Putting Land Use Back on the Agenda: Developing a New Framework for OECD Member Countries

7/30/2019 Putting Land Use Back on the Agenda: Developing a New Framework for OECD Member Countries

1/76

Paintings by INOUE Naohisa

Prepared by Team Sciences Po:

Chukwudi Nwadibia, Hctor Tajonar, Jeremy Dennison, Shuma Okamura, Yujiro

Suzuki

Putting Land Use Back on the Agenda

=Developing a New Framework for OECD Member Countries


2/76

HOW SHOULD THE OECD DEFINE A RESEARCH PROGRAM

IN LAND USE POLICY? DEFINITION OF AN APPROACH,

AN ANALYSIS OF OECD PROCEDURES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of

Master of Public Affairs

Institut dEtudes Politiques | Sciences Po

Paris

17 May 2013

In cooperation with Jos Enrique Garcilazo, OECD

Under the supervision of Chris Brooks

Chukwudi Nwadibia, Hctor Tajonar, Jeremy Dennison,

Shuma Okamura, Yujiro Suzuki

Approved: Approved: Approved:

Sean Safford Jos Enrique Garcilazo Chris Brooks

Director, MPA Capstone Partner Organization Capstone Leader


3/76

ForewordAt the beginning of our project, our client, the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD), engaged us in a conversation around land use policy and its

importance. The OECD expressed a desire to better understand land use and land use

planning policy in its member states. The client cited environmental, demographic, and

economic challenges as the impetus for a potential 3-5 year study. However, they noted a

deficiency of knowledge and interest to support the endeavor. We were invited to help

formulate the tools and information necessary to garner support and resources for a study

on land use policy. The OECD implored us to achieve those objectives through anopen-ended exploration and evaluation of land use. We were tasked with the following:

1. Create a foundation of understanding of todays issues in land use policy Literature review: Analyze and review the driving forces behind land use Research planning: Create a land use analytical framework illustrating a system of

trade-offs

2. Conduct field research to analyze land use policy and policy process in the US andthe Netherlands

Test the applicability of the analytical framework to better understand potentialchallenges

Compile different approaches to land use policy design, governance mechanisms,policy tools

Acknowledgements

The Paris Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po) Master in Public Affairs capstone

project, Putting Land Use Back on the Agenda, was coordinated and supervised by Dr. Jos

Enrique Garcilazo and Professor Chris Brooks. It was prepared by the Sciences Po MPA OECD

capstone team Chukwudi Nwadibia, Hctor Tajonar de Lara, Jeremy Dennison, Shuma

Okamura, and Yujiro Suzuki, and received inputs from Dr. Jos Enrique Garcilazo, Mr. Richard

Wakeford, Mr. Yo Ito, Professor Chris Brooks, and Professor Odile Sallard.

We would also like to thank our interviewees in the United States and the Netherlands.

In the United States (US) we received information from the Department of Agriculture, the

Department of Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban Development,

Environmental Protection Agency, Federal High Way Administration, the Federal Transit

Association, the Department of Interior - Bureau of Land Management, Senator Johnson,

NYC Deputy Mayors Office of Economic Affairs, NYC Department of City Planning, NYC

Building Congress, Association of General Contractors, Center for Real Estate and Urban

Policy at New York University, and The Land Use Law Center in Pace University School of Law.


4/76

In the Netherlands we received helpful information from the Dutch Ministry of the Interior

and Kingdom Relations, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, the Ministry of

Economic Affairs, the Government Service for Land and Water Management, and Membersof Parliament. We received assistance from the Municipality of Amsterdams Town Planning

Department and the Province of North Holland. We would also like to thank Milieudefensie

and Groene Hart Stichtung for the information on environmental issues. Finally, a thank you

to the scholars at University of Utrecht.


5/76

Table of contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 6

FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................................... 9

RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................................................... 14

1. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................................14

2. PROTOCOL OF FIELD RESEARCH.........................................................................................................................15

3. LIST OF ACTORS IN THE U.S. AND IN THE NETHERLANDS ..........................................................................15

FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................................... 23

SUMMARY AND STRUCTURE OF THE FINDINGS ......................................................................................................23

1. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY DESIGN TO AVOID NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES .................................................26

1.1 National Spatial Strategy in the Netherlands ......................................................................27

1.2 The Absence of federal level grand design in the United States .................................29

1.3 The case of the U.S. Department of Agriculture ..................................................................31

1.4 PlaNYC (Plan of New York City) ..................................................................................................34

2. FUNCTIONAL GOVERNANCE MECHANISMS TO OVERCOME INTER-AGENCY AND CROSS-LEVEL

COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION PROBLEMS.............................................................................................36

2.1 The Importance of multilevel governance for land use governance .........................36

2.2 Inter-agency initiative Sustainable Communities in the United States ..............37

2.3 The challenges of decentralization policy in the Netherlands .....................................41

3.INNOVATIVE POLICY TOOLS TO MAKE BETTERLAND USE DECISIONS .........................................................46

3.1 Overlay zoning in the United States ..........................................................................................47

3.2 Floating zones in the United States............................................................................................49

3.3 Cluster development / incentive zoning in the United States.......................................50

3.4 Transferable development rights in the United States .....................................................52

3.5 The Finger Model and the New Towns ......................................................................................54

3.6 Geo-mapping information system in the United States ..................................................56

3.7 The Amsterdam Metropolitan Area............................................................................................58

3.8 Ecoducts and Nature Compensation Schemes ......................................................................61

RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 63

ANNEXES: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES ............................................................................................... 66


6/76

3 Executive Summary

Executive summary

The topic of land use governance has returned to the fore of policy discussion, ushered by

the gradual depletion of natural resources, food price volatility, population growth, and the

global financial downturn. These shifting economic and social patterns underscore the

necessity of reexamining this policy area. The OECDs Directorate of Public Governance and

Territorial Development intends to execute a three- to five year study on the role of land use

policy and governance in OECD member countries. This project, under the guidance of Dr.

Jos Enrique Garcilazo, seeks to reintroduce and integrate the role of land and its regulation

into policy dialogue and development indicators. The OECD Capstone team from the Master

of Public Affairs program at the Sciences Po Paris has provided significant background

research to prepare for the OECDs study.

Today, more than half of the worlds population lives in urban centers. This trend toward

greater urbanization is only expected to increase in the next thirty to forty years, creating a

world marked by the need for coordination between expanding and denser urban centers,

their semi-rural peripheries, and agricultural hinterlands.

The primary challenge facing policymakers is the acknowledgement that land will become

increasingly scarce and face more competition to determine how it is used. The competing

pressures can be categorized roughly into three separate concerns: economic,

environmental, and civic. These competing interests create the Trilemma, a system of

tradeoffs, which reflects the breadth of interests around land use. There is now a pressing

need for coordination between stakeholders, both vertically and horizontally, to properly

address the concerns and the conflicts brought about in the management of the Trilemma.

To begin the analysis of OECD member countries response to this situation, the team

conducted field research in the US and the Netherlands and identified the following key

findings:

While government actors recognize the need for comprehensive land use policy, mosthave not yet developed a framework to promote a more coordinated approach to land

use governance.

Even countries such as the Netherlands who have had a strong tradition of spatialplanning must find ways of adapting governance structures, especially after the trend

toward decentralization in policymaking that has characterized much of the OECD

world.


7/76

4Executive Summary

The United States and the Netherlands have developed some effective cross-sectoraland multi-level governance mechanisms to mitigate the negative side effects that result

from decentralized responsibilities.

The research has recognized the need for innovative policy tools that result fromcomprehensive land use policy design and functional governance mechanisms. While

the need for greater coordination in land use policymaking is acknowledged, the

decision making around land is still marked by short-term, ad hoc solutions to policy

challenges that result from disconnected sectoral policies (housing, agriculture, energy,

etc.)

Our research indicates that there is a growing political will to confront these challenges

and better manage the elements that constitute the Trilemma. As the OECD continues this

study, its aim is to create a wider database of the different spatial planning regimes among

its members. This, in turn, will allow for the development of a comparative assessment of

OECD countries use and governance of land, and of recommendations to improve it.

Recommendations for the OECD

Playbook, not rulebookTo bring the concept of land use governance back into the policy discussion within

the OECD it is necessary to construct a playbook of best practices, bearing in mind

that there is no one-size-fits-all policy solution. In this way, member countries can

consult a potential database to see the areas of complementarity and conflict in

potential policy actions. They can better take into account their own contexts and,

by drawing on the experience of other countries, decide what tools can be

generalized and adapted.

Inter-directorate taskforceThe Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate should look

beyond its own borders and invite in a taskforce to coordinate the study with other

OECD directorates and centers. Possible partners could include: Environment

Directorate, Statistics Directorate, Economics Directorate, Centre for Tax Policy and

Administration, Trade and Agriculture Directorate.


8/76

5 Executive Summary

Recommendations to OECD countries

Decentralization only with governanceOECD countries that have engaged in a process of decentralization in land use and

spatial planning must keep in mind that, parallel to decentralization, appropriate

and context-specific governance mechanisms that promote collaboration and

oversight must be put in place in order to avoid principal-agent issues and other

types of challenges.

Multilevel Governance and other Flexible Inter-agency and Cross-level Cooperationand Oversight Mechanisms

The paradigms of centralized or decentralized government structures need to be

complemented by flexible governance mechanisms that promote communication,

information exchange, and mutual oversight between all government levels. In this

context, multi-level governance becomes an essential governance mechanism that

can help overcome some of the current land use challenges that OECD countries

face.

Independent Planning CommissionAn independent planning commission could be helpful in assessing the impact of

zoning and development plans, and ensuring their compatibility with national,

international, and regional standards.


9/76

Acronyms in this section:

FAO: The Food and Agriculture Organization USDA: US Department of Agriculture

6Introduction

Introduction

Figure 1: The expansion of human activity as shown by urban areas at night (1994-2000)1

Human activity is expanding remarkably. Between 1970 and 2012 the global population

more than doubled. The global population is projected to grow to 9.2 billion in 2050. As

Figure 1 shows, urban regions are emerging and becoming denser. Currently half of the

global population lives in these areas. These trends are especially prevalent in the BRICS

countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and Eastern Europe. Increasing urban

populations necessitates reevaluating their relations with rural areas where food and energy,

are produced. This human activity expansion is a sign of human prosperity. However, it may

lead to unwanted consequences.The fundamental issues concerning

the expansion of human activity were

discussed in The Limits to Growth2, a

study published in 1972. This study

discussed how the growth of different

key factors such as population, pollution,

food consumption per capita, service

consumption per capita, industrial

output, and natural resource depletion,

could lead to a problematic scenario.

The updated version3 of The Limits to

Growth, published in 2012, combined

real data with the projection graph, illustrating that the global trends are extremely similar to

the estimates of 1972 as shown in the Figure 2.

The Limits to Growth, as evidenced by the striking similarities between its projections and

observed trends, is an accurate assessment. What is alarming are the consequences it

enumerates such as the rate of depletion of natural resources an explosion of human

Figure 2: Limits to growth (updated

version)


10/76

Acronyms:


7 Introduction

population and food per capita demand.

Many of the driving factors discussed in The Limits to Growth also appear in the academic

literature. However, the narrow scope of these studies and analysis prevents a broaderunderstanding of the macro trends. For instance, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA),

as recently as 2010, maintained that there are still high yield potentials in agricultural

production with improved water and infrastructure access (Rosen USDA 2010)4, While this

observation is likely accurate, how does increasing agricultural production affect other

activities on land? That is a critical and often overlooked question. Other research looks at

multiple sectors and argues that the issue of food security and food price results from mixed

factors such as exchange rate fluctuations, oil prices, climate change, and biofuel production

(Heady 2008)5.

The OECD and the Sciences Po research team are looking into land use policies because all

of the issues raised in the previous paragraphs are related to it. Food production is directly

related to agricultural land. Industry will take up land space and natural resources that are

extracted from land. Water management or timber management is a crucial aspect of land

use policies. Economic activity, which is a core human activity, is also dependent on land. It is

crucial to note that every human activity and the expansion of it are predominantly based on

land.

Figure 3: Finite earth6 Figure 4: Competing uses for the same land7

Land use policies influence all the critical issues discussed in The Limits to Growth study,

buttressing the OECDs interest in the subject. In traditional economic theory the factors of

production are land, labor, capital, and technology. What is interesting is that each one of

these factors is only fixed in the near term, but not the long term. Until recently,

policymakers and economists viewed land as an asset with infinite supply, a notion that is

only now beginning to undergo reevaluation.

It is crucial to recognize that there is a pressing conflict resulting from increasing demand

for a fixed supply of land. For instance, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

estimates that only 35% of the worlds land mass is actually suitable for crop production, and


11/76

Acronyms in this section:


8Introduction

analysis predicts it will expand minimally in the coming decade (Wiebe 2003)8. The problem

of food production arises from increasing demand and fixed supply. Increasing populations,

climate change, and energy demand are making these issues more complicated. TheJapanese example in Figure 4 illustrates the pressures on land. The figure depicts how the

activities on land have changed between 1965 and 2000. As the demand for economic

infrastructure and residential areas increased, the land used for agriculture and pastureland

decreased. These changes turned out to be more responsible for the rise in global warming

than previous studies had shown (Tune 2003)9. Increasing demand and competing pressures

on finite land require a more comprehensive policy in order to govern and utilize land

efficiently. Policies addressing the primary drivers of competition for land (population

growth, dietary preference, protected areas, forest policy) could have significant impacts in

reducing competition for land (Smith 2010)10.


12/76

9 Framework

Framework

The pressures around land use are an integral aspect of

understanding and planning for future policymaking. We

keyed in on this dynamic while maintaining that land is a

limited resource. As we combed through academic articles

and government reports around land use, we came to

understand how these pressures and limits, coupled with the

aggregate effects of micro decisions by individuals and

organizations, created costly tradeoffs. Authors Heady and

Sheggen in their 2008 article, Anatomy of a Crisis: The

Causes and Consequences of Surging Food Prices11, argued that a primary issue impacting

food security was diversion of grain for biofuel production. This is a tradeoff between using

land to produce food and fuel that has real implications for the rest of society. It also raises

questions about whether agricultural land should be used for production of food, biofuel, or

other products that do not directly contribute to addressing the issues of food security.

As we analyzed literature around land use, we saw the need to better understand the

tradeoffs of land use making decisions. Therefore, we identified three areas of concern that

housed the major issues impacted by land use: Civic, Economic, and Environmental. These

three concerns comprise a working hypothesis the Trilemma in Figure 5 that seeks to

understand and explain the basic tradeoffs mentioned.

Civic concerns encompass the moral, legal, and natural rights that citizens and

organizations are entitled, the security of those rights, and the provision of public goods and

services, like public infrastructure or housing. Civic issues are difficult to define, as many of

their aspects are not entrenched, and vary by region, state, or locality. Therefore, we

approximate the defining principles.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948) 12 is a fairly

comprehensive articulation of the rights and securities we are highlighting. Article 25 is

particularly potent, asserting that each person has the right to a standard of living adequate

for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing

and medical care and necessary social services. This article broadly encompasses the notion

of civic concerns we are conveying. While each of these rights does not directly pertain to

land use, there are strong connections. For instance the food and clothing industries can be

land intensive endeavors. Additionally, housing, as mentioned in the introduction, is

inherently land sensitive. Subsequently, we maintain that social and medical services are

Figure 5: The Trilemma


13/76

10Framework

concepts that depend on consistency and proximity to citizens and are therefore highly

sensitive to land use decision-making. Each of the examples interacts with land and poor

planning could inhibit citizens access to these rights, necessitating their consideration inland use regimes.

Economic Concerns are more straight-forward than civic concerns. The economic issues

around land use include the commercial and profit seeking behaviors: productivity,

efficiency, capital creation and utilization, and industrial capacity. This issue area often offers

higher monetary returns on investment, being profit-seeking endeavors.

Environmental Concerns encompass the issues around climate change, environmental

degradation, preservation, and health, biodiversity, ecosystem health, and the maintenance

of natural endowments on land. These issues manifest themselves differently in changing

contexts.

Civic Concerns:Encompasses issues around public infrastructure, services, security, and rights.

Key Question: How can we ensure citizens basic safety and rights? Economic Concerns:

Encompasses issues around productivity, efficiency, capital, and industrial capacity.

Key Question: How can we improve economic efficiency with land use policies? Environmental Concerns:

Encompasses issues around climate, the environment, and natural resources.

Key Question: How can we maintain the environment and natural resources?The Trilemma helps explain the difficulties of land use management. However, this

framework does not explain how challenges manifest themselves in processes and outcomes.

Therefore, we developed a classification system to help organize and explain these issues.

We identified three main challenges:

First challenge: When deciding how land is used and

designing land use policies, focusing only on the economic,the civic, or the environmental instead of on the three can

cause negative externalities A (Figure 6). Over or

under-emphasis of one or more aspects of the Trilemma

necessitates tradeoffs. For example, simply focusing our

attention on economic concerns can have negative social and

environmental consequences.

A

Negative externalities are defined as costs which result from activities or transactions which affect anotherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost.

Figure 6: Negative

externalities


14/76

11 Framework

OECD (2003)13 has argued that the shift from mono-focused sectoral policies to

more comprehensive place based policies is essential so as to integrate different sectoral

policies and to improve the coherence and effectiveness of public expenditure in ruralareas. OECD (2006) 14 has also found that several OECD countries are developing

multi-sectoral and place-based approaches in rural development with a focus on places

instead of sectors.

Second challenge: The lack of functional governance

mechanisms to promote cross-level and inter-agency

collaboration and communication will lead to inter-agency

problems (Figure 7). If the correct governance structures that

promote communication and collaboration between those

concerned with the economy, those concerned with the

environment, and those concerned with the civic do not exist,

the conflicting interests between them will exacerbate the

Trilemma.

According to Platt (2004)15, land use policies should be employed in collaboration

between the regional, state, and national level government to combat negative effects of

local policies, since zoning and other land use regulations can affect the use and value of

property belonging to millions of households and businesses in thousands of communities.

Also, OECD (2010) 16 argues that the governance of land use should address the

importance of a framework that takes into account inter-ministerial cooperation and

cooperation between national and subnational levels of government.

Third challenge: Governments need innovative policy tools to

use land in a way that balances the economic, the civic, and

the environmental. The underutilization of policy tools that

could help mitigate the tradeoffs in the framework is also a

fundamental problem (Figure 8). This difficulty predominantly

stems from a lack of knowledge of the available policy tools

and techniques, as well as limited abilities to understand their

impacts on land.

Our field research illuminated a number of examples related to land use management that

refer to the three aforementioned challenges.

To address the first challenge of negative externalities, we decided to inquire whether

Figure 7: Inter agency andcross level problems

Figure 8: Weakness ofpolicy tools


15/76

12Framework

governments had a comprehensive view when designing land use policies.

To address the second challenge of inter-agency and cross-level problems, weinquired whether governments had functional governance mechanisms in place.

To address the third challenge of weak policy tools, we inquired whethergovernments had come up with effective policy tools to support the design and

implementation of land use policies.

Based on the Trilemma framework, we also created a list of land use policy objectives that

reflect Economic, Civic and Environmental Concerns. The list is based on the study done by

John Nolon (2010)17 to which we added the sections of securities, climate, landscape and

some of the economic concerns.

The list of land use policy objectives

1. Civic concerns

Public infrastructure and services Transportation facilities (traffic, access to roads and public transportation, level of

service standards, travel demand forecast, etc.)

Utilities (sewage, telecommunications, etc.)

Waste disposal (solid waste, hazardous substances, recycling programs etc.) Educational facilities (kinder, elementary, junior-high, high, higher education) Recreation (active, passive) and parks (municipality or land trust owned land)

Securities Food (the land for agriculture, pastoral, fishery, etc. the land for whole sale, retails,

etc.)

Water (the supply and distribution of clean water) Energy (the supply and distribution of electricity, gas, fuels, etc.) Emergency services (fire, rescue, ambulance, police, health-care, etc.) Disaster (storm water runoff, breakwater, quake-resistance standards, etc.) Housing (affordability, accessibility to the place of work, quality, etc.) Sanitation (clean air, sunshine, city cleaning, sanitization, etc.)

2. Environmental concerns

Natural resources Resource type (topography, geology, soils) Surface water Scenic environmental areas and open space Biodiversity (protected area for unique and rare habitats, etc.) Critical environmental areas

Historic resources


16/76

13 Framework

Historical and cultural resources (historic sites, landmarks and cultural resources) Scenic resources (scenic resources)

Climate and landscape Reduction of greenhouse gas emission (renewable energy: photovoltaic power,

etc.)

Conservation of landscape (national park, marine protected area, etc.)3. Economic concerns

Employment numbers (number of jobs) Industrial resources (commercial and agricultural: market size, quality of soil, etc.) Availability and affordability of the land for industry (office, factory, shop, logistics,

etc.)

Mobility and proximity (accessibility to transportation, density of. zoning regulation,etc.)


17/76

14Research design

Research design

According to the OECDs mandate on the conduct of the project and the expected

deliverables, the team began to design a plan of field research.

The team worked from the assumptions that a comprehensive approach to land use

policymaking does not currently exist and a deep level of coordination between different

stakeholders is needed to allow its existence.

In the current arrangement, each actor looks only after its own interests, often leading to

ad hoc solutions based on immediate need and convenience, exacerbating the negative

outcomes in Trilemma.

To mitigate the negative consequences of the current framework and to introduce a more

effective bargaining process, the team decided to move to the field to see where the current

framework comes up short and how policymakers attempt to overcome the negative

consequences of the current land use policy context.

1. Research methodologyField research was conducted in the United States and the Netherlands. The team split into

two groups, with the U.S. research team working in New York City, Albany, and Washington

D.C. The Netherlands-based team conducted interviews primarily in Amsterdam, The Hague,

Rotterdam, and Utrecht.

The two destinations were selected not for the basis of comparison, but for their

differences and the breadth of government structures in the OECD that they represent. The

table below shows the differences between the two countries:

Table 1: Country profiles

CountryGovernance

structure

Land endowments Spatial

planning

mechanism

Country

size

Location ClimateNatural

resourcesUnited States Federation Big America Diverse Plenty Bottom up

Netherlands Unitary state Small EuropeHomogene

ousScarce Top down18

The two destinations were selected after an initial stage of planning for field work where a

list of possible destinations was suggested by the OECD based both on their current

approaches to land use governance as well as their delegates interest in the continuation of

the project. The first list included the United States, the Netherlands, Japan, New Zealand,

and the United Kingdom. These factors were weighed against more logistical matters for the


18/76

15 Research design

research team: language, cost, and proximity.

2. Protocol of field researchAfter a thorough literature review of relevant topics and actors in both the Netherlandsand the United States, the team assembled a list of academics, politicians, bureaucrats, and

private sector actors to be interviewed in the course of the field study. The team pared down

the list to those believed most relevant and contacted them by email and telephone.

The team devised a rough list of questions to ask interviewees during discussions to

ensure that they received roughly the same information from those they interviewed. Every

interview also ended with the subject being asked to provide possible further avenues of

research and for other useful contacts. The Netherlands and US groups both left their

schedules open to accommodate these new contacts.

The teams conducted a total of more than forty interviews in the two countries over the

course of the week in the field. Subjects, as noted, ran the gamut from politicians and

bureaucrats to academics and members of the private sector and civil society.

3. List of actors in the U.S. and in the NetherlandsThe Netherlands

Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations

The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK) is responsible for the

formulation of policy, preparing legislation and regulations, and for coordination,

supervision and policy implementation.19 With the advent of decentralization, many of its

tasks have been transferred to lower levels of government to deliver cheaper and better

services, and to involve the public more in those tasks.20 The Ministry envisions a future

where local authorities will handle most of the aforementioned responsibilities, and as such,

the Ministry now assists them in building the capacity to do so.

The BZK houses the Ministry in charge of Housing and the Central Government

Sector. The portfolio of this Ministry has been charged with three distinct tasks: end

stagnation in the housing market, improve efficiency in social housing, and increase the

efficiency of the central government. 21 The ministry devises economic levers to

encourage home ownership and promote gains in the construction industry. Similarly,

the Ministry wants to combat the market distortion in social housing, where supply far

exceeds the demand. Higher income tenants will be pushed to move into unsubsidized

residences, and the government will shrink the pool of social housing stock. Lastly, the


19/76

16Research design

ministry will structurally reduce expenditure by 1.1 billion 22 and push the

government to make more efficient use of the remaining resources. These three goals

will boost the flexibility ofcentral government and reduce bureaucracy23

.

Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

The Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment was formed in 2010 by merging the

Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM) and the Ministry of

Transport, Public Works and Water Management (V&W). The new combined ministry is

committed to improving quality of life, access and mobility in a clean, safe and sustainable

environment24.It oversees the countrys infrastructure including roads, railways, seaports,

and airports and designs effective water management techniques to conserve the countrys

natural resources and reduce the danger of flooding.

The two aspects of the ministry converge in its effort to improve air and water quality

and promote sustainable solutions such as a robust, highly-used public transport

network and efficient use of natural resources.

Ministry of Economic Affairs

The Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) promotes the Netherlands as a country of

enterprise with a strong international competitive position and an eye for

sustainability25 . It is strives to create an advantageous business environment for

companies in the Netherlands to establish themselves, innovate, and grow. It also

promotes relationships between the countrys research institutes and business

community26.

Within the Ministry of Economic Affairs there is a second Ministry in charge of

Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture works in the fields of agriculture and nature.

The agriculture sector of the Netherlands is responsible for 10% of countrys GDP and

10% of its jobs27. The Ministry of Agriculture handles the logistics of the sector as well as

food processing. Its division on nature promotes conservation and has implemented theNational Ecological Network, a system of nature areas in the country.

Within the Ministry in charge of Agriculture there is another entity called the

Government Service for Land and Water Management (DLG). The DLG retains some

autonomy and primarily concerns itself with implementing policies through technical

expertise 28 . It is responsible for acquiring land used for development projects,

redeveloping it to fulfill the policy goals, and transferring it back to the proper

authorities. It provides a level of financial management as well in the projects it oversees,

making use of subsidies and the best use of the areas physical attributes. While the DLG


20/76

17 Research design

works with all levels of government, its work is most closely associated with provincial

authorities. The organizations autonomy also allows the group to provide project

assistance outside the Netherlands. To this end, DLG has consulted on projects inEastern Europe, Asia, and Central America to share its knowledge and help foreign

governments efficiently implement natural development policies.

Members of Parliament

Members of parliament form the legislative branch of the Dutch government. Its

members are elected by the countrys citizens and serve four year terms. The parliament

is divided into an upper house (Eerste Kamer) of 75 seats and a lower house (Tweede

Kamer) of 150 seats, both based in The Hague. There are currently representatives from

twelve different political parties serving in the Eerste Kamer and from eleven parties in

the Tweede Kamer. Despite invitations to multiple parties, the Capstone research team

only spoke with members from the Dutch Socialist Party (SP). The party states that it

works inside and outside parliament to achieve its goal: a society in which human

dignity, equality and solidarity take precedence.

Municipality of Amsterdams Planning Department (DRO)

The Planning Department of Amsterdam (DRO) develops a coherent spatial for the

city and its environs. In its own words, the department advises the council on policy

planning, public space and greenery29. DRO works for the urban core of the city, as well

as its suburbs and hinterland areas. More recently, it has formed an informal partnership

with Amsterdams suburbs and adjacent New Towns to design a development strategy

for the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area (AMA).

The goal of this initiative is to create a flexible, vibrant area which promotes a high

quality of life for its residents and economic growth for the region. DROs structural

vision for the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area will be built according to the following

dimensions: density in the urban core for residences and business, redesignating landfrom commercial to residential (or vice versa) according to its most efficient use,

building a strong regional public transport network between the urban core and the

periphery, parks and green areas to enhance quality of life in the region, and sustainable

growth through greater reliance on renewable energy30. DRO has outlined a plan to

implement this vision up through 2040 and works with regional authorities to ensure its

success.


21/76

18Research design

Province of Noord-Holland (North Holland)

Noord-Holland is located in the northwestern part of the Netherlands. It is the

countrys second most densely populated province, and it is most populous. It is alsohome to Schiphol airport, the countrys largest.

According to its mandate, the provincial government of Noord-Holland oversees the

province of the same name, a province that includes 58 municipalities, among them the

capital city of Amsterdam. The provincial government has its seat in Haarlem, which is

also the provinces capital31. The provincial government oversees policies related to

housing, economics, agriculture, and improvements over its road network. The province

is run by its council, a body which serves four year terms and is elected by the provinces

residents.

Milieudefensie

The Milieudefensie is an environmental non-governmental organization established in

1971. The organization has 80,000 members and contributors and is headquartered in

Amsterdam32. Milieudefensie works to build an environmentally-friendly, sustainable

Netherlands. Their primary areas of concern are transport and mobility, farming, and

green business, especially in the countrys seaport areas. They also encourage Dutch

companies to carry out its vision while operating abroad.

Groene Hart Stichtung

The Groene Hart Stichtung (Green Heart Society) is a non-profit foundation that aims

at conserving the natural landscape of the Netherlands Green Heart region. The

organization places an emphasis on its role of coordinator, promoting collaboration

between municipalities within the Green Heart and sharing best practices as they

formulate development plans. The Green Heart Society places great emphasis on

sustainable growth that protects the areas natural characteristics. They provideinformation and organize public-oriented meetings related to development and

sustainable conservation of the character of the Green Heart, its culture, nature,

landscape and environment. The organization receives its funding through membership

fees, contributions, and through the sale of a self-published magazine about the Green

Heart.


22/76

19 Research design

List of actors that declined the interview

Ministry of FinanceThe Dutch Ministry of Finance oversees the financial health of the country. It monitors

government spending, regulates the countrys financial system, influences Dutch tax

code, and collects taxes33.

The United States

U.S. Department of Agriculture

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides leadership on food, agriculture,

natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound

public policy, the best available science, and efficient management34. This statement

shows that the USDA does not only cover agricultural policy areas, but also covers

energy and environment (natural resources) and health (nutrition). USDA is promoting

innovation in order to expand economic opportunity, to help rural areas to grow, to

promote sustainable agricultural production for the country and the world, and to

manage the remaining natural resources, forests, water bodies, and so on35. USDA also

has a strategic plan for accomplish the mission statement. The strategies are, expanding

markets for agricultural products and support international economic development,

further developing alternative markets for agricultural products and activities, providing

financing needed to help expand job opportunities and improve housing, utilities and

infrastructure in rural America, enhancing food safety by taking steps to reduce the

prevalence of foodborne hazards from farm to table, improving nutrition and health by

providing food assistance and nutrition education and promotion, and managing and

protecting America's public and private lands working cooperatively with other levels of

government and the private sector36. USDA policies are based on these areas of

concern, and they publish an annual report.

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

The U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is in charge of

managing the public lands especially in the west of the United States. The flexibility and

responsiveness of BLM is based on the Federal Land Policy & Management Act, which

came into power in 1976. The two major pillars in this act were, multiple use of land and

sustained yield of land. BLMs mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity


23/76

20Research design

of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. BLM is

one of the rare agencies that has a very broad coverage area both in terms of land mass

and category. They manage 261 million acres of public land and 700 million acres ofsubsurface mineral estates. They take care of energy, minerals, forestry, fish & wildlife,

and wilderness, and oversee paleontology, archaeology and recreation interest.

Under the Resource Management Plans (RMPs) of BLM, they establish goals and

objectives for resource management in the coming 10 to 20 years, and the

measurements needed to achieve these goals. They look into multiple aspects of land

such as natural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, the use of resource,

congressional & presidential designations, and administrative designations.

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD)

The mission of the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development is to Create

strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality, affordable homes for all37. The

HUD has a vision of improving quality of life and boost community strength in the

United States38. The HUD is setting their own targets from multiple angles. Firstly, they

are aiming to sustain the economy, by strengthening the US housing market and by

providing employments in the sector. Secondly, they take the residents aspect into

consideration. Their goal is to improve residents quality of life by providing affordable

homes, build safe and healthy communities, and respecting the values of a diverse

society. The HUD also includes transformation of the business style to a more flexible,

reliable problem solver and source of innovation 39 . Finally, they aim to create

sustainable and inclusive communities, which will create value and free from

discrimination. The HUD is currently working on a joint initiative called the Sustainable

Communities with US Department of Transportation and US Environmental Protection

Agency.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

The mission of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is to serve the United

States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system

that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American

people, today and into the future40. DOT is in charge of the entire transportation system

people use daily. The administrations working under DOT are, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of

Inspector General (OIG), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Pipeline and

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Federal Motor Carrier Safety


24/76

21 Research design

Administration (FMCSA), Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA),

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Saint Lawrence Seaway Development

Corporation (SLSDC), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Surface Transportation Board(STB), and Maritime Administration (MARAD). The main concerns of DOT are safety and

security of the traveling public, increase public mobility, and contribution to the

countries economic growth41.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has several goals. One of their goals is to

protect the nation from health and environmental risks and reducing them by

implementing laws, and to make sure that these laws are implemented effectively and

equally. The second goal is to provide the society (communities, individuals, businesses,

and state, local and tribal governments) with access to rich information in order to

involve all the actors in the process. The important concept they have is that

environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural

resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry,

and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing

environmental policy42. This shows that they fully understand the breadth of the issue

and they are taking a comprehensive approach. EPA also aims to take a leadership role

in the international world to protect the global environment.

The EPA uses the following methods to achieve the goals described above; Develop and

enforce regulations, Give grants, Study environmental issues, Sponsor partnerships, Teach

people about the environment, and Publish information43.

New York Department of State (DOS)

The New York Department of State (DOS) works in collaboration with the local

government leaders and working on improving the quality of life of the New York

citizens, improving service and program qualities, boosting business opportunities, andreducing costs of the municipalities. They also take health and safety issues of the

citizens into consideration.

The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)

Private sector such as the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) also plays

an important role in land use policies. AGC are promoting better industry for the nation

by promoting skill and sharing information with one another. Public sector becomes

essential since public private partnership is increasing more and more in number, and it


25/76

22Research design

is mostly the private sector that initiates this process. Negotiating, planning, and the

constructing process is a time consuming process, but necessary especially for urban

development (infrastructure, industry, hosing, etc.).

List of actors that declined the interview / unable to receive a reply

U.S. Department of the Treasury

The mission of the U.S. Department of the Treasury is to maintain a strong economy

and create economic and job opportunities by promoting the conditions that enable

economic growth and stability at home and abroad, strengthen national security by

combating threats and protecting the integrity of the financial system, and manage the

U.S. Governments finances and resources effectively44. The department of Treasury is

currently having initiatives such as Making Home Affordable and Housing Finance

Reform.


26/76

23 Findings

Findings

Summary and Structure of the Findings

The background and field research conducted by the team has led us to identify some of

the major challenges that land use policy faces in terms of its design, its governance, and its

tools. The findings will be presented as follows:

1. Comprehensive land use policy design to avoid negative externalities

The most widely found approaches to land use policy do

not seem to be very comprehensive in their design, given

that they are mostly the result of sectoral policies (industrial,

agricultural, environmental, infrastructural) that seem to lack

a comprehensive view of land scarcity and of the need for

interaction between sectors. This situation results in

disconnected decisions around the use of land that reflect

the interest behind only one area of concern economic,

social or environmental presented in the Trilemma. Simply

focusing our attention on economic concerns can have

negative social and environmental consequences. This is the idea conveyed in the image on

the right.

However, there have been successful attempts to design land use and to plan the use of

space comprehensively. Before 2006, the year when spatial planning in the Netherlands was

decentralized, the country had a National Spatial Strategy (NSS) that seemed to address the

three concerns outlined in our framework: the civic, the environmental, and the economic.

The first case study presented in this section will explain the perspective that the Dutch NSS

embodied. The NSS - which has been classified as a successful example of comprehensive

land Use policy design in this report - did not eliminate other sectoral policies, but it did

provide a framework for actors at the central level to collaborate, reach a balanced

agreement on tradeoffs, and make a more sustainable and efficient use of land based on

economic, civic, and environmental concerns. Yet, it remained very centralized, which made

it increasingly complicated for the central government to understand the needs at the local

level and to develop spatial plans accordingly. Decentralization in spatial planning was

therefore seen as a solution to that problem and was thought to be a way of injecting

dynamism to an economy that had slowed down in the year previous to 2006.

In the United States, the research found that the federal government had never

Negative externalities mayresult from focusing in onlyone area of concern insteadof the three.


27/76

24Findings

implemented a nation-wide comprehensive land use policy, except over the land under the

jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interiors Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rest of the land was zoned by differentobjective and legislative procedures of each state. This will be the second case presented in

this section.

The third case study will show that even though there are some interesting coordination

and governance efforts between different departments in the US Government, other areas

of the government dont seem to be aware of them. It seems that there is not enough

communication between actors that make important decisions around the use of land,

which reinforces the idea that there is no comprehensive land use policy design in the US.

These three case studies point towards the need to create better governance strategies to

promote cooperation and communication between government actors, which will be the

focus of the second section of our findings.

2. Functional governance mechanisms to overcome inter-agency and cross-level

collaboration and communication problems

Sectoral policies (agricultural, energy, housing, etc.) usually

leads to a one directional approach, either top down or

bottom up, that does not promote the necessary degree of

interaction and oversight between different levels and areas of

government. As shown in the image, those in charge of the

economy are not necessarily aware of the consequences their

decisions might have on the environment. Similarly, an

economic decision at the national level might have

unintended consequences at the local level. This

miscommunication between agencies and levels of government points toward the need for

better governance.

Particularly regarding land use, this report proposes the creation of innovative governance

mechanisms to ensure that, once comprehensive land use policy has been designed, it can

be correctly implemented with the collaboration of different areas and levels of government.

Our research points toward the idea that land use policies should not be completely in the

hands of the central government, nor should they be completely in the hands of the lower

levels of government. They both have a legitimate responsibility to formulate policy and,

therefore, they need to collaborate with one another in a multi-directional, multi-level way.

To support this conclusion, the report will present two different case studies.

The first one will explain in detail the governance innovation of Sustainable Communities,

Inter-agency problemsresulting from insufficientgovernance mechanisms


28/76

25 Findings

which has been mentioned in the first section. The second one will explain the process of

decentralization of spatial planning in the Netherlands, which led to the disappearance of

the National Spatial Strategy and delegated land use and spatial planning responsibilities tomunicipalities.

3. Innovative policy tools to make better land use decisions

Policy tools resulting from sectoral, one-directional

approaches usually have an underlying command and control

logic that intends to make the governance structure as simple

as possible and promote either strict regulation or subsidy

mechanisms. These rules might not only lead to market

inefficiencies but might also make some policy areas

dependent on subsidies, which can distort markets, hinder

innovation, and crowd out investment. Hence, we need

powerful and innovative policy tools based on comprehensive

design and functional governance mechanisms which can

coordinate and cultivate collaboration between different actors.

However, the reader must bear in mind that such policy approaches by themselves will not

result in better land use policies unless they are part of a wider umbrella that includes

comprehensive design and functional governance. To exemplify this we have chosen a few

examples of policy tools that are innovative and that can be helpful in managing the

tradeoffs between civic, environmental, and economic concerns that the Trilemma

framework identifies. Hopefully in the coming years these policy tools will not simply be

isolated cases of success but will become common practice.

From the findings in the US, the report will present interesting zoning techniques that

address the three concerns, and a geo-mapping system that can be helpful in making more

informed land use decisions and that might constitute an important information sharing

mechanism.

From the Netherlands we will present the Finger Model and New Town approach to

manage urban growth; the Amsterdam Metropolitan Area, which tries to go beyond

administrative jurisdictions to reason over a metropolitan area based on functionality; and,

finally, the Ecoducts and Nature Compensation Schemes, which are an attempt to balance

environmental concerns with increasing infrastructure needs.

Powerful and innovativepolicy tools based oncomprehensive design andfunctional governance.


29/76

26Findings

1. Comprehensive Policy Design to Avoid Negative ExternalitiesThe table of contents of this section1.1 National spatial strategy Netherlands page.27

1.2 The absence of federal level grand design United States page.29

1.3 The case of the US Department of Agriculture United States page.31

1.4 PlaNYC (Plan of New York City) United States page.34


30/76

27 Findings

1.1 National Spatial Strategy in the Netherlands

The Origins of National Spatial StrategiesThe Netherlands has a long history of spatial planning. The government has published the

National Spatial Planning Strategies (NSS) since 1960, though the government began to

implement sector-specific planning in areas such as housing as far back as 1901 45. These

planning documents presented a highly-centralized, top down approach to land use

planning, stating that the main goal of national spatial policy is to create space for the

different functions that demand it, on the limited surface area that we have available to us in

the Netherlands46.

The most recent National Spatial Strategy, from 2006, consists of a series of rules that aim

at preserving some basic quality and standards for spatial plans. The document seeks to

integrate the different roles of land into a single, comprehensible whole:

One can picture land use in the Netherlands as consisting of three layers: surface

(water, soil and the flora and fauna in those environments), networks (all forms of

visible and invisible infrastructure) and occupation (spatial patterns due to

human use). Each layer influences the spatial considerations and choices with

respect to the other layers. For too long, we have considered urbanization,

intensive agriculture and other forms of occupation as separate, unrelated

elements, without sufficient consideration to the demands created by the other

layers47

.

The centralization of spatial planning was deeply institutionalized in the Dutch

government structure; the Dutch Ministry of Spatial Planning (VROM) oversaw the plans and

had authority over implementing them. The Ministry took a comprehensive view in this role,

setting policies for not only land use, but also housing and the environment. The

overarching scope of the Ministrys responsibilities was demonstrated through its leadership

structure: it was led by both the Minister of Environment and Spatial Planning and the

Minister of Housing, Communities and Integration48.

The creation of VROM arose from the Netherlands growth following the Second World

War. As housing demand grew throughout the 1960s, the central government recognized

the need for a national policy of spatial planning and began to lay out and publish a

formalized plan.

Comprehensive policy design and functional governance in the NSS

The drafting of a formal spatial plan in the Netherlands has long been the result of

collaboration between different stakeholders. Several interviewees through the course of


31/76

28Findings

field research noted that the final document, as published, is simple to implement as all

negotiations are carried out before the final document has been drafted. While the VROM

was in charge of implementing the NSS, it was done in collaboration with and a high degreeof input from other ministries, local and regional governments, social organizations,

businesses and interest groups as well as other national governments49. This method of

vertical and horizontal integration of stakeholders underscores the comprehensive view of

policy design that the Dutch government took in the era of centralized spatial planning, an

approach that has been degraded with the advent of decentralization.

