Speaker
Description
In many European countries, land-use planning is facing increasing and oftentimes contradictory challenges. The increasing demand for housing is at odds with the policy objective of reducing land take. Densification is often seen as a panacea, yet it entails new implementation challenges, particularly in situations of fragmented property rights. In order to understand how land policy struggles with ever-increasing challenges such as land take, housing shortages, and densification, it is essential to look closely at how land policy is enacted in specific situations, what instruments are used, what actors are involved in the processes, and what the outcomes are.
This contribution shows how in different countries across Europe, land policies are strategically enacted on the local level. It explores the relationship between private landowners and public planning authorities based on 12 specific case studies on land policy in different European countries (AT, BE, CH, CZ, DE, ENG, FI, FR, NL, NO, PL, SE). The cases are a collection of qualitative analysis that introduce how land policy is perceived and pursued in practice in different countries. These stories follow a systematic 5-step approach describing the understanding of land policy, the approach to land, the actors involved, the underlying institutions, and conclude with a reflection of each case within the national context.
The comparative approach provides a structured reflection when facing practical challenges or considering legislative adjustments, empowering them with knowledge and insights. Using the elements land, actors, and institutions to develop a perspective across the cases, we derive a common understanding of land policy and identify how different countries deal with property in land.
The contribution focusses on four main conclusions, which we derive from this comparative research:
• First, the case studies highlight that land policy is often closely related to spatial planning. It differs in two dimensions: (1) Land policy addresses both, allocative and distributive aspects of land property, and (2) it entails a strategic and an operational level of public policy. This allows to differentiate land use policy, land use planning, land tenure policy, and land management from land policy.
• Second, the various cases show how land policies involve a series of intentional decisions or activities led by public actors, sometimes in cooperation with private actors, to address collective issues related to land use and allocation. Therefore, understanding land policies also requires understanding these instruments and how they are strategically combined.
• Third, the comparative insights underscore that differing land policy strategies are rooted in varying interpretations of the role of landowners in land policy. These interpretations are often more decisive than the specific land policy instruments used.
• Forth, the cases reveal a spectrum of how public actors conceptualise the relationship between property rights and land policy. At one end, there is the tendency to overlook landowners as key stakeholders in the planning process – which sometimes leads to almost fatalistic behaviour on the part of planning authorities. At the other end, landowners are seen as partners in the collaborative development of spatial projects.
These conclusions illustrate that land use planning and property rights are well-established in individual countries, but there are also viable alternatives. Exploring approaches abroad reveals a deeper understanding of land-use planning, property rights, and spatial development.
References
Hartmann, Thomas; Hengstermann, Andreas; Jehling, Mathias; Schindelegger, Arthur; Wenner, Fabian (2025). Land Policies in Europe. Land-use planning, property rights, and spatial development. Springer. In press.
| Keywords | Land policy; comparative; property rights; public policy; planning law |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
