Planning and land policy tools for limiting urban sprawl: The example of Belgrade

  • Slavka Zeković Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Miodrag Vujošević Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Jean-Claude Bolay Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, CODEV, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Marija Cvetinović Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, CODEV, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Jelena Živanović Miljković Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia
  • Tamara Maričić Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia
Keywords: urban land policy, urban land tools, urban land bubble, urban sprawl, Belgrade


Both the characteristics of Serbia’s urban land policy, the delay in reforms and land development management of the Belgrade Metropolitan Area (BMA) illustrate the complexities following the reshaping of institutional framework under the conditions of economic and other uncertainties of societal transition. The negative implications of the prolonged crisis on the new urban development policy and urban land tools can postpone the establishment and application of guidelines for limiting the urban sprawl. This paper presents a brief literature review, as well as the current urban land policy and land-use efficiency in the BMA. Traditional urban land tools will be shortly described, followed by recommendations for limiting sprawl. There is a need for readjusting the current planning and urban policy regarding the urban sprawl, from an urban “command-and-control” approach to a “learn-and-adapt” approach. We suggest the introduction of more innovative and flexible urban land policy tools.


resilient cities,, accessed 9th Apr 2015.

Baxamusa, M. (2008) Empowering Communities Though Deliberation: Community Development Agreement, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, pp. 261-276.

Bertaud, A. (2012) Government intervention and urban land markets: the case of China. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 29(4), pp. 335-346.

Bertaud, A., Renaud, B. (1997) Socialist cities without land markets. Journal of Urban Economics, 41(1), pp. 137-151.

Birnbaum, L. (2004) Simcoe County: the new growth frontier. Toronto: Neptis Foundation.

Blair, R., Wellman, G. (2011) Smart growth principles and the management of urban sprawl, Community Development, 42(4), pp. 494–510.

Bolay, J.C., Pedrazzini, Y. (2004) Social practices and spatial changes, Switzerland: IP5/JACS.ACC.

Bolay, J.C., Pedrazzini, Y., Rabinovich, A., Catemazzi, A., Garsia Pleyan, C. (2005) Urban Environment, Spatial Fragmentation and Social Segregation in Latin America: Where does Innovation Lie? Habitat International, 29(4), pp. 627-645.

Bosselman, F.(1968) Alternatives to urban sprawl: legal guidelines for governmental action. U.S. Government Print Off.

Božić, B., Mihajlović, R. (2014) Analysis of existing condition and developmental needs for official real estate appraisal infrastructure in the Serbia. Belgrade: GIZ, AMBERO-ICON.

Čolić, R., Mojović, Đ., Petković, M., Čolić, N. (2013) Guide for participation in urban development planning, Belgrade: GIZ, GmbH/AMBERO Consulting-ICON Institute.

Davy, B. (2012) Land policy, Planning and the Spatial Consequences of Property. Farnham, Surrey & Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate.

Davy, B. (2014) Polyrational property: rules for the many uses of land, International journal of the commons, 8(2), pp. 472- 492.

Dovenyi, Z., Kovacs, Z. (2006) Budapest–The Post-socialist Metropolitan Periphery between ‘Catching up’ and Development Path, European Spatial Research and Policy, 13(2), pp. 23-41.

Global land tools network,, accessed 10th Jan 2015.

Hann, C. (2007) A new double movement? Anthropological perspectives on property in the age of neoliberalism, Socio- Economic Review, 5(2), pp. 287-318.

Hartmann, T., Needham, B. (eds.) (2012) Planning by law and property rights reconsidered. Farnham: Ashgate.

Harvey, J., Jowsey, E. (2004) Urban Land Economics. 6th ed, Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.

Hirt, S. (2007) Suburbanizing Sofia: characteris¬tics of post- socialist peri-urban change. Urban Geography, 28(8), pp. 755–780.

Knaap, G. (1998) The Determinants of Residential Property Values: Implications for Metropolitan Planning, Journal of Planning Literature, 12(3), pp. 267-282.

Mittal, J. (2014) Self-financing land and urban development via land readjustment and value capture, Habitat International, 44, pp. 314-323.

Moore, A. (2012) Trading Density for Benefits: Toronto and Vancouver, Institute of Municipal Finance and Governance, Munk Centre, University of Toronto.

Nedovic-Budic, Z., Zekovic, S., Vujosevic, M. (2012) Land Privatization and Management in Serbia – Policy in Limbo, Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 29(4), pp. 306- 317.

Needham, B. (2000) Land taxation, development charges, and the effects on land-use, Journal of Property Research, 17(3), pp. 241-257.

Needham, B., Verhage, R. (2003) The politics of land policy: using development gains for public purposes, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Novák, J., Sýkora, L. (2007) A city in motion: time-space activity and mobility patterns of suburban inhabitants and the structuration of the spatial organization of the Prague metropolitan area. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 89(2), pp. 147–168.

Nuissl, H., Haase, D., Lanzendorf, M., Wittlmer, H. (2009) Environmental impact assessment of urban land-use transitions - A context-sensitive approach, Land use policy, 26(2), pp. 414-424.

Pogodzinski, J.M., Sass, T.R. (1991) Measuring the effects of municipal zoning regulation: A Survey, Urban Studies, 28, pp. 597-621.

Pond, D. (2009) Institutions, political economy and land-use policy: greenbelt politics in Ontario, Environmental Politics, 18(2), pp. 238-256.

Ravetz, J., Loibl, W. (2011) The dynamics of the peri-urban: global change and regional response. In A. Piorr, I. Tosics & J. Ravetz (Eds.), Peri-urbanization in Europe. Towards European Policies to Sustain Urban-Rural Futures. Syntesis Report. Copenhagen: PLUREL.

REFINA, Research for the Reduction of Land Consumption and for Sustainable Land Management,, accessed 10th Mar 2015.

Sietchiping, R. (2014) Towards development of International Guidelines on Urban and Territorial Planning, First meeting of the UNECE Task Group on Urban Planning, UN-Habitat.

Slaev, A., Nikiforov, I. (2013) Factors of urban sprawl in Bulgaria. Spatium, 29, pp. 22-29.

Stumpp, E.M. (2013) From system to action: Towards a More Radical Conceptualisation of Urban Resilience for Planning Practise, AESOP, July 15th -19th, UCD Dublin.

Tsenkova, S. (2012) Urban planning and informal cities in Southeast Europe, Journal of Architecture and Planning Research, 9(4), pp. 292-305.

UN-Habitat, (2013) The state of European cities in transition 2013. Taking stock after 20 years of reform. Nairobi/Krakov: UN-Habitat& Institute of Urban Development.

UN-HABITAT -, accessed 1st Mar 2015.

Zeković, S. (2008) Evaluation of the current urban land system in Serbia, Spatium, 17-18, pp. 55-60.

Zeković, S., Vujošević, M., Maričić, T. (2015) Spatial regularization, planning instruments and urban land market in a post-socialist society: the case of Belgrade, Habitat International, 48, pp. 65-78.

Živanović Miljković, J., Popović, V. (2014a) Urban land policy- theoretical and practical perspectives. In R. Efe et al. (eds.) Cities in the Globalizing World and Turkey: A theoretical and empirical perspective. Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press, pp. 432-444.

Živanović Miljković, J., Popović, V. (2014b) Land use regulation and property rights regime over land in Serbia, Spatium, 32, pp. 22-27.

Review Paper