I
Master thesis
The Planning of Multifunctional
Land Use
Master Thesis Spatial Planning Radboud University
Nijmegen School of Management
Lars Meurs 5-11-2020
II
Colophon
Master Specialization Graduation subject Key words Author Student number First reader Second reader Internship Mentors Spatial PlanningCity, Water, Climate Change
Sustainable spatial development
Multifunctional land use, governance factors, sustainability, urban development E.A.F. Meurs S4448863 Prof. dr. S. Meijerink Dr L.J. Carton PAS B.V.
Houten, the Netherlands M. Valkenet
Senior Consultant Spatial Development
G. Damen
III
Preface
Here I present to you the Master thesis “Planning Successful multifunctional development”. This thesis is the final product of my Master Spatial Planning. During my thesis I did my internship at PAS bv, a consultancy firm spatial development and spatial economy.
My scientific education started with the Bachelor Geography, planning and Environment. This is where the awareness and intrigue for sustainability was shaped. Spatial development can be a big influence on the climate issue cities face. I wanted to study a way sustainable development could be paired with creating a livable and attractive environment.
First of all I want to thank my mentor at the Radboud University prof. dr. Sander Meijerink. I enjoyed our meetings both socially and professionally. He guided me well. He took the time to think about issues I came across and we discussed them. Without his critical and positive feedback I would not have been able to reach the same level of quality in my thesis as I did now. The internship at PAS bv was both very pleasant and educational. I would like to show my gratitude to Maarten Valkenet and Gijs Damen for guidance during my thesis and for helping me find the respondents I needed for my interviews.
In the same time I was writing my thesis and finishing my internship the corona crisis erupted. This complicated things with the closing of the University library and being forced to work from home. Nevertheless, all respondents were willing to meet with me online for the interviews. I would like to thank them all for helping me with my research, in particular Paul van Roosmalen, Hedzer Pathuis and Elsert Sikma for the effort of helping me reach out to more respondents.
I sincerely hope you will enjoy reading this study.
With kind regards,
Lars Meurs
IV
Summary
The pressure on the planning system in the Netherlands increases rapidly with more issues needing to be prioritized on the agenda. The transformation to sustainable development and coping with scarcity are two very relevant issues. In particular urban areas face difficulties with challenges like these. Cities play a special role in both the cause and the solution of these challenges. Because of the high density in urban areas the influence on pollution is relatively high, while space is relatively scarce. By combining spatial functions, space can be used in multiple ways, can facilitate multiple activities and have multiple goals, i.e. the same amount of space at one location can meet the needs of more people.
The goal of the research is to study what factors contribute to the success of multifunctional spatial planning and if multifunctional planning stimulates sustainable urban development. Various factors derived from the literature are analyzed to see if those factors either contribute or contradict the process of multifunctional planning. The main research question “What governance factors are success
factors and what are considered failure factors concerning the planning of multifunctional land use development in urban areas in the Netherlands in order to stimulate sustainable development?”, is
going to be answered in this study. It is important to explain the relevance of multifunctional land use. Rodenburg and Nijkamp explain in their study (2004) that different spatial functions provide space for certain activities and that some of these functions and activities go better together then others. The main functions in urban areas are commercial, residential housing, industry and public service. With the sustainability issues high on the agenda, other spatial functions nature, water and energy claim a position in these urban areas.
Multifunctional land use is defined as “land on which the number of functions, degree of interweaving
or spatial heterogeneity increases. An increased degree of multifunctionality may therefore result from the addition of functions to the area from an increase in dispersion of the number of functions of from an increase in the number of other functions within a territory”. It plays a relevant role in the
sustainability challenge of urban areas. Multifunctional land use is relevant for stimulating sustainability in urban areas because it will allow the co-existence of both compatible and competing uses of land, it allows people to use space more efficiently, it creates synergy and it creates a support from different users of land. Multifunctional land use enables spatial planners to meet the need of urban use whilst also increase biodiversity and climate adaptation in urban areas.
Governance of spatial development decides mainly the complexity and also level of multifunctionality of land use. It is important to choose the right strategy and to know the factors which make this strategy to a success. The literature provides various factors that influence the success of the planning of multifunctional land use. The first being boundaries, which is a complex and abstract factor. It refers to the way of interaction and attitude of the involved stakeholders. Some combination of boundary actions, either challenging, maintaining, challenging or upholding, have different effects on the planning. The level of involvement of stakeholders is also an important factor. In what stage and what kind of stakeholders are involved during the process, influence the planning process and frankly the result. Also, whether local stakeholders are involved could influence the process. Besides these factors also capacity, financial and technical recourses influence multifunctional land use. The literature staters capacity, financial synergy effects and technical knowledge have positive effects on the process of multifunctional land use while the high investments costs have a negative effect. This was studied by analyzing cases.
To provide empirical data for the research, the Multifunctional rooftop program in Rotterdam and Wonderwoods in Utrecht were studied. For each case in-depth interviews were held. With experts and experienced respondents from different backgrounds all above factors were discussed on relevance and how it will influence the planning of multifunctional projects. The interviews also provided new insights and factors which were not or just mildly discussed in the literature. The multifunctional
V
rooftop program is a policy program founded in 2018. The goal is to increase sustainable use of space through the use of roofs. The municipality of Rotterdam is unique in this scenario because of their high amount of flat roof surface. The case of the multifunctional rooftop program in Rotterdam showed every project needs its own strategy and different factors are important for that specific development. There is no “one-size-fits-all” approach regarding multifunctional land development. Boundary actions proved to be a relevant aspect. Open, integral approach from stakeholders is crucial to realize multifunctional land use. The interviews made clear that internal boundary actions, meaning within the municipality itself, have a big influence. Boundary challenging in the form of cross-sectoral collaborations from the start are needed to create support and to realize this integral approach. The case also showed the presence of technical knowledge is a significant factor of success.
Wonderwoods is the other case researched for this study. Wonderwoods is a green multifunctional project located in the station area of Utrecht. It is an innovative development with a complex planning process prior to it. The building on itself has a sustainable appearance with much green implemented in the design. Mixing urban green with a housing function on this level was one of the components that contributed to the complexity of the project. By studying the strengths and weaknesses in the multifunctional planning process of Wonderwoods some interesting results were found. This case really emphasized the importance of boundary actions in multifunctional development. It brought forward that seemingly conservative and contradicting boundary actions actually improved the success of the planning of the project, when used right. Regarding stakeholder involvement it showed different strategies on how to manage and why it is important to involve stakeholders in the early stages of the planning. By holding competitive dialogues, the stakeholders are optimally involved and exploited. Technical knowledge also proved to be a critical factor. This was partially due to the combination of multifunctional land use and the large size and height of this project. The capacity of the municipality was especially significant since a complex and big project like Wonderwoods needs a strong municipal appliance to guide it. Financially Wonderwoods had some struggles as well with investors who pulled back and expensive solutions for challenges faced during the project.
