Social Aspects of Sustainability and Resilience in Small Town Planning
Structural Planning in Pförring, Germany
Sociala aspekter av hållbarhet och resiliens i planering av småstäder Strukturplanering i Pförring, Tyskland
Cover Image: Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung, 2020 (edit by author)
Author: Melanie Friedrich
Program: MSc Sustainable Urban Planning and Design Supervision: Peter Brokking (KTH)
Peter Bachschuster (Bachschuster Architektur, Internship) Examination: Hans Westlund (KTH)
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
School of Architecture and the Built Environment Department of Urban and Regional Studies
Abstract
In a seemingly endlessly urbanizing world, the planning field must not forget our cities’
hinterlands and rural regions. Demographic shifts, dying centers, lack of amenities and insufficient mobility options are just a few of the struggles the periphery is facing. With the help of the case study site Pförring, Germany, this report analyzes regional and local plans in relation to social aspects of sustainability and resilience. The results are the identification of crucial elements for successful transformation: vision, competence, support, action, monitoring and adjustment, depicted as an interlinked system of two interactive loops.
Key Words: sustainability, resilience, structural planning, strategic planning, periphery
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the School of Architecture and the Built Environment, specifically the Department of Urban and Regional Studies at KTH for the unparalleled support and efforts to guide students through these trying times in light of a global pandemic. I would like to say a special thank you to Professor Peter Brokking for pushing me to think deeper and express my point of view creatively. My journey at KTH is marked by a constant development of my interest for our peripheral regions and the socio-ecological changes affecting small, rural towns, as well as what sustainability and resilience mean in a non-urban context.
My deepest gratitude goes to Bachschuster Architektur for providing me with a continued internship throughout my studies and for the foundation Peter Bachschuster, Susanne Wagner and the whole team have helped me build for this thesis, as well as the work which lies ahead of me. A sincere thank you to Peter Bachschuster, who has seen his decades-long fight for planning our cities, regions and industries better reflected in my vision for a more thoughtful, mindful and fulfilling future.
I would also like to express my appreciation for the student body, providing each other with support, information and kind words not just throughout the thesis semester, but throughout the entirety of the SUPD program. I know the bonds we have created to be long-lasting and I cannot wait to see where our lives’ journeys take each and every one of us.
Finally, I would like to thank my wonderful parents for their unwavering support of my academic journey and the constant positive and forward-looking attitude throughout this pandemic. I know to be where I am today because of you!
Table of Contents
Abstract 2
Acknowledgements 3
Table of Contents 4
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 6
1. Introduction 7
1.1. Research problem 7
1.2. Aim of the study 8
1.3. Defining urban and rural 8
1.4. The case study site: Pförring, Germany 9
1.5. COVID-19 limitations 12
2. Methodology 14
2.1. Literature review 14
2.2. Document analysis 15
2.2.1. Regional plans 15
2.2.2. Local plans 15
2.2.3. Discourse analysis: What’s the problem represented to be? 16
2.3. Interviews 16
2.3.1. Semi-structured interviews 17
2.3.2. Ethics in interviewing 17
3. Theoretical Framework 19
3.1. Social sustainability 19
3.2. Resilience thinking 21
3.3. Planning theory 24
3.3.1. Strategic planning 24
3.3.2. Structural planning 24
3.3.3. Differences and similarities 26
3.3.4. Benefits and shortcomings 26
4. Findings – Understanding the Local and Regional Context 28
4.1. Pförring in the regional context 28
4.1.1. The regional plan Ingolstadt 29
4.1.2. The regional plan Regensburg 34
4.2. Pförring in the local context 37
4.3. Discourse analysis: “What’s the problem represented to be?” 39
4.3.1. Environmental and climate justice 42
4.3.2. Social sustainability and culture 43
4.3.3. Economic growth 43
4.3.4. Infrastructure 43
4.3.5. Preservation of local treasures 43
4.3.6. Trans-regional and international cooperation 43
5. Analysis – Sustainability and Resilience Perspectives in Planning Documents 45 5.1. Social aspects of sustainability and resilience in planning documents 45 5.1.1. Development, maintenance and bridge sustainability 45 5.1.2. Social equity, social cohesion, participation and awareness of sustainability 46
5.1.3. Coping, adaptive and transformative capacities 48
5.1.4. Eight principles of urban and regional resilience 49
5.2. Silences in the regional plans 50
5.3. What this means for Pförring 51
5.3.1. Lack of regional support 51
5.3.2. The importance of participation and integration 52
5.3.3. The built environment and access to services 53
5.4. Structural planning - an integrated path forward 54
6. Discussion – Guiding Principles for Transformative Change 58 6.1. Elements for successful transformation - primary loop 59
6.1.1. Vision 59
6.1.2. Competence 59
6.1.3. Support 60
6.1.4. Action 60
6.2. Elements for successful transformation - secondary loop 60
6.2.1. Monitoring 60
6.2.2. Adjustment 61
6.3. Dealing with challenges and uncertainty 61
7. Conclusion 64
7.1. Room for social resilience and sustainability in planning 64
7.2. Research contribution 65
7.3. Future research 65
References 67
Appendix 71
A. Interview Information Sheet 71
B. Interview Consent Form 72
List of Figures
Figure 1 Map of Pförring, including industrial area (grey) and relation to the Danube river (Bayerische
Vermessungsverwaltung, 2020) 10
Figure 2 Aerial view of Pförring’s historic center (Bachschuster Architektur, 2019a) 10 Figure 3 Market square (left, Markt Pförring, 2020a), example of needed retrofitting: decaying homes (middle) and insufficient walking paths (right, Bachschuster Architektur, 2019a) 11 Figure 4 St. Leonhard Church (left) and adjacent St. Sebastian chapel (right, Markt Pförring, 2020a)
11 Figure 5 Wackerstein Castle (left) and Replica of one of the historical roman gates “Celeusum” (right,
Markt Pförring, 2020a) 11
Figure 6 A quick profile of Pförring (figure by author) 13
Figure 7 Social Sustainability Mind Map (own image based on Dempsey et al., 2009; Geissel, 2009;
Murphy, 2012; ODPM, 2005; Vallance et al., 2011; Wittmayer et al., 2015) 20 Figure 8 Resilience Mind Map (own image based on Adger, 2000; Albers and Deppisch, 2013; Keck and Sakdapolrak, 2013; Maclean, Cuthill and Ross, 2013; Resilience Alliance, 2010; Walker and Salt,
2006) 22
Figure 9 Three Phases of Structural Planning (iiRD, 2019, p. 5) 25 Figure 10 Structural Planning - How it works (iiRD, 2019, p. 6) 26 Figure 11 Pförring in the regional context, schematic map (Google, 2020, edited by author) 28 Figure 12 Regional development plan Ingolstadt (Regionaler Planungsverband Ingolstadt, 2016) 31 Figure 13 Region Ingolstadt, centers and nodes (Regionaler Planungsverband Ingolstadt, 2016) 32 Figure 14 Region Ingolstadt, green structure (Regionaler Planungsverband Ingolstadt, 2016) 33 Figure 15 Regional development plan Regensburg (Regionaler Planungsverband Regensburg, 2011)
35 Figure 16 Region Regensburg, centers and nodes (Regionaler Planungsverband Regensburg, 2011)
35 Figure 17 Partial region adjacent to Pförring (Regionaler Planungsverband Regensburg, 2011) 36 Figure 18 Historic map of Pförring, 1856 (Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung, 2020) 37 Figure 19 Crucial elements for successful transformation - primary and secondary loop (figure by author, partially based on principles of structural planning) 58
List of Tables
Table 1 Age demographics Pförring (DIS Dürsch, 2019, Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik, 2019) 38 Table 2 “What’s the problem represented to be?” - analysis and results 40
1. Introduction
1.1. Research problem
When someone introduces themselves as an urban planner, we immediately think of lighthouse developments, densification, bicycle lanes or an entirely new neighborhood sprouting up. We think of the hustle and bustle of crowded streets, a plethora of cafés, shops and boutiques, and 20-somethings on electric scooters. We think of busses, trams, subways and a lack of parking. We think of culinary variety at every street corner, and a place that is just as much alive at night as it is during the day. After all, the profession itself carries the title
“urban”, much the same in Swedish “stadsplanerare” or German “Stadtplaner”. Naturally so, we think only of cities. With 74% of Europe’s population living in cities, it is one of the most urbanized regions on earth with rates expected to grow to 83.7% by 2050 (European Commission, 2018). Having such a large population living in cities, solving urban problems related to densification, pollution and gentrification sustainably is at the forefront of the research community’s, as well as our own minds.
But what we seem to forget is that the job of an urban planner is not only to shape cities, but also the periphery. Our cities’ hinterlands are the grain silos, lungs and support structure - the fuel - for urban environments. As such, cities and the periphery have a symbiotic relationship, a partnership, where one could not be without the other. And yet, the large gap between research addressing the urban and the rural environment is immensely noticeable and the political focus on the well-being of the countryside is seemingly nowhere to be found. Small towns in peri-urban and peripheral areas increasingly face challenges with demographic shifts, shrinking centers, and lack of amenities. The research community specifies intergenerational relationships, life course perspectives and technological variables among other factors as important research topics for the demographic shift towards rural ageing, and as such sees these as influences on the makeup and migratory patterns in peripheral areas (Scharf, Walsh and O’Shea, 2016). The shrinking rural centers are easily observed by anyone: as bigger, more accessible grocery stores and shops sprout up on the fringes of small towns with big parking lots, it becomes more convenient to visit the fringes, leaving the centers empty and decaying until small local stores and specialty shops close due to lack of customer traffic.
Bernhard Sammiller, mayor of a peripheral town in southern Germany, highlights the lack of
services in rural towns, mainly due to insufficient pull-factors drawing professionals out of cities and into the hinterlands (2020, personal communication, Feb 24). So what happens if we forget to care for these places, if they care so much for our life in the cities?
Planning on a regional and local scale can have a large impact on these struggles the periphery is facing. Adjusting the available life course perspectives according to current and future needs of the community, improving the built environment for all generations, protecting social and economic life in the centers, and connecting rural towns and their respective resources to bring more accessible services to the communities are strategies achievable through the planning processes. And while market forces, the economy, and the political climate greatly influence not only people’s behavior, but also the planning parameters we work with, “urban” planning still holds a special key to how we experience and move through our surroundings.
1.2. Aim of the study
In response, this study is a journey to the periphery, exploring how regional and local plans address rural problems. A basic search in the KTH library database and Google Scholar reveals that the few planning strategies regarding rural challenges mainly focus on economic growth. While economic well-being has a direct effect on society, it is difficult to find research highlighting what these economic concepts mean for rural residents’ (social) lives. This research, however, explores the social component of rural challenges to understand how people living in rural communities are affected by the planning decisions made. With much focus given to sustainability and resilience thinking in recent academic research, these strategies are highlighted from a rural perspective, as well as their impacts discussed. Central to the study are three research questions:
● Are social aspects of sustainability and resilience addressed in planning documents and if so, how?
● Is anything left unaddressed in these plans? Are there conflicts between plans across scales?
● How can contemporary planning concepts address social resilience and sustainability for small, rural towns? What elements are crucial for these concepts?
By answering these research questions, this study aims at understanding how regional and local planning affect rural communities, if and what is missing from said plans, and which planning elements can be recommended to provide better guidelines for a holistic, sustainable and resilient approach from a small-town perspective.
1.3. Defining urban and rural
When using the classifications “urban” and “rural”, it is important to clarify their definition. There are two main components to the understanding of the urban and the rural which comprise the definition for this thesis. Firstly, according to the Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBSR, 2020), city types in the German context are defined according to the number of residents:
• Major city:
o 100.000 – 500.000 residents (small major city)
o 500.000 and above residents (large major city)
• Medium city:
o 20.000 – 50.000 residents (small medium city) o 50.000 – 100.000 residents (large medium city)
• Minor city:
o 5.000 – 10.000 residents (small minor city, basic functions) o 10.000 – 20.000 residents (large minor city)
• Rural town: towns and communities below 5.000 residents
Secondly, this thesis understands cities (“urban”) as places which provide important functions and services, such as hospitals, schools, universities or higher education/ training, shopping malls or streets, access to mobility hubs, and a diverse job market. On the other hand, rural towns are connected with agricultural activities and related industries and generally few or none of the aforementioned services. Interesting to understand is the highly polycentric character of Germany in contrast to other European nations (BBSR, 2020; Taylor and Derudder, 2016). This leads to short distances between medium and small major cities, providing a rather consistent access to city services within short travel times. However, this does not automatically mean an equitable distribution of access to services, or that rural towns are not in need of improvements, as this thesis will discuss later on.
The planning project analyzed in this report is Pförring, Germany, which will be presented in more detail in the following section. With 4.023 inhabitants, it is thereby classified as a rural town. The closest urban environments are Ingolstadt with approx. 138.000 inhabitants (Stadt Ingolstadt, 2020) and Regensburg with approx. 168.000 inhabitants (Stadt Regensburg, 2018). Both can be defined as small major cities and are referred to as urban centers or urban nodes throughout the report.
