IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rjouxx/v14y2021i1p58-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Greater Zurich does not use land parsimoniously: despite the spatial planning act, which has been in force since 1980

Author

Listed:
  • Sibylle Wälty

Abstract

An overconsumption of land for building and urban use has resulted from rising incomes, falling transport costs, separating urban land use, restricting building heights and densities, and the lack of internalizing negative externalities. This paper empirically analyses whether land in Greater Zurich is used parsimoniously. Furthermore, it proposes changes in planning and policy that would be necessary to overcome the implementation deficit of the federal Spatial Planning Act (RPG). The analysis measures the distribution and mix of residents, workers, and retail workers and the change in land use. It also examines the relationship between public transport and building zones. Consequently, although intensification in residents has occurred since 1990 and workers since 1995/96, the distribution of residents and workers at central locations indicates that land in 2014 is used neither sufficiently intensively nor in a balanced way. Therefore, in Greater Zurich, price-based regulations need to supplement the current purely quantity-based regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Sibylle Wälty, 2021. "Greater Zurich does not use land parsimoniously: despite the spatial planning act, which has been in force since 1980," Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 58-74, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rjouxx:v:14:y:2021:i:1:p:58-74
    DOI: 10.1080/17549175.2020.1762707
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/17549175.2020.1762707
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/17549175.2020.1762707?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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:rjouxx:v:14:y:2021:i:1:p:58-74. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rjou20 .

    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.