Using compensation instruments as a vehicle to improve spatial planning: Challenges and opportunities

Land Use Policy

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1010-1017

  van der Veen, Menno ^a   Spaans, Marjolein ^b   Janssen Jansen, Leonie ^c  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Case studies; International comparative research; Market oriented compensation instruments; Spatial planning

Indexed keywords

COMPENSATION SYSTEM; ECONOMIC PLANNING; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON; POLICY STRATEGY; SPATIAL PLANNING; STRATEGIC APPROACH;

NETHERLANDS; SPAIN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77952883864     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.01.003     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Alexander G.S. Propriety through commodity? Why have legal environmentalists embraced market-based solutions?. Private Property in the 21st Century: The Future of an American Ideal 2004, 75-91. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. H.M. Jacobs (Ed.).
2. Blanc F. Spain: non-financial compensation instruments and the Valencia model. New Instruments in Spatial Planning: An International Perspective on Non-Financial Planning 2008, 95-120. IOS Press, Amsterdam. L. Janssen-Jansen, M. Spaans, M. Van der Veen (Eds.).
3. Booth P. Property, law and non-financial compensation. New Instruments in Spatial Planning: An International Perspective on Non-Financial Planning 2008, 213-228. IOS Press, Amsterdam. L. Janssen-Jansen, M. Spaans, M. Van der Veen (Eds.).
4. Bruce J.W. A Land Use Anthology 1998, Anderson Publishing, Cincinnati (OH).
5. Camacho A.E. Mustering the missing voices: a collaborative model for fostering equality, community involvement and adaptive planning in land use decision, second instalment. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 2005, 24:269-330.
6. Cho J.-C. The Korean growth-management programs: issues, problems and possible reforms. Land Use Policy 2002, 19:13-27.
7. Council of Europe, 2003. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Article 1, Protocol No. 1http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm.
8. Cullingworth B., Nadin V. Town and Country Planning in the UK 2006, Routledge, London.
9. Day P. Practice reviews: incentives and disincentives: the potential of property taxes to support public policy objectives. Urban Policy and Research 2005, 23:219-233.
10. De Jong J., Spaans M. Trade-offs at a regional level in spatial planning: two Dutch case studies as a source of inspiration. Land Use Policy 2009, 26:368-379.
11. Einig K. Regulierung des Siedlungsflächenwachstums als Herausforderung des Raumordnungrechts. DISP 2005, 160:48-57.
12. Eisenberg M.A. The emergence of dynamic contract law. California Law Review 2000, 88:1743-1814.
13. Fainstein S.S. The City Builders: Property Development in New York and London 1988-2000 (original 1994) 2001, Kansas University Press, Kansas.
14. Fischel W.A. The Economics of Zoning Laws: A Property Rights Approach to American Land Use Controls 1985, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore/London.
15. Gordon I. Finding institutional leadership for regional networks: the case of London and the greater South East. European Perspectives and Randstad Holland. Synergy in Urban Networks 2006, 136-160. Sdu, The Hague. W. Salet (Ed.).
16. Groetelaers D.A., Ploeger H.D. The importance of the Fundamental Right to Property for the practice of planning: an introduction to the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 1, Protocol 1. European Planning Studies 2007, 15:1423-1438.
17. Gualini E. Institutional capacity building as an issue of collective action and institutionalisation: some theoretical remarks. Urban Governance 2002, 29-44. Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux, Ashgate, Aldershot. G. Cars, P. Healey, A. Madanipour, C. De Magalhaes (Eds.).
18. Windfalls for Wipeouts: Land Value Capture and Compensation 1978, American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago. D.G. Hagman, D.J. Misczynski (Eds.).
19. Healey P., Cars G., Madanipour A., De Magalhaes C. Transforming governance, institutionalist analysis and institutional capacity. Urban Governance 2002, 6-28. Institutional Capacity and Social Milieux, Ashgate, Aldershot. G. Cars, P. Healey, A. Madanipour, C. De Magalhaes (Eds.).
20. Healey P., Purdue M., Ennis F. Negotiating Development: Rationales and Practice for Development Obligations and Planning Gain 1995, E&FN Spon, London.
21. Jacobs H.M. The Future of the Regulatory Takings Issue in the United States and Europe: Divergence or Convergence?. The Urban Lawyer 2008, 40:52-72.
22. Jacobs H.M. An alternative perspective on U.S. - European property rights and land use planning: differences without substance. Planning and Environmental Law 2009, 61:3-12.
23. Janssen-Jansen L.B. Space for Space, a transferable development rights initiative for changing the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 2008, 87:192-200.
24. Janssen-Jansen L.B., Mulders M.J.C.B. Van ruilen komt huilen? De ontwikkelingsgerichte benadering van 'Ruimte voor Ruimte'. Bestuurskunde 2005, 14:12-20. (in Dutch).
25. New Instruments in Spatial Planning: An International Perspective on Non-Financial Planning 2008, IOS Press, Amsterdam. L. Janssen-Jansen, M. Spaans, M. Van der Veen (Eds.).
26. Janssen-Jansen L., Salet W. The Amsterdam office space tragedy. An institutional reflection on balancing office space development in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Region. City in Sight: Dutch Dealings with Urban Change 2009, 243-260. AUP, Amsterdam. F. Hendriks, J.-W. Duyvendak, M. Van Niekerk (Eds.).
27. Jessop B. Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: a state-theoretical perspective. Antipode 2002, 34:452-472.
28. Kaplowitz M.D., Machemer P., Pruetz R. Planners' experiences in managing growth using transferable development rights (TDR) in the United States. Land Use Policy 2008, 25:378-387.
29. Kearns A., Paddison R. New challenges for urban governance. Urban Studies 2000, 37:845-850.
30. MacLeod G., Goodwin H. Space, scale and state strategy: rethinking urban and regional governance. Progress in Human Geography 1999, 23:503-527.
31. Micelli E. Development rights markets to manage urban plans in Italy. Urban Studies 2002, 39:141-154.
32. Mulders, M.J.C.B., 2003. Roze voor Groen, onderzoek naar de verbetering van de ruimtelijke kwaliteit in Brabant door de ruimte voor ruimte regeling (Pink for Green, research on the improvement of spatial quality in Brabant as a result of the Space for Space provision) (Master's thesis in Dutch). Province of North Brabant, Den Bosch.
33. Nicholas J.C., Juergensmeyer J.C. Market based approaches to environmental preservation: to environmental mitigation fees and beyond. Natural Resources Journal 2003, 43:837-863.
34. OECD Working Papers on International Investment, No. 2004/04: 'indirect expropriation' and the 'right to regulate' in International Law 2004, OECD Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Paris.
35. Public Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective 2000, Routledge, London. S.P. Osborne (Ed.).
36. Peel D., Lloyd M.G. Neo-traditional planning. Towards a new ethos for land use planning?. Land Use Policy 2007, 24:396-403.
37. Pruetz R. Beyond takings and givings: saving natural areas. Farmland and Historic Landmarks with Transfer of Development Rights and Density Transfer Charges 2003, Arje Press, Burbank.
38. Putters B. U.S. some best practices of Transferable Development Rights. New Instruments in Spatial Planning: An International Perspective on Non-Financial Planning 2008, 141-171. IOS Press, Amsterdam. L. Janssen-Jansen, M. Spaans, M. Van der Veen (Eds.).
39. Renard V. Non-financial compensation from an economic perspective. New Instruments in Spatial Planning: An International Perspective on Non-Financial Planning 2008, 197-212. IOS Press, Amsterdam. L. Janssen-Jansen, M. Spaans, M. Van der Veen (Eds.).
40. RPB (Ruimtelijk Planbureau), 2006. Vele steden maken nog geen Randstad (Many cities do not necessarily create the Randstad) (in Dutch). NAi Uitgevers/Ruimtelijk Planbureau, The Hague.
41. Salet W.G.M., Thornley A., Kreukels A.M.J. Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning 2003, Routledge/Spon, London.
42. Spaans M. Recent changes in the Dutch planning system. Towards a new governance model?. Town Planning Review 2006, 77:127-146.
43. Spaans M., Van der Veen M., Janssen-Jansen L. The concept of non-financial compensation in spatial planning. New Instruments in Spatial Planning: An International Perspective on Non-Financial Planning 2008, 121-139. IOS Press, Amsterdam. L. Janssen-Jansen, M. Spaans, M. Van der Veen (Eds.).
44. Stoker G. Governance as theory: five propositions. International Social Science Journal 1998, 50:17-28.
45. Van der Veen M., Janssen-Jansen L., Spaans M. Non-financial compensation in spatial planning: aims of comparative research. Paper presented at the Second Symposium of the International Academic Group on Planning, Law and Property Rights 2008.
46. Whatmore S. Betterment revisited - issues in contemporary land use planning. Land Use Policy 1994, 11:163-167.