IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v91y2020ics0264837719301735.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do planners manage risk in alternative land development models? An institutional analysis of land development in the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • O’Brien, Philip
  • Lord, Alex
  • Dembski, Sebastian

Abstract

While risk is a key concern in property development, it tends to be discussed by planners only relative to the effects of regulatory planning on private sector risk. Yet planning encompasses a broad range of activities that go beyond its function of regulating private sector development. Despite active approaches to land development being commonly used across different planning contexts, frameworks for analysing public sector strategies to address risk are rarely discussed. We attempt to redress this deficit by investigating the actions of public sector development actors with regard to risk across three different land development models: public land development, land development by public-private partnership, and land readjustment. Using recent Dutch experience, we conduct an institutional analysis of each land development model in order to highlight the effects of alternative governance structures on risk as a particular transaction attribute, from the perspective of public sector planning. Our findings indicate the importance of highlighting the role of public risk in alternative models of land development where there may be a tendency to adopt institutional arrangements without due regard to this, and point to possible future applications of institutional analysis at the particular, rather than the general, level.

Suggested Citation

  • O’Brien, Philip & Lord, Alex & Dembski, Sebastian, 2020. "How do planners manage risk in alternative land development models? An institutional analysis of land development in the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:91:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719301735
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719301735
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104409?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alex Lord & Philip O’Brien, 2017. "What price planning? Reimagining planning as “market maker”," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 217-232, April.
    2. Williamson, Oliver E, 1999. "Public and Private Bureaucracies: A Transaction Cost Economics Perspective," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 306-342, April.
    3. Christian A. L. Hilber & Wouter Vermeulen, 2016. "The Impact of Supply Constraints on House Prices in England," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(591), pages 358-405, March.
    4. Christian A. L. Hilber & Wouter Vermeulen, 2016. "The Impact of Supply Constraints on House Prices in England," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(591), pages 358-405, March.
    5. David Emanuel Andersson & Stefano Moroni (ed.), 2014. "Cities and Private Planning," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 15788.
    6. van der Krabben, E., 1995. "Urban dynamics : A real estate perspective: An institutional analysis of the production of the built environment," Other publications TiSEM 0934260d-3fcc-4e5f-aa7c-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Chris Leishman & Colin Jones & Will Fraser, 2000. "The influence of uncertainty on house builder behaviour and residential land values," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 147-168, January.
    8. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. Paul Cheshire & Stephen Sheppard, 2005. "The Introduction of Price Signals into Land Use Planning Decision-making: A Proposal," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(4), pages 647-663, April.
    10. Alexander Lord & Yiquan Gu, 2019. "Can the market be tamed? A thought experiment on the value(s) of planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 51(1), pages 11-24, February.
    11. Edwin Buitelaar & Maaike Galle & Niels Sorel, 2014. "The public planning of private planning: an analysis of controlled spontaneity in the Netherlands," Chapters, in: David Emanuel Andersson & Stefano Moroni (ed.), Cities and Private Planning, chapter 12, pages 248-268, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Chris Webster & Lawrence W.-C. Lai, 2003. "Property Rights, Planning and Markets," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2625.
    13. Paul Cheshire & Stephen Sheppard, 2005. "Introducing Price Signals into Land Use Planning Decision-making - a Proposal," ERSA conference papers ersa05p42, European Regional Science Association.
    14. Christian Hilber, 2015. "UK Housing and Planning Policies: the evidence from economic research," CEP Election Analysis Papers 033, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    15. Edwin Buitelaar & Arjan Bregman, 2016. "Dutch land development institutions in the face of crisis: trembling pillars in the planners’ paradise," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(7), pages 1281-1294, July.
    16. Andre Sorensen, 2015. "Taking path dependence seriously: an historical institutionalist research agenda in planning history," Planning Perspectives, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 17-38, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reeko Watanabe & Tsunemi Watanabe, 2020. "The Development of Straw-Based Biomass Power Generation in Rural Area in Northeast China—An Institutional Analysis Grounded in a Risk Management Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Gupta, Ashish & Tiwari, Piyush, 2022. "An analysis of land and property development models, and stakeholders: A case of National Capital Region, India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    3. Broitman, Dani & Ben-Haim, Yakov, 2022. "Forecasting residential sprawl under uncertainty: An info-gap analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Guo, Jingpeng & Zhao, Yinghui & Li, Frank Yonghong & Mao, Kebiao & He, Jinfeng & He, Qiang, 2024. "Developing a land development compensation model for returned land in tract expropriation: Towards a unified urban-rural land market in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    5. Qingmu Su & Kaida Chen & Lingyun Liao, 2021. "The Impact of Land Use Change on Disaster Risk from the Perspective of Efficiency," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-14, March.
    6. Chuansong Zhao & Ran Geng & Jianxu Liu & Liuying Peng & Woraphon Yamaka, 2023. "Spatiotemporal Evolution and Driving Factors of Land Development: Evidence from Shandong Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-21, October.
    7. Krajewska, Małgorzata & Szopińska, Kinga & Siemińska, Ewa, 2021. "Value of land properties in the context of planning conditions risk on the example of the suburban zone of a Polish city," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Dunning, Richard J. & Moore, Tom & Watkins, Craig, 2021. "The use of public land for house building in England: Understanding the challenges and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cozzolino, Stefano & Moroni, Stefano, 2021. "Multiple agents and self-organisation in complex cities: The crucial role of several property," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    2. J. Peter Clinch & Eoin O'Neill, 2010. "Assessing the Relative Merits of Development Charges and Transferable Development Rights in an Uncertain World," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(4), pages 891-911, April.
    3. Cheshire, Paul & Hilber, Christian A.L. & Koster, Hans R.A., 2018. "Empty homes, longer commutes: The unintended consequences of more restrictive local planning," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 126-151.
    4. Nicholas Crafts, 2013. "Returning to Growth: Policy Lessons from History," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 34(2), pages 255-282, June.
    5. Paul C. Cheshire & Gerard H. Dericks, 2020. "‘Trophy Architects’ and Design as Rent‐seeking: Quantifying Deadweight Losses in a Tightly Regulated Office Market," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 87(348), pages 1078-1104, October.
    6. Geoffrey Meen, 2016. "Spatial housing economics: A survey," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(10), pages 1987-2003, August.
    7. Ehrlich, Maximilian V. & Hilber, Christian A.L. & Schöni, Olivier, 2018. "Institutional settings and urban sprawl: Evidence from Europe," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 4-18.
    8. ., 2014. "Planning for a housing crisis: or the alchemy by which we turn houses into gold," Chapters, in: Urban Economics and Urban Policy, chapter 4, pages 79-103, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Paul Cheshire & Gerard Dericks, 2014. "'Iconic Design' as Deadweight Loss: Rent Acquisition by Design in the Constrained London Office Market," SERC Discussion Papers 0154, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    10. Alexander Woestenburg & Erwin van der Krabben & Tejo Spit, 2019. "Legitimacy Dilemmas in Direct Government Intervention: The Case of Public Land Development, an Example from the Netherlands," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt & Nancy Holman, 2018. "Distinctively Different: A New Approach to Valuing Architectural Amenities," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(608), pages 1-33, February.
    12. ., 2014. "Planning and economic performance," Chapters, in: Urban Economics and Urban Policy, chapter 5, pages 104-126, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Cai, Hongbin & Wang, Zhi & Zhang, Qinghua, 2017. "To build above the limit? Implementation of land use regulations in urban China," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 223-233.
    14. Cheshire, Paul, 2009. "Urban land markets and policy failures," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 30837, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Paul C. Cheshire & Christian A. L. Hilber, 2008. "Office Space Supply Restrictions in Britain: The Political Economy of Market Revenge," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(529), pages 185-221, June.
    16. Paul Cheshire, 2009. "Urban Containment, Housing Affordability and Price Stability - Irreconcilable Goals," SERC Policy Papers 004, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    17. Hilber , Christian A. L. & Schöni, Olivier, 2016. "Housing Policies in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the United States: Lessons Learned," ADBI Working Papers 569, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    18. Tim Leunig & Henry Overman, 2008. "Spatial patterns of development and the British housing market," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 24(1), pages 59-78, spring.
    19. Crafts, Nicholas, 2012. "Creating Competitive Advantage: Policy Lessons from History," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 91, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    20. Loris Servillo & Rob Atkinson & Abdelillah Hamdouch & Fennie M. Van Straalen & Patrick Witte & Edwin Buitelaar, 2017. "Self-Organisation in Oosterwold, Almere: Challenges with Public Goods and Externalities," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 108(4), pages 503-511, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:91:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719301735. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.