Spatial policies for growth management in metropolitan regions. A comparison of U.S. American, Canadian and German approaches

u .oekom.de h ps://doi.o g/10.14512/ u .167 BEITRAG ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS Spa ial policies o g ow h managemen in me opoli an egions. A compa ison o U.S. Ame ican, Canadian and Ge man app oaches Debo ah Heinen, Jö g Knieling Recei ed: 31 Oc obe 2021 Accep ed: 20 Oc obe 2022 Published online: 15 No embe 2022 Abs ac Many me opoli an egions ace conce ns o e sp awling de- elopmen , inc eased cos s o main aining in as uc u e, and loss o g een space and a mland. Some me opoli an egions ha e in en ionally c ea ed spa ial policies o go - e n de elopmen pa e ns and manage g ow h wi hin hei egion. This pape compa es he spa ial policies applied in h eecases udies: hePuge Sound egion(Washing onS a e, USA), Me o Vancou e egion (B i ish Columbia, Canada) and S u ga egion (Baden-Wü embe g, Ge many). While all h ee egions sha e a ision ha can b oadly be summa ised as ansi -connec ed communi ies, each me opoli an plan- ningo ganisa ionle e agesa a ie yo spa ialpolicies.Based on he unique planning cul u es, a ious go e nmen al ac o s ake on di e en oles a he local, coun y, egional and s a e le els. This pape ca ego ises and compa es he mul i-le- el esponsibili ies o de ining, mapping, and implemen ing spa ial policies. Wi h his ocus, he pape p o ides an in- e na ional compa a i e pe spec i e on app oaches, con ex , and con en s o mul i-le el g ow h managemen . Debo ah Heinen, Fachgebie S ad planung und Regionalen - wicklung, Ha enCi y Uni e si ä Hambu g, Henning-Vosche au- Pla z 1, 20457 Hambu g, Ge many [email protected] P o . D . Jö g Knieling, Fachgebie S ad planung und Regionalen - wicklung, Ha enCi y Uni e si ä Hambu g, Henning-Vosche au- Pla z 1, 20457 Hambu g, Ge many joe g.knieling@hcu-hambu g.de © 2022 by he au ho (s); licensee oekom. This Open Access a icle is published unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional Licence (CC BY). Keywo ds: Regional planning g ow h managemen  mul i-le el go e nance policy ins umen s compa a i e esea ch Raumplane ische Ansä ze zum Siedlungs lächenmanagemen in Me opol egionen. Ein Ve gleich on Ansä zen in den USA, Kanada und Deu schland Zusammen assung Global sehen sich iele Me opol egionen mi den He aus o - de ungen des egionalen Siedlungswachs ums kon on ie . In einigen Regionen we den ganz bewuss aums uk u elle Vo gaben de Landes- und Regionalplanung angewand , um die Siedlungss uk u nachhal ig zu lenken. Diese Bei ag e gleich die un e schiedlichen He angehensweisen in de Ausges al ung on aums uk u ellen Fes legungen in d ei Me opol egionen: Puge Sound Region (Washing on S a e, USA), Region Vancou e (B i ish Columbia, Kanada), und Re- gion S u ga (Baden-Wü embe g, Deu schland). Alle d ei Regionen e olgen Lei bilde eine am Schienen e keh aus- ge ich e en Siedlungsen wicklung und de S ad de ku zen Wege. T o z eines ähnlichen Lei bildes ha jede Region ei- ne ganz eigene He angehensweise an die Ausges al ung on aums uk u ellen Zielen und G undsä zen (spa ial policies) gewähl . Basie end au un e schiedlichen Planungskul u en nehmen in jede de d ei Regionen die Ak eu e de ö en - lichen Hand un e schiedliche Rollen au de lokalen, Land- k eis-, egionalen und Landesebene wah . De o liegende Bei ag e gleich die Ve eilung de Zus ändigkei en ü die De ini ion, das Ka ie en und Umse zen on aums uk u- ellen Vo gaben in den d ei Meh ebenensys emen. Aus eine in e na ional e gleichendenPe spek i ezeig de Bei agun- 678 Raum o schung und Raumo dnung | Spa ial Resea ch and Planning (2022) 80/6: 678–693 Spa ial policies o g ow h managemen in me opoli an egions. A compa ison o U.S. Ame ican, Canadian and ... e schiedliche He angehensweisen, Bedingungen und Inhal e on Raumen wicklungin Meh ebenensys emenau . Schlüsselwö e : Regionalplanung  Wachs umsmanagemen Go e nance Ins umen e de Raumplanung  e gleichende Fo schung 1 In oduc ion Planning as a discipline deals wi h g ow h- ela ed ques- ions, such as whe e do new g ow h and new de elopmen occu wi hin a neighbou hood, a ci y, o e en a egion. Ac oss he globe, planning sys ems ha e de eloped diffe - en esponses o he challenge o iden i ying loca ions sui - able o abso b new popula ion and employmen g ow h. Wi hin No h Ame ica, he g ow h managemen discou se p o ides a con ex o unde s and how p i a e and public sec o ac o s a e in ol ed oge he in g owing u banised a eas (Gale 1992; Ca u he s 2002; Ben-Zadok 2005;Boa - ne /McLaughlin/Ca u he s 2011; Wei z 2012). Wi hin Eu- ope, he spa ial planning discou se has p o ided a back- g ound o he deba e o g ow h- ela ed ques ions (Fü s 2010; Reime /Ge imis/Blo e ogel 2014). Bo h discou ses poin o he mul i ude o app oaches o managing he loca- ion o new g ow h. The a ious app oaches ha e e ol ed in esponse o unique cul u al alues mani es ed in planning sys ems, such as he Ge man Raumplanung (spa ial planning), he in e ac i e planning sys em in B i ish Columbia (Canada), o g ow h managemen in Washing on S a e (USA; c . Heinen 2020). In ac , planning sys ems ac oss he globe ha e de eloped dis inc i e app oaches o di ec ing g ow h. Each planning sys em uses unique ocabula y and concep s do no easily ansla e o an in e na ional academic de- ba e. A challenge o c oss-coun y compa a i e planning policy esea ch esides in ho ough unde s anding o he meanings implied when pu suing compac de elopmen , ansi -connec ed cen es, o he p o ec ion o open spaces. This pape examines he spa ial policies in he egions o S u ga , Vancou e , and Sea le in dep h o build an unde - s anding o diffe ences in go e ning de elopmen pa e ns and di ec ing g ow h in me opoli an egions.1 Each o he h ee egions has adop ed a Regional G ow h S a egy (planning documen ) ha p omo es compac , com- ple e, and ansi -connec ed communi ies ( egional ision). This egional ision is unde w i en by simila bu dis inc ly diffe en spa ial policies. Each case s udy showcases di - e en app oaches unde senio -le el go e nmen 2laws o balance egional and local in e es s in de e mining he lo- ca ion o new g ow h. The pape aims o be e unde s and he bandwid h and nuances wi hin spa ial policies. I builds an app ecia ion o he ole o a ious le els o go e nmen in au ho ising and applying spa ial policies. Spa ial policies ( aums uk u elle Fes legungen) a e ules-in-use o be applied when making decisions in me opoli an egions conce ning in as uc u e in es men s and a eas o new esiden ial, comme cial, and indus ial de elopmen and ede elopmen . Spa ial policies can be included in planning-enabling legisla ion and in egional g ow h s a egies bu could also ake he o m o sco - ing c i e ia ela ed o p io i ising in as uc u e p ojec s. Spa ial policies ac i ely shape de elopmen pa e ns in me opoli an egions. They a e mo e gene al han land use designa ions o zoning policies. Spa ial policies b oadly guide he loca ion (no pa cel specific) o public in es - men s and, depending on he planning sys em, can guide local decisions on pe mi ing new de elopmen . F equen ly, spa ial policies a e au ho ised wi hin “planning enabling legisla ion” in g ow h managing s a es. The cu en g ow h managemen li e a u e does no iden i y spa ial policies as a dis inc i e subse o policies (see Bengs on/Fle che / Nelson 2004; Wei z 2012; B ombach/Jessen/Sieden op 1The e m me opoli an egion is bu one example o concep s ha do no easily ansla e ac oss bounda ies. In his pape he e m is used in e e ence o he de ini ion by he U.S. Census: “The gene al concep o a me opoli an a ea (MA) is ha o a co e a ea con aining a la ge popula ion nucleus, oge he wi h adja- cen communi ies ha ha e a high deg ee o economic and social in eg a ion wi h ha co e” (U.S. Census 1994: 13-1). In line wi h his, he e m me opoli an egion is used o e e o a planning egion. The e m is no na owly applied o e e o designa ed me opoli an egions in Eu ope bu is applied mo e b oadly. 2Planning sys ems a e es ablished by senio -le el go e nmen laws. Fo ins ance, in Ge many ede al and Lände (s a e) laws c e- a e he legal amewo k o egional and local planning. In he US, ede al laws go e n me opoli an planning and s a e laws shape local planning. In Canada, planning is p ima ily es ablished by he P o inces wi h a a ie y o app oaches ( o a de ailed deba e on he app oach o planning in he h ee case s udies see Heinen 2022). Hence o h, he e m “s a e le el” is used o e e o Lände in Ge many, P o inces in Canada, and S a es wi hin he Uni ed S a es. The e m “senio -le el go e nmen ” is used o include he ede al and s a e le el. Raum o schung und Raumo dnung | Spa ial Resea ch and Planning (2022) 80/6: 678–693 679 D. Heinen,J. Knieling e al. 2017). This pape seeks o unde s and he ypes and nuances o spa ial policies as hey a e applied in g ow h managing s a es and coun ies, aking he unique cul u al and poli ical con ex s in o conside a ion. The pape s a s by p o iding a backg ound discussion on spa ial policies and g ow h managemen . A e a b ie e iew o he esea ch me hod, he spa ial policies in he h ee case s udies a e p esen ed: Me o Vancou e egion, S u ga egion and Puge Sound egion. Each case s udy p o ides de ailed examples o posi i e-alloca i e as well as p o ec i e spa ial policies. The discussion compa es he h ee app oaches and concludes wi h conside a ion o how spa ial policies in o m g ow h managemen decisions. 2 Backg ound: Spa ial policies and g ow h managemen In Wes e n democ acies, public and p i a e sec o en i- ies a e commonly in ol ed in ques ions conce ning new g ow h. F equen ly, public sec o ac o s p o ide public se - ices in loca ions o new g ow h, and he p i a e and pub- lic sec o build new housing, office spaces, e ail malls, o indus ial pa ks.3Howe e , wi hin Wes e n democ acies he e is a wide a ie y o nuance in he ole o he p i a e and public sec o when de e mining he loca ion o new g ow h. In some a eas, ma ke -led de elopmen is p edom- inan (Echenique/Ha g ea es/Mi chell e al. 2012). Ma ke - led de elopmen is cha ac e ised by p i a e sec o de elop- e s ha d i e he si e selec ion p ocess o new housing, e ail, o job de elopmen . In ma ke -led planning sys ems, go e nmen al ac o s mos ly espond o ma ke p essu es by amending zoning codes and p o iding in as uc u e a he eques o de elope s. In o he a eas, go e nmen al en- i ies a e mo e di ec ly in ol ed in shaping loca ions o new g ow h. Pa icula ly in g ow h managing s a es and p o inces in No h Ame ica, as well as in spa ial planning coun ies in Eu ope, a a ie y o policies ha e been ap- plied and es ed by public ac o s o shape he loca ion o new g ow h. To be e unde s and how he public sec o can shape he loca ions o new g ow h wi hou c ea ing com- mand-and-con ol ype sys ems, he go e nance discou se p o ides con ex . Go e nance is conce ned wi h how mul iple ac o s in e - ac and in e ela e hei decision-making o add ess a com- mon p oblem (Heinen/A la i/Knieling 2022). In g ow h ma- nagemen and spa ial planning, he common p oblem is e- quen ly amed as ensu ing ha exis ing in as uc u e is 3F equen ly, he public sec o builds public housing o ensu e a - o dabili y. u ilised, a mland and na u al esou ces a e p ese ed, and sufficien new g ow h is accommoda ed. Based on he plan- ning legisla ion, a a ie y o ac o s migh be cha ged wi h helping o add ess he common p oblem. By using a go - e nance lens, one can iden i y he a ious esponsibili ies and ake a close look a in e dependencies among ac o s and in e ac ions (Heinen/A la i/Knieling 2022). Planning sys ems a e go e nance a angemen s ha guide de elop- men pa e ns in a gi en geog aphy. Wi hin hese go e n- ance a angemen s, he e is