Complementarity Between Statutory and Strategic Planning in Urban Regeneration Under EU Cohesion Policy—Lessons from the Spanish Experience

Abstract

The European Union (EU) has been identified as a leading stakeholder relating to urban regeneration. In cases such as Spain, on which this research focuses, the EU influence has resulted in an understanding of urban regeneration as a policy of strategic nature. The literature on the urban dimension of regeneration has reinforced the need to implement strategic and statutory complementarity in urban transformation to address the complex physical problems of vulnerable urban areas. This work focuses on this policy issue using a qualitative methodology based on a literature review and the analysis of planning documents through the storyline analysis tool. The research identifies that under the urban EU Cohesion Policy (CP) 2014–2020, only 4 out of 28 integrated sustainable urban development strategies in Spain implemented the urban regeneration strategic approach in complementarity with statutory instruments. This has led to regeneration projects with restricted capacity to address the physical problems identified, a fact that perpetuates the disadvantage of the neighbourhoods where it operated and limits the efficiency of EU funding. The results highlight the value of reviewing urban instruments under the CP, advancing towards a vision in which statutory/strategic approaches work in complementarity in the post-2027 period.

1. Introduction

The theory and practice of urban regeneration comprise different approaches for urban transformation, varying in their scope and purpose [1]. The literature has argued that “urban regeneration” is a polysemic ambiguous term (e.g., [2,3]), which is both difficult to define [4] and characterized differently across Europe [5,6]. Urban regeneration is predominantly led by local administrations and funded by supranational, national, regional, and/or local organizations, together with private investment and (in some cases) social actors. Within these frameworks, municipal governments implement strategies to improve neighbourhoods marked by decline and vulnerability [7], with the intention of offering improvement opportunities [1]. Over the last three decades, the EU has emerged as a key actor in relation to urban regeneration [8,9].

The literature on the Europeanization of Member States’ urban policies has studied the EU’s influence on national contexts [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17], demonstrating that the EU has influenced Member States’ urban policy through (i) a conceptual framework based on EU Urban Acquis shared principles; (ii) Cohesion Policy (CP) funding to implement regeneration projects; and (iii) programmes to boost benchmarking and city networks. Consequently, the EU’s agenda and discourse setting [18] have determined the urban regeneration of Member States, which have gradually adopted EU “formal and informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ‘ways of doing things’ and shared beliefs and norms” [19] (p. 30) that influence the genealogy, scope, priorities, and results of their regeneration instruments. The European Commission (EC) does not have responsibility for urban issues, as “the competences for spatial planning lie at national, or even sub-national or local level” [18] (p.1). Therefore, urban regeneration under CP instruments has necessarily operated through a strategic (voluntary) urban approach boosted by the allocation of economic resources. This EU policy promotes the non-statutory character of planning in contrast to traditional mandatory and coercive policy tools [20].

The strategic planning paradigm emerged during a period in which new ways were examined to address urban problems [21] in a scene in which traditional planning tools were considered insufficient to tackle contemporary urban challenges and unfit to govern processes of urban transformation [22]. Strategic planning is defined by Healey as “a social process through which a range of people in diverse institutional relations and positions come together to design plan-making processes and develop contents and strategies for the management of spatial change” [23] (p. 5). The rise of this planning practice is framed in the communicative turn in urban planning. It is characterized by a voluntary and participative nature that uses open and collaborative governance arrangements on the base of the construction of local representative partnerships to govern urban change. Strategic planning takes place outside the normative planning system, which provides strategic planning tools with the capacity to adapt to change and uncertainty and to boost innovation in planning practices, “rarely possible in regulatory planning orthodoxy” [20].

While the adoption of the strategic approach has allowed the EC to address vulnerability in EU cities, it has also permeated the practice of some Member States, leading to an idea of urban regeneration as a policy of “only” a strategic nature, highly related on what has been conceptualized as “soft planning” during a time of “soft turn” [20]. Specifically, this has taken place in national contexts that do not have (or did not have) a national urban policy with the capacity to “complement” EU influence, or countries that the literature has called “policy-takers” [17]. Analysis of CP urban regeneration instruments allows us to identify that this approach has created a duality among strategic regeneration and statutory regeneration in countries such as Portugal [24], Spain [25], and Poland [26]. However, the theory and practice of urban regeneration shows that the complementarity between these two approaches is crucial in addressing existing city’s current problems [27]. This is because the strategic approach allows for a more development-led path that aims to intervene more directly, coherently, and selectively in social reality and development [28,29], while statutory instruments allow implementing local social sustainability goals [30], being considered as “products not merely of technical evaluation but rather of conflict and compromise between those interests most directly concerned with land use and environmental change” [31] (p. 153). The statutory approach is necessary to undertake the land-use and morphological changes required for the regeneration of distressed urban areas. The importance of integrating these two visions in urban regeneration arose, for example, in the debate around what has been termed as “Integrated Planning” in the UK [32]. In that framework, Lang [33] highlighted the relevance of underlining the complementarity between both approaches: “successful urban regeneration requires integrated physical, economic and social improvement to be achieved; and achieved within the regulatory framework of the development (statutory) plan” (p. 43).

A review of the literature on the duality between statutory and strategic planning identifies that it has focused on the field of urban redevelopment, urban renewal, physical regeneration, or property-led regeneration. EU urban regeneration and its effects on the Member States have not been addressed. This is a significant policy domain because, as funded by Cohesion Policy, EU urban regeneration focuses necessarily on social and territorial cohesion by acting in the most vulnerable urban areas in contrast to transformation visions that boost property-led regeneration and the urban renewal of brownfields. This work aims to fill the gap on the potential complementarity between the strategic and statutory approaches in the urban regeneration action implemented under EU Cohesion Policy in the recent period.

In that context, municipalities tend to put into place EU regeneration instruments that assume a strategic approach only, renouncing a physical transformation, even when it is necessary. In these cases, the physical dimension is only addressed through “tactical urbanism” because in-depth physical transformation entails putting into place complementary normative planning instruments that require longer administrative and implementation periods. All this is related to a perception of strategic planning as in contraposition to the limits and pitfalls of traditional statutory planning [34]: statutory instruments’ longer execution periods do not align with the 7-year cycles of the CP phases in which EU regeneration instruments need to be implemented. Moreover, statutory instruments involve a level of administrative and technical complexity that makes it more difficult to manage EU instruments simultaneously (particularly for medium- and small-sized cities). Institutional capacity emerges as critical concerning the implementation of a complementary statutory-strategic approach.

In the Spanish case, in which we focus this study, we have identified that only 4 out of 28 integrated sustainable urban development strategies (ISUD strategies developed in the period 2014–2020 under the CP with an urban regeneration view—EDUSI, in Spanish) applied strategic urban regeneration in complementarity with normative instruments for neighbourhoods’ physical transformation. This result identifies a policy issue to be addressed by the EU urban agenda. In the current CP period, the urban dimension has been strengthened with an increase from 5% to 8% of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) at the national level dedicated to sustainable urban development [35]. Because of the importance of using CP funding effectively and boosting capacity in national and local contexts [36,37] to achieve domestic and EU objectives, it is worth redirecting the CP’s urban axis towards a vision in which the strategic and statutory approaches are considered explicitly complementary for urban regeneration. As mentioned, this policy problem is yet to be addressed in the literature about the Europeanization of national urban policies and contradicts EU policy guidelines. In fact, the New Leipzig Charter [38] has a section entitled “active and strategic land policy and land use planning”, which focuses on the importance of adopting a vision in which both approaches are complementary to “ensure resilient and long-term development” (p. 8). Further, the literature has highlighted the need to enhance the statutory approach in urban regeneration instruments to avoid the strategic approach’s deregulation risks [39] and the “neoliberal drift” in regeneration projects.

This study addresses this issue by focusing on Spain, an EU Member State in which EU urban policy has exerted a significant influence over the last three decades and the only one in which the EU urban regeneration method (the “URBAN method”) has been implemented without interruption from 1994 to date. In Spain, the EU strategic conceptualization of urban regeneration has determined the evolution of this policy field and limited its impact due to failure to act in the physical domain of urban deprivation (through statutory instruments), even when it is considered necessary. The strategic assumption of urban regeneration in the country can be explained by the lack of a national urban policy until 2019. In this “policy vacuum”, the urban policy of the EU has exerted a pregnant influence, transposing its policy assumptions and proposals to the national, regional, and local regeneration frameworks. A similar influence can be identified in other EU countries that have developed their urban national policies only recently and present a planning system similar to the Spanish one. This is the case in Portugal [24] and Poland [26]. These cases contrast with regeneration policies present in countries with a national urban policy from the 1980s, such as France. In this Member State, EU influence has been “filtered” on the base of national priorities, mechanisms, and approaches, maintaining and even reinforcing in some periods the implementation of planning instruments in coordination with strategic ones to face the problems of vulnerable neighbourhoods (which has allowed for addressing the physical problems of the peripheries). The findings of this study are particularly relevant for the national frameworks that, as in Spain, are still shaping their national urban policy. In those contexts, the influential urban axis of Cohesion Policy has the potential to give visibility to the policy issue at stake and provide mechanisms and instruments that incentivize the complementarity of statutory and strategic approaches to implement integrated urban regeneration.

The main objective of this research is to understand if and how urban regeneration instruments under the CP in Spain have addressed the physical transformation of deprived urban areas in complementarity with statutory planning instruments during 2014–2020.

Following this introduction, Part 2 introduces the conceptual framework of the study, focusing on the physical transformation of vulnerable neighbourhoods in the context of integrated urban regeneration instruments under the CP; Part 3 addresses the methodology; Part 4 contextualizes, analyses, and discusses EDUSI’s implementation in Spain in 2014–2020; while Part 5 presents the findings and provides policy recommendations.

2. Physical Transformation in EU Cohesion Policy Urban Instruments for the Integrated Regeneration of Vulnerable Areas

In the EU context, urban regeneration incorporates a broad social, economic, and territorial cohesion objective that differentiates it from other regeneration approaches that might better be described as redevelopment or urban renewal visions. This is because this EU policy field exists thanks to CP funding over time. In this context, urban regeneration can be understood as “a set of interventions that combine the physical rehabilitation of buildings, including their eventual renovation (demolition and construction of new buildings), with intervention on public space or on facilities, and with actions of a social, economic or environmental nature on an urban area in which converge urban, social and economic conditions markedly unfavorable with respect to the average conditions (…)” [7] (p. 152). As this definition proposes, in this work vulnerability is understood as the concentration of unfavourable multi-faceted conditions in a neighbourhood. Recently, a guide on sustainable urban development strategies produced by the Joint Research Center [40] of the European Commission pointed out that this approach is still present in the urban instruments funded by the Cohesion Policy as they maintain a clear link with the anti-poverty orientation of the regeneration instruments launched by the EU in the past (p. 39), particularly of the URBAN Community Initiative and its mainstreaming in the urban axis of Cohesion Policy from 2007.

As with most definitions of urban regeneration (see, for example, [1]), the one provided above (influenced by the EU’s Urban Acquis) adopts an integrated approach by assigning a significant role to physical transformation along with social and economic measures to improve conditions in vulnerable or deprived areas. This approach can also be found in the definition provided by the Toledo Declaration that made urban regeneration an EU priority area [41]. The integrated approach builds on urbanism’s theory and practice that demonstrated that the physical domain determines the environmental and spatial quality of places [42], social behaviour, social life and cohesion [43], the relationship that residents have with the places in which they live (including the development of a sense of belonging), the perceived security of places [44], and economic performance [45]. Consequently, action in the physical domain is crucial to achieving social and economic objectives within urban regeneration instruments. Morphology and neighbourhoods’ urban space determine their social and economic dynamics and quality of life of residents.

The vulnerable urban areas’ literature argues that a key reason explaining why the “cycle of poverty” is reproduced is due to the persistence of negative physical factors related to the urban form and planning decisions [46]. Negative physical factors in public spaces not only reproduce a dysfunctional and sometimes hostile environment but also negative social behaviour [47]; insufficient social connection and community capacity [48] and social and civic life [49]; and a lack of economic dynamism. These factors constrain any action undertaken by regeneration strategies. In other cases, negative physical factors affect residents’ health (for example, in the case of buildings constructed with toxic materials or with insufficient thermal insulation, dense neighbourhoods with insufficient green areas, etc.). Cattaneo et al. argue that vulnerability is contextual and “strictly linked to the inappropriateness of the built environment” [50]. Consequently, any holistic solution to distressed urban areas needs to physically improve the urban environment, morphology, and urban scene to boost social connectedness and a sense of community.

Further, physical transformation, in the urban regeneration context, is key today in addressing some of Europe’s most problematic urban challenges and to achieve the ambitious European Green Deal (EGD) Objectives. This is the case of, for example, urban densification processes to avoid land consumption; the total or partial replacement of buildings to improve urban tissues and morphological configurations; the reconfiguration of public space to enhance its functionality and connectivity; the perception of security related to the spatial configuration of public space; the beauty of the urban scene; the modification of land use to reinforce urban complexity and introduce public facilities; and the elimination of barriers that segregate neighbourhoods, along with other challenges. Moreover, physical transformation is increasingly important within de-growth, re-naturalization, and climate adaptation perspectives for the equitable resilience that many European cities are adopting in the “polycrisis” [51] related to the built environment [52]. Acknowledging this, the physical dimension of urban regeneration (in close association with social, ecologic, economic, and governance dimensions) can be a way forward in addressing urban vulnerability at neighbourhood level.

In the context of the CP, urban regeneration projects can facilitate the implementation of spatial policy responses to the aforementioned challenges [52], providing essential and effective solutions for more resilient cities [53] and vulnerable neighbourhoods. These factors highlight that the statutory physical transformation (based on justified interventions guided by the common good) of vulnerable urban areas should be incentivized in complementarity with the urban regeneration strategies that are funded by the CP. To achieve this vision, it is necessary to implement statutory instruments along with strategic ones. This is crucial in the framework of the EU’s urban regeneration agenda, which needs to be reviewed and reinforced to be fully effective in urban areas under the EGD’s sustainable vision to avoid leaving territories and social groups behind.

3. Methodology

This study employs a mixed methodology approach that integrates qualitative and graphic analysis (based on maps, graphics, and aerial views). The methodology started with the construction of a conceptual framework (see Parts 1 and 2). This involved a review of the literature on the relevance of addressing the physical dimension of urban decay through integrated regeneration projects that was intersected with the study of EU policy documents relevant to this paper (policy documents related to the urban axis of Cohesion Policy) and the literature on the complementarity among statutory and strategic planning (on urban regeneration). To develop the second step, the research adopted a classic perspective on public policy analysis: we identified the case study, focusing on the integrated sustainable urban development strategies—EDUSI—that have adopted an approach to urban regeneration in Spain (see Part 1 for the justification for selecting the Spanish case) in the Cohesion Policy period of 2014–2020. The study focuses on the 28 EDUSIs (out of 173) that implemented an urban regeneration approach. These are referred to in this study as “urban regeneration EDUSI” (UR-EDUSI). The integration of the result of the first step into the second allowed us to operationalize four analytical categories:

• “Main urban problem(s)” tackled by the UR-EDUSIs (as mentioned in the diagnosis) and relevance of the physical dimension within the strategy;
• Main “physical” problems identified by the diagnosis vs. response provided. Identification of measures integrated in the UR-EDUSIs and analysis of policy consistency (comparing problems vs. solutions);
• Identification of the complementarity of the UR-EDUSI strategic approach with an urban planning (statutory) instrument;
• Integration of innovation and potential identification of emerging planning practices in the way in which statutory and strategic planning approaches were integrated in UR-EDUSIs.

To develop the third step, we drew up a protocol aimed at obtaining and analysing the information concerning each UR-EDUSI on the base of the four analytical categories. This protocol was applied to the 28 UR-EDUSIs and was based on text analysis which involves “pulling apart the elements of texts (words, phrases, grammar, etc.) to gain an in-depth understanding of the “work” (...) that the texts and their authors are doing” [54] (p. 188). Because of the nature of the policy field under analysis, we aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the position adopted in each UR-EDUSI about the adoption (or not) of a complementary strategic and statutory planning approach and the capacity to induce innovative planning practices. This goal allowed for studying the information openly given by the UR-EDUSI documents (the main source of the information analysed within this analytical step) to identify the meanings embedded in the policy discourse developed by each of them concerning the issue at stake. The researchers implemented this approach through the storyline analysis tool, an inductive analysis of texts used in urban and regional planning research that allows for undertaking the qualitative analysis of policy and planning documents. This tool is useful for understanding the rationale of policies affecting the built environment because it identifies the assumptions underlying the choice of particular policy directions over others (p. 194).

As the fourth complementary step, we analysed the areas where the UR-EDUSIs operated through graphic analysis (see Annex). This task involved identifying and delimiting these areas (that were not always graphically represented in the analysed planning documents) and studying the urban fabric and configuration to understand the physical challenges and changes mentioned in the UR-EDUSI descriptive documents.

The information related to the four analytical categories was systematized in an Excel matrix on which the inductive analysis was carried out. This final step was followed by the discussion (Part 5). It achieves the research objectives and provides a set of policy recommendations considered significant in a period in which the vision and instruments for the EU’s post-2027 Cohesion Policy are being discussed and defined.

4. Contextualization of the Case Study: Urban Regeneration Instruments Within the Framework of Cohesion Policy 2014–2020 in Spain

A review of the literature on CP regeneration instruments since the 1980s in Spain has enabled us to centre on the policy issue addressed by this study: urban regeneration has been implemented while predominantly avoiding substantive physical transformation in the neighbourhoods where it has gone ahead, as this requires putting in place urban planning instruments that imply longer, complex administrative processes if compared to strategic instruments. The urban dimension of CP in Spain (implemented through the URBAN Community Initiative 1994–1999; the URBAN II Community Initiative 2000–2006; and the Iniciativa Urbana 2007–2013) has boosted the strategic approach to urban regeneration, placing it as the alternative to traditional urban planning instruments (of a regulatory nature) for physical transformation [25,55]. This policy behaviour is an effect of the Europeanisation of urban policies, and particularly of urban regeneration, that has not received political attention and is reproducing action in the existing city that fails to comprehensively address vulnerability. On this basis, physical problems in urban neighbourhoods are addressed mainly by traditional statutory instruments within the framework of sector-based actions (through Planes Especiales), while integrated urban regeneration is implemented on the basis of a strategic approach (particularly through the urban approach to CP as the country does not have a national policy on urban regeneration). This has been the case with only a few exceptions, including a relevant example of the urban regeneration of the La Mina neighbourhood in Sant Adrià de Besòs, developed through the Urban Community Initiative URBAN II (2000–2006) in complementarity with an urban planning tool [56]. This strategy entailed physical actions in the neighbourhood that improved its morphology and spatial configuration, the urban landscape, and connectivity, in close relation with social, educational, and economic measures. It constitutes an exception that has not been replicated in the period of 2007–2013 of Cohesion Policy in the country.

The Spanish case shows that urban regeneration instruments employed with this strategic approach have been skilfully implemented, a choice that has resulted in benefitting the effective development of urban regeneration strategies within the deadlines laid down by EU regulation. Nevertheless, on the other hand, it has prevented much-needed “small-scale” physical transformation to address spatial problems in vulnerable neighbourhoods.

As mentioned, the urban dimension of CP 2014–2020 has been implemented in Spain through the so-called EDUSIs. Following the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) regulation and the Commission Guidelines for action [57], the Spanish government launched three EDUSI tenders in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The Spanish cities (independently or in association) presented 608 applications to three calls launched by the Ministry of Economy. A total of 173 were selected and have been developed.

On the basis of the transposition of the EU guidelines, the EDUSI tenders enabled cities to adopt two different approaches to urban transformation: (i) acting on an area-based approach through a vision of urban regeneration and (ii) implementing interrelated projects for sustainable development, consistent with the vision for city development. In both cases, the strategies had to address economic, environmental, climate, demographic, and social challenges through a set of individual operations [58]. As mentioned, for this study, only the urban regeneration EDUSIs (UR-EDUSIs) are relevant. Figure 1 shows their geographical distribution.

As laid down for the EDUSI tenders (ibid.), the candidate municipalities (see Figure 1) had to produce a diagnosis of the whole city or functional area with the objective of identifying the most pressing urban problems. This included the production of a SWOT analysis. This step required identification of the area of action and the target population on the basis of indicators and qualitative social, demographic, economic, and environmental information. The invitations to tender also stipulated that the problems of the area selected had to be addressed through an implementation plan which included the actions to be funded. This study builds significantly on the inductive analysis of the EDUSI proposals drafted by the municipalities to access the tender (see Part 3). The 28 UR-EDUSIs share the intention of acting on an area that presents a relevant level of vulnerability through an integrated and area-based approach. The aim of this study is to identify if and to what extent these EDUSIs addressed urban regeneration in synchrony with actions in the physical domain implemented through statutory planning instruments.

5. Analysis of Results

To grasp the level of uptake of the UR-EDUSIs according to the research objective, we present and discuss the results of the analysis here.

5.1. Characterization of the UR-EDUSIs

The 28 UR-EDUSIs have been adopted in cities with very different profiles, introduced in four of the largest Spanish cities: Barcelona (1,613,393 inhabitants), Valencia (787,301), Seville (696,676), and Malaga (572,267). They have also been implemented in small towns: Conil de la Frontera (22,063), Calahorra (23,955), and San Roque (29,575). The population refers to the municipal registered figures as of January 2014. It is relevant to mention here that the UR-EDUSIs have mostly been developed in medium-sized cities (see Figure 2). The differences in terms of population reflect differences in municipal budgets and administrative and institutional capacity, which points to the flexibility of the EU urban regeneration method, applied to very different urban contexts, bearing in mind these differences within the invitations to tender so as to enable small cities to compete.

The UR-EDUSIs also differ significantly with regard to the target population. The city with the largest number of beneficiaries is Sevilla (149,865 beneficiaries), followed by Barcelona (114,014). The municipalities with the smallest population of beneficiaries are Logroño (593), followed by San Roque (1799), Conil de la Frontera (4209), and Calahorra (7075). The average number of beneficiaries per strategy (29,612) was significantly higher when compared with the earlier Iniciativa Urbana (2007–2013) which totalled 19,906. This has resulted in fewer economic resources per inhabitant. In general, the most populated cities operate in bigger areas, while the smaller municipalities tend to operate in smaller ones. The UR-EDUSIs have implemented their strategies within limited areas (see Figure 2). The biggest area was that of the Barcelona EDUSI (9.4 km²), followed by Alcalá de Henares (7.32 km²), Seville (6.59 km²), and Benalmádena (5.65 km²). All the other UR-EDUSIs have acted in areas under 5 km². The average surface area was 2.96 km² (while in the Iniciativa Urbana (2007–2013) it was 1.27 km²). In the case of Barcelona and Alcalá de Henares, the extensive surface areas are related to the regeneration of a city river. In the case of Seville, this concerns the delimitation of an area segregated from the rest of the city by traffic infrastructures and the river (also in this case, a stretch of the river is included). In the case of Benalmádena, the strategy focusses on the whole municipal area on the coast. The smaller areas covered by the UR-EDUSIs were that of Logroño (0.03 km²), followed by Algeciras (0.38 km²) and Conil de la Frontera (0.39 km²). These UR-EDUSIs have acted on homogeneous urban fabric in the city centres.

