Putting Land Use Back on the Agenda
= Developing a New Framework for OECD Member Countries
Paintings by © INOUE Naohisa
Prepared by Team Sciences Po: Chukwudi Nwadibia, Héctor Tajonar, Jeremy Dennison, Shuma Okamura, Yujiro Suzuki
HOW SHOULD THE OECD DEFINE A RESEARCH PROGRAM
IN LAND USE POLICY?
DEFINITION OF AN APPROACH,
AN ANALYSIS OF OECD PROCEDURES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Master of Public Affairs Institut d’Etudes Politiques | Sciences Po Paris 17 May 2013 In cooperation with José Enrique Garcilazo, OECD Under the supervision of Chris Brooks
Chukwudi Nwadibia, Héctor Tajonar, Jeremy Dennison, Shuma Okamura, Yujiro Suzuki
Sean Safford Director, MPA
José Enrique Garcilazo Capstone Partner Organization
Chris Brooks Capstone Leader
At the beginning of our project, our client, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), engaged us in a conversation around land use policy and its importance. The OECD expressed a desire to better understand land use and land use planning policy in its member states. The client cited environmental, demographic, and economic challenges as the impetus for a potential 3-5 year study. However, they noted a deficiency of knowledge and interest to support the endeavor. We were invited to help formulate the tools and information necessary to garner support and resources for a study on land use policy. The OECD implored us to achieve those objectives through an open-ended exploration and evaluation of land use. We were tasked with the following: 1. Create a foundation of understanding of today’s issues in land use policy Literature review: Analyze and review the driving forces behind land use Research planning: Create a land use analytical framework illustrating a system of trade-offs 2. Conduct field research to analyze land use policy and policy process in the US and the Netherlands Test the applicability of the analytical framework to better understand potential challenges Compile different approaches to land use policy design, governance mechanisms, policy tools
The Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po) Master in Public Affairs capstone project, “Putting Land Use Back on the Agenda”, was coordinated and supervised by Dr. José Enrique Garcilazo and Professor Chris Brooks. It was prepared by the Sciences Po MPA OECD capstone team Chukwudi Nwadibia, Héctor Tajonar de Lara, Jeremy Dennison, Shuma Okamura, and Yujiro Suzuki, and received inputs from Dr. José Enrique Garcilazo, Mr. Richard Wakeford, Mr. Yo Ito, Professor Chris Brooks, and Professor Odile Sallard. We would also like to thank our interviewees in the United States and the Netherlands. In the United States (US) we received information from the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal High Way Administration, the Federal Transit Association, the Department of Interior - Bureau of Land Management, Senator Johnson, NYC Deputy Mayor’s Office of Economic Affairs, NYC Department of City Planning, NYC Building Congress, Association of General Contractors, Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy at New York University, and The Land Use Law Center in Pace University School of Law.
In the Netherlands we received helpful information from the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Government Service for Land and Water Management, and Members of Parliament. We received assistance from the Municipality of Amsterdam’s Town Planning Department and the Province of North Holland. We would also like to thank Milieudefensie and Groene Hart Stichtung for the information on environmental issues. Finally, a thank you to the scholars at University of Utrecht.
Table of contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 6 FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................................... 9 RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................................................... 14 1. 2. 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................14 PROTOCOL OF FIELD RESEARCH.........................................................................................................................15 LIST OF ACTORS IN THE U.S. AND IN THE NETHERLANDS ..........................................................................15
FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................... 23 SUMMARY AND STRUCTURE OF THE FINDINGS ......................................................................................................23 1. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DESIGN TO AVOID NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES.................................................26 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2. National Spatial Strategy in the Netherlands ......................................................................27 The Absence of federal level grand design in the United States .................................29 The case of the U.S. Department of Agriculture ..................................................................31 PlaNYC (Plan of New York City) ..................................................................................................34
FUNCTIONAL GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS TO OVERCOME INTER-AGENCY AND CROSS-LEVEL 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 The Importance of multilevel governance for land use governance .........................36 Inter-agency initiative “Sustainable Communities” in the United States ..............37 The challenges of decentralization policy in the Netherlands .....................................41 Overlay zoning in the United States ..........................................................................................47 Floating zones in the United States ............................................................................................49 Cluster development / incentive zoning in the United States .......................................50 Transferable development rights in the United States .....................................................52 The Finger Model and the New Towns ......................................................................................54 Geo-mapping information system in the United States ..................................................56 The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area ............................................................................................58 Ecoducts and Nature Compensation Schemes ......................................................................61
COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION PROBLEMS.............................................................................................36
3. INNOVATIVE POLICY TOOLS TO MAKE BETTER LAND USE DECISIONS .........................................................46
RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 63 ANNEXES: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ............................................................................................... 66
The topic of land use governance has returned to the fore of policy discussion, ushered by the gradual depletion of natural resources, food price volatility, population growth, and the global financial downturn. These shifting economic and social patterns underscore the necessity of reexamining this policy area. The OECD´s Directorate of Public Governance and Territorial Development intends to execute a three- to five year study on the role of land use policy and governance in OECD member countries. This project, under the guidance of Dr. José Enrique Garcilazo, seeks to reintroduce and integrate the role of land and its regulation into policy dialogue and development indicators. The OECD Capstone team from the Master of Public Affairs program at the Sciences Po Paris has provided significant background research to prepare for the OECD’s study. Today, more than half of the world’s population lives in urban centers. This trend toward greater urbanization is only expected to increase in the next thirty to forty years, creating a world marked by the need for coordination between expanding and denser urban centers, their semi-rural peripheries, and agricultural hinterlands. The primary challenge facing policymakers is the acknowledgement that land will become increasingly scarce and face more competition to determine how it is used. The competing pressures can be categorized roughly into three separate concerns: economic, environmental, and civic. These competing interests create the Trilemma, a system of tradeoffs, which reflects the breadth of interests around land use. There is now a pressing need for coordination between stakeholders, both vertically and horizontally, to properly address the concerns and the conflicts brought about in the management of the Trilemma. To begin the analysis of OECD member countries´ response to this situation, the team conducted field research in the US and the Netherlands and identified the following key findings: While government actors recognize the need for comprehensive land use policy, most have not yet developed a framework to promote a more coordinated approach to land use governance. Even countries such as the Netherlands who have had a strong tradition of spatial planning must find ways of adapting governance structures, especially after the trend toward decentralization in policymaking that has characterized much of the OECD world.
The United States and the Netherlands have developed some effective cross-sectoral and multi-level governance mechanisms to mitigate the negative side effects that result from decentralized responsibilities. The research has recognized the need for innovative policy tools that result from comprehensive land use policy design and functional governance mechanisms. While the need for greater coordination in land use policymaking is acknowledged, the decision making around land is still marked by short-term, ad hoc solutions to policy challenges that result from disconnected sectoral policies (housing, agriculture, energy, etc.) Our research indicates that there is a growing political will to confront these challenges
and better manage the elements that constitute the Trilemma. As the OECD continues this study, its aim is to create a wider database of the different spatial planning regimes among its members. This, in turn, will allow for the development of a comparative assessment of OECD countries use and governance of land, and of recommendations to improve it. Recommendations for the OECD Playbook, not rulebook To bring the concept of land use governance back into the policy discussion within the OECD it is necessary to construct a playbook of best practices, bearing in mind that there is no one-size-fits-all policy solution. In this way, member countries can consult a potential database to see the areas of complementarity and conflict in potential policy actions. They can better take into account their own contexts and, by drawing on the experience of other countries, decide what tools can be generalized and adapted. Inter-directorate taskforce The Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate should look beyond its own borders and invite in a taskforce to coordinate the study with other OECD directorates and centers. Possible partners could include: Environment Directorate, Statistics Directorate, Economics Directorate, Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, Trade and Agriculture Directorate.
Recommendations to OECD countries Decentralization only with governance OECD countries that have engaged in a process of decentralization in land use and spatial planning must keep in mind that, parallel to decentralization, appropriate and context-specific governance mechanisms that promote collaboration and oversight must be put in place in order to avoid principal-agent issues and other types of challenges. Multilevel Governance and other Flexible Inter-agency and Cross-level Cooperation and Oversight Mechanisms The paradigms of centralized or decentralized government structures need to be complemented by flexible governance mechanisms that promote communication, information exchange, and mutual oversight between all government levels. In this context, multi-level governance becomes an essential governance mechanism that can help overcome some of the current land use challenges that OECD countries face. Independent Planning Commission An independent planning commission could be helpful in assessing the impact of zoning and development plans, and ensuring their compatibility with national, international, and regional standards.
Figure 1: The expansion of human activity as shown by urban areas at night (1994-2000)
Human activity is expanding remarkably. Between 1970 and 2012 the global population more than doubled. The global population is projected to grow to 9.2 billion in 2050. As Figure 1 shows, urban regions are emerging and becoming denser. Currently half of the global population lives in these areas. These trends are especially prevalent in the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and Eastern Europe. Increasing urban populations necessitates reevaluating their relations with rural areas where food and energy, are produced. This human activity expansion is a sign of human prosperity. However, it may lead to unwanted consequences. The fundamental issues concerning the expansion of human activity were discussed in The Limits to Growth 2 , a study published in 1972. This study discussed how the growth of different key factors such as population, pollution, food consumption per capita, service consumption per capita, industrial output, and natural resource depletion, could lead to a problematic scenario. The updated version3 of The Limits to Growth, published in 2012, combined the estimates of 1972 as shown in the Figure 2. The Limits to Growth, as evidenced by the striking similarities between its projections and observed trends, is an accurate assessment. What is alarming are the consequences it enumerates such as the rate of depletion of natural resources an explosion of human Acronyms in this section: FAO: The Food and Agriculture Organization USDA: US Department of Agriculture
Figure 2: Limits to growth (updated version)
real data with the projection graph, illustrating that the global trends are extremely similar to
population and food per capita demand. Many of the driving factors discussed in The Limits to Growth also appear in the academic literature. However, the narrow scope of these studies and analysis prevents a broader understanding of the macro trends. For instance, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), as recently as 2010, maintained that “there are still high yield potentials in agricultural production with improved water and infrastructure access” (Rosen USDA 2010)4, While this observation is likely accurate, how does increasing agricultural production affect other activities on land? That is a critical and often overlooked question. Other research looks at multiple sectors and argues that the issue of food security and food price results from mixed factors such as exchange rate fluctuations, oil prices, climate change, and biofuel production (Heady 2008)5. The OECD and the Sciences Po research team are looking into land use policies because all of the issues raised in the previous paragraphs are related to it. Food production is directly related to agricultural land. Industry will take up land space and natural resources that are extracted from land. Water management or timber management is a crucial aspect of land use policies. Economic activity, which is a core human activity, is also dependent on land. It is crucial to note that every human activity and the expansion of it are predominantly based on land.
Figure 3: Finite earth
Figure 4: Competing uses for the same land
Land use policies influence all the critical issues discussed in The Limits to Growth study, buttressing the OECD’s interest in the subject. In traditional economic theory the factors of production are land, labor, capital, and technology. What is interesting is that each one of these factors is only fixed in the near term, but not the long term. Until recently, policymakers and economists viewed land as an asset with infinite supply, a notion that is only now beginning to undergo reevaluation. It is crucial to recognize that there is a pressing conflict resulting from increasing demand for a fixed supply of land. For instance, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that only 35% of the world’s land mass is actually suitable for crop production, and Acronyms: FAO: The Food and Agriculture Organization
USDA: US Department of Agriculture
analysis predicts it will expand minimally in the coming decade (Wiebe 2003)8. The problem of food production arises from increasing demand and fixed supply. Increasing populations, climate change, and energy demand are making these issues more complicated. The Japanese example in Figure 4 illustrates the pressures on land. The figure depicts how the activities on land have changed between 1965 and 2000. As the demand for economic infrastructure and residential areas increased, the land used for agriculture and pastureland decreased. These changes turned out to be more responsible for the rise in global warming than previous studies had shown (Tune 2003)9. Increasing demand and competing pressures on finite land require a more comprehensive policy in order to govern and utilize land efficiently. “Policies addressing the primary drivers of competition for land (population growth, dietary preference, protected areas, forest policy) could have significant impacts in reducing competition for land” (Smith 2010)10.
Acronyms in this section: FAO: The Food and Agriculture Organization
USDA: US Department of Agriculture
The pressures around land use are an integral aspect of understanding and planning for future policymaking. We keyed in on this dynamic while maintaining that land is a limited resource. As we combed through academic articles and government reports around land use, we came to understand how these pressures and limits, coupled with the aggregate effects of micro decisions by individuals and organizations, created costly tradeoffs. Authors Heady and Sheggen in their 2008 article, “Anatomy of a Crisis: The Figure 5: The Trilemma
Causes and Consequences of Surging Food Prices”11, argued that a primary issue impacting food security was diversion of grain for biofuel production. This is a tradeoff between using land to produce food and fuel that has real implications for the rest of society. It also raises questions about whether agricultural land should be used for production of food, biofuel, or other products that do not directly contribute to addressing the issues of food security. As we analyzed literature around land use, we saw the need to better understand the tradeoffs of land use making decisions. Therefore, we identified three areas of concern that housed the major issues impacted by land use: Civic, Economic, and Environmental. These three concerns comprise a working hypothesis – the Trilemma – in Figure 5 that seeks to understand and explain the basic tradeoffs mentioned. Civic concerns encompass the moral, legal, and natural rights that citizens and organizations are entitled, the security of those rights, and the provision of public goods and services, like public infrastructure or housing. Civic issues are difficult to define, as many of their aspects are not entrenched, and vary by region, state, or locality. Therefore, we approximate the defining principles. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948) 12 is a fairly comprehensive articulation of the rights and securities we are highlighting. Article 25 is particularly potent, asserting that each person has the right to “a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services”. This article broadly encompasses the notion of ‘civic’ concerns we are conveying. While each of these rights does not directly pertain to land use, there are strong connections. For instance the food and clothing industries can be land intensive endeavors. Additionally, housing, as mentioned in the introduction, is inherently land sensitive. Subsequently, we maintain that social and medical services are
concepts that depend on consistency and proximity to citizens and are therefore highly sensitive to land use decision-making. Each of the examples interacts with land and poor planning could inhibit citizens’ access to these rights, necessitating their consideration in land use regimes. Economic Concerns are more straight-forward than civic concerns. The economic issues around land use include the commercial and profit seeking behaviors: productivity, efficiency, capital creation and utilization, and industrial capacity. This issue area often offers higher monetary returns on investment, being profit-seeking endeavors. Environmental Concerns encompass the issues around climate change, environmental degradation, preservation, and health, biodiversity, ecosystem health, and the maintenance of natural endowments on land. These issues manifest themselves differently in changing contexts. Civic Concerns: Encompasses issues around public infrastructure, services, security, and rights. Key Question: How can we ensure citizens’ basic safety and rights? Economic Concerns: Encompasses issues around productivity, efficiency, capital, and industrial capacity. Key Question: How can we improve economic efficiency with land use policies? Environmental Concerns: Encompasses issues around climate, the environment, and natural resources. Key Question: How can we maintain the environment and natural resources? The Trilemma helps explain the difficulties of land use management. However, this framework does not explain how challenges manifest themselves in processes and outcomes. Therefore, we developed a classification system to help organize and explain these issues. We identified three main challenges: First challenge: When deciding how land is used and designing land use policies, focusing only on the economic, the civic, or the environmental instead of on the three can cause negative externalities
under-emphasis of one or more aspects of the Trilemma necessitates tradeoffs. For example, simply focusing our attention on economic concerns can have negative social and environmental consequences.
Figure 6: Negative externalities
Negative externalities are defined as costs which result from activities or transactions which affect an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost.
OECD (2003)13 has argued that the shift from mono-focused sectoral policies to more comprehensive place based policies is essential so as to integrate different sectoral policies and to improve the coherence and effectiveness of public expenditure in rural areas. OECD (2006) 14 has also found that several OECD countries are developing multi-sectoral and place-based approaches in rural development with a focus on places instead of sectors. Second challenge: The lack of functional governance mechanisms to promote cross-level and inter-agency collaboration and communication will lead to inter-agency problems (Figure 7). If the correct governance structures that promote communication and collaboration between those concerned with the economy, those concerned with the environment, and those concerned with the civic do not exist, the conflicting interests between them will exacerbate the Trilemma. According to Platt (2004)15, land use policies should be employed in collaboration between the regional, state, and national level government to combat negative effects of local policies, since zoning and other land use regulations can affect the use and value of property belonging to millions of households and businesses in thousands of communities. Also, OECD (2010) 16 argues that the governance of land use should address the importance of a framework that takes into account inter-ministerial cooperation and cooperation between national and subnational levels of government. Third challenge: Governments need innovative policy tools to use land in a way that balances the economic, the civic, and the environmental. The underutilization of policy tools that could help mitigate the tradeoffs in the framework is also a fundamental problem (Figure 8). This difficulty predominantly stems from a lack of knowledge of the available policy tools and techniques, as well as limited abilities to understand their impacts on land.
Figure 8: Weakness of policy tools Figure 7: Inter agency and cross level problems
Our field research illuminated a number of examples related to land use management that refer to the three aforementioned challenges. To address the first challenge of negative externalities, we decided to inquire whether
governments had a comprehensive view when designing land use policies. To address the second challenge of inter-agency and cross-level problems, we inquired whether governments had functional governance mechanisms in place. To address the third challenge of weak policy tools, we inquired whether governments had come up with effective policy tools to support the design and implementation of land use policies. Based on the Trilemma framework, we also created a list of land use policy objectives that reflect Economic, Civic and Environmental Concerns. The list is based on the study done by John Nolon (2010)17 to which we added the sections of securities, climate, landscape and some of the economic concerns. The list of land use policy objectives 1. Civic concerns Public infrastructure and services Transportation facilities (traffic, access to roads and public transportation, level of service standards, travel demand forecast, etc.) Utilities (sewage, telecommunications, etc.) Waste disposal (solid waste, hazardous substances, recycling programs etc.) Educational facilities (kinder, elementary, junior-high, high, higher education) Recreation (active, passive) and parks (municipality or land trust owned land) Food (the land for agriculture, pastoral, fishery, etc. the land for whole sale, retails, etc.) Water (the supply and distribution of clean water) Energy (the supply and distribution of electricity, gas, fuels, etc.) Emergency services (fire, rescue, ambulance, police, health-care, etc.) Disaster (storm water runoff, breakwater, quake-resistance standards, etc.) Housing (affordability, accessibility to the place of work, quality, etc.) Sanitation (clean air, sunshine, city cleaning, sanitization, etc.)
2. Environmental concerns Natural resources Resource type (topography, geology, soils) Surface water Scenic environmental areas and open space Biodiversity (protected area for unique and rare habitats, etc.) Critical environmental areas
Historical and cultural resources (historic sites, landmarks and cultural resources) Scenic resources (scenic resources) Reduction of greenhouse gas emission (renewable energy: photovoltaic power, etc.) Conservation of landscape (national park, marine protected area, etc.)
Climate and landscape
3. Economic concerns Employment numbers (number of jobs) Industrial resources (commercial and agricultural: market size, quality of soil, etc.) Availability and affordability of the land for industry (office, factory, shop, logistics, etc.) Mobility and proximity (accessibility to transportation, density of. zoning regulation, etc.)
According to the OECD’s mandate on the conduct of the project and the expected deliverables, the team began to design a plan of field research. The team worked from the assumptions that a comprehensive approach to land use policymaking does not currently exist and a deep level of coordination between different stakeholders is needed to allow its existence. In the current arrangement, each actor looks only after its own interests, often leading to ad hoc solutions based on immediate need and convenience, exacerbating the negative outcomes in Trilemma. To mitigate the negative consequences of the current framework and to introduce a more effective bargaining process, the team decided to move to the field to see where the current framework comes up short and how policymakers attempt to overcome the negative consequences of the current land use policy context.
1. Research methodology
Field research was conducted in the United States and the Netherlands. The team split into two groups, with the U.S. research team working in New York City, Albany, and Washington D.C. The Netherlands-based team conducted interviews primarily in Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht. The two destinations were selected not for the basis of comparison, but for their differences and the breadth of government structures in the OECD that they represent. The table below shows the differences between the two countries: Table 1: Country profiles Country United States Netherlands Governance structure Federation Unitary state Land endowments Country size Big Small Location America Europe Climate Diverse Homogene ous Natural resources Plenty Scarce Spatial planning mechanism Bottom up Top down18
The two destinations were selected after an initial stage of planning for field work where a list of possible destinations was suggested by the OECD based both on their current approaches to land use governance as well as their delegates’ interest in the continuation of the project. The first list included the United States, the Netherlands, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. These factors were weighed against more logistical matters for the
research team: language, cost, and proximity.
2. Protocol of field research
After a thorough literature review of relevant topics and actors in both the Netherlands and the United States, the team assembled a list of academics, politicians, bureaucrats, and private sector actors to be interviewed in the course of the field study. The team pared down the list to those believed most relevant and contacted them by email and telephone. The team devised a rough list of questions to ask interviewees during discussions to ensure that they received roughly the same information from those they interviewed. Every interview also ended with the subject being asked to provide possible further avenues of research and for other useful contacts. The Netherlands and US groups both left their schedules open to accommodate these new contacts. The teams conducted a total of more than forty interviews in the two countries over the course of the week in the field. Subjects, as noted, ran the gamut from politicians and bureaucrats to academics and members of the private sector and civil society.
3. List of actors in the U.S. and in the Netherlands
Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK) is responsible for the “formulation of policy, preparing legislation and regulations, and “for coordination, supervision and policy implementation.”19 With the advent of decentralization, many of its tasks have been transferred to lower levels of government to “deliver cheaper and better services, and to involve the public more in those tasks.”20 The Ministry envisions a future where local authorities will handle most of the aforementioned responsibilities, and as such, the Ministry now assists them in building the capacity to do so.
The BZK houses the Ministry in charge of Housing and the Central Government Sector. The portfolio of this Ministry has been charged with three distinct tasks: end stagnation in the housing market, improve efficiency in social housing, and increase the efficiency of the central government. 21 The ministry devises economic levers to encourage home ownership and promote gains in the construction industry. Similarly, the Ministry wants to combat the market distortion in social housing, where supply far exceeds the demand. Higher income tenants will be pushed to move into unsubsidized residences, and the government will shrink the pool of social housing stock. Lastly, the
ministry will “structurally reduce expenditure by €1.1 billion” 22 and push the government to make more efficient use of the remaining resources. These three goals will “boost the flexibility of central government and reduce bureaucracy”23.
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment The Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment was formed in 2010 by merging the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) and the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (V&W). The new combined ministry is “committed to improving quality of life, access and mobility in a clean, safe and sustainable environment”24. It oversees the country’s infrastructure including roads, railways, seaports, and airports and designs effective water management techniques to conserve the country’s natural resources and reduce the danger of flooding.
The two aspects of the ministry converge in its effort to improve air and water quality and promote sustainable solutions such as a robust, highly-used public transport network and efficient use of natural resources.
Ministry of Economic Affairs
The Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) “promotes the Netherlands as a country of enterprise with a strong international competitive position and an eye for sustainability” 25 . It is strives to create an advantageous business environment for companies in the Netherlands to establish themselves, innovate, and grow. It also promotes relationships between the country’s research institutes and business community26. Within the Ministry of Economic Affairs there is a second Ministry in charge of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture works in the fields of agriculture and nature. The agriculture sector of the Netherlands is responsible for 10% of country’s GDP and 10% of its jobs27. The Ministry of Agriculture handles the logistics of the sector as well as food processing. Its division on nature promotes conservation and has implemented the National Ecological Network, a system of nature areas in the country. Within the Ministry in charge of Agriculture there is another entity called the Government Service for Land and Water Management (DLG). The DLG retains some autonomy and primarily concerns itself with implementing policies through technical expertise 28 . It is responsible for acquiring land used for development projects, redeveloping it to fulfill the policy goals, and transferring it back to the proper authorities. It provides a level of financial management as well in the projects it oversees, making use of subsidies and the best use of the area’s physical attributes. While the DLG
works with all levels of government, its work is most closely associated with provincial authorities. The organization’s autonomy also allows the group to provide project assistance outside the Netherlands. To this end, DLG has consulted on projects in Eastern Europe, Asia, and Central America to share its knowledge and help foreign governments efficiently implement natural development policies.
Members of Parliament
Members of parliament form the legislative branch of the Dutch government. Its members are elected by the country’s citizens and serve four year terms. The parliament is divided into an upper house (Eerste Kamer) of 75 seats and a lower house (Tweede Kamer) of 150 seats, both based in The Hague. There are currently representatives from twelve different political parties serving in the Eerste Kamer and from eleven parties in the Tweede Kamer. Despite invitations to multiple parties, the Capstone research team only spoke with members from the Dutch Socialist Party (SP). The party states that it “works inside and outside parliament to achieve its goal: a society in which human dignity, equality and solidarity take precedence.”
Municipality of Amsterdam’s Planning Department (DRO)
The Planning Department of Amsterdam (DRO) develops a coherent spatial for the city and its environs. In its own words, the department “advises the council on policy planning, public space and greenery”29. DRO works for the urban core of the city, as well as its suburbs and hinterland areas. More recently, it has formed an informal partnership with Amsterdam’s suburbs and adjacent New Towns to design a development strategy for the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area (AMA). The goal of this initiative is to create a flexible, vibrant area which promotes a high quality of life for its residents and economic growth for the region. DRO’s structural vision for the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area will be built according to the following dimensions: density in the urban core for residences and business, redesignating land from commercial to residential (or vice versa) according to its most efficient use, building a strong regional public transport network between the urban core and the periphery, parks and green areas to enhance quality of life in the region, and sustainable growth through greater reliance on renewable energy30. DRO has outlined a plan to implement this vision up through 2040 and works with regional authorities to ensure its success.
Province of Noord-Holland (North Holland)
Noord-Holland is located in the northwestern part of the Netherlands. It is the country’s second most densely populated province, and it is most populous. It is also home to Schiphol airport, the country’s largest. According to its mandate, “the provincial government of Noord-Holland oversees the province of the same name, a province that includes 58 municipalities, among them the capital city of Amsterdam. The provincial government has its seat in Haarlem, which is also the province’s capital”31. The provincial government oversees policies related to housing, economics, agriculture, and improvements over its road network. The province is run by its council, a body which serves four year terms and is elected by the province’s residents.
The Milieudefensie is an environmental non-governmental organization established in 1971. The organization has 80,000 members and contributors and is headquartered in Amsterdam32. Milieudefensie works to build an environmentally-friendly, sustainable Netherlands. Their primary areas of concern are transport and mobility, farming, and green business, especially in the country’s seaport areas. They also encourage Dutch companies to carry out its vision while operating abroad.
Groene Hart Stichtung
The Groene Hart Stichtung (Green Heart Society) is a non-profit foundation that aims at conserving the natural landscape of the Netherlands’ Green Heart region. The organization places an emphasis on its role of coordinator, promoting collaboration between municipalities within the Green Heart and sharing best practices as they formulate development plans. The Green Heart Society places great emphasis on sustainable growth that protects the area’s natural characteristics. They provide information and organize public-oriented meetings related to development and sustainable conservation of the character of the Green Heart, its culture, nature, landscape and environment. The organization receives its funding through membership fees, contributions, and through the sale of a self-published magazine about the Green Heart.
List of actors that declined the interview
Ministry of Finance
The Dutch Ministry of Finance oversees the financial health of the country. It monitors government spending, regulates the country’s financial system, influences Dutch tax code, and collects taxes33.
The United States
U.S. Department of Agriculture
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) “provides leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management”34. This statement shows that the USDA does not only cover agricultural policy areas, but also covers energy and environment (natural resources) and health (nutrition). USDA is promoting innovation in order to expand economic opportunity, to help rural areas to grow, to promote sustainable agricultural production for the country and the world, and to manage the remaining natural resources, forests, water bodies, and so on35. USDA also has a strategic plan for accomplish the mission statement. The strategies are, “expanding markets for agricultural products and support international economic development, further developing alternative markets for agricultural products and activities, providing financing needed to help expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities and infrastructure in rural America, enhancing food safety by taking steps to reduce the prevalence of foodborne hazards from farm to table, improving nutrition and health by providing food assistance and nutrition education and promotion, and managing and protecting America's public and private lands working cooperatively with other levels of government and the private sector ” 36 . USDA policies are based on these areas of concern, and they publish an annual report.
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
The U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is in charge of managing the public lands especially in the west of the United States. The flexibility and responsiveness of BLM is based on the Federal Land Policy & Management Act, which came into power in 1976. The two major pillars in this act were, multiple use of land and sustained yield of land. BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity
of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. BLM is one of the rare agencies that has a very broad coverage area both in terms of land mass and category. They manage 261 million acres of public land and 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estates. They take care of energy, minerals, forestry, fish & wildlife, and wilderness, and oversee paleontology, archaeology and recreation interest. Under the Resource Management Plans (RMPs) of BLM, they establish goals and objectives for resource management in the coming 10 to 20 years, and the measurements needed to achieve these goals. They look into multiple aspects of land such as natural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, the use of resource, congressional & presidential designations, and administrative designations.
U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD)
The mission of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development is to “Create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes for all”37. The HUD has a vision of improving quality of life and boost community strength in the United States38. The HUD is setting their own targets from multiple angles. Firstly, they are aiming to sustain the economy, by strengthening the US housing market and by providing employments in the sector. Secondly, they take the residents aspect into consideration. Their goal is to improve residents’ quality of life by providing affordable homes, build safe and healthy communities, and respecting the values of a diverse society. The HUD also includes transformation of the business style to a more “flexible, reliable problem solver and source of innovation” 39 . Finally, they aim to create sustainable and inclusive communities, which will create value and free from discrimination. The HUD is currently working on a joint initiative called the “Sustainable Communities” with US Department of Transportation and US Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
The mission of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is to “serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future”40. DOT is in charge of the entire transportation system people use daily. The administrations working under DOT are, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of Inspector General (OIG), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Surface Transportation Board (STB), and Maritime Administration (MARAD). The main concerns of DOT are safety and security of the traveling public, increase public mobility, and contribution to the countries economic growth41.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has several goals. One of their goals is to protect the nation from health and environmental risks and reducing them by implementing laws, and to make sure that these laws are implemented effectively and equally. The second goal is to provide the society (communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments) with access to rich information in order to involve all the actors in the process. The important concept they have is that “environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy”42. This shows that they fully understand the breadth of the issue and they are taking a comprehensive approach. EPA also aims to take a leadership role in the international world to protect the global environment.
The EPA uses the following methods to achieve the goals described above; Develop and enforce regulations, Give grants, Study environmental issues, Sponsor partnerships, Teach people about the environment, and Publish information43. New York Department of State (DOS)
The New York Department of State (DOS) works in collaboration with the local government leaders and working on improving the quality of life of the New York citizens, improving service and program qualities, boosting business opportunities, and reducing costs of the municipalities. They also take health and safety issues of the citizens into consideration.
The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)
Private sector such as the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) also plays an important role in land use policies. AGC are promoting better industry for the nation by promoting skill and sharing information with one another. Public sector becomes essential since public private partnership is increasing more and more in number, and it
is mostly the private sector that initiates this process. Negotiating, planning, and the constructing process is a time consuming process, but necessary especially for urban development (infrastructure, industry, hosing, etc.).
List of actors that declined the interview / unable to receive a reply
U.S. Department of the Treasury
The mission of the U.S. Department of the Treasury is to “maintain a strong economy and create economic and job opportunities by promoting the conditions that enable economic growth and stability at home and abroad, strengthen national security by combating threats and protecting the integrity of the financial system, and manage the U.S. Government’s finances and resources effectively”44. The department of Treasury is currently having initiatives such as “Making Home Affordable” and “Housing Finance Reform”.
Summary and Structure of the Findings
The background and field research conducted by the team has led us to identify some of the major challenges that land use policy faces in terms of its design, its governance, and its tools. The findings will be presented as follows: 1. Comprehensive land use policy design to avoid negative externalities The most widely found approaches to land use policy do not seem to be very comprehensive in their design, given that they are mostly the result of sectoral policies (industrial, agricultural, environmental, infrastructural) that seem to lack a comprehensive view of land scarcity and of the need for interaction between sectors. This situation results in disconnected decisions around the use of land that reflect the interest behind only one area of concern – economic, social or environmental – presented in the Trilemma. Simply focusing our attention on economic concerns can have the right. However, there have been successful attempts to design land use and to plan the use of space comprehensively. Before 2006, the year when spatial planning in the Netherlands was decentralized, the country had a National Spatial Strategy (NSS) that seemed to address the three concerns outlined in our framework: the civic, the environmental, and the economic. The first case study presented in this section will explain the perspective that the Dutch NSS embodied. The NSS - which has been classified as a successful example of comprehensive land Use policy design in this report - did not eliminate other sectoral policies, but it did provide a framework for actors at the central level to collaborate, reach a balanced agreement on tradeoffs, and make a more sustainable and efficient use of land based on economic, civic, and environmental concerns. Yet, it remained very centralized, which made it increasingly complicated for the central government to understand the needs at the local level and to develop spatial plans accordingly. Decentralization in spatial planning was therefore seen as a solution to that problem and was thought to be a way of injecting dynamism to an economy that had slowed down in the year previous to 2006. In the United States, the research found that the federal government had never
Negative externalities may result from focusing in only one area of concern instead of the three.
negative social and environmental consequences. This is the idea conveyed in the image on
implemented a nation-wide comprehensive land use policy, except over the land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior ’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rest of the land was zoned by different objective and legislative procedures of each state. This will be the second case presented in this section. The third case study will show that even though there are some interesting coordination and governance efforts between different departments in the US Government, other areas of the government don´t seem to be aware of them. It seems that there is not enough communication between actors that make important decisions around the use of land, which reinforces the idea that there is no comprehensive land use policy design in the US. These three case studies point towards the need to create better governance strategies to promote cooperation and communication between government actors, which will be the focus of the second section of our findings. 2. Functional governance mechanisms to overcome inter-agency and cross-level collaboration and communication problems Sectoral policies (agricultural, energy, housing, etc.) usually leads to a one directional approach, either top down or bottom up, that does not promote the necessary degree of interaction and oversight between different levels and areas of government. As shown in the image, those in charge of the economy are not necessarily aware of the consequences their decisions might have on the environment. Similarly, an economic decision at the national level might have unintended consequences at the local level. This
Inter-agency problems resulting from insufficient governance mechanisms
miscommunication between agencies and levels of government points toward the need for better governance. Particularly regarding land use, this report proposes the creation of innovative governance mechanisms to ensure that, once comprehensive land use policy has been designed, it can be correctly implemented with the collaboration of different areas and levels of government. Our research points toward the idea that land use policies should not be completely in the hands of the central government, nor should they be completely in the hands of the lower levels of government. They both have a legitimate responsibility to formulate policy and, therefore, they need to collaborate with one another in a multi-directional, multi-level way. To support this conclusion, the report will present two different case studies. The first one will explain in detail the governance innovation of Sustainable Communities,
which has been mentioned in the first section. The second one will explain the process of decentralization of spatial planning in the Netherlands, which led to the disappearance of the National Spatial Strategy and delegated land use and spatial planning responsibilities to municipalities. 3. Innovative policy tools to make better land use decisions Policy tools resulting from sectoral, one-directional approaches usually have an underlying command and control logic that intends to make the governance structure as simple as possible and promote either strict regulation or subsidy mechanisms. These rules might not only lead to market inefficiencies but might also make some policy areas dependent on subsidies, which can distort markets, hinder innovation, and crowd out investment. Hence, we need powerful and innovative policy tools based on comprehensive design and functional governance mechanisms which can coordinate and cultivate collaboration between different actors. However, the reader must bear in mind that such policy approaches by themselves will not result in better land use policies unless they are part of a wider umbrella that includes comprehensive design and functional governance. To exemplify this we have chosen a few examples of policy tools that are innovative and that can be helpful in managing the tradeoffs between civic, environmental, and economic concerns that the Trilemma framework identifies. Hopefully in the coming years these policy tools will not simply be isolated cases of success but will become common practice. From the findings in the US, the report will present interesting zoning techniques that address the three concerns, and a geo-mapping system that can be helpful in making more informed land use decisions and that might constitute an important information sharing mechanism. From the Netherlands we will present the Finger Model and New Town approach to manage urban growth; the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area, which tries to go beyond administrative jurisdictions to reason over a metropolitan area based on functionality; and, finally, the Ecoducts and Nature Compensation Schemes, which are an attempt to balance environmental concerns with increasing infrastructure needs.
Powerful and innovative policy tools based on comprehensive design and functional governance.
1. Comprehensive Policy Design to Avoid Negative Externalities
The table of contents of this section 1.1 National spatial strategy 1.2 The absence of federal level grand design 1.3 The case of the US Department of Agriculture 1.4 PlaNYC (Plan of New York City) Netherlands United States United States United States page.27 page.29 page.31 page.34
National Spatial Strategy in the Netherlands
The Origins of National Spatial Strategies The Netherlands has a long history of spatial planning. The government has published the National Spatial Planning Strategies (NSS) since 1960, though the government began to implement sector-specific planning in areas such as housing as far back as 190145. These planning documents presented a highly-centralized, top down approach to land use planning, stating that “the main goal of national spatial policy is to create space for the different functions that demand it, on the limited surface area that we have available to us in the Netherlands”46. The most recent National Spatial Strategy, from 2006, consists of a series of rules that aim at preserving some basic quality and standards for spatial plans. The document seeks to integrate the different roles of land into a single, comprehensible whole: “One can picture land use in the Netherlands as consisting of three layers: surface (water, soil and the flora and fauna in those environments), networks (all forms of visible and invisible infrastructure) and occupation (spatial patterns due to human use). Each layer influences the spatial considerations and choices with respect to the other layers. For too long, we have considered urbanization, intensive agriculture and other forms of occupation as separate, unrelated elements, without sufficient consideration to the demands created by the other layers”47. The centralization of spatial planning was deeply institutionalized in the Dutch government structure; the Dutch Ministry of Spatial Planning (VROM) oversaw the plans and had authority over implementing them. The Ministry took a comprehensive view in this role, setting policies for not only land use, but also housing and the environment. The overarching scope of the Ministry’s responsibilities was demonstrated through its leadership structure: it was led by both the Minister of Environment and Spatial Planning and the Minister of Housing, Communities and Integration48. The creation of VROM arose from the Netherlands’ growth following the Second World War. As housing demand grew throughout the 1960s, the central government recognized the need for a national policy of spatial planning and began to lay out and publish a formalized plan. Comprehensive policy design and functional governance in the NSS The drafting of a formal spatial plan in the Netherlands has long been the result of collaboration between different stakeholders. Several interviewees through the course of
field research noted that the final document, as published, is simple to implement as all negotiations are carried out before the final document has been drafted. While the VROM was in charge of implementing the NSS, it was done in collaboration with and a high degree of input from “other ministries, local and regional governments, social organizations, businesses and interest groups as well as other national governments”49. This method of vertical and horizontal integration of stakeholders underscores the comprehensive view of policy design that the Dutch government took in the era of centralized spatial planning, an approach that has been degraded with the advent of decentralization. For decades, this top-down approach to spatial planning proved efficient, addressing economic, environmental, and civic concerns, and avoiding the negative consequences that focusing on only one of these areas might entail, as can be seen in Figure 6. The involvement of different stakeholders in the policy design also reveals a governance structure that helped implement a comprehensive spatial planning policy and overcome the inter-agency problems shown in Figure 7. However, in ensuing decades, the role of central planning and top-down governance changed in the Netherlands, as it did in much of the OECD world. The last volume of the NSS, from 2006, embraced the role of decentralization, again following the prevailing trend throughout OECD member countries. The NSS itself noted that the role of decentralization was not intended to change the way that the Dutch government looked at planning, but rather, “it is primarily the method of governance (the ´how´ rather than the policy content
Figure 7: Inter agency and cross level problem Figure 6: Negative externalities
(the ´what´) that has changed compared to previous plans)” 50 . With the advent of decentralization in spatial planning, the Netherlands began to place a more clear emphasis on economic concerns. This transformation will be explained in the decentralization section. While the environmental rules still apply broadly, there has been a noted increase in pressure on protected areas such as those in the Green HeartB. By 2010, VROM was merged with the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management to create the new Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. Although the name appears to further the comprehensive view taken by VROM in its NSSs, the role of
The Green Heart, or Groene Hart in Dutch, is a relatively undeveloped green area in the middle of the Netherlands that lies at the center of the Randstad, the urban periphery consisting of the country’s largest cities: Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht.
decentralization limited the formal power of the new institution to create and implement any form of centralized spatial planning. Authority over spatial planning devolved from the centralized, top-down approach to a bottom-up approach empowering the lower levels of the Dutch government. As the report will explore in the findings section, this transformation contributed to a breakdown in the government’s original conception of spatial planning as it was originally delineated.
The Absence of federal level grand design in the United States
Today, the legislation of zoning and the other regulation related to land use policy is delegated to state level government, though almost all the state governments have further delegated it to the municipality level. According to Joseph Gyourko (2007) 51 , it is communities who decide on a degree of the regulation and impose it inside the municipality boarders. This legislative structure in the United States is based on its historical context. In the early 20th century, New York City established the first zoning regulation, which provided the foundation of the regulations for the rest of the nation. Given that the government of the United States is the federal government, and the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act which was issued by the US Department of Commerce in 1924 is accepted almost without change by most states, the legislation of zoning and other regulations is traditionally done in the state or municipality level. And after that, New York City developed more complex zoning regulations encompassing floor-area ratio regulations, air rights and others according to the density-specific needs of the neighborhoods while Houston for example decided to have no zoning ordinances. As a result, the federal government has never implemented a nation-wide comprehensive land use policy except over the land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior ’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rest is zoned by different objective and legislative procedures of each state. Based on our interview to Professor Nolon at Pace Law School in New York City, few states have comprehensive land use policies which consider a balance of policy objectives. The lack externalities between different sectoral policies as described in Figure 6. The segregation of the different policy interests is obvious when we look at Figure 9. Even
Figure 6: Negative externalities
of a comprehensive view thus creates unintended consequences and can lead to negative
in the federal government, it is difficult to find a comprehensive grand design with which different departments can collaborate, apart from certain inter-agency initiatives such as “Sustainable Communities, “ Transit Oriented Development” or “Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity”. Based on our analysis of the sociogram (Figure 9), the Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior do not have any inter-agency initiatives for their land use policy.
The case of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
While the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the EPA are coordinating with one another creating a joint initiative, Sustainable Communities, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) works almost exclusively on its own. One will be able to see this in the USDA’s mission statements. Their official mission statement is to “provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best available science, and efficient management”52 However, in the interview, they declared that their goal is to assess and manage “the impact of agriculture policy on agricultural land use”53. This shows that their focus is mainly on agriculture. Through the interviews in our field research, USDA was unaware of the existence of Sustainable Communities initiative or the BLM project when the team raised them to ask the USDA’s relation with them. They also mentioned that they do not work with other departments except for Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which deal with food security issues. The EPA is related to the USDA not in terms of collaboration, but in terms of regulation. The EPA has a regulation power over the USDA for environmental quality and constrained animal feed operation (CAFO). The EPA acknowledges that their policy decisions may have land use implications, but they consider their policies as agricultural policy are not land use policies per say. It is clear that the USDA is working in a silo, working only within its own jurisdiction and area of interest, and without substantial collaboration with other agencies. However, this does not necessarily mean that their governance or their policy tools are inconsequential. The Capstone team found some interesting aspects of the USDA and their innovative governance and policy tools. The governance and policy tools the USDA uses are incentive based. They avoid tools such as taxing, regulating, and “polluter pays” principles.54 Such tools are largely used at the local level. The USDA instead uses tools such as cash transfers, low interest loans to encourage business activity and civic engagement, minimized entrance barriers to agriculture sectors, and research projects. Below are several examples of the incentive based initiatives and policy tools. There are several USDA initiatives today. USDA Farm Service Agency’s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is “a voluntary program available to agricultural producers to help them use environmentally sensitive land for conservation benefits. Producers enrolled in the CRP plant long-term, resource-conserving vegetation to improve the quality of water, control soil erosion, and develop wildlife habitat. In return, FSA provides participants with rental payments and cost-share assistance. Contract duration is between 10 and 15 years.”55 There is another program called the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP or
EQUIP). “EQIP is a voluntary program that provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers through contracts up to a maximum term of ten years in length. These contracts provide financial assistance to help plan and implement conservation practices that address natural resource concerns. The contracts also fund opportunities to improve soil, water, plant, animal, air and related resources on agricultural land and non-industrial private forestland. In addition, EQIP helps producers abide by federal, state, tribal and local environmental regulations.”56 The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) offers “nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities. The Food and Nutrition Service works with State agencies, nutrition educators, State partners and the retail community, and neighborhood and faith-based organizations to improve program administration and ensure program the integrity.”57 These initiatives are incentive based and are a way to incorporate multiple actors from different levels of government. One example of the policy tools will be the crop insurance. Crop insurance is one of the important policy tools the USDA uses today. Crop insurance is for agricultural producers and farmers to secure their revenue from natural disasters and market instability. This insurance is provided by the private sector, but at a rate determined by the federal government. It illustrates one example of a public-private partnership (PPP). Another tool with a similar function is the ad hoc disastrous assistance. It also deals with crops damaged by natural disasters such as droughts, flood, etc. However, 80-90% of the crops today are covered by crop insurance, and it has covered most of the damage in recent agricultural disasters. Therefore, the crop insurance is becoming the major policy tool. All of these USDA initiatives, governance mechanisms, and policy tools are focused on agriculture or farming and not on land use as a whole. The other innovative changes in governance one can see here is the increasing emphasis on revenue based countercyclical support. There are a number of challenges the USDA faces. First are the constraints: budget, information, and key performance indicators (KPIs). The limited amount of budget and the budget allocation is always a challenge in every governmental body. Information is one of the crucial and useful factors of policy decision, but it also becomes a constraint because it is impossible to have perfect information. Collecting data from multiple actors and fields is extremely costly in terms of finance, manpower, and time. Even utilizing recent technological advancements, it still is a challenge. The last constraint is the KPIs. It is difficult to determine which indicator is ideal. While the government policy used to focus on price, and tools like crop insurance used to focus on yields, the USDA is currently focusing on revenue because it takes into account both the price and the yields (revenue can be written as price*yields). The
real question today is which level of revenue should they focus on: farmer, town, or county. The higher the level, the more difficult it will be from a data collection standpoint. A second challenge is lack of clearly defined goals from legislators. It is challenging to simplify the goals in the first place, and it is not possible to tell what the optimal level of anything is. Answering this question will require a thorough welfare function, which the USDA does not have, and creating one will again be finance, manpower, and time consuming. What does all of this imply? Again, all of the individual policy initiatives and tools such as the CRP, EQUIP, SNAP, and crop insurance are very interesting and worth looking into. As an agricultural policy design, it can be said that they are well planned and organized comprehensively. However, in terms of land use policy design as a whole, it is far from comprehensive. The team considers the USDA case as an example of inexistence of comprehensive land use policy design resulting from the lack of a federal level grand design, as was discussed in previous cases. The USDA works almost exclusively on its own, is not aware of any of the joint initiatives conducted by other departments, and does not recognize the impact their decisions have on other sectors. Without the federal level grand design and the absence of inter-departmental collaboration, it is difficult to reach an agreement on the policy design itself, and to avoid negative externalities.
