In Switzerland, spatial planning is closely connected to the overall public goal of preventing land take in order to protect agricultural land. Although municipal planning activities and building codes have been in existence in most cities and municipalities since industrialisation and since medieval times in others (e.g. in Bern since 1405), and the first proposal for a national settlement law was made in 1920, the modern planning system in Switzerland stems from debates during and after World War II. In order to maintain the country’s capacity for food self-sufficiency during times of military besiegement and trading barriers, domestic agricultural land was to be protected by coordinating land use. The first supra-local plan (Plan Wahlen) was developed in 1939 to increase agricultural land from 180,000 ha to 350,000 ha as part of the war preparation (‘cultivation battle’). Thus, the first administrative department responsible for coordinating land use was the Swiss Federal War Office for Food within the Military Department chaired by Friedrich Traugott Wahlen, who subsequently became a Federal Councillor.

After the war, Switzerland underwent enormous economic development, which within a short time frame ‘overran’ the traditional, rural society (Gilgen 2012: 34), giving rise to wealth and a modern, urban way of life. Technological progress, improvements in living standards, and rising individual aspirations led to major construction activities and changes in land use. Remote parts of the country were developed, while at the same time many people moved to the cities, which grew to an unprecedented extent. All of this resulted in an intensification of land use and the fraying of cities.

In order to steer developments in an orderly manner and thus counter the ‘housing cancer’ (Meili 1967, quoted in Koll-Schretzenmayr/Schilling 2008: 19), the distribution and use of land had to be regulated urgently. A debate arose about the necessary political-administrative steering and control mechanisms to counteract housing shortages, land speculation and urban sprawl (Knoepfel et al. 2012: 418), including popular initiatives questioning the extent and limitation of private land ownership. Alarmed by the initiatives of the political left, bourgeois-liberal politics advocated to amend the Constitution and insert a constitutionally protected guarantee of ownership – even though private property had been legally secured in the Swiss Civil Code since 1907 and in the Cantonal Constitutions since the 1840s.

The debate led to a ‘historic compromise’ (Knoepfel et al. 2012: 419) that was approved by the Swiss voters in 1969. The Federal Constitution was complemented by two new articles: spatial planning was established as a public policy field in Article 22quarter  (today Article 75 SC), while private property was constitutionally protected in Article 22ter  (today Article 26 SC). This solution represents the great importance of private property rights for the free democratic state while at the same time stating that land ownership is not an unlimited right but should also serve the public good. The use of land is therefore free within the limits of the law in force and the framework of the legal system. In terms of sustainable spatial development, the public interest demands controlled settlement growth in order to strive for a compact, decentralised form of settlement.

To implement this new constitutional-legal competence, new planning laws were needed on the national level (to lay down planning principles) and on the cantonal level. Accordingly, the 1970s were noted for political debates on how to establish planning as a policy field. The first national planning law was approved by parliament in 1974. It encompasses the nationwide implementation of the separation principle (Article 1), which remains a fundamental element of spatial planning in Switzerland. Accordingly, a distinction is made between areas where construction is permitted if there are no valid reasons against it (‘building zones’) (Article 15) and areas where construction is not permitted unless there are explicit reasons to allow it (‘non-building zones’) (Article 16). Furthermore, the law included far-reaching instruments for local planning authorities to control land use (e.g mandating building permits) and to ensure plan implementation (e.g. added value capture, building obligation, expropriation). However, economic lobbyists called for a referendum. Swiss voters narrowly rejected the law in 1976 (48.9% in favour) and it did not come into force. In 1979, parliament passed a new version of the federal planning law that kept the fundamental principles (such as the separation principle, the requirement for building permits, and zoning) but was softened in terms of the property-interfering instruments (such as added value capture). This time, no referendum was called. The Federal Spatial Planning Act (SPA) came into force on 1 January 1980, laying down the principles of spatial planning to the present day.

Apart from some minor amendments, the system and its legal basis remained unchanged until the early 2000s when the political pressure for reform increased. The debate was triggered by the popular ‘Galmiz case’ that impressively demonstrated the weakness of planning to protect green space in the event of economic pressure to undermine it (Hengstermann/Gerber 2015). As a consequence, a popular initiative was launched by nature protection organisations (e.g. the Swiss federal foundation for landscape protection) to reinforce planning’s powers within the constitution. The Federal Council preempted this amendment by presenting a reinforced version of the SPA (called SPA-1) that was passed by parliament in 2012, approved by Swiss voters in 2013, and came into force on 1 May 2014. The revised law put a stronger focus on inward settlement development by adding it to planning´s overall aims (Article 1), including stricter requirements for municipalities to zone within municipal boundaries (Article 15), measures to promote the availability of land (Article 15a), and more precise minimum requirements for added value capture (Article 5). Furthermore, the superordinate levels were granted control rights, e.g. regarding the dimensioning of building zones (Article 8a para. 1 lit. d and Article 15 para. 5). Additionally, a strict implementation regime was established to ensure the enforcement of the new national requirements (Article 38a).

While this revision focused on stronger planning within the building zone, the rules for building outside the building zone (e.g. agricultural businesses and tourism infrastructure) remained untouched. The extremely complex set of rules, which allows for many exceptions (e.g. by allowing for buildings serving farming activities to be constructed), was only reformed as part of the second revision of the SPA (SPA-2), which is currently underway (as of April 2025). This reform was initiated under pressure from environmental protection organisations and a popular initiative known as the second landscape initiative.

At the beginning of May 2021, DETEC submitted a revised and greatly simplified draft of SPA-2 for consultation as a counter-proposal to the landscape initiative. It outlined how the land use densification target (see SPA-1) was intended to be achieved. In September 2021, the Federal Council supported DETEC’s draft and chose not to submit its own indirect counter-proposal. During the parliamentary summer session of 2022, DETEC finally presented its draft of the revised law to the Council of States, following a lengthy consultation process. After extensive discussions, SPA-2 was passed by the Federal Parliament on 29 September 2023, and is scheduled to come into force in mid-2025 (EspaceSuisse 2024; ETH Zürich 2024). 

The revision centres around the so-called stabilisation target and a new ‘territorial approach’. The former is described as the centrepiece of SPA-2, with parliament committed to stabilising the number of buildings and the sealed area outside building zones. This indicates that all non-protected buildings in non-building areas are included within the stabilisation target. However, the catalogue of exceptions regarding the actual areas or their sealing is extremely extensive. The stabilisation target will be achieved through an overall strategy based on cantonal structural plans. To this end, the cantons must adapt their structural plans within five years of the revised law coming into force. After this deadline, sanctions may be imposed: every additional building outside the building zones must then be compensated for.

With the so-called territorial approach, the cantons should be able to diverge from the definitive federal provisions regarding construction outside designated building zones in specific cases, thereby gaining more flexibility to account for regional and cantonal particularities. To this end, they must identify areas in the structural plan where certain additional uses are permitted based on a comprehensive spatial strategy (hence the ‘territorial approach’). From this framework, non-building zones with uses to be compensated for can be established. In these zones, the corresponding uses must be integrated with the necessary compensation and enhancement measures and result in an overall improvement of the settlement structure, landscape, building culture, cultivated land and biodiversity.

In addition, SPA-2 has made several other adjustments. For example, it will be possible to demolish, rebuild, or extend existing hospitality and accommodation establishments outside the building zone under certain conditions. The right to restore the legal status of illegal buildings and unauthorised uses outside of building zones has also been newly regulated: these will no longer have to be demolished or prohibited after 30 years. Furthermore, a new planning principle for subterranean planning and construction has been added to the law (EspaceSuisse 2024).

