IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v94y2020ics026483771930239x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Certain flexibilities in land-use plans Towards a method for assessing flexibility

Author

Listed:
  • Van den Hoek, Duncan
  • Spit, Tejo
  • Hartmann, Thomas

Abstract

The trade-off between flexibility and legal certainty is inherent in every planning system. This trade-off is especially apparent within a land-use plan. Flexibility and legal certainty are often seen as communicating vessels: the demise of one leads to an increase in the other. Within land-use plans, however, the connection between the two is more subtle. For a land-use plan, the choice between being specific or open, and rigid or adaptable, determine the amount of flexibility. With these choices a land-use plan can increase its flexibility without decreasing legal certainty. Within reason the legal certainty can even benefit from more flexibility. However, current academic literature lacks a structured way to analyse flexibility contained within a land-use plan. Such a method is necessary for analysing and comparing different land-use plans. This paper will provide such a method and analyse thirteen different land-use plans in the Netherlands on their flexibility. It will show that a structured method can prove to be useful for analysing and comparing different land-use plans. The research provides insight into the complex balance between flexibility and legal certainty and presents an assessment tool which can be used for further academic research.

Suggested Citation

  • Van den Hoek, Duncan & Spit, Tejo & Hartmann, Thomas, 2020. "Certain flexibilities in land-use plans Towards a method for assessing flexibility," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:94:y:2020:i:c:s026483771930239x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104497
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483771930239X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104497?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. Patsy Healey, 2004. "The Treatment of Space and Place in the New Strategic Spatial Planning in Europe," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(1), pages 45-67, March.
    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. Wang, Yongcheng & Yamaguchi, Keita & Wong, Yiik Diew, 2020. "The multivalent nexus of redevelopment and heritage conservation: A mixed-methods study of the site-level public consultation of urban development in Macao," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Maciej J. Nowak & Renato Monteiro & Jorge Olcina-Cantos & Dimitra G. Vagiona, 2023. "Spatial Planning Response to the Challenges of Climate Change Adaptation: An Analysis of Selected Instruments and Good Practices in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-27, July.

    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. Han, Wenjing & Zhang, Xiaoling & Zheng, Xian, 2020. "Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Melika Levelt & Leonie Janssen-Jansen, 2013. "The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area Challenge: Opportunities for Inclusive Coproduction in City-Region Governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(3), pages 540-555, June.
    3. Federico Savini, 2016. "Self-Organization and Urban Development: Disaggregating the City-Region, Deconstructing Urbanity in Amsterdam," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(6), pages 1152-1169, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Allan Cochrane, 2012. "Making up a Region: The Rise and Fall of the ‘South East of England’ as a Political Territory," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(1), pages 95-108, February.
    6. Karlheinz Knickel & Alexandra Almeida & Lisa Bauchinger & Maria Pia Casini & Bernd Gassler & Kerstin Hausegger-Nestelberger & Jesse Heley & Reinhard Henke & Marina Knickel & Henk Oostindie & Ulla Ovas, 2021. "Towards More Balanced Territorial Relations—The Role (and Limitations) of Spatial Planning as a Governance Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-18, May.
    7. Petra H Roodbol-Mekkes & Adri van den Brink, 2015. "Rescaling Spatial Planning: Spatial Planning Reforms in Denmark, England, and the Netherlands," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(1), pages 184-198, February.
    8. Louis Albrechts, 2010. "More of the Same is Not Enough! How Could Strategic Spatial Planning Be Instrumental in Dealing with the Challenges Ahead?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(6), pages 1115-1127, December.
    9. Andreas Novy & Daniela Coimbra Swiatek & Frank Moulaert, 2012. "Social Cohesion: A Conceptual and Political Elucidation," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(9), pages 1873-1889, July.
    10. Toni Ahlqvist, 2014. "Building Innovation Excellence of World Class: The Cluster as an Instrument of Spatial Governance in the European Union," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(5), pages 1712-1731, September.
    11. Deepak Gopinath, 2015. "Shifting of the ontological-epistemological balance in contemporary research agendas: a critique," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1873-1882, September.
    12. Neutens, Tijs & Delafontaine, Matthias & Schwanen, Tim & Weghe, Nico Van de, 2012. "The relationship between opening hours and accessibility of public service delivery," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 128-140.
    13. Michael J Keane & John Lennon, 2006. "Delineating Daily Activity Spaces in Rural Areas," ERSA conference papers ersa06p106, European Regional Science Association.
    14. Tsou, Ko-Wan & Cheng, Hao-Teng & Tseng, Fu-Yi, 2015. "Exploring the relationship between multilevel highway networks and local development patterns—a case study of Taiwan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 160-170.
    15. John B Parr, 2015. "Neglected Aspects of Regional Policy: A Retrospective View," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 33(2), pages 376-392, April.
    16. Stoeglehner, G. & Abart-Heriszt, L., 2022. "Integrated spatial and energy planning in Styria – A role model for local and regional energy transition and climate protection policies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    17. José Maria Codosero Rodas & José Manuel Naranjo Gómez & Rui Alexandre Castanho & José Cabezas, 2018. "Land Valuation Sustainable Model of Urban Planning Development: A Case Study in Badajoz, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    18. Kristian Olesen, 2012. "Soft Spaces as Vehicles for Neoliberal Transformations of Strategic Spatial Planning?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(5), pages 910-923, October.
    19. Graham Pearce & Sarah Ayres, 2006. "New Patterns of Governance in the English Region: Assessing their Implications for Spatial Planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(6), pages 909-927, December.
    20. Marquet, Oriol & Miralles-Guasch, Carme, 2014. "Walking short distances. The socioeconomic drivers for the use of proximity in everyday mobility in Barcelona," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 210-222.

    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:94:y:2020:i:c:s026483771930239x. 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.