By doing this research there can be concluded that multifunctional projects require connecting and quality pursuing boundary actions and strong stakeholder management. Also, the cases showed it is important to clarify the goals and ambition on both project and environment (city or regional) level prior to the start of spatial planning project. It is of significance to leave enough space on which method or strategy will be chosen to realize those goals and ambitions. In addition, it showed the importance of multifunctional land use for sustainable urban development. With the scarcity and high-density population cities will become more compact. Multifunctional land use is a strong method to realize this and incorporate climate adaptive and other sustainability measures in urban planning.
VI
Content
Colophon ... II Preface ... III Summary ... IV Figures and tables ... VIII
1. Introduction to the research ... 1
1.1. Research problem statement ... 1
1.2. Research aim and research questions ... 2
1.2.1. Research aim ... 2
1.2.2. Research question ... 2
1.3. Relevance ... 2
1.3.1. Scientific relevance ... 2
1.3.2. Societal relevance ... 3
2. Literature review and theoretical framework ... 4
2.1. Introduction to multifunctional land use. ... 4
2.2. The competitive spatial market ... 4
2.3. The relevance of multifunctional land use ... 6
2.4. Necessity of multifunctional land use in sustainable land use development. ... 9
2.5. Influence of governance ... 11
2.6. Governance challenges ... 12
2.6.1. Dealing with boundaries ... 12
2.6.2. Stakeholder involvement ... 14
2.6.3. Resources ... 16
2.6.4. Technological innovation ... 17
2.7. Conceptual framework ... 18
3. Methodology ... 20
3.1. The research onion ... 20
3.1.1. Research philosophy and approach ... 21
3.2. Data gathering and analysis ... 23
3.2.1. Data collection and respondents selection ... 23
3.2.2. Interviews and data analysis ... 24
3.3. Research Reliability and validity ... 25
3.4. Operationalization ... 25
4. The multifunctional rooftop program ... 27
4.1. Case description ... 27
VII
4.3. Concept of multifunctional rooftops ... 30
4.4. Analysis ... 31 4.4.1. Boundaries ... 31 4.4.2. Stakeholders ... 32 4.4.3. Resources ... 33 4.5. Conclusion ... 37 5. Wonderwoods ... 38 5.1. Case description ... 38
5.1.1. Station area in Utrecht ... 38
5.1.2. Municipal policy ... 39 5.1.3. Multifunctionality ... 39 5.2. Analysis ... 40 5.2.1. Boundaries ... 40 5.2.2. Stakeholders ... 42 5.2.3. Resources ... 43 5.3. Conclusion ... 46 6. Conclusion ... 48 6.1. Conclusion ... 48 6.2. Recommendations... 51 6.2.1. Praxis ... 51 6.2.2. Further research ... 52 6.3. Reflection... 52 6.3.1. Reflection on Theory ... 52 6.3.2. Reflection on method ... 53 7. References ... 54 Appendices ... 58 A. List of respondents ... 58 B. Interview guide ... 59 C. Interview guide ... 62
VIII
Figures and tables
Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual model based on various theories……….19
Figure 3. The research onion (Saunders et al, 2019)………20
Figure 4. Population growth Rotterdam realized (1990-2018) and prognosis (2018-2035) (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2018, p.4)……….. 27
Figure 5. Estimated increase population density per area of Rotterdam (Gemeente Rotterdam, 2018, p.9)………..………...… 27
Figure 6. Ambition Municipality of Rotterdam (Internal document, Personal communication, 2020)……….…….28
Figure 7. Before situation plot Wonderwoods Helicopter view (CU2030, 2017)……… 38
Figure 8. Before situation plot Wonderwoods up close (CU2030, 2017)………. 38
Figure 9. Concept of Wonderwoods (stefanoboeriarchitetti.net, 2020)………49
Figure 9. Building of wonderwoods in layers (stefanoboeriarchitetti.net, 2020)………...….…...40
Tables Table 1. The relation between land use by function and human activities (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004)……….………....20
1
1. Introduction to the research
1.1. Research problem statement
This research will focus on the governance of multifunctional land use in urban areas in the Netherlands. Everywhere in the world negative externalities of climate change can be experienced. Many countries and cities are far from climate neutral, energy neutral, or sustainable at all. Cities have a large impact on pollution and thus climate change, which can have major consequences (Satterthwaite, 2010). Even though some problems are global, every country has their own government with their own sustainability policy, so consequently every country will face their own challenges. The Netherlands has a special location with relatively many coastal areas. Out of the 1027 km long border, 451 km exists out of coastline (roughly 45%). In addition to this it is situated in the delta of the Rhine, Scheldt and Meuse rivers. Approximately 35% of the country is below sea level (van den Brink, Meijerink, Termeer, Gupta, 2013). Consequently, The Netherlands is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise, increasing river discharges and increasing salt intrusion, all possible (and predicted) outcomes of global climate change.
Global climate change has consequences everywhere in the world, not just in urban areas. However, cities have a special role in the climate change issue and sustainability discussion, that is, they play two different roles (van Broekhoven & Vernay, 2018). One where they are one of the biggest victims. Meaning, cities and their inhabitants are very vulnerable to climate change and are dependent on a good climate adaptation and mitigation strategy. On the other hand, they are one of the biggest influencers of climate change. The impact cities have on climate change is rather large (Lovell & Taylor, 2013). Not only cities in developing countries where environment is less important and economic beneficial activities have priorities, e.g. cities in Africa or parts of Asia, are big polluters. Even prosperous (European) cities, where a lot of money could be invested in a sustainable urban development, are massive polluters. Even though cities have a big potential to contribute to turning their status of polluters around, many wealthy cities still have a negative carbon footprint. According to the UN, estimations suggest cities are responsible for around 75 percent of global CO2 emissions. Transport and building are the biggest contributors here. (United Nations, N.D.) The importance of sustainable cities needs to be emphasized. Sustainable cities (and their communities) are one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s) of the United Nations. The member states of the UN adopted the SDG’s in 2015 to bring an end to poverty, protect the planet and ensure that current and future generations can enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030, on a livable planet. In total there are 17 Sustainable development goals (United Nations, N.D.). Number 11 focuses specifically on ‘Sustainable Cities and Communities’, again stressing the importance. Urban areas are the powerhouses of economic growth, which cannot be neglected in order to reach sustainability goals. The United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development held in Quito on the 17th to the 20th of October 2016, i.e. Habitat III,
worked out new urban agenda (United Nations, N.D.). Through spatial developments public and private parties have the possibility to do contribute to multiple SDG’s by integrating climate adaptive measures in their spatial planning.
