Cover Image

Private Sector-led Urban Development Projects. Management, Partnerships and Effects in the Netherlands and the UK

Erwin Heurkens


Central to this research lays the concept of private sector-led urban development projects (Heurkens, 2010). Such projects involve project developers taking a leading role and local authorities adopting a facilitating role, in managing the development of an urban area, based on a clear public-private role division. Such a development strategy is quite common in Anglo-Saxon urban development practices, but is less known in Continental European practices. Nonetheless, since the beginning of the millennium such a development strategy also occurred in the Netherlands in the form of ‘concessions’. However, remarkably little empirical knowledge is available about how public and private actors collaborate on and manage private sector-led urban development projects. Moreover, it remains unclear what the effects of such projects are. This dissertation provides an understanding of the various characteristics of private sector-led urban development projects by conducting empirical case study research in the institutional contexts of the Netherlands and the UK. The research provides an answer to the following research question:

What can we learn from private sector-led urban development projects in the Netherlands and UK in terms of the collaborative and managerial roles of public and private actors, and the effects of their (inter)actions?

Indications for a market-oriented Dutch urban development practice

Urban development practice in the Netherlands has been subject to changes pointing towards more private sector involvement in the built environment in the past decades. Although the current economic recession might indicate otherwise, there are several motives that indicate a continuation of private sector involvement and a private leadership role in Dutch urban development projects in the future.

First, a shift towards more market-oriented development practice is the result of an evolutionary process of increased ‘neoliberalization’ and the adoption of Anglo-Saxon principles in Dutch society. Despite its Rhineland roots with a focus on welfare provision, in the Netherlands several neoliberal principles (privatization, decentralization, deregulation) have been adopted by government and incorporated in the management of organizations (Bakker et al., 2005). Hence, market institutionalization on the one hand, and rising civic emancipation on the other, in current Western societies prevents a return towards hierarchical governance. Second, the result of such changes is the emergence of a market-oriented type of planning practice based on the concept of ‘development planning’. Public-Private Partnerships and the ‘forward integration’ of market parties (De Zeeuw, 2007) enforce the role of market actors. In historical perspective, Boelens et al. (2006) argue that Dutch spatial planning always has been characterized by public-private collaborations in which governments facilitated private and civic entrepreneurship. Therefore, post-war public-led spatial planning with necessary government intervention was a ‘temporary hiccup’, an exception to the rule. Third, the European Commission expresses concerns about the hybrid role of public actors in Dutch institutionalized PPP joint ventures. EU legislation opts for formal public-private role divisions in realizing urban projects based on Anglo-Saxon law that comply with the legislative tendering principles of competition, transparency, equality, and public legitimacy. Fourth, experiences with joint ventures in the Netherlands are less positive as often is advocated. Such institutionalized public-private entities have seldom generated the assumed added value, caused by misconceptions about the objectives of both partners grounded in incompatible value systems. This results in contra-productive levels of distrust, time-consuming partnership formations, lack of transparency, and compromising decision-making processes (Teisman & Klijn, 2002), providing a need for other forms of collaboration. Finally, current financial retrenchments in the public sector and debates about the possible abundance of Dutch active land development policies point towards a lean and mean government that moves away from risk-bearing participation and investment in urban projects and leaves this to the market. Importantly, Van der Krabben (2011b) argues that the Dutch active public land development policies can be considered as an international exception, and advocates for facilitating land development policies. In this light, it becomes highly relevant to study private sector-led urban development as a future Dutch urban development strategy.

Integrative urban management approach

This research is rooted in the research school of Urban Area Development within the Department of Real Estate and Housing at the Faculty of Architecture (Delft University of Technology). It is a relatively young academic domain which views urban development most profoundly as a complex management assignment (Bruil et al., 2004; Franzen et al., 2011). This academic school uses an integrative perspective with a strong practice-orientation and carries out solution-oriented design research. Here, the integration involves bridging various actor interests, spatial functions, spatial scales, academic domains, knowledge and skills, development goals, and links process with content aspects. Such a perspective does justice to complex societal processes. Therefore it provides a fruitful ground for studying urban development aimed at developing conceptual knowledge and product for science and practice. Such integrative perspective and practice-orientation forms the basis of this research and has been applied in the following manner. In order to create an understanding of the roles of public and private actors in private sector-led urban development, this research takes a management perspective based on an integrative management approach. This involves viewing management more broadly as ‘any type of direct influencing’ urban development projects, and therefore aims at bridging often separated management theories (Osborne, 2000a). Hence, an integrative management approach assists in both understanding urban development practices and projects and constructing useful conceptual tools for practitioners and academics. Integrative approaches attempt to combine a number of different elements into a more holistic management approach (Black & Porter, 2000). Importantly, it does not view the management of projects in isolation but in its entire complexity and dynamics. Therefore, our management approach combines two integrative management theories; the open systems theory (De Leeuw, 2002) and contingency theory. The former provides opportunities to study the management of a project in a structured manner. The latter emphasizes that there is no universally effective way of managing and recognizes the importance of contextual circumstances.

Hence, an integrative management approach favors incorporating theories from multiple academic domains such as political science, economics, law, business administration, and organizational and management concepts. Hence, it moves away from the classical academic division between planning theory and property theory, and organization and management theories. It positions itself in between such academic domains, and aims at bridging theoretical viewpoints by following the concept of planning ánd markets (Alexander, 2001) rather than concepts such as ‘planning versus markets’, public versus private sector, and organization versus management.

Also, such an integrative view values the complexity and dynamics of empirical urban development practices. More specifically, this research studies urban development projects as object, as urban areas are the focus point of spatial intervention and public-private interaction (Daamen, 2010), and thus collaboration and management. Here, public planning processes and private development processes merge with each other. Thus, our research continues to build upon the importance of studying and reflecting on empirical practices and projects (e.g. Healey, 2006). In addition to these authors, this research does so by using meaningful integrative concepts that reflect empirical realities of urban projects. Thereby, this research serves to bridge management sciences with management practices (Van Aken, 2004; Mintzberg, 2010) through iterative processes of reflecting on science and practice.

Moreover, the integrative management approach applied in this research assists in filling an academic gap, namely the lack of management knowledge about public-private interaction in urban development projects. Despite the vast amount of literature on the governance of planning practices (e.g. DiGaetano & Strom, 2003), and Public-Private Partnerships (e.g. Osborne, 2000b), remarkable little knowledge exists about what shifting public-private relationships mean for day-to-day management by public and private actors in development projects. Hence, here we follow the main argument made by public administration scholar Klijn (2008) who claims that it is such direct actor influence that brings about the most significant change to the built environment.

An integrative urban management model (see Figure 2.3) based on the open systems approach has been constructed which forms a conceptual representation of empirical private sectorled urban development projects. This model serves as an analytical tool to comprehend the complexity of managing such projects. In this research, several theoretical insights about publicprivate relations and roles are used to understand different contextual and organizational factors that affect the management of private sector-led urban development projects.

Hence, a project context exists within different often country-specific institutional environments (e.g. the Netherlands and UK). In this research, contextual aspects that to a degree determine the way public and private actors inter-organize urban projects, consist of economics & politics, governance cultures, and planning systems and policies. Hence, institutional values are deeply rooted in social welfare models (Nadin & Stead, 2008). For instance, the differences between Anglo-Saxon and Rhineland model principles also determine public-private relationships. However, the process of neoliberalization (Hackworth, 2007) and subsequent adaptation of neoliberal political ideologies (Harvey, 2005) has created quite similar governance arrangements in Western countries. Nevertheless, institutional rules incorporated in planning systems, laws and policies often remain country-specific. But, market-oriented planning, involving ‘planners as market actors’ (Adams & Tiesdell, 2010) intervening and operating within market systems, have become the most commonly shared feature of contemporary Western urban development practices (Carmona et al., 2009). In this research, the project organization focuses on institutional aspects and interorganizational arrangements that structure Public-Private Partnerships (Bult-Spiering & Dewulf, 2002). It involves studying organizational tasks and responsibilities, financial risks and revenues, and legal rules and requirements. Inter-organizational arrangements condition the way public and private actors manage projects. Hence, such arrangements can be placed on a public-private spectrum (Börzel & Risse, 2002) which indicates different power relations in terms of public and private autonomy and dominance (Savitch, 1997) in making planning decisions. These public-private power relations are reflected in different Public-Private Partnership arrangements (Bennet et al., 2000) in urban development projects. As a result, in some contexts these partnerships arrangements are formalized into organizational vehicles or legal contracts, in others there is an emphasis on informal partnerships and interaction.

The lack of management knowledge on private sector-led urban development projects, and our view of management as any type of direct influencing, results in constructing a conceptual public-private urban management model (see Figure SUM.1). This model is based on both theoretical concepts and empirical reflection. In this research, the management of project processes by public and private actors contains applying both management activities and instruments. Project management (Wijnen et al., 2004) includes development stage-oriented initiating, designing, planning, and operating activities. Process management (Teisman, 2003) includes interaction-oriented negotiating, decision-making, and communicating activities. Management tools consist of legal-oriented shaping, regulating, stimulating, and capacity building planning tools (Adams et al., 2004). And management resources consist of crucial necessities (Burie, 1978) for realizing urban projects like land, capital and knowledge. In essence, all these management measures can be applied by public and private actors to influence (private sector-led) urban development projects.

These management measures can be used by actors to reach project effects. In this research, project effects are perceived as judgment criteria for indicating the success of the management of private sector-led urban development projects. They consist of cooperation effectiveness, process efficiency, and spatial quality. Effectiveness involves the degree to which objectives are achieved and problems are resolved. Ef ficiency is the degree to which the process is considered as efficiently realizing projects within time and budget. Finally, spatial quality is the degree to which the project contributes to responding to user, experience and future values of involved actors (Hooijmeijer et al., 2001). Such process and product effects are a crucial addition to understand the results of private sector-led urban development projects.

Comparative case study research using a lesson-drawing method

This research systematically analyzes and compares private sector-led urban development cases in both the Netherlands and the UK in a specific methodological way. In essence, this study is an empirical comparative case study research using a lesson-drawing method. Hence, case studies allow for an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context (Yin, 2003). Such a qualitative approach is very suited for the purposes of this research as it enables revealing empirical collaborative and managerial mechanisms within private sector-led urban development projects. The reason to include studying the UK lies is the fact that it can be considered as a market-oriented development practice, from which valuable lessons can be drawn for the Netherlands. Thereby, this research places itself in a longer tradition of Dutch interests in UK planning and development (e.g. Hobma et al., 2008). Hence, this research aims at drawing lessons in the form of ‘inspiration’ from practices and projects, as opposed to the more far-reaching transplantation of spatial policies (e.g. Janssen-Jansen et al., 2008). However, in order to draw meaningful empirical lessons there is a need to indicate whether they are context-dependent or -independent. This requires systematically comparing the institutional planning practices of both countries by indicating differences and similarities between the Netherlands and the UK.

Based on these methodological principles ten Dutch and two UK of private sector-led urban development cases are selected and studied. The Dutch cases focus on scope over depth aimed at sketching the phenomenon of ‘area concessions’ in both inner-city and urban fringe projects. The UK cases focus on depth over scope aimed at understanding the applicability of a private sector-led approach in complex large-scale inner-city projects. As techniques the case study research uses document reviews, semi-structured interviews, project visits, and data mapping.

Comparing Dutch and UK planning and urban development practices

The institutional context of urban development in the Netherlands and the UK shows some structural differences, despite the fact that such contexts are often subject to change. For instance, the Dutch planning system uses Napoleonic codified law based on a constitution with abstract law principles as rule, and a limited role of judicial power. The UK planning system is based on British common law lacking a constitution, and uses law-making-as-we-go as judges act as law-makers. In terms of spatial planning, the Netherlands is characterized by binding land use plans within a limited-imperative system based on legal certainty. Dutch spatial planning can be labelled as ‘permitted planning’ based on ‘comprehensive integrative model’ (Dühr et al., 2010) which involves hierarchically coordinated and related public sector spatial plans. UK spatial planning has no binding land use plan, places importance on material considerations based on discretionary authority and flexibility. Historically, UK’s spatial planning can be labelled as ‘development-oriented planning’ based on a ‘land use management model’ with a focus on public sector coordinated planning policies. Moreover, Dutch and UK urban development also differ in terms of public and private roles in organizing and managing development (Heurkens, 2009). In the Netherlands, local governments are active bodies using spatial plans, active land development policies and public investment to develop cities. The private sector often operates reactively and is historically focused on the physical realization of projects. In general, public-private decision-making processes are based on reaching consensus, development project coordination typically involves ‘collaboration models’, and management is focused on process as product outcomes.

In the UK, local government uses relatively less regulations and investment to develop cities, thereby facilitating market parties. The development industry is a mature sector, actively initiating and investing in projects. Decision-making is characterized by negotiations, and the organization of projects is often based on a clear formal public-private role division. Despite such a generic Dutch-UK comparison being of crucial importance to this research, it does no justice to increasing similarities between European planning practices. Moreover, such institutional contexts evolve as a result of changing planning priorities in each country. For instance, some basic characteristics of the UK planning system attracted the attention of Dutch planners, including comprehensive principles for project coordination, private sector involvement and negotiations, options for the settlement of ‘planning gain’, packaging interests, development-oriented planning, and discretion for planning decisions (Spaans, 2005). Hence, such more market-oriented planning principles have become valuable and sometimes necessary mechanisms to effectively cope with an increasingly less public-led and more private sector-led Dutch urban development practice.

Empirical findings from Dutch private sector-led urban development cases

Urban development practice in the Netherlands since the year 2000 witnessed an increased use of the concession model. Hence, this is the Dutch definition for private sector-led urban development. It can best be characterized as a contract form between public and private parties which involves the transfer of risks, revenues, responsibilities for the plan, land and real estate development to private developers based on pre-defined set of public requirements (Gijzen, 2009). In theory (Van Rooy, 2007; Van de Klundert, 2008; Heurkens et al., 2008) this collaboration model holds promising advantages of being a more effective, efficient and transparent strategy to achieve a high quality built environment. Nonetheless, possible disadvantages like the lack of public ‘steering’, dependency of market actors and circumstances, inflexible contracts, a project management orientation, and a stern public-private relationship also are mentioned. Moreover, conditions for the application of concessions in theory involve a manageable project scale and duration, minimal political and societal complexity, and maximum freedom for private actors. Motives for choosing concessions are the lack of public labor capacity and financial development means, risk transfer to private actors, increasing private initiatives and private land ownership. Hence, in theory public and private roles in the concession model are considered as strictly separated.

However, there is a lack of structural empirical understanding and evidence for such theoretical assumptions. Therefore, empirical cases in Amsterdam, The Hague, Enschede, Maassluis, Middelburg, Naaldwijk, Rotterdam, Tilburg, Utrecht, and Velsen (see Table 5.1) are carried out. This includes studying private sector-led projects in both inner-city and urban fringe locations. The main conclusions based on cross-case study findings of these ten Dutch projects are highlighted here. Notice that public-private interaction and collaboration remains of vital importance in Dutch private sector-led urban development projects. Despite the formal contractual separation of public and private tasks and responsibilities, in practice close informal cooperation can be witnessed, especially in the early development stages. Moreover, public actors do not remain as risk free as theory suggests, because unfavorable market circumstances can cause development delays affecting the living environment of inhabitants.

Furthermore, it seems that constructing and using flexible public requirements with some non-negotiable rules is an effective condition for realizing public objectives during the process. In terms of management, most projects are hardly considered as solely private sector-led, as they involve a substantial amount of public management influence. For instance, project management activities include a dominant role of municipalities in initiating and operating the development. Process management activities are carried out by both actors, as they involve close public-private interactions. Management tools are mostly used by public actors to shape and regulate development with a limited conscious usage of stimulating and capacity building tools. Using the management resources land, capital and knowledge are mainly a private affair.

In terms of effects, the concession model by actors is considered as an effective instrument, but not necessarily results in efficient processes. The general perception of public, private and civic actors about the project’s spatial quality level is positive. In addition, actors were asked about their cooperation experiences. Often mentioned problems include a ‘we against them relationship’, lack of public role consistency, thin line between plan judgment and control, public manager’s commitment and competency, communication with local communities, and lack of public management opportunities. Based on the empirical case studies, most conditions for applying concessions are confirmed. However, the successful inner-city development projects in Amsterdam and Enschede indicate that a private sector-led approach can also be applied to more complex urban development projects within cities.

Empirical findings from UK’s private sector-led urban development cases

Urban development practice in the UK often is labelled as urban regeneration. Historically, it is strongly shaped by neoliberal political ideology of the Conservative Thatcher government in the 1980s. But it also is influenced by New Labour ideologies favoring the Third Way (Giddens, 1998) aimed at aligning economic, social and environmental policies. However, as a result of these institutional characteristics, the UK is strongly shaped by the understanding that most development is undertaken by private interests or by public bodies acting very much like private interests (Nadin et al., 2008). In general, local authorities depend on initiatives and investments of property developers and investors, because public financial resources and planning powers to actively develop land are limited. As a result, development control of private developments is a concept deeply embedded in development practice. Several legal instruments such as Section 106 agreements are used to establish planning gain by asking developer contributions for public functions. Moreover, urban development in the UK has a strong informal partnership culture, and simultaneously builds upon a strict formal legal public-private role division. These UK urban development practice characteristics provide valid reasons to study private sector-led urban development projects in more detail. The empirical cases of private sector-led urban development projects in the UK are Bristol Harbourside and Liverpool One. They represent mid-2000s strategic inner-city developments with a mixed-use functional program, and therefore possible high complexity. As such, they are relevant urban projects for drawing lessons for the Netherlands.

The main conclusions based on cross-case study findings of the UK projects are discussed here. The case contexts show that politics and the often changeable nature of planning policies can have a major influence on the organization and management of development projects. Hence, strong and effective political leadership is considered as a crucial success factor. Changing policies result in re-establishing development conditions resulting in new publicprivate negotiations. In terms of organization, the cases indeed show that local authorities do not take on development risks. Moreover, revenue sharing with private actors is absent or limited to what the actors agree upon in development packages. Furthermore, local authorities encourage all kinds of partnerships with other public, private or civic stakeholders in order to generate development support and raise funds. In terms of management, local authorities use different management measures to influence projects. The cases indicate that public actors are able to influence private sector-led developments and thereby achieve public planning objectives. Importantly, public actors use all kinds of managing tools to shape and stimulate development; they do not limit themselves to regulation but also build capacity for development. However, the largest share of managing the project takes place on behalf of project developers. Private actors manage projects from initial design towards even public space operation (Liverpool). Thereby, they work with long-term investment business models increasing private commitment. In terms of effects, the cases show that although the projects are carried out effectively and achieve high quality levels, the process efficiency lacks behind due to lengthy negotiations. In conclusion, the actors’ experiences with the private sector-led urban development projects indicate some problems including; the financial dependency on private actors, lack of financial incentives for public actors, lack of awareness of civic demands, lack of controlling public opposition, long negotiation processes, and absence of skilled public managers. Moreover, the actors indicate some crucial conditions for a private sectorled approach including; flexible general public guidelines, informal partnerships and joint working, public and private leadership roles and skills, professional attitude and long term commitment of private actors, involvement of local communities, separating public planning and development roles, handling political pressures, and favorable market circumstances.

Empirical lessons, improvements and inspiration

Some general conclusions from the Dutch and UK case comparison can be drawn (see Table 8.1). The influence of the project’s context in the UK seems to be higher than in the Netherlands, especially political powers and changeable policies influence projects. The organizational role division in UK projects seems to be stricter than in the Dutch projects, where public requirements sometimes are also formulated in more detail. The actor’s management in the Dutch cases is slightly less private sector-led than in the UK, where local authorities and developers are more aware of how to use management measures at their disposal. The project effects show quite some resemblance; effectiveness and spatial quality can be achieved, while efficiency remains difficult to achieve due to the negotiation culture.

Here, important empirical lessons learned from cases in both countries are discussed aimed at formulating possible solutions for perceived Dutch problems. The problematic Dutch ‘we against them relationship’ between actors in the UK is handled by a close collaboration. Developers organize regular informative and interactive design meetings with local authorities, sharing ideas in a ‘joint-up working’ atmosphere. The lack of public role consistency in the UK is resolved by local authorities that develop a clear schedule of spatial requirements which provides certainty. Moreover, room for negotiations allows for the flexibility to react on changed circumstances. The thin line between judgment and control of plans is not commonly recognized in the UK cases. Local authorities tend to respect that developers need room to carry out development activities on their own professional insights, and merely control if developers deliver ‘product specifications’ in time and to agreed conditions. The commitment and competencies of public project managers are also mentioned as crucial factors in the UK.

It involves managers connecting the project to the political and civic environment, and leaders committing themselves to project support through communication with local communities. The lack of public management seems to be a Dutch perceived difficulty as UK local authorities do not apply active land development policies and ‘hard’ management resources. Therefore, they influence development with both more consciously applied legal tools and ‘soft’ management skills such as negotiating.

Recommended improvements mentioned by Dutch practitioners here are mirrored to possible support from the UK cases. The Dutch recommendation to cooperate in pre-development stages to create public project support and commitment finds support in the UK. Hence, despite a formal division of public and private responsibilities, in practice a lot of informal public-private interaction and collaboration takes place and seems necessary. Striving for public role consistency also is an appreciated value by developers in the UK. Working on the principle of ‘agreement is agreement’ creates certainty for developers, and less resistance and willingness to cooperate once highly relevant public issues are put on the table. Establishing clear process agreements with moments of control or discussion in the UK are handled with evaluation moments aimed at judging output, and planned meetings aimed at creating a dialogue about new insights. Connecting planning and development processes in the UK is handled by a municipal team consisting of political leaders and project managers that align development processes with administrative planning processes. A clear communication plan to involve local communities and businesses in the UK is handled by developers which involve relevant stakeholders in the decision-making process prior to planning applications for support and process efficiency. Finding public opportunities to influence development other than land and capital in the UK is handled through the use of several public planning tools and publicprivate negotiations.

The UK cases also provided various inspirational lessons for the Netherlands. First, the construction and application of a public ‘management toolbox’ consisting of various planning tools that shape, stimulate, regulate and activate the market could assist local authorities to view management more integratively and use existing instruments more consciously. Second, choosing a private development partner with professional expertise, track record and local knowledge, instead of an economically lucrative private tender offer for private sector-led urban development projects, has the advantage of creating a cooperative relationship. The reason for this is that flexible development concepts rather than fixed development plans are indicators of a cooperative attitude of a developer. Third, enabling partnership agreements between public, private and civic actors aimed at creating wide support and long-term commitment by expressing development intentions assists pulling together development resources from both investors and central government. Fourth, privately-owned public space based on a land lease agreement containing public space conditions creates several financial advantages. For local authorities it eliminates public maintenance costs, and for private actors the operation of the area and maintaining high quality standards can be beneficial for real estate sales and returns. Fifth, the value increase-oriented investment model of a long-term private development investor rather than a short-term project-oriented developer with a trade-off model between time, costs and quality has advantages. Large amounts of upfront investment can more easily be financed as high quality environments and properties increase the area’s competitive position and investment returns. Sixth, local authorities can establish partnerships that actively apply for public funding alternatives such as lottery funds. Such funds secure the development of public functions and create interest for commercial actors to invest, which can result possibilities to negotiate development packages which can results in a planning gain for public actors. Seventh, public and private leadership styles on different organizational levels for inner-city development projects result in more efficient processes. Appointing strategictactical operating political leaders and private firm directors and tactical-operational public and private project leaders streamlines internal and external communication and shared project commitment and support. Finally, the UK shows that a private sector-led approach can successfully be applied to complex inner-city developments. Despite the complex social and political character, fragmented land ownership situation, and high remediation costs UK developers can deliver such projects succesfully. Conditions seem a professionally skilled and financially empowered developer, and active local authorities that facilitate market initiatives. The likelihood of transfer of the inspirational UK lessons depends on some Dutch institutional characteristics (economics & politics, governance culture, planning system and policies). However, most lessons are context-independent and thus can be applied in the Dutch urban development practice. But, Table 8.2 also shows some institutional context-dependent features that limit the transfer of UK findings to the Netherlands. This includes the general short-term scope of Dutch developers and the general wish from municipalities to hold ‘control’ over development projects.

Reflections on safeguarding public interests & alternative financing instruments

The epilogue contains conceptual reflections about alternative ways for safeguarding public interests and private financing instruments in line with the current social-economic climate. These reflections are not based on research findings but on an additional literature review that provides food for thought for public and private actors in urban development. Hence, safeguarding public interests is an important concern for public actors, especially in market-oriented planning and private sector-led urban development projects. In our pluralistic society it has become impossible for one actor to determine the public interest in all occasions. In line with societal development it would not only be socially-coherent for governments to engage private and civic actors in safeguarding public interests, but even a social necessity. Consciously applying different public interest safeguarding strategies based on both hierarchical, market and network mechanisms (De Bruijn & Dicke, 2006) provide this opportunity. By using a combination of legitimized hierarchical mechanisms, competitionoriented market mechanisms, and inter-action oriented network mechanisms, public values become institutionalized in private and civic sectors. Then, the role of public planning institutions in safeguarding increasing economic values, social cohesion and public health is to use both legitimate planning tools and accountable planning activities. It enables other actors to become both more responsible for and involved in their own built environment. In market-oriented planning and private sector-led urban projects, safeguarding public interest instruments include non-negotiable general planning standards which secure basic needs of civilians, and negotiable development conditions which create involvement of other actors. Non-negotiable safeguarding instruments include; public tender requirements, land use plans, planning permissions and financial claims. Negotiable safeguarding instruments include; contractual conditions, competitive dialogues, spatial quality plans, developer contributions, development incentives, performance indicators, and ownership (see Figure 10.2). The reliance of private investment in private sector-led urban development projects asks for exploring alternative financing instruments for urban projects with less reliance on credit capital. This is a crucial subject being the result of the effect the current economic situation has on the land and property market. Hence, it is widely acknowledged that in many development practices around the globe property investment for urban development has changed radically as a result of the international credit crisis and economic downturn (Parkinson et al., 2009). ‘New financial models’ have the attention of several Dutch practitioners (e.g. Van Rooy, 2011) and academics (e.g. Van der Krabben, 2011b). In the current Dutch urban development practice, one notices an increased interest in demand-driven development strategies promoting; bottom-up development initiatives, value-oriented investment strategies, and de-risked phasing of development, which potentially increase the feasibility of urban projects. A literature review indicates promising alternative financing instruments for Dutch urban development practice and private sector-led urban development projects, including; Tax Increment Financing, Temporary Development/Investment Grants, Lottery Funds, DBFM/ Concession Light, Crowd Funding, Urban Development Trusts, Business Improvement Districts, and Urban Reparcelling. These instruments have different features such as investment source, development incentives, organizational requirements and object conditions, which need to be taken into account by public and private actors once applied (see Table 10.3).


urban development; real estate; spatial planning; public-private partnerships; management; TU Delft; Real Estate & Housing


Abram, S., & Cowell, R. (2004). Learning policy: The contextual curtain and conceptual barriers. European Planning Studies, 12, 209-218. doi: 10.1080/0965431042000183941

Achrol, R.S. (1997), Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing: Toward a network paradigm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(1), 56-71. doi:10.1007/BF02894509

Ackoff, R.L. (2010). Systems Thinking for Curious Managers. Axminster, United Kingdom: Triarchy Press.

Adair A., Berry, J., McGreal, S., & Quinn, A. (2002). Factors affecting the level and form of private sector investment in regeneration, urban regeneration and property investment performance. Retrieved from

Adair, A., McGreal, S., & Poon, J. (2003). Benchmarking urban regeneration. Retrieved from

Adams, D. (1994). Urban Planning and the Development Process. London, United Kingdom: UCL Press.

Adams D., & Watkins, C. (2002). Greenfields, Brownfields & Housing Development. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Adams, D., Watkins, C., & White, M. (2005). Planning, Public Policy & Property Markets. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Adams, D. &, Tiesdell, S. (2010). Planners as market actors: Rethinking state-market relations in land and property. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(2), 187-207. doi: 10.1080/14649351003759631

Agentschap NL. (2012). Toolbox Financieringsconstructies (Conceptversie 1.1). The Hague, Netherlands: Agentschap NL, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijkrelaties.

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 11(3), 295-326. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003504

Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative Public Management: New strategies for local governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Aiginger, K., & Guger, A. (2006). The ability to adapt: Why it differs between the Scandinavian and continental European models. Intereconomics, 41(1), 14-23. doi: 10.1007/s1027200601685

Aken, J.E. van. (1994). Bedrijfskunde als ontwerpwetenschap. Bedrijfskunde, 66(1), 16-22.

Aken, J.E. van. (2004). Management research based on the paradigm of design sciences: The quest for fieldtested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies, 41(2), 219-246. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00430.x

Aken, T. van, Blokland, K., & Kooijman, W. (2007). Financieel-economisch versus sociaal-economisch. Personeelsbeleid, 2, 30-35.

Akro Consult. (2009). PPS in nieuw perspectief: Gebiedsconcessies. Akroniek, 1, 8.

Alber, J. (2006). The European social model and the United States. European Union Politics, 7(3), 393-419. doi: 10.1177/1465116506066272

Albert, M. (1993). Capitalism vs. capitalism: How America’s obsession with individual achievement and shortterm profit has led it to the brink of collapse. New York, NY: Four Walls Eight Windows.

Albrechts, L. (2001). In pursuit of new approaches to strategic planning: A European perspective. International Planning Studies, 6(3), 293-310. doi:10.1080/13563470125378

Albrechts, L. (2006). Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence from Europe and Australia. Environment and Planning A, 38(6), 1149-1170. doi:10.1068/a37304

Alexander, E.R. (1988). The Netherlands’ unique planning system. Rooilijn, 21(5), 145-150.

Alexander, E.R. (2001). Why planning vs. markets is an oxymoron: Asking the right question. Planning and Markets, 4(1).

Alexander, E.R., & Faludi, A. (1990). Planning doctrine, its uses and implications (Werkstukken). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Planologisch en Demografisch Instituut.

Allmendinger, P., & Haughton, G. (2007). The fluid scales and scope of UK spatial planning. Environment and Planning A, 39(6), 1478-1496. doi:10.1068/a38230

Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations Working Together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Alterman, R. (1997). The challenge of farmland preservation: Lessons from a six-nation comparison. APA Journal, 63(2), 220-243. doi:10.1080/01944369708975916

Alterman, R. (2009). Can the ‘unearned increment’ in land values be harnessed to supply affordable housing? In R. Sietchiping (Ed.), Innovative Land and Property Taxation (pp. 196-199). Nairobi, Kenya: UN Habitat.

Ambrose, P. (1994). Urban Process and Power. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Arbnor, I., & Bjerke, B. (1997). Methodology for Creating Business Knowledge. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Askew, J. (1996). Case Study: Canons Marsh. In J. Allinson, J. Askew, J. Claydon, L. Davies, J. Tempest & R. Tetlow (Eds.), Implementing Town Planning: The Role of Town Planning in the Development Process (pp. 181-191). Essex, United Kingdom: Longman Group.

Arts, W., & Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare or more?: A state-of-the-art report. Journal of European Social Policy, 12(2), 137-159. doi:10.1177/0952872002012002114

Baarsma, B., & Theeuwes, J. (2009). Publiek belang en marktwerking: Argumenten voor een welvaart economische aanpak. In E. van Damme & P. Schinkel (Eds.), Marktwerking en publieke belangen (pp. 23-51). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Koninklijke Vereniging voor de Staathuishoudkunde, Marktwerking en Publieke Belangen.

Bakker, R. (2011). Gebiedsregisseur of acteur in een improvisatiearena?: Afwegingskader voor rolbepaling bij provinciale gebiedsontwikkeling (Thesis, Master City Developer, Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Bakker, P., Evers, S., Hovens, N., Snelder, H., & Weggeman, M. (2005). Het Rijnlands model als inspiratiebron. Holland Management Review, 103, 72-81.

Bailey, N. (1993). Picking partners for the 1990s: Special feature on partnerships in regeneration. Town and Country Planning, 62: 136-147.

Bailey, N. (1994). Towards a research agenda for Public-Private Partnerships in the 1990’s. Local Economy, 8(4), 292-306. doi:10.1080/02690949408726205

Bailey, N., Barker, A., & MacDonald, K. (1995). Partnership Agencies in British Urban Policy. London, United Kingdom: UCL Press.

Ball, M., & Maginn, P.J. (2005). Urban change and conflict: Evaluating the role of partnerships in urban regeneration in the UK. Housing Studies, 20(1), 9-28. doi:10.1080/0267303042000308705

Banachowicz, B., & Danielewicz, J. (2004). Urban Governance: The New Concept of Urban Management. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois.

Barker, K. (2004). Review of housing supply – Delivering stability: Securing our future housing needs (Final report: recommendations). London, United Kingdom: HM Treasury.

Bassett, K. (1996). Partnerships, business élites and urban politics: New forms of governance in an English city? Urban Studies, 33(3), 539-555. doi:10.1080/00420989650011906

Bassett, K. (1999). Growth coalitions in Britain’s waning Sunbelt. In A. Jonas & D. Wilson (Eds.), The Urban Growth Machine (pp. 177-194). Albany, NY: State of University of New York Press.

Bassett, K., Griffiths, R., & Smith, I. (2002). Testing governance: Partnerships, planning and conflict in waterfront regeneration. Urban Studies, 39(10), 1757-1775. doi:10.1080/0042098022000002948

Bennet, E., James, S., & Grohmann, P. (2000). Joint-venture Public-Private Partnerships for Urban Environment Services. New York, NY: PPPUE.

Bengs, C. (2005). Planning theory for the naive? European Journal of Spatial Development, July 2005.

Berge, H. van den, Kruithof, J.G., Bos, G.L.Y., Sandmann, M.J.P., & Schutte, H.J. (2012). De grond wordt duur betaald: Raadsonderzoek naar het grondbedrijf in de gemeente Apeldoorn. Apeldoorn, Netherlands: Gemeente Apeldoorn.

Bijsterveld, K. (2009). Concessiemodel alleen geschikt voor eenvoudige gebiedsontwikkeling. Building Business, (1), 46-47.

Bijsterveld, K., & Laverman, W. (2011). ‘Markt voor traditionele vastgoedpartijen wordt kleiner’: Nicole Maarsen over de opmars van de ontwikkelende belegger. Building Business, (3), 10-13.

Binnekamp, R. (2010). Preference-based Design in Architecture. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.

Black, J.S., & Porter, L.W. (2000). Management: Meeting New Challenges. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bodewes, W. (2010). Pleidooi voor een nieuwe ruimtelijke ordening. Vitale Stad, 13(6), 14-21.

Boelens, L. (1990). De planologie en het tijd-ruimte-vraagstuk: Crisis van de corrigerende tegenbeweging. Archis, (10), 40-45.

Boelens, L. (2009). The Urban Connection: An Actor-relational Approach to Urban Planning. Rotterdam, Netherlands: 010 Publishers.

Boelens, L. (2010). Planologie extended: Naar een nieuwe toekomst van ruimtelijk openbaar bestuur. In H. Dijstelbloem, P. den Hoed, J.W. Holtslag & S. Schouten (Eds.), Het gezicht van de publieke zaak: Openbaar bestuur onder ogen (pp. 185-204). The Hague/Amsterdam, Netherlands: WRR/Amsterdam University Press.

Boelens, L., Spit, T., & Wissink, B. (Eds.). (2006). Planning zonder Overheid: Een Toekomst voor Planning. Rotterdam, Netherlands: 010 Publishers.

Boer, R. de, & Lurks, M. (2010). Handleiding exploitatieplan. The Hague, Netherlands: Sdu Uitgevers.

Bonoli, G. (1997). Classifying welfare states: A two-dimension approach. Journal of Social Policy, 26(3), 351-372. doi:10.1017/S0047279497005059

Booth, P. (2003). Planning by Consent: The Origins and Nature of British Development Control. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Börzel, T.A., & Risse, T. (2005). Public-Private Partnerships: Effective and legitimate tools of international governance? In E. Grande & W. Pauly (Eds.), Complex Sovereignty. On the Reconstitution of Political Authority in the 21st Century. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Bosboom, M.E. (2012). The coalition of the willing: Een onderzoek naar procesomkering als aanpak door de gemeente bij binnenstedelijke gebiedstransformaties (Unpublished thesis Master City Developer). Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands.

Bosch, H. (2010, September). Ontwikkelaar moet langdurig betrokkenheid tonen. NAW dossier, (37), 23. Retrieved from:

Bouwfonds. (2008). NAW Dossier: Leren van gebiedsontwikkeling in Engeland. The Hague, Netherlands: Bouwfonds.

Box, R. (1999). Running government like business: Implications for public administration theory and practice. American Review of Public Administration, 29(1), 19-43. doi:10.1177/02750749922064256

Brabham, D.C. (2009). Crowd sourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242-262. doi:10.1177/1473095209104824

Bregman, A.G. (1999). Ruimtelijke Plancoördinatie en Projectbesluitvorming: Naar Maatwerk zonder Versnippering. Deventer, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Bregman, A.G. (2010a). Naar een natuurlijke rolverdeling tussen overheid en markt bij ruimtelijke veranderingsprocessen. The Hague, Netherlands: Instituut voor Bouwrecht.

Bregman, A.G. (2010b). Goed nieuws voor de Nederlandse praktijk gebiedsontwikkeling. Cobouw. Retrieved from

Bregman, A.G., & Win, R.W.J.J. (2005). Publiek-Private Samenwerking bij Ruimtelijke Inrichting en haar Exploitatie. Deventer, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2002). Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Brindley, T., Rydin, Y., & Stoker, G. (1996). Remaking Planning (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Bromley, R.D.F., Tallon, A.R., & Thomas, C.J. (2005). City centre regeneration through residential development: Contributing to sustainability. Urban Studies, 42(13), 2407-2429. doi:10.1080/00420980500379537

Bromley, R.D.F., Matthews, D.L., & Thomas, C.J. (2007). City centre accessibility for wheelchair users: The consumer perspective and the planning implications. Cities, 24(3), 229-241. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2007.01.009

Brouwer, J.J., & Moerman, P. (2005). Angelsaksen versus Rijnlanders: Zoektocht naar Overeenkomsten en Verschillen in Europees en Amerikaans Denken. Antwerpen, Belgium: Garant-Uitgevers.

Brownhill, S. (1990). Developing London’s Docklands: Another Great Planning Disaster? London, United Kingdom: Paul Chapman.

Bruijn, H. de, & Dicke, W. (2006). Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized utility sectors. Public Administration, 84(3), 717-735. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00609.x

Bruijn, J.A., & Heuvelhof, E.F. ten. (1999). Management in Netwerken. Utrecht, Netherlands: Lemma.

Bruil, A.W. (2011). Management Thoughts and Practices. Delft, Netherlands: TU Delft.

Bruil, A.W., Hobma, F.A.M., Peek, G.J., & Wigmans, G. (Ed.). (2004). Integrale Gebiedsontwikkeling: Het Stationsgebied ‘s-Hertogenbosch. Amsterdam, Netherlands: SUN.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press USA.

Buitelaar, E. (2007). The Cost of Land Use Decisions: Applying Transaction Cost Economics to Planning & Development. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Buitelaar, E. (2010a). Cracks in the myth: Challenges to land policy in the Netherlands. TESG, 101(3), 49-356. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.2010.00604.x

Buitelaar, E. (2010b). Grenzen aan gemeentelijk grondbeleid: Continuïteit en verandering in de rol van gemeenten op de Nederlandse grondmarkt. Ruimte & Maatschappij, 2(1), 5-22.

Buitelaar, E. (2011, October). Ontwikkelen in het plannersparadijs: Nederlandse gebiedsontwikkeling gecontextualiseerd [Lecture notes]. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Master City Developer.

Buitelaar, E., & Wouden, R. van der. (2012). Binnenstedelijk en organisch: Herdefiniëring van onze planningscultuur. Ruimtelijke Ontwikkeling Magazine, 30(6), 12-15.

Bulkeley, H. (2006). Urban sustainablity: Learning from best practice? Environment and Planning A, 38(6), 1029-1044. doi:10.1068/a37300

Bult-Spiering, M. (2003). Publiek-Private Samenwerking: De Interactie Centraal. Utrecht, Netherlands: Lemma.

Bult-Spiering, M., & DeWulf, G. (2006). Strategic Issues in Public-Private Partnerships: An International Perspective. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific Research II: The Search for Truth. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.

Burie, J.B. (Ed.). (1978). Handboek Bouwen en Wonen. Deventer, Netherlands: Van Loghum Slaterus.

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment [CABE], & Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions [DETR]. (2001). The value of urban design. Tonbridge, United Kingdom: Thomas Telford.

Campbell, D.T. (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8(1), 178-191.

Cammen, H. van der. (2007). Gebiedsontwikkeling in Nederland. Verkenning van een Nieuw Fenomeen. Retreived from:

Cammen, H. van der, & Klerk, L. de. (2003). Ruimtelijke Ordening: Van Grachtengordel tot Vinex-wijk. Utrecht, Netherlands: Het Spectrum.

Carley, M., Chapman, M., Hastings, A., Krik, K., & Young, R. (2000). Urban Regeneration through Partnership: A Study in Nine Regions in England, Scotland and Wales. Bristol, United Kingdom: The Policy Press.

Carmona, M. (Ed.). (2003). Globalisation and City ports: The Response of City Ports in the Northern Hemisphere. Delft, Netherlands: Delft University Press.

Carmona, M. (2009). The Isle of Dogs: Four development waves, five planning models, twelve plans, thirty-five years, and a renaissance ... of sorts. Progress in Planning, 71(3), 87-151. doi:10.1016/j.progress.2008.10.001

Carmona, M., Tiesdell, S., Heath, T., & Oc, T. (2010). Public Places – Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design (2nd ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.

Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Chen, Y. (2007). Shanghai Pudong: Urban development in an Era of Global-local Interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.

Charles, M.B., Dicke, W., Koppenjan, J., & Ryan, N. (2007, April). Public values and safeguarding mechanisms in infrastructure policies: A conceptual and theoretical exploration. Paper presented at the 11th International Research Symposium of Public Management (IRSPM X1). Retrieved from:

Chatterton, P., & Bradley, D. (2000). Bringing Britain together?: The limitations of area-based regeneration policies in addressing deprivation. Local Economy, 15(2), 98-111. doi:10.1080/02690940050122668

Clarence, E., & Painter, C. (1998). Public services under New Labour: Collaborative discourses and local networking. Public Policy and Administration, 13(3): 8-22. doi:10.1177/095207679801300302

Clark, C., & Huxley, J. (2009). Closing the investment gap in Europe’s cities: Launch report Urban Investment Network. London, United Kingdom: Urban Land Institute Europe.

Clement, M. (2007). Bristol: ‘Civilising’ the inner city. Race and Class, 48(4), 97-105. doi:10.1177/0306396807077088

Clement, M. (2010). Local Notables and the city council revisited: The use of partnerships in the regeneration of Bristol. Social & Public Policy Review, 4(1), 34-49.

Commission of the European Communities [CEC]. (1997). The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies (Regional Development Studies). Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Commissie Fundamentele Verkenning Bouw [CFVB]. (2008). Privaat wat kan, publiek wat moet: Vertrouwen en verantwoordelijkheid in het bouwproces. The Hague, Netherlands: Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu.

Communities and Local Government [CLG]. (2007a). About the Department for Communities and Local Government. Retrieved from

Communities and Local Government [CLG]. (2007b). Homes of the Future: More Affordable, More Sustainable. London, United Kingdom: Stationery Office.

Communities & Local Government [CLG]. (2011). Government moves ahead with plans to abolish Regional Plans and protect the Green Belt, 20 October 2011. Retrieved from

Colomb, C. (2007). Unpacking New Labour’s ‘urban renaissance’ agenda: Towards a socially sustainable reurbanization of British cities? Planning Practice and Research, 22(1): 1-24. doi:10.1080/02697450701455249

Conijn, J. (2005). Woningcorporaties: Naar een duidelijke taakafbakening en een heldere sturing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: RIGO Research en Advies bv.

Couch, C., Fraser. C., & Percy, S. (2003). Urban Regeneration in Europe. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Coupland, A. (Ed.). (1997). Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development. London, United Kingdom: E & FN Spon.

Cowan, R. (1997). The Connected City: A New Approach to Making Cities Work. London, United Kingdom: Urban Initiatives.

Cullingworth, B., & Nadin, V. (2006). Town and Country Planning in the UK (14th ed.). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Cullingworth, B., & Caves, R.W. (2009). Planning in the USA: Policies, Issues and Processes (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Daamen, T.A. (2005). De kost gaat voor de baat uit. Markt, middelen en ruimtelijke kwaliteit bij stedelijke gebiedsontwikkeling. Amsterdam, Netherlands: SUN Uitgeverij.

Daamen, T. (2010). Strategy as Force: Towards Effective Strategies for Urban Development Projects – The Case of Rotterdam City Ports. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.

Daamen, T. (2011). Gebiedsontwikkeling als een community of practice. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 12-15.

Damme, E. van, & Schinkel, P. (2009). Marktwerking en borging van publieke belangen. In E. van Damme & P. Schinkel (Eds.), Marktwerking en Publieke Belangen (pp. 1-22). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Koninklijke Vereniging voor de Staathuishoudkunde, Marktwerking en Publieke Belangen.

Dekker, N.J. (2011). Organiseren van sturing op stedelijke gebiedsontwikkeling: Organisatorische aanbevelingen voor een dienst stedelijke ontwikkeling vanuit een complexiteitserkennend perspectief (Thesis, Master City Developer, Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Deloitte. (2008a). Alleen ga je sneller samen kom je verder: De toekomst van publiek-private samenwerking bij gebiedsontwikkeling. Rotterdam: Veenman Drukkers.

Deloitte. (2008b). Anders maar niet beter: Evaluatie van gebiedsconcessies in vijf Europese landen. Utrecht, Netherlands: Deloitte Financial Advisory Services.

Deloitte. (2010a). Financiële effecten crisis bij gemeentelijke grondbedrijven: Onderzoek i.o.v. VNG en Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. Utrecht, Netherlands: Deloitte Real Estate Advisory.

Deloitte. (2010b). Schuivende panelen: Een visie op gebiedsontwikkeling. Utrecht, Netherlands: Deloitte Real Estate Advisory & Praktijkleerstoel Gebiedsontwikkeling TU Delft.

Deloitte. (2011a). Financiële effecten crisis bij gemeentelijke grondbedrijven: Update 2011. Utrecht, Netherlands: Deloitte Real Estate Advisory.

Deloitte. (2011b). GREXpert: Verliezen op grondexploitaties. Utrecht, Netherlands: Deloitte Real Estate Advisory.

Deloitte, AkroConsult, & Praktijkleerstoel Gebiedsontwikkeling TU Delft. (2011). Samenwerking tussen publiek en privaat in een andere realiteit: Nieuwe modellen in theorie en praktijk (Supplement bij de publicatie Gebiedsontwikkeling in een andere realiteit). Delft: Praktijkleerstoel Gebiedsontwikkeling TU Delft.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions [DETR]. (1998). Modernising planning: A statement by the Minister for Planning, Regeneration and the Regions. London, United Kingdom: DETR.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions [DETR]. (2000). Our towns and cities: The future – Delivering an urban renaissance. London, United Kingdom: HSMO.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions [DETR] & Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment [CABE]. (2000). By design – Urban design in the planning system: Towards better practice. London, United Kingdom: DETR & CABE.

Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions [DTLR]. (2001). Planning: Delivering a fundamental change. London, United Kingdom: DTLR.

Diers, J. (2004). Neighbor Power: Building Community the Seattle Way. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

DiGaetano, A., & Strom, E. (2003). Comparative urban governance: An integrated approach. Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), 356-395. doi:10.1177/1078087402238806

DiGaetano, A., & Klemanski, J.S. (1993). Urban regimes in comparative perspective: The politics of urban development in Britain. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 29(1), 54-83. doi:10.1177/004208169302900103

DiGaetano, A., & Klemanski, J.S. (1999). Power and City Governance: Comparative Perspectives on Urban Development. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Dijk, G. van, Klep, L.F.M., Maden, R. van der, Duit, IJ.G.A., & Boekel, P. van. (2002). De Woningcorporatie als Moderne Maatschappelijke Onderneming. Assen, Netherlands: Koninklijke van Gorcum.

Dijk, R. van. (2010). Building bigger, better and bolder?: Learning from city development in the United States (Thesis, Master City Developer, Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Dijk, R. van. (2011). Leren van stedelijke ontwikkeling in VS: Groter, beter en gedurfder? Real Estate Magazine, MCD Special, 36-40.

Dijken, van K., Korthals, J., & Lupi, T. (2011). Handreiking stedelijke herprogrammering. The Hague, Netherlands: NICIS Institute.

Dijstelbloem, H., Hoed, P. den, Holtslag, J.W., & Schouten, S. (Eds.). (2010). Het gezicht van de publieke zaak: Openbaar bestuur onder ogen. The Hague/Amsterdam, Netherlands: WRR.

Dijstelbloem, H., & Holtslag, J.W. (2010). De veranderde architectuur van het bestuur. In H. Dijstelbloem, P. den Hoed, J.W. Holtslag, & S. Schouten (Eds.), Het gezicht van de publieke zaak: Openbaar bestuur onder ogen (pp. 15-54). The Hague/Amsterdam, Netherlands: WRR.

Dixon, T. (2007). The property development industry and sustainable urban brownfield regeneration in England: An analysis of case studies in Thames Gateway and Greater. Urban Studies, 44(12): 2379-2400. doi:10.1080/00420980701540887

Dixon, T., Raco, M., Catney, P., & Lerner, D.N. (2007). Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration: Liveable Places from Problem Spaces. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Dolowitz, D.P., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44(2), 343-357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00334.x

Dolowitz, D.P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policymaking. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(1), 5-24. doi:10.1111/0952-1895.00121

Doz, Y., & Hamel, G. (1998). Alliance Advantage: The art of creating value through partnering. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Dühr, S., Colomb, C., & Nadin, V. (2010). European Spatial Planning and Territorial Cooperation. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Dunn, J.A. Jr. (1999). Transportation: Policy-level partnerships and project-based partnerships. American Behavioral Science, 43(1), 92-106. doi:10.1177/00027649921955173

Durkheim, E. (1982). The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Edelenbos, J. (2000). Proces in Vorm: Procesbegeleiding van interactieve beleidsvorming over lokale ruimtelijke projecten. Utrecht, Netherlands: Lemma.

Elkin, S. (1987). City and Regime in the American Republic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

English Partnerships. (2010). English Partnerships. Retrieved from

Eshuis, J., Klijn. E.-H., & Twist, M. van. (2011). Privaat beheerde woondomeinen: Beloftevol of beangstigend fenomeen? Beleid en Maatschappij, 38(1), 30-46.

Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Oxford, United Kingdom: Polity Press.

European Commission. (2004), Green Paper (Article 60: 20). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

European Spatial Planning Observation Network [ESPON]. (2007). Governance of Territorial and Urban Policies from EU to Local Level (ESPON project 2.3.2). Luxembourg: ESPON. Evans, A.W. (2004). Economics and Land Use Planning. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Fainstein, N., & Fainstein, S. (1983). Regime strategies, communal resistance, and economic forces. In S. Fainstein, N. Fainstein, R.C. Hill, D. Judd & M.P. Smith (Eds.), Restructuring the City: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment. New York, NY: Longman.

Fainstein, N., & Fainstein, S. (1985). Is State Planning Necessary for Capital? The U.S. Case. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 9(4), 485-507. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.1985.tb00443.x

Faludi, A. (2000). The performance of spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research, 15(4), 299-318. doi:10.1080/713691907

Faludi, A. (1991). Fifty Years of Dutch National Physical Planning: introduction. Built Environment, 17(1), 5-13.

Faludi, A., & Valk, A. van der. (1994). Rule and Order: Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Feagin, J.R., & Parker, R.E. (2002). Building American cities: The Urban Real Estate Game (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Beard Books.

Ferrera, M. (1996). The ‘southern’ model of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6(1), 17-37. doi:10.1177/095892879600600102

Flier, K. van der, & Gruis, V. (2004). Zin en onzin van samenwerking tussen corporaties en beleggers bij de verbetering van naoorlogse wijk. Building Business, 6(3), 34-37.

Flinders, M. (2005). The politics of Public-Private Partnerships. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 7(2), 215-239. doi:10.1111/j.1467-856X.2004.00161.x

Flint, A. (2009). Wrestling with Moses: How Jane Jacobs took on New York’s master builder and transformed the American city. New York, NY: Random House.

Florida, R. (2010). The Great Reset: How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-crash Prosperity. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363

Franzen, A., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de. (2009). De engel uit graniet: Perspectief op gebiedsontwikkeling in tijden van crisis. Delft, Netherlands: TU Delft.

Franzen, A., Hobma, F.A.M., Jonge, H. de, Wigmans, G. (2011). Management of Urban Development Processes in the Netherlands: Governance, Design, Feasibility. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Techne Press.

Franzen. A., & Wigmans, G. (2011). Management of spatial quality. In A. Franzen, F.A.M. Hobma, H. de Jonge & G. Wigmans (Eds.), Management of Urban Development Processes in the Netherlands (pp. 141-158). Amsterdam, Netherlands: TechnePress.

Freund, R. (2010). How to overcome the barriers between economy and sociology with open innovation, open evaluation and crowd funding? International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 1(3), 105-109.

Fukuyama, F. (1989). The End of History? National Interest, (16), 3-18.

Fuller, C., & Geddes, M. (2008). Urban governance under neoliberalism: New Labour and the restructuring of state-space. Antipode, 40(2), 252-282. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2008.00591.x

Gaffickin, F. & Warf, B. (1993). Urban policy and the post-Keynesian state in the United Kingdom and the United States. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 17, 67-84.

Gage, R.W., & Mandell, M.P. (Eds.). (1990). Strategies for Managing Intergovernmental Policies and Networks. New York, NY: Praeger.

Geertz, C. (1995). After the Fact: Two Countries, Four Decades, One Anthropologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Geuting, E. (2011). Marktstructurering als ruimtelijke ordeningsinstrument: Verkenning van drie rechtsarrangementen in de woningbouwmarkt; Samenvatting. Enschede, Netherlands: Ipskamp Drukkers.

Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (2000). The Third Way and its Critics. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press.

Gijzen, M.H.M. (2009). Zonder loslaten geen concessie. (Thesis, Master City Developer, Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Giroux, H. (2004). The Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy. New York, NY: Paradigm.

Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the City. How our Greatest Invention Makes us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

Godijk, R. (2008). Herwaardering van de Rijnlandse principes: Over governance, overleg en engagement. Assen, Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.

Gooblar, A. (2002). Outside the walls: Urban gated communities and their regulation within the British planning system. European Planning Studies, 10(3): 321-334. doi:10.1080/09654310220121068

Goonewardena, K. (2003). The Future of Planning and the “End of History”. Planning Theory, 2(3), 183-224. doi:10.1177/147309520323004

Gottdiener, M. (1994). The Social Production of Urban Space. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Gough, J. (2002). Neoliberalism and socialisation in the contemporary city: Opposites, complements and instabilities. Antipode, 36(3), 405-426. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00248

Graaf, K. de. (2009). Kansen voor gebiedsconcessies verkent: Komt het einde van de PPS in zicht? Building Business, 5, 44-49.

Greed, C. (1996). The Bristol and Avon context. In J. Allinson, J. Askew, J. Claydon, L. Davies, J. Tempest & R. Tetlow, Implementing Town Planning: The Role of Town Planning in the Development Process (pp. 124-138). Essex, United Kingdom: Longman Group.

Grimshaw, D., Vincent, S., & Willmott, H. (2002). Going privately: Partnership and outsourcing in UK public services. Public Administration, 80(3), 475-502. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00314

Groote, G.P., Hugenholtz-Sasse C.J., & Slikker, P. (2002). Projecten leiden. Utrecht, Netherlands: Het Spectrum.

Groot Jebbink, S. (2012). Het vraagstuk uitnodigingsplanologie: De werkwijze van een gemeente met een uitnodigende en faciliterende houding (Unpublished thesis Master City Developer). Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands.

Grosvenor. (2002). Liverpool Paradise Street Development Area: Masterplan – Background. Liverpool, United Kingdom: Grosvenor.

Gruis, V. (2007). Bedrijfsstijlen van Woningcorporaties. Gouda, Netherlands: Habiforum.

Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-117). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Guy, S., & Henneberry, J. (2002). Development and Developers. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Guy, S., & Henneberry, J., & Rowley, S. (2002). Development cultures and urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 39(7), 1181-1196. doi:10.1080/00420980220135554

Haaren, J. van, & Daamen, T.A. (2011). Het succes van Hamburg: Investeren waar nodig, faciliteren waar gewenst. Real Estate Magazine, 14(78), 24-29.

Hajer M., & Zonneveld, W. (2000). Spatial planning in the network society: Rethinking the principles of planning in the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 8(3), 337-355. doi:10.1080/713666411

Hackworth, J. (2007). The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology and Development in American Urbanism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Hagendijk, K. (2011). Innovatieve financieringsvormen uit Engeland: Verslag bijeenkomst financieringsconstructies. Retrieved from

Hall, T. (2001). Urban Geography (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Hall, T. (2006). Urban Geography (3rd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Hall, T., & Hubbard, P. (Eds.). (1998). The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.

Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Hanf, K.I., & Scharpf, F.W. (Eds.). (1978). Interorganizational Policy Making: Limits to coordination and central control. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Hanson, R., Wolman, H., Connolly, D., Pearson, P., & McManmon, R. (2010). Corporate citizenship and urban problem solving: The changing civic role of business leaders in American cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(1), 1-23. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2009.00480.x

Harding, A. (1990). Public-Private Partnerships in urban regeneration policy. In M. Campbell (Ed.), Local Economic Policy. London, United Kingdom: Cassell.

Harms, E. (2008). We zijn steeds bezig met het ontwerpen van een maatpak: Veranderende rollen bij gebiedsontwikkeling. Real Estate Magazine, MCD Special, 10-14.

Harms, E. (2008). Gebiedsontwikkeling kan niet zonder problemen: Valkuilen gebiedsontwikkeling. Real Estate Magazine, 61(12): 14-17.

Harvey, D. (1989). From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografski Analer, 71(1): 3-17. doi:10.2307/490503

Harvey, D. (2000). Spaces of Hope. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hausner, V.A. (1993). The future of urban development. Royal Society of Arts Journal, 14(5441), 522-533.

Healey, P. (1991). Urban regeneration and the development industry. Regional Studies, 25(2): 97-110. doi:10.1080/00343409112331346327

Healey, P. (1992). Development plans and markets. Planning Practice and Research, 7(2), 13-20. doi:10.1080/02697459208722842

Healey, P. (1997/2006). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Houndmills, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

Healey, P. (2007). Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Healey, P., Davoudi, S., Tavsanoglu, S., O’Toole, M., & Usher, D. (Eds.). (1992). Rebuilding the City: Property-led Urban Regeneration. London, United Kingdom: E & FN Spon.

Hee, M. van der. (2011). Bouwclaim: terug van weggeweest? (Master's thesis, TU Delft, Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Heijst, M. van, Horst, M. van der, & Ochtman, J. (2011). DBFM kan ook light: DBFM light, sturen op beschikbaarheid bij projecten met een ‘beperkte’ financiële omvang. Amersfoort, Netherlands: Twynstra Gudde.

Helleman, G. (2005). Quickscan rol marktpartijen. Rotterdam, Netherlands: KEI-centrum.

Hellgren, B., & Stenberg, T. (1995). Design and implementation in major investments: a project network approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4): 377-394. doi:10.1016/0956-5221(95)00020-V

Henderson, S. (2010). Developer collaboration in urban land development: Partnership working in Paddington, London. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(1), 165-185. doi:10.1068/c0927

Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2008). The Anglo-Saxon western wind: Repositioning the management of urban area development in the Netherlands. BOSS Magazine, 34, 54-58.

Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2009). Changing public and private roles in urban area development in the Netherlands. In J. Rosemann, L. Qu & D. Sepúlveda (Eds.), The NEW Urban Question: Urbanism Beyond Neo-Liberalism (pp. 345-355). Rotterdam: International Forum on Urbanism.

Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2010). Private sector-led urban development. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 9(2): 29-34.

Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2011a). A method to study the management of urban development projects. In H. Wamelink, R. Geraedts & L. Volker (Eds.), Management and innovation for a sustainable built environment (pp. 1-13). Delft, Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.

Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2011b). Blog Amerika. Retrieved from

Heurkens, E.W.T.M. (2012). The fall and rise of neoliberal American cities: Towards more sustainable urban development strategies. BOSS Magazine, 43, 19-28.

Heurkens, E.W.T.M., Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de. (2008). Gebiedsconcessie: een omstreden nieuwkomer. Ruimtelijke Ontwikkeling Magazine, 10, 12-15.

Heurkens, E.W.T.M., Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de. (2009). Gebiedsconcessie in de praktijk. Ruimtelijke Ontwikkeling Magazine, 9, 30-33.

Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Louwaars, S.P. (2011). Public & private leadership in urban development. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 37-47.

Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Peek, B. (2010). Effecten van de toepassing van het concessiemodel bij gebiedsontwikkeling. Real Estate Magazine, 71, 42-45.

Hillier, J. (2002). Shadows of Power: An Allegory of Prudence in Land use Planning. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Hobma, F.A.M. (2005). Risico van ruimtelijk ontwikkelingsbeleid. Openbaar Bestuur, 2005(12), 4-7.

Hobma, F.A.M. (2007). Een terugblik op 15 jaar PPS in bouw en infrastructuur. BOSS Magazine, 15(31), 52-59.

Hobma, F.A.M. (2011). Successful urban area development. In A. Franzen, F.A.M. Hobma, H. de Jonge & G. Wigmans (Eds.), Management of Urban Development Processes in the Netherlands (pp. 219-235). Amsterdam, Netherlands: TechnePress.

Hobma, F.A.M., Louw, E., Spaans, M., & Veen, M. van der. (2008). Leren van de Engelse gebiedsontwikkelingspraktijk. Delft, Netherlands: TU Delft.

Hobma, F.A.M., & Schutte-Postma, E.T. (2011). Planning and Development Law in the Netherlands: An Introduction. December 2011. Delft, Netherlands: TU Delft.

Hobma, F.A.M., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de. (2009). De nieuwe Engelse wetgeving voor de ruimtelijke ordening en haar toepassing bij gebiedsontwikkeling. Tijdschrift voor Bouwrecht, 2(10), 893-900.

Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (2005). The Challenge of Public Private Partnerships: Learning from international experience. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.

Hoek, M. van, & Wigmans, G. (2011). Management of urban development. In A. Franzen, F.A.M. Hobma, H. de Jonge & G. Wigmans (Eds.), Management of Urban Development Processes in the Netherlands (pp. 53-76). Amsterdam, Netherlands: TechnePress.

Hof, J. van den. (2006). PPS in de polder: De betekenis van publiek-private samenwerking voor de borging van duurzame ruimtelijke kwaliteit op VINEX-locaties. Utrecht, Netherlands: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation.

Holland, R.C. (1984). The new era in Public-Private Partnerships. In P.R. Porter & D.C. Sweet (Eds.), Rebuilding America’s Cities: Roads to Recovery. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all reasons. Public Administration, 69(1): 3-19. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x

Hooijmeijer, P., Kroon, H., & Luttik, J. (2001). Kwaliteit in meervoud: Conceptualisering en operationalisering van ruimtelijke kwaliteit voor meervoudig ruimtegebruik. Gouda, Netherlands: Habiforum.

Hoskins, G., & Tallon, A.R. (2004). Promoting the ‘urban idyll’: Policies for city centre living. In C. Johnstone & M. Whitehead (Eds.), New Horizons in British Urban Policy: Perspectives on New Labour’s Urban Renaissance (pp. 25-40). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Howe, J. (2008). The rise of crowd sourcing. Wired, 14(6). Retrieved from

Hulshof, M. & Roggeveen, D. (2011). How the city moved to Mr Sun: China’s new megacities. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Sun.

Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. (1996). Managing inter-organizational relationships. In S.P. Osborne (Ed.), Managing in the Voluntary Sector (pp. 202-216). London, United Kingdom: International Thomson Business Press.

Interdepartementale Commissie Europees Recht [ICER]. (2008). ICER rapport Auroux. De gevolgen van het arrest Auroux voor de gebiedsontwikkeling in Nederland. Retrieved from

International Network for Urban Research and Action. (2003). An alternative urban world is possible: A declaration for urban research and action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4): 952-955.

Imrie R., & Hall, P. (2001). An exploration of disability and the development process’. Urban Studies, 38(2), 333-350. doi:10.1080/00420980124545

Imrie, R., & Raco, M. (2003). Community and the changing nature of urban policy. In R. Imrie & M. Raco (Eds.), Urban Renaissance?: New Labour, Community and Urban Policy (pp. 3-31). Bristol, United Kingdom: Policy Press.

Imrie, R., & Thomas, H. (Eds.). (1999). British Urban Policy: An Evaluation of the Urban Development Corporations (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Jacobs, B. (2000). Strategy and Partnership in Cities and Regions: Economic Development and Urban Regeneration in Pittsburgh, Birmingham and Rotterdam. London, United Kingdom: MacMillan Press.

Jacobs, J. (1962). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Janssen-Jansen, L. (2008). Space for space: A transferable development right initiative for changing the Dutch landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87(3), 192-200. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.06.002

Janssen-Jansen, L., Spaans, M., & Veen, M. van der (Eds.). (2008). New Instruments in Spatial Planning: An International Perspective on Non-financial Compensation (Sustainable Urban Areas 23). Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.

Janssen-Jansen, L., Klijn, E.H., & Opdam, P. (2009). Ruimtelijke kwaliteit in gebiedsontwikkeling. Gouda, Netherlands: Habiforum.

Janssen-Jansen, L., & Woltjer, J. (2010). British discretion in Dutch planning: Establishing a comparative perspective for regional planning and local development in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Land use Policy, 27(3), 906-916. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.12.004

Jessop, B. (2002). Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State-Theoretical Perspective. Antipode, 34(3), 452-472. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00250

Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611. doi:10.2307/2392366

Johnstone, C., & Whitehead, M. (2004). Horizons and barriers in British urban policy. In C. Johnstone & M. Whitehead (Eds.), New Horizons in British Urban Policy: Perspectives on New Labour’s Urban Renaissance (pp. 3-21). Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate.

Jones, P. (2010). Liverpool One: The remaking of a city centre – how the planning process delivered [Lecture notes]. Liverpool, United Kingdom: Master City Developer.

Jones, P., & Evans, J. (2008). Urban Regeneration in the UK: Theory and Practice. London, United Kingdom: Sage Publications.

Jong, W.M. de. (1999). Institutional Transplantation: How to adopt good transport infrastructure decisionmaking ideas from other countries? Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.

Jong, W.M. de. (2004). The pitfalls of family resemblance: Why transferring planning institutions between ‘similar-countries’ is a delicate business. European Planning Studies, 12(7), 1055-1068. doi:10.1080/0965431042000267902

Jong, W.M. de, Kalenis, K., & Mamadouh, V.M. (Eds.). (2002). The Theory and Practice of Institutional Transplantation: Experiences with the transfer of policy institutions. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

Jong, M. de, & Edelenbos, J. (2007). An insider’s look into policy transfer in trans-national expert networks. European Planning Studies, 15(5), 687-706. doi:10.1080/09654310701213996

Jonge, H. de. (2007). Gebiedsontwikkeling voor een kenniseconomie. Real Estate Magazine, 10(50), 12-15.

Jonge, H. de. (2010, October 6). Projectontwikkelaar 2.0. Financieel Dagblad.

Joolingen, P. van, Kersten, P., & Franzen, A. (2009). Gebiedsontwikkeling en de kredietcrisis: Een recessie met structurele consequenties. The Hague, Netherlands: Akro Consult & Praktijkleerstoel Gebiedsontwikkeling TU Delft.

Jørgensen, T., & Bozeman, B. (2002). Public values lost: Comparing cases on contracting out from Denmark and the United States. Public Management Review, 4(1), 63-81. doi:10.1080/14616670110101681

Judd, D., Parkinson, M. (Eds.). (1990). Leadership and Urban Regeneration: Cities in North America and Europe (Volume 37 Urban Affairs Annual Reviews). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Kantor, P., & Savitch, H.V. (2005). How to study comparative urban development politics: A research note. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(1), 135-151. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00575.x

Kazemi, F., Gruis, V., & Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de. (2009). Zij maakt het verschil. Delft, Netherlands: TU Delft.

Keating, M. (1997). Commentary: Public-Private Partnerships in the United States from a European perspective. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experiences (pp. 163-174). London, United Kingdom: Macmillan.

KEI. (2010). Dossier rol marktpartijen. The Hague, Netherlands: KEI-Centrum.

Kelly, A. (1998). The economic, social and cultural impact of Harbourside. Bristol, United Kingdom: Bristol Cultural Development Partnership.

Kennedy, P. (1993). Preparing for the 21st Century. New York, NY: Random House.

Kenniscentrum PPS. (2004). Samenwerkingsmodellen en de juridische vormgeving daarvan bij pps bij gebiedsontwikkeling. The Hague, Netherlands: Ministerie van Financiën.

Kenniscentrum PPS. (2006). Publiek-private samenwerking bij gebiedsontwikkeling: wanneer wel en wanneer niet? The Hague, Netherlands: Ministerie van Financiën.

Kickert, W. (1997a). Public governance in the Netherlands: An alternative to Anglo-American ‘managerialism’. Public Administration, 75(4), 731-752. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00084

Kickert, W. (Ed.). (1997b). Public Management and Administrative Reform in Western Europe. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.

Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn, E.H., & Koppenjan, J.F.M. (Eds.). (1997). Managing Complex Policy Networks. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Klijn, E.H. (2008). It’s the management, stupid! Over het belang van management bij complexe beleidsvraagstukken. The Hague, Netherlands: Lemma.

Klijn, E.H. (2012). New Public Management and Governance: A Comparison. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 201-214). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Klijn, E.H., Edelenbos, J., Kort M.B., & Twist, M.J.W. van. (2006). Management op het Grensvlak van Publiek en Privaat: Hoe managers omgaan met dillema’s in complexe ruimtelijke projecten. The Hague, Netherlands: Lemma.

Klijn, E.H., Edelenbos, J., Kort, M.B., & Twist, M.J.W. van. (2008). Facing management choices: An analysis of managerial choices in 18 complex environmental Public-Private Partnership projects. International Review of Administrative Science, 74(2), 251-278. doi:10.1177/0020852308089905

Klijn, E.H., & Teisman, G.R. (2000). Governing Public-Private Partnerships: Analysing and managing the process and institutional characteristics of Public-Private Partnerships. In S.P. Osborne, Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective (pp. 84-102). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Klijn, E.H., & Teisman, G.R. (2003). Institutional and strategic barriers to Public-Private Partnership: An analysis of Dutch cases. Public Money & Management, 23(3), 137-146. doi:10.1111/1467-9302.00361

Klijn, E.H., & Twist, M.J.W. van. (2007). Publiek-private samenwerking in Nederland: Overzicht van theorie en praktijk. M&O, 61, 156-170.

Klundert, A.F. van de. (2008). Ruimte tussen Overheid en Markt: Met concessies naar transparantie en effectiviteit. Gouda, Netherlands: Habiforum.

Koenen, I. (2009, June 29). Gebiedsconcessies bij vastgelopen locaties. Cobouw.

Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661-687. doi:10.2307/2657333

Kort, M.B. (2011). Perspectief op herstructurering: Een onderzoek naar het belang van organisatie en management van de wijkontwikkelingsmaatschappij. The Hague, Netherlands: Boom Lemma.

Korthals Altes, W.K. (2006). Towards regional development planning in the Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research, 21(3), 309-321. doi:10.1080/02697450601090807

Korthals Altes, W.K. (2008). Actief grondbeleid betaalt zich terug. Property Research Quarterly, 7(1), 22-27.

Korthals Altes, W.K. (2009). Taxing land for urban containment: Reflections on a Dutch debate. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 233-241. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.01.006

Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E.H. (2004). Managing Uncertainties in Networks. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Kotter, J.P. (1990). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 103-111.

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press

Krabben, E. van der. (2011a). Gebiedsontwikkeling in zorgelijke tijden: Kan de Nederlandse ruimtelijke ordening zichzelf nog wel bedruipen? Nijmegen, Netherlands: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.

Krabben, E. van der. (2011b). Op de hete blaren van de overmoed: Hoogtijdagen actieve grondpolitiek voorbij. Ruimtelijke Ontwikkeling en Milieu Magazine, 29(9), 8-9.

Kreukels, A.M.J. (1995). Schuivende beleidsterreinen. PIN-Nieuws, 18(6), 59–65.

Laglas, K. (2011). Who is in Charge Here? Delft Netherlands, TU Delft.

Lane, J.E. (2000). New Public Management. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Lang, R. (2003). Edgeless City. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Lankelma, J. (2009). Private kwaliteit in openbare ruimte: Hoe het concessiemodel kan bijdragen in het streven naar hoogwaardig openbaar gebied (Master's thesis, TU Delft, Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Larner, W. (2000). Neo-Liberalism: Policy, Ideology, Governmentality. Studies in Political Economy, (63), 5-25. Retrieved from

Larner, W. (2003). Neoliberalism? Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 21(5), 509-512. doi:10.1068/d2105ed

Larner, W. (2005). Neoliberalism in (regional) theory and practice. Geographical Research: Journal of the Institute of Australian Geographers, 43(1), 9-18. doi:10.1111/j.1745-5871.2005.00294.x

Laverman, W. (2010). Toekomst ontwikkelvak: geen eenvoud maar complexiteit. Building Business, 9: 20-23.

Laverman, W. (2012). ‘Als we nu niets doen, zien onze steden er over tien jaar uit zoals in de jaren tachtig’. Building Business, 14(1), 10-13.

Lees, L. (2003a). Policy (re)turns: Gentrification research and urban policy – urban policy and gentrification research. Environment and Planning A, 35(4), 571-574. doi:10.1068/a3504com

Lees, L. (2003b). Visions of “urban renaissance”: The Urban Task Force report and the Urban White Paper. In R. Imrie & M. Raco (Eds.), Urban Renaissance? New Labour, Community and Urban Policy (pp. 61-82). Bristol, United Kingdom: Policy Press.

Leeuw, A.C.J. de. (2002). Bedrijfskundig Management: Primair Proces, Strategie en Organisatie. Assen, Netherlands: Koninklijke van Gorcum.

Lefcoe, G. (1977). When governments become land developers: Notes on the public sector experience in the Netherlands and California. California Law Review, 51, 165-263.

Leibfried, S. (1992). Towards a European welfare state?: On integrating poverty regimes into the European community. In Z. Ferge & J. E. Kolberg (Eds.), Social Policy in a Changing Europe. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus Verlag.

Leitner, H. (1990). Cities in Pursuit of Economic Growth: The Local State as Entrepreneur. Political Geography Quarterly, 9(2), 146-170. doi:10.1016/0260-9827(90)90016-4

Lichfield, N. (2003). Planned development and its children. Planning Theory and Practice, 4(1): 48-65. doi:10.1080/1464935032000057218

Lind, H. (2002). Market-oriented land use planning: A conceptual note. Planning and Markets, 5(1). Retrieved from:

Littlefield, D. (2009). Liverpool One: Remaking a City Centre. Chicester, United Kingdom: Wiley.

Local Government Improvement and Development [LGID] (2010). Section 106 Agreement. Retrieved from

Loftman, P., & Nevin, B. (1995). Prestige projects and urban regeneration in the 1980s and 1990s: A review of benefits and limitations. Planning Practice and Research, 10(3-4), 299-316. doi:10.1080/02697459509696280

Lohof, S., & Reijndorp, A. (2006). Privé-terrein: Privaat beheerde woondomeinen in Nederland. Rotterdam, Netherlands: NAi Publishers.

Loon, P.P.J. (1999). Interorganisational Design: A New Approach to Team Design in Architecture and Urban Planning. (Doctoral dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands).

Loon, P.P.J. van, Heurkens, E.W.T.M., & Bronkhorst, S. (2008). The Urban Decision Room: An Urban Management Instrument. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.

Lousberg, L.H.M.J. (2012). Sturen op haalbaarheid en relatie: Interventies om disfunctionele conflicten bij Publiek Private Samenwerking in ruimtelijke ontwikkelingsprojecten te voorkomen. (Doctoral dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands).

Louw, E., Krabben, E. van der, & Priemus, H. (2003). Spatial development policy: Changing roles for local and regional authorities in the Netherlands. Land use Policy, 20(4), 357-366. doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(03)00059-0

Louwaars, S. (2011). Public leadership styles: How attitude affects the realization of strategic projects (Master's thesis, TU Delft, Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Lovering, J. (2009). The recession and the end of planning as we have known it. International Planning Studies, 14(1), 1-6. doi:10.1080/13563470902857504

Luijten, A. (2011a). Alternatieven voor een actief grondbeleid. Retrieved from

Luijten, A. (2011b). Europese top zet in op marktverbreding. Building Business, 9, 50-53.

Luijten, A. (2011c). Overheid: Coach of medespeler. Building Business, 9, 28-31.

MacLaran, A., & McGuirk, P. (2003). Planning the city. In A. MacLaran (Ed.), Making Space: Property Development and Urban Planning (pp. 63-94). London, United Kingdom: Arnold.

Madho, A. (2008). De verhouding tussen privaat beheerde woondomeinen en overheden (Master's thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Majone, G. (1996). Regulating Europe. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Majoor, S. (2008). Disconnected Innovations: New Urbanity in Large-scale Urban Development Projects: Zuidas Amsterdam, Ørestad Copenhagen and Forum Barcelona. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.

Mandell, M.P. (Ed.). (2001). Getting Results through Collaboration: Networks and network structures for public policy and management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Marcuse, P., & Kempen, R. van. (2000). Conclusion: A changed spatial order. In P. Marcuse & R. van Kempen (Eds.), Globalizing Cities: A New Spatial Order? Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Martin, R. (1988). Industrial capitalism in transition: The contemporary reorganisation of the British space economy. In D. Massey & J. Allen (Eds.), Uneven Redevelopment: Cities and Regions in Transition (pp. 202-231). London, United Kingdom: Hodder & Stoughton.

Masser, I., & Williams, R. (Eds.). (1986). Learning from other Countries: The Cross-national Dimension in Urban Policy-making. Norwich, United Kingdom: Geo Books.

Mastop, H. (1995). Permanent sleutelen aan de institutionele structuur. PIN-nieuws, 19, 77-84.

Mayhew, S. (1997). Dictionary of Geography. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

McCarthy, J. (2007). Partnership, Collaborative Planning and Urban Regeneration. Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate.

McQuaid, R.W. (2000). The theory of partnerships: Why have partnerships? In S.P. Osborne, Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective (pp. 9-35). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Meier, K.J., & O’Toole, L.J. (2001). Managerial strategies and behaviour in networks: A model with evidence from U.S. public education. Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 11(3), 271-293. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a003503

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, J.B. (2000). Principles of Public and Private Infrastructure Delivery. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Millington, A.F. (2007). Property Development. London, United Kingdom: EG Books.

Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu. (1991). Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra. The Hague, Netherlands.

Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat & Ministerie van Economische Zaken. (2006). Nota Ruimte. Ruimte voor ontwikkeling. The Hague, Netherlands.

Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu. (2008). Nieuwe Wet Ruimtelijke Ordening. The Hague, Netherlands.

Minton, A. (2009). Ground Control: Fear and happiness in the twenty-first century city. London, United Kingdom: Penguin Books.

Mintzberg, H. (1975). The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review, 53(4), 49-61.

Mintzberg, H. (2010). Managing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Business Contact.

Mouffe, C. (2005). On the Political. New York, NY: Routledge.

Moulaert, F. (2005). Globalization and Integrated Area Development in European cities. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Muñoz Gielen, D. (2010). Capturing value increase in urban redevelopment: A study of how the economic values increase in urban redevelopment can be used to finance the necessary public infrastructure and other facilities. Leiden, Netherlands: Sidestone Press.

Murie, A., & Rowlands, R. (2008). The new politics of housing. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(3), 644-659. doi:10.1068/c65m

Nadin, V. (2007). The emergence of the spatial planning approach in England. Planning Practice and Research, 22(1), 43-62. doi:10.1080/02697450701455934

Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). Characterising European spatial planning systems. In S. Davoudi & C. Winkle (Eds.), Bridging the Divide: Celebrating the City (pp. 1-17). Chicago, IL: ACSP/AESOP.

Nadin, V. (2011). International comparison of spatial development and planning: Four models [Lecture notes]. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Master City Development.

Nadin, V., Short, M., Smith, N. & Askew, J. (2007). Learning from English Practices of Area Development. Development and Planning Processes in England. Report for Bouwfonds MAB Development and Delft University of Technology. Bristol, United Kingdom: UWE.

Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. disP, 172(1), 35-47.

Needham, B. (1997). Land policy in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 88(3), 291-296. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9663.1997.tb01606.x

Needham, B. (2000). Spatial planning as a design discipline: A paradigm for Western Europe? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 27(3), 437-453. doi:10.1068/b2633

Needham, B. (2006). Planning, Law and Economics: The Rules we Make for Using Land. New York, NY: Routledge.

Needham, B. (2007). Dutch Land use Planning: Planning and Managing Land use in the Netherlands, the Principles and the Practice. The Hague: Sdu Uitgevers.

Nevin, B., Loftman, P., & Beazley, M. (1997). Cities in crisis: Is growth the answer? Town Planning Review, 68(2), 145-164.

Newman, J. (2001). Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Nieboer, N., & Gruis, V. (2006). Does reduced government intervention produce market-oriented social landlords?: Impressions from an international comparative study. Delft, Netherlands: TU Delft, OTB.

Nijkamp, P., Burch, M. van der, & Vindigni, G. (2002). A comparative institutional evaluation of Public-Private Partnerships in Dutch urban land use and revitalisation projects. Urban Studies, 39(10), 1865-1880.

Nederland Boven Water [NLBW]. (2010). Methodiek Publiek Private Samenwerking. Retrieved from

Nozeman, E. (2008). Handboek projectontwikkeling: Een veelzijdig vak in een dynamisch omgeving. Voorburg, Netherlands: Neprom.

nWRO. (2008). Nieuwe Wet Ruimtelijke Ordening. Retrieved from

Oakley, P. (1991). Projects with People. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.

Oatley, N. (Ed.). (1998). Cities, Economic Competition and Urban Policy. London, United Kingdom: Paul Chapman.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [OPDM]. (2004). Urban Regeneration Companies: Guidance and qualification criteria. London, United Kingdom: HMSO.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [OPDM]. (2005). Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering sustainable development. London, United Kingdom: TSO.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [OPDM]. (2006). The state of the English cities. London, United Kingdom: ODPM.

Ontwikkelingsbedrijf Gemeente Amsterdam [OGA]. (2008). Analyse Amsterdams grondbeleid 2008. Amsterdam, Netherlands: OGA.

Ophem, I. van. (2007). Samenwerken in vastgoedontwikkeling: Een onderzoek naar gemeenschappelijke vastgoedontwikkeling binnen een gebiedsgerichte PPS (Thesis, Master City Developer, Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Re-inventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Osborne, S.P. (1997). Managing the coordination of social services in the mixed economy of welfare: Competition, cooperation or common cause? British Journal of Management, 8(4), 317-328. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00068

Osborne, S.P. (2000a). Introduction: Understanding Public-Private Partnerships in international perspective: globally convergent or nationally divergent phenomena? In S.P. Osborne, Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective (pp. 1-5). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Osborne, S.P. (Ed.). (2000b). Public-Private Partnerships: Theory and Practice in International Perspective. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Overmeeren, A. J. van, & Zijlstra, S. (2009). Changing planning by Dutch Housing Associations - from supply to demand-driven and from customer to area-driven strategic housing management. In L. Qu, C. Yang, X. Hui & D. A. Sepulveda (Eds.), The new urban question: urbanism beyond neo-liberalism 4th conference of the international forum on urbanism (pp. 1409-1414). Delft, Netherlands: IFoU.

Pacione, M. (2005). Urban geography: A Global Perspective (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Parker, A. (2008). Liverpool One: The early days. Liverpool, United Kingdom: Cushman & Wakefield.

Parker, C., & Garnell, C. (2006). Regeneration and retail in Liverpool: A new approach. Journal of Retail and Leisure Property, 5(4): 292-304. doi:10.1057/palgrave.rlp.5100029

Parkinson, M., Ball, M., Blake, N., & Key, T. (2009). The Credit Crunch and Regeneration: Impact and Implications. London, United Kingdom: DCLG.

Peck, J. (2001). Workfare States. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalising space. In N. Brenner & N. Theodore (Eds.), Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe (pp. 33-57). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2006). Conceptualizing neoliberalism: Thinking Thatcherism. In H. Leitner, J. Peck & E. Sheppard (Eds.), Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban frontiers (pp. 26-50). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

Peek, B. (2010). The effects of use of the concession model: Case study regarding five Dutch urban area development cases (Master's thesis, TU Delft, Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Peek. G.-J. (2006). Locatiesynergie: Een participatieve start van de herontwikkeling van binnenstedelijke stationslocaties. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.

Peek, G.-J. (2011). Van disciplinair raamwerk naar denkraam. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 16-26.

Peek, G.-J., & Remmen, Y. van. (2012). Investeren in gebiedsontwikkeling nieuwe stijl: Handreikingen voor samenwerking en verdienmodellen. The Hague, Netherlands: Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu.

Peterson, P. (1981). City Limits. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Pickvance, C.G. (2001). Four varieties of comparative analysis. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 16(1), 7-28. doi:10.1023/A:1011533211521

Pierre, J. (Ed.). (1997). Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experiences. London, United Kingdom: Macmillan.

Pierre, J., & Peters, G. (2000). Governance, Politics and the State. London, United Kingdom: Macmillan.

Pinch P., & Munt, I. (2002). Blue belts: an agenda for ‘waterspace’ planning in the UK. Planning Practice and Research, 17(2), 159-174. doi:10.1080/02697450220145922

Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving [PBL]. (2012). Grootschalige of kleinschalige verstedelijking?: Een institutionele analyse van de totstandkoming van woonwijken in Nederland, Vlaanderen en Noordrijn-Westfalen. The Hague, Netherlands.

Pollit, C., Talbot, C., Caulfield, J., & Smullen, D. (2004). Agencies: How governments do things through semiautonomous organizations. Houndmills, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.

Post, H. van der. (2011). New kid on the block: Lokaal energiebedrijf als nieuwe speller in gebiedsontwikkeling (Thesis, Master City Developer, Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Priem, E. (2008). De ontmaskering van de concessie: Een onderzoek naar de plaats van het concessiemodel in gebiedsontwikkeling (Master's thesis, Amsterdam School of Real Estate, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Retrieved from

Priemus, H. (1996). Physical planning and public expenditure in the Netherlands. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 11(2), 151-171. doi:10.1007/BF02496484

Priemus, H. (2001). Social Housing as a transitional tenure? Reflections on the Netherlands’ new housing memorandum 2000-2010. Housing Studies, 16(2), 243-256. doi:10.1080/713670004

Priemus, H. (2002). Combining spatial investments in project envelopes: Current Dutch debates on area development. Planning Practice and Research, 17(4), 455-464. doi:10.1080/02697450216354

Punter, J.V. (1992). Design control and the regeneration of docklands: The example of Bristol. Journal of Property Research, 9(1), 49-78. doi:10.1080/09599919208724051

Punter. J. (Ed.). (2010). Urban Design and the British Urban Renaissance. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Purcell, M. (2008). Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative Urban Futures. New York, NY: Routledge.

Putman, M. (2010). Een nieuwe ontwikkelaar?: Een toekomstperspectief voor de projectontwikkelaar in gebiedsontwikkeling (Thesis, Master City Developer, Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Putten, E. van der, Lint, R. de, & Wolff, H. de. (2004). Onderzoek naar de mogelijkheden van een regeling voor stedelijke herverkaveling. The Hague, Netherlands: Ministerie van VROM, Akro Consult & TU Delft, OTB.

PricewaterhouseCoopers & Urban Land Institute. (2012). Emerging Trends in Real Estate Europe 2012. London, United Kingdom: PwC & ULI.

Ragin, C.C. (1992). ‘Casing’ and the process of social inquiry. In C.C. Ragin & H.S. Becker (Eds.), What is a Case?: Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (pp. 217-226). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Randeraat, G. van. (2010). De markt is de markt niet meer. Retrieved from

Rapoport, A. (1970). The study of spatial quality. Journal of Aesthetic Education, Special Issue: The Environment and the Aesthetic Quality of Life, 4(4), 81-95. doi:10.2307/3331287

Rifkin, J. (2004). The European Dream. How Europe’s Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream. New York, NY: Penguin.

Roberts, P. (2000). The evolution, definition and purpose of urban regeneration. In P. Roberts & H. Sykes (Eds.), Urban Renaissance: A Handbook (pp. 9-36). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Roberts, P., & Sykes, H. (Eds.). (2000). Urban Renaissance. A Handbook. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Robles-Duran, M. (2011). Prelude to a brand new urban world. Archis, 30(4), 54-57.

Robson, B.T., Bradford, M.G., Deas, I., Hall, E., Harrison, E., Evans, R., Harding, A., Garside, P., & Robinson, F. (1994). Assessing the Impact of Urban Policy. London, United Kingdom: HMSO.

Rooy, P. van. (2007). Grond, geld en gebiedsontwikkeling. Real Estate Magazine, 55, 1-4.

Rooy, P. van. (2009). NederLandBovenWater II: Praktijkboek gebiedsontwikkeling. Gouda/The Hague, Netherlands: Habiforum/Nirov.

Rooy, P. van. (2011a). Verdienmogelijkheden: Cahier gebiedsontwikkeling. Gouda, Netherlands: Stichting NederLandBovenWater.

Rooy, P. van. (2011b). Uitnodigingsplanologie als sociaal-cultureel perspectief. Building Business, 13(10). Retrieved from[1]%20kopie.pdf

Rooy, P. van, Luijn, A. van, & Dil, E. (2006). NederLandBovenWater: Praktijkboek gebiedsontwikkeling. Gouda, Netherlands: Habiforum.

Rose, R. (1991). What is lesson-drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), 3-30. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00004918

Rose, R. (2005). Learning from Comparative Public Policy: A Practical Guide. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Qu, L., Yang, C., Hui, X. & Sepulveda, D. A. (Eds.). (2009). The new urban question: urbanism beyond neo-liberalism 4th conference of the international forum on urbanism. Delft, Netherlands: IFoU.

Salet, W., Thornley, A., & Kreukels, A. (2003). Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning: Comparative Case Studies of European City-regions. London, United Kingdom: Spon Press.

Sapir, A. (2006). Globalization and the reform of European social models. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(2), 369–390. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00627.x

Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in an Age of Globalization. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Sassen, S. (2001). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Sassen, S. (2006). Cities in a World Economy (3rd ed.). Sociology for a New Century Series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Savitch. H.V. (1997). The ecology of Public-Private Partnerships: Europe. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Partnerships in Urban Governance. European and American Experiences (pp. 175-186). London, United Kingdom: Macmillan.

Sanyal, B. (Ed.). (2005). Comparative Planning Cultures. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Scharpf, F.W. (1997). Games Real Actors Play. Actor-centred Institutionalism in Policy Research. Oxford, United Kingdom: Westview Press.

Scharpf, F.W. (2000). Institutions in comparative policy research. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6-7), 762-790. doi:10.1177/001041400003300604

Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. London, United Kingdom: Temple Smith.

Sechrest, L. (1992). Roots: Back to our first generations. Evaluation Practice, 13, 1-8. doi:10.1016/0886-1633(92)90018-7

Senior, M.L., Webster, C.J., & Blank, N.E. (2004). Residential preferences versus sustainable cities: Quantitative and qualitative evidence from a survey of relocating owner-occupiers. Town Planning Review, 75(3), 337-357.

Shaw, D., & Sykes, O. (2007, April). The management of spatial transformation in cities: Early reflections on the development of Liverpool’s local development framework. Draft Paper for the International ESDP Conference ‘New Concepts and Approaches for Urban and Regional Policy and Planning?’. Leuven, Belgium: KU Leuven.

Shaw, D., & Lord, A. (2009). From land use to ‘spatial planning’: Reflections on the reform of the English planning system, Town Planning Review, 80(4-5), 415-435.

Short, M. (2009, October). Government and governance in the UK (Presentation). Bristol, United Kingdom: University of the West of England.

