T U R A S
CORE
Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
Provided by RAUmPlan - Repository of Architecture, Urbanism and Planning
F
FO
OR
RM
MS
S O
OF
F U
UR
RB
BA
AN
N
G
H
TH
WT
GR
RO
OW
II N
N
S
TE
ST
AS
EA
E::
HE
PE
TH
OP
UT
RO
SO
OU
EU
UR
T
G
NG
N II N
ON
T II O
S II T
NS
AN
TR
RA
T
S U
DS
RD
N
AR
AN
WA
BA
TO
OW
UR
RB
R
E A
CE
NC
EN
L II E
D
S II L
ND
RE
ES
AN
S
Y
TY
L II T
B II L
AB
NA
A II N
TA
ST
SU
US
V
E2
ME
UM
VO
OLLU
2
Edited by
Miodrag Vujošević
Slavka Zeković
1
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
This book has been prepared and published with the financial
support by the European Union FP7-ENV.2011.2.1.5-1 (TURAS
Project) Grant Agreement no. 282834.
Information about the TURAS Project is available on the Internet
at http://www.turas-cities.org/
Edited by
Miodrag Vujošević and Slavka Zeković
Copiright:
Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged.
Citation
Miodrag Vujošević and Slavka Zeković, 2016. Forms of Urban Growth in
Southeast Europe: Transitioning towards Urban Resilience and Sustainability.
Vol. 2. Varna: Varna Free University & Institute of Architecture and Urban &
Spatial Planning of Serbia.
Reviewers
Aleksandar Slaev, Varna Free University
Milorad Filipović, University of Belgrade
Miroljub Hadžić, Singidunum University
Published by
Varna Free University
KK “Chaika”, Varna 9007, Bulgaria
in cooperation with
Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia
Bulevar Kralja Aleksandra 73/II, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
Printed by
Reklama consult EOOD
18 “Zhelezni vrata” St, Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
ISBN 978-954-305-429-9
2
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
THE ROLE OF MARKET AND
STRATEGIC PLANNING AND
GOVERNANCE IN URBAN GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT: THE CASE
OF THE METROPOLITAN AREA OF
BELGRADE (SERBIA)
Compendium of contributions of the
IAUS team to the Project TURaS
3
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
4
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
Content
Preface ..................................................................................................................... 11
Part I - COMPENDIUM OF THE IAUS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE
RESEARCH OF URBAN GROWTH & SPRAWL (2011-2016)
1.
Research of Residential Preferencies, Attitudes and Motives,
Trends of Urban Migration ........................................................................ 15
1.1.
Residential preferences towards urban and suburban areas and
their relationship with demographic characteristics – J. Petrić. .............. 17
1.2.
Urban sprawl under the influence of residential choice – case
study of settlement Kaluđerica in Belgrade – J. Petrić, T. Bajić
and J. Basarić ................................................................................................. 18
1.3.
Variability of suburban preference in a post-socialist Belgrade –
J. Petrić and T. Bajić...................................................................................... 20
1.4.
Fuel poverty and perception on housing and environmental
quality in Belgrade’s informal settlement Kaluđerica – T. Bajić,
J. Petrić and T. Nikolić ................................................................................. 21
2. Research on National and Local Legislation, Documents and Plans
Regarding Conversion of Rural and Forestry Land into Building
Land, Development of Converted Land (Zoning) .................................... 23
2.1.
Survey of planning documents - standards and regulations,
spatial and master plans, plans for regional development – S.
