IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i2p159-d494009.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taking Implementation Seriously in the Evaluation of Urban Growth Management Strategies: “Safeguarding the Future” of the Antwerp City-Region

Author

Listed:
  • Clemens de Olde

    (Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Stadscampus-Building M, St-Jacobstraat 2, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium)

  • Stijn Oosterlynck

    (Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Stadscampus-Building M, St-Jacobstraat 2, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium)

Abstract

Contemporary evaluations of urban growth management (UGM) strategies often take the shape of quantitative measurements of land values and housing prices. In this paper, we argue that it is of key importance that these evaluations also analyse the policy formulation and implementation phases of growth management strategies. It is in these phases that the institutions and discourses are (trans)formed in which UGM strategies are embedded. This will enable us to better understand the conditions for growth management policies’ success or failure. We illustrate this point empirically with the case of demarcating urban areas in the region of Flanders, Belgium. Using the Policy Arrangement Approach, the institutional dynamics and discursive meanings in this growth instrument’s formulation and implementation phase are unravelled. More specifically, we explain how the Flemish strategic spatial planning vision of restraining sprawl was transformed into one of accommodating growth in the demarcation of the Antwerp Metropolitan Area, epitomised by two different meanings of the phrase “safeguarding the future.” In conclusion, we argue that, in Antwerp, the demarcation never solidified into a stable policy arrangement, rendering it largely ineffective. We end by formulating three recommendations to contribute to future attempts at managing urban growth in Flanders.

Suggested Citation

  • Clemens de Olde & Stijn Oosterlynck, 2021. "Taking Implementation Seriously in the Evaluation of Urban Growth Management Strategies: “Safeguarding the Future” of the Antwerp City-Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-20, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:159-:d:494009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/159/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/159/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brueckner, Jan K., 2007. "Urban growth boundaries: An effective second-best remedy for unpriced traffic congestion?," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3-4), pages 263-273, November.
    2. Myung-Jin Jun, 2012. "The effects of Seoul’s greenbelt on the spatial distribution of population and employment, and on the real estate market," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 49(3), pages 619-642, December.
    3. Robert W. Wassmer, 2002. "Fiscalisation of Land Use, Urban Growth Boundaries and Non-central Retail Sprawl in the Western United States," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(8), pages 1307-1327, July.
    4. Erblin Berisha & Giancarlo Cotella & Umberto Janin Rivolin & Alys Solly, 2021. "Spatial governance and planning systems in the public control of spatial development: a European typology," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 181-200, January.
    5. Shishir Mathur, 2014. "Impact of Urban Growth Boundary on Housing and Land Prices: Evidence from King County, Washington," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 128-148, January.
    6. Dempsey, Judith A. & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2013. "How well do urban growth boundaries contain development? Results for Oregon using a difference-in-difference estimator," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 996-1007.
    7. Gerrit J. Knaap & Arthur C. Nelson, 1988. "The Effects of Regional Land Use Control in Oregon: A Theoretical and Empirical Review," The Review of Regional Studies, Southern Regional Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 37-46, Spring.
    8. Anas, Alex & Rhee, Hyok-Joo, 2007. "When are urban growth boundaries not second-best policies to congestion tolls?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 263-286, March.
    9. Kobe Boussauw & Georges Allaert & Frank Witlox, 2013. "Colouring Inside What Lines? Interference of the Urban Growth Boundary and the Political--Administrative Border of Brussels," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(10), pages 1509-1527, October.
    10. Ahmed Mustafa & Jacques Teller, 2020. "Self-Reinforcing Processes Governing Urban Sprawl in Belgium: Evidence over Six Decades," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, May.
    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. Yanlin Zhen & Dehao Shi & Yanan Lu, 2023. "The Impact of Regional Integration Strategies on the Formation of City Regions and Its Agglomeration Shadow: Evidence from the Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-16, May.
    2. Maciej Nowak & Giancarlo Cotella & Przemysław Śleszyński, 2021. "The Legal, Administrative, and Governance Frameworks of Spatial Policy, Planning, and Land Use: Interdependencies, Barriers, and Directions of Change," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-9, October.