So, it is established cities are a key factor in the sustainability issue all countries face. Logically this would have the consequence that sustainability measures are being implement in cities on a large scale. Instruments like generating solar- or wind energy, green spaces such as parks or forests and water reservoirs take up a lot of space. On top of that are cities known as brown fields, which means the land is already build upon. The consequence of which is that (re)developments can only be realized when something is demolished or land with a certain function is altered. Unfortunately, space is not an unlimited good, especially not in urban areas. Scarcity on itself is a familiar phenomenon and not even a problem per se. Many goods are scarce goods. It however can become problematic when the demand of a scarce good is higher than the supply. This is what happens in urban areas, especially in the western part of the Netherlands. Derived from a study from 1999 on land scarcity where the researchers used GIS to make a tool on land use and map where land scarcity will arise in the future, it is clear that urban functions such as residential and industrial play a dominant part in the bidding process for the use of land. These parts of land are in high demand, but only have (very) limited supply (Hilferink & Rietveld, 1999). A study from 2015 claims because of an increase in demand and a stagnant supply urban area has become even more of a
2
scarce good over the past few decades (Venables, 2015). Hence, scarcity comes into play. Additional space claims like urban green are gaining importance as well (Yang et al., 2019). Besides urban green other sustainability measures need space to be implemented, think about solar parks, wind energy, mobility hub, green-blue infrastructures, etc. This additional space claiming land use function needs to be included in new or be integrated in already existing spatial developments.
The implementation of such a complex matter where sustainability must be standardized in land use development and a certain piece of land receives various functions is a hard task. This asks for efficient and precise governance. What is needed to realize such goals will be researched in this thesis.
1.2. Research aim and research questions
1.2.1. Research aim
The literature points out multifunctional land use is a key factor in the realization of sustainable urban areas. Before a project as such can be implemented, it needs to be planned. This complex way of planning brings many challenges for this planning phase. What governance factors are contributing and what factors are contradicting the success of planning a multifunctional land development? The aim of the research is to explore the challenges multifunctional land developments bring to the governance of these projects to reach the goal of sustainable urban development urban areas in the Netherlands. To do so a few important questions need to be answered
1.2.2. Research question
The research question reads as followed:
What governance factors are success factors and what are considered failure factors concerning the planning of multifunctional land use development in urban areas in the Netherlands in order to stimulate sustainable development?
To support this main question the following sub questions need to be answered
1. Why is multifunctional land use an important element in today’s planning system and what is the relevance of Multifunctional land use regarding urban sustainability?
2. Why is governance so important in order to realize multifunctional land use developments? 3. What governance factors are there, which ones are relevant for multifunctional land use and
which of these are considered success factors?
1.3. Relevance
1.3.1. Scientific relevance
Multifunctional land use is not a new phenomenon on its own and a quite popular planning method. This research will however contribute to the theoretic knowledge that is available on multifunctional land use development in general by analyzing new data. According to Saunders (2019) it is not necessary to develop a new theory, researching a specific problem or question is still developing new knowledge. This research will do so on a few subjects. This research will link multifunctional land use with urban sustainability, and research how the planning of this kind of development is most adequate, something the literature has not much to say about yet. Kato and Ahern (2009) claim that multifunctional land use development is key in creating sustainable landscape development. Other theories on the effect of certain factors on the planning of multifunctional land use will be discussed as well (van Broekhoven & Vernay, 2018; Rodenburg & Nijkmap, 2004; Thomaier et al., 2015). These theories will be discussed during this study. The insights of existing theories and theoretical knowledge will be the base of the prognoses This research will add to the validity of this statement.
3
This research focuses on the governance aspect of multifunctional land use development. To be more precise, it will provide an analysis of multiple governance factors and how they can possibly contribute to or hinder a successful planning stage of a multifunctional land use project. In their research van Broekhoven and Vernay (2018) conclude that although challenges are named in various studies on the topic, barely any of those studies actually empirically analyze them. This research will do so which means it will contribute to the scarce knowledge on the subject.
1.3.2. Societal relevance
One of the goals of the research is to provide clarity in governing multifunctional land use development in order to create sustainable urban areas. This research will help to do so by analyzing successful cases and what factors influenced the planning to make it successful. Besides the beneficial factors, it will also be analyzed what went wrong during the planning of the projects and why this happened? This research shows what type of conflicts there are (i.e. time or space conflicts or use conflicts) and how these can be handled best (Kato & Ahern, 2009). Besides this there is an increasing demand for climate adaptive and mitigative measures from the population of urban areas (Tompkins et al., 2010). On top of the social pressure there is an economic and environmental pressure for implementation of climate adaptation and mitigation in spatial development planning by the government. Overall, this study will help to understand and showcase the importance of multifunctional land use in creating sustainable urban areas.
During the interviews with experienced actors within the field of spatial development, there appeared to be a gap between the plan of realizing multifunctional land use and actually implementing it. Researching factors that influence this process in between where the plan is formed, is interesting according to multiple sources that contributed to this research. The results of this study will show what factors are important to make the planning of multifunctional developments successful and how this will translate to concrete actions for different stakeholders.
Lastly multifunctional land use can create potential synergies. By combining functions such as water management, development of urban green, recreation and neighborhood development a possible added value can be created. These functions can complement each other and at the same time provide certain services that otherwise would not have been possible. Thus, multifunctional land use has the potential to be hugely beneficial for urban land use. Municipalities, provinces and other parties can learn from understanding how the planning of multifunctional land use can be handled most adequately in order to create sustainable urban areas where synergy can be found.
4
2. Literature review and theoretical framework
In the following chapter a critical review of the literature will be given. In order to examine multifunctional land use and its role in the climate related issues, it will first be defined, after which sustainability and climate adaptation within spatial planning context will be explained. Secondly different types or forms of multifunctional land use will be explained. Thirdly the governance factor will be considered. The research will zoom in on different types of governance and why some area better fit for multifunctional land use then others.
2.1. Introduction to multifunctional land use.
Before one can examine multifunctional land use factors that potentially influence the planning process and its role in climate related issues, it is important to define multifunctional land use. Like many other complex concepts, there is not just one undisputed definition. Many researchers have dedicated their research studies to multifunctionality. All with a different focus on boundaries, possibilities and chances of urban greenspace and agriculture, the role of governance etc. (Broekhoven et al., 2013; Lovell, 2010; van Leeuwen, Nijkamp & de Noronha Vaz, 2010; van Buren & ten Heuvelhof, 2004; van Broekhoven & Vernay, 2018). How does this existing literature describe and define multifunctional land use? Different trends are noticeable in the literature.
