The municipality and gymnastics : analysing how fragmented land-ownership impacts the balance between protecting the existing and facilitating the new in projects of urban regeneration

(1)

The Municipality and Gymnastics

Analysing how fragmented land-ownership impacts

the balance between protecting the existing and

facilitating the new in projects of urban regeneration

Feike-Jan Nauta - 12434671 Master Thesis Urban and Regional Planning

12 August 2019

University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Social Sciences

(2)

1 Image:

(3)

2

List of figures

Figure 1.1 Dutch Municipalities are in a Split-Position when it comes to Urban Transformation, with local particularities at play

Figure 1.2 Simplification of the Power-Split, focusing on the individuals and their interactions

Figure 2.1 The split position of a municipality in the process of policy-making and the three power mechanisms at play

Figure 2.2 Interactions between the municipality and vested stakeholders as second power mechanism (Healey, 1997)

Figure 2.3 Interactions between a municipality and real estate developers as third mechanism of power (Healey, 1997 and Adams and Tiesdell (2010; 2013)

Figure 3.1 The conceptual model of this research comprising a complex pocket of micro-regulation for urban regeneration. The model highlights that fragmented land-ownership is impacting three power-mechanisms A, B and C in the process of policy-writing for urban regeneration. For the delivery of integrated place-based policy, municipal policy-makers need to find a balance between protecting the existing and enabling the new

Figure 4.1 The two cases central in this study, including its land-ownership situation and a key particularity Figure 4.2 The Hembrugterrein and Achtersluispolder urban regeneration localities and its setting between

Zaanstad in the North and Amsterdam towards the south (Edit from Google Maps, 2019). Figure 4.3 See figure 3.1

Figure 4.4 Statutory planning instruments as power-mechanism in the policy-writing process, based on and adapted from Adams and Tiesdell (2010;2013), Heurkens, Adams and Hobma (2015) and Tasan-Kok et al. (2019)

Figure 4.5 Achieving place-based knowledge with public support as second power mechanism (Healey, 1997) Figure 4.6 Promoting effective interactions with real estate developers (Healey, 1997 and Adams and Tiesdell

(2010; 2013)

Figure 4.7 Analysis scheme of this research

Figure 5.1 The statutory planning instruments that Zaanstad has used in the process of policy-making Figure 5.2 The six levels of participation in the Zaanstad policy-writing process of urban regeneration

(Document 1.8)

Figure 5.3 The organisation of public support in both projects

Figure 5.4 Interactions between the municipality and real estate developers in both projects

Figure 6.1 The policy-writing process for the Hembrugterrein, in which the relation between the municipality and the developer is tight-knit

Figure 6.2 Policy-writing for the Achtersluispolder means more fragmentation and more relations, making integrated and ambitious place-based policy difficult

(4)

3

Plagiarism Statement

1. I know that plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism is to use another’s work and pretend that it is one’s own

2. I have used the Harvard-UVA APA Convention for citation and referencing. Each contribution to, and quotation in, this report from the work(s) of other people has been attributed, and has been cited and referenced

3. This piece is my own work

4. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as his or her own work, and

5. I acknowledge that copying someone else’s work, or part of it, is wrong, and declare that this is my own work.

Name Student Number Date Signature

(7)

6

Abstract

This thesis studies the policy-writing process for projects of urban regeneration in the Dutch municipality of Zaanstad. Three power mechanisms illustrate the split position Dutch municipalities are in relating to protecting the current and enabling the new when it comes to decision-making for land-use policy. This research analyses how fragmented land-ownership is impacting the split position by comparing two policy-writing processes that are embedded in the same institutional context. The data collected in this research show differences relating to the selection of planning instruments and the process of coalition-building in the process of policy-making. Respondents identify a challenge of complexity that arises from fragmented land-ownership in projects of urban regeneration, and how this complexity undermines the formulation of an integrated place-based policy aimed at improving the quality of a certain locality. The analysis shows that this split can become an uncomfortable position when this split lacks cooperation, consideration, and compromise in the process of policy-making. The competences of municipal employees, experience in complex regeneration projects and collaboration skills are key for finding comfort in this straining position. This research contributes to debates around changing state-market relationships and the importance of connecting the various actors involved in networks of governance.

(8)

7

A personal note…

Proudly I am presenting this final product of six years of studying: A thesis that researches the social process of

policy-making in projects of urban regeneration, situated in a fragmented and contested world. Of course, this first sentence is a true over-simplification, as I am not only proud of this product, but also nervous and fulfilled. This final product is the product of a process of trying and trying again, lasting over six months. This process has not only thoroughly challenged me intellectually, but also personally – the latter probably even more; I’ll spare you the details. Six years of studying is, of course, not only about attending lectures and writing papers, as well, these years have brought me a bit of phronesis, in which “instrumental rationality is

balanced with [practical] value-rationality”, as scholar Bent Flyvbjerg (2002: 3) puts it, based on Aristotle’s

thoughts. What I mean with this in everyday language, is that I am thankful for these six years of learning about the world and its people, with episodes in Utrecht, Melbourne, Delft, and Amsterdam. It is a very special moment for me to see this coming to a closure.

I would like to seize the opportunity to thank some people here, as without them I would deem this thesis project impossible. First, I would like to thank Sara Özogul, my supervisor, for the intellectually challenging discussions and the personal style of supervising; I greatly appreciate your sincere involvement. Then, I would like to thank my friends and family, who were there for me to cheer me up, to support me when I was too nervous to write an email to a respondent or to stop me when I was overthinking. A special thanks to Willemijn and Elliot, for all the chats we had about these turbulent times.

Feike-Jan Nauta

(9)

8

Introduction

The complex puzzle of urban transformation

As of today, the Netherlands is experiencing a housing shortage of over 100,000 dwellings, leading to rising housing prices and the undermining of a living career for many (Rabo Research, 2018). Given that this shortage is projected to rise the upcoming years, the Dutch planning practice is currently contemplating and debating about where to build the one million dwellings that are necessary for 2030 (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, 2019). Here, the desirability of densifying existing localities on the one hand and the need to expand cities through the uptake of farmland on the other is in full swing (Gebiedsontwikkeling.nu, 2018). The option of densifying existing localities, in the Dutch practice named “urban transformation” is often pursued, as it is seen as the more sustainable option, that prevents further urban sprawl, increases patronage for public transport and helps to sustain urban amenities (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2017). However, these projects of urban transformation require stamina from all actors and stakeholders involved, as these localities are often situated in a city’s economy, with many landowners involved and interests around (Verdaas, 2019). As Dutch municipalities have become the responsible public actor for the provision of housing, this embedding in an existing local economy brings municipalities in a split-position that, one the one leg involves the protection of the vested interests and economy in a local area, and on the other leg the facilitation of new housing developments in order to provide the housing Dutch society needs so much. In other words, a municipality seems to have a hybrid role here, that is mutually influenced by endeavours to protect the current and facilitate the new, see figure 1.1. On top of this, local particularities have an impact on this split position, making projects of urban transformation context-dependent (Verheul et al., 2017). In the Dutch context, these particularities may include a complex environmental situation, high policy ambitions, and high investment costs. As a result, facilitating new housing developments asks from municipalities to solve a complex puzzle, while staying in balance.

Figure 1.1: Dutch Municipalities are in a Split-Position when it comes to Urban Transformation, with local particularities at play

(10)

9

Aim, objectives and research question

The Dutch planning practice is currently on the quest for shortcuts and solutions for this complex puzzle. Historically, the Dutch “planning paradise” (Faludi and Van der Falk, 1994) is known in Europe for its effectiveness relating to housing production on vacant land. However, the typology of paradise may have become outdated, as national planning has incrementally given way to planning on the provincial and municipal level (Bontje, 2003; Tasan-Kok et al., 2019). As of today, Dutch planning practice is further diversifying and complexifying, as integrated policy-making is encouraged through the forthcoming regulatory change of the Omgevingswet, asking from municipalities to redefine their role relating to spatial policy-making and land-use planning (Korthals Altes, 2016; OECD, 2017). Moreover, concerning the greenfield developments that gave Dutch planning the title of planner’s paradise by the end of the 20th century, the object of planning has changed in the Dutch. Context. As of today, Dutch planning mostly involves planning and policy-making for urban transformation on previously developed land. Due to the variety of activities and land-owners often present in such a locality before redevelopment, this usually demands from municipal governments to deal with a fragmented land-ownership structure, making policy-writing complicated.

As planning literature – that interprets urban transformation found in the Dutch context as urban

regeneration – indicates, urban regeneration projects feature a multitude and variety of actors involved in

which parties pursue their own goals (Tasan-Kok et al., 2012). Also, the private sector has become the principal implementation agent in the provision of housing in many Western-European countries, including the Netherlands (Heurkens and Hobma, 2014). Therefore, building, managing, and sustaining relationships with private parties has become one of a municipality’s critical occupations in projects of urban regeneration. As a result, the policy-writing process of urban regeneration projects involves keeping multiple balls in the air, asking agility and creativity from a municipality. As noted by Verheul et al. (2017), urban regeneration projects are highly dependent on their local particularities, including the situation relating to land-ownership (Eidelman, 2018). Therefore, in their approach to urban regeneration projects, municipalities need to “dare” to designate and formulate tailor-made plans, based on a specific combination of policy-instruments. However, this is more easily said than done, as these particularities, including the land-ownership situation and the stakeholders involved often constrain a municipality’s decision-space. Thus, designing these tailor-made plans takes up time, energy, and money (Uitzetter, 2019). It is the complexity of the policy-writing process that this study is analysing. It focuses on how a municipality is balancing the conflict that arises from jointly protecting the vested interests and facilitating new developments. As land-ownership is a crucial variable in explaining this complexity (Eidelman, 2018), this research looks at how fragmented land-ownership impacts the policy-writing process and the power-split municipalities are in, see figure 1.2.

(11)

10 Therefore, this research seeks to understand:

Ø How a municipality is setting up the process of policy-making for projects of urban regeneration Ø How fragmented land-ownership influences the use of statutory planning instruments in the

policy-writing process of projects of urban regeneration

Ø How fragmented land-ownership influences the interactions between a municipality and the vested interests

Ø How fragmented land-ownership forces the interactions between a municipality and real estate developers

These objectives lead to the central research question of:

How does fragmented land-ownership impact the power-split municipalities are in during the process of policy-writing in projects of urban regeneration?

This study understands the central concepts as following:

• Power-split: As mentioned, in projects of urban regeneration, a municipality has a hybrid role that is about protecting the existing and facilitating the new. This hybridity brings a municipality often in a split position that needs to be balanced, as this research will illustrate.

• Projects of urban regeneration: following Tasan-Kok (2010: 126): urban regeneration projects “upgrade, revitalise, or renew neighbourhoods, and also offer the kind of spatial restructuring that will attract private investment to improve the social conditions of a larger territory.”

• Policy-writing process: The process of formulating ambitions for an area resulting from interactions with actors that often have conflicting interests. Ideally, policy knows support from all stakeholders involved (Edelenbos and Klijn, 2006; Heurkens, 2017).

• Power: The capacity to influence decisions that influence the actual policy for an urban regeneration location, based on the notion that power can only be exercised through relations (Oxford Dictionaries, 2019; Foucault, 1982, Daamen, 2010).

• Actors: People or organisations involved in the policy-writing process, often having a certain degree of power to influence the outcome of this process (Edelenbos and Klijn, 2006)

• Stakeholders: Individuals or organisations having an interest in the outcomes of policy-making. In the policy-writing process, stakeholders are increasingly invited to the table to avoid stakeholders blocking decision-making (Edelenbos and Klijn, 2006).

Societal Relevance

In the Dutch planning practice, the national government, provinces, and municipalities are bolstering urban regeneration on previously built locations to accommodate new residents, avoiding the further uptake of unbuilt land as much as possible (Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, 2019). Major Dutch municipalities, including Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and The Hague are currently regenerating extensively used localities towards mixed living and working environments (Van der Linden, 2018). As these projects comprise complex puzzle, more knowledge and experience are necessary, relating to the actual land use policy, stakeholder management, and the competences public policy-makers need to bring these processes of urban regeneration to success. Interestingly, these practices of urban regeneration are not only found in the major Dutch municipalities, but also in smaller-sized municipalities. The Zaanstad municipality is one of them and knows two urban regeneration projects, in which special attention is given to the provision of the existing harbour-born economy (REOS Partners, 2017). As Zaanstad has a significantly smaller municipal

(12)

11

organisation than the four largest Dutch municipalities, understanding how the balance is kept between protecting the existing and facilitating the new, is of interest to other Dutch municipalities, as this complex type of urban regeneration is expected to proliferate (Uitzetter. 2019; Tasan-Kok et al., 2019). Based on the idea that finding a balance in the split position becomes easier for municipalities when more knowledge is available, this study seeks to contribute to questions of how to solve the puzzle of urban regeneration can be solved and how to deliver the number of housing that Dutch society needs to much. Also, by understanding the power dynamics at play in the process of policy-making, urban planning as a profession can be empowered, as practitioners have a more profound understanding of the policy-making process. Consequently, they may shape it to their hands as a result of power derived from knowledge and experience (Davoudi, 2015).

Scientific Relevance

In the diversity of planning thought, planning has often been referred to as the governance of place, to understand its embeddedness in public sector activities (Schmitt and Thorsten, 2018). The collaborative planning approach is a widely used frame to understand conflict management in networks of policy-making (Healey, 1997; Innes and Booher (1999). However, as noted by Yiftachel and Huxley (2000), communicative theories seem to overlook the spatial context of urban planning. As well, collaborative planning thought is frequently based on a normative stance on what should be done, instead of analysing what is done (Flyvbjerg, 2002; Tasan-Kok et al., 2019). As projects of urban regeneration are embedded in real estate markets, Heurkens, Adams and Hobma (2015) note that only a few conceptualisations exist in which the private sector is the principal implementation agent. Based on calls from Healey (1991), Guy and Henneberry (2000) and Doak and Karadimitriou (2007) to integrate the economic and social-institutional in property research to justify its complexity, Adams and Tiesdell (2010) make a bridge between planning theory and real estate markets. As they note, real estate markets are social constructs, based on values, beliefs and emotion. The framework from Adams and Tiesdell (2013) focuses on the dynamics, diversity and contradictions of state-market relations. Due to its intersubjective nature, a public party can steer this process, is the idea (Heurkens and Hobma, 2014). As this framework focuses on the deployment of planning instruments mainly, corresponding to a focus on instrument-rationality (Flyvbjerg, 2002), the pivotal social process that policy-making involves is understudied in this framework (Adams and Tiesdell (2013).

This study aims to contribute by using the Adams and Tiesdell framework and extending it to capture the dynamics that are at play in the policy-writing process. It takes a look at how a municipality is consciously leaving room to the market and market initiatives in urban regeneration projects, by adopting an approach that borrows from communicative planning theory, focusing on interactive policy-making that is present in the Dutch context (Healey, 1997; Innes and Booher, 1999; Edelenbos and Klijn, 2006). By looking at the impact of fragmented land-ownership, a modest body of research is supplemented (Avni and Teschner, 2019). In other words, experiences from a real-world practice are collected, which disentangle the neoliberal times we are in on the micro-level of policy-making. In doing so, the relevance of urban planning is kept, namely in the sense that due to the increased complexity of urban regeneration projects, the process of connecting institutional fragments, vested interests and real estate developers – based in a specific context – only gets more vital (Campbell et al., 2014).

(13)

12

Outline

This research unfolds as a comparative case study that sheds light on the process of policy-making in projects of urban regeneration. It analyses how a fragmented land-ownership is impacting the balance municipalities need to sustain between protecting the vested interests and enabling new developments in the formulation of its policy. This study continues by setting the macro-context urban regeneration is embedded in, then it touches upon the micro-context of institutional policy-making. An academic conceptualisation of the power-split follows. The changing Dutch planning context is briefly explained to put these developments in its context. Then the academic problem statement and the research strategy, including case-selection, are given. The analysis and the concluding chapter indicate that fragmented land-ownership and high policy-ambitions are not necessarily aligned, making the integration a complex puzzle to solve.

(14)

13

Planning and the power to steer policy-making

The macro-context

Planning and real estate markets are essentially intertwined

In the social sciences in general as well as the field of urban planning, neoliberalism is a widely used umbrella framework to understand a changing regulatory structure that has succeeded the modernist paradigm relating to government and governance (Tasan-Kok, 2010). Neoliberalisation policies have aimed to cut regulation and increase the usage of market forces in public policy, based on intentions to minimise public spending (Brenner and Theodore, 2002). These practices are often referred to as roll-back

neoliberalism and entail various endeavours of deregulation. Also, it intends to devolve power from the

public to the private sector relating to the delivery of housing (Heurkens, 2012). In 1989, scholar David Harvey recognised a tendency of local authorities across the world to shift from managerialism to urban entrepreneurialism. Urban entrepreneurialism involves strategies from public authorities that maximise local economic performance of cities or regions by boosting policies aimed at bringing efficiency (Harvey, 1989). As a result of this widely observed trend that continues today (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019), urban planning has frequently become a strategic practice, aimed at maximising the urban economy. Due to this focus on economic growth, the framework of neoliberalism is a widely applied lens to criticise the contemporary practice of urban development in planning theory. This new policy ideology is believed by some to insufficiently consider the questions of democracy or civil justice (Peck, Theodore and Brenner, 2009; Moulaert et al., 2007).

However, as Tasan-Kok et al. (2019) note, these critiques fail to provide planning inquiry with a thorough understanding of the real dynamics of this process of private sector involvement in urban development practices and therefore misses the connection to real-world examples including urban regeneration projects. As a result, reflecting on this practice becomes difficult, hampering a constructive debate in planning theory on how to deal with neoliberal and entrepreneurial thought in processes of urban development (Campbell et al., 2014). Also, as observed by various scholars, including Atkinson, Tallon and Williams (2019), the umbrella framework of neoliberalisation has lost most of its explanatory power in the context of urban development, due to its general and broad application. As they note, urban development projects, including urban regeneration, may better be approached from the concept of variegated neoliberalism. Variegated neoliberalism states that the governance context of urban developments is continuously mutated and re-interpreted, through institutional, organisational and political particularities. Following these ideas of variegated context-dependent neoliberalism and its outcomes for the process of urban governance, changes the inquiry of urban planning as an academic discipline from the normative question of what should be done to the more pragmatic question of what is done.

In line with this call for pragmatism, various scholars including Tasan-Kok et al. (2019), Heurkens and Hobma (2014) and Adams and Tiesdell (2013) call for a more in-depth understanding in planning theory of the variety of private sector agents in the process of urban development and their motivations, behaviours and strategies. As planning theory lacks a thorough understanding of the development industry and its processes, it impedes a nuanced look — hindering constructive-critical reflections on the process. Therefore, by acknowledging that the process of urban development is embedded in the context of real estate markets, planning theory and real estate research can be bridged by understanding how markets and real estate markets influence the process of urban planning (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019). Making this connection between urban planning and the real estate market, opens up the idea of planners as active agents in this process of framing markets and developing urban spaces conceptually. Moreover, based on insights from

(15)

14

institutional and behavioural economics, Adams and Tiesdell (2010) note that real estate markets are socially constructed. Markets are not lifeless machines, but rather the product of (human) preferences, norms and regulations shaped by language and discourse. As a result, since public and private parties are often mutually dependent in the process of urban development, public authorities have some power in framing and reframing local real estate markets in accordance to their policies (Heurkens, Adams and Hobma, 2015). Following the argument that planners should be reflective operators and the given that the property sector has gained such a significant position in the process of urban development, urban planners need to realise they are actors in the real estate market, that is shared private parties. As Adams and Tiesdell (2010) note for the UK and Heurkens and Hobma (2014) for the Netherlands, planners do not always seem to be aware of this. Following the notion that knowledge is power and exercised through networks and relations, based on Foucault (1982), public authorities that fail to identify this position may hamper the effectiveness of private sector involvement in projects of urban regeneration. Therefore, as knowing the rules of the game is often an empowering experience (Campbell et al., 2014), urban planners urgently need to become aware that they operate in markets and have a discretion to influence the market. In other words, urban planners have to continuously update their knowledge and skills based on a changing institutional landscape, to make sure it uses its statutory planning instruments as optimal as possible (Adams and Tiesdell, 2013).

