The Impact of Land-Use Policy on Urban Fringe Dynamics

Dutch Evidence and Prospects
Chapter

Abstract

Concern for the loss of open space around urban areas has given rise to various forms of land-use policy that aim to steer urban fringe dynamics. This chapter explores the potential of geospatial analysis to characterise land-use dynamics in the urban fringe and in particular focuses on the impact of land-use policies in steering these developments. The Netherlands is used as a case study because this country has a long-standing tradition of applying such polices and is generally considered to represent a successful example of restrictive spatial planning. Yet, these policies have received substantial criticism in the past decade and are currently being transformed by the National Government. Based on the observed degree of success of current open space preservation policies we make an attempt to simulate the potential implications of the proposed policy changes.

References

  1. Alpkokin, P. (2012). Historical and critical review of spatial and transport planning in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 29(3), 536–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alterman, R. (1997). The challenge of farmland preservation: Lessons from a six-nation comparison. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(2), 220–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bae, C.-H. C., & Richardson, H. W. (2004). Introduction. Chapter 1. In H. W. Richardson & C.-H.C. Bae (Eds.), Urban sprawl in Western Europe and the United States (pp. 1–7). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Bartlett, J. P., Mageen, D. M., & O’Conner, R. J. (2000). Residential expansion as a continental threat to US coastal ecosystems. Population and Environment, 21(5), 429–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bervaes, J. C. A. M., Kuidersma, W., & Onderstal, J. (2001). Rijksbufferzones; verleden, heden en toekomst. Alterra rapport 360. Wageningen: Alterra.Google Scholar
  6. Borsboom-van Beurden, J. A. M., Bakema, A., & Tijbosch, H. (2007). A land-use modelling system for environmental impact assessment; recent applications of the LUMOS toolbox. Chapter 16. In E. Koomen, J. Stillwell, A. Bakema, & H. J. Scholten (Eds.), Modelling land-use change; progress and applications (pp. 281–296). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Burke, G. L. (1966). Greenheart metrolopolis. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. CBS. (2008). Bestand bodemgebruik productbeschrijving. Voorburg/Heerlen: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.Google Scholar
  9. Dammers, E. (2000). Leren van de toekomst. Over de rol van scenario’s bij strategische beleidsvorming. Delft: Uitgeverij Eburon.Google Scholar
  10. De Ruijter, P., Stolk, S., & Alkema, H. (2011). Klaar om te wenden; handboek voor de strateeg. Schiedam: Scriptum.Google Scholar
  11. Dekkers, J. E. C., & Koomen, E. (2007). Land-use simulation for water management: Application of the land use scanner model in two large-scale scenario-studies. Chapter 20. In E. Koomen, J. Stillwell, A. Bakema, & H. J. Scholten (Eds.), Modelling land-use change; progress and applications (pp. 355–373). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dieleman, F. M., Dijst, M. J., & Spit, T. (1999). Planning the compact city: The Randstad Holland experience. European Planning Studies, 7(5), 605–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duinker, P. N., & Greig, L. A. (2007). Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: Improving explorations of the future. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27(3), 206–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. EL&I. (2009). Verburg en Cramer selecteren 10 voorbeeldprojecten aanpak verspreid liggende kassen. The Hague: Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie.Google Scholar
  15. Elings, C., Zijlstra, R., Koomen, E., & De Groot, S. (2011). Milieueffectrapport Ontwerp Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte in opdracht van Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. Amsterdam/Nijmegen: Geodan/Royal Haskoning.Google Scholar
  16. Evers, W., Vries, L., De Man, R., & Schotten, C. G. J. (2005). Woning- en populatiebestanden in het dataportaal. Overzicht van de basisbestanden, bewerkingen en kwaliteitsacties. Bilthoven: RIVM.Google Scholar
  17. Faludi, A., & Van der Valk, A. (1994). Rule and order: Dutch planning doctrine in the twentieth century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frenkel, A. (2004). The potential effect of national growth management policy on urban sprawl and the depletion of open spaces and farmland. Land Use Policy, 21(4), 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gailing, L. (2005). Regionalparks, Grundlagen und Instrumente der Freiraumpolitik in Verdichtungsräume, Blaue Reihe, Dortmunder Beiträge zur Raumplanung 121. Dortmund: Institut für Raumplanung Universität Dortmund.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, P. (1966). The world cities. London: World University Press.Google Scholar
