These notes were presented as an introduction to the topic at the ARL-Academy of Territorial Development’s Brussels Talk on 1 October 2025. The Brussels Talk is an ARL initiative designed to intensify the exchange between research, planning, and policymaking at European and international levels. The first two editions were held in collaboration with the Ministry of European Affairs of Lower Saxony, the German state in which the ARL is based and from which it receives funding, alongside the federal government. On this occasion, the aim of my overview was to contextualise land policy within planning and critically discuss related practices in relation to reducing new land take to zero, thus justifying the choice of topic for this year’s talk. This was followed by a walking presentation given by Professor Thomas Hartmann of the Faculty of Spatial Planning at TU Dortmund University in Germany (see the pic below). Professor Hartmann specialises in land policy. Based on the findings of an international working group established by the ARL, he presented four case studies on local and regional land policy from Bern (Switzerland), Dortmund (Germany), Ghent (Belgium) and Utrecht (the Netherlands).(1)
When we discuss land policy in general, and the goal of achieving 'no net land take' in particular, the dilemma we are dealing with is much more complex than simply creating a more efficient land use system. There are a couple of interrelated issues at play here. Firstly, we must address the problems associated with urbanisation, which has become a crisis in recent decades. Secondly, these associated issues necessitate the development of counter-strategies to increase land use efficiency and reduce land consumption. Thirdly, there is a legacy of policies developed in previous decades to address these issues, whose results should be taken into account when setting new goals (keywords include containment, compact city development, reurbanisation—all highly relevant in terms of land policy. However, these strategies often conflict with development interests and logics, and had therefore limited effect. Finally, this may have consequences for todays’ policies that aim to reduce or eliminate land take.
I won’t discuss land policy in detail, as our colleague from Dortmund is a real expert in this field. To provide some context, these interconnected problems can be traced back to the urbanisation of much of the planet, which has resulted in the continuous expansion of developed areas. This expansion has had a significant impact on natural resources, open spaces and spatial organisation. The good news is that we have precise data on these issues and their implications. The following two illustrations are taken from the highly recommended publication Atlas of the Human Planet, which is available to download from the EU Science Hub. They demonstrate a case in point: Firstly, we can see the extent to which urbanisation has spread over the past few decades, both in the Global North and South and, paradoxically, in city regions and far beyond. This is also addressed by concepts such as planetary or extended urbanisation. Secondly, considering the increase in land use in relation to population growth, estimates suggest a ratio of 3 globally, compared to close to 4 in the Global North: This means that built-up areas and land use have developed four times faster than the population has grown.(2)
Population growth, urbanisation and increased consumption have contributed to three interrelated crises: the loss of biodiversity, the global health crisis and climate change. These crises provide compelling reasons to change urbanisation, development and building practices. There is no doubt that we are currently on a dangerous path. In July 2023, when the United Nations presented their interim assessment of the state of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that were agreed upon in 2015, they literally said that we would be in a “war against ourselves and against nature”. Clearly, land use and its associated issues are one of the causes mentioned.
Therefore, the political goal of reducing land use, or even achieving no net land take, in the near future is by no means in question. In its 2011 ‘Roadmap for a Resource-Efficient Europe’, the EU made the following statement: “By 2020, EU policies will consider their direct and indirect impact on land use within the EU and worldwide. The rate of land use will be in line with the goal of achieving no net land use by 2050. Soil erosion will be reduced and soil organic matter increased. Remedial work on contaminated sites will be well underway” (p. 15). This ambition has become more concrete in follow-up documents and strategies of the European Commission, and is also being pursued by national governments — albeit with varying degrees of determination and outcome.
Politically speaking, however, such call for reducing land use sounds as if it comes from a different age. It is obviously a legacy of the ‘green’ era of policy rhetoric in the 2010s which seems long ago. Also, it is much easier to formulate goals than to implement them and achieve impact. Is our planning system sufficiently effective (or powerful?) to remedy these issues? Planning alone probably can’t deliver on such expectations. Nic Phelps from the University of Queensland recently reviewed the politics of land, property, and planning. He identified three logics that influence the beliefs and practices of key stakeholders in land development, planning, and public policy: idealistic, realistic, and opportunistic (opportunity seeking). These logics can seriously undermine effective planning in order to reduce land take, and they have to be taken into account in any land policy.(3)
Related practices vary, and they face a range of implementation barriers. The main agents of reducing land take, public land policy and planning, are subject to competing private and public interests. Beyond that, they are also controlled by different entities that do not necessarily collaborate with each other: The French term ‘millefeuille’ neatly describes the latter composition of public power across scales. Furthermore, apart from their economic value, land and property carry socio-cultural meaning and symbolise identity. ‘My home is my castle’ is more than just a slogan, and property enjoys constitutional protection in many countries, with some governments even providing direct subsidies to home builders. To add complexity and political contestation: If land and property are already unevenly distributed, how can counter-policies be organised to moderate, rather than exacerbate, inequality?
Honestly, changing these mindsets and practices seems extremely difficult. This makes efficient land use planning challenging, regardless of how ambitious the goals may be. Our colleagues Antoine Decoville and Valérie Feltgen from Luxembourg have argued that policies pursuing no net land take require proper definitions for measurement and implementation; otherwise, the cure could make the disease worse, rather than resolving it. They have also emphasised that reducing land take would require a paradigm shift in planning and in all sectors that consume large amounts of space, land and property. Who is ready to shift related planning and policy paradigms?(4)
In this context, it is important to note that the 'no net land take' policy package can and will be misused by local and national governments for whitewashing purposes, allowing them to present themselves as being at the forefront of planning progress while failing to address the structural issues of urban expansion and land consumption. Land issues are highly contentious, so authorities actually seem reluctant to cause trouble by implementing a real paradigm shift in planning. Therefore, it is vital that any discussion of this policy guideline and interim assessments of measures undertaken are reflective and honest. They must consider whether progress towards the NNLT target is merely slow or has stalled altogether. Depending on the outcomes of such discussions and assessments, planning actors would be well advised to align ambition with delivery, rather than setting goals that cannot be realised through actual policy and practice.
Index
1) The findings of the ARL’s international working group on “Land Policies in Europe” were published in an open access edited volume, which is available
here.
2) The Atlas of the Human Planet is available
here.
3) Phelps, N. (2025). Planning, Property, and Political Logics of Development Compared. APA-Journal, 91(1), 146-156. DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2024.2325036
4) Decoville, A., & Feltgen, V. (2023). Clarifying the EU objective of no net land take: A necessity to avoid the cure being worse than the disease. Land Use Policy, 131, 106722. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106722
Markus Hesse
