Urban sprawl and interstitial spaces: a conceptual definition for

undeveloped areas and their morphological implications in planning

C. Silva Lovera

The Bartlett School of Planning, Faculty of the Built Environment, University College London - UCL,
Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London, UK.
*Corresponding author: E-mail: c.lovera@ucl.ac.uk, Tel: +44 020 76 79 7502

Abstract
The term urban sprawl has been discussed as an increasingly complex and multidimensional
phenomenon. However, understandings of urban sprawl have been mainly focused on built-up
spaces instead of undeveloped ones - although the latter are just as crucial to comprehending this
phenomenon. Indeed, multiple spaces such as farmlands, brownfields, geographical restrictions,
public and green spaces, protection buffers, conurbation zones and others have been left within the
(post)suburban expansion as part of its contents although they often appear as uncompleted
interstices or open tracts with unknown potentials. Thus, this paper addresses the set of
undeveloped areas and open tracts named here as interstitial spaces - not only as another element
of sprawl but also as a component of the planning fabric with its consequences on the urban
morphology. Empirical evidence describes how its presence emerges at diverse conditions as a
result of differing tensions between public and private forces.
Keywords: urban sprawl; (post)suburban development; undeveloped areas; interstitial spaces; urban
morphology

1. INTRODUCTION
Although recent contributions about urban sprawl regarding its morphological aspects and impacts
share a common definition, there still remain controversies related to conceptual approaches for its
technical measurement, externalities and contributions. Indeed, Galster et al. [1] posit that, because
of the complexity of measurement, it is not possible to determine an area as sprawl since sprawl is
an ongoing process of transformation. Instead, it is proper to define a degree of sprawl, prior
boundaries definition and factors involved [1]. Nevertheless, a common ground among academic
analyses describes urban sprawl as scattered growth where traditional suburban developments
become post-suburban as they provide evidence of economic and functional self-sufficiency [2].
Despite differing positions, it is clear that the emphasis of sprawls definitions has been mainly
focused on the impact of built-up areas instead of undeveloped ones although these have an
important role as they determine morphological and functional aspects of (post)suburban
environments. Different entities such as pieces of countryside, geographical restrictions, protection
buffers, speculative lands, protected areas, open spaces, brownfields, farmlands, forest lands, closed
infrastructural facilities, green corridors and others appear as urban gaps or what I termed as
interstitial spaces between developments describing narrow coexistences between planned and
unplanned areas.
Considering the presence of these interstitial spaces, it is possible to assert that they are triggered by
different factors and have diverse impacts. Moreover, some urban gaps have been included into the
planning system but most of them appear as unexpected outcomes of planning. Considering that the
literature addresses partial dimensions regarding these spaces, in this paper I discuss the presence of
undeveloped or underdeveloped spaces as factors that explicitly appear in the planning machinery
in different ways and with concrete links with urban morphology.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Changing Cities II:
Spatial, Design, Landscape & Socio-economic Dimensions
ISBN: 978-960-6865-88-6, Porto Heli, Greece , June 22-26, 2015

