The Sustainability of European Urbanization

Abstract

This chapter critically examines the sustainability of urbanization in Europe. The first analysis appraises the changes in urban land cover and urban form in the 2000–2018 period, revealing a complex picture at the regional level. The second analysis applies an evidence-based sustainability assessment framework to three urban forms: compact, polycentric, and diffuse. This revealed trade-offs within and between dimensions of sustainability. The final analysis, based on case study research, examined how interventions affected development practices. This revealed that there is scope for positive change. The Chapter concludes with a reflection on the tensions between the domains of environment and planning and between academia and practice.

5.1 Introduction

Given the unprecedented rate of urbanization globally and the arrival of the Anthropocene—the era of irrevocable change of the physical environment by human activity—we can ask how much more the world can endure before it is too late. At this historical juncture, it has become imperative that urbanization and its drivers are not only explained and described, but also critically assessed in terms of sustainability. This raises some fundamental questions. What is sustainability and, hence, sustainable urbanization? How can we assess or measure this in a meaningful way? And how can we monitor the effects of our interventions?

The point of departure in this book is to take a broad view towards such questions. In Chapter 1 we identified two complementary notions of sustainability:

• Temporal sustainability: the balance between current needs and those of future generations. The land-use decisions we make today are often irrevocable. This was demonstrated by the scenarios in Chapter 4: in each, different locations were urbanized, and consequently, different rural/natural functions sacrificed. Each scenario also changed the shape of the urban region, which has implications for future growth. Temporal sustainability also pertains to the rate of urbanization: does this outstrip the capacity to provide sufficient public services and/or infrastructure or undermine key ecosystem services? This ties into the everyday work of spatial planners when helping to draw up long-term strategies. Interventions implemented to enhance sustainability that are durable over time can be said to be institutionally sustainable.

• Thematic sustainability: the balance between economic, social, and environmental interests. Sometimes this is conceptualized as a triangle with three separate ‘realms’ which partially intersect at a point where development is sustainable (Campbell, 2016). Sometimes the dimensions are depicted as concentric circles, with the economy being a subset of society which is itself part of the environment. Given that economic interests are usually sufficiently represented, this usually entails enhancing, retaining or at the very least minimizing damage within the other dimensions (Raworth, 2017). This ties into the everyday work of spatial planners when they strive to reconcile competing land-use claims and promote efficient urban development.

This chapter discusses the sustainability of urbanization by building on research described earlier in this book. The first section relates to temporal sustainability and asks whether current urbanization trends in Europe (see Chapter 2) can be considered sustainable. Section 5.3 is devoted to thematic sustainability: it asks to what extent the three urban types used throughout the book (and which underpinned the scenarios in Chapter 4) can be considered sustainable. This is done by applying an assessment framework of economic, social, and environmental sustainability to the three urban forms. The third and last analysis examines the role of sustainability in actual planning practice. Based on in-depth case studies, which were also used for Chapter 3, the implementation of interventions was investigated and their relative contribution to sustainability assessed. This provides insights for possible pathways towards a more sustainable future, the topic of Chapter 6.

5.2 Sustainability of Urban Developments

In Chapter 2, we saw how land use in Europe was gradually urbanizing in the 2000–2018 period. Given that urbanization outstripped deurbanization by over eight times and the fact that the construction of buildings and infrastructure can have irreversible impacts on ecosystems and soil quality, this can be considered unsustainable. In other words, carrying capacity is exceeded as the consumption of land is clearly more than the rate of recovery (Neuman & Churchill, 2015). This is the implicit stance taken in the European Union’s ‘no net land take by 2050’ target: every hectare of land ‘taken’ is implicitly assumed to be unsustainable. In this interpretation, all 1.2 million hectares of new urban use should be lamented. Some countries and regions can be singled out as the main culprits. As we saw in Chapter 2, big member states (Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Italy) are responsible for the most hectares converted to urban use and the Netherlands and Cyprus show the most intensive urbanization (Van Schie et al., 2020). The good news to this rather gloomy outlook is that the rate of urbanization appears to be slowing somewhat. A less austere interpretation would be to ask whether new urban developments are making prudent use of land as a scarce resource. To investigate this, we use the multidimensional conceptualization of sustainability as an organizing principle. This is also the approach taken by the United Nations.¹

With respect to economic sustainability, we can question whether the expansion in employment areas relates to a commensurate expansion of the economy. At first glance, this appears to be the case: “In general terms, countries that have been characterized by an increase in population and GDP during the reference period display a parallel increase in land consumption” (Berisha et al., 2023, p. 5). A critical but unanswered question is how significant this relationship is. Knowing this will give insight into how efficiently land is being used for socio-economic purposes. For this, a regional (e.g. NUTS 3) rather than a national analysis is more appropriate because this is closer to the level where housing and labour markets manifest themselves. From this angle, a completely different picture emerges: the relationship between urbanization and population development is weak at best and almost non-existent for GDP (see Fig. 5.1).