The micro-context

The process of policy-making and the power-split of local

governments

Zooming in to the level of an individual project, as Hajer and Versteeg (2005) note, public policy problems often cannot be solved by a state only. This dependency on others highlights the end of the classic public institutions that were dominant in the modern era. As a result, flatter networks of governance have replaced a stable top-down oriented government in the process of policy-making (Pierre, 1999; Healey, 1997). These networks of governance are “relatively stable sets of interdependent, but operationally autonomous and negotiating actors, focused on joint problem solving” (Hajer and Versteeg, 2005: 341). Now paramount in public policy-making, networks of governance are dependent on their local context and institutional design. However, they are not necessarily successful in problem-solving as conflicts and deadlocks may arise (Sorensen and Torfing, 2009). As its utility is not guaranteed, this asks for an understanding of how networks of governance seek to overcome conflicts in the policy-writing process for projects of urban regeneration

2.2.1 Governance through networks and the question of power

With private actors having become such important actors in the context of public policy-making across Europe, a local authority is increasingly steering the boat relating to policy-problems, rather than rowing it (Hajer and Versteeg, 2005; Adams and Tiesdell, 2013). On the level of an urban regeneration project, networks of governance have become hyper-diverse, highly complex and continuously changing, based on their local context. Managing those complex pockets of micro-regulation (Tasan-Kok, Atkinson and Martins, 2019: 4) often relates to an entrepreneurial form of governance in which a variety of actors, including “public agencies, semi-independent public organisations, private companies and public-private partnerships all have their responsibilities and powers and tend to pursue their own individualised goals (Tasan-Kok, 2012:4; Harvey, 1989). Despite this individualism, as governance through networks entails the “blending of public and private interests” (Pierre, 1999: 374), the public and the private have become mutually dependent and therefore need to resolve conflicting interests in the process of policy-writing for urban regeneration. This process of blending raises questions about the organisation of collaborative practices, partnership and

(16)

15

negotiation. Following notions from Michel Foucault (1982) that power is shaped through the relations found in the networks of governance involved in policy-writing, asking the inevitable question of power (Flyvbjerg, 2002) in projects of urban regeneration, is therefore essential. Since each complex-pocket of micro-regulation is unique and context-dependent, this asks from local authorities to reflect on this and to adapt their strategy accordingly in order to exercise power effectively (Heurkens, Adams and Hobma, 2015).

In the policy-writing process for urban regeneration, the relation between a public authority and the vested stakeholders are a central power mechanism that influences the outcome of policy-making, as these parties are mutually dependent. As well, this holds for the interactions between a municipality and real estate developers in those networks of governance. The use of statutory planning instruments as a resource of power to steer a policy-making process legally, is complementing the power that is shaped in relations. Those three power mechanisms shape the process of policy-making for urban regeneration, as a municipality is on the quest to pursue its ambitions, corresponding to the notion of Verheul et al. (2017) as “plural forms of steering within a municipal domain”. Thus, adopting a tailor-made approach for an urban regeneration project not only asks for a thoughtful selection of planning instruments but also for a carefully designed process of policy-writing. As mentioned, the land-ownership situation of a locality is sometimes pivotal for the success of projects of urban regeneration (Eidelman, 2018). As Avni and Teschner (2019) note, a specific land-ownership situation impacts the nature, pace and economic structuring of urban regeneration. Fragmented land-ownership seems to delay the process of policy-making, as merging the conflicting interests takes up time, energy and resources. As this research is interested in how fragmented land-ownership impacts the three power mechanisms in the process of policy-making, the next paragraph discusses the mechanisms and the split position a municipality has in the process of policy-writing, between vested interests on the one hand and developing interests on the other.

2.2.2 The split position of local governments in complex pockets of micro-governance

In order to be effective in a complex pocket of micro-governance, urban planners need the be aware of their split position between the vested interests that are present on previously developed land and the wishes of real estate developers for regeneration. Here, a municipality has a hybrid role, as it is their role to protect the vested interests in an area, as well as facilitating developments in order to get their policies and housing delivered. As mentioned, in this power-split, three power mechanisms are at play, see the arrows of figure 2.1. In order to improve their position on this power-split, i.e. exercise more power in this split, they need to optimise their actions. First, policy-makers must have a thorough understanding of the statutory planning instruments they have available and how and when to use them effectively, see the A in figure 2.1. By knowing the possibilities, planners can make a well-informed decision, rather than only responding to market pressures (Heurkens, Adams and Hobma, 2015). Second, as power involves the influencing the behaviour of others, planners need to know and apply the rules of the game relating to stakeholder management in order to build support for their plans see B, vested stakeholders, in figure 2.1 (Campbell et al., 2014). This relationship is mutually dependent, as the decisions of the vested stakeholders have an impact on the decision-space of a local government. Third, in order to optimise partnership between planners and real estate developers, planners need the competences to understand real estate market dynamics and the soft skills to manage this process of public-private interactions, see C in figure 2.1 (Adams and Tiesdell, 2013). This power-relationship is mutually dependent as well, as their decision-spaces are intertwined and often based on negotiation (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019). The next section discusses the three power-mechanisms in more detail.

(17)

16

Figure 2.1: The split position of a municipality in the process of policy-making and the three power mechanisms at play (A, B, C)

A. Managing Statutory planning instruments as the first power mechanism

Following Adams and Tiesdell (2013), urban planners have three types of statutory instruments at their disposal, corresponding to the first power mechanism that Dutch municipalities have in order to steer the policy-making process of urban regeneration projects. This first power mechanism consists of three types of instruments: shaping, regulating and stimulus instruments. All three instruments have their impact on the process of policy-making for urban regeneration, as they have their effect on the local real estate market (Heurkens and Hobma, 2014).

Shaping Instruments have to do with setting a context and perspective for development in a specific

area by changing the institutional rules of the game (Adams and Tiesdell, 2013). Changing these rules involves the publication of plans, visions and strategies, meaning that public authorities influence practices of speculation in the real estate market (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019). Here public authorities have a source of power as they control and create flows of information that shape a development process into a particular direction. Following Heurkens, Adams and Hobma (2015), a successful practice of shaping markets involves setting clear guidelines, explaining why and for whom these ambitions are desirable and explain the benefits of planning.