ample a ia ion wi h ega d o he ole(s) ha a ious le els o go e nmen assume and he mechanisms o in eg a e decisions ac oss le els o go e n- men (Heinen 2022). In ha sense, g ow h managemen in Washing on S a e and B i ish Columbia as well as spa ial planning in Ge many a e specific examples o go e nance a angemen s. G ow h managemen has been he keywo d in No h Ame ica o discuss ques ions o delibe a e go e nmen al in ol emen in he loca ion o new g ow h in u banised a eas. G ow h managemen is defined as “go e nmen al ac- ions [...] o guide he loca ion, quali y, and iming o de- elopmen ” (Po e 1997: ii). Se e al la ge compa a i e s udies in No h Ame ica ha e demons a ed he a ie y o in ol emen o local, egional, and s a e le els o go e n- men in g ow h managemen (Gale 1992; Ro hbla 1994). In ac , much o he g ow h managemen li e a u e assesses whe he spa ial policies, such as u ban g ow h bounda ies, ac ually achie e hei desi ed esul s (Bollens 1992;Ca - u he s 2002; Wei z 2012). O en imes, indi idual policy mechanisms ( egula o y echniques) such as u ban g ow h bounda ies a e singled ou and discussed ega ding hei e - ec on land ma ke s and de elopmen pa e ns (Wei z 2012; Ca u he s 2002; Ben-Zadok 2005; Pallags 2007). G ow h managemen esea ch in he Uni ed S a es equen ly akes place wi hin he con ex o a hea ed poli ical deba e o e local and s a e igh s. Spa ial planning (Raumplanung) in Ge many enjoys mo e o a s a us quo. The e m spa ial planning has been p ima ily used wi hin he EU o discuss he a ie y o di - e en planning sys ems ound ac oss he Eu opean Union (Eu opean Commission 1997: 23). Spa ial planning ends o e e o comp ehensi e planning sys ems wi h in eg a ed decision-making ac oss le els and sec o s o go e nmen (Haugh on/Allmendinge /Counsell e al. 2010: 32–33). Many o he pa icula i ies diffe ac oss coun ies in Eu- ope, so he e is no a single defini i e ype o spa ial planning (Eu opean Commission 1997). Spa ial planning in gene al e e s “ o he me hods used la gely by he public sec o o influence he u u e dis ibu ion o ac i i ies in space [...]” (Eu opean Commission 1997: 24). The co e o spa ial planning as a discipline is conce ned wi h how he wo ca ego ies (se led a eas and open spaces) a e o ganised 680 Raum o schung und Raumo dnung | Spa ial Resea ch and Planning (2022) 80/6: 678–693 Spa ial policies o g ow h managemen in me opoli an egions. A compa ison o U.S. Ame ican, Canadian and ... Table 1 Types o spa ial policies o di ec g ow h Whe e should u ban de elopmen occu ? Loca ion ca ego ies Quan i y Posi i e-alloca i e s a egies Type 1 Policies ha c ea e ca ego ies o loca ions/ geog aphies ha a e sui able o g ow h. These loca- ions/geog aphies can ha e a ious scales depending on he poli ical consensus (e.g. di ec ing new g ow h o he u banised a ea, c ea ing a classi ica ion o ci ies/ communi ies, o p io i isingu ban cen e/u ban co e/ la ge b own ields o new g ow h). Type 2 Policies ha assign nume ic alues o g ow h (e.g. housing uni s, densi y, ac es). This ype p o ides a quan i a i e iew on how much g ow h is going o occu a he loca ion ca ego ies (e.g. popula- ion/job/household a ge s o speci ic ypes o communi ies, a a ge o keep 97% o new g ow h wi hin he u banised a ea, e c.). P o ec i e s a e- gies Type 3 Policies ha c ea e ca ego ies o a oid popula ion/job g ow h in unsui able loca ions o en i onmen al/ esou ce o a ming easons (e.g. p o ec ion o open spaces, o es s, ecosys em se ices, a mlands, p o- hibi ing new de elopmen nea highway in e changes in u al a eas, u ban g ow h bounda ies e c.) Type 4 Policies c ea ing quan i a i e measu es ha p e en a eas om being de eloped a u ban in ensi ies (e.g. la ge-lo zoning in u al a eas, o limi s on he ex en o new housing uni s o speci ic ci ies, maximum o new land ha can be de eloped). wi hin me opoli an egions (Knieling/K e schmann/Kune e al. 2012: 21). B oadly speaking, a he han ocusing on indi idual land uses o zoning, spa ial planning as a dis- cipline is conce ned wi h b oade de elopmen pa e ns in a egion. Bo h spa ial planning and g ow h managemen wo k wi h spa ial policies o s ee de elopmen pa e ns. As indica ed abo e, spa ial policies a e any public sec o policy ha is a ge ed a shaping he loca ion o new g ow h. Be e un- de s anding he bandwid h o spa ial policies and he nu- ances in combining and applying such policies can u he ad ance he g ow h managemen and spa ial planning dis- cou ses. In Ge many, i is e y common o find spa ial poli- cies in S a ewide De elopmen Plans and in Regional Plans. In No h Ame ica, spa ial policies a e commonly ound in local Comp ehensi e Plans bu pa icula ly in g ow h man- aging s a es, Regional G ow h S a egies also con ain spa ial policies. Spa ial planning in Ge many has ou inely wo ked wi h a numbe o spa ial policies. Ra he han es ic i e spa ial policies such as u ban g ow h bounda ies, some Ge man egions p e e o wo k wi h posi i e-alloca i e spa ial poli- cies (BMVBS 2012: 42). Posi i e-alloca i e policies affi m new g ow h o ce ain ypes o geog aphies by indica ing which ypes o communi ies o loca ions a e sui able o ab- so b new g ow h (BMVBS 2012: 42). Fo ins ance, ansi - o ien ed de elopmen is one example o a posi i e-alloca- i e app oach ha p omo es new de elopmen nea apid ansi . In o he wo ds, posi i e-alloca i e spa ial policies encou age new g ow h o specific ypes o loca ions. In con as , p o ec i e spa ial policies es ic g ow h in open spaces o limi new de elopmen o a eas al eady se ed by in as uc u e. E en when i comes o es ic i e policies, hey a e no one-size-fi s-all. The go e nance pe spec i e sheds ligh on a c ucial diffe ence be ween he case s ud- ies: in he Puge Sound egion, he U ban G ow h A ea is de e mined by he coun ies; in B i ish Columbia, he u ban con ainmen bounda y is nego ia ed a he egional le el; and in he S u ga