Fig. 5.1

Scatterplot of urban use versus GDP development

One reason for this might be that European land-use data is notoriously difficult to link to European economic data.² We can temporarily choose to ignore these problems and proceed with an illustrative makeshift analysis. In this case, taking population as a proxy for jobs and industrial/commercial land cover as a proxy for economically driven urbanization, over the 2000–2018 period, efficiency/sustainability was only apparent in a few regions (primarily in Lithuania and Romania) in Europe. This corroborates a similar study finding that “shrinking cities are the only category showing a positive balance between re-use and creation of brownfields” (Cortinovis et al., 2019). Development was particularly unsustainable in parts of the UK, Spain, Germany, Austria, Western Poland, the Western Balkans, Greece, and Turkey. Again, it should be stressed that this is a rough indication of the relationship between economy and urbanization, and agree that “multiple correlation statistical analysis, exploring the incidence of different quantitative variables in influencing land consumption rates (e.g. GDP, population and/or family trends, geographical and geomorphological characteristics etc.)” is still needed (Berisha et al., 2023, p. 12), but also note that European land-use data might be too poor to support such analyses.

With respect to environmental sustainability, we should ask how much urbanization damages the ecological carrying capacity. The claim that all land ‘taken’ from natural or agricultural use is necessarily unsustainable should be questioned. Some urban uses (e.g. parks and gardens) can harbour high levels of biodiversity and deliver more robust ecosystem services than some agricultural uses (e.g. livestock sheds, horticulture) (Calzolari et al., 2020, p. 8). Under the assumption that natural land cover is more ecologically valuable than agricultural land cover, an alternative ranking emerges (see Fig. 5.2).

Fig. 5.2

Original function of land urbanized in 2000–2018 by country (EU27)

The Netherlands, which in Chapter 2 was identified as having the most intensive land take in Europe (in terms of ha/total land mass), does this almost exclusively on agricultural rather than natural land (Evers et al., 2023).

If we confine ourselves further to protected natural areas, which have a very high ecological value, we can ask to what extent these are being threatened by urban encroachment. In 2018, the share of urban functions in such areas was relatively low. Urban land cover within protected areas was less than 1% in the Nordic countries, Spain, Ireland, and Romania and highest in Belgium, England, eastern Poland, and the Czech Republic.

Finally, with respect to social sustainability, we can consider whether urban development reflects a real societal need. Again, the technical hurdles (unharmonized data, lack of time series and geographical gaps) make it unfeasible to conduct a scientifically sound analysis. Like the other indicators, we use a simple proxy as a first indication: contrasting the development of urban fabric (primarily housing) to population growth. This is also the method used by the United Nations to measure SDG indicator 11.3.1 on sustainable urbanization (Eurostat, 2022). This calculation, mapped out in Fig. 5.3, reveals some clear hotspots where ‘excessive’ urban fabric was being added without an equivalent increase in population. This is the case in Poland, Latvia, southern France as well as parts of Spain and Greece. Many regions in Poland added over 200 m² of urban fabric for each new inhabitant, suggesting that this development might be driven by a supply-side logic. Again, the intensively urbanizing Netherlands fares better in this case. Also noteworthy is that Finland, which was the country which urbanized the most on natural land, appears to be meeting a societal need.

Fig. 5.3

Development of urban fabric per capita (2000–2018)

One important caveat in this regard is that urbanization per capita fails to account for the original situation. Some regions with high scores in this period may have had insufficient housing in 2000 and are simply catching up.

To conclude, the data shows a mixed picture for the sustainability of developments, unless a rigid ‘land take’ perspective is adopted which considers all urbanization unsustainable. In all three dimensions of sustainability, we encountered technical issues in coupling land-use data to environmental and socio-economic indicators. Nevertheless, we do observe some regions where sustainability seems unlikely. For example, the rapid expansion of urban fabric in Poland, which in Chapter 2 was associated with diffuse development in the substructure, can be noted in light of the failure of the planning system to control urbanization (Chapter 3). Similarly, the oversupply of urban space in Spain seems more strongly linked to the dynamics of financial markets than demographics. Both cases warrant further investigation. Finally, it is important to remember the original function of the land ‘taken’ as this is an important factor in determining sustainability. This factor should also be taken on board in further research.