Regulating Instruments involve endeavours to limit the scope for individual and autonomous action

for actors in real estate markets, e.g. by setting-up development limits and requiring permits for certain developments in projects of urban regeneration. A limit can be a minimum or maximum amount of development space in a specific locality, setting maximum heights of buildings and the condition to provide a certain amount of public space. Following Adams and Tiesdell (2013), regulating instruments seek to streamline the market transactions of private actors following public policy. An effective regulatory plan involves the integration of various interests, based on the idea that integration and collective gains more than outweigh personal losses. Regulations are typically arranged using local land-use plans, contractual agreements between public and private parties, tendering practices, permits (Heurkens, Adams and Hobma, 2015) and accountability mechanisms (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019).

(18)

17

Stimulus Instruments involve the promotion of a particular development direction by making specific

actions (financially) more rewarding. Often found in regeneration projects, stimulus instruments include the remediation of a piece of land by a public authority to reduce investment costs for a private developer, as well as removing institutional barriers to initiate the development process, such as regulations in a local land-use plan (Verheul et al., 2017). A third option is the acquisition of land by a public authority and parcellation in order to reduce risk. Whereas using stimulus instruments certainly gives the public authority a source of power, the question remains to what extent a municipality should deploy stimulus instruments, as it involves public investment money a municipality not necessarily earns back. Interestingly, the stimulus instrument of the assembly and parcellation of land is currently under discussion in the Dutch context based on this argument (Van der Krabben and Jacobs, 2013). This discussion shows urban administrators have to be reflective, well-informed and street-wise about the real estate industry (Adams and Tiesdell, 2013).

B. Managing stakeholders as a second power mechanism

Statutory planning instruments prove to be a useful source of power for local authorities in the process of policy-making. As mentioned, in urban regeneration projects, a municipality needs to design a policy-making process aimed at building public support for a policy as well, as regeneration localities come with vested stakeholders and municipalities often lack the money to wipe them out. As Healey (1997) notes, planning processes are active social processes, in which individuals have meanings and ways of acting that construct a particular way of interaction. Regarding the rules of the game of building the institutional capacity that connects policy to action, the collaborative approach to capacity-building seeks to integrate a specific policy culture in the broader institutional domain to overcome fragmentation due to neoliberalisation forces. As well it explains how a municipality can organise public support for a place-based policy. In urban regeneration projects, set in the Dutch context with a multitude of actors that have an interest involved, building this institutional capacity is a process that requires vision, negotiation skills and consensus-building capacities (Healey, 1997; Innes and Booher, 1999; Atkinson, Tallon and Williams, 2019). Basing and adapting from Healey (1997), formulating policies that have public support means understanding the locality and its particularities thoroughly. Identifying the local particularities and formulating how the municipality intends to deal with these in its new policy is critical in policy-making, see figure 2.2. Also, a municipality needs to seek collaboration with local stakeholders by inviting various stakeholders in the process of policy-writing to build public support. In these interactions, the promotion of mutual learning between the interests of each party enhances a mutual understanding, streamlining the organisation of public support. In the end, this should lead to a broad coalition of interests (Healey, 1997). However, as noted by Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger (1998), the collaborative school has a rather normative stance on planning, based on ideas of Habermas of communicative-rationality. Collaborative planning is useful for endeavours to build public support for a place-based policy; however, the school does not sufficiently incorporate real-world dynamics. As they say, consensus-building is deemed (nearly) impossible in an increasingly fragmented world. As well, communicative-rationality, sees the collaborative process as neutral, whereas power symmetries are abundant between a municipality with expert knowledge and the statutory rights on the one hand and citizens on the other. In the analysis of power dynamics, a municipal organisation needs to consider these asymmetries (Flyvbjerg, 2002).

(19)

18

Figure 2.2 – Interactions between the municipality and vested stakeholders as second power mechanism (Healey, 1997)

Build public support

Obtaining knowledge from a diverse group Obtaining practical place-based knowledge Establish arenas and discussion fora Invite actors with an interest to the table

Using different modes and languages to communicate Promote mutual learning between municipality and vested stakeholders

Form a coalition of shared ownership and interests

C. Managing real estate developers as the third source of power

As the process of policy-making in a complex pocket of micro-governance is an inherently social process, the interactions between the public authority and real estate developers comprise the third power mechanism in the policy-writing process for projects of urban regeneration. This power mechanism asks planners to have adequate competences to interact with developing real estate developers in order to maximise their goals and objectives through effective negotiation with real estate developers. With real estate markets as socially constructed and planners having the power to reframe real estate developments, policy-makers in projects of urban regeneration have to identify three key mechanisms they can use in order to interact with real estate developers effectively. Based on Adams and Tiesdell (2013), these are (1) market-rich information and knowledge, (2) market-relevant skills and (3) market-rooted networks. Market-market-rich information and knowledge have to do with collecting information about the performance of real estate markets, to identify the opportunities a certain area and its projected developments have. Moreover, urban planners need to understand the motives, strategies and behaviours of private-sector actors, in order to work with them effectively and to be able to challenge them fundamentally, if required. Here planners need to acknowledge the diversity of developers, rather than stereotyping them. A distinction between place-based developers and non-place-place-based developers helps. Place-place-based-developers tend to be smaller, more creative and less risk-averse than non-place-based developers, including institutional investors (Coiacetto, 2006). The market-relevant skills that are necessary entail a profound understanding of the process of real estate development and urban development. Given the complexity of contemporary urban development projects, this asks from urban planners to be strategic, communicative and collaborative thinkers and practitioners (Adams and Tiesdell, 2013). As well, effective negotiation skills are necessary. Third, market-rooted networks involve the provision of both formal and informal platforms for interaction between the public sector and real estate developers. Actively building these networks enhances trust between actors and creates a coalition of shared interests based on the idea that the sum is greater than its parts. As well, this seeks to increase the willingness to work together, provide a space to foster mutual learning and breaking down the hostility, the see figure 2.3 for an overview. However, a definite list is lacking in the literature, which may have to do with the various perspectives on who is a planner and who is not, as a result of the fast-changing and complex nature of urban policy-making and planning (Adams and Tiesdell, 2013; Tasan-Kok, 2016).

(20)

19

Figure 2.3 – Interactions between a municipality and real estate developers as third mechanism of power (Healey, 1997 and Adams and Tiesdell (2010; 2013)

Market-rich information and knowledge Market-relevant skills Market-rooted networks

Openness to institutional change Real estate market dynamics Break down hostility

Collecting information about markets Challenge developers if needed Enhance trust

Understanding the motives of private sector agents

Negotiation skills Communicative skills

Facilitate mutual learning Find mutual benefits Acknowledging the diversity of private

sector agents

Visionary skills Forming a coalition of shared interests

Identifying windows of opportunity

The Dutch policy-writing process in a state of flux

The question of land-ownership in the Dutch planning context

As outlined in the last paragraph, the three mechanisms of power in the process of policy-making for urban regeneration involve the actions of actors and the relations between them in a complex pocket of micro-regulation that is context-dependent. Therefore, we need to understand the particularities of the Dutch planning context that shape the policy-writing process for urban regeneration. As mentioned in the introduction, the Dutch planning context is not fixed but diverse and in a state of flux (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019; Korthals Altes, 2016).

Historically, the Dutch planning practice was renowned for its effectiveness in terms of the provision of public goods, including social housing, as well as the achieved spatial order and quality. These realisations are the result of strong state intervention through active land policy in which municipalities acquire all the land before developments, in order to steer the process to a high level of detail (Buitelaar, 2010). Not only the steering possibilities were a rationale for this approach, but municipalities also had financial incentives for this strategy. Active land policy enabled Dutch municipalities to earn back their investments and even yield profits out of their activities in the land market to finance other public policy, referred to as value capturing (Van der Krabben and Jacobs, 2013; Tasan-Kok and Munoz-Gielen, 2010). Whereas proven financially rewarding for greenfield developments, a growing number of academics started to challenge this active land policy from the 2000s and the debate proliferated with the financial crisis starting in 2008 (Van der Krabben and Jacobs, 2013). Besides the financial risks involved for municipalities, a mismatch existed between the active land policy and its financial incentives on the one hand and a focus on inner-city brownfield locations for housing production in policy-making. Brownfield locations are sites on previously built land, assigned by the national government for urban regeneration. As Buitelaar (2010) notes, the current Dutch planning regulatory framework has difficulties relating to brownfield locations due to two reasons. The first is the fragmented land-ownership situation on brownfield locations that slows down the development process or leads to high land acquisition prices, as mentioned in the introduction. Local authorities have to deal with a diverse group of land-owners compared to traditional greenfield sites, with often a single owner or only farmers. As a result, the value-capturing opportunities have become scarce, as inner-city locations already have a considerable land-value. This makes active land-development a costly way

(21)

20

to deal with fragmented land-ownership. Second, frequently, brownfield locations also have to do with high remediation costs, leading to high investment costs and sometimes resulting in negative results for a municipality (Buitelaar, 2010). Due to the new Dutch Spatial Planning Act (2008), the active land policy became less of a necessity, as municipalities obtained the legal instruments to steer an urban regeneration process when not owning the land. These regulatory planning instruments require real estate developers to provide for social housing (Heurkens, Adams and Hobma, 2015). As well a municipality can ask as mandatory contributions to public space and infrastructure from private developers.

Through this enactment, the Dutch planning context resembles other planning contexts more (Buitelaar, 2010). However, the opportunities that those newly introduced regulatory planning instruments offer are not always used by municipalities (Van der Krabben and Jacobs, 2013). Missing those opportunities leave the question open of how municipalities deal best with brownfield development schemes that are often featured by fragmented land-ownership. Following the considerations of Van der Krabben and Jacobs (2013: 781), “perhaps the most obvious way to deal to deal with these problems is to abandon the public land development strategy and to allow more private initiatives for urban redevelopment”. The forthcoming Dutch regulatory change of the Omgevingswet seeks to follow this idea and aims at a paradigm shift in Dutch planning, by discouraging active land-policy and facilitating private initiatives more (Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, 2017; Korthals Altes, 2016). However, the question is how municipalities will practice this Act in a context that knows a strong interventionist tradition (Van der Krabben and Jacobs, 2013). As well, the Dutch urban regeneration practice already shows variety over the last twenty years that points to the direction the Omgevingswet promotes, with the appearance of private-sector-led urban

regeneration projects. Here a municipality takes a facilitating role based on predefined guidelines, in which

the municipality and the private party share the costs and risks, based on a joint-venture construction (Heurkens and Hobma, 2014). Another approach recently found in the Dutch planning practice is the step-by-step piecemeal regeneration approach, featured by the reduction of risk and the municipality being susceptible to taking a more flexible role (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019: 10). However, giving room to private parties in the development process does not necessarily resolve the issue from fragmented land-ownership, suggesting that a one-size-fits-all approach for this puzzle is not readily available.

(22)

21

Problem Statement and Research Questions

Due to the complexity in complex of pockets of micro-regulation, public policy-makers are continuously on the quest to navigate through a complex web of relations and interests by making governance arrangements that are often situational and provisional (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019). This context-dependency corresponds to the idea of variegated neoliberalism (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2013). This context-dependency also means that in the process of policy-writing, a municipality has a choice of various planning instruments to exercise power. Besides these statutory planning instruments, a municipality has dialectic interactions with vested stakeholders and real estate developers to which it needs to set up a productive policy-writing process. In the formulation of this integrated place-based policy, a municipality has a split position, between protecting the vested interests and making room for new developments in partnership with real estate developers, see figure 3.1 depicting the conceptual model of this research on the next page. As the introduction and the theoretical frame have concluded, due to fragmented land-ownership and high acquisition prices in the Dutch planning practice, the Land Assembly instrument that has shaped a significant part Dutch urban planning projects, is expected to be used less (Tasan-Kok et al. 2019; Van der Krabben and Jacobs, 2013). The financial risks involved and the focus on urban regeneration for the delivery of housing – in which opportunities for value capturing are modest – are prime reasons for this. These reservations about adopting a too active role leave us to the question of how fragmented land-ownership impacts the split position local municipalities are in during the process of policy-writing for projects of urban regeneration. After a powerful stimulus tool has become unpopular, a municipality is contemplating different ways to pursue its ambitions for a specific regeneration location while protecting the vested interests. These contemplations lead to the following central research question:

Central Question

How does fragmented land-ownership impact the power-split municipalities are in during the process of policy-writing in projects of urban regeneration?

With Dutch planning approaches diversifying and regulatory change forthcoming (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019), this asks us to analyse how Zaanstad is currently designing the policy-writing phase of projects of urban regeneration. Then, the impact of fragmented land-ownership on the three power mechanisms that are at play in the policy-writing process are studied. These mechanisms are statutory planning instruments, the organisation of public support, and interactions with real estate developers, see figure 3.1. These research intentions correspond to the following sub-research questions:

Sub-questions

1. How is the Zaanstad municipality pursuing integrated policy in a complex pocket of mirco-regulation found in urban regeneration projects?

2. How does fragmented land-ownership impact the use of statutory planning instruments in the policy-writing process for projects of urban regeneration?

3. How does fragmented land-ownership impact the organisation of public support in the policy-writing process for projects of urban regeneration?

4. How does fragmented land-ownership the interactions between the municipality and real estate developers in the policy-writing process for projects of urban regeneration?

