The Challenges of Implementing Sustainable Development: The Case of Sofia’s Master Plan

Abstract

Abstract:In this paper, we explore how master planning promotes and implements particular urban development patterns and, more generally, contributes to sustainability. Our goal is to understand the link between urban growth intentions articulated through the master planning process and realisation of its specific forms, e.g., monocentric or polycentric, compact or dispersed. As a case study, we examine the current General Urban Development Plan (GUDP) of the Bulgarian capital Sofia against the city's actual development pattern. We observe that the primary goals of the GUDP are to promote a polycentric urban structure and low-density expansion, as well as preserve green edges. While the question of whether and how these goals reflect the sustainability ideal requires further consideration, there are some indications that Sofia's GUDP may not be effective in encouraging sustainable forms of growth. Substantial inconsistencies exist between the plan's overall goals and some of its measures and implementation tools. The results on the ground suggest that, despite the plan's low-density aspirations, Sofia is becoming more compact and densified, while losing its green edges and failing to redirect growth to its northern territories where ample space and opportunities exist. We conclude that employing the achievements of research on sustainability and developing relevant implementation tools such as more effective zoning regulations and viable suburban transportation infrastructure are necessary for realising both the patterns proposed through master planning and achieving sustainable urban growth.Keywords: efficiency of planning; sustainable forms of urban growth; polycentric urban development; suburbanisation in Southeastern Europe; instruments of urban planning

A Systematic Literature Review of Sustainable Urban Planning Challenges Associated With Developing Countries

“…Take, for example, the challenge that states, "Identifying a sustainable form of growth, especially when considering specific local context and conditions is a difficult task. Implementation of plans and the realisation of urban forms are even more challenging" [6]. This challenge is about the combination of sustainability and urban planning.…”

“…The confusion has led to the term 'sustainable urban planning' becoming distorted and impractical [8]. Even if one were to agree on a sustainable urban form for a specific context, there would still be little support from policy-makers and government to implement the practices [14]; [6].…”

“…"Sprawl, as a low-density and dispersed form of urban expansion, is generally considered to be a threat to sustainability: it is characterised by inefficient modes of transit" [6]. Sprawling development patterns cause auto-dependent societies: people are forced to travel long distances, spending up to 40 per cent of their income to get to work in town [21]; [29]; [30]; [31]; [7], further increasing carbon emissions and contributing to climate change.…”

Are spatial planning objectives reflected in the evolution of urban landscape patterns? A framework for the evaluation of spatial planning outcomes

“…Outcome evaluations may also be lacking because the planning system is not mature enough to focus on evaluation, or are intentionally avoided because they could highlight failures in the planning process [11]. Most previous research efforts on outcome evaluations focus on individual planning instruments [13], such as conformance of development with urban growth boundaries [14,15] or the distance between planning intentions in local plans and the city's actual development pattern [16]. Less attention has been payed to developing frameworks suitable for large scale assessments, such as the national level.…”

Are Spatial Planning Objectives Reflected in the Evolution of Urban Landscape Patterns? A Framework for the Evaluation of Spatial Planning Outcomes

“…Most previous research efforts on outcome evaluations focus on individual planning instruments at the local level [15], such as conformance of development within urban growth boundaries [16,17] or the distance between planning intentions and cities' actual development patterns [18]. Less attention has been paid to developing frameworks suitable for large-scale assessments, such as at the national level.…”