With regard to the urban fabric that the EDUSIs acted upon (see Supplementary Materials), five were implemented on the periphery, eight in the old city centre, nine in urban extensions undertaken in the last century (the so-called ensanches), and six in mixed urban areas (three in the old city centres + 20th century extensions; two in 20th century extensions + the periphery; and one on the periphery + industrial fabric). Action on the industrial fabric has been exceptional. The area where the UR-EDUSIs acted was clearly identified in 13 cases, while in the other 15 cases, the delimitations were based on descriptions or maps that do not define the limits. In order to be able to quantify the extension of the areas in which the EDUSIs operated, we undertook identification following the description mentioned earlier (see Part 3). In some cases, we needed to supplement this step with the analysis of graphics that were included by the municipalities in the documents reviewed or aerial views. In the 13 cases in which the delimitation was clear, this was provided on the basis of the identification of the streets that border the area and/or on the provision of quality maps. UR-EDUSIs delimit the areas on the basis of different criteria: the existence of infrastructure and a river (e.g., Salamanca), the administrative limits of the neighbourhoods (e.g., Barcelona), or the districts (e.g., Sevilla). Only in the cases where the UR-EDUSIs focus on small areas are they composed of homogeneous urban fabric. Most of them make up juxtaposed urban developments (see Supplementary Materials). Morphological homogeneity is not a delimitation criterion. In the same way, in general, the “sense of neighbourhood” is not considered for delimitation.

5.2. Main Problems Addressed by the UR-EDUSIs: Relevance of the Physical Problems on the Basis of the Diagnosis

This analysis identifies the most relevant problems addressed by the UR-EDUSIs. In all the cases, the municipalities proposed to implement the regeneration strategy in areas suffering from physical, environmental, social, and economic decline. This is justified in a specific part of the strategies’ documents (as requested by the tender).

The analysis of the 28 UR-EDUSIs shows that the most frequently mentioned problems faced by the regeneration strategies have to do with interrelated physical and social degradation, while the economic dimension is not often mentioned, nor is the governance issue included.

Regarding social issues, the most frequently mentioned problems are the following: an ageing population, excessive population density, population loss, arrival of unintegrated migrants, and a high unemployment rate. Many of these problems are the same as those mentioned by EU policy documents dating from the 1990s (e.g.: [59]). In the few cases in which the economic dimension is explicitly mentioned, the most often cited problem is the loss of local commercial fabric in the neighbourhoods (which also has a physical dimension, as it puts at risk the principle of the “city of proximity”). As mentioned, interrelated physical and social degradation arises as the most significant problem in the areas of action. It is relevant to point out that the strategies are able to identify problematic social trends on the basis of indicators’ series, while problems related with the physical/environmental dimension are not so well characterized. In general, the description of the physical problems is developed on the basis of sectoral information on traffic, quality and age of the existing buildings, existence of green areas, etc. without overall reflection on negative urban dynamics that affect quality of life. The study identified that the quality of the UR-EDUSI was improved regarding its ability to identify and address urban problems if compared with previous urban regeneration instruments under CP (Iniciativa Urbana (2007–2013), URBAN II, URBAN). This advancement is a result of the capacity achieved by those previous instruments. The diagnoses are sounder, particularly in the case of large and medium cities, and are based primarily on quantitative and regional indicators as well as Geographic Information Systems (GIS). In the case of smaller cities, municipalities struggle with holistic diagnosis. This limitation can be explained because many of them have not introduced GIS tools and techniques to manage land-based, social, and economic information. This is mentioned explicitly in the case of Benalmádena, whose UR-EDUSI points to this issue as a limitation of the strategy to identify the negative trends operating in its area. In general, municipalities do not mention their insufficient administrative and technical capacity to access EU funding; however, this limitation is present implicitly in all the UR-EDUSIs that operate in small municipalities, constituting a problem that should be addressed by future CP mechanisms operating in cities.

The most relevant physical problems mentioned by the strategies are the following: the physical segregation of the area from the rest of the city; old and deteriorated residential buildings that in some cases result in a high number of empty apartments; and insufficient green areas, transport and traffic problems, lack of facilities, and deterioration of urban heritage (buildings and natural elements, such as river beds). The UR-EDUSIs that operate in old city centres do not differ significantly from the UR-EDUSIs implemented in other kinds of urban fabric with regard to the identification of the main problems. For example, they do not mention problems related with urban heritage more frequently than the strategies adopted in 20th century extensions. Many strategies mention the problems of public space. This is positive, as the quality of public space is featured in the literature, along with the practice of urban regeneration, as one of the crucial elements to break the cycle of vulnerability in neighbourhoods (see Part 2).

UR-EDUSIs also mention environmental problems, however less frequently than the physical and social ones. The most frequently cited ones are air pollution and noise due to traffic and the presence of infrastructure (water treatment plants) or industrial areas that affect the quality of the air and produce bad odours. In general, the necessity of addressing adaptation to climatic change and the “greening” of neighbourhoods is not mentioned; albeit in some cases, the strategies introduce measures that will contribute to climate adaptation (particularly those that entail the consolidation or upgrading of green areas).