egion he de elopable land is de e - mined by he local go e nmen and app o ed by he s a e. While one migh ini ially hink o spa ial policies as egula- o y app oaches, hey can also be combined wi h incen i e- based app oaches, he acquisi ion o land, o nego ia ion and communica i e app oaches (Bengs on/Fle che /Nelson 2004). Tab. 1p o ides an o e iew o ou ypes o spa ial policies. Specific examples will be p esen ed as pa o he case s udy desc ip ions. 3Me hod To be e unde s and he a ie y o spa ial policy config- u a ions, his pape compa es he spa ial policies applied in h ee case s udies: he Puge Sound egion (Washing- on S a e, USA), he Me o Vancou e egion (B i ish Columbia, Canada), and he S u ga egion (Baden-Wü - embe g, Ge many). While all h ee egions sha e a ision ha can b oadly be summa ised as compac and comple e ansi connec ed communi ies, he me opoli an planning o ganisa ions in each case s udy le e age diffe en spa ial policies, as au ho ised unde senio -le el go e nmen laws o by locally elec ed officials. In all h ee cases, di ec ing g ow h is one o he pu poses o planning ac oss le els o go e nmen by law4, howe e , he pa icula ules-in-use 4B i ish Columbia Local Go e nmen Ac 2018, Sec ion 428; Wa- shing on S a e G ow h Managemen Ac 36.70A.020; Raumo d- nungsgese z om 22. Dezembe 2008, § 2. Raum o schung und Raumo dnung | Spa ial Resea ch and Planning (2022) 80/6: 678–693 681 D. Heinen,J. Knieling a e sufficien ly diffe en o s udy he nuances in designing spa ial policies. Robinson (2016) desc ibes s udying a ia ion ac oss case s udies as a basis o inno a ion. Spa ial policies in each se ing ollow hei own logics in e ms o he le els o go e nmen applying and mapping he spa ial policies; ye , hey sha e impo an simila i ies in how hey app oach guid- ing de elopmen pa e ns o se led a eas and open spaces. Th ough an i e a i e p ocess o documen analysis and 79 expe in e iews, he specifics o each case s udy we e s ud- ied in dep h. Each planning sys em uses unique ocabula y and concep s ha ha e diffe en meanings o implemen a- ion. The i e a i e p ocess o li e a u e e iew, plan analy- sis, and in e iews helped wi h heo y o ma ion (Robinson 2016). Wo king wi h h ee case s udies had he benefi o a oiding he ap o obse ed bina y posi ions when dis- cussing wo case s udies; a hi d case s udy enables a wide ame o e e ence (see Gläse /Laudel 2010). A specific challenge wi h c oss-cul u al compa a i e case s udies is o a oid u ilising he ca ego ies o one cul u e o judge and desc ibe ano he cul u e (Knieling/O heng a en 2009). The case s udies we e iden ified om a se o po en ial cases by looking a h ee c i e ia: fi s ly, a he s a e le el he e needed o be a planning law ha au ho ised g ow h managemen a subsequen le els o go e nmen . A second c i e ia was ha me opoli an egions needed o be g owing. In o de o be able o manage new g ow h, an assump ion is ha a egion will be g owing and no sh inking o e he nex decade. Sh inking egions ha e a diffe en se o challenges han g owing egions, specifically in ega d o managing land ma ke s; he e o e, he ocus he e is on e- gions expe iencing g ow h, which a e hus in a posi ion o quan i a i ely alloca e g ow h ac oss communi ies. Las ly, many u banised a eas con ain mo e han one uni o lo- cal go e nmen . The e o e, he sea ch emphasised cases in which he co e ci ies had compa able popula ion sizes bu did no ep esen significan ly mo e han a qua e o he u banised a ea. 4 Case s udy e iew: Mix o spa ial policies in h ee egions All h ee egions ha e in common ha hey a e pa o ed- e al- ype sys ems. Fede al- ype sys ems a e cha ac e ised by hyb id o ms o powe sha ing ac oss mul iple le els o go e nmen (Eu opean Commission 1997: 38; B own 2012: 323). Usually, he cons i u ion in a coun y assigns esponsibili ies and powe s o each le el o go e nmen and add esses ques ions on how much powe is cen alised and decen alised (Benz 2009). Being ede ally o ganised means ha o he le els o go e nmen ha e conside able decision-making powe s in addi ion o he ede al go e n- men (B own 2012: 324; Pe e s/Pie e 2016: 128). Ac oss all h ee egions, local go e nmen s make zoning decisions and pe mi new de elopmen . Ye , based on he unique planning laws, he spa ial policies in he Regional G ow h S a egy ha e diffe en implica ions o communi ies. This is deeply ela ed o go e nance ques ions o e he espon- sibili ies a a ious le els o go e nmen , he legally bind- ing cha ac e o plans, and in eg a ing mechanisms (Heinen 2022). P io o e iewing each case s udy in de ail, wo exam- ples illus a e he diffe ence in dis ibu ing esponsibili ies o a ious le els o go e nmen : Fo ins ance, he d awing o he u ban con ainmen bounda y is a egional ask in he Me o Vancou e egion, a local ask in he S u ga egion, and a coun y ask in he Puge Sound egion. Fu he mo e, he designa ion o u ban cen e s as a g ow h-affi ming spa- ial policy is also designa ed o diffe en le els o go e n- men : he u ban cen es a e mapped a he local le el in he Me o Vancou e egion and he Puge Sound egion. In con as , in he S u ga egion, he egional le el in- oduced p io i y a eas o high-densi y housing “En wick- lungsschwe punk e” which a e designa ed by he egion. Las ly, communi y classifica ions as g ow h-affi ming spa- ial policies a e also c ea ed by diffe en le els o go e n- men : Communi y classifica ions a e join ly c ea ed by he s a e and egion in S u ga whe eas i is de eloped a he egional and coun y le el in he Puge Sound egion. To summa ise o he h ee egions: hey de ia e by he ex en ha s a e law au ho ises spa ial policies and o he le els o go e nmen . Subsequen ly, he go e nance a angemen s and spa ial policies in each egion a e p esen ed in mo e dep h. 4.1 Case 1: The Me o Vancou e egion In Canada, egula ing municipali ies and egional go e n- ance is a p o incial ask (Hamel 2017: 182; Mille 2017: 217).5Canadian p o inces ha e chosen o be in ol ed, o a ying deg ees, in local and me opoli an planning: On- a io, o ins ance, main ains igh o e sigh o e planning ac i i ies a he local le el (Deangelo/Ha ey 1998: 121; K awchenko 2012: 114). In con as , in he 1990s, legisla- ion e ol ed in B i ish Columbia which es ablished a ol- un a y amewo k o egional coo dina ion among locals (Smi h/Obe lande 1998: 372). Wi h he so-called in e ac- i e planning sys em in B i ish Columbia, Me o Vancou e 5Canadian Cons i u ion o 1982, A icle 92, clause 8. 682 Raum o schung und Raumo dnung | Spa ial Resea ch and Planning (2022) 80/6: 678–693 Spa ial policies o g ow h managemen in me opoli an egions. A compa ison o U.S. Ame ican, Canadian and ... is a he cen e o egional planning o he Me o Vancou e egion. Me o Vancou e is he egional planning o ganisa ion in he Vancou e egion. I is a ede a ion o 21 munici- pali ies, one T ea y Fi s Na ion6, and one Elec o al A ea. All ha e sea s on he boa d. Se en communi ies ha e o e 100,000 esiden s. Since 2007, Me o Vancou e has been esponsible o sewe age, wa e , and housing, bu also o b oad planning which includes he c ea ion o he Regional G ow h S a egy.7Pa icula ly, he esponsibili ies o b oad planning shi ed in he pas om possessing he abili y o p epa e egional plans, o olun a y egional planning in he 1980s, and ad anced o egional g ow h managemen in he 1990s (Wiche n 2004: 48–49). Unde p o incial law, Me o Vancou e ’s esponsibili y is o p epa e a Regional G ow h S a egy which is app o ed by he 21 municipali ies o he egion.8Me o Vancou e is hough o as a egional ede - a ion since all local go e nmen s a e ep esen ed, by law, on he boa d ha p epa es he Regional G ow h S a egy. The Regional G ow h S a egy (2011) laye s oge he mul iple spa ial policies o manage g ow h in he Vancou e egion. The spa ial policies in he s a egy a e au ho ised by p o incial law which desc ibes he pu pose o he Regional G ow h S a egy as ollows: he Regional G ow h S a egy “[...] should wo k owa ds [...] se lemen pa e ns ha min- imize he use o au omobiles and encou age walking, bi- cycling and he efficien use o public ansi ”.9While he p o incial law p o ides a b oad di ec ion o he spa ial poli- cies, he specific policies a e sel - egula ed by Me o Van- cou e . Me o Vancou e combines g ow h affi ming wi h g ow h es ic ing measu es: he Regional G ow h S a egy (Me o Vancou e 2011) en isions a egion o compac and comple e communi ies along ansi co ido s o ab- so b a popula ion inc ease o one million people by 2040 (Me o Vancou e 2018: 45). Since a ound 2010, communi ies in he Me o Vancou- e egion ha e expe ienced a building boom a ound hei ansi s ops. Du ing he in e iews, planne s a ibu ed he building boom pa ly o a shi in he eal es a e ma ke . The Me o Vancou e p ope y ma ke wi nessed a doubling and 6Indigenous people ha e he igh o go e n hemsel es wi hin he amewo k o he Canadian cons i u ion. Hence, hey a e ep esen ed on Me o Vancou e ’s boa d. Fo mo e in o ma ion see: h ps://www2.go .bc.ca/go /con en /en i onmen /na u al- esou ce-s ewa dship/consul ing-wi h- i s -na ions/ i s -na ions- nego ia ions/abou - i s -na ions- ea y-p ocess (23.09.2022). 7B i ish Columbia Local Go e nmen Ac 2018, Sec ion 428. 8B i ish Columbia Local Go e nmen Ac 2018, Sec ions 432.444. 9B i ish Columbia Local Go e nmen Ac 2018, Sec ion 428, pa a- g aph 2. ipling in eal es a e alues, pa icula ly in a eas a ound newly buil apid ansi s ops. Du ing he in e iews, p ac i- ione s specula ed ha se e al ac o s may ha e con ibu ed o he building boom: posi i e expe iences in some u ban cen es such as Me o own in Bu naby, o eign in es men s om Asia, and low in e es a es. While i is unlikely ha he spa ial policies caused he building boom, hey did en- su e ha communi ies we e eady o di ec new g ow h in o hei locally designa ed u ban cen es. The subsequen dis- cussion di es in o de ail on he spa ial policies in he Me o Vancou e egion ha p omo e ansi -connec ed u ban cen- es. The spa ial policies a e all mapped on a Regional Land Use Designa ion Map which is a cen al ea u e o he Regional G ow h S a egy. The ision o ansi -connec ed communi ies is suppo ed by ou s a egies ha in ol e spa- ial policies: (1) limi ing ou wa d sp awl h ough an u ban con ainmen bounda y, (2) ocusing new g ow h in u ban cen es along ansi co ido s, (3) p o ec ing u al a eas om u ban de elopmen , and (4) no allowing ex ension o sewe s o a eas ou side he u ban con ainmen bounda y (Me o Vancou e 2011: 13, 45). The ou s a egies a e mapped on he Regional Land Use Designa ion map which clea ly delinea es u ban om non-u ban land h ough an u ban con ainmen bounda y.10 The map combines g ow h- affi ming policies such as “U ban Cen es” wi h g ow h- e- s ic ing policies such as “u ban con ainmen bounda ies”. While he pa cel-specific designa ion o u ban cen es e- mains a local ask, he u ban con ainmen bounda y is des- igna ed by he egion. O e all, he Regional Land Use Des- igna ion Map p o ides a b oad amewo k o he mo e de ailed local land use designa ion maps. Ha ing pa cel-specific u ban con ainmen bounda ies is a con o e sial spa ial policy wi hin No h Ame ica. The bounda y depic ed in he Regional G ow h S a egy o Me o Vancou e is mos ly a esul o a p o incial law ha c ea ed a so-called Ag icul u al Land Rese e in 1973.11 The u ban con ainmen bounda y in he Regional G ow h S a egy is pa ly p ede e mined by he ex en o he Ag i- cul u al Land Rese e unde p o incial law. I land in he Ag icul u al Land Rese e was o be u ilised o u ban uses, a de elope would ha e o pe i ion he P o incial Ag icul- u al Land Commission as well as Me o Vancou e o pe mission. 10 The non-u ban a eas include h ee land use designa ions: (1) u al, (2) ag icul u al, and (3) conse a ion and ec ea ion (Me o Vancou e 2011: 9–10). The u ban land use designa ions include: (1)gene al u ban, (2) indus ial, and (3) mixed employmen (Me o Vancou e 2011:9–10). 11 B i ish Columbia Ag icul u al Land Commission Ac 2002. Raum o schung und Raumo dnung | Spa ial Resea ch and Planning (2022) 80/6: 678–693 683 D. Heinen,J. Knieling The u ban con ainmen bounda y is also suppo ed by o he mechanisms. Me o Vancou e is esponsible o wa- e and sewe s in he egion unde p o incial law. Th ough a policy in he Regional G ow h S a egy, Me o Vancou e does “no allow connec ions o egional sewe age se ices o lands wi h a u al, ag icul u al o conse a ion, and ec e- a ion egional land use designa ion [excep o a ew excep- ions]” (Me o Vancou e 2011: 14). The in e iewed expe indica ed ha he limi a ion on he ex ension o sewe s is a s ong implemen a ion mechanism o u ban con ainmen in he egion. In addi ion o he p o ec i e spa ial policies, Me o Van- cou e ’s Regional G ow h S a egy le e ages posi i e-al- loca i e spa ial policies, such as he designa ion o U ban Cen es and F equen T ansi De elopmen A eas. Bo h a e conside ed p ima y loca ions o ede elopmen a highe densi ies a ound ansi s ops. F om a mul i-le el go e n- ance pe spec i e, i needs o be highligh ed ha he u ban cen e s and FTDAs a e ac ually designa ed by local go - e nmen s hemsel es based on a se o gene al c i e ia con- ained in he Regional G ow h S a egy. Hence, mos o he 21 communi ies in he Me o Vancou e Region ha e a leas one u ban cen e ha is (o will be) connec ed wi h apid ansi in as uc u e o down own Vancou e (Me o Vancou e 2011:9). Th oughou he egion he e a e diffe en ly sized u ban cen es, some se e he municipali y le el while o he s se e as egional hubs. The egional hubs a e iden ified as p ima y loca ions o egional-scale employmen and com- me cial ac i i ies, o majo ins i u ional uses, and o high and medium densi y housing (Me o Vancou e 2011: 19). In compa ison, municipal cen es p ima ily se e he local a ea as ocal poin s o employmen and dense housing (Me o Vancou e 2011: 19). Las ly, esponding o de elop- men along apid ansi s ops, Me o Vancou e has mo e ecen ly in oduced he F equen T ansi De elopmen A - eas, in ended as loca ions o medium densi y housing and mixed uses along he F equen T ansi Ne wo k (Me o Van- cou e 2011: 19). The loca ion o u ban cen es is de e mined by he com- muni ies who epo hem o Me o Vancou e h ough a p o incially egula ed in eg a ing p ocess (Me o Vancou- e 2011: 16). Addi ionally, quan i a i e g ow h a ge s a e assigned o each u ban cen e and F equen T ansi De el- opmen A ea by Me o Vancou e in coo dina ion wi h he municipali ies (Me o Vancou e 2011: 16–18). Based on he gene al guidance in he Regional G ow h S a egy, com- muni ies adop policies in hei local plans ha apply o he u ban cen es (Me o Vancou e 2011: 16–19). Fo each o he u ban cen es and F equen T ansi De- elopmen A eas, Me o Vancou e includes employmen and housing g ow h a ge s in he Regional G ow h S a - egy (Me o Vancou e 2011: 18). The a ge s a e supposed o guide local decisions on in as uc u e in es men and ezoning ha will be needed o inc ease capaci y (zoned capaci y). P o incial law equi es he inclusion o g ow h a ge s in he Regional G ow h S a egy and Official Com- muni y Plan12, howe e , he a ge s a e conside ed guide- lines since he e is no ecou se i communi ies ei he do no achie e o o e achie e on he a ge s. Me o Vancou e de elops he a ge s in close coo dina ion wi h he munic- ipali ies, which helps o build communi y suppo o and accep ance o he a ge s. Th ough his collabo a i e p ocess, communi ies ecog- nise he need o inc ease he zoned densi y wi hin hei u ban cen es. As he egion plans o abso b he p ojec ed inc ease o one million esiden s by 2040 wi hin he u ban a ea (and no on u al land) (Me o Vancou e 2018: 45), he u ban cen es play a c ucial ole he e. Focusing new g ow h in he designa ed u ban cen es also p ese es ex- is ing single- amily neighbou hoods, as one local planne poin ed ou , which equen ly is a majo conce n in No h Ame ica. The planne easoned ha ins ead o ede eloping single- amily neighbou hoods a medium-densi y (3-8 s o- ies), ci ies a e abso bing a lo o new g ow h in high- ise apa men buildings in he u ban cen es. This de elopmen has no been wi hou i s downsides (Peck/Siemia ycki/Wyly 2014). Fo ins ance, some o he new high- ise apa men s mos ly con ain condominiums (Eigen umswohnungen)and ha e eplaced olde buildings wi h many en al uni s. This has con ibu ed o he affo dabili y p oblems which Me o Vancou e is now ying o add ess. In e es ingly, mos ci ies chose o designa e exis ing e ail loca ions, ini ially au o-o ien ed indoo malls o s ip malls wi h an excess o su ace pa king, as u ban cen es. The new high- ises a e buil on access pa king. Cu en ly, he u ban cen es a e apidly ans o ming o high- ise esiden ial and office de elopmen . O e all in he Me o Vancou e egion a ea, 75 o 80% o g ow h occu s h ough ede elopmen and in ensifica ion. Abou 20% is on g eenfields inside he u ban a ea (expe in e iew). 4.2 Case 2: S u ga egion Spa ial planning in Ge many is conside ed a sha ed es- ponsibili y among all le els o go e nmen (local, egional, s a e, and na ional). By unc ionally sepa a ing he espon- sibili ies, each le el has dis inc and clea ly defined powe s (Eu opean Commission 1997: 40; Tu owski 2005: 895–897; Schmid /Buehle 2007: 57). The p ima y ole o he ed- 12 B i ish Columbia Local Go e nmen Ac 2018, Sec ion 429, pa a- g aph 2. 