The Paradox of Planning the Compact and Green City: Analyzing the Influence
of Spatial Planning Policies on Land-use Change in Amsterdam and Brussels
Stella Balikci
Centre for Urban Studies, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
KEYWORDS
Urban Green Space; Compact City; Urban Policies; Urban Planning; Sustainability
Introduction
The topic of sustainable urban development has gained political momentum (Hansen et al. 2019). In
2015, the United Nations (UN) set 17 Sustainable Development Goals in which goal #11 is dedicated
to ‘…make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable’ (UN 2015: 14).
Consequently, cities have developed policy strategies to meet this ambition (Karteris et al. 2016). These
strategies, however, are multifaceted, cross several policy sectors and -goals and can be contradictory.
One of the areas of friction is the dilemma between planning a compact and green city. Both compact
city development and urban green space (UGS) are acknowledged to be important for sustainable
development, but densification in limited space puts high pressure on UGS (Artmann et al. 2019;
Delshammar 2014; Haaland and van den Bosch 2015).
The compact city is an urban form characterized by mixed land-use, high density housing and
services, and efficient public transport. Advocates of this paradigm argue that it encourages more
sustainable forms of transport such as public transport, walking and cycling, reduces energy, reduces
land usage and therefore preserves natural land outside the urban edges. It is also associated with higher
degrees of social diversity and economic and cultural development (Burton 2002; Haaland and van den
Bosch 2015; Westerink et al. 2013). It is commonly held by local governments that this urban form is
one of the best policy measures to counteract the negative effects of urban development on the
environment and society (Artmann et al. 2019; Khoshkar, Balfors, and Wärnbäck 2018; Tappert, Klöti,
and Drilling 2018).
Despite the positive connotations of compact city development, the negative spillovers on UGS
have been causing concern among academics, politicians and the public (Delshammar 2014; Haaland
and van den Bosch 2015). A growing body of literature has depicted the provision of urban greenery as
ABSTRACT
Several strategies are applied by policy makers in order to achieve sustainable urban development. However, sustainable development crosses many disciplines and policy fields, making it vulnerable to conflicts between urban policies. This research focusses on the dilemma between compact city development and urban green space policies and its influence on the actual land-use changes. This has been done by applying two research methods: (1) a quantitative land-use change analysis to detect changes in urban green space and density, using satellite imagery and statistical census data from 2003 and 2016; (2) a qualitative policy-analysis of spatial planning policies to explore the influence of policies on the observed changes. The results show that densification indeed decreases the quantity, size and connectivity of urban green spaces. When looking into policies, it is clear that it influences the changes in land-use patterns. However, especially urban green space policies are difficult to relate to its changes. Other contextual factors such as institutional fragmentation, land ownership and land prices are important for land-use change. These findings have provided insights into possible policy strategies and factors that can contribute to a balance between urban growth and green space provision.
a burning issue in compact city development (Byomkesh, Nakagoshi, and Dewan 2012; Haaland and
van den Bosch 2015). Studies have shown that new urban development by redevelopment of urban
areas or infill development inevitably causes a decrease in green spaces ( Giezen, Balikci, and Arundel
2018; Jim and Chan 2016; Tian, Jim, and Wang 2014; Wang and Chan 2019). As a result, highly
densified urban areas often lack essential ecosystem services green space provides such as outdoor
recreation, air purification, biodiversity, cooling, carbon storage, water infiltration and noise reduction
(Brink et al. 2015; Kabisch 2015; Zhang et al. 2017).
The lack of public policies and planning has been assigned as an important driver behind this
trend (Colsaet, Laurans, and Levrel 2018; Dallimer et al. 2011; Giezen, Balikci, and Arundel 2018;
Khoshkar, Balfors, and Wärnbäck 2018). Nevertheless, minimal empirical studies have been conducted
that investigate the influence of urban planning policies on the actual cumulative changes in physic
urban patterns (Dallimer et al. 2011; Giezen, Balikci, and Arundel 2018). Especially case studies that
compare the effects of local policies are rare (Colsaet, Laurans, and Levrel 2018; Haaland and van den
Bosch 2015). Comparative case studies can enhance the universality of findings for a deeper
understanding on how policies can contribute to a balance between compact city development and
provision of UGS (Artmann et al. 2019; Jim and Chan 2016; Kabisch 2015; Khoshkar, Balfors, and
Wärnbäck 2018). Monitoring change in land-use can also raise awareness amongst planners and
policymakers (Hansen et al. 2019; Khoshkar, Balfors, and Wärnbäck 2018).
Therefore, a comparative mixed-method case study was undertaken in two cities with growing
population and high demand for housing but diverse policy contexts: Brussels and Amsterdam. GIS
analysis is performed to show land-use change while a policy analysis is carried out to map spatial
planning policies to provide possible explanations of the observed changes. Hereby, this study aims to
give insights into the influence of spatial planning policies on changes in urban and green space patterns.
At the same time, this could guide best practices on how to conserve UGS in growing cities. The paper
starts with an account of the literature on the compact city, UGS and the influence of policies on
land-use change. This is followed by an introduction of the cases and the methodology and data land-used for
analysis. Thereafter the results are presented. The paper ends with a discussion and conclusion of the
findings.
The Compact City, Urban Green Space and The Influence of Policies
The Compact City
As indicated, the compact city is a commonly applied concept in academic literature and policy to
achieve sustainable urban development (Burton 2002; Haaland and van den Bosch 2015). Advocates
argue that it is more sustainable and desirable than urban sprawl (Artmann et al. 2019). Suburbanization
after World War II triggered this scattered and patchy urban pattern of low density development
surrounding the urban fringe (Zenou and Patacchini 2006). It is assumed that the compact city
counteracts urban sprawl by (1) lowering energy use as it is claimed that higher density areas use less
energy; (2) reducing vehicle and transport emissions with public transport systems and an urban layout
that promotes cycling and walking; (3) conserving green spaces outside the urban boundaries by
intensifying the use of existing urban land
(Burton 2002; Westerink et al. 2013). Intensification can be
achieved by the development of new buildings in areas which previously had no built-up land (infill),
replacement of lower-density buildings with high-rise buildings (Haaland and van den Bosch 2015) or
revitalization of vacant properties (transformation) (Kremer and Hamstead 2015). It is asserted that
urban sprawl is more likely to occur when strong planning control is absent and planning is more
decentralized (Colsaet, Laurans, and Levrel 2018; Zenou and Patacchini 2006).
In spite of the positive claims, the concept has been increasingly debated since the 1990s
(Haaland and van den Bosch 2015; Neuman 2005). The assumptions that it reduces energy usage and
traffic, for example, have been challenged (e.g. Gray, Gleeson, and Burke 2010; Melia, Parkhurst, and
Barton 2011). Moreover, while one of the main rationales behind the compact city paradigm is the
conservation of green space outside the urban edge; the loss of greenery inside the urban agglomeration
due to densification processes is becoming an increasing matter of concern amongst scholars and
policymakers (Dallimer et al. 2011; Haaland and van den Bosch 2015; Jim and Chan 2016; Xu, Haase,
and Pauleit 2018). Strategies to integrate green-grey infrastructure such as green roofs, front gardens,
green balconies, pocket parks and vegetation on wires (Delshammar 2014) currently lack the impact to
compensate the trade-off between green spaces and densification (Artmann et al. 2019; Irga et al. 2017).