1.4. The case study site: Pförring, Germany
In order to answer the research questions, an ongoing planning site in southern Germany is studied (Figure 1). The 4.023 inhabitant town Pförring is located in the periphery between urban nodes Ingolstadt and Regensburg (Markt Pförring, 2020b). With a low population of 330 residents in the historic core (Figure 2), Pförring is struggling with a socially and economically emptying center, as well as demographic shifts, inter-generational conflicts and insufficient mobility (DIS Dürsch, 2019).
In previous years, improvements to the historic center were made by the town government as can be seen in the left image of Figure 2, namely the renovation of the market square in 2012 (B Sammiller 2020, personal communication, Feb 24). Yet, the middle and right image show two representative examples of the state of the town center outside of the square. A shrinking and ageing population in the historic core of Pförring has left little incentives for remaining residents to take on costly renovations of their properties, when younger family members have a lack of interest in remaining in town (S Wagner, personal communication, 16 Apr 2020).
Narrow streets and car dependency are highly visible as well, as sidewalks are narrow or missing and roadside greenery and seating limited.
Figure 1 Map of Pförring, including industrial area (grey) and relation to the Danube river (Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung, 2020)
Figure 2 Aerial view of Pförring’s historic center (Bachschuster Architektur, 2019a)
Yet, Pförring is an attractive rural town regardless of needed strategic developments in the center. With a rich history, beautiful architecture and efforts to connect today’s population to the region’s former status as the Roman frontier to the North, Pförring has many pull-factors for both residents and tourists (Figure 4-5).
Figure 3 Market square (left, Markt Pförring, 2020a), example of needed retrofitting: decaying homes (middle) and insufficient walking paths (right, Bachschuster Architektur, 2019a)
Figure 4 St. Leonhard Church (left) and adjacent St. Sebastian chapel (right, Markt Pförring, 2020a)
Figure 5 Wackerstein Castle (left) and Replica of one of the historical roman gates “Celeusum” (right, Markt Pförring, 2020a)
But the town center still tells a different, disjointed story. As such, Pförring is a suitable study site, as existing regional and local plans can be analyzed to better understand the needs of the community, how the historic core got to where it is today, and to what extent plans and local needs synergize. Furthermore, the in- and exclusion of social sustainability and resilience aspects of existing plans can be examined. The results of this study are compiled into guiding principles for more resilient and sustainable planning strategies not only in the context of Pförring, but also for towns with similar preconditions and difficulties.
1.5. COVID-19 limitations
Due to the global COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting quarantine and lockdown regulations instituted by the German and European governments, research limitations arose for this study.
To accommodate the situation in a flexible way, some interviews were postponed or conducted digitally to protect interviewees belonging to high risk groups. Site visits from March 2020 onwards were cancelled, but two visits took place before restrictions took effect, yet no data was collected during these early visits beyond personal impressions. This has led to an intensification of desk-based study of secondary data sources. As qualitative research in the form of citizen impulse talks was conducted extensively for the integrated city development concept (ISEK), this data is primarily used to help shape the discussion.
Chapter 1 Summary
• Small towns are struggling with demographic shifts, shrinking centers, and lack of amenities
• Urban and regional planning can be a useful tool!
• This study discusses the periphery from the perspective of social sustainability and resilience, asking:
1. How are these topics addressed across planning hierarchies?
2. What is left unaddressed and are there any conflicts?
3. How can contemporary planning concepts help? What are crucial elements?
• Rural town Pförring in Germany serves as case study (see Figure 6 below!)
Figure 6 A quick profile of Pförring (figure by author)
2. Methodology
The setting for the study is Ingolstadt, Germany, where I hold an internship at Bachschuster Architektur, the architecture and planning office responsible for the detailed development plans of Pförring. The internship consists of a flexible twenty-hour work week where I am included in the planning procedures of Pförring, which started in mid-2019 and continue post- internship. The research methodology for this project primarily encompasses a qualitative approach, employing a desk-based study of secondary data and a discourse analysis thereof, as well as semi-structured interviews with selected experts.
2.1. Literature review
First, a literature review is performed to explore the topics of social resilience, social sustainability, and structural planning to build a theoretical framework. Sustainability and resilience are chosen as the theoretical basis for this research, as both topics are very prevalent not only in academic, but also in political discourses. Specifically the term sustainability is overwhelmingly used in a way that assumes familiarity with its definition. But due to its varying definitions and dependency on context, there is need to clarify what it means and how it is used. As resilience is reaching a comparable state of use in planning and shows overlap with the sustainability discourse, these two concepts are reviewed, aiming to define a theoretical framework. As this report assumes the point of view of a planner, the theoretical framework is complemented by an identification of alternative planning strategies, which will be presented in detail in the next chapter.
The literature review hence constructs the theoretical framework, contextualizes planning theory, and with that explores the presented research questions, which ultimately contribute to the existing discourse (Rowley and Slack, 2004). The literature will be sourced from course literature and supervising professors at KTH, Stockholm, as well as from academic journals, books and articles. The latter will be collected via KTH database searches of the terms
“resilience”, “resilience thinking”, “social-ecological systems”, “social sustainability”, “social justice” and a combination of said terms. The relevant concepts will be collected, and mind- mapping employed to summarize and link findings in order to contextualize them (Rowley and Slack, 2004).
2.2. Document analysis
The second research step is to perform a document analysis related to the study site Pförring, Germany. This desk-based analysis of secondary data consists of two steps: (1) assessing relevant information from regional and local planning documents and development concepts and (2) using a discourse analysis based on the “What’s the problem represented to be?”
approach to evaluate and contrast different points of view presented in step one. The document analysis is crucial for understanding the specific context of the case study site Pförring by identifying how the regional and local plans present the town and define visions for future development. In order to work out how different plans vary in their presentation of the study site/ the periphery, performing a discourse analysis as a second step is helpful. It guides the analysis of data through specific questions, which ultimately highlights synergies and differences, as well as contradictions which can be compared and contrasted.
2.2.1. Regional plans
In Germany, regional plans are binding documents drawn up by a cooperation of municipalities within a state. The nation is divided into 105 such plans. The execution happens on the communal level; individual communities hence create and enforce land use and detailed plans, which are oriented towards the general goals stated in the regional plan. Consultation regarding the tasks and goals of the regional plan is provided to the communities by the associations responsible for developing them. Generally, these plans cover a longer time frame than local plans, but are updated infrequently and hence often outdated, as the majority have been created in the 1990s. (BBSR, 2008)
In order to situate the case study site Pförring in the regional context, the regional plans for Ingolstadt (Region 10) and Regensburg (Region 11) are addressed. It is necessary to look at the regional plans for both areas, as Pförring is located in region 10, but closely bordering region 11 and hence influenced by the development trajectory of both regions. The regions Ingolstadt and Regensburg have relatively new regional plans from 2016 and 2011 respectively.