684 Raum o schung und Raumo dnung | Spa ial Resea ch and Planning (2022) 80/6: 678–693 Spa ial policies o g ow h managemen in me opoli an egions. A compa ison o U.S. Ame ican, Canadian and ... e al legisla u e is o p o ide a cohe en legal amewo k o planning ac oss he coun y o ensu e legal consis ency and p edic abili y o p ope y owne s (Goppel 2005: 562; Schmid /Buehle 2007: 57; S a k 2009: 44). Fede al laws a e hen filled in by s a e laws and egional policies, inc e- men ally becoming mo e specific. The local le el ac s as he implemen e by adminis e ing zoning and building pe mi s as well as by de e mining sui able si es o ( e)de elopmen . The egional le el p o ides a place o coo dina ion among local, s a e, and a ious sec o al agencies on he spa ial de- elopmen o he egion (Fü s 2010: 15–20; Schmi z 2005: 965). The egional le el does no usually ha e i s own laye o go e nmen bu is a he o ganised as a unc ional laye . Regional planning o ganisa ions a e equen ly s uc u ed as councils o go e nmen in which communi ies come o- ge he o plan (Schmi z 2005: 965; Falk 2006: 97; Schmid / Buehle 2007: 59; Fü s 2010: 96–97). The S u ga egion is go e ned by a egional council called Ve band Region S u ga (VRS). VRS p epa es he Regional G ow h S a egy o 178 local ju isdic ions in fi e coun ies, unde Ge man ede al law. The boa d o he VRS is elec ed by o e s as a egional pa liamen wi h 80 e- gionally elec ed officials.13 The p ima y esponsibili y o he VRS unde ede al and s a e law is spa ial planning, which includes he p epa a ion o he Regional G ow h S a egy (Regionalplan)14 o he S u ga egion. Besides i s egional planning unc ion, he VRS is also esponsible o open space planning, anspo a ion planning, was e ma- nagemen , economic de elopmen , and ou ism ma ke ing.15 In i s esponsibili y o spa ial planning, VRS p epa es he Regional G ow h S a egy in collabo a ion wi h communi- ies and he s a e go e nmen .16 The Regional G ow h S a - egy con ains maps and policies ega ding he u ban a ea, open spaces, and in as uc u e in he egion. When he Re- gional G ow h S a egy was de eloped in 2008 and 2009, 13 Gese z übe die E ich ung des Ve bands Region S u ga (GVRS), § 8 and § 12. 14 I mayseem odd a i s o ansla e a Ge man egional planning documen as Regional G ow h S a egy. As indica ed abo e, plan- ning e ms and concep s do no easily ansla e ac oss coun ies. S u ga ’s Regionalplan sha es an impo an simila i y wi h he Regional G ow h S a egies in Me o Vancou e and in he Puge Sound egion: namely, he h ee documen s all con ain spa ial policies in ended o s ee de elopmen pa e ns. As indica ed, he egional planning documen s ha e e y di e en legal impli- ca ions o local ac o s based on he planning laws. Fu he mo e, bo h No h Ame ican s a egies ha e a clea ocus on alloca ing u u e g ow h, while he ocus o he S u ga ’s Regionalplanis o ensu e sus ainable de elopmen pa e ns. 15 Gese z übe die E ich ung des Ve bands Region S u ga (GVRS),§3,pa ag aph1,no.1-7. 16 Bundes aumo dnungsgese z (ROG), § 7 and § 13. he egion was ac ually no planning o much g ow h as popula ion g ow h was s agnan a he ime. Hence, he Re- gional G ow h S a egy sugges ed a modes housing uni g ow h o 105,000 uni s be ween 2009 and 2020 (Ve band Region S u ga 2009: 55). Howe e , he S u ga egion has expe ienced an influx o popula ion o e he pas decade ha is ela ed o la ge companies in he egion, such as Daimle (Me cedes-Benz G oup). Ra he han p ojec ing popula ion g ow h, he Regional G ow h S a egy assumed ha la ge communi ies would g ow by 1.5% and smalle by 1% (Ve band Region S u ga 2009: 55). The spa ial policies in he S u ga egion a e au ho ised unde he Ge man Fede al Spa ial Planning Law (Raumo d- nungsgese z) and specified wi hin he Baden-Wü embe g s a e planning law. The ede al and s a e laws equi e he designa ion o open spaces, a p io i isa ion o de elopmen co ido s, and a classifica ion o communi ies. Fu he mo e, unde ede al and s a e law, VRS is pe mi ed o assign den- si y equi emen s o specific loca ions. The Ge man ede al planning sys em c ea es an in en ionally nes ed planning sys em in which spa ial policies become mo e specific wi h each le el o go e nmen (Heinen 2022). The equi emen s a he ede al le el a e in en ionally abs ac o allow dis- c e iona y decision-making a he s a e, egional, and local le els (S a k 2009: 44). The esponsibili y a he egional and local le els is hen o balance (abwägen) he diffe en needs wi h ega ds o he specific a ailable land and condi- ions (Runkel 2005: 1316; Fü s 2010: 16). The p o ec ion o open spaces is an example o he nes ed s uc u e o he Ge man planning sys em ha be- comes inc emen ally mo e specific. The ede al law defines gene al ules, he egional le el maps gene al pa e ns o open spaces, and he local le el de e mines he pa cel-based bounda ies o open spaces. The local decision is app o ed by he coun ies ha ensu e ha he local le el complies wi h he ede al and egional amewo ks. Open spaces, as a ca - ego y, a e defined and p o ec ed unde a ious EU, ede al, and s a e laws. In ac , na u al esou ces a e p o ec ed un- de he Ge man cons i u ion.17 Fo he pu poses o egional planning in he S u ga egion, open spaces include a eas designa ed o (1) p ese a ion o na u al habi a s, ag icul- u al land and o es s, (2) p oduc ion o esh wa e , (3) holding o wa e du ing flooding e en s, (4) p o ec ion o na u al esou ce ich a eas, and (5) ec ea ional pu poses (Ve band Region S u ga 2009: 149). Based on EU, ed- e al, s a e, and egional policies, hese diffe en a eas ha e an inhe en alue and unc ion o he people li ing wi hin a egion. 