  21. I&M. (2011). Ontwerp structuurvisie infrastructuur en ruimte; Nederland concurrerend, bereikbaar, leefbaar en veilig. Den Haag: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobs, C. G. W., Koomen, E., Bouwman, A. A., & Van der Burg, A. (2011). Lessons learned from land-use simulation in regional planning applications. Chapter 8. In E. Koomen & J. Borsboom-van Beurden (Eds.), Land-use modelling in planning practice (pp. 131–149). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jongman, R. H. G., Knlvik, M., & Kristiansen, I. (2004). European ecological networks and greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2–3), 305–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kline, J. (2000). Comparing states with and without growth management, analysis based on indicators with policy indications comment. Land Use Policy, 4(17), 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klosterman, R. E. (1999). The what if? Collaborative planning support system. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koomen, E., & Borsboom-van Beurden, J. (Eds.). (2011). Land-use modeling in planning practice. Geojournal library, vol. 101. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Koomen, E., Rietveld, P., & De Nijs, T. (2008a). Modelling land-use change for spatial planning support; editorial. Annals of Regional Science, 42(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koomen, E., Dekkers, J., & Van Dijk, T. (2008b). Open-space preservation in the Netherlands: Planning, practice and prospects. Land Use Policy, 25(3), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koomen, E., Geoghegan, J., & Dekkers, J. E. C. (2009). The impact of open space preservation policies; evidence from the Netherlands and the US. Chapter 9. In A. van der Valk, T. Van Dijk (Eds.), Regional planning for open space (pp. 179–198). London: Routledge.
  30. Koomen, E., Hilferink, M., & Borsboom-van Beurden, J. (2011a). Introducing land use scanner. Chapter 1. In E. Koomen & J. Borsboom-van Beurden (Eds.), Land-use modeling in planning practice (pp. 3–21). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Koomen, E., Koekoek, A., & Dijk, E. (2011b). Simulating land-use change in a regional planning context. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 4(4), 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Korthals Altes, W. (2009). Taxing land for urban containment: Reflections on a Dutch debate. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuiper, R., & Evers, D. (2011a). Ex-ante evaluatie Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte. Den Haag: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving.Google Scholar
  34. Kuiper, R., & Evers, D. (2011b). Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte perkt nationale belangen in. ROM Magazine, 29(6), 10–13.Google Scholar
  35. Kuiper, R., Kuijpers-Linde, M., & Bouwman, A. A. (2011). A sustainable outlook on the future of the Netherlands. Chapter 4. In E. Koomen & J. Borsboom-van Beurden (Eds.), Land-use modelling in planning practice (pp. 61–77). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Landis, J. D. (1994). The California urban futures model: A new generation of metropolitan simulation models. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 21, 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Longley, P., Batty, M., Shepherd, J., & Sadler, G. (1992). Do green belts change the shape of urban areas? A preliminary analysis of the settlement geography of South East England. Regional Studies, 26(5), 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loonen, W., & Koomen, E. (2009). Calibration and validation of the land use scanner allocation algorithms. PBL-report. Bilthoven: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
  39. Maruani, T., & Amit-Cohen, I. (2007). Open space planning models: A review of approaches and methods. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Melser, C. (2012). Het bestand bodemgebruik gaat met de tijd mee. Geo-Info, 4, 4–7.Google Scholar
  41. MNP. (2004). Milieu- en natuureffecten Nota Ruimte. RIVM-rapport 711931009. Bilthoven: RIVM.Google Scholar
  42. Nelson, A. C. (2004). Urban containment American style: A preliminary assessment. In H. W. Richardson & C.-H. C. Bae (Eds.), Urban sprawl in Western Europe and the United States. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  43. Ottens, H. F. L. (1979). Spatial development in the Green Heart of the Randstad: Policies versus theoretical and empirical evidence. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 70(3), 130–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. PBL. (2010). The Netherlands in the future. Second sustainability outlook: The physical living environment in the Netherlands. Bilthoven: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
  45. Pena, J., Bonet, A., Bellot, J., Sanchez, J. R., Eisenhuth, D., Hallett, S., & Aledo, A. (2007). Driving forces of land-use change in a cultural landscape of Spain. Chapter 6. In E. Koomen, J. Stillwell, H. J. Scholten, & A. Bakema (Eds.), Modelling land-use change; progress and applications (pp. 97–115). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Pieterse, N., Van der Wagt, M., Daalhuizen, F., Piek, M., Künzel, F., & Aykaç, R. (2005). Het gedeelde land van de Randstad. Ontwikkeling en toekomst van het Groene Hart. Rotterdam/Den Haag: NAi Uitgevers/RPB.Google Scholar
