Cite this article
Pozdech, T. (2026) ‘Landscape as a structuring framework for urban development: Research-by-design comparison of zoning-oriented and landscape-oriented planning in Nitra, Slovakia’, Architecture Papers of the Faculty of Architecture and Design STU, 31(3), pp. 26-41. https://www.doi.org/10.2478/alfa-2026-0014
SUMMARY
Contemporary cities face increasing pressure from climate change, biodiversity loss, landscape fragmentation, urban expansion, and growing demands on land. These pressures reveal limits in planning approaches based mainly on functional zoning and fixed land-use boundaries. Zoning remains important for regulating development and providing legal certainty, but ecological processes, water systems, public-space networks, and transitions between urban and non-urban areas often cross these boundaries.
Landscape architecture and spatial planning increasingly understand landscape as a connected and multifunctional system. Landscape urbanism, landscape infrastructure, landscape ecology, green infrastructure, blue-green infrastructure, and nature-based solutions emphasise relationships between ecological processes, water systems, public space, infrastructure, and urban development. Their translation into statutory municipal planning, however, remains less clear.
This study examines this issue through an exploratory case study of Nitra, Slovakia. The city combines a historic core, post-war development, suburban growth, agricultural land, the Nitra River, and the Zobor Massif. The research compares the current statutory Land-Use Plan of the City of Nitra with the landscape-oriented study Maturing Nitra, developed through research by design. The aim is to examine how landscape-oriented planning can complement statutory zoning rather than replace it.
The research combines a focused theoretical review, qualitative analysis of planning documents, research by design, and a structured comparison. The empirical material includes the current Land-Use Plan, the Analysis of the Valid Land-Use Plan, ecological-stability documents, relevant Slovak planning legislation, and the Maturing Nitra study. Research by design explored spatial relationships through mapping, spatial analysis, and scenario development at regional, city, and local scales.
The two planning approaches were compared using eight criteria: spatial continuity, ecological connectivity, the urban-landscape relationship, integration of public spaces, adaptability and resilience, multiscalar relationships, blue-green infrastructure, and landscape as a structuring framework for development. A qualitative three-point scale indicated whether each principle was absent, partially present, or strongly expressed. The assessment compares the expression of selected landscape-oriented principles, not the overall quality of the two planning systems.
The analysis shows that landscape is already recognised in Nitra through ecological-stability systems, watercourses, forests, agricultural land, vegetation, open spaces, and environmental regulations. However, these elements are only partly connected with development, mobility, public space, and long-term spatial change. Landscape therefore often operates as a protected or sectoral layer rather than as a framework that actively structures urban development.
Research by design produced five main findings. The urban-landscape interface can be understood as a gradual transition rather than only as a fixed boundary. Fragmented landscape elements may contain relationships relevant to future reconnection. Landscape structures can help inform the configuration and limits of development. Local spatial conflicts are often linked to processes operating at wider scales. Planning categories and language also influence which spatial relationships become visible and can affect later planning decisions.
The comparative assessment showed a stronger expression of most landscape-oriented principles in the research-by-design concept, especially spatial continuity, transition zones, multiscalar relationships, blue-green infrastructure, and the use of landscape to guide development. This does not demonstrate the general superiority of landscape-oriented planning. The statutory plan has legal force and provides regulatory certainty, while research by design can more freely explore relationships across functional boundaries. The findings therefore support a complementary approach.
Possible implementation routes include a city-wide landscape framework, urban-landscape transition zones, connected blue-green infrastructure, landscape-informed development areas, stronger coordination across municipal and regional scales, and the use of research by design during plan preparation. Implementation would require clear planning mechanisms, reliable spatial data, institutional cooperation, financing, and monitoring.
The main contribution of the study is both methodological and practical. It provides a transparent framework for comparing two planning approaches and shows how research by design can reveal spatial relationships that may remain less visible in conventional zoning. The study is limited by its single-case design, the author’s involvement in the landscape-oriented concept, the qualitative scoring system, the absence of independent inter-rater validation, and the lack of post-implementation evaluation. Within these limits, the planning challenge is not to replace zoning, but to combine its regulatory strengths with a broader understanding of spatial relationships, continuity, and change.