LAND USE POLICIES FOR GREEN GROWTHUrban green growth, spatial planning and land-use9th & 10th November 2016

Mr. Joaquim Oliveira Martins, Head, Regional Development Policy Division, OECD

• Need to find a balance between sustainability, liveability and affordability

• Formal planning instruments can be slow to respond to change and foster innovation

• Policies outside of the planning system need to be aligned with land use objectives—particularly subnational finances and tax policies

Land use policies to foster green and inclusive growth

Property (b

uildings,

infrastr

ucture) Land

Machinery

& Equipment

Inventorie

s

Other natu

ral re

sources

Intellect

ual propert

y

Other non fin

ancial as

sests

Cultivate

d biological re

sources

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Land and property are by far the most important forms of capital

Disaggregated capital stock (six-country sample)

U$ billion PPP

Note: Data includes Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Japan and Korea.Source: OECD National Accounts Table 9B

The amount of developed land per capita in urban areas differs across the OECD

USAEST

FINAUT

SWEBEL

SVKCZE

DNKHUN

POLFRA

NOR IRL

DEUGBR

PRTCHE

ESPNLD

GRCSVN ITA

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Developed land per capita in urban cores (in m²) Developed land per capita in commuting zones (in m²)

Source: OECD calculations based on Corine Land Cover and National Land Cover Database

Developed land per capita in urban areas

*All data is based on the OECD definition of Functional Urban Areas (FUAs)

Land use in urban cores and commuting zones in Europe

Urban Cores

010

2030

0 200 600400 800 10000

1020

300 200 600400 800 1000N

umbe

r of m

etro

polit

an a

reas

Developed land per capita in m² Developed land per capita in m²

Commuting zones

Source: OECD calculations based on Corine Land Cover data

Developed land is growing everywhere…

IRL

ESPEST

PRTSVK

NLDCZE

HUN FINFRA

DNKPOL

ITAGRC

SWEUSA

AUTSVN

DEUNOR

CHEGBR

BEL0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

Annual % growth of developed land in commuting zone Annual % growth of developed land in core

Annual growth rates of developed land between 2000 and 2012

Source: OECD calculations based on Corine Land Cover and National Land Cover Database

ESTGRC

NLDHUN

PRTPOL

SVKESP

DEUDNK

CZE ITASWE FIN

FRASVN

AUTCHE

BELIR

LGBR

LUXNOR

USA-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%Annual percentage change in developed land per capita 2000 - 2012

…but per capita land use is declining in many countriesPer capita growth of developed land in functional urban

areas (cores and commuting zones combined)

Car use is lower in denser regions

0.02

5ha

0.01

8ha

0.14

ha1h

aD

evel

oped

land

per

cap

ita

0 30 60 90 120Number of vehicles per 100 inhabitants

European TL3 regions Estimated relationship

Source: OECD calculations based on Corine Land Cover and National Land Cover DatabaseNote: The positive relationship between land cover and car ownership is robust to controlling for per capita GDP levels and country fixed-effects.

Regions with 10% less developed land per capita have 0.75 fewer cars per 100 inhabitants

Housing costs have risen strongly in most OECD countries

Inflation-adjusted property prices (1995=100)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20150

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Australia Belgium Canada Switzerland Germany

Denmark Spain Finland France United Kingdom

Ireland Italy Japan Netherlands Norway

New Zealand Sweden United States Average

Sweden

Japan

Ireland

UK

Germany

Norway

Restrictive land use policies can lead to rising housing costs

Ann

ual c

hang

e ho

use

pric

es

(200

0-20

12)

Annual change in developed land per capita (2000-2012)

• Land use regulations should aim to prevent sprawl…

• …but have to provide sufficient space to construct housing for growing populations

• Otherwise, housing costs rise

-1.0% -0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%1%2%3%4%5%6%

Very little densification is taking place

• Very little densification of building stock on-going since 2000

• Less than 0.01% of developed land in data has changed to a higher density class in Europe; less than 1% has changed in the U.S.

• Caveat: existing data not ideal to measure density; only two density classes for Europe; four density classes for the U.S.

Europe United StatesDensified land since 2000/01

Land with constant density since

2000/01Source: OECD calculations based on Corine Land Cover and National Land Cover Database

• Many cities have densities similar to when they were much smallerLow density neighbourhoods that were once at the urban fringe are now within urban cores without having densified

• Greater densities are needed to adapt urban form and build housing for greater populations

• Public spaces need to be of high quality in denser environments to ensure well-being

High quality density is needed

• Growing economy and population • Many competing demands on land

Example in practice: Green Growth in Amsterdam

Six spatial development ambitions to 2040:

1. Increasing density in what is already a dense city

2. Transforming mono-functional areas3. Enhancing regional transportation 4. Increasing the quality of public space5. Investing in the recreational use of green

space and water6. Preparing for a post-fossil fuel era

Amsterdam’s spatial development ambitions

• New spatial planning legislation pursues certainty where needed, and flexibility where prudent

• It encourages flexibility and experiential land uses where possible

• To be implemented in 2018

New Dutch Environmental and Planning Act (2016)

How to make planning more flexible and foster good land use?

How land is used

Public policies aimed at steering land use

• Spatial planning• Transport planning• Land use planning• Environmental regulations • Building code regulations

Public policies not targeted at land use

• Tax policies • Transport taxes and subsidies• Fiscal systems and inter-

governmental transfers • Agricultural policies • Energy policies

How land is permitted to be used How individuals and businesses want to use land

Fiscal and tax systems incentivise: i. local governments’ planning policiesii. land use decisions by firms and

individuals

Incentives need to be better aligned with land use objectives

Aligning fiscal and tax incentives to land use objectives

Examples: How fiscal and tax systems influence land use

In some countries, local governments obtain a large

share of revenues from business taxes

Local governments have incentives to allocate as much land as possible to commercial uses to maximise tax revenues.

In some countries, ownership of single-family homes

receives preferential tax treatment

Residents have incentives to live in low-density

neighbourhoods in sub-urban areas

Examples: How fiscal and tax systems influence land use

Agriculture is heavily subsidised across most of the

OECD

Without subsidies, agricultural land uses would change

Many countries make expenses for commuting by car tax

deductible

Lower costs of commuting provide incentives to live

further from the place of work (often in peri-urban areas) and

increase car reliance

THANK YOUContact: joaquim.oliveira@oecd.org

For more information contact: Abel Schumann: abel.schumann@oecd.orgTamara Krawchenko: tamara.krawchenko@oecd.org

Extra slides

Distribution of land uses in FUAs

BELGBR

NLDCHEPRT

DEUDNK

USALU

XGRC

ITA

CZEFR

AHUN

POLAUT

SVKIR

LFI

NES

TESP

SWESVN

NOR0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Other Forests Agricultural land Developed land

Source: OECD calculations based on Corine Land Cover and National Land Cover Database

Ratio of per capita land use in commuting zones relative to cores

ESTAUT

USAGRC

BELESP

HUNCZE

POLFIN

FRASVK

NORCHE

SWEDNK

PRTGBR

DEU ITA IRL

NLDSVN

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Ratio developed land per capita Commuting zone - Urban core

Source: OECD calculations based on Corine Land Cover and National Land Cover Database

Population growth in commuting zones is disproportionally high

IRL

NORCAN

BELUSA

NLDKOR FIN

DNKJP

ACHE

DEUSVK

POLGRC

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

Annual population growth in commuting zones 2000-2014 Annual population growth in urban cores 2000-2014

Population growth rates in urban cores and commuting zones

Source: OECD calculations based on Corine Land Cover and National Land Cover Database

Per capita land use is becoming more sparing in many commuting zones

ESTNLD

DNKDEU

SVKPOL

PRTSWE FIN

AUTGBR

BELHUN

CZE ITAFRA

SVNCHE

GRCESP

NOR IRL

USA-2.0%

-1.5%

-1.0%

-0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

Annual % growth of developed land per capita in commuting zone Annual % growth of developed land per capita in core

Growth rates of developed land per capita

Source: OECD calculations based on Corine Land Cover and National Land Cover Database