    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. Tan, Ronghui & Xu, Shuxian, 2023. "Urban growth boundary and subway development: A theoretical model for estimating their joint effect on urban land price," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Marz, Waldemar & Goetzke, Frank, 2022. "CAFE in the city — A spatial analysis of fuel economy standards," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    3. Waldemar Marz, 2019. "Complex dimensions of climate policy: the role of political economy, capital markets, and urban form," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 85.
    4. Wentao Niu & Ting Nie & Xiao Chen & Tianxi Wang & Jingyi Shi & Zhenzhen Xu & Hexiong Zhang, 2022. "Understanding the Corrective Effect of the Urban Growth Boundary Policy on Land Finance Dependence of Local Governments in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-31, April.
    5. Pankaj Bajracharya & Selima Sultana, 2022. "Examining the Use of Urban Growth Boundary for Future Urban Expansion of Chattogram, Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-21, May.
    6. Hirte, Georg & Tscharaktschiew, Stefan, 2018. "The impact of anti-congestion policies and the role of labor-supply margins," CEPIE Working Papers 04/18, Technische Universität Dresden, Center of Public and International Economics (CEPIE).
    7. Han, Wenjing & Zhang, Xiaoling & Zheng, Xian, 2020. "Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    8. Hans R A Koster, 2024. "The Welfare Effects of Greenbelt Policy: Evidence from England," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(657), pages 363-401.
    9. Somayeh Ahani & Hashem Dadashpoor, 2021. "Urban growth containment policies for the guidance and control of peri-urbanization: a review and proposed framework," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(10), pages 14215-14244, October.
    10. Tikoudis, Ioannis & Verhoef, Erik T. & van Ommeren, Jos N., 2018. "Second-best urban tolls in a monocentric city with housing market regulations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 117(PA), pages 342-359.
    11. Takayama, Yuki & Kuwahara, Masao, 2017. "Bottleneck congestion and residential location of heterogeneous commuters," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 65-79.
    12. Tatsuhito Kono & Hiroya Kawaguchi, 2017. "Cordon Pricing and Land‐Use Regulation," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 119(2), pages 405-434, April.
    13. Yoshida, Jun & Kono, Tatsuhito, 2020. "Land use policies considering a natural ecosystem," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    14. Hirte, Georg & Min, Hyuk-Ki & Rhee, Hyok-Joo, 2022. "Regulation versus taxation: Efficiency of zoning and tax instruments as anti-congestion policies," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    15. Georg Hirte & Stefan Tscharaktschiew, 2015. "Why not to choose the most convenient labor supply model? The impact of labor supply modeling on policy evaluation," ERSA conference papers ersa15p303, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Takeda, Yoshihiro & Kono, Tatsuhito & Zhang, Yang, 2019. "Welfare effects of floor area ratio regulation on landowners and residents with different levels of income," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    17. Takayama, Yuki, 2020. "Who gains and who loses from congestion pricing in a monocentric city with a bottleneck?," Economics of Transportation, Elsevier, vol. 24(C).
    18. Ying, Jiang Qian, 2024. "Optimization of regulation and fiscal policies for urban residential land use and traffic network management," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    19. Zhuzhou Zhuang & Kaiyuan Li & Jiaxun Liu & Qianwen Cheng & Yu Gao & Jinxia Shan & Lingyan Cai & Qiuhao Huang & Yanming Chen & Dong Chen, 2016. "China’s New Urban Space Regulation Policies: A Study of Urban Development Boundary Delineations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Tan, Ronghui & Liu, Pengcheng & Zhou, Kehao & He, Qingsong, 2022. "Evaluating the effectiveness of development-limiting boundary control policy: Spatial difference-in-difference analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:159-:d:494009. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.