Zeković and M. Vujošević ............................................................................ 25
2.1.1. National and local legal provisions in Serbia on the utilization of
agricultural and forest land, respective conversion into urban
(construction) land and zoning: legal basis and procedures .......................... 25
2.1.1.1. Introduction................................................................................................. 25
2.1.1.2. Legal regulatory framework defining the conversion of agricultural
and forestry land into urban and construction land: general aspects........... 26
2.1.1.3. National and local regulations on zoning and land use densities ................ 27
2.1.1.4. The utilization of agricultural land and its conversion ............................... 29
5
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
2.1.1.5. Forest land utilization ................................................................................. 30
2.1.1.6. The Act on National Land Cadastre (2009 and 2010) ................................ 30
2.1.1.7. Regulatory framework for the privatization of urban land and the
conversion of leasehold on urban land in public ownership into
property right .............................................................................................. 31
2.1.2. National, regional and local spatial and urban planning policy
documents: land use policy ........................................................................... 34
2.1.2.1. Land use policy at national level ................................................................ 34
2.1.2.2. Land use policy and administration in Belgrade area ................................. 43
2.1.2.3. Concluding remarks .................................................................................... 49
2.2. A brief review of the Serbian legal and regulatory framework
(spatial regulations and planning instruments) related to urban
growth/sprawl and the land market applied to Belgrade – S.
Zeković and M. Vujošević ............................................................................... 53
2.2.1. Conversion of agricultural and forest land to urban land and urban
sprawl ............................................................................................................ 55
3. Research of Urban and Demographic Dynamics of Metropolitan
Regions ............................................................................................................... 61
3.1.
Population dynamics and land cover changes of urban areas – N.
Krunić N., M. Maksin, S. Milijić, O. Bakić and J. Đurđević ........................ 63
3.2.
Recent trends in population dynamics and land cover changes in
metropolitan areas – N. Krunić and A. Gajić .............................................. 65
3.2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 65
3.2.2. Case study - Metroplitan areas of Belgrade, Sofia and Rome ....................... 66
3.2.2.1. The City of Belgrade ................................................................................... 66
3.2.2.2. The City of Sofia ......................................................................................... 67
3.2.2.3. The City of Rome ........................................................................................ 67
3.2.3. Methodological Framework .......................................................................... 67
3.2.4. Results ........................................................................................................... 68
3.2.4.1. General trends in development of metropolitan areas - Urban
Morphological Zone ................................................................................... 68
3.2.4.2. The City of Belgrade ................................................................................... 69
3.2.4.3. The City of Sofia ......................................................................................... 78
3.2.4.4. The City of Rome ........................................................................................ 84
6
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
3.2.5. Brief discussion and concluding remarks ...................................................... 86
4.
Market Analysis – Land Market, Demand and Supply of Land
and Properties, Housing Policy .................................................................. 93
4.1.
Spatial regularization, planning instruments and urban land
market in a post-socialist society: the case of Belgrade – S.
Zeković, M. Vujošević and T. Maričić .......................................................... 95
4.2.
Market analysis of housing in Belgrade – S. Zeković, M.
Vujošević and T. Maričić .............................................................................. 97
4.2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 97
4.2.2. Key principles of urban land management (the so-called “stratified
demand” aspect) ........................................................................................... 98
4.2.3. The case of Belgrade metropolitan region (Greater Belgrade Area) .............. 99
4.2.4. General remarks about the practice of urban land management in the
Belgrade City Area ..................................................................................... 102
4.2.5. A preliminary analysis and assessment of housing market in the
Belgrade area ............................................................................................... 105
4.2.6. Basic market indicators for urban land and real estate ................................. 117
4.3.
Transformation of housing policy in a post-socialist city: the
example of Belgrade – S. Zeković, T. Maričić and M. Cvetinović............ 120
5.
Research of the Urban Land Policy and Urban Planning and
Governance ................................................................................................ 123
5.1.
Evaluation of urban construction land: recommendations for
local development – S. Zeković ................................................................. 125
5.2.
Spatial regularization, planning instruments and urban land
market in a post-socialist society: the case of Belgrade – S.
Zeković, M. Vujošević and T. Maričić ........................................................ 127
5.3.
Planning and land policy tools for limiting urban sprawl under
the economic uncertainty: example of Belgrade – S. Zeković, M.
Vujošević and T. Maričić ............................................................................ 129
6.
Role and Efficiency of Nodes in a Polycentric Urban System ............... 131
6.1.
Urban society and resilience of Belgrade and Novi Sad in the
network of settlements in Serbia – recent changes and
perspectives – J. Petrić, J. Basarić and T. Bajić. ........................................ 133
7
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
7.
Research of Urban Growth / Sprawl – Analysis of Belgrade ................ 135
Belgrade metropolitan area development. ......................................................... 137
7.1. Local economic development and transformation of urban
structures in municipality Stari Grad in Belgrade – S. Zeković ............ 137
7.2. Development of Belgrade’s urban form: compactness, urban
sprawl and urban “resilience” – J. Petrić and T. Nikolić ......................... 138
7.3. A Preliminary Analysis of Sustainable Development in the BMA –
S. Zeković, M. Vujošević and T. Maričić.................................................... 140
Development of a system of tools for monitoring and assessment of
urban sprawl. ............................................................................................. 143
7.4.Planning and land policy tools for limiting urban sprawl: example
of Belgrade – S. Zeković, M. Vujošević, Bolay J.C., Cvetinović M.,
Miljković Živanović J. and T. Maričić ........................................................ 143
8.
Sustainable Socio-Economic Development of the SEE Region .............. 145
8.1.
Development of South-Eastern Europe: The Role of Industrial
Policy – S. Zeković and M. Vujošević. ....................................................... 147
Part II – GUIDELINES AND INDICATORS FOR LIMITING URBAN
SPRAWL
1.
Some guidelines on limiting urban sprawl – S. Zeković and M.
Vujošević ..................................................................................................... 151
1.1.
Introductory remarks. .................................................................................. 153
1.2.
Two international documents ...................................................................... 153
1.3.
Guideliness for transformation of urban land policy and tools for
limiting urban sprawl (traditional and more flexible) .................................. 156
2.
Guidelines and recommendations for the harmonization of
regulations for funding urban land equipment, local economies
and local public finances in Serbia – S. Zeković ..................................... 163
3.
Some indicators for limiting urban sprawl ............................................. 169
3.1.
Indicators of sprawl in relation to residential preferences – J.
Petrić, T. Bajić and N. Krunić. .................................................................... 171
3.2.
Indicators of urban sprawl and urban land policy – S. Zeković,
T. Maričić and M. Vujošević ....................................................................... 185
3.2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 185
8
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
3.2.2. The key indicators of (limiting) urban sprawl and urban land ..................... 189
3.2.3. Anticipatory indicators of urban sprawl ....................................................... 192
3.2.4. Basic market indicators of urban land and real estate .................................. 193
3.2.5. Indicators of multi-functional urban land-use .............................................. 194
3.2.6. Ecological indicators for reducing urban sprawl .......................................... 197
3.2.7. Conclusions .................................................................................................. 199
3.2.8. Appendix ...................................................................................................... 202
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 205
ANNEX ............................................................................................................ 213
1. Key findings of the IAUS TURaS team on the role of national
legislation, development document and market on the urban sprawl
in the Belgrade metropolitan area – M. Vujošević
2. Residential preference survey of people in Kaluđerica – J. Petrić and
T. Bajić
3. The role of the Belgrade Metropolitan Area in improving
territorial capital of Serbia: great hopes, false promises, and bleak
futures? The case of the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia
(2010) – M. Vujošević and N. Krunić
4. 3rd Prize Award at the 23rd International Urban Planners’
Exhibition, held in Belgrade, in a category Research and studies in
the field of urban design, for the “Study of Residential Preferences
of People in Kaluđerica as a Suburban Settlement of Belgrade“ – J.
Petrić and T. Bajić
9
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
1.
S
SO
OM
ME
EG
GU
UIID
DE
ELLIIN
NE
ES
SO
ON
N LLIIM
MIITTIIN
NG
GU
UR
RB
BA
AN
N
S
WLL
AW
RA
SP
PR
Slavka Zeković and Miodrag Vujošević
151
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
152
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
1.1. Introductory remarks
Not including the reference section, this contribution consists of two parts. In
the first part, some comments are extended on the respective roles and contents of
two key international documents in this area, viz., International Guidelines on
Urban and Territorial Planning (Draft, UN Habitat, 2015), and the Leipzig Charter
on Sustainable European Cities (2007). In the second part, some guidelines for the
transformation of urban land policy and tools for limiting urban sprawl are presented
and briefly interpreted, both traditional instruments and tools, and some which are
more innovative and flexible. At the end of the paper we suggest that all of the
documents mentioned (guidelines, charters, strategies, etc.) may fairly easily be
implemented in the areas which are our main interest.
1.2. Two international documents
The document International Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning
(UN Habitat, 2015, from now on: IGUTP) belongs to a larger group of international
documents that should serve as the general directions for guiding urban and
territorial planning, along with parallel documents from national governments, local
authorities, development partners (e.g., World Bank, OECD), research institutions,
academia, civil society organizations, etc. The IGUTP complements two other sets
of UN Habitat guidelines, that is, the Guidelines on Decentralization (2007), and the
Guidelines on Access to Basic Services for All (2009), which have been used in
many countries to catalyze policy and institutional reforms (see Zeković et al,
2015a).
Twelve (12) key principles of the IGUTP are categorized into four groups, which
are:
Urban policy and governance;
Urban and territorial planning for sustainable development;
Urban and territorial components; and
Implementation of urban and territorial planning.
The IGUTP intends to constitute a global framework for improving policies,
plans and designs for more compact, socially inclusive, better integrated and
connected cities and territories that support sustainable urban development and
urban resilience under the impacts of climate change. Also, the IGUTP supports
complementary activities and their national adaptation, the adjustment of legal and
regulatory frameworks, and the application of the adapted guidelines to a particular
city. To that end, national governments should, inter alia: first, promote urban and
153
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
territorial planning and synergies, and link urban planning to regional development
to ensure territorial cohesion at the city/regional level; and second, promote compact
cities, regulate and control urban sprawl, develop progressive densification strategies
combined with land market regulations, optimize the use of urban space, reduce the
cost of infrastructure and the demand for transport, and limit the footprint of urban
areas, in order to effectively address the challenges of climate change. The IGUTP
also has another set of goals comprising the following: first, the development of a
universally applicable reference framework to guide urban policy reforms; second,
to capture universal principles from national and local experience that could support
the development of diverse planning approaches adapted to different contexts; third,
to complement other international guidelines aimed at fostering sustainable urban
development; and fourth, to raise the urban and territorial dimensions of the
development agendas of national, regional and local governments.
So far there have been a number of evaluation papers concerning the
implementation of some UN Habitat and related documents. For example,
Sietchiping (2014) analyzed the IGUTP vis-à-vis the UN Habitat Urban Planning
and Design Strategy 2014-2019 (which discussed urban sprawl vs. compactness),
and some national urban policies. When applied to Kosovo and Serbia, the
document Guidelines on Access to Basic Services for All (2009) shows that these
areas have the lowest access to basic services in isolated rural areas, peri-urban areas
and slums. Consequently, a number of specific policy instruments are needed,
specifically for complex and under-serviced territories (viz., rural areas, fastgrowing cities/urban areas, slums, urbanized areas at risk, and so on), in order to
cope with the lack of basic services and territorial planning gaps.
Figure 1. Countries with comprehensive national programs of integrated
planning of urban development (for parts of urban areas or deprived zones)
Source: Beckmann D., The European Perspective – Integrated Urban
Development as a new planning approach in the European Union – an overview,
BBSR-Bundesinstitut fur Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung, Studie “5 Jahre
Leipzig Charta – Integrierte Stadtentwicklung als Erfelsfolgsbeinung einer
nachthaltigen Stadt”, presented at the Urban Energies congress in Berlin, 2012.
154
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
Figure 2. Countries with national or regional programs or national
guidelines for integrated urban development (for parts of urban areas or
deprived zones)
Source: ibid.
Figure 3. Countries implementing integrated urban development (for parts
of urban areas or deprived zones) at the local level
Source: ibid.
Another document, the Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities (2007) shows
that the European plan to strengthen citizen participation in urban design should support
the integrated urban development strategy as a tool for improved city management,
based on the principles of competitiveness, and social and territorial cohesion. The
Strategy for the development of European cities should be based on strengthening the
policy of integrated urban development in line with the Lisbon Strategy (Europe 2020),
the EU Sustainable Development Strategy and the European Employment Strategy,
altogether putting stronger focus on deprived city areas and making better use of the
integrated urban development approach. In this respect, there are considerable
differences among European countries in relation to the approach used in integrated
urban strategies, as depicted in the following three figures.
155
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
1.3. Guidelines for the transformation of urban
land policy and tools for limiting urban
sprawl (traditional and more flexible)
According to UN Habitat (2013), large urban or metropolitan areas have now
been emerging in Europe’s transitional countries. Their typical feature is
uncontrolled urban sprawl. The outbreak of world economic and financial crisis,
growing economic uncertainties and risks, the spread of “the real-estate bubble”,
housing boom and the switch from the urban land bubble to urban doom (urban
sprawl) have all contributed to a drastic decline in the real-estate value in cities and
expansion of urban sprawl. Limiting urban sprawl (or the “urban growth machine”)
is not merely a part of integrative planning practices, instead it should be part of a
realistic approach based on national/strategic policies, market trends and
governance, and it depends on policy tools (Zeković at al. 2015c). In this respect,
perhaps, new theoretical approaches would be needed with regard to development
planning and market policy. For example, Davy (2014) defined a multi-rational
theoretical concept (poly-rational theory), based on a more ramified understanding
of dominant types of land use, each type needing its own kind of property rules. The
eight types of land use are: insular; opportunistic; kinship; collaborative; corporate;
structural; container; and environmental. This approach marks a departure from
standard planning versus market dichotomies.
Some traditional planning tools
Here, some traditional planning tools and tools of urban land control will be briefly
described, viz.:
Zoning regulations (also comprising regulation of the maximum construction
index and occupancy rate for eight predominant types of land-use) will be kept for
their essential role in the urban (city) planning. They help to determine the function
of properties in specific locations in order to ensure the city is well-planned. A
property may be zoned for commercial or industrial use, or for residential use.
Sometimes properties like “live/work” spaces contain multiple zones, some for
residential and some for commercial use. When a city government or a property
owner wishes to change the terms of property use, they may need to go through the
process of rezoning physical property, which may be simple or complex depending
upon the city’s demands and requirements. Zoning and other land-use regulations,
especially when adopted at the local level, tend to result in lower overall urban
densities and encourage urban sprawl. Pogodzinski and Sass (1991) indicate that
the effects of zoning depend on several factors, including: a) what local
governments control through zoning; b) how strictly zoning regulations are
enforced; c) who controls the zoning process, and d) the metropolitan context in
which the zoning takes place. The elements of zoning ordinances and the
subdivision of regulations can be classified into three types: a) regulations that are
regional or spatial in orientation; b) regulations that are process-oriented or
transportation-oriented and c) regulations that shape the individual development
sites. The regulations strongly prescribe what is permitted and what is forbidden,
156
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
and their rationale is the so-called ‘command-and-control’ approach. Many
countries have different regulations on land-use, and usually the public sector
intervenes more in the construction of urban areas than elsewhere. In some
countries, the government retains a discretionary power, e.g. in Serbia, the recently
adopted lex specialis for the project ‘Belgrade Waterfront’, see Zeković et al.
2016), while in the overwhelming majority of European countries government
power is limited by the constitution and laws.
Analogously, mechanisms for controlling urban growth boundaries will keep
their prominent role.
As for infrastructure investments, they are not expected to lose relevance
during urban (city) growth, for the simple reason that the pressure to improve
services and provide essential infrastructure can be enormous. Because land cannot
be moved, it can be a unique opportunity and basic resource for generating local
revenues. Land-based financing should cover land valuation, land and property
taxation and other means of creating revenue through land and over land. Here, of
the utmost importance is the redistribution of the costs of public infrastructure
among all stakeholders (within various approaches of planning-cummarket/market-cum-planning, predominantly non/administrative, etc.).
Controlling green belts will similarly be kept as a fundamental tool of the antisprawl growth policy (Pond, 2009). This also applies to another phenomenon, i.e.,
the leapfrogging phenomenon, which can emerge as development jumps in the
green belt boundaries in the search for cheap land available for rezoning
(Bimbaum, 2004).
Urban land policy with price mechanisms, including, inter alia, development
fees, property taxes, etc., will keep their relevance as well. For example, the land
development fee will be kept as a local public revenue instrument which is of crucial
importance for financing infrastructure development in the BMA, according to the
Building land development program.25
Here, one should observe some important conclusions of the UN Habitat26, based on
vast empirical experience, e.g.: urban development should be financed through capturing
increases in land value resulting from public investment or broad urban trends, tools and
policies which should be implemented under local conditions; land valuation methods
25
The level of the land development fee in the BMA is: for housing from 8.6 EUR/m2
(VIII zone) to 358.48 EUR/m2 of floor space (in I extra zone); for commercial assignment:
from 13.37 EUR/m2 (in VIII zone) to 576.65 EUR/m2 of floor space (in I extra zone); for
industry: from 11.04 EUR/m2 (in VIII zone) to 411.89 EUR/m2 of floor space (in I zone). All
prices are calculated in accordance with data from 2014. The fee levels are regulated by
ordinance (I-VIII zones) in Belgrade City. The fee is determined in accord with the
following criteria – the degree of infrastructural equipment, the program of construction
land, urban zones (there are eight zones in BMA), and the type of land-use and building
surface.
26
Research for the Reduction of Land Consumption and for Sustainable Land
Management, cf. http://www.refina-info.de/termine/termin.php?id=2239, accessed
10th March, 2015.
157
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
should also be implemented within the local administrative capacities; and so on. In
addition to property tax, which may include the market price of building land, the most
important fiscal tool is land value tax on the increased value of building land/property
as an ad valorem tax. Taxes/fees on the increased value of urban land should capture its
extra value resulting from public sector investments. (To note, here land rent
corresponds to an annual discount rate.)
Some more innovative and flexible urban land policy tools
Besides the traditional planning tools, there is a need for alternative, adaptive or
complementary approaches to the current “command-and control” regulation. Common
law, public and private agreements, and market-based tools, as contemporary
regulations, enable the development of the hybrid “smart regulation” approach. Such
regulations may predictably exert a positive impact on the changing urban sprawl and
planning. The introduction of more innovative and flexible urban land policy tools
would support the new role of planning in creating a more resilient city, viz.:
Urban rezoning, as adaptation, adjustment or deconstruction of densities and zone
rules. Rezoning is the term used for any change in zoning by-laws and zoning
urban plans. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the concept of mixed urban
land-use has become quite popular. Many cities have embarked
on rezoning campaigns, labeling the resulting areas as “mixed use”. Rezoning is the
act of changing the terms of property use for an area of land. When a property
owner wants to use land in a way that is not permitted by the zoning of his/her
property, the owner must request to rezone the property to a classification which
permits the desired use. Rezoning is a legislative action which is considered
through a complex process. Rezoning may occur in either of the three following
ways: a) To change the current zoning of a site or to accommodate other uses or
forms of development; b) To change the current zoning of a site from one standard
zoning area to another; and c) To change the text of the by-law on zoning and
development.
Tradable development rights, trading density for benefits - density bonus
policy. Cities have used the density bonus as a policy when rezoning has been
applied as a tool to capture the increased land value created by the rezoning
(Moore, 2012; Baxamusa, 2008). The liberal policy instrument is the Purchase of
Development Rights (PDR) or Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs.
The former is similar to the conservation easements which are an established
regulatory tool, while the latter bears some resemblance to the density bonuses
provisions. The PDR and TDR tools are voluntary and require direct funding.
Infrastructure financing (capital infrastructure, utilities) may have to be adapted
to new needs relating to its influence on the urban form and vice versa.