2.2. The competitive spatial market
Defining the concept of multifunctional land use helps us understand what it means, which is important in order to implement it in planning policies. In order to define and understand multifunctional land use and its relevance, it is important to understand the spatial market. Generally speaking, a piece of land will receive a function based on either a physical, economic, demographic or political advantage. Areas where there is larger spatial variability in the physical, economic or political characteristics tend to be a more heterogeneous landscape, which is the case in urban areas. (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004; Rounsevell et al., 2006). In urban areas market processes dictate the division of land use. Over the last decades urban areas are gaining in popularity, which means the demand for this land rises. Since the supply cannot be increased (referring to land being a scarce commodity) and even declines as most urban land is already been taken, the price is relatively high. This means the economic driving force is a major key factor in these areas. Because of that, certain relevant factors of these market processes will be discussed. These factors will result in a spatial equilibrium (or balance) in which various different functions and activities on a particular parcel of land are the result of market processes (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004). Within the ‘spatial market’, just like in almost any other market, competition is inherent to the market. Hence, this has to be taken for granted. Since this is the case, several relevant factors need to be taken into consideration.
The first factor concerns the costs involved with spatial interaction between different locations (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004). Spatial planning includes in a way the movement of people, goods, the production factors or services or transport of information. Hence the just mentioned ‘costs’ are either transport costs or communication costs. All activities aim for the best possible accessibility of space in order to have the perfect balance between these costs and save either transport or communication costs, preferably both. Berry, Conkling and Michael Ray (1976) describe that a distance-decay is a fundamental property of spatial interaction, because it can be attributed to the costs, effort or time required to overcome friction that distance imposes on interaction. Rodenburg and Nijkamp (2004) add to this that money, energy and time are limited resources. All what is invested in interaction on one thing cannot be used elsewhere. Distance-decay describes the effects of distance on interactions between two separate locations. It reflects the relationship between the intensity of spatial interaction and distance. It includes a negative effect of distance on influence. So, when distance increases, influence decreases. This is basically a tenet derived from the central place theory of Christaller and is
5
related to Tobler’s first law of geography1 (Farhan & Murray, 2006; Pun-Cheng, 2016). If
multifunctional use of land can be implemented in urban areas, it is possible to be closer to more functions for more relevant actors where otherwise the distance between the two would be greater. Thus, multifunctional land use could possibly help against a bad distance-decay, which makes it a relevant factor for understanding the importance of multifunctional land use.
The second factor that influences competition in spatial markets is the existence of ‘agglomeration
economies’. This implies the forming of clusters whether or not per sector or in general, which was
first researched by Marshall (1890). He pointed out that firms when clustered in the same area benefit from a certain form of increasing returns to scale (Rodenburg, Nijkamp, De Groot & Verhoef, 2010). This will be explained further later in the study. The main financial benefit of agglomeration economies contains lower production costs. Spatial juxtaposition2 will result in activities that will compete for
scarce space in case of agglomeration economies. Several types can be distinguished (e.g. localisation economies, urbanisation economies and shopping externalities) (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004). Thirdly the existence of negative externalities (e.g. nuisance or annoyance) between different activities in a given area is a relevant factor. These effects are mainly found within urban areas, since there is a bigger variation in value of location depending on the character of the area and the use of adjacent land (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004). This shows urban areas are the most logical and interesting areas to research. These factors together will result in cost minimising, profit maximising or utility maximising locational behaviour. They go on stating that this means activity that can exploit the locational attributes of a given site in the most successful way will probably gain it through competitive bidding (Fujiita, 1989). This basically says that when market failures are present, an allocation will typically not be optimally Pareto efficient3. A Pareto inefficient allocation has the feature to improve
the situation for someone without damaging the situation for someone else, which is not desirable. This means that in the equilibrium, resources are not used in the most efficient way. Thus, the market process of spatial organisation and regulating will result in an (whether or not Pareto efficient) equilibrium solution (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004).
As stated above, the earlier elaborated factors will result in a spatial equilibrium in which different functions of land are the result of market processes. Since land is a scare good, there is only a finite amount of land on the earth’s surface to divide (Rounsevell et al, 2006). This competition decides what function will be selected for any piece of land at any location. Most competition between functions can be found in the inner city. The inner city ordinarily is the mobility and socio-economic hub. Various functions need to find a place in the inner city, which results in it making sense to combine them (Amimo, 2015). The balance of different land uses in a geographic area is the reflection of the competition in the spatial market between different functions. This means the way which land will be parcelled and what piece of land will receive what function is determined by the abovementioned factors. However, with an increasing pressure on land use because of high population density, scarcity because of additional space claims, etc. the governance of space gains importance. Letting the market work without intervening will not result in a pareto efficient spatial market. Hence, it is interesting to analyse governance factors and their influence on the decision-making process.
Later in this research the most relevant functions in urban areas are discussed. In order to realise an adequate and qualitatively good spatial planning policy, thus determining the spatial functions on a spatial location, it is important to ask what choice one has in determining the destination of a location or subarea. Rodenburg and Nijkamp (2004) sketch the problem that there will always be parcels unfit
1 First law of geography by Tobler: “All things are related but near things are more related than far things.” 2 Firms locating closer together
3 A Pareto improvement means that there is a way to make some people better off without making anybody
6
for either one of the yet to be mentioned functions. Combining functions can contribute to solving this problem as well.
2.3. The relevance of multifunctional land use
As mentioned before, multifunctional land use is not necessarily new. It has been applied in urban areas as soon as there where cities, whether or not on purpose, depending on the scale level (Van Broekhoven & Vernay, 2018). However, different spatial functions became separated during the industrial revolution. Mainly because of health and economic reasons housing, labor, infrastructure and nature were separated, later this happened because of functionalism and zoning (Louw & Bruinsma, 2006). The monofunctional approach was first criticized by Jane Jacobs. She argued it is more economically viable, safer, socially stable and culturally and aesthetically interesting to take a mixed-use approach in urban areas rather than a monofunctional approach.
The last few decades combining multiple land use functions in spatial planning gained ground among policy makers. One of the main reasons was because of the scarcity of the (available) space in urban areas. When there is less space available it gets more attractive to combine uses and activities on the same parts of land. Population density in urban areas grow rapidly which puts more pressure on the already scarce amount of (available) land. On top of that there are climate change related functions (e.g. green energy generation or sustainable mobility hubs) that cities will have to include in their planning processes that were not there before. These are additional space claims (Broekhoven et al., 2014). On the other hand this type of spatial planning can also offer a solution to projects that need multiple resources and without multifunctional use of space could otherwise not have been realized. This makes multifunctional land use an interesting tool in spatial urban development.
The concept of multifunctional land use has been named various times already. It is important to define the concept in order to understand and work with it. In order to define multifunctional land use, one first needs to analyze and classify spatial functions and activities on itself. In line with the above used research, their way of defining is used in this research as well. Webster’s Dictionary (1961) provides an adequate definition of ‘spatial functions’ which sounds as followed: ‘a special duty or performance
required of land in the course of work or activity’. The dictionary defines ‘human activity’ as: ‘all activities that humans carry out in (24-hour) daily life, and are defined by ‘any specific action of pursuit’
in which taking action is specified as ‘to become active; start to work, move, etc.’ (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004, p. 277). The functions that will make multifunctional land use more concrete and ultimately contribute to understanding the definition will be presented in the text below.
There are various types of land use function to distinguish and there are different human activities that can be exercised on land with certain function. It is important to consider a combination of different functions in order to analyze possible threats and opportunities. In an equilibrium market, land use functions will be in an accordance with the human activities carried out by a population. The table below shows what function complies with which activity or activities. This will be further explained later in the research. For now it is mostly of importance how ‘spatial functions’ and ‘human activities’ are defined and what types of functions and activities can be distinguished. Table 1 shows us there are 8 kinds of spatial functions, respectively residential housing, commercial/industrial use, amenities,
infrastructure, cultural facilities, water, agriculture, nature and landscape. The activities derived from
7 The table describes the functions as followed:
Residential housing is the space that is needed for living, this includes houses that are in permanent
use only.
Commercial/industrial use refers to the space that is needed to facilitate commerce and industry. This
includes e.g. office and industry locations.
Amenities are non-profit organizations (e.g. hospitals, schools, etc.) as well as shopping facilities. Infrastructure refers to the space needed for to facilitate movement of goods and persons. This includes
transport infrastructure (roads, railway, ports, airports and terminals)
Cultural facilities include areas that are destination of day trips, stadiums and amusements parks.
Besides this in includes space consumed by museums, concert halls and other cultural functions
Water is a function which refers to on the one hand, the space used by rivers, watercourses lakes ant
territorial waters having a water management function, while, on the other hand, it includes those areas that have a drinking water function such as storage and infiltrations area
Agriculture refers to the space that is needed for cropland, pasture, orchards, vineyards and
horticulture, but also the space needed for intensive, not land-constricted cattle breeding
Nature and landscape refer, in the case of a broad definition, to the space needed to maintain or guarantee the current quality of nature (biodiversity). With a narrower definition, this may refer to the
Main Ecological Structure: a policy concept used in The Netherlands for spatially connected network of
larger units of nature (including water).
From a case study from Zhou, Li, Zhang and Liu (2016) can be derived that the four main functions of urban areas are commercial, residential housing, industry and public service. A research of Hu, Yang, Li and Gong (2016) confirm this, although data from their research show especially commercial and residential housing function, where more towards the edge of urban areas agriculture and industry function claim more land space. In this study the focus is on Dutch cities. So, it must be mentioned that these are both Chinese studies and there is less data on this topic available on European or Dutch cities. An article in Gebiedsontwikkling.nu from 2014 writes about the change in the increase in housing demand and space claiming functions and mentions a surplus of the building for the traditional main functions namely housing, labor and commercial (Stroik, 2014). The above presented table shows besides the functions and activities of land use, also how compatible different functions with certain activities are. The black boxes show what functions can easily be mixed with what activity (e.g. leisure activities like living and recreation and social activities are easily carried out on land with a residential Table 1 The relation between land use by function and human activities (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004)
8
housing function, where labor functions as production, distribution and storage are easily carried out in an area with an industrial function). These functions and activities go together well and could even potentially complement each other. They do not harbor any problems in relation to spatial planning. It gets more complicated however when functions do not allow certain activities. Especially when the space is scarce and more activities are demanded on a limited amount of land, which is the case in urban areas. This is the case when for example a natural function is appointed on urban land, since activities such as living and shopping are nearly impossible to carry out on land with an agricultural or nature function. This is where the importance of multifunctional land development really becomes clear. How can functions be mixed so multiple activities can be carried out without contradicting each other? And to look a step further, how can different functions create a synergy in the area? These questions need to be considered from the beginning of the planning process.
To really understand the definition of multifunctional land use, it is also important to identify time dimensions and scale levels (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004). The timespan has a positive effect on the extent of multifunctional land use, that is the longer the timespan, the higher the extent (or intensity) of multifunctional land use. For example a sports field such as a lower laid tennis court can have a recreational function normally, but when the time-span is widened to a few days and thus the chance of rainfall is increased, this same land can be used for a water storage after heavy rainfall. The scale level has the same effect on multifunctionality. The larger the geographical scale the higher the extent of multifunctional land use. This especially interesting in urban areas. For example, integrating urban green in a spatial development. On a city or regional scale level this is bound to be present, while on a smaller geographical scale, e.g. on a project scale level, this is often not the case. (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004). The effect of scale level is generally stronger than the time dimension. Multiple kinds of uses leads to a more efficient use of time and space, which are key factors in the definition of multifunctional land use as explained earlier in this study. So, after setting up all factors needed to understand the given definitions of multifunctional land use, how can multifunctional land use actually be defined?
Multifunctional land use is a general concept, which makes it hard to define. Mander, Helming and Wiggering (2007) name characteristics of multifunctional land use but do not provide a concrete definition. According to their research the simultaneous support of habitat, productivity, regulatory, social and economic functions make a landscape multifunctional. This however is too simplistic and abstract. Priemus, Rodenburg and Nijkamp (2004) state that various definitions of ‘multifunctional land use’ have been introduced in many different studies on the topic. Back then it was a relatively new concept. In their study they refer to two of these definitions. One of these definitions of multifunctional land use is ‘the combination of different socio-economic functions in the same area’ (Priemus et al, 2000). Lagendijk and Wisserhof (1999) on the other hand give a more specified definition and describe that multifunctional land use has to meet at least one of the following four requirements: (1) intensification of land use (an increase in the efficiency of land use by a function); (2) interweaving of land use (which they define as the use of same area for several functions); (3) use of the third dimension of the land (i.e. the underground along with the surface area); and (4) use of the fourth dimension of the land (i.e. use of the same area by several functions within a certain time frame). It immediately stands out that Lagendijk and Wisserhof brought forward a more specific definition, whereas Mander, Helming and Wiggering and Priemus et al. embrace a more general one.
Rodenburg and Nijkamp (2004) follow Priemus et al. but argue that in defining multifunctional land use it is important to identify time dimensions and scale levels as Lagendijk and Wisserhof (1999). They speak about multifunctional land use as a relative-not-binary concept instead of making a real distinction between mono- and multifunctional land use. With this considered, they formulate the following definition: “A land use pattern is said to become more multifunctional when, in the area
considered, the number of functions, the degree of interweaving, or spatial heterogeneity increases. An increased degree of multifunctionality may therefore result from the addition of functions to the area
9
(multifunctionality by diversity), from an increase in dispersion of the number of functions over the area (multifunctionality by interweaving), or from an increase in the number of other functions within a territory (multifunctionality by spatial heterogeneity)” (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, p. 281).
In this research this is the definition that will be used since it is the most complete definition of the concept.
Which does not necessarily define multifunctional land use but is a significant result to achieve through implementation of the planning approach is resilience. By providing multiple social, environmental and economic functions multiple societal demands can be achieved. Sustainable needs in urban areas are for example conservation of biodiversity, food production, management of waste, water and air quality etc. This improves the heterogeneity of the landscape and therefore the resilience (Lovell and Johnston, 2009).
Now that a better understanding of multifunctionality has been established, it is important to research how this should be planned. Multifunctionality can contribute to realize sustainable urban developments that are good for energy transition, creating mobility hubs, help to decrease heat island effect etc. This however is only possible if multifunctional land use is executed the proper way. Implementing proper different functions in a certain area that actually mix well has been proven quite difficult to manage. When focusing on multifunctional land use in relation to monofunctional land use planning, it immediately stands out multiple actors are involved. Different as for monofunctional land use were less actors with mostly similar goals collaborate, actors have different sometimes incompatible interests, views and institutional settings (Broekhoven et al., 2014).
So multifunctional land use is about integrating various function on a limited area and make them operate as flawless as possible. According to both Lagendijk (2001) and Louw and Bruinsma (2006) the first mentioned approaches are more or less predecessors of multifunctional land use principle. Before multiple land use was acknowledged and implemented, mixed use was the general method. To explain the main different between the two the definition of multifunctional land use provided by Lagendijk and Wisserhof (2000) is relevant. The fourth dimension about various functions and uses of land over time, of which they claim is a requirement for a development to be multifunctional, didn’t exist in the mixed use method. Another main difference is the explicit focus on the synergy between functions in the same area that multifunctional land use has to provide, which is not necessary for mixed land use (Vreeker et al., 2004).
2.4. Necessity of multifunctional land use in sustainable land use development.
Now that it is clear what multifunctionality means, the relevance of the concept for creating sustainable landscapes has to be explained. Apart from some earlier studies the literature is quite shy on theoretical work directly linking multifunctionality and sustainable urban land development, especially with the specific focus on urban agriculture excluded (Wiggering et al., 2003; Mander et al., 2007). Multifunctional land use is in general more desirable than monofunctional land use. There are three reasons to support this claim; (1) natural systems provide various ecological services that are multifunctional; (2) multifunctional land use can save scarce space, which is evidently mainly interesting in high density locations such as urban areas, and exploit economies of synergy, which is lucrative for areas with high density of business; (3) planning and natural resource management trends have shifted from single (mono) purpose/management to multi-purpose planning/management (Kato & Ahern, 2009).
Now the question rises, is this the same for sustainable land use development? The EU utilizes the concept of multifunctionality to emphasize on the many services on agricultural grounds in addition to its prime purpose. Wiggering et al (2006) however suggest the concept of multifunctionality is given further importance to sustainable land development in the general context, provided it is regarded
10
cross-sectorally. Multifunctionality of a landscape is the key issue in defining what sustainable land development means according to Wiggering et al (2006). Also mentioned in the introduction, multifunctionality is thus a key factor in developing sustainable land use (Kato & Ahern, 2009; Wiggering et al., 2006; Barkmann et al., 2004). The theory brought forward by Kato and Ahern (2009) is that multifunctional landscapes are an important if not a necessary component of sustainable landscapes. If this is the case, it would explain why many urban areas where traditionally, since the industrial revolution, mainly monofunctional land use is applied, are not very sustainable yet. This makes it interesting to research how multifunctional land use can realize sustainable urban areas. Adding to this, studies from Selman (2009) and van Broekhoven & Vernay (2018) state multifunctional land use aims to not only integrate but also aim to address urban sustainability by creating synergies between previously separated functions. To summarize, both Kato and Ahern (2009) and van Broekhoven and Vernay (2018), among others, claim that multifunctional land use is a key component in developing synergetic sustainable landscapes which makes research success factors of governance of this land use strategy of great significance. Dekkers et al. (2012) also support this by stating multifunctionality allows for example a more accurate policy on flood risk and a wider scope of adaptation measures.
There are four reasons why the above-mentioned theory proves to be theoretically valid. First of all, multifunctional landscapes allow the co-existence of both compatible and, more special, competing uses. Secondly it can create an efficient use of limited space and time, which are two determining factors in multifunctional land use. This is explicitly useful in high density urban areas. Thirdly it can create advantages of synergy and contribute to both the economy and vitality and the environmental quality of modern cities. By creating synergy, mobility costs and negative externalities of traditional mobility, such as carbon emissions, can be reduced. Which is a positive effect on sustainability in urban areas. Fourth and lastly it can develop a wide and lasting support from the diverse users of their functions. When land gets used for multiple activities, more people are content with the use of that land since they are dependent of that function of that particular piece of land (Ahern, 1995; Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004; Imam, 2006).
In addition to scientific studies, three major organizations internationally discuss multifunctionality. The Food and agriculture Organization (FAO), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (EU). The FAO focuses mostly on multifunctional land use (instead of the other two whose focus is centered mainly around multifunctional agriculture). Their analysis of multifunctional land use types (FAO, 2000) contributes to a better understanding of potential interrelations, tradeoffs of the different functions and synergetic effects. The fact that major international organizations like this put this much effort in analyzing the topic highlights the importance of the concept (Wiggering et al., 2003).
The strength and desirability of multifunctional land use is the ability to meet the needs of different user groups, with the consequence of those user groups giving a lasting support for that area. Various activities can be exercised on the same piece of land, so the same piece of land meet the demands of various people instead of one specific group. It can both meet the needs of different users while developing wide constituency with various cultural, recreational and ecological needs and objectives (Kato & Ahern, 2009).
It is interesting to see that the integration between the earlier socio-economic functions and environmental functions depends of the patterns and intensities of land use. Urban areas are places with high intensity of land use. To realize biodiversity conservation or even an advancement of biodiversity, multifunctional human-dominated landscapes need coherent (large-scale) spatial structure of ecosystems (Mander et al., 2007).
11
2.5. Influence of governance
A well-functioning multifunctional land use plan is promising and of great relevance to realize the sustainability goals and face sustainability challenges many Dutch cities have (e.g. being carbon neutral in 2050 like Rotterdam and Tilburg). Evidently, the development of these land use plans is of utmost importance. Which means the governance of land use planning has a crucial role in the realization of these plans. Without the governance a pareto optimal distribution of urban land is unlikely (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004). Today’s world is complex and bears many challenges which makes managing the spatial planning of it a difficult task. Various studies state the importance of governance in (multifunctional) land use planning (Rodenburg & Nijkamp, 2004; Vreeker et al., 2004). Others dive deeper into the importance and research the relation between governance and land use planning and what challenges this brings with it (Kopeva et al., 2011; McNeil et al., 2014; Carvalho-Ribeiro, Lovett & O’Riordan, 2010; Broekhoven et al., 2014; OECD, 2017). Van Broekhoven and Vernay (2018) confirm this stating that various studies name challenges that come with multifunctional land use, nonetheless very few literary works actually provide empirical analysis of these challenges. They add that the degree of empirical evidence and the depth in which challenges are studies is different for each study. In the foregoing paragraphs the relevance of multifunctional land use development for sustainability in land development is explained. Wiggering et al. (2003) explain that even though specific promises and agreements were made on the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, it is still unclear how realizable concepts of sustainability should be developed and implemented. They stress the fundamental importance of obeying to so called management rules of a sustainable development. Without an effective management of sustainable development processes (e.g. multifunctional land use development) it is impossible to realize it (Wiggering et al, 2003). They claim that uniform and revisable standards of sustainability of land use management need to be identified and made legally binding. Some legally binding measures have been implemented (e.g. the BENG-demands and the upcoming environmental law (translation: ‘omgevingswet’)) but this does not force the spatial developments in general to be as sustainable as possible by law. If management of sustainable development were supported by the law, multifunctional developments would be likely to occur more often (Wiggering, 2003).
Many policy makers and scientists try to find ways to reduce this complexity with the goal of simplifying decision-making. Unfortunately for those who want to simplify this process, it is increasingly recognized that reducing assessments to a single dimension fails to include many of the cross-linkages between dimensions and ultimately leads to poor decision-making. The result will be unforeseen consequences of seemingly simple actions. Because of this limitation the Impact Assessment Guidelines from 2005 contain a European policy which clearly state Sustainable Impact Assessment should perform a real integration of economic, environmental and social issues across policy areas (Paracchini, et al., 2009). This shows the relevance of the decision-making process and thus the planning part of the development. Because of the technological and organizational complexity however, many integrated measures like multiple functions to increase sustainability fail to be realized (van Broekhoven & Vernay, 2018). What factors are responsible for this failure and what factors could possibly contribute to a successful planning and integration of multifunctional land developments in the planning process? The following paragraph will be an analysis of the existing literature on governance factors influencing the outcome of multifunctional planning.
The integration of multifunctional land use in spatial policy is a strategic way to achieve more sustainable spatial development in space scarce areas like cities. As stated earlier, many challenges concerning governance arise when realizing multifunctional spatial development plans. In order to integrate a successful governance, these challenges have to be overcome. The various challenges governance faces are mentioned and elaborated below.
12
2.6. Governance challenges
First of all, the multifunctional planning strategy brings many challenges, both in the planning phase as in the implementation phase. This research focuses on the planning phase for reasons earlier explained. These challenges can, if handled well, be factors that make the governance of multifunctional land use successful.
Second of all, it needs to be mentioned that literature on governance of multifunctional land use is rare. The majority of the literature regarding governance of multifunctional land use development is focusing on challenges of multifunctional development rather than opportunities or strengths of governance. Consequently, the success factors or failure factors of this type of land development are rarely discussed. However when challenges of the planning process are resolved or avoided, this would mean a faulty approach of planning of multifunctional land can be avoided. As stated in the last paragraph various researchers dive deeper in the meaning of these challenges. Nevertheless, in most studies the focus does not go beyond those challenges. Meaning the current literature does not put much emphasis on possible ways to find an answer for these challenges or to go one step further and look for strengths in such a process. Wiggering (2003) claims a problem-oriented approach of implementing the multifunctionality concept is considered to support sustainable land use and development, which is ultimately a goal of multifunctional land use as is described in earlier chapter (2.3), respectively. Keeping this in mind a problem-oriented approach for specifically multifunctional land use development could show that when governance challenges are tackled and handled adequately, the planning process would improve. By researching what factors are key in this process they become success factors.
2.6.1. Dealing with boundaries
One of challenges governance systems have to face is how to deal with boundaries (van Broekhoven
et al., 2015). This is the most complex challenge so ultimately it needs to be explained in-depth. The
demand for climate adapting and mitigating measures has grown within cities in the last decade. The pressure from the population towards the government to act against climate change has strongly increased (Thompkins et al., 2010). Not only from the population but also from the private sector there is pressure for the government to make climate change a regulatory factor in their planning processes. The private sector identifies bottlenecks and challenges to adaptation planning because of a lack of guidance on sustainable planning from the (local) government. These bottlenecks are being addressed to encourage simpler adaption (Tompkins et al., 2010). Relying on this driving force alone would not be enough to reach actual development goals set by governments or parties such as the UN because the pressure, especially social pressure from the public, arises from awareness created by among others such organizations and higher governments.
Broekhoven et al. (2015), O’Farrell and Anderson (2010), Priemus (2004) and others plead for a holistic planning approach where combining economic, ecological and social objectives will lead towards a more sustainable spatial development in a fragmented governance context. Currently, capacity to manage resources is often divided among multiple actors and crosses sectoral and vertical policy boundaries. Hence, actors need to coordinate activities. Developments like this fit with numerous integrated governance initiatives aimed at producing more sustainable development, such as sustainable policy integration and mainstreaming climate adaptation. Multiple studies show that realizing an integration as such creates difficult governance tasks (O’Farrell & Anderson, 2010; Priemus
et al., 2000; Broekhoven et al., 2015). The main problems concern different visions and objectives
between policy domains and from discrepant activities at governmental levels. Distinct institutional structures, practices and contextual dynamics alter and form the willingness to cooperate and coordinate among actors. When views do not align, this can result in tension between different actors. (Broekhoven et al., 2015). Taking in mind the given fact that besides a common goal of realizing a spatial (re)development all actors have their own agenda and goal, it is clear that without a
13
coordinated policy tension will arise rapidly and easily. Thus, to realize a well-functioning multiple functions land use i.e. multifunctional land use development projects, originally self-operating actors need to cooperate and align across well-established boundaries of sectors, organizations, task responsibilities, roles, ideas and ways of financing and working (Broekhoven et al., 2014). Because these actors are somewhat ‘forced’ to work together in this new governance system, boundaries are more noticeable. With the integration of multi-actor governance systems a whole has to be created where there was separation before. This asks for overcoming certain boundaries. However boundaries are not a negative feature. In fact, boundaries have significant social functions and actors actively invest to construct and maintain them (Broekhoven et al., 2015).
Before boundaries can really be researched, they also need to be defined. In essence, boundaries are sites of difference. Ways of differentiating something from what it is not (Abbot, 1995; Hernes, 2004). In this research a more detailed definition will be followed, put forward by van Broekhoven et al. (2015, p. 1007) They describe boundaries as:
“temporary established distinctions and differences between and within activity systems that
are created and agreed on by groups and individual actors over a long period of time while they are involved in those activities. These distinctions and differences can be categorizations of material
objects, people and practices”.
Van Broekhoven et al. (2015) add that Sturdy et al. (2009) usefully elaborate boundaries are about difference, identity and an intention about this. In other words, boundaries come to be by creating a difference, are important in identifying this difference in relation to another and make this salient by intending to cross, change or maintain it. When posing to combine different functions, it is relevant to know what the boundaries are and which ‘differences’ can contemplate and which cannot.
Why are boundaries so important? Boundaries are not merely lines or intangible separations. It is of great significance to identify them. Studies on organizational boundaries show that there are two typologies of boundaries. Actors either draw boundaries, where they create or maintain a ‘wall’ or ‘buffer’ to protect their resources from external disturbances, or span boundaries, where they create or maintain a ‘bridge’ to reach out to other actors to provoke and stimulate a coordination or exchange in resources and search for connections (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Friedman and Podolny, 1992; Yan and Louis, 1999 and van Broekhoven et al., 2015). Mørk et al. (2012) contributes a differentiation between stabilizing and destabilizing boundaries. He focuses how these are challenged and negotiated in innovation processes. Van Broekhoven et al. (2015) follows Dumez and Jeunemaitre (2010) who made a comparable differentiation between strategies to change boundaries and strategies to maintain them when disputes about boundaries arise. This is a relevant assumption as actors who want to realize multifunctionality aim for strategies to change current boundaries whereas, in response, actors who are sceptic or negative about multifunctionality will try to maintain those boundaries. Giving the unpredictable nature of boundaries, most of them will be constructed during a multifunctional development process, because actors will not know what they will face beforehand. This means they cannot know which boundaries are relevant. Boundaries are more often than not drawn as a reaction to something that apparently causes challenges or activates boundaries. Thereafter they will evolve and develop through the interactions and contextual dynamics of actors (van Broekhoven et al., 2014). Build upon these three ways of distinguishing, van Broekhoven et al (2014) provides a more narrow and complete distinction, respectively (1) challenge boundaries, (2) stabilize or maintain boundaries, (3) span boundaries and (4) boundaries through articulations of stories.
The first, (1) challenge boundaries, refers to problematizing existing ideas or divisions. The intention of challenging boundaries is to change a previous demarcation, for example to make it easier to cooperate with other actors. This is an important factor for multifunctionality, as challenging is usually implied in order to make integration possible. The second (2) action is stabilizing or maintaining
14
boundaries. This implies strategies to defend or draw demarcations. This is often a response to the challenging of boundaries with the idea to integrate. Drawing these boundaries can provide a layer of protection, a buffer for conflicting matters. It helps to demarcate who, and which ideas are included within the boundaries. Thirdly (3) there is the action of spanning a boundary whilst respecting the distinction it entails. Spanning provides a flow between actors crossing boundaries without its relevance being challenged. It actually reconfirms it as an active boundary, making it an obvious action. The latter boundary action (4) is that boundaries are upheld, enacted and made part of social reality through articulation of stories. This implies the stories actors tell to differentiate themselves from others, or a project from what it is not (van Broekhoven et al., 2014). The abovementioned constructing of boundaries by actors is a way to have influence on political structures and governance processes. They demarcate whether they do or do not consider something or someone as valid, relevant or inside or outside a certain category (Churchman, 1970; Broekhoven et al., 2013).
In the original governance system, actors have constructed their own boundaries over time. With a multifunctional land use development however, where a new governance system on land use planning is recommended whether or not required, it is not completely clear what boundaries are relevant or problematic from the beginning. It is during the process of the multifunctional development which boundaries will prove to be relevant as a response to what challenges or activates them (Broekhoven
et al., 2014).
As the main question states, this research focuses on the sustainability aspect of multi-functional land use. The growing pressure on urban areas (e.g. scarcity of available land, high density population, carbon emission and energy use) called for new methods of planning. Multifunctional land use planning has often been implemented. This however only combines functions in general which do not necessarily have anything to do with sustainability. With the current sustainability issues cities (and the rest of the Netherlands) face, it is important to study the possibilities of multifunctional land use planning has to offer to implement sustainability measures without it taking up to much space from other (essential) land use functions.
The integration of multifunctional land use in the planning system means some governance factors are more relevant than others. Above is described how to properly deal with boundaries plays a, rather significant, role in enabling multifunctional land use. There are other governance factors that are relevant for a well-integrated planning system allowing multifunctional land use to be implemented. One of these is stakeholder involvement.
To conclude, actors who see the beneficial side of multifunctional land use probably develop boundary changing strategies like the first action (challenging) provided by van Broekhoven et al. (2015), followed by the third (spanning) and when the changed boundaries complement multifunctional land use the fourth action (upholding). Actors who want to defy multifunctional land use on the other hand, as a reaction, will try a strategy to maintain (2nd action) them and ultimately uphold (4th action) these
boundaries. The case van Broekhoven et al. (2015) analyzed for their study was “Dakpark” in the municipality of Rotterdam. The analysis showed that with a multifunctional project like that, boundaries where changed and spanned, as well as drawn and jointly reconstructed. Through collective projects ideas, boundary spanning on both social and cognitive dimension provided actors to enhance personal relations, create jointness, and exchange ideas. All this while the tasks actors carried out were still separately organized. Thus, a strategy of challenging and spanning boundaries may be a success factor in planning processes of multifunctional land use.
2.6.2. Stakeholder involvement
Besides being able to deal with boundaries, stakeholder involvement plays an important role. Different specifics of stakeholder involvement could be important. First of all, the degree of involvement. An introvert governance setting, where not all stakeholders are equally and actively involved in thinking
