wagenaar 2004, 649), spatial planning by necessity becomes a selective practice of intervention which allows planners to distinguish different qualities of places (Savini, Majoor, and Salet 2014).

From the research activities, it is clear that participants (e.g. officials from different municipal units) approach the task of establishing project-environment relations differently, e.g. in terms of spatial and temporal scope. Hence, a land development engineer may not need to look further than the plan boundary to do their job, whilst e.g. an environmental planner may need to look well beyond. These differences in terms of contextual scope can result in conflicts related to establishing a common understanding of how and where to draw the contextual line. Accordingly, to address sustainability issues in plan and project development, one municipal planner is keen to have different competencies being involved in developing an understanding of the nature of key issues. However, this planner expresses that it is fairly common that project proposals are too advanced already at the initiation of the statutory process. According to a developer, one reason for this is that developers are keen to gain political support for a project at an early stage. Such acceptance is facilitated by detailed representations (e.g. drawings) of a project proposal.

Linking back to the previous domain, each planning project is thus dependent on the availability of resources and competencies to identify local needs as well as social, ecological and spatial preconditions. Therefore, according to one planner, it is essential that the process of contextualizing a proposal is transparent and open for broad intra-municipal participation – it is risky ‘to have thought too far in a world that does not exist’. Yet, the empirical findings suggest that established project models and habitual ways of working influence and maintain a certain dynamic in terms of how the municipalities approach the task of establishing project-environmental relationships. If this dynamic continuously results in a perceived mismatch between the scope of the problem (e.g. global climate change) and the planning context (a local development initiative), there is a risk that the selective process of inquiry related to the environmental domain repeatedly neglects certain sustainability issues (e.g. cumulative effects). Hence, inquiries into the environmental domain is ultimately about the responsibility and the extent to which individual projects can, or ought to, contribute to sustainability.

4.3. The strategic domain: navigating and translating policy, strategies and plans

According to the results, existing policy, strategies and plans can provide planners with knowledge of local conditions and a normative orientation that can be used to align specific projects to strategic agendas. According to Kaza (2018), the utility of policy, strategies and plans is not limited to if, or how, they are implemented. Instead, it might be purposeful e.g. to use plans as to send credible signals in a multi-actor environment or even to assess plans in terms of the, sometimes unexpected, ‘opportunities that they create for individual and collective action’ (Kaza 2018, 14). Yet, for the participating strategic planners, the comprehensive plan and other strategic documents are to constitute a basis – an underlying programming – for individual projects. For example, according to one planner, the non-statutory area planning process in the municipality of Huddinge was introduced to facilitate the translation of overarching visions into more precise guidelines for spatial development in selected areas (see also Huddinge Municipality 2018).

In particular, planners at the detailed development planning level expect existing strategic plans to provide usable guidance. Yet, the relevance of existing plans has both a temporal and substantive dimension. Regarding the former, the municipal officials claim that relevance declines over time. At some point, the link between actual and formalized intentions, e.g. the adopted comprehensive plan, is broken. Regarding the latter, relevance is related to the level of detail. According to the detailed development planners, strategic plans often lack the precision and distinctiveness sought for at the detailed development planning level.

In essence, existing mismatches between plan-makers and plan-users result in a lack of useful ‘signals’ that can aid the process of designing a specific planning approach. One reason as to why such problems occur is that plans tend to be more comprehensive in terms of outlining their own context (e.g. citing prior plans and objectives) compared to the eventual emphasis on how and to what extent future plans can benefit from the plan itself (Boyer and Hopkins 2016). This calls for strategic thinking in terms of how to design the ‘architecture of plans’ that may facilitate the transfer of useful information on sustainability issues from one plan to another, and across the planning organization. Coherent expectations regarding relevancy improve the conditions for realizing sustainability agendas as planners more effectively can engage in embedded processes of translation that link individual planning projects to overall strategy and development (see Högström, Balfors, and Hammer 2019).

4.4. The implementation domain: understanding the preconditions for action

Echoing the findings of Zakhour and Metzger (2018), the results show that the organization of local planning is adapting to changing conditions and external pressures – a process which has been interpreted as a further shift towards a market-led development regime where developers ‘set the agenda for where urban development occurs, in what form and for whom’ (Zakhour and Metzger 2018, 56). Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that developers also take on a greater responsibility for sustainability issues in planning and construction.