Regulatory arrangements of the Public-Private-Partnerships (PPP) for the
capture of the increased urban land values. PPP includes different types of legal
acts/tools, viz., community development agreements (e.g., the program of urban
re/development), community benefits agreements, planning agreements,
negotiation, covenants, and easements – as types of servitudes. Covenants are tools
for the management of urban growth, as well as land-use changes which include
environmental protection. An easement is a non-possessory right to use the real
158
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
property of another for a specific purpose without possessing it. The use of
covenants and transferable/tradable development rights is a part of land-use
management. Regulatory mechanisms provide the indirect capture of increased
urban land value, usually through the synergy of PPP, urban propositions and
planning arrangements. In recent years, social impact bonds have often been
applied, which means that an investor who builds on an exclusive location has to
finance the construction of the social services and social housing at that location,
without the financial participation of the local community. This instrument is
different from the so-called “bonus” urban zoning, which implies that the investor
may obtain a permit for a higher additional floor space index than allowed, parallel
with the requirement to invest in the social services.
Implosive and inclusive zoning is one of the complementary tools, especially in
the revitalization of brown-fields. In some countries, the protection of human rights
and social inclusion in urban renewal involves inclusive zoning, i.e. the rights of
the “caught up” land owners/users. Those who invest in attractive locations have an
obligation to build housing for the “domicile” citizens (e.g., the poor).
Land tenure is a form of participation of the private land owner in strategic
projects (e.g. infrastructure) that provide income to the owner (Mittal, 2014). The
introduction of development land in the periphery is a tool for the conversion of
agricultural land for urban uses. (Zeković et al, 2015b). A very important
instrument is the introduction of so-called urban land management/
readjustment. This urban land instrument was introduced in Serbia by PCL
(Planning and Construction Law) in 2011 (see Müller et al., 2015).
The introduction of governmental or municipal bonds for the purchase of
land for public purposes and infrastructure construction, as well as the
introduction of financial derivatives (CDS-Credit Default Swaps, and others),
management models, and the improvement of public participation and decisionmaking in urban planning, the introduction of various PPP arrangements, etc.
The introduction of transparent approaches, principles and methods of urban
land evaluation (see Müller et al, 2015).
In accordance with the rule of law, how can new instruments contribute to more
efficient planning? For example, the Global Land Tools Network (GLTN) work
programme offers land tools as a practical way of solving problems in land
administration and management for the next 10 years. Land tools are also a way of
enforcing principles, policies and legislation for limiting urban sprawl. They include
many approaches and methods: legal means, a set of software, the accompanying
protocols, guidelines, etc. Land tools may be complementary or may offer alternative
ways of working. According to GLTN (UN-Habitat, 2013), land tools should be
affordable, equitable, prone to subsidiarity, sustainable, systematic and large scale.
Governance as a process of tool development should provide access to land and the use
of land, the implementation of decisions, and reconciliation of conflicting interests in
urban land affairs. According to UN-Habitat, urban governance provides a lot of ways in
which institutions can organize the daily management of a city, by realizing the shortterm and strategic decisions of urban development. According to GLTN the
development of 18 land tools is divided into five themes, and cross cutting issues: 1)
Access to land and tenure security (i.e. tenure security, land rights, contracts; socially
159
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
appropriate legal adjudication, statutory and customary methods, the land management
approach); 2) Land administration and information (spatial units, the land agencies
budget approach); 3) Land-based financing (land tax for financial and land
management); 4) Land management and planning (urban and spatial planning, regional
land-use planning, land readjustment); and 5) Land policy and legislation (regulatory
framework, legal allocation of assets; expropriation, eviction and compensation); and
cross cutting (capacity development, conflict/ disaster, the environment, land
governance). Urban land governance requires clear legal frameworks, and efficient
political, managerial and administrative processes, as well as guidelines and tools for
limiting urban sprawl (Zeković et al., 2015b). This is a process of decision-making
which includes a lot of stakeholders who have different priorities for land-use or
development. Hartmann and Needham (2012) find that planning approaches are rooted
in the activities of making, implementing and enforcing property rights over land and
buildings, i.e., “planning by law and property rights” and they are unavoidable in a
society with the rule of law.
We conclude this contribution by putting forth two issues still open for further
discussion, viz.:
• How to prepare the planning and development regulations of urban sprawl
in a situation which lacks some guidance for uncertainties, disturbances,
and limitations in complexity contexts; and
• How can the more traditional tools be adapted to improve their
compatibility with the current trends of urban sprawl and global challenges
– under economic and financial uncertainties?
List of References
Baxamusa, M. (2008) Empowering Communities Though Deliberation:
Community Development Agreement, Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 27, pp.261-276.
Birnbaum, L. (2004) Simcoe County: the new growth frontier. Toronto: Neptis
Foundation.
Beckmann D., The European Perspective – Integrated Urban Development as
new planning approach in the European Union – an overview, BBSRBundesinstitut fur Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung, Studie „5 Jahre
Leipzig Charta – Integrierte Stadtentwicklung als Erfelsfolgsbeinung einer
nachthaltigen Stadt“, presented on Kongress „Urban Energies“, Berlin,
2012.
Davy, B. (2014) Polyrational property: rules for the many uses of land,
International journal of the commons, 8(2), pp. 472-492.
Hartmann, T., Needham, B. (eds.) (2012) Planning by law and property rights
reconsidered. Farnham: Ashgate.
International Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning, UN Habitat,
Nairobi, Kenya, 2015.
160
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
Mittal, J. (2014) Self-financing land and urban development via land
readjustment and value capture, Habitat International, no. 44, pp.314-323.
Moore, A. (2012) Trading Density for Benefits: Toronto and Vancouver,
Institute of Municipal Finance and Governance, Munk Centre, University of
Toronto.
Müller H., Wehrmann B., Ćolić R., Fürst A., Begović B., Jochheim-Wirtz C.
,Božić B., Ferenčak M., Zeković S., Strengthening of Local Land
Management in Serbia. Module 1: Urban Land Management (Ed. H.
Müller), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
GmbH, GIZ Office, AMBERO Consulting Representative Office Belgrade,
Republic of Serbia Ministry of Construction, Transport and Infrastructure,
2015
Pond, D. (2009) Institutions, political economy and land-use policy: greenbelt
politics in Ontario, Environmental Politics, 18(2), pp.238-256.
Pogodzinski, J.M., Sass, T.R. (1991) Measuring the effects of municipal zoning
regulation: A Survey, Urban Studies, 28, pp.597-621.
Sietchiping, R. (2014) Towards development of International Guidelines on
Urban and Territorial Planning, First meeting of the UNECE Task Group
on Urban Planning, UN-Habitat.
Zeković S., Vujošević M,, Bolay J.C., Cvetinović M., Živanović Miljković J. and
Maričić T. (2015a) Planning and land policy tools for limiting urban sprawl:
the example of Belgrade, Spatium, International Review, No. 33/ /2015, pp.
69-75., ISSN: 1450-569X (Print), ISSN:2217-8066 (Online)
Zeković, S., Vujošević, M., Maričić, T. (2015b) Spatial regularization, planning
instruments and urban land market in a post-socialist society: the case of
Belgrade, Habitat International, 48, pp. 65-78.
Zeković S., Vujošević, M.,Maričić T. (2015c) Planning and land policy tools for
limiting urban sprawl under the economic uncertainty: example of
Belgrade, Book of Abstracts of the International Conference on “Changing
Cities II: Spatial, Design, Landscape & Socio-economic Dimensions”,
Department of Planninfg and Regional Development, Porto Heli, Greece,
22-26 June 2015., University of Thessaly, p.157.
Zeković, S., Maričić, T., Vujošević, M. (2016) Megaprojects as an Instrument of
Urban Planning and Development: Example of Belgrade Waterfront
Project, 2016 UNESCO Chair Conference on Technologies for
Development: From Innovation to Social Impact, 2-4 May 2016, EPFL,
Lausanne, Switzerland.
UN-Habitat, (2013) The state of European cities in transition 2013. Taking stock
after 20 years of reform. Nairobi/Krakov: UN-Habitat& Institute of Urban
Development.
UN-HABITAT,
www.unhabitat.org
http://unhabitat.org/urban-themes/land/
accessed 1st March, 2015.
161
T U R A S
TRANSITIONING TOWARDS URBAN
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
162