Urban Green Space and Causes of its Loss
A literature review by Haaland and van den Bosch (2015) has given an overview of growing evidence
of loss of UGS due to densification processes worldwide (e.g. Byomkesh, Nakagoshi, and Dewan 2012;
Pauleit, Ennos, and Golding 2005; Rafiee, Dias, and Koomen 2013). Densification processes – mainly
infill development – is attributed as the main direct cause of UGS removal (Colsaet, Laurans, and Levrel
2018; Haaland and van den Bosch 2015). These processes affect the quantity, connectivity,
accessibility, size and quality of green spaces (Haaland and van den Bosch 2015; Kabisch et al. 2016;
Tian, Jim, and Wang 2014; Zhang et al. 2017).
This has negative implications on the livability and sustainability of cities for urban dwellers
and wildlife because larger and more connected green spaces have higher amenity and biodiversity
values (Goddard, Dougill, and Benton 2010). It also has a negative effect on air quality and thermal
comfort as larger and more connected green space improve fresh air circulation through the city
(Artmann et al. 2019). Furthermore, less green space generally also means
lower carbon storage (Davies
et al. 2011), lower climate and water regulation (Bowler et al. 2010) and lower accessibility to public
green spaces (Kabisch 2015). Accessibility to public green spaces is important for the mental and
physical health of urban dwellers because it offers possibilities for stress restoration, physical activity
and social interaction (Brink et al. 2015). Furthermore, the quality of green space independent from the
amount, is important for the usability and for the associated positive environmental effects (Zhang et
al. 2017).
Studies that comprehensively attempt to explain why densification causes losses in UGS are
rare (Artmann et al. 2019; Colsaet, Laurans, and Levrel 2018; Giezen, Balikci, and Arundel 2018). Most
studies focus on confirming that densification processes negatively influence UGS by applying GIS
methods (Giezen, Balikci, and Arundel 2018). Inquiries that have tried to explain this relationship have
found several causes. Khoshkar, Balfors, and Wärnbäck (2018) underlined a lack of new green space
planning in the beginning of the infill development planning process as an important cause. Their
research has shown that planning green space in the beginning of the planning processes usually results
in more successful green space implementation. This is especially the case when land costs are high.
High land prices accompanied with high housing demands make it financially less lucrative to make
the decision to develop UGS – even when the positive impacts of UGS are recognized by municipal
authorities. Additionally, developing UGS is more successful when the local government owns a large
amount of land (as the land does not have the be bought first to develop UGS), making development
less expensive (Wang and Chan 2019). This relates to the assumption that public institutions pay more
attention to the provision and conservation of public goods (such as green space) than private markets
(Larsson 2006).
The influence of policies
Although the above mentioned factors and other contextual factors such as demography, economy,
social processes, infrastructure and transport play an important role in the indirect loss of UGS, most
studies on land-use change emphasize that it is greatly shaped by institutions and policies (Colsaet,
Laurans, and Levrel 2018).The process of loss of UGS is enhanced by the absence of concrete regulatory
policies and implementations that take into account a long-term perspective on UGS to prevent removal
and enforce green development (Artmann et al. 2019; Irga et al. 2017; Jim and Chan 2016; Xu, Haase,
and Pauleit 2018). For example, Dallimer et al. (2011) has shown the impact of national level planning
policies on spatial temporal patterns of greenspaces in cities in the UK. The study demonstrated the
policy-responsive nature of land-use changes on a national scale.
However, empirical studies that explore the cumulative effects of spatial planning policies
across different countries on land-use changes are rare (Colsaet, Laurans, and Levrel 2018; Giezen,
Balikci, and Arundel 2018). As a result, uncertainty exists on the causes of land-use change and the
relation to policies (Colsaet, Laurans, and Levrel 2018). A comparison could help to enhance our
understanding of the influence of policies on cities underdoing densification (Kabisch 2015). This could
also improve the universality of findings on how to foster a balance between compact growth and UGS
provision (Jim and Chan 2016) and help to fill the current gap on good practices for UGS provision
(Haaland and van den Bosch 2015; Khoshkar, Balfors, and Wärnbäck 2018). Therefore, this study
chooses to focus on how spatial planning policies relate to changes in compact city development and
green space. Figure 1 abstracts this theoretical framework and illustrates the hypothesized causal
relations between the dependent (changes in urban green space and compact city development) and
independent variables (compact city and green space policies).
Figure 1. Conceptual scheme.
Methodology
Study Areas
Two diverse cases are selected to investigate the influence of different spatial planning policies on
land-use changes. Amsterdam, The Netherlands is selected as representative case of a city with a long
tradition of compact city policies (Westerink et al. 2013). Brussels, is chosen as a representative case
of a city with suburbanization tradition (Boussauw, Allaert, and Witlox 2013; Poelmans and Van
Rompaey 2009). Hence, the densification policies of these cities are depicted as opposite styles (Colsaet,
Laurans, and Levrel 2018; Larsson 2006). Nevertheless, both are experiencing the similar challenge to
accommodate the unexpected population growth while ensuring the provision of green space
(Boussauw, Allaert, and Witlox 2013). Comparing how these urban policies try to address this dilemma
could provide insights into which policies might be effective (Kabisch 2015). Additionally, both cities
experience this growth unequally through the city. Amsterdam experiences the biggest growth inside
the A10 highway that often is referred to as ‘the ring’, while Brussels experiences this pressure in the
historic city center which is referred to as the ‘first crown’. Reasoning from the fact that Amsterdam
has explicit compact city policies, it is expected that Amsterdam would have more urban development
inside the ring zone than Brussels. Therefore, the analysis will additionally compare the spatial temporal
changes within the ring/first crown with outside these areas. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of
the study areas and Figure 1 presents the locations.
Table 1. Summary characteristics cases.
City Size city Size the ring/first
crown
Size outside
ring/first crown Population Amsterdam, The Netherlands 219.49 km2 71.06 km2 148.43 km2 854.316 inhabitants, with a growth of 10.000 inhabitants per year. Brussels, Belgium 162,38 km2 32.58 km2 128.82 km2 1.198.726 inhabitants,
with a growth of 10.000 inhabitants per year. Source: OIS (2018); Statbel (2018).
Figure 1. Location of case studies.
Source: OIS (2018); Statbel (2018); Esri (2019). Design by author.
Analysis and Data
To explore the influence of spatial planning policies on land-use change two research methods are
applied: (1) GIS analysis, using quantitative census data and satellite imagery and; (2) policy-analysis,
using policy documents and in-depth interviews with key-policymakers.