Since 1969, Swiss spatial planning has been anchored in Article 75 of the Swiss Federal Constitution. The overall constitutional planning objectives are: (a) to ensure the appropriate and economic use of land, and (b) to ensure properly ordered settlements. The constitutional article determines that planning lies within the cantons’ field of competences. However, the Confederation lays down binding principles, and supports and coordinates cantonal efforts (framework legislation). The actual legal basis is embodied in the Federal Spatial Planning Act (SPA), 26 cantonal planning laws, and municipal building codes. Furthermore, the laws are accompanied by executive ordinances, such as the Federal Spatial Planning Ordinance (SPO) and its equivalents on the cantonal level. The type and extent of admissible land use are regulated by the municipal building codes.

On a national level, planning is administered by the Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) as part of the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC). The office is responsible for the legal supervision of planning conducted on the cantonal level (in particular cantonal planning laws and structural plans); the development of principles, strategies and draft laws promoting sustainable spatial development; and the coordination of settlement and transport aspects in urban centres and agglomerations. Furthermore, it coordinates the spatial impact of the government’s activities (Sectoral Concepts and Sectoral Plans, such as the Landscape Concept 2020) and serves as the coordination point for international cooperation. Recently, the responsible department (ARE) has been trying to coordinate national planning by developing a nationwide plan (Territorial Concept Switzerland) (see below).

On a cantonal level, similar offices exist. They prepare the cantonal planning activities (in particular the structural plan). Furthermore, they are responsible for the legal supervision of planning on the municipal level. In some cases, they are responsible for zoning plans and building permissions as no further planning tier on the municipal level exists (e.g. in urban cantons such as Basel-City and Geneva).

The administrative structure on the local level depends on the municipality’s size. As about half of Swiss municipalities have fewer than 1,000 inhabitants, and the smaller ones typically do not have a specific planning department. They often apply generic building codes, and planning decisions are taken by a committee in an honorary capacity. The preparation of technical documents and administrative processes are outsourced to private planning offices. Larger municipalities and cities have building codes and run planning departments – which, however, very often also outsource planning administration to private offices.

In planning practice, the Zoning Plan (municipal level) and the Structural Plan (cantonal level) are the most important planning instruments.

In combination with the municipal building code, the Zoning Plan contains all regulations for land use for an entire municipality. It is directly legally binding and forms the legal basis for granting permission to build. The Zoning Plan must comply with the superordinate Structural Plan of cantonal planning tiers that lays out the spatial priorities and framework conditions for municipal planning. As a law-like document with direct effect, the Zoning Plan must undergo a public participation process and finally be approved by local voters in a mandatory referendum. It is usually valid for 15 years.

For specific projects of high relevance (e.g. a shopping centre) or specific areas of high importance (e.g. village centres), the cantonal planning laws require a special land-use plan. Their exact legal structure and even their names differ in the various cantons. In principle, they contain more detailed regulations and have to be agreed by the cantonal government and approved by the municipal parliament as well as local voters in a separate process.

Some cities combine these public law instruments with private law instruments pursuing an active land banking strategy (Verheij et al. 2025). The cities of Basel and Biel/Bienne are known for their long-term land banking policy – they own a remarkable share of their own territory (20–35%), they do not sell public land, and they make land available through long-term land leases only (Gerber et al. 2017). Other cities, such as Zurich, have intense cooperation agreements with cooperatives offering about 20% of the city’s housing stock.

In 2012, the Federal Office for Spatial Development (ARE) presented the first ever spatial plan for the entire country (the so-called Territorial Concept Switzerland). It contains a spatial vision for sustainable development and calls to improve collaboration across administrative borders and between 12 different action areas. The Territorial Concept is driven by the idea of diversity and solidarity between the different regions and their contribution to maintaining the country’s international competitiveness. The country’s splendid scenery and the high quality of settlements are to be promoted by carefully treating the land as a scarce resource. The country’s spatial pattern is based on a polycentric net of small villages and larger cities. Different sectoral policies (such as transport, energy and the environment) are to be coordinated.

