Multiple land use planning for living places and investments spaces

References

• Alexander, E. R. (2014). Land-property markets and planning: A special case. Land Use Policy, 41, 533–540. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, R., Tallon, A., & Williams, D. (2019). Governing urban regeneration: Planning and regulatory tools in the UK. European Planning Studies. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1598020
   Google Scholar
• Balta, M. O., & Eke, F. (2011). Spatial reflection of urban planning in metropolitan areas and urban rent: A case study of Cayyolu, Ankara. European Planning Studies, 19(10), 1817–1838. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2011.614396
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Booth, P. (2016). Planning and the rule of law. Planning Theory & Practice, 17(3), 344–360. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2016.1183810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunker, R., Crommelin, L., Troy, L., Easthope, H., Pinnegar, S., & Randolph, B. (2017). Managing the transition to a more compact city in Australia. International Planning Studies, 22(4), 384–399. doi: 10.1080/13563475.2017.1298435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calor, I., & Alterman, R. (2017). When enforcement fails: Comparative analysis of the legal and planning responses to non-compliant development in two advanced-economy countries. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 9(3), 207–239. doi: 10.1108/IJLBE-06-2017-0021
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, H., Tait, M., & Watkins, C. (2014). Is there space for better planning in a neoliberal world? Implications for planning practice and theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1), 45–59. doi: 10.1177/0739456X13514614
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Capozza, D. R., & Li, Y. (2002). Optimal land development decisions. Journal or Urban Economics, 51, 123–142. doi: 10.1006/juec.2001.2240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jong, J., & Spaans, M. (2009). Trade-offs at a regional level in spatial planning: Two case studies as a source of inspiration. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 368–379. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazekas, M., & Tóth, B. (2018). The extent and cost of corruption in transport infrastructure. New evidence from Europe. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 113, 35–54. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferm, J., & Jones, E. (2016). Mixed-use ‘regeneration’ of employment land in the post-industrial city: Challenges and realities in London. European Planning Studies, 24(10), 1913–1936. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1209465
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fligstein, N. (1996). Markets as politics: A political-cultural approach to market institutions. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 656–673. doi: 10.2307/2096398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fligstein, N. (2011). Markets and firms. In A. Favell, & V. Guiraudon (Eds.), Sociology of the European Union (pp. 100–127). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Fligstein, N., & Mara-Drita, I. (1996). How to make a market: Reflections on the attempt to create a single market in the European Union. American Journal of Sociology, 102(1), 1–33. doi: 10.1086/230907
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friesecke, F. (2015). Land policy models and strategies in the Federal Republic of Germany. In E. Hepperle, R. Dixon-Gough, R. Mansberger, J. Paulsson, F. Reuter, & M. Yilmaz (Eds.), Challenges for governance structures in urban and regional development (pp. 125–137). Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zürich.
   Google Scholar
• Geltner, D., Kumar, A., & Van de Minne, A. M. (2018). Riskiness of real estate development: A perspective from urban economics and option value theory. Real Estate Economics. doi: 10.1111/1540-6229.12258(0)
   Google Scholar
• Gennaio, M.-P., Hersperger, A. M., & Bürgi, M. (2009). Containing urban sprawl—evaluating effectiveness of urban growth boundaries set by the Swiss land use plan. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 224–232. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.02.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, J. (2002). Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implementing a planning principle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1), 71–84. doi: 10.1080/01944360208977192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greco, E. (2018). Questioning the vertical urbanization of post-industrial cities: The cases of Turin and Lyon. Built Environment, 43(4), 555–570. doi: 10.2148/benv.43.4.555
   Google Scholar
• Grossi, G., & Pianezzi, D. (2018). The new public corruption: Old questions for new challenges. Accounting Forum, 42(1), 86–101. doi: 10.1016/j.accfor.2016.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grubbauer, M., & Čamprag, N. (2018). Urban megaprojects, nation-state politics and regulatory capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe: The Belgrade Waterfront project. Urban Studies, 56(4). doi: 10.1177/0042098018757663
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurran, N., & Bramley, G. (2017). Urban governance, policy, planning and housing. In Urban planning and the housing market: International perspectives for policy and practice (pp. 15–43). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
   Google Scholar
• Haccoû, H. A., Deelstra, T., Krośnicka, K., Dol, M., & Kramer, M. (2007). MILU Guide: Practitioners’ handbook for multifunctional and intensive land use. Gouda: The Habiforum Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, N. (2017). Enforcing planning regulations in areas of high immigration: A case study of London. Town Planning Review, 88(5), 499–529. doi: 10.3828/tpr.2017.32
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healey, P. (2010). Making better places: The planning project in the twenty-first century. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Isaac, R. M., Kitchens, C., & Portillo, J. E. (2016). Can buyer “mobility” reduce aggregation failures in land-assembly? Journal of Urban Economics, 95, 16–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jue.2016.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korthals Altes, W. K. (2014). Taking planning seriously: Compulsory purchase for urban planning in the Netherlands. Cities, 41(A), 71–80. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2014.05.011
   Google Scholar
• Korthals Altes, W. K., & Taşan-Kok, T. (2010). The impact of European public contract law on networks of governance: A relational approach. European Planning Studies, 18(6), 971–984. doi: 10.1080/09654311003701522
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krajewska, M., Źróbek, S., & Kovač, M. Š. (2014). The role of spatial planning in the investment process in Poland and Slovenia. Real Estate Management and Valuation, 22(2), 52–66. doi: 10.2478/remav-2014-0017
   Google Scholar
• Lagendijk, A. (2003). Multifunctional land use as a planning challenge. In P. Nijkamp, C. A. Rodenburg, & R. Vreeker (Eds.), The economics of multifunctional land use (pp. 83–89). Maastricht: Shaker Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Lai, L. W. C. (2010). A model of planning by contract: Integrating comprehensive state planning, freedom of contract, public participation and fidelity. Town Planning Review, 81(6), 647–673. doi: 10.3828/tpr.2010.25
   Google Scholar
• Lees, E., & Shepherd, E. (2018). Morphological analysis of legal ideology: Locating interpretive divergence. Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law, 10(1), 5–16. doi: 10.1108/JPPEL-12-2017-0041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legacy, C. (2012). Achieving legitimacy through deliberative plan-making processes—lessons for metropolitan strategic planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 13(1), 71–87. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2012.649947
   Google Scholar
• Lennon, M. (2017). On ‘the subject’ of planning’s public interest. Planning Theory, 16(2), 150–168. doi: 10.1177/1473095215621773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, M., & Janssen-Jansen, L. (2013). The Amsterdam metropolitan area challenge: Opportunities for inclusive coproduction in city-region governance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(3), 540–555. doi: 10.1068/c11216
   Google Scholar
• Lindeman, B. (1976). Anatomy of land speculation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 42(2), 142–152. doi: 10.1080/01944367608977715
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louw, E., & Bruinsma, F. (2006). From mixed to multiple land use. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 21(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10901-005-9029-y