Smith, I., Lepine, E., & Taylor, M. (Eds.). (2007). Disadvantaged by where you live?: Neighbourhood governance in contemporary urban policy. Bristol, United Kingdom: Policy Press.

Social Market Foundation [SMF]. (2007). Should the Greenbelt be preserved? Retrieved from

Sorrel, S., & Hothi, K. (2007). Approaching regeneration in partnership: Models for private and public sector collaboration. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, 1(1), 37-43.

Spaans, M. (2005). Een nieuwe jas voor het Engelse planningsstelsel. Nova Terra, 5(2), 32-37.

Spaans, M. (2006). Recent changes in the Dutch planning system: Towards a new governance model? Town Planning Review, 77(2), 127-146.

Spaans, M., & Louw, E. (2009). Crossing borders with planners and developers: The limits of lesson-drawing. Proceedings from EURA ’09: City Futures. Madrid, Spain: EURA.

Spaans, M., Veen, M. van der, & Janssen-Jansen, L. (2010). The concept of non-financial compensation: What is it, which forms can be distinguished and what can it mean in spatial terms? Planum - The European Journal of Planning online. Retreived from

Spakman, J. (2011). Instituties in stedelijke gebiedsontwikkeling: Doorbreken van institutionele barrières bij stagnerende processen van stedelijke gebiedsontwikkeling (Thesis, Master City Developer, Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Squires, G., & Lord, A.D. (2012). The transfer of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) as an urban policy for spatially targeted economic development. Land Use Policy, 29(4), 817-826. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.12.007

Staff of Real Estate & Housing. (2007). Research Portfolio 2005-2010: Development, Management and Policy of the Built Environment. Delft, Netherlands: Spring.

Steeg, R. van, & Hutten, J. (2011). Naar een nieuwe grondhouding? Real Estate Magazine, 14(78), 46-49.

Stephenson, M.O. (1991). Whither the Public-Private Partnerships. Urban Affairs Review, 27(1), 109-127. doi:10.1177/004208169102700106

Stewart, M. (1996). Too little, too late: The politics of local complacency. Journal of Urban Affairs, 18(2), 119-137. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.1996.tb00369.x

Stoker, G. (1997). Public-Private Partnerships and urban governance. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experiences (pp. 34-55). London, United Kingdom: Macmillan.

Stone, G. (1989). Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946-1988. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

Straub, S.C. (2012). Co-Creation in Real-Estate: A framework to steer upon value-creating firm-consumer relations in demand-driven development. (Thesis). (Master's thesis, TU Delft, Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Stroink, R. (2011). Waardevaste straten. Real Estate Magazine, 14(78), 19-20.

Stroink, R. (2012). Rol van de overheid. Retrieved from

Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Neither Global nor Local: “Glocalization” and the Politics of Scale. In K. Cox (Ed.), Spaces of Globalization (pp. 137-166). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Swyngedouw E., Moulaert, F., & Rodriguez, A. (2002). Neoliberal urbanisation in Europe: Large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34(3), 542-577. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00254

Tallon, A.R. (2006). Regenerating Bristol’s Harbourside. Town & Country Planning, 75, 278-282.

Tallon, A.R. (2007). City profile: Bristol. Cities, 24(1), 74-88.

Tallon, A.R. (2009). Urban Regeneration in the UK. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Tallon, A.R., & Bromley, R.D.F. (2004). Exploring the attractions of city centre living: Evidence and policy implications in British cities. Geoforum, 35(6), 771-787. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.05.004

Taylor, M. (1997). The Best of Both Worlds: The Voluntary Sector and the Government. York, United Kingdom: YPS.

Teisman, G.R. (1992). Complexe besluitvorming: Een pluricentrisch perspectief op besluitvorming over ruimtelijke investeringen. The Hague, Netherlands: Vuga.

Teisman, G.R. (2001). Besluitvorming en ruimtelijke procesmanagement. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.

Teisman, G.R. (2005). Publiek management op de grens van chaos en orde. Schoonhoven, Netherlands: Academic Service.

Teisman, G.R. (2008). Infrastructure investments on the edge of public and private domains. In G. Arts, W. Dicke & L. Hancher (Eds.), New perspectives on investment in infrastructures (pp. 319-346). The Hague/Amsterdam, Netherlands: WRR/Amsterdam University Press.

Teisman, G.R., & Klijn, E.-H. (2002). Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhetoric or governmental schemes? Public Administration, 62(2), 197-205. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00170

Thiel, S. van. (2001). Quango’s: Trends, Causes and Consequences. Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate.

Thornley, A. (1991). Urban Planning under Thatcherism: The Challenge of the Market. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Tickell, A., & Peck, J. (2003). Making Global Rules: Globalisation or Neoliberalisation? In J. Peck & H. Yeung (Eds.), Remaking the Global Economy: Economic-Geographical Perspectives (pp. 163-182). London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Tiesdell, S. (2004). Integrating affordable housing within market-rate developments: the design dimension. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(2), 195-212. doi:10.1068/b2998

Tiesdell, S., & Allmendinger, P. (2001). Neighbourhood regeneration and New Labour’s third way. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(6), 903-926. doi:10.1068/c0047

Tiesdell, S., & Allmendinger, P. (2005), Planning tools and markets: Towards an extended conceptualisation. In D. Adams, C. Watkins & M. White (Eds.), Planning, Public Policy and Property Markets (pp. 56-76). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Til, R. van. (2011). Verliezen nekken grondbedrijven: Overeind houden van bouwplannen: optimalisatie, efficiency en marktgerichtheid. Property NL Magazine, 19, 49-51.

Trip, Y. (2011). Power to the people: Over het centraal stellen van eindgebruikers bij de ontwikkeling van een wijk (Thesis, Master City Developer, Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Turok, I. (1992). Property-led urban regeneration: Panacea or placebo? Environment and Planning A, 24(3), 361-379. doi:10.1068/a240361

Turok, I. (2005). Urban regeneration: What can be done and what should be avoided? In Istanbul 2004 International Urban Regeneration Symposium: Workshop of Kucukcekmece District (pp. 57-62). Istanbul, Turkey: Kucukcekmece Municipality Publication.

Twist, M. van, & Velzen, G. van. (Eds.). (2009). Privaat beheerde woondomeinen: Een wereld op zich? The Hague, Netherlands: Lemma.

Twynstra Gudde (2008). Onderzoek naar de toepasbaarheid gebiedsconcessiemodel in Nederland. Amersfoort, Netherlands: Twynstra Gudde.

UCL & Deloitte (2007). Shaping and delivering tomorrow’s places: Effective practice in spatial planning. London, United Kingdom: RTPI.

UN-Habitat (2004). Urban Governance Toolkit Series. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-Habitat.

UN-Habitat (2009). Good Urban Governance: Towards an Effective Private Sector Engagement. Nairobi, Kenya: Un-Habitat.

Urban Task Force (1999). Towards an Urban Renaissance. London, United Kingdom: E & FN Spon.

Urhahn Urban Design (2010). The Spontaneous City. Amsterdam, Netherlands: BIS Publishers.

Valk, A. van der. (2002). The Dutch planning experience. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58(2-4), 201-210. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00221-3

Veen, M. van der. (2009). Contracting for better places: A relational analysis of development agreements in urban development projects. Sustainable Urban Areas 26. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press.

Verbart, J. (2004). Management van ruimtelijke kwaliteit: De ontwikkeling en verankering van inrichtingsconcepten in het Utrechtse stationsgebied. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.

Verlaat, J. van ‘t. (2003). Outlines of urban area development. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Master City Developer.

Verlaat, J. van ‘t. (2008). Stedelijke gebiedsontwikkeling in hoofdlijnen. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Master City Developer.

Vink, B., & Burg, A. van der. (2006). New Dutch spatial planning policy creates space for development. disP, 164(1), 41-49.

Vlek, P. (2009). Investeren in vastgoed, grond en gebieden. Vlaardingen, Netherlands: Management Producties.

Voogd, H. (2004). Herziening WRO niet fundamenteel genoeg. Stedebouw en Ruimtelijke Ordening 85(5), 58–61.

VROM-raad. (2009). Grond voor kwaliteit: Voorstellen voor verbetering van overheidsregie op (binnen)stedelijke ontwikkeling. The Hague, Netherlands.

VROM-raad. (2010). Duurzame verstedelijking. The Hague, Netherlands.

Wamelink, J.W.F. (Ed.). (2009). Inleiding Bouwmanagement. Delft, Netherlands: VSSD.

Webster, C., & Lai, L.W. (2003). Property Rights, Planning and Markets: Managing Spontaneous Cities. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.

Weening, H.M. (2006). Smart Cities: Omgaan meet onzekerheid. Delft, Netherlands: Eburon.

Weerd, R. van der. (2007). Organisatiemodellen voor gebiedsontwikkeling: Analyse invloed op percepties van betrokken actoren (Master's thesis, Universiteit Twente/Amsterdam School of Real Estate, Enschede/Amsterdam, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Weg, E. van de, Veldhuizen, J., Rooy P. van, Kneppers, G., & Miranda F. de. (2009). Een wijde blik verruimt het denken: Gebiedsontwikkeling in vijf Europese landen en de toekomst van gebiedsconcessies in Nederland. Utrecht, Netherlands: Deloitte Real Estate Advisory, Habiforum, NederLandBovenWater.

Wezenberg, R. (2009). Vertrouwen in de gebiedsconcessie. Een verkennend onderzoek naar de gebiedsconcessie als perspectief bij gebiedsontwikkeling (Thesis, Master City Developer, Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Wicherson, J. (2011). Strategie en rolbepaling in stedelijke gebiedsontwikkeling: De gemeentelijke organisatie (Thesis, Master City Developer, Erasmus University Rotterdam/TU Delft, Rotterdam/Delft, Netherlands). Retrieved from

Wieviorka, M. (1992). Case studies: History or sociology? In C.C. Ragin & H.S. Becker (Eds.), What is a Case?: Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (pp. 159-172). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Wijnen, G., Renes, W., & Storm, P. (2004). Projectmatig werken. Utrecht, Netherlands: Het Spectrum.

Williams K., & Dair, C. (2003). Five barriers to sustainable brownfield development. Town and Country Planning, 72(11), 344-345.

Winch, G.M. (2002). Managing Construction Projects. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.

Wolfe, T. (1998). A Man in Full. London, United Kingdom: Picador.

Wolsink, M. (2003). Reshaping the Dutch planning system: A learning process? Environment and Planning A, 35(4): 705-723. doi:10.1068/a35173

Wolting, B. (2006). PPS en Gebiedsontwikkeling. The Hague, Netherlands: Sdu Uitgevers.

Wolting, B. (2010). PPS, gebiedsontwikkeling en procesmanagement [Lecture notes]. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Master City Developer.

Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid [WRR]. (1998). Ruimtelijke ontwikkelingspolitiek (Rapporten aan de Regering nr. 53). The Hague, Netherlands: Sdu Uitgevers.

Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid [WRR]. (2000). Het borgen van publiek belang: Rapporten aan de regering 56. The Hague, Netherlands: Sdu Uitgevers.

Yescombe, E.R. (2007). Public-Private Partnerships: Principles of Policy and Finance. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

Yin, R.K. (2003). Applications of Case Study Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yoshino, M.Y., & Rangan, U.S. (1995). Strategic Alliances: An Entrepreneurial Approach to Globalization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Zaleznik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are the different? Harvard Business Review, 55(3), 67-78.

Zeegers, T. (2006). Spelregels voor Geslaagde Samenwerking. Utrecht, Netherlands: AT Osborne.

Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de. (2007). De engel uit het marmer: Reflecties op gebiedsontwikkeling. Delft, Netherlands: TU Delft, Praktijkleerstoel Gebiedsontwikkeling.

Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de. (2010). Naar een code gebiedsontwikkeling. Real Estate Magazine, 64, 21-23.

Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de, & Hobma, F.A.M. (2008). Leren van de Engelse praktijk van Gebiedsontwikkeling. Building Business, 4, 16-19.

Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de. (2011a). Binnenstedelijk ontwikkelen moet op alle fronten anders. Service Magazine, December 2011, 22-23.

Zeeuw, W.T.C.F. de. (2011b). Het Zwitserlevengevoel is ook niet alles. Real Estate Research Quarterly, 10(2), 4-6.

Zeeuw, W.T.C.F., Franzen, A., & Mensink, J. (2012a). Bulletin bij het congres Gebiedsontwikkeling Slim Vlottrekken. Delft, Netherlands: TU Delft, Praktijkleerstoel Gebiedsontwikkeling.

Zeeuw, W.T.C.F., Franzen, A., & Mak, J. (2012b). Gemeentelijke grondbedrijven in een andere realiteit: Aanbevelingen voor gebiedsontwikkeling. Delft, Netherlands: TU Delft, Praktijkleerstoel Gebiedsontwikkeling & Kring van Adviseurs.

Zhang, X.-Q. (2004). Improving concessionaire selection protocols in public/private partnered infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130(5), 670-679. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2004)130:5(670)

Zijlstra, S. (2011). Klantgestuurd voorraadbeleid en empowerment; Over Te Woon en andere initiatieven van woningcorporaties. A+BE | Architecture And The Built Environment, 1(1), 312. doi:10.7480/a+be.vol1.diss1

Zundert, J.W. van. (1990). Het Bestemmingsplan: Een juridisch-bestuurlijke inleiding in de ruimtelijke ordening (6th ed.). Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom HD TjeenkWillink.


Copyright (c) 2014 Erwin Heurkens

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.