  47. Rietveld, P. (2001). Urban development between market forces and policy intervention; experiences in the Netherlands. Journal of Japan Real Estate Society, 5, 23–30.Google Scholar
  48. RNP. (1958). De ontwikkeling van het Westen des Lands. Den Haag: Rijksdienst voor het Nationale Plan.Google Scholar
  49. Romero, F. S. (2003). Open space preservation policies: An institutional case study. Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 20(2), 146–174.Google Scholar
  50. Roodbol-Mekkes, P. H., Van der Valk, A. J. J., & Korthals Altes, W. K. (2012). The Netherlands spatial planning doctrine in disarray in the 21st century. Environment and Planning A, 44(2), 377–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scholten, H. J., Van de Velde, R. J., Rietveld, P., & Hilferink, M. (1999). Spatial information infrastructure for scenario planning: The development of a land use planner for Holland. In J. Stillwell, S. Geertman, & S. Openshaw (Eds.), Geographical information and planning (pp. 112–134). Berlin/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Schotten, C. G. J., Goetgeluk, R. W., Hilferink, M., Rietveld, P., & Scholten, H. J. (2001). Residential construction, land use and the environment. Simulations for The Netherlands using a GIS-based land use model. Environmental Modelling and Asessment, 6(2), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schwanen, T., Dieleman, F. M., & Dijst, M. (2001). Travel behaviour in Dutch monocentric and policentric urban systems. Journal of Transport Geography, 9(3), 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Statistics Netherlands. (2012). Statline, the central database of Statistics Netherlands. http://www.statline.nl. Accessed 1 Aug 2012.
  55. Tesser, P. T. M., Van Praag, C. S., Van Dugteren, F. A., Herwijer, L. J., & Van der Wouden, H. C. (1995). Rapportage minderheden 1995. Concentratie en segregatie. SCP-cahier 123. Rijswijk/Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau/VUGA.Google Scholar
  56. V&B. (1960). Nota inzake de ruimtelijke ordening in Nederland. Den Haag: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting en Bouwnijverheid, staatsdrukkerij en uitgeverijbedrijf.Google Scholar
  57. V&RO. (1966). Tweede Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening. Den Haag: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting en Ruimtelijke ordening, Staatsuitgeverij.Google Scholar
  58. V&RO. (1977). Derde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening (verstedelijkingsnota). Den Haag: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting en Ruimtelijke ordening, Staatsuitgeverij.Google Scholar
  59. Van der Hoeven, E., Aerts, J., Van der Klis, H., & Koomen, E. (2009). An integrated discussion support system for new Dutch flood risk management strategies. Chapter 8. In S. Geertman & J. C. H. Stillwell (Eds.), Planning support systems: Best practices and new methods (pp. 159–174). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van der Valk, A. (2002). The Dutch planning experience. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(2–4), 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. van der Valk, A., & Van Dijk, T. (Eds.). (2009). Regional planning for open space. The RTPI library series. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Van Kouwen, M. (2012). Nationale Landschappen op de schop. Vernieuwing of achteruitgang? Bachelor thesis earth and economics. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit.Google Scholar
  63. van Leeuwen, N. (2004). Bestand bodemGebruik en Top10Vector geharmoniseerd; CBS vernieuwt Bestand BodemGebruik. Geo-Info, 5, 218–222.Google Scholar
  64. Van Rij, E. (2009). Threats to metropolitan open space; The Netherlands economic and institutional dimension. Chapter 3. In A. Van der Valk & T. Van Dijk (Eds.), Regional planning for open space (pp. 41–60). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Van Rij, E., Dekkers, J., & Koomen, E. (2008). Analysing the success of open space preservation in the Netherlands: The Midden-Delfland case. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 99(1), 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. VROM. (1989). Vierde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening. Den Haag: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke ordening en Milieubeheer, SDU uitgeverij.Google Scholar
  67. VROM. (2000). Balans ruimtelijke kwaliteit. Den Haag: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer.Google Scholar
  68. VROM, LNV, V&W, & EZ (2004). Nota Ruimte. Ruimte voor ontwikkeling. Ministeries van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Verkeer en Waterstaat en Economische zaken. Den Haag: SDU uitgeverij.Google Scholar
  69. Zhao, P. (2011). Managing urban growth in a transforming China: Evidence from Beijing. Land Use Policy, 28(1), 96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zondag, B., & Geurs, K. (2011). Coupling a detailed land-use model and a land-use and transport interaction model. Chapter 5. In E. Koomen & J. Borsboom-van Beurden (Eds.), Land-use modeling in planning practice (pp. 79–95). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Spatial Economics/SPINlabVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations