*Article* **Taking Implementation Seriously in the Evaluation of Urban Growth Management Strategies: "Safeguarding the Future" of the Antwerp City-Region**

**Clemens de Olde \* and Stijn Oosterlynck**

Department of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Stadscampus-Building M, St-Jacobstraat 2, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium; stijn.oosterlynck@uantwerpen.be **\***Correspondence:clemens.deolde@uantwerpen.be;Tel.:+32-32655344

**Abstract:** Contemporary evaluations of urban growth managemen<sup>t</sup> (UGM) strategies often take the shape of quantitative measurements of land values and housing prices. In this paper, we argue that it is of key importance that these evaluations also analyse the policy formulation and implementation phases of growth managemen<sup>t</sup> strategies. It is in these phases that the institutions and discourses are (trans)formed in which UGM strategies are embedded. This will enable us to better understand the conditions for growth managemen<sup>t</sup> policies' success or failure. We illustrate this point empirically with the case of demarcating urban areas in the region of Flanders, Belgium. Using the Policy Arrangement Approach, the institutional dynamics and discursive meanings in this growth instrument's formulation and implementation phase are unravelled. More specifically, we explain how the Flemish strategic spatial planning vision of restraining sprawl was transformed into one of accommodating growth in the demarcation of the Antwerp Metropolitan Area, epitomised by two different meanings of the phrase "safeguarding the future." In conclusion, we argue that, in Antwerp, the demarcation never solidified into a stable policy arrangement, rendering it largely ineffective. We end by formulating three recommendations to contribute to future attempts at managing urban growth in Flanders.

**Keywords:** urban growth management; urban sprawl; land use planning; zoning; strategic spatial planning; institutionalism; discourse; Antwerp; Flanders

#### **1. Introduction: Evaluating Growth Management**

Compact settlements are beneficial in terms of the cost of mobility and providing public services as well as safeguarding valuable agricultural land and nature. Therefore, planning strategies have been developed throughout the twentieth century in order to guide growth and protect open space [1]. Urban growth boundaries are arguably the most famous instrument used in these growth managemen<sup>t</sup> strategies. Early examples are found as Greenbelts in the United Kingdom and, from the 1950s, as statutory lines around cities in the United States. In any form, growth boundaries support "The key idea that imposing a defined boundary around a city beyond which development will be prohibited (at least up to some other jurisdiction) will simultaneously prevent sprawl outside the boundary and promote higher density inside it" [2].

From the second half of the twentieth century, urban growth managemen<sup>t</sup> (UGM) instruments developed from 'simple' urban containment boundaries into comprehensive plans including a wider array of policy measures to restrain urban growth and promote selective development. Recently, smart growth policy packages have centered more on (dis)incentives than direct regulation. Thereby, the perception of urban growth has evolved from a problem to be contained, to an opportunity to fix past development errors and guide new developments to address current social issues [2–4]. As Calthorpe and Fulton state,

**Citation:** de Olde, C.; Oosterlynck, S.Taking Implementation Seriously in the Evaluation of Urban Growth Management Strategies: "Safeguarding the Future" of the Antwerp City-Region. *Land* **2021**, *10*, 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/land 10020159

Academic Editor: Fabrizio Battisti Received: 29 December 2020 Accepted: 29 January 2021 Published: 5 February 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

"A multifaceted policy can reinforce a development tendency toward more compact communities, support efficient infrastructure investments, preserve open space, and encourage the revitalization of many declining areas [5]".

Despite the recognition that UGM instruments are multifaceted, Knaap and Nelson already noted three decades ago that, "Although UGBs are multi-objective instruments, most research on the effects of UGBs has focused on land values" [6]. This also holds true for the evaluative literature published in subsequent decades, which focuses primarily on analysing the effects of growth managemen<sup>t</sup> strategies on land values and housing prices [7–11]. Additionally, there are many reviews of the effects of urban growth management on urban development patterns [12–16] and mobility [17,18].

We argue that a majority of these contributions evaluate growth managemen<sup>t</sup> strategies by using quantitative indicators of surface areas, retail sales, land values, building lot sales transactions and traffic. Studies often identify growth managemen<sup>t</sup> policies—without further elaboration—as independent variables tied to a particular geographical location, in order to evaluate their effects [19,20]. New contributions to the body of work generally sugges<sup>t</sup> improvements in measurement methodology or add new case studies. These quantitative evaluations thus often implicitly assume that growth managemen<sup>t</sup> policies are executed as they were intended, after which effects can be measured. This approach of evaluating UGM stresses the final stage of the policy cycle [21] and creates a blind spot regarding the events and decisions of earlier stages in which policy is conceived, formulated, and implemented. Furthermore, it is striking that there is hardly any work on the public support for growth boundaries.

Therefore, we argue that there is a need to look beyond the measurement of effects of urban growth managemen<sup>t</sup> instruments and consider the institutional and discursive conditions in which they are formulated and implemented. This aim is supported by occasional contributions to the literature that do at least recognize the importance of cultural factors and institutional settings on the formulation and implementation processes of urban growth measures. After their statistical analyses of growth boundary effectiveness, Jun [12] and Gennaio, Hersperger and Bürgi [16] refer to the pertinence of political debates and circumstances on these policies, though they refrain from delving deeper into them. In other studies, the data on the broader context *is* there, but it is not given a prominent place in the analysis (e.g., Reference [7]). Moreover, Bengston et al., distil the key lesson that "implementation is critical" [22] because it determines effectiveness.

Other authors also point out the importance of institutional and discursive factors for the success of urban growth management. Margerum produces criteria for the evaluation of collaborative planning processes applied to the implementation of growth management strategies in South East Queensland, Australia [23] and Denver, Colorado [24]. The main conclusions of these studies are that growth managemen<sup>t</sup> collaborations lead to an increased sensitivity to spatial problems on a regional scale, as well as to increased communication between governments. The studies also, however, find a weak political and community input into growth managemen<sup>t</sup> projects, and stress the importance of these contributions. Knaap [25] points at the importance of citizens' perceived self-interest in growth managemen<sup>t</sup> for its public support and Knaap and Nelson [6] also note the role of political tension in their evaluation of the Oregon land use program,

"The construction and implementation of UGBs in other urban areas is a protracted political process. Turf battles often arose between city and county governments and, in the larger metropolitan areas, between city governments [6]".

Finally, various authors call for more context-specific studies and nuanced analytic frameworks of the policy environments and governance structures in which UGM policies are situated [2,3]. In the words of James et al.,

"Efforts to manage urban growth tend to occur within the frameworks, conventions, and requirements of governmen<sup>t</sup> structures—from the municipal to

the national. However, this very much depends upon associated political and cultural systems [26]".

These contributions show that there is a broad awareness of the importance of the institutionalisation of growth managemen<sup>t</sup> instruments for their success or failure. Yet, the analysis of the policy formulation and implementation phases is still rare in evaluations of growth managemen<sup>t</sup> strategies. This paper aims to contribute to the body of work by focusing on the institutional and discursive context in which urban growth policies are formulated and implemented. To illustrate the importance of such a perspective, we analyse the growth managemen<sup>t</sup> instrument of demarcating urban areas in the Belgian region of Flanders using the Policy Arrangement Approach (PAA). Section 2 outlines our research approach.

#### **2. Analysing the Institutional and Discursive Dimensions of UGM**

The PAA [27] describes the structure and institutionalisation of policy arrangements. These are defined as "the temporary stabilisation of the content and organisation of a particular policy domain at a certain policy level or over several policy levels" [28]. Through daily interactions between policy actors, patterns emerge that are more or less stable and that may include the "substantive delineation of the problem at stake and of possible solutions, but also the processes of give-and-take between the actors and the formal and informal rules according to which these processes take place" [29]. The Flemish spatial demarcation instrument analysed in this study is one such policy arrangemen<sup>t</sup> intended to restrain urban sprawl.

By distinguishing four dimensions of policy arrangements, the PAA analyses institutional patterns of change and stability:


As Figure 1 shows, the four dimensions of policy arrangements are linked and their analysis only makes sense when all four are taken into account in their interconnectedness. Changes in one dimension are likely to cause changes in the others as well. For instance, the redefinition of a policy problem (discourses) may cause regulations to be altered (rules), different stakeholders to become involved (actors), and other knowledge and funding channels to become relevant (resources). This makes the PAA a starting point for an encompassing and dynamic analysis of policy processes.