In order to identify information relevant to Pförring, the regional plan of Ingolstadt was searched for direct mentions of the town, as well as indirect mentions regarding small towns and peripheral regions. Furthermore, the regional plan and corresponding maps were visually analyzed in order to better understand their benefits and potential shortcomings. As Pförring is not within the borders of the region Regensburg, the respective regional plan was scouted for adjacent areas and communities which could impact the development and provision of services of Pförring. An analysis of plans and maps was also conducted.
2.2.2. Local plans
To understand Pförring on a local level, the Integriertes städtebauliches Entwicklungskonzept (English: integrated city development concept), short ISEK, will be studied. An ISEK is developed as a guiding principle to foster integration of actors and stakeholders. The goal is to work out a healthy cooperation between them to improve neighborhoods, the city as a whole, as well as the city in a regional context. The ISEK is hereby process and future oriented,
cross-scale and multi-dimensional (Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat, 2019).
An ISEK generally consists of three parts: a holistic and extensive analysis of the location in question, the development of goals and a vision, and an implementation strategy with a concrete set of actions. This process is guided by continuous citizen participation in the form of surveys, interviews, focus groups, and other measures, or a combination thereof. (DIS Dürsch, 2019). ISEKs can hence be understood as comparable to a Swedish comprehensive plan, acting as a basis for the development of land-use and detailed plans.
The development concept for Pförring is currently in progress. The preliminary version will be used for the desk-based study as it includes extensive qualitative research from participation efforts of 2018 and 2019, as well as meticulously collected background information for the case study site. Together with the regional plans, a discourse analysis as presented in the following section is performed.
2.2.3. Discourse analysis: What’s the problem represented to be?
The second step is to highlight differences and similarities in the points of view of the existing planning documents and development concepts. A discourse analysis is performed according to Bacchi’s “What’s the problem represented to be?” approach (2009). In this method, six questions or groups of questions are answered to highlight how problematizations in policy documents are thought about, defined, what is included in the decision-making process and what is not, as well as to understand presumptions and biases more consciously (Bacchi, 2009). This method is relevant and applicable to comprehensive, regional and local planning documents as they are legally binding and serve as a basis for further policy development. It is therefore valuable to understand how potential biases and conflicting goals are carried through across scales.
To analyze a document, Bacchi (2009, p. xii) proposed the following questions:
● “What’s the ‘problem’ represented to be in a specific policy?
● What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’?
● How has this representation of the ‘problem’ come about?
● What is left unproblematic in this problem representation? Where are the silences?
Can the ‘problem’ be thought about differently?
● What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?
● How/ where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted or replaced?”
The findings of the discourse analysis are the basis for developing discussion themes in relation to the theoretical framework. These themes will be further explored through the interviews and observations, described in the following sections.
2.3. Interviews
Four interviews with experts are performed to better understand the planning site beyond
“what is written on the page” of regional and local plans and thereby add a further layer of qualitative research. This is important to emphasize the lived and perceived experience from
different perspectives. The following section will describe the interview method used and relevant ethical questions.
2.3.1. Semi-structured interviews
As opposed to a structured interview, a semi-structured interview or short “SSI” is less rigid and provides opportunities for “a blend of closed- and open-ended questions, often accompanied by follow-up why or how questions” (Adams, 2015, p. 493). This allows for the process to be more casual and feel like a conversation. Ideally, the interview should start with straightforward, easy questions and leave more complex problems and questions to the end (Adams, 2015). While the order of the questions should not be set in stone, it is good to anticipate how the topic of conversation evolves, however, if questions are missed, they can be picked up at a later point (Adams, 2015).
Generally, semi-structured interviews “are time-consuming, labor intensive, and require interviewer sophistication. Interviewers need to be smart, sensitive, poised, and nimble, as well as knowledgeable about the relevant substantive issues” (Adams, 2015, p. 493). Hence, ample time was spent on preparing for each interview both administratively and contextually.
This included drawing up an interview guide in both English and German (Appendix A) and a consent form, also in English and German (Appendix B). The information sheet contains context regarding the project as well as why the participants were chosen. With the consent form, the interviewees agree to participate and have the results published within the framework of the research project and they as participants are allowed to ask questions and have them answered pre-interview. The consent form further included an optional section for the participant to agree to be audio-recorded. The audio-recording is considered important as the interviews are held in German and transcription/ translation into English can be handled easier and in a more accurate fashion when the interview can be listened back to in order to avoid misinterpretation and misquoting. This consent is verbally re-established once the recording device is turned on (see Adams, 2015). One copy of the consent form is given to the participants and one kept by the researcher in a secure spot for ten years.
The study is delimited to a small number of interviewees. This decision is made to restrict interviews to selected experts, as public participation has been extensively performed in the analysis and data gathering process of the ISEK. The chosen participants for the interviews are Bernhard Sammiller, mayor of the study site Pförring at the time; Dr. Hans-Peter Dürsch, Dürsch Institute for city development and ISEK responsible; Susanne Wagner, detailed planning responsible at Bachschuster Architektur; and Peter Bachschuster, owner of Bachschuster Architektur and pioneer in structural planning. These persons are chosen for their expertise and direct relation to the planning project in Pförring.
2.3.2. Ethics in interviewing
Before an interviewing process can begin, it is important to address ethical considerations (Elwood and Martin, 2000) and understand how a researcher is “situated” in relation to the context, as “Humans are fundamentally relational and always already socially situated”
(Neumann and Neumann, 2015, p. 800). This means that the researcher must disclose and communicate their position and biases in order to allow the reader to understand the influences present in the interview. This self-assessment and evaluation should take place at
all stages in the process: pre-interview, during the interview, and post-interview. Instead of from an analyticist point of view, which is “primarily other-regarding” (Neumann and Neumann, 2015, p. 817), this research is conducted from a reflexivist standpoint, which “takes social structures as transfactually given. This means that the focus is on the reflexivist, understood as a product of that structure, and that the scholarly work concerns how structures create the emergent scholarly self” (Neumann and Neumann, 2015, p. 799). In other words, reflexivity in practice means understanding how the interviewee affects the researcher.
Another consideration must be made about the micro geographies of the interview (Elwood and Martin, 2000). This refers to the location or setting, and how this affects power relations.
For example, interviewees might feel uncomfortable speaking uninhibitedly in public spaces or at their workplaces out of fear of being overheard, in which case the researcher should suggest a neutral place, however, power relations always exist to some degree and this must be recognized. (Elwood and Martin, 2000). Furthermore, researchers must think about the micro geographies their questioning creates. It is important to consider how certain questions can stress or pressure the interviewee, or how the authenticity of their answers can be affected by the phrasing of the questions or the location they were asked in (Adams, 2015). Discussing interview questions beforehand and allowing the interviewees to choose the location for the interview can create a positive environment (Elwood and Martin, 2000).
Chapter 2 Summary Primarily qualitative research with methodology comprised of:
• Literature review
• Document analysis of regional and local plans
• Discourse analysis according to the “What’s the problem represented to be?” approach
• Semi-structured interviews with experts
3. Theoretical Framework
In this chapter, the theoretical framework for the research based on the literature review is presented. As such, the social aspects of the sustainability discourse and resilience thinking serve as guiding forces to situate this study in the holistic planning approach of structural planning. It should be noted that both the sustainability and resilience discourse include research beyond the social components which are highlighted here. This delimitation to social aspects is made to narrow the scope of this thesis to be suitable and workable within the constraints of a master thesis. It does not, however, assume hierarchies of importance between the various components of the sustainability and resilience discourse and should hence not be seen as a valuation thereof.
3.1. Social sustainability
The Brundtland Report first defined social sustainability as part of the three pillars of sustainable development, together with environmental and economic sustainability:
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (United Nations, 1987, p. 1). Since then, the discourse on social sustainability has become increasingly complex, growing in terminology, and detailing specifics of what the “social aspect” of sustainability actually means. Generally, sustainable communities are broadly defined as:
“... places where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all.” (ODPM, 2005, p. 12) Based on a review of this accumulating literature on the social pillar of sustainable development, Murphy (2012) argues for four central building blocks of social policy: “equity, awareness for sustainability, participation, and social cohesion” (p. 19):
● Social equity “refers to the distribution of welfare goods and life chances on the basis of fairness and it applies to national, international, and intergenerational contexts”
(Murphy, 2012, p. 20).
● Awareness for sustainability refers to “raising public awareness of sustainability issues with a view to encourage alternative, sustainable consumption patterns”
(Murphy, 2012, p. 23).
● Participation aims at “including as many social groups as possible in decision-making processes” (Murphy, 2012, p. 24).
● Social cohesion has many different definitions, but in essence, the goal is “creating opportunities that promote harmonious coexistence or, at least, combat the potential for civic strife” (Murphy, 2012, p. 25).
Figure 7 Social Sustainability Mind Map (own image based on Dempsey et al., 2009; Geissel, 2009;
Murphy, 2012; ODPM, 2005; Vallance et al., 2011; Wittmayer et al., 2015)
Murphy’s four pillars are used as an analysis tool for this thesis as they encompass and condense the sustainability discourse into a few concise terms, which can be easily used to understand how a place such as Pförring is functioning from a social sustainability point of view. Figure 7 above maps out how Murphy’s four policy objectives can be broken down and added to in order to provide more context. First, highlighting the work by Dempsey et al.
(2009), two concepts of sustainability are defined: social equity, similar to Murphy (2012), and the sustainability of community. Social equity addresses justice aspects, such as access to services, areas of deprivation, living conditions, public transportation and walking, thus serving mainly political and policy concerns (Dempsey et al., 2009). Sustainability of community “is about the ability of society itself, or its manifestation as local community, to sustain and reproduce itself at an acceptable level of functioning” (Dempsey et al., 2009, p. 293). The later thus includes participatory practices, e.g. social capital, and integration, e.g. social cohesion (see Forrest and Kearns, 2001; Littig and Griessler, 2005). Dempsey et al. (2009) further highlight the fluidity of social sustainability as a concept, as it is influenced and defined
differently across temporal and spatial scales, hence ever changing based on time and location.
Secondly, on a more practice-oriented note, Vallance, Perkins and Dixon (2011) develop a threefold schema: development sustainability, bridge sustainability, and maintenance sustainability. Development sustainability means providing for and covering basic needs, creating social capital and ensuring social justice (Vallance, Perkins and Dixon, 2011, pp. 343- 344). Bridge sustainability is focused on biophysical environmental goals and behavioral change, which can be either transformative (addressing the roots of socially constructed behavior, see also Wittmayer et al., 2015), or non-transformative (limited scope solutions) (Vallance, Perkins and Dixon, 2011, p. 344). An example of a non-transformative measure is waste management, such as recycling measures, while a transformative measure would be waste prevention, such as educational steps and change of habits. Maintenance sustainability considers the willingness or resistance to socio-cultural changes, or their preservation: “It acknowledges the conflicts that often arise between doing what is environmentally friendly and doing what we have always done, doing what is easy, or simply doing what we like” (Vallance, Perkins and Dixon, 2011, pp. 344-345, 347). The authors further criticize that sustainability measures are often techno-scientific and lack inclusion of community stories, while eco-based solutions can conflict suburban lifestyles, both of which can lead to resistance (Vallance, Perkins and Dixon, 2011). These three concepts provide the second analysis tool for this thesis, complementing Murphy’s four pillars by adding the perspective of the development trajectory of a place in addition to understanding the current state.
To conclude, Wittmayer et al. (2015) refer to the increasingly more popular transition management, a science-policy interface originating in the Netherlands focused on a “societal learning process” (p. 7), thematizing uncertainty and complexity of persistent problems. As such, it links the sustainability discourse to the resilience discourse by including these perspectives, which are central to the resilience discourse in the form of complex adaptive systems, panarchy and stable states (Figure 8). Resilience and sustainability are not interchangeable terms, but address these related issues, which will be further detailed in the following section. Together with the spatial and temporal scales of social sustainability, resistance to change is a phenomenon deserving of special attention, as uncertainty and complexity of issues influences how resilient societies are. In the words of Wittmayer et al.
(2015, p. 13):
“Sustainability needs to be practiced through actually doing and implementing ideas using specific methodologies. It is through this application that sustainability gains localized meaning, which motivates actors to take responsibility for tackling societal challenges. In doing so, small concrete steps need to be oriented along ideas of radical change.”
3.2. Resilience thinking
The term “resilience” originates in environmental science and describes the capacity of an ecosystem to handle shocks and disturbances across time and scales, while ensuring the functionality of the system in a sustainable way, as in, for future needs (Walker and Salt, 2006).
As such, sustainability and resilience are related, but not interchangeable. A sustainable
system can, but does not have to be, a resilient one. The level of resilience can vary depending on the system and its subsystems. This cross-scale and intra-system interaction and dependence is termed panarchy (Walker and Salt, 2006). Systems can hereby be understood as social-ecological systems (SES), highlighting the inherent connection between humans and nature (Adger, 2000; Keck and Sakdapolrak, 2013; Walker and Salt, 2006). As such, resilience theory does not only apply to ecological systems, but also to social systems and their linkages.