517

After a conceptual discussion about undeveloped areas, in the next section I synthetically discuss
three study cases where those appear as a result of different degrees of balance between public and
market forces, taking part into the planning system at different scales and shaping the urban
morphology of the expansion including social, economic and environmental impacts. The first case
I discuss is the Finger Plan of Copenhagen and its emphasis on open tracts where the planning
fabric determine its morphology as wedges that take part in the urban environment. The second
case is the Randstad zone in Holland, where open tracts appear as a result of a major policy for
protecting the Green-Heart and market forces that drive urban growth mainly in conurbation zones
into the urbanized ring. Finally, Santiago de Chile illustrates the presence of built-up areas and
interstitial spaces as a result of planning initiatives addressed case by case where public forces
mainly regulate free-market forces operations at different scales. This study is based on secondary
literature review for supporting the case of the Copenhagen and the Randstad zone and fieldwork
data collection in Chile between 2012 and 2014.
2. (POST) SUBURBAN SPRAWL AND INTERSTITIAL SPACES
Although the subject of urban sprawl has been extensively addressed in the literature, it still remains
as an open agenda considering differing positions about its origins, impacts and contributions for
the understanding of the urban expansion phenomenon. In short, the sprawl debate has been mainly
driven by the housing debate and its ideological meanings and in regards of its social, economic and
environmental detriments as major counterpoints for those who describe sprawl as a factual issue
that attends population and employment growth [3,4,5,6,7]. However, this debate has been shifted
to a closely related literature about suburbanization processes with open questions regarding a more
complex stage of fragmentation characterized by diverse land uses, socio-spatial diversity,
polycentricity and functional independency at different scales [2,8]. The debate has shifted from a
suburban to a post-suburban setting as part of the groundwork for understanding urban sprawl as
a verb instead of as a noun where issues of the degree of change and boundaries are crucial for
characterizing a place as a scattered one beyond its morphological aspects [1,2,8,9,10,11]
In this light, a conceptual and technical difficulty in describing sprawl pertains to spatial
boundaries, which help to identify territorial units. In part, this difficulty appears because sprawl is
a multifaceted phenomenon made up by densified areas but also undeveloped lands and open tracts
where boundaries can be located. The presence of undeveloped areas in between developments
illustrates the core of discontinuity which is one criteria included by Galster [1] in order to define
sprawl indexically. Indeed, this criterion determines the distinction between different types of
expansive growth where sprawl appears as a specific one. In Galsters words: discontinuous
development could be characterized as sprawl in some cases but something else in others. Thus, the
development of planned urban centers with moderate to high densities, separated along a
transportation corridor by greenbelts or open spaces, might not be characterized by some
commentators as sprawl 1 [1]. Elements of discontinuity such as bodies of water, protected
wetlands, forests, parks, slopes, or soils; and freeways, interchanges, or other public reservations
and facilities2 [1] illustrate the importance of natural spaces as well as brownfields, landfills,
farmlands, public spaces and other undeveloped areas and open tracts that define the set of gaps
that, in turn, define sprawling conditions [12,2,6,13].
These gaps have been addressed by the literature on differing categories such as open spaces which
are not necessarily undeveloped or derelict lands which are often former industrial areas. Thereby,
1

See Galster, G; Hanson, R; Ratcliffe, M; Wolman, H; Coleman and Freihage, 2001. Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground:
Defining and Measuring an Elllusive Concept. Housing Policy Debate, 688-717
2
Ibid: 690

518

it is possible to see that particular definitions are also partial as they point to specific areas in sprawl
and several dimensions have been left out.
The discussion about vacant lands, for instance, arises at the early twentieth century for describing
any undeveloped land including small areas such as squares or parks, geographical accidents,
parcels owned by private firms for future extensions, speculation lands or reserves for social
facilities such as schools, religious or public services, mainly associated to previous architectonic
facilities. In this vein, most of the literature refers to vacant lands in order to point to former
industrial plots often claimed for regeneration, revamping processes or new regulations [14,15,16].
At an urban scale, the debate about Non-Urbanized Areas (NUAs) includes descriptions of open
spaces as a network of green-infrastructures which tend to improve the quality of the entire urban
environment including fringes, suburban and central areas. It includes farmlands, parks, river
canals, forested roads and others up to squares inside the city. At any case, its contributions have
been discussed in regards of its environmental potentials, suitable for promoting wild life and
landscapes [17,18,19]. Regarding these areas, one body of literature illustrates NUAs technically
that is, based on their chemical and biological properties; on the other hand, NUAs have been
addressed from its political, economic and social influences at different levels of governance and
policy-making processes. Both of them support the discourse of sustainable development and
ecological modernization where NUAs tend to be promoted as open or empty urban gaps. [20]. A
similar approach refers to green-infrastructure as areas that support new socio-economic potentials
regarding protection of natural ecosystems, biodiversity promotion and spatial heterogeneity [21,
22].
Technically speaking, open spaces in cities also support the reduction of impacts of natural
disasters especially in dense urban areas without natural surfaces for facing storm events and
slope collapse [23]. Concerning economics, open spaces are potential areas for new developments if
they are nearby infrastructure such as roads or railways and nearby services such as schools,
markets, health services and others [24,25,26]. Socially speaking, these spaces provide specific
features for making places singular and when they have integrated functions, encourages contact
between people and reduces perceptions of insecurity [27,28,29,30].
From a morphological approach, the definition of the interfragmentary space [31] describes spaces
between fragments based on the assumption that the city is made up by fragments and spaces inbetween which define the interfragmentary space. Vidals definition emphasises the
morphological dimension of urban fragmentation at different scales where the interfragmentary
space could be understood as a place for spatial articulations or extensions [31]. In Vidals
categories of interfragmentary space, the networks creation apply to the urban scale and describes
an area made up by different types of nets such as channels, energy supply systems, pipes, a
footbridge, a tunnel and others, no matter if these in-between spaces are built-up or are physically
close. However, and considering these examples, interfragmentary space does not necessarily
imply open or undeveloped space.
In a more conceptual approach, concepts such as terrain vagues [32] and non-places [33] apply
for architectonic scales including social and temporary dimensions and have been used for
describing any form of spatial vacuum or situation in-between buildings mainly former
industrial lands or residual spaces and encompassing short temporary events determined by
transitions between two or more situations such as the queue in bank or the virtual wait on a
telephonic conversation.
As it is possible to see, neither empirical nor conceptual approaches for describing undeveloped
areas and open tracts necessarily help to better specify urban sprawl or encompass the entire
519

spectrum of different categories of undeveloped areas at different geographical scales and

geographical distribution. So, the term interstitial space has been coined for embracing the set of
undeveloped areas and open tracts in cities, particularly for urban sprawl, as another entity in cities
that deserves a closer inspection in order to explore its nature, contributions and implications. In
this case, the paper explores the implication of interstitial spaces in the urban morphology and as a
first approach I examine three different cases where interstitial spaces appear as part of the planning
system with different prominence. These cases describe urban gaps as entities with different degrees
of importance and how they shape the urban morphology illustrating their explicit role into the
planning machinery up to its presence as random outcomes of less controlled processes in planning.
3. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF PLANNED/UNPLANNED INTERSTITIAL SPACES IN
THE (POST)SUBURBAN EXPANSION
The cases presented in this section were selected to illustrate the role of interstitial spaces - not only
as morphological entities which are coming along with built-up areas and shaping the sprawling
process - but also as explicit/implicit components of the planning machinery articulating social,
political and economic forces. The first case is the Finger Plan of Copenhagen presented in 1948.
We use this example to illustrate how open tracts in fringes have been introduced as a predominant
factor for defining the general urban morphology and determining narrow coincidences between the
ideal plan and the factual development. The second case is the Randstad zone of Holland where
open tracts define a combination of two categories of interstitial spaces: a regional interstitial space
strongly protected by the green-heart and metropolitan interstitial spaces defined by conurbation
zones between different towns and cities which are left flexible for the operation of market forces.
Finally, the third case is Santiago de Chile, a country where the planning system is mainly driven by
market forces and regulations which promote a pattern of development mainly based on outer
densification processes in fringes. In this last case, interstitial spaces seem to be accidents in
planning or unexpected outcomes with differing properties and potentials.
3.1 The Finger Plan of Copenhagen and planned interstitial spaces as wedges
The plan has been largely discussed by scholars from its beginning in 1948 because of its
similarities to a hand with fingers (finally nicknamed as The Finger Plan) but also because it has
also inspired several analyses regarding the relationship between the urban morphology and policymaking processes. Aside from its morphological aspects, the balanced attention between built-up
areas and natural landscapes defines a particular view regarding how open spaces are part of the
urbanized environment as a bi-dimensional entity conceived as the city and where the status of
open spaces is as important as densely developed ones This tenet is not unique to Denmark but also
appears to apply in other Nordic countries where the cross-sector logic seems to be undertaken at
different levels (even trans-national) and under jurisprudence of different ministries such as those
for housing, urban planning and the like. Indeed, it has been assumed as part of the remit of local
government; as part of urban-economic modernization [34]; as an element in the management of the
environment and natural resources [35,36,37]; and, in the case of Sweden, where housing and urban
issues are complemented with Information Technology policies [38]. This cross-sector logic
seems to be part of a shared code about how the human environment emerges as a unity made up by
built-up and non-built-up spaces and also illustrates the presence of public forces in settling plans
over time. In fact, the Finger Plan was defined soon after the end of the World War II and still
remains as a major guide. In this vein, the strong presence of nature in the spatial planning and
policy making of Nordic countries has encouraged long-term territorial policies where the city
depends on rural areas and regulations for environmentally friendly infrastructures and reconversion
of internal urban spaces in order to promote nature [39]. Additionally, a major part of population is
currently living in peri-urban locations where many commuters have begun to change their urban
daily-life practices. Thereby, the boundaries between urban and rural have become diffuse and
520

many people have decided to live in the countryside but work in urban areas, closer to services and
infrastructure [40].
In short, the original proposal was oriented to safeguard important fragments of the countryside in
order to promote a harmonized urban growth based on the creation of a series of densified zones
under the scheme of fingers interspersed with series of interstitial open tracts as 'wedges' which
would penetrate the city as near as possible to its main core (Figure 1). The functions of these
interstitial wedges were originally conceived as natural landscapes, ecological corridors for
wildlife, farmlands and temporary low-density activities related to leisure, recreation, sports
grounds, forests, grassland, agricultural areas for public visitors, parks and minor recreation
facilities within ecological corridors. The peri-urban areas in the north and north-west are mostly
open for agricultural land and extensive forests in order to preserve wildlife, all accessible for the
public and defined by a morphologically organized scheme of urban growth [41,42].

Figure 1. At the left, the original scheme for the greater Copenhagen that illustrates the
morphological analogy between a hand with fingers and the urban map. At the centre, the scheme
of the city made up by its interspersed open spaces as wedges and densified axes. At the right, a
contemporary map of the greater Copenhagen (source: authors image based on Regional Planning
Office, front cover-1947 and Naes et al, 2009)
The original plan (an even some its precursor plans from the 1920s) has been an important basis for
all further developments over the subsequent 60 years and was not only conceived as a traditional
plan focused on planning for growth but also for the preservation of open spaces [42].
Notwithstanding the definition of an explicit morphology and functionality for interstitial spaces as
part of the citys growth, some critics argue that the facts of geographical restrictions made the
urban form an outcome of inevitable handicaps. Actually, Vejre argues that the considerable
reputation of the plan is in part only a myth when one considers that most of its morphological
definition is a product of physical accidents such as lakes and old forests precisely located in
wedges [41]. Despite this, interstitial spaces in Copenhagen have been steadily present as longstanding criteria and irrespective of its origins they have determined the role of public forces in
policy-making for promoting urban growth as well as protecting natural landscapes.
3.2 The Randstad and the protected green-heart with metropolitan conurbations areas
The case of the Randstad zone in Holland is one that describes a regional urbanized area
morphologically defined as a ring made up by the head cities of Rotterdam, The Hague,
Amsterdam and Utrecht and other several towns in between. These towns circumscribe a large
piece of countryside well-known as the green-heart that has been maintained for supporting
agricultural production. Also, in between towns and cities there are many smaller undeveloped
spaces which host conurbation processes driven by connectivity infrastructure and land-uses
521

oriented to promote public activities such as parks, urban farmlands and ecological reservations.
This is an urban constellation made up by urbanized areas and spatial gaps in between that surround
a large scale open tract as a centre of the entire urbanized region (Figure 2).
As the Randstad zone has been considered as one of the most urbanized areas in Europe, it is also
well-known that policies for preserving natural environments and the open countryside have been
prioritized from the 40s at different periods. As well as the Finger Plan, the fashioning of the
Randstad area has seen different levels of cross-sector coordination including participation of
governmental agencies, universities and scholars, professionals, social and public institutions which
not only involve housing and planning issues but also agriculture and natural environment agencies.
According to Batten, Randstad planners aim to preserve its agricultural Green-Heart and the
spaces between its main cities [43]. The aim is protecting a fertile area from urban encroachment
and promoting open spaces based on the assumption that natural landscapes offer attractions to
urban spaces and provide sociocultural identity [44,45]. These have been important criteria from the
beginning of the Randstad plan. Indeed, in 1951 the Minister of Reconstruction and Housing
appointed a commission to address the population growth after post-war migrations in the western
part of the Netherlands and as a result, in the early 1958 this commission published the report The
Development of the Western Netherlands focused on the urban form [45]. In this plan the
preservation of the green character of open spaces between major cities (the so-called buffer zones)
was posited and was established to keep them at least 4km wide. Also, on a larger scale, the plan
argued that the open area located in the middle of the ring made up by cities and towns that define
the Randstad should be preserved installing the concept of the Green-Heart. Finally the urban
growth would be redirected outwards instead of inwards as a way of protecting the central area [45].

Figure 2. At the left, the Ranstad Zone proposal (front-cover page 1958 official report cited in
Lambregts and Zonneveld, 2004). At the centre, the scheme of the regional city made up by the
central green-heart and the urbanized ring. At the right, a contemporary map of Randstad Zone in
Holland (made by the author based on Fazal, Stan and Toppen, 2012)
As public institutions and private initiatives kept the interest in well-located natural landscapes, the
Randstad zone keeps open tracts as mechanisms for capturing land values and as attractors for
services supported by efficient corridors of infrastructure [46,47]. Thus, on the one hand, the
regional open space - the Green-Heart - appears as an agricultural productive area that supports the
regional economy. On the other hand, spaces between towns promote new developments increasing
land values in regards of its proximity with the countryside.
In that vein, the presence of open spaces differs in terms of regulations. Whilst conurbation areas
are flexible for promoting new developments, the Green-Heart is strongly regulated. This double
condition flexible/regulated recognizes both urban growth and the importance of interstitial spaces.
Based on this, the planning system also transfers conceptual definitions commonly used for the
urban realm towards natural spaces which are granted the same status equal to buildings or
infrastructure with implications for investments and cultural identity. Thereby, many of the urban
522

gaps in the Randstad zone have been classified as 'landmarks' as well as some outstanding
architectural projects. Indeed, the national planning policy has recognized 35 icons of Dutch spatial
planning where at least 17 of them are natural landscapes that remark upon the identity of the entire
polycentric area [48].
3.3 The case of Santiago de Chile and the piecemeal process for interstitial spaces production
Different from the aforementioned cases where the planning system holds a predominant position
within the development debate, Santiago de Chiles urban growth shares common patterns in
planning with most of the Latin American cities where its constitution defines the State role as one
of a regulator of private initiatives with a role in subsidising low-income families [49]. This
condition basically circumscribes the public sector to defining norms and regulations for private
sectors initiatives and as subsidiary of low-income families. As a result, the system is often
regulating factual situations and illustrates difficulties for planning in advance. Thereby, the urban
growth pattern appears as a steady outcome from the current nature of the Chilean planning system,
which was consolidated in the middle of the 70s, strengthened in the 80s and confirmed in the 90s
until today. This condition determines the production of urbanized areas as a piecemeal process
where particular initiatives shape the overall urban morphology case by case based on the
aggregation of new outer areas mainly driven by the housing demand. In the last 30 years this
ongoing suburban development has set up an apparently uncontrolled expansion in Santiago
properly identified as sprawl [50, 51] with its associated spatial gaps in between. This sprawl
pattern has been lately criticised by different sectors, scholars and practitioners because of its
negative consequences for the entire urbanized area such as environmental degradation, high levels
of residential segregation, high levels of air pollution, poverty concentration, territorial disparities,
increment of travel times and inefficient land uses [52,53]. However, other scholars, developers and
some policy-makers have assumed that this sprawl pattern has been the natural consequence of
steady economic growth and for giving large-scale solutions to an increasing demand for affordable
houses and the lack of available land [54,55]
In this context, many of industrial, infrastructural and agricultural lands which were originally nonurban facilities have been left inside the urbanized area as a result of the scattered expansion
without keeping its competitive activities or simply underused. Thus, Santiagos sprawl landscape
is made up by developed lands but also interstitial spaces that define a patchwork of urbanized areas
with empty lands in between. These spaces are manifested at different scales defining different
magnitudes from regional, metropolitan and urban. These scales embrace conurbation areas, former
airports, military bases, farmlands and agricultural research centres, railways lines, brownfields,
landfills, metropolitan facilities and other smaller vacant plots mainly as a result of geographical
restrictions, land-use definitions and speculative lands. Many of these spaces are currently well
located nearby transport infrastructure, energy supply, services and consumption power due to its
populated surroundings (Figure 3)
Some of these spaces still have their original land uses but they are not competitive at all or simply
cannot grow as their surroundings have been urbanized. Thereby, many of these internal spaces
become closed environments due to the nature of their activities and define strong boundaries to the
continuity of the urban development. As a result, these areas fall into drabness and disrepair, some
of them are disconnected as they are surrounded by protection security buffers instead of
neighbourhoods or urban infrastructure. So, the decline of these areas is actually opening questions
about their impacts and possibilities for their contributions to future urban development and what
could be the proper way for getting advantages from their current good locations. As far of leaving
these areas simply empty considering environmental properties or the creation of wild
environments [56,57], several urban initiatives have been oriented to create land-value based on
their capability for hosting urban functions such as housing projects or infrastructure. However,
most of these initiatives have not been successful and have had major political and economic
523

impacts. Actually, some of them have taken more than 10 years in debates, discussions, plans and
projects, political commitments, professional consultancies and even expensive works that only
illustrate partial achievements supported by extended discussions regarding how to improve or
reclaim these areas for the planning fabric.

Figure 3. Santiago de Chiles map and its open tracts. The most sprawling areas are to the Northern
and Southern (residential neighbourhoods, industrial lands, farmlands, conurbations). To the West
there are infrastructural and geographical restrictions and to the East there is the Andes mountain
chain (Authors map based on Echeiques map 3 )
4. CONSLUSIONS
Urban sprawl has been analysed as a multifaceted issue of built-up places. However, there is
conceptual and empirical evidence about the presence of a large spectrum of what we termed as
interstitial spaces that also shape the (post)suburban development including areas for agricultural,
infrastructural and socio-economic services that make the sprawl a more complex phenomenon.
In this vein, the lack of attention focused on these spatial gaps implies a conceptual constraint on
analysis within urban studies including these areas more fully in our analysis can lead to a better
comprehension of current patterns of urban expansion and the possibilities for planning the effect
change to the extant pattern of sprawl in many metropolitan areas. Indeed, although there is little
evidence of how different planning systems make efforts to include such spatial gaps into the
urbanized environment, there are also many cases where these entities appear as unexpected
outcomes or less controlled processes of planning supported by a logic of muddling through in
decision-making including all forms of urban policy.

Echeique, M., 2006. Las vas expresas urbanas: qu tan rentables son?. In Santiago: Dnde estamos y hacia dnde
vamos. Ed. Alexander Galetovic. 462-488. Centro de Estudios Pblicos, 2006. Santiago, Chile

524

In those cases, a common reaction is to pressure for applying in-filling policies, promote flexible
regulations or simply reduce the issue to physical constraints instead of understanding the potential
of such spaces as interstices. These unexplored potentials of interstitial spaces and their longstanding presence as part of the urban morphology entails a deeper revision of policy-making and
its role in the planning system. Thereby, interstitial spaces deserve a closer inspection in terms of
their contents, meanings and geographical scales in order to define more complex agendas for
understanding current patterns of (post)suburban growth.
Acknowledgments
This research has been supported by a PhD studentship from the National Commission of Science
and Technology - CONICYT - Chile, Becas Chile Program, code 72110038. The PhD research is
conducted by Cristian A. Silva Lovera under supervision of Professor Nicholas Phelps at UCL,
London, UK.
References
1. Galster, G; Hanson, R; Ratcliffe, M; Wolman, H; Coleman and Freihage, 2001. Wrestling
Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elllusive Concept. Housing Policy Debate
12, 681-717
2. Phelps, N. Wood, A. and Valler, D., 2010. A Postsuburban World? An Outline of a research
Agenda. Environment and Planning 42, 366 - 383
3. Barnes, K. B. Morgan III, J. Roberge, M. and Lowe, S., 2001. Sprawl development: its
patterns, consequences, and measurement. Towson University, Towson, 1-24.
4. Peiser, R., 2001. Decomposing Sprawl. The Town Planning Review. 72, 275 298
5. Soule, D., 2006. Defining and Managing Sprawl. Urban Sprawl: a comprehensive reference
guide. Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. The US
6. Torrens, P., 2006. Simulating Sprawl. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96,
248-275.
7. Jaret, C. Ghadge, R. Williams Reid, L. and Adelman, R., 2009. The Measurement of Suburban
Sprawl: An Evaluation. City & Community. 8, 65 84
8. Gunnar, P. and Inger-Lise, S., 2011. Minicities in suburbia. A model for urban sustainability?.
FORMakademisk. 4, 38- 58
9. Faludi, A., 2005. The Netherlands: A Country With A Soft Spot for Planning. Comparative
Planning Cultures, Routledge, Vienna.
10. Salet, W. and Woltjer, J., 2009. New concepts of strategic spatial planning dilemmas in the
Dutch Randstad region. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 22, 235 248
11. Burger, M. and Meijers, E., 2012. Form Follows Function? Linking Morphological and
Functional Polycentricity. Urban Studies. 49, 1127 1149
12. Yeh, A. and X. Li., 1998. Sustainable land development model for growth areas using GIS.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science 12, 169-189
13. Siedentop, S. and Fina, S., 2010. Monitoring Urban Sprawl in Germany: towards a GIS-based
Measurement and Assessment approach. Journal of Land Use Sciene. 5, 73 104
14. Northam, R., 1971. Vacant Land in the American City. Lands Economics. 47, 345-355
15. Foo, K., Martin, D., Wool, C. and Polsky, C. 2013. The production of vacant land: Relational
placemaking in Boston, MA neighborhoods. Cities. 35, 156-163
16. Ige, J. and Atanda, T., 2013. Urban vacant land and spatial chaos in Ogbomoso north local
government, Oyo State, Nigeria. Global journal of human social science. Geography, GeoSciences and Environmentla Science and Disaster Management. 13, 28-36
17. Savarda, J. Clergeaub, P. and Mennechezb, G., 2000. Biodiversity concepts and urban
ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning. 48, 131142
18. La Greca, P; La Rosa, D; Martinico, F. and Privitera, R., 2011. Agricultural and Green
infrastructures: The role of non-urbanized areas for eco-sustainable planning in metropolitan
region. Environmental Pollution. 159, 2193-2202
525

19. La Rosa, D. and Privitera, R., 2013. Characterization of non-urbanized areas for land-use
planning of agricultural and green infrastructure in urban contexts. Landscape and Urban
Planning. 109, 94-106
20. Thomas, K. and Littlewwod, S., 2010. From Green Belts to Green Infrastructure? The
Evolution of a New Concept in the Emerging Soft Governance of Spatial Strategies. Planning
Practice & Research. 25, 203-222
21. Sandstrm, U., 2002. Green Infrastructure Planning in Urban Sweden. Planning practice &
Research. 17, 373 - 385.
22. Van Leeuwen, E. and Nijkamp, P., 2006. The Urban-Rural Nexus; A study on Extended
Urbanization and the Hinterland. Studies in Regional Science. 36, 283-303
23. Barkasi, A., Dadio, S., Losco, R., and Shuster, W., 2012. Urban Soils and Vacant Land As
Stormwater Resources. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2012. American
Society of Civil Engineers. 569-579.
24. Clawson, M., 1962. Urban Sprawl and Speculation in Suburban Land. Land Economics. 38, 99111
25. Bruinsma, F; Pepping, G. and Rietveld, P., 1993. Infrastructure and Urban Development; the
case of the Amsterdam Orbital Motorway. Serie Research Memoranda. Faculteit der
Economische Wetenschappen en Econometrie. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
26. Graham, S., 2000. Constructing Premium Network Spaces: Reflections on Infrastructure,
Networks and Contemporary Urban Development. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 24, 183-200
27. Coley, R.; Sullivan, W. and Kuo, F., 1997. Where Does Community Grow?: The Social
Context Created by Nature in Urban Public Housing. Environment and Behavior. 29, 468-494
28. Stamps, A. and Smith, S., 2002. Environmental Enclosure in Urban Settings. Environment and
Behavior. 34, 781 794
29. Home, R; Bauer, N. and Hunziker, M., 2009. Cultural and Biological Determinants in the
Evaluation of Urban Green Spaces. Environment and Behavior. 42, 494 523
30. Kurz, T. and Baudains, C., 2010. Biodiversity in the Front Yard: An Investigation of
Landscape. Preference in a Domestic Urban Context. Environment and Behavior. 44, 166-196
31. Vidal, R., 2002. Fragmentation de la Ville et Nouveaux Modes de Composition Urbaine.
L'Harmattan. 5-7, Rue de L'Ecole-Polytechnique 75005. Paris, France.
32. De Sol-Morales, I., 2002. Territorios. Editorial Gustavo Gili. S.A. Barcelona.
33. Aug, M., 1995. Non-Places. Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. Verso.
London New York
34. https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/kmd/id504 (visited on February 2015)
35. http://www.ym.fi/en-US (visited on February 2015)
36. http://eng.mim.dk/topics/planning-and-land-use/ (visited on February 2015)
37. http://eng.umhverfisraduneyti.is/ (visited on February 2015)
38. http://www.government.se/sb/d/19221 (visited on February 2015)
39. Naes, P; Naes, T and Strand, A., 2011. Oslos Farewell to Urban Sprawl. European Planning
Studies. 19, 113-139
40. Gravsholt Busk, A. Kristensen, S. Praestholm, S. Reenberg, A and Primdahl, J., 2006. Land
System Changes in the context of urbanization: Examples from the Peri-Urban Area of Greater
Copenhagen. Danish Journal of Geography. 106, 21-34
41. Vejre, H; Primdahl, J. and Brandt, J., 2007. The Copenhagen Finger Plan. Keeping a Green
Space Structure by a Simple Planning Metaphor. Europes living landscapes. Essays on
exploring our identity in the countryside. LANDSCAPE EUROPE / KNNV.
42. Caspersen, O. Konijnendijk, C. and Olafsson, A., 2006. Green Space Planning and Land Use:
An Assessment of Urban Regional and Green Structure Planning in Greater Copenhagen.
Danish Journal of Geography, 106, 7-20
43. Batten, D., 1995. Network Cities: Creative Urban Agglomerations for the 21st Century. Urban
Studies. 32, 313-327
526

44. Lambregts, B. and Zonneveld, W., 2004. From Randstad to Deltametropolis. Changing
Attitudes Towards the Scattered Metropolis. European Planning Studies. 12, 299-323
45. Salet, W. and Woltjer, J., 2009. New concepts of strategic spatial planning dilemmas in the
Dutch Randstad region. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 22, 235 248
46. Van Oort, F. Burger, M and Raspe, O., 2010. On the Economic Foundation of the Urban
Network Paradigm: Spatial Integration, Functional Integration and Economic
Complementarities within the Dutch Randstad. Urban Stdies. 47, 725 748
47. Fazal, S. Geertman, S. and Toppen, F., 2012. Interpretation of Trends in Land Trasformation
A case of Green Heart Region (The Netherlands). Natural Resources. 3, 107-117
48. Faludi, A., 2005. The Netherlands: A Country With A Soft Spot for Planning. Comparative
Planning Cultures, Routledge, Vienna.
49. Instituto Libertad y Desarrollo, 2004. Estado Empresario? Casos Cerrillos y ENAP Per.
Temas Publicos, N689. Instituto Libertad y Desarrollo
50. Heinrichs, D.; Nuissl, H. and Rodrguez, C., 2009. Dispersin urbana y nuevos desafos para la
gobernanza (metropolitana) en Amrica Latina: el caso de Santiago de Chile. EURE, 35, 29-46
51. Zunino, H., 2006. Power Relations in Urban Decision-making: Neo-liberalism, Technopoliticians and Authoritarian Redevelopment in Santiago, Chile. Urban Studies. 43, 1825-1846
52. Ducci, M.E., 1998. Santiago, una mancha de aceite sin fin?, Qu pasa con la poblacin
cuando la ciudad crece indiscriminadamente? EURE, 24, 85-94
53. Sabatini, F. and Salcedo, R., 2007. Gated communities and the poor in Santiago, Chile:
Functional and symbolic integration in a context of aggressive capitalist colonization of lowerclass areas. Housing Policy Debate. 18, 577-606
54. Gross, P., 1991. Santiago de Chile (1925-1990): Planificacin urbana y modelos politicos.
Eure, 17, 27-52
55. Echeique, M., 2006. El crecimiento y el desarrollo de las ciudades. In Santiago: Dnde
estamos y hacia dnde vamos. Ed. Alexander Galetovic. 73-96. Centro de Estudios Pblicos,
2006. Santiago, Chile
56. Lafortezza, R. Carrus, G. Sanesi, G. and Davies, C., 2009. Benefits and well-being perceived
by people visiting green spaces in periods of heat stress. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 8,
97 108
57. Gandy, M., 2011. Interstitial landscapes: reflections on a Berlin corner. In Gandy, M.
(ed.) Urban constellations (Berlin: jovis, 2011). 149-152.

527