Qualitative analysis reveals phased planning's implications for land-use governance in Serbia, suggesting a mixed impact on spatial development.
Contemporary planning systems are increasingly exposed to pressures for accelerated decision-making, while remaining bound to legally rigid and procedurally formalized frameworks. In this context, phased planning has emerged in Serbia as a mechanism for structuring the preparation and adoption of planning documents. However, its role as a land-use governance instrument remains conceptually underdefined and unevenly operationalized in practice. This paper examines how phased planning is interpreted and implemented within the Serbian statutory planning system through a qualitative comparative analysis of two planning processes in Belgrade. The selected cases represent two distinct procedural models: amendment-based phasing through successive modifications of a single planning document, and document-based phasing in which phases are adopted as separate but interrelated plans. The analysis focuses on key governance dimensions relevant to land-use planning, including integration of planning scales, coordination among institutional actors, procedural transparency, and the risk of fragmentation across planning phases. The findings indicate that while phased planning can introduce a degree of procedural flexibility, it also tends to reproduce or intensify coordination gaps and information asymmetries in legally rigid systems. The paper contributes to a better understanding of how phased planning operates as a governance mechanism in land-use planning and identifies conditions under which it may support—or constrain—coherent spatial development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lalošević et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: