Speakers
Description
Unauthorized construction and land use violations exist in every country but to very different degrees and contexts. Even the definition of what is a violation differs not only between Global South and North but also across jurisdictions in the Global North, including within EU member states. In some countries, such as Denmark and Finland, violations are rare and usually minor; whereas in countries at the other extreme, including Turkey, Greece, Italy, Malta, and some East European countries, violations became rampant during the twilight period between the Soviet-dominated era and the establishment of new economic and legal orders. Most other countries in the Global North are probably somewhere in between along an imaginary scale.
Unauthorized development can disrupt urban functions and undermine planning objectives in local and regional planning. Socioeconomic disparities in the degree of compliance might exacerbate social injustices in the accessibility and affordability of adequate housing and urban services. At the same time, in some countries unauthorized development arises not from social need but simply from economic greed. Underlying differences across countries are also sociocultural norms about general compliance with the law.
Much of the literature on unauthorized development focuses on patterns of illegality, especially among disadvantaged social groups, often calling them "informality." But laws and regulations are formal institutions; the spotlight should also turn to them, not only to the violators (see Alterman and Calor, 2020). Regulation of the physical environment must always contend with the inherent tensions between the static nature of land use and construction versus the dynamic nature of cities, economies, demographics and climate.
This paper proposes a conceptual framework for understanding the relationship between planning regulations and types and degrees of violations. The framework first distinguishes between pre-existing violations and those that can be prevented or mitigated in the future. After surveying several reported approaches for coping with massive pre-existing violations in several countries, the paper turns to ongoing or prospective violations. There, the focus is not only on the violators and what types of sanctions can deter them but also on the faults in the regulations and their related enforcement approaches.
The theoretical framework is applied to a comparative analysis of two planning-law regimes – Portugal and Israel. The two countries differ in many ways, but both exemplify the consequences of rigid, overregulating land-use laws and development controls typical of many more countries. Portugal and Israel have each adopted a different set of legal and planning instruments intended to cope with unauthorized development, with varying degrees of success. The root causes are not being addressed effectively. We analyze how conventional planning approaches often inadvertently incentivize violations by sticking to rigid regulations, lengthy approval processes, and disconnection from local socioeconomic realities.
The second part of the conceptual framework looks at possible key strategies to reduce unauthorized development. First, the introduction of flexible planning-law mechanisms that anticipate and accommodate legitimate needs through anticipatory design, and even up-front accommodation of minor violations. Second, the integration of streamlined approval processes for amending statutory plans and regulations, supported by digital platforms. Third, establishing a monitoring and evaluation system for reporting on gaps between the original planning intent and current needs. Fourth, reinventing enforcement functions: Instead of being mainly a punitive mechanism, serving as a stethoscope for anticipating violations and identifying their causes.
Our findings suggest that the successful prevention of unauthorized construction requires reconceptualizing the binary legal/illegal categorizations toward a more nuanced understanding of the differing types and motivations for building violations. This approach can contribute to urban resilience and social equity.
References
Alterman, Rachelle and Ines Calor (2020). “Between Informal and Illegal in the Global North: Planning law, enforcement, and justifiable noncompliance”. Chapter 8 pp.150-185 in Udo Grashoff (Ed.) Comparative Approaches to Informal Housing.around the Globe. University College London (UCL) Press
| Keywords | planning regulations, enforcement, statutory plans, preventive planning, zoning violations |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
