Proposal of Land Readjustment for the Netherlands: An analysis of its effectiveness from an international perspective

Gielen, D. Muñoz

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2016.02.001

Cited by 30 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Transaction costs for land acquisition are therefore zero, though transaction costs for land assembly can be extremely high, in spite of this being an aim of the model, because of the voluntary nature of urban land readjustment in the Netherlands. Where land readjustment is mandatory, as is the case in Germany, the readjustment plan has been formulated independently of the owners by a land readjustment committee operating at arm's length from local government, and landowners receive a new plot of land in the readjustment plan whether they agree to the exercise or not (Davy, 2007;Muñoz Gielen, 2016). In the Netherlands it is the landowners who must negotiate amongst themselves in order to draw up the readjustment plan.…”

Section: Land Readjustmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do planners manage risk in alternative land development models? An institutional analysis of land development in the Netherlands

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While risk is a key concern in property development, it tends to be discussed by planners only relative to the effects of regulatory planning on private sector risk. Yet planning encompasses a broad range of activities that go beyond its function of regulating private sector development. Despite active approaches to land development being commonly used across different planning contexts, frameworks for analysing public sector strategies to address risk are rarely discussed. We attempt to redress this deficit by investigating the actions of public sector development actors with regard to risk across three different land development models: public land development, land development by public-private partnership, and land readjustment. Using recent Dutch experience, we conduct an institutional analysis of each land development model in order to highlight the effects of alternative governance structures on risk as a particular transaction attribute, from the perspective of public sector planning. Our findings indicate the importance of highlighting the role of public risk in alternative models of land development where there may be a tendency to adopt institutional arrangements without due regard to this, and point to possible future applications of institutional analysis at the particular, rather than the general, level.

show abstract

Section: Land Readjustmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do planners manage risk in alternative land development models? An institutional analysis of land development in the Netherlands

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The applicability of LR in land development practices is also highlighted in many published research (e.g., Byahut and Mittal 2017;Muñoz Gielen 2016;Turk and Korthals Altes 2011), however, there is no practical research on the applicability of ROA models to assist decision making in LR implemented housing construction projects, nor on PDHR housing projects.…”

Section: Roa For Housing Projects and Land-readjustment Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Real options analysis of revenue risk sharing in post-disaster housing reconstruction

Vahdatmanesh

Firouzi²,

Rotimi

2021

JFMPC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Post-disaster housing reconstruction (PDHR) demands a considerable percentage of global property investment, yet the post-disaster environment presents intricate challenges to reconstruction financing for governments and at the same time, revenue uncertainty for private investors. The purpose of this study is to develop a methodology for tackling land shortage and the financial challenges of PDHR in the aftermath of a disaster. Design/methodology/approach This study developed a methodology based on a combined minimum revenue guarantee and maximum revenue cap model using a well-established real options analysis (ROA) for revenue risk sharing in PDHR projects and land readjustment (LR) for finance. The applicability of the purported model is demonstrated through an illustrative example. Findings The results show that flexibility in the options could increase the PDHR contractor’s risk profile by increasing the expected value of the contractor investment and reducing the probability of investment loss. On the other side, a cap on the contractor revenue stream would allow the government to benefit from any excess in revenue and would counterbalance the value of the option. Practical implications The framework proposed in this study could serve as a practical risk-revenue sharing in PDHR projects. Governments and policymakers could use the findings to enable the successful delivery of PDHR projects and consequently bring the quality of life of affected people to pre-disaster conditions. Originality/value This study can be considered as a first attempt toward the use of the Australian barrier style options structure, and the trinomial lattice valuation model in PDHR projects, which incorporates LR, public-private partnerships, governmental guarantees and PDHR concepts in one ROA-based framework.

show abstract

“…Further, LIS have been applied where property subdivisions were deemed inappropriate or fragmented. As primarily land readjustment tools, LIS are comparable with land readjustment policy instruments in other countries: in the Netherlands (van der Krabben and Lenferink, 2018, Muñoz Gielen, 2016, van der Krabben and Needham, 2008, Germany (Home, 2007), Spain (Gozalvo Zamorano and Muñoz Gielen, 2017), Portugal (Condessa et al, 2015, Almeida et al, 2018, Turkey (Uzun, 2009), Israel (Alterman, 2007), Egypt (Soliman, 2017), India (Byahut, 2014), and China (Li and Li, 2007). The role of planners and local authorities in relation to these policy instruments varies depending on the planning and legal systems in different jurisdictions.…”

Section: Swiss Land Improvement Syndicates (Lis): Background and Mechmentioning

confidence: 99%

Swiss land improvement syndicates: ‘Impure’ Coasian solutions?

Shahab

Viallon

2020

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing number of planners have explored the implication of Coase theorem for planning theory and practice. As there are often a large and dispersed number of actors involved in planning issues, the application of ‘Pure’ Coasian solutions has proved to be limited. However, some studies argue that when the conditions for a ‘Pure’ Coasian solution do not exist, ‘Impure’ Coasian solutions may still be achievable. This article examines how, when conditions of ‘Impure’ Coasian solutions are available, local authorities in Switzerland use land improvement syndicates as a policy instrument in order to achieve negotiated solutions in relation to development processes involving multiple landowners. With a syndicate in the commune of Cheseaux as an illustrative example, the article analyses how this policy instrument has been utilised to reduce transaction costs, correct information asymmetries and clarify property rights. The focus has been on an interpretation of the Coasian theorem that identifies attempts to reduce transaction costs and clarify property rights as the main roles of governments or local authorities.

show abstract

Proposal of Land Readjustment for the Netherlands: An analysis of its effectiveness from an international perspective

Cited by 30 publications

References 19 publications

How do planners manage risk in alternative land development models? An institutional analysis of land development in the Netherlands

How do planners manage risk in alternative land development models? An institutional analysis of land development in the Netherlands

Real options analysis of revenue risk sharing in post-disaster housing reconstruction

Swiss land improvement syndicates: ‘Impure’ Coasian solutions?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About