PlaNYC (Plan of New York City)
PlaNYC is a report and plan created by the municipal government of New York City in 2007. Initiated by the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the plan sought to accommodate one million more NYC residents, strengthen [the] economy, combat climate change, and enhance the quality of life for all New Yorkers.”. PlaNYC aims at better understanding issues currently affecting NYC, focusing on infrastructure, housing issues, access to green-space and recreational areas, water and power grids, and mass transit. These issues are addressed from multiple perspectives while keeping in mind the tenets of creating a greener, more competitive, city. PlaNYC is the product of a holistic approach to policy planning and execution. It spans across many policy areas, approximately incorporating the tenets of the Trilemma outlined at the beginning of our report. This helps coordinate the resources and actions of all city agencies to move toward enhancing and investing in New York City. PlaNYC was an extended study, report, and implementation strategy that incorporated over 25 New York City agencies. The plan outlined broad, achievable, goals for each of its issue areas: Housing and Neighborhoods: Create homes for almost one million new New Yorkers while making housing more affordable and sustainable. Parks and Public Space: Ensure all New Yorkers live within a 10-minute walk from a green space. Brownfields: Clean up all contaminated spaces in New York City Waterways: Improve the quality of NYC waterways to increase opportunities for recreation and restore the health of coastal ecosystems. Water Supply: Ensure the high quality and reliability of the water supply system Transportation: Expand sustainable transportation choices and ensure the reliability and quality of the transportation network. Energy: Reduce energy consumption while making energy systems cleaner and more reliable. Air Quality: Achieve the cleanest air quality of any big city in the United States Solid Waste: Divert 75% of solid waste away from landfills. Climate Change: Reduce Greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30%, and increase the resilience of New York City communities, natural systems, and infrastructure to risks from the climate and natural forces. Each agency was tasked with finding ways to help the city achieve these broader goals, effectively guiding the entire municipal government toward a comprehensive approach to
land use and city planning. Every year the government assesses progress toward its PlaNYC goals and chronicles the findings in an update which it published.
2. Functional Governance Mechanisms to Overcome Inter-agency and Cross-level Communication and Coordination Problems
The table of contents of this section 2.1 The importance of multilevel governance for land use governance 2.2 Inter-agency initiative “Sustainable Communities” 2.3 The challenges in decentralization policy United States Netherlands page.37 page.41 page.36
The Importance of multilevel governance for land use governance
Land use policies can generate conflict between actors, as different levels of government will have different interests with regards to how land can be used. To better understand this conflictive process, it is necessary to discuss the theoretical framework of multilevel governance (MLG). On a theoretical level, scholar Philippe Schmitter has described multilevel governance as “an arrangement for making binding decisions that engages a multiplicity of politically independent but otherwise interdependent actors - private and public - at different levels of territorial aggregation in more or less continuous negotiation/deliberation/implementation, and that does not assign exclusive policy competence or assert a stable hierarchy of political authority to any of these levels.” (Schmitter 2004)58. The OECD offers a more succinct definition based on the exercise and allocation of authority across “various dimensions of relations across levels of government” (OECD, 2012)59. In the view of the OECD, MLG acts not as a theoretical frame, but rather as a system by which different levels of government work in tandem. The EU, for its part, describes MLG as “a dynamic process with a horizontal and vertical dimension, which does not in any way dilute political responsibility” (Van den Brande & Delebarre, 2009)60 emphasizing that it is a framework for policy rather than a formalized legal process. This final point on the fluidity of MLG and its lack of formality in defining its exact nature is a point considered throughout the analysis of land use policies by the OECD Capstone group. Based on that idea, we can begin to understand MLG as a system that aims at bolstering functional governance by promoting new means of communication and involvement between actors and stakeholders at different levels of government. This broad and inclusive view questions the comprehensiveness of both the top-down and bottom-up approaches and, instead, recognizes the shared responsibility between national, regional and local authorities when it comes to land use policies.
Inter-agency initiative “Sustainable Communities” in the United States
Figure 10: The partnership for “Sustainable Communities”
“Sustainable Communities” is a federal level inter-department initiative established in 2009, based on the partnership between HUD, the DOT, and the EPA to improve access to affordable housing (civic concerns), increase transportation options (civic concerns) and lower transportation costs (economic concerns) while protecting environmental sustainability (environmental concerns). Sustainable Communities used six principles to illustrate this point: 1) provide more transportation choices, 2) promote equitable, affordable housing, 3) enhance economic competitiveness, 4) support existing communities, 5) coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment and 6) value communities. According to the OECD (2006) 61 , improving the quality of life in poor, economically isolated urban areas is the most urgent problem to address, though it is also the most difficult. There are two main issues: housing affordability (civic concern) and mobility of transportation (economic concern). Housing affordability: OECD (2011)62 found that rigid housing supply environments are much more likely to be capitalized into house prices than to increase in the quantity of housing. Mobility of transportation: Debrat and Cointe (2009)63 argue that “mobility plays an important role in social inclusion; a lack of transport can worsen social exclusion”. Urban growth and the resultant sprawl necessitated mass transportation networks in a growing number of localities. This infrastructures increases land values significantly. HUD and DOT also found that there are trade-offs between each of their policy objectives. For instance, the key performance indicator “housing affordability”C of HUD and “higher flow area ratio”D of DOT conflict each other in cases such as: 1) new transportation which improves the KPI of DOT will also increase the land price, which resulted in 2) the decrease in
The proportion of the housing cost in the average household income in the area The proportion of the land with fluid of transportation system in the area
the number of affordable housing, the KPI of HUD. As a result, agencies found that the households can no longer afford rent where DOT introduced new transportation. Also, those lower income households who are priced out often suffer from the rise in living cost. The joint study of HUD and DOT (2012)64 revealed that a significant number of lower income households were paying more than 40% of their income on housing and transportation, while average households living in automobile dependent locations were paying approximately 57% . The agencies initiated a collaborative program between the three departments with state and local level governments to mitigate the negative side effects of the policies. More specifically, they wanted to help manage the emerging Trilemma pressures. In this case, providing citizens access to affordable living arrangements that still had access to social and economic services. The effort was named “Sustainable Communities”. “Sustainable Communities” is an initiative driven by federal government. Each initiative along with the other departments has a mechanism to incentivize local governments to achieve certain criteria and rewarding them with subsidies if they reach these goals. For instance of the case of dilemma between DOT and HUD, DOT provides more funds to build transit if the local community clears some conditions (Example: the five point rating scale of density, affordability of housing, set by HUD which also explains how local government can get higher rating), which has become possible by aggregating the budget of all three departments. The decision making process of "Sustainable Communities" is as below: Leveraging Federal Investment: For instance, there are grant programs to build housing by HUD, to operate bus line by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) of DOT, or to conserve brown field by EPA. All the programs are coordinated to achieve the goal of “Sustainable Communities” initiatives and encourage synergy. Working Group of “Sustainable Communities”: It determines the principles of this initiative and monitor the performance. Coordination of the initiatives in local level: Almost all the concrete coordination occurs in regional offices. For instance, there is a FTA regional office in Seattle where they work closely with the regional office of EPA and HUD to coordinate various grants to different regions. All the regional office of FTA is working with HUD and EPA. The involved agencies adopted KPI’s that cover more than one policy objective across different departments. This enables collaboration to avoid Trilemma mismanagement and its side effects.
For instance of the key performance indicator to mitigate the problem stated above: Housing & Transportation Affordability Index: This is the sum of the cost of housing and transportation in each area. For example, housing in urban area is expensive but transportation is cheaper, and vice versa. This is not only the measurement of policy outcomes but also could be used by consumers when they determine where to live. (http://htaindex.cnt.org/map) Figure 11 shows New York City mapped with the index. People living in the blue area pay more than 45 percent of their income for housing and transportation. Those living in yellow areas pay less than 45 percent. This is a drastic difference considering that the average American spends no more than 33 percent of their income on housing based on the joint study of HUD and DOT (2012)64. This illustrates how proximity to transportation impacts living expenses. Areas with more access to transportation are less affordable not only in the city center, but also in the suburban area where relatively lower income households are living. This is especially problematic for the poorer people who cannot afford to allocate their resources in that configuration. Therefore, DOT and HUD have jointly modified their own subsidy scheme and are now collaboratively investing to improve the index rather, than the conventional KPIs such as “affordability of house” and “higher flow area ratio” which could cover only one single concern of Trilemma (Figure 12).
Figure 11: H+T Affordability map
Figure 12: The partnership for “Sustainable Communities”
The challenges of decentralization policy in the Netherlands65
Percentage change on previous year
In the years previous to 2006, the Dutch economy started slowing down after the good performance it showed throughout the 1990s. The central government decentralization the economy. considered in spatial that planning
4 2 0
1990 1995 2000 2005
would be a good way to reinvigorate
Figure 13. GDP growth rate in the Netherlands
The most recent NSS published by the Dutch government in 2006 focused on the decentralization of spatial planning, outlining a transformation from a top-down approach to a bottom-up approach. The plan transferred significant planning powers to municipalities and implicitly promoted the development of land for economic purposes. Below is a chart showing the method of spatial planning both before and after decentralization:
Figure 14: Local governments and spatial planning system in the Netherlands
The chart illustrates the change of dynamic before and after decentralization. The column on the left shows the clear lines of communication between the different levels of government; in contrast, the arrangement after 2008 shows that each level of government functions primarily as an independent actor responsible for the construction of its own Structural Vision, which becomes binding only to the level that drafted it. This move away from centralized spatial planning does grant more control to lower levels to pursue localized governance. However, the devolution of authority also has the unintended consequence of Acronyms: NSS: National Spatial Planning Strategy SPA: Spatial Planning Act of 2008 PPPs: Public Private Partnerships
moving away from a previously comprehensive view of spatial planning and allowing local authorities to pursue economic development, often at the cost of environmental and civic concerns. The system of public finance in the Netherlands is structured in such a way that the central government allocates almost 60% of municipal revenue in the form of the general grant and of the ear-marked funds E . This new decentralized scheme conceived by the central government was thought to be a mechanism that would allow municipalities to generate extra revenue through the selling of greenfield land to developers, or through the engagement in public private partnerships to develop residential and commercial space. From the perspective of the principal-agent theory, it is possible to say that the central government (the principal) delegated power to the municipalities (the agent) with the intention of making the Netherlands more economically competitive. The graphs in Figure 15 show
Figure 15: Employment and total turnover of the construction industry
how this decentralization rapidly led to an increase in the development of land, measured by the number of permits given to developers; the employment in the construction sector; and the turnover in the construction of buildings (Figure 16). Even though the central government promoted decentralization as a means to generate economic growth, the rapid response of the agents led to an overinvestment in land development.
Ear-marked funds cover the cost made by municipalities in areas such as social services, primary education, and urban regeneration. The municipal council cannot reallocate these funds, which represent around 27% of the municipal income...The General Grant, like the ear-marked funds, comes from central government. On average the general grant represents 33% of the municipal income. In this case, however, the municipal council is free to decide on its precise allocation.” Local Government in the Netherlands, pp. 53-54.
Acronyms: NSS: National Spatial Planning Strategy SPA: Spatial Planning Act of 2008
PPPs: Public Private Partnerships
Figure 16: Total building permits issued for commercial builders vs. general government debt
At the onset of the financial crisis, these municipalities found themselves with huge stocks of debt as a result of overinvestment in land. The municipalities, in conjunction with PPPs, engaged in land-buying schemes wherein they purchased important tracts of land from farmers. Their intention was to turn a profit and increase municipal revenue as the areas developed and the value of the land subsequently increased. However, as a result of the external shock that was the Financial Crisis of 2008, these aims were never realized; the market stagnated and the municipal governments did not generate the income that both they and developers had expected. As can be seen in the figures, unemployment in the construction sector grew dramatically, and land development dropped sharply. These consequences emphasized the need for a new comprehensive spatial planning strategy that involved municipalities but remained cautious about simply allowing them to emphasize economic concerns. In addition to this, the situation underlined the importance of creating new governance mechanisms involving provincial and central authorities to help maintain some degree of oversight over municipalities´ spatial planning decisions.
