PLANNING THEORY & PRACTICE https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2021.1925951 Assessing Spatial Planning Outcomes – A Novel Framework Based on Conformance and Governance Capacities Nadine Kiessling and Marco Pütz Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Most studies use quantitative measures to assess spatial planning outcomes. Received 28 March 2020 Instead, this paper proposes a novel qualitative framework to assess spatial Accepted 1 May 2021 planning outcomes that seek to understand why outcomes conform to, or KEYWORDS deviate from, the intentions of spatial planning instruments. This novel frame­ Conformance; governance work links the conformance perspective with governance research. We tested capacity; regional our analytical framework in six Swiss and German municipalities. Drawing on governance; spatial interviews, observations and planning documents, our findings demonstrate planning; switzerland; which factors decisively influence planning outcomes. Our findings also germany demonstrate that high conformance does not necessarily equal spatial plan­ ning success. Qualitatively assessing planning outcomes contributes to the evaluation of the success and failure of spatial planning, and improves the implementation of planning instruments and practices accordingly. Introduction The key objectives of spatial planning are to handle land-use changes, manage the allocation of various land usages and pursue public interests regarding the use of land. However, we know little about the implementation of the concepts and strategies used in spatial planning and the effectiveness of spatial planning instruments. Usually, spatial planning evaluations focus on either conformance or perfor­ mance. The performance perspective examines the role that a spatial plan or strategy plays in decision- making processes (Faludi, 2000; De Montis, 2016; Oliveira & Pinho, 2009). The conformance perspective assesses the conformance of spatial planning intentions with outcomes (Brody & Highfield, 2005; Persson, 2020). Conformance-based studies usually evaluate spatial planning outcomes quantitatively. Spatial planning intentions refer to the local and context-specific targets set by spatial planning institutions. Spatial planning outcomes are the actual changes in land use that result from spatial planning efforts to manage and guide spatial development. A review of the literature on spatial planning evaluation suggests that many studies have investigated the implementation of local (Loh, 2011; Long et al., 2015) or supra-local (Berke et al., 2006; Brody & Highfield, 2005) spatial planning instruments at the local level. Case studies analyse well-known larger cities (Long et al., 2015) or metropolitan regions (Oliveira & Hersperger, 2018; Pagliarin, 2018; Walsh, 2012) rather than small and lesser-known municipalities (Gennaio et al., 2009). In this paper, we develop and empirically test a novel analytical framework to assess spatial planning outcomes. Our framework goes beyond classic spatial planning evaluations in two ways: CONTACT Nadine Kiessling [email protected] Swiss Federal Research Institute WS, Zürcherstrasse 111, CH-8903 Birmensdorf © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creative commons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. 2 N. KIESSLING AND M. PÜTZ First, it introduces regional governance capacities into the conformance assessments of spatial planning. Regional governance research offers great potential to better understand spatial planning implementation and outcomes (Nuissl & Heinrichs, 2011; Schmitt & Wiechmann, 2018). In particular, “regional governance capacities” shape learning processes and power relations in spatial planning (Kiessling & Pütz, 2020; Schmitt & Wiechmann, 2018). Second, our framework applies qualitative rather than quantitative research methods. We propose the following research questions: 1) How can we better conceptualise and assess spatial planning outcomes? 2) How can we better understand the conformities and deviations between the intentions and the outcomes of spatial planning? We applied our analytical framework to four case-study regions in Switzerland and Germany and assessed the outcomes of six local spatial planning cases based on interviews, observations and extensive document analysis. Conceptual Background Evaluating Spatial Planning Research on spatial planning evaluation distinguishes between the conformance and the perfor­ mance perspectives. The conformance perspective evaluates the conformance between the goals and outcomes of spatial planning (Alexander, 2012). Usually, scholars use quantitative methods based on surveys and secondary data to investigate conformance, for example, by analysing building permits or geographical information systems (GIS) (Berke et al., 2006; Brody & Highfield, 2005; Wassmer, 2006). Loh (2011) used qualitative interviews and GIS analyses to explain the non- conformance between the maps of local land-use plans and the actual developments in the municipalities. Several scholars have used the term “intentions” in their evaluation studies but without defining it (Berke et al., 2006; Persson, 2020; Schmid et al., 2020). Talen (1997) claimed that causal relationships between spatial planning intentions and their outcomes are of little importance as long as the outcomes conform to the intentions. However, many scholars are aware of the multiple factors influencing land-use changes, such as individual decisions, land prices and tax systems, and of the resulting difficultyin seeking one-to-one connections between the intentions and the outcomes of spatial planning (Brody & Highfield, 2005; Feitelson et al., 2017). Quantitative analyses of the conformance of planning outcomes have three major limitations. First, such studies often investigate the conformance between the intentions of local or regional land-use plans and their outcomes without providing any reasons why the observed deviations between intentions and outcomes occurred (Brody & Highfield, 2005; Gennaio et al., 2009). Second, conformance evaluations often take the spatial or land-use plan as their only benchmark (Gennaio et al., 2009; Laurian et al., 2004), ignoring the fact that spatial plans can contain mistakes or misjudge future development. In such cases, a lack of conformance may be the best outcome (Diller, 2016; Faludi, 2000). Third, by considering the uncertainties and the multiple factors that influenceland-use change, quantitative studies are usually incapable of working out the specific role that spatial planning plays in achieving a certain outcome (Alexander & Faludi, 1989; Feitelson et al., 2017). Loh (2011) conducted an interesting case study of four municipalities in the metropolitan area of Detroit. She mixed qualitative interview data with a GIS analysis to explain the non-conformance between the maps of local land-use plans and the real developments. She limited her study to non-conformance, and distinguished between the non-conformance that results from deficiencies in spatial plans or their implementations, and the non-conformance that results from natural progression. We regard this simple PLANNING THEORY & PRACTICE 3 distinction as being too limited to reflect the complexity of spatial planning processes, and we consider it important to consider conformance as well. The performance perspective emerged in the debate on communicative planning and was meant to overcome some of the limitations of the conformance perspective (Faludi, 2000; Healey, 1997). For the performance perspective, the role of spatial plans in decision-making processes is key. The advantage of the performance perspective, compared to the conformance perspective, is that the former acknowledges that spatial plans are not blueprints but subject to interpretation and change. The conformance and the performance perspectives do not contradict each other and can be regarded as “two ends of one line” (Alexander & Faludi, 1989). Some scholars have proposed using the performance perspective for strategic, non-binding spatial planning instruments and the conformance perspective for binding regulations or project-oriented plans (Diller, 2016; Faludi, 2000). The scholars who combine the conformance and performance perspectives either merge or compare them (V. V. Oliveira & Pinho, 2009). Berke et al. (2006) compared the performance perspective with the conformance perspec­ tive to identify the following central determinants for the success and failure of spatial planning: quality of the spatial plan, enforcement style, awareness building, actors’ capacity and context. These determinants indicate the relevance of regional governance capacities for assessing spatial planning outcomes. However, quantitative assessments, like this study by Berke et al. (2006), cannot explain the precise manner in which these determinants of success or failure influence spatial planning outcomes. Regional Governance Capacities Several scholars have stated that analysing governance helps to better understand spatial planning processes and outcomes (Nuissl & Heinrichs, 2011; Pagliarin, 2018; Schmitt & Wiechmann,