Figure 8 Resilience Mind Map (own image based on Adger, 2000; Albers and Deppisch, 2013; Keck and Sakdapolrak, 2013; Maclean, Cuthill and Ross, 2013; Resilience Alliance, 2010; Walker and Salt, 2006)
While resilience thinking has been criticized for being a trendy political catchphrase (Cretney, 2014) or for the use in disciplines outside of its environmental science origins, diluting its meaning (Brand and Jax, 2007), this concept adds value to the sustainability discourse by providing an analytical framework easily adapted to understanding social matters in planning.
However, as White and O’Hare point out, resilience thinking should not be abused to normalize risk or justify regressive decisions (2014). What it should be used for is understanding the coping, adaptive and transformative capacities and power relations of our social systems (Keck and Sakdapolrak, 2013). Especially in light of the COVID-19 pandemic affecting the well-being of our societies and its resistance capacities to immense stresses globally, systemic shocks such as this will continue to play a role across disciplines and hence need to be included in the planning discourse.
Keck and Sakdapolrak (2013) link social resilience to social vulnerability, as vulnerability to shocks and disturbances often concern underprivileged and marginalized communities to a
larger degree. This can be identified as a technical and political issue rooted in power relations between actors, which can be communities, institutions, administrations and governments (Keck and Sakdapolrak, 2013). The authors define social resilience according to three capacities: coping capacities, adaptive capacities and transformative capacities. Coping capacities are “the ability of social actors to cope with and overcome all kinds of adversaries”, adaptive capacities is “their ability to learn from past experiences and adjust themselves to future challenges in their everyday lives”, and transformative capacities “their ability to craft sets of individual welfare and sustainable societal robustness towards future crises” (Keck and Sakdapolrak, 2013, p. 5). As Figure 8 summarizes, coping capacities are a re-active concept of short-term action and with minimal change, as to preserve the previous state, while adaptive and transformative capacities are longer-term, with greater change, addressing the new state (Keck and Sakdapolrak, 2013). The difference between adaptation and transformation is the extent of the change, similar to the non-transformative and transformative measures presented in the previous chapter by Vallence et al. (2011) on the topic of social sustainability.
Due to these concept’s comparability, coping, adaptive and transformative capacities are chosen as an analysis tool for the resilience component of this research.
Biggs, Schlüter and Schoon (2015) discuss seven principles for building resilience of a SES: maintaining diversity and redundancy, managing connectivity, managing slow variables and feedbacks, fostering complex adaptive systems thinking, encouraging learning, broadening participation, and promoting poly-centric governance. This perspective is especially useful when addressing urban and regional structures as large, complex SESs.
According to Pickett et al. (2011), cities especially consist of diverse social and ecological patterns and processes under certain biogeophysical, political and economic conditions. As such, variables such as land use, land cover, production, consumption and disposal are part of this integrated, urban SES.
Specifically, eight principles to improve urban and regional resilience are defined by Albers and Deppisch (2013): diversity, redundancy, flexibility and adaptability, modularity, interdependency, stabilizing and buffering factors, mobility, and planning and foresight.
Diversity means multiple variations within a sector, such as different transportation options, e.g. car, subway, bus or bicycle. Redundancy means multiples of one variant, such as more than one bus line covering the same area. Flexibility and adaptability in an urban context refer to generating multi-usage, for example limited-time land-use, providing the option to adapt and change with time and needs. Modularity is similar to redundancy, but refers more to, for example, multiple centers or amenities, which can improve accessibility for different neighborhoods. Interdependency is the linking of systems, such as transportation modes, to create synergies and convenience. Stabilizing and buffering factors are components which secure or protect the urban ecosystem upon facing shocks and disturbances. For instance, this could be the creation of green spaces for flood management purposes. The principle of mobility is more difficult to apply to an urban context but is often linked to floating or mobile housing or flexible, need-based and on-demand infrastructures/ amenities, such as pop-up services. Lastly, planning and foresight refers to planning long-term and future-oriented, anticipating developments, and making decisions proactively. (Albers and Deppisch, 2013) Due to the direct applicability of these resilience concepts to the context of a built environment, this is used as the second analytical tool for the resilience framework.
Comparing these eight principles to the seven resilience principles by Biggs, Schlüter and Schoon (2015), it is apparent that whether it is an ecological, social-ecological, or social system being analyzed, the academic community defines identical or similar factors that influence resilience of respective systems. As such, this framework originating in environmental science is highly relevant in analyzing social structures, as topics such as behavioral change, justice, integration of society and the environment, long-term plans and perspectives, social learning, and resistance to change can be examined.
3.3. Planning theory
In order to root social sustainability and resilience in planning theory, two planning concepts are addressed in relation to each, opposing traditional detailed development planning in Germany. The two concepts are strategic planning and structural planning, as they can be situated in the same theoretical landscape. Structural planning is chosen for two reasons: (1) it has been practiced and implemented successfully for over a decade locally and nationally, as well as globally in Africa and Asia, and (2) it is applied to the planning context of the case study site Pförring. Because it is an approach to planning developed and exclusively practiced by the Institute of Interdisciplinary Regional Development, strategic planning is addressed in association with it throughout the theoretical framework to help contextualize it. These concepts overlap in their approach; hence their association will provide more theoretical clarity. While strategic planning generally focuses more on exploration and experimentation of planning, structural planning has a direct focus on creating action and developing concrete development and detailed plans.
3.3.1. Strategic planning
Strategic planning “evolves, functions and adapts pragmatically, concerned with what can be done, how new things, new foldings and connections can be made experimentally, yet still in contact with reality” (Hillier, 2011 pp. 504-505). It concerns itself with fundamental issues, as such assigning matters hierarchical value (Healey, 2009). The valuation is based on the potential to move away from past patterns of decision-making and to what extent these complex issues can be integrated in local governance (Healey, 2009). Hillier (2011, pp. 504- 505) further emphasizes the importance of including “a combination of social, environmental, economic and political values about society”. However, while Hillier and Healey regard strategic planning as an experimental, exploratory approach, Mäntysalo (2015) underscores the need to situate strategic planning within the statutory planning practices to ensure its legitimacy and grounding in reality.
3.3.2. Structural planning
Structural planning can be seen as the needed link between experimentation and working within existing frameworks Mäntysalo points out. Structural planning is defined as “Holistic, sustainable, long-term and future-oriented planning which considers social, environmental and economic factors, hence utilizing and building synergies” (iiRD, 2019, p. 6). Hierarchically, structural planning is above urban planning and architecture (Bachschuster Architektur, 2019b). It is capable of achieving a sustainable future through long-term strategies under the extensive inclusion of research and analysis from various sectors, including infrastructural, building, social and ecological demands (iiRD, 2019). It aims to create a vision for towns,
communities, cities, regions, and companies by formulating future needs and desires, identifying appropriate spaces for development in the site-specific context, and relieving current deficits under consideration of stakeholder concerns (iiRD, 2019). As such, its goal is to plan with high flexibility to adapt to future needs, while avoiding cost-efficient and time intensive mitigation measures often resulting from traditional detailed planning (iiRD, 2019).
The lack of inclusion of cross-scale synergies is a result in the general short-term strategy of detailed development planning, focusing more on localized, immediate merits (iiRD, 2019).
Figure 9 Three Phases of Structural Planning (iiRD, 2019, p. 5)
Structural planning consists of three phases (Figure 9). Phase one involves extensive analysis of the planning site and its surroundings. It provides an overview and contextualizes the site socially, ecologically and economically, allowing for the definition of tasks to take shape and a vision with goals to form. Phase two is the heart of structural planning, where conflicts between actors and stakeholders are uncovered, collaboratively addressed, and solved. This prevents delays later on in the process by communicating and including different interests early on. Here, it is important to continuously work with the goals formulated in phase one.
The outcome of phase three is a masterplan for the site. Before this can happen, simulations of different planning options are created and analyzed. In communication with actors and stakeholders, the best option is chosen.
After a structural masterplan has been created, the next step is detailed planning, which is otherwise where the traditional planning process starts. Due to this lack of communication and scientifically informed problem definition beforehand, detailed development planning has difficulties working in an inclusionary way, addressing long-term needs of all involved parties.
The biggest goal of structural planning is hence to create the maximum amount of synergies possible across scales. In order to achieve this, the planning site is contextualized in the city, region and nationally/globally (Figure 10). This allows for “Holistic, sustainable and future-
oriented planning which considers social, environmental and economic factors, hence building and utilizing synergies” (iiRD, 2019, p.6). The approach further connects planning to economic sustainability and the creation of local identity, which can be especially important for towns and communities of the periphery, where effects of urbanization are felt extensively.
Figure 10 Structural Planning - How it works (iiRD, 2019, p. 6)
3.3.3. Differences and similarities
Strategic and structural planning have many similarities, which places them within a similar spectrum of planning theory. Both value the knowledge gained from experimentation. While strategic planning explores this through finding new paths forward, structural planning experiments by creating and analyzing different planning scenarios to find the most suitable path towards a sustainable future. Strategic planning has the future in mind as well by parting from past practices which do not ensure a sustainable and fair future (Healey, 2009; Hillier, 2011). As opposed to detailed development planning, strategic and structural planning are approaches to planning with a longer timeframe in mind. With the exception of Mäntysalo (2015), who sees strategic planning as another layer needed in traditional practices, strategic planning is more process oriented, whereas structural planning has a more entrepreneurial, outcome-oriented approach. Hence, through a very clearly defined working process of structural planning, this approach is easier translatable into concrete projects and plans.
3.3.4. Benefits and shortcomings
The benefit of both practices is the holistic, transformative approach to problems, which is able to include more variables, actors and stakeholders, including environmental concerns, in the pre-planning process than the responsive detailed development planning traditionally does.
This leads to longer term plans than traditional practices, as synergies between different scales beyond the planning site are factored in. Especially for structural planning, this means monitoring and adjusting project steps to reflect the evolving situation on site. Through the very integrative approach of both planning concepts, conflicts on both the local, as well as regional and supra-regional level can be ascertained. For structural planning specifically, this enables detecting and emphasizing synergies across planning hierarchies. For peripheral regions, this can be particularly helpful, as planning expertise and personnel is often limited, and benefits can be maximized through this integrative process.
On the other hand, both approaches are more time consuming in the short term than detailed development planning, as extra steps are taken before plans are drawn up. However, this is compensated in the long run, as time and resource intense re-planning due to unforeseen issues can be avoided more efficiently. Another difficulty for these integrative approaches is the mediation between actors and stakeholders pre-planning. This process can also be time consuming, complex and requires good communication and interpersonal skills from the strategic/ structural planner. The influence of both planning approaches to higher planning authorities such as regional planning agencies is somewhat limited. These can mainly be influenced if the project size is very large and directly affects the region as a whole, which can spark updates or changes to those plans. Otherwise, planning hierarchies below strategic and structural planning such as urban planning and architecture are more directly affected.
Chapter 3 Summary
• Analytical concepts from social sustainability are:
1. Murphy’s social equity, awareness for sustainability, participation, and social cohesion
2. Vallence et al.’s bridge, development, and maintenance sustainability
• Analytical concepts from social resilience are:
1. Walker and Salt’s understanding of social-ecological systems (SES) and panarchy 2. Albers and Deppisch’ eight principles for urban and regional resilience
3. Keck and Sakdapolrak’s coping, adaptive, and transformative capacities
• Highlighted approaches from contemporary planning are strategic planning and structural planning
1. Similar concepts, but structural planning is more strongly connected to concrete action in a multi-phase process
2. Either approach is fairly new and not widely practiced
3. Immense potential to include social, ecological and economic concerns in a more integrated way
4. Findings – Understanding the Local and Regional Context
The following section provides background information for the case study site Pförring, Germany, as well as summarizes important findings from regional plans, local development concepts, detailed plans and available statistical data. Due to Pförring bordering the region of Regensburg, the corresponding regional plan is addressed as well. The section concludes with a discourse analysis of the problematization deducted from the official reports to emphasize similarities and differences, as well as biases and perspectives. Based on this analysis, discussion themes are defined, which are carried over to the next chapter.
4.1. Pförring in the regional context
Figure 11 Pförring in the regional context, schematic map (Google, 2020, edited by author)
Pförring is located in the southern state Bavaria, between the major nodes Ingolstadt and Regensburg. As part of Eichstätt municipality, Pförring is situated in the fringes of regional planning area 10 (Ingolstadt), closely bordering area 11 (Regensburg), as schematically displayed in Figure 11. National road 299 running along the north side of town connects Pförring to the regional node Neustadt a.d. Donau in the east and to Altmannstein in the northwest. Road 2232 connects westward to major road 16 leading to Ingolstadt in the west and Regensburg in the east, which is a fast and adequate connection to the state’s major road network. 5,7 km to the south of Pförring, on the other side of the Danube river lies Münchsmünster, which provides the closest access to the rail network. Münchsmünster and Pförring are regarded as a joint rural node in the regional plan as can be seen in Figure 13 (Regionaler Planungsverband Ingolstadt, 2016). The northern half of Pförring including the industrial park is connected to Ingolstadt center by bus number 26, the southern half by bus number 25. These busses run daytime only, at infrequent times (hourly or every few hours).
