When no net land take meets the landowners
On 3 July 2026, the roundtable “Land Policies for Reducing Land Take in Europe: In Pursuit of Net Zero” took place at the World Planning Schools Congress (WPSC) in Helsinki. The session was organised by Peter Lacoere (HO GENT) and Thomas Hartmann (TU Dortmund University). Andreas Hengstermann (NMBU Norway), Sina Shahab (Cardiff University), Arthur Schindelegger (BOKU University, Vienna), and Hans Leinfelder (KU Leuven) were the panellists and around 30 participants actively attended this first session although it was scheduled in the early morning of the last conference day. The roundtable was one of the first outreaches to the academic planning community of the ARL International Working Group “Land Take in Europe – In Pursuit of Net Zero”. The main objective of the roundtable was to discuss and develop key policy statements for the preparation of a policy brief by the working group.
Challenges for implementing policies for reducing land take
Objectives to reduce land take are typically formulated at a high (national or regional) policy level, with the European no-net land take idea as overarching target. Decisions that govern land take though, are taken both on local level and in sectoral policies. At these policy arenas, multiple small-scale decisions with and among landowners, planners, developers, etc. account for additional land take. Therefore, effective implementation depends on the capacity and willingness of local actors to translate strategic policy objectives into daily practices and decision-making. At the same time, trends towards deregulation and housing demand seem to be working against the reduction of land take at the local level. Understanding the implementation gap was the central theme of the roundtable at the WPSC,
A starting point of the roundtable was the analytical concept from “Land Policies in Europe” (Hartmann et al. 2025) was applied. It describes land policy as an alignment of land allocation and land distribution on a strategic and operational level.
The discussion was structured around four core statements: First, reducing land take is a matter of land policy, not only a spatial planning challenge; second, national policy targets remain ineffective without strong instruments and strategies at the municipal level; third, current approaches over-rely on regional planning, underestimating the role of property rights; fourth, effective land reduction policies require alignment between land-use planning and land ownership. Each statement was introduced by the moderator and then discussed by the panellists. The debate was subsequently opened to the audience. Participants added perspectives from many European countries, but also more theoretical and conceptual debates.
Policies to reduce land take as land policy — or environmental planning policy?
The European no-net land take target and the diverse efforts of member states to reduce land take are intersectoral policies that are not solely anchored in spatial planning. Benefits ought to be seen especially through preservation of agricultural land, as well as environmental conservation. Ultimately, the implementation needs not only a target but responsibilities assigned to governmental actors, sufficient funding and a land policy approach to understand and integrate the landowner’s perspectives as well. The reduction of land take should not be a solely quantitative ambition but rather a qualitative one that builds on positive narratives. The debate raised a central tension: Are such policies primarily about ecosystem and soil conservation, or are they part of a post-growth paradigm questioning development rights and property regimes?
The first statement immediately triggered a conceptual debate. Andreas Hengstermann pointed out that such policies are not (yet) land policy, but they might need to become one. If it is understood as land policy, it requires instruments, responsibilities, financial mechanisms and institutional arrangements. Hans Leinfelder pointed out that land take reduction policies are not mainly spatial planning, but environmental planning policies.
Andreas Hengstermann put forward the need to align land allocation with land distribution. Sina Shahab’s contribution was framed around the alignment between strategic objectives and operational implementation. Arthur Schindelegger, drawing on the Austrian case, warned that strategies without responsibilities and implementation mechanisms easily become symbolic. Hans Leinfelder added an important qualitative dimension. As land take reduction policies are often framed as a quantitative target, the actual debate may become trapped in technical discussions about definitions and monitoring instead of the real debate on both densification and soil conservation. Such policies should also be understood qualitatively, i.e., asking which qualities of land need to be protected or improved.
This point was strongly taken up in the discussion with the audience. Planners need to communicate qualitative benefits: better landscapes, improved rural areas, more liveable cities and more environmentally-friendly forms of densification. In the discussion it was stressed that there is a need for positive narratives, such as visions of future cities, rather than only narratives of restriction. An example discussed by the panellists was the linguistic rebranding of the policy in Flanders, where the term “concrete stop” was replaced by “building shift”.
National policy targets remain ineffective without strong instruments and strategies at the municipal level
Land take reduction targets are widely established already for a long time, but implementation is lagging. The automatism of proposing new rigid instruments when planning objectives are not achieved is perceived critical among the panellists. The discussion should not focus on planning instruments but rather be aware of embedding no-net land take in the existing governmental system acknowledging the constraints and necessities especially of municipalities. As long as municipal fiscal funding depends on growth, there are simply no incentives to be mindful of land take. Anyhow, planning narratives and instruments as well as coordination in planning processes are key to establish quality in new development that builds in the first-place on densification rather than green field development.
The second statement shifted the debate from conceptual framing to implementation. The moderator introduced the statement by referring to long-standing debates in Germany and elsewhere, where land take reduction targets have existed for decades and where many research programmes have focused on developing new municipal instruments.
The panellists were sceptical about the idea that the main problem is simply a lack of instruments. Sina Shahab argued that many municipalities already have planning instruments, but that they are often financially dependent on growth and development. Arthur Schindelegger made a similar point for Austria. Under such conditions, urban growth it is embedded in the fiscal logic of local government.
This led to one of the central insights of the roundtable: municipal finance is a key land policy issue. A municipality may formally have the power to restrict development, but if its fiscal conditions depend on growth, it is unlikely to use those powers restrictively. A Swiss participant added a more differentiated view. For limiting development outside built-up areas, instruments may already exist. However, within existing building zones, municipalities often lack sufficient instruments to shape qualitative densification. The issue of regional coordination was also discussed. Hans Leinfelder brought the discussion back to value capture. He argued that municipalities are currently missing significant opportunities to capture the value created through densification which subsequently can be invested in preventing additional land take (for instance through the financial compensation of downzoning) and in landscape restoration. The second discussion showed that municipal instruments are important, but insufficient on their own.
Current approaches over-rely on regional planning, underestimating the role of property rights
The third statement focused on the role of regional planning and property rights. Deliberately provocative, it suggests that planning debates may focus too much on regional strategies and too little on the landownership that may block actual implementation.
The role of regional planning is critically debated as it challenges planning systems in member states that have only a national and local level. The regional level might be an important interim to translate national land take targets to the local level. The role of landowners though was framed partly as under- as well as overestimated. Neither ignoring them nor framing them as absolute obstacles are reasonable. It is simply a necessity to deal with the liberal conception of property rights.
Andreas Hengstermann argued that planners often overestimate their own power. Landowners and developers are powerful actors because planning decisions translate into land values “the colours on planning maps represent money”. A plan may be well designed, participatory and technically sound, but it will not materialise if the landowner does not cooperate. This led to a broader debate about whether property rights are underestimated or overestimated. Hans Leinfelder argued that property rights are often overestimated in planning debates because they are treated as absolute. Many planning ambitions are abandoned too quickly because of anticipated resistance from landowners. Hans therefore asked how absolute property rights should be, and whether they should remain absolute over time.
Effective land take reduction policies require alignment between land-use planning and land ownership
The fourth statement attempted to bring the previous debates together. It proposed that effective land reduction policies require alignment between allocation of land uses and land ownership. A way forward to achieve such an alignment can be public value capture instruments to fund quality in development, compensation for land take as well as compensation for downzoning, and funding for landscape restoration. Public value capture can contribute in balancing public interests and private property rights within given constitutional frameworks.
Sina Shahab pointed out that the key question is, who owns development rights, bringing the debate to a higher level of fundamental land questions. He also positioned land value capture instruments crucial mechanisms. Hans Leinfelder argued that if municipalities are to downzone land or compensate landowners, money must come from somewhere. Audience contributions showed that the design of value capture is crucial. Poland has a betterment levy of up to 30 percent in law, but it does not work effectively in practice, the implementation of land value capture in Switzerland also shows some implementation problems.
The fourth discussion therefore identified land value capture as a possible bridge between planning and ownership, but not as a simple solution. It became also obvious, that the discussion on the reduction of land take touches upon fundamental land questions regarding the balance between public interest and private property rights.
Final reflections
In the final round, the panellists were asked to reflect on the main lessons from the discussion. Arthur Schindelegger argued that the EU’s NNLT objective is valuable because it forces planning systems to reflect on their own assumptions. Sina Shahab summarised the theoretical issue as the question of who owns development rights. Hans Leinfelder stressed that planners need to reposition themselves in the NNLT debate, i.e., they should not limit their role to land-use allocation or quantitative monitoring, instead, they should bring in qualitative concerns. Andreas Hengstermann identified three main take-aways. First, the debate is now asking the right questions, even if definitive answers are still missing. Second, framing matters: NNLT must be communicated beyond the planning community and connected to broader environmental concerns. Third, international comparison is essential because planning systems, property regimes and legal traditions differ widely.
For the ARL International Working Group “Land Take in Europe – In Pursuit of Net Zero”, the discussion confirmed the relevance of approaching NNLT as a land policy challenge. One of the next occasions to discuss these ideas with the international working group, will be at the upcoming conference on Planning, Law, and Property Rights in Ås, Norway, in May 2027.
References
Hartmann, Thomas; Hengstermann, Andreas; Jehling, Mathias; Schindelegger, Arthur; Wenner, Fabian (2025). Land Policies in Europe. Land-use planning, property rights, and spatial development. Springer. Cham (CH).
Authors of this report
Thomas Hartmann & Peter Lacoere