**Figure 1.** Schematic representation of a single policy arrangement. Adapted from Liefferink in Reference [29].

In this paper, the policy arrangemen<sup>t</sup> approach is used to highlight the institutional dimensions of urban growth managemen<sup>t</sup> strategies. By taking this perspective, we can shed light on the conditions under which the Flemish instrument of demarcating urban areas was formulated and implemented in the Antwerp Metropolitan Area.

#### **3. Case Study: Demarcating Urban Areas in Flanders**

*3.1. The Belgian and Flemish Spatial Planning System*

Modern spatial planning in Belgium can be traced back to the Belgian law on town planning of 1962. This introduced a system of land use planning that led to the development of 48 national zoning plans covering the entire territory. Due to a liberal distribution of areas for housing and other functions in these plans, the landscape became increasingly fragmented. As a part of the federalisation of the Belgian state into semi-autonomous regions, authority over spatial planning in Flanders was devolved to the Flemish region in 1980. Under Flemish rule, further regulations stimulated fragmentation, but the land use planning system introduced in 1962 was kept intact [30].

Within the region, three levels of planning authority operate, each with their respective executive and administrative bodies. At the top, there is the regional level consisting of the Flemish governmen<sup>t</sup> and the planning administration. The provincial deputation and planning office operate at the intermediate level. Locally, planning is handled by the municipal College of the Mayor and Aldermen and the municipal planning office. Between these levels, a relation of subsidiarity exists. The municipal level is concerned with local planning tasks, the provincial with matters that transcend municipal borders, and the regional with issues that concern the region as a whole. Appeals against decisions are possible from the local to the provincial, and ultimately, the Flemish level [31].

In part due to the adverse effects of the land use planning system on the region's spatial pattern, a new planning system was introduced in the Flemish region in the second half of the 1990s. Now, competent authorities on all three levels were tasked with developing a structure plan containing an overarching strategic planning vision, and spatial plans<sup>1</sup> with decisions to implement this vision.

In the terminology of the most recent comparative study of European spatial planning systems—the ESPON COMPASS project—the Belgian<sup>2</sup> spatial governance and planning system (SGPS) is categorised as one in which market-led development is prevalent. This means that market actors regularly and informally influence spatial policy decision making to pursue their private goals. Additionally, building permits are oriented towards protecting private property, which makes the implementation of comprehensive spatial policy

<sup>1</sup> In Dutch: ruimtelijke uitvoeringsplanning or RUPs.

<sup>2</sup> The COMPASS typology merges insights about the three independent planning systems in Belgium into one national type.

more difficult. Along with the SGPS of 12 Mediterranean and Eastern-European countries, and more so than most other Northern and Western European countries, Belgium leans towards a conformative planning model, where binding general plans determine land use and development rights to a large degree [32]. The legacy of the national zoning plans can clearly be seen here. However, gradual modifications are possible, which is illustrated by interventions made to the zoning plans by the Flemish RUPs at all three levels.

#### *3.2. Restraining Sprawl in Flanders*

As a result of its spatial planning history, Flanders is one of the most densely urbanized regions in Europe with a built-up area of 33% [33]. The region is characterized by many of the problems accompanied by such a condition: the fragmentation of nature posing a threat to biodiversity, heavy congestion, a high traffic mortality rate, noise and air pollution, high public expenditures for building and maintaining extensive road and utility networks, insufficient water infiltration leading to flood risk, and finally, the unfavourable aesthetics of a fragmented landscape [34–36].

Because the growth of spatial fragmentation and its problems have long been recognised as an undesirable trend in Belgium [37,38], in 1997, the Spatial Structure plan for Flanders (Dutch: Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen, henceforth: RSV3) was developed, accompanied by new planning legislation.<sup>4</sup> The RSV contains an explicit growth management strategy for Flanders5. Starting from a vision represented in the metaphor "Flanders Open and Urban", the RSV "(...) strives for a selective concentration of the growth of living, working and of the other social functions in the cities and the nuclei of the countryside" [40]. Therefore, 60% of new housing in Flanders is projected to be realised in demarcated "urban areas" and a maximum of 40% outside them, thereby freezing the areal distribution of urbanization as it was in 1991 and halting the proliferation of urban sprawl. In order to achieve these goals, the RSV distributes quotas of land to be zoned for housing and other functions (industry, services, agriculture, nature) among the Flemish provinces and urban areas, which are to be realized by 2007.

As a part of this strategy, 13 larger and 44 smaller cities designated in the plan are subject to a spatial demarcation instrument that includes a statutory line drawn at plot level around them and parts of their fringe municipalities. Within these urban areas, a concentration and densification of residential and economic functions is envisioned. As a comprehensive growth managemen<sup>t</sup> strategy, the demarcation process also aimed to promote cooperation between the political, administrative, and societal actors of the urban and suburban (fringe) municipalities to develop a shared vision of the development of the urban region. Within the demarcated area, a number of planning regulations are in effect, the most important being a minimum housing density of 25 units per hectare6. The line itself does not change any existing zoning or administrative borders as the new planning regulations only apply to new building permits 7.

Though there are some positive examples, the demarcation of the urban areas is generally regarded very critically in Flanders [41,42]. The structure planning framework in Flanders did not manage to reduce the large amount of residentially zoned areas in Flanders that has existed since the 1970s [38,43]. By not meeting attempts at spatial concentration

<sup>3</sup> This text adheres to the original Dutch acronyms of the planning documents to cater to those familiar with planning in Flanders.

<sup>4</sup> For more information on the RSV's design and implementation, see [30,39].

<sup>5</sup> In addition, there was a set of policy measures aimed at urban revitalization and making cities more attractive places to live; however, as this falls under the policy domain of Domestic Affairs rather than spatial planning, these are left outside the purview of this analysis.

<sup>6</sup> The prescribed minimum density in the rural areas outside the urban growth boundary was 15 units per hectare.

<sup>7</sup> While the demarcations of urban areas in Flanders have some characteristics of smart-growth strategies, they completely lack the involvement of market actors as well as redistribution of development opportunities via transferable development rights (TDR). Furthermore, despite initial intentions, municipalities and provinces were not treated as equal partners in the process. The demarcations are, therefore, discussed here as a classic growth managemen<sup>t</sup> strategy that in Bae's [2] typology can be characterised as an example of an urban growth boundary with accompanying minimum density zoning, infill and residential unit ordinances and a limitation on new residential development outside the growth boundary.

with a reduction of supply in the suburban and rural parts of the region, the demarcations proved largely inconsequential for the region's spatial pattern.

The intended city–regional cooperation was only achieved in the smaller and "less complex" urban regions and land use logic has emerged as dominant over a more openended structure planning approach [44,45]. Reflecting a decade after the approval of the RSV, one of its main authors concludes that demarcation plans have become nothing more than "an inter-municipal local land use plan" which is "an improper use, more strongly, a misuse of the [demarcation] concept that leads to the undesired further juridification of spatial planning" [46]. This raises the question about the conditions of the demarcation instrument's formulation and implementation.

#### *3.3. Demarcating the Antwerp Metropolitan Area*

Our analysis focuses on the spatial demarcation process of Antwerp. Because it is the largest demarcation process in the Flemish region, it provides the richest selection of findings to analyse the implementation of the growth managemen<sup>t</sup> policy 8. The Antwerp urban growth boundary covers parts of 19 different municipalities, two of which lie outside the province of Antwerp in the neighbouring province of East-Flanders. The map in Figure 2 shows land coverage in the greater Antwerp area in 2015. Superimposed on the map is the demarcation line of the Antwerp Metropolitan Area. The map illustrates that Antwerp is a concentrated urban core with a fringe characterised by urban sprawl and ribbon development, both inside and outside the demarcated urban area. Next to the demarcation line, the plan includes 24 areas to be rezoned in order to achieve the quota set for the various spatial functions outlined in the RSV.

**Figure 2.** Land coverage in the greater Antwerp area 2015 including the Metropolitan Area demarcation [48,49].

Planning regulations for the urban area are recorded in a regional spatial plan (Gewestelijk Ruimtelijk Uitvoeringsplan or GRUP) for the Antwerp Metropolitan Area [50]. It was designed by a private spatial planning firm, finalized by the regional planning administration and approved by the Flemish government. The timeline in Table 1 shows that this process spanned a period of six years (2003–2009), excluding the legal procedures that followed.

<sup>8</sup> The demarcation process of the Flemish urban area surrounding Brussels is arguably even more complex and hence rich in empirical terms. However, as Brussels is a separate region within Belgium, its demarcation is strongly characterised by communitarian politics [47] and is, therefore, not typical of the demarcation processes in Flanders in general.


**Table 1.** Demarcation of the Antwerp Metropolitan Area: Timeline.