For the GIS analysis, census data is obtained from government statistics websites (CBS/OIS
for Amsterdam; Statbel for Brussels). Satellite imagery is retrieved from Digital Globe, a commercial
company that provides high quality satellite images. UGS is often scattered and relatively small in size,
making high spatial resolution imagery necessary to capture it adequately (Qian et al. 2015; W. Zhou
et al. 2018; X. Zhou and Wang 2011). Satellite images from Worldview 2 (0.46 m pixels), GeoEye-1
(0.46 m pixels) and Quickbird (0.64 m pixels) are used for a remote sensing analysis. The selected
images provide 0% cloud coverage and are taken in months when vegetation is clearly visible. The
images do not cover the whole area. For both cities, an area of 93% is covered. Table 2 summarizes and
provides more information on the satellite images.
Table 2. Satellite images and band information. Case Satellite Bands used Spectral range
(newton meters)
Spatial resolution (m)
Satellite
sensor (m) Acquisition Date Amsterdam GeoEye-1 Pan
Blue Green Red NIR 450 - 800 450 - 510 510 - 580 655 - 690 780 - 920 1.84 0.46 9 May 2016 Quickbird Pan Blue Green Red NIR 450 - 900 450 - 520 520 - 600 630 - 690 760 - 900 2.41 0.64 16 July 2003
Brussels Worldview 2 Pan Blue Green Red NIR 1 450 - 800 450 - 550 510 - 580 630-690 770-895 1.84 0.46 24 July 2016 Quickbird Pan Blue Green Red NIR 450 - 900 450 - 520 520 - 600 630 - 690 760 - 900 2.41 0.64 13 July 2003
Source: Digital Globe (2019).
Remote sensing is an adequate tool to detect changes in land-use patterns (Byomkesh,
Nakagoshi, and Dewan 2012; Dallimer et al. 2011; Giezen, Balikci, and Arundel 2018; Qian et al.
2015). Unfortunately, the usage of remote sensing in empirical analysis of the effects of policies are
difficult to find (Byomkesh, Nakagoshi, and Dewan 2012; Giezen, Balikci, and Arundel 2018; Haaland
and van den Bosch 2015). The field profoundly focusses on describing the changes in the landscape
without attempting to explain the observed phenomenon (Karteris et al. 2016; Mahmoodzadeh 2007;
Patino and Duque 2013). However, studies have shown that combining remote sensing with local
knowledge of policies could facilitate possible explanations on the found results as well as delivering a
more comprehensive picture of the possible influence of policies (Byomkesh, Nakagoshi, and Dewan
2012; Dallimer et al. 2011; Giezen, Balikci, and Arundel 2018). Correspondingly, it is emphasized that
analysis of the dynamics of land-use patterns are crucial to advance planning and policy making since
it enables to respond more adequately to the local context and needs (Hansen et al. 2019; Khoshkar,
Balfors, and Wärnbäck 2018; Qian et al. 2015; X. Zhou and Wang 2011). Furthermore, mapping the
changes in land-use can also encourage political motivation to take action or continue their successful
practices. Thus, these insights could provide hints in successful policies and implementations which
could be useful to other compact cities (Jim and Chan 2016; Alekseeva, Menshikh and Kudryavtseva
2016).
Land-use Classification
The remote sensing analysis encompassed supervised land-use classifications into the classes green
space and non-green space, using the geoprocessing software ArcGIS (Esri). Green space in this study
is understood as ‘any vegetation found in urban environment including parks, open spaces, residential
gardens and street trees’ (Kabisch and Haase 2014: 113). To ensure comparability of the images, all
images are processed to the same resolution before the classification (0.64 m pixels). The bands
panchromatic, blue, red green and Near Infra-Red (NIR) are composed to produce an images for the
supervised land-use classification. After the classification, a filtering process is applied to remove
isolated pixels from the classification output as well as a ‘boundary clean’ which smoothens ragged
edges of class boundaries to increase spatial coherency (ArcGIS, 2017). Thereafter, since it was
challenging to distinguish water from shadows in the classification process, the output was combined
with a shapefile of the waterbodies to distinguish built-up areas (including barren land) and water in the
class non-green space. The data of the waterbodies is from 2017 (Municipality of Amsterdam) in
Amsterdam and 2019 in Brussels (Openstreetmap). The shapefile is corrected manually for the known
changes in water between 2003 and 2016 in Amsterdam,.
In addition, an accuracy assessment is employed to report the agreement between the classified
images and ‘reality’ , generating 60 random control points per class. The original images are used to
carry out the ground-truth assessment. The derived classification output of the Amsterdam images have
an overall accuracy and kappa coefficient of respectively 98.33% and 0.975 for 2003 and respectively
98.33% and 0.975 for 2016 (see Table 3). The overall accuracy and kappa coefficient of Brussels is
respectively 98.33% and 0.975 for 2003 and 97.22% and 0.958 for 2016. (see Table 4).
Table 3. Amsterdam Classification Accuracy Assessments.
Table 4. Brussels Classification Accuracy Assessments.
Change Analysis
The output of the land-use classification and statistical census data served to determine changes in UGS
and density. The variables to measure changes in UGS are based on literature that state how
densification processes influence UGS. It is found in the literature that densification processes influence
the quantity, connectivity, size, quality and accessibility of UGS (Kabisch et al. 2016; Tian, Jim, and
Wang 2014; Zhang et al. 2017). Changes in accessibility of green spaces could not be included in the
analysis because no spatial multi-temporal data is available on public green spaces, which is necessary
to measure accessibility. Furthermore, measuring the changes in the quality of green space is
Ground Truth Reference Class
Water Green space Urban Total
sample User's accuracy 2003 2016 2003 2016 2003 2016 2003 2016 2003 2016 Water 58 58 1 1 1 1 60 60 96.67% 96.67% Green space 0 0 60 59 0 1 60 60 100% 98.33% Urban 1 0 0 0 59 60 60 60 98.33% 100% Producer's accuracy 98.31% 100% 98.36% 98.33% 98.33% 96.77% Overall classification accuracy 98.33% 98.33% Kappa coefficient 0.975 0.975
Ground Truth Reference Class
Water Green space Urban Total
sample User's accuracy 2003 2016 2003 2016 2003 2016 2003 2016 2003 2016 Water 57 58 3 1 0 1 60 60 95% 96.67% Green space 0 0 60 59 0 1 60 60 100% 98.33% Urban 0 0 0 2 60 58 60 60 100% 96.67% Producer's accuracy 100% 1005 95.24% 95.16% 100% 96.67% Overall classification accuracy 98.33% 97.22% Kappa coefficient 0.975 0.958
challenging and outside the scope of this study. Thus, based on the literature and available data, the
dimensions availability, connectivity and size are operationalized to measure changes in UGS.
Central to the concept of the compact city is densification, therefore, density is used as indicator
to measure compact city development (Haaland and van den Bosch 2015). Densification is commonly
calculated by population density, which is the number of inhabitants per spatial unit. However, this does
not take into account how densely the area is built. This is especially relevant in case of green space
conservation because when more land is built, less space is available for greenery (Burton 2002).
According to literature, the Floor Area Ratio (total amount of floor space to total area) is one of the
most accurate ways the calculate built-up density (Abdullahi, Pradhan, and Jebur 2015). However, no
data of the total floor space is available for Brussels. Therefore, building density (km
2built-up are/km
2total area) was determined as alternative to indicate how much of the land consists of built-up area. All
indicators are listen in Table 5.
The indicators quantity, green space per capita, size of green space, population density and
building density are calculated with ArcGIS calculator. Patch density is measured by using the output
of the classified image as input in the software FRAGSTATS. This variable gives an insight into how
connected green spaces are (Tian, Jim, and Wang 2014). Patch density measures the fragmentation of
green spaces by calculating the average number of patches per 100 hectares (Mcgarigal 2015).
Table 5. Operationalization UGS and compact city.
Concept Dimension Indicator Variable Data
Urban green space Availability Quantity Km2 UGS Classified land-use
images (2003,2016) Green space per
capita
Square meters green space per inhabitant
CBS, Statbel (2003,2016); Classified land-use images (2003,2016)
Connectivity Patch density1 Average number of
disconnected areas per 100 hectares
Classified land-use images (2003,2016)
Size Size of green space Average size of green
spaces
Classified land-use images (2003,2016)
Compact city Density Population density Population/total area CBS, Statbel
(2003,2016) Building density Built up area/total
area
CBS, Statbel (2003,2016)
Policy Analysis and Data
In addition to the GIS analysis, a policy analysis is carried out to grasp the local spatial planning context.
The research consisted of an analysis of policy documents and additional in-depth interviews with key
policymakers in the field of urban planning and green space development.
In order to receive insights into the policies, several policy documents are analyzed such as the
cities’ Strategic Development plans. Appendix 1 lists all the analyzed documents and summarizes the
relevant key points. Additionally, seven interviews with key policymakers (four with the Municipality
of Amsterdam and three with the Region Brussels) were carried out. These interviews focused on urban
development policies, urban green space policies and the interaction between those two policy fields
and lasted 1,5 hours on average. The occupation of the policymakers and the transcripts of the
interviews are documented in Appendix 2. The transcripts of the interviews were analyzed by
categorizing the text into the categories ‘urban development’, ‘UGS development’ and ‘integration of
both’. The same method was applied for analyzing the policy documents. It is chosen to categorize in
broad themes instead of more complex categories because the aim of the policy analyses is to provide
context and to find possible explanatory factors of the observed results.
Land-use Change Results
Figure 2 and 3 present the changes in the land-uses water (blue), green space (green) and built-up
area/barren land (grey) in Amsterdam and Brussels. Changes in lost and new green space are highlighted
in the 2016 images. Amsterdam shows a dispersed pattern of new and lost green space. New green
space in the harbor area in the West is noticeable. Other new green spaces can be observed in the island
Ijburg in the East. Not many clearly visible new green spaces are seen inside the ring. Clear loss of
green space can be observed throughout the city such as the removal of green space in the South-East
of Amsterdam. Several losses are seen along the ring. In Brussels, less new green space can be observed.
The change map profoundly highlights loss. The most visible new green space is the development of a
park in the North, along the canal. Furthermore, some new green spaces can be seen scattered through
the city. Most prevalent loss is viewed in the North/North-West of Brussels. Other loss can be viewed
throughout the city, but mostly along the edges of the city.
Figure 2 and 3. Land-use changes in Amsterdam and Brussels.
Source: Digital Globe (2003; 2016). Design and calculations are made by the author. *Urban land includes built-up space as well as non-vegetated barren land.
Table 4 and 5 show the statistics of the land-use variables and the change over the period 2003
and 2016 in Amsterdam and Brussels at a city level, ring zone/first crown level and outside this area.
The first clear result is that green space has decreased and urban density has increased in both cities. At
a city level, green space has decreased in Amsterdam with 3.78 square kilometers. In Brussels, it has
decreased with 9.11 square kilometers. This means that the total amount of the green space has
decreased with -4.5% and -9% respectively in Amsterdam and Brussels over a period of 13 years.
Furthermore, for both cities it is the case that green space is less abundant in the inner city area
compared to the outer area. Green space is also more fragmented and smaller in size in these areas while
population density and building density are higher.
In Amsterdam, green spaces have decreased, but they have not shrank in size substantially.
Green space in the ring zone has decreased the most in percentages (8.8%). Furthermore, the strongest
change in patch density can be noticed inside the ring zone as well, meaning that green space is more
fragmented in this area. Population density has increased substantially, especially in the ring zone where
818 more people live per square kilometer. The building density has increased by 5.5% and slightly
more in the ring zone.
Table 4. Land-use statistics for Amsterdam.
2003 2016 Change 2003-2016 City level Ring zone Outside ring zone City level Ring zone Outside ring zone
City level Ring zone Outside
ring zone
Availability green space
Quantity (km2 UGS) 84.29 21.71 62.58 80.51 19.8 60.7 -3.78 (-4.5%) -1.91 (-8.8%) -1.88 (-3%) Green space per capita
(m2 UGS/inh.) 114.5 44.46 252.64 96.46 36.24 210.55 -18.07 (-15.8%) -8.22 (-18.5%) -42.09 (-16.7%)
Size green space
Average Size (ha) 0.29 0.14 0.45 0.28 0.13 0.45 -0.01 (-3.4%) -0.01 (-7.2%) -0.01 (-1.2%)
Connectivity green space
Patch density 1 133.7 206.5 95.4 135.5 209.9 97 1.82 (1.4%) 3.33 (1.6%) 1.62 (1.7%)
Urban density
Population density
(inh./km2) 3360 68721 1669 3803 76902 1942 443 (13.2%) 818 (11.9%) 273 (16.4%) Building density (built-up
area/km2) 0.38 0.5 0.31 0.4 0.53 0.33 0.02 (5.5%) 0.03 (5.7%) 0.02 (5.4%)
Table 5. Land-use statistics for Brussels.
