*4.5. Towards an Application of the Proposed Methodology for the VLP Approach in Spatial Development*

To apply the proposed methodology, planners, including public authorities, land managers, and community leaders involved in spatial planning, must understand the diverse characteristics of values and how they can influence development outcomes negatively or positively.

In spatial planning, socio-economic, environmental, and institutional aspects of values and preferences of stakeholders embody *sustainability dimensions*. They can refer to futureoriented or historical changes. Therefore, the planning and implementation should form the necessary preconditions for sustainable use of land-related resources, thus reconciling spatial development interests with all dimensions or elements of values that apply within specific planning environments. For instance, the interests of preservation and revival of natural resources constitute environmentally significant ecological values. They may also be social values for people who are from a very environmentally aware society. These sorts of interests are primary in Europe but can be of secondary concern elsewhere. Irrespective of the geography of planning, some values are generally of basic interest to people globally. For instance, the values related to housing, work, and place improvements are known to be of primary interest in any form of spatial setting, e.g., urban, rural, or peri-urban. Therefore, it is essential to focus on ensuring that these primarily accepted values are handled as a matter of priority before secondary values. Doing this requires adopting effective strategies for tackling the challenges and approaches usually encountered in identifying, assessing, and discussing these values among involved stakeholders.

Furthermore, the review of governance styles and institutional settings, as well as sustainable development analysis, should be performed to grasp how complementary planning tools can support the process of formal spatial planning in practice without negating the importance of promoting values. Evidence-based knowledge of the "collaborative planning approach" [65] may support making binding decisions to promote consensus-building for the benefit of local society. Hypothetically, sustainable decisions based on harmonized values and preferences lead to "sustainable communities" [66]. Some arguments towards a "sustainable intensification" of land use emphasise the "management of growing pressure of human needs, while at the same time minimizing the impact on the environment" [67]. However, a new paradigm of sustainability towards a sustainable future rather than a sustainable development is becoming necessary. In this light, the sustainability aspects should focus on "how significantly human needs have to be diminished or changed for the impact on the environment and land-related resources to be the smallest possible" [18]. In the context of implementing the developed methodology for the VLP approach, we would point to it as a definition of sustainability challenge.

As the VLP approach does not replace formal (institutionalised) spatial planning but complements it, the implementation measures focus on informal (complimentary) tools, e.g., thematic plans, and its integration with formal planning tools (spatial development plans) through the planning process. *The framework for implementation of the VLP approach* is designed with three key elements of the VLP agenda and particularly targeted measures (in Table 3):


**Table 3.** The framework for the implementation of the VLP approach.



From the meetings with experts during comprehensive evidence gathering (CEG) and the workshops of stakeholders [27], some relevant *guiding suggestions to the VLP methodology* were derived. Thus, the VLP approach benefits society while the benefits justify the values, but the values ground the decision-making process. The approach should conceptually provide advantages for decision-making in land management. It is necessary to promote integration between sectoral policies, spatial planning, and land use. The introduction of the approach should enhance the cross-scale and cross-sectoral coherence between three interrelated land-use (land-use intensity driven by market mechanisms), spatial planning (land-use objectives and priorities determined through the planning process assessing environmental impact), and sectoral policies (restrictions and compensations due to the assessment of policy impact).

*Public participation* should be purposefully managed. The involvement of inhabitants should not be organised without a specific purpose and informed/explained agenda. The discussions have to be constructive and provided with arguments. The responsibility of parties (authorities or other bodies) about decision-making also has to be clear and declared, especially when the crucial issue is about the extent to which the outcome of a discussion is considered in a binding decision. The interests of participating parties/stakeholders can be different by their status and competencies. In the process of public participation and discussions, the differences cannot be so vivid. However, it would be interesting (even if it sounds quite utopic) to measure the interests by type of participants. The level of competence looks quite important to understand. However, a great deal depends on the provided information to the participants and its understanding by participants. The level of competence influences the quality of discussions and the ability to trade-offs. The public conflict has to be prevented/avoided due to the discourse of public discussions. The early involvement of participants helps to avoid conflicts. Thus, the participants are informed enough due to the discourse of the planning process but not only at the end of it. Otherwise, during the late phase of the planning process, the participants feel more like they are formally informed and provided with factual information but are not involved purposefully to contribute to the planning. Any participatory method has to fit its place and time. So-called thought leaders also have powerful roles to drive public opinion and changes. The establishment of forums of professionals as capable enough formations to initiate and manage discursive changes into particular fields also should be considered for improved planning and development. Particular tools may support participation and decision-making. However, the competence (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) of participating key stakeholders is very significant.