For decades, this top-down approach to spatial planning

proved efficient, addressing economic, environmental, and

civic concerns, and avoiding the negative consequences that

focusing on only one of these areas might entail, as can be

seen in Figure 6. The involvement of different stakeholders in

the policy design also reveals a governance structure that

helped implement a comprehensive spatial planning policy

and overcome the inter-agency problems shown in Figure 7.

However, in ensuing decades, the role of central planning

and top-down governance changed in the Netherlands, as it

did in much of the OECD world. The last volume of the NSS,

from 2006, embraced the role of decentralization, again

following the prevailing trend throughout OECD member

countries. The NSS itself noted that the role of decentralization

was not intended to change the way that the Dutch

government looked at planning, but rather, it is primarily the

method of governance (the how rather than the policy content

(the what) that has changed compared to previous plans) 50 . With the advent of

decentralization in spatial planning, the Netherlands began to place a more clear emphasis

on economic concerns. This transformation will be explained in the decentralization section.

While the environmental rules still apply broadly, there has been a noted increase in pressure

on protected areas such as those in the Green HeartB.

By 2010, VROM was merged with the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water

Management to create the new Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. Although the

name appears to further the comprehensive view taken by VROM in its NSSs, the role of

BThe Green Heart, or Groene Hart in Dutch, is a relatively undeveloped green area in the middle of the

Netherlands that lies at the center of the Randstad, the urban periphery consisting of the countrys largestcities: Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam, and Utrecht.

Figure 6: Negative

externalities

Figure 7: Inter agency and

cross level problem


32/76

29 Findings

decentralization limited the formal power of the new institution to create and implement

any form of centralized spatial planning. Authority over spatial planning devolved from the

centralized, top-down approach to a bottom-up approach empowering the lower levels ofthe Dutch government. As the report will explore in the findings section, this transformation

contributed to a breakdown in the governments original conception of spatial planning as it

was originally delineated.

1.2 The Absence of federal level grand design in the United States

Today, the legislation of zoning and the other regulation related to land use policy is

delegated to state level government, though almost all the state governments have further

delegated it to the municipality level. According to Joseph Gyourko (2007) 51 , it is

communities who decide on a degree of the regulation and impose it inside the municipality

boarders.

This legislative structure in the United States is based on its historical context. In the early

20th century, New York City established the first zoning regulation, which provided the

foundation of the regulations for the rest of the nation. Given that the government of the

United States is the federal government, and the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act which

was issued by the US Department of Commerce in 1924 is accepted almost without change

by most states, the legislation of zoning and other regulations is traditionally done in the

state or municipality level. And after that, New York City developed more complex zoning

regulations encompassing floor-area ratio regulations, air rights and others according to the

density-specific needs of the neighborhoods while Houston for example decided to have no

zoning ordinances.

As a result, the federal government has never implemented a

nation-wide comprehensive land use policy except over the

land under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the

Interiors Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The rest is zoned by

different objective and legislative procedures of each state.

Based on our interview to Professor Nolon at Pace Law School

in New York City, few states have comprehensive land use

policies which consider a balance of policy objectives. The lack

of a comprehensive view thus creates unintended consequences and can lead to negative

externalities between different sectoral policies as described in Figure 6.

The segregation of the different policy interests is obvious when we look at Figure 9. Even

Figure 6: Negative

externalities


33/76

30Findings

in the federal government, it is difficult to find a comprehensive grand design with which

different departments can collaborate, apart from certain inter-agency initiatives such as

Sustainable Communities, Transit Oriented Development or Fair Housing and EqualOpportunity. Based on our analysis of the sociogram (Figure 9), the Department of

Agriculture and Department of the Interior do not have any inter-agency initiatives for their

land use policy.


34/76

31 Findings

1.3 The case of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

While the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development (HUD), and the EPA are coordinating with one another creating a joint

initiative, Sustainable Communities, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) works almost

exclusively on its own. One will be able to see this in the USDAs mission statements. Their

official mission statement is to provide leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources,

rural development, nutrition, and related issues based on sound public policy, the best

available science, and efficient management52 However, in the interview, they declared that

their goal is to assess and manage the impact of agriculture policy on agricultural land

use53. This shows that their focus is mainly on agriculture.Through the interviews in our

field research, USDA was unaware of the existence of Sustainable Communities initiative or

the BLM project when the team raised them to ask the USDAs relation with them. They also

mentioned that they do not work with other departments except for Food and Drug

Administration (FDA), which deal with food security issues. The EPA is related to the USDA

not in terms of collaboration, but in terms of regulation. The EPA has a regulation power

over the USDA for environmental quality and constrained animal feed operation (CAFO). The

EPA acknowledges that their policy decisions may have land use implications, but they

consider their policies as agricultural policy are not land use policies per say.

It is clear that the USDA is working in a silo, working only within its own jurisdiction and

area of interest, and without substantial collaboration with other agencies. However, this

does not necessarily mean that their governance or their policy tools are inconsequential.

The Capstone team found some interesting aspects of the USDA and their innovative

governance and policy tools. The governance and policy tools the USDA uses are incentive

based. They avoid tools such as taxing, regulating, and polluter pays principles.54 Such

tools are largely used at the local level. The USDA instead uses tools such as cash transfers,

low interest loans to encourage business activity and civic engagement, minimized entrance

barriers to agriculture sectors, and research projects. Below are several examples of the

incentive based initiatives and policy tools.

There are several USDA initiatives today. USDA Farm Service Agencys Conservation

Reserve Program (CRP) is a voluntary program available to agricultural producers to help

them use environmentally sensitive land for conservation benefits. Producers enrolled in the

CRP plant long-term, resource-conserving vegetation to improve the quality of water,

control soil erosion, and develop wildlife habitat. In return, FSA provides participants with

rental payments and cost-share assistance. Contract duration is between 10 and 15 years.55

There is another program called the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP or


35/76

32Findings

EQUIP). EQIP is a voluntary program that provides financial and technical assistance to

agricultural producers through contracts up to a maximum term of ten years in length. These

contracts provide financial assistance to help plan and implement conservation practicesthat address natural resource concerns. The contracts also fund opportunities to improve

soil, water, plant, animal, air and related resources on agricultural land and non-industrial

private forestland. In addition, EQIP helps producers abide by federal, state, tribal and local

environmental regulations.56 The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) offers

nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low income individuals and families and provides

economic benefits to communities. The Food and Nutrition Service works with State

agencies, nutrition educators, State partners and the retail community, and neighborhood

and faith-based organizations to improve program administration and ensure program the

integrity.57 These initiatives are incentive based and are a way to incorporate multiple actors

from different levels of government.

One example of the policy tools will be the crop insurance. Crop insurance is one of the

important policy tools the USDA uses today. Crop insurance is for agricultural producers and

farmers to secure their revenue from natural disasters and market instability. This insurance

is provided by the private sector, but at a rate determined by the federal government. It

illustrates one example of a public-private partnership (PPP). Another tool with a similar

function is the ad hoc disastrous assistance. It also deals with crops damaged by natural

disasters such as droughts, flood, etc. However, 80-90% of the crops today are covered by

crop insurance, and it has covered most of the damage in recent agricultural disasters.

Therefore, the crop insurance is becoming the major policy tool.

All of these USDA initiatives, governance mechanisms, and policy tools are focused on

agriculture or farming and not on land use as a whole. The other innovative changes in

governance one can see here is the increasing emphasis on revenue based countercyclical

support.

There are a number of challenges the USDA faces. First are the constraints: budget,

information, and key performance indicators (KPIs). The limited amount of budget and the

budget allocation is always a challenge in every governmental body. Information is one of

the crucial and useful factors of policy decision, but it also becomes a constraint because it is

impossible to have perfect information. Collecting data from multiple actors and fields is

extremely costly in terms of finance, manpower, and time. Even utilizing recent technological

advancements, it still is a challenge. The last constraint is the KPIs. It is difficult to determine

which indicator is ideal. While the government policy used to focus on price, and tools like

crop insurance used to focus on yields, the USDA is currently focusing on revenue because it

takes into account both the price and the yields (revenue can be written as price*yields). The


36/76

33 Findings

real question today is which level of revenue should they focus on: farmer, town, or county.

The higher the level, the more difficult it will be from a data collection standpoint. A second

challenge is lack of clearly defined goals from legislators. It is challenging to simplify thegoals in the first place, and it is not possible to tell what the optimal level of anything is.

Answering this question will require a thorough welfare function, which the USDA does not

have, and creating one will again be finance, manpower, and time consuming.

What does all of this imply? Again, all of the individual policy initiatives and tools such as

the CRP, EQUIP, SNAP, and crop insurance are very interesting and worth looking into. As an

agricultural policy design, it can be said that they are well planned and organized

comprehensively. However, in terms of land use policy design as a whole, it is far from

comprehensive. The team considers the USDA case as an example of inexistence of

comprehensive land use policy design resulting from the lack of a federal level grand design,

as was discussed in previous cases. The USDA works almost exclusively on its own, is not

aware of any of the joint initiatives conducted by other departments, and does not recognize

the impact their decisions have on other sectors. Without the federal level grand design and

the absence of inter-departmental collaboration, it is difficult to reach an agreement on the

policy design itself, and to avoid negative externalities.


37/76

34Findings

1.4 PlaNYC (Plan of New York City)

PlaNYC is a report and plan created by the municipal government of New York City in2007. Initiated by the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the plan sought to

accommodate one million more NYC residents, strengthen [the] economy, combat climate

change, and enhance the quality of life for all New Yorkers..

PlaNYC aims at better understanding issues currently affecting NYC, focusing on

infrastructure, housing issues, access to green-space and recreational areas, water and

power grids, and mass transit. These issues are addressed from multiple perspectives while

keeping in mind the tenets of creating a greener, more competitive, city.

PlaNYC is the product of a holistic approach to policy planning and execution. It spans

across many policy areas, approximately incorporating the tenets of the Trilemma outlined at

the beginning of our report. This helps coordinate the resources and actions of all city

agencies to move toward enhancing and investing in New York City.

PlaNYC was an extended study, report, and implementation strategy that incorporated

over 25 New York City agencies. The plan outlined broad, achievable, goals for each of its

issue areas:

Housing and Neighborhoods: Create homes for almost one million new New Yorkerswhile making housing more affordable and sustainable.

Parks and Public Space: Ensure all New Yorkers live within a 10-minute walk from agreen space.

Brownfields: Clean up all contaminated spaces in New York City Waterways: Improve the quality of NYC waterways to increase opportunities for

recreation and restore the health of coastal ecosystems.

Water Supply: Ensure the high quality and reliability of the water supply system Transportation: Expand sustainable transportation choices and ensure the reliability

and quality of the transportation network.

Energy: Reduce energy consumption while making energy systems cleaner and morereliable.

Air Quality: Achieve the cleanest air quality of any big city in the United States Solid Waste: Divert 75% of solid waste away from landfills. Climate Change: Reduce Greenhouse gas emissions by more than 30%, and increase

the resilience of New York City communities, natural systems, and infrastructure to

risks from the climate and natural forces.

Each agency was tasked with finding ways to help the city achieve these broader goals,

effectively guiding the entire municipal government toward a comprehensive approach to


38/76

35 Findings

land use and city planning. Every year the government assesses progress toward its PlaNYC

goals and chronicles the findings in an update which it published.


39/76

36Findings

2. Functional Governance Mechanisms to Overcome Inter-agency andCross-level Communication and Coordination Problems

The table of contents of this section

2.1 The importance of multilevel governance for land use

governance

page.36

2.2 Inter-agency initiative Sustainable Communities United States page.37

2.3 The challenges in decentralization policy Netherlands page.41

2.1 The Importance of multilevel governance for land use governance

Land use policies can generate conflict between actors, as different levels of government

will have different interests with regards to how land can be used. To better understand this

conflictive process, it is necessary to discuss the theoretical framework of multilevel

governance (MLG).

On a theoretical level, scholar Philippe Schmitter has described multilevel governance as

an arrangement for making binding decisions that engages a multiplicity of politically

independent but otherwise interdependent actors - private and public - at different levels of

territorial aggregation in more or less continuous negotiation/deliberation/implementation,

and that does not assign exclusive policy competence or assert a stable hierarchy of political

authority to any of these levels. (Schmitter 2004)58.

The OECD offers a more succinct definition based on the exercise and allocation of

authority across various dimensions of relations across levels of government (OECD,

2012)59. In the view of the OECD, MLG acts not as a theoretical frame, but rather as a system

by which different levels of government work in tandem. The EU, for its part, describes MLG

as a dynamic process with a horizontal and vertical dimension, which does not in any way

dilute political responsibility (Van den Brande & Delebarre, 2009)60 emphasizing that it is a

framework for policy rather than a formalized legal process.

This final point on the fluidity of MLG and its lack of formality in defining its exact nature is

a point considered throughout the analysis of land use policies by the OECD Capstone

group. Based on that idea, we can begin to understand MLG as a system that aims at

bolstering functional governance by promoting new means of communication and

involvement between actors and stakeholders at different levels of government. This broad

and inclusive view questions the comprehensiveness of both the top-down and bottom-up

approaches and, instead, recognizes the shared responsibility between national, regional

and local authorities when it comes to land use policies.


40/76

37 Findings

2.2 Inter-agency initiative Sustainable Communities in the United States

Figure 10: The partnership for Sustainable Communities

Sustainable Communities is a federal level inter-department initiative established in

2009, based on the partnership between HUD, the DOT, and the EPA to improve access to

affordable housing (civic concerns), increase transportation options (civic concerns) and

lower transportation costs (economic concerns) while protecting environmental

sustainability (environmental concerns). Sustainable Communities used six principles to

illustrate this point: 1) provide more transportation choices, 2) promote equitable, affordable

housing, 3) enhance economic competitiveness, 4) support existing communities, 5)

coordinate and leverage federal policies and investment and 6) value communities.

Documents

Putting Land Use Back on the Agenda: Developing a New Framework for OECD Member Countries