Municipal land allocations: integrating planning and selection of developers while transferring public land for housing in Sweden

  • Carl Caesar


An essential component in all housing developments is suitable land. Besides being buildable, this implies land approved for housing in a marketable and consequently implementable location. Insufficient supply of suitable land to housing developers could affect the supply of housing. In Sweden, a lot of land appropriate for housing is owned—often since many years back—by municipalities and supplied to developers through the use of ‘land allocations’. A land allocation connects a developer and a municipality in a interdependency-based collaboration intended to jointly create an implementable development right, followed by a land transfer. Using semi-structured interviews and questionnaires reaching a total of 26 municipalities and 91 developers, the Swedish land allocation system is investigated; results are presented with emphasis on requirements put on developers, its interaction with the planning process and on the different methods used to select a certain developer. Additionally, the system is reviewed from a developer perspective and put in an international context. While many countries make use of public land for housing, the article shows that the Swedish land allocation system deviates in several aspects and in spite of its long history, there are undoubtedly features considered less well functioning from the developer’s point of view.


Housing Land policy Land allocation Land development Public land Urban planning Urban development 


  1. Adams, D., Disberry, A., Hutchison, N., & Munjoma, T. (2001). Ownership constraints to brownfield redevelopment. Environment and Planning A, 33(3), 453–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, D., Disberry, A., Hutchison, N., & Munjoma, T. (2002). Land policy and urban renaissance: The impact of ownership constraints in four British cities. Planning Theory & Practice, 3(2), 195–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adams, D., Leishman, C., & Watkins, C. (2012). Housebuilder networks and residential land markets. Urban Studies, 49(4), 705–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander, E. R. (2014). Land-property markets and outcomes: A special case. Land Use Policy,. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.04.009.Google Scholar
  5. Atmer, T. (1987). Land banking in Stockholm. Habitat International, 11(1), 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, M. (2011). Planning delay and the responsiveness of English housing supply. Urban Studies, 48(2), 349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barlow, J. (1993). Controlling the housing land market: Some examples from Europe. Urban Studies, 30(7), 1129–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boverket [Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning]. (2013). Bostadsmarknaden 20132014 [Housing market 2013–2014]. Boverket.Google Scholar
  9. Bramley, G. (1993a). The impact of land use planning and tax subsidies on the supply and price of housing in Britain. Urban Studies, 30(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bramley, G. (1993b). Land use planning and the housing market in Britain: The impact on housebuilding and house prices. Environment and Planning A, 25(7), 1021–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brueckner, J. K. (2009). Government land use interventions: An economic analysis. In S. V. Lall, M. Freire, B. Yuen, R. Rajack, & J.-J. Helluin (Eds.), Urban land markets (pp. 3–23). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buitelaar, E. (2004). A transaction-cost analysis of the land development process. Urban Studies, 41(13), 2539–2553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Buitelaar, E., Galle, M., & Sorel, N. (2011). Plan-led planning systems in development-led practices: An empirical analysis into the (lack of) institutionalisation of planning law. Environment and Planning A, 43(4), 928–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buitelaar, E., & Segeren, A. (2011). Urban structures and land. The morphological effects of dealing with property rights. Housing Studies, 26(5), 661–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cai, H., Henderson, J. V., & Zhang, Q. (2013). China’s land market auctions: Evidence of corruption? The Rand Journal of Economics, 44(3), 488–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. CEC (Commission of the European Communities). (1997). Commission communication on state aid elements in sales of land and buildings by public authorities. Official Journal of the European Communities, 44(c209), 3–5.Google Scholar
  17. Ching, S., & Fu, Y. (2003). Contestability of the urban land market: An event study of Hong Kong land auctions. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 33(6), 695–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chiu, R. L. H. (2007). Planning, land and affordable housing in Hong Kong. Housing Studies, 22(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Christensen, F. K. (2014). Understanding value changes in the urban development process and the impact of municipal planning. Land Use Policy, 36, 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Du, H., Ma, Y., & An, Y. (2011). The impact of land policy on the relation between housing and land prices: Evidence from China. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 51(1), 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Duncan, S. S., & Barlow, J. (1991). Marketisation or regulation in housing provision? Sweden and the E4 growth region in European perspective. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 8(4), 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans, A. W. (2004a). Economics, real estate and the supply of land. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Evans, A. W. (2004b). Economics and land use planning. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fisher, P., & Robson, S. (2007). The disposal of public sector sites by “development competition”. Property Management, 25(4), 381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Golland, A., & Boelhouwer, P. (2002). Speculative housing supply, land and housing markets: A comparison. Journal of Property Research, 19(3), 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Healey, P. (1991). Models of the development process: A review. Journal of Property Research, 8(3), 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Healey, P. (1992). An institutional model of the development process. Journal of Property Research, 9(1), 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hui, E. C., Leung, B. Y., & Yu, K. (2014). The impact of different land-supplying channels on the supply of housing. Land Use Policy, 39, 244–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalbro, T. (2000). Property development and land-use planning processes in Sweden. In K. Böhme, B. Lange, & M. Hansen (Eds.), Property development and land-use planning around the Baltic Sea (pp. 95–109). Stockholm: Nordregio.Google Scholar
  30. Kalbro, T., & Mattsson, H. (1995). Urban land and property markets in Sweden. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  31. Korthals Altes, W. K. (2006). The single European market and land development. Planning Theory & Practice, 7(3), 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leväinen, K. I., & Korthals Altes, W. K. (2005). Public private partnership in land development contracts—A comparative study in Finland and in the Netherlands. Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, 2(1), 137–148.Google Scholar
  33. Lichtenberg, E., & Ding, C. (2009). Local officials as land developers: Urban spatial expansion in China. Journal of Urban Economics, 66(1), 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Louw, E. (2008). Land assembly for urban transformation—The case of‘s-Hertogenbosch in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy, 25(1), 69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Monk, S., Whitehead, C., Burgess, G., & Tang, C. (2013). International review of land supply and planning systems. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  36. Nadin, V., & Stead, D. (2008). European spatial planning systems, social models and learning. disP—The Planning Review, 44(172), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Needham, B. (2014). Dutch land-use planning. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  38. Needham, B., & Verhage, R. (1998). The effect of land policy: Quantity as well as quality is important. Urban Studies, 35(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ooi, J. T. L., Sirmans, C. F., & Turnbull, G. K. (2011). Government supply of land in a dual market. Real Estate Economics, 39(1), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Passow, S. S. (1970). Land reserves and teamwork in planning Stockholm. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 36(3), 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Peng, L., & Thibodeau, T. G. (2012). Government interference and the efficiency of the land market in China. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 45(4), 919–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Priemus, H., & Louw, E. (2003). Changes in Dutch land policy: From monopoly towards competition in the building market. Environment and Planning B, 30(3), 369–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Qigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2005). Regulation and the high cost of housing in California. The American Economic Review, 95(2), 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rajack, R. (2009). Does Public ownership and management of land matter for land market outcomes? In S. V. Lall, M. Freire, B. Yuen, R. Rajack, & J.-J. Helluin (Eds.), Urban land markets (pp. 305–336). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts, N. (1975). Land storage. The Swedish example. The Modern Law Review, 38(2), 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Røsnes, A. E. (2005). Regulatory power, network tools and market behaviour: Transforming practices in Norwegian Urban Planning. Planning Theory and Practice, 6(1), 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saiz, A. (2010). The geographic determinants of housing supply. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(3), 1253–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tasan-Kok, T., Groetelaers, D. A., Haffner, M. E. A., Van der Heijden, H. M. H., & Kortkals Altes, W. K. (2013). Providing cheap land for social housing: Breaching the state aid regulations of the single European market? Regional Studies, 47(4), 628–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van der Krabben, E., & Jacobs, H. M. (2013). Public land development as a strategic tool for redevelopment: Reflections on the Dutch experience. Land Use Policy, 30(1), 774–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van der Veen, M., & Korthals Altes, W. K. (2011). Urban development agreements: Do they meet guiding principles for a better deal? Cities, 28(4), 310–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Van Rij, H. E., & Korthals Altes, W. K. (2010). Looking for the optimum relationship between spatial planning and land development. Town Planning Review, 81(3), 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Verhage, R. (2001). Local policy for housing development: European experience. Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  53. Verhage, R. (2003). The role of the public sector in urban development: Lessons from Leidsche Rijn Utrecht (The Netherlands). Planning Theory & Practice, 4(1), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Verhage, R., & Needham, B. (1997). Negotiating about the residential environment: It is not only money that matters. Urban Studies, 34(12), 2053–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. White, M., & Allmendinger, P. (2003). Land-use planning and the housing market: A comparative review of the UK and the USA. Urban Studies, 40(5–6), 953–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yuen, B. (2009). Guiding spatial changes: Singapore urban planning. In S. V. Lall, M. Freire, B. Yuen, R. Rajack, & J.-J. Helluin (Eds.), Urban land markets (pp. 363–384). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zheng, S., & Kahn, M. E. (2008). Land and residential property markets in a booming economy: New evidence from Beijing. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(2), 743–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Real Estate Planning and Land Law, Department of Real Estate and Construction Management, School of Architecture and the Built EnvironmentKTH, Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations