This paper recognises the need to study the complex relations between spatial planning and cultural contexts in a more comprehensive way. The objective is to contribute to a theoretical basis and conceptual framework for a systematic analysis of spatial planning, that is, planning practices related to a cultural and social context, on the basis of a complex system of criteria. This may contribute to achieving a better understanding of the complex relationships between the cultural context—including the specific socioeconomic patterns and related cultural norms, values, traditions, and attitudes—and spatial planning as an operative instrument of territorial policy by introducing the term ‘planning culture’. Therefore, as culture is subtle and complex in nature and is based on fluid concepts, theoretical approaches of cultural change are also introduced to provide a more dynamic conception of planning cultures to analyse and understand recent changes in spatial planning.

Urban green infrastructure is becoming an increasingly important concept for sustainable urban planning. In the past, planning practice and research have worked on defining principles and suggesting relevant indicators to promote the concept. While there has been a focus on multifunctionality of green infrastructure elements, the connectivity principle is underrepresented, especially in urban research. Therefore, this paper suggests land use indicators to map and assess the degree of connectivity of open spaces within the urban realm. Empirical results are presented for three European case studies. The relevance of connectivity indicators for urban green infrastructure planning is highlighted and linked to future needs for improving strategic urban planning.

This paper aims to critically review current discussions on the “reinvention” of spatial planning, postulating an all-encompassing and unproblematic shift towards new rationales, scopes, actors and instruments in planning practice. Buzzwords are, among others, “governance”, “collaborative planning” and the “communicative turn”. To overcome the somehow normative bias of these terms, the term “planning culture” is introduced to define a complex, multi-dimensional and dynamic institutional matrix combining formal and informal institutional patterns. Used in an analytical sense, it can help to better understand institutional change in spatial planning. Referring to recent conceptual debates about institutional transformation, the paper presents a six-stage model for institutional change in spatial planning, supporting it with an example from the Cologne/Bonn metropolitan region in Germany. The latter serves as an example for illustrating the institutional dynamics, but also the rigidities of planning cultural change. The paper concludes that a more thorough, “fine-grained” and empirically-grounded investigation of institutional transformation in spatial planning is necessary.

This paper focuses on green infrastructure planning in three different regions, namely, the Ruhr in Germany, the Capital Region of Denmark and Greater Manchester in the UK. We investigate planning cultural research heuristics and propose a conceptual refinement of existing planning cultural research and approaches. We use framing and storytelling to show how societal beliefs and cultural assumptions are consolidated as spatial frameworks that guide planning practice. Theories of spatial governance describe how spatial frames are mediated, accepted and changed through institutionalized structures. We present arguments from urban design and implementation research to illustrate how planning ideas materialize. The empirical material presented in this paper shows how cultures of green infrastructure planning operate in diverse spatial contexts and that a dynamic perspective is useful for understanding how planning cultures develop and change over time.

The paper addresses the relationship of planning systems and related processes of institutional change. It evaluates the persistence and change of the German planning system with a focus on recent impacts of Europeanisation. It shows that the ability to transform institutional patterns of spatial planning in Germany is rather limited. The German planning system has not undergone revolutionary shifts during the last five decades, but it is ‘by-passed’ by a new and mostly informal planning sphere recently. The latter is triggered by financial incentives bound to European structural funds and characterized by a strong focus on experimental spatial development.

Research on planning cultures seems to be in vogue. This article strives for a critical discussion of the term and concept of planning culture, its basic premises and meanings as well as its historical roots in planning literature. It argues for a clearer theoretical and conceptual foundation of the term and hence directly addresses its benefits for planning research. At the core of this article is the identification of different discourses on planning culture that took place during the last five decades in planning theoretical debate. Culture was first introduced into the planning debate after the death of purely rational models and interpretations of planning in the 1960s. Later it was addressed indirectly in studies concerning values and norms of planners, especially in the 1980s, followed by some comparative work on planning systems and planning cultures since the 1990s. At the same time, the term planning culture was conceived as a normative expression of good planning because culture itself was construed as something good. Only very recently has the analytical potential for planning research been at the core of the debate. Nonetheless, the methodological premises of planning cultural research have not yet been discussed, and merit future debate across disciplines.