17 G undgese z ü die Bundes epublik Deu schland (GG), A ikel 20a. Raum o schung und Raumo dnung | Spa ial Resea ch and Planning (2022) 80/6: 678–693 685 D. Heinen,J. Knieling In con as o g ow h bounda ies in No h Ame ica, a cen- al ea u e o mapping open spaces is he non-pa cel-spe- cific bounda y: he egional and s a e maps a e no pa cel specific. The pa cel-specific maps a e nego ia ed du ing he p epa a ion o he local land use designa ion maps, mean- ing ha he bounda y be ween u ban uses and open spaces is uzzy in he Regional G ow h S a egy (Ve band Region S u ga 2009: XI). Wi hin he nego ia ed con ex , he e is some oom o disc e iona y decision-making when de e - mining pa cel-based bounda ies du ing he local land use designa ion planning p ocess. The e is a clea manda e in he ede al law o es ic housing and e ail de elopmen s in designa ed open spaces.18 Besides he es ic ing spa ial policies, a g ow h affi m- ing spa ial policy is he designa ion o p ima y de elop- men co ido s which a e cha ac e ised by ce ain in as uc- u e ea u es (leis ungs ähige Bandin as uk u ) such as e- quen ansi , ede al, and s a e highways, as well as la ge powe , wa e , sewe , and elecommunica ion lines (Ve band Region S u ga 2009: 34). The p ima y de elopmen co i- do s a e designa ed by he s a e go e nmen as well as by he egional planning o ganisa ion. The S u ga egion in en- ionally aligned i s p ima y de elopmen co ido s wi h he apid ansi ne wo k o ensu e ha new de elopmen s oc- cu in p oximi y o he apid ansi ne wo k. O he egions in Baden-Wü embe g gene ally align hei p ima y de el- opmen co ido s wi h he in e s a e sys em. The p ima y de elopmen co ido s guide subsequen in as uc u e in- es men s. Mul iple spa ial policies p io i ise communi ies along he p ima y de elopmen co ido s o new de elop- men s (Ve band Region S u ga 2009: 34). Pa icula ly, spa ial policies conce ned wi h he communi y classifica- ion align communi ies designa ed o mo e g ow h wi h he p ima y de elopmen co ido s. The alloca ion o new popula ion g ow h in he S u ga egion is based on a classifica ion o communi ies (Sys- em de Zen ale O e). The heo e ical unde pinning o he communi y classifica ion is Ch is alle ’s heo y o cen al places (Blai /Ca oll 2009: 52). This classifica ion is e- qui ed unde ede al law which specifies ha new g ow h should occu wi hin communi ies ha al eady ha e suffi- cien in as uc u e.19 Sufficien in as uc u e includes, o ins ance, anspo a ion, sewe , and wa e u ili ies bu also social se ices such as dayca e acili ies, hospi als, and schools. Based on he ede al law, each o he 16 s a es 18 Baugese zbuch (BauGB), § 35; wi h a ew excep ions o ag icul- u al and ene gy p oducing acili ies. Ano he laye o p o ec ion o ag icul u al land is added by he ede al ag icul u al law which only pe mi s a me s o sell hei land o o he a me s. 19 Bundes aumo dnungsgese z (ROG), § 2, pa ag aph 2, no. 2. in Ge many c ea es i s own kind o ypology (BMVBS 2012: 40). In Baden-Wü embe g, he s a e de elopmen plan specifies a ou - ie ed classifica ion sys em o com- muni ies (WM BW 2002: 20–21). Fi s ie and second ie communi ies a e designa ed by he s a e while he lowe anking communi ies ( hi d and ou h ie ) a e nego ia ed a he egional le el.20 The highes anking communi ies (fi s and second ie ) include ci ies such as he co e ci y o S u ga and la ge his o ically significan communi ies wi h employmen agglome a ions.21 These ou h ie com- muni ies a e called “low-g ow h communi ies” (Gemeinden besch änk au Eigenen wicklung). The low-g ow h commu- ni ies p ima ily consis o u al illages ac oss he egion. VRS c ea ed a g ow h a ge o such communi ies: low- g ow h communi ies a e pe mi ed o de elop new hous- ing equalling 1% o exis ing housing uni s e e y fi e yea s (Ve band Region S u ga 2009: 55). As mo e new de elopmen is pe mi ed in fi s , second, and hi d ie communi ies, sp awl could s ill ep esen a challenge. The e o e, VRS in oduced densi y equi e- men s. In close p oximi y o he apid ansi sys em, highe densi ies o housing (B u owohndich e) a e e- qui ed (Ve band Region S u ga 2009: 59–60). The den- si y equi emen s (Rich we e ü Siedlungsdich e) ange be ween 20 o 36 esiden s pe ac e (50-90 esiden s pe hec a e) depending on he communi y ype (Ve band Re- gion S u ga 2009: 56). The densi y equi emen is applied as an a e age o he communi y a la ge (BMVBS 2012: 21). This allows some flexibili y. The communi y does ha e he op ion o pe mi highe and lowe densi ies in a ious loca ions as long as he a e age equals he minimum densi y equi emen (Ve band Region S u ga 2009: 59–60). Gene ally, communi ies ha e he igh o de e mine he loca ions o new de elopmen wi hin he u banized a ea as long as hey comply wi h he spa ial policies in he Re- gional G ow h S a egy. Fo some communi ies, he Re- gional G ow h S a egy iden ifies “p e e ed loca ions o highe -densi y housing” (Schwe punk e des Wohnungsbaus) which a e usually in p oximi y o ansi . Rega dless o he ie o he communi y, he Regional G ow h S a egy pe - mi s (and equi es) a highe minimum densi y in such loca- ions (90 esiden s pe hec a e – 36 people pe ac e; Ve - band Region S u ga 2009: 56). These p e e ed loca ions a e iden ified a pa cel le el and no o he conflic ing uses a e pe missible (Ve band Region S u ga 2009: 139–141). All o he spa ial policies a e applied du ing he p epa a- ion o he local land use designa ions map by he munic- 20 Landesplanungsgese z Baden-Wü embe g, § 11, pa ag aph 3. 21 Landesplanungsgese z Baden-Wü embe g, § 7, pa ag aph 2, no. 2. 686 Raum o schung und Raumo dnung | Spa ial Resea ch and Planning (2022) 80/6: 678–693 Spa ial policies o g ow h managemen in me opoli an egions. A compa ison o U.S. Ame ican, Canadian and ... Ve band Region S u ga (2009): Regionalplan Region S u ga . S u ga . Tu owski, G. (2005): Raumplanung (Gesam planung): In: ARL – Akademie ü Raum o schung und Landespla- nung (ed.): Handwö e buch de Raumo dnung. Han- no e , 893–898. Wei z, J. (2012): G ow h Managemen in he Uni ed S a es, 2000-2010: A Decennial Re iew and Syn hesis. In: Jou - nal o Planning Li e a u e 27, 4, 394–433. h ps://doi. o g/10.1177/0885412212451030 Hie s eh eine Anzeige. K Wiche n, P.H. (2004): Me opoli an Go e nance in Canada: The 1990s. In: Pha es, D. (ed.): Me opoli an Go e n- ance wi hou Me opoli an Go e nmen ? Alde sho , 34–54. WM BW – Wi scha sminis e ium Baden-Wü embe g (ed.) (2002): Landesen wicklungsplan Baden-Wü em- be g 2002. S u ga .