**1. Introduction**

Spatial development as a process focuses on decisions and activities related to the coordination and spatial distribution of land-use. A spatial planning system conceptually characterises "the ensemble of territorial governance arrangements that seek to shape patterns of spatial development in particular places" [1]. However, when it comes to spatial development practice, the desire to achieve win-win outcomes from spatial planning poses a substantial challenge [2]. Such outcomes are still rare in the real world of planning where difficult choices have to be made to the detriment of win-win values [3,4]. Many spatial planning studies provide detailed research outcomes in the context of publicly controlled planning [5]. Thus, spatial planning may more appropriately be concerned with the planning of development, involving substantial changes and responding to questions of what changes should be made, how substantial those changes are, and comparing them to an existing situation. Accordingly, planning aims at feasible solutions for identified needs and problems. These solutions should be analysed and evaluated before making binding decisions and engaging in their implementation [5] (pp. 32–38). Rational assumptions in planning support the optimisation of the decision-making process that considers choices between different values and existing uncertainties as well as circumstances and alternatives. However, based on this rational reasoning, the planning process also demands mutual discussions by the involved stakeholders. The strategy of "collaborative rationality" proposes solutions for wicked problems in planning, thus focusing on the characteristics

**Citation:** Auzins, A.; Chigbu, U.E. Values-Led Planning Approach in Spatial Development: A Methodology. *Land* **2021**, *10*, 461. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/land10050461

Academic Editor: Adrianos Retalis

Received: 30 March 2021 Accepted: 23 April 2021 Published: 26 April 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

of a collaborative and rational planning process which is inspired more by Habermas's concept of communicative rationality than by scientistic planning [6].

The assessment of shared/social values for ecosystem and landscape services and sustainability has been widely discussed in the scientific literature in recent years [7–15]. An empirical study demonstrates that the boundaries between instrumental and deliberative paradigms are often vague and suggests integrating some qualities of both [7]. Proposing the framework and classification of values, Kenter et al. (2015) conceptualised the dynamic interplay between shared/social and individual values as well as emphasised the importance of shared/social values for decision making [8]. In this regard, VLP primarily contains (1) group values (within valuation) where values are expressed by a group of stakeholders and (2) deliberated values where values are an outcome of a deliberative process. Kenter et al. (2016) provided arguments that values and preferences for ecosystem services need to be generated through a process of deliberation and learning [9]. They also proposed a new theoretical model for deliberative valuation that enables more effective integration of social learning and plural knowledge and values in valuation and decision making. Shared values can be deliberated through formal and informal processes where individuals may separate their personal preferences from a "broader metanarrative about what values ought to be shared" [10]. The proposed framework by Connor and Kenter (2019) provides an opportunity to bridge and reconcile the different types of values through deliberations—intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values [11]. Garcia-Martin et al. (2017) demonstrated a European perspective on landscape values perceived by local stakeholders, the patterns in the spatial distribution of values, and their connection to different socio-economic backgrounds and landscape characteristics [12]. Fagerholm et al. (2019), presenting an assessment of ecosystem services benefits, provided argumentation on the links from services to benefits and from benefits to different types of values [13]. Keller and Backhaus (2020) used the term landscape instead of ecosystem to underline the multiple dimensions of the landscape-services approach besides ecological issues. They defined landscape services, emphasising the benefits of landscape qualities for individuals and society [14]. Exploring drivers and processes of European landscape change, Van der Sluis et al. (2019) referred to the framework that shows the landscape as a socialecological system providing landscape services for the people [15] (p. 459). Tiboni et al. (2020), promoting and testing a methodology to analyse the effects of urban regeneration, identified how different urban operations may contribute to creating public value. They assessed various possible development scenarios and compared them with the baseline of the current situation [16].

Thus, previous studies provided arguments that a planning process has to be based on assessed values—a reason why this study focuses on a methodology for a values-led planning (VLP) approach to support spatial development. It has been affirmed that the "introduction of VLP approach based on consolidated new knowledge from stakeholders' experience and empirical evidence will help better understand and guide the relevant processes and their effects in specific territories based on (1) the identified values as an outcome of experts' work and (2) the attitudes from stakeholders' preferences concerning these values" [17] (p. 281). Therefore, a VLP approach is concerned with the "evaluation and planning–implementation concept" and consequent principles. It aims to balance mainly the interests of environmental protection and new development. The usefulness of the VLP approach is found in dynamics and potential changes in land-use and its values. Practically, "the potential for further spatial development should be assessed and then supported by binding decisions" [18].

In the European context, research on spatial planning practices have been addressed from different planning cultures. Some scientific contributions clearly distinguish between planning systems and planning cultures [19]. Research on spatial planning systems and planning cultures in Europe distinguished both and associated a planning culture with the "underlying shared values, norms, and beliefs of the planning community or the societal environment that affect planning practices" [20] (p. 26). This study asserts that it is

difficult to dissociate shared values entirely from approaches to planning. This assertion is both logical and practical because the cultural features of the country influence the planning system in each country. For instance, village renewal—a methodology-based programme for spatial planning in various European countries—is done differently in Germany compared to other European countries [21]. The difference lies in the way the shared values in different countries are shaped. This is why Auzin, š (2018) argued that "planning practices inherent to the system cannot be drawn from a comparison of legaladministrative framework conditions alone. Therefore, the outcome from the comparative analysis of planning practices (changes in cultures) is essential rather than of planning systems, which are only represented by hierarchies, artefacts, and institutional settings" [22] (p. 2). European comparative studies reveal the trends and directions in the evolution of spatial planning systems and territorial governance as well as the design of new typologies in Europe. This has led to the revision of EU policies and national spatial planning and territorial governance, focusing on synergies and contradictions between both [23]. Crossfertilisation between the EU cohesion policy and spatial planning practice also has recently been on European planning communities' agenda [24].

As the concern of this study is the embrace of assessed values in planning, it proposes a methodology. Methodology development in the context of this study emphasises applicable techniques and guiding recommendations for introducing a VLP approach into land-management practice. This is especially concerned with "the science and practice related to the conceptualisation, design, implementation, and evaluation" of land-based interventions "with the purpose to improve the quality of life and the resilience of livelihoods in a responsible, effective, efficient, consensual, and smart manner" [25] (p. 66). This means engaging in analytical research and considering the consolidated outcome of spatial development case studies as well as focusing on stakeholders' involvement in the planning processes. It also means finding new ways to advance values in planning through proposed techniques. Going forward, this study is organized into five sections. Section 2 specifies the approach to this study. As part of framing the methodology, Section 3 presents the theoretical perspective of values-led approaches. In addition, Section 3 answers the question about why values matter in spatial planning by using Rokeach's theory of values to explain the values-led approach in planning. Section 4 frames the path to a methodology for the VLP approach in spatial development. Finally, Section 5 provides a conclusion on the way forward to support spatial planning practices.