Although developed by a federal institution, the Territorial Concept was signed by the 26 cantons as territorial visions fall within their legal competence. The document is not legally binding, but serves as an overall orientation framework for policy-making across the various planning actors, and is referred to in many planning reports. The Territorial Concept is currently (as of 2025) under revision. An updated version has been published for consultation and is expected to be passed in the course of 2026. The updated Territorial Concept contains three nationwide strategies on how the authorities can improve cooperation at various levels, enhance settlements and landscapes and coordinate spatial development, transport and energy.

Setting priorities and balancing conflicting demands – the cantonal structural plans are considered the heart of Swiss planning as they coordinate planning activities from national to local level and across different spatially-relevant sectoral policies (Schmid et al. 2021). They typically contain a spatial vision of how the canton shall develop over the next 15 to 30 years, how different (conflicting) activities are to be reconciled, and what the temporal priorities and instruments for actual implementation are.

As an example, the current structural plan of the canton of Aargau stems from 2011. Usually, it is updated every 10 years but to comply with the changed legal framework of the revised national law, the plan was revised and updated exceptionally in 2015.

The plan is composed of two parts:

• The cartographic part (called the ‘Spatial Concept’) represents the functions of the individual areas and municipality types, anchors the agglomeration policy and the rural area policy, and defines the main directions and strategies of the canton’s spatial development.
• The written part (called the ‘text’) contains six overall leitmotifs. They are translated into measures in 28 strategic priorities within six sectors of planning: settlements, landscape, mobility, energy, water supply and drainage. Each strategic priority results in between one and five measures

As the Canton of Aargau is characterised by different spatial patterns, the measures taken differ. For the agglomeration of urban patterns along the central axis (within commuting distance to Zurich), numerous measures aim to improve connectivity with public transport, densification measures, and decentralising economic development. In the more rural parts, the focus is on adapting to an ageing population and climate change. This results in condition-based measures (e.g. cantonal coordination of retail development) and performance-based measures (e.g. the objective that recreational green space shall be accessible within 15 minutes without a car from every dwelling) (Hartmann/Albrecht 2014).

The binding nature of the measures is at three different levels: Determinations are directly legally binding and are to be implemented in every planning activity by the public authorities. For measures relating to intermediate results, the final political decision has not been taken yet (e.g. voting is outstanding). However, public authorities have to consider these in their planning and must not do anything predetermined or make them impossible to achieve. Long-term planning will be listed as pre-orientation, which the public authorities have to consider as far as possible at earlier stages.

In some cantons, there is also an administrative level between the cantons and the municipalities, known as a region, district or Amt. They are not political bodies. The significance for planning varies greatly, but often includes supra-municipal tasks such as the coordination of local public transport, wastewater management, or planning for high-rise constructions.

Roughly every 15 years, a municipality prepares its future spatial development. In 2018, the city of Thun started the process of revising its municipal zoning plan stemming from 2002. Prepared through 18 analytical reports on different sectoral policies and an overall masterplan, a first draft was presented to the public in 2019. This process leading up to the publication of draft plans illustrates the crucial role of informal planning procedures: for example, through collaborative workshops with residents, landowners and public authorities from various departments, the city planning office repeatedly reflects on possible future land uses and building volumes. To foster acceptance of the planning process – particularly with regard to the final formal vote – the authority actively employs a range of qualitative methods to integrate diverse stakeholder perspectives. These include interviews, panel discussions and surveys with property owners.