Night busses are available around midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, running from the central bus station Ingolstadt to Pförring, but not reverse. (INVG, 2020)
4.1.1. The regional plan Ingolstadt
The regional development plan for Ingolstadt provides context for the study site Pförring on a larger scale. Generally, the region aims to develop as follows (Regionaler Planungsverband Ingolstadt, 2016, p. 1):
● The region is to be developed and strengthened sustainably to further an attractive social and economic development with diverse, future-proof jobs within the region, preserve the environmental beauty and diversity, as well as natural resources for future generations, and retain cultural treasures.
● The region is to increase its competitiveness towards surrounding regions without disregarding cooperation.
Furthermore, the regional plan states that in a local context, Pförring as a minor node is to be strengthened in these areas (Regionaler Planungsverband Ingolstadt, 2016, pp. 4, 5, 15, 26, 33):
● Education, health and social services,
● Maintaining and increasing the capability of Pförring to supply the regional centers with goods and services,
● Natural conservation areas along the Danube meadows and old Danube,
● Establishment of a natural recreational area surrounding the lake (gravel pit).
Looking at the regional development plan, what becomes immediately apparent is that even though Pförring is clustered with Münchsmünster as a shared node, Pförring lies outside major development intentions. Figure 12 shows this effectively by designating Pförring as a general rural area (yellow background with red lines), outside of both densification zones (purple background) and supraregional development zones of importance (bold green lines).
However, Münchsmünster lies within both of the latter. Also noticeable is the lack of intention to develop a medium size regional center (red circles/ orange circles with red rings) towards the east of Ingolstadt leaving Pförring further situated in a solely rural area.
Figure 14 highlights the green structures of importance for the region. Pförring is located along the Danube’s old, natural channel. This highlights the recreational potential Pförring can
provide. This recreational potential is further supported by the extensive regional cycle path along the Danube addressed in the regional plan, but not shown in respective maps (Regionaler Planungsverband Ingolstadt, 2016). The regional plan Ingolstadt does not make any further mentions of Pförring specifically beyond what is discussed above. General statements about developing the rural areas sustainably, also from an economic perspective, are made but not addressed in detail.
Figure 12 Regional development plan Ingolstadt (Regionaler Planungsverband Ingolstadt, 2016)
Figure 13 Region Ingolstadt, centers and nodes (Regionaler Planungsverband Ingolstadt, 2016)
Figure 14 Region Ingolstadt, green structure (Regionaler Planungsverband Ingolstadt, 2016)
4.1.2. The regional plan Regensburg
The regional plan for Regensburg provides insights in how Pförring is affected by the development of region 11 and how the aims of both regions support or contradict each other.
The general planning aims stated by the Regionaler Planungsverband Regensburg (2011, p.
6) for region 11 are as follows:
● As a whole, the region is to be preserved and developed in way that supports free personality development, social equality and sustainability
● Long term protection of the individuality of the region and its settlements, as well as protection of green-blue-infrastructure, soil, air and climate
● A healthy environment is to be promoted or if necessary restored; for conflicts between urban development and environmental resilience, environmental well-being is to be prioritized to ensure long-term ecosystem health
● Affordable housing near workplaces is to be ensured sustainably
● Former negative aspects of the region (mainly the eastern part) as a fringe area are to be alleviated in collaboration with the bordering Czech Republic, especially regarding infrastructure, economy, environmental justice, recreation and culture.
The supraregional development zones of importance (bold green lines) in Figure 15 match the corridor defined for region 10, meeting in Neustadt a.d. Donau. Noticeable still is the trajectory passing Pförring, which could indicate a disadvantage. The region adjacent to Pförring is classified as a rural area to be especially strengthened (yellow background with green lines).
Due to the proximity, this can be beneficial for Pförring as amenities provided by Neustadt a.d.
Donau as a medium sized regional center can be accessed. This points towards a significant orientation of Pförring to the region Regensburg, not only Ingolstadt. Furthermore, like Pförring and Münchsmünster, Neustadt a.d. Donau and Abensberg are classified as a shared node (Figure 16). However, in this shared node, both towns lie within the same development area, which indicates more equal resource allocation for development. Lastly, Figure 17 shows the zoomed in area of the region Regensburg directly adjacent to Pförring. Due to the old natural channel of the Danube, the area is designated as a flooding zone (blue raster). This is confirmed by the ISEK, which will be covered in the following section.
Figure 15 Regional development plan Regensburg (Regionaler Planungsverband Regensburg, 2011)
Figure 16 Region Regensburg, centers and nodes (Regionaler Planungsverband Regensburg, 2011)
Figure 17 Partial region adjacent to Pförring (Regionaler Planungsverband Regensburg, 2011)
4.2. Pförring in the local context
Locally, Pförring is of high historic and touristic value. As part of the limes (frontier) of the former roman empire equipped with one of 80 equestrian forts, “Castell Celeusum”, Pförring was home to one of the most important trade routes along the Danube river, including a significant river crossing (DIS Dürsch, 2019, p. 7). The historic town was dominated by agricultural use until the continuous decline of this sector post World War II, leaving the center in dire need of restoration, which was made an official priority in 1990 (DIS Dürsch, 2019, p.
7).
Figure 18 shows the historic town center from 1856, when it was first mapped in an official capacity (Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung, 2020). This old center is the site currently being planned for: beyond an integrated development concept, detailed plans are being drawn up to mitigate and regulate the loss of its historic character due to uncoordinated new developments and decay of many uninhabited barns and farmhouses.
Figure 18 Historic map of Pförring, 1856 (Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung, 2020)
Pförring has 4023 residents in eight neighborhoods (Markt Pförring, 2020b), but only 330 residents in the town center, which is proportionally very low (DIS Dürsch, 2019). Table 1 shows the demographic distribution of age groups of Pförring center in comparison to the town as a whole. This further highlights the contrast between the center and its surroundings, as the center has a disproportionately high amount of elderly, and approximately 50% less under 18-year old’s than the surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, compared to 2008, the youth quotient for the town has dropped from 39.3% to 31.9% in 2017, whereas the elderly quotient has remained rather stable at 30.9% in 2008 and 28.6% in 2017 respectively (Bayerisches Landesamt für Statistik, 2019). According to the ISEK, the elderly quotient can be interpreted
