Hard (formal) spatial planning versus soft (informal) spatial planning: selected features
| Hard spatial planning (formal) | Soft spatial planning (informal) |
|---|---|
| Statutory | Non-statutory |
| Mandatory | Voluntary |
| Procedural | Outside official procedure |
| Normative | Conceptual, analytical |
| Regulatory, enforceable | Postulative, recommended |
| Hierarchical | Non-hierarchical |
| At a certain planning level | Between tiers |
| For units within boundaries administrative | Trans-border, inter-border |
| Of limited participation | By / among stakeholders, participatory |
| Created by authorized offices | Created by other organizations also |
| Poorly integrated with socio-economic planning | Possibilities of integration with socio-economic planning |
Strengths and weaknesses of informal spatial planning
| Advantages / opportunities | Deficits / threats |
|---|---|
| • Planning for areas for which there is no mandatory planning requirement | • Poor awareness among decision makers of the need for informal plans |
| • The process of learning and further tightening cooperation | • Poor planning culture, frequent discounting on the part of the planning sector |
| • Creation of a shared spatial database | • Limited power of informal plans |
| • Inspiration for creating sectoral programs, masterplans, etc | • The necessity of a contract at the stage of implementing arrangements and recommendations |
| • Possible element of the planning system – Pre- planning | • Long-term effect, which does not meet current expectations (e.g. political) |
| • Possible / desirable broad public participation |