IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v77y2018icp821-828.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Urban land readjustment: Necessary for effective urban renewal? Analysing the Dutch quest for new legislation

Author

Listed:
  • Holtslag-Broekhof, Sanne

Abstract

Dutch municipalities have four instruments to actively assemble landownership. Using these instruments, municipalities have been capable to steer land use developments in both rural and urban areas into the desired directions. Despite the available instruments to assemble land, the necessity for a new act that enables urban land readjustment (ULR) has been discussed several times in the past decades. In 2015, the decision has been made to implement a new act for ULR. Given the situation that ULR will be added to the Dutch land policy instruments, this study explores the main conditions and features that the ULR act needs, to concede to expectations of urban planners, who currently consider the use of ULR. To do this, eleven cases in which ULR is considered as land policy instrument, were analysed. The results show that the expected added value of ULR is mainly related to its ability to share financial costs, gains and risks; to effectively relocate owners and reshape parcels; and to decrease the development costs that occur during active land acquisition. This implies that the main characteristics of regulation on ULR are to enable: 1) the financial division of risks and costs amongst owners, 2) a facilitative role for public parties, and 3) ways to reach agreement on adjusting the property and parcel structuring amongst land owners. Given the current Dutch situation, in which ULR is perceived as an instrument that can be especially valuable in urban renewal tasks with low financial profits, legislation that enables mandatory exchange under strict circumstances is argued to be necessary, to ensure an added value of the instrument upon existing instruments for land assembly.

Suggested Citation

  • Holtslag-Broekhof, Sanne, 2018. "Urban land readjustment: Necessary for effective urban renewal? Analysing the Dutch quest for new legislation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 821-828.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:77:y:2018:i:c:p:821-828
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717304568
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.062?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hugo Priemus, 2004. "Housing and New Urban Renewal: Current Policies in the Netherlands," European Journal of Housing Policy, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 4(2), pages 229-246.
    2. Jean-David Gerber, 2016. "The managerial turn and municipal land-use planning in Switzerland – evidence from practice," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 192-209, April.
    3. Yung Yau, 2012. "Homeowner Involvement, Land Readjustment, and Sustainable Urban Regeneration in Hong Kong," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 3-22.
    4. Edwin Buitelaar & Arjan Bregman, 2016. "Dutch land development institutions in the face of crisis: trembling pillars in the planners’ paradise," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(7), pages 1281-1294, July.
    5. Edwin Buitelaar, 2010. "Window On The Netherlands: Cracks In The Myth: Challenges To Land Policy In The Netherlands," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 101(3), pages 349-356, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yang Bai & Wei Zhou & Yanjun Guan & Xue Li & Baohua Huang & Fengchun Lei & Hong Yang & Wenmin Huo, 2020. "Evolution of Policy Concerning the Readjustment of Inefficient Urban Land Use in China Based on a Content Analysis Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Wubie, Abebe Mengaw & de Vries, Walter T. & Alemie, Berhanu Kefale, 2021. "Synthesizing the dilemmas and prospects for a peri-urban land use management framework: Evidence from Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    3. Zillante, Artie & Read, Dustin C. & Seiler, Michael J., 2020. "Assembling land for urban revitalization in the presence of linchpin parcels and information asymmetries: An experimental investigation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Goździewicz-Biechońska, Justyna & Brzezińska-Rawa, Anna, 2022. "Protecting ecosystem services of urban agriculture against land-use change using market-based instruments. A Polish perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vera Götze & Mathias Jehling, 2023. "Comparing types and patterns: A context-oriented approach to densification in Switzerland and the Netherlands," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 50(6), pages 1645-1659, July.
    2. Edwin Buitelaar & Hans Leinfelder, 2020. "Public Design of Urban Sprawl: Governments and the Extension of the Urban Fabric in Flanders and the Netherlands," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(1), pages 46-57.
    3. Seong, Eun Yeong & Kim, Hyung Min & Kang, Jingu & Choi, Chang Gyu, 2023. "Developing pedestrian cities: The contribution of land readjustment projects to street vitality in Seoul, South Korea," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    4. Justin Kadi & Sako Musterd, 2015. "Housing for the poor in a neo-liberalising just city: Still affordable, but increasingly inaccessible," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 106(3), pages 246-262, July.
    5. Edwin Buitelaar & Maaike Galle & Niels Sorel, 2014. "The public planning of private planning: an analysis of controlled spontaneity in the Netherlands," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Stefano Moroni (ed.), Cities and Private Planning, chapter 12, pages 248-268, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Or Levkovich & Jan Rouwendal, 2016. "Spatial Planning and Segmentation of the Land Market," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-018/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Puustinen, Tuulia & Krigsholm, Pauliina & Falkenbach, Heidi, 2022. "Land policy conflict profiles for different densification types: A literature-based approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    8. Bossuyt, Daniël & Salet, Willem & Majoor, Stan, 2018. "Commissioning as the cornerstone of self-build. Assessing the constraints and opportunities of self-build housing in the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 524-533.
    9. Anita Kokx & Ronald van Kempen, 2009. "Joining Forces in Urban Restructuring: Dealing with Collaborative Ideals and Role Conflicts in Breda, the Netherlands," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 41(5), pages 1234-1250, May.
    10. Guiwen Liu & Zhiyong Yi & Xiaoling Zhang & Asheem Shrestha & Igor Martek & Lizhen Wei, 2017. "An Evaluation of Urban Renewal Policies of Shenzhen, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-17, June.
    11. Debrunner, Gabriela & Hartmann, Thomas, 2020. "Strategic use of land policy instruments for affordable housing – Coping with social challenges under scarce land conditions in Swiss cities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Hugo Priemus, 2005. "Regeneration of Dutch Urban Districts - the Role of Housing Associations," ERSA conference papers ersa05p28, European Regional Science Association.
    13. Hee Jin Yang, 2020. "Spatio-Temporal Changes of Housing Features in Response to Urban Renewal Initiatives: The Case of Seoul," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-12, September.
    14. Jill L Grant & Amanda Taylor & Christina Wheeler, 2018. "Planners' perceptions of the influence of leadership on coordinating plans," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(4), pages 669-688, June.
    15. van Oosten, Thomas & Witte, Patrick & Hartmann, Thomas, 2018. "Active land policy in small municipalities in the Netherlands: “We don’t do it, unless...”," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 829-836.
    16. Sabine Meier, 2018. "Being Accommodated, Well Then? ‘Scalar Narratives’ on Urban Transformation and Asylum Seekers’ Integration in Mid-Sized Cities," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(4), pages 129-140.
    17. Céline Janssen & Tom A Daamen & Wouter J Verheul, 2024. "Governing capabilities, not places – how to understand social sustainability implementation in urban development," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(2), pages 331-349, February.
    18. Richard Lang & Dietmar Roessl, 2011. "Conceptualizing Social Capital in the Context of Housing and Neighbourhood Management," ERSA conference papers ersa10p1619, European Regional Science Association.
    19. Andreas Hendricks & Peter Lacoere & Erwin van der Krabben & Cynthia Oorschot, 2021. "Limits of Negotiable Developer Obligations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-20, October.
    20. Antoine Paccoud & Markus Hesse & Tom Becker & Magdalena Górczyńska, 2022. "Land and the housing affordability crisis: landowner and developer strategies in Luxembourg’s facilitative planning context," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(10), pages 1782-1799, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:77:y:2018:i:c:p:821-828. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.