Considering the focus of this study, looking to the physical dimension, few UR-EDUSIs consider public space as social infrastructure on which it is vital to act to address inequalities [60] and enhance a sense of community. The absence of co-creation and participation as substantial approaches to physical transformation limit the transformative capacity of the interventions. In the same way, none of the strategies integrate bottom-up initiatives to activate public spaces or revitalize existing social facilities.

The analysis in this section shows that the main problems identified by the urban regeneration strategies studied were of an interrelated physical and social nature. This analytical step confirms the pertinence of this study, as it highlights the importance of complementarity between strategic and statutory planning when addressing the physical problems of disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The next section examines the actions proposed by municipalities to address their physical problems.

5.3. Response Given to the Physical Dimension by the UR-EDUSIs and Innovative Approach

This analysis has revealed that, in line with the importance of physical problems in diagnosis, all the strategies incorporate a significant physical/environmental dimension, to which they allocate substantial economic resources. The UR-EDUSIs that allocate the fewest resources are those of Estepona (29.3%), Algeciras (32%), Avilés (32.75%), and Alicante (35.5%). All EDUSI strategies allocate at least one-third of their budget to the physical dimension. San Cristóbal de La Laguna (77.5%) and Soria (77.5%) allocate the most resources to this end, resulting in strategies that include a large number of physical measures. The most frequent measures are those related to traffic, transport, and mobility. Twenty-six out of twenty-eight UR-EDUSIs propose action in these areas, focusing on fostering sustainable modes of mobility (walking and cycling); providing crosswalks and other measures to improve connectivity; setting up restricted traffic areas; creating intermodal pedestrian, cycling, and public transport facilities; designing dissuasive parking; and redesigning major traffic axes that constitute physical barriers. In some cases, mobility is also addressed as a means to improve citizens’ health (Calahorra and Puerto de Santa María).

Action in the public space is, in some cases, related to improved pedestrian mobility but also with returning land to the social function of public space to revitalize the city (Málaga, Conil), improve quality of life (Barcelona), or foster healthy living (Benalmádena). In general, action in the public space is understood on a sectoral basis operated through “independent” measures.

Many of the physical measures implemented are related to the creation or improvement of green areas (in 11 cases). Some UR-EDUSIs make the improvement of green areas a flagship action in their strategy (Salamanca, Alcalá de Henares, Huelva). Other physical measures frequently introduced in the UR-EDUSIs focus on existing public or residential buildings in order to improve their energy efficiency or heritage buildings to restore and locate new public facilities.

The study shows that even if the physical/environmental problems identified by the strategies are considered prominent and the budget allocated to address them is significant, only four UR-EDUSIs were developed in parallel with a statutory instrument to cover them.

The low number of UR-EDUSIs that address physical obsolescence through statutory instruments confirms the relevance of this study and reveals that even when problems related with the urban structure are identified, municipalities prefer to undertake strategic regeneration projects, avoiding the complex administrative and implementation processes of statutory instruments or developing them separately. This study also shows that innovative planning approaches or mechanisms have not been put into place to integrate action in the physical domain in the regeneration strategies for the neighbourhoods. The analysis of these EDUSIs has not identified emerging planning practices or drivers of change.

It is relevant to mention that all the UR-EDUSIs that have implemented complementarity with statutory instruments operate in large and medium-sized cities that possess administrative and technical capability and had participated in previous EU regeneration instruments (URBAN, URBAN II, or Iniciativa Urbana), thus already possessing experience in the management of EU funding devoted to regeneration. The institutional capacity gained during the implementation of previous instruments and the city size explain why these municipalities opted for complementarity-based implementation of the UR-EDUSIs (strategic) and the statutory planning instrument.

5.4. Integration of Urban Statutory Planning Instruments Based on Complementarity with the Strategic Approach of the EDUSIs

This study shows that even if the physical/environmental problems identified by the strategies are considered prominent and the budget allocated to address them is significant, only four UR-EDUSIs were developed in parallel with a statutory planning instrument to address them. These strategies are those of Huelva (statutory instrument: Plan Parcial y Proyecto de Urbanización del Parque Moret), Málaga (statutory instrument: Plan Especial de Reforma Interior del Centro de Málaga), Soria (statutory instrument: Plan Especial de Reforma Interior del Casco Histórico de Soria), and Valencia (statutory instrument: Plan Especial de Protección del Conjunto Histórico del Cabanyal-Canyamelar). The EDUSI for Logroño undertakes changes that require acting on the basis of statutory instruments, but in this case, it refers only to the urban plan of the city (Plan General) without providing a specific plan at the time when the UR-EDUSI was launched (see Figure 3).

It is worth mentioning that all the UR-EDUSIs that have been implemented through complementarity with statutory instruments operate in large and medium-sized cities with administrative and technical capability. The smaller city, Soria, is the capital of the province of Soria, which provides it with significant regeneration resources despite its size. All of these UR-EDUSIs had participated in previous EU regeneration instruments (URBAN, URBAN II, or Iniciativa Urbana), thus already possessing experience in the management of EU funding for regeneration projects. Three of these UR-EDUSIs are located in old city centres and one is located in a 20th-century extension (see Figure 3). Notably, none of the UR-EDUSIs operating in peripheral areas have implemented statutory instruments, despite the significant morphological and spatial problems of the peripheries of medium and large cities in the country, often related to spatial segregation due to urban barriers and a lack of functionality in the urban fabric and urban space.

In the case of Huelva, the statutory instrument (2003) is necessary to consolidate and improve connectivity in the Parque Moret. This large green area and its infrastructure will benefit both the neighbourhood and the whole city. Moreover, in this case, the statutory plan also gives rise to a new urban development that does not come under this UR-EDUSI. The statutory instrument launched in Málaga (2014) is necessary and consistent with the implementation of some of the UR-EDUSI measures. In the case of Soria, the statutory instrument (2014) creates synergies with the measures funded by the UR-EDUSI, resulting in a more walking-friendly old city centre and generally improved public spaces; better connection between green areas; the reuse of degraded areas; and the construction of new facilities in heritage buildings. In the case of Valencia, the statutory instrument (2016) pursues a similar objective to those of Málaga and Soria, playing an important role in achieving the transformative vision that is proposed by the UR-EDUSI.