2003 2016 Change 2003-2016 City level First crown Outside first crown City level First crown Outside first crown
City level First crown Outside first crown
Availability greenspace
Quantity (km2 UGS) 76.86 6.86 69.98 67.75 5.74 60.06 -9.11 (-9.0%) -1.12 (-16.3%) -53.20 (-14.2%) Green space per capita
(m2 UGS/inh.) 77.48 16.54 121.61 57.04 11.41 87.72 -20.44 (-26.4%) -5.12 (-31.0%) -33.89 (-27.9%)
Size green space
Average Size (ha) 0.29 0.08 0.37 0.22 0.06 0.29 -0.07 (-22.8%) -0.02 (-25.0%) -0.08 (-22.1%)
Connectivity greenspace
Patch density1 164.44 239.24 145.8 195.06 282.95 172.68 30.62 (18.6%) 47.71 (18.3%) 26.88 (18.4%)
Urban density
Population density
(inh./km2) 6146 12601 4478 7360 15275 5328 1213 (19.7%) 2674 (21.2%) 850 (19.0%) Building density (built-up
area/km2) 0.44 0.78 0.38 0.46 0.81 0.47 0.02 (4.4%) 0.03 (4.5%) 0.08 (21.9%)
Source: Data is obtained from the land-use classification based on Digital Globe satellite imagery (2003;2016) and census statistics from CBS/Statbel (2003;2016). All calculations were made by the author. Notes: 1 Average number of disconnected green spaces per 100 hectares; 2 Since no census data exists on the exact number of inhabitants inside the ring zone, an estimation is made. Per neighborhood, the percentage of the area that falls inside the ring is calculated. This percentage of area coverage is used to estimate the number of inhabitants.
In Brussels, the highest decrease of UGS in absolute numbers is outside the first crown. In terms
of percentages, the highest decrease is inside the first crown. The same holds for green space per capita.
In Brussels, green space per capita is substantially smaller in the first crown and also less than in
Amsterdam. Similar to Amsterdam, green space per capita has decreased the most outside the inner
city. In contrast to Amsterdam, the highest decrease in UGS in terms of percentages is outside the inner
city of Brussels. This difference can be explained by the already existing dense urban pattern in the first
crown. Furthermore, it is also in line with the suburbanization tradition in Brussels, where it is preferred
to live outside the city center (Boussauw, Allaert, and Witlox 2013; Poelmans and Van Rompaey 2009).
Also the average size in green space has decreased the most outside the first crown. Patch density has
increased substantially more in Brussels, meaning that green space has become more fragmented.
Population density has increased even stronger in Brussels than in Amsterdam. Also building density
has increased in Brussels and the most outside the first crown, which can be expected because of the
already dense urban pattern in Brussels.
Relating the Land-use Change Results to Urban Green Space and Compact City Development Policies
Table 6 lists the UGS- and urban development policies. The details of policies per analyzed document
can be viewed in Appendix 2. When looking into the policies of both cities, urban development plans
have been implemented in several areas where loss of green space is observed. For example, in the
‘Structure vision Amsterdam 2040’, the municipality puts emphasis on the development along the ring
road (Municipality of Amsterdam 2011). The accent on urban development inside the ring zone reflects
the compact city ambition of the municipality. Also in Brussels the loss of green space can often be
traced back to urban development plans. For example, the areas in the North and North-West of Brussels
where a lot of loss of green space is highlighted, is assigned for urban development since the ‘Regional
Development Plan’ of 1995.
Table 6. Policy instruments for urban green space or urban development.
Policies Municipality of Amsterdam Policies Region Brussels Green space
development/preservation
- Green spaces protected from urban development by law through the policy document ‘Main structure green space’ (Hoofdgroenstructuur) and ‘Main tree structure’ (Hoofdbomenstructuur). These policies also aim to make green spaces more connected.
- Adjustment legal framework to ease development of green roofs, green walls and instalment of allotments.
- Subsidies for investment in city parks and developments of green space areas such as pocket parks, trees and urban farms, green roofs, green walls and green schoolyards/play grounds.
- ‘Amsterdam standard for social services, green space and play’ (Amsterdamse
referentienorm voor maatschappelijke voorzieningen, groen en spelen):
Guideline that calculates how much extra square meter of a public facility, including green space, needs to be realized when a certain amount of new dwellings are constructed.
- Green spaces protected from urban development by law through the policy document ‘Green Network’ (Het Groene
Network). These policies also aim to make
green spaces more connected.
- ‘The Green Walk’ (De Groene Wandeling): recreative cycling and walking routes in the second crown (62 km in total) through green spaces. Green spaces along these routes are (re)developed or improved. - Allowing green space development in all
areas
- Urban development projects larger than 5.000 m2 have to provide at least 10% green space.
- Stimulating green space development by providing subsidies.
Urban development - Integral urban development vision of the whole city. It is called the ‘Structure Plan/Vision’ (Structuurplan/visie) . - Allowing and stimulating
transformation of vacant buildings into dwellings and/or office space. - Compact city policies: densification
inside the city boarders. Emphasis on realizing high urban densities inside the ring.
- Integral urban development vision of the whole city. It is called ‘The Regional Development Plan’ (Gewestelijk
Bestemmingsplan).
- Allowing change of function of vacant buildings
- ‘Neighborhood’ and ‘Urban Redevelopment’ contracts (Wijkcontracten and
Stadsverniewingcontracten): subsidized
urban redevelopment program for vulnerable neighborhoods.
- Retaining expansion of the tertiary sector into residential areas by setting a threshold of the minimal amount of dwellings per area and by prohibiting
Source: Municipality of Amsterdam (1996;2011;2015;2016;2018a;2018b); Region Brussels (1993;1995;2001;2002;2016;2018).
The observed changes are less reflected in UGS policies than in urban development policies.
Green space has decreased despite the policies in both cities such as protecting green spaces by law,
adjusting the legal framework to ease green space development, providing subsidies and setting
thresholds for a minimal amount of green space per area. One of the main green space policies in
Brussels is to realize a network of connected green spaces throughout the city. Unfortunately,
connectivity has decreased significantly. The changes of UGS in Amsterdam might to some extent be
related to the policy documents that emphasize the importance of quality over quantity. Taken that into
consideration, it is not surprising that the quantity of UGS has decreased. Furthermore, the municipality
also aims to increase small patches of green spaces by means of green roofs and pocket parks. This
could on the hand partially explain the increase in patch density. On the other hand, it also indicates the
effect of densification in which green space areas can get divided.
When comparing the changes between the cities, the compact city tradition of the Municipality
of Amsterdam can explain the result that Amsterdam has increased more in building density inside the
inner city than Brussels. Brussels shows a high increase in building density outside the inner city. This
is in line with the compact city policy of Amsterdam to densify in existing urban areas. In Brussels, the
emphasize is less to develop inside the inner city. This can be explained by the fact that the inner city
already has high densities.
The found differences in UGS change between the cities cannot immediately be related to
differences in policies. As Table 6 indicates, many similarities can be found between these policies.
However, several other contextual factors came into light during the interviews with policymakers that
can be related to the observed differences between the cities. Firstly, it is important to point out that
Amsterdam has a more centralized municipality that clearly takes the lead while Brussels has a complex
decentralized interplay between different hierarchical levels of governance. The policymakers in
Brussels stressed that institutional fragmentation is one of the main constrains to enforce urban and
green space development. The Region of Brussels takes the lead in policies and plans for the whole city
in which the 19 municipalities have to comply. However, these municipalities are to some extent
independent authorities. This results in more abstract policies and plans, giving the municipalities and
private initiatives space to concretize the plans to local needs. This, however, results in incoherence and
inconsistency among municipalities.