5.3 Sustainability of (Future) Urban Form

The urban sprawl versus compact city discussion has spanned decades, and a large evidence base has been amassed in the process. The verdict that sprawl is unsustainable is clear (Hamidi & Ewing, 2014), but often too hastily drawn (Schuetze & Chelleri, 2015). The drawbacks of compact development are insufficiently addressed and at the same time, sprawl is one of the most popular forms of urbanization worldwide (Artmann et al., 2019) specifically in southern (Salvati, 2013) and eastern Europe (Halleux, 2008). Indeed, the statistical analysis discussed at the end of Chapter 2 found no significant correlation between urban form and a composite sustainability indicator, with only the most diffuse forms performing slightly worse than the others (Lardinois, 2021). This suggests that the relationship between sustainability and urban form is complex and should be studied in more detail. The purpose of this section is to do just that: assess the three urbanization types used throughout this book (compact, polycentric, diffuse) on a range of sustainability indicators.

5.3.1 Research Design and Methodology

Care must be taken when drawing up sustainability assessment frameworks. In practice, these have often been used to obfuscate sustainability and enable marginal ‘techno-managerial solutions’ rather than further a discussion about what needs to change to improve sustainability (Kaika, 2017). To avoid this, the guiding principle when evaluating the three urban forms (compact, polycentric, and diffuse) was to be as transparent as possible, even if it runs the risk of appearing simplistic. A foundational consideration was how to conceptualize sustainability. As elsewhere in this book, we take the three-dimensional model as the point of departure: people/social, planet/environmental, and profit/economic sustainability. The assessment framework itself is then essentially a 3 × 3 matrix crossing the three urbanization types with the three sustainability dimensions. One advantage of this approach is that the dimensions are readily understandable and relatively discrete—although there remain grey areas and interdependencies—allowing for analyses of how the urbanization types score on individual dimensions.

The matrix was elaborated with indicators for each dimension of sustainability. The first batch of indicators was taken from two publications both entitled Urban Sprawl in Europe (Couch et al., 2008; EEA & FOEN, 2016) and Jabareen’s (2006) assessment of sustainable urban forms (i.e. neo-traditionalist, compact city, urban containment, and ecocity), which had conducted a similar analysis. We then performed our own literature review to update and enlarge that evidence base, adding indicators inductively. Particularly literature on polycentric development had to be sought out, as most studies compared compact development to sprawl. The search was complicated by the fact that polycentricity can have different effects at different levels of scale (e.g. interurban versus intraurban) (Park et al., 2020). A combination of purposive sampling methods was employed to find literature such as searches in Google Scholar and university library databases and snowball techniques such as collecting sources from the bibliographies of journal articles. Given our geographical scope, we preferred European studies, but included some relevant North American sources given the longstanding sprawl/compact debate there (Burchell et al., 1998; Evers et al., 2020, p. 4). About 160 sources were incorporated into the matrix in total.

We would like to stress that this matrix is only a superficial overview indicating how the evidence tends to lean with respect to correlations. One should be very wary about drawing conclusions about causality; it is a simple amalgamation rather than a true meta-analysis controlling for geography, scale, macroeconomic context, and other salient factors. Writing about housing prices, Dawkins and Nelson (2002), found that, “the effects of urban containment appear to be much more dependent on the style of policy implementation, the structure of local housing markets, the pattern of existing land ownership, and the stringency of other local regulations,” suggesting that the relationship between urban form and sustainability is indirect at best. Bruegmann (2006) further points out that,

Because of the complexity of urban systems, however, it is often difficult to draw up such a balance sheet. […] this problem is compounded by the fact that the ‘solution’ to any given problem depends on the vantage point of the person doing the proposing. (p. 222)

This last problem raises the issue of normativity. We recognize that the selection of indicators is not a neutral process: “Indicators arise from values (we measure what we care about), and they create values (we care about what we measure)” (Meadows, 2021, p. 19). Unlike theoretical works such as that on sustainable city indicators (Egger, 2006) or policy-oriented documents like the World Cities Report (UN Habitat, 2020), our selection of indicators was data-driven: all 26 indicators were obtained by reviewing a scientific study. Still, we can question the sources used in the analysis. Given that sustainability and urban form are most extensively discussed in the environmental and planning literature, our results likely have a disciplinary bias. We attempted to include contrary standpoints (e.g. economic studies), but this represents a relatively small portion of the surveyed literature. Thus, we are aware of the problems of indicators, but feel that the transparency of showing scores on individual indicators is an improvement over the many competing sustainability indexes (Singh et al., 2009) and invites readers to draw their own conclusions.

5.3.2 Sustainability Assessment Results

The completed matrix includes a literature reference in each cell along with a total score. The scoring was an expert-judgement estimation of net impact on a Likert scale. If, for example, three sources found a large positive impact, one found no relationship and one found a small negative impact, it may receive a+ score. A disadvantage to this approach is that a modest score can be obtained either by conflicting studies or by a consensus that the impact is minimal. On the other hand, we chose not to aggregate the scores at either the level of sustainability dimensions or total sustainability. A simplified version of the results is displayed in Table 5.1; the full table including bibliographic information is available in Evers et al. (2020).

Table 5.1 Sustainability assessment framework

Bearing these caveats in mind, our findings generally confirm the critical literature on urban sprawl, namely that compact modes of urbanization are more sustainable than diffuse, with the notable exception of some indicators related to the housing market (housing demand, affordable housing, satisfaction with the home environment). Diffuse urbanization, by virtue of its scattered form and low density, scores lowest within the realm of ecological sustainability. Polycentric urbanization enrichens the discussion because it sometimes scores better than compact development, and sometimes worse. A fuller comparison of the types, including references, is provided below.

Compact

• Many studies examine the relationship between economic factors and compact urbanization. Densification and revitalization of brownfields were found to significantly increase land values (Nelson et al., 2007). Proximity was seen to lower transportation costs, but also exacerbate traffic congestion and public transport overcrowding (Litman, 2023). Businesses efficiently concentrate in central business districts (Ewing et al., 2016; Glaeser, 2011), which can slow economic development elsewhere (Cheshire et al., 2018).

• Concerning the environmental dimension of sustainability, one of the most frequently cited benefits of compact development is to preserve open areas (Bengston & Youn, 2006; Halleux, 2008; Soga et al., 2014), but others note it can stimulate leapfrog development (Evers & de Vries, 2013). On the other hand, densification can lead to a decrease in green space within the city as was seen in Amsterdam (Giezen et al., 2018) and Helsinki (Hautamäki, 2019). Lack of urban green spaces worsens air pollution and heat island effects as well as vulnerability to other climate hazards (Burby et al., 2001; Glaeser & Kahn, 2010). Some ecosystem services are, however, compatible with compact development such as green roofs, vertical gardens, and small urban parks (Francis & Jensen, 2017).

• In terms of social sustainability, one of the main factors raised for compact development is increased housing costs, which can lead to the displacement of low-income households unless ameliorated by effective affordable housing policies (Nelson et al., 2007). This was seen in the case of Stockholm, where gentrification exacerbated income segregation (Celioska-Janowicz et al., 2020). On the other hand, compact environments fit the ‘15-minute city’ model with excellent access to local services, jobs, and leisure activities and allow for alternative forms of transport like walking and cycling (Moreno et al., 2021). Some authors found lower social segregation (Nelson et al., 2007). A high concentration of people can be problematic for the spread of infectious diseases, but this is also offset by better logistics, technology, and health facilities (Hamidi et al., 2020). Dense compact cities are frequently associated with urbanity and cosmopolitanism, but also misanthropy (Okulicz-Kozaryn & Valente, 2022).

Polycentric

• One economic advantage cited with polycentric development is its ability to allow businesses to cluster and gain critical mass (borrowed size) without the agglomeration diseconomies of compact development (Balz & Schrijnen, 2016; Davoudi, 2003; Meijers, 2007). It can contribute to regional growth by its rapid communication and transport between multiple urban centres, allowing an easier flow of labour, goods, and knowledge (Knowles, 2012; Rosenthal & Strange, 2008). Areas near TOD sites result in higher median incomes (Delmelle & Nilsson, 2019), jobs (Lierop et al., 2017), and land values (Bartholomew & Ewing, 2011), which can be used to finance public services (Cervero & Murakami, 2009).

• Studies on environmental sustainability find that the creation of small walkable urban cores and their connection to other centres by public transport will reduce car traffic (Papa & Bertolini, 2015) and, consequently, noise and air pollution (Sider et al., 2013). Some studies find increased travel times vis-à-vis other urban forms, whereas others find the opposite (Park et al., 2020). Polycentric structures are also seen as conducive to finding space for urban green areas (Knowles, 2012; Lierop et al., 2017), circular economy principles (Fusco Girard, 2013), water retention, and renewable energy production (Westerink et al., 2013). There are also signs that compact polycentric structures are efficient in terms of energy and heating costs.

• Some argue that polycentric urban forms enable a more diversified housing stock, allowing lower incomes to find sufficient housing (Guthrie & Fan, 2016). This form is conducive to mixed-use development (Lehmann, 2016; Pojani & Stead, 2015). The polycentric urban form also means that green spaces, recreational areas as well as high-quality pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure are easier to realize (Schwanen et al., 2004), which can have health benefits (Pojani & Stead, 2015; Ratner & Goetz, 2013). Polycentric planned towns and districts in the Netherlands are generally highly valued by residents (de Klerk & Van der Wouden, 2024). Many transit-oriented neighbourhoods have remained stable in terms of population (i.e. little displacement effect) (Delmelle & Nilsson, 2019).

Diffuse

• One of the main arguments for diffuse urban development is that it has economic advantages. Land acquisition is less expensive, which should translate into lower costs for purchasing or renting space (Bruegmann, 2006; Oueslati et al., 2015). A disadvantage is that the fragmented low-density urban structure makes it difficult to serve by public transportation, which can raise individual transportation costs, create congestion on certain roadways, and result in much higher individual travel costs (Cinyabuguma & McConnell, 2013; Longley et al., 2002), energy costs (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999), and other public services (Gielen et al., 2019; Hortas-Rico & Solé-Ollé, 2010). On the other hand, the diffusion of jobs (sometimes stimulated by containment policies) to suburban areas can reduce commuting distances (Anas & Rhee, 2007).

• The literature is less divided in its verdict on the environmental effects. Diffuse development is said to cause high air and noise pollution volumes (Glaeser & Kahn, 2010; Norman et al., 2006), although the fact that this is spread out across a large area reduces its intensity. The low-density aspect results in less efficient land use and loss of land (Couch et al., 2008; EEA & FOEN, 2016; Leontidou et al., 2008) that could have served as ecological services (Hamin & Gurran, 2009) or renewable energy (Bruegmann, 2006; Norman et al., 2006). On the other hand, low densities reduce heat island intensity (Zhou et al., 2017) and can make it easier to find space to adapt to climate change (Pizarro, 2009; Westerink et al., 2013). The spatial fragmentation is not conducive to biodiversity (EEA & FOEN, 2011).

• In terms of social sustainability, an important advantage of diffuse urban form is the provision of low-cost and high-quality housing with private yards and ample privacy (Antoniucci & Marella, 2018; Ewing et al., 2016; Oueslati et al., 2015), and enjoy closer contact with nature (Robertson, 1990). Many citizens living in diffuse urban areas enjoy living in homes they built themselves at sites at locations of their choosing, including minorities (Kahn, 2007). Other authors have pointed to higher social segregation (Xie et al., 2018), as well as transport justice issues (Kenyon, 2011) and transport-related stress (Costal et al., 1988). Diffuse development can encourage less-active lifestyles, leading to obesity and other health problems (Ewing et al., 2003).

From this overview, the results are clearly mixed. Each urban form type contains both positive and negative aspects, indicating trade-offs between and within sustainability dimensions (Anderson et al., 1996). Consequently, we should be wary about claims that some forms are necessarily (un)sustainable, but critically examine in which ways and under what conditions they are so. The findings confirm that compact development is also fraught with dilemmas (Neuman, 2005; Roo & Miller, 2019).

This aligns with Campbell’s (2016) advice to planners that they should abandon the holy grail of achieving a perfect balance and try to find a workable compromise and manage trade-offs. In practice, planners understandably have a clear preference for compact urban form but should also be aware of how this goal interfaces with related goals such as affordable housing and local environmental factors. The transparency of the assessment framework not only facilitates making choices between indicators (e.g. one might be more urgent than the other within a particular context) but also reasoned long-term strategies (e.g. a transition to electrified vehicles will reduce the problem of emissions but not congestion and loss of street space to parking). Finally, the assessment framework results must be seen in the light of the prevailing territorial context. For example, we can ask how the structure of southern European systems defined by social institutions such as patrimonial tradition in land ownership and the importance of kinship ties would react to the imposition of a compact city model. As we have seen in the past (see Chapter 3), when planners operating in the ‘urbanist tradition’ attempted to steer urbanization using detailed plans, this resulted in informal diffuse development. In other words, for sustainability, it is arguably less important to promote a particular urban form but to reform everyday development practices.

5.4 Sustainability of Land Development Practices

In the conceptual framework presented in Chapter 1, the step between urbanization drivers and their outcomes consists of development practices. This is the crucial point at which decisions are made about whether, where and how to convert land to urban use. It is described as a ‘black box’ because it cannot be studied at the macro-level: these decisions are taken in a very localized context according to specific (in)formal rules of the game and interactions by a particular constellation of stakeholders (Lord, 2012; Peters, 1999; Scharpf, 1997). For example, a fiscally decentralized planning system characterized by a ‘comprehensive integrated’ approach where local officials have an ‘entrepreneurial planning’ orientation may react to a development proposal by setting up a public-private partnership and using the profits to fund related public services, whereas a fiscally centralized system of ‘passive’ land-use planners may be much more reticent. To investigate this, the ESPON SUPER project took a comparative case study approach, researching development practices in 11 very different contexts. To capture the heterogeneity of Europe, the selection attempted to vary the geographic spread, level of scale and type of planning system, and intervention as much as possible. To enable a modicum of comparability, data was collected and registered using a strict regime of templates that could then be synthesized in spreadsheets to detect regularities (Farinós Dasí et al., 2020a).

The main research question was how new public-sector interventions impact land-use decisions and developments. The analysis is akin to performance-oriented studies, which are often employed to gauge the effects of strategic planning (Faludi, 2000) by looking at if and how the plan was followed up in future decision-making. In other words, rather than investigating whether developments conform to notions of sustainability (Sect. 5.2), or how the impacts of alternatives score on indicators of sustainability (Sect. 5.3), this section looks at the extent to which interventions to promote sustainability resonate in planning and development practices. If this results in a durable change, we can also say that these interventions are institutionally sustainable.

5.4.1 Unsustainable Urbanization Practices

Before talking about what sustainable urbanization is, we should first look at current European development practices which are, with few exceptions, considered unsustainable. There are many reasons for this, but deep-rooted ideas about the dominion over and subjugation of nature as a God-given right are certainly a factor. Under capitalism, this ideology becomes translated into institutions where private property is held sacred, and land is a commodity to be traded on the free market. When such economic valuation predominates,

It can then come as no surprise to us that the most scabrous slum is more highly valued than the most beautiful landscape, that the most loathsome roadside stand is more highly valued than the richest farmland. (McHarg, 2006 [1968])

Because urban land is worth vastly more than rural land, this provides a significant financial impetus for landowners to urbanize (or developers to buy land to this end). Of course, there are also costs, impediments and risks involved in land development, so care needs to be taken to ensure a positive business case. As argued in Chapter 3, a major consideration in land development is the structure and function of the land-use planning system, as it is responsible for granting development rights as well as informal practices, such as how planners perceive their role in the development process (e.g. passive, entrepreneurial, or facilitative).

The case study research made an initial assessment of the sustainability of the prevailing development practices using a multicriteria analysis. Factors include whether the development was viewed as meeting a real demand, or whether it was deemed more supply-driven. An indicator of this is whether municipalities are financially dependent on urban development. The assessment also ascertained whether public authorities adopted a proactive or reactive stance in the process, whether planning practice was seen as improving or not, and the extent to which it corresponded with EU policies and SDGs. From this, the Austrian, Swiss, and Swedish cases were seen as relatively fertile ground for sustainable urbanization, whereas this was seen as most challenging in Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland. These scores should be treated with a healthy dose of scepticism, as the case study reports were prepared by national experts, and some were more critical than others about the current situation (most likely related to comparisons with past performance).

The analysis moreover revealed that some traditional institutional groupings were unimportant for explaining the functioning of the planning system, such as whether the administrative structure was centralized or federal, geographic location, the degree of EU influence, and planning culture. Despite the large differences in context, the comparison revealed some important similarities and debunked stereotypes about dysfunctional Mediterranean and Eastern planning systems versus well-organized ones in Northwest Europe. It also discovered discrepancies between formal systems and informal practices:

It is evident that, in some cases, the situation on the ground has shifted from these long-held and pervasive imaginaries. It has been found that most actors, even in the most permissive environments, demand a stricter basic and restrictive regulation approach. Decision makers at the top echelons of the administration tend to choose solutions that are close to de-regulatory, linked to ideology and political capitalization, but local stakeholders which are in closer contact with everyday practice, lean towards solutions that tend to increase the level of control or implement binding interventions. (Farinós Dasí et al., 2020b)

However, this does not necessarily translate into sustainable development practices. Indeed, a majority of the investigated countries exhibited local supply-side rationality, where land development was found to outstrip need. In three cases (Spain, Croatia, and Romania), this seemed to be linked to boosting business opportunities in an insufficiently diversified economy, while in others (Germany and the Netherlands) urban development was perceived as a vehicle to recover from the economic crisis. In all cases, it was linked to an overarching system where local authorities rely on land development for revenue and where inter-municipal competition undermines the willingness to introduce restrictive planning measures.

5.4.2 Ex-ante Sustainability Assessment

Each case study focused on an intervention to improve the sustainability of development practices. Some of the interventions were drawn up in a proactive way to strengthen planning (Austria, Italy, and Romania) whereas others sought to redress perceived unsustainable development (Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands). Of the eleven cases, only two initially failed to mention the three dimensions of sustainable development explicitly (Belgium and Romania), primarily because they predate the time when this conceptualization became dominant (they did so implicitly however). In addition, many of the interventions incorporated the temporal dimension as well. For example, some express concern for future generations (Switzerland, Croatia, Italy, and Romania), while others explicitly seek to achieve long-term effects (Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Poland, and Romania), or set long-term urbanization targets (Belgium, Germany).

A qualitative analysis of the official text of the interventions discovered that the case studies differed on which dimension of sustainability seemed to enjoy priority (Farinós Dasí et al., 2020b). While no intervention exclusively focused on one dimension, most leaned towards the environmental dimension, while two (Romania and the Netherlands), were more economically motivated. Social considerations were the least frequently mentioned, with only three interventions (Austria, Spain and Sweden) devoting a third or more of their attention to this. Further analysis discovered that interventions falling into the instrument category ‘strategy’ were much more holistic than legal devices. Finally, interventions set at higher levels of scale tended to be narrower in their aims.

The textual analysis was supplemented by over 100 stakeholder interviews, which included questions about what problems the interventions should address. This revealed differences between the opinions of stakeholders and the actual articulation of the intervention. From Fig. 5.4, one can gauge the relative distance between needs (interviews) and the means (intervention text). The discrepancy was substantial in Spain, Switzerland, Croatia, and the Netherlands, where respondents placed much more emphasis on environmental matters than the intervention had done. Expectations were more aligned in Italy, Romania, and Germany. Interestingly, Swedish respondents raised more social concerns than the intervention had addressed. In two cases (Italy and Austria), the main need was to improve institutions rather than make progress on one or more dimensions of sustainability whereas in Romania the stakeholders could not agree on priorities.

Fig. 5.4

Ternary plot of ex-post sustainability analysis

The main conclusion is that even though the interventions were drafted in a way that slightly prioritized environmental sustainability, this was much less than what the stakeholders felt was necessary. In some instances (Spain) the draft intervention was adapted to gain a broader base of political support, while in others (Netherlands) an ecological perspective ran counter to the prevailing political ideology.

5.4.3 Ex-post Sustainability Assessment

Arguably the most important question in the case studies was: did the interventions make land development practices more sustainable? This was the central research question of the ex-post assessment. The first method was to ascertain if urbanization (land take) declined after the introduction of the intervention. Given the many intervening variables, not much credence was given to this analysis. The second and more important method was to ask the stakeholders about the effects of the intervention, often using questions worded in a contrapositive manner: all things being equal, would greenfield development (or gentrification, economic development, etc.) have been greater without the intervention? This was then used to reflect on the urbanization trends in the first analysis.

Like the previous sustainability analysis in Sect. 5.3, the interventions were scored on a Likert scale for a range of indicators falling into the three sustainability dimensions. The indicators are not identical because the data was collected from interviews rather than scientific literature. Consequently, the indicators are generally more subjective and less measurable. Given the heterogeneity and limited number of case studies, it would be inappropriate to draw conclusions on the basis of regularity. Nevertheless, there were clear indications that the studied interventions had a palpable positive impact on sustainable urbanization. The observed transformations in planning and development culture can be broadly categorized into two groups: a shift in mentality and the introduction of innovative instruments and practices. Even if the explicit goal was not to change the planning and development culture, many stakeholders acknowledged it as an unintentional outcome. This included a shift from competitive individualistic decision-making to cooperative strategies in land development, a transition from a top-down tradition to a more open decision-making process, and enhanced public awareness and involvement in land-use planning. In addition, the interventions were seen to innovate developmental practices via the introduction of new instruments, routines, and interactions. Examples include an obligation to justify plans in terms of sustainable urbanization, enhancing legitimacy through compliance, financial compensation schemes that support sustainability, and EU standards for public participation, environmental protection, and institutional accountability.

Finally, the study made two general but noteworthy observations:

• The socio-political contexts changed over the studied timeframe (approximately 2000–2020), and with it, the status and character of the planning system. The various rankings and typologies of planning systems (see Chapter 3) often fail to take this dynamism into account. In particular, planning seems to be weakening in Germany and the Netherlands, both seen as strong systems, but also in Croatia and Romania. Conversely, planning seems to be gaining ground in Austria and Switzerland, but also in Italy and Spain.

• In contrast to spatial planning and territorial governance scholarship, which emphasizes the need for ‘soft spaces’ and flexible arrangements (Allmendinger & Haughton, 2009), we see an increasing use of norms imposed via regulatory instruments, sometimes inspired by or aligned with European policies. This has created coordination problems between governmental tiers (Spain, Germany, Croatia, and Romania). In some cases, such as the Netherlands and Germany, planning implementation and enforcement is increasingly delegated to consultants and courts.

5.5 Conclusions

This chapter investigated the sustainability of urbanization in three ways: (1) a conformance-oriented analysis of developments, (2) an impact-oriented analysis of urban form, and (3) a performance-oriented analysis of urbanization practices. In this last section, we will briefly reflect on each of these analyses and conclude with some critical comments.

Recalling the conceptual framework in Chapter 1, the first two analyses can be understood as assessing the outcome of the urbanization process. The first is primarily focused on the sustainability of the amount of urban space being added and directly informs the policy debate surrounding the ‘no net land take in 2050’ target. While we recognize that urbanization is far from zero, we argue against taking a one-dimensional conceptualization of every hectare of land ‘taken’ being unsustainable. The data reveals a complex mosaic of more or less efficient urbanization patterns, both geographically and over time. The second analysis acknowledges that not only the amount of urban space but also its configuration, is important for sustainability. This is related to the longstanding policy debate on urban sprawl. Again, our analysis does not reject the general verdict that compact development is preferable, but nuances this by showing that there are trade-offs between and within dimensions of sustainability. The final analysis is oriented to the process of urbanization: it analyses how urban development practices were affected by various interventions. Here, again, the results show mixed results, which can nuance both the fatalistic standpoint that market forces are too powerful to withstand and the naïve beliefs that planners can singlehandedly control spatial development. Given all this equivocal evidence on developments, impacts of urban form and the scope for reform, the next step is to address what can and should be done to improve the sustainability of urbanization in Europe.

A good starting point would be to improve communication between those studying and writing on sustainability (e.g. environmental activists and scholars) and those who are on the front lines of urbanization (e.g. civil servants in municipal planning departments). This gap is typified by the European ‘no net land take’ target, which originated among a small circle of soil experts and operationalized by scientists working at the European Environment Agency. The urban and regional planners who will be ultimately obliged to implement this target played no part in formulating this initiative and are only now becoming aware of its existence (Evers, 2024). Planning theory is clear about insufficient participation potentially leading to alienation and even resistance among stakeholders (Arnstein, 1969; Forester, 1989; Healey, 2010; Innes, 1996). Another example is degrowth, an increasingly fashionable concept in academia but largely unknown (or if known, misunderstood or mistrusted) by practitioners. Degrowth views itself as a movement, yet scant attention is given by academics to those who might be responsible for implementing it. This deficiency has only very recently been acknowledged:

We highlight the significant yet neglected role that urban professionals (architects, designers, planners, medical and social care professionals, IT and technology experts, teachers) can play in linking degrowth agendas with interlocal everyday spatial urban and regional practices. These actors are often overlooked – or even looked down upon – by degrowth scholars and activists, as they are considered not sufficiently ‘progressive’. (Kaika et al., 2023, p. 1200)

Local politicians, and the planners who work for them, generally view growth positively (Logan & Molotch, 1987; Savini, 2021) and local finances often rely directly on urban development. At the same time, planners are trained to think in terms of long-term processes, interrelations between policy fields and territories and strategic objectives that extend far beyond electoral terms. Furthermore, as street-level bureaucrats, planners usually view themselves as defenders of the local public interest and see it as their duty that weaker voices in society—the downtrodden, and the natural environment—are sufficiently represented (Kaufman & Escuin, 2000). In this sense, there is significant common ground to cultivate practices that serve the degrowth agenda, even if not explicitly embracing the term. Indeed, “Planners have an important role to play in […] helping elected officials and citizens understand why the vision of a sustainable future is a desirable and compelling one and how they can lead society toward that future” (Beatley, 1995).