Regional Planning, Land-Use Management, and Governance in German Metropolitan Regions—The Case of Rhine–Neckar Metropolitan Region
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Metropolitan Governance in Germany and Its Practice in the Rhine–Neckar Metropolitan Region
2.1. Definition of and Political Thinking behind the Metropolregion
- [Metropolitan governance] encompasses a broad range of institutional forms, regulatory strategies and governance projects—including, for instance, attempts to modify existing jurisdictional boundaries through annexation, merger or consolidation; proposals to establish supra- or inter-municipal agencies, councils, administrative districts or planning bodies; legal measures imposed by higher levels (such as federal government or the states) to regulate urban expansion; and a variety of intergovernmental and inter-organizational strategies to enhance cooperation and coordination among government agencies as well as between public and private institutions and actors [35] (p. 5).
2.2. The European Metropolitan Region Concept in Germany and Some Remarks
- Low–Low (LL) Situation: the EMRs in the LL situation are governed by organizations under private law. Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (GmbH), a form of limited liability company in Germany with uncomplicated stakeholders and foundations (cf. BMWK), was often used to promote specific regional projects in EMRs, such as Central Germany and Hamburg. These entities are commonly active in the economic and social spheres but have failed to integrate formal tools. Therefore, highly fragmented regional plans can easily be observed in these regions. We have attributed this to another possible reason, beyond the historical, through our literature review (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD report [57], also see Federwisch [58])—that is, their complicated cross-state territories. Boundaries, even at the state level, are argued to increase the difficulty in formulating public governance bodies and undertaking formal collective actions, regional planning, and land management.
- High–Low (HL) Situation: HL situation contains the EMRs with much simpler cross-state situations than in LL. Although the two groups share some similarities in terms of the type of governing body and the degree of formalization of governance structures, strong and uniform regional planning can only be found in core areas in some cases, such as Northwest, Hanover–Braunschweig–Göttingen–Wolfsburg, Nümberg, Munich, and Rhineland. This again reflects our previous argument concerning the impact of administrative fragmentation, where private-law-based governance bodies in the metropolitan region are more able to implement collective actions within federal states. In those public areas where formal (enforcement) enforcement is required, such as land management, settlement planning, and regional transport [18], the governance model of the HL situation appears to be less involved.
- Low–High (LH) Situation: LH situation contains a cluster of EMRs with practically opposing characteristics (e.g., Ruhr, Berlin–Brandenburg, Frankfurt/Rhine–Main, and Stuttgart) compared to the previous two groups. Dominated by public institutions (such as Verband, or joint departments), the private actors rarely participate in governance activities. By contrast, public actors are often activated by integrating formal instruments and contribute substantially to public fields, such as land management, infrastructure construction and open space protection [18]. Even in those EMRs facing challenges with respect to supra-regional governance, such as Berlin–Brandenburg and Rhine–Main, regional governance structures under public law have been shown to have advantages in promoting regional plans, at least in regional cores, and other cross-state cooperation [59].
- High–High (HH) Situation: Diller and Eichhorn [15] (p. 21) explained why the MRN could be justified as a separate situation, HH. Because this polycentric cross-state region is not only the first metropolitan region in Germany to form a direct link with spatial planning [60], but also the first region where important companies (e.g., BASF and SAP) have directly and permanently participated in strategic regional development [15]. Through our follow-up survey, it can be argued that these achievements are partly the result of the unique governmental setting. In Table 1 and the subsequent sections, the term “public–private partnership” is adopted in order to label the attributes of HH situation—the MRN—since associations under public law (Verband) and private law (Verein and GmbH) can be found in this region simultaneously and interactively [15]. Various regional collaborations in socio-economic and other fields also benefit from such a multi-actor governance structure, especially in public good management such as land, open space, and regional transport.
2.3. The Case of the Rhine–Neckar Metropolitan Region
3. Methods and Data Collection
- The first step is a documentary analysis and quantitative comparison of all German EMRs based on second-hand data sources. By reviewing the information scattered in the introduction of individual web pages 3 and combing them with the relevant literature, policy document, and reports. Governance actors, instruments, contents, and structural characteristics have been identified in this process. Four existing governance types, LL, HL, LH, and HH were clarified in Section 2.2 and one stand-out case, Rhine–Neckar, was chosen for the in-depth analysis phase.
- To gather detailed information in the empirical study, in-depth semi-structured interviews were carried out with key insiders in the case studies’ governance process. Rather than the two well-documented levels of analysis in metropolitan governance (i.e., the regional and local levels), three levels (regional, sub-regional, and local levels) are distinguished here. The interviews and analyses at the sub-regional level were conducted to reflect one of the most important features that shaped Rhine–Neckar—crossing state boundaries.
4. A Review of the Evidence
4.1. Actors of Governance: Diversified Participants under the Public Sector’s Lead
“There was a predecessor, namely the ‘Rhine–Neckar Regional Planning Association’… It had its own committee but was only allowed to plan informally… That was the starting point I was aiming for” (Mr. Trinemeier_Regional level, Pos. 5 and Pos. 13).
“With the Association Assembly, with the corresponding committees, with the fact that all District Councilors, all Lord Mayors, are born members…” (Mr. Trinemeier_Regional level, Pos. 25).
“The board of the association ‘Zukunft Metropolregion Rhein–Neckar e.V.’ is always a representative of the economy and the deputy chairman is always the chairman of the Rhine–Neckar Association. So there, again, this interlocking of politics and business is deliberate… Then represented are the three mayors of the three regional centers... Research and education are represented by the University of Heidelberg. The Chambers of Commerce and Industry are represented… Also at the presidential level. Then there are representatives of media, small and medium-sized towns, respectively” (Mr. Trinemeier_Regional level, Pos. 63).
“In this State Treaty, we were also given permission to find our own institutions, which is why there is the Metropolregion Rhein–Neckar GmbH. It is also located here in the building, two floors below” (Mr. Trinemeier_Regional level, Pos. 13).
“It is 50% owned by the association, the other 50% is distributed among the region’s chambers of commerce and industry, the region’s chambers of handicrafts, and a small part belongs to the organization ‘Zukunft Metropolregion Rhein–Neckar’” (Mr. Trinemeier_Regional level, Pos. 13).
4.2. Instruments of Governance: Combined Formal and Informal Tools Based on the State Treaty
“Article 1: All regional policy areas, including regional planning, that extend directly or indirectly beyond the boundaries of one of the contracting States, and all regional development activities shall be carried out in a process of constant collaboration and in line with the interests of neighboring areas”.
“1. in Baden-Württemberg the territory of the city districts of Heidelberg and Mannheim, the Rhine-Neckar district and the Neckar-Odenwald district, 2. in Hesse the territory of the Bergstrasse district, 3. in Rhineland-Palatinate the territory of the independent cities of Frankenthal, Landau, Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Neustadt an der Weinstrasse, Speyer and Worms and the districts of Bad Dürkheim, Germersheim, Rhein-Pfalz district and Südliche Weinstrasse”. These provide a legal basis for subsequent regional cooperation and planning led by the public-law-based regional association, the Verband 4.
“… it was difficult enough, the consolidation of the different planning systems, the different planning instruments, and the different planning statuses...” (Mr. T_Regional level, Pos. 67 and Pos. 68).
“… I notice a bit that there’s a huge gap in it… that is, three different sub-areas, three methods” (Mr. P_Sub-regional level, Pos. 19).
“My field, in the sense of cross-border cooperation, is a bit limited. My impression is that the topics are mostly dealt with only through formal channels and less through informal working groups and contacts” (Mr. S_City-level, Pos. 6).
4.3. Contents of Governance: Collaborative Attempts in Multiple Fields, Regional Land Monitoring and Revitalization Has been Strengthened and Promoted
“We have also undertaken joint projects, for example…’RAUM+’. In all parts of Baden-Württemberg, Rhineland-Palatinate and Hesse, we looked at where there is still potential for building land in the inner areas” (Mr. P_Sub-regional level, Pos. 15).
“The City of Mannheim has always been very consistent in its focus on internal development since the model spatial planning” (Mr. S_City/District-level, Pos. 48).
“…another thing you notice about new territorial allocations and new tasks through this unified regional plan: you have to find a solution for each other. We have to offer some kind of solution, because we realize that the areas are so close to each other and must not fall apart just because the planning system is different.” (Mr. P_Sub-regional level, Pos. 17).
4.4. Structure of Governance: A Flattened and Networked Governance Framework
and“A balancing model that the regional association follows… sometimes the whole thing is not so effective” (Mr. S_City-level, Pos. 20).
“It is indeed... daily work to convince people that what is good for the core area is also good for the rural area and vice versa… So, the debate has to be permanent” (Mr. T_Regional level, Pos. 23 and Pos. 25).
5. Conclusions and Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
1 | In German planning and policy documents, metropolitan regions are referred to as European Metropolitan Regions (EMR). The term “European Metropolitan Regions” emphasizes that the agglomerations have a European significance—similar to the term “global cities”, which focuses on the global significance of certain cities. Even though there is no EU definition of European Metropolitan Regions for the whole of Europe, the term European Metropolitan Regions and the associated abbreviation EMR are used in this article to correctly reflect the term used in German spatial policy. This is a note example. |
2 | See the official website of the Metropolitan region Rhine Neckar: https://www.m-r-n.com/ (accessed on 11 October 2022) |
3 | Relevant web pages: 1. https://deutsche-metropolregionen.org/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 2. https://gl.berlin-brandenburg.de/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 3. https://www.region-frankfurt.de/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 4. https://metropolregion.hamburg.de/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 5. https://metropolregion.de/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 6. https://www.mitteldeutschland.com/de/metropolregion-mitteldeutschland/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 7. https://www.metropolregion-muenchen.eu/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 8. https://www.metropolregion-nordwest.de/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 9. https://www.metropolregionnuernberg.de/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 10. https://www.m-r-n.com/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 11. https://metropolregion-rheinland.de/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 12. https://www.rvr.ruhr/ (accessed on 11 October 2022); 13. https://www.region-stuttgart.org/ (accessed on 11 October 2022) |
4 | The Law on Municipal Cooperation of Baden–Württemberg of September 16, 1974 (GBI. p. 408, ber. 1975, p. 460, 1976, p. 408), as last amended by the Law of December 14, 2004 (GBI. p. 884), shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Association, with the exception of its Section 13, Paragraph 2, Sentence 3 and Paragraph 5, insofar as this Agreement or the Association’s Articles of Association do not contain any provisions [66] (p. 2) |
5 | The specific details of the legends in the two maps are not relevant to the analysis. The focus of the comparison between the two maps is to present how the location of central places (red dots) and settlement axes (gray lines, axes in agglomerations formed by a close succession of settlements along the routes of existing or planned public-transport services) have changed in the two versions of regional plans. |
References
- Zimmermann, K. Regionale Kooperation jenseits der Ländergrenzen: Die Europäische Metropolregion Rhein-Neckar. STANDORT-Z Angew. Geogr. 2008, 32, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krawchenko, T. The Governance of Land Use in OECD Countries: Key Lessons from a Comparative Policy Review. Real Estate Rev. 2017, 43, 5–18. [Google Scholar]
- Moore-Cherry, N.; Kayanan, C.M.; Tomaney, J.; Pike, A. Governing the Metropolis: An International Review of Metropolitanisation, Metropolitan Governance and the Relationship with Sustainable Land Management. Land 2022, 14, 761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, J. Configuring the New ‘Regional World’: On Being Caught between Territory and Networks. Reg. Stud. 2013, 47, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, J.; Growe, A. When Regions Collide: In What Sense a New ‘Regional Problem’? Environ. Plan. A 2014, 46, 2332–2352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, P.; Growe, A.; Shen, Y. Decentralisation and Functional Specialisation in Super Mega-City Regions: Changing Functional Patterns of Manufacturing and Knowledge-Intensive Business Services Activities in the Polycentric Super Mega-City Region of the Pearl River Delta. Erdkunde 2020, 74, 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volgmann, K.; Münter, A. Understanding Metropolitan Growth in German Polycentric Urban Regions. Reg. Stud. 2022, 56, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, J. Territorial Institutionalism–Capturing a Horizontal Dimension of the European Administrative Space. J. Borderl. Stud. 2021, 36, 361–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barani, L. Fiscal Federalism and Capital Cities: A Comparative Analysis of Berlin and Brussels. L’Europe Form. 2011, 359, 21–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deppisch, S. Governance Processes in Euregios. Evidence from Six Cases across the Austrian–German Border. Plan. Pract. Res. 2012, 27, 315–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakry, A.; Growe, A. Spatial Effect of Ethnicity on Cross-Border Regions. Comparative Analysis for a Cultural Aspect Based on Territorial and Network Perspectives: The Cases of the EU Basque and Upper Rhine Border Regions. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2022, 1–23, (Online first). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yeh, A.G.-O.; Chen, Z. From Cities to Super Mega City Regions in China in a New Wave of Urbanisation and Economic Transition: Issues and Challenges. Urban Stud. 2020, 57, 636–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aring, J. Leitbilder Und Handlungsstrategien Für Die Raumentwicklung in Deutschland. MKRO 2005, 1, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Zimmermann, K.; Feiertag, P. Return of the Metro-Model? Governance and Planning in Metropolitan Regions under Change. An International Comparison of France, Italy and Germany. Regió Metrop. Barc. Territ. Estratègies Planejament 2018, 1, 16–26. [Google Scholar]
- Diller, C.; Eichhorn, S. 25 Jahre Metropolregionen in Deutschland im Spagat zwischen Raumordnung und Raumentwicklung. Ein Klassifizierungsvorschlag. Standort 2022, 46, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metropolregionen: Innovation, Wettbewerb, Handlungsfähigkeit; Knieling, J. (Ed.) Metropolregionen und Raumentwicklung; Verl. der ARL: Hannover, Germany, 2009; ISBN 978-3-88838-060-0. [Google Scholar]
- Metropolitan Regions, Planning and Governance; Zimmermann, K.; Galland, D.; Harrison, J. (Eds.) Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-030-25631-9. [Google Scholar]
- Evers, D.; de Vries, J. Explaining Governance in Five Mega-City Regions: Rethinking the Role of Hierarchy and Government. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2013, 21, 536–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OMB (Office of Management and Budget). Uses of Metropolitan Areas by Federal Agencies; Statistical Policy Office: Washington, DC, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Gottmann, J. Megalopolis or the Urbanization of the Northeastern Seaboard. Econ. Geogr. 1957, 33, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagler, Y. Defining US Megaregions. America 2009, 2050, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Neuman, M.; Hull, A. The Futures of the City Region. Reg. Stud. 2009, 43, 777–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E.; Di Vittorio, S. Strategies for Megaregion Governance: Collaborative Dialogue, Networks, and Self-Organization. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 77, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Growe, A. Metropolregionen (Definition). In Handwörterbuch Der Stadt-Und Raumentwicklung; Blotevogel, H.H., Döring, T., Grotefels, S., Eds.; ARL-Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung: Hannover, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Macleod, G.; Goodwin, M. Space, Scale and State Strategy: Rethinking Urban and Regional Governance. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 1999, 23, 503–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larner, W.; Walters, W. The Political Rationality of “New Regionalism”: Toward a Genealogy of the Region. Theory Soc. 2002, 31, 391–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fürst, D. Steuerung Auf Regionaler Ebene versus Regional Governance. Inf. Raumentwickl. 2003, 8, 441–450. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, P.G.; Pain, K. The Polycentric Metropolis: Learning from Mega-City Regions in Europe; Routledge: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J.; Yeh, A.G.O. Interjurisdictional Cooperation through Bargaining: The Case of the Guangzhou–Zhuhai Railway in the Pearl River Delta, China. China Q. 2013, 213, 130–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noferini, A.; Berzi, M.; Camonita, F.; Durà, A. Cross-Border Cooperation in the EU: Euroregions amid Multilevel Governance and Re-Territorialization. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2020, 28, 35–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaucic, J.; Sohn, C. Mapping the Cross-Border Cooperation ‘Galaxy’: An Exploration of Scalar Arrangements in Europe. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2021, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Newman, P. Changing Patterns of Regional Governance in the EU. Urban. Stud. 2000, 37, 895–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Chen, H.; Hu, J. Flexible Rescaling During The Development Of Urban Space In China: A Case Study On Hexi New Town In Nanjing. Urban. Plan. 2014, 38, 43–49. [Google Scholar]
