Correction: 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

Error in Figure

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Figure 6. A flow chart of main phases of the research design–method, data and analysis framework). Source: the authors. as published. The figure should be replaced with a high-quality version. The corrected Figure 6. A flow chart of main phases of the research design–method, data and analysis framework). Source: the authors. appears below.

Error in Table

In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Table 3. Objectives and functions of the main actors in MRN governance. as published. All verb forms in the table should be “-ing” forms. The corrected

Table 3. Objectives and functions of the main actors in MRN governance.

Main Actors	Overall Roles	Objectives and Detailed Functions
① Rhine–Neckar Regional Association (the Verband)	Organizational core	Formulating regional public policies and regional planning (mandatory tasks) Providing sponsorship or coordination tasks for regional events (e.g., culture, sports, conferences) or specific sectors (e.g., tourism, transportation)
② Future MRN (the Verein)	Platform for strategic dialogue	Building a strong, attractive, and self-confident region Proposing strategies for regional development and sponsoring projects and events Discovering and using their diverse potential
③ MRN Company (the GmbH)	Vehicle for project implementation and operation	Active in areas such as leisure, culture, and sports facilities, and Supporting research and innovation networks

Source: Authors’ own summary from the official MRN website.

. Objectives and functions of the main actors in MRN governance. appears below.

Text Correction

1. There was an error in the original publication. The word “National” should be changed to “state”.

A correction has been made to 4. A Review of the Evidence, 4.2. Instruments of Governance: Combined Formal and Informal Tools Based on the State Treaty, Paragraph 9:

Therefore, three main tasks were concluded in the unification process. Firstly, a coordination of the different legal requirements in the federal states, secondly, a standardization of new and existing planning processes, and, thirdly, a harmonization of the different planning philosophies across state borders. Our interviewee from the regional level also shared with us an unavoidable “innovation” during the negotiation process. To facilitate this standardized version of the regional plan, the officials in Stuttgart, the capital of Baden–Württemberg, had to review the regional plan in light of the planning laws in Rhineland–Palatinate, so as to gain legal recognition on both sides. Now, in one district in the Hesse part (the Bergstrasse in the north), the Verband still has no planning competences, only the right to make proposals. The Verband is currently consulting with stakeholders, such as the South Hesse Regional Council, on further statutory planning rights. Complaints about the planning negotiations was also noted in the interviews with the sub-regional planning director:

2. There was an error in the original publication. The words Innenentwicklung vor Außenentwicklung should be in italics.

A correction has been made to 4. A Review of the Evidence, 4.3. Contents of Governance: Collaborative Attempts in Multiple Fields, Regional Land Monitoring and Revitalization Has been Strengthened and Promoted, Paragraph 6:

Thus, a soft rather than rigid approach of promoting a common development ideology or selecting model sites is being applied at the regional land-use management level. For many years, the Associations involved in the “Raum+” project have been committed to the principle of “internal development before external development (Innenentwicklung vor Außenentwicklung)” as a regional planning objective [68] (p. 13). This is also a concept that was emphasized by our interviewees during the interviews, for example:

3. There was an error in the original publication. A paragraph with repeated meaning needs to be deleted.

A correction has been made to 4. A Review of the Evidence, 4.3. Contents of Governance: Collaborative Attempts in Multiple Fields, Regional Land Monitoring and Revitalization Has been Strengthened and Promoted, Paragraph 9:

This paragraph was deleted from the original manuscript.

4. There was an error in the original publication. An explanation for an institution should be added.

A correction has been made to 4. A Review of the Evidence, 4.4. Structure of Governance: A Flattened and Networked Governance Framework, Paragraph 5:

At the operational level, the Executive Representative is the Development Consortium Office (of the Verband), which coordinates and develops the Regional Plan, while considering local demands, and the Office of the Future MRN (the Verein), which focuses on communicating the Regional Plan from the Future MRN Board of Directors. The former coordinates and formulates the Regional Plan, while the latter focuses on communicating the regional development proposals of the Board of Directors and assigns the regional projects to the MRN company (the GmbH), which promotes, implements, and operates the specific tasks.

5. There was an error in the original publication. the institution “Association for Future Development” should be changed to “Future MRN (the Verein)”.

A correction has been made to 4. A Review of the Evidence, 4.4. Structure of Governance: A Flattened and Networked Governance Framework, Paragraph 2:

The horizontal and vertical embedding of rights’ holders has changed. In terms of vertical reorganization, the three federal states have transferred some of their financial and administrative powers within the MRN, simplifying the vertical structure of cross-regional governance. In particular, the centralization of planning and approval powers has realized the vertical transmission of plans, policies, and major projects. In addition, the Verband directly represents the region in regional development programs at the European level. It has not only established a “European department” that is in regular contact with the European Commission and its representatives but has also launched a major EU cross-border cooperation project (Interreg CODE24). In 2015, it became the home of the first European grouping of territorial cooperation in Germany. In terms of horizontal power interactions, the MRN has innovatively adopted a “strategic-operative” two-tier governance network to coordinate joint decision-making between multiple actors. At the strategic level, the Future MRN (the Verein) is at the core of the network, which unites other associations and alliances in the region to create a long-term platform for strategic dialogue in the context of local policies, reducing government regulations, promoting friendly competition in economic development, and giving full play to the initiatives of the private sector. However, the pursuit of a balancing model at the regional level has been argued as producing inefficient decision-making processes and outcomes:

6. There was an error in the original publication. The word “Rhein” need to be standardized as “Rhine”.

A correction has been made to 5. Conclusions and Discussion, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 7, and Note 2:

Recently, more potential of the metropolitan scale—and indeed metropolitan bodies—in enhancing collaboration and effectiveness has been realized [3]. Drawing on the overview of EMR governance structure in Germany, the actors, instruments, content, and institutional structures of metropolitan governance have similarities in their governance dilemmas, including, but not limited to, administrative fragmentation, urban–rural disparities, and internal competition. From the case of Rhine–Neckar, a summary can be drawn that it has attracted diverse and active governance participants through a cross-state treaty. With the intervention of higher-level governments (federal states in the MRN case), administrative, legal, and market instruments have been combined to form two important (formal and informal) toolkits. Although this process took numerous debates and compromises, a standardized regional plan and other subsequent collective actions have been achieved. More importantly, it has formed a flattened, networked, and even growing governance structure since 2005. The core of the private–public structure, with its three pillars, is playing an essential role in shaping a more competitive and attractive Rhine–Neckar.

Notwithstanding, these reflections are hard to be fully explained by the single case of Rhine–Neckar. Therefore, a call for more relevant studies on the governance structure of metropolitan regions using the AICS analytical framework is also addressed here.

See the official website of the Metropolitan region Rhine Neckar: https://www.m-r-n.com/ (accessed on 11 October 2022)

7. There was an error in the original publication. The word “Rhein–Neckar-Dreieck e.V., RND e.V.” should be in italics and standardized as ‘Rhine’.

A correction has been made to 4. A Review of the Evidence, 4.1. Actors of Governance: Diversified Participants under the Public Sector’s Lead, Paragraph 6:

Secondly, in contrast to the Verband, the private-law-based Verein has also evolved into an important player in metropolitan governance. The Verein developed out of a regional initiative spearheaded by local entrepreneurial and planning associations in 1989. Its predecessor was a non-profit organization—the Rhine–Neckar-Triangle organization (Rhine–Neckar-Dreieck e.V., RND e.V.), which was aimed at strengthening multi-party cooperation and building an integrated cross-state governance model [53,58].

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.