The report revolves around the use of different approaches to and models for urban development in strategic municipal planning in a Danish context. The project first introduces the clashing beliefs of centralization and decentralization throughout Danish planning history. Since the beginning of strategic municipal planning a strictly hierarchical municipal system based solely on population size and level of service has been favored. Furthermore, this approach played a huge role in transforming Denmark into a decentralized welfare society. However, this approach was judged outdated in the Danish National Planning Report of 2006 in which it is claimed that this approach is inflexible and does not integrate values and challenges that dominates the political and planning stage today.
A preliminary screening of the approaches used by municipalities in the Northern Denmark Region shows that 8 out of 11 municipalities still use a strictly hierarchical model – in name at least. The report conducts a case study of three municipalities in the Northern Denmark Region in order to identify how their approaches to municipal planning differ, how their municipal model affects which parameters they value, and last but not least whether or not the traditional hierarchical model is truly outdated.
One of the studied municipalities still uses a hierarchical model, another one is currently working on a new model, and the third municipality has been working with a distinctive model since 2009. This study shows that even though the three municipalities work with different models they share the same values. Cities and urban areas are characterized by more than simply population size and level of service. Cultural heritage, scenic surroundings and several other things make each city or urban area distinctive. Even the municipality that works with a strictly hierarchical model acknowledges this and works towards creating distinctive cities and urban areas that serves different purposes and have different roles. This is done by using supplementary tools in the municipal planning that identifies distinctive features throughout the municipality. Thus, the report concludes that the three municipalities approaches doesn’t vary a great deal and that hierarchical model is able to adapt to today’s political and planning values – population size and level of service is an important asset for local development, but many other potentials exists and can and should be integrated in the municipal planning.