The statutory instrument for Huelva was approved in 2003. It sets the basis on which the UR-EDUSI has operated to integrate new land uses geared towards revitalizing the neighbourhoods (particularly for the consolidation of a green area). The strategy does not mention that this EDUSI provides action to adapt the urban layout to climate change; nevertheless, the consolidation and connectivity of this green area is a relevant climatic step. Interestingly, only the statutory instruments of Huelva and Valencia implement physical-climate measures (even if climate adaptation is not directly pursued), actions to introduce new land use, or to adapt specific characteristics of existing buildings. In the case of Valencia, it is possible to identify a high level of synergy between the UR-EDUSI and the statutory instrument that reinforces the overall vision. This was achieved because both instruments were designed and launched as part of a unique strategy for the regeneration of the Cabanyal.

This study shows that in the four cases, the physical transformation carried out in complementarity by statutory (planes especiales) and strategic (UR-EDUSI) instruments allowed for a consistent integrated approach in the areas where action was taken and coherence between the main problems identified in the diagnosis and the proposed solutions. The analysis also reveals that the case of Valencia encountered difficulties in advancing the actions contained in the special plan and those proposed by the UR-EDUSI simultaneously. This limitation is related to the high level of ambition of the statutory plan and its necessary advancement as a condition to implement the “soft” measures of the UR-EDUSI.

6. Discussion

This study has identified that many of the most frequently mentioned physical problems in the UR-EDUSI diagnosis (see Section 5.2) require putting into place statutory planning instruments. Interestingly, the physical problems identified are similar to those listed by EU policy documents in the 1990s, and these are closely related with environmental problems. This suggests that the UR-EDUSI diagnoses have not identified as relevant emerging urban problems concerning the urban layout. The persistence of “traditional” physical problems of vulnerable neighbourhoods shows the insufficient attention they have received and the low introduction of climatic issues when the EUDSI calls were launched (particularly with regard to adaptation to climate change).

This analysis has identified that all the UR-EDUSIs assign at least one-third of their budget to the physical dimension, allocating most of it to actions related to traffic, transport, and mobility. Other areas addressed are quality of public space and improvement of green areas. Even if the physical/environmental problems identified by the strategies are considered prominent and the budget allocated to address them is significant, only four UR-EDUSIs were developed in parallel with a statutory instrument to address them. On the base of this result, UR-EDUSIs were characterized by a low level of consistency between the urban problems identified (requiring putting into place statutory instruments) and the instruments to be used (only strategic instruments in most cases). This lack of consistency was not taken into account as a negative criterion in the selection process of the EDUSI tender by the Spanish Ministry of Economy that launched the calls (see Part 4), introducing from the very beginning a limitation in the UR-EDUSIs to adopt an integrated approach to face the vulnerability of the areas in which they operated with comprehensive strategies. This result highlights the pertinence of explicitly stating in future calls the importance of implementing statutory planning instruments when the urban diagnosis identifies them as necessary. It also reveals the importance of considering this issue as a crucial element in the framework of the evaluation and selection of the strategies to be funded in the future instruments under the urban axis of CP in the country. The limitation related to the long implementation periods required by statutory instruments should be addressed in new calls by allowing projects to extend their implementation period. The development period for Cohesion Policy strategies is approximately seven years, coinciding with the Structural Funds’ budgetary periods. This timeframe is too short to implement the changes required for urban regeneration.

The four statutory instruments identified in complementarity with UR-EDUSIs are instituted by the municipalities with two main objectives: (i) to improve and consolidate a green area along with a new residential one (Huelva) and (ii) to improve the urban fabric of the city centres (Málaga, Soria) and of a “traditional” fishing neighbourhood (Valencia). The low number of UR-EDUSIs that address physical obsolescence through statutory instruments confirms the relevance of this study and reveals that even when problems related to the physical urban structure are identified, municipalities prefer to undertake strategic regeneration projects based on tactical urbanism, avoiding the complex administrative and implementation processes of statutory instruments. This study also shows that innovative planning approaches or mechanisms have not been put into place to integrate statutory action in the physical domain in the regeneration strategies for the neighbourhoods. The analysis has not identified emerging planning practices. This limitation contradicts the demonstrative nature of EU urban instruments and their vocation to test solutions that can be transferred to other cities and countries [9,10,12].

It is worth mentioning that all the UR-EDUSIs that have implemented complementarity with statutory instruments operated in large and medium-sized cities that possess institutional capacity as they participated in previous EU regeneration instruments (URBAN, URBAN II, or Iniciativa Urbana). Institutional capacity emerges as a crucial element to be reinforced in future calls under the urban axis of CP in the country, particularly for medium and small cities.

The challenges of advancing UR-EDUSIs and statutory plans simultaneously demonstrate the importance of creating frameworks for reflecting on the complementarity between strategic and statutory plans for urban regeneration in the Spanish context. This issue is significant because of the increasing relevance of strategic planning instruments and the perceived crisis of traditional statutory urban planning [61] in the country. This context underscores the importance of raising this issue in the EU debate on the future urban axis of CP, as a similar duality can be identified in other EU countries that, like Spain, have planning models based on building regulations, zoning, and codes [62] and that do not have an explicit national urban policy (or have only recently introduced it). This is the case of Italy, Greece, and Portugal. Eastern countries, with a different planning tradition, in which action on the existing city is becoming an important element [26], can also benefit from this reflection. All these countries need to undergo a “planning transition” to integrate the beneficial aspects of statutory planning with strategic instruments while avoiding its limitations. The urban axis of CP can play a role by introducing instruments that incentivize testing “new ways of doing” (as it did in the past) [55,63]. The launch of the new “Compact Cities Thematic Partnership” of the Urban Agenda for the EU in August 2025 to create more sustainable cities, which focused on the reuse of unused spaces, the densification and optimization of urban areas, and the limitation of growth to protect natural green spaces, provides a pertinent framework for reflecting on how future statutory-strategic instruments could make possible the urban regeneration of vulnerable EU neighbourhoods. Advancing this vision is a must to achieve the ambitious objectives of the EGD.

7. Conclusions

The study shows that regeneration through the instrument of urban CP 2014–2020 in Spain (the UR-EDUSIs) took place mostly without being backed up by regulatory planning instruments, even when the physical problems required solving through statutory planning. Many of these problems were pointed out in the municipalities’ diagnosis as the most relevant (along with social problems) in the areas at stake. These consisted of urban segregation, morphological and functional problems, and obsolete land and building use. Even if all the UR-EDUSIs addressed, first and foremost, physical problems and devoted significant economic resources to confront them, the statutory approach required to address them was not introduced in most of the regeneration strategies.

Only 4 out of 28 of these EDUSIs opted for complementarity with statutory instruments (existing or new), thus deploying the synergic transformative capacity of statutory and strategic planning to address urban decay. By doing so, they adopted a traditional approach to complementarity, without exploring new ways of addressing the coexistence of both visions. Thus, the visions they put into place did not result in innovative planning approaches, reproducing statutory planning limitations. The capacity of strategic planning to boost innovation in planning practices [20] was not exploited.

The “policy behaviour” identified in the call and design of the UR-EDUSIs constitutes a limitation for the implementation of the integrated approach required by the EU regulation governing the use of funding for sustainable urban development, leaving partially unaddressed a dimension of regeneration that is crucial to reverse recurrent urban vulnerability, as demonstrated by the experience of urban regeneration accumulated in Europe over the last three decades and pointed out by the literature [2,39,52,55]. This issue also leaves almost unexplored the capacity of statutory instruments focused upon physical transformation for the common good, working in synergy with strategic approaches to deliver social and regional cohesion in urban areas. In this regard, the study confirms the duality of the statutory and strategic approach reflected by the literature reviewed (Part 1), showing that it is also present in the theory and particularly in the practice of integrated urban regeneration funded under the urban axis of CP.

Observing the way in which the EDUSIs tackled urban decay through the lens of Europeanization, it is possible to identify a kind of “policy behaviour” that has reinforced the idea of urban regeneration as a field of “only strategic nature” in the view of Spanish “urban stakeholders” (particularly municipalities). This determines the future evolution of this policy area as eminently strategic and limits statutory transformation to improving urban morphology and the functionality of vulnerable areas to the terrain of sectoral and physical planning. By looking into this issue, it is possible to identify a driver towards what Saccomani [6] calls the involution of urban regeneration, a way of operationalizing urban transformation that denies the relevance of acting synergically on physical conditions or social and economic problems in underprivileged urban areas.

This study is based on the Spanish case, which is recognized as a limitation of its contribution to the analysis of the urban axis of Cohesion Policy (as it only focuses on one country) and a departing point to bring attention to a significant policy issue that needs to be addressed in other Member States with similar characteristics to the Spanish one. This study contributes to advancing knowledge on the policy issue under analysis and highlights the relevance to boost new research. This is particularly necessary in a context in which cities, and the regeneration of their vulnerable areas, emerge as crucial to advance in the transition required by the EGD leaving no one behind.

The results feed the debate on the transition that urban regeneration needs to undergo within planning and theory in general (see Part 1) and within CP in particular (see Part 2). Concerning the first, it confirms the predominance of strategic approaches over statutory ones in addressing the problems of vulnerable neighbourhoods, while integrated urban regeneration needs complementarity between them [27] to address land use for environmental and social change [42,43]. Secondly, EU policy documents such as the New Leipzig Charter advocate a combination of strategic and statutory approaches to address the challenges faced by urban European areas [38].

The results also feed the debate on the dual and sometimes controversial nature of urban regeneration of vulnerable urban areas at a time when statutory and strategic approaches need to explore new ways of operating together since, as highlighted by the literature debate, they provide the mechanisms and capability to deliver different ways of acting in the face of the multidimensional and increasingly complex challenges of European cities. Urban instruments under CP with the capacity to deliver innovation and give place to demonstrative and replicable action, such as the Urban Innovative Actions and URBACT, could provide the framework to test and incentivize the statutory-strategic regeneration approach. The new “Compact Cities Thematic Partnership” of the Urban Agenda for the EU can play a pertinent role in boosting reflection on the topic and mainstream its results.

To tackle the problems reported by municipalities in the diagnosis of their vulnerable areas, urban regeneration under CP needs to evolve by providing advanced policy mechanisms able to cope with interrelated but, at the same time, very different problems ranging from the very tangible of obsolete traditional physical infrastructures and lack of facilities and green areas to the intangible problems related to the sense of identity, the auto-stigmatization of vulnerable areas, the common good, and urban beauty. The New European Bauhaus (NEB) framework, launched by the European Commission in 2021 to foster sustainable solutions to transform the built environment, emerges as another operational framework to put into place calls that undertake this policy transformation in an innovative way with capacity to deliver results beyond CP.

To undertake this policy transition, CP needs to place the practical and theoretical issue outlined in Part 1 at the core of the reflection on how its urban dimension will evolve as a policy with the capacity to shape, modernize, and inspire ways of working in the Member States, as it did in the past [14,63]. In the current scene of uncertainty and the necessity to advance towards the EGD objectives, this vision emerges as a field that can bring innovation in planning practices at the EU scale by improving the capacity of municipalities to induce the adaptive transformation of their left-behind neighbourhoods.