(23)

22

Figure 3.1: The conceptual model of this research comprising a complex pocket of micro-regulation for urban regeneration. The model highlights that fragmented land-ownership is impacting three power-mechanisms A, B and C in the process of policy-writing for urban regeneration. For the delivery of integrated place-based policy, municipal policy-makers need to find a balance between protecting the existing and enabling the new.

(24)

23

Methods

With the practice of urban regeneration continuing in a changing context, this study analyses and reflects on a contemporary process of urban regeneration in the Dutch context, in which a government intendedly wishes to develop alternative approaches in urban regeneration besides the active land development model. By using and elaborating the framework of Adams and Tiesdell (2013), this research scrutinises the seemingly everyday practice of a policy-writing process. As this chapter shows, a comparative case-study design fits the central question of “How does fragmented land-ownership impact the power-split municipalities

are in during the process of policy-writing in projects of urban regeneration?”

Qualitative Methods and Case Study Design

4.1.1 The question of power in the process of policy-making

As the theoretical outline has shown, for projects of urban regeneration that are embedded in the dynamics of real estate markets, the framework of Adams and Tiesdell (2013) helps to understand which statutory planning instruments are of use in order to steer a policy-making process. This framework focuses on improving the instrumental rationality of planning mostly, corresponding to Flyvbjerg’s notion of techne in policy-making. Based on Aristotle, the effective deployment of planning instruments can improve planning is the idea. However, as a study from Heurkens and Hobma (2014) shows, these instruments are not always productively used, asking us to look beyond the instruments and suggesting a need to enhance our understanding of the deliberation process and the dynamics of power. Flyvbjerg (2004) refers to this understanding as ‘phronesis’ and Davoudi (2015) as ‘practical judgement’, both based on Aristotle’s thoughts. Therefore, as planning scholar Bent Flyvbjerg (2002) has argued, introducing the inevitable question of power is elemental to any planning inquiry, as it shifts the question of planning theory from what should be done, to what is done in practice. Therefore, reflecting on questions of power ex-durante serves urban planning as a discipline, as it enhances our understanding of the power dynamics in this mediated and contested setting (Forester, 1989).

4.1.2 Case-study design

This research unfolds like a deep inquiry in the social practice that a policy-making process is within the institutional context of a Dutch local authority that has the mandate to initiate urban regeneration projects. Following the central research question, the data that is aimed for should be qualitative, as the research seeks to explain concepts and mechanisms embedded in a social practice of a complex pocket of micro-regulation (Tasan-Kok, Atkinson and Martins, 2019), rather than defining absolute figures. Moreover, the question of power in a planning process fits an in-depth approach that seeks to generate dense data in order to understand deeply, rather than generating general ideas. Following Friedrich Nietzsche, this process may seemingly be a “discreet and apparently insignificant truth”, which, when studied with much detail uncovers essential elements that can be positioned in the debate of changing state-market relationships (Flyvbjerg (2006, p. 5; Heurkens and Hobma, 2014). As this study analyses and explains how fragmented land-ownership is impacting a municipality’s role in a policy-writing process, a comparative case-study approach is used to gain a holistic perspective on the process (Yin, 2009). With the projects embedded in the same institutional context, this research, therefore, informs about (1) the dynamics and challenges of writing a policy for projects of urban regeneration and (2) the impact of fragmented land-ownership on the process of policy-writing.

(25)

24

In doing this research, a qualitative approach facilitates a process of iteration; a continuous communication between the theories that structure the research and the data that is collected. Whereas this helps to structure the research process, it also leaves room for the richness and complexity of the data itself to theorise (Bryman, 2012). This circular process of both inductive and deductive reasoning has guided the research, as a researcher often needs to be familiar to a certain extent to collect the more useful data (Green, 2008; Flyvbjerg, 2006). Through applying various research techniques, the phenomena that are around in this messy social world will be studied from various perspectives, contributing to a state of triangulation (Yin, 2009). By doing case-study research, the theory-practice gap that is recognised by many planning scholars - and across various planning schools – is tightened (Allmendinger, 2017).

Selection and description of cases

This study is an attempt to identify a causal relationship between fragmented land-ownership and the split position a municipality is in, during the policy-writing process for projects of urban regeneration (Pickvance, 2001). The Dutch medium-sized municipality of Zaanstad is the institutional context based on the following selection criteria.

• Its institutional context differs from the four Dutch largest municipalities, relating to knowledge and experience in urban planning (Hoornstra, 2018). Given that the case is set in a medium-sized city that is not the capital city of a country, it addresses an under-researched topic in the field of urban regeneration, due to the smaller size of municipal organisations (Atkinson, Tallon and Williams, 2019).

• These processes of policy-making for projects of urban regeneration may be more often the case shortly. Due to the forthcoming regulatory change in the Dutch context that seeks to stimulate more flexible roles for local governments in the process of policy-making (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019), enhancing the understanding of these processes is relevant from a societal point of view as well.

4.2.1 MAAK Zaanstad-South Urban Regeneration Policy

The municipality of Zaanstad that is part of the Amsterdam Metropolitan area seeks to grow to 200,000 by physically connecting the missing link to the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area. The MAAK Zaanstad policy program aims to canalise this projected growth in an orderly manner. As well, it seeks “to improve the quality of the local living environment and to build a stronger economy that is well-connected. As well a resilient local society, and a sustainable city in which people feel at home and love to live, work and recreate”, is pursued (Zaanstad Municipality, 2016, p. 4), suggesting high and integrated policy-ambitions indeed. The program has run from 2016 and knows four localities that will see the prioritisation of municipal capacity and investments, from which MAAK-South is one. The South area knows two urban regeneration locations, set along the IJ-river, see figure 4.1 on the next page. In both projects, the municipality does not own any land before the developments, but the private ownership situation differs. Among other differences, this is the context for comparison (Pickvance, 2001).

• The first is the Hembrug that knows one developer as land-owner after it acquired the land from the (public) Dutch National Real Estate Company, the Rijksvastgoedbedrijf in 2018. The Zaanstad Municipality takes a different approach towards urban regeneration here than usual, featured by giving more freedom to the developing party and intentions to be more flexible about regulations. However, in Spring 2019 the Council of State [Dutch: Raad van State] has nullified the proposed regulatory Omgevingsplan, as local stakeholders went to court as they had the feeling their ideas were put aside too much. As a result, the developer has postponed building activities, and the municipality has reinitiated process of policy-writing. The Hembrugterrein knows a complicated

(26)

25

environmental situation from previous functions on the locality from the Dutch Ministry of Defence (Visser, 2019), see figure 4.2.

