The paradox of planning the compact and green city: analyzing land-use change in Amsterdam and Brussels

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual scheme.

Figure 2. Location of case studies.

Source: OIS (2018); Statbel (2018); Esri (2019). Design by author.

Table 1. Satellite images and band information.

Case	Satellite	Bands used	Spectral range (newton meters)	Spatial resolution (m)	Satellite sensor (m)	Acquisition date
Amsterdam	GeoEye-1	Pan	450–800	1.84	0.46	9 May 2016
		Blue	450–510
		Green	510–580
		Red	655–690
		NIR	780–920
	Quickbird	Pan	450–900	2.41	0.64	16 July 2003
		Blue	450–520
		Green	520–600
		Red	630–690
		NIR	760–900
Brussels	Worldview 2	Pan	450–800	1.84	0.46	24 July 2016
		Blue	450–550
		Green	510–580
		Red	630–690
		NIR 1	770–895
	Quickbird	Pan	450–900	2.41	0.64	13 July 2003
		Blue	450–520
		Green	520–600
		Red	630–690
		NIR	760–900

Source: Digital Globe (2019).

Table 2. Amsterdam classification accuracy assessments.

	Ground truth reference class
	Water				Greenspace		Urban		Total sample			User's accuracy
	2003	2016			2003	2016	2003	2016	2003		2016	2003	2016
Water	57	58			3	1	0	1	60		60	95%	96.67%
Greenspace	0	0			60	59	0	1	60		60	100%	98.33%
Urban	0	0			0	2	60	58	60		60	100%	96.67%
Producer's accuracy	100%	100%			95.24%	95.16%	100%	96.67%
	2003		2016
Overall classification accuracy	98.33%		97.22%
Kappa coefficient	0.975		0.958

Table 3. Brussels classification accuracy assessments.

	Ground truth reference class
	Water		Greenspace		Urban		Total sample		User's accuracy
	2003	2016	2003	2016	2003	2016	2003	2016	2003	2016
Water	58	58	1	1	1	1	60	60	96.67%	96.67%
Greenspace	0	0	60	59	0	1	60	60	100%	98.33%
Urban	1	0	0	0	59	60	60	60	98.33%	100%
Producer's accuracy	98.31%	100%	98.36%	98.33%	98.33%	96.77%
	2003		2016
Overall classification accuracy	98.33%		98.33%
Kappa coefficient	0.975		0.975

Table 4. UGS and compact city indicators.

Concept	Dimension	Indicator	Variable	Data
Urban greenspace	Availability	Quantity	km^2 UGS	Classified land-use images (2003, 2016)
		Greenspace per capita	Square meters greenspace per inhabitant	CBS, Statbel (2003, 2016); Classified land-use images (2003, 2016)
	Connectivity	Patch density^a	Average number of disconnected areas per 100 hectares	Classified land-use images (2003, 2016)
	Size	Size of greenspace	Average size of greenspaces	Classified land-use images (2003, 2016)
Compact city	Density	Population density	Population/total area	CBS, Statbel (2003, 2016)
		Building density	Built up area/total area	CBS, Statbel (2003, 2016)

Note: ^aAverage number of disconnected greenspaces per 100 hectares.

Table 5. List of interviewees.

Code	Function
RB1	MP Brussels Capital-Region with focus on environmental issues
RB2	Urban designer BRAL (Brussels Council for the living environment)
RB3	Urban ecologist BRAL (Brussels Council for the living environment)
RA1	Urban planner (Municipality of Amsterdam)
RA2	Policy maker greenspaces (Municipality of Amsterdam)
RA3	Policy maker with a focus on greenspace (Municipality of Amsterdam)

Figure 3. Land-use changes in Amsterdam.

Source: Digital Globe (2003, 2016). Design and calculations are made by the authors.

*Urban land includes built-up space as well as non-vegetated barren land.

Table 6. Land-use statistics.

	2003			2016			Change 2003–2016
(a) Amsterdam	City level	Inside ring zone	Outside ring zone	City level	Inside ring zone	Outside ring zone	City level	Inside ring zone	Outside ring zone
Availability greenspace
Total area of green space (km^2)	84.27	21.72	62.55	80.58	19.85	60.71	–3.69 (–4.7%)	–1.87 (–9.3%)	–1.84 (–2.9%)
Greenspace as share of land area (%)	41.11	30.57	46.69	39.28	27.93	45.31	–1.82 (–4.4%)	–2.65 (–8.7%)	–1.39 (–3.0%)
Greenspace per capita (m^2/inh.)	114.49	44.48	252.50	96.53	40.66	245.08	–17.96 (–15.7%)	–3.82 (–8.6%)	–7.42 (–2.9%)
Size of greenspace
Average size of greenspace (ha)^a	0.30	0.15	0.48	0.29	0.14	0.48	–0.01 (–3.1%)	–0.01 (–7.2%)	–0.01 (–1.3%)
Connectivity greenspace
Patch density^b	135.52	209.85	96.99	133.69	206.51	95.37	–1.82 (–1.4%)	–3.33 (–1.6%)	–1.62 (–1.7%)
Urban density
Population density (inh/km^2)^a	3360	6872	1669	3810	7690	1942	+450 (+13.4%)	+818 (+11.9%)	+273 (+16.4%)
Building density (built-up area/km^2)	0.38	0.50	0.31	0.40	0.53	0.33	+0.09 (+27.5%)	+0.13 (+32.7%)	+0.02 (+5.4%)
	2003			2016			Change 2003–2016
(b) Brussels	City level	Inside ring zone	Outside ring zone	City level	Inside ring zone	Outside ring zone	City level	Inside ring zone	Outside ring zone
Availability greenspace
Total area of green space (km^2)	76.95	6.91	70.04	67.76	5.95	61.81	–9.19 (–11.9%)	–0.96 (–13.9%)	–8.23 (–11.8%)
Greenspace as share of land area (%)	51.12	21.22	59.37	45.09	18.27	52.51	–6.03 (–11.8%)	–2.95 (–13.9%)	–6.86 (–11.6%)
Greenspace per capita (m^2/inh.)^a	77.57	16.67	121.72	57.05	11.84	90.28	–20.53 (–26.5%)	–4.83 (–29.0%)	–31.44 (–25.8%)
Size of greenspace
Average size of greenspace (ha)	0.31	0.09	0.41	0.23	0.06	0.30	–0.08 (–25.6%)	–0.02 (–27.2%)	–0.10 (–25.3%)
Connectivity greenspace
Patch density^b	164.44	239.24	145.80	195.06	282.95	172.68	+30.62 (+18.6%)	+43.71 (+18.3%)	+26.88 (+18.4%)
Urban density
Population density (inh/km^2)^a	6146	12729	4878	7361	15434	5816	+1214 (+19.8%)	+2705 (+21.3%)	+938 (+19.2%)
Building density (built-up area/km^2)	0.44	0.76	0.37	0.46	0.80	0.42	+0.02 (+4.5%)	+0.03 (+4.5%)	+0.04 (+11.9%)

Source: Data is obtained from the land-use classification based on Digital Globe satellite imagery (2003, 2016) and census statistics from CBS/Statbel (2003, 2016). All calculations were made by the author.

Notes: Per neighborhood, the percentage of the area that falls inside the ring is calculated. This percentage of area coverage is used to estimate the number of inhabitants.

^a Since no census data exists on the exact number of inhabitants inside and outside the ring zone, an estimation is made.

^b Average number of disconnected greenspaces per 100 hectares.

Table 7. Key policy instruments for urban greenspace and development.

Policy area	Policies Municipality of Amsterdam	Policies Region Brussels
Existing greenspace preservation	Greenspaces protected from urban development by law through the policy document ‘Main structure greenspace’ (Hoofdgroenstructuur) and ‘Main tree structure’ (Hoofdbomenstructuur). These policies also aim to make greenspaces more connected.	Greenspaces protected from urban development by law through the policy document ‘Green Network’ (Het Groene Netwerk). These policies also aim to make greenspaces more connected.
New greenspace requirements	‘Amsterdam standard for social services, greenspace and play facilities’ (Amsterdamse referentienorm voor maatschappelijke voorzieningen, groen en spelen): Guideline that calculates how many square meters of these public facilities, including greenspace, need to be realized in relation to the number of new dwellings in a development.	Urban development projects larger than 5.000 m2 have to provide at least 10% of their land plot as greenspace.
New greenspace general promotion/ facilitation	Adjustment of legal framework to facilitate the approval of new green spaces. Subsidies for investment in city parks and the creation of greenspace areas such as pocket parks, trees and urban farms, green roofs, green walls and green schoolyards/play grounds. The emphasis of these investments is quality over quantity.	Greenspace development is always permitted. Stimulating greenspace creation by providing subsidies. ‘The Green Walk’ (De Groene Wandeling): recreational cycling and walking routes through greenspaces within the second crown (62 km in total). Greenspaces along these routes are maintained or improved.
Urban development	Compact city policies: prioritizing densification inside the city borders. Emphasis on realizing high urban densities inside the ring. Allowing and stimulating transformation of vacant buildings into dwellings and/or office space.	Allowing change of function of vacant buildings ‘Neighborhood’ and ‘Urban Redevelopment’ contracts (Wijkcontracten enStadsverniewingcontracten): subsidized urban redevelopment program for vulnerable neighborhoods. Retaining expansion of the tertiary/industrial sector into residential areas by setting a threshold for the amount of dwellings per area and by prohibiting zoning conversions from residential to tertiary/industrial. ‘Hefboomgebieden’: So-called ‘barren lands’ or urban areas where (re)development is stimulated.

Source: Municipality of Amsterdam (1996, 2011, 2015, 2016, 2018a, 2018b); Region Brussels (1993, 1995, 2001, 2002, 2016, 2018).

Figure 4. Land-use changes in Brussels.

Source: Digital Globe (2003, 2016). Design and calculations are made by the authors.

*Urban land includes built-up space as well as non-vegetated barren land.

Table 8. Summary of differences and similarities between Amsterdam and Brussels.

Differences	Similarities
• More greenspace development observed in Amsterdam. • Higher degree of vertical and horizontal fragmentation in Brussels. • Amsterdam has a higher share of landownership. • Amsterdam has a clear compact city policy tradition. • Brussels has relatively more urban development outside the inner city than Amsterdam.	• Loss of greenspace and increase in urban density. • Decreased, more fragmented and smaller greenspace in the inner city. • Loss of greenspace can often be traced back to urban development plans. • Purported policy to preserve greenspaces by law.

Statbel. 2018. Statistics Brussels. https://statbel.fgov.be/nl

 Google Scholar

Esri. 2019. Municipal borders and background map. www.esri.com

 Google Scholar

Digital Globe. 2019. Satellite Imagery. www.digitalglobe.com

 Google Scholar

Statbel. 2003. Statistics Brussels. https://statbel.fgov.be/nl

 Google Scholar

Statbel. 2016. Statistics Brussels. https://statbel.fgov.be/nl

 Google Scholar

Digital Globe. 2003. Satellite Imagery. www.digitalglobe.com

 Google Scholar

Digital Globe. 2016. Satellite Imagery. www.digitalglobe.com

 Google Scholar

Municipality of Amsterdam. 1996. Open Stad. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Municipality of Amsterdam.

 Google Scholar

Municipality of Amsterdam. 2011. Structuurvisie Amsterdam 2040: Economisch Sterk en Duurzaam. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Municipality of Amsterdam.

 Google Scholar

Municipality of Amsterdam. 2015. Agenda Groen. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Municipality of Amsterdam.

 Google Scholar

Municipality of Amsterdam. 2016. Koers 2025: Ruimte Voor de Stad. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Municipality of Amsterdam.

 Google Scholar

Municipality of Amsterdam. 2018a. Woningbouwplan 2018-2025. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Municipality of Amsterdam.

 Google Scholar

Municipality of Amsterdam. 2018b. Amsterdamse Referentienorm Voor Maatschappelijke Voorzieningen, Groen en Spelen. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Municipality of Amsterdam.

 Google Scholar

Region Brussels. 1993. Houdende Organisatie Van de Herwaardering Van de Wijken. Brussels: Region Brussels.

 Google Scholar

Region Brussels. 1995. Gewestelijke Ontwikkelingsplan. Brussels: Region Brussels.

 Google Scholar

Region Brussels. 2001. Het Gewestelijk Bestemmingsplan. Brussels: Region Brussels.

 Google Scholar

Region Brussels. 2002. Gewestelijk Ontwikkelingsplan. Brussels: Region Brussels.

 Google Scholar

Region Brussels. 2016. Gewestelijk Natuurplan 2016-2020 Voor Het Brusselse Gewest. Brussels: Region Brussels.

 Google Scholar

Region Brussels. 2018. Gewestelijk Plan Voor Duurzame Ontwikkeling. Brussels: Region Brussels.

 Google Scholar