The paradox of strategic spatial planning: A theoretical outline with a view on Finland Raine Ma¨ntysalo*, Jonna K. Kangasoja and Vesa Kanninen Department of Real Estate, Planning and Geoinformatics (YTK), Aalto University School of Engineering, Espoo, Finland (Received 8 May 2014; accepted 4 February 2015) Recently, the emphasis on the strategic dimension of spatial and land use planning has brought along new instruments of “soft” and informal planning. While these instruments may enhance the strategic quality of planning, more attention needs to be paid to how they relate to the existing statutory land use planning instruments. In the regulatory planning systems of continental Europe, the statutory planning instruments manifest non-strategic features, yet they cannot be ignored in strategic spatial planning. Therein lies the paradox of strategic spatial planning. The theoretical argument of the article is developed by drawing on Wilden’s distinction theory that builds on the notion of logical paradox. With a view on the Finnish planning system, the article explores practical implications by utilizing Schwarz’s and Healey’s ideas of scenario planning and strategic framing, respectively. In so doing, the article reflects on a few cases of strategic spatial planning in Finnish city-regions, and the Finnish government’s aim to develop the strategic character of statutory local master plans. Keywords: scenario planning; dialectics; planning system; logical paradox; uncertainty Introduction In recent years, the theme of strategic spatial planning has gained increasing interest among planning researchers (e.g. Albrechts & Balducci, 2013; Balducci, Fedeli, & Pasqui, 2011; Davoudi & Strange, 2009; Friedmann, 2004; Haughton, Allmendinger, Counsell, & Vigar, 2010; Healey, 2007, 2009; Kunzmann, 2013). The need for the strategic approach has been justified by referring to major challenges facing our cities and urban regions. Urban growth has brought scalar effects in urban structures, leading to polycentric and networked urban regions, expanding metropolises and mega-cities. As part of this development, cities have become transformed in terms of increasing mobility, centralization of commerce and new modes of communication, enabled by technological innovations. These tendencies have fostered fragmentation of urban structures and automobile dependency (Albrechts & Balducci, 2013; Kanninen, Ma¨ntysalo, Ristima¨ki, & Kontio, 2010). This, in turn, has increased the functional vulnerability of urban structures, greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. Further, it has led to increasing segregation of urban areas and gaps in the accessibility of services, which decreases the responsiveness of the urban system to ongoing demographic changes, e.g. accelerated immigration and aging of population. Cities and urban regions need to adjust to competition in global markets and increase their attractiveness with different place promotion campaigns. At the same time, the governance of cities and urban regions has become institutionally fragmented, both vertically and horizontally. This has brought about institutional ambiguity (Hajer, 2003, 2006). Formal and informal institutions, networks and partnerships coexist and overlap in varying geographical ranges and scales, assigning q 2015 Taylor & Francis *Corresponding author. Email: raine.mantysalo@aalto.fi Planning Theory & Practice, 2015 Vol. 16, No. 2, 169–183, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2015.1016548