**5. Conclusions**

This study has used evidence from the literature and CEG to create an understanding of (1) the relevance of values in spatial planning; (2) the concept of values-led approaches in planning; and (3) framed methodology for introducing a VLP approach in spatial development.

The study strove to implement the methodology because of the growing need in Europe and many parts of the world for new innovative ideas ensuring people-centred planning. The proposed methodology is relevant because it projects the importance of conducting spatial development to appeal beyond the mere coordination of activities and space. It embraces often neglected aspects of spatial planning and development concerning the values and preferences of the people whom the planning outcome should serve. It is a methodology that presents preconditions that, if followed, would ensure that stakeholders in a planning process would be able to decide consciously on how the outcome of planning can reflect their worldviews and their development needs. However, it is important to state that the methodology proposed in this study does not, in any way, suggest that all values are relevant for promotion in a planning process. It acknowledges that values evolve and are always in a state of flux, and not all values would lead to adequate spatial development outcomes. The methodology does not assume that values (as an intricate consideration in planning) are always clearly identified and assessed. Values do come with many problems or even create problems. For instance, values that promote gender inequality, racism, nepotism, spatial inequality, inequality in sexual orientations, and spatial or environmental injustice (to mention a few) would not promote a responsible VLP approach. Hence, while putting into operation the methodology proposed in this article, only values that promote good territorial governance and land management practice should be considered by spatial planners, communities, public authorities, and land managers.

This study is biased in favour of the European tradition of spatial planning. However, it is not peculiarly influenced by any specific country experience but rather by studies emanating from multiple European countries. Thus, the issue of adaptability in its application matters. This is why the study emphatically recommends an assessment of the planning environment and shared values as a core activity in facilitating the development of local communities and capitalising on professionalism (constructive attitudes) rather than general policies and mainstream planning to serve market-driven developments. If this is done in consideration of the objectives of the VLP approach, there is bound to be some successful outcome in spatial development. The key objectives should include but not be limited to: (1) more supportive and collaborative territorial governance as well as promoted informal institutions and organisational forms and (2) the building of trust through balancing of planning interests as well as increased cultural awareness, shared perception, and making the appropriate assumption of values and preferences.

For successful implementation of the proposed methodology for solutions to support further planning practices, the key recommendations should be organised into three directions: (1) improvements in institutional settings, organisation of planning process, and involvement; (2) integration of informal (complementary) planning tools into formal planning agenda; and (3) conceptualisation of public participation, collaboration, and deliberation. With these recommendations in place, the likelihood of embracing beneficial values through the VLP approach would be high.

**Author Contributions:** For this research article, conceptualization, A.A. and U.E.C.; methodology, A.A. and U.E.C.; validation, A.A. and U.E.C.; formal analysis, A.A.; investigation, A.A.; writing original draft preparation, AA. and U.E.C.; writing—review and editing, A.A. and U.E.C.; visualization, U.E.C.; funding acquisition, A.A. Authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund within the Activity 1.1.1.2 "Post-doctoral Research Aid" of the Specific Aid Objective 1.1.1 "To increase the research and innovative capacity of scientific institutions of Latvia and the ability to attract external financing, investing in human resources and infrastructure" of the Operational Programme "Growth and Employment" No. 1.1.1.2/VIAA/1/16/161.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