During these stages of information and consultation in relation to drafting zoning plans, municipal planning often follows a ‘back-and-forth’ or even ‘trial-and-error’ approach: the city puts forward suggestions, which are then discussed, critiqued and revised by a broader public audience. Increasingly, digital tools and platforms are also used to facilitate participation, such as publishing drafts on municipal websites or enabling comments via eGIS voting tools (Hersberger et al. 2023). Finally, once the official draft is published and displayed at city hall, the public has the right to submit written objections. Any objections must be considered, reviewed, and, if rejected, accompanied by a formal justification before the draft proceeds to the voting stage.
In the case of Thun, following numerous discussions and exchanges with residents, politicians and special interest representatives, a revised version was presented 18 months later. The new plan has to be verified by the cantonal planning authorities (compliance-verification only), passed by the municipal parliament, and approved by voters before it comes into force and regulates building activities for the next 15 years. As a municipal law, the municipal electorate is entitled to vote (local residents with Swiss citizenship, usually from the age of 18).

Thun is characterised as a predominantly residential town with a decent economy and facilities. Compared to other urban centres, the population density is low in Thun. The new zoning plan aims to promote affordable housing and economic development without further outward development – as new zoning would not comply with national and cantonal planning law. Instead, several areas in Thun will be upzoned within municipal buildable land, allowing the landowners a higher floor-area ratio on their property.

Each Swiss canton operates its own system for collaborating with private implementation and practical planning partners. While some cantons and larger municipalities (e.g. the city of Zurich) have substantial planning departments that can handle many of their planning tasks independently (e.g. the initiation of special land-use plans), smaller cantons and cities rely on the efforts of private planning offices through collaboration. This reliance is further influenced by the fact that much planning expertise exists within the private sector. According to certain cantonal planning laws, municipal planning is often restricted from competing with or undermining private planning activities. However, such restrictions can lead to outdated planning collaborations and power imbalances. For instance, the mayor of a municipality might also serve as the CEO of the local planning firm that is developing the municipal zoning plan while simultaneously receiving planning commissions from the municipal council (of which the mayor is also a member).

However, in most Swiss municipalities, this is not the standard case, and private planning offices do not take on a dual role. Instead, they operate on behalf of the municipal planning department, which has a designated budget to allocate and transfer planning tasks to the private sector, and private planners then execute the tasks that are mutually agreed upon. These tasks can vary in content (e.g. from drafting spatial strategies and moderating participatory workshops to revising legal instruments), scope (e.g. from small single-plot planning permissions for buildings to large-scale special land-use or master plans), and the actors involved (e.g. from collaborating with one individual landowner to involving the general public). In summary, the active versus passive role of private planning offices in the planning process largely depends on the size and internal expertise of the municipality. 

Significant spatial challenges in Swiss municipalities include, among others, (a) the management of urban sprawl, (b) the promotion of more compact urbanisation, and (c) the implementation of the federal climate strategy aimed at achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (Solly 2020). Additionally, (d) living space consumption per person increased by 35% from 1980 to 2020 (Schmid et al. 2020) and may rise again by 11% due to an anticipated increase in owner-occupied housing (Agriantoni/Thalmann 2022). This increase is viewed as highly environmentally unsustainable in terms of both land use and energy consumption. Between 2000 and 2015, (e) rapid urbanisation led to a decline in vegetation cover (Richards/Belcher 2019), intensifying pressure on undeveloped urban land, including urban green spaces. Lastly, there remain (f) numerous questions about the actual implementation and resolution of these challenges at the municipal level (the so-called ‘implementation deficit’, see Debrunner/Kaufmann 2023).

To address contemporary spatial planning challenges in Switzerland, the use of informal planning instruments has been key in planning practice for quite some time. Generally defined, informal policy instruments have no legal foundation, as they are not officially inscribed in policies or laws. Therefore, the processes and practices of informal planning cannot be challenged or governed through court rulings. As such, they are seen as less legitimate than formal planning rules (e.g. zoning plans), as they can always be overruled or reversed (Debrunner 2026, forthcoming). 
Examples of such informal planning instruments include test planning, temporary uses, or strategic planning (e.g. spatial development strategies). Rather than advising stakeholders on and through official rules and guidelines (e.g. the height of buildings), these informal instruments are used to increase the consensus and acceptance of formal planning among the core stakeholder group within a given area. 
Additionally, these informal instruments promote flexibility, allowing municipal governments to approve (and even initiate) procedures that provide flexibility beyond the constraints of formal and legally binding laws, enabling them to cope with spatial development pressures, risks and challenges. This trend is primarily due to shifts in development towards densification (see SPA-1), which have made the urban land available for infrastructure provision scarce and socio-politically contentious among key urban actors, including owners, investors, developers, authorities and residents (Keil 2020; McFarlane 2016). Hence, formal rules cannot be implemented from one day to another as land use conflicts have become more complicated and intense. Rather, through informal planning instruments, interests and perspectives from different actors can first be brought together, aligned and discussed before formal planning initiatives start. 
In essence, municipalities, as the legal entities responsible for steering Swiss spatial planning, must find new, flexible and informal approaches, as well as new compromises, to manage this complex land use situation sustainably.  

The planning system is characterised by a comprehensive, integrated planning tradition. In contrast, the planning culture reflects a distinctly libertarian understanding of the state, rooted in the bourgeois revolutionary movement of the 1840s. Accordingly, the role of the state is fundamentally limited, and individual personal responsibility is highly emphasised.

This is reflected in the aforementioned ‘historic compromise’ regarding the establishment of spatial planning as a policy field and the constitutional protection of property rights (in 1969). The state’s influence on land use was established relatively late and remained quite limited. In contrast, landowners’ rights are strongly protected, both legally and in spatial planning practice.

Public restrictions on ownership therefore require strong justification. In practice, this means that planning decision-making processes are often lengthy until a solid compromise is ultimately reached. However, thanks to the direct democratic approach, once compromises are found, they are generally well accepted and implemented efficiently (Pleger 2018). This approach aligns with the formal principles of the political culture of the Swiss state, such as federalism. 

Planning education in Switzerland is characterised by the interdisciplinary nature of the field. There is no clearly defined specification of the discipline, and therefore, no binding core curriculum. Various professional organisations have differing views on what planning involves and the essential skills that planners need to be educated in. This ranges from highly creative aspects to the legal and political understanding required of a planner. While there have been attempts to standardise planning education, such efforts (e.g. the ETH Registereintrag) have not significantly impacted planning practice.

Planning is largely seen as a technical, applied discipline, not as an academic or theoretical discipline. For instance, there is no full-time university-level education programme aligned with the AESOP curriculum. The only full-time Bachelor’s and Master’s degree programmes in planning are offered at the polytechnic level by the Eastern Switzerland University of Applied Sciences (OST) in Rapperswil. Other universities of applied sciences also offer programmes, such as the Master’s offered by the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts.

This situation results in a shortage of fully trained planners, leading many practitioners to enter the field from other disciplines. Swiss universities offer courses in planning as part of various study programmes, such as geography (University of Bern, University of Lausanne, University of Basel), civil engineering (ETH Zurich), and social science (University of Geneva).

To address the need for qualified planners, several continuous postgraduate education programmes provide introductory courses in planning for professionals. The MASc in Spatial Development at ETH Zurich (called ETH Raum) has the longest tradition and has proven to be a training centre for leading figures in planning. Other institutions have also entered this profitable market, offering programmes such as a CAS (Certificate of Advanced Study) in Urban Management (Centre for Urban and Real Estate Management, University of Zurich), CAS in Urban Planning (University of Zurich), CAS in Spatial Planning and Transformation (BFH Bern), MASc Urbanism (University of Geneva), MASc Spatial Development (OST Rapperswil), MASc in Urban Design (ZHAW Zurich), and MASc in Municipal, Urban and Regional Development (HSLU Lucerne).

Additionally, many practising planners in Switzerland have received their education abroad, further diversifying the field.

Links:

• https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/baug/department/studium/rauming/dokumente/allgemein/Registereintrag_Raumplanende_in_der_Schweiz.pdf
• https://raumplanungsberufe.ch/ausbildungswege/