However, according to the planners, it is quite discouraging to experience that (i) planning initiatives are not properly contextualized and (ii) implemented projects do not conform to the intents that took years of planning work to develop. As exemplified in Lillängsvägen, knowledge about local conditions and problems (e.g. stormwater issues) is particularly important in the early phases of the planning process. In this regard, one planner underscores the importance of formalized and adopted intentions (i.e. the strategic domain). If important conditions are not properly investigated at the strategic level, it becomes more difficult to be clear about what the municipality expects from the developer(s) and to find the means to safeguard the implementation of such expectations, i.e. to formalize necessary demands that guide developers’ actions.

Stipulating and formalizing specific demands is a key feature of any particular planning approach. The interrelation between processes of translation and formalization is key for ensuring that projects are aligned to strategic agendas and that proposed interventions are properly implemented during construction (Högström, Balfors, and Hammer 2019). The municipal officials assert that it is easier to pose and enforce demands when the municipality owns the land. Also, as in Norra Grantorp and Ösmo, municipal land ownership offers opportunities to assess available procedural alternatives and their consequences when selecting a specific pathway. For example, following pathways 7–10 (see Table 2), the municipality can decide upon how to involve developers in the planning process and when to proceed with the land allocation (e.g. before or after plan consultation). Consequently, the option to choose between different pathways extends the possibilities to design a process trajectory that facilitates the consideration of sustainability issues.

Furthermore, one initial pathway can eventually lead to another during forthcoming planning work. For instance, a runner-up in e.g. a land allocation competition (pathway 5) may stand out as an appropriate initiative which, given specific conditions, can render a direct land allocation (pathway 2) at a nearby site. According to the municipal officials, specific characteristics of existing pathways offer an opportunity to use them strategically as development unfolds. However, for both developers and the municipality, certain pathways entail a more comprehensive process than others. For example, one senior planner compares the process of evaluating project proposals contending for a land allocation as going from long jump (pathway 3) to figure skating (pathway 5).

4.5. The process domain: designing a planning trajectory

Based on the results, process orchestration involves making decisions about how to proceed and to design forthcoming activities in the planning process as to resolve particular challenges related to the unique situation at hand. Our analysis suggests that planners are exploring the process domain to identify and assess the consequences of possible planning activities. In other words, to craft a process design ‘in present’ involves exploring what to do ‘next’, how to do it, and, most importantly, why. Such exploration allows for constructing a trajectory that connects the design of forthcoming activities (e.g. creating a vision) to existing project-specific knowledge (i.e. the outcomes of explorations into other domains). Envisioning a trajectory renders foresight, which results in the planner being more capable to decide upon an appropriate course of action.

4.5.1. Facing uncertainty and navigating novelty: planning as creative improvisation

Based on the results, the ability to navigate between habitual proficiency and creative imagination is key for finding the means to design a proper approach for the situation at hand. However, the results also indicate that the organizational and institutional domain strongly influence current praxis, thereby emphasizing the former at the expense of the latter. As Gunder (2011), who is critical towards the mono-rationality that may arise from habitual action, suggests: ‘the role of an unconscious built-up repertory of past, or habituated, knowledge of what works and what does not – what gave pleasure for a job well done and what caused displeasure as a consequence of past failure – which is generally called experience, explains the development of expertise in planning’ (202).

In both Ösmo and Norra Grantorp, the planners are to convey the planning process in a novel situation that deviates from established praxis. Still, the planners identify the ‘novelty’ of the situation by drawing upon knowledge regarding how the planning process is ‘usually’ designed. Therefore, novelty shifts the role of expertise from habitual proficiency to that of orchestrating creative exploration. Surpassing the scope of existing project models, such exploration increases the room for manoeuver in terms of designing the planning approach. Also, the municipal officials in both Norra Grantorp and Ösmo operate prior to the initiation of specific projects. One planner expresses, a view which is confirmed also by participating developers, that the early, non-statutory, phase is often characterized by ‘a multitude of actors, but no structure’. In these cases, the lack of communal knowledge regarding how to proceed makes the process of contextualizing the institutional and organizational setting more difficult, and places a greater responsibility on the individual planner to make use of knowledge and experiences to design a viable approach for the situation at hand.

4.5.2. Composing a process trajectory: sequencing and linking planning activities

Based on the results, the planners’ ability to design the planning process is put to the test as they face different situations (e.g. related to different phases) and specific issues (e.g. technical, social) that need to be taken into account when deciding upon a course of action.

In Norra Grantorp, Huddinge, the ambition was to involve developers in the planning process early on. According to the planner, this constitutes a novel, vision-led, planning approach that challenges the conventional way of planning municipally owned land. Instead of competing for land allocations, developers were to become involved in programming the area, i.e. in defining the conditions for forthcoming land allocations. Knowing that the sought-for process was neither formalized, nor standardized (i.e. lack of protocol and praxis), the planner designed the trajectory of the process to involve private actors in exploring both the strategic and the environmental domain. However, according to the planner, this effort was unsuccessful, and failed due to the private actors’ unwillingness to participate. With no land allocations in sight, there were no guarantees that the developers could reap the rewards from participating in the planning process. Thus, the municipality’s aspiration to design the planning process in new ways fell short because of specific conditions related to the implementation domain.

In Ösmo, Nynäshamn, the municipal officials face uncertainties regarding both land value and market interest. Thus, one of the main concerns for the municipal officials is finding out which route (e.g. different statutory pathways) to take, and why. Given the existing uncertainties, the municipality searches for a developer, an ‘anchor’ (‘Sw: ankaraktör’), who can assist the municipality by playing an advanced and advisory role during plan preparation, thereby testing the feasibility of the forthcoming detailed development plan. This particular approach allows for continuous access to the implementation domain when exploring other domains and when designing forthcoming activities in the planning process.

The planning in Lillängsvägen, Haninge, was initiated by the property owners. Existing conditions (e.g. actors with limited experience of planning) led the planner to conduct a workshop as to establish a common vision for the project. The planner collected the participants’ perspectives, analyzed their statements, and synthesized ten guidelines that formed the basis for the adopted plan programme. The planner explains that the plan programme with the adopted guidelines is to act as a reference for forthcoming planning activities. The planner evaluates the situation and designs a process trajectory that allows a diverse range of actors to become involved in exploring the environmental domain. Moreover, by exploring the strategic domain, the planner deliberately linked the guidelines to existing municipal strategies. According to the planner, the inclusion of municipal guidelines is necessary since, at times, there is a need to show the politicians that projects respond to politically adopted goals and policies.

5. Discussion

The discussion is presented in two main sections, which offer insights related to the conditions for local planning practices to design the planning process as to cater for sustainable urban development. In the first section, the processes of contextualization and concretization are identified as a key feature of planning work that allows local planners to design the trajectory of the planning process. In the second section, the conditions for local planning to contribute to transformative agendas and sustainable urban development are discussed.

5.1. Conceptualizing planning work as practices of contextualization and concretization

Based on the results, planners make inquiries into five domains as to explore particular planning situations and to advance the understanding of how a site or area can be developed. These iterative inquiries allow local planners to scan the contextual premises for spatial development, conditions that guide the selection of a specific course of action. In other words, the analysis of the empirical findings suggests that local planners use practical judgements not only to propel the process of plan composition, but also in terms of actively shaping a ‘process design’. The act of process design involves pending between processes of ‘contextualization’ (i.e. exploring and making inquiries into the five distinguishable domains) and ‘concretization’ (i.e. deciding upon a course of action by initiating and executing activities that form a process trajectory), see Figure 4.

Figure 4. Conceptualization of planning work as a practice of process design. This explorative-navigational combo constitutes an important part of a planner’s repertoire and allows for scanning the contextual premises for spatial development across multiple domains (i.e. contextualization) and to envision a process trajectory by deciding upon a course of action throughout the planning process (i.e. concretization).

Furthermore, the trajectory and outcomes of specific planning processes result from the interplay between individual planners (who continuously need to decide upon a course of action), the organization of the planning process (which allows for different ways of approaching plan composition and process design) and the configuration of existing domains (that produce context-specific conditions). This renders the first main insight of this study: the ways that planners frame or diagnose problems, how they leverage expertise and how agreements on action in particular situations are negotiated (Forester 2019a) seem to be strongly influenced by the planners’ capacity to foresee the trajectory of the planning process. Thus, as part of their repertoire, the processes of contextualization and concretization clarify the kind of judgements local planners need to accomplish in order to ‘design’ the activities that underpin the composition of the plan. To paraphrase Hoch (2009), iterations between contextualization and concretization make up an ‘explorative-navigational combo’ that allow planners to make decisions about how to ‘proceed’ with the plan-making process, e.g. by deciding to establish a vision or to move ahead by entering one planning pathway instead of another.

In this way, local planners play a key role for designing activities that allow different competencies to engage with analysis and synthesis in ways that can cater for sustainability in urban development processes. Also, their explorations into the five domains provide opportunities not just to find answers to important project-specific questions such as ‘What matters here?’ and ‘What is known and what is yet to learn?’ (Forester 2019a), but also to learn about existing barriers and gaps related to e.g. the institutional setting (see also Filion et al. 2015). Therefore, evaluative attention towards the act of process design can help to (i) facilitate learning about the ways that local planning can address sustainability issues in plan and project development, and thereby (ii) pave the way for innovative planning approaches that aid the coordination of sustainability considerations across planning levels and processes.

5.2. Urban planning and facilitation of sustainable urban development at the local level

The orchestration of the interplay between processes of contextualization and concretization stands out as important for how the notion of sustainability is interpreted and being put into practice at the local level. As the results show that such orchestration resides within the realm of the planner, systematized processes of collaborative learning organized around the notion of process design could enhance the transformative capacity of local planning practices. Based on the results, evaluation needs to focus less on what local planners ‘know’ and instead centre on ‘what they learn’ from their interactions with the domains of planning inquiry. This constitutes the second main insight from this study: the identified domains highlight the nested character of planning work, which makes the enterprise of transformation polycentric. Therefore, similar to how Forester (2019a) illustrates the problems with overlooking one of the three questions related to deliberative improvisation, the quest for sustainable urban development requires coordinated and transformative change in all five identified domains.

With pressing sustainability challenges ahead, planning practices need to be reinvented as to help to address them. However, based on the investigated cases, current practices seem to be strongly influenced by the developments in the institutional, organizational and implementation domains. Fuelled by the strive for efficiency within the institutional domain (see e.g. Campbell, Tait, and Watkins 2013; Grange 2016), the organizational domain is adapted to cope with the shift towards the ‘neo-performative condition’, i.e. where project-specific land use plans are adopted once the negotiations with developers and land owners are sealed (Berisha et al. 2020). Even in cases characterized by municipal land ownership and which concerns the initiation of specific projects (Ösmo and Norra Grantorp), the planners are grappling with the influence of the implementation domain which, to a great extent, stipulates the conditions for action. Particularly in municipalities with limited land holdings, the act of process design is thus orchestrated in a situation where ‘municipal planning is characterized by a project-based approach where project ideas, at large, are looking for places and plans, rather than the other way around’ (Högström et al. 2021, 11).

So, what does all of the above mean for local planning practices who aspire to cater for sustainable urban development? Based on the results of this study, it means that local planners are equipped with practical capabilities that are essential for the process of producing insights about prospective change. In fact, it seems as local planners do the work of orchestrating that very process itself. Hence, to deliberatively improvise towards a synthesis throughout the act of plan composition, local planners need to envision how the process of getting there is to be designed. Therefore, if local planning practices are expected to assist urban transformations and accelerate the transition towards sustainable urban development, there is a need to listen carefully to how those who do the work experience their interactions with the identified domains, and then innovate accordingly.

6. Conclusions

Given the overall aim to explore the potential for local planning to develop transformative approaches able to accelerate the transition towards sustainable urban development, this paper concludes that: (i) local planners possess practical capabilities that allow them to probe the future of places and orchestrate the process of producing insights about prospective change, (ii) the transformative capacity of local planning is bound to the development and configuration of the identified domains of planning inquiry and (iii) evaluations of what planners learn when designing a process trajectory can reveal insights regarding the possibilities to put the notion of sustainability into practice at the local level.

Theoretically, this paper contributes to ongoing debates about how planning operates at the interface between knowledge and action. By juxtaposing the results to existing ideas about how practical judgements guide decisions about a specific course of action in planning practice, this paper argues that the orchestration of the planning process requires local planners to continuously envision a process design. Iterations between contextualization and concretization allow local planners to construct a process trajectory that (i) responds to organizational, procedural and local conditions when deciding upon a course of action and (ii) guides the exploration of particular planning situations as to advance the understanding of how a site or area can be developed.

Empirically, this paper contains two main insights. First, the analysis of the empirical findings suggests that planners’ reasoning and coping mechanisms play an important role for how sustainability issues are contextualized at the local level. Therefore, planners’ capacity to foresee and guide the trajectory of the planning process is essential when aspiring to cater for urban sustainability. Second, the identified domains of planning inquiry highlight the nested character of planning work. Consequently, the enterprise of transformation is a multi-level, polycentric and social process that links the potential of urban planning to institutional, organizational and socio-economic developments. Therefore, future research regarding transformative planning approaches can reveal important insights about the contextual premises for change-making practices to assist the creation of more sustainable places.

Acknowledgements

First, the authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Also, the authors express their gratitude towards the participants within the Södertörnmodellen research programme for their efforts and dedication.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Sweden’s Innovation Agency (VINNOVA): [Grant Number 2014-00918]; Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (FORMAS): [Grant Number 2015-00133].