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Saglie, I.-L., & Cars, G. (2011). Between input legitimacy and output efficiency: Defensive routines and agonistic reflectivity in Nordic land-use planning. European Planning Studies, 19(12), 2109–2126. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2011.632906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miceli, T. J., & Sirmans, C. F. (2007). The holdout problem, urban sprawl, and eminent domain. Journal of Housing Economics, 16(3-4), 309–319. doi: 10.1016/j.jhe.2007.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison, N., & Burgess, G. (2014). Inclusionary housing policy in England: The impact of the downturn on the delivery of affordable housing through Section 106. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 29(3), 423–438. doi: 10.1007/s10901-013-9360-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Næss, P., & Saglie, I. L. (2000). Surviving between the trenches: Planning research, methodology and theory of science. European Planning Studies, 8(6), 729–750. doi: 10.1080/713666435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olsson, L. (2018). The neoliberalization of municipal land policy in Sweden. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 42(4), 633–650. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12651
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pessoa, I. M., Tasan-Kok, T., & Korthals Altes, W. (2016). Brazilian urban porosity: Treat or threat? Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Urban Design and Planning, 169(2), 47–55. doi: 10.1680/udap.15.00009
   Google Scholar
• Priemus, H. (2007). System innovation in spatial development: Current Dutch approaches. European Planning Studies, 15(8), 992–1006. doi: 10.1080/09654310701448147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raco, M., Livingstone, N., & Durrant, D. (2019). Urban development planning, financialisation, and reflexive calculation: Investors and developers’ perceptions of London as an investment space. European Planning Studies. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1598019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Refinetti Martins, M. L., & dos Santos Pereira, A. L. (2019). Urban Regeneration in the Brazilian urban policy agenda. European Planning Studies. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1598021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager, T. (2016). Activist planning: A response to the woes of neo-liberalism? European Planning Studies, 24(7), 1262–1280. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1168784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuetz, J., Giuliano, G., & Shin, E. J. (2018). Does zoning help or hinder transit-oriented (re)development? Urban Studies, 55(8), 1672–1689. doi: 10.1177/0042098017700575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siedentop, S., Fina, S., & Krehl, A. (2016). Greenbelts in Germany’s regional plans—an effective growth management policy? Landscape and Urban Planning, 145, 71–82. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snep, R. P., Kooijmans, J. L., Kwak, R. G., Foppen, R. P., Parsons, H., Awasthy, M., … van Heezik, Y. M. (2016). Urban bird conservation: Presenting stakeholder-specific arguments for the development of bird-friendly cities. Urban Ecosystems, 19(4), 1535–1550. doi: 10.1007/s11252-015-0442-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, C. N. (1993). Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: A political economy approach. Journal of Urban Affairs, 15(1), 1–28. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9906.1993.tb00300.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taşan-Kok, T. (2012). Introduction: Contradictions of neoliberal urban planning. In T. Taşan-Kok, & G. Baeten (Eds.), Contradictions of neoliberal planning: Cities, policies, and politics (pp. 1–19). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Taşan-Kok, T., van den Hurk, M., Özoğul, S., & Bittencourt, S. (2019). Changing accountability regimes in the governance of Dutch urban regeration. European Planning Studies. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2019.1598017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Broekhoven, S., Boons, F., Van Buuren, A., & Teisman, G. (2015). Boundaries in action: A framework to analyse boundary actions in multifunctional land-use developments. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(5), 1005–1023. doi: 10.1177/0263774X15605927
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Broekhoven, S., & Vernay, A. L. (2018). Integrating functions for a sustainable urban system: A review of multifunctional land use and circular urban metabolism. Sustainability, 10(6), 1–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Valk, A. (2002). The Dutch planning experience. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(2–4), 201–210. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00221-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Veen, M., & Korthals Altes, W. K. (2011). Urban development agreements: Do they meet guiding principles for a better deal? Cities, 28(4), 310–319. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2011.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Holstein, E. (2018). Experiences of participatory planning in contexts of inequality: A qualitative study of urban renewal projects in Colombia. Planning Theory & Practice, 19(1), 39–57. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2017.1406981
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vreeker, R., De Groot, H. L. F., & Verhoef, E. T. (2004). Urban multifunctional land use: Theoretical and empirical insights on economies of scale, scope and diversity. Built Environment, 30(4), 289–307. doi: 10.2148/benv.30.4.289.57157
   Google Scholar
• Weber, A. (1904). Über Bodenrente und Bodenspekulation in der modernen Stadt [On land rent and land speculation in the modern city]. Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblof.
   Google Scholar
• Webster, C. (2005). The new institutional economics and the evolution of modern urban planning: Insights, issues and lessons. Town Planning Review, 76(4), 455–502. doi: 10.3828/tpr.76.4.5
   Google Scholar
• Załęczna, M. (2018). Public participation in land use planning and the building of a civil society. Real Estate Management and Valuation, 26(2), 23–32. doi: 10.2478/remav-2018-0013
   Google Scholar