Spatial Planning Outcome Assessment in International Comparison

International comparative spatial planning research usually focuses on entire states and emphasises institutional aspects. Studies that analyse the regional diversity of spatial planning as well as its implementation or governance including local context are lacking. Additionally, many studies use quantitative measures to assess spatial planning outcomes from a conformance perspective. Spatial planning has often been criticised for having an implementation deficit. In this chapter, we propose a novel qualitative framework to better understand and compare spatial planning processes and outcomes, which uses the local context, potential governance capacities and actors’ practices to compare intentions and outcomes of spatial planning. We apply the framework to three specific planning cases in Switzerland and Germany. Our findings show that the framework helps to better understand how planning outcomes come about and why they (do not) match planning intentions. While our framework enables comparison of spatial planning practice, researchers must interpret comparison results prudently to avoid generalisations. Our framework contributes to international comparative spatial planning research in three ways: 1) to compare the implementation of spatial planning instruments that aim to control the same issue within several regions or countries; 2) to better understand individual planning cases and planning processes and to propose case-specific and context-sensitive recommendations for spatial planning practice; 3) to assess the success of spatial planning practices. Besides research and practice, teachers could use our framework to discuss spatial planning case studies with students in a comparative way.