Nevertheless, until 2010, Amsterdam had a similar institutional arrangement. The 15 wards had
more authority and administratively functioned as municipalities. The Municipality of Amsterdam
functioned as a ‘higher authority’, directing the smaller wards. Policymakers of the municipality pointed
out that centralizing the administration has a positive effect on the coherence of urban green space
development. A concrete example of more coherence in UGS plans is the policy document ‘The Green
Agenda’ (2015). This was the first concrete citywide green space plan.
Additionally, institutional fragmentation is not only present vertically, but also horizontally in
Brussels. Urban development and green space development are accommodated into separate
departments, making integration of UGS plans into urban development projects also more challenging
than in Amsterdam where UGS and urban development are accommodated into the same department.
The interviewed policymakers in Brussels indicated that the situation is improving because
policymakers from the Green Department (Environment Brussels) are more often included into the plan
making process of the Urban Development Department (Perspective Brussels).
changing the zoning plan from residential zones to tertiary zones.
- ‘Hefboomgebieden’: barren lands or urban areas where (re)development will be stimulated.
Secondly, land ownership is another factor that influences urban and green space development.
The Municipality of Amsterdam has 80% of land in property. Due to this high land-ownership, it is
easier for the local authorities to realize development. In contrast, policymakers in the Region Brussels
highlighted that the desire to develop green space might be present, but realizing this developed is
constrained because of land that has to be bought.
Despite this difference, both cities indicate that it is not financially attractive to develop green
spaces in areas with high land values. This issue clearly was brought to light when discussing the
‘Amsterdam standard for social services, green space and play’. This is a guideline which is
implemented in 2018 and includes a recommendation to develop a certain amount of green space per
newly constructed dwelling. This is challenging to meet in projects, especially where land values are
high. In those areas, often areas with a lack of green space, it is frequently chosen to develop apartment
complexes and offices because of their profitability. At the same time, however, it is stressed that high
densities legitimize the development of green space because they generate high profits, making it
financially possible to develop greenery. Other found similarities and the mentioned differences and
similarities are summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Differences and similarities between Amsterdam and Brussels.
Differences Similarities
- More green space development observed in Amsterdam.
- Higher degree of vertical and horizontal fragmentation in Brussels.
- Amsterdam has higher landownership. - Amsterdam has a compact city policy tradition. - Brussels has relatively more urban development outside
the inner city than Amsterdam.
- Loss of green space and increase in urban density. - Less, more fragmented and smaller green space in the
inner city.
- Loss of green space can often be traced back to urban development plans.
- Rising land prices, making UGS development financially challenging.
- Not many changes in the old city center due to protection.
- Policy instrument to preserve green spaces by law. - Green space development is often planned in individual
urban development projects.
- Integrating green space development into urban development is most successful when green space is planned in the beginning of the planning process.
Discussion
The results of Amsterdam and Brussels coincide with the world-wide trend that densification processes
put pressure on UGS (Haaland and van den Bosch 2015). Densification indeed affects the quantity,
connectivity and size of green spaces (Kabisch et al. 2016; Tian, Jim, and Wang 2014; Zhang et al.
2017). In addition, exploring policy documents on spatial planning policies and interviews with key
policymakers has provided a background story on the observed changes and differences between the
cities. Observed loss in green space often can be traced back to concrete urban development plans.
Furthermore, the result that Amsterdam shows higher degrees of urban development in the inner city
and Brussels more outside the inner city is in line with the suburbanization tradition of Brussels and
compact city policies of Amsterdam.
However, changes in UGS and differences in UGS change between the cities are more difficult
to relate to UGS policies. This could show, on the one hand, that other factors play a more decisive role
in changes in UGS. Khoshkar, Balfors, and Wärnbäck (2018) underlined that planning green spaces in
the beginning of the planning process results in more green space developments. They also pointed out
that land prices play a critical role. Furthermore, landownership is highlighted as an important factor by
Wang and Chan (2019). These factors, together with institutional fragmentation, were brought to light
during the interviews with key policymakers. On the other hand, the difficulty to relate policies to the
land-use change results can confirm the assumption that policies lack the impact to compensate the loss
due to urban development (Artmann et al. 2019; Irga et al. 2017).
This loss has negative implications on the livability and sustainability of cities – especially in
the face of climate change where more extreme weather such as heat waves and heavy rainfall is
expected (Brink et al. 2015). However, conclusions on the direct effect of the loss of UGS on the
ecosystem, biodiversity and mental and physical well-being of urban dwellers should be taken lightly,
as factors that influence this, such as quality and accessibility, are not included in the analysis. The
quality of greenery is important for the usability and associated positive environmental effects of green
spaces (Zhang et al. 2017). Measuring quality, however, is beyond the scope of this study and difficult
to capture. Furthermore, although accessibility to green spaces relates to quantity, it is not directly
connected. Accessibility to public green spaces is important for the mental and physical well-being of
inhabitants (Brink et al. 2015) but this could unfortunately not be measured due to the lack of
multi-temporal data on public green spaces.
The finding that Brussels shows more urban development outside the inner city than
Amsterdam could affirm the notion that compact city policies indeed protect green space outside the
city center (Westerink et al. 2013). Furthermore, this finding is also in line with the idea that urban
sprawl is more likely to occur when planning is more decentralized (Colsaet, Laurans, and Levrel 2018;
Zenou and Patacchini 2006). However, no tentative conclusion can be made on this point. Firstly,
Brussels was already more dense, leaving not much space for more urban development. Secondly, this
research lacked the ability to specifically quantify the actual increase in the floor area. The lack of this
data shows the difficulty of employing a comprehensive land-use change analysis. Thirdly, the meaning
of compact city development, is scale dependent. On an urban scale, Brussels shows higher degrees of
compactness because of higher densities in the inner city. On a regional scale, however, more urban
sprawl can be present. Urban sprawl can even occur when there is compact city development on an
urban scale (Zenou and Patacchini 2006).
Conclusion
Compact city development can contribute to sustainable urban development by lowering energy usage,
implementing more environmental friendly transport and conserving green spaces outside the urban
boundaries. However, this study has shown that urban densification processes put increasing pressure
on urban green spaces, as it reduces the abundance and size of greenery in a city. Subsequently, green
space becomes more fragmented. This results in the deterioration of essential ecosystem services green
space provides such as air purification, biodiversity, cooling, carbon storage, rainfall interception and
noise reduction – which are important for the physical and mental well-being of urban dwellers (Brink
et al. 2015; Kabisch 2015; Zhang et al. 2017). Therefore, finding strategies to balance growth with UGS
provision are crucial.
This research has contributed to a better understanding of how to foster growing cities in
balance with UGS by comparing cities in different policy contexts. Comparing urban policies in two
cities has shown that land-use changes and observed differences in cities can be to some extent
explained by the policy context. However, it should be stressed that other contextual factors such as
institutional fragmentation, land ownership and land prices influence the capability to protect and
develop green spaces. In addition, this study has added important insights to the literature on land-use
change by finding effective strategies for developing and protecting UGS in densifying cities. It has
been brought to light that policies that protect UGS by law are an effective policy instrument to ensure
that no urban development may occur in those areas. Furthermore, it is seen as more effective to develop
green spaces simultaneously alongside urban development in the beginning of the planning process.
Another effective policy is to transform vacant buildings, this prevents putting increasing pressure on
green spaces. Additionally, developing high density buildings in high land-value areas increases profits
that financially validate green space development. Lastly, an overall conclusion is that concrete public
policies and planning are necessary to develop and protect green space in growing cities.
Acknowledgments
I would like to show my gratitude to Mendel Giezen and Rowan Arundel for all their continuing
guidance, reviewing and support. In addition, I would like to thank the team of Green City Watch and
Digital Globe for providing the satellite imagery and help in the development of the project.
References
Abdullahi, S., Pradhan, B., & Jebur, M. N. (2015). GIS-based sustainable city compactness
assessment using integration of MCDM, Bayes theorem and RADAR technology. Geocarto
International, 30(4), 365-387.
Artmann, M., Kohler, M., Meinel, G., Gan, J., & Ioja, I. C. (2019). How smart growth and
green infrastructure can mutually support each other—A conceptual framework for compact
and green cities. Ecological indicators, 96, 10-22.
Boussauw, K., Allaert, G., & Witlox, F. (2013). Colouring inside what lines? Interference of
the urban growth boundary and the political–administrative border of Brussels. European
Planning Studies, 21(10), 1509-1527.
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). Urban greening to cool
towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and urban
planning, 97(3), 147-155.
ten Brink, P., Mutafoglu, K., Schweitzer, J. P., Kettunen, M., Twigger-Ross, C., Kuipers, Y.,
... & Ojala, A. (2016). The health and social benefits of nature and biodiversity protection:
Executive summary.
Burton, E. (2002). Measuring urban compactness in UK towns and cities. Environment and
planning B: Planning and Design, 29(2), 219-250.
Byomkesh, T., Nakagoshi, N., & Dewan, A. M. (2012). Urbanization and green space
dynamics in Greater Dhaka, Bangladesh. Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 8(1), 45-58.
Colsaet, A., Laurans, Y., & Levrel, H. (2018). What drives land take and urban land
expansion? A systematic review. Land use policy, 79, 339-349.
Dallimer, M., Tang, Z., Bibby, P. R., Brindley, P., Gaston, K. J., & Davies, Z. G. (2011).
Davies, Z. G., Edmondson, J. L., Heinemeyer, A., Leake, J. R., & Gaston, K. J. (2011).
Mapping an urban ecosystem service: quantifying above‐ground carbon storage at a city‐wide
scale. Journal of applied ecology, 48(5), 1125-1134.
Delshammar, T. (2014). Urban greening strategies for compact areas-case study of Malmö,
Sweden. NA, 26(2).
Giezen, M., Balikci, S., & Arundel, R. (2018). Using Remote Sensing to Analyse Net Land-
Use Change from Conflicting Sustainability Policies: The Case of Amsterdam. ISPRS
International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(9), 381.
Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., & Benton, T. G. (2010). Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in ecology & evolution, 25(2),
90-98.
Gray, R., Gleeson, B., & Burke, M. (2010). Urban consolidation, household greenhouse
emissions and the role of planning.
Haaland, C., & van den Bosch, C. K. (2015). Challenges and strategies for urban green-space
planning in cities undergoing densification: A review. Urban forestry & urban greening,
14(4), 760-771.
Hansen, R., Olafsson, A. S., van der Jagt, A. P., Rall, E., & Pauleit, S. (2019). Planning
multifunctional green infrastructure for compact cities: what is the state of practice?.
Ecological indicators, 96, 99-110.
Irga, P. J., Braun, J. T., Douglas, A. N. J., Pettit, T., Fujiwara, S., Burchett, M. D., & Torpy,
F. R. (2017). The distribution of green walls and green roofs throughout Australia: Do policy
instruments influence the frequency of projects?. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 24,
164-174.
Jim, C. Y., & Chan, M. W. (2016). Urban greenspace delivery in Hong Kong: Spatial-
institutional limitations and solutions. Urban forestry & urban greening, 18, 65-85.
Kabisch, N. (2015). Ecosystem service implementation and governance challenges in urban
green space planning—The case of Berlin, Germany. Land Use Policy, 42, 557-567.
Kabisch, N., & Haase, D. (2014). Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green
spaces in Berlin, Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning, 122, 129-139.
Kabisch, N., Strohbach, M., Haase, D., & Kronenberg, J. (2016). Urban green space
availability in European cities. Ecological Indicators, 70, 586-596.
Karteris, M., Theodoridou, I., Mallinis, G., Tsiros, E., & Karteris, A. (2016). Towards a green
sustainable strategy for Mediterranean cities: Assessing the benefits of large-scale green roofs
implementation in Thessaloniki, Northern Greece, using environmental modelling, GIS and
very high spatial resolution remote sensing data. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
58, 510-525.
Khoshkar, S., Balfors, B., & Wärnbäck, A. (2018). Planning for green qualities in the
densification of suburban Stockholm–opportunities and challenges. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 1-23.
Kremer, P., & Hamstead, Z. (2015). Transformation of urban vacant lots for the common
good: an introduction to the special issue. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 8(2), 1.
Mahmoodzadeh, H. (2007). Digital change detection using remotely sensed data for
monitoring green space destruction in Tabriz. International Journal of Environmental
Research, 1(1), 35-41.
Mcgarigal, K. (2015). Fragstats Help Document. Fragstats (April): 1–182.
Melia, S., Parkhurst, G., & Barton, H. (2011). The paradox of intensification. Transport
Policy, 18(1), 46-52.
Municipality of Amsterdam (1996). Open stad. Amsterdam: Municipality of Amsterdam.
Municipality of Amsterdam (2011). Structuurvisie Amsterdam 2040: Economisch Sterk en Duurzaam.
Amsterdam: Municipality of Amsterdam.
Municipality of Amsterdam (2015). Agenda Groen. Amsterdam: Municipality of Amsterdam.
Municipality of Amsterdam (2016). Koers 2025: Ruimte voor de Stad. Amsterdam: Municipality of
Amsterdam.
Municipality of Amsterdam (2018a). Woningbouwplan 2018-2025. Amsterdam: Municipality of
Amsterdam.
Municipality of Amsterdam (2018b). Amsterdamse referentienorm voor maatschappelijke
voorzieningen, groen en spelen. Amsterdam: Municipality of Amsterdam.
Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of planning education and research,
25(1), 11-26.
Patino, J. E., & Duque, J. C. (2013). A review of regional science applications of satellite
remote sensing in urban settings. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 37, 1-17.
Pauleit, S., Ennos, R., & Golding, Y. (2005). Modeling the environmental impacts of urban
land use and land cover change—a study in Merseyside, UK. Landscape and urban planning,
71(2-4), 295-310.
Poelmans, L., & Van Rompaey, A. (2009). Detecting and modelling spatial patterns of urban
sprawl in highly fragmented areas: A case study in the Flanders–Brussels region. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 93(1), 10-19.
Qian, Y., Zhou, W., Yu, W., & Pickett, S. T. (2015). Quantifying spatiotemporal pattern of
urban greenspace: new insights from high resolution data. Landscape ecology, 30(7),
1165-1173.
Rafiee, A., Dias, E. S., & Koomen, E. (2013). Between green and grey: towards a new green
volume indicator for cities.
Region Brussels (1993). Houdende organisatie van de herwaardering van de wijken. Brussels:
Region Brussels.
Region Brussels (1995). Gewestelijke Ontwikkelingsplan. Brussels: Region Brussels.
Region Brussels (2001). Het Gewestelijk Bestemmingsplan. Brussels: Region Brussels.
Region Brussels (2002). Gewestelijk Ontwikkelingsplan. Brussels: Region Brussels.
Region Brussels (2016). Gewestelijk Natuurplan 2016-2020 voor het Brusselse Gewest. Brussels:
Region Brussels.
Region Brussels (2018). Gewestelijk Plan voor Duurzame Ontwikkeling. Brussels: Region Brussels.
Tappert, S., Klöti, T., & Drilling, M. (2018). Contested urban green spaces in the compact
city: The (re-) negotiation of urban gardening in Swiss cities. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 170, 69-78.
Tian, Y., Jim, C. Y., & Wang, H. (2014). Assessing the landscape and ecological quality of
urban green spaces in a compact city. Landscape and urban planning, 121, 97-108.
UN [United Nations]. (2015). The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United
Nations.
Van Der Waals, J. (2000). The compact city and the environment: A review. Tijdschrift voor
economische en sociale geografie, 91(2), 111-121.
Wang, A., & Chan, E. (2019). Institutional factors affecting urban green space provision–
from a local government revenue perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 1-17.
Westerink, J., Haase, D., Bauer, A., Ravetz, J., Jarrige, F., & Aalbers, C. B. (2013). Dealing
with sustainability trade-offs of the compact city in peri-urban planning across European city
regions. European Planning Studies, 21(4), 473-497.
Xu, C., Haase, D. and Pauleit, P. (2018). The Impact of Different Urban Dynamics on Green Space
Availability: A Multiple Scenario Modeling Approach for the Region of Munich, Germany.
Ecological Indicators 93(December 2017): 1–12.
Zenou, Y., and Patacchini, E. (2006). Urban Sprawl in Europe. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban
Affairs, 125-149.
Zhang, Y., Van den Berg, A.E., Van Dijk, T. and Weitkamp, G. (2017). Quality over Quantity:
Contribution of Urban Green Space to Neighborhood Satisfaction. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 14(5).
Zhou, W., Wang, J., Qian, Y., Pickett, S.T.A., Li, W. and Han, L. (2018). The Rapid but ‘Invisible’
Changes in Urban Greenspace: A Comparative Study of Nine Chinese Cities. Science of the
Total Environment 627: 1572–84.
Zhou, X., and Wang, Y.C. (2011). Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of Urban Green Space in Response to
Rapid Urbanization and Greening Policies. Landscape and Urban Planning 100(3): 268–77.
The Paradox of Planning the Compact and Green City: Analyzing the Influence
of Spatial Planning Policies on Land-use Change in Amsterdam and Brussels
Appendix 1: Analyzed policy documents
Analyzed policy documents of Amsterdam Policy document Year Relevant points
1. Open City (Open Stad) 1996 - Sets out the urban development vision of the city for the following 5 years. - Introducing ‘main structure green space’ (Hoofdgroenstructuur): green spaces that
are protected by law from urban development.
- First document where urban green space and landscapes are included as separate themes.
- Continuing compact city policies that have been introduced in the structure vision of 1985. The policies focus on establishing urban development in the city boarders. - Aim to realize 33.000 dwellings per year, 350-450 hectares industry and 1.4 million
m2 office space by 2005. 2. Structure Vision Amsterdam
2040: Economically Strong and Sustainable (Structuurvisie Amsterdam 2040: Economisch Sterk en Duurzaam)
2011 - Sets out the vision and guidelines of spatial development of the city for 2040. - First structure plan that pays attention to biodiversity and ecological networks by
introducing an ecological structure of green networks in Amsterdam. The aim is to finalize the structure of green networks by 2020.
- Underlines economic importance of green space for the attractiveness and economic success of the city.
- To facilitate more UGS, the legal framework is adjusted to ease development of green roofs and green walls.
- Investments in city parks and developments of green spaces such as pocket parks, trees, urban farms, green roofs and green walls areas are stimulated with subsidies. - Continuing ‘main structure green space’ policies.
- Establishing ‘main tree structure’ (Hoofdbomenstructuur): a network of trees that needs to be protected to secure the continuity of street tree lanes throughout the city.
- Continuing compact city policies: densification inside existing city boarders. - Aim to realize 70.000 more dwellings by 2040.
- More intensive usage of the harbor area and other industrial/office areas by establishing a higher mix of living and working by transforming those areas into dwellings.
- Emphasis on the area inside and around the A10 highway (referred to as ‘the ring’) for urban development. The aim is to realize high rise buildings between 30-60 meters along the A10.
- Urban (high-rise) development along the ‘IJ’ river, ‘Zuidflank’ and ring area. 3. The Green Agenda (Agenda
Groen)
2015 - First policy document that concretizes the green development ambitions and how to achieve this.
- Budget of 20 million made available for green space development.
- The actions to improve and develop green space are specified per zone: historic city center, ring area, outside the ring area (Zuidoost, Noord and Nieuw-West), green spaces around the city boarders and metropolitan landscapes.
o The focus in the inner city area - where there is limited space for new green space - is on small green infrastructure such as green walls, pocket parks and green roofs.
o The focus in the ring zone is on integrating urban development with green space development in the planning process.
o The focus in the area outside the ring is on increasing quality of green space by increasing (bio)diversity, multifunctionality, maintenance, adding recreational services and better accessibility by attractive bike routes. o The focus on the green spaces around the city boarders and metropolitan
landscapes is profoundly on improving accessibility by attractive bike routes.
- Improving and developing green space is set out at three scales: o Plans on neighborhood level:
- Adding 50.000 m2 of green roofs by providing subsidies (1 million in total) and approaching the target audience actively.
- Adjust legal framework to ease green roof and green wall development. - Developing at least twenty pocket parks.
- Instalment or improvement of 15 natural playgrounds. - Increase the share of green school yards.
- Supporting initiatives for the instalment of allotments for a longer period on barren land, squares or city parks. Potential restricting regulations will be removed.
- Integrating the increase of quality and quantity of green space with the development of dwellings.
- Increasing quality of green space in the outer edges of the city by increasing biodiversity, multifunctionality, improving maintenance, adding recreational services and improving accessibility by making bike routes more attractive.