Acronyms: NSS: National Spatial Planning Strategy SPA: Spatial Planning Act of 2008
PPPs: Public Private Partnerships
Figure 17: The outcomes of the failures in decentralization
The need for comprehensive policy design and new governance mechanisms after decentralization The breadth of consequences these measures had on society and on the environment can refer back to the first two breakdowns of the Trilemma: 1) Lack of holistic land use policy design which leads to negative externalities and 2) Lack of the necessary governance mechanisms to manage decentralization and overcome inter-agency and cross level communication problems. Regarding the first point, it can be said that in its 2006 National Spatial Strategy, the Dutch government moved away from its previously comprehensive vision of spatial planning. By placing more emphasis on economic aims, the central government kept out of sight the possibility of overdevelopment in what had previously been green areas, such as the Green Heart, and in many other areas of the country. As can be seen in Figure 16, the most important municipalities within the Green Heart (ex. Gouda) also took on the possibility of land development, as the rest of the country’s municipalities had. With regards to the second point, it can be said that the decentralization in the Netherlands took place rapidly and did not make the necessary governance adjustments to ensure there was a correct degree of inter-agency dialogue and oversight that warned about the social, environmental, and economic risks of speculation in land development. The central and provincial governments delegated all the spatial planning Acronyms: NSS: National Spatial Planning Strategy SPA: Spatial Planning Act of 2008
Figure 7: Lack of interagency and cross-level PPPs: Public Private Partnerships communication Figure 6: Emphasis on economic concerns
attributions to municipalities but seemingly moved away from their responsibility of identifying national and regional trends of speculation that were later uncovered by the financial crisis. The fact that there was no cross-level governance mechanism also reduced the possibility of dialogue between the central, the provincial and the municipal authorities. Given the speed of change in today’s world and the need for more context specific approaches, it initially made sense for the central government to allow municipalities to identify their needs and to move forward with their planning. However, given the structure of the Dutch tax system, the municipalities had an important incentive to generate additional revenue through land development and to compete with neighboring municipalities for the generation of that revenue. Under those circumstances, it was essential to create a new governance structure in charge of supervising that land development resulted from demographic trends and local needs, and not simply from the need to generate additional revenue through speculation in land. Furthermore, this structure should have been taken on the responsibility of assessing the environmental and social consequences of overinvesting in land development projects. The outline of the main characteristics of this governance structure will be discussed in the recommendations section.
Acronyms: NSS: National Spatial Planning Strategy SPA: Spatial Planning Act of 2008
PPPs: Public Private Partnerships
3. Innovative Policy Tools to Make Better Land Use Decisions
The table of contents of this section
3.1 Overlay zoning 3.2 Floating zones 3.3 Incentive zoning / Cluster development 3.4 Transferable development rights 3.5 Finger model and New Towns 3.6 Geo-mapping information system 3.7 Amsterdam Metropolitan Area 3.8 Ecoducts and Nature Compensation Schemes
United States United States United States United States Netherlands United States Netherlands Netherlands
page.47 page.49 page.50 page.52 page.54 page.56 page.58 page.61
Overlay zoning in the United States
Figure 18: Overlay zoning
What: Overlay zoning places multiple zoning regulations on one area. This is specifically applicable to areas that have zoning regulations from multiple levels of government. In the United States, this is the interaction between the State, County, and City level governments. As Figure 18 shows, state level government can set broad zoning regulation which lay under the overlay zoning city level government will set. Why: Overlay zoning is a policy mechanism that fosters flexibility around development at the local and municipality levels of government. Allowing local governments to place their zoning specifications over those of higher-level government actors diversifies the planning opportunities available. Additionally, it allows localities to better specialize their land to their needs, rather than ceding all power to higher government actors. This can help localities balance civic and economic concern in a local setting like neighborhoods or districts. It may also be applied to protect historical areas or encourage or discourage speciﬁc types of development, as seen in Figure 18. Land within the historic overlay district may be subject to requirements that protect the historical nature of the area. A community might use incentives along a transit corridor to encourage higher development densities, target uses or control appearance. How: The method of implementation is context specific. Fundamentally, the municipality and state government have to reach an agreement around the use of the policy technique. There are three basic steps to creating an overlay district: 1. Deﬁne the purpose of the district. The district should have a clearly deﬁned purpose e.g. to protect drinking water, preserve historical character, minimize erosion from
storm water runoff, etc. 2. Identify the areas that make up the district. Mapping district boundaries depend on the natural or cultural endowments. For example, if the purpose of the zone is to protect groundwater, important groundwater recharge areas and areas prone to pollution, such as fractured bedrock or areas with a high groundwater table should be mapped. 3. Develop speciﬁc rules that apply to the identiﬁed district. In a groundwater recharge district for example, provisions may restrict development or require development guidelines that capture and ﬁlter water runoff. It is critical that the zoning provisions offer clear guidance to both property owners and the governing body charged with approving proposals. Zoning requirements must be applied equally over all properties within the district. The ordinance not only must comply with any state and federal regulations, but must also be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the municipality’s comprehensive plan. It is important that the local governing body involve the public to clarify issues and explain the reasons behind mapping district boundaries. An educational program targeting developers and affected property owners will help increase awareness and compliance with the new requirements. The procedures for adopting an overlay district are the same as for adopting a zoning or rezoning provision. The overlay provisions as well as changes to the zoning map must be approved by the local governing body for adoption. Case in New York State: Traditional zoning has been attacked as relying too heavily upon economic concerns at the expense of the daily quality of life and also been criticized for being inflexible and oversimplified. It has been further criticized for its inability to deal with large problems, especially for protection of the environment. Therefore, in 1984, the New York State government introduced overlay zoning to encourage development of affordable housing and to discourage development in environmental and historic areas.
Floating zones in the United States
Figure 19: Floating zones
What: Floating Zoning is a technique that creates districts, regulates, and defines the use or reuse of certain structures. This is specifically applied to instances where land is being rezoned for reuse or redevelopment, as opposed to initial construction. Why: Floating zones are intended to add flexibility and shift land use planning discussions from public hearings into neighborhoods. It is intended to directly engage communities as redevelopment projects are brought to their localities. How: Floating zoning schemes have a number of prerequisite steps. First, a district must have its zoning regulations updated or modified. It may also be necessary to create a new district to reflect the projects or proposed development ideas at hand. This must be done in conjunction with a master plan, or an idea of what actual amenities must be addressed in the new zoning district. A master plan is the parameters for the district. The plan should reflect, through a combination of text and graphics, general specifications around landscaping, parking, storm-water runoff, building design, height, location, size, and other desired characteristics of the district. Once these two steps have been achieved, a site plan, or implementation plan can be drawn up. This incorporates the different aspects of the master plan and its tenets and works them into the proposed redevelopment site.
Cluster development / incentive zoning in the United States
Figure 20: Cluster development
Figure 21: Incentive zoning
What: Cluster Development is a zoning technique that works to encourage increased development density. In many cases, it offers a density bonus in exchange for increased emphasis on civic and environmental concerns. Cluster development seeks to maximize ground space by encouraging a developer or developers to embrace increased access to air rights and vertical development in lieu of smaller structures that can be more land intensive. This strategy often seeks to increase the real estate available by increasing possible square footage. Also, as illustrated in figures 20 and 21, it can help preserve green area. Additionally, incentive zoning tries to link density with development potential and other civic concerns like affordable housing, historical preservation, and social service provision. Why: The primary purpose is to create more area for open space, recreation and more social interaction by encouraging increased development density in a way to accommodate greater demands on the same parcels of land. With higher concentrations, municipalities can achieve the points below: Promote integrated site design that is considerate to the natural features and topography Protect environmentally sensitive areas of the development site, as well as permanently preserve important natural features, prime agricultural land, and open space Minimize non-point source pollution through reducing the area of impervious
surfaces on site Encourage cost saving on infrastructure and maintenance through practices such as decreasing the area that needs to be paved and the distance that utilizes need to be run This also speaks directly to the management of the Trilemma. How: There are a number of ways to implement a cluster development/Incentive zoning scheme. Therefore we are going to look at details of a case in Seattle. Case: The City of Seattle implemented an incentive zoning scheme in its downtown district during the 1960’s. The policy design was updated in the 1980s, when it incorporated commercial buildings and again in 2006 incorporating residential buildings. Utilizing this structure, the city set-out a plan that guided and regulated options and behavior of developers. Tier System: The city allows developers to acquire an additional above ground footage at an established price, $10 in this case, between 85’ and 290’. Above this height, the price increases depending on the number of stories. Above the 290’ threshold, equating to approximately 28 stories, there are three pricing tiers. Each new tier gives a developer access to more airspace at an increasing cost. Tier 1 covers stories 29-32 at a cost of $15. Tier 2 addresses stories 33-35 at $20 and Tier 3 covers stories 36-39 at $25 per square foot. Requirements: The incentive zoning scheme also determines how certain developments that seek to acquire additional air rights can use that space.
Transferable development rights in the United States
Figure 22: Transferable development rights
What: A system to allocate development within zoned areas. The scheme permits building owners to transfer, through sale or exchange, their right to develop land to other building owners. This utilizes a market driven approach by allowing landowners and developers to determine the value of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). Why: The system also helps better allocate development rights toward owners and developers most likely to utilize them. It provides a market mechanism to incentivize development in urban areas. Additionally, it unlocks opportunities for new development projects in a city with little open space. For instance, a building owner may not intend to maximize their development rights or lack the land area to safely continue building vertically, they can exchange those rights for compensation. A similar system of TDR is to have a municipal government purchase or assume partial or full ownership of development rights. This could be done outright, or through an incentive zoning scheme that attached an additional fee to purchasing development rights, as described in the incentive zoning schemes, similar to what was done in Seattle. How/ Case: There are a number of ways to institute a TDR scheme. New York that relied heavily on a market approach. There are three basic mechanisms to transfer development rights: zoning lot merger, certification or special permit, or through the Inclusionary Housing Program. A zoning lot merger is formed when two previously independent lots are joined into one. This combines the development rights from all merging lots. New York outlined criteria to determine which properties were eligible to mergers: Properties must be contiguous, located on a single block, and in single ownership as of December 15, 1961 or at the time when a new enactment or
zoning amendment / resolution was made OR Properties must be contiguous for a minimum of 10 linear feet on a single block and under single fee ownership when filing for a building permit OR In the event the lots are not under single ownership, an agreement including all parties indicating that all lots are to be treated as one zoning resolution.
