IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v99y2020ics0264837719318952.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reconsidering the merit of market-oriented planning innovations: Critical insights on Transferable Development Rights from Coimbra, Portugal

Author

Listed:
  • Ferreira, António

Abstract

A variety of contemporary cities across the world are experimenting with innovative market-oriented planning instruments aimed at promoting urban regeneration processes. This research aims at offering a critical analysis of these innovations and how they are perceived by key stakeholders in Coimbra, Portugal, with special focus on Transferable Development Rights (TDR). Detailed insights are offered with the aim of critically exploring the levels of acceptability and applicability of TDR as a forthcoming planning innovation in this city vis-à-vis its planning culture and socio-spatial characteristics. The key conclusion is that the implementation of market-oriented instruments such as TDR is unlikely to represent a suitable strategy to promote urban regeneration in some contexts. Specifically, TDR may have limited efficacy in places characterised by modest levels of economic activity, technocratic legal systems, bureaucratic governance models, low social capital, and autocratic political leaderships – as is the case of Coimbra. Carefully crafted initiatives aimed at directly addressing the shortcomings of such traits while taking into account local features are likely to be more successful and transformative than the adoption of off-the-shelf market-oriented planning instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Ferreira, António, 2020. "Reconsidering the merit of market-oriented planning innovations: Critical insights on Transferable Development Rights from Coimbra, Portugal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719318952
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719318952
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104977?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. Ragip Ege & Herrade Igersheim & Charlotte Le Chapelain, 2016. "Transcendental vs. comparative approaches to justice: a reappraisal of Sen's dichotomy," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 521-543, August.
    2. Paul Thorsnes & Gerald P. W. Simons, 1999. "Letting The Market Preserve Land: The Case For A Market‐Driven Transfer Of Development Rights Program," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(2), pages 256-266, April.
    3. Elizabeth Kopits & Virginia McConnell & Margaret Walls, 2008. "Making Markets for Development Rights Work: What Determines Demand?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 1-16.
    4. Fagerberg, Jan & Martin, Ben R. & Andersen, Esben Sloth (ed.), 2013. "Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199686353.
    5. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O'Neill, Eoin, 2019. "An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Transaction Costs in Transferable Development Rights Programmes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 409-419.
    6. Hung-Ying Chen, 2020. "Cashing in on the sky: financialization and urban air rights in the Taipei Metropolitan Area," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(2), pages 198-208, February.
    7. António Ferreira & Joana Ribeiro-Santos & Isabel Breda-Vázquez, 2020. "Transcending Dilemmas in Urban Policy-Making: Envisioning versus Adapting, Growing versus Stabilizing," Planning Theory & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 76-93, January.
    8. Patricia Machemer & Michael Kaplowitz, 2002. "A Framework for Evaluating Transferable Development Rights Programmes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(6), pages 773-795.
    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. Dadashpoor, Hashem & Sajadi, Afshin, 2024. "Principles of just urban land use planning," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    2. Song, Min & Yi, Luping & Hu, Can, 2023. "Building up a compensation-oriented transferable development right mechanism: A theoretical and empirical exploration in Hubei, China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    3. Ferreira, António & Oliveira, Fernanda Paula & von Schönfeld, Kim Carlotta, 2022. "Planning cities beyond digital colonization? Insights from the periphery," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Bruno, Erica & Falco, Enzo & Shahab, Sina & Geneletti, Davide, 2023. "Integrating ecosystem services in transfer of development rights: a literature review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    5. Xiaojing Liu & Xiao Zhang & Mingsheng Wang & Zhongxing Guo, 2022. "Is Urban and Rural Construction Land Quota Trading “Chicken Ribs”? An Empirical Study on Chongqing, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, November.

    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. Yidi Wang & Ying Fan & Zan Yang, 2022. "Challenges, Experience, and Prospects of Urban Renewal in High-Density Cities: A Review for Hong Kong," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. Till Proeger & Lukas Meub & Kilian Bizer, 2018. "Laboratory Experiments of Tradable Development Rights: A Synthesis of Different Treatments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2017. "The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 614-624.
    4. Wang, Bo & Li, Fan & Feng, Shuyi & Shen, Tong, 2020. "Transfer of development rights, farmland preservation, and economic growth: a case study of Chongqing’s land quotas trading program," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Ferreira, António & Oliveira, Fernanda Paula & von Schönfeld, Kim Carlotta, 2022. "Planning cities beyond digital colonization? Insights from the periphery," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Walls, Margaret, 2012. "Markets for Development Rights: Lessons Learned from Three Decades of a TDR Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-49, Resources for the Future.
    8. Bruno, Erica & Falco, Enzo & Shahab, Sina & Geneletti, Davide, 2023. "Integrating ecosystem services in transfer of development rights: a literature review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    9. Nie, Xin & Li, Xiaojuan & Lyu, Chengyu & Su, Yanglan & Wang, Han, 2024. "Can ecological compensation based on the transfer of development rights (TDR) improve ecosystem service value? A multi-scenario simulation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    10. Antoinette Baujard & Muriel Gilardone, 2016. "Positional views as the cornerstone of Sen’s idea of justice," Post-Print halshs-01366710, HAL.
    11. Song, Min & Yi, Luping & Hu, Can, 2023. "Building up a compensation-oriented transferable development right mechanism: A theoretical and empirical exploration in Hubei, China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    12. Rinaldo Evangelista, 2018. "Technology and Economic Development: The Schumpeterian Legacy," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(1), pages 136-153, March.
    13. Laurie Bréban & Muriel Gilardone, 2019. "A missing touch of Adam Smith in Amartya Sen’s account of Public Reasoning: the Man Within for the Man Without," Economics Working Paper from Condorcet Center for political Economy at CREM-CNRS 2019-01-ccr, Condorcet Center for political Economy.
    14. André Lapidus, 2019. "Bringing them alive," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 1084-1106, November.
    15. Igal Charney, 2024. "Rezoning a top-notch CBD: The choreography of land-use regulation and creative destruction in Manhattan’s East Midtown," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 61(8), pages 1451-1467, June.
    16. Elizabeth Kopits & Virginia McConnell & Margaret Walls, 2008. "Making Markets for Development Rights Work: What Determines Demand?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 1-16.
    17. Alberto Gherardini & Alberto Nucciotti, 2017. "Yesterday’s giants and invisible colleges of today. A study on the ‘knowledge transfer’ scientific domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 255-271, July.
    18. Grillitsch, Markus & Hansen, Teis & Madsen, Stine, 2020. "How novel is Transformative Innovation Policy?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2020/8, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    19. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "The small world of innovation studies: an “editormetrics” perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7471-7486, December.
    20. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "Twenty challenges for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 432-450.

    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:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719318952. 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.