• The Achtersluispolder is currently in its policy-design phase and is set to provide the space for the development of 5000 to 10,000 new dwellings. The Achtersluispolder regeneration project knows a fragmented land-ownership situation (Zaanstad Municipality, 2018). The project now has a subproject, set to draw creative entrepreneurs to the area (Nul20, 2019). In the Achtersluispolder, substantial industrial activities are currently present, restricting residential functions, see figure 4.2.

Figure 4.1: The two cases central in this study, including its land-ownership situation and a key particularity

Hembrugterrein Achtersluispolder

“Centralised” private land-ownership Complex environmental situation

Fragmented private land-ownership Substantial industrial use

Figure 4.2: The Hembrugterrein and Achtersluispolder urban regeneration localities and its setting between Zaanstad in the North and Amsterdam towards the south (Edit from Google Maps, 2019).

(27)

26

Data Collection

In this research that strives for triangulation, data subjects include crucial informants from the Municipality of Zaanstad and relevant policy documents, mostly published by the Municipality of Zaanstad. This study conducts document analysis for three reasons: (1) understanding the institutional context the policy-writing process is situated in, (2) to understand how the municipality writes about the land-ownership situation (3) to use for input for the semi-structured interviews (Yin, 2009; Bowen, 2009). The semi-structured interviews with key-informants are conducted to (1) gather more information about the policy-making process and the complex behaviour that is involved, (2) to gather their perspective and experiences on this process and the challenges that arise (Longhurst, 2016). For matters of triangulation and due to possible flaws resulting from conscious or unconscious bias in interviews (Diefenbach, 2008), two experts give their view on the policy-making process as well. This data collection strategy has given a direction in the messy field of a policy-writing process in a complex pocket of micro-governance (Tasan-Kok, Atkinson and Martins, 2019), as a researcher often gathers the more useful data as the researcher gets more familiar in the field. For matters of ethics, confidentially and anonymity of the respondents are guaranteed. The next paragraph gives a short explanation of how the research techniques have been applied:

• Document Analysis à This research has studied a selection of eleven policy documents relating to urban regeneration in the Zaanstad MAAK program by their contents, with publication years ranging from 2009 to 2019. Selection is based on three groups of policy documents: (1) General policy documents focusing on the entire Zaanstad institutional domain that influence the process of policy-writing for urban regeneration, (2) specific policies for urban regeneration including the MAAK Zaanstad document stating ambitions and intentions, and (3) area-specific policy-documents about tailored considerations for the Hembrugterrein and Achtersluispolder projects. See appendix I for more details.

• Stakeholder Interviews à Five critical informants within the Zaanstad municipal organisation have been interviewed in Spring 2019. Participants include process managers within the Zaanstad municipality relating to policy-writing for urban regeneration, as well as program managers having more of a helicopter view on urban regeneration projects or those responsible for the Hembrugterrein or Achtersluispolder. Those program managers were thus all involved in the policy-writing process for urban regeneration, however, with variegating tasks, building their perspective, experiences and reflections. See appendix II for an overview.

• Expert Interviews à This research has conducted two semi-structured interviews with experts: one private consultant in the field of urban governance at the start of data collection, and one assistant-professor of a Dutch university focusing on urban regeneration towards the end; see appendix II.

Data Analysis

Through data collection and analysis, this case study research seeks to establish operational links between the phenomena and events happening in this process, based on a relevant frame of theories that developed in the theoretical outline, i.e. the power-split. By using the method of pattern-matching, a coherent set of events may link to a theoretical proposition, based on a content analysis of the data (Yin, 2009). This research seeks after fundamental mechanisms from theories as well as emerging mechanisms that are less clear in theory. This pattern-matching involves transcribing interviews, adopting a strategy of coding and sub-coding and quoting key messages. Treating the data in a structured manner increases the reliability of the collected data. Codes are gathered both inductively and deductively. Deductively through having the three power mechanisms identified in the theoretical frame, and inductively by adopting an open stance to topics that the important informants introduce themselves in the semi-structured interviews.

(28)

27

Limitations

Whereas case-study research effectively helps to understand complicated situated social practices and its mechanisms involved, the methodology knows possible limitations relating to issues including the case selection, generalisability and reliability. The selection of cases is not a sinecure, as cases are possible outliers and do not necessarily represent a broad trend. However, as Flyvbjerg (2006) notes, we do not only need the most common cases for matters of representability, as well we need more extreme cases as their explanatory power is more significant than regular cases. Case-study research is, therefore, about collecting qualitative examples that build triangulation on a specific phenomenon. The gathering of various perspectives corresponds to issues of generalisability, as a systemic generalisation is not the purpose of case-study research but is more about structuring the messy social world we live in (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Reliability of the data is certainly a point to address, as the researcher was constrained by time, leading to a strict selection of cases and possibly sub-optimal representativity of the process under study, as it covers one moment. Inviting key informants, collecting external perspectives and analysing policy-documents between 2009 and 2019 was a solution to this snapshot-constraint. Moreover, in this ex-durante study, the policy-writing process is still ongoing. As a policy-writing process takes years, and experiences are influenced by its outcomes, doing an ex durante study gives in-depth insights into the actual process, including the challenges that arise.

(29)

28

Operationalization

This comparative case-study analyses how fragmented land-ownership impacts the process of writing integrated place-based policy for projects of urban regeneration. The research analyses the process set-up by the Zaanstad municipality first. As the interests in urban regeneration are vested, the planning instruments planners that put to use, require time for complementation and consideration. In the context of urban regeneration, municipalities have three power dynamics that lead to influencing the process of integrated policy-making. These are power from (1) the deployment of statutory planning instruments, see A in figure 4.3, (2) interactions between the municipality and the vested stakeholders, see B in figure 4.3 and (3) the interactions between the municipality and real estate developers having an interest in the development of the area, see C in figure 4.3, forming the second, third and fourth sub-questions.

Figure 4.3: Again, the conceptual model of this research comprising a complex pocket of micro-regulation for urban regeneration. The model highlights that fragmented land-ownership is impacting three power-mechanisms A, B and C in the process of policy-writing for urban regeneration. For the delivery of integrated place-based policy, municipal policy-makers need to find a balance between protecting the existing and enabling the new.

4.6.1 Sub-question 1

Setting up a complex pocket of micro-regulation

As municipal roles are diverse and planning is further diversifying, the process of policy-making is context-dependent (Tasan-Kok, Atkinson and Martins, 2019). Therefore, for this project of urban regeneration, the institutional context of integrated policy-making in a complex pocket of micro-regulation is studied first. As Healey (1997) noted, policy-integration requires an active set-up of institutional bridges within the Zaanstad policy domain. This direction leads to the first sub-question of How is the Zaanstad municipality pursuing

The municipality and gymnastics : analysing how fragmented land-ownership impacts the balance between protecting the existing and facilitating the new in projects of urban regeneration