Who actually decides how our cities look, function and grow – and for whom? Legitimization in planning is the central question when it comes to power, influence and responsibility in urban transformation processes. Between democratic participation, expert knowledge and political pragmatism, there is a daily struggle for interpretative sovereignty. But how transparent and fair is this actually – and how can planning legitimize itself for the challenges of tomorrow?
- Definition and meaning of legitimacy in urban planning and landscape architecture
- The various stakeholders: politics, administration, specialist planners, the public and private investors
- Formal and informal decision-making processes – from development plans to participatory budgeting
- Transparency, participation and the role of civil society in the legitimization process
- Areas of tension: Expert power versus lay participation, political control versus market interests
- Current challenges: Digitalization, new planning tools and social media
- Legitimization in the context of sustainability, climate resilience and social justice
- Case studies from Germany, Austria and Switzerland: Who actually decides – and why?
- Risks of a lack of legitimacy: acceptance crises, planning blockades and loss of trust
- Prospects for sustainable, fair and democratically legitimized urban planning
Legitimacy in planning: foundation, façade or fig leaf?
Legitimacy is one of those words that is so taken for granted in every planning debate that hardly anyone questions it. But what does legitimacy really mean in planning? Essentially, it means that those who make decisions about the city, landscape and infrastructure are recognized and accepted – by those affected, by taxpayers, by legislators, but also by experts. Without legitimacy, all planning lacks social viability and becomes vulnerable, delayed or even impossible.
The legitimization of planning can be roughly divided into two main areas: legal and social. Legal legitimacy is based on laws, regulations and formal procedures – such as the Building Code, the Spatial Planning Act or the municipal constitutions. Here it is precisely regulated who is allowed to do what: local councils, specialist offices, courts. Social legitimacy, on the other hand, is created through acceptance, trust and participation. It is less precise, but at least as important – because planning that is legally correct but not socially accepted is often blocked, delayed or simply ignored in practice.
In modern urban and landscape planning, both forms of legitimization meet – and often clash. For example, a development plan can be legally sound, but still trigger massive protests because residents do not feel sufficiently involved or heard. Conversely, informal participation processes can create new acceptance, but also exceed the legal scope. This area of tension makes legitimacy in planning a constant balancing act – and a question that goes far beyond compliance with regulations.
But why is legitimacy more important today than ever before? On the one hand, the demands on planning are growing: climate change, demographic shifts, social cohesion, economic pressure – all of these call for quick but sustainable solutions. On the other hand, societies are increasingly diverse, demanding and critical. Planning is no longer accepted as the sovereign task of a few experts, but as a social negotiation process in which many people want to – and should – have a say.
Legitimization has thus become a key category of modern planning. It determines whether projects succeed or fail, whether cities are liveable and resilient – or whether they remain characterized by constant disputes and stagnation. Now more than ever, those who take on responsibility in planning must ask themselves: Who actually decides what – and for whom?
Who really decides? Actors, power and influence in planning
The classic view of planning looks like this: A political body decides, the administration implements, the public gets a say – and the specialist planners provide the expertise. However, the reality is more complex, more exciting and sometimes more contradictory. This is because many people are involved in planning, not always with an open mind – and rarely with the same interests.
Let’s start with politics. They set the guidelines, decide on development plans, decide on investments and define the “big picture”. However, politicians are not only guided by factual arguments, but also by majorities, coalition constraints, election dates and public sentiment. They receive their legitimacy through elections – but also through their actions in office. The administration, in turn, is the backbone of planning. It ensures legal correctness, coordinates participation procedures, examines expert opinions and implements political decisions. Its legitimacy is institutional, but also professional – and it is often the actual power center in day-to-day planning.
Specialist planners play a special role – from urban planners and landscape architects to traffic and environmental planners. They provide the know-how, design scenarios, evaluate variants, advise politicians and administrators. Their legitimacy is primarily professional – but they also have to ask themselves whose interests they represent: those of the client, the general public or their own discipline? Private investors are another important group. They bring capital, innovation and often speed to planning, but not always a focus on the common good. Their influence has grown in recent years, especially where public funds are scarce and land is in demand.
And then there is the public: citizens, initiatives, associations and the media. They demand a say, transparency and influence – and in the age of social media and digital participation, they often assert this claim very effectively. Their legitimacy is democratic, but also moral: they are the people affected, the beneficiaries – and the critics of planning. In practice, a single group never decides alone. Rather, planning is a complex web of power, influence, interests and negotiations – with changing alliances and temporary majorities.
But who has the final say in the end? Legally, this is clearly regulated: In the end, the responsible body makes the decision – usually the local council. But in reality, the decision-making processes are nowhere near as linear. Informal agreements, political compromises, public protests or economic pressure can turn planned projects upside down. The search for legitimacy is therefore a constant process – often a struggle for influence, authority and acceptance. Anyone who wants to assert themselves in this jungle not only needs specialist knowledge, but also communicative, strategic and sometimes diplomatic skills.
Controversial projects in particular show that planning is never just technology, but also always politics. Those who decide never decide alone – and never just for themselves. The art of planning consists of constantly gaining legitimacy anew – and never taking it for granted.
Formal and informal procedures: How decisions are legitimized
The planning toolbox for establishing legitimacy is large – and ranges from strictly regulated procedures to creative participation formats. Formal procedures are the backbone of planning: development plans, land use plans, environmental assessments, consultation procedures, decisions on by-laws. They are regulated by law, comprehensible, verifiable – and offer legal certainty for all those involved. Their strength is their reliability, their weakness often lies in their cumbersomeness and lack of flexibility.
However, formal procedures alone are hardly sufficient today to ensure social acceptance. This is why informal participation formats have been booming for years: Citizens’ workshops, planning workshops, online consultations, round tables, future conferences. They enable dialogue, exchange and co-design – and can create new legitimacy because they take people seriously and incorporate their knowledge. However, they are not legally binding, but complement formal procedures. Their success depends heavily on the quality of the moderation, the transparency of the objectives and the seriousness of the political will.
Another important instrument is cooperative planning processes in which various stakeholders – administration, politicians, specialist planners, investors and the public – work together to find solutions. Such processes often arise from the realization that conflicts cannot be resolved by majority decisions, but only by consensus or at least agreement. They are time-consuming, but often more sustainable because they enable viable compromises to be reached.
Digital participation opportunities have gained enormously in importance in recent years. Online platforms, virtual city models, social media and digital participatory budgeting make planning more accessible, transparent and flexible – but also more susceptible to manipulation, disinformation and digital divides. This raises the question of how digital participation can be legitimized and safeguarded – and how it can be meaningfully linked to traditional processes.
Overall, it is clear that legitimacy is not automatically created by working through regulations. It must be constantly re-established, maintained and reviewed. Anyone who takes on responsibility in planning therefore not only needs legal knowledge, but also communicative and social skills – and the willingness to share power. Only in this way can planning be accepted, understood and supported in the long term.
Areas of tension and challenges: Legitimacy between expert power, participation and new planning instruments
The search for legitimacy in planning is not a leisurely stroll, but often resembles walking a tightrope. At the center is the constant struggle between expert power and lay participation. On the one hand, planning is a highly complex discipline that requires specialist knowledge, experience and analytical methods. On the other hand, society rightly demands co-determination, transparency and the consideration of everyday knowledge. This leads to tensions: When is expert knowledge a necessary resource – and when does it become an instrument of domination that thwarts or even prevents participation?
Another area of tension concerns the role of the market. Private investors are indispensable in many projects, but their interests do not always coincide with the common good. If planning is tailored too closely to investors, legitimacy threatens to erode – for example, if socially acceptable solutions are sacrificed in favor of maximum returns. Conversely, overly restrictive planning can hinder innovation and investment. The trick is to find the right balance – and to make it transparent who represents which interests.
Digitalization brings new opportunities, but also new risks for the legitimacy of planning. Digital twins, AI-based simulations and automated decision-making processes can promote transparency and participation – but also create new power asymmetries and black boxes. Who decides how algorithms are programmed? Who controls how data is used? And how can we ensure that digital instruments do not become technocratic means of domination, but instead strengthen democratic legitimacy?
The requirements for sustainability, climate resilience and social justice are also fundamentally changing the legitimacy of planning. It is no longer enough to simply plan in accordance with the law. Society and politics demand that planning actively contributes to climate protection, prevents social division and promotes sustainable solutions. Those who ignore such goals quickly lose acceptance – and risk projects being stopped or reversed. Legitimization thus becomes an ongoing task that goes far beyond formal procedures.
In all these areas of tension, the following applies: the legitimization of planning is never complete. It has to be constantly re-established, reviewed and adapted. Anyone who believes that everything is done with formally correct planning is mistaken. The future belongs to planning that understands legitimacy as a process – and not as a one-off absolution.
Perspectives for the future: For a fair, democratic and sustainable legitimization of planning
So how can legitimacy in planning be made fit for the future? First of all, more transparency is needed in all phases of planning – from the initial idea to implementation. Openness about objectives, interests, procedures and decisions strengthens trust and makes planning comprehensible. New technologies help here, as does a consistent communication strategy that not only informs, but also involves.
Participation must be a genuine dialog, not an alibi event. Anyone who invites people to express their opinions must also take them seriously – and explain how the results will be incorporated into planning. This applies equally to digital and analog formats. Participation must not become a sedative pill, but must enable active co-design – even if this means conflicts and longer processes.
The role of specialist planners is changing. They are no longer just experts, but also moderators, mediators and translators between different interests and levels of knowledge. Their legitimacy is based not only on specialist knowledge, but also on the ability to shape processes openly, fairly and with an open mind. This requires new skills – and sometimes also the willingness to relinquish power.
Politics and administration must adapt to the fact that planning is becoming ever more complex, faster and more public. They need the courage to innovate, but also the will to take responsibility. Those who hide behind formal procedures lose credibility. On the other hand, those who act in a transparent, dialog-oriented and adaptive manner can strengthen legitimacy – even in difficult times.
Ultimately, legitimacy must be understood as a joint task. Cities, municipalities and regions are facing enormous challenges – from climate adaptation to social integration. Planning that faces up to its social responsibility, promotes participation and takes sustainability seriously can not only secure legitimacy, but also expand it. Planning thus becomes the driving force behind democratic, fair and liveable urban development – and remains more than just a technocratic administrative act.
To summarize: legitimacy in planning is not a chore, but the foundation of any successful urban and landscape development. It is created through transparency, participation, competence and a sense of responsibility – and has to be achieved again and again. Anyone who believes that legitimacy is a given fails to recognize the dynamics of modern societies. Those who take it seriously, on the other hand, can make planning not only legally secure, but also sustainable, fair and attractive. The future belongs to planning that understands legitimization as a process – and not as a final state. This is the only way to create cities and landscapes that are truly made for everyone.