- Lackowska, M.; Zimmermann, K. New Forms of Territorial Governance in Metropolitan Regions? A Polish–German Comparison. Eur. Urban. Reg. Stud. 2011, 18, 156–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brenner, N. Decoding the Newest “Metropolitan Regionalism” in the USA: A Critical Overview. Cities 2002, 19, 3–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frey, R.L. “Regional Governance” Zur Selbststeuerung Territorialer Subsysteme; CREMA: Singapore, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Brenner, N. New State Spaces: Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Durà Guimerà, A.; Camonita, F.; Berzi, M. Euroregions, Excellence and Innovation across EU Borders. A Catalogue of Good Practices; Department of Geography: Barcelona, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Su, L.; Feng, C. A comparative study on the regional governance models of the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region and several foreign metropolitans. Prog. Geogr. 2019, 38, 15–25. [Google Scholar]
- Fürst, D. Metropolitan Governance in Germany. In Metropolitan Governance in the 21st Century; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 163–180. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, S.; Wang, Q.; Growe, A. Cross-Jurisdictional Governance Practices and Implications from the Rescaling Perspective: The Case of Metropolregion Rhein-Neckar in Germany. Urban Plan. Int. 2022, 1–18, (Online first). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raumordnungsbericht 2021, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Stärken; Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBSR): Bonn, Germany, 2021.
- Zhao, M.; Tao, X. Economic Theory of Urban Development and Planning; Higher Education Press: Beijing, China, 2001; (In Chinese). ISBN 7-04-008300-0. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, J. Scale, State and the City: Urban Transformation in Post-Reform China. Habitat Int. 2007, 31, 303–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, V. The Return of the City-Region in the New Urban Agenda: Is This Relevant in the Global South? Reg. Stud. 2021, 55, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoker, G. Governance as Theory: Five Propositions. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 1998, 50, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jessop, B. The Rise of Governance and the Risks of Failure: The Case of Economic Development. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 1998, 50, 29–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adam, B.; Göddecke, J.; Heidbrink, J. Aktueller Stand, erste Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Inf. Zur Raumentwickl. 2005, 7, 417–430. [Google Scholar]
- Schmitt, P. Raumpolitische Diskurse Um Metropolregionen. Eine Spurensuche Im Verdicht. Rhein-Ruhr. Dortmund. Metrop. Reg. 2007, 1, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Danielzyk, R. Der Raumordnungspolitische Metropolendiskurs–Konstruktion von (Neuen) Peripherien? Disp-Plan. Rev. 2012, 48, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waterhout, B.; Othengrafen, F.; Sykes, O. Neo-Liberalization Processes and Spatial Planning in France, Germany, and the Netherlands: An Exploration. Plan. Pract. Res. 2013, 28, 141–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preising, T. MetropolRegionalPlanung. Chancen Und Risiken Einer Zusammenführung von Metropolregionen und Raumplanung; Verlag Dorothea Rohn: Lemgo, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Schmitz, G. Metropolregion Rhein-Neckar—Modellregion für einen kooperativen Föderalismus. Raumforsch. Raumordn. | Spat. Res. Plan. 2005, 63, 360–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gualini, E. Regionalization as “Experimental Regionalism”: The Rescaling of Territorial Policy-Making in Germany. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2004, 28, 329–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blatter, J. Metropolitan Governance in Deutschland: Normative, Utilitaristische, Kommunikative Und Dramaturgische Steuerungsansätze. Swiss Political Sci. Rev. 2005, 11, 119–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diller, C. Zwischen Netzwerk Und Institution: Eine Bilanz Regionaler Kooperationen in Deutschland; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- OECD OECD Territorial Reviews: Hamburg Metropolitan Region, Germany; OECD Territorial Reviews; OECD: Paris, France, 2019; ISBN 978-92-64-36573-5.
- Federwisch, T. The Politics of Spatial Identity: Regional Governance and the Strategic Constitution of Regional Identity. Nord. Geogr. Publ. 2007, 36, 47–60. [Google Scholar]
- Diller, C. The Development of Metropolitan Regions in Germany in Light of the Restructuring of the German States: Two Temporally Overlapping Discourses. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2016, 24, 2154–2174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schlusche, R.; Böhringer, S. Metropolregion Rhein-Neckar–Modell Für Kooperativen Föderalismus. Inf. Raumentwickl. 2016, 5, 609–613. [Google Scholar]
- Fürst, D. Regional Governance. In Governance—Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen: Eine Einführung; Benz, A., Ed.; Governance; VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2004; pp. 45–64. ISBN 978-3-531-90171-8. [Google Scholar]
- Hoyler, M.; Freytag, T.; Mager, C. Advantageous Fragmentation? Reimagining Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning in Rhine-Main. Built Environ. 2006, 32, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heinelt, H.; Zimmermann, K. ‘How Can We Explain Diversity in Metropolitan Governance within a Country?’Some Reflections on Recent Developments in Germany. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2011, 35, 1175–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schächter, T. Die Metropolregion Rhein-Neckar, Modellregion für kooperativen Föderalismus. Von der Utopie zur Realität; Diesbach Medien: Weinheim, Germany, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- VERBI Software MAXQDA 2022 [Computer Software]; VERBI Software: Berlin, Germany, 2021; Available online: https://www.maxqda.com/ (accessed on 11 October 2022).
- Staatsvertrag Staatsvertrag Zwischen Den Ländern Baden-Württemberg, Hessen Und Rheinland-Pfalz Über Die Zusammenarbeit Bei Der Raumordnung Und Weiterentwicklung Im Rhein-Neckar-Gebiet. 2005. Available online: https://www.m-r-n.com/organisationen/verband/staatsvertrag-rhein-neckar%20barrierefrei.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2022).
- Verband Region Rhein-Neckar. Einheitlicher Regionalplan Rhein-Neckar: Plansätze und Begründung 2014. Einheitlicher Regionalplan Rhein-Neckar: Plansätze und Begründung. 2014. Available online: https://www.m-r-n.com/projekte/einheitlicher-regionalplan/erp-plansaetzeundbegruendung.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2022).
- Rhein-Neckar, V.R. Regionalverband Mittlerer Oberrhein; Regionalverband Nordschwarzwald (Hrsg.). Modellprojekt Raum+ AKTIV: Aktivierung Innerörtlicher Potenziale. Handl. Innenentwicklung. Heidelb. 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Kohleber, E.; Trinemeier, C. Regionale Siedlungsentwicklung Der Metropolregion Rhein-Neckar: Aufbau Und Die Nutzung Des “Raum+Monitor“ Und Seine Bedeutung Für Die Kommunale Siedlungsentwicklung. Stadtforsch. Und Stat. Z. Des Verb. Dtsch. Städtestatistiker 2018, 31, 46–50. [Google Scholar]
- Growe, A.; Baker, M.; Ziafati Bafarasat, A. The Legitimation of Planning Processes as a Challenge to Metropolitan Governance. Adm. Sci. 2020, 10, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- RAUM+Monitor. Available online: https://mdi.rlp.de/fileadmin/mwkel/Abteilung_7/RAUM_Monitor/RAUM_Monitor.pdf (accessed on 11 October 2022).
- Tödtling, F.; Trippl, M. One Size Fits All?: Towards a Differentiated Regional Innovation Policy Approach. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 1203–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Formalized Situation | The Attributes of Actors | The Integration of Formal Instrument | The Variety of Cooperation Contents | The Complexity of Governance Structure | EMR Names | Number of Federal States | Is There a Regional Plan? | Type of Governance Association in EMRs (Actor–Structure) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GmbH 7 | Verein 8 | Verband 9 | Admin. 10 | ||||||||
LL | A public-led company | ●1 Poorly integrated Highly fragmented | ◆2 Through specific projects | ★3 | Hamburg | 4 | No | ✓ | |||
Central Germany | 3 | No | ✓ | ||||||||
HL | Predominantly private bodies | ●● Slightly integrated Powerful regional planning in some core areas | ◆◆◆ Economic, social, and cultural fields, but lacks involvement in public fields | ★★ | Northwest | 2 | No | ✓ | |||
Rhineland 4 | 1 | No | ✓ | ||||||||
Munich | 1 | No | ✓ | ||||||||
H/BS/GÖ/WOB 6 | 1 | No | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Nuremberg | 2 | No | ✓ | ||||||||
LH | Predominantly public bodies | ●●● Closely intertwined Almost uniform in core areas, but not entire regions | ◆◆ Directly managing public goods (e.g., land, transportation, open space) and less attention to market sector. | ★★ | Ruhr 5 | 1 | Not entirely | ✓ | |||
Stuttgart | 1 | Not entirely | ✓ | ||||||||
Berlin– Brandenburg | 2 | Not exactly | ✓ ⑤ | ||||||||
Frankfurt/ Rhine–Main | 3 | Not entirely | ✓ | ||||||||
HH | Public–private cooperation | ●●●● Directly linked Standardized regional planning | ◆◆◆◆ Economic, social, cultural, and public spheres | ★★★ | Rhine–Neckar | 3 | Yes | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
Main Actors | Characteristics | Members |
---|---|---|
① Rhine–Neckar Regional Association (the Verband) | Organization under public law |
|
② Future MRN (the Verein) | Organization under private law | Members from the political, business, educational, and scientific fields (with a board of directors composed of representatives from each field) |
③ MRN Company (the GmbH) | Public–private cooperation (public-led) | Co-owned by the Verband, the Verein, and other regional chambers of commerce and the Fernwärme Rhein—Neckar GmbH (FRN) |
Main Actors | Overall Roles | Objectives and Detailed Functions |
---|---|---|
① Rhine–Neckar Regional Association (the Verband) | Organizational core |
|
② Future MRN (the Verein) | Platform for strategic dialogue |
|
③ MRN Company (the GmbH) | Vehicle for project implementation and operation |
|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 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/).
Share and Cite
Yan, S.; Growe, A. Regional Planning, Land-Use Management, and Governance in German Metropolitan Regions—The Case of Rhine–Neckar Metropolitan Region. Land 2022, 11, 2088. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11112088
Yan S, Growe A. Regional Planning, Land-Use Management, and Governance in German Metropolitan Regions—The Case of Rhine–Neckar Metropolitan Region. Land. 2022; 11(11):2088. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11112088
Chicago/Turabian StyleYan, Simin, and Anna Growe. 2022. "Regional Planning, Land-Use Management, and Governance in German Metropolitan Regions—The Case of Rhine–Neckar Metropolitan Region" Land 11, no. 11: 2088. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11112088