The Finger Model and the New Towns
Amsterdam - the red zone in the Figure 23 - grows out in a way that resembles the fingers of a hand, with the palm being the historical center of Amsterdam. This policy tool has allowed the city to maintain a significant amount of open space between the fingers in order to achieve both dense urbanization and access to green space. This town planning approach was created in 1930, and the city´s inhabitants still benefit from proximity to green areas – as does the rest of the country - even if they are in the center of the city. By 2012, 89% of Dutch residents lived within one kilometer of a green space67. Amsterdam has been able to maintain its position as one of the most economically dynamic cities in Europe. Why: This is a classic example of managing the Trilemma concerns. Amsterdam balanced growing economic opportunity with the civic concerns of ensuring access to green areas. The finger model improved the quality of life of Amsterdam’s inhabitants and provided quality housing, employment opportunities, and air and water.68 How: Cornelis van Eesteren and Theodoor van Lohuizen invented the Finger Model in the period between 1928 and 1934 as an essential element of the General Expansion Plan for the city. They had chaired the Congrès Internationaux d´Architecture Moderne (International Congress of Modern Architecture), an international entity in which architects and town planners collaborated and argued for a vision of town planning on the basis of social and economic considerations. Contribution today: In the past decade, Amsterdam has faced challenges regarding the price of housing and the management of their social housing scheme, which represented almost 90% of all Figure 23: Finger model in Amsterdam
housing in Amsterdam. Moreover, as shown in Figure 24, many people have been moving to Amsterdam in search of better employment opportunities as a result of the financial crisis in 2008. Throughout the decades, city planners in Amsterdam have been able to control urban expansion in a sustainable way by foreseeing the socio-demographic trends in the country and in the regions and by leveraging the Finger Model. The Finger Model has been complemented by the idea of New Towns, a planning concept that
Figure 24: Net migration to Amsterdam
appeared in the Second National Spatial Planning Policy of the Netherlands in 1966. The idea behind New Towns was to create overspill towns for the four main cities of the country – Amsterdam, the Hague, Rotterdam, Utrecht - which together formed a region that is referred to as the Randstad, or “Rim City” (Figure 25). The new towns and the Finger Model were complementary policy tools that illustrated an important degree of foresight economic and collaboration based social on and
Figure 25: Rim cities in the Netherlands
environmental sustainability, and innovative ways of managing urban sprawl.
The places originally designated for this were Houten, Alkmaar, Purmerend, Lelystad, Roca, Almere, Hellevoetsluis, and Breda. Even though the quality of some of the New Towns has been debated, this kind of planning allowed for a proper management of the housing growth in the Netherlands from three million in the mid-60s to seven million today.69
Geo-mapping information system in the United States
Figure 26: Geo-mapping information system in the United States What: The Geo-mapping Information System is a recently developed technology. It creates multiple databases of information developed from intensive observation of land, environmental, and climate characteristics and trends. After collecting the information, it is placed on maps allowing users to look at geographical areas through the lens of multiple indicators in order to see how they might interact. This technique helps illuminate previously unnoticed relationships, observe their trends, and plan around them. Why: Comprehensive design: Geo-mapping Information System enable the policy planners to have a comprehensive view of the land in question. Overlaying different maps will provide the actors with new findings, and let them consider the externalities between different issues. Multilevel governance: Providing such information online, and making it accessible to multiple actors will increase the transparency of the land use policy planning. Thanks to the development of ICT (Information Communication Technology) these maps and mapping tools will be available to the public. This will enable a country, state, locality to have both a top-down and bottom-up approach at the same time. The Geo-mapping Information System also helps resolve language and coordination issues between different actors. Visual maps displaying multiple KPIs on the same area of land could be a very effective tool. Who: The central government level will create the database and the maps. Different departments should contribute topographical expertise to the database. All the actors will
benefit from this system. How: The information collection is done in great variety and with great detail. Examples of information collected are, geographic (sea, river, forest, mountain, desert), natural resources (oil, coal, gas, water, timber, solar, wind, tide), biodiversity (animals, vegetation), climate (temperature, wind, rain, snow), infrastructure (water, electricity, gas), social service (police, hospital), housing (price, space), agriculture, transportation (road, highway, railway, airport), economic activity (business location, industry, employment, income), etc. Collecting such huge amount of data is difficult, time consuming, and costly. Once the database is created, maps containing specific information will be created and will be shared online by multiple actors. Each actor can contribute to this database, and will be able to utilize the maps by overlaying the maps they consider necessary and interesting. Case: BLM (Bureau of Land Management) The BLM will use the Geo-mapping Information System to understand the land they administer. This tool contributes to their ability to build a comprehensive policy approach. They are in the process of gathering and updating the database and maps and have already created and utilized a large number of maps such as location of natural resources, electricity infrastructure, habitat of the endangered species, owner of lands, etc. For example, they created two maps, one of natural resources and one of endangered species and their habitats. This allowed them to analyze, in conjunction, how these two variables interacted. They used this information to regulate the development of natural resources in that area. BLM also uses this technology to assess the land health of their land. They created a list of criteria the land in question has to meet in order to maintain a healthy land in terms of nature preservation and biodiversity. They are monitoring the land health, and are able to freeze any activity on the land if that land has not met the criteria.
The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area
Figure 27. The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area.
What: According to Richard Florida 71 , a mega-region, is an integrated set of cities and surrounding suburban hinterlands across which labor and capital can be allocated at low cost. These areas function similarly to those of the great cities of the past: they agglomerate talent, productive capability, innovation and markets. The mega-region transcends traditional administrative borders and instead form a large-scale area based on economic functionality. One recent example of innovative governance, the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area (AMA) is based on function, not administrative, boundaries. The AMA follows a tradition first laid out in the Second National Spatial Planning Policy of 1966, with the establishment of the New Towns, conceived to absorb the growing population and mitigate urban sprawl. In the intervening decades, these towns succeeded in limiting urban sprawl and preserve the Netherlands’ green areas, though many, especially those around the Randstad, grew into significant municipalities of their own. The main locations in the AMA are Almere, Amstelveen, Amsterdam, Port of Amsterdam, Haarlemmermeer, Zuidas, Zaanstreek and Schipol Area. The AMA area has a total population of over 2 million inhabitants, covering the Dutch provinces of North Holland and Flevoland. Why: The city of Amsterdam has recognized the important role these New Towns play as it
continues its outward expansion. The city’s Planning Department constructed a vision that it named “Amsterdam 2040” (2011)72. This plan for the city’s growth in the coming decades embraces better cooperation between “citizens, businesses, organization, and other government bodies” in recognition that growth is a collaborative process. The plan states that, “the City Council had no desire to devise the vision on its own, seeing as it cannot realize the eventual outcome in isolation”. The AMA was conceived as an area that offers an international airport (Schipol), a seaport (Port of Amsterdam), and a city center (the city of Amsterdam) that are just a few miles apart. This means that people, products, data, and services can be transported in an efficient way within and outside Europe. Furthermore, the AMA highlights the breadth of economic activity and skills that characterize the area, which go from banking to design, and from technology to transportation, as well as a strategic geographical location in northwest Europe. Overall, the area is presented as having a series of advantages in terms of connectivity, business activity, innovation and quality of life. All of these factors contribute to its coherence as a strong and innovative policy tool that highlights the strengths of a whole region and not simply of a city and its suburban area.73 How: To this end, the city’s government also reached out to its surrounding New Towns, and together they have developed an informal governance structure of planning based on consultation, broad political engagement, and economic functionality, that goes beyond administrative jurisdictions. Contribution today: The main contribution of the AMA is its proactive approach toward developing Amsterdam and its hinterland through an informal governance structure. The AMA includes numerous municipalities and stresses economic and social functionality while avoiding urban sprawl and environmental degradation. It is an innovative policy tool that promotes cooperation between big urban centers and their surroundings. These surroundings are not simply annexes of Amsterdam but are actual cities with distinct social and economic activity.
In AMA, inter-agency problems are overcome through cooperation between neighboring municipalities
AMA exemplifies a strong policy tool based on economic and social functionality that avoids urban sprawl and environmental degradation
It is a collection of polycentric areas and not an urban center surrounded by suburban areas.
Ecoducts and Nature Compensation Schemes
What: The National Ecological Network (NEN) was created in 1990 by the Dutch Ministry for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and provided inspiration for the European Nature 2000 project. 74 One of its most interesting policy tools were the Ecoducts and the Nature Compensation Schemes, which contribute to overcoming the seemingly inherent contradiction between economic and social needs for infrastructure and the need for open and green areas. Why: The main purpose of the NEN was to create a network of nature and wild areas at a national scale through which the decline in biodiversity could be controlled. Its implementation not only promoted the preservation and growth of dry and wet natural landscapes but also impeded the fragmentation of natural and wild life areas and the problems of distribution of species that result from major infrastructure projects. How: As a result, the Ecoducts were created in order to allow for animals to have crossing points. In addition to this, nature and wild life areas were designated and tightly regulated, which had important consequences for urban planning. Another mechanism was the Nature Compensation Schemes, which
Ecoducts and NCS are policy tools that can make infrastructure development compatible with environmental concerns.
promoted the creation of new nature areas in compensation for others that had been damaged by urban infrastructure. All these innovations are examples of how civic concerns such as mobility and healthy living environments can be coordinated with economic concerns such as infrastructure development, as well as with environmental concerns such as biodiversity and preservation of species. While major infrastructure projects are still within the jurisdiction of the central government, the development of Ecoducts is also an innovative way of making compatible the national interest to develop proper infrastructure with local living conditions and preservation of ecosystems. Contribution today: In the Netherlands, as in many other OECD and non-OECD countries, infrastructure needs are set to rise in the coming decades. Infrastructure is essential for economic and social activity. However, infrastructure is not land neutral, and building it in most cases implies the disappearance of natural landscapes as well as open and green areas. This can have major consequences in the functioning of an ecosystem (movement of species, climate patterns) and of the natural balances that characterize it.
The OECD Land Use Governance Capstone has provided an analytical framework and two case studies to help understand the design and implementation of land use policies. The Capstone team distilled this information, producing a series of recommendations: A. Recommendations for the OECD A playbook, not a rulebook There is no one-size-fits-all policy solution to mitigate the Trilemma. In conducting fieldwork, however, the Capstone team identified a range of policies and institutional arrangements that brought different stakeholders together to manage Trilemma issues. The OECD should be mindful of these examples as it continues with the study. To bring the concept of land use governance back into the policy discussion it is necessary to construct a playbook of best practices. This way, member countries could consult a potential database to discover the areas of complementarity and conflict in potential policy actions. Taking into account their own contexts and drawing on the experience of other countries, they would be able to identify tools that could be generalized and adapted. Inter-directorate taskforce The ad hoc solutions to land use issues are inefficient and unsustainable. The current approach, which serves to bolster a narrow view of policymaking, exists at all levels of government. The field research illustrated that the most progressive approaches feature active efforts to break down policy silos and induce coordination among stakeholders. This advice is as practicable to the OECD as it is to governments at any level. Because the Trilemma touches on diverse policy areas, from economics, governance, and taxation to environmental issues, agriculture, industry, and social welfare, the Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate should look beyond its own borders and invite in a taskforce to coordinate the study with other OECD directorates and centers. The OECD Capstone Team recommends that the Environment Directorate, Statistics Directorate, Economics Directorate, Centre for Tax Policy and Administration, and Trade and Agriculture Directorate be included in the taskforce.
B. Recommendations to OECD countries Decentralization only with governance Given its geographical characteristics, the Netherlands is a very advanced country in terms of spatial planning and land use mechanisms. Most of the planning tradition of the Netherlands throughout the XXth century was developed through a centralized top-down approach. However, in 2006 an important shift towards decentralization in spatial planning took place, giving municipalities the power to create spatial plans and regulate land use. This change is particularly relevant for OECD countries, where a trend towards decentralization has been taking place. As noted in the findings section, following the decentralization process and the external shock of the 2008 financial crisis, the Netherlands faced a series of challenges that can be identified with the Trilemma framework: 1. Civic Concerns: The municipalities became over-indebted and this, among other factors, led to the scaling back of social services. 2. Environmental Concerns: Having incentives to develop land and generate additional revenue, municipalities inside the Green Heart showed important increases in land development and construction permits, which endangered green areas. 3. Economic Concerns: The new decentralized spatial planning arrangement gave the municipalities the incentive to develop land for commercial and residential purposes. This opened the door for speculation by developers. Countries must keep in mind that, parallel to decentralization, appropriate and context-specific governance mechanisms that promote collaboration and oversight are necessary. Without these tools, it will be difficult to satisfactorily manage the Trilemma or avoid principal-agent issues and other types of challenges. Multilevel Governance and other Flexible Inter-agency and Cross-level Cooperation and Oversight Mechanisms Governments acknowledge that policymaking has reached a degree of complexity and uncertainty, requiring flexible and adaptable governance mechanisms that balance interests.
The paradigms of centralized or decentralized government structures must be complemented with flexible governance mechanisms that promote communication, information exchange, and mutual oversight between all government levels. Multi-level governance is an essential governance mechanism that can help overcome some of the current governance challenges that OECD countries face. In the area of land use and spatial planning in OECD countries, elected bodies at lower levels of government have the legitimacy to draw up zoning plans and decide what is beneficial for their region. Nonetheless, middle and national tiers of government should make them aware of regional developments and nationwide demographic trends that might enhance the possibilities of interaction and cooperation between all areas of the country. In order to put forward context specific policies that also serve the national policy needs, all layers of government must collaborate between one another through committees and regular meetings that should not simply involve formal exchanges of information, but actual policymaking. This governance mechanism would allow the following: Making zoning and spatial planning decisions more transparent and legitimate. Going beyond administrative borders and identifying common interests between municipalities, eventually facilitating the creation of functional inter-municipality planning such as in the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area. Making municipalities aware of province-wide or nation-wide trends that might make spatial planning more accurate and needs-based. Independent Planning Commission An independent planning commission could be helpful in assessing the impact of zoning and development plans, and ensuring their compatibility with national, international, and regional standards. Given the political interests at all levels of government around zoning, additional revenue generation, and infrastructure development, this independent commission would bring about a neutral perspective that could build upon the Trilemma framework and ensure that civic, economic, and environmental concerns are taken into account.
Annexes: list of interviewees
Scholars Professor, Faculty of Geosciences; Department of Human Geography and Planning Professor in regional and urban economics and in economic geography at the VU University Amsterdam Dept of Spatial Economics, VU Amsterdam Researcher at the VU University Amsterdam
Government –National Level Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment o o o o Senior Policy Advisor Policy Advisor Director of Spatial Design Senior Advisor Ministry of Economic Affairs Government Service for Land and Water Management
Member of Parliament Ministry of Housing and the Central Government Sector (under the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations) o Policy Advisor
Government –City Level City of Amsterdam Physical Planning Department o o Managing Director Planning Policy Advisor
Civil Society and Private Sector Milieudefensie, NGO
The United States
Scholars Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge MA, UK Department of Economics, Arizona State University, Arizona, USA School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Arizona, USA Real Estate Economics and Finance, London School of Economics, London, UK The Land Use Law Center, Pace University School of Law, New York, USA
Government –Federal Level U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o New York Regional Office, Region II, Lead Sustainability Officer Buffalo Office of Public Housing Department of HUD, Director Buffalo Office, Sustainability Coordinator Program Manager Economist, Office of Policy Development and Research, New York HUD Regional Office Field office economist Division Chief, Decision Support Branch Chief, Division Staff Assistant Acting Director, Acting Deputy Director (Programs and Policy) Assistant Director, Communications National Service Center Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy Federal Transit Administration Regional Office Federal Highway Administration Division Office (FHWA Division Office) Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief Financial Officer Federal Railroad Administration, Chief Counsel Government Affairs Railroad Policy & Development Hudson Valley Transportation Management Center (HVTMC) U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
U.S. Department of the Treasury U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Department of Agriculture o o o Agricultural Economist Branch Chief Director, National Geospatial Management Center NY State Conservationist, National Geospatial Management Center Administrator, US Environmental Protection Agency Secretary, Department of Transportation
National Prevention Council o o
Government –State Level New York State o o o o o o o Acting Director: Center for Environmental Health Director of the Division of Health Facility Planning Director of Legislative Affairs Executive Deputy Commissioner Department of New York State Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation Department of Transportation Lanscape Architecture Bureau
Governemnt –Municipality Level New York City o o o o o o o NYC Housing authority Legislative Affairs Director NYC Housing Authority VP of Operations Deputy Mayor for Economic Development Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services NYC Housing authority Energy Management and Environmental Sustainability Committee Chair Department of Transportation NYC Police Department Commisioner
Civil Society and Private Sector Greater New York Chamber of Commerce Manhattan Chamber of Commerce NYC Patrolmen's Benevolent Assoiciation New York State Troopers Police Benevolent Association Habitat NYC Homelessness Prevention & Housing Advocacy
Business Sector Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) o o o o o o Politician Chairman, The U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Federal Home Loan (FHL) Bank of New York Council of FHLBanks The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC: membership organization of commercial construction contractors) AGC Government Affairs Clark Enterprises Inc. Tishman Construction
US National Geophysical Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012 2 Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., Behrens, W. W., “ The limits to growth”, Universe Books, 1972 3 M. Strauss, “Looking back on the limits to growth”, Smithsonian magazine, April 2012 4 Rosen, S., Peters, M., & Shapouri, S.. International Food Security 2010 Update. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington D.C.: USDA., 2010 5 Heady, D., & Sheggen, F. “Anatomy of a Crisis: The Causes and Consequences of Surging Food Prices”. Agricultural Economics, 39., 2008 6 World Bank, World Development Indicators, 2012 7 Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Japan, 2012 8 Wiebe, K. Linking Land Quality, Agriculture Productivity and Food Security. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture., 2003 9 Tune, L., Land Use May be Causing Half of Earth's Surface Warming. Science and Technology., 2003 10 Smith 2010 Smith, P., Gregory, P., van Vuuren, D., Obersteiner, M., Havlik, P., Rounsevell, M., et al. Competition for Land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2010 11 Heady, D., & Sheggen, F., “Anatomy of a Crisis: The Causes and Consequences of Surging Food Prices”, Agricultural Economics , 39, 2008 12 United Nations, “Universal Declaration on Human Rights”, 1948 13 OECD, The Future of Rural Policy, OECD. 14 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “OECD Rural Policy Review: The New Rural Paradigm” OECD. Paris, 2006 15 Platt. R. H., “LAND USE AND SOCIETY: Geography, Law, and Public Policy”, Island Press, 2004 16 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “Regional Development Policies in OECD Countries”. OECD. Paris : OECD Publishing, 2010 17 Nolon. J. R. “Well grounded: Using local land use authority to achieve smart growth”, Environmental law institute, 2010 18 Until 2006. Netherlands presents an interesting case study because it has tried both top down and bottom up approaches to land use and spatial planning policies. 19 Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, http://www.government.nl/ministries/bzk. Accessed 2 May 2013. 20 Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, Ronald Plasterk, http://www.government.nl/government/members-of-cabinet/ronald-plasterk. Accessed 2 May 2013. 21 Minister for Housing and the Central Government Sector, Stef Blok, http://www.government.nl/government/members-of-cabinet/stef-blok. Accessed 2 May 2013. 22 Minister for Housing and the Central Government Sector, Stef Blok, http://www.government.nl/government/members-of-cabinet/stef-blok. Accessed 2 May 2013. 23 Minister for Housing and the Central Government Sector, Stef Blok,
http://www.government.nl/government/members-of-cabinet/stef-blok. Accessed 2 May 2013. 24 Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, http://www.government.nl/ministries/ienm . Accessed 7 May 2013. 25 Ministry of Economics of the Netherlands, http://www.government.nl/ministries/ez. Accessed 7 May 2013. 26 Ministry of Economics of the Netherlands, http://www.government.nl/ministries/ez. Accessed 7 May 2013. 27 Minister for Agriculture, Sharon Dijksma, http://www.government.nl/government/members-of-cabinet/sharon-dijksma. Accessed 7 May 2013. 28 The Government Service for Land and Water Management (DLG), http://www.dienstlandelijkgebied.nl/en. Accessed 2 May 2013 29 The Planning Department of Amsterdam (DRO), http://www.amsterdam.nl/gemeente/organisatie-diensten/dienst-ruimtelijke/. Accessed 3 May 2013. 30 Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening, 2011. Plan Amsterdam: Economically Strong and Sustainable Structural Vision: Amsterdam 2040. Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening, Amsterdam. pp. 4-7 31 Provincie Noord-Holland – Administration, http://www.noord-holland.nl/web/English-3/English-1/Administration.htm. Accessed 7 May 2013. 32 Milieudefensie, What We Do, http://www.milieudefensie.nl/watwijdoen. Accessed 27 April 2013 33 Ministry of Finance, http://www.government.nl/ministries/fin. Accessed 3 May 2013 34 U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ABOUT_USDA, Accessed 10 May 2013. 35 U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ABOUT_USDA, Accessed 10 May 2013. 36 U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ABOUT_USDA, Accessed 10 May 2013. 37 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/cfo/stratplan, Accessed 10 May 2013. 38 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/cfo/stratplan, Accessed 10 May 2013. 39 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/cfo/stratplan, Accessed 10 May 2013. 40 U.S. Department of Transportation http://www.dot.gov/mission/about-us, Accessed 10 May 2013. 41 U.S. Department of Transportation http://www.dot.gov/administrations, Accessed 10 May 2013.
U.S. Environment Protection Agency, http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do, Accessed 11 May 2013. 43 U.S. Environment Protection Agency, http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do, Accessed 11 May 2013. 44 U.S. Department of the Treasury, http://www.treasury.gov/about/role-of-treasury/Pages/default.aspx, Accessed 11 May 2013. 45 Ministry of land, infrastructure, transport and tourism, Japan “An overview of spatial policy in Asia and European countries”, 2013 46 National Spatial Strategy Summary, 2006, pp. 2 47 National Spatial Strategy Summary, 2006, pp. 7 48 SKEP Network, VROM. http://www.skep-network.eu/home/Aboutus/Members/VROM.aspx. Accessed 22 April 2013. 49 Dutch Industry: Industrial Information Website, http://www.dutch-industry.com/vrom, Accessed 29 April 2013. 50 National Spatial Strategy Summary, 2006, p. 3 51 Gyourko. J., Saiz, A., Summers. A. A. “A New Measure of the Local Regulatory Environment for Housing Markets: The Wharton Residential Land Use Regulartory Index” Urban Cities, 2007 52 U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ABOUT_USDA, Accessed 21 April 2013. 53 Cited from the interview with the USDA 54 Defined as “A commonly accepted practice that those who produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment.” The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/02/polluter-pays-climate-change, Accessed 16 May 2013 55 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), https://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=copr&topic=crp, Accessed 21 April 2013 56 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/, Accessed 21 April 2013. 57 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap, Accessed 21 April 2013. 58 Schmitter, P., “Neo-functionalism”, in A. Wiener and T. Diez eds: European Integration Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 45-74, 2004 59 OECD. Multi-level governance. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/9/47622832.pdf. ,2012 60 Van den Brande, L., Delebarre, L., The Committee of the Regions' White Paper on multilevel governance, Committee of the Regions, Commission for Constitutional Affairs and European Governance, 2009 61 OECD, “Competitive cities in the global economy”, OECD Publishing, 2006 62 Sanchez D. A., Johansson. A., “Housing Markets and Structural Policies in OECD Countries” Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development . Paris : OECD, 2011 63 Debrat J. M., Cointe R., “Handbook of good pratices: Who pays what for urban transport?”,
Cooperation for urban mobility in the developing world, 02/11/2009 64 US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Factsheets”, 2012 65 The data for all the graphs presented in this section comes from: Statistics Netherlands, Statline Database, http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/?LA=en 66 Ministry of land, infrastructure, transport and tourism, Japan “An overview of spatial policy in Asia and European countries”, 2013 67 Statistics Netherlands, “Green Space Never Far Away in the Netherlands”, Statistics Netherlands Web Magazine, June 5th, 2012. 68 Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, 35 Icons of Dutch Spatial Planning, The Hague, p. 56, 2012 69 Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, 35 Icons of Dutch Spatial Planning, The Hague, p. 21, 2012 70 Source: iamsterdam.com 71 Florida, R., Gulden, T., & Mellander, C. “The Rise of the Mega-Region”. Cambridge Journal of Regions, 2008 72 City of Amsterdam’s Department of Physical Planning, “Plan Amsterdam: Economically strong and sustainable structural vision: Amsterdam 2040”, 2011 73 The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area Website, www.amsterdammetropole.com 74 Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, 35 Icons of Dutch Spatial Planning, The Hague, pp. 22-23, 2012