Explaining Land-Use Transition in a Segmented Land Market

Potential Input for Land Use Scanner
  • Jasper DekkersEmail author
  • Piet Rietveld
Part of the GeoJournal Library book series (GEJL, volume 101)


Spatial planning policies can create segmented sub-markets for land, leading to an artificial scarcity for certain types of land use (usually urban land use) and higher land prices in that submarket, which can eventually spillover to other sub-markets. In a spatial context, these spillover effects are mainly observed in the urban fringes, where rural land owners often ask a higher price for their rural land because of expectations that this will be converted into urban land. The price for rural parcels in the urban fringe is thus related to the probability that these parcels will be put to urban uses in the (near) future, which is referred to as the ‘transition probability’. Figure 9.1 describes this relation in more detail. Land prices decline as the distance from the city centre increases. In situations where there are no spatial planning constraints (Fig. 9.1a), there is no gap between land prices at the urban fringe. If there is a spatial planning policy being implemented that restricts building on the fringe of a city (Fig. 9.1b), a sudden change in land prices can be observed for rural parcels immediately bordering the city. When it is expected that these limitations along the fringe may be lifted, the market price for those rural parcels will be somewhere between the urban and the agricultural land price. If the market price is closer to the agricultural land price, there is a low transition probability, and if the market price is closer to the urban land price, there is a high transition probability.


Hedonic Price Transaction Price Urban Fringe Land Price Land Market 
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.



We would like to thank the BSIK programmes ‘Ruimte voor Geo-Informatie’ ( and Habiforum ( for partially funding this research. We extend, furthermore, our thanks to the Government Service for Land and Water Management of the Netherlands (DLG), a department of the Netherlands Ministry for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV), for supplying the land transaction data. Thanks are also due to Jan Luijt and Tom Kuhlman of the Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI) of Wageningen University and Research Centre for discussions about land sub-markets, modelling and data issues. And finally, we thank Gerard Kooman, Edwin Bleijinga, Rik Heskes and Ton van Bart of the Province of Noord-Holland for discussions about the land market in their province.


  1. Alonso, W. A. (1964). Location and land use: Toward a general theory of land rent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Borsboom-van Beurden, J. A. M., Boersma, W. T., Bouwman, A. A., Crommentuijn, L. E. M., Dekkers, J. E. C., & Koomen, E. (2005). Ruimtelijke Beelden – Visualisatie van een veranderd Nederland in 2030. Bilthoven: Milieu- en Natuurplanbureau.Google Scholar
  3. Buurman, J. J. G. (2003). Rural land markets: A spatial explanatory model. PhD Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  4. CBS (2000). Statline, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Retrieved 15 June 2005.
  5. Dekkers, J. E. C. (2010). Externalities, land use planning and urban expansion. PhD Dissertation, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Dekkers, J. E. C., Rietveld, P., Van den Brink, A., & Scholten, H. J. (2004). Exploring the land market in the province of Noord-Holland using a spatial regression model. Paper for the 44th ERSA-congress, Porto, Portugal, August 25–29.Google Scholar
  7. De Nijs, T. C. M., De Niet, R., & Crommentuijn, L. E. M. (2004). Constructing land-use maps of The Netherlands in 2030. Journal of Environmental Management, 72(1), 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gordon, R. J. (1990). The measurement of durable goods prices. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Griliches, Z. (Ed.). (1971). Price indexes and quality change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hilferink, M., & Rietveld, P. (1999). Land use scanner: An integrated GIS based model for long term projections of land use in urban and rural areas. Journal of Geographical Systems, 1(2), 155–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koomen, E., Dekkers, J. E. C., & Van Dijk, T. (2008). Open space preservation in The Netherlands: Planning, practice and prospects. Land Use Policy, 25(3), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Loonen, W., & Koomen, E. (2009). Calibration and validation of the land use scanner allocation algorithms. PBL Report No. 550026002. Bilthoven: PBL.Google Scholar
  13. Luijt, J., Kuhlman, J. W., & Pilkes, J. (2003). Agrarische grondprijzen onder stedelijke druk – Stedelijke optiewaarde en agrarische gebruikswaarde afhankelijk van ligging. NPB Werkdocument 2003/15. Den Haag: LEI.Google Scholar
  14. McFadden, D. (1978). Modelling the choice of residential location. In Spatial Interaction Theory and Planning Models, In A. Karlqvist, L. Lundqvist, F. Snickars & J. Weibull (Eds.), (pp. 75–96). Amsterdam: North Holland Publ.Google Scholar
  15. MNP (2004). Milieu- en natuureffecten Nota Ruimte. Bilthoven: RIVM.Google Scholar
  16. OCW, LNV, VROM, & V&W (1999). Nota Belvedere, Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu and Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, SdU, Den Haag.Google Scholar
  17. RNP (1958). De ontwikkeling van het Westen des lands. Werkcommissie Westen des Lands van de Rijksdienst voor het Nationale Plan (RNP), Staatsdrukkerij, The Hague.Google Scholar
  18. Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition. Journal of Political Economy, 82(1), 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Segeren A. (2007). De grondmarkt voor woningbouwlocaties. Belangen en strategieën van grondeigenaren. The Hague/Rotterdam: Ruimtelijk Planbureau/NAi Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  20. Segeren, A., Needham, B., & Groen, J. (2005). De markt doorgrond. Een institutionele analyse van de grondmarkten in Nederland. The Hague/Rotterdam: Ruimtelijk Planbureau/NAi Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  21. Van Rij, E., Dekkers, J. E. C., & 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
  22. Verburg, P. H., Ritsema van Eck, J. R., De Nijs, T. C. M., Dijst, M. J., & Schot, P. (2004). Determinants of land-use change patterns in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 125–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations