Recent Applications of a Land-use Change Model in Support of Sustainable Urban Development

  • Eric KoomenEmail author
  • Bart C. Rijken
Part of the GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 111)


Land-use models have become an established tool to help support spatial planning. Their ability to provide ex-ante assessments of potential land-use impacts of proposed policy changes makes them useful components in the geodesign framework. This paper described three recent policy-related applications of an operational Dutch land-use model with a focus on sustainable urban development. Subsequently, it discusses their potential role in a more iterative geodesign process and possible ways to further improve land-use modelling in view of ongoing and expected changes in the societal and planning context of the Netherlands.


Flood Risk Sustainable Urban Development Spatial Policy Delta Programme Urban Restructuring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research is funded by the research programme Urban Regions in the Delta (URD), part of the VerDuS-programme (Verbinding Duurzame Steden) of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). We would like to thank PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency for providing the spatial data and initial land-use simulations that were incorporated in the analyses discussed in this chapter. The work described in Sect. 6.3.1 was performed as part of a project one of the authors carried out for the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment in cooperation with Royal Haskoning and Alterra Wageningen University and Research Centre. The former colleagues and partners in that project are thanked for the pleasant and effective cooperation and fruitful discussions that provided the results discussed here. In addition we thank Dani Broitman for running the land use simulations discussed in Sect. 6.3.2 and Jasper Dekkers for providing valuable input to construct the Trends alternatives in that section.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruggeman, W., Dammers, E., Van den Born, G. J., Rijken, B. C., Van Bemmel, B., Nabielek, K., Beersma, J., Van den Hurk, B., Polman, N., Lindenhof, V., Folmer, C., Huizinga, F., Hommes, S., & Te Linde, A. H. (2013). Deltascenario’s voor 2050 en 2100; Nadere uitwerking 2012–2013. Delft: Deltares/PBL/LEI/CPB.Google Scholar
  3. CPB, MNP, & RPB. (2006). Welvaart en Leefomgeving. Een scenariostudie voor Nederland in 2040. Centraal Planbureau. Den Haag: Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau en Ruimtelijk Planbureau.Google Scholar
  4. Dammers, E. (2000). Leren van de toekomst. Over de rol van scenario’s bij strategische beleidsvorming. Delft: Uitgeverij Eburon.Google Scholar
  5. De Moel, H., Koks, E. E., Dekkers, J. E. C., Lassche, M. R., & Bouwer, L. M. (2012). Methods for future land-use projections for Flanders. Amsterdam: Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam .Google Scholar
  6. De Ruijter, P., Stolk, S., & Alkema, H. (2011). Klaar om te wenden; handboek voor de strateeg. Schiedam: Scriptum.Google Scholar
  7. Dias, E. S., Linde, M., Rafiee, A., Koomen, E., & Scholten, H. J. (2013). Beauty and brains: Integrating easy spatial design and advanced urban sustainability models. Chapter 27. In S. Geertman, F. Toppen, & J. C. H Stillwell (Eds.), Planning support systems for sustainable urban development (pp. 469–484). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Ervin, S. (2011). A system for geodesign. In E. Buhmann, S. Ervin, C. D. Tomlin, & M. Pietsch (Eds.), Teaching landscape architecture—Prelimenary proceedings (pp. 145–154). Bernburg: Anhalt University of Applied Sciences.Google Scholar
  10. Flaxman, M. (2010). Fundamentals of geodesign. In E. Buhmann., M. Pietsch, & E. Kretzler (Eds.), Digital landscape architecture 2010, digital landscape architecture 2010 (pp. 28–41). Berlin: Wichmann, VDE.Google Scholar
  11. Hoymann, J. (2010). Spatial allocation of future residential land use in the Elbe River Basin. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(5), 911–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. I&M. (2011). Ontwerp structuurvisie infrastructuur en ruimte; Nederland concurrerend, bereikbaar, leefbaar en veilig. Den Haag: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Keers, G., Smeulders, E., & Teerlink, T. (2011). Onderzoek: Toekomst voor de stedelijke woningbouw? P15360. RIGO Research en Advies/Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling.Google Scholar
  15. Klosterman, R. E. (1999). The what if? Collaborative planning support system. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klijn, F., Baan, P., Bruijn, K., & Kwadijk, J. (2007). Overstromingsrisico’s in Nederland in een veranderend klimaat verwachtingen, schattingen en berekeningen voor het project nederland later. Bilthoven: Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau (MNP).Google Scholar
  17. Koomen, E., & Borsboom-van Beurden, J. (Eds.) (2011). Land-use modeling in planning practice. Geojournal Library (vol. 101). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Koomen, E., & Dekkers, J. E. C. (2013). The impact of land-use policy on urban fringe dynamics; Dutch evidence and prospects. In D. Malkinson, D. Czamanski, & I. Benenson (Eds.), Modelling of land-use and ecological dynamics (pp. 9–35). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Koomen, E., Dekkers, J., & Van Dijk, T. (2008a). Open-space preservation in the Netherlands: Planning, practice and prospects. Land Use Policy, 25(3), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koomen, E., Rietveld, P., & De Nijs, T. (2008b). Modelling land-use change for spatial planning support; Editorial. Annals of regional science, 42(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koomen, E., Koekoek, A., & Dijk, E. (2011). Simulating land-use change in a regional planning context. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 4(4), 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koomen, E., Dekkers, J. E. C., & Broitman, D. (2015). Analysing and simulating urban density; exploring the difference between policy ambitions and actual trends in the Netherlands. In J. -C. Thill (Ed.), Spatial analysis and location modeling in urban and regional systems. Londan: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Kuhlman, T., Diogo, V., & Koomen, E. (2013). Exploring the potential of reed as a bioenergy crop in the Netherlands. Biomass and Bioenergy, 55, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuijpers-Linde, M. (2011). A policy perspective of the development of Dutch land-use models. Chapter 10. In E. Koomen & J. Borsboom-van Beurden (Eds.), Land-use modelling in planning practice (pp. 177–189). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Kuiper, R., & Evers, D. (2011a). Ex-ante evaluatie Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte. Den Haag: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving.Google Scholar
  26. Kuiper, R., & Evers, D. (2011b). Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte perkt nationale belangen in. ROM Magazine, 29(6), 10–13.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. PBL. (2011). Nederland in 2040: een land van regio’s. Den Haag: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving.Google Scholar
  29. Rijken, B., Bouwman, A., Van Hinsberg, A., Van Bemmel, B., Van den Born, G. J., Polman, N., Lindenhof, V., & Rijk, P. (2013). Regionalisering en kwantificering verhaallijnen Deltascenario’s 2012. Technisch achtergrondrapport. Den Haag: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving & LEI Wageningen UR.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Significance and Bureau Louter. (2007). Toepassen TIGRIS XL binnen de studie ‘Nederland Later’. Bilthoven: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
  34. Steinitz, C. (2012). A framework for geosign; Changing geography by design. Redlands: ESRI Press.Google Scholar
  35. Te Linde, A. H., Bubeck, P., Dekkers, J. E. C., De Moel, H., & Aerts, J. C. J. H. (2011). Future flood risk estimates along the river Rhine. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 11(2), 459–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Turner, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J. J., Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J. X., Luers, A., Martello, M. L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., & Schiller, A. (2003). A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U S A, 100(14), 8074–8079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. 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
  39. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Spatial Economics, SPINlabVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations